Accord Leaps Another Hurdle: Senate is Next
Posted by Kevin on 6/16/2005 @ 7:36 am
The provisions of the accord - which will advance $2 billion to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador once it becomes law - are bundled in C-43, the minority Liberal government’s omnibus budget bill.
Very good news! Many agree that the tone of Parliament has become to avoid more drama and get back to business. This tone, if accurate, is greasing the passage for the final deliberations around the Accord. Certainly, the great job of members of this community to continue to email and fax the Finance Committee and others have contributed to the revitalized “get back to work” mantra of Ottawa legislators.
C-43 has now passed what is called the report stage.
It must now be formally read a third time in Parliament and approved by the Senate before it can be given royal assent and become law.
22 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
One of the vagaries of a democratic system is putting up with the politicking, the cyclical courting of the voter, not by honest effort, but by trashing your competitor. It’s one of the most wasteful aspects of our system. But here, it’s easy to see it’s that way because we are so freaking complacent. Regular monitoring and prodding of our elected officials could produce much better government.
This exercise in communication and government shaping must teach us something. Kevin created one accessible door, but it’s up to us to keep it open and create new ones. There’s no reason for the ’silent majority’ to remain silent.
I’m just amazed at the ease of communications, the power of the internet, and the initiative that created such empowering venues as blogs. And while I know my little rant has little in the way of actual comment on the third reading of the omnibus bill, in another way, it has everything to do with it.
Jeez, Ed, I wish I could be as prolific as you. You drive me nuts sometimes, but you’re an awesome blogmaster. And Kevin: a diplomatic fellow who’s quietly empowered the ’silent majority’ and sparked a revolution in a place where too many of us feel powerless,I deeply appreciate your responsible use of the power you hold.
Just had to get that stuff off my mind. But that’s the beauty of the blog.
Comment by Debra — 6/16/2005 @ 9:17 amLooks the Liberals have everything they want or need from Newfoundland…the Libs been racing through everything else in the Senate, and they are delaying the Atlantic Accord for some transparently obvious reason.
What a sorry episode. The Atlantic Accord could and should have been a separate bill, the main budget it is stuck in could and should have been passed, and instead it is STILL being used as cover for the Buzz-Budget.
Comment by Bert — 6/23/2005 @ 6:58 amI am surprised how complacent this site is about this. The Liberal Senators are clearly delaying the Atlantic Accord so they can hold Newfoundland hostage. Some emails to Liberal Senators might be in order.
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/news_releases/liberal_government_stalls_atlantic_accord_in_senate/
Comment by OttawaCon — 6/23/2005 @ 11:11 amNobody wants to give away that much money, not to Newfoundland and Labrador especially. I doubt they will actually stop it at this point though. I think we need to hold our collective breath for a few more day. Then we’ll see Adrianne Clarkson give it the royal kiss of approval. Hang on folks.
Comment by Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador — 6/23/2005 @ 12:53 pmWebtalk,
The point is the vote could be done immediately, Senator Kinsella’s proposal would see it done this week. The delay is simply procedural, taking the Atlantic Accord hostage to ensure good behaviour on a separate vote.
If that is not using Newfoundland in the most callous way possible, I am not sure what is. Holding your breath will let them get away with it - the Liberals feet should be held to the fire on this. They are willing to risk the passage of the Atlantic Accord for their own political gain.
Liberal Senators need to hear thay they will not get away with this cynical game-playing.
Comment by OttawaCon — 6/23/2005 @ 1:01 pmI am not sure which is more pathetic:
1. A party which is dropping in the polls and which is in trouble in Newfoundland and Labrador playing political games with an issue that is largely settled (i.e. we’ll have the money next week regardless) or
2. Some anonymous Connie from Ottawa continuing to foist the crap from point number 1.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/23/2005 @ 3:56 pmEd,
Don’t mean to be anonymous at all, and I am pretty open on my political views, obviously enough - heck, I even linked to my blog.
The Atlantic Accord is based on a Conservative idea, I want to see it passed. It is a matter of public record that the Liberals are delaying it in the Senate, so I am not sure why you would suggest the Conservatives are playing games.
The simple fact of the matter is that no one in Ottawa knows what the vote numbers look like on C-48, but it is going to be tight.
You may discount the possibility that the Government may fall before the Senate approves S-43, but you cannot deny the fact that the Liberals in the Senate have deliberately put it at risk for their own purposes. If the votes goes against the Liberals, the Accord is back to square one, and in an minority situation, could be a year away. That is unnecessary and irresponsible.
Comment by OttawaCon — 6/23/2005 @ 4:39 pmWhen one signs under an pseudonym and the linked blog does not identify one by name, then one is intentionally being anonymous.
The Real Accord (1985) was signed by two Progressive Conservative governments. It is a matter of public record that the federal Conservative Party did not initially support the idea of the current offshore oil transfer - I’ll send you Stephen Harper’s speech here last year during the federal election if you need to see what his approach was/is.
The idea is actually not a partisan one but a Newfoundland one that originated with a Royal Commission funded by a Liberal administration.
It is a matter of public record that the offshore revenue deal will become law next week, barring any attempts to defeat the current administration. It is a matter of fact that the Liberals are not delaying anything at all on this matter. C/S-43 will pass through all the necessary stages on the schedule originally anticipated.
If the current government loses a budget motion and an election follows, the entire deal may well go back to something well before square one. Based on federal Conservative equalization policy, a federal Conservative government would take an entirely different approach - the new arrangement might take years to attain if it occurs at all.
The simple fact of the matter is that the issue has been handled as a political football, but primarily by the Opposition party you support. Now it is being tied to Conservative opposition to equal marriage.
If you want to see the Accord passed then encourage your party to get on with it and pass it. There is no particular reason to support Senator Kenny’s motion unless there is an intention by the Conservatives to force an election few in the country want. That is really the only thing that would prevent S-43 from receiving Royal assent next week as currently planned.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/23/2005 @ 7:02 pmI am entirely aware of what the Conservative position is and was, and you are splitting hairs.
It is rather precious to use the phrase ‘barring any attempts’ when you are aware there is a non-confidence vote scheduled before S-43 will be addressed in the Senate. An opportunity has been presented to compromise, make Parliament work, and expedite the passage of S-43 without using it as a political football. Your party is apparently not interested, and to refer to the ‘original schedule’ is simply evasive. We all know what is at stake, and who sets that schedule.
I honestly have no idea how anyone has tied same-sex marriage in the Commons to the Atlantic Accord in the Senate. The fact that S-43 could be halted because of a C-48 vote is unfortunate, but avoidable through a proposal that has already been offered.
How exactly could Senator Kinsella do more to ‘get on with it’ than present a motion to do it immediately?
On another note, intriguing article on your blog on the Iceland comparison.
Comment by OttawaCon — 6/23/2005 @ 8:52 pmOnly a fool would want an election at this juncture. Of course we are non-confident about this government. But we MUST maintain this minority government to avoid the accidental or should I say, incidental, placement of ANY party in a majority government role.
I can hear it now, Steve Harper, or yes even Paul Martin, indicating that Canada has spoken and has given either of those flatulent self-absorbed arrogant “leaders” some sort of misplaced right to swing their own personal agendas as if it were proclaimed by the gods.
The only satisfactory outcome of ANY election within the next 2-4 years would place INDEPENDANTS as a Majority Government. Then at least we could identify, and hold those currently in power accountable for the misappropriated and wrongly spent tax dollars. Beyond even that, they should pay back all the money required to have Sheila Frazier (AG) and the Gomery Commission perform the duties of uncovering their gluttonous appetites for our tax money.
http://politicalbuttonsnlcan.blogspot.com/
Make sure that everybody knows that voting out ALL of these self-important parties is more important than voting out just the Liberals. If any of the parties got a majority now it would be like carte blanche to start robbing us blind AGAIN!
Like the War Amps and Legion mottos go, “NEVER AGAIN!” How can we defend democracy and demonstrate our resolve to a stronger planet and world economy when our own government is empowered to rape our tax coffers and give themselves raises whenever they want?
Protect our Canada from the governmental pillage from within!
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 6/24/2005 @ 2:34 amWell whatever attempts there were to defeat the government in the Commons, they came to a crashing end last night with a little parliamentary manoeuvering.
Sorta makes the whole Senator Kenny thing a bit of a waste of energy. As for the original schedule, the term reflects the normal projections by the government on when the budget would be passed by the House and Senate. It’s also the one on which the provincial government here based its budget projections.
Everything else we have seen and I mean everything has been political manoeuvering for some purpose other than making parliament work or getting the Accord deal done.
in fact the whole Connie manoevering has been based around the simple premise: do what I want (split the bill even though it isn’t necessary) or I’ll try to defeat you and keep blaming you for not accepting my threats in the first place.
That really makes parliament work well for Canadians.
As for the Connie senators, they could “get on with it” by proceeding with the normal three stages of reading as expeditiously as they wish, as opposed to engaging in other motions.
It’s pretty simple actually and I suspect Canadians generally have grown tired of all the machinations in the House.
Personally, though, I am looking forward to the summer makeover for Stephen Harper. Spitting venom at “socialists” and “separatists” and any other group he doesn’t like sure sounds like the same old angry Steve. I guess the make-over hasn’t started yet.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/24/2005 @ 11:22 amThanks for the barb, OttawaCon, on the complacency of this website. The staff of one, who has been away from the internet for about 3 days now, is currently residing in an airport lounge waiting for a flight. Such is life.
Comment by Kevin — 6/24/2005 @ 12:55 pmEd,
All rather moot now. I hope the Senate proceeds quickly. As far as Conservative procedural tactics versus Liberal tactics, that is at the very least a pot-kettle question. The Conservative Senators have not obstructed S-43 in any way whatosever.
Kevin,
When I stated ‘website’, I didn’t mean to refer to articles - the one at the top of the page covered the Senate adequately. I meant more in the sense of a collective blog, which has at various times been extremely active. No barb was intended.
To be clear, I admire and respect what you have done in terms of a grassroots non-partisan effort, regardless of my overall view that ad hoc ‘assymetrical federalism’ is potentially disastrous. Apologies if this was not clear.
Comment by OttawaCon — 6/24/2005 @ 1:50 pmSomething tells me, Kevin, that the anonycon blogger from Ottawa just recently discovered Fair Deal as a result of a bunch of his Connie blogger budiess telling him there was a new site criticising the Connies that needed to be watched and attacked.
As to the other matter I am rolling with laughter as Anonyconnie now pfffts the whole Accord thing as being moot. Of course, it is moot - as I pointed out.
And of course, he now dismisses discussion of playing games as being “pot and kettle” but only once his team’s games got shut down.
Best laugh I have had here since the last Connie wander in spewing nonsense as fact.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 6/26/2005 @ 6:31 amNo, Ed, I have been watching the site since it first got coverage. I apologized to Kevin above if he thought what I was doing was attacking his site.
My comment about the issue being moot was not directed to the Accord, it was regarding the Liberals putting the bill at risk to a non-confidence vote for their own strategic reasons. As we both agree, no longer relevant now.
If you think either the Conservatives or the Liberals distinguished themselves with high-minded conduct in the last 10 weeks, I really don’t have much of a response.
Comment by OttawaCon — 6/26/2005 @ 8:41 amOttawaCon makes a very valid point regarding the conduct of parliament although he/she neglects to add that the tirades were instigated by the childish CPC and then went deflected and unanswered by the lying Liberals.
When will the Speaker of the House start ejecting “interupters” for speaking out of turn when someone else has the floor? Perhaps then some civility, decorum and honour can re-establish itself in our currently embarassing House of elected officials.
Bring down the self-serving parties.
Vote Independent
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 6/26/2005 @ 1:42 pmIt looks like Kinsella and the senate are pushing the bill through before summer break.
Is it possible?
T
Comment by Tina Brooks — 6/28/2005 @ 9:43 pmWell, its over folks. The Accord has finally passed and unless Adrienne Clarkson jumps a jet for parts unknown, the money should be on the way next week. Its about time.
The games that have been played around this deal are mind boggling and infuriating. My only question is, is there even one honest politician left in the country?
Comment by Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador — 6/29/2005 @ 7:54 amIt might be time for a new campaign. Push the Provincial Government to challenge Ottawa over breach of contract with our Terms of Union in Canada.
Check out the article at: freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogspot.com
Here is a snippet:
…Examination of the document from a legal perspective is an interesting exercise and even a cursory reading would lead one to believe that perhaps the federal government has not lived up to many of its obligations to the province as set out half a century ago.
Perhaps one of the most obvious situations is related to resource royalties in the province. Many people throughout Canada are familiar with recent changes to the Atlantic Accord which, which just passed through the senate yesterday, will see NL receive billions in revenues from offshore oil. What most people don’t realize however is that this accounts for less than 50% of the overall royalties, the remainder still goes into the federal purse. In addition to this, the province makes very little, if any revenue, from other natural resources like nickel, gold and iron ore, even though article 37 of the Terms of Union clearly states:
“All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to Newfoundland at the date of Union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador”
Check out the site to read more.
Comment by Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador — 6/29/2005 @ 10:16 amYesterday evening, Her Excellency the Governor General gave the Royal Assent to Bill C-43. This means that the Atlantic Accord changes have come into force.
I commend premier Danny Williams for doing an excellent job fighting for Newfoundland and Labrador on this issue. Hats off also to the first two federal leaders to come to the table – Jack Layton and stephen Harper. They forced the government’s hand on an issue where it initally disagreed. And most importantly - a big thanks to Kevin for providing an organized and fair campaign website and effort to put pressure whevere it was needed to get a fair deal.
I’m sure we would have liked to see a promise made and kept a lot sooner, the present federal government had other plans. But now, at last, after months (and years) of delay and dithering, we have it.
Next on the list of fair deals (IMHO), is a joint management agreement with Ottawa on fisheries. The provincial NDP, Liberals, and Progressive Conservatives are unanimous in support of such a system. Paul Martin should agree to it, as proposed in the 1980s and again in 2003 in even more detail, immediately.
For those who defended the last few months and years of deny, dither, and delay, “immediately” means get going on it before the end of 2005.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 6/29/2005 @ 11:59 am“Vote Independent
Fred from CBS ”
I hate to disagree with you Fred but the only way the Federal liberals will be defeated is if everyone else votes Federal conserative. Its the vote splitting that is keeping the liberals in.
As for NL voting in a federal election. It is an exercise in futility. Don’t even bother, you would get more response from Canadians by boycotting the federal elections all together!
Highlighting the injustice in our political system with a possible number of seats of 7
1 NU Pop 29,251
1 YK Pop 30,927
1 NT Pop 42,629
4 PE Pop 137,620
7 NL Pop 518,809
10 NB Pop 750,741
11 NS Pop 937,220
14 SK Pop 994,443
14 MB Pop 1,164,962
28 AB Pop 3,179,066
36 BC Pop 4,173,596
75 QC Pop 7,516,950
106 ON pop 12,312,420
308 total
I fail to see the math in these numbers?
Now add land mass as a factor, and to further this occupied land mass. How do you think those numbers would change.
As every soldier or military expert knows you gotta have troops on the ground in order to control it.
Comment by Expatriate — 8/23/2005 @ 6:13 pm“Highlighting the injustice in our political system with a possible number of seats of 7″
What’s the injustice?
“Now add land mass as a factor, and to further this occupied land mass. How do you think those numbers would change.”
Land mass doesn’t vote. Curiously, how would you apply this principle to the provincial legislature? How should Labrador’s land mass be justly represented in the House of Assembly?
Comment by WJM — 8/25/2005 @ 3:02 pm