Finance Committee Action: Update
Today the Fair Deal website promoted a new letter-writing action: contact members of the Finance Committee who are currently considering the budget and the Atlantic Accord legislation. This call to action only went to 500 randomly selected members of the Fair Deal community. Why only 500? Because during the coming days and weeks, it might be important to sustain pressure on the Committee to act expeditiously. And as I said in a previous post, inundating elected officials with an “avalanche of email” isn’t always the best tactic.
So far, these 500 Fair Deal supporters have written over 3700 letters to the Finance Committee as a whole (10:00 pm 06/01). If you are a Fair Deal supporter who didn’t receive the letter today but would like to contact the committee, please do so here.
Thanks to all who have taken the action! The participation has been great today, and I believe ultimately effective. If any of you hear back from the offices of committee members, please let us know.
25 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thank you Kevin for all that you do for our wonderful province. It is probably one of the most wonderful places in the world.
Comment by Olivia Newbury — 6/1/2005 @ 11:36 pm“Gay bill fast-tracked
Same-sex nuptials law by summer, Liberals say
Tim Naumetz; with files from Scott Stinson
CanWest News Service, with files from National Post
June 2, 2005″
It appears the Liberal government is once again choosieng to stall and delay and claim to be powerless, while fast-tracks the bills it considers to be more important than Newofundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
I’ve heard of having an argument. But This is the first time I’ve seen the Liberals have a heated and stalled and hostile and kidnapped “agreement.”
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/2/2005 @ 6:41 amHello,
Comment by Jamie — 6/2/2005 @ 11:03 amI just received a reply back from Ralph Goodale.
“…the Government of Canada will provide both provinces with important financial assistance in recognition of their unique fiscal and economic circumstances, and we will do so in a way that is fair to all Canadians.” Fair to all Canadians? Is he serious??? And how did Newfoundland get into “their unique fiscal and economic circumstances” in the first place? Certainly not on its own.
Excellent comment Jamie.
But I wouldn’t hold my breath as long as Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale are involved. They have opposed, stalled, and delayed this arrangement for years. Now they’ll hold it hostage as long as possible.
Just a day or two ago they wouldn’t allow debate on expediting it. But they managed to expedite all sorts of stuff for other legislation and for their new buddies in coalition.
It’s quotes like that from Goodale that show how little they understand Newfoundland and Labrador’s history. They had the gall to act shocked and disgusted when the flags came down back in december 2004. This is because it’s just a game to them. It’s just a one-off political deal like any other. It’s not about the more deep-rooted grievances that largely came about because of the decisions of the government of Canada.
Of course, there are the Canadian apologists whe will no doubt make their presence known even here on a website - the existence of which proves the Prime Minister didn’t care enough about this region to initially keep his own word to it.
Ralph Speaks from the political culture steeped in “strong central government.” Not good government. Not responsive. Not respectful. Just strong and centralized. Provinces are to be treated as afterthoughts and evil greedy tribes.
If Goodale or Paul Martin knew anything about this province, they’d never have challenged our premier or the opposition leaders on this issue.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/2/2005 @ 12:12 pmI continue to support quick passage of the Atlantic Accord, but I have some fundamental problems with some other parts of the budget. What we are asking people with principles to do is to hold their noses and vote for the budget with all of the things with which we disagree. The Liberals have put this ominbus bill forward with divide and conquer as their modus operandi. Why don’t we have a letter writing campaign urging the Liberals to take the Atlantic Accord out of the onmibus bill so that we can have early agreement. I agree with many things in the Liberal budget, but I have a lot of problems with the NDP addendum.
Comment by Gerald Saunders — 6/2/2005 @ 8:16 pmCome on Liberals. Segregate the Atlantic Accord out. You are trying to use Atlantic Canadians as you have throughout history.
Gerald
It seems there is no quick way to accomplish this without the full unanamous consent of ALL MP’s.
Time to shut off the switch in Churchill Falls…
Maybe then the vote would be, “Oui!”
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 6/2/2005 @ 11:40 pmSorry to burst your bubble, Jamie, but yeah. We did get into this financial mess all by ourselves.
Every single nickel of the provincial debt and deficit was generated by locally elected governments that pissed away money on goofball ideas.
But the quote says what happened: there is money for this province to deal with its unique circumstances, but we didn’t bend the world out of shape to do so.
Now, if people would stop playing games with the “separate” bills boogeyman - the Connies are now up to four separate bills, instead of two and only one bill contains both provincial offshore deals - maybe just maybe the money might actually start flowing.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/3/2005 @ 5:40 amEd Said:
“Sorry to burst your bubble, Jamie, but yeah. We did get into this financial mess all by ourselves.”
Ed’s only correct if we assume that federal decisions didn’t affect this province or this province’s government.
Ed, if you’re saying that all provincial governments, liberal and tory, have spent too much money and have not been as fiscally responsible as they should have been, I agree with you 100%.
I do NOT agree that the overal economic situation facing this province is solely our own fault. Indeed, the rot, such as it is, began with the very way in whcih we entered this federation.
I could go on at length here. But I’ll stick to a few basics.
If it was to become a part of Canada, The Dominion of Newfoundland should have entered confederation by negotiating with Canada from a position where it had an elected government. Instead, the order of the referendum followed by the settling of terms was completely insane.
It’s not unlike walking into a car dealership, signing on to promise to buy a car no matter what and THEN asking for a good deal. Chances are you’ll leave with a 1984 chevette that’ll cost you $500,000.
Even with existing terms of union, the government of Canada did its dmanest to dney us legal benefit from those in the offshore continenal shelf ownership (& hibernia) references of 1983 and 1984. It did not need to take the legal position it took of trying to diminish and argue-down our dominion’s historical status. It chose to do so and it chose to challenge our claim of ownership of the shelf we brought with us into Confederation. I am, of course, representing an opinion that differs from the Surpeme Court of Canada. But I maintain that it does not significantly differ from existing International Court of Justice Cases or with the general will of the people of Newofundland and Labrador as represented by the provincial government.
Canada had the option to agree with the interretation of Newfoundland and Labrador. It chose to fight it every single step of the way and to make sure that ownership and power were to stay in the hands of Ottawa. It didn’t need to do that.
The sequel to that show was the first Accord, and the last few years of debate on the arangement designed to compliment and give effect to the words and spirit of that original accord.
Successive Newfoundland and Labrador premiers have argued that our government should have final say over our fisheries resources or at the very least have joint management with Ottawa. The government of Canada steadfastly refuses, to this very day, to allow this to happen. Its hard line refusal to budge on this issue is based in a most simplistic argument: “That’s the way it is.”
They’re right. Our Terms of Union did not provide for us to retain any long term control over that resource. But successive commissions, studies, provincial politicians of all stripes, some federal politicians, and committees have supported the view that this is a mistake.
The fishery can and should be run with decision-making power shared. From Brian Peckford to Roger Grimes, proposals have been shot down and soffed at.
Since Canada so strng guards its jurisdiction, it can most certainly take the lion’s share of the blame for mismanaging the fisheries by adopting an “everything to everybody” (CDN non-NLers, foreigners, Nlers) approach that not even the developement-interested provincial government under liberals or tories was willing to adopt.
In the one area where the cnetral government could have used its constitutional power to create an option that would have allowed us greater independence and ability to pay into the federation, it chose to break with previous political precedents it had set and deny us even the remotest hint of a power corridor accross Quebec for Churchill Power. Since 1974, this decision has cost us about $800 million a year – this basically eclipses our equalization payment.
It’s seems VERY obvious to me that sccessive governments of Canada, of both main stripes, have indeed contributed to this province’s present economic situation and that could indeed be said to have affected our fiscal situation.
Provincial Premiers did, at several junctures, compund problems in some ways. Few would deny that.
But the sad part is that the key policy, terms of union/constitutional-related, and legislative decisions that needed to be made to correct much of the grief caused by some of the eocnomic problems I have mentioned would actually have cost ottawa very little in revenue. In fact, it would have likely saved them billions.
But it wasn’t about revenue. It was about power and votes. And also, in a very sad and sick way, about keeping this province as a grazing ground and a chip in the vest of successive federal governments looking for ways to further other foreign or domestic ends.
The present situation of delay and stall employed for months by the present government is no exception.
Ed Said:
“Every single nickel of the provincial debt and deficit was generated by locally elected governments that pissed away money on goofball ideas.”
yep. There were many goofball ideas here. From Linerboard mills to Refineries to cucumber greenhouses. Many federal goofball ideas too… on the ACOA tab…. just like goofball ideas that came from its sister agencies in Quebec, Ontario and the West.
Ed said:
“Now, if people would stop playing games with the “separate” bills boogeyman - the Connies are now up to four separate bills, instead of two and only one bill contains both provincial offshore deals - maybe just maybe the money might actually start flowing.”
Paul Martin’s crew have fastracked legislation containing their own backroom deal. They have promised to fast track the same sex bill opposed by almost a quarter of their caucus and 52% of Canadians
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/10/gay-marriage-050410.html
Yet they don’t seem to want to fast track the accords. The only bogey men floating around here look more like the generalistic and unsupported claims that have been made by yourself and Wallace on the issue of the Bloc going to the wall and being able to stop the seperate Accord legislation.
There is nothing to suggest that, with 250 MPs in support, we can’t seperate and more quickly pass this accord legislation.
Moreover. If this arrangement meant anything to Paul Martin, he would have acted in the fall on Williams’ initial demand and passed it then. Instead he tried to weasel out of his own word… this lead to a resolution in the commons calling on him to keep his word and condmening him (supported by members of his own caucus), a letter-writing campaign, the taking-down of the flag, the establishment of this very website, and then finally, after months of dental work, we got a signature.
As early as April 6, we could have had this accord seperated. Martin refused, at the time suggesting to CBC only that it was “silly” because it would mean the NDP and Conservatives were trying to ‘take credit’ for the accord.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/06/conservative-accord050406.html
If Martin was concerned about the passage of the Accord because of the Bloc, why would he believe that the NDP and Conservatives were able to “take credit” for it passing in such a circumstance?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/3/2005 @ 8:47 amMunicipal politicans are adding their voices to the pressure to fast-track the budget bills. Hear, hear!
Comment by Debra — 6/3/2005 @ 11:09 amGood campaign Kevin. If we all keep getting the message out to our representatives and the public at large, we can achieve great things. There is power in numbers and, as they say, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Comment by Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador — 6/3/2005 @ 12:06 pmThe following is an email sent to my site: Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador just the other day. I thought I would share it with your readers.
The email is from Finance Minister Goodale. Knowing that, take it for what it is worth.
CONTENT:
Thank you for writing to me about the offshore arrangements reached with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on February 14, 2005.
Through these arrangements, the Government of Canada will provide both provinces with important financial assistance in recognition of their unique fiscal and economic circumstances, and we will do so in a way that is fair to all Canadians.
The offshore arrangements are a major spending item for the Government of Canada. For this reason, the authority to make these payments has been included in the 2005 Budget Implementation Bill, which I introduced in Parliament on March 24.
The Government of Canada has made the passage of this Bill its number one priority.
The objective of including the Accord in the Budget Bill was to fast track the legislation so that both provinces can start making sustained improvements to their economic and fiscal situations. I was encouraged to see it receive Second Reading in the House of Commons on May 19, despite the challenges posed by the current minority Parliament (including Opposition attempts to trigger an early election which would effectively kill the offshore arrangements).
I can assure you that the Government of Canada appreciates how important the offshore arrangements are to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We will continue to seek the earliest possible enactment of the necessary legislation.
Yours sincerely,
Ralph Goodale
Comment by Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador — 6/3/2005 @ 12:11 pmLiam:
Save bandwidth - send an e-mail to your Conservative and friends and have them STOP mucking with the budget.
Juts pass the bill.
It’s THAT simple.
and see I can say it in way fewer words.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/4/2005 @ 4:55 amEd, the original comments by Jamie were valid comments. That you don’t like where they lead and what they expose about the government that you serve so loyally is entirely your own problem.
This government has slowed this accord every step of the way. Moroever, it has shown, as Jamie pointed out that it cannot be trusted to understand the problems facing Newfoundland and Labrador.
It’s that simple.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/6/2005 @ 8:43 amEd, how can the government agree to and promise to expedite the marriage bill but steadfastly refuse to expedite our accord?
where are its priorities?
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/6/2005 @ 8:49 amLiam:
Jamie’s comment - that the federal government is to blame for this province’s financial mess - are NOT borne out by any reasonable interpretation of our history.
The comemnts expose nothing except the mythology on which they are based. That the mythology is popular doesn’t make it either reasonable or factually based. That mytholgy and its proponents cannot be counted on to give any insight into either the problems of the past or a policy for the future.
The federal government did not slow the offshore disucssions for the first six months. Nor did it fail to pursue the matter after June 5. The provincial government did not present a detailed brief in the context of negotiations until October 2004 fully 10 months AFTER discussions began.
As for any current delays in the enabling legislation, one can simply point to the fact that it is being held up by the Finance committee and its members, some of whom are persisting in efforts to fragment the budget measures further than even dividing C-43 into two pieces of legislation.
No argument has yet been presented to justify anything other than passing the budget as it is currently presented in C-43 and C-48. That remains the fastest way to get the money flowing to this province and to Nova Scotia.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/6/2005 @ 12:49 pm“Ed, how can the government agree to and promise to expedite the marriage bill but steadfastly refuse to expedite our accord?
where are its priorities?”
Not addressed to me, but what the hell… The bills have been expedited in the same manner: by being called for debate instead of other bills which could be called.
In the case of the budget bill, it still has its special lane, as all budget bills do, which give it an advantage even as against C-38.
A separate Atlantic Accord bill, despite what liars like Lie-ola Hearn say, would NOT have this advantage. It would be like kicking a passenger off a bus (same etymology as “omnibus"), and expecting that they would get to the next stop as quick, or quicker, than the bus itself.
Ed is right. Liam and Lie-ola, youse are wrong.
Comment by WJM — 6/6/2005 @ 5:45 pmEd Said:
“Jamie’s comment - that the federal government is to blame for this province’s financial mess - are NOT borne out by any reasonable interpretation of our history.”
Of course, you’d say that Ed, you’re very interested in defending the Ottawa establishment against this province. In terms of our long term history, unless you can seperate the province’s economy from the province’s fiscal situation, I fail to see how your remarks are remotely fair.
In terms of the negotiations, the government of Canada had every ability to agree to whatever the province wanted by fall of 2004 and keep its june 2004 commitments. It did not do that. This Accord could have been passed in fall 2004. Paul Martin prevented that. He did so by trying to lowball and weasel his way out of his full commitment.
WJM: To date you have not explained why the Liberal Caucus and the Bloc are so opposed to seperate and expedited Accord legislation.
Are you telling me that the house owuld have been paralysed for months on end since april by 54 bloc MPs over seperate Accord legislation? When was the last time the BQ paralzed the house for a quarter of ayear over legislation?
WJM, you’re full of it.
250+ beats 54.
The reality is that the only solid and consistent parts of that 250+ are the NDP and Conservative portions. The Liberal portions, with the exceptions of a couple of NL MPs, even voted against a resolution that tried ot get this matter settled in the fall.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/7/2005 @ 7:09 am“Are you telling me that the house owuld have been paralysed for months on end since april by 54 bloc MPs over seperate Accord legislation?”
Actually, the Bloc and the Lie-ola Hearn party DID shut down the House for nearly a week, including on days when C-43 was on the POoB…
“When was the last time the BQ paralzed the house for a quarter of ayear over legislation?
WJM, you’re full of it.
250+ beats 54.”
… but you are dodging and avoiding the point.
Liarm: Explain, please, how the Accord can be passed in a single day WITHOUT the consent of the Bloc.
Thank you.
Explain, please, how a separate Accord bill could be passed more quickly than the budget.
Thank you.
Comment by WJM — 6/7/2005 @ 9:32 amHeard on news that accord has passed committee stage. One more hurdle passed!! Way to go!
Comment by Jeremiah — 6/8/2005 @ 8:08 pmLiam wrote: “In terms of the negotiations, the government of Canada had every ability to agree to whatever the province wanted by fall of 2004 and keep its june 2004 commitments. It did not do that. This Accord could have been passed in fall 2004. Paul Martin prevented that. He did so by trying to lowball and weasel his way out of his full commitment.”
Actually, Liam, as I have demonstrated elsewhere in detail, the June 5 commitment by the Prime Minister related to the proposal from the province made the previous February. The province’s proposition on June 10 substantially altered that proposal and claimed that this was the commitment.
The October and December federal proposals were very close to that original proposition from early 2005 and even the final deal is closer to the Feb/Mar deal than the version presented by the Premier on June 10.
In any matter of this sort one can expect negotiation - very serious and determined negotiation. One can hardly expect the federal government to have simply acquiesced to every demand or proposal any more than it would be reasonable to accept the idea, to paraphrase John Crosbie from the fall of 1990, that the province should be grateful for what it is getting and be quiet about it.
After much delay, the budget will likely be passed by the end of this month. This includes the offshore agreement retroactive to 01 Apr 04, based on the agreement signed by the province and the federal government. No money is lost, especially as the Premier indicated the province never anticipated receiving the lump sum of $2.0 billion before June 05.
The matter is settled as it has been for some months. We can argue ad nauseum about it you wish and one can easily make a villian or a saint out of any player depending on what side you wish to take.
It’s rather facile to suggest that my argument is based on defending Ottawa against the province. This is the sort of patriotic horseshit that politicians use frequenctly in this province with great effect but without much substance underpinning it. What that argument does is avoid tackling the details and looking at the issue.
As I have argued consistently, one of the problems with the province’s approach was that it was not well founded on the actual detail of the 1985 Atlantic Accord or the intentions of both parties. Nor did the province actually make the strongest possible case in the strongest way in early 2004. As an example, you should go back to the Feb/Mar proposal and note that the province actually asked to offset _less_ revenue than it was ctually receivng and only for the term of the original agreement, i.e. 12 years.
It takes two to tango and two sides in any dispute can make errors. At this point, it is really moot since the deal is done and the legislation is almost through the process in Parliament.
I say thank heavens for that.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/9/2005 @ 3:55 amEd Said:
“Actually, Liam, as I have demonstrated elsewhere in detail, the June 5 commitment by the Prime Minister related to the proposal from the province made the previous February. The province’s proposition on June 10 substantially altered that proposal and claimed that this was the commitment.”
John Efford was out politicking throughout the summer on the point that the province and the government of Canada were in agreement. He was completely content. There was no point argued no point disputed. Who is telling the truth Ed, you or our minister in the Martin government?
Ed said:
“The October and December federal proposals were very close to that original proposition from early 2005 and even the final deal is closer to the Feb/Mar deal than the version presented by the Premier on June 10.”
What was wrong with what the premier presented on June 10?
Ed said:
“In any matter of this sort one can expect negotiation - very serious and determined negotiation. One can hardly expect the federal government to have simply acquiesced to every demand or proposal any more than it would be reasonable to accept the idea,”
One can hardly expect the federal government we’ve all come to know and love throughout the decades to do so. But there was nothing unreaosnable about the province’s proposal. Nothing. If anything it was light.
Ed said:
” to paraphrase John Crosbie from the fall of 1990, that the province should be grateful for what it is getting and be quiet about it.”
Well, on that point John Crosbie, Paul Martin, and others are most definitely wrong. The province need not be grateful for being treated like a blow fly for expecting an honourable arrangement from the government of Canada.
You also minimize and sometimes omit to mention that John Crosbie, and the Royal Commission on this province’s place in Canada were in agreement that a new arrangement was needed and that the province was in no was unreasonable in demanding precisely what it had demanded!
Ed said:
“The matter is settled as it has been for some months. We can argue ad nauseum about it you wish and one can easily make a villian or a saint out of any player depending on what side you wish to take.”
There are no saints here. But I fail to see how Paul Martin deserves any thanks or gratefulness for what he put this province through.
Ed said:
“It’s rather facile to suggest that my argument is based on defending Ottawa against the province. This is the sort of patriotic horseshit that politicians use frequenctly in this province with great effect but without much substance underpinning it.”
Ed, It’s ok to believe that Canada comes ahead of Newfoundland. That’s your argument. You’re going on about how NL should be “grateful” for its treatment from Ottawa and how we should expect hard negotiations….What else do you expect anybody to think? You’re an Ottawa patriot and an Ottawa apologist. It’s not such a bad thing….you might even get the Order of Canada for your dedication to Ottawa first and your willingness to scold us Newfoundlanders and wave the maple leaf….
Ed said:
“What that argument does is avoid tackling the details and looking at the issue.”
Ed, your use of details is selective. You minimize and skirt aound and skulk away from ENTIRE ROYAL COMMISSION REPORTS. You ignore the unanimity of 3 very different major federal parties, you ignore the november resolution in paliament, you ignore the fact that this very forum first came into exstence because the PM was not reaosnable enough to simply agree with Danny Williams months upon months ago. Your credibility on the details front this time around is sketchy at best.
Ed said:
“As I have argued consistently, one of the problems with the province’s approach was that it was not well founded on the actual detail of the 1985 Atlantic Accord or the intentions of both parties.”
Unless the government of Canada’s intended (as it clealry did) to leech its way out of this matter when the oil and revenues started pumpinng, what matter of detail in the Accord could not be easily sorted out immediately by way of a new arrangement to honour the spirit of the words in the accord “principle beneficiary” or even clearer commitments of “100%” that would later follow from various leaders of various stripes?
Only somebody determined to minimize and weasel their way out of an agreement and a commitment look for these details to use as excuses. There is no reason why a new detailed agreement could not have existed from the time the oil was pumping.
There is NO DOUBT the detail in the original Accord was anadequate to address the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador’s development or even the spirit of its initial words. Nothing in that changes Paul Martin’s consistent conduct in this matter.
Ed said:
“Nor did the province actually make the strongest possible case in the strongest way in early 2004. As an example, you should go back to the Feb/Mar proposal and note that the province actually asked to offset _less_ revenue than it was ctually receivng and only for the term of the original agreement, i.e. 12 years.”
Where did it say that?
and even if it did, what difference does that make when the government of Canada had not agreed even to that at the time?
Ed said:
“It takes two to tango and two sides in any dispute can make errors. At this point, it is really moot since the deal is done and the legislation is almost through the process in Parliament.
I say thank heavens for that.”
Me too.
But I expect an apology from Paul Martin to this province for his stalls, delays and hostage taking.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/9/2005 @ 2:41 pmAt the risk of boring people who have been through this before, the original Atlantic Accord provided for one basic thing with respect to Equalization: the existing system would apply. That means that as a province’s own fiscal capacity increased - like Alberta’s - Equalization top-up payments declined.
The Real Accord provided a transitional declining paymnt called an offset to provide some extra cash from the feds for infrastructure development.
The Feb/March proposal would have eliminated the decline but retained the time limit. That really stayed consistent with the intent of the original deal AND with the basic premise of Equalization.
Before anyone yells clawback, let me remind you that ALberta has 100% of its oil and gas revenues “clawed back” by the Equalization formula. Neither NL nor AL actually pay any cash to Ottawa so the whole idea “our money” is taken away is a complete misrepresentation of the deal.
Anyway, the June 10 proposal would have seen this province receive a federal transfer equal to its oil revenues for as long as their was oil production. Even if the province didn’t qualify for Equalization it would still have received an Equalization type transfer.
Well, no other province was prepared to accept that, certainly not ones who couldn’t get the same kind of extra cash. The current scramble for side deals is actually a fall-out of what people think was obtained in the February 05 deal.
Anyway, except for the handful of people who believe the June 10 proposal was fair since it representd some kind of “reparations” for past crimes by Ottawa, there was a general acceptance - including by Danny Williams oddly enough - that the whole thing should be limited in time and tied to Equalization, not unlimited. That’s the deal we got in Feb 05.
It is absolutely amazing that while Danny Williams can proudly proclaim “we got our 100%” you seem to think that - what? - he is telling fibs?
Again Liam, while I appreciate you have some kind of fixation on these points, and persistently want to blame Paul Martin for everything wrong in Newfoundland and Labrador from blackflies to the fact we aren’t a tropical island paradise, the Accord deal is DONE.
It is OVER.
I have no idea why you persist in arguing on these points that have been long ago established and accepted. I have no idea why you continue to argue points when the documentary evidence in plain English has long since been in the public domain.
If you are still confuddled on any of these points, I’d be happy to e-mail a copy of my paper on the subject which goes through the original Accord in detail based on the documents and contemporary comments.
In addition, I can supply you with a copy of the Feb/Mar 04 proposal and a raft of other correspondence from the province. There was a second paper in the works but the deal this year plus the blog made it redundant.
If you want to do it, feel free to go back to my blog and skim through the posts in January and February. The whole thing is laid out there.
Speaking of redundant, I would suspect most people who visit this site are finding this just a bit repetitious of stuff posted here months ago.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/9/2005 @ 3:41 pmEd Said:
“At the risk of boring people who have been through this before, the original Atlantic Accord provided for one basic thing with respect to Equalization: the existing system would apply.”
Lets not act as though the existing system is some immaculate and perfect formula. It has evolved many times. Offset payments or taking out non-renewables or some other reform in no way diminished the spirit or purpose of Equalization.
Ed said:
” That means that as a province’s own fiscal capacity increased - like Alberta’s - Equalization top-up payments declined.”
There are many ways to look at fiscal capacity. We still don’t do a great job calculating that.
Ed said:
“Before anyone yells clawback, let me remind you that ALberta has 100% of its oil and gas revenues “clawed back” by the Equalization formula. Neither NL nor AL actually pay any cash to Ottawa so the whole idea “our money” is taken away is a complete misrepresentation of the deal.”
Ed, you’re assuming, as you do with many things of the world of Ottawacentrics, that Equalization is a well designed program. You’re assuming that our fiscal capacity is properly calculated. You’re assuming that other federal decisions that have savagely affected our economy shouldn’t be considered. You’re also minimizing the words “principle beneficiary.”
Ed said:
“Anyway, the June 10 proposal would have seen this province receive a federal transfer equal to its oil revenues for as long as their was oil production. Even if the province didn’t qualify for Equalization it would still have received an Equalization type transfer.”
Ed, given the fact that the province has suffered at the hands of several different federal decisions, given that the government of Canada did promise that we would be the principle beneficiaries, given that the objective of equalization is to get a province on the level, This does not seem like such a bad thing.
Ed said:
“Well, no other province was prepared to accept that, certainly not ones who couldn’t get the same kind of extra cash.”
Since when did Paul Martin care about any province? As it stood Paul faced the same criticisms. If he wanted to give the proper deal, and if he wanted to honor NL’s special circumstances, the spirit of the original Accord and the Royal Commission etc, he would have acted differently.
Ed said:
“The current scramble for side deals is actually a fall-out of what people think was obtained in the February 05 deal.”
Martin could have agreed to other reforms to equalization to help lessen thopse pressures. He didn’t.
Ed said:
“Anyway, except for the handful of people who believe the June 10 proposal was fair since it representd some kind of “reparations” for past crimes by Ottawa, there was a general acceptance - including by Danny Williams oddly enough - that the whole thing should be limited in time and tied to Equalization, not unlimited. That’s the deal we got in Feb 05.”
Ed, I’m not looking to take a popularity poll here, Paul Martin could have accepted our province’s demand as it stood in the fall at the time when the premier left the first minister’s conference.
To simply say “other folks didn’t like it” is not much of a valid rationale for not agreeing to that proposal. Why should Newfoundland once again be the one to buckle? We buckled on fisheries several times. We got beaten down on oil ownership after the feds fought something they didn’t need to fight. We got beaten down on Chruhcill Falls several times… none of it was necessary or even wise for Canada as a whole. Why not simply agree?
You haven’t offered me a rational reason. You’ve offered sad arse-kissing and peer pressure!
Ed Said:
“It is absolutely amazing that while Danny Williams can proudly proclaim “we got our 100%” you seem to think that - what? - he is telling fibs?”
No, but I think it’s unfortunate that Paul Martin once again chose to fight our premier on this issue. HE didn’t need to do it.
Ed said:
“Again Liam, while I appreciate you have some kind of fixation on these points, and persistently want to blame Paul Martin for everything wrong in Newfoundland and Labrador from blackflies to the fact we aren’t a tropical island paradise, ”
Ed, who said that?
As compared to Chretien, Martin at least negotiated… though admittedly only when faced with election tight races and then a minority government and then with a scolding and patronizing and unnecessarily contrary attitude…
But Ed, your defense of this Prime Minister for putting thsi province through months of pullling teeth in order to get the deal it deserved is truly perplexing….. It’s really quite sad.
I hope it pays off with a senate seat.. though I think John Efford might have dibs… he beat you to the scolding..
I don’t think Newfoundlanders should forget what Paul Martin put them through. I don’t think he deserves any gratitude for grudgingly agreeing to keep his own word months after he gave it and even then stalling the entire process for prolitical survival purposes. That should not be forgotten.
Ed Said:
“the Accord deal is DONE.”
Yes. And I’m glad.
Ed said:
“It is OVER.”
That remains to be seen. Paul Martin has a way of interpreting things minimally and wesaelling out of things… I hope you’re right.
Ed said:
“I have no idea why you persist in arguing on these points that have been long ago established and accepted. I have no idea why you continue to argue points when the documentary evidence in plain English has long since been in the public domain.”
Ed, for someone who speaks about documents, in this forum you have constantly spoken in generalities. And you have ignored other very iobvious points.
If you have a problem with this discussion continuing, then stop trying to act as the apologist for a Prime Minister who has a lot to answer for.
As for the documents you offer, for the most part I’ve read them. They do not alter the facts I have laid before you. And the fact that you refer to the so cryptically tells me you know this yourself.
Ed said:
“Speaking of redundant, I would suspect most people who visit this site are finding this just a bit repetitious of stuff posted here months ago.”
definitely. But as long as you try to defend the PM who could have ended this long ago, as long as you arrogantly try to minimize and dismiss the very serious and real policy concerns and griveeances that this province has, you will recieve a response from me asking you to explain yourself. To date, you’ve offered nothing of substance to explain why Royal Commissions, Newfoundland legislators of all stripes or others should be ignored on these points.
Your arguments always boil down to the same thing:
“Shut up Newfoundland and Labrador, you’re being rude to our masters… in Ottawa… you know.. that hand that feeds us…”
Some of us have realized that it’s nowhere near as simple as that. I suggest you buy a new less patronizing speech.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/9/2005 @ 7:35 pmLiam:
Since you are obviously intent on ignoring my actual comments AND attributing motivations to me that aren’t warranted, I am just gonna leave it there.
Based on past experience, those sentences should be worth a reply post from you that measures about two feet long on the page and blames Paul Martin for hang-nails.
I hope your summer gets better.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/10/2005 @ 5:26 amEd, if oyu had actually read those posts, however long they are, you’d know it’s not hang nails that get Paul Martin in the bad books in this province. It’s his own action(s), or inaction.
My Summer is going just fine. Especially now that we finally have an arrangement…. no thanks to Paul Martin.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/10/2005 @ 8:49 am