What would Danny do? More like what is Don doing?

It is truly bizarre for a pollster, especially one who does business with at least one of the provincial government's referenced in this Daily News article, to make public comments slamming the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Mayor of Halifax and praising the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

But that what Corporate Research Associate's Don Mills did yesterday in Halifax.

It's possible, of course, that all three get Mill's quarterly omnibus results, but it is still curious to see his comments.

Well, more specifically, it's curious to see this comment:

"If Halifax withdraws from the bid, the consequences for this community will be devastating," Mills told a business audience of more than 200. "We will never get this chance again."

Admittedly the context is different. He's accusing politicians of equivocating. Then he praises Danny Williams for leadership. But if "leadership" produces a situation on, say, Hebron, that matches exactly the situation Mills just described about Halifax, then leadership becomes as useless as its opposite.

Mills' polling can still show Williams being overwhelmingly popular, but the responses to that single question don't give the full picture on what is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The media get a slam as well for reporting on the projected costs of the Halifax Commonwealth Games bid. There's a novel idea: slamming reporters for doing their job. That is soooo effective at generating the coverage you'd like to see.

There's other coverage of Mills' speech. CBC has it. There's also a more complete story in the Chronicle Herald that includes some of Mills' strong criticisms of Premier Rodney MacDonald.

This speech gives us some real insight into Mills' grasp of politics in Atlantic Canada and that should colour how we take his future analyses.

If Mills was really so clued in, then he'd know to thank his lucky stars he lives in Nova Scotia.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, he'd have a Premier showing "leadership" but if someone like Mills stuck his head up to criticise what the "leader" was doing publicly, he be slapped with a lawsuit before his ass hit his seat at the hotel. At the very least, the "leader" would be threatening lawsuits very openly and very publicly.

Mills might even be kissing his polling contract with government, good bye. Subscribers would dry up.

Mills should know when he's got it good.

He should also add a few questions to his omnibus so he can pick up a better view of politics in the Atlantic provinces.

___________________
Update:

From the comments section, this blog link on the Games bid being yanked.

There are accounts of the controversy at the Daily News, a column from the same paper that supports the cancellation based on cost overruns, from the Friday Globe and Mail, a story from Glasgow- also bidding on the games - that claims the Halifax bid was more than double the Glasgow bid, and this one from the Chronicle Herald.

Confusion at Disneyland 2

On Goose Bay and the Conservative's promises:

CBC Here and Now, March 7, 2007

DEBBIE COOPER: Steven Harper also committed to a beefed up military presence in Goose Bay. Is the government still committed to that?

JIM FLAHERTY: Yes.

DEBBIE COOPER: When?

JIM FLAHERTY: The when is being worked on. I mean there is work . . .I know there is because as Finance Minister I see it. There is work afoot to accomplish this. We have only been the government for 13 months. The last group were there for 13years and didn't get a whole bunch of things done.

We've accomplished quite a bit in the 13 months but there's more to be done and the Goose Bay commitment remains.

DEBBIE COOPER: So people are going to have to have more patience there?

JIM FLAHERTY: Yes but not for too long.

But, then there's this testimony by Major General Mike Ward.

Ward is a lot more than the model of the modern major general. As he described himself to the standing committee on national defence:

My role, on behalf of the Deputy Minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff, is to harmonize, synchronize and integrate the Force Development activities of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, as well as the duties carried out by DND's Assistant Deputy Ministers.

Force development is that function that continuously conceives and redesigns the military so that it is better geared to fight the next war than the last one. It includes analysis of government policy on defence and the security environment, as well as we can predict it, out into the future. It uses that analysis to identify possible future scenarios within which we would apply military force or use military skills in things like humanitarian interventions. In those scenarios, we test our forces and our equipment to determine what changes might need to be made as we replace or modernize them at key stages in their lives.

That role, incidentally is Chief Force Development. Basically, if Goose Bay is on anyone's table, it would definitely be on Ward's.

That's what makes his remarks - excerpted below - very telling.

Those familiar with Ottawa will not find it at all bizarre that a defence and security initiative is being lead by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The rest of us can just call that the place is known as Disneyland for a reason.

But I digress.

Standing Committee on National Defence
Thursday, February 8, 2007

Hon. Joe McGuire:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have been concentrating on the equipment required in our overseas operations, and rightly so. Our soldiers are in the field and so on, but the government has announced a major domestic initiative in the north to exercise our sovereignty in that area.

I am just wondering what procurements are required for that initiative. The minister has made some commitments to Goose Bay and other areas that he has in mind for exercising that sovereignty. What kind of equipment--ships, planes, ports, whatever--is going to be required, and how far along is that process? Has it got to the Public Works level? Exactly where is the planning for our northern initiative?

MGen M.J. Ward:

In response to government direction, we've been in the process of developing a “Canada first” defence strategy, which really characterizes the defence policy initiatives that are key to the government's desires. In keeping with that, in the capability development realm, we've been following up with analysis of specific scenarios, including the Arctic, that allow us to understand what types of roles the Canadian Forces can provide in that region, and also against the types of gaps or deficiencies we may have in, for instance, the ability to survey our Arctic, to know what's going on up there, to potentially to respond or to maintain more presence.

So we're going through a number of analyses to look at what our options might be, and that's tied up in the defence strategy that's going through the cabinet process at this time. The government will have us look at a number of initiatives to see how we can do a better job in that particular part of our domestic land space, air space, and approaches.

Hon. Joe McGuire:

Are there any first steps being implemented on the Goose Bay commitment, in Bagotville, and so on, on the initial announcement the minister was making on Goose, and the role Goose was going to play in the north? Is there anything imminent there as far as the equipment purchases or instructions to public works to proceed with some equipment purchases?

MGen M.J. Ward:

We really can't say because of what's in the plan, but there really hasn't been specific action taken on the Goose Bay initiative. [Emphasis added]

Hon. Joe McGuire:

So the whole northern initiative, the arctic initiative, is at a very elementary stage?

MGen M.J. Ward:

Part of it is at the highest levels of government in terms of specifying a lead department to review an arctic strategy. The Privy Council Office certainly has a keen interest in making sure there's a balance of effort and an understanding of who the lead department would be. INAC has been determined to be the lead department.

Hon. Joe McGuire:

They're still trying to identify the department that will lead the initiative? Is that it?

MGen M.J. Ward:

No, my understanding is that INAC has been determined to be the lead department for the development of the strategy, but several government departments also have roles to play in that. Foreign Affairs certainly has a significant role to play, as it affects our offshore or issues beyond our territorial boundary. So it will take some time I think for each of the government departments to get together and discuss those issues. We'll be having discussions in coming weeks with INAC officials just to make sure we each know what each other is doing with regard to the Arctic. So it's at a fairly preliminary stage.

Flaherty coy on federal hand-outs

Federal finance minister Jim Flaherty is a seasoned politician.

You can tell by the way he stuck to his talking points during every scrum and one-on-one interview during his visit to St. John's on Wednesday. He even flashed a grin or two as he repeated the same words over and over again, especially in answer to any question about proposed changes to the Equalization formula. The provincial politicians behind him in the media event - like Fabian Manning and fish minister Loyola Hearn - may have looked like they were having white-hot pokers inserted abruptly into their tenderest places, but Flaherty spoke with the confidence you'd expect of the guy with his hand on the nation's purse.

The CBC paraphrase of his typical response is as close to the actual words that it ought to have quotation marks around it:

Flaherty said the federal government will respect the revised Atlantic Accord, the 2005 agreement between the federal government and Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

There's the thing.

The current federal government has never said it would tamper directly with the offshore revenue deals signed with both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia in January 2005. Those bilateral deals could only be amended with the consent of the parties, and given the situation, it is highly unlikely Danny Williams would ever crack that one open again.

So what's Flaherty going to do?

Well, the federal finance minister knows from his days in provincial government exactly how the provincial governments look at the feds as both a pot of limitless money and as a convenient whipping boy to take the blame for any provincial shortcomings. Flaherty knows full-well the fiscal reality of the various provinces as opposed to the poor-mouth they like to put on for the cameras.

In other words, Danny Williams' public rhetoric about Equalization bounces off Flaherty like ball bearings off a concrete floor. That isn't saying Flaherty is a cinder-block head; to the contrary, Flaherty is a sharp guy and his political smarts make him impervious to the sort of hyperbole Danny Williams likes to toss around.

What Flaherty referred to in his interviews yesterday sounds like good policy in the making. He spoke of providing long-term, stable funding to the provinces based on the federal government's constitutional obligation to provide the top-up commonly known as Equalization.

It would seem pretty clear by now to all but the handful of die-hards that Flaherty won't be removing non-renewables from Equalization calculation as promised in two successive elections (see below). Flaherty and his boss Steve Harper will do something else, i.e. like a variation on O'Brien and count only half the non-renewables. They might add a little deal with provinces can exclude all non-renewables in exchange for a commitment to spend the cash on debt reduction or infrastructure.

The feds might impose a cap on Equalization, as suggested by several people and by the O'Brien expert panel. Under that approach, no province could receive their own revenues, plus the Equalization to-up plus any other sort of Equalization-like cash from Ottawa and wind up with more cash per capita than, say, Ontario. That province doesn't get any Equalization at all.

The Ontario cap wouldn't be such a bad prospect. For starters, Equalization is a top-up. Our goal should be to have a higher per capita income for the provincial government based entirely on its own revenues so that we don't need to get hand-outs from Ottawa. The cap is only important if your goal is to keep sucking on the federal fiscal teat rather than becoming a self-sufficient province.

Think about that the next time you hear Danny Williams get agitated about caps. If he really wanted this place to be like Alberta, he'd be signing a different tune.

What's more, an Ontario cap would still give Newfoundland and Labrador bags of federal cash. Danny Williams may have argued against a cap in 2004 but that was when everyone thought our economy would soon make us a so-called "have" province. As it is, Williams has managed to postpone that for a decade - at least. The Ontario cap will have a negligible effect on provincial revenues. Certainly, the Ontario cap pales in comparison to the balaclava Williams himself has set on virtually all the entire provincial economy.

As for Williams reaction, that is getting increasingly hard to predict. He talks a tough game, but in his last encounter with the federal government he settled for considerably less than what he asked for. Unlike his dealings with the Hebron partners, Williams actually dropped his ask with the feds in 2004. He kept going downward until he hit a figure that the feds would live with. Williams signed on and declared victory but Bond readers can go back and see the whole thing in the archived postings from early 2005.

Williams could declare victory if it looks anything decent. Most people wouldn't know if he got it or not, whatever "it" is. Williams could also declare yet another jihad against Ottawa. Don't count on that having much political impact though. The poll numbers might be big but the federal Conservatives got elected despite Danny Williams not because of him. The local party faithful aren't necessarily faithful to Danny. Even in the worst case scenario, Harper would be losing three members of parliament. It won't affect any future Harper administration, minority or majority.

The real question is not really what Flaherty, the crafty old hand will do with Equalization. Rather, we all can wonder what Danny Williams will do in response.

Bond money would go on something far less spectacular than he has suggested to date. Heck, he might even raise his fist up and declare victory, even though he said "yes" to less.

Again.

_______________________________________

For your amusement, following is a news release from the Conservative Party of Canada on Wednesday, May 26, 2004. Note that it quotes Roland Martin, a former provincial deputy minister of finance from the Peckford era who apparently did some work advising Danny Williams.

Take out of the release what you will. Your humble e-scribbler predicts that Ken Boessenkool holds more sway with Stephen Harper than Rolie Martin ever did.

In any event, for the record, here's the CPC policy statement from 2004:

Expanding revenue capacity of Atlantic Provinces: full access to non-renewable resource wealth

The current equalization formula penalizes provinces which have non-renewable resource revenues by clawing back up to one dollar on every dollar of revenues collected from equalization payments. This discourages investment in what is fast becoming one of the key routes to growth in Atlantic Canada – development of natural resources.

When Alberta discovered oil in the 1940s and 1950s, no such clawback existed. Prior to its discovery of oil, Alberta, too, was a “have-not” region that received equalization-type grants from the federal government. It is simply unconscionable that Paul Martin is crippling development in Atlantic Canada through the punitive equalization program. Despite promises to address this inequity, the federal Liberals have not changed the equalization formula.

Non-renewable resources such as offshore oil and gas are among the most promising avenues for real growth in Atlantic Canada. Developing these resources provides a critical short term investment for longer term growth. When the federal government taxes these revenues away by 70 cents to a dollar, however, they jeopardize the opportunity to establish longer term growth.

A 2001 study by former Newfoundland Deputy Minister of Finance Roland Martin for the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS) called for the removal of oil and gas revenues from the equalization formula while moving towards a ten province standard for calculating equalization. Martin wrote: “The status quo is not an option if Canada is to maintain its competitive position in an increasingly competitive global economy. Without early and fundamental changes to the equalization program, this cornerstone of federalism and fiscal arrangements as we have known it could cease to be recognized as a milestone by other nations and become Canada’s fiscal millstone.” (Roland Martin, Equalization: Milestone or Millstone, p. 41)

A Conservative government led by Stephen Harper will remove non-renewable resources from Equalization so that Atlantic provinces would enjoy the benefit of these revenues. We will also move towards a ten province standard for equalization. These changes will be phased in to ensure that no recipient province will receive less money during the transition to the new formula than the current formula provides.

Trust but verify

A reminder to e-mail subscribers to Bond Papers:

If you haven't been receiving your e-mail, please check for a verification or authentication e-mail delivered via Feedburner. All you have to do is click on the link supplied in the body of the e-mail. That will confirm your address has been entered correctly and start the daily digest flowing.

Hebron coming after 2010

Revealing its long term development plans, ExxonMobil confirmed yesterday it does not expect the Hebron field offshore Newfoundland and Labrador will be developed until sometime after 2010.

________________

The story made it to CBC's political panel on Thursday and the Telegram's print edition on Friday.

Burke needs map to sound policy

From The muse, Joan Burke on the need for the feds to pony up even more money for an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

That's not the funny bit. A half century ago provinces were manning the borders to keep the federal government out of their backyard. Now everyone - including Danny Williams - is looking to get Ottawa to pay for just about everything.

Skip down to the bit where the province's education minister wants to get in on nationally co-ordinated literacy testing but she wants to make sure the tests are relevant to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Think about that for a minute.

We want to test literacy, but we want to make sure that the concept of reading and writing is actually relevant to this province. That sort of comment used to refer to the stunnedness of asking some young fellow from Bung Hole Tickle about the correct method of riding the subway.

Read the next line in the article and you will see what Burke had in mind: map-reading. Apparently being able to read a map is a skill useful only in big cities, where if all else failed you could...oooh...maybe ask someone for directions.

Out here in the middle of the freakin' woods where every tree looks suspiciously like every other tree and on the barrens the whole place is one pile of rocks and low shrubs shrouded in fog, the population consists of some bizarre products of Darwinian evolution who have GSP codes in their DNA.

Only problem is, Burke's theory doesn't quite explain the number of people around here who get lost in the country and die of exposure. "Triptik? We dun need no stinkin' CAA triptik"

By that sort of logic, someone would likely conclude the unfortunate sods were really mainlanders in disguise.

Around these parts, we'd suggest Burke needs a roadmap to a sound literacy policy.

We'd draw one but she may not be able to understand it.

Defamation mania spreads

From Offal News, the latest in Polish defamation lawsuits.

Confusion at Disneyland?

National Defence Headquarters, located at 101 Colonel By Drive in Ottawa and known to some as Disneyland on the Rideau is the scene these days of some policy disagreement between the Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence, and General Rick Hillier, Chief of Defence Staff.

The disagreement seems to be leading to confusion, as two news stories this week attest.

On Tuesday, CBC's Rob North reported from Halifax that the federal government will be going ahead with a plan to create an 800-strong amphibious force to be based in Atlantic Canada. Consisting of ships, submarines, helicopters and soldiers of various kinds, the contingency force would be a special force able to deploy just about anywhere in the world.

North doesn't quote anybody directly in the story, but this sort of thing wouldn't hit the air unless North and his bosses were satisfied it was accurate based on several sources.

Odd then that on Wednesday, the Ottawa Citizen's David Pugliese reports that the contingency force plan will be delayed for at least three years, plans to bring recruits into the system faster will be put on hold and work to bring up to full strength the special force based at Petawawa will
also be slowed.

Pugliese covers defence issues and covers them very well, by most accounts. His story contains quotes from Hillier. Take as an example this one, in which Hillier is obviously talking about the need to adjust expansion plans based on demands for Afghanistan, security support for the Olympics and the realities of trying to expand the Regular Force:

"I've had to take a bit of an appetite suppressant," Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of the defence staff, said in an interview with the Citizen.
...

"All those things are increasing and a big load here and I need to balance that load," Gen. Hillier said.

He stressed that recruiting is still going strong and the military will meet its targets this year to fill the ranks.

Strictly speaking, North's story isn't wrong. The amphibious force will go ahead; it just won't be happening any time soon. At the same time, the contrast between these two stories couldn't be any more stark in their tone and their implications.

The Pugliese story, though, has a bit more detail that suggests some give and take going on between the Minister and Canada's senior soldier.

Pugliese reports that the army commander, Lieutenant General Andrew Leslie, right [Photo: Ottawa Citizen], told a Fraser Institute conference on Tuesday that the army will be "pushing" winter warfare training in the near future. The army shifted away from that skill in favour of skills needed in other climates. Cold weather and Arctic operations are a key component of O'Connor's "Canada First" plan.

There must be a by-election in Labrador West

Hence education minister Joan Burke's speech in Labrador City on women's issues.

Chilly Wally dissects the quiet former pols

A rejoinder to Ryan Cleary's latest column in The Independent.

Bath of cold water?

A chill wind?

The cliches are endless even if the post is far from cliche.

Sullivan explains secret bonus

Former finance minister Loyola Sullivan, whose surprise resignation from the legislature in December spurred days of speculation, has defended $2875 in bonus payments made to members of the legislature in 2004 but not made public until earlier this year.

In his letter to [Speaker Harvey] Hodder, Sullivan said not all the facts and context about how the bonus decision was made have been explained.

Sullivan said restraint measures at the legislature included a two-year wage freeze and a five-per-cent rollback on constituency allowances.

Sullivan added the IEC also "created efficiencies" throughout the house of assembly's operation, including the library and Hansard, "which meant hundreds of thousands of dollars of savings."

The IEC then eliminated a $4,800 discretionary component of constituency allowances, for which members did not need to submit receipts.

Sullivan said in March-April 2004, some MHAs reported they had exhausted their constituency allowances but still had incurred expenses.

Oddly enough, the details of the spending decision were made public by Hodder before Sullivan's letter was sent in mid-February.

What Sullivan - who, along with other members of the Internal Economy commission, approved the bonus payment - didn't explain is how the House of Assembly consistently overspent the allowances budget line item in 2004 and 2005 by a total of almost $1.0 million after the supposed restraint measures were implemented. That couldn't have been done without Sullivan's knowledge and approval.

Since Loyola Sullivan's letter raises once again the numerous questions about what happened before June 2006, who knew, what they knew and what they did about it, Loyola has done the public a tremendous service:

he has given us yet another reason to hold a public inquiry.

NS Highlander killed in accidental shooting

Corporal Kevin Megeney, a reserve soldier with the Nova Scotia Highlanders, died Tuesday in Afghanistan after being shot in the chest, accidentally.

The incident is reportedly under investigation.

Under new management

The New Barrelman was a local blog that died sometime last year. You can find it listed in the "Top o' the Pile" section on the right hand nav bar.

The name was open at first but it has been taken - for some reason - by a blogger somewhere in Asia. Other local blogs have been captured by marketers trying to drive traffic to a host of websites with nothing to do with the original blog.

So......, Sir Robert has taken The New Barrelman as an associated blog, under a slightly different url. Acquisitions in cyberspace are pretty cheap which is a good thing.

There's not much content there so far, but that will change shortly.

Byrne at odds with thinking?

From vocm.com, a short piece on west coast member of parliament Gerry Byrne and reaction to a report on mining by the Fraser Institute:

Byrne at odds with think tank

Liberal MP Gerry Byrne says with the mining industry booming in this province there is no reason for a western based think tank like to take jabs at our success. Byrne was responding to comments by the Fraser Institute on our improvement in the rankings of mining jurisdictions around the world. They questioned the improvement given disputes in the offshore. Byrne told VOCM Back Talk with Bill Rowe it's as if the Fraser Institute doesn't want to see us succeed.

Maybe there's a comment that isn't reported widely.

The news release from the Fraser Institute says pretty clearly:

The Atlantic Provinces also showed significant upward movement, with New Brunswick moving to sixth overall from 18th, Nova Scotia improving to 17th from 35th and Newfoundland and Labrador rising to 22nd from 39th. The Yukon was the lone other Canadian territory to improve, rising to 11th from 21st last year.

The full report bears that out, across the board in all categories. If there were any comments linking mining to the offshore, then any linkage would show the person involved didn't really understand the issues. The provincial government hasn't really noticed mining as a source of revenue. Danny Williams doesn't show it the same level of attention he gives to oil and gas.

Therefore, there isn't much experience that would lead a mining company to shun this province based on actual experience.

So what the heck is Gerry talking about?

Only he and Bill Rowe likely know.

Aussie oil and gas production to jump

Australian oil production may rise 15% in 2007, with gas rising 22%, according to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

The full report includes some interesting observations about trends in the oil and gas industry globally that have echoes in the local political environment. For example:

Increased costs

Costs of developing new projects and production have increased universally across the world’s minerals and energy industries over the past four or five years. Increased costs have been associated with an almost unprecedented increase in the demand for a range of inputs, such as equipment, materials, skilled labour and mining services, required to bring on new capacity. In some cases the available supplies simply cannot meet demand and the associated delays add further costs, reducing production and delaying the start up of new projects.

Political and security risks may impede supply growth

In a number of oil producing countries, sovereign, geopolitical and security risks have the potential to adversely affect supply. In 2006, it is estimated that 10 per cent of production capacity in Nigeria was lost as a result of attacks on production facilities.

Sovereign risk, which includes significant changes to government policies or political interference, also creates uncertainty for oil supply. Recent examples include national governments changing agreements with oil companies or nationalising industries. For example, in the Russian Federation, Royal Dutch Shell and its partners, Mitsui and Mitsubishi were obliged to sell a share of their stakes in the Sakhalin project to Gazprom, the Russian government owned gas company. In Venezuela, the government is converting previous agreements with foreign investors into joint venture agreements in which the nationally owned PDVSA is required to hold a minimum 60 per cent interest. In addition, royalties and corporation taxes applied to the oil industry have been increased by 33 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. Such unpredictable changes to the regulatory and fiscal environment represent an important risk and have the potential to compromise foreign investment and limit significant expansions of supply. [Emphasis added]

ABARE also notes a decline in exploration over the past decade. In 2005, 10% of wells drilled globally were exploration wells, compared to 20-25% in the 1990s. Interest is being focused in a smaller number of exploration projects which have higher comparative exploration costs.

In that context, this trend will make it much more difficult for Newfoundland and Labrador to attract new investment for exploration. Costs of operating in the North Atlantic are already high, thereby reducing profitability. Coupled with the costs of what ABARE calls "sovereign risk" and the general increase in exploration costs, government policies may well lead to a dramatic decline in exploration offshore in the next five to 10 years.

Alberta pitches oil patch; O'Brien to pitch tent in desert

Here's the difference between a booming economy and one forecast to plateau for a while.

Representatives from business and government in Alberta are in the United Kingdom looking for investment. They have as a foundation the tremendous success of a booming economy and a province that is widely known to welcome investment from anywhere.

Meanwhile, Kevin O'Brien, the Minister of Business will be packing up his trade show booth and heading to Qatar and Japan, of all places, to explore what are vaguely described as "opportunities."

He has as his foundation the province's well-deserved reputation as a place where the government makes it damn hard to do business. O'Brien will likely find he is as successful in peaking interest in his province as Albania was in the 1980s.

The plain observation here is that O'Brien has no leads, no contacts and nothing of consequence to accomplish. He is just going to do an old-fashioned junket: attend a few meetings, visit some trade shows and - at the end - pronounce on all the marvelous possibilities that exist out there. We've all seen it a thousand times and it typically produces exactly squat when it comes to meaningful results.

Of course, real business opportunities would be developed by the private sector businesses in the province, not by a provincial government minister. Consider, for example, that Fortis just cut an amazing deal to expand its portfolio without any help from O'Brien or his colleague Trevor Taylor.

This administration needs to recognize its economic development value consists entirely of creating the right climate for business development. Sadly, there seems to be an insistence that it - i.e. government, alone - is the engine to do anything.

Throughout the 1990s, the province's economy developed and diversified based on a simple understanding that government does not create jobs. By 2007, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have come to realize that their government has taken a leap away from ideas that have shown their value at home and abroad to return to policies from the 1980s that were known even then to be disastrously wrong.

What we have is an economy that remains underdeveloped and will remain so for some considerable time.

In the meantime, the best the provincial government has to offer is yet another cabinet minister on yet another publicly-funded trip to yet another bevy of exotic locales to explore yet more vague "opportunities".

The only ones who seem to get anything out of these safaris are the ministers and their retainers, who get to see the glories of thriving economies - everywhere else, of course - and the travel agents who book the passage.

Dunderdale slags Big Oil

That should come as a shock.

The issue is a recent court decision on rules on local investment set by the offshore regulatory board in 2004 and challenged by the oil companies doing business in the province.

The courts ruled against the oil companies who will seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Notice that at no point does Dunderdale say anything positive about the offshore board which implemented the new levy before Danny Williams decided the whole crowd in the Duckworth Street offices were not looking out for the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Williams thought the board needed Andy Wells to get it right.

Apparently not.

NL hostile to business investment?

From Canadian Press, story gaining national attention on Monday, the idea that the provincial government's actions on several prominent business files is discouraging investment in the province.

"For the rest of business in Canada, Newfoundland is a somewhat distant and not very well understood place," [business professor Joseph] D'Cruz said.

"I suspect that the rest of Canada also believes that the hand of government is very heavy in Newfoundland . . . that government is also quite involved in business decision-making in a way, for example, that the Ontario government is not."

From the St. John's Board of Trade comes a comment so general and bland as to confirm the substance of David Cochrane's recent speech to that body.

No wonder Mr. Cochrane's remarks are garnering such attention.

Boeing may cut off C-17

Boeing may shutting down production of the C-17 long-range airlifter due to a shortage of orders. The company has taken the first step by cancelling parts orders with its supply chain.

Based on the Conservative Party's defence platform - reportedly drawn up by retired general and former defence industry lobbyist Gordon O'Connor before he was appointed Minister of National Defence - Canada is buying four of the massive aircraft at a cost of $1.8 billion plus an additional $1.6 billion.

Canada's order won't be affected by the Boeing decision, unless the country were to try and buy more C-17s.

If this guy ran Hydro...

The Lower Churchill would have been built already, employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the process, providing plenty of power to markets at home and abroad and making money to boot.

As it is, Fortis' expertise in large energy projects is being directed at development outside Newfoundland and Labrador.

That's all fine and good, but it makes one wonder what might have been if things had turned out differently 15 years ago.