Quote of the day

CTVs Bob Fife: "As a prisoner, Schreiber isn't allowed to wear a belt..."

"Danny" and "Steve" (Part III)

From today's Globe and Mail:

"I will take the opportunity to discuss with the Prime Minister the numerous commitments that have been made by the federal government to our province," Mr. Williams said.

Let's enumerate some of those numerous commitments, shall we?

August 9, 2003, Stephen Harper, in The Telegram:

“A Canadian Alliance government would ensure Labrador power, no less than Alberta oil and natural gas, has access to markets through fair contractual agreements.”

“A Canadian Alliance government would reform the terms of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization and, barring progress there, reserve the right to unilateral action on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks to preserve fish stocks."

February 10, 2004, Stephen Harper in The New Brunswick Telegraph Journal:

“I will re-examine the Upper Churchill Falls agreement to ensure that power from Labrador could move freely across Canada and into a continental electricity grid. I have long argued in favour of freeing up inter-provincial trade from the myriad of self-defeating protectionist measures.”

Stephen Harper, in a letter from March of 2004 addressed to Premier Williams:

“I would support the exclusion of non-renewable resource revenues from the Equalization formula.”

During the federal by-election in Labrador, via his Defence critic, one Gordon O'Connor on CBC Radio, May 16, 2005:

"A Conservative Government would...
...renegotiate the Voisey's Bay development agreement
...ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador receive a larger more equitable portion of the revenues from Voisey's Bay
...enter into negotiations with the Newfoundland and Labrador government with the intention of developing the Lower Churchill...
...seek immediate ratification of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement
...would commit the infrastructure funds needed to commit phase three Cartwright Junction to Happy Valley-Goose Bay of the Trans Labrador Highway
...establish a new rapid reaction army battalion in CFB Goose Bay...of approximately 650 regular force members"

Much of which was reiterated in a letter to Premier Williams dated January 4, 2006, in which Mr. Harper wrote:

"A Conservative government would support extending custodial management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200 mile limit, to the nose and tail of the Grand banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic

A Conservative government would support a cost-shared agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway.

A Conservative government will establish in Newfoundland and Labrador the following new operational requirements for the protection of Canadian sovereignty and security:

• Station a new Rapid Reaction Army Battalion (approximately 650 regular force personnel) for enhanced Atlantic army response at CFB Goose Bay.
• Establish a new Territorial Defence Battalion composed of approximately 100 regular force and 400 reserve force personnel in the area of [sic] St. John’s…
• Station a new long range Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron at CFP Goose Bay…"

So there's a random sample.

You can debate whether or not they made sense.

But you can't debate whether or not they were made.

"Danny" and "Steve" (Part II)

Conveniently under the radar on a Friday afternoon, lost in the noise surrounding the whole Schreiber affair, the much-anticipated meeting between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is just a few hours away. Under normal circumstances, there shouldn't be any fuss about this kind of a meeting, but a year in the making, this one seems worth fussing over.

Premier Williams has already committed to a media availability immediately following the meeting.

Prime Minister Harper has not.

"Danny" and "Steve"

The Globe and Mail reports today that two of Stephen Harper's MPS from Newfoundland and Labrador are likely not to run again. In the case of Norm Doyle this isn't news, as he's already announced he would not run again in his St. John's East riding. Speculation is that Harper's Fisheries Minister, Loyola Hearn, may follow Doyle off to the greener pastures of dual pension living. (Both served in the provincial Peckford government prior to serving as MPs)

But the real news in this story is the following: "Two provincial MHAs and former cabinet ministers in Mr. Williams's government, Tom Osborne and Jack Byrne, are seen as possible candidates to replace them."

Clearly, Danny Williams' "Anybody But Conservative (ABC)" campaign is falling on deaf ears - within his own caucus.

One has to wonder if this was all bluster and no substance right from the get-go. Williams has been there in sound and in spirit when Harper was battling Lorne Calvert a few months ago, but Williams never so much as offered a peep of genuine support for Saskatchewan's questionable court case against Ottawa.

It was entirely predictable, months ago, that once the fixed election date had come and gone, and Williams had his monopoly majority government secured, all would be forgiven or forgotten. The outrage would have served its political purpose, and we could all just move on.

Or, maybe it isn't. In which case these are the first signs of dissent from within his own caucus. The first we've witnessed since Fabian Manning was kicked out of caucus (ironically to wind up as Harper's Minister-in-waiting).

Maybe Danny's backbenchers are just as clever as he is. After all, if he can ride his own feigned outrage all the way to the polls, to his own advantage, why couldn't they?

Once elected, Danny Williams knows he can pretty much do as he pleases with very few consequences. Maybe his backbenchers suddenly feel the same way.

Banned!

CBC reports: "St. John's store bans local author's anti-sealing children's book"

That's right. In my home province they've resorted to book banning.

Next thing you know, the Rural Rights and Boat Owners Association will be demanding that Blockbuster remove Bambi DVDs from the shelves.




On second thought... is this an instance where CBC is guilty of an over-the-top headline?

Lament/Observation/Diatribe

In the wake of the Mulroney/Schreiber affair, many columnists this week have been ruminating about the institutional demise of Parliament . Maybe we should start a similar discussion about the institutional demise of journalism while we're at it.

Take for example, this piece, in which the normally astute Angelo Persichilli quotes the following (in order of appearance)

(a) "federal Liberal sources in high places"
(b) "Liberals"
(c) "a couple of Liberal MPs"
(d) "one liberal strategist"
(e) "another liberal strategist"
(f) "one Liberal MP"
(g) "another strategist"

Of course, you might think that entire columns, stories and theories about the nation's governance based entirely on nameless sources is just grand. In which case you similarly won't want to miss the Globe and Mail right now for a live discussion with someone who has her fingers on the pulse of every burning question in the nation's capital - like who's "hot or not" this week. Maybe you, too, can ask a really important question about what Laureen Harper will wear to the Christmas caucus party, and what the cats at 24 Sussex might be dining on at Christmas, etc.

UPDATE - someone pulls through! Congrats to "Mike W"

Hook, line, and stinker

“Burgeo has been hung out to dry for over a decade and it is time the province purchased a fish quota for Burgeo, and leased it to the operator,”

- Peter Fenwick, Southwest Coast Joint Municipal Council,
quoted in today's Western Star.

That's the same Peter Fenwick who - just two years ago - co-authored this AIMS policy document advocating the privatization of fish quotas and end to government intervention in the industry.

Such ideological malleability is nothing new for Fenwick, who is perhaps the only former provincial NDP Leader in the country to have run for the Canadian Reform Alliance Party federally.

The tide must be in.

Cause and effect

Precisely one year to the day after a reporter who happened to be driving by used his cell phone to capture video footage of a Nova Scotia cabinet minister causing an accident and leaving the scene, Premier MacDonald takes decisive action to make sure it never happens again.

He's banning the use of cell phones in cars.

Peter Van Loan is full of s*** (Part II)

Oh my.

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) :

"Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it clear he would be happy to have a first ministers meeting when we do not have elections when everybody is scheduled and can accommodate it but what is interesting about this former cabinet minister is that he is now standing up for a premier who is complaining about a lack of representation for Ontario.

When he was in cabinet they introduced bills twice to deal with redistribution and never once proposed increasing a single seat and after one of those bills was introduced Premier McGuinty had already been elected. He did not raise any concerns at the time. Only now when we are actually delivering for Ontario is he raising concerns."

Really?

Ontario's total number of seats in the House of Commons has, in recent years, gone from 99 to 103, to 106.

Must've been the tooth fairy.

The gang at PCO must be exceedingly proud to listen to their Minister represent the Canadian bureaucracy's central agency in Parliament in such a capable and forthright manner.

Fish stories

The ever-vigilant WJM takes the local CBC to task.

Peter Van Loan is full of s***

From the Star:

"Van Loan, who represents a southern Ontario riding in the Commons and is also the minister responsible for democratic reform, said the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan would all lose seats in Parliament if the government adopted the true "representation-by-population" formula McGuinty seems to support."

Can anyone find me one single solitary reference to a suggestion from Premier McGuinty - or anyone else for that matter - that the number of seats in other provinces be reduced? Anyone?

McGuinty's position (which is open to criticism if you wish) seems quite clearly stated, that if you're going to grant representation by population to all of the provinces which are not currently at their predetermined floor*, there is no conceivable rationale for excluding Ontario.

Here again, from the Star:

"We're not asking that any other province have its seat numbers reduced. We're just saying that we should be recognized in the same way that Alberta and B.C. are being recognized." - Premier Dalton McGuinty

Heck, I'm no fan of squeezing another 40-some new seats into the place, but McGuinty's principle is pretty hard to contest here. If McGuinty, or anyone else, were suggesting reducing the representation of other provinces, then Van Loan would have a leg to stand on in crying foul. But that simply isn't the case.

Coupled with with their chest-thumping on Senate Reform, and a reluctant commitment to a First Ministers' Meeting, this all makes for an interesting few months ahead, no?

* - the "floor" and a history of how we've muddled along since 1867 is found here.

irony

So the mailman just showed up and dropped off a lovely full colour pamphlet from Premier Rodney MacDonald, pronouncing "The Atlantic Accord is alive and well!" not minutes after reading this, this, and this, etc.

As Jim Flaherty keeps saying, "it's complicated".

It must be.

once again...

Hey - anybody remember this recent news item from the Chronicle Herald?

Delays in briefing on accord irk Casey (Stephen Maher, Nov. 11, 2007)

The invitation for the briefing has now been sent once, recalled, sent again and rescheduled twice. Mr. Casey, who was ejected from the Tory caucus for voting against the government over this issue, flew up to Ottawa during a break week in vain for one of the meetings...

"They’re treating us like we don’t count and we’re not part of the system," he said. "It’s our job to keep the government accountable. They talk about accountability all the time but they do everything they can to avoid being held accountable themselves."

The meeting will now be held Nov. 20, after the government has introduced the budget bill that will make the necessary changes to implement the new agreement.

Well, today is November 20th. And you'll never guess what just happened...

UPDATE - They cancelled it on 14 minutes notice. He's pissed, and rightfully so.

Crude projections

Graph courtesy of the National Energy Board's recent publication, Canada's Energy Future: Reference case and scenarios to 2030. (get it here in .pdf format)

Just because I'm busy at school with nothing to write, doesn't mean the rest of you have nothing to read.

Regular tongue-in-cheekiness returns once this Energy Law paper is under control. In the meantime there's plenty of Schreiber shenanigans, etc. to follow elsewhere.

(law school students will note the pattern of the attached graph coincidentally corresponds with work habits over a three year academic calendar)

Oh, and...

...one should never put too much stock in polls, but that doesn't mean you can't smile and appreciate a good headline every once in a while.

Like this one.

Mulroney/Schreiber, etc.

In my last post I linked to the Globe article calling for an inquiry, so - in fairness - here's the one that ran today which contains parts of Mr. Mulroney's statement.

Possibly the best coverage of the whole affair was last night's At Issue panel on CBC's The National, which you can watch here.

In it Allan Gregg raises an interesting point, essentially rebutting the PMO's suggestion that the recent correspondence from Schreiber wasn't seen by the PM or his staff. As Gregg described, correspondence addressed to the Prime Minister is dealt with by the Executive Correspondence Unit at PCO, but a daily summary and synopsis of all correspondence addressed to the PM is provided to political staff. It was when Gregg worked under a previous administration, and it certainly still was the case when I worked at Langevin Block.

Every morning, a complete list of all letters received would go to political staff, who would subsequently sift through them to pull out any pieces of correspondence that were political sensitive, set off any sort of alarm bells, or for reasons of protocol had to be dealt with outside of the bureaucracy. I cannot imagine a situation where Harper's staff would choose to ignore a letter flagged as incoming from Karlheinz Schreiber. It's unfathomable. Or it's gross incompetence. Or both.

But one thing is for sure. The current practice of the PMO Communications Director - pointing her finger at the bureaucracy at the first sniff of trouble - isn't going to serve her boss in the long run. Media see through it, public servants see through it, and sooner or later that kind of nonsense will come back to bite you. I guess it did today. Or it started to.

Also, it's interesting to watch the verbal and logical gymnastics of a number of MPs today as they try to simultaneously lay blame on the political wing of government for prematurely settling with Mulroney a few years back and then in the next breath claim that politicians today had no idea of a letter sitting in their offices for 7 months. Really.

Finally, for Liberals who think this is the "gift that keeps on giving", I'm not so sure. Star columnist Jim Travers offers some good advice here. "Not being Brian Mulroney" may have been an electoral strategy worth riding to a majority not too long ago, but don't for a moment think that it's good enough now.

PS - might be a good time to start asking (again) for certain former Tory leadership candidates to divulge their as-yet-undisclosed campaign donors. Surely there's nothing to hide...

Wow

"Mulroney adviser asked Schreiber to transfer Airbus funds affidavit alleges" - Globe and Mail

Mea Culpa

Ok, ok, ok I admit... yesterday's post (below) contains an admittedly poor example, given the distinction between changing the House of Commons representation and Senate representation in light of ss. 38, 41 and 42 of the Constitution.

There.

But if we're going to be sticklers about it, let's forego the referendum and just ask the legislatures in the provinces to vote on it now. Saves everyone the grief, doesn't it?

Oh, and clearly, I'm not the only one who sees this for what it is: a crass spur-of-the-moment stunt.

Dear Prince Edward Islanders...

...if Jack Layton, and his friend Stephen Harper, along with a bare majority of the country, by way of referendum, can abolish your 4 Senate seats, what's to stop them from taking away your 4 seats in the House of Commons? Your Superior Courts?

Really? What's to stop them?

This isn't an honest attempt at change - it's a spur-of-the-moment political stunt.

PS - before you spam my comments section, don't interpret this as a rallying cry in support of the status quo... sometimes a rhetorical question is just a rhetorical question.

From cellar to seller...

From CBC.ca:

"The president of Quebec's liquor board, Sylvain Toutant, has resigned to take a job with Kruger, a papermaking giant in the province...

Toutant came under fire two years ago following a scathing auditors' report that exposed irregular pricing practices at the liquor board.

He was criticized for not being informed or aware of questionable practices used at the agency to buy and price European wines."

But here's what CBC (at least the English network) neglects to mention:

Guess which papermaking giant "...is a leading winemaker and marketer of wines and spirits. Its impressive line of products is sold in Quebec and elsewhere, and includes over 250 imported and domestic wines and spirits."

Kruger. That's who.

The calm before and after the storm...

Far be it from me to say anything nice about Stockwell Day. So, consider this a purely-objectively-neutral reference to something that's in the papers anyway. In a story that chronicles the status of various anticipated payments for disaster relief in Newfoundland and Labrador, The Telegram reports:

Day also reminded Williams that more money could be made available to help with relief from other past disasters if only the provincial government would get its paperwork together.

Day told Williams in his letter that three remaining "serious events" on the list - the 2005 spring flood, the 2005 Stephenville flood and the 2006 spring flood - are also eligible for DFAA money.

"To date, the required supporting documentation for all seven of these events has not yet been received from Newfoundland and Labrador," Day wrote.

Now - none of this exchange of correspondence would even be necessary, nor the media follow up on the issue, if instead of grandstanding and chest beating, our politicians (both federal and provincial) would simply read the terms on which disaster assistance is provided to affected communities in this country.

I've been down this road before.

Because it is the provincial government(s) that have the most resources on the ground in affected areas, are closest to the situation whenever storms, flooding, earthquakes or other natural disasters occur, they are the ones responsible for assessing and accounting for the level of repair and reconstruction required in response to tragic events. This isn't just common sense, or a matter of jurisdictional squabbling, this is part of an agreement nearly 40 years old signed by all levels of government. For some reason, it seems to work just fine everywhere else. And it used to work just fine in Newfoundland and Labrador. Until recently, when politicians from both levels of government decided to turn it into yet another exercise in "give us the credit and give them the blame."

A pox on both their houses.

On the one hand, you have a federal government whose regional minister started calling for folks to send him receipts (completely devoid of any rationale), followed by a commitment to send compensation directly to individuals (again, with no statutory authority and in a field completely within provincial jurisdiction) and a Prime Minister who pulls a political stunt, visiting the scene of at least one incident without so much as a courtesy call.

On the other hand, you have a former provincial minister who complains that the program is going to fund the replacement, rather than the significant upgrade of the affected infrastructure, and a Premier who would make a bigger fuss out of the personal slight of his phone not ringing than the plight of residents affected by these events. Most importantly, you have a provincial government who, clearly, has dragged its heels in processing the documentation required to apply for federal compensation.

What does it say about a situation when you wake up one morning and have to admit that on one particular file, given the others with whom he is dealing, that Stockwell Day appears to be a bastion of common sense?

Shudder.

Disaster relief is an insurance program. It's not an infrastructure grab-bag.

It's subject to a fed-prov agreement that is well established. It isn't about getting credit or assigning blame, it's about helping communities in response to sometimes tragic events.

And, it has rules and criteria that are easily understood, (even for our politicians) and set out clear responsibilities. Believe it or not, rules and criteria actually form a better basis for governing than populist grandstanding. Some people should try it some time.

So how about, now that we've just had yet another storm which may meet the criteria for federal assistance, we all act like grown-ups and get the job done. No more finger-pointing. No more headline-grabbing. No more grandstanding. The people in the communities have an instinctive knack for banding together the morning after and helping each other out. Maybe one day their elected officials will do the same. They seem to elsewhere.

And if there's anything fundamentally flawed about this longstanding agreement which seems to work just fine elsewhere, how about outlining those shortcomings or proposing policy changes to fix it.

Of course, that might require paperwork...

From bad to worse... (Part IV)

...to absolut-est worstest-est-est.

And it may get better yet. Stay tuned.

There might be a Part V on the way.

The optics of fibre...

If the folks in Greenland can build a fibre-optic cable to Newfoundland without relying on multi-million dollar handouts, why can't some other people?

Just askin'.

From bad to worse (Part III)

Yes folks, this sordid tale has yet another chapter. Maybe I should subtitle this one "from absolute worstest to absolute worstest-est."

Here we go:

"...Woodrow did not communicate his resignation to Elections Newfoundland and Labrador, and ballots have already been published with his name on them."

- from CBC.ca

That's right. The candidate who shouldn't have run, who accused the previous government of corruption, spurred a cabinet resignation and police investigation only to recant, whose candidacy was accepted by a party president who was feigned ignorance of this guy's past, only to suddenly remembered it and dismiss it, who then decided to be enthusiastic toward his candidacy anyway, then days later was somehow not enthusiastic enough for the candidate himself, who responded by subsequently announcing his withdrawal forgot to remove his name from the ballot!!!

Free advice to the brain trust running the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador:

When political junkies, pundits, reporters and normal everyday voters refer to having a "high bar" for things like ethics, accountability, smarts, etc. they usually mean it in a way that is analogous to sports like the pole vault, or the high jump, as opposed to the limbo.

Unbelievable.

more...

Hooray for federalism!

And hooray to the Globe and Mail for their best page of columns on the subject in years.

To wit,

Lawrence Martin:

"...what remains, in respect to Quebec, are panderers. As an architect of the clarity legislation, Stéphane Dion is viewed by many as a strong federalist...Rather, he is much like the others, like Jack Layton, like Stephen Harper, like Jean Charest, who all look like they're trying to outbid one another in catering to the special-status seekers. Being in such a crowded field contributes to Mr. Dion's low standing in his province. He should strap on some spurs and fight like his predecessors."

David Bercuson:

"These premiers want to ditch the Senate because to do so would result in an enormous increase of their own power to set the federal agenda and check federal proposals."

Janice MacKinnon:

"How many Canadian voters, outside of Quebec, understand or care about the federal spending power?"

Heck, even Lysiane Gagnon's column on the latest PQ follies surrounding Quebec citizenship and reasonable accommodation makes for lucid reading today.

Folks, these lines couldn't be drawn any clearer. At some point someone, somewhere is going to have to stand up and start speaking up for the plurality of Canadians that actually believes that a strong, progressive and constrainedly interventionist federal government is a good thing.

***
PS - On a side note, reading today's Globe and Mail I can't help but think that Coyne is already sorely, sorely missed around the table at The National Post (which I would happily also read and review if it could just get here before my 2:30 class. Sigh.)

Stephen Harper's Jack-in-the-box

From today's Toronto Star, comes an explanation for why the Tories suddenly dumped two of their candidates in Ontario recently. It's to help the NDP.

"The Conservatives and the NDP have appeared willing to help each other at times over the past couple of years when the goal was to trounce the Liberals." - today's Star

See... they're following Tom Flanagan's play book. NDP success remains the key component to Stephen Harper's strategy for winning a majority.

All the tax cuts in the world and a booming economy haven't moved Harper's own numbers an inch. They're still polling below their level of support from election night. As the weeks drag on, watch for Harper to do anything he can to prop his sidekick. It's his only real option, barring something spectacular happening in Quebec.

From bad to worse (Part II)

Or, perhaps more aptly entitled "from worse to absolute worstest..."

This reads like a piece of fiction. And it would be extremely funny, if not for the fact that it's actually true. Which makes it extremely funnier.

"Liberal candidate John Woodrow has quit the race just three days before the people in the district go the polls. Woodrow was upset with comments attributed to party president Danny Dumaresque about the election in the district and said he did not feel he had the support of the party executive or caucus." - VOCM

A week or so ago, some folks were rightfully critical of the party's decision to let this guy run in the first place. Me, too.

And it gets better:

"Meanwhile, Dumaresque says his comment was misconstrued. He says he was asked by a local newspaper if this was a 'make or break' election for the party and told them it wasn't." - VOCM

Let's review the facts here.

First, the Liberals allow a guy to stand for the nomination who has a dubious track record including launching serious allegations of bribery against previous provincial Liberal cabinet Ministers. Ones which forced a senior Minister to temporarily resigned until an RCMP investigation led to him fully recanting the accusations.

Then, the party brass sits idly by as he gets acclaimed.

Next, the president says he had no idea about Woodrow's past. (it was a front page story for days on end)

Then, the president says there's nothing wrong with his past anyway. And hey, it's too late to get another candidate anyway.

And today, after standing behind him a bit too much, he's standing behind him a bit too little.

There is nothing and nobody doing more to singlehandedly prolong the shelf-life of the Williams administration than the Liberal Party leadership itself.

It's time for the president - and a lot of others - to let go.

UPDATE - great minds think alike

A 15 kiloton weight...

I can't find it online, but there's a piece in the Obituaries section of the Globe and Mail today about Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay, who died yesterday. The New York Times version of the same article is here, but it's missing this tag line, which appears in the Globe:

"Mr. Tibbets requested that there be no funeral or headstone, fearing it would give his detractors a place to protest"

Whether that's a reflection of his steadfast conviction, or six decades of doubtful remorse, can you imagine what it must have been like to walk around for nearly 70 years as "the guy who dropped the bomb"? Yikes.