Vision - A Casualty of Drive by Politics

The most common definitions of “Vision” include:


1. The faculty of sight;
2. Intelligent foresight;
3. The manner in which one sees or conceives of something;
4. A mental image produced by the imagination.

That’s something every Newfoundlander and Labradorian would be within their rights to jot down, seal in an envelope (or place in an email) and send directly to every candidate running in October’s provincial election.

History tells us the world’s most respected leaders aren’t remembered for their ability to win office or hang onto power but for being visionaries and for their ability to engage the public in making their dream a reality.

Where are the visionaries in Newfoundland and Labrador today?

Talk to the average politician and you’ll discover most can’t see past the next poll, next election or next fiscal year. Vision, true vision, extends beyond those false parameters. It reaches far into the future, perhaps to the next generation, the generation after that, or even beyond.

Visionaries recognize the present for what it is, the future for what it can be and are capable of laying the building blocks that inspire others.

As a people why are we so easily accepting of announcements about “slightly lower” unemployment rates or achieving an “average” Canadian wage? Instead we ought to aspire to having the lowest unemployment and the highest wages in the Country.

It goes without saying that we won’t reach such lofty heights overnight, in fact we may never get there, but if we don’t aim for the target we’ll never come close to hitting it.

Take our natural resource, the province, regardless of which party is in power, has always developed those resources in exchange for the direct revenues (royalties / taxes) they produce and for the limited number of jobs extracting them creates. Why?

Why hasn’t government ensured that every ounce of benefit is squeezed from the resources around us and why haven’t our leaders, past and present, been able to understand that those resources are a diverse package of interrelated opportunities rather than a series of independent revenue streams?

Maximizing benefits doesn’t have to involve a heavy handed approach that might scare investment away and the benefits reaped don’t have to flow directly from selling the resource itself.

Legislation forcing industry into a position where profitability is unduly limited or which unfairly places social obligations on them isn’t the answer either. A far better approach is to create an environment where industry itself can see the economic advantages of increasing its presence in the province. This would require a government that understands how the different pieces of the puzzle are interconnected and can be leveraged.

As an example, based on public statements by NALCOR it would seem that rising oil prices will continue to drive up power rates until such time as Muskrat Falls energy is available. At that time rates will stabilize. They won’t fall mind you, but stabilize.

Based on this it appears higher rates charged (due to the cost of oil) will remain in effect even after the oil is no longer needed, ultimately providing additional revenues to NALCOR when Holyrood closes. After all, when those costly oil purchases are no longer necessary the revenue has to go somewhere.

Likely those hundreds of millions of dollars, along with earnings from selling power outside the province, will be used to repay the development costs of the project and provide a healthy return for NALCOR and the province.

This might seem reasonable enough from a traditional business perspective but NALCOR isn’t an independent business and the power they sell is directly linked to the local economy and to every individual and business in the province.

Newfoundland and Labrador, compared with other Canadian jurisdictions, is somewhere in the middle of the pack when it comes to power rates. According to NALCOR our province isn’t the only place rates are rising and after Muskrat is complete, even with the higher rates, we will continue to sit somewhere in the middle of that pack. This makes me wonder, why is that good enough?

Why are we willing to settle for being “average”?

As part of a longer term view, considering the size of the investment - and its associated risks - perhaps a more visionary approach to Churchill power should be considered.

There’s a difference between thinking inside the box and thinking outside it. In fact it’s been said visionaries don’t even recognize a box exists.

Might the province be better served by cutting power rates as much as possible once the expense of Holyrood oil disappears? This is not to say taxpayers should subsidize power rates, that NALCOR shouldn’t make a profit, or that the loans shouldn’t be repaid, the question is how high those profits need to be and what the plan is for paying down the debt.
We may have a unique opportunity here since NALCOR isn’t developing the project as a privately owned company or publicly traded corporation. As such it shouldn’t have the sole goal of maximizing profits. Its owners are the taxpayers of the province. Ultimately any corporation is responsible for achieving the long term objectives of its shareholders, in this case the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When it comes to the Lower Churchill, perhaps we should ask ourselves if our primary intent, beyond keeping the lights on, is to reduce debt quickly, increase profits for NALCOR and government, grow the economy and related employment or pursue some combination of the above.

Perhaps the answer is to eliminate the debt quickly and then drop power rates as low as possible while ensuring the future viability of the corporation. Perhaps not. Who knows, but if we examine all our options, including the eventual repatriation of the Upper Churchill , might we be able to focus our efforts on one day making Newfoundland and Labrador the lowest cost jurisdiction in Canada, hell why not in all of North America, for access to clean power?

If we could eventually reach that target what might it mean?

Clearly it would be a welcome reprieve for rate payers in the province and would go a long way toward easing the burden of the less fortunate among us, but what about the bigger picture?

Low rates would obviously reduce the cost of doing business here. If the costs were low enough that alone would increase the profitability of existing enterprises and improve their ability to expand, hire new employees and even increase wages.

With less focus placed on direct profit from our energy reserves and more on offering the lowest possible rates, major industrial players now content to harvest resources and ship them elsewhere for processing might find themselves able to do that processing here at a lower cost and for increased profit thus creating more employment and provincial tax revenue.

It’s often been said that our remote location and distance from world markets is a barrier to developing a manufacturing based economy. There may be some merit in that but with the Northwest Passage, the most sought after shipping route in the world, beginning to open up could our location at its Eastern gateway actually benefit to us in the future? When it does open up, if the infrastructure necessary to take full advantage of low cost renewable energy were put in place, including for the use of Upper Churchill power, what might it mean to the province 30 years from now?

Secondary processors who use our iron, copper, oil or other valuable resources to produce consumer goods around the world might eventually come to recognize the province as a unique location with abundant resources and cheaper power than they can find elsewhere. How many jobs would that create?

Perhaps stimulating industry and employment in this way would generate provincial revenues far beyond existing levels. This broadening of the provincial tax base might even enable a visionary government to lower personal and business taxes. It might result in us becoming one of the lowest cost places to live in Canada while ensuring we are even more attractive to business, guaranteeing the cycle of growth continues to expand.

In the long run such an approach has the potential to be far more lucrative for the people of the province and for government coffers than the status quo.

Picture a future where Newfoundland and Labrador is recognized as a strategically situated treasure trove of raw materials that has the lowest cost power in North America and perhaps even the lowest tax regime. A place with a diversified economy where well paying jobs are abundant and the provincial treasury is flush with cash.

Of course this might sound like a pipe dream and in reality the entire idea is nothing more than rambling on my part. I wouldn’t pretend to know if such a scenario is viable or not but at least it’s a concept, the germ of a direction, the seeds of a vision that extend beyond the next few months or years or even my own lifetime and certainly beyond the next election. In other words it’s far more than any of the parties are putting forward.

With an election on the way we should all question where the long term vision is for our province. What about the fishery or the forestry sector. Where do we want to see our health care system and our schools a generation or two from now and how do we plan to get there? All of these components are intertwined and need to be part of an overall vision.

We may have a small population in Newfoundland and Labrador but we are also blessed with a vast array of renewable and non-renewable resources and a population that I truly believe is willing to work for a brighter future. In fact I’d argue that any government unable to satisfy the needs of our small population, while surrounded by such vast wealth, doesn’t deserve to hold office.

At this point in our history what we need is a visionary leader bold enough to set aside political expediency and take the reins firmly in hand. Unfortunately the closest thing to vision we’ve seen from any of the political parties are promises likely to expire the morning after the polls close. Hardly inspirational.

Post Election Analysis - History in the Making

Anyone who voted for the first time in Election 2011 certainly found an opportune time to exercise their democratic right.

With the election now in the books the nation is free to ponder the significance (or lack thereof) of the outcome. No matter how you slice it, this is one election that’s bound to be the talk of pundits, political science majors and arm chair politicians for decades to come.

It’s often said that history is written by the victors, but exactly what history says about Canada’s forty-first federal election remains to be seen. The conundrum this time around is how we define who the victors actually are. Different perspectives may produce different findings and the answer may not fully be understood for generations.

Clearly the Harper Conservatives are victorious. After years of planning, strategizing, campaigning (yes, years of campaigning) cajoling and practically begging the people of Canada Mr. Harper finally has the one thing he’s wanted since first elected, a majority. Never the less, for his detractors, this outcome could be seen as a tainted victory based on his limited level of cross-Canada support, his losses in Quebec and the growth of support for the center/left federalist parties (Liberal/NDP combined) after the collapse of the Bloc.

Following the election Mr. Harper, speaking to a partisan crowd, proudly said that the people of Canada had made their decision. Some might argue that with only 40% of voters supporting the Conservative party, in reality the nation actually backed into a Conservative majority accidentally rather than truly choosing it. Tomato / tomato.

Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, promoted this election as necessary to save democracy itself. He may have been fighting the wrong opponent in Mr. Harper. Perhaps the real opponent to democracy in Canada is not the Conservatives, who merely take political advantage of the rules, but Elections Canada who refuse to see that the system isn’t working in its current form.

Elections as they exist today in Canada work fine when you have a two party system. They don’t serve democracy very well at all when 3 or 4 parties are in play.

The evidence speaks for itself. If asked, most Canadians would say that democracy is when a majority of the people choose a government. Not so in Canada where a party, any party, can form a majority government when over half the population doesn’t support them.

As far as democracy is concerned it was indeed at stake in this election and, no matter who came out ahead in the seat count, we all lost on that front. In essence the Harper majority came as a result of unintentional vote splits between the NDP and Liberals in Ontario. In the end these meant a gain of 20 Ontario seats, a dozen more than the 155 needed to claim a majority.

As Thomas Jefferson quite rightly said, “The government you elect is the government you deserve”. We can read into Mr. Jefferson’s statement what we will.

Democracy itself aside, although the night clearly saw a victory for Stephen Harper, many elections have been won in the past and many will be won in the future by various parties. By itself there’s nothing of historic value to the win. Perhaps what the Harper government does with its majority will change the political landscape over time but the win itself is a less than historic event outside Conservative circles. Other outcomes are far more interesting from the historic perspective.

Nobody can argue that the rise of the NDP to official opposition status with more than 100 seats in Parliament is much more noteworthy in the grand scheme of things.

This sudden shift of support says a lot about the now massive gulf between the Right and Left in Canada as a result of the tactics employed by Conservatives over the past several years. It’s a case where 60% of voters in Canada have decided a change is in order. Most of that 60%, especially in Quebec, shrugged off the shackles of conformity and walked through a previously untested Orange door in an attempt to unseat what many see, rightly or wrongly, as a government that’s far too “Republican” for their liking.

Aside from the hard left tilt taken by Canadians, the historic impact of the NDP taking on the official opposition role are not to be ignored. This position will afford them a great deal of benefits they’ve long been denied. Their elevated status will mean an increased budget and far more media attention than the party has ever been able to capture in the past. The official opposition after all has long been considered a “government in waiting”.

In short, this election has catapulted the NDP onto the political stage like never before and, depending on what the party does with their new found status it might, over time, change Canadian politics in unforeseen ways.

If nothing else, the rise of the NDP has dealt massive blow to the aspirations of the Bloc Quebecois, leaving the nation far more united than it’s been in decades. Even if that unity comes as a result of a deep seated dislike for the Harper government.

With a massive drop in their per vote election subsidy as a result of such poor showing in this election and with Mr. Harper’s plan, now that he has a majority, to abolish the vote subsidy (a key funding mechanism for the Bloc) entirely, this election could signal the demise of a political force that’s shaped politics in Canada for a generation.

The Bloc, with just 4 seats and after the resignation of Gilles Duceppe as their charismatic leader has a very uncertain future to be certain.

Just as Canadians might have accidentally backed into a Harper majority, Mr. Harper himself may well have accidentally helped ensure Canadian unity. If so, he accomplished this unintended result by engendering an anti-conservative movement in Quebec that grew far stronger than the deep seated yearning for Quebec nationalism/sovereignty itself.

You can add the Liberal party’s standing to that of the Bloc when questioning the future of organized party politics in Canada. The Liberal’s election results have similarly impacted their funding possibilities and cost them a leader. Going forward they may, from necessity, be forced to consider looking at options for uniting the Left, even at the expense of the historic party brand.

It’s enough to make me wonder what color you get when you combine red and orange.

Although seen by most as a small scale victory, the Green party must also be considered a winner in this election. With Elizabeth May having finally won a seat in the House of Commons the Green Party will have a voice on the national stage for the first time.

It could be argued that a single seat doesn’t mean much but with the environment a top priority for a growing number of voters and ever more important on the world stage, the timing of Ms. May’s entry into Parliament could have far more significance than many might think.

A potential resurgence of young voters and Canada’s penchant for backing the underdog, in addition to the environmental issue itself, could lead to Ms. May’s new found voice resonating with voters over the coming years.

Certainly her approach to politics and original ideas are refreshing. Time will tell if her election is just a blip or a harbinger of things to come, but what’s seen as a minor victory today might one day be recognized as the start of a green revolution in Canadian politics. Only time and the electorate will tell.

Any way you slice it this has been an election like none other Canada has seen. We live in interesting times and they may become a lot more interesting as the days unfold. Just don’t twitter that point to any of your friends until you've cleared it with Elections Canada. You wouldn’t want to break any antiquated laws would you?

Finally, since this is Web-Talk Newfoundland and Labrador, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out the direct impacts of this election on our fair province.

From the Provincial perspective, the clear message telegraphed from Newfoundland (if not Labrador) is that even without the force of will who is Danny Williams, ABC remains a reality. While the Labrador riding elected a Conservative MP, anyone who knows the situation on the ground could easily argue that this was more of a victory for a single man who is highly respected rather than a win for the party itself.

Clearly Newfoundland & Labrador remains less than fertile hunting grounds for the Harper brand of Conservatism and with Quebec rejecting the Conservative brand as well another point comes to the fore. Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador have finally found something they can agree on, their utter dislike of Stephen Harper. Now that's historic!

On a more tangible front, the outcome couldn’t have been more interesting for the Province. Yes, we sent a clear message to the Conservatives that the people do not like Mr. Harper but by electing one Conservative MP it also ensures that the Harper government no longer has an excuse for not offering the cabinet position they’ve told everyone the province has denied itself by not electing someone on the government side.

In fact, with a member in the government caucus and with 2 representatives in the official opposition ranks as well as 4 Liberal members of Parliament, Newfoundland and Labrador has covered all the bases and positioned itself about as well as anyone could have hoped.

As an interesting side note, the message sent to Stephen Harper by the Newfoundland and Labrador electorate was accomplished in spite, rather than with the approval, of the Provincial PC government.

In an effort to shore up support for the federal Conservatives the Dunderdale government trotted out cabinet ministers and caucus members by the bus load. They even went so far as to insert themselves into the election by announcing more than $4 million in funding for one riding, announcing it on election day while the federal candidate was positioned front and center beside the provincial representatives at the media event. Thankfully the voters didn’t take a bite from that apple.

Whether or not the stunt has an impact on Dunderdale’s position going into the October provincial election is a story for another day.

Last but not least, and perhaps most important to some in the Province, is the fact that with a majority in hand, an NL Conservative MP in caucus and a clear rejection by Quebec voters as clear as the nose on his face, there can be no excuse for Mr. Harper to back out of his commitments on the Lower Churchill development.

Time will tell if he does or not.

Is The Mainstream Media Bias or Simply Negligent?

It’s a question I’ve been pondering more and more in recent years.

Examples of structural problems in today’s media are as easy to find these days as snowflakes on a January morning in Winnipeg.

Before Christmas television news outlets were all too willing to spoon feed the public snippets of Conservative MPs referring to a potential Liberal-NDP coalition as a “Coup” or calling the actions of the opposition “illegal” or “immoral”. They were far less willing to clarify those partisan words by informing the public that the position espoused was untrue, non-factual and an out and out lie.

The Canadian Parliamentary system is designed to permit exactly the sort of coalition that was being contemplated but unless the viewer had already informed him or herself of this fact the media was not about to take on that job.

Another example now being splashed across the front pages across Canada is the ongoing battle between Ottawa and Newfoundland & Labrador over the Atlantic Accord.

On the surface it might seem that a great deal of attention is being paid to this particular dust up but in realty very few of the facts have ever seen the light of day.

The act of ignoring the underlying facts of any news story in Canada today has become more than simply an annoying weakness of the media. It’s seemingly become a pre-requisite for every news agency and one that threatens the ability of the electorate to make informed decisions about the direction their Country takes on any issue.

With the introduction of the Harper “fiscal stimulus” package the gloves have once again come off between the Province and Ottawa. The attack dogs have been loosed on the Province’s population by Parliament Hill and predictably the Canadian media, in its never ending quest for an attention grabbing quote, even at the expense of the facts, has missed the point of the story entirely.

Every day another headline screams, “Danny Chavez is at it again”, referring of course to Newfoundland and Labrador Premier, Danny Williams. It’s a term that the media has happily adopted to compare the Premier to Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez.

The fact that Mr. Williams is not a dictator at all but is in fact a duly elected leader in Canada who enjoys an 80% approval rating doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that his continued approval by the electorate means he is doing what his constituents expect him to do matter not. Instead of being depicted as a responsive leader, regardless of his approach to specific issues, he is tarred as a dictator.

The easy surface comparison sells papers. The truth doesn’t.

The television networks incessantly play clips of Mike Duffy, formerly one of their own who was recently awarded a Senate seat for his less than unbiased coverage during the last federal election, attacking two Premiers, NL’s Williams and PEI’s Ghiz for saying that the federal budget will have a damaging impact on the Province.

No attempt is made to find out if the claim is true or not. The attacks sell advertising time. The truth does not.

Pundits and editorialists are all too happy to perpetuate the biases and talking points of federal politicians as they rally to defend “all Canadians” from the greedy and demanding people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One can only assume from their position that Canada’s 30 million souls are in extreme danger from the 500 thousand people in Newfoundland and Labrador, a place that it seems must not be a part of the Country if Canadians need to be defended from its actions.

The news media finds easy to preface every sentence related to the $1.6 Billion dollars involved in the dispute with the tag line, “according to Mr. Williams the federal budget will…”. It would be far harder and require much more effort to actually investigate whether the Province is truly being targeted by the Conservative government or not.

This approach to informing, or more accurately, misinforming the public tells us far more about the mainstream media itself than it does about any story they might be covering on a given day.

It tells us, or ought to tell us, that most reporters, editors and news managers are not in the business of reporting the facts but of producing a steady diet of ready to eat, easy to digest, fluff for the sole purpose of attracting a larger audience and, as a direct result, securing more of those lucrative advertising dollars that pay their salaries.

I challenge anyone who has followed the ongoing battle between Ottawa and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over the past 3 governments (one Liberal and two Conservative) to think of a single mainstream news outlet, be it the Globe and Mail, National Post, CBC or CTV that has actually taken on the task of investigating the situation thoroughly and reporting the facts behind the headlines.

It isn’t easy is it?

Personally I can’t think of a single one that has been willing to move past the political rhetoric on both sides of the argument, go directly to the bean counting bureaucrats who manage the day to day operations of both the federal and provincial finance departments and actually investigate the story as most Canadians assume reporters are supposed to do.

Not one.

Instead these so called “news” agencies now serve as little more than a venue for the regurgitation of whatever they are told by politicians with a vested interest in the situation and, in the case of national media outlets, more often than not that means providing the public with a daily diet of spin provided by partisan staffers and Federal MPs.

Recently Newfoundland and Labrador MP, Judy Foote, who was the first “uncooperative” MP to be dubbed “the Newfoundland Six” by the media for their refusal to support the budget vote, sent me an email in which she summed up the struggle taking place inside the Liberal caucus and on Parliament hill generally over the Accord issue.

According to Ms. Foote, “One of the problems in Ottawa is getting people to understand the seriousness of the situation. I can talk until I am blue in the face…”

Her words belie her frustration.

When she sent that email, which was before Michael Ignatieff gave his Newfoundland and Labrador caucus a so called “free pass”, Ms. Foote was frustrated at a situation where she had been unable to make her fellow MPs understand that the legislation they were about to pass would have dire consequences for her Province and her people and set a bad precedent across the Country.

Ms Foote’s words also convey a general lack of knowledge within federal political circles, not only over the impact of the budget in the region, but of the Newfoundland and Labrador’s place in Canada.

With the media blindly relaying the uninformed position of federal political figures, is it any wonder Danny Williams could only find one Canadian Premier, from PEI, who was willing to stand up and support his Province’s position, a move that led to the political hatchet job delivered by Senator Duffy in is maiden address to the Red Chamber.

Perhaps American comedian and SNL Alumnus, Al Franken, said it the best when he said, “The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover.”

Those words do not just convey a problem within the media itself but foreshadow a situation that has the potential to affect the direction of the entire Nation.

Is it surprising that the general public across Canada has so easily adopted the misguided belief that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is acting as a dictator, that the people are simply greedy and that the Province wants to have their cake and eat it too?

It isn’t.

That’s a story far easier to deliver and for the public to digest than one that identifies the inequities, political games, partisanship, lies, propaganda and systemic unfairness that is an everyday reality of the Canadian federation today.

The stories making the headlines may be easy to accept and they may sell papers but do they really serve the best interests of the public who must ultimately make the decision on the direction their Country should take?

Tidal Wave Rolls Over Newfoundland and Labrador

It may not have been a tsunami, but the big blue wave that swept over Newfoundland and Labrador on Tuesday will certainly be felt for years to come.

The provincial election in Newfoundland and Labrador was expected to be an easy win for the reigning PC party and that’s exactly how it played out with the conservatives capturing 70% of the popular vote.

Going into the election the PC’s held 34 seats, the Liberals 11, the NDP 1 and there were 2 vacancies. When the ballots were counted Danny William’s PC government increased its majority to 43 seats, the Liberals dropped to 3 and the NDP retained its lone seat.

Immediately before the polls closed former federal cabinet minister, John Crosby, predicted the result when he said to Liberal senator George Baker, “The only safe Liberal in Newfoundland and Labrador tonight is one with a senate seat.”

In addition to the 47 members elected, there remains one vacancy. The voters of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans did not go to the polls in the general election as a result of the untimely passing of Liberal Candidate, Gerry Tobin. Tobin, 41, passed away during the campaign leaving only the PC candidate on the ballot. A special by-election will be held in that district on November 6.

The election results, as much as at any time in the province’s history, serve as an example of how the will of the people can and was expressed in shaping government. Throughout the weeks leading up to the vote 3 key factors were easily recognizable across the province and they were clearly reflected in the final results.

1) The Williams government’s popularity throughout the Island portion of the province led to an increase in seats and a stronger mandate from the people;

2) A chronic lack of organization displayed by the Liberal party ever since losing the previous provincial election resulted in a lack of confidence among the electorate and a loss of most of their districts, including that of the party leader, Gerry Reid by a mere 7 votes. An automatic recount will be undertaken in that district.

3) The calm yet effective leadership shown by NDP party leader Lorraine Michael and displayed during the provincial leader’s debate resulted in a small, yet important, gain for the perennial third party in their capturing of second place, over the Liberal, in several districts; and

Leading up to the election there was some talk of the need to ensure a strong opposition in the province in the wake of Williams’ popularity. That concern appears to have been a non-factor in the election outcome. The enhanced mandate given to premier Williams indicates that a desire for strong local opposition was outstripped by the desire to present a strong united front to the province’s true opposition in Ottawa.

UPDATE - From the Edmonton Sun today:

Harper said he planned to call Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams last night to congratulate him on what was expected to be a resounding electoral victory.

"I still think notwithstanding the differences he and I have had, he is the best choice for Newfoundlanders, so I wish him well," said Harper, despite the fact Williams has urged Canadians to vote ABC -- anybody but the (federal) Conservatives.

"We have to do unto others as we wish they did unto us -- though I'm not necessarily counting on that," he said with a laugh.

"Not from anyone. We're ready for anything."

At the end of the day he never did call the Premier but instead gave his congrats to the media. He also chose the next morning to announce a deal with Nova Scotia over the Atlantic Accord standoff thus dividing the two provinces on that issue and leaving NL to fight on alone.

Thank-you Mr. Harper. Your actions won't be forgotten.

Newfoundland & Labrador Leader’s Debate

The leaders of the PC, Liberal and NDP parties participated in an election debate at NTV studios on Tuesday evening. With two weeks remaining before voters go to the polls this was the only opportunity for the public to see all three go head to head over the issues.

The opening remarks of the three party leaders were designed to deliver a targeted message and they did just that. While NDP leader, Lorraine Michael, and PC leader, Danny Williams, both appeared calm and composed, Liberal leader Gerry Reid often stumbled over his words, looked tired and came across as very uncomfortable in front of the camera. As one viewer noted, “…he looked like he just woke up and someone hustled him behind the podium before he could wipe the sleep from his eyes”.

While Reid spoke of his party being a potential winner in the upcoming election, the NDP leader immediately positioned her party as the right choice to form a strong and effective opposition. It was a position that smartly conveyed her understanding of the realities of the current political climate and allowed her to effectively take a swipe at the Liberal party. A clear and perhaps effective move to woo voters from the Liberal camp.

The polls show Williams’ popularity in the province at well above 70% leading into this campaign, leaving him with little room to improve his standing during the debate. The leaders of the two other parties meanwhile had hoped to use the debate as a springboard to make up some much needed ground on the Tories.

During the debate Williams accomplished his objectives by holding his ground and getting his message out while the NDP leader, Lorraine Michael, came across as smooth, composed, and calm. This potentially made her the biggest winner of the evening by affording the NDP an opportunity to siphon off some support from her clearly unprepared Liberal counterpart.

During an early exchange the Liberal leader almost appeared to be reaching out to the NDP in an attempt to have Michael enter into a sort of “tag team” against Williams. Michael proved too politically savvy to fall for the tactic and instead countered by going on the offensive against Reid, proving that while she has only led her party for about a year, she clearly understands the realities of the situation. With the Tories riding high in the polls, any additional support her party hopes to gain will have to come from inside the Liberal camp. Michael’s performance, and Reid’s lack of composure, may have served to help the NDP in that cause.

At one point the Liberal leader opened himself up to attack by broaching the topic of Newfoundland and Labrador’s dilapidated schools and blaming the Williams government for the situation. His statement opened the door for the Tory leader to point out that the schools did not fall apart in the short four years the time Williams' government has been in office but rather over a much longer period of time, a reference to the fact that the Liberal party had previously been in power for more than a decade.

From a technical perspective the debate was poorly organized and the format often allowed extended periods when the leaders, primarily Williams and Reid, shouted or talked over one another making it difficult for viewers to understand what either man was saying. While this sort of exchange also took place during periods when the NDP leader was speaking, overall her exchanges were much more civilized and effective.

During the closing remarks Williams and Michael both spoke clearly and calmly. Michael focused on her party and what it could bring to the legislature while Williams stood on his record as premier and invoked the spirit of patriotism and autonomy he is most known for. Liberal leader, Gerry Reid, once again came across as being unprepared and uncomfortable while continuing to stumble over his words as he had done during the entire evening. An evening that was clearly not a good one for the Liberal leader.

How Will You Vote in The Next Federal Election?

Speculation is already starting that Canada could be into another federal election before Christmas. The Bloc has presented the Harper government with several non-negotiable demands they want addressed in the October throne speech.

The Liberals are facing a situation where they may either have to go to an election, in order to force all their troops to fall in line behind Dion, or head into another leadership convention.

The NDP already see themselves in a position to pick up some seats thanks the the momentum the gained in a recent Quebec by-election.

Stephen Harper appears to be willing to take on the opposition parties thanks to largely consistent, if not stellar, polling numbers.

The Greens don't have a say in an election call but their new found popularity and the Canada's inaction on the environment means they must be factored into any election strategy.

If an election is called, the Question facting Newfoundland and Labrador voters is which party should they support.

All of federal parties govern by playing the numbers game, caving in to the area of the Country where they want more seats, rather than doing what's best for the public in various parts of this diverse nation. Usually this practice leaves smaller provinces like NL to fend for themselves while desperately trying to fight off federal legislation that will actually harm the them.

Deciding who to vote for is a complex issue.

Just by examining the track records of recent governments (let's put a boat load of historical grievances aside for a moment), you have to ask yourself, should I vote for the party that tried to screw us on the Atlantic Accord but didn't get away with it, the party that succeeded in screwing us on the Atlantic Accord or the ones that never had a chance to screw us?

Or is there another option?

Maybe when this election rolls around we should put aside all the past actions of the various parties and simply focus on their philosophies, political leanings and so on.

Rather than try to outline these in words, perhaps the following versions of the Canadian Flag (as sent to me by a regular visitor to Web Talk) say it better. As someone once said, "A picture is worth a thousand words".


Green Party Flag:





NDP Flag:


Liberal Flag:



Conservative Flag:


It paints a pretty scary picture doesn't it? But who knows, perhaps this time around there may be another option to consider.

The NL-First Party Flag:

Bell Offers Pick and Pay - Why Can't the Candidates?

With the provincial elecion now in full swing the Liberals have released their platform document. It's a little later than the Tories, but better late than never as they say. There is still no sign of the NDP platform document but some policy direction is coming out through the media and is available on their website. It's expected that the NDP Orange Book will be out later this week.

Information on all three parties and their plans can be found here:

Tories: http://www.pcparty.nf.net/blueprint2007.pdf

Liberals: http://www.nlliberals.ca/press/platformchapters.pdf

NDP: http://www.nl.ndp.ca/

For those of you who don't have the time, patience or interest to wade through endless pages of rhetoric in search of key points, (though you really should) here is a Coles Notes synopsis.

The Tories, Liberals and NDP all have some very interesting ideas, in fact it seems that all three parties have risen to the task of trying to win voters over. Unfortunately, as a friend of mine noted just today, while all three parties have identified a fair bit of spending on various programs none have clearly identifed the overall cost of their initiatives or how they would be funded.

All three parties are offering savings for the unwashed masses, ideas for enhancements to services and their direction for development in the province.

While all parties are offering some good ideas others are highly questionable. This is especially true of the Liberals who intend to provide a wealth of tax cuts while going heavy on program spending. I'm not sure how fiscally responsible that is but then again, as I said before, since none of the parties are providing a view to the overall cost of their plans it's hard to say which will ideas are valid and which will simply pile up more debt for our kids to pay off.

The scariest thing for me appeard in the Liberal platform. It has to do with their approach to offshore oil and gas development.

While the Liberals are offering up some interesting ideas around how to disperse wealth from the offshore, the doucment also states, and I quote:

"Industry (oil and gas) has often stated their concern that the province continues to change its position in negotiations and that they cannot be certain what the policy and royalty framework of the provincial government will be from one day to the next...."

The Liberal solution: provide stable and competitive policy and royalty framworks, nogotiate in good faith on Hebron and Hibernia South and, "...not take an equity stake in offshore oil and gas projects, but would instead focus on generating maximum benefit from a revamped royalty regime..."

On the surface this may sound good to some poeple, especially those concerned about the potential risk of investing in developments directly, but consider what it really means.

It means that if the Liberal Party is elected on October 9th, Gerry Reid's new government will respond to oil company concerns about uncertanty over royalties and the provincial position by once again changing the provinces royalty regime and the position. It's an interesting approach.

It also means that the Hebron MOU, signed just a few weeks ago, will be torn up and the entire negotiation process will have to start all over again. Think about it, if Gerry Reid intends to walk away from an equity stake and negotiate a totally new royalty regime what else can it mean? It's the only possible outcome.

Don't get me wrong, I see some really good ideas in the Liberal platform, just as I do in those of the Tories and NDP. Unfortunately I also see glaring omissions in all three and, specifically in the case of the Liberals, some questionable and worrisome plans.

Too bad voters can't pick and choose the best ideas from all three documents and turf the rest. Sort of like a "pick and pay" election. Now there's a concept that might actually get voters a little excited.

Rating the Party's Election Platforms.

Well folks, the Newfoundland and Labrador election is underway. Who knows what the next few weeks will bring but one thing is clear from a quick web search today.

The Williams (PC) team seems the most organized and on the ball with addressing key election issues. Everything from Culture to Education, Energy to Elder Care, Labrador Issues to Health. All in all there are some pretty good intiatives peppered throughout their platform document, if they are implemented that is.

As I mentioned, a quick web scan today led me to a crisp new copy of the PC Blue Book:

http://www.pcparty.nf.net/blueprint2007.pdf

The Reid (Liberal) team looks to be playing catch up and scrambling for anything to grab onto. That perception wasn't helped by seeing Gerry Reid on a fishing boat yesterday. Maybe he was looking for a life preserver.

The Liberal "Red Sheet of Paper" appears to be little more than a press release that promises to reduce licence renewal fees from $180 to $140, something also identifed in the PC Blue Book.

Also, as a quick aside for the folks running the Liberal web site, you might want to update some of your outdated links and actually put someting under the link that is supposed to direct someone to your platform document. Well, for what it's worth, here is the Liberal one pager:

http://www.liberal.nf.net/News_Releases_2007/sept_17_reid_drivers.htm

The Michael (NDP) team has only one player and little chance of scoring. Why do I say this?

On the NDP site I found absolutely nothing. Apparently the last update on the party's site was on the 14th. Nothing since.

Oddly enough the description of the site when I searched Google still says the party is led by Jack Harris. Might want to fix that folks.

No Link provided (Nothing to really link to)

Well, that's how things look on the first full day of the Campaign. With the PC's at an over 70% approval rating and a broad platform firmly in place this could be a long hard few weeks for the Liberals and NDP unless they can get their act together, something they don't seem to be able to do.

It makes me wonder how well these folks might run a province if they can't even run a party or campaign efficiently.

In closing, just as a reference to my previous post (see below), thus far none of the parties have directly commented on the potential for becoming a major part of an Atlantic Gateway Initiative, though some cryptic references to economic diversification and the like were made in the Blue Book. I guess we'll have to wait for Gerry Reid and Lorainne Michael to find a printing press and a webmaster before we find out if they have something to say about that.

By the way, if the Liberals or NDP actually have online copies of their platforms and I missed them, please let me know. I went to the web sites of all three parties and had no success finding anything Red or Orange to present.

Sad but true.

Bio - The Provincial Party Leaders

With an election call expected in the province on Monday, this week the Canadian Press ran a short profile on each of the province's mainstream party leaders, Lorrain Michael, Gerry Reid and Danny Williams.

Though the biographies only scratch the surface of the three leaders they do provide some interesting insights into the candidates. I’ve reprinted them here in their entirety.

Lorraine Michael:

Born: March 27, 1943, in St. John's.
Family: Single.

Education: A former nun, she has a degree in education from Memorial University of Newfoundland, and a master's of divinity from the University of Toronto.

Work history: Worked as a high school teacher and principal in various parts of Newfoundland. Served as director of the Office of Social Action in St. John's where she represented the Roman Catholic Archdiocese. Served as head of the women and work committee with the National Action Committee on Status Women and executive director of Women in Resource Development Committee.

Political history: She describes herself as a feminist and committed activist for "gender and racial social and economic justice." Elected leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador New Democratic Party on May 28, 2006.

Quote: "All of our candidates are new, fresh people who have not been part of the political scene. What I'm hearing people say to them ... is that we do need new faces, we need to ... clean the place up."

Gerry Reid:

As a young boy growing up in the small fishing outport of Carbonear, N.L., Liberal Leader Gerry Reid learned early on he would sometimes have to make do with what little he had.

His father was often away at sea, working as a cook on schooners that traversed the Atlantic. He died of a stroke, when Reid was only 12, leaving his mother to raise the family. "We lived a meagre existence, but we didn't know it because most people were the same at the time," Reid recalled in an interview.

"It was difficult ... you had to be creative on how you were going to raise six kids and get them all educated."

Even Reid's decision to seek a post-secondary education left his mother worrying over how he would pay the bills.

"When I decided to go to university, my mother thought it was a bit naive," he said.

But his time at Memorial University served as the foundation on which he would base his political career. While studying education and philosophy, Reid became president of the campus Liberal party.

After graduating, he juggled a teaching career along with a three-year term as a municipal councillor on a small island off Newfoundland's northeast coast.

In 1996, after working as an aide to former fisheries minister Walter Carter, Reid challenged and defeated his boss for the Liberal party nomination in one of Newfoundland's largest constituencies.

He quietly worked his way up the government ranks, taking over as minister of fisheries in 2001.

The Tory landslide victory in October 2003 left the Liberals in turmoil. Infighting within the caucus led to a change at the top that eventually saw Reid, the party's interim leader, take over the Liberal reins for good.

He didn't even want the job at first, despite widespread support within the party.

"It's just like they say in The Sopranos," says the 53-year-old.

"Just when you think you're out, they pull you back in."

His big challenge now is to fend off the government of Premier Danny Williams, which has enjoyed soaring popularity during its four years in office.

He believes his key to success - which some observers define as the party's survival in the Oct. 9 election - lies in his ability to relate to the common man.

After work on Fridays, he's often spotted quaffing a pint with friends at a British-style pub in downtown St. John's.

"I've always considered myself the underdog," he says with a grin.

"We'll continue to fight."

Danny Williams:

Danny Williams was on holiday, strolling along a sun swept beach in the Caribbean when he decided to dive into the circus of Newfoundland politics seven years ago.

It was his version of Pierre Trudeau's walk in the snow. "I was in Jamaica, so it was a walk in the sand," the Conservative premier laughs in an interview. "I just got up one morning - this is quite truthful - looked in the mirror and said, 'If I don't do this, what am I going to say in 10 years time? Will I say you never had the guts to do it?"'

In truth, Williams was seen as a great hope for the Tories since the early 1980s, when party supporters quietly courted him in an effort to succeed then-premier Brian Peckford.

Since he was acclaimed party leader in January 2001, the political pugilist, former criminal lawyer and ex-cable TV mogul has taken great care to portray himself as Newfoundland and Labrador's Everyman with the common touch.

He whips around town in a Dodge Viper, one of several high-priced vehicles he drives, but has a weakness for fast food.

He earned the nickname "Danny Millions" after selling Cable Atlantic for $232 million in 2000, but now donates his $165,000 legislative salary to a local charitable foundation.
He is a Rhodes Scholar, but can't resist picking a brawl that would otherwise be unbecoming for a man of his pedigree.

During a strike that threatened to disrupt a local American Hockey League game, Williams, an avid fan, challenged St. John's Mayor Andy Wells to a fight, declaring he needed a "good shit-knocking."

The two outspoken politicians are now allies.

But Williams insists he detests engaging in the scraps for which Newfoundland's political landscape is renowned.

"If I was able to devote 100 per cent of my time to doing what I should be doing in the Office of Premier, I think the people of the province would be much better off," he said.

"But you spend at least 50 per cent of your time dealing with the negativity that comes from all sources, whether it's from the media, whether it's from the opposition."

His competitive spirit and love for law came from his father, a criminal lawyer and tennis player in Newfoundland's sports hall of fame. His mother, a long-time Tory supporter, had him handing out brochures for former prime minister John Diefenbaker's campaign when he was a child.
"I think it whetted my appetite," Williams says.

Politics has also dominated his life. Few decisions of any importance are made before landing on his cluttered desk.

"It's 24/7. It never leaves you," says the 58-year-old.

"There's never a full day off unless you actually take a vacation, and even then, when I'm away from the province, there's not a day goes by that I don't have some contact with this office or with members of my cabinet or with members of my caucus."