The return of the past in our present

1.  Past master of his domain: Lin Jackson, intellectual godfather of Newfoundland neo-nationalism during the 1980s comes out of retirement to pen a letter in the Wednesday Telegram. Sadly, it isn't online.

Here's an excerpt:

It was thus on Quebec's behalf that Pierre Trudeau's Supreme Court of Canada circumvented our constitutional right to free transmission of power across provinces; it was deference to favoured foreign nations that caused Fisheries and Oceans to mismanage, and finally ruin, the Atlantic cod fishery; and the opportunity to use offshore resources to finally become a "have" province was denied us due to Western objections coupled with Harper's view of us as a "culture of defeat.

Three points. 

Three fables.

It's nice to build an argument on things you make up.

2.  Clearyisms:  Before he edited The Independent, Ryan Cleary guided Geoff Sterling's venerable organ, The Herald. Here are some of Ryan's bons mots for your mid-week campaigning enjoyment:

[Jack] Harris' district of Signal Hill/Quidi Vidi takes in [the] east end of St. John's where the granolas live. The granolas are known for their intelligence and artistic flair and for voting against the grain. So many of them started out with high hopes to change the world... They still vote New Democrat, out of habit if nothing else... For the New Democrats, the trek to victory will only begin when the party sees itself as a winner. And not the loser that it is.  (March 2, 2003, p.3)

There have been charges that Williams has too tight a reign [sic] on his caucus. He shakes the criticism off, advising reporters to ask his MHAs if that’s the case. There’s also been talk for years that Williams has a fiery temper, and isn’t happy when things don’t go his way. Williams admits to having a temper in his younger years, but says he’s “mellowed with age.” (January 26, 2003)

The character and grit of a Williams’ [sic] government will only reveal itself when the administration stands on its feet and takes sole responsibility for its action. (January 19, 2003)

h/t to Mark Watton's post at democraticspace.com and a loyal reader for these blasts from the past.

-srbp-

The problem with being known, ABC version

1.  MUN political science professor Alex Marland, a former comms director in the Williams administration, pointed out to voice of the cabinet minister that the majority of Canadians aren't paying any attention to the Family Feud.

2.  Meanwhile, the Premier is still waiting for answers from the Liberals and Conservatives to his begging letter to Ottawa. Williams wanted a response by September 26 to his eight page list of cash demands from the federal government.  So far, Jack Layton is the only federal leader to reply.  Elizabeth May of the Green Party didn't get a letter.

Maybe there's a problem with being known.

-srbp-

Humber Valley Resort reporting online

Gary Kelly's eponymous blog has been doing yeoman service covering the goings-on at Humber Valley Resort as the resort goes through its current financial travails.

This story hasn't been picked up in the local media but odds are it will gain greater attention in the days ahead.

One of the items Gary posted is an e-mail from Newfound NV that discusses the company's efforts to turn the resort around.  It begins forthrightly enough and then lays out the rationale behind the current creditor protection arrangement:

As I am sure that you are aware, Humber Valley Resort has had a very difficult time since its inception. The company has never made a profit and has failed to deliver on many of the promises made to some of the related parties over the years. We (the new management team at Newfound) were unaware of the full extent of some of these issues until we began a thorough investigation into the operation and fiscal condition of the Resort. I have huge sympathy with you during this period of uncertainty, which follows years of inappropriate management within an unsustainable business model - you must be worried about the future of your investment in Humber Valley. [Emphasis added]

If you want to keep track of the saga of a great idea gone awry, Gary Kelly is on top of the story.

-srbp-

That was now, this is then

Walter Noel, Liberal candidate in St. John's East:

Electing an NDP [sic] could deprive the Liberals of enough seats to beat Stephen Harper. Voting NDP could give the socialists the balance of power in Parliament, the ability to wreck our economy.

Walter didn't always think that way.

Well, at least not in 1974.

Noel ran for the "socialists" in the old riding of St. John's West, coming in third with about 3400 votes. Walter Carter took the seat for the Progressive Conservatives.  Lillian Bouzane came in second for the Liberals.

S. Carey Skinner polled 143 votes for the Social Credit Party.

Will "aging granola" Ryan Cleary do better than Walter did 34 years ago?

-srbp-

"A" but "C" except before seal

Danny Williams may like to claim Stephen Harper is a kitten-eating lizard from outer space but when push came to shove last week, Williams gave up the chance to campaign against a key Harper minister in Nova Scotia.

Williams chief publicity agent responded via Blackberry (that's pretty much how she deals with everyone, apparently) to a Green Party request telling them that Williams wouldn't campaign with Elizabeth May against Peter MacKay "in large part due" to the Green Party stance on the seal hunt.

Huh? What about getting rid of Stephen Harper? What about spreading the word about how Steve and his minions will destroy the country? 

Geez, from the amount of time spent discussing this ABC Family Feud thingy you'd believe it trumped just about anything else.

Apparently, not.

Apparently, seal-bashing is that much more important than opposing pure evil. 

Or largely more important.

Or maybe the real reason is less about seals and more about the politics of the whole Family Feud.

Firstly, the ABC campaign is really just a family affair;  it's a gripe one bunch of Conservatives have about another bunch.

Secondly, it's a negative thing.  As such, the rhetoric will centre on why people should vote against one federal party but there is absolutely nothing in it to explain what people should vote for.

Thirdly, and related to that, Danny Williams would have a hard time justifying spending time on the ground campaigning for one federal candidate against another federal candidate.  There's an unwritten rule in Canadian politics that federal politicians and parties don't inject themselves directly in a federal campaign and vice versa.  If Danny Williams takes to the campaign trail actively working against a federal party, he'd be inviting retaliation the next time he goes to the polls.

That's no small issue, especially in a small province like Newfoundland and Labrador. Having screwed over the federal Liberals and now the federal Conservatives, Williams would be running a huge political gamble that they wouldn't look for some payback in 2011 or whenever Williams calls a vote again.

And make no mistake:  it wouldn't be about punishing either the province as a whole or the party Williams leads. Any intervention by federal parties would every bit as personal as Williams' attacks.  There's a good reason why Williams pulled back from focusing on Fabian Manning, the only incumbent Conservative and the one most likely to hang on to his seat.

Fourthly, the unwillingness to campaign actively for a candidate can be traced back to the polls. Initial polls show that after two years of ABC rhetoric 30-odd percent of voters in Newfoundland and Labrador intend to vote for the federal Conservatives in this election.

As much as some people would like you to believe the two parties are completely different, they aren't.  That 30-odd percent is entirely made up of the core that in provincial elections votes with the Provincial Conservatives.  Depending on which poll you want to look at, that percentage makes up a half or three quarters of Williams' core vote. If those people are immune to his ministrations at the outset, the only way to suppress them or swing them would be with a campaign that ultimately would have runs the risk of opening up severe cracks within Williams' own party.

The federal Conservatives have already pressed on that sore spot several times.  Williams himself gave some credence to it when he responded to a claim by Loyola Hearn about fissures in the provincial Tory caucus by demanding loyalty declarations from his 43 caucus mates.  Other politicians would have sloughed off the Hearn claim.  Williams' actions left the clear impression there was a concern over caucus solidarity.

Think about it for a second. Danny Williams already redefined the objectives for his ABC campaign and he did so - fairly obviously - in the face of public opinion polls that shows he likely won't even be able to deliver a goose egg to the Conservatives in his own province, as he consistently used to claim as the goal.  If he is unlikely to deliver a goose egg in his own province, any effort to unseat incumbent Conservatives elsewhere in the country would only serve to weaken his political position later on. Better to haul back now than have to face the jibes and taunts later on.

And look, fifthly, it's not like Williams ever considered Elizabeth May important enough to bother with before.  She may be a national party leader in the leaders' debate but Danny didn't send her a begging letter.  Odds were against him hitting the doorsteps on her behalf now.

If not of that was persuasive, there's a sixth good reason why Danny Williams won't be spending much time on the hustings outside Newfoundland and Labrador. There are major issues on the public agenda right now in Newfoundland and Labrador. Huge ones.  Ones that typically turn up at the top of polls about what weighs on voters' minds.  There is simply no political value for Danny Williams to spend four or five weeks knocking doors and giving speeches across the country when the job he was elected to door appears to be left untended. As much as it might be possible to run the place and campaign simultaneously, the public perception  - especially in light of the polls and the likelihood of success - make that an even more risky venture than any of the others alone.

Put it together in a package and the whole idea of an active ABC campaign just becomes too dangerous a political proposition.

So Danny won't help Elizabeth May, in large part due to the seal hunt.

If that helps you sleep at night, go ahead and believe it.

-srbp-

Everyone chill...for now

After a one day panic, oil prices settled back down on Tuesday.

NYMEX crude for November delivery was at US$106.81, with the spot for Brent and West Texas Intermediate at, respectively, US$101.70 and US$107.86.

Brent is the closest thing in price to Newfoundland light, sweet incidentally.

Oil prices may swing up and down over the next couple of days or even into next week, with much depending on the massive bail-out package working its way through the American federal Congress.

On the whole, though, it looks like oil will continue a generally downward trend over the next few months.

The implications of this dropping oil price will become more apparent for Newfoundland and Labrador very shortly.

-srbp-

Nanos: it's all in the methodology

Yep.

That pretty much explains why Nanos Research numbers are typically just a bit different - and sometimes quite a bit different - from the ones coming from a majority of national pollsters.

Now mind you, this is not really a problem for ordinary mortals.

They aren't substituting extensive rationalizations of Gerry Ritz's appalling comments (They pay Connie hacks big bucks to apologize for Harper's crew;  we don't need it from CTV) for something like thoughtful, balanced coverage.

They aren't even pondering the bizarre universe in which The Star and National Post columnists share essentially the same view of the Liberals and apparently the same goal of slagging the party at every opportunity. We await Don Martin's new job editing Toronto's other other newspaper that at least knows it has nothing to offer anyone outside the GTA.

Their peculiar brand of tripe comes not from actually covering the campaign but from reading some dodgy polls, chatting with a few mates here and there to confirm previous opinions and then disengaging whatever is stored 'twixt the ears in order to bash out a few words for the rag that pays the bills.

Sadly, that's pretty much the trend for this federal election, one in which tuning in to CTV, the typical Canadian viewer likely wonders when Bill O'Reilly will be turning up to take Kate Wheeler's spot.

Those are the people who have a problem with Nik Nanos and his numbers.

The rest of us are just enjoying the show.

-srbp-

Family Feud, world of wonder version

Only two short years ago, Provincial Conservatives were lining up to get their picture taken with a Conservative brother running for re-election for what turned out to be the last time.

This ad - paid for by the federal Conservatives - appeared in the Telegram in early December 2005.

The guy seated on the far right of the picture is Loyola Sullivan, the finance minister at the time.  He quit federal politics not long after this picture only to take up a job with the federal Conservatives.

The guy behind him is former speaker Harvey Hodder.  He retired before the 2007 provincial election.

Immediately to Loyola Hearn's right is Sheila Osborne, part of the Osborne-Ridgley political machine.

The guy standing right behind Loyola Hearn - with that great big grin on his face - is Bob Ridgley, brother of Sheila. You will recall him as the Conservative who supported Belinda Stronach for leader even though, by his own words, he thought she was "shallow as a saucer".

Bob is now Danny Williams' parliamentary assistant.

The other two guys are - left to right - Shawn Skinner and Dave Denine. Skinner is the provincial human resources cabinet minister and Denine is looking after municipal affairs.

You'll recall Skinner was taken to the woodshed by Danny Williams for going off the ABC message track.  He was made to apologize publicly for his transgression.

Denine's had a few problems of his own, but never for doing something that went against orders from the top.

Interesting picture that, if only because it makes you wonder when they line up behind a candidate if they really do it out of personal choice or if they have been directed by some authority or other.

Makes you wonder that if they lend you support do they expect a quid pro quo, a back scratch in return.

Makes you wonder what happens if you don't do what they (or the authority doing the directing) wants.

Of course, it makes you wonder too if one of these is Loyola's mole.

-srbp-

Connie Surreality Check

Stephen Harper is criticizing the Liberal platform.

Okay.

Like they did such a great job with their platform last time.

-srbp-

Family Feud Surreality Check, Part Deux

Wayne Bennett is a candidate for the Newfoundland and Labrador First Party.

He is running against incumbent Gerry Byrne, a Liberal.

Mr. Bennett is also a director of the Humber Valley Provincial Conservative association.

He is campaigning on the argument that in the existing system, according to the weekly in the riding:

MPs elected to the governing party hide behind that party's decisions. ...Meanwhile, he says, MPs elected to political parties not holding the reins of government don't have the power to make demands for Newfoundland.

Mr. Bennett talks about the importance of electing five NL Firsters to allow for some tough bargaining in a minority parliament.

A few things come to mind:

First, Mr. Bennett should know that there are seven seats in Newfoundland and Labrador, not five as he kept mentioning during his interview.

Second, the province includes Labrador, so that "and Labrador" thingy in the party name is important.

Third, minority parliaments have been a rarity in Canadian federal politics in recent times.  A plan built for a double rarity - minority parliament and one where five votes going as a block have some value - is pretty much useless.

Fourth, the Blochead concept is pretty much defunct.  The gommels elected for the past 18 years from Quebec - essentially working like the Creditistes of old - haven't accomplished much more, even in minority parliaments, than fatten up their individual pension plans.

Fifth, there are only two NL First candidates in the current election.  That pretty much shoots the whole campaign theory to heck. "But I'm courting four more candidates,"  Mr. Bennett told the Northern Pen.

Sixth, if the problem with the current system is that members of parliament elected to represent their constituents fall under the control of an organized political party and that party's leader and act in the party and leader's interests instead of that of their constituents, then a guy who is running who also sits on a Provincial Conservative district association is pretty much already committed to a partisan course, rather than the course desired by the constituents.

No?

-srbp-

A campaign of ideas

Instead of egos and vicious personal attacks.

What a concept.

Noob candidates - and some more knob than noob - could do with a dose of Ken Dryden's approach to campaign speechifying.

As a golfer, I can hit the ball a long way.  The problem is I can’t hit it in the right direction.  And a ball hit - decisively, competently - in the wrong direction is a ball that goes further and further and further into the woods.  History is filled with leaders who have competently, decisively gone in the wrong direction with disastrous results.

Where is Mr. Harper’s “where”?

He doesn’t seem to want to talk about that.  In making this election all about him, he is doing his best to make this election about nothing.  It’s his “Seinfeld campaign.”  But in 2008, how can that be?  This is a time when the cost of carbon economically and environmentally is forcing the world’s countries to re-imagine the future.  To reward the constructive and punish the destructive.  To act.  To change.  To create the hard-won possibilities to compete in the economy ahead.

-srbp-

Fried Greens at the Whistestops

Green Party supporters are anxiously awaiting leader Elizabeth May's whistlestop election tour of Newfoundland and most of Labrador, where there is no train.

The odd Green voter in western Labrador can wonder if May will somehow get herself to Sept Isles in Quebec and then hop an ore car to Labrador City and Wabush.

-srbp-

High tech Hijinks

Someone spoofing the Prime Minister's e-mail is serious, but funny, given that the listserv involved had a huge security loophole that should have been identified and plugged.

Thanks heavens national electronic security is in the hands of experts at the Communications Security Establishment rather than the political hacks in the current Prime Minister's Office. At least important stuff is safe.

Ya know, another Conservative first minister had a similar problem a couple of years ago.

Of course that guy had an episode earlier where he claimed someone was hacking his office.

That turned out to be someone trying to access a printer in the Provincial Conservative from another office in the same building.

The police were called.  (Did they know the truth before the police were called?)

The media were called in, too and all sorts of wild and completely unfounded accusations were tossed around.

The whole episode was more farce than anything else but the media dutifully reported the Conservative leader's Get Smart claims of a hacking attempt.

Even at the time, the whole thing looked more like part of a continuous pattern of vicious personal attacks, smears and innuendo than something to bother the police about.

But bothered they were.

The police found nothing...

...not surprisingly at all.

No charges were filed at all.

-srbp-

The charge of the light brigade

He just doesn't get it, does he?

Walter Noel, that is.

Determined to wear the House of Assembly spending scandal forever and a day.

Here's a clue, Walter:  it isn't a case of guts, even capelin guts.

It's a matter of sheer stupidity to continue to defend an abuse of public funds (along with the rest of your colleagues).

It's incomprehensibly dumb to claim that "spending was all in keeping with regulations, and approved by the highest officials of the House of Assembly"  when it's pretty clear there were no regulations of any consequence and the "highest officials" would have - and very often did - approve just about any expense claim for anything at all.

Walter Noel clearly doesn't get it, some 18 months after the rest of the world found out about the unmitigated mess in the House of Assembly.

And as long as Noel continues to shoot himself between the eyes, that's not the only thing Walter won't get come the middle of October.

-srbp-

How time flies

The year:  2004

The issue:  Premier Danny Williams legislates public servants back to work and his caucus votes to impose a two year wage freeze on them.

Unknown at the time:  At the same time, members of the House of Assembly gave themselves a bonus payment of $2800 bucks, a fact kept secret until the province's auditor general ripped the lid off.   Danny Williams didn't take the cash but he didn't stop it from going to others, either.

What Danny said about Reg:

“I don't like to use the word liar. But he's misleading and he's wrong and it's dishonest. Now that's as close as we can come."

What then NDP leader Jack Harris said about Danny:

"I’m surprised and dismayed that the Premier would launch such an attack. There is a strong body of opinion that government is exaggerating the nature of the province’s fiscal situation. And it’s pretty clear that the Price Waterhouse Report’s assumptions for the future were extremely negative. There’s also no doubt the Premier used these numbers to frighten the public and try to build support for drastic measures by government...”.

Frighten the public?

Oh dear.

Such nasty words.

How time flies.

-srbp-

Reg didn't get the memo

Lorraine Michael, provincial New Democratic party leader at her party's 2008 biennial convention:

One of the things that I hear people say, and I hear it over and over…I’ve heard it a number of times actually is ”…now you have to remember that this government is not like Ottawa. Danny [Williams] is not Stephen Harper.” And part of me says “yea, that’s true, they’re [government] not as bad.” But when I look at it, a conservative, is a conservative, is a conservative. And we’ve got to get that message across to the people in this province.

(Applause)

And I wanted to speak a bit, well not a bit as a lot of it is going to be based on that…a conservative is a conservative is a conservative. [Emphasis added]

Apparently, outgoing labour uber-boss  Reg Anstey is of a different opinion, at least as voice of the cabinet minister is reporting:

Meanwhile, the Federation of Labour is standing behind Danny Williams and his ABC campaign. President Reg Anstey says Canada run by Stephen Harper will not be kind to workers, their families, or to this province. He says Harper's agenda has the potential to be very dangerous for Newfoundland and Labrador. He says it will be a good thing if at the end of the day they send a goose egg to Ottawa. He says we've only seen the tip of what the government will look like if it gets a majority.

-srbp-

Autonomy!

The wisdom from the centre of the universe:

There is nothing to be gained from stoking federal-provincial tensions, particularly at a time when Canada is facing sweeping economic challenges that will require co-operative responses. Yet that is the likely result when provincial leaders decide that their own ponds are not big enough.

Such a definitive answer to a good question the Globe editorial writer might have asked before tapping indignantly on the keyboard.

-srbp-

Family Feud Surreality Check

"You can't run a government with a one-man show, and that's what Mr. Harper wants to do," [Bob Rae] said. "I don't think that's the way Canadians want their government to operate."

Then there's this comment by columnist Peter Pickersgill about someone else:

The premier is a great campaigner at election time. He's a great man to pick a fight. Just ask the members of the Hebron consortium or Stephen Harper. But I wouldn't accuse him of being a creative thinker or a shaper of innovative policy. That's too bad, because he's running a one-man band.

From the this is now file:

Williams also rehashed past statements Harper made in which the prime minister referred to Canada as being a "northern European welfare state" and spoke of Atlantic Canada's "culture of defeat."

"For hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians ... this stereotypical slur did not sit well with any of us," Williams said.

and the that was then file:

"I think Atlantic Canadians are going to be very pleasantly surprised and pleased with the performance of Mr. Harper," said Williams.

Maybe someone should invoke names to conjure with:

Fact is, Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't had a truly effective minister in Ottawa since John Crosbie.

while conveniently forgetting how the effective fellow dealt with the Equalization issue almost 20 years ago:

"I'm getting a little tired of them trying to have their cake and throwing it up too. They can't do both."

 

-srbp-

"Reality Check" reality check on Equalization and the Family Feud

The crew that put together's CBC's usually fine "Reality Check" can be forgiven if they missed a few points by a country mile in a summary of the Family Feud.

Forgiveness is easy since the issues involved are complex and  - at least on the provincial side since 2003 - there has never been a clear statement of what was going on.  Regular Bond Papers readers will be familiar with that.  For others, just flip back to the archives for 2005 and the story is laid out there.

Let's see if we can sort through some of the high points here.

With its fragile economy, Newfoundland and Labrador has always depended on money from the federal government. When they struck oil off the coast, the federal government concluded it would not have to continue shelling out as much money to the provincial treasury. N.L.'s oil would save Ottawa money.

Not really.

Newfoundland and Labrador is no different from most provinces in the country, at least as far as Equalization goes.  Since 1957 - when the current Equalization program started - the provincial government has received that particular form of federal transfer.  So have all the others, at various times, except Ontario.  Quebec remains one of the biggest recipients of Equalization cash, if not on a per capita basis than on a total basis. Economic "fragility" has nothing to do with receiving Equalization.

In the dispute over jurisdiction over the offshore, there was never much of a dispute as far as Equalization fundamentally works.

Had Brian Peckford's view prevailed in 1983/1984, Equalization would have worked just as it always has.  As soon as the province's own source revenues went beyond the national average, the Equalization transfers would have stopped.

Period.

That didn't work out.  Both the Supreme Court of Newfoundland (as it then was called) and in the Supreme Court of Canada, both courts found that jurisdiction over the offshore rested solely with the Government of Canada.  All the royalties went with it.

In the 1985 Atlantic Accord, the Brian Mulroney and Brian Peckford governments worked out a joint management deal.  Under that agreement - the one that is most important for Newfoundland and Labrador - the provincial government sets and collects royalties as if the oil and gas were on land.

And here's the big thing:  the provincial government keeps every single penny.  It always has and always will, as long as the 1985 Accord is in force.

As far as Equalization is concerned, both governments agreed that Equalization would work as it always had.  When a provincial government makes more money on its own than the national average, the Equalization cash stops.

But...they agreed that for a limited period of time, the provincial government would get a special transfer, based on Equalization that would offset the drop in Equalization that came as oil revenues grew.  Not only was the extra cash limited in time, it would also decline such that 12 years after the first oil, there'd be no extra payment.

If the province didn't qualify for Equalization at that point, then that's all there was.  If it still fell under the average, then it would get whatever Equalization it was entitled to under the program at the time.

The CBC reality check leaves a huge gap as far as that goes, making it seem as though the whole thing came down to an argument between Danny Williams and Paul Martin and then Danny and Stephen Harper.

Nothing could be further from the truth, to use an overworked phrase.

During negotiations on the Hibernia project, the provincial government realized the formula wouldn't work out as intended. Rather than leave the provincial government with some extra cash, the 1985 deal would actually function just like there was no offset clause. For every dollar of new cash in from oil, the Equalization system would drop Newfoundland's entitlement by 97 cents, net.

The first efforts to raise this issue - by Clyde Wells and energy minister Rex Gibbons in 1990 - were rebuffed by the Mulroney Conservatives.  They didn't pussy foot around. John Crosbie accused the provincial government of biting the hand that fed it and of wanting to eat its cake and "vomit it up" as well.

It wasn't until the Liberal victory in 1993 that the first efforts were made to address the problem.  Prime Jean Chretien and finance minister Paul Martin amended the Equalization formula to give the provincial government an option of shielding up to 30% of its oil revenue from Equalization calculations.  That option wasn't time limited and for the 12 years in which the 1985 deal allowed for offsets the provincial government could always have the chance to pick the option that gave the most cash.  It only picked the wrong option once.

The Equalization issue remained a cause celebre, especially for those who had been involved in the original negotiations.  It resurfaced in the a 2003 provincial government royal commission study which introduced the idea of a clawback into the vocabulary.  The presentation in the commission reported grossly distorted the reality and the history involved. Some charts that purported to show the financial issues bordered on fraud.

Danny Williams took up the issue in 2004 with the Martin administration and fought a pitched battle - largely in public - over the issue.  He gave a taste of his anti-Ottawa rhetoric in a 2001 speech to Nova Scotia Tories. Little in the way of formal correspondence appears to have been exchanged throughout the early part of 2004.  Up to the fall of 2004 - when detailed discussions started -  the provincial government offered three different versions of what it was looking for.  None matched the final agreement.

The CBC "Reality Check" describes the 2005 agreement this way:

The agreement was that the calculation of equalization payments to Newfoundland and Labrador would not include oil revenue. As the saying goes, oil revenues would not be clawed back. Martin agreed and then-opposition leader Harper also agreed.

Simply put, that's dead wrong.

The 2005 deal provided for another type of transfer to Newfoundland and Labrador from Ottawa on top of the 1985 offset payment.  The Equalization program was not changed in any way. Until the substantive changes to Equalization under Stephen Harper 100% of oil revenues was included to calculate Equalization entitlements.  That's exactly what Danny Williams stated as provincial government policy in January 2006, incidentally.  The Harper changes hid 50% of all non-renewable resource revenues from Equalization (oil and mining) and imposed a cap on total transfers.

As for the revenues being "clawed back", one of the key terms of the 2005 deal is that the whole thing operates based on the Equalization formula that is in place at any given time. Oil revenues are treated like gas taxes, income tax, sales tax, motor vehicle registration and any other type of provincial own-source revenue, just like they have been as long as Equalization has been around.

What the federal Conservatives proposed in 2004 and 2006 as a part of their campaign platform - not just in a letter to Danny Williams - was to let all provinces hide their revenues from oil, gas and other non-renewable resources from the Equalization calculations.  The offer didn't apply just to one province.  Had it been implemented, it would have applied to all. 

That was clear enough until the Harper government produced its budget 18 months ago. What was clear on budget day became a bit murky a few days later when Wade Locke of Memorial University of Newfoundland began to take a hard look at the numbers.

Again, that's pretty much dead wrong.

It became clear shortly after Harper took office in 2006 that the 100% exclusion idea from the 2004 and 2006 campaigns would be abandoned in favour of something else.  There was nothing murky about it at all. So plain was the problem that at least one local newspaper reported on a fracas at the Provincial Conservative convention in October 2006 supposedly involving the Premier's brother and the Conservative party's national president. That's when the Family Feud started.

As for the 2007 budget bills which amended both the 1985 and 2005 agreements between Ottawa and St. John's, there's a serious question as to whether the provincial government actually consented to the amendments as required under the 1985 Atlantic Accord.

The story about Equalization is a long one and the Family Feud - a.k.a the ABC campaign - has a complex history.  There's no shame in missing some points.  It's just so unusual that CBC's "Reality Check" was so widely off base.

-srbp-

Inconsistencies ?

Brian Crawley, chief of staff, Premier's Office, in testimony at the Cameron Inquiry on the extent to which he involved himself in departmental business:

Mr. Crawley:  At this stage of the game our role would have been very much just to have been advised of it , and I would have treated this issue the same as , you know , 99 percent of the other issues that come forward , you know. It's the department's job to manage it and if there is something there we should be aware of , I would expect to be made aware of it.

Commissioner : So forgive me , but that means no role , doesn't it?

Mr. Crawley: Yeah , no role in the sense of we actually have to do anything.

[Emphasis added]

Then there's this curious extract from the memos, e-mails and other documents that show the extent of government interference in efforts to hire a new president at Memorial University.

Curious because it seems to run contrary to Crawley's assertion that his office doesn't get involved in departmental business, at least not usually.

"I understand Brian C[rawley] will have called you on behalf of the Premier with the details."

That's a reference to the Premier's chief of staff and a call Crawley apparently made to education minister Joan Burke "on behalf of the Premier."

 

-srbp-