Save the Jolly Rock Lighthouse

Is there a facebook group for this yet?

Should be.

• Part 2
• Part 3

-srbp-

Kremlinology 22: House sitting and bills passed

The current sitting of the House of Assembly is slated to finish next Tuesday – Wednesday at the latest – and by the time it rises the the House is on track to pass 33 bills.

When was the last time the House sat until the second or third week of June for the spring sitting and passed 33 bills?

2007.

Yep.

The spring sitting before the provincial general election.

In other years since 2003, the House has closed at the very latest on June 4.

Interesting.

-srbp-

Eventually the other guys will lose…

A couple of weeks ago, your humble e-scribbler picked up a story at the political science reunion.  It was about a bunch of university types who met with a political leader looking for some advice.

Do some polling, find out what people are looking for and develop a platform came the advice.  Then go out and work hard to persuade people to join you and vote for you.

No way, came the response.  We don’t need to do that: eventually the other guys will lose.

Telegram editorial page editor Russell Wangersky offered a thoughtful commentary on local politics last week:

Sitting on the government side has been a free ticket to talking down to whatever party's in opposition and just generally acting like God's gift to politics.

It also means a fundamental weakness in opposition - and never forget that the opposition has a crucial role in good government. The weakness is that no one runs to be a member of a strong opposition - instead, potentially strong candidates sit on their hands and wait for the right time to throw their hats in the ring. That time only comes when it looks like they can take the government - and until then, we tend to get leaders of the opposition who are seat-warmers, at best.

Wangersky hit on a major problem in local politics, but it isn’t one of majorities.  Nor is it the case that people don’t run to to be part of a strong opposition:  not a single politician has ever run in order to sit on the side of the House that doesn’t have power.

Rather, the problem has to do with the local political culture. 

For starters, politics is seen by many as nothing more than a game.  Voters don’t necessarily weigh policies;  they just make a guess early on which side is going to win and then park their vote with the winner.  That’s where this whole idea comes from about losing one’s vote. Being on the winning side is the most important thing for many voters.

Second, consider that parties don’t divide up along any really well-founded ideological lines either. Take a look at the 1996 Tory platform, for example, and you’ll see basically policies that are similar to the Liberal platform at the time.  In 2003, Danny Williams’ platform included an entire chapter that was nothing more than a précis of the 1992 Strategic Economic Plan. 

On some issues in that election – like say the idea of a state-owned oil company – all three parties had exactly the same idea.  Just to give a sense of the absence of any ideological divide consider that the New Democrats look on it as if it was actually some kind of public ownership.  Lorraine Michael praises the hell out of NALCOR because it looks like something her peeps would like.

In practice, NALCOR is something the local New Democrats should be opposing vehemently.  It runs without adequate public oversight and can hide most of its financial workings from legislative scrutiny. NALCOR has received bags of public cash but produces no identifiable public benefit.

Even if all that weren’t true, somewhere along the line Lorraine missed the biggie clue that should tell her Danny is no advocate of public ownership of the kind New Democrats as social democrats would understand:  Williams has said in the legislature right in front of her that he’d flip the whole deal if the price was right.  New Democrats don’t usually advocate converting principles to cash.

To be sure, the current Williams crowd are viciously partisan in a way locals have seldom seen.  The truly hard core Danny-ites approach politics with the sort of closed-minded zeal that would make your average Fox News watcher green if only with envy.  But still,  what we are referring to in Newfoundland today is not an ideological division,  that is unless Chris Crocker-style hysterical celebrity worship is now a political belief system. 

And through it all, there’s the simple fact that since the Great Sectarian Accommodation of the mid-19th century, the Newfoundland establishment culture does accept open political debate and discussion as being legitimate.  To the contrary, local political culture explicitly divides the world into acceptable views and those which are treasonous, to use the popular freshie-gulper language.

You’ll see a fine example of this time-honoured approach in the comments on a post from 2009.  There’s a back and forth between your humble e-scribbler and a chap who wanted to offer some free advice.  part of the exchange included this::

Complaining about the tone of my comments or saying I am negative (there's a popular one) is really a code for identifying someone who is outside the range of accepted belief. It identifies someone who must conform or be ostracised.

It is a way of suppressing ideas and views which run contrary to that of the dominant authorities. Remember a couple of years ago when DW referred to some people in Stephenville as "dissidents"? Bit of an odd choice of words but, if you appreciate the wider context, it made perfect sense. How about the constant refrain that different ideas are "negative"?

…

As a last point, I will note that there is one thing I have seen fairly consistent[ly] over the past four or five years. The only people who criticise my tone (even with the little bit of sugar about it being a "nice" blog) or who suggested I am merely a partisan hack advancing something called "Liberal dogma", whatever the hell that is, come from a very particular ideological or partisan background themselves.

They are, in effect, using coded language in another way: to avoid dealing with conflict. They want to suppress some sort of conflict either between their ideas and ones they don't agree with or can't accept or - more typically with the person. In the latter case the sublimation comes from misperception that criticism of an idea is criticism of the person suggesting the idea. Either way it is unhealthy.

This isn’t just an abstraction or a left-over fear from another age. 

Once in power, political parties have been known to use their considerable economic might to punish those who speak publicly even if it simply doesn’t conform to the exact government line. Whether it is that economic punishment or merely the phone call asking if someone had actually meant to say something quoted in the news media, the message of suppression and the need for conformity gets through loudly and clearly.

No one should be surprised that, in such a culture, aspiring politicians often wait around hoping for the day the other guys lose.  Nor is it surprising given such a repressed political environment that in the 60-odd years since Confederation, there have been only three changes of governing political party in Newfoundland and Labrador:  1972, 1989 and 2003.

A healthy democracy requires more than a strong opposition in the legislature.  It requires a strong party system that accepts as legitimate both differences of view and the right to express those differences without fear of reprisal. That strong party system cannot take root in a place where conformity is demanded, where differences are actively suppressed and where politics is reduced to nothing more than a game.

-srbp-

Telling quotes: Lower Churchill version

The Premier made a few telling comments in the House of Assembly today about the imaginary Lower Churchill project.

Asked about interest in a new American transmission line NALCOR is interested in,  the Premier had this to say:

Mr. Speaker, this Province is not prepared to enter into commitments unless it has actually something to go on. I think this is just the opposite of the question that the hon. member asked last week as to why we had not entered into certain contracts. We had not entered into them because at that point we did not have any power to sell. … [Emphasis added]

Didn’t enter into contracts because there was no power to sell.  Sounds a lot like what actually happened in Quebec.  Faced with the need under open access rules to option space on the lines for power – but having no Lower Churchill power to sell -  NALCOR decided to try and delay the process with administrative appeals.

There’s no point in buying transmission space for power that doesn’t exist.

Of course, that is exactly the opposite of what the Premier told a handful of people who turned up to hear his speech last week in Ottawa.  He told them that Quebec transmission requests sailed through the regulatory agency while NALCOR’s wound up in delays and appeals.  He just didn’t say why they wound up in delays and appeals. [Hint:  it had nothing to do with Hydro-Quebec’s involvement in any conspiracies.]

The Premier also said that:

This is the best, clean, green renewable energy project in North America and it will happen eventually.  [Emphasis added]

You have to listen to the way he added that word “eventually” in there. It was a softly. But it is there and it is also closer to the full story than anything else.  The project will happen eventually. And that’s pretty much what every Premier since Joe Smallwood has known.

The Lower Churchill just isn’t happening on the schedule the Premier promised.  In fact, the project doesn’t have a schedule any more.

Then there was the moment where he seemed a bit confused:

…we will pay for new transmission. There is a co-operative attitude. Your divide and conquer attitude, whether it happens to be Quebec or New Brunswick, simply does not work.

Divide and conquer in Quebec or New Brunswick?  He actually accused the opposition Liberals of trying to divide and conquer in Quebec and New Brunswick. Huh?  Don’t worry.  Anyone else reading the transcript is likely as confused as you are by these sorts of ludicrous claims.

Then again, since the project is off, ludicrous claims are all that remain.

-srbp-

The M-shaped recovery

You’ve heard of the W-shaped recession.

Now think about an M-shaped recovery in the middle. Rather than two dips and then a rise, this would be a rise, followed by a dip, then another rise followed by another big dip.

Regardless of what letter the graph looks like, the latest news suggests the global economy is not ready to go surging back to the world some pundits and speculators would have you believe.

Retail sales in the United States dropped in May, down 1.2 percent from April.  if consumer spending will drive the recovery, then that isn’t good news. Automobile sales and building supply sales were down as well.

Oh yes, and gasoline sales in the U.S. dropped as well.

In some other places, this all might be just another bit of news to skip over on the way to football scores.  But when you live in a province that is increasingly  dependent on exports to the United States, including oil exports, then this isn’t welcome news.

Nor is it welcome to find out that the Chinese have developed a way of producing  a low-cost version of nickel instead of the highly refined version currently in wide use to make stainless steel.  The Chinese output, called nickel pig iron,  is profitable at current world prices for nickel of US$8.50 a pound, according to the Globe and Mail. Compare to the 2007 price of US$24 a pound.

“It does put a cap on world nickel prices. If not in practical terms, at least in psychological terms,” concedes David Constable, vice-president of investor relations at Quadra FNX Mining Ltd., a Canadian company that began as a Sudbury nickel producer but has diversified its production to focus primarily on copper.

BHP Billiton Ltd., the world’s largest mining firm, has already turned bearish on nickel and sold some of its mines. The emergence of NPI was a key factor in the decision, analysts say. They expect the Chinese product’s impact to only get larger with time, as more producers enter the fray.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Vale Inco workers are still striking against the company.  Production is still going on using replacement workers.  The provincial government recently encouraged both sides to settle the dispute, and with good reason. Government revenue from mining royalties is expected to drop yet again and having the Vale Inco mine at Voisey’s Bay anywhere but at peak production doesn’t help deal with a projected billion dollar cash shortfall. Every nickel counts.

A new low-cost way of producing nickel for steel-making also doesn’t improve the financial picture for the Vale Inco smelter project at Long Harbour.  That project remains the largest capital works project in the province. The provincial government is counting on Vale Inco to help boost the economy in the province both during the construction phase of the Long Harbour project and then with subsequent production of refined nickel.

-srbp-

Roger Fitzgerald’s bias

Is Speaker Roger Fitzgerald biased?

The answer for any thinking person is unquestionably “yes”.

The most famous example of Fitzgerald’s bias in favour of his own political party is his vote against providing adequate financial resources to the official opposition.  An independent report did not prevent him from joining with his fellow Tories to single  out one opposition party for punishment.

Another example, perhaps a Freudian slip came after the Premier indicated what he thought ought to happen in response to the Cougar helicopter tragedy.  Fitzgerald said he would “do as you [the Premier] directed.”

No Speaker of any parliament anywhere in the Commonwealth other than those that have descended into petty local despotism would so meekly surrender his responsibilities. 

Well, except for Fitzgerald’s equally incompetent predecessor Harvey Hodder that is, but that is another story.

In the legislature this session, Fitzgerald has selectively applied the rules of the House on numerous occasions.  Over at labradore, there are legions of examples of government members and cabinet ministers breaking the simple rule against using names in the House. They do it to praise their master and Fitzgerald, knowing which way the very strong wind blows, lets them go on and on, as did his predecessor Harvey Hodder before him.

Each day, the House is a constant display of rudeness and crudity coming from the legion of government bobble-heads.  Some of the worst offenders are ministers like Kathy Dunderdale, Kevin O’Brien and the ever embarrassing John Hickey.

The heckling is confined largely to Question period which is, as most people know, the one time when the opposition can score any political points and get some news time compared to the government party.

Their political purpose in all this heckling is simple: intimidate the already small-in-numbers opposition.  Throw them off their game.  Break their stride. As the opposition has scored political points this session, as the government has screwed up, so too has the volume of the heckling and catcalls increased proportionately.

Fitzgerald has been deaf to it all.

Oh sure Fitzgerald has stood and cautioned members about their behaviour on a couple of occasions.  And sure, Hansard is full of his shouts of “order, order”.  But Fitzgerald selectively chooses who he disciplines and, as we have seen this week, how he acts.

This past week, Fitzgerald took aim at opposition leader Yvonne Jones.  Anyone listening to the audio version of the House will understand that Jones was not the most frequent cause of disorder nor was she the most vocal one. She also likely didn’t start any of it. Yet it was Jones whom Fitzgerald singled out.

Charlene Johnson was under fire.

She asked Fitzgerald to shut up the opposition leader specifically and he did so.

Fitzgerald did not merely ask for silence as he has done in the past.  He added a personal and revealing twist:

“Gone are the days that the Speaker is going to ask people to leave the Chamber. It is playing into the political hands of the people who are causing the disorder, but the people who are causing disorder will remain invisible to the Chair until there is an apology issued.”

He is referring, of course, to a couple of episodes in this session where opposition members refused to withdraw remarks and so were asked to leave the chamber.  Being named is a time-honoured form of protest, a nod to the rules and a slap at the same time.

For Fitzgerald to single the behaviour out with the words “playing into the political hands” suggests that he is sensitive not to the simple matter of order and decorum in the House but to the political points scored by the opposition. Truth be told, both Fitzgerald and his partisan associates seemed surprised when Marshall Dean made his stand on the sensitive air ambulance issue.

But note that Fitzgerald has made no such comment about the government members, especially those who have repeatedly violated the rules on using names in the legislature in order to score political points.

And an experienced member of the House like Fitzgerald knows full well that his new policy of ignoring certain members hurts only one group:  the opposition. It will not silence any of his political cronies nor will it stop them from doing their job of shouting down the tiny voices of dissent in the House of Assembly. john Hickey doesn’t rise to ask questions nor, thankfully, does he get to answer them very often.

No.

Fitzgerald had to know that his new rule would serve only muzzle the opposition.

And in that one moment, Fitzgerald both admitted his bias.  If this were any other parliament, Fitzgerald would already have resigned in disgrace.

For Fitzgerald to hide behind the claim, offered to CBC radio Morning Show this past Friday,  that he is a guardian of free speech for people in the House with weak voices is as hypocritical as it is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Fitzgerald’s actions this past week make it plain he has the same disregard for free speech in the House as the fellow from whom he took direction during the Cougar tragedy.

Government House leader Joan Burke was quite right last Thursday when she quoted from parliamentary authorities on the need for impartiality in a Speaker.  She quoted Beauchesne:

"In order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party. The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take part in any outside partisan political activity."

These last two points are not, as Burke contended,  “significant political sacrifices.”  They are requirements of the job.

But Burke is right to say that impartiality is important both to to the integrity and functioning of the House. It is so important, in fact, that parliamentary authorities like Beauchesne have for centuries singled out the Speaker for protection against unfounded and unwarranted attacks on his integrity.

Unfortunately not many people understand that, as a result of those protections set up by noted authorities, being Speaker does not give one a form of diplomatic immunity for all offences against proper behaviour, impartiality and the integrity of the office. It merely raises the bar for those who must deal with a Speaker who, as Fitzgerald has done, transgresses the rules of the House himself in such an egregious manner so regularly and apparently so blindly.

New Democrat leader Lorraine Michael missed this point when she recently refrained from commenting on Fitzgerald’s behaviour.  So too did the Telegram editorialist miss this bit in what was otherwise an excellent essay on the current mess which is the legislature.

Roger Fitzgerald’s behaviour as Speaker has undermined the integrity of the Speaker’s office, contributed to the loss of order in the House and generally helped to create as unhealthy a democratic environment in the legislature as one has seen anywhere in the centuries of parliamentary history. 

Unfortunately, Yvonne Jones made the mistake of speaking her mind without herself apparently understanding the correct action to take. She spoke out of evident frustration.  That correct action would have been to bring before the House a substantive motion of non-confidence in the Speaker.  Along with properly documented examples of his inappropriate rulings, the case against Fitzgerald could be well and easily made in the House.

It would actually not matter that Fitzgerald’s former caucus-mates would vote down the motion;  Jones’ case would be obvious for all to see. This would leave Fitzgerald in the embarrassing spot of trying to carry on having already been suitably tagged for what he is not just in this province but throughout the parliamentary world community.  Fitzgerald would be hard-pressed not to resign.

And if Fitzgerald tried to prevent the motion from coming to the floor, either alone or in concert with his political friends, or if he and his partisan associates piled on the petty revenge, then their actions would be plainly seen as well. 

As it is, the House is likely to remain saddled with yet another biased Speaker.  The House will remain managed not by the competent and impartial member of whom Beauchesne and others have spoken spoke but by the mob the current Speaker so obviously serves.

If Fitzgerald had any regard for the House he would either straight himself up and start acting like a proper Speaker or resign immediately. 

Experience suggests that nothing will change in the near term.  This will become yet another example of a party which has lost its sense of political direction.

That’s okay.  To paraphrase what one wise old political hand said in 2001, either the government party will change or the voters will change them.

-srbp-

Weekly Traffic Drivers, June 7-11, 2010

1. Salma Hayek and Maria Bello freak out over snake (link to Huffington Post)
2. Harper and Williams share love of total message control
3. Five years of secret talks on Lower Churchill:  the Dunderdale audio
4. There are gulfs and then there are oilspill gulfs
5. Air ambulance controversy;  curious ATIP redaction may hold clue to full story
6. Playing the numbers (Part 1 of the 2006 polling goosing series. Also Part 2 and Part 3)
7. Arrogance never impresses (Charlene Johnson)
8. Live Blogging the Old Man at the Chateau
9. Vermont’s energy future…in Quebec
10. Counter-spinning negativity – Jerome! version

-srbp-

Paul Lane – bigger ambitions?

Is Mount Pearl city councillor Paul Lane  - described by the Telegram recently as a long-time Conservative  - going to seek the Conservative nod in the next federal election?

Might be.

He turned up on Crap Talk Thursday speaking as a concerned citizen.

His topic:

Lighthouses.

Clearly, this is a big issue in Mount Pearl.  They are afraid of losing their lighthouse on the wharf right next to the Rolls Royce marine engine repair facility.

All sarcasm aside – Mount Pearl is land-locked -  when a politico turns up talking about something not related to his current political office, odds are good he is laying the groundwork for a run at another office.

Since there is no provincial election coming up with an available seat, the only logical conclusion would be that he is looking for the Connie nod against Siobhan Coady in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl.

Now that might be interesting if – as it now seems –  the Old Man will not be waging a jihad against his fellow Conservatives next time. That means all the local Tories who voted for Ryan Cleary purely as a protest over the Family Feud can go safely back to voting for their federal cousins.

That could be interesting in that the race would then be between Coady and Lane with Ryan bringing up the rear.   Ditto in a race where another staunch Conservative, like say Tommy Osborne, decided to get some pensionable federal time.

And for those who doubt the wisdom of the mighty political oracle known as Bond, just remember that everyone laughed at the prediction that Steve Kent would switch to the provincial Tories having previously supported both the federal and provincial Liberals and – if memory serves – the federal proto-Connies at one point.

-srbp-

Counter-spinning negativity – Jerome! version

So there’s Jerome! trying to spin the Ottawa speech to Randy Simms over at Open Line.  Big crowd.  Sceptical at first but then slowly realising the truth until a giant standing ovation at the end.

Uh huh.

Right.

Actually, the audience was small, according to reports from some in the room.  Tables packed but a small number of tables spread out in a relatively small room at a hotel where the Canadian Club of Ottawa has been known to jam the place to the rafters for speeches by other premiers from the Far East.

The audience include a bunch of federal politicians from Newfoundland and Labrador, the majority of whom have a track record of jumping when the Old Man barks. They had to show up.

But no giant groundswells of editorial opinion one way or t’other. The media coverage generally was pretty light:  Reuters Africa. roflmao.

What did get coverage?

A fake lake and some ludicrous claim by a couple of people about a political merger conversation that never was.

Face it:  if four inches of water and David Dingwall’s former political staffer make a bigger news hit than a speech by a provincial Premier claiming all sorts of hideous things about another provincial government, you have the definition of a complete public relations disaster.

That’s why Jerome! was torquing so desperately.

-srbp-

Gushue on blogs

Over at John Gushue’s Telegram column, you’ll find some wise advice and observations about blogs and blogging.

John’s been the force behind what may well be the province’s longest running and certainly the best blog: dot, dot,dot.  You’ll find John’s eclectic work in a link in the ‘Sir Robert Recommends’ pile on the left of by simply clicking here.  no one will be surprised to know that John is typically the most popular out-link from these parts.  People like to head from here to there and frankly, there really isn’t a finer place to go.

As John notes in the title of his post, blogging isn’t likely to be a source of income.  If you think blogging will make money or even bring in some business for you, that may depend on the market where you are.  Around these parts, blogging isn’t a money making proposition.

There are probably as many reasons for writing a blog as there are people writing.  Blogging is a personal thing, after all. John makes that point in several ways.

Take a look around the Internet and you can find a variety of blogs covering everything from hobbies to technology to politics.  If people are doing it or interested in it, then there is a blog out there somewhere about it.

That’s really the amazing thing about the Internet.  People can express themselves freely using whatever talents they have.  Some people may chose to be complete twits.  That’s fine: for every one of them, there is at least one like the people over there who Sir Robert Recommends.

If you’ve been thinking about blogging, just jump in.  The world can use more people like you online.

Just make sure you read John Gushue’s top-notch advice first.

-srbp-

Salma Hayek and Maria Bello freak out over snake

Via HuffPuff:

Live blogging the Old Man at the Chateau

12:58 PM (Eastern):  It’s great when you can get the mainlanders to read stuff your publicists cranked out.  No fact-checking.

1:00 PM:  The cash came from deals signed before 2003 and the debt remains the same.

1:01 PM:  The economy actually shrank 26% according to the provincial government’s latest budget.

1:02 PM:  The 2009 cash shortfall was a half billion with another billion forecast this year.  The net debt went up last year. 

1:08 PM:  Current cost estimate:  $14.7 billion to get it done.

1:08 PM:  It is straightforward except they have no markets and no money.

1:10 PM:  The Old Man spent five years trying to get HQ to take an equity stake in the Lower Churchill.  They just weren’t interested.

1:12 PM: April 2009:  NALCOR wheeled power through Quebec.  Its projects got done too.

1:12 PM:  NALCOR presented no evidence to bolster its claims.

1:15 PM:  NALCOR’s requests went to the Regie because NALCOR filed appeals.

1:17 PM:  NALCOR’S reputed price to New Brunswick:  16 cents per kwh, if the project ever gets built.  NB current consumer rate = 12 cents per kwh

1:20 PM:  Williams’ original ask to Ottawa 2005:  federal transfers equal to offshore revenues regardless of whether or not the province qualified for Equalization.

1:24 PM:  Imagine if they’d expropriated private property.

1:26 PM:  Will Jack and Iggy still cuddle Danny now?

1:27 PM:  Self-reliance, but only with hand-outs.

1:29 PM:  A fine rehash of the New York speech and every great 40-year old fable, delivered with the usual flat tone.

-srbp-

Vermont’s energy future found… in Quebec

Sometimes it takes a while for news to reach your humble e-scribbler.

Still, news from this past March is topical.

Seems that Vermont and Quebec are working on a 26-year power purchase deal to supply the state with some lovely Hydro-Quebec electricity. A final deal is expected this month.

“I recognized then that Canada and Quebec would be critical to Vermont’s energy future, our border security and our economy,” said [Vermont Lieutenant-Governor Brian] Dubie. “So I visited the Canadian Embassy in Washington for a high-level briefing on our relationship. I learned that for a number of reasons, our official relationships were strained. So I made a commitment then to reestablish the lines of communication and repair those relationships.”

Observation1:  You don’t make friends being a perpetual anger-ball. 

Observation 2:  If NALCOR actually had markets for the Lower Churchill, they’d have money and if they had markets and money, they’d be building the Lower Churchill instead of wasting time and huge amounts of public cash using weak-assed arguments at Quebec’s energy regulator trying to stall running NALCOR’s [non-existent] Lower Churchill power through Quebec.

Observation 3:  Sparky speeches at the Chateau Laurier add up to a cup full of warm spit compared to a real contract to deliver power for 26 years.

Will anger-ball performance still work with mainland media?

The Old Man’s publicists decided to let the world in on his sooper sekrit speaking engagement in Ottawa with a media advisory issued at 9:00 AM on the day it takes place.

BP readers already knew about the gig from a post on May 27.

In the meantime, the mighty Ceeb is offering a live feed with “sparks promised.” Well, unless he’s planning on setting off some actual Roman candles in the ballroom of the Chateau, this will just be yet another tired rehash of the same old stuff.

This paranoid delusional ranting makes for good entertainment – slightly behind Friends re-runs -  but the locals in Ottawa might be just a wee be tired of the anger-ball thing.  What will be more interesting will be any scrum to see what questions the mob of reporters in Ottawa might pose. 

Especially considering the biggest unreported story in Danny-ville remains his five years of trying to get HQ to buy equity in the Lower Churchill.

Does the moustache tickle update?  Jerome! is in Ottawa with the Old Man.

-srbp-

Air ambulance controversy - curious ATIP redaction may hold clue to full story

A briefing note prepared for the province’s health minister in early September 2009 may contain important clues to when a decision was taken to move an air ambulance aircraft from St. Anthony to Goose Bay.

In a section headed “Medical Flight Specialists”, the briefing note points to the problem of putting specially trained medical crews on aircraft outside St. John’s.  That’s the only place a medical flight specialist team exists since the provincial health department created the program in August 2007.  Before 2007, local medical staff accompanied patients being transported to another hospital inside or outside the province by medical evacuation aircraft.

As part of the relocation of one aircraft to goose Bay, the provincial government will train a new medical flight specialist team.  In the meantime, any staff needed for a medical evacuation from Goose Bay would have to originate in St. John’s or travel to St. John’s first and then return to goose Bay.  That’s exactly the problem identified in the September 4, 2009 briefing note regardless of where outside St. John’s the health department based an aircraft.

Note that the final four bullets in that section are deleted.  Three are deleted under a discretionary section of the province’s access to information law  about to advice to a cabinet minister or government body. There’s no indication what that information might be.

But a fourth bullet is deleted because it relates to “plans that relate to the management of personnel of or the administration of a public body and that have not yet been implemented or made public…”.  The province’s access to information allows the head of a department the discretion whether or note to censor that information.  In this case, the department head decided to censor the information.

These deletions are important since they relate to a dispute over when the provincial government decided to move the air ambulance. Both provincial Tories and the Grit opposition have tied the move  - directly or indirectly  - to last fall’s by-election in the district formerly represented by provincial Tory cabinet minister Trevor Taylor.

Taylor resigned unexpectedly last fall.  The provincial Liberals won the by-election held in October. Health care was a major issue in the by-election. In a letter to a local newspaper in the district in May, Taylor tied the by-election to the ambulance relocation.

While the Premier and health minister have denied the connection they have also hinted strongly that further protests by people in Taylor’s former district might lead to other cuts.

Paul Oram, the province’s health minister in September 2009, resigned suddenly in early October, citing ill health.

-srbp-

Enviro minister of denial

Charlene Johnson, by some accounts the province’s environment minister, answering a question in the House of Assembly about a potential oil spill in Placentia Bay where tankers travel daily to a refinery and an oil storage facility:

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that she has right, and that is that we have the jurisdiction in the Department of Environment and Conservation should the oil, in the unlikely event, that should the oil reach land then it does come under the Department of Environment and Conservation, Mr. Speaker. [Emphasis added]

And there’s no way she’d ever expropriate a polluted paper mill either.

Who ya trying to impress, Charlene?

‘Cause if it’s no one you are doing a fine job.

-srbp-

Working mills versus a catastrophe

As part of its restructuring efforts, AbitibiBowater just announced the company has offloaded four mills and some other wood products plants to another company.

The new owners are excited about using the mill and the timber to make things and employ people.

Just imagine people in central Newfoundland working in the woods industry with a new company that had bought assets from AbitibiBowater.

Perish the thought.

Just imagine the mess there‘d have been if the provincial government hadn’t swooped in and seized all the stuff AbitibiBowater was ready to sell to another company just so they could create jobs with them.

Chaos, for sure.

Thank God the Old Man was brilliant enough to opt for catastrophe instead.

There are gulfs and then there are #oilspill gulfs

labradore explains in graphic detail the gulf between the Old Man’s bland assurances that such things could never happen here and what an oil spill of BP magnitude in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (centred theoretically on Old Harry or a field near it) might look like.

The Premier focused his attention on current production wells which are a couple of hundred miles offshore.

But there is another offshore that isn’t quite so far away.

Bear in mind this isn’t based on an analysis of currents and so forth.  it’s just what you get if you lay a map of the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico in another oil rich Gulf.

What opens, as a result, is not so much a gulf but ye olde chasm of credibility that swallows the Premier’s assurances whole.

-srbp-

Harper and Williams and message control: the second parts

The second part of Canadian Press’ expose.

And for good measure, the second part of the 2006 BP series on the local version of the same idea.

-srbp-

Harper and Williams share love of total message control

Steve has Message Event Proposals.

Danny just controls everything.

The first in a series by Canadian Press (h/t @stphnmaher) and a three-parter (here’s the first one) from your humble e-scribbler, circa 2006.

-srbp-