Sonny’s Dream
Please indulge me; go here: http://www.cbc.ca/50tracks/vote/index.html
and vote for Ron Hynes’ “Sonny’s Dream” as one of the top 50 tracks in Canadian history. Damnhait Doyle’s 55 second pitch for the song is right on (realplayer file). This song is truly a provincial anthem; take a moment to tell your friends to vote for Sonny’s Dream, and if you have a web site and are so inclined, tell your visitors about the contest.
In other news, a fixed link to Labrador is feasible. I think the Premier’s view of this project makes sense, but interestingly, the article reads “in 1975, the Conservative government led by Frank Moores committed to building a tunnel across the strait. A hole was dug on the Labrador side, and the government spent $75-million before the project was abandoned.” Anyone know how deep that tunnel went, or if it’s even visible today? I did not know this. How could I grow up in NL and not know about a $75 million dollar hole?
34 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It is a romantic idea for sure. But I think to is more important to put in a proper road system in Labrador first and then the tunnel would be justified and beneficial for both Newfoundland and Labrador. I think both would make tourism in labrador grow hugely.
Comment by Sarah — 2/28/2005 @ 6:34 pmSo does the $75m spent on the hole in 1975 mean that 5% of the hole is already there ($75m/$1700m; with estimates of $1.7billion), or was nothing tangible actually created? i.e. just $75m for talking about the hole?
… and I would agree that money towards current roadways makes more sense then starting with the tunnel.
Comment by Colin — 3/1/2005 @ 10:34 amThe 1975 “tunnel” was a pre-election publicity stunt, and not much else.
Two shafts were begun, mainly exploratory and for-show, on either side. Lots of dynamite was expended going vertically down, not very far. If you visit Point Amour, the guides can point out the site of the project on the Labrador side.
I’ve been told, without confirmation, that when the stunt was pulled, bulldozers and other gear were plowed into the holes and buried. Don’t know if that’s just part of the lore or not.
The “tunnel” would have been just for power, not that government was serious.
Comment by WJM — 3/1/2005 @ 8:38 pmOh – and what do you mean “fixed link to Labrador"? Labrador isn’t an island. The Confederation Bridge across the Northumberland Strait isn’t a bridge to New Brunswick, is it?
Comment by WJM — 3/1/2005 @ 8:39 pmHas anybody romanced Quebec on bringing a Highway up to the boarder? Heck, if they bring a highway straight in to Lower Churchill maybe that’d be a negotiating start point for the next power development deal. Hey, why not turn off the switch on the current power source until they agree to build a highway, a fixed link and a tunnel!?
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 3/1/2005 @ 10:36 pmWJM playing with semantics again.
I guess it depends on where yer starting from or where yer goin’ Wally…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 3/1/2005 @ 10:40 pm“Has anybody romanced Quebec on bringing a Highway up to the boarder?”
Romanced?
Hell, Newfoundland’s government has been openly HOSTILE to a highway connecting Labrador and Quebec for most of history. Even people in the current government, like Loyola Sullivan, have expressed anti-Quebec sentiment on that issue.
“Heck, if they bring a highway straight in to Lower Churchill”
There already is a highway running along the Grand (so-called “Churchill") River.
“maybe that’d be a negotiating start point for the next power development deal. Hey, why not turn off the switch on the current power source until they agree to build a highway, a fixed link and a tunnel!?”
What would that accomplish?
Comment by WJM — 3/2/2005 @ 5:28 pm“WJM playing with semantics again.”
Not at all.
This talk of “fixed link to Labrador” betrays the idiotic notion many Newfoundlanders have that Labrador is the poor, isolated bit of the province that needs to be “united".
Labrador already has a fixed link. Two, three, actually. To Quebec, which is only right. And we need better fixed links to Quebec before a fixed link across the Strait of Belle Isle makes any sense, if even then.
Comment by WJM — 3/2/2005 @ 5:31 pmFor the most part I was joking WJM.
Yes, it’s unlikely that we will see anything physically join Newfoundland and Labrador in our lifetimes. As for emotionally, patriotically… it’s you WJM who perseveres to erode an N AND L relationship that most people in this WHOLE province see as a mutually beneficial partnership.
As for people from Newfoundland believing that Labrador “is the poor, isolated bit of the province that needs to be “united",” well that’s the seed that you planted and continue to perpetuate, since the beginning of this Blog.
What would you like us to believe this month?
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 3/2/2005 @ 7:44 pm“As for emotionally, patriotically… it’s you WJM who perseveres to erode an N AND L relationship that most people in this WHOLE province see as a mutually beneficial partnership.”
I’m sorry, but while most people in Newfoundland may view that relationship as “a mutually beneficial partnership", most people in Labrador do not.
That’s not out fault. It’s yours.
“As for people from Newfoundland believing that Labrador “is the poor, isolated bit of the province that needs to be “united",” well that’s the seed that you planted and continue to perpetuate, since the beginning of this Blog.”
No, that’s the myth perpetuated by people like Loyola Sullivan and Danny Williams and countless others who either can’t see, or don’t want to, the day where Labrador is the gatekeeper of Newfoundland, instead of the other way around, as at present.
That’s the faulty logic of the illustrious finance Minister, who is still trying to figure out a way of getting a fixed link to join Newfoundland to the mainland, without at the same time joining Labrador to Quebec. Even Danny has figured out you can’t have one without the other.
Comment by WJM — 3/2/2005 @ 11:20 pmTo: “WJM”
“He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.”
–Michel de Montaigne
Comment by “LMH” — 3/3/2005 @ 4:46 pmRegarding the fixed link, I had a friend who worked as a weilder on the island side in the 70’s. the tunnel was started but was as I heard stopped by CNR because as they said it would cost a lot of jobs on the gulf crossing.
Comment by Rod Shears — 3/6/2005 @ 10:42 amThis was short sightedness by the union representing the CN workers.
With regards to the cost of the link, I have been in the mining industry for over 30 years, I have driven enough tunnel underground to cross the entire island of NF., the cost of a 20 mile tunnel, unless excess funding is paid to engeneers should come in much lower than estimated. EG.At $200.00 per foot(average development cost for underground tunneling) the cost of a basic rockwalled tunnel would be $21120000.00. This would leave over a billion dollars for cement finishing and the train.
The tunnel can be done affordably and needs to be built. Think of what it would mean for the economy of the entire provence.
WJM, you think Labrador is the only poorest and neglected region of the province? You better think again buddy because there’s plenty of unpaved roads, dieing communities, boil orders and much more over here on the island as well. It’s people with attitudes like yours that are drawing the line between Labrador and Newfoundland. There’s alot more people from the island then you’ll ever know that’s very proud of Labrador, I, for one. But I guess it’s like the old saying goes, it takes a few (like yourself)to spoil alot.
Comment by FVH — 3/6/2005 @ 9:11 pmWow somebody else with first and last initials like mine telling WJM his rants are not productive from a provincial solidarity stance…
What odds…?
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 3/6/2005 @ 9:42 pm“WJM, you think Labrador is the only poorest and neglected region of the province?”
Poorest, no, not by a long shot.
Neglected? Yes, by a country mile.
“You better think again buddy because there’s plenty of unpaved roads”
Labrador has the overwhelming majority of unpaved kilometrage of roads in the province. By far. Thanks to decades of cheapskates in the provincial capital who only recognize their jurisdiction over Labrador to the extent that it applies to collecting revenue.
“dieing communities, boil orders and much more over here on the island as well.”
What’s your point?
Labrador makes a disproportionately large contribution to the provincial treasure, yet its communities always seem to be last in line for the type of provincial public services that everyone else in this all-one-province takes for granted.
There is no other word for this relationship and this state of affairs, than “colonialism".
This is not acceptable in the 21st century. It wasn’t in the 20th, either, but Newfoundlanders, when it comes to their treatment of Labrador, have no shame.
It’s people with attitudes like yours that are drawing the line between Labrador and Newfoundland. There’s alot more people from the island then you’ll ever know that’s very proud of Labrador, I, for one. But I guess it’s like the old saying goes, it takes a few (like yourself)to spoil alot.
Comment by FVH — 3/6/2005 @ 9:11 pm
Comment by WJM — 3/7/2005 @ 12:42 pm“Wow somebody else with first and last initials like mine telling WJM his rants are not productive from a provincial solidarity stance…”
A lot of the comments on this site are “not productive from a national solidarity stance” either.
What’s your point?
Comment by WJM — 3/7/2005 @ 12:43 pmOh, you ARE a poor excuse for a Federalist plant. If you require more clarity on the blatantly obvious then I guess we are finished.
And you never even bought me dinner…
Speaking of clarity though… Why is it you use the Newfoundland Historic Trust (not the Newfoundland AND Labrador Historic Trust) to discuss the Yale School?
While I feel your pain of potentially losing Historical Properties, it really oozes of hypocrisy the way you slam everything around, like “just the island” or “only Newfoundland” or “What about Labrador?” When or if anybody else uses common nomenclature and abbreviations to pass comments regarding what are the best possibilities for the WHOLE province, you get your panties in a bunch!
YOU, SIR, are a sham! You play out holier than thou scenarios whilst using the very social programs and societies that we the people who are trying to support the WHOLE province with camaraderie and solidarity are fighting to preserve. We are trying to bolster support for a provincial family and you continuously insist on driving a wedge in, what must be, the Strait of Belle Isle.
http://www.historictrust.com/yale_school.shtml
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 3/7/2005 @ 7:59 pmFred: “Speaking of clarity though… Why is it you use the Newfoundland Historic Trust (not the Newfoundland AND Labrador Historic Trust) to discuss the Yale School?”
Does the Newfoundland and Labrador Historic Trust exist?
I have no control over what that organization calls itself. However, they were interested in reprinting my piece on Yale School, and I gladly obliged. Concern for our history is something that is very near and dear to me.
“We are trying to bolster support for a provincial family and you continuously insist on driving a wedge in, what must be, the Strait of Belle Isle.”
NO, I keep pointing out the wedge that Newfoundlanders, by virtue of treating Labrador as an integral part of the province on one side of the balance sheet, but not the other, have driven.
Not my wedge. Your wedge. I just point out the elephant in the living room, and take the crap for pointing it out.
Why is that? Why are Newfoundlanders so loathe to hear about how their policies and attitudes are received by Labradorians?
Comment by WJM — 3/8/2005 @ 2:14 pmLabradorians or you?
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 3/8/2005 @ 8:01 pmFred, I think this is merely WJM’s view not Labradorians. I know plenty people from Labrador and WJM is the first I know of with an attitude that stinks. He/She should be ignored so the rest of us can proceed with productive issues.
Comment by Frank_Hollahan (aka) FVH — 3/8/2005 @ 8:48 pmIf WJM is that unhappy with himself he should move to Fort MacMurry.
Fred: “Labradorians or you?”
Labradorians, plural.
I’m not the first to encounter this phenomenon, and won’t be the last, sadly.
“I know plenty people from Labrador and WJM is the first I know of with an attitude that stinks.”
How does my attitude “stink"?
Comment by WJM — 3/8/2005 @ 10:09 pmFred, I’m starting to believe that WJM is trying to sabatoge the relationship the people of this Island has with the people of Labrador or vise versa. His attitude doesn’t reflect the attitudes of most Labradorians. I spoke with a few friends from Lab city and Red Bay and the word is that most people are in favor of the Williams government. WJM is here to damage the site, the blog and all of our efforts. The site has been effective as we all know by getting all of our voices heard on the Accord issue. But somebody somewhere doesn’t approve.
Comment by Frank_Hollahan (aka) FVH — 3/9/2005 @ 5:45 pmFH: “I spoke with a few friends from Lab city and Red Bay and the word is that most people are in favor of the Williams government.”
You need to take a larger sample.
Comment by WJM — 3/9/2005 @ 6:04 pmwjm: “You need to take a larger sample.”
You need to take “a” sample!
Comment by Frank_Hollahan (aka) FVH — 3/9/2005 @ 9:30 pm“You need to take “a” sample!”
Spent much of the day doing just that. Couldn’t find anyone who had much good to say about Danny Williams or his government in Labrador, and most of those had NOTHING good to say at all.
Comment by WJM — 3/9/2005 @ 9:58 pmHey, couldn’t pull myself away. Very curious about the Labrador reaction to this story from today:
http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=nf-williams-labrador-20050309
Williams loosens purse strings for Labrador
Comment by Kevin McCann — 3/9/2005 @ 10:03 pm…and the WJM reaction…
Waa, not enough, waa, I want Danny to give it ALL to Nain, waa, $2 billion could really spruce up the garden for the 3.46 days of summer, waa stupid torys, waa…
Fred from CBS (on behalf of WJM)
Comment by Fred Harris — 3/9/2005 @ 10:57 pmListen guys WJM doesn’t even live in Labrador in 6 months time he will be bitchin that the Gov is spending to much money on Labrador and not enough on the island.
Comment by Robert — 3/10/2005 @ 1:21 pmIt’s just is make he has live a full life of sitin on the fence complaining about what others are doing and when voice is truely needed he runs away and hides.
See the front-page storyin today’s Telegram, by Rob Antle, “Old cash in Williams’ speech".
The Williams administration previously announced plans to spend most of the $56 million it portrayed as new money for Labrador this week.
And the vast majority of the money comes from federal, not provincial, sources.
…
What Williams didn’t say is that government previously announced $31 million of that $56-million total six months earlier.
…
In Happy Valley-Goose Bay Tuesday, Williams announced $40 million in spending on Phase 3 of the highway - with, he acknowledged, some “carry-overs” from the previous year.
But those “carry-overs” amounted to $31 million, or 78 per cent of the $40-million total.
Department of Transportation officials confirmed Wednesday that new, unannounced, work will account for only $9 million of the money spent in 2005-06.
…
And most of the money involved is actually federal cash.
Every dime of the $40 million announced for Labrador highway work is from Ottawa.
It is the remaining cash in the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund - the $340-million, one-time buyout from Ottawa accepted in 1997 by the Tobin administration for taking over responsibility of the Labrador ferry system.
Some $13.3 million of the remaining $16 million comes from various infrastructure funds.
Comment by WJM — 3/10/2005 @ 5:09 pmWJM, Who cares where the money is coming from, it’s there and it’s being spent in Labrador so shut up whining.
Comment by Frank_Hollahan (aka) FVH — 3/10/2005 @ 7:27 pmFrank: “WJM, Who cares where the money is coming from, it’s there and it’s being spent in Labrador so shut up whining.”
I’ll shut up “whining” when Danny stops lying about the true extent of his “committment” to Labrador.
It’s easy to be generous with old money and other people’s money.
Comment by WJM — 3/10/2005 @ 8:17 pmWJM, you name me one single person from the provience that’s more capable over and above Danny Williams that can dwarft what our premier as accomplished since he’s been in office.
Let’s make this a little more interesting. Would you agree, if you can’t come up with a legitimate answer, you leave this blog. If you do come up with a legitimate answer, I’ll stop slinging mud at quebec. Deal?
Comment by Frank_Hollahan (aka) FVH — 3/10/2005 @ 10:29 pm“WJM, you name me one single person from the provience that’s more capable over and above Danny Williams that can dwarft what our premier as accomplished since he’s been in office.”
What has he accomplished, other than his LIE to the Labrador Metis Nation on recognition; his LIE to coastal Labrador regarding independent recommendations on the ferry service; the LIE to all Labradorians about treating Labrador fairly when it comes to resource development; the LIE to Labrador about provincial investment in Labrador public services?
What has Danny done?
“Let’s make this a little more interesting. Would you agree, if you can’t come up with a legitimate answer, you leave this blog. If you do come up with a legitimate answer, I’ll stop slinging mud at quebec. Deal?”
Anyone could do a better job than Danny Williams. Danny Williams is doing a lousy job.
Comment by WJM — 3/11/2005 @ 11:37 amWMJ, are you Michael Johansen that writes the columns in The Telegram?
Comment by Frank — 3/21/2005 @ 1:28 pm