We are not alone!

No.

Not aliens.

Who needs to be an independent country when you can have a rubbish government fiscal policy just like the big boys?

All of this should sound very familiar;  only the amounts vary.

-srbp-

The Gospel according to Chip Diller

Newfoundland and Labrador is usually one of the last places to catch a trend.  Doesn't matter if you are talking fashion or, in the latest version, government economic and fiscal policy, it seems to take a while for things to catch on here.

Late on Friday afternoon newly minted finance minister Jerome Kennedy issued a news release trumpeting a credit rating by Standard and Poor's as proof of the provincial government's "fiscal prudence and sound policies". 

Well, maybe catch up is the better word.

There isn't a government left in the developed world that is still pushing the sound fundamentals media line now almost two months after the start of the current global economic crisis.  No government is claiming some sort of credit for being able to weather a storm that, in many minds, is far from over.

Well, no government except the one here.

If you want to understand why everyone else's tune has changed, take a look at the five year trending in crude oil prices. You can find an example in the WTI futures box on the right hand column.  Click on the "5Y" symbol. 

Four years to get up to US$147 a barrel and a mere four months to tumble below US$50.  The steepest declines have come in just the past two months.

The speed of the price collapse should be a clue to analysts that the assumptions used before July to predict that oil would remain at unprecedentedly high prices for the rest of time were faulty.  The security premium, supply concerns and overheated speculation drove prices to the peak last summer but in addition to all that the superheating of the global economy, fueled by loose American regulations pushed things beyond anything that would be considered normal and rational.

In other words, the price of oil has been artificially high for a very long time. Given that markets have a way of correcting themselves at some point, it was really only a matter of time before a correction - a downturn - took the heat out of things.  The only thing that couldn't be foreseen, and that's about the only thing, was how steep a correction was coming and how it might last, but come it would as surely as it has come at every juncture in the past.

Fewer and fewer analysts are holding to the old projections, some of them dating back several months. Some of the more influential sources, such as the International Energy Agency, are forecasting high prices.  However, many are revising their short term projections markedly downward.  Deutsche Bank, among others, is projecting crude at US$40 per barrel by April 2009.  One analyst  - Robin Batchelor - who in May 2008 predicted high oil prices well into the future is now likening the current climate to one 30 years ago:

"On the upside it always overshoots and the same is true on the downside. What I’m looking at is the commodity supply and demand equation; long term there are still supply issues but on the demand side we’re facing downdraft," he points out. "The last time we had a fall of that magnitude was in 1979/80/81."

While Batchelor for one has not abandoned his high price forecasts, he has certainly altered his view dramatically. The reason is simple.  While he and others once assumed ever increasing demand, the current correction may alter the demand side of the price equation that can't be seen right at the moment. If the current downturn lasts well into 2009, as most expect, the IEA, among others, will likely go back and rethink their projections just as they revised their assumptions three years ago when they thought US$50 a barrel was the peak.

Closer to home, though, the hope in the old assumptions remain strong close to home. This week, economist Wade Locke told Memorial University's student newspaper The Muse that:

“The longterm [sic] price forecast is still in the $80- to $90-range for oil and that will not affect Hebron, White Rose Extension, or Hibernia South. Even if [oil] prices were to stay around $60, these projects would likely proceed,” he said.

Locke's comments are a useful segue to an interesting aspect of the local view from the provincial government and its supporters.  Locke certainly falls into that category and the similarity between his comments and those of the finance minister are striking.  With that quote from The Muse in mind, take a look at this one from the release on the credit rating:

"Our economy remains strong and the current economic downturn should not affect development of new oilfields including White Rose Expansion, Hibernia South and Hebron," said Minister Kennedy.

The phrasing is similar, much like the similarity in early October between Locke's and the Premier's references within days of each other to the government being able to meet and exceed its current budget targets even if oil falls to $10 a barrel.

But what's more interesting in these two comments is that neither is completely true and in the wider context of Locke's comments on a bright future based on oil wealth, they constitute a fixation on oil as the source of economic salvation not seen in this province since "1979/80/81."

Let's deal with the projects first.

The White Rose expansion is a relatively modest project.  With its development costs already recovered, oil would almost have to hit prices lower than the historic 1992 price of  US$8  per barrel to make it economically dodgy.

The Hibernia South extension is also not a pricey project measured in terms of the original Hibernia project or Hebron.  However, there is no development application yet and a decision to proceed would certainly be affected by oil prices significantly lower than the current ones.

In all likelihood, the project will go ahead given that the oil companies have at their doorstep a provincial government willing to invest hundreds of millions of very scarce tax dollars in the expansion since that ultimately lowers their cost.  Given they will have recovered their initial costs by the time the new fields come online, their profit position would improve immensely in such a scenario while it would be the junior partner who would see a relatively lower return on investment. Low oil prices - especially below the foolish fixed price trigger of the current government's oil super-royalty regime  - won't affect them as much as it would the new kid in the oil patch.

Hebron is the most costly of three projects and the one most likely to be affected by a long period of low prices. Analysts seem to agree that the current price climate makes investment in high cost ventures like offshore heavy oil, deep water projects and oils sands less attractive.  Hebron's reported financial tipping point  - US$35 per barrel - is well below that of an oil sands project but stop and look at current prices.

There's a reason why the companies insisted on a clause in the Hebron agreement which gave the partners  - and the partners alone - the right to take up to a decade to sanction the project.  Current Hebron timelines are merely works in progress, subject to revision is the financial climate changes.

The upside for Hebron is that the companies managed to secure several significant concessions from the provincial government as hedges against a drop in oil prices. Those concessions make it more likely the project will proceed.

First, they secured the decade to sanction with no penalty for deciding against proceeding. They have time to decide and there is no real cost for delaying if the numbers don't add up.

Second, they won the royalty concession that dropped the pre-payout royalty to a fixed 1% as opposed to the escalating scale of the old royalty regime.  The energy minister herself heralded this as a major feature of the new deal.

Third, they were able to tie the super-royalty to a fixed price below which no extra cash was paid to the provincial treasury.  By the government's own estimate, oil prices averaging US$50 a barrel over the life of the project produced less than half the royalties of a high oil price.  Drop below that magic fixed trigger and the provincial share drops accordingly on top of the front-end royalty concession but from the company standpoint they can guarantee low possible costs across the board.

Fourthly, they secured significant fabrication concessions in the agreement.  Most of the topsides work will be done outside the province anyway based on what appears to be a huge miscalculation by the provincial government's negotiating team. 

On top of that, however, the management arrangement  - including the provincial government as junior partner  - would enable the companies to ship virtually all the topsides work and associated engineering outside the province in order to lower the costs and complete the project on time. If oil prices stayed low enough long enough and construction costs stayed high enough, it may well be worth the companies' while to pay the modest penalties for changes in the work commitments to get the deal done, even if they had to pay the penalties at all.  A renegotiated contract arrangement with the provincial government's energy company and the government that changed the work commitments would likely never be made public under the revisions to the energy corporation act passed last spring.

The companies may well get their projects, but the return to the provincial treasury and the overall impact on the local economy may turn out to be far smaller than originally promised.

The fundamental problem in all this is the fixation on oil projects which has led the provincial government and its supporters to tie government finances to the price of a barrel of oil.  Despite all assurances to the contrary, the next several years may be see provincial government fiscal problems as unprecedented as the surpluses of the past two or three years. Unlike those surpluses, however, the problems won't be figments of an accountant's bookkeeping methods.

Beyond that, prosperity for the province as a whole, in Locke's view, appears to be driven entirely by a couple of oil projects which, it must be noted, have a fixed life span.  Neither Locke nor Kennedy - who echoed Locke's definition of prosperity - have not realized the folly of resting everything on the a very slippery commodity.  

Oddly enough, it fell to Donna Stone, president of the St. John's Board of Trade to sound a very small warning bell against this very situation.  Board of trade presidents are not known to buck the government line so her words stand out.  As Stone told the Rotary Club of St. John's:

“This still gives us some cause for concern, however. Given the volatility of oil prices, the province should look at a long-term plan that will diversify our economy and make us less dependent on this ever-changing commodity,” Stone said.

Stone is absolutely right.  Almost 20 years ago, the provincial government realized exactly that and implemented a broadly-based strategic economic plan to hedge against such dependence.  That plan has been tossed aside in the  past four years.

The consequences may prove to be dire and no amount of assurance that all is well will save us from the them.

Just remember what happened to Chip Diller.

-srbp-

Hebron timelines according to proponents

Based on the Telegram story Thursday by the always rock solid Moira Baird:

1. Development application submitted no later than December 2009. Obviously the project sanctioning decision will come before that based on the final project design and economic analysis.

2. Construction to commence 2012. That is pretty much in keeping with the timelines projected in August when the provincial government announced the final agreement.

3. First oil: 2017. Again that's pretty much on the timelines forecast already informally which had first oil somewhere around 2018.

-srbp-

How low?

West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude for December delivery fell below US$50 in trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange Thursday on projections of continued lower demand. WTI fell as low as US$48.24 in trading, but at 1630 hours Eastern, Bloomberg was showing the price as US$49.00.

December contracts closed today, shifting attention to January delivery.  WTI for January fell to US$49.42.

WTI is the benchmark  price quoted in media reports even though 80% of the world's light sweet crude  - including the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore  - is traded based on pricing of North Sea Brent. 

Brent for January fell to US$48.08 on Thursday.

Many are wondering where the bottom will be for crude prices.  WTI has been above US$50 since September 2004 and it is likely that sustained period that led many analysts to forecast - and to continue to forecast - high oil prices into next year.  Associated Press reported Thursday that Goldman, the analysts who had earlier said oil would hit US$200 a barrel by year end, have stopped oil trading recommendations.  The company is sticking by its forecast that oil will rebound to US$107 by the end of 2009.

Those sorts of analyses are getting harder to find, however.  As Bloomberg reported:

Prices may fall as low as $40 a barrel by April, Deutsche Bank AG said in a report yesterday. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries potentially needs to cut production by 2.5 million barrels a day to reduce output in an oversupplied market, the note said.

-srbp-

Alberta commission recommends banking oil cash

A commission struck to advise on how the Alberta government should handle its oil revenues is recommending the provincial government devote more to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund.

The Alberta Financial Investment Planning and Advisory Commission said in its report that Alberta needs to boost the size of the fund to $100-billion by 2030, compared to just $15.8-billion now.

Bear in mind that Alberta can bank extra cash since it has already eliminated the provincial government's accumulated debt load.  It also salted some of its revenues in the Heritage Fund.

Meanwhile, the current provincial administration has opted to spend all its oil revenue and specifically rejected the idea of an savings or investment fund or indeed of actually reducing the provincial government's debt burden.

The argument about devoting some oil revenue to savings and investments is compelling:

“To preserve today's prosperity and pass on the benefits to current and future generations of Albertans, we urge [the government] to make savings the new fiscal anchor for Alberta,” the commission said.

-srbp-

Aluminumania!

Oh yes, there'll be a smelter for sure in Labrador.

Aluminum prices hit a three year low.

Perfect time for a company to hit up a willing government for some Valdmania cash.

-srbp-

Paying for work

The provincial government's business department is tossing $325,000 at an international, private sector information technology company so the company can create 10 new jobs over the next five years.

$325 K

10 jobs

Five years.

Do the math.

That's 32,500 per job, or $6,500 for each position for each of the five years.

That's pretty much on par with the current administration's plan to develop new jobs in the province by subsidizing with public sector cash.

Within the past two weeks, the provincial government did the same thing with more public cash for a private sector manufacturing business and its facility on the Burin Peninsula:  $500 K for an extra 30 jobs and that's on top of the subsidies to get the workforce to its current level.

This use of public cash  - including low cost power - for the private sector mirrors what was done here in the 1950s and 1960s in the disastrous Smallwood industrial development program. 

It's an idea that was rejected in the 1992 Strategic Economic Plan.  There's good reason for it. Subsidizing private sector businesses like this doesn't have the greatest record of success, at least when it comes to creating sustainable, competitive industries.

No small irony that the money for a software company  - singled out by the auditor general - comes days after another software developer that relied heavily on public sector cash closed its doors.

Another recipient of provincial cash imploded just months after getting the cheque.

Major national cable and telecom companies aren't likely to fold, but they sure loved getting a massive cash injection from the provincial government to subsidize their expansion projects.  The total cost of that one hasn't been calculated yet.

-srbp-

NL crude hits $51

Brent crude for January delivery hit US$51.84 in trading on London's commodity exchange Tuesday, the lowest settlement since January 2007.

Brent is the benchmark price for Newfoundland and Labrador light sweet crude.  Such a low close for January crude, and even allowing for a 20% currency premium - virtually guarantees that crude prices in the second half of the current fiscal year will average well below the government's assumed average of US$87 a barrel for the entire year.

In Alberta, the provincial treasurer today announced his province would lose $6.5 billion in revenue this year due to the economic downturn and lower oil and gas prices.  The 2008 Alberta budget assumed an average price for crude of $78 per barrel.

-srbp-

Government packs board of regents with political cronies

In a late afternoon news release, the provincial government moved to increase its political control of the Memorial University board of regents.

Bob Simmonds - Jerome Kennedy's former law partner - is the new chair. Three of the remaining five appointments, like the new chair,  all have strong ties to the ruling Provincial Conservatives.  The last is the wife of the late principal of Grenfell College and therefore a supporter of the government's costly "autonomy" scheme. 

These moves will ensure that cabinet's will is imposed the university.

-srbp-

Where the NL MPs sit - the despun version

At left is a seating plan for the opposition benches in the current session of the House of Commons. 

The seating chart is laid out from the perspective of the speaker, who would be positioned at the bottom edge.  These seats are to his right.

As the largest opposition party, the Liberals sit closest to the speaker's chair.  Next come the Bloc Quebecois and at the top of this picture - farthest away from the speaker - are the New Democrats.

The orange coloured squares show the members of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador.

1.  The Liberals are seated from front benches to rear in order of precedence, that is in the order they were elected.  Thus, Gerry Byrne sits in the second row from the front (second column from the right in the picture).  Todd Russell and Scott Simms come next and in the back are the three newbies, Judy Foote, Siobhan Coady and Scott Andrews.

2.  That lone seat way down the back, right next to the door and almost the farthest away from the speaker of any seat in the Commons is Jack Harris.  He may be in the front bench but, since the parties have largely done away with the old practice of seating shadow cabinet people on the front benches, Jack has a seat that means something only within the New Democrat caucus.

-srbp-

The bits they didn't say

A youth conference discussing ways of keeping young people in the province.

A speech by the Premier, including the comment:

"It is by making sound choices in the coming years, both individually and as one team, that we will be able to remove the word 'outmigration' from our vocabularies in the same way that we removed the word 'have-not,' " Williams said during a speech.

That quote from a CBC news story includes comments from two participants, one of whom uses very familiar phrases:

"I don't think it needs to be Alberta wages," Snow said. "I'm not looking for Alberta. I love Newfoundland and Labrador and I love St. Anthony. I just want to stay — Newfoundland is home."

The old homing pigeon drive.

or these comments from the voice of the cabinet minister version:

Twenty year old St. Anthony native Kara Snow says Newfoundland and Labrador is a proud strong determined province and the people here have a lot of things to show that.

Jonathan Earle from Red Bay, Labrador says he thinks the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy is a step in the right direction.

Proud. Strong. Determined.

Nothing like a political party slogan or, for that matter, a fellow attending the conference.

And Kara and Jonathan are, evidently just two young people attending this conference, they being typical of young people across Newfoundland and Labrador who are, quite naturally interested in these things on a go forward basis.

Typical they might be but they do have a couple of features that make them stand out, features left out of the news stories.

Like the fact that the conference or summit was by invitation only, meaning that those in attendance were selected by the provincial government and its hired consultant.  Not so much a gathering of people driven by their own interests as much as a carefully selected group.  Carefully selected according to some unknown criteria;  perhaps their ability to spout talking points or their enthusiasm for the official views.

Certainly it is not for new ideas since the original news release and the stuff just recently speaks of discovering what young people are prepared to give up.  Government is apparently less interested in creating an environment that promotes excellence and accomplishment and more one based on "an understanding of the trade-offs and choices young people are prepared to make."

The homing pigeon policy. 

We can solve outmigration, to go back to the Premier's speech, not by innovation and creativity but by figuring out how little people are prepared to settle for. Or in Kara's construction, people should expect to make less money since she does not want "Alberta", she wants something else, called Newfoundland and Labrador.

How edifying a notion.

How far the opposite of "have" could one get when by the very words they use the Premier and the people at his conference accept notions that limit everyone to accepting less than might be attained elsewhere.

This is fundamentally the opposite of the approach set by government, based on genuine consultation, in the years when most of these young people were toddlers, in diapers or not even thought of.  The 1992 strategic economic plan - Change and challenge - set as its vision "an enterprising, educated , distinctive and prosperous people working together to create a competitive economy based on innovation, creativity, productivity and quality." 

There was no need to ask young people what it would take to get them to stay here.  For the most part, people leave because elsewhere offers greater personal and financial opportunities.  The solution to ending outmigration lay in creating a province in which wealth - genuine "have" status - could be found at home.  Creating wealth - the synonym is "prosperity"  - came from unleashing talent and creativity, of daring against the best in the world. 

In 1992, staying in Newfoundland and Labrador did not have to mean compromise.  In 2008, compromising, settling, accepting less is the stated foundation of government strategy.  In 1992, compromise was rejected;  in 2008, it is embraced.

But then there is the other bit about Kara and Jonathan and likely a bunch of others at the session.  These are not just any young people but part of the group selected already by the provincial government to work with the consultants:

A Youth Advisory Panel will provide ongoing advice on the project’s research design and the development of materials such as dialogue workbooks.

This project seems less about research, of finding out what people want and more about confirming a pre-determined set of ideas, of guiding people along a path.

Certainly, if the familiar phrases used by the conference organizers and presented as ostensibly unvarnished opinion is any guide, the strategy is working.

It's always the stuff they don't tell you that is more revealing.

-srbp-

Offshore land parcels net $129.8 million

From the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board [format changed from original]:

The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board today announced the results of the 2008 Calls for Bids NL08-1 and NL08-2 for exploration rights in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area. Bidding closed on November 14, 2008 and successful bids were received on all five parcels offered totaling $129,892,000. Three of the successful bid parcels are located in the Central Ridge/Flemish Pass and two are located in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin.

The bids represent the expenditures which the bidders commit to make in exploring the parcels during the initial five-year period of a nine-year term Exploration Licence. If companies discover significant quantities of petroleum resources as a result of the exploration work, they may then seek a Significant Discovery Licence from the C-NLOPB. Any Significant Discovery Licences issued in respect of lands resulting from these Exploration Licences will be subject to rentals which will escalate over time.

The following bids have been accepted:

NL08-1 Flemish Pass:

• Parcel 1 (138,200 ha)  -  Husky Oil Operations Limited 40%, Petro-Canada 40%, Repsol Exploracion S.A. 20%:  $18,600,000
• Parcel 2 (134, 227 ha) - Husky Oil Operations Limited 67%, Repsol Exploracion S.A. 33%:  $1,188,000
• Parcel 3 (55,954 ha) - StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. 65%, Husky Oil Operations Limited 35%:  $18,724,000

No. NL08-2 Jeanne d’Arc:

• Parcel 1 (19,430 ha) - Petro-Canada 50%, StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. 50%: $81,900,000
• Parcel 2 (121,348 ha)  - Husky Oil Operations Limited 67%,  Repsol Exploracion, S.A. 33%: $9,480,000

 

Subject to the bidders satisfying the requirements specified in the Call for Bids and Ministerial approval, the Board will issue an Exploration Licence for each of the five parcels in January 2009. The licences will be for a term of nine years, with an initial period of five years.

Media contact: Sean Kelly APR, Manager, Public Relations (709)778-1418//(709)689-0713// skelly@cnlopb.nl.ca

 

-srbp-

Signs of the times

1.  Consilient Technology, a success story in the local information technology sector closed its doors today. The office is closed and the furniture is gone, according to CBC news.

In his report for 2006, issued early in 2008, Auditor General John Noseworthy raised concerns about the conditions attached to an infusion of provincial public money.

2.  Wabush Mines is slashing production in response to the global economic downturn.  Production forecast for 2009 is about half of what it was in 2007/2008.  Layoffs are expected.

Other factors are influencing the Wabush Mines decision in addition to the demand drop:

"We are now going through the most difficult time in the history of Wabush Mines, with, from what I perceive to be, an unfavourable work climate at the plants, the worst cost structure in North America and a plant that is aged," he said.

-srbp-

A new blog

Petition to strengthen democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador, by someone named Ursula Dowler.

-srbp-

The wrong candidate for sure

How very strange that Michael Ignatieff, the candidate who says the Liberal party needs to change, is the very guy looking to bar media access to a leadership candidate's debate in Mississaugua.

Red Tory's account is simple.  Your humble e-scribbler has some slightly more detailed ones but they all fit in the same space:

• Iggy doesn't want media.
• Iggy doesn't offer a reason.
• Bob and Dominic want media.

Michael Ignatieff is the wrong person to lead the Liberal Party.

Period.

Looks like you'll be hearing that simple refrain quite a bit from this corner over the next few months.

-srbp-

Enough isn't quite enough, until now

This effort to link Danny Williams and Barack Obama has reached some pretty silly points already.

First there was the rip-off/homage/"inspired by" video thingy using a speech Danny Williams delivered to a Tory fund raising dinner [c'mon ad agency video guys, who paid for the speech viddying in the first place?]

Now I.P. Freely, the low-rent local cross between "V" and Benny Hill is pushing posters, based on an iconic image of Obama, left.

Now it's not like this poster hasn't inspired some knock-offs already, including some truly fine ones.

It's just that surely someone can come up with an original idea, even if it is a parody.

You can press your thumbs as hard as you like...

What with the official government pollster in the field and what with a  video taken at the Provincial Conservative $500 a plate fundraiser circulating  (who paid for the video gig, guys?), don't believe for one second that it hasn't gone unnoticed among the thumb clickers on the Hill that the initial "Danny did it" spin on the Inco smelter story is pretty much dead.

It wouldn't be surprising to find that one entire office-load of Blackberries has been sent back  for replacement what with the buttons pressed through the casing from all the frantic texting that is surely going on.  It's not like they didn't organize one of the most intense pitcher plant deployments in over a year to try and forestall any possible slippage in the numbers collected by the official government pollster.

The pitcher plant story line got right down to Bill Rowe and the infamous Tony sharing their beliefs that had the entire Voisey's Bay deal from start to finish was, in point of fact, due entirely, solely, totally and utterly due to the singular  magnificence unprecedented on the planet of the guy who paid Bill Rowe's tab in Ottawa.

But no matter how hard they tried to drown it, the truth about Voisey's Bay surfaced and people acknowledged that the Voisey's Bay was a good thing and the Premier really had very little to do with it then or now.

Even Roger Grimes got in a few licks of his own in the process:

"It was a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador from start to finish, regardless of what the Opposition was trying to say," he said.

"Mainly, Danny Williams [was] trying to suggest it was full of loopholes and so on, which has proven so far definitely not to be true," Grimes said.

Not true?

That's putting it mildly.

The better part of seven years after he first started talking about loopholes and problems neither Danny Williams nor his deputy nor anyone else has shown the loopholes, problems or other weak spots in the Voisey's Bay deal Danny Williams claimed were there.

That's because - evidently - they don't exist.

If they did, Danny Williams would produce them.

Ultimately, that is the giant bluff that wound up being called this week much to the chagrin of Bill, Tony and bunch of others. 

And all those thumb clickers, they discovered that no matter how hard you press those keys,  eventually the truth gets out. 

People understand that stuff you pay for that says you did a good job is nowhere near as persuasive or gratifying as having people - of their own accord - tell you that in hindsight you were right and they were wrong.

They can press your thumbs as hard as they like and you can't change that.

-srbp-

Something didn't add up...

From the Globe and Mail editorial on Friday:

In his somewhat ruthless takeover of much of his party's organization, Mr. Ignatieff has also demonstrated a knack for the more hard-nosed aspects of party politics – or at least the ability to attract organizers and backroom veterans capable of doing the heavy lifting. Among Mr. Dion's many problems was an inability to rally his party behind him; Mr. Ignatieff, who seems to be amassing high-profile supporters by the day, would be less likely to suffer that fate.

Now this takeover didn't happen within the past couple of days.  It must have happened over the past couple of years.  That is, Iggy's crew had to take over key positions while Dion was still leader.

And if that's the case, little surprise then that Dion had an "inability to rally his party behind him".

And if that's the case, then it's little surprise that the party didn't do very well at the polls recently what with all the Iggy people in charge of everything and their not really convinced of Dion's leadership in the first place. 

Might that explain some candidates less than enthusiastic performance during the election, including turning up as star players in Conservative attack releases?

Hmmm.

Something didn't add up all along.

But it's starting to.

-srbp-

Ho hum

While rookie member of parliament Siobhan Coady leaped past considerably more experienced caucus mates to get a post as the fisheries and oceans critic (and good on her), the last Dion shadow cabinet seems to be a case of sticking the Newfoundlander in charge of the fish.

Sure Coady has a family business in the fishery and therefore knows something about things that live in the ocean and the people who make a living - such as it is in most cases - from it.

But for far too long, Newfoundland and Labrador has been politically regarded as the home of fish and whine.

Count up the number of times fisheries and oceans in any party has gone to a Newfoundlander since 1949 either as minister or as an opposition critic. You'll quickly get the point.

There are more than a few substantive problems with this of course. 

First, there is an inherent conflict of interest in putting in charge of the fisheries department a politician with ties to the fishing industry.  That no one seems bothered by this is a sign that the fishing industry has no political clout in the country even though it is a significant economic sector in several provinces.

Second, there is an even greater conflict created by putting in charge of fisheries (or acting as the critic) any politician from a province where the fishery is less a business than a Frankenstein exercise in social engineering.

The tinfoil hat brigade, the anti-Confederate sasquatch hunters will leap forward to blame the evil machinations of "Ottawa" for the plight of the local industry.  The sad reality is that the current mess is entirely the construction of the political, social and business interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, over successive generations, who have forestalled, undermined and otherwise opposed any real and positive reform.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery is a cult.  As with any cult, it has its high priests who will rush to the temple altar - in this case the local open line shows and fisheries broadcast - to declare any reformer as a traitor, as a heretic.  It is an inbred cult where satisfaction comes from shagging your own.  Onlookers are distracted from the spectacle by the claim that outsiders have covetous designs on the defiled or that foreigners need to be driven from what is left of the sanctuary.   

Of course, there is also the third problem, namely the perpetual death struggle between local and national politicians. Williams penchant for whining and his love of personal attacks first on Loyola Hearn and then Fabian Manning, only added to the problem lately and gave the Conservative death struggle its unique characteristics.  Theirs is just the latest racket, though,  in what has been, essentially, an interminable struggle.

Consider, if you will, two groups of politicians sitting in a meeting room, discussing not how best to help unshackle the legion of wage-slaves chained to the splitting tables,  but rather jockeying to avoid being the one to take the political flack from the cultists. 

If any political party in Canada had any real interest in the people involved in the fishery, they would never appoint anyone from this province to serve as fisheries minister or as critic of the department.  Nor would they appoint someone from a neighbouring fisheries provinces who does little more than mouth the worship words of the local cultists.

And if any politician from this province wanted to do anything for the fishery other than perpetuate the misery in it, he or she would refuse any political responsibility for it either in cabinet or opposition. Better leave the job to someone not already seduced by the cultists.

Sadly, in the the New Democratic opposition and now the Liberal shadow cabinet, we have the same old cycle repeating itself once again.

As far as this appointment goes, Siobhan Coady has done alright for herself;  it's quite a plum and we get a fresh face on the scene.

But for the fishery? 

We'd venture there'll just be more of the same.

Wait.

What's that on the wind?

Could it be a news release on custodial management?

-srbp-

No sense of shame

From a news release by government House leader Joan Burke in an announcement that the provincial legislature would re-open for its fall sitting on November 25th:

The sitting of the legislature is an important part of our democratic process.

Yes it is.

Well, it would be if the opposition didn't have to shame Burke into making an announcement.  In past years, the party house leaders shared information informally so that they could be properly prepared to engage in, as Burke puts it, "productive session with respectful and healthy debate on the legislative agenda".  That's a pattern of non-partisan co-operation that dates back decades in the legislature.

Word from the hallways of the legislature is that so far Burke has shown her opposition counterparts the same regard as she's given to the Memorial University Act, the Memorial University board of regents and senate and university president Eddy Campbell.  Her approach so far is pretty much in keeping with her small-minded approach to funding the opposition parties, well at least the Liberal one.

No indication would she give of when the House would open and so far no advance warning, in confidence, of what general areas would be coming up for debate.  No indication that is until after opposition House leader Kelvin Parsons issued a news release pointing to "a continuous trend developing in this province that our current government will wait until the absolute last minute to open the legislature and then rush towards closure in the shortest time possible."

Still no word on the legislative agenda apparently nd Parsons is likely not holding his breath.  Burke will probably let him know a couple of days beforehand.

Seems that Burke is playing the petty partisan game just as roughly as her boss does, but then again, contempt  - whether for the traditions of the House or the legislature itself - is a hallmark of the current administration since it first took the government benches in 2003.

That's what makes Burke's references to the democratic process such a nose puller. 

Expect the session to be shorter than normal, since the opposition is likely going to be pushing the government hard.  Under the circumstances, given the stress from the financial hard times cabinet is wrestling with and given that Burke herself will come under scrutiny for her hand in the Memorial University mess,  the government's real lack of regard for the legislature and the democratic process will shine through.

After all, that's what happened in December 2006 when they last faced some serious problems.

-srbp-