How the Tories get 28% more votes thanks to CRA

Support for the ruling Conservatives went down in the last quarter compared to three months earlier. But you’d never know that if you read the news release from Corporate Research Associates.

That’s because CRA torques its news releases. Here’s how CRA presents its information in a misleading way.

1. Release early, for no apparent reason. CRA normally polls in one month and releases results early the next month. For the November polls, CRA has sometimes released results as late as December 12.

For some unknown reason, CRA released the November 2009 report a week earlier than usual.

Coincidentally it was right before a crucial by-election.

2. Release out of sequence. CRA usually releases the Newfoundland and Labrador results last, cycling through its other provincial quarterly results before getting to Newfoundland and Labrador. For some unknown reason, CRA released the NL results first AND posted them online before the end of business the day they were released.

3. Reporting as share of decideds boosts apparent results for Tories by 28%.

The chart at right shows the CRA number in red and the correct number in blue.

There’s a huge difference between the two. It shows the Tory support as being 17 and 18 percentage points higher than it actual is in CRA’s polling.

Put another way, CRA’s way of showing the numbers inflates Tory support by 28%. You get that number by taking 17 percentage points as a share of 60 percentage points. In the last result, the Tory number is artificially inflated by 24% because of the dubious reporting method.

And not everyone does it. In fact, researchers shy away from this sort of reporting because it distorts results.

Just check the other pollsters and see what they do. You’ll be surprised.

4. Hide the trends. Reporting results as a share of decideds masks the real trends, or, as in the past three quarter gives the wrong trends. Tory support isn’t up and stable, as suggested by the CRA torqued version. CRA’s own numbers - presented more accurately - show support for the Tories going down.

And what’s more it has been declining steadily since November 2007.

So what would the ordinary Newfoundlander or Labradorian think if they heard that from news media instead of the torqued version? The partisans won’t care: they’ll be leaping forward to note the Tories are still miles ahead of the opposition. Anyone using that line is likely a Tory partisan or one being spun by them.

But if ordinary people had heard the whole story presented accurately over time, would their opinion change over that same time?

Bet on it.

Now there’s also a suspicious pattern of results through 2009 – varying over nine months by less than one half of one percent - but that’s a whole other issue.

5. Don’t tell what you know and can tell.

As we know from polls released through access to information in September, CRA knows a lot more about public opinion in the province than they tell.

Opinion results vary by region of the province. Opinions sometimes run differently in one region compared to the overall picture. They also vary by age, sex, education and income.

If ordinary people knew all that, perception of continued high satisfaction across the province or increasing voter support would change and odds are it would change radically.

But people can’t know since CRA hides information from the public.

6. Don’t tell all you know. The people at CRA know they ask questions on behalf of the provincial government - yes, they pay for questions every quarter - but ethically it can’t report those results. However, the people at CRA also know that information they can’t say tells a very different story from what they do say.

Did you know last August that people were actually dissatisfied with government performance on something like health care?

Well, that story in the Telegram didn’t get as wide coverage as the original torqued news release which was carried by most media, including VOCM.

CRA could find a way to tell all they know, ethically, if they wanted to.


7. Report questions you didn’t ask. CRA routinely tells you that people in the province are completely satisfied or mostly satisfied with the ruling Conservatives.

They only problem is that is an answer they never got.

CRA regularly asks about satisfaction but they use a standard break-down that gives respondents a moderate option - “somewhat” - and a high option: “mostly”.

They report two high options that CRA never asked. You can see this in Table 3b in the link above. The question is described one way at the top and another way at the bottom.

And before you try it, remember that it is very unusual for people to respond outside the range they are given.

But if they got ones outside the range, ethically CRA would have to report the full range of responses including the information on the scale as they set it up themselves. If there were no “somewhat” they’d have to say that.

But since they don’t report that way, you can be pretty much guaranteed, CRA is torquing the meaning but changing respondent answers. The moderate category “somewhat” becomes the high end category “mostly” and “mostly” becomes “completely”.

Couple that with the data they withhold – variation by region, age sex and so on - and you can get a very different picture of the province’s people and their opinions than the one offered up by CRA every quarter.

No matter what way you slice it though, CRA results are presented in a way that is misleading and in some cases it is grossly misleading.

And when will conventional news media start questioning what they are getting when the evidence of torquing is overwhelming?

Good question.

But as you can see, there are lots of ways to goose a poll.

-srbp-

Humber Valley Resort sold

The troubled Humber Valley Resort, which last year went into bankruptcy last year, has a new buyer according to the trustees Ernst and Young.

No details have been released but the deal may close as early as December 18.

-srbp-

Now that’s really suspicious

Corporate Research Associates polls like clockwork every November.

The provincial government knows that because because they buy the quarterly omnibus.

Since 2006, CRA has released it’s November results as follows:

2006:  December 12.

2007:  December 6.

2008:  December 9.

That’s the data available on line. 

Go back before that and you will likely find the results released typically in the first week of December or later, depending on how the calendar falls in a given year.

Here’s a little challenge for you:  find the last time CRA released a quarterly omnibus poll on or about November 25, that is a week before the end of November.

Odd coincidence that there is a by-election in this province on the 26th, isn’t it?

-srbp-

Rutter to gain from US defence contract

Local manufacturer Rutter technologies will likely profit from a US Army contract worth $2.2 billion for General Dynamics’s London operations to deliver 724 LAV II light armoured vehicles by 2011.

The order is through the Army’s Security Assistance Command, meaning the vehicles are likely destined for delivery to another country, potentially Saudi Arabia under a request from 2006.

The LAV II was first produced in 1996.   The photo at right – by Sergeant Frank Hudec, Canadian Forces Combat Camera – shows a Canadian Forces LAV II (Bison) recovery vehicle.

According to the official news release the order is for 10 variants.  Although the release doesn’t give a destination that is consistent with the Saudi request for its national guard. The original order was valued at US$5.8 billion including all the associated weapons, equipment ,  spares etc.

For the past 15 years, Rutter has been producing electronics and electromechanical subassemblies for General Dynamics’ light armoured vehicle family.

This includes the LAV II vehicles as well as the more recent LAV III/Stryker vehicles (left) for the Canadian Forces and the US Army Stryker divisions.  

In 2007, Rutter landed a $1.25 million contract to build components for the RG-31 mine resistant armoured vehicle. 

The RG-31 is derived from South African Nyala, right.

 

-srbp-

Ready, Aim, Fire Truck!

Seems the use of fire trucks as polling season props just never gets old.

This one even made CBC supper hour news.

-srbp-

How many cabinet ministers…

does it take to fight a by-election?

Most of ‘em if reports from the wilds of  Terra Nova are any sign.

The politicos from all sides have piled into every available space in the last few hours leading up to polling day this Thursday. Things are so thick with volunteers that there is a danger some of them might wind up sharing a lunch table at Sheila’s.  Imagine how bad things would get for space if Tom Hedderson and Roland Butler wound up grabbing a few winks at opposite ends of a couch. 

Even Hisself has been campaigning heavily in the district, as one might expect.  Well, his truck has been sighted.

One major difference from The Straits:  only Hisself is allowed to take to the fine airwaves of voice of the cabinet minister’s talk shows to discuss the wondrous glory they are discovering in rural Newfoundland.  

At least that lesson has been learned. 

By the way, has anyone asked Kevin O’Brien what district he is in this time?

-srbp-

Danny Williams, Hydro Quebec and Churchill Falls: that was then, Part 2

From  the Telegram December 4, 2002, and a story of a rally in St. John’s:

Williams added, “Two million dollars (a day) — $60 million a month, that’s what we’re losing on the Upper Churchill and (the government is) telling us we’re living in the past. Well, there’s 39 more years of that that we got to live with. Our position here tonight … is that there should be no deal on the Lower Churchill until there’s redress on the Upper Churchill.”

No deal without redress?

What an idea.

-srbp-

Danny Williams, Hydro Quebec and Churchill Falls: that was then edition

In light of Kathy Dunderdale’s revelation of secret efforts to start talks on the Lower Churchill with Hydro Quebec as part owner, it’s interesting to go back and look at what Danny Williams used to say when other people tried the same thing.

The year is 2002.  In fact,   the release came  two days shy of one year before Williams won the 2003 general election as it turned out.

Back then, redress for the 1969 contract was an integral part of Williams’ policy and the thought of splitting one (1969 and redress) from the other (the Lower Churchill) was anathema:

…Yet, Roger Grimes has categorically stated that the Upper Churchill and Lower Churchill agreements are separate entities. In referring to this new agreement, he recently said, ‘Let's not be stuck in the past.' I say those who do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Nobody wants to see this province walk away from the only lever we have to seek some form of redress from the Upper Churchill. I don't accept Premier Grimes' position. [Emphasis added]

 

Who would have thought that a mere three years later, Danny Williams would be trying to recreate Roger Grimes’ policy to the letter?

-srbp-

The full text of the news release:

Williams calls for more
information on Lower Churchill

ST. JOHN'S, October 24, 2002 — Danny Williams, Leader of the Opposition and MHA for Humber West, today called on Roger Grimes to provide the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with additional information on the deal now being finalized with Québec to develop the Lower Churchill.

"We are asking for additional information on this deal to develop the people's resource so that we can understand exactly what is being proposed and possibly offer a few suggestions that may be able to help the process. Unfortunately, because it is being negotiated in secret, we know very little about this deal and therefore are not able to provide constructive thoughts and suggestions as to how it can be improved," Williams said in a news conference.

"The agreement-in-principle reached between Québec and Newfoundland and Labrador involves new concepts and new ideas that were not previously discussed. It is fundamentally different from the principles agreed to with Québec in 1998. In fact, this entire arrangement sprang out of nowhere just days after talks between this province and Alcoa fell apart. There has not been a single update provided to the House of Assembly. We were not able to ask a single question in the legislature on behalf of the people, which is our right and duty as the Official Opposition. The government has an obligation to provide the people with this information in order to allow meaningful debate."

Williams outlined a number of concerns with the limited details of the deal as described by Premiers Grimes and Landry. "The principles do not appear to address the future energy requirements of the province. This is further evidence that our province does not have an energy plan. Roger Grimes has stated that there will not be a transmission line to the Island. Therefore, the Island will never have access to clean, cheap and renewable hydroelectricity.

"This should be of great concern as this province presently uses almost all of the hydroelectricity at its disposal. All new developments must be powered by conventional fossil fuel energy sources. That places this province at a serious disadvantage when competing for new industrial developments, even more so now that the government of Canada plans to ratify the Kyoto Accord.

"This agreement will see all of our hydroelectricity shipped exclusively to Québec so that it can become the supplier of choice for cheap power. Québec will be in an excellent position to attract new investors. Obviously, Québec has an energy plan to attract new investors. My question is simple: what will we use to attract new investors?"

Williams also pointed out that this agreement fails to seek redress for the Upper Churchill contract with Québec, which has been a key objective for successive Liberal governments. "The Upper Churchill power project must be the most lopsided agreement ever signed in the history of Canada. Prominent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, such as Chuck Furey, a former energy minister, and Vic Young, former president and chief executive officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, have stated that any deal to develop the Lower Churchill must address the incredible loss suffered by this province through the Upper Churchill. I agree.

"Yet, Roger Grimes has categorically stated that the Upper Churchill and Lower Churchill agreements are separate entities. In referring to this new agreement, he recently said, ‘Let's not be stuck in the past.' I say those who do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Nobody wants to see this province walk away from the only lever we have to seek some form of redress from the Upper Churchill. I don't accept Premier Grimes' position."

- 30 -

Husky updates White Rose oil information information

Husky Energy announced on Monday an update to its drilling program related to the White Rose production project.

According to Husky North Amethyst E-17 (inside the area of production license 1007) drilled in 2008 has shown an estimated 60 million barrels of petroleum in place.  A further assessment of results from exploration well E-09 (within the area of production license 1006) the discovery “contains an estimate of discovered PIIP  [petroleum initially in place0 of 100 to 250 million barrels (best estimate of 170 million barrels) of light crude oil.”

That isn’t what the cbc.ca/nl online story says, by the way.

In any event, you can see both wells marked on this close-up of a map produced by the offshore regulatory board.

 

Now it is interesting to note that the legend for this map shows something rather odd when you match it up with the news release.

According to the legend – and if your humble e-scribbler is interpreting this correctly - North Amethyst E-17 is marked as an abandoned well using a symbol that appears to represent a dry hole. 

E-09 is marked as an abandoned well with oil and gas showing.

Plus, these two wells appear to be part of different structures:  North Amethyst and Hibernia Formation.

That’s something for your humble e-scribbler to follow up on with the offshore board for clarification. 

If you look at the release again, though, it doesn’t actually appear to add any new information to what has been announced previously. 

In early 2008, North Amethyst was said to hold about 70 million barrels of proven, probably and possible reserves.  That was based on delineation from 2006.

Now that isn’t the specific result from well E-17;  that was the result for the entire North Amethyst structure that is part of the satellite development. E-17 is actually quite far north of the glory hole for North Amethyst. 

This announcement on November 23 appears to deal with the structure E-09 explored  - if you read the release a certain way - back in the 1980s.  This announcement on Monday just reassesses old data.

So does the announcement on 23 November show  more oil or is it the same oil as before just described differently?  Good question.

It might be instructive to look at the fine print at the bottom of the release:

Discovered petroleum initially-in-place is that quantity of petroleum that is estimated, as of a given date, to be contained in known accumulations prior to production. The recoverable portion of discovered petroleum initially-in-place includes production, reserves and contingent resources; the remainder is unrecoverable. A recovery project cannot be defined for these volumes of discovered petroleum initially-in-place at this time. There is no certainty that it will be commercially viable to produce any portion of the resources.

Now this doesn’t mean the White Rose project and the extensions are not occurring.  Rather, there might just be some confusion in media reports about what this announcement means.

-srbp-

Five years of secret talks on Lower Churchill: the Dunderdale Audio

In early September, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale revealed that the provincial government tried unsuccessfully for five years to get Hydro-Quebec to take an ownership stake in the Lower Churchill project.

A key component of the offers to HQ included the pledge to set aside any talk of redress for the 1969 Churchill Falls contract.

The talks were never revealed publicly until Dunderdale’s admission.

The news was all the more astonishing given that Premier Danny Williams stated repeatedly between 2001 and 2005 that he would not cut a deal with Hydro-Quebec on the Lower Churchill without some from of compensation – redress – for the inequitable 1969 contract that sees Hydro-Quebec buy virtually all the Churchill falls output for fractions of a cent per kilowatt hour.

To date, not a single conventional media outlet has reported Dunderdale’s comments.

Amazingly, not a single conventional media outlet has picked up the very obvious point about setting aside any grievance over the 1969 contract despite Williams repeated pledges to make redress a part of any Lower Churchill deal that involved Hydro-Quebec. 

That grievance is a core part of Williams’ intervention in the New Brunswick Power proposal.  On Friday, he noted the appropriateness of the Atlantic Premier’s meeting at Churchill Falls since “it symbolizes exactly what's happened to Newfoundland and Labrador at the hands of Hydro-Quebec.”

While excerpts have been posted at Bond Papers and at labradore previously, this is the first time, the audio file has been posted: Kathy Dunderdale, September 4, 2009, live on VOCM Open Line with Randy Simms (he’s the fellow pictured with mayoral chain ‘round his neck).

 

-srbp-

Related:

• “Williams miffed Hydro Quebec rejecting ownership
  stake in Lower Churchill”, September 4, 2009
• “Churchill Falls reversion fails for second time”, September 9, 2009
• “NL caught screwing with Churchill Falls:  the quotes”, September 9, 2009
• “ Hydro Quebec not an issue:  Ed Martin”, September 10, 2009
• “R.I contradicts Dunderdale; no legislative problems and state still interested in Lower Churchill power”, September 16, 2009
• “Lower Churchill unviable for the foreseeable future”, October 29, 2009 [Market assessment by industry analyst]
• “Lower Churchill long way off”,  November 9, 2009 [Comments by Premier]
• “Lower Churchill definitely a long way off”, November 18, 2009 [problems in finalizing land claims deal]
• “Danny Williams and the Philosopher’s Stone:  Control and Resources” November 17, 2009
• “Danny Williams and the Philosopher’s Stone:  Converting Principles to Cash”, November 18, 2009

The Blog versus the Lobby: a U.K. perspective

Here’s a short piece in which Paul Staines a.k.a Guido Fawkes looks at the difference between his online work and the journalists who cover politics for the mainstream media.

-srbp-

The persuasion business on Capitol Hill

From Friday’s New York Times, four views on the art of persuasion as practiced in the United States Capitol using the health reform bill as the centrepiece.

There’s reference in the article to the Johnson Treatment. To get the full effect, you can find the famous 1957 series of four photographs of then-senator Lyndon Johnson at work, by NYT photographer George Tames.

-srbp-

Kremlinology 12: Dead caribou edition

Odd -  dontcha think  - that members of the Innu Nation chose the last part of last week to challenge the provincial government on caribou hunting in an area where previously they’d been generally supportive.

Every year, usually in the spring, some Innu from Quebec cross the border and take down a few of the very few remaining caribou in the Red Wine herd.  There’s always a flurry of news coverage and righteously indignant news releases from the provincial wildlife minister.

This year, the controversy arose in November, coincidental with the Churchill Falls/Lower Churchill meeting of Atlantic Premiers and involved some of the Innu from Sheshatshiu.

The spokesperson was Peter Penashue who – again just coincidentally -  has also been front and centre lately, discussing the latest round of never-ending discussions to finalise a land claims deal that was supposedly finalised last fall and which Penashue recently said actually wouldn’t be done for another three years or so.

On the caribou issue, Penashue was hammering away at the supposed lack of consultation between the Innu and the provincial government on wildlife management.

More interestingly though, here’s how the Globe contrasted Penashue from five years ago when the Quebec Innu were doing the spring hunt and Penashue today:

"No one knows for sure if Red Wine woodland caribou were killed, or, if they were, how many," he wrote then in The Globe and Mail.

"The hunt in the Red Wine caribou range was not just an illegal protest, it was completely inconsistent with Innu values. ... Putting a threatened caribou herd at further risk can never be justified on the basis of aboriginal rights."

He said last night that "I obviously wouldn't concur with" that statement now, saying that he had lost faith in the provincial government's ability to manage the caribou.

Interestingly, Premier Danny Williams described the Innu land claims agreement as being crucial to the Lower Churchill:

Williams recently told a Telegram editorial board that if the New Dawn Agreement with the Labrador Innu isn't ratified, the Lower Churchill deal would die.

That’s from a story in the Saturday edition which isn’t on line.

The timing is rather interesting, though. 

If the Innu were really close to settling the land claims issue with the provincial government that is so crucial to the Lower Churchill project, then it seems odd the point man on the New Dawn agreement would be out on such a particular day in such a conspicuous way tackling the provincial government for its lack of consultation.

We’ll all know something is up for certain – he said perhaps only somewhat facetiously  - if the Fan Klub starts linking Penashue to Hydro Quebec and Shawn Graham.

And the Pentavaret.

-srbp-

Monopoly: Labrador Morning version

Thankfully there are still some places in the province where a sense of humour hasn’t been surgically removed.

The crowd up in Labrador took advantage of the Friday meeting in Churchill Falls to have a little fun in the midst of all the heavy discussing.

Give it a listen.  It’s funny stuff.

-srbp-

Yet more on the NB Power, Hydro Quebec, Danny Williams racket

 

1.  Shawn Graham had some strong words in advance of yesterday’s meeting of the Atlantic premiers. At the end of the meeting things were not much different.

2.  An independent panel will review the NB Power deal.

3.  A quick review of recent events will show that as far as the argument goes from Newfoundland and Labrador, something under the bed is still drooling.

4.  Note the reference in that 2006 post to selling power by avoiding Quebec.  Little did your humble e-scribbler  - or anybody else in the province for that matter – know until recently.

4.  The completely invented (i.e. false) nature of some of the comments used in the pure emotional arguments about the boogey man are glaringly obvious if you know something of the actual story.  Danny Williams said yesterday that “it's obviously symbolic that we're here today at the place where the original Upper Churchill deal was done.”  That’s in the Telegraph-Journal story in the first link.

Apparently they were in Montreal, not Churchill Falls.  Yes, Williams was being his usual hyperbolic, figurative, never-literal self, but that sort of comment is taken as fact by too many people – perhaps even Williams himself – given how little is evidently known about the 1969 boogey man in the first place.

Take as another f’rinstance, the tale of Ottawa’s role in the whole affair as described in the story about the power corridor. 

5.  And if you want a sense of the reason why hysteria, fantasy and emotion are so powerful, consider Russell Wangersky’s observations on the nature of modern media and the audience they work hard to serve.

We're conditioning ourselves to expect the crack cocaine of immediate gratification - and when we can't get that short, sharp shock immediately, we move on to somewhere where we can.

Indeed we are.

And his words are worth the time given that so much of what he says is both a cause and a symptom of a very current issue in the province. It’s a topic tackled around these parts before:

On another level, though, what the Premier meant in that case is actually irrelevant. What it is simply worth noting that not a single reporter thought it worth asking a simple question. Not one thought to ask what he meant, just to be clear. Inquisitiveness - supposedly at the core of the journalistic profession, let alone the source of our species' progress - was absent.

Not one wanted to know.

Reporters reflect the society in which they work. There's no way of knowing if the Internet has changed the way people are thinking or if it merely facilitated a trend already present. Television was decried as an idiot box and in some respects, Carr and others are simply transferring the epithet to the box sitting on or under many of our desks.

The source of the change is not as important as the consequences of the shift, the lessening desire to know things.

Chenza at court, the court of silence, as the Tamarians would say.

-srbp-

Danny Williams, Hydro Quebec and the Lower Churchill

For the record – via labradore – with full audio of natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale's September 4 comments to randy Simms of VOCM Open Line to follow:

Y’know, the Premier has gone to Quebec, and gone to Premier Charest, and, y’know, we’ve had NALCO(R) visit y’know Hydro-Quebec, I’ve been meeting with Ministers and so on. And we say to them, okay, y’know, we’ll set the Upper Churchill to one side, but, y’know, let’s sit down and have a talk about this Lower Churchill piece.

Y’know, we know that we have to have a win-win situation here.

Because we, as I’ve said earlier this week, we know that if you don’t have win-win you have win and poison pill. Because that’s what we’ve got with the Upper Churchill. So we can have a win-win situation.

We know that if you come in here as an equity player that you have to have a good return on your investment. And we want you to have a good return on your investment.

But it also has to be a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now we have been with that message back and forth [i.e. to Hydro-Quebec] for five years. No, sir. No, sir. There is no takeup on that proposal.

That’s right folks. 

Danny Williams tried unsuccessfully and in secret for five years to sell a chunk of the Lower Churchill to Hydro Quebec with no redress on the Churchill Falls contract. Oddly enough that put Williams efforts at selling the Lower Churchill – without compensation for Churchill falls right back to around the time he said no deal was possible without compensation.

As CTV reported in April 2005:

Williams reiterated Monday that any deal with Quebec will have to include some kind of redress to the province for the unfair split of profits from the Upper Churchill.

But he offered no specifics on what redress could entail.

Update: In December 2002, Williams told a crowd gathered to protest a deal on the Lower Churchill that

“Our position here tonight … is that there should be no deal on the Lower Churchill until there’s redress on the Upper Churchill.”

That was reported in the Telegram on December 4, 2002 in a story titled “Tories rally – election style”.

-srbp-

The Tempest Tick-Tock: key events in the Hydro Quebec and NB Power tirades

It helps to put a timeline on things sometimes.

2006

May:  While a bill that is supposed to create the energy corporation is introduced as the first bill of the session, the text of the bill doesn’t show up until near the end of the spring 2006 session. The record for the bill is bizarre.  It shows the bill passed through second reading and committee stage four days after it passed first reading.

2007

June 4 and 5:   In a couple of short sessions and with very little public debate and discussion, the legislature passes two bills revamping the hydro corporation and creating the energy corporation.  This amounts to a massive  reworking of the province’s energy corporation, originally created in 2006.  

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro forms the initial core of the company but internal structure  creates series of interlocking directorates of subsidiaries.

NL Hydro retains exemption given in 2006  to EPCA restriction that electricity producers in province delivering to customers in province may only be engaged in electricity activities.  PUB must still set Hydro rates to ensure profitability.

At some point in the re-organization, CF(L)Co becomes a subsidiary of NALCOR instead of CFLCo.  This makes NLH – the Lower Churchill proponent – equal within the internal corporate structure  to the company that was once its subsidiary.

June 13 and 14: In a high-speed process and with very little debate or public scrutiny, the  House of Assembly amends the Electrical Power Control Act 1994 (EPCA) to lay out method for making water management agreement where two projects exist on same watercourse.   Amendments to take effect on date set by cabinet. 

2008

June 3 and 4:   At high speed and with very little debate, the legislature approves major changes to the energy corporation legislation. Includes significant changes to the rules governing creation of subsidiaries, as well as massive changes to the province’s Access to Information laws to shield the company activities from scrutiny.  Cabinet retains the ability to transfer any function to the energy corporation it wishes to transfer, regardless of what it is about. 

June 3 and 4:  At high speed and with very little debate, the legislature passes a water rights management bill later revealed to strip CF(L)Co of its lease to Churchill Falls.

December 16:  Surprise seizure of hydroelectricity generation and transmission assets of three private sector companies on the island of Newfoundland (AbitibiBowater, Fortis and ENEL).  Assets assigned to NL Hydro.  NALCOR given responsibility for all government negotiations with Abitibi on compensation.

2009

January 16:  EPCA  amendments made in 2007 come into force.  Amendments are gazetted along with regulations but there is no news release or other public notice.

April:  Talks start on water management agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and CF(L(Co) .

August 31:  Ed Martin (CEO of provincial energy corporation) tells Toronto Star that he :

… doesn't see the Quebec issue as a major stumbling block, as regulation requires the province to allow access to its grid in return for a set tariff. Hydro Quebec and Nalcor are just working out the details. 

Any costs to Ontario would build in the price of that tariff, but what's most important is how that final cost would compare to the next-best alternative. [Emphasis added]

01 Sep:  Emergency session of the legislature called for September 8 to deal with amendments to 2008 water rights legislation. 

Amendments and session are given rather benign description initially:

"This amendment is necessary in order to facilitate an agreement between Nalcor Energy or its subsidiary and CF(L)Co," said Minister Dunderdale. "As these negotiations are currently underway, we wanted to get into the House early and make this amendment to avoid any uncertainty to the parties involved. We thank the opposition for their cooperation on this matter and we look forward to further discussion on the amendment when the House reconvenes next week."

03 Sep:  In a speech to a national audience, Premier attacks Hydro Quebec for supposedly throwing up roadblocks to lower Churchill development.

04 Sep:  Dunderdale reveals the full  - the real - story.  (Locals media have not covered Dunderdale’s comments two and a half months later)

09 Sep:   Amendments pass in House emergency session.  True nature of story is revealed in comments during the debate:

“They [Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation lawyers and directors] felt that we had extinguished their rights to the whole watershed area that they require to produce electricity in the Upper Churchill and that would cause them some concern,” said [natural resources minister Kathy] Dunderdale.

Unspecified time in September:  Deal reached with CF(L)Co on water management.

October 23:  According to NALCOR, this is the date the CF(L)Co board met and rejected the deal agreement.

October 29:  NB Power deal.

-srbp-

The Genie with the Centre-Parted Hair

There are strange things done ‘neath the midnight sun but nothing quite as curious as the goings on the campaign trail in Terra Nova district last week.

Liberal leader Yvonne Jones apparently found that Tory leader Danny Williams was showing up at places where she had booked meetings or scheduled visits but always about an hour in advance.

Maybe he was there to dispense a little wisdom.  Maybe he was campaigning in the time-honoured tradition of Newfoundland politicians.

Anyway, Williams and his entourage were gone by the time Jones showed up.

In one case – as it goes in versions have arrived at the doorstep of your humble e-scribbler - Jones had scheduled a private meeting with one business in the district.

The operators of the business were surprised to find Williams on their doorstep an hour before the meeting proudly announcing he was there and ready to meet.

No one was expecting him – apparently - since there’d been no contact about his arrival or having a meeting with him.

Maybe Danny should try the same approach with Hydro Quebec.

-srbp-

The Philosopher’s Stone at Work: the Hebron fiscal agreement

Consistent with government policy of selling off energy assets – converting principle to cash - clause 8.4 (A) of the Hebron Fiscal Agreement exempts the NALCOR oil and gas corporation from provisions of the agreement that allow government to treat the company differently from other offshore oil companies.

Sections 8.2 and 8.3 shall not apply to OilCo as long as OilCo is a Crown
corporation of the Province.

The words “as long as” suggest a provision to cover off the potential sale of NALCOR’s oil and gas subsidiary.

It wouldn’t be necessary unless the current administration anticipated selling the asset at some point.

-srbp-

Related: 

• “Danny Williams and the Philosopher’s Stone: Control and Resources”
• “Danny Williams and the Philosopher’s Stone: Converting Principles to Cash”

Kachanoski new MUN President

Memorial University Board of Regents chairman Bob Simmonds announced today that the board selected Dr. Gary Kachanoski as the new president and vice-chancellor of the university.

The experienced academic administrator and internationally renowned scientist will take up the post in July 2010.

This ends a two year search process which include an appalling level of political interference by a previous education minister in the university’s autonomy.

Changing a number of key players involved in the previous fiasco, including the appointment of Simmonds as regents chairman, got the process back on track and let it proceed with evident integrity.

The result is a solid choice well ahead of the forecast conclusion to the process in 2010.

-srbp-