Something's off: Newfoundland and Labrador political polls

[Update and correction:  1230 hrs.  CRA has still not posted the news release and tables for the regional poll as of the update time.]

A new poll from Corporate Research Associates is making the rounds.  This time, there's supposedly a report on how Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel about the Harper Conservatives. The Conservatives and the Liberals are in a dead heat, according to the CRA poll.

You can find a story at vocm.com - although the thing is virtually incomprehensible  - as well as coverage in the Telegram (not online) and CBC News. Let's just take the CBC version, though, as typical of what the poll purportedly contains:

Corporate Research Associates reported Thursday that 39 per cent of decided voters in the province would choose the Conservatives, if an election were held now. That's up from 31 per cent recorded in an August poll.

Right off the bat, there's cause to be a little curious if not downright suspicious.

The undecided, refused or won't vote categories combined apparently showed up as being 45%.  Basically, even if the results are perfectly accurate, we are talking about relatively small movement in the electorate here. With numbers like that, even a party showing at 40% in a CRA poll is actually dealing with numbers less than 25% of the total electorate.  CRA gives it results as a percentage of "decideds", incidentally and not all news reports noted the "undecideds".

But there's something else.

CBC and the Telegram are reporting provincial numbers that are part of the quarterly omnibus survey taken in November, with a sample size of around 400 and a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9%, 19 times out of 20.  But vocm.com is reporting a poll of over 1500 people across Atlantic Canada with a margin of error at 2.5%.

The answer to your wonderment is that CRA is reporting both regional and provincial results simultaneously.

But wait a moment, sez you.  Which margin of error do we take?  For the numbers presented, they'd by the higher one if the numbers are actually for the province alone.  For the region, they'd be the lower number.

Go back and look again. There seems to be some confusion among the news outlets over which numbers are which. Both vocm and CBC, for example, purport that Conservative support is on the rise in the province. 

Okay.

The numbers - 31% moving to 39% don't add up to the reported poll results.

Neither of the last two CRA polls are available on the company website, but the earlier one for May is.  Take a look at the numbers for Newfoundland and Labrador on the party support question The Conservatives sure weren't at 31% in this province according to CRA, that is unless their political fortunes were tied to the proverbial dog's stomach. They were at 17% in May and the poll before that  - in February - they were at 49%. 

Hmmm!

They reported regional figures as provincial ones. And if the news organizations had access to the tables of results or had taken the time to search them, they see something else.

[Update, my bad and other observations.  First, the my bad. The numbers are provincial numbers reported accurately by local media in Nova Scotia and in this province.

Second, though, that means the Conservatives have indeed been up and down radically according to CRA numbers.  That's a story in itself.

Third, here's a new point to note:  the provincial numbers have a huge margin of error at plus or minus 4.9%. While CRA is reporting party support in this province at a near dead heat, the actual breakout could have the Liberals 11 points ahead of the Conservatives or the Conservatives could be eight points ahead!]

Look at the regional numbers - the ones reported by the media - and you can see the Conservatives are up where they were in May.  The Liberals are slightly down.   But for the February result, notice that the Liberals have actually gained while the Harper Conservatives?  Well, they're up and down.

But wait.

It gets better, still.

Look at those sample sizes again. Quarterly omnibus.  Newfoundland and Labrador.  Sample size 402.

The quarterly omnibus results for questions on political parties for Newfoundland and Labrador had a sample size of over 800 when it was released last week.

Double hmmm.

That's odd.

Well, it is odd.  It looks like those polls of 800 plus are actually two trips to the field with two separate samples, in essence two separate surveys with the results provincially glued together mathematically for the final tally.  We'll leave it to the mathematicians in the audience to discuss the usefulness of that.

Triple hmmm.

Basically we have a poll here that news rooms are reporting with a jumble of numbers, mixing results for the province and margins of error.  [Correction:  as noted above the media are reporting the provincial numbers as provincial numbers.]

Then we have margins of error which, in the provincial results are high enough to make them of dubious value. Face it, even if you take the Newfoundland and Labrador numbers, the range of variation is 10 percentage points.  That's a wide enough gap you could completely miss real changes in the electorate over time if there's enough systematic error in the polling.

Then we have - apparently - some question about how big the sample is for the omnibus.  Is there one or are there several omnibi?

That gets really important if you're one of those people who follows the news and who accepts the CRA poll results for provincial political support. Tories, Liberals and New Democrat politicians all treat the polls results as gospel.  media commentators and party supporters cite the Premier's overwhelming popularity as having something to do with what they are talking about at the time. CRA poll results have achieved an unprecedented level of currency and validity in local political discussion.

The problem is, you see, the CRA polls might not be accurate. The news reports usually describe the poll results accurately in and of themselves, however, they do not delve into whether or not the polls themselves are accurate.

	CRA (Aug 07)	Telelink (Sept 07)	Poll (Oct 07)	CRA (Nov 07)
PC	62	42	43	67
LIB	13	7.6	13.6	9.8
NDP	5.7	3.7	5	6.6
UND	18	31.7	38	18
Ref	-	14.7	-	-

The table above compares the most recent Corporate Research Associates polls on provincial politics with voting results in the October general election and the only other poll publicly available. That poll was conducted by Telelink for NTV during the election campaign.

The results in this table are presented to ensure that, as much as possible, comparisons are being made to the same sorts of numbers. For the polls, the results are given as a percentage of respondents not, as is usually the case, as a percentage of what are often erroneously called "decided voters".  For the October election, the results are presented as a percentage of all eligible voters, not of voter turnout.

Notice in the table above that the CRA numbers for Liberal and New Democrat party support are almost dead on the actual results in the October general election. Likewise, the Telelink Progressive Conservative number is one percentage point off the actual result. [Note:  as in the original post on the Telelink poll, we've dropped about 4% of the survey, being those who indicated they would not vote, and adjusted the remainder. The PC number from the results as reported by NTV had the PCs at 40.3%, which slightly more than the margin of error reported for that poll.]

As noted here in an October post, the Progressive Conservative voter support in the 2003 general election was 42% of eligible voters.

However, the CRA Progressive Conservative number is 19 percentage points off the actual result. Likewise, the category in the CRA poll that encompasses "undecided", "will not vote", and "no answer/refused" is 18% of those polled while the non-voter population on polling day (roughly analogous) is 38%.

Even if we look at the results as reported, that is, as percentages of decided voters, the results are no more comforting.  CRA's August poll results showed the Progressive Conservative Party support at 76%.  It came in at 70% during the general election, a variation of more than twice the margin of error reported for the poll.

In pollster terms, that's gigantic.  in recent provincial and federal elections, it's not unusual to see polling firms report results of surveys with comparable error margins hitting the real popular vote number within one one percentage point or even one half of a point. Sure, they poll far more close to election day than the CRA or Telelink polls. 

But think about it.

There wasn't anything that occurred between early September and early October that might have caused such a dramatic shift in local Progressive Conservative fortunes.  If anything, the dismal performance by the Liberals and New Democrats should have boosted the Tory numbers.

Don't think the October vote isn't an anomaly either, compared to the CRA poll.  CRA's numbers have been so consistent for so long that it is hard to imagine a CRA poll taken in October would have revealed such a dramatic shift of Tory popularity. 

Nor would it be reasonable to think that there is some greater variation in voter choice between polling periods.  Frankly, even allowing for the goosing, the CRA results have been too consistent with each other to think they peak up some sorts of freakish super-support for the Tories at the most convenient time.

Nope.

There's something amiss.  Obviously.

The most likely explanation are issues in the survey design or in data collection. As good and professional as a firm is, errors do occur.

Given the consistency of the CRA results, it looks like something more than people in the call centre fudging results, guiding answers or falsely filling out forms. Those days are largely gone, given that most call centres are highly automated. Monitoring is strict and even things like question order can be varied by the computer, not the telephone operator. 

It's more likely a structural problem in the way the survey is conducted or some aspect of the sample that skews results.

Something's off in the poll results and it isn't just the reporting of them.

-srbp-

Conspicuous by his absence

Noted across the Atlantic provinces, especially since the Atlantic Gateway trade concept is on the table.

The Guardian" "Williams a no-show..."

Canadian Press: "However, Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador is taking a pass on the meeting due to other commitments,..." with a neat picture in the version channelled by CBC.

Meanwhile, the Nova Scotia premier displays his diplomatic skills.

-srbp-

"Serial exaggerator" an interesting MR tactic for Williams' office

Buried in the exchange between journalist Craig Westcott and the premier's comms director is a reference to a piece that appeared in macleans.ca in April, after Westcott's now (in)famous speech on the Premier.

In a piece titled "Questioning the Williams juggernaut", one finds the following line:

As for Williams himself, a spokeswoman dismissed Westcott as a serial exaggerator who has been "incredibly, incredibly critical" of the premier in the past.

The critical part is accurate, but the use of the term "serial exaggerator" is curious. Try searching for it on the Internet search engine of your choice. Enjoy the hits you get.

It's not like there was any proof that Westcott's reporting - as opposed to his commentaries and opinion pieces - contained any exaggerations or other serious errors.

In the meantime, it isn't like the unnamed spokeswoman's boss isn't a serial exaggerator himself.

-srbp-

Media Relations 101 Meltdown

No matter what people tell you, there is nothing that is ever really, truly off the record.

In the case of this e-mail exchange between Craig Westcott and the Premier's communications director over the course of a couple of years, you'd think that the most simple rule of media relations would be foremost in her mind.

Apparently not.

Then there is this comment from an e-mail dated in the middle of 2006.  it leaps out for two reasons, both of which are discussed below.

I feel compelled to point out that for two and a half years, you did not seek the premier out to gain his perspective on issues (despite the fact that the premier personally called you to offer himself up for a chat).

First, this comment is clearly incorrect  - and the comms director knew it was wrong - since there is a clear record of Westcott seeking interviews with the Premier and being told flatly that the Premier would not be accepting any of Westcott's interview requests. Consider this line from the e-mail sent the day before the comment quoted above:  "As per previous correspondence, the premier is not available for your interview requests."

How could Westcott have failed to seek out the Premier's comments when the same person knew that the office was rejecting all interview requests from the reporter?

Second, take a look at the comment in brackets, namely that the Premier had called Westcott personally for a "chat". There's no discussion of the chat, like what it was about, why the Premier was calling and why they didn't connect. Given that Westcott was trying to get the premier on the phone, but the Premier's Office was refusing Westcott's requests, this seems highly unusual.

Of course, cynics out there would be familiar with this "chat" thing.  A recent, former Premier used to practice "the chat" approach when there was a reporter or editor whose work the Premier of the day didn't appreciate. "The chat" may have started with a bit of charm, but usually it was usually a tongue-lashing that was intended to intimidate the editor or reporter into getting on board with whatever media line the government was pushing at the time.

At the very least, "the chat" made it clear that the highest political office in the province was personally displeased. That's a powerful thing and only the ballsiest of the ballsy wouldn't be impressed by the call. That's why the call gets made.  It's intended to intimidate.

In other instances, the recent former Premier would berate reporters in the course of a scrum. he lashed one reporter for daring to ask if it was true that the Premier's wife had recently been hired in a government-related job during the time of a hiring freeze and layoffs. It was a fair question, but the emotional reaction it gained was a purposeful way of marking territory and showing dominance in a very aggressive fashion.

Media relations (MR) is no place for amateurs, the naive or the faint of heart.  it's also often not a job for former reporters, but that's another story.

At times, MR can be an extremely unpleasant world. Nasty things get said.  Underneath it all, however, must be some kind of mutual respect or at least a mental framework in which the individuals can deal with each other professionally. 

The biggest thing is to keep personalities out of it;  sometimes even when you have to deal with arguably the biggest idiot on the planet (either as the comms person or the reporter/editor) you have to find a way of getting on with the job.

Take a look at the list the Premier's comms director cites as examples of Westcott's supposedly "malicious" reporting. They are editorial comments where opinion is accepted.  The biggest thing, though, is that the comments are personal. The Premier's comms director no doubt took her cues from her boss as to what constituted "malice". That's fair.  People on the receiving end of personal criticism usually get upset. 

The comms director's job in that case is not to act as the instrument of the boss' rage.  Rather the director is a buffer between the understandable, emotional outbursts and the larger interests that need to be managed. It's the director's job to sympathise with the boss but talk him or her off the ledge and keep them from doing something monumentally stupid like picking up the phone and having a 'chat' with the object of his or her anger.

You see, the more personal and the histrionic dominates MR, the more likely it is that one day the long sorry history of the exchanges will wind up in print or on the air somewhere.

And, as in this case, it isn't the reporter who comes off looking like a twit.

-srbp-

The nation's infrastructure burden

Anyone paying attention to the news on a cold December must have felt an extra chill to discover that Newfoundland and Labrador is currently facing an infrastructure deficit of $123 billion.

That's the figure contained in a news release from Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador:

The financial needs of municipalities and the $123 billion infrastructure deficit must be addressed in the 2008 budget said MNL President Graham Letto.

Vocm.com faithfully reported the same figure:

Municipalities are putting the pressure on government to address the 123 billion dollar infrastructure deficit in the province.   MNL president Graham Letto says funding must be allocated in the 2008 Budget.  Letto says government should use the surplus to pay down the debt,  but the province must also take responsibility for the safety and comfort of its residents.  He says covering the cost of supplying basic municipal services like water, sewer, waste management, and safe roads is the single most challenging issue facing local governments.

And why shouldn't a news organization accept at face value a statement made by the organization representing towns and cities across the province?

Well, they shouldn't when the figure is wrong.

The infrastructure deficit figure of $123 billion is actually the Canadian number. It can be found in a news release from the Federation of Municipalities, the national organization to which MNL belongs:

Statement from FCM President Gord Steeves in response to comments made yesterday by Finance Minister Flaherty regarding a municipal report on the $123-billion municipal infrastructure deficit.

That release was issued on November 23.

The real figure for Newfoundland and Labrador is buried in paragraph three of the MNL release:

A report released last month by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) found that nearly 80 percent of the Canada’s infrastructure is near collapse – $3 billion of that crumbling infrastructure is in this province.

Of course, we can likely forgive the local municipal leaders given the propensity of the current provincial administration to refer to the province as a nation.

Someone can restart a few hearts in the provincial cabinet.

-srbp-

The only equity that makes sense

A profile of local entrepreneur Rob Crosbie.

This is the kind of equity that provincial government policy should be encouraging, the kind that comes from local entrepreneurship.

-srbp-

So where is Danny, anyways?

Executive Council December 11, 2007

Deputy Premier to Attend Council of Atlantic Premiers Meeting

The Honourable Tom Rideout, Deputy Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, will represent the province at the Council of Atlantic Premiers (CAP) meeting this week. CAP will be meeting in Halifax on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

***Premier Williams regrets that he is unable to attend.***

-30-

Danny is somewhere unknown.

Florida, maybe?

Only last week, he confirmed his attendance.

So what happened?  The cave-in on Equalization?

Meanwhile, this guy is in charge.

 

-srbp-

Tom Marshall's Christmas bunkum: the magical appearing, disappearing 2005 Danny Williams offshore cash

There are some upward and downward revisions to federal transfers. Based upon current projections, the province can optimize cash revenues in 2007-08 by electing to move from the fixed framework Equalization formula to the new formula this year. The province expects that Equalization will increase by $255.1 million in 2007-08, offset by a reduction of 1985 Atlantic Accord payment of $188.6, a net cash gain of $66.5 million. This also means that the expected $305.7 million draw down from the balance of the $2 billion 2005 Atlantic Accord advance payment, originally forecast to be recognized as revenue in 2007-08, will not occur this year.

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2007-08 Fall Update

How many times have you heard a provincial cabinet minister or government back bencher tell you that there was $305 million in new cash in the 2007 budget thanks to Danny Williams and something they like to call the "Atlantic Accord?"

Forgive me.

That question has been asked before.

Well, the answer is way too many, given that it isn't true.  There is a number "$305 million" in the budget estimates as 2005 Atlantic Accord money but that does not represent new cash. It merely accounts for cash already received and spent in 2005.

But if you accepted the original government version, you might be just a wee bit confuddled by the sudden claim on Monday that the O'Brien formula would deliver $255 million in Equalization, which is a net gain of $66 million over the two Equalization offset payments.

Even in Joan Burke's newest new math, $188 million plus $305 million is $493 million.

And $255 million is less than $493 million not $66 million more than.

So what gives?

Well, two things.

First, that $305 million simply never existed as real cash in the current budget estimates.

Yes, that's right.  The finance minister said things that weren't even close to being correct.

In fact, as recently as his shameful assault on former premier Brian Peckford in late November, finance minister Tom Marshall said:

We got this offset payment that made us whole. And as a result of what Premier Williams did in '05, the Atlantic Accord '05, you know, this year we're showing 305 million, which is allowing us to forecast a surplus of 261 billion, I'm sorry, 261 million and to pay down some debt and that's what's made the difference.

Yes, according to Tom Marshall a mere two weeks ago, the surplus was due to Danny Williams and the $305 million. on Monday, we found out it was due to something else entirely, like say super high oil and nickel prices.

And the $305 million? It went poof because it never really existed.

You see - and this is the second point -  the only new offset cash in the 2007 budget was the bit coming from the 1985 Atlantic Accord - the real Accord.  That was set to be $188 million. Under the amendments to the 1985 deal accepted by the provincial government either in the spring or just this past week - Marshall has never acknowledged when the province really accepted the O'Brien Equalization formula and approved the changes to the Real Atlantic Accord - the 1985 Equalization offset payments are wiped out entirely in favour of $255 million in additional Equalization.

The choice the provincial government faced was between $255 million in new cash and $188 million in new cash.

Logically, the provincial government took the bigger number.

And that making us whole thing was obviously bunkum too, but that's really the subject of another post.

-srbp-

 

 

Flip? Meet Flop.

The changing view of gross domestic product for the provincial progressive Conservatives, as documented by labradore.

-srbp-

Williams caves to Harper on Equalization

There's a reason why Danny Williams has gone to ground in the wake of his meeting with Stephen Harper.

He said "yes to less", yet again.

[Aside: Where is the Premier anyway? ]

Turns out the provincial government is accepting the O'Brien formula and the Nova Scotia Equalization deal Williams lambasted only a few weeks ago.

So much for ABC.

So much for the Prime Minister being "petty and untrustworthy".

In hindsight some of the media coverage and Williams remarks about the Nova Scotia negotiations and agreement are laughable.

Heck, the arguments were laughable at the time, much like the ones put forward organizers of the Rally for Danny who claimed it was non-partisan and were likely planning to fight to the death to defend the honour of the Fatherland.

Guess a few people will be having a large portion of crow instead of turkey this Christmas.

The government's decision to accept the supposedly unacceptable goes a long way to explaining why the finance minister refused to release his own department's analysis of the federal budget impact back in May when the Telegram asked for it.

Interesting, in hindsight, though, how close to the truth some earlier remarks turned out to be:

The provincial government knew generally speaking what was going to happen on Equalization about a year ago when it was first reported publicly.

The Premier knew the 100% option was definitely off the table likely before he laced into Steve Harper last October.

He almost certainly knew what was going on (give or take a few details) last December when Loyola Sullivan came back from a finance minister's meeting and had to attend a news scrum with the Premier standing by his side.

What played out from March onwards has been pure political theatre designed to get people in Newfoundland and Labrador agitated about something 99% of Canadians don't understand.

In the end, the Premier will just do what he planned to do once the feds announced exactly what they were going to do in march: flip from one plan to the other to maximize the cash flows.

There's no way the Prem can lose cash. Under every likely scenario, the provincial government continues to make more. It was only just a matter of how much more. look at the 2005 deal. he settled for way less than he started out looking for. In the end - as he admitted himself - it came down to what the cash advance amount was going to be.

He's a smart guy. That's why he places the angles on the cash and plays the public like a violin.

Why else has he all but given up on the 100% option? He knows it's impossible to get.

Why isn't he looking to get the caps removed from the Accords? That's the part that maximizes the cash to the province. Likely because his administration already consented to amending the 1985 deal and therefore doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There really isn't any other explanation for his using the weak "Steve lied" argument instead of taking down the feds with an iron-clad example of perfidy.

In the end, there'll be some extra cash in the provincial treasury and no one will recall the current racket six months after the last polls close.

Playing to the galleries always works in the theatre of Newfoundland politics. That's why so many politicians do it. Danny Williams just does it better than just about any thespian we've elected to the office.

Sadly, though, treating politics like a sordid little melodrama is why the financial ending is always the same.

That's from Bond Papers this past May.

Sometimes, these things are so obvious it's scary.

-srbp-

In a nutshell

1. The finance minister admitted today in comments to reporters that the government had paid scant attention to the provincial debt thus far in its mandate. The government will apparently use the bulk of the 2007 budget windfall (estimated at more than $800 million) to reduce the public debt. Check the video when it comes available. Tom Marshall's comments show the hollowness of his previous claims about debt fighting.

2. Words to watch out for: "Once we account for the change in capital assets, the balance will reduce the province’s net debt." It's a question of assets and liabilities. Since the equity position contains both, let's see how the provincial government accounts for those in its upcoming budget. The windfall might actually go out the door with the debt only appearing to be reduced.

3. The only principle is cash. Not in the media reports by mid-day, but the provincial government is accepting the Harper Equalization deal, as amended by the agreement with Nova Scotia.

There's a gigantic surprise.

Not.

4. The finance minister still likes to pump out nonsense: "It is also important to acknowledge the Atlantic Accord 2005, which was successfully negotiated by Premier Williams, and its remarkable contribution to the overall improvement to the province’s fiscal position."

The improvement in the province's fiscal position is driven entirely by the results of the 1985 Atlantic Accord (the real one), three offshore development deals signed before 2003 and high mineral prices flowing from deals signed before 2003.

As the government statement said: "the change is due to much higher oil prices, increased production from the offshore projects, higher royalties for the White Rose project and higher than expected mineral prices."

Update:

5.  A portion of the finance minister's remarks are available from CBC [ram file].  Marshall refers to the cabinet decision to put $55 million of the last budget against the debt as being "not enough".    That isn't what Marshall said at the time of the budget.  In fact, his budget speech trumpeted the great strides in debt reduction he and his colleagues had made.  Rather than quote the Telegram editorial (even though the words are worth heeding), Marshall might well have pointed to those of us who have been drawing attention to the current administration's debt-reduction nakedness for some months now.

Turns out the Emperor and the entire court had no clothes and knew it all along.

6.  While you're listening try asking yourself a simple question:  who is Marshall trying to convince that paying down the debt is a good thing?  Is his audience inside cabinet or outside?

-srbp-

Turf War: did Danny give Steve the secret of fake popularity in exchange for future billions?

Isn't it odd that across the country a whole raft of people spontaneously wrote letters to the editor wanting an end to the Schreiber mess without any further inquiry?

And they all use very similar language.

Almost like they were getting messages from the same central hub.

"Charade". "Waste of money". "Dragging up" things from the distant past. "Going back 15 years". "Send Schrieber back."

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Even in the winter, Conservative astroturf still springs up looking real but still being as fake as fake can be.

You know astroturf. It's the stuff that turns nature on it's head: manure that looks like grassroots but still smells really bad.

Hey,maybe this is what Danny and Steve traded during their meeting: the secrets of faking public opinion. You'd swear these same comments have turned up on local open line shows whenever there's been a whiff of local political scandal involving their team.

The war is over and as a token of good faith, Danny gave Steve a taste of what the poll goosing machine looks like in full operation.

Sounds silly doesn't it? 

Poll goosing and astroturfing are silly ideas, but the local Tories still devote huge amounts of energy to the campaign, don't they?

Anyway, take this letter as a starting point:

I have a comment about the Schreiber hearings going on in Ottawa over the last two weeks. Can it be that our elected officials are so out of it (P. Martin, A. Nevil, J. Washalesalies?) that they cannot see this man has nothing on his mind other than making a mockery of the Canadian government and staying in Canada as long as possible to avoid prosecution in Germany?

I am amazed that they are not giving him a kiss on the cheek every morning. It's pathetic. It shows the average person how much the opposition parties will drag things on to try to get something on the current government. They are going back 15 to 20 years in hopes something sticks to Harper. What a waste of time and money.

I say send him back to Germany as quickly as possible to face his bribery and fraud charges, so the government can get back to the business at hand.

Doug Cowlthorp

Winnipeg

Then there are the rest:

The Telegram 08 Dec 2007

Enough with the Schreiber charade I am wondering if anyone can explain to me why millions and millions of our tax dollars are being spent on this Karlheinz Schreiber charade. It was more than 15 years ago. How far back do we want to go?

Why aren't we investigating any of the multitude of Chretien scandals or his tax-sheltered, morally questionable follower, Paul Martin? It's history.

Ninety-nine per cent of the evidence is the testimony of an aging, foreign man who specializes in creating scandals and, by his own admission, has made an entire career of shadowy payments and nebulous affairs, and is forever extending his stay in Canada to avoid his impending criminal trial in Germany.

Extradite him already, and stop wasting my money and pre-empting more intellectual TV like "The Simpsons." This is simply misuse of our tax dollars by the opposition to grab more votes.

Brendan Hynes

Salvage

****

Re "No cash for PM" (Dec. 5):

Federal politicians are particularly brilliant at making our entire government look like fools. And the Canadian media repeatedly fall over themselves to wallow in any whiff of scandal on Parliament Hill, no matter how far-fetched. Karlheinz Schreiber, on stage for his 15 minutes of fame, should be awarded a theatrical performance medal for making both institutions look like total jugheads.

Jim McDonald

Caledon East

****

The Daily Gleaner

05 Dec 07

Schreiber inquiry not needed

Karlheinz Schreiber has avoided extradition to Germany for more than eight years, so delaying and denying justice. His competent lawyers were skilled in the appeal process. Mud slinging, character assassinations and a circus atmosphere in Ottawa are evident.

Canadians realize that the thousands of pages in the upcoming inquiry report could cost taxpayers more than a million dollars. It will conclude that our former successful and competent PM behaved in a bizarre, secretive, desperate, greedy, unsavoury, reckless and unprincipled manner.

We have serious economic issues in forestry, manufacturing, health, etc. where our focus and ingenuity are needed. Is spending money wisely important in our Parliament? Police should be responsible for resolving this issue.

Harold Phalen

Fredericton

****

The Telegram 05 Dec 07

Axe the inquest

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed Prof. David Johnston to decide how the public inquiry into the financial dealings between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber should be conducted.

Prof. Johnston would, after careful consideration of all the facts, do the country a great service by recommending that a commission of inquiry is unnecessary and a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money.

Burford Ploughman

St. John's

****

 Edmonton Journal

 04 Dec 07

Schreiber saga a waste of time, money

Re: "Schreiber starts paper shuttle between home and jail:  Will resume testifying before Commons committee on Tuesday," The Journal, Dec. 1.

Am I the only one who is tired of reading about Karlheinz Schreiber complaining that he did not have time to peruse the 35,000 pages of personal documents -- the equivalent of 50 700- page novels -- to refresh his memory about the $300,000 or $500,000 he allegedly gave former prime minister Brian Mulroney for doing, as Schreiber alleges, absolutely nothing?

How much is this hearing by the Commons ethics committee costing taxpayers? Schreiber had been ordered deported to Germany, where he is wanted on tax evasion, fraud and other corruption-related charges. I say put him on a plane and let him go. Our courts are backlogged with cases while Schreiber not only ties up valuable court time, but also wastes taxpayers' money.

You and I are paying for this indirectly through government lawyers, etc. Good riddance.

Don Marcus, Edmonton

[No, Don, you aren't alone. The rest of the Connie plants are moaning too]

****

Times & Transcript

 03 Dec 07

Inquiry just a waste of money

To The Editor:

A large number of Canadians will be disappointed in the prime minister if he allows the Schreiber inquiry to go forward. Nothing definitive can possibly come from people like Schreiber and Mulroney. Parliament should not be interfering in the judicial system.

The German system wants Schreiber behind bars. Let them have him and save Canadians the expense. As for Brian Mulroney, the public made up their mind on him some time ago.

The country did quite well while he was PM, but he does have a darker side to him. Old news.

I submit that most people are hoping that Mr. Harper cancels this whole inquiry and saves taxpayers $30 million. The Opposition will howl, but so what! It is Christmas; let's spend the money on another convention centre for the country or, better yet, a dozen new curling rinks.

Robert MacDiarmid, Moncton

****

National Post

03 Dec 07

Send Schreiber back to Germany

Re: Lawyer Claims Case Is 'Purely Political,' Dec. 1.

From my point of view, the "utter waste of time," as Karlheinz Schreiber's lawyer Edward Greenspan put it, is that Mr. Schreiber is still in Canada at all. He should have been back in Germany in 2000 at the latest. The eight years of haggling has been a gross waste of everyone's time.

If Mr. Greenspan is so concerned about losing his client and the attached fees he represents, perhaps he should apply to the German bar so he can represent Mr. Schreiber at his trial in Germany. Note to the Canadian government: phone Lufthansa, book a seat on the next available flight and send Mr. Schreiber home.

Enough of this charade.

Jim Anderson, Victoria.

****

The London Free Press

01 Dec 07

SCHREIBER'S STRATEGY SHOULD END IN A WEEK

Karlheinz Schreiber's game plan is obvious -- an attempt to extend the meeting of the ethics committee and avoid extradition to Germany to face the justice that he so richly deserves.

How can one believe, in such circumstances, anything that he has to say?

My recommendation to the committee is that Schreiber be given a maximum of one week to provide his testimony, starting Monday, following which he would be placed on an airplane for return to Germany.

At present Schreiber is in the driver's seat, playing his game with MPs. Let us resume control of the matter in hand.

Michael Cornell London

****

National Post

01 Dec 07

'The gods must be shaking their heads'

Re: A Man Eager For An Encore, John Ivison, Nov. 30.

The only "political point" that the ethics committee members scored with me is to reaffirm that our politicians continue to waste our valuable tax dollars. What a joke they make of themselves, what a waste of time and money, and what a shame when you think of all the serious problems in our country that they should be working on.

Lynn Clark, Grimsby, Ont.

-srbp-

For the record: 2003 Tory commitment on lobbying

From the memory pit of the Internet, recall the Progressive Conservative commitment on lobbying and lobbyists.

Don't try to go to the party website to find the commitments from the 2003 election.  They've vanished as if they didn't exist.  Thanks to the Internet, though, the promises have been preserved for posterity and the occasional use, like this one.

There was a consultation and then new legislation, which came into force on October 11, 2005. What's interesting is how the legislation has worked in practice.  That's the subject of another post coming this weekend.  'Til then, here's the specific commitments from the 2003 general election:

A Progressive Conservative government will commission a process of public consultation to develop legislation for the registration of lobbyists operating in this Province.

The primary objectives of the legislation will be to:

• Establish a registry so the public will know who is lobbying and who is being lobbied.
• Require lobbyists to report their activities. It may also require those who hold public office to disclose circumstances in which they have been lobbied.
• Require lobbyists to file their general objectives and/or their specific lobbying activities.
• Differentiate between those who are paid to lobby government and those who represent volunteer or non-profit agencies.
• Impose significant penalties for those who violate these provisions.

-srbp-

2006 Newfound project shut down in Ireland by enviro concerns

Newfound Group tried to establish a resort complex in Ireland but was turned down by the local planning board, according to a story carried by the Sunday Business Post online edition in its July 2006 edition.

The project would have included 'holiday homes", a 100 room hotel and a golf course. objections were raised on environmental grounds with intervenors against the project including the Irish environment department. The planning board rejected the project...

on the grounds that it would "adversely affect the habitat of the area, especially that of the Lesser Horseshoe Bat, the pine martin and the red squirrel."

It also concluded that the proposed golf course "would represent a significant intrusion into the historic landscape" and that, without a hydrogeological study, it was unknown whether the project would be a "potential threat to the underlying groundwater".

The main opponents of the proposed development were An Taisce, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the Cavan/Leitrim Environmental Awareness Network (CLEAN).

Newfound chief executive Brian Dobbin is quoted as referring to the decision as "bizarre". His remarks in defeat are hardly likely to have endeared him to the locals, given the references to the area as "rundown" and an "unemployment blackspot with a dwindling population." As The Business Post reported,

An Bord Pleanala said the scheme was contrary to proper planning because it would breach the Roscommon county development plan, which seeks to improve and protect high-amenity areas.

Dobbin said he had no plans to resubmit a planning application for the site.

‘‘I’m not going to waste any more of my time and my money – certainly not until the issues between the local authority and the Department of the Environment have been resolved,” he said.

‘‘If the department is trying to ensure that Lough Key park remains rundown and that this area stays an unemployment blackspot with a dwindling population, then it is doing a good job of it.”

The local county council approved the deal in 2005. Dobbin spoke in glowing terms of the project similar to the way his company has described its other projects.

Despite Dobbin's comments, the Lough Key project is apparently not dead. There is a specific reference to Lough Key in a July 2007 release from Newfound, promoting the companies Caribbean initiatives.

-srbp-

Cod war heats up...20 years ago

The e-mail inbox these days is a bit like an Advent calendar. 

Every day there is a little surprise.

The only difference between the e-mail and the Advent calendar is that the little surprises keep coming 24/7, 365 days a year.

Like this little blast from the cod war past, which includes some details on the 1987 deal with France that Brian Peckford forgot in his recent recitation of the "evidence" of cod being traded for other people's products to the supposed detriment of Newfoundland.

No wonder Danny called out a political hit on his predecessor last week.  We can't have two 'bad-boys' of Confederation running around using the same tactics and same language, can we? people might actually start to realise how much of the Williams' schtick is just recycled Peckford.

The Montreal Gazette Wednesday, September 30, 1987, p. B4

Cod War heats up as Peckford trades shots with fellow Tories

ST. JOHN'S, Nfld. - ST. JOHN'S, Nfld. (CP) - The northern cod is a grey- green fish with a barb under its chin, found in abundance in the chilly waters around Newfoundland.

Sometimes called Newfoundland currency, cod is to Newfoundland what wheat is to the Prairies, timber is to British Columbia and automobile plants are to Ontario. You don't mess with the cod fishery.

It's as emotional as the seal hunt, and as staunchly defended as the island's outmoded narrow-gauge railway. And as Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford knows, cod makes good bait.

After learning this month that Canada had formally offered France some cod to settle a boundary dispute around the French-held islands of St. Pierre-Miquelon south of Newfoundland, Peckford pulled in his lines.

The self-described "bad boy of Confederation" said he was taking the Newfoundland government out of further involvement in the Canada-France negotiations. That put opposition parties on election alert and led senior Newfoundland MP John Crosbie into a political sparring match with Peckford, a fellow Conservative.

The Crosbie-Peckford clash, one of the high points of the so-called Cod War, has some Tories wondering about party unity and federal-provincial relations.

"I do think many people must be confused," said provincial Justice Minister Lynn Verge. Peckford says Newfoundland, Canada's poorest province, should not have to give up some of its cod to settle an international boundary dispute. France claims a 200-mile territorial limit around St. Pierre-Miquelon while Canada recognizes a 12-mile boundary.

For the past two weeks, the sometimes wild-eyed premier has been using television, radio and newspaper ads, including a 15-minute prime-time television broadcast, to urge Newfoundlanders to "stand tall" on the issue.

Crosbie staged a similar 15-minute province-wide broadcast Monday, accusing Peckford of engineering a phoney crisis.

The amount of cod formally offered in negotiations so far is less than what the French are now taking out of Canadian waters under an agreement with the European Community that ends this year, the federal transport minister said.

Crosbie also said the French have the right to take Canadian fish under a 1972 agreement. Peckford says that agreement doesn't specify the French can have cod - the most sought-after species on the Grand Banks.

If a settlement of the St. Pierre-Miquelon boundary is not negotiated, the dispute may go to international arbitration. Crosbie says Canada could then lose more fish than it has offered.

Peckford's actions have made the provincial Liberals and New Democrats nervous. In the past, Peckford has called elections on emotion-charged battles such as the offshore oil agreement.

But Norman Whelan, provincial Liberal party president, doubts the Cod War is enough to hang an election on, especially since offshore oil activity is at a standstill, the provincial debt is skyrocketing and Peckford is only 2 1/2 years into his term.

"He hopes to create a wrap-yourself-in-the-flag issue so he can win another election," said Whelan. "I don't think he's going to, because it ain't flying."

-srbp-

Newfound Group lobbying province apparently without lobbyist registration

Newfound Group has been lobbying the provincial government for assistance with the Humber valley resort yet no lobbyists have been registered, as required by provincial law. [Update: See correction below]

Interviewed by CBC Radio's David Cochrane, Jeremy White, president of Newfound Group said the company has been working with the province to have the province lobby Air Canada to restore a direct flight between St. John's and London.

White also said his company was seeking provincial government assistance with its marketing program. He said the provincial government had offered to help defray some of the company's annual marketing program. White indicated that the company the government had been working closely together to deal with the company's financial issues.

However, the provincial lobbyist register contains no entries for anyone or any company related to Newfound.

The provincial lobbyist registration act requires that a company lobbying the provincial government register within 10 days of starting any lobbying activities. [Correction: The 10 day rule applies if the company is using a consultant lobbyist.] The online registry is current as of 21 November. An in-house lobbyist must register if his lobbying activity constitutes 20% or more of his or her time during a three month period.

In July 2007, Humber Valley Resort hired former tourism minister Paul Shelley as its new general manager. Shelley retired from politics on July 13 and was replaced in cabinet in January, having signalled his intention not to seek re-election in the fall. Shelley was human resources minister at the time of his departure from cabinet.

In addition to any political heights Shelley has scaled, his days at Humber Valley have included the odd rock wall, as this video shows. This and other videos on the resort can be found on the resort blog.

Shelley isn't the only Humber Valley executive with ties to the current administration. Humber Valley chief executive officer Brian Dobbin serves on the provincial government's Irish business partnership board. He is also publisher of The Independent newspaper.

Neither Shelley nor Dobbin is listed in the provincial lobbyist registry.

-srbp-

Good question, Ron. Too bad you can't answer it.

Considering a subsidy of a mere $150,000 from the City of St. John's to the Aquarena, councillor Ron Ellsworth is quoted by CBC news as saying:

"It's a regional facility providing a regional service, so why aren't they going to other municipalities and getting this money that's needed?"

So why exactly doesn't Ellsworth take the same attitude to forking out 10 times as much in a direct subsidy, and upwards of 20 times that amount in total outlays for the Money Pit, a.k.a. Mile One?

Ellsworth said his opposition to the Aquarena subsidy is based on a business case.

How about showing the taxpayers the business case, Ron?

-srbp-

Of cheese and evidence

The Great Fish Trade Myth - and its recent proponent Brian Peckford -  as demolished by the editorialist at the Telegram.

This should generate as much hate mail for the Telly as Russell Wangersky's sensible critique of the "How Irish are we" mythology.

-srbp-

Newfound NV update

At an extraordinary general meeting held on 04 December 2007, Newfound NV shareholders approved an arrangement that would see the issue of shares to two directors at a value of 7.0 million pounds sterling. This gives the company needed operating capital.

As well, the company has raised an additional 3.6 million pounds sterling through a share placement to unspecified institutional and other investors.

A corporate news release stated:

The proceeds of the Placing, together with those of the Subscription, will be used for general working capital purposes and to allow the Company to pursue its revised business strategy. The Company's strategy is to:

* Focus on the conservation of working capital in the near term, including, inter alia, reduction of overheads at Humber Valley Resort;

* Further develop its current projects to build additional value and returns, which will include, inter alia, the development of relationships with branded operators and resort funds, driving sales growth through marketing led development, finalising the Nevis masterplan and obtaining outline planning permission, and the pursuit of debt financing for ongoing resort development supported by the assets of the Group;

* Review and assess opportunities for bulk land sales, sales of legacy plots and re-sales;

* Expand holiday sales through direct and specialist tour operators and partnerships with holiday sales companies for Humber Valley Resort;

* Expand the resort portfolio in the long term.

-srbp-

Mainlander sees Williams as abandoning confrontation

it's always interesting to see the difference in the way mainlanders view the premier, versus some of the locals.

Like the editor of the Packet who finds it necessary to invent excuses rather than simply accept Danny Williams 'shut up and go away' as being exactly what he meant to say.

A good democratic society welcomes opinions from all quarters, including those of former politicians.

Re-examine your assumptions, Barbara. 

A good democratic society does welcome opinions.

Since opinions aren't welcome here? 

Figure it out.

Meanwhile, in Saskatchewan, Randy Burton thinks the heavens are coming into alignment foretelling the solution to the equalization strife.  One of his signs?  Let's let Randy tell it:

The third reason progress now seems possible on the equalization file is that at long last, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams now appears ready to deal. A few days after his conversation with Boyd, the prime minister was in Newfoundland to meet with Williams.

There was no breakthrough, but for the moment at least, Williams is ready to talk about some other kind of federal transfers that might offset what he's losing under a new equalization deal that caps payments to the provinces.

Williams emerged from their meeting to say he gave the prime minister some options, which is a new tack for the normally confrontational premier.

Seems the farther one is away from the object being viewed, the more clearly one may make observations.

-srbp-

Murphy Oil an attractive buy for investors

But will either a private sector investor or the new provincial energy corporation be in a buying mood?

-srbp-

Lone 2007 offshore parcel awarded

The lone offshore parcel available in 2007 went to Corridor Resources, Inc, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board announced today.

The Western Star incorrectly reported that the provincial government made the announcement. CNLOPB is a joint management board of the federal and provincial governments.

The C-NLOPB accepted a bid from Corridor Resources Inc. in the amount of $1,521,000 for the parcel which is composed of 51,780 ha. The Bid represents the expenditure which the bidder commits to make in exploring the parcel during the initial 5-year period of a 9-year term exploration licence.

The provincial government merely issued a news release stating that the land sale was a positive sign and attributing positive developments to the recently released energy plan.

Horse hockey. One solitary parcel is a sign of an offshore that is suffering a serious lack of interest from developers.

We'll need to see what happens in the next few years to determine if the energy plan has had a positive effect. The energy plan won't be complete and therefore won't have an impact until both the gas royalty regime and the oil royalty regime are finalized.

Update 05 Dec: The Star has corrected the reference in the current online version.

-srbp-

It must be a good idea.

Andy Wells opposes it.

Councilor Frank Galgay suggested selling the Mile One money pit at a council meeting last night. he was attacked immediately by Mayor Andy Wells. The boorish mayor demanded that Galgay tell him how much someone in the private sector might pay for the facility. Then His Boorishness proceeded to lament the sorry state of the province's educational system.

The start of the conversation was tabling of the financial reports for the Money Pit.

A loss of $640,000 in the last fiscal year.

Bear in mind that council deliberately increased the subsidy to the Pit last year claiming that somehow a financially successful money pit actually needed more free cash.

But here's the thing.

If one considers the $500,000 added subsidy as part of the shortfall, then the Money Pit's operating shortfall in Fiscal Year 2006 is...

wait for it...$1.14 million.

The deficit from the previous year? Why one tenth of that figure.

It's not reported in the story linked above but other reports have the shortfall from the previous year at around $130,000.

Wow.

The $640,000 shortfall is bad enough, but the real shortfall is staggering. It becomes stupefying when one considers that the annual subsidy before the boost was about $1.0 million.

In other words, the stadium lost as much money in 2006 as the taxpayers of St. John's pumped into it in subsidy.

But really that subsidy is an operating loss as well.

The taxpayers of St. John's don't make any money on this venture. They get the privilege of paying - this number will shock you - $1.5 million in subsidy plus the $640,000 shortfall for a total loss of $2.14 million.

Holy crap.

And what does the mayor think?

"It's well in the mix, so this is not — contrary to what some people are saying — this is not a major drain on the taxpayers of St. John's. It's working pretty well."

Working pretty well, huh.

At least no one will need to ask the mayor the same question he posed to Galgay at last night's meeting.

Suggesting that Mile One is working pretty well makes the answer plain.

Sell the Money Pit.

No matter what cash we'd get for it, the taxpayers will be better off in the long run.

-srbp-

Update: Andy Wells is proud of Mile One, so proud he claims the stadium has a per-user subsidy like the Mews Centre or the Wedgewood Park Centre.

Apples? Meet Oranges.

For those who don't know, the latter are community recreation centres operated by the city for the benefit of residents. It's fair to talk about a per-user subsidy for those facilities which are, by definition, used by citizens individually for their own personal fitness. If my family goes to the place, we get the direct benefit of it in the way of improving our fitness and health. We should expect the place to break even but, in the event there is a shortfall in operating expenses, it's reasonable for council to provide a small subsidy of some kind.

Mile One is completely different.

It's a facility built as a commercial venue for concerts, ice hockey and a variety of similar large events. Using some kind of "per-user" comparison for subsidies is more than a bit misleading.

For the purposes of determining cost and benefit, it would be more useful to look at Mile One as a commercial venture and look at how much money it loses. It should be making a profit. Breaking even, the goal we should set for all taxpayer-owned facilities, would be acceptable but profit would be nicer.

$1.5 million in operating subsidy, plus covering the $640,000 shortfall on the last fiscal year.

More than $2.0 million.

Hmmm.

Not good.

Then we look at the general trend.

Definitely bad, since the loss to the taxpayers resulting from operating the facility seems to be going up. It's pretty bad when losses go up in an otherwise good year economically in the region. To see losses climb by 10 times (the inflated subsidy is really a mask for the deeper operating problem) and you've got a pretty - obviously - significant problem on your hands.

To make matters worse, the mayor expects that expenses for the stadium will always exceed revenue. In that environment, the residents of the city can only expect things to get worse. The mayor not only tries to find excuses for the loses, he actually thinks they will go on and on as some sort of natural occurence. City officials have no incentive to make things better and officials at the stadium/conference centre have no incentive to improve. The mayor has the excuses already written out.

Where else but St. John's would this sorry excuse for municipal government be allowed to continue?

Mulroney can't reform Senate, ex-PM claims

Blink again and look at the date of the article. You haven't been caught in a Canadian episode of Star Trek and no one has violated the Temporal Prime Directive.

Rather, what we here is an old article on senate reform starring the current prime minister's mentor/albatross. There are some curious aspects to the story in hindsight. 

For example, the changes Mulroney had in mind were eventually floated out in the Meech Lake Accord and died with that deal in June 1990.  Executive federalism simply isn't the way to go with reforming an institution as fundamental as the federal parliament. These sorts of things have to include Canadians across the country.

Then there is the reference to Pierre-Marc Johnson, then the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister and these days Stephen harper's go-to guy on environmental issues.

Last but by no means least there is the comment from British Columbia premier Bill Bennett.  He's right.  Abolition of the senate is 'the sort of thing I expect a teenager to say but not someone who is interested in government".

Local audiences get a special bonus feature.  Consider that the focus of this story is a former first minister giving advice to his successor.  Brian Mulroney initially blew off Pierre Trudeau's comments;  yes, 25-odd years later Mulroney would pen a book blaming everything on Trudeau, but at the time Mulroney wasn't a bitter, frustrated ex-politician. In a situation no way similar at all - Peckford wasn't specifically slagging the current provincial Tories -  Danny Williams launched a media attack on the former premier for having the audacity to share his opinion with people in the province.

 

The Gazette, Thursday, March 7, 1985

Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau said yesterday that Brian Mulroney doesn't stand a chance of carrying out his plans to revamp the Senate and "I'm not sure he wants to, either."

And Liberal leader John Turner accused Prime Minister Mulroney of "bluffing" when he offered on Tuesday to abolish the Senate if the Liberals would support the plan.

Mulroney himself, meanwhile, appeared to back off from his offer to reform the Senate.

And he discounted reports that at least three provinces oppose a constitutional amendment that would not abolish the Liberal-dominated Senate but limit the time it can debate legislation passed by the Tory- dominated Commons.

The threats to abolish or curb the Senate were triggered when the Senate blocked a $19.3-billion government borrowing bill for a month, until last week.

Trudeau said of Senate reform yesterday: "I had tried to do it and the premiers prevented me."

"I'm sure he (Mulroney) won't (succeed). I'm not sure he wants to, either."

Trudeau made several unsuccessful attempts to reform the Senate while he was prime minister.

In 1980 he included Senate reform in his package to patriate the Constitution, but the courts ruled he had to have the consent of all 10 provinces and the idea fell by the wayside. Since then, the Constitution has been altered to allow amendments with the approval of seven provinces containing 50 per cent of Canada's population.

Trudeau would not elaborate to reporters yesterday.

He was attending a Montreal reception honoring Quebec painter Jean Paul Lemieux and insisted he was not there to hold a news conference. He did say, however, that with the end of his "sabbatical year" this summer, he may make public statements on policy issues.

He stepped down as PM last July after the Liberals chose Turner to succeed him and now works for a Montreal law firm.

In Ottawa, Turner said that Mulroney was merely playing politics and was not serious about abolishing the non-elected upper house of Parliament when he made his proposal during Tuesday's question period in the Commons.

"I think he was bluffing," Turner told reporters.

Since the Senate can't veto its own abolition, Turner said, Mulroney could use his 211-seat majority in the 287-seat Commons to push a resolution through, provided he had the support of the provinces.

"He doesn't need my support. If he wants to abolish the Senate let him bring in the bill," Turner said.

Mulroney insisted early yesterday he was serious about abolition. But later he said the proposal was made "under the express condition that Mr. Turner get up immediately (in the Commons) to give his approval."

Asked whether his offer had been withdrawn, Mulroney replied: "Well, if he gets back to me today (yesterday), we'll take a look at it."

Whatever Mulroney's stand on abolishing the Senate, his inner cabinet has approved a constitutional amendment to curb the Senate's power to block legislation passed by the Commons and the full cabinet will consider the plan today.

Mulroney has said legislation will follow quickly once the provinces have been consulted. As it now stands, Mulroney can't get a constitutional amendment to limit the time the Senate can debate bills because he lacks the support of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population.

But when reporters noted that Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island have objections to tinkering with the Senate's powers, Mulroney retorted: "Don't be so sure of that. We'll see what the provinces say, but I'm encouraged by the results."

Only Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have said they support a time-limit amendment.

Quebec Intergovermental Affairs Minister Pierre Marc Johnson said yesterday Quebec could not go along with the plan until it signs the 1982 Constitution.

New Brunswick Premier Richard Hatfield has said he wants to see the proposed amendment before commenting.

Manitoba's New Democratic Party government wants the Senate abolished or at least substantially reformed.

Ontario Premier Frank Miller said yesterday he would consider a constitutional amendment to limit the time the Senate can debate money bills, but he opposes abolition and is in no hurry to decide what lesser changes could be made.

British Columbia Premier Bill Bennett called abolition of the Senate "the sort of thing I expect a teenager to say but not someone who is interested in government."

-srbp-

Lord to do B and B revival

Former New Brunswick premier Bernard Lord will be heading a revised version of the old B and B commission.

No, not the bed and breakfast crowd.

Bilingualism and biculturalism.

As Canadian Press reports:

Lord, 42, will travel to seven cities across the country during the first two weeks of December to speak to members of English and French minority communities.

He is to report to the federal government in January as it prepares to update its action plan on official languages. [Emphasis added]

And what are the seven cities 'across the country' that Lord will visit?  Well, you'll find them listed in the Radio Canada online version of this story: Halifax, Moncton, Montréal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver.  No stops in Saskatchewan or in Newfoundland and Labrador, even though, there is a substantial francophone population in the province.

Their issues and interests are not the same as those of francophones in other parts of the country, if for no other reason than they are relatively isolated here from francophones elsewhere. Consider that M. Lord and his fellow commissioners will hold two hearings in the Maritimes.  One in Moncton, naturellement, and another a mere three hours drive by car away in Halifax. 

Yes, Halifax.

Not Stephenville or Port au Port.

Not even in St. John's.

But Halifax.

Why add Halifax to the list?  If the federal government wanted  at least one session in each 'region", then the session in  Moncton would fit the bill.  Moncton is well-sited for many purposes and basically if there was anyone in Halifax who wanted to chat with M. Lord, well, he or she could hop a car or a plane and flip over to the New Brunswick city without busting the bank account.

Not so for the Franco-Terre Neuvien(nes) or Labradorien(nes).  no matter how you look at it, anyone from this province wanting to participate in this consultation will be forking out some serious cash for a plane ride, all for a few minutes to try and explain to the former premier of new Brunswick what is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Nonetheless, the consultation is a good opportunity to give the government some feedback.  The English version of the consultation document can be found here while the version francais is here.

-srbp-

Prawns as pawns? A nationalist never recognized the "national" interest.

CBC Radio's fisheries broadcast has been carrying some commentary over the past couple weeks repeating the commonly held view that the federal government traded various fish quotas for favourable trade arrangements on commodities from other parts of Canada.

The old argument, favoured by the local nationalists, is supposedly proof that Ottawa screws Newfoundland at every opportunity, that Confederation isn't working or that Newfoundland is just exploited by the evil crew in Ottawa for the gain of everyone else.

But is there any evidence to support the argument?

Not so, say a great many people. The subject was studied for federal fisheries a few years ago and not a single example could be found of any trade deal for, say wheat or cars, that featured a consideration for fish. In other words, there was no sign of a Hyundai for flounder arrangement or durham for turbot.

The story persists, nonetheless, repeated by a great many others.

It persists to the point that former premier Brian Peckford penned an opinion piece for the Sunday Telegram on 02 December. it doesn't seem to be online, so there's a typed version of it below. Peckford turned up on the fish cast on Monday afternoon with host John Furlong, followed by former federal cabinet representative John Crosbie.

Peckford repeated the basic story, claiming he had various documents to prove his claims. Crosbie dismissed the notion, with the exception of the one obvious case of the 5,000 tonnes of northern cod that formed part of an arrangement with France in order to get the St. Pierre boundary into an arbitration.

If Peckford has documents, it would be nice to see them. All he has presented in the article below are a series of letters he wrote in which he makes certain claims. There is no evidence, such as a specific example of one such deal. Rather, one sees merely a statement of the claim as if that alone was evidence of the existence of the fish trade-offs. it isn't.

What's more curious than merely the presentation of a claim as if it were fact is Peckford's characterization of the 1987 agreement with France:

"The Government of Canada offers this non-surplus fish without any commitment from France to stop overfishing in 3PS. ... You expect this Province to sacrifice alone for a national boundary question"

Peckford presents the boundary dispute as if it had little, if anything, to do with Newfoundland and Labrador. Peckford attempts to disconnect the issue of alleged French overfishing in 3PS, a fisheries management zone adjacent to St. Pierre, from the boundary question. Peckford's position, of course, is as disingenuous on this point today as it was at the time.

French fishing was based upon the argument that the waters in 3PS were French. Since the boundary was undefined, French fishermen had every right to fish to their heart's content. There was no legal means by which Canada could enforce its view on the French, any more than fishermen from Newfoundland and Labrador would have rejected any efforts by French fisheries officers to stop them from fishing waters they viewed as being Canadian.

The mechanism to stop the French "overfishing" Peckford referred to was the boundary arbitration. The price of that arbitration was, in part, 5000 tonnes of northern cod. Beyond that, resolving the boundary also paved the way for exploration and then development of oil and gas resources on the Grand Banks.

How odd that the archetypical Newfoundland nationalist - supposedly ever vigilant in defence of Newfoundland's interests - would argue against an agreement between Canada and France that worked in the interest of Newfoundland and Labrador directly.

Perhaps if Peckford has some evidence on that one, he'll present it as well. The debate stirred up on the fisheries broadcast will be useful if only to determine if there is any evidence at all to support the arguments Peckford and others have been making over the years. If, as it appears, the whole thing is nothing more than a myth, perhaps the fables can finally be labelled for what they are.

-srbp-

The Telegram, December 2, 2007, Page A7

A. Brian Peckford

Were fish stocks used as bargaining chips?; Communiqués from the 1980s show it was an ongoing concern for the province

Apparently there has been discussion in recent times as to whether historically the federal government used fish stocks off the province as a bargaining chip or whether they pursued such policies.

In a cursory review of documents I have in my possession, there seems to be some substance to this allegation.

Let me elaborate.

In October 1980, I wrote a letter to then prime minister Pierre Trudeau in which I highlighted three policies by the federal government that were harmful to the province. One was the matter of including part of Newfoundland in the Department if Fisheries and Oceans Gulf Region, another was a proposed new licensing system and a third was "... the directions being taken regarding the allocation of offshore fish stocks, principally northern cod, to foreign nations in return for trade concessions of dubious value." Also in that letter, I advised the prime minister that I had already written to two of his ministers, [Herb] Gray and [Mark] MacGuigan, about this last matter. In June 1982, in a paper issued by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador under the name of the then minister of Fisheries James Morgan entitled "The Fishery: A Business and a Way of Life," the following statement was made:

"The Government of Newfoundland has serious reservations regarding the entire 'commensurate benefits' policy as followed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. ... The bilateral fishing agreements should not be used to seek concessions of market access in return for allocations of stocks within our zone which are of commercial benefit to the Canadian fishing industry."

In May 1983, the government of Newfoundland, under my name, issued a document entitled "Restructuring the Fishery" which was a presentation to the federal government. On page 12 of that document, the following statement was made: "The Province takes the position that Canada should not trade access to fish in return for market access. By eliminating foreign allocations we would improve the market for our fish products."

In September 1984. in a Government of Newfoundland document entitled "Major Bilateral Issues, Canada-Newfoundland," the following statement was made on page 15: "Trade opportunities for fish products must not be pursued at the price of foreign allocations from fishery resources ..."

In 1987, I sent a written communication to the then minister of Transport and Newfoundland's representative in the federal cabinet, John Crosbie. This was at the time when the Canada/France boundary matter was being discussed between the two nations. In that communication, among other things, I said the following:

"The Government of Canada has offered non surplus 2J3KL cod to France.

"The Government of Canada offers this non-surplus fish without any commitment from France to stop overfishing in 3PS.

"You expect this Province to sacrifice alone for a national boundary question.

"You are part of a Government that continues to trade with France in other areas and refuses to use these other levers to help solve the boundary issue. ..."

In this last case, I do not know what else Canada had on the table in these talks, but this communication was sent using the best information the provincial government had at the time. I do not remember if any or all this communication was proven to be false.

I think it is fair to suggest, if not maintain, that based upon these documents, there is a case to be made that the federal government was trading fish off the province for questionable return, either in the form of so-called market access or involving other products or issues.

A. Brian Peckford was premier of Newfoundland from 1979-1989.

Makes ya wonder if the charity is the Adopt-A-Brain Trust

You just can't make thus stuff up.

You can't.

Combining reality television with a game show is just brilliant, but what makes this show run is the complete failure of the school system in so many parts of the United States.

[h/t apply-liberally.com]

Her name is Kellie, apparently and that wasn't her only problem while on the show.

Here she is freaking at a spelling question.

 

Kellie Pickler, it seems, is a refugee from American Idol.

Her appearance even made news:

Dumaresque confused

Provincial Liberal Party president Danny Dumaresque is confused.

He turned up in Montreal this weekend, as reported by vocm.com, "making sure someone is speaking up for the province. He says he's there specifically to push the federal government to transfer the 8 and a half percent ownership of Petro-Canada's offshore oil interests to the province."

The meeting was of federal riding presidents. Dumaresque isn't one of them. He's president of the provincial party.

There was really no reason for Dumaresque to be turning up there, except if he had another agenda on his mind. Like say his leadership campaign that he won't announce. That would explain the reference to speaking up for the province when there are already plenty of elected people quite capable of doing that.

Plus there are a bunch of Liberal candidates in the three federal ridings currently held by Conservatives, any one of whom could do the same job.

So what exactly is Danny Dumaresque doing in Montreal, other than demonstrating he is somewhat uncertain about his job as provincial party president?

Oh yes.

And campaigning for the provincial party leadership.

As for "his agenda" being favourably received, we might all wonder to which agenda he is referring.

His leadership agenda seems to be going over like a lead balloon.

-srbp-

Wanna learn English?

Retroactive introduction:  From time to time, Bond Papers ( and now Persuasion Business) offers up an example of some creative advertising.  This example is for an English language training school and much like the Berlitz one relies on humour. The difference is that why the German one could be shown easily to your grandparents without upsetting them - even if they are German themselves - the one posted below is raw, edgy and pretty much guaranteed to raise eyebrows and even evoke some pretty strong criticism.

So there you have it...

From the Netherlands.

Funny.

Language not safe for work (NSFW)

[via daimnation!]

The "I"s have it: Danny Williams on senate reform

Senate reform was one of the issues discussed during a 45 minute meeting between Prime minister Stephen harper and Premier Danny Williams in St. John's on Friday. Williams told reporters after the meeting that the two leaders discussed several topics.

Note the way Williams refers to it: he speaks about his feelings, his issues and his views as opposed to positions of the government. Apparently his views expressed in this highly personalized way are synonymous with those of the government or the province as a whole.

Certainly for a perspective on the national issues, I have my own feelings and we didn't get in to it. My own feelings on federal spending limitations, the environment, environmental issues. So I'm able -- and obviously energy -- to discuss those at a national level.

When we sit around the table as a group of first ministers, then we deal at that high level. As well, that doesn't mean that Jean Charest and Quebec aren't going to talk with their issues and I'm not going to talk about my issues. If I have outstanding issues with the Government of Canada, I've certainly raised them. Those meetings are national meetings. To be quite honest with you, I don't have any problem raising to that level...

I guess where I agree with him on certain issues. I have issues on senate reform, but there are other areas where I could find agreement. When it comes to discussing his position at the commonwealth and where he is on Kyoto and where he's positioning Canada at this particular point in time in Kyoto, that may be an area where I could agree with him. I won't take my personal disagreements on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and use those to disagree with the prime minister on every national issue because that's not in the national interest.

There's an aspect of this highly personalized way of dealing with issues that crops up in the letter the Premier sent the Prime Minister earlier this year on senate reform. The letter was copied to the senate committee studying the government bills before the last sitting of parliament prorogued.

Toward the end of the letter, Williams states that any discussions on senate reform should take place among first ministers, what Williams referred to in the Friday scrum as "that high level." Executive federalism is alive and well.

The letter is presented here as a series of image files. They are as big as the space will allow, but should be legible if you click on them and enlarge the image.

Welcome to the endgame

The Telegram account of the Friday meeting between premier and Prime Minister carries a headline about a temporary ceasefire.

They're right.

Williams declared a ceasefire or a toning down of his personal vendetta likely in reaction to pressure from his own caucus.

Then again, Williams did follow his usual pattern of changing the definition of what it takes to satisfy him, too. Recall that in 2004 his negotiations consisted of pointing repeatedly that he wasn't happy and that it was up to the other side to make him happy. When the other party presented him with something that satisfied his demand for happiness, Williams merely shifted ground claiming that the offer didn't make him happy enough or that while that used to make him happy, it is no longer what works.

To wit, the loan guarantee on the Lower Churchill.

A loan guarantee from Ottawa to help with the project is something Williams used to talk about a lot. It was one of the promises - this one a supposed one - that Harper was supposed to keep unless the might of Danny would be called down on the Harper crown.

Now?

A loan guarantee is just that, and it's only a guarantee if we default. That's a good project. That's an annuity. That's a license to print money. That's why we're going to do it alone and that's why we want to have a big piece of the action. Forgive me, we're going to do it in partnership with others. So a loan guarantee is not a big deal. It will enable us to pick up money a little bit cheaper. We'll get a little lower on our interest rate. That's what the benefit is, but that's not $9 billion in cash and don't think for one minute it is. I know you know the difference. That's not a big deal.

There are a few reasons for this shift in direction, beyond the fact that it is just Williams' pattern. As pointed out previously:

1. The loan guarantee would come with a price tag, namely a federal equity stake - an ownership stake - in the so-called "go it alone" project. The downsides of that should be obvious to anyone who has paid attention to Williams for the past four years.
2. There never was a loan guarantee offer in the first place. Again, no one reading Bond papers regularly is surprised by this, but it bears repeating. The whole idea of a federal loan guarantee is a Williams invention. it's easy to dismiss something you made up in the first place.
3. Williams doesn't need the money any more. The Lower Churchill will be backstopped by Hebron - that's one of the reasons for the quickie deal and the real intended use of the Hebron cash all along - as well as the unnamed partners in the "go it alone" version of the Lower Churchill. In the quote above Williams corrects himself and refers to doing the project "in partnership with others." Make note of that correction. Who those others are is a mystery and likely will remain a mystery for years to come.
4. We are in the endgame of a fight that was never really much of a fight. It would seem that this prime minister, as with the last one, finally drew the line. At that point - as in January 2005 - Williams knew that the bluster and bluff that characterizes his public style has run its course. Exactly the same thing happened when Paul Martin told Williams bluntly that he had reached the end. A final offer was on the table. The Hebron partners likely did something very similar, although in their case, they held the negotiating whip hand as the version of the deal announced earlier in the fall suggests. in this case, Williams started off by acknowledging that the positions are firmly entrenched. Both parties agree to disagree on the "principles" - i.e. the final position is on the table - and the only question now is about compensation.

Some enterprising reporter should dig out the scrum from 28 January 2005 and find the one sentence where Williams talks about the remaining - or did he say "only" - question being the "quantum".

That's the only question left in the family feud between Danny and Steve.

-srbp-

Update: Stephen Harper sounds like he made it clear the final position is on the table on issues Danny Williams was squabbling over. As the Toronto Star reports, Harper said on Friday:

"Politics is the art of the possible. You can't have 100 per cent of everything you want from someone else or some other government. Danny Williams made his point forcefully; it's time to move on to other issues."

Shut up and go away: the editor's reaction

From Russell Wangersky comes a clean dissection of the provincial government's attack this past week on former premier Brian Peckford:

It was a knee-jerk communications strategy, and it was a bad one at that, if the idea was to try and counteract the statements.

It just turned on the bright lights and lit up the issue on the national stage.

There was no reason even to react, unless the message you’re actually trying to send is not that Peckford was out to lunch, but instead that, in the New Newfoundland and Labrador, no one should expect to be allowed to comment on the emperor’s new clothes.

Perhaps the message was supposed to be, “If you disagree, we don’t want your input. Keep your mouth shut, even if you’re members of our own party.”

And maybe reacting so harshly to Peckford’s comments was just the easiest way to pointedly deliver that message to all the rest of us.

-srbp-