The day before the government fell, Christian Paradis and Nathalie Normandeau met to sign an offshore accord for Quebec. An agreement that defined the offshore boundaries along the same lines as the 1964 Stanfield line. A border designation that is opposed by Newfoundland and Labrador, and has been for decades. This Province's western maritime boundary was left undefined in the Atlantic Accord, which established our offshore board, apparently in defference to it's disputed nature. The same rules apparently didn't apply to Quebec in the last dying moments of Mr Harper's minority government.
There is the obvious conflict of interest of having two ministers, one federal and one provincial, being from the province of Quebec, deciding a disputed issue that involves Quebec. It should go without saying that the interests of this Province could be conveniently shuffled to the side by two Quebec ministers - and they were.
The problem with recognizing Quebec's eastern maritime border is that it puts Quebec in the drivers seat. It officially acknowledges that the federal government recognizes Quebec's position in a disputed territory. It even contradicts the formal finding of the federal government's own arbitration panel that found the 1964 boundary had no basis in international law. The same law that must arbitrate maritime boundary disputes between provinces. Some media critics of my position, as well as the Dunderdale regime, state that an arbitration process is built into the document. They conveniently miss the point that the Nova Scotia/Newfoundland and Labrador negotiation and arbitration process took eighteen years to resolve. They do though say that the Accord does not allow permits to be granted in areas where there is conflict over jurisdiction along the border. Not true. It states permits already granted by Quebec can't be converted to legitimate permits by the new Canada-Quebec Board if there is a conflict. It does not state new permits cannot be granted. It does exempt the federal government from legal action should the aggrieved permit holders wish to sue. In other words, existing permits will expire when the new Board takes control. Could Corridor Resources be on their way out, and say a company like Gastem be on their way in?
Bottom line is Quebec has been taken care of, and Newfoundland and Labrador has been dealt out. Our own provincial Dunderdale government remains silent until Harper comes to town with promises of Lower Churchill glory. There are only so many coincidences in politics.
The problem with this little arrangement is it dealt our only real chip against Quebec into the garbage. The Old Harry deposit was our chance to get the Upper Churchill renegotiated - in good faith. Good faith being important as it could have gone a long way to healing the wounds between Quebec and our Province. It was our position of strength. It was our chance to remedy historical wrongs, help our fiscal situation, and ultimately look after the people of our Province. That is what we lost when Mr. Harper agreed to sell us down the road to Quebec. It's not apparent to many people now, but it will become apparent.
I'm disappointed, yet somehow not surprised, that our former Premier has not come out and spoken on this issue. I'm disappointed, because I believed his heart lay with the people here, I'm not surprised given that he did not speak publicly on the constitutionality of the PC Party's leadership process. It does seem that Mr. William's has missed an opportunity to speak out on a crucial financial issue for the Province - the value of which is many, many times that of the broken promise that resulted in the ABC (Anyone But Conservative) movement.
So, for sacrificing the vital interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador at the alter of Quebec's interests- again, Mr. Harper loses my support. It amazes me that his seven candidates can actually stand in their place and sing his praises when they know he stuck the cold steel blade between our collective shoulders. It makes me reflect on what kind of Newfoundlander and Labradorian could bow to this type of deceit. For the record, this one won't. That's why you don't have my vote Mr. Harper.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Canada's"Arab Spring"- Election 2011
The "Arab Spring", as it has come to be known, began in Tunisia in 2011. It spread a wave of unrest throughout the Arab world toppling existing political dynasties along the way. A wave of discontent aimed at fundamentally shifting out dictators, and their processes of distributing power. Even though many of those that participated in the unrest had little or no idea what democracy is, they did however want a different kind of political environment than the one they lived in. That brings us to Canada, and our own "Canadian Spring".
Canadians have been governed now for five years by a Party that has had less than 39% of the popular vote - in itself a fundamentally undemocratic predicament. Political power was consistently rewarded based on concentrations of power in certain geographical areas of the country, while others were purposely marginalized. The Alberta Reformers married the Ontario Harris Tories, and the two lauded it over a wounded Liberal Party, and a marginalized NDP. Quebec, Atlantic Canada, and to some degree Ontario were left out of the mix. A polarization of the country and the political process has become the norm. The deep roots of this polarization have erupted in Parliament, with a finding of Contempt of Parliament being the final result.
The Conservative's hold on power seemed in jeopardy until the evening of the English debate where Mr. Ignatieff failed to convince those that wanted change that he was their man. A sense of hopelessness overcame the Canadian political scene, and people became resigned to the fact that a Conservative government was inevitable. That resignation began to lead all the leading opinion shapers to believe that a majority Conservative government was inevitable. It seems that thinking led to a popular uprising in Quebec. Like Tunisia before it, Quebec became the wind that fanned the flame of change. That wind was coloured orange. Overnight Jack Layton became a factor. The NDP became serious.
Ontario, as it traditionally does, began to question it's political leanings in light of developments in Quebec. A sense of protest, like the Arab Spring, began to grow there. British Columbia, with strong NDP leanings, started to shift. Suddenly, on the eve of the vote, the NDP is 5 points behind the Conservatives nationally. The question is will it result in seats? The answer is most definitely yes. The NDP is now on the verge of taking at least 50 seats in Quebec alone. The Conservatives are looking at having a large percentage of the popular vote across Canada, but a lot less seats. In fact, they are losing popular vote in Ontario, which will result in less seats for them in Ontario. The NDP is on track to form a minority government come 2nd of May, 2011.
Why is this NDP surge happening here, and why now? The answer is the governing style of the Conservatives. They abused Parliament. They refused political responsibility for their actions. In many ways they betrayed the democratic principles of their Reform roots. I am not saying that Harper is a dictator, and that our political system is a dictatorship - although some do. What I am saying is that all things are relative. We as a people aren't marching in the streets. Nobody is getting shot. There are no tanks. Our choice of protest is the ballot. Our day of protest is election day. Make no mistake, though, this Canadian election has become a 'Canadian Spring'.
Canadians have been governed now for five years by a Party that has had less than 39% of the popular vote - in itself a fundamentally undemocratic predicament. Political power was consistently rewarded based on concentrations of power in certain geographical areas of the country, while others were purposely marginalized. The Alberta Reformers married the Ontario Harris Tories, and the two lauded it over a wounded Liberal Party, and a marginalized NDP. Quebec, Atlantic Canada, and to some degree Ontario were left out of the mix. A polarization of the country and the political process has become the norm. The deep roots of this polarization have erupted in Parliament, with a finding of Contempt of Parliament being the final result.
The Conservative's hold on power seemed in jeopardy until the evening of the English debate where Mr. Ignatieff failed to convince those that wanted change that he was their man. A sense of hopelessness overcame the Canadian political scene, and people became resigned to the fact that a Conservative government was inevitable. That resignation began to lead all the leading opinion shapers to believe that a majority Conservative government was inevitable. It seems that thinking led to a popular uprising in Quebec. Like Tunisia before it, Quebec became the wind that fanned the flame of change. That wind was coloured orange. Overnight Jack Layton became a factor. The NDP became serious.
Ontario, as it traditionally does, began to question it's political leanings in light of developments in Quebec. A sense of protest, like the Arab Spring, began to grow there. British Columbia, with strong NDP leanings, started to shift. Suddenly, on the eve of the vote, the NDP is 5 points behind the Conservatives nationally. The question is will it result in seats? The answer is most definitely yes. The NDP is now on the verge of taking at least 50 seats in Quebec alone. The Conservatives are looking at having a large percentage of the popular vote across Canada, but a lot less seats. In fact, they are losing popular vote in Ontario, which will result in less seats for them in Ontario. The NDP is on track to form a minority government come 2nd of May, 2011.
Why is this NDP surge happening here, and why now? The answer is the governing style of the Conservatives. They abused Parliament. They refused political responsibility for their actions. In many ways they betrayed the democratic principles of their Reform roots. I am not saying that Harper is a dictator, and that our political system is a dictatorship - although some do. What I am saying is that all things are relative. We as a people aren't marching in the streets. Nobody is getting shot. There are no tanks. Our choice of protest is the ballot. Our day of protest is election day. Make no mistake, though, this Canadian election has become a 'Canadian Spring'.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Election prediction 2011 - and the Aftermath
In the stormy waters of the 2011 general election a prediction is hard to come by. The old adage "a week in politics is a long time" has never been so true. The campaign started with a well orchestrated dissolution of Parliament. A focused Conservative strategy that included several months of preparatory attack ads on the credibility of Liberal leader Ignatieff. Not unlike a military operation where you fire artillery at the enemy and attack when there are only dead and dying left.
Every detail was planned. In Newfoundland and Labrador we witnessed Senator Manning announce multiple federal financial commitments to communities in his own riding right up to the date of the fall of government. We witnessed the signing of the Quebec Offshore Accord one day before the fall of government. We witnessed the unholy alliance of Kathy Dunderdale, and the provincial PC's, with the Harper Conservatives. A dubious commitment to provide funding or guarantees for the Lower Churchill being the grease on the wheel. All things were a go, and the Conservatives believed the twelve elusive seats they needed to form a majority were well in place.
However, as we say in the military, no plan survives the first contact with the enemy. In Newfoundland and Labrador the peace treaty made by the provincial PC's almost immediately proved futile. Mr. Harper's credibility with the people here was not improved. Ms. Dunderdale was viewed as a traitor to Danny Williams - and he has not come out to disprove the notion. The collection of "respectable" candidates, trotted out from all sorts of previous political appointments to run was viewed with immediate suspicion. The ultimate result of the back fire in this province was Mr Harper's rather catastrophic campaign stop last week where barely 100 people turned out. Even worse, Ms. Dunderdale and her Cabinet did not show. To be sure this reflects as badly on her as it does on him, but he's the one facing election now.
Several potential scandals against the government surfaced, and then almost as quickly subsided. The deliberate leak of the second Auditor General's report casting a less damning view of the government's handling of the G20 funds seemed to put it to bed - for now. However, the real game changer in the campaign was the English language debate. Mr. Harper was not bruised as expected in the debate. Mr. Ignatieff gave some strong moments, but was shaky at times and hurt the perception that he could make a strong Prime Minister. Mr. Layton came out swinging, as usual, but only really hurt Ignatieff. Mr.Duceppe had a terrible performance. He seemed to lack focus, intensity, and was largely hard to understand. The English debate left Mr. Harper as the front runner, and cemented that position.
The french debate was the clincher. Mr. Duceppe was equally unimpressive in the french debate as he was in the English debate. This time, however, he had the most to lose. He was successfully portrayed as a dinosaur. A man from a different era fighting battles that had little relevance to the every day lives of Quebecers. That debate, combined with his lazy campaign, left the battleground for hearts and minds open. The Conservatives could not fill the void. They had aligned early on with Newfoundland and Labrador over the Lower Churchill, which alienated the "nationalistic" vote in Quebec. The federal Liberals were not in a position to capitalize as they were still being blamed for the Clarity Act, and the sponsorship scandal. The only real alternative left for Quebecers to look at was the NDP. Of course it helps that Mr. Layton played up his Quebec birthplace. It also helped that the NDP has been flirting with the pro-separatist unions in Quebec for years. Ultimately, Quebec voters decided to move toward the NDP as their seemingly logical choice.
What that move will result in is not known for certain at this time. However, it will radically alter the post election political scene. Going out on a limb, with a little over a week to go, I'll make the following prediction based on the move recorded in the polls: Conservative 128 seats; NDP 89 seats; Liberal 78 seats; and Bloc 29 seats. What the configuration does is several things: there will not be a coalition; there will be leadership changes in two parties at least; and the next election will likely take place in 2013. My guess is it will be framed on the huge equalization battles coming in the next year or two. There will be a call for a strong central government. One that reflects a national vision, and one that can hold the country together as the provinces wage war against each other to keep the dollars they have, or to get more of someone else's share.
It is a virtual certainty that the federal Liberals would never form a coalition with the NDP that would see an NDPer become Prime Minister. It would, however, give them a chance to change their leadership and give a new leader the time in Parliament to show his stuff. The next federal Liberal leader will be french - that is certain based on the alternating French/English tradition of the Liberal Party of Canada. Look for Justin Trudeau to take over the reigns. The Bloc will change leaders to. Look for them to seek a younger leader to work with the upcoming PQ government in Quebec City. Mr. Charest may be a great guy, and a dedicated Canadian, but he has been mortally wounded. The Conservatives will be in the unenviable position of needing a leadership change without being able to achieve one. It defies the imagination that a Prime Minister of a minority Parliament could be challenged.
As much as I hate to see it unfolding, it appears the NDP is on track to become the Official Opposition. Perhaps there will be a miracle in the last week of the campaign. Jean Chretien, the most popular Prime Minister of modern times, is coming out Wednesday to support Mr. Ignatieff. If anyone can change the course of the election it may be him. However, it appears that people are becoming very decided in their positions, and it may be impossible to sway them at this late stage.
In any case, a prediction is a prediction.
Every detail was planned. In Newfoundland and Labrador we witnessed Senator Manning announce multiple federal financial commitments to communities in his own riding right up to the date of the fall of government. We witnessed the signing of the Quebec Offshore Accord one day before the fall of government. We witnessed the unholy alliance of Kathy Dunderdale, and the provincial PC's, with the Harper Conservatives. A dubious commitment to provide funding or guarantees for the Lower Churchill being the grease on the wheel. All things were a go, and the Conservatives believed the twelve elusive seats they needed to form a majority were well in place.
However, as we say in the military, no plan survives the first contact with the enemy. In Newfoundland and Labrador the peace treaty made by the provincial PC's almost immediately proved futile. Mr. Harper's credibility with the people here was not improved. Ms. Dunderdale was viewed as a traitor to Danny Williams - and he has not come out to disprove the notion. The collection of "respectable" candidates, trotted out from all sorts of previous political appointments to run was viewed with immediate suspicion. The ultimate result of the back fire in this province was Mr Harper's rather catastrophic campaign stop last week where barely 100 people turned out. Even worse, Ms. Dunderdale and her Cabinet did not show. To be sure this reflects as badly on her as it does on him, but he's the one facing election now.
Several potential scandals against the government surfaced, and then almost as quickly subsided. The deliberate leak of the second Auditor General's report casting a less damning view of the government's handling of the G20 funds seemed to put it to bed - for now. However, the real game changer in the campaign was the English language debate. Mr. Harper was not bruised as expected in the debate. Mr. Ignatieff gave some strong moments, but was shaky at times and hurt the perception that he could make a strong Prime Minister. Mr. Layton came out swinging, as usual, but only really hurt Ignatieff. Mr.Duceppe had a terrible performance. He seemed to lack focus, intensity, and was largely hard to understand. The English debate left Mr. Harper as the front runner, and cemented that position.
The french debate was the clincher. Mr. Duceppe was equally unimpressive in the french debate as he was in the English debate. This time, however, he had the most to lose. He was successfully portrayed as a dinosaur. A man from a different era fighting battles that had little relevance to the every day lives of Quebecers. That debate, combined with his lazy campaign, left the battleground for hearts and minds open. The Conservatives could not fill the void. They had aligned early on with Newfoundland and Labrador over the Lower Churchill, which alienated the "nationalistic" vote in Quebec. The federal Liberals were not in a position to capitalize as they were still being blamed for the Clarity Act, and the sponsorship scandal. The only real alternative left for Quebecers to look at was the NDP. Of course it helps that Mr. Layton played up his Quebec birthplace. It also helped that the NDP has been flirting with the pro-separatist unions in Quebec for years. Ultimately, Quebec voters decided to move toward the NDP as their seemingly logical choice.
What that move will result in is not known for certain at this time. However, it will radically alter the post election political scene. Going out on a limb, with a little over a week to go, I'll make the following prediction based on the move recorded in the polls: Conservative 128 seats; NDP 89 seats; Liberal 78 seats; and Bloc 29 seats. What the configuration does is several things: there will not be a coalition; there will be leadership changes in two parties at least; and the next election will likely take place in 2013. My guess is it will be framed on the huge equalization battles coming in the next year or two. There will be a call for a strong central government. One that reflects a national vision, and one that can hold the country together as the provinces wage war against each other to keep the dollars they have, or to get more of someone else's share.
It is a virtual certainty that the federal Liberals would never form a coalition with the NDP that would see an NDPer become Prime Minister. It would, however, give them a chance to change their leadership and give a new leader the time in Parliament to show his stuff. The next federal Liberal leader will be french - that is certain based on the alternating French/English tradition of the Liberal Party of Canada. Look for Justin Trudeau to take over the reigns. The Bloc will change leaders to. Look for them to seek a younger leader to work with the upcoming PQ government in Quebec City. Mr. Charest may be a great guy, and a dedicated Canadian, but he has been mortally wounded. The Conservatives will be in the unenviable position of needing a leadership change without being able to achieve one. It defies the imagination that a Prime Minister of a minority Parliament could be challenged.
As much as I hate to see it unfolding, it appears the NDP is on track to become the Official Opposition. Perhaps there will be a miracle in the last week of the campaign. Jean Chretien, the most popular Prime Minister of modern times, is coming out Wednesday to support Mr. Ignatieff. If anyone can change the course of the election it may be him. However, it appears that people are becoming very decided in their positions, and it may be impossible to sway them at this late stage.
In any case, a prediction is a prediction.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Same promise, different words (The Telegram (St. John’s), 16 Apr 2011, Page A11)
Same promise, different wordsBYDAVEBARTLETT
The Telegram (St. John’s)
16 Apr 2011
The man who unsuccessfully tried to challenge Kathy Dunderdale for the provincial Tory leadership says a recent promise made by Stephen Harper to support the Lower Churchill is basically the same commitment he made in 2006, before he became prime...read more...
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Take a Look in the Mirror
We have rules for a reason. Our society has an order to it so that we can perpetuate ourselves in a relatively peaceful fashion. Without rules there is only anarchy. In a democratic nation those rules are normally enshrined in a Constitution - written or unwritten. We, in Canada, have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and our British parliamentary tradition. Those are the rules that govern our society, and those are the influences that shaped our order. Mr Harper, and his crew, have violated those rules in a manner that has become dangerous.
It is one thing to be creative within the rules to gain advantage over a political opponent. It is another thing to destroy the foundation for the rules in the process. Put simply, Mr Harper, and his government, have abused power in order to gain more. The question remains: "Aren't those that abuse power supposed to lose it?" That is the underlying principle of democratic systems of government since their inception, isn't it? Aren't there rules, even in the jungle, that allow for the species to go on? Isn't this the main one?
Mr. Harper orchestrated his own government's demise. On it's face that would seem fair enough. Expensive, but within the rules of a minority government. He did after all launch a two month advertising campaign against Mr Ignatieff prior to the election. Unless you believe he would waste a massive amount of dollars on an advertising campaign to destroy Mr Ignatieff's character well before an election, then the obvious conclusion is that he did so with full knowledge there would be one. Considering the fact that the future of the government was essentially in his hands it is also logical to assume he intended for it to fall. This doesn't harm the democratic process in itself. Where the harm comes is did he profit from "insider trading"? Did he know that the Auditor General's report was scheduled to be tabled in Parliament? Did he know the Report on Afghan Detainees was due to be released by the committee investigating damaging documents? The answer is yes - on both counts.
Some would say that was a skilled political move by a savvy politician. Others would say it was an abuse of power that undermines the principles our order is based upon. I believe the latter. By manipulating events to avoid responsibility the government has diminished the value of responsible government. Each of us are taught that being responsible for our actions, or inactions, is a basic law of all interaction - whether it be in family life, interpersonal relationships, or business life.
Mr Harper stated that he supported the immediate release of the Auditor General's Report on the G20. What he doesn't say is that he knew full well the report had to be tabled in Parliament, and could not be released when that Parliament had been dissolved. So it was safe for him to play innocent when he knew it could not be called. Same goes for the Afghan Detainee Report. He knew it had to be tabled with the committee that was over seeing the investigation in Parliament, and that when Parliament dissolved so did that committee. Love to release it, but nobody to release it to - sorry. Just last week Harper's team was in Federal Court to prevent the Military Police from completing it's report on the Afghan Detainee investigation
http://tinyurl.com/6eobmgl .
The cause of this is a catastrophic failure of leadership. Just like Somalia, where the senior leadership of the otherwise well respected Airbourne Regiment let the rules of war slide, and paid with it's existence. Another case is the murder of a wounded Afghan on the battlefield by Captain Robert Semrau. Part of our instinct is to put something in pain, that has no hope for life, out of it's misery. However, the rules of warfare deem this action illegal. The reason there are rules of combat is to give a hellish action some guidelines so it doesn't spin out of control. It's a basic rule of survival of the species. Once one taboo is crossed then the next will follow and so on. The generations before us went through these experiences on a global scale, and designed the Geneva Convention to stop us from destroying ourselves. It became a part of the rules of our order.
The problem is expediency. The solution is the rules. Mr Harper is taking the path of expediency. His arbitrary and obvious flouting of our democratic principles place our democracy in peril. If our democracy is made a mockery then our foundation of problem resolution is destroyed. If our ability to resolve problems is compromised then our ability to function, economically or socially, is undermined. In other words we are left with democracy of expediency - anarchy. Anything goes as long as you can get away with it.
Consider then the near future. The province of Quebec is set to elect a separatist government. In 2013 the equalization agreement must be renegotiated. If Mr Harper wins the election he will be in charge and responsible for creating a fair redistribution of wealth within Confederation. The separatists will have learned from the example Mr Harper set that anything goes - nothing is sacred. There are no rules or responsibilities. There are no obligations to maintain peace, the country, or it's economy. All that matters is the goal - in their case a separate country. They will be able to break all the rules to achieve that end, because the Prime Minister himself did the same in the actions, and inactions of his government. Mr Harper will not be able to appeal to the higher ground, because there won't be one left. That is what happens when power is abused. That is why those that abuse it are supposed to lose it. It's called the proper exercise of power and self-preservation. They go hand in hand. The father can not abuse his wife and then lecture his son on hitting girls. It is that simple. Leadership starts at the top and the rest of us are expected to follow. Be careful of your example, and be prepared to accept the consequences.
It is time to end the breaking of the rules. It is time to win by the rules, and lose by the rules. It is time to return to honour and be seen as honourable. It is time for those that abuse power to lose it. Mr Harper take a good long look in the mirror.
It is one thing to be creative within the rules to gain advantage over a political opponent. It is another thing to destroy the foundation for the rules in the process. Put simply, Mr Harper, and his government, have abused power in order to gain more. The question remains: "Aren't those that abuse power supposed to lose it?" That is the underlying principle of democratic systems of government since their inception, isn't it? Aren't there rules, even in the jungle, that allow for the species to go on? Isn't this the main one?
Mr. Harper orchestrated his own government's demise. On it's face that would seem fair enough. Expensive, but within the rules of a minority government. He did after all launch a two month advertising campaign against Mr Ignatieff prior to the election. Unless you believe he would waste a massive amount of dollars on an advertising campaign to destroy Mr Ignatieff's character well before an election, then the obvious conclusion is that he did so with full knowledge there would be one. Considering the fact that the future of the government was essentially in his hands it is also logical to assume he intended for it to fall. This doesn't harm the democratic process in itself. Where the harm comes is did he profit from "insider trading"? Did he know that the Auditor General's report was scheduled to be tabled in Parliament? Did he know the Report on Afghan Detainees was due to be released by the committee investigating damaging documents? The answer is yes - on both counts.
Some would say that was a skilled political move by a savvy politician. Others would say it was an abuse of power that undermines the principles our order is based upon. I believe the latter. By manipulating events to avoid responsibility the government has diminished the value of responsible government. Each of us are taught that being responsible for our actions, or inactions, is a basic law of all interaction - whether it be in family life, interpersonal relationships, or business life.
Mr Harper stated that he supported the immediate release of the Auditor General's Report on the G20. What he doesn't say is that he knew full well the report had to be tabled in Parliament, and could not be released when that Parliament had been dissolved. So it was safe for him to play innocent when he knew it could not be called. Same goes for the Afghan Detainee Report. He knew it had to be tabled with the committee that was over seeing the investigation in Parliament, and that when Parliament dissolved so did that committee. Love to release it, but nobody to release it to - sorry. Just last week Harper's team was in Federal Court to prevent the Military Police from completing it's report on the Afghan Detainee investigation
http://tinyurl.com/6eobmgl .
The cause of this is a catastrophic failure of leadership. Just like Somalia, where the senior leadership of the otherwise well respected Airbourne Regiment let the rules of war slide, and paid with it's existence. Another case is the murder of a wounded Afghan on the battlefield by Captain Robert Semrau. Part of our instinct is to put something in pain, that has no hope for life, out of it's misery. However, the rules of warfare deem this action illegal. The reason there are rules of combat is to give a hellish action some guidelines so it doesn't spin out of control. It's a basic rule of survival of the species. Once one taboo is crossed then the next will follow and so on. The generations before us went through these experiences on a global scale, and designed the Geneva Convention to stop us from destroying ourselves. It became a part of the rules of our order.
The problem is expediency. The solution is the rules. Mr Harper is taking the path of expediency. His arbitrary and obvious flouting of our democratic principles place our democracy in peril. If our democracy is made a mockery then our foundation of problem resolution is destroyed. If our ability to resolve problems is compromised then our ability to function, economically or socially, is undermined. In other words we are left with democracy of expediency - anarchy. Anything goes as long as you can get away with it.
Consider then the near future. The province of Quebec is set to elect a separatist government. In 2013 the equalization agreement must be renegotiated. If Mr Harper wins the election he will be in charge and responsible for creating a fair redistribution of wealth within Confederation. The separatists will have learned from the example Mr Harper set that anything goes - nothing is sacred. There are no rules or responsibilities. There are no obligations to maintain peace, the country, or it's economy. All that matters is the goal - in their case a separate country. They will be able to break all the rules to achieve that end, because the Prime Minister himself did the same in the actions, and inactions of his government. Mr Harper will not be able to appeal to the higher ground, because there won't be one left. That is what happens when power is abused. That is why those that abuse it are supposed to lose it. It's called the proper exercise of power and self-preservation. They go hand in hand. The father can not abuse his wife and then lecture his son on hitting girls. It is that simple. Leadership starts at the top and the rest of us are expected to follow. Be careful of your example, and be prepared to accept the consequences.
It is time to end the breaking of the rules. It is time to win by the rules, and lose by the rules. It is time to return to honour and be seen as honourable. It is time for those that abuse power to lose it. Mr Harper take a good long look in the mirror.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Harper's broken promises to Newfoundland and Labrador (in writing)
In 2006, then Premier Williams wrote a letter with a series of questions, to all federal Party leaders. It's a great historical document to look at now, some five years later, and see what was fulfilled. Of course we are all well aware of the broken promise to exclude non - renewable resources from the equalization formula. It resulted in the famous ABC (Anyone But Conservative) campaign which saw the provincial government campaign against the federal Conservatives in the next election - and be 100% successful in their campaign. That broken promise cost this province billions. However, there are some promises made in that document that might surprise people here. Read for yourself: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/exec/01harper.pdf
The one promise that really jumps off the page to me is:
"Energy:
Does your party support efforts to develop the hydro-power of the Lower Churchill River System for the primary benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the provision of a Federal Government loan guarantee to proceed with the project?
We support this in principle and believe that it is important for Newfoundland and Labrador to have greater control of it's energy mix. A Conservative government would welcome discussions on this initiative and would hope the potential exists for it to proceed in the spirit of past successes such as the Hibernia project."
Support in principle. Interesting wording. That was 2006. Here we are in 2011, and fighting another federal election campaign. Mr. Harper comes to St. John's recently and states: "With these criteria in mind...a re-elected Conservative government would provide a loan guarantee or financial equivalent to the Lower Churchill...there is still a lot to be decided and worked out. I would rather get to a stage where we are ready to be very specific with how we are going to proceed." Sounds to me like support in principle if the three conditions he stipulated are met - economically viable, environmentally friendly, and regionally beneficial. So what has changed? He made the commitment five years ago, and never lived up to it. Then he comes to Newfoundland and Labrador one week into an election and makes the same promise he didn't live up to five years earlier - trying to take advantage of this for votes.
This time however he also extended that "support in principle" to extending federal loan guarantees, or financial equivalent, to all such projects across the country. A mind boggling "support in principle" considering the Conference Board of Canada report of two days ago. The report states that over $273 billion will need to be spent across the country over the next twenty years to build hydro projects. That's $15 billion per year in new projects every year for the next twenty years. Forget the impact of such a commitment on our federal finances. Try not to think of what this says about fiscal responsibility, or deficit reduction. The bigger question here is can Mr. Harper get away with playing the country today the way he has played Newfoundland and Labrador since 2006?
Note to Ms. Dunderdale: Support in principle doesn't mean much to those who don't have any - other than say what you must to get seats. Of course, you know that already.
The one promise that really jumps off the page to me is:
"Energy:
Does your party support efforts to develop the hydro-power of the Lower Churchill River System for the primary benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the provision of a Federal Government loan guarantee to proceed with the project?
We support this in principle and believe that it is important for Newfoundland and Labrador to have greater control of it's energy mix. A Conservative government would welcome discussions on this initiative and would hope the potential exists for it to proceed in the spirit of past successes such as the Hibernia project."
Support in principle. Interesting wording. That was 2006. Here we are in 2011, and fighting another federal election campaign. Mr. Harper comes to St. John's recently and states: "With these criteria in mind...a re-elected Conservative government would provide a loan guarantee or financial equivalent to the Lower Churchill...there is still a lot to be decided and worked out. I would rather get to a stage where we are ready to be very specific with how we are going to proceed." Sounds to me like support in principle if the three conditions he stipulated are met - economically viable, environmentally friendly, and regionally beneficial. So what has changed? He made the commitment five years ago, and never lived up to it. Then he comes to Newfoundland and Labrador one week into an election and makes the same promise he didn't live up to five years earlier - trying to take advantage of this for votes.
This time however he also extended that "support in principle" to extending federal loan guarantees, or financial equivalent, to all such projects across the country. A mind boggling "support in principle" considering the Conference Board of Canada report of two days ago. The report states that over $273 billion will need to be spent across the country over the next twenty years to build hydro projects. That's $15 billion per year in new projects every year for the next twenty years. Forget the impact of such a commitment on our federal finances. Try not to think of what this says about fiscal responsibility, or deficit reduction. The bigger question here is can Mr. Harper get away with playing the country today the way he has played Newfoundland and Labrador since 2006?
Note to Ms. Dunderdale: Support in principle doesn't mean much to those who don't have any - other than say what you must to get seats. Of course, you know that already.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Stephen Harper and the Act of Accountability
Two weeks into a federal election, and the Prime Minister is micro-managing the press corps. The group of reporters following him around the country, at great expense are granted a total of five questions per day. The question that comes to mind immediately: "How can a national leader be held to account when the freedom of the press is suspended." It's the kind of political manipulation we usually find in fanciful dictatorships like Lybia. Case in point: Gadhafi held a press conference recently where he kept the press waiting for hours, and did not give them any access with questions. An overt manipulation of the press - which is what is happening on the Prime Minister's tour.
Take for a moment the Prime Minister's comments regarding accountability in government:
“Restoring accountability will be one of the major priorities of our new government. Accountability is what ordinary Canadians, working Canadians, those people who pay their bills, pay their taxes, expect from their political leaders.”
Restoring accountability - the battle cry of his Reform days. On it's face a laudable goal. However, the most basic requirement of any democratic system in the world is a free and open press. It is their fundamental responsibility to report the news in an educated and unbiased fashion. By their very existence they act as the eyes and ears of the people, and carry a heavy responsibility to safeguard that system that allows their very existence - democracy.
The Prime Minister's control of the national media in this election does, therefore, subvert the freedom of the press. It degrades the freedoms our forefathers, and some current members, fought and sacrificed for on foreign lands. We believe in human rights to the point that we have a museum actually dedicated to it. We conduct ourselves in the United Nations as if we were the in the vanguard of this movement internationally. We enshrined these rights in our own Constitution. Yet for the sake of political expediency the Prime Minister shamefully and blatantly dismisses the national press to a dictated five questions per day.
The big question is whether or not the press has the right or even the obligation to demand an end to this practise? Can the media fulfill it's role to the Canadian people under these circumstances? My answer is absolutely not. The Prime Minister's press corps should boycott Mr. Harper until he changes this policy and allows free and unfettered questioning. Mr. Harper would certainly reverse his policy in quick order. We, the people, are owed this simple act of defiance. It is not as if the press would be choosing sides in a partisan context. Any and all federal politicians should be prepared to face the press, and explain themselves and their policies. It is obvious that Mr. Harper has abandoned his original principle of accountability, but that doesn't excuse our national press corps from defending their right and responsibility to properly inform the Canadian people.
Take for a moment the Prime Minister's comments regarding accountability in government:
“Restoring accountability will be one of the major priorities of our new government. Accountability is what ordinary Canadians, working Canadians, those people who pay their bills, pay their taxes, expect from their political leaders.”
Restoring accountability - the battle cry of his Reform days. On it's face a laudable goal. However, the most basic requirement of any democratic system in the world is a free and open press. It is their fundamental responsibility to report the news in an educated and unbiased fashion. By their very existence they act as the eyes and ears of the people, and carry a heavy responsibility to safeguard that system that allows their very existence - democracy.
The Prime Minister's control of the national media in this election does, therefore, subvert the freedom of the press. It degrades the freedoms our forefathers, and some current members, fought and sacrificed for on foreign lands. We believe in human rights to the point that we have a museum actually dedicated to it. We conduct ourselves in the United Nations as if we were the in the vanguard of this movement internationally. We enshrined these rights in our own Constitution. Yet for the sake of political expediency the Prime Minister shamefully and blatantly dismisses the national press to a dictated five questions per day.
The big question is whether or not the press has the right or even the obligation to demand an end to this practise? Can the media fulfill it's role to the Canadian people under these circumstances? My answer is absolutely not. The Prime Minister's press corps should boycott Mr. Harper until he changes this policy and allows free and unfettered questioning. Mr. Harper would certainly reverse his policy in quick order. We, the people, are owed this simple act of defiance. It is not as if the press would be choosing sides in a partisan context. Any and all federal politicians should be prepared to face the press, and explain themselves and their policies. It is obvious that Mr. Harper has abandoned his original principle of accountability, but that doesn't excuse our national press corps from defending their right and responsibility to properly inform the Canadian people.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Obvious Result of Harper's Gamble
CBC story today outlining how Ontario now demands equal treatment for it's hydro projects. I am projecting a further and much larger demand from Quebec. They will likely seek financing guarantees, or cash in lieu for the Romaine dams times four, and all the other projects they have on the go. Knowing Quebec, they may even try for retroactive compensation for projects they've built in the past. This is what happens when a Prime Minister acts irresponsibly for the sake of seats. He, above any other person in government, must not be irresponsible with power. Check out my previous post, How to Lose a National Election 101.
McGuinty demands 'equal treatment' from Ottawa
CBC News Posted: Apr 4, 2011 1:13 PM
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has waded into the federal election campaign after demanding that Ottawa subsidize the province's massive electricity infrastructure upgrade
McGuinty's comments come after the Conservatives promised last week to guarantee a $4.2-billion dollar loan for the massive Lower Churchill hydroelectric project in Labrador.
McGuinty said the federal parties need to treat Ontario fairly because he says 40 per cent of federal tax dollars come from Ontario.
"So when Prime Minister Harper pledges specific aid to another part of Canada for a specific multi-billion project, 40 per cent of that money is coming from Ontarians," McGuinty told reporters Monday. "When it comes to support from the federal government for energy projects, Ontario is looking for equal treatment."
McGuinty's comments come three days after Quebec Premier Jean Charest slammed the Conservatives for the pledge, which he considers electioneering.
Ontario is implementing a 20-year $87-billion to upgrade its energy infrastructure. That includes $33 billion in investments by government and the private sector to build two new nuclear reactors at Darlington and to refurbish 10 older units.McGuinty didn't put a dollar figure on what he wants from Ottawa, but says he'll be putting the issue to all the federal leaders.He said Ottawa has been pretty good at supporting the oil and gas sector in western Canada too, so he wants to see Ontario get its fair share.
McGuinty demands 'equal treatment' from Ottawa
CBC News Posted: Apr 4, 2011 1:13 PM
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has waded into the federal election campaign after demanding that Ottawa subsidize the province's massive electricity infrastructure upgrade
McGuinty's comments come after the Conservatives promised last week to guarantee a $4.2-billion dollar loan for the massive Lower Churchill hydroelectric project in Labrador.
McGuinty said the federal parties need to treat Ontario fairly because he says 40 per cent of federal tax dollars come from Ontario.
"So when Prime Minister Harper pledges specific aid to another part of Canada for a specific multi-billion project, 40 per cent of that money is coming from Ontarians," McGuinty told reporters Monday. "When it comes to support from the federal government for energy projects, Ontario is looking for equal treatment."
McGuinty's comments come three days after Quebec Premier Jean Charest slammed the Conservatives for the pledge, which he considers electioneering.
Ontario is implementing a 20-year $87-billion to upgrade its energy infrastructure. That includes $33 billion in investments by government and the private sector to build two new nuclear reactors at Darlington and to refurbish 10 older units.McGuinty didn't put a dollar figure on what he wants from Ottawa, but says he'll be putting the issue to all the federal leaders.He said Ottawa has been pretty good at supporting the oil and gas sector in western Canada too, so he wants to see Ontario get its fair share.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
What Happened to Principle?
Steven Harper, back many years ago, was the champion of the Reform movement in Canada. It's two primary principles: fiscal reform; and democratic reform. That seems like a different age now. Five years into becoming Prime Minister we see a different man. A man consumed with control of the democratic process, and a man whose fiscal conservatism depends on the political environment.
Take the Lower Churchill hydro electric project as case in point. On Thursday the PM flew into Halifax and said: "The details still have to be worked out...There is a lot of discussion still to come, but it is obviously an important project." He then travelled onto St. John's where he announced to a room full of newly converted PC's: "With these criteria in mind...a re-elected Conservative government would provide a loan guarantee or financial equivalent to the Lower Churchill." That same day, during a one on one interview with NTV, he stated: " ...there is still a lot to be decided and worked out. I would rather get to a stage where we are ready to be very specific with how we are going to proceed." Fair enough, then why endorse it? The only answer to that is pure political manipulation.
In another day, and with another politician, that kind of electoral manipulation might be expected. It is a lot harder to digest when it comes from the man who wanted to create a democratic revolution in this country. The Newfoundland and Labrador loan guarantee request is roughly equal to 50% of it's current net debt. Forget that this province has a declining and aging population. Forget that it has the highest per capita debt already in the country. How can any government increase it's debt load by 50% on one project and remain financially viable.
Then there is the commitment to fund similar projects in a similar fashion thoughtout the country. Considering that most provinces expect equal per capita treatment when it comes to these things, how is the PM going to defend this? Quebec alone, with it's $234 billion dollar debt could conceivably demand $115 billion toward it's mammoth hydro projects. It could even demand compensation for money already spent on earlier or ongoing projects of the same nature. Then there is Ontario and Manitoba Hydro, and their projects. If the federal government provides loan guarantees for all these projects those funds will go against the country's debt. Even though it will be the provinces paying, and holding the debt, the value of the debt will increase our overall exposure. That will cause an increase in interest charged on the national debt.
This is being fiscally conservative? What it actually represents is a blatant attempt to secure seats in this province on the eve of a national election. Call a spade a spade. What it does do is buildup unrealistic expectations in one part of the country and inflame old grievances in another. Taken a step further, it creates a scorched earth policy in Quebec. Perhaps the logic is that "we can't win seats in Quebec, so we'll get them so upset they vote Bloc only and deny the Liberals any as well." That may be harsh, but inflaming separatist passions, and alienating the voters there can only have one result. Could also help the Conservatives as the Bloc has been supporting them for years. Is this the "new" democratic system that had been envisioned?
The bottom line is we have a Prime Minister coming into Newfoundland and Labrador making a promise to support a policy that is financially unsustainable - to say the least. His government concluded an offshore accord with Quebec that recognized disputed borders a day before his government fell. During the PMs most recent visit the federal government announced catastrophic cuts to the shrimping industry that hurt many regular Newfoundlanders. That was conveniently announced on the same day as the big Lower Churchill show. Our provincial government did not say a word about it. The red carpet was rolled out for the big show, and nobody cared about the thousands of rural Newfoundlanders that were to be devastated by the shrimp cuts. Again, the "new" and transparent democracy we have all fought so hard for. It is amazing how the principles that found and defined us can be set aside for power - a rather 'old school' practise for a Reformer.
Take the Lower Churchill hydro electric project as case in point. On Thursday the PM flew into Halifax and said: "The details still have to be worked out...There is a lot of discussion still to come, but it is obviously an important project." He then travelled onto St. John's where he announced to a room full of newly converted PC's: "With these criteria in mind...a re-elected Conservative government would provide a loan guarantee or financial equivalent to the Lower Churchill." That same day, during a one on one interview with NTV, he stated: " ...there is still a lot to be decided and worked out. I would rather get to a stage where we are ready to be very specific with how we are going to proceed." Fair enough, then why endorse it? The only answer to that is pure political manipulation.
In another day, and with another politician, that kind of electoral manipulation might be expected. It is a lot harder to digest when it comes from the man who wanted to create a democratic revolution in this country. The Newfoundland and Labrador loan guarantee request is roughly equal to 50% of it's current net debt. Forget that this province has a declining and aging population. Forget that it has the highest per capita debt already in the country. How can any government increase it's debt load by 50% on one project and remain financially viable.
Then there is the commitment to fund similar projects in a similar fashion thoughtout the country. Considering that most provinces expect equal per capita treatment when it comes to these things, how is the PM going to defend this? Quebec alone, with it's $234 billion dollar debt could conceivably demand $115 billion toward it's mammoth hydro projects. It could even demand compensation for money already spent on earlier or ongoing projects of the same nature. Then there is Ontario and Manitoba Hydro, and their projects. If the federal government provides loan guarantees for all these projects those funds will go against the country's debt. Even though it will be the provinces paying, and holding the debt, the value of the debt will increase our overall exposure. That will cause an increase in interest charged on the national debt.
This is being fiscally conservative? What it actually represents is a blatant attempt to secure seats in this province on the eve of a national election. Call a spade a spade. What it does do is buildup unrealistic expectations in one part of the country and inflame old grievances in another. Taken a step further, it creates a scorched earth policy in Quebec. Perhaps the logic is that "we can't win seats in Quebec, so we'll get them so upset they vote Bloc only and deny the Liberals any as well." That may be harsh, but inflaming separatist passions, and alienating the voters there can only have one result. Could also help the Conservatives as the Bloc has been supporting them for years. Is this the "new" democratic system that had been envisioned?
The bottom line is we have a Prime Minister coming into Newfoundland and Labrador making a promise to support a policy that is financially unsustainable - to say the least. His government concluded an offshore accord with Quebec that recognized disputed borders a day before his government fell. During the PMs most recent visit the federal government announced catastrophic cuts to the shrimping industry that hurt many regular Newfoundlanders. That was conveniently announced on the same day as the big Lower Churchill show. Our provincial government did not say a word about it. The red carpet was rolled out for the big show, and nobody cared about the thousands of rural Newfoundlanders that were to be devastated by the shrimp cuts. Again, the "new" and transparent democracy we have all fought so hard for. It is amazing how the principles that found and defined us can be set aside for power - a rather 'old school' practise for a Reformer.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Newfoundland and Labrador Poll - take note.
Here is the stats from today's VOCM question of the day. Note to Ms Dunderdale: Your betrayal of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is not going over well. Enjoy your weekend of back slapping and feasting while the ordinary people struggle to make ends meet.
Question of the Day
Are you pleased with Stephen Harper's promise of financial support for the Lower Churchill project? Why or why not?
Question Date: 4/1/2011
Total Votes: [10224]
Yes (27%)
No (71%)
Question of the Day
Are you pleased with Stephen Harper's promise of financial support for the Lower Churchill project? Why or why not?
Question Date: 4/1/2011
Total Votes: [10224]
Yes (27%)
No (71%)
Thursday, March 31, 2011
How to Lose a National Election 101
There are often many opinions on how to win an election, but very few on how to lose one. One hour ago I watched Steven Harper stand in Newfoundland and Labrador and state that his government would give the province a loan guarantee, or financial equivalent thereof, for the Lower Churchill project. Assuming it met three criteria: environmentally sound; economically viable; and in the national interest. He sort of insinuated it met all three criteria, but he never came out and stated it did.
What troubled me even further were his comments some four hours earlier in Halifax: "The details still have to be worked out," said Harper, speaking in Halifax Thursday morning. "There is a lot of discussion still to come, but it is obviously an important project." In other words, there is no deal. There is a political interest in making a deal, but there is no deal. There is not even a written agreement. There is not even an agreement that it would be a loan guarantee or equivalent financial assistance. Consider for a moment that a loan guarantee does not physically cost the federal government a cent. Why then would he give equivalent financial assistance that presumably would cost real dollars? What is the definition of equivalent financial assistance?
This announcement of course was closely orchestrated for the purposes of gaining seats in this province. The ultimate goal being to secure a majority government. Here's the kicker. In doing so he set Quebec on fire. He gave the Bloc the best present they could ever wish for. A direct assault on their nationalistic hydro empire. The words had hardly left his lips and Charest and Duceppe were in the public screaming betrayal. Same goes for the hockey arena - except this is much worse. Most Quebecers didn't need a reason to hate Harper, and now they have a big one: aiding the mortal hydro enemy Newfoundland and Labrador. Conservative spinners came out immediately and spun the benefits of the Old Harry deal for Quebec. Problem is oil is not near and dear to Quebecer's hearts. They like the idea of dollars, but it goes against their "eco core values".
So now Quebec is on fire. Ontario next door gets concerned that Quebec is becoming unstable, and starts to take a long look at Steven Harper's ability to keep the country in relative harmony. They already have very difficult financial circumstances, and a large immigrant population all too familiar with instability. Ontario is traditionally the bridge between Quebec and the rest of the country. They look at Harper as unable to keep the balance in confederation. The West doesn't mind Quebec being on fire, and so it likely firms that base up - except British Columbia, BC already in play, splinters. That takes us back to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Home of the ABC campaign, and mostly proud of it. Many people here think Danny Williams did not create the ABC feeling. On the contrary, many believe he was a smart politician that got in front of the parade. The real ABC in this province is within the people. There are many historical grievances Newfoundland and Labrador has with the federal government, and the government of Quebec. The feelings run deep. When Steven Harper went back on his written commitment to exclude non-renewable resources from equalization the province was enraged. The betrayal went deep. Now the same prime minister is here again. Waving another big promise. This time the provincial Tory party is on his side. Unfortunately for the PM, the new premier is unable to deliver the people. They still aren't over the last, big broken promise. A recent VOCM poll showed almost 60% of the 14,000 who voted said it was a mistake for Ms Dunderdale to have warmer relations with the PM. Earlier in the day it was 79% out of 4,500 votes.
Now figure in Old Harry - the disputed oil field. While the feds siding with Quebec on boundaries made very little impact in Quebec (as they never doubted their entitlement), it did have a large and growing negative impact in this province. It is becoming common to hear people refer to a new betrayal - Quebec got our oil, and all we got was a loan guarantee on a project that will lose us money. No doubt the debate will heat up here over the next few weeks, but Newfoundland and Labrador is no where near a given for the Conservatives.
The really humorous part of today's announcement was listening to Mr Harper expound on the evils of the tax and spend Liberals (or Coaltion). I'm not sure if he did not realize that during his speech he promised to support similar mega projects throughout the country? The Lower Churchill project reflects a minimum of a 50% increase in our debt. Can Quebec, Ontario, and all the other provinces now build monolithic "green" projects with our federal government backing all of them? How is that being fiscally prudent when reducing debt and eliminating the deficit are the stated goals of the government? Quebec alone would be entitled to about $100 billion in guarantees. Could they use this for their Romaine dam projects? Slippery slope, and extremely dangerous precedent.
Tonight the Prime Minister lit a fire. Not in the hearts of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - they don't believe him. No he lit a fire in Quebec. He doused his own flame in Ontario. He placed himself in the position of a politician who will say anything to keep power. Of course, that is apparently the reason used to fire his government for contempt of parliament.
What troubled me even further were his comments some four hours earlier in Halifax: "The details still have to be worked out," said Harper, speaking in Halifax Thursday morning. "There is a lot of discussion still to come, but it is obviously an important project." In other words, there is no deal. There is a political interest in making a deal, but there is no deal. There is not even a written agreement. There is not even an agreement that it would be a loan guarantee or equivalent financial assistance. Consider for a moment that a loan guarantee does not physically cost the federal government a cent. Why then would he give equivalent financial assistance that presumably would cost real dollars? What is the definition of equivalent financial assistance?
This announcement of course was closely orchestrated for the purposes of gaining seats in this province. The ultimate goal being to secure a majority government. Here's the kicker. In doing so he set Quebec on fire. He gave the Bloc the best present they could ever wish for. A direct assault on their nationalistic hydro empire. The words had hardly left his lips and Charest and Duceppe were in the public screaming betrayal. Same goes for the hockey arena - except this is much worse. Most Quebecers didn't need a reason to hate Harper, and now they have a big one: aiding the mortal hydro enemy Newfoundland and Labrador. Conservative spinners came out immediately and spun the benefits of the Old Harry deal for Quebec. Problem is oil is not near and dear to Quebecer's hearts. They like the idea of dollars, but it goes against their "eco core values".
So now Quebec is on fire. Ontario next door gets concerned that Quebec is becoming unstable, and starts to take a long look at Steven Harper's ability to keep the country in relative harmony. They already have very difficult financial circumstances, and a large immigrant population all too familiar with instability. Ontario is traditionally the bridge between Quebec and the rest of the country. They look at Harper as unable to keep the balance in confederation. The West doesn't mind Quebec being on fire, and so it likely firms that base up - except British Columbia, BC already in play, splinters. That takes us back to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Home of the ABC campaign, and mostly proud of it. Many people here think Danny Williams did not create the ABC feeling. On the contrary, many believe he was a smart politician that got in front of the parade. The real ABC in this province is within the people. There are many historical grievances Newfoundland and Labrador has with the federal government, and the government of Quebec. The feelings run deep. When Steven Harper went back on his written commitment to exclude non-renewable resources from equalization the province was enraged. The betrayal went deep. Now the same prime minister is here again. Waving another big promise. This time the provincial Tory party is on his side. Unfortunately for the PM, the new premier is unable to deliver the people. They still aren't over the last, big broken promise. A recent VOCM poll showed almost 60% of the 14,000 who voted said it was a mistake for Ms Dunderdale to have warmer relations with the PM. Earlier in the day it was 79% out of 4,500 votes.
Now figure in Old Harry - the disputed oil field. While the feds siding with Quebec on boundaries made very little impact in Quebec (as they never doubted their entitlement), it did have a large and growing negative impact in this province. It is becoming common to hear people refer to a new betrayal - Quebec got our oil, and all we got was a loan guarantee on a project that will lose us money. No doubt the debate will heat up here over the next few weeks, but Newfoundland and Labrador is no where near a given for the Conservatives.
The really humorous part of today's announcement was listening to Mr Harper expound on the evils of the tax and spend Liberals (or Coaltion). I'm not sure if he did not realize that during his speech he promised to support similar mega projects throughout the country? The Lower Churchill project reflects a minimum of a 50% increase in our debt. Can Quebec, Ontario, and all the other provinces now build monolithic "green" projects with our federal government backing all of them? How is that being fiscally prudent when reducing debt and eliminating the deficit are the stated goals of the government? Quebec alone would be entitled to about $100 billion in guarantees. Could they use this for their Romaine dam projects? Slippery slope, and extremely dangerous precedent.
Tonight the Prime Minister lit a fire. Not in the hearts of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - they don't believe him. No he lit a fire in Quebec. He doused his own flame in Ontario. He placed himself in the position of a politician who will say anything to keep power. Of course, that is apparently the reason used to fire his government for contempt of parliament.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
The Quebec Off Shore Accord - A Study in Betrayal
Mark the 24th day of March, 2011 on your calender as a day of betrayal. A day where political expediency trumped a people's aspirations. Many will say this is not something new, but this particular betrayal goes beyond even the Upper Churchill. Officially known as the Accord between the Government of Canada
and the Government of Quebec for the shared management of petroleum resources in the Gulf of St.Lawrence, this political document subordinates the rights of Newfoundland and Labrador to those of Quebec. You can find the complete document at http://www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/guidelines/aa_mou.pdf
To begin with it is a political document. It does not contain a fraction of the detail of the Atlantic Accord signed by the governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. The only areas that it does give substantial details of are those pertaining to the description of what area constitutes Quebec's offshore area, and issues dealing with Quebec's constitutional issues. It completely ignores the previous Atlantic Accord guarding this Province's offshore rights. A clause in the Atlantic Accord describes our protection and rights:
Precedence over other Acts of Parliament
4. In case of any inconsistency or conflict between
(a) this Act or any regulations made thereunder, and
(b) any other Act of Parliament that applies to the offshore area or any regulations made under that Act, except the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act,
this Act and the regulations made thereunder take precedence.
The key words being: "this Act shall take precedence". Consider then that the description of Quebec's offshore area is identical to that of the 1964 Stanfield Line. A line that Quebec refuses to let go of, and a line that both the federal government and the government of this province have refused to recognize. A line that the Arbitration Board concerning Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, 2001 completely refuted:
7. The Tribunal’s Conclusions
7.1 In the Tribunal’s view, the documentary record looked at as a whole does not disclose
the existence of an agreement resolving the offshore boundaries of Newfoundland and
Labrador and Nova Scotia, within the meaning of the Terms of Reference. This is true
whether the criterion be taken to be the international law of agreements or Canadian
public law. In particular, the Tribunal concludes that the Parties at no stage reached
a definitive agreement resolving their offshore boundary, in the sense explained in
paragraph 3.30 above.
You can find the entire decision at http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/mines&en/publications/offshore/dispute/decision.pdf
It's decision to refute those supposed boundaries resulted in the establishment of the current maritime borders between this Province and Nova Scotia. A legal finding, by an independent arbitration board, that has been recognized by the federal government. Except apparently when it comes to Quebec.
The federal government and Quebec try to be cute by not referring to the boundaries as the 1964 Stanfield line in the Accord - although they are identical. Yet the Premier of Quebec and Ms Normandeau refer publicly to the fact that it represents Quebec's long standing demand that the 1964 border be recognized.
The problem for the federal government is that Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore jurisdiction had already been decided:
"68. The area covered by this Accord is that area below the low water mark lying off the coast of
Newfoundland and Labrador out to the outer edge of the continental margin, coming within
Canada's jurisdiction being north and east and south of the appropriate lines of demarcation
between Newfoundland, the adjacent provinces, and the Northwest Territories."
In other words, our maritime border with Quebec was not defined. It was left undefined presumably due to our border dispute with Quebec, which on the face of it makes sense. However, this Quebec Accord fully details Quebec's maritime border with us. So the federal government, the so-called neutral party, has agreed to Quebec's offshore definition of it's boundaries, but refused to do the same with this province. The federal government has sided with Quebec against the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - betrayal. Keeping in mind that no Act shall contravene our Accord, how is it that the federal government can agree to infringe on this Province's offshore jurisdiction?
How is it that Quebec's Accord allows it to be the equal of the federal government on it's Offshore Petroleum Board, with equal seats, but ours is not so? Why is it that several sections of the Quebec Accord refer to protecting Quebec's constitutional position despite any findings of the arbitration board. In other words, even if an arbitration board were to find a different maritime border that went against Quebec's view of things, Quebec would not be forced to recognize them past petroleum exploration. Why is the federal government agreeing to this despite the possible future repercussions on this Province and the country?
Then there is the title of the agreement: Accord between the Government of Canada
and the Government of Quebec for the shared management of petroleum resources in the Gulf of St.Lawrence. The key words being "for the shared management of petroleum resources in the Gulf of St. Lawrence". Our own agreement makes no mention of a particular geographical area. It refers only to the "offshore". Why is it that the Quebec Accord refers to the entire Gulf of St. Lawrence? The obvious inference is that the federal government recognizes Quebec's claim to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
As mentioned earlier, this Quebec Accord is a political document. Crafted to meet Quebec's constitutional and jurisdictional demands. Written to ignore the long standing position of Newfoundland and Labrador. Allowing a discussion, mediation, arbitration process that can be dragged out for years if not decades. That wouldn't be bad necessarily except the federal government already established Quebec's preferred boundaries for them. It is possible that Quebec can drill and extract oil/gas from the Gulf for decades, receive all those revenues, and then be found not to have those boundaries by arbitration, but by then it will be too late and will have cost this province billions. This is a document designed for Quebec - not Newfoundland and Labrador.
Despite all these obvious problems our provincial government is almost completely silent. Ms Dunderdale says she is happy there will be an arbitration process, but not a word on how long this can be dragged out before we go to arbitration. Not a word on the fact that the arbitration processes are different in the two documents, and not a word on how our accord takes precedence according to the Atlantic Accord. She is too quiet. Is our own provincial government involved with this treachery? Their silence and lack of fight seems to suggest yes. Unfortunately, it may take a long time to expose this, and by that time we may have lost a great deal of wealth. Is this why Danny William's is so upset? We may not know how deep it goes at this moment, but we can rest assured that our own federal government has betrayed us in a way that is historically unprecedented.
and the Government of Quebec for the shared management of petroleum resources in the Gulf of St.Lawrence, this political document subordinates the rights of Newfoundland and Labrador to those of Quebec. You can find the complete document at http://www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/guidelines/aa_mou.pdf
To begin with it is a political document. It does not contain a fraction of the detail of the Atlantic Accord signed by the governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. The only areas that it does give substantial details of are those pertaining to the description of what area constitutes Quebec's offshore area, and issues dealing with Quebec's constitutional issues. It completely ignores the previous Atlantic Accord guarding this Province's offshore rights. A clause in the Atlantic Accord describes our protection and rights:
Precedence over other Acts of Parliament
4. In case of any inconsistency or conflict between
(a) this Act or any regulations made thereunder, and
(b) any other Act of Parliament that applies to the offshore area or any regulations made under that Act, except the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act,
this Act and the regulations made thereunder take precedence.
The key words being: "this Act shall take precedence". Consider then that the description of Quebec's offshore area is identical to that of the 1964 Stanfield Line. A line that Quebec refuses to let go of, and a line that both the federal government and the government of this province have refused to recognize. A line that the Arbitration Board concerning Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, 2001 completely refuted:
7. The Tribunal’s Conclusions
7.1 In the Tribunal’s view, the documentary record looked at as a whole does not disclose
the existence of an agreement resolving the offshore boundaries of Newfoundland and
Labrador and Nova Scotia, within the meaning of the Terms of Reference. This is true
whether the criterion be taken to be the international law of agreements or Canadian
public law. In particular, the Tribunal concludes that the Parties at no stage reached
a definitive agreement resolving their offshore boundary, in the sense explained in
paragraph 3.30 above.
You can find the entire decision at http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/mines&en/publications/offshore/dispute/decision.pdf
It's decision to refute those supposed boundaries resulted in the establishment of the current maritime borders between this Province and Nova Scotia. A legal finding, by an independent arbitration board, that has been recognized by the federal government. Except apparently when it comes to Quebec.
The federal government and Quebec try to be cute by not referring to the boundaries as the 1964 Stanfield line in the Accord - although they are identical. Yet the Premier of Quebec and Ms Normandeau refer publicly to the fact that it represents Quebec's long standing demand that the 1964 border be recognized.
The problem for the federal government is that Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore jurisdiction had already been decided:
"68. The area covered by this Accord is that area below the low water mark lying off the coast of
Newfoundland and Labrador out to the outer edge of the continental margin, coming within
Canada's jurisdiction being north and east and south of the appropriate lines of demarcation
between Newfoundland, the adjacent provinces, and the Northwest Territories."
In other words, our maritime border with Quebec was not defined. It was left undefined presumably due to our border dispute with Quebec, which on the face of it makes sense. However, this Quebec Accord fully details Quebec's maritime border with us. So the federal government, the so-called neutral party, has agreed to Quebec's offshore definition of it's boundaries, but refused to do the same with this province. The federal government has sided with Quebec against the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - betrayal. Keeping in mind that no Act shall contravene our Accord, how is it that the federal government can agree to infringe on this Province's offshore jurisdiction?
How is it that Quebec's Accord allows it to be the equal of the federal government on it's Offshore Petroleum Board, with equal seats, but ours is not so? Why is it that several sections of the Quebec Accord refer to protecting Quebec's constitutional position despite any findings of the arbitration board. In other words, even if an arbitration board were to find a different maritime border that went against Quebec's view of things, Quebec would not be forced to recognize them past petroleum exploration. Why is the federal government agreeing to this despite the possible future repercussions on this Province and the country?
Then there is the title of the agreement: Accord between the Government of Canada
and the Government of Quebec for the shared management of petroleum resources in the Gulf of St.Lawrence. The key words being "for the shared management of petroleum resources in the Gulf of St. Lawrence". Our own agreement makes no mention of a particular geographical area. It refers only to the "offshore". Why is it that the Quebec Accord refers to the entire Gulf of St. Lawrence? The obvious inference is that the federal government recognizes Quebec's claim to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
As mentioned earlier, this Quebec Accord is a political document. Crafted to meet Quebec's constitutional and jurisdictional demands. Written to ignore the long standing position of Newfoundland and Labrador. Allowing a discussion, mediation, arbitration process that can be dragged out for years if not decades. That wouldn't be bad necessarily except the federal government already established Quebec's preferred boundaries for them. It is possible that Quebec can drill and extract oil/gas from the Gulf for decades, receive all those revenues, and then be found not to have those boundaries by arbitration, but by then it will be too late and will have cost this province billions. This is a document designed for Quebec - not Newfoundland and Labrador.
Despite all these obvious problems our provincial government is almost completely silent. Ms Dunderdale says she is happy there will be an arbitration process, but not a word on how long this can be dragged out before we go to arbitration. Not a word on the fact that the arbitration processes are different in the two documents, and not a word on how our accord takes precedence according to the Atlantic Accord. She is too quiet. Is our own provincial government involved with this treachery? Their silence and lack of fight seems to suggest yes. Unfortunately, it may take a long time to expose this, and by that time we may have lost a great deal of wealth. Is this why Danny William's is so upset? We may not know how deep it goes at this moment, but we can rest assured that our own federal government has betrayed us in a way that is historically unprecedented.
Monday, March 21, 2011
China, Russia and Company and the Libyan Patsies
Remember in your school days the kids circling around for a fight? Some were coaxing the combatants on just to see a fight. Some perhaps had grudges and wanted to see the object of their disdain get bloodied. The bottom line is they were happy to have a fight as long as others did it. That brings us to the international community and Libya.
Libya is an African country, ruled by a dictator's family, and supported by tribes. There are over 140 different tribes in Libya, of which 30 are the most influential. Of those 30 tribes, two are the largest and most influential: the Beni Hilal that settled in western Libya and around Tripoli; and the Beni Salim tribe that settled in Cyrenaica, the eastern coastal region of Libya. Gaddafi's own tribe is small in relation, but has risen to prominence with his rise. Loyalties of these tribes has traditionally shifted, but centers around the allocation of patronage and powerful positions within the government and military. For example, the Lockerbie bomber belonged to the Magariha tribe, which has the longest and strongest ties to Gaddafi. His long, drawn out extradition and the celebrations on his return can be directly linked to the importance of maintaining tribal loyalties.
The current divisions in Libya geographically center around Benghazi - Misratah - Tobruk, vs. the rest of the country. The strong rebel areas contain a population of approximately 2,000,000 while the government areas represent about 4,000,000 people. The big spin has been that the "rebels" represent the Libyan people. That is questionable at best. They more likely represent certain tribal groups trying to assert themselves over other tribal groups. There is certainly no justification to call this a revolution for democracy. Libyan democracy is based in the deals made by tribal elders, and not the equality of the common citizen. To believe that democracy was at the root of this insurrection would be to completely ignore Libyan history and culture.
UN resolution 1973 calls for a no fly zone, and all necessary means to protect civilians. To protect civilians. Civilians are not people that take up arms against their own government. In Canada we call that an internal insurrection, and is one of the criteria for being charged with treason. The United States Department of Defense (DOD) defines it as "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict." The argument could be made that the Gaddafi government is not legitimate as it was not duly elected by it's people. Of course that would ignore the fact that it has been the recognized government of Libya for over forty years.Whatever the spin you want to put on it, the "rebels" are not unarmed civilians.
That brings us to the question of why intervene. After all, most African and Middle Eastern governments are not democratic. They are all trying to militarily or otherwise influence the business of their neighbours. Within the last week Saudi Arabia, at the invitation of the King of Bahrain, militarily intervened and used violence against unarmed civilians. On the surface it does not make sense. That's where you have to look deeper.
The fact is that the African continent is a battleground. Right now there are two main players trying to conquer that continent - China and the United States. The US just set up an official African Military Command a short while ago, and placed one General Petraeus in charge of it. The Chinese have been involved in almost every country in Africa - primarily economically. Two different approaches to the same goal. The Chinese are using investment, and civilian agencies to win a hearts and minds campaign. Their approach is to show the area the benefits of doing business with them. They get involved in the health care of countries and helping them build infrastructure. Not unlike the old US approach of the 1960-70's. The US approach is: "We won the Cold War therefore we don't need to play nice and win hearts and minds anymore".
Two different approaches to the same goal - economic domination. Why then would China, and their partner Russia, not veto the no fly zone? It lies in their understanding of the West's attitudes. They realize the optics in the rest of the world of cruise missiles striking a rather defenceless African country. They know how the rest of the African continent, and Middle East will view a Western assault on another Muslim country. More importantly, they know the message it will send to all the other dictators of Africa: The West are not your friends and can't be trusted not turn on you should it suit their purposes. A powerful message when these dictators have two different partners to choose from. The Chinese are famous for minding their own business and being defensive in nature when it comes to foreign affairs. Isn't a partner that doles the cash, helps your people, and doesn't judge you better than one that will slit your throat when it suits?
As if to reinforce this thinking Putin came out today and said the Western bombardment of Libya reminded him of "the crusades". Talk about speaking to your audience. The Chinese have come out and expressed their outrage at the use of disproportionate force. Even the Arab League has expressed concern over it. The UN Secretary General was mobbed outside the Arab League headquarters today, and had to use the back door. All the Russians and Chinese had to do was veto it, but it served their purpose. They wanted the Arab/African world to see the West take out the Libyan military while doing nothing to stop the "rebels" and their tools of war. They wanted that audience to see cruise missiles, and bunker busting bombs hammering Gaddafi's personal residential compound.
The problem for President Obama is he should have listened to Secretary of Defence Gates and not Hillary Clinton. Now the US is painted with this mission whether it takes a "back seat" or not. The Arab/African world will see it for what it is and take note. In a world where the monetary balance has shifted, the US seems intent on fighting the last war. Specifically, the world is to the point where it doesn't matter how big your war machine is, you have to pay for it. The Chinese continue to grow economically and politically. They have a disciplined approach to everything - including foreign relations. The Russians are with them all the way. Even Brazil, an ally of Hugo Chavez, thumbed it's nose at the resolution as a member of the Security Council. A bigger concern for the US might be India. India also abstained from voting on the resolution. It went along with the massive Asian bloc. A place where the US is desperately trying to get in for economic and strategic reasons.
There is an old saying: "You made your bed now lay in it". The Chinese and the Russians are handing this to the West, and more specifically the US, on a platter. The message: "We are your friends and we won't judge you. You can do business with us." The West has given the opposite message. I guess that makes us the patsies.
Libya is an African country, ruled by a dictator's family, and supported by tribes. There are over 140 different tribes in Libya, of which 30 are the most influential. Of those 30 tribes, two are the largest and most influential: the Beni Hilal that settled in western Libya and around Tripoli; and the Beni Salim tribe that settled in Cyrenaica, the eastern coastal region of Libya. Gaddafi's own tribe is small in relation, but has risen to prominence with his rise. Loyalties of these tribes has traditionally shifted, but centers around the allocation of patronage and powerful positions within the government and military. For example, the Lockerbie bomber belonged to the Magariha tribe, which has the longest and strongest ties to Gaddafi. His long, drawn out extradition and the celebrations on his return can be directly linked to the importance of maintaining tribal loyalties.
The current divisions in Libya geographically center around Benghazi - Misratah - Tobruk, vs. the rest of the country. The strong rebel areas contain a population of approximately 2,000,000 while the government areas represent about 4,000,000 people. The big spin has been that the "rebels" represent the Libyan people. That is questionable at best. They more likely represent certain tribal groups trying to assert themselves over other tribal groups. There is certainly no justification to call this a revolution for democracy. Libyan democracy is based in the deals made by tribal elders, and not the equality of the common citizen. To believe that democracy was at the root of this insurrection would be to completely ignore Libyan history and culture.
UN resolution 1973 calls for a no fly zone, and all necessary means to protect civilians. To protect civilians. Civilians are not people that take up arms against their own government. In Canada we call that an internal insurrection, and is one of the criteria for being charged with treason. The United States Department of Defense (DOD) defines it as "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict." The argument could be made that the Gaddafi government is not legitimate as it was not duly elected by it's people. Of course that would ignore the fact that it has been the recognized government of Libya for over forty years.Whatever the spin you want to put on it, the "rebels" are not unarmed civilians.
That brings us to the question of why intervene. After all, most African and Middle Eastern governments are not democratic. They are all trying to militarily or otherwise influence the business of their neighbours. Within the last week Saudi Arabia, at the invitation of the King of Bahrain, militarily intervened and used violence against unarmed civilians. On the surface it does not make sense. That's where you have to look deeper.
The fact is that the African continent is a battleground. Right now there are two main players trying to conquer that continent - China and the United States. The US just set up an official African Military Command a short while ago, and placed one General Petraeus in charge of it. The Chinese have been involved in almost every country in Africa - primarily economically. Two different approaches to the same goal. The Chinese are using investment, and civilian agencies to win a hearts and minds campaign. Their approach is to show the area the benefits of doing business with them. They get involved in the health care of countries and helping them build infrastructure. Not unlike the old US approach of the 1960-70's. The US approach is: "We won the Cold War therefore we don't need to play nice and win hearts and minds anymore".
Two different approaches to the same goal - economic domination. Why then would China, and their partner Russia, not veto the no fly zone? It lies in their understanding of the West's attitudes. They realize the optics in the rest of the world of cruise missiles striking a rather defenceless African country. They know how the rest of the African continent, and Middle East will view a Western assault on another Muslim country. More importantly, they know the message it will send to all the other dictators of Africa: The West are not your friends and can't be trusted not turn on you should it suit their purposes. A powerful message when these dictators have two different partners to choose from. The Chinese are famous for minding their own business and being defensive in nature when it comes to foreign affairs. Isn't a partner that doles the cash, helps your people, and doesn't judge you better than one that will slit your throat when it suits?
As if to reinforce this thinking Putin came out today and said the Western bombardment of Libya reminded him of "the crusades". Talk about speaking to your audience. The Chinese have come out and expressed their outrage at the use of disproportionate force. Even the Arab League has expressed concern over it. The UN Secretary General was mobbed outside the Arab League headquarters today, and had to use the back door. All the Russians and Chinese had to do was veto it, but it served their purpose. They wanted the Arab/African world to see the West take out the Libyan military while doing nothing to stop the "rebels" and their tools of war. They wanted that audience to see cruise missiles, and bunker busting bombs hammering Gaddafi's personal residential compound.
The problem for President Obama is he should have listened to Secretary of Defence Gates and not Hillary Clinton. Now the US is painted with this mission whether it takes a "back seat" or not. The Arab/African world will see it for what it is and take note. In a world where the monetary balance has shifted, the US seems intent on fighting the last war. Specifically, the world is to the point where it doesn't matter how big your war machine is, you have to pay for it. The Chinese continue to grow economically and politically. They have a disciplined approach to everything - including foreign relations. The Russians are with them all the way. Even Brazil, an ally of Hugo Chavez, thumbed it's nose at the resolution as a member of the Security Council. A bigger concern for the US might be India. India also abstained from voting on the resolution. It went along with the massive Asian bloc. A place where the US is desperately trying to get in for economic and strategic reasons.
There is an old saying: "You made your bed now lay in it". The Chinese and the Russians are handing this to the West, and more specifically the US, on a platter. The message: "We are your friends and we won't judge you. You can do business with us." The West has given the opposite message. I guess that makes us the patsies.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Newfoundland and Labrador's Demographic Time Bomb
It's like the elephant in the room. The great truth that nobody wants to speak. It's the demographics of Newfoundland and Labrador - not a pretty picture. Going back forty years our numbers were good. Our population was 530,854 people, with 256,579 between the ages of 0 and 19 (48% of our overall population). That was a healthy mix for any population that wants to grow and build a thriving society. Then they left. In the last 41 years 156,100 young people, in that same age group, left our provincial population. An exodus that will threaten the viability of our economic existence, and create social upheaval hereto unknown.
We are all familiar with the massive loss of cod. Most experts agree that the loss of prime breeding cod rendered the stock unable to replenish itself. The loss of the prime breeding stock was far more important to the survival of the species than the loss of the older fish. Essentially, we humans aren't much different in that respect. If our young people stop producing, and/or leave, eventually the society will be unable to sustain itself. This is what has happened to this province. In 1971, there were 82,676 people aged 20-29. Today there are 70,962. Projections to 2030, only 19 years from now, put those numbers at 41876. The projections are optimistic, and based on the population trends stabilizing as they have since 2008. Should that trend decline, as it has historically, those numbers will be less.
The number of children aged 0-19 were 48% of the population in 1971, that same age group today represents only 21% (106,015) of our population. By 2030 they are projected to be 65,200 or 15% of the population. Conversely, the retired population, those over 65 years of age has grown. In 1971 that group numbered 47,776 or 10% of the overall population. By 2010 those numbers almost doubled to 77,576 or 15% overall. Projecting into 2030, the 65 and over group will number 129,970 or 30%.
The working age group, those that generally pay the taxes, is shrinking to. In 1971, those aged 20 - 64 years of age numbered 241,818 people or 46%. By 2010 they numbered 326,148 or 64%. Projected to 2030 they will number 236,055 or 55%.
Overall, our total population numbers are on the way down. In 1971 there were 530,854 of us. Today we number 509,739. If birth and death rates remain relatively constant our population will hit the 497,808 mark by 2015. The population will actually fall below 500,000 for the first time since 1967 by the year 2014. Projecting out to 2030 we will number 431,225.
Those are the numbers, but what do they mean for us today? Well if sustaining ourselves is the primary goal of any society it means we are in financial trouble. Today our net per capita debt is $16,100.00. Net debt is a bit of a misnomer as it subtracts the value of what we own from our overall debt. The better measure is gross debt - the amount we actually have to pay. Unfortunately, those figures are harder to find. However, the fact that our net debt sits in the $9.5 billion range is trouble enough. Unfunded pension plans create a large part of that number (48%). The debt was so bad that former Premier William's was forced to apply the $2 billion cheque he received from the federal government under the Atlantic Accord toward unfunded pension liabilities.
Add to that number then the Lower Churchill Falls hydro project. The project is estimated to cost the province around $5 billion. That is the estimate, but almost everybody other than the government knows those figures usually double. When was the last time a major, government funded mega project came in on estimate? If it doubles that is $10 billion. Our current debt service payments are $800 million to $1 billion per year. Doubling the debt will double our debt service payments to the $2 billion per year range. Our gross debt per capita will almost double to $30,000.00. That is at today's population. Then consider that our population will be declining as stated earlier. Then consider that 2012 marks the end of off-set payments from the federal government under the Atlantic Accord. Couple that with the renegotiation of our national equalization program in 2013. With rising health and education costs it is almost a foregone conclusion that non-renewable energy revenues will be on the table.
Simply put, we are in a battle of attrition. High debt that politician's want to increase radically. It's the reason why the PC government insisted on equity positions in the offshore. It's the reason why they want to build the Lower Churchill. They want assets at any cost. The more assets they have, the more they can borrow against them. Unfortunately, there is a small and shrinking population here to pay those hugh debt servicing costs. That doesn't include all our other big ticket items like health care. Instead of being creative, and utilizing the resources we have, this crowd wants to build an empire of debt. If the population could bare it, and wanted to, then fine. However, as you can see by the numbers, this is our very own time bomb.
We are all familiar with the massive loss of cod. Most experts agree that the loss of prime breeding cod rendered the stock unable to replenish itself. The loss of the prime breeding stock was far more important to the survival of the species than the loss of the older fish. Essentially, we humans aren't much different in that respect. If our young people stop producing, and/or leave, eventually the society will be unable to sustain itself. This is what has happened to this province. In 1971, there were 82,676 people aged 20-29. Today there are 70,962. Projections to 2030, only 19 years from now, put those numbers at 41876. The projections are optimistic, and based on the population trends stabilizing as they have since 2008. Should that trend decline, as it has historically, those numbers will be less.
The number of children aged 0-19 were 48% of the population in 1971, that same age group today represents only 21% (106,015) of our population. By 2030 they are projected to be 65,200 or 15% of the population. Conversely, the retired population, those over 65 years of age has grown. In 1971 that group numbered 47,776 or 10% of the overall population. By 2010 those numbers almost doubled to 77,576 or 15% overall. Projecting into 2030, the 65 and over group will number 129,970 or 30%.
The working age group, those that generally pay the taxes, is shrinking to. In 1971, those aged 20 - 64 years of age numbered 241,818 people or 46%. By 2010 they numbered 326,148 or 64%. Projected to 2030 they will number 236,055 or 55%.
Overall, our total population numbers are on the way down. In 1971 there were 530,854 of us. Today we number 509,739. If birth and death rates remain relatively constant our population will hit the 497,808 mark by 2015. The population will actually fall below 500,000 for the first time since 1967 by the year 2014. Projecting out to 2030 we will number 431,225.
Those are the numbers, but what do they mean for us today? Well if sustaining ourselves is the primary goal of any society it means we are in financial trouble. Today our net per capita debt is $16,100.00. Net debt is a bit of a misnomer as it subtracts the value of what we own from our overall debt. The better measure is gross debt - the amount we actually have to pay. Unfortunately, those figures are harder to find. However, the fact that our net debt sits in the $9.5 billion range is trouble enough. Unfunded pension plans create a large part of that number (48%). The debt was so bad that former Premier William's was forced to apply the $2 billion cheque he received from the federal government under the Atlantic Accord toward unfunded pension liabilities.
Add to that number then the Lower Churchill Falls hydro project. The project is estimated to cost the province around $5 billion. That is the estimate, but almost everybody other than the government knows those figures usually double. When was the last time a major, government funded mega project came in on estimate? If it doubles that is $10 billion. Our current debt service payments are $800 million to $1 billion per year. Doubling the debt will double our debt service payments to the $2 billion per year range. Our gross debt per capita will almost double to $30,000.00. That is at today's population. Then consider that our population will be declining as stated earlier. Then consider that 2012 marks the end of off-set payments from the federal government under the Atlantic Accord. Couple that with the renegotiation of our national equalization program in 2013. With rising health and education costs it is almost a foregone conclusion that non-renewable energy revenues will be on the table.
Simply put, we are in a battle of attrition. High debt that politician's want to increase radically. It's the reason why the PC government insisted on equity positions in the offshore. It's the reason why they want to build the Lower Churchill. They want assets at any cost. The more assets they have, the more they can borrow against them. Unfortunately, there is a small and shrinking population here to pay those hugh debt servicing costs. That doesn't include all our other big ticket items like health care. Instead of being creative, and utilizing the resources we have, this crowd wants to build an empire of debt. If the population could bare it, and wanted to, then fine. However, as you can see by the numbers, this is our very own time bomb.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Dunderdale, Skinner, and Despicable Acts
The Elizabeth Matthews secret appointment story grows - expontentially. On Monday, an indignant Ms Matthews withdrew her nomination as Vice Chair for the Canada - Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB), and the already existing position as a regular member of the Board. A furious Minister Kennedy came on the VOCM Open Line show and condemned the Official Opposition for scurrilously attacking poor Ms Matthews character, and lamenting that such attacks were aimed at nothing less than women's rights. That somehow the Opposition was against advancing women in politics. Forget for the moment that the Leader of the Opposition is a woman. Let's focus on his spin. Minister Kennedy ignored the fact that Ms Matthews was secretly appointed. He ignored the fact that the government had an obligation to inform it's citizens about the actual nomination, and not just the hypothetical nomination as Vice-Chair. Again, the spin, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, was put ahead of the actual issue.
Then there is my twitter conversation with David Cochrane of the CBC. Mr Cochrane stated to me that Ms Matthews told him she was unaware of being appointed to the Board. As far fetched as that would seem one would think that lying to the press would be even more so. Surely in a government process, where officials are always making sure they have their collective selves covered, a paper trail will be there - somewhere. Then there is Mr Skinner coming on CBC, NTV and the Telegram and stating:
"There was a process, as I indicated, that was supposed to be followed — and again — I haven't been able to determine why that process wasn't done in a more timely manner, but again, I'm going to investigate that," Skinner said.
He further sated:
"While I respect [Matthews's] decision, I am disappointed that such an accomplished and capable individual was pushed to such a decision by petty political manoeuvring by the Opposition that went too far," Skinner said in a statement Monday.
A nasty shot at the Official Opposition, again, with the purpose of demonizing them and ignoring the issue. His own extended interview on the matter started with him saying there was a communications breakdown. That Ms Matthews was not informed of her appointment, and that he would investigate why. Then he said the problem was politics and not communication problems. Then, at the end of the interview, he went back to his position there was a communications problem. You couldn't make this stuff up.
Fast forward to Tuesday. One day later and a new document is released. A copy of the actual Order in Council authorizing Ms Matthews appointment to the board and nomination as it's Vice Chair:
![[OIC-matthews5.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH5bjQuFVy0Bzc-oGteINc6PS4uRWx4VgMzX1kqp-SrnLlqDp9HIQV9v3tyCGsPVyJe1p1jmIszkH2Rjkmqjoys044O9PvYzUOWSMHk0C8PplDY0iebaf_Iu6yRJWsHcsV21A-EbpLIYMQ/s640/OIC-matthews5.jpg)
You will notice that Ms Matthews is listed, along with the Premier, as people to receive copies of the Order. That makes sense considering the Premier put forward the appointment, and Ms Matthews was the person receiving it. In addition, two Deputy Ministers, the Clerk, and the file were to receive copies. That document was dated 21 December, 2011. The only problem being that Ms Matthews and Minister Skinner said she wasn't notified.
Then the bombshell fell Wednesday. The Telegram wrote a story: http://tinyurl.com/48lhz44. Apparently, an spokesperson for Executive Council confirmed that the Order in Council was delivered to Ms Matthews. Oops. Ms Matthews told the CBC she wasn't told she was on the Board. According to the Telegram:
Matthews told The Telegram she received a copy of the order in early January, but was told it was sent to her in error.
“I received an (Order in Council) in the mail in January at which point I contacted the Premier's Office to enquire about its contents,” Matthews said. “I was told they were unaware the (Order in Council) had been sent to me and it should not have been sent.”
Here are some immediate questions. Why would Elizabeth Matthews or the Premier's Office question her receiving a copy of the Order when she is designated to get a copy as stated on the Order?Why should the Oder in Council not be sent to Ms Matthews when she was on the internal distribution list? Why would the Premier's Office, of all Offices, tell her it was mistakenly sent out? Why did Minister Skinner say she wasn't told of her appointment when she was (in January no less)? Why would Ms Matthews have to enquire about the contents of the Order considering her extensive experience as the government's Director of Communications. Then there are the two big questions: Why did Kathy Dunderdale not tell the press the truth, and why did she allow Minister Skinner to mislead the public? After all, according to Ms Matthews, she spoke to the Premier's Office directly about her appointment in January. Ms Matthews knew she was appointed in January. The Premier knew that Ms Matthews was aware of her appointment in January. So why did the premier allow Minister Skinner to mislead the public?
The questions are just finally coming to the real nuts and bolts of things. The bottom line is we can't have politicians lying at will to our press. The press are our ears and eyes, and a firm check on the power of governments. This is the most serious of challenges to our democratic way of life. It challenges the very foundation of our democratic process. This is an issue that should bring down Mr Skinner, Ms Dunderdale, likely Minister Kennedy and perhaps the government in general. A breach of trust. A gross attempt to manipulate it's own citizens for purely partisan reasons. A despicable act by any government claiming to be democratic.
Then there is my twitter conversation with David Cochrane of the CBC. Mr Cochrane stated to me that Ms Matthews told him she was unaware of being appointed to the Board. As far fetched as that would seem one would think that lying to the press would be even more so. Surely in a government process, where officials are always making sure they have their collective selves covered, a paper trail will be there - somewhere. Then there is Mr Skinner coming on CBC, NTV and the Telegram and stating:
"There was a process, as I indicated, that was supposed to be followed — and again — I haven't been able to determine why that process wasn't done in a more timely manner, but again, I'm going to investigate that," Skinner said.
He further sated:
"While I respect [Matthews's] decision, I am disappointed that such an accomplished and capable individual was pushed to such a decision by petty political manoeuvring by the Opposition that went too far," Skinner said in a statement Monday.
A nasty shot at the Official Opposition, again, with the purpose of demonizing them and ignoring the issue. His own extended interview on the matter started with him saying there was a communications breakdown. That Ms Matthews was not informed of her appointment, and that he would investigate why. Then he said the problem was politics and not communication problems. Then, at the end of the interview, he went back to his position there was a communications problem. You couldn't make this stuff up.
Fast forward to Tuesday. One day later and a new document is released. A copy of the actual Order in Council authorizing Ms Matthews appointment to the board and nomination as it's Vice Chair:
You will notice that Ms Matthews is listed, along with the Premier, as people to receive copies of the Order. That makes sense considering the Premier put forward the appointment, and Ms Matthews was the person receiving it. In addition, two Deputy Ministers, the Clerk, and the file were to receive copies. That document was dated 21 December, 2011. The only problem being that Ms Matthews and Minister Skinner said she wasn't notified.
Then the bombshell fell Wednesday. The Telegram wrote a story: http://tinyurl.com/48lhz44. Apparently, an spokesperson for Executive Council confirmed that the Order in Council was delivered to Ms Matthews. Oops. Ms Matthews told the CBC she wasn't told she was on the Board. According to the Telegram:
Matthews told The Telegram she received a copy of the order in early January, but was told it was sent to her in error.
“I received an (Order in Council) in the mail in January at which point I contacted the Premier's Office to enquire about its contents,” Matthews said. “I was told they were unaware the (Order in Council) had been sent to me and it should not have been sent.”
Here are some immediate questions. Why would Elizabeth Matthews or the Premier's Office question her receiving a copy of the Order when she is designated to get a copy as stated on the Order?Why should the Oder in Council not be sent to Ms Matthews when she was on the internal distribution list? Why would the Premier's Office, of all Offices, tell her it was mistakenly sent out? Why did Minister Skinner say she wasn't told of her appointment when she was (in January no less)? Why would Ms Matthews have to enquire about the contents of the Order considering her extensive experience as the government's Director of Communications. Then there are the two big questions: Why did Kathy Dunderdale not tell the press the truth, and why did she allow Minister Skinner to mislead the public? After all, according to Ms Matthews, she spoke to the Premier's Office directly about her appointment in January. Ms Matthews knew she was appointed in January. The Premier knew that Ms Matthews was aware of her appointment in January. So why did the premier allow Minister Skinner to mislead the public?
The questions are just finally coming to the real nuts and bolts of things. The bottom line is we can't have politicians lying at will to our press. The press are our ears and eyes, and a firm check on the power of governments. This is the most serious of challenges to our democratic way of life. It challenges the very foundation of our democratic process. This is an issue that should bring down Mr Skinner, Ms Dunderdale, likely Minister Kennedy and perhaps the government in general. A breach of trust. A gross attempt to manipulate it's own citizens for purely partisan reasons. A despicable act by any government claiming to be democratic.
Friday, March 11, 2011
The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth - Skinnergate
Remember when Minister Skinner came out last week and announced the Province was nominating Elizabeth Matthews as Vice-President of the Canada - Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board? Sure it was at the end of the week. Sure it was designed to die a quiet death over the weekend. It didn't happen. Now, thanks to the efforts of the Office of the Official Opposition, we find that in fact she was appointed to the Board back on the 21st of December, 2010. Here is the appointment letter sent by Minister Skinner to his federal counterpart:
http://www.liberaloppositionnl.com/Documents/SecretAppointmentLetter.pdf
The letter states that the Newfoundland and Labrador government appoints Ms. Matthews as a member of the Canada - Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB) and requests the federal government concur with her further designation as Vice-Chair of the CNLOPB. The obvious problem is Minister Skinner neglected to tell the media, and the people, that Ms Matthews had actually been appointed to the Board. The government did not issue a press release stating she was appointed to the Board, but did issue one stating she was the nominee for the Vice-Chair. A deliberate attempt to mislead the public? Perhaps. Here is the press release issued by the government in response to the Official Opposition's charges:
March 11, 2011
Provincial Government Clarifies Board Appointment
The Honourable Shawn Skinner, Minister of Natural Resources, today set the record straight in response to a misleading news release issued today by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the appointment of Elizabeth Matthews to the board of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB).
“An appointment to the board was required in order to nominate Ms. Matthews for the position of vice-chair,” said Minister Skinner. “There is nothing underhanded or secretive about this nomination. There is a joint process with the Federal Government that must be followed before an appointment to vice-chair can be confirmed and we have followed the rules. The normal course of action when announcing such appointments would be to wait until the process is complete.”
A letter identifying Ms. Matthews as the Provincial Governments designate for the position of vice-chair has been sent to the Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Natural Resources Canada. The Provincial Government has requested concurrence from the Federal Government on this nomination.
- 30 -
Media contact:
Heather Maclean
Director of Communications
Department of Natural Resources
It was released on a Friday night at 4:45 pm. Another attempt to kill a story over the weekend. Just like the original announcement, and just like the Parson's Pond scandal. It's interesting to note that Skinner's rebutal takes issue with the Opposition about the description of the nomination. He says:"There is nothing underhanded or secretive about this nomination." He does not say the same about the appointment to the Board itself. That was after all the Opposition's point that she was secretly appointed, with the full knowledge and insistence of the government. It is as if he chooses to ignore the lie, and focus on something he can spin on. The only problem with that strategy, other than it's obvious deception, is that it is so blatantly false. It adds insult to injury, and points to the ends this PC government is prepared to go to "frame" the truth.
As every week goes by this government looks more like a regime and less like a democratic institution. My own experience with the Party's non-leadership campaign resembled this. My resignation letter stated how the Party's deceptive behavior was also entering it's governmental practise - now this. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador need a government that treats them with respect and intelligence. Isn't this the government that whips up anger at home by stating over and over again that the rest of the country has treated us like we are stupid and a joke? It seems to me that the only ones treating us like that are our own PC government. Minister Skinner, do the honourable thing for once, and resign.
http://www.liberaloppositionnl.com/Documents/SecretAppointmentLetter.pdf
The letter states that the Newfoundland and Labrador government appoints Ms. Matthews as a member of the Canada - Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB) and requests the federal government concur with her further designation as Vice-Chair of the CNLOPB. The obvious problem is Minister Skinner neglected to tell the media, and the people, that Ms Matthews had actually been appointed to the Board. The government did not issue a press release stating she was appointed to the Board, but did issue one stating she was the nominee for the Vice-Chair. A deliberate attempt to mislead the public? Perhaps. Here is the press release issued by the government in response to the Official Opposition's charges:
March 11, 2011
Provincial Government Clarifies Board Appointment
The Honourable Shawn Skinner, Minister of Natural Resources, today set the record straight in response to a misleading news release issued today by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the appointment of Elizabeth Matthews to the board of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB).
“An appointment to the board was required in order to nominate Ms. Matthews for the position of vice-chair,” said Minister Skinner. “There is nothing underhanded or secretive about this nomination. There is a joint process with the Federal Government that must be followed before an appointment to vice-chair can be confirmed and we have followed the rules. The normal course of action when announcing such appointments would be to wait until the process is complete.”
A letter identifying Ms. Matthews as the Provincial Governments designate for the position of vice-chair has been sent to the Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Natural Resources Canada. The Provincial Government has requested concurrence from the Federal Government on this nomination.
- 30 -
Media contact:
Heather Maclean
Director of Communications
Department of Natural Resources
It was released on a Friday night at 4:45 pm. Another attempt to kill a story over the weekend. Just like the original announcement, and just like the Parson's Pond scandal. It's interesting to note that Skinner's rebutal takes issue with the Opposition about the description of the nomination. He says:"There is nothing underhanded or secretive about this nomination." He does not say the same about the appointment to the Board itself. That was after all the Opposition's point that she was secretly appointed, with the full knowledge and insistence of the government. It is as if he chooses to ignore the lie, and focus on something he can spin on. The only problem with that strategy, other than it's obvious deception, is that it is so blatantly false. It adds insult to injury, and points to the ends this PC government is prepared to go to "frame" the truth.
As every week goes by this government looks more like a regime and less like a democratic institution. My own experience with the Party's non-leadership campaign resembled this. My resignation letter stated how the Party's deceptive behavior was also entering it's governmental practise - now this. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador need a government that treats them with respect and intelligence. Isn't this the government that whips up anger at home by stating over and over again that the rest of the country has treated us like we are stupid and a joke? It seems to me that the only ones treating us like that are our own PC government. Minister Skinner, do the honourable thing for once, and resign.
Monday, February 28, 2011
The Price of Ambition - The Lower Churchill Falls
Whenever some tin pot dictator in the world erects this tower, or that palace, we wonder how on earth will that be paid for. It's usually in some country that has a bank account supervised directly by the International Monetary Fund, and half the people are starving. We usually come to the quick assumption that the poor people in that country will be further enslaved to their debt, and have no chance to escape their debacle - or their dictator. Then there's us.
Newfoundland and Labrador's version of the dictator's palace is the proposed Lower Churchill development. A massive dam to be built on the Churchill River to produce hydro electric power. On it's face a laudable endeavour. However, the financials just do not measure up. To begin with, this province already has the highest per capita debt in the country. Higher than Quebec's, and that is saying something. Just to put things in perspective, Newfoundland and Labrador's key economic numbers are: Total gross debt of over $11 billion dollars; and annual interest payments on debt approximately $1 billion dollars. That is as of today - without the Lower Churchill price tag.
Our population, the folks who pay the bills and debt, is changing for the worse. People living in the Province has declined since 1971 by 21,000 souls. However, that isn't the worst part. The bad part is that we have a severe upside-down population triangle. Normally, a healthy population has a great mass of young people as it's base, and a tiny amount of elderly as it's tip - the other ages fit in between. In our case, we have a large and growing mass of elderly as our tip, and a rapidly declining young population. By way of example, in 1971 people aged 0 - 4 numbered 62,136. Today they number 23,413. That is a 62% decline. For the age range of 0 - 20 the decline over the last 40 years is a staggering 47%. In other words, our population is composed of older people. Shockingly, in 20 years from now, 50% of our current population will be either retired or deceased. Either way they will not be capable of paying much into the tax system to offset debt.
Then consider our "have" status. Oil resources accounted for approximately 40% of this province's general revenues for 2010. The Atlantic Accord guaranteed that those revenues would not be clawed back until at least 2013. That is the year the federal government can start taking significant revenues from this province's offshore oil revenues. Prior to the most recent Accord, the federal government was clawing back close to 90% of the offshore revenues as equalization. It was our turn to pay in as opposed to taking out. Danny Williams stalled that process with his hard bargaining, but a stall is just that - a stall. It is important to remember that offshore oil legally belongs to the federal government, and those resources can be infringed upon almost at will - should they choose to do so. The bottom line is come 2013 that 40% of our revenue that funded this province for the last several years will be significantly reduced. The question then becomes: "How will we fund our current government let alone borrow for anything?"
As if to add insult to injury, the Upper Churchill Contract with Hydro Quebec automatically renews in 2016. That renewal gives Hydro Quebec almost full benefit of the power produced there, but at a 20% cut in the already insultingly low rate to Newfoundland and Labrador. Our provincial government appears resigned to allowing this contract to run it's course until 2041.
The problem with the Lower Churchill/Emera deal is that it can not make money. The hydro market is already flooded and, ironically, a massive amount of natural gas to power electricity generating stations will only add to that. Quebec is currently in the process of building four more dams on the Romaine River, which will ensure it stays that way.
The other problem with the deal is that it will, at the least, double or triple the provincial debt. Our portion of the project is officially pegged at $4.5 - 5 billion. The more likely number is $8 - 10 billion. When is the last time you heard of a large government funded project coming in on budget. The safer bet is to double the original figure. Then there is the cost of financing the debt. Just like your home mortgage, long term debts take on massive borrowing costs. You may have paid $100,000.00 for that house, but in twenty-five years you will have paid $300,000.00 with interest factored in. Apply those principles to the debt required to build the Lower Churchill and the overall cost would range from $24 - 30 billion dollars. Add that to our current gross debt, and assume no other deficits were incurred during that 30 year period, the total provincial debt would resemble $35 - 41 billion - not including interest on our current debt.
Unfortunately, we can not even hope to subsidize that cost with the Lower Churchill dam. Quebec is selling power into the US market at 6-8 cents per kwh in 35 year supply contracts. According to our provincial government, based on their $4.5 billion estimate to build the Lower Churchill, we can produce power for 14.3 cents per kwh. That is almost 50% higher than what Quebec is selling it for. If we try to sell that power to the US market we will take a 50% loss on the cost to produce it.
In reality, this provincial government does not have a hope in hell of funding this project without the federal government. Their claim that they will go forward with it whether the feds guarantee the loans or not is sheer bluff. The numbers do not lie. As we speak the federal government is going over the province's business plan. According to the Prime Minister, they want many financial and environmental questions answered - no doubt. I would be alarmed if they didn't. The Upper Churchill Contract was a hydro deal that sentenced this province to economic destitution by starving it of the potential revenues of it's own resources. The Lower Churchill would sentence the people to a type of economic insanity that is normally reserved for the guys in the Middle East, and their Palaces.
Newfoundland and Labrador's version of the dictator's palace is the proposed Lower Churchill development. A massive dam to be built on the Churchill River to produce hydro electric power. On it's face a laudable endeavour. However, the financials just do not measure up. To begin with, this province already has the highest per capita debt in the country. Higher than Quebec's, and that is saying something. Just to put things in perspective, Newfoundland and Labrador's key economic numbers are: Total gross debt of over $11 billion dollars; and annual interest payments on debt approximately $1 billion dollars. That is as of today - without the Lower Churchill price tag.
Our population, the folks who pay the bills and debt, is changing for the worse. People living in the Province has declined since 1971 by 21,000 souls. However, that isn't the worst part. The bad part is that we have a severe upside-down population triangle. Normally, a healthy population has a great mass of young people as it's base, and a tiny amount of elderly as it's tip - the other ages fit in between. In our case, we have a large and growing mass of elderly as our tip, and a rapidly declining young population. By way of example, in 1971 people aged 0 - 4 numbered 62,136. Today they number 23,413. That is a 62% decline. For the age range of 0 - 20 the decline over the last 40 years is a staggering 47%. In other words, our population is composed of older people. Shockingly, in 20 years from now, 50% of our current population will be either retired or deceased. Either way they will not be capable of paying much into the tax system to offset debt.
Then consider our "have" status. Oil resources accounted for approximately 40% of this province's general revenues for 2010. The Atlantic Accord guaranteed that those revenues would not be clawed back until at least 2013. That is the year the federal government can start taking significant revenues from this province's offshore oil revenues. Prior to the most recent Accord, the federal government was clawing back close to 90% of the offshore revenues as equalization. It was our turn to pay in as opposed to taking out. Danny Williams stalled that process with his hard bargaining, but a stall is just that - a stall. It is important to remember that offshore oil legally belongs to the federal government, and those resources can be infringed upon almost at will - should they choose to do so. The bottom line is come 2013 that 40% of our revenue that funded this province for the last several years will be significantly reduced. The question then becomes: "How will we fund our current government let alone borrow for anything?"
As if to add insult to injury, the Upper Churchill Contract with Hydro Quebec automatically renews in 2016. That renewal gives Hydro Quebec almost full benefit of the power produced there, but at a 20% cut in the already insultingly low rate to Newfoundland and Labrador. Our provincial government appears resigned to allowing this contract to run it's course until 2041.
The problem with the Lower Churchill/Emera deal is that it can not make money. The hydro market is already flooded and, ironically, a massive amount of natural gas to power electricity generating stations will only add to that. Quebec is currently in the process of building four more dams on the Romaine River, which will ensure it stays that way.
The other problem with the deal is that it will, at the least, double or triple the provincial debt. Our portion of the project is officially pegged at $4.5 - 5 billion. The more likely number is $8 - 10 billion. When is the last time you heard of a large government funded project coming in on budget. The safer bet is to double the original figure. Then there is the cost of financing the debt. Just like your home mortgage, long term debts take on massive borrowing costs. You may have paid $100,000.00 for that house, but in twenty-five years you will have paid $300,000.00 with interest factored in. Apply those principles to the debt required to build the Lower Churchill and the overall cost would range from $24 - 30 billion dollars. Add that to our current gross debt, and assume no other deficits were incurred during that 30 year period, the total provincial debt would resemble $35 - 41 billion - not including interest on our current debt.
Unfortunately, we can not even hope to subsidize that cost with the Lower Churchill dam. Quebec is selling power into the US market at 6-8 cents per kwh in 35 year supply contracts. According to our provincial government, based on their $4.5 billion estimate to build the Lower Churchill, we can produce power for 14.3 cents per kwh. That is almost 50% higher than what Quebec is selling it for. If we try to sell that power to the US market we will take a 50% loss on the cost to produce it.
In reality, this provincial government does not have a hope in hell of funding this project without the federal government. Their claim that they will go forward with it whether the feds guarantee the loans or not is sheer bluff. The numbers do not lie. As we speak the federal government is going over the province's business plan. According to the Prime Minister, they want many financial and environmental questions answered - no doubt. I would be alarmed if they didn't. The Upper Churchill Contract was a hydro deal that sentenced this province to economic destitution by starving it of the potential revenues of it's own resources. The Lower Churchill would sentence the people to a type of economic insanity that is normally reserved for the guys in the Middle East, and their Palaces.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The Gutless II
Clyde Jackman, the provincial Minister of Fisheries, did not reject the findings of his own government's commissioned report on the fisheries. His only problem was the price tag or "ask" as he referred to it. You know you are getting arrogant beyond belief when you publicly refer to a financial request to help the fishery as an "ask". I suppose the next line will be a "beg". In any case, during his news conference he constantly waved the document about (in Mulroney Meech Lake style) and berated it as not being the answer.
What will happen to the poor fish plant worker he wonders? How does this rationalization help them? What of the "little people" he might well have said. Very sensitive, and in touch with rural Newfoundland and Labrador, is his motto. He doesn't see how this brutal downsizing could help the rural areas of this province and it's people. All of this sounds good, except for the rest of what he had to say.
Yes, Clyde's big idea is to "treat the fishery as a business". The first thought that came to my mind was which kind of business? The business that is a friend of the PC government and gets untendered contracts and preferential treatment? No, I guess not, as he has already said that he was not prepared to take the "ask" to Cabinet for discussion and the doling of massive amounts of cash. Was he referring to the Nalcor kind of business where they gamble $25 million like it's coffee money, or invest in mega projects that bankrupt at least the next four generations? No, I don't believe so, as there is no new cash for them. He must be talking about the rural Newfoundland and Labrador kind of business! The one where you get all the inflation of the boom, but none of the benefits. The one where they are allowed to die a lonely death of attrition. Yes, that sounds like the one. He even referred over and over again to the "rationalization" of the fishing industry, but without their money to compensate anyone for their losses.
It appears to be what many fishermen have been telling me for awhile now: "Danny Williams did a lot for the oil industry, but he didn't do a damn thing for the fishing industry in all his time." As if to reinforce that point, Mr Jackman stated in his press conference that he had been in touch with his federal counterpart on the phone. Any guess on the nature of that conversation? I'm going to go with: "Hey, they want $500 million plus to do this MOU thing, and cut the number of people in the industry by at least half. Are you guys going to pay in?" I'm going to further speculate that the answer was: "click..." The logical conclusion to Mr Jackman's bizarre rant on treating the fishery as a business must be that if the federal government isn't chipping in we aren't, and therefore she must die a long and painful death.
So much for his concern of the fish plant worker. So much for his concern about rural Newfoundland and Labrador's way of life. A pathetic and too typical spin for his own government's glorification. The bottom line for them is they are not putting any of their money in, and they want the federal government to pay it. This at a time when they just leased an Irish fishery research vessel (at $20-40 million) for the purposes of studying cod stocks. That shows they are committed to the fishery you say. On the surface yes, but fish quotas are the jurisdiction of the federal government. They could find the mother load of fish, but the feds will be the ones to say how much of it is caught. So what's the point? Politics. It's us vs. them. We don't trust them and we don't want you to trust them either. At a time when the Minister of Fisheries says the fisheries should be treated like any other business, meaning allowing them to be rationalized by attrition, he leases a very expensive boat to try and embarrass the federal government over the fisheries. So when he says business he must mean politics, when he says politics he must mean fed bashing, and when he says fed bashing he must mean "show me the money".
Yes, Mr Jackman, your concern for the fishers, the plant workers, and the rural way of life in Newfoundland and Labrador is overwhelming.
Thanks to Polemic & Paradox for the picture of Mr Jackman washing his hands.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Dunderdale's Random Island Highway
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Stunned and the Gutless: Ms Dunderdale and Parson's Pond
Brace yourself. This is a true story - it just seems that nothing this stunned could be true. With minimal fanfare, and a short press release, Nalcor announced the purchase of a 67% working interest in the Parson's Pond oil and gas play from Leprechaun Resources Ltd. Leprechaun is a small resource company with it's head office in Calgary, and is controlled by John Maher - a native of Newfoundland. The deal called for a compensation of Leprechaun's equity in the project totalling $559,000.00. The provincial government further committed to reimburse Nalcor a total of $580,000.00 on completion of drilling. Curious that the government would be reimbursing it's own Crown corporation for a cost of business? Perhaps someone in the Crown corp wasn't happy about those funds coming from it's bank - the principle was added to for the purpose of payback.
That was the 7th of August, 2009. Kathy Dunderdale was Minister of Natural Resources. Ross Wiseman was Minister of Business. Charlene Johnson was Minister of the Environment. Our illustrious provincial government agreed to construct a 10.4 km access road to the site - presumably covering the cost. It had four partners in the play: Vulcan Minerals; Deer lake Oil & Gas; Leprechuan Resources Ltd., and Investcan Energy. Investcan Energy is an interesting partner considering they are owned by SCDM Energie,which in turn controlls 18.6% of the massive Bouygues Group - a controlling interest. The Bouygues Group built the James Bay hydro project, and Investcan controlls a great deal of the new natural gas industry in Quebec.
Despite the failure of a previous firm in 2004 to explore the property successfully, Nalcor and partners picked up the torch and on the 16th of February, 2010 the first well was spudded. By the week of the 26th of May, 2010 it had reached final depth of 3160 meters. Nalcor's press release of that week stated in part:
"The extent of flow characteristics and overall volumes of gas in place have yet to be
determined. The well will be suspended to allow for further analysis of the data and to
prepare testing plans. Next steps are the coordination and mobilization of necessary
testing equipment. Testing will be conducted during the summer months and further
information will be released following completion and analysis of the results.
Nalcor’s main operational objective was to gain information from this well which will
allow further insight and assessment of the petroleum potential of this area. “The
information obtained to date has already advanced our understanding of this basin,”
said Keating. “The geological and geophysical prognosis of formation depths and
stratigraphy anticipated from our pre-well analysis proved to be accurate.”
Essentially, Nalcor hit some gas, but a study of the economics of further development was required and a study of the results necessary. Nalcor goes on to state:
"Nalcor Energy – Oil and Gas is now preparing for the drilling of the second well of the
planned three well program. It is anticipated that the drilling of Nalcor et al Finnegan
will commence this summer."
In other words, we aren't waiting to see if this is a good place to drill. No, we are moving onto the next spot and drilling.
In September of 2010 Nalcor spudded it's second well at the site. Funny enough they got the same initial result - some natural gas and no oil to speak of. Their press statement in part stated:
"As with our first well in the area we encountered natural gas during drilling,” said Jim
Keating, Vice President Nalcor Energy Oil and Gas. “The well is currently suspended as
we review the data and determine next steps including a potential test plan.”
Nalcor is also about to commence testing on its first well, Seamus, which has been
suspended after reaching total drilling depth in May 2010. A test rig is on site and
testing will determine the extent of flow characteristics and overall volumes of natural
gas in place.
Nalcor’s main operational objective of this drilling program was to gain information
from this well which will allow further insight and assessment of the petroleum
potential of this area. Nalcor Energy is now preparing to drill the third well of the
planned three well program. It is anticipated that the drilling of Nalcor et al Darcy will
commence early in 2011."
Bottom line - did not take the proper amount of time to assess the first well before starting the second. Also, they were preparing to drill the third well without completing assessment of the second well. Something that doesn't happen when private sector money is deeply involved - as a rule. The result of all this interest purchasing, road building, environmental assessing, and public investment in drilling was a huge bust.
Nalcor's (read the taxpayers) initial share of the costs was $14 million dollars for 3 wells drilled. By the time Nalcor announced a premature end to drilling after the first two wells our responsibility is about $23 million. Almost double the original cost for all three wells. The reason: wells that were supposed to take only 50-55 days to drill instead took 100 days. Translation: it took twice as long as we thought to drill the wells.
A mind blowing loss to the taxpayers of at least $23 million. About three times the cost of moving the air ambulance service from St. Anthony's. About half the cost of the brand new hospital in Lab West - before it doubled to at least $90 million.
The government's response - a late Thursday press release from Nalcor stating an end to operations at Parson's Pond. A late enough release to try and kill the story over the weekend. Not one press release from the government or the Minister of Natural Resources Shawn Skinner. Minister Skinner was interviewed by NTV on Friday. His response: "Well we got unlucky on these two. It may take four, five, six attempts, but we'll get there. We thought it best to stop for now and have a look at things. Look how smart we are at administering your money. Aren't we on top of things. We are on your side." This is my summary of what he said, but you can check it out for yourself on NTV.
Ms Dunderdale, now Premier, then Minister of Natural Resources, had this to say: nothing... In any province in this country, or any state in the world this would be a scandal that would at a minimum bring down a minister. Here we get 'don't worry be happy'. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador continues to suffer from the inflation of the off shore boom, but receives none of the benefit. We lose proper access to health care, services for family and children, and so on. Yet, amongst the still evident wreckage of hurricane Igor we live while our provincial government throws the dice at $23-25 million at a time on wreckless less oil and gas plays. While the fishing industry, and all those families that depend on it, lies in suspended animation awaiting the illusive MOU, our PC government fritters away the bountiful inheritance on stunned resource gambles. Mr. Harper, if you are listening, see this example as a stark warning of the inability of this provincial government to make the right decisions for it's people, and do not grant any financial assistance for the Lower Churchill development. It simply is not fair to the people here.
That was the 7th of August, 2009. Kathy Dunderdale was Minister of Natural Resources. Ross Wiseman was Minister of Business. Charlene Johnson was Minister of the Environment. Our illustrious provincial government agreed to construct a 10.4 km access road to the site - presumably covering the cost. It had four partners in the play: Vulcan Minerals; Deer lake Oil & Gas; Leprechuan Resources Ltd., and Investcan Energy. Investcan Energy is an interesting partner considering they are owned by SCDM Energie,which in turn controlls 18.6% of the massive Bouygues Group - a controlling interest. The Bouygues Group built the James Bay hydro project, and Investcan controlls a great deal of the new natural gas industry in Quebec.
Despite the failure of a previous firm in 2004 to explore the property successfully, Nalcor and partners picked up the torch and on the 16th of February, 2010 the first well was spudded. By the week of the 26th of May, 2010 it had reached final depth of 3160 meters. Nalcor's press release of that week stated in part:
"The extent of flow characteristics and overall volumes of gas in place have yet to be
determined. The well will be suspended to allow for further analysis of the data and to
prepare testing plans. Next steps are the coordination and mobilization of necessary
testing equipment. Testing will be conducted during the summer months and further
information will be released following completion and analysis of the results.
Nalcor’s main operational objective was to gain information from this well which will
allow further insight and assessment of the petroleum potential of this area. “The
information obtained to date has already advanced our understanding of this basin,”
said Keating. “The geological and geophysical prognosis of formation depths and
stratigraphy anticipated from our pre-well analysis proved to be accurate.”
Essentially, Nalcor hit some gas, but a study of the economics of further development was required and a study of the results necessary. Nalcor goes on to state:
"Nalcor Energy – Oil and Gas is now preparing for the drilling of the second well of the
planned three well program. It is anticipated that the drilling of Nalcor et al Finnegan
will commence this summer."
In other words, we aren't waiting to see if this is a good place to drill. No, we are moving onto the next spot and drilling.
In September of 2010 Nalcor spudded it's second well at the site. Funny enough they got the same initial result - some natural gas and no oil to speak of. Their press statement in part stated:
"As with our first well in the area we encountered natural gas during drilling,” said Jim
Keating, Vice President Nalcor Energy Oil and Gas. “The well is currently suspended as
we review the data and determine next steps including a potential test plan.”
Nalcor is also about to commence testing on its first well, Seamus, which has been
suspended after reaching total drilling depth in May 2010. A test rig is on site and
testing will determine the extent of flow characteristics and overall volumes of natural
gas in place.
Nalcor’s main operational objective of this drilling program was to gain information
from this well which will allow further insight and assessment of the petroleum
potential of this area. Nalcor Energy is now preparing to drill the third well of the
planned three well program. It is anticipated that the drilling of Nalcor et al Darcy will
commence early in 2011."
Bottom line - did not take the proper amount of time to assess the first well before starting the second. Also, they were preparing to drill the third well without completing assessment of the second well. Something that doesn't happen when private sector money is deeply involved - as a rule. The result of all this interest purchasing, road building, environmental assessing, and public investment in drilling was a huge bust.
Nalcor's (read the taxpayers) initial share of the costs was $14 million dollars for 3 wells drilled. By the time Nalcor announced a premature end to drilling after the first two wells our responsibility is about $23 million. Almost double the original cost for all three wells. The reason: wells that were supposed to take only 50-55 days to drill instead took 100 days. Translation: it took twice as long as we thought to drill the wells.
A mind blowing loss to the taxpayers of at least $23 million. About three times the cost of moving the air ambulance service from St. Anthony's. About half the cost of the brand new hospital in Lab West - before it doubled to at least $90 million.
The government's response - a late Thursday press release from Nalcor stating an end to operations at Parson's Pond. A late enough release to try and kill the story over the weekend. Not one press release from the government or the Minister of Natural Resources Shawn Skinner. Minister Skinner was interviewed by NTV on Friday. His response: "Well we got unlucky on these two. It may take four, five, six attempts, but we'll get there. We thought it best to stop for now and have a look at things. Look how smart we are at administering your money. Aren't we on top of things. We are on your side." This is my summary of what he said, but you can check it out for yourself on NTV.
Ms Dunderdale, now Premier, then Minister of Natural Resources, had this to say: nothing... In any province in this country, or any state in the world this would be a scandal that would at a minimum bring down a minister. Here we get 'don't worry be happy'. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador continues to suffer from the inflation of the off shore boom, but receives none of the benefit. We lose proper access to health care, services for family and children, and so on. Yet, amongst the still evident wreckage of hurricane Igor we live while our provincial government throws the dice at $23-25 million at a time on wreckless less oil and gas plays. While the fishing industry, and all those families that depend on it, lies in suspended animation awaiting the illusive MOU, our PC government fritters away the bountiful inheritance on stunned resource gambles. Mr. Harper, if you are listening, see this example as a stark warning of the inability of this provincial government to make the right decisions for it's people, and do not grant any financial assistance for the Lower Churchill development. It simply is not fair to the people here.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Democracy, Censorship, and Spin
The one thing that can be said of the provincial PC Party in Newfoundland and Labrador is they love their spin. They are incredibly bad at it, but when it's the only game you have you go with it. In this Province it is the only game they have. The truth be damned should it in any way interfere with the game. Certainly these words must be hanging on a Confederation Building wall next to the "To hell with the rest of the country" sign. A really inspiring set of motto's to run a provincial government by.
We just finished up a darling of a by-election in Humber West. A west coast seat vacated by former Premier Danny Williams. The PC candidate won the seat with a healthy 63% of the popular vote (39% overall turn out). Low turnout always favours the incumbent government, and this was no different. There were some interesting facts that surfaced though. Most interesting I suppose was the no show by Ms Dunderdale on the night before polls closed. Every other party leader was out there - not her. In her place was one retired Danny Williams. While you can't blame the PC's for trotting out the ex premier, and using him for his popularity, it does beg the question: Is Ms Dunderdale that big of a liability? It sort of fits with the use of her decade old picture on all governmental and party advertising. A Premier who is so illegitimate that her presence seems to emphasize the fact on it's own.
Another interesting result of the by-election was the drop in the PC Party's popular vote by almost 25%. Interesting in that it reflects a drift away from the PC's in a seat that is essentially safe for the governing party. If Danny William's old seat, tried and true, could lose 25% support what about the rest? Could it be the PCs have lost 25-30% support across the Province? Would that put them at say between 40-45% or less provincially? While Ms Dunderdale is harking on about their perfect plan to win Humber West is she really casting a weary eye to the Province as a whole? How much lower can it go? How large is the undecided?
Then we have the case of the Roger's family, and their tragic loss of their children. Despite massive media coverage of the issue the provincial government continues to deny these people access to their children. Bad enough to be sure. Now, believe it or not, the PC government is going to Court Thursday to have a media ban placed on the whole issue. In case you don't know, this issue has been in the media for at least 6 weeks, and now they want a ban. Of course the usual talk of protecting the children has been thrown out there, but this has been in the media for over a month. Can you say spin? What good could a media ban do now? There is only one possible answer to that - shut the media down. The government, in another blatant abuse of power, is trying to shut down our freedom of expression in the Courts. The reasoning is for the purely political death of this issue. Censorship of the media and the issues they discuss - pure and simple. Another line crossed - not many left.
George W Bush probably said it best: " Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining." The PC government in this Province has insulted the intelligence of all with it's ridiculous spins. Whether it is peekaboo Premiers, phantom principles, democracy of convenience, you name it they have done it. It's as if they think the people here live under rocks and are blind and stunned. It's as if they believe our collective backbone is measured in government payoffs and not in principle. I believe they are wrong. I believe in this place and it's people. I believe in our future together - spin that.
We just finished up a darling of a by-election in Humber West. A west coast seat vacated by former Premier Danny Williams. The PC candidate won the seat with a healthy 63% of the popular vote (39% overall turn out). Low turnout always favours the incumbent government, and this was no different. There were some interesting facts that surfaced though. Most interesting I suppose was the no show by Ms Dunderdale on the night before polls closed. Every other party leader was out there - not her. In her place was one retired Danny Williams. While you can't blame the PC's for trotting out the ex premier, and using him for his popularity, it does beg the question: Is Ms Dunderdale that big of a liability? It sort of fits with the use of her decade old picture on all governmental and party advertising. A Premier who is so illegitimate that her presence seems to emphasize the fact on it's own.
Another interesting result of the by-election was the drop in the PC Party's popular vote by almost 25%. Interesting in that it reflects a drift away from the PC's in a seat that is essentially safe for the governing party. If Danny William's old seat, tried and true, could lose 25% support what about the rest? Could it be the PCs have lost 25-30% support across the Province? Would that put them at say between 40-45% or less provincially? While Ms Dunderdale is harking on about their perfect plan to win Humber West is she really casting a weary eye to the Province as a whole? How much lower can it go? How large is the undecided?
Then we have the case of the Roger's family, and their tragic loss of their children. Despite massive media coverage of the issue the provincial government continues to deny these people access to their children. Bad enough to be sure. Now, believe it or not, the PC government is going to Court Thursday to have a media ban placed on the whole issue. In case you don't know, this issue has been in the media for at least 6 weeks, and now they want a ban. Of course the usual talk of protecting the children has been thrown out there, but this has been in the media for over a month. Can you say spin? What good could a media ban do now? There is only one possible answer to that - shut the media down. The government, in another blatant abuse of power, is trying to shut down our freedom of expression in the Courts. The reasoning is for the purely political death of this issue. Censorship of the media and the issues they discuss - pure and simple. Another line crossed - not many left.
George W Bush probably said it best: " Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining." The PC government in this Province has insulted the intelligence of all with it's ridiculous spins. Whether it is peekaboo Premiers, phantom principles, democracy of convenience, you name it they have done it. It's as if they think the people here live under rocks and are blind and stunned. It's as if they believe our collective backbone is measured in government payoffs and not in principle. I believe they are wrong. I believe in this place and it's people. I believe in our future together - spin that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)