Public execution delayed for Speaker’s Christmas Party

Under Standing Order 9 of the House of Assembly, it’s pretty simple:

9. If at 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon except on Wednesday, the business of the House is not concluded, the Speaker shall leave the Chair until 7 o’clock. At the hour of 5 o’clock on Wednesday afternoon the Speaker
adjourns the House without question put. (1951 SO 7 R&S 1999)

Deputy speaker Tom Osborne decided to toss the rulebook in the corner this afternoon during debate on a resolution to fire child and youth advocate Darlene Neville.

The business of the House was not concluded at 5:30 pm.

There was no prior motion to extend the sitting or vary the rules.

Osborne simply interrupted the speaker who had the floor and put the whole show off until Monday.

The reason?

The Speaker’s Annual Christmas party – right, not exactly as illustrated -  was scheduled to start at 5:30.

-srbp-

Harvest Energy sold

Harvest Energy Trust announced today that the trust has been sold to Korea National Oil Company (KNOC).

Included in the sale is the oil refinery located at Come by Chance, Newfoundland.

Until this sale, KNOC operated only one other project in Canada, the BlackGold oilsands operation acquired in 2006.

-srbp-

Hebron cuts: Dunderdale blunders; will NALCOR alone foot bill for replacement work?

In the House of Assembly on Wednesday, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale confirmed what Bond Papers told you about on December 11:

There are no provisions of the final benefits agreement signed in August 2008 that cover a work cancellation and mandate that it has to be replaced by work of equal value or the cash equivalent.

Nothing could be further from the truth

Dunderdale issued a highly misleading news release on December 11 that claimed “any such issues were contemplated in the Benefits Agreement and the replacement value of the work was captured and protected."

As you learned here last week, nothing could be further from the truth.

Dunderdale told the legislature on Wednesday (December 16) that the agreement contained a provision on amendments and another on dispute resolution. There was no dispute, according to Dunderdale, as the parties came together and achieved an agreement.

Well that’s not the same as having “the replacement value of the work”  already “captured and protected”.  That’s not  “copper-fastened”, either as Dunderdale also claimed. That’s people getting together and hammering out a new deal which could include provisions among the partners as to who will foot the bill for what amounts to a political decision – the replacement benefits – rather than a purely commercial one.

. And as for that section on amendments, here it is in its entirety:

12.3 Amendment.

No amendment to this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by authorized representatives of all Parties

Nor is the new deal an actual, finalised agreement.  As Dunderdale told the House of Assembly, there is an agreement in principle that must now be translated into a legal document.  There’s still lots of room for further changes, in other words in a project not due to be sanctioned until 2012.

Abandon Ship!

By the end of the questioning, Dunderdale became so rattled that she abandoned her false claim last week that the benefits were secured within the agreement:

Mr. Speaker, the parties came together, we did not even need to use mechanisms provided in the Hebron Benefits Agreement. [Emphasis added]

That pretty much blew what was left of her credibility out of the water.

Dunderdale also disclosed that the total value of the cancelled work is less than $50 million.  Her office earlier refused to disclose what they claimed was commercially sensitive information.

The Hebron partners – including the provincial government’s NALCOR Energy -cancelled the work because it was deemed “uneconomic and has significant execution and schedule risks” for the project Dunderdale estimates may cost as much as $7.0 billion.

NALCOR to foot bill?

If the agreement in principle is actually signed, it is unclear at this point if the $50 million of replacement work will be provided by the oil companies or by the provincial government’s energy company in its capacity as an equity partner on the project.

-srbp-

The die is cast aside

“The die is cast!”

That’s what then-education minister Joan Burke said back in 2007 when the current provincial administration unveiled its plan to give Sir Wilfred Grenfell College something called “autonomy” from Memorial University. 

She was arrogantly dismissing concerns raised about the feasibility of creating a second university in the province.

Burke even used the word “independent” in a news release in 2007 - “Grenfell College is about to gain independence…” – something she predicted would happen in 2008. 

Well, in 2009, none of the promises came true.

And you can tell none of the promises came true because the announcement was made by Darrin King, the education minister, and not Danny Williams, the premier behind the whole drive.

You can also tell there’s nothing to get excited about because the release is gigantic – 13 paragraphs – and there are no fewer than five media contacts.  The way these things usually go, the less positive news there is, the more names are listed as media contacts.

Under the proposed approach, Grenfell will lose its separate and proud identity, becoming instead something to be called Memorial University  - Corner Brook.

It also won’t get a separate president or senate, as recommended by two consultants hired in 2005 to look at the whole idea of Grenfell “autonomy”.  Their Option 1A was the one supposedly on the books to be implemented.

Instead, the current senior official – named the Principal – will continue to be called the Principal and will report directly to the President of Memorial.  And there will be a separate budget presented to government through Memorial University in St. John’s.

Whoopee ding.

The whole thing looks suspiciously like the consultant’s Option 2A  but without the administrative clout of having a separate president for the new university at Corner Brook.

And what were the disadvantages noted for that by the consultants, you may ask?

• common Senate reduces Grenfell’s academic autonomy and
  development potential;
• little change from current unsatisfactory situation.

That’s right.  The consultant’s considered that the approach government ultimately  would actually reduce Grenfell’s autonomy and offer little change from the status quo.

Looks like the die for Grenfell autonomy Joan Burke talked about wound up getting cast alright, cast aside.

Expect lots of negative reaction to this as the magnitude of the broken promise starts to sink in for people in Corner Brook.

-srbp-

The Placentia Bay Nostradamus

If the Telegram editors ever get jammed up for copy, they could easily recycle Ray Guy columns from 40 years ago. 

Most people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between goings on then and now.

Back then, partridgeberries were the economic salvation of this cove or that harbour.  These days, cranberries will replace the income from a pulp and paper mill in Grand Falls.

Back then people were complaining about the great partisan conspiracy against the beloved saviour of His People.

These days, Bill Westcott is lacing into Peter Pickersgill on much the same basis. Poor Pickersgill has the extra misfortune of not only being the progeny of mainlanders but of being not pur laine hisself:

Despite spending a lot of his adult life in Salvage, we must remember PIC is not even an (Island-born) Newfoundlander, one of da boys! His genes, I think are rooted in Winnipeg and Ottawa.

That explains everything, of course.

There is no way the truth could be known by someone who wasn’t born here or who doesn’t live here.

Sure John Hickey said so dealing with another one of the confounded traitors:

Of course Mr. Waugh is entitled to his opinions on any and all Labrador matters, even as he writes from the comfort of his Nova Scotia home.

And Bill Westcott? 

He writes his truth from Florida.

That must be Florida, Bonavista Bay.

-srbp-

Bon Deal. Bad Deal.

Turns out buying NB Power could be a very bad deal for Hydro-Quebec.

Of course, that would make it a very good deal for New Brunswickers.

Update:  As Mark correctly noted in a comment, a bad deal for one doesn't make it a good deal for the other.

If you read the article, though, you will see that many of the points made early on discuss what are the positive aspects for New Brunswick.  There are positive aspects for Hydro-Quebec as well; the variation just depends on what the price of power turns out to be down the road.

And of course, by the end of the article, Claude Garcia  of the Montreal Economic Institute, makes an argument based about MEi's projections for power prices over the medium- to long-term.

Despite the huge difference between the price offered and the real value of the assets being acquired, no allowance is made for the increase in electricity prices likely to result from the enforcement of a new international treaty significantly limiting carbon emissions. This deal is not acceptable as currently structured. The price is too high for the benefits to be obtained.Despite the huge difference between the price offered and the real value of the assets being acquired, no allowance is made for the increase in electricity prices likely to result from the enforcement of a new international treaty significantly limiting carbon emissions. This deal is not acceptable as currently structured. The price is too high for the benefits to be obtained.

-srbp-

Eight appointed to Order of Newfoundland and Labrador

His Honour John Crosbie inducted eight new members  into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador in a ceremony at Government House last week.

The inductees to the Order are Gerard Blackmore, Donna Butt, Jon Lien, Hazel Newhook, Gladys Osmond, John Perlin, and Margaret Pike. Alan Perry was invested as an honorary member of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. Geoffrey William Stirling will be inducted at a later time.

The Order of Newfoundland and Labrador recognizes individuals who have demonstrated excellence and achievement in any field of endeavour benefiting in an outstanding manner Newfoundland and Labrador and its residents. An individual who is not a Canadian citizen or current or former long-term resident of the province, but who has demonstrated excellence in their field, and has benefited the province and its residents in an outstanding manner, may be nominated as an honorary member.

As Chancellor of the Order, the Lieutenant Governor presented an insignia of the Order, a stylized pitcher plant, to each inductee, as well as a miniature of the insignia, a lapel pin and a certificate signed by the Chancellor and sealed with the Seal of the Order.

-srbp-

Net debt and liabilities

In the next of this series of snapshots of the provincial government’s financial state, let’s take a look at few more charts.

First, there’s net debt.  That’s the sum of assets less liabilities.  This table was taken from data compiled by RBC economics from provincial budget documents going back to 1981. The scale on the left is measured in millions of Canadian dollars.

That big jump in 1993-1994 can be directly attributed to changes in federal transfers instituted to deal with the federal government’s financial problems and the recession which had begun three years earlier.

The jump in 2003 is one your humble e-scribbler can’t readily explain and there seems to be some discrepancy in the government’s financial statements.  RBC has used the second set of figures but there seems to have been a revision done in 2004 to the figures for the previous year.

The big drop over the two years between 2006 and 2007 is attributable to one thing and one thing only:  a doubling of the provincial government’s financial assets, basically represented by temporary investments. That’s all oil royalties flowing from  deals struck before 2003.

So when you see the provincial government crowing about debt reduction, they are really talking about the increase in cash they have, not the real reduction in liabilities. There is $1.8 billion in temporary investments held by the provincial government directly and another pile of cash and on-financial assets in various agencies and Crown corporations that brings the total assets up to $4.4 billion.  The $12.4 billion in liabilities minus the $4.4 in assets gives you the current net debt of $8.0 billion.

That’s clear from the second chart which shows only the liabilities as presented in the Public Accounts from 1998 to 2008.

The dip in liabilities in 2007 into 2008 comes from a drop in the unfunded liability in public sector pensions.  That number was cut in half by a combination of spending by the provincial government starting under Grimes and continuing under Williams.  But the biggest part of the drop is directly attributable to the $2.0 billion one time payment from the federal government in 2005.

Now some smarty-pants will notice that there hasn’t been a huge drop since 2005 that would equal the $2.0 billion plus a few more contributions that brought down the unfunded liability.   Well that’s because there have been some other liabilities incurred since 2005, like some new borrowing.  Overall, though, there has been a reduction in the total liabilities with the biggest reduction being the change in unfunded liabilities. 

Incidentally, that pension liability is still there but there is now cash to deal with it. 

Now as a last chart, let’s take a look at the net borrowings numbers.  We looked at the net borrowings per capita, but let’s look at the actual net borrowing figures for the past decade. Remember that  net borrowings are the total amount borrowed less any money set aside to pay the debt when it comes due.

Net borrowing is about a billion dollars higher than it was a decade ago.

-srbp-

Hebron changes: uncertainty over implications of work cancellation

Under questioning in the House of Assembly on Monday, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale couldn’t point to a section of the benefits agreement that allowed a replacement of work cancelled by the Hebron partners in September.

Dunderdale could only say that there was an unspecified “sub-agreement”. 

She’ll probably have trouble finding the magic clause she thinks is there.  The benefits agreement is specifically identified as a stand-alone document that isn’t affected by other parts of the overall deal except as provided within the benefits agreement.  There’s no section that refers to offsets for cancelled work.

Dunderdale told the legislature the provincial government was represented through NALCOR Energy as the equity partner when the decision was made to chop the “sub-sea drilling template and the components of the field mooring system and positioning and docking system.”

However, when asked about the potential impact on communities like Marystown, Dunderdale answered as if the provincial government didn’t have an equity stake:

Mr. Speaker, some of these questions are better put to the operators to explain the scope of work, the magnitude of work, the kind of expertise that is required and the kind of services that are going to be required to do this work. All we can do, as a government, is negotiate an offshore oil and gas project with specific benefits around the kind of work that is required to construct. In this case, Mr. Speaker, modification needs to be made in order to reduce delays and proper execution.

She’s right, of course.  The 4.9% stake amounts to exactly nothing when it comes to substantive decisions if the government acts as an oil company/partner. The Big Players needed to “reduce delays and [ensure] proper execution” and the provincial government – apparently reduced to a bit player -  simply followed along.

That evident lack of control exercised by the provincial government is the opposite of what people were told when the equity stake idea was being sold politically. But it is consistent with the spirit of a section of the financial agreement that obliges the provincial government to back the oil companies on any regulatory issues as the oil companies see fit.

The Hebron partners were originally supposed to submit a development application this month to the offshore regulatory.  However, the changes made to the fabrication program a year after final agreements were signed points to the potential for further delays.

The Hebron project is not yet sanctioned by the partners.  Under the agreement with the provincial government, they do not have to sanction the project – that is approve it for development – at all.  They don’t have to green-light the development even if the project clears regulatory approval.

The final agreements signed in 2008 provided for less oil and possibly fewer local benefits than the 2007 memorandum of understanding.

-srbp-

Net borrowings up since 2000

 

Net borrowing per person is higher now than it was in 2000, according to the province’s audited financial statements.

In Fiscal Year 2000, net borrowings  - accumulated borrowing less money set aside to pay off debt when it comes due (sinking funds) – stood at $10,684 per person in the province.

The number hit $13,074 in 2004 and has stayed in the same neighbourhood ever since.  Part of the reason for that is a drop in population since 2004.  The other reason is the increase in net borrowings since 2000.  Net borrowings increased in the period from $5.8 billion in 2000 to $6.6 billion last year.

 

-srbp-

Energy audio and video roundup

1.  From CBC New Brunswick, a panel discussion involving the leader of the New Brunswick Conservative, Green and New Democratic parties and energy minister Greg Byrne.

2. From CBC Newfoundland and Labrador on 01 Dec 09, an interview with former premier Roger Grimes on the latest developments in the Churchill Falls saga.

3.  CBC Radio Crosstalk with guest Jim Feehan discussing Churchill Falls.

4.  Premier Danny Williams scrums with reporters after a speech in Calgary. At no point does Williams point out for the Alberta reporters that he spent five years trying to get Hydro-Quebec to take an equity stake in the Lower Churchill without any discussion of redress for the 1969 contract but couldn’t get them interested.  That was at the same time that he insisted that he wouldn’t cut a deal with HQ without redress.

-srbp-

Indebted to Ottawa

The provincial government owes the Government of Canada more than a half a billion dollars in a combination of overpayments for federal transfers and a loan received in 2005.

That’s according to figures contained in the provinces audited financial statements known as the Public Accounts. The federal debt for 2008 was $535,150,000 down from $568,247,000 in 2004.

But in  Fiscal Year 2004, the total amount owed to the federal government stood at $191 million, made up entirely of accumulated overpayments for Equalization and health and social transfers.

In the way the transfers are made, overpayments occur for every provincial government and every provincial government has some level of debt from this source. The overpayments result from the difference in using estimates of taxation and population to make calculations in advance and then comparing those with actual performance calculations made after the payments are set and dispersed.

In Newfoundland and Labrador’s case, the provincial government  - and some other provinces – took advantage of a federal interest free loan in 2004.  Under a measure announced by then finance minister Ralph Goodale, provincial governments who had qualified for Equalization in the preceding the years could qualify for an interest-free loan from the federal government. 

Newfoundland and Labrador received a loan of $378.4 million.  About $100 million of that has been repaid.

-srbp-

On the one hand…

Jean-Thomas Bernard, economics professor at Laval, finds the Hydro-Quebec move to the Maritimes a bit puzzling since he believes that HQ will have to bring expensive power online to feed the Maritimes.

"My position is that cheap hydro is gone, definitely gone," Bernard said.

"We still have a fair amount of (undeveloped) hydro but this is expensive hydro. We're talking about 10 cents (per kilowatt hour), 12 cents," he said, referring specifically to the Romaine megaproject far from Montreal on the province's north shore - poised to begin bringing 1,550 megawatts of power online for Hydro-Québec in 2014.

On the other hand, Jean-Thomas Bernard also thinks that New Brunswick would actually win from this deal:

However, Bernard said in the long-term Hydro-Québec may regret this deal because the corporation may wind up selling its power to New Brunswick at a much cheaper rate than to its other customers in the United States or in Ontario.

The same issue is at the heart of both Bernard’s comments.  He is looking at the pricing issue and the cost of developing new power projects.

In the short-term HQ gains markets;  in the medium to long term it may face a situation where it could sell the power more lucratively elsewhere but be forced to sell at lower prices in New Brunswick under the terms of the MOU.

It’s an interesting observation about a complex issue.

But here’s an idea for you to consider:  if La Romaine and other new HQ projects are being developed at the price of around 10 to 12 cents per kilowatt hour, how would the Lower Churchill compare to that?

-srbp-

Prov Gov quietly buys into optical manufacturing

In 2008, the provincial government quietly invested $277,000 in First Choice Vision Centre according to the audited financial statements of government released recently by the provincial finance department.

There’s no news release or ministerial statement on the cash from either the business or innovation departments in 2008.

First Choice operates retail eyeglass stores across Newfoundland and also has a lens manufacturing facility.

The government received shares in exchange for the cash but there is no information on government’s website that gives any indication what the cash for for.

Unlike previous years, the 2008 audited financial statements contain no explanatory notes on investments.

-srbp-

Dead companies still on government asset books

The provincial government is still carrying shares in two dead companies on its books as assets even though the companies are now out of business and the chances of recovering any cash from them is virtually non-existent.

A total of $1.0 million in shares in Consilient and SAC Manufacturing are still listed as investments in Volume II of the Public Accounts, the audited financial statements for the provincial government.

SAC Manufacturing went out of business less than six months after the provincial government injected a half million dollars into that company.

Consilient, a high technology company, went bankrupt last year. it was featured in a report by the province’s auditor general on investments that, among other things, lacked adequate documentation and security.

Unlike past years, the Public Accounts section that includes these companies doesn’t contain any notes on existing holdings and any new ones acquired during the year. There is only reference to $3.3 million being available to write-off bad investments. 

There is no indication any of the investments have been written off. 

That’s despite a note in the 2008 audited financial statements which said the half million dollars for SAC Manufacturing would be written off over a year ago:

During 2006-07, the Province acquired 500 Class “B”Common shares at a cost of $500,000. Commencing in June 2007,
these shares are conditionally redeemable based on after tax earnings. All shares must be redeemed no later than 19 December 2016.

During 2007-08, the company ceased operations and, as there is now no reasonable prospect for redemption of these shares, the full amount of the investment has been included in the provision for investment write-downs.

That’s not the only peculiarity in the recent work by the auditor general about one of these companies. 

An omnibus report on previous audits, released in November 2009, made up the recommendation related to original audit.  The report replaced the original list of five suggested changes and actions with one that wasn’t made originally.  The AG then reported that the innovation department was making progress on the phony recommendation.

-srbp-

Hebron benefits not secured

The highly touted Hebron offshore oil project hasn’t completed environmental review, it hasn’t been sanctioned and there’s no development application yet but already the amount of work on the project is being scaled back, according to news release from the province’s natural resources department.

According to the release, project lead ExxonMobil has informed the provincial government that it won’t be building the “sub-sea drilling template and the components of the field mooring system and positioning and docking system.”

The release says the elements are “uneconomic and come with significant execution and schedule risks.”  Put another way that likely means the companies don’t believe the work can be completed in the province and the alternatives are too costly to consider.  The work will now be scratched entirely.

No provision for replacement in agreement despite Dunderdale claim

And while the provincial natural resources department claims the cancelled work will be replaced, there’s no guarantee that will actually occur.

The release quotes natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale as saying that the provincial government “had the foresight to ensure that any such issues were contemplated in the Benefits Agreement and the replacement value of the work was captured and protected.”

There are no provisions of the final benefits agreement signed in August 2008 that cover such a cancellation.

And what’s more the release confirms there’s no such provision when it states that:

An amendment to the Benefits Agreement will now be developed by the parties to implement this arrangement.

If the situation was already “captured and protected” there wouldn’t need for an amendment – that is, a change – to the benefits agreement.

The benefits agreement contains a clause (3.3) which exempts the companies from having to provide any benefit contained in the agreement unless the offshore board approves the benefits plan, the federal and provincial ministers approve the plan and the project is sanctioned.

At least two of those three preconditions have not been met.

The agreement does contain a dispute resolution mechanism.  There’s no indication if that has been triggered or if it may be triggered should the companies and government fail to agree on replacement benefits.

Valuation of cancelled work “commercially sensitive”

But wait:  it gets better.

The same news release claims that “[s]hould the operator be unable to identify an equivalent amount of replacement work by June 30, 2010, a payment will be made to the province equal in value to the amount of work not replaced. These funds will then be used by government for a construction project for the benefit of the oil and gas industry.”

The public will never know because the department is refusing to release the value of the cancelled work.

Contacted today by Bond Papers, a spokesperson for the department refused to release what was described as “commercially sensitive” information.

-srbp-

Can a bowtie be far behind?

Newly minted tourism minister Terry French seems to have a thing for Joe Smallwood.

Consider this bit of his answer to a question about the province’s tourism budget:

Do you know how many awards we have won in marketing in this Province? We have not won one, we have not won ten, and we have not won twenty - fifty-one awards.

French couldn’t have nailed the Smallwood trademark any better if he’d practiced it for hours with Kevin Noble.

There is no truth to the rumour that French was spotted recently in the mall looking for bowties.

But he might have asked Santa for one.

-srbp-

Electro-Jihad: the national view

From CBC’s The National and the panel review of 2009, comes Chantal Hebert’s assessment of the most under-reported story being the Hydro-Quebec/NB Power deal. 

You’ll find it about half way through that vid.  A specific clip should turn up shortly and that link will go up instead, but for now you have to scan through the full vid of The National. [Update:  and here it is.]

The thing is splitting the Atlantic provinces, according to Hebert.  It raises questions about national policy in several different ways. Andrew Coyne and Rex Murphy quickly chimed in to add to the assessment.  All noted the absence of any federal party leadership on the issue since it has implications for national economic policy and the free flow of goods and services across the country. 

Chantal Hebert hit a particularly sore point that remains under-reported within the under-reported story, namely the split within caucuses over the issue.  The Liberals especially have a problem with Quebec and New Brunswick members of parliament going one way and the Newfoundland crew taking “their orders from you-know-who” in Hebert’s words.

How true that is, and if the panel had noticed Michael Ignatieff ’s comments when he was in St. John’s a couple of weeks ago, they’d have seen a much bigger problem facing Ig and the federal Liberal caucus down the road a ways.

Meanwhile, in another corner, you-know-who is leading his provincial Conservative troops back to their ideological home in the Conservative party after a brief sojourn in the petulant box.

Wonder what that means for some of the crowd in the Liberal caucus who’ve been taking their orders  - as Chantal put it – from “you-know-who?”

-srbp-

Rorke’s other Drift

The present advocate reviewed the case again - and I cannot speak for the advocate, only what was given to me - he felt that the review was unnecessary but would continue based on the actions of the previous advocate.

That’s child, youth and family services minister Joan Burke during Question Period in the House of Assembly on December 10. 

She’s referring to retired judge John Rorke and a review of a tragic death in Labrador initiated by his predecessor. 

Now all these high-fallutin’ legal notions might be more than a humble e-scribbler can grasp but surely it is just dead wrong for someone to state an opinion on an investigation before it is concluded.

Wouldn’t this be like the judge saying  - before any evidence had been presented - that he could see no reason in wasting everyone’s time on this and entering a verdict right off the bat?

And it would be even worse  - wouldn’t it? - if, having made such a preliminary judgment, he then communicated that observation to someone outside his office.

Now if Judge Rorke, as he used to be, has reviewed the material collected to date and has reached a conclusion, he certainly has the power to do so and cease any further inquiry into the matter.

It’s spelled out clearly in the law:

18. The advocate, in his or her discretion, may refuse to review or investigate or may cease to review or investigate a complaint where…e) in his or her opinion the circumstances of the complaint do not require investigation; …”.

How very peculiar that the former judge would persist in a review which he had already decided was unnecessary and that he could stop on his own authority.

How very peculiar indeed.

-srbp-

Fortis/ENEL Expropriation, one year later

Outside the legislature on Wednesday, Premier Danny Williams had this to say about the legal and financial problems that are still hanging around after last December’s seizure of assets by the government under a hastily compiled expropriation bill.

The expropriation will come with a purchase price, but Williams said he now plans to deduct the cost of severance and environmental cleanup from the final amount.

"So, if the possible environmental exposure and, or, the severance were X amount, and the amount that the assets were valued at were substantially less, well, then obviously there would be no payments of cash from the government," Williams said.

One of the great unreported facts of this expropriation – unreported by the conventional media, that is – is that the expropriation didn’t just affect AbitibiBowater.

Nope.

Included in the seizure were assets of Newfoundland and Labrador-based Fortis Inc and an Italian company called ENEL. 

The former was involved in a hydro project that supplied power to the former Abitibi mill at Grand Falls-Windsor and sold the rest to the provincial energy corporation.

The latter was involved in a hydro project at Star Lake that had absolutely nothing to do with supplying anything to the mill.  The Star Lake generating plant was built in response to a call for proposals by the province’s energy corporation about a decade ago. The plant supplied power to the grid to reduce emissions from the diesel plant at Holyrood.

Now if you take the Premier’s comments at face value you get a truly amazing thing and one that is unlikely to be swallowed that easily by the companies involved.

If there are any environmental liabilities related to the Abitibi mill, it would be quite a stretch to suggest that ENEL and Fortis somehow have any responsibility for them given that their operations were not for running the mill.  ENEL has got a real case in this respect, one would suppose.

By the Premier’s construction a company like ENEL could undertake legitimate business activities based on a government contract entered into in good faith by all parties only to find itself, in less than a decade, not only without the assets it paid for but without any compensation whatsoever for the government seizure.

And the excuse for stiffing them is that they somehow gained a liability for something they had no responsibility for in the first place.

This is one of those moments where you’d wonder if the Premier would be quite so calm about it all if someone were trying to pull the same stunt on him.

Meanwhile, one wonders if the rapprochement between the provincial Conservatives and their federal cousins might possibly have something to do with trying to get Ottawa to protect the Newfoundland and Labrador treasury from the fall-out of last year’s seizure.  The federal government has to deal with the international repercussions – like the NAFTA challenge Abitibi filed – but there doesn’t seem to be anything stopping the feds from recovering their costs once the international bits are settled.

Of course, all of this really makes a mockery of recent efforts by the provincial government to win sympathy for its case against Hydro-Quebec.

If the Americans really started to care about it all anyway, might those same New York financiers who supposedly listened sympathetically to the luncheon speech a couple of weeks ago feel quite so favourably disposed to the Premier’s cause if they got the full story on how Fortis and ENEL got screwed over by the Premier’s seizure?

This expropriation business is a long way from settled and the bills are a long way from being paid.  Something says some of the bills won’t be settled in cash, either. 

Payback will be a mother.

-srbp-