Amid the Hoopla
Premier Dalton McGuinty last week:
“In this particular case, that is exactly what is going to happen and that’s unacceptable.'’
Many are pointing to Newfoundland and Labrador’s deal and crying foul, claiming it could stir up venomous envy that would corrode our country. Imagine that, Newfoundland and Labrador a source of envy, aside from the pretty scenery. You know, maybe the equalization system needs a bit of a shake-up. From our province’s perspective, we saw resources going out and equalization coming back in, which isn’t exactly what we want. The point of the deal, aside from the pride factor that has been stirred up so much, is to give the province a window of opportunity. If McGuinty wants to fall all over himself complaining about this, then why didn’t he say anything before now? As many have pointed out, other Premiers secretly love this deal; Williams paved the way, now it’s time for our provincial colleagues to cash in as well.
It looks like it will be a bit of a love-in at the signing today:
Martin said Williams has exhausted “not a bit” of his political capital over the last five months.
Congratulations again, Fair Deal activists.
47 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The whole concept of confederation needs a shake-up. Canada, as it stands today, is Ontario and Quebec. The rest of us, both east and west, are just part of the gallery. Just Imagine, a party that is dedicated to the breakup of this great country, has held the position of Official Opposition and now holds the balance of power in Ottawa! The Bloc should not even have the right to field candidates nationally. Seats in parliament need to be more evenly distributed with more consideration given to the geography of the country and the provinces and fair representation. The Senate is something else! Unelected, without power, not much more than a POSH retirement home. What a joke! The supreme court, now that is something else! Shake up! Yes, my son. Long overdue!
Comment by Jeremiah — 2/14/2005 @ 9:02 amI still found many of the words at the signing today to be a little too gushing given what has happened in the past here. While this deal is a step forward on one of several betrayals towards our province, it hardly warrants a renewed faith in the way Canada is working. Canada can certainly work, but it is still a long way off. As for Dalton McGuinty, there are few people who are more arrogant and misinformed about the origins of equalization. Like so many oof his ilk, he forgets the fact that equalization was never originally meant to calculate non-renewable resources as income. It doesn’t say much about the Canadian media that so few have called him on his ignorance. McGuinty’s resentment of NL getting its fair share represents quite well what Hugh Segal once called “The Liberal myth of entitlement and the socialist Institutionalization of greed” – in Canada it has been known to stop much progress. ON Opposition leader John Tory didn’t much improve on matters either.
I still find something ver condescending in John Efford’s and Paul Martin’s tones. . . As if this was an “aid” package going to Ethiopia or something instead of what rightfully belongs to this province. I also found Williams slightly too bowed in supplication.
If Paul Martin truly believes in strong provinces and in fixing the betrayals of the last five or six decades, he will agree to the joint management scheme for fisheries approved of by the Liberals, PC, and ND Parties of NL. Furthermore, he will make an unequivocal announcement that if any future hydro developments on the mainland portion of NL require the option of a power corridor to get to a better market in another province or in the US, his government will approve such a corridor using Ottawa’s constittuional powers to declare such an undertaking in the national interest or in the interest of two or more provinces.
If Paul Martin can’t do that, and if it takes him seven months of all out battle to finally agree to stick by his word, there’s no true understanding of the province to be found.
The ball is still, very firmly, in his court.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/14/2005 @ 10:25 amLiam, I agree with you about McGuinty. But he is in trouble in Ontario right now and what better way to divert attention than to start some controversy with Newfoundland.
As far as Premier Williams and his reaction a the signing, well Danny Williams may be “gushing” but he is a strong minded individual and a bit of gushing harms no one. Later on, when he starts to attend to other Newfoundland concerns, he will be just as tough as ever. I am confident of that.
Happy Valentine’s Day to all.
Comment by Anne — 2/14/2005 @ 11:37 am“Seats in parliament need to be more evenly distributed with more consideration given to the geography of the country and the provinces and fair representation.”
Please elaborate.
Comment by WJM — 2/14/2005 @ 11:41 am“Like so many oof his ilk, he forgets the fact that equalization was never originally meant to calculate non-renewable resources as income.”
Says who? What is your authority for this statement?
Comment by WJM — 2/14/2005 @ 11:41 am“Furthermore, he will make an unequivocal announcement that if any future hydro developments on the mainland portion of NL”
Why can’t you call “Labrador” “Labrador"?
“Island portion of the province” is bad enough… do we now have to put up with “Mainland portion of the province", too?
Comment by WJM — 2/14/2005 @ 11:42 am“his government will approve such a corridor using Ottawa’s constittuional powers to declare such an undertaking in the national interest or in the interest of two or more provinces.”
In other words, you want the federal government to invade provincial jurisdiction over a 100% provincial resourece.
Are you some kind of uber-centralist Liberal or something?
Comment by WJM — 2/14/2005 @ 11:43 amWJM needs to explain how energy transmission necessarily needs to invade provincial jurisdiction over the sale of the resource. Be specific. What makes the provision for a corridor the end of provincial benefit in a resource generated in a province. Explain it.
He also should explain why Alberta wasn’t docked for its non renewable revenues until the mid 1960s.
Then again, he’ll probably just dodge it. WJM classic.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/14/2005 @ 4:08 pmHey Kevin,
Any chance we could get a mass letter prepared to present to McGuinty’s e-mail inbox with our concerns that he doesn’t fully grasp the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador receiving some economic advantage for a change?
As a former Ontarian and one who has many family members, STILL voting in Ontario who support the Fair Deal dogma, I’d really love to participate in a campaign to fill up his inbox with concerns from the Rock…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 2/14/2005 @ 4:10 pmI’ve often hear WJM refer to the “island portion of the province” to remind us that Nfld is not the entire province.
He was quite correct to correct those who might say that Nfld is the province. NL is the province.
Unless he doesn’t want Labrador to be part f the province (direct question - do you WJM?), why would he object to the term I used?
I didn’t give it that much though. But as usual. WJM wants to talk about names and help deflect for his master, Paul Martin.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/14/2005 @ 4:11 pmOnce again, WJM, once again.
I’ve been reading this website/blog since I first became aware of its existence shortly after its inception, all the while content to read others’ opinions. You see, as a 30 year old male living on…yes…the “island portion” of the province (or Newfoundland if you prefer), I’ve never cared too much about politics and can’t say I have much knowledge of past dealings or whatnot. The Atlantic Accord changed all of that, as did many of the opinions I’ve read on this site.
I learned alot….some accurate and some not-so-accurate I’m sure, but such is the case with anything not learned first-hand. And at 30, I’m still learning. But its gotten tiresome.
Oh no, not the learning. As soon as you stop learning, you stop growing and its just as well to shuffle off this mortal coil in that case. I’m simply tired of the way you back-handed assault pretty much anything said or posted on the site, narrowing in on snippets of posts and attempting to sow seeds of disharmony to serve your own purpose. And all in the name of the “mainland portion of the province", Labrador. But you’re in the strongest voice I read from there.
Before I get nailed to the wall as one of “those townies” you’re rallying against, I grew up on the west coast of the island not far from one of the paper-mill towns you also frown upon. I liked it there, and I like it here in the capital just as much. I’ve never been to Labrador but I’ll go out on a limb and say I’d probably like it there equally well, afterall, its all the same province to me. But then again, history and geography were never my strong points. Its a shame too.
But I think its high time we work together and try to educate each other, not pigeon-hole, persecute and poison others’ opinions or beliefs. This, ALL of this, may only be a small step but at least its a step…don’t ya think its about time ya stop throwing pebbles on the path?
Comment by Dana — 2/14/2005 @ 4:18 pmThanx Dana,
I’ve said that before but WJM just ignores pleas for N AND L solidarity. To strengthen this province (yes WJM, both N AND L) and to become a formidable player, which receives the benefits for the whole province we must stand together. We must avoid the splintering of the province by your tedious division of portions from the whole picture (out of context as usual) as you continue to weaken the provincial stance. For what end we can only imagine but it seems to me that you only receive mild support from your Labrador brothers and Sisters who try to stay on topic.
If what I have heard is precise, the impact and feasibility study regarding the Labrador Highway to Quebec should be released by the end of this month and I hear Premier Williams is soon to have his Official office in Labrador very soon as well. I realize that these don’t meet the original timelines stated in the Blue Book but hey,… That’s right, as hard as we try very few people meet ALL of their deadlines. The ones the Premier has chosen to meet to date will empower him to review the entire province’s priority list and from the sound of it, act on two of the problems you keep bring back to this blog.
I’d wish you good luck on finding something else to complain about but I am sure that I’ll read about it soon enuff…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 2/14/2005 @ 4:51 pmMany thanks Kevin for providing a forum for Newfoundlanders and Labordorians to voice opinions regarding the Fair Deal for Newfoundland.
Comment by Barbara — 2/14/2005 @ 5:01 pmAs a Newfoundlander/Labradorian voting in Ontario for many years, I agree with Fred from CBS that it would be a good idea to provide a letter writing campaign that would fill up Dalton’s inbox and hopefully educate him on the Fair Deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is a good angle. Anytime a politician makes a comment about another country, they respect the people in their province that originate from that country. McGinty should hear from the Newfs in Ontario. I lived in Ontario when he was elected and I am glad to be home.
Comment by Josh — 2/14/2005 @ 5:26 pmFred & Barbara,
What would be the point of filling up Dalton’s inbox with emails. He does not care about the province of Newfoundland and Labrador nor does he care about its people. All he cares about is getting the most for Ontario. His job is simply to get re-elected, and if dumping on Newfoundland’s fair deal helps him get re-elected then he’s done his job well.
Comment by Duke Cabbage — 2/14/2005 @ 8:12 pm“WJM needs to explain how energy transmission necessarily needs to invade provincial jurisdiction over the sale of the resource.”
No, YOU need to explain how the federal government can “[use] using Ottawa’s constittuional powers to declare such an undertaking in the national interest or in the interest of two or more provinces” and yet, somehow, NOT take jurisdiction over what is now a provincial field.
Read the constitution. You’re a law student. Read it. Re-read it. Go read Hogg. And come back when you understand the declaratory power.
“Be specific. What makes the provision for a corridor the end of provincial benefit in a resource generated in a province. Explain it.”
The declaratory power, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING TO BE USED IN THIS CASE, takes a “work” which would otherwise be the exclusive domain of the provincial jurisdiction, and makes it federal.
That is what the declaratory power does.
“He also should explain why Alberta wasn’t docked for its non renewable revenues until the mid 1960s.”
That’s false.
“Then again, he’ll probably just dodge it. WJM classic.”
Accusations of “dodge” while dodging.
Liam O’Brien classic.
Comment by WJM — 2/15/2005 @ 10:43 am“I’ve often hear WJM refer to the “island portion of the province” to remind us that Nfld is not the entire province.”
No you haven’t. You are imagining things again.
I hate the phrase, and other than quoting someone else, I don’t use it.
“The island portion of the province” is a dodge by Newfoundlanders, who would rather use a circumlocution than admit that “Newfoundland” is the island of that name, and nothing more.
“Unless he doesn’t want Labrador to be part f the province (direct question - do you WJM?), why would he object to the term I used?”
Because “the mainland portion of the province” has a name – Labrador – and I am sick of Newfoundlanders who will use whatever semantic or linguistic trick that they can to avoid calling Labrador by its name (or Newfoundland and Labrador by its.)
“I didn’t give it that much though. But as usual. WJM wants to talk about names and help deflect for his master, Paul Martin.”
My master?
That’s funny.
Did Stephen vet your posting, BTW?
Comment by WJM — 2/15/2005 @ 10:47 amAn interprovincial matter is quite often federally-managed. Transmission of power or energy can be federal without in any way necessitating any less benefit for the province. It’s a perfect example of where Ottawa could have and should have done something that would have led to prosperity and a lot more revenue for our province but where it made a decision not to do that and instead chose to interfere even more so elsewhere in the affairs that affect this province in much more serious ways. Given that WJM has frequently on NL_politics defended Ottawa’s need to attach numerous strings to any funding transferred to provinces in order to make it “accountable” (as if the provinces had no such mechansms), he’s about as convincing adefender of provincial rights as Jack Kevorkian is a defender of life. I fully admite and always have admitted that certain matters can and should be federal. And while doing so I’ve called for provincial control of fisheries, full ownership of oil and gas to to go to the provinces, and less federal interference in health care and other areas. It’s call optimizing each level’s role. I fully admitted in my original post that Ottawa would have to step in to take jurisdictional control of lines that are presently provincial. The lines are not the resource.
The WORK in this case is NOT the power plant or the sale. It’s the power line. The power corridor.
Alberta recieved its equalization until the mid-1960s without clawback of revenues from its oil revenues.
I’ve often expressed great criticism of Stephen Harper and Danny Williams. . . and anyone else when they don’t do what I think is right for the country or the province.
I don’t expect the same from WJM on Martin since he was/is on the payroll as a federal Liberal staffer.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/15/2005 @ 12:22 pm“An interprovincial matter is quite often federally-managed.”
Absolutely. HOWEVER, calling for the use of the declaratory power to be used IS BY DEFINITION asking Ottawa to take jurisdiction. There is no way around this. Back up, try another route if you want, but there is no way around this. Declaratory power = federal jurisdiction.
Read the Constitution. Read Hogg.
“Transmission of power or energy can be federal without in any way necessitating any less benefit for the province.”
BUT. IT. CANNOT. BE. DONE. UNDER. THE. DECLARATORY. POWER. WITHOUT. CEDING. JURISDICTION. TO. OTTAWA.
“Given that WJM has frequently on NL_politics defended Ottawa’s need to attach numerous strings to any funding transferred to provinces in order to make it “accountable” (as if the provinces had no such mechansms)”
If the provinces get money from the central government, they should be accountable to the central government, above and beyond what they are to their own residents, yes. That is hardly an affront.
“And while doing so I’ve called for provincial control of fisheries, full ownership of oil and gas to to go to the provinces, and less federal interference in health care and other areas.”
Yes, but keep sending those cheques. Headwaiter federalism; gotta love it.
“I fully admitted in my original post that Ottawa would have to step in to take jurisdictional control of lines that are presently provincial. The lines are not the resource.”
But the lines ARE the way you sell that resource.
I’m always puzzled that Newfoundland nationalists want to cede away at least some control over a Labrador resource to Ottawa… but if you think dealing with the federal government (or two Maritime provinces, in the case of the “Anglo-Saxon route") would be any easier than dealing with Quebec (and getting the best price per kwh to boot)… you’re delusional.
“The WORK in this case is NOT the power plant or the sale. It’s the power line. The power corridor.”
Again, which would have to be under federal jurisdiction. It’s amazing how you crypto-Reformers rail against the Wheat Board or federal management of fisheries, yet want to cede control over the sale of a provincial resource to Ottawa.
I ask this again… and this is NOT a hypothetical question, which Newfoundlanders would realize if they had their eyes and ears open to anything in Labrador that didn’t involve the giant sucking sound of resource extraction for the benefit of Argentia or Corner Brook…
If a development in northern Quebec were dependent for its financial viability on access to tidewater across Labrador, should that development gain such access (a) through negotiations with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or (b) through the federal use of the declaratory power?
Seriously: THIS IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
This is a very real-world question that is going to bite those who want Ottawa to own our transmission lines very squarely in the ass, in short order.
“Alberta recieved its equalization until the mid-1960s without clawback of revenues from its oil revenues.”
For a limited period of time. You did not limit your previous comment to just OIL revenues, either. Funny about that.
Alberta post-Leduc would have killed to have the Atlantic Accord EVEN AS IT EXISTS, let alone the 2005 version thereof.
“I don’t expect the same from WJM on Martin since he was/is on the payroll as a federal Liberal staffer.”
What has the Martin government done to warrant criticism?
Comment by WJM — 2/15/2005 @ 12:43 pmOh, and Liam – feel free to retract your remarks about my use of “island portion of the province” at any time.
Comment by WJM — 2/15/2005 @ 12:45 pmDana: “But I think its high time we work together and try to educate each other, not pigeon-hole, persecute and poison others’ opinions or beliefs. This, ALL of this, may only be a small step but at least its a step…don’t ya think its about time ya stop throwing pebbles on the path?”
Absolutely! Ignore them! The bombast and insult artists generally dissapear when they are not rewarded with attention. Resist the impulse to respond to stupid, irritating and bogus commentary.
Comment by Randy Raymond — 2/15/2005 @ 1:04 pmCorrect errors with fact.
Reward good debate and discussion with participation.
Reward crap with silence.
WJM said:
“Absolutely. HOWEVER, calling for the use of the declaratory power to be used IS BY DEFINITION asking Ottawa to take jurisdiction. There is no way around this. Back up, try another route if you want, but there is no way around this. Declaratory power = federal jurisdiction.”
WJM obviously doesn’t even read his own posts on this issue his original point was that declaratory power would lead the federal government to “invade provincial jurisdiction over a 100% provincial resourece.”
Tell me WJM, who owns Alberta oil? Does Alberta oil end up in other provinces? Does that make it Canada’s oil?
At no point did I say the feds would not need to take control of establishment of TRANSMISSION lines. How is this equalling “the resource"? How?
WJM said:
“If the provinces get money from the central government, they should be accountable to the central government, above and beyond what they are to their own residents, yes. That is hardly an affront.”
I think it is. You’re implying taht the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not to be trusted. You are implying that the people in that province don’t know how to keept their government accountable. You’re also advocating a system that is designed to essentially make the money less of a transfer to the PROVINCE for the province’s use and are instead treating the province as a nozzle that Ottawa has a right to direct in any direction it sees fit after the fact. It’s false respect for the provinces that make up this federation. In fact, it’s disrespect.
WJM said:
“Yes, but keep sending those cheques. Headwaiter federalism; gotta love it.”
yes it’s hell having to keep election promises and honouring Accords. . . I know WJM, take a pill go lay down. It’s stressful I know.
WJM said:
“if you think dealing with the federal government (or two Maritime provinces, in the case of the “Anglo-Saxon route") would be any easier than dealing with Quebec (and getting the best price per kwh to boot)… you’re delusional.”
I’d like to have those options. Once those options exist and everyone knows they exist, we probably won’t need to use them. Sadly, We live in a country that applies double standards. A federal government that makes those options available to McGuintyland whenever they need oil or gas or any other such thing but which will not establish such an option for Newfoundland and Labrador.
WJM said:
“Again, which would have to be under federal jurisdiction. It’s amazing how you crypto-Reformers rail against the Wheat Board or federal management of fisheries, yet want to cede control over the sale of a provincial resource to Ottawa.”
It’s amazing how quickly your posts change so that you can continue to naysay and dodge. you started out claiming the “resource” would need ot fall under federal jurisdiction, now you agree with me that it’s about the transmission.
In reality the transmission line can be placed under federal jurisidction if it is needed without even needing to turn over sales to the feds. It’s about the corridor and the allowing the establishment of the infrstructure. An agreement could quite possibly be worked out to keep sales provincial. In any case the benefits of a provincial resource would stay provincial.
WJM said:
“If a development in northern Quebec were dependent for its financial viability on access to tidewater across Labrador, should that development gain such access (a) through negotiations with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or (b) through the federal use of the declaratory power?”
1. Is such a matter in the national interest or in the interest of 2 or more provinces?
2. If #1 is answered to satisfaction, I’d still say try A, but barring a, why not b?
3. Why don’t you grow up and give the project hypothetical (to which I have responded in the past) by name and give more details. How can anyone possibly evaluate a project that you refer to so vaguely?
As for the Alberta example. I apologize for the egenralization – do you apologize for suggesting that Ottawa would somehow have to “take over” the NL RESOURCE when transmission lines don’t equal the resource?
WJM said:
“What has the Martin government done to warrant criticism?”
Dragged things out and gave NL NOT the deal it wanted in October instead of honouring precisely what the province wanted from the beginning as it claimed it was going to do.
Still stonewalling on the fishery.
Having represnetatives treating this deal as an almost arbitrary aid package instead of something that rightfully belongs to NL.
for starters….
we won’t even get into the national disgraces…
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/15/2005 @ 1:35 pmWJM said:
“Oh, and Liam – feel free to retract your remarks about my use of “island portion of the province” at any time.”
I will when I have cause to do so.
I never did understand why the denizens of of NL_politics never voted in favour of expanding access to NL politics message archives. I set it to a vote twice. I even spoke in favour of it.
I keep my own records anyway. Thank God for search engines and emails and publicly-distributed emails…
WJM said on
Sat Aug 11, 2001 1:44 pm:
“. . .The days should be over when we give away our resources for the benefit of others, for the
sustainability of communities on the island portion of the province and outside the province. . .”
WJM on Sun Feb 2, 2003 11:47 am said:
“. . .Yeah, and funny too how if there is a problem on the island, steps haven’t been taken to prevent its spreading to the mainland portion of the province…”
Closest thing I could find to a thesis on this from you was:
“. . .Dependencies being a 25-cent word for
“Labrador", much like some people now use the crutch of “Mainland portion of the province” or “island portion of the province” rather than call the regions by their names and admit that Labrador isn’t just a wholly-owned subset of Newfoundland. . .”
that was on Sat Feb 1, 2003.
But even that is only relevant in this conversation if you assume that *I* had the habit of calling our province “Newfoundland". I think I’ve been pretty good about even changing NF_politics to NL_politics and usually referring to the province as Newfoundland and Labrador and I am quite fine with “island portion of the province” from time to time OR “mainland portion” in no way does it mean I don’t often also use Labrador! I just don’t give it so much thought..
But since you’re the one offended and being a stickler about it, maybe you can explain your own doublespeak on the subject. You ave clearly used both. I see NO NEED te retrack an ACCURATE statement about remarks YOU made on a public listserve on this very issue.
Get over it WJM. You’ve been called.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/15/2005 @ 1:47 pmI apologize for this sideline discussion.
To return to the main thrust what “what’s next” given the McGuinty theme of this blog item, I just want to make it clear why I think greater provincial say over fisheries and things like the power corridor are desireable.
If Canada the federation is to be of true benefit to its member parts, I think the best way to do this is to have the federal government facilitate greater acccess and trade and breakdown of barriers to trade in resources etc. Had that type of decision-making prevailed in the 1960s, by 1974 and every eyar since, NL would likely be recieving $800 mil annually and there would be no need for hardly any (hopefully none) of the “headwaiter” cheque payments that have been used by the Wente’s of the world to accuse us of being deadbeats. The Accord issues aside (that was an agreemnt further backed up by a promise by Paul Martin), those types of jurisdictional interprovincial decisions can sometimes prove to be a lot cheaper on everybody – NLers and Canadians – which makes the federal refusal to make such decisions but willingness to keep going with certain payments at the very least odd if not suspect…
It’s almost as if they prefer to keep as many provinces as possible in the position of needing those cheques. . . As if handing-out of cheques is the only relevant power…
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/15/2005 @ 2:11 pmWJM, I see you are just as petty as ever.
“The island portion of the province” is a dodge by Newfoundlanders, who would rather use a circumlocution than admit that “Newfoundland” is the island of that name, and nothing more"…Because “the mainland portion of the province” has a name – Labrador – and I am sick of Newfoundlanders who will use whatever semantic or linguistic trick that they can to avoid calling Labrador by its name (or Newfoundland and Labrador by its". Samantics
The average Newfoundlander or Labradorian does not analyze what they call the provience to the degree of which you do. 99% of us mean nothing derogatory by it. The way you get on explains why after all these years of trying to produce results on your issues you are no further ahead.
Plain and simple you are not a reasonable man and only reasonable men can further their cause. Now before you go on about, the why should I be reasonable BS, didn’t anybody ever tell you, you will catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If they didn’t they should have. Although I doubt you would have listened.
you can get a man to shovel shit for you if you ask him the right way. You certainly don’t know how to ask.
I guess I just went back on what I said about responding to you again. You elicit that kind of response, how unfortunate you are not able or are unwilling to engage people in a more constructive manner.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/15/2005 @ 3:15 pm“WJM obviously doesn’t even read his own posts on this issue his original point was that declaratory power would lead the federal government to “invade provincial jurisdiction over a 100% provincial resourece.””
It would. Transmission of electricity is, unless you invite Ottawa to take it, a provincial resource under provincial jurisdiction.
“Tell me WJM, who owns Alberta oil?”
Alberta or the company that bought those petroleum rights, as the case may be.
“At no point did I say the feds would not need to take control of establishment of TRANSMISSION lines. How is this equalling “the resource"? How?”
If you give Ottawa control over the sale of the resource, you’ve given them control of the resource.
“I think it is. You’re implying taht the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not to be trusted.”
No, the GOVERNMENT of ANY PROVINCE should only be trusted with program-specific transfers if they are prepared to be accountable for the use of that money.
“yes it’s hell having to keep election promises and honouring Accords. . . I know WJM, take a pill go lay down. It’s stressful I know.”
It’s not hellish at all; Paul Martin has done a phoque of a better job keeping his promises than Danny “I’ll recognized the Labrador Metis” Williams ever has.
“A federal government that makes those options available to McGuintyland whenever they need oil or gas or any other such thing but which will not establish such an option for Newfoundland and Labrador.”
Why should the federal government do it FOR ANY PROVINCE?
There are two ways to level the playing field. Up AND down.
“It’s amazing how quickly your posts change so that you can continue to naysay and dodge. you started out claiming the “resource” would need ot fall under federal jurisdiction, now you agree with me that it’s about the transmission.”
With electricity, the two cannot be separated.
“In reality the transmission line can be placed under federal jurisidction if it is needed without even needing to turn over sales to the feds. It’s about the corridor and the allowing the establishment of the infrstructure.”
Why should the federal government do that? Especially to sell power to GASP! “McGuintyland".
“1. Is such a matter in the national interest or in the interest of 2 or more provinces?
2. If #1 is answered to satisfaction, I’d still say try A, but barring a, why not b?”
Is a power line from Labrador to somewhere else in the interest of 2 or more provinces?
“3. Why don’t you grow up and give the project hypothetical (to which I have responded in the past) by name and give more details. How can anyone possibly evaluate a project that you refer to so vaguely?”
The projects are the iron ore mines, past and quite possibly future, at Schefferville, and the proposed looping of the QNSL and CFC railways.
“As for the Alberta example. I apologize for the egenralization – do you apologize for suggesting that Ottawa would somehow have to “take over” the NL RESOURCE when transmission lines don’t equal the resource?”
They do.
“Dragged things out and gave NL NOT the deal it wanted in October instead of honouring precisely what the province wanted from the beginning as it claimed it was going to do.”
What did “NL” want in October?
I don’t know the answer to that, neither do you, and, CRITICALLY, neither does Danny Williams.
“Still stonewalling on the fishery.”
What’s being stonewalled?
“Having represnetatives treating this deal as an almost arbitrary aid package instead of something that rightfully belongs to NL.”
How does other people’s money rightfully belong to ANY province?
Comment by WJM — 2/15/2005 @ 4:04 pm“WJM said:
“Oh, and Liam – feel free to retract your remarks about my use of “island portion of the province” at any time.”
I will when I have cause to do so.”
Come up with an example of me using the idiotic circumlocution “Island portion of the province", other than quoting someone else or in an obvious ironic use, by tonight, or retract. Thank you.
“I keep my own records anyway.”
So do I.
“. . .The days should be over when we give away our resources for the benefit of others, for the
sustainability of communities on the island portion of the province and outside the province. . .”
An ironic/sarcastic use.
WJM on Sun Feb 2, 2003 11:47 am said:
“. . .Yeah, and funny too how if there is a problem on the island, steps haven’t been taken to prevent its spreading to the mainland portion of the province…”
Ditto.
““. . .Dependencies being a 25-cent word for
“Labrador", much like some people now use the crutch of “Mainland portion of the province” or “island portion of the province” rather than call the regions by their names and admit that Labrador isn’t just a wholly-owned subset of Newfoundland. . .”
that was on Sat Feb 1, 2003. ”
Advanced-search Google groups for “island portion of the province” restricted to nf.general.
“But even that is only relevant in this conversation if you assume that *I* had the habit of calling our province “Newfoundland".”
NO, it’s relevant because you accused me of habitully using a phrase that I’ve been trying for the better part of two decades to banish.
“I just don’t give it so much thought..”
You’re not from Labrador.
You haven’t had to endure decades of Newfoundlanders trying to wipe your name and identity off the map.
You’re blind and deaf to it, as are most Newfoundlanders.
“Get over it WJM. You’ve been called.”
Search google, like I said. I don’t use “island portion of the province"; “Newfoundland” will do perfectly well.
Comment by WJM — 2/15/2005 @ 4:09 pm“2. This document reflects an understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that:
***Newfoundland and Labrador already receives and will continue to receive 100 per cent of offshore resource revenues as if these resources were on land***”
Comment by WJM — 2/15/2005 @ 4:10 pmB Scaplen: “The average Newfoundlander or Labradorian does not analyze what they call the provience to the degree of which you do.”
They should. Words have power. You can tell by the outrage among Newfoundlanders any time someone upalong dares use the phrase “Halifax to Victoria".
“99% of us mean nothing derogatory by it. The way you get on explains why after all these years of trying to produce results on your issues you are no further ahead.”
Part of the reason Labrador is no further ahead, is that Newfoundlanders continue to have the mindset that island=province, province=island, or that Labrador is just part of Newfoundland, and that anyone who challenges that mindset is a threat or a crack.
If Newfoundlander truly had Labrador in their minds as an integral part of the province, not an afterthought, not a source of resources, then there wouldn’t be a problem.
However, as long as Newfoundlanders have those mindsets, I’ll challenge them. So will, and do, many others.
“Plain and simple you are not a reasonable man”
What have I ever been unreasonable about?
“you will catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”
There is almost no pro-Labrador sentiment that will ever be accepted by the likes of you as being “honey".
Comment by WJM — 2/15/2005 @ 4:14 pmThere you go again, you end your remarks by saying, “There is almost no pro-Labrador sentiment that will ever be accepted by the likes of you as being “honey"".
By the “likes of me". You must be in a dream world, because I know for certain you don’t know me and if you suggest you know me from what I have written then again you only hear what you want and not what is being said. Again I have said I agree with many of your issues regarding Labrador. I married a woman from Labrador so I am hardly anti-Labrador and I am familar with some of Labrador concerns. I will challenge you to find anything I have responded to to be negative toward Labrador. You will not find it, what I am negative to is you because like the old saying you get back what you put out.
You can be pro-Labrador without beating us over the head at every turn with how something was phrased by people on this blog. You almost always miss the point and for a seemingly intelligent fellow you lack any common sence or you have some kind of personality disorder I’m not sure which. You rub people the wrong way so they don’t want to listen to you. It has nothing to do with the fact you are pro-Labrador, that is fine you should stand up for what you believe and where you live, that is what this site is all about and what we are all doing here. The problem is you’re anti-people or perhaps just anti-people who are not from Labrador.
Comment by B. Scaplen — 2/15/2005 @ 4:48 pmWJM said:
“It would. Transmission of electricity is, unless you invite Ottawa to take it, a provincial resource under provincial jurisdiction.”
resource
n 1: available source of wealth; a new or reserve supply that can be drawn upon when needed 2: a source of aid or support that may be drawn upon when needed; “the local library is a valuable resource” 3: the ability to deal resourcefully with unusual problems; “a man of resource” [syn: resourcefulness, imagination]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
under which part of this definition does the ***transmission of electricity*** fall?
WJM said when asked who owns Alberta oil:
“Alberta or the company that bought those petroleum rights, as the case may be.”
Funny. your earlier posts implied that since it might go through a pipeline that leaves the province, it’s now Ottawa’s…
WJM said:
“If you give Ottawa control over the sale of the resource, you’ve given them control of the resource.”
Transmission lines are infrastructure. A power corridor is a means by which something is sold. It is not necessarily true that Ottawa would need to sell it. Why would the vendor need change?
WJM said:
“No, the GOVERNMENT of ANY PROVINCE should only be trusted with program-specific transfers if they are prepared to be accountable for the use of that money.”
The government of every province recieves transfers of money from its taxpayers and from others all the time. Between provincial auditors, watchdogs, legislators, and others, there would seem to me to be quite a load of people to hold the crew accountable. A federal government under investigation for mismanageing $100 million has no right to lecture provinces about accountability. It would seem the Martin and Chretien governments are pretty selective in when they want nitty gritty strings attached. The more federal grittys with their hands in the till, the less specific they want it I guess…. but a province with some actual book keeping capacity and experience is held higher…
Maybe we should turn the province into a Quebec Liberal ad agency.
WJM said:
“Why should the federal government do it FOR ANY PROVINCE?
There are two ways to level the playing field. Up AND down.”
There is less evidence of ever levlling it DOWN. The government of Canada has already seen fit to make sure that oil and gas can flow freely to Ontario from Alberta as long as central Canada needs it. What not allow NL to export its electricty?
WJM said:
“With electricity, the two cannot be separated.”
What utter and complete nonsense. You’ve already told me who owns Alberta oil and gas. Does ownership necessarily change once it’s in a pipe? In a hydro deal somebody can own the damn, somebody else own the lines, somebody else own some other component too. Same can be true of jurisdiction. NL power can be sold by NL or by a body under NL jurisdiction to another body and put through a power corridor without the governemnt of Canada ever having to own the resource as a whole.
WJM said:
“Why should the federal government do that? Especially to sell power to GASP! “McGuintyland".”
Well now your true MO comes to light. you accept that the feds can provide this corridor without taking over the resource, so now it’s on to this line.
Who says we only stop at McGuintyland! Why not the US? why not Manitoba? Sell it where it is needed. If a deal can be struck that benefits the two parties and it is in the national interest, why not do it? Canada has ALREADY decided to do it even if it ONLY is seen to primarily help Ontario. So why can’t it do it or at least keep the option open for the benefit of NL? Isn’t that a better than constantly spoonfeeding transfers?
In response to WJM’s vague non-hypo hypo I said:
“1. Is such a matter in the national interest or in the interest of 2 or more provinces?
2. If #1 is answered to satisfaction, I’d still say try A, but barring a, why not b?”
WJM said:
“Is a power line from Labrador to somewhere else in the interest of 2 or more provinces?”
It might be. I think it is. I think that parties on the other side of Quebec might think it is. I think that giving NL the options to leverage a better deal would have created one less have not province. If that’s not in our interest I don’t know what is…. But I have to ask – why won’t you answer my question about the non-hypo-hypo!?!?
WJM:
“What did “NL” want in October?”
If that’s not clear to you by now, you must be illiterate.
a few tiny reminders . . . problems with ON fiscal capacity clause, strings attached to how money is spent, etc etc etc…
WJM said:
“What’s being stonewalled?”
Every single legislator in this province, and an all-aprty committee of both levels of govt on fisheries as well as the Royal Commission on NL’s place in Canada state that we should have joint management of fisheries. Ottawa is stonewalling on it. Refusing to do it. THAT’s stonewalling. You know what it is. You’re doing it right now in between dodges.
WJM said:
“How does other people’s money rightfully belong to ANY province?”
When the person(s) democratcially put in charge of managing it promises and states that it rightfully belongs to said province.
If you don’t believe that, you’d best burn those pitiful, tacky and disgusting red “promise Kept” buttons your lackeys were wearing in the middle of the accord signing in Halifax yesterday.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/15/2005 @ 7:04 pmWJM said:
“Come up with an example of me using the idiotic circumlocution “Island portion of the province", other than quoting someone else or in an obvious ironic use, by tonight, or retract. Thank you.”
I will not retract, because you’re lying.
I see no evidence being in an ironic use. You use doublespeak on this one. When you have highlighted it ironically on the forum you have put quotation marks around it. Given the fact that you’re such a sticker for these technical matters, it’s quite obvious that when you omit them, you’re not making fun of the use of it it, you’ve actually SLIPPED UP and started naturally using it yourself.
No retraction necessary. WJM has used in public online forums “island portion of the province.” and even as you try to weasel your way out of it, it becomes even clearer that you clearly are inconsistent in your use of this. Your own general conduct when you do stick to a principle on names shows that the exceptions prove the rule.
My example of WJM’s comments:
“. . .The days should be over when we give away our resources for the benefit of others, for the
sustainability of communities on the island portion of the province and outside the province. . .”
WJM said:
“An ironic/sarcastic use.”
It’s a use of the term. Such a stickler as you would clearly have used additional quotation marks. But you didn’t.
Me quoting WJM “on Sun Feb 2, 2003 11:47 am:
“. . .Yeah, and funny too how if there is a problem on the island, steps haven’t been taken to prevent its spreading to the mainland portion of the province…””
WJM:
“Ditto.”
Nonsense. And a weak claim on your part. you used it. “Mainland portion of the province.” The sarcasm wasn’t directed at the use of the word in these cases as much as it seems to be directed at the double standard between NF and Lab on certain ideas… your usual forte.
I said:
“But even that is only relevant in this conversation if you assume that *I* had the habit of calling our province “Newfoundland".”
WJM said:
“NO, it’s relevant because you accused me of habitully using a phrase that I’ve been trying for the better part of two decades to banish.”
Well, for somebody who wants to banish it, you really should stop saying it. You’ve said it a few times now already. And if anyone else dared use the term Newfoundland to refer to the entire province, even in shorthand or by chance or even when historically it was referred to as Newfoundland, you’d jump down their throat for using it at all.
I said:
“I just don’t give it so much thought..”
WJM said:
“You’re not from Labrador.”
I know labradorians who refer to the region sometimes as Labrador and sometimes as the big land and sometimes as the mainland portion of the province – sometimes to purposefully CORRECT those who think the “province” is Newfoundland. You don’t speak for all of Labrador. Not even close. And you’re sounding very arrogant for implying that you do.
WJM:
“You haven’t had to endure decades of Newfoundlanders trying to wipe your name and identity off the map.”
Saying “mainland portion of the province” and “island portion of the province,” provided both are said, no more wipes a name off the map than calling the rest of Canada “upalong” or the Atlantic ocean “the pond” or “the great body of water between NL and Ireland” people just do it from time to time. With no silly intention of wiping away any name.
grow up.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/15/2005 @ 7:21 pmWhat has the Martin government done to warrant criticism?
Comment by WJM — 2/15/2005 @ 12:43 pm
Well I just got a concussion when I fell off my computer chair laughing at this peach of a comment! WJM, you had an ever so slight chance for a second, who am I kidding… DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE NEW SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL? Does your Liberal spellchecker even HAVE the word credibility?
Back to the REAL issue that WJM diffused with his ever so lame splicing of the REAL issue in this portion of the Blog. Try to focus WJM or we’ll realize that you’ve had a much more severe concussion than I.
RESEND
“Hey Kevin,
Any chance we could get a mass letter prepared to present to McGuinty’s e-mail inbox with our concerns that he doesn’t fully grasp the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador receiving some economic advantage for a change?
As a former Ontarian and one who has many family members, STILL voting in Ontario who support the Fair Deal dogma, I’d really love to participate in a campaign to fill up his inbox with concerns from the Rock…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 2/14/2005 @ 4:10 pm”
Thanks again Kevin!
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 2/16/2005 @ 3:14 amWith regards to McGuinty’s selfish remarks its nothing new for NL. Upper Canada and federal governments for 50 years have had this modern ‘robber barron’ attitude towards newfoundland and labrador wherein they permit themselves, through passing acts and laws into the constitution, the userous controle and benifit of our resources. How would it be to McGuinty if we in NL pulled our switch at Churchill Falls, stopped the billions of tons or raw minerals and oil flowing to the mainland to their smelters and refineries? How many jobs and how much money do you think NL’s resources provide them and how many billions of dollars have the feds made of it?
Comment by phil earle — 2/16/2005 @ 6:20 amWe in NL can understand, and sometimes painfully tolerate, that lack of knowledge and truth leads many in the general public in upper canada to think we are the ungreatful beggars of Canada. To have the political leader of Ontario, who knows that NL has been used to the point of de-humanization, express the same opnions of us is not exceptable. His is the selfish, arrogant manner of the power controling elite, ones who hypocritically use the principles of the consitution to enact their greed while at the same time causing others, in their canadian family, to be denied these same principles of the Bill of Rights and cast out as step-children.
But don’t worry McGuinty we Newfoundlandes and Labradorians are an undaunted lot, and we ain’t going to take another backwards step from anyone. We have been pushed back so far in 50 years of abuse from people with your type of attitude that we got one foot in the north atlantic. Now if we backup another step we’ll drown. And I got news for you and the Canadian government, for us now its drown or fight and we are going to fight. I will to my dying breath. Fact.
What our Premier just finished on our oil is not the ‘beginnng of the end’ of our hard work to get our controle and our developement of our resources but just the ‘end of its beginning’. Next we fight for the lower churchill, then our coastal fisheries, then maybe a smelter and a refinery. Hows that for starters? How’s that grab ya ? Huh. phil earle
Shhh, I think the coast is clear everyone. Good work Liam!
Comment by Gary — 2/17/2005 @ 6:50 pm“By the “likes of me". You must be in a dream world, because I know for certain you don’t know me”
Only from what I know of you here.
“You can be pro-Labrador without beating us over the head at every turn with how something was phrased by people on this blog.”
Who have I “beaten over the head"?
Comment by WJM — 2/18/2005 @ 4:42 pmLiar-am: “I will not retract, because you’re lying.”
No, I’m not.
Liar-am: “Well, for somebody who wants to banish it, you really should stop saying it. You’ve said it a few times now already. And if anyone else dared use the term Newfoundland to refer to the entire province, even in shorthand or by chance or even when historically it was referred to as Newfoundland, you’d jump down their throat for using it at all.”
I use “Newfoundland” in clearly historic contexts all the time. There’s nothing wrong with it, or with referring to Newfoundland as Newfoundland.
However, in a contemporary context, there is EVERYTHING wrong with referring to Newfoundland as if it is the province, and vice-versa. It’s the 21st century.
“I said:
“I just don’t give it so much thought..”
WJM said:
“You’re not from Labrador.”
I know labradorians who refer to the region sometimes as Labrador and sometimes as the big land”
What does “Big Land” have to do with anything?
“and sometimes as the mainland portion of the province – sometimes to purposefully CORRECT those who think the “province” is Newfoundland. You don’t speak for all of Labrador. Not even close. And you’re sounding very arrogant for implying that you do.”
That implication only exists in your fertile imagination. The truth remains: Newfoundlanders, especially nationalist ones like yourself, are notoriously blind and deaf to exclusive “island” language and imagery when it comes to what should be inclusive, all-province discourse. Maybe you’ll eventually be trained out of it, if you want to be.
Liar-am: “Saying “mainland portion of the province” and “island portion of the province,” provided both are said, no more wipes a name off the map than calling the rest of Canada “upalong” or the Atlantic ocean “the pond” or “the great body of water between NL and Ireland” people just do it from time to time. With no silly intention of wiping away any name.”
Sorry, that’s simply not true.
“island portion of the province” is at base a linguistic dodge to avoid conceding that Newfoundland is the island and not the whole province.
“mainland portion of the province” is a linguistic dodge to avoid conceding that the name “Newfoundland” does not apply to territory north of the Strait of Belle Isle.
These are unneccessary circumlocations that should be file-13d.
Liar-am: “grow up.”
The exhortation of the immature, internet-wide…
Comment by WJM — 2/18/2005 @ 4:47 pmFred: “Well I just got a concussion when I fell off my computer chair laughing at this peach of a comment! WJM, you had an ever so slight chance for a second, who am I kidding… DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE NEW SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL? Does your Liberal spellchecker even HAVE the word credibility?”
You still haven’t answered the question.
Is this issue particular to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? What has the Martin government “done to” the province?
Comment by WJM — 2/18/2005 @ 4:49 pmLiar-am: “WJM said when asked who owns Alberta oil: “Alberta or the company that bought those petroleum rights, as the case may be.”
Funny. your earlier posts implied that since it might go through a pipeline that leaves the province, it’s now Ottawa’s…”
What’s with you and “implications” anyway?
Ottawa has jurisdiction over those pipelines. If provinces had been left to agree among themselves, they would still be 100% provincially-controlled.
“Transmission lines are infrastructure. A power corridor is a means by which something is sold. It is not necessarily true that Ottawa would need to sell it. Why would the vendor need change?”
Ottawa wouldn’t have to sell it, BUT OTTAWA WOULD HAVE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE PLENARY LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL OVER THE LAWS GOVERNING THE TRANSMISSION AND SALE OF THAT RESOURCE.
Since Ottawa is, supposedly, a bad resource manager, why would this be any better than having Quebec have that plenary power?
“There is less evidence of ever levlling it DOWN. The government of Canada has already seen fit to make sure that oil and gas can flow freely to Ontario from Alberta as long as central Canada needs it. What not allow NL to export its electricty?”
NL already is allowed to export its electricity. How is anyone stopping this?
“without the governemnt of Canada ever having to own the resource as a whole.”
But you want the Government of Canada to have jursdiction. Strange. Creeping centralism.
Liar-am: “WJM said:
“Why should the federal government do that? Especially to sell power to GASP! “McGuintyland".”
Well now your true MO comes to light. you accept that the feds can provide this corridor without taking over the resource, so now it’s on to this line.
Who says we only stop at McGuintyland! Why not the US?”
Why ANYWHERE?
Why is it BAD to “export” power to Quebec, but good to export it it to not-Quebec? Is exportation itself the hangup for Newfoundland nationalists… or Quebec?
“If a deal can be struck that benefits the two parties and it is in the national interest, why not do it? Canada has ALREADY decided to do it even if it ONLY is seen to primarily help Ontario. So why can’t it do it or at least keep the option open for the benefit of NL? Isn’t that a better than constantly spoonfeeding transfers?”
Leave Ottawa out of it. If Newfoundland nationalists are to be consistent – not that that has ever stopped them – the whole thing should be the result of free negotiations among the provinces.
Liar-am: “WJM:
“What did “NL” want in October?”
If that’s not clear to you by now, you must be illiterate.”
Not at all. I’ve read everything I could on the subject, and I still have no idea, as among the MANY possible interpretations of Danny Williams’ dithering and linguistic obfucsation, what it was he, on our behalf, wanted.
“a few tiny reminders . . . problems with ON fiscal capacity clause, strings attached to how money is spent, etc etc etc…”
I thought he wanted “what is ours, 100%"? Whatever that means…
Liar-am: “WJM said:
“What’s being stonewalled?”
Every single legislator in this province, and an all-aprty committee of both levels of govt on fisheries as well as the Royal Commission on NL’s place in Canada state that we should have joint management of fisheries. Ottawa is stonewalling on it. Refusing to do it. THAT’s stonewalling. You know what it is. You’re doing it right now in between dodges.”
Not at all.
Phoque it. Give NL joint management. AND JOINT RESPONSIBILITY at the same time. Half the Coast Guard budget, half the enforcement budget, half the SCH budget, half of everything.
Joint.
Liar-am: “WJM said:
“How does other people’s money rightfully belong to ANY province?”
When the person(s) democratcially put in charge of managing it promises and states that it rightfully belongs to said province.”
It does. Absolutely. And NL, just as Danny’s agreement expressly (finally!) states, always HAS received 100% of that which is NL’s. But this whole thing wasn’t about that which is about NL’s. It was about getting, in addition, that which is someone else’s: equalization payments. All the Tory obfuscation on this point cannot negate that, and I’m delighted, for one, to see that the agreement states that expressly.
“If you don’t believe that, you’d best burn those pitiful, tacky and disgusting red “promise Kept” buttons your lackeys were wearing in the middle of the accord signing in Halifax yesterday.”
I have lackeys? Hot damn. Should get them to change the coffee.
Newfoundland Tories have NO LESSONS WHATSOEVER to offer on the subject of “promises kept.” Not one.
Comment by WJM — 2/18/2005 @ 5:17 pmWJM wrote “I still have no idea”
That is obvious
Comment by GMT — 2/18/2005 @ 7:19 pmWJM:
“No, I’m not.”
Yes you are.
You said: “I hate the phrase, and other than quoting someone else, I don’t use it.”
You have used it. You used it on Aug 11, 2001 Feb 2, 2003, Sat Feb 1, 2003.
You lied. At least have the guts to own up to your lie.
WJM said:
“What does “Big Land” have to do with anything?”
Why wouldn’t you ball them out for not clling Labrador Labrador even when we know “big land” means Labrador. I kniow why, because you apply double standards. You’re inconsistent. And in these situations you seem to thin it’s ok to lie.
There is nothing wrong with sometimes saying “island portion” or “mainland portion” of the province provided we agree that the name of the province is Newfoundland and Labrador.
WJM said:
““island portion of the province” is at base a linguistic dodge to avoid conceding that Newfoundland is the island and not the whole province.”
This is paranoid garbage. You have no more right to assume that I or anyone else who says this is in anyway suggesting that Newfoundland is not just the island. The province in Newfoundland and Labrador. The island portion of the province is NEWFOUNDLAND. So what?
There’s no dodge. There is no denial of this fact. Take off your tinfoil cap and remember to take the anti-psychotics every day.
Oh and nice touch adding the chidism add-on to my name. How old are you? two? At least I sign my full name on my posts and beliefs. I’m not so cowardly as to leave it at initals. I guess you feel if you do it that way you’ll be less connected to the garbage you engage in here.
WJM said:
“Is this issue particular to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? What has the Martin government “done to” the province? ”
That’s not the question you asked WJM.
you asked “What has the Martin government done to warrant criticism? ”
The things listed by Fred are certainly going to affect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Or are these citizens of the country below your scope of notice?
WJM said:
“Ottawa has jurisdiction over those pipelines. If provinces had been left to agree among themselves, they would still be 100% provincially-controlled.”
ok baby steps…
Are the pipelines the oil? NO.
WJM said:
“Ottawa wouldn’t have to sell it, BUT OTTAWA WOULD HAVE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE PLENARY LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL OVER THE LAWS GOVERNING THE TRANSMISSION AND SALE OF THAT RESOURCE.”
Transmission, maybe. In the end. Ottawa would have every ability to limit its involvement to the bare minimum needed to create a power corridor (if it came to that). It entirely depends on how you define the “national undertaking.” Being an avowed defender of an expanding central government, no doubt you can’t think in anything but gun ho takeovers, but I’m sure some others may have a more subtle plan about how that would look.
WJM said:
“Since Ottawa is, supposedly, a bad resource manager, why would this be any better than having Quebec have that plenary power?”
Lines are not the resource. The price wouldn’t be set by Ottawa. The resource wouldn’t be sold by Ottawa. The “national undertaking” here may be as simple as the power corridor. You aren’t even making very good dodges any more.
Allowing the free flow of resources around the country is not the same as managing the resource or selling the resources. There is no stock to “manage” here. No call for national pricing. No NEP. No tickering required. From the very beginning I have said and others who support this have said it is a power corridor, not a federal dept and management regime…
enough strawmen WJM. Answer to the real ideas, not the bogeymen in your head.
WJM said:
“But you want the Government of Canada to have jursdiction. Strange. Creeping centralism.”
Why do you keep dodging this? – wouldn’t the allowance of free flow of energy accross a province or province(s) preferable to 30 years of NL continuing to be a have-not province and as a result having to work through deal after deal of federal spending and increased desire on the federal part to run provincial depts by setting standards and attaching strings etc…
I see that as a net decrease in Ottawa’s interferrence in NL’s affairs and less dependence on Ottawa.
My question to you is – why not? Assess the idea. Don’t deflect. I think it’s a good idea. I’ve said why. you seem to be incapale of answering simple questions.
WJM said:
“Why ANYWHERE?
Why is it BAD to “export” power to Quebec, but good to export it it to not-Quebec? Is exportation itself the hangup for Newfoundland nationalists… or Quebec?”
You must be illiterate.
I said it would be useful as an option. I think if that corridor was a possibility, it probably would never need to come into existence, we’d be much more likely able to get a much better deal from Quebec. I have no problem with dealing with Quebec. I just think we should expand the number of potential buyers. Allow some competition.
Are you opposed to competition?
WJM:
“Leave Ottawa out of it. If Newfoundland nationalists are to be consistent – not that that has ever stopped them – the whole thing should be the result of free negotiations among the provinces.”
That’s because you’re obsessed with naysaying some mystical and twisting group you’ve defined as newfoundland nationalists (I suppose a sight better than the usual names you affix to your bogeymen)… I’m not here to have a discussion about that. I am here to advocate what I think is best for Newfoundland and Labrador. You do not get to define my principles in that regard. At no point did I say the federalgovernment could not serve a useful role. No point. I happen to believe that provinces should have more control and benefit from offshore oil and gas, fisheries and some other things. I also happen to believe that in interprovincial matters, the constittuional power that exists for Otatwa to declare certain ‘national undertakings’ is useful in maximizing interaction and trade between these provinces.
There’s nothing inconsistent with my principles here. It’s optimal use of both levels of government. It’s just not available to NL at present because they don’t get to have the same access to those opportunities as the government of Canada sees fit to provide for Ontario when oil and gas has to come through.
WJM:
“Phoque it. Give NL joint management. AND JOINT RESPONSIBILITY at the same time. Half the Coast Guard budget, half the enforcement budget, half the SCH budget, half of everything.”
What a childish response. fisheries resource management can be jointly managed while the government of Canada maintains certain scientific roles AND roles of defense related and patrol things that are almost universally federal in nature.
Australia and the United States had joint management regimes without feeling the need to cut off their noses to spite the regions by handing it all over to the provinces.
Coast Guard and other such matters are unqiuely federal. I’m just not convinced the same is true of fisheries resource management. Most of NL agrees. See Royal Commission, see all party committee reports, see unanimous resolution from may 2003 in HoA, see NIFA papers, see FFAW releases etc etc etc..
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/18/2005 @ 7:37 pmWJM said:
“Newfoundland Tories have NO LESSONS WHATSOEVER to offer on the subject of “promises kept.” Not one.”
The day I take lessons on promises kept from the guy who works for the fighter of “democratic deficits” but can’t allow his full caucus to have free votes is the day Palm Trees grow in Nain. Excuse me, I have to duck from time to time….. flying Sea King Parts, dented subs, non-iceworthy ships keep gettin in my way. . .
If something is promised to somebody else, then that which is promised can be said to belong to somebody else if the promise is to be kept.
I don’t agree with Williams govt on everything. But will say this much, the man kept a very important promise… something you’ll never see Paul Martin promising let alone keeping – a private full audit of provincial books or at least some GAAP. Promise kept, disaster exposed, lesson learned.
It seems that it takes a slew of Gomerys and Frasers in order to get Paulie close to the catch up lesson on that one.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/18/2005 @ 7:45 pmI MUST COMMENT HERE!!!!!!!
LIST OF REASONS I FREQUENT THIS SITE:
* I come to this site to listen to opinions of others… opinions of open-minded people who are capable of true discussions(not political name-callers)!
* I like to hear the latest news, and they seem to come out here first
* If I think that an important point was either not known or omitted, I have the liberty of putting in my two-cents-worth. MAYBE someone will listen, agree and learn from it.
Heck, maybe I’ll learn if someone politely corrects me(it has happened here)…I’m open to criticism, and I know some things, but not EVERY thing… “nobody” does.
I hate to be blunt…
If you can’t say anything in a polite manner, or if a comment you will make has no real relevance, why post?
Equally rude, I know, but it is sometimes best to ignore the savage beasts, not awaken.
Pauline
Comment by Pauline — 2/18/2005 @ 8:28 pmWhew!
Now that “my” savage beast is put down, I will comment that I totally agree with your post on February 14th,Liam.
Although it WAS a day-to-remember, I couldn’t help but feel it was artificial.
Heck, who cares, I suppose! Unfortunately, that’s politics. I have to learn to live with it. My goal for the future: try to learn to gain by politics myself(;o)
Pauline
Comment by Pauline — 2/18/2005 @ 8:39 pmLiam:
One thing you wrote that got me wondering:
“Lines are not the resource. The price wouldn’t be set by Ottawa. The resource wouldn’t be sold by Ottawa. The “national undertaking” here may be as simple as the power corridor. You aren’t even making very good dodges any more.
Allowing the free flow of resources around the country is not the same as managing the resource or selling the resources. There is no stock to “manage” here. No call for national pricing. No NEP. No tickering required. From the very beginning I have said and others who support this have said it is a power corridor, not a federal dept and management regime…”
Would you mind explaining a bit more about your vision regarding the corridor concept and the real estate/land rental type agreements that would require discussion?
I surely agree that there is absolutely no reason why any provincial partner in a joint provincial venture should make 20-30% more off the natural resource just for providing a corridor or route. On the other hand, they should be compensated at a reasonable level for allowing their turf to be used for another province’s gain.
Just wondering how this is best accomplished…
I guess the first step would be that Quebec admit and apologize for the past years of taking unfair advantage (as practically forced down N & L throat by Pearson during the original negotiations). Sure a deal is a deal in business but when you are dealing with your brothers, sisters, mom or dad (even the wife’s) then a certain amount of give and take with renegotiation must be granted serious consideration. And are we not all family in this great country. We wouldn’t wanna end up on Judge Judy…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 2/20/2005 @ 6:27 pmFred Said:
“Would you mind explaining a bit more about your vision regarding the corridor concept and the real estate/land rental type agreements that would require discussion? I surely agree that there is absolutely no reason why any provincial partner in a joint provincial venture should make 20-30% more off the natural resource just for providing a corridor or route. On the other hand, they should be compensated at a reasonable level for allowing their turf to be used for another province’s gain. Just wondering how this is best accomplished.”
Well, in a way, it (a power corridor) may never need to come to pass. It should be held out as a possibility to maintain cometition in the negotiations. I’d actually prefer to deal with Quebec, but not in a situation where that province or any other holds NL over a barrell, especially given that the same wasn’t expected of others in confederation with a resource they wanted to sell.
The government of Newfoundland and Labrador and/or the government of Canada would both have the ability to provide for fair compensation for a corridor if it ever came down to that. But I suspect that this would all be moot. I think you’d see a much fairer negotiationa ll the way around if the government of Canada simply set inc onjunctin with NL some conditions that have to be met. . . only if the in between province refuses those conditions would the corridor become necessary.
I see this is a a fair and useful activity for the government of Canada. And in the overall scheme of things, had Pearson done this, there would have been a LOT LESS federal money going to NL and a lot less need for the micromanaging and snipes that go with it.
What is completely unacceptable, and downright insulting is the double standard that exists at present. Canada mainly seems to be interested in
“national undertakings” that don’t ruffle the feathers of central Canada. That must change.
There are other possibilities and options relating to s. 36(1)(b) and 92 A of the constitution, but I see nothing terribly out of whack with finally making the government of Canada somewhat consistent in its actions re corridors.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/22/2005 @ 4:15 pmHey people? I have some sage advice for those of you who keep answering the Benny Hill of this blog, old WJM. Ignore him. He hasn’t offered up any original thought of his own on the issues at hand, namely, natural resources–and seems to be a man of one book on everything else. So why bother to answer his uppity-wanna-be-Canuck blather?
I can sum him up for you in one short sentence; he wants to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral, so, let him be. You only encourage him when you answer his non-sensical parroting of others thoughts. I think that somewhere in Canuckistan there’s a village missing an idiot.
Comment by sean oneill — 2/23/2005 @ 7:21 am