CBC is reporting that a technical expert in audio recordings has found substantive evidence that the Grewal tapes made public recently have been altered from the original.
You can also find a similar report here at CFRA's website. There's even a bit on a Dipper blog here with excellent links to other places.
In one instance, there is an audible click before Ujjal Dosanj reputedly says "Cabinet would be quick" with another audible click following immediately behind. The words are in English while the surrounding conversation is in Punjabi and appears to have a different tone and volume from the rest of that portion of the tape.
Meanwhile, The Chief of C*O*N and his assistant Larrabee (??) insist that Grewal has made public all the tapes and that maybe, possibly, theoretically, hypothetically some problems with duplication produced some errors and omissions.
Uh huh.
Riiiiiiight.
What happened to the originals? Duplication is actually part of the problem in maintaining credibility here.
Let's not forget as well that Grewal's selective taping of conversations suggests that he was keen to avoid taping certain meetings so that he could speak more freely and openly. This makes him all the more suspicious.
Anyway, I wind up feeling like Shtarker, as I run around singing in a cheap German accent: "I von ze pool. I von ze pool."
03 June 2005
02 June 2005
Meanwhile, back on the farm...
Joe, disguised as a door, looks on in amusement as Danny Williams puts the blocks to the Liberals by calling a quickie by-election in Exploits district.
The Libs were obviously unprepared.
It will be a close race; the Liberals might well lose.
I'd be interested to see a poll - a good poll - on the party strengths and weaknesses for the Libs, the NDP and the Tories there. My guess is that the Liberals aren't anywhere near as strong as they might like to be.
But most importantly, if the Liberals set this up as yet another campaign for their Amazing Philosophy of Ruralism, what happens if they lose the by-election?
The Libs were obviously unprepared.
It will be a close race; the Liberals might well lose.
I'd be interested to see a poll - a good poll - on the party strengths and weaknesses for the Libs, the NDP and the Tories there. My guess is that the Liberals aren't anywhere near as strong as they might like to be.
But most importantly, if the Liberals set this up as yet another campaign for their Amazing Philosophy of Ruralism, what happens if they lose the by-election?
Homer Grewal
If you listen to the handful of Grewal that have been released - handful out of the others there should be - there is another thing that leaps up.
Grewal was really concerned to stall any investigation into allegations he was taking campaign donations in exchange for helping with the immigration process. At one point he says very clearly that he wants to do something about that irrespective of whatever else happens.
Now the whole mess is being turned over to the Queen's Cowboys. I always thought that was the thing to do from the outset.
But here's the Homer Simpson part of it - Grewal is now going to be investigated for his ethical behaviour in soliciting favours from government and taping members without their knowledge.
Is Grewal from India or Springfield?
Grewal was really concerned to stall any investigation into allegations he was taking campaign donations in exchange for helping with the immigration process. At one point he says very clearly that he wants to do something about that irrespective of whatever else happens.
Now the whole mess is being turned over to the Queen's Cowboys. I always thought that was the thing to do from the outset.
But here's the Homer Simpson part of it - Grewal is now going to be investigated for his ethical behaviour in soliciting favours from government and taping members without their knowledge.
Is Grewal from India or Springfield?
01 June 2005
More than a good poll and an announcement a week
People who look at politics from the outside often focus on the stuff that they can see.
In looking at the pending changes in the provincial Liberal leadership, it's no surprise, therefore that reporters may sometimes focus on things like the supposed "bounce" in public opinion numbers that comes from a leadership fight or how a candidate might appear.
Craig Westcott and David Cochrane's comments this morning on CBC Radio by and large fall into the category of looking at what can be seen rather than looking beyond the substance.
Westcott, in particular, focused on the superficial, pointing to St. John's lawyer A.J. Baker as the brightest prospect to replace Roger Grimes. Westcott pointed to her aggressive style, her attractiveness and her profile as a way of drawing attention to the Liberal Party - likely from a media standpoint - and perhaps luring out the misogynistic comments from Conservatives that would give good copy.
What Westcott misses is the obvious in this case: Baker would make an excellent candidate. But there is nothing - absolutely nothing - in her background that would suggest she has the ability to tackle the real job of leading a political party, let alone leading the province.
He pointed, as many do, to finding someone to take on Danny Williams. This also focuses on the superficial - the "appearance" of a strong leader in the way that Latin American politics used to focus on the caudillo or strong-man around whom all rally. Much of our political history is told through an emphasis on individual leaders so there is an apparent justification for this approach. Unfortunately how the story gets told by people who, again by and large, see things from the outside, misses the details that tell the real story.
The easiest example to illustrate the genuine issue comes from Clyde Wells. Lured back into politics in 1987, Wells took two full years to rebuild the party. He and the team he brought worked on district organization, provincial organization, recruiting candidates, recruiting volunteers and amassing a war chest of cash to fight an election.
Even with a party that was tottering and tired, the 1989 election was not an easy fight. But the party won; Wells himself lost his bid for a seat. It was really not until several years after the 1989 election that people started to focus on him individually as opposed to the Liberal party and the whole cabinet. That shift in focus was driven by the media looking for a convenient carrier of their explanations - not on how the party actually ran or what won the 1989 election.
When Wells left politics in 1996, he left as well a party that was well-organized with strong grass-roots district organization. Cash was in good shape and there was a stable of strong ministers, strong caucus members and others ready to come forward as candidates.
By 1999, his successor Brian Tobin - the classic charming caudillo - led a party that was showing signs of wear. The district organizations were weaker, in particular and there was growing alienation borne of Tobin's style. Fully 18 seats were contests that should never have been and six were set to go Tory. In the end, Tobin lost three seats in areas where the party out to have been invincible, but more importantly, the party had shifted its strategic messages no fewer than three times during the campaign to counteract its own evident strategic mistakes. Tobin's political philosophy, characterized by one wag as "an announcement a week and a good poll", was obviously not good enough.
Tobin's successor emerged from a leadership convention nominally in charge but in fact bearing the burden left by Tobin's lack of organizational ability. The party was heavily in debt. John Efford's candidacy revealed the depth of the alienation in the rank and file at the caudillo approach. The party was largely worn down if not worn out by the evidence on flash over substance.
Flip across to the Tories in the same time frame and you see some of the same challenges. But here's one notable difference. At some point, the Tories started focusing on the sinews of the party. Ed Byrne's 1999 campaign against Tobin was a set piece of organization that ran as smoothly as these things can. Undecided voters - abnormally high right up to the debate - broke immediately after the debate and went, surprisingly to the Tories.
Whatever the Conservatives accomplished in 2003 had as much to do with the grunt-work of organization as it did anything else. When Danny Williams' campaign arrived it could slide in on top of a well-laid foundation. The results are well known.
In picking a new leader, the Liberal Party needs to look at more than the superficial. Reporters and other commentators would do well to follow the same approach, if nor no other reason than to give more insightful coverage to their audience.
The new leader will have to be an accomplished organizer who is able to re-build the party from the most basic levels. He or she must be able to create a team that can fight and hopefully win an election. The leader must have the depth to sweep away any outmoded ideas and forge a party which is genuinely a government-in-waiting.
The legacy of Tobinism is all around, best exemplified by those who believe - like Tobin minister Chuck Furey - that the convention should be as late as possible so that a "bounce" out of the convention would propel through the polls. Political success seldom, if ever, works that way in practice .
Political success cannot be pulled at the last minute from some bodily orifice. It comes from hard work, sweat and substance by a dedicated group built around a proven, capable leader.
Those who believe in pulling it out at the last minute seem to forget that what normally comes from that orifice is, by definition, refuse and has a consistency which does not bounce so much as splat in an ugly mess.
In looking at the pending changes in the provincial Liberal leadership, it's no surprise, therefore that reporters may sometimes focus on things like the supposed "bounce" in public opinion numbers that comes from a leadership fight or how a candidate might appear.
Craig Westcott and David Cochrane's comments this morning on CBC Radio by and large fall into the category of looking at what can be seen rather than looking beyond the substance.
Westcott, in particular, focused on the superficial, pointing to St. John's lawyer A.J. Baker as the brightest prospect to replace Roger Grimes. Westcott pointed to her aggressive style, her attractiveness and her profile as a way of drawing attention to the Liberal Party - likely from a media standpoint - and perhaps luring out the misogynistic comments from Conservatives that would give good copy.
What Westcott misses is the obvious in this case: Baker would make an excellent candidate. But there is nothing - absolutely nothing - in her background that would suggest she has the ability to tackle the real job of leading a political party, let alone leading the province.
He pointed, as many do, to finding someone to take on Danny Williams. This also focuses on the superficial - the "appearance" of a strong leader in the way that Latin American politics used to focus on the caudillo or strong-man around whom all rally. Much of our political history is told through an emphasis on individual leaders so there is an apparent justification for this approach. Unfortunately how the story gets told by people who, again by and large, see things from the outside, misses the details that tell the real story.
The easiest example to illustrate the genuine issue comes from Clyde Wells. Lured back into politics in 1987, Wells took two full years to rebuild the party. He and the team he brought worked on district organization, provincial organization, recruiting candidates, recruiting volunteers and amassing a war chest of cash to fight an election.
Even with a party that was tottering and tired, the 1989 election was not an easy fight. But the party won; Wells himself lost his bid for a seat. It was really not until several years after the 1989 election that people started to focus on him individually as opposed to the Liberal party and the whole cabinet. That shift in focus was driven by the media looking for a convenient carrier of their explanations - not on how the party actually ran or what won the 1989 election.
When Wells left politics in 1996, he left as well a party that was well-organized with strong grass-roots district organization. Cash was in good shape and there was a stable of strong ministers, strong caucus members and others ready to come forward as candidates.
By 1999, his successor Brian Tobin - the classic charming caudillo - led a party that was showing signs of wear. The district organizations were weaker, in particular and there was growing alienation borne of Tobin's style. Fully 18 seats were contests that should never have been and six were set to go Tory. In the end, Tobin lost three seats in areas where the party out to have been invincible, but more importantly, the party had shifted its strategic messages no fewer than three times during the campaign to counteract its own evident strategic mistakes. Tobin's political philosophy, characterized by one wag as "an announcement a week and a good poll", was obviously not good enough.
Tobin's successor emerged from a leadership convention nominally in charge but in fact bearing the burden left by Tobin's lack of organizational ability. The party was heavily in debt. John Efford's candidacy revealed the depth of the alienation in the rank and file at the caudillo approach. The party was largely worn down if not worn out by the evidence on flash over substance.
Flip across to the Tories in the same time frame and you see some of the same challenges. But here's one notable difference. At some point, the Tories started focusing on the sinews of the party. Ed Byrne's 1999 campaign against Tobin was a set piece of organization that ran as smoothly as these things can. Undecided voters - abnormally high right up to the debate - broke immediately after the debate and went, surprisingly to the Tories.
Whatever the Conservatives accomplished in 2003 had as much to do with the grunt-work of organization as it did anything else. When Danny Williams' campaign arrived it could slide in on top of a well-laid foundation. The results are well known.
In picking a new leader, the Liberal Party needs to look at more than the superficial. Reporters and other commentators would do well to follow the same approach, if nor no other reason than to give more insightful coverage to their audience.
The new leader will have to be an accomplished organizer who is able to re-build the party from the most basic levels. He or she must be able to create a team that can fight and hopefully win an election. The leader must have the depth to sweep away any outmoded ideas and forge a party which is genuinely a government-in-waiting.
The legacy of Tobinism is all around, best exemplified by those who believe - like Tobin minister Chuck Furey - that the convention should be as late as possible so that a "bounce" out of the convention would propel through the polls. Political success seldom, if ever, works that way in practice .
Political success cannot be pulled at the last minute from some bodily orifice. It comes from hard work, sweat and substance by a dedicated group built around a proven, capable leader.
Those who believe in pulling it out at the last minute seem to forget that what normally comes from that orifice is, by definition, refuse and has a consistency which does not bounce so much as splat in an ugly mess.
Clips the Lampoon won't show you
Here are a few clips from the Grewal tapes that Canadian Press and the National Lampoon missed.
Oddly they aren't highlighted in the original to make them easier to pick out and, curiously they don't support the story that there was some kind of deal going on here to lure Grewal to the Liberal cause.
What there was - obviously - a discussion surrounding Grewal crossing the floor. And it would come as no surprise that the prime minister was briefed on the matter or even prepared to meet with the defector once he had committed to crossing the floor.
So where's the story here?
Simple answer is, beyond the innuendo, there isn't a story, certainly not one that has beaten out the Belinda Stronach defection. Hey guys, everything you are reporting so far matches with Stronach: defector makes contact. Liberals talk with defector. Defector crosses floor and has newser with prime minister.
Sheesh: does anyone read his or her own copy?
Anyway here are some other quotes worth noting:
On Grewal's motives:
Grewal: I agree but why I am doing if it is that it is good for the country and good for all of us. Probably.
Tim: Yeah.
- Gurmant Grewal to Tim Murphy
We want to talk with goodwill, it [the investigation into allegations against Grewal on immigration] is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do.
- Gurmant Grewal to Ujjal Dosanj
I wonder what other juicy tidbits are being withheld, or as might be more likely the case, are completely misrepresented in the transcript that make it clear there was no criminal activity here and that Grewal was looking to cross the floor on his own:
FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.
Oddly they aren't highlighted in the original to make them easier to pick out and, curiously they don't support the story that there was some kind of deal going on here to lure Grewal to the Liberal cause.
What there was - obviously - a discussion surrounding Grewal crossing the floor. And it would come as no surprise that the prime minister was briefed on the matter or even prepared to meet with the defector once he had committed to crossing the floor.
So where's the story here?
Simple answer is, beyond the innuendo, there isn't a story, certainly not one that has beaten out the Belinda Stronach defection. Hey guys, everything you are reporting so far matches with Stronach: defector makes contact. Liberals talk with defector. Defector crosses floor and has newser with prime minister.
Sheesh: does anyone read his or her own copy?
Anyway here are some other quotes worth noting:
On Grewal's motives:
Grewal: I agree but why I am doing if it is that it is good for the country and good for all of us. Probably.
Tim: Yeah.
- Gurmant Grewal to Tim Murphy
We want to talk with goodwill, it [the investigation into allegations against Grewal on immigration] is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do.
- Gurmant Grewal to Ujjal Dosanj
I wonder what other juicy tidbits are being withheld, or as might be more likely the case, are completely misrepresented in the transcript that make it clear there was no criminal activity here and that Grewal was looking to cross the floor on his own:
FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.
Grewal transcripts wrong. Updated
Careful listening to the audio tapes released by Gurmant Grewal today show significant errors in the transcript provided on the Connie parliamentarian's website.
Following is a revised portion of the transcripts based on the audio files downloaded from Grewal's site.
Extract begins:
UD[Ujjal Dosanj]: Tim told me to call. I think, as I said earlier, no PRIME MINISTER would ever want to compromise himself with that kind of appropriate (?) because he want to be able to say, "‘I did not make a deal in it, there was no deal’." [incorrect Grewal transcription] "I didn't make a deal with anybody. There was no deal." [corrected version] You came and we accepted you, if that happens. If you want to be able to say that honestly. That'’s why I was suggesting you what I was suggesting you.[word added] That was the difficulty that Tim had. And you saw that. I think from my perspective, I told you about [words omitted by transcriber] that's the way how my conversation went with the PRIME MINISTER, when I came to the Liberals. [words added by transcriber] You know we have Scott Brison, he essentially [word omitted] came as a back bencher, stayed a back bencher, then he was a parliamentary [words omitted by transcriber] PRIME MINISTER'’s [word added/substituted by transcriber] secretary.
GG [Gurmant Grewal]: No, he came directly.
UD: Not to the cabinet.
GG: OK
UD He was made parliamentary secretary.
UD Depends... and you know that'’s how the deals are made [words inserted by transcriber] these things happen. [clearly audible words omitted by transcriber] I think I just wanted to call you that to let you know the conditions that you should talk to me should you decide. If you don't decide then we should leave it. You wanna -inaudible - but you don't want to face the attack (?) and I want to make sure that's how it is -inaudible - and I think you need to really seriously think about the understanding...about how these things happen. It's a matter of trust...then it's a matter of the prime minister being able to appropriately deal with these issues when the time is right. [audible section omitted by transcriber. Note: Grewal repeatedly mutters "uh huh" to indicate he is listening.]
- Inaudible -
UD: PRIME MINISTER can never say I will give you X and then say [words omitted by transcriber] is never going to say to you that [words added/substituted by transcriber] that I never said that. You have to be able to say that I did not make a deal. That'’s very important. That'’s why this these ["this" = incorrect word by transcriber] kinds of deals are not made in that fashion. If you think about it, if you think it is appropriate -inaudible portion -
GG - inaudible -
UD: Then the understanding has to be one together [words omitted by transcriber] and then if there is an understanding. ...Volpe would not be difficult. The ethics commissioner, there is nothing we can do. It is independent thing and must remain independent. [words omitted by transcriber]
-inaudible- [punjabi conversation??]
GG: We want to talk with goodwill, it is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do. [The words "irrespective of what we do" stand out, suggesting Grewal was focusing on the immigration issue as his main objective. The Globe story this evening points to allegations that Grewal was accepting cash in exchange for expediting immigration matters. Hmm. Soliciting political influence to avoid a possible embarrassing investigation by the ethics commissioner, Mr. Grewal? Say it ain't so.]
UD: Volpe, will talk with him, but it will be.. [There is an audible portion of the tape in which Dosanj makes reference to the issue with Joe Volpe. Donsanj quite clearly indicates that there can be no promise because Volpe might say "I am right and you are wrong and then we will have to persuade him..." This is rendered incorrectly in the Connie version.]
Extract ends
Here are some general observations:
1. The translation sucks. Even someone who does not speak Punjabi can notice that the Punjabi to English translations are extremely poor - poor to the point that one wonders what the heck might be missing of substance and context from the conversations.
2. The Blackberry log on the portion involving Sudesh Kalia doesn't match the set of transcripts made available. There are calls on 18 May for example - several of them - that weren't released.
3. We also don't have the calls Grewal made to others. The SK log of calls also shows calls being made by Grewal to SK. Where are they?
4. In the portion of the calls related to discussions between health minister Ujjal Dosanj and Grewal, the phrase "prime minister" is inexplicably rendered in all caps. The ONLY reason to do this is EMPHASIS. But since the sections refer to a prime minister wishing to distance himself from the arrangement, one wonders what the heck the purpose would be of this mucking about other than to draw unnecessary attention to the prime minister.
5. Chunks of Dosanj's comments are inaudible or barely audible. The audio quality on the tapes of chats with Dosanj is as poor as it gets. Only a sophisticated audio process - such as the police might employ could sort out some of the comments that can't be heard by the unaided ear. Funny that Grewal hasn't turned over all his "evidence" to the police since he is alleging a crime took place.
6. There are some huge problems with dates. Grewal went public with his allegations on 18 May, yet this tape has some conversations taking place that same day. In one tape - the Murphy in Grewal office tape - the conversation supposedly takes place on the 18th according to the Grewal site. Yet for that to be true, it would have occurred on the same day Grewal went public.
Strangely, in the audio tape - which is a small portion of the transcript - Murphy makes no reference at all to Stronach even though her crossing would have taken place the day before. Instead, Murphy makes a cryptic reference to other members of the Conservative caucus he refuses to name. It is surreal to think that Grewal would have been able to meet openly in his office with the Prime Minister's chief of staff the day after Belinda kicked Stephen in the political goolies.
7. The bits that are audible are rendered so inaccurately in places that one wonders if they were not deliberately - albeit clumsily - altered. Perhaps they are hoping the media won't think twice about the "evidence".
8. Let's be clear about this, though: even if the audio tapes from Grewal are not perfectly clear, the omissions and additions to the transcript significantly alter the tone of the conversation between Dosanj and Grewal, for example.
The same can be said of the conversations between Tim Murphy and Grewal about the matter being discussed related to Joe Volpe. Murphy is clear that the process must be allowed to proceed and, implicitly, that there cannot be interference. Try and find that in the transcript. There are also bits of conversation which are plainly audible - arranging meetings for example - that are inexplicably left out of the transcript.
9. References to the prime minister have been inserted where other words are clearly used. Other sections, where Dosanj makes it unequivocally clear that there can not be a deal to cross the floor in exchange for something have been left out even though these sections are audible to a careful listener.
10. Let's also be clear that there is absolutely no evidence provided here that there was ever an offer of any favour in exchange for Grewal crossing the floor. In fact, both Dosanj and Murphy explicitly reject the notion. They do point to the possibility of some consideration being given down the road to an appointment or position, but this is the type of thing that any caucus member might expect.
11. It is easy to see that Murphy and Dosanj are suspicious of Grewal's motives - and rightly so. They are playing the whole thing as straight as possible, if for no other reason than because Grewal is a very small and largely insignificant fish. Belinda Stronach, on the other hand, was a major catch but again - there is no evidence of any inducement for her to change parties.
12. By the way, can someone explain why this transcription of the conversations with Dosanj translates a garbled Punjabi comment with the words Belinda Stronach that appear to have taken place before Grewal would have known about her conversations with the Liberals? More particularly, it would seem odd in the context that this conversation took place the same day or the day after Grewal went public yet the comments by Donsanj focus on Scott Brison and not Belinda Stronach.
Turn the whole thing over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Grewal, his wife and whoever else is foisting this story on the country had better be ready to resign in disgrace if the edits on the transcript - poorly executed as they are - turn out to be but the tip of the iceberg in what I am still convinced is a Grewal scam.
Following is a revised portion of the transcripts based on the audio files downloaded from Grewal's site.
Extract begins:
UD[Ujjal Dosanj]: Tim told me to call. I think, as I said earlier, no PRIME MINISTER would ever want to compromise himself with that kind of appropriate (?) because he want to be able to say, "‘I did not make a deal in it, there was no deal’." [incorrect Grewal transcription] "I didn't make a deal with anybody. There was no deal." [corrected version] You came and we accepted you, if that happens. If you want to be able to say that honestly. That'’s why I was suggesting you what I was suggesting you.[word added] That was the difficulty that Tim had. And you saw that. I think from my perspective, I told you about [words omitted by transcriber] that's the way how my conversation went with the PRIME MINISTER, when I came to the Liberals. [words added by transcriber] You know we have Scott Brison, he essentially [word omitted] came as a back bencher, stayed a back bencher, then he was a parliamentary [words omitted by transcriber] PRIME MINISTER'’s [word added/substituted by transcriber] secretary.
GG [Gurmant Grewal]: No, he came directly.
UD: Not to the cabinet.
GG: OK
UD He was made parliamentary secretary.
UD Depends... and you know that'’s how the deals are made [words inserted by transcriber] these things happen. [clearly audible words omitted by transcriber] I think I just wanted to call you that to let you know the conditions that you should talk to me should you decide. If you don't decide then we should leave it. You wanna -inaudible - but you don't want to face the attack (?) and I want to make sure that's how it is -inaudible - and I think you need to really seriously think about the understanding...about how these things happen. It's a matter of trust...then it's a matter of the prime minister being able to appropriately deal with these issues when the time is right. [audible section omitted by transcriber. Note: Grewal repeatedly mutters "uh huh" to indicate he is listening.]
- Inaudible -
UD: PRIME MINISTER can never say I will give you X and then say [words omitted by transcriber] is never going to say to you that [words added/substituted by transcriber] that I never said that. You have to be able to say that I did not make a deal. That'’s very important. That'’s why this these ["this" = incorrect word by transcriber] kinds of deals are not made in that fashion. If you think about it, if you think it is appropriate -inaudible portion -
GG - inaudible -
UD: Then the understanding has to be one together [words omitted by transcriber] and then if there is an understanding. ...Volpe would not be difficult. The ethics commissioner, there is nothing we can do. It is independent thing and must remain independent. [words omitted by transcriber]
-inaudible- [punjabi conversation??]
GG: We want to talk with goodwill, it is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do. [The words "irrespective of what we do" stand out, suggesting Grewal was focusing on the immigration issue as his main objective. The Globe story this evening points to allegations that Grewal was accepting cash in exchange for expediting immigration matters. Hmm. Soliciting political influence to avoid a possible embarrassing investigation by the ethics commissioner, Mr. Grewal? Say it ain't so.]
UD: Volpe, will talk with him, but it will be.. [There is an audible portion of the tape in which Dosanj makes reference to the issue with Joe Volpe. Donsanj quite clearly indicates that there can be no promise because Volpe might say "I am right and you are wrong and then we will have to persuade him..." This is rendered incorrectly in the Connie version.]
Extract ends
Here are some general observations:
1. The translation sucks. Even someone who does not speak Punjabi can notice that the Punjabi to English translations are extremely poor - poor to the point that one wonders what the heck might be missing of substance and context from the conversations.
2. The Blackberry log on the portion involving Sudesh Kalia doesn't match the set of transcripts made available. There are calls on 18 May for example - several of them - that weren't released.
3. We also don't have the calls Grewal made to others. The SK log of calls also shows calls being made by Grewal to SK. Where are they?
4. In the portion of the calls related to discussions between health minister Ujjal Dosanj and Grewal, the phrase "prime minister" is inexplicably rendered in all caps. The ONLY reason to do this is EMPHASIS. But since the sections refer to a prime minister wishing to distance himself from the arrangement, one wonders what the heck the purpose would be of this mucking about other than to draw unnecessary attention to the prime minister.
5. Chunks of Dosanj's comments are inaudible or barely audible. The audio quality on the tapes of chats with Dosanj is as poor as it gets. Only a sophisticated audio process - such as the police might employ could sort out some of the comments that can't be heard by the unaided ear. Funny that Grewal hasn't turned over all his "evidence" to the police since he is alleging a crime took place.
6. There are some huge problems with dates. Grewal went public with his allegations on 18 May, yet this tape has some conversations taking place that same day. In one tape - the Murphy in Grewal office tape - the conversation supposedly takes place on the 18th according to the Grewal site. Yet for that to be true, it would have occurred on the same day Grewal went public.
Strangely, in the audio tape - which is a small portion of the transcript - Murphy makes no reference at all to Stronach even though her crossing would have taken place the day before. Instead, Murphy makes a cryptic reference to other members of the Conservative caucus he refuses to name. It is surreal to think that Grewal would have been able to meet openly in his office with the Prime Minister's chief of staff the day after Belinda kicked Stephen in the political goolies.
7. The bits that are audible are rendered so inaccurately in places that one wonders if they were not deliberately - albeit clumsily - altered. Perhaps they are hoping the media won't think twice about the "evidence".
8. Let's be clear about this, though: even if the audio tapes from Grewal are not perfectly clear, the omissions and additions to the transcript significantly alter the tone of the conversation between Dosanj and Grewal, for example.
The same can be said of the conversations between Tim Murphy and Grewal about the matter being discussed related to Joe Volpe. Murphy is clear that the process must be allowed to proceed and, implicitly, that there cannot be interference. Try and find that in the transcript. There are also bits of conversation which are plainly audible - arranging meetings for example - that are inexplicably left out of the transcript.
9. References to the prime minister have been inserted where other words are clearly used. Other sections, where Dosanj makes it unequivocally clear that there can not be a deal to cross the floor in exchange for something have been left out even though these sections are audible to a careful listener.
10. Let's also be clear that there is absolutely no evidence provided here that there was ever an offer of any favour in exchange for Grewal crossing the floor. In fact, both Dosanj and Murphy explicitly reject the notion. They do point to the possibility of some consideration being given down the road to an appointment or position, but this is the type of thing that any caucus member might expect.
11. It is easy to see that Murphy and Dosanj are suspicious of Grewal's motives - and rightly so. They are playing the whole thing as straight as possible, if for no other reason than because Grewal is a very small and largely insignificant fish. Belinda Stronach, on the other hand, was a major catch but again - there is no evidence of any inducement for her to change parties.
12. By the way, can someone explain why this transcription of the conversations with Dosanj translates a garbled Punjabi comment with the words Belinda Stronach that appear to have taken place before Grewal would have known about her conversations with the Liberals? More particularly, it would seem odd in the context that this conversation took place the same day or the day after Grewal went public yet the comments by Donsanj focus on Scott Brison and not Belinda Stronach.
Turn the whole thing over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Grewal, his wife and whoever else is foisting this story on the country had better be ready to resign in disgrace if the edits on the transcript - poorly executed as they are - turn out to be but the tip of the iceberg in what I am still convinced is a Grewal scam.
31 May 2005
No fiscal imbalance, says AIMS head
Here's a link to comments by Brian Crowley of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies on the so-called fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provincial governments.
"Now, a case has been made, Mr. Chairman, by a number of commentators on provincial government that there exists a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, by which I think they mean there is a mismatch between what the two levels of government are called to do under the Constitution, on the one hand, and the fiscal resources that they currently enjoy to carry out those responsibilities, on the other. In other words, Ottawa has too much cash relative to its responsibilities, and the provinces too little, and furthermore, the excess of cash at the federal level is the cause of the fiscal shortfall at the provincial level.
Now, before we rush to find solutions to that problem, it's important to determine whether the premises that define that problem are in fact correct, and I intend to make the case this morning, Mr. Chairman, that those premises are faulty, that the provinces have adequate resources at their disposal, including room to raise taxes, that Ottawa's surpluses are the proper reward to the federal government for its fiscal virtue, and that Ottawa's improved fiscal position is in no way at the expense of the provinces." [Emphasis added]
"Now, a case has been made, Mr. Chairman, by a number of commentators on provincial government that there exists a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, by which I think they mean there is a mismatch between what the two levels of government are called to do under the Constitution, on the one hand, and the fiscal resources that they currently enjoy to carry out those responsibilities, on the other. In other words, Ottawa has too much cash relative to its responsibilities, and the provinces too little, and furthermore, the excess of cash at the federal level is the cause of the fiscal shortfall at the provincial level.
Now, before we rush to find solutions to that problem, it's important to determine whether the premises that define that problem are in fact correct, and I intend to make the case this morning, Mr. Chairman, that those premises are faulty, that the provinces have adequate resources at their disposal, including room to raise taxes, that Ottawa's surpluses are the proper reward to the federal government for its fiscal virtue, and that Ottawa's improved fiscal position is in no way at the expense of the provinces." [Emphasis added]
30 May 2005
Hearn continues to fight his own party
No one should ignore the fact that Loyola Hearn's plan to have the finance committee separate the offshore revenue deal from the main budget motion basically puts him at odds with his own party's plan to keep the budget from passing by any means necessary.
Canadian Press is reporting the Connies plan a number of measures to slow the House and in the finance committee have talked of calling witnesses to slow review of the budget bills.
Mr. Hearn's position, therefore is nothing short of pathetic, not because of Mr. Hearn but because of his party.
Mr. Hearn is now so desperate to garner whatever votes he can in anticipation of an election, he is trying to break off whatever parts of the budget he needs in order to keep them from being crushed by the Connie rush to the polls. Or is it the lemmings rush to the precipice?
If the Connies would just stop playing procedural games, the money would be on the way by the end of next month.
Canadian Press is reporting the Connies plan a number of measures to slow the House and in the finance committee have talked of calling witnesses to slow review of the budget bills.
Mr. Hearn's position, therefore is nothing short of pathetic, not because of Mr. Hearn but because of his party.
Mr. Hearn is now so desperate to garner whatever votes he can in anticipation of an election, he is trying to break off whatever parts of the budget he needs in order to keep them from being crushed by the Connie rush to the polls. Or is it the lemmings rush to the precipice?
If the Connies would just stop playing procedural games, the money would be on the way by the end of next month.
National Conservative Lunacy
As the House heads back after a weeklong break, everyone who thought the confidence games were over in the Commons is finding out that the Connies intended to keep up their tactics.
The finance committee intends to stall the budget.
But for what purpose?
It is one thing to exercise power, but merely to become sand in the gears of government makes a political party look pretty lame. Their message is: "We want an election and we are prepared to pour crazy glue in every lock in the building to get our way. Oh yeah and we want to be the government, too."
Sounds like a winning strategy to me.
Then you have to look at the latest poll, this one by Decima.
Decima confirms other polls that show the Liberals decisively in front of the Connies nationally and in the battleground in Ontario.
The Decima poll also shows that almost half the sample have switched their vote choice in the past month. Look closely though, the biggest group of switchers are low-income women and they are moving between Liberals and NDP - NOT the Connies.
Decima concludes this is good for the Connies.
Only in the minds of the Connie game theorists. That level of volatility is hard to manage, but more importantly, it is highly vulnerable to the kind of messaging that normally causes the NDP vote to collapse and for those voters to stream to the polling booths in order to keep Stephen Harper out of 24 Sussex.
No matter how much low income women may find difficulty with Liberals, they have a much harder time living with Connies.
The finance committee intends to stall the budget.
But for what purpose?
It is one thing to exercise power, but merely to become sand in the gears of government makes a political party look pretty lame. Their message is: "We want an election and we are prepared to pour crazy glue in every lock in the building to get our way. Oh yeah and we want to be the government, too."
Sounds like a winning strategy to me.
Then you have to look at the latest poll, this one by Decima.
Decima confirms other polls that show the Liberals decisively in front of the Connies nationally and in the battleground in Ontario.
The Decima poll also shows that almost half the sample have switched their vote choice in the past month. Look closely though, the biggest group of switchers are low-income women and they are moving between Liberals and NDP - NOT the Connies.
Decima concludes this is good for the Connies.
Only in the minds of the Connie game theorists. That level of volatility is hard to manage, but more importantly, it is highly vulnerable to the kind of messaging that normally causes the NDP vote to collapse and for those voters to stream to the polling booths in order to keep Stephen Harper out of 24 Sussex.
No matter how much low income women may find difficulty with Liberals, they have a much harder time living with Connies.
Roger Grimes: the genuine article
As CBC reported on Friday, Roger Grimes is expected to announce his resignation as provincial Liberal Party leader in a news conference at the Fairmont on Monday morning at 11:30 AM.
With an election about two and a half years away, Grimes' resignation gives the party the chance to hold a leadership convention quickly and thereby gift his successor with upwards of 24 months to get the party ready.
The one unusual feature is the speed. VOCM is reporting Grimes will vacate both his office as leader and his seat in the House effective Tuesday. This puts the party in the position of having to appoint an interim leader.
It also gives the government a chance to hold a by-election election and perhaps win Grimes' district before the Liberals can get properly organized. Under the revised House of Assembly Act, a writ of election must be issued within 60 days of a seat becoming vacant.
Grimes departure seems to have caught some people by surprise. It shouldn't have. Grimes was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1989. He served in every government since then either as a parliamentary secretary, minister and later as premier. That's a long enough time for most people.
Grimes showed himself to be an affable, competent minister. Under both Clyde Wells and particularly Brian Tobin, Grimes was given the tough portfolios and often won the co-operation and respect of those he dealt with who may have been opposed to one or another government policy.
He became premier after what turned out to be a bitter leadership contest. His biggest political problem came out of that contest. Beholden to all, he could do little to lead by force when force might be needed. Hence cabinet, and after afterward caucus, degenerated into more or less a loose association of people coasting along toward a vaguely defined common point.
The best example of what was wrong with the Grimes cabinet came over the Labrador ferry service. Cabinet minister Yvonne Jones broke ranks and openly criticized her cabinet colleagues for a tough decision on a tough file. Good for Yvonne's own interest; lousy for the government and the party. It cemented the view that the cabinet lacked sufficient cohesion to govern and far worse that, in some cases like Jones for example, cabinet was populated with too many people who simply didn't belong there.
As Opposition Leader, Roger Grimes demonstrated almost daily his considerable experience. His demeanor was measured and appropriate and often stood in stark contrast to the Peckford-esque ranting from the other side. He looked and acted like a premier.
But it has been past time for Grimes to go. He clearly had no interest in seeking another term as premier. In the meantime, the work needed to reinvigorate the party was definitely not getting done.
Grimes' speedy departure should be what people remember of him at this point. Recall not the speed but the effect: by going as quickly as he has and as unexpectedly, he is forcing the party out of its doldrums. Grimes' retirement to the links - where any of us would rather be anyway - is like being dropped naked into the Atlantic. The task now falls to others to see if they can mount a credible challenge to the governing party. Grimes' has given a dose of practical medicine as his last act as leader.
As for Grimes' long political career, people should remember not merely its length but the achievements. In education, health, tourism, labour and mines and energy, Grimes demonstrated time and again that he was among the most effective cabinet ministers ever to occupy a seat at the round table.
The Voisey's Bay deal, which some will ignorantly criticise, is actually an amazing achievement in and of itself. Don't even consider that Grimes' predecessor did all in his power to create a political climate in the province that made a deal all but impossible. That only makes the deal more noteworthy.
Grimes' didn't need to rely on flashy showmanship; he could do the job well and that was what stood out. He could explain himself easily to others as well and that too sets Grimes apart among politicians who rely too much on pat answers and cloudy verbiage. He was an effective political communicator; far better than the guy with the self-imposed title.
As for his interpersonal relations , Grimes' knew the value of a Christmas card for maintaining contact, which by its personal note long after such a note was required, conveyed the sincere connection intended.
There will be many words written and spoken about Roger Grimes in the next 24 hours. Doubtful that anyone can do him justice at this point; perhaps time will pass for the right words to emerge.
In the meantime, let this suffice, because in truth I can think of no higher a compliment to pay a fellow who has served his province as long and as well as has Roger Grimes:
He is the genuine article.
With an election about two and a half years away, Grimes' resignation gives the party the chance to hold a leadership convention quickly and thereby gift his successor with upwards of 24 months to get the party ready.
The one unusual feature is the speed. VOCM is reporting Grimes will vacate both his office as leader and his seat in the House effective Tuesday. This puts the party in the position of having to appoint an interim leader.
It also gives the government a chance to hold a by-election election and perhaps win Grimes' district before the Liberals can get properly organized. Under the revised House of Assembly Act, a writ of election must be issued within 60 days of a seat becoming vacant.
Grimes departure seems to have caught some people by surprise. It shouldn't have. Grimes was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1989. He served in every government since then either as a parliamentary secretary, minister and later as premier. That's a long enough time for most people.
Grimes showed himself to be an affable, competent minister. Under both Clyde Wells and particularly Brian Tobin, Grimes was given the tough portfolios and often won the co-operation and respect of those he dealt with who may have been opposed to one or another government policy.
He became premier after what turned out to be a bitter leadership contest. His biggest political problem came out of that contest. Beholden to all, he could do little to lead by force when force might be needed. Hence cabinet, and after afterward caucus, degenerated into more or less a loose association of people coasting along toward a vaguely defined common point.
The best example of what was wrong with the Grimes cabinet came over the Labrador ferry service. Cabinet minister Yvonne Jones broke ranks and openly criticized her cabinet colleagues for a tough decision on a tough file. Good for Yvonne's own interest; lousy for the government and the party. It cemented the view that the cabinet lacked sufficient cohesion to govern and far worse that, in some cases like Jones for example, cabinet was populated with too many people who simply didn't belong there.
As Opposition Leader, Roger Grimes demonstrated almost daily his considerable experience. His demeanor was measured and appropriate and often stood in stark contrast to the Peckford-esque ranting from the other side. He looked and acted like a premier.
But it has been past time for Grimes to go. He clearly had no interest in seeking another term as premier. In the meantime, the work needed to reinvigorate the party was definitely not getting done.
Grimes' speedy departure should be what people remember of him at this point. Recall not the speed but the effect: by going as quickly as he has and as unexpectedly, he is forcing the party out of its doldrums. Grimes' retirement to the links - where any of us would rather be anyway - is like being dropped naked into the Atlantic. The task now falls to others to see if they can mount a credible challenge to the governing party. Grimes' has given a dose of practical medicine as his last act as leader.
As for Grimes' long political career, people should remember not merely its length but the achievements. In education, health, tourism, labour and mines and energy, Grimes demonstrated time and again that he was among the most effective cabinet ministers ever to occupy a seat at the round table.
The Voisey's Bay deal, which some will ignorantly criticise, is actually an amazing achievement in and of itself. Don't even consider that Grimes' predecessor did all in his power to create a political climate in the province that made a deal all but impossible. That only makes the deal more noteworthy.
Grimes' didn't need to rely on flashy showmanship; he could do the job well and that was what stood out. He could explain himself easily to others as well and that too sets Grimes apart among politicians who rely too much on pat answers and cloudy verbiage. He was an effective political communicator; far better than the guy with the self-imposed title.
As for his interpersonal relations , Grimes' knew the value of a Christmas card for maintaining contact, which by its personal note long after such a note was required, conveyed the sincere connection intended.
There will be many words written and spoken about Roger Grimes in the next 24 hours. Doubtful that anyone can do him justice at this point; perhaps time will pass for the right words to emerge.
In the meantime, let this suffice, because in truth I can think of no higher a compliment to pay a fellow who has served his province as long and as well as has Roger Grimes:
He is the genuine article.
27 May 2005
The Parable of the Trees
"Two trees stood on a cliff, both buffeted by fierce winds. One remained rigid and cracked under the strain. The other moved as the winds grew strong or ebbed.
This tree grew to great height."
Don't be too surprised if you start hearing rumours that Stephen Harper is about to retire from politics.
After all, those rumours started originally back in March, not coincidentally just before the Conservatives decided to reject the budget, disrupt the House and ultimately force a confidence show-down in the House of Commons. Bear in mind that this whole thing came about despite polling that showed the Conservatives well behind the Liberals everywhere except Alberta and that Paul Martin remained the overwhelming choice of Canadians to be prime minister.
Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist once advised that where one is weak, one should appear strong. The Conservative push toward an election can be seen as little more than offensive action designed primarily to avoid dealing with a number of internal party problems including divisions over substantial policy matters and the lingering doubts about Harper's ability or willingness to leader the party into the next election.
Questions of leadership were evident in the way Harper treated Belinda Stronach. His own account of the dressing down he gave her is littered with signs of an internal struggle for control of the party. Faced too with the weaknesses that still exist within his party, Harper's solution was to attack the Liberals and thereby force his supporters to rally around the Conservative flag.
Closer to home, Premier Danny Williams used the same approach last October. His polling numbers were strong on the surface but underneath lurked some weaknesses, as revealed by Corporate Research Associates polling obtained by The Telegram under the new Access to Information Act. The premier also had alienated a number of provincial premiers immediately before a major national conference that would discuss, among other things, federal-provincial financing arrangements. Their resentment of the offshore proposal - what appeared to them as a major dodge around the current equitable but imperfect Equalization program - would have led to a nasty confrontation behind closed doors.
Williams' solution was to storm out of the meeting, claiming that the federal government's offshore offer was an insult. His polling numbers shot through the roof and any doubts about him and his leadership disappeared both in public or in the privacy of the pollsters' telephone calls.
Sometimes the approach works, as with Danny Williams. Sometimes it fails, as with Stephen Harper.
The Labrador by-election and two recent polls give clues as to why the Conservative Party's - really Stephen Harper's - push for the writ didn't work.
Successful national Canadian political parties are coalitions. Both the Liberal Party for most of its history and the Mulroney Conservatives did not have an immovable ideological core. They could embrace diverse views of social, economic and constitutional policy. Political parties learn to manage the disputes that erupt between members, between factions or among members from different regions. The bargaining and horse-trading that people decry are actually the mechanisms by which people can advance their particular causes without resorting to violence.
It may not be pretty but it is democracy.
Unsuccessful national parties, like the New Democrats and the Reform parties either represent a particular region or, most typically, reflect some ideological yardstick used to measure the purity of their members. There is no small irony, therefore that the initials of two Canadian ideological parties are the same, even if they represent polar opposite political views. The Communist Party of Canada, the Moscow-oriented clan and the Conservatives both go by the initials CPC.
The Unite the Right movement held at its core a belief that Canada needed a political party which represented what are called right of centre views, but which was essentially able to embrace both the substantial differences between the red Tories - the Progressive Conservatives - and the Reform cum Alliance Party. This was an effort to create another coalition party which, truthfully, is the only type of political party that could hope to win an election in a country as diverse as Canada.
On the surface, the recent CPC losses in the House and in Labrador can be seen as communications failures; the party used messages about corruption which were not heard by anyone outside their own ranks. This is revealed in the Leger poll. In Labrador, the CPC hammered on issues that did not address the views of the constituents they were trying to court. They talked about defence spending, that would benefit one portion of the riding, even though that was by no means a core issue for the majority of voters. At the same time, the CPC
talked about defeating the government's budget that included money for community infrastructure.
By the same token, Stephen Harper pledged not to force an election if the public didn't want it. When poll after poll revealed no one wanted an election, the CPC merely shifted gears. Peter MacKay likened elections to root canal - painful but necessary.
Make no mistake: these were monstrous communications failures. They represent massive political failures.
Look closer to home, in eastern Newfoundland and you can easily see the effects of the charge of the political light brigade that go beyond the national polling numbers like the ones from Leger or these from Ekos.
Two stalwart Conservatives, one of them an architect of the new party have destroyed their political base in what ought to be safe Conservative territory. Loyola Hearn is now openly talking of quitting politics. His reputation is battered. He is alienated from the local Conservatives both by the actions of his party and by the workings of his own jawbone.
This poses a problem, however. The CPC is supposedly a coalition party. Its leader is reputedly a master political strategist. Some of its key people - like Hearn and MacKay have fought successful campaigns provincially and federally or at least have the political savvy to know how to run a coalition team.
How is it possible for this combination to make such glaring errors?
The answer is that the CPC is dominated by ideologues that come not from only the old Reform Party. This is not to give into the temptation to dismiss the views held by Reformers; rather it acknowledges them for what they are - a group with strong views that is more likely to look for purity of belief, to exclude those seen as impure, to look inward rather than outward.
Consider the language used to describe Liberals. The enemy - even that word suggest the depth of their feeling - is corrupt and immoral. They and their supporters are criminal - mafia and whores. They lack principle. Voters are cowered by the dastardly villains. One need only listen to Stephen Harper's language or browse the blogs of CPC supporters to find this singularity of perspective. The use of moral judgments is striking.
How does one legitimately compromise with - even live with - untermenschen?
Added to that ideological singularity is a leader who is also apparently unyielding. His dressing down of Stronach suggests a man with little tolerance for opposition. This is hardly the stuff of a coalition builder. Harper's detractors all point to his unshakeable belief in his own correctness. Comments by Preston Manning ring in one's ears. According to Manning, Harper saw no value in holding town hall meetings to discuss fiscal policy with people lacking the education to comprehend the sophisticated concepts involved.
One of the finest examples of Harper's inflexibility came at the end of the last federal election. His national headquarters issued a news release that accused Paul Martin of supporting child molesters. When he faced reporters, Harper refused to disown the release. Leading a party that spoke of integrity, Harper refused to admit that someone had made an error and by doing so made the focus of the story the obvious gap between words and deeds. Credibility suffered and with it went Harper's hopes for a majority government.
Stephen Harper appears to have surrounded himself with old friends who share his outlook. Some have brought their game theory approaches, and with it, the unshakeable belief that their numbers not merely model reality - they are reality. Game theorists in Vietnam fiddled with individual variables and got lost in the tactical movements at the expense of the strategic. Stephen Harper opposed C-43, then supported it, then opposed it and then supported it - all tactical manoeuvering. The CPC voted for one part of the budget and against another - more transparent manoeuvering. One suspects that the game theory scenarios suggested that these were the optimum tactical approaches at each point.
Genuine strategy would see that each step is part of a longer journey and that the optimum step at each discrete moment on the road may lead ultimately to the wrong destination. Strategy understands the need to give with the wind sometimes.
On the surface, the Conservatives have committed some readily apparent political blunders.
The question that must be asked is why this is so.
The answer lies in the leader and in the party itself.
For the future, the Conservative Party faces the challenge of having a leader who is a four- or five-time failure. Many may feel the need to find a new leader.
But consider the timelines.
The prime minister has committed to an election in January.
By the time the House closes next month, and even if Stephen Harper resigned immediately, the party could not hold a leadership convention and begin the process of internal revitalization that it would need to win.
The only way the Conservative Party could win in January is for the Liberal Party to collapse.
Consider that the tree which grew strong did not depend on the other tree for its success.
26 May 2005
Peter MacKay, DDS, reveals his strategic genius
There's a CP story running today in which Peter "I feel so used" MacKay, DDS, claims that Labrador voters went Liberal out of fear that government support would vanish if they voted anything but rouge.
For those who don't know, MacKay is deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and former toy-boy of Belinda Stronach.
"There is fear among Labrador people that if they vote against the government, the government will not support that region," MacKay said just before giving a speech to a meeting of Quebec police union officials.
"I was there. It's a real fear."
The CPC also accused Liberals of buying votes in Labrador.
That was around the same time the CPC campaign was promising:
1. To renegotiate the Voisey's Bay deal to improve royalties for the province. (The feds have no legal ability to crack open the development deal since they weren't party to it); and,
2. To make the Goose Bay air base "operationally required", sending in a new infantry battalion to be based there alongside a squadron equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles.
The other stuff they promised was already in train.
In the actual result, every single person who voted Liberal last time voted Liberal again save for a few dozen. The CPC doubled its vote.
But here's the thing:
What was the major issue in Labrador?
Health care.
Other issues like transportation, the Inuit land claims agreement and water and sewer were also a big in the Big Land.
According to the Telelink poll for NTV, the Goose base was an issue for a mere 5% of those polled. Even if the poll was off by a certain amount it wasn't so far out of whack that the last place issue would supplant an issue that was reportedly getting eight times the level of support.
The Connies talked about defence, stuff they couldn't do anything about (Voisey's Bay) and a bunch of stuff that was coming anyway.
They are also on record as wanting to vote against the federal budget which includes, among other things, money for infrastructure projects like water and sewer.
Hmmmm.
The losing side accuses the winners of buying votes (despite their own blatant attempts to buy votes).
The losers say the voters were duped, were fearful or were otherwise not in their right minds when they case their ballot.
That speaks volumes about the CPC view of the electorate and democracy.
Personally, it looks to me like a combination of two things:
1. The voters weighed the options and made their choices. You don't have to like it but whatever they decided has to be accepted as valid. It can only be questioned if there is substantial evidence of massive fraud like one might find in Rhodesia or parts of the former Soviet Union.
2. The CPC message track was out of touch with what voters really want. That's because the CPC actually doesn't pay attention to voters' issues. After all, according Peter MacKay DDS, voters who chose someone other than his teammate must be acting under duress.
Arrogance, thy name is Peter.
For those who don't know, MacKay is deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and former toy-boy of Belinda Stronach.
"There is fear among Labrador people that if they vote against the government, the government will not support that region," MacKay said just before giving a speech to a meeting of Quebec police union officials.
"I was there. It's a real fear."
The CPC also accused Liberals of buying votes in Labrador.
That was around the same time the CPC campaign was promising:
1. To renegotiate the Voisey's Bay deal to improve royalties for the province. (The feds have no legal ability to crack open the development deal since they weren't party to it); and,
2. To make the Goose Bay air base "operationally required", sending in a new infantry battalion to be based there alongside a squadron equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles.
The other stuff they promised was already in train.
In the actual result, every single person who voted Liberal last time voted Liberal again save for a few dozen. The CPC doubled its vote.
But here's the thing:
What was the major issue in Labrador?
Health care.
Other issues like transportation, the Inuit land claims agreement and water and sewer were also a big in the Big Land.
According to the Telelink poll for NTV, the Goose base was an issue for a mere 5% of those polled. Even if the poll was off by a certain amount it wasn't so far out of whack that the last place issue would supplant an issue that was reportedly getting eight times the level of support.
The Connies talked about defence, stuff they couldn't do anything about (Voisey's Bay) and a bunch of stuff that was coming anyway.
They are also on record as wanting to vote against the federal budget which includes, among other things, money for infrastructure projects like water and sewer.
Hmmmm.
The losing side accuses the winners of buying votes (despite their own blatant attempts to buy votes).
The losers say the voters were duped, were fearful or were otherwise not in their right minds when they case their ballot.
That speaks volumes about the CPC view of the electorate and democracy.
Personally, it looks to me like a combination of two things:
1. The voters weighed the options and made their choices. You don't have to like it but whatever they decided has to be accepted as valid. It can only be questioned if there is substantial evidence of massive fraud like one might find in Rhodesia or parts of the former Soviet Union.
2. The CPC message track was out of touch with what voters really want. That's because the CPC actually doesn't pay attention to voters' issues. After all, according Peter MacKay DDS, voters who chose someone other than his teammate must be acting under duress.
Arrogance, thy name is Peter.
Lampoon hits new low
Odds are high you'll enjoy this editorial cartoon from the National Lampoon.
Funny how the editors of the unofficial organ of the Conservative Party of Canada didn't hide it behind their subscriber wall so that only the people who shell out cash for this rag could see it.
Maybe it's a marketing ploy, a la Peg Wente.
Maybe it just reflects their ignorance of the country.
Maybe it reflects both.
Funny how the editors of the unofficial organ of the Conservative Party of Canada didn't hide it behind their subscriber wall so that only the people who shell out cash for this rag could see it.
Maybe it's a marketing ploy, a la Peg Wente.
Maybe it just reflects their ignorance of the country.
Maybe it reflects both.
Hearn ponders trouting over fishing for votes
Loyola Hearn may be fishing for trout in a big pond instead of searching for the possibly scarce votes he'd get in the next federal election.
Here's a bit of what Loyola Hearn told CBS about the pressure he felt during the past two weeks.
Note especially the reply to the question about his future in politics:
"How long more to you stay around? That's the point," he says. "Another year from now, I might decide that I might want to go trouting too, you know."
Meanwhile, Hearn's opponents in the last federal election said they are planning another run at the seat.
Liberal Siobhan Coady and New Democrat Peg Norman want another shot.
The thing is, though, will they be shooting at Hearn...
or Ed Byrne?
Here's a bit of what Loyola Hearn told CBS about the pressure he felt during the past two weeks.
Note especially the reply to the question about his future in politics:
"How long more to you stay around? That's the point," he says. "Another year from now, I might decide that I might want to go trouting too, you know."
Meanwhile, Hearn's opponents in the last federal election said they are planning another run at the seat.
Liberal Siobhan Coady and New Democrat Peg Norman want another shot.
The thing is, though, will they be shooting at Hearn...
or Ed Byrne?
The Constitutional Fish
Meanwhile in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Appeals Division?), some enterprising lawyer is seeking a ruling on whether or not the Government of Canada has the right:
1. To regulate what is commonly known as the food or recreational fishery; and,
2. Even if it does, can the Government of Canada regulate the fishery within the province's boundaries, namely within the three mile limit.
While I am not a lawyer, I enjoy playing one sometimes in the privacy of my own blog.
The argument being presented on behalf of two chaps accused of breaching fisheries regulations hinges on the Terms of Union, which, as we all should know, is part of the Canadian constitution.
Under Term 2, the province is defined as including the same territory as at the date of union. Since Newfoundland and Labrador included a territorial sea of three miles, the province's boundaries extend that far out to sea. This was confirmed by the offshore decisions in the early 1980s.
Under Term 3, the British North America Acts, as amended, apply to the new province as to all others except as provided by the Terms of Union. The BNA Act is now known as the Constitution Act.
Still with me so far?
Section 22 of the Terms of Union specifically address fisheries matters.
22 (2) continues all fisheries laws of the former Dominion of Newfoundland for a period of five years from the date of union and from then on, as amended or repealed by the Government of Canada through the Newfoundland Fisheries Board which became a federal agency. While the NFB had powers over licensing it was created in 1936 to improve markets and the quality of fish exports.
Term 22 also provides that the federal parliament will assume appropriate jurisdiction to amend fisheries laws formerly in force in Newfoundland (before the date of union) but here's the key thing to bear in mind: sections 11, 12, 13 and 18 reinforce Term 3 in providing that the Constitution Act applies to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, the power to regulate coastal fisheries rests with the Government of Canada.
There may be some case law and argumentation I am unaware of that can be used to back up the case being made by the appellant(s). I could also have misunderstood the brief description of the case given on radio this afternoon.
To be frank, on the face of it, this case is going to be a short one. The letter of the law seems pretty clear as to the intention of the framers of the constitution.
In any event, people should keep their eye on this case to see what comes of it once the learned justices of the Supreme Court hear the arguments and then render a judgment.
1. To regulate what is commonly known as the food or recreational fishery; and,
2. Even if it does, can the Government of Canada regulate the fishery within the province's boundaries, namely within the three mile limit.
While I am not a lawyer, I enjoy playing one sometimes in the privacy of my own blog.
The argument being presented on behalf of two chaps accused of breaching fisheries regulations hinges on the Terms of Union, which, as we all should know, is part of the Canadian constitution.
Under Term 2, the province is defined as including the same territory as at the date of union. Since Newfoundland and Labrador included a territorial sea of three miles, the province's boundaries extend that far out to sea. This was confirmed by the offshore decisions in the early 1980s.
Under Term 3, the British North America Acts, as amended, apply to the new province as to all others except as provided by the Terms of Union. The BNA Act is now known as the Constitution Act.
Still with me so far?
Section 22 of the Terms of Union specifically address fisheries matters.
22 (2) continues all fisheries laws of the former Dominion of Newfoundland for a period of five years from the date of union and from then on, as amended or repealed by the Government of Canada through the Newfoundland Fisheries Board which became a federal agency. While the NFB had powers over licensing it was created in 1936 to improve markets and the quality of fish exports.
Term 22 also provides that the federal parliament will assume appropriate jurisdiction to amend fisheries laws formerly in force in Newfoundland (before the date of union) but here's the key thing to bear in mind: sections 11, 12, 13 and 18 reinforce Term 3 in providing that the Constitution Act applies to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, the power to regulate coastal fisheries rests with the Government of Canada.
There may be some case law and argumentation I am unaware of that can be used to back up the case being made by the appellant(s). I could also have misunderstood the brief description of the case given on radio this afternoon.
To be frank, on the face of it, this case is going to be a short one. The letter of the law seems pretty clear as to the intention of the framers of the constitution.
In any event, people should keep their eye on this case to see what comes of it once the learned justices of the Supreme Court hear the arguments and then render a judgment.
What goes around...
comes around and in a small province like Newfoundland and Labrador, it picks up speed on the way back.
Consider part of the argument presented in today's Telegram that points out the entire population of Labrador is around the size of a small municipality on the Avalon, and in a larger context is far smaller than a typical federal riding in Ontario.
Here's what the editorial said, in part: "If you take all of the people who voted in Labrador Tuesday, you'd have the equivalent of a population equal to roughly Portugal Cove-St. Philip's deciding the direction of an entire nation. In Toronto ridings with a much larger number of constituents, they might feel their individual votes are necessarily less valuable."
Well, editorialists might want to remember that the population of this entire province is smaller than, say, the City of Hamilton. During the constitutional discussions in the early 1990s, some mainlanders were fond of pointing out that small provinces carried too much weigh in Ottawa in proportion to the size of a province like Ontario or Quebec.
We should thank the Telegram editorial board for siding with an argument that usually winds up with calling on this province and its voters to bend to the will of Ontario. Its basically a variant of the argument John Crosbie used in 1990 to dismiss out of hand any suggestion that offshore revenues under the Real Atlantic Accord should be redistributed.
To paraphrase Crosbie's reasoning, a provincial government that got half of its income from Ottawa shouldn't be allowed to hold up major decisions like the Meech Lake Accord. Crosbie specifically linked the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord with his attitude toward revising the Atlantic Accord.
The major flaw in the editorial's argument, though, is that Labrador enjoyed some sort of popularity or influence beyond what it normally would expect with its one riding and one member in the Commons.
The Telegram mistakes media interest and the obvious interest of political parties in winning a seat with something more than it is: a desire to win the seat.
National media interest was driven by the recent efforts by the Conservative Party to force a national election despite the overwhelming view of Canadians that they do not want an election at this time.
National political parties mounted strong campaigns. The Conservatives were particularly interested in the seat since it would have given them a way of tipping a confidence vote the way they wanted it. But here's the kicker: Even in a majority parliament, the Conservatives would work very hard to wrest the seat from the incumbent party. The political value of that - the symbolic value - would be as great then as now.
Take away the Telegram's peculiar line of reasoning and you have nothing more than the conclusion: that Ottawa ignores rural areas of the country.
While it may be a popular and easily cynical sentiment, it really isn't borne out by evidence. The community editorial demonstrates that the folly underlying the main editorial as clearly as anyone ever could.
At least the community writer won't find his argument coming back to bite him on the backside anytime soon.
Consider part of the argument presented in today's Telegram that points out the entire population of Labrador is around the size of a small municipality on the Avalon, and in a larger context is far smaller than a typical federal riding in Ontario.
Here's what the editorial said, in part: "If you take all of the people who voted in Labrador Tuesday, you'd have the equivalent of a population equal to roughly Portugal Cove-St. Philip's deciding the direction of an entire nation. In Toronto ridings with a much larger number of constituents, they might feel their individual votes are necessarily less valuable."
Well, editorialists might want to remember that the population of this entire province is smaller than, say, the City of Hamilton. During the constitutional discussions in the early 1990s, some mainlanders were fond of pointing out that small provinces carried too much weigh in Ottawa in proportion to the size of a province like Ontario or Quebec.
We should thank the Telegram editorial board for siding with an argument that usually winds up with calling on this province and its voters to bend to the will of Ontario. Its basically a variant of the argument John Crosbie used in 1990 to dismiss out of hand any suggestion that offshore revenues under the Real Atlantic Accord should be redistributed.
To paraphrase Crosbie's reasoning, a provincial government that got half of its income from Ottawa shouldn't be allowed to hold up major decisions like the Meech Lake Accord. Crosbie specifically linked the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord with his attitude toward revising the Atlantic Accord.
The major flaw in the editorial's argument, though, is that Labrador enjoyed some sort of popularity or influence beyond what it normally would expect with its one riding and one member in the Commons.
The Telegram mistakes media interest and the obvious interest of political parties in winning a seat with something more than it is: a desire to win the seat.
National media interest was driven by the recent efforts by the Conservative Party to force a national election despite the overwhelming view of Canadians that they do not want an election at this time.
National political parties mounted strong campaigns. The Conservatives were particularly interested in the seat since it would have given them a way of tipping a confidence vote the way they wanted it. But here's the kicker: Even in a majority parliament, the Conservatives would work very hard to wrest the seat from the incumbent party. The political value of that - the symbolic value - would be as great then as now.
Take away the Telegram's peculiar line of reasoning and you have nothing more than the conclusion: that Ottawa ignores rural areas of the country.
While it may be a popular and easily cynical sentiment, it really isn't borne out by evidence. The community editorial demonstrates that the folly underlying the main editorial as clearly as anyone ever could.
At least the community writer won't find his argument coming back to bite him on the backside anytime soon.
Lynda Calvert's hands
Yeah, I know it's a bizarre subject for a post but when you are in my business, the bizarre is normal sometimes.
Lynda is one of those TV reporters who doesn't routinely edit herself into her reports. We often don't get to see what she looks like. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason for it other than her personal preference.
During the national coverage of the Labrador by-election, Lynda got to do some live hits with whoever was hosting the news. You know the format: reporter stares into camera and gives a live comment on what is happening.
Well, every time Lynda was on air - looking very professional, smartly attired and giving some meaningful insights - I just couldn't stop noticing her hand movements.
They were jerky and a bit exaggerated.
I am not sure if they were the result of her being uncomfortable and nervous. Maybe she had just finished one of those training courses for on-air presentation and was introducing hand-movents into her presentation style.
Maybe it is just the way Lynda gestures when she speaks.
Whatever it was, it got very distracting.
and yes, I know. I need a life.
Lynda is one of those TV reporters who doesn't routinely edit herself into her reports. We often don't get to see what she looks like. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason for it other than her personal preference.
During the national coverage of the Labrador by-election, Lynda got to do some live hits with whoever was hosting the news. You know the format: reporter stares into camera and gives a live comment on what is happening.
Well, every time Lynda was on air - looking very professional, smartly attired and giving some meaningful insights - I just couldn't stop noticing her hand movements.
They were jerky and a bit exaggerated.
I am not sure if they were the result of her being uncomfortable and nervous. Maybe she had just finished one of those training courses for on-air presentation and was introducing hand-movents into her presentation style.
Maybe it is just the way Lynda gestures when she speaks.
Whatever it was, it got very distracting.
and yes, I know. I need a life.
The Perils of Polls
It's interesting to notice the Labrador result in light of the Telelink poll done for NTV in St. John's a few weeks ago.
Telelink reported a 42% undecided/don't know/no answer rate, but among decided voters, the Liberals were ahead with 29% and the Conservatives came in with 23%.
Telelink spokesperson Cindy Roma said the results were "too close to call". As I said when the poll was released the results seemed a little bit off to me.
If you look at the actual numbers - not the percentages of decideds, what Telelink actually got was something like this:
Liberal: 13.92%
Conservative: 11.04%
Und/DK/NR: 42%
Essentially, the answer with those numbers was not that it was too close to call. Nope. The answer actually was: we don't have a freakin' clue what will happen because our poll results don't give us data on which to make any conclusions.
Since Telelink didn't probe the undecideds at all, they couldn't even get a sense of which way people were leaning and try to pick some sense out of it on that basis.
If you look at the provincial district breakouts Telelink did, their confidence interval jumped up to something like 10 to 12%. Those results are completely useless and should never have hit the air.
As you will recall, I did contact NTV to get a copy of the research report. I was advised my e-mail had been passed on to higher management.
To date, I haven't received a reply from NTV. I haven't had the time to follow-up on it, but I will do so because the whole thing just gets me even more curious the more I think about it.
There are probably good answers to what questions I do have and the answers might also help people who aren't familiar with polls to appreciate why MUN political scientist Michael Temillini wound up making some off-the-wall comments on Canada AM yesterday based on the Telelink data.
I'll keep you posted.
Telelink reported a 42% undecided/don't know/no answer rate, but among decided voters, the Liberals were ahead with 29% and the Conservatives came in with 23%.
Telelink spokesperson Cindy Roma said the results were "too close to call". As I said when the poll was released the results seemed a little bit off to me.
If you look at the actual numbers - not the percentages of decideds, what Telelink actually got was something like this:
Liberal: 13.92%
Conservative: 11.04%
Und/DK/NR: 42%
Essentially, the answer with those numbers was not that it was too close to call. Nope. The answer actually was: we don't have a freakin' clue what will happen because our poll results don't give us data on which to make any conclusions.
Since Telelink didn't probe the undecideds at all, they couldn't even get a sense of which way people were leaning and try to pick some sense out of it on that basis.
If you look at the provincial district breakouts Telelink did, their confidence interval jumped up to something like 10 to 12%. Those results are completely useless and should never have hit the air.
As you will recall, I did contact NTV to get a copy of the research report. I was advised my e-mail had been passed on to higher management.
To date, I haven't received a reply from NTV. I haven't had the time to follow-up on it, but I will do so because the whole thing just gets me even more curious the more I think about it.
There are probably good answers to what questions I do have and the answers might also help people who aren't familiar with polls to appreciate why MUN political scientist Michael Temillini wound up making some off-the-wall comments on Canada AM yesterday based on the Telelink data.
I'll keep you posted.
25 May 2005
Election preview
With the Liberal win in Labrador, here's a thumbnail sketch of the next election, as it stands right now.
Out of seven seats, five are safely Liberal. The Connies couldn't find contenders in at least two of them. In central, they have chosen a decent guy with no profile to carry the Big C into battle. Fabian manning has made it clear it won't be running, so unless Loyola Sullivan decides to try federal politics, Avalon is another safe Liberal seat if John Efford runs again.
If Efford doesn't run again, I'll toss Captain Sid Hynes name into the ring for consideration. He's tough, competent and agressive; just the dose of clear-headedness we need around here.
In St. John's, the Connies have a problem. Loyola Hearn sounded kind of wishy washy in Jonathan Crowe's interview this evening when he was asked about running again.
Ed Byrne may step up in St. John's South Mount Pearl.
But if Hearn goes again, he will have an uphill fight. He came with 750 or 800 votes of losing the last time. He did a lot of damage to his support with his backing of Stephen Harper instead of the province.
Ditto for Doyle.
Curiously enough, the only seats that offer any chance of a race the next time out are all on the Avalon peninsula. The CPC actually has a problem with the two they hold now.
Now, let me just seal this in a mason jar and bury it in the garden to be opened the day the writ drops next.
Out of seven seats, five are safely Liberal. The Connies couldn't find contenders in at least two of them. In central, they have chosen a decent guy with no profile to carry the Big C into battle. Fabian manning has made it clear it won't be running, so unless Loyola Sullivan decides to try federal politics, Avalon is another safe Liberal seat if John Efford runs again.
If Efford doesn't run again, I'll toss Captain Sid Hynes name into the ring for consideration. He's tough, competent and agressive; just the dose of clear-headedness we need around here.
In St. John's, the Connies have a problem. Loyola Hearn sounded kind of wishy washy in Jonathan Crowe's interview this evening when he was asked about running again.
Ed Byrne may step up in St. John's South Mount Pearl.
But if Hearn goes again, he will have an uphill fight. He came with 750 or 800 votes of losing the last time. He did a lot of damage to his support with his backing of Stephen Harper instead of the province.
Ditto for Doyle.
Curiously enough, the only seats that offer any chance of a race the next time out are all on the Avalon peninsula. The CPC actually has a problem with the two they hold now.
Now, let me just seal this in a mason jar and bury it in the garden to be opened the day the writ drops next.
Libs take Lab
Undoubtedly, there'll be a lot of Wednesday morning quarterbacking and punditry but, I'll just leave it to the vote count.
Todd Russell of the Liberals took 51.5% of the vote with 83/85 reporting at around 2334 hrs Newfoundland Daylight Time.
Graham Letto of the Conservatives had about 32% with the remainder being spread across the three other candidates.
Turnout was up from the last election in 2004.
Count on the Connies to be playing up the fact they doubled their percentage of the vote. Fair enough, cause it is true. The growth in vote is all Connie. Basically the Liberal is virtually intact.
But don't stretch that too far. The Connies would have to count on pulling another couple of thousand people to the polls next time in order to barely squeak by in the seat. Given Labrador's historic turn-out this would be very hard to do. Look at it: everyone who voted Liberal last time turned out to vote Liberal again, with the exception of a mere 120 people.
The only way the Connies could win is to wipe out all the other parties, significantly collapse the Liberal vote or do some combination on the two.
That's a tall order for a seat that is basically Liberal and where voters don't change allegiance very much.
Now if you look to the northeast Avalon peninsula, you'll see a much bigger Connie problem.
They only won those supposedly safe seats by a handful of votes (relatively speaking) the last time out.
Voters on the northeast Avalon include a larger number of swingers - it would only have taken about 751 switched voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl to have caused Loyola Hearn to head to the unemployment line last year instead of booking a return flight to Ottawa.
There's something to keep a Connie strategists in the province awake at night.
Todd Russell of the Liberals took 51.5% of the vote with 83/85 reporting at around 2334 hrs Newfoundland Daylight Time.
Graham Letto of the Conservatives had about 32% with the remainder being spread across the three other candidates.
Turnout was up from the last election in 2004.
Count on the Connies to be playing up the fact they doubled their percentage of the vote. Fair enough, cause it is true. The growth in vote is all Connie. Basically the Liberal is virtually intact.
But don't stretch that too far. The Connies would have to count on pulling another couple of thousand people to the polls next time in order to barely squeak by in the seat. Given Labrador's historic turn-out this would be very hard to do. Look at it: everyone who voted Liberal last time turned out to vote Liberal again, with the exception of a mere 120 people.
The only way the Connies could win is to wipe out all the other parties, significantly collapse the Liberal vote or do some combination on the two.
That's a tall order for a seat that is basically Liberal and where voters don't change allegiance very much.
Now if you look to the northeast Avalon peninsula, you'll see a much bigger Connie problem.
They only won those supposedly safe seats by a handful of votes (relatively speaking) the last time out.
Voters on the northeast Avalon include a larger number of swingers - it would only have taken about 751 switched voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl to have caused Loyola Hearn to head to the unemployment line last year instead of booking a return flight to Ottawa.
There's something to keep a Connie strategists in the province awake at night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)