Elizabeth Towers Fire Inquiry – The Elizabeth Towers Fire and its Investigation

Continued from Part 1 – Introduction and Commission

This Commission of Enquiry was appointed because of the publication of two police reports into a fire which took place in Elizabeth Towers, an apartment building in St. John's.  The fire occurred at about 6:00 a.m. on April 26th, 1978, in an apartment occupied by the Honourable Dr. Thomas F. Farrell, who was then a member of the Executive Council of the Province of Newfoundland.

The Criminal Investigation Division [C.I.D.] of the Newfoundland Constabulary was responsible for investigating the cause of the fire.  The Division was in charge of Detective Inspector Donald Randell.  The arson investigation section of the C.I.D. was headed by Detective Sergeant Arthur Pike, who had four other detectives under his direction in that section.  The arson investigation section did"not investigate all fires.  It investigated all fires whose origins were of a suspicious nature, as well as certain other types of major fires, such as those involving businesses, churches and others.

Detective Robert Hillier was assigned to investigate the Elizabeth Towers fire on the morning when it took place.  I shall not go through the various steps followed in the filing of reports in the C.I.D.  The admissions made with relation to the release and publication of the two reports which were the subject matter of this enquiry show that there was no improper release of information by the staff in the C.I.D. office or any other member apart from Sergeant Pike.  Suffice it to say that a copy of the report would in due course be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Department of Justice of the Province of Newfoundland.

The first report on the Elizabeth Towers fire was dated June 7th, 1978.  In accordance with normal procedure it was sent to Mr. John Kelly, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who received it June 9th. On June 13th he sent a copy of the report to Mr. Robert Hyslop, the Senior Crown Prosecutor in St. John's, asking him to review it and give his opinion on it in " writing,  Kelly had read the report and said that in his opinion "the investigation was very poorly done".

He said:

"The police had reached a premature conclusion and I saw an obvious need for a lot of additional investigation."

Kelly said that as a result of his own reaction to the report and of Hyslop's assessment of it, he wrote the Chief of Police of the Newfoundland Constabulary on June 14th outlining 24 points which he wanted clarified. He received a further report on July 13th.  It was the C.I.D. report which was dated July 12th and which was one of the reports released to the media.  Kelly said that the second report answered many, but not all, of the questions which he had asked.  In his opinion the questions were "quite material".  He sent a copy of the second report to Hyslop and asked him to review it and to meet with him so that both of them "could discuss what further action was necessary on the file".

Kelly said that he and Hyslop met and discussed the reports.  He said that he "felt at the time that there was an indication that a crime had been committed". He also said that although the second report substantiated his conclusion that there had been a crime and although the report identified the person who may have committed the crime, he "was not completely satisfied with the police investigation".  He and Hyslop had several discussions on the question of whether they had enough evidence to warrant the laying of charges.  He then decided to bring the file to the attention of the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. George Macaulay. 

Kelly said that in any case where there is difficulty he would ask for a second, or even a third, opinion.  He added that if Macaulay gives instructions that charges are to be laid straight away those instructions are followed because Macaulay is his superior.  When he consulted Macaulay, the latter decided that Inspector Randell should assume responsibility for providing the additional information which Kelly and Hyslop were seeking.  With reference to Macaulay's attitude towards the investigation, Kelly said:

"He was even more reluctant or more certain that charges should not be laid at that point and he wanted several areas covered that we had not even considered.  He had his doubts about the evidence that had been gathered at that point."

Kelly said that as a result of the consultations with Macaulay a third report was requested.  For an account of how that request was made I turn to the evidence of Macaulay and Randell.

Macaulay said that he first saw the reports of June 7th and July 12th in late July or early August, 1978 when Kelly and Hyslop came to him and "sought advice and instruction regarding progress and future action on the investigation".  He said that both of them were having difficulties in reaching conclusions, They came to him in accordance with the practice of consultation which was followed in the Department of Justice when doubts or difficulties arose.  He said that Kelly and Hyslop were concerned about the efficiency with which the investigation was being conducted and

"...they wanted to discuss the merits of the case, to see whether, in my opinion at that time, there were grounds for possibly laying a charge.  They couldn't reach a firm conclusion."

Macaulay said that Kelly came to see him on a Friday afternoon and he told Kelly that he wanted to study the reports over the weekend.  He arranged to meet with Kelly on the following Monday.  He studied the reports on the weekend.  He said:

"I had reached my own conclusion over the weekend from reading these reports that I, too, like Mr. Kelly had some concern about the quality of reporting and the efficiency of the investigation."

The meeting with Kelly and Hyslop to which I have already referred took place, as planned, on Monday.
It is interesting to note Macaulay's assessment of the two reports.  He described the report of June 7th as "very, very slim, very thin.  No fabric. A lot of police opinion but not much backing with direct, material, concrete evidence".  Fie said that the report of July 12th did not answer all of the questions which Kelly had asked.  He went on:

"My conclusion after reading the reports was that we needed further investigation before charges could be laid.  It was an arson case ... Traditionally that is a difficult case to reach a conclusion on. It was essentially a case of elimination.  We had to sweep aside possible people and circumstances that might have a bearing on the fire.  I then gave Prosecutor Hyslop point by point instructions on where the further investigation should go ..."

Macaulay said that since he was not happy with the way things had been going he was going to get in touch with the Chief of the Newfoundland Constabulary and insist that Inspector Randell, as Head of the C.I.D., should take charge of the investigation. Elaborating on the reasons for his dissatisfaction, Macaulay said:

"I was not happy with the way the statements had been taken.  I wasn't happy with the way Mr. Kelly's 20 to 25 points had been dealt with. I wanted a person in senior rank to take charge of this investigation."

Macau lay spoke to the Assistant Chief of Police who had Randell getting touch with Macaulay,  In relating a conversation with Randell, Macaulay said:

"... I conveyed to him my concern on the question of efficiency, speed and standards of reporting which were quite strong and asked him to contact Prosecutor Hyslop direct to take instructions on the1 further areas of investigation that we felt we needed...I told him ...that the additional areas that I had instructed for investigation should not take too long and I would expect a third report in around 10 days' time.  A third report carne in.  It was longer than 10 days' time because I believe some of the detectives were on holiday at the time and there were some re-arrangements of duties that had to be carried out. But the third report came in ... maybe 22 days after my instruction."

I shall return again to Macaulay's evidence but at this point I turn to that of Inspector Randell to indicate the extent to which it corroborates that of Macaulay.

Randell said that in the morning of July 31st, which was a Monday, the Assistant Chief of Police told him to call Macaulay,  He did so.  He said that they had a lengthy discussion, that Macaulay wanted to hear from him "before Friday because he would like to “lay charges of arson against Dr. Farrell".  Macaulay also told him to see Hyslop, which he did on the morning of August 1st.

I must note an element of urgency reflected in the evidence of Randell and Macaulay, though there is a minor disparity between them.  Macaulay said that he told Randell he would expect a report in about 10 days. 

Randell said that Macaulay told him he wanted to hear from Randell before the Friday following the Monday on which they spoke to each other, that is, within four days.  There is a disparity in the time span referred to in those two statements.  But that is not too important. What is important for the purpose of this enquiry is that the evidence of Macaulay and Randell indicates that Macaulay displayed a sense of urgency in his wish that the Department of Justice be in a position to lay charges as soon as possible.  That is important to remember when it comes to a consideration of the allegations by Sergeant Pike and Mr. William Rowe that there was what was referred to colloquially as a "cover-up".

Randell met with Hyslop after Macaulay directed him to take charge of the investigation and they studied a document which Hyslop had drawn up.  Randell said that he realized it was impossible for him alone to be able to do what was requested in one week.  He was expected to see Dr. Farrell again but Dr. Farrell was at his summer home in the Codroy Valley.  He was also asked to interview Dr. Farrell's son, who was in Ottawa.  Also, Randall felt that it was possible that Hillier, the investigating officer, might know something that was not in his reports, so he wanted to talk to Hillier before proceeding with the investigation.  That could not be done immediately because Hillier was travelling on the mainland of Canada by trailer and Randell did not know where-to reach him.  Randell also wanted to talk to Pike, who was.in St. Anthony on leave.  He reached Pike by-telephone and had him return to St. John's,  They met on August 2nd,  After that meeting, Pike returned to St. Anthony.  I shall have to pick up that part of the narrative again when I review Pike's activities.

Around August 5th or 6th Randell told Macaulay that he needed more time,  On August 16th. Randell submitted the third report.  At that time there was .a witness whom Randell wished to interview but- she was in Western Canada.  He said that in his August 16th report he stated that he would see that witness 'when she.returned to St, -John's, that he might get a statement from her and that he 'would then submit a further report.

Macaulay had the following to say about the third report:

"We looked at the third report, coupled with the first and second and I had a further meeting with . the prosecutor, Mr, Hyslop and the Director, Mr. Kelly.  Again, I wasn’t happy with the third report. There were areas to be eliminated, there were people to be eliminated,  I wanted these people to be interviewed."

Macaulay said that he wanted some polygraph testing done.  Apparently, as a result of a voluntary polygraph examination of one person whom Macaulay regarded as a possible suspect, that suspect was relieved of suspicion. Macaulay said that as a result of the instructions he gave a fourth report was received near the end of September.  Randell said that the report was dated September 15th.

Randell went to Ottawa on September 18th to attend a six-week course at the Canadian Police College. On September 26th or 27th he was instructed to return to St, John's because of the leakage of the reports of June 7th and July 12th to the news media.  He returned on September 29th for the purpose of reviewing the entire investigation arid to make recommendations. He studied the reports and met with Macaulay and Kelly. He said:

"It was decided that I should check on all the statements that were taken, re-interview the witnesses and, as I stated, make recommendations or suggestions.  I conducted the further investigation and I recommended that Dr. Farrell be charged with arson. I then went to Provincial Court in St. John's and I laid an information charging him with arson."

The records show that the information was laid on October 16th, 1978.  In due course a preliminary enquiry was held and the charge against Dr. Farrell was dismissed.

Even though some five months elapsed from the date of the fire to the laying of an information, this was not an inordinate delay, nor was it unusual.  When it appears that a criminal offence has been committed police investigators may very well have suspicions and may, indeed, have well-founded suspicions.  Having suspicions and proving the commission of an offence to the satisfaction of a court are two different matters.  Indeed, this same investigation and the subsequent preliminary enquiry demonstrated this.

-srbp-

Continued in Part 3 - “The Release of the Reports of the Investigation”

Premier on the mend – office breaks “sacrosanct” privacy shroud

Despite the official claims that the Premier’s health is a matter which ought not be discussed whatsoever, both CBC news and VOCM – known derisively to some to stand for Voice Of the Cabinet Minister – have very similar stories about the Premier’s medical condition.

Not only did he have surgery in Florida, but we are now told that he is recuperating at his home in Sarasota.  Interestingly, scuttlebutt in Ottawa had him at the Mayo Clinic.  Turns out the Mayo has a site in Florida and it does the sort of surgery scuttle butt has it the Premier went to Florida to have.

And on top of that the stories from these local news sources include the detail that the surgery took almost three times as long as expected because there was more damage to the Premier’s heart than previously believed.

So much for sacrosanct.

So much too for the bile hurled at the CBC by every planted Cultist they could drag out of the greenhouses.

Apparently, though, the Prem is on the mend, which is very good to hear.

But notice that there are no stories from NTV on this nor does the Telly have a little blurb on its website that runs along the same lines.  You may recall that NTV actually broke the story and had some added details in the first few days that the Premier’s Office wasn’t releasing.

Nope.  NTV’s big story for the 18th on their website is about some mysterious creature sighted somewhere in the province. There’s something about a snow storm, ferries and the Humber Valley Resort.

Zippo about the Premier.

Seems that the Premier’s Office is turning to their usual trusted conduits to float out stories they want people to have.

The Thot Plickens After Midnight Update:  Seems this story is a little more curious than it first appeared.  NTV did indeed have Fred Hutton live from Florida – as noted by “Abel” in the comments – and they covered all the details everyone else is reporting.

But on top of all that NTV has an exclusive interview coming with DW from his home in Florida.  Among other – and obvious  - things related to Williams’ recent surgery, Fred Hutton will be asking the Premier about his political future.

So, let’s take back the CBC/VOCM angle entirely.  First appearances were wrong.

But in place of that we have the strangeness that NTV has been able to run with this story  - if not drive it  - by being consistently ahead of everyone else.  They clearly threw the Premier’s crew off stride at the beginning.  As if that wasn’t enough, NTV has been able to  gain an exclusive interview with the Premier on top of everything else.

The political future question is going to be a very interesting one to get answered.

 

-srbp-

Related: 

• “Deep Throats”
• “Kremlinology 16:  Deep T’roat”
• “The Screaming of the Banshees”

Hibernia benefits overestimated: economics prof

“The oil industry success we enjoy today is not what many expected… many people could not believe in the vision of Newfoundland and Labrador as a successful oil producing province.”

Whoever wrote those words for Kathy Dunderdale to read at the re-announcement of the Hibernia South project could hardly know the truth of them.

Nor could the writer likely understand how close to home some of those negative nellies were.

As managing editor of the Telegram in 1992, Bill Callahan believed the project was best scrapped since it represented “large-scale exploitation of non-renewable petroleum resources without adequate or perhaps any return.”

Then there was Peter Fenwick. The former New Democratic Party leader lambasted Hibernia in 1992 as a “give away”:

The money we taxpayers are throwing away on Hibernia is equal to a hundred Sprung greenhouses.  In future, Brian Peckford, Clyde Wells and Rex Gibbons will be vilified by generations of Newfoundlanders for the enormous waste of taxpayers’ money.  Unfortunately we, and the rest of Canada will be stuck with paying for it with our tax dollars.

None, though, could match the pessimism, negativity and sheer crap about Hibernia coming from none other than Wade Locke. 

Yes, that’s right:  Wade Locke,  the same Memorial University economist who is the darling of the current provincial government administration and who was, it should be said, looked on rather favourably by their Tory forefathers in their day too.

As Locke told The Telegram’s Pat Doyle in September 1990, only a few days before Wells, Gibbons, John Crosbie and others signed the final agreements in St. John’s that started the Hibernia project rolling:

"While it may be true that the sun will shine one day, it does not appear that 'have-not' will be no more because of Hiber­nia."

Those words by Wade Locke, an assistant professor of economics at Memorial University, appear to sum up the realistic view now held by experienced observers on the potential benefits of the large offshore project.

But that wasn’t all. 

Locke was extremely pessimistic about the revenue likely to come from the project:

"That is, each dollar of offshore oil revenue going to the provincial trea­sury will result in an increase in the province's ability to spend by two to three cents," Mr. Locke said.

Provincial government estimates suggest the equalization payments would fall by somewhere in the range of 90 to 95 cents.

Mr. Locke said using his calcula­tions, if the project were to generate 13.8 billion In direct revenue for the treasury, for example, after adjust­ing for equalization losses and equali­zation offset grants, the province's net fiscal position would have changed between 176 million and $114 million over the life of the project or an average of $3 million to $4 million in net revenue a year over the 26-year project.

To put that in perspective, Mr. Locke noted the province expects to spend $3.3 billion In the current fiscal year.

“This means that the average net revenue from Hibernia is equivalent to about one tenth of one per cent of the 1990 projected government expen­diture,” said [Locke in] the paper [printed in the Newfoundland Quarterly.]

"Thus, one should not expect that the provincial government will, as a result of Hibernia, have an enhanced ability to improve our road system, education services, health services or any other government services that are of primary concern to the aver­age Newfoundlander."

Yes, when you read stuff like that you just have to chuckle at all the Kreskins who took turns peeing all over the Hibernia project. Heck even Dunderdale and her boss used to refer to it as a massive give-away.  Used to, that is, until they used the deal as the basis for their own negotiations over the extension project.  The old Hibernia deal actually delivers the largest bulk of the cash they claim will come from the extension.  Honesty would prevent Dunderdale and her crowd from doing anything but acknowledging the old deal for its value.

Meanwhile Locke now gets invited to speak in glowing terms about the great offshore oil industry at an event marking the 25th anniversary of the deal on which it is all based:  the 1985 Atlantic Accord.

And that original Hibernia deal they all loved to hate? 

Well, based on the same numbers used by the provincial government and quoted by CBC in the supper-hour news tonight, that 1990 deal will produce more money for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador than Hebron, the White Rose extension and Hibernia South combined.

And it exists today, unlike the Lower Churchill dams or mythical aluminum smelters drawing power from them.

The billions coming from Hibernia will continue for more than another decade to pay for road improvements, education services, health services and any other government services that are of primary concerns to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. 

The money from Hibernia has helped wean Newfoundland and Labrador from its financial dependence on hand-outs from Ottawa. The dignity and self-respect that comes from that accomplishment alone was worth the gamble. The only people who seem to lament that fundamental change in the province and its people are those who never did  - deep in their hearts - look forward to the day when the hand-outs stopped. How laughable that some of those people get credit for a change they fought against.

The creation of a new industry and the transformation of a people.

That’s not too bad for a project whose benefits an expert told us were overestimated.

-srbp-

Danny to recuperate in Vancouver?

Political gossip columnist Jane Taber is pushing the idea on Tuesday that Danny Williams might take a spell from his recuperation to drop in on the Olympics.

There is strong speculation the controversial Newfoundland and Labrador Premier is planning to come to the Winter Olympics for Newfoundland Day.

Jane might not know the name of the province, but she did manage to get the date right: February 26.  She also missed a really obvious question, preferring instead to talk about health care.

In the spirit of the Globe’s columns, inquiring minds want to know:

If Danny wants to head out to the West Coast for the Olympics will he be going using his own tickets paid for out of his own pocket -  a la Steve Harper – or will he be enjoying the sites courtesy of The Happy Province’s taxpayers? You see the provincial government dropped over $54,000 last fall scarfing up tickets to the Vancouver games. That’s on top of the $1.5 million they dropped in already as part of promoting the province.

Jane must have also forgotten DW’s great rant back in 2005 during the Equalization racket.  At that time, the Premier apparently told a board of trade audience something to the effect that federal cash for the Olympics was another case of Ottawa playing favourites among the provinces.

No wonder the Premier’s office wants to charge someone thousands for copies of the Premier’s speeches.  Heck if that’s the sort of stuff in some of them, no surprise they want to discourage people from asking for them by coming up with all sorts of outrageous, preposterous claims and charges.

Anyone have a copy of that speech or Paul Well’s old column from January 2005?

-srbp-

Hibernia South: the buried news

So the final legal agreements are signed.  Nothing has changed since the announcement of almost exactly the same details in June 2009.

So why the second announcement?

Poll-goosing, of course.

The only twist is that the provincial government is claiming they’ll make more money  - $3.0 billion - now than before.  There’s more money, though, simply because they changed the assumed price of a barrel of oil. 

Now anyone with a brain could tell you that isn’t news, nor is it any more reliable and factual than claiming the amount of money would be double the projection from last year.

CBC is reporting the $3.0 billion as if it was true/real.  VOCM attributed the cash – making their statement doubly false - to the equity stake.

As noted here last year, the bulk of the revenue – no matter what assumed price of oil you use – comes from one place and one place alone:  the 1990 Hibernia deal. You can see that pretty clearly when you look at the supporting documents.

Meanwhile, the two bits of real news in this have been lost.  Settling the transportation dispute will bring the provincial treasury about $120 million in one-time oil cash this year.  That will help with revenues that are still running below forecast.  Oil production in December was 2.0 billion barrels below production in the same time last year.

And in the other bit of real news: no oil from the extension until the third or fourth quarter of 2012.  The offshore board got the development application on 01 February.

Now if that wasn’t enough poll goosing, there’s also the announcement from the provincial government’s oil and gas company that drilling is starting on yet another parcel NALCOR bought on the Great Northern Peninsula.  Real oil companies tend not to make such a huge deal out of every exploration hole they spud.  Political ones do, though, especially when they have to help goose a poll for The Boss.

And on a related bit of poll goosing, former Peckford-era policy advisor Cabot Martin is all smiles as his company continues exploring for oil, too.

-srbp-

Government probing attitudes on private health care, education

According to someone who participated in the current poll by government pollster Corporate Research Associates, the provincial government questions focused on attitudes to private delivery of publicly-funded health care. 

The question or questions presented a range of options from private collection of blood for testing to private operation of hospitals.

Other questions probed attitudes about the effectiveness of the province’s education system.

Some questions included the phrase “Williams-led” or “Danny Williams-led” government. 

That sort of wording would have the potential to skew the poll. CRA reports some of its poll results publicly in a way which is viewed by the research industry as misleading.

-srbp-

Elizabeth Towers Fire Inquiry – Intro/Commission

First Report

Public Enquiry into Release and Publication

of

Police Reports into Fire at Elizabeth Towers,

St. John’s

Submitted to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor

August 16th, 1979

His Honour Judge P. Lloyd Soper, D.C.J.

Commissioner

Introduction

This Enquiry was constituted under The Public Enquiry Act by the following Commission of appointment.

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her Other Realms and Territories, QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth,  Defender of the Faith.

Gordon A. Winter, Lieutenant-Governor
T. Alexander Hickman, Minister of Justice

COMMISSION TO:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE P, LLOYD SOPER
Judge of the District Court of Humber-St. George's Corner Brook, Newfoundland

GREETING:

WHEREAS it appears desirable and expedient in the public interest that an enquiry be held relating to certain matters respecting the release and publication of police reports concerning an investigation into a fire at Elizabeth Towers, St. John's, and for other matters pertaining thereto;

NOW KNOW YE that under and by virtue of The Public Enquiries Act, Chapter 314 of the Revised Statutes of Newfoundland, 1970, We, by and with the advice of Our Executive Council of Our Province of Newfoundland, reposing great trust and confidence in your knowledge, integrity and ability, have constituted and appointed and do by these Presents constitute and appoint you the said

P. LLOYD SOPER

to be a Commissioner to conduct an investigation into the matters following and to make such recommendations with regard to any and all of those matters and other matters connected therewith as you may think fit, that is to say

(1)    to enquire into and report upon all facts and circumstances relating to or having a bearing upon the publication of the contents of two confidential police reports dated June 7, 1978, and July 12, 1978, respectively, addressed to the Deputy Minister of Justice for the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to the investigation by the Department of Justice into the cause and origin of and possible responsibility for a fire at Elizabeth Towers Apartments, St. John's, on April 26, 1978, including but without prejudice to the foregoing generality

(a)  to determine and report upon all persons involved in or connected with the release, transmission, duplication, delivery and publication of the contents of the said reports;

(b)  to consider and report upon the justification, if any, for such release, transmission, duplication, delivery and publication by any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a) in the public good, in the interest of the administration of justice or otherwise as you deem fit; and

(c)    to enquire into and report upon what, in your opinion, any person referred to in paragraph (a) who came into possession of the said documents ought to have done with them either in the public interest, in the interest of the administration of justice or otherwise as you deem fit and what action, if any, should be taken against such person or persons.

(2)    to report as to whether, in your opinion, legislation, either by statute or by regulation, should prescribe for penalties for failure to maintain confidentiality of police reports in particular, and generally documents which are classified by the Crown as confidential, and if so

(a)  what penalties or sanctions should be imposed on police officers and other persons employed in the Public Service for breach of such confidentiality, and

(b)    without prejudicing the basic concepts of freedom of the press, whether persons, other than public servants, should be sanctioned and if so, what class of persons and to what extent.

(3)  to make such enquiry and to report upon any matter which you consider to be incidentally connected with any of the matters referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2).

AND WE DO by these Presents confer upon you, the said Commissioner, the power of summoning before you any witness or witnesses and of requiring all such witnesses to give evidence orally or in writing upon oath or solemn affirmation, and to produce such documents and things as you, the said Commissioner, may deem requisite to the full investigation of the matter which you are appointed to enquire into;

AND WE DO by these Presents authorize you, the said Commissioner, to adopt such procedure and methods as you, the said Commissioner, may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct of the enquiry and to sit at such times and places as you, the said Commissioner, may from time to time decide;

AND FURTHER, We require you, with as little delay as possible to report to us your findings upon the matters herein submitted for your consideration.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of Newfoundland to be hereunto affixed.

WITNESS:  Our trusty and well beloved the Honourable Gordon Arnaud Winter, Officer of Our Order of Canada, Lieutenant-Governor in and for Our Province of Newfoundland.

AT OUR GOVERNMENT HOUSE in Our City of St. John's this 23rd day of February in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine and in the Twenty-eighth year of Our Reign.

BY COMMAND,
Deputy Registrar General

At my request and in accordance with my recommendation His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council appointed Frederick R. Woolridge Esq., Q.C. of Corner Brook to be Commission Counsel and Paul Stapleton Esq., Barrister and Solicitor of St. John's to be Assistant Counsel and Secretary.  Hearings of the Commission had to be scheduled in order to accommodate prior judicial and professional commitments of myself as Commissioner and of Counsel. The first sittings took place in St. John's on Monday and Tuesday, April 2nd and 3rd, 1978, [See note below*] followed by further sittings on Monday and Tuesday, April 9th and 10th, At those sittings 21 witnesses gave sworn testimony.

On April 10th I adjourned the hearings to Wednesday, May 16th in order to provide ample opportunity for interested persons or groups to prepare briefs relating to the recommendations I was asked to make under Section 2 of the Terms of Reference. 

In order that the widest possible publicity might be given to my invitation for  briefs, the Secretary to the Commission placed advertisements in 13 newspapers in the Province. In addition, he wrote the following, inviting them to submit briefs:

• Royal Newfoundland Constabulary 
• Royal Canadian Mounted Police 
• Police Brotherhood [Editor’s note:  now the RNC Association] 
• Treasury Board 
• Newfoundland Association of Public Employees 
• Law Society of Newfoundland 
• Canadian Bar Association

At the hearing on May 16th I received a brief from Frederick J. Evans and another on behalf of the Criminal Justice Section of the Newfoundland Branch of the Canadian Bar Association,  I also received a letter on behalf of the Commanding Officer of "B" Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not know, nor can I conclude, whether the sparse response to the invitation for briefs indicates indifference to the subject matter or confidence in the Commissioner.  In any case, it means that recommendations may very well be based largely on my own research, with the assistance of Counsel. It also means that the recommendations will be submitted as a second part of my report.  The first part consists of my findings of fact.

Continued – The Elizabeth Towers Fire and Its Investigation

-srbp-

*  The year in this sentence is evidently wrong and is likely a simple typographical error. It should be 1979.  The fire at Elizabeth Towers took place on April 26, 1978.   Soper conducted his first hearings the following April.

Note on this edition:  Commissioner Soper submitted his original first report in 47 pages of typescript. The format of the pages is typical of the time.  Sections are denoted by underlining.  The first line of paragraphs is indented by about one inch in addition to being separated from the previous paragraph by double spaces. In the commission, some portions are flush right, some are centred and others are flush left. 

The title of statutes is not underlined although, by the convention of the time they should have been.

This edition is the result of scanning of the original typed pages.  Each scan was edited to correct any obvious errors in scanning (e.g.  “ray” in the scanned version instead of “my” in the original.)  Errors persist despite several edits.

Section titles are given in bold print and underlining.  As much as possible, all text is presented flush left.  This includes sections such as the numbered and lettered paragraphs in the commission which were indented in the original. Capitalization is as it was in the original.

Direct quotations from evidence given at the inquiry are are presented as in the original.  That is, they are denoted by quotation marks if the section is short and included in the body of a sentence.  In the case of lengthier excerpts, they are given indented and in italics.

There are no texts or tables.

Note on the Public Inquiries Act, RSN 1970, c. 314.  The Public Inquiries Act under which Soper received his commission continued through the statute revision in 1990.  A new inquires law passed the legislature swiftly in 2006, after the House of Assembly spending scandal broke, and received assent in December that year.  

Hibernia South newser

The consortium behind the Hibernia South project is expected to hold a news conference at the Delta Hotel in St. John’s at 11:30 AM, Tuesday, February 16. Sources indicate natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale will take part in the news conference.

No word on the details of the announcement but officials of the provincial government’s oil company are reportedly briefing opposition politicians at 8:45 AM.

The announcement may be about the start of construction.

In completely unrelated news, government pollster Corporate Research Associates is currently in the field.

-srbp-

Provincial Government Broadband Disaster

A mere two months after pumping up its broadband initiative on a federal government website, the provincial government announced Monday that:

Effective immediately, the Provincial Government will be re-examining its approach to improving the communications infrastructure …

The reason is buried  -  quel surprise  -  in a government news release issued Monday and called an '”update”:

Due to anticipated project costs escalating to more than half a billion dollars, the Provincial Government has cancelled the RFP [request for proposals].

The request for proposals dates back to late 2007 and was supposed to “build and manage an advanced communications network” that would connect “more than 1,000 facilities that include health care institutions, libraries, schools, and other [provincial government] offices.”

Connecting government offices was supposed to be one spinoff benefit from the highly controversial 2006 fibreoptic deal. Under the deal with three private-sector firms, the provincial government was supposed to purchase a quantity of fibreoptic cabling that would then allow government offices, schools and hospitals to be connected.

That provincial government system was supposed to allow private sector carriers to improve service in rural parts of the province.

According to innovation minister Shawn Skinner, the provincial government will start new talks with the tele-communications industry now that the request for proposals process failed after two years of talks.

There’s no word on how long those talks might take before there’s any sign of whether or not the provincial government’s plan can be salvaged.

-srbp-

Social media’s inadvertent funnies

Every now and then you get one of those automated e-mails that just hits you a wee bit funny.

Like the subject line from this one received today: “Lorraine Michael suggested you become a fan of Lorraine Michael...‏”.

One would hope she would like herself enough to recommend herself.

But a fan of yourself?

That seems a bit much even in these days of political personality cults.

-srbp-

Ineffective advertising

At a time when the population is getting smaller and the average age is rising steadily, it’s nice to know that the provincial government’s immigration office is hard at work trying to attract people to come to the province to live and work.

This ad turned up in a one-page flyer delivered free of charge to coffee shops and  fast food places.  It’s full of trivia, horoscopes and the like bordered by business-card size ads for local companies looking to advertise their wares.

Yes, you guessed it, this one is distributed in the metro St. John’s area.

And, only the metro St. John’s area.

Now odds are that an engineer  - for example - currently living and working in Mumbai who might be interested in adding his or her expertise to the province’s oil and gas industry isn’t likely to happen on the Topsail Road KFC whence came this example of the province’s immigration advertising cash at work.

Your humble e-scribbler is going out on a limb here to offer the view that this particular ad is unlikely to reach pretty well the entire target market for the immigration program.

It is a complete, total and utter waste of precious tax dollars.

So why – pray tell us – would some marketing genius with the provincial government drop the money to place this particular ad in a local lunch-counter flyer?

The answer certainly has nothing to do with boosting immigration.

Now if the ad were one aimed to raise awareness of the other Great Solution to the population crisis  - taxpayer’s cash for getting knocked up – there is a much better chance the ad might be read by someone interested in taking advantage of the bucks for breeding.

But it isn’t.

This one is aimed at people who might be thinking of leaving their home  - in Newfoundland and Labrador - and going to live and work  in -- you guessed it – Newfoundland and Labrador.

We may only hope and pray that other government advertising is placed with considerably more care and insight.

But in the meantime, how much public cash has already been poured into this kind of ineffective advertising?

-srbp-

Trivimania: the answers to our Premier quiz

Go back here for the questions. 

Remember that for all but the last question we excluded Premiers who held the office but who did not win a general election as party leader in order to get the job.

Here are the answers (quibbles are welcome):

1.  Oldest Premier at the time of his swearing in:  Danny Williams, age 54, followed by…

2.  The second Oldest Premier at the time of his swearing in:  Clyde Wells, who was 51.

3.  The Oldest Premier on leaving office:  Joe Smallwood,  left office aged 71 years and a bunch of days.  DW is already the second oldest and he’s still in the chair.  To beat Smallwood’s age record, he’d have to last until at least 2020.  Even then DW would have to stay another six years beyond that to match or better Smallwood’s 23 years in office.

4.  a.  District represented by the most Premiers:  Humber West, which has, at various times sent Joe Smallwood, Frank Moores, and lately Danny Williams to reign over us.

b.  Only Townie Premier since Confederation:  Danny Williams, who came into the world at St. John’s in August 1949.

5.  Premiers, in order of age at time of swearing in (including Tom Rideout, Roger Grimes and Beaton Tulk):

Beaton Tulk, Danny Williams, Clyde Wells, Roger Grimes, Joe Smallwood, Brian Tobin, Tom Rideout, Frank Moores, Brian Peckford.

-srbp-

Freedom from Information: Joint federal-provincial edition

Now you know things between the two Connies are good when they co-ordinate a joint freedom from information program on a national park/provincial park combo that actually doesn’t exist yet and then carefully control the release of information about it.

Now, a curious and enterprising body might well wonder, hey, what are the boundaries of these proposed protected areas, especially given that the national park would be the largest in Canada contained wholly within a province (as opposed to a territory)? which lands are included and which are excluded? how do the proposed protected areas relate to the newly-opened highway or to lands subject to Aboriginal land rights?

Apparently, however, there aren't that many curious and enterprising bodies.

Which is a good thing, because good luck finding such information from either the official provincial or federal eBumpf.

However, if you are really keen to see the long-awaited map, it is available.

On the website of National Geographic, a private organization located in another country.

The signs are there if you want to see them.

-srbp-

Deep Throats

Him:  “So, man like why do you call him Deep Throat?”

Me:  “Because you can’t say ratf*ck on television.”

_________________________________________________________________

Since the Watergate crisis, the term “Deep Throat” is synonymous with information leaked by a political source for varying motives.

The original Deep Throat is a character who fed information to Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward at the Washington Post for the work that eventually led to their book, All the President’s Men.

Supposedly it was a play on the idea of deep background – detailed briefings given legitimately to reporters but not for attribution – crossed with a porn film popular at the time. Deep Throat’s identity remained a mystery until about five years ago when he was identified as Mark Felt.

But deep throating in the political context has another name, one borrowed from military slang:

Ratf*ck.

Now in the military a ratf*ck comes from the idea that anyone who would screw over his own friends is a rat or that only a rat would stoop so low as to screw over his own kind. There’s an image in there as well in some definitions that conjures up the image of disease-riddled vermin picking over anything and everything to find something in it for themselves.  The origin and use of the word is open to wide-ranging debate, but still the idea of that the terms means is clear.

You will find people who use the term to describe just about any political trick, dirty or otherwise.

But in politics, about the lowest form of ratfuck would be the deep throat-style leak.  Not only is the information being passed along to sources who normally wouldn’t or shouldn’t have it, the person actually leaking it is trusted by the inside crew.  There’s something about the whole business that reeks of spies and double-agents.

The motivation for the leak might have some impact on how a leaker is viewed.  In Watergate, Deep Throat exposed an organized criminal gang that ran out of the one of the three major branches centre of the American federal government.  Few people would have difficulty with that leaker.

Even in that situation, though, there are people who would argue that any leak of information is a mark not only of fundamental disloyalty but of sinister behaviour in the process.  Rather than resign and then present the information openly, Deep Throat spoke only on the condition that his identity would be kept a secret until he died or decided to expose himself. That veil of secrecy lasted for decades.

In this case, the veil of secrecy over who screwed the Premier’s plans will likely last much longer than at Watergate.  

At the very best, the plan to slip away have the surgery and slip back was a high risk plan which was more likely to fail than not.  But in a place where even gigantic public policy stories don’t get reported by local news media, there’s a chance the whole thing might have gone down according to plan. 

Oddly enough, that very same quality on which the Premier’s plan rested may well wind up being the very thing that winds up working instead for his own, personal Deep Throat.

And while the Premier’s personality cult continues to blast away at all in sight – 1,2,3,4,5  - the Premier’s very own personal Deep Throat has slipped quietly back into the shadows.

Where he or she will safely remain.

Likely for ever.

-srbp-

Media strategy by Chris Crocker

It’s been the better part of two weeks now since it started and the Cultists are still bombing any available media outlet with the same line.

Yes, folks, it really is a media strategy that could only have been devised by Chris Crocker.

Amazing how these things just seem to  happen as if by magic, without any co-ordination at all.

-srbp-

CNLOPB advises operators of changes to search and rescue practices

The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board announced today that it has received some early recommendations from Commissioner Robert Wells of the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry, which concern search and rescue practices.

Following a review of the recommendations, the Board advised operators of changes which are to be implemented.

The recommendations and the Board’s directions to operators are contained in  correspondence which is available on the Board’s website.

Update:

A key part of the letter from the Board to the offshore operators:

-srbp-

Credit where credit is due

You either get credit because you deserve it or you don’t.

Absolutely.

When it comes to the Atlantic Accord, it is unfortunate that the landmark agreement in the province’s history is suffering the fate of so many aspects of local history.  That’s right:  the Accord is becoming the stuff of myth on the one hand and general ignorance – for the most part – on the other.  Having its name appropriated for another, far less significant document is but one symptom of the problem.

Well, just to clear up any question about credit for negotiating the Accord, the best evidence is a photograph taken of the people directly responsible for that task.  That would be the provincial and federal negotiating teams along with the first ministers and energy ministers at the federal and provincial levels.

The woman seated in the front on the right is Pat Carney, then federal energy  minister and now a senator.

Now that you’ve noticed Pat, notice who isn’t in the picture.

What is it about Tories and eating their own?

Meanwhile, notice that this issue isn’t new by any means.  It cropped up in 2007 as well, as a result of public chatter about other, related issues.

Update:  Here’s the print story on which CBC radio is basing it’s news piece on Friday. The print story gives much more detail.  you really need the two to get a balanced account. The story is by Barbara Yaffee who some will remember from her days – back then – reporting from this end of the country. 

-srbp-

Not good enough for the big leagues

Bill Clinton had two stents surgically implanted in an artery on Thursday after complaining of chest pains two days ago.

Emergency surgery and the guy is a model of public disclosure even though, not holding elected office any more, he really isn’t obliged to say anything.  The public knows what happened – down to a description of the tiny devices – and they even know where the surgery took place.

Meanwhile a town councillor in the United Kingdom disclosed his recent bout of cardiac problems.

Meanwhile in Calgary, a local columnist  - and Ralph Klein’s former chief of staff - offers some clear-eyed observations on how another politician handled his own health issues:

None of that appeared to have been done. The whole thing was rushed, and a flustered deputy premier was pushed out in front of the cameras, ill-prepared, with no script and few answers. Not good enough for the big leagues. Having said all that, get well Danny, and remember to pay the bill.

Like the Oilers.

Notice the number of nasty comments from the brave souls who can’t even sign their own names.  Of course none of those comments could possibly be part of an orchestrated attack campaign.

-srbp-

Planted calls and personal threats against talk show host revealed

In an interview with Geoff Meeker, VOCM Open Line show host Randy Simms gave the text-book definition of a planted caller. 

Simms was describing his experience in the first couple of days after news broke that the Premier was in the United States for heart surgery. He rejected the idea the calls and e-mails were organized but then gave what is in essence the textbook definition of an orchestrated, partisan political campaign of intimidation aimed at local news media:

“…In many instances, they weren’t listening to the program, they don’t know what the question was that I asked, they haven’t read my column. But they are responding (anyway)… and a lot of them will respond and cc it to other offices, let’s say that.  And it’s done for a different motivation than engaging in legitimate democratic debate. But you get some of that, right?”

Simms also described the e-mail portion of the campaign:

Towards the end of the February 2 program, Simms referred to a bunch of emails he had received that day; messages that were vicious, insulting and mean-spirited.

“I don’t know why you would take the time to write an email, the sole purpose of which is to insult, to see if you can inflict some kind of emotional hurt. I don’t know why you would do that. That says more about you, than it does about me. …”

And if that wasn’t enough, Simms has also been subjected to personal threats:

““All of us, everybody, in any form of public life will have threats made against them. If you could read what has been said to me, about me, and of me, simply because we mentioned Danny Williams name and health care in the same sentence. I’ve had my life threatened. I’ve been threatened with being shot. I’ve been threatened with having my house burned down. We even had a guy come on Facebook yesterday and he actually said that Randy Simms should do us all a favour and hang himself in his basement. Now I ask you – These people… should these people be walking around free?”

The short answer is “no”.

It’s a criminal offence to make threats, and if Simms has been getting that type of stuff, the best thing to do is turn the information over the police.  Let them investigate and take appropriate action.  Some of these louts can be tracked down and when they’ve been rooted out, let them deal with the consequences.

No need to wonder any more if last Saturday’s analysis here at Bond Papers read too much into the current climate in Newfoundland and Labrador.

-srbp-

Government smears landmark agreement with false statements

The provincial government has tarnished the 25th anniversary of the Atlantic Accord by issuing a news release which contains false information:

In 2005, the Williams Government improved upon the benefits in the original Atlantic Accord by negotiating a new deal that retained a greater share of offshore revenues for the province. The new revenue-sharing arrangement reached between Premier Danny Williams and then Prime Minister Paul Martin resulted in Newfoundland and Labrador receiving 100 per cent of its offshore revenues for the first time, free from any clawbacks while an equalization-receiving province. he 2005 Accord enabled Newfoundland and Labrador to truly be the “principal beneficiary” of the petroleum resources off its shores. …[Emphasis added]

“The original Atlantic Accord has greatly assisted in the pursuit of long-term economic prosperity and self-reliance for Newfoundland and Labrador, and these benefits were secured and improved in 2005 when Premier Williams succeeded in convincing the Federal Government of the inequity Newfoundland and Labrador had endured for years in not receiving the full benefit of the exploitation of its offshore resources,” said Acting Premier Dunderdale.

All of that is completely false.

Provincial government officials should know it is utterly untrue false because they link to the text of the 2005 deal in the news release.  Here’s what the 2005 agreement says in plain English:

2. This document reflects an understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that:

• Newfoundland and Labrador already receives and will continue to receive 100 per cent of offshore resource revenues as if these resources were on land; [Emphasis added]

There were no changes to revenue-sharing spelled out in the 1985 Accord. Under the 1985 agreement the provincial government alone sets and receives all offshore oil government royalties. The federal government collects only what it would from any other industry in the way of business and personal taxes.  

Despite ludicrous claims at the time it was signed, the 2005 agreement delivered nothing more than a single $2.0 billion payment to the provincial government. 

That’s it.

The Equalization formula continued to work as it is supposed to work.  As forecast in 2005, the provincial stopped qualifying for Equalization payments in 2009. 

When that happened, the “clawback” described in today’s news release didn’t hit zero. Rather it became a full  - 100% - clawback of all offshore revenues.

The 2005 made no changes to any of the provisions of the 1985 agreement.

The 1985 Accord alone forms the basis for the current offshore oil industry and for current provincial prosperity. 

Here’s the way your humble e-scribbler laid it out in 2004/2005:

First, [under what became the 1985 Accord] the provincial government would gain the right to manage the offshore jointly with the federal government, particularly with respect to setting the mode of production. This had significant implications for local benefits, as evident from construction of the gravity-based system (GBS) for Hibernia.

Second, the provincial government gained the right to collect revenues from the resources as if they were on land. This established that the provincial government would determine its own revenues to be collected from offshore oil and gas development and production just as a province like Alberta is able to do. These revenues would, de facto, be treated as “own source” revenues like income tax, sales tax and other similar levies.

Third, the province as a whole would benefit from the development of local jobs. Mulroney committed that oil-related infrastructure would be sited in the province, where possible. This was no small matter. Mulroney’s letter [Brian Mulroney to Brian Peckford, 1984] contains strong language and conveys a deliberate intent on the part of the future Prime Minister to provide this province with significant job and business benefits. “Local job creation and labour development would be of paramount concern.”

Fourth, the province would benefit since the provincial government would not see a dollar-for-dollar loss of Equalization payments that would naturally result from growth in the government’s own-source revenues. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would receive all of its own-source revenue, potentially a portion of any federal shares in the offshore, and as well, additional payments to offset any losses from Equalization.

The same general approach was taken by the Liberal administrations which preceded Mr. Mulroney. For example, the comprehensive proposal made by the Government of Canada in 1982 stated that “it is recognized that Newfoundland should enjoy the major share of the revenue that offshore resources are expected to generate…” and that “the people of the province would realize the greatest and the most direct benefits from the development of offshore oil and gas resources in terms of growth and income, jobs, opportunities for new businesses, and significant new provincial government revenues.”

The federal Liberal proposal on revenue sharing was linked inextricably to the overall performance of the provincial economy and hence may be taken as further evidence of the extent to which the federal government before 1984 viewed the benefits from the offshore to this province to be greater than just the sums flowing to the provincial government’s treasury.

While local job benefits merited two short paragraphs in the original Mulroney letter, both the Accord itself and the enabling legislation provide an elaborate structure aimed at managing local benefits. No one can underestimate the value of local industrial benefits to the province; nor can anyone easily dismiss the contention that the architects of the Atlantic Accord saw local industrial development as a significant factor in establishing this province as the principal beneficiary of offshore oil and gas development. [Paragraphing altered to improve readability]

-srbp-