One last trip to the trough?

To commence a new era of accountability in the Newfoundland and Labrador legislative assembly, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity, and Administration Act was introduced, which is a piece of legislation that incorporates the recommendations of the Green Report.

News release:"House Leader Extremely Pleased with Productivity During HOA Spring Session"
Government House leader Tom Rideout,
14 June 2007

[Updated with new post script. originally posted 9:00 PM, 21 Jun 07]]

Deputy Premier Tom Rideout may be pleased, but most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians likely don't realize that Rideout and his fellow legislators quietly shelved some key provisions of Chief Justice Derek Green's legislation aimed at cleaning up the House of Assembly spending scandal until after the fall election.

The members delayed implementing restrictions that, among other things, ban the practice of handing out gifts and donations from constituency allowances.

Here's one section on hold until after October 9:

46 (5) A member, in his or her capacity as a member, shall not make a donation or gift, whether of a charitable nature or not, to any person, group or community except as may be contemplated by subsection (3) and section 27. [Emphasis added]

(6) Where a member makes a donation or gift, whether of a charitable nature or not, in a personal capacity, the member shall, in making the donation or gift, stipulate that any acknowledgment of the donation or gift shall not identify him or her as a member.

Right behind it is another provision that further restricts what public money can be spent on:

47. (1) An expense of a type listed in subsection 46(3) may not be

reimbursed if

(a) it is not directly connected with the member’s responsibilities as a member in relation to the ordinary and proper representation of constituents and the public;

(b) it is incurred in relation to partisan political activities or promotion; or

(c) one or more of the following persons has a financial interest in the contract or other arrangement under which the expense is incurred or in a corporation that has a financial interest in the contract or other arrangement under which the expense is incurred:

(i) the member,

(ii) an associated person in relation to the member,

(iii) another member, and

(iv) the spouse or child of another member. [Emphasis added]

The amendment was made at the committee stage on the very last day of the session as everyone was looking to get the last bits of work cleared up. The seemingly innocuous changes were moved by Rideout and passed on a voice vote all in the space of a few minutes.

The change was made even more speedily and without any public comment. By contrast, even the hasty changes to the Internal Economy Commission Act in 1999 that barred the auditor general from the Assembly accounts garnered a few remarks from each of the House leaders in turn.

The changes to the Green bill were more like a St. John's City Council pay hike vote. Here's the extract from Hansard, in which Deputy Premier Tom Rideout moved an amendment:

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to move that the bill be amended by adding immediately after clause 71 the following: 71.1.(1) "The rules contained in the Schedule shall be treated for all purposes as if they had been made by the commission under section 64 and, to the extent necessary, to have been adopted by the House of Assembly under subsection 20(7)."

Also, subsection (2) "Notwithstanding subsection (1), the rules contained in the Schedule may be dealt with by the commission under section 64 as if they had been made by the commission."

CHAIR: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader that clause 71 be amended. The Chair rules that the amendment as put forward by the hon. Government House Leader to clause 71 is in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 71?

All those in favour, ‘Aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay’.

Carried.

Motion amendment, carried.

CLERK: Clause 72.

CHAIR: Clause 72.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move subclause 72(2) of the bill be amended by adding immediately after paragraph (b) the following: (c) "The Schedule comes into force on October 9, 2007."

CHAIR: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader that clause 72 be amended. The Chair rules that the amendment as put forward by the Government House Leader is in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 72?

All those in favour, ‘Aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay’.

Carried.

On motion amendment, carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 72 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay’.

Clause 72, as amended, is carried.

On motion, clause 72, as amended, carried.

That's it.

It all looks like gobbledlygook or trivia until you check the bill, as passed and see what the amendment to section 71 and of course section 72 did.

Turns out the amendments meant that certain provisions of the bill wouldn't come into force until after the next election. Those sections are largely the set of rules on allowances and spending - actually titled "Rules", incidentally - that are intended to:

(a) to provide resources to members to assist them to fulfill their public duties and responsibilities as members of the House, for the benefit of the residents of the province;

(b) to promote accountability in, and transparency with respect to, the expenditure of public funds; and, [Emphasis added]

(c) to facilitate public understanding of the use of public funds in fulfillment of members’ obligations.

Basically, all the sections of the bill setting controls on constituency allowances aren't in place and won't be in place until after the next election. One of the strong rules that won't be in effect until after October 9 would hold a member liable for over-runs on his or her allowance. Chief Justice Green's analysis, similar to observations made by Bond Papers last fall, suggests members of the legislature were more inclined to run up their allowance spending in the period immediately before an election.

-srbp-

Postscript:

Apparently, not a single member of the legislature quoted in Rob Antle's otherwise fine story in the Telegram mentioned that some provisions of the bill - particularly about constituency allowances - were being shelved until after the fall election.

Legislature green-lights Green report; House adopts recommendations of report issued by chief justice

The recommendations of Chief Justice Derek Green are now black-letter law.

The House of Assembly swiftly passed Bill 33 Thursday. The new law incorporates the recommendations of Green's report into financial arrangements at the legislature. Green provided draft legislation as part of his sweeping review.

It was the last piece of business attended to during the spring session of the House. Lt.-Gov. Ed Roberts gave the new law royal assent.

Bill 33 contains a series of new requirements aimed at fixing financial controls at the legislature.

Those include new layers of audits, a more transparent salary structure for MHAs, stricter ethics and accountability rules for politicians, and a revamped commission overseeing the affairs of the House.

The legislature will also be thrown open to the province's freedom of information laws.

Members from all parties lauded the new law during debate in the House of Assembly.

Finance Minister Tom Marshall said that changes to things like salaries for politicians will be done through the legislature "in full sight of the people of the province."

Liberal Opposition House leader Kelvin Parsons lauded the fact that future dealings in the House will be transparent and accountable.

NDP Leader Lorraine Michael thanked Green for his work.

"All we can do now is move forward," Michael noted. She said Green's recommendations allow the legislature to do that.

Topsail MHA Elizabeth Marshall made a personal observation - she never anticipated becoming an MHA and voting on a piece of legislation that righted the wrongs of the past.

She was auditor general in 2000 when politicians barred her from examining the books of the House.

A series of law and policy changes over the years enhanced benefits for politicians, and reduced public access to information about how tax dollars were being spent.

Auditors were allowed back in to the House after the Tory government took power in 2003.

Auditor General John Noseworthy's subsequent findings sparked a series of ongoing police investigations into current and former MHAs and a key House staffer. Noseworthy found questionable spending of at least $4.4 million. He is still reviewing the appropriateness of all constituency allowance claims back to 1989.

Marshall said the passage of the new law means "transparency, openness and accountability at the House of Assembly probably for the first time ever."

Update II

The 10 Commandments didn't come with a start date.

Moses took good dictation, and when he came down off Sinai, he had the whole ready to go from that instant.

There's more than something odd that when Chief Justice Derek Green handed down clear rules, the members of the House of Assembly decided they'd put off living under them for a few months; conveniently, until the election is over.

Official spokespeople will not doubt raise some lame excuse like the need to set up the new system.

Problem with that excuse is that the rules could have been implemented the day the legislation passed. They work under the old administrative system or the new one, because the rules say things like "No donations" or "If you overspend your account, you will pay out of your own pocket."

After all, how many times did we hear someone like education minister Joan Burke tell us that there were no rules and she needed someone to hand her rules to follow? or Paul Oram tell us exactly the same thing: we need rules, 'cause right now we don't have rules, so we need rules and now that we have rules, Linda/Randy/Bill, everything will be fine.

What the members of legislature missed of course is that for the past year we have had reminder after reminder about the need for accountability. Slipping through amendments and not mentioning it at all - like the 2800 secret bucks - is fundamentally the opposite of being accountable and transparent.

"Transparency and accountability are the building blocks of public confidence," Chief Justice Derek Green of the Newfoundland Supreme Court's Trial Division wrote in a 1,300-page report released Thursday. [From the Telegram]

Penetrating insight into the obvious.

But it was so obvious that the members of the legislature didn't get it.

Just like they didn't get it at any point over the past decade.

What Green recommended

Chief Justice Derek Green recommended that his draft legislation and the associated rules should come into force at the same time.

Recommendation No. 80

(1) The draft Bill, styled the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, as set out in Schedule I to this chapter of this report, should be
presented to the House of Assembly as soon as possible for debate and, if thought advisable, enactment;

(2) Upon the coming into force of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the draft set of rules, styled the Members’ Resources and
Allowances Rules, as set out in Schedule II to this chapter, should be forthwith presented to the House of Assembly Management Commission, as reconstituted under the Act, for adoption in accordance with the Act;

The House of Assembly actually did something else. The rules governing how members may spend their allowances will not come into force until after the next election.

-srbp-

Jeffrey Simpson hates Newfoundland

Well, not really.

But that's what the myth-mongers among us would have us believe.

The leading critic of Simpson's latest remarks has re-opened her blog to public view and has taken to slagging Simpson on whatever radio station has an open line show or a viewer call-back line.

Plus ca change.

What Simpson actually said is available through Offal News and Simpson's interview with CBC Radio's On the Go.

Just to show how much Simpson doesn't know about Newfoundland and Labrador - note the sarcasm - here's a column on the Churchill Falls contract from 1986.

As for Simpson's remarks on the impact of demographics, you can find similar arguments here at Bond Papers last fall and in October 2005. There is nothing new in Simpson's remarks and as Simpson told CBC radio, there are a great many leading figures in the province who have discussed the issue with him at length in private.

Your humble e-scribbler isn't a leading figure even in his own house, so draw your own conclusions on who Simpson speaks with when he comes here.

A pitiful contract
Jeffrey Simpson
The Globe and Mail
Toronto, Ont.: Jul 3, 1986.
pg. A.6

Come-By-Chance periodically provokes a nibble of interest from some Israeli or Arab consortium, but most Newfoundlanders have consigned it and the other industrial failures to the far corner of their collective memory.

Not so with Churchill Falls, the Labrador hydro-electric project whose iniquitous terms can stir indignation in any Newfoundlander.

Another Smallwood legacy, the Churchill Falls project allows Quebec to make a killing on Labrador power. Quebec buys Labrador power for the laughably low rate of 3 mills and sells it for many times that rate in the United States.

Put simply, Newfoundland is getting shafted by the deal. All legal challenges, presentations to the National Energy Board and appeals to Quebec's conscience, good name, patron saints and anything else Newfoundland could think of have failed.

Quebec, after all, has a 65- year contract freely entered into with an agent of the Newfoundland Government in 1969. The power started flowing in 1976, and Quebec has been raking in the profits ever since.

Worse still, the contract calls for steadily falling rates to be paid by Hydro-Quebec for the duration of the contract.

Every failed legal challenge by Newfoundland merely solidified the sanctity of the contract. The federal Government, knowing that Quebec has nearly 11 times more parliamentary seats than Newfoundland, has been reluctant to intervene.

Quebec is legally obligated to do nothing but keep taking Labrador power at a low price and selling it for what the market will bear. It has argued that without Hydro-Quebec's consent and money, Newfoundland could never have developed Labrador power, since Quebec stands between the Churchill River and potential export markets.

Under Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois Government, Quebec's position remained as unyielding as it was simple - a contract is a contract is a contract. That position echoed the one taken earlier in the 1970s by Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa.

Now Mr. Bourassa, who was returned to power last December, is making modest noises that perhaps Quebec might be flexible. Newfoundland formally presented new proposals to him in March, and Premier Brian Peckford wants a meeting in the coming months. Experts from Hydro-Quebec and Newfoundland Hydro have been meeting.

It is too early to know whether Quebec is serious or is merely making polite, inconsequential noises. The Churchill contract, enduringly important news in Newfoundland, stirs barely a flicker of interest in the navel-gazing Quebec media.

Any re-opening of the Churchill contract would have to be part of a broader package of developing the hydro potential of Gull Island, further along the Churchill River.

Whether Quebec is even interested in Gull Island depends, in part, on Mr. Bourassa's hydro priorities.

He is outspokenly wedded to James Bay II, and hasn't tipped his hand about Gull Island.

Mr. Bourassa, an avowed federalist, is not required to do anything to help Newfoundland, Canada's poorest province. He has the province over a barrel, and he can keep it there for as long as he wishes. A sense of decency and the spirit of federalism, however, should make him stop lording it over Newfoundland.

-srbp-

What's in a name? Hilarity, apparently

Back in late December, we brought you the story of two Atlantic Canadian regional law firms that were in the process of sorting out the new name for the firm following a merger.

Word coming from the clerks' room was that the partners of the former Patterson, Palmer and Cox, Hanson had settled on a name which had certain masturbatory overtones.

In December, the name making the rounds was Cox Palmer.

Turns out the clerks were a bit off.

Their learned betters decided the firm needed a spiffier name than the one which had been circulating.

They added an ampersand between the two words to unveil:

Cox & Palmer

The addition of that one tiny symbol - much like sticking a fig leaf on David - was supposedly proof against anyone possibly seeing any implications of onanistic pleasure among the briefs.

Job done.

Why bring this up now?

Well, truth be told, it was an issue long forgotten. Until it popped up on the chyron beneath John Crosbie's name as he testified at the senate committee on national finance.

There was the old anti cake-spewer described as "Partner, Cox & Palmer".

Somehow it seemed to make perfect sense.

-srbp-

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.

-srbp-

Danny William's speech: full text

From Offal News, the text of Premier Danny Williams' speech to NOIA's annual conference.

-srbp-

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.

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.

-srbp-

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:

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.

-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.94

Churchill'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.

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.

But the national unity aspired to by the old Progressive Conservative party — even if it was only fleetingly achieved — is sorely missed.

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.

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-

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.

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:

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-

Rodney grasps at straws

Grassroots stuff like petitions are best left to grassroots people, not Premiers.

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-

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.

-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.

-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.

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-