TDIH: "Quebec paper reports Lower Churchill agreement" #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Two decades ago, there was talk of a deal to develop not one, not two, but three dams in Labrador.

The story broke in a Quebec newspaper,  Le soleil,  on February 19 and the next day the Telegram did a front pager written by business editor Chris Flanagan.

"The big bonus for Newfoundland from a deal to develop the Lower Churchill is not simply cheaper electricity and a transmission line from Quebec,"  Flanagan wrote, "but an opportunity to send natural gas-generated power the other way, says a Quebec journalist with high level sources in both provinces."

"The Newfoundland government has done studies examining the potential of bringing ashore natural gas from Hibernia and other sites on the Grand Banks, using it to produce electricity and selling it on the North American grid, said Michel Vastel, a veteran political correspondent and business writer with the Quebec newspaper, Le Soleil."

Vastel told The Telegram his sources were in both provinces and that the provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador had studies supporting development of offshore natural gas. 

"In his 'briefings,' from high-level sources, Vastel said reports have estimated Newfoundland's average rate will increase 30 per cent over the next 20 years -- an increase that won't happen if the Lower Churchill goes ahead."

The idea had its critics.  "Stan Marshall, the president and CEO of Fortis Inc., which owns Newfoundland Power, has said a transmission line to St. John's makes no economic sense.

Here are some key details of the deal that never was:

• "...Newfoundland will receive approximately 800 megawatts, Labrador 200 and Quebec 2,100 from the Lower Churchill. Construction of the project will create 12,000 person-years of employment and power is expected to be on the grid by 2007."
• "The Lower Churchill hydroelectric project consists of Gull Island, with a generating capacity of 2,264 megawatts, Muskrat Falls, at 824 megawatts and Upper Lobstick, at 160 megawatts for a total of 3,238 megawatts. The cost of the project, including transmission lines, is estimated at $12 billion."

In the talks actually announced in early March 1998,  the two provinces set aside $20 million to study Muskrat Falls and focused instead on expanding Churchill Falls and building Gull Island.

20 years later we got one tiny dam and big transmission line for that.

The Telegram included a cost of the transmission line from Labrador:  "According to several news reports, the Churchill-to-St. John's transmission line -- including an underwater component across the Straits -- would cost about $2 billion, and is to be financed by Ottawa."

"The federal government's major benefit would come from reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that will go a long way to helping Canada reach emission targets established at the 1997 Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan."

-srbp-

Get the message: get a grip #nlpoli

Two former Premiers sent a very pointed message to Premier Dwight Ball this week about the way Ball has been handling the provincial government’s massive deficit problem.

Brian Tobin was in St. John’s to present a cheque on behalf of the Bank of Montreal to the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Great War. Tobin said people need to understood that the current cabinet felt a problem far worse than any other in the province’s history.  people need to pull together, but for Ball personally, Tobin said that while it was best to be consistent and right, if you had to pick between the two, it was better to be right.  “Do the right thing,”  said Tobin.

Grimes did media interviews on Wednesday in addition to offering a guest post at SRBP.  He told Ball that it was important to put everything on the table.  Grimes specifically cited Muskrat Falls, with the billions in borrowing to finish the project, as well as energy marketing and offshore oil equity stakes.

Other campaign music: Brian Tobin

Popular music is something of a fixture in political campaigns, both fictional and real.

“You are my sunshine” and “Man of constant sorrow” turn up in O brother, where art thou? during a Pappy O’Daniel’s campaign.  Franklyn Roosevelt used “Happy days are here again.”  Harry Truman naturally liked “I’m just wild about Harry.”

Closer to home, there was a tiny bit of comment about the use of popular music by local campaigns.  Kathy Dunderdale entered her coronation to a song by Alecia Moore – Pink – that featured the lyrics:

I got lot of style, check my gold diamond rings
I can go for miles if you know what I mean

and

I'll be burnin' rubber, you'll be kissin' my ass
Pull up to the bumper, get out of the car
License plate says Stunner #1 Superstar

This past weekend, the Liberal organizers decided to use Trooper’s “Raise a little hell” as the music for Yvonne Jones’ walk-in music.

So that got your humble e-scribbler to a thinkin’ back to other songs that might have been used by political campaigns.

What better place to start than with a song that seemed to sum up former Premier Brian Tobin’s tenure but that was, of course, never used?  The Tobinator never seemed to settle into the province.  From the day he came back in early 1996, his attention always seemed to be replacing Jean Chretien down the road a piece. Tobin freaked out at anyone who suggested things weren’t great during his reign. it seemed that he wanted desperately to have a successful term as Premier to use as a notch on the old resume if he ever tried to move into 24 Sussex.

And when Tobin kept his federal leadership fund-raising going and called a second general election only a couple of years, it seemed like he never let the family unpack the moving boxes.  You know.  Because he could never be sure just when he’d have to leave suddenly and go back to where his heart really lay.

Which is of course what he did in October 2000.  Only Danny Williams – Brian seems like a test drive for Williams’ style in hindsight - left office in a more unseemly haste.

All of that is why it seemed Tobin should have used another Trooper song as his theme:  after all he was here for a good time, not a long time.

- srbp -

Aboriginal land claims remain substantial barrier to Williams’ legacy plan

Innu leader Joseph Roche may have been at the news conference announcing something or other about Muskrat Falls but, as he told the invite-only audience, the whole thing isn’t going anywhere until the Innu land claims issues are settled.

"One of the key outstanding issues now is the consent of our Innu people," Riche said.

"But we cannot do that yet, we need the federal government to resolve outstanding issues for our land rights agreement … it has been thirty years in the making and we have lost many of our elders and leaders in that time. Without this, the Lower Churchill project can not proceed." [cbc.ca/nl]

Riche was one of the invitees and the provincial government distributed a backgrounder on Innu issues.  But, as Premier Danny Williams knows already, the New Dawn agreement is stone cold dead. Riche reportedly put a damper on the excitement at the hotel news conference when he reminded people this thing wasn’t close to being a deal as far as Innu were concerned.

Chief Riche was talking about issues with the federal government, a key player the provincial government left out of the talks to this point.  That’s just one of the problems.  There is a substantial opposition within the Innu community to the project self and they aren’t interested in seeking anything happen on the river, period, full-stop, end of story, do-not-pass go and forget about the two hundred bucks.

And for those who missed it, someone seems to think that by selecting Muskrat falls as the first site, that will outflank the Innu opposition.  Elizabeth Penashue’s annual walk to Gull island doesn’t mean that Muskrat Falls isn’t as important.

The Innu aren’t the only aboriginal group with a claim that needs attention.

So far the provincial government has ignored the Metis of Labrador even though the Lower Churchill dams would be within the Metis claim area.  What’s worse for Williams is that the Metis are still smarting over his broken election promise from 2003 or his comment in 2009 that the project needed the Innu but not the Metis.

Other Premiers have long under-estimated the challenges of aboriginal land claims issues.  At the time he announced a memorandum of understanding to do way more that Danny Williams proposed, Premier Brian Tobin boasted he could finish a land claims deal with the Innu in 12 weeks.

That was 12 years ago. 

And Tobin’s proposal had a far more substantial basis for agreement than a terms sheet.

- srbp -

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

“How dare you complain about it?”

Not surprisingly, the latest of Danny Williams public attacks against any contrary voices is stirring further revelations.

The biggest news this week was Williams verbal assault on talk show host Randy Simms for suggesting that maybe some other issues in the province – like the faltering fishery – needed some urgent attention.

Apparently, it wasn’t the only testy exchange between the two.  Williams took a snotty tone with Simms during an exchange the week before over government’s role in a botched April announcement on breast cancer testing.

A caller to an open-line show Wednesday afternoon identified only as “Kevin” described his own experience with the political rant from a government member of the House of Assembly.

His crime?

Daring to voice an opinion in a local newspaper.

You’ll find the whole thing over at Geoff Meeker’s blog at the Telegram.

Farther down the post there’s a reference to Tom Marshall, minister of justice, who weighed in to support Williams in his tirade.  Marshall – who is widely respected as knowledgeable and decent – sometimes winds up in these sorry positions defending his boss.

In late 2007 former Tory Premier Brian Peckford was on the receiving end of a Marshall scolding. 

Curiously enough – in light of Randy Simms comments -  Peckford had dared to suggest that perhaps the provincial government was too focused on oil and that other issues deserved greater attention. Peckford’s was a sensible and reasonable presentation.

Marshall’s on the other hand, was  - uncharacteristically for him - a pile of misrepresentations and mindless Leader worship.  It included this dig which Peckford certainly did not deserve:

And for him to say that we're focusing exclusively on oil and gas would be the same as saying that when he was office he focused exclusively on growing cucumbers, and we all know that's not true. But it's an asinine comment to make and he has to be held to account for it.

Marshall was right, except that the asinine comments were his. And on another level Marshall can be forgiven since he did help put Danny Williams in the job.  Marshall was Williams’ west coast chair for the Tory leadership coronation in 2000-2001.

Marshall defends Williams in the most recent case by saying that if “you are against this province then he – and rightly so – is going to be your worst enemy.”

The only problem with that is that none of the people who have felt Williams’ wrath, like say Randy Simms, could even vaguely be considered to be “against this province.”

To make the point let’s leave aside the politicians.  Let’s forget Loyola Hearn, the guy who Williams supported for premier in the 1989 race to replace Peckford as Tory leader.  Let’s even forget that Hearn returned the favour and helped organize Williams’ campaign in 2000.

Let’s forget Norm Doyle and Fabian Manning.  Let’s leave aside John Efford, Roger grimes and basically any politician before Williams irrespective of party who has been dismissed as perpetrating give-aways.

Let’s just look at the ordinary people who wind up on the receiving end of a “crap” comment:

• Mark Griffin, a lawyer from Corner Brook was accused of betraying the province when he commented on concerns in central Newfoundland after the closure of the AbitibiBowater mill.
• From the Gulf News in 2008 during the Memorial University fiasco:

‘However, the most disturbing conclusion of all in this wretchedly pathetic display of political arrogance, is that we now know we have a government with a paranoid determination to control.

Premier Williams has been known to personally call editors and letter writers who offer criticism of him and his government's decisions.

While his stated aim is to "set the record straight" the tactic probably leaves ordinary letter-writing citizens with the sense of "better be careful what you say because He is watching."

This government, quite simply, likes to control the message.

It also likes to attempt to control public debate and opinion.’

• Craig Westcott (The Newfoundland Post) and David Cochrane (CBC Provincial Affairs reporters) have both been cut off from interview opportunities with the Premier, the latter for only a short period but the former on permanent “ignore”.
• Ryan Cleary and the crew at the Independent who fell from grace and then garnered gobs of provincial advertising cash only after they slacked off their government reporting.  [Why exactly did Ivan Morgan stop writing about Danny? – ed.]
• Max Ruelokke, head of the province’s offshore regulatory board whose only “crime” was to win two merit based competitions against Williams’ preferred candidate.
• The judge in Ruelokke v. the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador who weighed the evidence and found in favour of Max Ruelokke getting the job, calling government’s actions “callous” as he did so.
• Madam Justice Margaret Cameron, who commented negatively on the curious amnesia afflicting some of the witnesses at an inquiry into one of the province’s most serious health scandals.
• Joyce Hancock, formerly head of the province’s status of women council, who expressed concern over a series of issues surrounding women in the senior public service.
• NASA, for launching a Titan 4B booster as they have done for decades.  [Okay that one wasn’t a direct attack but it was a totally loopy, beyond-all-reason, panic-attacky tirade of silly proportions.]

And that’s just the bigger ones that have actually made into some of the local media.  There are at least two more your humble e-scribbler can relate involving reporters.  There are more to come, undoubtedly as people shrug off the fear.

Williams complaints the day after the Randy meltdown certainly followed in the same vein.  As with the clash with Simms over health care, Williams is evidently highly frustrated at news stories which convey something other than the manufactured image from his publicity machine and the scripted comments of his open line callers and online anonymous army. 

Voicing that frustration won’t make the stories go away.  If anything, the resurgent CBC Here and Now, for example, the source of Williams’ annoyance over health care will just keep piling on the accurate stories of problems here and there in the administration. 

This is the normal course of things for any government and any politician.  This is what news organizations do.  To complain about it is to complain about dogs barking. 

Williams has been lucky thus far to have had a relatively free ride and precious little serious criticism until recently.  Still, he has liked to complain from the start about the media and public attention.  He complained bitterly about attention paid to the lengthy process of getting his private business affairs into a blind trust.  Anyone recall the silliness about his being reduced to living on an allowance from the trustees?  

The better part of a decade after he got into politics, the guy who says he has a thick skin, actually demonstrates time and again that he doesn’t.  He needs to get over it and himself.  Williams garnered more, negative media attention for himself over the racket with Randy than he any positive coverage with what should have been a triumphant day of news about another offshore deal.

before leaving this whole issue of childishness, thin skins, and all the rest,  we shouldn’t forget another Premier of a decade or so ago who was fond of expressing his displeasure with people who dared contradict him. 

One story involved a very prominent local business leader and a disagreement over hydro development or some such.  The comments came in a very public way at Marble Mountain.  Another involved a local editor and accusations that the editor’s insufficient endowment were the driving force behind his writing.  As the story goes, the line was something like the only reason you are taking me on is because you have a small dick.

The impact of that sort of childish behaviour wasn’t readily apparent since Newfoundland and Labrador is a small community used to suppressing open confrontation.  Still, the opinions do get expressed. 

Nasty - and false - rumours circulate, whispered from one to another with glee.  Even those stories relayed above  may have been embellished, with time, as they made it to your humble e-scribbler.  At a certain point, their veracity is not as important as the fact they get circulated with great vigour in the community, not in the news media, but over the dinner table and on the links.

The mighty will be humbled if they go too far.

And humbled that one was on the day he left federal politics.  There were no soft questions at all and no one was concerned about his legacy after a long career in public service.  Every reporter in the hastily called news conference took turns to slam Brian Tobin with every hard question they had about his departure.  They’d been saving stuff up, as it seemed, and on that day, they used it.

Voters used the frustration they’d saved up as well, in a couple of districts, in a by-election not long after.  They humbled the people from the same party who carried on after the Big Guy had left the scene.  The sins of the Father, as it were.

People made a change and they changed for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which was a desire to get right of the behaviour of the crowd that they had before.

How quickly some people forget.

-srbp-

Nurses, government do the power dance

First, government tried threatening the nurses with an imposed settlement and back-to-work legislation in hopes of frightening them off their strike vote.

Then, when that didn’t work, they tried to lure them back to the table now with a significant change of position.

Then, when the nurses didn’t cancel their strike vote and return to the bargaining table immediately, the Premier and finance minister said they were disappointed the nurses’ didn’t accept the government’s olive branch. The even tried to bring up the financial scare issue of the looming deficit.

There are a few of things to bear in mind:

1. Nurses accepted the olive branch.  They just are going back to the bargaining table with a strike mandate in their back pocket, not when the Premier and finance minister would like.
2. It’s polling season.  Don’t under-estimate that timing issue as a motivating factor for an administration that spends an inordinate amount of time massaging polls. The provincial government had plenty of time to deal with this issue before now.  Their panic at having the government pollster in the field while the nurses carry on a strike vote isn’t a reason for the nurses to simply stop everything.
3. What happened to the bubble?  Before Christmas everything was rosy according to the Premier, finance minister and the government’s favourite economist.  Bond Papers readers knew better. It seems a little disingenuous for government to be singing the deficit tune now.
4. Back to the table now interrupts the strike vote.  The Premier and finance minister – both experienced lawyers – know that if the nurses interrupt their strike vote now, they’d have to start from scratch later on.  That would give government an additional six weeks or more if talks failed this time. Nurses lose by going back to the table prematurely so they aren’t likely to do it. Claiming they aren’t interested in talks sounds a little precious  - even desperate - at this point.
5. Did you hear the eyelids slamming shut?  Government’s tactics in dealing with the nurses have been clumsy, to put it mildly.  Jerome’s year-end deadline passed as if it was nothing.  His threat to legislate vanished this week.  It’s hard for the nurses to feel any sympathy for the provincial government when it has stuck to its hard line all this time.  It’s harder again for nurses to take government seriously when they first of all make threats and then don’t carry them out.  This week nurses heard Jerome Kennedy’s eyelids slamming shut as he blinked, big time.  That may not have been his intention but that’s what nurses saw. No on is surprised they are carrying on with their strategy;  it seems to be working just as government’s obviously isn’t.
6. Bad jokes don’t help.  Danny Williams didn’t help matters with his widely reported, cheesy joke about not wanting to get sick and have to face the province’s nurses in a hospital. He needs to throw away the guide to public speaking and joke telling Roger Grimes left him.  That’s tongue in cheek, by the way.  Williams lambasted Grimes for telling an off colour joke when Grimes spoke to American bankers a few years ago.   The little jest at nurses expense delivered to an audience at a national conference in St. John’s is every bit as bad or worse.

This might turn out to be the most interesting year in recent memory.  The provincial government may have finally found a group that can’t be bullied or intimidated or even fooled for that matter.

The Premier should call up his predecessor and get some better advice.  Brian Tobin tackled the nurses and didn’t come out of it all that well off.  And Danny Williams and his wannabe replacement Jerome Kennedy should remember:  nurses won’t forget.

-srbp-

Quietly Conservative

Over at the Telly, the weekend and holidays crew is writing headlines designed to arouse the irk of the nationalist fringe.

Either that or they didn't notice it's not just the apparent mainlander quoted by Canadian Press as dismissing the Anything But What It Seems campaign.

At least one of the people from Newfoundland and Labrador isn't impressed by the Premier's bout of high dudgeon and he's not a political science professor somewhat removed from reality, err, the front lines of political organizing.

Liam O'Brien points out the bleeding obvious, the so-bleeding-obvious that Memorial University political science professor Steve Tomblin missed it entirely. Sayeth Liam:

“It’s the strangest thing. It takes me back to my Catholic days when you go to confession. We’re getting these people walking up and whispering to us, ‘I’m a provincial Progressive Conservative, but I’m also a federal Conservative,”’ he said.

“They (Tory voters) don’t need to scream it out loud, they just need to mark their X on the ballot.”

That's pretty much what they did in 2004, the last time the provincial Conservative leader had a bit of a disagreement with his federal brother.

Comparing the 2004 and 2006 vote counts shows some slight suppression of turnout in the St. John's area ridings and a slight drop in federal Connie vote. But once the provincial Connies were given dispensation to work for the federal crowd, the numbers moved back up.

Overall though, the population continued its usual pattern of voting anything but Conservative. That's what they've done in almost every election since 1949. And when they didn't do it, as in the late 1960s, the vote was driven almost entirely by their dissatisfaction with the provincial Premier of the day.

Like say 1997, when the locals were so rotted with the provincial government and Brian Tobin (Lloyd Matthews, father of Danny's Liz as health minister) over health care, that they bucked the trend and turned out a bunch of Connies even in formerly safe Liberal seats.

Poof.

Times change.

The irk subsides.

Every sign that voters are going back to their usual voting patterns not just here but across Atlantic Canada.
Up pops young Mr. Tobin to proclaim that he is leaving the premier's job behind and heading back to Ottawa - notwithstanding his promise of just a few months earlier he'd finish the full second term - to lead a joyous crusade for something or other and set it as his personal mission to restore Liberal seats in Atlantic Canada.

Restore Liberal seats.

When the polls showed voting patterns returning to the historic norms and seats which had gone Connie or Dipper in 1997 would be returning to the Gritty crew.

And some less than observant observers vowed it would be possible what given that young Mr. Tobin was wildly popular, a brilliant political strategist and able to walk on water, heal the sick and turn water into Jockey Club at the drop of a hat.

Miraculous lad, that young Brian, said all the sayers of sooth.

Had a bit of trouble with the fishes, though, but other than that a wonderful popular fellow who at no point had an ulterior political motive like say becoming prime minister. Pay no attention to that guy behind the curtain holding fund-raisers.

He's just going back to Ottawa on a mission for the people and he will produce a voting miracle.

But you see the pattern, right?

Predict something that usually happens and the rubes will think you are a genius.

It's the stuff of a late-night infomercial by The Amazing Ruth and her Psychic Bunions.

It does point out the weakness in all the drivel about Danny being pissed because Steve fooled him and so now Danny is going to make Steve pay by campaigning against him.

That weakness being the lack of tangible evidence the Provincial Conservative will have any sway with voters anywhere at all, including locally when it comes to federal politics.

'Cause, as Liam points out, in the secret ballot box where even the dogsbodies sniffing out the unfaithful for their master cannot go, there's no way of knowing what a given person does in the secrecy of the ballot box.
That little reality would be galling if that's what the dogsbodies' master really had as his political goal in the Anything But Reality campaign.

Not everything is as it appears, even on a Blackberry screen.

-srbp-

 

Eats, shoots and leaves update: 

There are typos. 

Untied instead of united?  That's a typographical error in which letters are tapped out of sequence.

Then there are spelling problems.  Typing sediment when you meant sentiment.  Or tudor when you meant tutor.

No matter how you try and explain those, there is no way that those misuses of words are a function of fingers hitting the wrong keys.

Then, there are problems with punctuation.

Turns out that the headline on the story linked above is the original Canadian Press headline.

Almost.

The CP version had a colon between the word "Ontario" and the word "commentator".  The colon suggests that the words before it are a paraphrase of a comment made by the commentator.

In this instance, there's a slight difference to the two headlines given the punctuation variation.

The Telly headline suggests that the commentator from Ontario isn't impressed.  That's true, if you read the story, but the CP version gives the sense of the comments in the story story, namely that voters in Ontario won't be impressed.

All of this may only bother a handful, but when you are trying to communicate an idea clearly, everything from spelling to punctuation to verb tense to getting the words in the right order can affect what idea the reader sees.

For those who are troubled by punctuation, for those who do not know the difference between a colon and a semi-colon, there is help:

Your humble e-scribbler has looked for this book in a local bookshop for some time now.  The heavens aligned recently and delivered it at a second-hand bookstore in Mount Pearl, in pristine condition and for only a handful of bucks.

Lynne Truss gives a master class in punctuation using simple sentences and plenty of humour.

What more could you ask for?

Williams lowers expectations for Lower Churchill...again

In an interview with The Telegram, Premier Danny Williams admits there are considerable hurdles to overcome in developing the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project. The story isn't available online.  [Amended;  by request, we've removed the article from the post. If it turns up online, we'll supply a link.]

Williams repeated his January estimate that the chances of the project going ahead are 50/50.

"Well, at best that would be late 2009," said Williams. "We're going through the environmental process. We're attempting to reach agreement with the Labrador Innu. I'm optimistic that can happen. (Then we'll
decide) what the nature of the project will be and get the financials in place and be ready to rock'n'roll."

Take that statement as being an admission the project is unlikely to proceed at all. The crucial element is project financing. If that isn't even being reviewed until 2009 - at the earliest - then it's a well as saying the project is not happening in the near future.

In the interview Williams exaggerates the development issues, referring to them as hurdles, and claiming that the hurdles are larger than on other mega-projects either under development or under consideration in the province. The other projects are all private sector ones.

The development issues aren't larger.

It all boils down to markets for the power and financing to make it happen.

In 2005, Williams rejected a joint project with Ontario and Quebec which would have seen both provinces purchase the power and assist in the financing and construction.

Williams rejected the proposal without explanation, inserting instead a so-called "go-it-alone" option which had not be evaluated by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or government officials before it was publicly announced. However, even in announcing his own idea of having the provincial government build project on its own, he left the door open to equity partners.

Shortly after he went to the federal government looking for a loan guarantee, still insisting the provincial government would build the Lower Churchill project - estimated to cost between $6.0 and $9.0 billion - on its own.

Despite receiving no such commitment from Stephen Harper, Williams insisted Harper promised a loan guarantee and used it as part of his political feud with his fellow Conservative first minister.

Williams has announced only two potential customers for Lower Churchill power. The State of Rhode Island and Nova Scotia's Emera have signed separate memoranda of understanding committing to explore the possibility of purchasing Lower Churchill power.

Beyond that, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has had no serious discussions with potential external customers for the project's estimated 2800 megawatts. Even the plan to sell power to eastern Newfoundland - covering at least $2.0 billion of the total project cost - is contingent on the project going forward. That idea, floated by natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale just before last fall's provincial election seemed to confuse the radio host interviewing her at the time since she insisted the plan wouldn't increase electrical power rates on the Avalon peninsula.

The Lower Churchill project figured prominently in several campaign announcements both during last year's Summer of Love pre-election spending spree and in the energy plan campaign prop.

There are some factual errors in the Peter Walsh story. The Wells administration came close to a deal on the Lower Churchill in the early 1990s, however political issues at the time and changed economic circumstances scuttled the negotiations.

Brian Tobin used development on Churchill River as the start of a re-election campaign he started in 1998. Ultimately none of his promised development occurred.

Roger Grimes had a tentative deal to develop the Lower Churchill but it was scuttled by political opposition within his own caucus and cabinet, heightened by the dramatic resignation of Hydro chairman and Williams associate Dean Macdonald from the Hydro board.

Walsh also repeats a claim that the 1969 Churchill Falls deal has produced $19 billion in revenue for Hydro Quebec versus $1.0 billion for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Those figures are not substantiated by any factual analysis. It is, however, a popular myth.

-srbp-

News by Chip

VOCM has been getting a toasting from a few people lately for its questionable editorial choices, especially when it comes to the current provincial administration.

Well, truth be told the favourable coverage of the puissance du jour started a long while ago but really reached full bloom under Brian Tobin. That's when it came to be known as Voice of the Cabinet Minister.

And boy, that name really applies when you see a news organization repeat almost verbatim the fawning, self-congratulatory spin - i.e. bullshit - of a cabinet minister at the centre of a major breach of personal security by a government agency and with it the violation of a brand new privacy act.

Only in Newfoundland and Labrador would a news organization side with the power of the day in a case where said power:

a. Had a complete breakdown of its computer security.

b. Again.

c. For the second time in three months.

d. And sat on the information for three full days.

e. and even at that point (now almost a week later), still has no idea what exactly happened, how long it was going on and how much information on how many people was involved.

No matter how bad the cock-up, no fear. VOCM will always tell you exactly what the provincial government wants you to know.

And when it comes to stories they get first that cast the current administration (whichever it is) in a bad light, well, they'll avoid it like the plague.

VOCM: Who cares about the common man?

Update; A couple of e-mails raised issues with two aspects of this post.

The first one is simple: the Chip in the title is the Kevin Bacon character in Animal House who ran around insisting all was well in the middle of a riot. it seemed an apt analogy since the basic thrust of the provincial government's message here is that everything is fine and there is a problem, but a really not so important one. After all, "appropriate" measures had been taken. Oh yeah, after the fact but the measures were "appropriate".

The second was with the word "complete" as in complete breakdown of computer security. At this point, we have no idea of the extent of the security breach. But frankly, when it comes to security, the issue is never about the 99% of the system that wasn't involved but the 1% - using arbitrary numbers - that was.

Security is a bit like virginity or pregnancy. You can't be mostly unpregnant any more than you can be a partial virgin.

If there was a breach - and there undeniably was - then the system failed.

To take it a step beyond that, the focus of government's comment and the consequent public comment is that this is seen as an information technology issue. Government computers are secure, as we are told, since the IT people have taken measures to ensure that particular software can't be loaded to government computers.

That's not really the point, though.

Information security is a system, a culture that involves not only the hardware and software but also the attitudes and behaviour of people using the computers and programs.

Take a look at The Breach Blog (breachblog.com) and you'll get a better feel for the issue and the ideas. Information security encompasses a whole range of issues beyond just hardware and software. Scroll the posts at Breach Blog and you can also see the extent of the security issue across the developed world.

Stolen laptops. Unencrypted data. Missing hard drives and flash drives.

Even in the case where a laptop has encrypted data, putting the laptop in a place where it can be stolen suggests a certain laxness (laxity?) in personal habits of the people using the laptops.

Your humble e-scribbler has been involved in information security a number of ways over the years and information security is an integral part of day-to-day business. There are all sorts of the hardware and software methods to secure information from both unintentional disclosure and from possible prying eyes. There's also a segregation of information such that confidential information isn't stored where it might be accessed. Flash drives are routinely cleared of files and each one is kept under close custody.

One client kept apologizing for the security procedures they used internally which included incidentally, keeping physical control over individual movements within the office suite when outside consultants were in the suite. Going to the bathroom required notification, permission and escort. Flash drives were surrendered and scanned on entry and exit to ensure only those files that were authorized came and went.

The Government of Canada has a fairly extensive information security (InfoSec) program that applies throughout government and to contractors. In an increasing number of cases, outside contractors must clear a security screen, including an assessment of security processes and procedures at the contractor's work site.

The responsibility for security is established at the outset:

Departments are responsible for protecting sensitive information and assets under their control according to the Security policy and its operational standards. This responsibility applies to all phases of the contracting process, including bidding, negotiating, awarding, performance and termination of contracts, as well as to internal government operations.

Whether a contract is within or outside a department's delegated contracting responsibilities, the department is responsible for identifying sensitive information and assets warranting safeguards.

Part of the InfoSec issue with the provincial government is related to its overall attitude toward security. That's not a new issue, but things have definitely not improved lately. How many officials have cleared a federally-recognized security screen? The answer as of two years ago was the same as it always has been: zero. That's why no provincial officials were allow to attend a briefing on the Titan missile launch even though the briefing was only at the Secret level, the second lowest level there is.

Recall Heidigate? In 1997, an official of the Premier's Office obtained confidential pension information on three former members of the House of Assembly and leaked it to local media.

Okay. That's bad enough.

But the public servants responsible for controlling the pension data, all of whom knew of the need for confidentiality and who knew or ought to have known the official had no legal right to access the information, gave up the data based on nothing more than a telephone call from the Premier's Office. If they objected or raised questions, we'll never know. Certainly there were no consequences, beyond the minor political controversy that erupted over it. The whole thing was brushed aside by the Premier of the day based on the youthfulness of the person who asked for information. The tone was set from the top.

You see the point: security is about more than whether or not someone can load MSN Messenger or Limewire on a computer.

It's about attitude, and frankly, when the attorney general's news release on the issue focuses attention everywhere except on the gravity of the security breach in the first place, we can be pretty sure the security attitude hasn't changed much.

-srbp-

Sound familiar?

From a decade ago, a Canadian Press story on Brian Tobin's version of the Lower Churchill:

Labrador's hydroelectric project is fated to be a failure, says analyst

Monday, March 9, 1998
by Michelle MacAfee, Canadian Press

A new hydroelectric project in Labrador would be "economic craziness" for the Newfoundland and Quebec governments, as well as for Ottawa which is being asked to provide up to $2 billion, says a national energy watchdog.

"This deal has the makings of a major financial mistake," said Tom Adams of Energy Probe, a consumer and environmental lobby group.

"It will be generating high-cost power at a time when we are coming into a glut of low-cost power."

Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin meets today with Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard in this small Labrador town to outline how formal negotiations will proceed on a second power project on the Churchill River.

It's believed the negotiations will be framed around a $12-billion development that includes the construction of two dams and a $2-billion, 800-megawatt transmission line to the island portion of Newfoundland. Power would flow by 2007.

A source close to the project said the $12-billion plan will involve a large hydraulic generating station about three-fifths the size of Churchill Falls that will be built downriver closer to Goose Bay.

The source said two additional units will be built, increasing the station by about one-fifth, and some major water diversion dams will be built in Quebec to bring more water into Churchill Falls.

Even with few of the details announced, Adams says such a massive undertaking is simply not feasible given the current market and expectations for the future.

Small, local power stations throughout Quebec, Ontario and the northeastern United States would be able to produce power at about half the cost -- and with less risk of transmission problems -- of their Churchill competitor, Adams said from Toronto.

Newfoundland and Quebec are out of step with international power players, who are trying to reduce their exposure to financial risk, he added.

"They would have to cut their costs by about half to make this deal even start to appear attractive enough to be worth talking about."

Newfoundland Energy Minister Chuck Furey countered that two important external factors helped make this the perfect time for such a mammoth power project:

-- a hydroelectric project the size of the Lower Churchill would push the Canadian government as much as 20 per cent closer to meeting its international commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.

-- the American power market was recently deregulated, which is expected to make the industry more open.

"As you see a displacement of old forms of energy based on new-world realities, the new power entering the marketplace will be received in a very timely, very positive and very competitive way," said Furey.

At the heart of any new deal is the $2-billion transmission line. Among other things, the line would provide power to a nickel smelter expected to be built on the island by Inco.

Tobin has said he is seeking the federal government's help, and a source within the provincial government said today's announcement will include a commitment from Ottawa to at least formally explore the issue.

It could be a tough sell, however.

Some fear Newfoundland could be seen as getting more than its share of federal dollars, since it is also seeking continued aid for unemployed fishermen.

Added to that is a continued reluctance by government to invest in so-called megaprojects.

Adams said such an investment of federal tax dollars would be terrible and unnecessary because the island of Newfoundland has enough power sources without the underwater link.

"If the province was offered $2 billion for a transmission line or $1 billion for schools and hospitals, I'd take the $1 billion because it's worth more in cash than a transmission line," said Adams.

For Newfoundland, no economic study of a Lower Churchill deal would be complete without looking at the mistakes that were made negotiating the first project, located further upstream at Churchill Falls.

Under a deal signed in 1969 that did not include a price-escalation clause, Quebec continues to buy electricity at cheap prices and then sell it at a profit to the United States.

The issue has united Newfoundlanders in fierce patriotism as government after government tried and failed to renegotiate the deal.

Furey said this deal being negotiated must produce "unbalanced benefits" in favor of Newfoundland as compensation.

However, he added that both provincial economies will benefit from job creation and increased revenues.