Head-scratching and nose-pulling over latest twist in Matthews appointment debacle

A few of the people steadfastly supporting the provincial government’s pork-barrel attempt to get Elizabeth Matthews on the offshore regulatory board were left scratching their heads Tuesday evening. [changed verb tense]

Some are so perplexed trying to reconcile their stories with the facts that they are even calling for a public inquiry

The reason is simple.  Yet another aspect of the story they have been spreading is blowing away in the face of facts. 

The specific bit now boiling off faster than a Japanese reactors’ cooling water is the claim that Elizabeth Matthews didn’t know about her board appointment or that her appointment included a seat on the board, depending on how you interpret the comments. 

On Friday, Matthews responded to a Liberal opposition news release that noted she was appointed to the offshore board on December 21 with effect from January 1, 2011. CBC provincial affairs reporter David Cochrane tweeted a series of comments on this, including comments about Matthews:

(March 11)  “Where are you getting this from?  Feds tell me her appt isn’t finalized at all…I spoke to Matthews directly.  She says she is not on the board….EM says she has never been told of any appointment.  Do Libs have draft letter never sent?…Skinner says they nominated EM in January…”.

Cochrane put Matthews’ comments to Shawn Skinner in a scrum on Monday.  Skinner agreed that Matthews hadn’t been notified and that’s the story CBC ran with on Tuesday.  Skinner also mentioned that the appointment needed an order in council but insisted that Matthews didn’t know about the appointment.

Well, the order in council clinches it:

If you look on the left-hand side of the document, you will see the list of people to whom officials of the cabinet secretariat distributed the order.  “P” is the Premier.  The Natural Resources and Public Service Secretariat deputy ministers got copies, as did the Attorney General, the Deputy Clerk of the Executive Council and the file.

And so did someone named E. Matthews.

Just so that everyone understands just how crucial this document is, understand that the order in council is one of the basic legal instruments of our system of government.  You can find a handy definition of what an order in council is over at the Privy Council Office website along with a searchable database of these public documents.

To paraphrase, an order in council is a legal instrument made by the cabinet, called the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by powers given by a law or, less frequently, the royal prerogative.  In most provinces, orders in council are made on the recommendation of the responsible minister and take legal effect only when signed by the Lieutenant Governor.

They don’t get back-dated.  And they damn well don’t get left sitting idly around somewhere unattended.  The people who handle these things are nothing if not diligent to the point of anal retentivism about making sure everything is done just so. That’s not a knock on them; to the contrary, the people in the Executive Council office are among the most trustworthy and responsible people anywhere on the planet.

They don’t shag up, as a rule.

And in this case, they’d have extra incentive not to make a mistake.  As Shawn Skinner pointed out on Monday, these appointments belong entirely to the Premier.  Kathy Dunderdale gets to make them just like her predecessor Danny Williams did. That isn’t what happened before 2003, by the way.

If Kathy picked Liz, then there’d be hell to pay if Liz did not know that she could start earning cash come the New Year.

Nor is it really plausible that Kathy Dunderdale, Shawn Skinner or any of their senior staff might have buggered up and not mentioned to Liz she had a seat on the board.

Nor is it likely that they thought one didn’t happen without the other.  Shawn Skinner’s been pretty clear since Monday that they considered it a two-stage process, but stage one happened in December. 

The order in council makes the appointment to the board first.  Then it puts Matthews forward as a vice-chair, subject to federal approval.  That’s what Skinner told reporters on Monday.  As it turned out, the feds made a counter-offer to accept Matthews contingent on the province accepting a second vice-chair by federal appointment.

Nor is it likely David Cochrane either misunderstood what Matthews told him or made a fairly consistent mistake in conveying it via Twitter or anywhere else. Matthews relayed what he got and consistently put the comments to Skinner.

Now Liz may have misunderstood what was going on, but that’s a different – and entirely possible – thing. 

For something like this, Matthews would have been entitled to attend any board meetings after January 1, 2011 and participate like any other member.  The only thing that hadn’t been settled up to the time she bailed on the whole thing was the second part of the order.  That is, the federal government had not agreed to her appointment to the vice-chair’s job.

But her board appointment on behalf of the province?

Full legal effect on December 21.

With Matthews’ decision to bail on the appointment, the whole vice-chair position at the board is up in the air.  The idea of two vice-chairs appears to have been nothing more than an effort to have a federal appointee to offset Matthews. 

With her appointment now dead, there’s an opportunity for both St. John’s and Ottawa to agree on an open competition to be followed by an appointment based on qualifications and merit.

If nothing else, it’s got to beat the hell out of yet another complete disaster  - remember Andy Wells? - that its proponents have been forced to defend with what amount to claims of their own bungling and incompetence.

- srbp -

Where is the Hebron development application?

Last January, the Hebron partners said they’d be submitting their development plan for Hebron to the offshore board by the end of the year.

That would have been December 2010.

Now it’s March 2011 and there’s still no sign of it.

- srbp -

No more give-aways indeed: Big Oil’s L’il Buddy considering cash breaks for major oil companies

According to the cover story in the latest issue of Natural Resources magazine, the provincial government and representatives of the major oil companies are reviewing ways to increase exploration offshore.

Operators are presenting the government with a “suite” of proposals, according to [industry representative Paul] Barnes — many of them involving fiscal incentives, such as tax credits or royalty relief, that could spur increased exploration. 

Barnes is quoted as saying that the talks are “high-level” likely meaning they involve the Premier and other senior cabinet ministers. The 2007 energy plan included a recommendation to establish a working group involving industry and the provincial government to develop “regulatory and fiscal measures” to promote exploration as well as what the document refers to as “other industry needs.”

One idea reportedly under consideration is a royalty break for dry exploration wells.

For example, companies already producing in the area may favour some type of incentive that’s royalty based. If they drill a well and come up dry, they could get royalty relief on current production. “If there’s some risk offset, that may encourage some additional exploration activity,” Barnes noted. He said there are similar royalty-relief holidays for deepwater exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, to help mitigate the cost of unsuccessful wells.

That’s a significant switch from earlier Conservative positions but it is consistent with what the Conservatives have done since they took office.

For example, before 2003, when oil prices were below US$30 a barrel, Danny Williams attacked any suggestion that the Hebron partners might need a flat one percent oil royalty in the early years of any Hebron project.  Once in office, when oil prices tripled, he agreed to just just a windfall for the oil companies. The provincial government will lose hundreds of millions of dollars as a result, if oil prices remain above US$35 a barrel. 

Other issues for the industry include continued uncertainty about the province’s oil royalty regime.  The 2007 energy plan committed to scrap the existing one and replace it with a new approach.  Four years later there’s no sign of work being done, let alone any progress.

In natural gas, the provincial government still doesn’t have a royalty regime.  That’s despite the fact work on the rules started in 1997 and the 2007 energy plan outlined a draft royalty policy.

- srbp -

Matthews bails on board position

Elizabeth Matthews is bailing out of her controversial nomination to serve as vice-chair of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore petroleum Board.

It isn’t clear if she is also leaving her appointment to the board itself.

As CBC reports, Matthews is blaming the Opposition Liberals for politicising the entire matter.  Matthews served as a communications director for the Liberal administration of Roger Grimes before she left quickly to work for Danny Williams in the Opposition office where he was infamous for slinging wild, political accusations.  In another ironic twist, Matthews former boss said he got into politics because he was sick of all the patronage and corruption.

The big twist in the story appears to have come on Friday when the Liberals revealed a December 21 letter from natural resources minister Shawn Skinner to his federal counterpart appointing Matthews to the offshore with effect from 01 January 2011.

And then things went horribly wronger Update:

The Telegram has the full text of Matthews’ statement.  For starters, try and find the clear statement where she says she is quitting her appointment. Then check and see if she has actually launched any defamation action given her references to defamation.  This sounds suspiciously like John Hickey suing Roger Grimes for stuff Danny Williams said:  a huge pile of smoke to cover the catastrophe everyone else sees.

If that wasn’t enough, note, among other things, the change in her title in the Premier’s Office from the bio sketch in the letter on the appointment – “Senior Policy Advisor”  - to “a senior advisor”.  There’s a huge difference in the two.  That’s just the tip of that iceberg.

- srbp -

Matthews appointment to offshore board kept under wraps until leak

Flip back to the provincial government news release archive for last December and there’s one thing you won’t see:  an announcement appointing Elizabeth Matthews to occupy a provincial seat on the offshore regulatory board.

That’s because they didn’t issue an announcement despite sending the federal government a letter advising the feds of the provincial appointment. You can find the letter online at the Official Opposition’s website.  They got it from the provincial natural resources department.

In the second paragraph of the letter, natural resources minister Shawn Skinner  also nominates Matthews as vice-chair of the offshore regulatory board. That’s something the federal government would have to agree to.  Apparently they did but only on the condition that the province accept a federal second vice-chair.

One huge difference between the two vice-chairs, incidentally is that the federal one actually was a senior policy advisor in a previous life.  The biographical sketch of Elizabeth Matthews was evidently written by someone in the latter stages of advanced pinochiosis.  For example, the bio sketch talks about a re-negotiation of the Atlantic Accord.  That never happened so it would be pretty hard for Matthews to have been involved in it at all, let alone at the level the writer claimed.

There’s a story in Saturday’s Telegram on this but sadly it isn’t online. The story includes some quotes from a bizarro news release Skinner issued on Friday, supposedly to correct information in the Liberal release that went out along with Skinner’s letter to the feds.

The bizarro thing is that he didn’t actually correct anything. Instead, Skinner confirmed what the Liberals said.  he also did a bit of a nose-puller when he claimed that the provincial government had to appoint Matthews to the board in order to nominate her as vice chair.

Think of that as being a chicken-and-egg version. Before now, the federal and provincial governments could successfully agree on an appointment as vice-chair before making an announcement.  The board seat was secondary.  In this case, the provincial government apparently tried to push Matthews forward with a seat on the board and then tried to cut the deal on the vice-chair’s job.

Surprise.  Surprise.

The feds didn’t play along and put forward their own nominee for a second spot in a “I’ll take yours but only if you take mine too” kinda deal.

Both bits of that – the provincial ploy and the federal counter - likely have a lot to do with the fact that Matthews is basically a patronage appointee with no relevant qualifications to take on the vice-chair’s job. She can’t really hold a candle to either the current or former chair and she’s outclassed experientially speaking by the guy she was supposedly replacing.  Had the provincial government opted for a meritorious appointment perhaps with an open competition they might have found one of several qualified women from the province to take the job.

Word of Matthews’ appointment leaked out about three or four weeks ago in the province’s oil community.  It caused a great deal of consternation.  A few weeks after word started to spread, CBC’s David Cochrane reported it.  He only gave the bare bones of the basic story though. Apparently CBC isn’t reporting the rest of these details as they’ve come to light.  It will be interesting to see if anyone adds new details to the story this week or if this is really the end of the story.

- srbp -

Toronto Sun needs oil fact checker

Here’s the quote:

So you’ve got the only oil refinery processing Newfoundland crude owned by the South Korean government, while the other oil refineries in Eastern Canada process oil pumped from wells located halfway around the world.

That comes after a lengthy discussion about the Come by Chance oil refinery and where crude from the Newfoundland offshore goes.

Slight problem.

Come by Chance refines oil from Iraq, Venezuela and Russia.  It doesn’t refine anything from the local offshore.

Certainly the company that owns the refinery could get oil from the local offshore if it wanted to use it.  Some people like to spread a fable that the 1985 Atlantic Accord prevents it, along with prohibiting the construction of a new refinery in the province. But truth be told it merely puts some restrictions on refining Newfoundland offshore oil in Canada.

The oil companies ship their product to the United States because it is more profitable for them to do that.  They take the oil they pump out of the ground and ship it to their refineries and sell the refined products in their gas stations across the Untied States.

D’uh!

Makes good economic sense.

Meanwhile, the crowd at Come by Chance buy cheaper heavy sour crude from places like Venezuela and Iraq and ship that into the United States.  The stuff offshore Newfoundland is light, sweet crude, incidentally.  Higher wholesale price but also easier to refine into more products.  That means it is much more profitable in the longer run.

Someone at the Sun really needs to do some checking of those pesky facts.

- srbp -

Good Tory? End of story

Telegram editor Russell Wangersky maps out the new normal in federal and provincial politics in a devastating column titled “Lies, the new truths.”

Russell’s right on the solution to the problem:  people have stop accepting what they are told at face value especially when it comes directly from people involved and who, in certain instances, have a vested interest in the story.

Do that and, among other things, you might avoid the gigantic embarrassment of tweeting “I just heard from her. This is a patently false rumour” only to have to suck the whole thing back minutes later when the thing turned out to be patently true. 

- srbp -

Traffic with no secret appointments (Mar 7–Mar 11)

1. Dunderdale boosts Tory support from last Williams poll
2. MOU PIFO 2
3. The importance of education:  education and the economy
4. Tories at 44.5%;  UND at 39%:  government pollster
5. Patronage, pure and simple
6. The secret of life in Newfoundland and Labrador
7. Personal bankruptcies in Newfoundland and Labrador
8. AbitibiBowater, Democracy and the public interest
9. Drilling in Gulf is dangerous and unmanageable
10. Labrador Hydro:  That 70s Show

- srbp -

Getting more women involved in elected politics

Take a gander at this clip from a recent edition of CTV’s Power Play with Don Martin. It features an interview with Nancy Peckford, executive director of Equal Voice.

Nancy covers some of the issues involved at the federal level in getting more women in elected politics.

 

- srbp -

AbitibiBowater, Democracy and the Public Interest

There’s a new commentary from an Ottawa-based think tank on the AbitibiBowater expropriation.  The commentary is basically Brian Lee Crowley’s presentation to the Commons standing committee on international trade.

You can read the full text here. and below are four highlighted points:

“1.  The Chapter 11 provisions of NAFTA provide no bar whatsoever to Canadian
governments acting in the public interest through law and regulation, but they
properly require that the government pay the legitimate costs associated with
their decisions, including compensating parties whose property is confiscated or
nationalized.

2.  Paying compensation for expropriation is a matter of basic fairness and is a
fundamental principle in Canadian law, not just NAFTA.

3.  As a country with huge investments in other jurisdictions, we benefit enormously from such investor protections in other countries, and failure to apply
such protections domestically would damage our credibility and harm Canadian
investors

4.  The AbitibiBowater case points up a damaging inconsistency in Canada’s constitutional and legal framework whereby Canada has the treaty-making power
and, therefore, is responsible to ensure that we meet our treaty obligations; but
provinces are not bound to respect the NAFTA provisions. A mechanism can and
should be found to oblige provinces to take responsibility for their decisions and
prevent them from passing the costs of provincial decisions on to the federal taxpayer.”

There’s also a version of the presentation in a Troymedia piece called “Provinces behaving badly and what can be done about it”:

Governments in Canada have the right to take your house, farm, or factory, but the requirements of fairness and the Canadian democratic tradition normally subject that power to limits. Governments must compensate you if they take your property. Moreover they don’t get to set the price unilaterally; it must be done by an arm’s length agency and be subject to judicial review.

It was Newfoundland and Labrador’s decision to ignore these rules of decent behaviour that created the damage that federal taxpayers must now clean up.

If there is any kind of a democratic deficit in the AbitibiBowater decision, surely it is here: in a genuine democracy, voters should have to face the true costs of their decisions so that they can make a balanced assessment of the pros and cons. The current arrangements force innocent federal taxpayers, who have no hand in choosing provincial governments in other provinces, to nonetheless pay the tab for those governments’ bad behaviour. And that is practically the textbook definition of a perverse incentive.

 

- srbp -

Labrador hydro: That 70s Show reruns

Listening to Leo Abbass on CBC radio Wednesday afternoon, you could almost imagine you were back in the 1970s. 

Harry Hibbs. 

Banana seat bicycles. 

Joan Morrissey. 

All around the circle.

John Crosbie with muttonchops. 

The whole shooting match.

Radio Noon had Abbass, the mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, as the guest for its hour-long call-in show. He was talking up Muskrat Falls, the economic disaster doing business as Danny Williams’ memorial to Hisself. 

Some guy called in to point out that after construction ended, there’d only be a handful of jobs left keeping an eye on the gauges as all the power streamed off somewhere other than Labrador.  Abbass disagreed.  After all, he reasoned, there’d be all that cheap power available to lure some industry or other and hundreds of jobs to boot.

Flick your mind back 40 years - if it goes back that far -  and you probably remember another bunch of politicians who said exactly the same thing. That was the big idea for Churchill Falls back to the 1950s when Joe Smallwood supposedly first dreamed his first dream of immortality: cheap power for aluminum plants and lumber mills. 

Ditto Baie d’Espoir on the island.  That one was supposed to support not one, not two, not even three or four major new industries.  By the time Joe Smallwood and his crew got around to that one, their cheap power was supposed to sustain seven new industries.

Seven.

With one blow.

Paper mill.

Refinery.

Petrochemical plant. 

Hockey stick factory.  Betcha never heard that one before.

Phosphorus plant.

A bunch of new industries.

Hundreds of new jobs.

All with cheap power.

2 mills, even less than at Churchill Falls.

Not even the pretext of trying to make the thing break even.

Just like the aluminum smelter in Labrador.  That old chestnut is still good for all sorts of mileage even from the most highly educated members of our population.

What do the hydroqueen, at least one recent premier, the odd economist, and now maybe a mayor have in common? 

Your first two guesses don’t count but if you get it right, you could win the chance to cut the ribbon at the Grand Opening of the latest Great Unnamed Industry to Save Newfoundland (and Labrador). 

The gigantic load of horse manure is that much a part of our culture that when they get done with the 60th anniversary of the Fisheries Broadcast, CBC should celebrate 60 years of aluminum smelter rumours in Newfoundland and Labrador. 

Oh dear.  Was that sarcasm? 

There’ll probably be a Telegram column now defending the honour of this beloved fairy tale.  If two university professors get a quote in the paper noting its turd-like aroma, you can bet there’ll be at least two columns, one of which will point out that the two learneds are – whispers – you know.

That way.

What way?

You know:

Different.

You mean mainlanders?

YES!  For Gawd’s sake.

And as such, they are unfit to comment at all on our revered customs and venerated observances.

Like Screech-ins and gravel-pit camping, both of which have been practiced in the province (and maybe even Labrador) since John Cabot’s time at least. 

Surely, that long.

And they are definitely not – respectively – a cheesy 1970s marketing gimmick by the liquor corporation and a relic of the post-war era when the government actually had enough money to build roads for people to drive cars on.

And it isn’t just this Labrador hydro power stuff.

Take a look at municipal politics.  Some poor sod who went into a coma around the time of the Canada Summer Games in 1977 and who sprang back to life this week would look at the TV and wonder what the frig was going on.  Some woman from city council with a hat on then talking about being verbally beaten up by her fellow councillors when his lights went out. Now that the lights are back on,  he sees some woman from city council with a hat on…

You get the idea.

Then there’s the fishery.

Only difference is that this cartoon today would have the one guy with four hands covering ears and eyes and with both feet in his mouth.

Since 2003, it’s like the province – and Labrador - is one giant trip back to the 70s.

 

- srbp -

Personal Bankruptcies in Newfoundland and Labrador

The following chart shows personal bankruptcies in Newfoundland and Labrador from 1991 to 2009.

Data is from Statistics Canada, compiled by the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency.

- srbp -

The secret of life in Newfoundland and Labrador

The secret of life and comedy is timing.

In this case, the secret of life in Newfoundland and Labrador would be the curious coincidence in timing of a conference to discuss ways of getting more women involved in the oil and gas industry with the leak that the provincial government passed over qualified female candidates in the industry for a job at the offshore regulatory board in favour of pure patronage.

As much as this sort of old-fashion pork may be the nature of life under the provincial Conservatives, it isn’t very funny.

What it does make clear, though, is that anyone hoping to increase the number of women involved in the province’s offshore industry is going to have a long way to go.

First you’ve got to get rid of these very old, very backward ideas about patronage and entitlements and get government to make appointments based on merit first.

- srbp -

A trading nation: 2011 update

Newfoundland and Labrador exports more to the United States than any other foreign location.  This is a point made in a 2005 post but more recent numbers tell just exactly how important a role the United States plays.

In 2008, total exports peaked at more than $10 billion.  Two years later, exports to the United States have only recovered to slightly more than it was in 2005;  that’s about $6.4 billion.

In 2010, the next largest export destination was Germany at $734 million, then China at $704 million.  It’s a big slide to the fourth largest export destination – the Netherlands – and $120 million in exports in 2010.  When you look at those figures, consider how foolhardy it was to ignore free trade negotiations with the European Union.

On the flip side, the largest import source for Newfoundland and Labrador remains Iraq at $1.8 billion.  Next is Russia at $595 million followed by the United States at $324 million.  The fourth largest import source is Venezuela.

If you are trying to figure out those import sources, think about the largest export destination.  Think of oil and you are in the right neighbourhood.  Iraq is the chief source of heavy sour crude for Come by Chance and on the flip side, all that refined product is destined for the Untied States.

- srbp -

Drilling in Gulf is dangerous and unmanageable

Marilyn Clark, a Magdalen Islander studying at Memorial University, argues that oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is unmanageable and dangerous in the current regulatory context.

She writes in the Montreal Gazette:

What will governance look like with four offshore regulators in less than 500 kilometres of water? If we believe that Quebec and Newfoundland will cooperate to prioritize citizens, we are kidding ourselves. They have already sliced moving water down the middle to conduct their environmental assessments.

The lack of a harmonized approach for a single body of water will permit pollution without political accountability; the citizens of one province will have no way of holding the governments of other provinces responsible.

Why is the government gambling with the assets of my region, while the renewable resources of southwest Nova Scotia and British Columbia are protected? The Gulf only fully flushes itself out once a year. If drill cuttings, waste water and chronic spills are the new ingredients of our Gulf, we will be importing our lobster from the Caribbean and our crab from Asia. How can I be expected to invest in my region when I know that the offshore regulatory framework is so flawed that oil companies monitor themselves?

- srbp -

The importance of education: education and the economy

The National Post’s Kelly McParland offered a colourful chart last November comparing a number of things, including federal transfers to provinces (on a per person basis), provincial gross domestic product and the amount spent per person on education.

There are also some bullet points. 

One stood out:

Newfoundland has strong investment, high GDP, generous transfers, yet still has the country’s highest unemployment and spends very little on education. Might those last two be related?

They might well be related. 

But then again, it is hard to know for sure given that the figures for per capita education spending, for example,  are from 2006 and unemployment is from 2010. There’s no indication why the figures are from different years but they are;  it’s not like the information is secret or otherwise unavailable. 

As for employment rates, in October 2010 it was around 13%  - according to the Post chart - and in October 2006, it was 14%. The participation rate is up slightly in 2010 compared to 2006 (61% versus 58-59%).

Still, it’s hard to escape the idea that there is a connection between education and economic performance.

Consider this some food for thought.

- srbp -

Dunderdale boosts Tory support from last Williams poll: government pollster (revised numbers) #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Corporate Research Associates issued a correction to its latest polling numbers for Newfoundland and Labrador on Monday and the result is truly startling.

The Conservatives under Kathy Dunderdale have the support of 56% of voters compared to 51% for the Tories under Danny Williams in November 2010.

Sure her personal popularity may be less than Danny’s but she’s managed to pull the Tories out of their downward slide in Danny’s last three months that took them from 61% in August to 51% in November.  Dunderdale’s started the Tories back on the path to the stars and without doing very much of anything for the past three months except fend off a weak challenge to her leadership by Brad Cabana.

Not surprisingly, the Conventional media are following along with CRA’s news release and their own conventional wisdom to make the poll numbers fit what they think the numbers should say.  They are saying that Dunderdale is not as strong as Danny but she is still pretty big.

But as absurd as it may seem, the CRA numbers really put Kathy ahead of her old patron.

According to CRA’s revised numbers, undecideds dropped from 31% to 23% in the three months or so Danny’s been gone.  The unfiltered, undistorted CRA numbers show Tory support went from 51% in November with Danny as leader to 56% with Kathy Dunderdale.

Both the change in party support for the Tories and the change in undecideds is outside the margin of error (4..9 percentage points)

“How could this be?” you are likely asking.

Call it the mother of all typos.

The original news release included this sentence:

Those with no stated preference included those who were undecided (18%), do not plan to vote (3%), or refuse to state a preference (18%).

That adds up to 39%.

The table at the end of the news release gave the figure as 23%.  Apparently that second 18% was only supposed to be two percent.

Not 18.

2.

Big difference.

It’s a bit of a head scratcher as to how someone could mistakenly type “18” instead of “2” and how the release could get out the door with such a glaring error.

Your humble e-scribbler took the figures in the text of the release in largest part since they were consistent, across the board with a similar poll done by NTV/Telelink in February.  Those are the figures used in an earlier post. 

Now what we are left with is a poll that mirrors Telelink in every way except in Conservative support and the level of undecided/no answer and will not votes.  The differences are hardly inconsequential. 

What this cock-up really should be is a reminder that CRA’s poll reporting does contain some rather glaring problems.  For instance, CRA routinely distorts the results of its polls by presenting only the results for decided voters. You can see the effect of that misrepresentation by charting the results as a share of all responses, not just the “decideds”. This chart is taken from post last December on CRA’s fourth quarter poll.

According to CRA’s version, the Conservative party’s support remains in the mid 70s. What doesn’t get noticed is that the “undecided” category has gone from the teens to 31% in November 2010.  Now it’s dropped again to 23% in the most recent poll.

You’ll also see in the middle of that chart another clue that something is seriously wrong with CRA’s polls.  That flat line in the middle would be a period of three consecutive quarterly polls where the difference in Tory support was apparently less than one percent. Those interested in a more detailed discussion can find it in an older post:  There’s a fairly lengthy post that discusses most of the major problems with CRA polling:  “How the Tories get 28% more votes thanks to CRA”..

For the first time in a long while, CBC has added a few questions to CRA’s quarterly polling.  Ostensibly they give new information, but essentially, CBC just gives a variation on the basic horse race questions. One of the CBC questions even repeats the same flawed question format of “mostly” and “completely” and equally extreme negative choices.  On other occasions, incidentally, CRA has asked a typical five point Likert scale (strong and moderate positives and negatives with a neutral) and reported the results as “completely” or “mostly” as appropriate. 

What is the difference, after all, between completely and mostly, compared to completely and somewhat?  think about it for a second and you’ll get the point.

What’s missing in all the questions is the sort of stuff that would give any indication of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are concerned about.  What pollsters typically do is ask what issues are of concern to their respondents.  Then they might ask voters to rate party performance on each question.  Sometimes they might leave out the party support questions so as not to unduly influence the responses, but with or without it, one can get a much better sense of what potential voters are thinking.

Instead of some insight, one gets absurd responses.  For example, when asked whether Williams departure will influence party choice (the question itself is oddly worded, by the way), 34% said they were less likely to vote Conservative while 30% said they are more likely. 

Huh?

Exactly.

And don’t forget the Conservatives supposedly enjoy 73% voter support  - using CRA’s own method of reporting - with only 18% actually undecided in their party choice.

And as a last point, let’s just remember this basic point.  CRA polls eligible voters.  They don’t screen for usual voters or regular voters.  They just survey all eligible voters. That means you need to compare their poll results, including UND/DK/NA with the actual poll results for any given election.

In their Fall 2007 quarterly survey, CRA put the combined no answer/will not vote/undecided at a mere 18%. The actual result on polling day was 38%.  CRA’s quarterly polls typically show that the “will not vote” category is less than five percent.

-srbp-

White Rose field may get GBS

According to the Telegram, the White Rose partners are looking at using a concrete gravity base structure or GBS.

The concrete well-head unit would support a drilling rig.  Oil from the wellhead would be pumped to the existing SeaRose floating production, storage and offloading vessel and from there to tankers to take it to market.

“We’re looking at a whole range of different concepts,” said Paul McCloskey, Husky’s East Coast vice-president

“One of the opportunities that we are considering is the installation of a very skinny GBS.

- srbp -

Tories at 44.5%, UND at 39%: government pollster #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Double-down Update:

• CRA's issued a correction that its UND category was 23% as shown in the table not 39% shown in the text.  That's one mother of a typo and therefore that's worth a whole new post, coming later.
• CBC apparently piggybacked on this one and has some specific questions of its own coming later on Monday evening.  That would warrant a separate post on its own.
• New post:  “Dunderdale boosts Tory support from last Williams poll”

Original Post begins...

Support for the ruling provincial Conservatives under Kathy Dunderdale is at 44.5% compared to 61% last August under Danny Williams according to a Corporate Research Associates quarterly poll released on Monday.  The results match almost exactly with a recent NTV/Telelink poll that put support for the province’s Tories at 44.3%.

Undecided, including those who refused to answer and those who do not plan to vote is at 39%, up eight percentage points from CRA’s November 2010 poll.  NTV/Telelink reported 37.9% of its respondents didn’t know how they might vote, wouldn’t state a preference or indicated they would not vote.

And that’s where the real story is for these polling numbers.  According to CRA’s polls, support for the provincial Conservatives started to slide during the last three months of Danny Williams’ leadership.  His abrupt departure didn’t stop the slide.

What’s worse, the margin of error for this poll is 4.9%.  That means there is a possible variation in those numbers of almost 10 percentage points.  Given that the Tory and UND number is less than 10% is it possible that more people are undecided or won’t state a preference than are actually indicating they will vote for the provincial Conservatives.

There are problems with the way CRA presents its figures.  For example, they show party choice for decided voters.  This is highly misleading as can be seen in the party vote numbers. The obvious decline in Tory support vanishes completely because of the way CRA reports its figures.

Still, if you look at the numbers, understand what you are seeing, and can check them against a second set of figures like NTV/Telelink, the results can be dramatically different than what you will see reported by conventional media.

These poll results from two different firms don’t  mean the Tories will lose the next general election.  What they do show is an electorate which is sufficiently uncomfortable that they will not state a clear support for the ruling party.  The fall general election could be up for grabs, depending on what the Conservatives and the opposition parties do over the next three to seven months.

- srbp -

MOU PIFO 2

For those who haven’t watched it yet, the raw video of fisheries minister Clyde Jackman’s news conference on the fisheries restructuring report  is worth watching in its entirety. 

Jackman and his staff apparently tried to rush the reporters and overwhelm them.  Instead of the usual background briefing on the report and a lengthy introductory statement, Jackman simply sat down, blathered out some perfunctory thanks and quickly asked for the first question.

What happens next is both beautiful and horrifying.  The beauty is in the elegance of reporters’ questions, especially CBC’s David Cochrane:  simple, focused and sharp despite working with the considerable handicap of not having read the lengthy report ahead of time.  They fillet Jackman’s credibility in living colour and lay out for anyone who cares to see it both the solution to the fisheries crisis and the only serious obstacle to it, namely the provincial government itself.

The horrifying bit is Jackman, his finger sometimes point here and there while he desperately tried to say something that did not sound asinine.  What Jackman fell back on repeatedly were a bunch of stock phrases about the need to treat the industry like an industry or the “ask” for a whole lot of money.  The result – the horrifying bit – comes with the realization that either the cabinet is completely fractured over fisheries reform and cannot figure out what to do or that they are agreed that the fishery must simply be allowed to collapse of its own accord.

There simply isn’t another alternative for Jackman’s performance.  After all, you don’t have to watch too much of his squirming to get the feeling that Jackman was busily clicking his heels under the table and muttering “There’s no place like home, Toto” under his breath.

In all likelihood, the current cabinet, like previous cabinets simply can’t get a position they can all agree on.   That would explain why Jackman never could define what he actually wanted instead of the report in front of him.  That’s why he relied on stock phrases that themselves meant nothing.  And as a result, one gets the idea pretty clearly that the provincial government simply doesn’t know what it wants, except to know that they did not want to accept the report in front of him and all its implications.

What Jackman did mention one too many times for comfort was the idea that some people think time will take care of the whole thing.  In other words, in an industry dominated by people rapidly approaching retirement, most of the people who would be “restructured” will simply leave the industry on their own if nothing else happens. He also talked about signs that prices might be climbing again soon, perhaps another clue as to what some in the provincial government might be hoping for.

Cochrane asked if the entire MOU process was now a waste of time.  Four and a half years of work at building a consensus in the industry seems to have come to naught. Not at all, said Jackman since now everyone has a study that describes exactly how bad things really are; now people can talk about solutions.

People have been talking about solutions for years.  This report was supposed to be the first step to action, not to further talk.  For anyone willing to pay attention, comments this past week made it pretty clear that both processors and fish harvesters are done with talking.  They want some action.

That leaves the provincial government in a terrible spot:  there is an election in October. The fishery is a gigantic political problem affecting many districts on the island and in Labrador. The governing party not only has no idea what to do about the fishery, they cannot even develop a strategy to effectively manage the controversy.

And what’s more, they have no distractions, no foreign demons, no bits of absurd political theatre to use to distract people.

What a terrible place to be in.

- srbp -

Traffic without patronage, Feb 28 to Mar 3

1. HMV
2. Provgov pollster seeds ground for bad news
3. A cheaper, green alternative to Muskrat Falls
4. MOU PIFO
5. Are city councillors paid enough?
6. Patronage, pure and simple
7. CB city council by-election down to five
8. Birds of a Conservative feather
9. Court docket now online
10. 35% unsure of Dunderdale

- srbp -

Charlie or Gaddafi-Duck?

From the Mirror, a list of comments.

You have to pick whether the line came from Charlie Sheen or Muammar Qadafhi.

Then try the Vanity Fair version.

- srbp -

So who would be the deputy Max?

The Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, 1987 allows for the appointment of two vice-chairs at the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

But with two vice-chairs, who will be the board member to fill in for chief executive officer Max Ruelokke if he is away for a vacation or is otherwise not on the job?

Here’s what section 14 says:

The Board shall designate a member to act as Chairman of the Board during any absence or incapacity of the Chairman or vacancy in the office of Chairman, and that person, while acting as Chairman, has and may exercise all of the powers and perform all of the duties and functions of the Chairman.

- srbp -

Patronage, pure and simple

Take out a piece of paper and a pencil and it wouldn’t take you very long to write down the names of men and women from the private or public sector who are qualified by their experience to take on the job of vice-chair at the federal-provincial agency that regulates the offshore industry.

Limit the list to just women and you’d still have a fair number of very capable people.

Elizabeth Matthews  - Danny Williams’ former communications director  - wouldn’t be on the list anywhere.

She wouldn’t be left out of consideration because she isn’t smart or capable in her own right.  It’s just that she lacks the experience necessary for the job.

It’s that simple.

By proposing to appoint the unqualified Matthews as vice chair of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, Kathy Dunderdale has shown exactly the same tendency to propose unqualified people for very important jobs her patron had.  Andy Wells, the former mayor of St. John’s is perhaps the best example of that. 

However, Andy Wells is surely not the only example of an appointment that left many people scratching their heads in bewilderment or – as again with the Matthews appointment – setting teeth on edge in the province’s oil industry. They might have understood appointing Danny Williams’  former chief of staff who is also looking for a new gig now that Williams has left politics.  At least, Brian Crawley had work experience in the industry on the Hibernia project.  For the past couple of weeks though, the movers and shakers in the local oil patch are shaking their heads at the sort of appointment one might find in some banana republic rather than in a Canadian jurisdiction that aspires to be among the world leaders in regulating a complex industry.

Conservatives are trotting out the idea that Matthews will somehow change the communications practices at the board because of her work experience.  The board already has a competent and experience public relations practitioner, for one thing and Matthews certainly isn’t needed for that.  What’s more important to realise in that regard is that, as others have pointed out, Matthews helped to create and sustain one of the most secretive political machines in the province’s history. 

What both the provincial [and] federal governments ought to have done in this case is what the position warrants:  an open competition in which the successful candidate is appointed based on merit.  That’s how such a senior position ought to be filled.  That’s how they filled the chairman’s job a few years.  The process wound up a mess [in that case] simply because Danny Williams intervened to try and foist his blatantly unqualified whim onto a process that was supposed to be driven by merit. Just because the law says appointments like this are made by cabinet does not mean that they must be handed out as patronage plums.

Merit ought to count for much more that it does with the current provincial administration.

- srbp -

*   Corrections in square brackets

Birds of a Conservative feather

Not surprisingly at all, the federal Conservatives now call it the “Harper government”. 

From 2003 to 2010 in Newfoundland and Labrador, it was always the Williams government, too.

- srbp -

From the extraordinarily stupid comments file

The Western Star -  the newspaper that previously blamed the opposition Liberals for Danny Williams’ expropriation fiasco – now thinks that Liberals should just go away and let the Conservatives do as they see fit.

Is that just an extraordinarily stupid comment, even for the Western Star, or what?

- srbp -

HMV

Danny Williams, on why he got into politics:

I was tired of the patronage and the corruption.

Well maybe he as tired of half of that.

- srbp -

35% unsure of Dunderdale

A new poll by VisionCritical/Angus Reid shows Kathy Dunderdale with the second highest approval rating of premiers across Canada. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall topped the list at 63% approval, with 16% undecided

But look at the numbers in the wider context and you can see why the provincial government’s pollster was in the news this week lowering public expectations for his client. Don Mills told the Telegram that: “[Premier Kathy Dunderdale’s popularity is] not going to be 75 per cent, I wouldn’t think.” 

Mills’ polling firm was cluing up the quarterly survey when he made the comments. The VisionCritical/Angus Reid numbers give an indication of the numbers Mills was likely picking up.

Dunderdale’s got the highest reported undecided – 35% – of any Premier in the country. Dunderdale is slightly ahead of New Brunswick Conservative at 33% undecided.  His approval rating is also the third highest at 42%.

Dunderdale is also a long way from Danny Williams’ approval numbers.  In November 2010 he was at 67% and in February 2010 he had the approval of 80% of those surveyed.  Fully 78% approved of Williams and only 12% were unsure in November 2009.

That was an enormous drop for Williams and the trend is still downward for his hand-picked successor.

What’s more, VisionCritical/Angus Reid’s question is not a choice of one leader compared to others:  it merely measures people’s opinion about the premier himself or herself from people within their respective provinces. Mills’ polls ask respondents to chose the political party leader they would prefer to see as Premier.

- srbp -

A cheaper, green alternative to Muskrat Falls

Natural resources minister Shawn Skinner has hit on a cheaper, less risky green alternative to the Muskrat Falls megaproject.

He didn’t mean to do that, of course.  he was actually trying to justify Muskrat Falls by claiming the project will give the province energy security by allowing the island portion of the province to import power from the mainland in the event of an emergency.

The major way of doing that would be through the tie to Nova Scotia, according to Skinner. As the Telegram quotes Skinner:

“We’re anticipating to mostly use it to export excess capacity, excess electricity into the Atlantic provinces and the northeast United States, but in the event of a catastrophe … it would be possible for us to import electricity,” Skinner said in a recent interview.

That’s certainly true, but that isn’t a rationale for building a very expensive dam in Labrador and a very expensive power line from that dam to St. John’s especially when the island portion of the province doesn’t need the juice. 

But let’s just allow for a second that the island needs power. Skinner has actually given Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a far better option to meet the province’s energy needs that building Muskrat Falls.

At $1.2 billion, the line to Nova Scotia would actually meet the island’s energy needs and give the energy security Skinner is talking about. Nalcor or Newfoundland Power could import power from the mainland if it is needed. 

But more importantly the line from Nova Scotia and an upgrade to the line across the Isthmus of Avalon would help bring to market all that stranded central Newfoundland hydro seized by government in the botched expropriation.  In addition, it would allow for wind and new small hydro projects on the island.  Right now, there’s no place for that extra power to go when it isn’t needed on the island.  A link to Nova Scotia would take care of that.

And all that wind generation and small hydro – far cheaper than Muskrat Falls  - would help displace the thermal generator at Holyrood with green energy that is far cheaper than the $5.0 billion dam and power line project that is at the heart of Danny Williams’ legacy project.

The line would cost $1.2 billion compared to $5.0 billion for the dam and line to St.John’s.  Emera is already committed to the Nova Scotia line.  If Nalcor split the bill 50/50, then the actual cost of Nalcor would be a mere $600 million plus annual operating costs.  Nalcor and Emera wouldn’t need a federal loan guarantee or any federal financial help at all in that scenario.  Nalcor could fund its share from offshore oil revenues.  Heck, the provincial government could build it’s share of the line right now for cash since it has billions on hand in temporary investments.  Talk about the perfect go-it-alone, stand-on-your-own-two-feet, “have province” option.

On top of that, there are plenty of private operators ready to build wind projects on the island;  the only thing stopping them right now is Nalcor and government policy.  In other words, there’s no practical reason not to pursue the cheaper, green options.  Private sector companies could build the projects either alone or in partnership with Nalcor. 

Unfortunately, the tie to Nova Scotia is the last thing on the list of things to be built for the current version of the Lower Churchill. And right now Skinner and his colleagues are obsessed with a very expensive very risky project that could wind up going way over budget. 

Given the soft markets for electricity in the near-term, it would actually make economic sense to wait a while to build the entire Lower Churchill until the markets will buy the power with long-term deals.  That’s much better for consumers in the province who, right now, are staring at a government hell-bent on doubling their electricity rates by 2017 and saddling them with $5.0 billion in debt on top of the $12 billion they currently owe.

There’d be an added bonus in building the Nova Scotia line first:  Nalcor would have export infrastructure plus it would have a megaproject to its credit to prove to investors it can deliver complex engineering work on-time and at or under budget.

On top of that, a policy that encouraged private sector investment for wind development would go a long way to reversing the image the province has gained since 2003 of a banana republic where the government is closed for business.

Cheap, green energy to meet the needs on the most populous part of the province at a low cost and with the potential to bring new revenue from exports?

Job done.

Association of Seafood Producers responds to Jackman

Below you’ll find the complete text of a statement issued Tuesday by the Association of Seafood Producers.

Key bits:

• ASP clearly supports the process that led to the report and the report itself, describing Tom Clift’s work as “a comprehensive analysis of the predicament facing the industry” and as something that lay the groundwork for “a planned landing”
• By refusing to take the report to cabinet, fisheries minister Clyde Jackman is apparently breaking one of government’s commitments in the memorandum of understanding.
• The processors were looking for government assistance in securing a loan to help pay for the industry down-sizing, not a simple request for cash as the fisheries minister suggested.

:

You an find the Telegram’s online story here.

- srbp -

Labrador Metis to seek injunction blocking Muskrat project

The NunatuKavut Metis Nation will be seeking an injunction to halt environmental assessment hearings on the Muskrat Falls project, according to CBC News.

Chris Montague of the NunatuKavut Metis Nation said the group is meeting with a lawyer Tuesday morning.

He said the Metis group expects to file an injunction against Nalcor, the provincial environmental department, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, as soon as Tuesday or Wednesday.

UPDATE:  The Metis filed an injunction on Tuesday morning in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, according to the Telegram.

- srbp -

Are city councillors paid enough?

Debbie Hanlon doesn’t think so.

Residents of the city took pains to explain otherwise in the comments section of Monday’s Telegram story. Their comments make this story well worth reading.

- srbp -

February Traffic Patterns

1. Humber West post mortem
2. From 61% to 44% since August:  NTV poll shows Tory support slides further
3. Connies torquing Bev Oda
4. Cheryl Gallant sinks
5. Layton will cave
6. Kremlinology 32:  the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre
7. Signs of the Granterdannerung
8. Tweet of the week (early edition)
9. Dunderdale admin awards lucrative legal work without tender and Never heard that before and Think federal equity stake (three way tie)
10. Quebec interested in lunatic megaproject

- srbp -

Noble gets deep water license in Gulf of Mexico

The United States Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement has issued a license to Noble Energy to continue work on a well located 115 kilometres southeast of Venice, Louisiana, according to the Globe and Mail and other media outlets.

The company started drilling the exploratory well just before last year’s catastrophe.

The Wall Street Journal reports the well is in 6,500 feet of water.

There are six other permits for deep water drilling currently awaiting approval, according to the New York Times.

- srbp -

CB city council by-election down to five

cornerbrooker.com has a great little piece on the west coast city’s municipal by-election.

This leaves five candidates competing for one City Council seat: June Alteen, Gary Kelly, Trent Quinton, Tarragh Shanahan, and Alton Whelan.

Aside from some lawn signs, most candidates have been fairly quiet so far, however I think that Gary Kelly is at least proving that he’s visible and willing to work for the position. You may have seen him marching up and down O’Connell Drive in all sorts of nasty weather, or standing outside hockey games at the Pepsi Centre with his bright yellow campaign sign, waving as the cars head down the hill.

They mention that Gary also has a website and is using Twitter and Facebook.  That’s not surprising for a guy who was an early adopter to blogging  and who ran one of the best little gems of a blog in the process. A lot of politicians in the province could learn a lot of lessons from Gary.

For what it’s worth, Gary has the Bond Papers endorsement. Corner Brook readers of these e-scribblers would be well served if they voted for Gary in the by-election.

- srbp -

Provgov pollster seeds ground for bad news

Provincial government pollster Don Mills is in the Telegram on Monday getting people ready for yet a further decline in polling numbers for the province’s ruling Conservatives.

“[Premier Kathy Dunderdale’s popularity is] not going to be 75 per cent, I wouldn’t think,” he said. “To some extent, it will have nothing to do with Kathy Dunderdale at all. I think it’s just going to be people realizing that (Williams) was a pretty extraordinary personality that commanded support across party lines.”

As you can see, Mills wasn’t just contented to hint that the numbers would be down;  he also felt obliged to offer his opinion on the implications.  The basis for his opinion won’t ever be found in any of his polling numbers.  They are – like his seat projections in 2007 – based on something else.

Mills is talking about personality popularity – or even name recognition – but neither of those are directly connected to ballot results.  Danny Williams personal popularity soared after 2005 but in the 2007 general election, the Conservatives garnered the same share of eligible vote they had in 2003. 

A recent poll by NTV/Telelink puts the Conservatives under Kathy Dunderdale as the choice of  44% of eligible vote.  That continues a steady decline registered by Corporate Research over the third and fourth quarters of 2010.  If the implication of Mills’ comments are borne out, CRA’s poll that is just clueing up should confirm the NTV/Telelink numbers.

- srbp -

MOU PIFO

A classic Telegram editorial, your humble e-scribbler once wrote, consists of a summary of an issue concluding with a blinding insight into the completely frigging obvious.

Such is the Saturday Telegram offering, this time on the latest fisheries report unveiled and summarily rejected on Friday by fisheries minister Clyde Jackman:

Something has to be done. It may end up being a half-measure, or even less.  But the sheer size of the problem is now abundantly clear.  And for the industry, it has to be terrifying.

Four phrases.

Four penetrating insights into what is obvious to even the most casual observer of the fishery over the past 30 years.

That closing paragraph is right up there with Clyde Jackman’s claim on Friday that the MOU process was not a waste as everyone now had a detailed description of how bad things are.

Who didn’t know that already?

Well, besides Clyde Jackman, evidently. 

To be fair to both Jackman and the Telegram editorialist, though, they really are just a reflection of the fundamental problem that has plagued the fishery in this province since 1949.  People know what needs to be done to turn the fishery into an industry that is sustainable and relatively prosperous.  People in the current cabinet know.  People in past cabinets have known. Those who know and who are willing to do it are hampered by those who know nothing and others who vigorously oppose any changes at all. 

In the meantime, the only people suffering are the people in the industry.  Eventually time will take care of them.  Clyde Jackman kept mentioning that last Friday.  He really didn’t need to.

Everyone knows it.

- srbp -

Irresponsibility of power: Dunderdale flip flops on Muskrat electricity rates

My, oh my what a little public angst over electricity bills will do for a government’s talking points.

The public angst has turned up in Labrador where a who mess of people are concerned they won’t get any of the benefits of the power and yet will wind up paying for it instead.

Premier Kathy Dunderdale zoomed into Happy Valley-Goose Bay late last week to reassure the unhappy valleyians on a few things.

Among the things she talked about was electricity pricing.   According to the Labradorian, Dunderdale said that Labradorians would not see rate increases once Muskrat is on line.

Fair enough.  They will still be getting powered by diesel along the coast since it is apparently too expensive to sling off lines to the coastal communities from the giant lines that will run right along the coast to get the power to Newfoundland.

“The responsibility of power will be charged to the people who use that power,” she said.

Garbled sentence to one side, that “responsibility of power” would not fall to Nova Scotians.  They’ll pay whatever Emera wants to charge them and Emera is getting its power from Muskrat for free if the final deal turns out to be the same as the one Danny Williams inked in order to catch his plane to retirement.

That “responsibility of power” would definitely be the people on the eastern end of Newfoundland. They are getting the power and will have to bear the full load of the cost and potentially more more besides even though they really don’t need it. 

And how much will they be responsible for?

That’s where Dunderdale went wobbly.

Last fall, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale, later morphed to be premier, was absolutely adamant that the Danny Williams Legacy Dam project was absolutely wonderful.  It was splendiferously necessary, sayeth Dunderdale, because by 2017, electricity prices in the provinces were going to skyrocket thanks to the price of oil. 

She even had a number she swore by:  120 American bucks a barrel, sustained, by 2017 and as much a 200 bucks a barrel within the next decade. And with crude running at those sorts of prices, it would be damn expensive to generate electricity at Holyrood. Enter Danny Williams Legacy Dam to save the day.

Some of you may recall her interview last November with CBC radio’s West Coast Morning Show.  Your humble e-scribbler even wrote about it for those who don’t normally tune in to the show:

Dunderdale claimed that electricity prices would increase an average of five percent each year from now until 2017. That’s the year Nalcor would supposedly bring Muskrat Falls on line. So electricity prices would be about 35% higher than they are now, according to Dunderdale.

And then on top of that you’d have to whack on the cost of Muskrat Falls power which Dunderdale estimated to be between 14.3 and 16.5 cents per kilowatt hour.

But with all the public concern over rate increases, Dunderdale is now not so sure about her projections.  As the Labradorian reported:

“The project is not advanced enough at this point to determine with that degree of accuracy what you are going to pay per kilowatt hour in 2017.”

She said at the average rate of increase of 5 percent per year, Newfoundlanders could expect to get about the same bill on current power in 2017 as they would under the Muskrat Falls hydropower with similar rates of increase.

Not advanced enough to determine with that degree of accuracy.

Riiiight.

And yet last fall, Kathy had great confidence that the prices would be exactly as she described.  After all it was the absolutely concrete, cast-in-stone, sure-as-Danny-made-little-green-apples certainty of the energy price forecasts that justified upping the gross public debt by about 50% of its current level.

And now Dunderdale can’t be sure what domestic electricity prices will be when the dam is finished in 2017.

That’s a gigantic change in just a few short weeks.

Expect more changes if the public starts paying more attention to what Danny Williams Legacy Dam will cost them.

- srbp -

Traffic without restructuring

1. Layton will cave
2. Quebec interested in lunatic megaproject
3. Noseworthiness, redux
4. Connies drop
5. Atlantic energy co-operation:  where Lower is higher
6. Whiff and poof
7. Dippers fear Byrning in St. John’s East
8. The Four Horsemen and government finances
9. Never heard that before
10. Jackman runs from fisheries restructuring report

- srbp -

Offshore regulator opens environmental assessment on Old Harry drilling proposal

Edited version of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Board news release:

The public is invited to comment on the draft scoping document for the Environmental Assessment of an exploration well being proposed by Corridor Resources within Exploration License 1105 (the Old Harry Prospect) located in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

The proposed activity includes drilling one exploration well within EL 1105 using a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU), that is,  semi-submersible drilling rig or drill ship, supply vessels, and offshore helicopters. Vertical seismic profiling (VSP) activities may also be conducted in conjunction with the drilling activities. Corridor Resources proposes to drill one exploration well between 2012 and 2014.

Before any petroleum-related activity can be undertaken in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, a detailed and location-specific Environmental Assessment (EA) must be submitted to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB). In addition, this project is subject to the federal environmental assessment process pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act).

Pursuant to paragraph 18(3) of the CEA Act, the C-NLOPB as the responsible authority for the federal environmental assessment of the project is inviting the public to comment on the proposed draft scoping document prepared by the C-NLOPB.

Comments must be received by the C-NLOPB no later than Monday, March 28, 2011. Interested persons may submit their comments in the official language of their choice to information@cnlopb.nl.ca or to the following address:

Public Comments – Old Harry Project

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board

5^th Floor, TD Place

140 Water St., St. John’s, NL A1C 6H6

(709) 778-1400

- srbp -

Jackman runs from fisheries restructure report

Fisheries minister Clyde Jackman is running as fast as he can from a fisheries restructuring report that recommends restructuring the fishery.

This is not a surprise for a minister who appeared clueless on the issues in his own portfolio when he admitted first receiving the report.

This is not a surprise given that the current administration like pretty well all its predecessors of  either blue or red persuasion have run from meaningful fisheries reform as fast as their little legs could carry them.

The only change in the past year seems to be that the industry has gone from midway up sh**t creek to being pretty close to the headwaters.

Bottom line:  we are still in an election year with a Tory leadership out there waiting to get settled afterward.  No politician of any political stripe is going to advocate what needs to happen (the report would be a good starting point) under either of those circumstances. And for the Tories in power, they have a double reason to stay as short-sighted as they can.

Anyone still wonder why Danny left in such a gigantic hurry?

- srbp -

The Four Horsemen and government finances

Don’t be surprised if the provincial government issues a statement in the near future trumpeting an accrual surplus of several hundred millions.

Sure Tom Marshall isn’t ready to acknowledge what is going on, but it’s pretty hard to avoid making tons of money when those pre-Danny Williams oil royalty regimes meet Brent crude prices that are soaring to more than US$105 million based on Muammar Khaddafi’s willingness to slaughter thousands of Libyans in order to stay in power.

Oil prices and production levels are actually at the level where the Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador might produce a cash account surplus as well for the first time in a couple of years. That’s a good thing if only because it means the public debt won’t increase to record levels as it has under the Conservatives since 2003.

The question one must ask as we get closer to a provincial budget for the new fiscal year is how much longer the provincial Conservatives will continue to base public spending on windfalls due to war, famine, pestilence and death?

The Conservative banshees will likely start their usual screeching in the comments section at this point but the facts are plain in anyone’s face.  The Conservatives’ financial “miracle” has resulted not one teensy bit from anything they have done.  The enormous cash flow over the past five years resulted to one extent or another from political instability, economic crisis and all manner of calamities around the globe that drove oil prices to unprecedented heights.  Run those oil prices through the royalty regimes delivered before the Conservatives took power in 2003 and you have more money than the spendthrift Conservatives could actually spend.

Since 2003, the provincial Conservatives, led by first Danny Williams and now Kathy Dunderdale, have deliberately avoided sound fiscal policies.  Finance minister Tom Marshall and his colleagues have refused to create a sovereign wealth fund or to restrain public spending.  They have, in fact, willingly boosted spending to levels even they’ve acknowledged are unsustainable. 

Gross public debt remains at historic levels and, if Marshall is to be believed, there is little willingness around the cabinet table to take the sort of measures any prudent government would be doing in the face of dwindling oil production.  In other words, there’ll be no investment fund of the type found in other, responsibly run places, at least, not until Tom takes a hike to enjoy his fat pension on a Bermuda beach somewhere.

Now none of this actually comes as a surprise to the Conservatives.  Premier Kathy Dunderdale is aware enough of declining oil production – and hence revenue – but that seems to be only when she is faced with a reporter’s question about spending public on something  - like municipal bus services – that she obviously isn’t keen on.

But on things she wants, like Muskrat Falls, there is evidently no limit to Dunderdale’s willingness to spend other people’s money by increasing public debt and doubling electricity rates in the province.

In a few weeks’ time, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will find out what Kathy Dunderdale and her colleagues plan to do with public money for the foreseeable future. Let’s see if Kathy Dunderdale defines her premiership by changing the pattern of financial imprudence she and her colleagues have maintained until now.

Odds are against any change to fiscal responsibility by the provincial government.  For starters we are in a pre-election period. And when that is done, we will still have the unresolved Conservative leadership.  No one will be willing to take any steps to turn off the money spigots when votes are at stake.

Just think of political expediency in a patronage-riddled political culture as the fifth horseman.

-srbp -

Whiff and poof #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Labrador member of parliament Todd Russell is not popular among Conservatives in the province. The reason has more to do with Russell’s unwillingness to kiss the Old Man’s derriere since 2003 more so than the fact Russell is a Liberal.

Russell made the news in Newfoundland and Labrador on Thursday as a result a virtual town hall he held.  Basically it was an opportunity for Russell’s constituents to discuss the proposed Muskrat Falls project using a giant conference call.  This was a big call, according to Russell’s office, with dozens of people who got a chance to speak, dozens left on the line when time ran out and a couple or so thousand people participating overall.

Here’s how Russell summarised the views he’s been hearing to a reporter at the Telegram:

“They have expressed their opinions around environmental issues, about economic issues, social issues and cultural issues. The overriding concern that’s come to light is that no thought has been given to meet the needs and aspirations of the people who own this resource, the people of Labrador,” he said.

Not surprisingly, one-time Conservative party executive director Mark Whiffen took some time on Thursday to explain to CBC’s Peter Cowan what he thought of Russell and Russell’s concern to ensure the people of Labrador benefit from the project:

“if Todd Russell doesn't see the overall benefit then he isn't a good MP.” and “there will be long-term benefits to Labrador. They all may not be direct, but they'll be there.” and “also, Lab is benefiting from offshore oil - not off Lab's coast, but no one cares. It's 1 province. Shame an MP can't see that.”

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

It is so easy to spew out a bunch of talking points and Whiffen’s tweets are a fine example of the enthusiastic but decidedly insubstantial nature of the partisan talking point.   Someone else joined in the exchange at one point but the general thrust didn’t change much.

But just notice that not just accepting those benefits, especially the indirect and undefined ones, makes one a bad member of parliament.  Asking for more, presumably,  would be naughty.

Naughty, naughty, Todd.

Makes you wonder what a Conservative might say.  Well, a Conservative other than Whiffen who is not, quite evidently, either from Labrador or very familiar with the issues as seen from the perspective of someone who lives in the Big Land.

Why what about someone like John Hickey, currently drawing a cabinet minister’s pay and rumoured to be organizing a run for the federal Conservatives in the next federal election?

Back in 2002, Hickey took part in a massive anti-Lower Churchill rally organized by the guy who would one day deliver the starting bits for the Muskrat Falls project.

Here’s how the Telegram (December 4, 2002) reported Hickey’s comments at the rally:

He said they want to see a development fund set up for Labrador and a plan for long-term sustainable development attached to the project that will bring new industries to the region.

Hickey was even more forthright in his insistence – back then, of course – that not one megawatt of power should leave Labrador until local were met.  As the Globe reported 9 December 10, 2002:

Mr. Hickey said the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay can only acquire 55 megawatts from Churchill Falls and has been stymied in its attempts to bring in industries such as an aluminum smelter because of uncertainty about the electrical supply. 

Mr. Hickey was one of several Labrador business and political leaders who met with Mr. Grimes two weeks ago and demanded that any Lower Churchill agreement contain a clause that would allow Labrador communities to obtain 500 megawatts of power for future industrial development.  

"I've got a message for Mr. Landry: 'you aren't going to get a megawatt of power out of Labrador until our needs are looked after,' " Mr. Hickey said.

That was then, of course.  Hickey’s been notoriously silent on the project and whether or not the existing proposal meets the standards Hickey set back in 2002.  (Hint:  it doesn’t). But if you look at Hickey’s view you can see it is pretty much along the same lines that Todd Russell is talking about today. There’s none of the vagueness of Whiffen’s comments.

So is the former Conservative party executive director going to be supporting John Hickey in the next federal election or is John already branded as a naughty boy in Conservative circles for expecting more for Labradorians than the island Conservatives are willing to cough up?

Hard to say at this point but this little exchange does go to show the problems that come when you only know the TPs and not the wider context. 

- srbp -

Dippers fear Byrning In St. John’s East #cdnpoli #nlpoli

Your humble e-scribbler made a comment on Thursday in response to another comment by Conservative strategist Tim Powers about the potential Jerry Byrne had to give incumbent New Democrat Jack Harris a tough run:

W/ feud over, trad vote patterns spell tough fight for Harris if not defeat.

That garnered a pretty quick and pretty sharp retort from Sally Housser, the NDP press secretary that the comment was “categorically ridiculous.”  She followed up with a recitation of the vote percentage’s from the last federal election.

That would be wonderful if it actually mattered.

The vote results in the 2008 were an anomaly, a one-off.  That’s because Danny Williams and some of his fellow provincial Conservatives waged an effective campaign to suppress the Conservative vote or to drive it to Liberal or New Democratic party candidates.

In St. John’s South-Mount Pearl, the Connies actually defied Williams and voted New Democrat.  Now that might seem strange to some people but you have to appreciate the extent to which local Conservatives in St. John’s are basically Tory by anti-Confederate or anti-Smallwood heritage.  If they don’t vote Tory, they will vote New Democrat before they will vote rouge.

Meanwhile in St. John’s East, the New Democrats profited by running Danny Williams old law partner and they got a double-whammy bonus from the Liberal candidate whose campaign imploded based on his own baggage. It’s not surprising, therefore that Harris swept the seat with a gigantic percentage of the votes cast.

But what are the usual voting patterns in St,. John’s East, the ones more likely to come back now that the feud is over and all is well in the Conservative corner? Take a look at this chart from an earlier post on the 2008 election results.

Basically you can lop off about 15,000 votes from Jack’s vote for starters.  That reflects the people who voted Connie before but who switched in 2008 based on the conditions at the time.

Suddenly the race looks a wee bit different.

And Jack Harris’ personal support?

It might count for something but people who think that even half of that 31,000  went Dipper because people love Jack might want to give their heads a good shake. 

In other words, in that straight match-up Jack Harris would basically have a tight race and conceivably could lose. He’s going to face a very aggressive Conservative candidate in Jerry Byrne.  Byrne’s a successful local businessman with a reputation for being hyper- energetic.  He’s got deep roots in the provincial Conservative party.  He’ll have a strong locally-based machine that will ensure Conservative voters get to the polls. Add to that the likelihood that Byrne would be a natural cabinet selection in a future Conservative administration and you can see a tough fight shaping up in the East.

Now the one wild card here is the Liberal.  Just like Jack can’t count on local Conservative support next time, Jack Harris also can’t count on a Liberal candidate with a penchant for self-immolation.  There’s no Liberal candidate even rumoured at this point although Ignatieff major domo Paul Antle would have to cough up a candidate or run himself.  Antle did very well when he ran before and that too might pose a bit of a problem if he can bleed off any of the support from one side or the other.

As it stands right now, Jack Harris will have a fight to win re-election in the next federal election.  This is not to say Harris is already dead; it’s just to say that he will have to wage a hard fight to win.

The Dippers know that, by the way.  You can tell they know by just exactly how quickly their press secretary jumped on the suggestion Jack would have to campaign. The New Democrats are obviously afraid of getting Byrned in St. John’s East.

- srbp -

Quebec interested in lunatic megaproject

Around these parts it’s known as the Stunnel.

As in Stunned Tunnel.

It makes absolutely no economic sense but people like to talk about it.

And now, as CBC is reporting, the Government of Quebec is interested in the idea, but apparently at the behest of the Conservatives ruling Newfoundland and Labrador.

Talk about a place sorely lacking in new ideas.

- srbp -

Super-duper Mega Update:  The Northern Pen two days ago -

The Pen can reveal Quebec’s minister for transport Norman MacMillan wrote to provincial counterpart Tom Hedderson on December 1 agreeing, in principle, to undergo a joint study into not only the 15km tunnel, but the completion of Route 138 on the Quebec side.

The letter proposes “conducting a large-scale socio-economic study to investigate the current status and the potential evolution of economic activity and demographics within the entire territory in question, and whether the existing transport infrastructure is adequate.”

There’s a Radio Canada report as well.