We are now learning what Daniel Paille learned studying past Liberal polling.  Interestingly, unlike the Liberal fixation of Karlheinz Schreiber, which seems to have no connection to the present and so will result in no benefit to Canadians today, the report by Daniel Paille revealed current problems, as well as things that are being done better.

First the bad news.

The Harper government is trying hard to understand whether Canadians are being served well by their government:

An independent investigator hired by the Harper government to look into past Liberal polling practices has wound up shining an unfavourable light on the Tories' penchant for polling.

Daniel Paille notes that the Conservative government commissioned more than two polls per business day in the past year, a figure he calls "quite astounding.''

His report shows that the government spent $31.2 million on opinion research in the last year -- more than any previous year and almost twice the $18 million spent on average during the Liberal years.

OK, maybe too hard.

Apparently, there is a problem with inefficiencies:

Public Works Minister Michael Fortier pointed out that the report shows previous Liberal governments actually commissioned more opinion research in some years -- reaching a peak of 686 projects in 2001-02 _-- even though they spent less on them.

"It is the spend per poll . . . that has gone up,'' Fortier said in an interview. "We just need to be smarter in how we buy polls.''

Fortier said the government will implement all of Paille's recommendations and announced some immediate measures aimed at reducing the amount and cost of public opinion research and ensuring better value for money.

"It will be well managed and less expensive for taxpayers,'' he vowed.

Paille chides the current government for failing to negotiate reduced bulk rates for syndicated polls, wherein a number of different government departments purchase the same survey. He suggests that the problem, flagged by Fraser in 2003, has gotten worse under the Tories.

Fraser found 10 copies of the annual Rethinking Government syndicated survey, produced by Ekos Research Associates, had been purchased in 2002-03. Paille found that had grown to 15 copies in the last year.

Now the good news.

There were actually two concerns raised by the Auditor General that Daniel Paille studied.  One was that poll results were often delivered orally, with no written records with which to audit the quality of work done.  The other was that government polls used to veer over the line separating those concerning government policy and those measuring party popularity.

On those counts, Daniel Paille seemed to think that the current government is getting that right:

As for government using polling for partisan purposes, Paille says he found no evidence of that in research commissioned by the government. However, some of the syndicated polls, produced for multiple clients in and out of government, do stray into the political realm.

For instance, he cites a 2006-07 syndicated poll that asked respondents whether they approve or disapprove of the way in which Harper and various premiers were doing their jobs.

Paille recommends the government adopt a "zero tolerance approach'' in future, cancelling the contract if a supplier fails to strictly maintain the principle of political neutrality.

So the government has to be careful about sharing polls, if those polls include partisan questions for other clients.  Sounds fair.

And the oral delivery of reports:

At a subsequent parliamentary hearing, Fraser was mildly critical that an Ottawa firm with close ties to Paul Martin -- Earnscliffe -- had occasionally provided undocumented, verbal, budget-making advice from 1999 to 20002, when Martin was finance minister.

Paille has little to add to Fraser's assessment of the 1999-2003 period and even less about the preceding years.

Prior to 1999, Paille found that most files on opinion research contracts have been destroyed, consistent with government policy. It was thus impossible for him to conduct a detailed review of that period.

Among his recommendations, Paille suggests that the government review its policy on retention of old administrative records.

So the plan now is to retain records, and Paille made no mention of the old Liberal practise of getting verbal reports carrying over into the Conservative administration.

Michael Fortier held on to the report for two months.  It's hard to know why exactly, but it might have been to minimize notice of the report by letting out just before Christmas when no one would be paying attention, given the criticisms of the Conservative government. 

Well, no one likes to be spanked.

Was it a waste of money? Ironically, the saving grace was the criticism.  Given that Paille concluded that there was nothing more to be learned of the practise of Liberal government polling during the Paul Martin years, conducted by Earnscliffe and other firms, you would think that Conservatives turned over a bunch of rocks and came up empty handed.  You'd be right.  But in doing so, the Tories got an earful about what they were doing wrong, problems that might have carried on for a great deal longer waiting for the Auditor General to notice.  That bonus is going to allow the government to address the issue of inefficiencies.

The only problem with this scenario is that with a proper audit, follow-up is part of the process.  The Paille Report is not an actual audit, so right now we only have Michael Fortier's word that the issues are going to be addressed.  The government ought to set a future date to report on polling costs.  At that time Parliament can judge on how well the government has addressed the problems.

Was this the hoped-for outcome?  Not really, of course.  The report was supposed to check into problems with Martin-era polling by the Ministry of Finance, but with the lack of records, there is little hope of finding out more.  So the book will be closed on this issue, but not before having uncovered problems with the current polling buys.  The government has promised to look into it.

The Liberals are crowing over this.  I don't know about you, but it seems like a positive ending.  Certainly a better ending than another investigation taking place, in which past activities are being looked at, revealing nothing, and certainly with no lessons to be learned for the current government.  The Liberals think the Karlheinz Schreiber inquiry is supremely important, but really, what are we going to learn about how to better deal with compulsively-lying cash-dealing German arms dealer on the run from the law?