Accord Legislation Stays Alive
LIBERALS SURVIVE KEY BUDGET VOTE

72 Comments

1. A great day for Canada. I will nevertheless not forget the actions of Hearn and Doyle the past week. They will not get re-elected when the next election is called.

   Comment by John Gosse — 5/19/2005 @ 5:31 pm

2. I’m pleased that the accord is passed.

   I am very disappointed to see that the government suceeded in conning so many Newfoundlanders into fighting to support a political culture of abuse and hostage taking on Newfoundland issues.

   On this day, like many others, I wish Peter Cashin had gotten his way. My Grandfather Mike Collins was right to vote Responsible Government in 1948. Not only did those two words mean independence, but it meant a hope for better government in the future post-commission.

   Newfoundlanders used ot quite understandably riot in the face of irresponsible government. Now large swaths of them go to Canada Day Barbecues and wave maple leaves as the central government finds ways to continue to use them like Ned Beaty was used in Deliverance.

   Score a sour-sweet victory for a bitch-slapped Newfoundland. As for the fisheries issues, I wouldn’t hold my breath…likewise we’ll wait and see what creative interpretations of “is” or “100%” shall come next…

   Crookie Smallwood might have put the con in Confederation, but the daily appeasers in our province hwo act as if we need to describe Paul Martin as a great friend probably put the “suck” in “sucker.”

   Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/19/2005 @ 5:35 pm

3. Hey John, what’s so great about Canada today?

   It’s the only country I know of where as official evidence of a corrupt government increases, so does the liklihood of its re-election.

   It also continues to treat this province like dirt, even when its leader finally gets around to keeping his half assed promise to give us what was rightfully ours anyway.

   Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/19/2005 @ 5:38 pm

4. My hat is off to Mr. Cadman who, regardless of his choice, attended tonight’s vote with illness. Mr. Cadman should be commended for his strength and determination to be in his seat. I wish all elected political officials were like him.

   On another note, there are other votes through committee and a 3rd reading that must be completed in order for the budget to survive and receive royal assent. Well folks, it is obvious that this not over. Keep the pressure on!

   I have to say, politically, the PM was on the money with his very short remarks at the end of the vote. Unfortunately, Mr. Harper has made it clear that he has no intention of giving up his quest for defeating the government.

   As for Messrs. Doyle and Hearn, well, I will let the good people of their districts decide their fate.

   This is but a small breather in our quest for the federal/provincial agreement’s passage.

   Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/19/2005 @ 5:38 pm

5. atta girl Brenda…. earn them envelopes with the red L…..

   way to have faith in a government that betrayed us on the last accord passed…

   Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/19/2005 @ 5:40 pm

6. goverment works for the people… or atleast its supposed to, & today was a an example of it working for the people .. all sides get jittery when the people step in:P (this is when they like to do things by the book, & look good doing it) you want a better goverment? people need to get more involved about what they think is a good idea.. or a bad idea, like Kevin did by creating this website. and so… work with your local MP’s, thats what they are there for.

   Comment by john doe — 5/19/2005 @ 6:05 pm

7. Every resident of our fair province should send a thank you to Chuck Cadman and to Peter Milliken, the House speaker, who successfully covered for Norm and Loyola who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for their province.

   Comment by mark — 5/19/2005 @ 6:12 pm

8. I already sent an email to Chuck Cadman thanking him for his support of the budget. I also mentioned my disgust with Doyle and Hearn.

   Chuck’s email address is :

   Cadman.C@parl.gc.ca

   Comment by John Gosse — 5/19/2005 @ 6:17 pm

9. Interesting Mark. I already sent my thanks to Mr. Cadman but not for voting yes. I thanked him for voting.

   A very important vote though is upon us. Let us not forget that the by-election in Labrador takes place on Tuesday. Will it not in itself be a confidence or non-confidence vote directly by the people?

   Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/19/2005 @ 6:20 pm

10. Interesting Mark. I already sent my thanks to Mr. Cadman but not for voting yes. I thanked him for voting.

    A very important vote though is upon us. Let us not forget that the by-election in Labrador takes place on Tuesday. Will it not in itself be a confidence or non-confidence vote directly by the people?

    Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/19/2005 @ 6:20 pm

11. Liam:

    It must be a terrible burden to bear such hatred and anger as you obviously do.

    And Liam for the record and as a matter of fact, your Conservative friends refused to change the clawback provisions of their deal as they created in 1990. The only accomplishments on this file have come from PM.

    So Liam, please lay off the anger, lay on the facts and for Heaven’s sake if you can only spew personal attacks and invective spare the rest of us.

    You owe Brenda S. an apology by my reckoning.

    Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/19/2005 @ 6:30 pm

12. John : It’s just a good day for Canada but a tremendous day for Newfoundland. I am not upset with Norman or Loyola but I certainly lost their respect. Mr. Cadman voted in support of the budget as he respected the views of his constituents. It is fact that the majority of constituents for Norman and Loyola wanted a yes vote on both accounts tonight. These 2 did not respect the views of their constituents and they deserve to be ousted the next time around.

    Comment by Duke Norman — 5/19/2005 @ 7:11 pm

13. Duke, you are correct. I am now listening to Loyola Hearn on Night Line (VOCM) trying to save his political ass.

    Kevin;

    The pressure must continue. If there is a way of using this medium to meet the goal, let us know. I am sure many will be with you all the way.

    Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/19/2005 @ 7:31 pm

14. I too am pleased that the Government survived the efforts of the Conservatives to bring it down, not because I am an ardent Liberal, actually I don’t recall the last time I voted Liberal on the Federal Level, and I do share the view that they indeed should be brought down because of Adscam., but not until the money is in Newfoundlands coffers.

    I am also less than pleased with the conservatives, I still haven’t quite forgiven them for what they did to Canada under Mulrooney. However, I have in recent years voted for the Conservatives, and in particular Norm Doyle whom I have perceived as a man of integrity, indeed I even worked on some of his campaigns. However I can not accept his abandonment of Newfoundland in tonights vote, and as I’ve communicated to Mr. Doyle I won’t be voting for him in the next Federal Election.

    Indeed I don’t think either the Liberals or the Conservatives deserve to Govern this Country. They are the only parties I have ever know to Govern Canada (particularly the Liberals), and in my honest opinion, are directly responsible for the poor state of affairs in our Country today.

    I am of the firm opinion, that if you continue to do the same old thing, you’ll continue to get the same old results, and frankly I think its time for a change. Thats why, I’ve decided that in the next Federal election, I will more than likely vote NDP. Friends have asked why would you do that, they have no chance to ever form the government. To me that is not important, because good Government demands a good opposition, and although they may not form the Government they have the chance to be a strong opposition, especially if as I suspect we end up with another minority Government, but that is for the future.

    Right now, we need to keep the pressure on to get this deal finalized and the money in Newfoundland’s coffers. Perhaps some of the more politically knowledgable posters to this site could advise the best way to persue this goal. I plan to contact all the Newfoundland MPs, and the individual party leaders to advise we want this thing finalized asap with no more political shenanigans.

    This site has twice proven its value in marshalling the people to send a strong message to Ottawa, and frankly I don’t think its job is yet finished.

    Kevin, you and this site have provided the inspiration, and have facilitate our taking this to Ottawa, and making our voices heard. Thanks again for providing the vehicle to allow us to impact Federal Politics, and I hope you will stay involved until this battle is won.

    Max

    Comment by Max — 5/19/2005 @ 8:28 pm

15. I agree with Max. I have always supported Norm Doyle but I can not accept his abandonment of Newfoundland in tonights vote.

    No more votes from me Norm as you ignored your supporters. You never followed our wishes. We wanted you to vote yes tonight as we don’t trust the conservative party which is dominated by old school Reform Alliance members. Many of those stated years ago that NL is a burden and should be taken to the middle Atlantic and sunk.

    You stated we will get the Accord money if the conservatives got elected. What a joke. I am glad of tonight’s results and hope you never run again.

    Comment by Paul Murphy — 5/19/2005 @ 8:47 pm

16. Before I toddled off this evening I thought it important to leave you with the words of Mr. Candman:

    “I was responding to my constituents. Primarily it was that they didn’t feel they were prepared to go into an election,” he told CTV reporter Roger Smith.

    As for the timing of his decision, Cadman explained he made up his mind “about a half hour before I came to the House.”

    When asked about rumours he was offered by Conservatives an unopposed nomination in exchange for his vote on the budget bills, Cadman admitted they were true.

    “The discussions did come up,” he admitted on CTV’s COUNTDOWN with Mike Duffy later Thursday night. “The talk did come up, yeah.”

    Cadman said he refused, however.

    “That was the only offer on anything that I had from anybody,” he added, rebuffing suggestions he made a deal to throw his support behind the Liberals.

    “There were no offers on that table up to that point, on anything from anybody.”

    Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/19/2005 @ 9:16 pm

17. Now then, as a suggestion for the next essential contribution by us…

    With the tenuous grasp the Liberals and Martin have on the House, a DEMAND from Newfoundland & Labrador MP’s Efford, Simms, Byrne and Matthews coupled with a simultaneous DEMAND from Nova Scotia MP’s Cuzner, Savage, Regan, Eyking, Thibault and the always verbose Scott Bryson, Paul Martin would almost be force once and for all to Fastrack the Accord II outside the framework of C-43 and C-48!

    There has got to be the same kind of pressure that we put on the last two (2) fairdealfornewfoundland campaigns turned on every Liberal from our two provinces.

    Better yet, let’s hit every MP (NDP, Bloc, CPC, Liberal and Independent) in the House with an e-mail DEMANDING the Fastrack of the Accord II!

    Any chance Ed or some other procedural wizard can comment or provide references/ URL’s on an aggressive in caucus push, and if House procedures can be adapted to sanction this move?

    What say yea?

    I know at least tonight I’ll sleep better.

    Fred from CBS

    Comment by Fred Harris — 5/20/2005 @ 1:01 am

18. And as for these jokers deserving a summer break…

    I think they all owe us some real governing instead of catcalls and dog-whistles! If the SPEAKER doesn’t start throwing people out for that crap, I’ll start a push for my own non-confidence vote on those misbehaving miscreants!

    The SPEAKER must regain control! I am furious at the absence of courtesy, the lack of accountability and the weak levels of professionalism that our citizens receive from these “Honourable Members".

    Their behaviour is truly reprehensible.

    Fred from CBS

    Comment by Fred Harris — 5/20/2005 @ 1:33 am

19. Max said:

    “Indeed I don’t think either the Liberals or the Conservatives deserve to Govern this Country. They are the only parties I have ever know to Govern Canada (particularly the Liberals), and in my honest opinion, are directly responsible for the poor state of affairs in our Country today.”

    I totally agree with you, Max. Neither Harpur nor Martin belong there. It is like watching Days of Our Lives on television or something. Between break-ups, floor-crossing and the other lies, I am surprised we still have a country.

    I am happy to see the budget pass, but I also believe we will have to push as hard or harder to get it enforced.

    Comment by Pauline — 5/20/2005 @ 5:45 am

20. I can’t believe the bare faced audacity of Efford! He is now claiming that he was responsible for getting the accord deal in the first place! He was actually one of the major obstacles to getting a deal and we were successful in spite of him not because of him. Ignorance is cureable through learning and instruction. Stupidity is forever. Go away Efford you embarress us!

    Comment by Jeremiah — 5/20/2005 @ 6:33 am

21. I understand the Conservative Party will try to bring the government down on May 31, 2005. Apparently, the Labrador member even though elected will not be able to take his/her seat in the House to vote. The Doyle and Ahern are putting the screws to Newfoundland again.

    Comment by Hazen Grigg — 5/20/2005 @ 6:54 am

22. Fred from CBS says:

    “With the tenuous grasp the Liberals and Martin have on the House, a DEMAND from Newfoundland & Labrador MP’s Efford, Simms, Byrne and Matthews coupled with a simultaneous DEMAND from Nova Scotia MP’s Cuzner, Savage, Regan, Eyking, Thibault and the always verbose Scott Bryson, Paul Martin would almost be force once and for all to Fastrack the Accord II outside the framework of C-43 and C-48!”

    The Accord-ish thingy already IS on the fastest track possible.

    The only way the bill can be split AND passed immediately at all stages is with all-party consent. The Bloc won’t give that consent to pass at all stages, whether or not they might consent to split.

    There are three ways that the Accords could have been brought to Parliament. In order of speed, they are:

    1) Standalone legislation with unanimous consent to pass at all stages.

    2) As part of the budget bill, which rides a sort of “bus lane” through Parliament per Parliamentary rules.

    3) Standalone legislation WITHOUT unanimous consent to pass at all stages. That is, a regular, standalone bill.

    Option 1) is not, and never has been open. Lie-ola Sullivan’s LIES to the contrary notwithstanding, he has never sought NOR RECEIVED the unanimous consent of the BQ to pass the Accord immediately at all stages.

    The second-quickest route is, therefore, number 2.

    The Lie-ola option, a standalone bill, is the SLOWEST of the three. Asking that the bill be split is NOT asking to speed it up; IT’S ASKING TO SLOW IT DOWN.

    Comment by WJM — 5/20/2005 @ 8:40 am

23. Below are a few paragraphs from a CTV web story.

    Vote over, Tories not likely to try again soon

    CTV.ca News Staff

    The Conservatives say it’s unlikely they’ll try again to topple the government this spring or summer, after falling one crucial vote short in the House of Commons on Thursday.

    Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay told Canada AM another confidence motion is not in the works.

    “It’s not likely,” he said.

    Still, MacKay said his party would continue to keep the heat on the Liberals, who, he says, “raised the temperature around the House of Commons” in the past few weeks.

    The article ends with this from the BQ leader:

    In his own comments outside the House, Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe said his party will now stop trying to topple the government.

    “We will be respecting the vote, we won’t do like the Liberals have done,” he told reporters. “The procedural tactics are done for now.”

    The Premier stated this morning that he has been told that monies should be arriving by the end of June. He has a call into the PMO for confirmation on this. All is good so far.

    Glad to see you’re back WJM.

    Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/20/2005 @ 8:55 am

24. Ed Said:

    “It must be a terrible burden to bear such hatred and anger as you obviously do.”

    Ed, I have no time for people who choose to try to weasel their way out of promises and deal with us only when faced with defeat or a minority. It’s not hatred. It’s common sense.

    Ed Also said:
    “And Liam for the record and as a matter of fact, your Conservative friends refused to change the clawback provisions of their deal as they created in 1990. The only accomplishments on this file have come from PM.”

    Ed, How much oil was pumping in 1990?

    As soon as it became clear that Rex’s (quite accurate) predictions were coming true, just about everyone involved with the Actual Atlantic Accord agreed that the deal should be interpreted to give air effect to “principle beneficiary” . . .

    Paul Martin could have had this fixed any time since 1997.

    The accomplishment of the Accord was thanks to a hard fought campaign by our premier and people like Kevin McCann. It happened in spite of Paul Martin’s best efforts to deny us our revenue, dither and weasel on the deal and then hold it hostage.

    So Ed, when can we expect Paul Martin to do the rest of his 180 reversals and stopping treating this province like dirt on joint management, custodial management, interprovincial trade, and other such matters? Will each such 180 turn be as abusive in how it is achieved? involving the same 8 month water torture?

    Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/20/2005 @ 10:21 am

25. WJM said:

    “There are three ways that the Accords could have been brought to Parliament. In order of speed, they are:

    1) Standalone legislation with unanimous consent to pass at all stages.

    2) As part of the budget bill, which rides a sort of “bus lane” through Parliament per Parliamentary rules.

    3) Standalone legislation WITHOUT unanimous consent to pass at all stages. That is, a regular, standalone bill.

    Option 1) is not, and never has been open. Lie-ola Sullivan’s LIES to the contrary notwithstanding, he has never sought NOR RECEIVED the unanimous consent of the BQ to pass the Accord immediately at all stages.”

    WJM: EVEN AS THIS WAS TRIED, WHY DID THE LIBERAL CAUCUS WITHOLD CONSENT IN OPTION ONE?

    Moreover, why wasn’t this deal signed, sealed and delivered in the fall? One reason. Martin refused to do it. This website exists because Martin stalled and tried to weasel out of it.

    Moroever, even without unanimous consent, what evidence is there that 50+ big bad bogye man blocs could delay the passege by a whole month? My bet is a day or two. The Liberal Party of Canada’s MPs, including the likes of Efford and Simms, delayed the passage of this bill in order to preserve their government.

    WJM, no doubt, will refuse to answer why Liberal MPs opposed an attempt to expedite this passage.

    Comment by Liam O\\\’Brien — 5/20/2005 @ 10:26 am

26. Liarm said:

    “WJM: EVEN AS THIS WAS TRIED, WHY DID THE LIBERAL CAUCUS WITHOLD CONSENT IN OPTION ONE?”

    Option One HAS NEVER BEEN PUT BEFORE THE HOUSE.

    Read what I wrote, Liarm.

    Read the text of the motions that Lie-ola et all have put before Parliament.

    They have moved that the bill be split.

    THEY HAVE NOT MOVED THAT IT BE SPLIT ***AND PASSED IMMEDIATELY AT ALL STAGES.***

    Such a motion would not succeed.

    The Tory motion to merely split the Atlantic Accord from C-43 would strand the standalone bill, AND slow down passage of the Atlantic Accord. As I wrote earlier, absent unanimous consent to pass at all stages, THE FASTEST ROUTE TO ROYAL ASSENT IS THE BUDGET BILL.

    You’re a wannabe lawyer. Loyola Hearn is a recovering House Leader and a former cabinet minister. Why can’t you Tories understand simple procedure?

    “Moreover, why wasn’t this deal signed, sealed and delivered in the fall? One reason. Martin refused to do it. This website exists because Martin stalled and tried to weasel out of it.”

    No, because of Danny Williams’ theatrics.

    “Moroever, even without unanimous consent, what evidence is there that 50+ big bad bogye man blocs could delay the passege by a whole month?”

    That’s not the point.

    The point is that the Bloc can, and will, prevent immediate passage.

    Without consent for immediate passage, THE FASTEST ROUTE THROUGH PARLIAMENT IS THE BUDGET BILL.

    “My bet is a day or two. The Liberal Party of Canada’s MPs, including the likes of Efford and Simms, delayed the passage of this bill in order to preserve their government.”

    Proper thing. Because if the government fell, and an election was forced by Harper and Duceppe on an electorate that doesn’t want one, THE DELAY WOULD BE MUCH MORE THAN ONE MONTH.

    “WJM, no doubt, will refuse to answer why Liberal MPs opposed an attempt to expedite this passage. ”

    Liarm will no doubt refuse to answer why Lie-ola never even sought unanimous consent to pass at all stages, and why Lie-ola stated in a press release that he had.

    Comment by WJM — 5/20/2005 @ 10:51 am

27. Just heard you Ed on Cross Talk’s Soap Box with Ann Budgell. Glad you cleared up what Mr. Kenny was discussing regarding the budget bill.

    There are lots of people who understand the legislative process but many things can still be muddied by misinformation. It was a good idea to give the call.

    Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/20/2005 @ 11:28 am

28. I like Ed. Ed’s got common sense going for him.

    Comment by Mark — 5/20/2005 @ 11:30 am

29. Liam:

    The analysis on which the 1990 request was made actually started under the Peckford administration.

    Oil did not need to start flowing to see there was an issue. It was raised by the provincial government here and thoroughly and viciously rejected by the province’s federal cabinet representative.

    Principal beneficiary, by the way is much more than the Equalization-related revenue impacts.

    As for the current PM doing something, he did: in 1994, three full years before oil started flowing. It is interesting to see that you never make reference to the fact that the Conservative Party under Mr. Harper rejected the Williams proposal completely. They had another idea, but the specific proposal advanced by this province by Premier Williams was finally accepted under the current government.

    For the record, Liam and to be thorough and fair, you should acknowledge Prime Minister Martin’s written commitment in January 2004 - note the date, which predates the Harper rejection - that accepted the provincial government’s proposal as a basis for talks. Had the federal government, which was then in a majority, wished to reject the proposal or dither with vague language, they had that chance. They didn’t.

    You also do not point out that through this entire process the Prime Minister has repeatedly committed to helping the province develop the Lower Churchill.

    Give credit where credit is due.

    The 2005 Equalization agreement was accomplished by a number of people and there is more than enough credit to go around. Without denegrating Kevin’s contribution - and he should know my view of his efforts - I think the 30, 000 Newfoundlanders and Labradors who sent e-mails throughout this process deserve the lion’s share of the praise.

    I guess Brenda will have to wait for her apology.

    Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/20/2005 @ 12:30 pm

30. WJM, Thanks for the procedures clarification. If that is the case, then the whole system just sucks like a blackhole.

    I guess that’s why the private members Bill S-9 from Senator Ann Cools regarding tribunals and lawyers lying, ethical concerns and professional responsibility disappeared around 2003 and turned into something else. Tie it up with heavy enough weights and they can make anything that is beneficial for the public disappear.

    Fred from CBS

    Comment by Fred Harris — 5/20/2005 @ 1:08 pm

31. Hurray for the Atlantic Accord; It’s about time!!!

    What I want to know is why haven’t these Conservative turncoats been strung up from the highest tree or at least been put on the earliest fast ferry?

    Comment by Tina Brooks — 5/20/2005 @ 1:13 pm

32. Ed Said:

    “Prime Minister Martin’s written commitment in January 2004 - note the date, which predates the Harper rejection - that accepted the provincial government’s proposal as a basis for talks. Had the federal government, which was then in a majority, wished to reject the proposal or dither with vague language, they had that chance. They didn’t.”

    So why are we still talking about it? Why isnt the money in the Bank?

    It is obvious The Liberals were losing strength in January 2004. That is the only reason they grabbed the Accord at all. If you or any other Newfoundlander or Labradorian cannot see through to the fact that this was used by the Liberals ONLY as a Bargaining chip, and could have been settled long long ago if they really cared about the issue, then we are doomed.

    There now exists a better path for Newfoundland and Labrador Soverignty, something that we have craved ever since we were betrayed in 1949. This path, the choices we make, should NEVER depend on Paul Martin’s wishlist. Who made that so? You guessed it. Paul Martin.

    The only apology required is from those who see Newfoundland and Labrador as some piece of a puzzle, to be put in place when it best fits their picture. Words will never be enough, We’ve all had enough of them. It’s time we started to honour ourselves and our parents and grandparents, and most of all our children. They will be born in a place where there are no Fish, where they have to give away their power, their minerals, and worst of all, themselves, as they move away for work as is tradition, for the good of the Motherland.

    Foolishness.

    Mick

    Comment by Mick Collins — 5/20/2005 @ 4:04 pm

33. Mick, the answer to your question about money in the bank has to do with the rest of that sentence- the bit you ignored: basis for discussions.

    It took the province until June 10 for the province to fix some of the mistakes in its original proposal, change a few others and then it finally took until October for both sides to settle down to discussions.

    I have no idea where you are going with this talk of wishlists and Paul Martin and puzzles.

    The only puzzle, in fact is what the heck you are talking about.

    Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/20/2005 @ 4:52 pm

34. After reading through other peoples comments I have a couple of comments to make.
    1. Liam after reading your comments i can tell you have been blinded by blue.
    2. WJM you have got to get some visine cause you clearly got a case of red eye.
    3. I think everyone has to realize that if this government fell and a majority government had come to power (regardless of which party) we as a province would have never seen this money. So I don’t care if it came from the “corrupt” liberals.

    We should take advantage of the fact that we are needed for this government to survive, hell we might even get our fair share of the pie. Cause after all thats what all the larger provinces have been doing all along.

    As for Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn you’ve got your loyalties in the wrong places. You should have listened to “the mafia” in the “defeatist culture” and done what was right for your region first and your party second. I hope for your sake it don’t bite you in the ass.

    Comment by Aaron Murphy — 5/20/2005 @ 5:04 pm

35. Aaron, you are correct!

    I don’t like the Liberals, no… They scare me, but they’re ALL full of ‘lies’

    The idea here is MINORITY government.

    Minority governments can enable people like us to actually get something accomplished. The idea isn’t really how crooked the gov’t is before passing the bill… it was signed upon passing of the Budget(desperation).

    We just have to hold them to it. Unlike the other 2, the Liberals have the agreed-to document… as long as we have the power to get it from them(and I believe we do).

    WJM:

    Welcome back… didn’t know how much I’d miss your colourful attitude/debates )

    Comment by Pauline — 5/20/2005 @ 7:03 pm

36. WJM, you’re a wannabe staffer with several protrusions very far into the orifices of the Liberal establishment in Ottawa, perhaps you can explain to me why the Liberal caucus members would feel the need to put the implementation in with the budget in the first place or why he refuses to cite on this or other forums any specific evidence that the Bloc would filibuster the bill to the ground as opposed to provide minor opposition to it…. first and foremost, please tell us why your liar-for-a-master felt it necessary to delay a deal that should have been concluded in the fall.

    Why should we believe that you won’t weasel your way into a less favourable interpretation of this deal just as you did with the first one?

    Ed – Harper’s commitment on 100% of the revenues extends back to well before 2004. Read hansard.

    Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/21/2005 @ 10:00 am

37. Aaron, why the faith in Paul Martin, I think you might be blinded by the red a little yourself.

    For the record, I have consistently stated that the NDP and the Conservatives both have more consistent record on their position on this issue. Yet for some reason The two MPs who saw the treacherous nature of this federal government up close and personal were now supposed to have faith in it and vote to preserve a government whose actions most certainly show that it will find a way to screw this province in the end.

    Next the Martinites on this forum will be telling us that Tom Hickey’s Newfoundland First party is somehow less focussed on our issues than Martin’s approach of weasel, stall, old hostage, oppose, and scold on oil and gas, fisheries, and the rest.

    Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/21/2005 @ 10:04 am

38. Paul Martin should have agreed to what Williams wanted from the first day when Williams was forced to leave the interprovincial conference. He didn’t. He stalled. He weaseled.

    Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/21/2005 @ 10:05 am

39. “perhaps you can explain to me why the Liberal caucus members would feel the need to put the implementation in with the budget in the first place”

    Uhm, because it’s part of the government’s spending plan for the current fiscal year? That’s for starters.

    Secondly, because it’s the fastest way to implement the February 14th signing.

    “or why he refuses to cite on this or other forums any specific evidence that the Bloc would filibuster the bill”

    Why do you keep dodging, Liam?

    It’s not about whether or not the Bloc would filibuster… Maybe they would, maybe they won’t. But they can only filibuster a bill that falls into the 3rd situation I mentioned above: a standalone bill that doesn’t have unanimous consent to pass at all three stages immediately.

    Lie-ola and company have never sought that consent BECAUSE THE BLOC WON’T GIVE IT.

    That’s not the same thing as a filibuster. If you don’t know the difference, and if you keep fudging the difference, you’re a liar and you’ve chosen the wrong career path.

    “please tell us why your liar-for-a-master felt it necessary to delay a deal that should have been concluded in the fall.”

    Who’s my “liar-for-a-master"?

    “Ed – Harper’s commitment on 100% of the revenues extends back to well before 2004. Read hansard.”

    Provide a Hansard reference. Thanks!

    Comment by WJM — 5/21/2005 @ 11:11 am

40. “Thanks for the procedures clarification. If that is the case, then the whole system just sucks like a blackhole.”

    Why does it suck?

    There are sound reasons why (a) it should be relatively difficult to get something through Parliament, and (b) why the Budget gets the inside track.

    I’d like to know why you think this sucks.

    Comment by WJM — 5/21/2005 @ 11:12 am

41. Why do I have faith in Paul Martin?
    I dont have faith in Paul Martin. I have faith in the minority government because thats what works for the smaller regions. if the sides were switched and you can honestly tell me that the conservatives would not have done the same thing then you exhibit even more blind faith then I thought you have. AND I WILL SAY AGAIN WE WOULD NOT HAVE SEEN THIS MONEY IF EITHER SIDE HAD A MAJORITY.
    I have voted liberal and I have voted conservative. I vote for WHO I think will do the best for my region and not for what COLOUR their sign is. But whoever runs for the conservatives nationally I will find it hard to vote for them considering who their “Master” is.
    and if you ask why no faith in Stephen Harper?
    I’ll answer that before you even ask. When this guy gets mad he speaks his mind and shows how much of an idiot he is with his comments about newfoundland. which is one thing I can say the other 2 leaders has yet to do

    Comment by Aaron Murphy — 5/21/2005 @ 12:56 pm

42. Ed said:

    “I have no idea where you are going with this talk of wishlists and Paul Martin and puzzles.

    The only puzzle, in fact is what the heck you are talking about. ”

    Why, Ed, in all the negotiations, should those who support the new Canada-NL-NS deal for offshore revenue be forced to vote through the rest of the Liberal menu in order to get that?

    That is where we have become a piece of The Liberal campaign Puzzle.

    What I am talking about, Ed, is a stronger voice for Newfoundland. We will never see that in a place where we must first agree to a, b, c, d, e, f, and g before we can get what is ours. It is a flaw that stems from centralism. Canada is not a Unit. It is a Federation of what should be strong Nations. I believe it can work, together. I believe it will work much better once the Liberal Trend of Rule is broken.

    Stephen Harper and Jack Layton have both been much much more compliant on this. There is no doubt about that. Give one of them a chance, stop meddling with this Power struggle.

    Now, just try to tell me that I am the amongst the partisans on this.

    Mick

    Comment by Mick Collins — 5/21/2005 @ 4:20 pm

43. Wallace, Stephen Harper’s commitment to end the offshore oil and gas revenue clawback go back a long time… to the legacy parties of the CPC…. one short example from August of 2003:

    http://www.ocean-resources.com/news/ournews.asp?NewsID=326

    Ed, Premier Williams did not reject Harper’s original plan. He stated his support at Harper’s re-announcmenet of the CPC’s position in May 2004. He then stated, after Martin’s announcement and after his phone convo with Martin, that “we’re covered” every way and with each party.

    Indeed, it was precisely because he knew he was covered either way that MUN poli Sci professor Chris Dunn believed that Mr. Williams was able to (in a lower risk move) walk away from the table in the fall when Martin tried to deny him his prize…

    http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/feb05/dunn.pdf

    Ed, Wallace, are you saying that Premier Williams was wrong to expect what he expected? Are you saying he didn’t understand what was offered to him?

    As for the Bloc issue. It is my understanding that No BQ members were witholding support from the initial conservative motion to seperate the accord. If they were so much against it, why didn’t they act immediately? Morover, what evidence is there that even in the case of no unanimous consent that a resolution supported by 250+ members of the House wouldn’t pass within a couple of days?

    Wallace, I will most certainly defer to you as the house procedure expert and ask you to explain this one to us….

    Aaron said:

    “I have faith in the minority government because thats what works for the smaller regions. if the sides were switched and you can honestly tell me that the conservatives would not have done the same thing then you exhibit even more blind faith then I thought you have. AND I WILL SAY AGAIN WE WOULD NOT HAVE SEEN THIS MONEY IF EITHER SIDE HAD A MAJORITY.”

    A minority government may have been what led Martint o grudgingly, after months of delay and fight, agree to this arrangement.

    As for Harper, to my knwledge he has only ever made one commen about Atlantic Canada. But you’re right, Harper DOES speak his mind. The only thing scary about Stephen Harper is that on Atlantic Canada policy, Harper is bvasically chanelling Peckford, Wells, Williams, and Grimes on Atlantic Canadian and Newfoundland policy. On Fisheries, Offshore oil and gas revenue, and even Churchill Falls, Harper’s 2003 policy statement on Atlantic Canada would make any premier of this province any time in the last 30 years as happy as they come. No other federal leader came close. It basically read like the Royal Commission report on our place in Canada.

    The only difference between Stephen Harper and Paul Martin on this issue is that Paul Martin had to completely change his position to arrive at this deal, and even then only grudgingly…

    As long as the Liberal Party of Canada control this government, there will be no hope of ever achieving custodial management of the nose, tail & flemish cap, no hope of joint management of the fishery and a curbing of DFO’s power, and not even a hope of a fair interpretation of even their new arrangement. This isn’t a partisan interpretation. It’s merely an analysis of their past actions and statements.

    Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/21/2005 @ 5:36 pm

44. “As long as the Liberal Party of Canada control this government, there will be no hope of ever achieving custodial management of the nose, tail & flemish cap, no hope of joint management of the fishery and a curbing of DFO’s power, and not even a hope of a fair interpretation of even their new arrangement. This isn’t a partisan interpretation. It’s merely an analysis of their past actions and statements.”

    In the interests of non-partisanship, please analyse the actions and statements of M. Brian Mulroney and John C. Crosbie in respect of these issues during the period 1984-1993, inclusive.

    Comment by WJM — 5/22/2005 @ 11:03 am

45. Mick:

    The rest of the Liberal menu, as you put it was something that Stephen Harper originally said he would have his party vote for. It was only once the CPC set about to defeat the government that C-43 suddenly became so complex and difficult.

    As for the bit about Canada as a group of nations, this is a much more complex idea that would need to be fleshed out. Canada has never been a coalition of states or nations like the EU. That idea was floated during the Charlottetown constiutional talks, but as I recall it was never taken up with any seriousness by anyone.

    This last C-43 vote was never ever a case of this province having to agree to a binch of other things before getting what was sought. What your analysis assumes is that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are a unified entity. Voting experience shows that they rarily if ever exercise their federal voting franchise in such a Bloc way.

    As for Liam, it is very interesting that Premier Williams chose an approach that was diametrically opposed to the Harper idea. The link you provided was to a comment Harper made when the Young Royal Commission report was released. It makes no reference to statements by Danny Williams.

    The Harper idea was in the Blue Book but when the time came to discuss something on the offshore, Williams took an approach thatw as, as I said, diametrically opposed to it. The Williams approach a side-deal, as opposed to a national approahc in which all were treated the same.

    If you go back and look at the Premier’s comments in October, I believe it was, he actually stated his preference for his own separate arrangement and then wished everyone else well in getting the same thing.

    Dunn’s assessment - that Williams couldn’t lose - is actually a complete misreading of the mood at the First Minister’s Conference in October. Had Williams stayed he would likely have had to face Saskatchewan and Ontario, not to mention New brunswick and Quebec seeking to prevent Williams from achieving an offshore side-deal and in addition gaining extra money through a revamped Equalization program.

    Dunn’s characterisation of offshore revenues is a common one but it simply does not reflect the basis on which province governments have historically received their own revenues plus received a federal transfer - Equalization - to attain a certain national standard of revenues.

    The fact that Dunn quotes the seriously flawed Independent six part series in his discussion of the Upper Churchill, in addition to the equally distorted Young Royal Commission undermines whatever conclusions he reaches.

    As for your comments that Harper would have pelased any premier ion the past 30 years, I’d appreciate it if you would explain this further.

    As for your comments on fisheries management at the end of your post, I strongly suggest you read some international law. The problem of custodial management is emphatically not a partisan issue; the federal Conservatives under Mulroney did no “better” on this file than the Liberals. The issues involved are not so much national Canadian ones as international ones.

    Your analysis isn’t a partisan one, I would agree. It is a Newfoundland nationalist one; as I have ntoed elsewhere, the nationalist position is one founded not on facts but on emotion and often, ahistorical misinterpretation.

    In fact ahistorical misinterpretation is the way I would characterize much of what you have posted here in the past week or so.

    And still Debbie waits for an apology

    Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/22/2005 @ 4:45 pm

46. I think it sucks because the requirements, for passing legislation on which two provinces are better placed to reap the rewards, are too stringent.

    Requiring unanimous consent to pass something as important to two (under represented) provinces is just one more way to prevent the poorer provinces, which are already firmly secured in place under Ottawa’s thumb, to never have a chance to get out from under it!

    It is a continuation of the pattern abuse, especially towards N&L. The inequities in government through equalization and fairness regarding the abuse of over-represented regions of Canada proliferate the elitist mentality.

    Never in a million years should 100% consent ever be required unless it means a vote for going to war. But I don’t think even that requires unanimous consent, does it?

    Legislation that permits any “have not” province (or combination of provinces in a collaborative effort) to improve economic development, create meaningful lasting jobs, demonstrate plans for growth, etc. should be put into place to truly fastrack the ability to accomplish the aforesaid.

    How “fastracked” is over a year later? In principle, the majority of this minority government agrees that this is the best solution that Canada has offered the Atlantic provinces.

    Truly fastracking would mean that after last Thursdays vote, the remaining processes would take place before the anniversary of the signing by Martin, Hamm and Williams. The fastracking that seems comfortable, in what you’ve provided as our reality, creates more political outs than a 25 inning baseball game!

    Maybe that’s why BQ wasn’t polled for their support and it was just assumed that they would say no. It allows Martin’s Liberals to pretend it isn’t their fault and that their hands are tied by the 2-3 YEAR fastracking procedure. The better strategy for the Bloc would have been to tell the CPC’s to let them support the Accord because the Bloc supports a strong and stable N&L.

    What can be accomplished now by not passing this last Accord~ish thing? Only more political posturing and stress for the provinces who depend on these benefits.

    Thanks for asking, and please realize that I’m not bitching at you the messenger but at a system that was developed to protect our country. A system designed to protect us against abuse and unlawfulness, which is constantly abused in principle by the very technicalities and “legalities” designed “to protect us”.

    It is all just a continuation of the two-faced political meandering to which N&L can expect to be treated until a truly responsible central group of people recognize that elitists across our country are not looking to make even the playing field. They just want to own whatever playing field there is, to permit them more control over the voting serfs under their control.

    That, WJM, is why it sucks. Fastrack to adults means by the end of the month, not the end of the decade!

    Fred from CBS

    Comment by Fred Harris — 5/23/2005 @ 12:24 am

47. Posters: I stayed away from the computer for a whole day this weekend. As a result, a handful of posts were awaiting approval.

    Why do some posts require approval?

    Certain keywords are flagged as common spam combinations – when they are detected I have to approve the post.

    If more than 3 links are detected in your post, I also have to approve it.

    This is a self-preservation tactic…a sliver of protection against the barrage of comment spam that all blogs have to deal with. If you posted over the weekend and it just went live: you inadvertently triggered the spam filter.

    Comment by Kevin — 5/23/2005 @ 6:33 am

48. Fred:

    Unless the Conservatives succeed in forcing an election, the current budget will be passed by June.

    Mr. Hearn and Mr. Doyle and others have been spreading completely fasle information to bolster their case. That’s the best they can do, unfortunately.

    What would screw this province is splitting off the offshore money as a separate bill - thereby restarting its progress.

    Any legislation not passed before Messrs Harper Hearn and Doyle bring down the government will die on the orde rpaper.

    It is THAT simple.

    Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/23/2005 @ 7:29 am

49. WJM, there is no doubt about it…. The Mulroney government did not adequately deal with these fisheries issues. They never really claimed to. That’s one of their many shortcomings.

    It’s one that Stephen Harper has corrected.

    When Will Paul Martin listen to Roger Grimes and do the same?

    And once the suppoedly right honourable Martin made his promise, why wasn’t this accord business done with in fall 2004?

    Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/23/2005 @ 10:05 am

50. Ed said:

    “Unless the Conservatives succeed in forcing an election, the current budget will be passed by June.

    Mr. Hearn and Mr. Doyle and others have been spreading completely fasle information to bolster their case.”

    Ed, the arrangement could have been settled and passed in the fall. Paul Martin delayed it. If he had any honour he would have agreed to what williams wanted from day one and be done with it.

    specifically, in point form, what did Norm and Loyola say that was “false"?

    Paul Martin inherited a majority government. why wouldn’t he immediately pass the legsilation needed to correct the clawback problem?

    I remember right around the time of his leadership asking him a question at the Dal student union building on the very subject of clawbacks. He stated that he would not be willing to make any changes because it would be “unfair” to other provinces… he showed resitence to the reforms suggested by all hands right up until that mid-election promise.

    He had the option of acting. He didn’t. why?

    Comment by Liam O\\\’Brien — 5/23/2005 @ 10:23 am

51. Mr. Hearn & Mr. Doyle

    Would you kindly put the people of Nfld. first before your party. You will surely be remembered come election time. Thank you.

    Comments by Dot Brocklehurst

    Comment by D. Brocklehurst — 5/23/2005 @ 11:46 am

52. Ed said:

    “As for the bit about Canada as a group of nations, this is a much more complex idea that would need to be fleshed out. Canada has never been a coalition of states or nations like the EU. That idea was floated during the Charlottetown constiutional talks, but as I recall it was never taken up with any seriousness by anyone.”

    Nation: (Oxford Dictionary reference)a large body of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.

    I dont need anyone to tell me that Newfoundland is a Nation (I’ve always understood Labrador to be fully incorporated in the word Newfoundland, having grown up on “The Island of Newfoundland"). I know it is. I know what it has brought into the federation. I find it obsurd and unnecessary for a federal government to start Making interpretations about what is %100 OURS, which is exactly what Paul Martin did over the lengthy negotiations. We have to cut out the middleman. Speed things up.

    Sadly, the federal Power over this is too much. It is clear, through reading the policy, that the Conservative Party of Canada is a stronger advocate of Provincial Power and De-centralization, especially regarding the fishery.

    That is what Newfoundland and Labrador Needs. CPC is a better choice for that reason especially, among many.

    Mr. Hearn and Mr. Doyle have not wavered in their efforts. I give credit to Mr. Matthews and my MP in Buchans, Mr. Simms, for their Fall vote on the “Accord.”

    Mick

    Comment by Mick Collins — 5/23/2005 @ 1:52 pm

53. Liam:

    Not content to misinterpreting history based on whatever pops into your head, now you claim the whole offshore revenue deal could have been passed before it was even signed.

    Bravo, Liam. You have brought Trek-like regard for timelines into the current day. The rift is open. Disaster awaits.

    But heck, I’ll go you one better:

    Why didn’t John Crosbie fix the clawbacks - they are included specifically in the Accord - and guarantee Newfoundland everything it would ask for 20 years into the future when he had the chance? Had Crosbie acted like a Newfoundlander - by your argument - instead of a mainlander, there never would have been a problem to fix.

    Since he knew of the problem in 1990, he had a chance to fix it then such that it could never become a problem at all in 1997 when oil revenues flowed. He failed yet again.

    Stop playing with the Temporal Prime Directive, Liam, for crying out loud.

    And please, give up your desparate attempts to make what isn’t a partisan issue into one in favour of the party you support at the moment.

    Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/23/2005 @ 2:06 pm

54. Lets review some direct quotes…….they speak for themselves.

    “You cannot ever turn your back on your province on an important issue like this, even if it meant your party says, tough stuff, you have to sit in the last seat, last row” - Loyola Hearn, St. John’s Telegram, March 26, 2005

    “the Benedict Arnold of Newfoundland and Labrador.” - Norm Doyle on John Efford, Hansard, October 27, 2004

    “Either the Liberals are going to fulfil the commitment they made, or they’re going to lose every seat in Atlantic Canada in the next election.” - Stephen Harper, St. John’s Telegram, November 13, 2004

    “The minister, most of all, should apologize to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for putting the party first instead of the province. He should be ashamed. He should resign rather than break such an important promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.” - Norm Doyle on John Efford, Hansard, November 29, 2004

    “I’m there to look after Newfoundland, and the six other MPs also, and if we’re not we shouldn’t be there.” - Loyola Hearn, The Independent, July 4, 2004

    “a weasel” who “didn’t have the nerve to stand up and vote for the province.” - Loyola Hearn on Gerry Byrne, Western Star, November 17, 2004

    “We’re sent to do a job; we’ll stand up for Newfoundland regardless of who’s for us or who’s against us.” - Loyola Hearn, St. John’s Telegram, November 13, 2004

    “If all you’re going to do is get up and bitch and complain, people don’t listen to you. What you have to do is use every avenue, look at some of the problems (other MPs) are having and identify with them, show how they’re similar to yours.” - Loyola Hearn, The Independent, December 26 2004

    “Today I am calling upon our five Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador to take their lead from the provincial Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and the NDP of Newfoundland and Labrador which have both come out behind the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador in his quest to get a fair deal for our province. I am calling upon those five Liberal MPs to do what is right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.” - Norm Doyle, Hansard, October 28, 2004

    “The time for promises is over. Now it is time for action.” - Norm Doyle, Hansard, October 13, 2004

    “The Bloc can do whatever it wants.” - Loyola Hearn, Hansard, February 14, 2005

    “To my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, I say this is the stuff over which principled people resign from cabinet. Never again in my lifetime do I expect to see the seven members from our province in such a position of clout. It would be a terrible shame if that clout were squandered by not using it at all. We need allies in that struggle. As I said earlier, my colleague from St. John’s South-Mount Pearl and I are doing all we can to hold the Prime Minister to his promise. Now is not the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the province. I will be terribly disappointed if Liberal MPs do not join us in our quest for fairness for our province. In summing up, why can we not, just once, stand united for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why can we not, just once, stand on guard for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?” - Norm Doyle, Hansard, October 26, 2004

    “What is at stake here is the future of Atlantic Canada, an unprecedented and historic opportunity for those provinces to get out of the have-not status that has bedeviled them for decades.” - Stephen Harper, November 5, 2004

    “I’m not going to play politics with it because I believe the Atlantic Accord is safe under a returned Liberal government” - Norm Doyle, May 12, 2005

    “This vote was either you’re for us, or you’re against us.” - Loyola Hearn, St John’s Telegram, November 16, 2004

    “As this time goes by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is losing around $3 million a week. If we factor in all the spin-offs that this could create, it is getting closer to $1 million a day. That is a tremendous amount of money.” Loyola Hearn, Hansard, April 12, 2005

    “While they delay passage of the Accord, Newfoundland and Labrador continues to lose $3 million per week. This is not good enough. We deserve better.” - Norm Doyle, Loyola Hearn, Peter Mackay, and others, April 18, 2005

    “There are some really fine people in the Bloc, you know.” - Loyola Hearn, The Independent, July 4, 2004

    I am deeply saddened and will not vote for Doyle again and would recommend that the voters of st. john’s south, mount pearl not vote for Hearn.

    respectfully
    Len

    Comment by Leonard — 5/23/2005 @ 3:38 pm

55. Len,

    That’s an amazing collection of quotes. I haven’t verified them, but they are fascinating.

    Speaks directly to the point of this campaign: shirk party affiliation in favour of attaining real benefit from the Atlantic Accord. Don’t gamble on another promise.

    I am amazed at how often people fall would fall on the sword of their party before conceding that a non-party path might yield the best result.

    Comment by Kevin — 5/23/2005 @ 3:51 pm

56. Thanks Kevin,

    Forget party. When the politicians knock on your door and ask for your support they are only too eager to say “I am working for you” and so on. I believe that we should have a recall system for ALL politicians red, blue or other. Hearn & Doyle do not deserve to represent thier ridings…..People wanted them to vote yes for both bills which would allow the accord to pass and they made a decision to ignore that and vote for the party…….Shame on them. Recall all self serving politicians

    By the way, its nice to see some constructive chatting and not all anger like some others on this forum

    Len

    Comment by Leonard — 5/23/2005 @ 6:00 pm

57. Ed said:
    “Not content to misinterpreting history based on whatever pops into your head, now you claim the whole offshore revenue deal could have been passed before it was even signed.”

    The only reason it wasn’t signed was because Paul Martin stonewalled Danny Williams for months on end. This isn’t a partisan issue Ed. I’m more than willing to admit that there is another party that has consistently tried to get this government to honour its own commitment to this province.

    John Crosbie didn’t act soon enough to correct a theoretical claw back on oil that wouldn’t pump until years after he was retired. But you are right that he knew about the problem. And he was too late doing something about it.

    http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/royalcomm/research/pdf/Crosbie.pdf

    But Martin was in government.

    So Ed, will you stop dodging the question and explain to me why Martin refused to accept the interpretation of the accord and the need for a better arrangement when the premiers, federal opposition, royal commissions, and others (left right yellow pink polka dotted) all agreed it should have been done?

    If Paul Martin or Chretien before him was so very much in favour of helping Newfoundland, why was there no action form the one government with the power to do something about it?

    why, other than forced political pressure and a minority government, was Paul Martin the last to arrive at the party and the most gruding when the time came to do a deal?

    Why didn’t he sign-on in the fall?

    Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/23/2005 @ 8:04 pm

58. “I am deeply saddened and will not vote for Doyle again and would recommend that the voters of st. john’s south, mount pearl not vote for Hearn.”

    Len, some of your quotes are five words from “hansard” – where in hansard? in what context? I think that a smear hjob is one thing but a smear job with such a poor series of snippets is quite another.

    Besides, Norm and Loyola are right… John Efford Betrayed his province. He scolded us for expecting him to even talk about the accord during the 2004 election, he scolded us for expecting the PM to keep his word early in the fall, he scolded us in late fall and dec for not taking a lesser deal…

    Lets take your snipped quote of Loyola from february 14 and provide a little more context:

    “. . .During that {dec} period, we saw almost consternation from the government opposite. It said to the people of the country that this was terrible. It said that if Newfoundland and Labrador wanted to negotiate a deal on the offshore revenues, the first thing it would have to do was raise the flags. Until then the government would not talk to a province that did not fly the federal flag over provincial buildings. We all listened to that. I thought of my colleagues to the left. They do not fly the Canadian flag over any of the provincial buildings, yet nobody receives more attention from the federal government than my colleagues to the left, the Bloc.

    I have no problem with that. The Bloc can do whatever it wants. However, for a prime minister to say to any province that it has to fly the Canadian flag or the government will not talk it, or for him to close his eyes to another province, is not the way Confederation works. We are supposed to be in the Confederation. We are supposed to receive equal treatment from the government.

    This brings me back to equalization and this morning, when the Prime Minister had the audacity to stand in front of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will give him credit for coming through, signing the agreement and delivering on the commitment he made. He said, “I made a promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I have lived up to that commitment”. How hypocritical. The only reason the Prime Minister was in Newfoundland and Labrador this morning, signing an agreement with the province, was he forced into it by the province, first, and second, by the people on this side of the House, not on that side of the House.

    The leader of the Conservative Party put into the election platform the commitment to the provinces that they would be the prime beneficiaries of the revenues from non-renewable resources. We are not talking about a promise thrown out in the middle of an election. We are talking about a solid, written commitment in our election document, our platform. That forced the Prime Minister into a corner. There were hurried late night meetings in Newfoundland and Labrador. He was told by his people there that either he made that commitment or the Liberals would be wiped out. At seven o’clock Saturday morning, he called the premier to say that he had accepted his offer

    Then when the Liberals won the election, we saw them back off. They were procrastinating. It was basically blackmail by the Minister of Natural Resources, who came in with an inferior deal and said that the province could either take it or leave it. Today, the people who did everything to keep us from getting that deal were praised by the Prime Minister as he took credit for delivering on his promise. He delivered on it because he had absolutely no choice. That is what is wrong our country, when we talk about equalization.

    The member from the NDP is entirely right that provinces accepted a deal simply because there was no choice. It was shoved down their throats, up until now. Today turns things around. Never again will provinces, because they will follow the lead of Newfoundland and Labrador, have the federal government shove fiscal arrangements down their throats. From now on we will look for a fair share and if we follow the policies of this party, we can be sure to get it.”

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/056_2005-02-14/han056_1350-E.htm

    I’ll leave you with this:

    “Before we even get to that stage of the resources, unless we get the equalization quotas changed in Ottawa, we are going nowhere.”
    John Efford, June 20, 2001 The Telegram

    just a few years before he told us all that this was “too important” to discuss in an election..
    http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/national/2004/06/04/wells_liberals040604.html

    just a few months before he told us “take it or leave it…”

    I commend Loyola Hearn and Norman Doyle for not only re stating and sealing their own side’s commitment to this province on this issue, but also taking the time to get John Efford and Paul Martin, who both had the power to sign the deal our premier and our province deserved in the fall, to keep their own word too.

    Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/23/2005 @ 8:32 pm

59. John Crosbie himself chose (or was forced) not to “do something” and as Liam would suggest, Chretien or Martin ought to have done something. Listen Liam, I really dislike Chretien, Martin and the Liberals too but I’d like to know why; why do you think that two Liberal central Canadian Prime Ministers ought to have acted to correct or pass the Accord after N&L MP’s neglected to act in the best interest of N&L at a time when they should have?

    Bring down party politics! Make Independents rule the roost! Vote Independent in Spring 2006 and get your best Liberal and CPC and NDP, etc. to run as INDEPENDANTS!

    Let’s show them that we will be biting the hand… the hand that keeps reaching into N&L to pillage our natural resources with impunity.

    Unless solid follow up to the implementation of the Accord monies are put forth, no parties should be elected to infest our ridings!

    Fred from CBS

    Comment by Fred Harris — 5/23/2005 @ 9:41 pm

60. Liam dont you see that efford and both reformers did the same thing….they voted againgst the province….forget party loyalty. Hearn and Doyle voted against the Bills and consequently the province. And as for the quotes….they speak for themselves, they are accurate and can easily be verified. just because you are blue through and through dont attack accurate information…it cheapens us all.

    respectfully
    len
    oh by the way liam i would gladly let you see my resume and then we can see who truly cares about our community not just our party

    Comment by Leonard — 5/24/2005 @ 9:10 am

61. Liam:

    No matter how many times you try to avoid the point, it is really quite simple.

    The notion of “clawbacks” is built into the original Atlantic Accord. It is there in black and white. It is not theoretical. It is not something that needed experience to deomonstrate. It is there, plain and simple.

    So my questions for you - in as non-partisan a way as it can be put - are these:

    1. Why did the Mulroney government insist on applying the Equalization system and its clawbacks - if you accept that argument on clawbacks - in the original deal?

    2. Why did John Crosbie - one of the architects of the Atlantic Accord - not fight against it? In fact, why did he argue in 1990 that clawbacks are EXACTLY the way Equalization is supposed to work?

    3. What does principal beneficiary mean in the con text of the original Atlantic Accord?

    If you find the answers to those to find the answer to the question you posed about Paul Martin. The answers are not partisan ones, the are ones rooted in the approach the country as a whole has taken to things like Equalization AND provincial own-source revenues.

    You consistently miss the answer to your own question which is staring you right in the face.

    The link to crosbie’s paper doesn’t do anything to answer that point since Crosbie himself deliberately and studiously avoids telling us what the Mulroney government intended in 1984/85. His paper goes on at length about things pre-1984 BUT he says nothing of the intentions of the federal government when the Accord was signed.

    No matter how many times you post or how long each post is or how many links or quotes you make. Look at those three questions and you will see the answer.

    Once you have done that, you can also look more closely at the Harper proposal and see what presumably the CPC is actually proposing. It is decidely NOT the Williams approach which you support.

    Comment by ed Hollett — 5/24/2005 @ 9:51 am

62. Ed,

    here’s a good question for us all, but I think you can elaborate with us more concisely:

    Which party has the best deal for Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to Natural Resources, especially Non-Renewable resources?

    Make that two questions: Historically and Now

    Mick Collins

    Comment by Mick Collins — 5/24/2005 @ 10:43 am

63. “Never again will provinces, because they will follow the lead of Newfoundland and Labrador, have the federal government shove fiscal arrangements down their throats.”

    Liam - this is one of the most stupid, silly and dangerous things I have ever read.

    If, as you suggest, all provinces have had fiscal arrangements “shoved down their throat” then they might as well all just leave. Maybe that’s the Conservative response to everything.

    The current fiscal arrangements of the country send a disproportionately large amount of money to our home province.

    To suggest that the other nine provinces should follow our lead and move away from such arrangements leads me to believe you really do want what’s worst for Newfoundland and Labrador, just like your friends Norm and Loyola.

    What would happen if Ottawa addressed this stupid “23 Billion dollar gap” that Dalton McGuinty is all fired up about? Where do you think the money would come from? How could you possibly think that other, smaller, poorer provinces like ours wouldn’t be disastrously affected?

    What if Alberta and Ontario simply stood up and walked away from the Equalization system? If that’s how you want to empower the provinces then you’ll suddenly realize that all which we have taken for granted these past 30 years is actually quite a sum of money.

    We Newfoundlanders may have a lot to complain about, but fiscal arrangements with Ottawa certainly aren’t among those complaints.

    Comment by Mark — 5/24/2005 @ 10:44 am

64. Non-renewable resources belong to the provinces under the constitution. There’s no position from any party that would seem to suggest any change in this. So there is no real party position to speak of.

    The federal government does not collect any royalties from mines, oil, natural gas, etc.

    The seabed technically belongs to the federal government, but the first Atlantic Accord transferred the rights to collect royalties to the province after many years of debates and a court case that went Ottawa’s way.

    These things have not been in question since then.

    What we have really been discussing for the past couple of years is the way the Equalization formula works. Basically, as a province generates its own wealth, by whatever means, it is entitled to less Equalization money.

    The ownership and royalty regimes of non-renewable and renewbale resources are not in question as they are the province’s sole jurisdiction. There’s no party difference on any of this.

    Fish is different. Fisheries are federally regulated as they are not on land (obviously). Each level of government has a different responsibility. Harvesting, regulating, scientific and enforcement issues are the responsibility of the federal government. Processing is the responsibility of the provincial government. Inland fisheries are regulated mainly by the provincial government jurisiction.

    Comment by Mark — 5/24/2005 @ 10:53 am

65. Mick:

    Mark has already dealt with this, but I’ll weigh in as well. This is a bit of a lengthy answer but hopefully I’ll get to the point you are trying to reach.

    Under the Constitution - and all parties adhere to the Constitution, except maybe for the Bloc - natural resources within the boundaries of a province belong to the province to manage and from which the provincial government derives revenues.

    In the case of offshore resources in the water column and on the seabed, beyond the low-water mark, and in Newfoundland and Labrador’s case beyond the three mile limit, fisheries resources are managed by the federal government.

    In the case of sub-seabed resources, NS and NL have specific agreements with Ottawa by which the provincial governments gain the right to set and collect revenues as if the resources were on land and to co-manage the resource with Ottawa through the respective offshore boards. In practice, under sections 25 and 26 of the Atlantic Accord…

    This reflects two court decisions, in the NL case which found that as a matter of international and Constiutional law, jurisdiction (note NOT ownership of) over these resources rests with the federal government.

    To the best of my knowledge, all federal political parties adhere to that approach.

    To the best of my knowledge no political party in Canada supports the idea that coastal provinces have jurisdiction to the 12 mile limit let alone the 200 mile EEZ. The reason, i suspect is that the 200 mile EEZ accrues to Canada as the coastal state under international law. Canada does not own the sub-seabed resources; it has exclusive rights to use them. There is a difference.

    Canada as a country does not extend its criminal jurisdiction, for example, beyond 12 miles either since these waters are properly considered to be international, except as provided by agreements and international custom.

    That reflects both the current practice and historically with the only exception being - as far as I know - the short-lived Clark government. The Clark government position remains untested and I suspect it would fall apart on the legal issues involved.

    In that sense all parties have the same deal; no one party has a better or worse position than the others.

    When it comes to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements - and this is a different topic - there is some difference. The federal Conservatives have proposed treating Equalization such that non-renewable resources are removed from both the calculation of the national standard and also from the calculation of a province’s fiscal capacity for the purpose of determining Equalization entitlements. To the best of my knowledge that remains their policy position although it hasn’t been talked about much since last June.

    Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/24/2005 @ 12:27 pm

66. …(this picks up the Accord bit) the provincial energy minister has specific rights to approve or disapprove of management decisions taken by the offshore board in the absence of agreement between Ottawa and St. John’s.

    To pick up from the Equalization aspect, I would take pains to point out that no one has undertaken a thoroguh analysis of the impact of the Harper proposal for Equalization on the provincial government’s offshore-related revenues. The 2001 paper by ken Boesenkool concluded that this province would have lost revenue in 2001 had this approach been taken then; no one has done a calculation for now as far as I know.

    As it stands now, if the province collects $1.0 billion from ofshore royalties and any other offshore-related revenues in 2006, for example, it will retain every signle nickel of that. In addition, it is entitled to certain additional offsets from any loss of Equalization until such time as the province no longer qualifies for Equalization at all.

    This treats the province like all others as far as Equalization is concerned but allows for extra revenue (i.e. Equalization) to give the province an opportunity to address some of its specific fiscal challenges/problems. It continues with the spirit of the original Atlantic Accord and potentially extends the offset period for up to 20 years from the date of first oil.

    Which is better? Well, I can calculate the vlaue of the current arrangment under the Atlantic Accord and the Martin/Williams deal. Unless someone else wants to crunch the numbers, I can’t say what the Harper proposal looks like.

    There are some very significant political problems associated with it, but that is really not what you were driving at I think.

    Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/24/2005 @ 12:35 pm

67. Len Said:

    “Liam dont you see that efford and both reformers did the same thing….they voted againgst the province….forget party loyalty. Hearn and Doyle voted against the Bills and consequently the province. And as for the quotes….they speak for themselves, they are accurate and can easily be verified. just because you are blue through and through dont attack accurate information…it cheapens us all.”

    Len, this isn’t about “party loyalty.” It is about provincial rights, specifically this province’s right to a fair deal. This blog exists supposedly to campaign for this.

    A person can be “red through and through” or “yellow/orange through and through” and still believe that the Prime Minister of Canada should have kept his promise and signed with Williams early in the fall. “red” Liberals such as Scott Simms and Bill Matthews certainly seemed to agree with me on that point. Moreover, if he had committed to doing something as early as January 2004, why didn’t he get the arrnagement drafted and signed before he forced the call of an election? He had that option.

    Your quotes ranged form irrelevant to ridiculous.

    To boil even the portion of Loyola’s speech that I provided down to “The Bloc can do whatit likes” was dishonest and misrepresenting the meaning of the speech. It’s a tactic that reminded me of swift boat ads and national guard ads from south of the border. Provide context. Don’t resort to using the BQ as your foil and providing senetence fragments as quotations.

    Also, I fail to see why a desire to bring down this government is seen by you as exclusively and completely “partisan.” I think that Norm and Loyola, based on their experiences, saw some common ground between standing by this province and ending this government.

    I’m once again reminded of a famous scene from the Simpsons…. Homer is eating peanuts on the chesterfield, drops the last peanut and it falls underneath the seat… he reaches down to find the nut but can’t find it and instead find $20 he starts to cry because he wanted a nut! Then his brain slowly starts to chug along: “wait! money can get you many peanuts!” Homer perks up “Explain how!” Brain: “Money can be exchnaged for goods and services!”

    To fixate on the budget with the Accord in it, especially in light of the las 12 months of Paul Maritn shuffle dancing (as compared to both major opposition parties) is the same as fixating on the lost peanut! The $20 is the prospect of replacing a government that has dragged its heels and only come kicking and screaming to the table.

    Mark, given the federal mismanagement of our fisheries, the federal decision that cost us $800 million a year in churchill Falls revenue, and federal decisions to fight us every step of the way on offshore oil and gas, you’ll forgive me if I’m not about to say “thank you master” to Ottawa. The whole point here is that Federal decisions, or lack thereof, have caused as much of the mess that makes equalization necessary in the first place. When given an opportunity to drive a pipeline accross westrn Canada to help Ontario, Ottawa is hot and horny for the arrangement. But when given an opportunity to allow a power corridor through Quebec for Churchill power, Ottawa clams up and prefers the alternative. Had the corridor option existed, I suspect we’d be getting a lsum a lot closer to $800 mil a year for the last 30 years…. which pretty much eclipses out equalization payment.

    The government of Canada prefers to keep province like Newfoundland and Labrador in positions of supplication. And even after our Premier materfully negotiated a decent deal for us, we found ourselves up on our hinds again in whipped supplication all because the Maritn government chose to delay signing the deal, then delay passing the deal they could have signed and passed months earlier.

    Ottawa does indeed shove a lot down the throats of a lot of provinces. And if it’s concerned about finances (HRDC, gun registry, Industry Canada, and Sponsorship make think otherwise) then the first place it should cut is at the centre – federal government departments that affect relatively few people but which are used to doll out pork.

    On the jurisdictional issues, You are correct that the federal government does not own non-renewables on land. But at some point in the evolution of the equalization system, the revenue from these became part of the calculation. In reality, these revenues are not like regular income. They’re capital, one-shot, sources.. provinces recieving equalization should not be penalized in equalization for such temporary revenue.

    On fisheries front, only one party has, to date, adopted in writing in their policy document a promise to do exactly what all three provincial parties in Newfoundland have demanded for years – increased provincial say through the very Joint management scheme outlined in a white paper in 2003 released by the provincial government. Along with a solid promise on immediately extending CDN presence through custodial management to the Nose & Tail and Flemish Cap, a promise to support the sealing industry and fight to lower trade barriers against seal products, it’s in Article 99.

    Ed:

    Clawbacks, such as they were, ended up coming sooner than had been predicted when the Accord was signed. It doesn’t change the fact that you are absolutely 100% correct about John Crosbie’s position in 1990. It doesn’t change the fact that the Accord was accepted by most folks when it was originally signed. I don’t dispute any of this. I conceded this all anyway. The more I think about it, the more I realize that perhaps the biggest difference between John Crosbie’s stance over the years and Paul Martin’s was that Crosbie changed his mind. I apologize for earlier suggesting otherwise. You raised some excellent points. Crosbie had to have canged his mind on at least some points in order to arrive at the conclusion he arirves at in his submission to the Young Commission. As for Paul Martin, I’m still not sure he has changed his mind. If he had changed his mind or had agreed to what the premier wanted, then he would have had this done long ago. Instead it appears to have been a grudging acceptance of somehting he would have liked to avoid but couldn’t avoid. And, post-election, as time went on and circumstances changed, he saw that the Accord was useful as a life-vest. He saw a way to preserve his government.

    But lets assume that Paulie also changed his mind. He did so when he was in a position to act on it. He didn’t act.

    Ed, enlighten us:

    “they are ones rooted in the approach the country as a whole has taken to things like Equalization AND provincial own-source revenues.”

    You might be right. but what, specifically, do you mean?

    As for “Harper’s approach,” you seem determined to misquote it.

    The 2001 paper by ken Boesenkool describe AN APPROACH to removing non-renewables from equalization. Harper’s approach was very similar. But it was also, always, in statements and elsewhere, a basement. Even as a basement, when Harper came here in May, the premier seemed quite pleased with it. At each stage where the premier made progress on this file, Harper (and Layton) confirmed support for it and if anything were encouraging the PM to do more. Lets also not forget 10-province standard or transitional deals.

    John Crosbie isn’t the Prime Minister of Canada. Paul Martin is. I guess an interesting question is…. when did Paul Martin change his mind? January 2004? June during his mid-election announcement (before which the premier of the province had no indication of solid deal)? during the flag incident? at the february signings?

    BTW, Fred makes a fair point about all these parties. And if anything, if we had a fewmore seats to work with, I’m not convinced Tom Hickey’s NL First concept might not be worth a shot… In the meantime, I’m simply having a discussion out loud the way most of us have in our heads on polling day (as I’m sure many Labradorians are having today)… the dicussion may indeed lead to boiling things down. But it’s basically often an analysis of who has done the least harm and the most good and/or who has tried to consistently offer the best deal? Each and every time the answer is that none of them are even on the passing end of the scale. not even close. But that doesn’t take away our responsibility to decide.

    Just because I happen to believe that, while also inconsistent, Loyola Hearn and Norman Doyle have been able to get a better policy focus from Harper than NL Liberals have been able to get from the PM, it’s not to say that if such a government came to exist and those commitments weren’t honoured I wouldn’t be the first to sign on with either Tom or Fred’s plan!

    I’m curious though. Does anyone else here believe it’s concievable for an MP to vote for their party and not have their actions immediately dismissed on the grounds of being “partisan"?

    I don’t view Loyola’s or Norm’s decision to vote to eliminate this government as primarily partisan. I think they believed they were acting in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. And I agree with them. The degree to which Harper needed the govt to fail for his own reasons or even the degree to which Martin wanted the government to survive does nothing to change that equation. The fact that a budget had an arrangement in it that took so long to get does nothing to change that assessment (especially when you realize what caused the lion’s share of the delay).

    To dismiss something by simply saying “you’re partisan” says more about your own state of thinking on the subject than if you actually tried to address what somebody is saying. I appreciate Ed’s attempts to at least respond substantively *as well as* dismiss my comments as “partisan.”

    ;-)

    Others could learn a thing or two from Ed on that one.

    Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/24/2005 @ 2:37 pm

68. Liam:

    Essentially, what I am going to wind up doing is answering the questions I asked you rather than have you go off and check it out for yourself.

    You have repeatedly failed to address substantively any points made or to deal in facts. You simply slide some words around rather than deal with an argument.

    Thus, I come to the point where this will literally be the last post I make here in response to anything you post. Nothing useful can be gained from continuing the discussion, such as it is.

    1. The original Atlantic Accord treated all provinces fairly and equitably in that offshore revenus were treated as own-source and, as with Alberta and every other province, as own-source revenues increased the amount of Equalization top-up declined.

    This is pretty simple and straightforward. It is also what Crosbie and Mulroney meant in the Accord and what everyone understood at the time. Crosbie’s position changed as did his support for Stephen Harper based on partisan issues not an analysis of any facts or policy.

    2. Your characterisation of the Harper deal as a basement suggests you have no idea what he was talking about at all. Similarly, to refer to Boesenkool as “one version” suggests that you simply haven’t read the paper or if you did, you missed the point.

    3. To be perfectly frank, your suggestion that at each stage of “progress” Harper and Layton confirmed “support” is simply untrue. As you should know - I’ll send you a copy of the letter if you wish to see it - Mr. Harper rejected the Williams approach. It is really plain English in black and white.

    4. I’d suggest you go back to an interview the Premier did with the Express in June in whcih he dismisses the Harper proposal as being somethign that couldn’t be calculated beyond a two year time frame. I’d suggest but I don’t think you’d pay any attention to it since it doesn’t conform to your views.

    5. As for your comment on clawbacks being bigger than they might have appeared, again, I suggest you really don’t have even the foggiest notion of the facts of the matter. I’d suggest some reading for you but, again, I fear it would be a wasted effort.

    6. Liam, as a last point, it is really rather transparent for you to attempt to paint me as “partisan” when in fact it is quite clear that you have simply slid around this issue a dozen ways to attack Paul Martin and support Stephen Harper.

    I dismiss your arguments not because they are partisan but because they are insubstantial. They are not based in fact. They ignore fact. A good partisan argument is a s valuable as any othe rin getting to the root of an issue and airing all sides.

    To paraphrase Monty Python, your gainsaying does not add up to an argument.

    I trust you won’t take the same approach in any courtroom anytime soon. Judges I know would have a field day with you, at the expense of your client.

    Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/24/2005 @ 5:03 pm

69. 1. Mostly correct except this point:
    “Crosbie’s position changed as did his support for Stephen Harper based on partisan issues not an analysis of any facts or policy.”

    In 2002 and 2003 when he was writing these submissions and other matters, John Crosbie wasn’t much of a Stephen Harper fan. He also, initially opposed the merger.

    2&3. I thought it was clear enough. Harper did indeed offer a “reform equalization” policy. But he also supported the progress that Williams made. If he didn’t, why would he support the resolution from back in the fall demanding that Martin keep his word to Williams? I have read the paper in question. You tend to respond in general terms always saying “you don’t know what you’re talking about” or “young commission was wrong” etc… but you haven’t explained it. I suspect this is because you can’t.

    4. I have read the article. Williams didn’t reject the proposal. In any case, he stated, on the day of Maritn’s announcmenet that he had commitments from each federal leader. This was further bolstered by Sullivan’s assessment that he believed the Conservative proposal was the best and fairest but that he also liked the NDP one.

    5.Ed, for someone who pontificates on high about the “facts” on clawbacks and equalization, you have yet to lay out much evidence or reaction to the facts I have presented regarding the premier’s comments. why? this time try responding without empty claims and attacks on me. I know how much that upset you when you thought I did that to Brenda. try to practice what you preach.

    6. I support Norman Doyle and Loyola Hearn because I believee they have been hard and strong advocates on this issue. If an election were held tomorrow, I’d probably vote Conservative because they have offered in writing to address several long standing policy demands of Newfoundland and Labrador most recently summarized by the Young Commission. I’m willing to admit all of that. Why won’t you admit to your own leanings and defence of Paul Martin? Why do you try to povide excuses for why, after agreeing with Williams, it took 7+ months to get an agreement?

    I’m curious about that. you have yet to answer that question. And oyur last personal snipe at me simply shows you to be unwilling to discuss these issues at all and to be more prone to hurling insults. I have asked questions. Your responses have been cryptic. .. especially on the questions about Martin’s conduct.

    This time, will you be able to respond without a “diagnosis” of me?

    I didn’t think so

    Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/24/2005 @ 5:32 pm

70. I win! Ed and Liam are finally at an impasse! And as poignant and informative as their posts have been, they just haven’t convinced me.

    Vote Independent!

    Let the Rock; rock the vote and rock the country next spring!

    Without substantive (nice word guys, I think I’ll use it) WRITTEN promises from any of these self-serving twits, our providing to them some “hitting on the head lessons” by voting Independent will be the only way to open this country’s political climate. The historical promises followed up by abuses can no longer be accepted by voters. Aligning the Independents as a “party” or, in this new climate of restructuring, as a TEAM, is the best way for under-represented provinces to politically align and become a REAL alternative to blue or red.

    Break the partisan chains, rock the vote!

    Fred from CBS

    Comment by Fred Harris — 5/25/2005 @ 11:48 am

71. Every time we attack somebody, Liberal or tory or NDP or whatever, for standing up for provincial rights policies that empower Newfoundland and Labrador, we all lose.

    Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/25/2005 @ 2:58 pm

72. VOTE NL FIRST if the government continues to fail us, as they have for 56 years.

    we may not be as powerful as the bloc, but it will certainly alarm the centralists if the Provinces start to realize they are stronger than once thought . . . Newfoundland and Labrador being the best example of strength, when the time comes

    We Love the Newfoundland

    Mick

    Comment by Mick Collins — 5/26/2005 @ 8:01 am

Leave a comment

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.