Why Target The Liberal MPs?
Last week this campaign asked supporters to contact Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle (Conservative Party MPs), asking them to keep the Accord deal alive by voting against their party. The reasoning was clear: don’t gamble on another promise. Get the deal now and vote to bring down the government later.
Paul Martin’s Liberal government survived, and since the vote last Thursday, the Conservatives – including Hearn, Doyle and Premier Williams – have asked that the Accord legislation be treated with expedience. Fast track the deal to get it working for the province as soon as possible.
Why target the Liberal MPs and Paul Martin? The Liberal government is still in jeopardy of falling in the coming weeks or months. The Accord deal, four months after it was signed and promised to the people of the province, needs to become a reality by the end of the next parliamentary session. The Liberals, regardless of challenges from other parties, should work with their colleagues across the isle to make this happen. Now it’s their turn to push party politics aside and fast track this deal.
The Fair Deal campaign was founded to push for a new Atlantic Accord and for what’s economically beneficial for the province. This campaign has no party affiliation. The Liberals have already been asked to fast track the deal by some of the other major parties. It’s time they heeded that call.
If you haven’t sent your letter yet, click here to do so now.
37 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“Why target the Liberal MPs and Paul Martin? The Liberal government is still in jeopardy of falling in the coming weeks or months. The Accord deal, four months after it was signed and promised to the people of the province, needs to become a reality by the end of the next parliamentary session. The Liberals, regardless of challenges from other parties, should work with their colleagues across the isle to make this happen.”
This makes absolutely no sense.
If the government is at risk of falling, it is because of the actions of the opposition.
If the Accord bill is at risk of being delayed, it’s by Lie-ola’s insistence that it be severed from the budget bill.
Either BOTH sides should be targetted in this campaign – including the two St. John’s Tories and their leader, Mr. Harper – or else this campaign must be considered as being off base.
“Now it’s their turn to push party politics aside and fast track this deal.”
The ones who need to push party politics aside are Lie-ola Hearn, Norm Doyle, Peter Mackay, and Stephen Harper.
Seriously.
Comment by WJM — 5/25/2005 @ 1:32 pmWJM lets sling the first barb of rhetoric. Here’s why I excluded Hearn and Doyle: They have both asked for a fast track already. They received 7500 emails a piece last week. Inundating them again serves no purpose.
Seriously.
Last week I was lambasted by a small handful who said I betrayed the Conservatives. Now let’s see which way the wind blows.
348 members have sent 2088 letters so far, 2:44 eastern standard time.
Comment by Kevin — 5/25/2005 @ 1:44 pmI think this is definitely a fair action for this campaign to take. Hearn and Doyle have already asked for a fast track. When parliament starts again next week, it will be up to the liberals to cooperate with the conservatives. There is no reason to stall, and the newfoundland liberal mps need to be aware of this.
Comment by Barry — 5/25/2005 @ 2:00 pmWJM: why didn’t you and Paul Martin agree with Danny Williams’ assessment of “100%” back in the fall? why wasn’t a deal signed and delivered then?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/25/2005 @ 2:56 pm“WJM lets sling the first barb of rhetoric. Here’s why I excluded Hearn and Doyle: They have both asked for a fast track already.”
No, they haven’t.
Please point out where and when they have done such a thing.
Comment by WJM — 5/25/2005 @ 3:11 pm“I think this is definitely a fair action for this campaign to take. Hearn and Doyle have already asked for a fast track.”
No, they haven’t.
They have asked for the bill to be split from the budget.
THIS IS THE SLOW TRACK.
“When parliament starts again next week, it will be up to the liberals to cooperate with the conservatives. There is no reason to stall, and the newfoundland liberal mps need to be aware of this.”
I actually hope Lie-ola does succeed in splitting the bill. It will expose his lies, once and for all, and seal his political coffin.
Comment by WJM — 5/25/2005 @ 3:13 pm“WJM: why didn’t you and Paul Martin agree with Danny Williams’ assessment of “100%” back in the fall?”
If you can figure out what that definition was, I’ll tell you whether or not I agree with it.
I can’t speak for Paul Martin, so stop asking me to. Otherwise, I’ll have to ask you to speak for Stephen Harper.
Comment by WJM — 5/25/2005 @ 3:14 pmGentlemen (and ladies when the eventually post):
The wording of the e-mail is hardly offensive to anyone and reflects the spirit of co-operation and compromise necessary to move this whole project forward seuccessfully.
Personally, Kevin, I would have taken the sent on co-operation and sent it to all 308 of the H of C darlings, but then again, that’s your call.
The sad part of the entire spectacle since the last election is that the House has NOT been functioning as it should.
I just hope the recipients reply with something other than the raft of talking points the last ones got to Hearn and Doyle.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/25/2005 @ 3:26 pmA quick poll for the Fair Deal Crowd: who would you see added to the target list? Who holds power over safe passage of the Accord now?
Finance Committee Members?
Tony Valeri, the Liberal House Leader?
This campaign continues to need the insight and input of others, so throw out your thoughts.
Ed, agree with your sentiment; hopefully we’ll see a direct response from the Liberals on this. Also, the house has been paralytic lately. That needs to change, starting on Monday.
Comment by Kevin — 5/25/2005 @ 3:33 pmWJM, Norm and Loyola wanted this deal signed, as Williams did, back in the Fall. Paul Martin stonewalled instead of agreeing to Williams’ terms. The resolution in November was a request to fast track this process. Some Liberals, Scott Simms and Bill Matthews for instance, supported that effort. EFFORD and BYRNE didn’t.
Paul Maritn held this deal (and this province) hostage.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/25/2005 @ 3:50 pm“WJM, Norm and Loyola wanted this deal signed, as Williams did, back in the Fall. Paul Martin stonewalled instead of agreeing to Williams’ terms.”
Why is it morally culpable to not agree to the brattish theatrics and bad-faith “negotiations” that Williams was engaged in last fall?
“The resolution in November was a request to fast track this process.”
POST THE TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION.
Thank you.
Comment by WJM — 5/25/2005 @ 4:12 pmKevin:
At this stage, at the very least, I’d suggest that all MPs from this province get it. The e-mail is pretty general but it makes the point.
All 308 members of parliament AND all the senators (what is there 104 of them?) have an ability to make an impact.
You definitely need to get it to the members of the Finance committee, the party leaders and House leaders.
bcc them all to Liam’s e-mail addy. (Relax. It was a joke.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/25/2005 @ 4:24 pmkevin, somethings up with your letter form
its sending everything x5 it seems, i know i got 5 copys of the letter i sent in my e-mail, can only assume your site is sending out that many too…
i thought the members sent thing on the main page looked fishy:P
Comment by john doe — 5/25/2005 @ 4:28 pmKevin,
Send the letter to all 7 Newfoundland MP’s. They are the only MP’s that will fight for Newfoundland. Quebec’s 75 MP’s (regardless of party affiliation) will not do anything to help us. Ontario and Western MP’s think we are getting too much now.
Comment by Lawrence — 5/25/2005 @ 4:57 pm“Send the letter to all 7 Newfoundland MP’s.”
Newfoundland only has six MPs.
Comment by WJM — 5/25/2005 @ 5:15 pmahh okie:) must of not seen that part, would of been a ton of spam if a number in his setup was off:)
Comment by john doe — 5/25/2005 @ 6:04 pmI interviewed Loyola Hearn Sunday night.
After trying to pull real information out of the standard “message track” and talking to him after here is the path for the budget bill and the ACCORD II.
1/ It’s gone to the Finance Committee:
The CONSERVATIVES have majority and control this committee. They have the power to “fast track” or delay. Hearn said they are going to split the Bill. Now, because this is a “side track” to a linear process, logic concludes that it is out of the normal and will require more time and “discussion” INDEED, Liberal MP for The Beaches-East York, Maria Minna, who leads the Liberals on that committe has stated that they will oppose splitting the bill. Needless to say, what that entails is not going to speed up passage of the anything.
If the bill makes it through another round of that political childishness and partisan bullshit games it comes back to the floor of the house of commons for a third vote after a quick tour of the senate. ….Where it could easily be voted down again.
At this point I would think the message from Newfoundland and those who put Newfoundland’s future and prosperity above the foul stench of politics is to not only lean on the Liberals on the finance committee but make sure the Conservative members get the message loud and clear to stop fucking around and just let it be.
It’s over, you lost (and nobody care why), so go lick your wounds and broken hearts, muzzle the dinosaurs and maybe think about why people don’t vote for you before you go ask them again. Losing that confidence vote was the best thing that could have happened to the Conservatives.
Comment by Greg Locke — 5/25/2005 @ 6:46 pmWJM,
Sorry. I forgot about Brian Tobin’s only accomplishment. Naming the Province Newfoundland and Labrador.
Comment by Lawrence — 5/25/2005 @ 8:48 pmSplitting the bill is a tired line that is thoroughly meaningless.
It does nothing except further frustrate measures.
Greg’s got a good point about the Finance committee being the current choke point. Fire e-mails to ALL Finance cmte members (once you fix the spam generator feature j/k) or just add em to the list.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/25/2005 @ 9:26 pm“Splitting the bill is a tired line that is thoroughly meaningless.
It does nothing except further frustrate measures.”
Unfortunately, it has the potential to be very meaningful: delaying the passage beyond the date on which the offshore measures would otherwise reach Royal Assent as part of the BIA.
Comment by WJM — 5/25/2005 @ 9:28 pmI assume I am included in this “small handful who said I betrayed the Conservatives. Now let’s see which way the wind blows.”
I never said that you betrayed the Conservative only that your efforts would be better directed at the PM and the Liberals. I am glad that you have decided to go this route and support your efforts.
I have posted on my site my take on this effort and what I fear the Liberals are up to.
http://www.brentcolbert.com/blog/index.php/2005/05/25/giving_credit_for_better_aim
Brent Colbert
Comment by Brent Colbert — 5/25/2005 @ 9:40 pmGeesh,
I agree with Ed again. (Twice in one month! Somebody help me, I might be turning into a Liberal! Nah…)
I think all MP’s in the House need to be hit with this e-mail to fastrack the budget/bills too! Don’t allow it to be split from the budget though. Like WJM has said, the Accord will get lost in the slow lane if it is separated now.
Once and for all, get the 308 across Canada to pass these and start tracking down the e-mails for all the Senators who need to pass it too!
Also, I did the math and 127 MP’s from all of Canada excluding 106 from Ontario and 75 from Quebec. Ergo, if everybody across Canada votes INDEPENDENT we could get a Minority INDEPENDENT government if Quebec stays Bloc and Ontario goes Liberal again! Just think, the rest of Canada would then dictate to the Central pair how the country would be run! Too complicated? Just do it!
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 5/26/2005 @ 1:55 amBrent:
There are a couple of interesting things about your post:
First, in keeping with a pattern i noticed earlier you are not from Newfoundland and Labrador. On this time around there seem to be a large number of mainlanders weighing in, usually to criticise Kevin for “betrayal".
To the best of my knowledge he isn’t part of the Connie cause, the Liberal cause, the NDP cause or any other partisan cause.
Second, you do a fine job of repeating the CPC talking points on “fast track” without actually getting the point: the fastest way to pass this bill is the way it is now.
The whole “fast track” idea is just a parliamentary dodge, a fiddle, a confidenece game.
If that section of the bill dealign with offshore revenues is removed and made a separate bill, it has to go through exactly the same process - EXACTLY - as C-43. Period. Even better, where C-43 is at Committee Stage, the new bill has to go back to Square 1 and get through two votes.
Better yet again, if you CPC friends persist in their efforts to force an election ANY legislation on the order paper, this bill included, dies and waits to see if it will be reborn.
Brent, if you genuinely want to help, I’d suggest you do three things:
1. Stop playing partisan politics with this issue. In the past i have made my points BUT at the end I support the deal and want to see it done in the most practical way possible.
2. Stop playing partisan politics with this issue. If you want to inform your readers about this issue, send them the URl to MY blog where they can get more background than they could digest.
3. Stop playing partisan politics with this issue. It isn’t your dog, man from Halton. That is the one thing that - ironically - has really ticked me off in this second go around - namely the number of mainlanders who are presuming to know better about this issue than people directly affected by it.
Oh, yeah, as a last point, I’d refer you very strongly back to the message sent to Hearn and Doyle:
People before Party.
That’s another way of saying stop playing partisan politics with this issue.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/26/2005 @ 3:39 amKevin,
Once more I want to thank you. You are standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador. The ones who want to criticize you have conveniently forgotten that if not for you, we would not have even reached this stage. Thank you for all you have done and continue to do for our beloved province.
Comment by Anne — 5/26/2005 @ 10:05 amKevin;
I believe that it would be in the best interest of the cause that the letter is sent to all members of the House of Commons. And yes, I am including the Bloc. Why exclude them? Let’s treat them all equally. I would also like the letter to be sent to the Senate.
If sending to all MP’s is not possible, then there is no doubt that the Finance Committee members be targeted for their support of the budget bill.
As mentioned before, I received a snail mail letter from Norm Doyle. Today, I received another letter from Mr. Doyle referencing my email and basically saying exactly the same thing as the first letter did. The only notable changes were the date and verb tense. AND I received today’s letter via email.
So Kevin, I think you certainly have proof of the effect this campaign has had. Well done!
Cheers!
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 5/26/2005 @ 10:47 amFred and Ed in agreement–like a team!
Wow.
You agreed with WJM too, Fred. So do I… I hadn’t realized that the accord would be on a slower road as a private bill.
All the MP’s should be sent the msg. particularly the newest one…Labrador is in a nice position. They have the ability to be heard more right now (you cannot disagree with me here, WJM).
Lawrence:
Nice ‘comment’ about Brian Tobin… I was in stitches.
Comment by Pauline — 5/26/2005 @ 6:57 pmKeep pushing everyone, for the well-being of our provinces, and the many that work proudly here everyday. Being an owner of a privately run daycare, I am in constant battle everyday to prove to society that we provide quality care that is based with only the children’s personal growth and development in mind, when at the same time they are having fun. We are at a time of need and we small business owners need the governments assistance, so that we can better our program, and show our children that our investments in their future is on-going and without doubt. So in the end, do not forget the little guy, that tries to piece together the puzzle everyday, on the means that is barely existent in the reality. We love what we do, and we wouldn’t be here working for minimum wage, for over 8+ years, if we didn’t think that these children were important to what our future holds. I just think it is time to show the educators that guide them to that point
Comment by Tracy Rafuse — 5/27/2005 @ 5:30 amsome appreciation and respect for the education they provide and skills, and help to eliminate the common misjudgement of being called a “glorified babysitter.” Walk a day in our shoes, you will understand.
Cheers
Greg’s post is quite good. I don’t always agree with Greg’s stuff, but that one is just about bang on.
One point though - the Conservatives do not have a majority on the committee. The Conservatives PLUS the Bloc have a majority. And while the Bloc may support SPLITTING the bill, they certainly don’t don’t support the Bill. The Bloc at every turn have stated their opposition to the Atlantic Accord. So why put this through another round of BS manouevres, Liberal Conservative, Bloc or otherwise? This deal is done, this budget is passed second reading. Pass the budget in committee and let’s all move on.
Comment by Mark — 5/27/2005 @ 9:43 amWJM said:
“Why is it morally culpable to not agree to the brattish theatrics and bad-faith “negotiations” that Williams was engaged in last fall?”
WJM, if you actually supported this deal at the time, if you actually supported the offer made by the premier in the fall, you wouldn’t be calling hsi tactis “brattish.” But you don’t. Your job here has never been clearer. You’re here to defend your boss, Paul Martin. That’s fine. Just admit it and be honest.
While you’re at it, lets accept this from the perspective of two people eager to see Williams or this province get stalled on this deal in the fall…. WJM and Paul Martin…
Now IF this “brat” was to be put in his place…wasn’t the easiest way to shut him up to AGRRE TO WHAT PAUL MARTIN HAD PROMISED IN THE FIRST PLACE? AGREE TO WHAT JOHNNY EFFORD CAMAPIGN HIS ARSE OFF ON ALL POST-PROMISE SUMMER?
WJM also said:
“POST THE TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION.”
GLADLY:
“Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest), seconded by Mr. Doyle (St. John’s East), “That this House deplore the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at and following the First Ministers’ Conference of October 26, 2004, and that it call on the federal government to immediately implement its pledges of June 5 and 27, 2004, to allow the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia to keep 100% of their provincial offshore oil and gas revenues.”
Putting aside the fact that sellouts like Efford and Byrne helped vote this down, Why didn’t Paul Martin simply keep his word and end the stonewall that very day?
Why did he delay? What was so unreasonable about expectingh im to keep a promise? And what was so unreasonable about the premier’s demand?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/29/2005 @ 1:00 amWJM said:
“If you can figure out what that definition was, I’ll tell you whether or not I agree with it.”
Danny Williams was at a negotiating table with the PM and made an offer… a proposal. The Prime Minister could have taken it. He chose not to. That was Paul Martin’s decision. This could have been done in the Fall.
WJM said:
“I can’t speak for Paul Martin, so stop asking me to.”
I think you do at least speak up to defend him or deflect for him whenever someone here has the guts to actaully point out that if Paul Martin had kept his word from the beginning, the deal would be long since passed… because it would have been signed and finished in the fall…
You’re right… you don’t speak for Paul Martin. John Efford does that… “too important to talk about” “take it or leave it” yadda yadda yadda….
Promise me this… if Martin ever makes it to Goose Bay, he’ll travel on a Sea King, not a Challenger….
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/29/2005 @ 1:09 amLiarm says:
“Danny Williams was at a negotiating table with the PM and made an offer… a proposal. The Prime Minister could have taken it. He chose not to. That was Paul Martin’s decision. This could have been done in the Fall.”
Why is it OK for provincial Premiers to say “take it or leave it"?
“I think you do at least speak up to defend him or deflect for him whenever someone here has the guts to actaully point out that if Paul Martin had kept his word from the beginning, the deal would be long since passed… because it would have been signed and finished in the fall…”
Paul Martin did keep his word. Danny Williams says so. If Danny’s assessment isn’t good enough for you, that’s your problem.
“Promise me this… if Martin ever makes it to Goose Bay, he’ll travel on a Sea King, not a Challenger….”
I don’t know what equipment he’ll go to Labrador on, but I do know this much: federal Liberal politicians are frequently to be found in Labrador OUTSIDE by-election writ periods… not just when the seat is vacant.
I’ll put Paul Martin’s record of interest and involvement in Labrador affairs up against Stephen Harper’s ANY DAY.
The HarperParty showed less interest in Labrador, from March 25, 1996 to December 17, 2004, than the Bloc Québécois. Harper, Prentice, O’Connor et al. can spare me the feigned concern for poor Labrador. If the Conservatives had had any real concern for Labrador they wouldn’t have shafted us in 1988.
Comment by WJM — 5/30/2005 @ 12:18 pmLiarm writes:
“WJM, if you actually supported this deal at the time, if you actually supported the offer made by the premier in the fall,”
The Premier didn’t make an offer, HE MADE A DEMAND. If you don’t know the difference, you’re on the wrong career path.
“you wouldn’t be calling hsi tactis “brattish.” But you don’t. Your job here has never been clearer. You’re here to defend your boss, Paul Martin. That’s fine. Just admit it and be honest.”
You’re job here is to defend Glorious Leader. Just admit it and be honest.
““Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest), seconded by Mr. Doyle (St. John’s East), “That this House deplore the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at and following the First Ministers’ Conference of October 26, 2004, and that it call on the federal government to immediately implement its pledges of June 5 and 27, 2004, to allow the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia to keep 100% of their provincial offshore oil and gas revenues.””
That doesn’t sound like an effort to fast-track anything, to me. What’s that bit about ‘deplore’ doing in there?
In any event, soon after this resolution Danny DID have an accord that he accepted. An accord which Lie-ola and company are now trying, once again, to stall. Where’s your rage?
“Putting aside the fact that sellouts”
Watch your words very carefully, Liarm… Lie-ola, the Benedict Arnold Weasel from Renews, has shown how nasty words can boomerang.
“Why didn’t Paul Martin simply keep his word and end the stonewall that very day?”
What stonewall?
“Why did he delay? What was so unreasonable about expectingh im to keep a promise? And what was so unreasonable about the premier’s demand?”
If anyone can figure out what the premier demanded – and thanks for conceding that it wasn, in fact, a demand and not an “offer” – I’d be better able to answer that question.
However, as Ed has ably deconstructed, the province had no coherent position during the whole kerfuffle.
Comment by WJM — 5/30/2005 @ 12:24 pmWJM said:
“Why is it OK for provincial Premiers to say “take it or leave it"?”
Because in this case, Williams was right. What he demanded was not unreaosnable. It was not out of line. It was supported time and again by people of various stripes and it was what Paul Martin claimed he wanted in the beginning.
WJM said:
“Paul Martin did keep his word. Danny Williams says so. If Danny’s assessment isn’t good enough for you, that’s your problem.”
I said “If Paul Martin had kept his word from the beginning,” this would be done. I guess you’re the one with the comprehension problem. this website and this forum exists precisley because Paul Martin did not keep his word initally. He fought to weasel his way out of it.
WJM said:
“I’ll put Paul Martin’s record of interest and involvement in Labrador affairs up against Stephen Harper’s ANY DAY.”
It was Paul Martin and Jean Chretien’s policies (or lack thereof) on national defence that left CFB Goose Bay neglected and due for serious upgrade. To Gord O’Connor’s and Stephen Harper’s credit they at least tried ot listen to the people in Goose Bay, who do know somehting about these things, and committed to a substantial upgrade.
If Paul Maritn had any concern for Labrador, he wouldn’t have shafted the base there throughout the 1990s. He wouldn’t have screwed this proince for as long as he did on resource revenues. He wouldn’t continue to refuse to grant the very joint management scheme that was advocated by John Efford, Roger Grimes, Jack Harris and Danny Williams. But he did. And He continues to show only as much care for Labrador and the province as a whole as needed to use us as a political life preserver.
WJM said:
“The Premier didn’t make an offer, HE MADE A DEMAND.”
He made a reasonable demand. It only became a demand because Pul Martin tried to weasel out of his commitment. This could have been done in the fall. Paul Martin didn’t want it done in the fall. He didn’t want the deal to be as good as it is. He sent his minister down here to scold us for expecting more. Heck, he didn’t even want a deal to begin with and was the last one to come to the table in the federal election to offer one…. and before that he fought it tooth and nail.
I have been publicly critical of Both Stephen Harper and Danny Williams on many occasions…. on many issues. I have written Opeds condmening Harper’s comments on Atlantic Canada. I’ve commented in public radio frums on several of Williams’ policies.
Do you do the same when Paul Martin shafts the province or Labrador? Or do you just spin some more?
“““Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest), seconded by Mr. Doyle (St. John’s East), “That this House deplore the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at and following the First Ministers’ Conference of October 26, 2004, and that it call on the federal government to immediately implement its pledges of June 5 and 27, 2004, to allow the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia to keep 100% of their provincial offshore oil and gas revenues.”””
WJM said:
“That doesn’t sound like an effort to fast-track anything, to me. What’s that bit about ‘deplore’ doing in there?”
Of course it doesn’t. you’re actually willing to come on a forum that is a monument to Paul Martin’s attempts at weaseling out of a deal and claim that calling “on the federal government to immediately implement its pledges of June 5 and 27, 2004,” isn’t an attempt to get the deal done and over.
Grow a brain. Better yet, stop picking up for a weasel that could have honoured his word to Newfoundland and Labrador back in the fall but who chose to drag it out.
WJM said:
“In any event, soon after this resolution Danny DID have an accord that he accepted. An accord which Lie-ola and company are now trying, once again, to stall. Where’s your rage?”
You’ve been in Ottawa on the staffer circuit too long. Now “soon” = months…and only after these types of resolutions and proddings. You also seemed to forget about that mini world war five session involving flags etc…. Instersting deifnition of “soon” – hardly responsive or acommodating or cooperative…..
I find it highly ironic that someone such as yourself, who every step fo the way fought alongside Martin and defended him as he refused the province’s demands and even when he refused to do ANYTHING is now suddenly concerned about this accord. Moreover, you have equivocated and scoffed at the idea of Liberals supporting a seperated accord until finally you said that maybe they’d support it! Seems to me like the Liberals are issuing a threat. They’re threatening the accord. They’re threatening this province and its MPs. Why? The world doesn’t end any time soon.
With the Conservatives and NDP suporitng this deal, There is only one way this deal can be jeopardized – and that is if THIS GOVERNMENT CHOOSES to continue to hold this accord hostage.
WJM said:
“What stonewall?”
That 7 months of Mob-style dental work the Government of Canada decided to exact on the premier post-promise for starters…. to say nothing of adding (in effect) a clause to the agreement that made all the federal Liberal budget and the NDP’s ransom a necessary part of the deal. When was that agreed-to? When? where?
WJM said:
“However, as Ed has ably deconstructed, the province had no coherent position during the whole kerfuffle.”
This is nonsense.
Paul Martin could have accepted the premier’s demand in October. He never. He stalled the accord. Moreover…. even after resolutions, there was the flag flap, the email and letter cmapaign spearheaded by Kevin, and even then, only grudgingly did Martin come around to keep hiw own promise.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/31/2005 @ 9:42 am“Because in this case, Williams was right. What he demanded was not unreaosnable. It was not out of line. It was supported time and again by people of various stripes and it was what Paul Martin claimed he wanted in the beginning.”
If you can tell me what Danny Williams “demanded” the day he stormed out of the meeting he never stormed into, you’re one step ahead of everyone, Danny included.
“It was Paul Martin and Jean Chretien’s policies (or lack thereof) on national defence that left CFB Goose Bay neglected and due for serious upgrade.”
You are severely ignorant of the history of Goose Bay if you think the federal Liberals have neglected Goose Bay. Who was in power when the entire LLFT program began?
Goose Bay has seen a reduction in military activity DESPITE federal Canadian involvement in the base of recent years… because, Liarm, difficult as this is for blindly partisan Conservatives like yourself to realize, Canada does not set the defence policies or budgets of foreign countries.
“To Gord O’Connor’s and Stephen Harper’s credit they at least tried ot listen to the people in Goose Bay, who do know somehting about these things, and committed to a substantial upgrade.”
They committed to a pile of crap. I can’t wait to see them in office, delivering on their promises!
“If Paul Maritn had any concern for Labrador, he wouldn’t have shafted the base there throughout the 1990s.”
Throughout the 1990s, Liarm, Goose Bay was at its peak LLFT activities, and a new NATO country came on board.
“Do you do the same when Paul Martin shafts the province or Labrador? Or do you just spin some more?”
If Paul Martin had ever shafted the province or Labrador, I’d be the first to say it. Martin, unlike the provincial government of which Labrador is a part, and this goes for Liberal AND Conservative provincial leadership, has been pretty damn good to Labrador, both as FinMin and as PM.
The electors said as much a week ago yesterday.
“Of course it doesn’t. you’re actually willing to come on a forum that is a monument to Paul Martin’s attempts at weaseling out of a deal and claim that calling “on the federal government to immediately implement its pledges of June 5 and 27, 2004,” isn’t an attempt to get the deal done and over.”
If it had been a sincere attempt, why the partisan and personal language? Why wouldn’t Lie-ola split his motion?
“Grow a brain. Better yet, stop picking up for a weasel that could have honoured his word to Newfoundland and Labrador back in the fall but who chose to drag it out.”
Is ‘weasel’ word of the year for you Conservatives or what? Watch out: as Lie-ola learned, what comes around…
“You’ve been in Ottawa on the staffer circuit too long. Now “soon” = months”
Soon DOES equal months.
“You also seemed to forget about that mini world war five session involving flags etc…”
A war of one. I know of no one in my circle who supported Dictator Danny on that.
“Moreover, you have equivocated and scoffed at the idea of Liberals supporting a seperated accord until finally you said that maybe they’d support it!”
If it gets split or not, I imagine the Liberal MPs will support it.
Problem is, your buddies in the BQ won’t.
The quickest route from here to Royal Assent is the budget bill.
Why can’t you admit that?
Why do you want to split the Accord from a budget that Stephen Harper and Lie-ola Sullivan supported the day it was delivered, and voted for two weeks ago?
Why split the bill and slow it down?
Don’t you want the money fast?
What kind of a would-be lawyer are you, if you can’t sort your head around the procedural issues here?
“Seems to me like the Liberals are issuing a threat.”
Get your mommy to sweep under your bed for monsters Liarm.
“With the Conservatives and NDP suporitng this deal, There is only one way this deal can be jeopardized – and that is if THIS GOVERNMENT CHOOSES to continue to hold this accord hostage.”
No, that is if Stephen Harper’s allies in the Bloc Quebecois do as they have done with every other federal spending bill in the past fifteen years: talk against it.
In that case – the Lie-ola case – the budget will move one. The Accord won’t. NO MATTER WHAT THE OTHER THREE PARTIES DO.
““However, as Ed has ably deconstructed, the province had no coherent position during the whole kerfuffle.”
This is nonsense.”
Read Ed’s blog. Read it again. Read it one more time. Then read it a fourth time. Print it off. Put it under your pillow. Sleep. Sleep a second night. Read it again. Then read it some more.
Comment by WJM — 6/1/2005 @ 9:28 pmWJM said:
“If you can tell me what Danny Williams “demanded” the day he stormed out of the meeting he never stormed into, you’re one step ahead of everyone, Danny included.”
Don’t put the word in quotation marks that you yourself insisted be used to describe Danny’s DEMAND. Danny Williams more than articulated exactly what he wanted leading up to and after leaving that conference. Paul Martin refused to give it.
WJM said:
“You are severely ignorant of the history of Goose Bay if you think the federal Liberals have neglected Goose Bay. Who was in power when the entire LLFT program began?”
That doesn’t mean the Liberal party didn’t neglect CFB Goose and many other Canadian bases. They did. And they continue to do so. And now that they cozied up with the folks who agreed with the 1993 Liberal policy of cancelling defence spending, I’m sure well see more such neglect on the equipment, infratsructure, and housing fronts.
WJM said:
“Goose Bay has seen a reduction in military activity DESPITE federal Canadian involvement in the base of recent years… because, Liam, difficult as this is for blindly partisan Conservatives like yourself to realize, Canada does not set the defence policies or budgets of foreign countries.”
Get real Wally. Stop trying to twist in the wind. The Town of Goose Bay has a long standing complaint with DND concerning promotion of goose bay. I guess you ignore that because you didn’t want to do anything about it or you were unable to get anthing done about it.
http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?
filename=nf_dutch_20030219
I guess the municipality in the middle of Labrador is also in on WJM’s partisan conspiracy theory…
WJM said:
“They committed to a pile of crap. I can’t wait to see them in office, delivering on their promises!”
I’d hardly call an upgrade to CFB goose and stainioning of aunit there “crap.” I guess if you oppose such a move, you shouldn’t do so here. Go to Labrador and preach to the people in Goose Bay, including people who know a thing or two about defnce and the military about how their base isn’t worth it. You might not want to bring your buddy Chretien or Gagliano on that particular fishing trip though…
and do rememember to land in a Sea King, not a Challenger jet when you go to explain that to them the next time..or if you like, surface in a sub… you can sit on one of the dents or char marks and deliver your address from there…
better yet….try arriving in a tank from the 1960s … you’ll need to call Washington through to borrow the transport plane…
WJM said:
“Throughout the 1990s,Goose Bay was at its peak LLFT activities, and a new NATO country came on board.”
Yes and by the end of that period, the continued neglect and lack of new and modern and top of the line equipment plus lack of proper promotion had obviously taken their toll. Leading to the pull-out of the germans
http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/1999/06/22/nf_german990622.html
the British
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/31/rafgoosebay-050331.html
And the dutch in 2003.
WJM said:
“If Paul Martin had ever shafted the province or Labrador, I’d be the first to say it.”
You won’t even say it as they close the curtains on yet another unit pulling out of Goose. You won’t even say it after Martin stalls and delays for sevent months on a promise HE made.
WJM said:
“Soon DOES equal months.”
You make it sound like Martin simply flopped over after the resolution that he whipped his minions into defeating in November…. you forget about the flag incident and John Efford coming down here to scold us for not taking the first offer.
WJM said:
“Why split the bill and slow it down?”
You have not shown that the bloc will go to the wall opposing a split bill. In fact whenever asked over the last two months you have responded with vagueries and general comments about the bloc position. I see no evidence that the Bloc will go to the wall on this. And even if they showed some opposition, the delay caused by that would not come close to the delay already caused by keeping it in the budget.
also – since when was there any need or agreement to making the accord contingent on an entire budget?
250 beats 54.
WJM said:
“Read Ed’s blog.”
I did.
It’s sad and petty and ridiculouc to suggest that Paul Martin was unable to agree to what the premier wanted because he “couldn’t figure it out.” If he was willing to agree to it, and he needed some clarification on some point, he would have had it. As it stood, that wasn’t the issue. Martin didn’t want to agree. And so he never. He had the option. He didn’t take it. He stalled, delayed and kept stalling and delaying… just as he’s doing right now.
The only ones who seem to have any difficulty with this are the Martin Liberals….they’re the only ne who seem to be implying that the Accord will be off the table if the budget didn’t pass.
how would this be so unless Paul Martin didn’t ocnsider the accord a priority or even worthy of keeping beyond this time?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/2/2005 @ 12:57 pm“Don’t put the word in quotation marks that you yourself insisted be used to describe Danny’s DEMAND. Danny Williams more than articulated exactly what he wanted leading up to and after leaving that conference. Paul Martin refused to give it.”
Did you see Danny’s press conference the day after storming out of that which he never stormed in to?
“Articulate” my left… thumb.
“That doesn’t mean the Liberal party didn’t neglect CFB Goose and many other Canadian bases. They did.”
Liam, again: look at history as it actually happened, not as you wish it had. Goose Bay has been down this path before. When it has been down that path, the federal government – of they day, Liberal – intervened.
“Get real Wally. Stop trying to twist in the wind. The Town of Goose Bay has a long standing complaint with DND concerning promotion of goose bay.”
Absolutely. But Liam, explain to us in small words we can all understand, how Canada can FORCE a FOREIGN military to decide ANYTHING, let alone where, when, and how to train its forces.
“I guess the municipality in the middle of Labrador is also in on WJM’s partisan conspiracy theory…”
The only partisan conspiracy theory in connection with Goose Bay, is that held by rabidly partisan Conservatives who allege, without any evidence other than the fictional and delusional, that Liberals are out to destroy Goose Bay.
“I’d hardly call an upgrade to CFB goose and stainioning of aunit there “crap.””
They didn’t say anything about “upgrading” the base. Where and when do you think they said any such thing?
The committed to things that (a) can’t be delivered, or (b) ARE ALREADY IN TRAIN BY THE FEDERAL LIBERAL GOVERNMENT THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY OUT TO DESTROY GOOSE BAY.
In other words, Gord’s speech in Goose Bay the last week of the campaign was… a pile of crap.
“including people who know a thing or two about defnce and the military about how their base isn’t worth it.”
The base is worth a lot. It is worth even more AS PART OF A RATIONAL DEFENCE PLAN, not as part of cynical and desperate pork-barrel politics as practiced by Stephen Harper.
“Yes and by the end of that period, the continued neglect and lack of new and modern and top of the line equipment plus lack of proper promotion had obviously taken their toll. Leading to the pull-out of the germans”
How do Canadian equipment procurement decisions have anything to do with decisions made in Berlin or London or The Hague?
“You won’t even say it as they close the curtains on yet another unit pulling out of Goose.”
Which Canadian unit is pulling out of Goose?
“You won’t even say it after Martin stalls and delays for sevent months on a promise HE made.”
Liarm, the stalling and delaying is being done BY YOUR PARTY.
““Why split the bill and slow it down?”
You have not shown that the bloc will go to the wall opposing a split bill.”
I don’t have to.
You, and Lie-ola Hearn, and the rest of your lying caucus and party pals have to show that the Bloc will agree to pass the split bill at all stages immediately.
If you can’t do that, then the argument that splitting = speeding fails, completely.
” see no evidence that the Bloc will go to the wall on this.”
Define “go to the wall". I have no idea what you mean by this. I highly doubt you even have any idea what you mean by this. What do you mean?
“250 beats 54.”
1 beats 307. Look up the meaning of “unanimous", Liam.
Comment by WJM — 6/7/2005 @ 3:19 pmWJM, At that first minister’s Paul Martin could have agreed with Danny Williams. He didn’t. You have failed to explain why he didn’t. And the explanation form Martin at the time wasn’t “I don’t understand” it was “That’s not what I agreed-to,” which was also, in my opinion, a lie.
WJM Said:
“Goose Bay has been down this path before. When it has been down that path, the federal government – of they day, Liberal – intervened.”
Not really. And in the end, the town of goose Bay expressed concerns about how the base was marketed. The government didn’t do enough. And the squadrons left.
http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?
filename=nf_dutch_20030219
WJM said:
“how Canada can FORCE a FOREIGN military to decide ANYTHING, let alone where, when, and how to train its forces.”
That’s an interesting jump WJM. I point out that the Town of Goose was concerned because DND didn’t even market the base properly, and you turn that into “we must force foreign militaries to train here.”
They didn’t need ot force. They could have tried. They didn’t…. certainly not hard enough. And they didn’t upgrade the base enough to aid in any promotion. They should have. they didn’t. They failed.
WJM said:
The only partisan conspiracy theory in connection with Goose Bay, is that held by rabidly partisan Conservatives who allege, without any evidence other than the fictional and delusional, that Liberals are out to destroy Goose Bay.”
Careful about delusions. You’re the one misquoting people. Liberals weren’t out to destroy CFB Goose. They just neglected it enough until it lost a lot of its activity. The town certainly believed it wasn’t being uprgraded or promoted enough…. was the town in on your conspiracy theory?
WJM said:
“They didn’t say anything about “upgrading” the base. Where and when do you think they said any such thing?”
The placement of additional units and other crafts and items there as well as additional commitments to spending ARE upgrades. Probably still not enough. But a helluva lot better than the last 5 years of Liberal slide.
WJM, You keep calling the upgrade of CFB Goose a “porkbarrell,” and assuming that such a move can’t possibly be part of a comprehensive defence plan. You haven’t explained why, except to assume the absolute worst about the imporance of Goose Bay. I guess we don’t share your pessimistic and paternalistic view of Goose Bay as only a “porkbarrell” base. I suspect most analysts see it as useful and additions to it as productive.
WJM said:
“How do Canadian equipment procurement decisions have anything to do with decisions made in Berlin or London or The Hague?”
Equipment includes logistic equipment and base equipment. I was also indiretcly referring to base infrastructure…. not that it mattered given the piss poo job Canada did promoting CFB Goose….
WJM said:
“Which Canadian unit is pulling out of Goose?”
I never said “Another Canadian unit"? so why purposely change my words? Could it be because you have no answer to the words I used and therefore need to change the subject??!?!?
RAF left this year.
Stop changing the subject and dodging.
WJM Said:
“You, and Lie-ola Hearn, and the rest of your lying caucus and party pals have to show that the Bloc will agree to pass the split bill at all stages immediately. If you can’t do that, then the argument that splitting = speeding fails, completely.”
This is incorrect and you know it. If the bill had been split on April 6 it was just as likely if not more likely that the delay would have been a day or two at most and then the thing would have passed. YOU have to show thatt he Bloc would have went to the wall on this. Your inability to respond on this is painfull obvious. You chose instead, for the fifth time, to change the subject.
250 people in the house against 54 people who may or may not oppose it but who likely would not have fought world war 3 over it could have gotten this accord though within a relatively shorter period of time.
Paul Martin refused to give us that option, and on the day of his first refusal, he stated only his concern for who gets the “credit"…
If he was concerned about credit, then he believed the seperationw ould have expedited the bill.
end of story. Paul Martin delayed the Accord.
Comment by Liam O\\\’Brien — 6/9/2005 @ 3:45 pm