Mulroney can't reform Senate, ex-PM claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Gazette, Thursday, March 7, 1985

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trudeau would not elaborate to reporters yesterday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-srbp-

Lord to do B and B revival

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

No, not the bed and breakfast crowd.

Bilingualism and biculturalism.

As Canadian Press reports:

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

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

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

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

Yes, Halifax.

Not Stephenville or Port au Port.

Not even in St. John's.

But Halifax.

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

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

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

-srbp-

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

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

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

But is there any evidence to support the argument?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-srbp-

The Telegram, December 2, 2007, Page A7

A. Brian Peckford

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

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

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

Let me elaborate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You just can't make thus stuff up.

You can't.

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

[h/t apply-liberally.com]

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

Here she is freaking at a spelling question.

 

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

Her appearance even made news:

Dumaresque confused

Provincial Liberal Party president Danny Dumaresque is confused.

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

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

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

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

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

Oh yes.

And campaigning for the provincial party leadership.

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

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

-srbp-

Wanna learn English?

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

So there you have it...

From the Netherlands.

Funny.

Language not safe for work (NSFW)

[via daimnation!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the endgame

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

They're right.

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

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

To wit, the loan guarantee on the Lower Churchill.

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

Now?

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

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

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

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

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

-srbp-

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

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

Shut up and go away: the editor's reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

-srbp-

The only principle is cash

What I said before and I said going in, this is about principles, but it's also about money as well. At the end of the day, the promise and the principle converts to cash for the bottom line for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Premier Danny Williams revealing the core of his political philosophy, November 30, 2007.

It's never really about principle with the current provincial administration.

It's always about money, specifically the "compensation" that can be received for some injury real or invented.

The best example of this approach is the 2005 federal transfer of $2.0 billion to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. As Danny Williams said in a scrum at the time, the major issue under discussion at the final, January meeting was the amount of the cash advance.

The principles supposedly underlying the original position taken by the Premier were abandoned in the final deal. As a result, the deal is worth a total of $2.0 billion and will never be worth any more than that.

It is no accident that the Premier used the word "compensation" frequently during his post-meeting scrum and also spoke of specific amounts of cash. One figure he cited several times was $10 billion.

This is an entirely artificial number, incidentally, based not on principles but an estimate prepared by university economist Wade Locke. He used certain assumptions which may prove to be accurate or which may, as in the case of the 2005 federal transfer payment, prove to fall well short of the actual values. This does not denigrate Locke's analysis but rather, people should consider that Williams is not talking principles; he isn't talking about the rules under which a system may operate.

Rather he is looking solely at an amount of cash, despite the fact that in actual performance a properly constructed Equalization regime, like a properly constructed offshore royalty regime could produce more revenue for the provincial treasury in actual performance than a single set of projections, based on certain assumptions, might suggest.

To give some idea of the extent to which Williams is focused entirely on cash, as opposed to principles, consider this response to a reporter's question during the Friday scrum:

At the end of the day, this translate down to the 10, $11 billion gap that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would have received if he fulfilled his promise up to 2020. If you take 2006 when it was there 14 years and you divide that in to $10 billion, you get about $700 million a year. That's the magnitude of the commitment. If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was able to receive similar compensation in some form or another whether through that formula or something else, then we as a people have gotten that monetary benefit. If we disagree on certain principles, then we disagree, and we can't reach agreement, there's nothing we can do about it.

The entire issue is framed in the context of very specific amounts of money. It is most emphatically not based any principles, such as those underlying, for example, an equitable Equalization system or of the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the provinces.

This fixation on specific amounts of money may reflect the current administration's collective difficulty in appreciating the value of the 1985 Atlantic Accord and the principles it contains versus the entirely limited specific amount of cash attained in January 2005. The administration allowed the 1985 Accord to be amended unilaterally by the current federal administration and did not raise a single whimper about the violation of the terms of the 1985 memorandum of understanding. Instead, they focused on the cash irrespective of the dangerous precedent set by the amendment.

The most obvious weakness in this approach is that it gives the federal government an easy target to achieve. Since the provincial administration is concerned only with cash and given that there is a record of Williams settling for much less than originally sought - despite the bluster - Stephen Harper needs only to consider how small an amount he can get Williams to agree to. Williams has said yes to much less before and he is likely to do so again.

if Stephen Harper came to St. John's looking to get rid of the minor annoyance of Danny Williams' personal vendetta, he may just succeed. It certainly won't cost the Government of Canada anything close to $10 billion spread over 20 years to do it.

As Williams said:

What better place to put some green infrastructure in transporting some of that Lower Churchill power to the island of Newfoundland and Labrador in order to replace Seal Cove, Holyrood, generation.

The current estimated cost of that project?

$2.0 billion.

-srbp-

What will the meeting bring?

The meeting between Danny Williams and Stephen Harper later on Friday afternoon?

One of the possibilities is a rapprochement between the supposedly warring leaders.

The former, safely back in power with an overwhelming majority, may just signal peace is at hand. He's been known to do it before.

Tons of bluster and anger, followed by a sudden bout of kissing and hugging with the former "enemy".

That all might lead to some interesting developments in federal politics. Since the last cabinet appointments, the locals have been speculating wildly about the prospect that Tom Osborne and Jack Byrne - both turfed from the Williams cabinet - would actually be trying for a spot on the Stephen Harper team alongside their old friend Fabian Manning.

Osborne, you may recall, is the candidate whose political signage touts his - ummm - shall we say performance.

The story made the Globe this damp Friday, as Harper arrives in the province for a couple of days of politicking. You can find a link to the Globe article and some added comments over at nottawa.

One aspect of the story not covered by local media has been the prospect that some members of the provincial Tory caucus are getting somewhat frustrated with the ongoing feud and would like to see it settled. Human resources minister Shawn Skinner hinted as much, at least until he was reined in by his boss.

As Mark suggests at nottawa, though, perhaps someone ought to simply poke a microphone in the general direction of Osborne, Byrne and even Elizabeth Marshall to ask what they plan to do with themselves when the next federal election is called. The responses might well give some clues as to what will evolve out of the Danny and Steve meeting.

-srbp-

Poll goosing: the VOCM online version

Submitted for your consideration:

Geoff Meeker's comments on anomalies in the vocm.com Question of the Day plus the two posts - here and here - from labradore that sparked Meeker's interest.

-srbp-

Steve and Danny meeting: more stuff

Well, you read it here already, but the rest of the world has picked up the harper and Danny Williams meeting story.

The Premier issued a short statement today confirming the meeting, although it will happen friday and not on Saturday as Bond heard it originally. "Premier Williams said his office confirmed the meeting two days ago," according to the statement.

Hmmm. No wonder the premier they were so testy about Brian Peckford's comments and had his plants suggesing some collusion between Peckford and the Prime Minister's Office. The 8th Floor blackberry drums knew about the Harper meeting before the rest of us did and likely assumed - in a paranoid way - that the two unlinked things were linked.

The Globe notes that provincial Tories have been trying to find ways to mend fences already, something that likely was at the heart of Shawn Skinner's recent comments. That is, before Danny yanked Skinner's chain and made the guy "apologize" and then publicly declare his commitment to the ABC nonsense.

-srbp-

Harper to visit, meet Williams

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be visiting Newfoundland and Labrador this weekend.

Jungle drums say the PM will be in Cupids, possibly to announce some federal cash for the historic site there.

Some of the drums say that Harper will meet with Danny Williams sometime during the trip - maybe on Saturday - to see if the two can patch things up.

How exactly will the Eighth Floor blackberries pound out that one, especially if Harper doesn't roll over on every issue?

Will they recite the list of broken promises?

They certainly can't claim the PMO didn't call first.

Almost immediate update:  So here's the thing.  With Rodney already absorbed into the collective and Lorne Calvert defeated at the polls, Danny and Steve making up is the next logical step.

Can Danny really go it alone against Harper?

Will he?

-srbp-

"Shut up and go away": Williams

in further evidence of his commitment to free speech and diversity of opinion, Premier Danny Williams told reporters on Tuesday that he wished his predecessors would "shut up and go away" rather than offer comment on the province's political and economic situation.

Williams even went so far as to claim that he doesn't comment on the actions of previous administrations.

This is the guy who ran an entire election and then a four-year administration on the premise of a complete rejection of every policy of every one of his predecessors: "no more give-aways." 

Danny Williams has made a political career of running down his predecessors. There's no reason to believe he'll stop any time soon.

Williams' display of disrespect for his predecessors collectively is bad enough.

What Williams and his ministers - and at least one of their favourite plants - have been saying about Brian Peckford in particular is loathsome beyond measure. After all, Williams and his cronies deliberately named their little deal with Ottawa after Peckford's agreement. 

All the better to confuse people, no doubt, as to what the current administration has really accomplished compared to the predecessors Williams routinely insults.

-srbp-

Justifying a junket

Danny Williams is happy with his recent trip to Brazil.

The Premier spent a week in the South American country where, besides checking out some mining operations in the country, the feisty fellow got some assurances that the owners of the Voisey's Bay project would be honouring their legal commitments.

"He [CVRD CEO Roger Agnelli] gave me his personal undertaking that they would live up to their commitments, and he said that on a couple of occasions during the course of our meeting," Williams said. "So I take him at his word."

There has never been any doubt they would, but it is nice to know that Danny Williams was willing to take a taxpayer-funded trip to the belly of the foreign beast to get that confirmation.

Williams also pitched the idea of CVRD building an aluminum smelter in Labrador as well.

No report on any commitment on that though, or anything beyond Williams just floating out the idea that has been kicked around by everyone from Joe Smallwood to Talk Show Sue.

 

-srbp-

Noseworthiness

One of the things lost amid the House of Assembly spending scandal are the mistakes made by Auditor General John Noseworthy and his band of snoops.

Not putting commas in the wrong place things but 2 + 2 = 5 kinda screw-ups.

We're talking stuff like saying there were no more double-billing cases except for the two named and the one he inexplicably named and then dropped only to find out later that there were literally dozens of legislators with double-billing histories.

Like saying someone billed flowers to family members without actually checking to see if the Aunt Myrtle was actually just an elderly lady in the community and the flowers were sent to her following the local custom in many parts of Newfoundland of calling any elderly person "uncle" or "aunt".

Or like grossly low-balling the total amount of overspending in the allowances account so that the total uncovered by Noseworthy's audits is less than half the real amount , as revealed by Chief Justice Derek Green's investigation.

or waving around a bunch of invoices with the members' name on it and then having to admit that well, d'uh, like the cross between Horatio and Sheila (self-righteousness + exemplary math skills) hadn't bothered to rule out the possibility of forgery before accusing several members of wrongdoing.

All of which leads us to the Noseworthiness of The Telegram's serial attack on former member of the House of Assembly Oliver Langdon.

The root of the whole thing is one of the Auditor General's little bits of commentary, something about bills submitted to a point in the middle of the ocean.  Looks good on paper.  Highly quotable.

But is it correct?

Did anyone wonder if Noseworthy hadn't actually cocked up - yet again - and not conducted even a cursory investigation into the issue?  Apparently not.  You see, one clue to the idea that maybe these guys are way off course in the hunt for people diddling the taxpayer is the amount.  Langdon is accused by the Telegram of possibly, theoretically, like maybe dude, pocketing the princely sum of $16,000 extra on his allowances.

That's right.  A guy who sat a total of 18 years or so in the House of Assembly walked away at the end of it - and only if the Telly didn't frig up in their speculation - by less than a thousand bucks a year.

Remember the spit hurled at Percy Barrett, the supposed Fifth Man in the scandal when he was named by the Grand Inquisitor?  His numbers were small too, relative to the amount of cash flowing through his accounts.  Turns out the G.I. dinged Barrett for a bunch of things.  Like H.S.T which was really just part of a disagreement over how to apply the tax that the legislature doesn't pay against the books.  Not really fair, was it, since neither Barrett nor any other individual member actually set the policy?

But Noseworthy did it anyway.

And when you get The Torquemada de Torbay on the phone - if you can get him to even speak to a reporter again on the subject - someone might want to ask Noseworthy how much of Barrett's supposed overspending consisted of claims that Horatio's lab crew could have spotted as dubious even without running a check for possible forgery.

Just ask.

And then ask Barrett.

Had Noseworthy or The Telegram investigated they would have found a couple of things. 

First, Oliver Langdon was well known to travel to his district, doing his job, so frequently it was embarrassing to his colleagues.  The guy burned out a car a year, racking up mileage annually that most of us wouldn't see if four or five years of hard-core driving.

100,000 km a year?  No sweat.

Tires? Brakes? 

Langdon likely put mechanics' kids through medical school.

Second, Langdon's district is an odd one as island districts go.  To get to the western end of it, one must travel out towards Grand Falls before heading south along the highway; to get to the eastern end, one heads down the road to the Burin peninsula.

In other words, if Langdon had attended a dinner in eastern end of the district one night and an event in the west another night, the guy would actually go outside the district and travel through Goobies and out to Grand Falls before reaching his destination. Not exactly like driving around the Bay of Islands, for argument sake, but a good explanation of why Langdon racked up such high mileage.

That gets to be really important here when one considers that members of the House had two different mileage rates to bill:  one for travel between St. John's and the district and then another for travel within the district. In the not so hypothetical example above, one can see a real dilemma as to how to account for the mileage between the Burin peninsula and central Newfoundland.  It isn't travel to the district from St. John's, since St. John's couldn't be legitimately listed as the departure point. 

It isn't really travel inside the district partly since the mileage involved is horrendous compared to the crow-flying distance.  And it isn't travel within the district when much of the route is actually outside the district, in the first place.  On top of that, the bulk of the travel mileage is highway mileage, the kind that normally nets the higher rate.  So if you billed it out that way, the member would actually be taking a substantive hit in the bottom line, especially considering that this is not a once-in-a-while occurrence.

Then there's the mounds of paperwork and time consumed tracking travel and applying the rates.  It doesn't sound like much but when the guy is racking up the kind of mileage Langdon racked up, the paperwork starts to mount.

Not surprising therefore, that the people in the legislature worked out a simple way of averaging out a complex case. Strip away the Telegram's speculation in this case and one can easily see the fictitious midpoint as nothing more than a way of avoiding the intricacies of a reimbursement scheme that really didn't work well for a particular case.

The arrangement made it easier to fill out the claims and to get reimbursed.  While there might have been a loss on some claims and a gain on others, over time the thing averaged out.  It may not be perfect but it is practical.

And, while, theoretically Langdon may have pocketed a bit of extra cash, odds are pretty good he didn't. you see, the 16 large the telly is talking about is their entirely supposed, theoretical, possible extra cash based on a very simplistic calculation.  in making the allegations against Langdon, the Telly falls into the trap of Noseworthiness. 

That is, the Telegram makes claims without checking them out first.

The difference, counting the 262 trips he claimed at 1,800 km, is 65,000 km - and at the lowest mileage rate he could claim, it amounted to more than $16,000, tax-free, paid out for travel that could at best be described as "theoretical."

The travel isn't theoretical. The Telegram's story and editorial are.  They didn't check. And they certainly didn't check the travel before and after the averaging scheme was put in place to see if the whole thing actually does work out. The level of detail in either the story or the editorial doesn't back up the suppositions made about Langdon's claims.

The Telegram editorialists are accusing Langdon of committing fraud, of claiming for travel he didn't take.  It's a criminal offence, regardless of how much money is involved. Yet, there isn't a shred of evidence to substantiate the claim made by the Telegram.

Landgon should hire a good lawyer and sue. He'd likely win a tidy sum, considerably more than the amount the telly is accusing him of pocketing.  If Noseworthy doesn't hold some form of parliamentary immunity, there are people who should be suing his sorry-assed accounting as well for the same thing.

What the Telegram has done here is as bad as claiming that members of the opposition are getting double and triple extra pay only to find out that - had the newspaper bothered to check the facts - the whole story was bogus. In the meantime, examples of far more dubious spending in the legislature go, thus far, entirely unexplored.

A double standard?

Maybe.

But it certainly is a story that has plenty of Noseworthiness.

It smells.

-srbp-

Peg dollar below US greenback: NL finance minister

Newfoundland and Labrador finance minister Tom Marshall thinks it would be a good idea not only to tie the value of the Canadian dollar to the American dollar but to set the loonie's value below the American greenback.

He told a province-wide radio talk show audience on Monday that because the province is dependent on resource exports, the Canadian dollar should be permanently valued below its American counterpart.

Yes it, yes, you know, I mean I would certainly [support] a dollar that is fixed or pegged in relation to the US dollar to try to keep our dollar lower than the US dollar because of the fact that we are an economy that relies heavily on our exports. But that's something that, you know, that the Cabinet would have to deal with all together. I'm expressing my own view here.

-srbp-

Murrow rolling in grave

Edward R. Murrow, the venerated American newsman, is likely rolling in his grave at the treatment afforded former premier Brian Peckford by VOCM news over the past couple of days.

First, VOCM reported Peckford's comments based not on what Peckford said but on what two cabinet ministers falsely accused Peckford of saying.

Second - and following hot on the heels of the first - VOCM is now running a story saying that Peckford is clarifying his comments.

He didn't.

Peckford repeated them.

They don't call VOCM voice of the cabinet minister for nothing.

In the meantime, the radio and television news directors should consider putting an asterisk next to VOCM if they keep up this shoddy reporting of political stories.

-srbp-

Skinner-ma-rinky-dink opinions from two cabinet ministers not worth heeding

Brian Peckford irritates some cabinet ministers.

"I really think that we've really dropped the ball on the whole fishery issue in Newfoundland. I really, really do," he said in a recent interview.

"I think we have not, as a province, argued relentlessly and weekly pursued a fisheries strategy which would allow us to have ... an Atlantic Accord on the fishery.

"Because what we did on the Atlantic Accord was we put the jurisdiction away, even though we lost in court. We got it back through the back door."

Peckford's crime is voicing an opinion, according to finance minister Tom Marshall and Kevin O'Brien, the fellow heading up the oxymoronicaly-named department of government services. The two ministers called VOCM's morning talk show to express their disapproval of the fellow who, as both took pains to note, doesn't live here any more.

Said Marshall: "Well that's exactly, and, you know, to live out there [in British Columbia] and then come in here and tell us we're doing it all wrong is a bit much."

Oh deary.

A bit much for a fellow who served as premier through a very difficult decade to dare offer an observation not merely on the performance of one administration but of the lot of us and the crowds we've elected.

Go read Peckford's comments, linked above, and then read Marshall's observations, transcribed in their entirety below.

"We seem to have one mindset when it relates to the offshore and a ... less-than-stringent approach to all the other areas - even those that are under our jurisdiction."

Peckford is hardly telling tales from school. One need hardly look very hard to see this double-standard applied. No subsidies for the oil industry - supposedly - and a heaping of something called 'equity' for the provincial government. By contrast, the forest industry gets at least $30 million in subsidies of one kind or another and when a mill closes and another shuts down a machine, the whole affair warrants scarcely a whimper from the most combative premier since...well...Brian Peckford, compared to the unholy tirade unleashed on oil companies.

Over in the fishery, meanwhile, the current provincial government enthusiastically facilitates the destruction of the only vertically integrated, internationally competitive company in the lot. Somewhere in there, the bits and pieces are sold off to a consortium that includes Icelanders, another lot is sold back to the Brits and the Nova Scotians walk off with the marketing arm and brands it took years to build.

All of these are resources, as most scarcely need reminding and yet oil is treated as some sort of sacred possession by the current administration. The fishery and forestry? Not really quite as sacred.

For his part, Tom Marshall tried to argue against Peckford on other matters. Marshall failed, of course, since most of what he said was utter nonsense. Like the bit about offshore revenues, the stuff which apparently the provincial government wasn't as fixated on as Peckford suggested:

You know, I really don't know. I mean there was, there's been two stories here. One came out of the, one was in The Telegram, I think, on the weekend. It talked about, you know, the Atlantic Accord and how everything is flowed out of the Atlantic Accord. And the Atlantic Accord that was negotiated back then was certainly an important document. I mean it did, it did share the management. Even though the federal government was determined by the courts to have jurisdiction over offshore oil and gas, it said that Newfoundland would be, Newfoundland and Labrador would be the principal beneficiary. But it wasn't working. It wasn't working as it was. We weren't seeing the benefits because we were losing them under the equalization formula. Whatever we were getting on the oil and gas we were losing under the equalization formula. So what Premier Williams did in '05 in the Atlantic Accord in '05, I mean that was the key document that made the difference because what he accomplished was that for every dollar we were losing on the oil and gas we got an offset payment from the Department of Natural Resources in Ottawa. We got this offset payment that made us whole. And as a result of what Premier Williams did in '05, the Atlantic Accord '05, you know, this year we're showing 305 million, which is allowing us to forecast a surplus of 261 billion, I'm sorry, 261 million and to p ay down some debt and that's what's made the difference. I mean Premier Williams has made the real difference here because we weren't getting rich before under the first part of the Atlantic Accord, but that's not to say that it wasn't, you know, a great document.

Under the 1985 Atlantic Accord, Tom Marshall and his colleagues get to set provincial government revenues from the offshore and collect every nickel of them. They keep every nickel of them as well. $16 billion worth of nickels from Hebron alone, as Marshall's colleague has claimed, and not a single one of those nickels, nor the pennies either, has ever been taken by any other government.

Not a one.

Anyone who claims otherwise is telling fibs.

The 2005 deal delivered the princely sum of $2.0 billion in a cash advance. The deal expires when the province ceases to qualify for Equalization and, as regular readers of Bond Papers will know, the advance will not be drawn down completely when the deal expires.

The entire basis of the provincial government's current fumbling in the oil industry comes from powers contained not in the 2005 deal but in the 1985 Atlantic Accord. When the 2005 deal is a moldering memory, the 1985 agreement will continue to deliver, as it has delivered since it was signed.

All that Brian Peckford has done in a series of interviews with local media is offer his views - based on experience - on issues related to resource management. He has a right to speak his mind and only the most churlish of churls would question his inherent right in a democracy to speak.

But Peckford is no ordinary voice. His voice drips of the experience of hard knocks and whether or not one supported him at the time or agrees with him now, he has every right to speak his mind. he earned the right and he should be heeded. One must not slavishly accept his every syllable, as some - like Marshall and O'Brien - must do for their master, but there are other legitimate perspectives than the one currently typed out as talking points from the Eighth Floor's blackberries.

It would be a mistake, however, to think that Marshall and O'Brien are hurling missiles at Peckford merely for speaking out or merely at their master's behest. What Peckford has hit on, with respect to the fishery, for example, is a deep-seated problem within local politics. While politicians have known for some time what must be done in the fishery, it is very difficult to get them to act. There is no stomach in the current administration as there has been no stomach in many administrations for taking the necessary measures to turn the fishery into an economically and environmentally sustainable part of the local economy.

It hurts to have that pointed out, apparently.

Otherwise Marshall and O'Brien would not have received their blackberry marching orders and thus ordered, skinnered themselves on to the open line shows to offer a rinky dink attack on a fellow most Progressive Conservatives in the province should be venerating. [Perhaps they do and that bothers some of the current crowd, too. But that is another story.]

Every thinking person in the province would do well to consider Peckford's advice.

It is the voice of experience and, as we should all know by now, experience counts.

Talking points thumbed out of someone's blackberry - likely from a junket to Rio - don't.

-srbp-

RANDY SIMMS: We are going to go now and say a very good morning here to the Finance Minister and Chairmen, President of the Treasury Board, Tom Marshall. Good morning.

TOM MARSHALL: Good morning Randy.

RANDY SIMMS: How are you doing?

TOM MARSHALL: I'm not too bad. I'm here in Corner Brook and I was just reading The Western Star today and I say former Premier's, Brian Peckford's remarks.

RANDY SIMMS: And your hair stood on end.

TOM MARSHALL: Well, what's left of it did. The, you know, the comment I read, I mean it's mainly about the fishery and I'll leave my colleague, Tom Rideout, and those with more, know more about the fisheries that I certainly do to comment on that aspect of it, but my difficulty is with the comments that, where Peckford said it's a mistake for the province to focus its efforts on the blossoming offshore oil and gas industry at the expense of everything else. And he goes on to say that we, I don't know who he's referring to as we, seem to have a one mindset when it relates to the offshore and a less astringent approach to all the other areas, even those that are under our own jurisdiction. Now, Randy, you know, every time I've been on your show and your colleagues' shows, and I've been going around the province given these, you know, talking about the budget and the main point, you know, the one thing that we're doing as a government is clearly set out in the budget and it's set out in the speech from the throne, and that's a recognition that the non-renewable resources are going to be gone day, that they're finite. One day they're going to be gone and that we've got to take advantage of this window of opportunity to transition our economy into a more diversified economy that, you know, that relies on our renewable resources. The whole energy plan talks about, you know, taking advantage of the non- renewable energy resources we have now to make sure that we have renewable energy resources for the future. And for someone to come in and say that we're only focused on the offshore, clearly has no understanding of what this government has been doing and what the very essence of this government is.

RANDY SIMMS: But, really, there is an impression out there, Minister. You know, as I said to your colleague, Mr. O'Brien, earlier today, there is an impression out there, right or wrong, and it could be equally wrong as it is right, that this government does not focus, I'm going to call it, on the older more stayed industrial realities in the province. We seem to be caught up in the sexiness of oil and gas. Now, and that impression, I think, is out there in the market, isn't it?

TOM MARSHALL: Well, you know, if you're going to say that, I mean I don't know what, you know, what the media focuses on. You know, they don't focus on everything that government does, but I mean the whole reality of our budget and our speeches from the throne and the, you know, the thrust of what this government is doing is recognizing that, look, we've only got a window here and we have to diversify our economy because those non-renewable resources are going to be gone. So we've talked about, number one, we got to pay down the debt. Now previous governments left, you know, the people of this province today saddled with a massive debt of over, almost, just under $12 billion. So we have to take advantage of the surpluses that we have to try to address that while we can. We're also lowering taxes to try to make the province more competitive. I mean to attract investment, to attract people that are going to create jobs, you have to have a competitive tax structure and we did that in the last budget. We're also focusing on not only investments in our traditional industries like the forestry, and we pumped a lot of money into forestry, you know that, there's over $30 million went to aid the forestry industry in this province, investments in aquaculture on the south coast, but we're also focusing on the knowledge economy. We're making major investments now in research and development.

RANDY SIMMS: Ok, so why do you think with all of this going on and he being aware of this as, he being Brian Peckford , being as aware of this as anybody, why would Brian Peckford at this point in his life and the life of this province and government want to come out and be this critical?

TOM MARSHALL: That you'll, I have no idea. You'll have to ask him that.

RANDY SIMMS: Well speculate. Why do you think?

TOM MARSHALL: You know, I really don't know. I mean there was, there's been two stories here. One came out of the, one was in The Telegram, I think, on the weekend. It talked about, you know, the Atlantic Accord and how everything is flowed out of the Atlantic Accord. And the Atlantic Accord that was negotiated back then was certainly an important document. I mean it did, it did share the management. Even though the federal government was determined by the courts to have jurisdiction over offshore oil and gas, it said that Newfoundland would be, Newfoundland and Labrador would be the principal beneficiary. But it wasn't working. It wasn't working as it was. We weren't seeing the benefits because we were losing them under the equalization formula. Whatever we were getting on the oil and gas we were losing under the equalization formula. So what Premier Williams did in '05 in the Atlantic Accord in '05, I mean that was the key document that made the difference because what he accomplished was that for every dollar we were losing on the oil and gas we got an offset payment from the Department of Natural Resources in Ottawa. We got this offset payment that made us whole. And as a result of what Premier Williams did in '05, the Atlantic Accord '05, you know, this year we're showing 305 million, which is allowing us to forecast a surplus of 261 billion, I'm sorry, 261 million and to p ay down some debt and that's what's made the difference. I mean Premier Williams has made the real difference here because we weren't getting rich before under the first part of the Atlantic Accord, but that's not to say that it wasn't, you know, a great document.

RANDY SIMMS: What, it's the basis on which everything else flowed, but, you know, is it, I'm going to speculate a little bit here, is it possible that Brian Peckford is throwing a little criticism at the provincial government because of his recent appointment by the feds?

TOM MARSHALL: Look, it could be, but Newfoundland and Labrador is making tremendous headway under the Newfoundland government and to say we're only focused on oil and gas, well now that it's not going to be there forever and that's why we're doing the things that we're doing under the Premier's leadership.

RANDY SIMMS: But you. . .

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

RANDY SIMMS: And so, obviously, you're critical of it. I guess all members of the government are critical of it because, like I said, I heard from your colleague, Kevin O'Brien, already this morning on this matter. You know, but again, as I say to you, and I think it's, you know, it might be an unfair comment, I accept, but, nonetheless, there's truth in the feeling, in the statement that there's a feeling in the community at large that this is a government preoccupied with oil and gas and not spending enough time and effort on traditional industries like fishery. I think that that's a feeling in the community. It might be totally unfair though, Minister, I accept that it might be an unfair feeling.

TOM MARSHALL: I strongly. . .

RANDY SIMMS: And I know you're going to argue that point.

TOM MARSHALL: I would strongly disagree with that.

RANDY SIMMS: Yeah, but I don't know whether Peckford, you know, who is Peckford sitting in Vancouver these days to tell us one way or the other what it is?

TOM MARSHALL: Well that's exactly, and, you know, to live out there and then come in here and tell us we're doing it all wrong is a bit much. And now in fairness to him, you know, I mean sometimes there's a quote in the paper and maybe that's not what he said, but based on what he said as quoted I talk umbrage of the comment and I think he's wrong. And, you know, not focusing on the fishery, I mean I come from a district where the fishery is not a major industry, as you know, and , you know, I can tell you that from the time that I spend at the Cabinet table, I mean fishery dominates the discussion at our Cabinet table and there's no doubt or question about that. The forestry is taking up a lot of our time.

RANDY SIMMS: Well, you know. . .

TOM MARSHALL: But also more importantly, which we're focusing new areas, we're trying to take advantage of, you know, research and development and things we did in aquaculture on the south coast, you know, things that we're doing here in Corner Brook with the Centre of Environmental Excellence, with the new position, I mean open up the paper and you see the new positions going here into Corner Brook in R & D under the, you know, Institute of Biodiversity and the Centre of Environmental Excellence. There's about five or six new positions here and these are jobs based on the knowledge economy, not based on the old natural resource economy.

RANDY SIMMS: Ok, let me ask you this while I got you. All right, I know that there's a financial report coming down, what, at the end of this week?

TOM MARSHALL: Well it, you know, the Premier will be back and the report, I'll discuss it with my Cabinet colleagues and then they'll, will determine whether it's going to, when we come out publicly and announce it. RANDY SIMMS: I understood that it was going to happen this week.

TOM MARSHALL: Well, you know, I've learned in government that when I'm told it's going to happen on a certain day I don't believe it until I'm out there actually saying, ok.

RANDY SIMMS: Ok, 261 million, you're low balling it, aren't you?

TOM MARSHALL: Well I certainly didn't low ball it. I, you know, I said, you know, you always hear the criticism of governments because they go out with these low numbers and then when the numbers actually come out they say, oh, look, we did so much better. I didn't want to do that. I want to try to be as accurate as we can. But it's extremely difficult, of course, because, you know, the oil prices jump all over the place and I mean who would have thought that oil prices have gone, would go to where they've gone today. You know, we rely on Pure Energy Corporation out of New York. They're very highly regarded and very respected and they told us the average would be, you know, when we were doing our budget, they told us the average price for the year would be about $58.60. Now we get quarterly updates for them. We also get two custom reports a year from them and, of course, their suggestions are going up, but at the time we did the budget that's what they told us. Also, production numbers we don't control and also who knew that that dollar was going to go the way it is because every time the dollar goes up a cent our revenues are negatively impacted. But it certainly doesn't offset the benefits because of the higher oil prices.

RANDY SIMMS: You, as Minister of Finance, do you want to see, and I know the central bank is looking at taking a run at the dollar to try and bring it down to a more reasonable level, which would mean a drop in interests rates, are you taking a look at that? Are you chairing them on and do you want to see that happen?

TOM MARSHALL: Well, you know, quite frankly, I mean monetary policy is left to the Bank of Canada and, you know, they don't consult with me. They're an independent organization that determines monetary policy.

RANDY SIMMS: I know, but on the outside looking in thinking that every, that every penny, that every buck is another, you know, few million.

TO M MARSHALL: Yeah, but it works the other way. . .

RANDY SIMMS: It works the other way for us as well, every penny up costs. . .

TOM MARSHALL: Yeah, but I mean I do have major concern for the manufacturing sector, you know, especially the forestry sector here in this province. I mean in Ontario they've lost, what, 150,000 jobs.

RANDY SIMMS: I guess that's where I'm trying to go, Minister. I'm trying to get inside your head here a little bit to say, you know, all of this issue about fisheries and about forestry and about all of these other concentrations, the reality of it is we need a lower dollar to do that and that's going to have to some degree, is it not, at the expense of oil and gas revenues?

TOM MARSHALL: Yes it, yes, you know, I mean I would certainly a dollar that is fixed or pegged in relation to the US dollar to try to keep our dollar lower than the US dollar because of the fact that we are an economy that relies heavily on our exports. But that's something that, you know, that the Cabinet would have to deal with all together. I'm expressing my own view here.

RANDY SIMMS: Sure, sure, absolutely, absolutely. Well, Minister, thank you for this, this morning.

TOM MARSHALL: Randy, thank you. Good talking to you.

RANDY SIMMS: Good to talk with you again, as always.

TOM MARSHALL: Thank you. Bye.

RANDY SIMMS: Take care. Bye, bye. Minister Tom Marshall; he's Minister of Finance, he's President of Treasury Board and he's not that happy with former Premier Brian Peckford over his comments on the weekend and in the paper today.