A Deal is Made
We’ve got a deal:
Minister of Finance Ralph Goodale added, “I am delighted these intense negotiations have resulted in an arrangement that addresses the unique economic situation of Newfoundland and Labrador while being fair to all Canadians.”
“There’s no easy dollars going to be squeezed out of this crowd,” Williams said.
What to say?
I am relieved, but most of all I am proud of this effort. Time to take it in, analyze the result, reflect, and step back. The pages that send letters to the PM and Newfoundland and Labrador MPs have been shelved.
Thank you, everybody. Your efforts — every single one of you who sent a letter or spread the word or put up a poster or helped in any other way — have brought real online grassroots activism into Newfoundland and Labrador politics.
Goodnight! I’m happy it’s the weekend.
71 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m still waiting to see all the details.
I am pleased with the hard work of Premier Danny Williams and Loyola Sullivan. As well as the work in Parliament by such great MPs as Loyola Hearn and Norman Doyle.
I watched the press conference. And even in the face of this breakthrough, I do strongly take issue with the language used by every politician on that stage.
John Efford and Geoff Regan are wrong. The deal does not show that the government of Canada is willing to help when needed. It shows that the government of Canada will bring provinces to the brink of distress, and then finally, when they feel they’ve made their point as masters, they might finally agree to honour promises that could
have been honoured long ago.
Danny Williams should not have thanked Paul Martin or Ralph Goodale, or Canada. He should thank himself and the efforts of people like Loyola Sullivan and Loyola Hearn, who remained on the right side of this issue from day
one. They were right to thank the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. But NL doesn’t owe Canada anything.
I see no reason to thank the government of Canada for even now only partially restoring some of what it has funnelled out of the
Atlantic region and what it has managed to keep off the great Canadian ledger in terms of resource wealth and development.
Canada had the power at any point over the last 40 years to make decisions without ever having resorting to this last minute play to make NL a
have province. Canada deliberately and strategically REFUSED to do so because the federal system of accounting kept Ottawa in control, and NL resources in limbo.
I am pleased to see a much fairer revenue deal for these provinces.
But I and a good many other Newfoundlanders am not any more proud to be Canadian any more than abuse victims would be proud because they finally got half-hearted and conditional compensation from the abuser.
Canada still has the power to empower this province in order to save what’s left from
Ottawa’s record of resource rape.
Until I see a full apology from the PM and as much reversal of policy wrongs comitted against NL over 55 years, I will consider the federal government only a few steps above a rogue government, not really representative of Canada at all.
As for Paul Martin, in his final concession, he only proved himself to be a lowlife of the 5th degree by making our people go through hell in order to “grant” us what was rightfully ours
anyway. Since he un-necessarily put us through hell for years upon years on this issue – I say to Paul Martin – Go to hell.
I don’t thank the theives for returning some of what was stolen.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 1/29/2005 @ 2:02 amKevin, congratulations!! I think your website has played an important role in this - thank you for doing so much to help Newfoundland and Labrador.
Comment by Mark Scott — 1/29/2005 @ 5:18 amLiam, while I understand where you’re coming from, I think it’s time to heal. We are a part of Canada; and though we had to fight for this, we have it now and we need to move past the anger we have been feeling (though if we could keep the energy and apply it to help NL in other ways that would be great). Thanks everybody, this is great news!
Mark
I concur with Mark’s comments above. The challenge has always been, in the aftermath of an election, holding the new government’s many feet to the fire to ensure they come through on the promises that got them elected in the first place (remember the promise to scrap the GST?). With an ambivalent national media at best (whatever happened to CBC touting themselves as the unofficial oposition?), this challenge fell to Premier Williams and others. Was anyone surprised at how long it took the media to pick up on the existence of this web page and the ground swell support it was creating?
Comment by Bruce Ploughman — 1/29/2005 @ 6:45 amI also agree that we only need look back to learn the lessons of the past. Where the focus needs to lie now is on the future - a future made ever brighter by all those who championed this cause.
Bruce
Thanks Kevin for all your efforts. A job well done! Now… alter this website so such disscusions may continue.
All the best,
Mark O’Neill
Comment by Mark O’Neill — 1/29/2005 @ 7:50 amTrepassey, NEWFOUNDLAND
From Liam - “But I and a good many other Newfoundlanders am not any more proud to be Canadian any more than abuse victims would be proud because they finally got half-hearted and conditional compensation from the abuser.”
Excellent. Well said, Liam. I’m behind your stance completely. This was only one in a long line of abuses. It does not turn Canada into some big patriarchal benevolent entity, not in MY world. No, it’s still the same snatch and grab, central-Canada-centered, opportunistic society it was yesterday, last week, and in 1949.
I look forward to reading the debates on the next website that is developed prior to a separation referendum.
Comment by Margaret Harris — 1/29/2005 @ 8:53 amI won’t jump for joy until I see all the wrinkles in this deal, but I am breathing a sigh of relief that this stage is over. There’ll be more battles in the future, but this step is certainly one of the most important.
To you Kevin - who knows the power of the internet and forged a formidable tool to advance the fight for fairplay - you have tasted the reality that one man can make a difference. It’s a giddy feeling at first, until the giddiness wears off and you feel the weight of responsibility that comes with it. You conducted yourself with honor, integrity, and injected balance into the debates here. I commend you and I hope the powers that be in your life understand the talent, initiative and guts it took and that you’ll reap the benefits of that. Thank you.
If by any stretch of fate you continue your page and your blog –probably more work than we all realize unless we’re in the biz – I’ll be delighted, and a frequent visitor.
Comment by Debra — 1/29/2005 @ 9:00 amLike many of you, I’m trying to hold my judgement until I see the “wrinkles” (as Debra said). But if Danny’s happy, I’ll give the lot of them the benefit of the doubt for now. I hope Danny buys some air time from NTV to explain the details of the deal to us all.
The next tough question to deal with - What do we do with the cash? So many needs accumulated over decades, $2B won’t be long going. Health care, provincial debt, public services, income tax reductions - surely all keys to NL’s future success.
If I remember my figures right, we currently have an operating deficit of just under $1B per year (someone correct me if I’m wrong). Beware the lobbyists and the desperate who would have us sink this money into a long list of lost causes.
Danny and his government need to take a breath and prioritize to maximize the bang for our buck … this $2B is just the beginning of the revenue stream, but 8 years (even 16) is still only a window of opportunity. We must use it well.
Comment by Barry Parsons — 1/29/2005 @ 9:59 am“I say to Paul Martin – Go to hell.”
How very Christian of you, Liam.
You hypocrite.
Comment by WJM — 1/29/2005 @ 10:11 am“Danny and his government need to take a breath and prioritize to maximize the bang for our buck … this $2B is just the beginning of the revenue stream, but 8 years (even 16) is still only a window of opportunity. We must use it well.”
Question:
A couple of weeks ago, the dollar amount and the term were completely unacceptable to Danny Williams and Loyola Sullivan.
Why is it a “monumental event” for Danny today, when it was a “slap in the face” for Danny days ago?
Comment by WJM — 1/29/2005 @ 10:14 amWhy is it a “monumental event” for Danny today, when it was a “slap in the face” for Danny days ago?
Watch the diehard liberals cry now that Williams has done what there flop leaders where unable to accomplish in there years of running the province into the ground.
Comment by Robert — 1/29/2005 @ 11:22 amNow that WJM has had his say Where is brown nose Hollet?
It will be interesting to hear what is said about this deal at MUN’s public forum on the Atlantic Accord. As far as I know, it is still scheduled for Feb 2, 2005. There will be a live web cast of the event. Also, I received information, via email, from a MUN representative that the event will be videotaped and archived on the web.
Comment by Phil — 1/29/2005 @ 11:58 amGood on ya Kevin…great job on such a worth while issue!!!
As for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador it’s time to celebrate! Danny did a GREAT job!
Comment by JLF — 1/29/2005 @ 12:08 pmThanks Kevin, a job well done. It doesn’t matter what kind of a deal
Danny got. The main thing is that he stood up to the feds and didn’t bow to the upperalongs. Well done Danny.
comments by Doug R
Comment by doug rossiter — 1/29/2005 @ 12:20 pmThanks, Kevin. You did a great job. All of those 50,000 or so e-mails definitely sent a message to Martin. And may have made it easier for Premier Williams to get a deal. I support whatever deal Danny Williams got because he is a man of steel in my view and the Prime Minister could only withstand the pressure from him for so long. Newfoundland has truly elected a fine leader, who will not take second best. Bravo! Bravo!
Comment by Anne — 1/29/2005 @ 12:44 pmBarry, the accrual deficit (everything we theoretically owe) is somewhere around $750 million. That number was used to scare people but it is nbothing you can actually plan with.
However, the cash deficit is something more on the order of $70-130 million down from the whopping (and grossly inflated) figures Loyola handed out in March. The deficit can basically be managed by growing revenues and modest spending restraint. Oil alone in 2 years time will put the province in the black.
Applied to the provincial direct debt, we would drop the figure 30% and the total debt (provincial government plus agencies and corps), by 23.5% or thereabouts.
But you are right, what will they do with all that money?
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/29/2005 @ 1:19 pmWell, it’s about time. But, if it was a promise that was made before the election, why in the world did NL have to “put on the gloves, and get in the ring". The liberals are like the trojan horse, so a note to all provinces- dont let your guard down, they will do the same to you. This web site really got through to the feds, and they were really scared that we would seperate, and take all our resources with us. Then, say good-bye to Canada as we now know it- And we would be first out of the gates. Let’s see if the feds will support us to get the Lower Churchill up and running…don’t hold our breath. Congratulations go out to our FINE PREMIER and his sidekicks for a fine job…(Where are the anti-danny people now??) this should benefit Newfoundland, the start of a new beginning. Like i said before, maybe now all the NL’ers across the country can come home to work.
Comment by Jerry Baker — 1/29/2005 @ 1:28 pmGREAT JOB TO KEVIN, AND ALL WHO SUPPORTED THIS SITE, I THINK WE ALL HAD A PART TO PLAY IN THIS- If your email inbox had as many Martin and Goodale did, you’d listen too!!!
POWER TO NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR
Kevin,
Your initiative, leadership and diplomacy has inspired and motivated myself and thousands of others to get involved. You gave us the opportunity to voice our love for our province and our collective new attitude. We are half a million plus strong, proud and united like never before. Thank you for this. You and Danny Williams will go down in history as the men who started a movement not unlike Quebec’s “Silent Revolution.” United we can achieve anything, divided we are our own worst enemies. Maybe “Strong, Proud and United” could be our new provincial slogan.
Being respected starts with excellence, self confidence and the courage to stand up and demand that respect. You are a fine example of this.
May this experience open wide many doors for you that lead to wonderful things.
Comment by Marie Crawley — 1/29/2005 @ 1:36 pmMarie Crawley
“Watch the diehard liberals cry now that Williams has done what there flop leaders where unable to accomplish in there years of running the province into the ground.”
Hey, good on Danny for finally saying yes to something… but why did he say yes to the same dollar amounts and same duration that he was saying no to, and taking down flags because of, just a few short weeks ago?
Comment by WJM — 1/29/2005 @ 2:06 pmEd,
Isn’t the first number $750 Million actually referred to as provincial DEBT?
Isn’t the provincial DEFICIT the annual provincial budget operating OVERAGES? (ie we spent $70-130 million over what we normally take in each year in taxes, transfer, equalization…)
Doesn’t the DEFICIT (Annual OVERAGES) from each year get added to the DEBT?
And like Ontario will we not eliminate the DEBT and operate our fiscal year in SURPLUS and if we pay off the DEBT because we eliminated the DEFICIT?
If the answers to the above questions are all YES, then why not pay off the whole $750 million DEBT now to avoid any further interest?
We would still have 1.25 BILLION to cover the DEFICIT of $70-130 million.
Sheesh, we could still send some medium big chunks to satisfy some of the institutions that has been suffering (ie HOSPITALS or creating REAL renewable business-like Industry instead of make work for no fiscal return, BS jobs)!
We just hafta make sure MHA’s wages and expense accounts/perks aren’t the first thing on the list to go up! I tell you if that’s on anybody’s mind we should let them know now that this letter/blog campaign was only a warm-up for the fiscal responsibility we expect now that the cash is in-hand!
PLEASE no partisan crap about specific parties or individuals who can or can’t make this happen.
Our pressure as a population helped to slay this dragon, it’s up to us to STAY involved now and let whoever is representing us know, in no uncertain terms, that the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador will not tolerate provincial usury any more than we will tolerate federal usury.
Mr. Williams if you read these, please return to you “Blue Book” or should I say campaign and election promises, and make sure that they are fulfilled. My vote will be lost in the next election if they are not. As much as I laud and praise you for this victory on our behalf, I must insist that you further your original promises to remain in my good graces.
Due diligence and vigilance regarding these newly acquired financial resources are imperative. Please continue on a good path.
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/29/2005 @ 2:06 pm“Let’s see if the feds will support us to get the Lower Churchill up and running…don’t hold our breath.”
Why should “the feds” do any such thing?
Comment by WJM — 1/29/2005 @ 2:07 pm“Isn’t the first number $750 Million actually referred to as provincial DEBT?”
It would be wonderful if the provincial debt was only $750-million.
The DEFICIT is the annual shortfall.
The DEBT is the accumulated shortfall.
Ontario is, like almost every other province, still massively in debt.
“We just hafta make sure MHA’s wages and expense accounts/perks aren’t the first thing on the list to go up!”
I agree, but on the scale of things, these expenses, as a portion of the overall provincial budget, wouldn’t even class as a rounding error.
Comment by WJM — 1/29/2005 @ 2:13 pmFred:
The deficit is the annual shortfall, estimated on an accrual basis to be approximately $750 million this year. On a cash basis, it is closer to the figures I stated above of about $70-130 million depending on who is doing the calculation.
For example, based on the December financial statement, I estimated the provincial government’s direct cash.current account shortfall to be about $70 million. On that basis, increased oil revenues alone will push that close to being balanced by year end and it would certainly be balanced if not taken into a surplus position next year even without any new federal oil transfers.
There is likely to be a fairly sizeable capital account deficit and hence the budget may not be balanced on a combined current and capital account basis for a few years yet.
The accrual debt (accumulated deficits) runs at something on the order of $12.0 billion. Direct debt (prov govt alone) is $6.5 billion and total debt (govt plus agencies and corps) is about $8.5 billion. Hence my calculations. These figures are from the Budget and auditted financial statements that are available online.
The accrual deficit/debt is in some respects a theoretical figure. It includes an unfunded pension liability which can go up or down depending on how it is calculated. The Gourley report (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) inflated the figure for its own purposes.
If I recall correctly, the unfunded liability is already being addressed somewhat by increased contributions by the provincial government based on the 2001 NAPE and CUPE satrike settlements.
Before you get too carried away Jerry in handing out the bouquets and champagne, and while this certainly represents a good deal (impossible to achieve under previous governments of either Liberal or PC stripe), you might want to have a look at my thumbnail assessment based on the Premier’s own stated objectives.
Robert Bond Papers(http://bondpapers.blogspot.com)
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/29/2005 @ 2:43 pmLiam stole my thunder. He said just about everything I want to say and he said it well. Bravo!!! Thank God not everyone is so intoxicated by this promise of a few more scraps thrown from our own table that they would celebrate it as vindication of the goodness of our masters. Danny’s remark, “I have to take a deep breath. I am very proud to be a Canadian this evening", is so fatuous; so shockingly contradictory to the words one would expect to hear from a real Newfoundlander, especially a Newfoundland hero, that it literally makes me want to be sick. It is all so deja vu, so Smallwoodian. I was there in 1948-49 when our birthright was stolen in exchange for a bunch of pottage. I remember! Fifty five years of subservience; fifty five years of being robbed and scorned and laughed at, and it seems we have not learned a damned thing. This is no victory; this is merely the further tightening of the fetters that bind us in our state of dependency, and a postponing of that time when, please God, another generation will set our land free from this humiliation. There is no future, no dignity, no hope for Newfoundland unless, or until that happens. In the meantime Danny stands like a Janus in the gateway, one face east that the other west, and like most of us, sadly, without the guts to let go of the teat and, as do the more noble of our kind, seize the responsibility for our own destiny. If you can, try to imagine the Icelanders celebrating anything like what happened in Ottawa yesterday. Yeah, they sure make us look like what we have become. God help us!!!
Comment by Lloyd — 1/29/2005 @ 2:57 pmSincere thanks to you, Kevin, for raising awareness of this issue and for diligently keeping all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians updated and informed about a struggle which FINALLY ended in victory ! You are a credit to your province, and I hope you will continue to use your skills for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.All the best to you in your future endeavors ! Wish you were here, so we could thank you in person !
To Danny Williams,thank God you didn’t “pipe down” ! There are no words quite adequate to thank you for this monumental accomplishment !
Comment by P.W.G. — 1/29/2005 @ 3:01 pmWe have a deal but… whether it’s a good deal remains to be seen.
Comment by Enid — 1/29/2005 @ 5:40 pmThanks Liam for your post. Well said ! When I read it I thought,"I wish I’d written that!".
I ,too, was disappointed when I heard Danny Williams “thank” the PM and the Government of Canada. Thanks? For what? Why?
Ottawa did not “give” us anything with this deal . This overflowing of thanks confirmed to them that they were , once again, giving Newfoundland enough to keep them happy. The Federal Gov’t is only allowing us to have “part” of what is our own. Generosity?
I would have liked to hear our Premier say that he was a proud “Newfoundlander". I, like Liam, don’t feel any more of a proud Canadian to-day than I did yesterday.
Thanks to Kevin !
Don’t know how or where to begin in thanking you Kevin for doing what you did for Newfoundland & Labrador.As far as we your countrypersons are concerned you are indeed a First Class Hero in our eyes.We owe so much to you brother.Thank You.
Comment by Robert Tucker — 1/29/2005 @ 7:36 pmI must also say thanks Liam for words well stated. I,like Liam don’t feel any more proud of canada than I ever did.I was born in NL after 1949 but still consider myself a Newfoundlander just like my Father Grandfather,and Greatgrandfather before me.I would die for this land in a second without giving it a second thought if I was called upon to do so.We all know what little Canada has done for us since 49,As well as we know what great harm,greef and hardships the Canadian Wolf has caused us to suffer over the years.God guard the Newfoundland…..We stand on guard for thee.
Thank you Kevin for youre efforts on this very important matter.It’s nice to see Newfoundlanders pull together and fight for what’s theirs and finally get it!!
Comment by Linda — 1/29/2005 @ 7:45 pmBravo to Danny Williams,to bad he wasnt around 55 years ago,maybe we wouldnt have had to join Canada,after all!!
Now if we could only do something to bring back the cod.!!
Like Robert said,God Guard thee Newfoundland,we stand on guard for thee!!
God Bless:)Im so happy for all newfoundlanders,today is as my granmom would have said a grand day for them!1:)
Linda
“God Guard thee Newfoundland… Im so happy for all newfoundlanders”
Is this about Newfoundland, or about the whole province?
Comment by WJM — 1/29/2005 @ 7:59 pmMany of the posts last night (Friday) and on Saturday on this thread demonstrate very clearly the political challenges facing Premier Williams.
He agreed to a very good deal. He deserves full credit for it, as does the federal government. Anyone familiar with the details of the issue, as opposed to the hype and rhetoric, can see that quite clearly. He also deserves credit for NOT turning this into yet another endless political show, a la Peckford or Tobin, that plays well in the galleries but costs the province dearly in every other way.
However, the Premier must now deal with the obvious disappointment of the nationalist/separatists/perpetually aggrieved out there, like Liam and others who are actually severely disappointed (I would gather). Liam’s post is long on “irk” and extremely short on historical fact, but that has been bashed elsewhere previously. Liam, you should be wondering why this whole processed carried on past October/November if you actually looked at the final settlement. You might just notice that it was not the federal government that persisted. I venture that in a short while, once they’ve digested the whole thing, Liam and others like him will be calling for Danny Williams to be run out of town on a rail. It’s not like that hasn’t happened before in local politics.
Having awakened that segment of opinion and appeared to give it voice, the Premier has raised up a set of political expectations that may come back to haunt him.
As well, the Premier has also raised expectations in some quarters that this money will be some kind of magical cure-all for the province’s financial ills. It will not be, by any stretch of anyone’s imagination.
And for others, they will now watch carefully how this money gets spent, not wanting to see it squandered on futile projects and other forms of waste. Money wasted will be votes lost.
in the long run, this money will look more and more like the ultimate one-time payment. One-time because once it is gone there isn’t any more. One-time because while it buys short-term political support, it can easily be turned into political opposition by the same people who now will pave his return with spruce boughs and arches.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/29/2005 @ 8:08 pmI’m happy a deal was finally reached but I’m confused about how much Williams had to compromise. Some say this is a fantastic deal while others say that he argreed to virtually the same deal that he rejected in December.
Comment by Jason — 1/29/2005 @ 9:46 pm“Having awakened that segment of opinion and appeared to give it voice, the Premier has raised up a set of political expectations that may come back to haunt him.”
Danny didn’t awaken it.
Peckford woke it up.
Tobin put its slippers and bathrobe on.
Grimes gave it a cup of coffee, a smoke, and eggs and bacon.
Danny got it shaved, dressed, and out the door.
It’ll be back, later on in the afternoon. Danny won’t like what it has to say.
Comment by WJM — 1/29/2005 @ 10:52 pm“Liam and others like him will be calling for Danny Williams to be run out of town on a rail. It’s not like that hasn’t happened before in local politics.”
Hell, isn’t it obligatory? Section 37 of the Political Idols With Clay Feet Act, 1858. It’s still on the books as one of those obscure laws that wasn’t repealed or superseded after Confederation.
Comment by WJM — 1/29/2005 @ 10:54 pm“Money wasted will be votes lost.”
This also parses mathematically as “Votes lost will be money wasted.”
Comment by WJM — 1/29/2005 @ 10:54 pmKevin, I just wanted to say thank you for providing a forum for your fellow Newfoundlanders to let Mr Martin know exactly how important this issue is to all of us and to say how proud I am of our premier. With all of his personal wealth he really could be on a beach anywhere in the world but he was here making a deal to better the lives of his fellow Newfoundlanders.
Comment by Frank — 1/29/2005 @ 11:22 pmWJM and Ed,
First, thanks for remaining mostly grounded and providing feedback. (Especially on this page.) Even early on I was trying to learn a bit more on how fiscal responsiblity can be demanded from both our federal AND provincial govs.
Yes, sure, I got rather tightly wound-up and expressive from time to time but this was my first blog (thanks again Kevin). So for all that said and done, no hard feelings and thanks for the “technical” pointers (cuz really guys you both tend to keep your passionate sides locked right up)!
This noun accrual, more commonly used in speach as the verb accrue or past tense accrued, is it more like specialized jargon when being used in budgetary sense? OR; Accrual of which deficit “parts” outside of cash. ie $750 million subtract $70-130 million (Cash for what?) = $620-680 million WHAT’s? And which part is accruing? And why allow it to accrue?
Sorry, I’m not quite following the large gap between those deficit numbers! I’m sure it’s like you were saying a lot of theoretical/plans where money is “supposed to be.
These may seem like really basic questions but there are so many slippery little holes these finacial political specialists dive into when they want us just to nod and say, “handle that for us, will ya?” Well I’m in learning mode and I ain’t gonna take too much more smoke and mirriors.
Thanks again
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/30/2005 @ 1:19 amThanks for your responses, Gents.
You both took a lot of guff (some of it deserved, some not) but you helped me (and I’d guess some others, even tho they’re less likely to admit it) to review the critical thinking process.
This was my first blog and a learning experience too! Thanks again Kevin and I hope the good people of this blog don’t give up on remaining active in keeping our politicians on their toes and accountable to US!
Take care all,
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 1/30/2005 @ 1:42 amI would like to add my voice to the chorus of thanks being directed toward Kevin, he gave the average Newfoundlander a way to participate in this exchange, and a way to express their feelings to our Federal Government.
I’m not sure if this is a good deal or not, I guess we’ll have to wait for the postmortem. However, what I am sure of, is that this awakening of Newfoundlanders is a good thing. Hopefully we can find a way to continue this forum or a similar rallying point where Newfoundlanders, can continue to be focused and vocal about what is happening on all political levels, Municipal, Provincial and Federal.
Our political systems are not as participatory or as accountable as they should be, and the voter effectively has very little voice to affect the decisions made by our political representatives.
Comment by Max — 1/30/2005 @ 4:40 amThis is an excellent venue for continuing to have a voice every day not just once every four years.
Kevin, thanks for allowing average citizens of our great, wonderful province and opportunity to flood Ottawa with our feelings. As for everyone whose comments I read this early Sunday morning. Give it a rest. Go for a walk, snowshoe, a ski or a snowmobile ride in ” Our Newfoundland and Labrador". Just be thankful we were alive to see the deal done.
Comment by Keith Cormier — 1/30/2005 @ 6:23 amThanks Kevin, for giving us a soapbox to stand on and be heard. We all made a big diffrence,never underestimate the power of a Newfoundlander!
Comment by Jeff Harvey — 1/30/2005 @ 10:54 amEd said:
“Having awakened that segment of opinion and appeared to give it voice, the Premier has raised up a set of political expectations that may come back to haunt him.”
Sorry Ed, yeah we have a deal and that’s great (no thanks to Martin, Goodale, Efford et al)but it doesn’t change how MANY MANY people feel about Canada and an independent Newfoundland & Labrador.
Contrary to Danny’s ill advised comments, this deal doesn’t mean we are all happy Canadians now.
People have a right to self determination.
A right to have a say in the leadership of their country. End of discussion.
Romantic? Damn right! …it still beats the Hell out of your “facts” and living under somebody else’s roof and bowing to their rules.
We are still a subject people under a foreign nation.
By the way, walk down water st and ask every business what kind of accounting system they use.
It’s Accrual, not “cash basis".
Only the smallest of businesses with a majority of cash transactions use cash basis accounting. ANY business that offers credit and borrows money uses accrual.
Seems its only Liberal accountants that want to use the less complete “cash accounting” system of book keeping.
Your “facts” are suspect considering your political allegiance.
Greg Locke
Comment by Greg Locke — 1/30/2005 @ 11:17 amhttp://blog.greglocke.com
Ed, your comments in some ways remind me of that MAD TV skecth they used to do with a video dating service called “Lowered Expectations"!
The entire premise to your comments about my post seemed to be “know your place.” As if to almost suggest that obviously a NL premier is simply a show dog, a circus performer, and that any and all demands are secondary to the master who is the generous godlike figure to be respected at all times in the eyes of the animal. I am sure there are still some in NL who honestly were quite pleased that Danny’s not going to “hurt the relationship” with Canada or hurt our provinces “position” within Canada. Then again, there are also probably some (WJM comes to mind) who wouldn’t have been the least bit upset if Martin had rolled up a newspaper at the press conference and given Williams and Hamm a few slaps upside the head.
As for this province’s position within Canada, the 2003 Royal Commission, while still awfully polite to our friends from upalong, certainly did essentially describe it as a positon not found in political texts, but probably more like one of the positions found in the more extreme S&M re-writings of the Kama Sutra…. I think you know the verb I’m going for here.
As for running people out of town on rails. I haven’t yet made nay firm decisions on that except perhaps John Efford – the guy who scolded Newfoundlanders for daring to expect every bit that they rightfully deserved. Such a person isn’t so much a politicians or a representative as he is a creation of the Children’s Television workshop. The only major difference being that at least Muppetts have character and know the difference between right and wrong.
John Crosbie Already adequately described the Churchill Falls debacle and how Canada could have saved itself a full 30 years of equalization to NL but decided not to do it.
Newfoundland spent decades offering positive policies for fisheries management, Canada stubbornly chose a route of destruction. During the 200 mile limit negotiations in 1975, Newfoundland proposed claiming the Nose and Tail and Flemish cap. Canada refused. It proposed joint fisheries management many times. Canada refused. It proposed custodial management many times. Canada refused. Instead, Canada used Newfoundland fisheries as a bargaining chip with non-Newfoundland Canadian interests as well as foreign interests. Since the government of Canada refused to share jurisdiction, it must accept most of the responsibility for fisheries devastation.
There’s the “fact,” my friend. More where it came from too.
As for this $2.6 Billion, NL deserves every bit of it. It’s mild compensation for a horrible set of federal policies that just about equal out to robbery. My advice is to use this entirely or at least mostly to address our massive debt and deficit. So far Premier Williams and Minister Sullivan have taken some steps on the right road.
I forgot to do it in my initial message: Thanks Kevin! I have really enjoyed your website and your Blog. I think it really made a difference.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 1/30/2005 @ 12:06 pmCongratulations Kevin on a great effort. This entire “Fair Deal for Newfoundland and Labrador” movement has been very successful. Voices that are not normally heard by those in power were loud and strong.
I would like to thank you for the blog. It gave an opportunity for many to voice their opinions, discuss the issue and exchange information. Some such as myself would rather sit back and read these opinions to guage the mood as it were. Others jump into it feet first and that made for some very interesting ‘conversations’.
If nothing else I am greatful the deal is done. But more importantly the Atlantic Accord itself has not been reopened or renegotiated in any way. Now the issue is how the provincial government should use these new monies. What will be best for the people of the province? How can we use it to get a greater return? How can it be used to secure a better future for all? This is where the focus should be now.
Well, it’s been blast. Kevin, if you choose to keep the blog going, send a note around. I’m sure there will be no shortage of participation or opinions.
Cheers!
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/30/2005 @ 1:12 pmGreg, you are absolutely right. It is a democracy. I was merely trying to point out the future political landmines Danny now faces, among them being the nationalists.
As for the budget issue, again, I am merely suggesting that we need to look much more closely at it to see what we have to deal with. It is blatantly obvious that Gourley and others grossly inflated certain figures to suit their purposes for arriving at an accrual debt/deficit figure. If you get past the numbers on the page and start looking at how to deal with them, then it is by no means as black as some people would have us believe. If it were that bad, we would see some objective signs - lowering of credit rating, province being put on credit watch etc. I don’t believe we need to spend like mad, but then again, I do think some people are spinning the hell out of numbers in order to achieve a political result. The current presentations are as ultimately misleading as the polyanna crap we used to get from Tobin and Grimes.
Liam I am not sure which version of Crosbie you are referring to about the Upper Churchill. Last time I checked his memoirs, he made it quite clear: we did it to ourselves.
As for the fisheries bargaining chip, I suggest you check with local manufacturers and see how they’d feel about a trade war. or aks the cusotdial management proponents if they want to stop fishing entirely for conservation sake or merely make sure that “we” get to fish the last of the lil swinners?
But in any event, if you think that indepdenent Newfoundland itself would not have traded one thing like fish for something else, then I guess we live on two different planets.
As for your comment about “knowing your place", that merely falls into the same sort of inventions others have tried to use here in responding to some of my posts. What you think you hear and see are not necessarily real.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/30/2005 @ 1:33 pmI think we all realize that the premier and Loyola Sullivan worked hard to get this deal and much appreciation has to go to them. However , this is only one battle fought , we still have to tackle foreign overfishing to get our cod stocks rebuilt , the lower churchill with more benefits going to Newfoundland and Labrador than others, and the Upper Churchill contract which we should continue to fight. I hope the mainlanders are aware that we are subsidizing Quebec and that is enabling them to require lesser equilizaton which makes them look good in the eyes of other Canadians. We need a similar campaign now to deal with foreign overfishing first!
Comment by Wayne — 1/30/2005 @ 1:48 pmEd – Why, in the analysis of Churchill Falls, do we automatically assume that there can be only one point of failure in the process?
In the budget debates of 1964-65 MHA Ambrose Peddle politely reminded Canada that it could declare power transmission across Quebec in the national interest as it had consistently done for other energy projects in several other
Canadian provinces. Even after Canada refused to do this, showing a clear double standard as compared to what it was willing to do for Ontario, there was still plenty of time for JRS to have made matters worse by the late 1960s. The two matters are seperate. But I think they’re related. Even Crosbie has always maintained that the best deal Levesque offered (related to eliminating Brinco – something Smallwood obviously wouldn’t do given his speculation), was many times as good as what we ended up with. But I think even that deal, as I understand it, would pale in comparison to what would be possible with a power corridor. There is no conflict in “versions” here. Both things did happen. One after the other.
The problem with trading in the fishery was not so much that it happened but that it happened with no care or substantive heeding of the real interests of NL – the province that made that resource a “Canadian” resource. Charles F. Bailey, a former fisherman and boat skipper and representative of Trinity South in the National Convention warned about what confederation would mean for the fishery. He did so on November 25, 1947: “I Refer here again to British Columbia. On the coast of Vancouver Island in 1935 certain capitalistic concerns got control from the Canadian [federal] government. I was not able to get the whole story; but I found out that these trapmen had gotten control of the waters within the three mile limit and all the handline fishermen were not allowed inside it. I was told that RCMP were patrolling the coast. We [Newfoundland] have full control over our fisheries, something I believe we always had. I know something of the rows between trawlers and handline men. . . Should the people vote for Confederation, I want them to keep this in mind. There should be a clause whereby the federal government will not be able to lease any part of our waters to the detriment of the fishermen. I want our people, in negotiating for Newfoundland, whatever they do, not to turn our fisheries over to remote control. We want to see that the rights we have always fought for are kept for us.”
Nothing you have said about custodial management makes it any less of a useful policy. Custodial management is important obviously to help preserve the resource. And why else would the resource again hopefully again someday be valuable? Unless you are arguing against such a policy, I’m not sure what your point is. Is it better to maintain the status quo? With the possible exception of mammary glands on certain male mammals, I can think of nothing more useless and pointless and ineffective on this planet than NAFO.
On the budget matters, I applaud any effort to take full account of budget deficits. If you believe there is exagerration, surely ou have an example of this. The PWC audit report and budget is publicly available. I see the closest yet to some honesty in public accounts. I see no reason why the state should be able to hide very real liabilities facing NL taxpayers. Interest rates eating up between a quarter and a third of every tax dollar are evidence enough of a devastating situation.
Also, I honestly don’t believe that independence is the only way to fix the policy problems facing NL in Canada. But I do believe we need to face facts about the last 55 years. I joke about our “Canadian Masters” because they honestly do have the decision-making power and were presented with alternatives and still chose some terrible policy routes.
You may chose to call the people who are concerned about NL’s future and about the policy disgraces and political disgraces that are STILL ongoing as a result of Canadian decisions “landmines” or obstacles for Williams to somehow avoid. But if you honestly believe that more work needs to be done, you’d hope (as I do) that Williams (and his federal counterparts) takes the time to heed these concerns.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 1/30/2005 @ 2:36 pmSorry to ramble a bit, but I think there are a couple of other very telling quotes related to our fishery discussion. Newfoundland journalist Bren Walsh quotes from an official memorandum out of the Canadian Department of External Affairs from June 13th, 1947: “Newfoundland’s economic union with the United States would greatly weaken the competitive position of the eastern Canadian fishing industry, since the U.S. tariffs would no longer operate against Newfoundland fishery products. Under such circumstances, moreover, the Newfoundland [fishing] industry would undoubtedly attract U.S. capital. American Modernization of the Newfoundland fishery would jeopardize Canada’s position.”
Liberal MP Richard Cashin, before his days Trudeau worship, on October 3 1962 in the House of Commons:
“When I have travelled around my constituency, it has been disheartening for me to learn of the work of foreign trawlers which have ravaged fishermen’s gear by coming in to the very headlands of the sea . . . Their traditional inshore fishing grounds were being interferred with by foreign trawlers . . It is not enough to tell these fishermen that a 12 mile limit cannot be established. After all, they realize that Iceland, which has ½ the population of Newfoundland, was able to do it. Has Iceland more courage, more moral fibre than Canada?”
John Lundrigan in the Commons on April 21, 1972:
“For a number of years people in the House of Commons have treated the word ‘fish’ as some kind of dirty, four-letter word which has no relevance and no place in the House of Commons of Canada. We have begin to realize the risk we run in the involvement of other nations in this resource, and that unless urgency is given to the matter we will lose one of the most important and precious resources of the Canadian nation . . . we have on the east coast almost every major nation in the world with a large fishing fleet daily harvest our marine resources. . . We have brought to the House accounts of several incidents in the last few weeks involving Russian fishing vessels off the east coast of Canada . . I am sure that if the Canadian people understood the magnitude and seriousness of the problem and how critical it is to the Atlantic region, they would support any government that showed a little muscle and exerted some control over our resources.”
Heck, lets look as early as Dec 10, 1951, with MP William J. Browne:
“Is the Federal government really interested in the Fishermen of Newfoundland? Is it really interested in the fisheries of Newfoundland? . . . I know he [ Fisheries Minister J. Watson McNaught] is a sympathetic person; But does he really intelligently understand the fisheries of Newfoundland? I doubt it . . . It is necessary for the government to remember that they have to give a lot more consideration and attention to [the interests] of the fisheries of Newfoundland than it has shown during the last 2 ½ years if they do not want them to decline. .”
There are also several white papers staring in the Moores years where NL, while clearly keen on expanding NL interets in fisheries and fish processing, also cautioning the govt. of Canada to take specific steps to end the “everything to everybody” model of management. There were cautions about ship size, foreign fishing, development etc… the last major paper was in 1987-88 “Northern Cod Under Attack” where the Allocations for New Brunswick and Quebec offshore trawl companies (for all species) were found to have increased (between 1976 and 1987) by 300 and 400 per cent respectively.
I don’t think it is at all fair to suggest that NL in various ways didn’t object to the federal policy route. It doesn’t mean the province was without fault. FAR from it. But given that Ottawa stubbornly refused to share responsibiltiies as was suggested, Then we are well within our rights to say that Canada has forfeitted any moral or other common sense right to lecture NL or anyone else about fisheries management.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 1/30/2005 @ 2:50 pmLiam, a long rambling couple of posts with tons of quotes but to what point?
In the case of Bren Walsh’s book, it was one of the early conspiracy theory pieces, but just because you have a paper, quoted out of context,
does not prove anything. The paper to which Wlash referred was an assessment of the impact on Canada of having Newfoundland become closer to the US. It is a straightforward discussion of a country’s national interests. It is NOT proof of a conspiracy unless you simply want to label it one. Then again, Elvis is still alive and there are aliens at Area 51.
As for the rest of the quotes I cannot see the point you are driving at. None of them demonstrate that the federal government traded away local resources. If you look carefully they reflect the reality both pre-49 and post-49. The fishery is an international resource in which ALL the stakeholders interests must be addressed. Ours are no less or more important than any others.
They are not “our” fish, alone.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/30/2005 @ 3:45 pm“They are not “our” fish, alone.”
Unless they’re off Nunavut… then they are “our” fish!
Comment by WJM — 1/30/2005 @ 3:59 pmOh, Ed. I had no idea you needed evidence that the fishery was traded away. Even the feds admit that one to a great extent. Read “Northern Cod Under Attack” to understand how it was traded away to non-NL Canadian interests. As for foreign maters, there are many sources. Not the least of which being the Harris Report… Or Michael Harris’ “Lament for an Ocean” book to Miriam Wright’s “A Fishery for Modern Times” to Cabot Martin’s “No Fish and Our Lives” to the many authors of “How Deep is the Ocean?” Nothing Area 51 about it. Both in amore general diplomatic sense before the 1970s and in a very clear written sense after that, Canada most certain did use fish resources adjacent to NL as a bargaining chip. If you have any evidence to the contrary, to show that they were used only for NL and with NL’s interests in mind, I’d love to see it. In 1977 at the beginning of the 200 mile limit (fishing), Canada immediately signed 13 trade agreements that saw great benefits for Canadian manufacturing and agricultural industries in the form of patronage from the Eastern Bloc, Western European, and other countries. In return, these countries received quotas within Canadian territorial waters at the time when the ecosystem could least handle it. Not all quotas were cod. Nationally-encouraged dragger companies needed those and so they were shared. Shrimp and turbot were also allocated in massive amounts in exchange for purchasing of central-Canadian made products. Almost exclusive allocations for Russian draggers were given on species such as capelin and silver hake. The capelin and redfish spawning grounds were discovered at this time and were considered fair game for Russian trawlers. The result, in 1978, was that one of the key related species for Northern Cod (capelin) was nearly eradicated. Canada was definitely looking out for domestic interests, just the interests where the most votes were located – central and western Canada. Meanwhile the fundamental principle of resource economic management – ensuring that those to whom the resource is adjacent benefit from it – was ignored. Representatives such as the Newfoundland Inshore Fisheries Association and Fishery Products International pointed out that there was enough fish, if caught using their mid-size trawlers and inshore methods to continue fishing without destroying the stocks.
Nobody’s talking about conspiracies here. I find it interesting to see you squirm and choose that word. I think national interests WERE at the heart of the decisions relating to Confederation with Canada – just not as much NL’s. Certainly it isn’t accurate to suggest that Canada simply did it out of the goodness of their charitable hearts. In a 1946 memo, Canada’s High Commissioner to Newfoundland outlined Canada’s keen interest in acquiring Newfoundland for its resources among other reasons.
Canada took the weakest stand of any country with such fishing baks to protect. Fisheries may be an “international resource” but international law is shaped by state practice. And Iceland, the south american countries, and others showed consierably more spine and bravery than Canada in SHAPING that law by taking matters into their own hands. But for them, even the 200 mile EEZ never would have materialized. Why shoudl canada act as if it doesn’t have a right to shape international law in precisely the same way? Canada chose another route. In 1975 when
Newfoundland asked the Canadian ambassador at the Law of the Sea Conference to at least make the demand for the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, he refused.
If they aren’t at least somewhat “our” fish then they suffer the great “tragedy of the commons” and are abused and overused by all. Even the Suzuki foundation in 1995 found that fisheries managed locally had a better chance of survival than those managed on some national level.
My previous posts were just designed to point out that it wasn’t as though NL wasn’t voicing objections.
I’d like to understand how some actual evidence and indication of the motivations of Canada (as relate to their own fishing industry) in the leadup to acquiring NL is in any way “out of context.” I look forward to hearing your reasoned explanation of that.
The only stakeholder that has been largely left without a voice on the grand banks fisheries issues – (because if we had one govt policy would have come out a lot different after all-party committees, royal commissions, resolutions, and white papers on joint management) – is Newfoundland and Labrador.
Given that we know NL has been trying on the union, govt, and industry sides and given the current constitutional arrangements it’s not hard to see where the stumbling block lies… I guess the rideau canal wasn’t enough water to interest them…
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 1/30/2005 @ 6:11 pmI’d add to that bibliography: Obituary on the Labrador Coast Fishery, 1992, and the works of Michael Dwyer.
If I can ever relocate it, I’d also love to publish Walter Carter’s correspondence with Romeo Leblanc on northern shrimp…
Comment by WJM — 1/30/2005 @ 8:29 pm“In a 1946 memo, Canada’s High Commissioner to Newfoundland outlined Canada’s keen interest in acquiring Newfoundland for its resources among other reasons.”
So what?
When one jurisdiction is looking to expand, absorb, or annex territory, it always looks to the resources that are available.
If you find something nefarious or untoward in that memo, you must surely find the same in respect of Newfoundland’s desire to have Labrador re-annexed to it in 1809, and in its position during the Labrador Boundary dispute.
The inclusion of Newfoundland and Labrador in a larger Confederation was ALWAYS the concept for as long as their was an idea of a larger confederation in the air… going back at least to Durham if no earlier.
Comment by WJM — 1/30/2005 @ 8:41 pmWJM’s comments remind me of another very important point. NL needs to heal some of the unfortunate policy oversights and rifts as relate to Labrador – the heart of much of our resource wealth. I hope this will be, as the premier has indicated, on the agenda of the provincial government. This is as good opportunity to work on measures that will bring about sorely needed unity in the province. If we do this, I think the next time we fight on a common cause with Ottawa (I’d like to see fisheries problems corrected next), we’ll be doing so with more of our own house in order and in greater solidarity.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 1/30/2005 @ 8:42 pmLiam:
All sources of trade are used in international negotiations and may be “traded” to one extent or another. In dealing with the fishery, the resource is one we share with a great many other nations, a great many of which have historic claims to fishing there going back centuries. But what is your point? This seems a penetrating insight into the obvious.
Trade and international relations are the larger context in which management of offshore resources have taken place historically. I would suggest to you that in the 60s and 70s, Canada would have had much larger international trade problems had we unilaterally tried to pull an “Iceland” just as today we run a very high risk of stirring a trade war that hurts the entire country should be unilaterally extend jurisdiction beyond the 200 mile EEZ.
Talk to some local exporters about trying to get local products into the EU and see how keen they’d be to start a trade war by unilaterally claiming jurisdiction beyond the EEZ.
Your comment on the tragedy of the commons is exactly the issue, but that same tragedy applies within Newfoundland and Labrador. We view the fishery as a collective resource owned by all and which can be exploited by anyone as a matter of historic “right". I doubt very much that any Newfoundland politicians would have excepted dramatic reductions in TAC for cod in the 1980s in order to save the fishery. There were calls for joint management but no one, including John Crosbie was truly willing to accept dramatic action.
In the same vein, I make the point again, are the local advocates of custodial management interested in actually stopping all fishing to allow stocks to rebuild OR are they interested in exploting the last of the fish that are available?
You view the world from a “Canada” versus “Newfoundland” perspective. I don’t. I don’t see a conspiracy or colonial exploitation or any other such phrase.
We have had a very strong and powerful voice in Ottawa on fisheries issues. It just hasn’t always been listened to. Soemtimes when it has, it was to side with heavy fishing beyond what was sustainable. Let he who is without sin, Liam…
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/30/2005 @ 8:47 pmI think such a memo is important, WJM, precisely because there are some people who honestly believe that our province entered cap in hand. Thanks to JRS and others, our history as an independent Dominion with considerable trade, resource, stretgic, and investment potential was lessened down to “A Third Rate Municipality - the Cinderalla of Empire.” That inferiority based somewhat on lies and a lack of information about things like the Canadian memos from 1945 to 1948 is still affecting us today. I think it’s important to remind people of these things. It’s not necessarily “nefarious” but it is telling that Canadian Liberals helped fund the Confederate campaign. It is telling to note that the Confederates had much more money to spend as a result. It is telling to remember those memos. If for no other reason than to shake the nonsense that Newfoundland and Labrador was Canada’s little charity project. It wasn’t. Not by a long shot.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 1/30/2005 @ 8:48 pmThank you Premier Williams. You did what no other premier has been able to do, actually win a battle with the Federal Government. I support Premier Williams totally. He is a successful businessman who has become a millionaire because of his abilities. We are lucky that he is now going to use those abilities to help Newfoundland. Let’s savour the good news and a returning hero.
Comment by Anne — 1/30/2005 @ 8:55 pmEd, why the use of the word “conspiracy"? You’ll notice I haven’t used it. I also haven’t used the word “colonial.” Not every double standard or unfair decision is a conspiracy. It may still repsent a certain interest that we should understand. If we don’t we ignore political forces that make a seemingly fair arrangement on surface hardly fair ever in practice.
As early as 1979-1980, the provincial government made many recommendations to Canada including but not limited to:
” Canada should seek to extend its exclusive fishing zone to the limit of the continental shelf to prevent the overfishing of stocks on the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.
- The Federal Government should abandon its current policy of buying trade concessions from foreign countries with allocations of commercial stocks in the Canadian zone.
- The needs of both the Inshore and Offshore fleets must be fully recognized in allocating Canadian quotas.
- Access to the Northern Cod stock should be accorded primarily to the inshore fishery, subject to an allowance rather than a fixed quota. Surplus over those needs should be reserved for a supply of offshore-caught fish to seasonal plants, the Newfoundland offshore fleet and the Maritime offshore fleet in that order.
- Both governments should cooperate to match longliner effort with the available resource in each area in order to improve the viability of the longliner fleet.
- The Federal Government must undertake a comprehensive trade relations policy which is not confined to the narrow confines of our bilateral fisheries relations with foreign countries.”
You’re right that NL interests didn’t want sharp TAC drops, but suchdrops probably wouldn’t have needed to have been so sharp had there not been as much going out on foreign vessels and Canadian non-NL vessels that in many cases were new to the area anyway. This was going on as recently as the shrimp quotas awarded to PEIers for waters off FOGO!
As for exporters,” It was FPI’s Gus Etchegary who got the message through to the NL delegation at the 1975 session of the 3rd Law of the Sea Convention to at least make the ATTEMPT to get the Nose and Tail and Flemish Cap. Al Beesely - Canadian amabassador to the UN - said no.
All party committees with experts, govt reps, MHAs, and MPs in Newfoundland and Labrador, after consulting extensively with the industry, including exporters, determined that enough was enough with NAFO, the time has come for Custodial Management.
Iceland went up against the UK! And succeeded! Is Iceland’s trade suffering in a measureable linkable way now? I don’t think so. It was pandering to the EU that unfairly ended our major vessel seal hunt.
You make it sound as if NL is powerless to do anything and as if these political factors are like weather to be endured. I don’t see it that way. Luckily for the residents of many other jurisdictions around the world that fought for what was fair, others agree with me.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 1/30/2005 @ 8:59 pm“WJM’s comments remind me of another very important point. NL needs to heal some of the unfortunate policy oversights and rifts as relate to Labrador.”
I wonder why Danny Williams and the Newfoundland public haven’t been as patient with Paul Martin and the federal government, as the people of Labrador have been with Danny Williams and the provincial one?
Danny Williams has been premier longer than Martin has been PM… yet Danny is allowed another three years to fulfil his promises to Labrador (including the broken ones), whereas Newfoundlanders would give the federal government and first minister no latitude at all.
Why the double standard, I wonder?
Comment by WJM — 1/30/2005 @ 9:59 pm“There were calls for joint management but no one, including John Crosbie was truly willing to accept dramatic action.”
I’d like to know what John Crosbie and Brian Peckford did on the “Joint Management” front between 1984 and 1989.
“In the same vein, I make the point again, are the local advocates of custodial management interested in actually stopping all fishing to allow stocks to rebuild OR are they interested in exploting the last of the fish that are available?”
I always have to note with interests, that the “local advocates” always advocate for “joint management” and “custodial management"… but never outright jurisdiction.
Classic headwaiter federalism: Ottawa, give us your power and cut us a cheque.
Comment by WJM — 1/30/2005 @ 10:09 pm“Thanks to JRS and others, our history as an independent Dominion with considerable trade, resource, stretgic, and investment potential was lessened down to “A Third Rate Municipality - the Cinderalla of Empire.””
Please tell me: How has Confederation in any way abrogated or derogated from the trade, resource, strategic, and investment potential of the province?
There are some fishermen in certain key fisheries who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why aren’t they investing in the province? Is Confederation barring them? Imagine what a difference that investment could make.
Comment by WJM — 1/30/2005 @ 10:13 pmThe deal is done, and it appears there has been some compromise on both sides. (the Canadian way). What it will mean to Newfoundland in the long term remains to be seen, I guess we will have to wait until all the facts are made public and the appropriate postmortem conducted.
Newfoundland now needs to move on, and I suggest one of the first things that needs to be done is for Mr. Williams to do what Joey Smallwood would not because of concerns for Canadian unity, that is insist that the Federal Government provide an energy corridor and Wheeling Rights across Quebec for our Lower Churchill Power.
Once this right of way is obtained, Newfoundlanders must ensure that there is no giveaway on this development as happened with the Upper Churchill. This will be an ideal opportunity for the Federal Government to make some movement to put right, its calous disregard for Newfoundland’s position in the original Churchill Falls development.
Comment by Max — 1/30/2005 @ 10:24 pm“the Federal Government provide an energy corridor and Wheeling Rights across Quebec for our Lower Churchill Power.”
Should the federal government also “provide” Quebec with the right to transship, say, the produce of a mine in northern Quebec, across Labrador to tidewater, whether or not the provincial government in St. John’s agrees?
Why or why not?
Comment by WJM — 1/30/2005 @ 10:47 pmPaul Martin was not to be given the same lattitude because at first light of announcmeent of the arrangement he promised mid-2004-election (October) it became quite clear he could not be trusted. His past years as a finance minister dead opposed to actions designed to fix clawback problems are certainly worth consideration.
As for Williams and Labrador, I can only say I hope the situation improves. But that there is nothing distinct about Williams in his role and relationship as premiers as compared to many past premiers of both stripes. I see no reason (except to use it as a distraction to defend Ottawa’s position) to use that generally unfortunately poor relationship as any kind of a response to NL’s grievances with Canada. Can’t we agree that both should be resolved? Can’t we agree that Labrador also can benefit when the province benefits? Can we agree that Labrador will most definitely NOT benefit from the offshore unless such a deal exists?
Crosbie and Peckford did not act on Joint Management… though it is my understanding that intentions were announced inthe late 1980s and early 1990s to start negotiations for accords similar to the joint petroleum accords. In 1996 and 1999, Lynn Verge and Ed Byrne referred to these accords in their platforms. I think The Grimes govt’s 2003 white paper was an excellent work explaining how and why this should be done. Also, several local advocates most certainly did call for greater jursdiction. NIFA did. In the 1980 provincial document “Managing All our Resources” the province clearly wanted entrenched jurisdiction over management rights in fisheries. The 2003 White Paper called for ammendments to the terms of union. These represent clear calls for jurisdiction. Maybe they don’t go far enough.
Local businessman C.C. Pratt wrote to the St John’s Daily News on Dec 31 1946 pointing out that “It is not by accident that for five years - 1939-1940 our importations from our nearest neighbour averaged only 36.9%. . . It paid NL to go further afield for 63.1% of its needs.
US senators from Nebraska, Ohio, New York, Maine,
Washington, Minnesota, Florida, Idaho, Vermont etc etc all expressed interest in reciprocity/economic union with NL. Of course, this idea was around since 1890 and Blaine-Bond (which Canada helped scuttle). As senior republican Sen Joe Ball from Minnesota stated in 1947 of Economic Union: “I think the sooner the United States and Newfoundland develop such a program, the better” Of course we’ll never know because the Commission turned down Nish Jackman’s plan to send a delegation to Washington and There’s no way that NFLD could have expected a more concrete and detailed response until it had an ind elected govt. of its own again.
Some Canadian Senators even stated the obvious troubles of confederation on the trade front, Jame P. MacIntyre for instance:
“The idea of Confederation was initiated in Ontario and Quebec. The Maritime provinces had established satisfactory trade among themselves; their market was close at hand and easy to access, and traffic with that market was mainly by sea. Certain indicements were held out to the Maritimes to consent to Confederation. The New England Market would be lost but a better and more profitable market – that of the central provinces – would be substituted therefore. The coal of N.S. was to find a market in Toronto; the fish, lumber and agricultural products were to find a market in Quebec and Montreal. As time went onit turned out that the coal of N.S. did not find a market in Toronto and our fish lumber and agricultural products did not find a market in Montreal. In the meantime, the New England Market had been lost.”
Traditional connections between New England and NL were also damaged by Canadian trade regimes. Labour mobility between the two areas was also decreased.
In the same 1946 memo to the PM I mentioned earlier, Canada’s high commissioner himself admitted that Us investment in NL was steady and brisk and that it was at more than $300,000,000 – much more than Canada’s. I’d say that’s about 3.3 billion or more in 2004 dollars.
On another note – Why should Ottawa expect to do anything much beyond basic equalizing type tasks anyway? It doesn’t have power over many things provincial. But cheques get cut. If you want a unitary state, move to one. Or create it here. I see which route attract you more.
Ottawa took control of the fisheries management. I think the story on that is quite soundly written, along with the stubborn refusal of Ottawa to cede any responsibility.
Also – Is access to the tidal waters re the mine in the interest of two or more provinces? Is it in the national interest?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 1/30/2005 @ 11:36 pmCongratulations to Premier Williams, his team, and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
A special thank you to Kevin, a gentleman I believe needs to be recognized in some way by the provincial government for his single-handed contribution to this cause.
Premier Williams achieved something quite rare to the Canadian experience. He managed to get a fair deal from Ottawa without having to resort to significant threat.
Alberta was forced to use the economic threat of shutting off the oil and gas in order to get its fair deal. Quebec continues to use the separation threat to make its gains. Premier Williams, on the other hand, took a strong stand and used strong language and actions to support his position. His strategy deserves respect since there was never a direct threat to other Canadians; they may have been upset, but they obviously never felt threatened.
Despite our gains, the flaw in the Canadian federation still exists. It is a centralization of economic and political power that is not counter-balanced with adequate government structures. What changed this time? … a tight federal election and a minority federal government which transferred much greater power to Newfoundland and Labrador’s seven seats. A rare glimpse for us into having some political influence and frustration for central Canada and many in its media in having to share that influence with others.
We must keep on our toes and continue to use good strategies. Here’s to the hope for continued minority federal governments or an improved Canadian political structure. Unfortunately I would have to suggest that a minority federal government will continue to be our best hope.
Congratulations to all in using good strategies to improve our position within Canada!
Comment by Cluny Way — 1/31/2005 @ 8:55 amLiam, you might want to try reading the constitution sometime especially when you make dismissive comments about it not having powers over “many things provincial". It doesn’t have ANY powers over provincial things directly.
It’s pretty simple.
Local and private: provincial government.
International and national: federal government, includng income redistribution schemes like Equalization. The federal government also controls fisheries under the Constitution since it is interprovincial in nature and international. it did not “take control” as you put it.
This statement on your part is a gross misrepresentation of the legal and historical fact. But then again, that would appear to be the basis for your argument. Confederation did not massively alter labour mobility in a fashion which was detrimental to NL. It merely meant that they could move easily to Canada instead of going to the US AND Canada. How exactly is that a bad thing?
After your long litany of people who have said things at various times about Canada or about fisheries management, again I get back to a simple question: What is your point? or put another way, what is your goal?
Let us go for joint management of the fishery. It would actually be joint management among Ottawa and the east Coast provinces including Quebec since all have a history of fishing offshore NL and vice versa. There really ins’t another practical way of doing it and producing a fair result. Perhaps you might be willing to accept that NL crews cannot fish offshore Nova Scotia in exchange for us fishing only in “our waters", but fences serve solely to penalise a small province like NL.
There’s your magic bullet solution to the fishery: an even bigger bureaucracy within Canada. Of course, given that this province’s territorial waters extend to maybe 3 miles, maybe 12 and that it cannot legally have exclusive jurisdiction over a manifestation of international sovereignty like the EEZ, there really isn’t much alternative except to let Nova Scotians and Quebeckers have a say in “our” fishery. Oh my. That wouldn’t work.
Independence perhaps? Well then, let’s look at that one. Tiny Newfoundland and Labrador pushing every country including Canada outside it’s EEZ. How much exactly would that cost in cash? How big a navy would we need? Hmmmm? and where would all our exports of fish go? Dildo perhaps since other people would likely start blocking access to our fish and other products in retaliation for our gunboat diplomacy. But hey, Liam all the guys at the ship could revel in our “fighting Newfoundlander” stance and the Open Lines would be blocked with cheering masses.
Until the economy started to fall apart.
Or if we focused on international organizations, we’d suddenly find ourselves …….back in a NAFO type arrangement. D’oh!
Liam, you can run around collecting up quotes, some of them quite obscure, to prove your thesis if you work backwards: that is, if you come to a conclusion and then find “proof". if you go at it the other way, you find other answers.
For example, you state as fact that foriegn overfishing is the root of all fisheries problems. Apparently you don’t think Canadian fishing vessels poached, overfished, high-graded or did anything else detrimental to the fish stocks? Dream on if you do.
As for your use of language, it may be slightly more subtle than the dependence theorists who preceeded you, but your argument is the same and your evidence no more convincing.
As a last point, your comments on the PM not being trusted reflect, I believe, your own considerable biases and not a reasonable presentation of evidence.
As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the provincial government positions shifted repeatedly such that what the PM agreed to on June 5 was effectively repudiated by the province on June 10. If one merely seeks to engage in a “blame game” then you clearly have plenty of resources to give vent to your irk and to “prove” your case to your own satisfaction and that of like-minded others.
Sadly it isn’t very convincing to others and therein lies your problem.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/31/2005 @ 11:34 amEd, I am quite aware of the division of powers. And it’s far from simple. The government of Canada has found ways to indirectly involve itself in local matters and vice versa.
Th Federal government controls fisheries because 91 (12) of the Constitution says so – you imply it’s obviously because it’s interprovincial. Given other explicit mentions of that reasoning and objective, I’m not as brave as to make such assumptions about it. Nobody is disputing the federal power here. What is in dispute is whether it is wise for it to continue given the federal record over the last few decades. Many large federal states have varying degrees of joint fisheries management. It’s not unheard-of.
Australia at one point entered into joint management arrangements with its states. Prominently featured in Australia’s Fisheries Act was the concept of the importance of the principle of adjacency. There were four regional joint management Authorities. These authorities were formally created by instrument in writing by the governor general and the governors of the involved states. In the early 1990s, Australia made a move towards a central Management authority. Gardner Pinfold Consultants prepared a description the 1980s Australian fisheries management system as well as the legislative systems of five other countries. The description of the Australian system shows considerable flexibility The assessment found that there are limitations on how far the Authority can extend its management – its main powers are planning, licensing, granting of research permits, and general notices. But it was a definite and useful joint management scheme.
The United States has stressed the need for decentralization in its fisheries legislation.. The US established regional fisheries councils for the New England, South Atlantic, Mid Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Carribean, Western Pacific, and North Pacific regions. The cornerstone of the councils’ work is the Fisheries Management plan or FMP. This plan lays out all key conservation objectives, information about the fisheries resource, the way in which it is to be utilized, and a plan for how to balance these sometimes conflicting concepts.
For the fourth time, Ed, you have demonstrated a clear inability to read my posts. If this keeps up, I might recommend speaking with an optometrist or the folks at “hooked on phonics". Where did I say Ottawa “took control” of fisheries? I merely pointed out that fisheries became federal as a result of confederation. At no point did I indicate that it was ever a provincial responsibility. That said, it most certainly is true that the government of NL did have power over its own fishery (not that there was much law on it) prior to confederation.
You said:
“Confederation did not massively alter labour mobility in a fashion which was detrimental to NL. It merely meant that they could move easily to Canada instead of going to the US AND Canada. How exactly is that a bad thing?”
Why would you want to limit the freedoms of individuals used to other routes and relationships? Unless you have an anti-American prejudice, surely work is work. I know of many men of my grandfather’s era who while they were in a seasonal economy supplemented that seasonal economy in the Boston states.
My goal is to prevent people like yourself from glossing over a relationship and federal decisions that have not always been in the best interest of the people of this province. Otherwise, they are doomed to be repeated and misunderstood. Why does this vex you so? Why are you so completely intent on opposing what I say that you intentionally re-write what I have said? You add words that are not used. Explain this. It shouldn’t be too hard if you are honestly interested in hearing about the truth.
You said:
“Let us go for joint management of the fishery. It would actually be joint management among Ottawa and the east Coast provinces including Quebec since all have a history of fishing offshore NL and vice versa. There really isn’t another practical way of doing it and producing a fair result.”
That’s ridiculous. there are international regional agreements that allow for exchange of ideas, quotas and other things. What makes interprovincial sacrilege? I see nothing fair about resources adjacent to NL being allocated to a PEI based fisherman without some consent and horse trading with NL.
I think the 2003 Grimes White paper offered an excellent format that could be adopted for the maritime provinces if they so chose to go in for some combined joint management. But with the exception of the NAFO 4R area and the Gulf, NL’s lines are pretty easy to draw, where there are disputes there can be tribunals to settle them. NAFO and DFO already divide the gulf for management purposes anyway.
Who says the power distribution I speak of is a “fence"? Who says there cannot be trading and opportunities for equitable arrangements? The DFO minister has viceroy-like powers. I think that power structure has proven useless in the field of “fairness.”
Canada has the full ability to divide management responsibilities with the EEZ as it sees fit. In the 1983 Court of Appeal case on offshore continental shelf (prov reference) NL gained a 3 mile territorial sea… only possibly relevant for aquiculture. You seem to be implying that all the federal structure is set in stone and can never ever be though to be changed… Is it gospel? But what I am talking about is a political accord with Ottawa. It’s hardly without precedent in this country. And as much as you try to paint my comments as somehow extremist, the truth is these concepts are widely-accepted in our province, growing in popularity in BC and even NS, and should be treated with respect by the government of Canada.
As for your assumptions about by research methods, I think you only succeed in proving how many conclusions you’ve drawn in complete ignorance about my efforts and past lobbies.
Here you go again:
“For example, you state as fact that foreign overfishing is the root of all fisheries problems.”
Are you illiterate Ed? Where did I state that? I am merely pointing out ne very legitimate grievance we have with the government of Canada that should have been corrected but was purposely not corrected because of other interests. Not once have I suggested there was one cause to this problems. I really find this sad. You have no grasp on the words before you, let alone facts that might lead you off this website.
In fact I even mentioned and acknowledged Canadian overfishing, the NL fishing interests, and others. You just chose to ignore them.
“As a last point, your comments on the PM not being trusted reflect, I believe, your own considerable biases and not a reasonable presentation of evidence.”
Find me a speech before mid-2004 federal election where Paul Martin supported doing anything constructive to avoid an oil revenue clawback. find it.
Explain to me why in October the province and the federal government were so far apart after John Efford spent the post-election summer saying “no strings attached” etc on public record.
Your biases are becoming quite evident. You seem quite pre-disposed to assume we would be wrong to suggest that we can or should expect teh Canadian federation to evolve. When people propose criticisms of federal decisions, you add words that were not found in their original posts. You accuse them of being separatists to distract form the real policy argument.
I won’t go so far as to say you’re on the Federal Liberal payroll or some other body with a vested interest in the status quo, they usually require people who can read the words of their critics.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 1/31/2005 @ 4:36 pmFirst of all, I’m thrilled at the conclusion to all of this debate. From the “flag flap", where my beloved Canadian flag was stored away for a few weeks, to the victory on Friday, I’m glad we’ve finally gotten our “Fair Deal.” BUT! I’m from Central Newfoundland–I have a B.Comm from MUN (2000) and am hard pressed most of the time to find “gainful employment” here at home. It’s great that our province is getting all this cash and in the foreseeable future, ours will be a have province. What does that mean for me? More government projects to keep me going? I hope not. But I don’t see what benefits this will have for areas outside of St. John’s or Bull Arm! Feel free to fill me in!
Comment by Toni Elliott — 2/1/2005 @ 9:47 amI would like to add my thanks to Kevin who helped us see that we do have a voice and together we can make noise. I would suggest that those dudes Liam and WJM correspond directly to each other. I , for one, scroll down through their diatribes.
Comment by marie traverse — 2/1/2005 @ 12:19 pm“In the same 1946 memo to the PM I mentioned earlier, Canada’s high commissioner himself admitted that Us investment in NL was steady and brisk and that it was at more than $300,000,000 – much more than Canada’s.”
$300-million per what? What’s the time period.
Goose Bay alone was $100-million of Canadian investment, not even counting the American side, before the war was over.
Comment by WJM — 2/12/2005 @ 10:39 am“Th Federal government controls fisheries because 91 (12) of the Constitution says so – you imply it’s obviously because it’s interprovincial.”
The reason it’s in 91 at all is the same reason that most of the things that are in 91 are in 91.
They were expensive line-items for the colonial governments back in the 50s and 60s. The big-ticket stuff got transferred to the new Dominion government.
Comment by WJM — 2/12/2005 @ 10:41 am“US senators from Nebraska, Ohio, New York, Maine,
Washington, Minnesota, Florida, Idaho, Vermont etc etc all expressed interest in reciprocity/economic union with NL.”
Don’t beleive everything Ches Crosbie ran in the Herald.
Comment by WJM — 2/12/2005 @ 11:32 pmI’ve got this site bookmarked now - thanks! free shemale plumper
Comment by ebony shemale tits — 5/17/2005 @ 10:13 pm