Hebron deal: Big Oil’s new L’il Buddy

A curious extract from the financial agreement that was part of the Hebron development deal:

5.1 Support of Province.

The Province shall, on the request of the Proponents:

(A) assist and support each of the Proponents in seeking modifications for federal fiscal enhancements to the extent that such enhancements do not, in the opinion of the Province, have a negative financial impact on the Province, or where such enhancements do have a negative financial impact, they have been offset to the satisfaction of the Province by the Proponents;

(B) use all reasonable efforts to assist the Proponents in securing commitments from Canada and municipal governments in the Province regarding the legal and regulatory framework applicable to a Development Project; and

(C) support the efforts of the Proponents in responding to any future legislative and regulatory changes that may be proposed by Canada or a municipal government in the Province that might adversely affect any Development Project, provided such action does not negatively impact the Province or require the Province to take any legislative or regulatory action respecting municipalities.

Talk about your little gem of a concession to the oil companies.

This section commits the provincial to support any or all of the proponents on any action taken by the Government of Canada that “might adversely affect any” development project on any of the lands covered by the agreement.

What might we be talking about here?

Well, it’s pretty wide open. If you look up the definition of “Development Project” in the agreement you’ll see it’s broad enough to cover every aspect of the project from start to finish, including environmental considerations. If the proponents think the idea is bad, then the province is obliged to help out. It doesn’t have an option; if the proponents ask, the “Province shall.”

And before you note the little provisos there about the Province and the conditions under which it doesn’t have to lend support, bear in mind that the definition of the Province in the agreement is also pretty tight and tidy:

“Province" means the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or the geographical territory of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as the context may require.

Now this gets even more squirrely when you consider that the provincial government co-manages the offshore with the federal government through the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. The sort of regulatory changes we are talking here are ones that are most likely to come through the offshore board.

Environmental regulations, shipping regulations, changes to safety requirements, that sort of thing: all covered through federal legislation since the offshore is legally in federal jurisdiction.

Even fallow field is covered by this provision. If a future federal government wanted to change land tenure in such a way that it would affect lands covered by Hebron, the provincial government would likely be obliged to toe Big Oil’s line. If the proposed federal regulatory “enhancements” actually worked out well for the provincial government, the Proponents can cut a side deal under this clause to secure their support to fight the “enhancements”.

Not a bad little clause.

Well, not bad for the oil companies, anyway.

This provision is even more squirrely because the provincial government – through the minister of natural resources (Kathy Dunderdale) and the provincial representatives on the offshore regulatory board – will not only carry on all this lobbying at the behest of and on behalf of Big Oil in the first place, they can do it from behind closed doors.

There isn’t a single clause there that would oblige the provincial government to disclose its lobbying on behalf of the oil companies; no disclosure to the public and indeed no disclosure to anyone.

Seems like a pretty big conflict of interest, but not one that should come as any surprise given that government’s policy is to be both a regulator and an operator simultaneously.

That’s pretty much the definition of conflict of interest as we’ve discussed here before, particularly when the talks broke off in 2006. We also raised the issue given the Premier’s curious claim after the recent helicopter crash that – despite the fairly obvious – the provincial government didn’t have a regulatory role in the offshore.

It also shouldn’t come as a surprise given that the Hebron deal sets the local research and development below the levels set by the offshore regulator. Government accepted that low amount - and the pledge to back Big Oil - after the offshore board won a court case against Big Oil over just those sorts of levies set retroactively by the offshore board. Next time out, Kathy Dunderdale or her successor will be working to make sure the regulatory changes don’t get out of the board in the first place.

All of that pales in comparison to the clause in a fiscal deal that obliges the provincial government to back the oil companies whenever the companies ask.

-srbp-

Best kept secret: musician/composer edition

Keith Power.

Originally from da Goulds, now making a living in California writing music for movies, video games and television.

-srbp-

CAE buys xwave defence unit

News release issued Friday, May 1, 2009:

CAE and Bell Aliant Regional Communications Income Fund ("Bell Aliant") today announced that CAE’s acquisition of Bell Aliant’s Defence, Security and Aerospace (DSA) business unit, operated by the xwave division of Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, has been completed.

xwave’s DSA division supplies real-time software and systems for simulation, training, defence, and integrated lifecycle information management for the aerospace and defence industries. The division employs approximately 200 people in Ottawa, Ontario; Halifax, Nova Scotia; and Esquimalt, British Columbia.

Background:  August 2008

-srbp-

Cuts not growth on air force agenda

Via David Pugliese, the air force is considering options to cut upwards of $123 million from next year’s budget.
Expanding search and rescue helicopter services isn’t an option.

-srbp-

Smelter talk more like smegma talk

Last October a federal briefing note prepared for incoming natural resources minister Lisa Raitt listed an aluminum smelter in Labrador as one of 14 projects expected to be announced within six months.

Unfortunately for the people writing the briefing notes, the proponents – Rio Tinto Alcan – were busily chopping production globally in response to the economic meltdown.

The briefing note story is in the Saturday Telegram along with some choice recent history of the smelter story.  It isn’t on line.

As the Telly notes, the Premier traveled to Brazil in late 2007 to pitch the smelter idea to vale Inco. 

A year later the government’s favourite economist was touting the idea of an imminent announcement of what – as we told you at the time – was supposed to be an aluminum smelter. 

The project would, as the Telly quotes Wade Locke, “make the earlier start of the project [Lower Churchill] more viable and …act more like a loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill that will allow them easier access to capital.”

Nice thought, that, except that reality was intruding on the fantasy even as the words were being uttered or the briefing notes being drafted. Major aluminum producers were busily shedding capacity through the fall of 2008 and early winter of 2009 as demand plummeted.

The problem for Australian-based Rio Tinto was a bit larger.  The miner completed its purchase of Alcan in late 2008 and took on responsibility for the company’s $40 billion net debt problem, as a result.

Plans to shed some assets melted in mid October. Since then the company has announced plans to chop 14,000 jobs globally – 12.5% of its workforce – and has slowed production by as much as 22% in some aspects of aluminum production. In February, Rio Tinto announced a deal with Chi Nalco, a state-owned enterprise, to allow the Chinese to farm into several existing Rio ventures, including bauxite and aluminum projects in the Pacific.

The company’s capex plan for 2009-2010 reduces expenditures in 2009 by 50% and sets the level for 2010 at sustainment.  in other words, for the next two years the company is not anticipating any significant capital expenditure.  On top of that, the company has already reduced production  especially in some its high-cost operations.

The Chinese deal suggests not only that the company is welcoming some fresh cash into the system but also is gearing to take advantage of growth in the Chinese market using facilities that are closer to the market than Labrador. 

For those who don’t know, Labrador is pretty much as far from China as one can get.  All the raw materials for a smelter would have to be imported and the power would have to be sold at incredibly low prices – well below current market rates in Labrador – in order to offset the production and shipping costs. That’s almost identical in concept to the Smallwood-era phosphorous plant at Long Harbour.  The project was only viable because of its low energy costs (initially the same rate as sales to Hydro Quebec from Churchill Falls) and its proximity to its major market in the United Kingdom.

Similar aluminum projects in Iceland involved selling power at half the rate for other commercial users.

The Quebec government provides massive subsidies to its aluminum industry but that hasn’t stopped recent shutdowns and layoffs.

The idea of establishing an aluminum smelter in Labrador dates back to the 1950s.

-srbp-

There’s a reason…

people call her Blunderdale.

Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale has taken to answering opposition questions with an odd air of arrogance about her.  She tries to taunt and put down the questioner in a way that…well.. doesn’t work.

Some people can carry on arrogantly and get away with it  - sort of - because their abilities are far above that of others. Maybe their response is so witty that you just don’t see the arrogant jab.

Dunderdale ain’t one of those people by a long stretch.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to divulge the name of his source. It is the Leader of the Opposition, and I gave her that information in Estimates, earlier this week, that these actions had been taken. We told her that the report had been received, although I had not been briefed at this point in time.

She was responding to a question by the opposition house leader about an audit into the local chicken marketing board.

Problem for Dunderdale was Kelvin Parsons could simply rebut her asinine comment:

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister must surely have a problem with timelines because she did her Estimates on Monday night of this week with the Leader of the Opposition. My questions were asked in this House of the minister last December. That is the source to which I refer, that told us there was indeed a forensic audit being done, which you denied at the time and you said you would check it out and get back, which the minister failed to do, and has not done now until it was taken out of her and pried out of her in the Estimates Committees again.

Mr. Speaker, the people who contacted our office certainly believe - and this was back in December - the people who contacted our office and provided the information back in December had very good information that there were financial irregularities. These people made significant allegations.

I ask the minister: Can you confirm that anyone in your office was, in fact, dismissed as a result of what happened involving this matter?

Now this is not the first time Dunderdale has had a problem disclosing things factually in the House of Assembly.  She got into serious trouble in late December 2006 when she wound up misleading the House – and by extension everyone else in the province – about details surrounding a public tendering controversy that had led ultimately to cabinet firing one of their political appointees:  Joan Cleary.

So serious did Dunderdale Blunder that her boss had to slam the House closed noticeably early to avoid everyone realising what had happened and calling for the head of one his most faithful lapdogs.

Then there’s the time last December when she couldn’t accurately recall what she’d said the week before.

First Danny Williams appointed Tom Rideout to run the place on all those occasions when DW is not around.

Tom left.

Then he picked Kathy Dunderdale to be his Number Two.

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

-srbp-

What got up Tom’s nose?

From the Thursday session of the provincial legislature, this odd response by fish minister Tom Hedderson to a question by opposition house leader Kelvin Parsons.

Simply put, the comment that he wasn’t in the House at 5:00 Pm was a useless taunt best ignored.  By answering as he did, Hedderson only raised more questions about what the personal business was;  that’s not a prurient interest.  It’s a natural reaction when someone gets upset to wonder why.  When he refers to "”a personal thing” there’s logically going to be more curiosity.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing concern in the fishing industry that a dispute regarding prices for lobsters and crab could threaten both industries this coming season. The minister, in fact, was supposed to speak on The Fisheries Broadcast yesterday to address this issue, but apparently he says he was in the House until 5:00 p.m.  [Italics added:  here’s where the little jab occurred]

I ask the minister: Is the crab and lobster fishing industry in jeopardy, and what is government, particularly your department, doing to assist in finding some solutions?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He was not here at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I take a little bit exception. I was here until 4:45 p.m., by the time I got back to my office it was well past 5:00 p.m., plus I had a personal thing that I had to address after the House yesterday, which is of no business to him. So I will bring it up. Like I said, if you are going to go there, I will go there as well. My business is my business and when I can share it I will, but I am telling you right now is that you have gone over the line on that one. Absolutely! I say too, not the first time, and I am getting kind of tired of it. I am getting a little bit tired of it.

-srbp-

Expropriation has financial impacts on NL-based Fortis

From Fortis Inc’s first quarter financial statements, issued Thursday comes an indication of the wider impact Bill 75 has had.

Bear in mind the bill expropriated the assets of several companies besides Abitibi, including the Exploits Partnership which was owned 51% by Fortis Properties.

From the Critical Accounting Estimates section:

Exploits Partnership

Following the announcement by Abitibi of its intention to close its Grand Falls-Windsor newsprint mill on March 31, 2009, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador expropriated most of the Newfoundland-based assets of Abitibi. The expropriated assets included the hydroelectric generating facility assets of the Exploits Partnership. The Exploits Partnership is owned 51 per cent by Fortis Properties and 49 per cent by Abitibi.

The Exploits Partnership had previously incurred a term loan from several lenders to finance its assets. As at December 31, 2008, approximately $61 million remained outstanding under this term loan. The term loan is withoutrecourse to Fortis or Abitibi, as partners of the Exploits Partnership, and is secured by both the hydroelectric generating assets and related agreements regarding rights to operate and sell power to Newfoundland Hydro during the term of the loan. Although the expropriation has caused the Exploits Partnership to default on the term loan, to date the lenders have not demanded accelerated repayment of the term loan. The Exploits Partnership made the scheduled term loan payment for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. As at March 31, 2009, the balance outstanding under the term loan was approximately $60 million. [bold added]

The generation and sale of electricity by the Exploits Partnership continued in the normal course until the newsprint mill closed on February 12, 2009, up to which point Newfoundland Hydro paid the Exploits Partnership for the energy produced on the same basis as the pre-expropriation power purchase agreement. Payment for all energy delivered since February 13, 2009 is currently outstanding from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador pending resolution of expropriation matters. The day-to-day operations of the hydroelectric generating facilities have been assumed by Nalcor Energy, a crown corporation, as the agent for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to this matter.

On March 24, 2009, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced that Abitibi had discontinued discussions with Nalcor Energy regarding compensation for the expropriated assets. Abitibi, which was incorporated in the US, has also indicated that it intends to challenge the expropriation of its assets and seek compensation through the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Historically, the financial statements of the Exploits Partnership were consolidated in the financial statements of Fortis. Pending resolution of the above matters, deferred financing costs of $2 million and utility capital assets of $61 million related to the Exploits Partnership were reclassified to other assets and the $61 million term loan was reclassified as current on the consolidated balance sheet of Fortis as at December 31, 2008.

During the quarter, the combination of uncertainty created by the expropriation and the loss of control over cash flows of the Exploits Partnership has required Fortis to commence reporting its investment in theExploits Partnership using the equity method of accounting, effective February 13, 2009. Consequently, the assets and liabilities of the Exploits Partnership are no longer consolidated in the accounts of Fortis. Equity earnings recognized during the first quarter of 2009 were equivalent to the amount that would have been recognized in the absence of the expropriation. This approach is consistent with the public statement of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that it is not its intention to adversely affect the business interests of lenders or independent partners of Abitibi.

-srbp-

Williams offers to subsidize AbitibiBowater

No matter how you slice this, any severance pay going to former AbitibiBowater employees in Newfoundland and Labrador will come out of taxpayers’ pockets.

"Any cheque that is going to be passed over to Abitibi in compensation for the assets that basically have been expropriated through legislation will have to take into consideration severance…”

Williams said it could mean the government cutting a big cheque to AbitibiBowater, and the company uses that money to pay the severance, or the government could deduct the value of the severance payments from the compensation and then send that money directly to the employees.

Two questions:

1.  Why are taxpayers going to be on the hook for something the company would or should have been paying anyway?

2.  If that’s the case, why doesn’t the government just cough up the cash and then sort it out with AB later on, rather than leave the workers hanging?

BTW, the CBC story that extract comes from got its headline all wrong.  There’s no ultimatum involved at all. 

AbitibiBowater chief executive David Paterson is likely rubbing his hands together in glee since now he won’t have to worry about paying out severance to the local workers.  Danny’s gonna pick up the tab for him.

At the same time, the government’s energy monopoly gets the assets at a cut rate with none of the power being earmarked for industry in central Newfoundland.

AB wins.

Nalco wins.

Who loses?

Just think about it for a second.

-srbp-

Tory-gate hits 30K mark

There’s at least $30,000 of public money for Tory party work in the Ed Byrne statement of facts, according to the official opposition. 

They popped out a news release yesterday that included a table of other PC party spending in the Byrne fraud and bribery conviction case.  The local media haven’t touched this angle of the story at all, oddly enough.

This money isn’t covered by the restitution order, contrary to the claim of former PC Party president – and current deputy Premier – Kathy Dunderdale.  She told the legislature her party was prepared to pay the money back (she meant the 3K from St. Barbe) but decided against it because Byrne had been ordered to pay it back.

Makes you wonder who gave Dunderdale and her colleagues the really bad advice.  Anyone who read the decision by Judge Mark Pike would have known the difference. It’s pretty obvious.

Of course, the Byrne agreed statement only covers a portion of the total.  According to the agreed statement, Byrne received a total of $501,507 in constituency allowance payments with the bulk of it coming in FY 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Byrne only copped to paying back $117,300 which, according to the statement, seems to be what he took for himself. The rest is pretty much a black hole.  The public has no idea where their money went. 

All the Tory party spending  detailed below  isn’t in the restitution order.  No one knows how much more there is since the government and the chief electoral officer  - himself a former president of the Tory Party - are refusing to investigate.

Tory Trevor Taylor, elected in the other by-election in January 2001, called the whole sordid mess in the House dating back to 2000 “dirt and filth”,  a“serious stain on the political face of Newfoundland and Labrador.”

He’s absolutely right, of course.

But then Taylor voted against an investigation into the large chunks of the mess that haven’t been looked at by the police and that will likely keep going unexplored as long as Taylor and his colleagues have their way.

And it’s not like Taylor is unaware of the legal niceties of all this.  Get a load of his comments about the $30K:

The only piece that is within the purview of the Chief Electoral Officer, as far as I know, is the $3,000 that was spent on the St. Barbe campaign in the by-election of 2001. That is the only thing that he has authority to look at. He has no authority to go and look at how some funds may or may not have been sourced from constituency allowance and then utilized to conduct research for the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where the RNC came in. That is where the courts came in. That is where the Auditor General came in. That is who has responsibility for that. [Emphasis added]

Somebody has been doing their research into reasons why not to go looking, evidently.

At the end of it all, the most apt description of what’s been happening with Tory-gate came, ironically enough from Ross Wiseman.  The guy who got elected as a Liberal and then crossed the floor said this:

I am not supporting this motion because it reeks of cheap politics. It is partisan politics of its worst.

He’s right but not in the way he seems to have intended.  The sordid mess began as partisan politics at its worst, continued as partisan politics at its worst – as the Byrne case now makes plain, stayed the course of cheap partisan politics in June 2006 and now remains exactly where it has been:  in the political gutter.

Wiseman, Taylor and their 34 colleagues ensured that by continuing to oppose an investigation that would root out all the rot, no matter what party it was in.

-srbp-

-  Gus Coombs received a payment of approximately $2,000 from Edward Byrne for an expense he incurred while running as a candidate in the 1999 Provincial Election

$2000

Page 10, paragraph 31

-  A cheque was located showing that Gus Coombs receive a cheque for $3,600.

$3600

Page 10, paragraph 32

-  Wayne Clark stated that around that time in 2001, he was assisting in running a byelection campaign for Wally Young in the district of St. Barbe. Wayne Clark stated that, at that time, he did receive a payment for his services and expenses and it would have been for approximately $3,000.

$3000

Page 11, paragraph 35

-  Charles White stated that they billed the PC Party $10,000 and they received two payments in the form of personal cheques from Edward Byrne. One payment was for $4,000 and one payment of $5,000 and they wrote off the remaining $1,000.

$9000

Page 11, paragraph 42

-  Gina Steele had worked as a receptionist in the PC Party Office.

She stated that she had received a personal cheque of $1500 from Edward Byrne around the fall of 2000. She stated that Edward Byrne had given her the cheque because he felt bad about her being let go from her job around September 2000.

$1500

Page 12-13, paragraph 46

-  Vernon Smith stated he did some work for Edward Byrne and the PC Party around December of 1999. Vernon Smith stated he believed he was paid about $4,000 for this work. Vernon Smith was shown a copy of a personal cheque of Edward Byrne dated December 22, 1999, in the amount of $4,025 which was made payable to him. Vernon Smith acknowledged that

He received this cheque and that it was his signature on the back of the cheque.

$4,025

Page 13-14, paragraph 51

-  Noella Hynes acknowledged being given $1,500 by Edward Byrne. Noella Hynes stated that she had been promised a job by Edward Byrne so she quit the job that she had been working at, only to find out that there was no job with the PC Party. She said that Edward Byrne gave her $1,500 to help her out until she got another job.

$1500

Page 14, paragraph 14

-  Derek Connolly stated he did work for Edward Byrne and the PC Party, but he had been paid by Government issued cheques. Derek

Connolly acknowledged he did receive a personal cheque from Edward Byrne for $1,200, but could not remember for what purpose.

$1200

Page 14, paragraph 61

-  Supporting documents attached to a claim was an invoice in the amount of $3,944.21 from Canadian Helicopters. The invoice was dated January 10, 2001, and the flight date was January 3, 2001.

(this trip would have been for organizing by-elections on the Northern Peninsula)

$3,944.21

Page  17, paragraph 73

Total: $29,769.21

Disquieting similarities

Via labradore, a disquieting trend among certain people leaving comments on various websites over time.

1.  During the Cameron Inquiry when the Premier raised a stink about the way Madam Justice Margaret Cameron was conducting the inquiry:

“another waste of our tax money.”

2.  From 2007, when a question was raised about giving extra cash to the New Democrats even though they’d lost one of their two seats in the legislature:

“Waste of tax dollars.”

3.  On Tory-gate:

“… an investigation will be a complete waste of money!”

The same refrain has been used constantly, like from April 22 and the longer string of comments from the question of the day over at voice of the cabinet minister.

labradore didn’t get ‘em all yet, though.

4.  How about a federal Tory talking point about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair?  Across the country, the faithful deployed their talking points to newspaper letters pages and online comments in droves all with the same refrain:

“waste of money”

5.  Does anyone remember the Tory Talking Point when the whole House of Assembly scandal first broke open and some of us called for a public inquiry into the whole mess?

Well, there was a line that started right at the beginning, namely that Danny Williams was responsible for rooting out the bad stuff.

It was there on Day Two.  That was the day the rest of us found out about it.  Day One was actually the date on which Ed Byrne told the Premier the Auditor General was poking into Byrne’s allowances.

That same theme was also there when they announced the appointment of what became the Green Commission:

In light of recent findings of the Auditor General into the finances of the House of Assembly, Premier Danny Williams today announced that his government will build upon the successful reforms already implemented since forming government.

And that theme continues right down to the latest revelations about public money funnelled illegally and improperly to pay for Tory party operations between 2000 and 2003. Try Trevor Taylor from the debate on a motion to appoint an investigation into the sordid mess. 

Taylor voted against looking into what he described as “filth” but not before he went back to the Tory Talking Point Number One:

none of this would have uncovered and laid bare before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, had it not been for the election of 2003 when Premier Williams and this government were installed in this place as the government.

But what was Talking Point Number Two, the one used to deal with calls for a public inquiry?

Take a guess.

-srbp-

In which Pooh worries about H1N1 Influenza A

Warren the K: anti-tobacco lobbyist

Effective March 1, 2009, Warren Kinsella is a registered lobbyist with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as part of a nation-wide effect to spark up some kind of law suit against Big Tobacco.

Here’s an extract from file number CL-272-216:

Particulars:
Launch legal proceedings to recover financial damages to the Ministry of  Health caused by the harmful effects of tobacco products. Assist the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as part of a national coalition pursuing co-ordinate civil legal actions to recover financial damages to respective health-care systems caused by the harmful effects of tobacco products.

Registration Number:
CL-272-216

Lobby Activity Date:
2009-03-02

Status:
Approved

Effective Date:
2009-03-01

Amended Date:
2009-03-02

Approval Date:
2009-03-03

Kinsella’s registered in other province’s effective the same day on what appears to be the same project.

Two observations:

1.  The provincial government launched a tobacco lawsuit almost a decade ago. The thing has lived in some sort of limbo for legal briefs ever since. Odds are against it suddenly restarting now matter how passionate everyone is about the project.

2.  Good idea as this might be, you can tell who has real political juice and who doesn’t in this province by looking at the registry.  Friends of the party in power – for example,  the people with the ability to pull tens of millions out of the public coffers – never have to register as lobbyists. 

-srbp-

Total shocker: Abitibi pensioners version

AbitibiBowater is in bankruptcy protection.

The company has stopped topping up unfunded employee pensions on the good-faith basis they’ve been operating on when they had money. As a result some people are getting less money and some are getting none at all.

And you know it is not like someone did not see this coming.

-srbp-

Fitz can give him some pointers

Former Connie/Tory member of parliament Bill Casey is Nova Scotia’s new ambassador to Hy’s.

Maybe our own Man in a Blue Line Cab can give him some pointers what with that whole embassy thing having proven to be so monumentally effective for Newfoundland and Labrador.

-srbp-

The House of Assembly, condensed

1.  bit courtesy of Courtesy of nottawa.

For the record, the grandstanding was not supplied by the Premier.

He is apparently still on some sort of vacation – yet again – and couldn’t be in the legislature.

2.  Meanwhile, people in the province yesterday learned that – contrary to comments by his supporters – the Premier does collect his salary in full. 

The admission came from finance minister Jerome Kennedy during questioning on the budget estimates:

Mr. Chairman, first, again, I think the Leader of the Opposition knows better in terms of the Premier’s salary. It is my understanding that Finance told him he had to take the salary in order to donate it to charity, which is essentially what he does. To leave any other impression, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is not fair. The Premier’s salary is provided to, I think it is the Williams Family Foundation, which then distributes it to charity. The Premier of this Province does not receive one cent to himself for the benefit of what he does. Unlike the rest of us, or at least unlike me, I use my salary to live.

And by “not one cent of benefit”, presumably the finance minister does not include in that estimate accumulating pension entitlements and taking the tax breaks on the donations which go – it must be pointed out – to the family charity run by his wife, daughter and family friend.

Notice, as well, the construction of Kennedy’s sentence which clearly leaves the impression the goal of the exercise was to make the donation, not avoid taking a salary.

He apparently never heard of a “dollar-a-year” man.

-srbp-

Speed kills

…a political career.

-srbp-

Phake photos add up to more tourism travails

As you can see at Geoff Meeker’s blog and at labradore, the provincial tourism departments advertising campaigns are marred by what amounts to fake photography.

That is, the company behind the campaign has taken a couple of shots and then through a series of deletions and additions created something that actually doesn’t exist all in aid of getting people to come here to experience something which is, according to one advert, as far from Disneyland as you can get.

Uh huh.

Now that might actually be true since the evidently invented, fanciful and ultimately fake stuff you experience at Disneyland or Disney World actually exists at the theme park.

The stuff in the pictures does not.

So at least in that bit they told the truth, just not in the way most people would take the meaning if they didn’t know the little photoshop of horrors involved.

To give you some sense of the manipulation involved both blog posts include both unedited shots and the doctored outcomes. 

It’s worth taking the time to look at both just to see not only how much doctoring has been done but how much the sights didn’t need the creativity of the Picassos of pixilation.

This is just the latest in a string of problems in the tourism ministry over the past few years.  The province’s energy corporation plans to drive a string of gawdawful high voltage electricity towers right through a UNESCO World heritage site.  Never mind that one of the tourism television ads this year highlights Gros Morne as a destination known for its unspoiled natural beauty, as you’ll see in Meeker’s post.

Nope, seems the geniuses at NALCO think the rest of us just need to be “educated” on why their solution  - 43 metre high towers right along key sight lines - is the only one that’s right. 

Then there was last summer’s little round of bullshit  - as we noted not once, not twice but thrice - with the billboard along the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto.

And all of that comes against the backdrop of an advertising campaign that is costing about double what it did four years ago but which isn’t seeing comparable growth in the actual numbers of  real tourists. 

In fact, the only real growth to speak of has been in locals who stay home in the summer.  They are doing that not because of watching tourism spots on CTV Newsnet every 15 bloody minutes but because it’s cheaper to stay home than travel what with the dollar at less than par.

Now that lack of results is not so much an issue with the advertiser as it is with the department headed up by a minister who is, for the most part, one of those resident visitors to the capital city region his department likes to talk about.

You see, the minister hits the taxpayers with the bills for his visits to the office in St. John’s rather than buy or rent a home here out of his own expenses like the rest of us would have to do.  He’s not alone either; almost half the cabinet nails the taxpayers for the cost of travel back and forth between their offices in St. John’s and their homes in various parts of the province.

To get back to the point:  the problem is that the current administration’s whole master plan for tourism has been to simply throw money into advertising.  That’s their phantasmagorical never-seen-before-in-the-history-of-human-civilization strategy, and despite the evidence that sheer volumes of dollars don’t work, they are determined to carry on with all the ingenuity of Douglas Haig.

When it comes to authentic tourism events, the minister – like his entire cabinet seatmates – don’t seem to know anything beyond trying to get the feds to pony up.  The sorts of people who come to Newfoundland and Labrador  go to places to see something different and real, something that actually is as far from Disneyland as you can imagine.

Too bad our whole tourism promotion is built around fakery.

-srbp-

Tory-gate: the opinion columns version

From the Saturday Telegram, Russell Wangersky’s column:

In fact,  [chief electoral officer Paul] Reynolds defends the spending by saying that even if the under-the-table cash were added to the declared funding, "neither the PC candidate nor the party would have exceeded the legislated expenditure limits for the electoral district in that byelection."

That's not the point.

The point is how did $3,000 in spending end up off the books, and could there be other off-book spending in the province's elections?

Could there be?  A look at the information already in the public domain suggests  there was.

-srbp-

Two charged with 73 election finance violations

Hang on, there.

Don’t get excited.

It isn’t Tory-gate. 

The mayor of Vaughan, Ontario and her husband have been charged with election expense violations following an investigation:

Vaughan Mayor Linda Jackson and her husband, Mario Campese, have been formally charged with violations of election finance rules in the run-up to her narrow 2006 victory against former mayor Michael Di Biase.

Jackson was served with 68 charges at her home yesterday afternoon by a representative of independent prosecutor Timothy Wilkin, who was hired by Vaughan City Council to determine whether such charges should be laid under the Municipal Elections Act.

Her husband, who served as her campaign manager, also faces five charges, including accepting illegal cash contributions.

How sad could it be when a small city in Ontario has higher election finance ethics standards than the entire province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

-srbp-