Two Tales From Rex

16 Comments

1. I thought Rex’s piece in the national was much less passionate than his commentary for here and now. It was just repeating the same line that is always fed to the nation and is just ignored. I love Rex but was a little disappointed that he didn’t use his opportunity to the fullist.

   Comment by Sarah Scott Thompson — 1/13/2005 @ 6:16 pm

2. Rex, I’m also disappointed that you wrote a different commentary for CBC National. Why didn’t you use the transcript of the one presented for CBC St. John’s? How about still sending it to the Globe and Mail?
   I think all of Canada should have had the opportunity to read that one.

   Comment by Enid Pevie — 1/13/2005 @ 7:15 pm

3. I have to say that I was hoping all of Canada would hear the Here & Now comments. But at least he is using his status to some benefit for Newfoundland. I live in Alberta (surprise, surprise) and so do many of my family and a lot of friends. All of us were outraged over HER article (I’m in my last year of journalism school and have so much disgust for her I refuse to speak or write her name - her article broke almost every rule and moral ethic I have been taught!) yet my roomate and myself were the only ones who did anything about it by sending the letter to the PM through this site, and emailing her to straighten out some facts. I think that instead of pointing the finger at people like Rex, we all need to take action and let our voice be heard. In and out of the province, I’m willing to bet our population is more than Ontario and Quebec (heck - half of Ontario is at least a direct Newfoundland descendent) Let’s be heard b’ys!

   Comment by Jennifer — 1/13/2005 @ 10:16 pm

4. I thought Rex Murphy’s piece for the National was great. I loved his Here & Now presentation, but I think he was right in not repeating it for the rest of the country - I don’t think it would be as well received as the one he actually did for the National. He knows his audience and he did a great job of presenting the material in a way that the audience could understand.

   Comment by Mark Scott — 1/14/2005 @ 8:47 am

5. Rex, despite the applaus you are getting for this commentary I think you missed the point. Sure, Margaret Wente’s remarks are offensive and do deserve a forceful reply, but why do you not also address the underlying notion that Newfoundland tries to get more than their fair share in the negotiations over the offshore royalties?
   I personally think that the notion of Newfoundland as a welfare province is only offensive to those who have an offensive notion of welfare. I like to think of Newfoundland as a province on income supplement, which it receives because it has fallen on hard times. Now the receipient is about to earn some money and wants a tax exemption in order to get off the supplement. I fully support that. My understanding is that the federal government has offered just that with the qualification that the tax exempt status will be reconsidered once the province has shaken it’s not-have status. I think that is only fair. I am actually offended by the notion that a receiver of aid actually asks for indefinte tax exempt status beyond the point where she would be capable to be a provider of aid to others more needy.
   Don’t get me wrong: I want Newfoundland to get a fair deal and be a prosperous province, but I cannot shake the feeling that Premier Williams is asking for more. To focus solely on the excesses of the criticism on Newfoundland’s stand while overlooking the underlying perception is a disservice to the province.
   Newfoundlanders deserve better.

   Comment by Hendrik Schwachenwalde — 1/14/2005 @ 12:06 pm

6. “I like to think of Newfoundland as a province on income supplement, which it receives because it has fallen on hard times.”

   It is patronizing and ignorant comments like this that really puts the devil in me. How impervious is the biased and closed mind to the penetration of obvious truth. This is the kind of mind conditioning that is the end product of the relentless perpetuation of a lie. Newfoundland, probably the richest land on God’s green earth on “income supplement"…… Duh! Newfoundland has fallen on hard times, true, but it is because it had the misfortune to fall into the greedy maws of a regime that is sucking it of its very life’s blood in order to supplement the income those gainsayers who in their snotty superiority believe that we ought to be grateful for scraps tossed to us from our own table. We are not asking for anything, we are demanding the right to possess what is ours, and the right to be able share rather than being subjected the indignity of being ripped off.
   “Don’t get me wrong: I want Newfoundland to get a fair deal and be a prosperous province,…..” Well, wow, how generous, how can we thank you !!!!

   Comment by Lloyd Rees — 1/14/2005 @ 4:10 pm

7. Hendrick:

   I am a former Ontarian. In many ways I am very embarassed about that fact. I now live near St. John’s and I have done my best to educate myself regard the political history of my chosen and favorite province.

   Even with the ignorance of our current federal government, lying worse than ever and trying to abuse my new province; my new friends and neighbours, the truly good and proud Newfoundlanders have welcomed me. It is not like that in Ontario where my dear mother and father and brothers with their families live. It is rare to have other Ontarians engage one another in the streets, unless they they are previously introduced or acquainted. I am so fortunate to be accepted without reservation.

   In the 1940’s Canada ‘courted’ Newfoundland like only the Clampett’s would want for Ellie-Mae. (i.e. dowery, promises, sweet nothings, RESPECT!etc.) And for that last 50 (not within the first 5 years) Canada has been the paternalistic domintating pattern abuser! Abuse! Yes, ABUSE!

   Joey Smallwood was tricked by shortsightedness and lost most of the timbre resources across The Rock to big (mainland) business and the Feds. That was OK though b’y’s there was lots a’Cod. Then the power fiasco where Canada gave Quebec all but a tiny fraction of the financial gain from the Labrador Power Generating site. NL was told to behave and take what it was given. Further research suggests that there are still TWO sites left to be developed. But who would get the profits this time? Then of course more recently, a sorer, more opened wound. The off-shore fisheries are all but gone due to Canada’s weak international policy which culminated in the overfishing and demise of the sole industry that held this province together. That was BAD management by Canada & BAD luck for Newfoundland.

   Newfoundland could have been “a have province” but historical and anecdotal evidence blatently demonstrate that Ontario and Quebec have worked the stings on the political marionette for so long that the rest of the country has been tricked (or ABUSED long enough) to believe anything that comes out of the sewers of Ottawa.

   No Hendrick, Danny is only scratching the surface. Why don’t you find out why it’s written that most big industry is FORBIDDEN outside of Ontario and Quebec. That would put a nail in it.

   Comment by Fred Harris — 1/14/2005 @ 5:08 pm

8. As I read the post stating that “Newfoundlanders were asking for more than their fair share” and that we received “income supplement” I could feel that rush of adrenalin that has caused me to respond. Thankfully some one else had the same reaction and replied quite adequately. I probably should not be so irate with the comments made by Hendrik because he may not be informed re the resources that Newfoundland brought into Canada in 1949 for which we received nothing only the few morsels Ottawa felt like throwing our way. It would be worth while for anyone else who aspires to making such comments to first educate themselves re Churchuill Falls Hydro (how Quebec has benefited ), how the Federal Gov’t has caused the destruction of our fishery , the clawing back of oil royalties …the list goes on. If Newfoundland and Labrador had received their “fair share” for the the last 54 years we would not be in this mess to-day and would be among the richest provinces. Maybe we should be demanding “retroactive” rights “…yes, right back to ‘49. Why not? That , in my opinion, would be a “fair deal” We are not beggars . We want only what is our own and then we’ll have the opportunity to “share".

   Comment by Enid — 1/14/2005 @ 5:21 pm

9. For far too long NFLD. has been given the shaft of love from the rest of Canada.i grew up in the town of Grand Bank,and left at the age of seventeen not because I wanted to but even then in 1979 the writing was on the wall.If you want a life/career leave NFLD.I would have loved to have been able to stay at home and be in touch with my family and friends but the social economic reality was leave for a better life,as did my three younger siblings.How would the people of the almighty Ontario like it if all of their children had to leave their homes for parts unknown just to make a life for themselves.I fully support the Premier and his actions.If we had had people like him around 30-50 years ago maybe I could walk over to my mom’s hose for dinner once a week rather than having to fly home once every two years or so.The next time someone like Danny Williams comes along could be a long time from now,and by then the moose population will far exceed the people of NFLD.Well Done Mr. Williams.Well put Mr. Murphy

   Comment by Glenn Miller — 1/16/2005 @ 6:11 pm

10. That is not a bad idea, “retroactive pay” for Newfoundland and Labrador. I am sure if the province got it’s fair share from the resources that were plundered the last 50 years, every cent of transfer payments paid to us could be paid back and we would still be the richest province in Canada. I wonder if there is an international court of law where a trial can be held for the Rape of Newfoundland and Labrador? It is time for justice to be served.

    Comment by Phil Healey — 1/16/2005 @ 6:49 pm

11. Well said there Phil, Enid, Fred and Lloyd. As for you Hendrik, you should really get yourself educated the next time you go spilling out your literary diarrhea.
    I was born in Carbonear, NL, raised not too far from there, but now live and work in Alberta. Don’t get me wrong, I like Alberta and I am doing quite well, BUT, I do miss the ocean, family, friends and everything else that will always make me consider the ROCK my home.
    If Newfoundland had gotten it’s fairshare and had it’s resources managed properly since joining confederation, I’d be home right now, have a nice house over looking the bay.
    One day I suppose…

    Comment by Robert O’Leary — 1/17/2005 @ 4:13 pm

12. Thank you for all your replies. I think it can only be beneficial when all grievances can be aired in a cordial if not friendly atmosphere. To Lloyd Rees’s comment “Well, wow, how generous, how can we thank you !!!!” I would like to reply: You can thank me by keeping your sarcasm at home and by engaging in an honest exchange of views because my comments were sincere and not at all mean spirited.
    Now, the adrenaline rush some of you experienced I can understand, but only somewhat because I have received income supplement myself and not because I was too leazy but because I simply was not given the chance yet to prove myself. I cannot find anything degrading about being temporarily on income supplement.
    Thankfully two of your replies also gave some rationale how to justify the demand for 100% of the offsore royalties:
    “Joey Smallwood was tricked by shortsightedness and lost most of the timbre resources across The Rock to big (mainland) business and the Feds.”
    That was news to me (having immigrated to Canada in the nineties). I think however that a better way to deal with this issue is to strike a separate agreement with the feds to rectify any injustice regarding timber rather than to compensate for one flawed deal with another one.
    The Churchill Falls Hydro fiasco is another justification often mentioned. Though I agree that it was a very bad deal for Newfoundland I cannot understand how that should oblige the federal government in any way? To me it sounds like: “Tom sold his new car to Paul for a jacket he always wanted, and now that he realizes he was duped he wants Jack to trade his new car for that very jacket… Jack is relunctant.” If the federal government had a hand in that deal then and only then can I understand the argument, and then this complicity of the federal government should be pointed out.
    “The off-shore fisheries are all but gone due to Canada’s weak international policy which culminated in the overfishing and demise of the sole industry.” I am not sure whether that is a fair assessment because it implies that Newfoundland, had it been in charge, would have fared better. It is not even clear if overfishing alone was responsible for the decline in the fish stock. Laying the blame on the feds may be popular in Newfoundland, it may even be justified, but I need to see more evidence to come to the same conclusion. (Am I the only one who is puzzled that the cod stocks don’t recover the way they should after the moratorium.)
    On a final note. I am interested in what you have to say. I try to keep an open mind over every issue, Newfoundland’s offshore royalties included. When I convey my impressions to you, try not to be offended because I don’t mean to offend or patronize anyone. I knew I would draw fire for my comments. I wrote anyway. Nothing clears the air better than a good thunderstorm.
    Now it’s your turn … shoot!

    Comment by Hendrik Schwachenwalde — 1/17/2005 @ 4:30 pm

13. Hendrick

    Thank you for taking an interest in our provinces issues. You now know the history. We live the results of this history every day. If nothing else I appreciate your willingness to understand where we are coming from. I won’t deal with all the issues you have raised, because I don’t think I would do it justice. However, in terms of Churchill falls, I ask why is it that the federal government did not force Quebec into allowing us to put a corridor through their province in order to transport our power to the US, when it did allow Alberta to put a corridor through to Ontario?

    Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are seeing this deal as the last chance to turn this province around. Danny isn’t looking for indefinite tax exemption status. He is looking for a reasonable (to be negotiated) period of time that would give the province a chance to actually benefit from the revenues, in order to make some investment into the future of the province. The have status that could be granted to us within a few years of this deal would not account for the huge deficit that can not be dealt with without an opportunity like this. So in fact, we would be haves in name only.

    Hope this helps a bit.

    Comment by Sarah Scott Thompson — 1/17/2005 @ 6:44 pm

14. It was also just not a case of the Europeans coming in to overfish but Ottawa trading fishing rights for trade deals which benefit Ontario and Quebec. Maybe the cod would have gone the same way under Newfoundland stewardship but then maybe Newfoundland would have been the sole benificiary of the fish for trade deals leaving us in a far better position than we are now.

    Comment by Gary Thompson — 1/17/2005 @ 8:37 pm

15. I’m one of the ex-pat newfs who left home and hearth to seek my fortunes in strange places…Toronto comes to mind right off the bat! But I chose to leave snotty Canada,(healthcare and hockeyland) especially, Ont, Quebec and the great satan, Ottawa, for a better life in the US–and have been living happily ever after all these yrs, as the fairy tale goes!

    I love my adopted home and all she has offered and given me over the yrs. But I happily would have forsaken it in a heartbeat had I had the opportunity that every man and woman on the Rock truly deserves and have within their grasp now; economic prosperity from the natural resources that are Newfoundlands/Labradors and not Ottawa’s or Canada’s!

    My hat’s off to Danny Williams for his rightful stance on the issue of 100 pct of the royalties from Nflds/Labdrs natural resources. The only mistake he has made so far is to re-raise that red monstrosity, the Maple leaf, back up over gov buildings. He should have stuck to his guns and kept it down until Martin, Goodale and “Hefford” The Three Stooges, came with their hat’s in their hands (like Martin did when he stood in front of a tv audience in St,John’s during the federal election and promised Nflders. would be the beneficiaries of their resources to the tune of 100 pct, “NO STRINGS ATTACHED") if they would back him and not Steven Harper! I seen him with the hat and I heard the lie! Newfs would be truly stunned to let some upper-Canadian huckster get away with that again! Don’t you remember the Churchill Falls ripoff anyone? Well, this is the same spawn as were those dandies, upper-Canadian charlatans!!

    I hope Danny Williams doesn’t cave on this issue? Who knows, my daughters, who are American born and bred, and love the Rock even moreso than me, may be able to do what I and millions of Newfs have not been fortunate enough to do all the yrs since entering the Canadian confederation; live back in Newfoundland and raise a whole new generation of proud and prosperous children! And, perhaps, even one day soon?

    For the sake of all the children in Newfoundland and Labrador, and their childrens children, Mr.Williams! Don’t give up the fight! Take no prisoners! And thank you for standing up for what’s right and fair! God Bless the Rock!! And, up the pink,white and green Tri-Color!!

    Comment by sean — 1/24/2005 @ 4:12 pm

16. My advice to you, Hendrik, is to get your facts straight before shooting blanks? By all means, comment on the issue at hand but spare us the sob stories about income suppliments and the like as a justification for theft and malfeacense on a massive scale by the, suck up to the immigrant bunch, in Ottawa. I for one am damn insulted by such non-sensical gibberish. Especially when it comes from a recently arrived immigrant to the country. No insult intended.

    Newfoundlands Offshore resources are not suppliments to be taken and then given back to the people in the form of welfare for oil! A little welfare at that, for a lot of oil, which translates into a whole helluva lot of dollars for central Canada while Newfoundland goes bankrupt. What to christ is fair about that, my man? We are talking about the people of Newfoundlands resources! Hence, their future. Now, what was that you were saying about thunderstorms or something in your blog?

    Comment by sean oneill — 1/25/2005 @ 11:19 am

Leave a comment

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.