# Danny Williams lowers the Canadian Flag



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

For those that haven't been folowing the saga between Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the Federal Liberals regarding offshore oil, Danny Millions (our new PM) has annexed our island from Canada's clutches. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek). Alas, just as my dream of becoming a CF pilot begins my province decides to leave. 







Canadian Flag Comes Down 12/23/04 (Denis Mulloy)  http://www.vocm.com/
Premier Danny Williams is taking the dispute with Ottawa to another level by symbolically cutting our ties with the federal nation. Williams has ordered that the Canadian flag on all provincial buildings be removed until further notice. At a noon-hour news conference, Williams and Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan tore apart the federal position on the Atlantic Accord. The premier said he could've walked away with a big cheque, but chose to stand his ground and keep the province's pride intact. 

Globe and Mail   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041223.wgass1223_2/BNStory/National/

Escalating his battle of nerves with the federal government, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams said Thursday that Ottawa had no intention of settling a revenue-sharing dispute and had â Å“draggedâ ? him to talks in a bid to humiliate him.

Mr. Williams left Winnipeg in a huff Wednesday after negotiations with the federal government -- represented by Finance Minister Ralph Goodale and Natural Resources Minister John Efford -- did not produce a deal in time for his self-imposed deadline.

The province has been in a war of words with Ottawa for months, battling over how much effect offshore oil and gas revenue should have on equalization payments Ottawa currently gives St. John's.

The federal government says it is willing to give the province 100 per cent of the revenue for up to 16 years. Mr. Williams counters that the equation is actually more complex than that and that his province could be out of pocket as much as $1-billion after only three years.

Back in his province's capital Thursday morning Mr. Williams ignored opposition advice to calm down and resume talks, choosing instead to accuse the federal government of repeatedly breaking its word and trying to â Å“humiliateâ ? his province.

â Å“It's quite apparent to me that Mr. Goodale is not of a mindset to do a deal,â ? he told reporters. â Å“It's also quite apparent to me that we were dragged to Manitoba in order to ... try to embarrass us. To bring us out there, to get no deal and send us back with our tail between our legs.â ?

Earlier in the day, Newfoundland's Liberal opposition leader urged the Premier to calm down and keep talking with Ottawa to reach an offshore revenue deal.

Liberal Leader Roger Grimes told VOCM radio talk show that it was unwise to pick fights.

â Å“Maybe we should keep our powder dry before we go off the handle and go crazy again,â ? he told the St. John's radio station. â Å“I don't know how it moves the agenda forward to say 'I'm going to pick up all my papers and go home and not talk to you any more'.â ?

Mr. Williams' attitude following Wednesday's talks stands in stark contrast to the statements by Mr. Goodale and Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm, who voiced their confidence that progress had been made.

Mr. Hamm said a deal could come in January, after Prime Minister Paul Martin had returned home, and Mr. Goodale said that a final deal was â Å“within grasp.â ?

But Mr. Williams was frustrated by what he saw as the lack of progress.

â Å“My best guess is that Ralph and John decided that the government of Newfoundland and Labrador was going to brought out, was going to be put through this process and then humiliated and sent back [home] without a deal,â ? he said.

â Å“From our perspective, we've done everything we could on this.â ?

Stephen Tomblin, a professor of political science at Memorial University in St. John's, said Mr. Williams' popularity in the province has soared thanks to his negotiating tactics.

â Å“I suspect locally, as was the case in the past, he'll be very popular as a result of this kind of debate,â ? he said. â Å“There's a very strong sense of alienation which is historical ... It's comparable to Quebec nationalism and separatism.â ?

Most callers to the VOCM call-in show Thursday were behind their premier, with some raising the idea of the province separating from Canada.

â Å“Danny did the right thing yesterday by walking away,â ? said one caller. â Å“The way I look at it is the only people who aren't getting rich from benefiting from our resources is Newfoundland and Labrador.â ?

Mr. Williams said as he left Wednesday's talks that he had no intention of resuming negotiations with the federal government.

â Å“You know where discussions with the fed government have got us,â ? he asked reporters rhetorically on Thursday. â Å“They got us out to W and back with nothing again, that's where they got us.â ?


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> â Å“Danny did the right thing yesterday by walking away,â ? said one caller. â Å“The way I look at it is the only people who aren't getting rich from benefiting from our resources is Newfoundland and Labrador.â ?



    Ofocurse, nobody seems to mind that Ontario continues to fund half the friggin' country.  Poor newfaundland might lose $1 billion in 3 years.  Toronto alone spends $8 billion more every year in taxes than we get back in services.  This guy really need to pull his head out of his ass and look at the big picture.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Ofocurse, nobody seems to mind that Ontario continues to fund half the friggin' country.   Poor newfaundland might lose $1 billion in 3 years.   Toronto alone spends $8 billion more every year in taxes than we get back in services.   This guy really need to pull his head out of his *** and look at the big picture.



OMG..is that Ontario i hear whining ??? again ?? Aren't you satisfied by the fact that you get to decide the federal government everry election ??  jk


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> OMG..is that Ontario i hear whining ??? again ?? Aren't you satisfied by the fact that you get to decide the federal government everry election ??  jk



    Unfortiunately I'm not Ontario, otherwise the conservatives would have been in power for at least 4 years now


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

LOL.....


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

Callers to the Newfoundland call inshow are not exactly the local intelligentsia. This past year I narrowly avoided driving off the road when I heard a caller (who was upset the cost for moose liceasnses increased) suggessted that taxes should be increased _"for people making all the money, people making 40-50 thousand"_

On a personal note, I hope we don't separate. I'm not a big fan of our flag.





 Does anyone else have pink in their flag?


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

Isn't that the italian flag?


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Isn't that the italian flag?



Italians, newfoundlanders....whatever...the both talk with their hands alot ........


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

Heh, I heard a quote once that goes something along the lines of....if an alien species ever decided to study Italy, they'd conclude that Italian is a sign-language with guttural noises thrown in for emphasis.  I think if they studied Newfaundlanders, they'd have trouble discerning any sort of language at all.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Heh, I heard a quote once that goes something along the lines of....if an alien species ever decided to study Italy, they'd conclude that Italian is a sign-language with guttural noises thrown in for emphasis.   I think if they studied Newfaundlanders, they'd have trouble discerning any sort of language at all.



Alright...i'll buy that


----------



## Garbageman (23 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> OMG..is that Ontario i hear whining ??? again ?? Aren't you satisfied by the fact that you get to decide the federal government everry election ??   jk



I wish!   When was the last time we had an Ontarian as PM???   Lester Pearson 1968.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Unfortiunately I'm not Ontario, otherwise the conservatives would have been in power for at least 4 years now



DAMN RIGHT


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (23 Dec 2004)

Long Live Newfoundland and good riddance to Ontario.


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

*A great Newfoundlander*
_Former Miss Canada 1996, Danielle House made national news for getting into a bar brawl with her boyfriend's new girl. Stripped of her crown, she posed for Playboy. _

long may your big jib draw!


----------



## Recce41 (23 Dec 2004)

I know if I was PM. I would cancel their welfare checks. And then ask for all the money back.Martin was born in Windsor Ont, does that count. Yes I'm from Ontario, but i'm 1/4 Newf. Another traitor (Williams).


----------



## Roche (23 Dec 2004)

NFLD hasn't separated eh, they're just protesting by taking down the flags, and lets not make this a bashing post  :threat:


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

Roche said:
			
		

> NFLD hasn't separated eh, they're just protesting by taking down the flags, and lets not make this a bashing post   :threat:



Oh , get a sense of humour !!


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Yes I'm from Ontario, but i'm 1/4 Newf.



Which quarter?


----------



## canuck101 (23 Dec 2004)

I'm half newf and proud of it, more power to Danny keep up the fight don't let the liberals get to you.  One other thing if the Conservatives are smart they would be getting more active in the liberal ridings in newfoundland getting the members to cross the house and sit with the conservatives.


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

Okay, first let me say I'm 100% Newf.

A couple of quick points.

1. (My obligatory smart ass response) Unless you were born here (or schreeched in) you are not a Newf. I am not 1/2 woman, because my mother was.  (on second thought I do have the x chromosome... okay bad analogy, but you get my point)

2. I am a little c conservative. I think that Mr. Martin is a muttering, stumbling, studdering .... politician who made a promise during the heat of an election and then realized the consequences of his actions afterwards. I also believe his staff in the PMO should be (insert witty belittlement here).

3. I believe we do have a "Culture of dependancy here." It started with Smallwood's rants to join confederation, and continues today in a multitude of ways.

4. Offshore oil belongs to Canada legally. If it was located in down town St. John's this wouldn't be an issue- howver Paulie promised.- and where I come from a promise is a promise.

5. Taking down the flag is wrong. It is stupid. It is disrespectful. It is without justification. Being lied is wrong as well.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (23 Dec 2004)

taking down your icon of your nationality is just foolish and absolutely ridiculous/childish. Theres lots of other ways to let the Gov't know that your pissed.
I think if Michigan decided to take down their flags fro whatever reason theyd be invaded =p


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

I whole heartedly agree, however I don't believe that the Newfoundland Liberal Caucus would concede to a "TCH walk of Shame."


----------



## Scott (23 Dec 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> Okay, first let me say I'm 100% Newf.
> 
> A couple of quick points.
> 
> 1. (My obligatory smart ass response) Unless you were born here (or schreeched in) you are not a Newf. I am not 1/2 woman, because my mother was.  (on second thought I do have the x chromosome... okay bad analogy, but you get my point)



Deed I is me old cock and long may your big jib draw. I was Screeched in at Fireschool - Trapper John's.



			
				Bograt said:
			
		

> 2. I am a little c conservative. I think that Mr. Martin is a muttering, stumbling, studdering .... politician who made a promise during the heat of an election and then realized the consequences of his actions afterwards. I also believe his staff in the PMO should be (insert witty belittlement here).



Couldn't agree more, both with your politics and your assessment of our PM.



			
				Bograt said:
			
		

> 3. I believe we do have a "Culture of dependancy here." It started with Smallwood's rants to join confederation, and continues today in a multitude of ways.



Should we delve into Churchill Falls?



			
				Bograt said:
			
		

> 4. Offshore oil belongs to Canada legally. If it was located in down town St. John's this wouldn't be an issue- howver Paulie promised.- and where I come from a promise is a promise.



Agreed again. No outsourcing of employees or contract work either. Why does Sable have Americans working there?



			
				Bograt said:
			
		

> 5. Taking down the flag is wrong. It is stupid. It is disrespectful. It is without justification. Being lied is wrong as well.



Can I buy you a beer? You've read my mind. I think that Danny is looking to get a rise out of Ottawa, posturing.


----------



## mo-litia (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Ofocurse, nobody seems to mind that Ontario continues to fund half the friggin' country.   Poor newfaundland might lose $1 billion in 3 years.   Toronto alone spends $8 billion more every year in taxes than we get back in services.   This guy really need to pull his head out of his *** and look at the big picture.



Don't forget that Alberta is the largest payer of transfer payments in this country, with the largest recipients being Newfoundland and Quebec.   

Many people out west would be dancing in the streets if our premier followed Newfoundland's example.   This symbolic (?) motion of Mr. Williams is representative of the frustration many citizens of this nation feel with the Liberal government's arrogant, Ontario centered policies and doctrine which has blatantly favored those in that region at the expense of the rest of Canada for decades.

Good for you, Mr. Williams.   Hopefully your actions will contribute to the government make some much needed reforms in their attitude towards the rest of Canada.


----------



## mo-litia (23 Dec 2004)

birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> Long Live Newfoundland and good riddance to Ontario.



You said it! ;D


----------



## JBP (23 Dec 2004)

While this may be funny to some or many of you, this is actually quite serious whether the rest of Canada sees it that way or not.



> Don't forget that Alberta is the largest payer of transfer payments in this country, with the largest recipients being Newfoundland and Quebec.



Speaking of Alberta, they've had thoughts of separating at one point or another also. Our country seems to slowly be falling apart and degrading. This seriously upsets me as a Canadian. Sure I may live in Ontario, sure I live in the "golden horseshoe" (Niagara) but this "symbolic" release from Canada shows how our country truly is not standing together anymore and that our leadership isn't doing it's part to resolve issues properly before it gets to this point.

Are we going to be what Canada was suppose to be in 10-20 years? Imagine if Quebec+Newfoundland and Alberta all separated. We've be divided, and then conquered really. This shows to the world how fragmented and weak Canada has become...

It's depressing.
 :'(


----------



## jswift872 (23 Dec 2004)

this is stupid, we are all one country..pfft


----------



## mo-litia (23 Dec 2004)

J-Swift - I agree that we are all members of one country.

It is about time the federal gov't starts acting like every province is an equal member of Canada, rather than the outlying provinces being just hewers of wood and haulers of water for Ontario.

Don't complain to me about dissident attitudes among Westerners or Newfoundlanders.  These angry attitudes are a direct response to Ontario's ethnocentric attitude towards the rest of the nation.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> J-Swift - I agree that we are all members of one country.
> 
> It is about time the federal gov't starts acting like every province is an equal member of Canada, rather than the outlying provinces being just hewers of wood and haulers of water for Ontario.
> 
> Don't complain to me about dissident attitudes among Westerners or Newfoundlanders.  These angry attitudes are a direct response to Ontario's ethnocentric attitude towards the rest of the nation.



    Last time I checked, Ontario doesn't dictate federal policy.  You really want to make a change?  Elect a party into the federal government which will stop squandering money on pet-projects and special interest groups.  And figure out a way to stop shoveling money into Quebec without convincing them to seperate.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, Ontario doesn't dictate federal policy.   You really want to make a change?   Elect a party into the federal government which will stop squandering money on pet-projects and special interest groups.   And figure out a way to stop shoveling money into Quebec without convincing them to seperate.



Here we go..........do you have any idea what you are saying there ?  Its because of comments like yours ( and some previous ones also) that we all get at each others throat.  All provinces are supposed to be on an equal footing...which is why equalization payments were created.  I dont think we will ever have a party in power that doesnt squander money on pet projects.


----------



## mo-litia (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, Ontario doesn't dictate federal policy. You really want to make a change? Elect a party into the federal government which will stop squandering money on pet-projects and special interest groups. And figure out a way to stop shoveling money into Quebec without convincing them to seperate.



Take a look at my tread in the Political forum - Proportional Representation - for a possible solution to this alienation issue.   As to Ontario, not dictating federal policy; you are correct, it just that the Ontario voters decide the makeup of the federal gov't, who does dictate federal / Ontario policy.   

As to a solution to eliminate the Quebec separatist issue without shoveling money into that province, I don't think there is one.   Quebec has figured out a long time ago that the amount that they whine about separating is directly related to the amount of federal / Alberta / Ontario money they receive.

As to what this situation does to rapidly spreading separatist feelings thoughout the West can only be imagined.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Dec 2004)

Maybe the _CBLA_ needs to be reformed to liberate Cape Breton from the tyranny on Nova Scotia and Canada.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Here we go..........do you have any idea what you are saying there ?  Its because of comments like yours ( and some previous ones also) that we all get at each others throat.  All provinces are supposed to be on an equal footing...which is why equalization payments were created.  I dont think we will ever have a party in power that doesnt squander money on pet projects.



    Ofcourse they are.  So please explain to me why Toronto pays 8 billion more in taxes every year than we receive in services.

    Why is Ontario seen as this giant drain for money from other provinces when my property taxes and the general cost of living are so much higher than anywhere else in Canada.  If we're taking all this money from the rest of the country, I'm sure as hell not getting my share.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Ofcourse they are.   So please explain to me why Toronto pays 8 billion more in taxes every year than we receive in services.
> 
> Why is Ontario seen as this giant drain for money from other provinces when my property taxes and the general cost of living are so much higher than anywhere else in Canada.   If we're taking all this money from the rest of the country, I'm sure as heck not getting my share.



For the same reason that i pay more taxes than services i recieve.......because in this country.......apparently...the "haves" shre the wealth with the "have nots"  before you jump on me, i am fully aware of the practicalities of this but.......


----------



## Scott (23 Dec 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Maybe the _CBLA_ needs to be reformed to liberate Cape Breton from the tyranny on Nova Scotia and Canada.



Send an email to General John Cabot Trail IMMEDIATELY. I'm with you Ex-D!! Long as I can have my beloved Margaree as a staging point.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Dec 2004)

Down with the causeway b'y!!


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Take a look at my tread in the Political forum - Proportional Representation - for a possible solution to this alienation issue.  As to Ontario, not dictating federal policy; you are correct, it just that the Ontario voters decide the makeup of the federal gov't, who does dictate federal / Ontario policy.
> 
> As to a solution to eliminate the Quebec separatist issue without shoveling money into that province, I don't think there is one.  Quebec has figured out a long time ago that the amount that they whine about separating is directly related to the amount of federal / Alberta / Ontario money they receive.
> 
> As to what this situation does to rapidly spreading separatist feelings spreading thoughout the West can only be imagined.



    Yes, I know that the Liberals are Ontarios fault, and for that you have my profound regrets and apology.

    I saw your thread in the other forum but decided not to post yet.  I've had many discussions about Proportional Representation with civie friends as well as some military members.  My personal feeling is that it's a bad idea.  I wanted to see what others would write before I pitched in my 2 cents.  I didn't want to start the thread onto a negative heading so soon


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> For the same reason that i pay more taxes than services i recieve.......because in this country.......apparently...the "haves" shre the wealth with the "have nots"  before you jump on me, i am fully aware of the practicalities of this but.......



    The 5000 or so homeless "have nots" in toronto might disagree with you on that one   You make it sound as if the entire city is composed of millionaires.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (23 Dec 2004)

When the province Rip down the flag they`re the bad guys

Waste your money and the Feds have systemic problems. Is anyone ever fired for that?

Where is the PM today? Wizzing YOUR money away NOT IN CANADA.

So lets not keep on defending the indefensible.

The provinces don`t work for Ottawa.

Where do we send online donations to the CBLA?


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> The 5000 or so homeless "have nots" in toronto might disagree with you on that one    You make it sound as if the entire city is composed of millionaires.



Before you start with the "bleeding herat" arguments, let me say this:  Toronto isnt populated by only millionairs...that is not what i was implying......i guess you are too stuborn to see that....... but the principle is there...and To be able to live in TO....you need money...as far as the homeless are concerned.......i dont have one bit of sympathy for a good percentage of them...but i do pay city taxes, those taxes are used for public housing/shelters.....get my point.  I'm in the military, drwaing aircrew and spec pay and i will be hard pressed to live in esquimalt you have to be rich to live there....same as for toronto....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Dec 2004)

> Where do we send online donations to the CBLA?



To me. 

Alcohol is accepted in lieu of cash


----------



## Scott (23 Dec 2004)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Where do we send online donations to the CBLA?



Ex-D and I will set something up.

We're also going to hold a referendum about the separation of Cape Breton from the mainland. Unlike Quebec, we plan to make the question REAL easy to understand:

*YOU'S COMIN' OR WHAT?*


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> > Where do we send online donations to the CBLA?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Speaking of sharing then............ :threat:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Dec 2004)

> Speaking of sharing then...



Well of course b'y. Mudder taught me how to share...


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (23 Dec 2004)

Danny Million's loves the camera.   Lets not forget that this individual is not taking a red cent of salary....he made money in the cable industry.    As early as last year when everyone was on strike in the province and people hated him, his popularity was down.   This guy loves the camera and knows how to start a media frenzy.   It may also be part of an election posture by him.   The Liberals will get thumped in NF in the next election unless they give in.   I know 7 seats are not much compared to Ontario, but in a minority setting they   are worth gold. That being said..he's pulling at the heart strings of every Newfoundlander.   I am tired of people not knowing the underlying issues of the province and labelling us as 'welfare recipient's.   Newfoundland has been continually screwed by Canada and should have never joined Confederation.   Churchhill Falls to Quebec by the corrupt bribe taking Joey Smallwood, the collapse of the fishery by Federal mismanagement, the stealing of NEWFOUNDLAND's OIL etc.   Paul Martin can enjoy Morocco while the homeless in Toronto freeze tonight and Newfoundlanders unleash 55 years of frustration.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> Danny Million's loves the camera.   Lets not forget that this individual is not taking a red cent of salary....he made money in the cable industry.    As early as last year when everyone was on strike in the province and people hated him, his popularity was down.   This guy loves the camera and knows how to start a media frenzy.   It may also be part of an election posture by him.   The Liberals will get thumped in NF in the next election unless they give in.   I know 7 seats are not much compared to Ontario, but in a minority setting they   are worth gold. That being said..he's pulling at the heart strings of every Newfoundlander.   I am tired of people not knowing the underlying issues of the province and labelling us as 'welfare recipient's.   Newfoundland has been continually screwed by Canada and should have never joined Confederation.   Churchhill Falls to Quebec by the corrupt bribe taking Joey Smallwood, the collapse of the fishery by Federal mismanagement, the stealing of NEWFOUNDLAND's OIL etc.   Paul Martin can enjoy Morocco while the homeless in Toronto freeze tonight and Newfoundlanders unleash 55 years of frustration.



Oh the retoric......Danny Williams is doing nothing more noble that shoring up his own political support back at home by posturing !  He knows full well that he will eventualy get most of what he wants from ottawa but he decided to grandstand so that he looks like he is leading Nfld against the big bad feds......To those of you that think that Quebec gets what it wants because they whine enpough, and b***h about it...i say that Nfld is doing the same and that it is just as despicable !


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Before you start with the "bleeding herat" arguments, let me say this:  Toronto isnt populated by only millionairs...that is not what i was implying......i guess you are too stuborn to see that....... but the principle is there...and To be able to live in TO....you need money...as far as the homeless are concerned.......i dont have one bit of sympathy for a good percentage of them...but i do pay city taxes, those taxes are used for public housing/shelters.....get my point.  I'm in the military, drwaing aircrew and spec pay and i will be hard pressed to live in esquimalt you have to be rich to live there....same as for toronto....



    The homeless were an extreme example to point out that not all of toronto is rich.  People living in public housing and in the ghettos would be another example.  The homeless shelter are funded by our taxes.  They are considered "services", so when we compute the difference between how much money we pay in taxes, and how much we get back, the money going to the shelters is part of that equation.  Same goes for healthcare, welfare, social security, policing, fire protection/prevention, road construction and maintanance, snow and garbage removal, etc, etc, etc.  What we end up with in the end is that the city still spends $8 billion more every year than we get back for those things.  I seriously doubt that there are that many more "have nots" in the rest of the country than there are in Toronto.  The money goes towards paying for a higher level of services in other places than we enjoy within the city.  The quality of life in a City like calgary is still a lot higher than in Toronto regaurdless of how much more Alberta may spend on "transfer payments" than Ontario.  I'm just pointing out that people in other provinces who beleive their money is going to support a higher quality of life in Ontario are out to lunch.  Anyone who's been to Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver will clearly see what I'm talking about.  Ontario receives only 12.3% of it's annual revenues in the form of federal transfers.  In any event, transfer payments hardly account for the whole picture.  When you look at equalization of total payments and revenues, only Alberta has a larger ratio of payments to revenues than Ontario.  So why the two provinces who are getting screwed the most are arguing about which one of them is to blame, I'm not really sure....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Dec 2004)

B'ys...be nice or ya a'int comin' to the bootleggers with scott and I. Lard thunderin.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

Oi, just don't try this discussion after a few beers.  It'd degenerate into a fistfight within minutes.


----------



## JBP (23 Dec 2004)

> continually screwed by Canada and should have never joined Confederation



Okay... Maybe then you'd now be run by the USA, would you rather have joined that Confederation? Or maybe France? You choose.....   : Newfoundland wouldn't have stood long at all on it's own that's for sure! No province would...

In my original post I blamed the leadership of the government, not any particular PART of the country. I specifically blamed the leadership for this blunder. Even if the man of Newfoundland is just "posturing" it shouldn't have gotten to this point regardless...

What would happen IF any of the provinces separated? Would the rest of Canada invade and take it over before someone else did? Is that feasible? I mean really folks, what would be the point of separating now? It's be utterly hopeless...

I'm all for a joined   
You joined the country, stick with it. Work out the problems, like our beautiful military, put up or shut up basically! Don't tear the damn flag down because you'll only be bringing a different nation's flag back up later!

Also, 





> the stealing of NEWFOUNDLAND's OIL


 , what about ALBERTA'S oil?   

C'mon! Gimme a break man, rediculous. It's a "national resource" which as stated in the first post's article, was agreed you folks would get all the financial benefits of for a full 16 years... 

Say, while we're on the subject, what about IRAQ's oil? .....


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Oi, just don't try this discussion after a few beers.   It'd degenerate into a fistfight within minutes.



Ur yous luukin at me sister?


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

Well if I was a newfie, I'd probably answer with "no, I's have mine to look at b'y"


----------



## mbhabfan (23 Dec 2004)

Although I am no newfie I might have took a quick peek at yer sister.....as I am married it was just a peek, merry Christmas Bog.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Dec 2004)

Somebody said that the oil in the offshore was Canada's by law.   Fair enough.   Problem is the offshore is only Canada's by virtue of the fact that Newfoundland joined Confederation. Same goes for the fish off the Labrador and for that matter access to Hans Island, that's the one with the Danish flag on it.   (Strike me, I wonder if Danny has talked to Copenhagen recently - they might recognize a good thing when they see it.   Wouldn't be the first time they came for a visit.)

As to Ontario, Quebec, Alberta et al.   These squabbles are exactly the reason that Joseph Howe and the lads would only accept a Confederation - dammed if they were going to hand over the treasury to those blighters in Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto - untrustworthy Scots one and all.   I think it was only during the 30's that Ottawa finally got the keys to the till when the Provinces decided it was cheaper to have one central collection agency - and they handed the keys over to William Lyon MACKENZIE King -   another Scot (I think I perceive a pattern).   Anyway, I am firmly of the opinion that charity begins at home.   The starting point should be that each Province decides what to do with its own resources.   They should contribute funds to Ottawa to finance the programmes they all agree on.   Ottawa - handservant to the Provinces.   Or as Jean C put it - if he wants to do something he should have to go to Ralph Klein to ask for the check.   Bugger this centralization.

And 48th - the reason you pay such high property taxes for such poor services is the same reason you pay such ridiculous prices for mediocre properties.   Some folks have a bizarre notion that Toronto is a desirable place to live and are willing to pay over the odds for the privilege.   I don't share the view so my cost of living is probably a tad lower - although Vancouver prices and perceptions are rising to equal Toronto's.

Finally, wrt the causeway -- I don't think cash donations are necessary to achieve the aims -- adequate supplies of alcohol would no doubt ensure sufficient numbers of backhoes, miners and construction workers to get the job done for free.... ;D 

Cape Breton Go Brath!!!


----------



## Scott (23 Dec 2004)

Ex-D, methinks Kirkhill is our newest recruit!!


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Dec 2004)

Alberta's oil is not a "NATIONAL" resource.   It is a "PROVINCIAL" resource.   That was all sorted out in 1905 - Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Jean Chretien notwithstanding.   (Notwithstanding - such a lovely phrase,   all sorts of applications, should be used more often).


----------



## mo-litia (23 Dec 2004)

. . . if the east is separating, can me and my relatives have Acadia back?   ;D


----------



## chrisf (23 Dec 2004)

No.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (23 Dec 2004)

I am a proud Canadian, and also a proud Newfoundlander.   I was not implying that Newfoundland separate.   We will get what we want when the time is right for the Paul Martin government.   I agree that Danny is thumping is chest to shore I support at home.   Taking down the flag was a stupid call and was borderline treason.


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

How did a post concerning Newfoundland turn into a Cape Breton Liberation Army recruiting thread...? typical mainlanders, always taking what belongs to Newfoundland for their own................


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And 48th - the reason you pay such high property taxes for such poor services is the same reason you pay such ridiculous prices for mediocre properties.  Some folks have a bizarre notion that Toronto is a desirable place to live and are willing to pay over the odds for the privilege.  I don't share the view so my cost of living is probably a tad lower - although Vancouver prices and perceptions are rising to equal Toronto's.



    Willing, yes.  Does that mean we deserve to be ripped off to support other cities and provinces though?  Although from what I understand this is mainly a provincial government problem, we should still be receiving a proportionate return on our taxes.  I've been considering joining you in Vancouver for a while now though.  While I love this city, Vancouver seems like a much better place to live.

And it's Gu Brath btw.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Dec 2004)

For me its a Scots - Irish thing.  Irish folk  in Newfoundland vs some of my kin at the other end of ferry.  Though it comes to mind that there were some Devon folks in Newfoundland too.......
There's a puzzlement, my brain is starting to hurt ......damm my ancestors for creating me a mongrel born in Scotland,  pretty soon I am going to have to own up to that French blood.

No more confusion.  Cape Breton for Newfoundland I say!!!


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM EVERYBODY, THAT THE NEW CAPITAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF NEWFOUNDLAND IS DILDO.


----------



## Scott (23 Dec 2004)

LMAO

Got a picture of my buddy standing next to that sign, with the arrow pointing right at his head!!


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Dec 2004)

48th, Thanks for the correction.   I stand.   After suitable pause I sit.  

Capital choice Dildo.   Great source of Newfoundland's national dish   ------- seal flippers ----


----------



## mo-litia (23 Dec 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Alberta's oil is not a "NATIONAL" resource.   It is a "PROVINCIAL" resource.   That was all sorted out in 1905 - Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Jean Chretien notwithstanding.   (Notwithstanding - such a lovely phrase,   all sorts of applications, should be used more often).



Hey, Trudeau was an amazing person! He even managed to insult the West from beyond the grave; don't forget the upcoming renaming of Mount Logan to Mount Trudeau. 

More suitable landmarks in Ontario, such as the Ottawa sewer system and Ontario landfill were reportably overlooked so the Pierre Elliot could give the finger to the West one more time!

By the way, Alberta's oil is Albertan, the NEP notwithstanding.   And the only reason off-shore Newf oil is supposedly Federal is by virtue of Newfoundland being in Canada.   

Mr. Williams, Newfoundland could always separate and join OPEC, becoming a schreech drinking Saudi Arabia! ;D


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (23 Dec 2004)

Since we won't have oil or fish.....I suggest that we start raising pet moose to sell to Mainlanders!


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

Maybe we could export Labrador Black flies? Maybe the chinese will eat them- they eat sea urchins for Christ sakes...


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

Heck, screech could probably power a car better than oil ever could.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Anyone who's been to Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver will clearly see what I'm talking about.



I've been to all 3 thanks and i still disagree with you.


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

We actually don't drink that stuff. We may be newfies, but we are not stupid.


----------



## mo-litia (23 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I've been to all 3 thanks and i still disagree with you.



 . . . you disagree with a lot of people!


----------



## chrisf (23 Dec 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> We actually don't drink that stuff. We may be newfies, but we are not stupid.



Yuck... the only time I ever drink screech is to impress/frighten mainlanders.


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

I do however kiss a lot of cod fish heads.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

Hey, sexual references are inappropriate on this board!


----------



## mo-litia (23 Dec 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> I do however kiss a lot of cod fish heads.



When I got schreeched in at Fort McMurray, I was drunk and fell while kissing the cod fish head, with the result that my toungue entered the fish head's mouth . . . :crybaby:


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

It's purely platonic.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Dec 2004)

Denmark, I'm telling ye, Denmark is the answer to both Cape Breton and Newfoundland's problems.   Pull up the causeway and join Denmark along with Greenland and Hans Island   - I'm   sure they would love to have you come home.   And both the Scots and the Irish owe a lot to the Dane's for their bloodlines.   Icy waters, rocks, boats, non-existent fish - much of a sameness (Mind Denmark itself is a nice green little place).

You'd be doing Canada a favour too.   She wouldn't have to worry about all that salt water up your way, nor for that matter the entrance to the St-Lawrence.   Just think of the Mail you could charge for access. ;D


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> . . . you disagree with a lot of people!



Mostly just you......


----------



## Scott (23 Dec 2004)

Anyone else with something to add to the topic?


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

Are we thinking of closing this topic ?


----------



## Scott (23 Dec 2004)

I have witnessed alot of people bringing good points from both sides and alot of Liberal bashing, something that. IMO, has been quite rampant lately. My allegiances are certainly not with Paulie and his cronies, however I fail to see the point of trashing them repeatedly in a public forum, that sort of thing doesn't do a damn thing to back up ones argument.


----------



## Bograt (23 Dec 2004)

Ahhh come on Scott1nsh,

I never had a thread get so big.

I kind of feel like that kid from ol yeller... don't worry I'll do it..

Mod can we lock this threat.

Bang

Fade to Credits.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Dec 2004)

All right, the lock has come off this thread as the "mods" decided it could be saved, HOWEVER, lets stick with the story and not just use it as an excuse to throw in one-liners on how the lynching of[pick one] Martin/Williams will be carried out.
Bruce


----------



## Danjanou (24 Dec 2004)

Ok first of I was Screeched in, and spent 7 years on the Rock, so I guess that does give me the right to comment. Danny is posturing that's all. Taking down the flag is childish and wrong. That said and done if it gets Baby Doc Martin to stop friggin waffling on just one thing start making decisions and in this case honouring deals maybe and I stress maybe the ends justify the means in this place.

The whole Hibernia thing, and Nflds economic dependence on the rest of the country is as long and convoluted as the â Å“lets bribe the separatists in Quebec to stay another 10 yearsâ ? concept. I remember in 1980 when then Premier Brian Peckford was almost saying they'd soon be rolling 55 gallon oil drums down Water St in St John's and we'd all be millionaires. Still waiting to see that one.

As for the $8,000,000.00 extra Toronto dumps into the Federal coffers annually, with this present incompetent Mayor and his bunch of socialist politically correct lapdogs on council, I'm not sure I'd want Toronto to have that money. God knows what they'd waste it on. More aesthetic suicide prevention barriers on bridges, lattes for the homeless, converting the DVP into all bike lanes, banning drinking music and enjoying yourself in a bar....

Finally 5,000 homeless in Toronto? Even Saint Jack, Patron Saint of the Political Correct Sound Bite, never came up with a number that high. Realistic estimates are 300-600 and that gap of 300 is because no one is willing to actually count them, preferring to pull a number out of their arse to justify the dollars tossed at the problem.


----------



## Garbageman (24 Dec 2004)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> That said and done if it gets Baby Doc Martin to stop friggin waffling on just one thing start making decisions and in this case honouring deals maybe and I stress maybe the ends justify the means in this place.



Isn't this maybe taking things just a bit far?  I know we're kidding around and everything, but I think we've got a long way to go before we can start comparing Martin to a tyrannous Haitian dictator.



			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> Finally 5,000 homeless in Toronto? Even Saint Jack, Patron Saint of the Political Correct Sound Bite, never came up with a number that high. Realistic estimates are 300-600 and that gap of 300 is because no one is willing to actually count them, preferring to pull a number out of their arse to justify the dollars tossed at the problem.



I was going to try to refute this.  Then I went to Out of the Cold's website.  It states that: "A total of 31,985 different people stayed in Toronto's emergency shelters in 2002; almost 5,000 were children." So, 31,985 / 365 days a year = a grand total of 88 per night.  That would seem to refute the 5,000 number pretty easily.  I'd be surprised if the number were actually as low as 88 (it almost certainly isn't, as this doesn't include those who choose to sleep on the street), but wow, that's certainly a much lower number than I thought.


----------



## Peace_Keeper (24 Dec 2004)

What Danny Williams has done is disrespectful but making a point. I've lived here all me life now b'ys so listen up.


Promise of all oil + Not doing that = BIG MESS

understand?


----------



## Reccesoldier (24 Dec 2004)

Yesterday Priemier Danny Williams (Nfld) ordered that all the Canadian flags be removed from Provincial buildings in a sign of protest over the Federal Governments refusal to honour it's promise to give Nfld 100% of offshore oil revinue. 

Do you think this is a wise political move with deeper ramifications or a purely political stunt?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/24/williams041224.html

Personally I think well done! It's about time the provinces took Ottawa to task and started voicing their disaproval.

When the Federal Government has had billion dollar surpluses for the last 10? years why would they want to keep Nfld in the have not category rather than having a strong and financially independant province. The same thing goes for NS. 

What is the feeling about this move from the Rock? Anyone here care to share their insight?


----------



## camochick (24 Dec 2004)

I am from the east(not newfoundland) and now I live in edmonton. People here are always bitching about how the east soaks off the west. Now Newfoundland wants something for themselves to help themselves and the government doesnt want to let them have it. I say good for them. Take the flag down in protest, it's not like they are burning the flags or anything.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Dec 2004)

But, what will Newfoundland do with those monies?  Have they demonstrated that the money would be used to good effect?  It is one thing to say "sure, keep the money you make" but if they spend it like sailors on liberty, what good does it do....I am certainly not saying that is the case, but does Newfoundland have a plan for these monies?


----------



## Heatwave (24 Dec 2004)

I'm sorry, but there's no excuse for this act!  The flag is sacred and represents all that is Canada.  It's what I work for while I'm here, overseas, or where ever else I may be that I can proudly support the Maple Leaf on my uniform (not to mention my tattoo).  One just has to look at the DND Maltese Cross crest and what do we find in the middle???(just look at my avatar for those who don't know).

I don't know how Premier Williams can call his land mass a "Province", seems how he all but excludes himself from the right to use that word through his actions.

We've had our issues with Quebec, most recently the Remembrance Day Canada Flag fiasco.  And, whether you're a Newfoundlander/Labradorian or not, I'm sure we won't soon forget that.  I can't seem to put this in any other mind frame other than "Disgraceful and UnCanadian as they come."

I realize what him and Premier Hamm are fighting for, and agree with their reasoning (heck, I am in Nova Scotia, after all).  But there is no way possible that I can support the tactics of Mr. Williams.  What he's fighting for...Yes, but not the way in which he employs his fight.  Granted, this is my opinion, and for once...I refuse to be open-minded when it comes to the Canadian Flag being used as a tool.  I don't give Quebec any leeway, nor will I give such to any other place.  

It's a real sin that I will now associate this action every time I think of Newfoundlander's/Labradorian's, some of the truest and nicest people that we have in Canada.   

Chimo!


----------



## Danjanou (24 Dec 2004)

Garbageman 
to stray of topic a tad, welcome to one of TO's  favourite and most profitable pastimes, the poverty game. No one really wants to solve it, because it's so easy to milk it for all you can, and no one dares criticize you as that would be the same as "attacking the homeless" and nobody could be that cruel right. Take those numbers you pullled up, which are generous BTW, and divide the number of millions the City of Toronto alone tosses at the homeless problem every year into them. Get a pretty number eh. 

If you take the total spent per homeless it would be better to give everyone of them a cheque at the beginning of the year and say here you go here's $30,000-$60,000 to live on for the year. Don't come back for 12 months. All that money and the problem is still growing, wonder why?

End off topic rant.

Back on topic. As noted several times here Danny is a bit of a publicity hound. (mind what Politician ain't) This stunt was designed to draw attention to this situation and surprise it has. Look at the number of posts on this thread and how heated the debate has become at times, CBLA aside.

As for my little pet nickname for our beloved leader. I thought it was appropriate. Crewtin was often referred to here and elsewhere as Papa Doc. Who replaced Papa Doc Duvalier, his dithering son. 8)


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2004)

Does the Canadian flag fly in all of the government/ provincial buildings in quebec?


----------



## Donaill (24 Dec 2004)

I am a maritimer that went away and then came back. There are canadians that believe that the east has it easy with all of the transfer payments we get.  Fine , we get transfer payments, so do alot of the provinces in Canada. The east did not get any large benefits from confederation. There was no large gain of land over the years. There has been a continuous out flow of people. Now we are looking at becoming a few provinces of mostly senior citizens. 
 I am proud to be Canadian. However I have alot of respect for people like Brian Tobin, Frank McKenna and Mr. Williams. These three have stood up to the federal goverment, each in their own way, to get something for their provinces. It seems, to me, that we are always being told what is better for us. It took us years to convince the feds to increase the fishing limit. Longer to enforce foreign fishing quotas.
  What the east needs is to be treated fairly. Give us the same fighting chance that resource blessed Ontario, B.C., Alberta and Quebec were given. Perhaps , with tha, we can use the gas and oil reserves to build a better economy and lessen the need for transfers.


----------



## Long in the tooth (24 Dec 2004)

I know that Danny's still pis*ed because Newfoundland sold Churchill falls power for a song to Quebec with a 99 year contract.  This transfers $1,000,000,000 to Quebec each year as they sell it at a massive profit to the US.  One should be very wary of any politician making a business decision.

Be afraid of anyone with a 'vision'.  If it were so great it would be a done deal already, but it probably isn't that great so the public has to pony up the money.  The proposal in Winnipeg is for a new stadium for the Blue Bombers.  Quite laudable, but it will cost my family $1,000 up front.  Remember the vision that produced Skydome and the Big 'O'???  But I digress....

Danny wants Newfoundlanders to be able to make more per year than AB and ON (per capita) and STILL receive welfare??? WTF?!?  What is the colour or the air on his planet?


----------



## Bograt (24 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> But, what will Newfoundland do with those monies?   Have they demonstrated that the money would be used to good effect?   It is one thing to say "sure, keep the money you make" but if they spend it like sailors on liberty, what good does it do....I am certainly not saying that is the case, but does Newfoundland have a plan for these monies?



I have never heard a more condescending post before. I expect better from you.


----------



## Bograt (24 Dec 2004)

Let me try and quickly explain a couple of things.

There appears to be some spin originating from the PMO that Newfoundaldj is attempting to double dip- sucking on the oil and transfer payment teats at the same time. We just want the same arrangement Alberta has with its oil resources. Currently, for every dollar gained in offshore, we lose 70 cents to the feds. The remaining 30 cents get calculated into the transfer equation. So the more we make in oil, the more goes to Ottawa, and the more we get deducted from transfer. Essentially we are leashed indefinitely on how much we can make. The current Atlantic Accord already states that NL be made the principle beneficiary of offshore, but alas this is not the case.

What we are proposing is we retain 100% our offshore. Period. It is assumed that once the current proposed deal is signed, Newfoundland will immediately become a have province. This is definitely not the case. Even with 50 dollar a barrel oil revenue, we are forcasted to be a "have not" for at least a decade. After we climb up to athe five province standard it would be our pleasure to contribute as per Ontario and Alberta. Don't handicap our economic recovery.

On another thread on this site dealing with the same issue, an individual questioned what if anything we had planned for our money. I have never heard a more condescending comment before. Its exactly that attitude that we Newfoundlanders are protesting against. Imagine the arrogance it takes to make a statement like that, and to govern based on that principle.

I don't agree with taking down the flag. My father wore the flag for 30 years, and next month I will as well. However, I would agree with placing a flag pole somewhere.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (24 Dec 2004)

Bograt..You hit the nail on the head. Could not agree more!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Dec 2004)

Now I have to admit I would like to see "crunched" numbers to show how it would take 10 years for Newfoundland to become a "have" province with the oil revenues the way they are.
EDIT:it didn't read right, I mean if Nfld got all the revenue, why 10 years?

...and I really don't care who's right or wrong when I say play with something else and not our flag.


----------



## Bograt (24 Dec 2004)

Unfortunately I do not have the numbers. I'm sure a call to the premiers office in January would be able show the number he is working with. I can say that we are now wrestling with a 4 billion dollar deficit.  Almsot half the provincial budget goes to servicing the debt. We have a population of 450,000 thousand- something like 23K in provincial debt for every man woman and child.

Do you want to talk roads and infastructure? Do you want to talk access to health care? Do you want to talk Churchill Falls? Do you want to talk education? We are Ireland in the 1950's.


----------



## Bograt (24 Dec 2004)

Just to add a bit of light on some of what the Feds were offering. 

100% of oil revenue. Oil costed at 25.00 US a barrell. Anything over 25 bucks goes to the Feds.
The arrangement would be reconsidered after 8 years or when the per capital revenue equals Ontario (some figure of 2700) We are at somewhere 2400.00. New monies could not go to spending on health care or anything else, only on servicing the debt.

Is that 100% Mr. Martin promised? 

Imagine getting a Christmas present you were promised by your uncle Franks. You open the present on Christmas day and are overjoyed. In January you get the invoice for said present. Merry Christmas.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2004)

I wonder if the promise of "easy" resource revenues isn't making people giddy. Unfortunately, experience in the rest of the world might suggest that this is a curse rather than a blessing, look at the oil rich nations of the middle east, for example. My fear is if any pol gets his hands on the money, it will be blown on the equivalent of the Great Pyramids, and when the oil runs out, there will be nothing left for that generation and beyond.

If the Premier of Nfld would really like to power his province into the 21rst century, he needs to get past the fixtation on resources and look at places like Singapore, Ireland, Japan from 1950-1980 or South Korea and realize these countries became economic powerhouses without the benefit of oil or other mineral resources through economic policies which rewarded savings, investment and entrepreneurial activity. 

Here in the Rest of Canada (ROC), we tend to have economic policies which work in the opposite direction. In London, ON., for two quick examples, we have a civic work force which has 300 management positions (and a city population of 360,000), and spent $55 million to build a downtown arena as an "investment", with a current return to the city of -$4.5 million/year. The regulatory environment is also nightmarish, with city departments micromanaging down to the seat-covers of taxis. I am seriously thinking of running for mayor just for the sheer pleasure of bringing these facts out into the open and asking Londoners if they think the yearly 10% tax increases are being appropriately spent. (Back of the envelope calculations by me indicate that we might be able to ditch civic competition with commercial activities, streamline the civil service and come up with a 20% spending cut, which symbolically is about $100 million back in the productive economy, counterbalancing the known losses from ADSCAM).

Anyway, back on point, posturing for the media is a great way to gain short term points, I just hope the Premier has a long term plan, and I also hope the PM isn't driven by the panic stricken though of loosing Nfld's seats in the house to do something even more stupid than usual.


----------



## Long in the tooth (25 Dec 2004)

Quite surprised I didn't take more heat for my last post, so here goes for my hundredth.

Why should income from Newfoundland's resources be segregated?  Why is it special?  Please don't tell me that Alberta didn't count it as that was 40 years ago.  And as a net contributor they sure pay equalization now.  Is each province to be alloted an 'area' that doesn't count towards equalization guidelines?  Let's see.... for Nfld and NS - offshore oil, Quebec - Poutine , Ontario - Cars, Manitoba - Power Sales, BC - Retirees...

They all can make a case.  But this is still hypothetical.  Nfld won't make 'have' status for how long?  But Saskatchewan is on the cusp of being a have province and is proud of it, without special dispensation.

So Danny, how's it workin' out for you?


----------



## Reccesoldier (25 Dec 2004)

I personaly can't think of one other single action by the Premier of Newfoundland that would have achieved the same effect as this one has. Yes it was controversial but it definitely got straight to the point. It is causing people to stop and think just how long the Federal government has been playing these money games with the provinces.

IMO I believe that the federal government (specifically the liberals) want to have the provinces reliant on them for transfer payments. As a matter of fact provinces recieving transfer payments usualy vote... you got it... Liberal. When you stop to think about it this only makes sense. 

The liberal party and reform liberalism in particular is built on the premise that there should be an equality of opportunity for all people in a nation. This means that they are guaranteed the same education, healthcare, standard of living ect. Sounds good so far eh. Enter the transfer payments, the poorer provinces get money from the Fed, who becomes the benifactor of the social safety net and thus the saviour of the people.

Well, it only works and/or is appreciated as long as a province is dependant on that welfare state for it's standard of living. As soon as a province is self sufficient the Liberal ideals begin to loose their attraction. This has already happened in Alberta and yes Ontario (prior to 1988 Ontario had voted Conservatiive on a federal level quite often and almost always provincially) 

So now you have a situation where the ruling liberals see transfer payments not so much as a way of equalizing regional disparity as ensuring their continued political power in the "have not" provinces.

If you can put two and two together and are able to come up with four twice in a  row, you aught to be able to see the reason behind the Lib's continued use of transfer payments as a means to an end, not a social program as it should be.

Tie this in with the Liberal smear campaign against Conservative fiscal and governmental policy (Free markets = no social safety net and Small government = Less transfer payments) and you have a potent weapon to maintain Liberal dominance over the have-not's.


----------



## Long in the tooth (26 Dec 2004)

Reccesoldier - you go to the heart of the issue - provinces rely on the federal government way too much.  Only Ralph Klein has the power to make controversial decisions as he is not dependent on Ottawa.  Ontario could be as well, but is far too happy with Ottawa doing the dirty work of collecting revenues and Queen's Park looks good by spending it.

By comparison, US states receive about half their budgets from the federal government.  Perhaps we should scale back equalization to about 75% of what it is now.  Equalization moneys are not accountable as they are now just 'block transfers' not specified for health, education, welfare etc but up to the discretion of provincial governments.

If one jurisdiction (federal, provincial or municipal) wants to spend money, they should at least have the guts to raise the taxes and be accountable for it.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Dec 2004)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> If one jurisdiction (federal, provincial or municipal) wants to spend money, they should at least have the guts to raise the taxes and be accountable for it.



This is the crux of the problem; accountability. The Liberal "promise" to share revenues with the cities is another example of creating a program which blurs accountability, although the practical effect is cities in non liberal ridings will be told by some bureaucrat in Ottawa how much they will pay for sewers in a city in a liberal riding.

Mr Martin is being called to account for a promise he made, I only wish Danny Williams had found a different way to express his displeasure than to take down our flag.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Dec 2004)

> I only wish Danny Williams had found a different way to express his displeasure than to take down our flag.



Isn't that the problem though? - the flag is supposed to be a shared symbol of a community.  The Newfoundlanders, or at least a very large chunk of them don't seem to feel part of the community.  At that point the Maple Leaf resonates with them the same way that the Union Jack resonates with the Quebecois. -  Symbol of a foreign presence and not part of them.


----------



## mo-litia (4 Jan 2005)

Donaill said:
			
		

> I am proud to be Canadian. However I have alot of respect for people like Brian Tobin, Frank McKenna and Mr. Williams. These three have stood up to the federal goverment, each in their own way, to get something for their provinces...
> ...   What the east needs is to be treated fairly. Give us the same fighting chance that resource blessed Ontario, B.C., Alberta and Quebec were given. Perhaps , with tha, we can use the gas and oil reserves to build a better economy and lessen the need for transfers.


NFLD deserves the same resourse revenue rights as Alberta.
Of course, separation and joining OPEC may still be a viable option for NFLD.   

(Not to advocate any violations of the QR&O's   ;D)


----------



## ex_coelis (4 Jan 2005)

Enjoying reading uninformed upper canadian rants about the maple leaf in Newfoundland, read similar comments in yesterdays National (yeah right) Post editorial.   A few thoughts on the issue:

-The day after talks (in Winnipeg?!) broke down over Newfoundland's share of the oil revenues, Todd B's suckerpunch was the headline in the Nat Post, the oil story didn't make the _entire_ paper.   Danny Williams pulls down the flag, next day headlines for both of the national rags.   So, the fact that Paul Martin was breaking a massive election promise to NFLD, not news-worthy.   Danny is a smart man and I applaud his actions.   Let's face it, pulling down the flags was the only way the story would get any press, why, because Newfoundland's concerns are not deemed worthy of Canadian attention, and it's been like this for 55 years.

For those who read those papers and are convinced from the empty headed editorials that Newfoundland does nothing but suck Canada's teat, please remember that transfer payments to NF were begun to make up for the fact that Newfoundland would no longer collect duties on imports once we joined Canada.   As with Canada today, these revenues made up a sizeable part of the national budget, and were to be no more after confederation.   Remember that we came into Canada as a proud nation, with 44 million in the bank, now 55 years later, we are a the butt of central canadian jokes and a have-not province.   Should Newfoundlanders just act like this doesn't matter?   Not this one.

I'm sure even the least educated among you would admit knowing that Newfoundland is blessed with abundant natural resources, and yet is a poor province.   So, extend this a knowledge a touch further and (maybe for the first time) ask why?   Does it make sense?   So many resounces, so little money, where does it all go?   Now imagine that you are a Newfoundlander, do you think you'd be happy about all this?   

Before you people in Ontario start yelling treason, remember that we've been Newfoundland much longer than Canadas been Canada.   Our parents were born Newfoundlanders, with passports that said so.   One dodgy election brought us into this country, and one proper election could bring us out.   Canada was Canada before Newfoundland, and Canada will be Canada without her (which cannot be said of Quebec).   The Canadian chapter of our history is a short one, and people are realizing that if we don't make the relationship with Canada equitable soon, the arse will truely be out of her.   


We have 500,000 people, and:
+Hibernia, White Rose, Terra Nova + more oil 
+Voisey's Bay nickel
+Churchill Fall's hydroelectricity
+Airspace (NavCan collects cash on virtually all flights between Europe and the US/Canada, as the _all_ pass over Newfoundland (my Newfoundland includes Labrador).
+Forestry.
+Fresh water which flows to the sea.
+A formerly great fishery, largely traded away largely on Ottawas watch.   Still, it's a huge fishery today, just not Cod based.
+more

And we're poor?   Come on!   We joined Canada without getting a say in the terms, which were negotiated between Canada and Great Britain.   We got a raw deal, and the result has been painfully obvious.   We are asking for a more equitable arrangement that will release Newfoundland from perpetual poverty imposed by a 'benevolent' govt 3000kms away.   Right now we feel like Indians being given shiny baubles for their land, and look where it got the indians.   I don't want to see Newfoundland continue it's slide towards being a reservation.

Like it or not folks, Williams actions are popular in Newfoundland, and not just amongst the rabble-rousers.   This stuff is discussed everyday at dinner tables and bar stools every day, and has been as long as I can remember.   Just because Upper Canadians think we're all cool with things doesn'y make it true.   (We sing we dance we cry we act, un-uh)   

The federal governement is in a minority position, suddenly the handful of Newfoundland MPs are in a position to be listened to as never before, and the people of Newfoundland know this.   If the 5 of them vote against the government in a confidence vote, then the govt falls and it's an early election.   People in Newfoundland are asking those politicians if they are representing Newfoundland in Ottawa, or Ottawa in Newfoundland.   For far too long, it has been the latter.   Now it is time for a change.   Paul Martin came to Newfoundland and made a promise that in the end, gained him the votes that put him in power, is it too much to hold him accountable for this?

My loyalties have always been to Newfoundland first and Canada second, and in my 12 years in the CF I never made any attempt to hide this.   As long as Newfoundland is part of Canada, I will do Canada's bidding, once Newfoundland leaves (and if things remain as they are, I hope she does),   I will look out for her best interests.   The longer I live in country goverened by Ontario/Quebec-centric knee-jerk Liberals, the more I support asking the important questions.   What's so great about a country that prefers this governments vision (or lack there-of).

We are looking to our Irish cousins, as well as Iceland and Norway and seeing that small countries in our sphere can survive and prosper and asking ourselves, is this as good as it gets (colonized by the colonized and treated as such).   How _should_ we answer?

Be lucky its the flag coming down and not a snap referendum.

Best regards.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2005)

> ex_coelis
> Guest
> 
> Online
> ...



Can I have your attention please - would the real Slim Shady please stand up....


----------



## Navalsnpr (4 Jan 2005)

I think the Irish Descendants and other Folk groups from Nfld will have fun writing songs about this one!


----------



## ex_coelis (4 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Can I have your attention please - would the real Slim Shady please stand up....



What's your point?


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Jan 2005)

ex_coelis said:
			
		

> What's your point?



excoelis - http://army.ca/forums/members/1242

ex_coelis - http://army.ca/forums/members/7090


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Jan 2005)

Ex_coelis,

I didn't really want to phrase it like this but with your "rant on" I guess I won't feel guilty about asking with all this,

We have 500,000 people, and:
+Hibernia, White Rose, Terra Nova + more oil
+Voisey's Bay nickel
+Churchill Fall's hydroelectricity
+Airspace (NavCan collects cash on virtually all flights between Europe and the US/Canada, as the _all_ pass over Newfoundland (my Newfoundland includes Labrador).
+Forestry.
+Fresh water which flows to the sea.
+A formerly great fishery, largely traded away largely on Ottawas watch.  Still, it's a huge fishery today, just not Cod based.
+more

,,why can't "your" province be run in the black?
One would think with all this "stuff" you have, life should be easy street.......or is it much easier just to blame others for "your" mis-management?


----------



## ex_coelis (4 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Ex_coelis,
> 
> I didn't really want to phrase it like this but with your "rant on" I guess I won't feel guilty about asking with all this,
> 
> ...



Bruce,

I'm sorry for the rant, I had just finished reading too much about this and sorta let loose.   I should say that my experiences in the CF left me at many times filled with Canadian pride, and I really do hope we can work out our place in Canada, I just hope it is a more equitable one.   I guess I was particularly upset with comments I read in the national press about Williams 'desicration' of the flag, something which no Newfoundlander should or would support, but which wasn't done (a commisionairre removing and folding the flag isn't desicration, it's just taking it down).   I support the Premier because his actions, while over the top perhaps, got the issue raised in many places.   Martin made a promise, and he should stick to it.   I think Canadians should see that Newfoundlanders see our oil as our chance to break out of the funk that we've been in for years, and are not ready to see Martin blubber his way out of fulfilling his promises.   The fact that the talks took place in Winnipeg, and without the prior knowledge of the Minister of Natural Resources told most of us that the talks were a sham, and I agree with Williams for being a man and walking out of them with his pride intact.   

About the points specifically....

+Hibernia, White Rose, Terra Nova + more oil                 [Feds vs. transfer payments, the crux of the current issue]
+Voisey's Bay nickel                 [Owned by INCO, who want to process the Nickel in Subdury, removing potential NF jobs from the mix]
+Churchill Fall's hydroelectricity     [oh boy,   : bad deal signed by Smallwood (the king of the bad deals) , should have received federal support for a review, tried it a few years ago (Tobin) blocked by Quebec, go figure]
+Airspace (NavCan collects cash on virtually all flights between Europe and the US/Canada, as the _all_ pass over Newfoundland (my Newfoundland includes Labrador).
     [Airspace revenue is federal $, not provincial]
+Forestry.   [no idea really, way outside of my knowledge]
+Fresh water which flows to the sea.     [again, the feds said we can't sell it, due to NAFTA]
+A formerly great fishery, largely traded away largely on Ottawas watch.        [Foreign fishing rights and $ goes to the Feds, DFO's decisions often fly in the face of the NF inshore fishery].   
+more[/u]

I listed those issues to say that Nflders are wondering how it is we have these resources, yet have so little to show for it.   My point is that for most of this, the money doesn't flow to the province, it goes to Ottawa, who them sends us transfer payments, we then get labelled in the national press as a bunch of layabouts who contribute little, but take a lot.   When the real math is done, it just ain't so.   Were the province to be able to properly benefit from some of this, we might not have the basket-case reputation we seem to have.   

I don't mean to insult anyone, I just wanted to educate people as to where the discontent flows from.     Nobody likes being a basket-case.



Best regards.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2005)

Quote,
_The smart People knew damnwell what was going to happen. example: It was asked to our guys in all UK Forces by memorandum in 1942 if they prefered to be with canada or independant and the answer was a unanimous no to confedreation_

You got any facts to back this up with smart guy?......or just more "waaaahhhh"?


----------



## ex_coelis (5 Jan 2005)

Hi Deminer,

With all respect, I really doubt your grandfather gave Joey "the barrelman" nickname, The Barrelman was the name of Joeys radio show in the 30's, back when he was a pig-farmer from Gambo.  

I'm not apologizing for anything I said, just for where I'm saying it.  Not sure this is the right place for all this.

Bruce,  I assume the cry-baby comment wasn't directed at my postings?  If so, I'm wasting my time, your earlier post sounded like honest curiosity.  If that was directed at Newfoundland's seeking a better deal, then remind me to wish you a good riddance on our way out.

I'll drop this here.  If anyone is interested in some informed comments I invite you to check the following links...

The guy posting under Sir Robert Bond seems pretty well informed  (and if you don't know who Sir Robert Bond was, you definitely don't know enough about the place for me to care .  The first link is mainly about the 'flag-flap' the second is specifically about the oil revenues.

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=627&whichpage=1
http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=489


And Newfoundlands growing political party...  Newfoundland and Labrador First Party

http://www.nlfirst.ca/index.html

Don't forget the Newfoundland's weekly broadsheet, The Independent, which did a 6 parter into the real math for Nfld's 55 year dance with Canada, the numbers might surprise you.

http://www.theindependent.ca/home.asp


There you go Bruce, some reading to satisfy your curiousity.

I'm not looking to rattle cages here.  Just trying to open some eyes.  That friendly place in the East may be saying 'bye-bye' quicker than some think.  Acting like it's not happening won't change the outcome.  If your Canada includes Newfoundland, let your MP know that Canada could use another 'have' province, and tell Martin to live to the deal he struck, and he did strike a deal, which is why Williams is wondering what the 'negociations' are all about.  If Martin won't keep his word, would he do the honourable thing and, step down or must he be brought down in a confidence vote.  No one likes a liars, or thieves.

Best regards.


----------



## 227Tech (5 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You got any facts to back this up with smart guy?......or just more "waaaahhhh"?



That's the best argument that you could come up with?  I'm literally shocked that someone who is suppost to be an admin can be so Juenville.  Excellent post Ex_Coelis, you pretty well have summed up what the bulk of the province feels.  And for "Mr. Staff" person, I'm sorry but your ignorance is no reason for us to Justifiy what we already know, if you don't agree witih the facts presented to you than I'm sure you have the intelligence to go find the answers yourself and come back when you have compiled a mature argument.

Thanks,


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2005)

Actually that comment had nothing to do with the situation about who owns the oil, now if you would bother to read the whole thread I believe you will see that I think Nfld and NS should get to keep all of the revenue, the only issue I brought up is how long then before those provinces then become "have" provinces and then require less transfer payments. Someone mentioned at least 10 more years which seemed long to me, if this money was managed correctly.

Now as to way I am getting pissed off at the whining is, when bringing in an arguement don't present it as fact when it is ENTIRELY hearsay, which would be OK if it was presented as hearsay[ I remember my Dad telling me to pull his finger and I'm still waiting for the wish] but, in this case it was presented as fact and then reneged when called on it.
And to that, yes, that would be my best arguement.

Ex,
I have not checked out those threads yet, I'm waiting for a call.[darn dial-up]...but I will read them later tonight.


----------



## ex_coelis (5 Jan 2005)

And let's not forget what politics he was preaching from that dockyard, Communism, yech!  Of course that all changed after his trip to London and the closed door meetings with the Privvy Council.  Sold off to pay for war debts, and Joey was crowned King.  It was all over before they bothered to call for a vote.  51/49 with the ballots burned the next day.  No recount, no questions, you're Canadian now, enjoy the ride.  Can you imagine Quebec voting 51% to leave today and the vote being accepted without a debate,  a recount, and the ballots burned?   The whole thing stank then, and 55 years hasn't made it any less ripe.  

Really though, I'm less concerned with the politics of that time, and more concerned with the 'here and now'.  I've been the devil's advocate arguing on Canada's side for years, and if I've now come to point where I'd rationally consider independence, I can only wonder how many others have already reached this point, are passed it,  and are ready to act?

Best regards.


----------



## Bograt (6 Jan 2005)

Bruce,

The technical briefing on the proposal was held yesterday. I have attached the NL position of the terms for your review.



> Analysis of Federal Government Offer on the Atlantic Accord
> Winnipeg, December 22, 2004
> 
> On June 5, 2004 the Prime Minister accepted the proposal of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to remove the effect of the Equalization clawback on offshore revenues so that the Province will receive 100 per cent of the value from these revenues.
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jan 2005)

Just out of curiosity.......when was the last time anyone saw a Cdn flag flying over a Provincial Gov't building in Quebec?  No big kafuffle about that?

Martin reneged on his promises and something had to be done to "rally the troops".

GW


----------



## Cakear (6 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _The smart People knew damnwell what was going to happen . . . _
> 
> You got any facts to back this up with smart guy?......or just more "waaaahhhh"?


In John Crosbie's autobiography, he mentions Geoff Sterling (capitalistic eccentric owner of NTV, OZFM, Sterling Press etc) dropping leaflets around St. John's in the 40s, pleading the people to vote against Canada and consider joining the U.S.  As much as I would fear the thought of being American, he obviously saw a better future for NFLD with America.  Granted, the island would have probably become one big military base.  At least it would not have been considered a welfare state.  Even Alaska could be considered a "have" state since '59 . . . no?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jan 2005)

Quote,
 Even Alaska could be considered a "have" state since '59 . . . no?

So how is this Canada's fault if your provincial govt. after govt. seem to be a sad version of the Keystone Cops?
What would have been done different,?  ......not just rhetoric, please.

EDIT: Bograt, I'm going to have to print that off and check it a little more because at first read, well I'd say about nothing sunk in. :-[
Looks too much like something I hate,....paperwork.


----------



## Cakear (6 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So how is this Canada's fault if your provincial govt. after govt. seem to be a sad version of the Keystone Cops?
> What would have been done different,?   ......not just rhetoric, please.


You said you wanted facts of how "smart people knew damnwell what was going to happen".   I gave you one.   I don't think anyone here is blaming Canada entirely for the track record of "govt after govt".   I think the present issue is the fact that Danny has pretty much said "no more" and is actually taking action to avoid the continuation of NFLD being the laughing stock of Canada.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jan 2005)

...and I have no problem with that, Nfld finally seems to have elected someone with a pair,.. however I don't like doing it with the flag and I don't like blaming the rest of Canada for years of pathetic local govt.
I only see a positive out of this for everyone, finally a Maritime premier who will make someone in the federal liberal's accountable for a promise, about time.


----------



## Bograt (6 Jan 2005)

<rant>
This should not be a debate between the province of Newfoundland and the people of Canada. No one should have to dispel stereotypes or defend the actions of those long since dead (or should be).

This is a simple issue of integrity. Mr. Martin, while in the death throws of a close election, promised Newfoundlanders the deal that their premier proposed. He then reneges after realizing the scope of his promise, then mounts a spin machine to confuse the rest of Canada, distract from the issue ("Newfoundlanders are stupid, and they want to double dip)*, and spin (flag disrespects those who serve).

Mr. Martin is the same SOB who devastated defence spending during the 90's. He is the same fellow who spent 10 years scheming to become PM. He is the same guy who said the reason why DART wasn't deployed earlier was because we were not expecting the tidal wave. He lied to Newfounders. His machine is focused on spinning the truth. He is a photo-op whore (vising a school and speaking with Sri Lankan Canadian children about the devastation). He cut the military.

If anything disrespects the flag, it is a prime minister you wouldn't let baby sit your children. It is the condescending remarks from ignorant, less informed Canadians. It is a PMO office that states that there would be retribution to the province if they didn't take what was offered. We are a city state nation populated by know it alls, ruled by thieves, and governed by liars. This is not the Canada I see represented in the flag that will be on my uniform. It is the legacy of truth, duty and valour. Neither of these adjectives are reflected by Martin and his team of character assassins and blackberry ninjas.

<rant off>

*Remember when Bush's people said Kerry was a flip flopper? Remember how it stuck, regardless of the facts (one way or the other. The feds here have gone the same rout. They are saying we are double dippers. Simple, short and effective- regardless of whether it is true or not. The main issue is the SOB promised. That what we are pissed about.


----------



## Cakear (6 Jan 2005)

Yup . . . broken election promises . . . like Dalton McGuinty in Ontario and Jean Chretien with the GST (to name but a couple).


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2005)

Hear, hear Bograt. "loud sounds of applause".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jan 2005)

Thank you, Bograt.
 What started this merde-tossing contest is that some posters seemed to make it between the people of Canada and the people of NFLD., when in fact it is not.
I have stated right from the start that the Maritime provinces should keep the revenue and all I got in return was ranting rhetoric on "how we wont be here long,etc".
Hard to remain sympathitic while getting whacked with a 2x4.
I hope Mr. Martin gets it stuck to him this time, BUT, to go back to what started this thread.....don't use my/yours/our
flag as a bargaining chip.
Thanks, Bruce


----------



## chrisf (6 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I have stated right from the start that the Maritime provinces should keep the revenue and all I got in return was ranting rhetoric on "how we wont be here long,etc".



Point of anality... Newfoundland and Labrador isn't one of the maritime provinces, that term came about long before Newfoundland joined confederation, though it is one of the atlantic provinces. Though that's just me being anal


----------



## Bograt (6 Jan 2005)

Bograt said:
			
		

> 4. Offshore oil belongs to Canada legally. If it was located in down town St. John's this wouldn't be an issue- howver Paulie promised.- and where I come from a promise is a promise.
> 
> 5. Taking down the flag is wrong. It is stupid. It is disrespectful. It is without justification. Being lied is wrong as well.



I agree Bruce. Stay focused on the issue. I wish I had the numbers to go over myself. The entire issue is legaleez and beyond my litteracy level.


----------



## Cakear (6 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> .....don't use my/yours/our flag as a bargaining chip.


 I'll admit it's a little drastic, but I don't think it's being done with the same maliciousness as say, Quebec.   One question Bruce (and anyone can answer/respond) . . . what other options could Mr. Williams have exercised and gotten the same response??


----------



## ex_coelis (6 Jan 2005)

Nice posts Bograt.  

Bruce, I wouldn't put it between the people of Canada and the people of Newfoundland, I'd put it between the Government of Canada and the people of Newfoundland.

Todays National Post editorial applauded Paul Martin's response that until the flag goes up the talks are off, and said how Williams was now out of ammo and will be shamed into crawling back to the table with the flag flying high, presumably to take what he is given by the benevolent Feds, and according to the editor, this is a fine situation.  

My rhetoric says that if this federal govt thinks that the right way to deal with Newfoundland is to shame them, as has worked in the past,  (and no worries from the clout of NFLDs 7 MPs), there may be something else in Danny's pocket.  Danny is a smart man, and I am sure he didn't take the flags down without thinking ahead of Martin making the comeback he did.  Anyone have any thoughts as to what his next move might be?  (Not a rhetorical question, I'm serious, I don't know, I'm not the Rhodes scholar).  

BTW:  Good point about the flags on Quebecs provincial buildings. (!)  

Bruce, it isn't all about our 'keystone cop' provincial governments, I think I wrote about this already.  

Fun read, no?





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Thank you, Bograt.
> What started this merde-tossing contest is that some posters seemed to make it between the people of Canada and the people of NFLD., when in fact it is not.
> I have stated right from the start that the Maritime provinces should keep the revenue and all I got in return was ranting rhetoric on "how we wont be here long,etc".


----------



## Bograt (6 Jan 2005)

A couple of things regarding your last post.



			
				ex_coelis said:
			
		

> Nice posts Bograt.
> 
> *1*Todays National Post editorial applauded Paul Martin's response that until the flag goes up the talks are off, and said how Williams was now out of ammo and will be shamed into crawling back to the table with the flag flying high, presumably to take what he is given by the benevolent Feds, and according to the editor, this is a fine situation.
> 
> *2*Danny is a smart man, and I am sure he didn't take the flags down without thinking ahead of Martin making the comeback he did.



1. There is no difference between that editorial response and that of the Globe and Mail.


> Margaret Wente, the Globe's featured columnist on its opinion page, says Williams has gone too far in his demands with the federal government.
> 
> 
> "Mr. Williams reminds me of a deadbeat brother-in-law who's hit you up for money a few times too often," Wente writes in the Globe's Jan. 6 edition.
> ...



Well if we are throwing analogies around...

The federal government is like the drunk step father, who regularly beats and sodomizes his step-child and favours his own children.

2. Yes Danny is smart. Smart enough to probably be a nav. However, I think he shot from the hip in a moment of anger and indiscretion. I was thinking how could he save face here. I thought that maybe he could invite Martin to St. John's in a symbolic flag presentation, immediately followed by a working screech in. 

I am biased. i voted for the PCs in the last provincial election even though our local PC candidate is a lazy bum and a drunk. I wouldn't say it if it wasn't correct.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2005)

Off topic but on -  If you catch my drift

I have been a loyal reader of the National Post since it came out. I state without reservation I am a fan of Conrad Black.  One of the reasons I read the Post was because it wasn't Ontario Liberal Centrist.

I now find, as pointed out, that there is no difference between David Asper's Martinite Centrist Paper and Jeffrey Simpson's Martinite Centrist Paper.

As an unabashed Provincialist whose heart lies in Alberta, despite living in BC, I fully support Danny Williams and the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Funny how most "Newfoundlanders" interviewed by the CBC to support PM all talk like they are "from away".

Not many supporters in Harbour Grace I'll warrant.


----------



## Cakear (6 Jan 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050105/EDANNY05/TPComment/Editorials


----------



## ex_coelis (6 Jan 2005)

Hi Kirkhill,

We're in the same boat media wise.   I cancelled my Globe subscription after their editorial stance chastising Tobin's (very popular) attempt to have Voiseys Bay nickel processed in the province (we should shut up and let INCO figure out where it should go, or else be rightly cast off by the mandrins of Bay Street).    I kept my National Post subscription due to 1: their covering of national defence issues, 2: their former offering of some counterpoint to the Liberal machine.   

Now I feel like cancelling the Post subscription as well, after their contemptable, ignorant editorials on this matter (and I don't mean contemptable, ignorant as in, not agreeing with my point of view, I mean plain old-fashioned blunt ignorance).   I fear I'm backing myself into a cave with these protest cancellations, I have to read _something_.   I guess the Post was at least less openly insulting than Wente's take on the matter.   Sheesh. 

When did I get so out of whack with the politics of this land anyway?    I believe it started with watching the Liberals piss away Canada's standing in the world with their defence (non)policy .   No vision, no guts, no honesty; and we just keep lapping it up.

Last night, I watched the Minister of National Defence on the CBC claiming (with a straight face!) that foreign subs navigating unannounced in Canadian Arctic waters was not a big issue.   Whaaaaaat?   I'm half hoping that the Russians start doing winter warfare exercises on Baffin Island so we can watch Paul say that he is considering drafting a nasty letter to Putin demanding that Russian forces pick up their garbage when they are done, and then read the Globe's editorial outrage at the soldiers disturbing of the seals sleep patterns.   (sorry, our eroding soverignty is another thread).      




			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Off topic but on -   If you catch my drift
> 
> I have been a loyal reader of the National Post since it came out. I state without reservation I am a fan of Conrad Black.   One of the reasons I read the Post was because it wasn't Ontario Liberal Centrist.
> 
> ...


----------



## ex_coelis (6 Jan 2005)

Todays St. John's Evening Telegram, for some counterpoint...

Thursday, January 6, 2005
Flag being pulled in all directions  
By THE TELEGRAM


Thanks to John Efford and the federal side, the chips truly are on the table â â€ the political bargaining chips, that is.

You can think what you like about Premier Danny Williams' decision to lower the Canadian flag at provincial buildings. Lots of people clearly think lots of different things â â€ this newspaper has received a torrent of letters to the editor on the topic, coming from across the country and representing all points of view. 

There are those, for example, who suggest that what the federal government is doing to this province is no different than what this province does to Labrador â â€ that is, soaking up the lion's share of natural resource revenues while sending virtually nothing back to the Big Land.

There are those who suggest that the province's stand dishonours veterans, and there are those who back Williams absolutely.

And then there's Efford, who opined on Canada Now recently that he was feeling short of friends in this province. Efford, and Prime Minister Paul Martin, have been particularly direct about the province's lowering of the Canadian flag. It is, they've said, political posturing of the worst kind, an abuse of a national symbol. Canada's flag, they maintain, should not be used as a bargaining chip.

Now, that's interesting.

On Canada Now this week, Efford said that there will be no talks between the federal and provincial governments on offshore revenues until the Maple Leaf is flying again over provincial government buildings.

That sentiment was echoed by Scott Reid, the spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office, who speaks when Paul Martin doesn't want anyone to see his own lips moving.

Reid is already notorious for stirring the pot and has had to back down from comments he's made about this dispute already. 

His latest offering? â Å“Let's lower the rhetoric, let's raise the flag, and let's get this deal done,â ? the Canadian Press quotes Reid as saying. 

â Å“Federal officials cannot sit down for a detailed discussion while the flag remains down.â ?

As we've already said, you can look at Williams' decision any way you like.

But any suggestion that the flag isn't being used as a political bargaining chip by the federal government just went right out the window. Because that is exactly what they themselves are now doing â â€ â Å“Put the flag up, or no talks.â ?

It makes any federal criticism of Williams' actions just about as hollow as it could possibly be â â€ a difficult effort, you must remember, given the fact that ships belonging to Paul Martin's former shipping empire lowered the Canadian flag as soon as it was even slightly financially expedient for them to do just that.

It does something else, too. Not only does it make Efford and Reid â â€ and by extension, Martin as well â â€ look sanctimonious in the extreme, it also shows that they are willing to be downright dishonest about what they claim to believe.

But wait â â€ honesty is what this whole issue is supposed to be all about, remember? 

On sincerity, perhaps that puts the score Danny Williams 2, the federal crowd 0. 

And Efford? Fast becoming the biggest zero of all.


----------



## Bograt (6 Jan 2005)

ex_coelis said:
			
		

> When did I get so out of whack with the politics of this land anyway?    I believe it started with watching the Liberals piss away Canada's standing in the world with their defence (non)policy .   No vision, no guts, no honesty; and we just keep lapping it up.



I wonder as well. Where did my country go? I hurt for the poor bastards who died at Juno beach. I hurt for the poor bastards who died at Gilipoli and Beaumont Hamel. I hurt for Cpl. Murphey and Lt. Saunders. Is this what we have become? 

I just wish that this Oil and gas thing could be settled so we could focus on more pressing issues- like marijuana decriminalization, national day care, transparent immigration policy (pun intended), sponsorship programs, CSL a loans, Bombardier grants, gun registry..................

*Vote Liberal...it is easier than thinking!*


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2005)

You know, I can't help but seeing the fly in the ointment here as that dammed equalization programme and by extension the entire federal tax structure.

The equalization plan allows the Feds to play favourites and curry favour.  It is the ultimate in socialism and social engineering.  If the tax structure conformed to the founding principles of Confederation citizens would pay taxes to their Province and the Province would dispense funds to the Feds for National Defence, Foreign Affairs and Arbitration (civil and commercial). Full stop.

Coming from good Presbyterian stock (the people that said that they - not the Pope, not the King, - would appoint their Ministers and if they didn't do a good enough job they would chuck'em out and hire somebody who could preach a good sermon) in my view my mioney is mine first, my town's second, my province's third, my country's last and the UN isn't on the list.

The problem with this is that with this scenario folks in cities would quickly find that they can only sell what they buy, having nothing of their own to sell but themselves, and that wealth is generated from having things and selling them (things like oil, water, nickel, iron, hydro, lumber, fish, grain what have you).  All else is sophistry.  You can't build a car, or run it without hydro, water, iron, nickel or oil).

Canada's provinces have resources in abundance.  The only reason we are all not as rich as the ruddy Saudi royal family is that we allow our governments to place silly restrictions on us in the name of cafe environmentalists.

As individual share holders in this Enterprise Canada we have more ruddy underutilized assets than any other country in the world.  Bar None.  We have something of just about everything that the rest of the world wants to buy.

And here is the real pity of the situation - we have so much that we could afford to screw up so royally and completely environmentally devastate an area the size of Switzerland and not even notice it -  Nobody wants to do that and we know how to do it better and do it without doing the damage - but we have so much we can afford to take chances and yet we refuse to take the risk and act.

Rant ends....'pologies sent.

Here, by the way of nothing, a study of the data that I gleaned from Jean's Liberal Party Testimonial published by StatsCan, otherwise known as the 2001 year book.

56 Hectares - Area of Earth's surface owned by each Canadian
14 Hectares - Area of Coastal Waters
                 - 8 Hectares - Ice covered Coastal Waters
12.6 Hectares - Area of Undifferentiated Lands (exists but no assigned used - rock, 'skeg and tundra)
7.8 Hectares - Area of Productive Forest
6.3 Hectares - Area of Scrub Forest
2.5 Hectares - Area of Fresh Water
2.1 Hectares - Area of Arable Land
1.3 Hectares - Area of Parks
0.09 Hectares - Area of Urban Settlement
0.033 Hectares - Area of Annual Forest Cut (representing 0.42% of the Productive forest and allows for a 250 regrowth cycle or 0.2% or the total forest and allows for a 500 year harvest cycle
0.019 Hectares - Area of lands mined or quarried (less than the per capita share of land covered by Metro Toronto)

By comparison the average citizen of the world's GREEDIEST nation, the USA, is entitled to an area of about 4 Hectares and Israelis and Palestinians are squabbling over 0.3 Hectares of ruddy desert.

If we don't spend some of this wealth we hold, rather than hording it, we do the world no service.  We are the world's Scrooge.

OK, now the rant really ends.  Let fly the slings and arrows.....

Cheers you lot.


----------



## Bograt (6 Jan 2005)

<off topic>
Metric is killing me. How many cups are in a hectare?

<on topic>
Kirkhill... ummm hun? You lost me at the Presbyterian stock line. I couldn't get the picture of intimate presbyterians out of my head.

<serious> 
My apologies for my anti-liberal diatribe. It really gets boring after a while. The Globe and Mail editorial was like throwing gas on a fire. I imagine lots of PMO clerks scrurring around trying to find a place to hide under. Got a laugh, the liberal machine miscalculated this one.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2005)

So you should apologise Bograt - it set me off something horrible myself.

Intimate Presbyterians - fairly sure there have been some of them around. ;D 

Cutting to the bottom line, Canadians have got lots of stuff and thus are wealthy.  It is our stuff, not the politicians' stuff.  Just like the Presbyterians decided they could make a better job of making decisions than Popes or Kings I think that rather than assuming that the Government owns the lot and passes it down as it sees fit, I believe we own the lot and should pass it up as we see fit.  Charity begins at home. 

Cheers.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (6 Jan 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/06/williams050106.html

Looks like Danny is going to back down on the flag issue and turn it around on the PM.  We have no beef with the people, just the leader.  Its a good spin, puts more focus on the issue of the PM and the once worthy John Effort.  Never thought that the son of a fisherman would sell out the people of Newfoundland while a rich townie is the white knight.


----------



## Bograt (7 Jan 2005)

This is a response to the Globe and Mails slander of yesterday. I would strongly earge those interested in the issue to listen to it.

It is a Real Audio clip.

http://stjohns.cbc.ca/morningshow/realaudio/20050107cleary_wente.ram


----------



## 227Tech (7 Jan 2005)

Thanks for the link.


You might find this ineteresting aswell.





... and Danny Williams responds
From Friday's Globe and Mail, January 7, 2005



It is with a heavy heart that I write in response to Thursday's commentary by Margaret Wente, "Oh Danny Boy, pipe down." As Premier of the great and proud province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I found Ms. Wente's column to be more than insulting. I found it very, very sad. 

If people around the country wonder why we removed the Canadian flag to protest against the treatment of our province by the federal government, I suggest they look no further than Ms. Wente's column. Her comments perfectly demonstrate why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to take such firm action to get the attention of the people of this country. Her paternalistic and condescending attitude serves only to further ignite the passion of our people at home and abroad. 

While Ms. Wente goes on at length to speak of federal moneys flowing to our "vast and scenic welfare ghetto," she fails to mention the resources -- human, cultural and, no less important, vast natural resources -- that our province brought with us to this federation, such as our fishery, our forests, our farms, our clean hydroelectric resources, our iron ore, nickel, copper, cobalt, gold and other minerals, and our oil and gas. 

Yes, Newfoundland and Labrador has benefited as a partner in Confederation, as has each and every other province and territory. That is what Confederation is about, after all. But make no mistake: This country has reaped untold billions from our natural and human resources as well. Ms. Wente may be tired of hearing us complain about how the federal government mismanaged our fishery; being sick of hearing about it, however, does not make the reality go away. Canada permitted foreign overfishing off our coast to continue, to our detriment, in order to secure trade agreements that benefited other regions of our country. Great for the rest of Canada, but certainly not great for the tens of thousands of fisheries-dependent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who left our province -- their homes -- to live and financially contribute to the economies of other provinces. 

As you read through Ms. Wente's column, it also becomes very clear that she is completely uninformed on our province's position. She says, "If you should make the error of suggesting that people might have to become more self-sufficient, your political career is dead." I only wish that Ms. Wente had been paying greater attention to what I have been saying for the past six months. Our government's primary goal in pushing the federal government to implement Prime Minister Paul Martin's commitment of June 5 (100 per cent of our provincial offshore revenues) is to provide our province with the necessary tools to finally become self-sufficient: a strong, contributing partner to the federation. 

That is what this is all about, Ms. Wente. It is about the province of Newfoundland and Labrador finally achieving our true potential -- the potential that comes from having some of the most precious, bountiful natural resources in the world. We are not asking for the federal government's share of these resources -- a share that accounts for more than 50 per cent of total government revenues. We are asking only for our provincial share. We are asking only for a chance. A chance we deserve. 

Ms. Wente wants us to stop complaining. Maybe we will stop complaining about being a victim when those who share her opinions recognize and address the historic pattern of abuse and mistreatment we have suffered. We are a proud people. Proud of our "quaint and picturesque" communities. Proud of our resilience in difficult times. Proud of our giving and kind-spirited disposition that comes so naturally. And we are proud to support other provinces and territories that benefit from the largesse of the federal government. But we are not too proud to demand from the same federal government that they fulfill the clear and unequivocal commitment of the Prime Minister. 

When Ms. Wente faults Canada's "hallowed policy of siphoning money from the haves to the have-nots, so that everyone can be equal," she forgets Section 36 of the Constitution, which obligates Canada to promote equal opportunity for all Canadians in all regions. Throughout Canada and the world, the Maple Leaf symbolizes fairness, justice, compassion and co-operation in the quest for equality of opportunity for all people. Our province removed the Maple Leaf, not to reject those values, but to draw attention to the fact that the Martin government's broken commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador frustrates those values. 

While it is true that we have only seven seats in the House of Commons and barely more than half a million residents, we are an equal partner in Confederation, and we have a small window of opportunity to turn our bountiful petroleum resources into long-term opportunities for our people and our province to stand on our feet. We do not deserve to be accused of wanting the fine people of Scarborough, Ont., to subsidize us, or being compared to "deadbeats." 

We are equal partners of a great country that accepts and supports our province's aspirations to achieve equality of opportunity and self-reliance. You should be ashamed of your comments.


----------



## Cakear (7 Jan 2005)

RIGHT ON DANNY BOY!!!!!!


----------



## Bograt (7 Jan 2005)

I wrote her this morning as well. Unfortunately, I am not nearly as articulate as Mr. Williams.



> Ms. Wente,
> 
> Well, if we are being "colourful" in the use of language to make a
> statement, let me take a crack at your proverbial ball.
> ...



I don't think it will get published.


----------



## Cakear (7 Jan 2005)

You're right . . . it probably won't be bulished  :

Here's a pretty good retort . . .

January 7, 2005 

To paraphrase Pierre Trudeau, patriotism is something that we feel in our bones. It is very natural and instinctive for humans to identify with the land and people of their birth. This revelation came to me as I stared out at Conception Bay from my grandparents' home in community of Carbonear, an hour's drive outside St. John's. 

On a cold, but sunny Boxing Day I walked down to the bay's shore and saw the waves crashing up against the barren rocks, staring at a horizon which will see no more land until these waves crash upon the shores of Great Britain, Newfoundland's first imperial conqueror. On my way to the shore I see an inshore fishing boat, a craft which has been the staple in a lifestyle which has not completely died out, but at the rate the offshore trawlers are taking the snow crab and scallop off the ocean's floor I fear fishing may soon be only seen by tourists of what Newfoundland looked like in a by-gone era. 

I was also in Carbonear on summer vacation in 1992 when federal fisheries minister John Crosbie announced a moratorium on the northern cod fishery, which economically devastated communities like Carbonear and the thousands of small fishing communities all around the island. I have a vivid memory of how dark it was that July day and how the clouds hung down as if they wanted to fall out of the sky. When oil was discovered off our shores, a brighter future didn't seem very far away. 

This feeling of pride for the land and people of Newfoundland and Labrador is what, the premier of my province, Danny Williams, pointed to rhetorically on December 22, as he walked out of talks with the federal government, â Å“for the last time.â ? From this moment on, I am a Canadian in name, not in heart. 

Though the Atlantic Accord talks talks have only appeared to be a small blip on the Canadian radar, they are huge news in Newfoundland and Labrador and could have huge ramifications. These talks are not just between a group of political elites about equalization formulas, the price of oil, or how much revenue we'll receive after five years; they are about being recognized by a country and a government which treats us as if we don't even exist. The letters and editorials of fury couldn't come fast enough from around Canada condemning Danny Williams for taking down the Canadian flag on all provincial buildings. 

Going to war with feds draped in the provincial flag is nothing new here in Newfoundland or the rest of Canada for that matter. Newfoundland Prime Minister Robert Bond did it in the early 1900s, Joey Smallwood did it with John Diefenbaker Joey Smallwood did it with John Diefenbaker, Brian Peckford did it with Trudeau and Danny (as he's affectionately called these days) is doing it with Martin. I did not vote for Williams. I did not like how he threatened draconian measures in legislating public sector workers back on the job and I'm generally very sceptical when rich Newfoundlanders come in on a white horse to save the province's people from themselves. But on this one, I support Danny. 

But my support for Williams has some reservations. I do not like this attitude of â Å“Father knows best,â ? that Newfoundland politicians take in their dealings with Ottawa. The only way that Newfoundland is ever going to make any headway with the federal government is if, like Quebec, we become masters of our own house. Though some may snicker at the notion of Newfoundland's seven seats, these could very much benefit either one of the opposition parties and could be a determinant on the size of a minority government. 

In order for the Canadian federation to work there has to be a middle ground between the unworkable centralizing federalism of Trudeau and the even more ridiculous decentralization of Brian Mulroney. I believe that it is imperative for the federal government to involve itself in delivering social programs, especially post-secondary education. But I do think that it has to be fair to all provinces and peoples in ensuring that they receive the full benefits of their natural resources. 

But if we do get 100 per cent of oil revenues it will signal the biggest change to Newfoundland since Confederation. This also worries me because a lot of wealth will be brought into the province, which will fundamentally change the class relationships in our province and could even widen the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. It could also spell the end of rural Newfoundland as people and resources are pulled into St. John's and its resource draining suburbs. 

As always, however, Canadians and their arrogant pundits like Margaret Wente seem to think that Newfoundlanders sponge off the hard-working Chinese and Korean immigrants of Scarborough who shouldn't have to subsidize â Å“the people who live in Carbonear no matter how quaint and picturesque.â ? Is this how Newfoundland is thought of in the rest of Canada? As simple ornaments in the Canadian mosaic? Oh look, we'll throw coins and watch how the stupid Newfies dance, play, and laugh like jesters in the Imperial Court. Or are we viewed as Wente puts it, as â Å“the most vast and scenic welfare ghetto in the world.â ? 

For a long time I was very suspicious of nationalism; when put in the wrong hands it can have deadly results, as the Bush administration has clearly shown. I understand now how Quebec nationalists and First Nations feel. Though some Newfoundlanders will disagree, I think that voting to join Canada in 1949 was the best decision Newfoundlanders ever made. But our role within Confederation has to change and change now, so I will be as Canadian as someone in Truro, Trois Rivières, Toronto or Taber. 

So when my colleagues on the political left wish to cluck their tongues in disgust at the United States, I suggest you look a little closer to home, my home. I'm sick and tired of hearing about this notion of a Canadian nation. There's no such thing. How can you possibly identify yourself as being Canadian, when it defines itself as being the opposite of an American. This notion of â Å“True Patriot Loveâ ? is a joke because it is used to sell Tim Horton's coffee and Molson Canadian beer. 

But in this very uncertain world, I take great comfort in the pride I feel for Newfoundland. Canadian intellectuals can all wax well into the night as to how Canadians are not Americans. I, however, will take pride in what Newfoundland is â â€ its culture, its language, its music, its history, its food, and especially its sense of humour which it needs more than ever, right now. 

John Matchim writes from Newfoundland where he is a student at Memorial University.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (7 Jan 2005)

This is a very touchy issue when you start to deal with Federal and Politcal politics on a national level.  All kinds of comparisons are made not all are good and not all are bad.  We seem to have to very seperate sides on this issue.  Those from Ont and those who are not.  

Was it a good move, politiaclly (my opinion) NO.

Did it get the attention it was meant to. YES

As can be seen by the 1400 hundred and some reads on this issue alone.

I think it is a dangerous game when you start to remove Federal flags from the buildings in a provice much as it would be to remove provincial flags from federal offices.  Newfoundland has gone through some very tough times and they want to ensure that this "new money" stays in that province.  I get that, but does that like all stories by politicians not scare you.  How many times have we see new money found only to go from right hand to left with no one in the know.  It happens at all levels federal and provincial.  But i think that a federal government suffers more scrutiny then a provincial one if it disapears.  OHH yes i know the sponsership scandal and all kinds of things have gone on, and yet the liberals are still in power right.  I think the PC failed to take full advantage of that and stick to what Harper knew how to do and be a human he changed and that i think scared Ont.   >Better the devil you know then the one you don't. But you cannot tell me the Liberals did not pay a hefty price in the election for it.  The PQ well that is another story for another coloum.

I disagree with the removing of the flag for political gain.  It is not a toy it is a national symbol and should not be used by any political party federal or provincial for posturing.


----------



## Reccesoldier (7 Jan 2005)

Wizzard, this country is a federation and by definition that means that provincial and federal politics exist precisely for the reason of interaction. Otherwise we would live in a unitary state like France with all our decisions made by a central power. Wouldn't that be great  :

A federation is designed to bring continuity to a large and diverse nation, for far too long the Federal government has been with one hand holding the have not provinces back through cuts to transfer payments while on the other hand creating what Steven Harper refered to (and rightly IMO) as a culture of dependancy on those very same transfer payments by denying the provinces the ability to invest and build on their natural resources. Yes I know under the constitution the oil off Newfoundland's shore belongs to the federal government but as someone has already said PM Martin made a promise, is it too much to ask that he honour it?

Nfld isn't the only place this is happening, recently Oil was also discovered in the Arctic, but the Fed are trying again to play their financial terrorism games because the oil is just off the coast. Anyone who has ever been to the high arctic knows that it is a little piece of the third world right here in Canada, but rather than create a prosperous and self sufficient region the feds are willing to live with the regional disparity and inherrent inequality in order to maintain their multi-billion dollar surpluses and stranglehold over the social safety net.

As for this being a Nfld vs Ontario thing I think you are dead wrong. It is however a question of power. Who do you want to have the power the fed or the provinces? Do you want to be dictated to by the all too distant talking heads in Ottawa or someone closer to home?
Do you want to have to ask Ottawa for transfer payments or do you want to have the ability within your own province to get things done?


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jan 2005)

You might want to be careful about asking those questions reccesoldier.  You might not like the answer.

Shortly after I moved out to Calgary in 1986 from Ontario I went back to Ontario on business.  This was my second life in Calgary by the way.  Anyway politics came up with a senior Ontario colleague of mine and we were discussing triple E senate.  I took the same stance then that I take now.  It is the right thing to do.  This chap took the opposite view.  "Why would on earth would we give up the power that we have."

Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jan 2005)

Quote,
_I know a good few people were angry about their flag too when it was taken down because of a rigged vote and we are suddenly Canadians. Theres no difference between lying in 1949 and lying in 2005._

...allright we get it!........so is this still your one trick-pony or do you have facts? These accusations without facts are now starting to bite on the Moderator side of things.

I said it before but, just for you, I will reiterate, we try to stick with reality on this site, if all you have to offer is the same "kife" without proof then I suggest you take it to other forums where that sort of stuff seems to be the norm.
Thank you


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jan 2005)

All right Deminer, lets try it again, your rebuttal skirted around everything but the issue I'm taking exception with as a moderator.... your accusation of a RIGGED VOTE.........thats it, nothing else. This is at least the second time you have stated that and I want some sort of proof of this. Not a lot to ask for really. So far all we have heard from you is "secret memos/rigged votes/nicknames/etc and no facts.
It would seem you just want a moderator who will say "yes sir" and thats not why I do this, I have opinions as do the other mods, and sometimes we disagree, but we are here to keep pertinent information flowing  and if I post something as a mod, than I state that it is such, as I did in your previous post.

So lets see something to even suggest it was a "rigged vote", if you have it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jan 2005)

ex_coelis
,...I bookmarked the Indepenent web site,[looks like a good read] but I could not find the story with the numbers in it. Do you have the bookmark for that story, please?
Thanks


----------



## Bograt (8 Jan 2005)

Bruce,

There are rumours of ballot burning and backroom deals on both sides of the debate. It is so ingrained in the Newfoundland psyche now its hard to distinguish the the truth from the tales. It is really pointless now to debate it- its kind of like arguing whether Jesus slept on his side or his back- no one knows for sure, and those who witnessed it are long since dead. 



> In the face of the large American presence in Newfoundland, the Canadian government kept a close watch on its economic and military interests there, appointing a High Commissioner in 1941. But if the links between Canada and Newfoundland were strengthened during the war, the idea of a political union aroused little public interest. Reporting on Newfoundland public affairs to the Dominions Office in London in 1943, Gov. Humphrey Walwyn observed that the people were "so dazzled by American dollars, hygiene and efficiency that many of the public rather play up to America in preference to Canada."
> 
> In planning for the postwar restoration of democracy to Newfoundland, Britain was concerned that the island Dominion would regain its political independence only to slip back into a state of economic dependence. Britain therefore proposed to fund a 10-year economic development program in Newfoundland, while keeping a tight rein on the island's finances.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jan 2005)

Well, for anyone wondering who I was posting to earlier, Deminer/Zerodarkthirty, deleted his posts, took his ball and went home.
It is a pity when ranting is all some people have, I think for the most part this has been a good [and lively ]thread.
I have learned some stuff here that I had no idea of before.


----------



## Sailing Instructor (8 Jan 2005)

Purely on the topic of the hoisting of colours: I think that, as an object used to symbolise nationality, the Canadian flag ought to be used for this purpose.  Logically, it can therefore be taken down to symbolise a lack of nationality.  I am not saying that it doesn't matter what Mr Williams does because it's all just rhetoric.  Quite the opposite, I think not only that rhetoric is very important in formal politics, but it's far better to use words (symbols, whatever) than bullets.  (Mind you the latter is a moot point, since the feds have the monopoly on violence but _conceivably_ rhetoric is the best way to get one's point across.)

If taking down the Canadian flag didn't make so many people react only a fool of a premier would do it.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Jan 2005)

I'm not sure what he was trying to accomplish with this except to appear a buffoon. Congratulations Dan, you can act like a petulant 5 year old whose been denied his cookie. He keeps claiming the feds are trying to "humiliate" him but he seems to be doing that all by himself. 

It seems like every time the provinces don't get what they want nowadays, they go back to the whole "f-ck Canada" thing. Be it Quebec, Alberta, and now _Newfoundland_ (irony???). What ever happened to "beggars can't be choosers"?


----------



## 227Tech (9 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape,

I think you should take a long look at the last 11 pages of posts, you seem to have a completely uneducated point of view.  The only people looking like a buffoon are those with the same attitude you seem to portrait.

I'd like ask what you exactly mean by "beggars can't be chooser's" cause I've walked through the streets in St. John's and other parts of Newfoundland many times and not seen a beggar yet, can't say the same thing for cities in Ont though.

When you grow up and have an  real, educated opinion, come back...otherwise your just wasting our time with written diarrhea


----------



## mo-litia (9 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> It seems like every time the provinces don't get what they want nowadays, they go back to the whole "f-ck Canada" thing. Be it Quebec, Alberta, and now _Newfoundland_ (irony???). What ever happened to "beggars can't be choosers"?



Did it occur to you that this reaction may be a result of Ottawa's ethnocentric attitude towards the areas of Canada that do not form the majority of the government's electorate? Albertans are frustrated with a government that is ideologically opposed to the wishes of most of them, and now Danny Williams is refusing to bend over and take the screwing Ottawa is trying to give him!   This country would be far better off if more of our politicians were cut from the same cloth as Mr Williams . . . or Mr Klein, for that matter.

I am a proud Canadian, but I am afraid that if this nation does not develop some cohesiveness on the issues which threathen our unity my grandchildren may well call themselves proud citizens of a country that does not exist yet.   However, it is more likely that our future descendants would refer to themselves as Americans, because the US will not stand idly by while the country on the other side of the 49th parallel disintegrates and tumbles into political chaos.

We Canadians have a duty to resolve our differences and make this nation work; we likely won't get a second chance at nation building without outside interference.   

I don't want to be an American - do you?


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jan 2005)

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=41e923cc-637b-4a6d-81e5-bbb8556d22c7

It seems that there are many people, some of them normally quite coherent, that are thinking dangerous thoughts these days.   Professor Michael Bliss in the National Post.   Not as virulent as Margaret Wente, but where he is prepared to fight to keep Quebec the attitude to Newfoundland and Labrador seems to be if the want to go, let'em.     And the best of British...

Aside from the obvious disrespect issues, all of which tends to make Danny Williams look righter and righter by the minute, such an outcome wouldn't serve the cause of those that wish to retain Quebec.   The Rock and the Labrador leave, what's to stop Quebec leaving.   Or for that matter Alberta or BC.   Additionally one of the concerns voiced in the past about Quebec leaving was how Canada would maintain communication with Newfoundland and Labrador, with them gone that would be one less thing to negotiate when Quebec separates.

Edited due to a return to normalcy after being afflicted by a momentary bout of insanity.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jan 2005)

The faster all these provinces hurry up and leave the faster we can all put the Stars and Stripes on our shoulders....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jan 2005)

...all "those" provinces can go,......just leave "our" land behind.


----------



## ex_coelis (9 Jan 2005)

Hi Bruce,

I can't find the 6-part story on Newfoundlands financial balance with Canada since confederation on the Independent web-site either.  I'll drop them a line and see what's up.  It was somewhere around 50billion out to Canada with 10billion in.  I'll get back to you about it.

G'day.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...all "those" provinces can go,......just leave "our" land behind.



Since I'm Canadian, and that's it (ie: I refuse to see provincial circumstance or _langue_ as an identifier) the term "those" and "our" have no real meaning to me.

The more fractured the Canadian political scene, the more steam the Monroe Doctrine will get....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jan 2005)

Quote,
the more steam the Monroe Doctrine will get....

Yea.....OK... ???....umm, you forgot who you were posting to right?[unless that was about Marilyn]


----------



## ex_coelis (9 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=41e923cc-637b-4a6d-81e5-bbb8556d22c7
> 
> It seems that there are many people, some of them normally quite coherent, that are thinking dangerous thoughts these days.   Professor Michael Bliss in the National Post.   Not as virulent as Margaret Wente, but where he is prepared to fight to keep Quebec the attitude to Newfoundland and Labrador seems to be if the want to go, let'em.     And the best of British...





Dangerous to some, hopeful to others      I agree with much of what Bliss wrote, and consider most of it is obvious.   

The Quebec situation is vastly different than the Newfoundland situation.   Quebec language, culture and territory is integral to the founding fabric of Canada.   Newfoundland's language, culture and territory are integral to Newfoundland (and Canadian jokes).

As Bliss said, Canada did fine without Newfoundland for 80+ years, and they'll continue to do fine without her (just sort out the trading issues).   Unlike with Quebec,   I agree that most Canadians would accept the decision of a referendum in Newfoundland either way.   This is not saying that I personally believe that the outcome of a referendum (at this time) would lead to Newfoundland going it alone. 

That said, I gotta stop talking to Icelanders.   I had a lively talk over drinks with a fellow the other night, who was amazed at the lack of balls Canada shows in protecting the Grand Banks and compared it to the way Iceland protected her waters back in the 70's.    As he said, they were newly independent and knew that if they didn't stand up to the British trawlers their economy and society would be finished, so they did what they had to do.   Guess who still has a healthy fishery?   Of course, in Newfoundland, the end of the fishery is not the end of our way of life, we can gladly accept what's best for us and go off and work in Wente's favourite dry cleaning shop in Scarborough scrubbing the skid marks from her gitch.   I also agree with Bliss when he says that the central Canadian press (mistaken for the Canadian Press, in central Canada) doesn't do a good job in taking the pulse of Newfoundland.   With my point, how many people reading this in Ottawa or Toronto (or wherever ouside of Atlantic Canada) remember the Feds announcing more and more cutbacks in fisheries patrols and enforcement, including last year when it was announced that DFO and the Coast Guard often have _no_ patrols on the Grand Banks depending on the day and time?   Big story in Newfoundland, sorta our equivalent of auto plants closing in Brampton.   Were you outraged by the evidence of trawlers slipping in and out of Canadian territorial waters to fish species that Canadians are not allowed to fish due to their impending extinction?   In the Canada press, it seems that the only time foreigners illegally fish in our waters is shortly before each federal election, and out goes the navy to head them off for a week.   Maybe the answer is more elections?   I dunno.

Glad to see people here being interested in the topic of our place in Canada.   Lot's of views, and a lively discussion, i'm really enjoying reading this.

I'm glad Danny is sorting out the flag issue, let's hope we soon see 100% of our 50% of the royalties.   I'd really rather complain about the equalization we are paying out.   I'll call back in a few years.


----------



## 227Tech (9 Jan 2005)

For those of you in support of Newfoundland and wish to see the province gettin what it deserves, check this site out.

http://www.fairdealfornewfoundland.com/

Thanks,


----------



## ex_coelis (9 Jan 2005)

And, because I have always been a fan of John Crosbie (even when he gave me a tongue lashing as a youth), an excellent summation of Newfoundlands points, which should sort out the confusion as to why we feel the way we feel, and are not simply gougers, or sooks.  I hope this encourages people to follow the link above and send a protest note to Martin and Goodale.

Sun, January 9, 2005 

Our beef with Canada

By John Crosbie -- For the Toronto Sun


Today, I will try to explain what causes the intensity of the feeling in Newfoundland and Labrador over its offshore oil and gas resource dispute with the government of Canada. 

Last June 5, Prime Minister Paul Martin, in a phone conversation with Premier Danny Williams that was confirmed later on Signal Hill before the press, committed to make sure that the province was "the primary beneficiary of its resources." Martin stated: "I have made it very clear that the proposal that (Williams) has put forth is a proposal that we accept." 

The failure of Martin since June 5 to carry out his electoral commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador comprises the third major betrayal of the province's vital interests by Canada, with respect to the major assets Newfoundland brought to Confederation when it joined on April 1, 1949. 
  

In addition to our strategic geographical position essential to the defence of Canada, we Newfoundlanders brought with us a claim to most of the Atlantic Continental Shelf, comprising millions of square miles later recognized by the UN as part of the Canadian 200-mile economic zone. 

If Newfoundland had not joined Canada, Newfoundland would have controlled the fish resources and the oil and gas and mineral resources in that huge area, as well as the iron ore and hydro power resources of Labrador. 

The 56 years since 1949 have seen the vital interests of Newfoundland and Labrador ignored by Canada, with the resources either poorly administered and depleted -- as in the case of the cod and other fish species -- or with the province's economic and revenue needs ignored, as in the development of the offshore and hydro power resources. 

Shamefully ignored 

The promise that it should be the primary beneficiary of the offshore resources -- in accordance with the Atlantic Accord on offshore oil and gas resource management and revenue sharing -- has been ignored shamefully by Canada while Newfoundland continues as a "have not" province, its fiscal capacity per capita still only 68.5% of the national average. 

This is why most people in the province back Williams' position in the Atlantic Accord negotiations with Martin -- and why they are so upset that they also support his decision to remove the flag of Canada from provincial buildings. 

This all results from Canada's three major betrayals, the details of which should be known to all Canadians: 


Hydro: The hydro-electric development of the Upper Churchill River in Labrador was initiated in 1953 when Brinco entered an agreement with the government of Newfoundland. Because of geography, Quebec either had to be the customer for the huge quantity of power developed or had to permit the energy developed to be transmitted across Quebec to other purchasers. The result was torturous negotiations with Quebec that continued for 14 years. 
Canada refused to use its constitutional power to declare this a work "for the general advantage of Canada or two or more of the provinces" which would have prevented Quebec's objections. Instead, Canada believed it to be in the national interest not to aggravate the threat of Quebec separatism. This federal decision was largely responsible for the onerous 65-year contract forced upon Newfoundland and Brinco by Quebec that severely limited prices. 

During the years since 1974, Quebec has received economic rent from the Upper Churchill Project of $800 million per year while Newfoundland, as the owner of the resource, receives $20 million per year. The development of the Lower Churchill did not proceed and despite seven major negotiations between the two provinces in the 30 years since, two major sites remain undeveloped, with the water running to the sea and Newfoundland and Labrador losing hundreds of millions of dollars of economic rent. How would the people of Ontario or other provinces feel if Quebec was aided by Canada to impose such a deal on them? 


Fish: The northern cod were fished off Newfoundland by Europeans from 1481 onwards. In the 100 years from 1850 to 1950, an average catch of 250,000 tonnes of northern cod was taken each year with no diminution in the fish stocks or any threat to the survival of the species. However, in 1992, Canada, within whose jurisdiction the fishery is constitutionally placed, had to announce the cessation of the cod fishery off the east coast of Canada and the fishing for other species cut because the stocks had been so vastly reduced, thanks to modern fishing technology and overfishing. The northern cod stock is still in danger, with other stocks overfished and in a parlous state as well, although Canada instituted generous programs of assistance to the 30,000 fishermen and fish plant workers affected. 
Fierce battles 


Oil and Gas: The discovery well at Hibernia was drilled in 1979, but it was 20 years before oil was produced and revenues began to flow in 1999. The first deep well had been drilled off Newfoundland in 1966. Fierce battles raged over these resources and how the revenues should be divided until 1985, when the Atlantic Accord was entered into by the administration of then-PM Brian Mulroney (in which I was a cabinet minister). 
In 1974, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Canada owned the oil and gas resources offshore, just as it had owned the oil and gas resources in what were known as the Dominion lands that came into Canada in 1867, and which became the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well as Northern Ontario and Quebec. The sub-soil resources were owned by Canada clearly, but in 1912 the sub-soil rights to minerals in Northern Quebec and Northern Ontario were granted to those provinces by Canada. In 1930, the sub-soil rights to oil and gas and other minerals were confirmed to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba by Canada -- without any compensation to the then maritime provinces. 

In fairness, Canada should grant to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces full right, title and property in offshore oil or natural gas. But Canada has refused to treat offshore resources as they treated onshore resources. 

The long disputes over the offshore resources were settled by the Mulroney administration with the Atlantic Accord, which states "the right of Newfoundland to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores." 

But because of the way Canada's equalization program works, there is a clawback so that Newfoundland loses up to 70% of its equalization grants, deducted from provincial oil and gas revenues received through the Atlantic Accord. The result is Newfoundland receives only 14% of the total government revenues from the offshore resources, while Ottawa receives 86%. 

Last chance 

It is Paul Martin who, since 1999, has led Canada's opposition to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia being the principal beneficiaries of offshore revenues. This is their last chance to become "have" provinces. 

Last June 5, when Martin made his commitments to Williams, naturally Williams thought the issue settled, with Newfoundland and Labrador to receive 100% net of provincial revenues from offshore oil, without clawback of any kind. 

You can well imagine how the weaseling of Martin and his ministerial minions, Ralph Goodale and John Efford, have aroused the distrust and revulsion of the people of the province, who see the commitments made to them after years of bitter disappointment snatched away once again by a totally untrustworthy and dishonourable government of Canada. 

Newfoundlanders need their fellow Canadians to understand what has happened, how they have been betrayed. 

Hundreds of millions lost on the Churchill River hydro developments, up to $1 billion that could be lost over 16 years on provincial revenues from offshore oil, and many hundreds of millions since 1992 lost by our fishermen and plant workers and rural Newfoundlanders: Surely enough is enough.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jan 2005)

Correction on my last - the I got the Monroe Doctrine mixed up with the Manifest Destiny.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jan 2005)

Letter sent!


----------



## Bograt (9 Jan 2005)




----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jan 2005)

Sent my letter in earlier.

The one thing that I would like to see come out of all this mess, Newfoundland Flags, Atlantic Oil, Quebec Asymmetry (bad when the bureaucrats can't be bothered to check spelling), Western Alienation, Alberta "going it alone" on a variety of issues, is a looser Federation and a restriction on centralization and central control.

Why is Trudeau's "Mosaic" revered, while "A Patchwork Quilt" is considered a derisory image?  I would sooner belong to a country where people were comfortable in the community they lived, choosing to order their lives as they chose and choosing to cooperate with other communities to greater purpose.  The opposing view is intellectuals and bureaucrats at the centre, all convinced they have the right answer, imposing their views of rightness on the land at large and on me and mine.  I dislike imposition. I prefer to be asked than told.


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Jan 2005)

227Tech said:
			
		

> Glorified Ape,
> 
> I think you should take a long look at the last 11 pages of posts, you seem to have a completely uneducated point of view.   The only people looking like a buffoon are those with the same attitude you seem to portrait.
> 
> ...



Oh I read the 11 pages prior to my post and, strangely, found that half of your posts consist of saying "your argument is unintelligent and juvenile", first to Bruce and then to myself, posting a news story, and providing a link. In other words, you've posted 4 or 5 times (maybe I missed one) and managed to say absolutely nothing of any substance except to rag on others who actually offered an opinion. Congratulations - you're superfluous. 

Of course you haven't seen beggars in St. John's - they'd starve. All your beggars come to Toronto or Montreal where they may actually stand a chance. If the entirety of your "intelligent opinion" consists of saying "Ontario sucks!" then I believe there's a place reserved for you on the same boat you've put me in. Whine a bit more about Ontario - that'll get you somewhere, just as it has with BC, Alberta, Quebec, and just about every other province in this country. 

That's my point - the provinces need to stop bitching. Ontario gets screwed too, and we bitch too, and we need to shut up about it since that's the way the ball has bounced since time immemorial. If the provinces want to engage in realistic, productive policy formation then great - do it up. In the process, realise that this isn't contract negotiation between corporations here, this is politics - people lie, cheat, and steal. This isn't a fricking revelation here, for christ's sake. As for saying "the feds are screwing us, so f-ck this country and its confederation", I'm sick of hearing it - from the politicians and the populous. No wonder our divorce rates are as high as they are with such a group of non-commital, peurile children who want to run away from the play pen every time the other guy gets a little more sand than them or doesn't treat them as the end-all and be-all of the preschool. 

The PM said one thing and did another... this still shocks people? That's the way it works - you say what will please everyone and then do what you can. This isn't a matter of allowing Nfld. 100% revenues, it's how fast the feds pull back the pokey. Be glad there's pokey there to begin with. I'm not taking the feds side, necessarily, but I am taking issue with the idiotic attention-whoring of the premier which has served to do little else than stymie things even more. It's reminiscent of something the PQ or Bloc would do. Nfld deserves its leg up, especially if it can do it on its own, but shi--ing on the flag only alienates the province and makes things even more adversarial than they already were. 



			
				mo-litia said:
			
		

> Did it occur to you that this reaction may be a result of Ottawa's ethnocentric attitude towards the areas of Canada that do not form the majority of the government's electorate? Albertans are frustrated with a government that is ideologically opposed to the wishes of most of them, and now Danny Williams is refusing to bend over and take the screwing Ottawa is trying to give him!   This country would be far better off if more of our politicians were cut from the same cloth as Mr Williams . . . or Mr Klein, for that matter.



Ugh... Ralph Klein, the alchy pseudo-Texan who'd like to see a glorious Bush-style Alberta? If more of our politicians were cut from that cloth, we'd be in dire circumstances. The provinces are just that - provinces, not countries. Simply because the premiers would like the ability to dictate policy on every realm and with as few constraints as possible is not any reason to give it to them. Alberta's anti-gay tendencies are a prime example of why the feds should keep the provincial powers firmly checked and, when necessary, dictate policy. Sometimes the provinces need a smack in the face. Ontarion REALLY needed a smack in the face with the healthcare funding fiasco the conservatives got us into, then blamed on the feds. IMO, we need weaker provinces, not stronger ones. This is fast becoming very loosely bonded country because the provinces can't look past their noses and see there's an entire country to consider, not just their precious province. Some jurisdictions should be purely provincial, yes, but it seems every time we have a premier's summit we end up with a bunch of wankers screaming for more and more autonomy and doing less and less to actually govern their provinces properly. The only time the provinces can manage a united front is when they all have some common thing they all want from the feds. In the meantime, provinces get screwed by feds who're trying to find some way to work out a policy with a province without having the rest come in screaming about preferential treatment - hence the concept of asymmetrical federalism as some attempt at pre-empting the "favouritism" argument. 



> I am a proud Canadian, but I am afraid that if this nation does not develop some cohesiveness on the issues which threathen our unity my grandchildren may well call themselves proud citizens of a country that does not exist yet.   However, it is more likely that our future descendants would refer to themselves as Americans, because the US will not stand idly by while the country on the other side of the 49th parallel disintegrates and tumbles into political chaos.
> 
> We Canadians have a duty to resolve our differences and make this nation work; we likely won't get a second chance at nation building without outside interference.
> 
> I don't want to be an American - do you?



How can we form cohesive policies when every province wants to be their own dictator in every jurisdiction except national defence, and only then because it's too expensive? We need a federal government that will keep the provinces in line, not some pandering yes-men who will allow 4th-string politicians to become mini-PM's of mini-countries, all the while tearing the country apart to the point where Nunavut is considering becoming its own state. 

That being said, I think this whole "Newfoundland could separate" talk is overstating things a bit. Quebec would have trouble surviving on its own, let alone Newfoundland which hasn't been self-sufficient for god knows how long. That's not a crack at Newfoundland (God knows federal mismanagement of the fisheries aided in their decline), I'm just pointing out that all this talk of NFLD separating is ridiculous and anyone who thinks they could pull it off is living in a pipe dream.

It all comes down to spending power - the feds want it and so do the provinces. That's why such problems will never go away, you can only negotiate them. In the meantime, screaming about separation and how it'd be better to quit the union really does nothing but focus attention away from where it should be.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jan 2005)

Well Ape, if nothing else, you offer the counter to my position.

Greetings from the colonies to the centre.  Best of luck with your career.


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Well Ape, if nothing else, you offer the counter to my position.
> 
> Greetings from the colonies to the centre.   Best of luck with your career.



Thank you, and you with yours. Admittedly, though, your position seems far more popular these days than mine. Perhaps I'm a bit outdated.


----------



## Torlyn (9 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Ugh... Ralph Klein, the alchy pseudo-Texan who'd like to see a glorious Bush-style Alberta? If more of our politicians were cut from that cloth, we'd be in dire circumstances.



Yeah, debt-free, lower taxes, lowest unemployment.  I can see how terrible Alberta has become.  Oh, did I mention that this fiscal year we are the only province paying in to provincial transfers?  I'm not complaining about it though, as it's part of confederation.  I noticed that after telling us not to bitch about the provinces, because you're sick of it, you decide to bitch about the leader of mine?  Hypocracy, thy name is Glorified Ape.  Clever.  And Cheers.

T


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> How can we form cohesive policies when every province wants to be their own dictator in every jurisdiction except national defence, and only then because it's too expensive? We need a federal government that will keep the provinces in line, not some pandering yes-men who will allow 4th-string politicians to become mini-PM's of mini-countries, all the while tearing the country apart to the point where Nunavut is considering becoming its own state.
> 
> That being said, I think this whole "Newfoundland could separate" talk is overstating things a bit. Quebec would have trouble surviving on its own, let alone Newfoundland which hasn't been self-sufficient for god knows how long. That's not a crack at Newfoundland (God knows federal mismanagement of the fisheries aided in their decline), I'm just pointing out that all this talk of NFLD separating is ridiculous and anyone who thinks they could pull it off is living in a pipe dream.
> 
> It all comes down to spending power - the feds want it and so do the provinces. That's why such problems will never go away, you can only negotiate them. In the meantime, screaming about separation and how it'd be better to quit the union really does nothing but focus attention away from where it should be.



Thank you, that seems to spell my concern out very clearly.   I prefer living in a functioning state as opposed to a disintergrating feudal arrangement.

For all those "provincials", better start working on the the following:

_"I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation...."_


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jan 2005)

I have already "pledged my allegiance",  three times over in fact, to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors.....

Pretty sure you've offered that assurance at least once yourself Infanteer, 

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I have already "pledged my allegiance",   three times over in fact, to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors.....



Unfortunately, that won't be too acceptable when the fragmented remains of Confederation are faced with either applying to the Union or facing obscurity as the Northern version of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.... ;D


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Thank you, that seems to spell my concern out very clearly.   I prefer living in a functioning state as opposed to a disintergrating feudal arrangement.
> 
> For all those "provincials", better start working on the the following:
> 
> _"I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation...."_



Precisely, though it appear's we're in minority these days - everyone seems to prefer inter-governmental bickering than productive governance. Which is a problem that's going to bite us in the ass precisely the way you've characterized it. 




			
				Torlyn said:
			
		

> Yeah, debt-free, lower taxes, lowest unemployment.  I can see how terrible Alberta has become.  Oh, did I mention that this fiscal year we are the only province paying in to provincial transfers?  I'm not complaining about it though, as it's part of confederation.  I noticed that after telling us not to bitch about the provinces, because you're sick of it, you decide to bitch about the leader of mine?  Hypocracy, thy name is Glorified Ape.  Clever.  And Cheers.
> 
> T



Don't forget to add "grappling with the human rights commission on issues of social ludditism" to Alberta's achievements.  I suppose Klein's great if you like a homophobic, militarily aggressive nation led by a drug addict (sounds strangely familiar...) with a balanced budget.

Where did I bitch about Klein? I offered my opinion of him, given mo-litia's assertions as to his admirability. If we're going to classify every critical opinion as "whining" then we're going to have a problem. Bitching about immutable facts of federalism by millions is one thing, casting aspersions on a politician for his policies and undesirable personal qualities is quite another.  

Feel free to hop off the danglies whenever it's convenient.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jan 2005)

I'm not going to comment on Klein's governance of his Province (ok - I will, I've felt it has been pretty damn good), - but it appears to me that he's using his political currency to drive a further wedge between Alberta and the Rest of Canada (which isn't cool) rather then capitalizing on his record of effective administration to teach the Federal government a thing or two about how to run your mandate.

However, I am going to restate my belief that this statement is fundamentally true:



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Precisely, though it appear's we're in minority these days - everyone seems to prefer inter-governmental bickering than productive governance. Which is a problem that's going to bite us in the ass precisely the way you've characterized it.



Listening to all this blustering for an independent Newfoundland is comical at best.   Why don't we focus on true national problems such as our creaking social programs, our weakened military capabilities, and securing the North American continent with our Southern Allies rather than arguing over the kitchen scraps with a "me first" attitude.


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm not going to comment on Klein's governance of his Province (ok - I will, I've felt it has been pretty damn good), - but it appears to me that he's using his political currency to drive a further wedge between Alberta and the Rest of Canada (which isn't cool) rather then capitalizing on his record of effective administration to teach the Federal government a thing or two about how to run your mandate.
> 
> However, I am going to restate my belief that this statement is fundamentally true:
> 
> Listening to all this blustering for an independent Newfoundland is comical at best.   Why don't we focus on true national problems such as our creaking social programs, our weakened military capabilities, and securing the North American continent with our Southern Allies rather than arguing over the kitchen scraps with a "me first" attitude.



Ironically, it's that "me first" attitude that doesn't just screw the country but the provinces vis a vis each other. With all of them clubbing each other like baby seals to get a leg up, all their "the provinces must be united against the feds" rhetoric is shown to be BS. 

I agree we should be focusing on the REAL problems, not on institutional arrangements. This is so difficult nowadays because everytime we try to focus on a problem (like military funding) we end up with half a dozen provinces screaming "our healthcare needs the money more". I guess it comes down to the fact that some policies just can't come true unless a crisis comes around to give everyone a rude awakening.


----------



## Torlyn (9 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Don't forget to add "grappling with the human rights commission on issues of social ludditism" to Alberta's achievements.  I suppose Klein's great if you like a homophobic, militarily aggressive nation led by a drug addict (sounds strangely familiar...) with a balanced budget.
> 
> Where did I bitch about Klein? I offered my opinion of him, given mo-litia's assertions as to his admirability. If we're going to classify every critical opinion as "whining" then we're going to have a problem. Bitching about immutable facts of federalism by millions is one thing, casting aspersions on a politician for his policies and undesirable personal qualities is quite another.
> 
> Feel free to hop off the danglies whenever it's convenient.



To the first, it's politically convenient.  By railing against gay marriages, he's securing the rural areas of Alberta, and given that he's perfectly aware he's powerless to do anything about it, isn't concerned with changing anything, thereby not loosing any more of the urban vote.

How is he homophobic?  Not wanting gay marriages from a political standpoint is one thing, but questioning the guy's character when you don't really know him is ludicrous.  And for the record, he's not homophobic.

Militarily aggressive?  How so?

Drug addict?  Given that you've overtly claimed that your first application was denied because you admitted to prior drug use, again I see hypocrisy rearing it's ugly head.

Danglies?  Please.  Try not to be so juvenile.

T


----------



## ex_coelis (9 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Listening to all this blustering for an independent Newfoundland is comical at best.   Why don't we focus on true national problems such as our creaking social programs, our weakened military capabilities, and securing the North American continent with our Southern Allies rather than arguing over the kitchen scraps with a "me first" attitude.



Comedy is always such an individual thing, no?   Justify your comment please.   [Let me beat you to a possible punchline, if you want to say 'look how much money Canada pumps into Newfoundland, they couldn't survive without the equalization payments', please do some research, anything other than that, fire away]

I'm thinking of a province that is having a hard time paying for it's social programs.    Thet province sees that it might be able to balance it's books and pay for it's social programs if it receives it's agreed upon share of revenues from a resource that it brought into this country.   That possibility is now being thwarted due to a lying PM who is recinding his word.   The same PM who as finance minister accelerated the gutting of our military.   

As far as, 'politicians lie, get over it', one motto I learned to live by in the CF is 'never pass a fault', I have few hates in my life, but liers and thieves are two of them.   So what should we do according to your philosophy?    We let Martin off on his word, continue our economic dependency as our resources are siphoned away forever, then sit back and be called a 'vast and scenic welfare state'?    FU*K THAT!   I'm not letting him off with shi*.    If that you think lying politicians are acceptable, then continue voting for those with a proven record, the Liberal Part of Canada.   But, don't hold your breath on restoring the military, or sorting out things with the US, or maybe even banking on cheap electricity from Churchill Falls.

Kitchen scraps?   You either have quite a kitchen or have no idea how much is at stake.   

I know a billion dollars wouldn't even pay for this governments gun registry, or even it's Quebec advertising slush funds, but it's still a lot of dosh, and we badly need it.

BTW:   Did you take a moment to read Crosbies column in the Sun on the last page?   Are there bigger issues facing Canada as a whole?   Yes.   Are there bigger issues facing Newfoundland right now? Nope.   This is a defining issue and one worth talking about.   If it's not important to you, which is definitely your perogative, what are you doing writing in this thread.   

I can suggest some other sites for threads regarding social services, and other threads here regarding our military co-operation with the US.

Give'r


----------



## ex_coelis (9 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Ironically, it's that "me first" attitude that doesn't just screw the country but the provinces vis a vis each other. With all of them clubbing each other like baby seals to get a leg up, all their "the provinces must be united against the feds" rhetoric is shown to be BS.
> 
> I agree we should be focusing on the REAL problems, not on institutional arrangements. This is so difficult nowadays because everytime we try to focus on a problem (like military funding) we end up with half a dozen provinces screaming "our healthcare needs the money more". I guess it comes down to the fact that some policies just can't come true unless a crisis comes around to give everyone a rude awakening.



You cannot see the forest for the trees, as far as this discussion is concerned.


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Jan 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> To the first, it's politically convenient.  By railing against gay marriages, he's securing the rural areas of Alberta, and given that he's perfectly aware he's powerless to do anything about it, isn't concerned with changing anything, thereby not loosing any more of the urban vote.



The gay marriage thing is the tip of the iceberg - Vriend v. Alberta represented another issue. I don't think it's any secret that Alberta isn't exactly the most gay-friendly province in the country.  



> How is he homophobic?  Not wanting gay marriages from a political standpoint is one thing, but questioning the guy's character when you don't really know him is ludicrous.  And for the record, he's not homophobic.



I dunno, call me crazy but I just get this strange inkling that someone's homophobic (or anti-gay, which I prefer since homophobic implies fear) when the government they're leading vehemently resists any expansion of gay rights, even simply towards equality. 



> Militarily aggressive?  How so?



I'm basing that entirely on Iraq. If he supports the US like he claims he does, then he necessarily supports aggressive war-making. 



> Drug addict?  Given that you've overtly claimed that your first application was denied because you admitted to prior drug use, again I see hypocrisy rearing it's ugly head.



Drug use does not an addict make - you should know that. When I start stumbling into homeless shelters, drunk or high off my ass, you can call me an addict, though I haven't used drugs since highschool. 



> Danglies?  Please.  Try not to be so juvenile.
> 
> T



It was a joke, which I would have indicated with a smiley if I hadn't already used two in that post and have a heartfelt belief in one admin's suggestion that people refrain from over-smileying. I'm wondering, though, if it was the term or the statement you're taking issue with. Would "testicles" have appeased your superior maturity? Indeed, one wonders if you haven't been around since Genesis.  



			
				ex_coelis said:
			
		

> You cannot see the forest for the trees, as far as this discussion is concerned.



Elaborate?


----------



## ex_coelis (9 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape,

Saying that paying for social programs is an important issue, and Newfoundland getting it's share of oil revenues is not, means that you cannot see the forest for the trees.   
(Do I really need to explain this?)

For Newfoundland, Quebec earning nearly $900,000,000 annually on Newfoundland hydroelectricity, with NFLD earning $20,000,000 annually and footing the bill for keeping the place running is one reason that Quebec can better pay for it's social programs and Newfoundland cannot.   Fair?   

The oil royalty situation is a newer, but similar situation, this time with the federal government rather than Quebec.   Resources flowing away without the province getting a fair share of the revenue results in the province not being able to properly fund it's social responsibilites.

Want to talk about social programmes in Newfoundland, welcome to the debate about oil royalties.   Want to talk about Federal Social Spending, I'm sure there are threads about it, probably not here.

Clear enough?


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jan 2005)

ex_coelis said:
			
		

> Comedy is always such an individual thing, no?   Justify your comment please.   [Let me beat you to a possible punchline, if you want to say 'look how much money Canada pumps into Newfoundland, they couldn't survive without the equalization payments', please do some research, anything other than that, fire away]



I'm not disputing the political clash between the Newfoundland Government and the Liberal Government; judging from the last 12 years of Liberal rule, I'm willing to wager that it is probably valid.  What I am criticising is all the chatter about Newfoundland (or any other Province) leaving the country over an allocation issue - I really don't think highly of the Premier hauling down the flag; rather then "get at" the Martin government it is an insult to those who value the idea of the _Canadian_ nation.

Here's the deal, you can turn Newfoundland into Georgia and I'll be Sherman.  Your move, Se'ech....


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2005)

> Here's the deal, you can turn Newfoundland into Georgia and I'll be Sherman.  Your move, Se'ech....



Pretty lame Infanteer, not your best.  Rethink?


----------



## ex_coelis (10 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Here's the deal, you can turn Newfoundland into Georgia and I'll be Sherman.   Your move, Se'ech....




.... Under Sherman's orders Capt. O. M. Poe "thoroughly destroyed Atlanta, save its mere dwelling-houses and churches." The destruction was by fire purposely applied to buildings, and permitted to spread, as was expected, from house to house until the defenseless city was almost entirely reduced to ashes. No efforts were made to prevent the spread of the conflagration, and scarcely any structure was designedly spared. Only about 450 buildings escaped this ruthless burning, among them many churches, which in those days generally stood apart from other buildings. The thoroughness of the destruction can be realized, when we consider that by the census of 1860 Atlanta had a population of 10,000, which in 1864 had increased to 14,000. More than 4,000 houses, including dwellings, shops, stores, mills and depots were burned, about eleven-twelfths of the city. Capt. Daniel Oakey, of the Second Massachusetts volunteers, says: "Sixty thousand of us witnessed the destruction of Atlanta, while our post band and that of the Thirty-third Massachusetts played martial airs and operatic selections." Sherman himself noted the rising columns of smoke as he rode away from the city. Considering that he had been in possession of the city since the 3d of September, he had had ample time to utterly destroy everything in it that could be of advantage to an enemy, without the wanton and inexcusable method to which he resorted. It was no more necessary from a military point of view to destroy mercantile establishments than private dwellings or churches. The destruction of Atlanta can never be excused. The name of the Federal commander will always be associated with this barbarous act. ..

Is this what you're threatening?   Big words, ever actually visited the place?   Georgia ain't Newfoundland, you ain't Sherman, and you should be ashamed.


----------



## Art Johnson (10 Jan 2005)

Garbageman said:
			
		

> I wish!   When was the last time we had an Ontarian as PM???   Lester Pearson 1968.



Good grief I hope you are not bragging about Lester B, that SOD should have been put up against the wall and shot with a ball of hi own S-H-I-T. He is another one of those communists that it is difficult to pin down because the records have been purged. I have been trying for years to link him with Burgess and McLean but the trail has been well covered. His FAG buddy who committed susuicideas the Ambassador to Egypt was another member of that CABAL that was running Canada.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jan 2005)

Good grief Mr Johnson, and I thought I was an angry man.... >

Anyways, I see that my Civil War analogy had its intended effect.   Debates about Sherman's campaign aside, I hear an echo of many of the arguments made by Southern States prior to Succession in 1860-1861, and my comment was intended to underline the gravity of my opinion on this conversation.   Soldiers wear the Canadian Flag on their shoulders, not some fruit salad of various Provincial artwork.   For some reason, amidst all the talk of leaving Canada, the views of those loyal to Canada first and foremost have been repeatedly dismissed as "just another example of Canadians picking on Newfoundlanders, thinking were bums, yadayadayada...."   I assure you it's not.

I've granted (twice now) that the province has a valid gripe with the Federal Government - hell, being from the West, I'm sure you've probably got your fill of complaints from out here.   However, I draw a line between solving a political dispute and advocating the dismemberment of our country by starting the domino effect.   For once we start to contemplate abandoning the idea of Canada, I may as well not bother to try and put on the uniform anymore because there is nothing to defend due to the fact that the rug was pulled out from underneath.   Just as you're mad about things not going the way you'd like in your corner of Canada, I'm equally incensed with the apparent disregard for any notion of national loyalty that the Premier has shown (and some here have been quick to rally to).

This is the last I'm going to say - as far as I'm concerned this thread is on its way down the tube.   You can sit on your Rock and rail about the injustices that you've been the sole target of and in the process tell the rest of Canada to piss off, or you can come off your high Newfoundland horse and attempt to offer a political solution that perhaps, wonder of wonders, benefits all Canadians (yes, you're one of those too).

Infanteer Out


----------



## Bograt (10 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> or you can come off your high Newfoundland horse and attempt to offer a political solution that perhaps, wonder of wonders, benefits all Canadians (yes, you're one of those too).


Infanteer,

I'm sure that if this discussion were happening over a beer you wouldn't be so quick to take that poisition. It appears we have a clash of cultures here (for lack of a better term). It kind of remids me the traditional follies of cross cultural communication one would have if travelling to rural Africa. There is a history here that I do not believe some have appreciated how it has effected the debate. With all do respect to PEI and the other Martime provinces, Newfoundland is the only province to choose to enter confederation, and it was only 55 years ago. With the history of Federal/Newfoundland (as articulately outlined by Mr. Crosbie) I believe it is easy to understand why there is a sense of disenfranchisement with the current relationship. We are not sitting on a high horse, but rather standing up- we are a tall people, I can see how you could be confused. 

I understand and sympathize with your position regarding some of the separation rhetoric you may have interpreted. I classify the minority who bark this idea into three groups:

1. The call in show inteligensia (If you ever heard a NL call in show you would apprieciate the humour)
2. Lottery winners (These are the types who would divorce their spouces once they won the lottery and try and keep secret their fortune)
3. Moths. They see a bright light and are attacted to it... unfortunately it is a flame.

I think this debate illustrates the fractured nature of confederation. I get the sense that the only people who believe we are on the right course are the people in the economic center. I thhink it is because our leaders are not leaders of countries, but rather leaders of their political party- glorified Rotarians with the funny hats.


----------



## Cakear (10 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> . . . What I am criticising is all the chatter about Newfoundland (or any other Province) leaving the country over an allocation issue - I really don't think highly of the Premier hauling down the flag; rather then "get at" the Martin government it is an insult to those who value the idea of the _Canadian_ nation.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but in everything I've read and seen, I have yet to hear Danny mention _anything_ about going it alone or seperating from Canada.   In fact, I heard him tell reporters he's a staunchly proud Canadian who cheered for the CDNs at the World Juniors.   Pulling down the flag was simply to show his and (if public support in NF is any indication) the province's dissatisfaction with how the Federation of Canada (of which the flag is but a symbol) is being run . . . is breaking promises.   Can ANYONE deny that a self-sufficient Newfoundland and Labrador would not benefit the rest of Canada in the end?


----------



## Bograt (10 Jan 2005)

Cakear said:
			
		

> Can ANYONE deny that a self-sufficient Newfoundland and Labrador would not benefit the rest of Canada in the end?



That's not the question that federal government is wrestling with. The question is "Can ANYONE deny that a self-sufficient Newfoundland and Labrador would not benefit the national Liberal Party?" My take, is a self sufficient Newfoundland would abandon the grits.

These are the same guys who in one breath say"The Tories believe you ave a culture of dependency" and in the other the say"The Tories will take away your EI." Once they no longer can bargain with our tax money, what else do they have?

I believe we are small c conservative here. Traditional family values, provincial empowerment, taxation exhaustion- but we have become dependant on federal handouts.


----------



## Bograt (10 Jan 2005)

> Canadian flags are flying once again at provincial government buildings. Premier Danny Williams issued the order for the flags to go up again as of 1pm today. They were removed on December 23rd as a statement to the federal government on the province's displeasure with talks on offshore revenue sharing. It was a move that sparked debate and controversy across the country.
> 
> Support for Premier Danny Williams' stand on the Atlantic Accord continues to grow. Williams was Randy Simms' in-studio guest on VOCM's Open Line today. Williams went on record thanking the people of the province. Williams says the federal government still considers Newfoundland and Labrador a secondary province in Canada. The premier says after the meeting in Winnipeg last month, he was even more convinced Ottawa never had any intention of reaching a deal with the province.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2005)

Bograt said:
			
		

> That's not the question that federal government is wrestling with. The question is "Can ANYONE deny that a self-sufficient Newfoundland and Labrador would not benefit the national Liberal Party?" My take, is a self sufficient Newfoundland would abandon the grits.



The argument is probably correct, but it doesn't explain why other "have not" provinces (in the sense that their proportion of equalization payments is higher than the taxes they pay out to Ottawa) such as Manitoba, Quebec or Saskatchewan have abandoned the Grits as their "Federal" party.


----------



## Cakear (10 Jan 2005)

Bograt,

I'm not entirely convinced that's the problem with the Feds here . . . I'm more inclined to believe it's ALL about money.   I'd be pretty confident in comparing this to the whole "getting rid of the GST" election made by Chrétien and the Liberals a few years back.   It was a hasty election promise made prior to actually looking at the books and how much $$$ they'd be forfeiting.

Although I have no actual proof (Bruce   ;D ) . . . I'd wager my 3 kids that the conservatives wouldn't be behaving any differently if they were in power . . .


----------



## Bograt (10 Jan 2005)

That's an excellent question.

In the case of the last election, the tories lost one seat (close election) which was probably the result of backlash from provincial cuts. Gerry Byrne is a tobin clone that spent millions of dollars through ACOA, building warfs and clearing brush on the N. Peninsula. In my riding (Bill Matthews) the vote (a huge geographic riding) was spit between the NDP candidate and the tory( a very weak candidate). Efford is a smallwood liberal in a mostly Catholic and rural riding. I don't think he will ever win again.


----------



## Bograt (10 Jan 2005)

Cakear said:
			
		

> Although I have no actual proof (Bruce   ;D ) . . . I'd wager my 3 kids that the conservatives wouldn't be behaving any differently if they were in power . . .



I hope that wouldn't be the case. I would like to know the backroom discussion regarding this issue. Someone miscalculated in the PMO.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jan 2005)

Yes, they did,....badly. What they were not expecting was a maritime [yes, I know ] premier to not crinch and slink away at the first sound of ......."equalization clawback."


----------



## Cakear (10 Jan 2005)

Does the term "clawback" sound kind of funny to anyone else?  Ranks up there with the words "phlegm" or "pus" . . .


----------



## 227Tech (10 Jan 2005)

Just a quick post (busy atm) The Canadian flags went back up as of 1300 10 Jan 05 as ordered by Premier Williams





> CBC News
> 
> ST. JOHN'S, NFLD. - Canadian flags went up again at provincial government buildings in Newfoundland and Labrador Monday, after Premier Danny Williams ended his pointed protest of how offshore oil revenue talks are going.
> 
> ...


----------



## ex_coelis (10 Jan 2005)

Good news.  Now, time for the PMO to break out the 'as-yet unused' 6-ft steel backbone picket, lower Mr. Martin onto it, and watch him do what's right.  The ball is in his court now.  It's an exciting time to be a Newfoundlander.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Jan 2005)

227Tech said:
			
		

> Glorified Ape,
> 
> I think you should take a long look at the last 11 pages of posts, you seem to have a completely uneducated point of view.   The only people looking like a buffoon are those with the same attitude you seem to portrait.
> 
> ...




Are you trying to tell me that only Ont has beggars????

Please have you been to other cities in this great country of ours.

Yes agreed all provinces have there dark spots, Alberta has Klein(that is a joke)  Ont has Dalton (that is not).  and then Quebec well there is not enough memory space for that one on a post. (again possible a joke)

  We all have an opinion and that we are entitled to... remember that thing called the CHARTER OF RIGHTS and FREEDOMS.  

But for a province to arbitrarily lower the Canadian flag because they are not getting what they want does seem alot like they went home and took there ball with them cause it was a game they did not want to play.

Yes all provinces should have a voice.  Yes they all should get a say.  But don't tell me that Newfoundland has not relied on the Feds to make ends meet for the last 10 to 20 years.  No, this is not a smash on Newfoundland.  Alberta did it in the 80's Ont did, Sask did and so on and so on.  But its like the kid who owed three bucks and found five not wanting to re pay his debts.

Yes we are a Federation as one so nicely pointed out and we rely on the provices to run their jurisdictions prudently and responsibly.  But they should have to answer to higher if things go wrong and repay thier debts when they go right.  You can't have it both ways and call it fair play.

This is not to say the Ottawa is not being stubborn and holding back some, i just feel that going home and telling your people that they are trying to embarrass you to return to the tables on issue you created is like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and blaming your mom for baking them.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (10 Jan 2005)

Good post Oz, I agree 100%.


----------



## Cakear (10 Jan 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> But for a province to arbitrarily lower the Canadian flag because they are not getting what they want does seem alot like they went home and took there ball with them cause it was a game they did not want to play.
> 
> Yes all provinces should have a voice.   Yes they all should get a say.   But don't tell me that Newfoundland has not relied on the Feds to make ends meet for the last 10 to 20 years.



This attitude just proves that lowering the flag worked.   How many people knew about the injustice with Quebec about Churchill Falls?   How many people knew the effect the moratorium had on the entire province of Newfoundland?   How many people honestly knew how the Feds were screw*ing the province by attempting to wiggle out of a promise made back in June of last year? Newfoundland has been "playing the game" by the rules for a long long time and very few people west of Halifax had any idea.   Everybody knew that this was a "have-not" promise, but did anyone really know why???

Whether one agrees with the lowering of the flag or not, you have to admit that more is known about the plight of Newfoundland & Labrador by the rest of the country than was known before Christmas.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Jan 2005)

Cakear said:
			
		

> Whether one agrees with the lowering of the flag or not, you have to admit that more is known about the plight of Newfoundland & Labrador by the rest of the country than was known before Christmas.




I totally agree with you and that is why i think it was a political mistake.

yes it go the attention but no comes the rath.

How do you put them back up with no deal in hand without looking like you lost?

Or do you not put them back up until you have a deal and further the issue.  

I heard that they are back up know, why did it happen?  No deal is in place did the deal Ottawa offered get sweeter i doubt it.

Sometimes one has to look two steps ahead to see if the move he is about to make will kick him in the ass in the morning.

MOO(my own opinion)


----------



## Cakear (10 Jan 2005)

Lost what??  He did it to grab attention, not to disgrace the flag . . . he got the attention and now the feds have said they'll talk.  By putting them back up, he's just confirmed to the rest of the country that he's Canadian and that he's sorry for offending Canada.  He might regret having done it, but I'm sure he doesn't regret the attention it got . . . positive OR negative.

Of course, this is just my opinion


----------



## 227Tech (10 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape,





> Oh I read the 11 pages prior to my post and, strangely, found that half of your posts consist of saying "your argument is unintelligent and juvenile", first to Bruce and then to myself, posting a news story, and providing a link. In other words, you've posted 4 or 5 times (maybe I missed one) and managed to say absolutely nothing of any substance except to rag on others who actually offered an opinion. Congratulations - you're superfluous.



Yea you're absolutely right, but it doesn't change the fact that posting pure garbage is worse than not posting anything at all. I found Bruce's comment uncalled for an â Å“unprofessionalâ ? for an admin/moderator.  As for your colorful two cents, it wasn't worth the time it had taken to read it.



> Of course you haven't seen beggars in St. John's - they'd starve. All your beggars come to Toronto or Montreal where they may actually stand a chance. If the entirety of your "intelligent opinion" consists of saying "Ontario sucks!"



Where the heck are you going with this? Not worth the response except to enlighten you that I don't think "Ontario sucks" on the contrary...I very much like Ontario.



> As for saying "the feds are screwing us, so f-ck this country and its confederation", I'm sick of hearing it - from the politicians and the populous. No wonder our divorce rates are as high as they are with such a group of non-commital, peurile children who want to run away from the play pen every time the other guy gets a little more sand than them or doesn't treat them as the end-all and be-all of the preschool.





From what I remember here, no one has mentioned or hinted about leaving the country.  If there was a referendum held tomorrow I can all but guarantee you that it would be to stay in confederation, you can stop listening to all these rumors and gossip about Newfoundland wanting out cause it completely false; not once has Premier Williams or any one here talked about wanting to leave the country.  Whether you believe it or not, Newfoundlanders are proud Canadians, but even more so they are proud of being Newfoundlanders. 





> This isn't a matter of allowing Nfld. 100% revenues; it's how fast the feds pull back the pokey. Be glad there's pokey there to begin with. I'm not taking the feds side, necessarily, but I am taking issue with the idiotic attention-whoring of the premier which has served to do little else than stymie things even more.



Really.....maybe your right....the province would rather see the PM promise everyone in the province unlimited pokey instead of what resource revenues that we "should be" entitled to so the province can gain economic stability.  What you call "attention-whoring" was an aggressive move that was controversial enough to make everyone take notice. 

feel free to comment, but if you intent to start a flame war you can just pm me any grievances and save the rest of the people the trouble.

Thanks,


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Jan 2005)

Cakear said:
			
		

> Lost what??   He did it to grab attention, not to disgrace the flag . . . he got the attention and now the feds have said they'll talk.   By putting them back up, he's just confirmed to the rest of the country that he's Canadian and that he's sorry for offending Canada.   He might regret having done it, but I'm sure he doesn't regret the attention it got . . . positive OR negative.
> 
> Of course, this is just my opinion



But i belive they would not talk until the flags went up either way you are right the attention was gotten be it positive or negative.

I just don't think it is right when people treat the flag like a posturing tool.  Be it Ottawa or a province.  At least our posts are civil seems like Ape and tech are having a spat.


----------



## 227Tech (10 Jan 2005)

> Are you trying to tell me that only Ont has beggars?
> 
> Please have you been to other cities in this great country of ours.



Oz,

I wasnt at all trying to say that Ont is the only province with beggers, if you have a look at the post you can see I was taking Glorified Ape on his meaning of "begger's can't be chooser's".  My intention was only to show that Newfoundlanders are anything but beggars, if thats his opinion.  Apparently my wording was a tad confusing, my apoligies.



> But for a province to arbitrarily lower the Canadian flag because they are not getting what they want does seem alot like they went home and took there ball with them cause it was a game they did not want to play.



I think this is a real issue aswell, what you seem to think is Newfoundland not getting getting what it "wants" is a culture feeling its been robbed of what its entitled to.

Thanks,


----------



## Cakear (10 Jan 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> But i believe they would not talk until the flags went up . . .



I wasn't in Winnipeg in Dec. so I can't confirm . . . but I'm inclined to believe that they'd reached a point where they would not talk BEFORE the flags even came DOWN



			
				Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> . . . At least our posts are civil seems like Ape and tech are having a spat.



I totally agree . . . are you sure they're not American?   *Oooooooooo*   ;D


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Jan 2005)

Tech 

Point taken and it is nice to see that somewhere at sometime people can agree with one another.

What they are entitled to and what they want may not always be the same thing.   but we shall save those arguments for another posting like Federal election called for fall 2005 or something like that.



how goes the battle with Ape


Cakear

i think Williams left and said the flags have to come down and then the feds said that they would not go back to the table until the flags went back up.

But am not totaly aware of the events i have a small dark office with only one candle and my computer screen for light.


----------



## 227Tech (10 Jan 2005)

LOL you guys are right, lookin back...perphaps I shoulda let his last slide.  :threat:

And Cakear....not American, but I do have Irish in me  

*promises to stay more civil


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jan 2005)

Quote from 227Tech,
_And for "Mr. Staff" person, I'm sorry but your ignorance is no reason for us to Justifiy what we already know, if you don't agree witih the facts presented to you than I'm sure you have the intelligence to go find the answers yourself and come back when you have compiled a mature argument._

...well if were not for thier little spat I would have missed this gem,...so do you have those "facts" I asked for yet?

....you know...about the "rigged vote"?


----------



## 227Tech (10 Jan 2005)

Hi Bruce,

I definately owe you an answer, but to completely fair that comment was directed from this one:



> You got any facts to back this up with smart guy?......or just more "waaaahhhh"?



Which wouldn't have triggered a responce, except for being a  moderator...more than anything I was questioning your ethics and professionalism as an administrator.  And rightfully so, I expect a high standard of professionalism with anyone tagged with such a title.  
Regardless, my method wasn't politcally or professionally correct at the same time either.

Since then I have seen that my first impression was completely wrong.



> Actually that comment had nothing to do with the situation about who owns the oil, now if you would bother to read the whole thread I believe you will see that I think Nfld and NS should get to keep all of the revenue, the only issue I brought up is how long then before those provinces then become "have" provinces and then require less transfer payments. Someone mentioned at least 10 more years which seemed long to me, if this money was managed correctly.
> 
> Now as to way I am getting pissed off at the whining is, when bringing in an arguement don't present it as fact when it is ENTIRELY hearsay, which would be OK if it was presented as hearsay[ I remember my Dad telling me to pull his finger and I'm still waiting for the wish] but, in this case it was presented as fact and then reneged when called on it.
> And to that, yes, that would be my best arguement.
> ...



I don't recall any questions being directed to me


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jan 2005)

No it wasn't you I was questioning it was Deminer, who has since "pulled pole"... I admit I did see more red than I should have but that was the second time he had thrown the "rigged vote" up after I had asked for proof of such.
I love a lively spirited  "discussion", but as soon as  unproven rhetoric comes in, its like Bograt stated " its like asking if Jesus slept on his side or back"

Let the discussion continue...........!!!!


----------



## mo-litia (10 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> That's my point - the provinces need to stop bitching.. . If the provinces want to engage in realistic, productive policy formation then great - do it . . .The PM said one thing and did another... this still shocks people? That's the way it works... Ugh... Ralph Klein, the achy (sic) pseudo-Texan who'd like to see a glorious Bush-style Alberta? If more of our politicians were cut from that cloth, we'd be in dire circumstances...
> 
> The provinces are just that - provinces, not countries... Sometimes the provinces need a smack in the face... IMO, we need weaker provinces, not stronger ones... We need a federal government that will keep the provinces in line . . .



Glorified Ape,

Thank you very much. You have just nicely summarized the stereotypical, (I'd like to say typical, but for the sake of impartiality, I won't!), Ontarian attitude towards the rest of Canada.   Weaker provinces - yeah, Ottawa would definitely love that; being able to control   everything the provinces are now responsible for - including resource revenues!

IMO, The attitude that your writings espouse is outdated and unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians outside Ontario.     A central govt that controlled everything in the best interests of their voters, (But, only the best interests of those voters in Ontario who have kept those scoundrels in power almost perpetually!), may have been acceptable in the distant past.

Fortunately for the rest of Canada, as the overall level of knowledge about domestic affairs has increased drastically thoughout the nation - largely due to massive improvements in public education over the past half century - people are expressing their anger at the gross imbalance of power that exists in the nation today.   The rest of the nation is fed up, and the federal govt, and therefore Ontario, is going to have to recognize that before this great experiment of a nation implodes upon itself.   The situation may not be critical as of yet, but given another decade or so of Ottawa's bumbling, misguided governing that ignores serious national issues, (Hmmmm . . . DEFENCE comes to mind.), solely because those Liberal megalomaniacs are more concerned with maintaining their grip on power, this country will very likely tear itself apart.

It is about time that those in   what used to be known as Upper Canada wake up.   Your forefathers started this great nation, and now, you as voters have the responsibility to act by electing a govt who will truly act in the NATIONAL interest.   Otherwise, in a generation or so, Upper Canada will be able to rename itself Canada; for there will likely be no other areas of this country willing to be part of Confederation anymore.

I hope am am wrong about this, but it is up to the voters in Ontario to recognize that being the center of power has far more to it than just lining your own pockets for your immediate, short sighted benefit.   

Cheers on raising up the flag again Mr. Williams; I hope you got what your province rightfully deserves. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2005)

Good post mo-litia, I agree with you.  And I agree that Danny was right to put up the flags again after his point was made.  He hasn't made any enemies in Newfoundland, that vote him in, and has made a few friends and enemies amongt the rest of Canada.... Now what was that line about there being no bad publicity?  Better than being ignored.

Paul is still the go to guy on this one.  He is the one that has to convince Newfoundland not to vote Conservative next election.  Has he made any friends anywhere else recently that would result in a better showing than last time?  I don't believe so.

By the way Ontario used to be Upper Canada.  Quebec was Lower Canada.  Ontario is Upstream and Quebec is Downstream.

Cheers.


----------



## ex_coelis (10 Jan 2005)

Hey Ex-Infanteer,

Just noticed a good story in the telegram.   If you ever choose to live up to your threat and show up in Newfoundland with torch in hand (a la General Sherman in Atlanta), you'd best hope you don't run into this _real_ General (Ex-CO of 3CDO, Ex-22SAS, Dutch HALO Jumper, +more high speed training than your 23 year old ex-corporal head could imagine).   He is one of the finest officers I ever had the pleasure to serve under and as a proud Canadian and prouder Newfoundlander,   I'm happy to see his take on the matter in print.

Retired soldier supports flag removal     
 BY WILL HILLIARD, The Telegram

   
   
Retired brigadier general Ed Ring stands next to his pink, white and green flag at his home in Manuels, accompanied by his Newfoundland dog, Ceilihd.
KEITH GOSSE/THE TELEGRAM


As far as Ed Ring is concerned, Newfoundlanders everywhere might end up thanking Globe and Mail writer Margaret Wente for slamming their province.
â Å“We owe a debt of gratitude to Mrs. Wente â â€ I've never seen the Newfoundland spirit stronger,â ? said the 54-year-old retired brigadier-general and St. John's native, who recently retired from the Canadian Forces after three decades of service.

â Å“Any Newfoundlander that might have been on the borderline or not involved, she has boiled their blood. It's like Admiral Yamamoto said when they were on their way back from attacking Pearl Harbour: 'I fear all we've done is awakened a sleeping giant.' Newfoundlanders now are up in arms, with good bloody reason.

â Å“I'm flying the 'pink, white and green' at my house.â ?

In her column last week, Wente described Newfoundland and Labrador as â Å“probably the most vast and scenic welfare ghetto in the worldâ ? and said Premier Danny Williams is trying to â Å“pick the pocketsâ ? of other Canadians with his insistence that the province be allowed to keep 100 per cent of its offshore energy revenue.

Williams ordered the Canadian flag removed from provincial buildings Dec. 23 after he stormed out of meetings in Winnipeg with federal Finance Department officials.

Ring disagrees that Williams' hardline tactic may have jinxed the province's chances of getting a better offshore deal.

â Å“The premier, in dealing with the federal government and the prime minister, only has a certain number of tools in his toolbox that he can use,â ? Ring said.

â Å“In order for him to get attention at that level, something has to be done for people to raise their eyebrows.

â Å“Having served 34 years in the military, in no way do I see this gesture as being disrespectful to veterans. It's an opportunity to say, 'Look, we've been pushed well and long enough. Just treat us fair, that's all we want. We've given our share.' â ? 

He says politicians like John Efford, who have been saying that removing the flag is offensive to war veterans, haven't earned the right to speak out on behalf of vets.

â Å“They just don't know and it's annoying to hear it,â ? said Ring, who now works as a provincial civil servant and makes his home with his wife Ann in Manuels, C.B.S. His son, also in the military, recently returned from a tour in Bosnia.

â Å“When you look at the number of people serving in the armed forces per capita, the Atlantic region provides 2-1 in relation to the rest of the country, and if you were to remove the Newfoundlanders from the units that have been or are currently in operational duties, you might as well fold up the units and send them home.â ?

Ring says flying the tri-colour â Å“reminds me of the spirit of the fighting Newfoundlander.

â Å“But I'd hate to see this country disintegrate in any way shape or form â â€ if Newfoundland were to do something along those lines it would only be the beginning â â€ but what I want more than that is for this province to be treated as an equal partner. I don't know if it'll ever be the way it was, but in many ways that's a good thing â â€ we're standing up to be counted and we're not asking for the world.â ?


----------



## 227Tech (10 Jan 2005)

Nice find,

You served under Brig-Gen. Ring? 

 I've had the privledge of meeting him a few times when I served with son, he was a Col. then tho.


----------



## mo-litia (10 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> By the way Ontario used to be Upper Canada.   Quebec was Lower Canada.   Ontario is Upstream and Quebec is Downstream.
> Cheers.




Ooops . . . don't tell anyone in my Pre-Confederation Canadian history class, ok?   ;D

I corrected my post, thanks.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2005)

You can buy me a "Trad" at some point in the distant future.

Cheers and best of luck.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jan 2005)

ex_coelis said:
			
		

> Hey Ex-Infanteer,
> 
> Just noticed a good story in the telegram.   If you ever choose to live up to your threat to show up in Newfoundland with torch in hand (a la General Sherman in Atlanta), you'd best hope you don't run into this _real_ General (Ex-CO of 3CDO, Ex-22SAS, Dutch HALO Jumper, +more high speed training than your 23 year old ex-corporal head could imagine).   He is one of the finest officers I ever had the pleasure to serve under and as a proud Canadian and prouder Newfoundlander,   I'm happy to see his take on the matter in print.



Since you still want to play the analogy game, Robert E Lee never did the Confederacy any good....

As well, despite saying I was done here, I'm not going to ignore the ad hominem attacks.   I really enjoy have you've attempted to hold my profile up to some sort of mockery - nice work.

It's good to see the General was keen to separate the political issue from talks of destroying the fabric of Canada:

_â Å“*But I'd hate to see this country disintegrate in any way shape or form* â â€ if Newfoundland were to do something along those lines it would only be the beginning â â€ but what I want more than that is for this province to be treated as an equal partner."_

Political friction is common with a federal system - I'm sure every Province has a list just as long as Newfoundland's.   I've repeatedly stated that the Premier is more then justified to take an issue with a Federal Government that's record of delivering responsible government for most Canadians (except those in their back-pocket) is full of holes.   I've stated my view on the utility of the idea of Canada and opposed your disregard for the Country.   You've put your Newfoundland-centric loyalties out in the open, so good on you; I'm sure if you don't get your way, the _Fronte de Liberation du Newfoundland_ can get a membership drive going....

Cheers,
Ex-Infanteer


----------



## ex_coelis (10 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Since you still want to play the analogy game, Robert E Lee never did the Confederacy any good....



First you compare Newfoundlanders wanting their agreed upon 50% of oil royalties to the southern Confederates and their war for slavery.   Then you have the audacity to mention that you'd be Sherman, and lay waste to the place (Newfoundland).   Nice.   Smart and inoffensive.
(was I not supposed to get the reference?)


> As well, despite saying I was done here, I'm not going to ignore the ad hominem attacks.   I really enjoy have you've attempted to hold my profile up to some sort of mockery - nice work.


   What   attack?   Did I misrepresent something?     Didn't mean to be offensive to Gen. Sherman's feelings?   (you can take the last bit as a dig, if you're looking for one)



> It's good to see the General was keen to separate the political issue from talks of destroying the fabric of Canada:
> 
> _â Å“*But I'd hate to see this country disintegrate in any way shape or form* â â€ if Newfoundland were to do something along those lines it would only be the beginning â â€ but what I want more than that is for this province to be treated as an equal partner."_


As I said, I completely agree with his quote.   I said that if the Liberal Govt continues to govern for the centre, at the expense of the sides, it will lead to a weakening of the Canadian fabric.   Williams taking down the flag awakened people like yourself as to what is going on with oil royalties, and how many people in NF feel about it.   The provincial government of Newfoundland will not weaken the Canadian state, though the Feds policies may.



> Political friction is common with a federal system - I'm sure every Province has a list just as long as Newfoundland's.   I've repeatedly stated that the Premier is more then justified to take an issue with a Federal Government that's record of delivering responsible government for most Canadians (except those in their back-pocket) is full of holes.   I've stated my view on the utility of the idea of Canada and opposed your disregard for the Country.   You've put your Newfoundland-centric loyalties out in the open, so good on you; I'm sure if you don't get your way, the _Fronte de Liberation du Newfoundland_ can get a membership drive going....


I'm not advocating independence for Newfoundland, I advocate the federal government sticking to their promises.   The federal liberals are currently doing more to damage unity than the proud Canadian Danny Williams ever could.     Yes, I am Newfoundland-centric, why should I not be?   Should I wait for someone else to stick up for the place, maybe you?   Now I'm an FLQ style terrorist? (do you get paid by the offensive bullsh*t comment?). It means I want the best for Newfoundland, and that is what this thread is about.

Decentralist?   Absolutely.

Did I mock your profile?   I thought I just re-stated it?


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2005)

Just a thought, I think maybe we could all step back a pace on this one.  

There's an awful lot of comments being made here by sensible people in the heat of the moment.  Me Guilty.  My Bad. (Well you can make your own mind up about sensible).

But, I know the opinions on this are strongly held and the feelings prompt strong comments.

I know Infanteer. I consider him a friend.  I like to think he might feel likewise.  I understand his position on the flag at the same time as agreeing with Danny William's need to take a 2x4 to the Donkey in 24 Sussex.  I don't think his comments about the Confederacy were particularly helpful but I also don't think it helps any here to start slagging profiles. He has reason to be proud of his service as much as any other here.

2 cents.

Sorry for the intervention but ....... "Can't we all just get along?????"

Cheers,


----------



## ex_coelis (11 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But, I know the opinions on this are strongly held and the feelings prompt strong comments.
> 
> He has reason to be proud of his service as much as any other here.



Agreed.



> Sorry for the intervention but ....... "Can't we all just get along?????"
> 
> Cheers,


Yes.   Moving on.    Infanteer should recind his Sherman/Georgia/Newfoundland remark though.   Truely offensive.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jan 2005)

Whew, a few hours at work lets one clear the mind.

First things first, my only reason for mentioning Robert E Lee was in response to you post about the General in the article kicking my ass and justifying your cause.   I was trying to point out that great Generals (which both appear to be) don't necessarily justify the cause.

Second, I will recind the Sherman statement.   True to form, in the heat of the argument I probably reached out a little too far with my analogies.   My only intent was, in the face of talk about being better off without Canada, to show that my convictions lead me to support measures to the extent of a repeat of Trudeau and the War Measures Act should it become necessary (in the face of further breakdown in relations) to preserve National Unity.   However, the analogy of Sherman was a poor one, fraught with the baggage of Total War, which is clearly not the situation here.   And for that I apologize.

It's funny, we've got quite a cat-fight going on here and I think that everybody can agree on the common problem.   We should re-focus our energy on that.

Ex-Coelis (II), welcome to Army.ca.   You got a bit of a rocky reception here, but I'm willing to bet with your experience that you have much to offer here.   Hope you stick around.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2005)

erroneous post.

meant to hit PM 

'pologies.  Too late at night.


----------



## ex_coelis (11 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Whew, a few hours at work lets one clear the mind.
> 
> First things first, my only reason for mentioning Robert E Lee was in response to you post about the General in the article kicking my *** and justifying your cause.  I was trying to point out that great Generals (which both appear to be) don't necessarily justify the cause.
> 
> ...



I've never been in a cat-fight.

Thanks for the welcome.

Your knowledge of US Civil War history seems stronger than your knowledge of recent Canadian history.  Leaving NF out of this entirely, the War Measures Act was imposed by Trudeau in Quebec in response to FLQ bombings/kidnappings/murder, not due to a PQ successionist referendum.  This is why when they had their last referendum in 95 (minus the terrorist threat), I was on ex in Gagetown and not booting down doors in Trois Rivieres.  

No one but yourself brought up the spectre of violence in relation to the matter at hand, and it is your raising it that I find shameful.  I'll mention your profile again to say that as someone who served on OP Palladium, you really should know better.  My experience in the FMY left me extremely repulsed by violent nationalism (maybe the place was cleaned up a bit by the time you got there?).  If Quebec ever voted to seperate, my response would be peaceful discourse tinged with an overwhelming  sense of regret, not a desire to burn the place down or force their alligance at the tip of my bayonet, your mileage may vary.

That's it for me.  I'm done with this until Martin responds to Williams letters.


----------



## 227Tech (11 Jan 2005)

The PM has replied to Premier Willliams letters.


Here's a sample from this link

http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/nf-martin-williams-20050111.html




> "I have in the most recent discussions, the most recent offer, fulfilled that commitment," Martin says.
> 
> "And I remain faithful to that commitment."
> 
> ...



Everything now seems to have turned into a waiting game again.  Intrested to find out what the game plan is if the Premier isnt satisified with the next offer, any ideas?


----------



## Bograt (11 Jan 2005)

Who does it favour to wait. My bet it favour Williams. The premier has said that if the PM doesn't live up to his commitment, Williams will actively campaign against the PM across the country. The liberals will probably loose 3 seats in NL. 

Williams need to put on paper what is "acceptable" and present it as a take it leave it option- then have Harper, Layton sign it- and perhaps the entire NL caucus.  

I am biased. It appears to me that the PM has been scrambling since his inauguration- Sponsorship, Stripper Gate, Parish, DART, and the Flag Flop. Not a good year for Paulie.

Rex Murphy is speaking on Hear and Now tonight- speaking about Wente's article. Apparently it will "surprise" us.


----------



## Bograt (11 Jan 2005)

Nice interview with Danny.

http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/nf-martin-williams-20050111.html


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jan 2005)

ex_coelis said:
			
		

> I've never been in a cat-fight.



17 pages of arguing on this board constitutes one.   



			
				ex_coelis said:
			
		

> Your knowledge of US Civil War history seems stronger than your knowledge of recent Canadian history.   Leaving NF out of this entirely, the War Measures Act was imposed by Trudeau in Quebec in response to FLQ bombings/kidnappings/murder, not due to a PQ successionist referendum.   This is why when they had their last referendum in 95 (minus the terrorist threat), I was on ex in Gagetown and not booting down doors in Trois Rivieres.



Which is why I included the caveat _"in the face of further breakdown in relations"_.   Again, the Sherman analogy was not a very good one and in poor taste, and I have apologized for it.



> If Quebec ever voted to separate, my response would be peaceful discourse tinged with an overwhelming   sense of regret, not a desire to burn the place down or force their alligance at the tip of my bayonet, your mileage may vary.



I personally don't feel that, as separate branches of a federal system of governance, individual provinces have any right to leave Canada - just as no region, city or individual person can arbitrarily decide they wish to leave the Dominion.   Such a profound decision, affecting ALL Canadians, should be left for all of Canada to decide.

However, that (along with others) is my personal viewpoint and I'm sure the moral and legal aspects of it could be debated at length on another thread.

On a more constructive (and on-topic) note, do any Newfoundlanders see this changing in the next election:

Hon. Gerry Humber Byrne: St. Barbe-Baie Verte - Liberal Party

Norman Doyle: St. John's East - Conservative Party

Hon. John R. Efford: Avalon -   Liberal Party

Loyola Hearn: St. John's South-Mount Pear - Conservative Party 

Bill Matthews: Random-Burin-St. George's - Liberal Party

Scott Simms: Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor - Liberal Party


----------



## Bograt (11 Jan 2005)

Hon. Gerry Humber Byrne: St. Barbe-Baie Verte - Wins  Never been a PC district. Lots of handouts.

Norman Doyle: St. John's East - Wins  Urban NL is Tory

Hon. John R. Efford: Avalon -   Tossed

Loyola Hearn: St. John's South-Mount Pear - Wins 

Bill Matthews: Random-Burin-St. George's -  Doesn't run, PC win Depends on candidate.

Scott Simms: Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor - Tossed He did stand up against the PM, but it was a close election for him. A higher profile tory will win here.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jan 2005)

If the resentment against Federal treatment in Newfoundland is as deep as this thread seems to indicate, then how would the Liberals take four out of six seats?  Was it nepotism (as you mentioned, enough "handouts") or was it fear of a Conservative Party agenda which didn't really think much of the Atlantic provinces at all (a sentiment expressed by some members here from the Maritimes).


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If the resentment against Federal treatment in Newfoundland is as deep as this thread seems to indicate, then how would the Liberals take four out of six seats?   Was it nepotism (as you mentioned, enough "handouts") or was it fear of a Conservative Party agenda which didn't really think much of the Atlantic provinces at all (a sentiment expressed by some members here from the Maritimes).



It has not just been the Liberals who have supportted the Handouts in Newfoundland.  The Conservatives have been just as guilty.  This issue may cause the liberals to lose some seats in Newfoundland but Harper has been hiding, for someone who wants to lead this country this would have been an excellent opoutunity to show that leadership.  And where is he........ ah right no where to be seen.  

I think the seats lost in Newfoundland would be made up in Quebec and Ont would still vote red.  hate to say but until the Conservatives can break into the East we will be in trouble.

According to the news at lunch here the problem was not that Newfoundland was not getting the 100 percent of the off shore profits but they wanted the equalization payments to continue at the same level they were.

That is not fair in anybodys book.


----------



## ex_coelis (11 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If the resentment against Federal treatment in Newfoundland is as deep as this thread seems to indicate, then how would the Liberals take four out of six seats?  Was it nepotism (as you mentioned, enough "handouts") or was it fear of a Conservative Party agenda which didn't really think much of the Atlantic provinces at all (a sentiment expressed by some members here from the Maritimes).



I don't think it so much about the current Conservative party and their attitude towards Atlantic Canada, it's more a case of historical voting patterns and individual candiates (and who they are up against).

Loyola Sullivan could probably run as a Rhino Party candidate and win.  For the heavily financially dependent areas, it comes down to who can bring the dough from Ottawa (usually short term), and the best vote goes to whomever is in power in Ottawa (though this situation may be enough to change that).  I would rekon to guess that in some ridings in Newfoundland, some (older?) people care little about the broader Canadian picture in their vote, and that some people still think they are voting for Smallwood vs the Tory townies when they cast their Liberal vote.  (My apologies in advance to the many in those ridings who this doesn't apply to).

However, being Liberal doesn't mean that MPs would not vote against the Government in a confidence vote, and this may be more of a danger to Martin in the short term.  I don't know enough about the individuals to know if they would choose to cross the house.

I could be wrong, and hope Bograt would correct me,  but off the top of my head....

The easiest way for Martin to deal with this would simply be to stick to his word.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2005)

I read Bograt as calling it at 1 Liberal (St.Barbe-Baie Verte) and the rest Conservative.   2 Existing and the rest tossed out or quit and replaced by Conservatives.

And Infanteer, I really fundamentally (listening too much to PM these days) disagree with your view of Confederation where the Provinces are Branches of Government with the Federal Government in the Superior position at the centre.   I believe in the 1867 Construct where the Provinces are Independent Entities and the Federal Government is at best Co-equal and in some instances the Servant of the Provinces.   

Send in the Head Waiter.


----------



## ex_coelis (11 Jan 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> It has not just been the Liberals who have supportted the Handouts in Newfoundland.  The Conservatives have been just as guilty.  This issue may cause the liberals to lose some seats in Newfoundland but Harper has been hiding, for someone who wants to lead this country this would have been an excellent opoutunity to show that leadership.  And where is he........ ah right no where to be seen.



All true.



> I think the seats lost in Newfoundland would be made up in Quebec and Ont would still vote red.  hate to say but until the Conservatives can break into the East we will be in trouble.



And until the Conservatives come up with a better candidate than Harper, that isn't going to happen.  Stronach vs Harper, sheesh, what a choice(!).  Give me Ralph Klein, give me Mike Harris, give me (yes) Danny Williams.  Give me someone I can either vote for or against, but a stong character who can be taken at his word.  I don't know what  Harper stands for because I never hear him say anything.  His silence on everything has him living up to our worst fears of weak leadership and does nothing to advance proper opposition to the 'natural governing party'.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jan 2005)

Actually now that it comes up, I like Harper but, well yes, the silence from him is deafening, isn't it? ???


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jan 2005)

So what are you doing for the next four years.....?


----------



## ex_coelis (11 Jan 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> So what are you doing for the next four years.....?



Following provincial politics, and learning to like AHL hockey


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Jan 2005)

I have no love for the Liberal party but at least Martin has shown some leadership while the other so called wanna be leaders have been in hiding.   

Mike Harris would still leave Ont red left a real bad taste in most of their mouths when he left.

Maybe someone of fresh blood.

Stronach?   maybe i doubt the west would settle for that though.

Amazying when you break them down who shines and who shivers.   Man our leaders need to shape up but hey at least we are not the states just yet.



On the head waiter comment

I think the feds were meant to represent all the wishes of all the people of the land while the prov where to refelect regional opinion.

Not necessarily to serve the provinces but to make sure that they ruled for the betterment of all and not just the few, (won't mention a province here but it starts with a Q).   
That is where the feds are failing.

again that is MOO


----------



## ex_coelis (11 Jan 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Stronach?  maybe i doubt the west would settle for that though.



Nor would the east, and rightly so (I seriously thought they were kidding throwing her up there).  Sorry for going off topic, just didn't want my earlier post being taken the wrong way)..


----------



## kellywmj (11 Jan 2005)

I can't believe the GALL of this Williams character. The entire Maritimes, up until very recently, have survived only because of the gobs of federal lolly(My Tax Dollars!) that get drifted their way. Now that Newfoundland has landed on its feet, with natural resource revenues exceeding forecasts, he still demands the dole! Is this some sort of default ingrained entitlement mentality? Its almost like the Russians, who after 70 years of communism, have great difficulties adapting to a market style economy, beacuse they know no other way to live. No more government cheese, Mr. Williams!


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jan 2005)

....and we're off to the races again....   ;D


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Jan 2005)

could not agree with you more Infanteer 
 :dontpanic:


kellywmj

i hope you read this thread all the way through before you made that statement.

But since i don't think you did

Here we go

Yes they have been supported by the Feds for far to long as have most of the other Provinces i won't guess which one you are from.  But you can't blame him for trying to have his cake and eat it to the problem that this thread has manily discussed is the removal of the Canadian Flag from the Prov.

see no bitching


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jan 2005)

Moderator note......to all those who wish to respond "accordingly"  to kellywmj's post, we have been done the cat-fight road already, to do it again would be a waste of bandwidth. He has his right to an opinion but that opinion has been stated before and debated, so just pretend it was posted earlier in the thread and lets stay focused on new stuff.
Thank you,
Bruce


----------



## Bograt (11 Jan 2005)

kellywmj 



Everyone else,
Rex Murphy spoke on CBC news this evening. I will endevour to find a transcript.


----------



## 227Tech (11 Jan 2005)

No worries Bruce,

I really wasn't offended, I it was opinionated but not that offensive.  Unlike those made by a particular individual  :warstory: (IMHO anyways)

I'd like to reflect on these three posts tho and see if I can nail three birds in one stone here.



			
				Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> According to the news at lunch here the problem was not that Newfoundland was not getting the 100 percent of the off shore profits but they wanted the equalization payments to continue at the same level they were.
> 
> _That is not fair in anybodys book._



I remember reading somewhere that this is a clause in the "chater of rights" or something to that effect.  If I remember correctly, this was already utilized by provinces such as Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.  I'll try and hunt it down, at very least to keep bruce off my behind.



> _I can't believe the GALL of this Williams character. The entire Maritimes, up until very recently, have survived only because
> of the gobs of federal lolly(My Tax Dollars!)_ that get drifted their way. Now that Newfoundland has landed on its feet, with natural resource revenues exceeding forecasts, he still demands the dole! Is this some sort of default ingrained entitlement mentality? Its almost like the Russians, who after 70 years of communism, have great difficulties adapting to a market style economy, because they know no other way to live. _No more government cheese, Mr. Williams!_



Yea, will leave that alone, but point it out for obvious flaws anyways.



> _But you can't blame him for trying to have his cake and eat it to the problem that this thread has mainly discussed is the removal of the Canadian Flag from the Prov._



Again, goes back to the what one thinks is "want" and or believe is "entitlement"



If you have the time, please read the full article written at the site.  Its a bit lengthy and somewhat redundant, but hopefully you'll get a better understanding of what's actually being asked here.

Thanks,

http://www.fairdealfornewfoundland.com/gildalton/

For those lazy, like myself. I've copied/pasted a few sections of the article into this post to hopefully shed some extra light through Mr. Dalton's article.


Thanks again.


> I am not a lawyer and thus can not speak to the legalities involved here. I only know that the Newfoundland oil and gas resources are in our offshore and whatever rights existed then or arose later were rights that came as a result of our joining Canada. If we had not joined Canada, Canada would have no rights to them today. Despite this, the federal government steadfastly refused to give Newfoundland and Labrador its due. It took a change of government in Ottawa and a more balanced view of what Canada could and should be that we got the Atlantic Accord which provided that the offshore resources would be treated as if they were on land, thus making Newfoundland and Nova Scotia the prime beneficiaries of their offshore oil and gas resources.
> 
> 
> The reality however is that this principle of being the prime beneficiaries has not worked out the way it was intended. The various federal revenues represents 54% of the total government take. The provincial revenues represented 46%. However the federal government takes back 70% of the province's 46% in its claw back mechanism, which gives the federal government 86% and leaves the province with 14%. Right now with the claw back, for every $1.00 of benefit to Newfoundland, Ottawa benefits by $6.14. Even if Danny Williams gets what he has asked for, for every $1.00 dollar of benefit to Newfoundland, Ottawa will still get $1.17. Who then, with this split in revenues (86:14) is the prime beneficiary in actual fact? This situation is what Premier Danny Williams is so upset about and what Prime Minister Paul Martin agreed to change during the election. He agreed that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia would get 100% of the provincial revenues without the claw back.
> ...


----------



## ex_coelis (11 Jan 2005)

Hi Folks,

Rex will be on CBC Newsworld at 1930 EST.   Check it out.


----------



## 227Tech (11 Jan 2005)

Good luck trying to get the remote while the "wife" is watching 24


----------



## Bograt (12 Jan 2005)

St. Rex- Patron Saint of Loss Causes,

Here is his commentary on Here and Now January 11. http://stjohns.cbc.ca/media/herenow.ram It is a real audio file. Rex's commentary is at 19:45 of the news cast.

There is also a story on British Paratroopers 27:22.

Enjoy.


----------



## kellywmj (12 Jan 2005)

The obvious flaws in my statement 227 Tech? Are you disputing my contention that the Maritimes are a black hole of misdirected federal largesse? No, you didn't, you simply highlighted the passage, with a flippant remark. I suggest you pick up a copy of the  Statistics Canada publication called "Canada Year Book 2003". It shows, to the penny, just how much money is funneled into the region. Take way equalization payments, and Newfoundland is just another East Bloc basket case. Mr Williams should be on his knees, thanking the rest of Canada for our support, instead of staging well timed tantrums for the CBC and his constituents.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2005)

The structure of our Government is derived from the BNA act, which was written at a time when communications precluded a continental nation from being a viable proposition. Our neighbours to the south pioneered the "Federal" system, where different levels of government were responsible for different things, until the time of the Civil war, America was properly reffered to as "These United States".

Our big problem is the Federal level of government is intruding deeply into Provincial responsibilities through the use of taxation and tax revenues. *The BNA act reserves resources, education and health care exclusivley to the provinces*, and if that had been adhered to, this entire thread would never have happened. If the Feds were to commit the same time and resources to their true responsibilities of national security and foreign relations as they do for health care, then we would be a lot better off. (IF they dropped doing health care and all the other pork barrels, we would be immensly better off).

Perhaps Premier Williams should concentrate his efforts on "disentanglement" of Federal and Provincial responsibilities. He has shown great energy in his dealings with the Martin government (although given Martin's level of activity, that isn't really saying much), and I would think he has the moral authoraty to launch such a project. (When you mention this to him, tell him I said "Hello"). Disentanglement would be a long term solution to the problems of "Have" and "Have not" provinces (now the voters know who to blame), and the stripping away of overregulation and excessive taxation through disentanglement would have very positive effects on our overall economic health.


----------



## Bograt (12 Jan 2005)

kellywmj said:
			
		

> The obvious flaws in my statement 227 Tech? Are you disputing my contention that the Maritimes are a black hole of misdirected federal largesse? No, you didn't, you simply highlighted the passage, with a flippant remark. I suggest you pick up a copy of the   Statistics Canada publication called "Canada Year Book 2003". It shows, to the penny, just how much money is funneled into the region. Take way equalization payments, and Newfoundland is just another East Bloc basket case. Mr Williams should be on his knees, thanking the rest of Canada for our support, instead of staging well timed tantrums for the CBC and his constituents.



Two things disturb me about your comments.
1. We share the same flag.
2. We wear the uniform.

I am not going to refute your comments. I'll let others form their own opinions of your comments and let them judge your merit. I would suggest that you share your opinion with Newfoundlanders in your unit.

Mods- If this kind of "comment" was directed to homosexuals, minorities, or various religous groups would it be acceptable?


----------



## kellywmj (12 Jan 2005)

What is this, some sort of ham fisted attempt censure me? My points are factually correct. Were you not offended by Mr. Williams actions? Do you think his motives for doing so are honourable? What he is doing is exactly the game Quebec has been playing for years. All Ottawa is suggesting is that now that Newfoundland has some resource revenue, maybe its time to start paying your own way! In the real world, when a person secures employment, the welfare cheques stop! Why is this scenario any different?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (12 Jan 2005)

majoor 

Could not tell if that was directed at me our not, but in someways i see your point.   But the Federal heath care is one of the things that make this country great.   It was brougt in by Tommy Douglas you know the greatest Canadian.... I agree that the feds have to start to focus on the things of national priority instead of regional.   But i think that the Provinces have to held accountable to someone. If not Provinces like AB and Ont would run rampt on the weaker ones like Man, Sask, NS, Nfl and PEI.   QC is not as strong as they like to think they are, alot of the tech sector and manufacturing sectors have relocated to Ont due to the likeleness of conflicts in that prov.   

kellymj

I see some of your points.   But to say they should be on thier knees is not a welcome statement.   Yes they have gone through some hard economic times.   So have all the other provinces with no exceptions.   I think you draw to harsh a line.   Newfoundland has been and always will be a resource based economy.   It does not have the population to support a manufacturing sector to that of Ont or BC or QC.   It is therefore a boom bust economy.   When times are good they are really good and when times are bad well lets just say they suck.   AB is the same way.   Until regional disparity is solved this will continue.   

I do see your point on the tantrum but isn't that what politics is all about watch CSPAN for an hr and you will think we elected children.   

The thing i don't agree with is the taking down of the flag, other then that let them bicker and bit... at each other.

A deal will be reached and all the posturing will stop until the next issue.   

And you are right all they did was take a page out of Quebecs play book (had it translated) and ran with it.

Bograt

I could see nothing that would be held as overly offensive,(but then i am not from the Rock) kelly just needs to use more tact in expressing his opinion, on an open form.


I saw much worse in some posts a few pages ago...


----------



## Bograt (12 Jan 2005)

_"Please sir... may I have some more?â ?_

If you are seriously interested in this discussion may I suggest you listen to the Rex Murphy comments and read the Crosbie letter. They are more articulate that I am.

<sterotypical Newfoundland wit on>
However if you want to get into a mudslinging match, tossing ignorance and prejudice around, I believe you will just end up "playing with yourself."
<sterotypical wit off>
 :


----------



## Bograt (12 Jan 2005)

I am curious to know what would happened to Ont, PQ manufacuturing economies if:

1. We shut down Churchill Falls
2. Didn't provide the ore for smeltering steel
3. Didn't give fish to foreigners for trade relationships that benefited mainland suppliers.
4. Didn't provide the skilled labour to the oil sands or manufacturing plants

We need each other. This is not a slave/master relationship. Until this is realized there will be problems.

I found buddywashisnames' comments offensive- not because to I'm a Newfoundlander, but because I am Canadian. It is not because it slags a people, but because it ignores the issues. 

If it is acceptable to toss regional disparities around I have a load I could toss about Vancouver Island.


----------



## kellywmj (12 Jan 2005)

Your Oliver Twist analogy appropriate, however in this rewrite of a classic, little Oliver has a 10 quid note in his pocket, and still wants his bowl of gruel! As far as ignorance and prejudice, I am not nor am I. I will concede my "on the knees" comment was out of line, but you must appreciate just how frustrating it is to see this sort of behavior. I can tell you, there is not much support for Mr. Williams actions out here. I can see how he is a bit of a hero out your way, local boy sticks it to Ottawa, but in most other areas its seen as selfish petulance.


----------



## Bograt (12 Jan 2005)

Let me apologize for my comments. I'm sure over a beer we would be able to sort this out.

William's is not doing this to gain favour in BC. All he is trying to do is hold the PM accountable for his actions. It is amazing how Williams has become the villain. It is the PM who lied, and the premier is holding him accountable. What is more disturbing- taking down the flag, or lying to represent it?

Williams is the same guy who donates his entire premier's salary to charities. Do you think Mr. Martin does that?

Do you think BC would be outraged if it lost 1 billion dollars to Alberta ever year for decades, and the federal government did nothing to rectify it? Do you think BC would be pissed if it lost its entire salmon industry in *one day* as the result of federal mismanagement? Imagine if Ontario overnight lost 600,000 jobs. That was the equivalent of what happened here. Hydro Quebec gains 850 million dollars a year just because of geography, and politics.

We are not a have not province, we are a keep not province.


----------



## 227Tech (12 Jan 2005)

Well, 

Newfoundland is apart of Atlantic Canada and not the Maritimes, but lets not try and pick pepper out of flea   S*** here. And I can't speak for the rest of the Atlantic or Maritime province, but I will offer my opinion as far as Newfoundland is concerned.


You are right to a certain extent, as small as it is.   Right now Newfoundland's finances are in serious trouble, and there's no disputing that Newfoundland has been receiving equalization payments for the last number of years.   But that's about as far as your "factually correct" POV (Point of View) goes.

If you want to talk about equalization payments and Newfoundland being an "East Bloc Basket case" you have to recognize and understand how it got that way.   You think Newfoundland is poor because there are no revenues flowing from the province?   You really believe that the only way Newfoundland can stay a float is through handouts from the larger provinces? If so you have to be standing at the height of ignorance and your views stand with no merit.

First we can stay a little on topic and talk about the Atlantic accord deal.

Check this site out
http://www.fairdealfornewfoundland.com/gildalton/



> The reality however is that this principle of being the prime beneficiaries has not worked out the way it was intended. The various federal revenues represents 54% of the total government take. The provincial revenues represented 46%. However the federal government takes back 70% of the province's 46% in its claw back mechanism, which gives the federal government 86% and leaves the province with 14%. Right now with the claw back, for every $1.00 of benefit to Newfoundland, Ottawa benefits by $6.14. Even if Danny Williams gets what he has asked for, for every $1.00 dollar of benefit to Newfoundland, Ottawa will still get $1.17. Who then, with this split in revenues (86:14) is the prime beneficiary in actual fact? This situation is what Premier Danny Williams is so upset about and what Prime Minister Paul Martin agreed to change during the election. He agreed that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia would get 100% of the provincial revenues without the claw back.



Next we can't forget the money that Newfoundland has been losing through the Churchill falls deal.   right now it stands at $1 billion per year.   Multiply those figures (enter in appropriate amounts for each yea, in the millions anyways) since the deal has been struck and add that sum with what "should be" our off shore revenues, Newfoundland is getting royally screwed by the Fed's.


And another thing, you seem a little pissed off that your tax dollars are being blown to get Newfoundland's head above water, and you should be; but atleast identify and appreciate why that's happening. Like Bograt said, Newfoundland is not a have not Province, rather a keep not Province.   If you have any appreciation for what's going on here then you have to have a clue as to why Newfoundland isn't just taking the first crumb that Ottawa throw's it's way.   Right here, right now....enough is enough.


----------



## kellywmj (12 Jan 2005)

Churchill falls was a made in Newfoundland fiasco, and dont blame us for it, YOU (govt of Newfoundland) signed an awful deal with Hydro Quebec, so live with it!  The provincial government of the day accepted those terms, not Ottawa. As far as your off shore resources go, I agree! It should be yours! All I am saying is that, perhaps, the level of federal assistance should be reduced proportionately. If oil revenue is 500 million for the year, transfer payments should be reduced by the same number.


----------



## 227Tech (12 Jan 2005)

For one thing, no one's blaming YOU (as in the rest of Canada).  The churchill Falls agreement was made by the government at that time because it had no other choice if it wanted to make any revenues at all.  The real blame that were allocating here is to the Federal government who only washed their hands from the deal because they were afarid of a large Quebec seperation  movement (sticking up for Newfoundland would not have helped that situation).  Knowing that the fed's were goin to stay out of it, the deal was extended for like 65 years I believe.  Now, to ask the question that's been asked again and again, If Quebec was losing $1 Billion per year to Newfoundland on any contract do you think that it wouldnt have been rectified years ago? Ofcourse it would have.  

This double standard is insane, all this money thats leaving the province has to be goin somewhere...is the Federal government not making millions or billions off Newfoundland resources? The province see's very little of this money so we have the government raping the province AND THEN  we have people like you who completely ostracize Newfoundland because it's poor and receives equalization.....how do you not see this injustice?

If you read the link or even the little quote I provided earlier you see the answer to you equalization issue.


----------



## Bograt (12 Jan 2005)

Don't blame *us* for it?

If you ******* knew something about the issue.... get educated them come back.

We are Canadians in the confederation. This is not a us/them argument- to imply that it does clearly illustrates your ignorance. I apologized before but not now.



> If oil revenue is 500 million for the year, transfer payments should be reduced by the same number.


That's what we want- however your ignorance has blinded you from the issues. You believe we are a bunch of slack arses wanting our oil and the dole.

What the feds we offering was a "eight year" arrangement that went back to status quo under a number of caveats including-
1. Until the per capital income of the province equal Ont.,
2. the price oil would be 25 per barrel.
3. Money could not be spent on anything but debt reduction

The current lifespan of the oil fields now discovered will be 25 years. (Doesn't include future discoveries) What the feds were suggesting is 100% of 25 dollar oil for essentially three years. 

Moderator edit - Threats are not appropriate


----------



## kellywmj (12 Jan 2005)

Moderator edit - threats are not appropriate.


----------



## Island Ryhno (12 Jan 2005)

Just thought I'd drop something in here so we could show Ontario that it is practically alone in it's anti-Newfoundland stance, seems they feel the same way out west. 

Wed, January 5, 2005 

Rock star Williams' flag stunt about justice



By LICIA CORBELLA



It's pretty telling when more maple leaf flags could be found flapping about in Grand Forks, North Dakota last night by jubilant Canadian World Junior Hockey championship fans than in all of Newfoundland and Labrador. 

But that's what happens when the prime minister of Canada lies to the people of the Rock. 

After putting in a long 15-hour day in Ontario yesterday, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams admitted that he loves Canada, loves hockey and loves our flag. 

"I didn't do this lightly," says the charismatic Conservative premier of his decision two weeks ago to order Canadian flags removed from provincial government buildings. 

His controversial and symbolic gesture was done to protest Prime Minister Paul Martin reneging on a deal made June 5, during the federal election campaign that Newfoundland could keep 100% of its provincial share of offshore oil revenues, rather than having most of it taken by the feds who then dole it out again as provincial "equalization" payments in an effort to keep the islanders beholden to the Liberal party. 

Williams, who called on his cell phone from Ontario, says: "It's not intended to desecrate the flag." 

He points out nobody is trampling the maple leaf or burning it. 

"We took down the flag in the proper manner, folded it up nicely and put it away until the federal government starts to acknowledge that we're not second-class citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador. 

"We've taken down the flag as a strong statement of protest. This is a significant milestone for our province. This is about survival." 

And, as Williams explains, the so-called 100% of provincial revenues he's seeking will still give most of Newfoundland's resource revenues to the feds, so the charges of greed by the rest of Canada are simply "unfair." 

Currently, Canada's most easterly province only gets to keep 14% of the revenues from its resources and the feds take a whopping 86% even though the Atlantic Accord signed back in the '80s with the Mulroney government promised the province a much larger share. 

"The deal the prime minister agreed to on June 5 would move our 14% up to 47% with the feds still getting the lion's share." 

Martin, desperate to hang onto as many seats as possible when it looked like he might not even win a minority last June, followed Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper's vow to give Newfoundland more rights over its own resources. 

Now, the lying leader is dissing the province. 

"The premier's actions are disrespectful of our most treasured national symbol," Martin said in a statement last month. "It is even more disappointing that (Williams) would use the Canadian flag in this way." 

Curious comments coming from the leader of the Liberal government that used the Canadian flag as the excuse to steal more than $100 million of taxpayers' money in the sponsorship scandal which it doled out to Liberal-friendly advertising agencies in Quebec who in turn gave a lot back to the Liberal party. 

But it's even more disgusting coming from Martin, whose company -- Canadian Steamship Lines (which he has since handed over to his sons), lowered the Canadian flag on seven of his tankers, hoisting up other flags of "convenience" in order to avoid paying Canadian taxes altogether and to avoid adhering to Canadian environmental and labour laws. 

Martin has a lot of gall. 

Williams, on the other hand, has a lot of guts. 

What's more, he has the overwhelming support of the vast majority of Newfoundlanders. 

The flag, say mostly central Canadian critics of Williams, should be above politics and above greed. 

Right. Tell that to the federal Liberals and Paul Martin, who have used it or lowered it to benefit themselves politically and personally. 

For most of us, the Canadian flag does not bring us money, it symbolizes justice and fairness -- something that is lacking for the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador, just like our flag.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (12 Jan 2005)

Hey Ryhno

I am from Ont and i did support Williams on the issue of his argument just not his methond.  Anti any province (except Quebec)  (that was a joke)  is wrong.  

We all serve under one flag   not 13 different ones.

It is sad that to many people have just jumped into this thread without reading it all the way through.  

227 and Bogart good find on your sources.  I enjoy reading your facts and find they enlighten the argument or debate with actual fact as opposed to biast opinion.  

I agree totaly they should be able to keep what is theirs.  I have no issue with that.  And if the deal comes through that equalization payments are reduced as per amount of oil sales good on both sides.

I will be happiest on the day that equalizations can stop nation wide but i don't see that happening.  And that is from an Ont living in AB.

As for taking it outside it is like minus 40 out there now so fill your boots i will come out and get ya to defrost in about an hr.   ;D


----------



## ex_coelis (12 Jan 2005)

Hear Hear!






			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> The structure of our Government is derived from the BNA act, which was written at a time when communications precluded a continental nation from being a viable proposition. Our neighbours to the south pioneered the "Federal" system, where different levels of government were responsible for different things, until the time of the Civil war, America was properly reffered to as "These United States".
> 
> Our big problem is the Federal level of government is intruding deeply into Provincial responsibilities through the use of taxation and tax revenues. *The BNA act reserves resources, education and health care exclusivley to the provinces*, and if that had been adhered to, this entire thread would never have happened. If the Feds were to commit the same time and resources to their true responsibilities of national security and foreign relations as they do for health care, then we would be a lot better off. (IF they dropped doing health care and all the other pork barrels, we would be immensly better off).
> 
> Perhaps Premier Williams should concentrate his efforts on "disentanglement" of Federal and Provincial responsibilities. He has shown great energy in his dealings with the Martin government (although given Martin's level of activity, that isn't really saying much), and I would think he has the moral authoraty to launch such a project. (When you mention this to him, tell him I said "Hello"). Disentanglement would be a long term solution to the problems of "Have" and "Have not" provinces (now the voters know who to blame), and the stripping away of overregulation and excessive taxation through disentanglement would have very positive effects on our overall economic health.


----------



## Island Ryhno (12 Jan 2005)

Wizard, I did not just jump into this thread, I read all 18 pages before I decided to post. I'm well informed as well, I live right here in St.John's and have an avid interest in both provincial and federal politics. I consider myself well informed. The retirect comes mostly from central Canada, i.e. Ontario. I find it interesting that it's OK to make "Newfie" jokes and as tell us to stop taking the dole etc etc. But as soon as a desparaging remark is made about Ontario, it's wrong. I'm glad you see the struggle we have here in Newfoundland, however the majority of your birth province (and this is a guess or a summation) doesn't feel that way. No further proof need be pointed out than Margaret Wente who so tactfully pointed out that we are a "vast and scenic welfare ghetto." If such comments were made about Ontario in regards to any quam it had with the federal government by a Newfoundlander, I suspect that we would have to call in the forces for more than snow clearing. I have no quarrell with Ontario, I have 2 sisters who are married to Ontarions and make a very good living there, which I too will in the near future. However I will not sit Idly by while people slander my province or my cultural heritage, regardless of what issue we are fighting the federal government over. I suggest that all other Newfoundlanders in here take the same stance, as should all Canadians who think it's wrong to belittle a people. Oh and I never made the take it outside comment, not sure if you meant me! Cheers mate, no offense meant.


----------



## Bograt (12 Jan 2005)

Needless to say this is a very passionate issue. Even the best of us can lose our cool.


----------



## Island Ryhno (12 Jan 2005)

Agreed  >


----------



## Wizard of OZ (12 Jan 2005)

Ryhno and Bogart both points are correct..

I do my best in the form not to slander anyone, from anywhere regardless of if they are from Quebec or not   (again a joke) {ex girlfriend is from there so the slams are warranted}.

No offence was taken Ryhno justed wanted you to know that we Ontarions don't all feel the same about the east or the west.

And being from Ont i can say that some parts are "vast and scenic welfare ghetto" have you seen all of TO or even some of the abandoned communities up north????

We are all in this together the only way out is together not apart.


----------



## 227Tech (12 Jan 2005)

Ha Ha, I took your comment of people jumping in without reading the Thread as directed to people such as Ape and kellywmj.

Either way, it definately goes both ways too.


----------



## Island Ryhno (12 Jan 2005)

Seen and Agreed on both circumstances


----------



## kellywmj (12 Jan 2005)

Having been been awarded my 119, I will take my leave, hat in hand, humbled, but not discouraged.


----------



## ex_coelis (12 Jan 2005)

kellywmj said:
			
		

> Having been been awarded my 119, I will take my leave, hat in hand, humbled, but not discouraged.



Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Seeya.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Jan 2005)

kellywmj said:
			
		

> Having been been awarded my 119, I will take my leave, hat in hand, humbled, but not discouraged.



Are those tears streaming down your face?_

Are you going to cry, bro?  I like it when you cry._


----------



## kellywmj (12 Jan 2005)

I try to make a graceful exit, after contributing some insightful and though provoking commentary, and thats the send off I get? Disappointed, but not surprised.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jan 2005)

Obviously, as Bograt pointed out, this is a thread that has invoked passionate responses from all involved (myself included).  It appears everything that needs to be said has been said and the only apparent prospect is more fighting and more administrative warnings, so I'm locking it for the everybody's sake.

If something new and groundbreaking happens, start a new thread and hopefully it'll unfold a little better.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2005)

> *Martin Should Blush over Flag Flap*
> 
> By Licia Corbella
> 
> ...



Perhaps the only proper response to this would be for the Govenor General to dissolve parliament and either invite Steven Harper to become Prime Minister, or call new elections.


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Jan 2005)

I'm with you a_.

The problem is I'm afraid that although the Gomery inquiry will generate a large and impressive body of work detailing the how's and where's of the spendership scandal I think it will be rather short on who's (except for those already named) as in Who ordered it, who knew about it. The top two on that list for me would be the former PM and his Finance minister. 

Ahhhh, if it could only be proven, because a proof is a proof and you know it is a good proof because it's proven.  :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Oct 2008)

I wonder how Mr. Williams feels about his "ABC" campaign now?..........hmm, not much representation for the next 4 years, you clown.


----------



## GAP (15 Oct 2008)

Harper may not punish Quebec for rejecting him, he set the stage for his own loss of seats with the Arts & Culture comments, and Duceppe was smart enough to use it against him, especially once it started, the CPC ignored the downturn rather than going in and  fighting back. Their numbers came up when Harper went in and fought back.

The ABC in NFL is a concoction by Danny Williams and Danny Williams only. He's riding high in his own province, represents very few federal seats, but can serve as valuable lesson to other premiers who are inclined to pull similar stunts. 

A whole subtle shitload of hurt should come Danny William's way.......


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2008)

Gander and Goose Bay immediately come to mind as military facilities of limited use which could be closed in the name of "right sizing" "rationalization" or "re-allocation" (or invent your own R word); closure of either one (or both!) would serve as a rather potent reminder of what Danny done did.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Oct 2008)

Totally agree. Close down both ASAP, and for added measure announce the base personnel will be moving to Ontario.


----------



## Mike Baker (15 Oct 2008)

As much as I love my province, and my country, I think that Mr. Williams went a bit too far with this. He basically told us who we had to vote for. Now, I do like Williams, and I've even had the pleasure to meet with him, but I absolutely hated his idea of the ABC campaign. Other then that, and the Flag lowering, he is the best person we've ever had in power, in my opinion.


Beav


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2008)

The Beaver said:
			
		

> .... I think that Mr. Williams went a bit too far with this. He basically told us who we had to vote for. ....



But I don't believe that qualifies as a lawful order.   Does it?


----------



## Mike Baker (15 Oct 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But I don't believe that qualifies as a lawful order.   Does it?


No, but many Newfoundlanders are 'sheep', if you will. The head sheep goes one way, the rest follow.


Beav


----------



## HCA123 (15 Oct 2008)

Sheep? I think you are way off base on that one and generalizing our whole province. I don't know you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you misworded your generalization of a place that has quite a few excellent leaders/business people (Danny, Rick Hiller, etc) instead of getting on my soapbox with a rant. The reality of it is, people listen and trust strong leaders. I think what you really meant to say is that Danny is a strong leader and may have used his power in a way he probably shouldn't have.

I'm a huge Danny supporter but as mentioned above, I think he went too far on this one. He has done an excellent job so far in progressing the interests of the province and making sure we get our cut from both gov't and big business. There is a time and place to play hardball but in the situation I think he should have been a bit more careful in biting the hand that feeds.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Oct 2008)

The Beaver said:
			
		

> ....other then that, and the Flag lowering, he is the best person we've ever had in power, in my opinion.
> 
> Beav



I though you guys loved Joey Smallwood?


----------



## evil drunken-fool (15 Oct 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I though you guys loved Joey Smallwood?



Joey Smallwood?!?!?!
He set this province back so far, that only for the fact we have oil reserves are we on the path to getting out of this mess.


----------



## Mike Baker (15 Oct 2008)

HCA123 said:
			
		

> Sheep? I think you are way off base on that one and generalizing our whole province. I don't know you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you misworded your generalization of a place that has quite a few excellent leaders/business people (Danny, Rick Hiller, etc) instead of getting on my soapbox with a rant. The reality of it is, people listen and trust strong leaders. I think what you really meant to say is that Danny is a strong leader and may have used his power in a way he probably shouldn't have.
> 
> I'm a huge Danny supporter but as mentioned above, I think he went too far on this one. He has done an excellent job so far in progressing the interests of the province and making sure we get our cut from both gov't and big business. There is a time and place to play hardball but in the situation I think he should have been a bit more careful in biting the hand that feeds.


Thats what I was trying to get out. Sorry for the confusion.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I though you guys loved Joey Smallwood?





			
				Steel Horse said:
			
		

> Joey Smallwood?!?!?!
> He set this province back so far, that only for the fact we have oil reserves are we on the path to getting out of this mess.


Exactly!

Beav


----------



## Stoker (15 Oct 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Gander and Goose Bay immediately come to mind as military facilities of limited use which could be closed in the name of "right sizing" "rationalization" or "re-allocation" (or invent your own R word); closure of either one (or both!) would serve as a rather potent reminder of what Danny done did.



So you would punish everyone in those areas because they made a bad choice? Some people did vote for Harper in the province . I don't like Danny Williams either but punishing decent hard working people is not the answer.


----------



## GAP (15 Oct 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> So you would punish everyone in those areas because they made a bad choice? Some people did vote for Harper in the province . I don't like Danny Williams either but punishing decent hard working people is not the answer.



That's a valid point, and so was mine. Williams escalated the row way beyond what it needed to be, and from the federal perspective the precedent cannot go unanswered.....what do you suggest? Remember Williams decided to play with the people's of NFL as the stake....


----------



## GUNS (15 Oct 2008)

As a Newfoundlander, comments like sheep and clown, are not called for.  I did not agree with Danny's ABC policy and I never let it sway my vote.

Harper's actions influenced my vote. The billions in payments he promised to NL during his campain. The promise of soldiers to Goose Bay. A Federal prison for NL. The mismanagement of the Fishery. The list goes on and on. What did our three Conservative members do for NL? Nothing.

Danny and Harper have already agreed to put all this behind them and start working together to better the country and province.

The province of NL is better of today than it was yesterday.

My shillings worth.


----------



## Stoker (15 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> That's a valid point, and so was mine. Williams escalated the row way beyond what it needed to be, and from the federal perspective the precedent cannot go unanswered.....what do you suggest? Remember Williams decided to play with the people's of NFL as the stake....



Easy, no new federal money for the next couple of years. Some point in time however they BOTH have to act like adults and stop this BS. I wonder however if Williams never had the ABC campaign how would the seats be today?


----------



## GAP (15 Oct 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Easy, no new federal money for the next couple of years. Some point in time however they BOTH have to act like adults and stop this BS. I wonder however if Williams never had the ABC campaign how would the seats be today?



It would have been nice to find out... Provincial politicans should stay out of Federal election campaigns, and vice versa. Up until now that has mostly been the case, and those that put their toes in the water, got bitc*slapped for it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Oct 2008)

GUNS said:
			
		

> As a Newfoundlander, comments like sheep and clown, .



I don't think of the people of Newfoundland as sheep,......but only Mr. Williams was refered to as a clown [by me] and thats only because he is.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> So you would punish everyone in those areas because they made a bad choice? Some people did vote for Harper in the province . I don't like Danny Williams either but punishing decent hard working people is not the answer.



Punish hard working people?  No.  Close useless appendages that serve no military purpose.  The Air Force doesn't want either location.  The Army doesn't want soldiers where they're not readily accessible.  There's no god given right to stay in your home community and get a government job - even if the government doesn't need the job done.


----------



## Stoker (16 Oct 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Punish hard working people?  No.  Close useless appendages that serve no military purpose.  The Air Force doesn't want either location.  The Army doesn't want soldiers where they're not readily accessible.  There's no god given right to stay in your home community and get a government job - even if the government doesn't need the job done.



Ok, perhaps your right.  Close Gander and Goosebay, we obviously don't need these places, no use at all, waste of money.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Oct 2008)

Mind you, given the ability to restructure everything, I'd close Kingston as well, re-arrange the Regular Force infantry from three regiments of three battalions into four regiments of two (Hello, 1st and 2nd RHC in Gagetown), and increase the size of the navy (probably moving more to the left coast, though).  The dot COMs would be ransacked, and an organization similar to the old DCDS group would rise from their ashes...

But as of right now, I haven't received the letter offering me the job of restructuring things how I want them...  I blame Canada Post...


----------



## TCBF (16 Oct 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Mind you, given the ability to restructure everything, I'd close Kingston as well, re-arrange the Regular Force infantry from three regiments of three battalions into four regiments of two (Hello, 1st and 2nd RHC in Gagetown), and increase the size of the navy (probably moving more to the left coast, though).  The dot COMs would be ransacked, and an organization similar to the old DCDS group would rise from their ashes...
> 
> But as of right now, I haven't received the letter offering me the job of restructuring things how I want them...  I blame Canada Post...



- Right.  Five regiments of two bns each: Re-form 3 Bde (old loc was Gagetown in 1970.) and move it to Nfld with two 10/90 bns org the R Nfld R.  Employ the two year class B contracts that CMTC uses.  Form 4 Bde (old loc: Lahr) in Borden and do the same thing.

- Maybe we can then deploy Bde level HQs without robbing the rest of the Army.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Oct 2008)

What does having more regiments gives us, instead of having more administrative positions to fill to (I assume) the detriment of the operational positions?  We just merged 4 gun squadrons into 2 to reduce (amongs other factors) the amount of duplicated position that weren't really required to be duplicated.  What good would having 4 or 5 regiments instead of the current 3?


----------



## TCBF (16 Oct 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> What does having more regiments gives us, instead of having more administrative positions to fill to (I assume) the detriment of the operational positions?  We just merged 4 gun squadrons into 2 to reduce (amongs other factors) the amount of duplicated position that weren't really required to be duplicated.  What good would having 4 or 5 regiments instead of the current 3?



- Because administrative and staff positions form the bulk of our deployments.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Oct 2008)

Yes, but I'm sure you could use more operational positions.  You can always fill administrative position by operational position, but the opposite isn't always possible.  I'm sure you'll agree with me that having more operationally ready soldiers makes more sense than having more soldier filling administrative positions that aren't even required in the first place.


----------



## TCBF (16 Oct 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Yes, but I'm sure you could use more operational positions.  You can always fill administrative position by operational position, but the opposite isn't always possible.  I'm sure you'll agree with me that having more operationally ready soldiers makes more sense than having more soldier filling administrative positions that aren't even required in the first place.



- Agreed, that is why my cunning plan added up to ten bns instead of the present nine.  But at the moment we have three Bde HQs in Canada, one overseas and one training to go over seas.  Of those five Bde HQs, two are cobbled together and three are stripped building the other two.  So, if we need five, let's make five.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Oct 2008)

Nice discussion and all but,.......umm, Danny Williams?


----------



## Danjanou (16 Oct 2008)

My issues with Danny, and for the record while I’m a CFA I think 7 years on the rock, a member of 1 RNFLDR, and a graduate of MUN give me some say in this, are not the fact he is/was against Harper for slights real or imagined. What really bothers me is the allegations coming out of the Rock on how he may have abused his position as Premier in the ABC campaign.

I’ve heard reports of threats to individuals who were considering running for the CPC and/or working on CPC campaigns. Basically along the line of “you do this and that sweet Provincial Government contract that your father’s business needs to survive, well it’s gone.”

I’m sorry if crap like that is true, that’s right out of Robert Mugabe’s playbook.


----------



## karl28 (16 Oct 2008)

Well here is hoping that now the election is over that both  Harper supporters and those who don't like the man can put there  differences aside and get working on the real issues that are affecting this country .


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Oct 2008)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I’ve heard reports of threats to individuals who were considering running for the CPC and/or working on CPC campaigns. Basically along the line of “you do this and that sweet Provincial Government contract that your father’s business needs to survive, well it’s gone.”
> 
> I’m sorry if crap like that is true, that’s right out of Robert Mugabe’s playbook.



Actually, it sounds more like Joey Smallwood's playbook.  So this is nothing more than a return to traditional Newfie politics, just that the intended opponent is from away rather than homegrown.  Now if my grandfather was still alive, he'd be commenting about the time they almost hung "the little bastard" (the only time he ever swore was in reference to Smallwood).


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2008)

Actually that sounds like a common thread throughout the Maritimes. Some one correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard of this being done in Nova Scotia as well.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Actually that sounds like a common thread throughout the Maritimes. Some one correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard of this being done in Nova Scotia as well.



What's the common thread? Threatening your political opponents with financial retribution from the government (that may happen in all jurisdictions more often than you think) or attempting to lynch political candidates?  The later may have been an appropriate form of political expression in past days but now less direct action is preferred.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Oct 2008)

In the past year or two the government of PEI was taken to the supreme court over the unofficial policy of purging much of the public service every time the ruling party changed.

And provincial roads in Nova Scotia used to be an excellent predictor of the party of the local MPP - rough and bumpy, he was in the opposition.


----------



## TCBF (16 Oct 2008)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ... or attempting to lynch political candidates?  The later may have been an appropriate form of political expression in past days but now less direct action is preferred.



- Ballots or bullets, the will of the people will triumph.

 ;D


----------

