Doyle and Hearn: Accord is Safe
VOCM Open Line is reporting that the Accord is safe: Doyle and Hearn will vote for the budget on Thursday, thereby keeping the Accord agreement alive. More later as I confirm….
UPDATE: It seems that the Conservative Caucus will vote against the NDP amendment to the budget, which means that unless an independent votes to support it the government will still fall. But it seems the Hearn and Doyle are choosing to vote for the budget, and thus for the Accord. Still searching for more information on this…
CONFIRMED: Doyle and Hearn will be voting for the budget with their caucus – just reported by VOCM. More work to be done, and more analysis to be sure, but this is good news.
Globe and Mail coverage (though they were scooped by VOCM).
89 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The entire caucus will vote in favour of C-43, not just Doyle and Hearn.
Then the entire caucus will vote against the second budget motion, thereby bringing down the government.
Their vote on C-43 is cancelled out by their vote on the second bill.
This is yet more political posturing.
Comment by ed Hollett — 5/17/2005 @ 9:24 pmwho says this government should be maintained?
And how is the accord in any way endangered?
The only possible way I see that happening is in the case of a Lieberal Majority… the very conditions that allowed Martin to deny us this deal for years before he did his mid 2004-180-turn…
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/17/2005 @ 9:28 pmThis is ridiculous. They are going to vote for the budget yet against the budget. What a load of you know what. Like many of the supporters of this initiative, I too sent a reply to Mr. Hearn this afternoon. During the Peckford administration, I had the opportunity to observe Messrs. Hearn and Doyle as ministers of the crown. At that time, I felt that both did an admirable job in their respective portfolios.
I felt it was important to state the following to Mr. Hearn this afternoon.
“I had great respect for both of you (Mr. Hearn and Mr. Doyle) as I saw two people with integrity who made decisions that were in the best interest of the province. I expect you to demonstrate the same as elected members of the House of Commons; no more, no less.
It is evident then that nothing less than a vote to pass the budget on Thursday and continued support for the government until the budget receives royal assent is acceptable. A no vote will seal your political downfall.”
Do they believe that they can get away with voting for the main budget yet defeat the admendment thus bringing down the govenment and sinking the Martin/Williams agreement? 2.6 billion lost is 2.6 billion lost. It doesn’t matter if it is due to a vote against the main budget or the amendment or a separate non-confidence motion. This thing needs royal assent and we must make it known that they can’t snow us. Because folks, it seems that is exactly what they are trying to do!
Am I mistaken? I don’t think so.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/17/2005 @ 9:31 pmWhat a difference a day makes!
Comment by Debra — 5/17/2005 @ 9:34 pmThere *is* a difference between the NDP’s whore’s ransom and the budget that includes the accord. Both are not **THE BUDGET**
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/17/2005 @ 9:42 pmBringing down the government would not have sunk the $2.6 billion agreement.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/17/2005 @ 9:44 pmSorry Liam but I cannot nor will I agree with you.
You splitting hairs between the “budget", the “amendment to the budget” and whatever else suits your arguement. And yes, bringing down this govenment does sink the $2.6 billion.
If the government goes, so does the agreement. You may trust Steven Harper but I don’t. And there are many others who have the same opinion. Like has been said in this forum many times, it is better to see to fruition the agreement as written than a promise yet to materialize.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/17/2005 @ 10:03 pmBrenda, I think it’s ridiculous that you trust a leader who denied us this for years, delayed it for months and then held it hostage. From the very beginning he has tried to weasel out of it. The Conservative (and Jack Layton’s NDP by the way) caucus has consistently supported in writing that which Martin only ever first gave in a whispered phone call. Do you have any reason for not trusting Harper OR Layton?
So far you’ve decided to trust the only leader who has purposefully stalled delayed and fought the accord. your pattern of support makes zero sense. It is illogical and unsubstantiated in the slightest.
Moreover, an ammendment to the budget is NOT the budget any more than a CD player added to a car is the same thing as a car.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/17/2005 @ 10:12 pmSo Brenda, why exactly should the government that, of possible alternatives, has offered the least in terms of a deal, be preserved?
Or can you substantiate in any way a claim that they aren’t giving us the least?
COnservatives offer this deal plus no clawback on voiseys plus 10 province standard plus empowerment on the fisheries.
The Liberals offer us this deal one time after threats and trying their best to pull out of it after years of ignoring the drafters of the original accord in 1985 who said they could have and should have listened to NL’s demands.
Are you unable to read policy or simply unwilling? Or is it option C – are you a Liberal supporter who simply likes to give these guys another 5-6 months salary for treating us like dirt?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/17/2005 @ 10:16 pmKevin:
Now that it appears the Budget will pass, and it seems that the Accord deal is safe for the monent, unless our political friends have more tricks up their sleeves. What can we do to get this issued fast tracked and get the Accord money in the bank.
What presures can we bring to bear on the Federal Liberals to get this deal finalized and the funding in our respective provincial treasuries. We cannot continue to allow ourselves to be held to ransom and used as shields by the Martin government.
I don’t think theres any question that this government is going down, its just a matter of when, in the meantime we need this deal finalized so that the Accord funding doesn’t die with them.
Knowing that their political demise as a government is imminent, this government is still politically vunerable, and a second minority government is a distinct possibility.
Perhaps a letter writing campaign to all parties in order to try to speed this Budget process along through the 6 stages as outline by Loyola Hearn.
Comment by Max — 5/17/2005 @ 10:19 pmWell it seems in the time it took me to post a response to the news, the Conservatives, true to the fashion of our politicians came through with another dirty trick. What a bunch of As??????. If they do this, I think their fate is sealed, they can forget about being elected to Govern Canada, I think Canadians have had enough of this type of Politics from both parties.
Comment by Max — 5/17/2005 @ 10:26 pmIf the government is defeated on Thursday on any money bill - confidence matter - then the whole thing collapses. Liam is simply wrong and his reference to “whore’s ransom” demostrates clearly that he holds an extremists view of things.
Nothing is safe at all.
It is that simple.
What the Conservatives have cooked up here is a political dodge so they can appear to do one thing, and take the heat off, while actually doing nothing at all except force an election.
This is designed to take the heat off Norm and Loyola.
Wait til you hear what Harper said in his scrum this evening. Liam will still love him, but many people will find his remarks - and the attitude behind them - to be distressing.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/17/2005 @ 10:34 pmI am totally surprised. This campaign of emails was purportedly to get Hearn and Doyle to vote for the budget and the Accord.
You all have accomplished even more; the entire Conservative party is going to vote for it apparently.
Now I see some posters say that isn’t quite enough. Now we should let them stay at least until the budget is put through Royal assent.
So what, now they should not be defeated until next Fall, next Spring, two years from now? Hey I know, why don’t we let them stay in power until Martin decides it’s a good time to go to the polls. How about in four more years?
By then maybe everyone will have forgotten about the Adscam, Martin can buy some more people off and when the stars are aligned just right, then we should try to defeat him, but only if he doesn’t have any other “promises” on the table.
There are rumblings of discontent from every corner of the country; talk of separation in Quebec again after the Liberal Adscam situation, much talk of separation once again in Alberta, BC and even some in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I have even seen some chatter of forming a BLOC for Atlantic Canada to get your voices heard.
The Conservative Party isn’t causing this. They have never been in government. The Liberals have been running the store for the past twelve years.
This can not be good for Canada, but it’s been a favourite ploy of the Liberal party, to divide and conquer by keeping everyone at odds across the country.
Again I ask, how much longer should they be allowed to stay in power?
As long as they can bamboozle us into believing that if we let them stay in power just a little bit longer, SOMEDAY they will give us what they’ve promised, our country will never reach its full potential, and may just split apart.
Comment by Julie — 5/18/2005 @ 1:43 amForcing an election makes them as guilty of wasting tax dollars as the sponsorship scandal!
Ed, isn’t there a tasty piece of Governor General power that allows the Queen’s representative to reject the non-confidence vote on any part of the budget thereby enacting Royal Assent and declaring the “opposition” as idiots! (Or something like that, I’m kidding… but it was funny.) I’m getting tired and can’t look that one up tonight.
But seriously, I’ve got less confidence in this pasted together band of Alliance and CPC miscreants than I do with the ALREADY UNDER INVESTIGATION, HIGHLY SCRUTINIZED, BAND OF THIEVES! Let’s just wait until we send them DIRECTLY TO JAIL FROM POWER.
Geesh, you folks are really missing a radically historical landmark. I dislike this crowd of Liberals more than anybody. That’s why I want to see them tossed from their cabinet posts one by one as they are recalled to their home ridings for bi-elections to which they will be watching future elections from their cells!
I know, my hopes are likely in vain. At least delaying it that long should give the PC’s another chance at a real Leadership race. Bring that Tony guy back, now that Belinda is gone, he is by far the best chance the PC’s have in the spring of 2006! There is no way anybody I respect will vote for a PC party led by Harper. (Nice stunt PC wankers. You guys honestly think that we’re as poorly informed as Darrin?)
Kevin, another letter letting them know were on to their misguided tactic?
Have a nice day,
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 5/18/2005 @ 2:10 amOne point I would like to make on the difference between Bill C-43 (Budget Implementation Act) and Bill C-48 (Authorization to the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments Act).
Bill C-48 is a spending bill in much the same way as the Atlantic Accord would be if it was a separate spending bill.
It is entirely possible to pass the budget (Bill C-43) which would go to senate for Royal Ascent and all 24 items within that Bill would then have the money authorized to pay for those items. This is the budget. The only budget.
Bill C-48 is only an act to allow the Finance Minister to spend extra money on certain items not included in the Budget C-43. (NDP spending items)
There are NOT two(2) budgets here.. only Bill C-43 is the budget. The problem arises in the fact that the Government has decided to make Bill C-48 a confidence vote as well, which they can do on any bill, not just a budget or spending bill.
So Bill C-43 (Budget Implementation Act- including the Accord) can pass just fine, but C-48 could fail bringing down the government.
The reason C-48 wasn’t pass to this point is that included in this Budget Implementation Act were a couple items -including- Kyoto, and the Child Care plan which are MAJOR expenditures and should be separate Acts in themselves requiring debate, and the loss of the Large Corporation tax cuts which most ecomonists agree would create up to 340,000 jobs.
The Conservatives tepidly supported the original budget based on the tax cuts which is part of their platform even tho it included some aspects they did not support.
When Martin decided to take out THAT part of the budget the CPC supported to create Bill C-48, the Conservatives rightly could no longer support this new budget. They compromised then to prop up the minority government, and are doing so again.
The best option would have been for the government to create separate Acts for Kyoto and Daycare, as these are MAJOR PROGRAMS and to have separated the Atlantic Accord for quick passage, as the majority of the House could have passed this last February.
Martin wanted to keep them all together to garner the most support which a fair political thing to do for the Liberal party, however it was an unmitigated disaster for the country as a whole in a minority parliament.
Comment by Darrin — 5/18/2005 @ 2:19 amOh as for the cost of an election, it used to cost upwards of $250-300 million each election because Elections Canada had to enumerate the voter list before and election. As of 2000 we now have a permanent voters list and the cost is much less, and costs like about $80-110 million. Based on 23 million eligible voters, that works out to about $5 per voter.
Here’s my 5 bucks…
Comment by Darrin — 5/18/2005 @ 2:24 amFred, would you rather have an election which costs in the neighbourhood of $350 million and according to Martin’s promise of the moment will occur in about 5 months, or would you rather let Martin run around at our tax-payer expense, on tax-payer funded jets announcing and re-announcing $Billion ‘promises’ each and every day.
Comment by Julie — 5/18/2005 @ 2:30 amHe’s already announced over $23 Billion in promises in the last 3 weeks.
A $350 million election would be a bargain at the price.
Julie, the PC’s haven’t even been a party for two years, and they’re being led by the wrong dude! That’s why non-party followers (that is people who don’t vote for party crap) don’t want to waste any money on an election where NONE of the alternatives are any better than this perfectly in check, MINORITY government! If any of these wankers managed to slide into a majority government, then the sh*t would hit the fan! And if holding the law breaking, liberals at bay with a MINORITY government isn’t the best possible result until all the cards are on the Gomery table, then I just can’t see how squeaking a PC minority is going to do anything but VOID all previous deals!
Obviously you were a youngster not paying attention to the last time we had a PC Majority! As un-red as I am, it took the liberals 8-10 years to clean up the last PC mess when the PC party was CRUSHED because of their abuse of our country. Hit the books and come back when you have two sides of a story to argue. You are currently screaming about the only evil you know, and crying for an even worse evil that still has clay between its toes from the “REFORM"ing!
The repeating history is truly losing its irony.
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 5/18/2005 @ 2:33 amActually Fred, I was paying attention when we had a PC party. I voted them in twice and voted them out once after they also became too corrupt and unresponsive to the Canadian people.
Obviously our opinions differ on the leader of the CONSERVATIVE PARTY. I happen to like Stephen Harper, his ethics, his honesty and his integrity. That could be because I have actually listened to him, and watched him and compared him with what else is out there.
I am very cynical about media and spin messages that are put out there by parties or people with an agenda.
Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of spin has been put forth by the Liberal party especially, and the Toronto based media as well, that anything to do with the Conservative party, especially since it is from the West, and has a leader that now lives in the West, is ’scaaaaryy’.
I listened to the same ‘spin’ put out when the Reform Party was elected with Preston Manning as leader and sent to Ottawa to try to bring principled change to the way government worked, and again when the people of the West tried to accommodate the Central bias and worked to form the Alliance Party with another new leader in Stockwell Day.
When I ask people to actually define what is so scary about any of these people.. or the Conservative Party, so far I haven’t gotten a well reasoned answer. They can only repeat the same mantra.
It seems to me that many people have fallen for a Liberal election sound-bite, and have not investigated for themselves to see if in fact the Conservative Party or the leader are as scary as they’ve been told.
I would suspect that the Conservative Party and any leader they have is ‘scary’ to the central elite. They don’t want to give up their grip on power.
If you honestly think this minority government is working, your definition of a government that is working for the PEOPLE and mine is different, I’m sad to say.
Comment by Julie — 5/18/2005 @ 3:15 amRE: The Gomery Inquiry.
Justice Gomery cannot make any findings of guilt or press criminal charges.
He is specifically restricted by Paul Martin in Paragraph K of his Commission Inquiry to merely make a finding of what went wrong and what needs to be done to stop it from happening again.
Quote: # the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;
http://www.gomery.ca/en/termsofreference/
Therefore, there is no point in waiting to ‘let Justice Gomery do his work and then we can decide’
That is merely another stalling tactic by the Liberals to cling yet a bit longer to power.
Comment by Julie — 5/18/2005 @ 3:51 amDarrin:
Nice try, but someone has been giving you bogus information on parliamentary procuedure.
As much as you might like to have people belief you, what is going on here is a fairly obvious and transparent dodge that, as Harper said in his scrum, is merely designed to stop the Libs from saying that they voted against the offshore money.
Pretty much a sham.
This is as much of a sham as the nonsense being spouted about last year’s budget only passing last week.
Pure bunk.
Here are the facts:
1. The Conservatives decided almost two months ago to defeat the government irrespective of anything - public opinion included.
2. The deal with the NDP was struck at THAT point. Do you own math on who is to blame. Were Harper in power I wouldn’t expect him to do anything else but try to hang on to power with the same obsessive determination he is using to try and gain power.
3. At the point the Connies decided to bring down the budget - two months ago ! - any piece of legislation that had not passed Royal Assent when the government feel was dead as a door-nail.
4. The Conservatives likely have another plan for delivering some kind of deal as Liam has said. Therefore, this province’s cash in hand - which could have been replaced by a better deal later - is being sacrificed to Connie political expediency.
5. Julie: THAT is why people are suspicious of Harper and the Conservatives. There is no media conspiracy. People just look at the Conservatives, their language and their behaviour and they get suspicious. Look at the SES Poll. The Connies don’t come out any better than the Liberals. The reason is simple. Harper is “scary” to some Canadians the same way you and Darrin find other politicians unpalatable. The very fact you keep looking for conspiracies suggests to me you are looking in the wrong place.
5.a. What many people find scary - for example - is the speed with which the Harper team yeasterday resorted to attacks on Belinda Stronach - personal, insulting, sexist, demeaning remarks. They spend a lot of time dog-whistling - a popular conservative comms technique these days - like Harper’s mafia reference in his scrum last night.
When the PCs took power 21 years ago, they did NOT look anything like this Conservative Party at all. They were a Canadian Conservative Party. There was a sense of openess and inclusion. This appears to be an ideologically closed party. THAT turns people off. Their base of support is Alberta - check the polls - just like Reform. The farther away from Alberta you get, the weaker the support.
That reflects the choices VOTERS have made on their own. Voters are pretty smart people, despite all the efforts to bambozzle them.
6. When Harper and company make these sorts of obviously bogus arguments about the Commons and bills, people start to figure it out pretty quickly.
7. As for Harper, I go back to what Preston manning said about him on several occasions. BTW I think Preston Manning is one of the best politicians we have had in this country, as much as I may disagree with some of his policy ideas. Nope, Manning makes it pretty clear that harper is an elitist - a university academic elitist. He thinks he must know best because he is smarter than everyone else.
8. As for procedure, the GG could ask Harper to form a government. It would cause a Constitutional wrangle if she was refusing the writ requested by the PM.
9. If, on the other hand, the PM advises her to approach Mr. Harper, she has done nothing wrong. Then Harper has to refuse to form a government. and try to justify it after demonstrating clearly that he has control of the House.
10.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/18/2005 @ 6:00 amWell, well, well talk about dirty tricks. Just when I thought we couldn’t be inflicted with anyone more embarressing than Efford, Hearn and Doyle (along with Harper) propose this silly alternative: Vote for C43 but defeat C48. Just how stund do they think we are? The end result is the same. If C48 is defeated, the bugdet is defeated and the accord is out the window!! Loyola, if you read this, for the love of all that is holy get real. Develop some gonads and pass both C43 and C48 and don’t treat your constituents like imbeciles. This is not the time for inane political games. This is the time to work and act for the people who elected you. You can topple the govt. later. Give us a break!
Comment by Jeremiah — 5/18/2005 @ 6:29 amJeremiah, you and others are showing Messrs. Hearn and Doyle that we, their constituents, are not imbeciles and that we are not going to stand for their insulting games.
Speaking of insulting, what has been said about Ms. Stronach by her former collegues is nothing but disgusting. I won’t repeat it but I am sure many of you have heard them. They were aired all over the CBC news last night and have been repeated again this morning.
And will someone inform Stephen Harper that attacking a popular premier at a time when he (Harper) needs all the ‘friends’ he can get (it isn’t only Martin who needs help), is not a brilliant move. Enter one more nail in the political coffins of Doyle and Hearn.
I have no allegiance to any party but to be honest, the NDP are looking better and better by the day. At least I know that I will not be compromising my principles by sending my vote their way.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/18/2005 @ 7:16 amResponse to Ed faith-in-the-powers-in-Ottawa Hollet’s “facts":
1. How often has the Canadian public desired an election when one was called? Are you suggesting that we also end the 4-5 year limit also just in case some poll shows what just about every poll always shows (that elections aren’t fun)?
2. Stephen Harper has stated already that if the tables were turned and parliament asked a committee to recommend that he resign, he would resign. Moreover, it was Paul Martin who decided to end opposition days in the house, refuse to appoint senators that Albertans elected, hold this accord hostage for a month (well, almost a year now) and then refuse to bow to the will of parliament. You may “expect” Stephen Harper to do the same thing. But his actions to date indicate without doubt that Harper wanted the deal done as Williams demanded back in September/October, back in March and at the beginning of April! Guess who actually stalled IN ACTUAL DEED? It was Paul Martin. We really shouldn’t be surprised. Paul Martin is the only federal deal on record opposing this type of deal. The Conservatives, and their legacy parties before them, supported this type of deal. They put it in writing. The NDP did the same. Only the Liberals are threatening to jeopardize this deal. Only they have in any way at any time waivered in their commitement on this matter.
3. assuming for a minute that this will happen, what evidence at all do you have that a conservative government won’t do anything except make this deal the first item on the list? When have they stated anything but this? I think you’re assuming Stephen Harper will behave like Paul Martin. Yet nothing in either leader’s pattern of actions indicates they have the same MO at all. If you have examples, Ed, cite them.
4. The Conservatives’ reforms to equalization are IN ADDITION TO THE ACCORD DEAL THAT STEPHEN HARPER GUARANTEED IN WRITING TO THE PREMIERS OF NOVA SCOTIA AND NEWFOUNDLAND. If Danny Williams is willing to accept a whispered phone call from a compulsive liar, why won’t he accept a written commitment from a federal leader with a comparatively better record of keeping promises? ESPECIALLY given that the deal would be retroactive…?
5. What is “scary” about Stephen Harper?? Look at his policies from his leadership run, previous platforms, previous speeches, and the policies passed in March. You could interchange the sections on Atlantic Canada/offshore oil/fisheries with Vic Young’s Royal Commission summary, the All party committee on fisheries, the premier’s speeches etc…. Now look at paul Martin’s record over the years. Martin scares the sh*t out of me, because he’s not above repealing a deal that he outright opposed for years as finance minister! This is the same guy that claimed he would never behave like Brian Mulroney in the early 1990s initial budget restraints and then quadroupled his cuts specifically to the provinces on health and education by the mid 1990s. There is zero credibility here and zero interest in furthering any other demands from this province. Harper, to his credit, has listened to and agreed to Norm and Loyola’s (and Danny’s) policy demands for Newfoundland and Labrador on every major issue. Ask Roger Grimes what he thinks of the federal Liberal government’s fisheries policy. Ask him what he thinks of their position on clawing back voisey’s bay revenue. Harper is a much better fit with the types of provincial rights issues that have been championed since the days of Peckford and Wells. Martin, well, given his actions when he actually DID agree to something, he scares me. Even Layton has been far more consistent.
5a - The Liberal Party of Canada has had candidates that carried signs marked “Death to Israel,” said that first nations people were dirty, denounced homosexuals in the worst kind of way and got to run again for nomination, etc…
As for the party of 21 years ago. Its support in Alberta that fall evening in 1984 was at 69%. The party of today and its legacy parties are actually quite ideolgically open. Jim Prentice, Loyola Hearn, and James Moore sit in a caucus with Gary Breitkreuz, Myron Thompson and others.
On average, It is still the youngest caucus in Canadian history. It is also the most diverse. Look at the caucus accross the way, and even with Stronach added, it’s a group of mostly tired old (and probably corrupt) old men.
The voters are indeed fairly smart people. That’s why they see through Liberal attempts to make the phrases “Budget 2005″ and “survival of the universe as you all know it” synonymous… When faced with an inquiry that makes them look like the sopranos, the Liberal party has chosen to do a very Tony Soprano style thing – threaten Canadians.
6. I think the most bogus argument I’ve heard on this forum to date is your claim that the bogey man bloc could indefinitely delay a seperated accord against 250+ MPs. At most a day or two…. then we would have had the accord. Instead it’s more than a month later and the hostage takers continue to manouvere….
7. Stephen Harper has proposed greatly reducing the powers of the prime minister, empowering NL to have a final say over its fisheries (something the viceroy elitists in the Liberal party of Canada would never allow), appointing senators elected by provinces should they choose that method, bringing budgets much more back into parliamentary scrutiny, bringing more appointments under parliamentary review.
Meanwhile Paul Martin has ended opposition days, refused to select the senators that Albertans wanted (and would do so against any other province by every indication), fought to hold generally popular legislation together with less popular legislation, and refused to listen to the will of parliament when it expressed adesire for the government to resign (by recommending that a committee include that in its report).
Who is the elitist again???
It’s the Liberal Party of Canada’s political mantra “Ottawa knows best.” “Power is best kept at the centre.” “Strong Central Government.” In other words, to hell with the wishes of those adjacent to the resource, to hell with premiers, and to hell with upstarts like Newofundland and Labrador…. Ed, admit that the most elitist political culture is that first crafted by Lord Trudeau himself and the pygmies that followed him….
But for that Liberal prime Minister’s challenges and opposition, we’d actually have an arrangement that allowed for full ownership of this resource.
That type of arrogant elitism isn’t remotely matched by either the CPC or the NDP.
A final point:
Why won’t the Liberal Government state unequivocally that IF the government falls and IF they are re-elected that they will enact the deal with full retroactivity?
If they won’t do that, then it’s quite obvious that they only care about this deal as a hostage used to preserve their power.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/18/2005 @ 7:38 amBelinda Stronach less than a week before, voted to have a committee recommend that a government resign. Now she’s signing-on.
She’s a sellout and an egotist. There’s no two ways about it. If she had any principle and was primarily concerned with the CPC, she’d have sat as an independent. Instead she sold out. Her actions are completely inconsistent and unprincipled.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/18/2005 @ 7:41 amYes you are correct Ed. I am in error. If C-43 passes and C-48 fails, the budget dies, Valeri attached a positive vote to each bill with no debate or amendmants. If they both pass the budget will survive. We’ll see if you get The Atlantic Accord through the senate before June 9.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/calendar/cal2005-e.htm
Valeri also moved all supply days to the end of this session. There are 6 opposition supply days left in this parliament before it ends on June 23.
Call me cynical but I can see this government perogue parliament before the 17th. If it does do not say I didn’t tell you so.
There are good things in this budget and some bad things like Kyoto. There is no plan for this boondoggle. Realize that there is an admendment in this budget to make Carbon Dioxide a toxic gas, which can be regulated and taxed. That is the stuff you breathe out. They want to regulate C02 to stop global warming, so they say. We are putting too much C02 into the atmosphere which is causing global warming. Carbon dioxide comprises 2-3% of our air, and Canada’s portion of this is a fraction of the worlds total output. We have to pay 10 billion for this??? This is the Kyoto plan.
Whatever. This and other huge expenditures with no plan at all is why the budget should die, not because the Conservatives have some hate on for Newfoundland. Like I said when you don’t get your money before the summer, don’t blame the NDP, Bloc or the Conservatives…
Comment by Darrin — 5/18/2005 @ 7:59 amI don’t recall ever hearing Preston Manning calling Stephen Harper elitist. Smart, a policy-wonk, yes, but not elitist.
It’s amusing how, now that Preston Manning is no longer the leader of a party from the West, the same people, who in many cases called him a bigot, western redneck, “scaareey”, now have nothing but good things to say of him.
Perhaps it is good to share our viewpoints from each side of the country. I fully respect and support everyone in the Atlantic and always have. We may differ on the best way for you to achieve your goals, but have no doubt, we in the West, have always had respect and affection for our Canadian family in the Atlantic provinces. In fact, many of us have fought for and stood in support of your causes in the past and will continue to do so.
Comment by Julie — 5/18/2005 @ 8:26 amEd, I have a somewhat different take on the facts than you have, strangely enough.
1. The NDP and Bloc were the parties that voted to defeat the government right after the budget… the one you say must be saved. It was the Conservatives who said they would not bring the government down so soon after the election.
2. After Gomery heard testimony by more than one Liberal party worker about the corruption and theft of our tax dollars to support the Liberal Party in Quebec and their friends, the Conservative Party said they could no longer support the Government, and rightly so.
3. That was when Martin struck a new deal with the NDP on a new budget, so save his sorry hide. So how Harper is to blame for that one, I can’t quite fathom.
4. Martin had more than 7, count them, 7 months to enact the Atlantic Accord and put it through the house if he had been sincere in his election promise. Stephen Harper made a motion 2 months ago seconded by Jack Layton to pass the Accord in a stand alone bill and pass it through the house quickly. This is well documented as you know.
5. I have listened to most news clips of what was said about Ms. Stronach and I have not heard any of the personal, insulting, sexist, demeaning remarks that you claim has been said by Harper’s team. I have heard people on the street making those comments, but you surely aren’t going to lay blame for what the public says at Harper’s feet are you?
6. I find it rather amusing that you are so quick to take offence at a reference to the Mafia in regards to the Liberal Party. Their own party members have testified at the Gomery Inquiry that they were so scared of being ‘car bombed’ in threats by what they described as mafia associates of some Liberal party members that they warned their family and friends if something happened to them, they wanted it to come out of their fear, and who they were afraid of.
7. Have you also been so quick to take offence when the words used by the Liberals to put down anyone in the Conservative party or the Reform and Alliance parties were used? Or did you defend that as just being true, because you know.. those guys from the West, they are different. They are racist, they are Holocaust deniers, they are KKK members etc etc etc.
8. Now, since you filled me in on history as you remember it, I will share my view of it from this side of the country.
9. I know what the PC’s looked like 21 years ago, I also know what the Conservatives looked like with Diefenbaker. I also know what the Conservative Party was under Robert Stanfield. I always respected him as an honorable, honest man.
10. I believed Trudeau, for a time with his “Just Society” But his words did not match his actions, he showed total disrespect for us in the West and did not ever really care as many of his policies showed. By the way, our deficit and debt was created during Trudeau’s tenure, while he was in minority as well, backed by an NDP Party I might add. History does repeat itself.
11. I voted for Joe Clark in his short term in office.
12. Even though I voted for Mulroney in 1984, and again in 1988, let’s not put on our rose coloured glasses here. His was not the principled party you are remembering.
He formed a coalition with the separatists in Quebec to form government (remember Bouchard?) and his total disregard for either the East or West of Canada led to his near total wipeout.
There was much talk in the West at that time of separation, because we had given up, our voices were not heard, our Conservative MP’s merely came out to their constituents and told us what Ottawa thought was best for us, they did not take back to Ottawa our voices to be heard. At least 3 parties were gaining strength at that time to go for separation.
It was Preston Manning along with Stephen Harper and other founding members of the Reform Party who convinced us all to give it another chance. To form a new party who would take our voices to Ottawa to be heard and try to affect a principled change in Government in Ottawa.
In many ways they were successful. When they first went to Ottawa in 1993, the Liberal Red Book had no mention of balancing the budget. There were no plans to get rid of the deficit which was growing at an alarming rate. Out here in the West, that debt clock was taken around everywhere and we watched in horror as it steadily added thousands of dollars with every tick.
They did take our voice to Ottawa and many of the changes in the Reform platform were taken and adopted by the Liberal party when they saw that the people wanted them. Of course, now the Liberals and Paul Martin claim that as their crowning achievement, but I challenge you to go back to the Reform platform at that time and the Liberal Redbook #1 and see who’s platform was adopted.
Your comment “Their base of support is Alberta - check the polls - just like Reform. The farther away from Alberta you get, the weaker the support.” pretty much says it all, and it’s comments just like yours that is what makes many people in the West go back to the feelings of alienation of the pre-Reform days.
Comment by Julie — 5/18/2005 @ 8:32 amGiven the actions of each of the following people on policies relating to this province:
1. Jack Layton
2. Stephen Harper
3. Paul Martin
Why on earth would anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador want to continue a minute longer preserving the present government?
The years of total opposition followed by months of weaseling (leading to the formation of this very website) followed by weeks of hostage-taking should be reason enough for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to want an election so as to withdraw their support for government MPs.
The conduct of Paul Martin has made it very clear that if he ever again sees majority government, he will most likely repeal or ammend the deal or find some other way to diminsh it.
Every action that Jack Layton and Stephen Harper has taken on the accord file over the last few years indicates consistent support for such a deal at a minimum. There is a written commitment to support the deal no matter what and with retroactivity.
So why fight for the basement deal and a government with the least liklihood of honouring anything for Newfoundland.
Remember: There has been an Accord in place since 1985. The drafters of that Accord all agreed with the assessment of successive Premiers of Newfoundland AND the Royal Commission on this province’s place in Canada that the accord was not being honoured by the Chretien or Martin governments. The legislation for that accord was in place since 1985.
Why trust Paul Martin.
The best deal for Newofundland on this issue and other issues will only be truly secured if Martin is truly defeated. After the way he has treated his province, he certainly doesn’t deserve any support from here.
This isn’t ‘partisan’ – it’s an assessment of the conduct of each federal leader from each party. Two (from opposite ends of the spectrum) have been relatively consistent and trustworthy on this issue. Paul Martin hasn’t even come close. He’s using us as human shields. Don’t dignify his threats.
The best thing Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn could do for this province is defeat Paul Martin’ government.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/18/2005 @ 8:54 amJulie said:
5. I have listened to most news clips of what was said about Ms. Stronach and I have not heard any of the personal, insulting, sexist, demeaning remarks that you claim has been said by Harper’s team. I have heard people on the street making those comments, but you surely aren’t going to lay blame for what the public says at Harper’s feet are you?
Julie, you obviously haven’t kept yourself up to date with what has been said in the media. I as many in the country saw and/or heard these comments made in the media last night and again this morning. Those I have listed below are from CTV News.
At the provincial level, Conservative member of the Alberta legislature Tony Abbott was even more outspoken.
“To me, what it is, it’s a little rich girl basically whoring herself out to the Liberals,” he said.
And in Ontario, former provincial Tory cabinet minister Bob Runciman described Stronach as “attractive,” a “dipstick” and a political joke.
“I think she sort of defined herself as something of a dipstick – an attractive one, but still a dipstick – with what she’s done here today,” Runciman told CFRB Radio.
“I’ve never really noticed complexity to be Belinda’s strong point,” he (Harper) said.
Comments like these are unbecoming of any parliamentarian, provincial or federal; past present or future. It is one thing to display desperation. It is another to display ignorance and bigotry.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/18/2005 @ 9:06 amBut for the comment about complexity not being Belinda’s strong point, (are you going to tell me that it is her strong point, Brenda?) all of the other comments you’ve quoted are all made by Provincial PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE members, not members of Harpers caucus or the Conservative Party of Canada.
Comment by Julie — 5/18/2005 @ 9:27 amI fail to see how you can hold a Federal leader responsible for comments made by someone in a provincial party.
I recall the Liberal Party members calling her a blond bimbo and other such put downs in the past, so let’s not get too twisted out of shape here.
Boy did Stephen Harper ever put Danny Williams in his place for putting pressure on the two Tory MPs to vote for safe passage of the Accord. Now that the big boss has spoken, we can get on with an election. Newfoundland aspirations be damned.
Comment by Hazen Grigg — 5/18/2005 @ 9:33 amMy God Brenda
The only thing that is demeaning and insulting is the way Belinda has treated her constituents who voted not only for her but the party platform, her party in which she was in caucus and was privy to all party strategy and her Country.
She claims she is doing this for Canada? There is only outrage across the country that she could sell herself to the highest bidder - Paul Martin- for a senior cabinet position with no experience being only a unilingual, rookie MP for 18 months, and not even a critic for that portfolio. Backbench MPs who have been in the Liberal party for years who have worked hard must be feeling nothing but betrayal right now, not to mention Lucienne Robillard.
At the provincial level, Conservative member of the Alberta legislature Tony Abbott was even more outspoken.
“To me, what it is, it’s a little rich girl basically whoring herself out to the Liberals,” he said.
Whore: A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
“I think she sort of defined herself as something of a dipstick – an attractive one, but still a dipstick – with what she’s done here today,” Runciman told CFRB Radio.
dipstick: Slang. A person regarded as foolish or contemptible.
“I’ve never really noticed complexity to be Belinda’s strong point,” he (Harper) said.
So Harper said she wasn’t complex…and that is a statement of bigotry or ignorance? Sometimes the truth hurts but get real.
How bout Reg Alcock, Joe Volpe, Hedy Fry, etc.
Comment by Darrin — 5/18/2005 @ 9:55 am“So Harper said she wasn’t complex…and that is a statement of bigotry or ignorance? Sometimes the truth hurts but get real.”
My reference to Harper’s comment wasn’t to imply it was bigoted but had you heard the delivery of the statement such as I did, you would understand that I did include it as ignorant and demeaning. But it is obvious because of your political affiliation, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Fair enough.
As for any other person, be it an elected political official or someone in my neighbourhood, bigotry cannot be tolerated. On this point there is no compromise.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/18/2005 @ 10:22 amBrenda
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Bigotry: The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance
How someone says a statement is not bigotry. That word is over used and misrepresented. You say bigotry can not be tolerated? How ironic of you.
At any rate, I know of very few people, in any political party who are bigots, perhaps very partisan but not to the point of being so closed minded that they will not consider another point of view or argument. The political parties share many ideas across party platforms, the only difference is how to best implement them.
Comment by Darrin — 5/18/2005 @ 10:54 amDarrin;
I always enjoy listening to others’ opinions and considering their points of view that may differ from my own. Are Conservatives unhappy with Stronach’s decision? Of course, and no one would blame them.
However, to use the language as I heard last night that was nothing more than belittling and gender bias is unacceptable. Had they said she was opportunistic or something of the like, so be it. But they didn’t. And that is the problem I have. It isn’t their opinions I have a problem with, it was their language and delivery.
Again, we will have to agree to disagree.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/18/2005 @ 11:12 amWanna read from a senior PC Advisors own pen in an open letter to McKay and Harper?
http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-editorial.asp?Key=1631&editorType=article&editorPrimeKeyword=harper
Now come back and talk about ethics, social responsibility, breach of contract, theft, etc.!
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 5/18/2005 @ 11:22 amAnd remember, I’m no red coat and I’m no blue coat, I only vote for the best person in my riding but I found the PROOF that the blue coats are no better, making their false pious claims of moral superiority a continuation of their own scandalous behaviour and as an example of what THEY would do with control of our purse stings!
NO VOTE NOW!
Vigilance in every parliamentary and government office by our above board ethical citizens who should watch every dime that those liberal sleazy bags spend! The Whistleblower statues, if not yet passed should pass today to protect anybody from squealing on the rats who would abuse our tax dollars! No more Chateau Neuf de Pape on my nickel.
I take my lunch to work, so should you! Expense account be damned! You start buying lunch for the homeless children in our country!
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 5/18/2005 @ 11:37 amI would agree that words such as dipstick or whore can carry different meanings in context, unlike racist, redneck, or the Klan which are disparaging in any context.
I would also agree that those comments by some members of a provincial party were not politically a wise thing to say.
I do not believe there was any gender bias in any of the comments, (I assume you are reffering to the whore comment) and how you view their delivery is of course subjective.
This has nothing to do with Belinda’s gender, but goes more to her principles and ethics.
However to paint Stephen Harper, or the federal Conservative party as some kind of intolerant bunch of bigots is not very fair at all.
Really this is not so much about Stephen Harper as it is about Paul Martin and the Liberals. He is the Prime Minister and currently is the only one with the power to make this deal happen, and has for the last 11 months. Would you not agree?
Comment by Darrin — 5/18/2005 @ 11:49 amNo
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 5/18/2005 @ 11:59 amDarrin:
Obviously you live in a very different world from most people I know.
In what circumstances are the words “dipstick” and “whore” anything other than epithets? In the context in which they have been flung about by your colleagues, the CPC and its supporters, how can anyone mistake that they are intended to be demeaning and sexist.
At times in the past I have disagreed quite strongly in this space with both Fred and Brenda, for example, but I trust that I never let my feelings get to the point where I attacked either of them personally, let alone used language like the CPC has used about not only Belinda Stronach lately but all Liberals.
If I did I apologise unequivocally now if I didn’t before.
It was no accident that in his obviously angry and condescending remarks last night aimed at Danny Williams, Mr. Harper inserted the word “mafia". By the same token to refer to Ms. Stronach as no “complex", he is clearly making a disparaging - and obviously false - comment.
Mr. Harper’s remarks and those of other CPC supporters about Belinda Stronach were nothign short of reprehensible. He should apologize forthwith or be judged accordingly.
I don’t give a damn about people’s partisan affiliations but to be frank, I’d feel much more comfortable letting Brenda and Fred judge my personal fate than anyone who thinks that “whore” and “dipstick” are acceptable terms in any circumstances.
Shame.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/18/2005 @ 12:00 pmNow that loverboy, Peter Mackay, is on the market again, it is understood he is looking for a new mate to help mend his tender heart. I hear he is looking for another billion hieress who will help him advance his political career and knows the meaning of the word “commitment".
Any of those in St. Johns?
Comment by Hazen Grigg — 5/18/2005 @ 12:13 pmEd
Weak argument.
Harper never said Stronach was a whore or a dipstick. He said she was not complex. Saying it often enough does not make it true, and you know it.
Comment by Darrin — 5/18/2005 @ 12:22 pmHazen are references required?
Comment by Andrea Burge — 5/18/2005 @ 12:31 pmAndrea; I am surprised Peter has not already heard of you. I take it you don’t hang out at the billionaire dating website.
Comment by Hazen Grigg — 5/18/2005 @ 12:42 pmPeter usually relies on his own circle for feedback. Do you know Brian Mulroney,Frank Moores or John Buchanan. They might put a good word in for you!
For more than 15 years now being from Western Canada I have been called a redneck, racist, bigot, you name the epitaph… because I believe in a different way of governing this country through a smaller government based on the Constitution Act 1867 whereas the Federal government exercises it’s juridiction of Defense, International Treaties, Ports and Rail and the Provincial governments exercises it’s jurisdiction in Natural Resources, Health, Education, Taxation, Agriculture, etc.
Where were you in my defence?
I agree this name calling crap does nothing for our mutual problem of getting the Federal government out of our jurisdictional rights.
So end this he said, she said garbage and concentrate on the issue.
The Liberal party believes we should send our resources and taxes to Ontario to supply the raw materials for them to create the jobs and products to turn around and sell them back to us.
The Conservatives believe each and every province in this Confederation should create its own manufacturing and jobs with its own resources, create it’s own programs to serve the needs of it’s people.
We are pretty tired in British Columbia that Ontario decides what is best for us out here in the way of programs and services, sticking their noses in our constitutional jurisdiction. Do the people in Newfoundland and Labrador want control of their own resources? Or do you wish to send all of your money to Ottawa for little in return?
Comment by Darrin — 5/18/2005 @ 12:47 pmDarrin,
If it were so easy as the party line you describe…
It’s the rest of these controversial ethical issues mired in everybody’s, “If you don’t do it our way, we’ll seperate,” CRAP.
If you think that the USA will sit idly by while this big chunk of real estate (that I like to call my home and country) which is attached to the longest boarder in the world, splinters into autonomous little countries, then you are as “ill-informed” as you accuse everybody else of being.
We will be annexed and ruled militaristically (if required) so fast your head will spin. They won’t stand for anything less than a unified Canada as a neighbour. I doubt that too many people would force their independant little slices of countries to war, telling the USA to, “…get the frigg off of my property, I’m a country with the right to self govern,” then, now, would they?
I wish that we could build more industry here on the Rock but using the lame duck crowd in the CPC ranks would only allow this country to fall.
Good luck with keeping your resources from the Americans and getting your share of profits, if we all go splitville.
Oh, by the way, the parts of Canada that remain Canada, will be taking back any of the Federally purchased items, like F-18’s…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 5/18/2005 @ 1:35 pmHazen said “Newfoundland aspirations be damned.”
Hazen, Newfoundland aspirations have been damned ever since Liberal big wigs first started bankrolling a criminal by the name of Joe Smallwood to help put the “Con” in confederation.
I take only small solace in the fact that of the two major options on the federal level, one of them SOMETIMES has shown consistency on matters of provincial rights and reosurce rights. Conservatives have always had a better record on these issues.
Brenda said:
“At the provincial level, Conservative member of the Alberta legislature Tony Abbott was even more outspoken.”
Brenda, lets not pretend that provincial conservatives are synonymous with federal Conservatives. Danny Williams’ recent comments should make that more and more clear.
But for the record:
dictionary.com’s definition of a whore includes
#3 - “A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. ”
B that definition, Belinda Stronach, Keith Martin and Scott Brison are most certainly political whores.
Look it up for yourself
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whore
Brenda, both your examples were from provincial parties. Your master, Paul Martin, might believe they are completely synonymous when it comes time to deny Albertans the senate appointees they want, but the cntitutions of the parties are not one and the same.
Brenda went on to say:
“As for any other person, be it an elected political official or someone in my neighbourhood, bigotry cannot be tolerated. On this point there is no compromise.”
Yet Brenda does not want to see the fall of the Martin Liberals. Paul Martin has never done anything when faced with bigoted remarks from his own caucus. When Stephen Harper was faced with Larry SPencer’s remarks about homosexuals in 2003, not only did Harper remove Spencer from the caucus, he went so far as to ban him form nomination.
Liberal Roseanne Skoke got to pipe on for years in the house about gays, blacks and others. The Liberal party of Canada no only let her remain, they allowed her to run for nomination.
heck you can also make bigoted comments about Americans and get away with it… The only way to get kicked out of a Paul Martin caucus is to speak out against the big boy himself… just as Parrish…. that example may ring osme bells more locally also!
Apparently Brenda only tolerates and preserves Liberal bigotry atgreater levels….
I see no reason for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to stand as supportive stooges for a government and a Liberal party that has the worst plicy record on issues facing us and the most official evidence of corruption and duplicity amassed against it.
It’s time for an election.
Throw the bums out.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/18/2005 @ 2:15 pm:-) a “PC Advisor, Fred? That would be PC as in “Politics Canada” would it? You wouldn’t be trying to put one over on us would you?
I don’t quite get your allusion to F-18’s.. oh you mean the 50 year old fighter jets that serve our Canadian Air Force? Ok. You got me there. We sure wouldn’t want to give that up would we.
I think it’s a crying shame that with all the tax dollars taken from you, me and every other hard working citizen of this country, the best we have to offer in the way of our Canadian Military is equipment that is older than many of you.
Comment by Julie — 5/18/2005 @ 2:21 pmEven though, as testimony before Gomery shows each and every day, there is millions of dollars for Liberal friendly party workers and the Liberal Party itself, skimmed illegally from you and me.
A sad commentary on this once great country.
I’m having a problem understanding how it is ok for some people to make fun of Peter McKay in the Belinda/Peter situation, but no comments on Belinda are allowed. Come on, a double standard seems to be in effect here.
Comment by Julie — 5/18/2005 @ 2:47 pmFred;
It is the big Tory boss, Stephen Harper, who is telling Danny Williams to leave his two Newfoundland Tory MP’s alone in the interests of the Conservative Party. Apparently Williams has been intimidated by this tongue lashing is now lost for words.
It doesn’t appear that the Conservative Party and MP’s,Doyle and O’Hearn, will stand up for Newfoundland at this important moment. Too bad!
Comment by Hazen Grigg — 5/18/2005 @ 2:49 pmLiam;
I did not see your posting until now and will say straight out to you that you are completely off base with regards to comments you have made about me. You don’t know me only the statements I have made. Apparently you choose either to ignore what I have said or twist it to suit yourself. Sad indeed.
In future, please do not attribute quotes made by news organizations to me. I am only quoting them and I have made that clear in previous postings.
To be frank Liam, I find you quite immature and some of your comments offensive.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/18/2005 @ 3:27 pmBrenda, if you quote you use is useless, expect somebody else to tell you that it’s useless, or that it doesn’t support your original argument.
I find your request for his to bend over backwards to preserve an abusive federal government for the least secure promise of an accord offensive. But I still manage to respond with some sembleance of substance.
You have drawn some unfair conclusions about the only two Newfoundland MPs that haven’t had two faces on this very issue. But if you take issue with something I said, be pecific. Let us all know what part of it you dispute.
If you can’t do that, chances are you’re just upset that somebody has challenged what you said… kinda like how tony Valeri got so upset with opposition days in the commons that he had them suspended….
you’d best get to know Tony, Brenda, he’s one of the chiefs in the arrogant and untrustworthy government you wish to preserve….
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/18/2005 @ 3:45 pmLiam I got four words for you:
Focus on the Family.
It’s a shame these folks are running your campaign (again) in BC and rural Ontario.
It’s disgusting that there aren’t enough sensible Tories like yourself to do anything about it, and that you have all thrown in the towel and decided to play ball with these frightening freaks.
At least Belinda had the class to warn the rest of us of what really happening to your party.
Skoke was able to run, and run she did. And she lost. She lost because enough sensible Liberals stepped up and said this is not what our party believes in, so you have to go. Rational sensible people will always carry the day in the Liberal Party, while dogmatic zealots have the reins in yours. And you’re still in denial.
Comment by Mark — 5/18/2005 @ 4:03 pmOh. And Liam - check out Gerald Keddy’s QP question today and tell me if it makes any sense. If you can find this revenue agreement he talks of, email it to me, I will print it and eat it. These Tories will make up anything to get through the day.
Just like my challenge on this site of last week to swallow my keyboard if anyone could find ANYTHING good Stephen Harper has ever said about our country.
Nobody replied.
Not one.
Comment by Mark — 5/18/2005 @ 4:06 pmWell Liam, there is no point talking to Liberals (re: ex PC’ers on this site). Liberals hate facts and substantive arguments, and like to obfuscate the truth. I think I will visit www.freedominion.ca to regain some sense of debate back again.
Mark my words people, you will NOT receive money from this accord anytime soon with Liberals in power.
Comment by Darrin — 5/18/2005 @ 4:42 pmDarrin - here’s a fact:
“Focus on the Family” is winning every nomination they contest in your party.
Here’s a substantive argument:
They are an organization of zealots who have no concept of the separation of church and state, have repeatedly stacked your meeting with anti-abortion advocates and assorted Charter-bashers. It is frightening to think your party embraces them so.
If these things are too burdensome for you and your ilk to stay on this website and admit to them, then run off to free dominion or wherever else you feel at home.
Comment by Mark — 5/18/2005 @ 4:49 pmLast 5 posts are lost on Canadians who love Canada. What’s best for us as a strong united country is not some twisted partisan orgy where you all think that if only we had 2 more seats… Neither group of blogposters is convincing me that either party is anything but a gross misuse of tax dollars.
Don’t toot the horn of any of these rotten bastards as if you HONESTLY support and believe them. The principal group of people supporting this blog are decidedly for getting the Accord passed and keeping this country together. Not to advance these cancerous unethical trough feeders (in any colour jacket) to a better TAXPAYERS BUFFET!
What in the frigg are you up to. You’re not ever gonna garner the support of ethical people with a grasp on social responsibility like Brenda, Pauline, Debra, Max, et al… We are not here cheering for the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Montreal Canadians! Stop picking these party marauders and opportunists as if they are your favourite hockey player, role models and heros. They are USERS. What’s next, collector cards? Liam don’t get all drooly on yer CPC Starter Pack! And Mark, we are not here picking at Liam and Harper’s cronies because we think that Martin and his petards are any better… Au contrer my malicious, multifarious, malfeasant interloper (yeah, way too much but it just came to me so I had to use it). If Belinda or Tony had of been running the blue coats, it might have been easier for us to say OK. But like Debra said and as I have alluded in earlier posts – their leashes are so taught they are scared to wander off too far. The RCMP is so all over these “alleged crooks” that they are all in complete fear of blinking.
Your colour coded thin grasp on the merits of these issues and the importance of maintaining a MINORITY government under whichever corrupt pack of red or blue coats doesn’t even begin to identify the possible fallout of ANY post election scenarios. God in heaven, you don’t even acknowledge the possibility that the exact same results could happen at an election.
If you would take a moment to REALLY think about it, instead of getting all, “Well, I’m gonna tell him off cuz I’m [insert colour here],” save your breath! We are TELLING the people in our districts that we DON’T want money wasted on such an uncertain political climate.
Geez, NDP and the Bloc forming the minority… That would be too funny. NDP sells off the Canadian Forces and the Bloc separates, followed by Newfoundland, Labrador from Newfoundland, Alberta will have to split so that Edmonton and Calgary each have their own province (then Ralph could set-up his own central government!). Oh yeah, and don’t forget if Newfoundland separates they are keeping Fort McMurray, most of Ajax, and 50-1000 really big apartments in Toronto and surrounding areas… and so on
You may think I’m an idiot for breaking it down so simply for you but you’re not paying attention to what’s about to hit you up-side the head like a flounder outta season. Any election that allows Martin or Harper run will surly be the first strike for the death of my beloved Canada.
You dinks who “want your turn” need a swim to Japan and back (via South America). By then at least most of the corrupt leaders should be either dead (of natural causes of course!) or forgotten.
Good night and feel the love,
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 5/18/2005 @ 11:27 pmFred - in your scenario, when we Newfoundlanders separate from Canada would we still get Equalization payments?
Comment by Mark — 5/19/2005 @ 10:43 amJust you Mark, just you…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 5/19/2005 @ 10:56 amFred; I thought you were a Stephen Harper Conservative. Turns out you are a pequiste wanting you cake and eat it. Hmmm!
Comment by Hazen Grigg — 5/19/2005 @ 11:24 amMark, there are two components worth mentioning here. The conservative party, since the first days of the revenue projections from Hibernia, have supported the interpretation of the original Atlantic Accord (1985) to allow the government of NL to keep 100% of its revenues. The drafters agreed with the interpretation. Only Paul Martin, as finance minister (1990s), angrily disagreed and told NL and the opposition legacy parties to go to hell.
As late as May 2004, Paul Martin was still on that same line. Meanwhile, both the NDP and the Conservatives had outlined, in writing, what they would agree to in the way of a deal. The Liberal party steadfastly refused. John Efford even said it was “too important to talk about.”
Then, mid-election, Paul Martin made his announcement in St. John’s based on a TELEPHONE CALL with Danny Williams. All was saved, claimed all hands, “we’re covered each way” said the premier. And, if Williams had been dealing with a trustworthy man or caucus on the other end of the phone, this might have been the case. Yet even afterwards, within a day or two Maritn began to dither. In NS he started to back off from 100%. Through the summer months Martin dithered while John Efford lcaimed victory and politicked royally on the concept of “no strings attached.”
Come fall, Paul Martin essentially backstabbed Danny Williams. He started ot attach conditions and terms that were in no way agreed-to by Danny Williams. From the time of promise we went though this, plus the flag flap, plus the establishment of this fine website to help pressure martin to simply keep hiw own word.
All the while, Paul Martin tried to weasel his way out of it. Meanwhile, at the same time, Stephen Harper and the Conservtaives supported motions in the house ot get the deal done back in the fall. The bloc and the Liberals voted together ot defeat them. Earlier in 2005 Harper also wrote letters to the premiers to confirm his full support for and dedication to the Accord as atop priority and promised to honour it plus interest/retroactivity in the even of a government defeat. The premiers expressed relief to hear this.
When the Conservatives made the motion to seperate the Accord and pass it, Liberals stopped that. dead in its tracks – first upset because they claimed opposition might get some credit, then only later making the asinine claim that the bogey man Bloc would stop it (still not explaining their own opposition to separating it and still not willing to say that otherwise, they would have separated it).
Every step of the way we have recieved nothing but abuse from Paul Martin. He’s refused to deal with us then refused to meet very reaosnable demands, then refused to keep his own promise, then ammended his promise, then held his own promise hostage in order to keep power, then threatened to let this issue die if an election goes ahead.
Ralph Goodlae was quoted in the Tely today saying “it was a difficult process.” Well Ralphy, it was only difficult because you made it difficult. nothing that Williams demanded was unreasonable in those negotiations. Layton and Harper both agreed with him each and eveyr step of the way. If either had been in charge at the time, the deal would have been done years ago. If either had been in Martin’s soes in 2004, the deal would have been ready by late summer at the latest.
The very silly part of the recent campaign to preserve this corrupt and abusive government is that people are assuming that everybody acts like Paul Martin or Jean Chretien. The facts, the history of the oil and gas revenue matter going back 25+ years shows that there is a very clear distinction between those who were willing to give the province full benefit and more control over its resources and adjacent resources – the resources we brought into confederation – and those who are only here to play monte hall but when in a stronger position have backed-out…
It just so happens to be a part of long established “strong central government” “stand up to thse nasty provinces” political culture in the Liberal Party of Canada. It’s the way the establishment operates. It’s no secret. Catch them on any day they’ve had a majority government and they’ll haily confirm it and celebrate it.
As for the Federal Conservatives, for equally crass reaosns perhaps, a different political culture has existed and shown itself in the day to day actions of its MPs.
Both the Liberals and the Tories are identical on many issues. the lines are blurred. And as for believing in someone or some party, I generally don’t musch believe in personality or even blind partisanship.
But I do believe actions speak louder than words. And I do keep a tally on those actions. And I understand the vested interests involved. It just so happens that two political parties have a much greater vested interest in giving NL a long term deal on resources and other issues that would be more beneifical while another federal party (that happens to be Maritn’s Liberals) has decided to oppose this whenever it has had a majority but has quite temprarily and still amidst threats and hostage taking delays and dithering, agreed to a deal.
It’s campaigning ot different types. But That sometimes is enough to understand how these poeple operate. Given their willingness, upon getting a majority in the 90s, to ignore the wishes of the premier and not honour the 1985 Accord, why would we preserve this government?
Brian Peckford may have delayed oil production by going to the ends of legal means to try to secure ownership of our contitnental shelf because he knew it was the right thing to do. And the people of this province supported him in that effort. I would like to see Danny Williams continue the fight a little longer in order to secure the best deal and best policy conditions for people like himself who are interested in provincial rights for NL.
The Conservatives have put in writing in letters and statements to the province full agreement with the accord and to implement it with full interest etc… in addition to that they outline equalization and fisheries policies that would greatly empower Newfoundland and Labrador AND (in addition with no detriment allowed to existing deal) remove clawbacks on all mineral reosurces on land too.
The NDP have also offered a very decent deal.
The only way anybody can believe the accord is in jeopardy is if they assume, without substantiation or emperical fact, that Stephen Harper or Jack Layton are as opposed to and grudged against this deal as Paul Martin has been for almost a year after he agreed mid-electin to do it.
There is nothing to support this.
In fact, the accusation that either Jack or Stephen are in any way comparable to Martin on THIS FILE is almost closed to slander in my books.
Nobody, to date, has given any reasoned explanation as to why this government should survive. In terms of ensuring the best long term deal for this province, preserving this government is probably the best route to another round of sado-masochism with the very guys who said of the earlier accord “principle benficiary” doesn’t actually need to honoured!
I would go so far to say that many of the people who are engaged in preserving this government are shoing greater partisanship than those who want it defeated. The little hints come when they start talking about the Stronachs or the Harpers in a more general sense. It takes partisanship to believe that the last 12 months of Martin’s actions show anything other than he will backstab us at his first opportunity.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/19/2005 @ 12:36 pmLiam - read John Corsbie’s retorts to Clyde Wells from the early 1990s and you will realize that your opening statement is an outright lie.
Ed will undoubtedly post the dates of the articles in question. Corsbie called Wells greedy and absurd when the notion of Equalization Clawbacks was raised.
I’ll get you the articles and post them here as soon as I can find them…they are great quotes.
–They’re on Ed’s blog somewhere.–
http://www.bondpapers.blogspot.com/
Or if you distrust Ed, try Paul Wells at http://weblogs.macleans.ca/paulwells/archives/week_2005_01_23-2005_01_29.asp
More later - as soon as I have a few minutes.
Comment by Mark — 5/19/2005 @ 12:56 pmLiam - under the NDP deal your other home province - i.e. Nova Scotia would see its entitelements actually REDUCED. If that’s a fair deal then you can go door-to-door with them too. Might as well, as I understand that the Conservative candidate in Halifax made a stunning TV debut last night.
Running from a rolling camera doesn’t demonstarte much in the way of ethics or integrity.
Comment by Mark — 5/19/2005 @ 1:01 pmI’m typing with such glee my spelling is atrocious. Apologies to all.
Comment by Mark — 5/19/2005 @ 1:02 pmMark, if you’re going to talk about my home province, get it right. I realize many Martin fans like to cast around half truths like chiclets, but at least try some of the actual truth here.
I am from Newfoundland. I live in Newfoundland now. At no point was I not permanently resident in Newfoundland. I attended university in N.S up until this year duirng regular semesters.
tell me Mark, in 1990, how much oil and gas revenue was being “clawed back” from Newofundland and Labrador. I’ll give you a hint. You’ll first have to determine how much offshore oil and gas was being produced. The dispute, as I understand it, was over something that hadn’t happened and at a time when they were talking about projections.
I will make a small apology for not being clear on that point… when it became crystal clear to everybody that there needed to be practical changes made in order to ensure 100%, the drafters of Accord I were very clearly on side.
Moreover, tell me why Paul Martin refused to heed the Royal Commission report OR the demands of John Crosbie, Brian Peckford, Brian Mulroney and others agreed with the successive prov govts of both stripes that the provinces deserved 100% of its revenues.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/19/2005 @ 1:15 pmLiam
Sorry - I thought from a previous CBC.ca post that you were in NS. I meant nothing derogatory by it.
My apologies. Unaware you were back on the Rock.
But that wasn’t my point.
Check the Crosbie links. That was the point of my posting.
Comment by Mark — 5/19/2005 @ 1:21 pmMark, I’d like you to explain precisely why we should give this government one more day.
Given that there are only two parties to consistently support this deal, Why should we give Paul Martin a chance to do to his interpretation of “100%” in Accord II what he did to “principle beneficiary” in Accord I?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/19/2005 @ 1:21 pmI honestly don’t think those quotes really pove much of anything.
I remember the projections Rex Gibbons was talking about were precisely that – projections. he himself admitted that production schedules were hard to figure out. Remember that in the meantime Hibernia went through 8 soap opra dramas before finally getting going. Conditions changed. And Rex also had projections that were more favourable. It all depended on how production turned out. There were definitely practical flaws. At the first sign of actual problems with production clawbacks of any size, there was an immediate demand by premiers of various stripes, by the CPC’s two legacy parties, and by those who had been involved with the accord to honour the principle beneficiary spirit of the thing.
The legalistic acrobatics that followed showed just how unwilling and opposed Martin was to such a deal.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/19/2005 @ 1:29 pmConsistency?
Neither the Conservatives nor the NDP have been consistent on this. (Nor have Liberals if you want to go back 2 decades)
Neither the Conservatives nor the NDP offered an Accord deal for Newfoundland and Labrador nor for Nova Scotia.
The pledged something very different.
Both the Conservatives, and the NDP, offered instead to re-write the Equalization formula, essentially taking hundreds of millions of real dollars away from New Brunswick, PEI, Quebec and Manitoba, along with millions of notional dollars from Ontario, and transferring them to Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia and notionally to Alberta.
I don’t ever remember a Newfoundland politican, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise advocating that Newfoundlands oil revenues should be clawed back from other provinces.
If this is the way you guys propose to run the country, then go ahead.
You know this is true because I know you read the platforms.
Comment by Mark — 5/19/2005 @ 1:34 pm“Neither the Conservatives nor the NDP offered an Accord deal for Newfoundland and Labrador nor for Nova Scotia.”
“The pledged something very different.”
These statements are inaccurate. The Conservatives most certainly did agree that the terms presented by premier Williams in the fall were acceptable and went so far as to put a motion before the commons to get Paul Martin to live up to his own promise and stop fighting williams and disagreeing with williams.
why was Martin doing this?
The Conservatives, in their platform, did indeed promise to take non-renewables out of the calculation and switch to a ten province standard, among other reforms. They also made it quite clear that they were quite agreeable to what Danny Williams demanded.
As for “taking away” from other provinces, I think this is ridiculous. Alberta’s non-renewables revenue wasn’t clawed back initially. And ultimately non-renewable revenue isn’t long term income nayway and shouldn’t be used to calculate fiscal capacity.
Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia can be guaranteed a deal AND the equalization system CAN be reworked. In fact, it should have been re worked long ago.
Other provinces have non-renewable resorce revenue. Why should it be calculated?
As John Efford himself said back in 2001 when he ran for the provincial liberal leadership: “If we don’t get the equalization changed, we’re going nowhere.”
There is a written commitment (in letters to premiers) that re-affirms earlier written commitments form Stephen Harper to make sure Newfoundland and Labrador enjoy benefit of 100% of their offshore revenues.
The present policy statement also states that any re-working will not negatively affect the existing arrangement/agreement. Indeed, it will no doubt improve Newfoundland’s lot.
Equalization isn’t some holy trust handed down from Jesus at the beginning of time. It’s a formula that has become flawed by a central government eager to manipulate regions. There’s nothing wrong with changing it to try to make it work.
I’m still trying to figure out why Paul Martin was the last to catch on and the one showing the most minimilaist design in interpreting the accord or other arrangements.
As compared to the Liberal party, yes the Conservatives and NDP are considerably more consistent than Paul Martin or John Efford – by a long shot.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/19/2005 @ 5:01 pmI s’pose you all knows by now that the vote passed! All I can say is Wahoo! The Accord monies are still ours!
Comment by Krista — 5/19/2005 @ 6:51 pmLiam, Liam, Liam.
Read Mr. Harper’s letter to Mr. Williams last year. It clerarly states the intention to change the entire Equalization formula, implicitly in lieu of the Williams proposal. It also states that a Connie government will sell off the Hibernia shares for the good of all Canadians.
Mr. Harper;s motion to which you refer was merely a political device to cause problems for some MPs particularly the Liberals. It was, to use a phrase that is almost overused, a petard on which he hoist his two seatmates instead.
By no means did it represent a fuindamental change in his approach. Mr. Harper has repeated his desire for broader change in fed-prov relations on several occasions.
For the record, if the Equalization system were changed as Mr. Harper suggests, there would be no need of the offset agreements. It is that simple.
It would be very interesting to see a comparison of the difference between the two approaches.
But again, as I postedon another thread here:
Liam - you need to get past the anger, man, and get a grip on facts.
I think Brenda S. is still waiting for an apology, although she graciously ignored your comments on that other thread.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/20/2005 @ 5:23 amEd, the letter to which I was referring was this years re-assurance that the progress (slow tooth-pulling as it was thanks to Martin) would not be lost under a Conservative government.
Also Ed, Liberals Scott Simms and Bill Matthews had no problems with voting for Harper’s resolution in the fall. It was only a traitor named Efford who had difficulty with it.
Moreover, just because Harper wanted better overall federal provincial relations, it doesn’t mean he can’t also guarantee whatever deal Newfoundland gets in the meantime. Most of us, Martin excluded, can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Ed, I suggest you read the conservative policy re-affirmed in March 2005. It clearly states that any CPC refomrs of equalization will not be a detriment to other provinces’ arrangemnets.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/20/2005 @ 10:10 amKeep selecting your evidence with care, Liam since it is the only way to prop up your argument.
I have seen Mr. Harper’s letters. Their content does not address my point, nor have you.
The changes to Equalization, by definition, preclude the offshore deal. No province will stand by and let NS and NL double-dip, in a manner of speaking. Conservative policy is fine in statement, but like all things we must look at the application.
I do not doubt the sincerity, but for heaven’s sake don’t try to suggest we can have our cake and eat it too. Argue for the Conservative policy position and why it is better. It would more persuasive to voters since it would be realistic; the line you are presenting doesn’t hold up to any factual.
and I guess Brenda S is still waiting on that apology.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/20/2005 @ 12:50 pmLiam - that is mathematically impossible.
Comment by Mark — 5/20/2005 @ 1:00 pmEqualization entitlements are based on everyone’s fiscal capacity, so you can’t pay Paul without robbing Peter, so to speak.
Liam - I am also still waiting for any of your friends to produce this “revenue sharing deal” on Voisey’s Bay that your candidate and several MPs keep referring to.
The federal government has never signed a Voisey’s Bay deal on revenue sharing. They don’t share mining revenue as it belongs to the province. The only federal “deal” on Voisey’s involves 150 Million to help the project get started and help train Aboriginal workers and provide infrastructure to their communities.
Conservatives voted against this. Same way that they vote against everything to do wih economic development, training, aboriginal programs, etc.
Why do your MPs continue to lie in the House by making reference to a deal which doesn’t exist?
Talk about ethics.
Comment by Mark — 5/20/2005 @ 1:04 pmJust checked my mail and received a “Dear Constituent” letter from Norm Doyle referencing my recent email. I am guessing he was talking about the Fair Deal letter many of us sent.
Anybody else in the riding receive this letter?
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/20/2005 @ 1:21 pmEd, the policy as it stands has the support of representatives from all of these provinces. It flew up the mast a while ago with few objections from premiers. As for Brenda, I won’t apologize to anybody, including yourself, for refusing to cow-tow to a government that could have had this settled years ago. Even within the time frame of Martin’s promise, there should have been ZERO debate/dispute with Williams’ position. Instead the Prime Minister essentially called our premier a liar.
When will Paul Martin be apologzing for that?
Mark, a deal on Voiseys’ doesn’t exist. But why should non-renewables be in the calculation? But if you are accusing them of lying, I’ll first have to see the specific quotes.
Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn have been by far the most consistent MPS in fighting for this province on issues ranging from non-renewables to fisheries to offshore revenue promises made by a lying PRime Minister who then tried to blame our premier…
if you have a quote, provide it.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/21/2005 @ 9:48 amActually Liam, in keeping with your penchant for ahistorical misinterpretation, you call Norm and Loyola the most consistent MPs on offshore revenues.
Actually, they are the most inconsistent.
They voted in favour of 100% clawbacks in 1985 and then latterly changed their views.
As for the PM’s position, you might wish to read Dunn’s article again. Dunn does note the federal concern and the concern of other provinces that the Williams proposal would distort federal-provincial fiscal relations. There was much to debate and there was much debate at the time and the Prime Minister owes no one an apology for his position, any more than Premier Williams owes an apology for simply articulating an alternate point of view.
That said, your ad hominem comments to Brenda were out of line. The fact you have taken days and days to even acknowledge the fact that an apology is required - ackowledge by refusing to apologize - tells more about your approach than anything else.
Apologise to her. You made the comments and they were inappropriate.
Stop trying to avoid the central issue on that particular point.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/22/2005 @ 4:53 pmEd, not everybody shares your interpretation of the 1985 Accord. Just because your master, Paul Martin (who was finance minister when major production began) chose to interpret the Accord as 100% clawbacks doesn’t mean to say that eveyone else did…
Paul Martin and Jean Chretien before him treated this province like dirt in how he shose to deal with us even when he finally did agree to a deal. I will not apologize to anyone who would support such people. This province is imporatnt to me. And I find the preservation of the Martin government a direct threat to the policy aspirations of this province. These policies affect real people. And yes, I do use some strong language on this. I won’t apologize for that.
What specific comment is it that you want me to apologize for?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/22/2005 @ 8:05 pmEd,
Can you explain why Paul Martin didn’t have the honesty or strength to agree to what Danny Williams asked for in the summer/fall?
Can you explain why after a Royal Commission on our lace in Canada determined that the existing Accord should have been interpreted/revised to make sure most of the clawback stops, Martin refused to budge but Harper was immediately on record supporting the findings….?
http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/royalcomm/finalreport/pdf/summary.pdf
http://www.ocean-resources.com/news/ournews.asp?NewsID=326
Can you explain why Danny Williams would say he was “covered each way” if he wasn’t in 2004? Was he lying?
Finally, what makes it so hard for the Liberal Party of Canada to agree with its provincial counterpart on the subject of joint fisheries management and giving NL more power over fisheries management? Are they too used to using our resources as bargaining chips to cede a little power Newfoundland’s way? What about custodial management? Or is it continued saintly faith in the utterly useless NAFO?
I only mention the last one because I do think it’s very important to our province…and as a policy it’s unattainable under the current government…
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/22/2005 @ 8:21 pmSorry to burst your bubble yet again, Liam but clearly you have not been following the Atlantic Accord (the Real One, i.e. the 1985 one) and the subsequent discussions.
Wade Locke completed an assessment in 1991 that reinforced assessments done by the provincial government officials in 1988/89. (Note the dates so you don’t trip up by yet again interpreting everything through a partisan lens.)
The assessments concluded that, depending on the scenario either 97% (Locke) or 70% of offshore revnues would be “clawed” back through Equalization. This is the SAME assessment that Premier Williams used for his campaign, incidentally.
Your comments on Paul Martin and Jean Chretien are simply, factually, wrong. They are not different interpretations. They are factually incorrect.
I can repeat for you, yet again comments by John Crosbie as federal minister for Newfoundland in which he dismissed attempts to have the revnue issue re-examined as being a case of biting the hand that feeds us.
mr. Crosbie - one of the arhcitects of the Accord agreed in 1990 that the federal government would benefit more than this province through reduced Equalization payments. He stated that this was exactly how things were supposed to work.
It is a matter of record that in 1994, PM Chretien and finance minister Martin provided this province the option of using the generic formula to shield the greatest possible amount of revenue from Equalization.
Liam, there is really no point in carrying on any discussion if you persist in this pattern of completely ignoring facts or of completely reinventing reality to suit your own view of the world.
I was wrong before. You don’t have a penchant for ahistorical misinterpretation. You simply say whatever you want in order to avoid having to change your mind.
Deal with the facts, man. Deal with facts.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/22/2005 @ 8:45 pmEd, I am dealing with the facts. I fail to see how your post in any was addresses my last post. Your post only strengthens my point. The provincial governments did indeed see the need for a different interpretation of the Accord early on. I never disputed that. I said that at the time when production began and the projections became a reality, even John Crosbie agreed that the Accord required a new arrangement and interpretation in order to accomodate the spirit of the accord.
See his submission to the Royal Commission. See previous op eds. This is all besides the point. Paul Martin was finance minister when the clawbacks began. Paul Martin was asked, by Liberals, Tories, Dippers, pink purple blue and orange, to do something about this and make sure the province was the principle beneficiary. why didn’t he do it? Why did he ignore a Royal Commission?
Incidentally, the “generic version” is not the best possible interpretation of the accord. The best possible interpretation would have seen the province as principle beneficial. The “generic formula” didn’t do that.
Why did it take until halfway through teh 2004 federal election for Paul Martin to join with Jack Layton and Stephen Harper so as to (again to borrow the words from Williams) “cover” us each way?
Why was John Efford going around scolding us at one point by saying it’s “too important to talk about” or then after the promise saying “no strong attached” or then scolding the Newfoundland premier and public for demanding more than what Martin was initially offering?
why?
I am more than willing to admit that there has been inconsistency on both sides. I just happen to think that from the time of production, most of the other sides, left and right, had decided to do something about it. Are you willing to admit that Paul Martin wasn’t willing to do something until he grudgingly changed his course mid-2004 election?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/23/2005 @ 10:14 amLiam:
There was no contending intepretation of principal beneficiary. Ever. There was no “provincial interpretation” distinction from a federal one until long after Peckford.
It was always understood to mean revenues _as if on land - and I underscore that point, plus local development plus management control. Peckford was ecstatic. There was never any suggestion ever anywhere in the Accord and subsequent statements by its signatories that “principal beneficiary” meant province gets all or most of the revenues, exclusive or inclusive of Equalization effects.
John Crosbie’s changed intepretation has never been explained by him or anyone else. He effectively argues against his own position which is bizarre. He has aluded to different interpretations after 1993, but never specified what they were. Personally, I think he is simply making up an excuse since I can find no difference in ottawa’s intepretation during or after Crosbie’s tenure. I think his Accord posotion changed because it was convenient politically to change it; it caused grief for Liberals.
Crosbie’s submission to the Young RC I have read many times. It says nothing - zip and zero - of the Mulroney government’s intentions and speaks only of the pre-1984 Liberal intentions. Unfortunately, that isn’t what the Accord was based on.
Your entire argument is based on ahistorical ministerpretation, Liam. I have said it once and I will say it again. Your latest post merely repeats worn out arguments that have long since been disproven.
But don’t take my word for anything, Liam, go read Ken Boesenkool’s AIMS paper on Equalization. The whole point of this “clawback” argument is that it is built into the existing Equalization arrangement. It is NOT restricted to the offshore accords. It is not restricted to the Atlantic provinces.
As for Martin’s position, I have made the point before about January 2004 - not June 2004 as everyone supposes. As for Martin ignoring the Young Royal Commission, he was under no obligation to pay any heed to a provincial Royal Commission. That job fell to the provincial government.
As a closing point, Liam, I would venture the opinion that since Young and company merely regurgitated tired pseudo-nationalist mythology, and in the case of the offshore revenues _deliberately_ misrepresented the facts, more people would be better off consigning the Young commission to the ashcan in which it belongs.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/23/2005 @ 1:57 pmEd, the commission did not misrepresent the facts.
And the power to act on Equalization clawbacks lies squarely with the government of Canada. It’s simply dodging ans dishonest for you to suggest that the province could do anything about this without the government of Canada. The Commission report was directed as much at the government of Canada as to anyone else.
I know it probably made you squell when the flags came down in December. But for some of us it was a lot more than a mythology. Nationalism and separatism are two seperate concepts, something you often forget in your posts condmening peckford, wiliams, and others. In any case there once was a dominion of Newofundland. You might prefer that we forget that. You migth prefer that we simply treat this as a cap in hand exercise. Lucky for us that you’re not in charge in either capital.
I’ll concede that Mulroney didn’t deal with claims raised by Gibbons and others. But at the time when teh oil was flowing, the province was indeed interested in an arrangement to better reflect the spirit of the Accord. I suspect it was around the same time that most of the folks involved in the original deal agreed with this interpretation.
As late as June 3 2004, the premier was not satisfied with Martin’s commitment but was indeed satisfied with the NDP’s and the CPC’s.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/national/2004/06/03/williams_martin040603.html
This isn’t something where Paul Martin can or should dictate to this province what is correct. Danny Williams’ original demand was correct and should nto have been disputed…. yet we had months of wrangling and scolding.
You still won’t answer that Question, Ed. Why?
Morover “because we don’t have to” is a dman sad excuse to give for why the feds ignored the Young Commission.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/23/2005 @ 8:43 pm“There was never any suggestion ever anywhere in the Accord and subsequent statements by its signatories that “principal beneficiary” meant province gets all or most of the revenues, exclusive or inclusive of Equalization effects.”
Not only that: the phrase “principal beneficiary” has ZERO legal signficance. It is, as any good law school can tell you, ‘precatory language’. Actually, it verges on the phatic.
Comment by WJM — 5/24/2005 @ 7:59 amLiam:
Of course the Young RC misrepresented facts.
The entire presentation of offshore revenues is grossly misleading to the point where I would call it a deliberate distortion/deception.
The section on the Upper Churchill is equally flawed in its treatement of what occured.
And sorry to disappoint you, but I never suggested anything of the sort that the province could “fix” Equalization. My point to you is that all federal governments face and have faced comparable challenges with Equaliation in order to ensure that all provinces are treated equally and that all provinces are will to accept the changes.
Paul Martin’s original concerns about a series of one offs stood up until June and changed, apparently for fairly obvious reasons. Not surprisingly, a great many people, including the CPC, are criticising these various side deals. personally I think the offshore agreement is defensible in context. Unfortunately many people including a lot of mainlanders and Newfoundlanders and labradorians completely misunderstand what the offshore agreement actually provides.
As for the Young RC, it was a provincial royal commission. The feds never paid a nickel for it, never set it up, never had any input into its terms of reference and are therefore not bound to deal with it at all.
As for Danny Williams’ original proposal, it actually called for offsetting some revenues for up to the end of the original offset period. The proposal made on June 10, upped the time period to the life of offshore production and corrected the amount of money to include all the sources of revenue covered by the Atlantic Accord. I can supply you with the documentary evidence to back this up, incidentally.
When you say the Williams’ proposal was correct, which one do you mean? Or do you mean the final deal which reflected something closer to the first proposal but a long way from the June 10 “bottom line"?
You really can’t make blanket statements about the province’s position when in fact it changed quite significantly from time to time. Of course you also shouldn’t ignore the fact that the province didn’t make its case forcefully from the outset engage the feds in a set of negotiations until October. The February presentnation actually leads me to believe the guys who drafted didn’t even understand the provisions of the original Accord.
I suspect that you are mistaking my points about the overall process with a partisan position; the two things are different. The province could have achieved a deal as good as or better than the one it sought had it marshalled a convincing arguyment from the outset AND put the feds into a negotiation process akin to the original Accord one.
As for your comments on Dominions and caps in hand, the only thing I can say is that you really have misunderstood the point I made - not to you, but to Mick.
Pseudo-nationalists in this province like to construct an argument that conveniently ignors the considerable differences of opinion within the province. Peckford used to do it in his “dependency theory” argument. Others do it now. Newfoundland was once a Dominion like all others; that made it a state.
Was it a nation? That’s open to debate.
As for question about why the whole thing took so long, maybe I need to write a paper based on what I have learned. It would certainly provide better context that the Dunn work for IRPP. Unlike you, though Liam, I won’t be looking to plant horns on people’s heads.
Understanding what happened, in detail, usually leads to a more subtle view of the world.
Comment by ed Hollett — 5/24/2005 @ 1:43 pmWJM said:
“Not only that: the phrase “principal beneficiary” has ZERO legal signficance. It is, as any good law school can tell you, ‘precatory language’.”
Ed Said:
“As for the Young RC, it was a provincial royal commission. The feds never paid a nickel for it, never set it up, never had any input into its terms of reference and are therefore not bound to deal with it at all.”
Ed and WJM, you’re both right. And you btoh miss the point. You both seem to be big on trying your best to find ways to exlain why the feds should NOT honour agreements or commissions that try to do something good for Newfoundland and Labrador.
the only reason anyone would care if a clause had legal significance is if you were determined to minimialize your deal for the province. Otherwise, who would care?
Same goes for the Young Commission. Whether or not the feds are “bound” by it is quite irrelavant. I never raised it to suggest they were breaking the law. I raised it to suggest that they weren’t dealing with this province in the way they should, as outlined in this commission’s report! The commission consulter with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all over the place, consulted experts, and compiled a report that most certainly should have been heeded. Ottawa chose to ignore it. Poor choice.
What, specifically, from the report, is a “misrepresentation"?
Ed, you also said:
“Of course you also shouldn’t ignore the fact that the province didn’t make its case forcefully from the outset engage the feds in a set of negotiations until October.”
Why should the province be expected to make its case “forcefully” in order to be heeded?
In a study conducted for the commission, Ryan Research found that when NLers were asked “Do you Consider Yourself A Newfoundlander Or Labradorian Or A Canadian First, Approximately seven in ten (72%) residents considered themselves to be a ‘Newfoundlander
or Labradorian’ first.
The nation bit is certainly open to debate. But I don’t think it’s a very convincing debate against. What I can’t understand is why you seem more than willing to put “horns on the heads” of people who are NL nationalists. It’s always a negative vibe “pseudo-nationalists” etc…. why?
On the horns file, I suggest you step out of the glass house before throwing any more stones…
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/24/2005 @ 3:11 pm