-srbp-
19 June 2008
18 June 2008
Associated Press, bloggers and the "fair use" concept
Associated Press (AP) is in the middle of a controversy over its recently announced policy requiring Internet sites to pay the news service for printing excerpts of its stories even in cases where the excerpt is as little as five words long.
The issue centres on copyright and contending definitions of what constitutes "fair use". Until now, "fair use" has allowed bloggers and others to use short extracts from AP news stories. In the case which triggered the spat, links to the original AP story were provided. AP will now expect payment for each use.
As Standford University Library's website notes, fair use is based on the belief that individuals may freely use portions of copyrighted materials for commentary and criticism. That's a paraphrase, by the way; if you want the full text please follow the link provided. It's important to note at this juncture that there are some differences in Canadian and American copyright law, but the concepts of "fair use" or "fair dealing" are generally similar.
You'll see plenty of quoting done at Bond Papers, typically to illustrate a point and to give proper credit to the source of the original quote or idea. The point is not to claim credit for someone else's ideas or words nor is the idea to deny any sort of financial gain due to a copyright holder for the sale of the rights to reproduce the work.
On occasions in the past, Bond Papers provided full articles and in one case the copyright holder protested. Since the copyright holder was absolutely right in its contention that the practice infringed on its copyright, the practice stopped. Short excerpts are used and in all cases, a link to the original, full text is provided. There was no demand to remove the old materials but were the same copyright holder to make the request, compliance would be forthcoming.
It's really pretty simple, in that respect.
Likewise, Bond Papers has pretty much eliminated the use of images to illustrate posts since, even though the images may be widely available through the Internet, and even though wordmarks or other efforts were made to indicate the source of the image, the likelihood of violating copyright outweighed the value of the image. If Bond Papers was a commerical site, we could factor in payments to rights holders as part of the cost of doing business. Since the site doesn't generate any revenue, it's simply easier not to use other people's work unless there is some overwhelmingly positive benefit from doing so. Then we'd deal with the issue of seeking permission.
Changes to the copyright law have turned out to be a divisive issue in Canada. Michael Geist is one of many in Canada who are criticizing Bill C-61, a bill to change the existing copyright law in Canada. Local photographer Greg Locke recently wrote about the benefit to professional photographers of the bill. Locke notes that the bill finally puts image creators on the same copyright footing as other creative people. google the terms and names used in this paragraph and you'll find an endless stream of news coverage and commentary on the subject.
When Bond Papers started, the idea of quoting bits of articles or stories and providing links reflected nothing more than the age old academic practice of citation. Fair use allowed for the use of an idea, provided proper credit was given and provided that some reference was offere dto enable a reader to check for himself or herself that what was attributed to an individual was actually what the individual said.
That practice remains and until someone wipes out that notion of fair use - there's no sign of that yet - then that's what the practice around these parts will be.
The issue centres on copyright and contending definitions of what constitutes "fair use". Until now, "fair use" has allowed bloggers and others to use short extracts from AP news stories. In the case which triggered the spat, links to the original AP story were provided. AP will now expect payment for each use.
As Standford University Library's website notes, fair use is based on the belief that individuals may freely use portions of copyrighted materials for commentary and criticism. That's a paraphrase, by the way; if you want the full text please follow the link provided. It's important to note at this juncture that there are some differences in Canadian and American copyright law, but the concepts of "fair use" or "fair dealing" are generally similar.
You'll see plenty of quoting done at Bond Papers, typically to illustrate a point and to give proper credit to the source of the original quote or idea. The point is not to claim credit for someone else's ideas or words nor is the idea to deny any sort of financial gain due to a copyright holder for the sale of the rights to reproduce the work.
On occasions in the past, Bond Papers provided full articles and in one case the copyright holder protested. Since the copyright holder was absolutely right in its contention that the practice infringed on its copyright, the practice stopped. Short excerpts are used and in all cases, a link to the original, full text is provided. There was no demand to remove the old materials but were the same copyright holder to make the request, compliance would be forthcoming.
It's really pretty simple, in that respect.
Likewise, Bond Papers has pretty much eliminated the use of images to illustrate posts since, even though the images may be widely available through the Internet, and even though wordmarks or other efforts were made to indicate the source of the image, the likelihood of violating copyright outweighed the value of the image. If Bond Papers was a commerical site, we could factor in payments to rights holders as part of the cost of doing business. Since the site doesn't generate any revenue, it's simply easier not to use other people's work unless there is some overwhelmingly positive benefit from doing so. Then we'd deal with the issue of seeking permission.
Changes to the copyright law have turned out to be a divisive issue in Canada. Michael Geist is one of many in Canada who are criticizing Bill C-61, a bill to change the existing copyright law in Canada. Local photographer Greg Locke recently wrote about the benefit to professional photographers of the bill. Locke notes that the bill finally puts image creators on the same copyright footing as other creative people. google the terms and names used in this paragraph and you'll find an endless stream of news coverage and commentary on the subject.
When Bond Papers started, the idea of quoting bits of articles or stories and providing links reflected nothing more than the age old academic practice of citation. Fair use allowed for the use of an idea, provided proper credit was given and provided that some reference was offere dto enable a reader to check for himself or herself that what was attributed to an individual was actually what the individual said.
That practice remains and until someone wipes out that notion of fair use - there's no sign of that yet - then that's what the practice around these parts will be.
-srbp-
Oh to be in the Gulf, now that the cash is in bloom
Persian Gulf that is.
Qatar:
Danny and Kathy. (unspecified cash talks related to energy developments) When you click the link, note the top of your browser reads "Sport Newfoundland and Labrador - Volleyball Summer Camps 2008.
Rodney. (Hunting for gas)
Saudi Arabia:
Gary. (International meeting on high oil prices.)
Qatar:
Danny and Kathy. (unspecified cash talks related to energy developments) When you click the link, note the top of your browser reads "Sport Newfoundland and Labrador - Volleyball Summer Camps 2008.
Rodney. (Hunting for gas)
Saudi Arabia:
Gary. (International meeting on high oil prices.)
-srbp-
17 June 2008
When news isn't news but the real news isn't reported
One of the things that keeps your humble e-scribbler entertained during the drizzly, foggy nights of capelin weather is comparing news reports.
On Tuesday, there was Premier Danny Williams' opening remarks to the annual NOIA oil and gas conference in St. John's.
CBC was hyping the thing despite there being no concrete evidence whatsoever that Williams was even vaguely contemplating announcing the conclusion of Hebron deal. The reasons behind the hype-fest are as inscrutable as the real reasons for the whole Andy to the CNLOPB or Andy to the PUB thing.
CBC even gifted the Premier with 15 minutes of free province-wide airtime right before the 9:00 work whistle started so that he could deliver a yawner of a stock speech. He didn't ask for it; they gave it willingly and based on absolutely squat in the way of concrete information.
There were no hotel spaces booked for the launch. No sign of print work or any of the other things that would happen if there was going to be a major announcement of a final and binding agreement between the provincial energy company and the oil companies on Hebron.
And if the absence of all those usual indicators wasn't enough, and just to make it overwhelmingly clear, bear in mind that no less a personage than the Premier himself poured cold water over the whole idea of a Hebron announcement coming in his in his Tuesday remarks.
So then came the speech and the Premier's predictions were dead on.
With the Hebron speculation proven hollow, both CBC and the Telegram used the possibility of a new development application for Hibernia South to lede their stories on the speech. The timeline of that issue given by the Premier could be another post, but let's stick with Hebron.
In the scrum, the Premier was asked about the negotiations. He gave a slightly different version of the negotiations than we've heard before, saying that at one point he'd anticipated a deal by the first of April.
Well, when the memorandum of understanding was released, the final legal agreements were expected within a "few months." When the end of the year came, the deal date was moved to February.
April wasn't discussed publicly but at one point in the spring, the Premier said the whole thing was slow because the oil companies' approval processes weren't as swift as those of the provincial government.
The expected date for a deal was June. Now it's the first week of August. Anyone notice the "two months hence" pattern?
Anyway...
Note the comment in the scrum about about the current talks and what's being discussed on Hebron.
Confidentiality was dealt with "some time ago."
No news stories have mentioned that discrepancy and it isn't a small one. In fact, it leads you to the issues mentioned by the oil companies in a Financial Post story last week. They talked about questions about how much of the work would be done in Newfoundland and Labrador, how the province would pay for its share of the costs and how the oil companies will shift around their shares to give a few to the province's energy company.
No one in the local patch has questioned whether a Hebron deal would be finalized. They've known the deal would have to get done since the MOU was announced last August.
How much work gets done in this province - forget the GBS because that was a given before talks broke off in 2006 - is an issue that the local oil industry is extremely concerned about.
If you skip past the superficial comments and the hype and recognize the obvious disinformation about the confidentiality portion of the deal, you might start to wonder if the oil companies are concerned about whether the local labour market can handle the Hebron project what with most of the province's skilled tradesmen off in Alberta.
They wouldn't want to be tied to performance commitments the local labour market can't keep unless the provincial government was prepared to either relax the local benefits provisions or step in a share the increased costs of doing work locally and shipping in the workers to do it from Heaven knows where. After all, the oil companies want the job done quickly, cheaply and on time. If they have to meet political targets - versus business ones - they'd like to offload those on someone else and who better, in their minds, than the energy company owned by the people who are pushing for the political targets?
If that's what the hang-up in Hebron talks is really all about, that would be a significant conundrum for the provincial government and it would certainly cover off two of the three items the industry representatives mentioned to the Financial Post.
A deal will get done, but if that's the sort of thing that is currently holding things up, it's a major point of disagreement. We may not see a deal for a few months beyond August.
Overall, though, it's interesting to examine the news because sometimes what's reported as news isn't real news at all. There's was no likelihood of a Hebron deal this week and the Premier said so.
Sometimes, the real story is missed entirely even when it's right in front of everyone's face. It didn't make it into the first news cycle. As with the negotiations, let's see what tomorrow brings.
On Tuesday, there was Premier Danny Williams' opening remarks to the annual NOIA oil and gas conference in St. John's.
CBC was hyping the thing despite there being no concrete evidence whatsoever that Williams was even vaguely contemplating announcing the conclusion of Hebron deal. The reasons behind the hype-fest are as inscrutable as the real reasons for the whole Andy to the CNLOPB or Andy to the PUB thing.
CBC even gifted the Premier with 15 minutes of free province-wide airtime right before the 9:00 work whistle started so that he could deliver a yawner of a stock speech. He didn't ask for it; they gave it willingly and based on absolutely squat in the way of concrete information.
There were no hotel spaces booked for the launch. No sign of print work or any of the other things that would happen if there was going to be a major announcement of a final and binding agreement between the provincial energy company and the oil companies on Hebron.
And if the absence of all those usual indicators wasn't enough, and just to make it overwhelmingly clear, bear in mind that no less a personage than the Premier himself poured cold water over the whole idea of a Hebron announcement coming in his in his Tuesday remarks.
"I can't be overly optimistic that we will achieve it by next week," said Williams on Friday, but said a 25-per cent chance is a fair statement that an announcement will come next week. "I can tell you, though, that I'm extremely confident that this is going to get done in reasonable time frame.".That was the Telly version. Other media carried similar remarks either from the Premier or from his spokesperson who used, one must note the exact same words about the percentage chance of an announcement.
Williams said the confidentiality part of the agreement is the biggest hold up, especially now that the province owns an equity stake in Hebron.
So then came the speech and the Premier's predictions were dead on.
With the Hebron speculation proven hollow, both CBC and the Telegram used the possibility of a new development application for Hibernia South to lede their stories on the speech. The timeline of that issue given by the Premier could be another post, but let's stick with Hebron.
In the scrum, the Premier was asked about the negotiations. He gave a slightly different version of the negotiations than we've heard before, saying that at one point he'd anticipated a deal by the first of April.
Well, when the memorandum of understanding was released, the final legal agreements were expected within a "few months." When the end of the year came, the deal date was moved to February.
April wasn't discussed publicly but at one point in the spring, the Premier said the whole thing was slow because the oil companies' approval processes weren't as swift as those of the provincial government.
The expected date for a deal was June. Now it's the first week of August. Anyone notice the "two months hence" pattern?
Anyway...
Note the comment in the scrum about about the current talks and what's being discussed on Hebron.
Confidentiality was dealt with "some time ago."
No news stories have mentioned that discrepancy and it isn't a small one. In fact, it leads you to the issues mentioned by the oil companies in a Financial Post story last week. They talked about questions about how much of the work would be done in Newfoundland and Labrador, how the province would pay for its share of the costs and how the oil companies will shift around their shares to give a few to the province's energy company.
No one in the local patch has questioned whether a Hebron deal would be finalized. They've known the deal would have to get done since the MOU was announced last August.
How much work gets done in this province - forget the GBS because that was a given before talks broke off in 2006 - is an issue that the local oil industry is extremely concerned about.
If you skip past the superficial comments and the hype and recognize the obvious disinformation about the confidentiality portion of the deal, you might start to wonder if the oil companies are concerned about whether the local labour market can handle the Hebron project what with most of the province's skilled tradesmen off in Alberta.
They wouldn't want to be tied to performance commitments the local labour market can't keep unless the provincial government was prepared to either relax the local benefits provisions or step in a share the increased costs of doing work locally and shipping in the workers to do it from Heaven knows where. After all, the oil companies want the job done quickly, cheaply and on time. If they have to meet political targets - versus business ones - they'd like to offload those on someone else and who better, in their minds, than the energy company owned by the people who are pushing for the political targets?
If that's what the hang-up in Hebron talks is really all about, that would be a significant conundrum for the provincial government and it would certainly cover off two of the three items the industry representatives mentioned to the Financial Post.
A deal will get done, but if that's the sort of thing that is currently holding things up, it's a major point of disagreement. We may not see a deal for a few months beyond August.
Overall, though, it's interesting to examine the news because sometimes what's reported as news isn't real news at all. There's was no likelihood of a Hebron deal this week and the Premier said so.
Sometimes, the real story is missed entirely even when it's right in front of everyone's face. It didn't make it into the first news cycle. As with the negotiations, let's see what tomorrow brings.
-srbp-
Resist the hype
or is it the spin about a possible Hebron deal being announced this morning.
Not gonna happen.
Too much left to negotiate.
But that's not to say the Premier won't be saying positive things about Hebron moving along and there being discussions about possibly getting the Hibernia South extensions underway.
Nothing concrete or finalised, mind you.
Just positive, generic words.
And that's all they are.
Words.
Only the action counts, and that's the action of pen scribbling across bottom of page.
If there's no news conference scheduled or even under discussion, all the rest is hype and spin. Both are just synonyms for bullsh*t.
Now it's interesting to speculate why one news organization is pushing something that no one in the industry is expecting, so here's a simple proposition for the gang at CBC:
five Bond Bucks - the notional currency around these parts - says the only thing we'll hear from Danny Williams on Tuesday morning are vague platitudes.
Any takers?
0915 Update: 15 minutes of free province-wide radio airtime to deliver... the most generic, stock off-the-shelf government energy speech yet.
The only variation from the stock government energy speech? The sentence right at the beginning that said there was no announcement and, indeed no news on Hebron and Hibernia South.
The kernel of news buried in it? The Lower Churchill project has already been sanctioned. Money will be spent and the only thing that will stop it is, well, nothing.
Not gonna happen.
Too much left to negotiate.
But that's not to say the Premier won't be saying positive things about Hebron moving along and there being discussions about possibly getting the Hibernia South extensions underway.
Nothing concrete or finalised, mind you.
Just positive, generic words.
And that's all they are.
Words.
Only the action counts, and that's the action of pen scribbling across bottom of page.
If there's no news conference scheduled or even under discussion, all the rest is hype and spin. Both are just synonyms for bullsh*t.
Now it's interesting to speculate why one news organization is pushing something that no one in the industry is expecting, so here's a simple proposition for the gang at CBC:
five Bond Bucks - the notional currency around these parts - says the only thing we'll hear from Danny Williams on Tuesday morning are vague platitudes.
Any takers?
0915 Update: 15 minutes of free province-wide radio airtime to deliver... the most generic, stock off-the-shelf government energy speech yet.
The only variation from the stock government energy speech? The sentence right at the beginning that said there was no announcement and, indeed no news on Hebron and Hibernia South.
The kernel of news buried in it? The Lower Churchill project has already been sanctioned. Money will be spent and the only thing that will stop it is, well, nothing.
-srbp-
Privatizing Hydro: a glance back
Introductory Note:
One of the more controversial proposals over the past 20 years was the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
Much of the Hydro privatization story has passed into myth, much like the Churchill Falls story. Unfortunately for anyone interested in looking more closely at the idea of Hydro privatization today, some of the documents publicly available 15 years ago are no longer readily accessible.
Following is a text of an address delivered by Premier Clyde Wells to the St. John's Board of Trade in November 1993. It is the prepared text, not a transcript of the actual speech. It doesn't need much comment; the thing speaks for itself.
In order to produce this post, the original hard copy of this speech was scanned electronically. Please note that errors in spelling and so forth may remain, despite careful editing.
Next in this series will be the 1969 Churchill Falls contract. Given the documents length, it will take some time to scan and edit and the subsequent online versions will be broken down into smaller segments.
I want at the outset to express my appreciation to the Board of Trade for giving me this opportunity to advise you and through you the people of the province of the government's position with respect to privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
Contrary to some suggestions you have been hearing this is not a proposal intended to benefit a particular company or group of people. This proposal is intended to benefit the province and its people both in their capacity as electrical ratepayers and in their capacity as taxpayers. It is also completely consistent with the overall economic vision and goals that the government is pursuing for Newfoundland and Labrador.
In June of 1992, after nearly two years of research and extensive consultation throughout every region of this province, government released its strategic plan entitled, Change and Challenge. At that time we stated that Change and Challenge is a living document for the Newfoundland and Labrador economy in the latter years of the 20th century and beyond the year 2000. To quote:
The ultimate goal of privatization and restructuring is to improve the economy as a whole. There is hardly a country in the world today that does not have a major privatization plan in hand. These plans constitute a main pillar for the future economic strategy of most governments.
December 1992 Economic Statement by the Finance Minister
As part of his address to the House of Assembly on December 4, 1992, the Honourable Winston Baker, Minister of Finance, reviewed the state of the provincial economy and outlined a number of important decisions that the government was taking to deal with our financial and economic position.
One of the fundamental policy statements articulated by Mr. Baker at that time was government's decision to review the various operations, crown corporations and agencies of government and to pursue a privatization and restructuring program for those areas presently in the public sector that could be owned and operated by the private sector. That was also consistent with the government's often stated position that scarce and difficult to raise public funds should not be tied up providing commercial type services that the private sector is prepared to provide unless there is an overwhelming public policy reason for so doing.
Since the presentation of that economic statement, we have been pursuing the privatization of several government activities including the provincially owned Computer Services Corporation, certain assets of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, Newfoundland Hardwoods and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We are currently considering other possible restructuring and privatization opportunities.
One of these has attracted a significant amount of attention in the past few weeks. That one is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
A little background might be helpful to a full understanding of the issues.
In 1989, Fortis, the parent company of Newfoundland Power, approached government with a view to purchasing certain select rural assets of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, mainly all the lower voltage transmission and distribution assets. Government, on the advice of Hydro and others, rejected the offer. Fortis, offering slightly different terms, pursued the matter again in 1992.
Government again asked Hydro for advice. The Board of Directors of Hydro initiated an assessment of the Fortis offer. The Board also decided to review at the same time various other alternative structures for the province's electrical industry.
Hydro retained ScotiaMacLeod and RBC Dominion Securities, two of Canada's largest and most respected investment dealers. These two companies have participated in billions of dollars of successful privatization and restructuring transactions in Canada and throughout the world. It is noteworthy that they were the lead advisors in the recent successful privatization of Nova Scotia Power. They have also been the senior fiscal advisors to Hydro and the province for over ten years.
The financial advisors recommended that Hydro and the government reject the Fortis offer because it did not represent fair price and payment terms for the assets in question and was not the best strategic alternative for the future structure of the electrical industry of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hydro's Board of Directors and its advisors pursued the assessment further and ultimately advised the government that the status quo was obviously a viable option but if the government wished to privatize it could do so successfully either by privatizing Hydro on a stand-alone basis or by first merging with Fortis and/or Newfoundland Power and then selling its shares in the merged company. They did however advise that the combination with Fortis/Newfoundland Power was preferable to a stand-alone privatization, from the point of view of government, taxpayers and ratepayers, if the combination could be effected on acceptable terms.
Government reviewed the results of this process, but before proceeding decided to further consult with experienced electrical industry experts both within and outside the province. All affirmed that in the event of privatization, merger was the preferred course and nearly all recommended privatization as the best course for government to follow. Accordingly the government decided:
I also advised the Fortis/Newfoundland Power representatives that if satisfactory progress towards a merger that would achieve government's stated objectives could not be accomplished in a reasonable period of time, then we would proceed to privatize Hydro on a stand-alone basis.
Overview of the Negotiation Principles and Current Status
It might be helpful to review some of the major principles and objectives that we established for these discussions, and to provide an overview of the major components that will be part of any merger with Fortis/Newfoundland Power, or the privatization of Hydro on its own.
Objectives Established
Before any discussions began with Fortis/Newfoundland Power, government established its set of overall objectives for any merger between Hydro and Fortis. In summary, these objectives are:
Fortis has not yet agreed to fully meet the requirements of government, that I have just outlined, to ensure that what occurs is not a take over by Fortis but is genuinely a merger of the two corporations with the final structure reflecting the level of assets and strengths each of the two parties will bring to the merged company. Unless such requirements are met there will be no merger.
Major issues to be addressed
Recent public commentary has raised a variety of questions. Valid or not these questions should be addressed. I will do so by posing the questions that have been raised and providing government's answer.
Why is the proposed transaction a merger?
On October 1st when we announced that we were beginning discussions with Fortis/Newfoundland Power, we stated that any transaction would have to meet three objectives:
The restructuring and privatizing of the electrical utility industry is not being done behind closed doors. I advised the people of the province as soon as the basis for negotiations was decided upon by both parties. We have considered many different alternatives; sought advice from the industry experts; and engaged highly respected and experienced financial advisors, before deciding to restructure and privatize the industry. We will keep the public and House of Assembly fully informed as discussion progress. In any event no such privatization can be completed without full debate and passage of the necessary legislation by the House of Assembly.
The government's stated policy is that we will privatize and restructure government operations, crown corporations and agencies where there is no overriding public policy purpose for government to remain as an owner. The electrical industry meets this policy criteria.
The province is being affected by the profound economic and financial forces which are impacting the economies of all countries of the world. These forces make it imperative that we make wise use of investment capital and that the electrical industry, and for that matter, all sectors of our economy, be operated in the most productive fashion possible. That is what we are seeking to achieve.
Thank you very much.
One of the more controversial proposals over the past 20 years was the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
Much of the Hydro privatization story has passed into myth, much like the Churchill Falls story. Unfortunately for anyone interested in looking more closely at the idea of Hydro privatization today, some of the documents publicly available 15 years ago are no longer readily accessible.
Following is a text of an address delivered by Premier Clyde Wells to the St. John's Board of Trade in November 1993. It is the prepared text, not a transcript of the actual speech. It doesn't need much comment; the thing speaks for itself.
In order to produce this post, the original hard copy of this speech was scanned electronically. Please note that errors in spelling and so forth may remain, despite careful editing.
Next in this series will be the 1969 Churchill Falls contract. Given the documents length, it will take some time to scan and edit and the subsequent online versions will be broken down into smaller segments.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
Restructuring and Privatizing the Electrical Industry
of Newfoundland and Labrador
of Newfoundland and Labrador
An Address by
The Honourable Clyde K. Wells
Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador
to the
St. John's Board of Trade
November 17, 1993
Check Against Delivery
The Honourable Clyde K. Wells
Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador
to the
St. John's Board of Trade
November 17, 1993
Check Against Delivery
I want at the outset to express my appreciation to the Board of Trade for giving me this opportunity to advise you and through you the people of the province of the government's position with respect to privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
Contrary to some suggestions you have been hearing this is not a proposal intended to benefit a particular company or group of people. This proposal is intended to benefit the province and its people both in their capacity as electrical ratepayers and in their capacity as taxpayers. It is also completely consistent with the overall economic vision and goals that the government is pursuing for Newfoundland and Labrador.
In June of 1992, after nearly two years of research and extensive consultation throughout every region of this province, government released its strategic plan entitled, Change and Challenge. At that time we stated that Change and Challenge is a living document for the Newfoundland and Labrador economy in the latter years of the 20th century and beyond the year 2000. To quote:
Our economic vision for Newfoundland and Labrador is that of an enterprising, educated, distinctive and prosperous people working together to create a competitive economy based on innovation, creativity, productivity and quality.Two of our set of eight guiding principles for economic development are worthy of repeating today:
- The private sector must be the engine of growth. While it is a role of government to create an economic and social environment that promotes competitiveness, it is the enterprising spirit of the private sector that will stimulate lasting economic growth, and
- Government policies and actions must have a developmental focus where the client comes first. The structure of government must be streamlined, efficient and responsive to public need and to changes in the economy.
The ultimate goal of privatization and restructuring is to improve the economy as a whole. There is hardly a country in the world today that does not have a major privatization plan in hand. These plans constitute a main pillar for the future economic strategy of most governments.
December 1992 Economic Statement by the Finance Minister
As part of his address to the House of Assembly on December 4, 1992, the Honourable Winston Baker, Minister of Finance, reviewed the state of the provincial economy and outlined a number of important decisions that the government was taking to deal with our financial and economic position.
One of the fundamental policy statements articulated by Mr. Baker at that time was government's decision to review the various operations, crown corporations and agencies of government and to pursue a privatization and restructuring program for those areas presently in the public sector that could be owned and operated by the private sector. That was also consistent with the government's often stated position that scarce and difficult to raise public funds should not be tied up providing commercial type services that the private sector is prepared to provide unless there is an overwhelming public policy reason for so doing.
Since the presentation of that economic statement, we have been pursuing the privatization of several government activities including the provincially owned Computer Services Corporation, certain assets of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, Newfoundland Hardwoods and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We are currently considering other possible restructuring and privatization opportunities.
One of these has attracted a significant amount of attention in the past few weeks. That one is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
A little background might be helpful to a full understanding of the issues.
In 1989, Fortis, the parent company of Newfoundland Power, approached government with a view to purchasing certain select rural assets of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, mainly all the lower voltage transmission and distribution assets. Government, on the advice of Hydro and others, rejected the offer. Fortis, offering slightly different terms, pursued the matter again in 1992.
Government again asked Hydro for advice. The Board of Directors of Hydro initiated an assessment of the Fortis offer. The Board also decided to review at the same time various other alternative structures for the province's electrical industry.
Hydro retained ScotiaMacLeod and RBC Dominion Securities, two of Canada's largest and most respected investment dealers. These two companies have participated in billions of dollars of successful privatization and restructuring transactions in Canada and throughout the world. It is noteworthy that they were the lead advisors in the recent successful privatization of Nova Scotia Power. They have also been the senior fiscal advisors to Hydro and the province for over ten years.
The financial advisors recommended that Hydro and the government reject the Fortis offer because it did not represent fair price and payment terms for the assets in question and was not the best strategic alternative for the future structure of the electrical industry of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hydro's Board of Directors and its advisors pursued the assessment further and ultimately advised the government that the status quo was obviously a viable option but if the government wished to privatize it could do so successfully either by privatizing Hydro on a stand-alone basis or by first merging with Fortis and/or Newfoundland Power and then selling its shares in the merged company. They did however advise that the combination with Fortis/Newfoundland Power was preferable to a stand-alone privatization, from the point of view of government, taxpayers and ratepayers, if the combination could be effected on acceptable terms.
Government reviewed the results of this process, but before proceeding decided to further consult with experienced electrical industry experts both within and outside the province. All affirmed that in the event of privatization, merger was the preferred course and nearly all recommended privatization as the best course for government to follow. Accordingly the government decided:
- To reject the offer from Fortis; and
- That it was in the best interest of the people of the province to pursue the restructuring and privatization of the industry by either merging Hydro and Fortis/Newfoundland Power, or by privatizing Hydro on a stand-alone basis.
I also advised the Fortis/Newfoundland Power representatives that if satisfactory progress towards a merger that would achieve government's stated objectives could not be accomplished in a reasonable period of time, then we would proceed to privatize Hydro on a stand-alone basis.
Overview of the Negotiation Principles and Current Status
It might be helpful to review some of the major principles and objectives that we established for these discussions, and to provide an overview of the major components that will be part of any merger with Fortis/Newfoundland Power, or the privatization of Hydro on its own.
Objectives Established
Before any discussions began with Fortis/Newfoundland Power, government established its set of overall objectives for any merger between Hydro and Fortis. In summary, these objectives are:
- To get the highest reasonable price possible for its hydro assets;
- The elimination of the guaranteed debt of Hydro from the Province's financial statements is to take place as soon as possible, and the government is to have no future financial responsibilities.
- To achieve the most efficient and effective provincial electrical industry.
- Either by restructuring the industry or privatizing on its own, government would intend to divest itself fully of its shareholdings in the electrical industry (except for its investments in Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation, the Lower Churchill Development Corporation and the Gull Island Power Corporation) as soon as practical, by way of a broad public offering of common shares in Newfoundland, the rest of Canada and possibly elsewhere.
- Discussions are to proceed in an appropriate and orderly manner and both parties are to observe confidentiality until an understanding in principle can be disclosed, or negotiations are discontinued. This is normal and necessary in a negotiation of this nature.
- The initial executive management team and the initial board of directors of the merged company would require input and approval of government.
- Ownership, voting and possibly other restrictions would apply to the shares of the new merged entity to ensure the electrical industry is widely held and not controlled by a small number of individuals or corporations, nor controlled by foreign investors.
- To ensure the restructured and privatized industry is well capitalized and credit worthy so that it will be able to finance the Province's future electrical requirements, and
- To achieve stable or improved revenues for the provincial treasury from the electrical industry.
- Within the context of these objectives to minimize the rate increases charged industrial, commercial and domestic customers in the immediate and longer terms.
Fortis has not yet agreed to fully meet the requirements of government, that I have just outlined, to ensure that what occurs is not a take over by Fortis but is genuinely a merger of the two corporations with the final structure reflecting the level of assets and strengths each of the two parties will bring to the merged company. Unless such requirements are met there will be no merger.
Major issues to be addressed
Recent public commentary has raised a variety of questions. Valid or not these questions should be addressed. I will do so by posing the questions that have been raised and providing government's answer.
Why is the proposed transaction a merger?
1. The only way to effectively eliminate the duplication that presently exists and would continue to exist if Hydro were simply privatized on a stand-alone basis would be a merger. All of the expert advice available to government recommends such a merger.Why is Hydro and Government negotiating only with Fortis?
2. The newly merged company would be neither Fortis, nor Hydro, but a true combination of the people, assets and shareholdings of Hydro and Fortis.
3. The percentage of the new entity that is coming from the government's ownership of Hydro is the majority interest in the new company, and will then be sold to investors in Newfoundland and Labrador, throughout Canada and the world by a public share offering.
1. Newfoundland Power, a company wholly owned by Fortis, is the only other electrical utility in the province and it distributes electricity to 85 % of all electrical customers in the province. Any effort to restructure the industry in the province must include Fortis, and only Fortis.Will the Government get fair value for its investment?
2. The advisors and government are of the opinion that the most efficient operating structure for the electrical industry is to have a fully integrated operation for the generation, transmission and distribution of the product to the customer, and that can only be achieved by negotiating with Fortis.
3. We do not want control to be with another corporation outside the province and we do not want private interests, either within or outside the province, to buy Hydro. Therefore, it is not appropriate to seek bids for Hydro. The interests of the province will be best served if its electrical industry is a widely held public company that cannot be controlled by any group either within or outside the province and can raise the capital required for future growth of the industry.
1. Most definitely, Hydro and government's financial advisors are among the best in the world. Their projections indicate a very attractive value can be achieved and that there will be a profit to the people of the province from the privatization of their investment in Hydro.How will the province's financial position be improved?
2. The government will not privatize Hydro, either in a merged entity or on a stand-alone basis, unless the value received is fair and is consistent with values other governments have received in similar privatizations.
3. The government will only agree to proceeding with a transaction with Fortis if the proceeds are at least equal to or greater than would be received by privatizing Hydro on a stand-alone basis.
4. Government will obtain an opinion from recognized investment bankers that the proposed transaction is fair to the taxpayers of the province. Without such an opinion there will be no merger.
1. The guaranteed debt of Hydro represents approximately 18% of the total direct and indirect debt of the province. This will be significantly reduced immediately, and completely eliminated over the longer term. Hydro's current debt and equity today is approximately $1,250,000,000.Will this mean that there will be an increased outflow of capital from the province through payment of dividends?
2. The province will receive a substantial amount of cash from the profitable sale of the securities that it will receive in the privatized company. This cash will be used to reduce the province's debt by lowering our future borrowing requirements, thus saving current account interest expense, which means avoiding tax increases and/or government program cuts that would otherwise occur.
I believe the answer is NO. More than 90% of Hydro's current interest payments are to institutions outside the province. While part of the debt will be converted to equity, dividend payments won't make us worse off. Thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be encouraged to invest in the shares of the new entity, thus keeping more dividends in the province. In addition the retained profits in the new utility will be reinvested in new fixed assets within the province, no different than what occurs now. In total, more money will remain within the province.Will this assist the province's credit rating?
1. The major U.S. credit rating agencies, Standard & Poors and Moody's visited with me and senior ministers and officials earlier this year. They were strongly supportive of government's plans to restructure and privatize various crown agencies including Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as well as our other financial management initiatives.What will be the government's on-going role in the electrical industry?
2. The province's total direct and indirect debt as a percent of gross provincial product is 61.5%, the highest in Canada. Financial institutions frequently emphasize this when commenting on the province's financial state or its credit rating. The elimination of the Hydro debt and the reduction of future debt and borrowing requirements from privatization can only be positive, and will result in improved creditworthiness.
1. The new company will be totally subject to regulation by the Public Utilities Board in respect of all of its electrical utility activities.
2. Government will still be responsible for the regulatory policy regime of the electrical industry. We will be introducing a new Electrical Power Control Act that will ensure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and specifically the consumers, will continue to have an efficient, fair and reliable electrical industry.
3. The restructuring and privatizing of the industry will be governed by a Privatization Act which will outline the policies under which the new company will operate. This Act will cover major policy issues such as ownership rules, to ensure regulation and management of the industry remains within the province and not with other organizations in Canada or foreign countries.Will electrical rates increase?
4. The government will continue to control and be responsible for the development of future electrical development because it will retain ownership of Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation, The Lower Churchill Development Corporation, all other Labrador water rights, all undeveloped island water rights, and the policy direction for non-utility independent generators and alternate power sources.
1. Rates in the future, as now, will only be set after hearings by the Public Utilities Board. Under any of the alternatives of the industry, including leaving things as they are today, rates will increase as costs increase.What will be the impact on the employees and the unions?
2. Privatization, whether by merger or on a stand alone basis, will cause some additional rate increase beyond that which would otherwise occur in the first five years. That additional increase due solely to privatization should average about 1 % per year or less. Merger and privatization should result in lower rate increases beyond that five years.
3. Any rate increases must be considered in light of the benefits to the provincial treasury of privatization. Generally speaking the more the people as taxpayers get from the sale the more the same people as ratepayers will have to pay in the future. Government's objective will be to achieve the greatest fair return we can get while at the same striving to keep any increase at a minimum.
1. One of the objectives of the industry restructuring is to improve operating efficiencies. Merging two large utilities such as Hydro and Fortis/Newfoundland Power will result in the elimination of certain areas of duplication in management, administration, and maintenance. These will be identified and a fair and equitable program will be developed to accommodate early retirement, voluntary severance and position redundancies.Concluding comments
2. The Unions will be involved in the merger process if a transaction is agreed upon. So will the non union employees.
3. It is premature to speculate on numbers or specific areas of operating efficiencies that will result.
On October 1st when we announced that we were beginning discussions with Fortis/Newfoundland Power, we stated that any transaction would have to meet three objectives:
1. To create a more efficient electrical industry.I hope my comments today have helped explain how we arrived at the strategic decision to begin a restructuring process for the electrical industry; that we are going about it in a careful and responsible way; and that the achievement of our objectives will be in the best interests of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
2. To be fair to the current public shareholders of Fortis and Newfoundland Power and to the electrical utility ratepayers of the province, and
3. To maximize the proceeds of privatization of Newfoundland Hydro for the people of this province.
The restructuring and privatizing of the electrical utility industry is not being done behind closed doors. I advised the people of the province as soon as the basis for negotiations was decided upon by both parties. We have considered many different alternatives; sought advice from the industry experts; and engaged highly respected and experienced financial advisors, before deciding to restructure and privatize the industry. We will keep the public and House of Assembly fully informed as discussion progress. In any event no such privatization can be completed without full debate and passage of the necessary legislation by the House of Assembly.
The government's stated policy is that we will privatize and restructure government operations, crown corporations and agencies where there is no overriding public policy purpose for government to remain as an owner. The electrical industry meets this policy criteria.
The province is being affected by the profound economic and financial forces which are impacting the economies of all countries of the world. These forces make it imperative that we make wise use of investment capital and that the electrical industry, and for that matter, all sectors of our economy, be operated in the most productive fashion possible. That is what we are seeking to achieve.
Thank you very much.
-srbp-
16 June 2008
Russert moments
There have been plenty of tributes to Tim Russert, the long-time host of NBC's flagship public affairs program Meet the Press, who died suddenly on Friday.
John Gushue flips a link to a compilation of Russert's top 10 "gotcha" moments.
Gushue's daily blog Dot Dot Dot is a marvelously eclectic compilation of posts presented in John's characteristic lean style. No long winded essays from Gushue. Just the facts. Just John.
If you haven't dropped by lately, take this peak inside John's mind.
John Gushue flips a link to a compilation of Russert's top 10 "gotcha" moments.
Gushue's daily blog Dot Dot Dot is a marvelously eclectic compilation of posts presented in John's characteristic lean style. No long winded essays from Gushue. Just the facts. Just John.
If you haven't dropped by lately, take this peak inside John's mind.
-srbp-
15 June 2008
Cameron wins White Rose contract
Houston-based Cameron International has been awarded a US$235 million contract to engineer, construct and install subsea systems for the North Amethyst extension of the White Rose project.
Scope of the contract calls for Cameron (NYSE: CAM) to provide 13 subsea wellheads and Christmas trees, control systems, manifold components, flowline connection systems and engineering and project management support.
-srbp-
It's all about control
You can read a profile of the Premier, this week in the Toronto Star.
You've heard it before but you can read it if you want.
Or you can skip to something really interesting: a series on how the Prime Minister's Office is clamping down on public communications from the federal government in a way that some veterans inside the Queensway are saying is unprecedented.
-srbp-
You've heard it before but you can read it if you want.
Or you can skip to something really interesting: a series on how the Prime Minister's Office is clamping down on public communications from the federal government in a way that some veterans inside the Queensway are saying is unprecedented.
Public appearances by cabinet ministers – whether it's a speech or an interview – are carefully staged, starting with a "message event proposal" vetted by the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
And in a marked change from previous governments, now even basic demands for information from reporters, once easily fielded by department spokespersons, are sent to this office for review – and often heavy editing – before they are okayed for public release, government insiders say.
It's a series so you can see different things. Like the member of parliament who paid dearly for speaking out of turn. Like the policy of having everything vetted by officials in the communications and consultation branch.
Donald Savoie couldn't have written a more timely book. Too bad that of the three copies at Chapters locally, only one was bought up to yesterday evening when your humble e-scribbler bumped and jostled with the crowds picking up Father's Day stuff. That would be the one said scribbler bought last week.
Donald Savoie couldn't have written a more timely book. Too bad that of the three copies at Chapters locally, only one was bought up to yesterday evening when your humble e-scribbler bumped and jostled with the crowds picking up Father's Day stuff. That would be the one said scribbler bought last week.
-srbp-
14 June 2008
What a difference a week makes: the latest Hebron project stories
First - June 9 - a deal was "close".
There were just a few minor details left to sort out.
The latest is that there's just a 25% chance the deal can be closed by the time the Premier speaks to the NOIA conference next week.
The biggest hold up - by logical extension there are other hold ups - is the "confidentiality agreement".
The curious thing about that version of the story is that Bill 35 - the latest amendments to the energy corporation legislation - essentially make just about everything connected to the deal and the project entirely confidential and exempt from just about every form of public disclosure except what is required by the offshore regulatory board.
Maybe everyone should just kick back with a cold one and let the whole thing work itself out. When there's a real deal, there'll be an announcement and not before.
Face it. If the stories are true the parties would be a long way from a deal at this point, like maybe 75% of the way from a deal. (Get it? If there's only a 25% chance of it happening next week, there's a 75% chance it won't and that could be a way of saying the final version of the deal is a long hot summer away from happening. That would still be well within the time frames people have been talking about for project start-up; it's just not as quickly as some of the local speculators have been hoping.)
They still have to sort out:
There were just a few minor details left to sort out.
Mark Nelson, Calgary-based president of Chevron's Canadian subsidiary, said Hebron discussions are focused on such issues as how much of the project has to be built locally, how the province will pay for its share, how ownership interests will change to make room for the province.Then the deal was perhaps as close as "next week."
The latest is that there's just a 25% chance the deal can be closed by the time the Premier speaks to the NOIA conference next week.
The biggest hold up - by logical extension there are other hold ups - is the "confidentiality agreement".
The curious thing about that version of the story is that Bill 35 - the latest amendments to the energy corporation legislation - essentially make just about everything connected to the deal and the project entirely confidential and exempt from just about every form of public disclosure except what is required by the offshore regulatory board.
Maybe everyone should just kick back with a cold one and let the whole thing work itself out. When there's a real deal, there'll be an announcement and not before.
Face it. If the stories are true the parties would be a long way from a deal at this point, like maybe 75% of the way from a deal. (Get it? If there's only a 25% chance of it happening next week, there's a 75% chance it won't and that could be a way of saying the final version of the deal is a long hot summer away from happening. That would still be well within the time frames people have been talking about for project start-up; it's just not as quickly as some of the local speculators have been hoping.)
They still have to sort out:
- a confidentiality agreement, in addition to the confidentiality agreement in the memorandum of understanding (Didn't that portion of the MOU alone take something like four months to hammer out?);
- how much of the project will actually be built locally given local labour market shortages;
- how the original corporate partners are going to re-divide their shares to give some to the provincial government; and,
- how the provincial government will actually pay for its share of the capital costs. That's the only thing that might be in question since the energy minister clearly told the legislature this past spring that "[t]he funds will be transferred from the government to the energy corp to purchase the equity in Hebron as well as in the White Rose extension."
-srbp-
Never forget to remember
Maxime Bernier is the latest politco afflicted with what appears to be a virulent disease: amnesia politica.
“He doesn't remember forgetting them [the classified briefing notes], that's the question,” one source said.
-srbp-
13 June 2008
CDS wins national PR award
Outgoing Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier is the first recipient of the Canadian Public Relations Society's (CPRS) president's award for outstanding public relations and communications management.
Hillier received the award at the CPRS national conference in Halifax, June 10.
In making the award, CPRS president Derrick Pieters said "General Hillier was selected for this honour for his outstanding leadership in communications and excellence in communications management. He has also demonstrated a commitment to two-way communication practices and relationship management."
CPRS represents more that 1800 public relations practitioners across Canada. Members commit to following a code of professional standards. They are dedicated to promoting professionalism in the practice of public relations. CPRS was founded in 1948 and this year celebrates its 60th anniversary. Today, CPRS is a federation of 16 member societies based in major cities or organized province-wide.
Hillier received the award at the CPRS national conference in Halifax, June 10.
In making the award, CPRS president Derrick Pieters said "General Hillier was selected for this honour for his outstanding leadership in communications and excellence in communications management. He has also demonstrated a commitment to two-way communication practices and relationship management."
CPRS represents more that 1800 public relations practitioners across Canada. Members commit to following a code of professional standards. They are dedicated to promoting professionalism in the practice of public relations. CPRS was founded in 1948 and this year celebrates its 60th anniversary. Today, CPRS is a federation of 16 member societies based in major cities or organized province-wide.
-srbp-
12 June 2008
From the G&M: "The broken chain of answerability"
By one definition, a gearhead is a person who is extremely interested in computer hardware and software and they work.
Well, if that's the case, then Donald Savoie could be called a govhead. He's got an extraordinary interest in and knowledge of the hardware and software of government.
Savoie holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Administration and Governance at the Universite de Moncton. He's an accomplished public servant and academic with a resume that would make even the highest achievers feel inadequate.
His most recent book - Court Government and the Collapse of Accountability in Canada and the United Kingdom - won't make the national best seller list, but among academics and others interested in how government runs, Savoie's writings will become required reading.
Savoie condensed part of his recent book into a two page article last month in the Globe and Mail. His observations should startle Canadians into re-examining the federal and provincial government sin the country. Likely, Savoie will go unnoticed, not just unheeded.
Let's hope not:
Well, if that's the case, then Donald Savoie could be called a govhead. He's got an extraordinary interest in and knowledge of the hardware and software of government.
Savoie holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Administration and Governance at the Universite de Moncton. He's an accomplished public servant and academic with a resume that would make even the highest achievers feel inadequate.
His most recent book - Court Government and the Collapse of Accountability in Canada and the United Kingdom - won't make the national best seller list, but among academics and others interested in how government runs, Savoie's writings will become required reading.
Savoie condensed part of his recent book into a two page article last month in the Globe and Mail. His observations should startle Canadians into re-examining the federal and provincial government sin the country. Likely, Savoie will go unnoticed, not just unheeded.
Let's hope not:
The relationship among Parliament, the prime minister, ministers and public servants is in need of repair, and we are ill served by pretending that all is well. We should no longer tolerate court government, by which a political leader with the help of a handful of courtiers shapes and reshapes instruments of power at will. Those with the power to introduce change for the better are reluctant to do so because they enjoy being able to wield tremendous power.
We need to define, preferably in law, the role of the prime minister, cabinet and the public service and give public servants an administrative space of their own to manage government operations, while recognizing that the prime minister and ministers must always have the authority to override public servants in all matters not covered by statutes.
...
What is to be done? The time has come to engage Canadians in a debate on the role of Parliament, officers of Parliament, the prime minister, cabinet and the public service, and for Canadians and public servants to tell Parliament, "Heal thyself." Political parties need to take the lead and launch a meaningful debate on the state of our national political-administrative institutions. The issue is vitally important, and parties should engage their members in the debate. It provides an opportunity for political parties to be more than election-day organizations, to offer meaningful opportunities for involvement and to become effective vehicles for promoting thoughtful debates and change.
-srbp-
11 June 2008
Create wealth fund: OECD
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development believes that a Norway-style overseas investment fund would be beneficial for Canada:
You find a summary of the OECD report at oecd.org.
“It's not [only] an exchange rate play. It's a more fundamental issue” of investing the proceeds for the future, and helping manufacturing in Canada at the same time, said Angel Gurria, secretary general of the OECD, in Ottawa on Wednesday to release its report on the Canadian economy.Bond Papers has discussed the idea at least once before. So far local pols have ignored the idea.
The OECD wants Alberta “not to be so procyclical ... not to spend all those revenues now,” said Peter Jarrett of the OECD economics department.
The federal government should set up a fund too, and set aside any windfalls in a transparent manner, he said.
The Norway idea is a popular one among some academics and government officials but has never gained traction among politicians in Canada.
Ottawa has said in the past that it can't calculate how much money it gets from the energy industry, given the substantial spin-offs of investment and production in that industry, Mr. Jarrett said. But there's nt reason it couldn't create a model.
“There is scope for doing so,” he said.
You find a summary of the OECD report at oecd.org.
Don't cut yourself on the edge...
Earlier today, from the CPRS national conference in Halifax, Joseph Thornley liveblogged a panel presentation on the impact blogs, youtube and a raft of other new Internet phenomena are having on employee communications.
CBC employees will enjoy the bit from Amanda Brewer and the impact the Internet had on the 2005 strike. Brewer was a CBC employee who left the company after the strike, took a job with Hill and Knowlton which has now been hired by Ceeb management to help the Corp cope.
CBC employees will enjoy the bit from Amanda Brewer and the impact the Internet had on the 2005 strike. Brewer was a CBC employee who left the company after the strike, took a job with Hill and Knowlton which has now been hired by Ceeb management to help the Corp cope.
-srbp-
10 June 2008
CPRS-NL submission to the Cameron Inquiry
[Editor's note: Following is the text of the submission made by the Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter of the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) to the Cameron Inquiry, under the call for submissions in Part II of the Inquiry.
The only editorial change in the submission made here is to move the acknowledgements from its position at the front of the original document to the end.]
Submission to the Commission of Inquiry on Hormone Receptor Testing
by
Canadian Public Relation Society –Newfoundland and Labrador (CPRS-NL)
May 15, 2008
The only editorial change in the submission made here is to move the acknowledgements from its position at the front of the original document to the end.]
Submission to the Commission of Inquiry on Hormone Receptor Testing
by
Canadian Public Relation Society –Newfoundland and Labrador (CPRS-NL)
May 15, 2008
08 June 2008
Legal roflmao of the week
roflmao.
Rolling on floor laughing my ass off.
Internet shorthand.
Anyway.
Post a few court decisions and someone sends along a link to a blog that is built entirely on the humourous goings-on in courts south of the border.
That's the United States, since this is being written in Canada.
Lowering the bar is the blog.
It's most recent post describes some of the arguments presented in FCC v. Fox Television. That's a case at the heart of which is whether or not fleeting uses of four letter expletives are sufficiently shocking to audiences that they should be banned entirely from broadcasting between the hours of six and 10 in the evening.
Seems the lawyer for Fox began his argument by using two of the seven words you can't say on television repeatedly and in full.
There's a link to another post about a Pennsylvania case where fines where handed out to a person being deposed and his counsel for the use of the infamous "f*ck" 73 times in the course of a deposition, while the word contract only came up 14 times. The fine worked out to $367 per "f*ck".
Some people have no sense of humour.
In any event, turns out that the Wall Street Journal has a law blog, which is is well worth checking out on occasion. There's also SCOTUSblog which is, as the name suggests, a blog about the Supreme Court of the United States. These both tend toward a more serious raportage of legal matters than the stuff you'll find at Lowering the bar.
In Canada, you can find The Court, which is a rather serious blog from Osgoode Hall law school about the Supreme Court of Canada and its decisions. A reference librarian from SCC has his own blog, titled Library boy. google around enough and you'll find a few more worth stopping by if you have a sudden taste for things about lawyers written by lawyers.
Too bad we don't get this kinda stuff from the local law courts. Something says there'd be plenty of really funny stories to relate.
Barristers may feel free to send their submissions for consideration.
Update: In order to ensure there is no confusion, the phrase "for consideration" used above should in no way be construed as an offer to pay for any posts a barrister may submit. Words are funny things and lawyers are good at using them. Let's make sure there is no confusion.
Further to that point, posts may be made under a pseudonym provided that your humble e-editor knows who is making the submission. The local bar is a small one and a pseudonymous post might be in order under the right circumstances. Barristers should be somewhat creative in using a pseudonym. Rumpole is right out, but any of the other characters are fair game.
Speaking of Rumpole, undoubtedly he'd have had something to say about the initiative in the United Kingdom to change the style of dress in court. There's a discussion paper on the subject, complete with illustrations of the old and the proposed new.
The reaction to the proposal - which could see an end to wigs in British courts - has been somewhat mixed. Here's a link to the Inner Temple library blog with posts on the reaction as covered in the media.
Rolling on floor laughing my ass off.
Internet shorthand.
Anyway.
Post a few court decisions and someone sends along a link to a blog that is built entirely on the humourous goings-on in courts south of the border.
That's the United States, since this is being written in Canada.
Lowering the bar is the blog.
It's most recent post describes some of the arguments presented in FCC v. Fox Television. That's a case at the heart of which is whether or not fleeting uses of four letter expletives are sufficiently shocking to audiences that they should be banned entirely from broadcasting between the hours of six and 10 in the evening.
Seems the lawyer for Fox began his argument by using two of the seven words you can't say on television repeatedly and in full.
There's a link to another post about a Pennsylvania case where fines where handed out to a person being deposed and his counsel for the use of the infamous "f*ck" 73 times in the course of a deposition, while the word contract only came up 14 times. The fine worked out to $367 per "f*ck".
Some people have no sense of humour.
In any event, turns out that the Wall Street Journal has a law blog, which is is well worth checking out on occasion. There's also SCOTUSblog which is, as the name suggests, a blog about the Supreme Court of the United States. These both tend toward a more serious raportage of legal matters than the stuff you'll find at Lowering the bar.
In Canada, you can find The Court, which is a rather serious blog from Osgoode Hall law school about the Supreme Court of Canada and its decisions. A reference librarian from SCC has his own blog, titled Library boy. google around enough and you'll find a few more worth stopping by if you have a sudden taste for things about lawyers written by lawyers.
Too bad we don't get this kinda stuff from the local law courts. Something says there'd be plenty of really funny stories to relate.
Barristers may feel free to send their submissions for consideration.
Update: In order to ensure there is no confusion, the phrase "for consideration" used above should in no way be construed as an offer to pay for any posts a barrister may submit. Words are funny things and lawyers are good at using them. Let's make sure there is no confusion.
Further to that point, posts may be made under a pseudonym provided that your humble e-editor knows who is making the submission. The local bar is a small one and a pseudonymous post might be in order under the right circumstances. Barristers should be somewhat creative in using a pseudonym. Rumpole is right out, but any of the other characters are fair game.
Speaking of Rumpole, undoubtedly he'd have had something to say about the initiative in the United Kingdom to change the style of dress in court. There's a discussion paper on the subject, complete with illustrations of the old and the proposed new.
The reaction to the proposal - which could see an end to wigs in British courts - has been somewhat mixed. Here's a link to the Inner Temple library blog with posts on the reaction as covered in the media.
-srbp-
07 June 2008
From the Supreme Court of Canada
Where someone is from would obviously affect how one applies the Charter.
Was that sarcasm clear enough for the proponents of the ghetto school of judicial appointments?
Still, here's a case for the legally mind that's worth noting:
-srbp-
Was that sarcasm clear enough for the proponents of the ghetto school of judicial appointments?
Still, here's a case for the legally mind that's worth noting:
The accused made an incriminating statement, after four hours of resistance, immediately after being confronted by the interrogating officer with a prior statement obtained from him in violation of his constitutional right to counsel. The trial judge admitted the latter statement and convicted the accused on three counts of sexual interference. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.
Held: The appeal should be allowed and a new trial ordered. The impugned statement should have been excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A statement is tainted by an earlier breach of an accused’s constitutional
rights if the breach and the impugned statement can be said to be part of the same
transaction or course of conduct. Here, the required connection between the two
statements was direct and obvious. It was temporal, causal and, to some extent,
contextual. The interrogating officer concluded that he would not obtain the
incriminating admissions sought unless he confronted the accused with the latter’s
earlier inadmissible statement. He therefore proceeded to do so. In this way the
interrogating officer made use, knowingly and deliberately, of an earlier statement that the police themselves had obtained from the accused in a manner that infringed his Charter rights. This alone was sufficient to taint the subsequent statement and to cry out for its exclusion pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter. To hold otherwise would be to invite the perception that the police are legally entitled to reap the benefit of their own infringements of a suspect’s constitutional rights. And this would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
-srbp-
The elements of a good communications plan
Courtesy of Dave Fleet, a step by step guide to communications planning.
He starts - where else? - with a good overview.
He starts - where else? - with a good overview.
-srbp-
05 June 2008
And it isn't in code
Israel's security service is blogging in hopes of attracting a few good nerds into the service.
Sounds like a farkocktah idea.
Who knows?
They might be on to something.
If you read Hebrew, you can check out the site here: Shin-Tech.
Sounds like a farkocktah idea.
Who knows?
They might be on to something.
If you read Hebrew, you can check out the site here: Shin-Tech.
-srbp-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)