Whither Canada?

Stop that! Stop that! It's silly.

Surely we live in the end times, prophesied by Monty Python.

The original pilot episode of the Flying Circus (actually aired as the third episode) was titled "Whither Canada?" This was also the title of the final exercise for students at the National Defence College (NDC) at Fort Frontenac in Kingston, On. NDC was a year-long professional study program run by the Department of National Defence for up-and-coming military, naval and air officers, senior federal and provincial bureaucrats and civilian business leaders.

The idea was to bring together future leaders and let them examine Canada and the issues facing the country internally and externally. Students had to write papers outside their areas of expertise and the final exercise was a collection of essays on topics of the students choice built around the theme "Whither Canada?".

Maybe I am the only one who found the humour in that. It was a productive educational program at NDC. I happened to know a few of the students and directing staff (instructors). About 10 years ago, the NDC program fell victim to budget cuts and a commandant who proved more of a magnet for needless controversy than anything else. Something along the same lines has been recreated lately in Kingston and with hope and hard work it can produce the value the old NDC program delivered.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that my company logo is a gryphon (pronounced like griffon), the symbol of NDC. I chose it for good reason since the gryphon is a heraldic symbol of knowledge, strength and vigilance.

That long introduction comes as a result of seeing a CBC story today about Prime Edward Island Premier Pat Binns. Eager to join the Galloping Gimme brigade, Premier Binns is asking Ottawa to exempt the island province's agricultural and tourism revenue from Equalization. CBC quotes Binns as saying that "those industries are special resources that Prince Edward Island has, on par with the offshore oil and gas revenues that landed deals worth more than $3 billion over eight years for his Newfoundland and Nova Scotian counterparts. " It's an attributed comment in the original, not a direct quote.

Now here's the part that just screams for Graham Chapman's Colonel character to stride onto the stage and order a halt to this evident nonsense among the premiers.

Let's point out some obvious differences between PEI potatoes and Anne of Green Gables on one side and offshore oil and gas on the other.

1. Two are renewable resources. Two are not. Non-renewable resources run out, Pat, therefore a province would like to make the most of the revenue while it can.

2. The Government of Canada actually owns two of them; it does not own the other two. [Hint: the federal government doesn't own anything with red hair.] Why should PEI bother with the federal government redistributing its own revenues. (see Ontario Navel Gazing for a clearer explanation) Ottawa doesn't try to tell Pat Binns where he can direct the French fry dollars.

3. The new offshore deals with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador actually modify agreements dating back 20 years. The offsets were established under that deal and no one from anywhere else in the country objected back them. Besides, the new deals don't guarantee money in perpetuity and they reflect what most reasonable people would acknowledge are unique circumstances.

That's just three things that come readily to mind. There could be more.

But surely everyone can understand why I am waiting - perhaps in vain - for the next premiers conference to end with a rousing chorus of The Lumberjack Song. [<--Warning: MP3 link]

Ontario Navel Gazing - the galloping gimmes, part deux

There is no small irony that Danny William's greatest contribution to Canada thus far has been to make every provincial premier into yet another beggar for increased federal hand-outs.

The latest in the line is Premier Dalton McGuinty, ably supported by editorial opinion in his province, including the ever-Liberal Toronto Star. Their editorial today is really nothing more than a thinly disguised appeal for more federal transfer payments to Ontario. Dalton is trying to pull a Danny - claim grievous wounds from Ottawa and demand reparations. In Danny's case, he pointed to a bunch of slights, real and perceived. In Dalton's case he is claiming that his province bankrolls everyone via Ottawa. The Star backs him up - of course.

Both Premier McGuinty and The Toronto Star are playing in Ontario on uniquely Ontarian parochial outlooks but there is no mistake that the views are no more factual than the local prejudices that fueled Danny Williams' recent campaign.

But here's a simple perspective that is as unlikely to get any play among the official opinion leaders, read news media editorial rooms - as the fact that Danny Williams most emphatically did not get anything close to a "sweetheart" deal. On that point, flip over to Paul Wells' blog.

Equalization transfers come out of Ottawa's general revenues. That means it includes the revenue generated in Newfoundland and Labrador by the Government of Canada. Unless Dalton has been slipping reflective dye into the local money supply there is no way to prove which dollar in transfers goes anywhere.

If one takes a look at Equalization and similar transfers to Newfoundland and Labrador, the amounts involved are curiously similar to the total amount of federal government revenue generated in Newfoundland and Labrador in any given year. In 1991 and 1994, for example, the government to government transfers are almost exactly what Ottawa collected in tax type revenues in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the data if anyone wants to e-mail me for the table.

What that means is that the Newfoundland and Labrador economy generated the revenues needed to run the provincial government. We didn't get a hand-out from Queen's Park or Perth to build our schools; if we did, then Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would have a legitimate right to demand a vote in Ontario elections. After all, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a democratic right to hold accountable those who provide public services in the province.

Chew on that one for a second, Dalton.

In the case of this deal, Dalton, the revenues are certainly no more than those collected by the Government of Canada from its shares in the Hibernia project. In effect, the federal government has provided about eight years of Hibernia revenues to Newfoundland and Labrador. That's like Ottawa having shares in mines in Northern Ontario and agreeing to ship Queen's Park the cash. Who could find fault with that?

Where the deficit has come in this scheme since 1949 is in the contribution Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should make to the operation of the federal government. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have contributed to the country in other ways and in other places but the people still living in the province itself should be paying a fair share to run Foreign Affairs and Defence and the Coast Guard to name a few.

In a couple of years time that will happen and no one should be happier than Dalton McGuinty and the Canadians who live in his province.

In the meantime, Dalton McGuinty and Danny Williams should be looking beyond their own borders; they need to get their heads out of their navels or whatever provincial orifice has captured their attention so completely. There are good reasons to reform federal-provincial fiscal relations, but they have nothing to do with Dalton McGuinty's misreading of the recent offshore oil and gas revenue deals. Now that Ottawa has a cash surplus and the national economy is reasonably stable, we should deal with the problem now, collectively as Canadians.

The biggest challenge in doing that is for provincial premiers to break out of their traditional narrow perspective and see that there is more to the country than what they can see from their offices. Other premiers have risen to that challenge in the past and there is no reason why current premiers cannot do the same thing.

The world doesn't end at Port aux Basques

In light of the continent shattering uproar - a bit of sarcasm - over the offshore deals, it is interesting to see the difference between the Nova Scotia government website and the site maintained by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Flip to Newfoundland and Labrador's site, and you see four links, two of which are to the marketing pieces (print ad and TV spot) that have been produced to sell pride to people of the province. There is a measure of irony there. The other two bits are the standard news release issued by both the federal and provincial government and the Agreement in Principle.

Lots of expensive graphics.

Now try Nova Scotia.

Wow!

Basic information in plain English for Nova Scotians and people from other provinces. There is some background information, a description of what was sought and what was obtained. There is an explanation of why the deal is good for Nova Scotia and for all Canadians.

Then there is the commitment to fiscal responsibility, code for not pissing the money out the door.

Open two browsers and flip back and forth between the two sites. Which one actually communicates meaningful, substantial information? Which one polishes something round for you? Which one plays solely to the local audience and which one communicates to all who are interested in the issue?

(Thinking in that vein, go have another gander at the tales of two cities posts. Note the parallels.)

Which one project cost more to produce?

It's an interesting exercise to look at things in comparison. There is a big communications lesson in there for the people on the receiving end of the communications.

A further tale of two cities

Communications people (public relations and advertising) like to look at the "optics" of things like today's ceremonies in Halifax and St. John's.

Ideally, there is more to it than how things look, but how things look and what gets said can affect impressions and attitudes and those things, especially attitudes, influence behaviour. It's the behaviour - manifested as support and co-operation on core issues - that matters.

In "A tale of two cities", we took a look at the differing positions taken by NOIA, the local oil and gas industry association, and its Nova Scotia counterpart OTANS in the recent talks with Ottawa.

The optics were good for OTANS and decidedly bad for NOIA. Take a look at their respective websites and the news releases. At OTANS, they announced that they would be hosting the Nova Scotia signing ceremony. OTANS chairman Tim Brownlow is quoted as saying:

"OTANS is pleased to be able to host this historic event," says Tim Brownlow, Chair of the not-for-profit association. "We look forward to continuing to work with both levels of government to promote the development of the local offshore industry." [Emphasis added]

"Nova Scotians now understand they can truly benefit from the potential wealth the offshore brings to our province, ... We are seeing the start of a new era of economic opportunity in this region. Both Prime Minister Martin and Premier Hamm deserve all of our thanks and credit for their efforts on this agreement."

Now flip over to NOIA. The release notes that a great many NOIA members had attended the ceremony, as they had attended the ceremony in 1985.

President and CEO Leslie Galway said "Today's signing ceremony has indeed signified a new beginning and a new path for Newfoundland and Labrador as indicated by Premier Williams. We will now be able to invest today for our future, and it is only fitting that Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas industry has been recognized as an important and vibrant part of that future."

What Ms. Galway is referring to there when she mentions "the industry" is simply the provincial government revenue coming from oil and gas production, not anything her members have done. After all, the whole focus on "principle beneficiary" has little if anything to do with the efforts of her members. The oil and gas revenues come primarily from members of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) - those are the people who drill the holes and pump the oil and gas.

No mention either of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada in Ms. Galway's' words of praise; there was an earlier mention of "vital individual roles in making today's signing a reality". The Prime Minister better not let that go to his head.

After the brief release, there are a few photographs of the ceremony, finishing with a picture of Ms. Galway shaking hands with the Premier.

To really drive home the difference in the two ceremonies, note the Prime Minister's remarks. In Nova Scotia, he praised OTANS and drew attention to the substantive benefits of offshore oil and gas development. The PM talked about local jobs, local business, exports and innovation as being the substantive benefits of the industry. He talked about promoting Atlantic Canada's oil and gas resources to the G7 finance ministers in 1995.

Both NOIA and OTANS have the same mandate: to promote development of the region's oil and gas industry and enhance their members' participation.

One of most significant aspects of offshore oil and gas that got lost in the past year's rhetoric has been the role played by local industries in bringing jobs and investment to the province. People seem to have forgotten the remarkable development of locally-based companies that have proven time and again they can deliver services of the best quality and at competitive prices, to the oil and gas industry around the globe.

Based on the optics of today's ceremony, which one delivered on its mandate for its members?

Lies, spin, and bull*** - now a book

When you are searching for a book to read, try this one by Princeton philosophy professor emeritus Harry G. Frankfurt. His 1986 essay "On bullshit." is now available as a small 67-page book.

"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much [bull]. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize [bull] and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern, nor attracted much sustained inquiry," said Frankfurt, in a New York Times interview.

Buy one and put it on your gift list for someone you know.

It should be required reading in political science and public relations course across the country.

Counting Chickens

Coming Monday is the signing of the offshore revenue deal.

Everyone is cheering.

Some are scowling.

But according to the Saturday Telegram, discussions are still underway to reach agreement on some key definitions. The story isn't posted but I am giving a link anyway. Maybe you could send an e-mail and let miller Ayre know what you think of The Telegram's skimpy website. Ever hear of letting people subscribe, Miller?

One of the details is finding a common definition of debt. Appears that some provinces measure it differently, including some things and not including others. This is similar to a story floating around Ottawa and St. John's a week or so ago that there was a side deal being negotiated that limited where the province could spend its new cash. I doubt that is true, but The Telegram story does indicate there are still some potential difficulties in finalizing this agreement.

It stands in contrast to the original Atlantic Accord. Provincial Premier Brian Peckford accepted Brian Mulroney's offer in June 1984 without so much as questioning the placement of a comma. After the federal election later in 1984, the federal and provincial governments started what ended up being six months of detailed negotiations.

They debated the details of the deal to ensure that the goals set for them by cabinets - not the Premier or prime Minister alone - were met. One former provincial negotiator insists that the provincial team was worried the final version didn't meet key criteria established by cabinet and so a deal would fall through.

Is there a chance this could all fall through? Not really.

Is there a chance some details might not be as revealed publicly so far? That's a bit more likely, especially in the the workings of the provisions of how a province goes on and off Equalization and hence the offsets.

The original Atlantic Accord took nearly two years to navigate the House of Commons - that's with a majority government firmly committed to the deal. While no sign has emerged of a serious threat to getting a bill through the Commons to enact this deal - when it comes - there is always a possibility in a minority parliament of odd things occurring. Might some of the details be changed or amendments made, especially ones that open options for other provinces?

As the hoary old cliche goes, "the devil is all in the details".

And like another cliche, there is no point in counting chickens before they are hatched. It isn't like counting crows.

That's what makes the advertising schpeel the province has produced all the more smarmy, all the more chalushisdick.

Let's see what the thing actually looks like before we have a party. Better to know how many chickens are actually in the hen house before we start dropping any on the barbie.

Pride Day

Apparently Monday is to be Pride Day in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Look for lots of messages from the Premier on how the Accord fight restored our pride and how the deal will make us a "have" province. This is the message he has been carrying since that fateful Friday in Ottawa. Lots of things to be proud of.

Lots of hype.

Lots of spin.

Usually a good sign of nothing of substance, or a concerted effort to distract attention from something else.

Expect to see both print ads and television spots, some of which will run nationally. The production cost and media buy will likely stretch into the six figure range - that's hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is anyone in the province not in favour of the deal? Will a few ads change Dalton's mind?

Now this is completely separate from the "branding" campaign advertised over the weekend. The province is seeking bids from companies interested in promoting Newfoundland and Labrador as a great place and a great place to do business. Target, the internationally successful local marketing company already has done the research component. Let's see who actually gets to do the leg work.

As for the Pride Day event at the Fairmont, I have had a raft of e-mails and phone calls inviting me to attend. The contacts were not from the provincial government, of course. They have been busily contacting all their supporters as well as issuing formal invitations to people - apparently without having reserved or designated seating for many. So we may well wind up with a giant game of musical chairs on Monday morning. There are likely no more than 350 seats available; more than that showed up at the airport in a storm on short notice to welcome Danny the Conquerer home from Ottawa.

And running underneath it all will be yet more of that venomous partisan attack on John Efford, initiated by Danny and Loyola and taken up with such enthusiasm by their minions. The chorus of "boo"s at the political rally disguised as a news conference a week or so ago was just a small taste of what some political low-lifes are likely to do on Monday. Regardless of John's performance or what you may think of him personally, the whole spectacle of the Terminate John campaign and the flag nonsense are definitely something not to be proud of.

The galloping gimmes, Part 1

No surprise, really, that a number of other provinces are now seeking some type of Equalization side deal. The Globe and Mail and The Telegram are carrying similar stories about Dalton McGuinty complaints regarding the recent agreements between the Government of Canada and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Over at the National Post, pact-checking fell apart in their Saturday edition. The front page story on the supposed revolt turned Danny Williams from a Tory into a Liberal. Maybe that explains why the Post has been criticizing him so harshly. They got his party affiliation wrong so they just instinctively went on the attack.

He's the actual quote, which, oddly is STILL posted on Sunday morning: "Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who like Mr. McGuinty is a Liberal, rejected Ontario's concerns, noting that "from our own perspective, we've never objected to special funding for other provinces."

Williams is the Premier, not Tom Rideout who, until 1985, sat as a Liberal MHA before the lure of a cabinet seat caused him to run to Brian Peckford's side. There's a whole column (already written eons ago) about Newfoundland politicians and their penchant for party-switching. Not to worry about Danny Williams, Posties. He's so Tory he makes former Peckford cabinet minister Bill Marshall look like a Marxist.

Paul Wells is claiming credit for having pointed out this potential backlash some weeks ago. He rightly notes that no one objected until now, simply because every successful precedent strengthens the case for a special deal for Ottawa cash. To be fair Paul, McGuinty actually did complain about this whole side deal back in mid-October. In fact, it was his letter to the PM, PM, that led to the October federal offer to Newfoundland and Labrador containing a so-called cap on the offsets. McGuinty's position is a little different than the one taken by, say Saskatchewan or even British Columbia, but more on that to follow in a later post.

As for McGuinty's supposed endorsement of the Williams proposals earlier on, Paul does link to a CBC St. John's story. I say supposed because the whole thing was grossly over-rated by Premier Williams himself when he claimed to have the enthusiastic support of almost all the other first ministers, save the Pm himself and Bernard Lord.

The hand-written note from McGuinty was hardly high-level first ministers' official correspondence - McGuinty's office couldn't even find a copy of it in their files when media started looking for it. In this whole exercise, of course, the public has never seen any proof of the endorsements Premier Williams claimed to have. McGuinty's was the first to surface and looked a bit more like a case of "the weather is here; wish you were beautiful" throw-away platitude than a hearty endorsement for the Danny Juggernaut.

I still wonder if the note from Ralph was on a beer-stained napkin from the local steak'n'ribs place. If you wipe off the rib sauce you might be able to decipher the scrawl. Most of the rest probably looked alot like McGuinty's, if they existed at all. It doesn't really matter now though, since Danny has his deal - or does he? [See "Counting Chickens", coming later on Sunday]

On a more substantial point, though McGuinty is just flat-out wrong. He is quoted by Canadian Press as saying "[T]here was a principle that said no have-not province could have a fiscal capacity that surpassed that of the people of Ontario," said McGuinty. "In this particular case, that is exactly what is going to happen and that's unacceptable."

Under the January deal, dear Ontario Premier, the Equalization offsets stop flowing when a province ceases to qualify for Equalization. Right now that point is 10% lower than the per capita fiscal capacity of your province and it has been in that range for most of the past 50 years. So there is no fear of Newfoundland and Labrador surpassing you using Equalization and the offsets. This province will go off Equalization and likely exceed Ontario fiscal capacity the old-fashioned way - by out-performing Trillium Central on a per capita basis.

At least get your facts straight, Dalton; better still, stop listening to John Crosbie. He habitually gets it wrong even when talking about a deal he helped craft. Under the old Accord offset arrangement, a province could get offsets after it had ceased to qualify for Equalization. You and your predecessors never uttered a peep about that.

Why all the fuss now?

I am John Crosbie's spleen

For those who have been paying attention to the former federal emissary to Newfoundland and Labrador, John Crosbie's interventions on the Atlantic Accord dispute have been curious.

For example, here is his column from Atlantic Business Magazine. Take this paragraph as typical:

"The difference between the June 5th agreement and the proposal outlined by Minister Goodale is in the range of $4 billion. Total provincial un-clawed back revenues during the projected 21-year-life of the Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose Fields, based on an estimated future price of oil of $35 per barrel, would be $6.5 billion. If the present regime continues, NL will receive $2.1 billion over the 21 years when all presently known oil resources would be completely used up. If the federal suggestion of the "Ontario cap" is carried out, Newfoundland would receive another $400 million over the 21 year period. The overall division of the revenues from the offshore would then be 38 per cent for NL and 62 per cent for Canada. Clearly such an act of federal treachery and promise breaking would remove from NL its one opportunity ever to become a "have" province, as would be the case for Nova Scotia."

To be fair, at the outset, this comment from Mr. Crosbie is based solely on the October offer and Mr. Crosbie likely had to meet a printing deadline well before the December offer was made. That's one of the hazards of trying to comment on today's issue in a medium that doesn't allow some flexibility to meet for changes tomorrow or the day after.

That said, Mr. Crosbie did know certain things when he wrote the paragraph excerpted above that make his comments dubious. For example, he knows full-well that the deal he helped to craft in 1985 gave absolutely no commitment that federal and provincial revenues would be divided into any set of proportions. What he calls "federal treachery" is not something that happened since 1993 when the Liberal Party took power in Ottawa. The "treachery" to which Mr. Crosbie refers is his contained in his own deal operating as intended.

As a further example, Mr. Crosbie has known from the start that his new interpretation of "principle beneficiary" is decidedly not what was intended by the signatories to the Accord.

Yet further, Mr. Crosbie knows full-well that he makes an utterly false contention when he states that over the course of 21 years the provincial government will receive only $2.1 billion of the %6.5 billion of projected provincial revenues. As Mr. Crosbie himself described this contention in 1990, it is "absolutely, utter nonsense".

Leap ahead in time to Crosbie's assault on the Globe and Mail, this time mounted from the pages of the Sun chain. For purposes here, I'll excerpt some of Mr. Crosbie's historical and other facts and comment on them one by one:

-Extract begins-

Other historical facts that our Ontario-centric Toronto intellectual elite don't remember, if they ever knew them, are:

- Canada first took an interest in claiming our offshore resources on the east coast in 1961; [This assumes that as a matter of law, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador owned them in the first place. What occurred was a dispute, like all disputes, in which resources were claimed by two parties, both of whom had a claim. Neither the Newfoundland Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court of Canada accepted the proposition that the offshore resources ever belonged to Newfoundland and Labrador.]

- The Trudeau government made a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, which decided in March 1984, that the undersea and undersoil resources off east-coast Newfoundland were owned by Canada and not Newfoundland, just as Canada had earlier owned the resources under Alberta, et. al. [For his own partisan reasons, Mr. Crosbie neglects to mention the reference by the Government of Newfoundland to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Court of Appeal. Mr. Crosbie is also fully aware, or ought to be aware, that the legal status of the resources beneath the ground in Alberta and Saskatchewan was and is fundamentally different from the situation offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. Both courts found in favour of the federal government having legal jurisdiction, which is different from ownership.]

- It took from 1961 (mostly under Liberal governments) until the Mulroney government resolved these disputes via the Atlantic Accord signed on Feb. 11, 1985; [Mr. Crosbie neglects to mention the numerous efforts to resolve the ownership dispute and develop the fields by mutual agreement between the federal and provincial governments. Among other issues, it was the provincial government's insistence on pursuing the ownership argument that held up a deal during the Peckford administration. Such was not the case in Nova Scotia.]

- The Accord recognizes "the right of Newfoundland to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores." [Indeed it does, Mr. Crosbie, but the term is undefined in the Accord. That said, the definition Mr. Crosbie offers of the term is radically different from the benefits provided to Newfoundland and Labrador by a landmark agreement. His new interpretation does not match the public statements made by Prime Minister Mulroney and Premier Peckford when this historic agreement was signed.]

-Extract ends-

Note that nowhere in his Sun spewing does Mr. Crosbie go back and point out his revenue clawback argument from ABM and elsewhere continues to exist under the January deal he praises.

Mr. Crosbie concludes his tirade against what he calls "central Canadian control-freaks" by encouraging them to "cease to promote incorrect, unintelligent, insensitive, ill-informed and biased views that ignore the history of the problems."

Would that Mr. Crosbie took his own advice, we might be spared his ahistorical, partisan ad hominem rantings. His own presentations are no less incorrect or ill-informed and the result of his interventions have been no less insulting to the intelligence of his readers across Canada than the opinions of others he presumes to criticize.

A tale of two cities

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

For those who aren't familiar with the oil support business, there are two associations in Atlantic Canada representing businesses that supply goods and services to the offshore oil and gas industry.

In Nova Scotia, there is the Onshore/Offshore Technologies Association of Nova Scotia or OTANS. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have NOIA - the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association.

Now NOIA is the older of the two organizations, and while they publicly might deny it, there has always been a bit of a rivalry between the two. NOIA likes it place as the senior organization and the NOIA leadership gets edgy whenever it looks like OTANS is doing better than NOIA.

So it is no surprise that as details come to light of the two signing ceremonies on Monday - St. John's and Halifax - NOIA should be a little uneasy. According to some unpublished reports, it appears that OTANS is playing a prominent role in the Nova Scotia ceremony, as well should the organization that represents one of the significant ways in which that province is the "principal beneficiary" of the Nova Scotia Accord.

Over here, NOIA can come and show up with rest of us in the great unwashed mass at the ceremony in St. John's.

Now there could be many reasons for this difference. For one thing, the event in St. John's is being controlled by the provincial government. The One Who Was The Fight doesn't really need to share much of the spotlight as he claims his prize. In Nova Scotia, the whole offshore Accord fight has taken longer - Danny would have gotten nowhere with Jean Chretien any more than John Hamm did - and has been conducted with much less vitriol than the campaign from here. But more importantly, the minority Nova Scotia government will likely want to spread around some of the glow of victory to as many groups as it can.

But in the long run, aside from this ceremony, OTANS might well wind up much better off than NOIA.

In Nova Scotia, OTANS took a professional approach to government relations recognizing that long after this racket dies down, OTANS still has to maintain healthy positive relationships with both the federal and provincial governments. It has to do that in order to represent its members best interests. Check OTANS news release section on their website and you'll see plenty of releases on OTANS representing its members interest on this file or that. That's exactly what OTANS members pay membership dues to see happen.

What you won't see is what you will find on the NOIA site in October: two news releases in which NOIA blatantly sides with provincial government. In fact, the releases could have been written not by NOIA staff as one might assume but by someone working in the Premier's Office. They are full of the same blatant misrepresentations that characterized the provincial government's campaign. That was after the October Incident, the first of the great stormings, and as it turns out, a deal that wasn't apparently as bad as it seemed given the January deal.

Then there was The Ad: a full page ad complete with the NOIA logo in which the Newfoundland offshore association threw its entire support behind the provincial government and against the feds.

I wouldn't be surprised if Government of Canada officials in all the agencies on which NOIA depends moved telephone messages from the NOIA leadership farther down the pile and took just a bit longer to answer its letters.

The way bureaucrats look at things, the political fight was for the political types; the rest of the world can make arguments in private but never ever step into the bear pit of politics in public. It just isn't done among the people, public sector and private, who do the leg work on all sorts of files. They work quietly. But once you start taking sides you get treated differently because you have become different. For bureaucrats, it's ok to deal with private sector types ("us" dealing with "not us"), but it gets hinky when someone becomes political. It isn't okay for "not us" to become "them".

In the political offices, the response might be much chillier - and justifiably so. If nothing else, NOIA's endorsement of the province's campaign to rewrite the Accord's beneficiary provisions proved that NOIA places a higher priority on provincial government revenues than on the interests of its members in getting guaranteed offshore work. In that light, why should the Government of Canada be overly concerned about whether local industries are getting their rightful share of the Accord benefits? After all, their industry association doesn't think guaranteed local industrial benefits is part of making Newfoundland and Labrador the "principal beneficiary" of offshore oil development.

To cap it all, NOIA was one of the first interest groups to rush forward with its hand out looking for, well, a hand-out from the new federal transfer. How exactly does provincial government cash benefit NOIA members in their core interests? So far no one has stepped forward from NOIA to explain their logic.

If that wasn't enough, here's the release from NOIA issued once a deal had been reached in January. The language is very interesting if you look at the "principal beneficiary" comment and the mounds of praise heaped on the provincial government [read "Danny Williams"] for "steadfast leadership" in becoming "principal beneficiary". Even typing the words, I have a hard time fighting the hoover-like suction. Look at the slight praise for the Government of Canada. Talk about back-handed compliments!

Once NOIA stepped into the political bearpit, it stopped being a non-partisan representative of its members interests and took sides in a heavy-weight political dispute.

It would be a surprise if the mouse tangled with the elephants and didn't pick up a scratch or two.

Meanwhile in the White House...

Here's a curious story from the Globe today on the recent discovery of an accredited White House reporter who turns out to be some guy working under an assumed name for a Republican activist from Texas. How the guy got accreditation as a bona fide journalist is beyond me. Toby and CJ would never let that happen.

There's a word in the story I have just discovered is my new favourite word in English: pseudo-journalist.

According to the Globe story "[o]ver the past month, there have been disclosures of three separate instances in which government agencies have given lucrative contracts to conservative, pro-Bush commentators to provide consulting services and write positive articles on the administration's pet policies, including education changes."

The sound you hear is me shaking my head in dismay at the depths to which some people in politics will sink.

Bill Rowe on Cable 9?

Now lemme see how this goes:

1. New programs in the works including a call-in show on Rogers.

2. Bill Rowe resigns in Ottawa.

3. Bill Rowe tells CBC that he intends to revive his media career.

4. Bill Rowe used to host a call-in show.

5. Bill Rowe likes Danny.

6. Danny likes Bill.

7. Rogers Cable loves Danny.

Hmmmmmm.

Speculation can be fun.

The Cable Guy

The Premier's speech to the Empire club is apparently being carried numerous times by the local Rogers cable system, according to a news release from the provincial government.

Make sure you don't miss it.

And for those who don't want to patronize Rogers Cable, for some reason the Premier's Office neglected to notice that the Empire Club website has the speech (or will have it) posted on their website.

Two questions though:

1. Why is this release coming from Government and not from Rogers Cable? The government information service is there to provide information to the public and media on government activity not private sector business schedules. Can NTV get Survivor broadcast times up there now?

2. Has the Premier placed his Rogers' shares in a blind trust or is that file still open?

Does Bas need a job?

Word today that Bill Rowe, former Liberal Party leader, novelist, Rhodes scholar, cabinet minister, brown envelope slider supervisor and radio talk show host has apparently packed in his gig as Newfoundland and Labrador High Commissioner to the Evil Empire of Canada.

A free beer to anyone who can find any tangible, verifiable, credible evidence that Rowe accomplished anything at all during his brief tenure. His own overweaning self-adulation nor any superlative compliments from the guy who appointed him don't count. Nor will I accept that Bill picked up the Premier at the airport a few times, let Loyola sleep on his couch, or made coffee at federal-provincial meetings as proof of a job well done. Attending receptions is not proof, either; that's a perk or a pain depending on your perspective. Nope, I want to see a file finished or even significantly advanced.

I recall back in the dark ages when I served in government that someone in the bureaucracy tossed up this idea of having a permanent office in Ottawa. As a naive young fellow I thought it seemed like a good idea on the face of it. After a bit of consideration though, I realized that we taxpayers already have a raft of people who get paid to work with Government of Canada on our behalf, day in and day out.

One more body siphoning a salary and living expenses out of my pocket wouldn't help any.

I am still not convinced it has or will.

But there's a beer in it for anyone who can prove me wrong.

Wangersky on The Opposition - -(Not quite) 'nuff said

Read Russell Wangersky's column in the Tuesday edition of The Telegram.

I don't think anything more needs to be said.

Addendum (10 Feb 05)

Interesting to see the Fair Deal site has opened a thread on this issue and linked to this site (tip of the hat, back.)

The comments that follow are worth reading. Aside from one blatantly myopic one, it would be useful for the Official Opposition to have a look at posted opinions. True they aren't any kind of scientific sampling but these people have obviously taken some time to write carefully considered observations. Think of it as a free focus group session, guys. Fair Deal thread on Grimes

In search of strategic strategy for strategizing

A few years ago, B schools across North America started teaching "strategic" planning and every group under the sun needed a "vision" and a "mission" and a "strategic plan". Consultants made millions working on the documents, most of which I'd venture got tossed on a shelf right after the weekend retreat or "planning session".

Now we have a government that seems to be spending all its time working on plans and strategies.

Ed Byrne is the latest one to announce a call for proposals to develop a strategy, this time on wind generation of electric power. Nice idea.

Too bad Hydro has been supporting demonstration projects since 2001 trying to see if it is feasible to generate significant amounts of wind power in the province in a way that is environmentally safe.

"In recent years, there have been some advancements in technology that could lead to opportunities to reduce the cost of producing energy by wind power. As such, we believe that it is in the best interest of the province, the ratepayer and for current and potential wind power proponents, that we step back to review the current situation to determine how best to proceed."

Psst Ed. Here's a free suggestion. A radical concept.

Let the private sector keep developing test projects. If they are feasible, then let the private sector fund and develop them and feed the power into the Hydro grid. Let the environment department keep monitoring the projects and making sure they are environmentally sound.

I the meantime find something else to announce besides yet another study and proposal for a strategy.

It's a bit like the joke about The Method actor, seeking his "motivation" to walk across the soundstage toward the camera. "Don't worry", yells the director, " I'll tell you when you get here."

What's the strategy, Ed? I'll tell you when you get here.

Paul Wells take on Danny

Don't count on too many people circulating this link.

It's Paul Well's "BackPage" column from Macleans this week. It doesn't praise Danny. It can't be misconstrued - taken wrongly - into praise for the Wunderkind.

"Danny Williams could have had this deal in October or December. He preferred to pull cheap stunts in return for cheap votes. This is the man in whom Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have put their trust. One wonders why they are celebrating."

Wonder if Paul is coming on Monday for the signing ceremony?

Jack's Math - revised and revised again

Ok, I may have misheard this clip today, so I will check it out and post a correction if need be. [Yep, I did. So I bought The Telegram today and got a better set of quotes.]

Jack Harris, the province's New Democratic Party leader issued a news release today calling on the government to bring some good news in the upcoming budget. He noted, among other things, that the offshore deal just announced will mean the provinces books will be balanced on a cash basis this year and that over the next eight years provincial government oil revenues will be a total of about $4.6 billion. [He said $4.9 billion, and I gather he was referring to the offsets if we go the full eight years in the first offset phase.]

Excuse me, Jack? I must have misheard you. [Yeah I did, but actually what he actually said doesn't change the rest of this post.]

Even before a deal was signed the provincial government estimated its direct oil revenues would be a total of $4.94 billion. That's the total from October. When Wade Locke added up his numbers based on US$32 per bbl (barrel), he came up with an eight-year figure of $5.2 billion.

Now that was without any new cash from Ottawa.

So, Jack, if we add the $2.0 billion in the new cash, the provincial government is going to have about $7.0 billion over the next eight years. That works out to be around $875 million per year on average. [If we accept Jack's idea that we get the full offset (Dream on, there buddy), then the total oil revenues plus offsets is actually........$1.25 billion per year, on average, over eight years. Of course, regular readers of this blog know the figure is likely closer to $875 million.]

And that is without considering Hebron/Ben Nevis and without the added revenue from Voisey's Bay and without the added revenue from restructured federal provincial financial for health and social programs.

Jack was right to point out that the government's finances are not in crisis, thereby acting like a proper Opposition Leader. (Why exactly was Roger Grimes out defending Fraser "Mario Andretti" March today anyway?) But Jack, b'y, at least get the math right on how much money the provincial government will have to spend.

If you put it in proper context, any idiot can see the Premier can be fiscally responsible and implement some much needed preventative health care projects like the school lunch program.

If it looks like the place is cash poor, and you are working from an equally wrong assumption, then you only fall into the trap carefully laid by that fountain of fiscal fooferah, the Minister of Decimals Loyola Sullivan: he can just dismiss you as another irresponsible leftie ready to spend us into the ground. Then he'll put everyone back to sleep with a recitation of the current budget projections, line by thousands of lines to the nearest fraction of a percentage.

(Revised 09 Feb 05)

Addendum (10 Feb 05)

Jack Harris made a guest appearance on Out of the Fog on Wednesday evening and it was repeated on Thursday. Watch for it again over the weekend. It's worthwhile to see Jack's solid performance despite the shortcomings discussed below. With a bit of work, the NDP could actually start to climb in the polls if Jack can keep it up.

A couple of things stand out. First of all Jack very clearly and concisely laid out his points in a way anyone could understand. He divided the debt into different chunks and explained his point in a way that you couldn't help but see where he was going - in a sensible level headed direction.

Second, the only one who wouldn't buy the logic was Krista Rudofsky who seems increasingly smitten with our Premier. Her tone betrayed a sketpicism seemingly the result of having swallowed Finance department news releases whole.

It's getting to the point where the CRTC should review the local cable access license for Rogers to see if they have crossed over a line on bias. If they try and pass themselves off as a current affairs or news show, then maybe there are some laws about truth in advertising that apply.

Does anyone remember Krista's fawning interview with the Premier back in January when she asked, breathlessly, "What can we do to help you, Premier?" or words to that effect. That was just one of several examples where she has failed utterly either to grasp the subject in front of her or ask the Premier or Loyola Sullivan or any Tory cabinet minister anything other than a question designed to let them slide through their prepared talking points with ease.

Danny has been on the show so often you'd swear he still owned the station. Out of the Fog is starting to sound a bit like the old Conversations with the Premier farce done eons ago with Joe Smallwood. The Premier would pull into the parking lot having been driven in by chauffeur from Roaches Line. While the car idled, a reporter would run out, stick a microphone through the open window and let the tape run as Joe pontificated about whatever was on his mind.

I once asked a reporter who had done the old Smallwood schtick and a later version done by Tobin on what he thought was the difference between the two. "With Tobin, I got to ask questions," came the reply, full of all the dry-wit experience of a seasoned and professional news veteran. There's a lesson there Krista could use because there is a difference between asking a question and feeding one.

Thankfully, Poor old Jack brushed off the light-weight questioning and got back to his point time and again. A seemingly frustrated Krista dropped it.

Any kind of bias in a public program interviewing political figures is unacceptable.

Period.

Fraser should be on TV

Law and Order has been on the air since 1989.

CSI and all its spin-offs has been around for something like five years.

Fraser March needs to watch more TV. If he had, he would have known you can get the lugs from your phone to find out who you called and where you called from.

Make it easy Fraser: apologize and clean up your act or resign.

I am starting to think that Fraser and John are getting political advice from the same person.

Power corridor through Quebec?

Wait until Wednesday and you can get The Independent for free from its website.

When you do get it, or if you plunked down the buck already, check the front page story by Jeff Ducharme about the idea of forcing Quebec to let Newfoundland and Labrador build a power corridor through Quebec to let this province get its Labrador hydroelectric power to market.

Talk about living in the past, Jeff.

The idea of building power pylons through Quebec is old hat. As long as the existing grid has the physical capacity to carry the load, the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro could wheel power across the existing lines. The link is to a United States Department of Energy website on the American electrical power system. It makes for fascinating reading; amazing thing the Internet.

This site makes for curious reading when you hear people - like Premier Williams - talking about building a single Canadian grid that runs from St. John's to Vancouver. Let's not kid ourselves: he talks about a Canadian grid as a way of getting federal money to put his Stunnel or something like it across the Strait of Belle Isle. It isn't about developing a great national project for Canada.

It is pretty clear from the DOE website that the existing North American power grid is divided into clearly defined zones that cross the border into Canada. Quebec is a separate system that includes Labrador. Newfoundland is, of course, an island and hence isn't part of the system. (Seems like an obvious point, but apparently not for some people.) The Maritimes is wired into the Eastern Interconnected Network through Maine in a system that stretches down to Florida. The so-called Anglo-Saxon route would wire us directly to that one, incidentally, albeit at a huge and likely non-viable cost. Non-viable, that is, without massive government subsidy.

The main thrust of Jeff's piece though is putting John Efford offside with local nationalists. The headline "No way" refers to John's refusal to force a power corridor through Quebec. Jeff makes a nice contribution to the "Whack John" sport that has grown up here lately, but it doesn't do much more than that...

except give us the following lessons:

1. The Indy is stuck hopelessly in the past. They might want to find a new researcher. I suspect though that they find it more useful to recycle nationalist mythology and maybe even invent some new mythology rather than deal in the here and now. If it sells papers, then they are succeeding. Why else would there be this power corridor nonsense on page one and inside a column by Ivan Morgan praising Danny Williams? Let me look again, there might be yet another column that mentions Margaret Wente and points out she was wrong. Nope. Not wrong, but there's Ryan Cleary's editorial taking Wente out of context so he can claim she too praises Danny.

Wow. Talk about getting predictable! Why isn't there a piece from Bill Rowe heaping mounds of praise of his employer? Sheesh, I should have just turned the page. Poof! There's Bill, large as life. Well, the paper is locally owned - another point made over and over - as if that affects the quality of the reporting.

2. John Efford is not up-to-speed on all his briefing books. The logical answer to a question about power corridors is not whether you would or you wouldn't force one but, "Why, Jeff, are you asking me an outdated question?" What John has done in this interview is give his political enemies yet more ammunition to use against him. Atta boy John.