Newfoundland and Labrador Energy Plan Consultations Underway on the Island

As a precursor to the development of a Provincial Energy Plan the government is currently involved in Province wide public consultations. I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to attend the third of these sessions last night at the Holiday Inn in St. John’s, the first two took place in Labrador, and I have to admit the well attended session was very enlightening.

Although the session, attended by Minister of Natural Resources Ed Byrne and several Deputy Ministers, attempted to squeeze too many presentations into a limited timeframe some valuable points were discussed. Since all presentations were also supplied to government in full the actual session came across more as an exercise in public relations. In other words, it’s not enough to be doing something you must also be seen to be doing something.

The presenters at the St. John’s consultation ran the gambit from ex-politicians to business owners, from environmentalists to oil industry executives and from union representatives to a consumer advocate. All in all a good mix with a very diverse set of ideas and concerns.

During the session several issues resonated with me. Below are some of the highlights.

Thomas Johnson – Consumer Advocate for Newfoundland and Labrador: Going forward changes should be made to the regulations governing electrical rate setting. The current process sets consumer rates based on the utility’s earnings and doesn’t provide an incentive for them become more efficient. (The less efficient they are the lower their earnings and the higher they can raise their rates).

Recommendation: Switch to performance based rate setting or PFB. This would allow consumers to take advantage of off peak period rates. The cost of supplying electricity is lower during periods when demand is low. Consumers should be given an opportunity to reap the benefit of lower rates during those periods if they choose to do so. In this way consumers would be more likely to schedule usage during off peak periods.

Fonse Fagan – AJ Fagan Consulting: Government needs to improve efficiency in the area of changing legislation within the oil and gas sector. The current process requires both federal and Provincial agreement and since the federal government requires consistency across all provinces this in essence means the tacit agreement of all producing provinces for anything to happen.

Current policy allows an exploration company to take advantage of a “Significant Find” license when they discover a petroleum deposit. These companies should be forced to prove the economic viability of their find before such a license is issued. Currently companies can receive a license and sit on the property in perpetuity without developing it, denying access to anyone interested in exploring the area. (An example given is a situation in the Jean D’Arc Basin where a company tested a well and discovered as little as 17 barrels of oil. That company now has a Significant Find license and has full control of the entire area.)

Bob Clarke – IBEW (representing several hundred hydro workers): The supply of power on the island will not be enough to meet demand in the coming years. The situation is such that the Province cannot wait for any potential interconnectivity with Labrador and the Lower Churchill. Instead Hydro must move to install a new unit at Holyrood before it’s too late. The seriousness of this situation was evidenced on the night of the federal election when Newfoundland and Labrador Power requested that consumers ease up on their use for the evening or possible brown outs would likely take place.

Carl Powell – Retired Mining Engineer: Mr. Powell recognized the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador as “A man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing”. He went on to say that the Province should not only produce power at Lower Churchill but use it. According to Mr. Powell the financial benefit to Quebec from Upper Churchill power is well beyond the 1 billion a year estimate often used and is actually closer to 5 billion. This is due to the secondary and tertiary jobs that have developed as a result of that power, jobs in smelters, mills, construction and even at Bombardier. According to Mr. Powell the actual numbers show a benefit of 20 jobs per MWH or 100,000 jobs in total.

Bruce Pierce – Green Communities Canada: Any plan must have conservation and efficiency as a major pillar not just an after thought. Movement in the direction of energy savings should be as important as any new development. According to Mr. Pierce, since 1970 conservation and efficiency have provided more available power than any new sources of energy at an average cost of 3.1 cents per KWH.

Stephen Campbell – Trans Ocean Gas: In the early 1970’s $30 billion dollars worth of natural gas was discovered on the Labrador Shelf and this gas find was never developed. At the time technology and the lack of a distribution system did not make the find economically feasible however this is not the case today. Mr. Campbell, who is involved in the development of technology to transport compressed natural gas via ship and container, stated that the company exploring the area at the time took a tax write off on the find and left it unused. Due to current regulations this company still has all rights to the area and as a result nobody else has the opportunity to develop it. Mr. Campbell said would like these regulations to change to more of a “use it or lose it” approach.

Mr. Campbell stated that he was currently involved in a $250,000 study into the potential for tidal power in the Bell Island Straits which he believes has the potential to supply up to 10,000 Megawatts of energy.

Jerry Heffernan – Axxel Consulting: Mr. Heffernan identified the fact that the government’s discussion paper on the proposed energy plan states that he Province would like to become an energy warehouse. He challenged the government to put some solid numbers around that statement. Mr. Heffernan would like to see targets set that would clearly identify the Province’s direction. He suggested goals of power 25% in excess of need, zero thermal energy use by 1012 and the lowest energy costs in North America as possible targets.

Mr. Heffernan also suggested that one of the natural bi-products of hydro generation is hydrogen and that this is a potentially untapped resource of great value that could be exported onto the international market.

There were many other points made however the sample outlined above gives some idea of the diversity of thought that has been feeding the current process. The session closed with Minister Byrne thanking everyone for their input and identifying the fact that he was very impressed with some specific presentations especially the ideas of changing exploration regulations and the suggestion that any benefits from the energy sector needs to benefit all areas of the Province, not just the Avalon. (This point was raised by Burt London of the NL Federation of Labor who said that the plan must re-deploy wealth throughout different areas of the Province.) Mr. Byrne’s response to this point was, “…if that doesn’t happen then this plan will be a failure.”

Two notable local figures were also in attendance and although they did not make formal presentations they did comment during the open question period at the end of the session. Jim Morgan questioned the Minister on the ability to pipe power through Quebec and also why the Province did not approve a proposed wind farm in Labrador. The Minister responded that times had changed and with the international agreements and regulations in place today Quebec could not force the same sort of deal they did in the 1960’s.

On the wind farm he stated that he was not prepared to approve any plan until he had all the necessary information on impacts and possible benefits that might accrue from such a development. Byrne went on to say that doing so would be the same as telling SNC Lavilin (the developer of the Upper Churchill project) to go ahead and develop the Lower Churhill and that they could reap all of the benefits. According to Byrne he would not allow that to happen and he expected the people of the Province wouldn’t stand for it either.

Another well known figure was Tom Kearns, long time proponent of a fixed link between Newfoundland and Labrador who spoke of the potential impact of not creating such a link (one that would supposedly transport not only people but oil/gas and electricity as well). According to Mr. Kearns highway 128 from Quebec into Labrador will be completed in a short timeframe. Eventually Quebec will have two roads into the big land and once that happens it will open up the area to Quebec interests more so than Newfoundland interests.

Kearns proposed that within 50 years Newfoundland would lose its hold on Labrador if a fixed link was not put in place. According to Kearns allowing Quebec to have closer contact than the island was capable of would allow for more industrial and personal interaction with the other Province and over time the people of Labrador would have more ties economically and socially with Quebec than they would with Newfoundland. He saw this as the beginning of the end for this Province as we know it.

Should Newfoundland and Labrador Lead Canada in Senate Reform?

Should Canada’s youngest province help the Country take its first baby steps into the world of Senate reform?

One of the planks in the conservative party platform during the recent election was the promise to do away with political patronage as the Country’s method for filling senate seats. They promised to do this by introducing the reality of an elected senate and now an opportunity to do exactly that exists here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately it now appears that our newly minted government in Ottawa is a little wary of moving forward on this promise right away.

With the passing of the late Senator Bill Doody just after Christmas Newfoundland and Labrador has an empty seat to fill. The question now is should it be filled with an appointed senator or should the province and the new federal government seize this opportunity to move forward on their agenda for senate reform?

Reports over the weekend seem to confirm that the Conservative party is leaning toward a simple appointment. They are claiming that the reforms they’ve suggested would take time and that waiting would leave the Province with one less voice in Ottawa. Perhaps this is true, but what better way to force the issue and speed up the process of reform than to move forward while this empty seat is available?

Think about the spin the new government could get out of this with regards to looking like a truly national party. I can read the headline now:

“Western ideas bear fruit down East.”

One of the problems Mr. Harper is going to have with actually moving forward on Senate elections is how to get the first senator in his desk, or rather how to pry the old senators out. The reality is such that the current Senate is made up of members who have basically been given lifetime jobs (until age 75 anyway) so its not going to be that easy to simply open up seats for election. Here we have an opportunity, albeit the result of a very sad event, but an opportunity none the less to move forward.

I for one don’t mind if the Province has one less Senator in Ottawa for the time being if that means we can help get these reforms put into place. The fact is I’d rather have any seat filled with one elected voice answerable to me than a hundred voices answerable to no one, or even worse, answerable to those who appointed them.

Perhaps the Province itself should take the bull by the horns and simply force the issue. I’m not talking simply about our Premier and members of the public pushing this issue back into the face of our new Prime Minister by yelling and screaming, no I’m talking about taking real steps for reform.

Maybe Newfoundland and Labrador should simply put out a call for senate candidates, then go right ahead and elect our choice for representative. No doubt there would be some pretty strong push back from Ottawa over the validity of the election and its results, and technically they’d be right, but the ball would then be in their court.

The federal government would be forced to face the fact that the people of a Province have decided who they want to fill their senate seat. That isn’t something the government could simply ignore and it isn't something they could pretend didn’t happen. The reality is that our federal government would be faced with three real possibilities in a situation like that:

1 – They would be forced to move quickly forward with promised reforms so as not to be out maneuvered by the Province and in order not to look like they are stepping back from their senate reform promises. If they are seen to be soft on instituting these reforms they would likely lose much of their core support out West and that could spell the end of the party as a major entity in Canadian politics;

2 – They could leave the actual reform process to be addressed later but stand by the choice of the people and appoint the individual elected. This would not move the official cause of Senate reform forward but it would send a clear signal and might even set a precedent that would likely be followed by other Provinces and other Prime Ministers in future. This might provide much the same result as true election reform.

3 – They could ignore the will of the electorate and simply appoint a member of the party faithful that is not recognized by the people of the Province. The backlash from a move like that would no doubt resonate to the four corners of the Country and likely cause the complete collapse of Conservative support within its Western strongholds and perhaps right across the Nation.

Of course making this move would be a bold decisive action on the Province’s part, but the new government in Ottawa has already promised to give more power and voice to the Provinces and here is a perfect opportunity to facilitate that.

If there are three things I’ve learned over the years it’s that power isn’t something someone gives you but rather it's something you earn or simply take on. Secondly, only by using power do you really have it and finally, as I’ve always said, “It’s far easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission.”

The Green’s Favorite Terrorist

I came across the following article the other day and thought it might be of interest to our readers. With February/March just around the corner we will soon be back into another seal hunt season and of course with that comes the annual protests, or as I like to call them the annual fund raiser.

As you all know one of the least popular people in Newfoundland and Labrador during the hunt is none other than Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Society. With this in mind read on and enjoy.

The Green’s Favorite Terrorist
By Thomas Ryan
FrontPageMagazine.com May 4, 2004
Original article: www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13159

The guise of modern-day terrorism is no longer limited to Palestinian suicide-bombers or the visceral images of the tragedy of 9/11. In a world of ever-increasing ideological disharmony, a new, equally violent terrorist has emerged – the eco-terrorist. Like the purveyors of radical Islamic terrorism, the eco-terrorist uses fear, intimidation, and violence in attainment of its goal, which for the eco-terrorist is simply the reclamation of the Earth to its pre-humanity condition, no matter what the cost. Heading-up this domestic terrorist offensive of radical animal-rights and extreme environmentalism is Paul Watson, who, even amidst the nation’s grief over 9/11, made the audacious and frightening statement, “There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win.”
Paul Watson is considered by many to be the originator of environmental terrorism; what he refers to as “passionate activism.” Watson was one of the founders of Greenpeace, the largest environmental rights organization in the world, with over 5 million members claiming allegiance in over twenty countries. Watson left Greenpeace, which originated as a splinter faction of the 1960’s anti-war group, “Don’t Make a Wave Committee,” due to the passivity of the group. Of Greenpeace’s objection to the use of excessive violence in their protests, Watson declared his former group the “Avon ladies of the environmental movement.”

In 1977, Watson founded the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS), which Watson describes as a “policing organization,” but which is in fact a radical terrorist outfit the travels the oceans of the world enacting violence against the world’s fishing industry. Watson oversees a small fleet of ships outfitted with cement-filled bows built for the sole purpose of violently ramming and sinking ships they deem as enemies of the environment; this could take on the shape of everything from large whaling ships to small commercial fishing vessels. Each boat of Watson’s is armed with high-powered water cannons and is protected by electrical barbed wire. They have used acid, explosives, and a host of other means to disable and sink “enemy” ships. Watson himself has been known to brandish an AK-47 that he has used to fire on targeted fishing vessels. And painted on the sides of his ships are the names of those boats he has sunk.

The method of operation of Paul Watson isn’t all that different from the nineteen suicide highjackers of 9/11. Instead of airplanes, Watson uses his boats to ram and sink the objects of his disdain. Of his 1979 sinking of a commercial whaling vessel, Watson stated, “I set out from Boston in the Sea Shepherd with a crew of 19 volunteers…I hunted down, rammed, and disabled the pirate whaling ship Sierra…(We) fired up the engine and made for the Sierra, which was in the middle of the harbor. I hit her at full speed….” Although this attack failed to sink the Sierra, Watson and his crew returned for a second attack on the vessel and “blew the bottom out of her and permanently ended her career.”

Although there is no definitive count, Watson is responsible for ramming, scuttling, and sinking a slew of boats across the world’s waterways, all in an attempt to bring about the cessation of the fishing industry in its entirety. Watson has also used the mere threat of force in pursuit of other activist causes, including socio-political causes. In 1992, despite his animals-first/humanity-last stance, he threatened to sink a fleet of ships reenacting Columbus’ voyage of the discovery of America on its 500th anniversary if the re-enactors didn’t sign an apology for Columbus’ mistreatment of American Indians.

Watson’s dogmatic and authoritarian love of animals and nature, and hatred for all of humanity en toto, has found him making such absurd statements as “earthworms are far more valuable than people.” Watson has gone so far as to preach a blasphemous set of “ten commandments” that he authored, with the goal of elevating animals and nature above people. Watson’s commandments are bookended with his apparent loathing of humanity: his first commandment reads “Don’t bring any more humans into being;” and his tenth reads, “Don’t get caught by the forces of anthropocentrism.”

Watson’s continual disregard for the value of human life is clearly discerned from his terrorist actions. When a former Greenpeace colleague criticized his sinking of half of a fleet of Icelandic whaling boats in 1986 as being a “cowardly, despicable, criminal, and (an) unforgivable action,” Watson barked in retort, “So what? We did not sink those ships for you or for any of the six billion hominid a--holes on this planet…we could not give a damn what human beings have to say about the actions.” Demonstrating the true extent of Watson’s distaste for humanity, he has said, “The world will be a much nicer place without us,” and that he “owed no allegiance to humanity.” This message is in stark contrast to his attesting to using the SSCS “as a vehicle to empower people.”
Aside from jeopardizing the lives of seamen in the world’s fishing industries, Watson has also taken his terroistic crusade to land. Watson oversees the radical activist group, Coeur du Bois (Heart of the Wood), which spikes trees targeted for cutting by the logging industry. Watson himself has claimed to have created “tree spiking,” which consists of driving large nails into trees in attempt to hurt lumberjacks upon their felling or milling. His plan succeeded, and in 1987, a mill worker in California received a broken jaw when his band saw struck spikes in a tree, causing the blade to splinter in an explosion of shrapnel. Of the use of tree-spiking and its possible deadly consequences, Watson said, without a shred of remorse, “Those loggers don’t give a damn for future generations… And if they don’t have any compassion for the future, I don’t have any compassion for them.”
For his crimes against both people and property, Watson has spent much time in the jails, and before the judges, of numerous countries, from Canada to Costa Rica. In 1997, Watson was imprisoned in a maximum-security prison in the Netherlands, where he was picked up for the scuttling of a whaling ship at dock, and the intentional ramming of a Norwegian coast guard vessel. Most recently, Watson was investigated by a Costa Rican court for the attempted murder of a Costa Rican fisherman. In 2002, when he came across a shark fisherman in a 13-foot vessel, Watson attempted to ram the small boat with his SSCS mammoth flagship “The Farley Mowat,” originally named “The Ocean Warrior.” When the cameras are on, Watson pretends to accept incarceration as the price for saving the planet from the scourge of humanity. “Going to jail is simply the price of doing business as an activist,” he has said. However, after posting bail in the Costa Rican case 2 years ago, Watson fled the country.
In April of 2003, Watson was elected to the board of directors of the Sierra Club, “America’s most influential environmental organization.” Watson’s goal for the Sierra Club is to alter the club’s founding philosophy to include his own brand of radical eco-terrorism. At an “animal rights” demonstration, Watson declared, “One of the reasons I'm on the Sierra Club board of directors right now is to try and change it...we're only three directors away from controlling that board...Once we get three more directors elected, the Sierra Club will no longer be pro-hunting and pro-trapping and we can use the resources of the $95-million-a-year budget to address some of these issues."
What can an eco-terrorist like Paul Watson do with $95 million of the Sierra Club’s funds? Most likely, more ship-ramming and tree-spiking, in what Watson describes as an “open war.” At the same animal-rights demonstration, Watson continued, “we should never feel like we’re going too far in breaking the law.” He has also shockingly said, “If you do not intend to kill anybody, if you make every effort to not kill and injure anybody, that’s all you really can do. You can’t stop somebody from walking into a situation, and we really can’t be too overly preoccupied with this.”

In a recent interview, when asked if he viewed violence as a “legitimate means of social change,” Watson replied, “We are a violent species, and we always solve our problems with violence. There have been no exceptions. Nonviolent victories are a myth. Force has always prevailed…One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.” While Watson continues to roam the seas with aspirations of violently sinking the world’s fish suppliers, somewhere in the world, Islamic terrorists – Watson’s idea of “freedom fighters” – are seeking the complete destruction of the United States, regardless of our policies on the environment. Politically, they differ. In terms of their tactics, they are Watson’s soulmates.