1. A post on the First Law of Petropolitics, a reprint of a column from the Globe on the implications in Canada.
2. "Jobs out east", a look at the local supply and service sector for the oil industry.
3. Energy transportation issues.
-srbp-
13 June 2007
Offal News round up
Some choice posts from another local blog:
1. A post on the First Law of Petropolitics, a reprint of a column from the Globe on the implications in Canada.
2. "Jobs out east", a look at the local supply and service sector for the oil industry.
3. Energy transportation issues.
1. A post on the First Law of Petropolitics, a reprint of a column from the Globe on the implications in Canada.
2. "Jobs out east", a look at the local supply and service sector for the oil industry.
3. Energy transportation issues.
Andrew Coyne on the Equalization racket
From the National Post:
-srbp-
It is not true, then, to say that the Accord has been violated. It is true that Mr. Harper played Atlantic Canadians for suckers. At least he is paying the price.
Well, suckers is a strong word. Appropriate but strong.
And it's not fair to lump all Atlantic Canadians into one lot.
Only some people were suckered, and the ones who are angriest now are the ones who were fooled.
And it's not fair to lump all Atlantic Canadians into one lot.
Only some people were suckered, and the ones who are angriest now are the ones who were fooled.
-srbp-
APEC assessment of Budget 2007 and Equalization
From the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council:
June 13, 2007
APEC releases study on the Equalization Options of Budget 2007 for the Atlantic Provinces
APEC is today releasing a new report on the implications of the proposed changes to the Equalization program for the four Atlantic provinces. The report entitled Assessing the Equalization Options of Budget 2007 for the Atlantic Provinces has been prepared by Professor Paul Hobson of Acadia University and Professor Wade Locke of Memorial University, both Senior Policy Advisors of APEC.
Following on the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Equalization, the new Equalization program includes the re-establishment of a ten province standard, simplified measures of fiscal capacity and a more predictable and stable payment system that is formula driven. The new program also reverses a pre-election commitment to exclude natural resource revenues, and includes 50% of these revenues.
The study provides estimates of the revenue flows to the four provinces under the current program (Fixed Framework) and the new Equalization program for each fiscal year from 2007-2008 to 2019-2020, the year in which the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Accords expire. These simulations utilize publicly available data projected forward, based on certain key assumptions. In particular, it is assumed that the aggregate of the fiscal equalization payments under the Fixed Framework will grow at an annual rate of 3.5% (as currently specified by legislation) and that non-oil and gas fiscal capacities for all provinces grow at an annual rate of 1.4% (the aggregate rate of growth of per-capita fiscal capacity in Canada over the last ten years). In addition, the simulations take into account changes to the Fiscal Arrangements Act, and to Offshore Accord legislation as detailed in the Budget Implementation Act (Bill C-52).
The Atlantic Accord, signed in 1985, and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord, signed in 1986, gave Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, respectively, the right to collect royalties and to levy taxes on offshore operations as if the resources were on provincial land. In addition, the Accords provide Equalization offset provisions to compensate for potential reductions in Equalization payments as these additional revenues come on stream. The 2005 Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act provided for additional Equalization offset payments to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that each province would receive 100 percent of the benefit of its offshore revenues. That is, offset payments would ensure no claw back of offshore revenues through Equalization.
The summary revenue implications for each of the four Atlantic provinces are provided in the table below. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are better off financially under the new Equalization program for two years and thereafter are disadvantaged by the revised Equalization program. Newfoundland and Labrador is immediately worse off under the new program.
Specifically, the impacts on the provincial treasuries are:
o Nova Scotia - $159 million increase in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $1.4 billion less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed Framework;
o New Brunswick - $68 million increase in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $1.1 billion less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed Framework;
o Prince Edward Island - $7 million increase in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $196 million less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed Framework;
o Newfoundland and Labrador - $654 million reduction in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, an increase of $22 million in the third year, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $1.4 billion less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed Framework. It should be noted that Newfoundland and Labrador will no longer be a recipient of Equalization after 2008-2009, under both the Fixed Framework and the new Equalization program. [Emphasis added]
Beyond 2007-2008, both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can choose to permanently opt into the new Equalization program or remain under the Fixed Framework. The results clearly indicate that both provinces should remain under the Fixed Framework. Since other provinces were not offered this choice, this would result in an unprecedented situation in which two distinct Equalization programs are operating simultaneously, a situation which is not likely to be sustainable.
Furthermore, Equalization payments under the new program are constrained by a fiscal capacity cap. For purposes of the cap, fiscal capacity is measured, on a per-capita basis, as the sum of non-resource fiscal capacity, one hundred percent resource fiscal capacity, (pre-cap) Equalization entitlements and payments under the Accord legislation (applicable only to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador). Total fiscal capacity of a receiving province cannot rise above that of the lowest non-receiving province. Should it do so, Equalization payments are to be reduced accordingly.
The Budget Implementation Bill contains significant changes to the 1985 Atlantic Accord, and to the 2005 Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act, necessitated by the introduction of the new Equalization program. The protection provided by the Accords is undermined by any Equalization reductions caused by the fiscal capacity cap, since any reductions amount to claw backs of Accord payments. In the authors’ view, this violates both the letter and the spirit of the Accords. [Emphasis added]
****************************
The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council is an independent, non-profit research and public policy organization that seeks to advance the economic development of the Atlantic region.-srbp-
Williams big on Harper promise...in 2006
From the archives, a couple of stories containing Danny Williams' fulsome praise for the newly elected Harper administration.
Did the Premier actually claim he never trusted the guy?
Did the Premier actually claim he never trusted the guy?
Williams sees new allies in OttawaHow times change.
CBC News
Premier Danny Williams says a new Conservative government in Ottawa is nothing to fear – and could deliver on long-standing issues involving the federal government.
"I think Atlantic Canadians are going to be very pleasantly surprised and pleased with the performance of Mr. Harper," said Williams.
While Williams embraced Harper's response to a letter he sent to the major party leaders on issues pertinent to Newfoundland and Labrador, he refrained from actively campaigning for the Conservatives in the election.
Instead, Williams planted a sign supporting Conservative candidate Norm Doyle outside his residence, and used cautious language during the campaign.
During the campaign, Williams also applauded a response from NDP leader Jack Layton to the same list of questions, while being cool to the response from Liberal leader Paul Martin.
Williams also denied a rift between himself and the new MP for Avalon, Fabian Manning.
Manning was booted from the provincial Progressive Conservative caucus last May, after Manning spoke out against the provincial government's controversial raw materials sharing plan for the crab industry.
Williams said the dispute was "a caucus issue" and applauded Manning's victory.
"In all fairness to Fabian, I wouldn't take anything from Fabian's victory tonight. It was expected," said Williams, who noted a number of the members of the provincial Tory caucus campaigned for Manning.
In fact, Williams suggested that the Atlantic Accord dispute – in which he launched salvo after salvo against the Martin Liberals in a campaign to wrest more financial benefits from the offshore oil industry – helped Manning take the seat.
"That was John Efford's former district. The Atlantic Accord played a big role in that particular district, as it has played a role in the entire province," Williams said.
Efford, who won the Avalon race in 2004 with almost 60 per cent of the vote, became a lightning rod for anger when he rebuked Williams in the early days of the Atlantic Accord fuss.
"We basically had to drag Ottawa kicking and screaming to come with the Accord deal … I think it played a significant factor."
Efford announced his retirement in November, citing his lengthy battle with diabetes.
Williams, meanwhile, said he looks forward to a productive relationship with Harper.
"It's a delicate job [and] it's a difficult job to manage the relationship between the premiers and the prime minister of the country. However, I think it will be a refreshing change," Williams said.
He said he expects Harper to follow through on pledges involving the fishery, energy issues and the "fiscal imbalance" in Atlantic Canada.
Provincial Politicians Weigh In on Election - Jan 24, 2006
VOCM
Premier Danny Williams says he was a little surprised at last night federal election results. Williams says he thought Stephen Harper's Conservatives would get a larger minority than they did. He's also surprised that Atlantic Canada did not go a little stronger towards the Conservatives. Overall though he is generally pleased with the
result. He says the biggest issue facing the province is the fishery.
Williams says he did give some consideration to calling a by-election in Placentia-St. Mary's today, but he says this wouldn't be fair to party workers having just come off a federal election which saw Fabian Manning win John Efford's old seat. The by-election will be held soon.
Opposition Leader Gerry Reid says Paul Martin has made the right decision to step down as Liberal leader. Following his defeat last night, Martin announced he will leave the post after an orderly transition of power. Reid says Martin realizes that he can't lead the party to another victory. Reid says he believes Brian Tobin would be a good choice and Canadians would accept him.
Provincial NDP leader Jack Harris says given the calibre of local NDP candidates he's very disappointed the Province hasn't sent an NDP member to Ottawa. As for the Conservative minority victory, Harris told VOCM Open Line the federal NDP will have a strong voice in the House of Commons.
-srbp-
A spotter's guide to plants and other political flora
That would be labradore, which ha staken lately to tracking the appearances of the various planted and scripted supporters of the current provincial governing administration.
labradore's wjm has also been known to tackle the factually dubious comments of individuals, including reporters on subjects of interest to the province. Odds are he's right and the quibbles he raises are only sometimes trivial.
If David Cochrane actually claimed - as wjm says - that Danny Williams was neutral in the last federal election, then Cochrane would have to be officially classed as out-to-lunch. Progressive Conservative members of legislature would not have dared campaign openly for Connie candidates if Danny Williams himself disapproved.
Danny Williams himself would not have actually invented commitments from Stephen Harper if he was not actively involved in the federal election campaign.
If a claim is made, odds are that wjm will challenge it. Incidentally, CTV's Bob Fife is a fact checker's nightmare, but oddly wjm hasn't set his sites on that guy yet.
But to return to the main story, wjm is especially adept at spotting the numerous planted callers organized by the premier's office to spread the official partisan position of the moment on the issue of the moment. He's named most of them who call regularly. He's noted their odd habit lately of stating that "it's not like they get told what to say from the premier's office", or words to that effect.
Kinda like saying "It's not about Danny" two or three times on a subject that pretty much is all about Danny.
Roger Grime's is quoted in news media? A raft of callers will turn up saying "I don't know how he can gave the gall to stick him head up...".
Like dandelions after a good rain, they will pop up all saying exactly the same thing. People who don't normally call will suddenly be spouting obscure references to something that happened in the House of Assembly during a late-night sitting (not broadcast) in 1993.
Really odd stuff that even politcal junkies like your humble e-scribbler long ago forgot. But someone claiming to be a house-frau from Humber will be able to cite chapter and verse from a cabinet meeting minutes.
or they'll just repeat Standard Anti-Grimes Position Number 6. it's like they are little japanese soldiers deserted on some island, destined to carry out their last order unti, they pass out or are killed by a falling cocoanut.
And that's what some of it is like. A Marx Brothers movie.
Bizarre stuff, really, but it gets on the air. Most often at VOCM, but increasingly the planted callers - Progrsssive Conservative and Liberal - are turning up at CBC. Easy know there's an election coming up in October: the bulls**t is already so deep you need something by bodyglove to get through it without getting an infection
So if you want a convenient spotter's guide to the politcal flaura and fauna of Newfoundland and Labrador, check out WJM's labradore.
Here's a question to start your search through the local political jungle: what newspaper columnist, author and former Tory candidate actually claimed that in 1949 the Newfoundland government gave away all its resources and received a miserable allowance in return?
Hint: a collection of her greatest calls to Open Line will likely be titled: The other Gin and Tonic Gardener.
labradore's wjm has also been known to tackle the factually dubious comments of individuals, including reporters on subjects of interest to the province. Odds are he's right and the quibbles he raises are only sometimes trivial.
If David Cochrane actually claimed - as wjm says - that Danny Williams was neutral in the last federal election, then Cochrane would have to be officially classed as out-to-lunch. Progressive Conservative members of legislature would not have dared campaign openly for Connie candidates if Danny Williams himself disapproved.
Danny Williams himself would not have actually invented commitments from Stephen Harper if he was not actively involved in the federal election campaign.
If a claim is made, odds are that wjm will challenge it. Incidentally, CTV's Bob Fife is a fact checker's nightmare, but oddly wjm hasn't set his sites on that guy yet.
But to return to the main story, wjm is especially adept at spotting the numerous planted callers organized by the premier's office to spread the official partisan position of the moment on the issue of the moment. He's named most of them who call regularly. He's noted their odd habit lately of stating that "it's not like they get told what to say from the premier's office", or words to that effect.
Kinda like saying "It's not about Danny" two or three times on a subject that pretty much is all about Danny.
Roger Grime's is quoted in news media? A raft of callers will turn up saying "I don't know how he can gave the gall to stick him head up...".
Like dandelions after a good rain, they will pop up all saying exactly the same thing. People who don't normally call will suddenly be spouting obscure references to something that happened in the House of Assembly during a late-night sitting (not broadcast) in 1993.
Really odd stuff that even politcal junkies like your humble e-scribbler long ago forgot. But someone claiming to be a house-frau from Humber will be able to cite chapter and verse from a cabinet meeting minutes.
or they'll just repeat Standard Anti-Grimes Position Number 6. it's like they are little japanese soldiers deserted on some island, destined to carry out their last order unti, they pass out or are killed by a falling cocoanut.
And that's what some of it is like. A Marx Brothers movie.
Bizarre stuff, really, but it gets on the air. Most often at VOCM, but increasingly the planted callers - Progrsssive Conservative and Liberal - are turning up at CBC. Easy know there's an election coming up in October: the bulls**t is already so deep you need something by bodyglove to get through it without getting an infection
So if you want a convenient spotter's guide to the politcal flaura and fauna of Newfoundland and Labrador, check out WJM's labradore.
Here's a question to start your search through the local political jungle: what newspaper columnist, author and former Tory candidate actually claimed that in 1949 the Newfoundland government gave away all its resources and received a miserable allowance in return?
Hint: a collection of her greatest calls to Open Line will likely be titled: The other Gin and Tonic Gardener.
-srbp-
12 June 2007
Don't blame me!
I didn't vote for 'em.
In fact, Bond Papers raised some fairly consistent questions about the Harperites and some of the claims on their own political effectiveness made by one of the cabinet ministers soon to be efforded.
Now Dr. Bondolo may have been wrong about how short some people's memories were, but the Equalization forecast and how other provinces viewed the offshore deals? Bang on!
Oddly enough and despite all the public evidence that problems were looming on the federal political horizon, others did encourage Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to vote for Stephen Harper's merry band of reverse leprechauns.
Like this one, or for that matter the Big One.
Frankly, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador most-pissed by the Harper administration right now are those who voted for them, encouraged others to vote for them or invented bizarre political theories to promote the Harper cause only to find out that the theories were nonsense.
They should be ticked off.
They were caught flat by the Connie performance and these former Harper supporters ignored solid evidence in order to make their pitches.
For example, Premier Danny Williams says he is astonished at Norm Doyle's behaviour. Had he read Bond Papers, then he'd have seen an account of Doyle's voting history in the Commons. There's nothing in it that suggests he will buck the party line. Had the Premier read Bond, he would have seen all along the numerous questions with the Conservatives' positions.
Heck, he might not have claimed there was a loan guarantee on the Lower Churchill from Harper when there obviously wasn't one.
Wishful thinking. Maybe Derek Green will put it in a report and then it will be accepted.
Because, ya know, it's not like these Harper Connies haven't said one thing and then done another right in front of our eyes.
Like say on custodial management, something they abandoned during the campaign.
Or "federal presence" which Loyola Hearn abandoned a couple of days after polling day.
So while you are wondering what will happen next in the Equalization racket, just ask yourself a simple question:
For all the concern about public safety offshore and in the air raised by Connies and their provincial cousins in the last federal election, is there any marine or aviation forecasting being done at Gander?
Ya might just want to think about that next time someone suggests who you should vote for.
In fact, Bond Papers raised some fairly consistent questions about the Harperites and some of the claims on their own political effectiveness made by one of the cabinet ministers soon to be efforded.
Now Dr. Bondolo may have been wrong about how short some people's memories were, but the Equalization forecast and how other provinces viewed the offshore deals? Bang on!
Oddly enough and despite all the public evidence that problems were looming on the federal political horizon, others did encourage Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to vote for Stephen Harper's merry band of reverse leprechauns.
Like this one, or for that matter the Big One.
Frankly, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador most-pissed by the Harper administration right now are those who voted for them, encouraged others to vote for them or invented bizarre political theories to promote the Harper cause only to find out that the theories were nonsense.
They should be ticked off.
They were caught flat by the Connie performance and these former Harper supporters ignored solid evidence in order to make their pitches.
For example, Premier Danny Williams says he is astonished at Norm Doyle's behaviour. Had he read Bond Papers, then he'd have seen an account of Doyle's voting history in the Commons. There's nothing in it that suggests he will buck the party line. Had the Premier read Bond, he would have seen all along the numerous questions with the Conservatives' positions.
Heck, he might not have claimed there was a loan guarantee on the Lower Churchill from Harper when there obviously wasn't one.
Wishful thinking. Maybe Derek Green will put it in a report and then it will be accepted.
Because, ya know, it's not like these Harper Connies haven't said one thing and then done another right in front of our eyes.
Like say on custodial management, something they abandoned during the campaign.
Or "federal presence" which Loyola Hearn abandoned a couple of days after polling day.
So while you are wondering what will happen next in the Equalization racket, just ask yourself a simple question:
For all the concern about public safety offshore and in the air raised by Connies and their provincial cousins in the last federal election, is there any marine or aviation forecasting being done at Gander?
Ya might just want to think about that next time someone suggests who you should vote for.
-srbp-
Public policy on the fly
Does anyone else wonder if Kathy Dunderdale and her colleagues are making this stuff up as they go along?
One of things likely contained in the changes to the Electrical Power Control Act will be the correction to this problem, hopefully.
All of this just fixes the mess created last year with a hastily drafted piece of legislation setting up the the Hydra Corporation in the first place.
One of things likely contained in the changes to the Electrical Power Control Act will be the correction to this problem, hopefully.
All of this just fixes the mess created last year with a hastily drafted piece of legislation setting up the the Hydra Corporation in the first place.
-srbp-
A meaningless gesture
And an entirely pointless debate.
Under amendments to the FPI Act passed last year - in just a single day - the power to break up the once-proud Newfoundland based company and sell the assets to a grab bag of local and international companies was passed to the cabinet.
Cabinet has exercised its powers; that's why the deal has been announced already.
The old FPI legislation can be scrapped without any worries.
It's just too late to do anything about the sale of the company.
The Opposition gave up their right to deal with this issue last year. They can't moan about it now or accuse the cabinet of doing something improper.
Under amendments to the FPI Act passed last year - in just a single day - the power to break up the once-proud Newfoundland based company and sell the assets to a grab bag of local and international companies was passed to the cabinet.
Cabinet has exercised its powers; that's why the deal has been announced already.
The old FPI legislation can be scrapped without any worries.
It's just too late to do anything about the sale of the company.
The Opposition gave up their right to deal with this issue last year. They can't moan about it now or accuse the cabinet of doing something improper.
-srbp-
Where's John?
The Atlantic Accord negotiating team photo. That's the real Atlantic Accord signed in 1985.
Where's John Crosbie?
Draw the obvious conclusion.
-srbp-
Harper team fragmenting
Loyola Hearn is clearly out of touch.
Now on top of that ctv.ca is reporting that Jim Flaherty's infamous weekend letter was originally supposed to be signed by Peter MacKay, DDS.
MacKay refused.
Now on top of that ctv.ca is reporting that Jim Flaherty's infamous weekend letter was originally supposed to be signed by Peter MacKay, DDS.
MacKay refused.
Insiders say that Sandra Buckler, the prime minister's communications director, instructed MacKay to sign the letter, which rejected any side deals with Nova Scotia.
-srbp-
11 June 2007
Housing trends, St. John's 1992-2007
Courtesy of the Dominion statistician, a chart showing average house prices and new house starts in St. John's, from 1992 to 2007.
Housing starts began an upward climb in early 2001 and peaked in early to mid 2004.
-srbp-
Take it to the bank!
Danny Williams, from 2003:
Our voice in Ottawa must be strong and passionate, however it must also be rational and levelheaded. Only then will we be effective in achieving for this Province the rights and benefits we have earned and deserve. My government will work cooperatively and collaboratively with our federal counterparts. In so doing, we will develop a mutual respect with the federal government, which in my experience is the key to successful and productive relationships.Stephen Harper, from 2006:
It is my hope as Prime Minister to initiate a new style of open federalism which would involve working more closely and collaboratively with the provinces and the Council of the Federation to develop Canada’s economic and social union, to clarify appropriate federal and provincial responsibilities, and to resolve the fiscal imbalance between the federal and provincial-territorial governments...Jim Flaherty, from March 2007:
We believe that a new equalization formula should exclude non-renewable resource revenues for all provinces, but also that no province should be adversely affected during the transition to any new equalization formula. We look forward to hearing the suggestions of the expert-panel review currently underway on the equalization formula, and to working collaboratively with the provinces and territories to develop a renewed equalization formula that is fair and acceptable to all provinces and territories.
"Now we can get over the bickering and now the federal government can concentrate on our constitutional responsibilities."Stephen Harper, May 2007:
"If we cannot continue with this agreement ... we will have to address it ourselves in the courts."
-srbp-
Pat Carney joins the fray
From the Chronicle Herald, a letter from Senator Pat Carney.
It seems that Bond Papers isn't the only one questioning John Crosbie's grip on the facts of the 1985 Atlantic Accord:
It seems that Bond Papers isn't the only one questioning John Crosbie's grip on the facts of the 1985 Atlantic Accord:
In Stephen Maher's June 6 story, "Crosbie pushed PM to honour offshore deals," it says John Crosbie was "instrumental in negotiating the l980s deals under which the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney ceded control of offshore petroleum to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland."
In fact, and despite claims to the contrary, John Crosbie was never involved in the offshore negotiations with either province in the l980s. That task was assigned by prime minister Brian Mulroney to me, on the grounds that a Western MP and minister with an energy background would bring more balance to an issue which involved intense regional as well as national implications.
Mr. Mulroney was still leader of the Opposition when he signed the original principles of the Atlantic accord with then premier Brian Peckford on June 14, 1984, three months before the Conservatives won the federal election. The completion of negotiations, led by me, was a priority of his government.
There would be no Atlantic accords without the Conservative government of Mr. Mulroney. The primary objective was to treat the provinces with offshore resources on the same basis as provinces like Alberta with land-based resources, in the interest of national unity. That object has been accomplished.
The actions of Mr. Crosbie in attacking the Atlantic accord provisions in the Harper budget show Mr. Mulroney's concerns were valid.
Pat Carney, PC,
Senator for British Columbia
-srbp-
A dispute that divides familes
Gerald Keddy, Harper Conservative member of parliament, married to...
Judy Streatch, one of Rodney MacDonald's cabinet ministers.
Now that situation has to be uncomfortable, but word on Monday is that Keddy is wavering in his support for Harper over Equalization changes.
Makes sense.
Judy Streatch, one of Rodney MacDonald's cabinet ministers.
Now that situation has to be uncomfortable, but word on Monday is that Keddy is wavering in his support for Harper over Equalization changes.
Makes sense.
-srbp-
Harper to Rodney and Danny: Bite me!
Now this could get really interesting if the Stephen Harper administration actually refers the current Equalization spat to the courts for an opinion on whether or not his administration is violating the Atlantic offshore revenue deals.
Harper might have an argument on the 2005 deals.
On the 1985 one?
Pretty much black letter.
Under s. 60 of the 1985 memorandum of understanding neither party can change the enabling legislation without mutual consent.
The Harperites might try a legal argument based on some provisions of the constitution, but that's just a possibility.
The Prime Minister would have to send the thing to court first. Of course, there's nothing to stop the provincial government from sending the thing to the courts either.
Somewhere along the line someone must have surely uttered the words "constitutional crisis the likes of which we haven't seen in this country for decades".
That's basically what the Prime Minister is threatening, and all because he made a terribly poor political judgment.
Harper might have an argument on the 2005 deals.
On the 1985 one?
Pretty much black letter.
Under s. 60 of the 1985 memorandum of understanding neither party can change the enabling legislation without mutual consent.
The Harperites might try a legal argument based on some provisions of the constitution, but that's just a possibility.
The Prime Minister would have to send the thing to court first. Of course, there's nothing to stop the provincial government from sending the thing to the courts either.
Somewhere along the line someone must have surely uttered the words "constitutional crisis the likes of which we haven't seen in this country for decades".
That's basically what the Prime Minister is threatening, and all because he made a terribly poor political judgment.
-srbp-
Harper's impact on Connie support
To get a sense of how deep the federal Conservative slide has been in the past three months take a look at the chart.
It tracks Progressive Conservative or Conservative party support in Newfoundland and Labrador at each federal general election since Confederation (1949). The last number is the latest CRA poll.
Local Conservatives can thank Stephen Harper for bringing them to the lowest point in their party's history and for doing so with what appears to be the sharpest decline in support for any federal party in Newfoundland and Labrador history.
That takes real political skill.
-srbp-
10 June 2007
A lamentable trend
God bless his heart, but on Friday Bill Rowe - unabashed cheerleader for a series of provincial governments of a certain approach - questioned the idea that the legislation to implement Chief Justice Derek Green's excellent report on legislators' indemnities should proceed through the House of Assembly without delay.
He wondered why this legislation should not be debated and discussed for some considerable period. Rowe recalled the good old days when legislation was tabled early in the session, thereby giving the public and members of the opposition time to review the implications of proposed legislation.
Rowe is generally right of course, but not about this particular bill. Green's report came with its own enabling legislation attached as an appendix. The report itself is as thorough and detailed as any report presented to government has been. The issue has been widely discussed and the various pernicious practices in the legislature over the past decade have been well exposed. The remedy is pretty clear too: Green's legislation would stop legislators from doing the things that most of us would generally consider inappropriate.
The whole thing is cut and dried.
On the other hand, Rowe does not appear to have any trouble with other pieces of legislation sailing through the House with only cursory debate even though they carry serious implications for the province.
It dates back the better part of a decade and reflects, as much as anything else, an attitude that the legislature is an inconvenience or that public disclosure and public debate are undesirable on most pieces of legislation.
There are a great many routine pieces of legislation that come to the legislature and many that can indeed be passes with a minimum of debate. The list above does not contain any of those, since even the changes to the judges pension plan change eligibility for pensions. Those carry financial implications for the public treasury if nothing else.
The FPI and Hydro bills each contain very significant provisions which were missed - in their entirety - by the opposition and were never commented on by the government. In the case of the Hydro bills, the government didn't comment on them until this year when another new piece of legislation was rammed through the House unopposed. Perhaps the basic flaws in the first bill would have been caught if Government wasn't intent on ramming ill-considered changes through and the Opposition was not anxious to go along for the ride. Perhaps the same flaw would not have been continued in the second bill if anyone was focused on the job of being a legislator.
This trend to limit debate - and limit public access to bills before debate even begins - coincides with the steady reduction in the number of sitting days in the legislature. Before 1996, members of the House of Assembly sat in the legislature for three months of the year. They put in long hours in various committees and in debating bills. Most worked very hard for their pay.
These two trends - fewer days and little or no debate - means that the public are being ill-served by what Brian Tobin used to refer to - somewhat ironically it seems - as "the people's House". Fundamentally, the same attitude appears to be taken taken to the fundamental business of the legislature that was taken to administrative business, as Chief Justice Green noted. Lip service is being paid to accountability and transparency, but the reality is that far too often over the past decade, significant measures have slipped through the House of Assembly as if they were covered in API 70 oil from Garden Hill.
It is far too easy to forget that the legislature exists to keep the government accountable to the residents of the province. It is fundamental in our system of democracy that any power sought by any government must be subjected to scrutiny by the elected representatives of the common citizens. That is the essence of responsible government.
There are greater implications to the House of Assembly scandal than how the members handled public cash for the House administration, as grave as that issue is.
The trends over the past decade go to the very heart of how our elected representatives view their role and responsibilities in our must fundamental of democratic institutions.
In this election year, perhaps Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should insist on a discussion of how our democracy runs. We should look to alter fundamentally the relationship between voters and those we entrust with the responsibility of looking after the affairs of our province.
Rather than listen to pledges that one side will be "Putting People First" or that another will be "Getting Our Fair Share", we should start from the most basic point: these men and women want to be tenants in our House of Assembly.
The crew that have been there over the past decade, generally speaking, haven't been living up to the terms of their historic lease. The place is run down and needs some serious attention.
As their landlords, let us see how they - individually and collectively - propose to run the place for the next four years. Let's see how they propose to restore the proper functioning of our democratic institutions.
If they merely offer the same approach as we have seen for the past 10 years, then perhaps we need to issue some eviction notices or, in other cases, not lease out the seat in the first place.
Either way, it is time for the landlords to assert their rights.
He wondered why this legislation should not be debated and discussed for some considerable period. Rowe recalled the good old days when legislation was tabled early in the session, thereby giving the public and members of the opposition time to review the implications of proposed legislation.
Rowe is generally right of course, but not about this particular bill. Green's report came with its own enabling legislation attached as an appendix. The report itself is as thorough and detailed as any report presented to government has been. The issue has been widely discussed and the various pernicious practices in the legislature over the past decade have been well exposed. The remedy is pretty clear too: Green's legislation would stop legislators from doing the things that most of us would generally consider inappropriate.
The whole thing is cut and dried.
On the other hand, Rowe does not appear to have any trouble with other pieces of legislation sailing through the House with only cursory debate even though they carry serious implications for the province.
- Take for example, changes to the Hydro Corporation Act that, as a consequence of of its provisions hooked electricity rates to activities by the Crown-owned utility not related to electricity generation or distribution. Given first reading (but not distributed) on March 22, 2006. Distributed on May 18, pushed through second reading the same day and given third reading and approved on May 23.
- Or a series of changes to the provincial court judges pension act and related legislation. Run through all three stages in a single day last spring.
- Or a bill to establish regional health authorities that flew through the House the day before the judges bill, and like the judges bill having been read a first time only a week beforehand.
- Or changes to the Fishery Products International Act that actually made it easier to break up the company and sell it off than the legislation originally provided. First reading 18 may, second reading 23 May, committee stage and third reading on May 26.
- Or the energy corporation act and the revised hydro corporation bill, introduced in the session. First reading (but not distributed) on May 29 and then pushed through the House on June 4 and 5, along with the Sustainable Development Act.
- Or the bill to repeal the FPI Act that was introduced at the start of the session but only distributed after the deal was announced publicly. That bill will also be pushed through in a few hours of debate in all likelihood.
It dates back the better part of a decade and reflects, as much as anything else, an attitude that the legislature is an inconvenience or that public disclosure and public debate are undesirable on most pieces of legislation.
There are a great many routine pieces of legislation that come to the legislature and many that can indeed be passes with a minimum of debate. The list above does not contain any of those, since even the changes to the judges pension plan change eligibility for pensions. Those carry financial implications for the public treasury if nothing else.
The FPI and Hydro bills each contain very significant provisions which were missed - in their entirety - by the opposition and were never commented on by the government. In the case of the Hydro bills, the government didn't comment on them until this year when another new piece of legislation was rammed through the House unopposed. Perhaps the basic flaws in the first bill would have been caught if Government wasn't intent on ramming ill-considered changes through and the Opposition was not anxious to go along for the ride. Perhaps the same flaw would not have been continued in the second bill if anyone was focused on the job of being a legislator.
This trend to limit debate - and limit public access to bills before debate even begins - coincides with the steady reduction in the number of sitting days in the legislature. Before 1996, members of the House of Assembly sat in the legislature for three months of the year. They put in long hours in various committees and in debating bills. Most worked very hard for their pay.
These two trends - fewer days and little or no debate - means that the public are being ill-served by what Brian Tobin used to refer to - somewhat ironically it seems - as "the people's House". Fundamentally, the same attitude appears to be taken taken to the fundamental business of the legislature that was taken to administrative business, as Chief Justice Green noted. Lip service is being paid to accountability and transparency, but the reality is that far too often over the past decade, significant measures have slipped through the House of Assembly as if they were covered in API 70 oil from Garden Hill.
It is far too easy to forget that the legislature exists to keep the government accountable to the residents of the province. It is fundamental in our system of democracy that any power sought by any government must be subjected to scrutiny by the elected representatives of the common citizens. That is the essence of responsible government.
There are greater implications to the House of Assembly scandal than how the members handled public cash for the House administration, as grave as that issue is.
The trends over the past decade go to the very heart of how our elected representatives view their role and responsibilities in our must fundamental of democratic institutions.
In this election year, perhaps Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should insist on a discussion of how our democracy runs. We should look to alter fundamentally the relationship between voters and those we entrust with the responsibility of looking after the affairs of our province.
Rather than listen to pledges that one side will be "Putting People First" or that another will be "Getting Our Fair Share", we should start from the most basic point: these men and women want to be tenants in our House of Assembly.
The crew that have been there over the past decade, generally speaking, haven't been living up to the terms of their historic lease. The place is run down and needs some serious attention.
As their landlords, let us see how they - individually and collectively - propose to run the place for the next four years. Let's see how they propose to restore the proper functioning of our democratic institutions.
If they merely offer the same approach as we have seen for the past 10 years, then perhaps we need to issue some eviction notices or, in other cases, not lease out the seat in the first place.
Either way, it is time for the landlords to assert their rights.
-srbp-
Crown Liability Act?
So why exactly has the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador introduced a specific piece of legislation that will prevent any legal action against the Crown in relation to the break-up of Fishery Products International?
The Crown Liability Act, 2007 provides that
The Crown Liability Act, 2007 provides that
"2. (1) An action or proceeding does not lie or shall not be instituted or continued against the Crown or a minister, employee or agent of the Crown based on a cause of action arising from, resulting from or incidental to the disposition of the assets, business and other undertakings of FPI Limited or Fishery Products International Limited.
(2) A cause of action against the Crown or a minister, employee or agent of the Crown arising from, resulting from or incidental to the disposition of the assets, business and other undertakings of FPI Limited or Fishery Products International Limited is extinguished.
and...
3. A person is not entitled to compensation or damages from the Crown or a minister, employee or agent of the Crown arising from, resulting from or incidental to the disposition of the assets, business and other undertakings of FPI Limited or Fishery Products International Limited.
-srbp-
09 June 2007
The Pitcher Plants are in full bloom
labradore makes some observations on comments found at vocm.com.
Yes, it's spring (almost summer), in an election year, and suddenly the orchestrated political comments - known as astroturf, or Pitcher Plants in their local variety - come popping up everywhere.
Chief Justice Derek Green's report may change some of the things Danny Williams inherited from Brian Tobin, but it seems the Premier is still addicted to Tobin's greatest political legacy: the organized support calls to VOCM and the manipulation of its public forum "Question of the Day."
Yes, it's spring (almost summer), in an election year, and suddenly the orchestrated political comments - known as astroturf, or Pitcher Plants in their local variety - come popping up everywhere.
Chief Justice Derek Green's report may change some of the things Danny Williams inherited from Brian Tobin, but it seems the Premier is still addicted to Tobin's greatest political legacy: the organized support calls to VOCM and the manipulation of its public forum "Question of the Day."
-srbp-
Shooting one's own foot off
Telegram columnist Brian Jones does a fine job of shooting his own argument out of the water in a column today.
Offal News tears it apart nicely.
Offal News tears it apart nicely.
-srbp-
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)