Equalization fight - the Quebec battleground

Chief Blochead Gilles Duceppe is catching on.

Under a Harper government, Quebec will lose an estimated $3.5 billion in Equalization transfers from Ottawa over five years . La Presse Canadienne (Canadian Press) is reporting Duceppe's comments. The full text follows, en francais.

Now while some local cornerboys commentators will be quick to insist that:

a. this doesn't say anything about Newfoundland and Labrador and therefore is obviously unimportant; and

b. shag the guys in Quebec anyway, any money they lose they deserve to lose...

that just misses the point or actually points.

1. There is an Equalization racket coming under a Harper government, and it likely won't be pretty.

2. Some provinces will be seriously adversely affected by the proposal, like Quebec and New Brunswick.

3. No one has done an assessment of the impact on Newfoundland and Labrador across several scenarios including with the massive Lower Churchill project as the ultimate DIY job.

The last one is important for us. By someone, I mean someone other than Jim Feehan, Wade Locke or the provincial government. The last one just can't be trusted to give the straight goods. The former two have been known to assume a few can-openers for other than economic reasons such that their conclusions are suspect.

Les Québécois perdront plus de 4 milliards $ si Harper est élu, dit Duceppe
La Presse Canadienne
Jan 19, 2006 20:29

Par Lia Lévesque

BROSSARD (PC) _ Le Québec perdra plus de 4 milliards $ si les conservateurs de Stephen Harper sont élus, le 23 janvier, assure le chef du Bloc québécois, Gilles Duceppe.

De passage à Brossard, jeudi soir, dans la circonscription de Brossard-LaPrairie, M. Duceppe a attaqué les conservateurs non seulement sur la question linguistique, comme il l'avait fait plus tôt dans la journée, mais aussi sur l'argent dont sera privé le Québec, dit-il, si les conservateurs sont élus, lundi prochain.

"Tout ce dont on est sûr, avec les conservateurs, c'est que le Québec va perdre plus de 4 milliards $. Pour un départ, je trouve que c'est un drôle de départ; pour une ouverture, je vous dirai que c'est tout une ouverture", s'est-il exclamé devant un auditoire partisan dans un restaurant de Brossard.

Il fonde son calcul sur un document du ministère des Finances du Québec qui évalue que si les revenus issus des ressources naturelles non renouvelables _ comme le pétrole en Alberta _ ne sont plus inclus dans le calcul de la péréquation _ ce qui donne le niveau de richesse de certaines provinces _ , le Québec sera privé de 650 millions$ par année.

Sur 5 ans, cela signifie 3,25 milliards $ de moins pour le Québec, a-t-il noté.

A cela, il ajoute la fin de l'entente sur les services de garde après la première année, ce qui privera le Québec d'un autre milliard de dollars, déplore-t-il, d'où les 4,25 milliards $.

"On peut retourner ces chiffres d'un bord ou de l'autre; le Québec est perdant d'un bout à l'autre", a-t-il dénoncé.

M. Duceppe a fait campagne avec son candidat Marcel Lussier, qui se présente contre Jacques Saada, le libéral sortant. La péquiste Louise Harel est aussi venue prêter main forte.

The promise of the coming Equalization War

Kudos to nottawa and The New Barrelman for bringing a core issue in federal-provincial relations back in the spotlight. [As an aside, here's a note on where Derek got the name for his blog.]

That issue is Equalization.

Stephen Harper plans to change the approach to Equalization so that non-renewable resource revenues are taken out when it comes time to calculate how much money a province makes from its own revenue sources and therefore how much it will get from the federal government to top that up to a national standard.

For some provinces, like Saskatchewan, such an approach means a doubling of its federal transfer. No surprise therefore that Dipper Premier Lorne Calvert is positively orgasmic at the thought. Saskatchewan has plenty of non-renewables in its revenue base.

For other provinces, like New Brunswick or even Quebec, changes to Equalization would mean a drop in their federal top-up payments. Lord-land doesn't have a lot of non-renewables in its base.

CBC New Brunswick seems to think the Conservative policy isn't clear. They're dead wrong.

It is absolutely clear and it has been consistent since 2004, at least.

Here's how Stephen Harper put it in a recent letter to Danny Williams:

We will remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors across Canada. The Conservative government will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula. [Emphasis added]

That wording is taken directly from the Conservative's March policy statement.

Ken Boessenkool, one of Harper's closet associates, advocated just such a revamping of Equalization in several papers for the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies. In 1999/2000 when the oil revenues were tiny, removing non-renewables from Equalization would have lowered Newfoundland and Labrador's Equalization entitlement by around $3.0 million per year.

That might not be the case in the future. There are no public estimates of what the Conservative proposals for Equalization would mean for Newfoundland and Labrador in the near future in the time when oil revenues are highest.

No one has yet assessed the impact of significant new revenues from renewable resources in this province, like say the Lower Churchill.

And here's the last thing to bear in mind: no one has factored in the offshore deal signed just last year. My bet is that a new federal government committed to changing Equalization would look on that money as a bonus to count against future Equalization and Equalization type entitlements.

After all, the offshore deal wasn't actually about giving back to this province its own revenues. It was about increasing federal transfer payments in a deal no other province, except Nova Scotia, could get.

Gee.

Entitlements.

There's that word again.

Odd thing is that in this context it will be Conservative premiers like Bernard Lord and likely Danny Williams looking to maintain their entitlement to federal transfers.

Equalization reform of the type proposed by Stephen Harper has the potential to be the biggest problem in federal-provincial relations for a new Conservative government.

Just watch.

A good look at Harper

From Norman Spector, former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney comes this:

Make no mistake. Beneath that newly genial demeanour beats the heart of a deep-blue conservative, whose dream is to shrink the central government, dramatically reduce its role in public life, privatize as much as [Stephen Harper] can get away with, and hack away at the incomprehensible system of income transfers that sucks money from the haves to the have-nots. As for regional development programs such as ACOA -- to the guillotine! Mr. Harper is posing as an incrementalist, which, in many ways, he is. But if he has his way, his incrementalism will eventually reshape Canada as profoundly as did the creation of the welfare state.

If you think that legacy of entitlements, subsidies and big government is indeed a sacred trust, you should not vote for Mr. Harper. If you believe high taxes are fundamental to a caring society, you should not vote for him. If you don't want a reversal of aboriginal policy, don't vote for him. If you don't want 10 provinces and three territories experimenting with health care, don't vote for him.

Food for thought.

Some people are in for a rude shock after January 23rd.

Thought provoking and then a moment of sheer hysterical laughter

Take a gander at The National piece last night that includes an interview with Albertans and Newfoundlanders about the future of the country.

Especially worthy of note: the attachment of one interview subject for fish. It seemed to be a bit..shall we say... intense, to the point where someone might check the guy's lapel for errant scales or the smell of cod.

Overall, though think long and hard about the difference in attitude between Albertans - even Newfoundlanders in Alberta - and the pseudo-nationalists in St. John's.

It's the difference between self-reliance and talking about self-reliance...with help from someone else to achieve self-reliance.

This is a bit much

Kudos to andrewcoyne.com for providing a link to this site, dedicated to showing the other side of Stephen Harper.

I chuckled with the nonsense about harpermania, given the old boy is still struggling to get his party into power. The last great cult of personality produced an astonishing public reaction.

But that was Trudeau in 1968.

And Harper is not even close to being Pierre Trudeau on any level.

In fact, even Harper wouldn't want to be compared to Pierre.

There I came face to face with a living legend, someone who had provoked in me both the loves and hatreds of my political passion, all in the form of a tired out, little, old man," Harper wrote in a newspaper column that stood out from the flood of Trudeau tributes. "It was an experience at once unforgettable, nostalgic and haunting." He went on to denounce that old man's legacy in the bitterest terms. Not only did he rebuke Trudeau's policy mix of "centralism, socialism and bilingualism," he even indicted him for failing to serve in the Second World War or oppose the Soviet Union. "In those battles," Harper wrote, "the ones that truly defined his century, Mr. Trudeau took a pass."

Hearn, Doyle and Manning - darlings of the socons

Social conservatives looking forward to repealing equal marriage in the country have spoken!

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Vote Marriage Canada is supporting:

Loyola Hearn
Norm Doyle
and
Fabian Manning

It was especially amusing to be sitting here typing this as yet another cheesy Loyola Hearn radio ad turned up on ym radio.

In this one, he personally pledges to stand up for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Except of course gays and lesbians on equal marriage.

But Loyola didn't need to say that anyway.

We already know where he stands on that issue.

Too bad he isn't as committed to fisheries issues as he is to banning equal marriage.

Choice my foot - redux

A new commentary from the Caledon Institute is damning of the Conservatives' $1,200 child care buy-off.

Caledon's analysis concludes that the people who will benefit least from the Connie campaign plank are the people who need the help in child care the most:

The proposed Child Care Allowance would pay its lowest amount to families with modest incomes close to the poverty line:

*• A two-earner couple with two children (one child under 6 and thus eligible for the Child Care Allowance) and income of $36,000 (only a few thousand dollars above Statistics Canada'’s estimated aftertax low income cutoff of $33,152 for cities of 500,000 or larger in 2006) would end up with an Allowance worth only $388 − one-third (32.3 percent) of the $1,200 face value payment.

*• A one-earner couple with two children (one child under 6) and income of $33,000 (just below Statistics Canada'’s estimated after-tax low income cutoff of $33,152 for cities of 500,000 or larger in 2006) would end up with $650 − just over half (54.2 percent) of the $1,200 face value payment.

*• A single parent with one child under 6 and income in the $27,000 to $29,000 range (not that far above Statistics Canada'’s estimated $21,341 after-tax low income cutoff for a two-person family living in cities of 500,000 or larger in 2006) would end up with $481 − only 40.1 percent of the $1,200 face value payment.

The true value of the Child Care Allowance shows no rational relationship to families'’ incomes. Only the poorest families on welfare, with no or only a few thousand dollars of earned income, would get the full $1,200 − but only if the provinces and territories exempted the Child Care Allowance from the calculation of income for purposes of determining social assistance, which Ottawa would have to ensure through negotiations. There is no guarantee that provinces and territories would agree to this, since some might argue -– correctly -– that families on welfare already have fully or almost fully subsidized child care so do not need the additional $1,200 to pay for child care. Instead, some provinces/territories might argue the added funds should reduce provincial/territorial costs of child care subsidies for families on welfare.

In this case, families on welfare would not gain at all from the new federal program.

[p.4, emphasis added]

Channeling Mackenzie King

Connie candidate Loyola Hearn is still pushing himself as the guy in the party that will sort out fisheries problems.

Of course, we must ignore the fact that someone can't even edit a brochure here, since Hearn's people think he is talking about the Grank Bank. (see below).

As a sign of Hearn's strong commitment to custodial management, a big issue locally even if it is a legal crock, comes the following from one of his campaign brochures:

Stand Up for Our Fisheries
A Conservative government will protect the fisheries following 12 years of Liberal neglect. We will also give the coastal provinces - – particularly Newfoundland and Labrador -– an increased role in the management of the fisheries. If necessary, we will not hesitate to take Custodial Management over the nose and tail of the Grank [sic] Banks and Flemish Cap. [Emphasis added]

Two things to notice:

1. At no point does this brochure say anything about joint management of the fishery between the province and Ottawa. It says a Connie government will give "an increased role". That role is undefined.

2. Custodial management was something the Connies pledged to move on immediately back at the policy conference in March. Others have trumpeted this as a sign of Hearn's influence. He's even got a radio spot in which a well-known local fisheries chronic praises Hearn.

Well, here it is guys. Loyola is channeling Mackenzie King, he of "conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription" fame.

The new policy (the umpteenth watering down of the Connie platform on this point in the campaign) is to take action...if necessary. The whole point of Hearn's time in Ottawa has been to claim that it was long since past being necessary.

Loyola's resolution in the House of Commons on custodial was obviously just a gigantic political stunt, a hollow sham of an exercise. That called on the government to take "immediate action", no ifs ands or buts about it.

Find background here and here.

Outlier polls

While polls have their value, there has been entirely too much emphasis on them in media reports during this campaign, particularly at the national level.

That said, it is interesting to see this simple comparison presented in today's nightly tracking report from SES:

Comparison

* SES Research (N=1,012 decided voters, January 14 to 16, 2006)

* Ekos Research (N=2,018 decided voters, January 15 to 17, 2006)

* Decima Research (N=1, 017 decided voters, January 12 to 15, 2006)

* Strategic Counsel (N=1,500 voters, January 14 to 16, 2005)

CPC -- SES 37%, Ekos 37%, Decima 37%, Strategic Counsel 42%

LPC -- SES 30%, Ekos 27%, Decima 27%, Strategic Counsel 24%

NDP -- SES 18%, Ekos 20%, Decima 18%, Strategic Counsel 17%

BQ -- SES 10%, Ekos 11%, Decima 11%, Strategic Counsel 12%

As I have contended all along, the Strategic Counsel research seems to be flattening Liberal numbers by some amount outside the margin of error for the polls and, likely inflates the Conservative numbers by an amount outside the usual margin of error.

Ontario a "have-not" province? Williams better watch out.

Check out this release from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

It calls on the federal party leaders to audit federal transfers to provinces like Equalization in order to insure the programs are accomplishing their goals.

All this would be in support of the Ontario Chamber's call last year for efforts to address what it sees a fiscal imbalance in Confederation whereby Ontarians contribute $23 billion more to the country than they get back in federal transfers and programs.

There are a few simple observations:

1. Rhetorically, if Ontario is being seen as a burgeoning have-not province, what does that make Newfoundland and Labrador?

2. If an audit and benchmarking concludes the existing transfer systems need to alter radically because, for example, Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't been able to get ahead after 55 years of hand-outs, what policy implications will that have? There is only so much money to go around and a Harper administration will be facing huge demands from provinces like Ontario and BC for cash.

3. A Harper minority will be looking to add seats in Ontario, just as they have been doing for weeks now. That's the way politics works in this country, contrary to the bumpf being peddled by one Connie operative locally. The pressure would ramp up on a Harper administration to trash his plans cut spending and lower federal expenditures.

4. My guess is that Newfoundland and Labrador will be viewed as having already gotten its deal through the offshore agreement last year. The deal won't be ripped up but when the bargaining begins, our cash will count against us getting extras. One of the unstated reasons Danny stormed out of the Oct 04 meeting was knowing that his counterparts were going to push him a bit for his efforts to get a side deal. Don't expect much sympathy for our case in the near future.

5. Harper's general fiscal approach seems aimed at reducing federal outlays through cuts and program redesign like the one mapped for Equalization. He's going to have trouble doing that in light of the anticipated political pressure from the provinces. A minority government won't be able to resist the provincial demands.

6. From the local perspective, though, Newfoundland and Labrador needs to take a hard look at the real impact of any Harper changes to federal transfers. This province remains heavily dependent on federal transfers of all types. The best example of this is in the offshore deal. Contrary to what people were told and many believe, it was actually a way to keep or increase federal transfers rather than replace actual earned income lost to Ottawa by some means.

7. No matter which government sits in Ottawa on January 24th, this pressure from Ontario and elsewhere will be hard to resist. The only thing I'd say with some confidence is that this province's ability to influence federal decision-making will be no greater then than it is now. In fact, it might be much less.

In the past, this province has had to go to war with Ottawa on a regular basis irrespective of which party is in power. While this election is being shaped by some as an Anti-Ottawa, i.e. anti-Liberal fight, things have often been worse under the Conservatives.

Check Crosbie's memoirs on this:

- A 1988 call by Peckford for financial assistance met with Crosbie's famous "stop biting the hand that feeds you line."

- Regular fish fights including the feds decision to give France an allocation of Northern Cod, a species they hadn't fished for almost a century at that point.

Don't forget:

- The original Atlantic Accord - while still being a landmark agreement between Ottawa and a province - contained the very clawback provisions on Equalization that people who supported it then (like Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle) later blamed on the Liberals.

A detailed assessment of the Conservative platform and the specifics of the letter from Harper to Williams suggests more than a few areas where a Prime Minister Harper would clash with Danny Williams. That's without the burgeoning pressure from Ontario for more federal cash and the likely political pressure on Stephen Harper to win seats where he doesn't have them now.

Tortures of the Damned

If I am hearing David Cochrane correctly as he does a debrief on CBC Radio, Premier Danny Williams insisted that nobody leave Harbour Breton last year when the town's only employer closed, and now cabinet is set to reject the bulk of the plan the local economic development committee developed over the past year.

Hmmm.

By the sounds of the project Cochrane described, the ideas that came up were typical - lots of government money, not much chance of success - that are typical of projects that come from desperate people in desperate situations.

It was almost laughable to hear Cochrane passing on what were obviously comments of some senior government political types that the plans to re-open the fish plant basically didn't offer any chance of success, or words to that effect.

The comments were laughable since the very reason the plant was closed is that refurbishing and restarting it wasn't really an economically viable option.

Not surprisingly, Cochrane is reporting differences of opinion within the community about what types of activity will have the best chance of success, who will get certain jobs and so on and so on. It's not surprising because in a desperate town, that's what happens. It's also not surprising since it is an easy excuse for government to blame the locals, even though government has done precious little itself to help out here.

Compare Harbour Breton to Stephenville and its committee of the highest level cabinet ministers doing the work that the local people of Harbour Breton have been trying to do by themselves.

Does it strike anyone else that this is the tortures of the damned for the people of Harbour Breton?

The Premier basically did everything he could to insist, coax and cajole people to stay in the community rather than leave Harbour Breton for work elsewhere. The government itself has provided minimal help - the rejection of the proposal is witness to that - and now the whole process of developing some kind of development plan is likely to start all over again.

Unfit to govern: An object lesson

Steve Harper decided to start out his run to 24 Sussex by impuning the integrity and impartiality of the public service and the judiciary.

When a new government arrives looking for moles and spies and partisans among the bureaucracy, they inevitable wind up slaughtering thousands and breeding the kind of cynicism and distrust that actually works against the government.

The bureaucrats are the ones who know how the machinery works. They know how to make it work for you.

or against you.

Like the young master corporal, saddled with an obviously arrogant young officer.

After leading his platoon through woods and swamp in the pitch blackness, the young officer proudly stops his men and orders them to dig.

Checking his map, the master corporal protests that they can't dig fully prepared firing trenches in this spot.

After some back and forth, the master corporal looked to the more senior non-commissioned officer judging the exercise. The warrant officer glared back at the master corporal and told him to follow orders.

Come sunrise, there was a text-book position with deep trenches, steel reinforcement and overhead cover.

There too was the control tower of the local airfield, the controllers in their tower staring in amazement through their binoculars at the new inhabitants in the open space been the runways.

In short order, young officer was gone, to be replaced by a smarter guy.

"See," said the old warrant officer, to his younger friend. "There's more than one way to get rid of a stupid officer."

Many the minister and indeed the government that have been brought down by just that approach.

Keep, it up Steve. Your first months leading a minority government will be very interesting to watch.

Under a Harper administration...

I wonder what international seat Newfoundland and Labrador will be looking to have.

The most obvious one is the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).

Given the disproportionate number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the Canadian Forces, I can see looking for a seat at the North Atlantic Treay Organization council as well. We could do a good job at NATO.

Given that Newfoundland and Labrador used to be an independent country, and just never exercised its right to a seat at the old League of Nations, I can see giving the province a sort of co-seat at the United Nations. Maybe one with shorter legs.

We should also look for a seat at the Commonwealth table, given again that this used to be an independent country and one of the Dominions alongside Canada, New Zealand and India to name a few.

Given the number of aircraft transitting the airspace over the province and its historic role in international aviation, a seat at the International Civil Aviation Council would be in order.

Gimme time and I'll come up with a few more.

[Update: Oooh. Ooooh. I got a new one. International Atomic Energy Agency. Once Danny gets around to uttering his Tobinesque "not one teaspoon" threat over uranium in Labrador, Newfoundland and Labrador can look to become some kind of leader in all things nuclear.

Then there's the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental body addressing concerns of Arctic peoples.

Welcome to Amerika!

Stephen Harper thinks that the Supreme Court is full of Liberals because the justices were appointed under Liberal administrations.

Obviously, Mr. Harper knows little of how our judges are appointed. It isn't the American system, nor should it be. And while there is room to improve the selection and appointment methods, we are a far cry from having the tortures of judicial appointments that are blatantly politicized as in the United States.

Based on these comments, we can logically conclude that his Prime Minister Harper's criterion for making the next appointment will be Conservative values.

Stephen Harper thinks the bureaucracy is Liberal because senior elements were appointed by Liberals. Mr. Harper might want to check the Progressive Conservative experience in 1979 and again in 1984 .

We can also logically expect a period of upheaval in the bureaucracy and intense suspicion by a Conservative government of anyone not providing Conservative-sounding advice. This will make the early months of a Harper government most interesting.

Lastly, on the Senate, Steve has it right. Yep. The majority have been appointed by Liberals. But, if he wants to check, he'll find that some Liberal administrations have appointed Conservatives and Independents.

Steve wants to reform the senate by having elections. Nice idea.

The major problem is that the senate, which should reflect the provinces of the country as equals, is currently weighted in favour of Ontario and Quebec.

If he really wanted to reform the senate and change the political landscape of the country, Steve would work to have an equal number of senators from each province chosen in elections run by Elections Canada.

Even with the limited powers of the existing senate, which cannot hold up money bills indefinitely, for example and has no power to review appointments of judges and senior officials, an elected senate with equal representation from the provinces would go a long way to making the federal government more representative of Canadians and more effective.

Unfortunately, Mr. Harper hasn't shown any serious interest in reforming the federal legislature. That is one plank from the old Reform Party platforms many Canadians would support.

There's just no pleasing some people

Danny Williams tries to pretend he is not taking sides in the federal election. [The deputy premier is.]

He praises Stephen Harper, even though much of Harper's letter is a promise to talk.

He says nice things about Jack Layton, who actually offered Danny everything he asked for.

When the prime minister's letter comes through, Danny dismisses it as being "disappointing".

That despite the fact it addresses every concern and in considerable detail in some cases. It provides firm opportunities of funding for the Lower Churchill, and actually would increase federal presence in the province in a way that is attainable (unlike Harper's B/s military promises).

It's worth reading the actual letter, compare it to the other two and then try and figure out what Danny is up to. Apparently, it isn't trying to influence the local election results.

Yep. And pulling down the Canadian flag last year was a good idea. (Just ask the Premier's favourite pollster on that one.)

Of course, it's scarcely surprising that Williams would misrepresent a letter from Stephen Harper. Last year, Williams wanted people to believe Harper said yes to the province's proposal on offshore revenues when in fact Harper said a big "no".

Twice.

If Stephen Harper had been elected year before last, Danny would still be waiting for his offshore cheque.

If Stephen Harper had been elected last spring, by Harper's own words, we'd still be trying to figure out the Equalization changes Harper said would address Williams' issues.

Danny would still be waiting for his cheque.

But then again, Danny isn't taking sides. [Tom Rideout, Loyola Sullivan and most of cabinet is. But not Danny. Rideout, the deputy premier and another relic of the Peckford regime is telling people a Conservative majority would be best for the province. Backupable Tom obviously forgets the endless rackets with Ottawa under Mulroney.]

I just hope he has someone working overtime to calculate how much the province will be losing in federal transfers under Stephen Harper's plan to change Equalization.

Meanwhile, this headline seems to have been written by someone who is under the impression CBC has already been sold to Fox.

There's no quote in the story to confirm Williams said the PM's response "falls flat."

He said it fell short. It's just hard to see where exactly.

And on the Gander weather office and federal presence piece, "falls short" means gives more than we asked for.

There's just no pleasing some people.

Get a load of the Connies...

calling Crap Talk on vocm.com and complaining that the Prime Minister's commitment to move the Canadian Ice Service in Gander (75 jobs) and spending $3.0 million to improve weather forecasting in the province, commitment to cost-share paving of the major highway in Labrador and continued commitment to extending Canada's offshore jurisdiction as being not good enough.

The caller on now, who may be from anywhere in the province, says the Gander offer isn't good enough because it isn't for the 16 jobs she signed a petition for.

Brian: "There's no pleasing some people."

Ex-Leper: "That's just what Jesus said Sir..."

I await the hate mail from people who never liked Life of Brian.

Santa Paul answers Danny

Last but by no means least is Paul Martin's response to Danny Williams' pre-Christmas letter to Santa.

Some of the questions were answered by the deputy prime minister in a separate letter.

It has the greatest level of detail of the three letters and the most specific responses in most categories.

Martin also commits to improving weather forecasting in the province and moving the Canadian Ice Service to Gander. That works out to be a commitment to move over four times the number of jobs to Gander as lost in the relocation of weather forecasting.

On the Hibernia shares, the Prime Minister states that sale of the shares is not a federal government priority at this time.

On the Lower Churchill, the PM reaffirms his commitment to assistance, but not in the way the Premier wants. That is, the PM doesn't commit to a federal loan guarantee that would allow the province to build the entire project on its own. The estimated cost of $3-5 billion would count against the province's debt load in that scenario.

Danny's response?

The responses from Mr. Martin are clearly not as definitive as some of those from Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton. This is disappointing from the provincial government'’s perspective;...

Adding more jobs to Gander is not as responsive as giving the premier exactly what he asked for even if what he asked for is less.

Go figure.

But hey, don't take my word for it.

Put aside any partisan biases and evaluate the letters on their individual merits.

From the Land of Old, Bad Ideas...

comes this announcement from Jim Bennett, the only declared candidate for the provincial Liberal leadership.

His idea is to have the government buy shares in Fishery Products International, in effect to nationalize the company in whole or in part.

There is little to commend Bennett's idea to any serious consideration, despite the support Bennett already has for it.

The Marxist-Leninist Daily, online organ of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) for example, already advocated nationalizing the company some time ago. So too, did Bill Callahan, a Liberal cabinet minister in the last Smallwood administration and one of Bennett's backers.

Nationalizing is the oldest of bad ideas that we have repeated over and over again, without success. The only places that tried it more often with less success than us used to fly the hammer and sickle and dream of the proletarian revolution.

One can only wait for the eye-glass factory or linerboard scheme or the Sprung Greenhouse to return.

Our province has seen enough of this sorts of politics, about $12 billion in provincial debt-enough.

Better to send these ideas back to the ash heap of history rather than hold them up as a plausible idea.

If this is the Bennett has to offer, Liberals can only hope someone else can raise the $10, 000 to get into the race.

Otherwise, the Liberal Party is doomed to the same obscurity as the other party espousing nationalization of industries long after that proved to be an utter failure as a policy.

If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Odds are it is Connie incumbent candidate Loyola Hearn who is returning to his old habit of ducking interviews.

He had the chance to participate in a radio panel with his fellow candidates this morning but made it plain he wasn't available.

Period.

Ever.

He was busy.

How busy? Real busy.

Washing his hair.

Yep. There's accountability for you.

and it looks like a whole bunch of people are going to vote this guy back again.

So he can talk about things like custodial management and accomplish not a whit.

Dr. Thomas goes to Ottawa?

democraticspace.com is showing Rondo Thomas running ahead of his Liberal rival in the Ontario riding of Ajax-Pickering.

Thomas' website makes him look like a run-of-the-mill Conservative. There's not much beyond the party platform, crafted to appeal to middle-of-the-road, cliche using Canadians like me.

Then there's Rick Mercer's take on the guy complete with a link to some video of Rondo in full flight in his declared war against anyone not sharing his brand of Christian views.

Get a sense of what Rondo will mean to parliament here and on the Bond papers from early December. Chunks of the country are taking a turn toward the North American right, complete with our very own bible-thumpers.

If Rondo gets elected, we'll have to see if he turns out to be a run-of-the-mill Conservative after all.

An agenda of hope

Under a Conservative Harper government, will Canadians learn to

1. Hope that the Connie finance minister is better at math than the guys who worked on the Connie campaign?

2. Hope that Steve Harper is the second coming of a Progressive Conservative prime minister of the country rather than the rebirth of a provincial premier?

3. Hope that Stockwell Day doesn't become either the foreign affairs or health minister?

4. Hope that the Conservatives aren't the party of hidden special interest groups? Check out their Jack Layton ad (Jack Talk) for a good laugh at pot calling the kettle names.

5. Hope that $2.30 cents a day actually adds up to choice in child care?

6. Hope that Dave Frum doesn't get a job writing speeches for the Connies only to give him more fodder for another tell-all book?

7. Hope that the CBC isn't sold to Fox?

8. Hope that political parties will stop tossing around the word Nazi like it means nothing?

9. Hope that Stephen Harper says the same thing in every place in the country? As opposed to "It's different in North Bay, and I will deliver a different speech in North Bay," he said. "I try to match my speeches to the crowd."

Santa Jack answers Danny's letter

Jack Layton's response to Danny Williams is in.

Find it at gov.nl.ca under news releases or follow this convenient link provided free of charge by Bond Papers.

In a nutshell, and as the last time, Jack Layton is the only leader who in writing is giving Danny everything he is asking for. We should soon see an endorsement of Jack Layton by the provincial government. I am not holding my breath.

For people who stock in these things, Jack is the man. Note the evident lack of attacks in the Layton letter compared to Harper's missive. Harper spent about as much time slagging Liberals as he does actually answering the questions.

The closest Harper came is to say "we'll talk".

My favourite bits to compare, aside from the custodial management thingy, are the sections on federal presence.

[Aside: As for my own view, federal presence in the way it has been presented by so many is a bit of a non-issue in light of something like say re-organizing the fishery. it's a subcomponent of a lot of issues, but having federal jobs here for the sake of having them just isn't my favourite way to spend my tax dollars. It wasn't when Tobin shifted hordes of provincial public servants from St. John's to other communities. That's still my view on the federal ones as well.]

Harper's commitment, after moaning about the losses and acknowledging there is an imbalance in distribution? "an effort must be made to ensure that there is a fair distribution of the federal government presence across the country." In short: we'll give it the old college try.

Right after that he promises to put the handful of jobs back in Gander forecasting weather. After all, that's all anyone actually asked for specifically.

A little later in the letter, Harper also mentions his defence initiatives (which will be damned near impossible to pull off) as a further attempt to deal with this.

Jack's reply? Very similar, except for this: "We are committed to reviewing federal government policies that have led to this situation with a view to ensuring fairness and full access to federal government delivery of programs and services in this province."

Layton's letter contains language that is less equivocal than the Harper one on just about all fronts.

Expect that, as the last time, people will tell you the Harper letter says things it doesn't say. Jack's letter will be ignored even though he said "yes" to everything.

National seat projections

Paul Wells has pumped both the most recent Ekos and Strategic Counsel numbers through the Hill and Knowlton and come up with two results that show either a small Conservative majority or a chunkier one.

The most recent SES numbers produce a seat projection like this:

CPC 145
LPC 80
NDP 29
Bloc 53
Oth 1

Interestingly this set of numbers shows the central Newfoundland riding changing to the Conservatives.

One of the results Paul uses has a seat in the province going New Democrat. I don't think so.

All this goes to illustrate a few points:

1. The polls are shifting which means public opinion is shifting somewhat.

2. Variation you are seeing comes from differences in sampling and in sampling period.

3. In some areas, such as Atlantic Canada and parts of Ontario, the samples are too small to get an accurate reading. (margins of error are unacceptably high)

4. The seat projections depend heavily on the methodology. I suspect the Hill and Knowlton one is using the last election in which, locally, the Dippers had a stronger candidate in one riding than they do now. As a result, they'll shift the seat to the NDP when there isn't any sign this time of the NDP being in contention in that seat.

Ah well, we'll know in a week.

Local race projections

Check out democraticspace.com see the vote projections based on current polling.

This guy has no particular axes to grind and while you can quibble, his methodology seems sound.

Interesting crap from Connies or Dippers

Someone is telling Craig Westcott of The Express tnhat Siobhan Coady will come in third in the St. John's South-Mount Pearl race.

That's odd since, if her campaigning is tanking as badly as Westcott described, people wouldn't need to get out and push it down as obviously as with the "third place" story. It's obviously a crock since publicly available polling shows a voting pattern very similar to the normal vote distributions, at least according to elections Canada. Con in front (45%) , Lib in second (35%) and the Dipper in third (18%).

The only place a story like that would come from is either of Coady's opponents. Hearn, who was seen campaigning recently door-to-door in one area of the riding, likely for the first time in his career, could be wanting to puff himself up a bit.

The story could also come from Peg Norman, who's campaign might be trying to pull a reverse Layton. That is she might be trying to claim that Coady is running behind to pull Liberal votes from people afraid of Harper and Hearn. Wow. If that's the case, talk about the lobster effect.

Someone is telling Westcott a story.

Unfortunately, he keeps repeating it.

[Note: take a look at democraticspace.com. That projection conforms to recent local polling, at least for the two St. John's seats.]

Connies: "our fear mongering's bigger"

Take a trip to see "balloon fear", one of the newest Connie ads.

It's a fearmongering piece about gun violence that includes the completely false claim that the homicide rate in Canada is up. It's actually down by 7% and has gone down just about every year since the early 1990s if memory serves.

The circus music is appropriate: the election has quickly descended into a fun-house mirror world in which reality (what Connies will really do) is deliberately distorted in order to mislead and frighten.

Word is the Connie team is busily looking around for a Canadian Willie Horton.

Who knows, the next Connie spot might feature Carla Homolka and Paul Bernardo.

Connie custodial management commitment evaporates: more facts

When the federal Conservatives voted to bring down the government last spring, they were also voting to hold up work underpinning Canada's claim to control subsea minerals and the water column to the edge of the continental shelf off Newfoundland and Labrador.

Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle have voted three years in a row against work needed for Canada's claim to the subsea and waters beyond 200 miles.

Work on extending Canada's economic zone began in 2003 and funding each year since has been dedicated to conducted the underwater mapping which will be a crucial part of Canada's claim. Canada has until 2013 to complete its claim.

All that is just to confirm:

The Conservative Party platform commitment is to continue existing Government of Canada policy.

For those interested in tracking the changing Conservative commitment, check the Bond Papers archives for posts with the word "backpedal" or variations in the title.

The 100 door challenge

Check out Mark's 100 door challenge over at nottawa.blogspot.com.

The SES polls (which we are ALL guilty of citing to suit our daily needs) show that there was no upward movement in the Tory polls in the early days of policy announcements. Harper's momentum starts, quite clearly, a few days after Christmas, long after the "policy a day" type stuff was put to bed.

My challenge to any of you who buy into this reasoning - go knock on 100 doors in any riding and come back and tell me if you hear about the GST as often as you do about Chuck Guite. Try it for yourself and then get back to me.

Harper himself hasn't had to mention scandal, it has had enough legs on its own to permeate media coverage without his piling on.

But please - try the door-to-door thing, and tell me what you hear. Or, do a scan of all the Tory blog postings out there and tell me how many references to Harper's policies there are compared to how many references to "scandal".

I'll go Mark one better. Do an analysis of only one Connie blog. Or letters to the editor and posts to a CBC blog forum by the same guy.

That little sample speaks volumes for the overall campaign, and Mark's point.

Unfit to govern - Connies didn't give him everything to assess: economist

This should give everyone pause for thought:

OTTAWA (CP) - A prominent economist commissioned by the Conservatives to assess the financial soundness of their election platform says major items were omitted from the version he was given.

Paul Darby, deputy chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, originally concluded that Stephen Harper's Conservative platform 'is affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011.'

Read a little further in the Canadian Press article, available from canoe.ca and you find this statement from the guy who originally endorse the Connie platform as fiscally sound:

"Those are two items that are not in what I was presented to analyze," he said. "I don't think, frankly, that those are in the platform, they're just under discussion.

"Those items were not costed, which leads me to believe that they're something that they're having under consideration that they're not committed to." [Emphasis added]

Globe: change for change sake, despite fear over country

Odd that the Globe editors today opt for change in the coming election despite acknowledging the country is better off today than when Liberals took power in 1993.

Odd they endorse change given this paragraph in the election editorial today:

It is hard to endorse him [Stephen Harper] and his party unreservedly. We worry about his seeming indifference to the need for a strong central government in a country so replete with runaway centrifugal forces. We worry about him teaming up with the Bloc Québécois to weaken the federal government's tax-raising capacity and its advocacy of national programs. We worry that he might have to strike retrograde compromises with social conservatives in the party's midst. We worry that he may prove heavy-handed in wielding the considerable powers of a prime minister.

To that might be added the very real fear that the Conservative Plan is actually not a plan at all. It is merely the tissue paper cover over the real plan that will only be seen once the conservatives are in power. Consider the number of twists and turns we have seen in the conservative "Plan" already, all designed to tweak the wording to match with what the right number of voters are looking for.

The vote is what counts; the policy comes after, and only after the Consdervatives have four years to do as they wish from a comofrtable majority position.

Once safely seated at 24 Sussex, likely with a strong majority by current polling numbers, the Conservatives will discover the country's finacial picture is now much bleaker than originally forecast.

An outside firm will audit the books and - predictably - declare the Liberals to be manipulaters - do the work.

Expect to see someone like Mr. Gourley of PriceClubWaterHouseCoopers, well known to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for his mockery of accounting integrity two years ago, brought forward to twist and distort the numbers to make the situation look much worse than it appeared. To produce the report the government asked for saying what it wanted said.

And suddenly there will be no base in Goose bay. No troops for Trenton.

No money for child care.

Suddenly the focus will shift to the $30 billion in reallocations.

Call them program cuts, to be more accurate.

And the tax cuts will carry forward since they benefit the wealthy, in any event. The ghost of Mike harris and the mess of Ontario after his tenure is long forgotten, as is the mess left by the last Conservative government under Brian Mulroney.

The Globe editorialists try to erase their logical contradictions by trusting in the voters. That would be fine if party policy, such as the Conservative one, was not a moveable feast of pork and verbiage. A voter might well chose today based on one thing only to find that in truth, the policy actually had changed to something else. Stephen Harper cannot be held to account since he has said dofferent things at different times, all within the same election.

It's one thing to campaign from the left and govern from the right when you are basically somewhere in the middle anyways.

But when you campaign from the far left and you are really from the far right, perhaps the results won't be so pleasant.

Maybe, just maybe, the people who wish so desperately for a change, people who can recall the folly of Bob Rae and Mike Harris, these same people should be careful what they wish for.

Harper would cut $30 billion in programs and services

Go to the Conservative's fiscal plan.

Flip to the second last page.

Note the figures:

$6.8 billion in "re-allocation" and another $22.5 billion for "moderating spending" in government departments, agencies, and on grants and contributions.

That's almost $30 billion in program cuts that don't appear to be explained anywhere in the Conservative Plan.

Take a look at the Conservative Plan document itself and you might find a hint in the vague wording.

Economic development organizations like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will maintain their current funding levels.

Hmmm.

Maintain current levels.

That sounds like "freeze at current levels".

No increases.

With inflation, that means that in five years time, ACOA would actually have less money to spend on diversifying the economy in Atlantic Canada than it has now.

That's a program cut.

That's also a significant kick to the many successful efforts at economic development that have taken place since ACOA was created under Brian Mulroney.

But hey, Steve's gotta find $30 freakin' billion to cut from somewhere.

Unfit to govern: Confusion in Connie Camp Continues

As if shagging up the costs of the plan wasn't bad enough.

As if the constantly changing the Party position on custodial management wasn't embarrassing.

Someone in the Connie bunker finally checked some facts on Canada's overseas spy agency.

The comment buried in a news release issued a week ago talked about "expanding" something called the Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency.

The Bond Papers picked it up, reported it and a week later Canadian Press had more details:

There currently is no overseas spy agency to "expand".

Today's Conservative Plan refers to "creating" an overseas spy agency.

To paraphrase Bob Fife: if you don't know that Canada doesn't have an overseas spy agency when you make an announcement about expanding it, then that raises questions about your fitness to govern.

Unfit to govern: Harper dumps Hearn on custodial management

Contrary what Loyola Hearn wanted in 2004 and what he would have everyone believe even today, Stephen Harper is now pledging to "[e]xtend the two hundred mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic and be prepared to exercise Canadian custodial management over this area."

That isn't what he said a mere five weeks ago.

At a news conference held at Petty Harbour, assisted by talk show maven and Conservative operative Sue (on the advance bus, no less), and flanked by incumbent Connies Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn, Harper announced that a Conservative government would move immediately to announce custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and fully take custodial management of these international waters within five years.

The Bond Papers has already documented the weakening of Harper's commitment over the course of a few weeks. Check the "Harper backpedals" posts.

Harper's announcement today is exactly the same as current government policy. The Government of Canada is already pursuing the legal means to lay claim to the continental shelf outside the 200 mile economic zone, in a process set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The process began in 2003 when Canada finally signed the UNCLOS treaty, triggering an eight year timeline that will end in 2011.

The continued weakening of the Conservative commitment on custodial management, a major element in the local Connie candidate's campaign is a sign Loyola Hearn has no influence on Conservative Party fisheries policy.

Hearn's campaign brochure features the custodial management issue prominently:

Fisheries: Loyola has led the charge in Ottawa to rebuild our fisheries.

"Finally, it's agreed by political leaders that custodial management of fish stocks outside 200 miles by Canada is the only possible way we can save our rural population. We have to thank MP Loyola Hearn for his persistence and tenacity in having a supporting resolution recorded in the House of Commons. Without his dedication, it never would have passed."

Gus Etchegary, Respected Fisheries Advocate

Trevor Taylor, the former provincial fisheries minister described that motion very well in early 2004:

"The Hon. Trevor Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Loyola Hearn, the Member of Parliament for St. John'’s West -

Some honourable members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Taylor: - on the successful passing of his private members'’ motion on custodial management in the House of Commons last evening. Motion 136 calls on the Government of Canada to immediately extend custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

Mr. Hearn is to be commended for his efforts. He has worked tirelessly on the issue of foreign overfishing, including his dedicated work with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans."

Hmmm. We went from "immediately" to "will no hesitate" to "move towards" to now, not doing it at all except what is already happening.

To paraphrase Bob Fife: if you can't stick to a simple policy over the course of five weeks, that raises questions about your fitness to govern.

Omnifacts poll: Libs ahead in Atlantic

The number of undecided voters has risen during the campaign in Atlantic Canada, but the Liberals are ahead in three provinces and neck and neck with the Conservatives in New Brunswick. That's the result of a poll released today by Omnifacts Bristol.

Across Atlantic Canada, the results are (decideds only):

LPC 45%
CPC 37%
NDP 16%
OTH 02%

Undecideds are up 10 points to 27% from a survey completed by Omnifacts at the start of the campaign. The survey is concerned accurate to within 2.5%, 19 times out of 20.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Liberals are at 48%, Conservatives at 40% and New Democrats at 12%. Pump those numbers into the Hill and Knowlton WunderPrediktor and the seat count stays the same as it is now. Factor in the undecideds, then bear in kind Liberals held 50% of the vote across the region at the start of the campaign and things look interesting. The election is far from over.

Paul Martin is considered the best choice for prime minister by 46% of decided respondents, with Stephen Harper at 32% and Jack Layton at 12%.

There is a gender gap in the PM picks. "Among decided female voters, 50% say Mr. Martin would make the best prime minister, compared to 42% of decided male voters. Only 29% of decided female voters support Mr. Harper in this category, compared to 35% of decided male voters."

A recent poll conducted for NTV by Telelink showed that in Newfoundland and Labrador, Liberals are at 46.4%, Conservatives at 40.5%, NDP at 11.4% and the Greens with 1.7%. Margin of error is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Undecided is at 39%.

Unfit to govern: Costing confusion on Connie Plan leaves media bewildered

Check Bob Fife's debrief on the Conservative newser and media briefing over at CTV.ca.

As Fife put it, the confusion was such today that: "[w]hen you can't explain that it adds up immediately, it raises questions about their [the Conservatives] whole ability to be able to govern."

The Conservatives will outspend the New Democrats in a combination of tax cuts and spending that adds up to $75 billion dollars. After much too and fro - and apparently some confuddled explanations - the figure was revised to $60 billion. In between the number hit $67 billion and then the Conservatives apparently announced more spending.

This comes from something called "reallocation", which apparently means there will be some sort of "slow down" in spending for Human Resources Canada and Industry Canada. There is also an expectation of growth in the economy resulting from tax cuts.

Decipher that doublespeak about slowing things down in at least two departments and you can see the words "program cuts". Something has to go to make room for other things. The question will be what is set to be killed off.

There was some initial confusion over the numbers. Before the formal announcement of the platform, journalists were given a first look at the costing in a media lockup.

From CTV.ca:

CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife said it took puzzled Tory officials a long time to come to an agreement over the total net cost.

"It turns out that total promises for the Conservative party adds up to $75 billion. When there is reallocation we are told it is $60.7 billion," said Fife.

He added: "It took a combination of effort by everybody, the media and the Tory officials, to get to this $75 billion -- and then some subtraction and fooling around until we finally got to, what they say, is the accurate figure of $60.7 billion."

From the clip:

Fife: Well, they finally released their total platform document and they tried to give Tuesday costing figures but I have to say there was a lot of confusion, a lot of voodoo economics this morning as we tried to figure out where the Conservative platform was going in terms of cost.

For a long period of time they could not add up the figures.

Reporters as you know, we are not good at mathematics but one of my colleagues were saying that they were trying to do Liberal math compared to Conservative math and my friend Tom Clark says it is only math can you please add it up for us.

It turns out that their total promises for the Conservative Party adds up to $75 billion. When there is reallocation we are told it is $60.7 billion. But this took about an hour or so of discussions and adding up to get to this figure of about $67 billion. Total tax measures are about 44.9 billion. Other spending initiatives I don't want to go there because it was so confusing even Monte Solberg the conservative finance critic did not explain that ...

It is a slip-up. I mean, this is a very important part of the Conservative government's [sic] platform. They have done a very good job from day one, issue-driven, a policy a day, well thought out, generally well thought-out policies, populous policies, consumer-driven policies that seem to have struck a chord with Canadians.

When you put it together you want to be able to tell the Canadians look, this plan adds up. When you can't explain that it adds up immediately, it raises questions about their whole ability to be able to govern. And I mean, that is the questions that he was getting in the room today is we wanted to know, tell us how much it will cost. How does it add up when they weren't able to do that and then they started to give conflicting numbers, a lot of head-scratching which the journalists...

Ravi: What about Monte Solberg, was in in command of the facts there? He being the finance transit critic.

Fife: Monte Solberg is a good guy. I would not give him high grades for his performance today.

Release the Zeisman form

British Columbia Conservative spokesperson Colin Metcalfe [<-- requires RealPlayer] told CBC in British Columbia that Derek Zeisman filled out a form as part of the nomination process in which he was supposed to disclose relevant information.

If Zeisman failed to disclose, then the Conservatives can simply make the completed form public. Any sensitive information can be blanked out in a noticeable way. It's a fairly simple thing.

Of course Metcalfe couldn't explain how this guy could appear in court several times and no one noticed.

No one.

I am not making this up.

Then there's Zeisman, Day Three of Connie spin

The Vancouver Province is quoting Derek Zeisman as saying that the federal Conservative party knew all about the "administrative charges" he faces.

"Administrative charges". That's the new Conservative-speak word for allegedly trying to smuggle a Mercedes-Benz and 112 bottles of liquor across the border. The maximum penalty on conviction for these "administrative" infractions, which will be heard in British Columbia Provincial Court, could be a fine of up to $50, 000 and up to six months in jail.

Zeisman said: "The Conservative Party is aware of this [the charges]."

Now that's interesting. I was suspicious of the Conservative position from the get-go. It would be standard procedure for any political party, let alone the party of Law & Order [every night, on some channel and still on NBC] to do a background check on prospective candidates.

Heck I think these guys likely have their own CPIC account. That's the nationwide police criminal database.

(Left: Conservative Party background checker Ralph Wiggum, shortly before his retirement as Springfield chief of police.)

But to listen to Stephen Harper, he is surrounded by by people who didn't see fit to ask even the simplest of simple questions: are you bondable? Or maybe even: is there anything that might pop up in the media about you that might be a problem?

Harper didn't even ask the checkers those simple questions.

Compare that Jean Boyle-like shifting of responsibility to the way Prime Minister Paul Martin has handled the "military ad" thing. One pushes it away. One steps up to the plate. Hmmm.

Both Zeisman and Conservative Party campaign chair John Reynolds used almost identical phrases, referring to "administrative procedures" or "administrative charges" when talking about the matter.

That was when the Conservatives were standing behind their man fully.

The other thing you'll learn from the Province is that the former incumbent, Zeisman's old boss, won the seat by only 780 votes.

It was curious why the Conservatives didn't just forfeit the seat by having Zeisman resign for all his alleged and real failings. (Alleged = smuggling; real = failure to disclose relevant information]

Now we know:

They want every vote they can count on. This seat is a potential squeeker and they want to make sure it squeeks Conservative.

It all bobs to the surface

Call them floaters.

The stuff you'd like to go away but just won't sink. Thanks to Canadian Press and the story at canoe.ca for helping things bob to the surface.

Like Stephen Harper and Kyoto. He admitted in Halifax yesterday that under a Harper government, Kyoto: up the chimney faster than carbon dioxide emissions from a coke plant.

Like Jack Layton. Turns out that Jack had hernia surgery at a private clinic in the 1990s.

Like Stevie again and missile defence. Canadians said no. Harper would wait for a formal invitation before doing something. The wording suggests that the idea could be turned over to a free vote. Take a close look at the wording of the quote though and you'd think the option of turning the proposal over to a free vote in the Commons is the bit that hinges on it being in the national interest.

Incidentally, since when is a matter of national defence not in the national interest?

Sounds odd.

A bit like saying the provinces jurisdiction in international affairs must be recognized.

Or that Canada has had a handgun ban for decades and it's working just fine.

The Orchestra pit theory of political news coverage

This is as good a time as any to remind people of the Orchestra Pit Theory of political communications.

Credit for coming up with the little anecdote to illustrate the point goes to Roger Ailes, who these days heads up Fox News but in a previous life was a Republican Party communications whiz.

Basically, if there are two politicians on stage, one announces a cure for cancer and one falls into the orchestra pit, the guy in the pit will get the coverage.

There are a couple of versions of this going around. google and you'll find one. James Carville and Paul Begalla tell a slightly different version of it in their 2002 book Buck up, suck up and come back after you foul up.

As Carville and Begalla put it, news media love "to cover only four things in politics: scandals, gaffes, polls and attacks. Three of them are bad. So if you want to get coverage go on the offensive and stay there."

Of course, it should go without saying that it all depends on who you at aiming at in the offensive. Candidates normally aim at their opponent and as long as the attacks are factual, everything is just fine.

There will be people who bleat, complain and pontificate, but political campaigns are a winner-take-all affair.

After all, people have a right to see the sharp lines between candidates. Voters are choosing people to run our country, to make decisions that will affect each and every one of us on a daily basis. The choices aren't the same as which brand of toothpaste to buy. People deserve the chance to see the sharp lines between candidates and heaven knows there are sharp lines out there among all the contenders.

For some reason, this election has largely been about erasing the distinctions among the parties. Fundamentally, that's wrong.

[Fundamentally it's wrong for a crowd to sanctimoniously condemn attack ads and then run an entire campaign of their own around attacks.

But I digress.]

With all that in mind, have a look around and see if you can find genuine distinctions between candidates or among parties. There aren't as many as you'd think on major policy issues. In fact, it is almost scary the extent to which Conservatives are taking up New Democrat turf of supposedly detesting Americans, New Democrats want to get tough on crime and Liberals are the guys preaching fiscal responsibility, more cash for health care and people are pounding them.

Sharpening up the distinctions at election serves a useful purpose beyond giving political junkies something to blog about.

Planning a campaign that aims to differentiate a party from its rivals clears the political skulls. It sets a clear goal that the party can shoot for.

And voters would be able to hold political candidates and political parties genuinely accountable for things they would actually be able to do.

However, when campaigns are designed to blur distinctions, or push you to vote against something, everyone is getting shafted. We don't need proportional representation, or a reformed senate to fix elections.

We need political parties to actually stand for something different.

Consistently.

Harper now backs ACOA

Stephen Harper has decided that if he gets to 24 Sussex in a few weeks, he'll keep the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, an organization he vowed to get rid of just last year.

h/t to Andrew Coyne.

Harper shifts position, temporarily, on accused candidate

UPDATE BELOW

What a difference the light of day makes.

A difference, alright, just not much of a difference.

On Wednesday, the Conservatives were standing behind Derek Zeisman.

On Thursday, after the case of the candidate accused of smuggling gained national attention, Conservative boss Stephen Harper has announced that Zeisman will still carry the Conservative banner in the federal election but he just won't be able to sit in a Conservative caucus if elected, at least until the court case is resolved. [Corrected to reflect the details of the Canada Elections Act, as pointed out by a more-knowledgeable reader.]

Zeisman's bio has been removed from Conservative.ca, but he will apparently still be the official Conservative candidate on the ballot.

While he has not been convicted, Zeisman failed to disclose the charges against him to Harper and the federal Conservative Party didn't check Zeisman's credentials. When asked about it, Harper sloughed responsibility for the problem onto other people for failing to complete the appropriate checks, despite being the person ultimately responsible for approving candidates.

Compare Harper's position on his own responsibilities to the Conservative position on ministerial accountability. Harper made his initial comments in front of a Conservative backdrop featuring the word "accountability".

Update: The correction above notes that apparently the Conservatives can't punt the guy and block him from carrying the party banner. Fair enough.

Two things still apply:

1. This should have been caught by the approvals process. Harper's attempt to push the responsibility for this situation to the candidate and to unnamed officials of the party isn't good enough to meet the standards of accountability to be expected here.

2. Why was the first response to back the guy up and downplay the charges because they weren't under the Criminal Code?

Zeisman should have been strongly encouraged to resign from the ballot. Period.

Of course, given the guy's background, Harper can count on his vote if he gets elected, regardless of where in the House he sits.

Outside of caucus isn't much of a change.

Connie campaign chair sets the bar low

These comments from Connie campaign chair John Reynolds may give a sense of the high standards of integrity we can expect from a Conservative government.

Speaking of Derek Zeisman's charges for attempting to smuggle a car and 112 bottles of liquor across the border, Reynold's said that even if Zeisman were convicted "it's not a criminal offence."

So breaking the law is ok, as long as it isn't a violation of the Criminal Code.

Reynold's just gave us the sense of the ethical standards a Harper government would apply.

Talking about change isn't good enough, John.

Connies to grab more taxes from 200, 000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

According to David Cochrane of CBC Radio news, the Conservatives plans to raise taxes and lower basic personal exemptions will see more than 200, 000 Newfoundland and Labradorians will be seeing tax increases this year. That's two thirds of the province's workforce, if memory serves

The Conservatives will reverse Liberal tax cuts that took affect this year for those in the lowest income brackets.

Local Conservative candidates Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn voted against a tax cut last year and will now support a tax increase. They claim a cut to the GST is just as good or better.

The Harper GST cut will shave a maximum of two cents off a large double double cup of coffee. It would take tens of thousands of cups of coffee annually to save the $400 the Conservatives claimed an average family would save from the cut.

Great visuals, Steve

Yep, right there in front of a big backdrop with the word "Accountability" plastered on it:

Stephen Harper, defending the Conservatives for running as a candidate someone who is charged with smuggling a Mercedes and a huge quantity of liquor across the border, by saying "I depend on other people to do stuff like background checks for me."

The last thing a leader does is sluff the blame onto someone else, especially when it's your signature at the bottom of the candidate's nomination paperwork, Steve.

Best line from accused smuggler and Connie candidate Derek Zeisman's official bio:

"In his capacity as a foreign service officer with the Canadian Diplomatic Corps, Derek served as a policy analyst on issues relating to the Canadian-US. border."

Zeisman contributed an essay somewhere along the line on what he would do as prime minister. Among his proposals:

- abolish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - "While, in theory, a liberal and democratic concept, the Charter actually flies in the face of every democratic virtue cherished by Canadians.";

- abolish all taxes on corporations, industries and business;

- implement a user-pay approach to infrastructure spending;

- "explore" a North American monetary union (single currency);

- annex the Turks and Caicos (what is it with Connies and Caribbean islands?)

- "run-off" elections, involving two voting days for each of the 308 seats in the Commons;

- a senate appointed by provincial premiers, based on party standings in the provincial legislature at the time of appointment.

Meanwhile, Berk doesn't have anything on this story that led CTV's nation news Wednesday night. Nope. He's leading with a story that Susan Murray said the word "bullshit" live on air during an interview...and oh yes...Angelina Jolie is having Brad's baby.

Bourque Newswatch: Bigger. Bolder. Better.

Thanks for the free air time

How much news time has been devoted to the Liberal Party's most recent television commercials?

Measure it in hours.

Bourque Berk teed off on the Liberal's John Duffy and praised Mike Duffy for standing up to the Liberals before a controversial spot went to air. Then the Puffster aired the thing, just like CBC did on national radio news today.

Smart communications people know how to multiply the impact of their efforts by picking up tons of free/earned media. Nothing like dropping an ad and then pulling it back to stir a controversy and get to talk even more about the veracity of the ad campaign that just got covered, for free, as part of the news.

Thanks for the free air time ladies and gentlemen.

And thanks, Berk. Either you are the second most successful Liberal mole in history or you are a lot less media savvy than you claim.

and to that certain long-time Liberal Eastern mole in the Connie camp:

John has a long moustache.

The chair is against the door.

You know what to do next.

*Wink* *Wink*

[Note: From Andrew's link below, I realised he didn't get it that I was referring to the Liberal mole running part of the Connie campaign. He is likely the most successful one in history, having served longer than the Cambridge ring served the Moscow cause. Hence, the clarified reference to the Liberal mole. We don't need an extra click on the conference calls. Our mole has his own dial-in code.]

Update:

Thanks for the traffic, Andrew Coyne.

Of course, it's a given that Conservative and New Democrat supporters will think the entire Liberal ad campaign at this point is "desperate" or "false" or whatever else.

Sorry to disappoint you, my Con and Dipper friends, but you aren't the target audience.

Think about it this way.

Front page of the Globe today: Full colour panels of the spots, other than the military one, all featuring great quotes. Front page. Starting above the fold. Across the country.

Then there's Jason Kenney's newser today in which he talks about "the most vicious, baseless attack ad that our politics has ever seen."

I guess Kenney's hyperbole would be creditable were it not for the genuinely baseless and debased attacks mounted by the Conservatives against Jean Chretien in 1993 and the Harper attack on Paul Martin as a child molester from last year. The Conservatives withdrew the Chretien smear "eventually" as CTV reports and last time I checked, the Conservatives spent a lot of time deciding whether or not the child molester thing was good or bad. Even Mr. Harper himself seemed to stand behind it.

Then, of course, there's the orchestrated campaign to label Belinda Stronach a "whore".

Or, the entire Conservative campaign this time around built around a deliberate misrepresentation of the Gomery Report.

Compare that to what happened in the last 24 hours or so.

The real problem here might be that, with the exception of the military spot, the rest are all genuine Stephen Harper quotes. If they weren't likely to have an effect, the entire Conservative election machine wouldn't be spewing venom and spittle over them.

In 1993, the public rejected the Conservatives genuinely desperate efforts to cling to power. They didn't need to be told what to think.

Just relax guys and take a breath: We'll know in a couple of days whether or not the ads worked.

Harper's CIA: CP and the Sun catch up

From the Toronto Sun today, a story on the Harper plan for a Canadian overseas spy agency, covered here days ago.

Bond Papers readers heard all about it last Friday.

Canadian Press missed a key point though: rather than expand an existing service as the Harper backgrounder stated, a Conservative government would have to create one.

They also never asked why the whole issue was buried at the tail end of a backgrounder to a media event largely devoted to exploiting the gun violence in Toronto.

Connies adrift on Atlantic - updated

Check out the Conservative television spot aimed at what they label as "Atlantic".

Then listen to the fake presenter talking about Stephen Harper's connections to the "Martimes", as if the two were the same thing. Then there's a switch by Harper to talking about Atlantic Canadians. Mixing the two is a habit for Canadians not familiar with the places east of Cornwall, Ontario. Maritimes is a term that predates Confederation in 1949.

Then the guy who talked about a culture of dependence in Atlantic spouts a new message: a positive one about wanting to help Atlantic Canadians.

or was it Maritimers?

To put this in perspective for people not from Atlantic Canada, lumping Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in with people from Nova Scotia is like saying that everything from the Ontario border to British Columbia is "the West": a big, homogeneous mass without specific issues and different cultures within each province.

It's like listening to people not from Atlantic Canada talking about driving through all four provinces in a day.

Take a map of Atlantic Canada.

Place the easternmost tip, at St. John's, on the Ontario-Manitoba border.

Where does the western tip (Edmundston, New Brunswick) wind up?

Vancouver.

If you get the geography or the names wrong, odds are good you don't fundamentally appreciate very much else, either.

Update:

A sharp-reader took issue with my distance experiement.

Fair enough.

The experiment described above was one used some time ago to impress upon people the size of Atlantic Canada. It's a long-standing local joke the number of people who think they can drive around easily, as I said. Sort of like a European friend of mine who, on coming to Canada, figured we could pop down on the weekend to California. By car. When you have never lived more that 150 miles from the ocean, big is a concept that is a little hard to fathom.

So, I hauled out the atlas and worked it out. East-West the distance goes from the Man/On border to just about Calgary, give or take a bit. It's the north-south distance from the northern tip of Labrador to Cape Sable that stretched on a map far enough to hit Vancouver, give a take a few miles.

The point of the exercise?

Atlantic Canada is a physically large place and within that there are differences of culture, geography and everything else as well as four distinct provinces. It's just as diverse as anywhere else in Canada.

If you go back to the Harper spot, let's take a look at the messages. Harper is asked about his deep roots in "the Maritimes". He talks about how his father had to leave to find opportunity elsewhere, like so many from his generation.

Then he bridges out to a statement that he believes the region should have control of its own resources and that "made in Ottawa solutions are not the answer".

To put it bluntly, this little spot is designed to do two things. First of all, the Conservatives are trying to get past the culture of defeat comment that has dogged Harper since he first made it. He wanted to leave the impression he was fully aware of the region through his father's family. Second of all, the spot is designed to deal with what is perceived to be a common regional attitude.

Unfortunately, what we have here is a caricature - a perception of Atlantic Canada or the Maritimes being the same. And the solution he talks about is an equally simplistic caricature. The "region", actually each of the four provinces, controls its own resources already. There are no "made-in Ottawa" solutions.

At no point, does Harper mention anything specific that a Conservative government might do to deal with this "problem".

Immediately above the "Atlantic" spot on the CPC website is one targeted specifically at British Columbia. That's a telling part of the Conservative approach in this spot - four provinces get lumped together as being somehow as homogeneous in attitudes and opinions as British Columbia. Atlantic Canadian or Maritimer is the identity for local people in the same way that people from the other coast would call themselves British Columbians.

But here's the thing: the sense of identity implicit in the spot is wrong. It comes from people who are not from here. It's a convenient way to describe people in the same wrong-headed way as we sometimes see all people west of described as "westerners" or, indeed of describing all people in the centre of the country as Ontarians.

However, those convenient labels miss so much that is important.

Like I said, get the name wrong and you are likely to get a lot more wrong as well.

Poll-er magic

Take a look at results from an NTV/Telelink poll in Newfoundland and Labrador and the national race looks like a re-run of the same results from last time.

Provincially, Liberals are at 46.4%, Conservatives at 40.5%, NDP at 11.4% and the Greens with 1.7%. Margin of error is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Undecided is at 39%.

Flip those numbers through the Hill and Knowlton predictor and the seats stay the same as they are now, with five Liberals and two Conservatives.

On a riding by riding basis, the results are harder to assess, since the margin of error climbs to a little over 8%.

Allowing for that margin of error though, the three seats on the Avalon peninsula are all still in play. In the two seats on the northeast, both Conservative incumbents are not so far ahead that they can be comfortable. In Avalon, where incumbent Liberal John Efford is not running, NTV is reporting the Conservative slightly ahead of Liberal Bill Morrow .

The choice between the past and the future

Elections are about choices.

At no time in recent history have the choices for voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and St. John's East as clear as they are in this election.

The two ridings embody not only the current booming oil economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, but also the face of the modern province and its people.

The days of voting for your grandfather's political choice have long been dead across this province, but nowhere more than in the northeast Avalon. True, the ridings, in their old configuration have been Tory (and lately Conservative) almost continuously since Confederation (1949).

The last federal election proved just exactly how much times have changed.

If one looks at Elections Canada vote transpostions, one can see that in the current configuration, the majority of voters in the ridings have traditionally voted Progressive Conservative.

Loyola Hearn believes he had a rough ride last time because public servants were upset with Danny Williams. Nonsense. Mr. Hearn lost 15% of his core vote last time because local Progressive Conservatives could not bring themselves to vote for Stephen Harper and, in Mr. Hearn's case the man who helped Mr. Harper erase the Progressive Conservative Party and its values from the national landscape.

As if that were not enough, earlier this year Mr. Hearn's slavish devotion to his new leader placed him in the most hideous of predicaments. Having lambasted John Efford for supposedly putting Party before province, Mr. Hearn did exactly the same thing. Local Progressive Conservatives, genuine centre-right or even centre-left in their political beliefs, openly expressed their disapproval.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Hearn campaign and that of his Conservative partner, Norm Doyle. They are desperately trying to tell us that all is well in the local federal Conservative campaigns. They proudly display the pictures and print the quotes from a handful of provincial politicians. Some of the quotes are so out of whack with reality as to be laughable and yet they are presented with the straightest of straight faces. No matter how much they repeat the message, telling us that it is so does not make it so.

There is no small irony either that Mr. Hearn, in particular has taken to presenting himself as someone who will fight for Newfoundland and Labrador. John Efford used to talk of himself like that too. There is no surprise since, despite their being in different political parties, both men are as alike as alike can be. They are relentlessly partisan, were elected to the provincial legislature at the same point in history and, as their public pronouncements would show, devoted to the ideas that were in vogue 20 years ago.

They talk of grievances that are long since past. Their solutions are also from the past. Joint management of the fishery? Sharing decisions about fisheries between two sets of politicians may have made sense when Loyola Hearn first sat in the House of Assembly a quarter century ago. But the fishery of tomorrow cannot be built by continuing to do exactly what we have done in the past, time and again, without success.

Custodial management? That too is an artifact from a bygone era. Ownership of resources? That battle was fought - and won - when both Hearn and Doyle sat in Brian Peckford's cabinet. What else do Hearn and Doyle talk about besides old ideas? Precious little, save what is in the current Harper playbook.

Compare that to the two Liberal candidates or the two New Democrats in the northeast Avalon. In these four we have men and women who represent a new generation of political leaders. Any of them would be creditable members of the national parliament. Take Hearn and Doyle from the choices and one is left in a quandary.

Sadly, not all can make it. What works against both Mike Keough and Peg Norman is not the virtue of their party platforms or their personal qualities and qualifications. What works against them as a political choice is that their party cannot form a government. Their leader, Jack Layton, has set his sights on being the third party in the Commons. Had the New Democrat campaign aimed higher, then voters in the northeast Avalon would have a harder choice.

Put Hearn and Doyle back into the picture and the choice sharpens. Put Hearn and Doyle back and we see the approaches to politics and our society that have been tried and tried and failed and failed.

Put Hearn and Doyle back in the picture and we see the choice between what we have experienced and to which we do not wish to return and the chance to do something different.

We have the choice between past and future.

Siobhan Coady and Paul Antle represent the modern Newfoundland and Labrador. They are both accomplished in their professions. Both own businesses, Antle in environmental services and Coady in both the fishery and in genetic research. They have extensive volunteer backgrounds and involvement in local and national conservation, community service and business organizations. They have represented our province and our country both nationally and internationally; Antle as a delegate to the Johannesberg environmental conference and Coady as chair of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

They both value financial responsibility balanced with social responsibility - the hallmarks of the majority of voters in St. John's East and St. John's South-Mount Pearl. They do not say things merely because words can be convenient disguises. They value diversity of opinion and people. They are not urban or rural, townie or baymen - those are labels that simply don't apply anymore. They are as comfortable in Ottawa and Toronto, New York and London as they are in Pouch Cove and Mount Pearl.

Neither shrinks from a challenge.

Coady, in particular, worked tirelessly last year on the offshore deal. Unlike some who attended no meetings that mattered, Coady met the Prime Minister or spoke with him on several occasions including before his visit here in June 2004. She had no difficulty making her position plain and in persuading the Prime Minister to state his position on the offshore unequivocally.

Staunch Hearn and Doyle supporters will not vary their vote, most likely. To the staunch Liberals or the New Democrats, the choice is easy.

But to the 15% or more of progressives who abandoned Mr. Hearn, Mr. Doyle and their leader, there is a choice. There is a choice that represents substantive local change that can, in turn produce substantive national change. To make that work, local Progressive Conservatives who left Hearn and Doyle, the local voters who turned their backs on the past once can take another step by voting for candidates who, personally, are closer to them in outlook and values than any of the others.

The challenge the province faces today is how to build on what we have. The challenge we face is the challenge of change. That challenge can only be met with fresh eyes and an approach that does not look to shopworn approaches and words that were all the rage in the 1970s and 1980s. That challenge can only be met by individuals who have shown they can work together with people from different backgrounds and different ways of doing things.

On January 23rd, we voters in the northeast Avalon must turn our face toward the future and make a choice.

From that perspective, voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and St. John's East can make their choice confidently.