10 January 2007
Latest NL Executive Council fashion accessory
Do they have to pay for it or are these covered on an expense claim?
09 January 2007
Did Danny say this?
Yes.
Last week.
Announcing that John Hickey would be relieved of his cabinet duties over accusations he has filed duplicate expense and travel claims to the House of Assembly totalling over $3700.
The local constabulary has opened a file.
Williams response - contrary to a longstanding tradition designed to protect the integrity of government and the administration of justice - was to restore Hickey to cabinet and begin an orchestrated spin campaign involving Williams himself, Hickey and Kathy Goudie, another member of the legislature accused of submitted duplicate claims.
Last week.
Announcing that John Hickey would be relieved of his cabinet duties over accusations he has filed duplicate expense and travel claims to the House of Assembly totalling over $3700.
"I have done what I have done because, as the premier of the province, if I have a person in my cabinet [with] any kind of cloud over at all, [I must] either ask them to resign or move them aside until that cloud passes or is dealt with."This week, the Auditor General issued a public report, recommending the matter be referred to the police.
The local constabulary has opened a file.
Williams response - contrary to a longstanding tradition designed to protect the integrity of government and the administration of justice - was to restore Hickey to cabinet and begin an orchestrated spin campaign involving Williams himself, Hickey and Kathy Goudie, another member of the legislature accused of submitted duplicate claims.
Doing the right
In Labrador, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have demonstrated they the can do right in addition to desiring it.
The bills so nice they claimed them twice
Roger Grimes and Ralph Wiseman - both former members of the legislature - are right on this one: ultimately the submission of claims is the responsibility of the person making the claim.
If members of the House of Assembly didn't submit duplicate claims for the same service, there wouldn't be any double billing.
Looking at the Hickey and Goudie reports, and allowing for the peculiarities of the Auditor General's reporting, though, it's difficult to say that Goudie and Hickey didn't appreciate that by submitting two separate claims using two different means of documentation for the same service that they were doing something that was definitely not kosher.
Premier Danny Williams has tried to apply another frame to these most recent accusations as part of his effort to tamp down the scandal that has now embraced his own ministry directly.
Curious to see experienced reporters accepting the Premier's explanations before they saw the details of what is alleged to have occurred. It'll be more curious if they stick to the same interpretation now that they have seen more information.
Among the curiosities in the latest portion of the House of Assembly spending scandal:
- A member of the legislature reimbursed for a meal dated three months before she was first elected.
- Two members of the legislature submitting different claim forms for the same service and being paid for both. Sometimes the payment was on the same day; sometimes the payments came weeks apart.
- Credit card receipts or debit receipts submitted for meal claims showing one amount; the restaurant invoice submitted for the same meal on a separate invoice showing a different amount.
- One member receiving double payment of per diems for meals and accommodations normally paid when the House is in session, for dates when the House was not sitting.
- Double claiming $775 in donations to various groups, one donation being for $500.
- A member claiming three days of per diems and receiving double payment ten days apart.
- A member submitting two separate claims for a $500 donation using two different receipts and a cancelled cheque as supporting documentation. The dates on each of the three supporting documents shows a different date for the donation.
If members of the House of Assembly didn't submit duplicate claims for the same service, there wouldn't be any double billing.
Looking at the Hickey and Goudie reports, and allowing for the peculiarities of the Auditor General's reporting, though, it's difficult to say that Goudie and Hickey didn't appreciate that by submitting two separate claims using two different means of documentation for the same service that they were doing something that was definitely not kosher.
Premier Danny Williams has tried to apply another frame to these most recent accusations as part of his effort to tamp down the scandal that has now embraced his own ministry directly.
Curious to see experienced reporters accepting the Premier's explanations before they saw the details of what is alleged to have occurred. It'll be more curious if they stick to the same interpretation now that they have seen more information.
Among the curiosities in the latest portion of the House of Assembly spending scandal:
- A member of the legislature reimbursed for a meal dated three months before she was first elected.
- Two members of the legislature submitting different claim forms for the same service and being paid for both. Sometimes the payment was on the same day; sometimes the payments came weeks apart.
- Credit card receipts or debit receipts submitted for meal claims showing one amount; the restaurant invoice submitted for the same meal on a separate invoice showing a different amount.
- One member receiving double payment of per diems for meals and accommodations normally paid when the House is in session, for dates when the House was not sitting.
- Double claiming $775 in donations to various groups, one donation being for $500.
- A member claiming three days of per diems and receiving double payment ten days apart.
- A member submitting two separate claims for a $500 donation using two different receipts and a cancelled cheque as supporting documentation. The dates on each of the three supporting documents shows a different date for the donation.
08 January 2007
Afrighting the ear
Lumber World has been running a radio spot on VOCM for way too many months now extolling the virtues of Bruce brand hardwood flooring.
There's some reference to Shakespeare and "trodding the boards", presumably to attach the hardwood flooring to some sort of elegance, grace and education.
Unfortunately this is a good example of a truly hideous radio spot where both the writing and the voicing wind up affrighting the ear of any listener with half a clue.
Not only is there a meaningless hodge-podge of some Shakespearean dialogue, one portion of which sounds like the prologue of Henry V, but the guy pretending to be an actor obviously has no idea what he is reading.
The word is Agincourt - pronounced "aazhincour". This guy pronounces it as if it were Jethro Bodean's way of saying "again".
Just so you get the point, here's Derk Jacobi's performance, from the 1989 Branagh version. No one's expecting the VOCM guy to deliver a performance worthy of one of the finer actors around, but at least we could expect that he could get the pronunciation right.
There's some reference to Shakespeare and "trodding the boards", presumably to attach the hardwood flooring to some sort of elegance, grace and education.
Unfortunately this is a good example of a truly hideous radio spot where both the writing and the voicing wind up affrighting the ear of any listener with half a clue.
Not only is there a meaningless hodge-podge of some Shakespearean dialogue, one portion of which sounds like the prologue of Henry V, but the guy pretending to be an actor obviously has no idea what he is reading.
The word is Agincourt - pronounced "aazhincour". This guy pronounces it as if it were Jethro Bodean's way of saying "again".
Just so you get the point, here's Derk Jacobi's performance, from the 1989 Branagh version. No one's expecting the VOCM guy to deliver a performance worthy of one of the finer actors around, but at least we could expect that he could get the pronunciation right.
No one said you'd asked for it, Jerome
We just said Danny would offer you the job.All Jerome Kennedy [right] did on Monday was confirm that Danny Williams hasn't approached him - yet - about taking an appointment to cabinet.
Ok.
At a Monday news conference, the Premier did admit he'd considered making Kennedy an offer, presumably that Kennedy couldn't refuse. But Danny Williams said he hadn't spoken to Kennedy.
Yet.
And then there's Dr. Fitz
Odd to hear a story on CBC Radio this morning discussing the activities of His Excellency the High Commissioner in Ottawa.
Fitz was left outside the office cooling his jets, reduced to offering to walk with the PMO staffer to his next appointment if need be.
Such is the impact Danny's man has on The Hill.
If they haven't already started, CBC Radio should expect angry e-mails flying from the Blackberrys at the Premier's publicity departments and threats of legal action from Fitz's legal counsel.
Fitz is nothing if not touchy.
Sources tell CBC News that FitzGerald — who taught courses at Memorial University before being appointed last year as what he at the time described as the province's eyes and ears in Ottawa — has not had a significant impact during his eight months on the job.The audio version had a bit more detail, noting, for example, that after Stephen Harper's trip to Dannyland in October, His Excellency was despatched to the Langevin Block to set things right with the Prime Minister.
Sources say FitzGerald does not have much traction with Ottawa mandarins, and lacks the power to negotiate on behalf of the province.
Fitz was left outside the office cooling his jets, reduced to offering to walk with the PMO staffer to his next appointment if need be.
Such is the impact Danny's man has on The Hill.
If they haven't already started, CBC Radio should expect angry e-mails flying from the Blackberrys at the Premier's publicity departments and threats of legal action from Fitz's legal counsel.
Fitz is nothing if not touchy.
He didn't say that before
Danny's threatening to stay around as long as it takes to sort out the House of Assembly mess.
It's not like he said that before.
No. This is a new promise to stay as long as it takes.
Don't think of it as used.
Shop-worn even.
Think of it more like a previously-loved comment.
Only driven by a little old premier once a week during a scrum during the latest jihad against foreign infidels:
Yeah. Right. Like that happened.
Of course, Danny Williams is fond of bitching about the burden he carries and mused out loud - after getting back from the latest trip to Florida for the weekend - about retiring so he doesn't have to slog away 24/7on behalf of his ungrateful subjects for the betterment of the province.
Heck, Danny's frustration got so bad before Christmas, he even announced his retirement to VOCM, albeit about four years in advance.
So we can all rest assured Danny Williams will be here for another term or four until Hebron is sorted out and the House of Assembly is fixed.
or he will be gone after the next election.
or not.
It's not like he said that before.
No. This is a new promise to stay as long as it takes.
Don't think of it as used.
Shop-worn even.
Think of it more like a previously-loved comment.
Only driven by a little old premier once a week during a scrum during the latest jihad against foreign infidels:
"I can tell Exxon Mobil that I will be in this office when this project gets done … If that takes 10 terms, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to re-elect us time and time again, we'll stay here till this is done," he said.That's what he said in April, after the Hebron talks collapsed and Danny promised that in retaliation he was gonna "take ExxonMobil out."
"They won't wait us out."
Yeah. Right. Like that happened.
Of course, Danny Williams is fond of bitching about the burden he carries and mused out loud - after getting back from the latest trip to Florida for the weekend - about retiring so he doesn't have to slog away 24/7
Heck, Danny's frustration got so bad before Christmas, he even announced his retirement to VOCM, albeit about four years in advance.
So we can all rest assured Danny Williams will be here for another term or four until Hebron is sorted out and the House of Assembly is fixed.
or he will be gone after the next election.
or not.
AG Noseworthy changes rules as he goes
In the most recent accusations under the House of Assembly spending scandal, Auditor General John Noseworthy has once again changed the rules under which he is conducting his review.
In the original four cases, the AG levelled accusations without having completed even the most basic investigations. Each of the four accused met for a handful of minutes - less than 10 for Ed Byrne - and were asked to explain claims without being shown the claims in question. Noseworthy claimed at the time his legislation prevented him from showing the documents to anyone outside his office.
In the second round of accusations, Noseworthy met with the accused member of the House after making the accusations public. Noseworthy only got around to calling the MHA involved after he filed a report.
Now with the double-billers, Noseworthy met with at least one of them, show him the questionable claims and - solely on the basis of that meeting - is now deleting one of the fellows from the report.
In one instance, the member was paid for the same incident based on the receipt and the VISA bill. Why were they filed separately? It could indeed be an innocent clerical error by inexperienced staff.
Then again, it could be something else.
There is no reason to delete anyone from a report.
Rather, by fully disclosing the details, the AG could help us understand what happened.
Unfortunately, we have an AG who is acting as a law unto himself. The rules get made up as Noseworthy likes and, when it gets right down to it, his work seems to fall far short of any reasonable standard of performance by anyone in a comparable position.
Unfair? Unreasonable? Slipshod, even?
Yes. Without a doubt.
And today's revelations just add another straw to the already snapped spine of the camel bearing the calls for a public inquiry into the whole mess.
In the original four cases, the AG levelled accusations without having completed even the most basic investigations. Each of the four accused met for a handful of minutes - less than 10 for Ed Byrne - and were asked to explain claims without being shown the claims in question. Noseworthy claimed at the time his legislation prevented him from showing the documents to anyone outside his office.
In the second round of accusations, Noseworthy met with the accused member of the House after making the accusations public. Noseworthy only got around to calling the MHA involved after he filed a report.
Now with the double-billers, Noseworthy met with at least one of them, show him the questionable claims and - solely on the basis of that meeting - is now deleting one of the fellows from the report.
In one instance, the member was paid for the same incident based on the receipt and the VISA bill. Why were they filed separately? It could indeed be an innocent clerical error by inexperienced staff.
Then again, it could be something else.
There is no reason to delete anyone from a report.
Rather, by fully disclosing the details, the AG could help us understand what happened.
Unfortunately, we have an AG who is acting as a law unto himself. The rules get made up as Noseworthy likes and, when it gets right down to it, his work seems to fall far short of any reasonable standard of performance by anyone in a comparable position.
Unfair? Unreasonable? Slipshod, even?
Yes. Without a doubt.
And today's revelations just add another straw to the already snapped spine of the camel bearing the calls for a public inquiry into the whole mess.
07 January 2007
Provincial political round-up
1. Early election? Responding to a question from reporters, Premier Danny Williams is quoted in the Saturday edition of the Telegram that he has not ruled out the possibility of an election before the planned date in October.
Williams said he had no intention of catching the opposition parties by surprise and would call the House of Assembly back to amend the elections rules if an early election was needed.
That's an odd statement since the changes Williams introduced in 2004 do two things:
First, they allow an election can be called at any time.
Second, in the event of an election before the planned date, the subsequent election would be fours years later. Given that, if the Premier did seek an election writ before October (likely time: called by the end of February with voting before Easter), the next election after that would be in October 2011, exactly as it would occur anyway.
Liberal leader Gerry Reid and New Democrat leader Lorraine Michael both criticised the idea of an early election. Both said there was no need of going short and that an early election would forestall the Auditor General's review of the House of Assembly. Michael said an early election would go against the spirit of Williams' own amendments in 2004.
2. More AG news on Monday. Auditor General John Noseworthy will hold a news conference on Monday to discuss double billing by members of the House of Assembly.
3. Kennedy will run. St. John's lawyer Jerome Kennedy [left. Photo: cbc.ca] announced this weekend he will be seeking the Tory nomination in Carbonear.
Local political scuttlebutt has it that Kennedy intended all along to run in his old hometown seat but was talked into the Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi by-election by Danny Williams.
As Bond Papers already suggested, don't be surprised to see Kennedy appointed to cabinet well before the next election. A cabinet shuffle could come any time before the end of February as the Premier gears up for the next election.
In related news, the provincial Tories placed newspaper ads over the weekend calling on interested people to contact party election chairman Ross Reid about their potential candidacy in any of the seats currently not held by the Progressive Conservatives. Several other seats are expected to vacated by current members of the legislature who won't be seeking re-election.
Williams said he had no intention of catching the opposition parties by surprise and would call the House of Assembly back to amend the elections rules if an early election was needed.
That's an odd statement since the changes Williams introduced in 2004 do two things:
First, they allow an election can be called at any time.
Second, in the event of an election before the planned date, the subsequent election would be fours years later. Given that, if the Premier did seek an election writ before October (likely time: called by the end of February with voting before Easter), the next election after that would be in October 2011, exactly as it would occur anyway.
Liberal leader Gerry Reid and New Democrat leader Lorraine Michael both criticised the idea of an early election. Both said there was no need of going short and that an early election would forestall the Auditor General's review of the House of Assembly. Michael said an early election would go against the spirit of Williams' own amendments in 2004.
2. More AG news on Monday. Auditor General John Noseworthy will hold a news conference on Monday to discuss double billing by members of the House of Assembly.
3. Kennedy will run. St. John's lawyer Jerome Kennedy [left. Photo: cbc.ca] announced this weekend he will be seeking the Tory nomination in Carbonear. Local political scuttlebutt has it that Kennedy intended all along to run in his old hometown seat but was talked into the Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi by-election by Danny Williams.
As Bond Papers already suggested, don't be surprised to see Kennedy appointed to cabinet well before the next election. A cabinet shuffle could come any time before the end of February as the Premier gears up for the next election.
In related news, the provincial Tories placed newspaper ads over the weekend calling on interested people to contact party election chairman Ross Reid about their potential candidacy in any of the seats currently not held by the Progressive Conservatives. Several other seats are expected to vacated by current members of the legislature who won't be seeking re-election.
06 January 2007
Brokeback Mountain of Crap
Bill Rowe's column in this week's weekend Telegram is noteworthy for two reasons:
First of all, he repeats a story not realising that it is actually used by the less enlightened as a backhanded insult to both Loyola Sullivan and others from the Southern Shore. Rhyming off the times tables is not a mark of genius in any part of the world - except Bill Rowe's corner, apparently. The astute people from Da Shore apparently understand that far better than the townie columnist.
Second, Rowe plants so many passionate kisses on Sullivan's penny-pinching arse that one wonders if readers should avert their eyes for having stumbled, innocently but no less embarrassingly on the literary rendering of some school-child's first crush.
Loyola Sullivan was more commonly known as the Rain Man among denizens of the East Block for his ability to recite digits but assign them no deeper meaning than their mathematical value. He was indeed a well-respected politician, as are many and in Sullivan's case the high regard in which he was held was well deserved.
But beyond that and offering us no less than two reminders in two back-to-back sentences that Rowe was once in the same general vicinity as power (As Danny's ambassador to Hy's), Rowe's column gives us absolutely no insight into one of the political events of a year already chock-full of political events that will be long- remembered and oft-pondered.
Why did Sullivan give Danny a political kick in the goolies that evidently sent Danny's teeth a chattering just as it sent tongues wagging across the country? Do not look to Rowe for a possible answer, any more than one might look to him for an explanation of why he voted for the Churchill Falls deal. This is the print version of Rowe's host-talk-caller-listen show.
Such is the sheer inanity of the second half of Rowe's column, that he had the first PIFO Award sewn up until a few mouse clicks revealed the a better work by that other inveterate anony-quoter, Warren Kinsella.
But here's one for William to ponder: if Loyola Sullivan is such a penny-pincher with public funds, how could he sanction overspending $3.2 million of public money through the House of Assembly members accounts from 1998 to 2005, with the bulk of the overspending occurring while he sat both on the house management committee and as finance minister?
First of all, he repeats a story not realising that it is actually used by the less enlightened as a backhanded insult to both Loyola Sullivan and others from the Southern Shore. Rhyming off the times tables is not a mark of genius in any part of the world - except Bill Rowe's corner, apparently. The astute people from Da Shore apparently understand that far better than the townie columnist.
Second, Rowe plants so many passionate kisses on Sullivan's penny-pinching arse that one wonders if readers should avert their eyes for having stumbled, innocently but no less embarrassingly on the literary rendering of some school-child's first crush.
Loyola Sullivan was more commonly known as the Rain Man among denizens of the East Block for his ability to recite digits but assign them no deeper meaning than their mathematical value. He was indeed a well-respected politician, as are many and in Sullivan's case the high regard in which he was held was well deserved.
But beyond that and offering us no less than two reminders in two back-to-back sentences that Rowe was once in the same general vicinity as power (As Danny's ambassador to Hy's), Rowe's column gives us absolutely no insight into one of the political events of a year already chock-full of political events that will be long- remembered and oft-pondered.
Why did Sullivan give Danny a political kick in the goolies that evidently sent Danny's teeth a chattering just as it sent tongues wagging across the country? Do not look to Rowe for a possible answer, any more than one might look to him for an explanation of why he voted for the Churchill Falls deal. This is the print version of Rowe's host-talk-caller-listen show.
Such is the sheer inanity of the second half of Rowe's column, that he had the first PIFO Award sewn up until a few mouse clicks revealed the a better work by that other inveterate anony-quoter, Warren Kinsella.
But here's one for William to ponder: if Loyola Sullivan is such a penny-pincher with public funds, how could he sanction overspending $3.2 million of public money through the House of Assembly members accounts from 1998 to 2005, with the bulk of the overspending occurring while he sat both on the house management committee and as finance minister?
Kinsella wins PIFO award for January
We have barely entered the New Year, just languishing in the splendour of Old Christmas Day in fact, and already we have seen the winner of a new award handed out at Bond Papers.
We call it the PIFO. It will be awarded regularly to the person or persons in the media or politics who succeed in telling nothing more than a penetrating insight into the f**king obvious all the while masquerading as deep thoughts.
The recipient of the first PIFO of 2007, the PIFO for January and, indeed the first-ever PIFO:
Warren Kinsella: blogger, racenteur, National Post columnist (the Sun had its token Lib, eh Sheila) for his recent offering: "Why cabinets get shuffled".
Congrats Warren.
We call it the PIFO. It will be awarded regularly to the person or persons in the media or politics who succeed in telling nothing more than a penetrating insight into the f**king obvious all the while masquerading as deep thoughts.
The recipient of the first PIFO of 2007, the PIFO for January and, indeed the first-ever PIFO:
Warren Kinsella: blogger, racenteur, National Post columnist (the Sun had its token Lib, eh Sheila) for his recent offering: "Why cabinets get shuffled".
Congrats Warren.
05 January 2007
Spiderman knew what Danny apparently doesn't
Danny Williams is apparently frustrated by the ongoing scandal in the House of Assembly and information coming supposedly in dribs and drabs.
Danny can only blame himself. He didn't create the problem but - by his own claim from the outset in June 2006 - he has taken full responsibility for how his administration is dealing with the scandal.
From the outset, the Premier endorsed - without reservation - the Auditor General and his work.
If Danny Williams now finds a problem with the system, he has no one to blame but himself.
The Premier and his ministers rejected flatly the appointment of a public inquiry supported by forensic auditors who would have the complete skill-set and the complete legal authority to conduct thorough and proper reviews in a timely manner.
It's not like people haven't pointed out problems with the Auditor General's reports and the entire process.
It's like Uncle Ben told Peter Parker: with great power comes great responsibility.
Danny Williams has great power. He also has the great responsibility.
Rather than whine about it, Danny Williams should exercise it.
If he can't or won't then, by all means he can stop merely envying Loyola Sullivan and join him in private life.
Most of the people in the province - your humble e-scribbler included - believe that the Premier can do the job.
The only question is: "Will he?"
Danny can only blame himself. He didn't create the problem but - by his own claim from the outset in June 2006 - he has taken full responsibility for how his administration is dealing with the scandal.
From the outset, the Premier endorsed - without reservation - the Auditor General and his work.
If Danny Williams now finds a problem with the system, he has no one to blame but himself.
The Premier and his ministers rejected flatly the appointment of a public inquiry supported by forensic auditors who would have the complete skill-set and the complete legal authority to conduct thorough and proper reviews in a timely manner.
It's not like people haven't pointed out problems with the Auditor General's reports and the entire process.
It's like Uncle Ben told Peter Parker: with great power comes great responsibility.
Danny Williams has great power. He also has the great responsibility.
Rather than whine about it, Danny Williams should exercise it.
If he can't or won't then, by all means he can stop merely envying Loyola Sullivan and join him in private life.
Most of the people in the province - your humble e-scribbler included - believe that the Premier can do the job.
The only question is: "Will he?"
04 January 2007
Rona-vision
Ok, so like while everyone else has been getting on her case, here at Bond Papers, your humble e-scribbler actually kinda liked the diminutive Rona Ambrose in her gig as environment minister.
In this first clip, courtesy of youtube.com, we find Rona playing along good-naturedly with Rick Mercer as they produce a little maple syrup. There are some slightly risque double-entendres, Ambrose plays along nicely and she even makes some self-effacing jokes.
In the second clip, we find Rona participating in a little environment song during the recent international conference in Nairobi. Somehow, it's hard to imagine her replacement being quite as approachable.
Do not lose heart, Rona fans. The real policy nerds among our small but enthusiastic group will get to see more of her dealing with controversial issues in her new position as federal intergovernmental affairs minister.
In this first clip, courtesy of youtube.com, we find Rona playing along good-naturedly with Rick Mercer as they produce a little maple syrup. There are some slightly risque double-entendres, Ambrose plays along nicely and she even makes some self-effacing jokes.
In the second clip, we find Rona participating in a little environment song during the recent international conference in Nairobi. Somehow, it's hard to imagine her replacement being quite as approachable.
Do not lose heart, Rona fans. The real policy nerds among our small but enthusiastic group will get to see more of her dealing with controversial issues in her new position as federal intergovernmental affairs minister.
She'll be knee deep in Equalization, among other things, presumably where she'll go toe to toe at some point with the Mad Mullah of eastern Canada, Danny Williams.
Something suggests that for all her good humour, Rona won't be pushed around by the vertically challenged and ever-dyspeptic Williams.
Nosirree.
Them pointy-toed shoes (left) might not be just for show.And if nothing else, intergovernmental affairs will suddenly take on all the geek-appeal of Lucy Liu's efficiency expert in the first Charlie's Angels movie.
You know the scene.
Williams punts transport minister to sidelines in audit scandal
Transportation minister John Hickey (PC-Lake Melville) is a serving cabinet minister - collecting full cabinet salary this evening, but stripped of actual ministerial duties in the latest problem in expense claims by members of the House of Assembly.
Premier Danny Williams met with Hickey at sometime this morning, according to CBC television news, but for some incomprehensible reason waited until 3:00 PM to advise news media - and the general public of the latest financial irregularity. The pattern mirrors the day Williams broke the scandal when he waited eight hours to reveal the first problem.
Williams said the province's auditor general had uncovered 20 instances of Hickey filing duplicate claims for miscellaneous expenses under his constituency allowance dating back to his election in October 2003. Some of the claims were for donations to unspecified community groups. The total double-billing amounted to $3700.
While the Premier was quick to encourage people to reserve judgment, his own actions suggest there is more to this latest incident than meets the eye. If the matter was a simple accounting error, as Williams suggested to reporters, then it would be easy to determine and correct without side-lining the minister involved.
Under the provincial Auditor General Act, the AG is required to notify officials of problems if he perceives a breach of legislation, including the Criminal Code of Canada. This presumes that the AG is capable or or has conducted sufficient investigation to make a determination, based on reasonable grounds, that a violation has occurred. To date Noseworthy's investigations have been accepted by news reporters as having included investigations comparable to those carried out by the police.
They haven't.
In each instance, Noseworthy has reported to authorities at the first appearance of an irregularity without determining at all the nature of the alleged irregularity. Some aspects of his investigations - the absence of sworn statements, failure to disclose information while making accusations of criminal wrongdoing - suggest the AG is incompetent.
In the Hickey case however, the amounts are small - $3700 - and the number of claims so small over a limited period that it would ordinarily be extremely easy to make a reasonable conclusion as to whether the double-billing was inadvertent or deliberate. With inadvertent billings - for example by a new assistant who was unsure of the process corrective action far short of firing or suspension would be warranted.
Under those circumstances, Williams' scrum today would have consisted of a simple statement: "We found the problem. Here's what it was. John cut me a cheque. Everything's kosher."
Diligent response and prompt, thorough disclosure would forestall misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
In the case of deliberate acts, those would be apparently criminal. Suspension and an immediate police investigation would be the logical consequence.
Williams' scrum today suggested a response somewhere between the two. That vague, almost contradictory response will lead to further speculation that information is being deliberately withheld or that there is more to the Hickey matter than disclosed or known.
Revelations about Hickey are a reminder than more than half of the inappropriate spending alleged to have occurred in the House of Assembly took place after April 2004. Of the more than $3.2 million overspent by the legislature between 1998 and 2005, less than half has been turned up by the AG before he shut down his investigation. Of the $1.6 million in unexplained spending, about $800,000 was disbursed in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the bulk of questionable payments made to three suppliers occurred after 2003.
Premier Danny Williams met with Hickey at sometime this morning, according to CBC television news, but for some incomprehensible reason waited until 3:00 PM to advise news media - and the general public of the latest financial irregularity. The pattern mirrors the day Williams broke the scandal when he waited eight hours to reveal the first problem.
Williams said the province's auditor general had uncovered 20 instances of Hickey filing duplicate claims for miscellaneous expenses under his constituency allowance dating back to his election in October 2003. Some of the claims were for donations to unspecified community groups. The total double-billing amounted to $3700.
While the Premier was quick to encourage people to reserve judgment, his own actions suggest there is more to this latest incident than meets the eye. If the matter was a simple accounting error, as Williams suggested to reporters, then it would be easy to determine and correct without side-lining the minister involved.
Under the provincial Auditor General Act, the AG is required to notify officials of problems if he perceives a breach of legislation, including the Criminal Code of Canada. This presumes that the AG is capable or or has conducted sufficient investigation to make a determination, based on reasonable grounds, that a violation has occurred. To date Noseworthy's investigations have been accepted by news reporters as having included investigations comparable to those carried out by the police.
They haven't.
In each instance, Noseworthy has reported to authorities at the first appearance of an irregularity without determining at all the nature of the alleged irregularity. Some aspects of his investigations - the absence of sworn statements, failure to disclose information while making accusations of criminal wrongdoing - suggest the AG is incompetent.
In the Hickey case however, the amounts are small - $3700 - and the number of claims so small over a limited period that it would ordinarily be extremely easy to make a reasonable conclusion as to whether the double-billing was inadvertent or deliberate. With inadvertent billings - for example by a new assistant who was unsure of the process corrective action far short of firing or suspension would be warranted.
Under those circumstances, Williams' scrum today would have consisted of a simple statement: "We found the problem. Here's what it was. John cut me a cheque. Everything's kosher."
Diligent response and prompt, thorough disclosure would forestall misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
In the case of deliberate acts, those would be apparently criminal. Suspension and an immediate police investigation would be the logical consequence.
Williams' scrum today suggested a response somewhere between the two. That vague, almost contradictory response will lead to further speculation that information is being deliberately withheld or that there is more to the Hickey matter than disclosed or known.
Revelations about Hickey are a reminder than more than half of the inappropriate spending alleged to have occurred in the House of Assembly took place after April 2004. Of the more than $3.2 million overspent by the legislature between 1998 and 2005, less than half has been turned up by the AG before he shut down his investigation. Of the $1.6 million in unexplained spending, about $800,000 was disbursed in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the bulk of questionable payments made to three suppliers occurred after 2003.
Latest worst kept secret; more elec spec
Danny Williams suggests there may be a pre-election cabinet shuffle.
In related news, the number of Tories running to replace Loyola Sullivan is at five and headed to as many as eight according to CBC radio. The words that come to mind are "safe seat".
Spec on Loyola's sudden departure continues to mount. There's the version that he had his office cleaned out either before he told Danny or a handful of hours afterward. That's quick.
Then there's the version that Sullivan brought back a deal on Equalization that would include a phase in period, with transitional grants for provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador that would see a drop in their Equalization payments under the new scheme.
This one sounds plausible since transitional grants were part of the Connie 2004 election platform. Then they were looking at 12 years of transition; the figure bandied around now would be more like four.
The falling out under that scenario came when Premier Danny Williams rejected any loss of revenue.
Then there's the last explanation of Loyola's abrupt departure which holds that the Rain Man from Ferryland was growing increasingly frustrated with how things run - or sometimes don't run - in the Confederation Building these days. That's plausible too.
Speculation is already growing about who won't be running in the next election. Names tossed around so far include deputy ayatollah Tom Rideout, intergovernmental affairs minister John Ottenheimer and municipal affairs minister Jack Byrne for the Tories. On the Liberal side, the names include Kel Parsons, Judy Foote, Percy Barrett and just about half the caucus.
Names vary depending on who you talk to for both Liberals and Tories looking to quit politics. Only time will tell.
There's no speculation on Ross Reid, formerly the deputy minister to the premier, who resigned today to head up the provincial Tory re-election campaign.
Reid is widely respected and capable. If your humble e-scribbler hasn't said so before, let's make it plain now: Reid would be the finest replacement for Danny when he finally packs it in on the planned departure date in 2010. If Reid ever decides to get back into politics either federally or provincially, he can expect wide support. There simply aren't that many people in the province with Ross' talents.
Of course, that appointment is sure to raise the spectre of an early election call in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are no signs of a quickie writ at all, but Reid's appointment might just start tongues wagging. The Premier could use either a new war with Ottawa over Equalization as the premise or he could seek an endorsement of his energy plan and playing hardball with the oil companies. Either way it would be a jihad against foreign infidels which tends to play well in local politics, especially when led - as in 1982 - by our own version of the Mad Mullah.
If Claudia Cattaneo's Financial Post piece turns out to be accurate in its speculation an energy plan mandating an automatic Crown interest in any offshore field would need a public endorsement to withstand the onslaught of criticism. It would also be an unassailable political issue akin to the January 2005 offshore deal where emotion - and a heckuvalot of sheer political bullshit - trumped reason yet again. Liberal candidates would be falling over themselves to endorse the position, just as they did in 1982.
As for political fall-out, Danny Williams might take a few seconds of heat for not waiting until October but even in the worst case scenario, any criticism of an early election would evaporate well before polling day and would have absolutely nil negative impact on Danny Williams' re-election. The full impact - as in 1982 - wouldn't be felt until after Danny is gone.
Oh.
And for those who think there's no way to go early, recall that the so-called fixed elections date bill didn't really set a fixed date for elections. The 2004 amendments to the House of Assembly Act state clearly:
In related news, the number of Tories running to replace Loyola Sullivan is at five and headed to as many as eight according to CBC radio. The words that come to mind are "safe seat".
Spec on Loyola's sudden departure continues to mount. There's the version that he had his office cleaned out either before he told Danny or a handful of hours afterward. That's quick.
Then there's the version that Sullivan brought back a deal on Equalization that would include a phase in period, with transitional grants for provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador that would see a drop in their Equalization payments under the new scheme.
This one sounds plausible since transitional grants were part of the Connie 2004 election platform. Then they were looking at 12 years of transition; the figure bandied around now would be more like four.
The falling out under that scenario came when Premier Danny Williams rejected any loss of revenue.
Then there's the last explanation of Loyola's abrupt departure which holds that the Rain Man from Ferryland was growing increasingly frustrated with how things run - or sometimes don't run - in the Confederation Building these days. That's plausible too.
Speculation is already growing about who won't be running in the next election. Names tossed around so far include deputy ayatollah Tom Rideout, intergovernmental affairs minister John Ottenheimer and municipal affairs minister Jack Byrne for the Tories. On the Liberal side, the names include Kel Parsons, Judy Foote, Percy Barrett and just about half the caucus.
Names vary depending on who you talk to for both Liberals and Tories looking to quit politics. Only time will tell.
There's no speculation on Ross Reid, formerly the deputy minister to the premier, who resigned today to head up the provincial Tory re-election campaign.
Reid is widely respected and capable. If your humble e-scribbler hasn't said so before, let's make it plain now: Reid would be the finest replacement for Danny when he finally packs it in on the planned departure date in 2010. If Reid ever decides to get back into politics either federally or provincially, he can expect wide support. There simply aren't that many people in the province with Ross' talents.
Of course, that appointment is sure to raise the spectre of an early election call in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are no signs of a quickie writ at all, but Reid's appointment might just start tongues wagging. The Premier could use either a new war with Ottawa over Equalization as the premise or he could seek an endorsement of his energy plan and playing hardball with the oil companies. Either way it would be a jihad against foreign infidels which tends to play well in local politics, especially when led - as in 1982 - by our own version of the Mad Mullah.
If Claudia Cattaneo's Financial Post piece turns out to be accurate in its speculation an energy plan mandating an automatic Crown interest in any offshore field would need a public endorsement to withstand the onslaught of criticism. It would also be an unassailable political issue akin to the January 2005 offshore deal where emotion - and a heckuvalot of sheer political bullshit - trumped reason yet again. Liberal candidates would be falling over themselves to endorse the position, just as they did in 1982.
As for political fall-out, Danny Williams might take a few seconds of heat for not waiting until October but even in the worst case scenario, any criticism of an early election would evaporate well before polling day and would have absolutely nil negative impact on Danny Williams' re-election. The full impact - as in 1982 - wouldn't be felt until after Danny is gone.
Oh.
And for those who think there's no way to go early, recall that the so-called fixed elections date bill didn't really set a fixed date for elections. The 2004 amendments to the House of Assembly Act state clearly:
3. (1) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor may, by proclamation in Her Majesty’s name, prorogue or dissolve the House of Assembly when the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit.Practically, we wouldn't need an election before October but - just as in 1999 - the Premier's agenda may trump all others'. Way back then, Brian Tobin's eagerness to head back to Ottawa with two election victories led him to plan an election for early September 1998. First signs emerged in April of that year but Tobin's plans were bumped back, at the last minute, by a caucus that was uncomfortable with an election only two years after the previous one. Tobin dropped the writ in January 1999 instead.
(2) A polling day at a general election shall be held on the second Tuesday in October, 2007 and afterward on the second Tuesday in October in the fourth calendar year following the polling day at the most recently held general election.
Shame: Ignorant oppo parties playing political games with military
In 1993, it was the EH-101. The right helicopter for the mission purchased at a good price.
Used as a scapegoat by Liberal leader Jean Chretien during the federal election campaign, axed unceremoniously once Chretien took office.
The price to Canadians? Lives and hundreds of millions of dollars - if not billions - above what it would have cost to carry on with the EH-101 purchase.
In the end, the air force got the EH-101 for search and rescue but was forced to purchase a second-rate aircraft for its naval requirement in a process that also drove up long-term costs to Canadians through the purchase of a second aircraft (savings from a single aircraft with a single spares requirement went out the window.)
Heck, the American president will be flying in the EH-101; our navy is using an aircraft even the American military hasn't bought, thereby reducing its inter-operability with a key ally and...yet again...driving up our long term costs solely because of political folly.
Watch apologists rush forward to point out the military made the decision on the SH-92.
Then watch the same politicos rush forward to slag the military for having "too much" control over defence procurement, thereby prompting the latest exercise in the cynical, pointless political theatre called defence procurement.
Here's the short answer:
In the tactical lift helicopter procurement, there simply isn't another helicopter worth buying except the CH-47 Chinook.
In the Herc replacement, there simply isn't another capable airframe. The A-400 hasn't even flown yet; we need the aircraft now based on a requirement that sat unaddressed under the Liberals.
In the SAR role, we are buying a decent aircraft that combines the capabilities of two aircraft currently filling the role and doing so with one dedicated to the search and rescue mission. In the current situation, we are flying transport aircraft (Hercules) on SAR missions, thereby taking them away from their primary task. The slight change in airspeed requirements (from a max of 130 knots to 140 knots) should not wipe out competitors - the Globe story on this is sheer bunk.
But overall, this sort of nonsense - both from the Globe and from the Liberal, Blochead and New Democrat tag team - is sadly what Canadians get when it comes to defence.
For far too long, defence procurement in this country has been about political pork. Successive Liberal and Conservative regimes have wasted billions - literally billions - solely to satisfy civilian, partisan needs to pay off political supporters or create jobs in underdeveloped regions of the country.
More often than not the equipment purchased - like the LSVW currently squealing its brakes all over Afghanistan - is a second-rate, clapped-out POS that would never have been selected by a process dominated by operational military requirements as the major criteria for selection.
The Liberals reviewed procurement in 1994 and the Liberal dominated committee recommended more off-the-shelf purchases in order to save money and get needed equipment to our soldiers, sailors and air crew.
The result? A weapons-effects simulator (WES) purchase that took 13 years from inception to delivery. WES has been on the market since the early 1980s.
Off-the-shelf doesn't equal a decade and a half.
That's just one. Your humble e-scribbler has been studying this issue for a couple of decades.
There is a need to shake-up up defence-related procurement in Canada but it damn-well isn't a shake-up like the opposition parties are suggesting.
The shake-up needs to be among the grossly irresponsible and grossly ignorant politicians who use defence procurement solely as a means of scoring political points.
Like now.
Sadly, the men and women of the Canadian Forces are the perfect patsy for our pissant politicians.
Their needs offer the chance for billions in public money the politicians can spread at whim among their buddies. The costs - in cash and lives - are borne by someone other than the politician who thinks its a great idea to buy a shovel and a rifle-shield in one combination based on a design by a political secretary all in the name of "civilian oversight".
It's enough to make your humble e-scribbler consider running for public office just to sort out the crap.
Used as a scapegoat by Liberal leader Jean Chretien during the federal election campaign, axed unceremoniously once Chretien took office.
The price to Canadians? Lives and hundreds of millions of dollars - if not billions - above what it would have cost to carry on with the EH-101 purchase.
In the end, the air force got the EH-101 for search and rescue but was forced to purchase a second-rate aircraft for its naval requirement in a process that also drove up long-term costs to Canadians through the purchase of a second aircraft (savings from a single aircraft with a single spares requirement went out the window.)
Heck, the American president will be flying in the EH-101; our navy is using an aircraft even the American military hasn't bought, thereby reducing its inter-operability with a key ally and...yet again...driving up our long term costs solely because of political folly.
Watch apologists rush forward to point out the military made the decision on the SH-92.
Then watch the same politicos rush forward to slag the military for having "too much" control over defence procurement, thereby prompting the latest exercise in the cynical, pointless political theatre called defence procurement.
Here's the short answer:
In the tactical lift helicopter procurement, there simply isn't another helicopter worth buying except the CH-47 Chinook.
In the Herc replacement, there simply isn't another capable airframe. The A-400 hasn't even flown yet; we need the aircraft now based on a requirement that sat unaddressed under the Liberals.
In the SAR role, we are buying a decent aircraft that combines the capabilities of two aircraft currently filling the role and doing so with one dedicated to the search and rescue mission. In the current situation, we are flying transport aircraft (Hercules) on SAR missions, thereby taking them away from their primary task. The slight change in airspeed requirements (from a max of 130 knots to 140 knots) should not wipe out competitors - the Globe story on this is sheer bunk.
But overall, this sort of nonsense - both from the Globe and from the Liberal, Blochead and New Democrat tag team - is sadly what Canadians get when it comes to defence.
For far too long, defence procurement in this country has been about political pork. Successive Liberal and Conservative regimes have wasted billions - literally billions - solely to satisfy civilian, partisan needs to pay off political supporters or create jobs in underdeveloped regions of the country.
More often than not the equipment purchased - like the LSVW currently squealing its brakes all over Afghanistan - is a second-rate, clapped-out POS that would never have been selected by a process dominated by operational military requirements as the major criteria for selection.
The Liberals reviewed procurement in 1994 and the Liberal dominated committee recommended more off-the-shelf purchases in order to save money and get needed equipment to our soldiers, sailors and air crew.
The result? A weapons-effects simulator (WES) purchase that took 13 years from inception to delivery. WES has been on the market since the early 1980s.
Off-the-shelf doesn't equal a decade and a half.
That's just one. Your humble e-scribbler has been studying this issue for a couple of decades.
There is a need to shake-up up defence-related procurement in Canada but it damn-well isn't a shake-up like the opposition parties are suggesting.
The shake-up needs to be among the grossly irresponsible and grossly ignorant politicians who use defence procurement solely as a means of scoring political points.
Like now.
Sadly, the men and women of the Canadian Forces are the perfect patsy for our pissant politicians.
Their needs offer the chance for billions in public money the politicians can spread at whim among their buddies. The costs - in cash and lives - are borne by someone other than the politician who thinks its a great idea to buy a shovel and a rifle-shield in one combination based on a design by a political secretary all in the name of "civilian oversight".
It's enough to make your humble e-scribbler consider running for public office just to sort out the crap.
03 January 2007
Danny's latest pissing match
From the December 19 Financial Post, comes a commentary by Claudia Cattaneo, the Post's Calgary Bureau Chief. There's a link to it, but for posterity, we are reproducing the whole thing below.
After that, you'll find Danny Williams' rejoinder published in the January 3 edition of the venerable Canadian business journal. It's pretty interesting to read Williams' letter since it actually doesn't address the points Cattaneo makes. There are a few Bond Papers' comments in square brackets but don't let those distract you from the main articles.
Or his sentences.
Fragments actually.
Lots of them.
Danny Williams [left, not exactly as illustrated] must have kidneys of superhumanly freakish size for all the pissing he does.
Cattaneo's comments are accurate, reflecting an understanding of Williams' position, recent comments by one of Hydro's senior officials and - to be sure - the view of the oil and gas industry with whom Williams would have to work if offshore oil and gas resources are to be developed. Unfortunately, Cattaneo's understanding doesn't conform to the Premier's year-end puffery. So he claims she is uninformed and in the back pocket of Big Oil.
We've heard it all before.
Anyway, for the record, here's the original article followed by the Premier's comments, all part of the Premier's latest pissing match.
One last thing: Danny Williams' is right about one thing: inaccurate, selective and uniformed commentary is completely unproductive and does a disservice to everyone. Too bad the Premier is most often the one providing such comment.
You could've been a contender
Comment
Claudia Cattaneo, Financial Post
Published: Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Right about now, if Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, hadn't played Russian roulette with Big Oil -- and lost -- the Hebron Ben Nevis heavy-oil project would be hiring hundreds of people and writing cheques with nine zeroes.
The Hibernia offshore oil project, Newfoundland's first and mightiest, would be looking forward to many more years of steady production volumes, thanks to the discovery of an extension in the southern edge of the field. [BP note: see, for example, "Waiting for the other shoe".]
Yet partners are facing a rapid decline next year, apparently handcuffed because the Tory Premier wants a better deal on the new reserves.
It's a similar situation with Husky Energy Inc., which were it not for Tory obstinance, would now be beavering away to develop the 2.3 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves associated with the White Rose oil project. [BP note: This comment is a bit overblown. A natural gas royalty regime has been under development since the late 1990s. In April 2006, Husky indicated it would be shelving plans to develop White Rose gas until the gas royalty regime is issued.]
Instead, thousands of Newfoundlanders are leaving to work in oil projects in Alberta. The exodus is so huge the shock to the provincial economy has been compared to the collapse of the cod fishery.
But Mr. Williams continues to stick to his guns. The province is expected to unveil an energy plan early in the new year that will bring back government ownership and control of oil and gas resources in Canada for the first time since the 1980 National Energy Program.
One the greatest fears is that the plan will mandate equity ownership in oil projects by the province without contributing capital. The plan may also include a generic natural-gas royalty regime. Depending on the terms -- and there are few hints on what they may be -- it will either encourage production of vast natural-gas finds, or keep them idle. [BP note: The Premier has stated several times over the past year that the energy plan will include a natural gas royalty regime.]
Mr. Williams' approach has wide appeal in Newfoundland, where bashing arrogant Big Oil garners votes and the common view is that the province got a raw deal on Hibernia, as oil companies underplayed its potential to squeeze the best possible terms.
Mr. Williams believes the plan will turn his province into an even greater energy producer by putting the government in the driver's seat and ensure it gets a fairer share. Most likely, it will keep Newfoundland an energy wannabe.
A presentation last month by Jim Keating, vice-president of business development at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corp., the provincial Crown corporation through which Mr. Williams is expected to drive his oil-and-gas agenda, is seen by Canada's oil industry as signalling where the Premier is going.
The presentation notes:
- That many other governments get a bigger share from their oil riches than Newfoundland.
- Government-controlled entities are common in the sector globally, with 88% of reserves under government control.
- The global trend is for a greater government take from oil and gas projects and highlights energy- producing countries such as Russia, which has increased royalty and export duty rates; Algeria, which has introduced a windfall profits tax and is increasing state equity; Venezuela, which has increased royalty, tax and state equity rates; Ecuador, which has introduced a windfall profits tax; and Bolivia, which increased the royalty rate and nationalized assets.
The speech, given at Memorial University in St. John's, praises the benefits of government ownership and control, such as ensuring greater knowledge and influence over the industry while ensuring development of long-ignored resources. [BP note: Several people who attended the session and some who heard a similar speech delivered by Hydro chief executive officer Ed Martin at the St. John's Board of Trade offered an observation similar to Cattaneo's.]
It's hardly the type of thinking that makes oil types want to drop what they are doing and flock to the area. Already, their experience with Hebron, and now expectations that a new standoff is brewing with the province over development of Hibernia's south extension, has dampened any enthusiasm they had left.
Global trends such as increased government take and ownership have largely scared off foreign investment, increased government corruption, and frustrated oil-and-gas sector development.
In Canada, past government ownership of oil and gas resources, through entities such as Petro-Canada, is widely seen as failed government policy that cost taxpayers dearly.
With estimated reserves of 2.7 billion barrels of oil and 10.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas buried off its coasts, Newfoundland has significant holdings. Yet they're modest by world standard and hard to get to.
Mr. Williams' confrontational style doesn't make him the type of partner oil companies would welcome.
If Mr. Williams moves forward, the predictable outcome is that exploration activity will remain significantly below potential despite high energy prices, there will be no new projects and current daily production of about 300,000 barrels of oil a day will start to decline next year.
The sad part is that Mr. Williams is so popular that Newfoundlanders -- at least those who haven't left for Alberta -- seem to be buying into his views. He should let them know that his high-risk strategy could cause their oil industry to unravel, and that they would be the big losers, not Exxon Mobil Corp.
Financial Post ccattaneo@nationalpost.com
-30-
We will not be bullied
Financial Post, January 3, 2007
Re: You Could Have Been A Contender, Claudia Cattaneo, Dec. 19.
The uninformed, superior attitude of certain commentators never ceases to amaze me. Claudia Cattaneo's article entitled "You could have been a contender" is condescending to the people of my province, to me personally, and frankly your readers should be equally insulted. Her complete lack of understanding of the facts is somewhat astonishing, especially considering she is generally quite knowledgeable on the facts of the oil-and-gas industry. But perhaps her proximity to the oil companies in Alberta has skewed her objectivity. I certainly hope this is not the case. In any event, let me correct some of the impressions left by her unfortunate commentary.
First of all, I would like for Ms. Cattaneo to explain to me how "Tory obstinance" is blocking the development of Husky Energy's natural gas development. This government is in the process of consulting with industry to implement a fair and reasonable natural gas royalty regime. I make no apologies to her for ensuring we do this in a proper, timely fashion. I do not have the luxury of having no one to answer to -- rather, I have many future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians relying upon our government to ensure we get a fair return on our resources. [BP note: The natural gas royalty regime has been under development since the late 1990s. It was supposed to be released, along with the energy plan last year. That would hardly qualify as "proper, timely fashion."]
Furthermore, Ms. Cattaneo's assertion that our government is looking for equity without contributing capital is wrong. During our negotiations on the Hebron development, we were quote willing to pay for our equity position. And a minor equity position at only 4.9%. A very fair and reasonable position, considering some other jurisdictions regulations. [BP Note: Premier Williams deliberately confuses his claims about what was involved in the Hebron discussion with Cattaneo's references to what some people believe may be in the energy plan.] It is ironic that on the very day this "commentary" appeared the news reported the merger of Stat Oil and Norsk Hydro -- the Norwegian government will hold 62.5% of the merged company, and its Prime Minister said he would seek parliament's approval to increase the state's share to 67%. I don't think there will be an exodus of companies leaving the Norwegian shelf as a result of greater government ownership. Fine for Norway, but I guess Ms. Cattaneo doesn't see such benefits as befitting Canada or my province. Which leads to another point.
Ms. Cattaneo selectively uses excerpts from a presentation made by an official from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. In so doing, she tries to paint our government as comparable to Algeria, Bolivia and Russia. What she fails to point out is that in fact we are looking for a greater return on our projects, as other jurisdictions have. Her selective examples are the extremes. She conveniently fails to mention the other examples of increasing fiscal terms that are closer to home-- the United States, the U.K., Norway and, yes, Alberta. We are seeking arrangements on the development of projects on a just and reasonable basis. [BP note: Bond Papers has previously noted the misrepresentations repeated here by the Premier. For example, the American offshore taxation regime on some properties, even after increase, would still not be as lucrative as the Newfoundland and Labrador regime. In Alberta, the province is seeking a modest increase in its royalty on tar sands. For a discussion of some factors affecting Newfoundland and Labrador's economic future see here.]
Inaccurate, selective and uninformed commentary, such as provided by Ms. Cattaneo, is completely unproductive. It does a disservice to the people of my province, and indeed to the people of Canada who as well will all serve to benefit greatly from our offshore development. But I can assure Ms. Cattaneo and the oil companies she so valiantly supports that our government will not be bullied into making decisions that are not in the best interest of our people. We are not unreasonable; we are not selfish or irrational. We are, in fact, looking to work together for everyone's mutual benefit and develop our industry in a manner that returns to the people some of the benefit they so richly deserve.
Danny Williams, QC, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.
After that, you'll find Danny Williams' rejoinder published in the January 3 edition of the venerable Canadian business journal. It's pretty interesting to read Williams' letter since it actually doesn't address the points Cattaneo makes. There are a few Bond Papers' comments in square brackets but don't let those distract you from the main articles.
Or his sentences.
Fragments actually.
Lots of them.
Danny Williams [left, not exactly as illustrated] must have kidneys of superhumanly freakish size for all the pissing he does.Cattaneo's comments are accurate, reflecting an understanding of Williams' position, recent comments by one of Hydro's senior officials and - to be sure - the view of the oil and gas industry with whom Williams would have to work if offshore oil and gas resources are to be developed. Unfortunately, Cattaneo's understanding doesn't conform to the Premier's year-end puffery. So he claims she is uninformed and in the back pocket of Big Oil.
We've heard it all before.
Anyway, for the record, here's the original article followed by the Premier's comments, all part of the Premier's latest pissing match.
One last thing: Danny Williams' is right about one thing: inaccurate, selective and uniformed commentary is completely unproductive and does a disservice to everyone. Too bad the Premier is most often the one providing such comment.
You could've been a contender
Comment
Claudia Cattaneo, Financial Post
Published: Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Right about now, if Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, hadn't played Russian roulette with Big Oil -- and lost -- the Hebron Ben Nevis heavy-oil project would be hiring hundreds of people and writing cheques with nine zeroes.
The Hibernia offshore oil project, Newfoundland's first and mightiest, would be looking forward to many more years of steady production volumes, thanks to the discovery of an extension in the southern edge of the field. [BP note: see, for example, "Waiting for the other shoe".]
Yet partners are facing a rapid decline next year, apparently handcuffed because the Tory Premier wants a better deal on the new reserves.
It's a similar situation with Husky Energy Inc., which were it not for Tory obstinance, would now be beavering away to develop the 2.3 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves associated with the White Rose oil project. [BP note: This comment is a bit overblown. A natural gas royalty regime has been under development since the late 1990s. In April 2006, Husky indicated it would be shelving plans to develop White Rose gas until the gas royalty regime is issued.]
Instead, thousands of Newfoundlanders are leaving to work in oil projects in Alberta. The exodus is so huge the shock to the provincial economy has been compared to the collapse of the cod fishery.
But Mr. Williams continues to stick to his guns. The province is expected to unveil an energy plan early in the new year that will bring back government ownership and control of oil and gas resources in Canada for the first time since the 1980 National Energy Program.
One the greatest fears is that the plan will mandate equity ownership in oil projects by the province without contributing capital. The plan may also include a generic natural-gas royalty regime. Depending on the terms -- and there are few hints on what they may be -- it will either encourage production of vast natural-gas finds, or keep them idle. [BP note: The Premier has stated several times over the past year that the energy plan will include a natural gas royalty regime.]
Mr. Williams' approach has wide appeal in Newfoundland, where bashing arrogant Big Oil garners votes and the common view is that the province got a raw deal on Hibernia, as oil companies underplayed its potential to squeeze the best possible terms.
Mr. Williams believes the plan will turn his province into an even greater energy producer by putting the government in the driver's seat and ensure it gets a fairer share. Most likely, it will keep Newfoundland an energy wannabe.
A presentation last month by Jim Keating, vice-president of business development at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corp., the provincial Crown corporation through which Mr. Williams is expected to drive his oil-and-gas agenda, is seen by Canada's oil industry as signalling where the Premier is going.
The presentation notes:
- That many other governments get a bigger share from their oil riches than Newfoundland.
- Government-controlled entities are common in the sector globally, with 88% of reserves under government control.
- The global trend is for a greater government take from oil and gas projects and highlights energy- producing countries such as Russia, which has increased royalty and export duty rates; Algeria, which has introduced a windfall profits tax and is increasing state equity; Venezuela, which has increased royalty, tax and state equity rates; Ecuador, which has introduced a windfall profits tax; and Bolivia, which increased the royalty rate and nationalized assets.
The speech, given at Memorial University in St. John's, praises the benefits of government ownership and control, such as ensuring greater knowledge and influence over the industry while ensuring development of long-ignored resources. [BP note: Several people who attended the session and some who heard a similar speech delivered by Hydro chief executive officer Ed Martin at the St. John's Board of Trade offered an observation similar to Cattaneo's.]
It's hardly the type of thinking that makes oil types want to drop what they are doing and flock to the area. Already, their experience with Hebron, and now expectations that a new standoff is brewing with the province over development of Hibernia's south extension, has dampened any enthusiasm they had left.
Global trends such as increased government take and ownership have largely scared off foreign investment, increased government corruption, and frustrated oil-and-gas sector development.
In Canada, past government ownership of oil and gas resources, through entities such as Petro-Canada, is widely seen as failed government policy that cost taxpayers dearly.
With estimated reserves of 2.7 billion barrels of oil and 10.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas buried off its coasts, Newfoundland has significant holdings. Yet they're modest by world standard and hard to get to.
Mr. Williams' confrontational style doesn't make him the type of partner oil companies would welcome.
If Mr. Williams moves forward, the predictable outcome is that exploration activity will remain significantly below potential despite high energy prices, there will be no new projects and current daily production of about 300,000 barrels of oil a day will start to decline next year.
The sad part is that Mr. Williams is so popular that Newfoundlanders -- at least those who haven't left for Alberta -- seem to be buying into his views. He should let them know that his high-risk strategy could cause their oil industry to unravel, and that they would be the big losers, not Exxon Mobil Corp.
Financial Post ccattaneo@nationalpost.com
-30-
We will not be bullied
Financial Post, January 3, 2007
Re: You Could Have Been A Contender, Claudia Cattaneo, Dec. 19.
The uninformed, superior attitude of certain commentators never ceases to amaze me. Claudia Cattaneo's article entitled "You could have been a contender" is condescending to the people of my province, to me personally, and frankly your readers should be equally insulted. Her complete lack of understanding of the facts is somewhat astonishing, especially considering she is generally quite knowledgeable on the facts of the oil-and-gas industry. But perhaps her proximity to the oil companies in Alberta has skewed her objectivity. I certainly hope this is not the case. In any event, let me correct some of the impressions left by her unfortunate commentary.
First of all, I would like for Ms. Cattaneo to explain to me how "Tory obstinance" is blocking the development of Husky Energy's natural gas development. This government is in the process of consulting with industry to implement a fair and reasonable natural gas royalty regime. I make no apologies to her for ensuring we do this in a proper, timely fashion. I do not have the luxury of having no one to answer to -- rather, I have many future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians relying upon our government to ensure we get a fair return on our resources. [BP note: The natural gas royalty regime has been under development since the late 1990s. It was supposed to be released, along with the energy plan last year. That would hardly qualify as "proper, timely fashion."]
Furthermore, Ms. Cattaneo's assertion that our government is looking for equity without contributing capital is wrong. During our negotiations on the Hebron development, we were quote willing to pay for our equity position. And a minor equity position at only 4.9%. A very fair and reasonable position, considering some other jurisdictions regulations. [BP Note: Premier Williams deliberately confuses his claims about what was involved in the Hebron discussion with Cattaneo's references to what some people believe may be in the energy plan.] It is ironic that on the very day this "commentary" appeared the news reported the merger of Stat Oil and Norsk Hydro -- the Norwegian government will hold 62.5% of the merged company, and its Prime Minister said he would seek parliament's approval to increase the state's share to 67%. I don't think there will be an exodus of companies leaving the Norwegian shelf as a result of greater government ownership. Fine for Norway, but I guess Ms. Cattaneo doesn't see such benefits as befitting Canada or my province. Which leads to another point.
Ms. Cattaneo selectively uses excerpts from a presentation made by an official from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. In so doing, she tries to paint our government as comparable to Algeria, Bolivia and Russia. What she fails to point out is that in fact we are looking for a greater return on our projects, as other jurisdictions have. Her selective examples are the extremes. She conveniently fails to mention the other examples of increasing fiscal terms that are closer to home-- the United States, the U.K., Norway and, yes, Alberta. We are seeking arrangements on the development of projects on a just and reasonable basis. [BP note: Bond Papers has previously noted the misrepresentations repeated here by the Premier. For example, the American offshore taxation regime on some properties, even after increase, would still not be as lucrative as the Newfoundland and Labrador regime. In Alberta, the province is seeking a modest increase in its royalty on tar sands. For a discussion of some factors affecting Newfoundland and Labrador's economic future see here.]
Inaccurate, selective and uninformed commentary, such as provided by Ms. Cattaneo, is completely unproductive. It does a disservice to the people of my province, and indeed to the people of Canada who as well will all serve to benefit greatly from our offshore development. But I can assure Ms. Cattaneo and the oil companies she so valiantly supports that our government will not be bullied into making decisions that are not in the best interest of our people. We are not unreasonable; we are not selfish or irrational. We are, in fact, looking to work together for everyone's mutual benefit and develop our industry in a manner that returns to the people some of the benefit they so richly deserve.
Danny Williams, QC, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.
RCMP Conduct Questioned
Royal Canadian Mounted Police may have apologised to a woman held naked for two days in a detention cell, but media reports today give no indication the national police force understands the gravity of the problem.
Inspector Greg Bursey did apologise, telling CBC:
But take a close look at Inspector Bursey's comment. He is sorry the woman felt she was mistreated; he wasn't sorry she was mistreated even though - on the face of it - she was. It is unconscionable that anyone under any circumstances would be detained by police under such conditions for any period of time, let alone 48 hours.
It is irrelevant that the individual involved was a woman. Being held in custody naked is unacceptable, full stop.
Other means could have been used to ensure the woman could not harm herself while under arrest. It may well be that the constable in question did not intend to cause the arrested woman harm or difficulty however, there seems to have been a complete lack of consideration given to the circumstances in which the woman was being detained.
If there was no intent, as Inspector Bursey states, there was certainly an unacceptable consequence that came as a direct result of the Constable's actions or inactions. The constable's apparent indifference, lack of compassion, thought or insensitivity seems as much a cause for concern as it would have been had she taken a baton and beaten the woman unconscious.
The police have considerable powers and once an individual is taken in custody, police have an equally considerable responsibility to provide for the care of the detained individual.
The people of the province are owed a much more substantive explanation than the one offered thus far by the national police service on this matter.
We are also owed a more detailed accounting of what has occurred and what steps have been taken to ensure police officers employ some common sense when on the job. Your humble e-scribbler knows a goodly number of police officers and has always found them to be competent and professional. The actions here seem highly unusual. Nevertheless, the public are owed a full explanation.
Asked about the potential of such an occurrence two years ago, Inspector Bursey might have said that "within reason" it shouldn't happen at all. Clearly, telling us that "within reason" it is not likely to occur again is no comfort at all.
It is little better than a five dollar surplus army blanket tossed to a naked prisoner in a cell.
Inspector Greg Bursey did apologise, telling CBC:
"I'm sorry she felt that she was mistreated in any way or put through any undue hardship, but certainly there was no intent," Bursey said.The woman was held in a cell stripped of mattress and bedding pending her court appearance and after the woman had reportedly threatened to harm herself. The secure holding room at the hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay was occupied and the RCMP constable involved in the case elected to take the woman back to the RCMP cells rather than admit the woman to hospital.
"I'm satisfied that within reason that it shouldn't happen again."
But take a close look at Inspector Bursey's comment. He is sorry the woman felt she was mistreated; he wasn't sorry she was mistreated even though - on the face of it - she was. It is unconscionable that anyone under any circumstances would be detained by police under such conditions for any period of time, let alone 48 hours.
It is irrelevant that the individual involved was a woman. Being held in custody naked is unacceptable, full stop.
Other means could have been used to ensure the woman could not harm herself while under arrest. It may well be that the constable in question did not intend to cause the arrested woman harm or difficulty however, there seems to have been a complete lack of consideration given to the circumstances in which the woman was being detained.
If there was no intent, as Inspector Bursey states, there was certainly an unacceptable consequence that came as a direct result of the Constable's actions or inactions. The constable's apparent indifference, lack of compassion, thought or insensitivity seems as much a cause for concern as it would have been had she taken a baton and beaten the woman unconscious.
The police have considerable powers and once an individual is taken in custody, police have an equally considerable responsibility to provide for the care of the detained individual.
The people of the province are owed a much more substantive explanation than the one offered thus far by the national police service on this matter.
We are also owed a more detailed accounting of what has occurred and what steps have been taken to ensure police officers employ some common sense when on the job. Your humble e-scribbler knows a goodly number of police officers and has always found them to be competent and professional. The actions here seem highly unusual. Nevertheless, the public are owed a full explanation.
Asked about the potential of such an occurrence two years ago, Inspector Bursey might have said that "within reason" it shouldn't happen at all. Clearly, telling us that "within reason" it is not likely to occur again is no comfort at all.
It is little better than a five dollar surplus army blanket tossed to a naked prisoner in a cell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)