Some Reflection…What’s Next ?
In thirty-four days, twenty-five thousand one hundred twenty Newfoundlanders, Labradorians and Canadians, living in the province and around the world, combined to send over fifty-two thousand four hundred letters to Paul Martin, Ralph Goodale and Newfoundland and Labrador Members of Parliament.
This is an average of over fifteen hundred letters per day.
Think about that number for a second: 25,000. Mile One Stadium in downtown St. John’s has a maximum capacity of “5,811 seats for hockey and 5,300 seats for full venue concerts“. The known supporters of this campaign could fill Mile One Stadium 5 times over.
These numbers are staggering and we should be proud. The Fair Deal campaign, featured on radio, television and in print across the country, helped give attention to the oil dispute, and made our elected leaders take note. Thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians took a political stand by telling those who serve in Ottawa that we would not settle for less. No matter what you think of the outcome, our voices were heard.
Yet these numbers are not our only accomplishment. Supporters of this campaign have helped advance online activism in provincial and federal politics. The Fair Deal Blog has become a source of information for many, but also a forum where people have debated, vented deeply felt frustrations, argued and exchanged ideas. We have collectively stamped our feet in front of Newfoundland and Labrador MPs, our Premier, and the Prime Minister of Canada, reminding them that we helped put them in office. Our “virtual march on Parliament Hill", as one columnist called this campaign, has motivated and united, while at the same time it added a voice to the decades old debate about our identity and our place in Canada.
I am very proud of this campaign, and I do not think that this effort should dissolve. The strongest advocate for Newfoundland and Labrador is its people – not one party or one politician – and we should not forget that. Fair Deal is a beginning; let’s remain vigilant and continue to keep the future of our province fruitful and prosperous. We can continue to make a difference.
196 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Where to start?
Start with holding Danny Williams to this statement:
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
Someone should start a “fairdealforlabrador” site.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 12:28 pmGet up of your couch wjm and get it started whats wrong you have been saying this for days it’s shit or get of the pot time man or do you prefer to wait 10 years and start bitchin when its to late.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 12:52 pmDanny’s been saying it for years.
Are you going to hold him to his word?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 12:57 pmAre you waiting for someone to do it for you?
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 12:59 pmHow many years has Danny been saying it?
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 1:05 pmI sit idlely by and wait for another Lower Churchill to happen to NLFD ana Lab.Thank-you for starting this web site,our voices were heard!
Comment by Derrick — 1/31/2005 @ 1:11 pm“Are you waiting for someone to do it for you?”
Not at all. But reinforcement would be nice. Perhaps the site can be redesigned to bombard Danny Williams and Trevor Taylor with email?
“How many years has Danny been saying it?”
At least since 2001. That’s when he made that speech.
“I sit idlely by and wait for another Lower Churchill to happen to NLFD ana Lab.”
When was the previous Lower Churchill?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 1:28 pmRight on Danny i hope your influence spread’s through every province and worldwide.
Comment by Art — 1/31/2005 @ 1:35 pmIf every province stood up as Labrador and Newfoundland stood up to the federal government the sane way we would truly have a greater country.
I am not sure what Robert is trying to say but I wish him well. I don’t see this as a site for in-fighting; often happens with money and people trying to grab. I see this as a site where we can stand united. I feel that the next big issue to tackle is development of the Lower Churchill. Manangement of OUR offshore fishery is a big issue also, since we are first and foremost a fishery economeny - a point that many seem to be losing site of in the midst of all the talk about oil, gas, and nickel. However, I don’t see much possibility for change in fishery management given the political context. Lets pressure our gov’t to request a call for bids on development of the Lower Churchill.
Comment by Derek — 1/31/2005 @ 1:36 pmWhat a big baby you are WJM sitin on the side crying about how unfairly you are being treated and waiting for someone to say something so you can pick holes on how they write things down thats very mature of you i guess thats why you don’t represent the views of the labrador people, your just a little boy waiting for the big people to come alone so you can through snowballs at them.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 1:37 pmThis money should be spent and spread out wisely and of course the first thing comes to mind is # (1) health care (2) education (3) meaningful employment and then onto the other needs. In order to prosper as a person or a province good health is first; without good health we cannot have a good education or employment system, they all work hand in hand. Overall, we need for our premier to continue his determination to make this province what it deserves, so far, he has my vote of confidence. It takes all the people in the province and Canada to do this but you must have a strong leader i.e, as our premier. Thank you.
Comment by linda pollett — 1/31/2005 @ 1:37 pmI would like to see the total debt of the province eliminated. Instead of paying millions in interest charges every year, we could then put more into the health and education of the province.
Comment by Loretta — 1/31/2005 @ 1:44 pmThanks Kevin for using your expertise to provide me the opportunity to take part in this campaign. The Premiers of both Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador appear very pleased with the results. I guess only time will tell how it will benefit the province as a whole. I agree with some previous comments, it is now time to treat the “Whole” province equally.
Comment by Ellis — 1/31/2005 @ 1:45 pmFirst,I would like to thank Kevin and this web site for offering a venue for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to get involved.Secondly, accolades for all that took up the flag(the right one!)and finally to Mr. Williams and the government officials behind him who fought this,the first of many battles, Thank You for my children and grandchildren. Keep the site going in order to continue to provide a way of communicating with each other and politicians (in positive ways). Call it ” Proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians". Thank you.
Comment by Byron — 1/31/2005 @ 1:48 pmDanny Williams should live up to his Election Promise , On Education & Health Care, Outraged at his decision to stop the final phase on the medical Clinic in Grand Bank. Which was approved by the former Government.
Comment by Doug — 1/31/2005 @ 1:49 pmHow much money do you think he got?
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 1:51 pmHow is this money going to bring more employment to the province?
We can’t all cut trees in the ditches along side the roads.
“Danny Williams should live up to his Election Promise , On Education & Health Care, Outraged at his decision to stop the final phase on the medical Clinic in Grand Bank. Which was approved by the former Government.”
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 1:54 pmThe former goverment was to focused on over spending do we need to go down that road again?
This site made a big impact for a deal off the non renewal resource, oil and gas. Now it is time to make an impact on the renewal resource, the fishery. The Canadian government has been mismanaging this resource. It is time to start a movement to correct this.
Comment by Lloyd — 1/31/2005 @ 1:57 pmIt is indeed more than pleasing that the situation has resolved itself favourably for all concerned, at least in the short term. It is difficult trust so-called long-term solutions instituted by short-term politicians.
With all due respect get your budgets balanced and wean yourselves off of the federal teat as quickly as possible. Albertas finite reserves have been bled to the tune of better than 60 billion dollars. Despite such enlightened programs such as the NEP, we still have managed to get our financial house in order. You have an opportunity to do the same.
I foresee the day when huge streams of money will be siphoned from you to so-called have-not provinces like Quebec and British Columbia, and Ontario. These provinces of course do not have lumber, hydro, fishing, mining, tourism and the like the way you do or the way Alberta does. It must be a coincidence that the bulk of the country’s politicians have their troughs located in Ontario and Quebec.
Once the oil reserves are gone, or if thankfully we actually cease to need oil due to some sane method of propulsion, you will receive no further thoughts from Central Candada, except at election time.
All the best from the west.
Comment by Rolf Falkenberg — 1/31/2005 @ 1:58 pmGuess now is the time when everybody wants his share? Why don’t we think of this as our own budget, if you suddenly get a “lottery win” and spend it all (some unwisely), aren’t you back where you started. We should now hope that this revenue is taken care off and spent for the best possible effects by our government. Bet it won’t be too long before some people will be down on Mr. Williams and his government for their “poor spending practices” particularly if their requests for spending went unanswered.
I say congrats to Mr. Williams and crew.
Comment by Rhonda — 1/31/2005 @ 2:02 pmI’m very pleased that Premier Danny stood up for Newfoundland. I would like to know why periodically a surprise surplus shows up with the Federal Liberals and why it never seems to benefits the people of Nfld. who are on fixed income. Now that Premier Danny has shown all of Canada what he is made of, he should announce his intention to run for next Federal Prime Minister position. I would glady give of my time and energy to make this happen. May I suggest that a Newfoundland flag would be made available to all Newfoundlanders abroad so we can promote our beloved province.
Thank You.
Comment by Harrison A. Short — 1/31/2005 @ 2:05 pmYes I believe access to the Lower Churchill is important in the long term but most important now is the health care system. We need at least another 2 MRI’s on the Avalon Peninsula. Let’s see how fast we can accomplish that and to educate people to use them. Now is the time to get started. We have too many sick people waiting to get results in order to proceed with their recovery. How does everyone else feel on this issue? They have 7 in Nova Scotia and we have one MRI.Thank you for the great work you have done with this site.
Comment by Hope Hedderson — 1/31/2005 @ 2:07 pmMaybe he could take over the U.N or even better the USA.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:08 pmCome on man dont be so foolish prime minister williams.lol
I’m more than happy with the agreement reached. I would not advocate the disolving of the comittee at this time. I believe the situation should be closely monitored as our current government in Ottawa is in the babit of being less than truthful in most of their dealings
Comment by doug — 1/31/2005 @ 2:14 pm“We need at least another 2 MRI’s on the Avalon Peninsula. Let’s see how fast we can accomplish that and to educate people to use them. Now is the time to get started. We have too many sick people waiting to get results in order to proceed with their recovery. How does everyone else feel on this issue”
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:14 pmAT LEAST ANOTHER 2 MRI’S what about other ares on the island or labrador get just 1 MRI.
Unless the Laurentian or Orphan Basins are soaked with oil & gas or prices reach $ 90-
Comment by M.J. Butch Collins — 1/31/2005 @ 2:17 pm$ 100 / bbl equiv.( both of which are quite possible ), NFLB is likely facing an immense fiscal shortfall for many years . With the hydrocarbon resources presently known , NFLB will
not , even with 8-10 yrs of unfettered transfer
payments ,be able to ramp up its infrastructure to the national average . No doubt the offshore
agreement will help , but true , long term , self sustaining , economic success will be found in the fishery….oh Coaker , that we should see your likes again !! C’mon Gus , givem hell !!
You got alot of hopes for a fishery thats been dead for 20 years,maybe we can buy 2 bil dollers worth of fish from fish farms a restock the ocean.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:20 pmA Globe and Mail writer named Wente
Comment by Kathy McCormack — 1/31/2005 @ 2:20 pmPissed off Newfoundlanders aplenty
When she spouted her rot
Like a runaway snot
From a head that was otherwise empty
Danny should use the money for the most good for the most people. Don’t spend it on make work temporary jobs that will be required annually forever. Spend a few dollars on edjimacation das the answer to some of our problems. Now that Ottawa has gotten some common sense about our Probince insist that we get a fair percentage of Federal Civil Servants, a permanent Military Regiment or Naval Base stationed here . Insist on getting our Geographical Position utilized to the fullest , that means search n rescue headquarters . a better use of our Airline connections,Weather centres maybe an Atlantic Tsunami research center. There’s lots of Federal Dollars being spent in other provinces that we should be getting a share of. Finally See if we can get some better form of connection with the mainland of Canada. We are blackmailed by Nova Scotia on our Ferry Service . By Air Canada on our Air Service . We need a forum to understand our advantages and eliminate our negatives.
Comment by Jimmyjoe — 1/31/2005 @ 2:23 pmWith all that money we should be able to move the island closer to Labrador and we would be able to jump to mainland Canada.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:26 pm“We are blackmailed by Nova Scotia on our Ferry Service ”
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:29 pmHey that ferry service is there to keep trafic on nova scotia highways it has nothin to do with NL
“Lets pressure our gov’t to request a call for bids on development of the Lower Churchill.”
Haven’t they already?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 2:30 pm“What a big baby you are WJM sitin on the side crying about how unfairly you are being treated and waiting for someone to say something”
I’m waiting for Newfoundlanders to support their fellow provincial citizens.
Labrador stood with Newfoundland in a dispute with the federal government. Will Newfoundlanders stand with Labradorians?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 2:31 pm“I would like to know why periodically a surprise surplus shows up with the Federal Liberals and why it never seems to benefits the people of Nfld. who are on fixed income.”
What about the rest of the country?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 2:31 pmIsn’t it the LOWER HAMILTON river?
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:32 pmNo wait now it’s the LOWER GRAND river.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:32 pm“I foresee the day when huge streams of money will be siphoned from you to so-called have-not provinces like Quebec and British Columbia, and Ontario. These provinces of course do not have lumber, hydro, fishing, mining, tourism and the like the way you do or the way Alberta does.”
The BC and QC hydro industries are larger than NL. The forestry and mining industries in BC, QC, AND ON are larger than NL’s.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 2:33 pmWhat makes you think that the people of the island would not support labrador?
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:34 pmAnother issue affecting Newfoundland and Labrador is illegal oil dumping by the shipping industry off the south coast. Anyone have any concerns or thoughts regarding this issue?
Comment by Phil — 1/31/2005 @ 2:34 pmWJM if you build it they will come.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:35 pm“Finally See if we can get some better form of connection with the mainland of Canada. We are blackmailed by Nova Scotia on our Ferry Service”
We would have that, if the cheapskates in the Newfoundland government over the past fifty years would have spent some provincial money, from provincial revenue sources in Labrador, on building the Labrador highway.
Why is Newfoundland so dependent on a route through Nova Scotia? Because Newfoundland is too chintzy to reinvest in Labrador, to build a second route off the island via Labador, and to talk to Quebec about a common transport plan for northeastern Canada.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 2:35 pmThe bickering begins in ernest. We do not need to rush into spending this money on anything. Sure we could throw it at health care and education and in a few more years we could transfer all of these healthy, well educated folks to the mainland. The real bleeding in Newfoundland is in the death of communities, some several hundred years old, but this will not change until we get the economic house in order. If we spend this on health care and education we simply increase our debt on a year to year basis, and as noble an endeavor as that is, it will not help, but accelerate the decline of our province into the quick approaching mire.
With the savings in interest that could be attained in slaying that burly beast called debt we could actually reach a point where increases could actually be afforded and be for the long term.
Of course we could also look at the possibility of attaining a health care and education system comparable to that of many of the Nordic countries of Europe. But, that would mean saying good-bye to many of the luxury items we so dearly love. Even with this lottery win you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Comment by Duke — 1/31/2005 @ 2:37 pmWe can’t stop the tera nova oil rig from dumping oil,How are we going to stop other countrys fromm doing it?
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:37 pm“No wait now it’s the LOWER GRAND river.”
No, just the Grand River. “Lower” isn’t part of the name of the river, any more than “Lower Exploits River” or “Lower Manuels River".
The name “Lower Churchill River” is an invention of Newfoundland politicians and journalists.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 2:37 pmI think we should all give ourselves a well-deserved pat on the back! Congratulations Kevin on such a successful campaign!!!
Comment by Heather Whittle — 1/31/2005 @ 2:39 pm“What makes you think that the people of the island would not support labrador?”
Because they already don’t.
Anyone (like me) who calls for a fairer shake for Labrador, even in conformity with what Danny Williams Himself With a Capital H has said, is treated with suspicion or hostility.
Have you written a letter to Danny Williams yet, calling on him to live up to his committments of 2001 and 2003? Why or why not?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 2:39 pmURL wrong in last comment… apologies!
Comment by Heather Whittle — 1/31/2005 @ 2:40 pmLet it be said that we have accomplished something and move wisely to the next development. It is development that we need, good development while the developing is good.
It is a pity to see the petty voice of little reason rear its ugly head so quickly.
Comment by Duke — 1/31/2005 @ 2:41 pmI suggest that The Premier exercise extreme caution when deciding what to do with the $$. Two billion dollars seems like a lot of money, and it certainly is, but it can disapear very quickly when the needs are so great and the hands are so many. Caution and prudence Mr. Premier. We don’t have many chances left. Congratulations to you and Loyola on a fine job.
Comment by Jeremiah — 1/31/2005 @ 2:41 pmThanks WJM i did not know that i thaugh they called it the lower churchill because it was down river from the upper churchill.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:41 pmHave you written a letter to Danny Williams yet, calling on him to live up to his committments of 2001 and 2003? Why or why not?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 2:39 pm
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:44 pmYes i did WJM he told me to tell to stop the crying and get over it.
Hip Hip Hurrah for Newfoundlanders & Labradorians alike. & thanks to people like you, Kevin. Wish we had had premiers like Danny Williams and Clyde Wells years ago….fighting for the Province….maybe Newfoundland would not have LOST so many wonderful citizens to the Mainland and other parts of the globe.
Let’s monitor this Agreement closely and keep everyone at their word.
It’s a wonderful day to be a Newfoundlander.
Blanche
Comment by Blanche Walsh — 1/31/2005 @ 2:46 pm“Thanks WJM i did not know that i thaugh they called it the lower churchill because it was down river from the upper churchill.”
The project is, yes. There’s a Lower Churchill proejct. But it’s not on the Lower Churchill River, it’s on the lower Churchill River. That is, “Lower” is not part of the name of the river.
In any event, the name Churchill should be taken off the river. It was dropped, imperialistically, by Smallwood, in the same way that kings and queens of Europe scattered Leopoldvilles and Rhodesias across the map of Africa.
It’s a colonialist Newfoundland legacy, and it should be removed.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 2:47 pmWJM you say that the people of Labrador are being treated unfairly please tell us HOW you are being treated so bad.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:48 pmWhy do you call it CHURCHILL if you do not believe in the name?
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:50 pmWho cares what it’s called as long as it’s developed.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:52 pmKevin, congratulations on your work here in giving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a convenient way to make our views know. I hope that as more details become available we will find that we have truly gotten a fair deal.
Let’s not be too hasty in spending the money on new issues. I understand we have a provincial debt of over $11 billion. Interest on that debt is severely affecting our ability to put money into projects like health and education. Add to this an naturally aging population coupled with a trend of declining populations and we find ourselves in a position that if action is not taken to reduce the debt the level of services we have will have to decrease even further rather than increase. Premier Williams should either invest the $2 billion and use the income for debt reduction or put the whole $2 billion against the debt now. Future revenues coming from the Accord should be used to maintain / improve services.
Don’t be too quick closing up shop on Fair Deal. There is more work to be done. Examples: Fishing, Processing of Resources in province, hydro development plus hydro distribution corridor accross Quebec.
Comment by Keith — 1/31/2005 @ 3:01 pmThe project is, yes. There’s a Lower Churchill proejct. But it’s not on the Lower Churchill River, it’s on the lower Churchill River. That is, “Lower” is not part of the name of the river.
So what you are saying is it’s the lower churchill river.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 3:01 pmHey guy’s maybe Williams could put a end to the hockey lockout,world poverty,wars the possiblities are endless.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 3:05 pmWill somebody kindly tell garrulous ” Robert ”
Comment by M.J. Butch Collins — 1/31/2005 @ 3:10 pmthat the NFLB fishery is a RENEWABLE resource .
Proper management of a world-class protein source
could and should add enormous wealth to this province . It’s the proper management that’s missing…..forget past mismanagement ! We should
now begin new efforts to rebuild the fishery using any and all methods . A close look at Iceland’s fishery and economy may be helpful !
The important economic feature of this Atlantic biomass is that it can & should be sustainable ie. RENEWABLE !!!
It’s to late butch it will never come back.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 3:13 pmWho should manage the fishery?
WJM;
I am wondering what your connection is to Labrador. Are you a current resident? Were you born there? Or are you a current resident who also happened to be born there? Sometimes when we know a person’s background even if it is just slight, we can understand their point of view a little more clearly.
Also, I have not seen your full position written anywhere on what you believe is “a fair deal” for Labrador. How has Labrador been treated unfairly? What would it take for Labradorians to feel as a true part of the province from your point of view?
If you have someting written in answer to these questions elsewhere and accessible via the web, please post. I am very interested in seeing such a document.
Cheers.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/31/2005 @ 3:16 pmAlso, I have not seen your full position written anywhere on what you believe is “a fair deal” for Labrador. How has Labrador been treated unfairly? What would it take for Labradorians to feel as a true part of the province from your point of view?
If you have someting written in answer to these questions elsewhere and accessible via the web, please post. I am very interested in seeing such a document.
Cheers.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/31/2005 @ 3:16 pm
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 3:20 pmI have been trying to get him to answer the same question but he wont answer.
So i have to assume they are being treated fairly.
I’m both thrilled and heartened to see the success of this movement. Maybe it’s about time to create a Province of Atlantic Canada – an entity that would be bigger and stronger than four separate provinces, and as such might be more successful in getting Ottawa to take us seriously and pay attention to the needs of Atlantic Canada!
Comment by Andria L — 1/31/2005 @ 3:22 pmFirst, I would like to see a thank you letter sent to the Premier through this website. Secondly, I would like to see the Premier give Labrador the attention that it deserves, as a long time resident of Labrador I have seen our many resources leave Labrador with Labrador getting very little in return.
Comment by Maxwell Winsor — 1/31/2005 @ 3:24 pmIt was the persistance of Danny Williams that resulted in a fair deal. I have complete confidence in Danny and His Government in using the money wisely for the longterm economic good of the whole province.We have had enough of Liberal “piecemill” “gimes". Its time to have a well-structured business approach to economic development.
Comment by George Senior — 1/31/2005 @ 3:26 pmI think we should definetly keep this sight availabe for Newfoundlanders to lobby the federal government on other imortant issues, such as custodial management of our fishing grounds.thank -you
Comment by Mary Chancey — 1/31/2005 @ 3:33 pm#
It’s to late butch it will never come back.
Who should manage the fishery?
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 3:13 pm
The Trinity Bay stock and the South Coast stock were just as decimated as the offshore stock. Both have rebound and in the case of the Trinity Bay stock, it rebounded to levels not seen since John Cabot reported to the king. The difference is that overfishing stopped in the near shore stocks while the dragging continues offshore. That is directly related to federal government mismanagement. Stop the overfishing/trawler technology and the cod fishery alone will be worth 2 billion per year in less than 10 years.
The 200 mile limit, not the upper Churchil hydro deal, is the most destructive federal policy that we suffer from. The upper Churchil deal only cost us 800 million per year for 65 years while the 200 mile limit allows foreign countries to rape us everyday, forever.
Comment by Rick P — 1/31/2005 @ 3:36 pmI dont understand WJM he keeps saying labrador is being treated so bad,he thinks that they are the only ones with gravel roads,they have to travel to st john’s to see doctors they have no water and sewer.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 3:37 pmYou are no diferent then 90% of the island i live on the north east coast of the island we have gravel roads,we have to travel to st johns to see doctors and we dont have water and sewer I live in rual NL the population just isn’t there to support all needs thats just a fact of life we have to live with it or move.
They want a hospital like the Health sciences for a population of 25 000 people it’s never going to happen just like Gander hospital is never going to be like it.
The ashfalt roads we have here has been paved for 30+ years take it from me your better off with gravel.
I have friends from Labrador they come here to visit me and they know that i’m no better off than they are i live in a area where the population is so small the money is just not there to spend in this area thats a fact of life.
Well rick you might have fish that would frighten John Cabot, but i will tell you if Cabot was here where i live he would have to buy a fish at dominion.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 3:45 pmThanks to a united Newfoundland and Labrador, we now have a better future. I hope time will bring home many of our provinces lost people.
Dawson Gosse
Comment by Dawson Gosse — 1/31/2005 @ 3:45 pmYes WJM. the hydro, forestry and mining industries of On. BC and QB. are larger but the potential of NL.’s hydro, forestry and mining properties would give those prov. a go for the money.
Comment by Cyril — 1/31/2005 @ 3:47 pm200 mile limit allows foreign countries to rape us everyday, forever.
Comment by Rick P — 1/31/2005 @ 3:36 pm
How are they raping us? We dont control outside the 200 mile limit what gives us the right to control it?We couldn’t look after inside the 200 limit.
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 3:50 pmThanks to a united Newfoundland and Labrador, we now have a better future. I hope time will bring home many of our provinces lost people.
Dawson Gosse
Bring back lost people????? why would they want to come back here?
Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 3:56 pmWhat would they do,we have enough here now with nothing to work at.
I have had to leave and go away to work every year for the past 10 years and i will have to do the same this year.
It’s only 2 billion dollars guy’s how much do you think we can do with it?
I feel that nfld should be one of the lowest cost for gas in canada not the highest . I also know that you should look at doing full pkg for tourist eg. hotel , tour dinner and flight from Toronto during winter and summer . Nothing is offered with flight and hotel or B &B , DINNER AND TOUR . Hope you will look into these topic ’s which will help . Judith
Comment by Judith Warren — 1/31/2005 @ 4:17 pmcould you please send copy of the deal?
Comment by Boyd — 1/31/2005 @ 4:22 pmthank you
Boyd Bradbury
Fyi, folks, here’s roundup document from the provincial government, including the Premier’s speech earlier today:
Comment by Kevin — 1/31/2005 @ 4:27 pmhttp://www.gov.nl.ca/releases/2005/exec/0131n05.htm
I would love to see more jobs created so that all us transplanted newfies could come back home to live and work. I’m sure there are alot more people out there that had to move in order to live, lets us come back home.
Comment by Peggy, transplanted Newfie — 1/31/2005 @ 4:47 pm“WJM you say that the people of Labrador are being treated unfairly please tell us HOW you are being treated so bad.”
Labrador is the only rural region of the province that pays more in taxes to the two levels of government than the people receive in income support. That’s just counting personal taxes, not resource revenues, including revenues accruing to Newfoundland from fisheries off Labrador.
Yet, whenever Labradorians ask for a particular public service or public facility, the provincial government to which we contribute much, much more than our per capita share, tells us to go ask the federal government. They do it on highways, on policing, on infrastructure, on just about everything.
Furthermore, the government in St. John’s manages resources in Labrador without meaningful input from the people of Labrador, and without considering the need for economic development in Labrador. Right now, the pulp and paper industry in Newfoundland is eager to get access to Labrador “fibre". Little or no consideration is given to adding value to the product before it is loaded onto barges for Stephenville or Corner Brook.
In short, Newfoundland treats Labrador in a much worse way than that in which Newfoundland complains it is treated by RoC/the federal government.
If Newfoundlanders weren’t so hypocritical about it, it might not bother me so much.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 4:53 pmBrenda writes: “Were you born there?”
Fourth-and-more generation.
“Also, I have not seen your full position written anywhere on what you believe is “a fair deal” for Labrador.”
How about the same thing, mutatis mutandis, Danny Williams wanted for Newfoundland: 100% of Labrador resource revenues should go to Labrador. None to Newfoundland.
“How has Labrador been treated unfairly?”
- hydro sold for a song by Newfoundlanders;
- fisheries exploited for the benefit of Newfoundlanders, including by Newfoundlanders serving as federal Minister of Fisheries;
- mining developments developed for the benefit of Newfoundland labour during construction, Newfoundland processing where possible, and undersold where not;
- Labrador is not given fair access to “provincial” spending programs, notably in the areas of highways spending and tourism marketing. (When was the last time you say a picture of Labrador in a “Newfoundland AND LABRADOR” ad, for instance?)
- Labrador is the only economically self-sufficient rural area of the province, where people pay more in taxes and premiums than they recieve in income support benefits. Labrador (and metro St. John’s) is, in effect, subsidizing rural Newfoundland. That’s even before you count natural resource transfers.
“What would it take for Labradorians to feel as a true part of the province from your point of view?”
For the things I outline above to stop. For Newfoundlanders to treat Labrador they way they want Newfoundland to be treated. For Newfoundlanders to demand that Labrador’s contributions to the provincial treasury be reinvested in Labrador first and foremost. And for Danny Williams to live up to his words of April 2001.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 4:59 pm“I think we should definetly keep this sight availabe for Newfoundlanders to lobby the federal government on other imortant issues, such as custodial management of our fishing grounds.”
What does “custodial management” mean?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 5:00 pm“I have been trying to get him to answer the same question but he wont answer. So i have to assume they are being treated fairly.”
You are a liar. You have never asked me any such questions.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 5:01 pm“Yes WJM. the hydro, forestry and mining industries of On. BC and QB. are larger but the potential of NL.’s hydro, forestry and mining properties would give those prov. a go for the money.”
You can’t take “potential” to the bank.
BC and QC have enormous “potential” offshore petroleum industries.
BC and QC also have far more PROVEN productive forest lands than the relatively marginal forests of Newfoundland and Labrador. My cousin worked in the BC woods for many years, and on his trips home, would remark that all of the forestry tracts that are being cut in Labrador, would be written off as scrub in BC.
Yes, we have resources. But we are not Eldorado. The myth of Newfoundland, and esp. of Labrador as Eldorado has been a hindrance, not a help, to our economic progress. Why get an education, start a business, learn how to export, if politicians keep promising “an announcement that’ll BLOWWWWW your minds!"?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 5:04 pm“I dont understand WJM he keeps saying labrador is being treated so bad,he thinks that they are the only ones with gravel roads,”
Not only gravel roads, but in many cases, NO ROADS AT ALL.
It’s not that we have gravel roads; it’s that in 2005, when Labrador has given so much to the province, the proportion of gravel roads left on the island of Newfoundland is smaller than the proportion of pavement in all of Labrador. It’s that, whenever we demand more money be invested into such basic infrastructure, The Government Of The Province Of Which We Supposedly Are A Part tells us to go ask Ottawa.
How “united” is that tactic supposed to make us feel, when the government says, hey, we’re happy to take your resource revenues, but too poor to give any of them back to you?
“i live in a area where the population is so small the money is just not there to spend in this area thats a fact of life.”
Can you imagine the reaction if Margaret Wente said that?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 5:07 pm“I also know that you should look at doing full pkg for tourist eg. hotel , tour dinner and flight from Toronto during winter and summer . Nothing is offered with flight and hotel or B &B , DINNER AND TOUR”
There has never been anything stopping local tourism operators from doing just that. And some are.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 5:08 pm“Yes i did WJM he told me to tell to stop the crying and get over it.”
I highly doubt that’s what he said.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 5:10 pm“Why do you call it CHURCHILL if you do not believe in the name? Comment by Robert — 1/31/2005 @ 2:50 pm”
I rarely do, except if I’m quoting it or talking about the Lower Churchill project. The Lower Churchill project is proposed for the Grand River.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 5:11 pm“Who cares what it’s called as long as it’s developed.”
Why should it be “developed"?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 5:12 pm“So what you are saying is it’s the lower churchill river.”
There is a lower portion of the so-called Churchill River, yes.
There is no such river as “Lower Churchill River", though. “Lower” is not the part of the name of the river, and should never be treated as if it is. It’s an invention of the Newfoundland media and the provincial government.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 5:14 pmLets make sure this happens as it is supposed. Let’s not let sleeping dogs lie, lets keep the sentiment going….the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Comment by Collette — 1/31/2005 @ 5:18 pmWJM;
Thanks for answering my questions. You have the same generational connection as I to Labrador (4 generations from my mother back) although I was the first generation not to be born there. My family roots are why I have such a keen interest in the various views on the issue you have raised.
The only question not answered was whether you still reside in Labrador on a permanent basis. Could you answer this one as well?
Thanks.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/31/2005 @ 6:00 pm“The only question not answered was whether you still reside in Labrador on a permanent basis. Could you answer this one as well?”
For the time being, no.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 6:09 pmIt is a great deal for Newfoundland & Labrador and its about time. I hope the first on the list is to take care of the Health Care more MRI machines and our seniors are taken care of as they are what made Newfoundland & Labradorians what we are today great people Way to go Danny
Comment by Brenda D — 1/31/2005 @ 6:09 pmThank-you Kevin for this opportunity and congratulations on a brilliant idea, positive action and great compaign. Vigilance is a necessity. Newfoundland & Labrador still have many issues to be resolved like fishing rights.
Comment by Margaret Davis — 1/31/2005 @ 6:10 pmAgain, Thanks.
While we’re asking questions, where are your four generations of Labrador roots currently residing? Where in Labrador are your Labrador roots?
I don’t have 4 generations in Labrador; I have a *minimum* four generations. That is, the last time one of my ancestors wasn’t born in Labrador it was 1852. On other branches, I go back to Cain.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 6:11 pmThe debt is of most importance; however, if the money was used for business investment - good business ventures - we could have it all - an increased working population, meaning an increase to the number of people paying into the tax pot, this would lead to increased revenue with increased ability to reinvest more into good business ventures, which leads to more people moving back to NL and Lab, and the chain reaction will continue, at which time, we can start to lower government fees such as vehicle renewals, etc. It will take a tough person like Danny to accomplish this.
Comment by Debbie Cashin — 1/31/2005 @ 6:12 pm“if the money was used for business investment - good business ventures”
Why should the government invest in business?
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 6:15 pmI suggest keeping the people of Newfoundland a breast of other developments. In no way can anyone in Canada trust the Liberal Party.
Also how can Newfoundland benefit in real terms?
What business activity can be targetted to improve the overall financial situation. I also believe that it is time wwe, as citizens, take back from our politicians our country. They have lied enough and its time to hold them accountable.
I thank you for your efforts and encourage more action which will ensure accountability at all levels of government.
From Ontario.
Comment by Greg McHale — 1/31/2005 @ 6:52 pmNewfoundland will continue to have serious fiscal problems regardless of how much of the money flow is diverted into provincial coffers. Nobody won the lottery and it would be dangerous to think of things that way.
Alberta’s example of a ‘rainy day’ fund should be considered. Money in the bank is the ability to act! Even though N&L is $11 Billion in debt, that should not be the sole focus either.
A big lesson that comes out of this is that N&L voices (home and away) can make a difference if they are raised loudly enough and with enough logic and good sense.
So, Danny, enjoy the victory. I hope it is a real one for N&L. But don’t be surprised that the next focus of the kind of attention this blog raises is you. It’s like the old Robert Redford movie about a candidate trying to get elected. When, at the end of the movie, he looks uncertain and confused, asking only, “What now?”
If we see that same sort of crap that has gone before (boot factories, sprung greenhouses, Inco giveaways, fishery give aways, scam jobs and con artists) then lets raise out voices again.
N&L needs to collectively think in the long term. Lets build solid bases for industry. Lets grow our population. Lets educate our people so we can generate the smartest bunch on the planet dealing with those who would harvest our resources for a pittance. Lets see if we can bring some focus to a great fishery lost, with the goal of recovery. Patience, energy, persistence, and yes, money.
Lets demand the best of ourselves and the people who represent us.
Lets forget the quick fix.
Sorry for the speech, but I believe it.
Comment by Randy Raymond — 1/31/2005 @ 6:54 pmCongratulations to the Gov’t of Newfoundland & Labrador. Lets just hope they remember all the people who live in this beautiful province, and all the different issues that they have. congrats to you Kevin on a great site.
Comment by don hallingham — 1/31/2005 @ 6:56 pmHi WJM:
I can try to sympathize with you here. You have very valid points, and I do believe that the opinion of ALL Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is important.
I am both French and Native on the west coast of the island. My grandparents were not allowed to speak French and it is all but dead here. Most do not even know/appreciate the people here… it definitely wasn’t considered in the days of Joey Smallwood.
I like to consider myself a different generation. Voisey’s Bay has an adjancy(sp?) clause… land disputes are being settled.
Like the province in Canada, Labrador must go forward too. I truly feel that he has the best interest of us all at heart.
It all takes time
Comment by Pauline — 1/31/2005 @ 7:14 pmCongratulations to the Gov’t of Newfoundland and Labrador on finally reaching a deal with Ottawa. Was it the best possible deal?? Only time will tell. I’m sure Joey Smallwood thought he had the best possible deal with Churchill Falls. Time has a funny way of making a good deal go bad, but as Williams said, 16 years from now he won’t be Premier… someone else will have to deal with it then.
Comment by David Welcher — 1/31/2005 @ 7:19 pm“N&L needs to collectively think in the long term. Lets build solid bases for industry. Lets grow our population. Lets educate our people so we can generate the smartest bunch on the planet dealing with those who would harvest our resources for a pittance. Lets see if we can bring some focus to a great fishery lost, with the goal of recovery. Patience, energy, persistence, and yes, money.”
I totally agree with you, Robert
Comment by Pauline — 1/31/2005 @ 7:22 pmoops… Randy… I apologize
Comment by Pauline — 1/31/2005 @ 7:23 pmCher kevin,
Comment by Jean yves Beaulieu — 1/31/2005 @ 7:50 pmJ’ai suivi avec intérêt, votre campagne pour la défense de vos droits provinciaux, pour ce qui est des redevances sur le pétrole devant être extrait à Terre-neuve et en Nouvelle-Écosse. Je suis content du résultat, vous avez réussi à faire entendre raison, au gouvernement fédéral le plus centralisateur depuis la confédération, sur les droits des provinces etje vous en félicite, n’hésitez pas à utiliser le bilinguiste à l’occasion cela aide les Québecois comme moi à être plus attentif à vos revendications.
Bonne chance et à la prochaine
Jean Yves Beaulieu
Laval Québec
I am not from Newfoundland but supported you in trying to get a fair deal. Now we need to push for lower taxes it would be good for all Canadians
Comment by Don Petrie — 1/31/2005 @ 7:51 pmJean yves Beaulieu comments translated using Alta Vista’s Babel Fish:
Expensive kevin, I followed with interest, your countryside for the defense of your provincial rights, as regards the royalties on oil having to be extracted in Terre-neuve and in News-Scotland. I am content with the result, you succeeded in making hear reason, with the federal government centralizing since the confederation, on the rights of the provinces etje congratulates you, do not hesitate to use the bilinguist on the occasion that helps the Quebecers like me to be more attentive with your claims. Good chance and in nearest the Jean Yves Beaulieu Laval Quebec
Comment by Martha Collier — 1/31/2005 @ 8:28 pmWJM suggests that ALL Government resource income generated in Labrador should be expended for the
Comment by M.J. Butch Collins — 1/31/2005 @ 9:23 pmbenefit of those 24,700 souls living between Nain and L’Anse au-Clair . While this is a warm &
goodnatured sentiment, it falls squarely into the class of puerile and emotional twaddle that should be avoided here . Perhaps Buchans,Tilt Cove and Bell Island should claim the hundreds of $millions they contributed to the provincial economy..Ridiculous!
WJM;
“Where in Labrador are your Labrador roots?
The Straits.
To be clear, I don’t have 4 generations now living there. Starting with my mother on back to her great-grandfather, my family can be traced back 4 generations in Labrador. I apologize for causing any misunderstanding.
Again thanks for your previous answers.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/31/2005 @ 9:27 pmI think the deal is a good thing for N.L. but one thing we have to remember is we never got into this fiscal situation overnight and we are sure as hell not going to get out of it overnight.
Comment by Robert J Murphy — 1/31/2005 @ 9:32 pmWe are on the road to recovery,with a long way to go. forget the N.S ferry the next step is a fixed link to labrador.
Comment by Robert J Murphy — 1/31/2005 @ 9:35 pmKeep this site going kevin. We have a lot more major issues to deal with.
Comment by Robert J Murphy — 1/31/2005 @ 9:46 pm“WJM suggests that ALL Government resource income generated in Labrador should be expended for the
benefit of those 24,700 souls living between Nain and L’Anse au-Clair. While this is a warm &
goodnatured sentiment, it falls squarely into the class of puerile and emotional twaddle that should be avoided here.”
Is it also “puerile and emotional twaddle” to suggest that “100%” of the revenues from offshore oil and gas should accrue to NL or NS accordingly?
Why or why not?
“Perhaps Buchans,Tilt Cove and Bell Island should claim the hundreds of $millions they contributed to the provincial economy..Ridiculous!”
They could so claim, but they’d be lying.
Labrador IS contributing a net of hundreds of millions to the provincial treasury, LET ALONE the economy. Buchans and Bell Island are not.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 10:27 pm“We are on the road to recovery,with a long way to go. forget the N.S ferry the next step is a fixed link to labrador.”
Labrador isn’t an island.
The fixed link – which isn’t feasible – would go to Newfoundland.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 10:28 pmButch, were Danny’s comments of April, 2001, quoted above, also “puerile and emotional twaddle"?
Again, why or why not?
Why is economic colonialism only bad when Newfoundland is the alleged colonised? Why not when Newfoundland is the coloniser, and not the colonised?
People like you always make me go back to Memmi.
Comment by WJM — 1/31/2005 @ 10:30 pmWJM:
I really do sympathize with your points. Progress takes time. It sure ain’t overnight. My culture cannot be saved now. Yes, I live on the island, but it isn’t much different.
I don’t think anything I would say would make you lighten up anyway. I would give Voisey’s Bay as an example. Many people in Labrador would rather see people in Quebec there. They show less respect…
People often say: “I hate Newfoundlanders” at work. If I said anything like: “I hate it here in Labrador,” I’d be fired. I can often understand why, but as with my group, it isn’t the generation of today that doesn’t ask your opinion – no more than they ask our opinion on anything.
Comment by Pauline — 1/31/2005 @ 10:46 pmI am neither a Newfoundlander or a Labradorian but I have friends in Newfoundland and a great love of the province. It’s wonderful that there is now much more econimic hope for the province, but I would like to say this: USE THE MONEY WISELY. Just as Newfoundlanders, the rest of Canada would like to see the province prosper and no longer need the equalization payments when this is all said and done. All of Canada would benefit from that. Keep an eye on Mr. Williams and make sure that he is fiscally responsible.
Comment by Peter — 1/31/2005 @ 10:57 pmPS. Can we now expect to see a Canadian flag flying at Mr. Williams home?
The next step is to get control of our fishing rights. Stop foreign fishing in our waters so we can put our people back to work. Paul Martin has to be told he should grow a backbone and take action to stop it.
Comment by Daniel Soucy — 1/31/2005 @ 10:58 pmReply to ROLF FALKENBERG–
Comment by Peter — 1/31/2005 @ 11:17 pmPerhaps when you come down from your high and mighty ‘western’perch in the mountains you will get a little more oxygen in your bloodstream and your brain will function better. Currently there are only two provinces which do not receive equalization payments. Ontario and Alberta. Ontario is the manufacturing heartbeat of this country and has become that way through years of hard work and committment by it’s people unlike Alberta which is riding the ‘oil slick’ Let’s see where you are when the oil runs out. Oh yeah, running back to Ontario for jobs.
I hope Memmi understands your emotional condition
Comment by M.J. Butch Collins — 1/31/2005 @ 11:51 pmand strives to teach you the error of your ways .
Labrador deserves a good deal more than it gets
presently but not an amount somehow calculated by static & unbalanced economics . Nobody is
claiming that Labrador hasn’t been occasionally
abused and colonized..(I suspect that’s how your family got there )ask a Dorset Eskimo if you can find one . It’s time to stop whining and start some sensible planning and liaising with the provincial powers to accomplish something for Labrador . Now git !!!
I’m from B.C., but my best friend is an ex-pat Newfie, so how could I do less?
Comment by Ruth Nicol — 2/1/2005 @ 1:58 amPlease keep on sending the rest of Canada your music and your magnificent comics.
PS Who the hell should get the oil money if not Newfoundland/Labrador?
We love ya!
Cheers
Ruth
Alta vista’s babel fish produces babel in its translations.
Peter - you might actually want to pay attention to Rolf to find out what real clawbacks are and what deep-seated grievence really looks like.
As for what next? The site will shut down, most likely. People will get on to other things. The signle issue that brought together such a wide range of people is done. Now you go back to your previous positions and see what you might agree with or who you might agree with next. That’s the nature of democracy.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 2/1/2005 @ 7:12 amWe finally have a government in power with a man at the helm that knows business and has the guts to fight Ottawa and win what is rightfully ours. I hope we have the sense to keep him there.
There is still lots of inequities to be corrected, including the upper Churchill Falls power and the lack of support for the fisheries. Ottawa has the power and responsibility to correct these injustices done in the past, and still being done,whether they have the guts and backbone to do this remains to be seen.
Comment by Everett Adams — 2/1/2005 @ 8:08 amEditorial from the Toronto Star today
Finance Minister Greg Sorbara insists the federal government should give Ontario an extra $4.8 billion this year, because Ottawa is in the black while this province is deep in red ink.
With Ontario generating 40 per cent of the economic activity in Canada, Sorbara says it is only right that Ottawa give the province 40 per cent of its expected surplus this year, which amounts to $4.8 billion.
Sorbara backs up his claim to the money by noting Ontario taxpayers send $23 billion more to Ottawa than they get back.
While these arguments are not particularly persuasive, no one can blame Sorbara for laying claim to a share of the federal surplus after Prime Minister Paul Martin caved in last Friday to the demands of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
After a fit of pique in which Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams refused to fly the Canadian flag, Martin agreed to let the two provinces keep all the revenues they collect from offshore oil and gas for eight years without having to give up any equalization payments they receive from Ottawa as have-not provinces.
The two eastern provinces can keep the money even if the wealth from the offshore makes them as rich or richer than Ontario in that time.
Not only that, but Martin agreed to give them the bulk of their equalization money up front: Newfoundland a cheque for $2 billion this year, and Nova Scotia gets $830 million.
Needless to say, most of that money comes out of the pockets of Ontario taxpayers; the balance comes from the taxpayers of Alberta.
If there is a principle underlying these latest federal-provincial deals, we cannot see it. This is especially true when the offshore oil and gas resources legally belong to all Canadians, not just citizens of the two Atlantic provinces, which do not have jurisdiction over offshore resources.
Equalization is not the only federal-provincial revenue-sharing program no longer based on sound and sensible principles that are meant to give coherence to Confederation.
The Canada Assistance Plan, a program under which Ottawa once paid 50 per cent of the cost of social assistance in every province is no longer grounded in any set of well-defined rules. Ottawa now simply gives provinces as much or as little as it wants.
How much is that?
No one can say for sure because the money is lumped together with Ottawa’s equally arbitrary contributions to post-secondary education.
It doesn’t stop there. As a clearly frustrated Sorbara points out, “Quebec receives about $3,800 per immigrant from the federal government for settlement and related work while Ontario currently receives about $820 per immigrant,” although the vast majority of immigrants settle in Ontario.
That is no way to run a country.
It is time to go back to the drawing board, to look at who is responsible for what and how well existing federal-provincial revenue-sharing arrangements fit in with that.
The last time we did that was nearly 70 years ago. That’s when the Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission pointed to the clear need to reinforce Canada’s constitutional division of powers with revenue-sharing arrangements that gave Ottawa and the provinces the fiscal capacity to do their respective jobs.
The time to re-introduce fairness and principles into federal-provincial revenue sharing is long overdue.
Comment by Daphne — 2/1/2005 @ 8:59 amDanny’s great strengths when dealing with Paul Martin was his ability to focus and concentrate our thoughts on Martin’s & Efford’s weak case &
Comment by M.J. Butch Collins — 2/1/2005 @ 9:32 amhis communication to Martin that he could not be bought. Martin is not yet familiar with politicians who cannot be bribed , promoted or
otherwise bought and he looked & acted perplexed
and bewildered.The offshore deal , such as it is,
should shine as an example , especially in NFLB ,
of political ethics and rot resistant endurance .
Compare and contrast with some other NFLB federal
politicians…..ugh !
“My culture cannot be saved now.”
I disagree with that statement, and I question your use of the passive mood.
“I don’t think anything I would say would make you lighten up anyway. I would give Voisey’s Bay as an example. Many people in Labrador would rather see people in Quebec there. They show less respect…”
Less respect than what?
Put yourselves in the position of someone in Labrador who can’t get employment at a resource development in Labrador. Assuming the same qualifications for the job, does it matter to the local person whether the person who came in and was given that job came from St. Lawrence or Ville Saint-Laurent?
“People often say: “I hate Newfoundlanders” at work. If I said anything like: “I hate it here in Labrador,” I’d be fired.”
Where’s work?
“I can often understand why, but as with my group, it isn’t the generation of today that doesn’t ask your opinion – no more than they ask our opinion on anything.”
The generation of today is no different than the generation of Ches “Let them starve” Crosbie.
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 10:33 am“I hope Memmi understands your emotional condition
and strives to teach you the error of your ways.”
What is the error of my ways?
“Labrador deserves a good deal more than it gets
presently but not an amount somehow calculated by static & unbalanced economics.”
Labrador has probably the stablest economics of any part of the province.
“Nobody is claiming that Labrador hasn’t been occasionally abused and colonized…”
I’m not claiming “occasionally” at all; I’m claiming continuously.
“(I suspect that’s how your family got there)”
Some of them.
“It’s time to stop whining and start some sensible planning and liaising with the provincial powers to accomplish something for Labrador.”
We’ve been trying for a century to get them to use their powers for good, not evil.
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 10:41 amComment by M.J. Butch Collins — 1/31/2005 @ 11:51 pm
Lets unite now. This is not about the short term temperal things. This has been a victory for Newfoundland and Labrador, we are in this together.We need to remember that our forefathers worked and fought for this land we all love no matter where we may be living today. Lets support those in power in our “country"(NL)It’s not important what party is leading… It’s how they lead that counts. Let use wisdom as we hold them accountable for how our affairs are handled.
Comment by Corey Randell — 2/1/2005 @ 10:57 amWJM, in your last post you wrote “Nobody is claiming that Labrador hasn’t been occasionally abused and colonized…” (somebodys quote)
Your response: “I’m not claiming “occasionally” at all; I’m claiming continuously".
Now when everybody was saying the same thing about N&L being abuse or as some have phrased it treated unfairly you cry foul, however you have no problem saying it with regard to Labrador.
I have no problem agreeing with you when it comes to Labrador but if you can not accept the people in this blog saying the same thing with regard to the province as a whole you should not be able to use that statement by default.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/1/2005 @ 11:02 amI’m delighted that our collective efforts apparently contributed to Newfoundland’s getting a “fair deal". It just goes to show that every individual voice does count and that together we CAN make a difference. The originator of this Fair Deal website is to be congratulated - this is definitely using technology to inform our politicians. Let’s continue to use this increbile medium to get the voice of the people heard.
My dissapointment is that I still do not know what exactly the deal is, the media here in Upper Canada has been strangely silent on the matter. I’ve heard nothing on the local CBC here in Ottawa or nothing from the Ottawa Citizen. Heaven knows there was plenty of coverage when Mr. Williams lowered the flag in protest.
Comment by Pat Trites — 2/1/2005 @ 11:24 amPat Trites
B Scaplen: “Now when everybody was saying the same thing about N&L being abuse or as some have phrased it treated unfairly you cry foul, however you have no problem saying it with regard to Labrador. I have no problem agreeing with you when it comes to Labrador but if you can not accept the people in this blog saying the same thing with regard to the province as a whole you should not be able to use that statement by default.”
Why not?
There’s a very big difference: Newfoundland has 100% legislative control over the use of most of its resources, and shared control over the rest. Newfoundland has almost no one else to blame but itself – not others, not some malignant coloniser – itself, for the troubles it has found itself in from time to time.
Labrador, on the other hand, has no standing, no existence, no authority to control any of its own destiny.
If you can’t see that difference, you have no right to complain about “N&L being abuse".
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 11:42 am“My dissapointment is that I still do not know what exactly the deal is, the media here in Upper Canada has been strangely silent on the matter.”
If you can post to this web site, then you have access to all the same information that anyone else has, including the media.
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 11:43 am“we are in this together.”
Are we?
“We need to remember that our forefathers worked and fought for this land”
Your forefathers denied the electoral franchise to my forefathers for over a century.
“we all love no matter where we may be living today. Lets support those in power in our “country"(NL)”
Your country may be “N", but it’s not NL.
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 11:45 amWow … something actually interesting from WJM!
“Why is Newfoundland so dependent on a route through Nova Scotia? Because Newfoundland is too chintzy to reinvest in Labrador, to build a second route off the island via Labador, and to talk to Quebec about a common transport plan for northeastern Canada. ”
Couldn’t agree more. For the benefit of all of the province, we should develop better transportation systems in Labrador to link with the rest of Canada. Some cooperative highway planning with Quebec would benefit both provinces and Canada in general. A little competition for the NS ferry service couldn’t hurt either.
Difficult? Expensive? Probably. Worth it? Absolutely!
The possibilities for development that decent transportation infrastructure to Labrador would offer are incredible … industrial development and tourism to name just two!
How about a 10 year plan to develop that infrastructure, Danny?
Comment by Randy Raymond — 2/1/2005 @ 12:42 pmWJM, I have every right to voice my opinion or too complain. The only thing to be questioned is if my opinions or complait is valid. I have no problem with that(nothinh like a good arguement),however it appears that you have a problem with your’s being questioned. So in the future respond to the comments but leave out the part about what I have a right to do or not to do. Thank you very much!
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/1/2005 @ 12:51 pmBS: “if you can not accept the people in this blog saying the same thing with regard to the province as a whole you should not be able to use that statement by default.”
Me: “If you can’t see that difference, you have no right to complain about “N&L being abuse".”
Note the use of the word ‘if’ in both statements.
Thank you.
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 12:57 pmThe people booing John Efford and standing in response to the premier’s request to give the prime minister a “round of applause"……. How bizarre!! John Efford’s fall from grace is a direct consequence of Paul Martin’s corruptive influence. The fact that Danny was able to wrench from the greedy grip of the Ottawa clique a tiny extra portion of what they’ve robbed from us is no testimony to Danny’s skill, wonderful thou that may be, but rather to Martin’s tenuous hold on power. Had Martin won a majority government he would have told us to go kiss his arse just as did Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau, Deifenbaker and Pearson before him. If there was any one of them who had qualms of conscience about the manner in which Newfoundland had been ripped off , it was St. Laurent (uncle Louis), but even he was persuaded to turn a blind eye by the sleevenery of the likes of Jack Pickerskill.
Take my word for it , when the clamour and the shouting dies, this will not be seen as any great victory but rather a further tightening of the bonds that bind us in our state of subservience . Contrary to what Danny says, this is not about pride and dignity; it is about conformity. How can there be any real joy or celebration amongst a people who have no control over their own destiny.
Comment by LCR — 2/1/2005 @ 1:02 pmWJM, so I only have the right “If” I see the difference is that what was inferred. My right to free speech is protected whether I am informed or not regarding any issue. The really sad thing I find here is, you have made many valid points, many of which I would back you on 100% but it seems your back is up. Perhaps mine would be too if all these negative comments were directed at me. I applaud your tenacity, it’s your approach I have a problem with.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/1/2005 @ 1:23 pmHey guy’s WJM is full of shit don’t pay to much attention to anything he has to say he’s just a bitter old man who has nothin else to do only cry about how unfairly labrador has been treated and he doesn’t even live there.Instead of trying to do something to help the people of labrador all he does is sit on the back row of chairs and talk to himself.If you asked anyone from labrador about him they would say WHO.
Comment by Robert — 2/1/2005 @ 2:48 pmI agree with Kevin. Why stop here? There are some other policy problems and mistakes in the Canada-NL relationship that can and should be corrected. The political conditions make it slightly more possible. A minority federal government, a relatively strong premier in St. John’s, and a greater public focus on our province and its challenges.
I would suggest that efforts turn towards obtaining greater provincial control over our own fisheries reosurces. There are many models for doing this. Peckford suggested some in the 1980s. The Grime government also put together a white paper in 2003 available at
http://www.gov.nl.ca/releases/2003/exec/0526n06.htm
These are the templates for joint management that would ensure that future decisions about the fishery must be consented to by the government of NL instead of simply being ramed through by DFO.
all parties in The House of Assembly have andorsed this concept. All party multi-level ocmmittees of NL MPs and MHA endorse it, the Royal Commission also support this general concept. Yet Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Geoff Regan, Robert Thibault, Stephan Dion and others have point blank refused to do this. This refusal for years upon years has mean some very improper deicsions have been made regarding quotas, zones, sealing, etc etc
It’s the ultimate perversity of our present system that most major interests and popular interests in the area adjacent to these resources think joint management is just fine. Yet the central government, concerned with Non-NL Canadian interests, is able to completely ignore the province on this issue.
If this issue doesn’t strike the fancy, some others might want to consider focusing on what policies need to be in place address future hydroelectricity concerns.’
In any case, I think the battle has only just begun. I thank Kevin again for providing this forum and all of his work on this issue.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/1/2005 @ 2:49 pmIf this issue doesn’t strike the fancy, some others might want to consider focusing on what policies need to be in place address future hydroelectricity concerns.’
In any case, I think the battle has only just begun. I thank Kevin again for providing this forum and all of his work on this issue.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/1/2005 @ 2:49 pm
I’m sorry to have to say this but according WJM if your not from “labrador” you have no right to talk about “labradors” Hydro.so you will have to find something else to talk about.
Comment by Robert — 2/1/2005 @ 2:55 pmI think we should continue this effort and focus on N&L’s big issues.
Offshore oil is one, but for now it has been addressed … whether that means sucess for N&L is yet to be seen. I am hopeful.
Hydro-electric develpment in Larador is another. How would those of us participating here support actions to improve that situation? I hope, N&L will never get caught in a Churchill Falls deal again. That means being willing to walk away.
Infrastructure - transportation, education, health … all enablers for economic and social development.
Fisheries - this is a huge issue.
Liam - thanks for the link to the N&L government white paper. There are some very good things in there particualrly about the ‘arms length’ board and conservation issues. Of course, Ottawa will pay nothing otheh than lip service (if that) to it because they don’t have to …. Yet! This could be a good long term goal for this site.
Perhaps in the same way we made a noise about it we can make some noise about the fisheries. If there was anything that could be said to define Newfoundland & Labrador, thats it.
How can we support the general approach of the N&L whitepaper (or whatever reasonable proposals are out there)? I fear that many are willing to accept that this resource is gone forever. It can be recovered not in the short term, but in the long view.
Let see if we can maintain an effort to bring attention to this issue not just in Newfoundland & Labrador, but wider understanding in Canada and internationally. Cod can be cute too! You should see ‘em dance.
Comment by Randy Raymond — 2/1/2005 @ 4:58 pm“Hey guy’s WJM is full of shit don’t pay to much attention to anything he has to say he’s just a bitter old man who has nothin else to do only cry about how unfairly labrador has been treated and he doesn’t even live there.”
In which case Kevin had better shut down this site, right?
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 5:51 pm“If this issue doesn’t strike the fancy, some others might want to consider focusing on what policies need to be in place address future hydroelectricity concerns.”
I think we should focus on future ELECTRICITY concerns. Hydro if necessary. Not necessarily hydro.
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 5:52 pm“I’m sorry to have to say this but according WJM if your not from “labrador” you have no right to talk about “labradors” Hydro.so you will have to find something else to talk about.”
Can you read my mind? How do you know according to me whatever?
Why is Labrador in quotation marks? Is Labrador somehow questionable?
Newfoundlanders can talk about Labrador hydro all they want. However, if they do not talk about the issue in a way that puts the needs and aspirations of Labradorians first, front and centre, and foremost, then Newfoundland is buying itself a world of pain.
The warning shots were fired this past weekend in Labrador City.
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 5:54 pmI think Premier Williams fought a good fight to get the deal. Let’s give him some leeway and see what he does. I’m sure he’ll be prudent in his delivery of the funds but I think he’s going to stay the course he set before the deal and we can expect more trimming of some government services. The healtcare is in a shamble and we need more people to deliver the services that are already there but with long waits for treatment, tests, etc.
Comment by dennis morgan — 2/1/2005 @ 7:17 pmNewfoundlanders can talk about Labrador hydro all they want. However, if they do not talk about the issue in a way that puts the needs and aspirations of Labradorians first, front and centre, and foremost, then Newfoundland is buying itself a world of pain.
The warning shots were fired this past weekend in Labrador City.
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 5:54 pm
Please explain?
Comment by Robert — 2/1/2005 @ 7:49 pmWJM wrote,"Newfoundlanders can talk about Labrador hydro all they want. However,if they do not talk about the issue in a way that puts the needs and aspirations of Labradorians first, front , centre and foremost then Newfoundland is buying itself a world of pain".
I’m assuming it’s because the hydro resource is situated on the Labrador part of the province.
I’m also assuming then (in this vein of thinking)that he would expect that “the needs and aspirations of people living in Newfoundland should be put first, front , centre and foremost with this recent offshore oil deal “. That’s the way I interpreted it.
I feel sure that not one person in Newfoundland would make such a statement. We are supposed to be one province . Instead of “WE” and “THEY” , it should be “US” and strive to work together.
Comment by EMP — 2/1/2005 @ 8:03 pmEMP:
The reaction of islanders (particularly “townies") to Labradorians sense of alienation is really curious in light of the way islanders (particularly “townies") look at the mainland.
We are one country from coast to coast and yet I presume you would reject utterly the idea that Newfoundland and Labrador should be treated the same as everyone else. In fact when we are, as in the Accord, we develop elaborate and often falsely-based, arguments that we are victims.
It’s like people who talk about separation on the assumption that somehow the people of Labrador must simply follow along simply because of their definitely of “we” and “they". Well, within the province there are different defintions of those terms.
Well if it ever comes to such a vote don’t be surprised if Labradorians opt to stay with Canada. The assumption that Labrador must slavishly follow along with St. John’s is even more ludicrous than the Quebec separatists idea that egions of Quebec could not be allowed to make their own determination of whether or not to stay within Canada. After all, labrador can be defined geogrpahically very easily and it is home to diverse cultures who have no partiuclar connection to St. John’s.
The very attitude that Labrador is “ours” is the same attitude people who supported this site would rail against if voiced by anyone suggesting that resources like the offshore should be developed for Canadians as a whole and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in particular.
What you think is “yours” is often not really yours at all.
Canada should not be “we” and “they” but “us” as well.
I’ll now wait for the deluge of nasty replies.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 2/1/2005 @ 8:43 pm;-)
“"The warning shots were fired this past weekend in Labrador City.”
Please explain? ”
If the media would have reported on Ben Michel’s speech, I wouldn’t have to.
I’m trying to scare up a transcript.
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 9:07 pmI guess All the Unions Now feel, It’s Party Time. They Want The Money Spent On Health care.But Spending Money On Health Care, Do Not Mean Big Fat Raised For The workers, Thats How We Got In this Mess, The first Time. Spending Money can never solve our Helath Care Problems. That Has to be done by the workers themselves. If they would understand, if they work harder and smarter, There would be no health care problems.
Comment by Hubert — 2/1/2005 @ 9:23 pmAt the moment , if Danny boards a flight for Ottawa , they’ll close the airport ! But sometime
Comment by M.J. Butch Collins — 2/1/2005 @ 9:38 pmsoon he and Mr. Sullivan oughta mastermind an
enormous multipronged assault on DFO’s blind and
stupid mismanagement of the east coast fishery .
The objective would obviously be rejuvenated cod
stocks etc.
This massive protein stock was so capriciously
doled out and arbitrarily traded that its near
destruction can only be attributed to deliberate
and intentional disregard .A large effort by the
prov. gov’t in tandem with the private sector ,
labour , science and other interests would , I
believe , find a receptive ear across Canada .
This should not be expensive in $$$ or political capital and merely postulates common sense .
In Canada’s self-interest…….a replenished
ground fishery can be profitably retraded for votes in the UN etc.
A totally unified approach to this problem has never occurred…given its economic importance
and its historic cultural importance….the time
has come .
One province? One country?
“Outside the overpass” or west of the first overpass you come to when leaving the capital region on the island, there’s a feeling that the townies are blindsided by urban comforts and oblivious to how life is lived “around the bay".
City-side of the overpass … Well, there’s such a mix of townies and baymen … errr baypersons…. it’s hard to say what mentality prevails.
We would have to be blind and stupid not to see how Labradoreans feel that they are outside looking in. And that’s the middle-aged-white-male of demographic infamy. Now, imagine how you’d feel if you were Innu or Innuit living in Labrador while that infamous demographic fought over the land your ancestors had lived on and lived by. Then you’d have a huge reason to feel alienated and angry.
I hope that venues such as this blog can help us come to better understanding of each other as well as provide a powerful tool to promote the best kind activisim and change.
We live in a great big province, inside of a great big country. There will always be differences. There will always be debate. These are healthy things when they are embraced with an open mind.
So, let’s keep it going, and encourage more people to jump in. We can’t expect the country to unify if we can’t unify our own province.
Comment by Debra — 2/1/2005 @ 11:46 pmIf you include Gnatwasheesh , does anybody know how many $$$$ hundreds of millions has been dropped on coastal Labrador in the past 6-7 yrs ?
Comment by M.J. Butch Collins — 2/2/2005 @ 12:22 amI’m not suggesting they don’t deserve every cent
and $$$ billions more but it’s often helpful to
keep abreast of debits & credits in the beehive
of industrial activity that is coastal Labrador .
Most of these people are ” spurtchal ” and deserve as much money & amenities as we can possibly afford and we should endure every possible discomfort & sacrifice to ensure their wellbeing and good fortune .
Et aussi -
Jean Yves Beaulieu
Comment by Debra — 2/2/2005 @ 12:29 amMerci
Here is a (somewhat of a pipe-dream) suggestion for a new direction for this website:
Comment by Mark Scott — 2/2/2005 @ 3:21 amDiscuss specific, small-scale improvements that need to be done to infrastructure all around the province (or ideas for business development). People could hash out ideas through this forum, perhaps experts in various fields could volunteer their time to do feasability assessments. Local and ex-pat Newfoundlanders and Labradorians could donate money to support any idea that they think is worthy; and people in the communities could donate work-time. This would be sort of a grass-roots infrastructure development.
For example, if a community needed a new wharf to attract business, this forum could be used to discuss the idea, and anyone who wanted to support it could donate a few dollars to support it. People in the community could organize volunteers and together (with monetary support from donations) actually build the thing.
I realize it’s a bit of a daydream, but if we could mobilize donations from all those ex-pat Newfoundlanders and Labradorians (like me) and groups of volunteers in the communities willing to do some work, some important advances could be made.
Any ideas on possible projects?
To commemorate the new offshore deal with Ottawa I have created an abstract graphic which can be viewed here: http://www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=141431 Hope you enjoy it
Comment by Owen Russell — 2/2/2005 @ 6:59 amPlease feel free to copy the low res version of my image to your computer: http://www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=141431 Prints up to 16 x 20 are available at that site if anyone is interested.
Comment by Owen Russell — 2/2/2005 @ 7:55 am“The reaction of islanders (particularly “townies") to Labradorians sense of alienation is really curious in light of the way islanders (particularly “townies") look at the mainland". and “I’ll now wait for the deluge of nasty replies". Comments by Ed Hollett
Ed I think your own comments are nasty enough. Your use of “townies” as a dirty word to insult a mulitude of people is beyond sad. You even go as far to say townies in particular, you must have telepathy to be able to read a townies mind, well I’m townie can you guess what I’m thinking now.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/2/2005 @ 8:15 amNext I think the provincial government should try and secure a power deal for Gull Island with Ontario and the Eastern US; they’ve already shown interest. Get some backing from anywhere but Quebec to construct an underwater power corridor. Then literally cut the wires to Quebec and export Upper and Lower Churchill power on our terms.
Comment by Owen Russell — 2/2/2005 @ 11:48 amB Scaplen.
Sorry your sensibilities got a little ruffled.
I used the word “townie” for a reason and it was to point out that the attitude toward Labrador is particularly found among people in St. John’s. It is a provocative term, but as I said I used it deliberately.
Once you get past the overpass, that sense of “we are all one” starts to fade very quickly. That is the point: Among certain groups of people with certain backgrounds, one set of perceptions are found. Get into another context and you find something else.
The views are there and they are not universally true. But then again, as I said, if you looked at this website, you will find people ready to tar all “Mainlanders” with one brush even though attitudes vary.
Th term “townie” still gets tossed around, less though among people in St. John’s because they don’t like the implciations. If we were each to sit back and take a broader look at things, you’d be able to see that the same ire that word aroused in you is no less valid (or more valid) than the people of Labrador who feel that they have a grievance against islanders in general and “St. John’s” in particular.
“We” are not all as one. Never were. never will be.
if you look at Debra’s comments, I think she made my point much more elegantly than I did. Perhaps you’d like to take issue with the substance of what is being said.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 2/2/2005 @ 11:51 amI noticed in my summers spent in Newfoundland( I was sent to school in the states,during the winter) when I was a kid,that there were considered two kinds in Newfoundland.
Comment by Linda — 2/2/2005 @ 11:56 amOne was the townies,the other the baymen,both hard working.
Only problem was,and this was widely talked about by the baymen,was there perception was,the townies looked down on them,or thought less of them.
Is this still the case?Or have things changed for the better,and now there is no more of that nonsense?
Mark I totally agree with you,and if Kevin is willing,then I’ll do all I can to help:)Anyone else on board?
Comment by Linda — 2/2/2005 @ 11:58 amEd, as a born and bread townie with bay roots, I have no problem with the word being used to describe people fron St. John’s, as I use baymen to sometimes refer to my bay friends of which I have many and all the salt of the earth. If I was ship wrecked on a deserted island, I would only wish to have a bayman along because he’d have something or other rigged up and we’d be home in a few days, ingenuity is one of their many great attributes. It is the context it is being used that lets you know if it is being used as a figure of speech or to insult. If that wasn’t your intention I accept the sorry of you comment, although I wasn’t completely sure if that was sincerity or sarcasm. But, and there is always a but, I disagree with you that townies have that attitude towards Labradorians. I think it is easy to say that about townies simply because the seat of government is in St.john’s. You may have a point if you said that about the provincial government but I believe you are wrong to label that attitude as pervasive among the citizens of St. john’s. I speak from some personal experience as I have lived here all may life and I married a girl form Labrador. Now I’m sure there are some but you can find A-holes everywhere, St.John’s, around the bay and even in Labrador.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/2/2005 @ 1:41 pmME:“My culture cannot be saved now.”
WJM: I disagree with that statement, and I question your use of the passive mood.
ME:I like to consider myself a different generation. Voisey’s Bay has an adjancy(sp?) clause… land disputes are being settled.
WJM: What jobs?
Debra(I Think: We live in a great big province, inside of a great big country. There will always be differences. There will always be debate. These are healthy things when they are embraced with an open mind.
So, let’s keep it going, and encourage more people to jump in. We can’t expect the country to unify if we can’t unify our own province.”
I DO AGREE WITH YOU, DEBRA(I THINK THAT’S YOUR NAME. DISAGREEMENT IS EVERYWHERE.
AS FOR YOU, WJM:
I have tried not to judge your opinion and your comments… I have not disagreed with you….
DON’T JUDGE ME!!!
I am entitled to my opinion, and you know less than I do about my people(as I know less of yours)… I/people around me worked in Labrador. Most were great, and I agree with their opinions, but some chose to take it all out on me.
What jobs, you ask? Go for a tour and see how many jobs are elsewhere… there are no more for anyone. Most around me work for minimum wage.
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY:
A Canadian/Federal program that ensures that a percentage of women, persons with disabilities(me), aboriginal persons and more culturally-diverse persons get fair work opportunities ie: If there are 40% women, 20% aboriginal persons, 18% disabilities, etc, then the workforce is supposed to accomodate accordingly.
Voisey’s Bay is a good example. Persons throughout Labrador are/were trained to work there so that they could be properly represented. If someone from Labrador was able to do/be trained in a position, they were/are. I AGREE WHOLE-HEARTEDLY!
Either you misunderstand my words or you just cannot agree with anyone here.
Main message: Don’t judge my people if you know nothing of them…. I’m not judging you—I agree with you! But I am offended that you attack me like that.
Pauline
Comment by Pauline — 2/2/2005 @ 5:25 pmB Scaplen:
Well, actually, if you have listened to no less a program than Open Line you would have heard the host refer to Labrador resources as “our” resources to be exploited for the benefit of all in the province. He took exactly the view I described to the stero-typical “townie” view. Call it a St. John’s view , if you like. That part isn’t as important as the attitude.
Labrador resources are “our” resources. But “our” resources are to be developed for everyone (within Newfoundland and Labrador) here and God help anyone from the mainland who expects us to share a bit when we are a “have” province. Or more to the point, God help some person from Labrador who objects to claiming “his” resources as “ours".
Comment by Ed Hollett — 2/2/2005 @ 5:36 pmNo sooner than several of us had blogged about the dying cod fishery and they hold a conference about methodologies required to replenish same .
Comment by M.J. Butch Collins — 2/2/2005 @ 5:49 pmGeez !! This is a powerful medium !!
Is GOD listening ? If YOU are….please have a look at the caplin stock….much obliged !!
God may not be listening, M.J., but Kevin is! Now, the next thing to think about, seeing as we’re all for Kevin keeping this blog up to discuss issues of province, culture and country (as well as a little sparring on the side) is how we can support Kevin in this endeavour, if he decides to take it on.
Comment by Debra — 2/2/2005 @ 11:50 pmIt’s a lot of work, ya know.
Through our leader and govt.,people may now finally realize that Canada don’t stop at Nova Scotia and that we are a very proud and distinct society.I say now that the ball is rolling let’s look at the Lower Churchill and re-opening the Upper Churchill contract With Quebec.I wonder what Margaet Wendt will print now about the smart people of Newfoundland.I think the Premier’s work and dedication to Nfld.And Labrador and it’s people speaks for itself and this is only the beginning of what will be a memorable era.
Comment by anthony — 2/3/2005 @ 2:38 pmWente’s latest column.
Cheers.
I want Danny Billions on my side!
By MARGARET WENTE
Thursday, February 3, 2005 - Page A21
We’ll have to change his nickname to Danny Billions now. Two billion dollars up front, guaranteed, no strings attached, is not too bad a chunk of change for a little place like Newfoundland. You’ve got to hand it to the guy. He extracted one sweetheart of a deal. Even if oil prices go way down, he’ll still get his money. No wonder they’re partying it up in Newfoundland.
Playing politics with Ottawa has always been a high-stakes game of poker, and Danny Williams bluffed like a champ. He also showed how a guy can get rewarded for bad behaviour. As for our Prime Minister, I can’t help feeling he got hosed. His first mistake was to promise Danny everything he ever wanted in a desperate pitch for Liberal votes at election time. Later on, when Danny got all huffy, he threw in his cards and folded.
It wasn’t the first time, either. When faced with a bunch of belligerent premiers, Paul Martin appears to have a spine made out of cooked spaghetti. Perhaps it’s his eagerness to please that gets him into trouble. Remember the health accord? That was when he promised to fork over $41-billion to the provinces, no strings attached, so they could fix health care for a generation. He called it a great day for Canada.
But the real trouble with the way Ottawa plays poker with the provinces is all the side deals. Everybody’s got one. Jean Charest got a side deal on health, because Quebec is very special. Newfoundland and Nova Scotia got a side deal on resources because they’re extra special. (Mr. Martin referred to their “unique economic situation,” meaning they’re drowning in debt.) You won’t hear the other premiers object. That’s because they see an opening to get more, too. “We rejoice in their good fortune,” said the Finance Minister of Saskatchewan, where they really have been hosed by Ottawa over oil revenues. He wants to renegotiate pronto.
“Everybody’s lined up now,” says Anne Golden, head of the (non-partisan) Conference Board of Canada. In a report issued this week, the Conference Board argues that the whole business of redistributing money among the provinces has become a hopelessly incomprehensible mess. The one-off deal with Newfoundland and Labrador is part of the problem. “If we keep treating equalization as a kind of poker game where we keep bidding up the pot and Ottawa writes cheques, we may end up discrediting the system,” she says.
The principle behind equalization is simple. Its purpose is to establish a reasonably comparable level of basic public services across the country. Essentially, it is a transfer of funds from the “have” provinces (Ontario and Alberta) to the “have-nots” (everybody else). The trouble is, nobody on Earth can explain in simple terms who is getting what, and why. The equalization formula itself is so arcane that only a handful of people understand it.
We now spend nearly as much on equalization payments as we do on defence. This year, it will be $10.9-billion (up from $8.7-billion), plus another $2-billion for the territories. Every year from now on, the amount will go up by 3.5 per cent. This year, Newfoundland and Labrador will get $1,666 a person. (It gets to keep all its equalization money for years to come, even if its oil revenues make it richer than Ontario.) Manitoba will get $1,365. Quebec will get around $650. The fat cats in Ontario (that includes me) will send $23-billion more to Ottawa than we get back.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind sending money to our less fortunate brothers and sisters for better schools and health care. It’s the Canadian way. But one problem with this deal is that everybody on the mainland feels ripped off. Even the Toronto Star, that arch-defender of redistributing the wealth, feels ripped off. The way we see it, Danny pulled a fast one and Mr. Martin let him get away with it. The irony is, Mr. Martin won’t even get the votes the rest of us have paid so dearly for. Danny Billions was so successful at uniting all of Newfoundland against Ottawa that people there have sworn they will never vote Liberal again as long as they live.
I’d like to congratulate Mr. Williams on a job well done. The man plays one mean game of poker. He’s visiting Toronto today to tell us why Newfoundland deserves every penny. Do you think we might be able to get him interested in being our premier?
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 2/3/2005 @ 3:03 pm“Next I think the provincial government should try and secure a power deal for Gull Island with Ontario and the Eastern US”
Why is it OK to export power to generate spinoff economic activity in Ontario or the US… but not to Quebec?
“Get some backing from anywhere but Quebec to construct an underwater power corridor.”
Any suggestions as to who would underwrite this?
Is an underwater power line technologically and financially possible?
“Then literally cut the wires to Quebec and export Upper and Lower Churchill power on our terms.”
What Upper Churchill Power? “Cut the lines", and Hydro-Quebec’s ownership share goes up.
Comment by WJM — 2/3/2005 @ 10:00 pmEd Hollett: “Well, actually, if you have listened to no less a program than Open Line you would have heard the host refer to Labrador resources as “our” resources to be exploited for the benefit of all in the province.”
The other night, the Nightline host was shocked – SHOCKED! – that in 2005, “we” still can’t get “our” power from Labrador to the island to fuel new industries.
I was shocked – SHOCKED! – that in 2005, rather than think first of locating any such new industries closer to the power (and thereby eliminate the transmission costs, let alone the poor diesel-dependent domestic customers in coastal Labrador, this media personality though first and foremost, “How can this resource of ‘ours’ benefit ‘us’?”
OK, maybe I wasn’t that shocked.
I’ve said before; it’s a dang shame that Innu-eimun, with its two forms of the first person plural – one inclusive of the audience, one exclusive – isn’t the official language of the province. It would make it a lot clearer who “we” and “us” are.
Comment by WJM — 2/3/2005 @ 10:04 pmPauline: “WJM: What jobs?”
???
“I have tried not to judge your opinion and your comments… I have not disagreed with you…. DON’T JUDGE ME!!!”
Have I yet?
“What jobs, you ask?”
I really don’t remember having asked that.
“But I am offended that you attack me like that.”
Like what?
Comment by WJM — 2/3/2005 @ 10:08 pm“My culture cannot be saved now.”
I disagree with that statement, and I question your use of the passive mood.
“I don’t think anything I would say would make you lighten up anyway. I would give Voisey’s Bay as an example. Many people in Labrador would rather see people in Quebec there. They show less respect…”
Less respect than what?
Put yourselves in the position of someone in Labrador who can’t get employment at a resource development in Labrador. Assuming the same qualifications for the job, does it matter to the local person whether the person who came in and was given that job came from St. Lawrence or Ville Saint-Laurent?
“People often say: “I hate Newfoundlanders” at work. If I said anything like: “I hate it here in Labrador,” I’d be fired.”
Where’s work?
“I can often understand why, but as with my group, it isn’t the generation of today that doesn’t ask your opinion – no more than they ask our opinion on anything.”
The generation of today is no different than the generation of Ches “Let them starve” Crosbie.
Comment by WJM — 2/1/2005 @ 10:33 am
__________________________________________________
1. Explain yourself when you “disagree, questioning the use of my ‘passive’ mood.” You blow off my speaking to you of MY dying culture on the west coast(and, yes, it IS dying). That IS judging someone without prior knowledge.
2. I owe an apology… you didn’t say, “What jobs?” You said, “Where’s work?” Still applies though.
Comment by Pauline — 2/3/2005 @ 10:47 pm“I was shocked – SHOCKED! – that in 2005, rather than think first of locating any such new industries closer to the power (and thereby eliminate the transmission costs, let alone the poor diesel-dependent domestic customers in coastal Labrador, this media personality though first and foremost, “How can this resource of ‘ours’ benefit ‘us’?””
Voisey’s Bay ore, for one, could and would be fully processed in Labrador, if it were not for the good people of the north coast, who said no to the idea. And from an environmental standpoint I can’t say I blame them. With this fact before you though you can hardly claim that industry hasn’t tried to get nearer to the source of power, at least in this instance.
Comment by Owen Russell — 2/5/2005 @ 12:18 pm“1. Explain yourself when you “disagree, questioning the use of my ‘passive’ mood.” You blow off my speaking to you of MY dying culture on the west coast(and, yes, it IS dying). That IS judging someone without prior knowledge.”
No, that is asking you why you say “Cannot be saved". That statement is in the passive mood. Cannot be saved by whom?
Cultures and languages CAN be brought back from the brink. I’d like to see the francophone and descendent communities on the west coast build up their links with the Magdalen Islands, with the Acadian communities in Cape Breton, New Brunswick, and Minganie, and work with other, stronger francophone communities to salvage, recover, and restore what has been eroded.
“2. I owe an apology… you didn’t say, “What jobs?” You said, “Where’s work?” Still applies though.”
I owe you an apology for asking you what workplace it is where people say “I hate Newfoundlanders"?
Comment by WJM — 2/5/2005 @ 3:40 pm“Voisey’s Bay ore, for one, could and would be fully processed in Labrador, if it were not for the good people of the north coast, who said no to the idea.”
1) When did they do this?
2) Is there no other region in Labrador? I can think of at least five communities that were interested in a processing plant emanating from the VB development.
“With this fact before you though you can hardly claim that industry hasn’t tried to get nearer to the source of power, at least in this instance.”
When did VBNC/Inco “try to” do that?
Comment by WJM — 2/5/2005 @ 3:41 pmWJM, “When did VBNC/Inco “try to” do that"?
They never did because they didn’t have to, or more correctly no condition was ever put in the agreement to ensure that they would have to, by the provincial Liberal government of Roger Grimes. That only enforces the point that we are our own worst enemies, which you have stated many times in your comments, the “we” that these “unfair deals” or “sell outs” always lead back to are the Liberal party, Voisey’s Bay just the last in a long list. So it is not townies or the unwillingness of Newfoundlanders in general to support Labradorians for there fair share. The Voisey’s Bay deal was done in spite of the opposition to it and rests solely on the shoulders of Roger Grimes and his government. I would be interested in knowing if you opposed that deal and if so did you respond in any way to the Liberal government of the day to show your displeasure? I would hope so being the Labrador advocate that you are.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/7/2005 @ 8:30 amB. Scaplen: “They never did because they didn’t have to, or more correctly no condition was ever put in the agreement to ensure that they would have to, by the provincial Liberal government of Roger Grimes.”
Try Brian Tobin. Why? More votes on the Avalon than in Labrador. I don’t remember any groundswell of opinion in Newfoundland, back in 1996, that the smelter should go to Labrador. Instead, there was a groundswell that it should be “in the province", which = on the island of Newfoundland.
“So it is not townies or the unwillingness of Newfoundlanders in general to support Labradorians for there fair share.”
Yes, actually it is.
“The Voisey’s Bay deal was done in spite of the opposition to it”
How much of that opposition, ON THE ISLAND OF NEWFOUNDLAND, stemmed from the fact that Labrador wasn’t getting its fair share?
If anything, there was a lot of grumbling that the Innu and Inuit had too many fingers in the pie.
“I would be interested in knowing if you opposed that deal and if so did you respond in any way to the Liberal government of the day to show your displeasure?”
I argued from the start that the spinoff benefits should be concentrated (sorry, pun) in Labrador, but we lost that battle in 1996.
Comment by WJM — 2/7/2005 @ 2:28 pmWJM, “Try Brian Tobin. Why? More votes on the Avalon than in Labrador. I don’t remember any groundswell of opinion in Newfoundland, back in 1996, that the smelter should go to Labrador. Instead, there was a groundswell that it should be “in the province", which = on the island of Newfoundland".
Correct me if I’m wrong but Brian Tobin was not Premier When that deal was signed it was Roger Grimes, he could have changed anything he wished. So because one or both of those guy would rather have the smelter on the island portion of the province for their own personal benifit to get re-elected you blame that on townies or everybody living on the island. I geuss Tobin and Grimes were just innocent bystanders, the responsibility for making that decision goes to the Liberal government. To blame Newfoundlanders for the decision making of Brian and Roger is to foolish to talk about. I don’t need to be reminded that we the people who vote them in so it is our blame, because I didn’t vote for either. Funny I’ve never been consulted before they made any decisions, I must be the only one out of the loop.
“"The Voisey’s Bay deal was done in spite of the opposition to it”… How much of that opposition, ON THE ISLAND OF NEWFOUNDLAND, stemmed from the fact that Labrador wasn’t getting its fair share"?
I do not have that information and neither do you, the opposition was because it was a bad deal in general, and even after the fact of having the smelter on the island there was still opposition. If anyone opposed Labradorians from getting the smelter it would have been communities around Argentia, and they were just trying to improve their situation, right or wrong it’s hard to fault them for that and by the way that is not a part of town.
You can not blame anyone for the Voisey’s Bay Deal but the Liberal government in power at the time. They are responsible if it is not fair to Labrador, Roger Grimes didn’t care about Labrador or Newfoundland when he inked that deal. He was only concerned about himself and his party being re-elected, the good thing was we all saw through it.
I believe you have more people on your side when it comes to Labrador then you know, you just refuse to hear it. For some reason and I can only assume because you are affiliated with them, you refuse to lay blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the preivous Liberal governmnet who have made and would have continued to make bad deals had they not been removed from office. So all the ranting that you do in regards to making our own bad deals is true in most cases but it is the decision makers who bear responsibility not the general population. We can only hope they are telling us the truth about their agenda’s, which would be very naive to believe but that and past practice is all we have to go on. The leaders only tell us what we want to hear long enough to get elected and then they do as they please. Thankfully this time past practise came back to bit them in the ass.
Time will tell if Danny Williams falls in that same category or not so until such time I will hold judgement. So far so good.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/7/2005 @ 5:45 pmB.Scaplen: “Correct me if I’m wrong but Brian Tobin was not Premier When that deal was signed it was Roger Grimes, he could have changed anything he wished.”
The decision as to where to place the smelter had already long been made before the deal to develop the mine. It was made even before negotiations fell apart. Argentia was chosen in 1996.
“So because one or both of those guy would rather have the smelter on the island portion of the province for their own personal benifit to get re-elected you blame that on townies or everybody living on the island.”
Why not? Again, I don’t remember any great groundswell of “Fair deal for Labrador.” Do you? Can you post a clipping or something about that effort?
“To blame Newfoundlanders for the decision making of Brian and Roger is to foolish to talk about.”
Good! Then I hope to hear an end to the central Canadian conspiracy theories on this site, as well.
“I do not have that information and neither do you, the opposition was because it was a bad deal in general”
That opposition is now in government.
I’m still waiting for Glorious Leader to demonstrate the loopholes and flaws in the deal that he railed against as opposition leader.
“If anyone opposed Labradorians from getting the smelter it would have been communities around Argentia, and they were just trying to improve their situation, right or wrong it’s hard to fault them for that and by the way that is not a part of town.”
What’s “town"?
“You can not blame anyone for the Voisey’s Bay Deal but the Liberal government in power at the time.”
I can blame Newfoundlanders collectively for not doing onto Labrador as they would have done onto them. And I will. And I do.
“I believe you have more people on your side when it comes to Labrador then you know, you just refuse to hear it.”
I’m listening.
What I hear is:
- paper mill towns wanting “access to fibre” in Labrador, and Danny Williams working to deliver it to them.
- a government that wants an “infeed” to the island at all costs, as part of the future hydro development of Labrador, even if it makes no economic sense.
- a fisheries industry that only believes in adjacency to the extent that it keeps nasty Maritimers and Quebecers out of Newfoundland waters, but rejects it as a principle once Labrador or Nunavut waters and allocations are under consideration.
That’s some of the things I hear when I listen.
“For some reason and I can only assume because you are affiliated with them, you refuse to lay blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the preivous Liberal governmnet”
I have no affiliation with any provincial government.
“Time will tell if Danny Williams falls in that same category or not so until such time I will hold judgement. So far so good.”
Danny Williams lied to the people of Labrador, when he promised that he would treat us as he expected to be treated by Ottawa.
So far? Not so good.
Comment by WJM — 2/7/2005 @ 6:25 pmWJM, I have read every single comment on this blog and there is more than enough evidence to suggest, many people, at least on this site, agree with many things you say regarding Labrador.
“Why not? Again, I don’t remember any great groundswell of “Fair deal for Labrador.” Do you? Can you post a clipping or something about that effort"?
If you a Labradorian are not willing to start something of that nature, and this response comes from your way of thinking, why should I or anybody else. Out of all the comments I have read on this blog where somebody supported some of the things you said regarding Labrador, I never once read something positive come back from you. You just dismiss that part of their comment and continued on to berate the author for how something was phrased.
First of all you have to get over your belief that every sigle Newfoundlander is against Labrador, that is simply not true. Now I’m sure there are a number of people who would fall on the opposite side of the fence but that is true of any issue.
If you really want to change things for Labrador you could stop paying lip service and create the fair deal for Labrador groundswell yourself. But first you would have to stop alienating those who share some of your concerns just because the live on the island. I’m not sure you can do that or even if you want to, you seem to be content in you disdain for Newfoundlanders.
You asked what’s “town", that is St. John’s hence the term “townie". After all the times that has been thrown around here I find it hard to believe you were confused by it.
You also have a habit of hauling out one or two lines of text from a comment which can seemingly change the intented meaning when not view as a whole. I think you do that to suit your own needs to hear what you want to hear not what is actually being said.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/8/2005 @ 8:06 amSt. Caribooshit , the patron saint of Northern
Comment by M. J. Butch Collins — 2/8/2005 @ 9:52 amParts , has spoken….” all Newfoundlanders are
inherently anti-Labrador ,we spend huge amounts
of time planning ways to screw Labradorians .No
doubt the blame for gas-sniffing , alcoholism ,
spousal abuse , child neglect ,drug abuse ,common
assault ,wanton destruction ,lawlessness , $ 500
a bottle whisky and grievous swarms of mosquitoes
lies squarely with the people of Fogo and Englee
As partial atonement for our transgressions I
suggest that ” all ” monies collected from offshore resources , including the $ 2 billion
up front , be sent to the joint councils in Labrador and that no further improvements to the
TCH be undertaken untill the Labrador Highway is
completed as a twinned , paved highway .
B. Scaplen writes: “If you a Labradorian are not willing to start something of that nature, and this response comes from your way of thinking, why should I or anybody else.”
We’re supposedly “all one province".
Why does the southern part of the province never organize itself in support of Labrador?
Whenever we DO try to change your collective mindset towards Labrador, you attack us.
“First of all you have to get over your belief that every sigle Newfoundlander is against Labrador, that is simply not true.”
I never said it was; you are imparting to me a belief I don’t hold.
“If you really want to change things for Labrador you could stop paying lip service and create the fair deal for Labrador groundswell yourself.”
It’s not up to me. Whenever I try and get Newfoundlanders motivated to change their attitude towards Labrador, I get the reaction… well, the one I’m getting from you. The same is true whenever ANY Labrador does so. It’s not up to me to change Newfoundland’s attitudes. It’s up to Newfoundlanders.
“You asked what’s “town", that is St. John’s hence the term “townie". After all the times that has been thrown around here I find it hard to believe you were confused by it.”
I wasn’t confused by it. I was confused by your use of it, because I had never used it in the first place. Why did you?
“You also have a habit of hauling out one or two lines of text from a comment which can seemingly change the intented meaning when not view as a whole.”
No, I provide enough context to show what I’m responding to. Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay.
“I think you do that to suit your own needs to hear what you want to hear not what is actually being said.”
No, I do that so that people like B. Scaplen will see the context in which I am posting a message in response.
Unforunately, people like B. Scaplen don’t seem to understand that.
Comment by WJM — 2/8/2005 @ 3:01 pmI understand perfectly, you think you are better, smarter and have all the answers. You are here to push buttons, unfortunately the buttons you push are self serving and are not pushed to elicit constructive meaningfull dialogue.
You have stated many times what you think of Newfoundlanders.
Here is your comment regarding me:
“It’s not up to me. Whenever I try and get Newfoundlanders motivated to change their attitude towards Labrador, I get the reaction… well, the one I’m getting from you".
What exactly is the attitude you are getting from me? I have stated many time I agree with many of your points regarding Labrador, this is a perfect example of you only hearing what you want to hear. I have also stated that my problem has more to do with your approach not the points being made. As far as you getting Newfoundlanders motivated, you must be kidding, are you saying all the posts you have written were supposed to motivate people. If you mean motivate them to get pissed off, but not in any constructive way then I would agree.
The first quote you hauled out of my comments was, and I will put all of it in this time, If you a Labradorian are not willing to start something of that nature, and this response comes from your way of thinking, why should I or anybody else.
This is the part you left out: out of all the comments I have read on this blog where somebody supported some of the things you said regarding Labrador, I never once read something positive come back from you. You just dismiss that part of their comment and continued on to berate the author for how something was phrased.
You didn’t respond to that part and that was the point being made.
Talk about motivation!
I believe it has already been said by someone on this site that you are full of shit. I tried to reserve judgement but I guess they know you better than I and now I will have to concur.
You do not talk to people you talk down to them or at them. You should take a course to improve your people skills and then maybe you could try the motivation thing again.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/8/2005 @ 5:23 pmB. Scaplen, I couldn’t have said it better myself. It isn’t worth your energy to carry on a dialogue with WJM. It is counterproductive and frustrating.
Comment by Sarah — 2/8/2005 @ 7:06 pmDid you see the CBC report on Natuashish tonight? Well at least it’s the Feds they are blaming for all their woes, and rightly so to some degree. But given a chance, maybe WJM can turn that all around and blame the Island for that whole fiasco too.
Comment by Owen Russell — 2/8/2005 @ 10:18 pmWJM, One last comment from me to show your hypocrisy.
I SAID:
You can not blame anyone for the Voisey’s Bay deal but the Liberal government in power at the time. Footnote: Because there was a lot of objection from the island regrading the deal.
Your response was:
“I can blame Newfoundlanders collectively for not doing onto Labrador as they would have done onto them. And I will. And I do".
Then I made this comment about how I feel you believe all Newfoundlanders are against Labrador.
First of all you have to get over your belief that every sigle Newfoundlander is against Labrador, that is simply not true.
And you replied:
“I never said it was; you are imparting to me a belief I don’t hold".
So you hold us collectively responsible but you don’t blame us. Well what was your first reply if not that belief. It all amounts to the same thing and quite adequately expresses in your own words your feelings regarding Newfoundlanders.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/9/2005 @ 10:43 amWell said, B.Scaplen!
I have supported Labrador, and will continue to. WJM, negative attitudes towards us ALL doesn’t help. I don’t feel that I should be hated by yourself for being from the island. It is like I said before(I know, I may be setting myself up again):
We ARE a different generation (politicans are politicans, no matter where you are from). And I think we(together) share many frustrations. There are MANY woes in Labrador, I do know that… learning more so thanks to yourself and to Ed. But there are many woes everywhere.
———————————————–
WJM, “When did VBNC/Inco “try to” do that"?
B.Scalpen: “They never did because they didn’t have to, or more correctly no condition was ever put in the agreement to ensure that they would have to, by the provincial Liberal government of Roger Grimes…”
———–
After working on site and hearing people from there say that the people voted it down, and another saying “we didn’t want it anyway.”
As Owen Russell said: “Not as I blame them”
Heck, I wouldn’t want it in my area.
I wish I could give you a reference… I will try the company itself…. I agree with Owen… I heard that it was voted down. I’ll research it…. you can do the same.
Please correct me if I’m wrong… next time, I will try to do the same with facts.
Pauline
Comment by Pauline — 2/9/2005 @ 4:24 pmB. Scaplen: “I understand perfectly, you think you are better, smarter and have all the answers.”
No, I think I have my own opinions, my own knowledge of the facts, and an overwhelming urge to call BS when I see BS.
“You are here to push buttons, unfortunately the buttons you push are self serving and are not pushed to elicit constructive meaningfull dialogue.”
We’re ALL here to push buttons. 25,000 or so “buttons” have been pushed through this web site. Are some buttons sacrosanct and some vulgar?
“Here is your comment regarding me: “It’s not up to me. Whenever I try and get Newfoundlanders motivated to change their attitude towards Labrador, I get the reaction… well, the one I’m getting from you". What exactly is the attitude you are getting from me?”
Denial that there’s a problem, at best; hostility at worst.
“As far as you getting Newfoundlanders motivated, you must be kidding, are you saying all the posts you have written were supposed to motivate people. If you mean motivate them to get pissed off, but not in any constructive way then I would agree.”
We have spent over a century in Labrador playing nice, writing nice letters, being nice nice nice nice nice, and Newfoundlanders… do nothing.
I’m sick of nice. Maybe I come off a little harsh. Too bad.
“If you a Labradorian are not willing to start something of that nature, and this response comes from your way of thinking, why should I or anybody else.”
I already have started “something of that nature". Started it in my early teens. Continuing it here. I’m not alone. Many fellow Labradorians have expressed themselves in similar ways going back, like I say, a century at least.
What’s lacking is NOT any motivation or effort on the part of Labradorians… it’s any receptive audience or active support from Newfoundlanders.
“I never once read something positive come back from you.”
Well, we could sit around and agree with each other on everything, but what’s the point? I’m not going to post a bunch of stupid “me toos".
“I believe it has already been said by someone on this site that you are full of shit. I tried to reserve judgement but I guess they know you better than I and now I will have to concur.”
Classy.
For those that would say it, I’m sure the feeling is MORE than mutual.
Comment by WJM — 2/10/2005 @ 3:36 pm“Did you see the CBC report on Natuashish tonight? Well at least it’s the Feds they are blaming for all their woes, and rightly so to some degree. But given a chance, maybe WJM can turn that all around and blame the Island for that whole fiasco too.”
It’s amazing, the degree to which Natuashish has been inflated, in the Newfoundland imagination, to be representative of Labrador as a whole.
Newfoundland does, actually, have a great deal of responsibility for current conditions in the Innu and Inuit communities of Labrador, going back to stupid policy decisions in the 1950s and 1960s, and the usual Newfoundland attitude of, if it’s in Labrador, ignore it except to the extent that you ask Ottawa to pay for it.
But I fully agree, change has to come from within. Throwing money at problems doesn’t solve them.
Comment by WJM — 2/10/2005 @ 3:39 pmB. Scaplen: “WJM, One last comment from me”
If you say it’s your last, you better hold yourself to it!
“So you hold us collectively responsible but you don’t blame us. Well what was your first reply if not that belief. It all amounts to the same thing and quite adequately expresses in your own words your feelings regarding Newfoundlanders.”
Newfoundlanders, individually, are no better no worse than anyone else.
Collectively, as a society, Newfoundland has to ask itself some hard questions about whether the economic and public policy choices it makes in respect of Labrador are consistent with how Newfoundland would like to be dealt with, or would have liked to have been dealt with in the past.
There are sins of omission as well as commission. There is no vast anti-Labrador conspiracy in Newfoundland, just a conspiracy of silence, of questions that aren’t asked, and are often not even askable. There are many little “anti-Labrador” plans, though, whether it’s the west coast mills trying to get more access to Labrador “fibre” (it’s never called wood or forests any more), or Newfoundland shrimp trawlers damaging Labrador crab grounds in the Hawke Channel.
We raise those issues, we speak out for our own best interests, but those voices are not only ignored too often in Newfoundland, but there are no supporting voices coming from within Newfoundland itself.
There are more people in the Professional Newfoundlander, Canada-Council-subsidized set in St. John’s, for example, who are outraged about a hydro project in Belize, than a hydro project in Labrador.
You can get 5,000 people on the waterfront in St. John’s when PEI gets a little bit of shrimp in 3L or somewhere, but Great Minds of the Fishery like Gus Etchegarry and Jigger Jim Morgan don’t utter a word against the Harbour Grace fleet and what they’ve done in the Hawke Channel.
It does get frustrating.
Where is the Newfoundland sense of justice and fairness? Why does it peter out a few miles seaward of Cape Bauld?
You apparently won’t be engaging in a discussion with me, anymore, but can you at least continue that discussion, here or elsewhere, with your friends and neighbours?
We can use the help.
Comment by WJM — 2/10/2005 @ 3:50 pm“I wish I could give you a reference… I will try the company itself…. I agree with Owen… I heard that it was voted down. I’ll research it…. you can do the same.”
I already have done it. It’s hard to prove a negative. But Labrador was not seriously considered as a location; the effort on the part of MANY communities in Labrador to lobby Inco and government on this point was ignored; and the decision on locating the smelter in Argentia WAS made in 1996.
Comment by WJM — 2/10/2005 @ 3:52 pmWJM I am disappointed you haven’t written an entry for Kevin’s website. I personally, and I expect others are interested in learning more about labrador issues. It would give you a chance to explain conditions, situations, culture and future of labrador. I am interested, concerned, but would benefit from genuine information and perspective. Not just reactive comments, but proactive comments.
WJM said
“What’s lacking is NOT any motivation or effort on the part of Labradorians… it’s any receptive audience or active support from Newfoundlanders.”
I’m receptive. You have an audience, but I’m afraid you’re loosing us. It is a shame.
Comment by Sarah — 2/10/2005 @ 5:07 pmWJM said
“I already have started “something of that nature". Started it in my early teens. Continuing it here. I’m not alone. Many fellow Labradorians have expressed themselves in similar ways going back, like I say, a century at least.” Maybe you could suggest that a few of your friends take this opportunity Kevin has provided us and write in.
Well written, Sarah!
I, too, try to sympathize, but I keep getting cut down for it. It is hard to listen to/take the negativity, WJM. I am not trying to ‘ignore’ the issues… I am trying to understand them better.
And to the quote:
“Newfoundland does, actually, have a great deal of responsibility for current conditions in the Innu and Inuit communities of Labrador, going back to stupid policy decisions in the 1950s and 1960s, and the usual Newfoundland attitude of, if it’s in Labrador, ignore it except to the extent that you ask Ottawa to pay for it.
But I fully agree, change has to come from within. Throwing money at problems doesn’t solve them.”
This is another good reason for a post from persons such as yourself and Ed. I don’t think that the people of Canada or the island CAN know how to solve the issues. First, some real understanding of the true problems need be addressed. I would say that people most familiar with the situation would have the most insight.
You cannot say that all people from the island are ‘evil’ or trying to ignore everything. I think many/most here have shown viewpoints to the contrary. But it does get frustrating: I am have been trying to have a decent discussion with an obviously-educated person—but you ignore me just as you say that islanders ignore you.
Write!
I like what you write, and it is informative(when you aren’t cutting people down so much).
Pauline
PS: I tried(in vain) to get through to the company… I now doubt what I thought.
Comment by Pauline — 2/11/2005 @ 5:03 pmAgain I suggest that those with an interest in the Province’s economic future, bombard their MP’s & MHA’s with urgent requests for action on the issue of ground fish replenishment .This renewal of our marine ecosystem can & should be
Comment by M.J. Butch Collins — 3/6/2005 @ 7:17 pmundertaken ,and by those most responsible for its near demise , the Gov’t of Canada .Every means possible , regardless of the squeaks from
Peter Pettygrew , ought to be harnessed and used
to accomplish the renewal….the long-term survival of our rural communities depends on it .