A Very Political Turn of Events
The Conservative Caucus will vote in favour of the budget, and therefore in favour of the Atlantic Accord that’s on the books. However, the Liberal government still could fall because the Conservatives plan to vote against a second budget bill that caters to the NDP.
If the Liberal government falls, then the Accord as we know it falls with it. This move by the Conservatives gives Hearn and Doyle political cover: they can say that they voted for the Accord – which would be accurate – but still vote with their party to force an election.
For my part, I’m not happy with this result. The purpose of this effort is to secure the Accord now and get it working for us now. That hasn’t happened yet.
On the one hand, the two targets of this campaign have felt our pressure and party policy has shifted. We’ve demonstrated again that mass online action constitutes real political pressure. On the other hand, we are still uncertain of the Accord’s future. Stronach’s move yesterday erodes the Conservative chances of taking down the government, but the Conservative positioning last night still gives them a real chance to force an election. A political turn of events indeed.
What’s next? This is a massive bit of political maneuvering to contend with. We have accomplished much, but maybe not much at all. There isn’t enough time for this campaign to react before tomorrow’s vote, but there are things to be done in the fallout. The core of the Conservative party is bent on having another Canadian election right now. This driving force might be too much to contend with as we continue to ask our elected MPs to put constituents above party ambition.
.
.
In another twist, both Doyle and Hearn said they would have voted for the budget, regardless of the caucus decision.
“I’ve worked too hard for it. I worked harder than probably anybody with the exception of (Finance Minister Loyola) Sullivan and Premier Williams,” Hearn said.
“I always felt I had to be true to what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador wanted me to do here,” Doyle added.
36 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“In another twist, both Doyle and Hearn said they would have voted for the budget, regardless of the caucus decision.”
Wow, talk IS cheap! Amazing!
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/18/2005 @ 12:36 pmBrenda, your talk is particularly cheap.
you’re willing to preserve a government that made us beg for that which was irghtfully ours. . . a government led by the only party not to consistently put their promise in writing form the beginning.
Then you come on a website that exosts precisely because of these arrogant, ignorant and elitist decisions made by a certain dictatornamed Martin and criticize the only 2 MPs who have been speaking about this ocnsistently and actually getting national party and leader support for their position and their province’s policies.
Check out cover photo of May 10 issue of Globe and Mail. that envelope might look familiar to you.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/18/2005 @ 2:20 pmGee Liam. Have I hit a nerve? Sorry about that.
Yes, Liam. I am prepared to preserve a minority government along with the support of the NDP to have the new agreement pass in the Commons and become law. And just so that you know, David Cochrane has just reported on CBC Radio that in conversation with supporters who have worked on Mr. Hearn’s and Mr. Doyle’s campaigns, they are now having second thoughts about continued support for them during the next federal election.
So you see, it is not only those of us who have no political party affiliation who are disgusted by these gentlemen’s actions, but their own supporters as well.
Oh, and last I heard, I am entitled to my opinion whether you agree or not.
As for your reference to the Globe and Mail, I don’t read rags!
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/18/2005 @ 3:06 pmBrenda, uou are absolutely right, about your right to your opinion, and about your opinion. I attach an email I just sent to Loyola Hern that expresses my continuing outrage at the Hearn, Doyle and Conservative hypocracy. To Liam, what makes you think we would not have to beg the conservatives with a majority for the same deal?
My email:
Dear Mr. Hearn,
Shame on you and your party. You have tried to make Newfoundlanders believe that by voting for the original budget you are supporting the Atlantic Accord, but you will still try to defeat the budget on the NDP amendments. By your own accounting below, this will in effect ensure the Accord dies on the order paper. To quote you:
“Thursdays vote is a vote at second reading (second stage of a six stage legislative process) of the Budget Implementation Bill…
There will need to be four more votes in Parliament before this Bill passes into law. The Bill will need to be reviewed by Committee and as it has 24 clauses and is not stand-alone legislation, a responsible and thorough review will take a considerable amount of time. Last year’s Budget Bill only passed its sixth and final stage last week.
We will not get our money until the entire legislative process is complete.
2) What happens if there is an election before the legislation goes through all stages and is passed? If there is an election at any time before final passage, the Budget Bill dies on the Order Paper and new legislation would have to be introduced in a new Government starting the six stage legislative process all over again.”
If you really supported the Accord for Newfoundland, you would ensure there were not an election until it has finally passed.
It is disingenous of you and your colleagues to suggest you are supporting Newfoundland by the actions you propose.
This will be remembered. If you act as you have stated publically, you and Mr. Doyle should be removed from office in the election you precipitate. I will work very hard to ensure that happens.
A disappointed and very irate Newfoundlander.
Comment by Rob — 5/18/2005 @ 3:20 pmI don’t read rags either. . . especially since they refuse to get rid of Wente…. I do have eyes and I remember vividly seeing a photo of a white envelope with a red “L” on it held up on a cover.
I never once suggested that you weren’t entitled to your opinion. I just find that your assertion is asinine. I don’t care what “other partisans” are doing. This actually doesn’t need to be partisan in the form of support for a single party. I think that the movement to put pressure on Loyola Hearn and Norman Doyle is very definitel partisan… it is partisan federal Liberal.
I think that if you assess the actions of the government of Canada led by Paul Martin and compare them with the campaign led by premier williams, the actions of Norm Doyle and the actions of Loyola Hearn, you’ll find that they have earned respect that extends beyond partisanship. They’ve been consistent and trustworthy. Only 2 prominent people have waivered and double-crossed on this issue — they both happen to be the represnetatives of the Liberal party – Paul Martin and John Efford.
I don’t care if you vote NDP or Conservative but I can’t think of any reason to play stooge to Paul Martin after he has chosen to use threats to get his budget through.
Layton and Harper (from two very different parties) have promised to honour this agreement no matter what. so why are you choosing to cow-tow to the Prime minister with a record of dithering and lies when you have two better options? Why are you chosing to maintain a corrupt government and a government that only gives us deals in teh form of threats and with strings and conditins attached that no other party wanted? why are you choosing to preserve the one government that is most likely to even repeal this deal or go back on it ifit ever gets a majority?
I find it highly ironic that you’re expressing support for and trust for a government and a prime minister whose very arrogant slapping-around of this province caused this forum to be created in the first place!
Are you suffering from battered-province-syndrome? stockholm syndrome? a newfound love for your abuser?
OOr do you believe, as John Efford the sellout obviously does, that Newfoundlanders don’t deserve to have their deal guaranteed and not held hostage in this bill or with conditions and basements attached…..
since when did we feel this need to bow to the likes of Paul Martin after a year of abuse and runarounds?
remember, when you answer, that you’re typing your words into a forum that exists as a monument to his opposition to this very concept of a deal and his contempt for keeping promises…
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/18/2005 @ 3:30 pmPaul Martin should write a book “pimpin aint easy” to describe the garbage of the johnny-come-latelys to the offshore oil and gas revenue dicussions. The concept of demanding 100% of offshore revenues has been a mainstay of policy discussions since the first hibernia production numbers were released. Indeed, before that.
Now suddenly everyone is acting as if the deal that took the pulling of teeth and a response of pure acidity form Paul Martin is somehow the be-all end all one-time-shot miraculous gift form Jesus on high.
Anyone with any memory beyond 4 months will remember that the entire striggle was in fact caused by the opporition raised by Paul Martin to this very arrangement.
the holy “Accord” will exist with retroactivity. If you were all willing to trust Paul Martin so much as ot believe that he won’t find a way to double-cross us as he was already double-crossing us on the 1985 accord, then surely you should have enough faith in the other two parties who have consistently and specifically supported this deal and the concept from day one.
Instead I find a sea of people making arguments of supplication to Paul Martin after he bitch slaps us with the means buy which this accord was arranged. Tell me, when did proud newofundlnaders become so whipped?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/18/2005 @ 3:38 pmLiam said: “I find a sea of people making arguments of supplication to Paul Martin after he bitch slaps us with the means buy which this accord was arranged. Tell me, when did proud newofundlnaders become so whipped? ”
Actually, Liam, I kinda see it as the other way around. For the first time in awhile, I feel like a reigning party is being bitchslapped - and I like it. Keeping the Liberals over the barrel in a minority government will certainly keep them on their toes and listening. And if the Conservatives pull the idiot move they’re proposing by voting down the budget amendment, they must think we’re all blind.
I want accountability in government, too. Harper’s Conservatives in a majority government, particulary with the in-house division between Reformers and more “progressive” Conservatives might be a scarier prospect than the Liberals on a short chain.
But getting to the bottom line, I want the budget and its amendment passed, not just for my region, but for the country.
Comment by Debra — 5/18/2005 @ 4:01 pmRob;
In reference to your posting, I too contacted my MP Mr. Doyle and expressed that he would not have my support. Upon discussions with my spouse, I informed Mr. Doyle that he no longer had that support either. And that should concern Mr. Doyle a great deal as he (my spouse) has never voted anything but PC/Conservative either provincially or federally in the past 26 years.
I’m afraid that Mr. Doyle’s actions will be costing him more than our three votes, Rob.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/18/2005 @ 4:57 pmCadman hints at voting with Liberals
Last Updated Wed, 18 May 2005 18:34:49 EDT
CBC News
OTTAWA - Chuck Cadman, one of two Independent MPs whose votes will decide the fate of Paul Martin’s Liberals, is hinting that he will support the government, a vote that would keep the Liberals in power.
The B.C. MP has said that he wants to hear from his constituents before making a final decision on how he will vote on a budget amendment Thursday.
But he told the Canadian Press that a recent poll of 600 eligible voters in his riding of Surrey North indicated two-thirds of respondents didn’t want an election.
“My gut is telling me the people are leaning towards taking a wait-and-see attitude on an election,” he said.
He said the results are a “major factor” because he has an obligation to his constituents.
On Wednesday, Independent MP David Kilgour a former Liberal from Alberta who left the party in mid-April over the sponsorship scandal said he’s leaning toward defeating the government in a budget vote Thursday evening.
But if Cadman decides to vote with the Liberals, the government will have enough support to pass the budget even if Kilgour votes against it.
Cadman is a former Conservative who decided to run as an Independent after losing his party’s nomination race leading up to the June 2004 election.
Cadman met with Martin and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh on Monday, but he said there were no offers or deals made in order to get him to support the budget.
With the defection of former Tory MP Belinda Stronach to the Liberal fold, the Liberal-NDP coalition on the budget totals 151 votes, not including Speaker Peter Milliken, who votes only in case of a tie.
The Conservative party and Bloc Qubcois, both of which have said they will vote against the budget, hold a combined total of 152 votes.
There are three Independent MPs, one of whom, Carolyn Parrish, has said she will vote with the Liberals.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/18/2005 @ 7:12 pmCAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? In the words of Bette Davis “Hang on to your seats, boys, it’s going to be a bumpy ride".
Ottawa on edge as crucial budget vote looms
CTV.ca News Staff
Ottawa is reeling this morning from another dramatic political development with news Independent MP Carolyn Parrish may be too ill to attend tonight’s crucial budget vote in Parliament because of an attack of appendicitis, CTV News reports.
The two non-confidence votes today could result in a stay of execution for the minority government of Prime Minister Paul Martin.
Or it could result in his government’s defeat and would trigger a summer election – the second time in one year that Canadians would be heading to the polls.
But, while everyone gets ready for the votes in the Commons later today, the Prime Minister’s Office is trying to sort out what is happening with Parrish.
The Independent MP from Ontario told CTV’s Ottawa bureau chief, Robert Fife this morning she was ill.
“We asked her whether she’d be able to make the vote and she said: ‘I’m not sure, I’m very sick,’” Fife told Canada AM.
“This changes the whole dynamic of today because if Carolyn Parrish does not vote, it’s unlikely the government can survive unless they can work out some kind of deal with somebody else.”
Fife adds that if Parrish were a Conservative, Liberal or an NDP MP, she could be “paired” – a term used to describe when party whips work out a deal to even the playing field by pairing off an ill MP with a member from another party .
Liberal Natural Resources Minister John Efford who’s undergoing treatment for diabetes, for example, had been originally paired off with cancer-stricken Tory MP Darrel Stinson, who has surgery scheduled this week.
But Parrish is an Independent. “And I’m not sure how they pair people off with Independents,” says Fife.
“If Carolyn Parrish doesn’t get here, I don’t know how the Liberals can survive.”
And all this comes after a week of stunning developments.
They include:
* Allegations from B.C. Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal the Liberals tried to bribe him and his wife with appointments, in order to get their support; and
* A Liberal MP’s collapse in the House on Wednesday from chest pains, which turned out to be heartburn; and
* The continued fallout from the defection to the Liberals of Belinda Stronach, the high-profile Ontario MP who ran last year for the Tory leadership.
The first non-confidence vote will be on Bill C-43, the Liberals’ budget bill, and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has already said his party will vote in favor of it.
However, he said his party will not support a second non-confidence vote on Bill C-48.
That bill involves amendments to the budget by the federal New Democratic Party, in a deal agreed to by the PM and NDP Leader, Jack Layton.
Those changes would result in $4.6 billion in new spending on housing and the environment and also proposes a delay in a series of corporate tax cuts.
Prime Minister Paul Martin has said both bills are confidence matters and that losing either vote would trigger an election.
Right now, the Liberals and the NDP have 151 votes and the Tories and the Bloc Quebecois 152.
As well there are three Independent MPs. Along with Parrish who is from Ontario, there is Alberta’s David Kilgour and B.C. Chuck Cadman. While Parrish had been expected to support the Liberals, neither Kilgour nor Cadman has clarified how they’d vote.
“What in fact is going to happen if we lose this vote tonight is that we will go to the polls,” Liberal House Leader Tony Valeri told Canada AM.
“The Prime Minister has made that very clear. What is not clear is, in fact what Mr. Harper is prepared to do.”
Still, Valeri said” “If in fact the gov’t sustains itself with the budget votes tonight, parliament should be allowed to work. It’s what Canadians want.”
“You cannot support one budget, defeat another, and then suggest that you’re not defeating the budget.”
“I feel like we’re all living in the middle of a soap opera and not a very good one at that,” NDP House Leader Libby Davies said.
Davies said the NDP deal with the Liberals resulted in a “better balanced budget,” and that “we hope both of the bills tonight will be approved in the House of Commons, but it’s going to come down to the wire.”
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/19/2005 @ 8:09 amMINUTE BY MINUTE….
Ottawa on edge as crucial budget vote looms
CTV.ca News Staff
Ottawa is reeling this morning from a flurry of activity in the lead up to two crucial non-confidence votes in Parliament later today.
There were reports Independent MP Carolyn Parrish, who has said she will vote with Liberal government, was suffering from appendicitis and may not have been able to vote.
Now CTV’s Robert Fife reports that Parrish is, in fact, well enough to attend.
The two non-confidence votes today could result in a stay of execution for the Liberals under Paul Martin.
Or it could result in his government’s defeat and would trigger a summer election – the second time in one year that Canadians would be heading to the polls.
And all this comes after a week of stunning developments.
They include:
* Allegations from B.C. Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal that the Liberals tried to bribe him and his wife with appointments, in order to get their support;
* Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis’s collapse in the House on Wednesday from chest pains, which turned out to be heartburn; and
* The continued fallout from the defection to the Liberals of Belinda Stronach, the high-profile Ontario MP who ran last year for the Tory leadership.
The first non-confidence vote will be on Bill C-43, the Liberals’ budget bill, which Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has already said his party will vote in favor of.
However, he said his party will not support a second non-confidence vote on Bill C-48.
That bill involves amendments to the budget by the federal New Democratic Party, in a deal agreed to by the PM and NDP Leader Jack Layton.
Those changes would result in $4.6 billion in new spending on housing and the environment and also proposes a delay in a series of corporate tax cuts.
Prime Minister Paul Martin has said both bills are confidence matters and that losing either vote would trigger an election.
Right now, the Liberals and the NDP have 151 votes and the Tories and the Bloc Quebecois 152.
As well there are three Independent MPs. Along with Parrish who is from Ontario, there is Alberta’s David Kilgour and B.C. Chuck Cadman.
Neither Kilgour nor Cadman has clarified how they’d vote.
“What in fact is going to happen if we lose this vote tonight is that we will go to the polls,” Liberal House Leader Tony Valeri told Canada AM.
“The Prime Minister has made that very clear. What is not clear is, in fact what Mr. Harper is prepared to do.”
Still, Valeri said, “If in fact the government sustains itself with the budget votes tonight, Parliament should be allowed to work. It’s what Canadians want.”
“You cannot support one budget, defeat another, and then suggest that you’re not defeating the budget.”
“I feel like we’re all living in the middle of a soap opera and not a very good one at that,” NDP House Leader Libby Davies said.
Davies said the NDP deal with the Liberals resulted in a “better balanced budget,” and that “we hope both of the bills tonight will be approved in the House of Commons, but it’s going to come down to the wire.”
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/19/2005 @ 8:36 amThe independent MP’s are sucking ever bit of drama they can out of there 15 minutes of fame. Will Loyola Ahern offer to pair with Carolyn Parish in order to avoid being seen as defeating the Atlantic Accord. Opportunity knocks Loyala!
Comment by Hazen Grigg — 5/19/2005 @ 9:04 amI lived on the Mainland for 20 years before moving back home. I and a lot of other Newfoundlanders had to put up with a lot of “dumb Newfie” remarks. We will never get rid of this stigmitism as long as we continue to kowtow to threats from Ottawa politicians.
Paul Martin promised us 100% from off shore oil and then delayed the signing of the Atlantic Accord for the past 12 months. Now Newfoundlanders, instead of being angry with Martin, they are angry at Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn, the only two MP’s from this province that have been trying to get the Accord passed since last year.
This web page should not have been against Doyle and Hearn. It should have been about the Newfoundland Liberal MP’s who have done nothing in the past 12 months to get the Accord passed.
I would rather not receive a dime from the Accord than to support a corrupt, lying Prime Minister. Where are our principles. It may not buy us material things but we could get rid of the “dumb” tag.
Martin and his advisors obviously know “You can fool some of the people all of the time”
Comment by Lawrence — 5/19/2005 @ 10:02 amDebra said:
“Actually, Liam, I kinda see it as the other way around. For the first time in awhile, I feel like a reigning party is being bitchslapped - and I like it. Keeping the Liberals over the barrel in a minority government will certainly keep them on their toes and listening.”
LMFAO
Have you even watched their first year as a minority government? Even in a minority situation with SUPPOSEDLY 3 national parties in agreement on NL getting 100% of the offshore revenues, the Liberal Party of Canada managed to delay, backstab, weasel and dither on their promise re the accord. They could have had this done in the FALL. Actually, they sould have had this done easily on the day the first clawback came on Hibernia oil, because at that very time, the main national opposition parties all agreed that NL deserved 100%. Instead they chose to go against the spirit of the original Atlantic Accord. They ignored a royal commission, successive premiers, their own local liberal leaders, all-party committees, think tanks on the left and right, all in order to keep the cash in Ottawa.
They fought us on original ownership. They fought the Atlantic Accord I. They fought against having a new arrangement. They fought us on giving us a say on fisheries (and even in a minority where the CPC and probably NDP agree on that one they still tell us to go to hell).
Newfoundland and Labrador has been treated like dirt by this Prime Minister. He even tried to weasel out of the one half-decent commitment he made (on a phone midelection and by way of 180 deg turn). Even in a minority he stalled, delayed and lied to us.
This website’s existence is proof of that.
Debra said:
“And if the Conservatives pull the idiot move theyre proposing by voting down the budget amendment, they must think were all blind.. .”
I’ve always believed it was a mistake to join Canada. One of the main reasons relates to resource pilfering. Another, sadly, is because I see every day people affected by the battered-wife syndrome of federalism.
Knowing that there are written commitments on the table to the Accord (and excellent potential to more besides) knowing WHO IS PRECISELY REPSONSIBLE FOR A SIX MONTH DELAY OF ACCORD II AND AN OUTRIGHT BACKSTAB ON ACCORD I, What, besides blind partisanship and supplication to the great Ottawa masters, brings you to support this government?
Debra said:
“I want accountability in government, too. Harpers Conservatives in a majority government, particulary with the in-house division between Reformers and more progressive Conservatives might be a scarier prospect than the Liberals on a short chain.”
What’s scary about Stephen Harper? And what “division"?
If you’re going to make these claims, back them up.
Stephen Harper as leader of the opposition has already agreed to end more bottlenecks to NL issues and policy than any previous federal leader in history. I can cite you the specific demands from Moores, Peckford, Wells, Grimes, and others and then line them up next to enthusiastic prioritized statements and written policy from Stephen Harper.
If Harper had been Prime Minister in the 1960s, given his attitude towards freeing up interprovincial trade and his words in favour of regional fairness tests and a review of Churchill (in 2003-2004 statement on Atlantic Canada) , I’d bet we’d have a power corridor through Quebec. If He had been PM in the 1980s I’d bet he’d never have challenged our claim to full ownership of offshore resources. And right now he’s willing to give us a veto on quotas and fisheries adjacent to our province just as we requested and full support for the seal hunt in intl trade.
I don’t call that “scary” I call that sensible.
The Conservative party’s founding principles are carbon copies of the old PC’s constitutional principles.
If even the usual Liberal apologists like Larry Zolf find these guys to be moderate, I fail to see the need to maintain a corrupt and abusive Paul Martin government:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20050329.html
anyway, the truly “scary” situation, would be if Newfoundlanders rewarded Paul Martin for the intergovernmental equivilant of doubting cigarette butts on somebody’s face.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/19/2005 @ 1:04 pmJust a final note on this phase of the fairdeal journey. Kevin what are the chances of you taking a run at a seat in the next election? Intregity, resourceful, well educated, energetic, ex pat, etc., etc… sure sounds like the type of person we need inside the halls of govt. Maybe we should start a draft Kevin campaign?
Comment by Jeremiah — 5/19/2005 @ 2:00 pmRe: “Draft Kevin,” for what it’s worth, I work with Kevin, and can attest that he is exactly the kind of guy who *should* be drafted. Why? One, he really cares about these issues; two, he’s not eager to run – which means he’s precisely the kind of guy who should be elected.
Comment by John Hlinko — 5/20/2005 @ 7:38 amIn response to “Draft Kevin", a good idea but he should run as an independent. I have a feeling that contributions to his campaign wouldn’t be an issue.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/20/2005 @ 9:06 amLawrence:
When Mr. Hearn and Mr. Doyle were placed in the same spot to influence the outcome as other MPS were, they failed to live up to the standard that they themselves set.
And Lawrence, if they came to close your hospital bed while you were seeking treatment for the self-inflicted damage to your nose (to spite your face), I’d have to remind of your “never take a dime” approach.
All I can do is shrug. What can one say?
Liam:
What backstab on the Real Accord?
If you are talking about the ownership issue, I’d refer you to the documentary record, including the two court cases on the matter, both of which concluded that legislative jurisdiction of the offshore seabed resources rested with the Government of Canada.
That said there was ample opportunity for the province to achieve a satisfactory offshore deal with Ottawa that would have allowed the resources to be developed sooner than they were. There is substantial reason to believe that Mr. Peckford persisted in his ownership strategy long after it was clear, and he was advised, that, legally, he would lose. To my mind, this is far dumber than signing a deal, starting the revenues flowing and then working to improve them as the situation develops.
Canada did not pilfer provincial offshore resources. In 1949, offshore seabed resources were not within either Newfoundland or Canadian jurisdiction. The matter became important once the international legal regime changed and oil was discovered fully 30 years after Confederation.
On the recent deal, bear in mind that it was achieved when both sides got down to hard bargaining - in October. I’d be happy to supply you with the very thin documentary record before October 2004 that flowed from the province and with the weak initial “proposal".
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/20/2005 @ 12:43 pmEd, Trudeau did not need to challenge PEckford on ownership. He did it anyway.
Read the North Sea Cases in order to understand the natur eof continental shelf rights.
But the backstab was twofold anyway. At the point where it became clear to everybody that the projections were definitely to play out…. and in the royal commission reports and other all party efforts that followed, Martin and Chretien refused to listen to provincial premiers, original drafters, comissions, or anyone else when asked to give a fair interpretation to Accord I.
Instead, the last year or so has been a circus for no reason other than to delay the Accord long enough for Paul Martin to finish his course correction.
Norm and Loyola, to their credit, have not had to make any course correction on this issue. They have, prior to the existence to the Martin “promise” whispered on a phone, understood that a co-operative federal government wouldn’t take this long to meet the province’s demands.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/21/2005 @ 9:53 amI live in Whitehorse, Yukon. I have been a NFLD supporter for years. My Dad had a penpal in NFLD when it was not part of Canada and in these letters he expresses his dismay at the asinine decision of ‘free’ people to ‘give away’ everything to another nation back in 1949. I, too, have always wondered WHY but then, I look at the ‘bribes’. The main bribe was the baby bonus. Yes! The baby bonus!! Other ‘promises’ were not kept and NFLD was plundered and sold for the benifit of the rest of CENTREL Canada (almost exclusivly by Quebec PM’s representing Liberal governments - Brian M.- PC-was the only PM that was attempting fairness….but he was from Quebec!). The west is just a cash cow and gives to all. I would say that NFLD has been ‘used and abused’ for half a century - the west for a whole century. You have some great politicians in NFLD - Danny Williams is the BEST and I don’t blame him for wanting this accord passed NOW because if there is an election and the ND or Liberals win or WORSE if the ND/Lib have a colition majority; you will never see a DIME of the money Paule has been FORCED to conceed. I know that you must get the deal NOW so pressure the passage of the budget - but DO NOT damn Mr. Hoyle, Mr. Herne or Mr. Harper - THEY got that deal passed!!! Mr. Effort did not support the bill(CPC) passed in the house to pay-up on a promise and if you elect him again he will stab NFLD in the back again.
Comment by Elaine Kennedy — 5/22/2005 @ 1:08 pmIf Mr. Harper had not made the REAL deal in the FIRST place, based on PRINCIPLE; Paule would have NEVER made any promise in the first place!! Paule did not sing anything and if he would have gotten a majority , he would have just lied about the phone call and NFLD would have lost it all - again. Put that in wind in your sails and set the record stright. The CONSERVATIVES are 100% responsible for the deal in the first place!! I don’t want to read anymore dumping on two M.P.s you can actually TRUST. You don’t know Mr. Cadmen or Mr. Harper very well - did you see the steel blue eyes of Mr. Cadmen -he DID NOT VOTE FOR PAULE and CORRUPTION he voted for you.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it! OH! I forgot you folks can’t smoke anymore in public - maybe that is something you SHOULD address. Mr. Harper is NOT in favour of BANS he SUPPORTS property RIGHTS. “People are going to go out and have a drink and have a smoke and that is the way life is going to be” That is what Stephen Harper said in 2004. Stephen KEEPS his word. Remember Martin and his gang voting to PROTECT the definition of marriage not long ago?
If you people think that a Liberal re-election with or without ND prop up will result in NFLD getting the deal Mr. Williams made with Paule, I have a beach frount in Sask. I would like to sell you - the nouveau Grand Banks of Sask., I will call it.
Well Said Elaine . . . you’re very close here on what NFLD Needs
You know what Canada Needs, but especially NFLD and the Maritimes ??? For the East To unite with the west. It is centralization that has been killing my home for 56 years . . .
Please, get as many of your friends from the all over the west to check this site out and give us all a little pep talk! Form the De-Centralization Coalition one person at a time!
Mick
P.S. Post on a newer article to get better attention
Comment by Mick Collins — 5/24/2005 @ 10:53 amDecentralization is a wonderful concept. But the fact is, that it isn’t any federal government pilfering anybody. All of the resources that are “pilfered” from NFLD. aren’t “pilfered” by Ottawa. They are sold in a marketplace that is becoming increasingly global. The fact is that most large resource companies are now global multinationals. Canada’s large national corporation, by and large, are headquareted in central Canada and buy, sell or “value add” their raw materials there.
Unless you want to go back to the 19th century model of state-run industry, it’s going to be pretty hard to change this without significant government intrusion into the economic structures of our country.
But decentralization was one of the things that crated these problems in the first place. Because natural resources were a provincial jurisidction, the provinces set up all of the ownership and royalty regimes for all of their mineral resources. Smaller, poorer provinces are not able to raise the kind of capital that larger ones can, and as such are always reliant on large companies to step in on their own terms and develop projects to create employment. The end result is job creation, but at the cost of resource exploitation with very little value added prcessing and less and less corporate local presence.
I fail to see how decentralizing the government would change this.
The more power you defer to provinces, the further behind the smaller, poorer provinces will fall, and the less reason for truly national economic interests to maintain a truly national footprint in all regions of teh country.
Don’t be fooled by the decentralist push of small-c conservatives. This is the same foolishness that the anti-confederates espoused in 1947-48 in our province. They were wrong then. They are doubly wrong now.
Comment by Mark — 5/24/2005 @ 11:46 amMark, you tend to use the word “foolish” a lot. But you don’t really seem to substantiate what you’ve sair or even make much sense in the logic dept…
I assume you’re using legal positivism in order to imply that the fisheries isn’t a Newfoundland and Labrador resource. You’re right. But in every practical sense, if you believe in the principle of subsidiarity and keeping ogvernment close to the people, and remmeber how Canada came to run that fishery, you’ll realize that it is a Newfoundland and Labrador resource. And the government elected solely by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be given at least equal if not complete say over key decisions.
Read the provincial government’s 1987 report “Northern Cod Under Attack.” Read their fisheries stratgeies from the later 1970s and early 1980s. It’s certainly true that the province had a development plan in mind that would have done its share of damage…. but the damage that DID happen happened because the Government of Canada essentially adopted an “everything to everybody” approach.
The Government of Canada signed trade dals that were of political benefit to members and politicans from places other than this province. The decisions made to allocate fish resources off NL to Canadian Non-NL harvesters or to freign harvesters were decisions taken lightly and without care for those adjacent to the resource. It was unacceptable. It was, for all intense purposes, pilfering.
Even people in industry warned of managmenet trouble several times . . . Gus Etchegary of FPI, Richard Cashin of the Fisherman’s union, Tory, Liberal, NDP… all have come to support greater decentralization and empowerment of Newfoundland and Labrador on matters relating to fisheries and other offshore resources.
What’s the alternative? 56 more years of “Ottawa knows best.” Ottawa failed. Ottawa created a great deal of the mess that you so quickly assume must be the fault of businesses or the provincial government. Ottawa was repsonsible because OTTAWA MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT NOBODY ELSE WAS ALLOWED TO BE RESPONSIBLE. The justification? Sloth and division in the Mulroney years I suspect… and well, In the Trudeau years and before, arrogant one liners like “fish swim.”
Cars drive. Moose Walk. Should all matters on all these fronst be centralized? Of course not.
The central government has generally created disasters whenever it has interferred with the provinces on resource matters… from East Coast Fisheries to the arrogant and communistic NEP.
oh, and by the way, in 1947-1948 this wasn’t a province. It was the Dominion of Newfoundland.
Peter Cashin was right. If we’re going to stick around here, lets at least try to rejuvenate the concept of the federation as opposed to the unitary screwhold that presently exists.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/24/2005 @ 2:51 pmwhooooah. hold the boat.
I didn’t say anything about fisheries jurisdiction other than to answer Mick’s factual question about natural resources.
You said provinces should pull out of the fiscal arrangements which had been forced down their throats.
That’s what I said was foolish.
When you are the largest recipient of all fiscal transfers it would indeed be foolish to advocate that all of the others pull out of them.
That’s foolish.
You want to have a debate about fisheries, we can have that if you like, but we’ll probably agree more than disagree so where’s the fun?
Comment by Mark — 5/24/2005 @ 3:03 pmAnd Liam, when did I ever say that Newfoundland was a province in 1947-48?
Maybe I should have said that the nationlists who were trotting around the bankrupt-former-dominion-under-commission-of-government-rule-piece-of geography-currently-referred-to-as-our-province-of-Newfoundland-and-Labrador were wrong. But that would be, well, foolish, I guess.
“our province” just seemed a simpler way of saying it, as that’s what most of us (except those neo-nationlists) are quite comfortable referring to it as now.
Comment by Mark — 5/24/2005 @ 3:10 pmUh-oh. You’re quoting Gus. Gus never took any fish. Gus has always been a conservationist. Gus never used foreign boats. Gus is a real hero. Please.
As for the trade deals you mentioned, I guess having a federal trade minister from Newfoundland might have helped our cause. Oh - wait a minute - we had one. His name was John and he sent a dory out to the Grand Banks to protest the actions of foreigners. A dory.
His successors sent out gunboats, and continue to increase our presence on the waters and in the air ever since. Too bad John had no gumption and no support around the table.
I’m outta here. Gotta go and help Labradorians restore order to Parliament. Have a good night.
Comment by Mark — 5/24/2005 @ 3:15 pmMark said:
“You said provinces should pull out of the fiscal arrangements which had been forced down their throats.
Thats what I said was foolish.”
Actually, you responded to a quotation of Loyola Hearn AS IF I had said it. And even then I htink you missed the point.
Mark said:
“when did I ever say that Newfoundland and Labrador was a province in 1947-48?”
you said it right here in this discussion thread:
“This is the same foolishness that the anti-confederates espoused in 1947-48 in our province. They were wrong then. They are doubly wrong now.
Comment by Mark 5/24/2005 @ 11:46 am ”
Mark said:
“Maybe I should have said that the nationlists who were trotting around the bankrupt-former-dominion-under-commission-of-government-rule-piece-of geography-currently-referred-to-as-our-province-of-Newfoundland-and-Labrador were wrong. But that would be, well, foolish, I guess.”
Yes, and petty, given the role of the UK and Canadian governments in the matter re first world war debts, vested interest expressed in Canada acquiring NL etc…
Mark said:
“our province just seemed a simpler way of saying it, as thats what most of us (except those neo-nationlists) are quite comfortable referring to it as now. ”
It might be “simpler” but it’s factually incorrect. I guess you got used to that MO defending Paul Martin’s ilk.
Mark Said:
“His successors sent out gunboats, and continue to increase our presence on the waters and in the air ever since. ”
Actually his successors sent out a gun boat one time and then later bent over backwards apologizing and ocmpensating for their action and only left it out there long enough to ensure a chariot rde or two for triple-dip Brian…. since then it’s been a measly time or two right around election time. His successors allocated shrimp off Fogo to PEIers, told us to go ot hell on joint management and apologetize for and praise the most useless organization on the planet – NAFO.
They’ve been in government for 12 of the last 13 years of the moratorium. And yet they refuse to take sutodial management, heed the young commission, heed the multi-party fisheries committee or the provincial govrnment or the union or the fishermen on these issues.
Apparently Ottawa knows best..
Just make sure they pay you enough Mark. I know “senate seat” is the tag on Efford’s head. What are you getting?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/24/2005 @ 5:41 pmJoint management? We have joint management. I’m sure the crab fishermen of the province are happy that at least the feds are running one side of the industry these days.
Partisanship aside, if the provincial Liberal government of a few years ago had their way there would be no fish left in the sea whatsoever.
I’ll side with the conservationists over the political opportunists any time, no matter if they are conservative or liberal, if they are in Ottawa or in St. John’s.
Comment by Mark — 5/24/2005 @ 7:18 pmFor those interested:
Conservative Graham Letto 1,732 34.8
Green Party Jason Crummey 19 0.4
Independent Ern Condon 273 5.5
Liberal Todd Russell 2,490 50.0
N.D.P. Frances Fry 462 9.3
Total number of valid votes: 4,976
www.elections.ca has a very good up-to-the minute feature for timely results.
Comment by Mark — 5/24/2005 @ 7:19 pmMark Said:
“Joint management? We have joint management. Im sure the crab fishermen of the province are happy that at least the feds are running one side of the industry these days.
Partisanship aside, if the provincial Liberal government of a few years ago had their way there would be no fish left in the sea whatsoever.
Ill side with the conservationists over the political opportunists any time, no matter if they are conservative or liberal, if they are in Ottawa or in St. Johns.”
No we don’t have joint management… not of the resource. And please don’t tell me you’re going to ignore the Harris Commission, the Young Commission, the All-Party Fisheries committee report and the UNANIMOUS resolution of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of assembly on this issue!
I disagree with you assessment of the provincial Liberal government on fisheries. They at least tried to explain (your probably tuned out) that a fishery was possible on some level if the principle of adjacency was respected and lower quotas introduced.
Ottawa’s and DFO’s “conservation” efforts are usually displaced when it comes time for a Maritime food fishery, a foreign trawler to go anywhere it damn well pleases on the Nose and Tail and Flemish Cap, praise for NAFO, deference and respect for the Paul Watson nutbars, only selective implementation of FRCC recommendations (especially on seal matters) and just about any other gust of wind. The only time Ottawa gets “conservationist” on our asses is when Newfoundlanders are the target… even then it’s usually inconsistent…
read the white paper and judge for yourself.
http://www.gov.nl.ca/publicat/fisheriesmanagement/default.htm
I think it’s a pretty good plan.
Also have a gander at the Royal Commission Report on our Place in Canada:
http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/royalcomm/
Ottawa blew its shot. It’s time to curb the viceroy like powers of the federal fisheries minister. . . and bring in a few voices a little closer to home.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/24/2005 @ 9:15 pmLiarm said:
Mark said:
“when did I ever say that Newfoundland and Labrador was a province in 1947-48?
you said it right here in this discussion thread:
This is the same foolishness that the anti-confederates espoused in 1947-48 in our province. They were wrong then. They are doubly wrong now.
Comment by Mark 5/24/2005 @ 11:46 am ”
Liarm, that is the most desperate attempt at twisting words I’ve ever seen you commit… and I’ve seen a lot of those attempts out of you.
Comment by WJM — 5/24/2005 @ 9:23 pmWJM:
IT WAS A DIRECT QUOTE IN THIS THREAD. READ IT FOR YOURSELF. WHAT WAS “TWISTED"?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/25/2005 @ 10:29 amMark did NOT say that Newfoundland and Labrador was a province in 1947-48.
He referred to certain events that happened in the provnice in 1947-48.
By your logic, it is impossible to talk about the Dorset Eskimos or the Norse in Newfoundland: “Newfoundland” didn’t exist back then. The name hadn’t been invented.
One can perfectly validly transpose past events onto current political boundaries.
You seriously twisted the meaning and intent of what “Mark” posted. He didn’t say NL was a province in 1947-48, and you bloody well know it.
You’d make Bill Clinton – “that would depend on what your definition of ‘is’ is” – very proud. You been taking lessons from Slick Willy?
Comment by WJM — 5/25/2005 @ 1:46 pmWJM, given Marks (and yours and Ed’s) contempt for the concept of Newfoundland Nationalism, I wasn’t entirely sure that Mark Meant it that way. In fact, given the tone and content of Mark’s reply, I quite honestly believed it to be another smallwoodesque “cinderella of empire” statement.
That you choose to fixate on that only shows how inept you are at responding to any greater substantial points raised in the thread.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/25/2005 @ 3:01 pm“WJM, given Marks (and yours and Eds) contempt for the concept of Newfoundland Nationalism,”
assuming, solely for the sake of argument that any of us does have such contempt, is it any more morally culpable than your contempt for anyone else’s nationalism that may conflict with your PWG tendencies?
“I wasnt entirely sure that Mark Meant it that way.”
In which case you have a serious reading comprehension problem which you need to deal with.
“That you choose to fixate on that only shows how inept you are at responding to any greater substantial points raised in the thread.”
Raise a substantial point, and I’ll usually respond to it. Not invariably; I don’t have enough time to engage in these onanistic discussions to the same extent you do. If I choose not to respond to something, it’s because, in the larger universe, I can’t be bothered.
My time is more valuable than having to respond to ALL of your mythology. I have to be selective in the BS you issue that I will debunk.
As you were.
Comment by WJM — 5/25/2005 @ 3:09 pm“If I choose not to respond to something, its because, in the larger universe, I cant be bothered.”
You bother correcting pieces here and there such as the one you just corrected.
WJM, you have plenty of time. Unless your job has changed, you’ve got the time to do this. In fact, it’s part of your living!
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/29/2005 @ 12:49 am