St. John's city council recently endorsed an all-mail ballot system for the upcoming municipal election.
The system is supposed to increase participation rates and is reputedly popular with voters. City officials claim that in a survey they conducted over 91% of respondents were satisfied with the process. A case study completed by Canada Post praises the system for increasing voter response at a lower cost than traditional elections.
Here's the quirky thing no one seems to have noticed.
In a conventional election, a voter must present himself or herself at a polling station, obtain a ballot and cast a vote in secret. Should someone attempt to vote in place of the registered voter, simply producing identification can demonstrate a fraud has occurred. That alone is sufficient to deter that type of criminal activity voting.
If a voter is likely to be absent on the usual polling day, there are several processes available, all of which preserve the integrity of the ballot's chain of custody and maintain its secrecy.
Some other jurisdictions across North America have moved to mail-in ballots or the so-called vote-by-mail system. Oregon ran the entire 2004 federal general election by vote-by-mail.
In that state, officials verified the votes cast by comparing a specimen signature of the registered voter to the signature included with the ballot envelope.
St. John's has no such system of specimen signatures. Nor do they have an alternative means of assuring that the vote received from a registered voter was actually cast by that person or a duly authorized proxy.
Therefore, there is no way of knowing that a ballot from any voter was actually cast by that voter.
The system assumes the ballot is valid and therefore the system is open to a variety of frauds.
The next council should review the entire process of municipal elections.
23 August 2005
22 August 2005
End the gas pricing charade!
George Murphy is a St. John's taxi driver. He calls the radio call-in shows regularly to give his update and analysis of gas price trends.
He's usually spot on.
He does it for free.
Meanwhile in Grand Falls-Windsor, there is a small office with a staff of about half-a-dozen doing the same job Murphy does.
That's right. They merely analyse gas and home-heating prices and then approve the increases.
They don't lower prices. They don't affect prices at all.
All David Toms and his crowd do is tell us that prices are going up.
Their salaries come from the gas retailers, by law.
Gasoline prices jumped by almost nine cents in St. John's today, a full week after they jumped everywhere else. When gas prices drop everywhere else, we will still be paying higher than-necessary prices. That's to make up for the delay in jacking the prices up. In this VOCM story, Commissar Toms says he thinks gasoline is overpriced. It isn't, Dave, ole man. But it will be when you leave it high after prices everywhere else have dropped.
Checking the provincial government's website this morning at around 8:30, I couldn't find a news release from Toms' outfit. He was ducking media calls on Friday, calls that were prompted by George Murphy's predictions. When the release does go up, I'll post link so you can see the pricing trend (slow increases, slow decreases) that the petroleum price-fixing charade office actually includes in its own releases.
What it boils down to is this:
1. The provincial petroleum office provides no service of value that cannot be obtained more competently and in a much more timely way by someone in the private sector. We'd be better off closing down the GFW charade, passing the hat and giving George Murphy a new computer.
2. There is absolutely no evidence that prices here are lower than they would be without the "regulation" charade. Doc O'Keefe, the guy who built his public name on this gas price crap, claims gas would be higher if it wasn't for the gas price crowd.
I say crap and challenge Doc to prove his claim.
The fact is Doc can't prove his claim.
Doc can't do a lot of other things, as his term on council already shows; but that's another post as O'Keefe appears poised to take on the deputy mayor's job by acclamation.
He's usually spot on.
He does it for free.
Meanwhile in Grand Falls-Windsor, there is a small office with a staff of about half-a-dozen doing the same job Murphy does.
That's right. They merely analyse gas and home-heating prices and then approve the increases.
They don't lower prices. They don't affect prices at all.
All David Toms and his crowd do is tell us that prices are going up.
Their salaries come from the gas retailers, by law.
Gasoline prices jumped by almost nine cents in St. John's today, a full week after they jumped everywhere else. When gas prices drop everywhere else, we will still be paying higher than-necessary prices. That's to make up for the delay in jacking the prices up. In this VOCM story, Commissar Toms says he thinks gasoline is overpriced. It isn't, Dave, ole man. But it will be when you leave it high after prices everywhere else have dropped.
Checking the provincial government's website this morning at around 8:30, I couldn't find a news release from Toms' outfit. He was ducking media calls on Friday, calls that were prompted by George Murphy's predictions. When the release does go up, I'll post link so you can see the pricing trend (slow increases, slow decreases) that the petroleum price-fixing charade office actually includes in its own releases.
What it boils down to is this:
1. The provincial petroleum office provides no service of value that cannot be obtained more competently and in a much more timely way by someone in the private sector. We'd be better off closing down the GFW charade, passing the hat and giving George Murphy a new computer.
2. There is absolutely no evidence that prices here are lower than they would be without the "regulation" charade. Doc O'Keefe, the guy who built his public name on this gas price crap, claims gas would be higher if it wasn't for the gas price crowd.
I say crap and challenge Doc to prove his claim.
The fact is Doc can't prove his claim.
Doc can't do a lot of other things, as his term on council already shows; but that's another post as O'Keefe appears poised to take on the deputy mayor's job by acclamation.
Baker digs hole deeper - for herself
There were those who thought St. John's lawyer Averrill Baker would this week deal with accusations her columns on fisheries management have been short of facts.
They were disappointed if they thought she might actually develop an argument, based on accurate information, that went beyond trafficking in the preconceptions of the people who read her columns and then hold them up as proof that their views were correct all along.
This sort of intellectual incest may be satisfying to some, but in the court of public opinion, as in the court of law, the convincing argument is the one which is founded on fact and the law. Baker may be winning her case in the open line jury trial, but each week, her columns are assessed by the appeals division on a totally different basis. It is there where she is losing.
In the end, all Baker did this week is take some advice from her father and continue to flail away at the federal fisheries department with more innuendo.
The best defence is a good offense, supposedly.
The problem with that old saw is that when it comes to this sort of stuff, the effectiveness of the offense depends very much on the credibility of the attacker. Baker can persuade those who know very little of the facts, but anyone taking a deeper look finds her argument increasingly unpersuasive.
The fact is that Baker junior's credibility has taken a few serious hits in recent weeks through her columns.
Her latest column adds to the damage.
At the end of it, Baker writes:
"Any lawyer who has taken international law in the past 15 years will tell you that any coastal state signatory to the Law of the Sea can apply to the UN under article 76 to extend jurisdiction over the ocean floor out to 350 miles and prevent all dragging of the soil and subsoil on the ocean floor.
"Russia did it in the year 2000 and twenty other countries - most of them NAFO members - have applied to the United Nations to do so. Some are doing so to stop, and in other cases to regulate, the foreign fleets dragging the ocean floor outside 200 miles.
"Instead of advocating the same for Canada, the three major political parties have all bought into a concept unknown to law called "Custodial Management". They advocate that foreign nations be allowed to continue dragging the bottom as long as they abide by fishing quotas. Perhaps 30 years ago it would have made some sense, but under international law today it amounts to a cop-out.
"The federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recently claimed publicly - – I am told in response to my last column - that these 16 foreign nations are not really catching very much fish.
"If 60 large foreign factory freezer trawlers (some are 350 feet long) are not catching fish, then what in heavens name are they doing out there dragging the bottom of the ocean back and forth on our continental shelf? Did they lose something overboard?
"Are they operating gambling casinos at sea? Are they a part of an oceanic cruise line? Are the Russians dragging for Red October? Or would the Minister of Fisheries have us believe they all have a contract from Walt Disney to try to find Nemo?"
Let's take a look at some of this stuff, since it forms the core of Baker's latest attack on the fisheries department.
1. Under Section 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a signatory can lay claim to sub-seabed minerals where the continental shelf extends beyond the 200 nautical mile xclusive economic zone.
Here's a link to UNCLOS; go check it out for yourself.
At no point, does this section give a coastal state claiming such rights to the sub-seabed any right to interfere with activities related to the water-column. That's fishing, ladies and gentlemen, and as much as Ms. Baker can rail about the effect of dragging on the seabed, the treaty separates the seabed mineral resources from the wildlife in the watercolumn and on the seabed.
It doesn't take a single course at law school to read plain English and present it clearly and accurately. Nor does one have to agree with the UNCLOS; Canada's actions can only take place within the scope and context of international law.
Baker's contention is, to put it bluntly, WRONG, yet again when she suggests that Canada could lay claim to the whole continental shelf beyond 200 miles and thereby end foreign fishing.
Oh yes and while countries have applied, as Baker points out, she doesn't tell us if any country has actually been granted rights beyond 200 miles for managing fisheries.
2. B aker would never tell you this but here it ibecauseue it is accurate: Canada is already building the case for extending its claim to the sub-seabed minerals on the continental shelf beyond 200 miles. The feds have up to eight years after ratifying the treaty to make the claim, which means they have until 2011 to complete it.
3. Canada couldn't lay legal claim to the shelf beyond 200 miles before 2003 because Canada didn'ratifyfy the treaty until then. Notice how the facts of the matter here differ widely from the interpretation Baker applies. The position taken by the federal government isn't a cop-out, as Baker claims; it reflects the reality of the international legal regime governing the fisheries.
4. The last bit of Baker's column - the bit about casinos and Finding Nemo - is curious if for no other reason than it sounds an awful lot like the kind of sarcasm usually voiced by her father; I note this because in the past few weeks I have heard one too many people speculating that Senator Dad has been ghost-writing the columns for his daughter. To my mind that doesn't really matter since Senator Baker or lawyer Baker can be equally wrong, as a matter of facts.
This last section of the column is curious because it takes a potshot at the federal minister without - at any point - providing a single shred of factual information to back up either the claims made in this column or the claims made in previous columns by Les Bakers audaces.
What a reasonable reader is left with is merely more of the entertaining writing of a St. John's lawyer.
Entertaining, yes but ultimately unconvincing.
It ignores fact.
It ignores the law.
It presents instead a series of unsubstantiated claims and innuendo.
No matter how many times Baker repeats her arguments, they do not gain accuracy or credibility with the repetition.
Except among people who were already convinced of what Baker claims.
The problem for Baker is that those people are already in the minority, something that isn't likely to change.
The other problem for Baker is that the more she makes outrageous claims lacking in any substance, the more she generates a backlash against her argument.
They were disappointed if they thought she might actually develop an argument, based on accurate information, that went beyond trafficking in the preconceptions of the people who read her columns and then hold them up as proof that their views were correct all along.
This sort of intellectual incest may be satisfying to some, but in the court of public opinion, as in the court of law, the convincing argument is the one which is founded on fact and the law. Baker may be winning her case in the open line jury trial, but each week, her columns are assessed by the appeals division on a totally different basis. It is there where she is losing.
In the end, all Baker did this week is take some advice from her father and continue to flail away at the federal fisheries department with more innuendo.
The best defence is a good offense, supposedly.
The problem with that old saw is that when it comes to this sort of stuff, the effectiveness of the offense depends very much on the credibility of the attacker. Baker can persuade those who know very little of the facts, but anyone taking a deeper look finds her argument increasingly unpersuasive.
The fact is that Baker junior's credibility has taken a few serious hits in recent weeks through her columns.
Her latest column adds to the damage.
At the end of it, Baker writes:
"Any lawyer who has taken international law in the past 15 years will tell you that any coastal state signatory to the Law of the Sea can apply to the UN under article 76 to extend jurisdiction over the ocean floor out to 350 miles and prevent all dragging of the soil and subsoil on the ocean floor.
"Russia did it in the year 2000 and twenty other countries - most of them NAFO members - have applied to the United Nations to do so. Some are doing so to stop, and in other cases to regulate, the foreign fleets dragging the ocean floor outside 200 miles.
"Instead of advocating the same for Canada, the three major political parties have all bought into a concept unknown to law called "Custodial Management". They advocate that foreign nations be allowed to continue dragging the bottom as long as they abide by fishing quotas. Perhaps 30 years ago it would have made some sense, but under international law today it amounts to a cop-out.
"The federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recently claimed publicly - – I am told in response to my last column - that these 16 foreign nations are not really catching very much fish.
"If 60 large foreign factory freezer trawlers (some are 350 feet long) are not catching fish, then what in heavens name are they doing out there dragging the bottom of the ocean back and forth on our continental shelf? Did they lose something overboard?
"Are they operating gambling casinos at sea? Are they a part of an oceanic cruise line? Are the Russians dragging for Red October? Or would the Minister of Fisheries have us believe they all have a contract from Walt Disney to try to find Nemo?"
Let's take a look at some of this stuff, since it forms the core of Baker's latest attack on the fisheries department.
1. Under Section 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a signatory can lay claim to sub-seabed minerals where the continental shelf extends beyond the 200 nautical mile xclusive economic zone.
Here's a link to UNCLOS; go check it out for yourself.
At no point, does this section give a coastal state claiming such rights to the sub-seabed any right to interfere with activities related to the water-column. That's fishing, ladies and gentlemen, and as much as Ms. Baker can rail about the effect of dragging on the seabed, the treaty separates the seabed mineral resources from the wildlife in the watercolumn and on the seabed.
It doesn't take a single course at law school to read plain English and present it clearly and accurately. Nor does one have to agree with the UNCLOS; Canada's actions can only take place within the scope and context of international law.
Baker's contention is, to put it bluntly, WRONG, yet again when she suggests that Canada could lay claim to the whole continental shelf beyond 200 miles and thereby end foreign fishing.
Oh yes and while countries have applied, as Baker points out, she doesn't tell us if any country has actually been granted rights beyond 200 miles for managing fisheries.
2. B aker would never tell you this but here it ibecauseue it is accurate: Canada is already building the case for extending its claim to the sub-seabed minerals on the continental shelf beyond 200 miles. The feds have up to eight years after ratifying the treaty to make the claim, which means they have until 2011 to complete it.
3. Canada couldn't lay legal claim to the shelf beyond 200 miles before 2003 because Canada didn'ratifyfy the treaty until then. Notice how the facts of the matter here differ widely from the interpretation Baker applies. The position taken by the federal government isn't a cop-out, as Baker claims; it reflects the reality of the international legal regime governing the fisheries.
4. The last bit of Baker's column - the bit about casinos and Finding Nemo - is curious if for no other reason than it sounds an awful lot like the kind of sarcasm usually voiced by her father; I note this because in the past few weeks I have heard one too many people speculating that Senator Dad has been ghost-writing the columns for his daughter. To my mind that doesn't really matter since Senator Baker or lawyer Baker can be equally wrong, as a matter of facts.
This last section of the column is curious because it takes a potshot at the federal minister without - at any point - providing a single shred of factual information to back up either the claims made in this column or the claims made in previous columns by Les Bakers audaces.
What a reasonable reader is left with is merely more of the entertaining writing of a St. John's lawyer.
Entertaining, yes but ultimately unconvincing.
It ignores fact.
It ignores the law.
It presents instead a series of unsubstantiated claims and innuendo.
No matter how many times Baker repeats her arguments, they do not gain accuracy or credibility with the repetition.
Except among people who were already convinced of what Baker claims.
The problem for Baker is that those people are already in the minority, something that isn't likely to change.
The other problem for Baker is that the more she makes outrageous claims lacking in any substance, the more she generates a backlash against her argument.
19 August 2005
Expensive hospitality for Efford - or was it comms advice? [Updated]
[Update: While the folks at federal natural resources didn't spend very much time on the Bond papers when it might have helped, they suddenly are spending a whole bunch of time checking the site out. That is since I posted about the more than $80,000 paid to a St. John's communications company for something it did related to the offshore talks.
Seems the busy little gnomes at NRCAN changed the category under which they paid almost $60, 000 recently to First Contact. It went from being charged out to "hospitality" to the NRCAN category for professionals services not otherwise contracted. When you click the link below, note that the numbers for the two categories are not even vaguely close. Someone made a conscious decision to reclassify the expenditure but only after the Bond Papers pointed to the questionable contract.
Of course, that change in accounting practices doesn't explain why a company got paid to organize federal supporters to attend the February 14 ceremony when legions of Liberals volunteered their time [not a penny in pay] to do exactly the same thing.
Anyway, read on and enjoy]
Thanks to the federal proactive disclosure policy, the Bond Papers can now report that St. John's-based First Contact Communications received $58, 287.70 for work completed between October 29, 2004 and February 18, 2005, apparently related to the offshore discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The contract was let on June 21, 2005 as reported here on the NRCAN website.
This is in addition to $22, 500 paid to the same company for work done between late January and late February 2005, also related to the offshore deal. Check here and scroll to the post "Federal Accord communications support costs" to see the previous Bond Papers post.
Note the curious things about these two contracts:
1. The earlier payment was made by the federal finance department under expenditure category 422 (professional services otherwise not contracted). Here's the link to that department's proactive disclosure report on the contract.
2. The new payment is by John Efford's own natural resources department. The contract date is in June 2005 but it covers work done in the last fiscal year which ended 31 Mar 2005.
3. The new amount is listed as having come from expenditure category 0822 (Hospitality).
4. The two payments overlap in time between January and February 2005. There is no information on the proactive disclosure website that the two contracts are related nor is there any indication in the disclosure report as to what the contracted work actually was.
First Contact was doing work for the feds on the offshore deal that included organizing people to attend the signing ceremony In February 2005.
There were also a raft of federal Liberal volunteers involved doing the same thing although they certainly didn't work for First Contact. They never received a penny for their efforts.
The total amount of the two contracts is $80, 787.70.
While I haven't contacted either federal department or First Contact on this, the time periods involved correspond to work the company was doing for Efford on the offshore talks.
All that makes some sense.
It just seems odd that a communications company would be paid for hospitality services, by a contract let four months after the work was completed.
Seems the busy little gnomes at NRCAN changed the category under which they paid almost $60, 000 recently to First Contact. It went from being charged out to "hospitality" to the NRCAN category for professionals services not otherwise contracted. When you click the link below, note that the numbers for the two categories are not even vaguely close. Someone made a conscious decision to reclassify the expenditure but only after the Bond Papers pointed to the questionable contract.
Of course, that change in accounting practices doesn't explain why a company got paid to organize federal supporters to attend the February 14 ceremony when legions of Liberals volunteered their time [not a penny in pay] to do exactly the same thing.
Anyway, read on and enjoy]
Thanks to the federal proactive disclosure policy, the Bond Papers can now report that St. John's-based First Contact Communications received $58, 287.70 for work completed between October 29, 2004 and February 18, 2005, apparently related to the offshore discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The contract was let on June 21, 2005 as reported here on the NRCAN website.
This is in addition to $22, 500 paid to the same company for work done between late January and late February 2005, also related to the offshore deal. Check here and scroll to the post "Federal Accord communications support costs" to see the previous Bond Papers post.
Note the curious things about these two contracts:
1. The earlier payment was made by the federal finance department under expenditure category 422 (professional services otherwise not contracted). Here's the link to that department's proactive disclosure report on the contract.
2. The new payment is by John Efford's own natural resources department. The contract date is in June 2005 but it covers work done in the last fiscal year which ended 31 Mar 2005.
3. The new amount is listed as having come from expenditure category 0822 (Hospitality).
4. The two payments overlap in time between January and February 2005. There is no information on the proactive disclosure website that the two contracts are related nor is there any indication in the disclosure report as to what the contracted work actually was.
First Contact was doing work for the feds on the offshore deal that included organizing people to attend the signing ceremony In February 2005.
There were also a raft of federal Liberal volunteers involved doing the same thing although they certainly didn't work for First Contact. They never received a penny for their efforts.
The total amount of the two contracts is $80, 787.70.
While I haven't contacted either federal department or First Contact on this, the time periods involved correspond to work the company was doing for Efford on the offshore talks.
All that makes some sense.
It just seems odd that a communications company would be paid for hospitality services, by a contract let four months after the work was completed.
18 August 2005
A truly Canadian policy on gas prices
Surely this is the End Time.
Federal Conservative leader Stephen Harper, some provincial premiers and, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ersatz Opposition Leader Gerry Reid are all calling for the same thing:
lower taxes on gasoline.
If the Book of Revelation missed this alignment of political forces maybe there is a Nostradamus quatrain that foretells the time when a bunch of guys all come up with the same unsound policy suggestion at the same time all to do nothing but gain a few points in a public opinion poll.
The only - and I emphasize only - reason anyone is suggesting lowering taxes on gasoline is in response to public outcries about recent price increases. It is as shallow a political motive as we have seen in this country for advancing an idea since a handful of people convinced Allan Rock that if I have a gun in my house my wife was infinitely more likely to get shot if we had a minor disagreement. If that wasn't convincing enough, they told us that we could use a gun registry to fight gang violence in Toronto. Neither Rock nor any of the Illogical Brigade can be seen these days in the Jane/Finch corridor explaining why their claims haven't proven correct.
Just because people cry out for something doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Sometimes people manage to convince politicians of ideas that lack merit. Here we have a case where politicians themselves are coming up bonehead notions.
Apparently, not one of these politicians notices that the price increases are a direct result of international concerns about oil supplies that will likely drop as concerns are allayed. No one notices that high prices for gasoline may actually lead consumers to make smart choices about their consumption for a change. That would be good for the environment, among other things.
No one seems to notice that the millions of dollars the federal government will transfer to the nation's cities come from gasoline taxes.
In the world of public policy there are only a handful of good reasons to drop a tax or eliminate it.
- Cut it or eliminate if the tax is hindering business growth.
- Cut a tax or eliminate it if doing so would stimulate a flagging economy.
- Cut a tax or eliminate a tax that is harming the poor and those on fixed incomes.
Since neither of the first two apply in this case, politicians tell us that cutting the cost of gasoline and home heating fuels will help seniors and others on limited incomes.
But will it?
Of course not.
Nor will cutting gasoline taxes reduce the overall cost of living, thereby helping the poor.
The only people deriving a benefit from lower gas prices would be those powering their SUVs. Odds are Grandma doesn't drive an SUV . If she does, she damn well isn't trying to live on Old Age Security (OAS) and therefore doesn't need public assistance.
If any government wanted to help the poor and those on fixed incomes, it should simply implement a new basic living allowance that would transfer cash directly into their hands, just as with OAS. Every province could fund such a program out of the gasoline taxes from the gas-suckers in the SUVs.
Give some federal assistance and a few minutes of brain power and we might just revamp the social assistance and old age security system in the country to an affordable means of providing guaranteed minimum incomes. Such an idea was proposed by the Wells administration in Newfoundland in 1992 and soundly rejected by the Chretien government. Wells' idea was a typically Canadian solution of helping those in need; in these days of swelling federal coffers, it might be time to have another look at the idea.
In place of such bold thinking, we have the most bland of political cries, the kind of stuff dreamed up by the marketers and pitchmen who inhabit some political offices these days: it polled well, therefore it must be good.
When a Liberal like Gerry Reid or any New Democrat finds himself in agreement with Stephen Harper, that should be a clue he is on the wrong track.
That no one else in the country is talking about such an eminently simple, feasible and worthwhile an idea suggests we could all use a kick in our wallets, our backsides or wherever else we keep our brains and compassion these days.
Federal Conservative leader Stephen Harper, some provincial premiers and, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ersatz Opposition Leader Gerry Reid are all calling for the same thing:
lower taxes on gasoline.
If the Book of Revelation missed this alignment of political forces maybe there is a Nostradamus quatrain that foretells the time when a bunch of guys all come up with the same unsound policy suggestion at the same time all to do nothing but gain a few points in a public opinion poll.
The only - and I emphasize only - reason anyone is suggesting lowering taxes on gasoline is in response to public outcries about recent price increases. It is as shallow a political motive as we have seen in this country for advancing an idea since a handful of people convinced Allan Rock that if I have a gun in my house my wife was infinitely more likely to get shot if we had a minor disagreement. If that wasn't convincing enough, they told us that we could use a gun registry to fight gang violence in Toronto. Neither Rock nor any of the Illogical Brigade can be seen these days in the Jane/Finch corridor explaining why their claims haven't proven correct.
Just because people cry out for something doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Sometimes people manage to convince politicians of ideas that lack merit. Here we have a case where politicians themselves are coming up bonehead notions.
Apparently, not one of these politicians notices that the price increases are a direct result of international concerns about oil supplies that will likely drop as concerns are allayed. No one notices that high prices for gasoline may actually lead consumers to make smart choices about their consumption for a change. That would be good for the environment, among other things.
No one seems to notice that the millions of dollars the federal government will transfer to the nation's cities come from gasoline taxes.
In the world of public policy there are only a handful of good reasons to drop a tax or eliminate it.
- Cut it or eliminate if the tax is hindering business growth.
- Cut a tax or eliminate it if doing so would stimulate a flagging economy.
- Cut a tax or eliminate a tax that is harming the poor and those on fixed incomes.
Since neither of the first two apply in this case, politicians tell us that cutting the cost of gasoline and home heating fuels will help seniors and others on limited incomes.
But will it?
Of course not.
Nor will cutting gasoline taxes reduce the overall cost of living, thereby helping the poor.
The only people deriving a benefit from lower gas prices would be those powering their SUVs. Odds are Grandma doesn't drive an SUV . If she does, she damn well isn't trying to live on Old Age Security (OAS) and therefore doesn't need public assistance.
If any government wanted to help the poor and those on fixed incomes, it should simply implement a new basic living allowance that would transfer cash directly into their hands, just as with OAS. Every province could fund such a program out of the gasoline taxes from the gas-suckers in the SUVs.
Give some federal assistance and a few minutes of brain power and we might just revamp the social assistance and old age security system in the country to an affordable means of providing guaranteed minimum incomes. Such an idea was proposed by the Wells administration in Newfoundland in 1992 and soundly rejected by the Chretien government. Wells' idea was a typically Canadian solution of helping those in need; in these days of swelling federal coffers, it might be time to have another look at the idea.
In place of such bold thinking, we have the most bland of political cries, the kind of stuff dreamed up by the marketers and pitchmen who inhabit some political offices these days: it polled well, therefore it must be good.
When a Liberal like Gerry Reid or any New Democrat finds himself in agreement with Stephen Harper, that should be a clue he is on the wrong track.
That no one else in the country is talking about such an eminently simple, feasible and worthwhile an idea suggests we could all use a kick in our wallets, our backsides or wherever else we keep our brains and compassion these days.
17 August 2005
Lono at Large!
Simon Lono is declaring his candidacy for St. John's city council today at noon on the steps of city hall.
As shop-worn as that might be elsewhere, around here it is a novelty. Most candidates announce by sending out a news release and calling open line.
This one is going to be a campaign and will quickly establish Lono as the candidate to unseat an incumbent. That's almost unheard of in St. John's city politics - councillors usually have life appointments - and that's one of things Lono is out to change.
Smart, experienced, young and he's got some concrete ideas.
Here's his website: check it out.
And when the ballot hits your mailbox, send it back with the X next to Lono, Simon.
As shop-worn as that might be elsewhere, around here it is a novelty. Most candidates announce by sending out a news release and calling open line.
This one is going to be a campaign and will quickly establish Lono as the candidate to unseat an incumbent. That's almost unheard of in St. John's city politics - councillors usually have life appointments - and that's one of things Lono is out to change.
Smart, experienced, young and he's got some concrete ideas.
Here's his website: check it out.
And when the ballot hits your mailbox, send it back with the X next to Lono, Simon.
16 August 2005
Libs up, Connies down: SES
Here's the text of a news release from SES Research, the same guys who provided the highly accurate polling for CPAC during the last federal election.
"The big Liberal gains were in Quebec where they increased their support from 21% to 34% while the Conservatives have dropped from 11% to 4%."
"Polling clearly shows that Stephen Harper's image is in a free fall. In the past 90 days the percentage of Canadians who believe he would make the best Prime Minister has dropped from 27% to 14%. Jack Layton has mathematically placed second, the first time in SES Best PM tracking."
"The other dramatic move has been the number of Canadians who chose "none of the above" as their best PM. This has more than doubled from 8% to 19%. This is truly our summer of discontent. Paul Martin still rates as the first choice of Canadians at 31%, 16 points ahead of his nearest rival."
Polling August 4th to August 8th, 2005 random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, (MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Canada - Ballot (Change from Previous Quarter, N= 865 Decided voters, MoE ± 3.4%, 19 times out of 20)
LIB - 39% (+3)
CP - 25% (-5)
NDP -19% (+1)
BQ - 13% (+1)
GP - 5% (+1)
*14% were undecided (+2)
Best PM (Change from Previous Quarter, N=1,000)
Martin - 31% (-1)
Layton - 15% (0)
Harper - 14% (-13)
Duceppe - 8% (+2)
None - 19% (+11)
Undecided - 13% (+4)
Government Performance (Change from Previous Quarter, N=1,000)
Very good - 6% (0)
Somewhat good - 21% (+4)
Average - 39% (+8)
Somewhat poor - 17% (-1)
Very poor - 16% (-9)
Unsure - 2% (-1)
"The big Liberal gains were in Quebec where they increased their support from 21% to 34% while the Conservatives have dropped from 11% to 4%."
"Polling clearly shows that Stephen Harper's image is in a free fall. In the past 90 days the percentage of Canadians who believe he would make the best Prime Minister has dropped from 27% to 14%. Jack Layton has mathematically placed second, the first time in SES Best PM tracking."
"The other dramatic move has been the number of Canadians who chose "none of the above" as their best PM. This has more than doubled from 8% to 19%. This is truly our summer of discontent. Paul Martin still rates as the first choice of Canadians at 31%, 16 points ahead of his nearest rival."
Polling August 4th to August 8th, 2005 random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, (MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Canada - Ballot (Change from Previous Quarter, N= 865 Decided voters, MoE ± 3.4%, 19 times out of 20)
LIB - 39% (+3)
CP - 25% (-5)
NDP -19% (+1)
BQ - 13% (+1)
GP - 5% (+1)
*14% were undecided (+2)
Best PM (Change from Previous Quarter, N=1,000)
Martin - 31% (-1)
Layton - 15% (0)
Harper - 14% (-13)
Duceppe - 8% (+2)
None - 19% (+11)
Undecided - 13% (+4)
Government Performance (Change from Previous Quarter, N=1,000)
Very good - 6% (0)
Somewhat good - 21% (+4)
Average - 39% (+8)
Somewhat poor - 17% (-1)
Very poor - 16% (-9)
Unsure - 2% (-1)
A good public relations case study
For those who like to take lessons from other people's cock ups, there's a great story in the Monday Globe on how CN handled the train derailment in ALberta.
Find the story here.
Find the story here.
Taylor late on shrimp
Provincial fisheries minister Trevor Taylor issued a news release on Monday calling on the federal government to step up efforts to find a solution to the high tariff on imported shrimp imposed by the European Union.
He claimed the tariff may cause an early closure to this year's shrimp fishery, thereby putting almost 4, 000 local shrimp workers out of business.
Here are a few things Trevor missed:
1. Try getting in the game, Trevor. Over a year ago, well before the federal election, Siobhan Coady helped bring federal international trade minister Jim Peterson here to meet local business leaders. Coady, who operates a fish harvesting business, arranged a meeting for local shrimp exporters with Peterson. He's been working on the problem ever since.
Had the province been as concerned about the problem then, we might have made greater progress.
Other people have been working on this, Trev, old man. Welcome to the game - a day late and dollar short.
2. Some companies have already adapted. At least one local exporting company has incorporated a subsidiary inside the European Union that imports Newfoundland and Labrador shrimp and avoids the tariff.
Maybe that is something others could explore. Blaming the feds is an easy dodge.
3. Rein in the loonies first, Trev.One of the biggest things Taylor could do for the fishery on this issue is rein in the crowd in his own party locally and federally and all the crowd on the call-in shows who rub their hands with glee at the prospect of forcing the European Union out of fishing on the Grand Banks at gunpoint if necessary. Some of those countries have prosecuted since before white people settled in Newfoundland and Labrador and wouldn't take any more kindly to that kind of talk than we would if the tables were turned.
Rein in the looney fringe, Trev, my son and maybe just maybe, the Europeans would be more willing to listen to what we have to say.
No matter how hard you try, Trevor, this monkey just can't be tossed off your back.
Deal with that issue first and maybe your release won't sound like a hollow piece of political tripe.
4. Do shrimp buyers have the crabs? Taylor complains about weak American markets for shrimp. Maybe the crab fiasco - miserable quality that all but closed the American market to local crab - has spilled over.
This is all really too bad because Taylor is actually one of the better provincial cabinet ministers who Danny Williams actually lets handle the department he heads.
He claimed the tariff may cause an early closure to this year's shrimp fishery, thereby putting almost 4, 000 local shrimp workers out of business.
Here are a few things Trevor missed:
1. Try getting in the game, Trevor. Over a year ago, well before the federal election, Siobhan Coady helped bring federal international trade minister Jim Peterson here to meet local business leaders. Coady, who operates a fish harvesting business, arranged a meeting for local shrimp exporters with Peterson. He's been working on the problem ever since.
Had the province been as concerned about the problem then, we might have made greater progress.
Other people have been working on this, Trev, old man. Welcome to the game - a day late and dollar short.
2. Some companies have already adapted. At least one local exporting company has incorporated a subsidiary inside the European Union that imports Newfoundland and Labrador shrimp and avoids the tariff.
Maybe that is something others could explore. Blaming the feds is an easy dodge.
3. Rein in the loonies first, Trev.One of the biggest things Taylor could do for the fishery on this issue is rein in the crowd in his own party locally and federally and all the crowd on the call-in shows who rub their hands with glee at the prospect of forcing the European Union out of fishing on the Grand Banks at gunpoint if necessary. Some of those countries have prosecuted since before white people settled in Newfoundland and Labrador and wouldn't take any more kindly to that kind of talk than we would if the tables were turned.
Rein in the looney fringe, Trev, my son and maybe just maybe, the Europeans would be more willing to listen to what we have to say.
No matter how hard you try, Trevor, this monkey just can't be tossed off your back.
Deal with that issue first and maybe your release won't sound like a hollow piece of political tripe.
4. Do shrimp buyers have the crabs? Taylor complains about weak American markets for shrimp. Maybe the crab fiasco - miserable quality that all but closed the American market to local crab - has spilled over.
This is all really too bad because Taylor is actually one of the better provincial cabinet ministers who Danny Williams actually lets handle the department he heads.
15 August 2005
The gas price regulation fraud continues
For anyone wanting to understand petroleum pricing, here's the link to Dennis Browne's 1998 study for the provincial government. Dennis sensibly recommended against wasting time on thinking we can "regulate" gasoline and home heating fuel prices.
That's the more sophisticated version of an earlier posting here in which I called the petroleum pricing system a charade and fraud. That posting elicited a couple of e-mail's to me from David Toms, the acting petroleum pricing commissar.
Well, at the risk of yet another one, let's be absolutely clear:
The increase in petroleum prices today and the ones likely to come before the end of the week demonstrate that petroleum regulation in the province produces no positive benefit for consumers. Gasoline may well rise by upwards of 5 cents per litre in price, based on the factors anyone with a brain can figure out - the cost of oil is up. On the back end, when oil prices go down, Mr. Toms will be slow in lowering prices, thereby guaranteeing we will have paid just as much for gasoline as we would if Mr. Toms and his staff went back to what they were doing before they got their sinecures in Grand Falls.
Petroleum "regulation" is a waste of time.
Mr. Toms comments in this VOCM story and quoted in the on-air version this morning are simply nonsense - no one needs time to adjust to high prices. This comment sounds a lot like Mr. Toms desperately is trying to justify his existence in the face of overwhelming proof of what critics of the regulation charade said all along:
The office in Grand Falls is doing nothing, can do nothing and will do nothing to benefit consumers.
Let's shut down the waste of money.
That's the more sophisticated version of an earlier posting here in which I called the petroleum pricing system a charade and fraud. That posting elicited a couple of e-mail's to me from David Toms, the acting petroleum pricing commissar.
Well, at the risk of yet another one, let's be absolutely clear:
The increase in petroleum prices today and the ones likely to come before the end of the week demonstrate that petroleum regulation in the province produces no positive benefit for consumers. Gasoline may well rise by upwards of 5 cents per litre in price, based on the factors anyone with a brain can figure out - the cost of oil is up. On the back end, when oil prices go down, Mr. Toms will be slow in lowering prices, thereby guaranteeing we will have paid just as much for gasoline as we would if Mr. Toms and his staff went back to what they were doing before they got their sinecures in Grand Falls.
Petroleum "regulation" is a waste of time.
Mr. Toms comments in this VOCM story and quoted in the on-air version this morning are simply nonsense - no one needs time to adjust to high prices. This comment sounds a lot like Mr. Toms desperately is trying to justify his existence in the face of overwhelming proof of what critics of the regulation charade said all along:
The office in Grand Falls is doing nothing, can do nothing and will do nothing to benefit consumers.
Let's shut down the waste of money.
Walken for President 2008
Now this is a candidate I could get excited about!
Actor Christopher Walken is known for his portrayals of strong characters, some of them having possible mental imbalances.
Apparently, he wants to be president and someone set up a website to promote his candidacy.
Perhaps as president, he can find a use for some of his more memorable quotes, like say this one he tossed out as the lead mercenary, Shannon, in The Dogs of War: "In my jungle, you'd be just another asshole."
or maybe a couple from Batman Returns, in which he played Max Schrek, the guy behind Oswald Cobblepot's run at the mayor's seat:
"Power surplus? Bruce, shame on you. No such thing. One can never have too much power. If my life has a meaning, that's demeaning."
"Let me guess... trust fund goody-goody? "
or from The King of New York (1990):
"From now on, nothing goes down unless I'm involved. No blackjack no dope deals, no nothing. A nickel bag gets sold in the park, I want in. You guys got fat while everybody starved on the street. Now it's my turn."
"I never killed anybody who didn't deserve it."
This candidacy might have greater potential than Ahhnuld "It's not a Toomuh" Schwarzenegger.
Actor Christopher Walken is known for his portrayals of strong characters, some of them having possible mental imbalances.
Apparently, he wants to be president and someone set up a website to promote his candidacy.
Perhaps as president, he can find a use for some of his more memorable quotes, like say this one he tossed out as the lead mercenary, Shannon, in The Dogs of War: "In my jungle, you'd be just another asshole."
or maybe a couple from Batman Returns, in which he played Max Schrek, the guy behind Oswald Cobblepot's run at the mayor's seat:
"Power surplus? Bruce, shame on you. No such thing. One can never have too much power. If my life has a meaning, that's demeaning."
"Let me guess... trust fund goody-goody? "
or from The King of New York (1990):
"From now on, nothing goes down unless I'm involved. No blackjack no dope deals, no nothing. A nickel bag gets sold in the park, I want in. You guys got fat while everybody starved on the street. Now it's my turn."
"I never killed anybody who didn't deserve it."
This candidacy might have greater potential than Ahhnuld "It's not a Toomuh" Schwarzenegger.
12 August 2005
Blog Break/Fish Proposal Coming
Yesterday was an inadvertent day off blogging in the middle of the week.
Between work and work and well, work there was no way to get anything posted. On top of everything else, I got a call yesterday to do a national CBC Radio commentary. That was an interesting experience: fast turn-around and then a late evening in the studio to put it to bed.
Maureen Anonsen (who produces the commentaries from across the country from here) was a relentless editor and a demanding producer, showing her years of experience both in what she changed and how she rewrote stuff, not to mention the finesse with which she coaxed a decent "read" out of me.
She had to stay later to file the damn thing. Heaven knows when she got out of the office.
In the meantime, I have been working quietly on a fisheries piece that should hopefully raise a few eyebrows. It will propose a new fishery with recommendations on management and economic organization.
You won't be able to fold it out and snap it into place; the thing will need to be discussed.
With any luck though, there will be enough in it to capture people's attention and make them go: "You know that just might work."
and once again, trust me, I am NOT holding my breath.
The goal is to get that piece posted on Monday morning. After that, we'll just take the posts as they come.
Between work and work and well, work there was no way to get anything posted. On top of everything else, I got a call yesterday to do a national CBC Radio commentary. That was an interesting experience: fast turn-around and then a late evening in the studio to put it to bed.
Maureen Anonsen (who produces the commentaries from across the country from here) was a relentless editor and a demanding producer, showing her years of experience both in what she changed and how she rewrote stuff, not to mention the finesse with which she coaxed a decent "read" out of me.
She had to stay later to file the damn thing. Heaven knows when she got out of the office.
In the meantime, I have been working quietly on a fisheries piece that should hopefully raise a few eyebrows. It will propose a new fishery with recommendations on management and economic organization.
You won't be able to fold it out and snap it into place; the thing will need to be discussed.
With any luck though, there will be enough in it to capture people's attention and make them go: "You know that just might work."
and once again, trust me, I am NOT holding my breath.
The goal is to get that piece posted on Monday morning. After that, we'll just take the posts as they come.
Thistle sleep walks through local crisis
If this VOCM report is accurate, then one can only conclude that Anna Thistle does not have a single clue as to the issues involved in the current discussions between Abitibi Consolidated and the provincial government.
Thistle's instance on trying to force ACI to keep everything operating is sheer nonsense and shows that while she represents a paper-making district, she is in desperate need of a crash course in current global paper-making issues.
Ok. I'll cut Thistle some slack. She is the provincial member for the district AND she doesn't have to make the hard decisions because she sits in Opposition.
Opps, let's uncut it: she used to be a cabinet minister and said the same things when she sat around the table on the 11th floor of the Confed Building.
Thistle's instance on trying to force ACI to keep everything operating is sheer nonsense and shows that while she represents a paper-making district, she is in desperate need of a crash course in current global paper-making issues.
Ok. I'll cut Thistle some slack. She is the provincial member for the district AND she doesn't have to make the hard decisions because she sits in Opposition.
Opps, let's uncut it: she used to be a cabinet minister and said the same things when she sat around the table on the 11th floor of the Confed Building.
10 August 2005
Cooking up numbers
St. John's lawyer Averill (A.J.) Baker owns quite a reputation among some readers of the weekly newspapers in the province, thanks in largest part to her bi-weekly column.
She's especially popular among the proponents of the Damn-Fool fishery, the crowd that talk about a supposedly God- given right to keep jigging a fish regardless of how few fish there are to jig. This is the same crowd that pass around Baker's columns and then call Randy or Bill or Lynda pointing to Baker as proof of what they have been fighting all along. That's all that Baker does, by the by: she tells a certain group of people what they want to hear.
In the past week, A.J.'s column claimed that foreigners can take 5, 900 tonnes of cod while the locals here in Newfoundland and Labrador can't get a single fish. That's what she wrote.
Then the Department of Fisheries and Oceans [DFO] took issue with what she printed, and for the past few days, the call-in crowd have been lambasting DFO and standing behind their favourite writer.
People are sticking behind Baker since she has nothing to gain from her claims.
Fair enough.
They are attacking DFO for spreading false information.
That's not fair enough. In fact it is almost laughable since Baker got her information from the same place the Bond Papers did: DFO and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization [NAFO].
The difference between DFO and Baker is that what DFO has put on the table are not the total possible by-catches of cod, which definitely total 5, 900 tonnes. DFO has been talking about actual landings and those are far less than the maximums allowed. DFO has been drawing a more accurate picture of what is actually happening to cod stocks, as best as anyone can figure it out.
The obvious value of this is that when you look back to the late 1980s and early 1990s you could see the looming cod collapse not from the total allowable catches set by John Crosbie but from the actual landings which declined steadily year after year. If the goal is really to bring back the cod as a commercial fish stock, we should be very cautious about fishing the stock at all.
The major problem with Baker's column is that she is fueling just the opposite political pressure. It isn't the first time Baker has disregarded the important details. She has a track record in her column of publishing things that are only sort of vaguely accurate. She sometimes gives bits of information rather than the whole schmeer. In other instances, she gives ludicrous interpretations, such as claiming that Canada breached its obligation to disclose relevant facts during the Terms of Union negotiations when it failed to tell the Newfoundlanders about something that wouldn't occur for another 30 years and that wasn't even thought of when the Terms of Union were signed.
Yeah. She did that: hang the Canadians for not being clairvoyant.
Anyway, aside from the stuff that DFO has already challenged, they should have made much more of information DFO provided to the Bond Papers in answer to a simple set of questions.
They should have pointed to the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador fishing interests landed 15, 000 tonnes of cod last year.
Baker claimed we couldn't catch a single fish.
But let her have the 5, 900 tonnes of cod for the foreigners. It is still half of what the locals caught themselves.
Just remember, though, that the total biomass of cod is estimated at a mere 170, 000 tonnes.
That means the total cod catch last year was more than 12% of the total amount of fish the very best guess claims is out there.
Take that tack and you completely refocus the discussion to what is best to help restore cod stocks.
That's what the talk should be about.
And almost best of all, everything else would then be seen for what it is:
cooking up numbers.
She's especially popular among the proponents of the Damn-Fool fishery, the crowd that talk about a supposedly God- given right to keep jigging a fish regardless of how few fish there are to jig. This is the same crowd that pass around Baker's columns and then call Randy or Bill or Lynda pointing to Baker as proof of what they have been fighting all along. That's all that Baker does, by the by: she tells a certain group of people what they want to hear.
In the past week, A.J.'s column claimed that foreigners can take 5, 900 tonnes of cod while the locals here in Newfoundland and Labrador can't get a single fish. That's what she wrote.
Then the Department of Fisheries and Oceans [DFO] took issue with what she printed, and for the past few days, the call-in crowd have been lambasting DFO and standing behind their favourite writer.
People are sticking behind Baker since she has nothing to gain from her claims.
Fair enough.
They are attacking DFO for spreading false information.
That's not fair enough. In fact it is almost laughable since Baker got her information from the same place the Bond Papers did: DFO and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization [NAFO].
The difference between DFO and Baker is that what DFO has put on the table are not the total possible by-catches of cod, which definitely total 5, 900 tonnes. DFO has been talking about actual landings and those are far less than the maximums allowed. DFO has been drawing a more accurate picture of what is actually happening to cod stocks, as best as anyone can figure it out.
The obvious value of this is that when you look back to the late 1980s and early 1990s you could see the looming cod collapse not from the total allowable catches set by John Crosbie but from the actual landings which declined steadily year after year. If the goal is really to bring back the cod as a commercial fish stock, we should be very cautious about fishing the stock at all.
The major problem with Baker's column is that she is fueling just the opposite political pressure. It isn't the first time Baker has disregarded the important details. She has a track record in her column of publishing things that are only sort of vaguely accurate. She sometimes gives bits of information rather than the whole schmeer. In other instances, she gives ludicrous interpretations, such as claiming that Canada breached its obligation to disclose relevant facts during the Terms of Union negotiations when it failed to tell the Newfoundlanders about something that wouldn't occur for another 30 years and that wasn't even thought of when the Terms of Union were signed.
Yeah. She did that: hang the Canadians for not being clairvoyant.
Anyway, aside from the stuff that DFO has already challenged, they should have made much more of information DFO provided to the Bond Papers in answer to a simple set of questions.
They should have pointed to the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador fishing interests landed 15, 000 tonnes of cod last year.
Baker claimed we couldn't catch a single fish.
But let her have the 5, 900 tonnes of cod for the foreigners. It is still half of what the locals caught themselves.
Just remember, though, that the total biomass of cod is estimated at a mere 170, 000 tonnes.
That means the total cod catch last year was more than 12% of the total amount of fish the very best guess claims is out there.
Take that tack and you completely refocus the discussion to what is best to help restore cod stocks.
That's what the talk should be about.
And almost best of all, everything else would then be seen for what it is:
cooking up numbers.
09 August 2005
The Danny Legacy Option for the Lower Churchill
As noted in the Bond Papers on Friday, the Premier held a news conference on Monday to update the province on the process to develop the Lower Churchill.
The government news release listed three comprehensive proposals to build the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls generating stations plus associated transmission facilities. These will now move to the second phase of the process, namely a feasibility study.
The three proposals are:
1. The Hydro Quebec/Ontario Energy Financing Company/SNC Lavalin proposal. One of the few proposals made public, this joint venture contained an option in which the joint venture would lease the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls sites for 50 years and a second in which Ontario and Hydro-Quebec would negotiate an agreement under which Ontario would purchase energy and Newfoundland and Labrador would finance construction.
This was widely held as being the likely strong proposal. The partners have extensive experience in the energy business, more than enough experience in the construction of large hydro-electric projects and the ability to raise all the capital needed to build the project.
This project also included construction of improved transmission capacity between Ontario and Quebec.
The guaranteed, long-term purchase of power by both Ontario and Quebec would make it easy for the province to raise any capital to build the project under the second option.
Construction would begin in late 2006 with first power transmitted by 2011.
2. TransCanada Corporation. Nothing is known publicly of this proposal. The company operates several hydroelectric and other generating systems in the central part of the continent. The largest is a little more than 18% of the Lower Churchill's combined generating capacity.
Call this one a long shot.
3. Tshiaskueshish Group. This is a consortium comprising Macquarie North America, Ltd., Innu Development Limited Partnership, Peter Kiewit Sons Co. and Innu Kiewit Constructors.
Again, nothing is known about this proposal. The companies have considerable experience in large construction projects. Beyond that, there is nothing available publicly.
Given the the Innu component of this proposal and the stated need in the original call for proposals for aboriginal involvement, this might be a proposal that had a leg-up as a result. The Innu Kiewit website is a little out of date since it notes that Voisey's Bay construction has been delayed.
Then there is the stealth option, one that Premier Danny Williams included on his own.
That's the one which would see the provincial government and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro build the whole Lower Churchill project by themselves. For want of a better name call it the PWG Caribou Company proposal.
There are several reasons the Premier is likely to give when this option is selected.
1. The PWG Caribou Company meets all the proposal call requirements:
- It cuts out the middle man thereby maximizing the cash return to the provincial government and Hydro.
- It allows the government to deal with the Innu land claim directly, as it would have to do anyway.
- It gives the provincial government total control over the local benefits.
2. The province can afford it. The proposal call listed the estimated cost of the project as being CDN$3.3 billion. With the $2.0 billion from the federal government, the province can almost pay off the whole thing by itself. Borrowing would be limited and with the right power purchase agreement, the remaining capital can be raised at reasonable costs. The various financing options allow the provincial government to find novel ways of finding money for the project.
3. We would develop our resources for ourselves. The Pink, White and Green Caribou Company is the ultimate expression of the "local power" wave the Premier created with his offshore revenue deal. The strongest argument he will offer for doing it ourselves is that we will have total control over everything and that every aspect of the project possible will be done locally.
Just remember that the whole thing hinges on the power purchase agreement or having steady markets in which to sell the power.
As for the rest of it, expect the province will do exactly as the Premier said today: Give first priority to the PWG Caribou option.
I'd expect he has already decided what to do with the offshore cash. He keeps telling us but no one wants to accept it. The rest of the process is all for show, or at least serves only to give the Premier the chance to pick over the very best ideas from a whole bunch of other proposals so he can then do the whole thing himself.
It's Danny Legacy Option.
I can hear the speech now:
"It is our water. It is our falls. It will be developed for our benefit. By our engineers and our architects and run by our Hydro company and our government with our oil revenue."
There's an old black-and-white film from the Upper Churchill the Premier can use to help get the speaking notes together.
It's the one we will see announced very shortly, with construction well underway by the time the Premier seeks re-election.
The government news release listed three comprehensive proposals to build the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls generating stations plus associated transmission facilities. These will now move to the second phase of the process, namely a feasibility study.
The three proposals are:
1. The Hydro Quebec/Ontario Energy Financing Company/SNC Lavalin proposal. One of the few proposals made public, this joint venture contained an option in which the joint venture would lease the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls sites for 50 years and a second in which Ontario and Hydro-Quebec would negotiate an agreement under which Ontario would purchase energy and Newfoundland and Labrador would finance construction.
This was widely held as being the likely strong proposal. The partners have extensive experience in the energy business, more than enough experience in the construction of large hydro-electric projects and the ability to raise all the capital needed to build the project.
This project also included construction of improved transmission capacity between Ontario and Quebec.
The guaranteed, long-term purchase of power by both Ontario and Quebec would make it easy for the province to raise any capital to build the project under the second option.
Construction would begin in late 2006 with first power transmitted by 2011.
2. TransCanada Corporation. Nothing is known publicly of this proposal. The company operates several hydroelectric and other generating systems in the central part of the continent. The largest is a little more than 18% of the Lower Churchill's combined generating capacity.
Call this one a long shot.
3. Tshiaskueshish Group. This is a consortium comprising Macquarie North America, Ltd., Innu Development Limited Partnership, Peter Kiewit Sons Co. and Innu Kiewit Constructors.
Again, nothing is known about this proposal. The companies have considerable experience in large construction projects. Beyond that, there is nothing available publicly.
Given the the Innu component of this proposal and the stated need in the original call for proposals for aboriginal involvement, this might be a proposal that had a leg-up as a result. The Innu Kiewit website is a little out of date since it notes that Voisey's Bay construction has been delayed.
Then there is the stealth option, one that Premier Danny Williams included on his own.
That's the one which would see the provincial government and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro build the whole Lower Churchill project by themselves. For want of a better name call it the PWG Caribou Company proposal.
There are several reasons the Premier is likely to give when this option is selected.
1. The PWG Caribou Company meets all the proposal call requirements:
- It cuts out the middle man thereby maximizing the cash return to the provincial government and Hydro.
- It allows the government to deal with the Innu land claim directly, as it would have to do anyway.
- It gives the provincial government total control over the local benefits.
2. The province can afford it. The proposal call listed the estimated cost of the project as being CDN$3.3 billion. With the $2.0 billion from the federal government, the province can almost pay off the whole thing by itself. Borrowing would be limited and with the right power purchase agreement, the remaining capital can be raised at reasonable costs. The various financing options allow the provincial government to find novel ways of finding money for the project.
3. We would develop our resources for ourselves. The Pink, White and Green Caribou Company is the ultimate expression of the "local power" wave the Premier created with his offshore revenue deal. The strongest argument he will offer for doing it ourselves is that we will have total control over everything and that every aspect of the project possible will be done locally.
Just remember that the whole thing hinges on the power purchase agreement or having steady markets in which to sell the power.
As for the rest of it, expect the province will do exactly as the Premier said today: Give first priority to the PWG Caribou option.
I'd expect he has already decided what to do with the offshore cash. He keeps telling us but no one wants to accept it. The rest of the process is all for show, or at least serves only to give the Premier the chance to pick over the very best ideas from a whole bunch of other proposals so he can then do the whole thing himself.
It's Danny Legacy Option.
I can hear the speech now:
"It is our water. It is our falls. It will be developed for our benefit. By our engineers and our architects and run by our Hydro company and our government with our oil revenue."
There's an old black-and-white film from the Upper Churchill the Premier can use to help get the speaking notes together.
It's the one we will see announced very shortly, with construction well underway by the time the Premier seeks re-election.
08 August 2005
15, 000 tonnes of cod for local fishers: Baker column lost in sea of facts
Refuting claims by local lawyer and newspaper columnist Averrill (A.J.) Baker, Newfoundland and Labrador fishing interests landed almost 15, 000 metric tonnes of cod in the waters around the province in 2004, according to information obtained by The Sir Robert Bond Papers from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans [DFO].
This included a directed cod fishery and by-catch of cod incidental to fishing for other species.
According to Baker, "[a]ll those foreign countries will legally be allowed to catch 5,900 tons of cod this summer -– that'’s 12 million pounds of cod. Meanwhile, Newfoundlanders are not allowed to catch a single cod -– even to eat -– in those same fishing zones from that same cod stock."
In 2004, by-catch of cod by foreign vessels in Zones 3M and 3NO, all fishing outside Canada's 200 mile exclusive economic zone [EEZ] , amounted to 477 tonnes, far less than the 5, 900 tonnes estimated by Baker in her recent column. Additionally, Canadian vessels landed 430 tonnes of cod by-catch in those zones, but within the 200 mile EEZ.
Estimated by-catch of cod by foreign vessels in 2J3KL in 2003 was a mere 23 metric tonnes.
Baker's column contained numerous factual errors, according to information from DFO. The column claimed that "225t of cod will be caught by Russia as a bycatch for their hake quota". According to DFO, no Russian vessels are fishing hake in the NAFO regulatory area in 2005, despite having a quota. The Russians have no contracted any other fishing for that quota so there will be no by-catch of cod.
According to DFO, "Norway does not have a redfish or turbot quota. Iceland does not have a redfish or turbot quota. Cuba and Korea do not have vessels fishing redfish or turbot in the NAFO regulatory area [NRA]; nor do they charter their allocations. Therefore, there is no allowable by-catch for these countries on these fisheries."
As well, "European countries do not have a redfish quota in 3N as the 3LN redfish stock is under moratoria, so there is no directed fishery for this stock, " according to DFO. As a result, there is no allowable by-catch of cod.
The claim by Baker that American fishing interests will land 100 tonnes of cod by-catch is also suspect. The Americans prosecute a swordfish and tuna fishery outside the 200 mile EEZ and do not fish for groundfish. As such, there should be virtually no cod-by-catch.
NAFO quota tables and maps of the regulatory area may be found at the organization's website.
This included a directed cod fishery and by-catch of cod incidental to fishing for other species.
According to Baker, "[a]ll those foreign countries will legally be allowed to catch 5,900 tons of cod this summer -– that'’s 12 million pounds of cod. Meanwhile, Newfoundlanders are not allowed to catch a single cod -– even to eat -– in those same fishing zones from that same cod stock."
In 2004, by-catch of cod by foreign vessels in Zones 3M and 3NO, all fishing outside Canada's 200 mile exclusive economic zone [EEZ] , amounted to 477 tonnes, far less than the 5, 900 tonnes estimated by Baker in her recent column. Additionally, Canadian vessels landed 430 tonnes of cod by-catch in those zones, but within the 200 mile EEZ.
Estimated by-catch of cod by foreign vessels in 2J3KL in 2003 was a mere 23 metric tonnes.
Baker's column contained numerous factual errors, according to information from DFO. The column claimed that "225t of cod will be caught by Russia as a bycatch for their hake quota". According to DFO, no Russian vessels are fishing hake in the NAFO regulatory area in 2005, despite having a quota. The Russians have no contracted any other fishing for that quota so there will be no by-catch of cod.
According to DFO, "Norway does not have a redfish or turbot quota. Iceland does not have a redfish or turbot quota. Cuba and Korea do not have vessels fishing redfish or turbot in the NAFO regulatory area [NRA]; nor do they charter their allocations. Therefore, there is no allowable by-catch for these countries on these fisheries."
As well, "European countries do not have a redfish quota in 3N as the 3LN redfish stock is under moratoria, so there is no directed fishery for this stock, " according to DFO. As a result, there is no allowable by-catch of cod.
The claim by Baker that American fishing interests will land 100 tonnes of cod by-catch is also suspect. The Americans prosecute a swordfish and tuna fishery outside the 200 mile EEZ and do not fish for groundfish. As such, there should be virtually no cod-by-catch.
NAFO quota tables and maps of the regulatory area may be found at the organization's website.
06 August 2005
Government newser on Monday?
Some rumours swirling that government is planning a news conference on Monday to talk about the Lower Churchill.
Good way to get the heat of Ed Byrne when the paper machine breaks-down on Monday with Abitibi.
Good way to get the heat of Ed Byrne when the paper machine breaks-down on Monday with Abitibi.
05 August 2005
Friday? Must be Abitibi day [Update]
Here's a simple question natural resources minister Ed Byrne might answer:
Given:
Government is claiming Abitibi Consolidated wants to build a new 60 megawatt hydroelectric project to power the company's Stephenville operation. After construction of the project, Abitibi would own 75% of the project and the province (through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro) would own 25%, even though Hydro had funded the whole thing.
Here's the way the government news release put it:
" * Abitibi and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would enter into a partnership to develop two projects on the Exploits River -– Red Indian Falls and Badger Chute, adding in excess of 60 MW of new power into the system;
* Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, with the province'’s backing, would raise all the capital -– upwards of $300 million -– and finance the projects;
* The Abitibi-Hydro partnership would enter into a 30-year power purchase agreement to sell all the electricity output to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and hence Hydro'’s customers;
* This “partnership” would have to provide upwards of $14 million annually to Abitibi, with no return to Hydro;
* Additionally, Abitibi requested $7 million a year for the five-year period leading up to the in-service of the two hydro developments;
* In total, a level of support of approximately $455 million;
* Furthermore, at the end of the 30-year agreement, Hydro would only own 25 per cent of the projects, while Abitibi would own 75 per cent, despite the fact that Hydro and its customers have covered the full cost of the development of the projects and the subsidies -– in other words, Hydro and its customers paid for the projects and assumed all the risks;
* And, just as important, Abitibi would not give government any commitment on the impact a power purchase agreement would have on its future operations in Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor.
Question:
Is that what Abitibi Consolidated actually proposed?
[Update: Chris O'Neill-Yates put the question to Ed Byrne on The Morning Show this morning. She asked if Abitibi ever offered to reimburse the province for the Hydro project.
Ed said no, they didn't.
Now, everyone remember that. Remember his simple reply: "No."
Just for the record, here is the exchange between Kel Parsons and Ed Byrne in the House of Assembly's resource committee May 20, 2004.
Note the parts I have highlighted.
"MR. PARSONS: Minister, on the Lower Churchill issue, have there been any discussions ongoing in recent months concerning the Lower Churchill or possibilities of doing something with the Lower Churchill?
MR. E. BYRNE: No, there have not been any in recent months. What we have essentially done is, as you are aware being part of the former government, out of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro there were x number of dollars set aside to deal with the negotiations that were ongoing that date back to 1998, and then the most recent developments or discussions. Since that time we have basically just continued to assess the viability of the project and options associated with it. There have been no discussions on the development of that project, only inside government."
This was the day BEFORE Minister Byrne signed a then-secret memorandum of understanding with Sino-Energy, a group with which he had apparently been discussing the Lower Churchill with since January 2004.
Mr. Byrne has been known to have memory lapses before. Pretty big ones, apparently. Big enough to slide a hydro project through.
My next step is to go back and double check with my sources on what they understood had been the Abitibi proposal.
This might get much more interesting.]
Given:
Government is claiming Abitibi Consolidated wants to build a new 60 megawatt hydroelectric project to power the company's Stephenville operation. After construction of the project, Abitibi would own 75% of the project and the province (through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro) would own 25%, even though Hydro had funded the whole thing.
Here's the way the government news release put it:
" * Abitibi and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would enter into a partnership to develop two projects on the Exploits River -– Red Indian Falls and Badger Chute, adding in excess of 60 MW of new power into the system;
* Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, with the province'’s backing, would raise all the capital -– upwards of $300 million -– and finance the projects;
* The Abitibi-Hydro partnership would enter into a 30-year power purchase agreement to sell all the electricity output to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and hence Hydro'’s customers;
* This “partnership” would have to provide upwards of $14 million annually to Abitibi, with no return to Hydro;
* Additionally, Abitibi requested $7 million a year for the five-year period leading up to the in-service of the two hydro developments;
* In total, a level of support of approximately $455 million;
* Furthermore, at the end of the 30-year agreement, Hydro would only own 25 per cent of the projects, while Abitibi would own 75 per cent, despite the fact that Hydro and its customers have covered the full cost of the development of the projects and the subsidies -– in other words, Hydro and its customers paid for the projects and assumed all the risks;
* And, just as important, Abitibi would not give government any commitment on the impact a power purchase agreement would have on its future operations in Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor.
Question:
Is that what Abitibi Consolidated actually proposed?
[Update: Chris O'Neill-Yates put the question to Ed Byrne on The Morning Show this morning. She asked if Abitibi ever offered to reimburse the province for the Hydro project.
Ed said no, they didn't.
Now, everyone remember that. Remember his simple reply: "No."
Just for the record, here is the exchange between Kel Parsons and Ed Byrne in the House of Assembly's resource committee May 20, 2004.
Note the parts I have highlighted.
"MR. PARSONS: Minister, on the Lower Churchill issue, have there been any discussions ongoing in recent months concerning the Lower Churchill or possibilities of doing something with the Lower Churchill?
MR. E. BYRNE: No, there have not been any in recent months. What we have essentially done is, as you are aware being part of the former government, out of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro there were x number of dollars set aside to deal with the negotiations that were ongoing that date back to 1998, and then the most recent developments or discussions. Since that time we have basically just continued to assess the viability of the project and options associated with it. There have been no discussions on the development of that project, only inside government."
This was the day BEFORE Minister Byrne signed a then-secret memorandum of understanding with Sino-Energy, a group with which he had apparently been discussing the Lower Churchill with since January 2004.
Mr. Byrne has been known to have memory lapses before. Pretty big ones, apparently. Big enough to slide a hydro project through.
My next step is to go back and double check with my sources on what they understood had been the Abitibi proposal.
This might get much more interesting.]
04 August 2005
Damn-fool fishery - some facts [Second Revision]
In the relentless nonsense about the Damn-Fool Fishery, there is a story Jim Morgan has been pushing that there was suddenly a by-catch quota for cod introduced on the northeast coast.
Well, having learned through long experience that Morgan is seldom right about anything, I called the Department of Fisheries and Oceans [DFO] in St. John's and gathered the following factual information for your reference.
1. Cod By-catch: In fisheries management zones 2J3KL, fishermen with groundfish licenses are permitted a total by-catch of cod equaling 2, 000 pounds for the year. That's it. This policy has been in place for some time. It wasn't suddenly introduced in the past week or two.
When the blackback fishery was recently announced, fishermen were reminded that they could only catch cod to a maximum of 2, 000 pounds for all groundfish species fished for the year.
Jim Morgan was completely, utterly, totally and unmistakably WRONG when he claimed this was a new policy.
For fixed gear fishermen in 2J3KL last year (calendar 2004), the average total by-catch was a mere 500 pounds. That's only 25% of the maximum.
[Update: DFO corrected my figures in an e-mail received yesterday. The 500 figure should have been 500 tonnes total, not 500 pounds per fisherman. Apparently there were about 700 fixed-gear fishermen in the 2J3KL fishery which works out to an average of about 1428 pounds cod by-catch per fisherman. That's 71% of the total allowable by-catch, not the 25% previously reported.]
And there are supposedly lots of fish out there, bearing in mind that in Newfoundland, fish is a synonym for cod. Every other species of swimming thing is known by its name.
Only cod are fish.
[Update comment: The revised figure of 71% by-catch is significant, but it is still a long way from demonstrating that there is a large amount of cod out there or, in the case of Mr. Morgan's claims, it still doesn't make the by-catch a cod-fishery by another name.]
2. Total Recreational Fishery Licenses Sold (2001-2004)
These figures will tell you something.
In 2001, DFO introduced the license and tags system for the recreational cod fishery. The fishery covered all zones and was open from July until September. They sold 91, 000 licenses, each with 30 tags.
The next year, the fishery was in all zones and lasted for six weeks. They sold about 50, 000 licenses with 15 tags.
In the past two years, the recreational fishery took place in 3Ps only. About 9, 100 licenses were sold each year each with 15 tags.
For all the claims that there is a huge demand for a "cod for the table", and with the ease of travel in the province these days, only 10% of the crowd who took part in the recreational fishery in 2001 participated in 2004.
3. Recreational Fishery Landings
2J3KL
2001 - 1896 tonnes
2002 - 670 tonnes
2003 - No fishery
2004 - No fishery
3Ps
2001 - 456 tonnes
2002 - No figures
2003 - 152 tonnes
2004 - 156 tonnes.
Before anyone starts taking these numbers an arguing there could easily be a recreational fishery on the northeast coast, go back and look at the actual by-catch landings last year. It was only 500 pounds per license. If there were that many fish out there, that number should be pretty close to the maximum, wouldn't you think?
[Update: If I work the math correctly, here's what the cod landings look like in 3Ps in the recreational fishery last year.
There are about 150 tonnes of fish, give or take which works out to roughly 300, 000 pounds of cod. There were 136, 500 tags. If we allow that all those tags were used, then the average fish size was a little over two pounds. My math could be faulty, but that seems to be an awfully small fish. Even if only half the available tags were used, it still gives us a four pound cod. I have caught salmon bigger than that.
Most of the cod I saw in television coverage of the rec fishery this past weekend were small to the eye, so those calculations seem to be about right on. If proponents of the recreational fishery are catching small fish, I'd venture that we are not actually seeing healthy cod stocks by any measure.
Bear in mind that the best estimates by scientists are that the total biomass of northern cod is only about 170, 000 tonnes, including the stocks of so-called bay fish. Those who think those numbers are small haven't offered any estimates, let alone serious estimates, of how much fish they think might be out there. There shouldn't be a commercial fishery until the stocks are much healthier, like maybe 10 times the current estimated biomass. I don't think the best scientific estimates are that far off.
Perhaps if Jim Morgan and A.J. Baker offered some facts to back up their arguments, it would be easier to take them seriously. Until then, I'd just as soon we accepted that jigging a meal of cod that many of us used to enjoy as a privilege is something we cannot enjoy today.
I never want my grandchildren to be able to see a cod stuffed and mounted in a museum, the only way my children can see a Great Auk. I'd sooner give up my chance to have a feed I jigged myself so my children and grandchildren might one day see cod as I knew them not so long ago and as my grandfathers and great-grandfathers knew them.
If He gave me anything at all in this world, God gave me a responsibility to shepherd the resources of the Earth.
If only proponents of the damn-fool fishery talked more of their God-given responsibilities, rather than their supposedly God-given rights.
If only.]
[Update II: Express columnist and St. John's lawyer A.J. Baker's column this week comments on the offshore, foreign cod catch allocations within the 200 mile exclusive economic zone. Here's a link to the column as printed in The Southern Gazette, one of The Express' sister publications.
Ms. Baker lists all the cod by-catches available to countries with historic fishing rights offshore Newfoundland and Labrador and currently assigned through the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).
She notes: "All those foreign countries will legally be allowed to catch 5,900 tons of cod this summer -– that'’s 12 million pounds of cod.
Meanwhile, Newfoundlanders are not allowed to catch a single cod -– even to eat -– in those same fishing zones from that same cod stock."
First, Ms. Baker is flat-out WRONG when she claims that Newfoundland and Labrador fishing interests cannot catch a single cod.
As reported previously on The Sir Robert Bond Papers, Newfoundland and Labrador fishing interests can catch cod incidental to the licensed fishery, exactly as foreign interests are allowed to do. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can legally get a feed of cod for the table, even in 2J3KL, even if they can't jig the rounders themselves.
Second, since I do not have figures right now we don't know for sure how many Newfoundland and Labrador-based fishing interests can catch cod legally in the 2J3KL zone. My bet is the figures are quite a bit higher than the 700 tonnes those fixed-gear guys are allowed to take.
My next step is to contact DFO again and get some additional factual information to counteract the distortions and misrepresentations by Ms. Baker and others.
The point to this entire enterprise is simple: the proponents of the Damn-Fool Fishery and those, like Ms. Baker, who continually slag the federal government and foreigners are doing so on the basis of something other than facts.
If we don't base our resource management decisions on facts, we stand a much higher chance of making a grave error when it comes to fisheries management than if we just thought about things for a minute and didn't get carried away with whatever we heard from someone who heard it from someone who told us something we wanted to believe.
Given our sad history of fisheries mismanagement, I'd sooner err on the side of caution than take the word of people who seem to be plucking stuff out of thin air, or worse still, only giving selected bits of information.]
Well, having learned through long experience that Morgan is seldom right about anything, I called the Department of Fisheries and Oceans [DFO] in St. John's and gathered the following factual information for your reference.
1. Cod By-catch: In fisheries management zones 2J3KL, fishermen with groundfish licenses are permitted a total by-catch of cod equaling 2, 000 pounds for the year. That's it. This policy has been in place for some time. It wasn't suddenly introduced in the past week or two.
When the blackback fishery was recently announced, fishermen were reminded that they could only catch cod to a maximum of 2, 000 pounds for all groundfish species fished for the year.
Jim Morgan was completely, utterly, totally and unmistakably WRONG when he claimed this was a new policy.
For fixed gear fishermen in 2J3KL last year (calendar 2004), the average total by-catch was a mere 500 pounds. That's only 25% of the maximum.
[Update: DFO corrected my figures in an e-mail received yesterday. The 500 figure should have been 500 tonnes total, not 500 pounds per fisherman. Apparently there were about 700 fixed-gear fishermen in the 2J3KL fishery which works out to an average of about 1428 pounds cod by-catch per fisherman. That's 71% of the total allowable by-catch, not the 25% previously reported.]
And there are supposedly lots of fish out there, bearing in mind that in Newfoundland, fish is a synonym for cod. Every other species of swimming thing is known by its name.
Only cod are fish.
[Update comment: The revised figure of 71% by-catch is significant, but it is still a long way from demonstrating that there is a large amount of cod out there or, in the case of Mr. Morgan's claims, it still doesn't make the by-catch a cod-fishery by another name.]
2. Total Recreational Fishery Licenses Sold (2001-2004)
These figures will tell you something.
In 2001, DFO introduced the license and tags system for the recreational cod fishery. The fishery covered all zones and was open from July until September. They sold 91, 000 licenses, each with 30 tags.
The next year, the fishery was in all zones and lasted for six weeks. They sold about 50, 000 licenses with 15 tags.
In the past two years, the recreational fishery took place in 3Ps only. About 9, 100 licenses were sold each year each with 15 tags.
For all the claims that there is a huge demand for a "cod for the table", and with the ease of travel in the province these days, only 10% of the crowd who took part in the recreational fishery in 2001 participated in 2004.
3. Recreational Fishery Landings
2J3KL
2001 - 1896 tonnes
2002 - 670 tonnes
2003 - No fishery
2004 - No fishery
3Ps
2001 - 456 tonnes
2002 - No figures
2003 - 152 tonnes
2004 - 156 tonnes.
Before anyone starts taking these numbers an arguing there could easily be a recreational fishery on the northeast coast, go back and look at the actual by-catch landings last year. It was only 500 pounds per license. If there were that many fish out there, that number should be pretty close to the maximum, wouldn't you think?
[Update: If I work the math correctly, here's what the cod landings look like in 3Ps in the recreational fishery last year.
There are about 150 tonnes of fish, give or take which works out to roughly 300, 000 pounds of cod. There were 136, 500 tags. If we allow that all those tags were used, then the average fish size was a little over two pounds. My math could be faulty, but that seems to be an awfully small fish. Even if only half the available tags were used, it still gives us a four pound cod. I have caught salmon bigger than that.
Most of the cod I saw in television coverage of the rec fishery this past weekend were small to the eye, so those calculations seem to be about right on. If proponents of the recreational fishery are catching small fish, I'd venture that we are not actually seeing healthy cod stocks by any measure.
Bear in mind that the best estimates by scientists are that the total biomass of northern cod is only about 170, 000 tonnes, including the stocks of so-called bay fish. Those who think those numbers are small haven't offered any estimates, let alone serious estimates, of how much fish they think might be out there. There shouldn't be a commercial fishery until the stocks are much healthier, like maybe 10 times the current estimated biomass. I don't think the best scientific estimates are that far off.
Perhaps if Jim Morgan and A.J. Baker offered some facts to back up their arguments, it would be easier to take them seriously. Until then, I'd just as soon we accepted that jigging a meal of cod that many of us used to enjoy as a privilege is something we cannot enjoy today.
I never want my grandchildren to be able to see a cod stuffed and mounted in a museum, the only way my children can see a Great Auk. I'd sooner give up my chance to have a feed I jigged myself so my children and grandchildren might one day see cod as I knew them not so long ago and as my grandfathers and great-grandfathers knew them.
If He gave me anything at all in this world, God gave me a responsibility to shepherd the resources of the Earth.
If only proponents of the damn-fool fishery talked more of their God-given responsibilities, rather than their supposedly God-given rights.
If only.]
[Update II: Express columnist and St. John's lawyer A.J. Baker's column this week comments on the offshore, foreign cod catch allocations within the 200 mile exclusive economic zone. Here's a link to the column as printed in The Southern Gazette, one of The Express' sister publications.
Ms. Baker lists all the cod by-catches available to countries with historic fishing rights offshore Newfoundland and Labrador and currently assigned through the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).
She notes: "All those foreign countries will legally be allowed to catch 5,900 tons of cod this summer -– that'’s 12 million pounds of cod.
Meanwhile, Newfoundlanders are not allowed to catch a single cod -– even to eat -– in those same fishing zones from that same cod stock."
First, Ms. Baker is flat-out WRONG when she claims that Newfoundland and Labrador fishing interests cannot catch a single cod.
As reported previously on The Sir Robert Bond Papers, Newfoundland and Labrador fishing interests can catch cod incidental to the licensed fishery, exactly as foreign interests are allowed to do. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can legally get a feed of cod for the table, even in 2J3KL, even if they can't jig the rounders themselves.
Second, since I do not have figures right now we don't know for sure how many Newfoundland and Labrador-based fishing interests can catch cod legally in the 2J3KL zone. My bet is the figures are quite a bit higher than the 700 tonnes those fixed-gear guys are allowed to take.
My next step is to contact DFO again and get some additional factual information to counteract the distortions and misrepresentations by Ms. Baker and others.
The point to this entire enterprise is simple: the proponents of the Damn-Fool Fishery and those, like Ms. Baker, who continually slag the federal government and foreigners are doing so on the basis of something other than facts.
If we don't base our resource management decisions on facts, we stand a much higher chance of making a grave error when it comes to fisheries management than if we just thought about things for a minute and didn't get carried away with whatever we heard from someone who heard it from someone who told us something we wanted to believe.
Given our sad history of fisheries mismanagement, I'd sooner err on the side of caution than take the word of people who seem to be plucking stuff out of thin air, or worse still, only giving selected bits of information.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)