Mile One could be profitable.
It can't be profitable in the hands of St. John's City Council.
This year's deficit will be over $2.0 million. That's a $600,000 shortfall plus the increased operating subsidy from Council.
There's only one sensible solution: sell Mile One stadium.
-srbp-
Gerry Reid will announce he is leaving politics today. That's the most likely announcement he'll make.
In the meantime, the Yvonne Jones will take the job as leader of the party.
She'll also be a candidate for the leadership at the next annual general meeting in October, 2008, but for the time being Jones will claim she's just thinking about it.
Then, like party president Danny Dumaresque is already reportedly doing, Jones will quietly assemble her team and her supporters. It gives the party insiders an unfair advantage over all other comers. Heavens knows the party doesn't need either Jones or Dumaresque at the helm, let alone after letting them have the chance to rig the process in order to get the job.
Here's the thing:
Dumaresque should already be punted as party president. The fact he's considering a run at the leader's job is just one more excuse beyond the dozens of reasons why he shouldn't be party president. He won't resign. So put the question to him about the leadership. If Dumaresque cannot categorically state he won't run, it's up to the party executive to fire him. On the spot. No questions asked.
Ditto Jones.
Either she commits to stay out of the leadership race or she doesn't take the leaders job.
The Old Hand Shuffle is one of the things that got the party into this mess in the first place. More of the same will only guarantee the political hole Jones and her friends are in will get deeper.
-srbp-
From a 2006 commentary in The Leeward Times, St. Kitts and Nevis, the following observations about a development by Newfound Group in the tiny Caribbean nation.
The election mentioned in the paragraph did take place and resulted in a new administration. The local government and the developers entered into a new agreement which reduced Newfound's tax holiday from 30 years to 20 years, returned some 172 acres of land to the local government and reportedly included a commitment by Newfound to establish a trades school specializing in tourism-related courses.
We now hear that the government has entered into an agreement to sell some 600 acres of Nevis’ best land to Newfound Group Ltd. The plan of Newfound Group, according to Newfound at the ceremony held in their honour on September 18, 2005, is to have a 150-room hotel and some 400 villas on not less than one acre of land. These villas will be for US1Mmillion. Why did government not do the reverse and make them have 400 hotel rooms and 150 villas? Hotel rooms generate more employment and revenue than villas. In St. Kitts the Newfound Group is building a hotel on 40 acres of land, which would have more hotel rooms than in Nevis where they will have 600 acres. Imagine in St. Kitts they got 540 acres less yet they are building more hotel rooms. It is obvious that the St. Kitts Government is way smarter than the Nevis Government. Why did Government allow these people to buy so much of public land? Couldn’t they only sell them 300 acres and leave the other 300 for another potential hotel development? Why is it that the Government made this deal without any public consultation? Is this deal truly in the best interests of the people of Nevis? Minister Guishard, at the same ceremony on September 18, 2005 boldly proclaimed that there is now NO MORE BEACHFRONT PROPERTY IN NEVIS LEFT FOR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT on the best side of Nevis, i.e., the Caribbean Sea. Is this what we really want? Why have we put all our eggs in one basket? Does the government realise that by selling villas for US$1M they are creating a Nevis that will be on sale to the VERY RICH and VERY FAMOUS as NO Nevisian can afford to buy any of those villas? Nevis is 36 square miles. Does the Government realise that it has sold more than one square mile of the 36 that Nevis has to some foreign developers for them to turn the island into a place almost exclusively for foreigners? Why is it that the Government was in so much of a rush to enter into an agreement with these people? Is it because an election is looming that they hurriedly decided to sign the deal so that they could say that after 14 years they have finally brought some sort of meaningful foreign investment?
It must be interesting for Newfound's Newfoundland officials to be on the receiving end of this sort of criticism or commentary.
Will this story ever be covered by The Independent?
-srbp-
Newfound NV announced on November 8 that it has been unable to secure US$21 million in working capital for the company's Newfoundland operation at Humber Valley.
Newfound will now attempt to raise five million pounds sterling through a new issue of shares to existing directors "at a significant discount to market price".
Newfound reported in late September that it was "in the process of finalising" the financing for it's Humber Valley Resort. The company also reported a pretax US$7.4 million loss in the first half of 2007 compared to a US$1.8 million profit the previous year. Newfound's current trading information may be found at several spots including google financial reports.
None of these news releases is contained in the publicly accessible "press room" portion of the company website. They may be located in the "investor relations" section, however, a prominent legal warning requires a viewer to confirm that they do not reside in one of several jurisdictions - including Canada - before proceeding to other pages. Oddly, the warning page is posted through flash animation and cannot be copied. Likewise, the navigation links blocked the page path and thereby preventing posting a link to even the page containing the warning.
According to Thomson Financial, Newfound's September 26 statement indicated the company was also seeking financing of US$30 million for its St. Kitts and Nevis development. In May 2006, Newfound purchased land in St. Kitts and Nevis for the development of a resort to include a 150-room hotel, 400 "upscale" villas and an 18-hole golf course. Reported cost was US$21 million.
In the photo at right, Newfound corporate vice president and attorney Derrick White is shown presenting a cheque for US$10 million to Premier Vance Amory as part of the land purchase.
Two years ago, St. Kitts and Nevis prime minister Dr. Denzil Douglas told carribeannetnews.com:
“Even in Frigate Bay, which is now virtually built out, the Newfound Group out of Canada, in conjunction with National Bank, TDC and Rams, is pursuing a major hotel and condominium project; and the Frigate Bay Development Corporation is in the process of constructing a very impressive villa and commercial development project that will significantly enhance the tourism-related amenities in Potato Bay and the surrounding areas,” said Prime Minister Douglas. [Emphasis added]
The project was renegotiated earlier this year:
According to Parry, the initial agreement between the Developers and the former CCM Administration was renegotiated to reflect a reduction of 10 years tax holiday from the initial 30 year period under the old contract to 20 in line with the regular arrangements of that nature here.
The new agreement also reflected the recovery of over 172 acres of land in addition to the historical sights (which had not been mentioned in the previous proposal), for the people of Nevis in exchange for a reduction of the purchase price from $21 million to $19 million.
“What this means is that as the value of these lands increase and improves in value and there are capital gains, we (Nevis) would benefit to the point where we will end up having millions of dollars for the continuing development of Nevis.
“I wish to make this point as well, we (Nevisians) were told that the cost of the lands was $10 million but when you are building, the cost of the loan to cover the 10 million you are really paying $18 million and we would have only benefited to the tune of $3million. So now we are talking about millions of dollars because of this deal that the Nevis Island Government will have for future development of the island,” he said.
The project is now reported to commence construction in 2008, but had been originally touted as beginning in January 2006 with estimated completion in March 2007.
[h/t to Gary Kelly and crazyaboutnewfoundland.com]
-srbp-
One of the better blogs around is written by Gary Kelly; Gary offers sharp writing on diverse topics backed by research and accompanied by links.
Regular Bond Papers readers will recognized the links labeled Top o' the Pile. That's where Gary belongs and that's where he is now.
In a post last week, Gary discussed an issue that arose over his use of a photograph from the Western Star. The Corner Brook daily took exception to Gary's uncredited use of one of their images, which Gary freely acknowledges was the case. He also linked to the original story, so, as Gary notes, he wasn't stealing their bandwidth. Gary took down the photo.
While I technically understand the position of the Western Star in asking me to take the photo down, I have to question the we vs. us mentality.
You know what really must frighten the Western Star? I took the photo down four minutes after receiving their email. How long would it take them to do that? How long does it take to print a retraction?
You know what else must frighten the Western Star? If you do a Google search for Corner Brook City Hall - this blog comes up third on the list. I have no fixed costs compared to the local newspaper. That could be the subject of an entire blog all by itself.
Honestly, Gary might find that not to be the issue so much as the uncredited use of the Star's intellectual property. Gary cites some statistics on blog traffic and the value of blog links. He might be right but there might be a way of coming to an agreement with the Star's editorial board that would work for both sides.
Using photographs is an issue that all bloggers come across at some point. Over the past two and a half years, Bond has has taken to giving a photo credit unless the photo comes from the anonymous pile of stuff that is just untraceable. Yes, as some have noted, Bond has used commercial shots, like say the Simpsons, but more often than not, photos come from Canadian Press, the CBC or the Telegram.
Most Bond posts these days are composed on Windows Live Writer and that piece of software has been a godsend. The picture handling feature allows for watermarks to be included and that's where the credit goes, as in this shot by Jonathan Hayward of Canadian Press. Adding credit in this way doesn't detract from the image and it makes damned sure everyone knows where it came from.
In one of the most popular photos at Bond - voted by reader calls and e-mails - the origin of the shot is actually contained in the lower right on the original. Yep. It's from the Mother Corp, so there's no additional credit listed.
CBC has a fairly extensive policy on the use of its online materials and, as with the Star in all likelihood, the Corp will defend its copyright. Any time any copyright holder has exerted his or her rights, Bond has responded accordingly. In some cases, pictures have been removed. In others, the copyright holder has given express permission based on certain conditions being met. It isn't always a matter of money changing hands - sometimes it is sufficient that credit be given to the creator of the intellectual property.
Blog writers should understand that simple concept since they generate intellectual property of their own. While it's done for free and made readily available through the Internet, people shouldn't be claiming ideas, words or phrases contained on blogs without some measure of credit.
More often than not, Bond has been able to operate successfully using photographs and other images based on the understanding that this is not a competitor of the originator. In other words, a blog like Bond Papers isn't a news outlet like the CBC or the Telly and it isn't a commercial enterprise.
Maybe that makes a difference.
Maybe the Star will take a different view. It might only take an e-mail from Gary back to the managing editor proposing a straightforward arrangement. If Gary can demonstrate through his traffic statistics the value of his links, then the Star might relent. Editors and producers aren't usually stunned. In fact, Gary will likely find that most of them are interested in working out a problem to the benefit of all concerned. After all, rather than competing with news organizations, blogs can add to the mix of opinion and commentary and sometimes serve as leads to stories. The whole thing can work for all concerned. it just has to start with an appreciation by one for the other.
-srbp-
From Oh!, What a lovely war, a poignant commentary that combines a popular soldier's ditty from the Great War with one of the best known lines of poetry from the same war.
1. Attack, Siegfried Sassoon
2. Escape, Robert Graves
(August 6, 1916.—Officer previously reported died of
wounds, now reported wounded: Graves, Captain R.,
Royal Welch Fusiliers.)
... But I was dead, an hour or more.
I woke when I'd already passed the door
That Cerberus guards, and half-way down the road
To Lethe, as an old Greek signpost showed.
Above me, on my stretcher swinging by,
I saw new stars in the subterrene sky:
A Cross, a Rose in bloom, a Cage with bars,
And a barbed Arrow feathered in fine stars.
I felt the vapours of forgetfulness
Float in my nostrils. Oh, may Heaven bless
Dear Lady Proserpine, who saw me wake,
And, stooping over me, for Henna's sake
Cleared my poor buzzing head and sent me back
Breathless, with leaping heart along the track.
After me roared and clattered angry hosts
Of demons, heroes, and policeman-ghosts.
"Life! life! I can't be dead! I won't be dead!
Damned if I'll die for any one!" I said....
Cerberus stands and grins above me now,
Wearing three heads—lion, and lynx, and sow.
"Quick, a revolver! But my Webley's gone,
Stolen!... No bombs ... no knife....
The crowd swarms on,
Bellows, hurls stones.... Not even a honeyed sop ...
Nothing.... Good Cerberus!... Good dog!... but stop!
Stay!... A great luminous thought ... I do believe
There's still some morphia that I bought on leave."
Then swiftly Cerberus' wide mouths I cram
With army biscuit smeared with ration jam;
And sleep lurks in the luscious plum and apple.
He crunches, swallows, stiffens, seems to grapple
With the all-powerful poppy ... then a snore,
A crash; the beast blocks up the corridor
With monstrous hairy carcase, red and dun—
Too late! for I've sped through.
O Life! O Sun!
3. Infantry, near Nijmegan, Holland, Alex Colville (Canadian War Museum collection)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn't seem quite as smug this Saturday as say he has on any day over the past two weeks.
There's a new affidavit in the old Mulroney-Airbus scandal and this time it mentions Harper. There's a letter to harper from Karlheinz Schrieber, the man at the centre of the allegations.
All this has the prime Minister appointing an independent review of the allegations, essentially something far short of the public inquiry needed but still far from Harper's insistence that it would be dangerous to investigate allegations involving a former administration or prime minister.
Volte-face, the Globe calls it pretentiously.
Most of us would say about-face, or if you are from Newfoundland and Labrador, you'd know the political flip-flops all too well from watching Harper's provincialist doppelganger.
Such is its magnitude that even the National Post couldn't ignore the change-in-direction story, although the coverage has a noticeably different tone to the Globe work.
Catch video of the Prime Minister's news conference at ctv.ca.
Note one really interesting thing toward the end of harper's remarks in English: Harper says that Mulroney never spoke to him "on behalf of" Schreiber nor presented documents from Schreiber. he didn't deny in his own statement that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had never discussed the Schreiber allegations and the entire affair with the current prime minister.
In a carefully crafted statement that said the same thing in French as in English, those particularly carefully chosen words might turn out to the the pivot on which the whole affair turns.
Expect the federal Conservatives to back off their election provocation pretty quickly.
-srbp-
Canada's toddler government wants to ship the National Portrait Gallery to a permanent home in one of nine cities across Canada.
These cities have a relatively large population, which will provide an important local visitor base; are easily accessible with effective transportation networks; and have the potential to attract both domestic and international visitorship.
Ottawa meets all those requirements and it has one other significant advantage: it's the freakin' capital of Canada, where most human beings around the world and certainly most Canadians would expect to find a national asset like the portrait gallery located.
As it is Canadians have in front of them a fine start to one of the usual rows that occur when the national government is reduced to yet another source of pork to be argued over by parochial/provincialist interests.
Quebec nationalists will make a pitch and will likely get it since two of the sites chosen are in Quebec. It won't hurt that the anal retentive first minister's office needs seats in Quebec and is currently hurting politically in that province.
Newfoundland nationalists, led by Danny Williams and his own afternoon VOCM radio version of Lord Ha Ha, will see the exclusion of Newfoundland from the list of potential cities as yet further evidence of the failures of Confederation.
Don't be surprised if there's a pitch made to have the gallery located in Corner Brook or a sudden provincial government initiative - introduced as having been under consideration for many months - to create a national portrait gallery "of our own" on a "got-it-alone basis. "
That will definitely be located in Corner Brook, unless AbitibiBowater decides to shut the Grand Falls mill.
-srbp-
The penchant for pushing "good news" in this the last polling period for government's official pollster has reached new highs.
or is it lows?
Approval of a new sewerage lift system for the community of Heart's Delight-Islington warranted a news release from the municipal affairs department in among the veritable core dump of "news" from the government's division of poll goosing.
While this is no doubt of great interest to the people of the lovely Trinity Bay community, it hardly seems necessary to make such a large issue of this that it involves not only flatulent comments by the minister responsible for scheisse-shifting set-ups but flowery verbiage from his cabinet colleague and the member for the area.
Said "news" included comments by municipal affairs minister Dave Denine linking "strong, sustainable rural and regional economies" with things like the installation of a new merde-motivation machine. One can imagine the endless promotional possibilities the business department can make of this development.
Local member Charlene Johnson praised her colleague for approving the project and added that the new excreta elevator will ensure "maximize safe and reliable service for the residents of Heart’s Delight-Islington...".
Reliable turd trucking is certainly something we would all wish for the lovely people of Heart's Delight-Islington.
And, in most circumstances, few would argue against ensuring that drek-disposal was maximized.
But safe?
It makes one wonder what lurks in the 'loos in Johnson's neck of the woods and whence comes the toilet-borne terrors.
It seems especially ill-chosen a word considering that the provincial government's communications division's evacuations - like this one - lay about stinking up the joint, in seemingly increasing numbers.
-srbp-
Offal News posted an audio recording of human resources minister Shawn Skinner's profuse apology and backtracking exercise discussed earlier at both Offal News and Bond Papers.
Give it a listen.
You can really hear the magnitude of the reaction not from Skinner on his own, but likely from Skinner's boss or The Boss' staff.
"There are some people who've indicated to me," says Skinner, " that they felt that was the spin that was put it." The "spin" to use Skinner's words would be the suggestion that he wasn't really supportive of Danny Williams' ABC, anti-Harper campaign.
Skinner indicates that he apologized to the Premier, although an apology seems odd if there really wasn't anything that he said in the beginning that he ought to apologise for. On the same day Danny's only outside ally in the War on Harper went down to defeat at the hands of a Harper ally, there just wasn't any way Danny Williams wanted to spend any time suggesting that - despite the obvious comments - he had at least one minister prepared to say publicly that he was interested in getting on with the job and leaving the loafer-pissing to someone else. Skinner's not alone in the caucus or the cabinet. He's just the one with the cajones to say so publicly, even if inadvertently.
After all, Skinner's reason for calling Open Line this morning - supposedly on his own initiative - was to explain that what some people might attribute to him was not what he meant.
Why apologize for something you didn't say?
Supposedly didn't say.
You can follow the click to Offal or just watch the video below.
-srbp-
Jonathan Crowe: But I mean, your boss is saying "Anybody But Conservative" in the next election. That's gotta be difficult when you meet Minister Hearn out in the lobby and shake hands.
Hon. Shawn Skinner: Not for me, it isn't. My boss can vote for who he wishes. He can mark his 'X' where he wishes to mark it. From my perspective, I have a job to do. I'm elected by the people of St. John's Centre. I'm in cabinet representing the people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and I have a job to do. And I'm going to do that to the best of my ability.
If and when there is a federal election, we all as individual citizens can make up our own minds what we want to do. I'm here today as a provincial minister and I'm carrying out my duties as a provincial minister.
These words are causing Skinner such problems that he apparently felt the need - or more likely was ordered - to call Randy Simms just now and explain that he was completely behind his Leader in the anti-Harper campaign.
And Randy bought Skinner's explanation.
Problem solved.
Not at all.
First of all, Simms seems rather quick to accept one side of a story these days even if the other side is equally plausible and neither side has been proven correct by an independent review. Think fundraising, accountants and a shoe that has yet to drop on that set of ledger books.
Second, Skinner's comments are pretty obviously out of step with Danny Williams' plan to fight against the federal Conservatives. One would have to be willfully blind to miss the sentence "my boss can vote for who he wishes," followed right away by the clear statement that meanwhile I, Shawn Skinner, am elected by the people of my district to represent them.
Skinner's been known to make some ill-advised remarks, but it's pretty hard to imagine in this instance that he didn't mean what he said or that he was taken "out of context". bankrupting the province was obviously out of context and Simms and other news media jumped all over that one.
Here, though, we have another matter. It's highly likely - as in, bet the farm on it - that there is some disagreement within the current administration with the ongoing war with Ottawa.
That disagreement on Williams' policy is reflected in Skinner's remarks. It's blatantly obvious.
Cabinet ministers represent the people of the province and need to have a working relationship with whichever administration is in power in the federal government. Most don't have that right now and the only way to fix it is to get Danny to settle the blood feud.
The problem for local Tories is all the worse given that most of them are good friends with their Conservative counterparts and have been working the same campaigns and same backrooms for years. They certainly wouldn't want to campaign against Tom Osborne, for example, or Jack Byrne should those fellows actually take a run for federal politics. Given the internal Tory fractures, it would very hard for Danny Williams to deploy a cohesive political force behind any Liberal or New Democrat candidate. Williams might be able to force Shawn Skinner to tug the forelock and apologise to Williams publicly because Shawn likes the cabinet job he holds.
But would Shawn be prepared to pull a Scott Simms and go knocking doors for the New Democrat in St. John's South?
This schism within the local Tories is apparent enough that the federal Conservatives are working to exploit it. Loyola Hearn and his federal friends are nowhere near as politically stunned as Lorraine, Yvonne and the other Danny. Case on point: the letters on disaster compensation. Don't think they came from the provincial side of the racket. There are other, less obvious signs, but the signs are there that the Connies are trying to wedge open those cracks in the Danny Williams team just a wee bit wider than they are.
And Shawn?
Well, he just said what other local Tories are saying behind closed doors and in small groups, just like some have started to explore leadership options for the time only a few short months from now when we will be in a post-Danny Dannyland.
The next few months are going to be very interesting.
-srbp-
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro chairman Dean MacDonald tells an Ontario energy association meeting that when it comes to the Lower Churchill development "[w]hen you look at what the impediments are in front of us [to transmit power across Quebec to Ontario], we really have no alternative" than to build a power line through the Maritimes and ship power into the United States.
Meanwhile, Premier Danny Williams tells local reporters that, contrary to the implication of MacDonald's comments, Hydro hasn't abandoned the East-West sale potential.
On the face of it, this speech looks like a negotiating ploy by Dean. Tell the Ontarians we have power but can't get it across Quebec to you. Therefore, pressure Ottawa to intervene. In fact, the Globe story makes that pretty clear:
He urged Ontario energy executives and government officials to pressure Ottawa to intervene in the dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, which are "rolling around in the mud" over the issues of access to markets and transmission systems.
Newfoundland has filed a submission with Quebec regulatory officials to require Hydro-Québec to deliver Lower Churchill power to markets through its transmission system, but it's a long process, Mr. MacDonald said. "With the lack of a connection between the provinces east-west ... we'll follow the path of least resistance, which is south," he said.
Then again, Dean's remarks also fit with comments he's made in the past and echoed by the Premier. Cost isn't an issue with the route through the Maritimes, according to both Williams and MacDonald; "if it costs us an extra billion to go north-south, we'll be the masters of our own destiny."
There's no conflict between Williams and MacDonald. They are both consistently singing the same song and it would perfectly in character for both men to use a speech like this to try and elicit some political intervention in the case.
There is a problem with their approach, however.
MacDonald was speaking to a sophisticated audience that can crunch the real numbers on the Maritimes route. These people know the idea of the alternate route costing "an extra billion" lowballs the real number, lowballs the overall cost and therefore doesn't even come close to explaining how the power can get to an American market at a competitive price. it's an historic problem and one that might only be solved - as has been suggested - by selling the power at or even below cost in the initial stages.
These Ontario energy players also know that MacDonald's team has so far only been able to turn up only one exploratory memorandum of understanding with one theoretical, potential customer and even that was for only 200 megawatts.
They likely think the whole posture MacDonald is taking is a big bluff.
How can you tell?
MacDonald said so: "I think a lot of people thought we were bluffing. We're not...".
When you have to state categorically that you aren't bluffing, that's a pretty big clue you are spinning a tale in which even you lack confidence.
Why not just promise to hold your breath until you turn blue?
It would be about as convincing and about as effective.
-srbp-
Photographers sometimes capture images that they didn't see, but which turn up in the process of sorting shots after a shoot.
Like this one, taken during the recent campaign. Nope, it hasn't been photoshopped.
This is the original image as the premier adjusted his glasses during a speech.
Did he mean to do it?
Well, he meant to adjust his spectacles, but many of us use the middle finger to move our eyeglasses upward on the bridge of our nose.
Beyond that, there's no way of knowing if Danny wanted to send Steve a message.
Doesn't really matter.
It's still funny.
Danny Williams.
Middle finger salute.
And low and behold, a rather glum and sour expression.
-srbp-
In the Wednesday Globe, Derek Butler, executive director of the Association of Seafood Producers of Newfoundland and Labrador, offers some frank insights into the state of the province's fishery and on the way ahead.
The fishery remains of great value. Newfoundland & Labrador‘s industry represents 25 per cent of landed value of seafood in Canada. The country's seafood exports totaled $4.1-billion, of which Newfoundland & Labrador's share was $798.2-million. Heady figures indeed. So where's the problem?
After the collapse of the ground fish and pelagics fisheries, programs were implemented to reduce the number of participants in the industry, to make it more viable for those remaining. Yet we have not done that. For too many years now we have struggled to qualify workers (those in the know will heave a collective sigh) and dissipate the wealth in the industry. Our intentions were good. Keep people working and share the wealth, but to such a degree, that few people could truly make a go of it.
The reason we are having a crisis is because we are expecting the fishery to carry 30-plus crab plants, and a dozen or more shrimp plants, and tens of dozens of ground fish and pelagics plants. We must break the cycle of false hope by adopting a rationalization program and putting in place funding to help those affected. At some point, government and the people in affected communities must be protected from the delusion that 10 weeks' work is enough.
...
Industry – harvesters and processors – both know that we must adapt to face the new realities of a more competitive China, higher fuel prices and the stronger dollar. Instead, we have gone about things as of old, and expected a different result. That's, as the saying goes, the definition of insanity. That challenge includes requiring a fresh look at the price setting mechanisms in the industry, unique in the world (Joey Smallwood's last piece of legislation in 1972). We have a collective bargaining structure for what is essentially a business to business relationship. We negotiate minimum prices around a table, and then go out on wharves around the province to conduct a second set of ‘free-market' negotiations and auctioneering precisely because the prices negotiated formally are minimums, and the overcapacity leads to irrational economics. This renders the collective bargaining process obviously redundant.
Are there bright spots out there? Yes, if one takes hope from the government-led renewal initiative last year (though of merit, it was not all industry had hoped for). The resource remains strong, and the industry is tackling new challenges like eco-labeling with the pending Marine Stewardship Council certification for northern shrimp, showing our coldwater shrimp comes from a sustainable, well-managed fishery.
But the same can't be said for the economic viability of the industry itself, in either harvesting or processing. It may be that the challenges of industry renewal are truly intractable political problems. Fair enough, but if it's confession time, no one is on their knees - except in terms of the economics.
-srbp-
1. In the cause for electoral reform or political reform or some kind of reform: another riding taken by a party already in dictatorship territory, with 38% of the vote.
2. For incompetence: Proof the current executive of the party - and especially the president - need a vacation.
Well, more like a retirement, actually, but a bit more permanent.
3. Blindness: New Democrats. A wake-up call that there is no "labour" vote. Re-think your approach to politics
-srbp-
Someone released a bunch of letters between the provincial and federal governments about emergency response funding.
From a media standpoint, yesterday belonged to the feds:
The province argues Ottawa has not made good on outstanding claims for flooding in Stephenville in 2005 and a storm surge in February 2006. The province asked in August for an advance on damages caused by Tropical Storm Chantal.
But federal Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, in letters to the province obtained by CBC News, said that the ball is in the province's court, and that the federal government has not received the appropriate paperwork.
Newly minted municipal affairs minister Dave Denine responded today with a news release.
There's a brave attempt to blame the federal government, but the essence of the release is contained in the lede, namely the provincial government is having problems collecting because it is having problems, "most of which relate to difficulties associated with requirements under federal accounting and audit processes."
There's nothing surprising in that, nor in the subsequent paragraph in which Denine says that information is submitted, further information is requested by the feds and that - quite obviously - slows the process. Anyone who has dealt with the federal government, especially in the wake of Gomery, will know that federal financial controls are pretty stringent. That may come as a bit of a culture shock to people used to dealing with - ooooh, maybe the House of Assembly - but the federal system is the kind of accounting and audit system one would expect from a competent administration looking after other people's, i.e. public, money.
At that point, though, Denine's release goes a bit off the rails:
"Federal representatives have made misleading statements to the media in stating that they have made advancements of $21 million in recent years. In fact, these payments date back to events between 1973 and the present," said Minister Denine. "We are also concerned about statements made by federal officials that advance federal payments can be provided to the province when, in reality, the federal program does not provide for any payments, advance or otherwise, until work has been completed and documentation is submitted which, in some cases, can take years."
That comes right after he acknowledges this:
In relation to events since 2000, the province has received $7.1 million in interim payments from the Federal Government through the DFAA program, including $2.3 million for Storm Surge 2000, $2.6 million for Tropical Storm Gabrielle 2001, $1.0 million for Badger Flood 2003, and $1.2 million for West Coast Flood 2003. [Italics added]
That's basically what the feds claimed in their letters. "interim". "advance". Potato, potato.
After trying to accuse the federal officials of making misleading statements, Denine gets back to the core of the issue: the provincial government has been having some consistent problems in getting the paperwork filled out properly. And yes, to its credit, this administration has put in place a new emergency response organization within government that takes emergency services out of the basement and gives it the prominence it deserves.
And, unfortunately for those who really want to understand emergency response, Denine leaves the most important point to the end: emergency response is a provincial responsibility. The provincial government policies should provide compensation and it is the provincial government which is reimbursed for its costs.
The people should not be inconvenienced, if they are at all.
Has anyone bothered ask if the province hasn't been compensating people until it receives federal cash?
-srbp-
An e-mail this morning drew my attention to the use of the poppy, which, until this morning, was prominently displayed at the top of the right hand navigation bar at Bond Papers for more than a week.
As it drew closer to November 11, I went looking for an appropriate image to use and found, largely by accident, a very attractive rendering of the poppy. Turns out it was actually the Royal Canadian Legion's official version.
Perfect, so it seemed. I also looked for a link to the Legion's Poppy Fund but couldn't find one; there was plenty of background on the poppy and remembrance but nothing that offered an opportunity to contribute to the fund and thereby support the legion's work on behalf of veterans.
The e-mail linked to a post which ultimately linked back to a controversy from 2005 about the use of the poppy by Pierre Bourque on his site. Copyright and trademark are serious issues so if the Royal Canadian Legion is actively defending its rights, Bond Papers will respect that. The poppy is gone.
But here's the thing.
I scoured the Legion website trying to find links, images that were available for use or even a specific e-mail address for the Legion's Dominion Command communications section.
Nada.
Zip.
Rien.
Compare that to the Royal British Legion site. There are numerous contacts for poppy images, corporate relations and the Poppy Appeal.
In place of the poppy, you'll find at the right an image for the Veteran's Affairs Remembrance Week. Veterans' Affairs Canada not only has a page with good links and useful information, VAC actually makes versions of its banner available in varying sizes for just such uses as the one here at Bond Papers. On top of that VAC supplies html code - that's right they actually make it easy for people to take the images and reproduce them, complete with embedded links back to the VAC website.
The week leading up to Remembrance Day is a time of respect and remembrance. That was the intention of using the poppy and that remains the intention. Out of respect to the Legion, its members and their rights, the poppy is gone. The VAC banner is a fitting alternative.
If the Legion had provided any useful contact information beyond the standard "info@" junkmail address, I might have sought permission. Frankly, since a better address isn't available and since the Legion hasn't gone through the effort of offering any simple code or an appropriate portion of their website to link to, I took it that they really weren't interested in the contact in the first place. That's my assumption and mine alone, but when people don't make it easy for anyone to contact them, that usually signals disinterest.
The Legion might want to rethink their approach.
-srbp-
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
'Tis that time of the year once more, dear friends, when the political origins of an ancient commemoration once more slips a wee bit more from the popular view. This is a shame since in the events marked by bonfires in many parts of the Commonwealth we may find a timely inspiration.
The Gunpowder Plot was an attempt at violent political change and the book and movie from which the opening quote is taken contained its share of violence. Yet, violence is not as sure a means of effecting political change as knowledge and words.
Discovery of the Plot set back the cause of Roman Catholic emancipation in Britain for some two centuries, yet experts will equally argue that had the plot succeeded in killing the King and the Protestant members of parliament, it may well have led to a period of even greater repression of Roman Catholicism throughout the United Kingdom.
Compare that experience with events in India before 1947 or in the United States when the power of non-violence coupled with information produced far more dramatic and positive social and political changes.
The truth is that governments in the past century of human civilization do fear their people. They fear not so much the potential for violent revolution, although that has occurred. Rather if we look to Pakistan of just the past few days, we see the actions of a government declaring martial law because it feared the prospect of a change in government administration through legal, i.e. peaceful means. The pretext for martial law is a particular decision of the country's Supreme Court, but the struggle between the courts and General Pervez Musharraf go back many months. The rule of law has been frustrating the General's plans and, in some respects, it may only have been a matter of time before Musharraf or another member of the armed forces that has ruled the country for too many years seized power.
Closer to home we may also see evidence of a government that fears its people. The Prime Minister recently ruled out the prospect of an inquiry into allegations against one of his predecessors, not because the allegations have already been reviewed, but because such an inquiry would be "dangerous".
Yet neither the Prime Minister nor his predecessor found the prospect of public inquiries into other matters to be "politically driven", or in the case of Paul Martin sufficiently dangerous to his own political fortunes to serve as an excuse for not appointing an investigation.
The Prime Minister, we would contend might be afraid of the implications such an inquiry might have for his own administration. He is almost certainly afraid of undermining his own politically driven use of past misdeeds.
Closer to home, we find another government and another first minister seemingly afraid of the people. The struggle in this instance is waged with words that are effectively stripped of any real meaning. The legislature is kept closed while the evidence makes plain that the excuses offered by the cabinet are nonsense.
People are warned against demanding increased public spending on one or another cause they consider good because of "the debt." Never mind that the debt has increased and that public spending under the current administration has kept pace with the flow of petro-dollars; the spending of course, is on things which the government considers important. People should scarcely need reminding that this same administration has refused to tell the people what they will actually be charging developers for the right to develop public natural resources and fought for the longest time to prevent an inquiry into spending on fibreoptic cables. These are actions, we are reminded of an open, accountable and transparent government.
Therein lies the clearest example of how governments show their fear of the people who they would rule. Culture and history are malleable and the very meaning of common words may be altered to the point where even reasonable people cannot grasp the inherent contradictions in what they claim.
I like the fact that our current premier seems intent on appealing to the strengths and skills of the people of this place. I like the fact that his government beefed up the rules for MHAs in the wake of the constituency-allowance spending scandal, based on Chief Justice Derek Green’s recommendations.
or from the earlier column:
He preaches that the solution lies not with him, but with us.
How "he" alone accomplishes this we do not know, especially when the political program is designed to increase government control over resources rather than creating an environment in which enterprising individuals may flourish. How "he" should be credited with introducing those rules when, as anyone may well see, "he" allowed the inappropriate spending - the allowances not the alleged criminal activity - to flourish until discovery of the latter revealed the former; let us not forget either that implementing those rules was delayed, as the columnist's own paper reported, while people were led to believe something else. The "solution" - no problem is defined - cannot rest with "us" when the entire premise of the administration is founded on "him" being in charge; "us" should dutifully follow and offer only positive suggestions in support of whatever is decided by "him" and "his" ministers.
Words can have no meaning in a world where they are changed at whim, where information is withheld from the public and where, as it turns out, even editors have let slip the mooring lines of fact.
I remember how the meaning of words began to change. How unfamiliar words like "collateral" and "rendition" became frightening, while things like Norsefire and the Articles of Allegiance became powerful. I remember how "different" became dangerous.
Another writer called it Newspeak, but in other works, George Orwell demonstrated his clear appreciation of how language may be perverted to obscure meaning and thereby frustrate public understanding. In some countries, governments show their fear of people with violence. In others, they show fear by doing violence to language and history.
Both fears are rooted in the understanding that power rests ultimately the individuals within a society. Yet in any democracy worthy of the name, there is no legitimate reason for fear nor for the response it seems to engender from the governors toward the governed.
In Pakistan, the country has taken a step backward from democracy and only time will tell how the Pakistani people will respond.
In Canada, we may continue to work for change and to exercise our power as citizens in a democracy in the country as a whole or within the province. We must reject the debasement of language and history.
True power, after all, does not come from the barrel of a gun. It comes from the exercise of basic freedoms, despite what some governors may ponder.
As individuals in a free society, we should remember that true power comes from the mind.
-srbp-