Interestingly, the text of the speech is different in tone from the sections leaked the day before, presumably by the Prime Minister's Office.
-srbp-
20 June 2007
Gary Lunn's speech: the full text
Courtesy NOIA, the full text of Gary Lunn's speech to the NOIA annual conference. Lunn didn't actually deliver the speech since weather prevented Lunn's aircraft from landing.
Interestingly, the text of the speech is different in tone from the sections leaked the day before, presumably by the Prime Minister's Office.
Interestingly, the text of the speech is different in tone from the sections leaked the day before, presumably by the Prime Minister's Office.
19 June 2007
Eating one's cake and throwing it up too: the Crosbie historical fiction series
From the Tuesday Globe and Mail, a comment by John Crosbie and Roland Martin on the Equalization ruckus.
Following is the text, with Bond Papers notes inserted between square brackets.
Atlantic Accord: A deal is a deal, Mr. Harper
The people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are neither greedy mice who gobble up cheese, as some, including this newspaper, would have you believe, nor do we, as some federal politicians have accused us, simply want to have our cake and eat it too. What we want is for Ottawa to honour the 2005 Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland agreements on offshore revenues.
A recent Globe and Mail editorial stated that the current quarrel over equalization formulae "may be reduced to half a dozen simple words: 'as it exists at the time.' " We submit that the key words in the Feb. 14, 2005, agreements are: "The government of Canada intends to provide additional offset payments to the province in respect of offshore-related equalization reductions, effectively allowing it to retain the benefits of 100 per cent of its offshore resource revenues."
"As it exists at that time" is intended to clarify that the 100 per cent of benefits will be obtained by Nova Scotia and Newfoundland no matter what changes are made to the federal equalization program in the future. That is because these two bilateral agreements are economic development arrangements, no different in principle than Ontario's various federal-provincial auto-pact programs, Ottawa's recent multi-hundred-million-dollar funding of Quebec's aerospace industry or B.C.'s "Pacific Gateway" economic opportunity, all of which contribute to building a stronger and more prosperous Canada.
Don't forget that in the 1950s and 1960s, Alberta received both equalization and its oil and gas revenues until its economy had sufficiently developed. [Bond Papers: Actually Alberta received Equalization from 1957, when the program was created, until 1962. While technically correct - 1957 and 1962 are respective in the 1950s and 1960s - the Crosbie/Martin presentation is misleading. See, for example, Thomas Courchene, "A short history of Equalization".]
It might also be helpful to remind the news media, politicians, bureaucrats and the general public that in October, 2004, while the negotiations on the future of the original 1985 and 1986 accords were in progress, Paul Martin's government introduced significant short-term changes to the equalization program and signalled it would appoint an expert commission to study equalization and to recommend a long-term strategy. The commission's report is what the current Conservative government has adopted and is proudly praising.
It would be hard to imagine that in the middle of these fundamental fiscal policy actions by the federal government, Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm and Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams and all of their ministers and advisers would agree to enter into the February, 2005, Offshore Agreement and not insist that any deal protect their provinces against future changes in the equalization program, changes that might cancel out the benefits of these bilateral economic agreements.
[Bond Papers: While it might be hard to imagine, the phrase noted by the Globe editorial and debated by Crosbie and Martin is at the heart of the dispute. The key point not noted by Crosbie and Martin is that the 2005 agreement can be met in full and the Equalization program "as it exists at the time" by simply removing the cap unilaterally applied to the 2005 agreement(s). The federal government can reduce Equalization payments in keeping with the program as it exists, while honouring in full the 2005 agreement.
Federal officials apparently referred to a conundrum in an exchange with Wade Locke on this issue. The conundrum would come from differentiating between qualifying for Equalization and what payment was actually received.
One potential solution would be to consider the phrase in the agreement describing the additional offset mechanism as referring to the amount to which the province would receive without a cap being applied. This would limit the amount of Equalization actually paid to zero in some years but allow the offset to continue to function. This may all now be a moot point since the provincial government will no longer qualify for any Equalization payment at all by 2010-2012.]
It should be remembered that in, in October, 2004, former finance minister Ralph Goodale caused those negotiations to collapse when he proposed in writing that any new offshore revenue agreement include a "fiscal cap" that limited Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to the fiscal capacity of Ontario. Surely all Canadians remember the reaction to Mr. Goodale's proposal, including the emotionally charged lowering of the Canadian flag in St. John's. Then Mr. Martin, with the enthusiastic support of then-opposition leader Stephen Harper, wisely withdrew the concept of a "fiscal cap," and shortly thereafter the three parties agreed to the 2005 Offshore Agreement and related federal legislation.
[Bond Papers: Martin and Crosbie's characterization of the situation in 2004 is essentially bunk. The negotiations did not collapse in October 2004. In fact, they continued until December 22, 2004. The Premier decided on the disastrous flag tactic at that point, but restored Canadian flags once polling confirmed the strength of opinion against the move from across the country. In the subsequent January 2005 agreement, many of the provisions of the October agreement remained, even in slightly amended form. The only point removed was the fiscal capacity cap.]
Those who tell us that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia should stop complaining that the new deal contains a fiscal cap demonstrate a profound lack of understanding for the history of the 1985 Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord and the 1986 Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord. Worse, they mislead Canadians by implying the provinces are greedy and want to continue getting equalization once they reach the national average fiscal capacity.
[Bond Papers: This is a remarkable statement given that Crosbie has claimed as recently as last week that the intention in 1985 was to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to receive oil and gas revenues in full and Equalization in full, as if the oil and gas revenues did not exist.
Crosbie now appears to have abandoned that point in light of the historical record, as well as a rebuke from his former cabinet colleague on another aspect of the 1985 Atlantic Accord.
Martin has also previously made claims about the 1985 Accord which do not stand up to scrutiny.]
Quite the contrary. The 2005 offshore agreements do not get renewed in 2011-12 if either province is no longer receiving equalization.
Newfoundland's equalization payments have already declined from a peak of $1.2-billion in 1999-2000 to a forecasted $477-million in 2007-2008. Recent studies estimate it may no longer get equalization by 2009-2010.
The 1985 and 1986 accords were meant to make the two provinces "principal beneficiaries" of their offshore resources. Until the 2005 offshore agreements, the federal government was the principal beneficiary. That recognition of provincial benefit was the battle Dr. Hamm and Mr. Williams fought and won. If these agreements are not fully honoured, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and, in fact, all of Canada, will have been done a great injustice.
[Bond Papers: Once again, Crosbie and Martin enter the realm of historical fiction. While it is true the agreements are intended to make the provinces the principal beneficiary of offshore resources, the agreements themselves contain no definition of the term. Contextual and contemporary evidence suggests that principal beneficiary was intended to mean the right to set and collect revenues as if the resources were on land, the right to manage the resources jointly with the federal government and to establish local benefits provisions in any development agreements. See, for example, "Which is to be master?".
Mr. crosbie position on Equalization entitlements and offshore oil and gas revenues has also changed considerably since he was a federal cabinet minister. in 1990, Crosbie dismissed provincial concerns about the so-called clawback of oil revenues through Equalization with these words: "I'm getting a little tired of them trying to have their cake and throwing it up too. They can't do both." Consider the delightful contrast with Crosbie and martin's next sentence.]
We are neither mice, nor greedy cake-eaters. We are proud Canadians.
We just want the opportunity to utilize our natural resources to become self-sufficient. We will resist any attempts to prevent this from occurring.
_______________
John Crosbie, a St. John's lawyer, and Roland Martin, a Nova Scotia business executive, have advised Nova Scotia and Newfoundland on their offshore accords.
Following is the text, with Bond Papers notes inserted between square brackets.
Atlantic Accord: A deal is a deal, Mr. Harper
The people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are neither greedy mice who gobble up cheese, as some, including this newspaper, would have you believe, nor do we, as some federal politicians have accused us, simply want to have our cake and eat it too. What we want is for Ottawa to honour the 2005 Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland agreements on offshore revenues.
A recent Globe and Mail editorial stated that the current quarrel over equalization formulae "may be reduced to half a dozen simple words: 'as it exists at the time.' " We submit that the key words in the Feb. 14, 2005, agreements are: "The government of Canada intends to provide additional offset payments to the province in respect of offshore-related equalization reductions, effectively allowing it to retain the benefits of 100 per cent of its offshore resource revenues."
"As it exists at that time" is intended to clarify that the 100 per cent of benefits will be obtained by Nova Scotia and Newfoundland no matter what changes are made to the federal equalization program in the future. That is because these two bilateral agreements are economic development arrangements, no different in principle than Ontario's various federal-provincial auto-pact programs, Ottawa's recent multi-hundred-million-dollar funding of Quebec's aerospace industry or B.C.'s "Pacific Gateway" economic opportunity, all of which contribute to building a stronger and more prosperous Canada.
Don't forget that in the 1950s and 1960s, Alberta received both equalization and its oil and gas revenues until its economy had sufficiently developed. [Bond Papers: Actually Alberta received Equalization from 1957, when the program was created, until 1962. While technically correct - 1957 and 1962 are respective in the 1950s and 1960s - the Crosbie/Martin presentation is misleading. See, for example, Thomas Courchene, "A short history of Equalization".]
It might also be helpful to remind the news media, politicians, bureaucrats and the general public that in October, 2004, while the negotiations on the future of the original 1985 and 1986 accords were in progress, Paul Martin's government introduced significant short-term changes to the equalization program and signalled it would appoint an expert commission to study equalization and to recommend a long-term strategy. The commission's report is what the current Conservative government has adopted and is proudly praising.
It would be hard to imagine that in the middle of these fundamental fiscal policy actions by the federal government, Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm and Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams and all of their ministers and advisers would agree to enter into the February, 2005, Offshore Agreement and not insist that any deal protect their provinces against future changes in the equalization program, changes that might cancel out the benefits of these bilateral economic agreements.
[Bond Papers: While it might be hard to imagine, the phrase noted by the Globe editorial and debated by Crosbie and Martin is at the heart of the dispute. The key point not noted by Crosbie and Martin is that the 2005 agreement can be met in full and the Equalization program "as it exists at the time" by simply removing the cap unilaterally applied to the 2005 agreement(s). The federal government can reduce Equalization payments in keeping with the program as it exists, while honouring in full the 2005 agreement.
Federal officials apparently referred to a conundrum in an exchange with Wade Locke on this issue. The conundrum would come from differentiating between qualifying for Equalization and what payment was actually received.
One potential solution would be to consider the phrase in the agreement describing the additional offset mechanism as referring to the amount to which the province would receive without a cap being applied. This would limit the amount of Equalization actually paid to zero in some years but allow the offset to continue to function. This may all now be a moot point since the provincial government will no longer qualify for any Equalization payment at all by 2010-2012.]
It should be remembered that in, in October, 2004, former finance minister Ralph Goodale caused those negotiations to collapse when he proposed in writing that any new offshore revenue agreement include a "fiscal cap" that limited Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to the fiscal capacity of Ontario. Surely all Canadians remember the reaction to Mr. Goodale's proposal, including the emotionally charged lowering of the Canadian flag in St. John's. Then Mr. Martin, with the enthusiastic support of then-opposition leader Stephen Harper, wisely withdrew the concept of a "fiscal cap," and shortly thereafter the three parties agreed to the 2005 Offshore Agreement and related federal legislation.
[Bond Papers: Martin and Crosbie's characterization of the situation in 2004 is essentially bunk. The negotiations did not collapse in October 2004. In fact, they continued until December 22, 2004. The Premier decided on the disastrous flag tactic at that point, but restored Canadian flags once polling confirmed the strength of opinion against the move from across the country. In the subsequent January 2005 agreement, many of the provisions of the October agreement remained, even in slightly amended form. The only point removed was the fiscal capacity cap.]
Those who tell us that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia should stop complaining that the new deal contains a fiscal cap demonstrate a profound lack of understanding for the history of the 1985 Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord and the 1986 Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord. Worse, they mislead Canadians by implying the provinces are greedy and want to continue getting equalization once they reach the national average fiscal capacity.
[Bond Papers: This is a remarkable statement given that Crosbie has claimed as recently as last week that the intention in 1985 was to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to receive oil and gas revenues in full and Equalization in full, as if the oil and gas revenues did not exist.
Crosbie now appears to have abandoned that point in light of the historical record, as well as a rebuke from his former cabinet colleague on another aspect of the 1985 Atlantic Accord.
Martin has also previously made claims about the 1985 Accord which do not stand up to scrutiny.]
Quite the contrary. The 2005 offshore agreements do not get renewed in 2011-12 if either province is no longer receiving equalization.
Newfoundland's equalization payments have already declined from a peak of $1.2-billion in 1999-2000 to a forecasted $477-million in 2007-2008. Recent studies estimate it may no longer get equalization by 2009-2010.
The 1985 and 1986 accords were meant to make the two provinces "principal beneficiaries" of their offshore resources. Until the 2005 offshore agreements, the federal government was the principal beneficiary. That recognition of provincial benefit was the battle Dr. Hamm and Mr. Williams fought and won. If these agreements are not fully honoured, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and, in fact, all of Canada, will have been done a great injustice.
[Bond Papers: Once again, Crosbie and Martin enter the realm of historical fiction. While it is true the agreements are intended to make the provinces the principal beneficiary of offshore resources, the agreements themselves contain no definition of the term. Contextual and contemporary evidence suggests that principal beneficiary was intended to mean the right to set and collect revenues as if the resources were on land, the right to manage the resources jointly with the federal government and to establish local benefits provisions in any development agreements. See, for example, "Which is to be master?".
Mr. crosbie position on Equalization entitlements and offshore oil and gas revenues has also changed considerably since he was a federal cabinet minister. in 1990, Crosbie dismissed provincial concerns about the so-called clawback of oil revenues through Equalization with these words: "I'm getting a little tired of them trying to have their cake and throwing it up too. They can't do both." Consider the delightful contrast with Crosbie and martin's next sentence.]
We are neither mice, nor greedy cake-eaters. We are proud Canadians.
We just want the opportunity to utilize our natural resources to become self-sufficient. We will resist any attempts to prevent this from occurring.
_______________
John Crosbie, a St. John's lawyer, and Roland Martin, a Nova Scotia business executive, have advised Nova Scotia and Newfoundland on their offshore accords.
Talking about maybe talking about Hebron
The lines of communication are open once again between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Hebron partners.
The National Post and others reported it earlier today.
CBC News and the Telegram reported Premier Danny Williams comments early Tuesday to the annual NOIA oil and gas conference in St. John's.
Negotiations have not restarted.
The National Post and others reported it earlier today.
CBC News and the Telegram reported Premier Danny Williams comments early Tuesday to the annual NOIA oil and gas conference in St. John's.
Negotiations have not restarted.
-srbp-
18 June 2007
Dan Leger's truth telling
From the Chronicle Herald, Dan Leger's column.
An interesting perspective and generally and accurate summary of the major relevant points.
One point of disagreement:
Second, the 1985 Atlantic Accord for Newfoundland and Labrador states specifically that neither party can amend the enabling legislation unilaterally. Maybe the Nova Scotia deal is different.
That's not my dog.
The feds can do what they want on Equalization, within the limits of politics.
When it comes to the terms of the actual agreements, they can't.
That is my dog.
An interesting perspective and generally and accurate summary of the major relevant points.
One point of disagreement:
Truth No. 5: The federal government can and it has unilaterally changed the Atlantic accord. It can also claw back Nova Scotia’s gas royalties and it can thumb its nose at our complaints. All these moves are perfectly legal and constitutional. The Atlantic accord is merely an "arrangement" signed by two fairly junior cabinet ministers.First, Brian Mulroney and Brian Peckford don't qualify as junior cabinet ministers.
Second, the 1985 Atlantic Accord for Newfoundland and Labrador states specifically that neither party can amend the enabling legislation unilaterally. Maybe the Nova Scotia deal is different.
That's not my dog.
The feds can do what they want on Equalization, within the limits of politics.
When it comes to the terms of the actual agreements, they can't.
That is my dog.
-srbp-
Bourque drives for Connies
Like this will come as a shock.
Pierre Bourque, who has been driving his Bourque website for the federal Conservatives for some time now, will also be piloting a stock car sponsored by the same political party in this season's Canadian NASCAR circuit.
At least, he's consistent.
Bourque finished 13th in a Father's Day race.
Pierre Bourque, who has been driving his Bourque website for the federal Conservatives for some time now, will also be piloting a stock car sponsored by the same political party in this season's Canadian NASCAR circuit.
At least, he's consistent.
Bourque finished 13th in a Father's Day race.
-srbp-
Some early efforts to develop the Lower Churchill
From Jason Churchill's superlative summary of efforts to develop the Churchill River's hydroelectric potential, this extract on the federal government approach during the Mulroney administration:
Once in office, Mulroney’s pre-election sentiments about simple decency on this topic were not evident. His administration failed to take any measures to ensure Newfoundland and Labrador gained unrestricted access to the North American energy markets through Quebec territory. Mulroney Cabinet Minister John Crosbie has stated that there was no practical action which the Prime Minister could have taken. He said the history of the Conservative Party in Canada demonstrated the critical importance of a federal party protecting its electoral base in Quebec in order to retain majority governments. Newfoundland and Labrador’s requests for action had perpetually asked the federal government to take action which could have aggravated voters in Quebec, especially the nationalists. According to Crosbie, a national government could not retain a majority national government if it alienated a large bloc of critical voters in Quebec to appease a smaller group of voters in Newfoundland and Labrador.94Churchill's paper should be required reading for those interested in gaining a basic understanding of the paper.
-srbp-
Lament for a non-partisan editor
We all carry biases of one sort or another.
For some reason, people tend to expect reporters and editors to park as many of their biases - especially partisan ones - at the doorstep.
That's why it was so interesting to see a Telegram editor not only lament the demise of the old federal Progressive Conservative party, but to distort history on an apparently partisan basis.
Then earlier this year, the same editor presented the same - i.e. essentially partisan - interpretation of the current row with the Harper administration that graced the Telegram's pages on Sunday.
Too bad that in formulating his pro-Progressive Conservative editorials, Jackson paid attention to unbiased sources like Jason Churchill's history of efforts to develop the Churchill River's hydro-electric potential.
Then again, the myth of victimization - especially at the hands of "Liberal" bogeymen "is apparently just too comfortable a blankie for some people to dispose of.
For some reason, people tend to expect reporters and editors to park as many of their biases - especially partisan ones - at the doorstep.
That's why it was so interesting to see a Telegram editor not only lament the demise of the old federal Progressive Conservative party, but to distort history on an apparently partisan basis.
The Liberals will likely rise again in Canada in the not-too-distant future, once the sponsorship scandal fades far enough into the background. A Liberal administration provides, if nothing else, a sort of comfort-zone governance while the country waits for a broader vision to come along.Ah well, it only seems to fit, though. In the past, the same editor has criticized a Supreme Court judge who dealt with the law and the facts of a case, rather than delivered a decision that conformed to the editor's own misrepresentation of the province's oil and gas history.
But the national unity aspired to by the old Progressive Conservative party — even if it was only fleetingly achieved — is sorely missed.
Then earlier this year, the same editor presented the same - i.e. essentially partisan - interpretation of the current row with the Harper administration that graced the Telegram's pages on Sunday.
Too bad that in formulating his pro-Progressive Conservative editorials, Jackson paid attention to unbiased sources like Jason Churchill's history of efforts to develop the Churchill River's hydro-electric potential.
Then again, the myth of victimization - especially at the hands of "Liberal" bogeymen "is apparently just too comfortable a blankie for some people to dispose of.
-srbp-
Fakes crash Calgary oil show
From the National Post:
The crowd at Calgary’s Gas and Oil Expo received candles apparently made from a deceased janitor who worked at ExxonMobil on Thursday. But before S.K. Wolff, who claimed to be an analyst from the National Petroleum Council, and Florian Osenberg, from ExxonMobil could make their keynote address at the luncheon, security officers forced them off the stage.
The anti-globalization jokers known as the Yes Men took the stage at Stampede Park to promote their book, as well as voice their disapproval of the industry.
-srbp-
16 June 2007
Euphonium Saturday!
Some youtube.com offerings of the glorious euphonium.
First is a tube/euphonium quartet from the American Second Infantry Division band playing an arrangement of Birdland. It cuts out aftef 2:44 but there's enough here to show what you can do.
Can ya dig it? I knew ya could.
On the other end of the spectrum in more ways than one, is a song by The Born Again Floozies: "I used to play euphonium".
Dig it, too or just dig the cymbal-playing tap dancer.
Then, from somewhere else entirely in the vast expanse of the twisted human psyche comes this piece:
To finish, there is this short clip of two guys playing the Mario Brothers theme, flowed another similar duet.
There's some kind of international thing going on with this.
First is a tube/euphonium quartet from the American Second Infantry Division band playing an arrangement of Birdland. It cuts out aftef 2:44 but there's enough here to show what you can do.
Can ya dig it? I knew ya could.
On the other end of the spectrum in more ways than one, is a song by The Born Again Floozies: "I used to play euphonium".
Dig it, too or just dig the cymbal-playing tap dancer.
Then, from somewhere else entirely in the vast expanse of the twisted human psyche comes this piece:
To finish, there is this short clip of two guys playing the Mario Brothers theme, flowed another similar duet.
There's some kind of international thing going on with this.
15 June 2007
From the police blotter
Some Friday night humour, courtesy of a google news search for the word "oil", comes via the police blotter published in the South Delta Leader.
There's a rash of outboard motor thefts, including this one:
And the stolen anti-theft device.
There's a rash of outboard motor thefts, including this one:
June 8, 2 p.m., 100 block 66 Street: Complainant reported the theft of an outboard motor from the back of his boat that was parked on his driveway. The motor was secured by an anti-theft device that was also stolen. The outboard motor is a 2006, grey, Yamaha 8 hp valued at $3,500.The only place where "oil"turned up was in this report:
June 12, 6:07 p.m., 4900 block Coleman Place: Complainant reported that an unknown suspect dumped oil on his front lawn. Nothing suspicious seen or heard in the area. The complainant also reported that this is the second such incident.If the incident occurred in Ottawa at 24 Sussex, and the Lone Oil Skulker had his hair parted down the middle, we could probably come up with a suspect. For now we can just file this as bizarre. Right next to the string of outboard motor thefts.
And the stolen anti-theft device.
-srbp-
NS Liberals should consider a condom campaign
As Nova Scotia descends further into a pile of political silliness, the provincial Liberals have started a button campaign.
The buttons, described as pins by CBC Nova Scotia, say "The Deal is The Deal".
Somehow, it seems that condoms might be more appropriate under the circumstances.
-srbp-
The buttons, described as pins by CBC Nova Scotia, say "The Deal is The Deal".
Somehow, it seems that condoms might be more appropriate under the circumstances.
-srbp-
Rodney grasps at straws
Grassroots stuff like petitions are best left to grassroots people, not Premiers.
This is just pathetic.
This is just pathetic.
Nova Scotia is turning to the Internet to put some public pressure on Ottawa to settle a festering dispute over the federal budget.
Premier Rodney MacDonald said Friday he wants Nova Scotians and other Canadians to sign an electronic petition on the provincial government‘s website.
-srbp-
14 June 2007
Putting two and two together
One of the last pieces of legislation approved by the legislature was something called the Crown Liability Act.
Specifically, it holds the provincial government immune from any legal action resulting from the break-up of Fishery Products International.
The thing was introduced in the House on June 4 and passed through second reading, committee and third reading on June 11 and 12. There were two trivial amendments. The whole thing passed through the legislature with breath-taking speed.
The thing is, there really isn't much of substance available in the public record on the purpose of this bill. A portion of the Hansard - the bit from the night sitting - isn't available on line.
So, is it possible that the real purpose behind this bill, which opposition House leader Kelvin Parsons noted appeared to have been drafted in haste, was intended to head off any problems with Cooke Aquaculture?
The New Brunswick company announced last October that it was developing a major fish farming enterprise in southern Newfoundland. Part of the FPI sale approved this month included the sale of FPI's Fortune plant to Cooke.
Suddenly - less than 10 days later - Cooke is raising doubts about the sale.
Are the two things related?
We may never know.
Specifically, it holds the provincial government immune from any legal action resulting from the break-up of Fishery Products International.
The thing was introduced in the House on June 4 and passed through second reading, committee and third reading on June 11 and 12. There were two trivial amendments. The whole thing passed through the legislature with breath-taking speed.
The thing is, there really isn't much of substance available in the public record on the purpose of this bill. A portion of the Hansard - the bit from the night sitting - isn't available on line.
So, is it possible that the real purpose behind this bill, which opposition House leader Kelvin Parsons noted appeared to have been drafted in haste, was intended to head off any problems with Cooke Aquaculture?
The New Brunswick company announced last October that it was developing a major fish farming enterprise in southern Newfoundland. Part of the FPI sale approved this month included the sale of FPI's Fortune plant to Cooke.
Suddenly - less than 10 days later - Cooke is raising doubts about the sale.
Are the two things related?
We may never know.
-srbp-
Government likes rubber stamp legislature
Deputy premier, fisheries minister and government house leader Tom Rideout is "extremely pleased with the quality and quantity of business that was achieved during this past session of the House of Assembly."
Let's take a look at the tale of the tape of accountability and transparency.
Of the 34 bills introduced in the current session, 27 were passed through second and third stages in a single day. That's 70% of the total.
Another six bills went through the detailed study stages in three days of debate or less.
Another bill was left on the order paper.
In some instances, such as the related bills on a new energy corporation, a hydro corporation and amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act, government distributed the bills publicly only a day before they were debated in the legislature. The EPCA changes weren't even disclosed publicly until the day before the legislature closed.
Neither the opposition nor the general public can be said to have had sufficient time to study any of these measures, let alone develop any idea of their implications. In the case of the energy bills, opposition members relied entirely on a canned government briefing for their remarks in the legislature during the hasty debate.
In the 2006/07 session, the House of Assembly dealt with 72 bills, 57 of which went through the supposed detailed study stage and received third reading approval within a single day. That's 79% of the total number of bills. Of the remainder, the majority were disposed of in less than a week.
One of the bills rammed through in 2006 were changes to the hydro corporation act that linked electricity prices to unregulated business activity. The revised bill introduced in the session just finished was touted as fixing the problem. In fact, the problem remains.
As a senior minister in any government, Tom Rideout should be proud. He was able to ram an amazing amount of legislation through the legislature without even the most cursory of discussion or public debate. As the senior minister in a government that supposedly supports accountability and transparency, he might be just a little chagrined.
Let's take a look at the tale of the tape of accountability and transparency.
Of the 34 bills introduced in the current session, 27 were passed through second and third stages in a single day. That's 70% of the total.
Another six bills went through the detailed study stages in three days of debate or less.
Another bill was left on the order paper.
In some instances, such as the related bills on a new energy corporation, a hydro corporation and amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act, government distributed the bills publicly only a day before they were debated in the legislature. The EPCA changes weren't even disclosed publicly until the day before the legislature closed.
Neither the opposition nor the general public can be said to have had sufficient time to study any of these measures, let alone develop any idea of their implications. In the case of the energy bills, opposition members relied entirely on a canned government briefing for their remarks in the legislature during the hasty debate.
In the 2006/07 session, the House of Assembly dealt with 72 bills, 57 of which went through the supposed detailed study stage and received third reading approval within a single day. That's 79% of the total number of bills. Of the remainder, the majority were disposed of in less than a week.
One of the bills rammed through in 2006 were changes to the hydro corporation act that linked electricity prices to unregulated business activity. The revised bill introduced in the session just finished was touted as fixing the problem. In fact, the problem remains.
As a senior minister in any government, Tom Rideout should be proud. He was able to ram an amazing amount of legislation through the legislature without even the most cursory of discussion or public debate. As the senior minister in a government that supposedly supports accountability and transparency, he might be just a little chagrined.
-srbp-
Living in a fog: one Connie offers his thoughts
Mainland Connies think the people of Atlantic Canada are, to quote the Wonderful Grand Band, living in a fog, living in a dreamworld.
Nonsense like this stuff from the ironically titled My Conservative Dreamworld should give a good idea of how much traction the provincial government's arguments have out past the Port au Port peninsula.
If the Premier can't get at the Conservative vote base, there's not much hope for his so-called ABC option. He doesn't need to convince Liberals and New Democrats that Stephen Harper is a bad idea; they didn't vote for him in the first place.
Think about it.
Nonsense like this stuff from the ironically titled My Conservative Dreamworld should give a good idea of how much traction the provincial government's arguments have out past the Port au Port peninsula.
If the Premier can't get at the Conservative vote base, there's not much hope for his so-called ABC option. He doesn't need to convince Liberals and New Democrats that Stephen Harper is a bad idea; they didn't vote for him in the first place.
In passing, it is worth noting how little this form of institutionalized bribery actually benefited its instigators. The concession on ownership rights (by Mulroney) and on natural resource revenue clawbacks (by Paul Martin) did not produce quite the electoral harvest those two gentlemen were anticipating. This also has its own rationale: when voters have grown accustomed to welfare they view it as a right, and then why should they sell their votes for something that is rightfully theirs? The Atlantic Accords is therefore that rare political event that is worse than a corrupt vote-buying exercise - namely a failed, corrupt vote-buying exercise.Some of these guys actually want to demolish the 1985 Atlantic Accord.
Think about it.
-srbp-
Wait five minutes
Only a couple of days after dismissing legal action against the federal government as a waste of time, Premier Danny Williams is considering joining Saskatchewan in its case against the Harper administration on Equalization.
The Premier said he hadn't considered the idea of legal action, preferring to try the matter in the court of public opinion.
Meanwhile, McGill constitutional law professor Stephen Scott says there is a way to put the matter in front of the courts.
The Premier said he hadn't considered the idea of legal action, preferring to try the matter in the court of public opinion.
Meanwhile, McGill constitutional law professor Stephen Scott says there is a way to put the matter in front of the courts.
The fastest, most economical route through the legal system would be to start an action for a declaratory order to see if the agreement is legally binding.
Then Nova Scotia could use the power of reference that every province has in its statute books to send a set of detailed questions to the court of appeal.
-srbp-
300 or all politics is local
How many times have provincial cabinet ministers or the Premier's parliamentary assistant claimed that the 2005 Equalization offsets deal put $300 million in the provincial treasury this year?
Lots of times? Too many times.
Paul Oram did it this morning speaking with Randy Simms on VOCM's Open Line.
But here's the thing: it isn't true.
The 2005 offshore deal has not added a single penny of new cash to the provincial coffers since 2005.
Here's why.
The 2005 Equalization offsets deal provided for two specific things that are relevant. First, there was an advance payment of $2.0 billion. Second, the clause covering that advance payment also provided:
Spent.
All that has occurred over the past four budgets (FY 2004 to FY 2007) is that the finance minister is accounting for the payment that the province is entitled to receive under the deal.
There's no new cash involved. That's because there won't be new cash until the full $2.0 billion has been accounted for annually. right now, the four year total (including the paper money cabinet minister talk about for this year) is $847 million. Simple calculation: another $1.153 billion will have to be drawn down before that deal actually generates new cash in the bank.
Take a look at any of the calculations done by Wade Locke and you will see pretty quickly that the 2005 deal will not generate any new cash before the deal expires. The provincial government will not qualify for Equalization under either system - fixed pot or 50% exclusion - long before the add-on benefits reach that figure of $1.153 billion.
In some respects, the ongoing racket over the so-called side deals is a bit overblown. The Atlantic Accord (1985) provided for temporary, declining Equalization offsets intended to cushion the provincial treasury against a sudden drop in transfers. The transitional cash was intended to support debt reduction and infrastructure development.
Improving the financial lot of Newfoundland and Labrador makes sense for the province and it makes eminent sense for the country. Temporary transfers from the federal government to Newfoundland and Labrador for a well-understood purpose, even if linked to the Equalization program, is backed by precedent and the focused nature of the transfers doesn't come close to destroying the fundamental fairness of the Equalization system.
Ontarian taxpayers, among others, can rest easy that they will not be funnelling cash into a gaping maw. The whole thing is set up as a limited program. Take a look at even the most recent assessment of the Equalization program and the offsets, and one thing becomes clear: Newfoundland and Labrador's economy will do so well in the next four years that the provincial government will become a so-called "have" province in short order. Ontarians, and others upset about the offsets arrangements should follow a simple rule: don't look at the theatrics continuously surrounding the 2005 agreements; look at the facts.
Even the 2005 deal is a temporary arrangement with triggers designed to shut the whole cash tap off when the provincial government becomes a "have" province. The final agreement - as opposed to the October draft - has a dual trigger to shut down the cash flow. The province must be meet two conditions to keep receiving offsets; the draft version had an "either/or" option that made it easier to extend the deal under any Equalization formula.
Politically, it would impossible for any federal government of any stripe to produce an Equalization program that ignored completely non-renewable resource revenues. It wasn't possible in 1962 when the object of attention was Alberta and it sure as heck isn't possible today when the focus is on Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Only the most fool-hardy of political parties or a party with no hope of actually forming a government would make a political promise that is politically untenable.
And in Newfoundland and Labrador? Well, aside from the people who voted Conservative on the basis of the Equalization promise - were there any? - few people are likely to organize a lynch mob for Conservatives now or in the future. Sure, there are plenty of provincial Progressive Conservatives who took the cue from the Premier and worked on Conservative campaigns. Realistically, though, Equalization wasn't likely a vote driver except for a very limited number of people.
Conservative candidates may face some heat next time and a year from now they may face a vengeful provincial premier, but realistically, they can rest easy knowing that a year is a long time in local politics. Things change. In 2004, Danny Williams rejected Harper's 100% exclusion option. A year later, Harper supposedly delivered the pyjama's for Danny's cat. A year after that, Harper is "untrustworthy" and his Conservative members of parliament are "traitors".
If nothing else, Conservatives have likely taken heart from the most recent regional poll. That's why they voted for the budget on third reading, despite the intense political pressure. Look at the whole picture: the only place when Connies are currently facing a real problem is Newfoundland and Labrador. The federal Conservatives likely are counting on Danny Williams' limited traction outside his own province and, given the available evidence, he doesn't seem to have much traction.
That's because his messages are aimed mainly at his own province. His communications plan ignores the attitudes toward his goals and his approach; it makes no effort to put the local issue in a context that genuinely counteracts perceptions. It does nothing to connect with his audience except, as in the case of teachers and students, with their instinctive, ideological opposition to the federal Conservatives.
Behind it all, though Danny Williams knows full well that his province is not hurting financially. In the worst case scenario, that is where he plays it smarts and opts to maximize the cash, federal transfers to Newfoundland and Labrador through Equalization and offsets will be $2.787 billion over the next four years.
The gap between that and the old Equalization system, according to APEC figures, is less than $300 million a year over that period and that amount will likely be generated in the economy anyway. The Premier knows there will be new investment in western Labrador through Consolidated Thompson. He can count on a couple of other major developments in the next five years or so and maybe, just maybe, there will be renewed interest in the offshore oil and gas industry.
Danny Williams is a smart guy and he is playing the whole Equalization racket very smartly. If he has learned one thing over the past three years it is that Danny Williams can make whatever claim he wants and people will react to it without thinking. That's the $300 million thing, for example. He knows he can create a firestorm of domestic political controversy that makes him look good and makes others look like, well, traitors. It reinforces his status as the only force in provincial politics and that's really the point of the whole exercise.
All politics is indeed very local.
Lots of times? Too many times.
Paul Oram did it this morning speaking with Randy Simms on VOCM's Open Line.
But here's the thing: it isn't true.
The 2005 offshore deal has not added a single penny of new cash to the provincial coffers since 2005.
Here's why.
The 2005 Equalization offsets deal provided for two specific things that are relevant. First, there was an advance payment of $2.0 billion. Second, the clause covering that advance payment also provided:
Amounts calculated starting in 2004-05 under clauses 3 and 4 will not result in actual payments to the province until such time as their cumulative value exceeds $2.0 billion. [Emphasis added]The cheque was received and applied against a portion of the unfunded pension liability in 2005.
Spent.
All that has occurred over the past four budgets (FY 2004 to FY 2007) is that the finance minister is accounting for the payment that the province is entitled to receive under the deal.
There's no new cash involved. That's because there won't be new cash until the full $2.0 billion has been accounted for annually. right now, the four year total (including the paper money cabinet minister talk about for this year) is $847 million. Simple calculation: another $1.153 billion will have to be drawn down before that deal actually generates new cash in the bank.
Take a look at any of the calculations done by Wade Locke and you will see pretty quickly that the 2005 deal will not generate any new cash before the deal expires. The provincial government will not qualify for Equalization under either system - fixed pot or 50% exclusion - long before the add-on benefits reach that figure of $1.153 billion.
In some respects, the ongoing racket over the so-called side deals is a bit overblown. The Atlantic Accord (1985) provided for temporary, declining Equalization offsets intended to cushion the provincial treasury against a sudden drop in transfers. The transitional cash was intended to support debt reduction and infrastructure development.
Improving the financial lot of Newfoundland and Labrador makes sense for the province and it makes eminent sense for the country. Temporary transfers from the federal government to Newfoundland and Labrador for a well-understood purpose, even if linked to the Equalization program, is backed by precedent and the focused nature of the transfers doesn't come close to destroying the fundamental fairness of the Equalization system.
Ontarian taxpayers, among others, can rest easy that they will not be funnelling cash into a gaping maw. The whole thing is set up as a limited program. Take a look at even the most recent assessment of the Equalization program and the offsets, and one thing becomes clear: Newfoundland and Labrador's economy will do so well in the next four years that the provincial government will become a so-called "have" province in short order. Ontarians, and others upset about the offsets arrangements should follow a simple rule: don't look at the theatrics continuously surrounding the 2005 agreements; look at the facts.
Even the 2005 deal is a temporary arrangement with triggers designed to shut the whole cash tap off when the provincial government becomes a "have" province. The final agreement - as opposed to the October draft - has a dual trigger to shut down the cash flow. The province must be meet two conditions to keep receiving offsets; the draft version had an "either/or" option that made it easier to extend the deal under any Equalization formula.
Politically, it would impossible for any federal government of any stripe to produce an Equalization program that ignored completely non-renewable resource revenues. It wasn't possible in 1962 when the object of attention was Alberta and it sure as heck isn't possible today when the focus is on Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Only the most fool-hardy of political parties or a party with no hope of actually forming a government would make a political promise that is politically untenable.
And in Newfoundland and Labrador? Well, aside from the people who voted Conservative on the basis of the Equalization promise - were there any? - few people are likely to organize a lynch mob for Conservatives now or in the future. Sure, there are plenty of provincial Progressive Conservatives who took the cue from the Premier and worked on Conservative campaigns. Realistically, though, Equalization wasn't likely a vote driver except for a very limited number of people.
Conservative candidates may face some heat next time and a year from now they may face a vengeful provincial premier, but realistically, they can rest easy knowing that a year is a long time in local politics. Things change. In 2004, Danny Williams rejected Harper's 100% exclusion option. A year later, Harper supposedly delivered the pyjama's for Danny's cat. A year after that, Harper is "untrustworthy" and his Conservative members of parliament are "traitors".
If nothing else, Conservatives have likely taken heart from the most recent regional poll. That's why they voted for the budget on third reading, despite the intense political pressure. Look at the whole picture: the only place when Connies are currently facing a real problem is Newfoundland and Labrador. The federal Conservatives likely are counting on Danny Williams' limited traction outside his own province and, given the available evidence, he doesn't seem to have much traction.
That's because his messages are aimed mainly at his own province. His communications plan ignores the attitudes toward his goals and his approach; it makes no effort to put the local issue in a context that genuinely counteracts perceptions. It does nothing to connect with his audience except, as in the case of teachers and students, with their instinctive, ideological opposition to the federal Conservatives.
Behind it all, though Danny Williams knows full well that his province is not hurting financially. In the worst case scenario, that is where he plays it smarts and opts to maximize the cash, federal transfers to Newfoundland and Labrador through Equalization and offsets will be $2.787 billion over the next four years.
The gap between that and the old Equalization system, according to APEC figures, is less than $300 million a year over that period and that amount will likely be generated in the economy anyway. The Premier knows there will be new investment in western Labrador through Consolidated Thompson. He can count on a couple of other major developments in the next five years or so and maybe, just maybe, there will be renewed interest in the offshore oil and gas industry.
Danny Williams is a smart guy and he is playing the whole Equalization racket very smartly. If he has learned one thing over the past three years it is that Danny Williams can make whatever claim he wants and people will react to it without thinking. That's the $300 million thing, for example. He knows he can create a firestorm of domestic political controversy that makes him look good and makes others look like, well, traitors. It reinforces his status as the only force in provincial politics and that's really the point of the whole exercise.
All politics is indeed very local.
-srbp-
Why cabinet avoided a public inquiry
When judges have real powers they can upset carefully concocted sets of excuses.
Like say Chief Justice Derek Green's conclusions on the secret bonus money handed out to members of the House of Assembly, after the Accountability and transparency police came to office.
Bear in mind Green's terms of reference did not give his commission the powers of a public inquiry.
Yet he was still able to make this observation, as quoted in the Telegram:
Imagine what Green would have done if he'd put everyone he spoke to under oath.
Some politicians and their scripted supporters said the inquiry would take too long.
Like maybe a year?
Green took almost a year.
Pull the other one, indeed.
Like say Chief Justice Derek Green's conclusions on the secret bonus money handed out to members of the House of Assembly, after the Accountability and transparency police came to office.
Bear in mind Green's terms of reference did not give his commission the powers of a public inquiry.
Yet he was still able to make this observation, as quoted in the Telegram:
MHAs contended the two events were unrelated.That's judge-speak for "pull the other one, it's got bells on it."
The chief justice disagreed.
"If I were sitting in a court of law assessing, as sworn evidence, the information I have been presented with, I would not have too much difficulty in drawing the inference that the issue must have been present in the minds of at least some of the participants in the decision," he wrote.
Imagine what Green would have done if he'd put everyone he spoke to under oath.
Some politicians and their scripted supporters said the inquiry would take too long.
Like maybe a year?
Green took almost a year.
Pull the other one, indeed.
-srbp-
13 June 2007
SK court case to undermine NL and NS
Saskatchewan's court case over Equalization will tackle the issue of fundamental fairness in the system, according to Premier Lorne Calvert.
CBC News is reporting it this way:
Why?
Because those side deals are effectively a political work-around for the Equalization program. After all, if Saskatchewan's argument is based on fair and equitable treatment, the province that's been looking for an Accord-type exemption might just put that point on the table.
If Saskatchewan doesn't raise the issue directly, we might well see other provinces weigh in on the case. Bet your bottom dollar that those other provinces - already fried about the deals - will bring it up as an example of a fundamental inequity in the federal government's approach to Equalization.
Ask Ed Stelmach if his province might seek standing on this one. His province has had its non-renewable revenues clawed back, to use that idiotic phrase, for 45 years. Why would it be equitable, from Alberta's perspective to treat that province differently from the others?
CBC News is reporting it this way:
Calvert said the legal action would not be over a broken campaign promise.One possible route to that argument will undermine the offshore side deals from 2005 between the federal government and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
If a lawsuit was filed for every broken Conservative promise, there wouldn't be enough lawyers, he said.
Instead, he said, the suit would be based on the sections of the constitution that require the equalization program to be fair and equitable.
Why?
Because those side deals are effectively a political work-around for the Equalization program. After all, if Saskatchewan's argument is based on fair and equitable treatment, the province that's been looking for an Accord-type exemption might just put that point on the table.
If Saskatchewan doesn't raise the issue directly, we might well see other provinces weigh in on the case. Bet your bottom dollar that those other provinces - already fried about the deals - will bring it up as an example of a fundamental inequity in the federal government's approach to Equalization.
Ask Ed Stelmach if his province might seek standing on this one. His province has had its non-renewable revenues clawed back, to use that idiotic phrase, for 45 years. Why would it be equitable, from Alberta's perspective to treat that province differently from the others?
-srbp-
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)