Fair Deal For Newfoundland

We Can’t Let it Happen Again

Posted by Kevin on 1/20/2005 @ 11:54 am

Coming from Newfoundland is an interesting thing.

In America, I am unique at the table, most of the time. I am definitely a good ice breaker:

Friend to group of strangers: “Did you meet Kevin? He’s from Newfoundland.”

- “Is that near Maine?”
- “Oh, wow, that’s really UP there! Arctic?”
- “Bash any seals lately?”
- “Really, that’s so cool! Where is Newfoundland?”
- “A Newfie hey?”

This never bothers me, and actually, I am glad that people are interested, and I know that I am similarly interested in folks from other unique places. I typically answer like this:

- “No, it’s not near Maine. It’s about 1400 miles northeast of Maine, stuck out in the Atlantic Ocean. And it’s actually called Newfoundland and Labrador.”

- “Yes, it is really up there, but not in the Arctic Circle. It’s probably not as cold as you would think. It’s more unpredictable than anything else.”

- “No, I don’t bash anything, and Bridgett Bardot was wrong. Why didn’t the animal rights groups squawk when the Cod were nearly wiped out? My grandfather was a sealer…let me explain the sealing myths to you…”

- “Yeah, it is pretty cool. Newfoundland — and Labrador — are part of Canada. We joined in 1949. The Eastern-most tip of North America.”

- “I’m from Newfoundland, and to tell you the truth, there are many who prefer the term Newfoundlander — just so you know.”

Inevitably, folks who have heard of Newfoundland ask what happened to all the fish. Why is your province on the bottom rung of Canada? Whenever I take a stab at answering this question another voice creeps into my ear. Oddly enough, it’s Percy Janes, who wrote in House of Hate that Newfoundlanders can at times be plagued with an “island-wide inferiority complex.” I believe that there is some truth to this, and perhaps it’s not unique to us. Irish and Jamaicans, indeed any islander whose nation has been trod upon by those bigger and more powerful, or whose governments have recklessly misused natural resources, probably feel a need to explain themselves when others ask “what happened to you? Where is your wealth? Why do so many of you leave?”

Let me be clear: I don’t feel inferior. But when I have to explain the plight of our province, particularly the history of our fishery, I am saddened that any explanation is necessary. We should never have lost that resource. Too many mistakes were made. We can never let it happen again.

The terrible truth is that all of the parties involved with managing our greatest gift failed miserably. Failed in such a way as to make us gnash our teeth in anger and disgust. How could our fishery, a $3-billion renewable resource, be lost?

Read Roy MacGregor’s fourth installment in his Newfoundland series: How a $3-billion renewable resource was lost to Newfoundland, Globe and Mail, January 20.

143 Comments

The questions you get in the United States are very similar to what all Newfoundlanders have to face, especially if they had spent some time off the island. You are really putting yourself out there… But you are right, we can not allow this economic inferiority to continue. Other island counties, like Ireland, are shedding the sting of being poorer places. It is now our time to shine. Really, it is just the natural cycle of things. Newfoundland has been getting a lot of positive attention in recent years. People are always talking about us. Many (non-Newfoundlanders) would move here in a second if they thought it possible. Certainly all efforts being made are making a differnce. We have to collectively continue the quest and good things will happen.
Comment by Peter — 1/20/2005 @ 1:21 pm
Overriding the terrible sadness of all this is the feeling that
Newfoundland is caught up in some kind of lunatic scenario. Nothing in the
realm of sanity can rationalize the progression of calamities that have
befallen us since 1949, particularly as it relates to the fisheries, that
most culturally intrinsic institution that is our sine qua non. As if we
needed further proof of this madness , the pantomime of fools presently on
stage is the
“Advisory Panel” comprising Art May, Derrick Rowe and Dawn Russell, set up
by *Canada’s* Fisheries Minister, with the endorsement of our own “fedewal
minista” , to advise the *Government of Canada* on how to stop the barbaric
destruction of straddling stocks in the area regulated by NAFO. It wasn’t so
tragic,one could burst a gut laughing. Who in Newfoundland could possible
be so dim-witted as not to see this as just another ruse by the corrupt
federal Liberals to postpone further having to deal with a serious problem,
and thus prolong for as long as possible their grasp on power.

Last night I listened to some person call in to “Nightline” suggesting that
the Globe& Mail be requested to provide extra space for John Crosbie so that
he could explain to the rest of Canada what has happened to the fisheries.
John Crosbie was Minister of Fisheries when Mulroney lent the coup de grace
to the Northern cod stocks. Unlike John Efford who foolishly imagines that
he is in the loop, Crosbie did at least admit that he had no idea what the
Prime Minister was up to.

Gus Etchegaty says: “And here we are, for Christ’s sake – we’re
destitute.". Surely, it must be recognized that whereas , Crosbie, May,
Rowe et al may not exactly have been the architects of this predicament ,
they are representative of the ilk who’ve contributed so much towards it. The
thing that is presently setting Danny Williams apart is the hope that he may
prove an exception to the rule. We shall see. One thing for sure; however,
is that nothing will change for the better unless or until we can break the
stranglehold in which we are held in this unholy union.
Comment by LLoyd — 1/20/2005 @ 2:25 pm
Here is the full text of McGregor’s article:

ST. PHILIP’S, NFLD. – It is not often you get to describe an 80-year-old as
bouncing off the walls – but not often, either, that you meet Gus
Etchegary.
He is careering about his living room high above Conception Bay, a
remarkably fit older man with the energy of a small dog answering a
doorbell; and yet all that has happened is a reporter has come knocking in
search of an explanation for where the dickens the fishery went.
He points out toward Baccalieu Island, far and hazy in the distance, and
says these empty waters and all the waters surrounding this spectacular
province were covered in fishing boats for hundreds of years.
Now nothing.
Etchegary spent his life in the fisheries, eventually running a vast
processing operation along these coasts.
He has set up charts as large as he is, huge coloured charts that he carts
around to schools, anywhere they will listen to his tale of how this
province’s greatest of all resources was squandered, mismanaged – and,
ultimately, lost.
These are the days of the endless litanies in Newfoundland and Labrador.
They are picking again at the scab of Confederation and working backwards
from today’s federal-provincial squabble over offshore oil royalties.
Everyone knows the stories by heart: the oil, the iron ore, the hydro
electricity, all the way back to the “shotgun marriage” with Canada back in
1949 that began the eventual loss of the cod fishery – the greatest hurt of
all.
“This is the big one,” he says.
This is the one that boils the blood quickest; it is the genetic complaint.
“Honest to God,” Etchegary says as he assembles his charts and graphs along
the chesterfield and chairs. “I hate all the whining and griping. I hate it.
“But there would be no need for any of it if our resources had been managed
properly.”
For half a millennium, cod was king here. Etchegary has one large chart of
the catch from 1875 to 1992 that shows decades of consistent 200,000- to
300,000-tonne takes, with another 75,000 tonnes or so going to foreign
fleets.
Even at those considerable levels, the fishery still recovered year after
year.
But then it began falling apart. Britain and Canada made a deal for
Newfoundland – not many here these days put much stock in the
negotiations – that included such matters as a reduction in Britain’s war
debt and saw the control of the fishery transfer over to Ottawa.
It couldn’t have come at a worse time, says Etchegary, not with cod shifting
from salted to frozen, not with war-torn Europe desperate for food supplies,
not with war fleets being converted to fishing, not with trawlers and
freezer trawlers taking over what had once been line and hook.
And certainly not with no one paying proper attention.
By 1968, he says – thick finger hammering a spike in the chart – the
foreign catch had soared to 810,000 tonnes.
“And that,” he says, “wasn’t even accurate. They were underreporting.
It was more like 1.2 million tonnes.
“The misreporting completely screwed the science.” Science said a standard
removal of 20 per cent of the enormous stock was sustainable – reality said
as much as 50 per cent was being taken.
Science said spawning cod, those aged seven years and older, were at 1.6
million tonnes in 1962 but had fallen to 70,000 tonnes in 1978.
Common sense said it couldn’t go on.
In 1971, Etchegary and others went to Ottawa to argue that Canada must claim
jurisdiction over the entire continental shelf. He pulls telegrams from old
files to prove they had precisely that promise, only to see it instead
become a partial claim when a 200-mile limit was declared, leaving the three
richest parts of the shelf exposed to foreign fishing.
The charts show a modest recovery, but then show how fishing and politics
became hopelessly entangled in each other’s nets – politicians building
unneeded plants, benefit programs keeping afloat unrealistic numbers –
until ultimately Canada was forced to declare a moratorium in 1992, throwing
tens of thousands out of work.
The moratorium and the 200-mile limit left a strange, unmarked line in the
ocean where Canadians could no longer fish cod on one side – apart from a
small, almost insignificant area – but foreigners could fish happily on the
other.
“The fish,” Etchegary says, “never had a chance to recover.” His own feeling
is that Confederation, which he did not vote for, should never have
transferred control of the fishery to distant, landlocked Ottawa, but he
also says, “There’s no one with clean hands.
“All Canadians share the blame – including Newfoundland and Labrador.” His
final chart shows what the value of the cod, redfish and flounder fishery of
1973 would be worth in 1994 dollars if it had stayed at the same level:
$3,233,250,000.
“Just think of it,” he says, “a totally renewable resource worth more than
$3-billion a year – lost to mismanagement.
“We should be making a significant contribution to the national economy, not
always being criticized for having a hand out.
“And here we are, for Christ’s sake – we’re destitute.”
rmacgregor@globeandmail.ca
Comment by LLoyd — 1/20/2005 @ 2:32 pm
How utterly ironic, Kevin, that you talk about pride and strength yet never cease to foster “an island-wide inferiority complex” through the comments on this website.

The only people telling us we are destitute are people like Gus Etchegary. AND they are all dead wrong. The ONLY person telling we are so desparate we have only ONE last chance to make a go of this place is the Premier, just as Brian Peckford did 20 years ago. How pessimistic, negative, and depressing can you get? If prominent people tell you over and over again that you are stupid, broke and worthless, no wonder people start to absorb this nonsen and believe it.

The reality of the fishery is that, at worst, we were active co-conspirators in the collapse of the cod fishery. We can not hold ourselves faultless. The other reality is that Newfoundland never ever in its history “owned” the Grand Banks. Anything outside the three mile limit was high seas and subject to fishing that was largely unregulated until the pst WW2 period. We destroy our own ego every time we spread the myth that we had “our” fishery taken from us and destroyed by foreigners.

Yet another reality is that fish landings this year are actually higher both in value and tonnage than they were in 1991! Who said the fishery has collapsed? What has disappeared is the outmoded, romantic notion that our fishery was a social experiment in freeze-drying an entire society in time.

The people fostering the myth of the “fish culture” are largely townies or others who seldom if ever sliced deep gouges in their flesh hauling a trap by hand in the middle of winter, waiting on shore for a small boat that would never return or living from hand to mouth in the feudal society that was pre-Confederation Newfoundland.

If people providing comments on this website spent one tenth the time becoming familiar with the issues and the facts instead of displaying their righteous indignation at Margaret Wente or generally blaming everyone else for our lot in the world, they might discover exactly where any feelings of pessimism and inferiority are actually coming from.

And then, armed with _that_ knowledge they would not need to go about trumpeting their wholeness, their richness or anything else, as if it were some sort of pop-psychology mantra. Who are they really trying to convince, anyway?

They’d get on with the business of making sure we do NOT have one last chance, ever. And they’d make damn sure they’d never again tolerate anyone - politicans or “experts", local or mainland who insist on telling us that they alone hold the key to unlock our one last chance at untold wealth.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/20/2005 @ 3:16 pm
Let’s be clear on something, Ed. This is an online letter writing campaign. Such campaigns can have an impact; we know that decision-makers pay attention, particularly when large numbers come in to play. Don’t send the letter if you think that it only serves to exacerbate the issue and if you disagree with it completely. People who come here and take action are doing so voluntarily. I, personally, am responsible for one letter to the PM and one letter to Goodale.

The blog, as most blogs aspire to be, has become a forum. I don’t control the comments (actually I do but I haven’t deleted any), and I think that the many small conversations that have erupted here are interesting. I disagree with a lot of what people have said here, but this site has taken on a life of its own, and I think a public place to debate, praise or raise objections is a good thing. I don’t take the time to foster, promote or do anything with the comments that come in here.

Is the Premier’s message really “this is our last chance?” While I do see your point, I don’t think they have said that, and when I’ve said it I applied it to oil as our last known major non-renewable resource, and certainly the most lucrative thing we have in front of us for the next 10 years. I think a case can be made for that statement.

As for the fishery, thousands of people lost their main source of income. That sounds like a collapse to me. I don’t claim to have been a fisherman, or to have a clue about what it’s like to toil as one. If the fishery were restored to its full bounty tomorrow, my wish would not be to return to a provincial freeze-dried subsistence way of life. I’d rather see it become a cog in the NL economy, instead of it’s lynch pin. Certainly, as my post indicated, we are not faultless.
Comment by Kevin — 1/20/2005 @ 4:04 pm
Well, Kevin, if all this site is going to be is a source of venting or political action in a preconceived direction, then let it be that. If it bothers you to have contrary opinions expressed then make it clear and I’ll just leave you guys to it.

My comments were aimed at a great many of the people who have commented at this site and others who write letters and call open line shows all with the same core messages.

I am trying to challenge them, partly because I disagree and largely because this political problem will NOT be solved by bombarding the Langevin Block with form e-mails and endless repetitions of myths (whether by you or anyone else), no matter how deeply the myths may be believed. Like all effective political action, the resolution of this dispute must involve a dialogue.

If you don’t believe the Premier said “last chance", I can e-mail you the quotes or you can visit my blog and I’ll post them there. You’ll also find a series of postings about the provincial government’s positions (yes plural) and how that is frustrating the process as much as anything else.

As for the fishery, I did not intend to aim my comment at you, but if it came out wrong, please accept my heartfelt apologies. I lived through the moratorium and have some familiarity with the consequences it produced.

The cod fishery will NOT come back in the near future. Sorry. That’s life. The question we should be trying to deal with is how to move ahead. What I get from people who spend most of their time point accusing fingers at “foreigners” or thinking of what “might have been” is just a pointless waste of time. It won’t put the fish back in the ocean and it damn well won’t find productive employment for those who aren’t fishing anymore.

There are other fisheries and other opportunities and let’s take them. For the love of everything, we all need to take a massive step back from the emotional ledge some people are on and press BOTH sides in this dispute to resolve it.

In fact, if we really want decision makers to pay attention, we should speak to ALL decision makers including provincial ones. If we reject Loyola Sullivan’s call that we must all fall slavishly in line behind The Leader and actually question what our provincial leaders are saying and doing, we might just get a deal here that works for everyone. I can send you those Sullivan quotes too if you want ‘em.

Look, Kevin, your blog is great and I respect your sincerity and hard work. It has indeed taken on a life of its own, which is what happens in a democracy. Thank God we live in one.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/20/2005 @ 5:35 pm
Hello Ed;

I am looking for your blog address. Could you post it here please?

Thanks in advance,
Bren S.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/20/2005 @ 5:46 pm
Ed:
“If it bothers you to have contrary opinions expressed then make it clear and I’ll just leave you guys to it.”

Completely misread me…that’s the problem with comments and email. I think you have made great contributions to the dialogue here; you certainly bring a well-formulated perspective that has made me think, and articulate some of my own thoughts on the emotional aspect of the issue. Thanks!

Also, I see next week as crucial, and to your point, “if we really want decision makers to pay attention, we should speak to ALL decision makers". Next week I’ll ask members of this community to direct their efforts towards our NL MPs. If we have any shot at getting a deal that works for everyone, we need to be more aggressive with our elected officials, and hold them accountable for the deals they make.

I am neither a cheerleader or a nay-sayer of Danny Williams at this point. I simply support him in this effort. No leader should get a free ride based on one stand, but on this stand alone, I think he’s doing the right thing.

I’ll relish reading your blog to learn more of your perspective on this.
Comment by Kevin — 1/20/2005 @ 5:57 pm
Brenda:

Just click on my name underneath any comment posted here and you’ll get there right away.

Otherwise, it’s http://www.bondpapers.blogspot.com
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/20/2005 @ 6:14 pm
Kevin:

Looks like we are actually on the same page.

My misunderstanding, plain and simple and yes, e-mails and this format can lead to misundertandings.

Next week is no more crucial than December or October, to be quite honest. I resent the constant attempts to hype the hell out of these meetings especially when people know full well what will and will not be accomplished. Personally, I’d lock both the PM and the Premier in a motel in Port aux Basques and tell them not to come until they have a deal. Forget this Bermuda vacation and trips to the Far East. (
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/20/2005 @ 6:17 pm
“No, it’s not near Maine. It’s about 1400 miles northeast of Maine, stuck out in the Atlantic Ocean. And it’s actually Newfoundland and Labrador.”

Since when is Labrador out in the Atlantic Ocean?
Comment by WJM — 1/20/2005 @ 6:27 pm
Ed, we all know how life works. You don’t have to tell us. And you only have to read the press in mainland Canada to understand why we are all so up in arms on this site. Kevin is doing a fine job and I thank him. Danny Williams is the best leader we have ever had and only wants what is good for Newfoundland. Why else would he take the job without salary? What other politician has every done that? Newfoundlanders are finally saying we’re mad as hell and we won’t take it anymore. All we want is respect as a “fair deal for Newfoundland". Surely you understand that.
Comment by Anne — 1/20/2005 @ 8:18 pm
So the cod fishery is gone and we must throw our hands up in the air and say “what the hell boys, it’s gone, let’s move on". Ed, I’m asking you, is that the attitude we should have???

Gus Etchegary is doing a fine job with respect to informing the public about the fishery, he knows full well as with the rest of us that Newfoundland is partly to blame but he also sees what should be done to prevent any further damage which I don’t get from you in your posts other than to forget it and “move on".

And the only one “trumpeting their wholeness, their richness or anything else” is you, in your need to correct us when we know damn full well the mistakes we made and what we must do to see to it they don’t happen again.

Foreign over-fishing is the issue here now. Do we turn a blind eye to that as well? Do we shrug our shoulders knowing full well the benefits that Ontario and other provinces have received from the federal government who have bartered “our” fishery away. After all it was not “possessed” by Canada until we joined with them in confederation now was it.

I don’t quite follow you either in your agreeing in one post to the fact of the collapse of the fishery then in another you ask “Who said the fishery has collapsed? What has disappeared….”

Sorry Ed, the “dialogue” you spoke of and the sort of dialogue you wish us to partake in will not sway the federal government, they have their agenda, you must know that by now.

This is not a debate, this is not about challenging the people, this is about standing up together with one “voice” for the common good of this province and its people and its future generations. Isn’t that what this is all about?
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/20/2005 @ 11:30 pm
Below is an e-mail I received from Minister Goodale. My personal opinion is that is was written with great care and about 50% smoke and 50% mirrors… Yeah, that makes a hundred percent, right?

START E-MAIL>>>>Thank you for taking the time to bring your views to our attention.

Let me assure you that the Prime Minister and I fully agree that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Nova Scotia, should receive greater benefits from offshore resources in recognition of the unique fiscal challenges faced by these provinces.

As you know, Newfoundland and Labrador signed the Atlantic Accord in 1985 which allowed it (and not the Government of Canada) to set royalties on offshore resources and to collect 100 per cent of these revenues as if they were on land.
Newfoundland and Labrador has argued that it is currently not the principal beneficiary of these offshore oil and gas revenues because, as these revenues flow into provincial accounts, there is a corresponding reduction in Equalization payments from the Government of Canada. (This is how the Equalization formula normally operates everywhere in Canada.)
However, it is important to note that the existing Accord includes certain extra payments to Newfoundland and Labrador that help to offset the reduction in Equalization that would naturally occur as a result of increases in provincial revenues.
Since the start of offshore production in 1999-2000, the value of Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore revenues (up to and including 2003-2004) was $429 million. Existing provisions under Equalization and the Atlantic Accord have resulted in offset payments of $466 million over that same period, more than compensating the province for declines related to offshore revenues.

The Government of Canada is nevertheless fully aware that under these existing arrangements the protection that Newfoundland and Labrador receives is scheduled to begin declining in 2004-05 and the offset will be lower than 100 percent between now and the end of the offset provisions in the Atlantic Accord in 2012.
This is why the Prime Minister made his “100-per-cent” commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia last June.
The Government of Canada’s offer entirely honours the commitment made by the Prime Minister by guaranteeing that:
o Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to receive 100 percent of revenues from its offshore oil and gas production, no matter what the price of oil;
o Newfoundland and Labrador will receive 100 percent protection from any Equalization reductions caused by those same revenues for at least the duration of the existing offset provisions of the Atlantic Accord; and
o all existing offset benefits within the Accord will be 100 percent respected should Newfoundland and Labrador get to the point of no longer qualifying for Equalization.
The Government of Canada stands ready to work out any remaining details to reach an agreement that is consistent with the Prime Minister’s commitment, fully protects the offshore resource revenues of the province, and is fair to all Canadians.
That being said, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s request for Equalization offset payments to continue even after the province no longer qualifies for Equalization goes well beyond the Prime Minister’s commitment.

It is also inconsistent with Premier Williams’ declaration that “once we get to the equalization standard, we are saying we don’t want any more equalization. All we want after that, forever, is 100 per cent of our provincial revenues, no different to Alberta or anyone else".

I can assure you that the Government of Canada appreciates the importance of what is at stake for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Both Minister Efford and I look forward to continuing discussions in good faith with representatives of Newfoundland and Labrador to arrive at a fair and honourable solution.
Yours sincerely,

Ralph Goodale
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/21/2005 @ 12:04 am
Actually, Anne, the Premier does collect his salary. He then deposits it each pay day into his family charitable foundation and, one presumes, collects a tax benefit for it. Personally it doesn’t mean a row of beans to me one way or the other what he does with the salary he’s entitled to collect.

On a more significant point, though, and this is for Martha as well, I think people need to look more closely at what a “fair deal” means.

If it means being treated like Alberta or any other province, then the province won’t be entitled to Equalization once we don’t qualify for it. As it is right now we are being treated far better than Alberta ever was and certainly better than Saskatchewan which was in the same state we were in 15 years ago - bottom of the pile. Sask. just made it to the “No Equalization” side with a lot of hard work and sacrifice.

If it means we get 100% of direct revenues plus another amount equal to it (200%) as long as oil flows, well look at that more closely. First of all, that describes exactly what the Premier has been demanding since June 10, 2004. Second, no province has ever gotten anything like it. Third, there’s really not much chance politically or financially ANY federal government could ever buy into that idea. Third, it could be that we would be relatively as wealthy a province as Alberta or Ontario and still be getting a federal hand out. (By the way, that’s the idea that upsets people like Margaret Wente, just about every editorial board across the country and the thousands of Canadaians who are now paying attention to this issue.)

What might fair be? Well, fair would be to my mind collecting an amount equal to our direct revenues for about eight years, in other words for about as long as there is left in the existing Accord Equalization offsets. Fair would be spending that money on paying down the debt and developing infrastructure and personally, I like the Premier to honour his own Blue Book commitment on that.

Fair would be that we’d get that extra money even though we won’t qualify for Equalization after about three years from now.

Fair would be that once the offset was done we’d be no better or worse than any other province. We’d get all our own revenues including the 100% of oil revenues we get right now today. If we qualify for Equalization, we get it. If not, we
don’t.

As for the fishery, Martha, we don’t need to forget it but we do need to move on AND we do need to get past the myth that our fish were traded away to benefit Ontario. Those deals, such as they were benefitted Newfoundland and Labrador too one way or another. All the while though, and this is the part no one admits, fishermen from Newfoundland and Labrador were fishing just as heavily or more heavily than anyone else and they are no less innocent of “overfishing” than anyone else. We highgraded and we poached with the best of them.

But we DO absolutely need to move on.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/21/2005 @ 12:07 am
I guess I finally reached the max limit! My comments following were cut-off and are as follows

Yours sincerely,

Ralph Goodale
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/21/2005 @ 12:10 am
Sorry, accident put in html command that cut-off my comments.

Yours sincerely,

Ralph Goodale

That said, near the top Minister Goodale says that NL already had 100% as if it was an on-shore resource. How then did the PM offer anything. If they are saying we already had it, then this reneging tactic must be based on the 100% relating to protecting NL from the clawback formula and equalization! Sheesh write it big and long enough and they’ll have us believing that we are getting 400%…

Thanks for a reply though Minister Goodale, not an overly favourable projection for what this province should reap based on past federal usury but at least I know you counted me as disgruntled…

Fred from CBS

PS Ed you truly believe that all the past wrongs NL has suffered at the hands of the past federal govs is a wash and we start from scratch with every new negotiation? Seriously, you are either a liberal plant or just a very weak link in our negotiation chain…
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/21/2005 @ 12:20 am
Well, said, Fred from CBS, well said.

Ed - Regarding your comment:

“If people providing comments on this website spent one tenth the time becoming familiar with the issues and the facts…”

How very, very arrogant of you, sir. Should only those with weblogs of their own, or some kind of an inside edge, be the only ones who feel free to make comments on this site? Are we boring you with our (perhaps) less-than-magna-cum-laude grasp of the issues? If so, go back to your weblog, have a registration that requires proof of a degree, ‘discourse’ your heart out, and leave us plebes to it, ok?

And, about your comment “…instead of displaying their righteous indignation at Margaret Wente…”

Speaking for myself, my righteous indignation - which I have documented here (and I’m probably one of the ones that bores you to death, oh my) - is directed towards a nation that spawns the likes of her, and she is by no means unique. You can ignore her or you can go along with her - whatever - but don’t stand in the way or denigrate those of us who will not.
Comment by Margaret Harris — 1/21/2005 @ 8:25 am
Thank you, Margaret, for the comments you have directed to Ed. You have said it far better than I could.

And, Ed, what Newfoundland is asking for is just a drop in the bucket to the Federal Government. Do you not know what the rest of Canada gets from Ottawa? Have you ever heard of the Auto Pact in Ontario? Have you every heard of the Dairy Council of Canada? Do you know about the Wheat Board. And soft wood lumber…. The Government of Canada is pouring billions of dollars into those industries and more to fight the US over softwood lumber. It seems that all of the rest of Canada is represented just fine, thank you, as far as their resources are concerned.

Money pours into both Ontario and Quebec to protect the milk industry and set prices and the Auto Pact is just a make work project for Ontario.

And do you know how much money Ottawa pours into Quebec to keep Bombardier going?

All Newfoundland is getting is the scraps. You imply that Newfoundland should stand on their own two feet; well, when the rest of Canada does, we will too. I think that is only fair. We should all be treated the same and we are not. If you don’t see that, well I feel sorry for you.
Comment by Anne — 1/21/2005 @ 9:46 am
Margaret,

The Liberal spinners and PR hacks have awoken. It can only mean that we are making progress. Ed Hollett, former PR spinner for Wells, Tobin and Grimes will hardly come out fighting for any initiative of Williams. Wallace J. McLean another Liberal champion from Ottawa, also shows up to relocate his ‘province’, Labrador from out of the Atlantic:) Can Jeff Mackey and Scott Reid be far behind?

Army
Comment by Armbruster McPhee — 1/21/2005 @ 9:54 am
Armbruster McPhee, on behalf of “hacks” everywhere, I apologize for having inconvenienced this debate with facts.

Feel free to go back to your myth-making. Have a nice day.
Comment by WJM — 1/21/2005 @ 10:13 am
ed
why not leave the negotiating to danny and loyola they are doing fine.
Comment by cyril — 1/21/2005 @ 10:45 am
I have heard that former Liberal MP and Cabinet Minister Sheila Copps has an article in the G&M today. If anyone has a copy, would you so graciously post it?

Many Thanks.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/21/2005 @ 11:02 am
Thanks Margaret and others.

My comments were certainly not intended to be arrogant but as a very proud Newfoundlander with roots going back over 200 years in both Newfoundland AND Labrador I do resent the endless repetition of the great and largely mythical injustices done to the place and yes, from my perspective that very often becomes a substitute for people and politicians actually doing something. If that is arrogant, then we need more arrogance.

Anyone and I mean ANYONE can take the time and do some simple fact checking, especially if you have access to a computer. Margaret - there is not a shred of elitism in anything I have said - your comments are merely a smoke screen to avoid dealing with my point. I am encouraging, even trying to drive people to join in a discussion based on facts, not on what is pumped out by any one person or group.

As for the rest of it, for army and others, I have never made any secret of my past. In fact, it is so curious that some “anonymous” commentor on my blog today chastised me for not trumpetting those past affiliations. BTW, they never included Grimes as Prem and Tobin was thankfully shortlived. But anonymous versus posting your name and contact info speaks volumes about a willingess to stand behind ones views.

But is any of that actually important? Only for those who simply want to dismiss my comments, like Fred, because they don’t conform to their preceived ideas. Their minds are already set. Fair enough. In a democracy, there should never be only one view.

If you actually look at what I have said, as opposed to what you THINK I said, you might see something different. My initial comment about this whole process (motnhs ago) was that we were going at it “half-assed” and I based that on both observation from the past and experience. You just can’t deal with the federal government in such a vague way, as the government did before October, and expect success. A friend of mine who used to work for a Tory minister and later PM put it this way: “for every smart guy you have, the feds have 10.” Therefore we have to beat them on everything, especially the facts. THAT is where we keep getting smacked around. We have more “smart guys” they just aren’t being used.

If anyone of you want to send me an e-mail requesting the paper I produced in July, you’ll see at the end a proposal that I think would fly and balances off all the various issues and interests. In fact, I think we are close to a deal now but that requires an adjustment on BOTH sides.

In the current context, as the hype and hysteria has mounted I have become much more vocal, trying to bring people back to a basis in fact. I opposed the flag stunt because it merely distracted from the main issue AND, very predictably, got people across the country riled up: just what we DIDN"T need. There are a raft of Tories who agree with that proposition.

As a last point, I’ll leave these thoughts for Anne. Yep, companies across Canada get federal provincial government subsidies. Big deal. You listed a couple in central Canada. Let’s list them all, and let’s look at the list for this province and see how it matches up. The one for here is pretty big, including the creation of an entire Crown corporation solely to market our salt fish!

Let’s make a fair comparison: Alberta and here. They get 100% of oil revenues and then have them “clawed back” 100% by Equalization since they make to much to get the wage top-up called Equalization. (By the way that sum isn’t zero, it means they have all the money they started with.)

Under the existing Accord, there is no cap on total provincial revenues, just like Alberta. Right now Newfoundland and Labrador gets oil money (every penny) PLUS has that money discounted to figure out Equalization PLUS an offset to any Equalization losses that actually result. And now we are seeking yet another federal transfer on top of that so we can……. be treated like Alberta. Excuse me? That makes NO sense at all.

We only get scraps indeed, Anne.

And yep, we are only asking for a “small” amount of money. There are three problems, first that we asking in the first place - every time we create a problem here we run off and ask someone to bail us out so we can be “independent” - 1933, and twice in 1948 (London and Ottawa delegations). The way to stop doing things is to stop doing them. The way to be indepedendent is to be indepedent.

The second thing is, we are asking for extra money on top of money we already get and keep as long as there is oil no matter how rich a province we become. Right now, contrary to what the province says, Newfoundland and Labrador does not wind up with one nickle less as a result of the Accord and Equalization. We actually get more than Equalization alone! I can see a short-term boost of extra cash (8 years is workable politically and every other way), if we actually invest it wisely, otherwise we’ll be no better off at all.

Third, it isn’t a “small” amount of cash when you realise that if the sweetheart deal is cut, every other province will be standing in line for the same deal. Then a few billion to us becomes 10s of billions to others - like Saskatchewan and Manitoba and New Brunswick. It won’t take too long before that creates its own mess and we taxpayers acros the country would pay for it out of our own pockets.

I say we can reach a deal. I say it is important to reach a deal. If the provincial government keeps going on the course it is taking I get increasingly pessimistic with every day. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Yet again.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/21/2005 @ 11:53 am
Army… So THAT’S who they are?!?! Thank you so much for enlightening me on that. Brings it ALL into crystal clear perspective.

Anne - You’re very welcome. And you made (as usual) excellent points as well. It is only half the story to look at our province and the Atlantic Accord issue. To get the full picture, one MUST look at the rest of Canada and how the resources and industries there have been managed, to get the full foul taste of what they want to do to us yet again.

And finally, to Ed - I’m sure you made some more very captivating points. When someone produces a Cliff Notes version, I’ll be sure to review them.
Comment by Margaret Harris — 1/21/2005 @ 1:20 pm
ED Hollet?????
I just found myself checking out your blog and i know now why you are so negative here in this one it apears to be a lonely place over there.
The only comments there where yours.I feel sorry for you having to sit there all alone.
After finding out your connection to the liberal party explains the way you feel about the accord,i think Mr Efford has the same problem in that the both of you guys would rather see NL SCREWED than to have to admit that Danny Williams might get a fair deal for NL for a change.
Shame on you.
Comment by Robert — 1/21/2005 @ 2:02 pm
It seems that Liberals such as Grimes, Efford and Martin will stop at nothing to undercut this deal. we can see that through Ed Hollett’s comments. Keep up the good work Danny. By the way, I"m a Liberal supporter(was).
Comment by doug rossiter — 1/21/2005 @ 2:03 pm
Thanks for the sympathy Robert,

If you, Margaret and several others actually took your time to go through each posting to date you will see my blog is NOT intended as a place for grassroots mobilisation.

It is a place to post my assessments and opinions, based on research. People can download information, read posts, post comments do whatever they feel like. They are as close to Cliff’s notes as anyone can get, though, Margaret, save for simply holding up the odd flash card like “Upper Churchill” or “Confederation".

It’s really pretty simple. I guess perhaps the very fact that the last couple of posts from you and others amount to sneering dismissals suggests that your minds are made up. That you’ve made up your mind is fair enough.

The cavalier comments about “Liberals” or simplistic dismissal of my posts, on the other hand, speak more about those who posted them than me or anything I have said.

Doug, I’ll direct a comment to you in particular, in closing. Take a trip to my blog and check out the posting “What Danny wants". Then please explain to me which version of “this deal” you are supporting.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/21/2005 @ 2:52 pm
“I say we can reach a deal. I say it is important to reach a deal. If the provincial government keeps going on the course it is taking I get increasingly pessimistic with every day. We have no one to blame but ourselves.”
ED would you please explain to me why guy’s like you,grimes,efford and peckford are afraid that Mr Williams will get a fair deal for NL? Are you worried that if he gets what he’s asking for that he will go down in history as being the first leader of NL that didn’t settle for second best for the people of this province?
Lets face it if Willians wins this battle with Martin it’s gonna show how soft former leaders of this province really where in there dealings with the goverment of canada.
Thats why worms like Peckford are starting to crawl out of the wood work and everyone in NL knows that Efford wants to lead this province how would he ever compete with Danny Williams.
Comment by Robert — 1/21/2005 @ 3:33 pm
Robert, you are pinning your hopes on an awefully big IF. Frankly, if Danny can somehow manage to pull it off without causing a whole raft of problems then he’ll deserve to go down in the history books.

The funny thing from my perspective is that 20 years ago everybody was rallying behind Brian Peckford claiming he was in a life and death struggle with the evil bastards in Ottawa and hoisting him on their shoulders as the only leader ever to fight for Newfoundland and Labrador. He got the Accord and it was praised and he was praised and everyone thought it was wonderful.

Now, for some reason, we have forgotten anything that happened yesterday and every single word of your post about Danny and his place in history has been said about just about ever first minister from this place going back to Bond.

If you are a Danny man, then God love you. Support your man to the hilt. But don’t assume that people who don’t turn blue in the face cheering for him are either “afraid” of him or working against him.

If I am “afraid” of anything, it is that by chasing after a deal we cannot reasonably ever expect to get (200% forever) we may well lose a deal that can be had (200% for eight years)and which is better than any other Premier in the country could ever actually achieve.

Your comments are awfully familiar. I used to hear the same stuff from guys who supported Smallwood and Peckford and Tobin the same way you now support Danny Williams. Of course, these days you can’t get any of them to admit they ever even knew those guys existed.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/21/2005 @ 3:53 pm
What problems could Williams cause by trying to get the best deal for NL?
I support Williams for standing up for NL not for what party he stands for.
If you figure i’m some PC guy just trying to bash Liberals think again i’m from George Bakers and Beaton Tulk’s old district and have voted Liberal all my life.
I even voted for Simms for which i find myself checking out the weather station to see if he’s gone back to work for them.
So it’s got nothin to do with who’s taking the fight to Martin and everything to do with the fact that someone is trying to do the best for NL.
Everyone from NL should stand behind him for that.
Comment by Robert — 1/21/2005 @ 4:12 pm
Wow, things got pretty heated here today. I do think that Ed Hollett is really Paul Martin or possibly John Efford, even though I seriously doubt that the “fedewal minista” knows how to use a computer.
Having read all the banter, I think that one thing still SHOUTS out at me and I think that this is the position resounded by the majority of Newfoundlanders, Danny Williams is fighting for the best deal he can get for NL.
Go DANNY Go!
He should get it, we deserve it, why shouldn’t we get a little compensation for the rape we have endured for the last 50 years or so. AND it was rape, Quebec, with the help of Pearson, had raped us for the energy revenues out of Churchill Falls . Our Sea has been raped by the mismanagement by the Feds. And now finally, Paul Martin & Efford would like to see us stay as a have not or as Danny put it, a keep-not province.
The fact is, we have been screwed over for years, this is no myth there Ed. I believe that NL should keep 100% of the provincial royalties and it’s equalization payments until it can stand on it’s own two feet. The Federal government has done this for Alberta in the past, why not agree to give the ROCK the same little boost.
What I want to know is why are you, a so called Newfoundlander, so opposed to this?
Comment by Robert (Calgary) — 1/21/2005 @ 6:26 pm
Robert 1, you’re the guy who kept injecting partisan affiliation into the discussion so let’s drop it if you want and focus on the issue. But hey, like I said before, I have known a thousand guys who stood behind every other one of the guys at the time who they said was the “only Premier ever to fight for Newfoundland". It’s an old story and it is just as much a load now as it was a load then. Let’s focus on the issue though and maybe we can figure something out.

As I have explained elsewhere, this sweetheart deal (100% of its own revenues plus another amount of the same value from federal revenues for ever) has never ever been done for any other province. And, if you have been following the news, you will know at least three other provinces are lining up to get the same type of deal. Their arguments will be just as convincing and righteous as any other.

It doesn’t take too much to realise that we are then talking about billions annually. Well, that money comes from my taxes and your taxes, not from anywhere else so don’t be too surprised when, in order to pay for such a scheme across a whole bunch of provinces, something has to give, like taxes or services.

It is the same as Equalization and a lot of bigger minds than mine or any other one here have split in two trying to figure out how to get money to provinces that really need it, in a way every can agree to, without bankrupting the country.

As for Robert 1.1, since you live in Calgary you might want to check with Ralph and ask him when it was last that Alberta got an Equalization cheque. The answer is 1964. It never ever got an extra boost, in any event. Alberta was treated like every other province at the time right up to the time it went off Equalization. At that point, the federal government clawed back 100% of Alberta’s oil and gas revenues and they keep doing it ever single year.

By the way, Newfoundland is already getting “the boost” you talk about through the Atlantic Accord and it will be able to stand on its own feet without transfers in three to five years. So, Robert 1.1, as you can see, I am not opposed to what you claim to support. In fact I support it 100%.

Incidentally, Newfoundland and Labrador already keeps 100% of offshore royalties. Ottawa gets exactly zero dollars in royalties and the province loses not a single nickel of its own revenue - just like Alberta.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/21/2005 @ 7:33 pm
I’ve just finished reading articles on your website Ed and I must say I am a Danny supporter and I am afraid. I’m afraid of peoplyou are a little disturbing. It would appear that in order to draw attention to your position on today’s hot topic you would rather help play a noticeable part in disrupting a good cause rather than risk going unnoticed trying to help it. When one of the few readers you borrowed from the Fair Deal blog asked you a question it was met with aggression and arrogance.
Anonymous simply asked “Is it true you are a partisan liberal propaganda guy as per the comments on Fair Deal blog?” Yet instead of responding with a reply you reacted by showing your insecurity and blowing your horn. You avoided the question and instead chose to display your ‘bio’. Ed I think it’s wonderful that you have a website AND a bio, I really do. You’re practically a celebrity! And who knows maybe one day when comparing web sites, yours might be as big as Kevin’s.
Given that you chose a career in public relations Ed it would seem appropriate that you understand when relating to the public one should always attempt to respond and not react.
Everyone aware of current events involving NL & Can understands their importance. There certainly is no shortage of opinions on the subject and since this seems to be a forum for voicing one’s opinion, I will offer one. You underestimate the negative effect of your criticism without solution approach. Facts are great. It would be great if we all knew everything Ed. Knowledge is power so why don’t you teach us to help strengthen our resolve instead of weaken it. Instead you bring misdirected anger, into the public forum. You undermine actions of others by offering criticisms without offering solutions. I am curious as to what offends you so much regarding Mr. Williams’ actions when clearly he is doing what needs to be done. He is making a stand so we can be held accountable for our successes rather than accepting responsibility for our failures. The latter being the only solution I hear from you. Maybe you should think about your motivation. There is a theory about abusive relationships affecting the victims in that they themselves become abusers. Maybe you’re acting like a victim Ed. ARE you a victim Ed? Do you feel the need to perpetuate that cycle of abuse Ed? Do you need a hug Ed?
Reasonable people do want their opinions based on real information. I agree with you on that. But maybe you can use all that power you wield for Good instead of Evil. Keep people informed but intend to play an obscure role in helping the cause rather than a more noticeable roll in stopping it. You seem to want to trample a good cause and you should stop it. Newfoundland and Labradoreans are fortunate to have a Premier who is inspiring belief, stirring up positive feelings and DOING something positive for our province.
I realize the diplomatic thing for me to do here would be to end this message not by making bold statements but by asking questions and waiting for answers. I’m not gonna do that Ed because I’m not interested in reading your bio again. So I guess it only remains for me to make a few bold statements:
In your letter (posted 1/21/2005 01:35:52 PM) you begin by displaying insecurity during your ‘reaction’ to a question and then feelings of superiority with your statement. “Now, anonymous, all you can do is deal with my argument”. You are scary and confusing Ed. It’s not YOUR argument that’s at hand here. It’s the potential for our province to achieve a level of economical success not previously experienced. You should realize no one ‘needs’ to deal with YOUR argument Ed because it comes from an ugly place. It seems you need to revisit some past failures or short comings and then get over yourself. I would imagine it sucks having always been the bridesmaid or as you put it “A former special assistant to two premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador” but I suggest you hide your petty jealousy, realize you will never be Premier and welcome your common but rewarding existence in the march towards a successful province.
Stop the cycle Ed. Get help

Wayne Corrigan
waynecorrigan@go.com
Comment by Wayne — 1/21/2005 @ 9:18 pm
In 1944 Iceland declared independence from Denmark. Five years later Newfoundland gave up its independence and became a Province of Canada.
I started a career in fisheries in 1945 and have been fortunate to have the opportunity to closely monitor the evolution of the fishing industry in both countries.
While everyone is entitled to an opinion,one has to be involved in harvesting, processing and marketing activities on a day to day basis, aware of the impact of Federal and Provincial policies on operations and fully conversant with national and international fisheries to truly understand why the per capita income of Icelanders in 2003 was fifth highest in the world, providing full
employment for its population while we in Nfld. and Labrador lost a minimum of 15,000 jobs and 12% of our population (60,000)in the last ten years.

Surely it must register with the skeptics here that Ottawa through DFO have failed, to put it mildly, to manage our fisheries in the same league as Iceland (75 percent of its economy is based on fisheries) or Norway or Australia or several other fishing nations. Why has Canada failed where others have succeeded???
The answer lies in the dedicated committment of the Icelandic Govt to protect its fishery, its regulatory and enforcement regimes and a great deal of cooperation between scientists, fishermen,processors and Govt. The same goes in Norway and some other fishing countries. But not Canada.
A succession of incompetent and weak fisheries ministers, bureaucrats similar to the two senior men from Ottawa who (on Fisheries broadcast yesterday) expressed their total ignorance of foreign overfishing and how to deal with it, 2000 juniors on Kent Street in landlocked Ottawa, all trying to mirco-manage a complex fishery ranging from the Pacific to the Lakes fisheries to the developing Arctic fisheries to the complex East Coast fisheries involving five Provinces.

A science program which is vital to fisheries management, left in shambles by a Finance Minister named Martin in 1995 when he cut the budget in half!!! We now know less about the overlapping fisheries on the GBs than the Portugese, Spanish or even the Ukrainians.

The present fisheries Minister who is about to enter into discussions with the Portuguese fisheries Minister to jointly and better manage overlapping fish stocks!!!!. Imagine having dicussions with Portugal, the country cited by far the most in the last twenty years for breaking every NAFO regulation.

One could go on for some time. But to conclude (for now) just think, its been thirteen years since John Crosbie announced the moratorium to provide a two or three year recovery period for groundfish stocks. To date,after thirteen years,there is not a single sign of any recovery. Worse still there is not any semblance of a DFO plan, in Ottawa or anywhere else in Canada, to rebuild the fishery in what is the most prolific area for recovery (the Southern Gbs) in the North Atlantic where cod, for example, grow four times as fast as on the NE coast of Nfld. or the Gulf areas.

With respect to trading fish quotas off Canadas’ east coast, if some one this net believe Ottawa did not exchange quotas directly or support requests for quotas in the ICNAF and NAFO Annual Meetings since 1954 for a variety of benefits accruing to other parts of Canada, they are not well informed on what happens between Exernal Affairs, International Trade and DFO. Also they obviously missed my letter to the G@M ten days ago in answer to query by a former fisheries bureaucrat who served 40 years in DFO.He was also poorly informed or was a habitual absentee.
Comment by Gus Etchegary — 1/21/2005 @ 10:00 pm
ED..What is wrong with all provinces geting the same deal as we here in NL are seeking?
If the resources belong the the provinces why shouldn’t each province recieve the revenues?
This is a fear for central canada,a fear that the day is coming when rual canada is not dependant on central canada this is why people like Wente have to resort slinging insults rather than face the reality that there baby(NL) is ready to move out of the house.
Comment by Robert — 1/21/2005 @ 10:07 pm
” Ottawa gets exactly zero dollars in royalties and the province loses not a single nickel of its own revenue - just like Alberta.”

Boy o’boy, you talk about bafflegab, and this is not even the most outrageous example of Mr. Hollett’s selective presentation of the “facts", some examples of which are so far-fetched and so foolish as to not even merit a comment.

What difference does it make what name is tagged on profits from the oil patch; the fact is that Ottawa claims 53% of those profits, not including the lucrative returns on its own 8% share in Hibernia, while at the same time doing its damnedest to deny Newfoundland the right to it’s own 47% share without penalty. It is Martin’s trying to weasel out of a promise to correct this latter injustice that all the fuss is about. One cannot help wondering what is behind Mr. Hollett’s propagation of such obviously sectarian Liberal Party b.s., certainly it does not appear that it is the best interest of Newfoundland that is the primary motivation. Could it be, as someone has already suggested , that it is the credibility of Danny Williams that is seen as such a threat to their political aspirations that it must be attacked from every quarter, even if that means shading the truth a little, or is it just a personal thing, Mr. Hollett?
Comment by LLoyd — 1/21/2005 @ 10:09 pm
“Could it be, as someone has already suggested , that it is the credibility of Danny Williams that is seen as such a threat to their political aspirations that it must be attacked from every quarter, even if that means shading the truth a little, or is it just a personal thing, Mr. Hollett? ”

LLoyd…That is the very reason Guy’s like Ed , Efford,Grimes and every other person from NL that thinks Williams should accept what is being offerd by the federal goverment.
Comment by Robert — 1/21/2005 @ 10:27 pm
Actually Lloyd and Robert, no matter how hard you try, you can’t turn facts into bafflegab.

In Canada, there are two orders of government each of which collects taxes (revenues) to fund its operations. In the case of things like oil within a province, only the province collects royalties. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, only the provincial government collects royalties from offshore oil. Both governments collect other kinds of revenue like corporate taxes and personal income tax.

Rather than try and find sinister explanations, Lloyd, try and look at the simple facts. Newfoundland and Labrador does not lose any money at all of its own from the offshore. It does lose Equalization, but that is only a top-up scheme in any event. Like any top-up scheme, it goes down as own revenue goes up and the Atlantic Accord and the Equalization program already offset those losses as they always intended for a limited period. If you want to know why, ask John Crosbie.

I have no idea where you get your 53/47 ratio in favour of the federal government, but I’ll give you an example of actual direct revenues as estimated in 2001 by MUN economist Wade Locke for White Rose. I’ll compare direct revenues with direct revenues because that is what Danny Williams wants to offset. Remember this estimate was based on oil prices about half what they are today.

Provincial direct revenues (corporate income tax, royalties, payroll tax, personal income tax) will add up to $908 million over the life of the project. Federal direct revenues (corporate tax, personal income tax) are $741 million over the project life. That’s a 55/45 split in favour of the provincial government.

Overall, with Hibernia included, the split may vary somewhat but the Hibernia figures are public. What I do know Lloyd and you can check this fact: Newfoundland and Labrador keeps every single penny of its own offshore revenues exactly as intended in the Atlantic Accord and exactly as if the resources were on land.

Lloyd and Robert, I guess my comments must be really frustrating for you. They must be challenging your pat assumptions. After all else, the best you can do as a rebuttal is just to keep dismissing it as “Liberal b.s.".

If Mr. Williams credibility is called into question by my pointing out straightforward matters of fact, then perhaps you should be looking to your own assumptions or to Mr. Williams rather than trying to smear me. Personally I don’t think it is a matter of his credibility at all. You raised that point, not me.

Personally, I am merely trying to point out that what Premier Williams sought before June 5 and what’s on the table now from Ottawa are pretty close to being the same thing. I don’t agree with the federal government that it is exactly the same thing, but the differences are minor enough that they could easily move to deal with them.

Unfortunately, expectations and emotions have been raised so high and partisan rhetoric is so clouding the political environment that we may see a very good deal be lost because saying “yes” to less than what the you want now would mean saying yes to what the Premier originally asked for.

And, for the record, Lloyd, while you may be dismissing my comments as “partisan", surely you must realize that I am defending the Accord negotiated between two staunch Progressive Conservative first ministers. Partisan has nothing to do with acknowledging the fact of a very significant agreement and the benefits it brings. Would that more people didn’t look at the world solely through red or blue goggles.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/21/2005 @ 11:36 pm
Ed.
Alberta may have got their last equalization cheque in 1964. But that was after something like 8 years after it became n “have province” i.e., when it was technically ineligible for equalization payments. You see we just want the same deal as Alberta.

You think your opinions are facts and if people don’t agree with your opinion you arrogantly claim they are uninformed.

What about your fanciful comments on the radio the other night – that we couldn’t build a corridor through Quebec because the cost of replacing power lines due to terrorism would have been too high.

I didn’t notice Alberta handing over control of their oil to the federal government when they forced a corridor through Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Why should a power corridor through Quebec have been any different. Once again we don’t want anything special we just want the same deal that Alberta got.

What about your interview on CBC a while back moaning Danny Williams name calling and how there was no place for it. Then to end it you called people who advocated separation “foolish”. Now if that isn’t hypocrisy I don’t know what is.

What is your agenda Ed? Are you just an apologist for the liberal party? Or are you here because your so threatened that the common people now have a voice and are not just leaving their future up to the politicians here or in Ottawa.
Comment by Gary — 1/22/2005 @ 7:36 am
Actually Gary, Alberta stopped getting Equalization when it stopped qualifying for Equalization. When it became a have province based on the formula at the time, the cash stopped.

Period.

There was no “transition” period. We, on the other hand, already get a “transition” period in which extra money flows.

As for the Upper Churchill, I still can’t see a case where, based on everything that was going on, that this province got any kind of unreasonable treatment. We have to wear some of the responsibility for a bad deal and stop trying to fob it off on others.

But overall, why do I need an agenda, Gary, in order for my comments to make sense in your universe? Why would you have to look for some sinister motive in simply disagreeing with people based on facts? Do you have an agenda, Gary?

I am merely one of the “we” who wants a fair deal and fair treatment. It’s just that I am one of the “we” who doesn’t buy into the “Newfoundland the perpetual victim” crap. If correcting the record bothers you, then all I can say is “tough". If disagreeing on some issues annoys you, then get over it. Just don’t question my motives or integrity or sincerity or loyalty to our province or country. Don’t try and stick some convenient label on me like “apologist” just because it means you can conveniently dismiss my comments without a thought.

As for the remark about independence, yes it is the one thing I am prepared to call utterly foolish. Just think, Gary, that if we were independent, we wouldn’t be able to get a transfer payment from Ottawa on top of the full revenues we already get as the prmier is now proposing. How foolish would you have to be to think that less is better than more?
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/22/2005 @ 9:08 am
“Actually Gary, Alberta stopped getting Equalization when it stopped qualifying for Equalization. When it became a have province based on the formula at the time, the cash stopped.”

ED..That is exactly what we are seeking here in this province.
The chance to become a Have province and if this deal doesn’t allow for a period of adjustment to get us out of debt,how can we become a have province and not be dependent on equqlization or the federal goverment.
Comment by Robert — 1/22/2005 @ 9:37 am
Back to your corners, folks.

I just want to mention that a few posts needed my approval before their comments appeared, notably Gus Etchegary’s, whose GM article helped spawn this discussion. (Certain word combinations require approval to prevent spamming by marketers–that’s why a handful of comments posted yesterday only appeared now). Sorry for the delay.
Comment by Kevin — 1/22/2005 @ 9:38 am
My head hurts trying to sort all these numbers popping up. For heaven’s sake, what ARE the real bottom-line numbers,percentages? Can someone who actually knows make it simple for the math-impaired, great unwashed.It has been my belief, based on percentages, that the province’s current final take is 14.something cents on the dollar after clawbacks - is this true or not?

I’m not even going to try to wrap my head around all the other proposed formulas and potential formulas.It’s all way too complicated, as it was probably meant to be. The bottom line is, whatever series of mathematical manipulations is finally decided, this province has a chance to build some economic security and provide a healthy and growing economy not entirely based on limited natural resources.
Comment by Debra — 1/22/2005 @ 10:30 am
Debra,

It breaks down to this: In any situation a cross Canada, a provincial government gets its own taxes from any business or development like offshore oil. The feds get theirs. There is no guaranteed split of the total take (50.50, 60.40 or anything like it).

In the Atlantic Accord, there is nothing that says the provincial government gets X percent and the feds get y percent. It just says we get treated like every other project which is what i described above.

Of all the money a provincial government has coming in on its own, if it doesn’t come up to a natioanl averagem, the feds send out Equalization to make up the difference. Make more on your own, Equalization goes down, but there is no limit to how much a province can make on its own.

And Robert, you wrote: “The chance to become a Have province and if this deal doesn’t allow for a period of adjustment to get us out of debt,how can we become a have province and not be dependent on equqlization or the federal goverment".

Well Robert that’s what I support. Here’s the thing. “Have” means you make more money than the average and don’t need Equalization. By the provincial government’s own estimate we will hit that point in three to five years WITHOUT any new deal on the offshore. Premier Williams actually admitted that in a scrum a couple of months ago but he doesn’t like to repeat it. After all it screws up the argument that we are poor and need a big handout forever.

It’s hard to get completely out of debt, but we can cut our debt down by quite a bit. The current federal offer gives us extra cash such that we could reduce our total provincial government debt (not the version that includes all the pension liabilities) from around $8.0 billion currently down to around $5.0 billion. That would put us on par with other provinces.

Thats’ why I keep saying what is in front of us is a damn good deal that matches what most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would understand and accept and think was actually pretty “smurfy". It’s because they understand what I just explained, that the Globe and Mail changed its mind about the provincial government. Just about every newspaper in the country, including in Halifax does not support the “double up forever” option once the details and the facts have been explained.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/22/2005 @ 10:53 am
I cannot and will not accept anything that Ed Hollett says as truth when he is trumpeting the false notion that we are asking to “double up forever” when that is certainly not the case. Anything else he may add only serves to further discredit him.
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/22/2005 @ 12:14 pm
He’s not asking to recieve it forever but for 8 years.I would love to hear Mr Hottett explain what is wrong with the federal goverment giving us 8 years to try in get this province on top.
It’s not like we have put nothing into this country.
As for the other provinces wanting the same, whats wrong with all provinces having there books in order?
I dont think anyone in canada would have a problem with that except Ont and Que.
Comment by Robert — 1/22/2005 @ 12:31 pm
After reading Debra’s comments, I thought it only fitting the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had it’s position posted.

The following as well as the Premier’s letter to the Prime Minister dated Jan. 3, 2005 is available at www.gov.nl.ca/atlanticaccord

Analysis of Federal Government Offer on the Atlantic
Accord - Winnipeg, December 22, 2004

On June 5, 2004 the Prime Minister accepted the proposal of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to remove the effect of the Equalization clawback on offshore revenues so that the Province will receive 100 per cent of the value from these revenues.

The principle accepted by the Prime Minister was reiterated in the federal proposal of December 22, 2004.

“…the annual offset payment…shall be equal to 100 per cent of any reductions in Equalization payments resulting from offshore revenues.”

This statement demonstrates that the federal government understands the principle, but it then attached seven conditions which eroded the 100 per cent commitment.

To understand how these conditions operate, it is first necessary to understand how the offset payment is calculated. The equalization formula, in its simplest form, provides that each dollar of new own-source revenue collected by a province will result in the reduction, or clawback, of equalization payments by one dollar to the benefit of the federal government. To eliminate the regressive effect of the equalization clawback due to offshore revenue, and provide 100% benefit of offshore revenues to the province, the offset payment should return to the province each dollar which has been clawed back. Therefore, if $10 million of equalization is clawed back due to offshore revenue, the offset payment should be $10 million. If $500 million is clawed back, the offset payment should be $500 million. The offset payment would stabilize, and not grow any further, at the point where all equalization payments have been clawed back.

Federal Conditions

Each of the seven conditions in the Federal Proposal deflates the 100 per cent commitment. Ultimately the clawback is completely reinstated.

* Annual Termination: The new offset arrangement will terminate in any year in which NL is off equalization. Even though there is a transition mechanism, any immediate reduction in offset payments means that the clawback on offshore revenue has been reintroduced.

* Inadequate Transition Mechanism: The federal transition mechanism which is triggered when the new offset terminates is the one embedded in the existing Atlantic Accord. This mechanism ensures a rapid reduction of the offset payment. For example, if NL is off Equalization in two years of the first eight years, NL would be $1 billion short of 100 per cent.

* Transition Ends in 7 Years: The transition mechanism will not be available after year 7, which means that the clawback reduction will be fully reinstated if NL is off equalization in year 7 or later.

* Uncertain Extension: The federal criteria to extend the arrangement to a second eight year period could deprive NL of the extension altogether. The federal government proposed that if NL is off equalization in years 7 and 8, or if our debt/GDP ratio moves ahead of one other province, or if we fail to balance our budget in year 8, then the extension will not be granted. If not granted, and without the benefit of a transition mechanism, the clawback will be in full effect again.

* Annual Termination Potential after 8 Years: Even if an extension does occur, the federal proposal says that the arrangements could end in any year by applying the same criteria for 8 year renewal (i.e., two years off equalization, improved debt/GDP ratio, failure to balance budget).

* Project Limitations: The arrangement will include revenue only from Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose. Hebron’s inclusion will only last 8 years in total (possibly not at all if NL is off equalization.). The revenues from other new fields will not be included.

* Time Limitations: The whole arrangement will be 16 years or less, even though the revenues on existing projects extend beyond 16 years. The federal government will not even commit to a formal discussion about a further extension.

Balanced Budget Condition

The requirement to balance the budget in order to receive offset payments between years 8 and 16 is extraordinary. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has adopted an aggressive fiscal policy to balance its budget, but the timing and nature of its budget policy should not be dictated by the federal government.

Principal Beneficiary

The reinstatement of the federal clawback, especially if Newfoundland and Labrador continues to require equalization during this period, negates the objective of the Atlantic Accord which is that the Province should be the “principal beneficiary” of its offshore resources.

Equalization Payments and Offset Payments

The Provincial proposal recognizes that Equalization payments will end when the Province’s fiscal capacity achieves the five province average, (or whatever nationally-defined standard may exist for the Equalization program). However, offset payments should continue after the province is off Equalization because the clawback of offshore revenues is still operating – indeed, at its maximum level - when Equalization payments are reduced to zero. Offset payments might be reduced when the Province is off Equalization for a sustained period of time, but the federal proposal does not adequately recognize this concept.

I hope this is of some help in clearing up any confusion. It seems fairly straightforward to me. Cheers! Brenda
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John\\\’s — 1/22/2005 @ 2:34 pm
Martha and Robert, here is the quote from the Premier’s own letter of June 10: “over the life of offshore petroleum production". That is a huge difference from the original proposal which suggested merely replacing the original offset (due to expire in 2012)

I am not trumpetting false notions. I am merely quoting directly from the government’s own position.

Robert, you are speaking of the pre-June position. Martha is simply chosing to ignore the documented psotion of the provincial government.

Brenda, thank you for yet once again reposting the provincial government’s latest coment to this website. Undoutbedly that has cleared up a great deal. For example, it is quite clear from the very last sentence that the provincial govenrment wishes to receive an Equalization offset benefit long after the province no longer qualifies for Equalization.

Unfortunately, for the Premier he has _added_ this stipulation which can only further frustrate attempts to seek a soution. This is precisely the clause which is being rejected across the country.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/22/2005 @ 3:13 pm
I didn’t realize that the provincial government’s position (via their own wording) had already been posted on this site. That being said, there is nothing wrong with reiterating the provincial government’s position or that of the federal government for that matter.

The key is to keep all informed as best possible. This I believe is best achieved by listening to or reading the position of both sides and in their own words.

Debate is always a wonderful thing but it is far more productive when biases are checked at the door.

Cheers!
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/22/2005 @ 4:50 pm
Ed, let’s say you are right and that you understand the complexities of our financial relationship with Ottawa better than our premier and finance minister and certainly better than any of us here, tell us then what you hope to gain by portraying the feds as the good guys and us as a bunch of irresponsible dependents begging once again to be “bailed out” of a mess into which we’ve gotten ourselves.

Reading your posts have let me to conclude that far from understanding, you are missing the point completely and don’t really have a clue about what this stand-off is all about. Nothing illustrates this better than a comment in one of your earlier posts, to wit: “The people fostering the myth of the “fish culture” are largely townies or others who seldom if ever sliced deep gouges in their flesh hauling a trap by hand in the middle of winter, waiting on shore for a small boat that would never return or living from hand to mouth in the feudal society that was pre-Confederation Newfoundland.”

If you hadn’t already told us so, I would find it hard to believe that this actually came out of the mouth of a Newfoundlander. What you deride as the “myth of the fish culture” is in fact who we are. It is what defines us as a people. It is why we are here; it is our history, it is our culture, it is the way we talk, the way we walk. It is the inspiration of our music, our art, our folksongs, our personality, our character, our values, our sense of humour. The townies surely contributed to this culture but it is chiefly in the outports where it evolved and was nurtured through the centuries: the outports that are the body politic of this old nation without which we are nothing more than a gutted carcass thrown on a manure heap , or at best stored in some deepfreeze.

Ottawa, through its intransigence, incompetence and indifference has dealt this old nation what may very well turn out to be a mortal blow. Since 1992 we have been on life support, literally at death’s door, clinging desperately to whatever hope there might remain that we will not slip completely into oblivion. This is what is weighing so heavy in the heart of every real Newfoundlander; this is what is inciting the anger; this is why in desperation Danny pulled the flag down.

Few of us are such fools as to imagine that our survival depends on whether or not Danny can wrench from the greedy grasp of Ottawa a fair share of oil revenue. If he succeeds , all that can do is to temporarily stop the bleeding and provide some reprieve so that the remnant of the inhabitants can secure a place for our exiles to some day come home to. Oil is a finite resource. In a few short years it will be all gone. What then! The cold hard reality is that if we allow our outports to be emptied - places like Hr. Breton and Fortune to die - there will be no then, no tomorrow, at least not in any sense of its being Newfoundland.

This is the point I believe you are missing , Mr. Hollett . This fight is not about how much is our rightful share of oil revenue; this fight is about our survival as a people, and whether you get it or whether you don’t , that is intrinsically bound to the restoration and preservation of our “fish culture". You may argue that the fish are all gone, a consequence of human greed and stupidity. Not necessarily so, for to believe that would be to dismiss the miraculous power of Nature to bounce back from the brink. Therein, Paul Martin and his ilk notwithstanding, lies our certain faith that “We will remain".

Why not give up this silly talk about who is right or who is wrong about how much we are getting from Ottawa and focus your attention on some of the real problems. The recent appointees to Geoff Regan’s “Advisory Panel” to advise the Government of Canada on sustainable management of straddling fish stocks on the Grand Banks, is a prime example of the kind of insult to our intelligence we have to demonstrate we are no longer willing to tolerate. Now there’s a cause worthy of your undeniable talent.
Comment by Lloyd — 1/22/2005 @ 5:02 pm
I think I am slowly starting to understand NL’s position on the total economics of this. One thing I can not get my head around is how does Quebec qualify for 50% of the total transfer payments in Canada? Does that $800 million they get from Churchill Falls not count as revenue the province receives in total? On a Quebec website they boast how strong their economy is but they do not state they have to be partly supported by the rest of Canada. Not sure if Quebec Hydro is classified as revenue for Quebec. Does anyone know? Just trying to understand this transfer payment thing more clearly. I’m impressed with the knowledge that many of you have on this site.
Comment by Floyd — 1/22/2005 @ 5:18 pm
Floyd, everything I have come across has stated that monies earned by Quebec Hydro is not included in the equalization formula. Below is a quote by Brian Fitzpatrick,MP (Prince Albert) from Hansard,May 5th, 2004. In speaking to the 2004 Budget Implementation Act he said;

” Manitoba Hydro and Quebec Hydro, if I understand the formula correctly, make a lot of money out of hydro power in this country, but it is not included in the equalization formula. That is a renewable resource, not a non-renewable resource. Some day the non-renewable resources will run out. These are renewable resources.

Those are some of the other inequities that exist in that formula.”

One of the best explanations I have heard regarding Hydro Quebec and its relationship to equalization was by Sue Kelland Dyer and Ryan Cleary on CBC Radio, St. John’s. If I can find some of their comments on this specific issue in print, I will post it or better yet, perhaps one of them could help explain it on this forum.

Cheers.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/22/2005 @ 6:05 pm
Actually Ed Alberta received equalization from 1957 to 1964 while keeping their oil revenue.

Once again your hypocrisy shines through while publicly crying over Danny Williams name-calling you call people who have different views to yourself as “foolish”. Independence is not just about money Ed – in fact this whole episode is more than money as someone above so eloquently put it - its also about self respect. The financial implications of independence are unclear – for every report that can be produced that an independent Newfoundland would be financially worse off there is an equal number that show the opposite. These people that want independence believe that the risk or cost is worth it. Self-determination and the freedom to make your own mistakes or create your own success is a wonderful thing. Why after all did Canada (or for that matter New Zealand and Australia) strive for independence after all at the time it was probably more cost efficient and certainly a lot easier to be under the umbrella and protection of Britannica.

What scares you Ed? That maybe Danny will get what he asks for. If after all from what I read of the volumes that you have written and spoken on this topic you believe he’s asking for too much. So instead of sitting back and let him have a go at getting more than what Newfoundland deserves you try to sabotage the whole process.

As for an agenda, mine is trying to raise a family in rural Newfoundland. It seems to me that you appear to have an extraordinary amount of free time or are getting paid to respond to every newsgroup, web blog, or radio talkback show on this topic attacking Danny and Newfoundland.
Comment by Gary — 1/22/2005 @ 7:00 pm
Our “sneering dismissals” Ed? You wrote:

It’s really pretty simple. I guess perhaps the very fact that the last couple of posts from you and others amount to sneering dismissals suggests that your minds are made up. That you’ve made up your mind is fair enough.

Thanks for your consent allowing us to make up our minds. I repeat (as stated somewhere else in this huge blog) I am not a party follower. I place votes municipally, provincially and federally based upon my perception and belief in the individuals who campaign in my ridings. I do not give a flying “hoop” about any political party. I vote for the best choice of a candidate in my neighbourhood. I wear red, blue, orange and green but I am colour blind to politics. I hope that finally unravels YOUR, “That you’ve made up your mind…” patronizing view off a group of people trying to bind together in solidarity to get the best possible deal, rather than laying little “red” landmines throughout our comments. Instead of saying, “That [we’ve] made up [our] mind[s]…” why not dismiss our points of view by saying that YOU’VE made up YOUR mind!

Ed also said:

“But is any of that actually important? Only for those who simply want to dismiss my comments, like Fred, because they don’t conform to their preceived ideas. Their minds are already set. Fair enough. In a democracy, there should never be only one view.”

If my ideas were preconceived [sic] at least they were formulated in my own head and not in a crayon colouring party. You talk about me and my ilk,… Figure yer gonna get a ride on the Prime Ministers coattails if you tow the red party line? Good luck with that career shift to Federal politics Ed, but if you ride in CBS make sure you are the best candidate for my riding or I won’t be voting for you…

Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/22/2005 @ 7:32 pm
The CBC program to which Brenda referred and which featured conversation with Ryan Cleary and Sue Kellend Dyer can still be heard, unabbreviated , in the Radio Noon archive for Thursday, Jan. 20. http://stjohns.cbc.ca/radionoon/
Comment by Lloyd — 1/22/2005 @ 7:50 pm
Gary - Alberta gets and keeps its own oil revenues. We get and keep our own oil revenues. They got Equalization when they qualified; we get it as long as we qualify. Anyone who tells you different either doesn’t understand the situation or is delibertaely trying to mislead you.

Ottawa doesn’t pay Alberta an Equalization offset even though, using Danny Williams’ logic,
it claws back 100% of Alberta oil and gas from their Equalization. Why should we be treated any differently when we are in the same position (that is, we don’t qualify for Equalization).

Thanks, Fred for trying to attack my comment on sneer dismissals with a sneering dismissal about “crayon colouring party". You prove my point with each post.

Lloyd - I missed nothing at all. We already get our fair share. Nobody and I mean nobody takes anything away from the province we are legitimately entitled to have when it comes to oil and gas revenues. Go ask Loyola Sullivan exactly how much direct oil and gas revenue he will have at the end of the current year (March 31, 05). it’s a simple question and doesn’t need any discussion of Equalization at all. See if he gives you an answer let alone a straight one.

If you manage to get one, I’d love to see the reply. So far the province is absolutely silent about how much it money it will actually make this year.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/22/2005 @ 8:20 pm
Ed, with respect on your comment that Alberta stopped getting equalization because it stopped qualifying for it let me correct you if you don’t mind:

Alberta stopped getting equalization payments not because it stopped qualifying for equalization but because natural resources weren’t included in the equalization formula at that time. Alberta benefited from equalization payments for seven years, from 1957 to 1964. Their oil boom also occurred in the 50’s. So it’s fair to say there was an additional transitional period of 7 years. Period.

Not only did Alberta receive equalization payments they received them while they were a “have” province! Yes, a “have” province! In 1948 they were proclaimed debt-free by their then premier Ernest Manning. By 1952, just 5 years before equalization was established, Alberta’s economy was well fuelled by their oil industry. And as historian David Leonard pointed out, Alberta had become a have province, and still debt free.

In 1957, the Social Credit government of Alberta issued a dividend of twenty dollars to every adult in the province! It was in that same year they also started to receive equalization payments, those payments coming from other provinces less fortunate of which Newfoundland and Labrador was/is included who also couldn’t afford to hand out dividends to its people.

1955-1959 (TWO YEARS INTO RECEIVING EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS)

“So much prosperity could be seen in the increased number of paved roads, in the growing population and the greater expansion of the cities and large towns in the province. It was an age of consolidation. The old rural school district was now disappearing and larger school divisions in the towns and large villages of the province was taking place. And everywhere throughout the province, the school bus was a standard feature of town life. Cars were everywhere. Most households had cars. Some had two or three. Indeed, Edmonton in 1959, on a per capita basis, had the greatest number of automobiles per individual in North America.” - Cheryl Croucher – Industry Canada, Albertans, Who do They Think They Are (website)

1960 – 1964 (FOUR MORE YEARS OF RECEIVING EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS)

From looking at and digesting all the above it’s safe to say that Alberta continued to reap huge benefits from their oil industry. And still collected equalization for another four years. Amazing isn’t it.

I don’t apologize for the vision (or the “pop-psychology mantra” as Ed puts it), that I hold and have of my province but knowing that Ed and his kind are capable of existing within it is something I will apologize for. I bet you don’t exist in Quebec because if you did you would be handing over the bulk of revenue from our Churchill Falls reiterating to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador “what’s fair is fair”.

And here Ed is asking for what he thinks to be a fair deal for Newfoundland and Labrador??? Every single person is entitled to his/her own opinion but when they “parade their fool’s wisdom… designed to dazzle and kill”, it’s the Ed Holletts, the John Effords and Michael Walkers, the naysayers, “the doomsayers and false priests” that “will be slain.” I apologize to Mr. Shane Mahoney if I’ve taken anything out of context here.

One final comment just in case Ed missed it: Alberta WAS a “HAVE” province while they were debt free, yes DEBT FREE, and for 7, seven years they collected equalization. Atleast that is what Industry Canada’s “Albertans, who do they think they are” website is reporting.

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/albertans/search/audio_result.asp?word1=’%25%25%25′

Other sources:

The Generic Solution and The Atlantic Accords: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/economy/equalization/solutions.html

‘Mitts Off Alberta Dough’ Klein (see what John Efford says in this one):
http://www.rightpoint.org/mitts.html

And one that everyone should read: http://express.optipresspublishing.com/Jan12-05/articles/feature.htm
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/23/2005 @ 12:04 am
Ed, with respect on your comment that Alberta stopped getting equalization because it stopped qualifying for it let me correct you if you don’t mind:

Alberta stopped getting equalization payments not because it stopped qualifying for equalization but because natural resources weren’t included in the equalization formula at that time. Alberta benefited from equalization payments for seven years, from 1957 to 1964. Their oil boom also occurred in the 50’s. So it’s fair to say there was an additional transitional period of 7 years. Period.

Not only did Alberta receive equalization payments they received them while they were a “have” province! Yes, a “have” province! In 1948 they were proclaimed debt-free by their then premier Ernest Manning. By 1952, just 5 years before equalization was established, Alberta’s economy was well fuelled by their oil industry. And as historian David Leonard pointed out, Alberta had become a have province, and still debt free.

In 1957, the Social Credit government of Alberta issued a dividend of twenty dollars to every adult in the province! It was in that same year they also started to receive equalization payments, those payments coming from other provinces less fortunate of which Newfoundland and Labrador was/is included who also couldn’t afford to hand out dividends to its people.

1955-1959 (TWO YEARS INTO RECEIVING EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS)

“So much prosperity could be seen in the increased number of paved roads, in the growing population and the greater expansion of the cities and large towns in the province. It was an age of consolidation. The old rural school district was now disappearing and larger school divisions in the towns and large villages of the province was taking place. And everywhere throughout the province, the school bus was a standard feature of town life. Cars were everywhere. Most households had cars. Some had two or three. Indeed, Edmonton in 1959, on a per capita basis, had the greatest number of automobiles per individual in North America.” - Cheryl Croucher – Industry Canada, Albertans, Who do They Think They Are (website)

1960 – 1964 (FOUR MORE YEARS OF RECEIVING EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS)

From looking at and digesting all the above it’s safe to say that Alberta continued to reap huge benefits from their oil industry. And still collected equalization for another four years. Amazing isn’t it.

I don’t apologize for the vision (or the “pop-psychology mantra” as Ed puts it), that I hold and have of my province but knowing that Ed and his kind are capable of existing within it is something I will apologize for. I bet you don’t exist in Quebec because if you did you would be handing over the bulk of revenue from our Churchill Falls reiterating to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador “what’s fair is fair”.

And here Ed is asking for what he thinks to be a fair deal for Newfoundland and Labrador??? Every single person is entitled to his/her own opinion but when they “parade their fool’s wisdom… designed to dazzle and kill”, it’s the Ed Holletts, the John Effords and Michael Walkers, the naysayers, “the doomsayers and false priests” that “will be slain.” I apologize to Mr. Shane Mahoney if I’ve taken anything out of context here.
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/23/2005 @ 12:06 am
One final comment just in case Ed missed it: Alberta WAS a “HAVE” province while they were debt free, yes DEBT FREE, and for 7, seven years they collected equalization. Atleast that is what Industry Canada’s “Albertans, who do they think they are” website is reporting.

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/albertans/search/audio_result.asp?word1=’%25%25%25′

Other sources:

The Generic Solution and The Atlantic Accords: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/economy/equalization/solutions.html

‘Mitts Off Alberta Dough’ Klein (see what John Efford says in this one):
http://www.rightpoint.org/mitts.html

And one that everyone should read: http://express.optipresspublishing.com/Jan12-05/articles/feature.htm
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/23/2005 @ 12:07 am
One final comment just in case Ed missed it: Alberta WAS a “HAVE” province while they were debt free, yes DEBT FREE, and for 7, seven years they collected equalization. Atleast that is what Industry Canada’s “Albertans, who do they think they are” website is reporting.

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/albertans/search/audio_result.asp?word1=’%25%25%25′
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/23/2005 @ 12:08 am
Other sources:

The Generic Solution and The Atlantic Accords: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/economy/equalization/solutions.html

‘Mitts Off Alberta Dough’ Klein (see what John Efford says in this one):
http://www.rightpoint.org/mitts.html

And one that everyone should read: http://express.optipresspublishing.com/Jan12-05/articles/feature.htm
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/23/2005 @ 12:09 am
The one euphemism I used in my last post designed to suck Ed into picking on and he takes the bait! He didn’t even try to discuss my legitimate points regarding provincial solidarity and how to choose for whom we vote; no he just tickles the rhetoric returning to his own attempt to splinter our unchangeable and determined resolve.
I was only talking about your ability to use a RED crayon on everything you write and you proved my point! Now I know where all the fish went. They’re wearing red jackets. Carry on feeling picked on…

Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/23/2005 @ 12:15 am
To access Industry Canada’s Albertans Who Do They Think They Are website click on the link I posted above then click the book icon under each of these headings: (Links to these cannot be given as they are in popup windows so use the link in my previous post)

1. Alberta Elections: 1948 Leduc Strike, Alberta Debt-Free
2. Alberta Elections: 1952 Oil Boom Continues, Urbanization Gives Manning a Smooth Run
3. Alberta Elections: 1959 Prosperity at Home, Communism Abroad and the Threat of Nuclear Destruction

Other interesting links:

The Generic Solution and The Atlantic Accords: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/economy/equalization/solutions.html

‘Mitts Off Alberta Dough’ Klein (see what John Efford says in this one):
http://www.rightpoint.org/mitts.html

—– And one that everyone should read: —–http://express.optipresspublishing.com/Jan12-05/articles/feature.htm
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/23/2005 @ 12:24 am
Martha, should I be calling the police about your comments regarding people being slain for their opinions?

I am sorry but I am missing entirely your point about Alberta. The province never asked for nor received any special treatment. Alberta did stop getting Equalization because it stopped qualifying for it under the system that applied at the time. The same system applied fairly to everyone and every province; the same rules applied to Newfoundland and Labrador. Incidentially, before 1957 there was no Equalization program so Alberta was going it more or less alone on only its oil revenue at that time.

If Premier Williams were pursuing his original position - removing all non-renewables from Equalization - then we would be talking about a system that applied fairly across the country to everyone and every province. Not a problem. Go for it!

And, Martha, if you have actually read my posts, you will see, I have no problem with this province receiving additional revenue for an additional period of time, even after going off the Equalization rolls, on top of its own revenues. In fact I support the Premier’s original proposal from February 2004. (it is completely different from his position now, as I have demonstrated repeatedly from the Prmier’s own statements)

I don’t support his current proposal which is radically different. The issue is really only about for how long the extra money flows.

As I have also said martha, and as most people here seem to me to have missed, the majority of Canadians are not willing to support a sweet deal for one province that noe one else can get. They rejected “special status” for Quebec repeatedly. Editorial opinion across the country has swung against this proposal. It is so obviously out of step with opinion that the Globe and Mail changed its position on the Newfoundland argument AFTER Premier WIlliams’ last meeting with them. in other words, the more people who hear what he actually is asking for, the more people there are saying no.

That’s the worst position to be in on any level.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/23/2005 @ 12:13 pm
As a final point, Martha, I just want to remind you that all along I have been advocating a completely different approach to this whole matter. When I released my own research paper in July I proposed an approach based on the proposal from the Trudeau administration before 1984.

The offset continues until the province’s economy is at 110% of the national average as measured by Equalization at the time (that works out today to roughly Ontario) AND until the employment level meets or exceeds the national average, or for a period of 25 years whichever comes first. It was contingent on the money being committed to debt reduction and infrastructure development.

That approach ties the extra money to general economic benefits and would actually push the provincial govenrment to spend the money wisely. It also gets away from the current mess, which, as much as anything else, is a direct result of the ham-fisted way the provincial government went at this from the beginning.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/23/2005 @ 12:25 pm
Ed
You suggest that continuation of equalization should be contingent on how we send the money. Don’t you think that is special treatment. No other province is told how to spend their money. Do you really not consider us equal member is this disfunctional family we call Canada?
Comment by Sarah Scott Thompson — 1/23/2005 @ 1:36 pm
Ed said:

“It also gets away from the current mess, which, as much as anything else, is a direct result of the ham-fisted way the provincial government went at this from the beginning.”

I assume you mean the beginning of this provincial government (blue) rather than when the rest of the bad faith deals were forced to this province through past federal bagmen. The previous years ED, as much as you’d encourage us to view as a wash, happened. The predominant desire for the people I’ve encountered on this blog is to make up for past gross mismanagements by former federal AND provincial officials from NL. The promise from the PM (although not stated explicitly) indicated that he too believed it was time to make up for years of egregious misrepresentation and unfair management of NL’s natural resources. It was however a calculated and well-planned use of words and percentages that allowed yet another slip out the backdoor by this federal government based on plausible deniability. It should have been expected and I hope future NL governments will learn to get it in writing before sharing such “great news” with us.

The one thing I have learned from this blog exercise (and from Ed) is that the whole works of them are still speaking in percentages regarding not fewer 4 different formulae. If they split it up enough and sling it into enough different directions, people will tire of the never-ending deception and just lie down and allow the abuse to kill them!

Yes Ed, you should call the police. The federal government is killing us with half-truths and their agents of propaganda are among us.
It’s their job to ensure we don’t fend off the murderous rhetoric and imaginings of our “leaders".

I remain a staunch advocate for Danny Williams on this issue and hope he gets more than he has asked for. It still won’t make up for the years of bad faith deals and federal usury to which this fine province has been subjected. Put that in your “sneering dismissal” pipe and smoke it!

Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/23/2005 @ 5:47 pm
Ed you say, “Actually Gary, Alberta stopped getting Equalization when it stopped qualifying for Equalization. When it became a have province based on the formula at the time, the cash stopped.”

Let me reiterate Ed, Alberta was already a “have” province even before any new formula for equalization came into play. When natural resources (their oil revenue) were factored in, in 1964, it was then and only then that they stopped receiving equalization not because all of a sudden they miraculously turned “have”. Their status of “have” was established years before equalization payments went to them. Which leaves me to question why would the federal government pump $92 million more dollars into their economy during those 7 years if they were well on their own. That same $92 million might very well amount to $2 billion dollars or more today. So with their already debt free economy, and status of “have” province, they received equalization payments on top of that. Instead of questioning our Premier and those who support him, maybe you could put away your numbers and help to bring this to the attention of all Canadians. I’m sure they would like to know how much they’ve contributed to Alberta while it was already “standing on its own” and while they were not.

You say that “…and as most people here seem to me to have missed, the majority of Canadians are not willing to support a sweet deal for one province that noe one else can get.” But Ed, don’t you see, they already have supported one such sweet deal and that deal went to Alberta. Intentionally or unintentionally does not matter.

As for the Globe and Mail and their ‘belittling’ opinions and comments, I don’t give a diddlydingdangdong. We KNOW what their intentions are. We need NO support from them.

You also said in an earlier post: “How foolish would you have to be to think that less is better than more?” I’m glad you said that because now we also know who the real fool is. Is that you asking for 100% when you say Danny Williams is asking for 200%?

With regard to your research paper: If your research paper is fraught with conflicting statements such as these and the ones I’ve already pointed out I doubt very much that it is worth reading. And why would I, when you’ve trumpeted it so often here, enough to take whatever perceived importance you have from my need or want in reading it.

God love Shane Mahoney! I quote him in context: “Along the dark road home we will meet ourselves, and in the instant of recognition the doomsayers and false priests will be slain.” ~ We Will Remain

For those interested in hearing and learning more:
CD info: http://www.nfld.com/~sdelaney/album.htm
Order page: http://www.singsong.nfld.com/order.html

Don’t worry, it’s not the “pop and psycho mantra” stuff you might think at first glance, if you look a little closer you just might find that your comment of calling in the police could set off those who understand it’s context into a fit of laughter.

But “Listen. Listen quietly to the more ancient rhythm, the faint drumming echoing backwards from the temporary present to the more concrete past, of something powerful, sure, and proud. Forever rising, forever falling, like the sea that runs through our salted existence, it is always there. Along the dark road home we will meet ourselves, and in the instant of recognition…” The instant of recognition, …IN THE INSTANT OF RECOGNITION, …together these words if heeded would have served us well. Let them serve us now.

“See ya” Ed.
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/23/2005 @ 8:45 pm
Martha:

By definition of the term as most people use it, a “have” province is one that does not qualify to receive Equalization.

Between 1957 and 1964, Equalization entitlement was determined by taking the average of the top two provinces and bringing everyone else up to that standard. Since, at the time, Alberta fell below this line, it could (a) not be considered a “have” province and (b) qualified for Equalization under the rules at the time.

As well, there were only six sources of income that were measured to determine qualification. Over time the Equalization formula has grown more complex, but basically the same rules have always applied to every province equally across the country.

It’s really pretty simple.

The more substantial question you should be asking is this: why should Canadians (including taxpayers you and me, Martha) be sending transfer payments, or have sent in 1964, to Alberta and Ontario if that provincial government can support itself on its own revenue? To use the logic you are putting forward now, every province should be getting federal hand-outs. After all, all of their income is being “clawed back” by the federal government.

Since you’ve been tossing up a raft of links, I have one for you. It’s a paper by Jim Feehan an economist at MUN, delivered at a conference in 2002. It makes for some very useful
reading.

http://www.iigr.ca/conferences/archive/pdfs2/Feehan.pdf

As a last point, Martha don’t dismiss a paper you haven’t read, namely mine. Give it try. Since you would deny that 200% is actually 200%, you might find the numbers I present are a lot less confusing than the ones being bandied about by the provincial government. After all these are the guys who broughts the arguement that runs like this:

“We want 100% because right noow 100% which is actually 130% is not really 100%, it is actually 30% or sometimes 14%, depending on the day of the week when this speech is being given. So we want a second 100% to keep us whole so then our 100% plus another 100% will only be 100% not 200% because 1 + 1 = 1, not 2. Now even after we get that 100% which is not 200%, it would actually only be 39% of the total which we don’t get because sometimes it is 55% or 47%.”
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/23/2005 @ 10:15 pm
“We want 100% because right noow 100% which is actually 130% is not really 100%, it is actually 30% or sometimes 14%, depending on the day of the week when this speech is being given. So we want a second 100% to keep us whole so then our 100% plus another 100% will only be 100% not 200% because 1 + 1 = 1, not 2. Now even after we get that 100% which is not 200%, it would actually only be 39% of the total which we don’t get because sometimes it is 55% or 47%.”

Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/23/2005 @ 10:15 pm

So Ed what you are saying is that everyone is making up these numbers and you are the only person who actually knows what the real numbers are.
This paper you keep telling us you have writen has the real numbers?
Who did you write this paper for?
Was it the Federal Goverment?
Where did you get your numbers?
please answer these questions for me.
Comment by Robert — 1/23/2005 @ 11:10 pm
Sarah wrote: “Ed, You suggest that continuation of equalization should be contingent on how we send the money. Don’t you think that is special treatment. No other province is told how to spend their money. Do you really not consider us equal member is this disfunctional family we call Canada?”

Sarah, you’ve found another “hole” in Ed Hollett’s proclamation in what he considers to be a fair deal for Newfoundland and Labrador, and since you’ve gotten no reply consider it proof as Fred said, that “The federal government is killing us with half-truths and their agents of propaganda are among us.”

Maybe if we stop making him eat his words he will go away.

Maybe we can talk about eating, promoting and/or consuming Newfoundland and Labrador made goods!
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/23/2005 @ 11:27 pm
Sarah: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will receive Equalization as long as it qualifies for Equalization. There are no strings attached to the money.

If you scroll back to the posts to this thread or visit my blog ("What Danny wants", for example you will see very clearly that Premier WIlliams committed prior to June 5 to spend extra money received under the Accord changes specificially on debt reduction and infrastructure. All I am suggesting is that the original provincial commitment does represent a sound approach that will produce long lasting benefit for the province out of what everyone considers to be short-term money. I am merely asking the Premier to honour his own commitment.

And actually, yes I do believe this province is and should be an equal partner in Cofnederation. That’s why I oppose any “special status".

Robert: The numbers are available to the general public via the Internet and other sources. I can do basic math. I am skeptical of any government’s claims without some checking of my own. So I went back and double checked things. That’s how I determined what actual oil revenues are currently, that in fact they are currently received in full and generally that the Atlantic Accord is working as intended.

The paper was written for other people to read in the hopes - in some cases here a vain hope, obviously - that people might actually want to check the details before they sided one way or the other.

Martha: As Churchill once said, I have eaten my words on many occasions and never gotten indigestion. In this instance, though, neither you nor Sarah has found the contradiction you think you have found and therefore I have no need to eat my words or anyone else’s.

Martha: why don’t you propose that we put up tax barriers on goods imported from Canada and then spend that money to support local business?
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/24/2005 @ 7:18 am
“And, if you have been following the news, you will know at least three other provinces are lining up to get the same type of deal.”

That’s just publicly!

It is hard not to imagine that all nine of the other provinces are now lined up for the same thing. It’s just that only a few of them are open about it.
Comment by WJM — 1/24/2005 @ 11:59 am
My perspective is a much broader one. After all, as the recent blog give and take has demonstrated, statistics and detail can be twisted and turned to support the position of each side in a debate.

Newfoundland and Labrador is geographically and strategically positioned in the Atlantic rim just as Japan is in the Pacific rim. It is positioned between two of the larger and most powerful economies in the world, North America and Western Europe. It had one of the richest fishing resources known to the world. It has tremendous mineral reserves. It has impressive forest resources. It has significant hydroelectric potential above and beyond that which has already be developed. It also has significant off-shore oil and gas reserves. Unlike central Canada, we have year-round ice-free ports at the mouth of the St. Lawrence Seaway with convenient and cost-effective access to the entire rich Atlantic rim. We have aggressively embraced technological change on several key fronts. Our post-secondary graduates have proven themselves around the world to be second to none. Despite the central Canadian propoganda, our people also have a work ethic second to none.

Given all of this, our population has not grown, our provincial government does not have enough revenue to balance its annual budget, and we remain a “have-not” province receiving handouts from the rest of Canada.

Mr. Hollett, it is when you look at the bigger picture that things really come into focus and you truly see that something is wrong. We should be one of the richest and most prosperous places in the world. Yet we have been one of the poorest regions within the developed world. There is a major flaw in the economic and political realities of our confederation and there is little value to being in denial of this fact.

Sadly, it seems to me that the United States did proportionately more for a country that aggressively attacked it in the 1940s than Canada has done for a country that peacefully joined it.

So far I must respectfully tell you that your arguements have not addressed the larger reality that has been, and is, the Canadian confederation. Until your side recognizes an injustice that otherwise has not been explained, most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will not be impressed with your position of denial.
Comment by Cluny Way, Topsail, NL — 1/24/2005 @ 12:04 pm
Thanks to everyone for trying to respond rationally to Ed’s “spin". But it is a losing cause. “Benadict Arnolds” like Ed are not interested in the truth. Ed deals in half-truths and spin, just like Martin and the mainland media. Priority No. 1 for Ed is to put us “uppidity” Newfoundlanders in our place, just like Martin and his gang. That’s Ed’s agenda. The rest of it is just “smoke and mirrors".

And responding to him is just taking us away from the issue at hand, which is using Kevin’s site to help Danny Williams get a fair deal for Newfoundland.

Thanks.

Anne Marie
Comment by Anne Marie — 1/24/2005 @ 12:10 pm
Lloyd: “One thing I can not get my head around is how does Quebec qualify for 50% of the total transfer payments in Canada?”

Short answer: they don’t.

Longer answer: Quebec receives a little over 26% of federal transfers to provinces and territories.

More detailed answer: Quebec receives a per-capita share of Health and Social transfer payments.

Quebec also receives an equalization payment in line with the equalization formula. That is, (equalization threshold - per-capita own-source revenues) * population.

For 2004/05 fiscal year, that works out to about $3.7-billion in equalization to Quebec. Equalization is, obviously, not calculated per-capita; it’s on need, per-capita, in the provinces which qualify. Ontario and Alberta aren’t on equalization, B.C. usually isn’t in good years, and that leaves Quebec as the highest-population equalization-qualified province.

It’s no surprise, then, that it gets the largest share of the equalization pie. They’re the largest equalization-entitled province by far. In fact, the ignorant class in Quebec complains that they don’t get their “fair share” of equalization, because it “should be per-capita".

Measured as a proportion of the population of equalization-receiving provinces, the four Atlantic provinces and MB get more than a pro-rata share of equalization, while QC, SK, and BC get less. But remember, equalization is based on two calculations: population AND the entitlement (own-source revenues - threshold.)

Figures – instead of, say, bullshit and crap – about fiscal federalism, can be found at this web site:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/fedprov-e.html

Information specific to equalization is here:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqpe.html

“Does that $800 million they get from Churchill Falls not count as revenue the province receives in total?”

Do you have an authority for the famous $800-million figure? I’ve never been able to verify or corroborate it.

“On a Quebec website they boast how strong their economy is but they do not state they have to be partly supported by the rest of Canada.”

If by this you mean that they receive equalization, then the same is true for 8/10 provinces. If by this you meant that they receive any transfer payments at all, it’s true for all 10.
Comment by WJM — 1/24/2005 @ 12:26 pm
“There is a major flaw in the economic and political realities of our confederation and there is little value to being in denial of this fact.”

Please identify this flaw.

What is the flaw in Confederation that prevents NL from taking fullest possible advantage of geographical location, minerals (which are ENTIRELY under provincial jurisdiction), forests (ditto), hydro (ditto), offshore petroleum (half-ditto), ice-free ports, technology, education, and work ethic?

What’s the problem?
Comment by WJM — 1/24/2005 @ 12:33 pm
Anne Marie: “And responding to him is just taking us away from the issue at hand, which is using Kevin’s site to help Danny Williams get a fair deal for Newfoundland.”

What about Labrador?

Anne Marie, please provide a capsule description of the features of a deal which would, in your opinion, be a “fair” one.

Thanks!
Comment by WJM — 1/24/2005 @ 1:37 pm
I have been lurking around this blog on and off for a while now (since it came up ) and a couple of times almost hit the button. Well here I am again

A couple of comments and observations. Thank you Mr. Etchegary for your comments an expertise! I, for one would be happy to yeild to Ottawa all current offshore oil revenues for a viable and sustainable fishery managed by those who livelihood depends on it. At least the livelihood would be in their hands and not used as a pawn in international trading negotiations for central Canada. Ottawa has always operated on the basis that it is cheaper to pay off ‘the population of Scarborough’ with pogey rather than actually live up to its obligation to be a steward of the Newfoundland Fishery ( not the East Coast Fishery as some federal heritage sites want you to believe).

Norway also had a fishery collapse. They rebuilt and are continuing to rebuild. What is Central Canada willing to sacrifice to protect a grand national resource (since 1949) ? Not much apparently, since we still have massive overfishing by Portugal and other countries while Newfoundland fishermen sit on their hands. Yes, Newfoundland contributed to the collapse too. But there have been many opportunities for Ottawa to do right regarding the fisheries … lots of majorities where seven seats mean nothing. What did they do … the same old thing … pay ‘em off and forget ‘em. Yes! Newfoundlanders were there too.

I don’t believe Danny Williams is any hero. Nor do I believe that Ottawa will do the ‘right thing’ for Newfoundland unless it is in the politicians interests. Seven seats don’t generate a lot of interest unless that might be your margin of victory. Given that, Danny keep yellin’! At least someone is listening. Newfoundland deserves better of its politicians both at home and in Ottawa. Mr. Martin, Mr. Williams … to quote Great Big Sea ‘Give my country back its heart’
Comment by Randy Raymond — 1/24/2005 @ 2:02 pm
WJM: It goes without saying that Labrador is part of Newfoundland and that when I talk about Newfoundlanders and Newfoundland, I also mean Labrador. You are just trying to instigate something on this site vis-a-vis Labrador. We are in the fight of our lives over the Offshore. Let’s not implode internally.

And what is a fair deal; well, I trust Danny Williams to seek a fair deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. If you were interested in the same thing, I would applaud you. But you are in Ed’s corner of the world, wherever that is and I have no interest in going there.

Thanks to everyone else for their comments.
Comment by Anne Marie — 1/24/2005 @ 2:40 pm
Give it up WJM. Don’t bother tryin’ to split us with yer, “Oh and I was just wonderin’ where Labrador fits in…?” BS.

All the people present in this blog want what is best for all of Newfoundland and Labrador. If ya wanna create a rabble rouser splitter faction then go make a Monty Python movie. Don’t cloud the resolve and dedication of our support for Danny Williams who finally took a serious stance for N AND L.

Step back and look at your input and present to us what YOU have done to improve or support N AND L so far this millennium. Or better yet what you think should be done. We have our representative Danny Williams and we are behind him. He is our voice and trying to improve our position in Canada. If you could do better, then teach us, don’t just try to weaken us with your Liberal juxtaposition and rhetoric.

I have read and understood all that you and Ed H have had to say (I should rephrase) NAY-SAY, and I don’t understand. Why? Is it that your Liberal roots are just so deep that you are blinded to the overall issue and benefit to which our children may become entitled?

We’ve been called less important beggars by central Canadian media. I guess you and Ed must think that is accurate because you have good paying jobs on the Newfoundland and Labrador economy… What do you do for Labrador that places you in such a position to request similar information from Ann Marie? I know she can take care of herself but hey; ya finally ticked me off too.

Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/24/2005 @ 2:44 pm
And when I asked, “Or better yet what you think should be done.” I meant in a context where we can be united. I didn’t mean in acquiescence to particular political positioning.

Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/24/2005 @ 2:52 pm
WJM: “It goes without saying that Labrador is part of Newfoundland and that when I talk about Newfoundlanders and Newfoundland, I also mean Labrador.”

Then you are an ignorant Newfoundland nationalist.

Labrador is not part of Newfoundland. Labrador is part of Newfoundland and Labrador. It shouldn’t “go without saying", because it’s just plain WRONG.

“You are just trying to instigate something on this site vis-a-vis Labrador.”

No, I am trying to get it through to Newfoundland nationalists that their island is not the province, and their province is not an island.

“We are in the fight of our lives over the Offshore.”

I disagree with that statement. What is inherently more “fight of our lives” about this issue than about any other, past or present?

Oh – and of the offshore oil and gas money that has flowed to the province so far, we haven’t seen too much of it flow into Labrador… The provincial government hasn’t given Labradorians much reason to stand in solidarity, now, have they?

“And what is a fair deal; well, I trust Danny Williams to seek a fair deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.”

I don’t.

Nor should you, any more than people should have trusted Smallwood on the Grand (so-called “Churchill") River hydro issue in the 1960s, or Peckford on pickles in the 1980s.

It’s blind deference to what politicians tell us that got us into the mess. Deference to what Danny Williams tells you is just as idiotic as deference to what Smallwood or Peckford or Efford or Martin or Etchegary tell you or told you.

There is way too much willingness in the public and the media to accept whatever Danny says – and he contradicts himself almost every time he says something – as Gospel Truth. Why is no one asking hard questions or applying critical thought? Why is no one deconstructing the inconsistencies and incoherences in Danny’s public utterances?

So I ask again: OTHER than blindly trusting Danny Williams (Oooh… that’s funny; “Danny Williams” and “blind trust” in the same phrase), what would YOU accept as a “fair deal for Newfoundland [sic]"?

I’m not asking Danny Williams. I’m asking you. What is fair?

If you don’t know what “fair” is, then how will you know whether or not Danny Williams has gotten a “fair deal"?

Because he tells you he did?

I guess you would have to blindly accept that, since you have blindly accepted it when he told you that the current offers are not fair.

Scary.

“If you were interested in the same thing, I would applaud you. But you are in Ed’s corner of the world, wherever that is and I have no interest in going there.”

Yes, I *AM* in Ed’s corner of the world. That corner of the world, growing ever smaller, where people appreciate facts, critical thought, dissenting opinions, unconventional wisdom, and other hallmarks of civilization.

The type of personallissimo politics that has erupted around Danny Williams is just as wrong, and even more dangerous, than that which once existed around Smallwood or Peckford. L’état c’est moi didn’t work for the Sun King, and Danny will, eventually, meet the same (metaphorically speaking) fate as the Sun Kings what came before him.
Comment by WJM — 1/24/2005 @ 3:21 pm
Fred Harris: “Give it up WJM. Don’t bother tryin’ to split us with yer, “Oh and I was just wonderin’ where Labrador fits in…?” BS.”

If it’s “BS” when I do it, is it “BS” when Danny Williams does it? Why or why not? Quoth he:–

“It’s high time that Labradorians, instead of feeling like someone else’s treasure trove, started feeling like an integral part of our
province. We cannot expect fair treatment from Ottawa if we don’t practise what we preach.” - Danny Williams, April 7, 2001

FH: “All the people present in this blog want what is best for all of Newfoundland and Labrador.”

Absolutely.

Which is why all the people present should stop referring to Newfoundland as if it’s the province, and the province as if it’s Newfoundland.

“Don’t cloud the resolve and dedication of our support for Danny Williams who finally took a serious stance for N AND L.”

What is that stance?

What does Danny Williams want?

Can you describe it in 250 words or less?

“Or better yet what you think should be done.”

What I think should be done, is that the local media and the provincial opposition should start asking Danny Williams some seriously uncomfortable questions. Starting with, “what will you accept as a ‘fair’ deal?”

How do we know if Danny has “won", if we aren’t even allowed to know the rules of the game, or the definition of a game-winning play?

“He is our voice…”

In the ventriloquist sense or the Pravda sense?

“If you could do better, then teach us, don’t just try to weaken us with your Liberal juxtaposition and rhetoric.”

Please point out a phrase which I have used which qualifies as “Liberal juxtaposition and rhetoric", whatever that means.

“Is it that your Liberal roots are just so deep that you are blinded to the overall issue and benefit to which our children may become entitled? ”

What is the “overall issue"?

What is the “benefit to which our children may become entitled"?

I’d like some hard answers to some of these questions. Everyone says they are “behind Danny 100%"… but WHAT are you behind? What stance, what position, what statement of policy are you behind?

When will “we” have won?

Does anyone even know?

“What do you do for Labrador that places you in such a position to request similar information from Ann Marie?”

The only thing that entitles me to request such information from Ann Marie is dropping in here and taking part in the debate.

If you posit positions and opinions in a public forum, you should be prepared to answer questions in response. That’s healthy discourse.

Saying that certain questions are unpatriotic or simply disallowed… that’s not just simple-minded; that’s downright dangerous.

“I know she can take care of herself but hey; ya finally ticked me off too.”

Good. That means I’m doing something right.

When everyone is sitting around nodding in agreement with one another, THAT’S when you should start worrying. Actually, that’s when it’s past time to start worrying.
Comment by WJM — 1/24/2005 @ 3:32 pm
“I don’t believe Danny Williams is any hero. Nor do I believe that Ottawa will do the ‘right thing’ for Newfoundland unless it is in the politicians interests. Seven seats don’t generate a lot of interest unless that might be your margin of victory.”

Newfoundland only has six seats.

Newfoundland and Labrador has seven.
Comment by WJM — 1/24/2005 @ 3:36 pm
This entire discussion of federal-provincial royalties and equalization payments reminds me of the federal (and provincial) - First Nations compensation payment controversy.

I’m from Hopedale, one of the many primarily Innu (and/or Innuit) communities that make up Labrador. We weren’t killed off by the English like the Beothuk over on the island but just the same, our territory (Labrador) has been continuously bartered and traded by white settlers in the decades since Grenfell and those before him (even the Vikings). Yet we continue to exist here, and we have the strongest national claim to this territory. Neither the United Kingdom (the Crown), Newfoundland (the island and past nation), nor Canada (the nation) can show the continuing claim to this territory like we (the First Nations) have.

Tobin and those before him are so completely taken with the idea that Labrador is meant to be the hinterland which supports the St. John’s metropolitan region. St. John’s has become to Labrador what Toronto is the rest of Canada - insufferable. We even have our own local heavyweight communities of arrogance and destiny with “Lab West” or “H-V-Goose Bay", but the true master of this territory rests not with a particular community, but the people who have an ethnic and moral right to this land that spans millenia.

My one true wish is for complete self-governance of all of Labrador by its First Nations (it will come eventually, whether by courts or by force). Newfoundland has no more right to claim the resources of Labrador as its own, as it does the resources under the seabed, or as Toronto claims the resources of Northern Ontario, etc. We are our own region and there will come a time when this land will be ours and ours alone.
Comment by Hopeful in Hopedale — 1/24/2005 @ 6:51 pm
WJM: I don’t need to justify myself or my thoughts on this matter to you, so please stop your silly rhetoric. You are becoming almost laughable with your legalese and your attempts to twist words and meanings.

Perhaps you could start debating Ed and leave the rest of us alone.
Comment by Anne Marie — 1/24/2005 @ 8:25 pm
We can expect people from labrador to take the side of the Federal Gov after the big signing on the weekend they dont want the feds fighting with NL for fear of this disrupting there settlement.
I was wondering why the people reacted the way they did when the Williams took the flags down now i know why it was fear of this deal not going through parlement and nothing to do with the fight over oil revenues.
Comment by Robert — 1/24/2005 @ 8:30 pm
Just listening to the news, the pre-talks with the Atlantic Accord have ended tonight on a positive note, just one step further of many to be taken, the issue of Newfoundland having to balance it’s budget is now off the table. One “naysayer", “doomsayer", and “false priest” gone: Michael Walker! His article was posted here somewhere if you are curious as to what he said.
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/24/2005 @ 9:37 pm
Anne Marie: “WJM: I don’t need to justify myself or my thoughts on this matter to you, so please stop your silly rhetoric.”

Well, at least justify them to yourself.

Again, I ask you: What. Is. Fair?

Do you have even the kernal of an answer; if not for anyone else who might ask, then for yourself? If you don’t know what is “fair", how can you tell if a federal position is unfair, or if the provincial condition for “fairness” has been met?If you don’t have some vague answer, if only for yourself, you should research the question. Follow the links that Ed has provided. Listen to what Ed and others and I are saying; as a wise person once said:

“If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into what you believe? The things most worth reading are precisely those that challenge our convictions.”

But without a definition of a win, then this isn’t chess or hockey or any of the other sports analogies that have been used; in that case, this is Calvinball, where the rules are made up on the fly, and no one ever knows who’s winning.

Actually, Calvinball is a more rules-oriented game than whatever Danny has been playing.

“You are becoming almost laughable with your legalese and your attempts to twist words and meanings.”

Please, tell me, where and when have I done this? What words or meanings have I twisted? Back up your assertion with a fact.
Comment by WJM — 1/24/2005 @ 10:25 pm
“We can expect people from labrador to take the side of the Federal Gov after the big signing on the weekend they dont want the feds fighting with NL for fear of this disrupting there settlement.”

The “big signing” was only by a small proportion, about 10%, of the Labrador population.

This explanation for why Labradorians tend to have a different take on matters is, like Danny’s wierd “it’s about the base” theory, way, well, off-base.

If some Newfoundlanders in public life or the media would actually go and talk TO Labrador, instead of ABOUT Labrador, you might get to the root of why many Labradorians feel so differently, and equally strongly, about the offshore issue.

I’ll give you a hint: Look at the words from Danny Williams’ own speech that I quoted above.

“I was wondering why the people reacted the way they did when the Williams took the flags down now i know why it was fear of this deal not going through parlement and nothing to do with the fight over oil revenues.”

This is the stupidest conspiracy theory I’ve heard so far… and there have been a lot of them floating around these past few months.

Again, talk TO Labrador, not ABOUT Labrador. We’re all one province… right?
Comment by WJM — 1/24/2005 @ 10:28 pm
Among the imponderables, is the impact we may expect the development of
Labrador to have upon our economy.

The pertinent question is, in just whose interest is that potential to be
developed, the people of Labrador or the people of Newfoundland? It seems
to me that until now the people of Labrador have fared none too well at
our hand. We haven’t gone out of our way to provide them with even minimum
public and social services. I understand that luxury roads of the type of
the Topsail Road are few and far between down that way. Indeed I
understand that roads of any type are as few and far between down that way
as street lights and railways and other public amenities. Come to think of
it, in the days when we did have responsible government, we never thought
it worth our while to extend to the people of Labrador the privilege of a
ballot. Indeed, we didn’t get around to giving a second thought to
Labrador until it seemed as if we might get something out of it.

It would be interesting to know the thoughts of Labradorians when they
hear some of our political pundits raising the roof over the raw deal
Newfoundland’s gotten from somebody or other. It must sometimes occur to
them that Newfoundland doesn’t do so badly itself when it comes to dishing
out raw deals. I have a hearty dislike of that mentality that is concerned
with Labrador only to the extent that it may be exploited for
Newfoundland’s advantage. The most that we have any right to expect of the
development of Labrador is the provision of sufficient revenue to support
the public and social services the Labrador people have every right to
expect. These we are in any case obligated to provide even if Labrador
should go undeveloped. If we make no effort to provide them then I think
that Labrador people would be quite justified in seeking to terminate
their dependency upon us.

If we’re going to insist upon self-determination let’s not draw the line
at the Straights of Belle Isle. The people of Labrador too are surely
entitled to a voice in the disposition of their own destiny. What’s sauce
for the land of the Gander is sauce for the land of the Goose.

Bill Keough
National Convention debates
October 17, 1947
Comment by WJM — 1/24/2005 @ 10:30 pm
I started reading the blog at this site a couple of weeks ago and I have become much better informed regarding the positions of both the Provincial and Federal Governments. Each and every person that has posted here has brought something to this blog. Two weeks ago I felt that the issues were clear as mud. Now I feel that the issues look more like silt.

I would like to make the following observations:

 The word of any of our elected politicians should not be blindly accepted. There are always hidden agendas. I am only in my mid-thirties but I can recall the exciting times when Peckford, Wells and Tobin came to power and how each were going to rescue the people of our province from desperate times. Each had their own target of the day and each put their spin on how our province could be reach prosperity. I feel that we should always question our politicians until we understand the details of important issues. I do not feel that we should blindly accept everything that they same as truth. With this said, I fully support Danny Williams in his campaign to maximize provincial benefits from the production of offshore oil and gas. However, I do not necessarily agree with each and every statement that he makes or each and every tactic that he uses. In reality, during negotiation, several strategies must be employed in an attempt to reach the desired outcome. Some strategies are good, and some are not so good.
 I think that what Danny Williams wants is obvious to most. He wants to have 100% offset for an amount equal to the value of the provincial oil and gas royalties for the entire life of our oil and gas industry. The naysayers call this 200%. The provincial government call it 0% clawback. It appears that adjusting the offset clause of the Atlantic Accord is the proposed mechanism to remove oil and gas revenues from the Equalization equation. By doing this, it appears that the income that is received by the provincial government from this one particular non-renewable resource is not considered as provincial income when the equalization payments are calculated. In this manner, the amount of equalization that the province receives is not reduced because of income for oil and gas royalties.
 I have reviewed the excellent information regarding the evolution of the equalization program at the links to this site. If this info is creditable, it appears that Alberta’s early oil and gas revenues were not considered when calculating equalization payments during the 1950’s and 1960’s because all provincial non-renewable resource incomes were not considered at that time. It appears that this was the case of all non-renewable resources in all provinces. Alberta’s oil did not figure in any differently than British Columbia’s forest products…the amount of equalization that any of the provinces received during these years was not reduced as a result of non-renewable resource incomes…period. It appears that incomes from non-renewable resources where gradually included in equalization calculations as the Equalization program evolved.
 If Danny Williams can achieve 100% offset, 200% as the naysayers put it, or 0% clawback for the duration of our oil and gas life then great…more power to him. This is probably the only mechanism that can be used to effectively remove non-renewable oil and gas incomes from the Equalization equation. This will no doubt reduce the time it takes us to reach have province status and help us pay down our provincial debt. If he can get 100% with no strings attached for a specified time then this is also great. Or even 100% with balanced budget and debt pay down clauses is not so bad either. Maybe these types of clauses might make our provincial government a little more financially accountable. It was not long ago when our newly elected premier surprisingly announced that we were facing a deficit of $600-700 million. Ever wonder how we can go from a balanced budget to a $700 million dollar deficit in just a few years? Mismanagement of funds?
 If I have all this straight, we must remember that the benchmark from now to 2011/12 is the greater of 30 % offset or 85% of the previous year offset dollar value. After 2011/12 we would effectively go to 0% offset as the Atlantic Accord and its offset clause expires. So anything better than this is gravy.

Good luck to everyone at this blog..thanks for all the excellent reading. Lets hope that the old dogs can reach an agreement sometime soon!
Comment by B. Thistle — 1/25/2005 @ 6:44 am
Wouldn’t N&L be better off if the government had set up a crown corporation to develop and produce the oil? Maybe in partnership with another oil company.
That way you could keep the majority of the revenue from oil or any other natural resource.
Comment by SB — 1/25/2005 @ 12:02 pm
Well, well, WJM. Thank you for enlightening me a little to your position. You may not simply be a Liberal bagman like Ed H. after all.

In response to my statement:

Don’t cloud the resolve and dedication of our support for Danny Williams who finally took a serious stance for N AND L.”

you said:

“What is that stance?

What does Danny Williams want?

Can you describe it in 250 words or less?”

I refer you to the comments just drafted by B. Thistle above. Those comments on January 25, 2005 concisely and with superb strength parade what I too personally believe. An excellent synopsis written in a language that everyone can understand. This, in essence, is what I believe Danny Williams is trying to achieve for us.

I must admit WJM, you have made me think a more carefully about how I choose to express myself (even though I did it by wagon-hitching). Ergo, yes Mr. Williams should be asked upfront by media before he leaves,

“B. Thistle wrote, “QUOTE". Is this what you are trying to achieve for Newfoundland and Labrador?”

“Is that what Paul Martin meant in the elevator?”

“What if any concessions are you willing to make on our behalf?”

“Do you desire a seat in the senate?”

“Do you have any sordid personal agenda beyond these negotiations?”

“Will this once and for all put Newfoundland and Labrador in a position to call the past deals in forestry, hydropower, fisheries, mines, etc. made up for? Or is this just a beginning?”

Although I tried in an earlier Blog to nail-down what I think this 55 year-old fight is all about, perhaps until hitching my wagon to B. Thistles expert analysis, I may have failed to explain my specific understanding of these offshore oil/Atlantic Accord discussions. I do believe, however, that this is the time with all the momentum to take it all to the country. Aside from the government in power and the scattered right wing leaning journalists/rags and the even fewer in numbers “ignorant to all the issues loudmouths” (you know the ones who whine when it’s snowing and then when it’s sunny) I think Canada as whole has been very receptive and understanding to N & L as a whole.

You may say that I copped out by letting B. Thistle, under perfect timing I must add, state my position and exactly how I understand the numbers.

And that’s the overall issue.

I didn’t think to provide these definitions when I first wrote “…Liberal juxtaposition and rhetoric.”

Juxtaposition - placed side by side or closely associated with
Rhetoric - the art of using words to influence or persuade

I meant to say, “Stop trying to convince everyone that being closely aligned with liberals and their issues is a good idea.”
Isn’t that what you want for us. Am I mistaken?

As I have said before, voting is done for a good honourable person in ones own riding. It has ALMOST nothing to do with party politics. Minority governments are good to keep radicals and abusers of taxpayers money in check!

Once again though William, I see that you have a more thought provoking style than Ed, so while you may agree with many of his points, don’t let him drag you into the argumentative. And as patronizing as that may have sounded, it wasn’t meant to be. I have revisited my position and I hope Premier Williams is going to achieve a “Fair Deal for Newfoundland AND Labrador!”

Fred from CBS

PS I also find it amusing that you compare Danny to the Sun King, “L’état c’est moi” when it is obvious that the only power broker and abuser of our country’s assets with such impunity is our Prime Minister. (Translation - I am the state - or verbatim - The state it is me.)
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/25/2005 @ 1:19 pm
“You may not simply be a Liberal bagman like Ed H. after all.”

I don’t think you know what a “bagman” is, if you think Ed is one.

“I refer you to the comments just drafted by B. Thistle above.”

Don’t refer me to B. Thistle or Danny Williams. I’m interested in your assessments and opinions.

“This, in essence, is what I believe Danny Williams is trying to achieve for us.”

So, what Danny Williams is trying to achieve, much as he denies it’s what he is trying to achieve, is to get oil royalties AND equalization WITHOUT limit FOREVER?

“Ergo, yes Mr. Williams should be asked upfront by media before he leaves”

And when he comes back, and at all times in between.

Who is asking whom in this quoted statement?:

“Do you desire a seat in the senate?”

Same thing:

“Will this once and for all put Newfoundland and Labrador in a position to call the past deals in forestry, hydropower, fisheries, mines, etc. made up for?”

Why should a deal on offshore revenues and equalization try and do such things?

(Incidentally, forestry, hydro, and mines are under EXCLUSIVE provincial jurisdiction. NL has no one to blame but itself for any failures in the management of those resources.)

“this 55 year-old fight”

What 55 year-old fight?

“I do believe, however, that this is the time with all the momentum to take it all to the country.”

It might have been, but Danny’s childish flag tantrum snatched moral defeat from the jaws of moral victory. He had public support across the country. He spiked it instantly on December 23, 2004. In that regard he, and we, are back to square one.

“Juxtaposition - placed side by side or closely associated with”

What have I juxtaposed with what?

“Rhetoric - the art of using words to influence or persuade”

Gasp! Shock! People using a discussion forum, comprised of words, to influence or persuade one another?

What’s next? Porn on the internet?

“I meant to say, “Stop trying to convince everyone that being closely aligned with liberals and their issues is a good idea.” Isn’t that what you want for us. Am I mistaken?”

Yes, you obviously are.

Do you also think that people should think, on the other hand, that being closely aligned with PCs and their issues (how do parties have issues?) is a good idea?

Critical thought – do you know what critical means? – should transcend party lines. The public and the media should be engaged in it. Apply your own judgement, collect your own facts, and stop deferring to what Danny Williams and the jingos in the literate class tell you to think.

No more blindly accept Danny Williams as a saviour speaking gospel truth, than Paul Martin or John Efford or Jack Layton or Stephen Harper.

“Once again though William”

I’m not a William.

“I see that you have a more thought provoking style than Ed, so while you may agree with many of his points, don’t let him drag you into the argumentative.”

Why not? It’s only through argument that people are going to arrive at their own conclusions.

“PS I also find it amusing that you compare Danny to the Sun King, “L’état c’est moi” when it is obvious that the only power broker and abuser of our country’s assets with such impunity is our Prime Minister.”

How so?

My Sun King comparison was more than to Danny Williams; it was to all the past and present Premiers who have cultivated a cult of personality, usually founded on bashing an enemy (Ottawa, Quebec, the French, the Americans)… a nasty streak in our political culture that goes back way before Confederation.

I’m sick of that style of politics. Danny is a master of it. I hate it.
Comment by WJM — 1/25/2005 @ 2:49 pm
I have just read all the comments on this blog and I would like to respond in general to Ed Hollett’s comments. Ed did not come here to discuss anything, he has come to confuse the issue, for the most part by splitting hairs, and then by splitting those united on this site. The remark about, should I be calling the ploice is dripping in sarcasm and childishness. Ed has simply choosen a side (his right to do so) and now has become a debater a master-debater. Just like in school when the teacher gives you a topic and you back it up the best you can whether you truly believe it or not. So I think we can forget trying to change his mind because he doesn’t want it changed, he only wants to change ours. Ed as you can clearly read ours too is made up. So instead of writing a small book everytime you respond, just answer this question in as few lines as possible.

First of all we can all agree that N&L is as rich or richer than any province in Canada when it comes to our natural resources. So why with only plus or minus 500,000 people (not the size of a good city in real terms)we have so much hardship and poverty? Per-Capita we have more children going to school hungry that any other province.

I’ll give you my answer first. Because we as a province have been raped and pillaged over and over again by the federal government and we are now insisting that it stop. Not for me, because my benifit may not be that great, but for my son and all of our children. I believe in your heart you know that to be true but your ego has gotten in the way. Perhaps like the grinch your heart too will grow ten sizes bigger. That may be too much to wish for.

I hope you do not come back with bad provicial policies….. blah blah blah. Remember the Liberals ran this province for most of its Canadian history.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 1/25/2005 @ 4:02 pm
I guess I struck a chord with Wallace…

Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/25/2005 @ 7:50 pm
Wallace,

You are probably one of the most erudite and verbal/keyboard weilding gladiators here; why do you always get down to your Lowest Common Denominator - Labrador?

Again, talk TO Labrador, not ABOUT Labrador. We’re all one province… right?

That domain is about as downtrodden as the jewish/palestinan/chechen/zapatistan 99 lb schoolyard weakling!

We are all martyrs to some extent!

Enlighten the unwashed, what is wrong with the demands of the NL government?

Unlike Ed Hollett (probably from Hbr. Buffett) you have an inkling about this issue.

Leave the geography and partisan rhetoric out of this and explain both sides of the issue.

Ed is proslethizing because he needs a steady employer. You, on the other hand, could take off your 9 2 5 hat and enlighten us in layman’s terms.

BTW: Ed, I read your paper with interest. It’s not bad, but your partisan bias is more than somewhat evident.

Army
Comment by Armbruster McPhee — 1/26/2005 @ 1:35 am
“Enlighten the unwashed, what is wrong with the demands of the NL government?”

They are unclear, incoherent, exceptional within the context of fiscal federalism, and dishonetly presented and argued by the Premier and his Minister of Finance.

Ed H. has forgotten more about this issue than I am likely ever to learn.
Comment by WJM — 1/26/2005 @ 1:01 pm
“Ed, I read your paper with interest. It’s not bad, but your partisan bias is more than somewhat evident”

Can you point out some examples of what make you say that?
Comment by WJM — 1/26/2005 @ 1:23 pm
“Leave the geography and partisan rhetoric out of this and explain both sides of the issue.”

It’s not up to me to explain ANY side of the issue, let alone BOTH.

And as for leaving geography out of it? Why should I? The man who put geography INTO it was Danny Williams. Again, I quote:

“It’s high time that Labradorians, instead of feeling like someone else’s treasure trove, started feeling like an integral part of our province. We cannot expect fair treatment from Ottawa if we don’t practise what we preach.” - Danny Williams, April 7, 2001
Comment by WJM — 1/26/2005 @ 1:24 pm
I submitted a question to ED H. recently with no comment returned, perhaps he is not joining the discussion anymore. If he is not or can’t give me an answer maybe WJM would like to try. I mention you just because you appear to be of like mind.

Considering this is about a fair deal and everything I have read in ED’s comments suggest N&L has never been treated unfairly and now we are trying somehow to take advantage of the “generosity” of the federal government and give the finger to the rest of Canada.

My question was, with all the wealth of natural resources in this province and with only approximately 500,000 people, why is it that we still have some of the highest rates of unemployment, taxes, poor, out migration, etc, etc, in the country? I could go on with the examples.

Surely, if we were allowed to keep those resources as an independent country we would be one of the riches in the world. So to say we have been treated fairly is to deny the undeniable. We want and we deserve the best deal we can get to have the money we need as a province to deal with the issues I’ve mention above and a slue of others.

If you agree then what’s all the fuss about. I can only surmise it has to do with the people fighting for it and not the fight.

Lets face it if Roger Grimes was still in office this deal would have been signed long ago, to the detriment of N&L. Thank God his board members resigned when he tried to give the lower Churchill away. FYI I believe strongly that Labrador should be the first to benifit from thier resources, there should not be a double standard.

And as for the fed’s new ad campaign, a good deal should not have to be sold to the people it should sell its self.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 1/26/2005 @ 3:50 pm
Hello, Thank you Kevin for all your many hours of helping to bring together the Proud Newfoundlanders.

I am a proud Newfoundlander, and as my grandfather always said a Newf first a Canadian second. Many feel as I do I am sure.

I have had to move from Newfoundland 2 years ago, and as many of the young people there I do have multiple university degrees, but as is the case without a strong viable economy there was no place for me and my future wife (teacher). We were forced to move to Alberta as is common nowadays.

Since I have been here I have countless “Newfie Jokes” and been called a “goofy newfie” many times over. To me that has the same meaning as saying the N word to an african american.

I work in a Highschool where I am the 3rd most educated person there, behind the principal and my future wife, who is also a “dumb newfie". My statement is this, where does this attitude come from, and why is it ok for a national newspaper writeer to promote this without proper knowledge of her subject matter. If the same thing was wrote about Quebec the country would be turned upside down and Ms Wente would be fired on the spot.

I can not see for the life of me how some people can say that your site is a source for people to whine and that it will have no effect on people’s opinions. I have seen the opinion of some people in my community that have never seen Newfoundland change are now talking about it with concern.

My other problem is that Newfoundland has always been seen as the quiet kid on the playground, nice to talk to and all that. Canada on the other hand seems to be the bully, you know the one who says who can and can’t play games, ruffs you up and takes your school money. All the time the other kids see whats going on but turn their head and cast a blind eye. Well now on that playground there is a new kid called Danny. He sees the bully and has convinced Newfoundland that now is the time to finally stand up to the bully and in process maybe get some of those other kids(provinces) to take a look at them and support their cause in standing up to the bully as well.
Comment by Jason — 1/27/2005 @ 12:51 pm
I have asked my question twice but there is still no response. I guess that is because there were no numbers or percentages in there to be manipulated. Maybe everybody is gone home and I am speaking to myself, well that is too bad because I would have liked to hear a response from Ed Hollett or WJM. Perhaps they have no good come back or Ed has a cramp in his typing finger from all his previous responses.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 1/27/2005 @ 4:15 pm
“My question was, with all the wealth of natural resources in this province and with only approximately 500,000 people, why is it that we still have some of the highest rates of unemployment, taxes, poor, out migration, etc, etc, in the country?”

Probably for many of the same reasons that these are the richest countries in the world:

Luxembourg
United States
Monaco
Switzerland
Cayman Islands
Norway
Jersey
Denmark
Belgium
Singapore
Austria

and these are the poorest:

Liberia
Nigeria
Zambia
Guinea-Bissau
Rwanda
Afghanistan
Kiribati
Mali
Madagascar
Yemen

Natural resources are a very poor predictor of economic health or success.
Comment by WJM — 1/27/2005 @ 5:52 pm
WJM I appreciate you taking time to respone. However, I believe you have side stepped the point I was trying to make. I realize that natural resourse can not be the only factor in a good economy but it should compliment it, and strongly with the abundance we have. Just listing those countries is not a good arguement.
There are so, so many reasons why most of the countries you have on the poor list are in hard shape, most of them political, civil war, corruption, etc. Canada is a free and civil country. Most of Our resources have been developed for a long time now. the problem is we have never been able to retain enough of the profits to better our situation or to meet the criteria of principle beneficiary. I think we all know regardless of the justification, that N&L has not recieved a fair shake. Thats all we are saying and asking For, it is time people stopped denying that fact.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 1/28/2005 @ 9:01 am
“However, I believe you have side stepped the point I was trying to make. I realize that natural resourse can not be the only factor in a good economy but it should compliment it, and strongly with the abundance we have.”

Natural resources, I repeat, are a very poor predictor of economic success.

“Just listing those countries is not a good arguement.”

Yes it is. You should ask why so many rich places are resource-poor, and why so many poor places are resource-rich.

The resource regions of Canada – whether they are provinces or sub-provincial regions – are almost uniformly LESS economically successful than other regions. Why is that?

I will posit this response: Because businesses and households in single-industry regions have little motivation to diversify their economies for as long as the boom times boom, or even as long as the coasting times coast; that there is open resistance to diversification as “taking something away” from the One Big Industry; and that by the time the One Big Industry goes into irreversible decline, it’s too late for attitudes to change.

“Canada is a free and civil country.”

Yet the situation in Gaspé, in the Saguenay, in Cape Breton, in Northern Ontario, in northern coastal BC, in rural SK, in the Magdalen Islands, on the Acadian coast, etc., etc., is not that different from the economic situation in Newfoundland, or at least in rural Newfoundland. (There are reasons why I exclude the NE Avalon and Labrador.)

“Most of Our resources have been developed for a long time now. the problem is we have never been able to retain enough of the profits to better our situation or to meet the criteria of principle beneficiary.”

What is that “criteria"?

Which provinces or regions meet it?

Whose fault is it that this “criteria", whatever it is, hasn’t been met? Answer with particular reference to the fact that most of the province’s resources are under exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and all of them, including fisheries and offshore petro, have some element of provincial control.

“I think we all know regardless of the justification, that N&L has not recieved a fair shake.”

Why a passive verb here?

Has not received FROM WHOM?

Is there any possibility that the answer is internal, rather than external to the province?

“Thats all we are saying and asking For, it is time people stopped denying that fact.”

Please name a province which has a “better deal", or “receives a fair shake” in respect of its natural resources.
Comment by WJM — 1/28/2005 @ 1:10 pm
WJM, how about I name a province that not only gets a better deal and receives more than a fair shake from natural resources, the only problem is, it is Quebec and the natural resource is ours (Churchill Falls). Now I’m sure you will come back with the fact that the deal was made by this province and hence your arguement that our problems are internal as opposed to external. But is it not ture that the government of Canada would not get involved so as a power corridor through Quebec would be possible in the same way they did for Alberta’s pipe line. Perhaps I am mistaken but that is my understanding of the issue. Along with the fact it was just simply a bad deal for us and we have to look no farther than J. R. Smallwood. But all those factors still does not mitigate the fact that that was not and still isn’t a fair deal when looked at by any reasonable person or government. It would be like saying a good con job is fair just because the other party didn’t know he was being con’ed. I can not figure out why it is so hard for people to just admitt that we as a province have not gotten what we deserve a “fair deal” or a “fair shake” form our natural resources. this has nothing to do with who else didn’t get a fair deal, if they deserve one they (the other provinces) should get a fair deal as well. Naming countries less fortunate than us does not answer the question, it just adds things that have nothing to do with what we are talking about. We should get rid of all the clutter and distractions and let me then just simply ask, do you believe N&L has benefited from all of our natural resource in a fair and responsible manner? Yes or do would do just fine please. We can debate the why’s after.

As for meeting the criteria of principle beneficiary, perhaps I phrased that incorrectly. What I should have said was that the spirit of the Atlantic Accord, for this province to be the primary benefactor of our resources has never come to fruition. Is it the Accords fault or the unwillingness of government, I’m not really sure. But I do believe that that has been the case.

You seem to take exception to some of the wording used in these discussions, which is fair game to an extent but we are not all as gifted with the tongue of say a Rex Murphy, we try our best and some times we fail. That however should not be used to deflect or negate the point being made. Yes, sometimes things need to be clarified and people have to be held accountable for what they say but I think you also know what people are trying to say most of the time but it is easier to attack how they say it rather than the real arguement being put forward.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 1/28/2005 @ 3:06 pm
“WJM, how about I name a province that not only gets a better deal and receives more than a fair shake from natural resources”

How does Quebec get a better shake out of Quebec resources than SK does from SK or AB from AB or NS from NS?

I repeat my question: name me a province that is “treated better", when it comes to resources, than any other province.

“the only problem is, it is Quebec and the natural resource is ours (Churchill Falls).”

The resource is actually, for the time being, Quebec’s: they paid for it at the price we asked for it.

“Now I’m sure you will come back with the fact that the deal was made by this province and hence your arguement that our problems are internal as opposed to external.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself. THanks!

“But is it not ture that the government of Canada would not get involved so as a power corridor through Quebec would be possible in the same way they did for Alberta’s pipe line.”

“Alberta” doesn’t have any pipe lines.

The ONLY way that Ottawa could have, or can, force such a power corridor is to take jurisdiction of the resource.

Is that REALLY what you want: for Ottawa to have control over a resource (hydro) that the province currently controls, 100%?

“Perhaps I am mistaken but that is my understanding of the issue.”

The Grand (so-called “Churchill"; Newfoundlanders have no right to rename places in Labrador according to their whim) Falls problem is NOT that there’s no power corridor over Quebec. The problem is price. The problem with price stems from poor negotiation, and the fact that the province painted itself into a corner by giving away the water rights, and starting construction on the project, WITHOUT a deal being in place ahead of time.

“But all those factors still does not mitigate the fact that that was not and still isn’t a fair deal when looked at by any reasonable person or government.”

Why isn’t it fair?

I buy books in church basement sales. I often find books that they are selling for $1, that I know I can resell for $20, $50, $100.

They are willing to sell at $1. I am willing to buy. I am willing to resell at $20. Someone else is willing to buy at that price.

Who has been ripped off?

Until the early 1970s, QUEBEC was concerned that IT had been ripped off: Churchill Falls was beginning to look like a massive white elephant and a poor investment. Times changed. Our government failed to plan for change. Whose fault is that?

“It would be like saying a good con job is fair just because the other party didn’t know he was being con’ed.”

Who got con’ed?

“I can not figure out why it is so hard for people to just admitt that we as a province have not gotten what we deserve a “fair deal” or a “fair shake” form our natural resources.”

How have we not gotten a “fair deal"? What’s a “fair deal"? Has any province gotten such a thing in respect of its own natural resources, and if so, which province?

“Naming countries less fortunate than us does not answer the question, it just adds things that have nothing to do with what we are talking about.”

One of the things that people have been talking about is why we are quote-unquote resource-rich but still poor.

A cross-Canada and an international examination of successful economies, and their dependence (or lack thereof) on natural resources, is ENTIRELY pertinent.

If Newfoundlanders can constantly compare their “island” to “other islands” like Iceland or Ireland, they should also do comparisons with Luxembourg or Ecuador.

“and let me then just simply ask, do you believe N&L has benefited from all of our natural resource in a fair and responsible manner?”

Yes, EXCEPT to the extent that Newfoundland and Labrador – not that Labrador has any meaningful control over its resources – has been irresponsible and mismanaged resources under its own control. But there’s nothing “unfair” about that.

“As for meeting the criteria of principle beneficiary, perhaps I phrased that incorrectly. What I should have said was that the spirit of the Atlantic Accord, for this province to be the primary benefactor of our resources has never come to fruition.”

How do you know?

What does that phrase even mean? It has no meaning in law that I’ve ever been able to discern.

“Is it the Accords fault or the unwillingness of government, I’m not really sure. But I do believe that that has been the case.”

NL is not in its current economic position BECAUSE of the Atlantic Accord; it’s in it DESPITE the Atlantic Accord.

“I think you also know what people are trying to say most of the time but it is easier to attack how they say it rather than the real arguement being put forward.”

Words are all we have. If you are unclear, vague, or evasive with yours, I will ask you to clarify; as you should do, reciprocally, to me or to anyone else.
Comment by WJM — 1/28/2005 @ 4:38 pm
Hey guys if you leave WJM alone he will drift in with snow and everyone will forget about him.
Comment by Robert — 1/28/2005 @ 5:20 pm
Amen to Robert"s comment.
Comment by cyril — 1/28/2005 @ 7:01 pm
“The Grand (so-called “Churchill"; Newfoundlanders have no right to rename places in Labrador according to their whim) Falls”

why not Mishta-paushtiku - or does your self-indignation only go so far
Comment by Gary — 1/28/2005 @ 7:15 pm
I hear Danny got a deal is this true?
Comment by cyril — 1/28/2005 @ 8:10 pm
Yes. I just the announcement live on CTV Newsnet. He stole the show! I hope you had the opportunity to see it as well.

Cheers!
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/28/2005 @ 10:08 pm
“why not Mishta-paushtiku - or does your self-indignation only go so far”

I’m not going to make the mistake that ignorant Newfoundlanders make, and apply the name of the falls to the whole river.

Much as “Churchill Falls” should not result in “Lower Churchill Falls", “Mishta-paushtiku” is the name of the falls, or one of them, not the river. In Innu-eimun, the river is Mishta-shipu, which came into English, via French, as an exact translation: Grand River.

The river has the same name in both Innu-eimun and English, it’s just pronounced differently. The meaning is identical. But in NO language should it be “Churchill".
Comment by WJM — 1/28/2005 @ 11:09 pm
“I hear Danny got a deal is this true? ”

Danny got the same $2.6-billion that a couple of weeks ago he was complaining wasn’t good enough.

This is what happens when you let politicians get away with misinformation and without defining what they will consider to be a “win".
Comment by WJM — 1/28/2005 @ 11:10 pm
So what your saying is that it’s the same deal that Martin offered this fall.
Comment by Robert — 1/28/2005 @ 11:19 pm
Let us keep cool heads and wait and see what has been agreed upon. I have to say, I am more than excited as it is my 43rd and darn it, I would like to have a small celebration beyond my parents fortunate arrival of January 28, 1962 in Corner Brook.

O.K. Enough of the silliness. But I am truly serious when I say let us all wait and see what the deal is.

Cheers!
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/28/2005 @ 11:44 pm
Brenda, Let’s congratulate Premier Williams for getting a deal. He is a tough negotiator and it is a win for Newfoundland. However, remember that noo matter what the deal is, tomorrow WJW and Ed will be right here negating it. Let’s us do each other a favour and savour this victory and IGNORE WJW and Ed.

And, once again, I want to send a big thank you to Kevin. Without those 50,000+ emails, the deal might never have happened. For sure Kevin’s efforts have helped tremendously. Bravo, Kevin. You are my hero!!!
Comment by Anne — 1/29/2005 @ 12:18 am
Anne;

Please do not think that I would not congratulate Premier Williams on his efforts. Nothing could be further than the truth. But beyond that, let us all relax for one evening and savour a moment before we have to disect what it is we have agreed upon.

Again, I say, Cheers and perhaps at sometime we can all meet!

Cheers!
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/29/2005 @ 12:28 am
“So what your saying is that it’s the same deal that Martin offered this fall.”

Check out Ed Hollett’s blog for a detailed deconstruction.
Comment by WJM — 1/29/2005 @ 8:01 pm
B Scaplen, here’s your long awaited reply.

I actually answered your question - why are we “poor” in other threads.

The simple answer is that since 1949 we have tended to squander our resources. The provincial government collects the lowest rents of any provincial government on its natural resources. in addition, we have spent our money on all manner of projects that were utterly wasteful and useless. We were scammed time and again, more often than not by local politicians.

In some respects your question starts from the standard, but faulty nationalist assumption: We should be rich; we are not. Why? We have been abused by foreigners. A convenient argument but not one borne out by recent history.

We have a wealth of resources but a great many things (mostly basic economics and local politics) combine to produce the results we have. it is nothing less than escapist fantasy to believe indepdence would have in the past or would now yield any better result than the one we have.

After all, as an indepdent country, we could not go to ottawa and demand an increase in transfer payments in additoon to direct revenues. We would only have the revenues we already collect in their entirety, without reduction, to live on.

As for Armbruster, were he able to MARSHALL the courage to post under his own name, I might find some reason to address his comments in greater detail. However, I will say that quite clearly the partisan bias he notes is purely an invention of his own mind. The position I took in my paper is actually less severe a position than the one taken by either Brian Peckford or John Crosbie. I was actually suggesting a better way to get what the Premier sought, not opposing it as crudely as John Crosbie did until relatively recently. Those other two gentlemen, from the Premier’s own party have actually opposed this approach either now or in the not so distant past. Sorry, Army but we are not, to quote another Marshall, on the “rack of Confederation".

Would but the world fit so neatly into your colour-blinded vision, army.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/29/2005 @ 8:21 pm
“We should be rich; we are not. Why? We have been abused by foreigners. A convenient argument but not one borne out by recent history.”

Not only that… but in almost every single resources and revenues dispute in this century, Newfoundland has had with Those Nasty Others – whoever T.N.O. might be in any given case – Newfoundland has ALWAYS won.

People keep convieniently forgetting that.

Labrador Boundary: won.

Term 29: won.

Offshore: mainly lost in court, partially won on territorial sea (which NO other province can boast), entirely won, politically, in the Accord.

French Islands maritime boundary: won (with that horrible, nasty, evil federal government arguing the case, no less).

Laurentian channel boundary: won.

Gulf turbot: won, and then some.

The only notable exception being the Upper Churchill Water Reversion fiasco.
Comment by WJM — 1/29/2005 @ 10:02 pm
Hey Ed H and your sidekick, WJM…..You beauties must be drinking out of the same mug? I don’t have much time to get on here and vent, but, I’ll make a small exception in this case for you two. And I’ll be brief and to the point.

No matter how much disinformation you pixies cloak your snotty Canuckistan comments in, you can’t hide the fact that you and the rest of your liberal cut-throats in uppity Canada just had your collective clocks cleaned by a real statesman, The Honorable Danny Williams! So, you go on blustering BOYS! You only reinforce what most other people in the real world think and know about Canada; You’re all mouth and no clout! It must be enshrined in the Charter or something?

Thank you Danny Williams for STARTING to get back what the Canadians have stolen over the last 50+ yrs from Nfld&Lab. Now, if only there was some way to get shed of Canuckistan?
Comment by sean oneill — 1/31/2005 @ 6:24 pm
Kevin needs to be given a huge hand for getting this thing going. I read the bitch sessions which follow in the commentary and would suggest that we need to get behind the premier and allow him time to come up with the best possible uses for this money. Everyone will have a hand out for this money. Forget the partisan politics and support the man who was finally able to make a deal. Congrats Kevin and Danny Boy!!
Comment by John B — 1/31/2005 @ 6:53 pm
Thanks Kevin for starting this campaign!It’s fellas like you who are going to be the driving force behind any future that Nfld/Lab is going to have in this lousey deal known as Confederation. You do great work!! Thanks again from the bottom of my Newf heart…Sempre Fi!
Comment by sean oneill — 1/31/2005 @ 7:23 pm
Congradulations to Premier Danny Williams and especially all Newfoundland and Labradorans who had responded recently to the topic of offshore revenues that is owed to our province. God Bless all Newfoundlanders and Labradorans on the rock and all who are away from it like we are. Its a wonderful experience to be able to get involved.
My question to you is ” Where and how will the revenues from the offshore oil production be used to benefit the people of our province? I am sure there are thousands that are now asking the same question. In the meantime congradulations to all.

Reed Bennett
Comment by Reed and Karen Bennett — 1/31/2005 @ 7:43 pm
“No matter how much disinformation”

You are challenged: Please cite ONE example of disinformation I have posted here.

“real statesman, The Honorable Danny Williams!”

Danny’s a FANTASTIC politician. He’s crap at the statesman game, though.

“Thank you Danny Williams for STARTING to get back what the Canadians have stolen over the last 50+ yrs from Nfld&Lab.”

What have “the Canadians” stolen? Please itemize.

“Now, if only there was some way to get shed of Canuckistan?”

Ah, yes, THAT’S THE SOLUTION FOR NOT GETTING ENOUGH MONEY FROM CANADA.

Put your money where your mouth is: pay a deposit, and run for election on the Newfoundland (and Labrador) separatist platform.

If you run in the upcoming by-election, I’ll even cash in some empties towards your deposit.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 9:00 pm
“God Bless all Newfoundlanders and Labradorans on the rock”

“Labradorans” aren’t on “the rock".

On rock, yes. But not on “the” rock.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 9:01 pm
WJM, now here is a chance to pick you words apart. “Labradorans aren’t on the rock", are you suggesting there are no Labradorians living on the island portion of the province, because that is factually wrong, there are a lot of labradorians living on “The Rock". See how easy it is and by the way I knew what you were tring to say.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/1/2005 @ 8:30 am
WJM.. I really hate to dignify any queries you have of me, regarding lists and the like, for fear it would only serve to embolden/encourage you (like a petulent child)to more non-sensical tommyrot on here by you, to yours truly, moi? Suffice it to say that your obvious uppity Canadian ignorence on the issue at hand knows no bounds?

Unlike you (I highly suspect) I have to work for a living so I don’t really have the time to get on here and educate you and your buddy, Ed H. Besides, I’d be only telling the truth and we all know that many of you Canucks have a strong aversion to that? In fact, it’s alien in your neck of the woods! Note your rantings on here?

Try this: if you really want a list of all the ripoffs by Canuckstan of Nflds/Labdrs natural resources (and what Nfld/Lab have given Canada, since being hornswoggled into the funny little alliance called the Canadian Confedreation) for starters, take a gander at Mr.Gil Dalton’s letter posted on this site? He wrote it to your fearless/peerless leader recently (now there’s a joke if there ever was one) and it’s posted on the home page of this site.

Now, read Mr.Dalton’s letter, take a couple of aspirin and get back to me later…much later. And hopefully sober too?
Comment by sean oneill — 2/1/2005 @ 11:41 am
WJM..One more thing? Keep those empties you were going to cash in for to help in my run at local politics. I think you’ll need them in the future to perhaps contribute to a second hand sub or ship for the Canadian navy to protect what is left of the Grand Banks.

You’ve heard of the Grand Banks? That’s that place where Newfoundlanders fished for 450 yrs until Canada came along and bargained all the fish away to foreigners to create jobs in Canuckistan. Now, what was that you were saying about all the stuff that Canuckistan has given to Nfld/Lab over the yrs?
Comment by sean oneill — 2/1/2005 @ 6:06 pm
“Besides, I’d be only telling the truth and we all know that many of you Canucks have a strong aversion to that?”

Good Dog; truth became an endangered species in Newfoundland over the course of this whole debate! Loyola Sullivan shot the last breeding pair somewhere off Brunette.

“Try this: if you really want a list of all the ripoffs by Canuckstan of Nflds/Labdrs natural resources (and what Nfld/Lab have given Canada, since being hornswoggled into the funny little alliance called the Canadian Confedreation) for starters, take a gander at Mr.Gil Dalton’s letter posted on this site?”

Churchill Falls: No one forced “us” to make that deal. We made it. Bad deal? Yes. Someone else “ripped us off"? No. (Too bad G.D. can’t spell “Labradorean” with a modern spelling, either.)

Petro Canada sale: How is this a ripoff?

Pre-Confederation surplus: Thanks to massive wartime and post-war spending by Other People’s Governments… and to the fact that half the Commission were non-Newfoundlanders. How is this a ripoff, in either event?

Fishery: I’d like to find ONE letter from any party in Newfoundland and Labrador in the 70s or 80s, advising Ottawa to slash quotas when it might have saved the fishery.

Instead, Newfoundlanders flocked to Labrador to destroy the last good stock, off Black Tickle, in 1989.

Yes, the fisheries collapse was a catastrophe. Yes, federal management decisions were a major factor. But don’t think for a second that Newfoundland management was, or would have been, much better. After all, right now Newfoundlanders are looking to use those same nasty, nasty, federal fisheries policies to keep shrimping and turbot trawling off Nunavut. Adjacency? Ah, that’s only a word, once you get outside any NAFO division abutting the island of Newfoundland.
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 7:08 pm
“You’ve heard of the Grand Banks? That’s that place where Newfoundlanders fished for 450 yrs”

I dare you to find me a Newfoundlander whose ancestry goes back, in Newfoundland, more than 450 years.

“until Canada came along and bargained all the fish away to foreigners to create jobs in Canuckistan.”

When did that happen? Can you name some specific deals in specific years?

While you’re at it, can you tell me what Labrador got out of all those years that nearly 10 percent of the Newfoundland population derived its income by coming to Labrador every summer and evicting my family from its own salmon and cod berths?

As Bill Keough said, “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of Labradorians when they hear some of our political pundits raising the roof over the raw deal Newfoundland’s gotten from somebody or other. It must sometimes occur to them that Newfoundland doesn’t do so badly itself when it comes to dishing out raw deals.”

That was in 1947. Plus ça change…
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 7:13 pm
I can’t believe that John Efford has the gaul to go on CBC and try and tell the people of this province that he even remotely had anything to do with a deal. When Danny was asked in the news conference, he sort of skirted around the issue, putting his best foot forward. John may have been there but I don’t think he had any influence. Time will tell, but I don’t think people will forget. He’s got the same sex issue to deal with now also.

I pitied John Efford when he got “screwed” in the Liberal Leadership but in hindsight it may have been a lucky break for this province. Who knows what he would have given away. Thanks Mr. Grimes for whatever you did to win.
Comment by Owen Russell — 2/2/2005 @ 8:42 am
WJM:Talking to you is like talking to a sack of rocks! You haven’t read any of the views expressed on here by people that,I dare say, are much more informed and well versed on the resource issue than you or I? You’re a typical Canuck? You want to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. The original squeaking wheel!

Again, (ARE YOU LISTENING)? try reading Gil Dalton’s letter to the King of Canuckistan, Pauli Martin, posted on this site? Or how about Rex Murphy’s commentary on the CBC (Communist Broadcast System) also there for your perusal–and any number of others that will answer all the questions you keep posing over and over again,to me,like a mad hatter? But stop it with the snot-nosed spoiled Canuck brat, I know everything, routine, will ya? You only think you know it all and act as if ignorence were a virtue.
Comment by sean oneill — 2/2/2005 @ 11:12 am
WJM: BTW, remember to keep those empties close by? Second hand junk scows cost a lot these days and the Canuckistan gov will be in your debt for your Molson contribution to their navy. Did I say navy? I meant sea cadets!Sempre Fi!!
Comment by sean oneill — 2/2/2005 @ 3:35 pm
WJM: Like it or not, as per the British N.America act, Nfld owns Labrador! Therefore, the folks from the island have every right to any enterprise they so choose, including fishing enterprises, “IN” Labrador.

Now, unless you bunnies have balls and chains on your legs you could go to the island and do anything you choose to do in the way of free enterprize, including, fishing. No questions asked. I wonder how many Labradorians have done that (pulled up stakes and went to the island for their fortunes) and have been successful? Oh, my grandfather did, that’s right! So spare me the poor down-trodden-by-Newfoundland act. I’m wise to it buddy!
Comment by sean oneill — 2/2/2005 @ 6:54 pm
Sean O’Neill: “Like it or not, as per the British N.America act”

You are very ignorant of your legal history if you think this is where Newfoundland gained jurisdiction over Labrador.

“Nfld owns Labrador!”

Canada owns Newfoundland!

Only slaves and colonies are owned by anyone else.

“Therefore, the folks from the island have every right to any enterprise they so choose, including fishing enterprises, “IN” Labrador.”

Oh do they now?

Why is it adjacency works that way? What’s yours is yours, and what’s mine is yours, too?

“Oh, my grandfather did, that’s right! So spare me the poor down-trodden-by-Newfoundland act. I’m wise to it buddy!”

Well, feel free to wisen up the other several tens of thousands of Labradorians who feel much closer to the way I do, than to the way you do.

Even your Glorious Leader, in semi-lucid moments, gives a nod in our direction. (When he’s not lying to us.)
Comment by WJM — 2/8/2005 @ 3:15 pm
“Therefore, the folks from the island have every right to any enterprise they so choose, including fishing enterprises, “IN” Labrador.”

The “folks from the island” do NOT have the right to go to Labrador, cut local residents’ nets, crowd them out of their berths, destroy their crab grounds with trawlers, or any of the other things that “folks from the island” would not accept if it was Americans or Nova Scotians or Quebecers going over to that precious island of yours, and doing to them.

“Folks from the island” only have the right to do in, with, and to Labrador, what they would have others do in, with, and to Newfoundland.

Anything else is pure hypocrisy, and anyone who advocates it is a pure hypocrity.
Comment by WJM — 2/8/2005 @ 3:17 pm
wow that the most eatern piont in north america
Comment by cyndi — 3/14/2005 @ 4:51 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog Archives:

We Can’t Let it Happen Again

143 Comments

Leave a comment