In the wake of the tragic death last week of Joseph Riche, it shouldn’t be surprising that some people, including some politicians, are blaming the tragedy on the Department of National Defence.
That’s what politicians do in this province. Blame Ottawa is a time-honoured political strategy even if it is usually a political lie.
As with the Burton Winters tragedy, these provincial politicians are aiming public concern in the wrong direction.
The Kremlinology post on Trevor Taylor, Paul Oram and the apparent policy disagreement in cabinet in 2008/09 generated two contacts (a tweet and an e-mail) that are worth discussing.
Let’s take them one at a time.
Trevor Taylor left politics in 2009 in an unseemly hurry.
One minute he was there.
Next minute? Gone from cabinet and the House of Assembly.
Then right on his heels went Paul Oram, who muttered something about unsound financial management by the Conservatives as he ran from the Confederation Building.
A very big clue to what was going on at the time turned up on Tuesday in Trevor Taylor’s column in the Telegram.
Tom Marshall used to be the finance minister.
He’s the guy who consistently, year after year, spent more than the people of the province could afford. Tom didn’t do it by himself: he had the support of all his colleagues in cabinet.
And since 2009, Tom and his colleagues have admitted that they mismanaged the provincial government accounts by overspending.
Deliberately.
Along the way, Tom has claimed some things that aren’t true. Like saying that he and his colleagues lowered the provincial debt when they didn’t.
So now that he is natural resources minister, Tom Marshall is still telling people things that aren’t true. This time it is about the glories of the 2008 expropriation.
What Tom says.
The truth.
Two different things.
Last week SRBP noted that the provincial cabinet seems to be having some difficulty getting legislation into the House for debate.
Normally, we’d see upwards of 30 bills handled in the spring session. In 2011 they had almost all the bills introduced by the early part of May. In 2012, the provincial government had more than twice as many bills on the go as they do this year.
Well on Monday, finance minister Jerome Kennedy gave notice he has one more bill to add: an amendment to the Revenue Administration Act. He called it amendment number three.
Except it isn’t.
New Democratic Party leader Lorraine Michael asked natural resources minister Tom Marshall in the House of Assembly on Monday about Husky’s plans for natural gas development offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
The story appeared in upstreamonline.com on May 3 and SRBP told you about it the same day.
Here’s what Marshall said about the article:
I have not had the opportunity to read the particular article that which she is referring to, but I would also be happy to have a discussion with the company.
“After reaching a historic peak in 2008, natural gas and electricity prices in northeastern North America dropped sharply in 2009, then rose slightly in 2010 only to fall again, such that prices in 2012 were at their lowest in 10 years.” (page 11)
From an historic peak to the lowest prices in a decade a mere four years later.
Last week, the federal Auditor General pointed out many serious problems with the state of offshore search and rescue.
Last week, the usual gang grabbed any microphone they could find to call - yet again - for everything from a provincial public inquiry into the state of search and rescue in the province to a new agency to regulate safety in the offshore oil industry.
The idea that we had to split safety from other aspects came up during the offshore helicopter inquiry. The idea is popular. Helicopter safety inquiry commissioner Robert Wells included it as one of his recommendations in volume one.
But here’s the thing: what is a so-called separate safety agency supposed to do that we aren’t doing now or couldn’t accomplish any other way?
Husky Energy is sizing up the potential of developing natural gas offshore Newfoundland and Labrador within the next decade, according to the leading petroleum industry news source upstreamonline.com.
First exports could begin in 2025, if enough resources can be certified, according to upstream. The likely export destination would be western Europe, a market very close to Newfoundland and Labrador and where prices are considerably stronger than they are in North America.
upstream’s story notes that the provincial government “quashed” any idea of using local natural gas in place of Muskrat falls, but reports that since then the “the idea of LNG exports appears to now have more traction, suggested one source…”. upstream reported that “Husky is said to be taking a fresh look at known and potential gas resources to see if their scale would justify, technically and commercially, building a liquefaction plant.”
upstream reports that Husky commissioned a report from IntecSea to explore potential development of the 4.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas offshore Labrador.
Industry sources suggested a potential timeline towards first LNG exports could see pre-front-end engineering and design studies taking place in 2016-2017.
Front-end engineering and design would take place through to 2019 in advance of a firm decision, according to upstream.
-srbp-
As of May 2, there are a mere six pieces of legislation on the list of bills currently set for debate in the House of Assembly. It seems to be up to date because on Thursday they added links to a couple of the bills that are ready to start debate.
But they didn’t add any to the six listed there.
Former premier Tom Rideout has an accent typical of the northeast coast of Newfoundland. in his days as a cabinet minister after 2003, Rideout often used the word “northern”. It came out in his pronunciation as “no-durn” or “know-durn”.
Tom’s legacy leaves on, even inadvertently. Four years or so after Rideout got fed up and left provincial politics, Labrador affairs minister Nick McGrath confirmed recently that the Northern Strategic Plan the provincial Conservatives talk about so much doesn’t exist.
There’s no durn plan.
Natural resources minister Tom Marshall announced in the House of Assembly on Tuesday that the provincial government had settled with the last of a string of private companies victimised by a 2008 asset grab of hydro-electric generating facilities by the provincial government.
Taxpayers will cover a $54 million debt owed by Fortis, one of the partners in the Exploits Partnership, as well as pay the company an additional $18 million. Taxpayers have already paid more than $4 million according to media reports, bringing the total to about $76 million for the Fortis asset swipe alone.
In 2011, the provincial government took responsibility for a $40 million loan owed on Star Lake, another part of the 2008 hydro asset expropriation. The government also paid $32.8 million to Enel one of the partners in the project.
The provincial government seized the hydro assets in an extraordinary expropriation bill that government original touted as being aimed at Abitibi in punishment for closing a paper mill in the central Newfoundland town of Grand Falls-Windsor.
Information subsequently came to light that confirmed the government’s real target in the expropriation were the lucrative hydro-electric generating assets owned by Abitibi, Enel, and Fortis in two separate partnerships. The provincial government turned over the assets free of charge to the Crown-owned Nalcor Energy.
Nalcor will now use the generating stations to help meet its commitments to provide Emera with free electricity for 35 years under the Muskrat Falls deal.
For now, though, taxpayers are being forced to pay for the seizure and for the electricity Nalcor makes at the seized plants. Under a cabinet order dated April 4, 2013, Nalcor sells electricity from the Exploits plant to its subsidiary Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for the fixed price of four cents per kilowatt hour. Hydro sells the power to consumers at much higher rates, thereby pocketing a sizeable profit entirely at public expense.
In its original plan, government intended to skim off any valuable assets and leave Abitibi with any environmental liabilities. As it turned out, the expropriation seized one of the most polluted properties Abitibi held. The expropriation freed Abitibi of any liabilities since they went with the ownership.
There is no independent estimate available of the costs of the environmental clean-up of the seized facilities.
-srbp-
One of the unreserved joys that comes from writing these scribbles is the moment when a post sparks something.
Like on Monday, when a simple post looking at change in the provincial gross domestic product prompted an exchange among a few of the provincial Twitterati (Twitteratini?) on the whole business. Was it useful? What did it mean? Wonderful stuff considering that the post was intended to provoke thought of just that sort, not reach any hard-and-fast conclusions.
A release on Friday from Statistics Canada showed that the provincial economy shrank by almost 5% in 2012. They even supplied a lovely chart to illustrate the GDP changes in each province as well as the national average.
This wasn’t just modest growth or even a modest drop. We are talking one of only two provinces with a drop in GDP and the biggest change – positive or negative – of any province or territory in Canada.
Alberta is even more dependent on commodities than Newfoundland and Labrador and it still managed to see gross domestic product grow by almost four percent.
Not so in the former Republic of Dannystan.
Down.
By almost five percent.
One of the great things about having orders in council readily available is that people can find information.
That’s exactly why the current administration has kept them as secret as possible since 2003 and continue to censor them, even though orders in council are entirely public documents.
But at least in the wake of the Bill 29 Freedom From Information measures, the Conservatives seem to have been shamed into opening the vault on their secrets a bit even if they still censor public documents.
One of the things we can now readily see, though, is the number of appointments made by cabinet in the first quarter of 2013 to deputy minister and assistant deputy minister jobs.
Ross Wiseman violated Gerry Roger’s rights as a member of the House of Assembly.
He did so, by his own initial ruling, with no evidence whatsoever that the member had committed any contempt of the House.
He thinks an apology is good enough.
Ross Wiseman is wrong again.
Here’s why.
First, slander is something defamatory that someone says.
Libel is what you call a defamatory comment that is printed. So a poster would be a libel since it is printed.
Second, the story on the VO website about a bunch of posters contains an editorial opinion, not a fact, when it says that the posters “slander” the Premier.
“Who wants Kathy Dunderdale as Premier?” is hardly defamatory. The last line on the poster is strong, saying that the Premier is a “source of shame for us all.”
Unless the bad words on the poster that you edited out for the website say something really awful, it sure doesn’t look like you have something defamatory. As it turns out, the words are reputedly “Liar, Bully, and Fool”.
Strong but it is still looking like an opinion and not a defamation.
Best thing for VOCM to do: leave the opinions to others, like say a lawyer or a judge, and stick to reporting the news.
Third, this poster seems to be something we could reasonably expect after last week’s events. That doesn’t mean it is right. It just means that the botched attack on Gerry Rogers and the Facebook group might just be getting some people a bit more riled up than they would be otherwise.
-srbp-
What is it about the provincial Conservatives and income tax?
Kathy Dunderdale rabbited on about it last fall and again in January.
Last week, the provincial Conservatives were at it again, with a private members resolution in the House that praised the government for cutting taxes and for not raising them now that they’ve fallen on hard times.
