The Spleen

Must be something about a certain breed of radio talk show hosts.

Garth Turner - not someone quoted often in these parts - refers to to rabid rants and "spleen" being unleashed by a couple of talk jocks in other parts of the country Turner is visiting having left the Real Capital of Canada (tm pending).

Turner could have been talking about VOCM's afternoon monologue hosted by a former leader of the Liberal Party in this province who has long since bolted and joined the local Tories. He did a stint as Danny Williams' personal rep to Hy's but packed it in for personal reasons after a few months.

Spleen is something Bill Rowe has no hesitation in venting. Unbiased is something he doesn't even pretend to be, especially when Rowe's former boss has offered up his shell-like for Bill to coo in for a few minutes.

"Premier, tell us in all your unfailing perfection why everyone else is wrong and you are so right every single time?"

"Isn't it amazing how [insert the name of the foreign enemy of the moment] cannot realize they should give up now before you unleash your mighty vengeance?"

We exaggerate for comedic effect but regular listeners might find it the phrases understate reality.

One might easily imagine Rowe is merely recycling stuff he used in cabinet meetings under Smallwood. Not bad to use 40 year old material and still drag in bucks for it.

Try listening as some poor caller dares to challenge one of Bill's stock lines. "Caller? Caller?" he'll interject after a few words have come over the phone. "Caller? I am not following you. Make your point please."

Never mind that the caller made a point in unmistakeably plain English a five-year-old could grasp. Like "I think the Premier might possibly be wrong."

And then after only a few other words, he starts talking over the person who by now might be starting to realize Bill isn't going to let the caller's blasphemy continue against the Accepted Truth: "Caller? Caller? Caller? Can I get a word in here edgewise?"

Rant? There's a reason Crap Talk is properly called a monologue, rather than the dialogue you get with the opinionated but never un-gentlemanly Randy Simms.

What makes Turner's observation timely was an especially miserable performance by Rowe in slagging Stephane Dion during the Thursday episode. Dion's people had apparently made arrangements to have the Liberal leader call Rowe at 2:45. When his meetings when long and his schedule was off - as busy national party leaders are wont to experience - Dion's staffer called to see if it might be possible to call an hour later.

Rowe took this as an excuse to claim that Dion was disorganized and generally to run down both Dion and his staff.

The most pathetic part of Rowe's display was that as a former party leader and a fairly experienced political type, let alone a guy who has hosted radio rant-fests for the better part of his adult life, Rowe knew full bloody well that his characterization of the incident was, in a word: crap.

Had it been someone like Rowe's former boss, one imagines Rowe would have thanked heavens for extra time to vamp on the future guest's various perfections. Another national leader, like say the Prime Minister, and Rowe would be saying anything but the dirty dig he unleashed on Dion.

To cap it all, Rowe then proceeded to congratulate himself for having predicted Dion's victory and making some joke about looking for a senate seat if he predicted Dion would be next living at 24 Sussex.

That column must have come the week Bill wasn't checking out Lysiane Gagnon columns for inspirational phrases.

The upshot of it all?

Well, it turns out Garth Turner was right about talk show hosts, rants and spleens.

If he'd been in St. John's on Thursday, he'd have heard one who teach master classes in the subjects.

-srbp-

Related:

On the horns of a nationalist dilemma

Bill Rowe: townie twit

What's buggin' Bill?

Why columnists need editors

Dateline: Desperation, Newfoundland

Finance minister Tom Marshall called the province’s major radio talk show on Thursday to promote the Muskrat Falls power project.

He quoted from a book by Wally Read and L.J. Cole.  The quote runs down opponents of the Bay d’Espoir megaproject in the 1960s as ignorant, blind or politically motivated people of dubious character who lacked the foresight to undertake the marvelous project.

You can hear the whole call courtesy of Dave Adey.  Before going any farther, take a second and listen to Tom in all his persuasive majesty.  Then, when you are finished being awestruck, come back to these scribbles.

Fair warning:  if you are awestruck at Tom, you’ll be gobsmacked by the end of this post.

You were warned.

Now if you don’t know – and your humble e-scribbler didn’t know until he went looking – that book was in fact no book at all.  It was a 28 page pamphlet produced by the Newfoundland and Labrador Power Commission in 1972 to mark the inauguration of their new power plant at Bay d’Espoir. The Commission was the forerunner of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

And if the words Marshall read sounded familiar, if they sounded as though you heard them before, if it struck you that the language used by Read and Cole resonated in a way you may have heard before, if the sentences seemed to come with bow tie and dark-rimmed spectacles, then you would be right.

The visionary Read and Cole were praising, the champion-in-chief of modernity, progress, and the future of His People, the one who stood out among the one or two the authors obliquely referenced in the text was none other than the Only Living Father of Confederation at the time.

Yes, Joe Smallwood.

So right off the bat, you have a fellow who got his current job as part of a crowd who campaigned against foolish megaprojects, gigantic wastes of money and enormous give-aways quoting favourably about the fellow who was chief among their targets.

And the fellows of low character and small minds the two others lambasted were Marshall’s political predecessors in the provincial Conservatives.

And if the full story be told, Tom probably campaigned for some of them and fulminated against Smallwood himself four decades ago.

Now if you are feeling a bit weak in the knees, we can all wait for you to catch your breath.

This is only the beginning.

You see, we are not dealing here with mere irony.

No.

That would be too common a theatrical device for people of such enormous vision and unparalleled ability.

This, my friends, is the stuff of Greek tragedy.

If someone among the current administration plucked out his own eyes after slaughtering his own father, bedding his sister, and marrying his own mother, you could not have anything more fundamentally twisted, demented and frigged in the head than Tories justifying themselves by borrowing words of praise for Joe Smallwood.

The whole thing enters another dimension when you realise that Bay d’Espoir was conceived and built in the 1960s not as a simple project to meet identified need as Tom Marshall would have you believe.

No, sir.

Bay d’Espoir was the centrepiece of yet another scheme by which the ratepayers of Newfoundland would give megawatts of power at bargain basement prices to create not one, not two, not three or even four or five, but something like eight new industries.

A paper mill for the east coast.

A hockey stick factory.

A refinery.

A petrochemical plant.

A phosphorus plant.

And on and on it went.

Joe Smallwood gives the thing a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of page 375 and the top of page 376 in I chose Canada.  After reciting the efforts to get companies to take power for the project, Smallwood writes on page 376:

The killer was the cost of the transmission line, but we agreed to build the line and charge Brinco nothing for it until after the enterprise had begun to make money.

You won’t find the full story of the Bay d’Espoir saga in the Read and Cole monograph of in Smallwood’s memoir.  You’ll get a much better sense of the dubious economics of the whole affair in a paper done in 2007 1974 by Peter Crabb.

Bay d’Espoir was supposed to do magical things.  Many of the same claims of magic Tom Marshall and his friends are using for Muskrat falls are the same ones Smallwood and his associates used for their mega-failures. As it turned out, the only new industry Bay d’Espoir attracted was the phosphorus plant at Long Harbour.  The scheme to attract new industry by providing heavily discounted electricity to industries was a complete bust.

Proponents of megaprojects grossly exaggerate the benefits and grossly underestimate the risks, in case you haven’t heard that one before.

Skip ahead 40 years and you have tom Marshall marvelling at how history is repeating itself.  Indeed it is, except not in the way Marshall supposes.  He and his colleagues are on the wrong side of the story.

Now just so that there is no one with any sense who thinks this is a conspiracy,  Randy Simms did a grave disservice to his audience during the conversation with Marshall when he tried to turn the arguments against Muskrat Falls into something they aren’t.

Undoubtedly, Tom Marshall and Kathy Dunderdale sincerely believe they are doing the right thing.  They have convinced themselves that this is the way to go, just as Smallwood did in the 1960s repeatedly.  Just as Brian Peckford and his crowd did with the cucumber factory. 

Desperation makes politicians – even normally sensible ones like Tom Marshall -  do strange things.

But make no mistake about it:  Muskrat Falls has absolutely nothing to do with a power need on the island just as surely as the Bay d’Espoir project and nothing to do with consumer power needs.  We know this because Nalcor could not produce figures that demonstrate their forecasts of an impending power shortage are real.

We also know it because this project has never, ever been justified on the basis of urgent need.

Tom Marshall and his colleagues pushed the development of the Lower Churchill in the beginning as a way to make money by selling power to people outside the province. 

Go back to January 2005.

Not a single peep about a need for electricity on the island.

The joint review panel found the same thing.

Muskrat Falls is not about need.

It is about want.

More specifically, it is about a political want.  Danny Williams wanted to cap off his term by saying he had a deal.  the economics of it had long since vanished.  The project – as originally planned – simply could not fly.  So he cut a deal for something that would look good in theory but that fails when anyone with half a clue looks closely at it.

Williams’ political want for an excuse to cover his exit became the political want of his successor to have something to tide her through an election.

We know this project is not driven by public need because neither Nalcor nor Tom Marshall nor anyone else pushing it ever more frantically down our collective throat has been able to give a simple, consistent and factual set of answers to a simple set of questions. They squirm and they dodge and they toss out red herrings and they attack their critics.

Tom and his associates spent two years with a hand-picked panel of five intelligent, sensible people looking over this Muskrat Falls thing. Those five people told Nalcor that the company had not made its case.

Not once, mind you, but twice.

Those five people on the joint federal-provincial review panel recommended giving the whole thing to someone without a vested interest in the project in order to make sure that all the evidence was there.

That’s as serious an indictment of Nalcor’s poor performance as one could get.

So the people Tom Marshall claims know so much about electricity needs and megaprojects couldn’t knock off a two year review process successfully on the crucial component:  the need for it in the first place to meet local energy demand.

And ultimately we know this project is driven by politics because of Tom Marshall’s obvious desperation that he would praise the Churchill Falls development and Bay d’Espoir as models to follow.

There is obviously no claim so ridiculous and no argument so transparent that Marshall and his colleagues would not toss it out to try and fight off the public worry about Muskrat Falls and what the project will do to electricity rates and the public debt.

Somewhere in the Great Beyond, Joe Smallwood is looking down on this all.  He is sitting with John Shaheen and O.L. Vardy while Valdmanis plays waiter and freshens their drinks every now and then.  They are kicked back enjoying fine cigars and letting the sand scrunch between their toes.

And on that magnificent Panamanian beach beyond all time and care, Joe is shitting himself laughing. 

He is crapping his Bermudas at Tom and Kathy and Danny.

The rest of us could join him in the chuckle too.  We could bust open our pants with a hearty belly laugh. We could do that if only we were not faced with the embarrassing spectacle of Tom Marshall’s desperation.

We could maybe even manage a smile, were it not for the fact that – if the province’s Conservatives and New Democrats get their way -  we will be footing the bill for yet another megaproject give-away to rival the greatest ones of the last century.

And we will have to listen as our children and grandchildren as they ask us over and over again how some people could have become so utterly deluded that they could make the same miserable mistake twice inside a half century and use the first fiasco as proof of the genius in the second.

We could laugh except that some of us cannot explain it.

We only know that we will be paying for their folly.

Again.

- srbp -

Bollocks #nlpoli

Kill the wabbit?

Moody’s has changed its outlook on the provincial government’s debt from stable to negative while sustaining the A1 rating it gave the province in July 2019. That, by the way, was a downgrade.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Moody’s said the change in outlook reflects the company’s view that the provincial government’s “credit profile will weaken due to the sharp decline in oil prices and its reduced budgetary flexibility to adjust to this shock. Under Moody's base case, oil prices are expected to average $40-$45/bbl in 2020 before returning to $50-$55/bbl in 2021…”.

Moody’s expects the provincial deficit for 2020 could reach 25% of revenue in 2020 and about 11% in 2021. Previously, Moody’s had forecast deficits of 11%  and 4% respectively for those years.

Moody’s expects the provincial debt will reach 270% of revenue by 2023 with pressure that this will increase after 2023.  In other words, Moody’s doesn’t believe that the government will balance the budget in 2023.

Not fit for it #nlpoli

It’s not surprising that the provincial Conservatives and their supporters want to reduce the representations the people of the province have in the House of Assembly.

After all, the plan to cut 10 seats from the House of Assembly and make other changes in the interest of “modernisation” fits their pattern of behaviour over the past decade.

But there’s a bit more to it.

Hole in ground to give Labrador "advantage of fixed link" to mainland: premier #nlpoli

The provincial government will spend $750,000 this year to study the feasibility of digging a hole from the Great Northern Peninsula to Blanc Sablon, in Quebec.

SRBP told you on Tuesday that the goof-ball idea - last dismissed as a waste of money in 2005 - will get another check to see if any of the stupid has worn off it in the past 11 years.

The goofiness doesn't end there.

The feasibility study came up in the House of Assembly on Thursday.

Apparently, the people of Labrador need a fixed link from the island to the mainland. People are wrong to dismiss the idea as a waste of money. That would deny the people of Labrador of a great opportunity.

Here's Premier Dwight Ball defending the feasibility study:

For the Member opposite to simply to say that it is a waste of money, to give the Labrador portion of this province the opportunity to see the advantage of a fixed link.

Doesn't Labrador already have a fixed link to the mainland?

Just a question.

The Elizabeth Towers Fire Inquiry – the Release of the Reports of the Investigation

Continued from Part 2 – The Elizabeth Towers Fire and its Investigation

I must now turn to the evidence relating directly to the release of the reports of June 7th and July 12th to the news media.  That evidence was given by Sergeant Pike and Mr. William Rowe who, at that time, was the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Assembly of the Province.  This part of the enquiry deals also with the question of whether there was justification for the release of the reports.

Pike said that on the basis of the reports of June 7th and July 12th he "felt that there was reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a criminal act had been committed".

Pike was removed from the investigation because of a conversation which he had with Mrs. Nugent who was then the private secretary to the Premier-of the Province.  The conversation took place when he was flying to St. Anthony after he had been recalled from his vacation on or about August 1st in order to give Inspector Randell whatever information he had about the investigation.  Pike was asked what he was supposed to have said to Mrs. Nugent that resulted in his.being removed from the investigation.  He said:

"I was accused by Inspector Randell when I came back off my annual leave of telling her that Dr. Farrell was going to be charged and accused me of asking to see the Premier".

He said that it was alleged that ho had disclosed part of the contents of the report,  lie war; ached whether the charge was accurate and gave the following somewhat enlightening reply:

"Not completely.  Partially, I suppose.  I did speak to Mrs. Nugent and Dr. Farrell's name did come up briefly at the airport before we left. I attempted to explain this to Inspector Randall.  However, I think his mind had already been made up to transfer me or somebody made it up for him.  He didn't ask me what happened.  I tried to explain to him but he didn't appear to want to listen."

The one thing which appears from this evidence is Pike's apparent tendency to indiscretion in discussing police matters with unauthorized persons - an undesirable trait in a police officer.  Understandably, Pike was upset because he was taken off the Elizabeth Towers fire investigation, even though it was through his own fault.
 
Pike was asked what his mental and physical state was at that time.  He said:

"... I was concerned about this investigation and because of remarks made to me and I was at times nervous - or probably "frightened" would be the word - during the investigation."

Pike said that he had been upset by several remarks which the Director of Public Prosecutions had made to him.  He said that the first occasion on which Kelly made remarks to him was approximately two weeks after the investigation started. 

At that time, Randell told him that Kelly wanted to see him alone and unofficially about the Elizabeth' Towers fire. As a result, he saw Kelly who told him that he wanted to be brought up to date because the Minister of Justice was going out of town and might want to be brought up to date.  He brought Kelly up to date, telling him that the police suspected arson.

I must observe that I do not see that there was anything sinister about Kelly's enquiry.  The investigation was still going on and Pike was not conducting it himself, so he would not be in a position to make a full, official report.  On the other hand, he could be expected to have some idea of how it was progressing.  It would not be unusual for the Director of Public Prosecutions to look for some advance information such as he sought.

Then, too, he might well expect the Minister to show some interest in the investigation under all the circumstances. On the other hand, the mere possibility of the Minister's asking a question should not be interpreted as indicating some ulterior motive on his part or on Kelly's part. Pike's reaction suggests a somewhat exaggerated interpretation of Kelly's enquiry.

Pike related another conversation which he suggested upset him and, I should think, was intended to reflect on Kelly but which, in my view, reflects on Pike instead. Here is his evidence verbatim:

"Yes, there was another conversation with Mr. Kelly.  I don't recall the exact time but I mentioned to him during the conversation about the fire ... 'You know, John, your name was mentioned during the investigation’… and he said: 'In what way?', and I said: 'Do you know anybody by the name of Doucette?' and he said: 'Jerry Doucette? Yes, I do.  He is a very good friend of mine .. . The, Farrell family are also good friends of mine and I have been to Dr. Farrell's apartment on a number of occasions ... For that reason … I am not going to get involved in this investigation’ ".

There was nothing unusual in Kelly's decision not to be involved in the investigation if he was a friend of Dr. Farrell or of members of his family.  That is the kind of conflict which arises on occasion and a person who must remain objective follows the discreet course of dissociating himself from some activity in which his participation might be questioned because of social or business associations.

Pike said that he found it unusual that Kelly then did not discontinue his involvement in the matter, even though he admitted that as Director of Public Prosecutions Kelly would have to have some involvement.  The answer to Pike's concern, though, is found in the fact that the responsibility for the handling of the file for the Department of Justice was given to Robert Hyslop, Senior Crown Prosecutor in St. John's.  The significant aspect about this part of Pike's evidence is that it provides one more example of some form of obsession which he seems to have developed.

Pike related another episode which he alleged caused him concern.  He said that before the first report was made he was talking to Kelly when they were on route to Harbour Grace in connection with another matter. Pike said:

"... He asked me when he was going to get the report on it and I said to him jokingly 'I don't know, John boy.  Probably we may make an arrest first and give you a report afterwards'.  It was a joke as far as I was concerned.  But he said 'Don't arrest Dr. Farrell.  If you do, I'll ask for a stay of prosecution. The Minister has to be notified first before any charges are laid’."

Pike said that he was being facetious but he did not think that Kelly was being facetious as well, that Kelly appeared quite serious.  Kelly did not recollect details of that conversation.  It seems to me that Pike was in a mental state which caused him to exaggerate to himself the implications of anything said or done in connection with the Elizabeth Towers fire investigation. Even if the conversation was as he said it was, it must be remembered that the Minister of Justice, as Attorney General of the Province, had the ultimate responsibility for the administration of justice, and would be within the bounds of his responsibility if he wanted to be,kept advised about the investigation, charges arising out if it and so on.  As a senior police officer, Pike would be expected to appreciate that.  I shall refer again to the role of the Minister of Justice in this matter.

I have no doubt that Pike was upset when he felt that lie had been removed from the investigation because he had spoken to Mrs. Nugent about the investigation.

Pike had access to the reports which had been filed and at some point made a copy of the report of June 7th and the one of July 12th,  When he made them he did so because he might need to refer to them in the course of his work and it would be more convenient to have them at hand.  He put them in his filing cabinet, where he left them for a while.  Then he took them home one night to read them and left them there.  I come now to the release of those reports by Pike.

Pike said that he "felt that there was the possibility of a cover-up going on at the time ... because of the remarks by Mr. Kelly ... and also the fact that the investigation was being dragged out so long".  That was his opinion and he felt that he was not alone in holding that opinion.  He also felt that there was a cover-up going on because "other investigative reports where action was recommended had gone to the proper channels to the Department of Justice where no action was taken".  When he was asked who made the final decision as to whether charges were laid, Pike said that as far as he was concerned it was the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Pike was asked to be specific about the other investigations to which he referred and he provided details of them.  The Director of Public Prosecutions" was, in turn,asked to state what, action had been taken in each case. He did so.  In each instance he was able to give an acceptable reason for not prosecuting.  The only possible criticism that may be made was the failure of the Department to ensure that the police knew why the prosecutions had not been proceeded with.

At some point Pike decided that he was going to reveal information about the fire investigation and what he described as the cover-up.  On September 16th, 1978 he telephoned James Thoms, Editor [sic] of the Daily News, a newspaper published in St. John's, and said that he had some information for Thoms.  He asked Thoms if he would come to his house and Thorns went.  He showed Thoms the copies of the June 7th and July 12th reports. Thorns read them, made notes of them and left.  Thoms consulted with William Callahan, the publisher of the Daily News.  Callahan telephoned Macaulay and indicated that the Daily News had the two reports.  He asked Macaulay if charges had been laid and, if not, when they would be laid,  Macaulay said that he told Callahan that he did not know.  Indeed, he did not know whether charges would ever be laid.  Macaulay told the enquiry that at that point the investigation was still going on, that he was awaiting a final report, and that a firm decision had not been made about whether charges would be laid.

Thoms said that the Daily News published a story about the investigation on Thursday, September 21st. The paper did not use the name of Dr. Farrell in the story because, initially, the publishers were influenced by the fact that the conclusions in the report were police opinions.

Thoms said that Pike gave him the information on condition that he would not divulge the source. (Incidentally, at the enquiry Thoms gave his evidence after Pike admitted that he showed the reports to Thorns.) There was no mention of any prohibition on publication. That is significant in assessing Pike's evidence in which he said that when he gave the reports to William Rowe he "had no idea that the reports would be leaked to the news media".

A week after his meeting with Thoms, Pike went a step further in disclosing the reports of June 7th and July 12th.  He decided that he was going to give information to a member of the House of Assembly.  He admitted that he did not go to anybody in the Newfoundland Constabulary senior to Inspector Randell.  When pressed on the point he further admitted that when he decided that he was going to go through political channels he had not exhausted all of the resources within the Constabulary to bring pressure to bear to have a prosecution go ahead.

He intended at first to speak to Edward Roberts, a solicitor and member of the House of Assembly. On Saturday, September 23rd, 1978, he telephoned William Rowe, the leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly and asked him for Roberts' private telephone number.  Rowe could not provide the number. Then Pike asked Rowe if he could come to Pike's home because he would like to talk to Rowe about a cover-up involved in regard to the investigation of the Elizabeth Towers fire.  The first thing that is quite clear in respect of the communication with Rowe, as well as with Thorns, is that Pike took the initiative, that nobody sought him out or tried to get information from him.

Rowe went to Pike's house and picked him up. They drove around St. John's while Pike talked. In reporting the conversation Rowe said:

"... he was talking to me about a cover-up, about the fact that the investigation into the Elizabeth Towers fire ... because he knew there was a cover-up and footdragging [sic] going on.  He indicated ... to use his own words ... that 'Alec Hickman was out to get him' and he had been removed from the case.  He indicated that there were a couple of incidents ... early in August ... whereby he may have divulged some information and that this may have also led to his dismissal from the case as an investigator ... I asked Sergeant Pike ...Do you have copies of the report?'  He indicated that he did ... I said: 'May I have a look at them’ and he said 'No.'  I said to him 'Well, you obviously must have leaked it to the Daily News … He vehemently denied having leaked it ... We talked generally and it had to do generally with the cover-up, with the fact that nothing is going to happen on this particular report and this investigation ... I then … dropped him off at his home again."

Rowe was asked to describe Pike's condition at the time of the meeting.  He said Pike gave the appearance of being intoxicated and yet he did not smell any liquor off his breath.  Pike in his own evidence said that he had had a couple of drinks before he met Rowe but that he was not under the influence of alcohol.  Rowe said that Pike could have been under medication, that he was "somewhat incoherent". There may be significance in the rest of Rowe's description of Pike's behaviour.  It could provide an insight into his emotional state and into the reason for his conduct. Rowe said that Pike

"... was alternately aggressive and unaggressive ... in his actions and attitudes".

Rowe said that he asked Pike why he was in that condition at that time.  Rowe went on:

"... he told me that he was under a considerable amount of stress and strain, that he had been removed from the case, that Alex Hickman was out to get him, that there was a cover-up going on and that he was under severe strain.  He indicated obliquely that he was under a doctor's care as well at the time ... He appeared to be very upset... It was an aggressive attitude and also, concerning the Department of Justice  concerning the authorities,  and also on occasion he would become almost self-pitying in his attitudes, he would, you know, say 'They're out to get me', that kind of an attitude".

It must have been quite apparent to Rowe that he was dealing with a person who was in such a disturbed state that it should have been questionable whether he should deal with him at all, let alone give him any encouragement to go any further.  And yet, that was what happened.  Later on that same Saturday Pike telephoned Rowe again and said he had something to show him. Rowe suspected that Pike wanted to show him the report, so he picked up Pike again.  Rowe said that at this second meeting, Pike's condition was similar to what it had been at the time of the first meeting.  They drove to the Kenmount Road area and parked.  Pike showed Rowe a letter which apparently had nothing to do with the investigation.  Then, Rowe said, Pike told him that he had the reports but that he was not going to show them to Rowe.  After 15 or 20 minutes' discussion, Pike showed the reports to Rowe.  At this point I must turn my attention to conflicting evidence as to whether Pike gave Rowe the reports on Saturday night.

Rowe said that Pike did not give him the reports, that on the following Monday morning he found them in an envelope in his mail box.  Pike said that he gave them to Rowe on Saturday night.  Pike gave his evidence first.  In view of Rowe's evidence which was given later, Pike was re-called and given the opportunity to give further evidence but he was definite in his assertion that he gave Rowe the reports on Saturday night.  I shall look first at Pike's evidence.  The following exchange took place between Counsel and Pike.

A. ... I showed him the reports and he glanced over the reports. And up to this point I never had made any decision to give him the reports and then he said 'Well, can I have the report1 and I said 'Yes, take them'.
Q. Did he make any comment after he read the report?
A. He did say something to the effect that these reports are dynamite.
Q. So you then decided to give him copies of the report?
A. Yes.  I gave him two copies.
Q. Now, then, what happened after you had given Mr. Rowe the copies of the report?
A. He dropped me off.
Q. Were there any conditions placed on your passing these reports to Mr. Rowe?
A. Well, I told Mr. Rowe not to have these reports hanging around. I told him to destroy these copies and he said he would copy them and destroy them.
Q. Why did you ask him that?
A. Because I felt there was a possibility that it could be traced back to the copying machine.
Q. And hence to you?
A.  Yes.
Q. Were you anxious at this time to conceal the .1 act that you had given these reports to Mr. Rowe?
A, Well, I didn't ... My concern was that of a cover-up and I didn't want to be ... have it traced back to me.  No.
…
Q. Did you ask him to keep the documents in confidence?
A.  I don't remember asking him that but I told him that it was for his information only.
…
Q. Did you suspect that the reports might go further?
A. I had no idea that the reports would be leaked to the news media. None whatsoever.
Q. Were you aware that that was a risk?
A. Yes, I suppose you could say that.
Q. And you elected to take that risk?
A. Yes.

The following relevant questions and answers are extracted from the record of Rowe's evidence:

Q. ... Did you feel you had any rights to the reports at that time?
A.  In the circumstances of this particular case I felt, yes, that I had a right ... to examine the reports and find out what the investigation had concluded ... I considered it to be part of my duty as the Leader of the Opposition, as Member of the House of Assembly ... I was given the documents as a politician and a Leader of the Opposition.
…
Q. Did  I occur to you that Sergeant Pike might have been doing something illegal or contrary to the Constabulary Rules in passing out these documents?
A. Yes, that did occur to me.
Q. And regardless of that you elected to accept the documents?
A. I did.
…
Q. Were these documents given to you in confidence or with any conditions attached?
A.  No. they were not.
Q. Did not Sergeant Pike say to you that these were given to you as an officer of the Court?
A, No. ... What was in fact said to me was that these documents indicate a cover-up and that he wanted me to have them and that was the sum and substance of the conversation.
Q. Were you asked not to give copies to anybody, keep them in confidence?
A. No.
Q. They were for your personal use?
A. No.
Q. Did you agree to destroy the copies he gave you?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell him that you would do so and make copies on your own copier?
A. No.
Q. What did you do with copies of Exhibits 1 and 2  (the reports) after you left Sergeant Pike?
A. I studied the reports ... and  I had to make up my mind what action I should take, if any, concerning them.

In later testimony Rowe was asked about an interview he had with members of the Newfoundland Constabulary who were investigating the release of the reports.  At that time he told the police that the reports had appeared in his mail box in a brown envelope on the following Monday morning.  Rowe said that that was how the reports came to him and that he had no idea of how they came to be in his mail box.  He denied strongly that Pike gave him the reports at their meeting.  That was the substance of lengthy questioning on the matter. Pike was questioned again and repeated his evidence that he gave Rowe the reports when they met on Saturday night. On the basis of the evidence which I have reproduced at length I am satisfied that Pike did give the reports to Rowe on Saturday night.

Rowe made several copies of the two reports and on Tuesday, September 26th, 1978 he telephoned what he described as "the most senior newsmen and editors that I was aware of in St. John's".  He listed them as Steve Herder, publisher of the Evening Telegram, Basil Jamieson, vice-president of news with CJYQ Radio, James Furlong, news editor of NTV News, Paddy Gregg, the CBC national television news representative in Newfoundland and Carl Cooper, news director at Radio Station VOCM.  He told each of them that he had a copy of the two police reports and asked them whether they wished to have a copy for their own perusal.  He said that there were "no strings attached, no conditions attached, no stipulations as to what, if anything, they were to do with the report". He considered that there was a cover-up going on and what he "wanted to do was to leave it entirely in the hands of these senior editors and news directors and newsmen as to what, if anything, they wanted to do with the reports".

Each of the people whom Rowe contacted said that he would like to receive the report.  Rowe, himself, then put a copy of each report in an envelope and addressed an envelope to each of the persons named. He then gave the envelopes to his executive assistant, Brian Tobin, with instructions to deliver the envelopes as addressed,  Tobin did that.  Rowe did not tell Tobin what the envelopes contained, so Tobin had no direct knowledge of their contents.  He may have speculated on the contents because Rowe had let him know about the reports.  However, he did not really know what was in the envelopes.  He had no responsibility for releasing the contents of the reports.  That responsibility rested entirely with Sergeant Arthur Pike of the Newfoundland Constabulary, who released the copies of the reports to Mr. William Rowe, and with Mr. Rowe who copied the reports and then sent copies to representatives of the news media.

The Evening Telegram published a story on the front page of its edition of September 27th, the day following delivery of the copies of the report. Basil Jamieson said that he looked over the reports and decided not to use the material because its 'use would be contrary to the policy of CJYQ Radio.  He said that he exercised editorial judgment in reaching a decision.  That was in line with the station's policy against reporting of names of persons charged in certain types of cases, suicide victims, and others.  He said that the policy would extend to not using the name of a person who was under investigation for a serious crime but against whom charges had not been laid.  He considered that publication of a name under those circumstances might prejudice the right of that person to a fair trial.

James Furlong, news editor of NTV News reported to the Chief of Police of the Newfoundland Constabulary that he had the copies of the reports because that morning the Daily News carried a story that the police were conducting an internal investigation concerning the story which had been published earlier in that paper. Furlong told the Chief of Police that he was not going to use the name of any person mentioned in the report. He said that was because he had been "schooled in journalism to not use a. name unless the person has been formally charged".  That was the way the story was written and published in a newscast that night.  He said that he took the earlier Daily News story and used the bulk of the information from that as the bulk of his story.  In fact, he said, no new information was presented in the story that his station carried.  The only thing added was that he had physical possession of the reports.

There was no evidence before the enquiry as to whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation used the reports because Paddy Gregg, to whom the reports had been sent, had been transferred out of the Province and was not available as a witness.

Carl Cooper, the news director of Radio Station VOCM and Elmer Harris, vice-president of news at the station, gave evidence of how they handled the reports when they received them.  When they opened the envelope which contained the reports and saw the provincial crest on some of the paper they concluded that they had received confidential reports and they decided to contact the police.  The station did not use the reports as a basis for any news stories.

In conclusion and in formally answering the first question set out in the Terms of Reference, Sergeant Arthur Pike was responsible for releasing the reports of June 7th and July 12th, 1978 to William Rowe and for the release of information to the Daily News.  William Rowe was responsible for the copying of the reports and for their transmission to the news media.  Brian Tobin delivered the copies of the reports to the news media but he did so as an employee and under the direction of William Rowe without knowledge of what was in the envelopes which he had been ordered to deliver in the course of his employment.  He, therefore, must be absolved of responsibility for any acts connected with the release, delivery or publication of the reports.

The Daily News was responsible for the publication of a story on September 21st which I have already referred to.  The Evening Telegram was responsible for the publication of a story on September 27th,  NTV News published a story but not based on the reports which were received from William Rowe.

-srbp-

Next – The Question of Justification

If Obama could talk with Jed...

A meeting between the real-life Democratic nominee and the fictional Democrat President in which Jeb Bartlet advises Obama to get angry:

They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it.

Obama isn't the only liberal democrat who could stand with that kind of advice on how to deal with conservatives.

In another potion of Aaron Sorkin's work of fiction, there's an unsettling discussion about the attitude of Americans toward people who speak English and are well educated.

Hmm.  Kinda similar to the views offered by some people about a certain politician's facility with English.  To say they exaggerate would be an understatement.

-srbp-

Six Rationalisations Pretending to Be Policy #nlpoli

Policy solves problems.

At it's simplest level,  policy answers a question.

Cancelling Muskrat Falls is a good example.  We are facing a financial crisis.  Muskrat Falls is a huge expense.  There's the problem.  Turn it into a question and it becomes whether or not we should cancel Muskrat Falls.

To answer the question, you'd have to look at other issues. Muskrat Falls  was supposed to be the answer to our power needs. We'd have to look at that issue:  do we need the power?  We'd have to look at finances:  can we afford it? What would it cost to take one course versus another?  We'd have to ask about legal implications:  what do our legal commitments say we must do?

Implicit in those questions is the idea of alternatives.  What choices do we have?

A written report on those questions would have some structure to it.  You'd expect it to start out with a clear statement of the question the author reviewed.  It might even be posed as three options: continuing as we are,  halting the project completely, or an intermediate options like slowing the project,  cancelling bits of it, and so on.

The paper would review the existing state of the project and then project ahead based on what we knew.  Then it would have to branch off from today to examine each of the answers to our string of questions.  Given the size of Muskrat Falls and the complexity of itl you'd imagine any serious discussion of cancelling the project would take months to prepare, would involve a great many people, and would certainly take more than 10 sheets of paper.  Just to make sure you appreciate the magnitude of what we are talking about, go back and look at just a tiny bit of the paperwork prepared for the public utilities board review of the project.  The Manitoba Hydro report was enormous.

Now read the 20% of a document prepared for Dwight Ball's cabinet released to CBC under the access to information law.This briefing note is apparently about the implications of cancelling the project.

“Everything else is advertising.”

Sometimes, things that don’t appear to be connected things scream out to be connected.

Take, for example, a piece last weekend in the Globe on one of the legends in the newspaper business.  Harry Evans was in Toronto flogging his memoir, My paper chase. He thinks that news is whatever anyone tries to suppress.  “Everything else is advertising, ” he contends.

On the same weekend, a Telegram editorial revealed that the local daily tried to get government polling results this past August but came up with six blacked-out pages. Proprietary information don’t you know and there was just no way the government could release stuff that belongs to a third party and still comply with the province’s access to information act.

News is what The Man wants to suppress, sez Harry.

Not in this case.

That story of the blacked out bits  - the suppressed bits - never made it to the news pages. The Telly did run a story last September based on a few pages of numbers that the government did happily send out but the full-on research report story doesn’t seem to have made it to the news section.

And the story that did appear took such a high-level picture it missed some of the details within the numbers they did have.  It wound up telling you – in the very first two sentences -  that:

Residents of the province are split on their satisfaction with the government's handling of health care, according to recent polling commissioned by the Williams administration.

Satisfaction levels in other areas, however, remain high.

This is hardly news for anyone who has been reading the CRA polls as if they actually had something to say that didn’t exaggerate the actual results they got. The rest of the story didn’t add anything else.

Now this way of handling the suppression of polling information is rather odd. The questions being asked would potentially be very controversial stuff. After all they were questions like:

• Do you think Newfoundland and Labrador has benefited since joining Canada in 1949?
• Do you know anybody who's left the province to work in Alberta in the past six months?
• Do you consider yourself foremost a Newfoundlander, a Canadian, or something else?

and according to the Telly-torial:

Other questions touched on topics such as the phasing out of pesticide use and the image of the commercial seal hunt.

All pretty obviously related to public policy and all pretty obviously no the stuff covered by section 27:  “trade secrets of a third party, or … commercial, financial, labour relations, scientific or technical information of a third party…”.  Yet that was the basis on which the provincial government kept the information secret.

So at the end of it all we wind up with information being suppressed and the story about the suppression winding up as an editorial. And the bit on polling that did wind up on the news page was little more than the usual advertising copy that polling results have become in this province’s news media. Sometimes the ad copy comes with third-party endorsements from people supposedly with absolutely no connection to the subject of the story either.

Not so long ago, such blatant suppression of information that legitimately belongs in the public domain using a trumped-up excuse would have prompted a much sterner response and not one confined to the editorial page.

Things have changed, though, as Harry noted and as pretty well everyone dealing with news media can tell you. The change is not glacial, either, well at least not the way glaciers used to melt in the days before Al Gore.  Rather the transformation of newsrooms is as easily seen as the curious drop in online viewers highlighted by a couple of earlier posts.

The pressures in newsrooms are well known.

Other stuff that adds to the pressure may not be so well known or sufficiently appreciated for what they are and what they do: the nasty  - and often-time orchestrated – comments, short public attention spans and memories, The Attitude about advertising and what it buys, and even editors who publicly criticise the milquetoast reporting of today as too aggressive.  All add up such that it becomes much much harder for the crowd in the newsroom to do what Harry did and what many of the reporters and editors might like to do.

This is not a local phenomenon alone. It is also something that isn’t confined to one single outlet and it certainly isn’t affected by corporate ownership.  The problem  applies as equally to news outlets owned by large corporations as it did to a locally-owned vanity publishing enterprise that died twice. So-called independent media, that is stuff that isn’t corporately owned, also brings its own problem of rather strong ideological biases.

This is not a post which reaches a logical or orderly conclusion.  Frankly, your humble e-scribbler can only note the phenomenon just as with the curious drop.

But there is no mistaking the connections among a bunch of things you might not think were actually related.

-srbp-

The Elizabeth Towers Fire Inquiry – The Question of Justification

Continued from Part 3 – The Release of the Reports of the Investigation

Paragraph (1) (b) of the Terms of Reference of this Commission of Enquiry requires me to consider and report upon the justification, if any, for the release, transmission, duplication, delivery and publication of the two reports.

According to the evidence it appears that Pike concluded [not a quote in original]

(a) that the investigation into the cause of the fire at Elizabeth Towers had provided enough evidence to justify the laying of a charge of arson against the Honourable Dr. Thomas Farrell, but 

(b) that the charge would not be laid because Farrell was a member of the Cabinet of the Province of Newfoundland.

Pike's conclusions appear to have a certain emotional basis.  He had been taken off the investigation because of his indiscretion in discussing it with the Premier's secretary and he was upset on that account.  He appeared, too, to have the idea that he was being persecuted, as shown in his allegation to William Rowe that "Alec Hickman (the Minister of Justice) was out to get him".  It appears to me that at the time Pike was not in that emotional state which would enable him to take a completely objective view of the investigation.  Indeed, his approach brings into question his usefulness as an investigating officer.

The conclusions which Pike arrived at were not of such substance as to justify his releasing the reports.  Pike based his action on two reports.  He knew that the investigation was continuing.  He also knew or expected that charges were going to be laid against Dr. Farrell.  After all, that was the message which he apparently wanted to pass to the Premier.

Throughout the period leading up to the laying of charges against Dr. Farrell on October 16th, 1978 there was emphasis placed on what appeared to be unwarranted delay in the laying of the charges. In any given case, the answer to the question of whether there is delay depends upon that particular case and upon such variable factors as the nature of the alleged offence, the existence and extent of the evidence which shows that an offence was committed, the existence and extent of the evidence which indicates the perpetrator. The law officers of the Crown who are responsible for conducting a prosecution must go beyond the question of whether they can establish a prime facie case.  They must consider whether they can show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Belief in the guilt of an accused is one thing.  Proving it beyond a reasonable doubt' is another.  Therein lies a difference between the attitudes which police investigators and crown prosecutors may adopt.

There is no doubt that criminal investigations should be concluded as quickly as possible and charges should be laid without delay, but the prosecutor must be concerned with proof that will meet the tests applied under the rules of evidence and of criminal procedure.  In the investigation of the Elizabeth Towers fire, the Crown officers, who had a better perspective than Pike could have, who were more competent professionally to assess the evidence from the point of view of laying charges, considered that there were matters not dealt with adequately in the first two reports.  They sought and received two further reports and then laid a charge against Dr. Farrell.

Pike had no real grounds for concluding that charges would not be laid against Dr. Farrell,  He did not produce any evidence of substance that would support his conclusion beyond the casual conversation which he had with Kelly.  In reality, Macaulay, as I have already shown, indicated on or about July 3lst that he wanted to lay charges against Dr. Farrell.  That suggests to me that in the Department of Justice there was a wish to get on with the matter rather than to procrastinate. In this regard I must note that in answer to a direct question Macaulay stated at the Enquiry that the Minister of Justice had not interfered with the work of the Departmental officers dealing with the investigation, that there had not been any political interference.

There was no evidence that any attempt was made to protect Dr. Farrell from prosecution.  Pike's allegation that there was a "cover-up" was a product of his own imagination and suspicions.  There was no justification for his releasing the police reports to William Rowe or to any other person.

If there was no justification for Pike's actions there was still less for those of William Rowe.  He was dissatisfied with what appeared to be delays in the completion of the investigation and with the absence of any prosecutions.  He had concluded that the investigation might go on and on but that nothing would ever develop from it, that there would never be any prosecution.  He had no solid foundation for that conclusion and no substantive evidence.  As in the case of Pike's conclusions, they did not coincide with what was actually happening behind the scenes, that is, that the Deputy Minister of Justice had been pressing to bring the investigation to the point where charges might be laid,  Rowe seems to have allowed himself to become the victim of rumour or speculation, For example, at one point in his evidence he said:

"... Talking to people casually around, the impression that I arrived at was that there was going to be an on-going investigation forever and ever and ever in the case."

As a person in public life, he should have been sensitive to the fact that others will exaggerate descriptions of what public figures do, that there is a popular belief that prominant [sic] citizens are above the law.  Added to that, he recognized that Pike, who alleged that a "cover-up" was going on, was visibly disturbed when they met.  From his description of Pike's condition, which I have already related, he should certainly have been put on his caution and should not have jeopardized his own reputation by dealing with Pike as he did.  No matter how William Rowe may attempt to justify his conduct in accepting and releasing the reports he did not provide any grounds on which to justify his conduct.

I am not ignoring the concern which Rowe expressed about the safety of tenants in the Elizabeth Towers Apartments.  I would not for one moment doubt that concern.  Indeed, I would go beyond expressing concern about the origin of one fire and I would want to go further than simply wanting to know who, if anybody, caused it.

A fire in any building occupied by a large number of tenants raises many questions which can go to such basic considerations as design and materials used. To what extent have fire resistant materials been used?
Can the spread of fire or smoke or both be controlled or diminished?  What alarm systems exist?  What emergency exits are there?  What fire fighting equipment is on the premises?  Do residents know what to do in the event of fire or an alarm of fire?  What security is maintained on the building? How efficiently can municipal fire fighters work in dealing with a fire?  I am not suggesting that the answers to these and other possible questions would reflect poorly on the operation of the Elizabeth Towers but I do say that anxiety arising out of the fire on April 26th, 1978 should extend to those concerns if any investigation is to be of greatest benefit to the residents.  Indeed, a complete investigation directed at such questions as those I have raised may result in improvements in safety features in the building in question and in the construction and use of other buildings as well.

Related to the question of justification is one other direction given to me by paragraph (l)(c) of my Terms of Reference.  It requires me to enquire into and report upon what should have been done with copies of the reports by those into whose possession they came and what action, if any, should be taken against them.
When the reports were released the investigation into the fire had not been completed, notwithstanding any opinion which Pike may have had to the contrary. At the same time, it was likely that a criminal charge would be laid against Dr. Farrell.

While a suspected crime is being investigated the information which the police have gathered should be treated as confidential in the interest of the investigation itself and in the interest of suspects. Improper release of information could alert a suspect, enabling him to tamper with evidence or to provide himself with a defence or otherwise frustrate the investigation.  Conversely, release of information from an incompleted investigation could implicate a suspect who might later in the investigation be shown to be innocent.  As a matter of fact, in the investigation of the Elisabeth Towers fire it appears that there was one person who was suspected of some involvement but who was cleared of suspicion during the investigation.

When a role is changed, so that a suspect becomes an accused, he should then know what case he has to answer at his trial.  If he has an election and elects to be tried by a judge sitting with a jury, his right to a fair trial should not be prejudiced by the release of information which might not be admissible as evidence at his trial.  In other words, he should not be pre-judged by public opinion.  He is entitled to a trial by a jury whose members have not already been influenced by what they have heard or read in news reports.  There is today a great deal of emphasis on "the right to know" but the right to a fair trial is equally great, if not greater, for it deals with liberty of the subject.  Insofar as a trial is concerned, the "right to know" is recognized in the requirements that trials be public.

In the release of the reports of the Elizabeth Towers investigation, Pike conducted himself in a manner unbecoming to a member of a police force. He was reduced in rank from a detective sergeant to a patrol sergeant, with a consequent reduction in the rate of salary.  He considered that he was "severely punished", to use his own description of the consequences of his actions, but in my view he was treated leniently. His conduct would have justified dismissal.

Only one factor would influence my view as to the action which should have been taken against Pike, and that is the fact that at the present time no penalties appear to exist which could be imposed on William Rowe who caused the reports to be distributed. Pike's conduct was inexcusable but Rowe's conduct was equally inexcusable.  When he received the reports from Pike he should have turned them over to the Chief of Police, as some of the news editors did. If he was not prepared to do that, the least he might have done was point out to Pike the impropriety of what he was doing and refuse to accept the reports.

I refrain from commenting further on what action, if any, might be taken insofar as publication of the reports or any portion of them is concerned because I understand that civil actions may be pending in respect of some of those to whom information was given.

Next - Recommendations

-srbp-

Acting alive will doom Liberals: Harper

In the latest twist in the ongoing election speculation from Ottawa, Conservative Party leader says any Liberal who breathes, twitches, emits any identifiable brainwaves or otherwise acts in a living manner will trigger an election. He said that despite the fact Canadians elected Paul Martin's Liberal party as the national government, only the Conservative Opposition can hijack the operations of government and hold up legislation in the midst of needless election worrying.

Ok. I exaggerate.

But only just a bit.

Looking at the Globe this morning, I can see why Stephen Harper is upset at the Liberal government for re-scheduling the so-called Opposition day in the Commons this week.

But Stephan Harper, the elitist, is quickly discovering that the world does not dance to his tune and his tune alone. In fact, there are some legitimate parliamentary moves the Liberals have to frustrate Harper's efforts to become prime minister without really earning the job.

"If they want to try and govern without giving the opposition a democratic vote week after week after week, I think they are just signing their own death warrant," [Harper] said [in the Globe and Mail story.]

Any time a bill is brought before the House this week, next week, any week, the opposition parties get to vote on it as democratically as possible. In fact, there may well be a couple of opportunities to bring down the government before the Conservatives preferred time-table date of mid-May.

Look at Harper's language though: death warrant. Politicians don't just toss out words by accident. Leaders like Harper pick them. They get fed sound bites - phrases written by someone else and designed to appeal to specific audiences.

So there's Harper and his death warrant. That's the death warrant he's liked to wave these past few weeks as if Harper and Harper alone could execute Paul Martin for unspecified and unproven crimes, political and otherwise. Judge, Jury and Executioner Stephen Harper relishing his self-appointed status.

One of the many problems for Harper, of course is the fundamental clash between what he said about bringing down the government and the intentions that are obviously bringing out the nasty streak in him. Harper said he wouldn't vote non-confidence in the government until the public said they wanted a change. Every single recent poll says Canadians don't want an election by an overwhelming margin. Yet, Harper keeps waving around his death warrant for Martin.

Oh yes, and in a move reminiscent of his arrogance from the last federal election, Harper also has pulled together a transition team to help him take power in Ottawa.

Here's a clue, Stevie, it's our money, just like Preston Manning used to have to remind you every time you whined about having to explain your brilliant economic theories to the great unwashed out here.

and in the same way it is our call, not yours on who gets to be the next Prime Minister.

When Canadians want an election, they'll let you know loudly and clearly.

In the meantime, take off the hood, tell Mackay to put away his axe and get those back-room guys to stop building a scaffold.

Get down to the business of parliament.

And fire the idiot who fed you the line about death warrants.