Poll goosing harder than ever

The provincial government's pollster released the results of its most recent work on Tuesday. The graph with the orange line shows the party support numbers for the Provincial Conservatives for the past year and a bit as reported by Corporate Research Associates.

Interestingly enough the polling period included a bunch of hype at the front end about aluminum smelters in Labrador in addition to the usual poll goosing goodies.

The Premier rushed out the story of "Have" province status a couple of days before the surveying started.  There was more than a bit of media coverage for that and the associated video and the great party he was planning.

Of course, he knew at the time that the province might opt for the O'Brien Equalization formula and thereby become a "have Not" province again before the fiscal year was out, but that never stood in the way of a good goose.

Odd that he rushed that story out there wasn't it?  Almost like he knew the pollster was about to start calling people.

The polling period cut off before AbitibiBowater made its announcement.

In any event, it's interest to look at the party support numbers, adjusted as a percentage of all respondents.

That's very different from giving it as a percentage of decideds.  That number fluctuates a bit.  When you report as a percentage of decideds you inflate the apparent level of support for one option or another.  Like in this case:  the Provincial Conservatives have these wildly stratospheric numbers which feed into the myth of political infallibility and invincibility.

So hang on a second now.  In the blue graph, we have the same figures adjusted to take into account the undecideds. 

You still wind up with the climb at the front and the drop in the past quarter.  In between, though, you don't have the same steady state.  Instead you get a gradual decline.

But then there's that bit at the end.  A drop of 11 points since this time last year, six of which came in the past three months. That's an oil-price-like decline.

The numbers themselves aren't all that stratospheric.  In fact,  one suspects that people might have an easier time accepting the blue numbers these days given the state of the economy and the recent troubles in public sector bargaining.

Either way there's a precipitous decline over the last quarter that is surely causing a few people to sit up and take notice.  Consider the amount of fairly obviously orchestrated poll goosing that went on - including the smelter and the "Have" province crap - all of which still added up to a decline.

Now given the huge gap between the Conservatives and the other two parties, it's not like people around here are going to start seizing airports or anything.  They aren't migrating across the border to find water and medical care. 

Still, though, if local media are going to report poll results - even as sparsely as some did on Tuesday - they should apply a little analysis.  Episodes like the "Have province" should be put in a context that is, to be brutally frank about it, so damned obvious after four years of relentless poll goosing that it's pretty hard to miss it.

The government may have put has happy a face on the financial situation as possible but it certainly looks like something is changing in the political landscape.  Let's see what the next couple of quarters bring.

-srbp-

The provincial budget update: six points

1.   The long and short of it:  Some revenues are higher than projected.  Spending  remains the same.  The update runs six pages.  Four of them are devoted to a rehash of things we already know and a heck of a low of stroking for supposed prudent fiscal management.  What’s left is pretty thin, at least for anyone who wants to get a handle on.


2.   Missing revenue numbers:  Interestingly the provincial government only mentioned three specific revenue sources which are performing above budget estimates from last spring. Unmentioned was revenue from mineral revenues other than oil.  Last year it was big enough to warrant a mention.  This year:  zip.  Either mineral revenues are on par or down or the government is saving that for the spring to offset some bad news.

3. The political value of lowballing:  Underestimating revenues and overestimating costs is an old trick to make your budget performance look better than it really is.  This year – for the first time in three years – the provincial government’s practice of lowballing oil revenues didn’t really work out as planned.

In prior years they could forecast deficit spending and be reasonably assured oil would perform beyond the expectations.  At the end of the year planned borrowing was replaced with cash spending.  That’s how deficits never really appeared.  It’s also how the Premier could keep claiming that surpluses were being directed to debt reduction and that – as this update claims – there is a magical plan at work which delivers even in relatively bad times.  The faithful sop it up They even go so far as to claim the Premier can’t be blamed for the downturn even though they give him all the credit for the cash rolling in when it rolled in. 

This update gives an excellent example of how to inflate performance by lowballing.  There’s $70 million missing from the spring budget projection for oil royalties.

Okay.  He can’t.  But he also can’t claim the credit for the great times in the past couple of years since he didn’t deliver those either.  The faithful can be spotted by the purple freshie stains on the corners of their mouths.

4.  The extras cash revenues (corrected):   Note that the budget update gives the budget estimate for oil royalties $70 million below the actual number from the Estimates.

	Forecast	Revised forecast	Difference
Oil Royalties	$1.789 billion	$2.202 billion	$413 million
Personal income tax	$674.8 million	$831.8 million	$157 million
Sales tax	$631.589 million	$664.589 million	$33 million
Total variance			$603 million

5.  Surplus or deficit?  This all goes back to an issue raised here last September. Given that the accrual surplus is now revised to be $722 million higher than forecast, there are a few bucks missing from the update.  Even at $722 million in additional revenue, the budget would still be short on a cash basis by $72 million.  Given recent practices, and given that this year there are no anticipated savings through spending cuts, the cash deficit could easily run to upwards of $200 million by the year end.

6.   Prophetic words from last June: 

In order to produce a surplus of the size predicted  - but predicted only in political statements - oil prices would have to continue at double the figure of  $87 a barrel used to come up with the budget.  So far, it looks pretty good for oil to be somewhere over $130 on through the end of this year, but you never know what will happen with oil prices, especially after the American elections in November and the new president is sworn in late in January 2009.

Okay, so at the time, it looked like oil was going to stay high.  And in making the comments, your humble e-scribbler was also pointing to the difference between an accrual surplus – including cash that really isn’t there – and the cash situation which might under certain circumstances require new public debt to make things balance.

The key point, though, is that you never know with oil prices.  Shortly after that post, oil peaked at $147;  incidentally that’s not $145 or $150 as reported in a couple of spots in the news release and update document issued by the provincial finance minister today.  As it turned out, oil prices started falling in late summer and with the credit crunch, the drop accelerated. In the end the provincial government can report an accrual surplus that looks amazing but on a cash basis, they’ll likely wind up having to borrow cash to settle all the accounts.

-srbp-

Locking the barn door: prisons report version

The provincial justice minister released a report on Monday into the provincial prison system.

The hard copies handed out to reporters had sections blacked-out for various reasons. Those copies made it impossible to see the words that were redacted, to use the popular phrase.

The electronic version wasn't quite as effective.

Somehow, the blacked-out bits of the pdf didn't really remove the words. They merely masked them. As CBC discovered, if you copy the text and then paste it into any simple word processing software - like say Notepad - the words covered by the black boxes magically appear.

The original electronic version was available until after lunch. It's now been replaced by a version that has puts bits of punctuation in place of the excised words if you block copy the bits including the black redacted strips.

Never fear.

CBC has posted a copy of the report as it originally appeared so people can get the originally released version.

Inferring from context, it is possible to see in some instances that the excised sections of the report deal with security in the prisons.

Others are odd.

Like this bit from the second version released by the justice department:

One of the persons interviewed stated ------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, spoke of the
atmosphere of mistrust and stated that “the environment is such that you have to be
careful who you tell things to.” Several times during the Panel’s interviews with --
---------------------------- referenced what -- perceived to be the lack of support from
“the hill”, noting that he had files of documentation that would support --- claim.

Look at that last bit: "...referenced what -- perceived to be the lack of support from 'the hill', noting that he had files of documentation that would support --- claim."

"What [blank] perceived" and "would support [blank] claim" suggest that the words chopped here somehow make reference to an individual. Under section 30 of the province's access to information law, government can't disclose information on particular individuals in certain circumstances.

Now, we've seen already bizarre examples of how the government secrecy apparatus - D.B.A. "access co-ordinators" - interprets this section. Documents summarizing information already in the public domain were edited to exclude the name of a judge involved in a trial, for example. Information about public servants acting in their capacity as public servants are to be left in but people who aren't public servants are omitted.

This became clear in testimony by Renee Pendergast at the Cameron Inquiry on the issue. Pendergast is no average bureaucrat. At the time of the issues under review by madam Justice Margaret Cameron, Pendergast was the access co-ordinator for Executive Council. She's since returned to her usual job vetting access requests for the department of justice's access co-ordination section.

COFFEY , Q.C.: After the matter passed through - - while the matter was passing through your office , his name was redacted in relation to - - in a briefing note , a government briefing note referring to the fact that some matter was ... this particular matter was before him and the status of it at the time , and his name was redacted. Could you tell the Commissioner, please , what the rationale is that would have someone like Judge Thompson's name redacted in these circumstances from a Cabinet briefing note?

MS. PENDERGAST: And I realized that that name was done when we had done our pre - interview , and I can assure Madam Commissioner that that was done in error. His name would have been left in. I'm assuming it was because I really did not know who he was at that time , and I redacted it under those circumstances , but under normal circumstances , if I had realized who he was , his name would have been left in.

COFFEY , Q.C.: Can we actually bring up - -

THE COMMISSIONER : I'm sorry , did I misunderstand what you said earlier. I thought you were saying that even though it might seem frankly silly to some of the rest of us , your interpretation of the legislation was that if the information contained a name which was other than a civil servant presumably conducting their business , that would be deleted. So why wouldn't Justice...

MS. PENDERGAST: Because , I guess , we considered him for him to be a Judge at this point , and his name would be allowed to be left in. He wouldn't be considered to be a - - like , would he be affiliated - - and I'm not sure if he's a provincial judge or - -

THE COMMISSIONER : No , and believe me , he would not consider himself to be affiliated with the Department of Justice.

MS. PENDERGAST: . Yeah , yeah , so - - and I don't know that. That's the reason why chances were his name was released - - was withheld.

COFFEY , Q.C.: And just in relation to that because that was the way when Ms. Brazil was asking about it , you did indicate that , well , if the vetter as it were , in your position - -

MS. PENDERGAST: Uh - hm.

COFFEY , Q.C.: did not understand that a particular name was that of a civil servant , then the name went?

MS. PENDERGAST: And we would double check some of them if we weren't sure , absolutely.

COFFEY , Q.C.: But - - that's the criteria , if it's not a civil servant - -

MS. PENDERGAST: It's withheld.

COFFEY , Q.C. : 23 Q. Withheld.

Okay.

So in the section from the prisons report, this particular individual or individuals covered by the excised portion would be public servants speaking in their capacity as public servants.

Odd that their views are removed - odder still that it's only in part - and in that last sentence the clipping relates words that function as the subject of the verbs involved are also plucked out.

Maybe they were proper names, one might think, as in "Mr. Jones perceived" and "Mr. Jones' claim". If that was the case, then the word "he" that appears in between ought to have be chopped as well since that word also tends to identify the gender of the informant.

Read the CBC version using the Microsoft magic decoder and you discover that no proper names appear at all.

There's another head-scratcher in another section that deals with concerns among prisons staff about the lack of appropriate recognition given to a staff rowing team. The excised bit is completely mystifying since it contains no information on the security of the prison system, does not tend to identify third parties - i.e. people who aren't public servants - and generally just carries on the narrative of the issue which is left in. If problems with morale and the causes of said problems or irritants related to it are left in the document, it makes one wonder by what truly insane line of reasoning the excised bits were chopped.

Now the prisons report has more than enough in the public versions to give people cause for concern. The redaction weirdness comes - unfortunately for the current administration - at a time when their are renewed questions about its commitment to openness and transparency. They talked a good game while in opposition but, as the Cameron Inquiry and a recent set of articles in The Telegram show, the actual performance falls far short of the mark.

Some of the access problems may well have to do with bureaucratic inertia. Your humble e-scribbler has been lied to by one access official. In another case, in response to a simple request sent to obtain information in exactly the manner described by the government's own policy statements - low cost and informal - your humble scribe met with the request being shunted to the access co-ordinator who, in turn insisted that the request had to be made on the appropriate form and would be dealt with only after the appropriate fees had changed hands. That isn't government policy but the co-ordinator knowingly insisted on it merely as a means of frustrating a simple request.

In largest part though, one is tempted to point to the tone at the top as being the culprit. Public servants do not like to disclose information, as a rule. They like to find ways to hold things secret. That's a characteristic of bureaucracies the world over since the people in the bureaucracies know that information is power.

They are encouraged in the zeal for secrecy by episodes like the one in a tussle between the auditor general and the Premier over access to cabinet documents related to the cable deal. The Premier invented excuses to avoid disclosing the documents to the person he appointed to review the affair. He then relented, admitting in the process in effect that his earlier excuses were lacking in substance. later still, we saw the changes to the access to information that would - in effect - block members of the public finding out how much toilet paper the province's energy corporation buys at any given time let alone what contracts it enters into.

In the prisons report case, the government censors wound up locking the door long after the information horse had bolted. Nevertheless, their cock-up does give some insight into how the system works. Looking at the redacted version and the inadvertently unexpurgated copy of the report, one cannot see any obvious, legitimate reason for withholding any of the bits that were excised. If anything, the bits hidden under the black bands reinforce the points made throughout the report and left there for the public to see.

They were cut, though and the people of the province weren't supposed to see them.

You have to wonder why the decisions were made to chop those bits in the first place.

And if this is the sort of stuff they deem unworthy of telling you, you really have to wonder what else they are keeping secret.

-srbp-

Michael Ignatieff: the "Whips and chains and cuffs, oh my!" version

Heard from the kinky corner recently:

"While I support torture on a personal level, I am not sure it makes good national policy."

-srbp-

The powers that be

1.  Congratulations on your new budget, Mr. Harper.  Michael Ignatieff never supported the coalition. 

Period.

He never did.

He never will.

With Ignatieff as Liberal leader, the coalition is now dead as a doornail and Stephen Harper has a green light to rule.

Your humble e-scribbler heard Ignatieff speak in St. John's the week the coalition appeared. He could not have damned it more if he had opposed it flatly and in plain English.

Too shrewd a politician, he waited to declare his concerns until after the coalition failed and he had put the conditions in place to take the leadership. [Think about it for a second.  This is a guy whose spinners  claim he has the support of 55 of the 77 member Liberal caucus.]

As it stands, Michael Ignatieff will be the best friend Stephen Harper ever had, at least in the short term.  Harper will get his second kick at the cat in January without a problem.

The Connies are already opening the champagne.  They know Ignatieff's weaknesses and they can watch his manoeuvering and understand him for exactly what he is.

They know him because they have one of their own.

At least one.

They took their first shot at him on Monday.  Expect more of it.  It won't get any better.

The Liberal Party did not send Bob Stanfield to defeat Bob Stanfield.

Think about it.

2. Congratulations on your long second term of office, Mr. Harper.  The Liberal Party is not ready for an election and will not be ready at any time in the next two years.  It needs fundamental reform at the policy level and especially at the financial level.

Those things will take longer to put in place than a handful of months and on the financial side, the reform and re-organization will take longer to implement and take firm hold.

Stephen Harper is safe in office for the balance of 2009 and likely well into 2010.  His entourage may well take the party to war before that but they run the risk of crashing against some pretty hard rocks.

3. They are called the backroom boys for a reason. The backrooms line up for a candidate.  That pretty much sums up the view of the party about things like new ideas and new people. 

Take a look in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Multiply that by 10 provinces.

You get the point.

-srbp-

Brent breaks 40

Brent crude - the benchmark for Newfoundland and Labrador crude - settled at US$39.74 on Friday for the first time in four years.

West Texas Intermediate  - the price usually quoted by news media - closed the day at US$40.41.

The forty dollar mark has become a new marker both for analysts and the news media in the current  economic crisis.

On Thursday, a former Merrill Lynch analyst said that conditions may exist to bring crude oil below US$25 for a short period:

“A temporary drop below $25 a barrel is possible if the global recession extends to China and significant non-OPEC cuts are required,” Merrill commodity strategist Francisco Blanch said in yesterday’s report. “In the short run, global oil- demand growth will likely take a further beating as banks continue to cut credit to consumers and corporations.”

January put options on $20 oil - the option to sell at a specific price on a specific date - were popular on Friday.  What that means  is that there was increasing speculation  - although still very small - that oil would be that low by January.

Related to that, analysts no longer assume that China will be immune from the effects of the recession.

“Everybody – even the most bullish people – have now given up on the decoupling idea,” [Stephen Briggs, analyst at RBS Global Banking & Markets] said, referring to the argument that China was making up for any demand slowdown in the United States.

Merrill Lynch is now slashing its forecast average price for crude in 2009.  On October 1, the company projected US$90 but this week lowered the estimated average to US$50:

“In our view, oil prices could find a trough at the end of Q1 2009 or early Q2 2009 with the seasonal slowdown in demand. Then, as economic activity starts to strengthen, we see oil prices posting a modest recovery in the second half of 2009.”

-srbp-

Norsk Hydro ponders production cut

Norwegian aluminium giant Norsk Hydro is considering a cut in its existing production in light of a dramatic global drop in demand for aluminium and aluminium products.

Norsk Hydro said the crisis has led to "substantial problems for the construction and automotive industries, which are among the metal industry's most important markets".

"This has again triggered a dramatic decline in demand for aluminium products," added Hydro, which has in past years restructured its aluminium products business, including exiting numerous less profitable automotive parts ventures.

So much for that big announcement in Labrador about a new smelter.

So much too for the idea that growth in China and India would offset any American downturn in the markets.

“The industries, economies are now in serious pain through the world,” said Stephen Briggs, analyst at RBS Global Banking & Markets.

“Everybody – even the most bullish people – have now given up on the decoupling idea,” Mr. Briggs said, referring to the argument that China was making up for any demand slowdown in the United States.

-srbp-

Wanna try that poll again?

Okay, leave aside for a second the fact the CBC headline on EKOS' robopoll is grossly misleading.

Would the poll results be the same now that we discover the country had the highest job loss last month in 26 years?

Maybe the Ontarians who talked to EKOS' machines will be rethinking their position.

-srbp-

"There are no cheap seats in the House of Commons"

As it turns out Jack Harris was on his feet when the proclamation proroguing parliament arrived in the House of Commons.

He holds the distinction of being the last member to speak in what is surely the shortest session of the parliament of Canada in history.

That isn't as important as what Harris was saying at the moment the proclamation was issued.  Harris delivered an eloquent speech about parliament, the importance of individual members and the current crisis.

Following is the extract from Hansard, for the record:

Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in parliamentary democracy in a direct way for about the last 21 years, first in the House and then for 16 years in the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador. I was happy to be re-elected to the House in the October 14 election. I have never been so concerned about
the state of parliamentary democracy in this country as I have become in the last week.

I know hon. members are rising in the House and thanking their constituents for electing them or returning them to office, and I have applauded each and every one of them. Then, they have proceeded in some cases on the government’s side of the House to talk about the
Prime Minister and the government having been elected. There, they veer from the path of parliamentary democracy. The current Prime Minister was not elected as the prime minister. That is not the way Parliament works. Each and every member of the House is a member of
Parliament and has the right and duty to represent his or her constituents.

I heard one hon. member opposite this morning talk about the cheap seats in the House of Commons. I am assuming he was referring to either his own back benches or to the opposition members’. I do not know. However, let me say this: there are no cheap seats in the House of Commons. We are all equally elected to represent our constituents and our interests. Parliamentary democracy allows the leader of the party with the most seats in the House to go to the Governor General and in the case of a minority government either resign or ask or advise the Governor General that he or she wishes to seek the confidence of the House. That is our system. That is what makes a person prime minister: having the confidence of the House.

It is assumed that, if you have a majority of seats in the House of Commons, you are the prime minister and you can form a government. However, after this election, a new government was sworn in, not the old government. That new government was sworn in because the sitting Prime Minister was able to say to the Governor General that he will
seek the confidence of the House. That is what we are doing now. We are now in a situation where the confidence of the House has been lost by the actions and failure of leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada.

What is the response? The response is a refusal to face the House, a refusal to govern with the support and confidence of the House of Commons and an attempt to use the notion of prorogation. Let us not use the fancy word. He wants to shut down Parliament because he cannot face the music. The reality is that he does not have the support of the House. The government does not have the support of the House. He has failed in his obligation to try to maintain the support of the House.

There has been a lot of talk about a government that works for Canada and supports working with other parties in Parliament. We all pledged to try to do that. However, someone broke that pledge last Thursday. They broke that pledge by refusing to reach to all parts of the House and to devise a plan that meets the support of at least the majority of the House to come up with a recognition that the recession that is upon us requires some immediate action.

In my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador today, it was announced by AbitibiBowater that a paper newsprint mill that has been there for over 100 years will close. Eight hundred people will be thrown out of work. Two weeks ago, I raised in the House the question of whether the government would support a program for older workers and training for younger workers who could save this mill. Nothing happened, and the mill is now closed as a result.   There is only one party in the House that is standing in the way of a government that works for Canadians. The opposition parties have worked together to come up with a plan that would allow us to have a government that would work for Canadians, and that is a Liberal-NDP coalition. That coalition has a policy accord that is designed to address the present economic crisis. There has been a lot of misinformation. There is no secret deal. 

The deal is right here on the website. It is there for everyone to see. Not only is it on the website, it is very clear and plain what the arrangements are. The arrangements with the Bloc Québécois is that it will not defeat an NDP-Liberal coalition for a period of 18 months. What we have is a promise of stability for 18 months. The government cannot deliver that. Conservatives could not deliver stability for two or three weeks in Parliament. What prospect does the government have to continue for the next 18 or 28 months, or even the next three months? None. The instability is coming from the government and from the failure of the Prime Minister to show the kind of leadership that is required. There is a lot of talk about working with other parties in the House and trying to vilify the Bloc Québécois, in the course of which creates a very divisive country. It has been said by Harold Wilson that: "Patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel". I am not calling anyone in particular a scoundrel and it may or may not be unparliamentary, but the tactics being used by the government and the Prime Minister in trying to save his own neck are very divisive. I hope...   

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order.

-srbp-

AbitibiBowater hydro assets

Undoubtedly, there will be plenty of hype and posturing about the hydro-electric assets in which AbitibiBowater has an interest. 

There's already been plenty of silly talk about "repatriating" assets.  Had successive governments not interfered in the operation of the mill it might have been re-organized and saved.  As it is, the closure of this mill is a mess created by all the players.  None can escape responsibility.

Expect NL Hydro to purchase these assets from the private sector partners, one of which is Fortis, with the power being sold to Vale Inco.

In any event, here is a brief description of the assets. 

1.  Exploits River Hydro Partnership.  Partnership between Central Newfoundland Energy - a Fortis subsidiary - and AbitibiBowater. 30 megawatts.  Initial operational capacity (IOC): November 2003.  Supplied power to AbitibiBowater operation at Grand Falls-Windsor with surplus power sold to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro under a long-term power purchase agreement.

2. Star Lake Hydro Partnership.  Partnership between CHI Canada Limited and AbitibiBowater. 18 megawatts. IOC: October 1998.  Star Lake displaces oil-fired generation at NL Hydro's Holyrood plant.

-srbp-

Try the captain next time

Maybe Janice Wells should have tried a bit of Captain Morgan or Lamb's next time she wants to write a book on a subject other than gardening.

Clearly gin and tonic isn't cutting it.

No.  There's no evidence at all Frank Moores was involved in the Airbus deal.

Not even a fax in his own handwriting documenting the schedule of commissions for the sale.

-srbp-

Business as usual

1.  AbitibiBowater to shut GFW mill.

2.  Vale Inco to close Voisey's Bay for one month in 2009.

Yep.

No one saw this coming at all.

Well, not anyone providing consulting advice to the provincial finance department and cabinet, apparently.

Gotta watch out we don't overheat the economy, too.

Apparently it takes a while for news to reach some quarters.

-srbp-

Cluck, cluck moo: Byward version

Among the funniest comments coming from Ottawa these days was an e-mail reporting the streets around Parliament Hill are blocked with chicken feathers these days.

So many chickens are coming home to roost that their shedding feathers are causing a driving hazard.  People are having difficulty walking and Ottawa Carlton municipal workers are putting in overtime trying to free up enough space for people to get around.

There are also reports of tar on back order at local Home Depot outlets and the price for rails is climbing on a shortened supply.  Some people are apparently planning to take advantage of the feather supply.

The latest chicken to head home wore a wet suit and jet skied up the Rideau Canal.

Stockwell Day's people worked on a secret deal with Bloc in 2000 in case the election returned a minority parliament.  Day denies knowing about the deal.  Others might be seeing nuggets and dipping sauce since Day's defence emphasizes "signing" a deal with separatists. 

That kind of feather-splitting should make anyone skeptical.  Then when you find out Stock had a loose definition of "bad" back then - much like Loyola Hearn - you pretty much know Stock is running scared.  Scared of losing the car and driver, the expense account and the trappings of power.

The lust for power runs deep among the Blue crowd.  It will likely take hundreds of thousands of dollars to get their claw marks out of the desks, door jabs and banisters as they get dragged from their offices next Monday.

CBC dug into the files as part of the televised version of the Stockwell Day story.  They found a 1996 article by some guy named Harper and his best pal Tom Flanagan wherein the newbie member of parliament and his future political staffer mused about cutting a deal with separatists as a way of ousting the Liberals.

If they get punted to the opposition curb next week in a confidence vote, we can only wonder what will happen when the cows come home.  That bovine history,  full of stuff like Cadman and all its implications of potential criminal activity, could well make getting covered in tar and feathers and run out of town on rail look like an afternoon strolling the Byward.

-srbp-

Vale cuts staff, production globally

1.  Globe and Mail reports Vale Inco will be cutting output at Sudbury.

2.  Globally, the situation is significant:

Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Cia. Vale do Rio Doce, the world’s biggest iron-ore producer, fired 1,300 employees and will send 5,500 more on paid leave because of the “serious crisis” in the metals and mining industry.

An additional 1,200 employees are being retrained for new jobs, a press official for the Rio de Janeiro-based company said today in a telephone interview. Before the cuts, Vale had 62,000 employees worldwide, said the official, who declined to give her name.

3.  Nickel prices have dropped astronomically from $22 a pound (May 2007) to less than $5 currently.  It's hard to imagine that this would not have a serious adverse effect on provincial government revenues both in the current fiscal year and the coming one.

-srbp-

Hearn on BQ: "There are some really fine people in the Bloc."

The Bond Papers Wayback Machine is a useful thing.

Well, useful for people like your humble e-scribbler.

Not so useful for the people - like Conservatives - who hope people have really poor memories.

Former federal fish minister Loyola Hearn turned up on local radio today talking about the evils of cuddling up to the Bloc Quebecois. Hearn has grave concerns.  The country might break up.

You will recall Hearn as one of the architects behind the merger that created the Conservative Party and put Stephen Harper in the Prime Minister's Office.

Not surprising then that he is telling us all how nasty those separatists are and how dangerous it is to get in bed with them.

So nasty in fact that back in 2004 when the Conservatives tried a group grope with Gilles Duceppe and his colleagues, the Blockies balked but Loyola kept trying to keep the flames of minority coalition passion alive.

No "one foot on the floor" thing for Loyola:

“I have no problem with the fact they are there to look after Quebec, I’m there to look after Newfoundland, and the six other MPs also, and if we’re not we shouldn’t be there,” Hearn told The Sunday Independent. [Full text below]

...

"There are some really fine people in the Bloc, you know," says Hearn. "Probably more so than any other party … quality individuals."

When asked about Quebec’s ongoing contention that Labrador is part of Quebec and not Newfoundland, Hearn says it’s a claim that sounds strangely familiar.

“It’s no more than us disputing the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.”

...

“We should take a lesson from the Bloc in dedicated support for your province. However, if the screw tightens where you’re looking to put forward your separatist views, then government can’t give into those wishes,” says Hearn.

Yes, even the sacrosanct Labrador border would not stand in the way of the Conservative march to power in 2004 using every possible means, including trying to avoid having an election.

It's time like this when immortal words about Conservatives come to mind:

They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. ...You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!

There are times when condescension and mockery are called for.

Loyola proves it.

-srbp-

Conservatives on the Bloc

By Jeff Ducharme (St. John's)
The Independent
Sunday, July 04, 2004
 
Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe may have already put the kibosh 
on a coalition with the Conservatives, but St. John’s South MP Loyola 
Hearn says it could work.
 
"I have no problem with the fact they are there to look after Quebec, 
I’m there to look after Newfoundland, and the six other MPs also, and 
if we’re not we shouldn’t be there," Hearn told The Sunday Independent.
 
Hearn won a tightly contested battle for the federal riding of St. 
John’s South in the June 28th federal election. The incumbent Hearn 
beat Liberal challenger and political neophyte Siobhan Coady by a 
scant 1,500 votes in a race that came down to the wire. Hearn calls 
the battle the toughest of his long political career. 
 
Prime Minister Paul Martin barely maintained his grasp on power 
winning 135 seats compared to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper’s 99 
seats. If the Conservatives could cozy up to the Bloc and their 54 
seats, the two parties could control the House of Commons with a total 
of 153 votes between them. The Liberals and NDP could have a narrow 
advantage with a combined 154 seats. 
 
“We’ve indicated all along that we’re willing to work on an issue-by-
issue basis,” deputy Conservative leader Peter MacKay told CTV’s 
Question Period the day before voters went to the polls.
 
But the Conservatives may have a hard time forming any type of 
coalition with the Bloc. Duceppe and his party oppose the 
Conservative’s platform of scrapping the Kyoto Accord and its anti-
abortion stance.
 
“There are some really fine people in the Bloc, you know,” says 
Hearn. “Probably more so than any other party … quality individuals.”
 
Hearn credits Bloc MPs as being among the first to support his private 
member’s bill calling for custodial management of the Grand Banks. 
 
Natural Resources Minister John Efford found himself mired in a storm 
of criticism because he avoided the vote, saying if he had voted for 
the bill he would have been thrown out of cabinet.
 
“The earliest to come on board and some of the strongest supporters 
were people from the Bloc,” says Hearn.
 
When asked about Quebec’s ongoing contention that Labrador is part of 
Quebec and not Newfoundland, Hearn says it’s a claim that sounds 
strangely familiar.
 
“It’s no more than us disputing the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.”
 
Hearn says any coalition with the Bloc is touchy considering the 
anchor of the party’s platform is Quebec sovereignty and the erosion 
of Confederation.
 
“We should take a lesson from the Bloc in dedicated support for your 
province. However, if the screw tightens where you’re looking to put 
forward your separatist views, then government can’t give into those 
wishes,” says Hearn. 
 
If the Bloc and the Conservatives do find themselves in bed together 
when Parliament reconvenes, Hearn says it would likely be done on an 
issue-by-issue basis.
 
“We’re talking the same language — most of the time.”
 
 

Humber Valley Resort to go bankrupt

The company is blaming the provincial government.

They should be blaming someone else: Brian Dobbin.

When Dobbin took his leave, the company was in a financial mess -  insoluble mess - as it turns out. The wrong business model is the polite way someone described it.

Too bad.  The resort was a good idea.

Just that the execution sucked. 

Newfoundland and Labrador isn't a barren place to grow new ideas or significant industry, as Dobbin tried to whine when the Indey folded for the second time.

It's a barren place for piss-poor management;  the financial record on the resort speaks for itself.

And by the by, this makes Dobbin  - at the very least  - oh for two.

-srbp-

Another Conservative Homer moment

A minority party backed by the Bloc Quebecois.

Which one?

The "Stephen Harper Conservative Government".

D'oh!

-srbp-

They need a time out

There is a growing consensus that the current political crisis in Ottawa came from the Conservative Party's heavy-handed approach to government displayed in the mis-named financial update. 

Finance minister Jim Flaherty went beyond merely giving a report on the government's cash flows and the state of the Canadian economy to launch a much broader set of initiatives that would, among other things, ban strikes in the public service for several years.  There was no reason for such a draconian move but it was there.

What wasn't there was any sign of a stimulus package for the economy. To anyone listening to Flaherty's comments the words "stay the course" came to mind; but stay the course is hardly the option given both the serious downturn and the extent to which previous Conservative spending had decimated the public treasury. 

More than a decade of enormous surpluses produced by sound fiscal management had become piddling amounts that, in all likelihood would turn into deficits. 

The whole episode brought into the open once more concerns among Canadians that, when times turned tough, the ruling element within the party would head home to its ideological roots rather than display typically Canadian pragmatism.

On top of that, the crisis has shown up some of the fissures within the party rooted in the discomfort over Stephen Harper's autocratic style.

Clearly this is a party which has not only shown itself to be incapable of governing in a difficult period in a minority parliament.  This is a group which has manifest problems within its own ranks that need to be sorted. Dirty political tricks of the type the Conservatives used in their ruthless drive for power, hysterical rhetoric and churlish behaviour of the past few days merely remind Canadians of the controversy that continues to swirl around the Conservative Party of Canada.  A once proud and vital Canadian political force has been brought to a low not seen since the early 1990s. The party of Sir John A Macdonald and Brian Mulroney is now the party with nothing more to offer than reflexive Rovianisms.

Clearly, this is a party which needs a time out from government.

Better for them to take the time to fix their own problems and make an appeal to Canadians once again when they are ready to govern.

In the meantime, Canadian parliamentary democracy has offered a viable alternative to either more of a dysfunctional government or a second election in less than six months.  The Conservatives have tried to monger fear of separatism.  Aside from their baseless claims about senate seats and vetoes, the check against any notion that the country will fall apart rests in the elected members of parliament who would support a coalition government.

In particular, Canadians can rest assured that there is no one better in the next few months to ensure the unity of the country than Stephane Dion.  His record on separatism is clear.  He has found no need, in stark contrast to Mr. Harper, to try and curry favour with those who would see the federal government weakened to the point where the country ceases to function as surely as he we have seen him weaken the federal government's finances.

Time for the Conservatives to take a time out.

The only question is whether their current leader has the strength to face the House in a vote of confidence.  If he will not do that then surely he does not deserve the confidence of Canadians.

-srbp-

How rigged was my rally? Stand up for Canada version

The federal Conservatives must be really running scared at the prospect of a coalition ousting them before Christmas.

You can tell because someone evidently connected to the Connies has a website announcing rallies to be held "coast to coast" to stand up for Canada.  The party that has spent more time than any part other than the Bloc sucking up to provincialists and separatists is suddenly wrapping itself in the flag.

Such hypocrisy is not going unnoticed.

Heck, these goomers can't even tell when there's a flag in the room or if there is a flag what it actually means.

But hey, at least there will be rallies for the country in every part of the country, right?

Not likely.

New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador are all missing from the rally list.

This whole sham rally thing is all too familiar for people in Newfoundland and Labrador. A "stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador rally".

They've seen it before, just like they've seen a lot of things done by the federal Conservatives that look very familiar.

It is a sensitive subject, comparing the two Conservative parties, as the Premier said in the House yesterday: "Don’t try and compare us to what the Harper government has done in Ottawa."

-srbp-

Crude lower again; Williams worries about "overheating" local economy

West Texas Intermediate rose to US$47.26 in overnight trading according to bloomberg.com. It finished Tuesday in New York at US$46.96, the first time below US$47.00 since May 2005.  WTI is the futures price most often cited by news media.

80% of the world's light sweet crude - including Newfoundland and Labrador -  is measured against Brent a North Sea blend which typically trades below WTI.  It finished Tuesday trading at US$45.44, or about $56 (Canadian) with a 25% exchange rate.  Overnight it climbed to US$46.00.

OPEC will reportedly cut production at its next meeting looking to get oil towards OPEC's target price of US$70 a barrel.  So far, OPEC has proven to be spectacularly unsuccessful at controlling the world price of oil.

Attiyah reiterated that a price of under $70 a barrel was threatening to derail projects to boost oil and gas capacity. Oil has stayed below $70 since Nov. 5.

"My concern is that the oil price will go lower," Attiyah said. "And many projects will be delayed."

OPEC's most influential member, Saudi Arabia, said at the weekend that oil prices needed to return to $75 to keep the more expensive projects at the margins of world supply on track. Other OPEC members, such as Nigeria and Kuwait, have supported the Saudi view that $75 is fair to both consumers and producers.

Evidently OPEC hasn't been getting those memos that oil will return very shortly to the US$70 to 80 a barrel range or others that predict it will head back to US$100 a barrel sometime in 2009.

Meanwhile, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier Danny Williams told the legislature that his government would continue to do as it has been doing all along, using public money to stimulate the economy as long as it isn't to the point of overheating.

We are spending as much as we can to stimulate the economy without overheating the economy, and making sure that we get the best bang for our buck, and we will continue to do so.

Williams, who last week told reporters he is reading everything he can get his hands on in an effort to understand what is going on in the world, evidently forgot to read his own budget forecast.

Far from overheating, the 2008 budget forecast the economy would shrink by 2% in 2008.  This was a deliberate low-ball since private sector economists had instead forecast very modest growth of less than one percent.

-srbp-

Chevron delays '09 CAPEX plan

Chevron Corp is delaying release of its 2009 capital expenditure plans from December until January, citing significant changes in the marketplace.

-srbp-

Dunderdale reveals IOCC capex decision

In the House of Assembly Tuesday, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale revealed that Ironore Company of Canada (IOCC) will be delaying Phase I and Phase II of its planned $500 million expansion program.

She gave no time frame for the delay.  IOCC announced the plan to increase output in early 2008 with a planned completion in 2011.

IOC informed me on Friday morning, Mr. Speaker, that they were going to delay Phase 1 and Phase 2 of their expansion program, that this would not have an impact on their permanent employees other than it might have an impact on overtime. The delay of the expansion is going to have an effect on services that they would have contracted to do pieces of work around that. It would have an impact on temporary workers who would be called upon to do that kind of work.

They did not provide to me at that time the numbers that were affected for potential people who would be involved in that contract. My main concern at that point in time, Mr. Speaker, was for the permanent employees of IOC, and I am glad to know that there will not be any layoffs of permanent employees at IOC at this time or in the short term.

IOCC's news release last Friday said only that the expansion project was under review.  it also said that no layoffs of permanent employees were under consideration.  It said nothing of temporary (non-permanent) employees.

Dunderdale described as "foolishness" questions from the opposition on the impact IOCC's decision would have on temporary employees and student employment.

-srbp-

Farting in their general direction

In the Monday Question Period, finance minister Jerome Kennedy seemed to be auditioning for a role in the off-off-off-Broadway production of Spam-a-lot.

The part?

The sarcastic, arrogant French knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. 

The following snip is at the end of series of questions in response to which Kennedy offered up  - for the most part - a raft of silly, partisan jabs but not much more. 

This bit is the especially silly part:

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain what the Leader of the Opposition refers to. Is she talking about retail sales or retail sales tax? Is she talking about revenues? Because last year, Mr. Speaker, the revenues in our Province broke down to - 61.8 per cent came from taxation, which included offshore oil royalties and mining royalties are 37 per cent of our revenues. There was investment; there were fees and fines, other provincial sources, and equalization and the transfers - the Canada social and health transfers.

So I am not quite certain what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking me, but if she asking me about retail sales, Mr. Speaker, it is expected that they will grow and they have grown 8.1 per cent, August of this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have an actual increase in housing starts. The only province in this country right now, I think, that has an increase in housing starts. We are up to 220, 298 by September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Minister of Natural Resources –

MR. KENNEDY: Give up, did you?

MS JONES: Oh, not by far.

You'd almost think that Kennedy was such a pompous ass merely as a means of covering up his own inability to grasp the demands of his job. 

More likely, the old boy is having a hard time coming to grips with the very serious financial mess coming next year.  That mess  - of course  - is something the Conception Bay Screamer won't be able to blame on the previous crowd since the crowd that created the upcoming problem are his colleagues around the cabinet table.

They are the ones who grossly overspent for the past three years and built their entire on spending plan on sources of cash which were, as Kennedy admits, beyond their control.

Sucks to be Jerome, evidently.  His little display in the House was a tell of the pressures he is evidently under. Gigantic pressures.  The kind of pressures that make the fictitious deficit from 2004 look like a dream compared to the real deficit coming next year, even after they've trimmed and shuffled and borrowed.

But since it will be the ordinary blokes in the province who will have to pay the price for other people's folly, Jerome's evident discomfort would be so cool if only it wasn't going to hurt us.

Ron Stoppable was a genius.

-srbp-

How NOT to get into cabinet

While sources told CBC News that MPs have been calling the premier to talk about the battle brewing in Ottawa and to get his opinion, a spokesperson for the premier's office said his government wouldn't be commenting on a constitutional issue.

Be the Liberal member(s) of parliament who couldn't fart without getting marching orders from "their premier".

-srbp-

Connies start to unravel

The coalition is ready to get down to work but it isn't in office yet.

There are a few hurdles to overcome.

Still, the fact that the opposition parties have been able to cement an agreement that would provide stable, progressive government for the country at a time of economic turmoil is a testament to the good will and the vision of the men and women elected just this past fall to the House of Commons.

They stand, as such, in stark contrast, to the federal Conservatives who have worked diligently over the past five years or so to foster every form of division within Canadian politics.

The signs of stress are showing in the Connie camp.

Their sock puppets and other assorted plants turned up on talk radio on Monday spouting the standard talking points.  Too bad they were all out of date and too bad that the efforts to open cracks or sow seeds of doubt aren't taking.

But what with all the back-pedaling and the fulminating against an approach Stephen Harper himself tried but couldn't deliver, you know the Conservatives didn't figure on this response to their miserable economic "update". 

A mystery web site pushing John Baird as an alternative is likely to open up any cracks inside the Conservatives. There's another one promoting Jim Prentice for the job once Harper is gone. Now it doesn't matter if this is a Conservative inside job or a pair of sites by Liberal or New Democrat operatives.

Either way it spells problems for the rank and file and hence for the Conservatives.  They've held on this long by tight internal discipline. These sites and the whole pressure of the gaffe from last week might be enough to distract the Conservatives.

Another sign of the problems within the federal Conservatives - or maybe a new problem would be the better term - can be found in the skullduggery of taping an opposition caucus meeting.  It's just another distasteful episode from a party that has, in cases like Grewahl, shown itself able to stoop pretty low in the quest for power. The NDP have called the Mounties but even if nothing comes of it, the whole episode just reminds Canadians of what kind of ethics the current federal government believes in.

No one supporting the coalition should count any chickens before they are hatched.  Now that they are in power the Conservatives will do just about anything to keep their fingers on the levers.  They've shown the depths they will sink to already.

But in the meantime, just watch the signs as they unravel.  They might just be in the early stages of spin from which they cannot recover.

-srbp-

Exercise your franchise: Pick a coalition cabinet

18 Liberals.

6 New Democrats.

You guess 'em.  Bonus if you can suggest the portfolios. The links above take you to the current caucus for each party.

Leave a comment to make your guess. [Note:  for this contest, we'll relax the rules on anony-comments.  Of course, if you want to collect the prize, you'll have to come out of the cyber closet at some point so we can wing your winnings to your mailbox via Canada Post.]

Almost immediate update, but with goodies attached:  An inveterate e-mailer reminded your humble e-scribbler that it's a good idea to offer prizes.

Well, okay. 

Sound suggestion.

Good idea.

The person who comes closest to the actual coalition cabinet (names only) will be the proud recipient of a new-design Bond Papers coffee mug (suitable for java or your spare change) and a Clyde Wells lapel button for your collection of campaign memorabilia.

 

-srbp-

The constitutional background to the current situation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE            

November 28, 2008

Eugene Forsey on Dissolutions, Coalitions and Minority Government

Ompah, Ontario – “If Eugene Forsey were alive today, the democratic options open to Parliamentarians in the upcoming confidence vote would be much clearer,” says Helen Forsey, daughter of the late Senator and constitutional expert.

“My father would be telling politicians and media alike that there is no need for a fresh election, and no need either for any formal coalition of opposition parties to replace the Conservative government if it is defeated in the House.”

She cites the straightforward explanation of the process given in her father’s popular reference book, “How Canadians Govern Themselves”, published by the Library of Parliament and now in its 6^th edition.

“If a Cabinet is defeated in the House of Commons on a motion of censure or want of confidence, the Cabinet must either resign (the Governor General will then ask the leader of the Opposition to form a new Cabinet) or ask for a dissolution of Parliament and a fresh election... If a minority government is defeated on a motion of want of confidence very early in the first session of a new Parliament, and there is a reasonable possibility that a government of another party can be formed and get the support of the House of Commons, then the Governor General could refuse a dissolution."  

Forsey is concerned that a lack of understanding of the constitutional options could lead to costly and undemocratic decisions that would seriously undermine Canadian democracy. “There’s a lot of confusion and misinformation in the public discussions around the expected vote on the ‘financial update’ package,” she says. “If we assume that a defeat in the House will automatically trigger an election, that gives the government a great big stick with which to beat the opposition and the electorate into submission. That’s what happened last time, and we mustn’t let it happen again.”

Even knowing that the Governor General can refuse to dissolve the new Parliament and ask the Leader of the Opposition to form a government, there is still a mistaken belief that this would require a formal coalition, she says. “Canadians must not allow this democratic opportunity for an alternative government to slip away just because no coalition emerges. Ordinary minority governments can work perfectly well if they respect the spirit of cooperation and openness Canadians want and need in these challenging times.”

For more information, please see attached backgrounders, and contact: 

Helen Forsey, Ompah, Ontario (613) 479-2453 (home office); hforsey@magma.ca (until December 15^th,2008),         hlforsey@sympatico.ca (after December 15^th, 2008)

John Whyte, Law Foundation of Saskatchewan Professor, College of Law, University of      Saskatchewan, Regina, (306) 966-5606; (home 306-757-9775), john.whyte@usask.ca

Donald Wright, Dept. of Political Science, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, (506) 458-7494, wrightd@unb.ca

Backgrounders

A.  Minority government – no need for a coalition!

There is suddenly much talk of a possible coalition of opposition parties, and the impression being given is that without such a coalition, a defeat of the Harper government would “force an election”. As the late Senator and constitutional expert Eugene Forsey and the entire history of Parliamentary Cabinet government make clear, this is simply not true, and it is vitally important to get rid of that mistaken assumption. Canadians must not allow our current opportunity for a change of government to slip away because no coalition emerges.

1. We don't need a coalition; regular minority government represents a simple and totally viable alternative. Common or garden minority government could work just fine, as it has lots of times in the past. The largest opposition party would form a cabinet, and introduce legislation deliberately designed to gain the necessary support from the House. This would involve consultation, discussion, co-operation, on each bill or policy, but it would not require any formal agreement among the parties. Whenever the parties holding the balance of power wanted changes to the proposals, they would negotiate with the (new, more co-operative) governing party so as to get something they could all at least live with. One example is the way the NDP won important concessions from the Paul Martin minority government on a number of issues.

2. Regular minority government could happen immediately; a coalition would take time. We almost certainly don't have the time right now to achieve the kind of formal agreement a coalition represents. Coalitions involve complex negotiations and delicate balancing which can be very challenging and time-consuming. They can also be internally divisive, at least temporarily, within the parties themselves. With a potential confidence motion coming before the House immediately, it is not realistic to ask three very different parties to slap something together in just three days. 

3. A formal coalition among the three parties currently in opposition in our Parliament would have serious structural drawbacks. The differences among the parties on some issues are enormous, and each party is apt (quite rightly) to be vigilant about not compromising its basic principles and identity.  Moreover, a coalition usually involves a cabinet that includes members of two or more parties, and the issues around who gets which positions could easily scuttle the whole thing. Even if a formal coalition were agreed to initially, the price each party would have to pay might soon become too high for many of its MPs (eg. if the Bloc demanded to be put in charge of federal-provincial relations, this would certainly be too much for many federalists in the other parties.)

4. A formal coalition might well be less stable than a regular minority government. Under current conditions - given the particular parties involved and the issues we are facing - a coalition could easily fall apart, which would leave a very bad taste in people's mouths and make further co-operation considerably more difficult. (In a regular minority situation, the parties can fail to agree on a piece of non-essential legislation without incurring any serious repercussions at all.)

To sum up, a coalition might be great, but it would have its drawbacks as well. What we absolutely do need now is an alternative to the current regime, a more co-operative and democratic minority government which would consider the input of the other parties in developing legislation and policies that could win the support of a majority of MPs. No coalition is needed for this – it is simply the way minority governments have always tried to work, before bullying and bluffing became a shameful new norm.

B.  An election if necessary – But not necessarily an election! Eugene Forsey explains constitutional options

By Helen Forsey

After our costly and frustrating October 2008 trip to the polls, Canadians are once again being held hostage to the notion that a government can never be defeated in the House of Commons without triggering an election. If Eugene Forsey were still alive, we would know that the weapon being held to our heads is only a toy gun.

The late Senator Forsey was widely recognized and respected as an expert on Canada’s constitution. Whenever political dilemmas loomed or processes needed clarifying, politicians, media and citizens alike sought his lively and learned counsel. Today, with our country again facing the uncertainties of a minority government, a multi-party opposition and difficult times ahead, his input is urgently needed.

The first thing he would point out in our current situation is that our Constitution provides safeguards against a series of unnecessary elections. One of those safeguards is the right of the Governor-General, in certain circumstances, to refuse a government’s advice to dissolve Parliament and instead to call on another party in the existing House of Commons to try governing.

If the Canadian public, the politicians and the media had understood this vital element of our Constitution and invoked it early in the last Parliament, things could have unfolded very differently from what they did. The opposition parties could have voted together against the government on one of its confidence motions and defeated it. At that point the Governor-General, rather than automatically granting a dissolution and plunging us into an early election, could have called on the Leader of the Opposition to form a cabinet and try to get the support of the House to govern. If the new government had then developed its legislative and budgetary measures in ways that would gain majority approval by our elected representatives, the 39^th Parliament could have got on with its work, and quite possibly worked very well.

But nobody, from the Governor-General to the opposition politicians to the media to the general public, seemed to realize that this was an option! Now, after all the hassle and expense of the recent election, we’re back in essentially the same place. And the minute the PM decides that this new Parliament also “isn’t working” as he wants it to, it could happen again - unless we start understanding and implementing the options our Constitution provides.

“If [a government] loses its majority support in the House of Commons, it must either make way for a government of the opposite party or call a fresh election,” states Eugene Forsey in “How Canadians Govern Themselves”, his now-classic popular reference book published by the Library of Parliament. “In Canada, the government and the House of Commons cannot be at odds for more than a few weeks at a time. If they differ on any matter of importance, then, promptly, there is either a new government of a new House of Commons.”

Contrast this clear either-or alternative with the false assumption that if the Commons doesn’t agree to the government’s program, there has to be a fresh election. “The Canadian Constitution very sensibly allows governments to appeal from Parliament to the people when the public interest so requires,” Forsey explained. “But it does not follow that it provides no means of protecting fundamental democratic rights against abuse of these powers. It does; and the means is the reserve power of the Crown as guardian of the Constitution.”

My father defended those “reserve powers” as a pillar of our democracy. His PhD thesis on the royal power of dissolution of Parliament documented the constitutional precedents and the logic behind them, and demolished the popular but mistaken theory “that the Crown is just a rubber stamp for Cabinet, or that if it isn’t, it ought to be.” In particular cases, he argued, the power of the Crown to refuse a dissolution may be all that stands in the way of a government “spanking the electorate into submission” by repeatedly forcing them back to the polls.

“Unquestionably, the [reserve] power exists,” he wrote, citing the instances of its use and the wide range of constitutional authorities and politicians who upheld its propriety. “Unquestionably also, it is a power to be exercised only in very special circumstances: ordinarily the Crown must follow the advice of the cabinet. But many people feel that there must be no exceptions whatsoever. Is this in fact a safe doctrine?”

One of the scenarios he used to make his case against the “rubber stamp” theory starts with a familiar situation. “Suppose the government gets a dissolution, and no one gets a clear majority,” he wrote. “The government retains office and meets the new Parliament - as it has a perfect right to do - hoping to pick up enough votes to keep it in power. But the new Parliament defeats it. It declines to resign; governments don’t automatically resign on defeat. Instead, it asks for a second dissolution, and upon a further defeat in the ensuing Parliament, a third, and so on, until the electors give in or revolt. Is the Governor-General bound to acquiesce in this game of constitutional ping-pong from electorate to Parliament, from Parliament to electorate again, back and forth interminably?”

In 1926, Mackenzie King accused Parliament of having “ceased to be in a position to make a satisfactory decision” about who should govern. In 2008, Stephen Harper blamed a “dysfunctional” Parliament that “wasn’t working”. Both meant the same thing: a Parliament which failed to do what they wanted it to do. And for both men, the prescription was also the same: get a willing Governor-General to dissolve the unsatisfactory Parliament and bring on another election.

Forsey called this “a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ theory of the Constitution. It bears not the faintest resemblance to parliamentary government,” he said. “Yet on the rubber stamp theory of the Crown’s powers there is no escape from it, no protection against the Cabinet dictatorship it would rivet upon the country.”

“It is the rubber stamp theory which is undemocratic,” he concluded. “It makes existing governments irremovable except by their own consent. Such a doctrine is a travesty of democracy. It delivers every Opposition gagged and bound into the hands of any jack-in-office. The jack-in-office may loosen the gag and the ropes - [perhaps] so much that we don’t realize they’re there. But he can tighten them again whenever he pleases, and as tight as he pleases. This is not democracy. It is despotism; more or less benevolent, perhaps, for the moment, but despotism none the less.”

The antidote is an understanding of the reserve power of the Crown to refuse a dissolution, and the political will to demand that it be used when necessary.

All this is not to say that it would be simple for the Crown to refuse her cabinet’s advice. As Eugene Forsey noted, a Governor-General would rightly be reluctant to do so without excellent reasons, and without a new cabinet willing to accept the responsibility. The reserve power on dissolution comes into play only in exceptional circumstances – when the latest election is still relatively recent, no great new issue of public policy has arisen in the interim, and the makeup of the new Parliament provides the practical possibility of an alternative government.

But the fact that the reserve power exists is one key to counteracting the paralyzing sense of helplessness that has turned so many Canadians off politics. It means we can choose to move from frustration and wishful thinking to the practical possibility of the opposition – a majority in this new Parliament as in the last - forming a government. The various parties would have to set partisan selfishness aside, but there would be no need for a formal coalition, just enough cooperation for each bill to pass. That, after all, is how responsible minority government works.

Democratic alternatives become real options when we understand and insist on the constitutional principles surrounding dissolution. Whether or not we like a particular government, having those options is essential to maintaining our democracy. We need not be hamstrung by the constant fear of another election. We must shake off our ignorance of the constitution and use the tools it offers to make our parliamentary system work for us.

Writer Helen Forsey is a daughter of the late Senator Eugene Forsey. She is currently working on a book about his legacy to Canadians.

Reference material:

Forsey, Eugene A., Freedom and Order, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 1974. See especially: “The Crown and the Constitution” (pp. 34-50), “Mr. King and Parliamentary Government” (pp. 87-109), and “The Problem of Minority Government in Canada” (pp. 109-123.)

Forsey, Eugene A., How Canadians Govern Themselves, Library of Parliament, 6^th edition 2005. See especially pp. 28-29.

Forsey, Eugene A., A Life on the Fringe, Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1990. See especially pp. 102-108.

Evatt, H. V. and Eugene A. Forsey, Evatt and Forsey on the Reserve Powers, Legal Books, Sydney, 1990. This volume includes the entire text of Forsey’s The Royal Power of Dissolution of Parliament in the British Commonwealth, with his new Introduction, “The Present Position of the Reserve Powers of the Crown”.

We would most likely have been spared both this latest election and the continuing curse of a Harper government. Our current affliction is largely due to our collective political ignorance, exploited and manipulated by the Powers That Be to create the “learned helplessness” so evident now in our battered and bruised electorate.

The specifics will depend on how the situation unfolds, but the deciding factor will be the opposition’s collective willingness to

call Harper’s bluff early in the new session. Backed by informed public pressure, they should defeat him in the House as soon as he starts pushing his reactionary policies, and demand the chance to govern sensibly and co-operatively in his place.

If the opposition lacks the gumption to do this, or if the Governor-General simply knuckles under and grants Harper another dissolution, the public outcry should be so loud that Eugene Forsey will rise from his grave to join us.

Harper’s minority Conservatives spent their first term in office demonstrating their contempt for the people and their representatives. They systematically sabotaged the work of multi-party committees, used Orders-in-Council to avoid Commons debate and defy the law, and took the art of parliamentary bullying to new heights by declaring every government bill a matter of confidence, daring MPs to defeat it.

On the “rubber stamp” theory, any such defeat in the House would automatically trigger a new election, something opposition politicians are generally reluctant – for good reasons and bad – to provoke. Whether or not Harper knew that premise was false, he was certainly willing to bet it wouldn’t be challenged. Sadly, he was right. The opposition parties mouthed their platitudes but never mentioned any constitutional alternative. While they played dead, Harper was able to keep pushing through his appalling legislation and stay in office till the time of his choosing.

************************************

My father was writing in 1953, but more than half a century later Canadians are again being held hostage to the false notion that a government can never be defeated in the House of Commons without triggering an election.

After our recent futile trip to the polls, we are a country massively frustrated and disillusioned with our own politics. Our alienation is due to many elements – our continuing enslavement to the “first-past-the-post” electoral model, short-sighted partisan vote-grabbing among rival opposition parties, macho posturing and point-scoring that freezes out more collaborative approaches or dismisses them as “weak”.

Although he died in 1991, his writings continue to provide detailed analysis and guidance on how our sophisticated system of Parliamentary government works.

our vast ignorance of our own Constitution, particularly the sophisticated safeguards it offers against abuse. One of those safeguards is the right of the Governor-General, in certain circumstances, to refuse to dissolve Parliament and instead to call on another party in the existing House of Commons to try governing. If the public, the politicians and the media had understood this vital element of our Constitution and invoked it early in the last parliament, things would have unfolded very differently.

It is high time the politicians, the media, and the public at large were reminded that this is not the case.

that our Constitution provides options.

Harper’s bullying tactics depend on the continuing ignorance and docility of the opposition, the media and civil society – an ignorance regularly fertilized with forkfuls of bullshit from politicians and the media.

One example - out of many - was a recent statement by CBC Radio News that Harper’s technique of declaring every Commons vote a matter of confidence forces the opposition to either “support the government, force an election, or not vote at all.” It is precisely this widespread but false belief that reduces the opposition majority to a state of helpless frustration and allows the government to walk all over us.

“One of the biggest threats to parliamentary democracy in Canada,” he wrote, “is the dogma that any government, regardless of circumstances, always has a dissolution in its pocket; that an appeal to the people is always proper.”

    CBC news writers and announcers apparently share this mistaken assumption with the various politicians who believe themselves caught on the horns of a near-impossible dilemma.

The two recent examples below are both from radio, as I seldom watch television); any slight variance from the actual text would be because I simply grabbed a pencil and took hurried notes as I listened:

1) a reference to Mr. Harper's technique of declaring every Commons vote a matter of confidence, "forcing the Opposition to either support the government, force an election, or not vote at all" (The World at Six, October 15th, 2008) and

2) a report on Mr. Dion's reaction to the Speech from the Throne, in which he "said his party won't force an election over [a Throne Speech] too vague and too bland to be offensive" (The World at Six, November 19th, 2008)

    Please understand that I am not singling out the CBC in this matter; indeed, politicians and public officials, other media, academics and the general public are being contacted as well. The matter is urgent, since the new Parliament is already sitting, and crucial decisions over the coming months will depend on whether or not this error is corrected.

“Triggering elections” - Eugene Forsey says: “Hold on – that’s not necessary!”

C. Eugene Forsey on Dissolutions, Coalitions and Minority Government

Ompah, Ontario – “If Eugene Forsey were alive today, the democratic options open to Parliamentarians in the upcoming confidence vote would be much clearer,” says Helen Forsey, daughter of the late Senator and constitutional expert.

“My father would be telling politicians and media alike that there is no need for a fresh election, and no need either for any formal coalition of opposition parties to replace the Conservative government if it is defeated in the House.”

She cites the straightforward explanation of the process given in her father’s popular reference book, “How Canadians Govern Themselves”, published by the Library of Parliament and now in its 6^th edition.

“If a Cabinet is defeated in the House of Commons on a motion of censure or want of confidence, the Cabinet must either resign (the Governor General will then ask the leader of the Opposition to form a new Cabinet) or ask for a dissolution of Parliament and a fresh election... If a minority government is defeated on a motion of want of confidence very early in the first session of a new Parliament, and there is a reasonable possibility that a government of another party can be formed and get the support of the House of Commons, then the Governor General could refuse a dissolution."  

Forsey is concerned that a lack of understanding of the constitutional options could lead to costly and undemocratic decisions that would seriously undermine Canadian democracy. “There’s a lot of confusion and misinformation in the public discussions around the expected vote on the ‘financial update’ package,” she says. “If we assume that a defeat in the House will automatically trigger an election, that gives the government a great big stick with which to beat the opposition and the electorate into submission. That’s what happened last time, and we mustn’t let it happen again.”

Even knowing that the Governor General can refuse to dissolve the new Parliament and ask the Leader of the Opposition to form a government, there is still a mistaken belief that this would require a formal coalition, she says. “Canadians must not allow this democratic opportunity for an alternative government to slip away just because no coalition emerges. Ordinary minority governments can work perfectly well if they respect the spirit of cooperation and openness Canadians want and need in these challenging times.”

-srbp-

Harper's 2004 letter to the GG: full text

Posted at Bond Papers last Friday:

"Taking power without an election."

-srbp-