Take a look at The Independent this week and you'll see an interesting study in contrasts.
On the front page is a solid story by Stephanie Porter on the role of the media in covering criminal trials. It covers the subject thoroughly and quotes local reporters for print and television outlets here as well as news directors, all of whom refer to the need for factual accuracy and unbiased reporting in their news.
Flip over to the Indy editorial though and you see yet another example of the paper's editorial tendency to play fast and loose with the facts.
Back to that in a moment, but it is worthwhile recapping some of the Indy's other factually-challenged reporting, because it has become a fairly regular feature of the upstart little broadsheet.
Largest of all was the six-part "balance sheet" series. Their were numbers that appeared factual; problem is there were only some numbers. As many awards as the series garnered, it has not turned up as evidence in any reputable pieces elsewhere, save for this rather facile paper on the recent oil discussion printed in a mainland policy magazine. More often than not anyone with half a clue about federal-provincial financial relations look on the Indy piece as a second-rate effort at best. In these e-scribbles, I have suggested the conclusions was drawn and then bits of information were used to prop it up; anything that contradicted the pre-selected conclusion was discarded.
Then we have the clash with Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Chief Richard Deering over a recent investigation conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police at the chief's request. Fact is, the Indy got its facts dead wrong and may have based their front-page story on the information of one, evidently poorly informed, source. When they couldn't prove their original allegation - how could they? - they chose instead to lash the chief for his criticism and questioning of the reporter who wrote the story.
So too for its coverage of fisheries issues which often goes back for "evidence" in the comments by Gus Etchegary. Now a regular caller to radio talk shows, Etchegary is a former senior official at Fishery Products International (FPI) and chief spokesman for the "Blame the Foreigners for Everything and then Blame Ottawa for the Foreigners" school of fisheries management.
Etchegary might be a more credible witness for the prosecution against the foreigners and the mainlanders were it not for the fact that he worked at FPI in the days when the company gave orders to its skippers to "highgrade" their catches. Owen Myers, a former fisheries inspector has described the practice elsewhere, but essentially it involves tossing small but legal fish overboard in order to get a quota made up of only the biggest fish. In the process, thousands if not millions of tons of cod were dumped overboard by FPI trawlers over the years - dead as the proverbial doornail. "Highgrading" is another former of overfishing; it's illegal, in case you missed that point, and predictably when current FPI boss Derrick Rowe recently admitted his company doesn't have a lilly-white history on the subject, Etchegary speed-dialed any radio program out there to condemn Rowe.
That conveniently leads us back to the Indy editorial this week. Under the title "What is rightfully ours" the editorial discusses the current debate over the FPI proposal to sell a 40% interest in its American marketing division. To be fair, the editorial doesn't actually make a point, except that the whole vote is about "standing united as a people and protecting what is rightfully ours."
Along the way, though, it does manage to haul out some rather serious factual errors.
The simplest one has to do with the FPI proposal to sell interests totaling 40% in one of its divisions in order to raise $100 million that would invested in plants and equipment in the processing portion of the company.
The Indy seizes on this to note that in future "for example, Icelandic interests, which currently own 15% of FPI could buy out the entire 40% income trust and thereby owning a controlling interest in the company - and, consequently the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery."
Sheer nonsense.
A portion of the income trust is nothing more than a portion of a portion of the whole company, which is in turn owned by its shareholders. By law, no shareholder can own more than 15% of the company itself. These "Icelandic interests" can only hold 15% of the shares in the company as a whole and whatever bit of the income trust they eventually own - even if it is 100% - can never give them a controlling interest in the whole company nor can it give these interests "control" of the fishery offshore this province.
Simply put, the Indy didn't read the government information on this proposal, including a simple backgrounder on the FPI proposal nor did it ever read the Fishery Products International Limited Act. If anyone in the Harbour Drive offices did read these documents, they surely didn't understand the plain English in which they are written. The additional undertakings by the company, also expressly limit current shareholders from acquiring more than a defined percentage of the subsidiary. True the company agrees to secure such an undertaking from the Icelandic company, but even without it, what the Indy predicts simply can't happen. Period.
This is actually pretty simple stuff to read and understand; therefore the Indy's blatant error on these points is almost incomprehensible.
There are other errors of fact as well.
The editorial makes reference to "Ottawa's blatant mismanagement of the fish stocks" and then argues that this "fact" should, lead the federal government to pour money into the Harbour Breton plant.
When FPI was highgrading and fish plants churned out fillets, blocks and stamps, no one - not a single soul - ever accused Ottawa of mismanagement. That charge only emerged after 1992 when some people, especially those who had been involved deeply in the fishery in the 1980s, wanted to find a scapegoat.
The most basic factual error comes in another comment, and represents the false premise on which every fisheries argument the Indy has ever made is based:
"As a common property resource, the fish in the sea belongs [sic] to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Indeed, all Canadians. [sic]"
The fishery on the Grand Banks - the whole of it - is an international resource. Within the 200 mile exclusive economic zone the resources are managed by the government of Canada. They are not "owned" legally or morally by us or anyone else. Outside 200 miles, they are fished by countries from around the world based on whatever common agreement can be made. Some of those "foreign" fishermen are the umpteenth grandsons of the men who first dropped a hook into the waters over 500 years ago or the distant relatives of the men and women who the Indy claims now "own" the resources.
As side from that, though, the tragedy of the offshore fishery as it is approached from this province is indeed a tragedy of the commons. The resource is seen as belonging to everyone and therefore, it is there for everyone to prosecute. Remember teachers wetting a line and dropping a pot during the summer for a few extra dollars? The so-called food fishery is the result of this same approach - no one needs to fish in order to put a meal on his or her table except those who fish for a living. It is all a variation of the "spread" argument - spread the resource to whoever wants some of it until there is none left.
And in the end what might be left? The answer is very little. The tragedy of the commons is a simple one all are familiar with: when it - in this case fisheries conservation -is everyone's responsibility then it is no one's responsibility.
Today, there is a shortage of fish and an oversupply of people needing fish.
In the 1980s and the early 1990s, there were too many people chasing too few fish.
Same thing.
And unfortunately, the same thinking that created the problem twenty years ago still hobbles our thinking today.
Too bad the Indy doesn't actually exercise some independent thinking. If they did, they might well ponder which is more cruel:
- To close a fish plant and have people move to find other work within a year or two, while others might actually make a living from their fisheries work; or,
- To prop up the plant with cash and makework and purchased quotas and every few years go through a closure or closure scare for more than 20 years?
Which is more demeaning: A job with low wages propped up for the year by federal handouts or the chance to make a living from honest work alone?
Independent thought would require facts.
Too bad those are in short supply at the Indy.
13 June 2005
11 June 2005
USS Connie-prise season ender (updated)
The Globe is reporting this morning that a recent poll for the Globe and CTV by The Strategic Counsel shows a further slide in Connie support and an especially noticeable increase in Stephen Harper's "negatives".
No surprise that; as noted here some time ago, it was inevitable that Harper would come under examination in the wake of his disastrous election "strategy". There has been some media comment on that in the past few days, unsurprisingly. Harper himself has been very quiet.
Meanwhile, CTV has got an interesting post about a blog called Buckets of Grewal. The name is a play on the similarity between the spelling of Grewal's name and that stuff people used to feed Oliver Twist.
A few things to notice:
1. Buckets has posted a slide show of the complete, revised transcripts of the conversations as posted to Grewal's site. BUT, and this is a big but, Buckets has highlighted all the additions and changes for most of the set. You can see now the extent of the deletions and omissions from the early versions.
This is one of the most damning aspects of this entire case - the shoddy presentation of evidence that leads to suspicion of tampering and withholding.
I had posted earlier about the wings flying off the Connie Express in an election. Well, it might just be that a few parts of the aircraft are starting to dislodge over this whole business as well.
2. Bucket's site is upsetting to the Connie bloggers. Well, actually, Grewal has been upsetting to them but like all good Connie paranoids they like to blame their own problems on other people. Hence, they have been attacking the media - Connies apparently only watch Fox News - and either the forensic experts who have questioned the validity of the taped versions or people like Buckets who have dissected Grewal with precision.
2.a Connie columnists like Coyne have been alarmingly silent. Face it, Andy, Gurmant is tainted. The whole thing was a fraud.
2.b Have a gander at this site: Blank out Times, written a la A.A. Milne. There's another site linked off the Bucket one put together by the same guys.
3. The CTV story makes it seem odd that bloggers fact-check. Lots of bloggers check their own facts and the facts of people they are debating and arguing with or about. They not all typically "Republicans" as the CTV story asserts, quoting Antonia Zerbisias from the Toronto broadsheet with a tabloid 'tude, The Star.
Anyone with some time on their hand can skim down through the few blogs linked from this site. Consider Wells, Spector, Coyne and Kinsella but then have a look at some of the others, especially the political stuff.
Then go have a look at Antonia's blog. Make your own judgement. Is media critic the new word for gossip columnist?
Anyway, Antonia should have been paying more attention over the past six months. This blog and others spent a lot of time discussing and debating facts related to the offshore deal, for example.
4. By contrast, take a wander through the Connie blog list. There are bits of everything here. Plus a lot of really angry, angry people. Some of them are as nasty a bunch as I have seen.
All of that anger and Grewal idiocy, my friends, is one of the reasons that Stephen Harper (likely in mint condition Jim Kirk uniform left over from his last Trekkie-Con) is hearing his chief engineer Peter "Scottie" MacKay on the USS Connie yelling "I canna hold 'er cap't'n."
And this time he ain't talking about the blonde.
No surprise that; as noted here some time ago, it was inevitable that Harper would come under examination in the wake of his disastrous election "strategy". There has been some media comment on that in the past few days, unsurprisingly. Harper himself has been very quiet.
Meanwhile, CTV has got an interesting post about a blog called Buckets of Grewal. The name is a play on the similarity between the spelling of Grewal's name and that stuff people used to feed Oliver Twist.
A few things to notice:
1. Buckets has posted a slide show of the complete, revised transcripts of the conversations as posted to Grewal's site. BUT, and this is a big but, Buckets has highlighted all the additions and changes for most of the set. You can see now the extent of the deletions and omissions from the early versions.
This is one of the most damning aspects of this entire case - the shoddy presentation of evidence that leads to suspicion of tampering and withholding.
I had posted earlier about the wings flying off the Connie Express in an election. Well, it might just be that a few parts of the aircraft are starting to dislodge over this whole business as well.
2. Bucket's site is upsetting to the Connie bloggers. Well, actually, Grewal has been upsetting to them but like all good Connie paranoids they like to blame their own problems on other people. Hence, they have been attacking the media - Connies apparently only watch Fox News - and either the forensic experts who have questioned the validity of the taped versions or people like Buckets who have dissected Grewal with precision.
2.a Connie columnists like Coyne have been alarmingly silent. Face it, Andy, Gurmant is tainted. The whole thing was a fraud.
2.b Have a gander at this site: Blank out Times, written a la A.A. Milne. There's another site linked off the Bucket one put together by the same guys.
3. The CTV story makes it seem odd that bloggers fact-check. Lots of bloggers check their own facts and the facts of people they are debating and arguing with or about. They not all typically "Republicans" as the CTV story asserts, quoting Antonia Zerbisias from the Toronto broadsheet with a tabloid 'tude, The Star.
Anyone with some time on their hand can skim down through the few blogs linked from this site. Consider Wells, Spector, Coyne and Kinsella but then have a look at some of the others, especially the political stuff.
Then go have a look at Antonia's blog. Make your own judgement. Is media critic the new word for gossip columnist?
Anyway, Antonia should have been paying more attention over the past six months. This blog and others spent a lot of time discussing and debating facts related to the offshore deal, for example.
4. By contrast, take a wander through the Connie blog list. There are bits of everything here. Plus a lot of really angry, angry people. Some of them are as nasty a bunch as I have seen.
All of that anger and Grewal idiocy, my friends, is one of the reasons that Stephen Harper (likely in mint condition Jim Kirk uniform left over from his last Trekkie-Con) is hearing his chief engineer Peter "Scottie" MacKay on the USS Connie yelling "I canna hold 'er cap't'n."
And this time he ain't talking about the blonde.
10 June 2005
The Tragedy of FPI
Halfway through the debate on changes to legislation governing Fishery Products International Limited (FPI), the whole focus has shifted to Harbour Breton, the community where FPI has closed the town's major employment source.
Debate isn't really the word for it, though. The whole thing has become a sort of extortion racket. Politicians including Premier Danny Williams are insisting that FPI has to put something back in Harbour Breton, on the province's south coast as a price for their vote.
Someone tossed the extortion theme at me last night in a telephone call in which I listened to someone else rant. It was a pleasant change.
David Cochrane's debrief on The Fisheries Broadcast picked up the same idea, although I don't think he called it extortion. I think the word shakedown is closer to the truth.
Just to finish off the idea, here's a section from the Criminal Code of Canada that might potentially be applicable to some of the comments Premier Williams has been making. It is illegal, ladies and gentlemen to either entice a legislator to vote a certain way in exchange for something or to solicit such an inducement.
Under section 121 (1)(a)(ii), it is an offence for an official to demand or seek any benefit for himself or another person in exchange for the performance of his duties and responsibilities.
But underneath all that is a more significant issue highlighted in a CBC report also by David Cochrane on the whole FPI issue. That link requires RealPlayer, by the way.
In the report, Derrick Rowe points out that the whole of FPI has a stock market value of about $120 million. This makes it hard for the company to raise capital - i.e. cash - in order to rebuild the harvesting and processing sector.
FPI's plan to create an income trust and let new investors into the American marketing division will raise US$100 million. Rowe rightly points out that the secondary processing division is much more attractive to investors than a company that is burdened with all the political baggage FPI carries around.
The simple fact is that FPI is not a private sector company. It is a leftover exercise in social engineering; a social assistance program. It is, to be perfectly accurate, a Crown corporation in all but name only.
The reason why FPI continues to flounder and rural communities suffer has less to do with the closure of Harbour Breton and more with the political interference of successive governments since Brian Peckford that have prevented FPI from being a private sector company based in this province.
Rather than surging ahead as Fortis has done, FPI flops about like a Newfoundland Farm Products chicken simply because any decision taken by its board of directors for the benefit of the company can be over-ruled by any handful of people with the collective business experience of...well...a flounder. Worse still, even otherwise sensible politicians can be overwhelmed by the clouds of political gadflies that swarm around the carcass of thought called afternoon radio call-in shows.
Their motivation is little more than the classic Newfoundland one: spread what little there is of something as thinly as possible so that everyone gets a little bit of it, all the while blaming the Evil Ottawa for everything from the Plague of Locusts to the dismal writing on Hatching, Matching and Dispatching.
This evening that little bit may cost the province upwards of $10 million to buy an overvalued redfish quota so that an antiquated plant can crank up and make stamps.
There are too many fish plants for the total volume of landings. We don't need more. The result of this exercise will be to perpetuate a situation where people cannot make a decent living in rural Newfoundland without massive government subsidies. The whole place goes in the hole as a consequence and to what end?
In 20 years time - or more likely in five - the next Premier will be looking to prop up one or two or three more communities. Or like John Efford, he'll be handing out processing licenses to all comers. That wouldn't be so bad if the license went with a simple warning label: "sink or swim; you're on your own". Instead, though, every license comes backstopped by more and more subsidies and handouts and make-work projects.
No wonder the province is broke.
Rather than debating an amendment to the FPI bill, government should have repealed the damn thing.
Take control over a potentially very lucrative local company away from the legions of politicians and give to people who can make it into an international company that people are willing to invest in. Take a look at this link to see what can happen when a small country makes smart choices about its fishing industry. FPI could be every bit as successful globally as Sanford Limited - if only we could see beyond the end of the wharf.
As it stands now, all the provincial government has succeeded in doing is strangling another bit of life out of the very company everyone claims is the backbone of our provincial economy.
Oliver Langdon et al can point to unfulfilled promises as they vote against Derrick Rowe's proposal; truth is politicans can only blame themselves for the mess they perpetuate.
No matter what happens in the vote tomorrow, all we have succeeded in doing is making FPI a less valuable commodity in the eyes of investors. The company has less money and is less able to do what its board and managers want to do to be successful.
And five years from now we will still be fretting over the future of "rural" Newfoundland.
That is the real tragedy of the FPI debate.
Debate isn't really the word for it, though. The whole thing has become a sort of extortion racket. Politicians including Premier Danny Williams are insisting that FPI has to put something back in Harbour Breton, on the province's south coast as a price for their vote.
Someone tossed the extortion theme at me last night in a telephone call in which I listened to someone else rant. It was a pleasant change.
David Cochrane's debrief on The Fisheries Broadcast picked up the same idea, although I don't think he called it extortion. I think the word shakedown is closer to the truth.
Just to finish off the idea, here's a section from the Criminal Code of Canada that might potentially be applicable to some of the comments Premier Williams has been making. It is illegal, ladies and gentlemen to either entice a legislator to vote a certain way in exchange for something or to solicit such an inducement.
Under section 121 (1)(a)(ii), it is an offence for an official to demand or seek any benefit for himself or another person in exchange for the performance of his duties and responsibilities.
But underneath all that is a more significant issue highlighted in a CBC report also by David Cochrane on the whole FPI issue. That link requires RealPlayer, by the way.
In the report, Derrick Rowe points out that the whole of FPI has a stock market value of about $120 million. This makes it hard for the company to raise capital - i.e. cash - in order to rebuild the harvesting and processing sector.
FPI's plan to create an income trust and let new investors into the American marketing division will raise US$100 million. Rowe rightly points out that the secondary processing division is much more attractive to investors than a company that is burdened with all the political baggage FPI carries around.
The simple fact is that FPI is not a private sector company. It is a leftover exercise in social engineering; a social assistance program. It is, to be perfectly accurate, a Crown corporation in all but name only.
The reason why FPI continues to flounder and rural communities suffer has less to do with the closure of Harbour Breton and more with the political interference of successive governments since Brian Peckford that have prevented FPI from being a private sector company based in this province.
Rather than surging ahead as Fortis has done, FPI flops about like a Newfoundland Farm Products chicken simply because any decision taken by its board of directors for the benefit of the company can be over-ruled by any handful of people with the collective business experience of...well...a flounder. Worse still, even otherwise sensible politicians can be overwhelmed by the clouds of political gadflies that swarm around the carcass of thought called afternoon radio call-in shows.
Their motivation is little more than the classic Newfoundland one: spread what little there is of something as thinly as possible so that everyone gets a little bit of it, all the while blaming the Evil Ottawa for everything from the Plague of Locusts to the dismal writing on Hatching, Matching and Dispatching.
This evening that little bit may cost the province upwards of $10 million to buy an overvalued redfish quota so that an antiquated plant can crank up and make stamps.
There are too many fish plants for the total volume of landings. We don't need more. The result of this exercise will be to perpetuate a situation where people cannot make a decent living in rural Newfoundland without massive government subsidies. The whole place goes in the hole as a consequence and to what end?
In 20 years time - or more likely in five - the next Premier will be looking to prop up one or two or three more communities. Or like John Efford, he'll be handing out processing licenses to all comers. That wouldn't be so bad if the license went with a simple warning label: "sink or swim; you're on your own". Instead, though, every license comes backstopped by more and more subsidies and handouts and make-work projects.
No wonder the province is broke.
Rather than debating an amendment to the FPI bill, government should have repealed the damn thing.
Take control over a potentially very lucrative local company away from the legions of politicians and give to people who can make it into an international company that people are willing to invest in. Take a look at this link to see what can happen when a small country makes smart choices about its fishing industry. FPI could be every bit as successful globally as Sanford Limited - if only we could see beyond the end of the wharf.
As it stands now, all the provincial government has succeeded in doing is strangling another bit of life out of the very company everyone claims is the backbone of our provincial economy.
Oliver Langdon et al can point to unfulfilled promises as they vote against Derrick Rowe's proposal; truth is politicans can only blame themselves for the mess they perpetuate.
No matter what happens in the vote tomorrow, all we have succeeded in doing is making FPI a less valuable commodity in the eyes of investors. The company has less money and is less able to do what its board and managers want to do to be successful.
And five years from now we will still be fretting over the future of "rural" Newfoundland.
That is the real tragedy of the FPI debate.
Double threat: young and smart
Last Saturday's Telegram carried a front page story by Rob Antle on a poll conducted by Ryan Research for the provincial government back in January. They were surveying attitudes to the Williams administration's negotiations on the offshore deal.
The survey covered a sample of 1200 people across the country and was conducted from 4-9 January.
Since I have the privilege and the fun of teaching in an introductory public relations program, Rob's piece gave a chance to combine both writing and research analysis into one class.
Basically, the students were asked to look at the piece and offer some observations.
Well, low and behold they came up with a couple of doozies.
First of all they agreed that Rob had actually buried a really interesting coincidence way down in the story. Appreciating he may have been rushed, burying the lede isn't all that unusual for any writer.
But basically, here's the thing - Rob hinted at it - spelled out clearly.
Canadian flags came down in December.
The survey asked for agreement or disagreement with the decision.
60% of respondents did not support the decision at all. Now to make it clear to non-pollster types, on the scale used that is the most extreme disagreement.
Survey results came back on the 9th.
Flags went back up on the 10th despite Danny's commitment that they would stay down until the feds caved in.
So basically, if Danny got the overnight quickie results of that single question, he knew that his flag flap was actually a flag fiasco. There is just too much of a correlation here for this to be a fluke.
But here's something else my students picked up and I missed entirely: the sample breakdown.
1200 in total. 400 in Newfoundland and Labrador. 200 in the Maritimes. 200 In Quebec. 200 in Ontario. And 200 from Manitoba to BC.
Half the freakin' sample came from east of Quebec, which the last time I checked did not have half the country's population.
Think about that for a minute though. If 60% of respondents hated Danny tearing down flags, where were half of those located? Most likely in Atlantic Canada, said the bright-eyed ones. So basically he was alienating people who should ordinarily be supporting him.
Now I'll admit it is hard to be firm in this little assessment since the class was working off the news story and not the research report.
Still, I'd be willing to venture that there is a better story in what my students observed than was readily apparent.
Something tells me they are going to do very well in their program.
I'll just have to watch out. They are young and smart.
A definite double threat.
The survey covered a sample of 1200 people across the country and was conducted from 4-9 January.
Since I have the privilege and the fun of teaching in an introductory public relations program, Rob's piece gave a chance to combine both writing and research analysis into one class.
Basically, the students were asked to look at the piece and offer some observations.
Well, low and behold they came up with a couple of doozies.
First of all they agreed that Rob had actually buried a really interesting coincidence way down in the story. Appreciating he may have been rushed, burying the lede isn't all that unusual for any writer.
But basically, here's the thing - Rob hinted at it - spelled out clearly.
Canadian flags came down in December.
The survey asked for agreement or disagreement with the decision.
60% of respondents did not support the decision at all. Now to make it clear to non-pollster types, on the scale used that is the most extreme disagreement.
Survey results came back on the 9th.
Flags went back up on the 10th despite Danny's commitment that they would stay down until the feds caved in.
So basically, if Danny got the overnight quickie results of that single question, he knew that his flag flap was actually a flag fiasco. There is just too much of a correlation here for this to be a fluke.
But here's something else my students picked up and I missed entirely: the sample breakdown.
1200 in total. 400 in Newfoundland and Labrador. 200 in the Maritimes. 200 In Quebec. 200 in Ontario. And 200 from Manitoba to BC.
Half the freakin' sample came from east of Quebec, which the last time I checked did not have half the country's population.
Think about that for a minute though. If 60% of respondents hated Danny tearing down flags, where were half of those located? Most likely in Atlantic Canada, said the bright-eyed ones. So basically he was alienating people who should ordinarily be supporting him.
Now I'll admit it is hard to be firm in this little assessment since the class was working off the news story and not the research report.
Still, I'd be willing to venture that there is a better story in what my students observed than was readily apparent.
Something tells me they are going to do very well in their program.
I'll just have to watch out. They are young and smart.
A definite double threat.
Nice photoshop job, Stevie
Even though he was actually here, seems that Stevie Harper couldn't find time in his tightly scripted appearance at the municipalities conference to actually get some real live photos taken in historic St. John's.
Instead we get this crap courtesy of photoshop and the geeks who maintain the Connie website. (BTW - every website is maintained by a geek. Connie ones just have to wear ties and follow a dress code straight from Bob Jones University).
Take stock picture of St. John's.
Take stock shot of Chief Connie Stiff.
Lay one on other.
Poof.
Job done.
Only for people who have never been here.
For one thing, the colours and shadows are different between the two shots. The edge around Harper is too sharp.
For another thing, his hair isn't mussed. Unless the guy is wearing a helmet, you just can't go to Signal Hill without there being a Force 3 gale.
For another thing, I am trying to figure out how tall this dude is. Given the angle on this shot, Harper must be floating in mid-air. The original shot may have been taken on a crane.
Doctor a tape. Doctor a photo. Same thing.
Instead we get this crap courtesy of photoshop and the geeks who maintain the Connie website. (BTW - every website is maintained by a geek. Connie ones just have to wear ties and follow a dress code straight from Bob Jones University).
Take stock picture of St. John's.
Take stock shot of Chief Connie Stiff.
Lay one on other.
Poof.
Job done.
Only for people who have never been here.
For one thing, the colours and shadows are different between the two shots. The edge around Harper is too sharp.
For another thing, his hair isn't mussed. Unless the guy is wearing a helmet, you just can't go to Signal Hill without there being a Force 3 gale.
For another thing, I am trying to figure out how tall this dude is. Given the angle on this shot, Harper must be floating in mid-air. The original shot may have been taken on a crane.
Doctor a tape. Doctor a photo. Same thing.
Yeah. that's the ticket. Hearn and Doyle hire ex-SNL character as strategy whiz
The budget - including the offshore money - is a government bill.
The Connies are in Opposition and up until now were hell bent on killing the government.
Normally, Government members say positive things about the budget; Opposition guys say nothing unless it is critical.
Until they got the living hell whipped out of them in recent weeks, Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn were opposed to the budget.
Notice lately that every day at least one of the Connie dinosaurs are quoted in the media assuring everyone that the deal is almost through the House? Here's Norm Doyle's contribution for today.
Apparently no one except me noticed that for all his blarney, Blarney the Green Dinosaur from Renews - the guy who notionally represents a St. John's/Mount Pearl - actually promised to work all summer if need be to ensure the government's budget gets passed.
That is unprecedented. An Opposition hack pledges to back the government to the hilt on its budget. Geez, Hearn had no trouble voting against money for the province last year. Why the switch, Loyola?
Next thing you know Hearn and Doyle will claim credit for a deal they actually had nothing to do with at all. No wait. They've done that already. Repeatedly.
Who gives them political strategy or handles their media relations?
I always wondered what happened to Tommy Flanagan.
"Yeah.....that's the ticket."
The Connies are in Opposition and up until now were hell bent on killing the government.
Normally, Government members say positive things about the budget; Opposition guys say nothing unless it is critical.
Until they got the living hell whipped out of them in recent weeks, Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn were opposed to the budget.
Notice lately that every day at least one of the Connie dinosaurs are quoted in the media assuring everyone that the deal is almost through the House? Here's Norm Doyle's contribution for today.
Apparently no one except me noticed that for all his blarney, Blarney the Green Dinosaur from Renews - the guy who notionally represents a St. John's/Mount Pearl - actually promised to work all summer if need be to ensure the government's budget gets passed.
That is unprecedented. An Opposition hack pledges to back the government to the hilt on its budget. Geez, Hearn had no trouble voting against money for the province last year. Why the switch, Loyola?
Next thing you know Hearn and Doyle will claim credit for a deal they actually had nothing to do with at all. No wait. They've done that already. Repeatedly.
Who gives them political strategy or handles their media relations?
I always wondered what happened to Tommy Flanagan.
"Yeah.....that's the ticket."
09 June 2005
The first step to expanding the EEZ
For those who are agitating for expansion of the country's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), here's a useful story from CBC.
Call it custodial management, call it what you will, the first step will be extending the claim to subseabed resources according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The mapping work currently being done in order to stake the claim legally will also make it easier for Canada to control development of any oil and gas resources that may lie beyond the 200 mile EEZ.
Call it custodial management, call it what you will, the first step will be extending the claim to subseabed resources according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The mapping work currently being done in order to stake the claim legally will also make it easier for Canada to control development of any oil and gas resources that may lie beyond the 200 mile EEZ.
08 June 2005
A hard look at CRA numbers
Without going into too much detail, it is worth taking a closer look at the actual news release issued by Corporate Research Associates on its recent survey of voter opinion.
If you accept the proposition that all CRA surveys are done the same way and the results are generally consistent for CRA over time, then it is easy to see that the provincial political parties have slipped back to the relative positions they occupied about six to eight months ago.
Certainly, no one will be panicking in the Premier's Office about these figures; at least they shouldn't be panicking. If they have other polling data that gives a much better picture of voter moods, then I'd be willing to change by view. On the basis of this stuff, though I wouldn't get too alarmed.
For the provincial Liberals, the simple conclusion to take from CRA's polling is that their popularity rests entirely in Danny Williams' hands. When he screws up, Liberal numbers climb. When he soars, the Liberals plummet. That's hardly a comforting position to be in and it is one that the current leader and any future leader will have to address.
Just flip down to some of the little details at the end of the release, though and here are a couple of reasons to be somewhat cautious of these results.
First of all, the survey data was collected from May 12 to June 6. Check your calendars and you'll see that this covers almost three full weeks. For political purposes, that's way too long to tell anything with certainty. Some people will change their answers, even if marginally, based on current issues.
Second of all, the margin of error at +/- 3.4% is a tad high. It's not so far off as to be unusable, but coupled with the possibility of variation coming from the length of time the survey was conducted, I'd be leery of using CRA's polling for anything other than entertainment and coffee table chat.
For a political party wanting to accomplish anything, solid research is the start of solid planning.
Information coming free from any research company is worth what you pay for it.
If you accept the proposition that all CRA surveys are done the same way and the results are generally consistent for CRA over time, then it is easy to see that the provincial political parties have slipped back to the relative positions they occupied about six to eight months ago.
Certainly, no one will be panicking in the Premier's Office about these figures; at least they shouldn't be panicking. If they have other polling data that gives a much better picture of voter moods, then I'd be willing to change by view. On the basis of this stuff, though I wouldn't get too alarmed.
For the provincial Liberals, the simple conclusion to take from CRA's polling is that their popularity rests entirely in Danny Williams' hands. When he screws up, Liberal numbers climb. When he soars, the Liberals plummet. That's hardly a comforting position to be in and it is one that the current leader and any future leader will have to address.
Just flip down to some of the little details at the end of the release, though and here are a couple of reasons to be somewhat cautious of these results.
First of all, the survey data was collected from May 12 to June 6. Check your calendars and you'll see that this covers almost three full weeks. For political purposes, that's way too long to tell anything with certainty. Some people will change their answers, even if marginally, based on current issues.
Second of all, the margin of error at +/- 3.4% is a tad high. It's not so far off as to be unusable, but coupled with the possibility of variation coming from the length of time the survey was conducted, I'd be leery of using CRA's polling for anything other than entertainment and coffee table chat.
For a political party wanting to accomplish anything, solid research is the start of solid planning.
Information coming free from any research company is worth what you pay for it.
Meanwhile back on another farm...
There's a post coming on the FPI proposal and the re-emergence of talk show gadflies swarming around this issue.
While I work on it, here's a story from Maine.
Take a long hard look at the picture here in this Globe story.
Now put yourself in the place of the guys manning the US border station in Maine who had this guy show up armed with, among other things, a home-made sword, a hatchet, brass knuckles and a chainsaw with something red on it that appeared to be blood.
Take another look at the picture.
The border guards didn't suspect anything was wrong with this guy.
They just confiscated his weapons and wished him a good day.
Later on, he was arrested on a murder warrant from New Brunswick. Police found the decapitated body of a musician in the guy's kitchen.
I looked at the picture two or three times.
This is such an obvious Momma's boy that if he walked in a bloody chainsaw, I'd just assume he was ok and send him cheerily on his way.
Yeah.
Right.
While I work on it, here's a story from Maine.
Take a long hard look at the picture here in this Globe story.
Now put yourself in the place of the guys manning the US border station in Maine who had this guy show up armed with, among other things, a home-made sword, a hatchet, brass knuckles and a chainsaw with something red on it that appeared to be blood.
Take another look at the picture.
The border guards didn't suspect anything was wrong with this guy.
They just confiscated his weapons and wished him a good day.
Later on, he was arrested on a murder warrant from New Brunswick. Police found the decapitated body of a musician in the guy's kitchen.
I looked at the picture two or three times.
This is such an obvious Momma's boy that if he walked in a bloody chainsaw, I'd just assume he was ok and send him cheerily on his way.
Yeah.
Right.
07 June 2005
Singing a new song on the offshore
Premier Danny Williams recently delivered a message to oil companies looking at offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, telling them that he will expect better revenue returns for the province on future projects including Hebron-Ben Nevis.
The financial section of the National Lampoon had a commentary on the whole issue yesterday, warning the Premier that maybe he needs to take a different approach to avoid scaring away oil company investment.
When the Premier talks about offshore resources being given away at a discount in the past, he is likely engaging in a certain level of hyperbole - exaggerating for effect. This is the Premier's stock in trade.
That said, the only example where this might be true is in the case of Hibernia where his predecessor Conservative government traded government revenues - i.e. royalties - for a seven- year construction project on the gravity based structure (GBS). In fact, the government insisted on the GBS mode of production specifically to satisfy its policy of fostering as much spin-off work in the province as possible.
What Brian Peckford and his associates quickly learned was that provincial economic benefits are not a bottomless pit; jobs and royalties are linked. To go a step further, the context of the development has much to do with the outcome. By the time the Wells administration took office, the negotiations were largely concluded. The province still had to put cash concessions on the table in order to start a project that was widely held to be unattractive financially for many of the participants.
No one anticipated oil at US$50 per barrel.
But here's the difference between the Upper Churchill, for example, and the offshore: government revenues are tied to the price per barrel of oil. Thus, there is a built- in escalator clause that the Upper Churchill agreement simply does not have.
Even if the provincial government continued to apply the generic regime to Hebron and all future projects, its direct revenues would rise and fall with the price of oil. That feature of the real Atlantic Accord and the province's own royalty regime is why this government has been able to reap windfall revenues from increases in oil prices.
That is exactly how the oil companies make their money. In the case of the offshore, since the oil companies are taking the financial risk of development that have naturally, and logically, claimed the reward for their free-enterprise risk-taking.
Premier Williams can easily talk of taking a tough stance on negotiating. That is not simply because he is a tougher or smarter guy than his predecessors. Rather, his current stance is supported by the financial benefits that have come from the decisions by his predecessors. Mr. Peckford and Mr. Wells faced provincial finances that were abysmal. In 1991, for example, the debt to GDP ratio - a common indicator of fiscal health - rivaled that of any developing country. Today, by virtue of economic developments in the past 15 years and prudent fiscal management by his predecessors and record oil prices, the current Premier is not strapped for cash to keep the lights burning in his office.
Circumstances make everything different.
For those watching the Premier's offshore policy, the challenge is to figure out what he is doing. His policy manual from the last campaign spoke of secondary and tertiary processing from things like oil refineries as a way of boosting local benefits. Peckford used to say the same thing.
But we do not know if Premier Williams is talking about departing from a regime in which basic royalties are not fixed and everything becomes a subject for negotiation. That is the way the Peckford administration approached the matter, arguing that reduced royalties were more than offset by the added economic activity from GBS construction and by the groundwork laid for future development.
The same argument - looking at the total package versus a single element - is potentially attractive today. Notice, however, that what appeared to be splendid in 1988 is being used, predictably, by a new government as an example of a give-away. Which is true, 1988 or 2005? The logic then is the same as now; we should look at the total package rather than focus on government revenues alone.
Proper evaluation by the public would depend on wide disclosure of the details of the discussions and personally, I'd put stock in a more detailed and thoughtful review of the past than the Premier's hyperbole allows. The Premier's political statements are one thing; what government policy ought to be may be something else.
If we look at the recent offshore discussions, they have been touted as having achieved every one of the government's objectives. A closer assessment shows quite clearly that while they are remarkable on a number of levels they fell far short of the goal stated in the Premier's own letter to the Prime Minister on June 10, 2004.
Looking for more is fine. If looking for more means that, in practice, we'd go back to a Peckford-esque world in which government gives and takes behind close doors, then we may want to take a closer look at what is going on.
The reason has to do with where the lasting benefit comes from when we talk of offshore oil development. Government's primary interest should be in maximizing government revenues. After all, that is the money that will be used to provide essential services. As soon as government starts mandating that a company produces local jobs, the companies will look for a subsidy - effectively lower provincial government revenue - for any jobs not in their own business plans.
The jobs created by a smelter in the case of Voisey's Bay or a refinery in the case of offshore are far less than the direct revenues the government has to give up in order to get them. The jobs also run out, sometimes quite quickly; the Hibernia GBS jobs died within seven years.
But look at the cash flowing from the oil itself. It rises and falls with the price of oil, but in the current case that has been enough to boost our provincial government to the point where it will be a "have province" by any reasonable measure. There is cash flowing enough to pay down debt and replace buildings and other infrastructure, all of which produces a lasting measurable benefit. The current boom will last for the next three to five years by most current estimates and will add about over a billion dollars in oil revenue to provincial coffers next year alone. How many refineries would it take to equal that?
The problem with Premier Williams' new approach to the offshore - if there is a problem - is not that he is scaring away investment. The Hebron consortium is merely negotiating; after all, the position is preposterous. On the one hand they say high oil prices make the field attractive. On the other they say the difficulties of the field require require a change to the royalty regime. A deal will be reached; there is money enough for all.
The problem with the Williams' approach is a familiar one: we simply don't know what he means. If we do not know what he means, we cannot accurately judge success or failure.
But for the Premier, the personal problem is much more substantial.
Williams clearly wants to be the best Premier ever. Obviously, anyone can bamboozle the masses in the short-term; Peckford did it with ease. Ask the average Newfoundlander or Labradorian about Peckford these days and you won't find anyone giving him due credit for the good he did. Peckford went from messiah to pariah before he left office and today he serves as little more than the whipping boy for his successor.
The problem for Williams is a simple one: a reputation built on spin usually crashes, sooner rather than later.
The financial section of the National Lampoon had a commentary on the whole issue yesterday, warning the Premier that maybe he needs to take a different approach to avoid scaring away oil company investment.
When the Premier talks about offshore resources being given away at a discount in the past, he is likely engaging in a certain level of hyperbole - exaggerating for effect. This is the Premier's stock in trade.
That said, the only example where this might be true is in the case of Hibernia where his predecessor Conservative government traded government revenues - i.e. royalties - for a seven- year construction project on the gravity based structure (GBS). In fact, the government insisted on the GBS mode of production specifically to satisfy its policy of fostering as much spin-off work in the province as possible.
What Brian Peckford and his associates quickly learned was that provincial economic benefits are not a bottomless pit; jobs and royalties are linked. To go a step further, the context of the development has much to do with the outcome. By the time the Wells administration took office, the negotiations were largely concluded. The province still had to put cash concessions on the table in order to start a project that was widely held to be unattractive financially for many of the participants.
No one anticipated oil at US$50 per barrel.
But here's the difference between the Upper Churchill, for example, and the offshore: government revenues are tied to the price per barrel of oil. Thus, there is a built- in escalator clause that the Upper Churchill agreement simply does not have.
Even if the provincial government continued to apply the generic regime to Hebron and all future projects, its direct revenues would rise and fall with the price of oil. That feature of the real Atlantic Accord and the province's own royalty regime is why this government has been able to reap windfall revenues from increases in oil prices.
That is exactly how the oil companies make their money. In the case of the offshore, since the oil companies are taking the financial risk of development that have naturally, and logically, claimed the reward for their free-enterprise risk-taking.
Premier Williams can easily talk of taking a tough stance on negotiating. That is not simply because he is a tougher or smarter guy than his predecessors. Rather, his current stance is supported by the financial benefits that have come from the decisions by his predecessors. Mr. Peckford and Mr. Wells faced provincial finances that were abysmal. In 1991, for example, the debt to GDP ratio - a common indicator of fiscal health - rivaled that of any developing country. Today, by virtue of economic developments in the past 15 years and prudent fiscal management by his predecessors and record oil prices, the current Premier is not strapped for cash to keep the lights burning in his office.
Circumstances make everything different.
For those watching the Premier's offshore policy, the challenge is to figure out what he is doing. His policy manual from the last campaign spoke of secondary and tertiary processing from things like oil refineries as a way of boosting local benefits. Peckford used to say the same thing.
But we do not know if Premier Williams is talking about departing from a regime in which basic royalties are not fixed and everything becomes a subject for negotiation. That is the way the Peckford administration approached the matter, arguing that reduced royalties were more than offset by the added economic activity from GBS construction and by the groundwork laid for future development.
The same argument - looking at the total package versus a single element - is potentially attractive today. Notice, however, that what appeared to be splendid in 1988 is being used, predictably, by a new government as an example of a give-away. Which is true, 1988 or 2005? The logic then is the same as now; we should look at the total package rather than focus on government revenues alone.
Proper evaluation by the public would depend on wide disclosure of the details of the discussions and personally, I'd put stock in a more detailed and thoughtful review of the past than the Premier's hyperbole allows. The Premier's political statements are one thing; what government policy ought to be may be something else.
If we look at the recent offshore discussions, they have been touted as having achieved every one of the government's objectives. A closer assessment shows quite clearly that while they are remarkable on a number of levels they fell far short of the goal stated in the Premier's own letter to the Prime Minister on June 10, 2004.
Looking for more is fine. If looking for more means that, in practice, we'd go back to a Peckford-esque world in which government gives and takes behind close doors, then we may want to take a closer look at what is going on.
The reason has to do with where the lasting benefit comes from when we talk of offshore oil development. Government's primary interest should be in maximizing government revenues. After all, that is the money that will be used to provide essential services. As soon as government starts mandating that a company produces local jobs, the companies will look for a subsidy - effectively lower provincial government revenue - for any jobs not in their own business plans.
The jobs created by a smelter in the case of Voisey's Bay or a refinery in the case of offshore are far less than the direct revenues the government has to give up in order to get them. The jobs also run out, sometimes quite quickly; the Hibernia GBS jobs died within seven years.
But look at the cash flowing from the oil itself. It rises and falls with the price of oil, but in the current case that has been enough to boost our provincial government to the point where it will be a "have province" by any reasonable measure. There is cash flowing enough to pay down debt and replace buildings and other infrastructure, all of which produces a lasting measurable benefit. The current boom will last for the next three to five years by most current estimates and will add about over a billion dollars in oil revenue to provincial coffers next year alone. How many refineries would it take to equal that?
The problem with Premier Williams' new approach to the offshore - if there is a problem - is not that he is scaring away investment. The Hebron consortium is merely negotiating; after all, the position is preposterous. On the one hand they say high oil prices make the field attractive. On the other they say the difficulties of the field require require a change to the royalty regime. A deal will be reached; there is money enough for all.
The problem with the Williams' approach is a familiar one: we simply don't know what he means. If we do not know what he means, we cannot accurately judge success or failure.
But for the Premier, the personal problem is much more substantial.
Williams clearly wants to be the best Premier ever. Obviously, anyone can bamboozle the masses in the short-term; Peckford did it with ease. Ask the average Newfoundlander or Labradorian about Peckford these days and you won't find anyone giving him due credit for the good he did. Peckford went from messiah to pariah before he left office and today he serves as little more than the whipping boy for his successor.
The problem for Williams is a simple one: a reputation built on spin usually crashes, sooner rather than later.
06 June 2005
Connie comm strategy: duck and cover
For those who follow these things, take a look at this link to a Canadian journalist blog.
Harper's lack of a scrum or other media availability speaks volumes for the Connie efforts to duck tough questions. Yeah Connies by nature assume that all media are "commie-pinko lefties", but their paranoia doesn't actually make the belief true, nor does it relieve someone who desperately wants to be prime minister from answering questions from reporters.
For another perspective, here's a local CBC story on the weekend blitz by national party leaders. Follow the link in the upper left to a debrief by Peter Gullage that covers the scrum-less Harper moment.
Now if you take a hard look at Harper's party you can see a good reason to avoid media questions:
- The failed election strategy. (The thing augered in deeper than a Titan 4 booster; the most toxic gas associated with it was methane.)
- A local Connie MP working against his party. (Here's a link to Loyola-land. Note the line at the end where Hearn pledges to work on getting C-43 passed - presumably intact - by the end of the month. "we will now use every method possible to fast track passage of Bill C-43 even if it means forcing the House to stay open for half the summer.")
- The Saga of Secret Agent Grewal. The more that everyone looks at this guy, the more problems that appear. People like Peter McKay, DDS are distancing themselves from Grewal and news tonight is that the guy mysteriously asked someone to carry a package for him from Vancouver to Ottawa even though Grewal had a ticket on the flight involved.
That last link takes you to a CTV story that indicates Grewal is taking "stress leave".
Maybe the next leave to be taken will be Mr. Harper. Maybe he is getting tired of it all. If VOCM had an affiliate in Alberta or if they had another slot available here, they seem to have a penchant for using clapped-out ex-pols to host their yak shows.
Harper's lack of a scrum or other media availability speaks volumes for the Connie efforts to duck tough questions. Yeah Connies by nature assume that all media are "commie-pinko lefties", but their paranoia doesn't actually make the belief true, nor does it relieve someone who desperately wants to be prime minister from answering questions from reporters.
For another perspective, here's a local CBC story on the weekend blitz by national party leaders. Follow the link in the upper left to a debrief by Peter Gullage that covers the scrum-less Harper moment.
Now if you take a hard look at Harper's party you can see a good reason to avoid media questions:
- The failed election strategy. (The thing augered in deeper than a Titan 4 booster; the most toxic gas associated with it was methane.)
- A local Connie MP working against his party. (Here's a link to Loyola-land. Note the line at the end where Hearn pledges to work on getting C-43 passed - presumably intact - by the end of the month. "we will now use every method possible to fast track passage of Bill C-43 even if it means forcing the House to stay open for half the summer.")
- The Saga of Secret Agent Grewal. The more that everyone looks at this guy, the more problems that appear. People like Peter McKay, DDS are distancing themselves from Grewal and news tonight is that the guy mysteriously asked someone to carry a package for him from Vancouver to Ottawa even though Grewal had a ticket on the flight involved.
That last link takes you to a CTV story that indicates Grewal is taking "stress leave".
Maybe the next leave to be taken will be Mr. Harper. Maybe he is getting tired of it all. If VOCM had an affiliate in Alberta or if they had another slot available here, they seem to have a penchant for using clapped-out ex-pols to host their yak shows.
Canada doesn't own the ocean - Updated
VOCM is reporting this morning that environmental group the Sierra Club has proposed salvaging the Titan booster left over from the Big Launch and sending the American government the bill for the clean up.
All this comes because of a report that the booster carried a variety of toxic chemicals when it splashed down.
There is no news release on the Sierra Club site backing this story.
Let's take it at face value.
1. The salvage operation may well release the toxic chemicals everyone is worried about. Is that worth the risk for what amounts to a publicity stunt?
2. Does anyone know where this thing is exactly? It took more than a decade of very expensive searching to find the Titanic which, in case you missed it, was a lot bigger than the Titan booster.
3. If the thing is NOT inside Canada's 200 miles exclusive economic zone, then who is going to salvage the bloody thing? After all, contrary to what some people want us to believe, Canada does not own the ocean.
4. Where was the Sierra Club when some yahoo anti-sealer was advocating shooting people in order to save a species that isn't even close to being in any sort of danger? All things considered, I can think of a dozen environmental issues that would get my attention long before I'd bitch about the LAST Titan missile launch in the Atlantic. AND if I did, I'd come up with a better story than spending tens of millions to stage some sort of bull**** publicity stunt. Something concrete would be much better.
Update:
This story apparently originated with an Access to Information request by Canadian Press bureau in Halifax. Here's a link to local CBC coverage, including a link to an audio interview with Deane Beeby of CP's Halifax office.
- The impact zone was reportedly within Canada's 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
- There was some residual fuel in the rocket. How much is unknown.
- One of several issues to be addressed here would be the impact of any salvage and disposal operation. There are some obvious hazards associated with deep sea salvage and any action that took place would have to weigh the risk of causing a leak of fuel through recovery operations versus leaving the thing on the seabed.
- Here's an Environmental Protection Agency information page on one of the chemicals involved, dimethylhydrazine. Notice that there are acute effects and chronic effects. Some of the affects noted in the Canadian Press refer to acute exposure - something that isn't likely to occur now that the rocket section is settled on the bottom of the ocean.
- As for nitrogen dioxide, here is some factual information on that one. While some reports have noted that it can produce nitric acid in certain circumstances, read this link before jumping to any conclusions.
As with most things, let's get a bit more factual information before anyone jumps to a conclusion.
All this comes because of a report that the booster carried a variety of toxic chemicals when it splashed down.
There is no news release on the Sierra Club site backing this story.
Let's take it at face value.
1. The salvage operation may well release the toxic chemicals everyone is worried about. Is that worth the risk for what amounts to a publicity stunt?
2. Does anyone know where this thing is exactly? It took more than a decade of very expensive searching to find the Titanic which, in case you missed it, was a lot bigger than the Titan booster.
3. If the thing is NOT inside Canada's 200 miles exclusive economic zone, then who is going to salvage the bloody thing? After all, contrary to what some people want us to believe, Canada does not own the ocean.
4. Where was the Sierra Club when some yahoo anti-sealer was advocating shooting people in order to save a species that isn't even close to being in any sort of danger? All things considered, I can think of a dozen environmental issues that would get my attention long before I'd bitch about the LAST Titan missile launch in the Atlantic. AND if I did, I'd come up with a better story than spending tens of millions to stage some sort of bull**** publicity stunt. Something concrete would be much better.
Update:
This story apparently originated with an Access to Information request by Canadian Press bureau in Halifax. Here's a link to local CBC coverage, including a link to an audio interview with Deane Beeby of CP's Halifax office.
- The impact zone was reportedly within Canada's 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
- There was some residual fuel in the rocket. How much is unknown.
- One of several issues to be addressed here would be the impact of any salvage and disposal operation. There are some obvious hazards associated with deep sea salvage and any action that took place would have to weigh the risk of causing a leak of fuel through recovery operations versus leaving the thing on the seabed.
- Here's an Environmental Protection Agency information page on one of the chemicals involved, dimethylhydrazine. Notice that there are acute effects and chronic effects. Some of the affects noted in the Canadian Press refer to acute exposure - something that isn't likely to occur now that the rocket section is settled on the bottom of the ocean.
- As for nitrogen dioxide, here is some factual information on that one. While some reports have noted that it can produce nitric acid in certain circumstances, read this link before jumping to any conclusions.
As with most things, let's get a bit more factual information before anyone jumps to a conclusion.
John has a long moustache
On beaches in northern France, 61 years ago today, hundreds of thousands of young men from the United States, Britain, France, Canada and other allied nations began the final drive to crush Nazi Germany from the west.
Here's a link to an exhibit at the National War Museum on war art from collections in Canada, Britain and Australia. Look at this painting by Alex Colville. Personally, I find Colville's painting s of the Second War to be the most evocative. This one captures the incongruity between the pastoral farmland on the one hand and the dead young German soldier, evidence of a savage battle. Take some time and flip through the exhibit online to find other stuff just as striking.
As you go about your daily life today, take a moment for some silent contemplation.
Say a prayer for the dead.
Say another for those who survived.
and remember what happened 61 years ago today on a war summer day in France.
Here's a link to an exhibit at the National War Museum on war art from collections in Canada, Britain and Australia. Look at this painting by Alex Colville. Personally, I find Colville's painting s of the Second War to be the most evocative. This one captures the incongruity between the pastoral farmland on the one hand and the dead young German soldier, evidence of a savage battle. Take some time and flip through the exhibit online to find other stuff just as striking.
As you go about your daily life today, take a moment for some silent contemplation.
Say a prayer for the dead.
Say another for those who survived.
and remember what happened 61 years ago today on a war summer day in France.
05 June 2005
Sunday morning, 8 AM: Quality time
It's Sunday morning and while most people aren't reading blogs today (readership drops off by about 40% whether I post or not) , I thought I'd offer up these observations on the weekend papers.
1. and a player to be named later. Having read both Russell Wangersky and Bill Rowe's Telly columns on Saturday, I think it is time the great newspaper gods organized a swap of writers so that all the people with the same general outlook on life write for the same paper.
Wangersky's little column on the Grewal tapes demonstrates that he has reached a conclusion without having conducted any research. Hence, he'd be an excellent choice to go down to the Indy to spell Ryan. Cleary, after all must be getting tired of writing the same "we are fierce now and passionate so watch out Paul Martin" columns.
Here's a clue, Russell: actually listen to the tapes and the transcripts. Try reading the wire copy: you'd know that Grewal hasn't released everything he has taped or if that's the lot then there are hours of conversations that didn't get taped for some curious reason. Either way Russell is a match for Cleary; colour me disappointed.
Meanwhile, Rowe would feel right at home next to another political dinosaur - John Crosbie - since both columnists appear to offer insights that derive from the absence of mental fibre in their diets. Having determined separation is the answer to everything (wait for his column on Harbour Breton), Rowe has decided this week that being Leader Opp is such a tedious chore that people like Stephen Harper elect to commit political hara kiri over staying in the job.
Is that why they fling brown envelopes over transoms too, Bill: sheer boredom?
Maybe some former Leaders Opp merely need to find their true calling in life - maybe they are not destined for political greatness but can be more productively employed besting the Moon Man in a contest of wits. That doesn't apply to all of them, though. Leader Opp can be a great job; just don't expect to find anything resembling thought on the subject coming from Rowe.
Crosbie this week attacks Belinda Stornach for abandoning the Connies to take a cabinet post with the Liberals. Those familiar with Crosbie's political past will recognize the unmitigated hypocrisy in the old fart's comments. There are a few pithy similies that come to mind, but they have been overused. Let's just say Crosbie knows all about crossing the floor and selling out his old political friends for nothing more than personal gain. I am reminded though of a remark by one Brian Mulroney about a Liberal cabinet minister who took a diplomatic post after leaving politics that seems to apply to Crosbie for other reasons: "There's no whore like an old whore."
Now where did I put that "Crosbie on Harper" clipping file, again?
2. An announcement a week and a good poll, Part Deux. The Spindy this weekend offers up a genuine interview with Brian Tobin. Who cares what Tobin thinks about anything?
The Telly, though, does give us a Ryan Research poll conducted for Danny Williams in January 2005 and obtained courtesy of the Access to Information Act on attitudes toward hauling down the flags and stuff related to the offshore dispute. I have to say that, for some inexplicable reason, Rob Antle's story is far from clear. The normally sharp reporter seems a bit muddled on this one.
I did manage to glean some things worth noting:
- The margin of error went so far off in the regional breakdowns outside this province that the numbers were largely useless.
- There was a question about whether or not the PM should "honour his commitment of June 2004". Intuitively, I'd expect people to say that a commitment should be honoured. Therefore the response here should be higher than it is reported by the survey apparently.
- There is no question that asks what people think is in the deal. In other words apparently, no one bothered to see if anyone actually understood what was involved.
- People across Canada did NOT like hauling down the flags.
This is one ATI file I am going to have to take a closer look at just to see what it does contain.
Speaking of poll requests, my e-mail to NTV goes unanswered.
1. and a player to be named later. Having read both Russell Wangersky and Bill Rowe's Telly columns on Saturday, I think it is time the great newspaper gods organized a swap of writers so that all the people with the same general outlook on life write for the same paper.
Wangersky's little column on the Grewal tapes demonstrates that he has reached a conclusion without having conducted any research. Hence, he'd be an excellent choice to go down to the Indy to spell Ryan. Cleary, after all must be getting tired of writing the same "we are fierce now and passionate so watch out Paul Martin" columns.
Here's a clue, Russell: actually listen to the tapes and the transcripts. Try reading the wire copy: you'd know that Grewal hasn't released everything he has taped or if that's the lot then there are hours of conversations that didn't get taped for some curious reason. Either way Russell is a match for Cleary; colour me disappointed.
Meanwhile, Rowe would feel right at home next to another political dinosaur - John Crosbie - since both columnists appear to offer insights that derive from the absence of mental fibre in their diets. Having determined separation is the answer to everything (wait for his column on Harbour Breton), Rowe has decided this week that being Leader Opp is such a tedious chore that people like Stephen Harper elect to commit political hara kiri over staying in the job.
Is that why they fling brown envelopes over transoms too, Bill: sheer boredom?
Maybe some former Leaders Opp merely need to find their true calling in life - maybe they are not destined for political greatness but can be more productively employed besting the Moon Man in a contest of wits. That doesn't apply to all of them, though. Leader Opp can be a great job; just don't expect to find anything resembling thought on the subject coming from Rowe.
Crosbie this week attacks Belinda Stornach for abandoning the Connies to take a cabinet post with the Liberals. Those familiar with Crosbie's political past will recognize the unmitigated hypocrisy in the old fart's comments. There are a few pithy similies that come to mind, but they have been overused. Let's just say Crosbie knows all about crossing the floor and selling out his old political friends for nothing more than personal gain. I am reminded though of a remark by one Brian Mulroney about a Liberal cabinet minister who took a diplomatic post after leaving politics that seems to apply to Crosbie for other reasons: "There's no whore like an old whore."
Now where did I put that "Crosbie on Harper" clipping file, again?
2. An announcement a week and a good poll, Part Deux. The Spindy this weekend offers up a genuine interview with Brian Tobin. Who cares what Tobin thinks about anything?
The Telly, though, does give us a Ryan Research poll conducted for Danny Williams in January 2005 and obtained courtesy of the Access to Information Act on attitudes toward hauling down the flags and stuff related to the offshore dispute. I have to say that, for some inexplicable reason, Rob Antle's story is far from clear. The normally sharp reporter seems a bit muddled on this one.
I did manage to glean some things worth noting:
- The margin of error went so far off in the regional breakdowns outside this province that the numbers were largely useless.
- There was a question about whether or not the PM should "honour his commitment of June 2004". Intuitively, I'd expect people to say that a commitment should be honoured. Therefore the response here should be higher than it is reported by the survey apparently.
- There is no question that asks what people think is in the deal. In other words apparently, no one bothered to see if anyone actually understood what was involved.
- People across Canada did NOT like hauling down the flags.
This is one ATI file I am going to have to take a closer look at just to see what it does contain.
Speaking of poll requests, my e-mail to NTV goes unanswered.
03 June 2005
C*O*N agents doctored tapes: expert
CBC is reporting that a technical expert in audio recordings has found substantive evidence that the Grewal tapes made public recently have been altered from the original.
You can also find a similar report here at CFRA's website. There's even a bit on a Dipper blog here with excellent links to other places.
In one instance, there is an audible click before Ujjal Dosanj reputedly says "Cabinet would be quick" with another audible click following immediately behind. The words are in English while the surrounding conversation is in Punjabi and appears to have a different tone and volume from the rest of that portion of the tape.
Meanwhile, The Chief of C*O*N and his assistant Larrabee (??) insist that Grewal has made public all the tapes and that maybe, possibly, theoretically, hypothetically some problems with duplication produced some errors and omissions.
Uh huh.
Riiiiiiight.
What happened to the originals? Duplication is actually part of the problem in maintaining credibility here.
Let's not forget as well that Grewal's selective taping of conversations suggests that he was keen to avoid taping certain meetings so that he could speak more freely and openly. This makes him all the more suspicious.
Anyway, I wind up feeling like Shtarker, as I run around singing in a cheap German accent: "I von ze pool. I von ze pool."
You can also find a similar report here at CFRA's website. There's even a bit on a Dipper blog here with excellent links to other places.
In one instance, there is an audible click before Ujjal Dosanj reputedly says "Cabinet would be quick" with another audible click following immediately behind. The words are in English while the surrounding conversation is in Punjabi and appears to have a different tone and volume from the rest of that portion of the tape.
Meanwhile, The Chief of C*O*N and his assistant Larrabee (??) insist that Grewal has made public all the tapes and that maybe, possibly, theoretically, hypothetically some problems with duplication produced some errors and omissions.
Uh huh.
Riiiiiiight.
What happened to the originals? Duplication is actually part of the problem in maintaining credibility here.
Let's not forget as well that Grewal's selective taping of conversations suggests that he was keen to avoid taping certain meetings so that he could speak more freely and openly. This makes him all the more suspicious.
Anyway, I wind up feeling like Shtarker, as I run around singing in a cheap German accent: "I von ze pool. I von ze pool."
02 June 2005
Meanwhile, back on the farm...
Joe, disguised as a door, looks on in amusement as Danny Williams puts the blocks to the Liberals by calling a quickie by-election in Exploits district.
The Libs were obviously unprepared.
It will be a close race; the Liberals might well lose.
I'd be interested to see a poll - a good poll - on the party strengths and weaknesses for the Libs, the NDP and the Tories there. My guess is that the Liberals aren't anywhere near as strong as they might like to be.
But most importantly, if the Liberals set this up as yet another campaign for their Amazing Philosophy of Ruralism, what happens if they lose the by-election?
The Libs were obviously unprepared.
It will be a close race; the Liberals might well lose.
I'd be interested to see a poll - a good poll - on the party strengths and weaknesses for the Libs, the NDP and the Tories there. My guess is that the Liberals aren't anywhere near as strong as they might like to be.
But most importantly, if the Liberals set this up as yet another campaign for their Amazing Philosophy of Ruralism, what happens if they lose the by-election?
Homer Grewal
If you listen to the handful of Grewal that have been released - handful out of the others there should be - there is another thing that leaps up.
Grewal was really concerned to stall any investigation into allegations he was taking campaign donations in exchange for helping with the immigration process. At one point he says very clearly that he wants to do something about that irrespective of whatever else happens.
Now the whole mess is being turned over to the Queen's Cowboys. I always thought that was the thing to do from the outset.
But here's the Homer Simpson part of it - Grewal is now going to be investigated for his ethical behaviour in soliciting favours from government and taping members without their knowledge.
Is Grewal from India or Springfield?
Grewal was really concerned to stall any investigation into allegations he was taking campaign donations in exchange for helping with the immigration process. At one point he says very clearly that he wants to do something about that irrespective of whatever else happens.
Now the whole mess is being turned over to the Queen's Cowboys. I always thought that was the thing to do from the outset.
But here's the Homer Simpson part of it - Grewal is now going to be investigated for his ethical behaviour in soliciting favours from government and taping members without their knowledge.
Is Grewal from India or Springfield?
01 June 2005
More than a good poll and an announcement a week
People who look at politics from the outside often focus on the stuff that they can see.
In looking at the pending changes in the provincial Liberal leadership, it's no surprise, therefore that reporters may sometimes focus on things like the supposed "bounce" in public opinion numbers that comes from a leadership fight or how a candidate might appear.
Craig Westcott and David Cochrane's comments this morning on CBC Radio by and large fall into the category of looking at what can be seen rather than looking beyond the substance.
Westcott, in particular, focused on the superficial, pointing to St. John's lawyer A.J. Baker as the brightest prospect to replace Roger Grimes. Westcott pointed to her aggressive style, her attractiveness and her profile as a way of drawing attention to the Liberal Party - likely from a media standpoint - and perhaps luring out the misogynistic comments from Conservatives that would give good copy.
What Westcott misses is the obvious in this case: Baker would make an excellent candidate. But there is nothing - absolutely nothing - in her background that would suggest she has the ability to tackle the real job of leading a political party, let alone leading the province.
He pointed, as many do, to finding someone to take on Danny Williams. This also focuses on the superficial - the "appearance" of a strong leader in the way that Latin American politics used to focus on the caudillo or strong-man around whom all rally. Much of our political history is told through an emphasis on individual leaders so there is an apparent justification for this approach. Unfortunately how the story gets told by people who, again by and large, see things from the outside, misses the details that tell the real story.
The easiest example to illustrate the genuine issue comes from Clyde Wells. Lured back into politics in 1987, Wells took two full years to rebuild the party. He and the team he brought worked on district organization, provincial organization, recruiting candidates, recruiting volunteers and amassing a war chest of cash to fight an election.
Even with a party that was tottering and tired, the 1989 election was not an easy fight. But the party won; Wells himself lost his bid for a seat. It was really not until several years after the 1989 election that people started to focus on him individually as opposed to the Liberal party and the whole cabinet. That shift in focus was driven by the media looking for a convenient carrier of their explanations - not on how the party actually ran or what won the 1989 election.
When Wells left politics in 1996, he left as well a party that was well-organized with strong grass-roots district organization. Cash was in good shape and there was a stable of strong ministers, strong caucus members and others ready to come forward as candidates.
By 1999, his successor Brian Tobin - the classic charming caudillo - led a party that was showing signs of wear. The district organizations were weaker, in particular and there was growing alienation borne of Tobin's style. Fully 18 seats were contests that should never have been and six were set to go Tory. In the end, Tobin lost three seats in areas where the party out to have been invincible, but more importantly, the party had shifted its strategic messages no fewer than three times during the campaign to counteract its own evident strategic mistakes. Tobin's political philosophy, characterized by one wag as "an announcement a week and a good poll", was obviously not good enough.
Tobin's successor emerged from a leadership convention nominally in charge but in fact bearing the burden left by Tobin's lack of organizational ability. The party was heavily in debt. John Efford's candidacy revealed the depth of the alienation in the rank and file at the caudillo approach. The party was largely worn down if not worn out by the evidence on flash over substance.
Flip across to the Tories in the same time frame and you see some of the same challenges. But here's one notable difference. At some point, the Tories started focusing on the sinews of the party. Ed Byrne's 1999 campaign against Tobin was a set piece of organization that ran as smoothly as these things can. Undecided voters - abnormally high right up to the debate - broke immediately after the debate and went, surprisingly to the Tories.
Whatever the Conservatives accomplished in 2003 had as much to do with the grunt-work of organization as it did anything else. When Danny Williams' campaign arrived it could slide in on top of a well-laid foundation. The results are well known.
In picking a new leader, the Liberal Party needs to look at more than the superficial. Reporters and other commentators would do well to follow the same approach, if nor no other reason than to give more insightful coverage to their audience.
The new leader will have to be an accomplished organizer who is able to re-build the party from the most basic levels. He or she must be able to create a team that can fight and hopefully win an election. The leader must have the depth to sweep away any outmoded ideas and forge a party which is genuinely a government-in-waiting.
The legacy of Tobinism is all around, best exemplified by those who believe - like Tobin minister Chuck Furey - that the convention should be as late as possible so that a "bounce" out of the convention would propel through the polls. Political success seldom, if ever, works that way in practice .
Political success cannot be pulled at the last minute from some bodily orifice. It comes from hard work, sweat and substance by a dedicated group built around a proven, capable leader.
Those who believe in pulling it out at the last minute seem to forget that what normally comes from that orifice is, by definition, refuse and has a consistency which does not bounce so much as splat in an ugly mess.
In looking at the pending changes in the provincial Liberal leadership, it's no surprise, therefore that reporters may sometimes focus on things like the supposed "bounce" in public opinion numbers that comes from a leadership fight or how a candidate might appear.
Craig Westcott and David Cochrane's comments this morning on CBC Radio by and large fall into the category of looking at what can be seen rather than looking beyond the substance.
Westcott, in particular, focused on the superficial, pointing to St. John's lawyer A.J. Baker as the brightest prospect to replace Roger Grimes. Westcott pointed to her aggressive style, her attractiveness and her profile as a way of drawing attention to the Liberal Party - likely from a media standpoint - and perhaps luring out the misogynistic comments from Conservatives that would give good copy.
What Westcott misses is the obvious in this case: Baker would make an excellent candidate. But there is nothing - absolutely nothing - in her background that would suggest she has the ability to tackle the real job of leading a political party, let alone leading the province.
He pointed, as many do, to finding someone to take on Danny Williams. This also focuses on the superficial - the "appearance" of a strong leader in the way that Latin American politics used to focus on the caudillo or strong-man around whom all rally. Much of our political history is told through an emphasis on individual leaders so there is an apparent justification for this approach. Unfortunately how the story gets told by people who, again by and large, see things from the outside, misses the details that tell the real story.
The easiest example to illustrate the genuine issue comes from Clyde Wells. Lured back into politics in 1987, Wells took two full years to rebuild the party. He and the team he brought worked on district organization, provincial organization, recruiting candidates, recruiting volunteers and amassing a war chest of cash to fight an election.
Even with a party that was tottering and tired, the 1989 election was not an easy fight. But the party won; Wells himself lost his bid for a seat. It was really not until several years after the 1989 election that people started to focus on him individually as opposed to the Liberal party and the whole cabinet. That shift in focus was driven by the media looking for a convenient carrier of their explanations - not on how the party actually ran or what won the 1989 election.
When Wells left politics in 1996, he left as well a party that was well-organized with strong grass-roots district organization. Cash was in good shape and there was a stable of strong ministers, strong caucus members and others ready to come forward as candidates.
By 1999, his successor Brian Tobin - the classic charming caudillo - led a party that was showing signs of wear. The district organizations were weaker, in particular and there was growing alienation borne of Tobin's style. Fully 18 seats were contests that should never have been and six were set to go Tory. In the end, Tobin lost three seats in areas where the party out to have been invincible, but more importantly, the party had shifted its strategic messages no fewer than three times during the campaign to counteract its own evident strategic mistakes. Tobin's political philosophy, characterized by one wag as "an announcement a week and a good poll", was obviously not good enough.
Tobin's successor emerged from a leadership convention nominally in charge but in fact bearing the burden left by Tobin's lack of organizational ability. The party was heavily in debt. John Efford's candidacy revealed the depth of the alienation in the rank and file at the caudillo approach. The party was largely worn down if not worn out by the evidence on flash over substance.
Flip across to the Tories in the same time frame and you see some of the same challenges. But here's one notable difference. At some point, the Tories started focusing on the sinews of the party. Ed Byrne's 1999 campaign against Tobin was a set piece of organization that ran as smoothly as these things can. Undecided voters - abnormally high right up to the debate - broke immediately after the debate and went, surprisingly to the Tories.
Whatever the Conservatives accomplished in 2003 had as much to do with the grunt-work of organization as it did anything else. When Danny Williams' campaign arrived it could slide in on top of a well-laid foundation. The results are well known.
In picking a new leader, the Liberal Party needs to look at more than the superficial. Reporters and other commentators would do well to follow the same approach, if nor no other reason than to give more insightful coverage to their audience.
The new leader will have to be an accomplished organizer who is able to re-build the party from the most basic levels. He or she must be able to create a team that can fight and hopefully win an election. The leader must have the depth to sweep away any outmoded ideas and forge a party which is genuinely a government-in-waiting.
The legacy of Tobinism is all around, best exemplified by those who believe - like Tobin minister Chuck Furey - that the convention should be as late as possible so that a "bounce" out of the convention would propel through the polls. Political success seldom, if ever, works that way in practice .
Political success cannot be pulled at the last minute from some bodily orifice. It comes from hard work, sweat and substance by a dedicated group built around a proven, capable leader.
Those who believe in pulling it out at the last minute seem to forget that what normally comes from that orifice is, by definition, refuse and has a consistency which does not bounce so much as splat in an ugly mess.
Clips the Lampoon won't show you
Here are a few clips from the Grewal tapes that Canadian Press and the National Lampoon missed.
Oddly they aren't highlighted in the original to make them easier to pick out and, curiously they don't support the story that there was some kind of deal going on here to lure Grewal to the Liberal cause.
What there was - obviously - a discussion surrounding Grewal crossing the floor. And it would come as no surprise that the prime minister was briefed on the matter or even prepared to meet with the defector once he had committed to crossing the floor.
So where's the story here?
Simple answer is, beyond the innuendo, there isn't a story, certainly not one that has beaten out the Belinda Stronach defection. Hey guys, everything you are reporting so far matches with Stronach: defector makes contact. Liberals talk with defector. Defector crosses floor and has newser with prime minister.
Sheesh: does anyone read his or her own copy?
Anyway here are some other quotes worth noting:
On Grewal's motives:
Grewal: I agree but why I am doing if it is that it is good for the country and good for all of us. Probably.
Tim: Yeah.
- Gurmant Grewal to Tim Murphy
We want to talk with goodwill, it [the investigation into allegations against Grewal on immigration] is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do.
- Gurmant Grewal to Ujjal Dosanj
I wonder what other juicy tidbits are being withheld, or as might be more likely the case, are completely misrepresented in the transcript that make it clear there was no criminal activity here and that Grewal was looking to cross the floor on his own:
FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.
Oddly they aren't highlighted in the original to make them easier to pick out and, curiously they don't support the story that there was some kind of deal going on here to lure Grewal to the Liberal cause.
What there was - obviously - a discussion surrounding Grewal crossing the floor. And it would come as no surprise that the prime minister was briefed on the matter or even prepared to meet with the defector once he had committed to crossing the floor.
So where's the story here?
Simple answer is, beyond the innuendo, there isn't a story, certainly not one that has beaten out the Belinda Stronach defection. Hey guys, everything you are reporting so far matches with Stronach: defector makes contact. Liberals talk with defector. Defector crosses floor and has newser with prime minister.
Sheesh: does anyone read his or her own copy?
Anyway here are some other quotes worth noting:
On Grewal's motives:
Grewal: I agree but why I am doing if it is that it is good for the country and good for all of us. Probably.
Tim: Yeah.
- Gurmant Grewal to Tim Murphy
We want to talk with goodwill, it [the investigation into allegations against Grewal on immigration] is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do.
- Gurmant Grewal to Ujjal Dosanj
I wonder what other juicy tidbits are being withheld, or as might be more likely the case, are completely misrepresented in the transcript that make it clear there was no criminal activity here and that Grewal was looking to cross the floor on his own:
FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.
Grewal transcripts wrong. Updated
Careful listening to the audio tapes released by Gurmant Grewal today show significant errors in the transcript provided on the Connie parliamentarian's website.
Following is a revised portion of the transcripts based on the audio files downloaded from Grewal's site.
Extract begins:
UD[Ujjal Dosanj]: Tim told me to call. I think, as I said earlier, no PRIME MINISTER would ever want to compromise himself with that kind of appropriate (?) because he want to be able to say, "‘I did not make a deal in it, there was no deal’." [incorrect Grewal transcription] "I didn't make a deal with anybody. There was no deal." [corrected version] You came and we accepted you, if that happens. If you want to be able to say that honestly. That'’s why I was suggesting you what I was suggesting you.[word added] That was the difficulty that Tim had. And you saw that. I think from my perspective, I told you about [words omitted by transcriber] that's the way how my conversation went with the PRIME MINISTER, when I came to the Liberals. [words added by transcriber] You know we have Scott Brison, he essentially [word omitted] came as a back bencher, stayed a back bencher, then he was a parliamentary [words omitted by transcriber] PRIME MINISTER'’s [word added/substituted by transcriber] secretary.
GG [Gurmant Grewal]: No, he came directly.
UD: Not to the cabinet.
GG: OK
UD He was made parliamentary secretary.
UD Depends... and you know that'’s how the deals are made [words inserted by transcriber] these things happen. [clearly audible words omitted by transcriber] I think I just wanted to call you that to let you know the conditions that you should talk to me should you decide. If you don't decide then we should leave it. You wanna -inaudible - but you don't want to face the attack (?) and I want to make sure that's how it is -inaudible - and I think you need to really seriously think about the understanding...about how these things happen. It's a matter of trust...then it's a matter of the prime minister being able to appropriately deal with these issues when the time is right. [audible section omitted by transcriber. Note: Grewal repeatedly mutters "uh huh" to indicate he is listening.]
- Inaudible -
UD: PRIME MINISTER can never say I will give you X and then say [words omitted by transcriber] is never going to say to you that [words added/substituted by transcriber] that I never said that. You have to be able to say that I did not make a deal. That'’s very important. That'’s why this these ["this" = incorrect word by transcriber] kinds of deals are not made in that fashion. If you think about it, if you think it is appropriate -inaudible portion -
GG - inaudible -
UD: Then the understanding has to be one together [words omitted by transcriber] and then if there is an understanding. ...Volpe would not be difficult. The ethics commissioner, there is nothing we can do. It is independent thing and must remain independent. [words omitted by transcriber]
-inaudible- [punjabi conversation??]
GG: We want to talk with goodwill, it is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do. [The words "irrespective of what we do" stand out, suggesting Grewal was focusing on the immigration issue as his main objective. The Globe story this evening points to allegations that Grewal was accepting cash in exchange for expediting immigration matters. Hmm. Soliciting political influence to avoid a possible embarrassing investigation by the ethics commissioner, Mr. Grewal? Say it ain't so.]
UD: Volpe, will talk with him, but it will be.. [There is an audible portion of the tape in which Dosanj makes reference to the issue with Joe Volpe. Donsanj quite clearly indicates that there can be no promise because Volpe might say "I am right and you are wrong and then we will have to persuade him..." This is rendered incorrectly in the Connie version.]
Extract ends
Here are some general observations:
1. The translation sucks. Even someone who does not speak Punjabi can notice that the Punjabi to English translations are extremely poor - poor to the point that one wonders what the heck might be missing of substance and context from the conversations.
2. The Blackberry log on the portion involving Sudesh Kalia doesn't match the set of transcripts made available. There are calls on 18 May for example - several of them - that weren't released.
3. We also don't have the calls Grewal made to others. The SK log of calls also shows calls being made by Grewal to SK. Where are they?
4. In the portion of the calls related to discussions between health minister Ujjal Dosanj and Grewal, the phrase "prime minister" is inexplicably rendered in all caps. The ONLY reason to do this is EMPHASIS. But since the sections refer to a prime minister wishing to distance himself from the arrangement, one wonders what the heck the purpose would be of this mucking about other than to draw unnecessary attention to the prime minister.
5. Chunks of Dosanj's comments are inaudible or barely audible. The audio quality on the tapes of chats with Dosanj is as poor as it gets. Only a sophisticated audio process - such as the police might employ could sort out some of the comments that can't be heard by the unaided ear. Funny that Grewal hasn't turned over all his "evidence" to the police since he is alleging a crime took place.
6. There are some huge problems with dates. Grewal went public with his allegations on 18 May, yet this tape has some conversations taking place that same day. In one tape - the Murphy in Grewal office tape - the conversation supposedly takes place on the 18th according to the Grewal site. Yet for that to be true, it would have occurred on the same day Grewal went public.
Strangely, in the audio tape - which is a small portion of the transcript - Murphy makes no reference at all to Stronach even though her crossing would have taken place the day before. Instead, Murphy makes a cryptic reference to other members of the Conservative caucus he refuses to name. It is surreal to think that Grewal would have been able to meet openly in his office with the Prime Minister's chief of staff the day after Belinda kicked Stephen in the political goolies.
7. The bits that are audible are rendered so inaccurately in places that one wonders if they were not deliberately - albeit clumsily - altered. Perhaps they are hoping the media won't think twice about the "evidence".
8. Let's be clear about this, though: even if the audio tapes from Grewal are not perfectly clear, the omissions and additions to the transcript significantly alter the tone of the conversation between Dosanj and Grewal, for example.
The same can be said of the conversations between Tim Murphy and Grewal about the matter being discussed related to Joe Volpe. Murphy is clear that the process must be allowed to proceed and, implicitly, that there cannot be interference. Try and find that in the transcript. There are also bits of conversation which are plainly audible - arranging meetings for example - that are inexplicably left out of the transcript.
9. References to the prime minister have been inserted where other words are clearly used. Other sections, where Dosanj makes it unequivocally clear that there can not be a deal to cross the floor in exchange for something have been left out even though these sections are audible to a careful listener.
10. Let's also be clear that there is absolutely no evidence provided here that there was ever an offer of any favour in exchange for Grewal crossing the floor. In fact, both Dosanj and Murphy explicitly reject the notion. They do point to the possibility of some consideration being given down the road to an appointment or position, but this is the type of thing that any caucus member might expect.
11. It is easy to see that Murphy and Dosanj are suspicious of Grewal's motives - and rightly so. They are playing the whole thing as straight as possible, if for no other reason than because Grewal is a very small and largely insignificant fish. Belinda Stronach, on the other hand, was a major catch but again - there is no evidence of any inducement for her to change parties.
12. By the way, can someone explain why this transcription of the conversations with Dosanj translates a garbled Punjabi comment with the words Belinda Stronach that appear to have taken place before Grewal would have known about her conversations with the Liberals? More particularly, it would seem odd in the context that this conversation took place the same day or the day after Grewal went public yet the comments by Donsanj focus on Scott Brison and not Belinda Stronach.
Turn the whole thing over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Grewal, his wife and whoever else is foisting this story on the country had better be ready to resign in disgrace if the edits on the transcript - poorly executed as they are - turn out to be but the tip of the iceberg in what I am still convinced is a Grewal scam.
Following is a revised portion of the transcripts based on the audio files downloaded from Grewal's site.
Extract begins:
UD[Ujjal Dosanj]: Tim told me to call. I think, as I said earlier, no PRIME MINISTER would ever want to compromise himself with that kind of appropriate (?) because he want to be able to say, "‘I did not make a deal in it, there was no deal’." [incorrect Grewal transcription] "I didn't make a deal with anybody. There was no deal." [corrected version] You came and we accepted you, if that happens. If you want to be able to say that honestly. That'’s why I was suggesting you what I was suggesting you.[word added] That was the difficulty that Tim had. And you saw that. I think from my perspective, I told you about [words omitted by transcriber] that's the way how my conversation went with the PRIME MINISTER, when I came to the Liberals. [words added by transcriber] You know we have Scott Brison, he essentially [word omitted] came as a back bencher, stayed a back bencher, then he was a parliamentary [words omitted by transcriber] PRIME MINISTER'’s [word added/substituted by transcriber] secretary.
GG [Gurmant Grewal]: No, he came directly.
UD: Not to the cabinet.
GG: OK
UD He was made parliamentary secretary.
UD Depends... and you know that'’s how the deals are made [words inserted by transcriber] these things happen. [clearly audible words omitted by transcriber] I think I just wanted to call you that to let you know the conditions that you should talk to me should you decide. If you don't decide then we should leave it. You wanna -inaudible - but you don't want to face the attack (?) and I want to make sure that's how it is -inaudible - and I think you need to really seriously think about the understanding...about how these things happen. It's a matter of trust...then it's a matter of the prime minister being able to appropriately deal with these issues when the time is right. [audible section omitted by transcriber. Note: Grewal repeatedly mutters "uh huh" to indicate he is listening.]
- Inaudible -
UD: PRIME MINISTER can never say I will give you X and then say [words omitted by transcriber] is never going to say to you that [words added/substituted by transcriber] that I never said that. You have to be able to say that I did not make a deal. That'’s very important. That'’s why this these ["this" = incorrect word by transcriber] kinds of deals are not made in that fashion. If you think about it, if you think it is appropriate -inaudible portion -
GG - inaudible -
UD: Then the understanding has to be one together [words omitted by transcriber] and then if there is an understanding. ...Volpe would not be difficult. The ethics commissioner, there is nothing we can do. It is independent thing and must remain independent. [words omitted by transcriber]
-inaudible- [punjabi conversation??]
GG: We want to talk with goodwill, it is stumbling block and should be out of the way irrespective of what we actually do. [The words "irrespective of what we do" stand out, suggesting Grewal was focusing on the immigration issue as his main objective. The Globe story this evening points to allegations that Grewal was accepting cash in exchange for expediting immigration matters. Hmm. Soliciting political influence to avoid a possible embarrassing investigation by the ethics commissioner, Mr. Grewal? Say it ain't so.]
UD: Volpe, will talk with him, but it will be.. [There is an audible portion of the tape in which Dosanj makes reference to the issue with Joe Volpe. Donsanj quite clearly indicates that there can be no promise because Volpe might say "I am right and you are wrong and then we will have to persuade him..." This is rendered incorrectly in the Connie version.]
Extract ends
Here are some general observations:
1. The translation sucks. Even someone who does not speak Punjabi can notice that the Punjabi to English translations are extremely poor - poor to the point that one wonders what the heck might be missing of substance and context from the conversations.
2. The Blackberry log on the portion involving Sudesh Kalia doesn't match the set of transcripts made available. There are calls on 18 May for example - several of them - that weren't released.
3. We also don't have the calls Grewal made to others. The SK log of calls also shows calls being made by Grewal to SK. Where are they?
4. In the portion of the calls related to discussions between health minister Ujjal Dosanj and Grewal, the phrase "prime minister" is inexplicably rendered in all caps. The ONLY reason to do this is EMPHASIS. But since the sections refer to a prime minister wishing to distance himself from the arrangement, one wonders what the heck the purpose would be of this mucking about other than to draw unnecessary attention to the prime minister.
5. Chunks of Dosanj's comments are inaudible or barely audible. The audio quality on the tapes of chats with Dosanj is as poor as it gets. Only a sophisticated audio process - such as the police might employ could sort out some of the comments that can't be heard by the unaided ear. Funny that Grewal hasn't turned over all his "evidence" to the police since he is alleging a crime took place.
6. There are some huge problems with dates. Grewal went public with his allegations on 18 May, yet this tape has some conversations taking place that same day. In one tape - the Murphy in Grewal office tape - the conversation supposedly takes place on the 18th according to the Grewal site. Yet for that to be true, it would have occurred on the same day Grewal went public.
Strangely, in the audio tape - which is a small portion of the transcript - Murphy makes no reference at all to Stronach even though her crossing would have taken place the day before. Instead, Murphy makes a cryptic reference to other members of the Conservative caucus he refuses to name. It is surreal to think that Grewal would have been able to meet openly in his office with the Prime Minister's chief of staff the day after Belinda kicked Stephen in the political goolies.
7. The bits that are audible are rendered so inaccurately in places that one wonders if they were not deliberately - albeit clumsily - altered. Perhaps they are hoping the media won't think twice about the "evidence".
8. Let's be clear about this, though: even if the audio tapes from Grewal are not perfectly clear, the omissions and additions to the transcript significantly alter the tone of the conversation between Dosanj and Grewal, for example.
The same can be said of the conversations between Tim Murphy and Grewal about the matter being discussed related to Joe Volpe. Murphy is clear that the process must be allowed to proceed and, implicitly, that there cannot be interference. Try and find that in the transcript. There are also bits of conversation which are plainly audible - arranging meetings for example - that are inexplicably left out of the transcript.
9. References to the prime minister have been inserted where other words are clearly used. Other sections, where Dosanj makes it unequivocally clear that there can not be a deal to cross the floor in exchange for something have been left out even though these sections are audible to a careful listener.
10. Let's also be clear that there is absolutely no evidence provided here that there was ever an offer of any favour in exchange for Grewal crossing the floor. In fact, both Dosanj and Murphy explicitly reject the notion. They do point to the possibility of some consideration being given down the road to an appointment or position, but this is the type of thing that any caucus member might expect.
11. It is easy to see that Murphy and Dosanj are suspicious of Grewal's motives - and rightly so. They are playing the whole thing as straight as possible, if for no other reason than because Grewal is a very small and largely insignificant fish. Belinda Stronach, on the other hand, was a major catch but again - there is no evidence of any inducement for her to change parties.
12. By the way, can someone explain why this transcription of the conversations with Dosanj translates a garbled Punjabi comment with the words Belinda Stronach that appear to have taken place before Grewal would have known about her conversations with the Liberals? More particularly, it would seem odd in the context that this conversation took place the same day or the day after Grewal went public yet the comments by Donsanj focus on Scott Brison and not Belinda Stronach.
Turn the whole thing over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Grewal, his wife and whoever else is foisting this story on the country had better be ready to resign in disgrace if the edits on the transcript - poorly executed as they are - turn out to be but the tip of the iceberg in what I am still convinced is a Grewal scam.
31 May 2005
No fiscal imbalance, says AIMS head
Here's a link to comments by Brian Crowley of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies on the so-called fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provincial governments.
"Now, a case has been made, Mr. Chairman, by a number of commentators on provincial government that there exists a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, by which I think they mean there is a mismatch between what the two levels of government are called to do under the Constitution, on the one hand, and the fiscal resources that they currently enjoy to carry out those responsibilities, on the other. In other words, Ottawa has too much cash relative to its responsibilities, and the provinces too little, and furthermore, the excess of cash at the federal level is the cause of the fiscal shortfall at the provincial level.
Now, before we rush to find solutions to that problem, it's important to determine whether the premises that define that problem are in fact correct, and I intend to make the case this morning, Mr. Chairman, that those premises are faulty, that the provinces have adequate resources at their disposal, including room to raise taxes, that Ottawa's surpluses are the proper reward to the federal government for its fiscal virtue, and that Ottawa's improved fiscal position is in no way at the expense of the provinces." [Emphasis added]
"Now, a case has been made, Mr. Chairman, by a number of commentators on provincial government that there exists a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, by which I think they mean there is a mismatch between what the two levels of government are called to do under the Constitution, on the one hand, and the fiscal resources that they currently enjoy to carry out those responsibilities, on the other. In other words, Ottawa has too much cash relative to its responsibilities, and the provinces too little, and furthermore, the excess of cash at the federal level is the cause of the fiscal shortfall at the provincial level.
Now, before we rush to find solutions to that problem, it's important to determine whether the premises that define that problem are in fact correct, and I intend to make the case this morning, Mr. Chairman, that those premises are faulty, that the provinces have adequate resources at their disposal, including room to raise taxes, that Ottawa's surpluses are the proper reward to the federal government for its fiscal virtue, and that Ottawa's improved fiscal position is in no way at the expense of the provinces." [Emphasis added]
30 May 2005
Hearn continues to fight his own party
No one should ignore the fact that Loyola Hearn's plan to have the finance committee separate the offshore revenue deal from the main budget motion basically puts him at odds with his own party's plan to keep the budget from passing by any means necessary.
Canadian Press is reporting the Connies plan a number of measures to slow the House and in the finance committee have talked of calling witnesses to slow review of the budget bills.
Mr. Hearn's position, therefore is nothing short of pathetic, not because of Mr. Hearn but because of his party.
Mr. Hearn is now so desperate to garner whatever votes he can in anticipation of an election, he is trying to break off whatever parts of the budget he needs in order to keep them from being crushed by the Connie rush to the polls. Or is it the lemmings rush to the precipice?
If the Connies would just stop playing procedural games, the money would be on the way by the end of next month.
Canadian Press is reporting the Connies plan a number of measures to slow the House and in the finance committee have talked of calling witnesses to slow review of the budget bills.
Mr. Hearn's position, therefore is nothing short of pathetic, not because of Mr. Hearn but because of his party.
Mr. Hearn is now so desperate to garner whatever votes he can in anticipation of an election, he is trying to break off whatever parts of the budget he needs in order to keep them from being crushed by the Connie rush to the polls. Or is it the lemmings rush to the precipice?
If the Connies would just stop playing procedural games, the money would be on the way by the end of next month.
National Conservative Lunacy
As the House heads back after a weeklong break, everyone who thought the confidence games were over in the Commons is finding out that the Connies intended to keep up their tactics.
The finance committee intends to stall the budget.
But for what purpose?
It is one thing to exercise power, but merely to become sand in the gears of government makes a political party look pretty lame. Their message is: "We want an election and we are prepared to pour crazy glue in every lock in the building to get our way. Oh yeah and we want to be the government, too."
Sounds like a winning strategy to me.
Then you have to look at the latest poll, this one by Decima.
Decima confirms other polls that show the Liberals decisively in front of the Connies nationally and in the battleground in Ontario.
The Decima poll also shows that almost half the sample have switched their vote choice in the past month. Look closely though, the biggest group of switchers are low-income women and they are moving between Liberals and NDP - NOT the Connies.
Decima concludes this is good for the Connies.
Only in the minds of the Connie game theorists. That level of volatility is hard to manage, but more importantly, it is highly vulnerable to the kind of messaging that normally causes the NDP vote to collapse and for those voters to stream to the polling booths in order to keep Stephen Harper out of 24 Sussex.
No matter how much low income women may find difficulty with Liberals, they have a much harder time living with Connies.
The finance committee intends to stall the budget.
But for what purpose?
It is one thing to exercise power, but merely to become sand in the gears of government makes a political party look pretty lame. Their message is: "We want an election and we are prepared to pour crazy glue in every lock in the building to get our way. Oh yeah and we want to be the government, too."
Sounds like a winning strategy to me.
Then you have to look at the latest poll, this one by Decima.
Decima confirms other polls that show the Liberals decisively in front of the Connies nationally and in the battleground in Ontario.
The Decima poll also shows that almost half the sample have switched their vote choice in the past month. Look closely though, the biggest group of switchers are low-income women and they are moving between Liberals and NDP - NOT the Connies.
Decima concludes this is good for the Connies.
Only in the minds of the Connie game theorists. That level of volatility is hard to manage, but more importantly, it is highly vulnerable to the kind of messaging that normally causes the NDP vote to collapse and for those voters to stream to the polling booths in order to keep Stephen Harper out of 24 Sussex.
No matter how much low income women may find difficulty with Liberals, they have a much harder time living with Connies.
Roger Grimes: the genuine article
As CBC reported on Friday, Roger Grimes is expected to announce his resignation as provincial Liberal Party leader in a news conference at the Fairmont on Monday morning at 11:30 AM.
With an election about two and a half years away, Grimes' resignation gives the party the chance to hold a leadership convention quickly and thereby gift his successor with upwards of 24 months to get the party ready.
The one unusual feature is the speed. VOCM is reporting Grimes will vacate both his office as leader and his seat in the House effective Tuesday. This puts the party in the position of having to appoint an interim leader.
It also gives the government a chance to hold a by-election election and perhaps win Grimes' district before the Liberals can get properly organized. Under the revised House of Assembly Act, a writ of election must be issued within 60 days of a seat becoming vacant.
Grimes departure seems to have caught some people by surprise. It shouldn't have. Grimes was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1989. He served in every government since then either as a parliamentary secretary, minister and later as premier. That's a long enough time for most people.
Grimes showed himself to be an affable, competent minister. Under both Clyde Wells and particularly Brian Tobin, Grimes was given the tough portfolios and often won the co-operation and respect of those he dealt with who may have been opposed to one or another government policy.
He became premier after what turned out to be a bitter leadership contest. His biggest political problem came out of that contest. Beholden to all, he could do little to lead by force when force might be needed. Hence cabinet, and after afterward caucus, degenerated into more or less a loose association of people coasting along toward a vaguely defined common point.
The best example of what was wrong with the Grimes cabinet came over the Labrador ferry service. Cabinet minister Yvonne Jones broke ranks and openly criticized her cabinet colleagues for a tough decision on a tough file. Good for Yvonne's own interest; lousy for the government and the party. It cemented the view that the cabinet lacked sufficient cohesion to govern and far worse that, in some cases like Jones for example, cabinet was populated with too many people who simply didn't belong there.
As Opposition Leader, Roger Grimes demonstrated almost daily his considerable experience. His demeanor was measured and appropriate and often stood in stark contrast to the Peckford-esque ranting from the other side. He looked and acted like a premier.
But it has been past time for Grimes to go. He clearly had no interest in seeking another term as premier. In the meantime, the work needed to reinvigorate the party was definitely not getting done.
Grimes' speedy departure should be what people remember of him at this point. Recall not the speed but the effect: by going as quickly as he has and as unexpectedly, he is forcing the party out of its doldrums. Grimes' retirement to the links - where any of us would rather be anyway - is like being dropped naked into the Atlantic. The task now falls to others to see if they can mount a credible challenge to the governing party. Grimes' has given a dose of practical medicine as his last act as leader.
As for Grimes' long political career, people should remember not merely its length but the achievements. In education, health, tourism, labour and mines and energy, Grimes demonstrated time and again that he was among the most effective cabinet ministers ever to occupy a seat at the round table.
The Voisey's Bay deal, which some will ignorantly criticise, is actually an amazing achievement in and of itself. Don't even consider that Grimes' predecessor did all in his power to create a political climate in the province that made a deal all but impossible. That only makes the deal more noteworthy.
Grimes' didn't need to rely on flashy showmanship; he could do the job well and that was what stood out. He could explain himself easily to others as well and that too sets Grimes apart among politicians who rely too much on pat answers and cloudy verbiage. He was an effective political communicator; far better than the guy with the self-imposed title.
As for his interpersonal relations , Grimes' knew the value of a Christmas card for maintaining contact, which by its personal note long after such a note was required, conveyed the sincere connection intended.
There will be many words written and spoken about Roger Grimes in the next 24 hours. Doubtful that anyone can do him justice at this point; perhaps time will pass for the right words to emerge.
In the meantime, let this suffice, because in truth I can think of no higher a compliment to pay a fellow who has served his province as long and as well as has Roger Grimes:
He is the genuine article.
With an election about two and a half years away, Grimes' resignation gives the party the chance to hold a leadership convention quickly and thereby gift his successor with upwards of 24 months to get the party ready.
The one unusual feature is the speed. VOCM is reporting Grimes will vacate both his office as leader and his seat in the House effective Tuesday. This puts the party in the position of having to appoint an interim leader.
It also gives the government a chance to hold a by-election election and perhaps win Grimes' district before the Liberals can get properly organized. Under the revised House of Assembly Act, a writ of election must be issued within 60 days of a seat becoming vacant.
Grimes departure seems to have caught some people by surprise. It shouldn't have. Grimes was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1989. He served in every government since then either as a parliamentary secretary, minister and later as premier. That's a long enough time for most people.
Grimes showed himself to be an affable, competent minister. Under both Clyde Wells and particularly Brian Tobin, Grimes was given the tough portfolios and often won the co-operation and respect of those he dealt with who may have been opposed to one or another government policy.
He became premier after what turned out to be a bitter leadership contest. His biggest political problem came out of that contest. Beholden to all, he could do little to lead by force when force might be needed. Hence cabinet, and after afterward caucus, degenerated into more or less a loose association of people coasting along toward a vaguely defined common point.
The best example of what was wrong with the Grimes cabinet came over the Labrador ferry service. Cabinet minister Yvonne Jones broke ranks and openly criticized her cabinet colleagues for a tough decision on a tough file. Good for Yvonne's own interest; lousy for the government and the party. It cemented the view that the cabinet lacked sufficient cohesion to govern and far worse that, in some cases like Jones for example, cabinet was populated with too many people who simply didn't belong there.
As Opposition Leader, Roger Grimes demonstrated almost daily his considerable experience. His demeanor was measured and appropriate and often stood in stark contrast to the Peckford-esque ranting from the other side. He looked and acted like a premier.
But it has been past time for Grimes to go. He clearly had no interest in seeking another term as premier. In the meantime, the work needed to reinvigorate the party was definitely not getting done.
Grimes' speedy departure should be what people remember of him at this point. Recall not the speed but the effect: by going as quickly as he has and as unexpectedly, he is forcing the party out of its doldrums. Grimes' retirement to the links - where any of us would rather be anyway - is like being dropped naked into the Atlantic. The task now falls to others to see if they can mount a credible challenge to the governing party. Grimes' has given a dose of practical medicine as his last act as leader.
As for Grimes' long political career, people should remember not merely its length but the achievements. In education, health, tourism, labour and mines and energy, Grimes demonstrated time and again that he was among the most effective cabinet ministers ever to occupy a seat at the round table.
The Voisey's Bay deal, which some will ignorantly criticise, is actually an amazing achievement in and of itself. Don't even consider that Grimes' predecessor did all in his power to create a political climate in the province that made a deal all but impossible. That only makes the deal more noteworthy.
Grimes' didn't need to rely on flashy showmanship; he could do the job well and that was what stood out. He could explain himself easily to others as well and that too sets Grimes apart among politicians who rely too much on pat answers and cloudy verbiage. He was an effective political communicator; far better than the guy with the self-imposed title.
As for his interpersonal relations , Grimes' knew the value of a Christmas card for maintaining contact, which by its personal note long after such a note was required, conveyed the sincere connection intended.
There will be many words written and spoken about Roger Grimes in the next 24 hours. Doubtful that anyone can do him justice at this point; perhaps time will pass for the right words to emerge.
In the meantime, let this suffice, because in truth I can think of no higher a compliment to pay a fellow who has served his province as long and as well as has Roger Grimes:
He is the genuine article.
27 May 2005
The Parable of the Trees
"Two trees stood on a cliff, both buffeted by fierce winds. One remained rigid and cracked under the strain. The other moved as the winds grew strong or ebbed.
This tree grew to great height."
Don't be too surprised if you start hearing rumours that Stephen Harper is about to retire from politics.
After all, those rumours started originally back in March, not coincidentally just before the Conservatives decided to reject the budget, disrupt the House and ultimately force a confidence show-down in the House of Commons. Bear in mind that this whole thing came about despite polling that showed the Conservatives well behind the Liberals everywhere except Alberta and that Paul Martin remained the overwhelming choice of Canadians to be prime minister.
Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist once advised that where one is weak, one should appear strong. The Conservative push toward an election can be seen as little more than offensive action designed primarily to avoid dealing with a number of internal party problems including divisions over substantial policy matters and the lingering doubts about Harper's ability or willingness to leader the party into the next election.
Questions of leadership were evident in the way Harper treated Belinda Stronach. His own account of the dressing down he gave her is littered with signs of an internal struggle for control of the party. Faced too with the weaknesses that still exist within his party, Harper's solution was to attack the Liberals and thereby force his supporters to rally around the Conservative flag.
Closer to home, Premier Danny Williams used the same approach last October. His polling numbers were strong on the surface but underneath lurked some weaknesses, as revealed by Corporate Research Associates polling obtained by The Telegram under the new Access to Information Act. The premier also had alienated a number of provincial premiers immediately before a major national conference that would discuss, among other things, federal-provincial financing arrangements. Their resentment of the offshore proposal - what appeared to them as a major dodge around the current equitable but imperfect Equalization program - would have led to a nasty confrontation behind closed doors.
Williams' solution was to storm out of the meeting, claiming that the federal government's offshore offer was an insult. His polling numbers shot through the roof and any doubts about him and his leadership disappeared both in public or in the privacy of the pollsters' telephone calls.
Sometimes the approach works, as with Danny Williams. Sometimes it fails, as with Stephen Harper.
The Labrador by-election and two recent polls give clues as to why the Conservative Party's - really Stephen Harper's - push for the writ didn't work.
Successful national Canadian political parties are coalitions. Both the Liberal Party for most of its history and the Mulroney Conservatives did not have an immovable ideological core. They could embrace diverse views of social, economic and constitutional policy. Political parties learn to manage the disputes that erupt between members, between factions or among members from different regions. The bargaining and horse-trading that people decry are actually the mechanisms by which people can advance their particular causes without resorting to violence.
It may not be pretty but it is democracy.
Unsuccessful national parties, like the New Democrats and the Reform parties either represent a particular region or, most typically, reflect some ideological yardstick used to measure the purity of their members. There is no small irony, therefore that the initials of two Canadian ideological parties are the same, even if they represent polar opposite political views. The Communist Party of Canada, the Moscow-oriented clan and the Conservatives both go by the initials CPC.
The Unite the Right movement held at its core a belief that Canada needed a political party which represented what are called right of centre views, but which was essentially able to embrace both the substantial differences between the red Tories - the Progressive Conservatives - and the Reform cum Alliance Party. This was an effort to create another coalition party which, truthfully, is the only type of political party that could hope to win an election in a country as diverse as Canada.
On the surface, the recent CPC losses in the House and in Labrador can be seen as communications failures; the party used messages about corruption which were not heard by anyone outside their own ranks. This is revealed in the Leger poll. In Labrador, the CPC hammered on issues that did not address the views of the constituents they were trying to court. They talked about defence spending, that would benefit one portion of the riding, even though that was by no means a core issue for the majority of voters. At the same time, the CPC
talked about defeating the government's budget that included money for community infrastructure.
By the same token, Stephen Harper pledged not to force an election if the public didn't want it. When poll after poll revealed no one wanted an election, the CPC merely shifted gears. Peter MacKay likened elections to root canal - painful but necessary.
Make no mistake: these were monstrous communications failures. They represent massive political failures.
Look closer to home, in eastern Newfoundland and you can easily see the effects of the charge of the political light brigade that go beyond the national polling numbers like the ones from Leger or these from Ekos.
Two stalwart Conservatives, one of them an architect of the new party have destroyed their political base in what ought to be safe Conservative territory. Loyola Hearn is now openly talking of quitting politics. His reputation is battered. He is alienated from the local Conservatives both by the actions of his party and by the workings of his own jawbone.
This poses a problem, however. The CPC is supposedly a coalition party. Its leader is reputedly a master political strategist. Some of its key people - like Hearn and MacKay have fought successful campaigns provincially and federally or at least have the political savvy to know how to run a coalition team.
How is it possible for this combination to make such glaring errors?
The answer is that the CPC is dominated by ideologues that come not from only the old Reform Party. This is not to give into the temptation to dismiss the views held by Reformers; rather it acknowledges them for what they are - a group with strong views that is more likely to look for purity of belief, to exclude those seen as impure, to look inward rather than outward.
Consider the language used to describe Liberals. The enemy - even that word suggest the depth of their feeling - is corrupt and immoral. They and their supporters are criminal - mafia and whores. They lack principle. Voters are cowered by the dastardly villains. One need only listen to Stephen Harper's language or browse the blogs of CPC supporters to find this singularity of perspective. The use of moral judgments is striking.
How does one legitimately compromise with - even live with - untermenschen?
Added to that ideological singularity is a leader who is also apparently unyielding. His dressing down of Stronach suggests a man with little tolerance for opposition. This is hardly the stuff of a coalition builder. Harper's detractors all point to his unshakeable belief in his own correctness. Comments by Preston Manning ring in one's ears. According to Manning, Harper saw no value in holding town hall meetings to discuss fiscal policy with people lacking the education to comprehend the sophisticated concepts involved.
One of the finest examples of Harper's inflexibility came at the end of the last federal election. His national headquarters issued a news release that accused Paul Martin of supporting child molesters. When he faced reporters, Harper refused to disown the release. Leading a party that spoke of integrity, Harper refused to admit that someone had made an error and by doing so made the focus of the story the obvious gap between words and deeds. Credibility suffered and with it went Harper's hopes for a majority government.
Stephen Harper appears to have surrounded himself with old friends who share his outlook. Some have brought their game theory approaches, and with it, the unshakeable belief that their numbers not merely model reality - they are reality. Game theorists in Vietnam fiddled with individual variables and got lost in the tactical movements at the expense of the strategic. Stephen Harper opposed C-43, then supported it, then opposed it and then supported it - all tactical manoeuvering. The CPC voted for one part of the budget and against another - more transparent manoeuvering. One suspects that the game theory scenarios suggested that these were the optimum tactical approaches at each point.
Genuine strategy would see that each step is part of a longer journey and that the optimum step at each discrete moment on the road may lead ultimately to the wrong destination. Strategy understands the need to give with the wind sometimes.
On the surface, the Conservatives have committed some readily apparent political blunders.
The question that must be asked is why this is so.
The answer lies in the leader and in the party itself.
For the future, the Conservative Party faces the challenge of having a leader who is a four- or five-time failure. Many may feel the need to find a new leader.
But consider the timelines.
The prime minister has committed to an election in January.
By the time the House closes next month, and even if Stephen Harper resigned immediately, the party could not hold a leadership convention and begin the process of internal revitalization that it would need to win.
The only way the Conservative Party could win in January is for the Liberal Party to collapse.
Consider that the tree which grew strong did not depend on the other tree for its success.
26 May 2005
Peter MacKay, DDS, reveals his strategic genius
There's a CP story running today in which Peter "I feel so used" MacKay, DDS, claims that Labrador voters went Liberal out of fear that government support would vanish if they voted anything but rouge.
For those who don't know, MacKay is deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and former toy-boy of Belinda Stronach.
"There is fear among Labrador people that if they vote against the government, the government will not support that region," MacKay said just before giving a speech to a meeting of Quebec police union officials.
"I was there. It's a real fear."
The CPC also accused Liberals of buying votes in Labrador.
That was around the same time the CPC campaign was promising:
1. To renegotiate the Voisey's Bay deal to improve royalties for the province. (The feds have no legal ability to crack open the development deal since they weren't party to it); and,
2. To make the Goose Bay air base "operationally required", sending in a new infantry battalion to be based there alongside a squadron equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles.
The other stuff they promised was already in train.
In the actual result, every single person who voted Liberal last time voted Liberal again save for a few dozen. The CPC doubled its vote.
But here's the thing:
What was the major issue in Labrador?
Health care.
Other issues like transportation, the Inuit land claims agreement and water and sewer were also a big in the Big Land.
According to the Telelink poll for NTV, the Goose base was an issue for a mere 5% of those polled. Even if the poll was off by a certain amount it wasn't so far out of whack that the last place issue would supplant an issue that was reportedly getting eight times the level of support.
The Connies talked about defence, stuff they couldn't do anything about (Voisey's Bay) and a bunch of stuff that was coming anyway.
They are also on record as wanting to vote against the federal budget which includes, among other things, money for infrastructure projects like water and sewer.
Hmmmm.
The losing side accuses the winners of buying votes (despite their own blatant attempts to buy votes).
The losers say the voters were duped, were fearful or were otherwise not in their right minds when they case their ballot.
That speaks volumes about the CPC view of the electorate and democracy.
Personally, it looks to me like a combination of two things:
1. The voters weighed the options and made their choices. You don't have to like it but whatever they decided has to be accepted as valid. It can only be questioned if there is substantial evidence of massive fraud like one might find in Rhodesia or parts of the former Soviet Union.
2. The CPC message track was out of touch with what voters really want. That's because the CPC actually doesn't pay attention to voters' issues. After all, according Peter MacKay DDS, voters who chose someone other than his teammate must be acting under duress.
Arrogance, thy name is Peter.
For those who don't know, MacKay is deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and former toy-boy of Belinda Stronach.
"There is fear among Labrador people that if they vote against the government, the government will not support that region," MacKay said just before giving a speech to a meeting of Quebec police union officials.
"I was there. It's a real fear."
The CPC also accused Liberals of buying votes in Labrador.
That was around the same time the CPC campaign was promising:
1. To renegotiate the Voisey's Bay deal to improve royalties for the province. (The feds have no legal ability to crack open the development deal since they weren't party to it); and,
2. To make the Goose Bay air base "operationally required", sending in a new infantry battalion to be based there alongside a squadron equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles.
The other stuff they promised was already in train.
In the actual result, every single person who voted Liberal last time voted Liberal again save for a few dozen. The CPC doubled its vote.
But here's the thing:
What was the major issue in Labrador?
Health care.
Other issues like transportation, the Inuit land claims agreement and water and sewer were also a big in the Big Land.
According to the Telelink poll for NTV, the Goose base was an issue for a mere 5% of those polled. Even if the poll was off by a certain amount it wasn't so far out of whack that the last place issue would supplant an issue that was reportedly getting eight times the level of support.
The Connies talked about defence, stuff they couldn't do anything about (Voisey's Bay) and a bunch of stuff that was coming anyway.
They are also on record as wanting to vote against the federal budget which includes, among other things, money for infrastructure projects like water and sewer.
Hmmmm.
The losing side accuses the winners of buying votes (despite their own blatant attempts to buy votes).
The losers say the voters were duped, were fearful or were otherwise not in their right minds when they case their ballot.
That speaks volumes about the CPC view of the electorate and democracy.
Personally, it looks to me like a combination of two things:
1. The voters weighed the options and made their choices. You don't have to like it but whatever they decided has to be accepted as valid. It can only be questioned if there is substantial evidence of massive fraud like one might find in Rhodesia or parts of the former Soviet Union.
2. The CPC message track was out of touch with what voters really want. That's because the CPC actually doesn't pay attention to voters' issues. After all, according Peter MacKay DDS, voters who chose someone other than his teammate must be acting under duress.
Arrogance, thy name is Peter.
Lampoon hits new low
Odds are high you'll enjoy this editorial cartoon from the National Lampoon.
Funny how the editors of the unofficial organ of the Conservative Party of Canada didn't hide it behind their subscriber wall so that only the people who shell out cash for this rag could see it.
Maybe it's a marketing ploy, a la Peg Wente.
Maybe it just reflects their ignorance of the country.
Maybe it reflects both.
Funny how the editors of the unofficial organ of the Conservative Party of Canada didn't hide it behind their subscriber wall so that only the people who shell out cash for this rag could see it.
Maybe it's a marketing ploy, a la Peg Wente.
Maybe it just reflects their ignorance of the country.
Maybe it reflects both.
Hearn ponders trouting over fishing for votes
Loyola Hearn may be fishing for trout in a big pond instead of searching for the possibly scarce votes he'd get in the next federal election.
Here's a bit of what Loyola Hearn told CBS about the pressure he felt during the past two weeks.
Note especially the reply to the question about his future in politics:
"How long more to you stay around? That's the point," he says. "Another year from now, I might decide that I might want to go trouting too, you know."
Meanwhile, Hearn's opponents in the last federal election said they are planning another run at the seat.
Liberal Siobhan Coady and New Democrat Peg Norman want another shot.
The thing is, though, will they be shooting at Hearn...
or Ed Byrne?
Here's a bit of what Loyola Hearn told CBS about the pressure he felt during the past two weeks.
Note especially the reply to the question about his future in politics:
"How long more to you stay around? That's the point," he says. "Another year from now, I might decide that I might want to go trouting too, you know."
Meanwhile, Hearn's opponents in the last federal election said they are planning another run at the seat.
Liberal Siobhan Coady and New Democrat Peg Norman want another shot.
The thing is, though, will they be shooting at Hearn...
or Ed Byrne?
The Constitutional Fish
Meanwhile in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Appeals Division?), some enterprising lawyer is seeking a ruling on whether or not the Government of Canada has the right:
1. To regulate what is commonly known as the food or recreational fishery; and,
2. Even if it does, can the Government of Canada regulate the fishery within the province's boundaries, namely within the three mile limit.
While I am not a lawyer, I enjoy playing one sometimes in the privacy of my own blog.
The argument being presented on behalf of two chaps accused of breaching fisheries regulations hinges on the Terms of Union, which, as we all should know, is part of the Canadian constitution.
Under Term 2, the province is defined as including the same territory as at the date of union. Since Newfoundland and Labrador included a territorial sea of three miles, the province's boundaries extend that far out to sea. This was confirmed by the offshore decisions in the early 1980s.
Under Term 3, the British North America Acts, as amended, apply to the new province as to all others except as provided by the Terms of Union. The BNA Act is now known as the Constitution Act.
Still with me so far?
Section 22 of the Terms of Union specifically address fisheries matters.
22 (2) continues all fisheries laws of the former Dominion of Newfoundland for a period of five years from the date of union and from then on, as amended or repealed by the Government of Canada through the Newfoundland Fisheries Board which became a federal agency. While the NFB had powers over licensing it was created in 1936 to improve markets and the quality of fish exports.
Term 22 also provides that the federal parliament will assume appropriate jurisdiction to amend fisheries laws formerly in force in Newfoundland (before the date of union) but here's the key thing to bear in mind: sections 11, 12, 13 and 18 reinforce Term 3 in providing that the Constitution Act applies to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, the power to regulate coastal fisheries rests with the Government of Canada.
There may be some case law and argumentation I am unaware of that can be used to back up the case being made by the appellant(s). I could also have misunderstood the brief description of the case given on radio this afternoon.
To be frank, on the face of it, this case is going to be a short one. The letter of the law seems pretty clear as to the intention of the framers of the constitution.
In any event, people should keep their eye on this case to see what comes of it once the learned justices of the Supreme Court hear the arguments and then render a judgment.
1. To regulate what is commonly known as the food or recreational fishery; and,
2. Even if it does, can the Government of Canada regulate the fishery within the province's boundaries, namely within the three mile limit.
While I am not a lawyer, I enjoy playing one sometimes in the privacy of my own blog.
The argument being presented on behalf of two chaps accused of breaching fisheries regulations hinges on the Terms of Union, which, as we all should know, is part of the Canadian constitution.
Under Term 2, the province is defined as including the same territory as at the date of union. Since Newfoundland and Labrador included a territorial sea of three miles, the province's boundaries extend that far out to sea. This was confirmed by the offshore decisions in the early 1980s.
Under Term 3, the British North America Acts, as amended, apply to the new province as to all others except as provided by the Terms of Union. The BNA Act is now known as the Constitution Act.
Still with me so far?
Section 22 of the Terms of Union specifically address fisheries matters.
22 (2) continues all fisheries laws of the former Dominion of Newfoundland for a period of five years from the date of union and from then on, as amended or repealed by the Government of Canada through the Newfoundland Fisheries Board which became a federal agency. While the NFB had powers over licensing it was created in 1936 to improve markets and the quality of fish exports.
Term 22 also provides that the federal parliament will assume appropriate jurisdiction to amend fisheries laws formerly in force in Newfoundland (before the date of union) but here's the key thing to bear in mind: sections 11, 12, 13 and 18 reinforce Term 3 in providing that the Constitution Act applies to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, the power to regulate coastal fisheries rests with the Government of Canada.
There may be some case law and argumentation I am unaware of that can be used to back up the case being made by the appellant(s). I could also have misunderstood the brief description of the case given on radio this afternoon.
To be frank, on the face of it, this case is going to be a short one. The letter of the law seems pretty clear as to the intention of the framers of the constitution.
In any event, people should keep their eye on this case to see what comes of it once the learned justices of the Supreme Court hear the arguments and then render a judgment.
What goes around...
comes around and in a small province like Newfoundland and Labrador, it picks up speed on the way back.
Consider part of the argument presented in today's Telegram that points out the entire population of Labrador is around the size of a small municipality on the Avalon, and in a larger context is far smaller than a typical federal riding in Ontario.
Here's what the editorial said, in part: "If you take all of the people who voted in Labrador Tuesday, you'd have the equivalent of a population equal to roughly Portugal Cove-St. Philip's deciding the direction of an entire nation. In Toronto ridings with a much larger number of constituents, they might feel their individual votes are necessarily less valuable."
Well, editorialists might want to remember that the population of this entire province is smaller than, say, the City of Hamilton. During the constitutional discussions in the early 1990s, some mainlanders were fond of pointing out that small provinces carried too much weigh in Ottawa in proportion to the size of a province like Ontario or Quebec.
We should thank the Telegram editorial board for siding with an argument that usually winds up with calling on this province and its voters to bend to the will of Ontario. Its basically a variant of the argument John Crosbie used in 1990 to dismiss out of hand any suggestion that offshore revenues under the Real Atlantic Accord should be redistributed.
To paraphrase Crosbie's reasoning, a provincial government that got half of its income from Ottawa shouldn't be allowed to hold up major decisions like the Meech Lake Accord. Crosbie specifically linked the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord with his attitude toward revising the Atlantic Accord.
The major flaw in the editorial's argument, though, is that Labrador enjoyed some sort of popularity or influence beyond what it normally would expect with its one riding and one member in the Commons.
The Telegram mistakes media interest and the obvious interest of political parties in winning a seat with something more than it is: a desire to win the seat.
National media interest was driven by the recent efforts by the Conservative Party to force a national election despite the overwhelming view of Canadians that they do not want an election at this time.
National political parties mounted strong campaigns. The Conservatives were particularly interested in the seat since it would have given them a way of tipping a confidence vote the way they wanted it. But here's the kicker: Even in a majority parliament, the Conservatives would work very hard to wrest the seat from the incumbent party. The political value of that - the symbolic value - would be as great then as now.
Take away the Telegram's peculiar line of reasoning and you have nothing more than the conclusion: that Ottawa ignores rural areas of the country.
While it may be a popular and easily cynical sentiment, it really isn't borne out by evidence. The community editorial demonstrates that the folly underlying the main editorial as clearly as anyone ever could.
At least the community writer won't find his argument coming back to bite him on the backside anytime soon.
Consider part of the argument presented in today's Telegram that points out the entire population of Labrador is around the size of a small municipality on the Avalon, and in a larger context is far smaller than a typical federal riding in Ontario.
Here's what the editorial said, in part: "If you take all of the people who voted in Labrador Tuesday, you'd have the equivalent of a population equal to roughly Portugal Cove-St. Philip's deciding the direction of an entire nation. In Toronto ridings with a much larger number of constituents, they might feel their individual votes are necessarily less valuable."
Well, editorialists might want to remember that the population of this entire province is smaller than, say, the City of Hamilton. During the constitutional discussions in the early 1990s, some mainlanders were fond of pointing out that small provinces carried too much weigh in Ottawa in proportion to the size of a province like Ontario or Quebec.
We should thank the Telegram editorial board for siding with an argument that usually winds up with calling on this province and its voters to bend to the will of Ontario. Its basically a variant of the argument John Crosbie used in 1990 to dismiss out of hand any suggestion that offshore revenues under the Real Atlantic Accord should be redistributed.
To paraphrase Crosbie's reasoning, a provincial government that got half of its income from Ottawa shouldn't be allowed to hold up major decisions like the Meech Lake Accord. Crosbie specifically linked the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord with his attitude toward revising the Atlantic Accord.
The major flaw in the editorial's argument, though, is that Labrador enjoyed some sort of popularity or influence beyond what it normally would expect with its one riding and one member in the Commons.
The Telegram mistakes media interest and the obvious interest of political parties in winning a seat with something more than it is: a desire to win the seat.
National media interest was driven by the recent efforts by the Conservative Party to force a national election despite the overwhelming view of Canadians that they do not want an election at this time.
National political parties mounted strong campaigns. The Conservatives were particularly interested in the seat since it would have given them a way of tipping a confidence vote the way they wanted it. But here's the kicker: Even in a majority parliament, the Conservatives would work very hard to wrest the seat from the incumbent party. The political value of that - the symbolic value - would be as great then as now.
Take away the Telegram's peculiar line of reasoning and you have nothing more than the conclusion: that Ottawa ignores rural areas of the country.
While it may be a popular and easily cynical sentiment, it really isn't borne out by evidence. The community editorial demonstrates that the folly underlying the main editorial as clearly as anyone ever could.
At least the community writer won't find his argument coming back to bite him on the backside anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)