Loyola Hearn’s Release
I just received a note from Loyola Hearn’s office, pointing me to this release which has been posted since last Friday:
“The Conservative Party continues to put forth effort to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador receives the resource revenue money it is due from the federal government as quickly as possible,” stated Hearn. “The Conservatives were the first to make the offshore promise and we have fought hard and long to see it delivered.”
The Conservative Party has proposed several motions to the House on the Atlantic Accord: “We have supported the government’s budget and I call on the Liberals to now cooperate with us and ensure the Accord becomes its own piece of legislation,” Hearn concluded.
I don’t care what approach is used here. All I care about, and what I’m asking legislators to do in good faith, is to sort out the semantics for themselves. Just make the deal a reality as soon as possible. Please - make it law before the end of the summer session. We do not want the Accord unsettled come fall; we’d be at obvious risk for losing what we have gained with another looming federal election.
Hearn’s full release is available here.
Start contacting the Finance Committee here.
Call or send a fax to your direct Member of Parliament here.
Ask Paul Martin, Ralph Goodale and Liberal MPs to fast track the deal – the best way possible – here.
Our legislators need to know that we expect action on this bill before the party wranglings begin again.
27 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Part of the rationale for this “split” approach is that the offshore arrangements should be separate pieces of legislation reflecting the agreements.
Here are a few observations:
1. It isn’t clear that this “split” arrangement will pass any more easily than C-43 as it currently stands.
The parliamentary process is still the process.
Since the new bills carry the same number, for all intents and purposes, does this actually separate the offshore arrangements from the other budgetary items in a meaningful way? In other words, it isn’t clear that as a matter of procedure they would/should be dealt with as separate items.
2. It isn’t clear why the two separate provincial deals have to be lumped together. They are separate agreements; they should be in separate bills.
3. No one has successfully explained why the offshore arrangements need to be split from a bill that contains provisions the Conservative Party once supported.
Aside from the obvious political and tactical arguments for this latest “split” effort, what is it in C-43 that is so “complex” as Hearn has previously stated, or so odious that the CPC would feel compelled to vote against it when it comes back to the House for Third Reading?
4. Since the two offshore arrangements authorize the Government of Canada to spend certain money - as do the other bits of C-43 - on what basis other than symbolism, should they be split off?
If it ain’t broke, why fix it?
Comment by Ed Hollett — 5/26/2005 @ 2:31 pm1) Splitting a bill into two separate and separately numbered bills makes them into – surprise – two separate bills.
2) Nowhere in this, OR ANY OTHER motion by Lie-ola does he seek, much less obtain, unanimous consent of the House to dispose of the Bill immediately at all stages. Why not? Because he knows the Bloc will not give it.
3) Splitting the Bill seriously runs the risk of it getting delayed. Perhaps this is what Lie-ola wants, so he can obfuscte the blame onto the Liberal side of the House, rather than take it himself.
Comment by WJM — 5/26/2005 @ 3:40 pmWill the Liberals vote for a seperate accord legislation if it is seperated? will they work to get it passed asap if this happens? At any stage will Liberals vote against the Accord? If so, why?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/29/2005 @ 1:12 amDid anyone read Bill Rowe’s colum in the Telegram on Sat.? I agree on one point: The name of the province is ridiculous. Was that more of Grimes dim witted doings? Should have left the name “Newfoundland” and changed the name of the island portion. As for Labrador getting territory status, maybe in time.
Comment by jeremiah — 5/29/2005 @ 9:11 amJeremiah:
I agree this name change was ill conceived, its almost like someone wished to establish yet another point of division between the Island and Labrador.
We are all newfoundlanders and thats what the Province should be called. In any of my dealings or postings, I refused to make a distinction between those of us who inhabit the Island portion and those who live in Labrador.
I frankly see no practical reason to do so, it just plays into the hands of those who have expressed a desire to separate, and those particularly in Quebec who refuse to recognize the Labrador portion of Newfoundland and Labrador and have a propensity to show it as part of Quebec.
On any map etc. this area should be labeled inclusively as Newfoundland.
Comment by Max — 5/29/2005 @ 11:23 amLiam. If you really want the Accord to pass quickly, get your friends to get the budget through committee.
By separating the Accord provisions they will become hostage to the procedural tactics of the Bloc, who stated again this weekend that they will do everything to vote down and delay anything which is not in their perceived interests of Quebec. They hate the Accord deals, and have stated their opposition to them from Day 1. Thankfully, with the byelection result, safe passage of the budget bills can happen in the House of Commons assuming everyone shows up. The only people who can stall it now are the Finance Committee members. And it looks like they will. It’s a shame, really.
Comment by Mark — 5/30/2005 @ 7:37 amMark, if you wanted the Accord to pass quickly, you would have joined Vic Young’s commission report in calling on the PM to get the arrangemnet done with in 2003. If you wanted the accord to pass quickly, you would have lobied for the PM to sign the deal our premier wanted in the early fall and pass it and be done with it then.
My questions remain unanswered:
Will the Liberals vote for a seperate accord legislation if it is seperated? will they work to get it passed asap if this happens? At any stage will Liberals vote against the Accord? If so, why?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/30/2005 @ 9:38 am“We are all newfoundlanders”
Who’s “we"?
“I frankly see no practical reason to do so, it just plays into the hands of those who have expressed a desire to separate, and those particularly in Quebec who refuse to recognize the Labrador portion of Newfoundland and Labrador and have a propensity to show it as part of Quebec.”
That’s ludicrous. Quebec has no claim to Labrador, maps notwithstanding.
And I hope you are equally vigilant when morons in Newfoundland show maps of Newfoundland only as maps of the province, or otherwise omit or diminish Labrador. After all, if maps from Quebec showing Labrador as part of Quebec are to be worried about so are maps of “Newfoundland” which do not show Labrador as part of the province.
Comment by WJM — 5/30/2005 @ 10:12 am“Will the Liberals vote for a seperate accord legislation if it is seperated? will they work to get it passed asap if this happens? At any stage will Liberals vote against the Accord? If so, why?”
You are asking questions about the future. He’s “Mark", not freaking Nostradamus.
Comment by WJM — 5/30/2005 @ 10:13 amWJM said:
“You are asking questions about the future. He’s “Mark", not freaking Nostradamus.”
I had no idea the future was so uncertain for Liberals on the accord issue…I guess this is more of the threat and hostage MO…
I repeat, and this time extend this to anybody who has seen any indication to help them (we know the answer for the Conservative MPS – YES….. they’ve said so time and again…):
Will the Liberals vote for a seperate accord legislation if it is seperated? will they work to get it passed asap if this happens? At any stage will Liberals vote against the Accord? If so, why?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/30/2005 @ 3:29 pm“Will the Liberals vote for a seperate accord legislation if it is seperated? will they work to get it passed asap if this happens?”
It’s not up to the Liberals.
If the Conservatives are stupid enough to split the bill, I imagine three of the four parties will support it at third reading.
The only problem is that the split bill will get talked-out by the BQ. There goes “ASAP".
Comment by WJM — 5/30/2005 @ 4:16 pmWJM said:
“If the Conservatives are stupid enough to split the bill, I imagine three of the four parties will support it at third reading. The only problem is that the split bill will get talked-out by the BQ. There goes “ASAP". ”
ASAP went out months ago whne Paul Martin refused to accept Danny Williams Demand. ASAP went out when it took Paulie half a federal election campaign in 2004 to play catchup. ASAP went out when Paul Maritn and his predecessor chose ot scoff at the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Newfoundland and Labrador’s place in Confederation.
You imagine?
What possible doubt could there be?
Why would the Liberals, at any stage, oppose the split bill?
Are they threatening us?
And what evidence is there that the bloc will go to the wall on the Accord?
Comment by Liam O\\\’Brien — 5/31/2005 @ 9:46 amWe need to keep the pressure on in whatever form is effective to get this deal finalized ASAP.
We also need to be continually mindfull of those who impede its passage in any manner, and do every thing in our Power to ensure they pay the price in the next Federal Election, whether that be a particular party or an individual candidate.
Comment by Max — 5/31/2005 @ 10:35 amMax said:
“. . and do every thing in our Power to ensure they pay the price in the next Federal Election, whether that be a particular party or an individual candidate.”
If we’re going to do that, lets consider the time frame leading up to the arrangement. Lets consider how this very forum came to exist.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 5/31/2005 @ 1:25 pm“Why would the Liberals, at any stage, oppose the split bill?”
They would, properly, oppose SPLITTING the bill.
“And what evidence is there that the bloc will go to the wall on the Accord?”
Fifteen years of history in the House of Commons, for starters. Would you like a subscription to Hansard?
The Bloc will not allow immediate passage and they will use the bill to moan about the non-existent “fiscal imbalance".
Comment by WJM — 6/1/2005 @ 9:14 pmWJM said:
“Fifteen years of history in the House of Commons, for starters. Would you like a subscription to Hansard?
The Bloc will not allow immediate passage and they will use the bill to moan about the non-existent “fiscal imbalance".”
The Government is quoted today in the papers saying it will expedite the SSM bill, with great opposition in the Commons than the Accord. The Government fast-tracked and added their little ransom deal with the NDP quite easily and got it up to the top of the list.
Admit it Wally. The Martin government just didn’t want this thing passed back in April… or Fall 2004, or Fall 2003…. If they wanted it passed, it would be passed by now.
Their lackeys in committee helped squish an attempt to even debate expediting the bill.
Your generalized “fifteen years of history” repsonses are really quite inadequate and short on facts. In fact, you’ve had two months to provide statements and evidence to back up your claims that the Bloc would do something along the lines of what Bob Mills tried to do on Kyoto. And you’ve turned up nothing.
Conservative environment critic Bob Mills filibustered and fought and scratched every step on the Kyoto implementation bill. But Bob knew, as did the government that the Liberal majority at the time was more than enough to ram the thing through in the end anyway. . . even as the hours got close. There are degrees of action the bloc might take. It all boils down to this: 250 beats 54. WJM had months on end to provide a speciic answer to a simple question and he failed.
The first day the Conservatives asked for the bill to be seperated Paul Martin’s response to CBC was that he said it was silly because the Consertaives were “trying to take credit” for what he had ‘done’… if he believed the bloc line, he would have offered it. Instead it was cooked up later by the likes of WJM and Ed Hollett and company. And it doesn’t hold water. A day or two delay at most.
In reality, this entire process has been delayed by two years thanks to Paul Martin. since his promise it has been delayed a full year. And Since the agreement, it has been delayed by two months.
Enough bogey man stories, WJM.
Get on board and ask your leader to expedite this process immediately.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/2/2005 @ 12:30 pmAdmit it, Liam, no matter what happens you will say that it is all Paul Martin’s fault and do so with enough words to bury the issue in printing an inch thick all over.
Go call your your buddies in Ottawa and have them stop screwing with the budget.
Save bandwith.
Save a dime.
Send an e-mail.
Heck, I’ll even give you the quarters to make a phone call to Harper, Hearn and Doyle.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/4/2005 @ 4:57 amEd, I don’t need many words to show that Paul Martin doesn’t give shit about Newfoundland and Labrador.
Kevin secured the place for the bandwith and this website precisely because of Paul Martin’s refusal to act and his misunderstanding of our province. nothing has changed.
Why should we believe that Martin will not find some way to minimize, change and/or weasel out of the arrangement that he was dragged into kicking and screaming by Williams, Harper, Layton and others?
Why should The Accord have EVER been contingent on passing a budget’s worth of ransom? Ed, please cite for me the clause of the arrangement that set out that condition.
If you can’t, save yourself the bandwith and call Paul Martin. He must have a copy somewhere. While you’re talking to him, ask him why he stalled this deal by months and why his lackeys have issued a threat to Newfoundlanders concerning his budget…
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/6/2005 @ 8:47 amOn what grounds to do you justify the comment that the current prime minister doesn’t “give a shit” about Newfoundland and Labrador?
Only looking at offshore revenues alone we can see two substantive instances in which he improved the situation.
He has also committed to assisting the province in developing the Lower Churchill.
More to the point you made in another post, he is also concerned about the civil rights of Canadians who live in this province by virtue of his willingness to deal with the matter of equal marriage. Would that another national party had the same resolve to handle this issue.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/6/2005 @ 12:52 pmEd said:
“On what grounds to do you justify the comment that the current prime minister doesn’t “give a shit” about Newfoundland and Labrador?”
On the grounds that it took him halfway through the 2004 election to promise that which the other two leaders on either side of him on the spectrum promised in writing from the beginning.
On the grounds that he ignored the Royal Commission on NL’s place in Canada when it recommended changes in the way Ottwa runs several things, especially equalization, fisheries and intergovernmental relations.
On the grounds that he thinks to this day that the new offshore arrangement should have been ocntingent on him being able to use it as a political life raft.
On the grounds that he has neglected and contributed ot the sub-standard state of our equipment levels in Canada’s armed forces… an armed forces where a smart and brave Newfoundlanders and Labradorians serve in higher proportions than our share of the population.
On the grounds that he could have acted on the accord deal 2 years ago. He had the power but steadfastly refused to act until such time as he was absolutely forced to act by premiers, opposition parties, and by people like Kevin McCann.
On the grounds that he refused to negotiate with our province when our premier ordered the flag taken down.
On the grounds that he ignores not only a Royal Commission but an all-party committee and several other reports – all of which essentiall say that NAFO is as useless as mammary glands on a bull moose and the time has come to take full custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.
On the grounds that the same groups have also called for an immediate move towards shared responisbility for fisheries management between the province and the government of Canada but Paul Martin’s govenrment arrogantly refuses to listen.
On the grounds that on May 11 Parliament voted to recommend that a committee recommend that the government resign because of its record of mismanagement and instead of respecting the spirit of that request and reisgning, Paul Martin showed utter contempt for every region of this country and the democratic institution that is supposed to be honoured and respected and refused to step down.
If Paul Martin cared about Newfoundland and Labrador, he wouldn’t have fought us every step fo the way on the Atlantic Acord arrangement. Instead he equivocated, stalled, weaseled, and tried his damnest to stretch out a process that he himself could have ended in veyr short order.
It seems that when it’s a few hundred million for ad agencies or couple billion here or therefor bombardier, all is hunky dory and fast flowing. It’s when Paul Martin deals with Newfoundland and Labrador that the Efford-types come down here to scold us.
Most Newfoundland and Labrador MPs opposed the present marriage bill. I doubt it’s fair to say they’re against civil rights. I doubt it’s fair to say that most of Western Europe, which has the civil union system is against equal rights. And I’m willing to bet that all 7 of the current NL MPs would have preferred the prime minister pass a supposedly uncontroversial (putting aside Maritn’s repeated resistence and delay) idea like the accord back in the fall and have it down with instead of dividing his time and working on everything but.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/7/2005 @ 7:24 amEd, I’m sill waiting for an answer to this one:
If the Liberal caucus us unanimous in its support for the Accord, but severely divided on the marriage bill, why has Paul Martin been more determined to pass the latter?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/7/2005 @ 7:31 amLiam:
At the risk of saying the same thing over and over again, here goes:
1. The PM committed in January to accept the Premier’s proposal as a basis for discussion.
2. Equalization is being addressed, albeit not in the way the Royal Comm deliberately misrepresented it. Ditto fisheries - taking in mind the wider interests within this province and the international legal issues involved. Intergovernmental relations is one of things that takes two to tango.
3. The life raft comment is just bunk.
4. The armed forces have suffered at the hands of just about every government since 1949, Liberal and Conservative. The current administration and its immediate predecessor did manage to undertake some pretty serious structural and professional reforms within the department. If you’d like to have a more detailed discussion, I’d be happy to do so as this is a subject I know a few things about. Just leave your partisan cudgels at the door.
5. The Mulroney government could have acted on the Accord deal 20 years ago but didn’t. Crosbie could have done it 15 years ago but wouldn’t. Do you really need to keep banging your head against this wall over and over again merely because it will feel good when you stop?
6. No prime minister should discuss anything with any premier who treats a national symbol in such a blatantly political fashion - It didn’t work in Quebec, damned if it should work here. BTW, you should pay attention to the fact that the flag stunt actually undermined the province’s position across the country.
7. Custodial management - the farce of the ill-informed. Go ahead and take custody. Then stand by for trade reprisals that will decimate the local fishing industry and the local manufacturing sector. I like my nose where it is and have no intention of trying to spite my face. I suspect when people actually look at all the issues in CM - versus the b/s that is usually spread - they’d like their noses on their faces too.
8. No federal government has been willing to share fisheries management in any way with the provinces. Which party are you going to vote for if that is an issue for you? Hmmmm?
9. The stunt votes in the House are just that: political puffery. Let’s try and stick to something other than posturiong shall we?
10. Again with the Accord. You seem to have trouble saying accepting there is a yes. The problem now is that other political parties are holding a budgetary measure hostage to other interests. At least Loyola Hearn has now pledged publicly to pass C-43 intact.
11. As for the equal marriage bill, while seven MPs may have problems with human rights and democracy, I’d be interested in seeing what their constituents feel. Basing a human rights argument on how MPs vote is like telling me Dachau was okay because a majority of Reichstag deputies voted for it.
12. As for the Accord, I don’t know how many times you have to hear it for it to actually sink in: the government - the FEDERAL government - remains fully and unequivocally behind the offshore deal. The federal government remains committed to passing both the offshore arrangement PLUS the marriage bill.
Why do you persist in throwing up the equal marriage bill as if the Accord and equal marriage are mutually exclusive?
Since I am sure I have said all of this and more before, this is is the last poke I’ll take at this again.
Save bandwidth, Liam.
Loyola has caved. Join him on the right side of the issue.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/7/2005 @ 9:26 amEd Said:
“1. The PM committed in January to accept the Premier’s proposal as a basis for discussion.”
Spoken like a true staffer. a “basis for discussion” was reached 20 years ago. It was called the Atlantic Accord. A modified “basis for discussion was proposed by the Royal Commission on our place in Canada. A “basis for discussion” could mean almost anything. It wasn’t until Martin’s June Announcement that Williams was willing to say that this province was covered each way. Martin was the last to the table. And even after he agreed to come to the table he refused to sit down. He delayed a process that if he truly agreed with that “basis for discussion” would have been over and done with before Christmas. He didn’t.
Ed said:
“2. Equalization is being addressed, albeit not in the way the Royal Comm deliberately misrepresented it.”
The Royal Commisison did not misrepresent it. You have not explained in any way how it has. You just keep repeating the same statement. If there was any substance to your cliam, you would have provided it by now. It’s quite obvious you simply are embarassed because the PM you choose to defend ignored the commission.
Ed said:
“Ditto fisheries - taking in mind the wider interests within this province and the international legal issues involved. Intergovernmental relations is one of things that takes two to tango.”
Lies. Pure and utter lies.
Paul Martin’s government can move right now to do what the FFAW, Industry groups, the provincial government’s throne speech, multi-party committees and the Royal Commission (once NAFO has failed – and NAFO HAS FAILED) want done.
Ed said:
“3. The life raft comment is just bunk.”
No it isn’t. The new accord arrangement would be law today but for the decisions of Paul Martin. He delayed first agreeing to it then delayed passage f it because he wanted to preserve power.
Ed said:
“4. The armed forces have suffered at the hands of just about every government since 1949, Liberal and Conservative. The current administration and its immediate predecessor did manage to undertake some pretty serious structural and professional reforms within the department. If you’d like to have a more detailed discussion, I’d be happy to do so as this is a subject I know a few things about. Just leave your partisan cudgels at the door.”
Ed, it really is quite sad when the best you can do in response to a claim is speak buracratese and dismiss the entire comment as “partisan” as if even if that was a motivation it somehow nullified the need for an honest response.
Parliamentary committees, as well as independent groups have all confirmed that our military is grossly underfunded. Our equipement have never before been in such a state. From Helicopters to transport planes to submarines to navy ships to uniforms, it’s just been one snub after another.
Jean Chretien and Paul Martin made the decision that the new gear and lanned new gear just wasn’t worth the cash. They should own up to that. They should also own up to their twirling position on Sea King replacements, their choice to buy challengers instead of proper transports, their choice to buy second hand subs and other choices they made. They should own up to it.
Ed said:
“5. The Mulroney government could have acted on the Accord deal 20 years ago but didn’t. Crosbie could have done it 15 years ago but wouldn’t. Do you really need to keep banging your head against this wall over and over again merely because it will feel good when you stop?”
Ed, this is a massive massive and utterly ridiculous dodge. As you are so often fond of pointing out in your usual fear campaigns, Stephen Harper is the Leader of the Opposition. Stephen Harper’s position in support of this has been consistently in favour of the Royal Commission’s goals on this subject. Why wasn’t Paul Martin’s?
Why won’t you answer that simple question?
Ed said:
“6. No prime minister should discuss anything with any premier who treats a national symbol in such a blatantly political fashion - It didn’t work in Quebec, damned if it should work here.”
What nation? Canada is a federation. And Paul Martin’s reaction to that situation as well as your reaction to my comment on the matter only go to show that both you and Paul don’t give two shits about the problems caused because of decision made by the government of Canada.
You also have a very short memory. The government presently under investigation by Gomery because of a program that was designed to wrap the flag around everything in Quebec in an equally if not more saccharin and utterly political use of the flag has no business lecturing anyone else on the use of the Maple Leaf. The government that forked out flags like Candy as part of Sheila Copps campaign of excesses has no right to talk about politicization of the flag.
The flag is political. Lets not pretend that it isn’t. And based on your logic, the Prime Minister of Canada should have refused to discuss matters with Canada’s veterans or Legionares when they first showed their oppostion to the flag.
Ed, your ocmments show you to have a very edited and incomplete view of history.
I realze you’re busy scurrying to find a way to justify the jobs of the guys who want to use this province for everything they can. I realize that you’ve long since bought into the Smallwood view of us as nothing more than a ‘third rate municipality,’ just try to understand that some of us still believe that this province is worth more than that and that we don’t need to bow our heads to Ottawa in any way.
Ed said:
” BTW, you should pay attention to the fact that the flag stunt actually undermined the province’s position across the country.”
BTW you should pay attention to the fact that for many of us the negative reactions to the taking down of the flag, including the labelling of it as a “stunt” only go to show that Canadians, and Canada’s apologists in this province (like yourself), don’t understand Newfoundland and Labrador.
Ed Said:
“7. Custodial management - the farce of the ill-informed. Go ahead and take custody. Then stand by for trade reprisals that will decimate the local fishing industry and the local manufacturing sector.”
I’ve got news for you Ed: what’s the point of backing off if the result of that leads down the same road?
Ed said:
“I like my nose where it is and have no intention of trying to spite my face. I suspect when people actually look at all the issues in CM - versus the b/s that is usually spread - they’d like their noses on their faces too.”
It’s ok Ed. you’re very similar to Brian Tobin . . . only slightly more honest. You apologize for and cow tow to NAFO and the foreign pirates off our shores in the light of day…
I’ll quote one of your fellow partisans, a fellow Liberal, who once upon a time had some backbone on this issue:
On the issue of territorial waters, Richard Cashin, MP for St. John’s West (1962-1968) made a very passionate speech in the Commons calling for action and justice for the fishermen in his province on October 3, 1962:
“When I have traveled around my constituency, it has been disheartening for me to learn of the work of foreign trawlers which have ravaged fishermen’s gear by coming in to the very headlands of the sea … their traditional inshore fishing grounds were being interfered with by foreign trawlers. It is not enough to tell these fishermen that a 12-mile limit cannot be established. After all, they realize that Iceland, which has ½ the population of Newfoundland, was able to do it. Has Iceland more courage, more moral fibre than Canada?”
Ask your buddy Senator George Baker about it too. Canada can act.
At this stage, the worse that could happen is that we might have to change the approach late. In reality, every major interest on the east coast with the exception of the NAFO and DFOites agree that this type of action is LONG OVERDUE.
Ed said:
“8. No federal government has been willing to share fisheries management in any way with the provinces. Which party are you going to vote for if that is an issue for you? Hmmmm?”
The Party which has adopted (article 99 of Policy document) of its fisheries policy clear and unequivocal support for both custodial management and joint management.
see for yourself.
http://www.conservative.ca/media/20050319-POLICY%20DECLARATION.pdf
I look forward to you working on getting Roger Grimes to endorse this policy that he, Jack Harris, and the present premier all support in full.
Which party will you vote for Ed? The party that has improved its position on this issue or the party that continues to squeeze flankers into the eyes of the provincial Liberal leaders that you served on this issue?
Ed said:
“9. The stunt votes in the House are just that: political puffery. Let’s try and stick to something other than posturiong shall we?”
Ed, if they were just puffery, the Liberals would have easily been able to call the Conservatives’ “bluff.” Instead the Liberals steadfastly refused to vote with them on it. The Liberal leader, the day of the first offer of seperating the accord expressed only one concern with seperating the bill…. that NDP and Conservatives might get more credit for it….. How could they get credit for puff. Paul Martinknew he could have sped up the process. He didn’t.
Ed said:
“11. As for the equal marriage bill, while seven MPs may have problems with human rights and democracy, I’d be interested in seeing what their constituents feel.”
Lets not lecture or throw stones on democracy – at least not without first stepping out of your glass house On May 11 Parliament expressed a wish that the present government resigned. The presnet government refused.
Lets also remember that it was this PRime Minister that tried to punt the entire marriage definition issue away from our democratic institutions and into the courts only to have the highest court in the land send it right back to him and force him to do things democratically.
As it stands, 52% of Canadians see no need in re-deifning marriage.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/10/gay-marriage-050410.html
I’ll wager that number is higher here. You know why? Because many people are realizing that the equality provision of the Charter protects rights, not words. And the MPs here seem to support the means by which the rights of same sex couples can be protected – civil unions.
Ed said:
“Basing a human rights argument on how MPs vote is like telling me Dachau was okay because a majority of Reichstag deputies voted for it.”
Some of us fail to see how this has naything to do with human rights. I think it’s in poor taste to compare the present definition of marriage to nazi concentration camps. Poor taste indeed.
Lets see how many other countries fit under Ed’s “Marriage Nazi” theory…
Most of western Europe, including France, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark endorses the very same civil union system as proposed by Stephen
Harper. Are these countries discriminatory or backwards?
The Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender culture
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/germany,4.html
doesn’t think so.
“A leading member of the European Union (EU), Germany has embraced EU’s human rights principles, which (as interpreted by the European
Court of Human Rights) forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Along with France, Belgium, . . . and the Scandinavian members, Germany has supported a number of initiatives to bring members of the glbtq community closer to equal citizenship.”
On Denmark’s civil union system:
“Skeptics argue that the bill merely demonstrates that the institution of marriage is now a hollow category. Still, the symbolic impact of the bill is hard to ignore; it clearly signals the country’s commitment to equality for its glbtq citizens.”
Ed, in any case, you miss the point. Why was this govenrment unwilling to move ahead with a less controversial piece of legislation and expedite it? The Atlantic Accord isn’t Dauchau.
Ed said:
“12. As for the Accord, I don’t know how many times you have to hear it for it to actually sink in: the government - the FEDERAL government - remains fully and unequivocally behind the offshore deal. The federal government remains committed to passing both the offshore arrangement PLUS the marriage bill.”
The latter is of higher priority. It is being expedited. Why is it of higher priority than our Accord?
Ed said:
“Why do you persist in throwing up the equal marriage bill as if the Accord and equal marriage are mutually exclusive?”
They aren’t mutually exclusive. I never suggested they were. The Marriage Bill is merely evidence of where this government’s priorities are… they aren’t with the Accord. And the doomsday language used by the government on the budget leave us to conclude that this deal is a one-time offer and that their party is unwilling to confirm support for it in the event of an election. Otherwise, why speak in such absolute terms? No other party leader has felt tthe need to threaten this province in this way this year.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/7/2005 @ 12:27 pmEd Said:
“1. The PM committed in January to accept the Premier’s proposal as a basis for discussion.”
Spoken like a true staffer. a “basis for discussion” was reached 20 years ago. It was called the Atlantic Accord. A modified “basis for discussion was proposed by the Royal Commission on our place in Canada. A “basis for discussion” could mean almost anything. It wasn’t until Martin’s June Announcement that Williams was willing to say that this province was covered each way. Martin was the last to the table. And even after he agreed to come to the table he refused to sit down. He delayed a process that if he truly agreed with that “basis for discussion” would have been over and done with before Christmas. He didn’t.
Ed said:
“2. Equalization is being addressed, albeit not in the way the Royal Comm deliberately misrepresented it.”
The Royal Commisison did not misrepresent it. You have not explained in any way how it has. You just keep repeating the same statement. If there was any substance to your cliam, you would have provided it by now. It’s quite obvious you simply are embarassed because the PM you choose to defend ignored the commission.
Ed said:
“Ditto fisheries - taking in mind the wider interests within this province and the international legal issues involved. Intergovernmental relations is one of things that takes two to tango.”
Lies. Pure and utter lies.
Paul Martin’s government can move right now to do what the FFAW, Industry groups, the provincial government’s throne speech, multi-party committees and the Royal Commission (once NAFO has failed – and NAFO HAS FAILED) want done.
Ed said:
“3. The life raft comment is just bunk.”
No it isn’t. The new accord arrangement would be law today but for the decisions of Paul Martin. He delayed first agreeing to it then delayed passage f it because he wanted to preserve power.
Ed said:
“4. The armed forces have suffered at the hands of just about every government since 1949, Liberal and Conservative. The current administration and its immediate predecessor did manage to undertake some pretty serious structural and professional reforms within the department. If you’d like to have a more detailed discussion, I’d be happy to do so as this is a subject I know a few things about. Just leave your partisan cudgels at the door.”
Ed, it really is quite sad when the best you can do in response to a claim is speak buracratese and dismiss the entire comment as “partisan” as if even if that was a motivation it somehow nullified the need for an honest response.
Parliamentary committees, as well as independent groups have all confirmed that our military is grossly underfunded. Our equipement have never before been in such a state. From Helicopters to transport planes to submarines to navy ships to uniforms, it’s just been one snub after another.
Jean Chretien and Paul Martin made the decision that the new gear and lanned new gear just wasn’t worth the cash. They should own up to that. They should also own up to their twirling position on Sea King replacements, their choice to buy challengers instead of proper transports, their choice to buy second hand subs and other choices they made. They should own up to it.
Ed said:
“5. The Mulroney government could have acted on the Accord deal 20 years ago but didn’t. Crosbie could have done it 15 years ago but wouldn’t. Do you really need to keep banging your head against this wall over and over again merely because it will feel good when you stop?”
Ed, this is a massive massive and utterly ridiculous dodge. As you are so often fond of pointing out in your usual fear campaigns, Stephen Harper is the Leader of the Opposition. Stephen Harper’s position in support of this has been consistently in favour of the Royal Commission’s goals on this subject. Why wasn’t Paul Martin’s?
Why won’t you answer that simple question?
Ed said:
“6. No prime minister should discuss anything with any premier who treats a national symbol in such a blatantly political fashion - It didn’t work in Quebec, damned if it should work here.”
What nation? Canada is a federation. And Paul Martin’s reaction to that situation as well as your reaction to my comment on the matter only go to show that both you and Paul don’t give two shits about the problems caused because of decision made by the government of Canada.
You also have a very short memory. The government presently under investigation by Gomery because of a program that was designed to wrap the flag around everything in Quebec in an equally if not more saccharin and utterly political use of the flag has no business lecturing anyone else on the use of the Maple Leaf. The government that forked out flags like Candy as part of Sheila Copps campaign of excesses has no right to talk about politicization of the flag.
The flag is political. Lets not pretend that it isn’t. And based on your logic, the Prime Minister of Canada should have refused to discuss matters with Canada’s veterans or Legionares when they first showed their oppostion to the flag.
Ed, your ocmments show you to have a very edited and incomplete view of history.
I realze you’re busy scurrying to find a way to justify the jobs of the guys who want to use this province for everything they can. I realize that you’ve long since bought into the Smallwood view of us as nothing more than a ‘third rate municipality,’ just try to understand that some of us still believe that this province is worth more than that and that we don’t need to bow our heads to Ottawa in any way.
Ed said:
” BTW, you should pay attention to the fact that the flag stunt actually undermined the province’s position across the country.”
BTW you should pay attention to the fact that for many of us the negative reactions to the taking down of the flag, including the labelling of it as a “stunt” only go to show that Canadians, and Canada’s apologists in this province (like yourself), don’t understand Newfoundland and Labrador.
Ed Said:
“7. Custodial management - the farce of the ill-informed. Go ahead and take custody. Then stand by for trade reprisals that will decimate the local fishing industry and the local manufacturing sector.”
I’ve got news for you Ed: what’s the point of backing off if the result of that leads down the same road?
Ed said:
“I like my nose where it is and have no intention of trying to spite my face. I suspect when people actually look at all the issues in CM - versus the b/s that is usually spread - they’d like their noses on their faces too.”
It’s ok Ed. you’re very similar to Brian Tobin . . . only slightly more honest. You apologize for and cow tow to NAFO and the foreign pirates off our shores in the light of day…
I’ll quote one of your fellow partisans, a fellow Liberal, who once upon a time had some backbone on this issue:
On the issue of territorial waters, Richard Cashin, MP for St. John’s West (1962-1968) made a very passionate speech in the Commons calling for action and justice for the fishermen in his province on October 3, 1962:
“When I have traveled around my constituency, it has been disheartening for me to learn of the work of foreign trawlers which have ravaged fishermen’s gear by coming in to the very headlands of the sea … their traditional inshore fishing grounds were being interfered with by foreign trawlers. It is not enough to tell these fishermen that a 12-mile limit cannot be established. After all, they realize that Iceland, which has ½ the population of Newfoundland, was able to do it. Has Iceland more courage, more moral fibre than Canada?”
Ask your buddy Senator George Baker about it too. Canada can act.
At this stage, the worse that could happen is that we might have to change the approach late. In reality, every major interest on the east coast with the exception of the NAFO and DFOites agree that this type of action is LONG OVERDUE.
Ed said:
“8. No federal government has been willing to share fisheries management in any way with the provinces. Which party are you going to vote for if that is an issue for you? Hmmmm?”
The Party which has adopted (article 99 of Policy document) of its fisheries policy clear and unequivocal support for both custodial management and joint management.
see for yourself.
http://www.conservative.ca/media/20050319-POLICY%20DECLARATION.pdf
I look forward to you working on getting Roger Grimes to endorse this policy that he, Jack Harris, and the present premier all support in full.
Which party will you vote for Ed? The party that has improved its position on this issue or the party that continues to squeeze flankers into the eyes of the provincial Liberal leaders that you served on this issue?
Ed said:
“9. The stunt votes in the House are just that: political puffery. Let’s try and stick to something other than posturiong shall we?”
Ed, if they were just puffery, the Liberals would have easily been able to call the Conservatives’ “bluff.” Instead the Liberals steadfastly refused to vote with them on it. The Liberal leader, the day of the first offer of seperating the accord expressed only one concern with seperating the bill…. that NDP and Conservatives might get more credit for it….. How could they get credit for puff. Paul Martinknew he could have sped up the process. He didn’t.
Ed said:
“11. As for the equal marriage bill, while seven MPs may have problems with human rights and democracy, I’d be interested in seeing what their constituents feel.”
Lets not lecture or throw stones on democracy – at least not without first stepping out of your glass house On May 11 Parliament expressed a wish that the present government resigned. The presnet government refused.
Lets also remember that it was this PRime Minister that tried to punt the entire marriage definition issue away from our democratic institutions and into the courts only to have the highest court in the land send it right back to him and force him to do things democratically.
As it stands, 52% of Canadians see no need in re-deifning marriage.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/10/gay-marriage-050410.html
I’ll wager that number is higher here. You know why? Because many people are realizing that the equality provision of the Charter protects rights, not words. And the MPs here seem to support the means by which the rights of same sex couples can be protected – civil unions.
Ed said:
“Basing a human rights argument on how MPs vote is like telling me Dachau was okay because a majority of Reichstag deputies voted for it.”
Some of us fail to see how this has naything to do with human rights. I think it’s in poor taste to compare the present definition of marriage to nazi concentration camps. Poor taste indeed.
Lets see how many other countries fit under Ed’s “Marriage Nazi” theory…
Most of western Europe, including France, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark endorses the very same civil union system as proposed by Stephen
Harper. Are these countries discriminatory or backwards?
The Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender culture
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/germany,4.html
doesn’t think so.
“A leading member of the European Union (EU), Germany has embraced EU’s human rights principles, which (as interpreted by the European
Court of Human Rights) forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Along with France, Belgium, . . . and the Scandinavian members, Germany has supported a number of initiatives to bring members of the glbtq community closer to equal citizenship.”
On Denmark’s civil union system:
“Skeptics argue that the bill merely demonstrates that the institution of marriage is now a hollow category. Still, the symbolic impact of the bill is hard to ignore; it clearly signals the country’s commitment to equality for its glbtq citizens.”
Ed, in any case, you miss the point. Why was this govenrment unwilling to move ahead with a less controversial piece of legislation and expedite it? The Atlantic Accord isn’t Dauchau.
Ed said:
“12. As for the Accord, I don’t know how many times you have to hear it for it to actually sink in: the government - the FEDERAL government - remains fully and unequivocally behind the offshore deal. The federal government remains committed to passing both the offshore arrangement PLUS the marriage bill.”
The latter is of higher priority. It is being expedited. Why is it of higher priority than our Accord?
Ed said:
“Why do you persist in throwing up the equal marriage bill as if the Accord and equal marriage are mutually exclusive?”
They aren’t mutually exclusive. I never suggested they were. The Marriage Bill is merely evidence of where this government’s priorities are… they aren’t with the Accord. And the doomsday language used by the government on the budget leave us to conclude that this deal is a one-time offer and that their party is unwilling to confirm support for it in the event of an election. Otherwise, why speak in such absolute terms? No other party leader has felt tthe need to threaten this province in this way this year.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/8/2005 @ 8:09 amNice long post, Liam. I am not sure it proves anything at all, but at least it was lengthy.
Your fisheries arguments are interesting if only from the standpoint that the situation which obtained in the late 1960s points to some fairly obvious points that get lost in the ongoing “Blame Everyone Else” movement.
First of all, the Grand Banks fisheries are not exclusively those of this province or Canada. They are shared - as they have been for centuries - by many countries. Some of the countries involved have historic claims to the Banks fish resources that are older than Canada’s by quite a bit.
Second, the state of international law in 1968 was very different from the situation a decade later which established exclusive economic zones. Canada did not hesitate to expand its economic zone once international law accepted it. The cost of unilateral action is very high and is often ignored or underestimated by proponents of custodial management or any variation on the “Evil Foreigners” theme.
Third, the domestic fleets were as guilty of improper fishing practices as the foreigners. Let he who is without sin… as the saying goes.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the anti-foreigner argument is not being advanced by people who want to see the stocks recover. Their objective is more likely to ensure that if there is a last fish to be caught then it should be caught by fishermen from this province and processed in this province. Cistodial management is presented as a conservation exercise; it is a straightforward economic play and no one should ignore that point.
You comment about “everyone except DFOites” is accurate insofar as the proponents of custodial management actually represent current domestic fishing interests in a highly competitive and declining industry. Their interest needs to be acknowledged properly as being less than lilly white; it doesn’t make the argument less valid, but it sure as heck undermines the high moralistic tone associated with it.
As for the Conservative Party endorsement of custodial management, I simply point out once again, that parties in power sometimes act differently once in power than they proposed before being elected. It’s nice that the CPC has endorsed custodial management but if it were to come at the price of major trading problems for the West and Central Canada not to mention domestic Newfoundland and Labrador interests, would they be quite as quick to send out the gunboats?
As a last point, I will note that your comments on equipment purchases are not well founded. The helicopter purchase was indeed used by Chretien for political purposes and I have condemned it in the past elsewhere. On the other hand a great many other purchases have taken place. Equipment isn’t the only issue.
Hence, I pointed to the substantive organizational changes within DND since 1993 that actually improved the planning, programming and budgetting for the department. It is easy to buy things. It is much harder to buy the right things in sufficient quantities.
Do I really need to point you to the auditor general’s reports on DND waste in the 1980s and early 1990s? The point here is simply that DND is actually in better shape in some respects today than it has been in a very long time. New equipment is being purchased not based on external pressures for things like tanks and amphibious assault ships but on the identified requirements to meet real needs.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/9/2005 @ 4:14 amEd said:
“Your fisheries arguments are interesting if only from the standpoint that the situation which obtained in the late 1960s points to some fairly obvious points that get lost in the ongoing “Blame Everyone Else” movement.”
Who said “blame everyone else"?
I said “let us have a say.”
Putting aside an overwhelming amount of evidence that our fisheries would be better off with at least increased local/provincial management (from suzuki to Harris to all party committee to provincial studies), It’s simply more democratic and fair for those adjacent to a resource to have some final say in the management of the reosurce that affects them.
And if you’re referring to the custodial management issue, why the hell shouldn’t we proceed????
Ed said:
“First of all, the Grand Banks fisheries are not exclusively those of this province or Canada. They are shared - as they have been for centuries - by many countries. Some of the countries involved have historic claims to the Banks fish resources that are older than Canada’s by quite a bit.”
Yes. But if they’re going to seriously affect that reosurce and the existing international bodies have utterly failed to act to stop this, Canada can and should act to preserve it.
Nobody’s claiming that custodial management need be born out of a histrical fishing claim…. but also we can’t discount the significance of the activity of those closest to the resource.
Ed said:
“Second, the state of international law in 1968 was very different from the situation a decade later which established exclusive economic zones. Canada did not hesitate to expand its economic zone once international law accepted it.”
First off, I assume you mean 1962…
Secondly the state of international law and how it is formed is not all that different. Each and every convention, conference, treaty etc… gets born out of initiatives taken by some state or states. International law is formed by way of state practice. That Canada didn’t have the guts to form its own state practice to protect its resources or claim them is not the fault of or caused by any other state but Canada.
Even within the sphere of International Conventions and Convention on Itl law of the sea, Newfoundland and Labrador’s delegation, as part of the Canadian delegation, requested of Alan Beesly (Canada’s ambassador) in 1975 that Canada’s claim include the Nose and Tail and the Flemish Cap. Alan REFUSED TO EVEN ASK FOR IT.
There is no excuse for this.
Ed said:
“The cost of unilateral action is very high and is often ignored or underestimated by proponents of custodial management or any variation on the “Evil Foreigners” theme.”
How’s Iceland doin’ these days?
UK, the country they fired shots at, is among the top countries to which they export….
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ic.html
Get over Ed. The spectre of trade retaliation on something as fundamental and sensible as custodial management is a straw man, a bogey man, a relatively minor consideration overall. And given the way in which DFO mismanaged this resource for so long and damaged our eocnomy as a result, it’s time that Canada took a little risk to help try to save it. so far we’re getting nothing but window dressing.
Ed said:
“Third, the domestic fleets were as guilty of improper fishing practices as the foreigners. Let he who is without sin… as the saying goes.”
This is the dumbest argument yet….
Because we did something bad once we can never do something good?
GET REAL.
Few dispute the domestic contribution to the problem, again under DFO’s guarded jurisdiction and management, but none of that lessens the need for Custodial Management as PART of our strategy.
Ed said:
“Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the anti-foreigner argument is not being advanced by people who want to see the stocks recover.”
Ed, this is ridiculous. Since when is it “Anti-Foreigner” to be in favour of custodial management? Why don’t you just go invoice the Emma Bonnino crew and get it overwith….
I find it amazing that somebody that CLAIMS to be so concerned with detail is unable to wrap his head around the argument that custodial management is a positive action designed otp rotect our stocks. Morover, the argument to do it does **not** rest on the assumption (no matter how FEW the number of people who ever made it) that the stockswere exclusively destroyed by foreigners.
Ed said:
“Their objective is more likely to ensure that if there is a last fish to be caught then it should be caught by fishermen from this province and processed in this province.”
Custodial Mangament doesn’t allow anyone to catch fish in those areas. Your assumptions are based on nothing of substance.
But I think it is fair to say that what happens outside the 200 mile limit in these areas affects what happens inside, so yes, the industry and the union and the businesses are concerned. I can’t say I blame them.
We all want a sustainable fishery off our shores. Folks who aren’t from our shores aren’t as concerned about this effort and are the onl group to not have any meaningful sanction brought against them for their choices in harvesting…. thanks to the impotent NAFO and DFO bunch.
All we’re saying is – bring in the types of slightly more meaningful enforcement in those areas that simply won’t happen until Custodial management is a reality!
Ed said:
“Cistodial management is presented as a conservation exercise; it is a straightforward economic play and no one should ignore that point.”
Ed, Most of us don’t think it your absolutist terms. I guess we didn’t go to the Alan Rock School of assuming that the goals of the environment and the goals of industry are obviously and always mutully exclusive.
Most of the more reasonable among us are aware that preserving this reosurce is beneficial to our environment AND our industries in the long term. What’s wrong with that?
Are oyu saying we need to lock in a written set of motives that can’t conflict in YOUR head before this is a valid exercise?
Ed said:
“You comment about “everyone except DFOites” is accurate insofar as the proponents of custodial management actually represent current domestic fishing interests in a highly competitive and declining industry. Their interest needs to be acknowledged properly as being less than lilly white; ”
It’s in their interest to have a fishery that doesn’t decline. It’s in their interest to have a sustainable fishery. They COULD argue for a Chilean-style 200+mile presential almost territorial sea. They COULD argue for an extension of a fishing zone. They didn’t. They argued for custodial management.
It’s not hard ot see why. The tragedy of the ocmmons in these areas has left us with no real enforcement or means of dealing with people on the nose, tail and cap.
Ed said:
“it doesn’t make the argument less valid, but it sure as heck undermines the high moralistic tone associated with it.”
It ads nothing to the argument Ed.
It adds nothing at all. Mainly because you’re incorrect in assuming high moralistic anything here (though I do think the goals of custodial management are quite acceptable and moral and fair). Moreover it makes absolutely ridiculous assumptions about the interraction of the industry with the environment.
Fishermen are not (to borrow from a Canadian Cartoon you Canadians might remember) the “Cyril Sneers” of the sea. They aren’t dumb. I think it’s the heights of arrogance to assume to worst of fishermen while defending the government that, upon the day it got its precious 200 mile limit, not only increased quotas for Non-NL Canadian fishing interests in areas normall nowhere near theirs (3000% from 1976 to 1987 [N Cod under attack” report 1988) but also signed a seriesof Trade deals that helped regions OTHER than ours in order to get VOTES in regions OTHER than ours…. a practice that informally went on even earlier that that!
Ed said:
“As for the Conservative Party endorsement of custodial management, I simply point out once again, that parties in power sometimes act differently once in power than they proposed before being elected.”
Agreed. The first step, however, is putting it in writing. This may be a foreign concept to you as you defend a Prime Minister that was content with a phone call… then again, the premier was mistaken to trust that too.
Ed said:
“It’s nice that the CPC has endorsed custodial management but if it were to come at the price of major trading problems for the West and Central Canada not to mention domestic Newfoundland and Labrador interests, would they be quite as quick to send out the gunboats?”
Not everyone assumes that this province is there as the feeding torugh for Central Canada. There go your Liberal roots flaring up again Ed….Well not all Liberals. Roger Grimes Agrees with Stephen Harper, Jack Harris, and Danny Williams on this point…
Power at the centre used to help the centre…
To date, their statements are by far the most positive on this issue. Why won’t Paul Martin agree to this?
Ed said:
“As a last point, I will note that your comments on equipment purchases are not well founded. The helicopter purchase was indeed used by Chretien for political purposes and I have condemned it in the past elsewhere.”
It’s a fair part of his record… and a decision that Paul Martin showed support for in every way.
Ed said:
“On the other hand a great many other purchases have taken place. Equipment isn’t the only issue.”
The parliamentary committees, NGOs, and others all agree that the government is still neglecting the armed forces on matters of equipment and other matters. The government refuses to address these concerns. If they had addressed them, the reports wouldn’t say what they say.
” It is easy to buy things. It is much harder to buy the right things in sufficient quantities.”
Are you telling me there are world shortages preventing purchase of certain types of military equipment? if so , which types? since when?
And as for the “right” things, I think the right things are the best items. Not second hand. Not second rate. Canada’s armed froces deserve that. And they have been supported in this by several defense reports and by other indiependent analysts. The overall cost is minor when compared to gun registries, corporate welfare, ad agency waste, HRDC waste, and other such ridiculous expenditures… to say nothing of the symbolic tomfoolerlyof purchasing perks for cabinet while these matters get stalled.
There is no excuse for this.
Ed said:
“Do I really need to point you to the auditor general’s reports on DND waste in the 1980s and early 1990s? ”
No Ed, you probbaly shouldn’t point to a report that Paul Martin and Jean Chretien largely ignored that outlines REAMS of waste and hoarding everywhere from gun registries to EI accounting to HRDC….
And if the present government found waste in DND, why didn’t it eliminate it and re-invest the money?
Why didn’t it eliminate the waste that continuallyshowed up in Frasers report severla years in a row and divert THAT money to other areas of priority?
Ed said:
“The point here is simply that DND is actually in better shape in some respects today than it has been in a very long time. New equipment is being purchased not based on external pressures for things like tanks and amphibious assault ships but on the identified requirements to meet real needs.”
Define “External Things”
We have commitments to several strategic alliances. We have a peacekeeping commitment. We have commitments to be able to defend ourselves to some small extent too. We have challenges in Arctic soveriegnty. At present our equipment levels are not where they should be. We can and shouldbuy better gear. We shouldn’t need to hitch a ride with the yanks to get to Afghanitan. We shouldn’t be one of the largest circumpolar nations that can’t actually send our ships into heavy ice. There are CANADIAN concerns. This is an area where th federal government has clear responsibililty and jurisdiction, and while it tries to prodits way into areas where it is less productive, it is still neglecting this area.
As I have already said, there is no excuse.
The Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Nova Scotians and others who serve in our forces deserve better. They don’t get to ride in Paul Martin’s Challenger.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/9/2005 @ 3:29 pmHello, is there anyone out there? I would like to see some provincial imput on the protest fishery of July 31, 2005.
The reactions of the provincial government on this issue will definetly affect my decision come election time.
Thank you
Comment by Jennifer Hillier — 8/5/2005 @ 5:50 amJennifer Hillier