Hiatus

15 Comments

1. Sounds like a “Fair Deal” to Kevin!

   Your continuing efforts will become obvious soon enough and I’m sure it can only improve this already first class site!

   Any chance you can take WJM with you?

   Fred from CBS

   Comment by Fred Harris — 3/9/2005 @ 4:32 pm

2. Kevin, thanks for your work on this site.

   Comment by WJM — 3/9/2005 @ 5:06 pm

3. Great job Kevin. All the best…

   Comment by Liam O\\\’Brien — 3/9/2005 @ 9:30 pm

4. Yes, Kevin:

   Good job.

   Thank-you…. I’ve learned a lot about people throughout the province and the country.

   Pauline

   Comment by Pauline — 3/10/2005 @ 8:52 am

5. Good Night Fred - John
   Good Night WJM - John
   Good Night Liam - John
   Good Night Paulne - John

   Now Kevin , Turn Off The Lights !

   Comment by Wayne — 3/10/2005 @ 7:39 pm

6. Graceful exit, stage left.
   I’m looking forward to new productions… like fairdealforlabrador, or fairdealforMotherEarth, or fairdealforfuturegenerations, or even ROCKNRULE.com … just for the hell of it.
   Fred had a good one awhile back… sorry can’t remember what it is now, but perhaps he could refresh…?

   Comment by Debra — 3/10/2005 @ 9:48 pm

7. I think we should now focus on some more important issues facing our great province. Some such ones are;
   - Rural Newfoundland & Labrador needs HELP, and quickly- in order to survive. HURRY DANNY

   - Recycling needs to be manditory, this will relieve the stress from our landfills.

   I think that these are very important issues facing our province today, and we as a province must act NOW, so come on people lets get the ball rolling.

   Comment by Jerry — 3/11/2005 @ 9:34 am

8. Have you considered taking on Quebec and the Churchill Falls electrical deal?

   Congratulations on your success thus far!

   Comment by Jen — 3/14/2005 @ 2:06 pm

9. I wish there were a way to delete comments after realizing you just hadn’t read far enough.

   Next time I’ll read more before opening my mouth.

   Comment by Jen — 3/14/2005 @ 2:23 pm

10. Kevin, plainly “The Fair Deal effort was a campaign with a singular goal “, and if we are thinking in terms of having gained control of a small pot of money that belonged to us in the first instance, then I agree that goal was a achieved. However, I cringe from any notion that anyone contributing to this site would consider that as the ultimate goal. Newfoundland and Labrador has major, problems ; not only with respect to our relationship to Canada, but with respect to attitude and awareness of the extent to which we are the arbiters of our own misfortune. There is no need for hiatus; certainly not with any delusion that the job has been done. One thing we have no shortage of in this hard-done-by land are causes to inspire arousal from deadening passivity that has been, more than the depredations of others, our own undoing. For starters, how about the con game currently on stage.

    Someone needs to take on Abitibi Consolidated and expose them for cheap slight of hand game they are presently getting on with . By using blackmail on the one hand, and misleading propaganda on the other, they are trying to suck the government ( a.k.a. us) into subsidizing even further their operation in Newfoundland, and I’m afraid Danny “Millions", for the sake of defending his political turf on the west coast will fall for it. Let’s look at some of the facts:

    1. They have plundered their forest concessions to the point where there is no longer sufficient accessible fiber to keep the mills supplied.

    2. The land lease under which they operate and which give them outrageous concessions was transacted by the old Dominion government a hundred years ago, and at a time when the government was resorting to desperate measures just to stay afloat.

    It was in 1999, I think, that the provincial gov . cut a deal with Abitibi to postpone until 2010 the termination of some of their 99 year leases that had come due on condition that they would guarantee keeping the two Grand Falls machines in operation. I heard recently something in the news about their wanting to weasel out of this by transferring the concession to Stephenville.

    This was the perfect opportunity to restore the management of at least part of the forest to some kind of sanity. It’s hard to believe that the crazy terms made by the old Dominion government a hundred years ago are still in effect. No stumpage fees and thousands of acres of land with all its forest, mineral and water rights given away for less than a third of a cent/acre. Literally, only in Newfoundland!!! Literally incredible!!!

    4. This is the deal they are not only scheming to protect in Newfoundland, but which they want extended to include Labrador.

    5 We are subsidizing the replanting of the forest and building roads for those bastards so that they can get at what little remains still standing.. I believe it is something like $9-10 million annually that the government is spending on silviculture: planting trees to restore some of the Kruger/Abitibi plundering. On top of that another $3.5 million is being spent for the construction of access roads to the hard-to-get-at forest stands.
    All this while the roofs are falling in on our schools. Dear God, you talk about madness!!!!.

    6. Pulping the forest for paper when there are so many available substitutes it really too foolish to talk about. In fact, in terms of ecological responsibility, it is blasphemy in the face of the Creator. Abitibi and Kruger covet the black spruce for our boreal forest because it makes a superior paper for which they can exact a premium. Since only “jobs” count for us , this is of absolutely no benefit to Newfoundland. Thy might just as well be making paper out of horse manure.

    7. The fearful prospect is that they are going to be let into Labrador. In fact the trans Labrador highway has been dubbed as the Abitibi-Kruger woods road. Unlike even in Newfoundland, the Labrador black spruce stands are a *NON-RENEWABLE*. resource. Once clear-cut by those barbarians, it would take at least a hundred years for the forest to regenerate, that is if ever it would again. The people in Labrador would have to be out of their minds to permit this happen. Whatever hope there is , hangs with the natives. They just put a stop to that insane “government approved” tire burning project in Stephenville. Sure looks good on them, but will we ever learn!!!!

    8. The Stephenville mill is nothing more than a glorified “make-work” project. A paper mill in a region where there is no source of power and no source of wood. How much sense does that make!!! Not only the town, but the people are degraded when they have to resort to this kind of senselessness in order to subsist. By expropriating the mill and converting it some other use , it could provide revenue for the community rather than for Quebec, and it could provide a source of employment in which the workers could engage with dignity and pride. What they are doing now is a debasement of their personal selves and of their land. God must weep when He looks down and sees what they have done to it.

    PS. it was brought to my attention only a few minutes ago that the Clyde
    Well’s government purchased for $15 million some of the acreage granted originally to Bowater’s, but allowed Kruger to continue harvesting the same acreage , under the same no stumpage fee arrangement. Dear God, we do so many stupid things that we probably don’t deserve to be any better off than we are. The Quebecois surely must think that we are a colony of idiots.

    Comment by Lloyd — 3/14/2005 @ 9:14 pm

11. Lloyd

    Right on. Newfoundland has always traded our resource royalties away for jobs. We did the same with the fishery. Today we have neither jobs or royalties.

    I agree that mechanization must occure in these industries but since they no longer create work than its time that we charge Abitity and FPI et al. fair royalties to use our resources. Then use the royalties to create long term meaningful enployment not cutting brush by the side of the road.

    Comment by Rick P — 3/16/2005 @ 12:25 pm

12. Actually Jen, your exactly right by saying

    “Have you considered taking on Quebec and the Churchill Falls electrical deal?”

    Quebec needs to be exposed of all the injustices it’s respondible for. The injustices that put this province (Newfoundland & Labrador) in the state it’s in today. If the French had it there way they’d have the province turned into their own little cash cow resort.

    Comment by Frank — 3/29/2005 @ 1:31 pm

13. Kevin:

    I’m not really sure what your plans are for this site, But I think all concerned Newfoundlands would consider it a great loss if it were to disappear.

    This site has given the average Newfoundlander a voice, a way to participate in some fashion in the decisions that are being made, decisions that affect us all, whether they be polictical, ecconomic, social or some combination of all of these and more.

    I agree there are immediate issues which could benefit from the bright light of Public exposure,disemination of information and considered, intelligent debate. The Lower Churchill issue has now taken on more urgency, considering the Goverment’s Request for Proposals or Expressions of Interest, whatever they choose to call it.

    Rob Antle’s article March 31, 2005 (Joint bid from Ontario, Quebec)and Bill Callahan’s letter to the editor Saturday April 2, 2005 (Avoid making the same mistake),make for interesting reading.

    The telegram dosen’t seem to make its Letters to the Editor available online, but Rob Antles’ article is still available on the telegram site at (thetelegram.com).

    In the same vein as the Atlantic Accord, this is a discussion which will have a great impact on Newfoundland’s future well being, and as is the gist of Bill Callahan’s article, we can not afford to repeat the mistakes that were made with the Upper Churchill contract.

    I would suggest a fair degree of caution, crictical thinking and perhaps outright cynicism is in order, and the people of Newfoundland should be integrally involve in the decisions to be made.
    However, to be involved the people need good information, a variety of perspectives and intelligent discussion of the Topic. Fair Deal For Newfoundland can once again be the catalyst, for this effort.

    Perhaps this issue could be set up in a separate thread, which would focus the discussion.

    If you choose to take this on, of course, continued Public exposure of the site and thread would be necessary. This can be obtained by participants once again bringing it to the Media’s attention.

    Lets not leave this solely to the Politicians, for although I was quite pleased with the efforts of the William’s administration on the Atlantic Accord, there can be no doubt that their efforts were enhanced by the groundswell of support by Newfoundlanders everywhere, and this support was in large measure precipatated by and fuelled by this site.

    Before this think is concluded, there’s no doubt it will need the support and input of every concerned Newfoundlander, and the continued involvement of all levels of Government Federal, provincial and Municipal. Lets get to work on the next Fair Deal For Newfoundland.

    Thanks again for all your efforts

    Max

    Comment by Max — 4/3/2005 @ 8:45 am

14. Side notes taken from course History 1013, at Memorial University, Fall Semester 2004, by Dr. John Edward FitzGerald and discussions with class.

    Interesting facts to consider when discussing lost of responsible government and Newfoundland’s confederation with Canada.

     1920s & 1930s markets collapsed world wide,
     NL debt grew as did every country – had difficulty repaying loans,
     Loans ballooned to just over $100 million by 1932,
     Squires (P.M.) caught with hand in the cookie jar (P. Cashin his finance Minister resigned),
     Squires government ousted –Alderdice elected.
     Alderdice ran on the promise to look at a commission of government but, that would be put to the people in a referendum,
     Amulree report recommended a “suspension of democracy until such time as the island is self-supporting and at the request of the people democracy shall be restored”,
     1933 NL government voted herself out of existence – the only gov’t to do so (ironically the most outspoken opposition to this was Bradley – who eventually became a confederation with Joey).

    Interesting Facts about losing Responsible Government

     It was agued by many (even some UK MPs) that NL already paid enough – we had the highest per capital volunteering for WWI, we had the highest or one of the highest per capital deaths & wounded – 1300 men and over 2500 respectively,
     WWI Debt payment was almost half of total debt,
     Even UK defaulted on her loans,
     But wouldn’t let NL default on hers,
     Once Commission of gov’t set up, UK arrange for a partial default on NL debt payment with Canadian banks – ironic??
     There was no referendum on what to do as promised by Alderdice!
     NL & Finland – only two countries to pay their WWI debts.

    Interesting Facts About Referendums

     Ballots were burnt ten days after the last referendum,
     Poll by Poll returns are missing – haven’t been seen since 1949,
     The Chief Electoral Officer, Nehemiah Short, was a known and staunch confederate supporter,
     If the referendum were run as a normal election, Responsible gov’t would have won the first election with a 40% of the electorate. Confederation finally won with 42% of the electorate – interesting!

    Facts about Confederation

     1931 (?) UK gave Dominion status to Commonwealth countries – NL being one,
     NL didn’t ratify this in her own parliament, however;
     UK documentation always referred to NL as the “Dominion” (important),
     Once referendum was over, Britain and Canada hammered through the amendments to the BNA Act to incorporate NL into Canada,
     Our friend A. P. Herbert tried to introduce a Bill in the British parliament to give NL a better chance of having confederation done “right”,
     A Bill was already introduced on NL and there cannot be two Bills on the same topic present to the House at the same time (great tactic). This was done to counter Herbert’s Bill – Britain was determined!!
     So for a brief moment in 1948 we were a nation again – to incorporate us in Canada, UK parliament had to suspended Commission of Gov’t; re-instate responsible government; then make us a province of Canada.
     We became a Province on Canada on April 1, 1949 – interestingly enough Canadian aviation rights ended March 31, 1949 – coincidence ??
     Why was UK so hastily trying to get ride of NL – She owned $8 Billion to Canada.
     To help pay for the debt, Canada got Labrador (what she really wanted) and the “Difficult Little Island” was taken in.
     The last payment from UK to Canada was the five ill fate subs recently purchased. The WWII debt finally paid off.

    Since Confederation
     St. Lawrence Sea Way would not have been built if not for the iron ore from Labrador
     During the 1980s – Peckford took Canada to court over the offshore,
     Our very own, Clyde Wells argued on behalf of the crown,
     A part of the Supreme Courts ruling was that NL was not a nation unto herself so she could not have had rights over the offshore so she couldn’t bring it into confederation (remember note above – we were a national and UK openly expressed this).
     Every flight over NL is charged a per kilometre fair by NavCan. Equals about $700 000.00/day. No a copper goes to the coffers of NL.
     Not to mention the fishery (you could tell me a thing or two about that mess).

    See what happens when you don’t know your history!! I find it always ironic when politicians state that we shouldn’t dwell on the past, we are going to focus on the future. I guess that is why we continue to always receive the short end of the stick!

    Comment by Frank — 4/5/2005 @ 11:38 am

15. “But let right prevail if it is right, in the right way.” If it is right, if confederation of Newfoundland with Canada was the right thing, then let the process of this union unfold in the right way. That was what Allen P. Herbert suggested by his words, written a short time after Newfoundland joined confederation. The process that unfolded demonstrated little regard for the will of the people, it showed a complete disregard for the requirements on returning self government to Newfoundland, and it breached international law as Canada and Great Britain interfered with the politics of a separate nation. Published documentation consistently revealed that what was happening behind the scenes was a push by Great Britain to solve the “Newfoundland problem” by having Canada incorporate the island into confederation. The unfairness that eventually was to be realized was the lack of debate on concrete issues that would have a continuing hindrance on the prosperity of Newfoundland and Labrador and her people. James Hiller wrote that it is hard to argue that people didn’t want to join confederation, but the process was undignified. This process was more than undignified - it was unfair and unjust.

    In 1933, Newfoundland lost responsible government on the recommendation of the Amulree Report, which suggested suspending democracy until such time as Newfoundland was financially self-supporting; then on the request of the people responsible government would be restored. Things started to change once the American and Canadian troops started to arrive at the outbreak of World War Two. Millions of dollars poured into the country and a prosperity boomed, the likes of which the common Newfoundlander had not witnessed. There was an increase in spending by the commission of government because of the growing yearly surpluses the country was experiencing. This economic growth was the most important provision of regaining responsible government – financial self-sufficiency. As prosperity grew, so did the keenness of many Newfoundlanders to be getting on with independence. Many began debating the topic of return of self-government. All of this was for nought. The British government explained the high revenue was due to wartime spending and ignored the countless articles and petitions from newspapers, Boards of Trade and Union Halls requesting the return of responsible government. The British government even ignored the advice of the Lord Privy Seal who, in 1943, recommended that Newfoundland should be returned to full Dominion status. Great Britain argued that there were no rules to govern this unpredictable event, the mechanism to return self-government. Ignoring it altogether, as the British did, indicated the lack of fairness on their behalf. There seemed to be other plans for the “difficult little island.”

    As a delaying action, Britain used one of the oldest tactics in the book and suggested Newfoundlanders get on the bandwagon and help win the war, then self-government could be debated. To stall matters further, in 1943, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State Clement Attlee sent three members of parliament on a “goodwill” mission to see in what state the colony was. One of the members was Allen P. Herbert. On their return there were no official reports; however, Herbert suggested that there should be a “citizen’s council” formed to debate the future political prospect of the nation. Finally, in 1946 the British government, under then Prime Minister Attlee, approved for a National Convention to be held to determine the future of the country. The National Convention had forty-five delegates elected as representatives, whose role was to make recommendations to British Parliament on the future form of government they wished to proceed. During this period, the National convention sent delegates to Ottawa and London to elicit support for confederation and responsible government respectively. Around the same time, the Economic Union Party was refused by the Commission of government to open dialogue with the United States - a true indication of what the British really wanted. After the delegates returned, a motion was moved to have two options placed on the referendum ballot: Commission Government or Responsible Government. Those members that were in favour of confederation moved to have this option placed on the referendum. That motion was defeated by a vote of 29 against to 16 for confederation to be place on the ballot. What was surprising to many Newfoundlanders (except people like J. R. Smallwood) was the British government overturned this defeated motion and placed confederation with Canada on the ballot as a third option. This was completely against the recommendations of the National Convention. What is particularly unfair about this is that the task of the Convention was to make recommendations as to possible future forms of government. For the British government to completely ignore this demonstrates its disdain for the Newfoundland National Convention and her population and its desire to solve the Newfoundland problem through its own means.

    Once campaigning commenced, all parties were off. It was instantly noticeable that the confederates were well organized and well funded. The Canadian government understood the seriousness of directly funding and interfering with an independent nation. Thus, the request for funding from the confederates was directed to the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. The funding required by the confederates was laundered through the Liberal Party from many prominent federal Liberals to the confederates to provide for their propaganda machine. This was especially evident during the second referendum campaign when F. Gordon Bradley, President, Newfoundland Confederation Association, and J. R. Smallwood, Campaign Manager, wrote and told the Honourable Clarence Howe, Canadian Minister of Reconstruction and Supply that they needed twenty thousand dollars and needed it quickly to secure the majority vote on the second ballot. Deliberately, during this process Britain continued correspondence and debate with the Canadian government as to potential obstacles and concessions required to bring Newfoundland into confederation with Canada. Canada was reserved in its communications; however, it wanted Newfoundland and knew the time and situation was favourable to its wish. To add insult to injury, members of the Commission of Government, appointed by Great Britain, campaigned for confederation, showing a total disregard for constitutional affairs. An argument by many is that this is the way countries do business and it is sound political strategy. That may be correct but the sad fact about this situation was that Newfoundland was not one of the countries effecting change; third parties, Canada and Great Britain, effected the change. Two separate countries secretly influencing the future of another country was, even for the 1940s, a violation of international law as outlined in the Charter of the United Nations Chapter XI, Article 73. The United Nations Charter, of which Great Britain and Canada were signatories, stipulates that all people have a right of self-determination. The process by which confederation was championed neglected this vital component of democracy.

    Of particular importance through the second referendum was the strong and belligerent sectarian issue. The Roman Catholic Archbishop, E. P. Roche of St. John’s, through the Catholic newsletter, called on all Catholics to vote for responsible government, sparking this predicament. Archbishop Roche also relieved the clergy and nuns of their vows to give them the freedom to vote - for responsible government, of course. Building on to this was the June 6,1948 editorial in the Sunday Herald which indicated that the Roman Catholics predominately voted for responsible government. This article was sent by the Confederate Association to the Orange Lodges throughout Newfoundland to advance their campaign, suggesting that the Roman Catholics wished to control the Island. This turned the campaign ugly and was a sure indication of how low people went to support their ends. This also contributed to the isolation of the real issues. That was probably one of the most unfair aspects of the whole process of the confederation affair. There was no real debate on the financial terms, aboriginal issues, fishery, airspace, taxes, industry losses via the tariff walls coming down nor was there real discussion of the national debt nor the assets Newfoundland was already bringing to confederation through infrastructures. The attention was deliberately focused on the sectarian issues to help ensure confederation won the vote.

    On July 22, 1948, confederation won the day with a slim majority, 52% of the vote. Realistically they only received 42% of the total electorate. That, however, was enough for Britain and Canada to proceed with confederation. Normally it takes a two-thirds majority to incorporate change in a constitution; however, people were on a mission. To assist with the union of Newfoundland with Canada, the Governor of Newfoundland, Sir Gordon MacDonald, ensured J. Scott MacDonald, the Canadian High Commissioner of Newfoundland, that the right men would be chosen as delegates to represent Newfoundland on the Terms of Union discussions. The right people were chosen and during the finalization of the Terms of Union a “take it or leave it” approached was presented by Canadian officials. The Newfoundland delegation, all but one, “took it” and signed the Terms of Union for Newfoundland to join the confederation of Canada on December 11, 1948. Britain hammered the legislative changes to the British North American Act through the House with little or no debate to have Newfoundland become a province of Canada. Here again, disregarding even members of its own parliament.

    Winston Churchill during a speech to the British House of Commons in November of 1947 noted, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Truer words may not have been spoken; however, for the “Newfoundland problem” all aspects of democracy seemed to be disregarded. With exception to people having the right to vote on the presented - not recommended - referendum questions, democracy seemed to take a back door to what Britain, Canada and selected self-serving individuals wanted. It is as if the ends justified the means. That more than anything made the process completely unfair and unjust to Newfoundland. The people were actually denied information. Their right to self-determination boycotted by two separate independent countries, demonstrating that democracy was not practiced - it was trampled. According to the accounts of recent publications and the facts of the confederation debates, the end result may be right, but it definitely was not done in the right way. Thus, it was and still remains a contentious issue some fifty-five years later. That truly was the most unfair outcome of the whole ordeal!

    Comment by Frank — 4/5/2005 @ 11:40 am

Leave a comment

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.