In some of the corners of the online word, Warren Kinsella and Damien Penny are slogging it out over something or other.
But would Penny being from Newfoundland - a "Newf" as Warren puts it - be relevant to the discussion?
Methinks not, but this will soon become another example of the great evils done to the Far East of the Western World by mainlanders.
Can't we all just get along, people?
Super duper quick update: Warren apologises.
-srbp-
Bond digs deeper and finds surprising result in AG saga
It's one thing to be blamed for something you did.
It's quite another to be blamed for something you didn't do.
It's another thing again to be accused of something you didn't do and then keep silent about the whole business.
In this instance, we are talking about a supposed gag order applied by the House of Assembly on the Auditor General when he makes reports on the legislature's operations.
The Telegram reported in late December that provisions of the House Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act "sets out special treatment for MHAs and House staff who may have improperly retained public money, and gags the auditor general from talking about such situations."
CBC recently took up the same point. On top of that the opposition party leaders are now raising questions about the issue.
The Canadian Press story on the opposition leaders' comments makes a fundamental error of fact when it states this:
The new law exempts legislature members and some staff from public auditor general reports involving "the improper retention or misappropriation of public money.
A Telegram editorial makes a similar erroneous comment:
It also means that we will probably never see another scandal like the one uncovered by the AG.
Why? Because, among other reasons, if an AG finds such a scandal, he or she is now specifically forbidden to tell us about it.
Pure nonsense. Bond Papers already dealt with the Telly editorial, but it's worth reviewing it again.
Section 45 of the new House of Assembly administration act sets out essentially the same directions to the Auditor General as the ones contained in s.15 of the Auditor General Act: if he or his officials find a suspected case of improper retention of public funds, then he must report the case to authorities. s.45 specifies more people must be advised of the report than under the old s.15 and it includes - for the first time - clear direction that the accused person must have the right to address the allegations from the outset.
And while it's true that s. 45 does say the Auditor General cannot disclose anything about the report initially, as with s. 15, the AG is required - by law - to include a reference to the report in his next major report to the House of Assembly. That is a public document. Even in the worst case scenario, the longest period that would pass before the public would learn something of a s.45 report is a year.
12 months.
Not never.
Well, unless there is a conspiracy of such dimensions that no law could be written to preclude it. But for all conceivable circumstances and in light of the scandal itself, it is very hard to see how reporters might miss such a reference next month or the month after or even in three years time.
Just to be sure, here are the two sections of the bills laid side by side, in their entirety so you can read for yourself. The words are simple. The sentences are not complex.
| Improper retention of public money 15. (1) Where during the course of an audit, the auditor general becomes aware of an improper retention or misappropriation of public money or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another Act, the auditor general shall immediately report the improper retention or misappropriation of public money or other activity to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. (2) In addition to reporting to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under subsection (1), the auditor general shall attach to his or her annual report to the House of Assembly a list containing a general description of the incidents referred to in subsection (1) and the dates on which those incidents were reported to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. | Improper retention of public money 45. (1) Where (a) during the course of an audit; (b) as a result of a review of an audit report prepared by another auditor employed by the commission; or (c) as a result of an internal audit procedure, the auditor general becomes aware of an improper retention or misappropriation of public money by a member, the clerk, the clerk assistant or staff of the House of Assembly service or the statutory offices or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another Act of the province or of Canada, the auditor general shall immediately report the improper retention, misappropriation of public money or other activity to (d) the speaker; (e) the chair of the audit committee; (f) the Premier; (g) the leader of the political party, if any, with which the person involved may be associated; (h) the Attorney General; and (i) the Minister of Finance. (2) In addition to reporting in accordance with subsection (1), the auditor general shall attach to his or her annual report to the House of Assembly a list containing a general description of the incidents referred to in subsection (1) and the dates on which those incidents were reported. (3) Before making a report under subsection (1), the auditor general shall give to a person involved and who may be ultimately named or identified in the report (a) full disclosure of the information of which the auditor general has become aware; and (b) a reasonable opportunity to the person to provide further information and an explanation, and shall take that information and explanation into account in deciding whether to proceed to make a report. (4) The auditor general shall not make the existence or the contents of a report referred to in subsection (1) known to another person except (a) as part of his or her annual report to the House of Assembly; (b) in accordance with a judicial proceeding; (c) as part of proceedings before the Public Accounts Committee; or (d) as a result of a request from the commission. (5) The auditor general is a compellable witness in any criminal or civil proceeding and in a proceeding before the Public Accounts Committee relating to a matter dealt with in a report made under this section. (6) Section 19.1 of the House of Assembly Act does not apply to a report made under this section. (7) Section 15 of the Auditor General Act does not apply to a member, the clerk, clerk assistant or staff of the House of Assembly service. |
The silence from the legislature on this has been nothing short of amazing. There have been no comments from the House of Assembly on the issue and in the Telegram story, the Premier's spokesperson is merely quoted as saying that the Green bill was passed as received. No one from either the House or government has made any comment.
The Auditor General has dutifully explained to every report who asked his own rationale for staying silent, but as it should be clear, the fellow has gotten some terribly odd legal advice. Either that or he has taken it in his head to stay completely silent, given that, after all, it was his own unsubstantiated commentaries early on in the scandal and the AG's abusive investigative process that prompted Chief Justice Derek Green to write s.45 in the first place.
Take a look at sections of Green's report and you will be struck by the strong language with which Green criticizes what happened:
Undue publication of the information in a report at such an early stage - before decisions are taken to lay charges, or prosecute or seek reimbursement - risks interfering with important constitutional and other
values. Given the relatively low threshold justifying the making of a report, even though its issuance may cause considerable damage to an individual’s reputation that may be difficult to repair if it is ultimately shown that there is an innocent explanation, one ought to be careful about bandying details about in the public domain. Furthermore, undue publication of the information with its implicit suggestion of impropriety or criminality may have an effect on a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial if charges are ultimately laid.
Still, it was striking that the Auditor General was continuing to decline any public comment on his last report, filed in September 2007, and citing Green. Both reporters - one at the Telly and the other CBC - contacted Green and got the same reason. They both came to the same conclusions even though, the plain English of s.45 did not apply to anything but a report on improper retention of public funds. The September mega-report wasn't one of those.
So why no comment from the AG?
Well, either he had faulty advice, had been ordered to stay silent or there were more reports. Given that the report was made public, an order to keep his mouth shut would be odd, especially since he cited Green as the reason. He might have bad advice, but the most logical reason, namely that there had been more reports filed, is one that simply hadn't been explored by anyone. It would be pointless to ask Green himself since, by diligently following s.45 he wouldn't be able to confirm or deny the existence of a report on improper retention of funds. His silence on the whole report would be smart - under those circumstances - since he would avoid giving a hint on that a specific report existed.
The other officials identified in s.45 weren't constrained by the Act, even though the general principles Green cited in his report would restrict how much they could disclose.
So Bond started at the top and contacted the House of Assembly with a simple question
Has the Auditor General filed any reports in accordance with s. 45 of the Green Act (or s.15 of the AG Act but now covered by the Green Bill) other than those already made public on Hickey, Goudie and the individuals who have been charged?
The response took a few hours but when it came, it was as curious as could be: no comment.
No comment?
Neither "no" nor "yes", but no comment.
If there were no reports, that's easy enough to establish. If there were reports, then their existence could only be withheld for a period, anyway. A simple explanation of the fact that one existed and that it was being addressed would be news but - consistent with Chief Justice Green's own comments - details could be legitimately withheld to ensure the fundamental integrity of the process. Integrity is what Green is all about, right next to accountability.
In the ordinary course, that no comment response would have been the end of it and, duly blogged, the local media would like take up the case. They may still. In media circles and in public relations circles a flat "no comment" comes with all sorts of baggage, none of which is good. Much like an American pleading the "fifth", no comment is often taken as being tantamount to an admission, in this case, that at least one new report existed.
Other inquiries lead your humble e-scribbler to conclude that, in fact, there are no other reports. The Auditor General has some odd legal advice or is just keep quiet and using Green as an excuse. That's something he will have to, and should, answer for.
But at the House of Assembly, there is clearly a need to get a grip on a basic policy to handle this sort of contingency, this sort of question. It's only by sheer coincidence that two reporters, working separately, made the same erroneous conclusion and didn't ask the obvious. Frankly it didn't spring readily to mind at Bond until there were three examples of the AG using the same excuse.
Yes, Green creates a new set of issues and policies for the legislature but this one - a report on alleged improper retention of funds - is what broke the whole story in the first place. In the series of media stories since Christmas, the legislators are being accused of gagging the Auditor General when clearly they haven't.
And a "no comment" response to a simple question maybe now but definitely in the future will only fuel media and public curiosity. The lack of attention to this story from the Speaker, on behalf of the management committee and the House, has allowed some to question the integrity of the very process set in place to restore public confidence.
That shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged. The House management committee meets this week and the issue of the AG gag is on the agenda. However, the opposition leaders are coming at it largely based on erroneous media reports. This needs to be dealt with quickly and the public record set straight or the entire legislature will continue to operate under a cloud of suspicion.
Too much disclosure can lead to problems, as Chief Justice Green noted. He gave the House of Assembly the means to address the problem based on an administrative mechanism to balance accountability with fundamental integrity.
Too little disclosure - in this case no comment - has obviously produced problems for the House and, by extension for every resident of the province.
-srbp-
One of the posts at Persuasion Business that garnered the most e-mail attention was a piece on a nasal irrigation device that had managed to score some big attention in the United States, despite what one public relations blog had termed a bad pitch to news media.
Well, the craze has hit St. John's. One of the flyers that arrived in the mailbox this week included a small ad, right, offering 20% off the price of a little blue teapot-shaped contraption. The idea is that the spout end goes up your nose and by rinsing out your nasal cavity, you can reduce the symptoms of allergies and colds.
Lovely concept.
The original post included the picture at left showing a charming young woman with what appears to be a porcelain gravy boat jammed in her nostril.
Maybe that's what helped generate the e-mails, most of which included the question "Where do you find this stuff?".
No. No.
Not the bidet.
The post on it.
Anyway.
Those who want to be early adopters of the latest health fad can find the little teapots at your local Shoppers Drug Mart. They may be in other places, but this ad appeared in the weekly SDM flyer.
If you still haven't been convinced - *sigh*- of the value of this little marvel, then check a website for one outfit that has been plugging the idea of plugging a teapot in your snout since 1972. The Himalayan Institute has what they describe as an award winning instructional video.
You'll find the official netipot video at youtube, but if you search you'll also find enough amateur demo vids to make it clear that the thing is obviously a bit of a cult craze.
Yes, yes, we have entered a world in which proboscal lavage is a means of self expression. Notice that in the marketing shots, everyone is having a good time.
Notice that in the amateur stuff, people are having a good time, but for entirely different reasons.
None of this should be a surprise though. people have been hunting for supposedly natural or holistic health things for decades. If someone could come up with the idea you could live a healthier life with regular "colonic irrigation"using coffee, it was only a matter of time before a less-adventurous but no less dedicated New Ager thought of pouring fluids into another part of the anatomy where fluids don't usually go.
Frankly, there are better uses for coffee and a decent whiskey.
-srbp-
In this case a deluge of what Telegram editor Russell Wangersky calls "moaners".
It's easier to say we've never gotten anywhere because of all the things done to us, because of all the efforts to keep us down, because of all of the conspiracies and dirty deals.
It's easy, because that means we never have to take even the slightest little bit of responsibility for anything we do or have done.
Bad business decision? Pardon my French, but "we were screwed!" is always the resulting clarion-call.
And you know what? Every time I hear the pained bleat of "they've done it to us again," a little bit of my heart dies, along with a little bit of my pride in the things we've been able to achieve in this hard and desperate place.And there must be other people out there who feel the same way I do about it.
So, what are we supposed to be? Victims of what everyone else has done to us, or the survivors of a tough place with, until now, one of the hardest pieces of land and sea in Canada?
Well, said, Russell.
-srbp-
A poor but passable translation:
It is known well that the Vikings passed by Newfoundland, but there's a difference between a fish and fur counter and the establishment of Quebec in 1608...
Surely his tongue was planted firmly in his cheek at the controversy over whether St. John's or Quebec City is the oldest city in Canada.
Meanwhile aboriginal people across the country are laughing themselves silly at the whole debate.
And on the Wet Coast, there's some consternation that their anniversary is going thus far unblessed by federal funds:
Funding of Quebec fête sparks debate about relative worth
Quebec City, 110 million; British Columbia, zero.
That's the score so far in the federal funding game for two parts of
the country celebrating historic milestones this year.
The Quebec capital, marking the 400th anniversary of its founding by
Samuel de Champlain, has already been granted $40 million from the
Department of Canadian Heritage to pay for birthday festivities, with
an additional $70 million in federal money for infrastructure
upgrades, including restoration of historical sites.
Meanwhile British Columbia, commemorating the 150th anniversary of its
establishment as a British Crown colony, has yet to be promised a
penny from the federal government.
Charles Parkinson, the executive director of the BC150 Secretariat,
which is organizing the celebration, said he requested funding from
the federal government last winter, but the request stagnated.
"We went there, but we didn't really hear anything (back)," he said.
However, after persistently arguing his case to the federal
government, Mr. Parkinson said he now believes that some money will be
forthcoming.
"Five or six weeks ago, we received a call from Ottawa saying, 'We're
really interested and we want to talk seriously', " Mr. Parkinson
said. "The signs coming from Ottawa have been very, very positive.
It's been slow, but they've been positive."
Officials from Heritage Minister Josée Verner's office declined an
interview request, but sent an e-mail via the Heritage Department,
saying the department will consider funding the B.C. celebrations once
it receives a detailed request.
Mr. Parkinson said he intended to send the detailed request this week.
Hedy Fry, the Liberal MP for the B.C. riding of Vancouver Centre, said
she hopes the federal government will contribute about $20 million.
"I am being very generous when I say, I know that the federal
government will be very supportive of this, given that there is a
precedent in other provinces' centennials and in Quebec's
celebrations," Ms. Fry said in an interview with the Citizen this
week. "I think that they should do it from a point of principle."
It's undisputed that Quebec City is extremely important historically,
as a hub for the fur trade and a base for the French exploration and
colonization of North America.
But some argue that the government's hype around Quebec has gone too
far, entering the realm of historical hyperbole. Promotional material
from the Department of Canadian Heritage states that "the foundation
of Quebec City also marks the foundation of the Canadian State" and
that "French is the founding language of Canada."
But B.C. historian Jean Barman argues that Canada, as we now know it,
did not have a single founding moment. Rather, there were different
founding events in different territories, which eventually became
provinces and came together to form today's Canada.
The establishment of B.C. as a Crown Colony in 1858 was one of those
founding moments, she argues, because the imposition of British rule
stopped the territory from falling into the hands of the expansionist
American republic.
"If it hadn't been for 1858, it's very possible that Canada as a
country would not go coast to coast," said Ms. Barman.
So, if the 400th anniversary of Quebec's founding is worth $110
million to the Canadian taxpayer, what's the relative worth of B.C.'s
150th celebration? Or the 500th anniversary of John Cabot's landfall
in Newfoundland in 1497? Or the 100th anniversary of Alberta and
Saskatchewan joining Confederation in 1905?
Prominent Canadian historian Jack Granatstein says it's impossible to
gauge the relative importance of different historical events -- or to
compare the money allocated to different celebrations, in different
places, at different times, under different governments.
"You can't. You really can't," he said. "Is an apple more important
than an orange? Who knows? And it's a mug's game to try and play
that."
Yet the $110 million granted to Quebec City has raised eyebrows -- and
perhaps some envy -- among other historic hotspots that received less
federal government largesse.
According to figures from the provincial government, Newfoundland
received $5.5 million from the federal government for its Cabot 500
celebrations in 1997. And the small Nova Scotia community of Annapolis
Royal, which was colonized in 1605 --pre-dating Quebec City by three
years -- received just $250,000 from the federal Heritage Department
to celebrate its 400th anniversary in 2005.
Federal Funding of Recent Historical Celebrations
Quebec City 400th celebrations, 2008 400th anniversary of the founding
of Quebec City by Samuel de Champlain.
- Government of the day: Stephen Harper's Conservatives
- Federal contribution: $40 million (celebrations); $70 million
(infrastructure)
British Columbia 150th celebrations, 2008 150th anniversary of the
establishment of the Crown Colony of British Columbia
- Government of the day: Stephen Harper's Conservatives
- Federal contribution: $0 (at the time of publication)
John Cabot 500th celebrations, 1997 500th anniversary of John Cabot's
landfall in Newfoundland.
- Government of the day: Jean Chrétien's Liberals
- Federal contribution: $5.5 million (celebrations and infrastructure)
Annapolis Royal 400th celebrations, 2005 400th anniversary of the
founding of Port Royal by Samuel de Champlain and Pierre Dugua, Sieur
de Monts.
- Government of the day: Paul Martin's Liberals
- Federal contribution: $250,000
Alberta and Saskatchewan centennials, 2005 100th anniversary of
Alberta and Saskatchewan joining Confederation.
- Government of the day: Paul Martin's Liberals
Federal contribution: Saskatchewan: $3.1 million (celebrations); $3.1
million (infrastructure); Alberta: $3.5 million (celebrations); $60
million (infrastructure)
-srbp-
A news release from provincial intergovernmental affairs minister Tom Hedderson seems to be a calculated part of the ongoing family feud between the governing Progressive Conservatives and the federal Conservatives, i.e. the party they officially supported in the last federal general election.
Family fights are always nasty.
In this case, Hedderson spouts some information which is - in a word - wrong. labradore has consistently pounded home the facts. The issue has come up on Bond Papers at least once.
However, when the family squabbles or maybe people feel a bit sheepish at having voted against the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the last federal election, facts go out the window.
Either way, Hedderson is wrong on the facts.
-srbp-
Radio Noon's "Cross Talk" today had a great question for listeners: How do we get past the impasse between the Premier and the prime Minister? or words to that effect
Well, the simple answer is that one or both sides have to want to get past it. As long as the parties can't even agree on the need to get past the impasse, there's not much chance of resolving a conflict.
What Canadians learned on Wednesday was that contrary to earlier media reports, neither Premier Danny Williams nor Prime Minister Stephen Harper were trying to bury any hatchets in the Equalization feud except maybe between each other's eyes.
You see the starting point for Danny Williams' definition of a resolution is having Harper accept he owes $10 billion to Danny Williams (listen to Williams' scrums and the whole l'etat, c'est moi thing is really obvious). That acceptance comes with the implicit or explicit acknowledgement that Harper lied during the last election at least on Equalization.
Not surprisingly, Harper isn't interested in admitting he's an untrustworthy person of low or no moral fibre.
You can see the problem here.
The Premier has very deliberately and very consciously framed his attack in highly personal and highly insulting terms. They are terms designed to frustrate a resolution of the conflict. There's only one person who knows why and he is having too much fun clenching his jaw for the cameras to tell us. But it's gotta be deliberate; only a complete dimwit would carry on with the insults and then at the same time believe his actions are constructive.
None of that, of course, is an argument in Harper's favour either. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians never warmed to the guy or many of his candidates. A majority of people in the province didn't vote for them the last time. He doesn't suddenly become pure because he is on the outs with a guy whose jaw muscles are like Arnold's biceps from all the clenching and unclenching that goes with his latest jihad.
And while we are at it, Danny Williams' realization that he personally made a major error in judgment in 2006 is all fine and good, but frankly, no one is holding his or her breath expecting Danny to admit that, the most obvious point about his whole ABC tirade. Even if it would hasten a resolution, it ain't gonna happen.
Anyway, whatever benefits the two first ministers are getting out of this little public tiff clearly outweigh the costs. Until that calculus shifts, there won't be a resolution to the impasse.
Still, though.
Neither one is a dimwit, but given the way they keep flailing away at each other to no obvious, constructive effect for the people they supposedly represent, you'd have to wonder sometimes.
-srbp-
Montreal Gazette
16 January 2008
A politician prevaricates!
"I don't need Newfoundland and Labrador to win an election."
Either Stephen Harper said that, in "private" conversation with Premier Danny Williams, or he didn't. The two men are on the record with conflicting versions of their talk, and barring some hard-to- imagine misunderstanding, one of them is not telling the truth.
Frankly, we hope the Williams version is false, because if it's correct it suggests the two men are both dimwits. Consider: Harper's minority government might face an election soon; he will need every seat he can get. Williams won a sweeping re-election victory last October by bashing Ottawa, and sees no reason to stop.
So why would Harper, by all accounts no dimwit and in some versions the reincarnation of Machiavelli, put himself in the hands of so strident a foe by saying something like that? Even if Harper believed that statement, why say it?
As for Williams, doesn't he understand the cost of betraying such a private statement - if there was one? How can Williams now expect Harper to tell him so much as the time of day ever again?
Okay, so it's not like it's the first time Danny Williams applied two different standards to similar situations when he wanted different outcomes in both.
There's no small example of this approach to governing that isn't based on any other principle than 'What I say goes."
take for example, the tedious drama in which Danny Williams tried to stuff Andy Wells onto the offshore regulatory board. The provincial government started out wanting one person to be chairman and chief executive officer. Then they tried to split the job in two with Wells taking the chairman's job.
Then when a panel appointed to pick a single person for both jobs chose someone other than Andy, Danny Williams went back to the two jobs approach.
The sorry tale is well described in Ruelokke v Newfoundland and Labrador.
The best quote of all, though came from none other than the Premier himself, while the case was in court. Speaking to reporters, the premier gave this lovely explanation of his position:
"My ultimate responsibility is to the people of the province to make sure that we have the best representation on that board to safeguard our interests.
"That's good governance, that's good practice ... we even actually went to Mr. Ruelokke and said look you know why don't you agree to split this ... and he didn't want any part of that," Williams said.
He's right. They did go to Ruelokke and make such a proposition and he quite rightly rejected it. After all, the provincial government had set up a selection panel to find one person for both jobs. That's what the panel found.
The Public Utilities Board is no less important a body. After all, under the Electrical Power Control Act it has some pretty wide reaching powers to regulate the province's electricity industry. The revised version of the Act, introduced in 1994, allows the board to recall power from Churchill Falls under certain circumstances and to provide adequate compensation to Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation and its customers in the process.
The utility regulator may well have an interesting time in the next few years if the Lower Churchill project goes ahead and, depending on how things go with that enterprise, electricity rates might well be affected and not in a good way.
Interesting then that Danny Williams appointed Andy Wells to run the utility regulator on Thursday serving as both chairman and chief executive officer. Forget Williams' comment in the early 1990s that Andy needed a good "shit-knocking"; in the years since the two have become best political buddies.
Hence the appointment of one man to two jobs, even though when it came to the offshore board good corporate governance suggested something else to the Premier. Of course, no one should doubt that had Wells gotten the nod at the offshore board, Williams would have happily accepted one guy in two jobs and then rationalised that decision the same way he undoubtedly will rationalise the discrepancy between his two views of good corporate governance in regulatory authorities.
Wells' appointment is interesting, in a Chinese curse sorta way.
Well, that and it raises a question as to why Wells got the nod at the utility board. The answer might rest in an older question: why was Williams so insistent on Wells at the offshore board.
No one has been able to answer that one definitively, since Williams never got his way. But if you think about it for a while and ponder these old posts - here and here - some ideas may come to mind. The Wells appointment might be less about good governance and more about controlling a regulatory body so it can be used for a specific purpose at some point in the future.
There's nothing like stacking the deck.
-srbp-
The province's major daily newspaper is taking a foray into online multi-media.
The little gem today is a video of the Premier's scrum on an exchange of letters with the Prime Minister on the Hibernia shares. It's edited, but there are some choice comments in there.
You can see pretty clearly the entire basis of the Premier's effort, supposedly "a genuine attempt" to resolve the matter, consists of having the federal government accepting that it owes the provincial government $10 billion. Since the federal government has already indicated publicly it rejects that premise, it's hard to know on what basis the matter could be resolved.
-srbp-
Strip away all the trademark and largely shopworn histrionics from the Premier and take a look at the recent exchange of correspondence with the Prime Minister.
Some interesting things come to light:
1. For all the talk about a package of initiatives supposedly designed to get past the Equalization "impasse", the first letter written by the Premier after the famous late November meeting focused on one thing: the Hibernia shares.
2. There isn't a specific proposal here, rather the letter is intended to "clarify issues concerning the Government of Canada's investment in Hibernia."
3. The deadline for the proposal was not the end of 2007 or even January 11, 2008. Nope, as the Premier wrote, he believed it would be in the best interests of both the federal provincial governments if the matter was resolved before "the end of the new year [sic]", that is, the end of 2008.
4. In the next letter, dated eight days after the first one, the Premier asks if a decision has been made and then requests a reply by Christmas.
5. In the next letter written a week after that one, the premier raises comments made by Loyola Hearn. He then takes issue with Hearn's comment that the federal government had received no written list of options from the provincial government. The Premier cites his December 3, 2007 letter as evidence this is not the case and accuses Hearn of misleading the public.
Interestingly, the public can now read the December 3 letter, look at its contents and understand that Hearn was correct, at least on that point.
6. The next letter, dated January 3, complains about comments attributed to Loyola Hearn.
7. The Prime Minister's reply, dated January 15, focuses on the Hibernia shares since this is what was contained in the December 3 letter. The letter states the federal government's view of the costs associated with those shares, refutes several claims made by the Premier and then asks three simple questions with respect to the shares, based on the provincial government's recent purchase of shares in two offshore projects:
- What portion of the federal interest is the provincial government interested in acquiring?
- What would be the fair market price proposed by the provincial government for that share?
- What is the view of the Hibernia partners to the proposed share purchase.
He concludes by stating that he looks forward to future discussions on the issue.
There is no rejection of anything, specifically, but there is a clear indication the federal government may be prepared to sell the shares. That's consistent with Stephen harper's letter to Danny Williams during the last federal election.
8. In his reply, dated January 16, the Premier begins by re-stating his position on a range of comments made in earlier correspondence.
On the specific questions, he states that the provincial government is interested in the 8.5% interest in Hibernia plus the additional Net Profits Interest option associated with the federal involvement in the project.
it is plain the Premier is not interested in purchasing the shares but rather proposes that the value, once determined, be deducted from the "net value gap". In other words, he wants the cost to charged against the notional $10 billion Equalization debt.
The Premier interprets the last question as questioning 'our capacity to manage the project'. The Prime Minister's question was legitimate; the partners may be interested in purchasing the federal shares themselves.
Canadian Press got the headline wrong on one story, although the bulk of the story describes the premier's vitriolic reaction. The shorter one carried by the Globe online is more accurate since the claim that the PM rejected the Hibernia idea is actually coming from the Premier, not from the factual record.
Interestingly, the Premier took umbrage at being accusing of misstating what the Prime Minister said in November in a private meeting. Look at the December 3 letter and the later comments by Hearn. So much for factual accuracy, let alone an understanding of when the new year ends.
There really isn't anything new in all of this. It seems like Canadian political life is simply mirroring American television during a writers strike: endless re-runs.
-srbp-
Why is it that some of the details in the CBC story on Dr. Sean Buckingham's future as a doctor don't match the description at vocm.com?
On Tuesday, CBC reported:
Buckingham's future medical career will be determined by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador, which said after a jury convicted Buckingham in December that it would launch an automatic review of his medical privileges.
Buckingham voluntarily surrendered his licence in 2005, soon after he was arrested during a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary raid on his home.
The college is not expected to call a panel to consider Buckingham's licence in the immediate future.
Yet, vocm.com gives the story a little differently:
Dr. Sean Buckingham's future in medicine is now in the hands of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Complaints Authorization Committee. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison this week on charges of sexual assault and trafficking in prescription drugs. Buckingham had surrendered his medical licence back in 2005 when he was arrested by the RNC. The college says the matter is now being dealt with as an allegation under the Medical Act.
Under the Medical Act, 2005 a conviction in criminal court becomes a prima facie allegation against the medical practitioner. Handled in the usual way, it would proceed to the Complaints Authorization Committee which will, as the name implies, review the information and authorize a complaint to proceed to a discipline hearing if that's what the case merits.
That's a feature of the revised legislation that makes the College's job easier. In the old days, the medical board would have to start its own, separate investigation and collect information as if the case was new. Now the case can be handled somewhat more expeditiously than it would have once upon a time.
But, if the case is before the Complaints Authorization Committee already, as vocm.com gives it, then the CBC story doesn't make sense when it says the College isn't expected to call a panel to consider the status of Buckingham's license. The CAC meets fairly regularly and it would be considered a "panel' in the ordinary meaning of the term. It hears an allegation after an investigation has been conducted by College staff.
So which is it?
And while we're at it, Buckingham surrendered his license in 2005, but both stories suggest he did so willingly and, in the case of the CBC story using the word "shortly" is accurate but doesn't describe the sense at the time. In the interests of disclosure, the College was a client of your humble e-scribbler at the time.
It took a few weeks, if memory serves and in the end required some fairly clear public indications from what was then the medical board under the old medical act that if he didn't hand the license over, then the Board was prepared to take it. The board started an investigation into the new allegations at the time Buckingham was arrested in order to be prepared to have a discipline hearing under the process at the time into the status of his license.
Presumably the information collected in 2005 has been held in abeyance ever since so the process two and a half years later should be fairly straightforward (as suggested by vocm.com). It shouldn't take a while, as suggested by the CBC story.
So which is it?
-srbp-
Monroe Minerals Inc. (TSX VENTURE:MMX) ("Monroe") announced today that it has entered into option agreements with Altius Resources Inc. ("Altius") allowing it to earn up to a 60% interest in the Boxey Point and Berry Hill uranium properties, located in Newfoundland, Canada.
Monroe President and CEO Derek Moran commented: "We are pleased to expand our relationship with Altius and to focus Monroe's growing uranium division in Newfoundland and Labrador, with obvious logistical benefits. We shall announce our 2008 program later this quarter and meanwhile we continue to review new projects both in Canada and on the African continent."
The Boxey Point property totals thirty-six claims and is 900 hectares in size. It is located in the Fortune Bay area along the southern coast of Newfoundland, between and a little south of the Coomb's Cove and English Harbour West settlements. The property is about 600 km by road from St Johns. A recent soil sampling program yielded elevated uranium results and two rock samples tested 738 ppm and 1,498 ppm uranium (0.09 to 0.18% U3O8) respectively. There is also remarkable alteration of the sedimentary strata on the property. The expected deposit type could be similar to the conglomerate-hosted uranium prospects that exist at the Beaverdell deposits in southern B.C. or the former Midnite/Blackhawk Mine near Spokane, Washington. For example, from 1955 to 1981 the Midnite mine produced about 11.6 million pounds of U3O8 from 2.63 million tonnes of ore with an average grade of about 0.2% U3O8.
The Berry Hill property totals fifty-seven claims and is 1,425 hectares in size. It is located on the Burin Peninsula about 160 km due west or 235 km by road from St. Johns. The Berry Hill property is a conceptual play based on fluorite occurrences and a number of stream sediment, lake sediment and till samples with elevated concentrations of one or more of uranium, molybdenum and fluorine. The expected deposit type is a granitic-hosted uranium deposit such as the Rossing mine in Namibia, Radium Hill in South Australia or Johan-Beetz uranium prospect in Quebec. Granite-hosted uranium deposits tend to be relatively low grade (e.g., less than 0.1% U3O8), although they can be very large. The Rossing deposit in Namibia, for example, has been in production since 1976, has a uranium grade ranging from about 0.018 to 0.042% U3O8, and in 2006 produced about 7% of world uranium production (http://www.rossing.com/rossingmine.htm).
Monroe may earn a 60% interest in the Boxey Point property over four years by spending $1,000,000 on exploration, including a minimum first year commitment of $100,000, and making share payments to Altius of 2,000,000 Monroe shares, including 400,000 shares on signing and 1,600,000 shares divided equally over four years to be paid on each anniversary of the agreement.
Monroe may earn a 60% interest in the Berry Hill property over four years by spending $475,000 on exploration, including a minimum first year commitment of $50,000, and making share payments to Altius of 500,000 Monroe shares, including 100,000 shares on signing and 400,000 shares divided equally over four years to be paid on each anniversary of the agreement.
The earning under each project is independent of whether earning occurs under the other. Upon Monroe fulfilling its earn-in obligations, the parties will form a 60:40 joint venture, with each partner contributing its pro-rata share of future expenditures. If either party dilutes its interest to less than 10% in the joint venture, its interest shall be converted to a royalty of 1.0% of gross uranium sales.
Why is anyone in the province, let alone the country, paying attention to the bit of silliness otherwise known as the Danny Williams "anybody but Conservative" thing?
Well, here's as succinct a view as one might advance:
Since when did we need the Premier's blessing to not vote for Stephen Harper?
Most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, unlike their Premier, were smart enough to know better last time around. And the time before that.
There are more than enough reasons not to vote Conservative. There were last time around too.
But why do you insinuate that by questioning Danny Williams, you are thereby supporting the federal Conservatives? Or that questioning the provincial government somehow detracts from the "great fight" with Ottawa in which we all must uniformly engage?
It's like saying Newfoundlanders can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Just because "our" Premier can only focus on one issue at a a time doesn't mean the same holds true for the rest of the province's citizens.
Frankly, I think all this hullabaloo detracts from the real reasons we should be voting against the current federal government - their record on the environment is atrocious, the same for childcare, seniors benefits, their skewed prioritization of tax measures, their elimination of funding for the status of women, the court challenges program and other equality seeking programs, not to mention their misguided foreign policy.
But all of these issues were plain and obvious three and four years ago. The Premier voted for him anyway.
Maybe instead of imploring that all "good" Newfoundlanders follow Danny's lead, you should be imploring him to follow theirs. After all, in 2004 and in 2006, most of "them" ("us") got it right.January 14, 2008 10:46 PM
-srbp-
As we come up on the first anniversary of the whole meltdown, what exactly is going on with John Hickey's lawsuit against Roger Grimes?
-srbp-
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro announced an agreement Monday to sell electricity from the Lower Churchill megaproject to consumers in the Maritimes and the northeastern U.S.Hydro did no such thing, as the very next paragraph of the CBC story makes plain:
The Crown corporation said it has signed a memorandum of understanding with Nova Scotia Power and Emera Inc. "to explore the possibility of bringing energy" to the Maritimes and New England markets.That's what the official news release said, too. it's just another memorandum of understanding to explore the possibility. That's about as far away from a contract to sell power as it is possible to get, except for not having an MOU at all. No company is obliged to do anything except study.
Restrictions on businessThe problem is that under section three of the same Act, the Public Utilities Board is responsible for setting power rates such that:
24. (1) Subject to this Act, a retailer shall not engage or invest in or carry on any business or activity other than the business of the production, transmission, distribution or retailing of power and the business or activity that is generally related to it.
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) shall not apply to a person who controls a retailer, including a corporation referred to in paragraph 23(3)(b).
(3) This section does not apply to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. (added in 2006)
(a) the rates to be charged, either generally or under specific contracts, for the supply of power within the provinceIf Hydro winds up involved in any other business activity besides electricity generation, as it may do under the Hydro corporation act, then it will affect power rates.
...
(iii) should provide sufficient revenue to the producer or retailer of the power to enable it to earn a just and reasonable return as construed under the Public Utilities Act so that it is able to achieve and maintain a sound credit rating in the financial markets of the world, ...
Special Hydro provisions
17. (1) In considering the rates charged by the hydro corporation for the purpose of a reference under this Act, the public utilities board shall take no account of expenditures or revenues of the hydro corporation or its subsidiaries that are not attributable to the supplying of power to retailers and rural customers.
(2) Where the hydro corporation supplies power to a user who is neither a retailer nor a rural customer, the hydro corporation shall use its best endeavours to obtain for that power the rates or a class of rates that would be compatible with the power policy declared by section 3.
(3) Where the hydro corporation is unable to apply the rates or the class of rates referred to in subsection (2) because of public policy or existing contracts, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall enter into those financial arrangements or other arrangements that may be necessary to enable the hydro corporation to comply with the power policy declared by section 3 in respect of those other users of its power.
The farce will be continuing this year, after all.
People in the province have a mere few days to get their submissions ready.
In St. John's, it's less than a week. The first of the budget "consultations" start next Monday.
Don't count on any summary of the provincial government's financial position to help, either.
-srbp-
is timing.
The day before Tom Rideout's volte face, these two letters appeared in the Telegram:
I'm a Danny Williams fan who was overjoyed when he came home with the $2 billion in Atlantic Accord money.
I also walked with a lighter step when he signed the Hebron deal.
I voted to help him get the huge majority.
Now things are changing. I hope it's not the old adage that power corrupts and absolute power, etc.
Tom Rideout has to be held accountable. To say that he hasn't been charged, therefore it's OK, is unacceptable. Tom Rideout was given permission for this suspect billing by the same person who gave permission to the MHAs now up before the courts.Since the auditor general is now effectively mute, whose job is it to lay those charges?
I highly encourage all who are outraged by Tom Rideout's arrogant attitude towards these concerns to write to the editor and express their views.
Ron Wilson
It's a sad day, indeed, when we read in our news media, and hear on the TV and radio, of wrongdoings by our provincial politicians and find ourselves asking, "Well, what else do you expect?"
It's more than sad. It's frightening.
According to news reports (Telegram, Dec. 19) Deputy Premier Tom Rideout spent thousands of taxpayers' dollars on house and office rentals and travel expenses - much of which, it certainly appears, was a blatant overspending of our money.
And you say, Mr. Rideout, you did nothing wrong. You claim you had all your expenses approved. Are we then to conclude that if the House of Assembly told you it was OK to rent two houses, three houses or any number of houses, then you would do it simply because it was approved?
Mr. Rideout, I ask you a simple question: is it too much for us mere mortals to expect you - as an MHA, a deputy premier, a minister of Fisheries - to use some discretion in spending our hard-earned money?
I believe I'm speaking for thousands of taxpayers when I say to you (and all politicians), for goodness sake, stop justifying your actions by insisting they were approved by Bill Murray or the House regulations or whatever. We are fed up with hearing it.Those regulations (made by politicians) should never have been made in the first place. And no politician worth his salt would ever have had any part of them. Not only would one expect a person in such a position, who is dedicated to our province, to not partake in such action, but one would expect him or her to expose such flaws in the system as they are discovered and make the necessary changes to ensure such situations are no longer possible.
Let's start calling a spade a spade. They were unconscionable. Let's never hide behind them again.
If you continue to insist, with a straight face, that you have done nothing wrong, then your actions are nothing but an insult to our intelligence. We expect, and demand, better of all politicians.George Martin
-srbp-
As a kid, I built the old Aurora plastic model of the USS Skipjack and played with it for hours. The kit is still around, repackaged by Revell Germany, but these days the kit is likely bought by adults instead of children.
Skipjack was the first submarine with both a nuclear powerplant and a tear-drop hull. It's the hull that made a difference in this revolutionary craft. Previous submarines, including the first nuke boat - Nautilus - used hulls shaped like the hulls of surface ships. Skipjack was different. Her hull worked best underwater and her nuclear reactor gave Skipjack the ability to stay submerged under crew or food supply was exhausted.
Here's a newsreel from the time. [Update: a link for those who might not be getting the embedded video.]
While on the slipways, one of her sister ships was cut open, and a length of new hull was added to turn her into the the first American ballistic missile submarine, USS George Washington.
No small irony here. In later years, as the Washingtons and follow-on boomers reached the end of their service life the missile compartments were removed and the subs turned into attack boats as they had originally started life.
This picture - of the 1950s and early 1960s vintage submarines awaiting disposal is remarkable for a whole bunch of reasons.
It includes the first of a class of operational nuke boats in history, for example, the USS Skate. She's the first blunt nosed submarine, two to the left as you look at the photo. Skipjack, incidentally, is second from the left of that entire section.
The longer conventional hull is USS Seawolf. She's the second nuclear powered submarine, after Nautilus and the only boat to carry an experimental reactor cooled by liquid metal. At this newsreel, you'll find a short segment on the Seawolf and her reactor problems.
Look closely and you can also see the de-evolution of some of the hulls back to training ships for attack subs.
All the boats in this picture are now buried in the desert, their entire reactor and associated bits stored in metal canisters.
-srbp-
