It seems that politics today revolves around resources, and who is going to get them. This is nothing new of course. We had the deficit slashing days when Paul Martin was Finance Minister. He slayed the deficit, but the cuts were deep, and more often than not involved cutting resources to the provinces. They would then do the same to their municipalities. It was a time of restraint for the common good. It could easily be argued that we are in a similar position today.
On the 8th of June, 2011 the federal government announced that Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre St. John's was to be closed, and the responsibilities farmed back to Trenton, Ontario and Halifax, Nova Scotia. The closure, an apparent first step in the trimming of some $57 million dollars and 275 jobs from the Department of Fisheries (DFO), hit the province deeply. The first glancing blow is an emotional one. Newfoundland and Labrador is a maritime province with 500 years of history. It's a proud place, with proud people, and a proud maritime tradition. The very idea of removing the maritime rescue centre breaks with that traditional, emotional tie to the sea.
There is of course the argument that knowledge of both local dialect and of the area is invaluable in the desperate moments of a crisis at sea. This is a fact. In our harbour alone there are at least five distinct dialects. There are local names and references for places on the sea and coast that are not found on maps or on GPSs. It's all part of human intelligence that electronic know-how cannot replace. Isn't that one of the big lessons the Americans learned from the 911 crisis? Human intelligence is invaluable.
Much of this crisis in the making can be layed squarely at the feet of Ms. Dunderdale. The announcement was made on the 8th of June, but the Premiere did not respond for days. In fact she was unavailable for comment a day after the story broke, because she was "out of cellular range". I'm fairly certain Ms. Dunderdale has a Blackberry. You can text with them from anywhere. Is it possible a modern Premiere could be out of phone contact for over 24 hours? In any case, she then refused the call of Liberal Leader Yvonne Jones to reconvene the House of Assembly for an emergency session to pass a unanimous resolution condemning the closure. That would have put the ball back in the PM's court and garnered national headlines. It would have forced the PM to decide whether or not the national political capital lost would be worth the tiny savings of closing the centre.
Despite a VOCM daily poll asking people if they wanted such a vote in the House (which garnered a record 31,000 votes, 83% in favour of such a move), Ms Dunderdale stubbornly refused. She placed all her eggs in a personal phone call with the PM. The logic must have been to show her power, influence, and new relationship with the PM. He shut her down in a phone call that lasted less than 20 minutes, and apparently took seven days to arrange. Not unlike the three weeks it took him to phone her with congratulations on becoming Premier. In any case, the last hope now is the rally in St. John's being held this Saturday. Perhaps Ms. Dunderdale will use the momentum of the rally to call the House into emergency session. Tough call as she won't be there. Personal reasons apparently. I thought when you were Premier you didn't have a life. All part of the sacrifice of the Office. Apparently, that only applies when it suits.
In any case, my family will be making the three hour trip to St. John's for that rally. We need the people of the province to show up in numbers and reflect their deep feelings on this issue. If they don't, the PM will likely conclude there is no real resistance to his cuts. After all, the Premier isn't showing much personal commitment and sacrifice for it - why should he. He has a mandate to reduce the deficit. Just like the 1990's. If you want to keep the centre you'll have to show the PM you mean it. I'll be going to that rally with the thoughts of our local fishermen at heart. I'll also be going with the thoughts of my Great Grandfather, William Maher, close to my heart. A fisherman who died at sea in Bonavista Bay. The ability to save men did not really exist in those days. It does now. Here's my Great Grandfather's tragic story, and please, save our rescue centre:
Notes for WILLIAM MAHER:
Tragedy At Burnt Island Tickle
In the Fall of 1907, William Maher, and another man and woman from Burnt Island, left Indian Arm (now Summerville), Bonavista Bay, in a small schooner headed for Burnt Island. A strong breeze of southwest wind was blowing at the time. Everything went well until they arrived at the entrance to Long Tickle. They were about to make tack when the main boom, driven by a gust of wind knocked Skipper William Maher and the other man overboard. The two men were unable to swim and thus were drowned. The woman on the boat grabbed the wheel and ran the schooner ashore in a cove and was rescued. A search failed to recover the bodies of the two men.
This was indeed a great tragedy to hit a small community like Burnt Island and the dark cloud from such an incident lingered for a long time. This tragedy affected the people of St Brendan's since they had many friends and relatives living on the nearby island. Also, St Brendan's and Burnt Island were part of the same parish community.
From Schooners, Skippers & Sharemen of St Brendan's
By Captain Michael Croke
Page 105
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Is Nalcor the new New Brunswick Power?
Is Nalcor the new New Brunswick power? That question has been weighing heavily on my mind lately. Take for instance my recent post Muskrat Math. That math results in a $930 million operating loss a year on the Lower Churchill project. However, that sum is really too generous as it doesn't take into account the cost overruns of the subsea cable, and it doesn't take into account the guaranteed 8.3% return promised to Nalcor, Emera, and Fortis. More importantly, it doesn't take into account the fact that Nalcor can only transmit roughly 30% of the Lower Churchill's production to Nova Scotia for sale to the US or the maritime provinces. Given that stark reality, that $930 million a year loss has to be increased by more than double as it was based on selling all the power. That is a staggering $2 billion loss per year. It defies imagination in one way, but the numbers speak for themselves.
Consider that Ed Martin, CEO of Nalcor apparently told Randy Simms of VOCM radio that the province's energy consumption has been increasing each year. Unfortunately for Mr. Martin, Nalcor's own consumption graphs show a radical decline in consumption since 2003. Power consumption in the province is on the decline. One example of this: In 2000 the Holyrood facility went through roughly 2.5 million barrels of fuel per year; and in 2010 that number decreased to 1.3 million barrels. The point is that what Nalcor and the provincial government are saying on one hand does not match the evidence that in many cases is readily available from their own documents.
Then consider that the government revealed it would allow the Public Utilities Board to investigate the financial worthiness of the Lower Churchill project, but it won't have to report its findings until the 30th of December, 2011. That is two months after the provincial election and one month after the deadline to ink a final agreement with Emera. Draw your own conclusions on that one. Based on the staggering financial lunacy of this agreement there are essentially three realistic reasons why this project has been put forward.
The first could be rooted in some sort of misguided nationalism. A beating of the chest by then Premier Danny Williams at Quebec, and the rest of the country. A "damn the torpedoes we're going in" type of approach. Mr. Williams took down the flag to protest federal actions. His cabinet is almost completely anti-Canadian (according to several members of his government I spoke to -including a Minister). He has a bone to pick with Hydro Quebec over the Upper Churchill, and on that we can both agree. It is also good local politics to throw wood on the fire of anti-Quebec feelings in the province. Yet he is and remains a businessman. He was a businessman before he became a politician, and has returned to business now that he has retired from politics. This deal makes no positive business sense. So this option is out, other than its use as a tool to promote the deal.
The second could be rooted in the idea that the Lower Churchill project, and more specifically the subsea cable to Nova Scotia, would cause Hydro Quebec to panic over potential competition in the US market and come to favourable terms with Nalcor. The problem with that approach is the deal clearly hurts us, and does not effect Hydro Quebec in the least. In fact, Hydro Quebec would be smart to allow, even promote the idea. The resulting economic costs of the deal with leave Nalcor and the province in a situation very similar to that of New Brunswick Power. That is where things get interesting.
Consider that New Brunswick has: an aging population, low birth rate, an evenly split rural and urban population; and energy exports that account for two thirds of its total exports. If that sounds familiar it's because it mirrors the scenario in Newfoundland and Labrador. We all know that Hydro Quebec tried a friendly takeover of New Brunswick Power (NBP) a short time ago. NBP was, and remains, a power company in distress. It has a debt of $4.8 billion dollars. Much of that debt is associated with excess capacity in its electrical generation. NBP generated 4678 mw of electricity in 2010. Nalcor generated 1517 mw in 2010. The addition of Muskrat Falls would add another 865 mw a year for a total generation of 2382 mw, or half the capabilities of NBP. If the Lower Churchill goes ahead Nalcor's debt will be in the $6-7 billion dollar range. NBP has too much capacity to create power and not enough profitable markets to sell it to in order to recoup its debt. The annual cost of operations is therefore driving the company into the ground, and taking down the provincial treasury with it. With our higher debt and 50% less in capacity we have no chance of doing as well as NBP currently is.
The New Brunswick government tried to get out of the never ending cash spiral by selling NBP to Hydro Quebec. The biggest selling feature was that Hydro Quebec would take over the debt, which in turn would free the people of New Brunswick from certain economic collapse. The deal didn't go through. Danny Williams used option one above to appeal to people there. He made Hydro Quebec the bogey man, and maybe they are. The business reality is that it was the New Brunswick government that created their economic nightmare and not Quebec. Quebec tried to capitalize on it - that's business. The important lesson is that the New Brunswick government did it to itself, and its people.
The big question is why are we about to do it to ourselves? New Brunswick has a population 30% larger than Newfoundland and Labrador. They are capable of a larger tax load. They already have more power than they can sell. What they can sell can only be sold at a loss .Why would we do the same to ourselves?
Is the third option a deliberate attempt to place Nalcor in a bankrupt situation like NBP? What would be the point of that? Other than the potential to reduce our "have" status so we pay less or nothing toward equalization to the federal government, a massive NBP-like debt would leave Nalcor open to sale or privatization.
Among Nalcor's assets of course is control over the Upper Churchill - the real jewel in the crown. Is the effect of all these poor business decisions, if not the goal, to render Nalcor a financial death blow that would require outside intervention? Say perhaps even leave the corporation open to a potential take over by the likes of Hydro Quebec? After all, if not for Williams intervention at the time, NBP would be a subsidiary of Hydro Quebec today. NBP will have to be sold down the road in any case as its debt, and capacity issues doom it to that fate. Taxpayers in New Brunswick will only suffer for so long to spite Quebec, and then they will bend under tax burdens. It will be a "we have no choice" kind of scenario.
The kind of scenario Ms Dunderdale and the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador are placing us in.
Consider that Ed Martin, CEO of Nalcor apparently told Randy Simms of VOCM radio that the province's energy consumption has been increasing each year. Unfortunately for Mr. Martin, Nalcor's own consumption graphs show a radical decline in consumption since 2003. Power consumption in the province is on the decline. One example of this: In 2000 the Holyrood facility went through roughly 2.5 million barrels of fuel per year; and in 2010 that number decreased to 1.3 million barrels. The point is that what Nalcor and the provincial government are saying on one hand does not match the evidence that in many cases is readily available from their own documents.
Then consider that the government revealed it would allow the Public Utilities Board to investigate the financial worthiness of the Lower Churchill project, but it won't have to report its findings until the 30th of December, 2011. That is two months after the provincial election and one month after the deadline to ink a final agreement with Emera. Draw your own conclusions on that one. Based on the staggering financial lunacy of this agreement there are essentially three realistic reasons why this project has been put forward.
The first could be rooted in some sort of misguided nationalism. A beating of the chest by then Premier Danny Williams at Quebec, and the rest of the country. A "damn the torpedoes we're going in" type of approach. Mr. Williams took down the flag to protest federal actions. His cabinet is almost completely anti-Canadian (according to several members of his government I spoke to -including a Minister). He has a bone to pick with Hydro Quebec over the Upper Churchill, and on that we can both agree. It is also good local politics to throw wood on the fire of anti-Quebec feelings in the province. Yet he is and remains a businessman. He was a businessman before he became a politician, and has returned to business now that he has retired from politics. This deal makes no positive business sense. So this option is out, other than its use as a tool to promote the deal.
The second could be rooted in the idea that the Lower Churchill project, and more specifically the subsea cable to Nova Scotia, would cause Hydro Quebec to panic over potential competition in the US market and come to favourable terms with Nalcor. The problem with that approach is the deal clearly hurts us, and does not effect Hydro Quebec in the least. In fact, Hydro Quebec would be smart to allow, even promote the idea. The resulting economic costs of the deal with leave Nalcor and the province in a situation very similar to that of New Brunswick Power. That is where things get interesting.
Consider that New Brunswick has: an aging population, low birth rate, an evenly split rural and urban population; and energy exports that account for two thirds of its total exports. If that sounds familiar it's because it mirrors the scenario in Newfoundland and Labrador. We all know that Hydro Quebec tried a friendly takeover of New Brunswick Power (NBP) a short time ago. NBP was, and remains, a power company in distress. It has a debt of $4.8 billion dollars. Much of that debt is associated with excess capacity in its electrical generation. NBP generated 4678 mw of electricity in 2010. Nalcor generated 1517 mw in 2010. The addition of Muskrat Falls would add another 865 mw a year for a total generation of 2382 mw, or half the capabilities of NBP. If the Lower Churchill goes ahead Nalcor's debt will be in the $6-7 billion dollar range. NBP has too much capacity to create power and not enough profitable markets to sell it to in order to recoup its debt. The annual cost of operations is therefore driving the company into the ground, and taking down the provincial treasury with it. With our higher debt and 50% less in capacity we have no chance of doing as well as NBP currently is.
The New Brunswick government tried to get out of the never ending cash spiral by selling NBP to Hydro Quebec. The biggest selling feature was that Hydro Quebec would take over the debt, which in turn would free the people of New Brunswick from certain economic collapse. The deal didn't go through. Danny Williams used option one above to appeal to people there. He made Hydro Quebec the bogey man, and maybe they are. The business reality is that it was the New Brunswick government that created their economic nightmare and not Quebec. Quebec tried to capitalize on it - that's business. The important lesson is that the New Brunswick government did it to itself, and its people.
The big question is why are we about to do it to ourselves? New Brunswick has a population 30% larger than Newfoundland and Labrador. They are capable of a larger tax load. They already have more power than they can sell. What they can sell can only be sold at a loss .Why would we do the same to ourselves?
Is the third option a deliberate attempt to place Nalcor in a bankrupt situation like NBP? What would be the point of that? Other than the potential to reduce our "have" status so we pay less or nothing toward equalization to the federal government, a massive NBP-like debt would leave Nalcor open to sale or privatization.
Among Nalcor's assets of course is control over the Upper Churchill - the real jewel in the crown. Is the effect of all these poor business decisions, if not the goal, to render Nalcor a financial death blow that would require outside intervention? Say perhaps even leave the corporation open to a potential take over by the likes of Hydro Quebec? After all, if not for Williams intervention at the time, NBP would be a subsidiary of Hydro Quebec today. NBP will have to be sold down the road in any case as its debt, and capacity issues doom it to that fate. Taxpayers in New Brunswick will only suffer for so long to spite Quebec, and then they will bend under tax burdens. It will be a "we have no choice" kind of scenario.
The kind of scenario Ms Dunderdale and the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador are placing us in.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Reading Between the Lines
Wade Locke, Professor of Economics at Memorial University, came out to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador last week. The evening meeting dubbed “A Prosperity Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador” was anything but what its name suggests. It was not so much a plan to deal with all of our financial success, but rather a call to arms to avoid financial catastrophe - which was long overdue. In that sense, Dr. Locke showed courage and leadership - to the province, and its politicians.
Dr. Locke projected the costs of declining oil production, heavy taxation, massive debt, and declining population on our future prosperity. He concluded that oil revenues, which currently fund a third of the province's annual operating revenues of roughly $7 billion, are on a steep decline. He concluded that government spending was unsustainable, and irresponsible. He emphasized that if nothing is done to sharply reduce the debt, before oil revenues decrease further, our province will be in a position that is beyond help. The Telegram's story on the evening started with:"Economist Wade Locke tried to scare people a little bit Wednesday night." Nothing could be further from the truth. What Dr. Locke was trying to do was wake people up to the fact that our provincial government's economic policies are unsustainable.
What surprised me was Dr. Locke's refusal to include the costs of the proposed Muskrat Falls hydro project in his debt/economic projections. He told the media that he felt uncomfortable including the project's costs in his forecast as he had done work on the subject for Nalcor. That excuse is not really believable though. Consider that he has worked on behalf of the government on many economic issues throughout his long career. Using his reasoning, would he not therefore feel professionally obliged to refrain from any comment on government economic activities and practises? Perhaps the truth may be that Nalcor required Locke to sign a confidentiality agreement? Mr. Locke also gave Finance Minister Marshall a preview of his talk the morning of his speech. Did he have the Muskrat numbers in that initial brief, but was "requested" to remove them? Unless Dr. Locke comes forward with a logical and professionally consistent reasoning for not including the costs of Muskrat in his dire projections we can only speculate.
However, the one thing we can do is read between the lines. Dr. Locke is projecting annual operating deficits of close to $2 billion within ten years. He's projecting a debt of $30 billion by 2030. The cost of the Muskrat Falls project is estimated to add 50% to the current debt of the province.
The message between the lines: The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is going broke even without Muskrat Falls numbers included, and should we proceed with the project, our financial end will come much sooner.
It is a clear message if you simply, and logically read between the lines.
Dr. Locke projected the costs of declining oil production, heavy taxation, massive debt, and declining population on our future prosperity. He concluded that oil revenues, which currently fund a third of the province's annual operating revenues of roughly $7 billion, are on a steep decline. He concluded that government spending was unsustainable, and irresponsible. He emphasized that if nothing is done to sharply reduce the debt, before oil revenues decrease further, our province will be in a position that is beyond help. The Telegram's story on the evening started with:"Economist Wade Locke tried to scare people a little bit Wednesday night." Nothing could be further from the truth. What Dr. Locke was trying to do was wake people up to the fact that our provincial government's economic policies are unsustainable.
What surprised me was Dr. Locke's refusal to include the costs of the proposed Muskrat Falls hydro project in his debt/economic projections. He told the media that he felt uncomfortable including the project's costs in his forecast as he had done work on the subject for Nalcor. That excuse is not really believable though. Consider that he has worked on behalf of the government on many economic issues throughout his long career. Using his reasoning, would he not therefore feel professionally obliged to refrain from any comment on government economic activities and practises? Perhaps the truth may be that Nalcor required Locke to sign a confidentiality agreement? Mr. Locke also gave Finance Minister Marshall a preview of his talk the morning of his speech. Did he have the Muskrat numbers in that initial brief, but was "requested" to remove them? Unless Dr. Locke comes forward with a logical and professionally consistent reasoning for not including the costs of Muskrat in his dire projections we can only speculate.
However, the one thing we can do is read between the lines. Dr. Locke is projecting annual operating deficits of close to $2 billion within ten years. He's projecting a debt of $30 billion by 2030. The cost of the Muskrat Falls project is estimated to add 50% to the current debt of the province.
The message between the lines: The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is going broke even without Muskrat Falls numbers included, and should we proceed with the project, our financial end will come much sooner.
It is a clear message if you simply, and logically read between the lines.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
From May3, 2010
In light of Wade Locke's pronouncement tonight on our province's financial situation, and reflecting on the announcement this week of the massive growth in the provincial government since 2006, I thought it would be fun to repost this piece I did 14 months ago.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Muskrat Math
The proposed Lower Churchill hydro project is all about the math. Part of the problem we have all faced is getting the proper information to do the math and see if this deal is really needed, and if so does it make financial sense. According to Nalcor's Generation Planning Issues 2010 July the Muskrat Falls project is not necessary.The following graphs are taken from the report:
You will notice firstly that power consumption in the province is on the decline, and is now approximately what it was in 1992. You will also notice that the future forecast for power appears to take off like a rocket with no apparent reasoning. All Nalcor's, and the government's, arguments for increased production appear to be centered around this unexplained rise in consumption. Nalcor uses this rise to explain that in 2019 we will experience a power deficit, because our demand for power will exceed the amount of power being produced. You can see in the first graph that the HVDC link (Lower Churchill power) causes a massive jump in available power, and that excess drops when Holyrood is scheduled to go offline in 2021.
The second graph shows plan "B" whereby Holyrood would be upgraded with state of the art scrubbers, and expanded onto. There are also a number of smaller on Island projects added to it, and the result is a surplus of power - just much smaller. The real eye opener is the first graph which tells us that essentially all the power produced by the Lower Churchill will be excess power. That is a very worrisome discovery on several fronts.
There is the math which tells the real truth. Its the old saying: "People lie, the evidence does not." The Lower Churchill is scheduled to produce 4.9 terrawatts of power - or 4,900,000,000 kwh (kilowatt hours) per year. It is that number that the government bases its price projection of 14.3 cents per kwh as a breakeven point - the cost of production. From that 4,900,000,000 kwh we have to subtract a few numbers. Firstly, the loss of power by underwater sea transmission needs to be recognized. Experts suggest the average loss of power from either the line itself, or the conversion process to adapt the power to the DC lines is 7%. In our case the power goes through this process twice - once to get to the Island from Labrador, and once to leave the Island for Nova Scotia. I therefore rounded that loss up to 10% or 490,000,000 kwh (allowing benefit of the doubt). That comes right off the top, because Emera is entitled to 20% of the power produced not the 20% that arrives.
Then we have to take Emera's 20% of the power from the grand total. So you can subtract a further 888,200,000 kwh that leaves Nalcor with 3,552,800,000 kwh of power to sell. It also means their 14.3 cents to breakeven has changed to 20 cents per kwh due to a lesser amount of power available to recover that money from.
Next we have to add on the cost overruns of the dam, which at this time are unk nown, but which commonly reach between 25-56% according to the World Report on Dams. That would add at least 5 cents per kwh bringing the new total to 25 cents per kwh. Another cost that will be associated with the project is the subsea cable cost overruns. These projects are famous for their overruns - especially in rough waters. Potential issues there include bad weather and rough seas affecting the actual laying of the cable. Problems that can occur include breaking of the cables and even placement. It is interesting to note that even though Emera will pay for the subsea link to Nova Scotia, Nalcor will be responsible for cost overruns on the link. At this time it is impossible to say how much this will add to the cost of business, but it is certain to add to it.
Then there is the guaranteed return to Emera, Nalcor and Fortis of 8.3% on investment. Hard to say where that will end up until we know the final costs of the project - but it will add. Currently Fortis has a 3.5 cent markup on the 9.54 cent per kwh we pay to them for power. What that would look like on a 25 cent per kwh bill is unthinkable.
One last math deduction. As stated earlier, and according to Nalcor's own graphs, all the power from the Lower Churchill will be excess. In other words, we will have to sell it all, and not just a portion. The question is who will we sell it to? It won't be Emera, because they get their free 20% already. They also get a transmission fee on all power we send over the link - likely around 1.5 to 2 cents per kwh. No, it is far more likely that we will have to try and sell that power on the open US market. The problem with that is Hydro Quebec is already there and selling to them at roughly 6 cents per kwh. Take the 25 cents or so it will cost to produce this power, and then sell it for 6 cents. That leave us a loss of 19 cents per kwh. That would be bad if it were only a small excess of power being sold, but as shown earlier it looks to be all the Lower Churchill power. That would leave the Province and Nalcor with a staggering $931 million dollar loss year after year - for 35 years!
The problem with building a project of this size is in the detail. The small details and the large. We aren't the first to build such projects, and there is plenty of evidence in Canada and around the world of how these projects incur these "unforeseen" costs. We need to wake up folks. I don't care if this is Danny's Project, Dunderdale's project or Harper's project. It is a financial disaster for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It should be a strong signal to all that our homegrown Fortis group just this week signed a deal to purchase a Vermont company that just signed a 35 year supply deal with Hydro Quebec. They have apparently decided where their best interests lay. We need the press of this province and country to seriously scrutinize the financial details of the project before it's too late. If you think my facts and figures are overinflated then please do your own research - there is plenty out there on this subject. Look at the optimum figures the government gives out for the amount of power possible and the cost to produce it. Then start subtracting all the commitments along the way. You will find out that this project is a disaster for our province - it's only Muskrat Math.
You will notice firstly that power consumption in the province is on the decline, and is now approximately what it was in 1992. You will also notice that the future forecast for power appears to take off like a rocket with no apparent reasoning. All Nalcor's, and the government's, arguments for increased production appear to be centered around this unexplained rise in consumption. Nalcor uses this rise to explain that in 2019 we will experience a power deficit, because our demand for power will exceed the amount of power being produced. You can see in the first graph that the HVDC link (Lower Churchill power) causes a massive jump in available power, and that excess drops when Holyrood is scheduled to go offline in 2021.
The second graph shows plan "B" whereby Holyrood would be upgraded with state of the art scrubbers, and expanded onto. There are also a number of smaller on Island projects added to it, and the result is a surplus of power - just much smaller. The real eye opener is the first graph which tells us that essentially all the power produced by the Lower Churchill will be excess power. That is a very worrisome discovery on several fronts.
There is the math which tells the real truth. Its the old saying: "People lie, the evidence does not." The Lower Churchill is scheduled to produce 4.9 terrawatts of power - or 4,900,000,000 kwh (kilowatt hours) per year. It is that number that the government bases its price projection of 14.3 cents per kwh as a breakeven point - the cost of production. From that 4,900,000,000 kwh we have to subtract a few numbers. Firstly, the loss of power by underwater sea transmission needs to be recognized. Experts suggest the average loss of power from either the line itself, or the conversion process to adapt the power to the DC lines is 7%. In our case the power goes through this process twice - once to get to the Island from Labrador, and once to leave the Island for Nova Scotia. I therefore rounded that loss up to 10% or 490,000,000 kwh (allowing benefit of the doubt). That comes right off the top, because Emera is entitled to 20% of the power produced not the 20% that arrives.
Then we have to take Emera's 20% of the power from the grand total. So you can subtract a further 888,200,000 kwh that leaves Nalcor with 3,552,800,000 kwh of power to sell. It also means their 14.3 cents to breakeven has changed to 20 cents per kwh due to a lesser amount of power available to recover that money from.
Next we have to add on the cost overruns of the dam, which at this time are unk nown, but which commonly reach between 25-56% according to the World Report on Dams. That would add at least 5 cents per kwh bringing the new total to 25 cents per kwh. Another cost that will be associated with the project is the subsea cable cost overruns. These projects are famous for their overruns - especially in rough waters. Potential issues there include bad weather and rough seas affecting the actual laying of the cable. Problems that can occur include breaking of the cables and even placement. It is interesting to note that even though Emera will pay for the subsea link to Nova Scotia, Nalcor will be responsible for cost overruns on the link. At this time it is impossible to say how much this will add to the cost of business, but it is certain to add to it.
Then there is the guaranteed return to Emera, Nalcor and Fortis of 8.3% on investment. Hard to say where that will end up until we know the final costs of the project - but it will add. Currently Fortis has a 3.5 cent markup on the 9.54 cent per kwh we pay to them for power. What that would look like on a 25 cent per kwh bill is unthinkable.
One last math deduction. As stated earlier, and according to Nalcor's own graphs, all the power from the Lower Churchill will be excess. In other words, we will have to sell it all, and not just a portion. The question is who will we sell it to? It won't be Emera, because they get their free 20% already. They also get a transmission fee on all power we send over the link - likely around 1.5 to 2 cents per kwh. No, it is far more likely that we will have to try and sell that power on the open US market. The problem with that is Hydro Quebec is already there and selling to them at roughly 6 cents per kwh. Take the 25 cents or so it will cost to produce this power, and then sell it for 6 cents. That leave us a loss of 19 cents per kwh. That would be bad if it were only a small excess of power being sold, but as shown earlier it looks to be all the Lower Churchill power. That would leave the Province and Nalcor with a staggering $931 million dollar loss year after year - for 35 years!
The problem with building a project of this size is in the detail. The small details and the large. We aren't the first to build such projects, and there is plenty of evidence in Canada and around the world of how these projects incur these "unforeseen" costs. We need to wake up folks. I don't care if this is Danny's Project, Dunderdale's project or Harper's project. It is a financial disaster for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It should be a strong signal to all that our homegrown Fortis group just this week signed a deal to purchase a Vermont company that just signed a 35 year supply deal with Hydro Quebec. They have apparently decided where their best interests lay. We need the press of this province and country to seriously scrutinize the financial details of the project before it's too late. If you think my facts and figures are overinflated then please do your own research - there is plenty out there on this subject. Look at the optimum figures the government gives out for the amount of power possible and the cost to produce it. Then start subtracting all the commitments along the way. You will find out that this project is a disaster for our province - it's only Muskrat Math.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Dunderdale and Company: The Deliberate Debt Plan
For anyone with a modest knowledge of economics it is clear the Lower Churchill development, as it is currently proposed, makes no financial sense. The power such a structure generates cannot be sold for a profit anywhere - other than the Island of Newfoundland. The only reason it can be sold at a profit on the Island is the trapped consumer group that needs power to live - Newfoundlanders. Of course that means a rate hike of at least 250%. Think that is overstating it? Consider that current projections have the cost of producing the power at 14.3 cents a kwh. Then add the 25% guaranteed return on operations that the government disclosed this week to the three main players. Then add the average cost overrun for dams of this nature - another 25%. Dams in general have cost overruns of 56%, but hydro dams are normally lower. That does not include cost overruns incurred on the sub-sea links. Bottom line is that a Newfoundlander now paying $200 a month for power will be looking at a bill in the $600 - $700 a month range. Of course that only holds true if our population stays the same, and we know it's declining.
Bottom line is the Lower Churchill is a financial nightmare in the making. So why do it? It can't be for economics - or can it? The big, and I mean huge, elephant in the closet is the equalization renegotiation of 2013. The federal government is facing a messy fight with provinces such as Saskatchewan and Alberta that want to pay less and are reducing or eliminating their debts versus provincial governments trying to abuse the system for their own gain. Governments that fall into that category include Quebec and now apparently Newfoundland and Labrador. For those thinking Quebec's strategy has been working remember Quebec is now the third most indebted political entity on the earth - per capita. The general strategy appears to be: "If we spend it fast enough, increase our debt to GDP ratio, we will qualify as have-nots while having all the benefits of haves." A strategy born from being a have-not for so long, but showing none of the maturity and responsibility that comes with its new found status - pun intended.
While that strategy may be successful in reducing or eliminating this province's contributions to the equalization program, it will kill the economy here through debt and taxation. The lack of fiscal responsibility of the Dunderdale government is already causing distortions in the economy. A really telling one was the announcement by Minister King of his disappointment with the private sector for not hiring first year apprentices. This provincial government has initiated a program to pay 90% of the wages for first year apprentices - yet very few takers. The problem is a lack of economic stability beyond the oil sector. Businesses are not spending as their confidence in this government's economic policy is paper thin - not enough for them to go out on the limb and hire these young people.
In many ways the Dunderdale government's approach to "managing" the economy resembles the efforts made by the old communist governments of the past. Five and eight year plans. Virtual control of the economy by massive growth in government. Trying to create an economy based on ideology as opposed to demand. In general, trying to control the economy and its growth rather than reducing its economic impact and allowing the private sector to breathe. The Lower Churchill falls mega bust falls into this way of thinking. We know from history that communist governments fell when the people finally lost confidence in their ability to properly administer the economy. Will we have to wait for things to get that bad here before we stop this destructive waste of our precious resources?
Bottom line is the Lower Churchill is a financial nightmare in the making. So why do it? It can't be for economics - or can it? The big, and I mean huge, elephant in the closet is the equalization renegotiation of 2013. The federal government is facing a messy fight with provinces such as Saskatchewan and Alberta that want to pay less and are reducing or eliminating their debts versus provincial governments trying to abuse the system for their own gain. Governments that fall into that category include Quebec and now apparently Newfoundland and Labrador. For those thinking Quebec's strategy has been working remember Quebec is now the third most indebted political entity on the earth - per capita. The general strategy appears to be: "If we spend it fast enough, increase our debt to GDP ratio, we will qualify as have-nots while having all the benefits of haves." A strategy born from being a have-not for so long, but showing none of the maturity and responsibility that comes with its new found status - pun intended.
While that strategy may be successful in reducing or eliminating this province's contributions to the equalization program, it will kill the economy here through debt and taxation. The lack of fiscal responsibility of the Dunderdale government is already causing distortions in the economy. A really telling one was the announcement by Minister King of his disappointment with the private sector for not hiring first year apprentices. This provincial government has initiated a program to pay 90% of the wages for first year apprentices - yet very few takers. The problem is a lack of economic stability beyond the oil sector. Businesses are not spending as their confidence in this government's economic policy is paper thin - not enough for them to go out on the limb and hire these young people.
In many ways the Dunderdale government's approach to "managing" the economy resembles the efforts made by the old communist governments of the past. Five and eight year plans. Virtual control of the economy by massive growth in government. Trying to create an economy based on ideology as opposed to demand. In general, trying to control the economy and its growth rather than reducing its economic impact and allowing the private sector to breathe. The Lower Churchill falls mega bust falls into this way of thinking. We know from history that communist governments fell when the people finally lost confidence in their ability to properly administer the economy. Will we have to wait for things to get that bad here before we stop this destructive waste of our precious resources?
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The Newfoundland PC School of Politics
There comes a time in every government's life when it's usefulness has outlived it's welcome. A time when arrogance becomes so common place as to become the political culture surrounding it's operations. It's not normally a sudden thing that announces this transformation, but rather a number of instances that crystallize a perception that a government has become "old and tired". This has certainly become true of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, and more precisely the government they lead.
Just take the last few months - since Danny left to be exact. Parents losing kids over failed IQ tests. A botched appointment to the CNLOPB, and then the lies to try and cover it up. The Auditor General's Report with it's numerous points of governmental spending abuse, and general indifference to the rules governing it's operations. Of course there was the Parson's Pond fiasco,with a $25million price tag, when Nalcor drilled the two most expensive holes in this province's history. That little exercise made Ms Dunderdale's comments laughable when several weeks later she proclaimed "Nalcor knows what it does" in defence of the Lower Churchill development. The list goes on and on proving a week is a long time in politics, and three months can be a century.
As bad as those issues were, and remain so to this day, it is the comments of Ministers Jackman and Wiseman that have really blown me away. Mr Jackman's remarks on the MOU studying the long term feasibility of this province's fishing industry were disgraceful. Remarks that in any other government would have instantly resulted in his resignation. His callous comments that the government need not put any more money into the fishery as most fisherman will lose their boats in the next seven years was cold in the extreme. Then last week he proclaimed that shrimp and lobster fishermen should really get their collective act together as he was getting really tired of their protests. He actually referred to them as a "right of spring". He went on to say that what was really needed was "some leadership". What Jackman fails to see, but almost everyone else does, is that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is tied to the fishery. As the fishery goes, so goes the rural. So is he saying leave the rural areas to their own demise? That he's not about to even bring the issue to Cabinet because his buddies are far too busy discussing issues of real importance - like a dam and the black gold. That the poor old fishermen will have to die a slow and painful death, because frankly he has better things to spend the money on. That is what I call being out of touch with the rural part of the province, and it hasn't gone unnoticed.
Then there is Mr Wiseman. This week, as Minister of the Environment, he proclaimed that rural boil water orders in the province were the responsibility of municipalities, and his government was not to blame. He accused these small councils of not doing their part in treating their water properly - in some cases shutting off their chlorination systems. What he fails to grasp is that it is a provincial government's responsibility to ensure these systems are running. Perhaps the government's attitude is that "if we don't have to enforce it we don't have to pay for it". After all, if they were to insist it be done properly then they would be approached to give the funds necessary to make it happen. Out of sight out of mind if you will. That is also ignoring the fact that Municipal Operating Grants have been frozen since 2006, and were only given a one time increase this year of $6 million. Most of these rural communities have a disproportionately high number of low income families and seniors on fixed incomes. Their ability to pay huge tax increases to do the necessary infrastructure work in their communities is not there. With hands tied things slide. This is the story of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Blaming the victim is becoming the story of this government.
In a way it speaks to the above average ability of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to suffer at the hands of their own politicians. The part that turns my stomach is the above average ability of this province's politicians to treat their own citizens with such contempt, and then smile as if they are somehow doing us all a collective favour by gracing us with their presence. It is a height of arrogance you won't see in too many other parts of this country - well, not for long at least. When things get that bad governments get replaced. This coming October it is time to end the arrogance, and start a plan that builds the whole province for her people's benefit. Note to the PC Party and your way of doing things - school is out.
Just take the last few months - since Danny left to be exact. Parents losing kids over failed IQ tests. A botched appointment to the CNLOPB, and then the lies to try and cover it up. The Auditor General's Report with it's numerous points of governmental spending abuse, and general indifference to the rules governing it's operations. Of course there was the Parson's Pond fiasco,with a $25million price tag, when Nalcor drilled the two most expensive holes in this province's history. That little exercise made Ms Dunderdale's comments laughable when several weeks later she proclaimed "Nalcor knows what it does" in defence of the Lower Churchill development. The list goes on and on proving a week is a long time in politics, and three months can be a century.
As bad as those issues were, and remain so to this day, it is the comments of Ministers Jackman and Wiseman that have really blown me away. Mr Jackman's remarks on the MOU studying the long term feasibility of this province's fishing industry were disgraceful. Remarks that in any other government would have instantly resulted in his resignation. His callous comments that the government need not put any more money into the fishery as most fisherman will lose their boats in the next seven years was cold in the extreme. Then last week he proclaimed that shrimp and lobster fishermen should really get their collective act together as he was getting really tired of their protests. He actually referred to them as a "right of spring". He went on to say that what was really needed was "some leadership". What Jackman fails to see, but almost everyone else does, is that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is tied to the fishery. As the fishery goes, so goes the rural. So is he saying leave the rural areas to their own demise? That he's not about to even bring the issue to Cabinet because his buddies are far too busy discussing issues of real importance - like a dam and the black gold. That the poor old fishermen will have to die a slow and painful death, because frankly he has better things to spend the money on. That is what I call being out of touch with the rural part of the province, and it hasn't gone unnoticed.
Then there is Mr Wiseman. This week, as Minister of the Environment, he proclaimed that rural boil water orders in the province were the responsibility of municipalities, and his government was not to blame. He accused these small councils of not doing their part in treating their water properly - in some cases shutting off their chlorination systems. What he fails to grasp is that it is a provincial government's responsibility to ensure these systems are running. Perhaps the government's attitude is that "if we don't have to enforce it we don't have to pay for it". After all, if they were to insist it be done properly then they would be approached to give the funds necessary to make it happen. Out of sight out of mind if you will. That is also ignoring the fact that Municipal Operating Grants have been frozen since 2006, and were only given a one time increase this year of $6 million. Most of these rural communities have a disproportionately high number of low income families and seniors on fixed incomes. Their ability to pay huge tax increases to do the necessary infrastructure work in their communities is not there. With hands tied things slide. This is the story of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Blaming the victim is becoming the story of this government.
In a way it speaks to the above average ability of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to suffer at the hands of their own politicians. The part that turns my stomach is the above average ability of this province's politicians to treat their own citizens with such contempt, and then smile as if they are somehow doing us all a collective favour by gracing us with their presence. It is a height of arrogance you won't see in too many other parts of this country - well, not for long at least. When things get that bad governments get replaced. This coming October it is time to end the arrogance, and start a plan that builds the whole province for her people's benefit. Note to the PC Party and your way of doing things - school is out.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Should the federal Liberals join the NDP?
All federal political parties had a historic night on the 2nd of May, 2011. The Bloc was nearly wiped out, and it's Leader lost his seat. The Green Party elected it's first member of Parliament - it's Leader. The Harper Conservatives finally were awarded with a majority after several minority governments. The NDP reached historic new heights with 102 seats, and were able to secure the Office of the Official Opposition - also for the first time. The Liberals suffered their worst loss ever, including the loss of their Leader's seat, and Official opposition status. Historical night all around.
The question immediately came to the fore: Should the Liberals amalgamate with the NDP to form a new unified left? The pundits all seemed to fall in line with that idea. The night of the loss they called for a new "Liberal Democratic Party" as it were. Bob Rae came on TV that night and seemed to endorse the idea of giving it at least some consideration. I believe, however, that entire idea, including it's premises, is completely wrong.
First of all, Liberals are not socialists. If they were socialists they would already be in the NDP or some such movement. They are traditionally the menders of conflict between Quebec and the rest of the country. It is in this way they really earned their title " Natural Governing Party". At times it required them to take a tough, and politically unpopular stand in Quebec, like the Clarity Act. They wrapped themselves in the flag, and were proud to declare they were not the "waiters to the provinces". They championed social justice and the "Just Society" - enshrining such in our Constitution. At the same time they were a Party of business ensuring Canada remained a player in the world. Jean Chretien, by way of example, led many trade missions throughout the world and signed free trade agreements. His Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, made tough and unpopular decisions to eradicate the deficit that was a main stay point of contention with the then populist Reform Party. In general, they were viewed as the Party of balance. The national interest was safe in their hands.
Contrast that with the NDP. They share in some ways a social justice message with the Liberals, but beyond that a common thread is hard to find. Proponents of a Liberal Democrat merger argue it would end vote splitting as if this were the reason for the Liberals loss. That the two Parties shared the same constituency, and their individual existence doomed them to split their own vote forever. They argue it represents the same problem the Reform and the Progressive Conservatives faced a decade ago. This logic is flawed.
Firstly, the Reform and PCs were from the same family. It was not so much a unification as it was a reunification - a burying of the axe if you will. A marriage of the Harris Ontario Tories and the Harper Reformers. The fallout was directly related to the historic PC loss that resulted in going from the largest majority ever to two seats nationally. A catastrophic loss that wiped out the PC base from coast to coast - despite the efforts of Jean Charest to reverse it's effects.
Secondly, and far more importantly, the NDP are not here to stay in these numbers. Their victory in Quebec centered around their leader Jack Layton. A man who has committed not to run in another campaign, and who's advancing years and poor health would seem to rule out another run. They have a caucus that is now dominated by Quebec. Many of these Quebecers are dedicated to Quebec sovereignty. The Party born of prairie populism is now dominated by people who wish to see the destruction of the country. Their own long term MPs, and some new ones like Ryan Cleary, will find themselves in a Party they can no longer recognize. The new Quebec wing will dominate the NDP. The NDP itself is actually in danger of a catastrophic split. If all these new MPs, 60% of all MPs in the NDP now, decide to leave they would form the Official Opposition. In terms of power politics you can be sure that fact has not escaped their French lieutenants. A new, and powerful position for separatists within a federal party. At the very least, inexperience and separatist leanings are bound to create ongoing political chaos for these folks.
It's time for the Liberal Party of Canada to take a deep breath. What they suffered was a political loss. Bad to be sure, but not fatal. Every Party suffers a loss from time to time. They need to take time to see why they have failed. I, for one, believe the answer is fairly obvious. The big losses started happening with poor leadership choices. Sorry, but that is the history. If you want to be real then you have to get real. Poor leadership choices resulted in loss of political discipline. Loss of political discipline created a perception of weakness, which resulted in a massive loss of credibility. At a time of choice people are going to turn to the Leader who they perceive has credibility. They consider the perception of the Leader as the primary factor in their decision. Just look at Duceppe vs Layton in 2011. It was Jack mania and Gilles is a dinosaur. The key for any Party is that their Leader is not perceived as yesterday's man. That is the political reality facing the Liberal Party of Canada. It needs to choose the Leader of tomorrow, and not an appendage of the past. Then it needs to rally around that Leader and exercise sound Party discipline around it's founding principles. The ship of sensibility in the stormy waters of right or left fanaticism. The Canadian people will look to them again for prudence in the not too distant future.
The question immediately came to the fore: Should the Liberals amalgamate with the NDP to form a new unified left? The pundits all seemed to fall in line with that idea. The night of the loss they called for a new "Liberal Democratic Party" as it were. Bob Rae came on TV that night and seemed to endorse the idea of giving it at least some consideration. I believe, however, that entire idea, including it's premises, is completely wrong.
First of all, Liberals are not socialists. If they were socialists they would already be in the NDP or some such movement. They are traditionally the menders of conflict between Quebec and the rest of the country. It is in this way they really earned their title " Natural Governing Party". At times it required them to take a tough, and politically unpopular stand in Quebec, like the Clarity Act. They wrapped themselves in the flag, and were proud to declare they were not the "waiters to the provinces". They championed social justice and the "Just Society" - enshrining such in our Constitution. At the same time they were a Party of business ensuring Canada remained a player in the world. Jean Chretien, by way of example, led many trade missions throughout the world and signed free trade agreements. His Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, made tough and unpopular decisions to eradicate the deficit that was a main stay point of contention with the then populist Reform Party. In general, they were viewed as the Party of balance. The national interest was safe in their hands.
Contrast that with the NDP. They share in some ways a social justice message with the Liberals, but beyond that a common thread is hard to find. Proponents of a Liberal Democrat merger argue it would end vote splitting as if this were the reason for the Liberals loss. That the two Parties shared the same constituency, and their individual existence doomed them to split their own vote forever. They argue it represents the same problem the Reform and the Progressive Conservatives faced a decade ago. This logic is flawed.
Firstly, the Reform and PCs were from the same family. It was not so much a unification as it was a reunification - a burying of the axe if you will. A marriage of the Harris Ontario Tories and the Harper Reformers. The fallout was directly related to the historic PC loss that resulted in going from the largest majority ever to two seats nationally. A catastrophic loss that wiped out the PC base from coast to coast - despite the efforts of Jean Charest to reverse it's effects.
Secondly, and far more importantly, the NDP are not here to stay in these numbers. Their victory in Quebec centered around their leader Jack Layton. A man who has committed not to run in another campaign, and who's advancing years and poor health would seem to rule out another run. They have a caucus that is now dominated by Quebec. Many of these Quebecers are dedicated to Quebec sovereignty. The Party born of prairie populism is now dominated by people who wish to see the destruction of the country. Their own long term MPs, and some new ones like Ryan Cleary, will find themselves in a Party they can no longer recognize. The new Quebec wing will dominate the NDP. The NDP itself is actually in danger of a catastrophic split. If all these new MPs, 60% of all MPs in the NDP now, decide to leave they would form the Official Opposition. In terms of power politics you can be sure that fact has not escaped their French lieutenants. A new, and powerful position for separatists within a federal party. At the very least, inexperience and separatist leanings are bound to create ongoing political chaos for these folks.
It's time for the Liberal Party of Canada to take a deep breath. What they suffered was a political loss. Bad to be sure, but not fatal. Every Party suffers a loss from time to time. They need to take time to see why they have failed. I, for one, believe the answer is fairly obvious. The big losses started happening with poor leadership choices. Sorry, but that is the history. If you want to be real then you have to get real. Poor leadership choices resulted in loss of political discipline. Loss of political discipline created a perception of weakness, which resulted in a massive loss of credibility. At a time of choice people are going to turn to the Leader who they perceive has credibility. They consider the perception of the Leader as the primary factor in their decision. Just look at Duceppe vs Layton in 2011. It was Jack mania and Gilles is a dinosaur. The key for any Party is that their Leader is not perceived as yesterday's man. That is the political reality facing the Liberal Party of Canada. It needs to choose the Leader of tomorrow, and not an appendage of the past. Then it needs to rally around that Leader and exercise sound Party discipline around it's founding principles. The ship of sensibility in the stormy waters of right or left fanaticism. The Canadian people will look to them again for prudence in the not too distant future.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Reading the tea leaves in Newfoundland and Labrador
It's the kind of morning where you don't know whether to laugh or cry. On the one hand, this province essentially rejected the Harper government and Ms Dunderdale's exercise of "influence". On the other hand, we have a majority federal government that was rejected by 60% of the electorate and essentially is without representation from the two most nationalistic provinces in the country. I am pleased at the election of Judy Foote, our local Liberal MP, but concerned that the federal Liberal Party lies on the rocks.
The biggest political story from our province had to be the failure of the Dunderdale PCs to influence the vote. In fact, going over the numbers from 2008 and today's, the federal Liberal vote was essentially untouched. The Conservatives did increase their vote, but not at a significant cost to the Liberals. Case in point, the Random-Burin-St. Georges riding. The Liberal vote remained virtually the same - in fact it increased by 400. The Conservative vote almost doubled, but not at the expense of any other Party. The NDP vote essentially remained the same. So the bottom line is a vote representing 18% of the overall vote came out to vote, whereas in 2008 it stayed home. Essentially, that analysis happened throughout most of the Province. St. John's Mount Pearl saw 20% of the Liberal vote bleed to the NDP candidate Ryan Cleary - an exception to the overall trend. In Labrador, the Liberal candidate lost 26% of his vote, but the Conservative candidate benifitted from 2100 votes that did not show up to vote in 2008.
Looking toward the future I see conflict. The Harper Conservatives are, after all, a marriage of the western Reform movement and the Harris Conservatives of Ontario. The Progressive element of the old Party is either gone or marginalized. We now have a dangerous combination of an idealog in the drivers seat, and an extremely polarized electorate. Then add to that the two most nationalistic provinces in Canada rejected that government. Then focus on the silent iceberg laying in wait - the renegotiation of our equalization formulas in 2012-2013. Despite all the talk of gun registries, etc., the real fights happen over dollars and cents. Quebec will be angling for taking more, the west will be angling for giving less, and so it goes. Again, the danger is the two most nationalistic provinces are essentially not in the government federally, so their provincial governments will come more to the fore. In our case that is the Dunderdale government. The thought "lambs to the slaughter" comes to mind. In Quebec's case it will mean the Parti Quebecois - a separatist Party that is more or less guaranteed to win the next provincial election there. It should have been a major point of anxiety for everyone to envision a right wing Harper majority negotiating with a left wing, separatist Party in Quebec. Apparently, that thought did not factor into the Ontario thinking process.
It's odd that Ontario did not play it's traditional role as a bridge for Quebec to the rest of the country. Instead it threw it's lot in with the old Reform Party crowd. Is that an act of self-preservation on their part? Is that Ontario's way of choosing sides so it won't rattle the goose that laid the golden egg - Fort MacMurray? With massive provincial debt crippling Quebec and Ontario, and costs going through the roof, did Ontario decide their collective interest lay with the boys from the West? Sounds like it to me. Again, a dangerous shift for the unity of the country. Don't get me wrong. The folks out West are Canadians like the rest of us. The problem is when the historical, internal, political culture and national rhythms fracture so goes the ties that bind. This is the real danger of last night's vote. I see us sleep walking toward that conflict - eyes wide shut.
One last thought. If an NDPer had to win last night, Ryan Cleary is a man who will stand and fight for Newfoundland and Labrador. I wonder though, speaking of the two most nationalistic provinces, how a man so passionate and sincere about this Province will fare in a caucus dominated by soft nationalistic MPs from Quebec? It may well be a litmus test to my theory of this oncoming national divide.
The biggest political story from our province had to be the failure of the Dunderdale PCs to influence the vote. In fact, going over the numbers from 2008 and today's, the federal Liberal vote was essentially untouched. The Conservatives did increase their vote, but not at a significant cost to the Liberals. Case in point, the Random-Burin-St. Georges riding. The Liberal vote remained virtually the same - in fact it increased by 400. The Conservative vote almost doubled, but not at the expense of any other Party. The NDP vote essentially remained the same. So the bottom line is a vote representing 18% of the overall vote came out to vote, whereas in 2008 it stayed home. Essentially, that analysis happened throughout most of the Province. St. John's Mount Pearl saw 20% of the Liberal vote bleed to the NDP candidate Ryan Cleary - an exception to the overall trend. In Labrador, the Liberal candidate lost 26% of his vote, but the Conservative candidate benifitted from 2100 votes that did not show up to vote in 2008.
Looking toward the future I see conflict. The Harper Conservatives are, after all, a marriage of the western Reform movement and the Harris Conservatives of Ontario. The Progressive element of the old Party is either gone or marginalized. We now have a dangerous combination of an idealog in the drivers seat, and an extremely polarized electorate. Then add to that the two most nationalistic provinces in Canada rejected that government. Then focus on the silent iceberg laying in wait - the renegotiation of our equalization formulas in 2012-2013. Despite all the talk of gun registries, etc., the real fights happen over dollars and cents. Quebec will be angling for taking more, the west will be angling for giving less, and so it goes. Again, the danger is the two most nationalistic provinces are essentially not in the government federally, so their provincial governments will come more to the fore. In our case that is the Dunderdale government. The thought "lambs to the slaughter" comes to mind. In Quebec's case it will mean the Parti Quebecois - a separatist Party that is more or less guaranteed to win the next provincial election there. It should have been a major point of anxiety for everyone to envision a right wing Harper majority negotiating with a left wing, separatist Party in Quebec. Apparently, that thought did not factor into the Ontario thinking process.
It's odd that Ontario did not play it's traditional role as a bridge for Quebec to the rest of the country. Instead it threw it's lot in with the old Reform Party crowd. Is that an act of self-preservation on their part? Is that Ontario's way of choosing sides so it won't rattle the goose that laid the golden egg - Fort MacMurray? With massive provincial debt crippling Quebec and Ontario, and costs going through the roof, did Ontario decide their collective interest lay with the boys from the West? Sounds like it to me. Again, a dangerous shift for the unity of the country. Don't get me wrong. The folks out West are Canadians like the rest of us. The problem is when the historical, internal, political culture and national rhythms fracture so goes the ties that bind. This is the real danger of last night's vote. I see us sleep walking toward that conflict - eyes wide shut.
One last thought. If an NDPer had to win last night, Ryan Cleary is a man who will stand and fight for Newfoundland and Labrador. I wonder though, speaking of the two most nationalistic provinces, how a man so passionate and sincere about this Province will fare in a caucus dominated by soft nationalistic MPs from Quebec? It may well be a litmus test to my theory of this oncoming national divide.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Why I won't vote for Harper's Conservatives
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)