Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador

Web Talk - Summer Break

2009-07-02T10:21:00.003-02:30

With summer upon us and as "sun rays crown thy pine clad hills" it's time for Web Talk to take a short hiatus.

I hope those of you fortunate enough to be living in Newfoundland and Labrador will take the time (as I will) to get out and enjoy this beautiful part of the world. Those living elsewhere, please stop by for a visit to refresh your senses.

Web talk will be back later in the summer but in the mean time please feel free to stop by anytime and enjoy some of the past articles you may have missed.

Cheers for now,
Patriot

Just a moment

2009-07-01T07:12:00.002-02:30

Please don't forget to take a moment for silence and reflection today. It's the least any of us can do.

July 1st - Memorial Day Remembered

2009-06-30T09:53:00.004-02:30

Once again Canada day is upon us and once again I've opted to publish an article that I return to each year at this time.

With Canada Day celebrations about to go ahead I sincerely hope we do not forget that while July 1 may be a day of celebration for Canadians it is also one of the most solemn and sad days for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

July 1st marks the anniversary of the battle of Beaumont Hamel where so many of Newfoundland and Labrador's best and brightest were showered with shells. A day when an entire regiment was all but wiped out.

This Memorial (Canada) Day we should not forget those valiant men.

July 1st - Memorial Day Remembered

With Memorial Day once again upon us, it seems appropriate today to reflect on the exploits of the so called “Fighting Newfoundlander” and remember those who fought or died in conflicts half way around the world.

When many people think of the Newfoundland and Labrador's military history they immediately think of The Royal Newfoundland Regiment. Although Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans have fought with the forces of other nations and continue to distinguish themselves today in the Canadian Armed Forces, it is with a special kind of pride that we remember the exploits of that particular Regiment.

Originally formed in 1914, The Newfoundland Regiment, as it was known at the time, consisted of what many refer to as the “first 500” or “The Blue Puttees” in reference to the blue leggings worn by the men.

An entirely volunteer regiment, the men of the “first 500”, along with those who joined them later, distinguished themselves in battle after battle during World War I.

So valiant were their efforts that they were later bestowed by the King of England with the title of “Royal”, becoming the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the name we know them by to this day.

After only six weeks of training at home, The original Newfoundland Regiment containing the “first 500” set sail out of St. John’s harbour on October 4, 1914. This first group contained some of the best examples of the type of young men Newfoundland and Labrador had produced. Many were athletes, some had been involved in various boy’s brigades and all were determined to show their pride in the Dominion of Newfoundland.

According to historical documents, the men of the Regiment had two primary goals in mind when they arrived in Europe. The first was that they were Newfoundlanders, and intended to be known as such; the other was that they had gone over to fight, not to do garrison duty in England.

At one point during their orientation on the Salisbury Plain the idea was floated that the Newfoundland contingent should join with a nearby Nova Scotia Regiment. Both groups were only the size of half a battalion and to the brass from England this seemed like a logical step. According to articles from the time the Newfoundlanders would have no part of it. They felt that if the two groups merged the contingent would lose its name, its identity and its individuality.

During the coming months the Regiment grew as new members arrived. In time, the proud men of the Newfoundland Regiment were given the opportunity they had wanted, a chance to fight for their homeland.

On the battle field these proud soldiers solidified their place in history.

The Regiment earned no less than 280 separate decorations, 77 of which were awarded to original members of the “first 500” of which 170 were killed in action. In fact, one in every seven men among the original force received some sort of military honour.

Many people have heard the name of Tommy Ricketts who was given the highest honour possible, the Victoria Cross, however many may not remember some of the other brave men who fought for their homeland under the most dire conditions.

Newfoundland and Labrador has produced many great heroes, many who are not as well known, but no less deserving of recognition.Take for example the story of Cyril Gardner, originally from British Harbour.

Lieutenant Gardner has the distinction of being the only known allied serviceman to receive the German Iron Cross during WWI.The Iron Cross which was handed out only to the bravest German military personnel was given to Gardner on the battlefield.As the story goes, Gardner’s unit was engaged in battle with a German patrol of 70 men. During the night, as hostilities wound down Gardner, who spoke German, took it upon himself to grab his gun and head out to the enemy encampment.Sneaking into the enemy camp, the Lieutenant turned his gun on the officers, capturing them unharmed. With their leadership removed the remainder of the troop immediately surrendered.

Lieutenant Cyril Gardner had single handedly captured an entire German Patrol.

Upon marching his prisoners back to his own encampment he was met by a British Officer who intended to shoot the unarmed prisoners rather than be saddled with caring for them.As the German soldiers looked on in horror Lieutenant Gardner once again demonstrated his sense of bravery by stepping into the line of fire to protect his prisoners and telling his superior officer that if one German were shot the officer would be the next one to die.

After a moment of hesitation the officer walked away and it was then that the commander of the German patrol, who had many medals on his uniform, stepped up to Gardner and removing the iron cross from his chest, pinned it on Gardner’s, to the applause and cheers of the German soldiers.

For Centuries, even before the formation of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have answered the call whenever it arrived.

Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans have been involved in major conflicts around the world since the mid 1600's, including:

The Anglo-Dutch Wars – 1652
The War of the Austrian Succession – 1743
The Seven Year War - 1756
The American Revolution - 1775
The Napoleonic Wars – 1796
The War of 1812
World War I – 1914
World War II – 1939

Add to this the number of young men and women who have proven themselves in places like Korea, Afghanistan, Bosnia and countless other areas of conflict or peacekeeping around the world, and we can clearly see that Newfoundland and Labrador has a lot to be proud of and, on this Memorial Day, a lot to remember.

On this Memorial Day, July 1st, and throughout the remainder of the year perhaps we should all take a few minutes to visit a local legion hall or war memorial, to stop and chat with an aging veteran and to offer a little show of thanks for the sacrifice these fine men and women have made to protecting our homeland and others.

Statistics show that every day in Canada an average of 80 veterans die. That’s more than at the height of conflict in World War II.

It only takes a moment to shake a veteran’s hand or buy one a cold beer. It might seem like a small gesture and it is, but even taking a moment to express a little gratitude may just brighten the day of some of our bravest and most deserving citizens.

Patronage Plumbs Peddled for PM's Purposes

2009-06-23T13:29:00.014-02:30

This morning I stumbled across an article from the “Hill Times” that immediately caught my attention and captivated my interest. The piece was about none other than Prime Minister Stephen Harper

The headline read, “Harper criticized for not 'taking care' of former MPs, top staffers”.

The author referenced Conservative MPs and staffers who are worried because, “...Mr. Harper demands loyalty … (but) he doesn't show the same loyalty when MPs lose an election or staffers leave their Parliament Hill jobs."

Apparently those loyalists are, "disappointed that he has failed to "take care" of them in their post-Parliamentary lives.”

I have to say I was left in total bewilderment after reading this.

I mean boo hoo for the party hacks moaning to this reporter but what's going on here?

First of all let me say I’m strongly believe that political patronage and the “old buddy” network is a major part of the problem we have with politics today. Anybody who chooses to run for office or to work for a political “machine” shouldn’t have any right to expect to be “taken care of” when the party ends. They do of course but that doesn't make it right.

Knowing how I feel about this I’m sure you can understand my confusion.

Politics in Canada has been an elitist and closed “scratch my back” system for decades and to hear that suddenly Stephen Harper, one of the most underhanded and self serving of the bunch, may have suddenly decided to do the right thing and give up the practice had me flabbergasted.

I mean wasn’t it Stephen Harper who claimed he would never appoint senators to that most golden of retirement homes, the Red Chamber?

Wasn't it also Stephen Harper who did just the opposite by appointing 18 of them?

Didn’t he thank Mike Duffy for his partisan service and support during the last election and for Duffy’s crucifixion of Stephane Dion after a botched Nova Scotia interview (an action by Duffy and NewsNet that was later described by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council as unethical)?

Didn’t Mr. Harper also send former Newfoundland and Labrador MP, Fabian Manning, to the red chamber after Manning was ridden out of town on a rail in his home Province? Wasn’t that a thank-you to Manning for standing next to the PM in the House of Commons, laughing and clapping as Mr. Harper callously stripped hundreds of millions from Newfoundland and Labrador and publicly ridiculed Mr. Manning’s home province?

Could the Stephen Harper I know and dislike have changed so much in such a short time that his party insiders and toadies were beginning to worry about their future expense accounts and "rolling around money"?

I was so confused. How could some reporter have identified a lack of political pork barreling and cronyism as a serious weakness in anyone but of all people, Stephen Harper?

Really?

What was I missing?

I mean here is a Prime Minister who has proven time and again that he is not to be trusted in any way, shape or form. For Stephen Harper breaking a promise or “sculpting the truth" is as natural as breathing. So my question was this: Had the Prime Minister suddenly turned over a new leaf or was he just proving to those in his inner circle what many of us already know, that he can’t be trusted?

It's something they all should have been aware of by now but in the rarified air of Ottawa clear vision is something often encountered.

Was it something else all together?

Did the Hill Times get boondoggled by the Harper media machine into running a story that might allow the Prime Minister to be viewed as the only one willing to “clean up dodge” even at the expense of his loyal minions?

The whole thing left all me with so many questions my head hurt and I believe (just for a moment) my morning muffin threatened to reappear from the depths.

What was I to say about this new information staring me in the face?

At first I almost thought that even though the Hill Times wasn’t very flattering to Mr. Harper (They seemed to view this lack of cronyism was a bad thing ) I might actually be forced to sit down to write something complimenary about the man.

My blood ran cold.

I nearly passed out from the stress.

But I was saved the horror of defending Mr. Harper's actions.

As I lowered by now tense frame over the keyboard and the blood slowly began to flow back into my head I suddenly realized what was really happening. It wasn’t that Stephen Harper had decided to do the right thing by turning his back on old school politics, it was just a case of the true nature of the man once again reaching the public eye.

I guess all the conflicting facts and my desire to see political cronyism done away with had clouded my judgment and overwhelmed my nervous system.

Think about it, Stephen Harper hasn’t actually done the right thing by deciding not to offer cushy jobs to his cronies on the taxpayer dime. Instead he’s been carefully weighing the market value of those around him and acting accordingly.

Those who have little future value to him, savagely loyal or not, must be removed and forgotten in the interest of the Harper "buddy" portfolio. In this way the limited number of valuable patronage positions available can be offered to those who have continued political or personal value.

I mean if Harper just gave away those plumb jobs as a thank-you to every Tom, Dick or Sparrow how would he be able to buy future influence inside Ottawa?

Consider this, were the onslaught of senatorial appointments really a political thank-you on the PM’s part or a way for him to meet his own self interests?

I admit that at first I thought they were nothing more than a taxpayer funded pat on the back but on reflection, and in light of this recent information I’ve been forced to look for another explanation and it isn’t hard to find one.

Just squeeze your eyes into tiny slits, forget you’re human or even a primate and try to think like Stephen Harper. I know it hurts but if you try real hard the answers will come.

For anyone afraid of having their personality or moral compass get stuck in Harper mode stop now and I'll tell you what I came up with.

Mind you I didn’t have the time, inclination or article room to research all the senate appointments made my this PM but in the case of Duffy and Manning the answer is simple.

Those appointments weren’t Harper’s way of thanking two political hacks for climbing into his back pocket they served a much more important purpose.

Duffy’s senate seat ensures that Mr. Harper has a very experienced and well connected media insider at his back pocket and at his beck and call whenever he needs to create some spin. And here’s the really interesting part, it’s not costing the Conservative party a cent because the taxpayers are footing the bill for Mr. Duffy’s enormous salary and golden perks.

As for Fabian Manning’s appointment, that ones a lot simpler and less forward looking.

Harper still has a major pissing contest underway with the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams, and he needed a way to retaliate against the Province for not electing a single Conservative during the last election. What better way to send a message to the Province and the Premier than to offer a highly publicized senate seat to the Province’s poster boy for “traitor of the decade”?

Can you say “slap in the face” Premier Williams? I bet you can.

Anyway, once the reality of the situation got a little clearer I slapped myself for being so politically naive and I felt much better, not for Canada which is still politically screwed, but about my personal well being.

My headache went away and things began to return to normal after a few minutes of deep breathing. It was then that another terrible thought occurred to me. What will happen after the next federal election?

According to the same “Hill Times” article that threw my morning into such turmoil, Mr. Harper may not always “take care” of his loyal supporters but the Liberal party has, “a fairly strong support network, not only political, but also corporate and academic” to help its loyalists.

Oh great. Once again we are faced with proof that the Canadian political system is nothing more than a joke. The banana republic of the North.

Now Canadians can either elect a ruling party that has no morals but which is pickier about feeding its loyalists at the trough or one that claims to have all the morals in the world while historically handing out patronage positions like Halloween candy.

Thank God we live in a democracy (well actually a democratic monarchy) where the public is free to decide which party had the best publicity machine leading up to election day.

Personally I think I’ll take next polling day. At least nobody will be able to blame me for “choosing” our next government.

Historical Perspectives in our School System

2009-06-18T13:06:00.010-02:30

Over the past week a great deal of media attention and public hand wringing has been evident in the wake of a report by the Dominion Institute. This independent report looked at Canadian history education across the Country and came to the conclusion that there is a distinct lack of focus on Canadian history within the various education systems from coast to coast.

According to the study Newfoundland and Labrador, along with 3 other provinces or territories should receive a failing grade for the limited level of Canada history being delivered in provincial schools.

Members of the Newfoundland Regiment WWI

Personally I don’t know what the reason might be for specific levels of delivery in the other so called “failed” provinces but in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador I beg to differ with the position of the Dominion Institute that the situation is troublesome.

Remember that education is a provincial mandate and is controlled by the governments of each province. Remember as well that although Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed a Canadian province today this was not the case just 60 years ago. There in lies the difference between Newfoundland and Labrador and the other jurisdictions across Canada and the reason why the province should not have been lumped in with the rest of Canada for the purposes of this study.

Prior to 1949 (just yesterday really) Newfoundland and Labrador blazed its own trail, developed its own culture (or multiple cultures) and made its own stamp on history.

Historians, social studies experts and others will tell you without hesitation that it is extremely important to the social and mental well being of any culture that they understand their past because it is one of the biggest factors influencing who a person is.

Perhaps this is the reason for the trepidation expressed by the Dominion Institute and various media commentators since the report was released. Unfortunately they forgot that the history of Newfoundland and Labrador’s people is not, for the most part, tied to the history of Canada at all.

All you have to do is look at the sad story of aboriginal peoples across Canada to see what happens when a culture’s history is usurped and replaced by that of another. Over the decades many attempts were made to assimilate the native peoples of Canada at the expense of forgetting their own rich past. The results have been disastrous and are a major contributor to the problems many native people suffer with today.

In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, at least in recent years, more local history has been added to the curriculum in an effort to ensure that people never forget their rich roots and rightfully so. In fact it is Newfoundland and Labrador history courses that should be made mandatory and more accessible in the schools of the province, not Canadian history courses.

As far as Newfoundland and Labrador is concerned a large percentage of the Province’s current population still remembers quite well when Canada became a part of our history and the events that have taken place since then. Taken in that light, the brief moment of time since 1949 hardly demands the cost of introducing and teaching a full Canadian history curriculum in our high schools.

No offense intended to the rest of Canada but in Newfoundland and Labrador teaching Canadian history as a side note to World history courses should be more than sufficient to ensure that what little shared past we have is recognized.

Newfoundland and Labrador Takes 10% Stake in Offshore Expansion

2009-06-16T09:37:00.007-02:30

"That amount ($10 billion) is actually double the royalties collected by the province from all three projects to date, since 1997," - Premier Danny Williams

Speaking at the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Oil and Gas Industries Association Conference in St. John’s on Tuesday Premier Danny Williams announced a long awaited tentative deal with a consortium of industry partners for expansion of the Hibernia South offshore project.

An agreement on the expansion was put on hold by the Province months ago when the government introduced its new energy plan. At the time government requests for clarification on some aspects of the expansion and the lack of an agreed upon royalty regime or equity position for the Province delayed the project.

On Tuesday Premier Williams announced to a packed house at the NOIA conference that a tentative agreement has now been reached that will see the province take a 10% equity stake. Depending on the future price of oil, the equity position, combined with provincial taxes and an enhanced royalty regime is expected to put $10 billion dollars into provincial coffers over the life of the project.

The royalty regime for the extension can top out at 50% once payout is complete and if specific oil pricing conditions are achieved. The final contract is yet to be completed so precise details of what those conditions are or what the province’s 10% equity stake will cost have not been released, though some estimates have put the cost at about $30 million.

The Hibernia South extension is estimated to contain more than 230 million barrels of oil and based on past estimates from within the oil and gas industry in the region those estimates are likely on the conservative side.

According to Premier Williams, "Hibernia South will increase and sustain production from the Hibernia field, preserving employment, while providing a significantly greater royalty return for the province than any previous project."

Comparing Report Cards - Harper vs. Williams

2009-06-12T11:27:00.005-02:30

This week Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered his “report card” on the status of the federal stimulus spending. Ironically, Mr. Harper waxed poetic about how much money has been earmarked for specific projects, municipal leaders across the Country sat in stunned silence wondering where the money was.

Always one to turn a phrase to his advantage, during his address Stephen Harper was quite skillful in saying that money has identified for the many projects while knowing full well that approval and delivery are not the same thing.

What Mr. Harper intentionally failed to admit was that most cheques have not been cut and most tenders for development have not been issued because the money is still somewhere in the bowels of the Finance department tangled in red tape. Stimulus funding is wonderful stuff when it’s needed but it isn’t much good if the money doesn’t flow.

As much as the Prime Minister dislikes the place, perhaps Mr. Harper would do well to look toward the province of Newfoundland and Labrador if he wants to see how stimulus funding really works.

On the same day the Prime Minister delivered his report card to the Professor Ignatieff and the rest of Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Premier, Danny Williams, and several of his Ministers delivered an update of their own.

The Provincial infrastructure stimulus package included in the 2009/10 budget was set at $800 million dollars and just yesterday that amount doubled to $1.6 billion and the program extended to include the 2010/11 fiscal year as well.

The biggest difference between the Newfoundland and Labrador package and the one touted by Ottawa isn’t in the numbers or the duration but in the delivery.

Perhaps Provincial Transportation and Works Minister, Trevor Taylor, put it best when he said at yesterday’s press conference, “It's one thing to make unprecedented commitments but it's quite another to get this money flowing and projects tendered quickly and that's just what our government is doing."

"Right now our Tendering and Contracts Division is the busiest it has ever been. On average, at any given time, the Provincial Government has between 20 to 30 tenders in circulation. We currently have 107 tenders out, which is a record for this province."

"We are issuing and awarding our tenders earlier than ever before and we plan to maintain this aggressive tender schedule as long as the commodity and labour prices hold and the industry has the capacity to do the work. Also, we are duplicating the designs of many of our new schools and health care facilities which expedites the process and makes it more cost-efficient,” said Taylor.

While there is no doubt the economic downturn is affecting the Province, as it is the rest of Canada, with increased unemployment and a lower GDP there are some positive indications for improvement over the coming months.

Finance Minister, Jerome Kennedy noted that, "At a recent meeting of finance ministers across the country, the Federal Government indicated that Newfoundland and Labrador is now leading the rest of the country with stimulus flowing to the economy in 2009 and 2010 relative to our GDP."

"In addition, thus far this year, our province is leading the country in a number of economic indicators, including investment intentions, retail sales, labour income and urban housing starts," said Kennedy.

Perhaps one of the best features of the Newfoundland and Labrador stimulus package is that isn’t overly dependent on Ottawa to provide a share of the funding. 85% of the program’s funding will come from provincial coffers with the remaining 15% being shared by federal and municipal governments.

It’s a good thing there isn’t too much dependence on Ottawa. We all know where that has led the Province in the past. In this particular situation and at the speed federal infrastructure funding is flowing the recession is likely to be a distant memory by the time the first cheques go in the mail.

It’s really too bad Stephen Harper and Danny Williams aren’t on speaking terms or the PM might have picked up a few pointers on how to handle an economic crisis.

One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch

2009-06-10T15:29:00.005-02:30

Is it just me or are the semi-regular apologies being forced out of the Federal Conservative caucus wearing a little thin?

When will the people of Canada wake up and realize that the rot now being exposed among members of Parliament isn’t a problem with individuals alone. It also isn’t something that can be fixed with a forced and largely insincere apology. It’s a serious and dangerous attitude problem that is not only being condoned inside the Conservative Party of Canada but encouraged.

Today Natural Resources Minister, Lisa Raitt, delivered a teary eyed apology to the media after refusing to do so for days on end in the House of Commons. She finally apologized but only after mounting attacks from the opposition and most recently from numerous cancer patients who are rightly disgusted with her attitude and with the Prime Minister's acceptance of it.

With the support she’s been shown by the Prime Minister I’m surprised Minister Raitt apologized at all. In fact with the resounding praise heaped on her by her leader in the past two days I almost expected her to begin gunning down the elderly and infirm in the streets and hungrily lap their warm blood from the asphalt.

Seriously, it should be pretty obvious to anyone that this situation is just one more example of the rot that exists inside the Conservative Party of Canada. It's a sickness of the mind that is festering and growing with each passing day in power. The Raitt case is just the latest in a string of similarly disgusting pronouncements by Conservative Members of Parliament in recent years and I'll be very surprised if it's the last.

How many of us remember Saskatchewan Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski who turned up on a long lost video tape last year referring to homosexuals as “faggots with dirt under their fingernails who transmit diseases”.

Does anyone remember how Mr. Lukiwiski was dealt with inside the Conservative caucus? Probably not, because no action was ever taken to chastise the MP or to send a message to other members that this behaviour is unacceptable.

Once again, after a staged public apology all was forgiven and Mr. Lukiwski went back to work.

What about Conservative MP Gerry Ritz, the former Minister of Health, who laughingly joked during the listeria outbreak which caused a number of deaths across the Country, that eating tainted sandwich meats was, “like death by a thousand cuts, or should I say cold cuts”.

Ritz went on to express his hope that a newly announced death in PEI was one of his adversaries on the opposite side of the House. He was supported and backed to the hilt by Stephen Harper.

On a more recent note, in fact just this week, pit bull Conservative Transport Minister, John Baird, muttered publicly that the city of Toronto itself should “just F@#K OFF”. Once again, a quick apology seems to have satisfied the Prime Minister. No sanctions will be imposed, no resignation sought and, as a result, no message will be sent to other members of the Conservative caucus.

Is it any wonder that with the Prime Minister setting such a good example the rank and file are quite comfortable acting like self satisfied A-holes?

Consider that it was the Prime Minister himself who after bailing out GM, to the tune of more than $7 billion dollars in taxpayer money, said that anyone who lost their job in the forest industry should consider moving to Fort McMurray where there are plenty of jobs if they really want to work.

I’m not saying there aren’t serious attitude problems throughout Ottawa, regardless of which party an MP is a part of, in fact I'm sure of it, but when people work every day in an environment that condons and supports such behavior it does something to the mind. A sort of mob mentality develops and the worst behavior possible is bound to increase and spread.

I don't want an angry mob running loose in the streets of my town and I certainly don't want one running the Country.

The situation Minister Raitt finds herself in now rests as much on Mr. Harper’s shoulders as it does on her own.

Not to excuse her actions, but the comments made by the Minister, which include her musing about a potential bump to her political career and about taking all the credit for resolving a serious medical crisis affecting thousands of people across the Country, are a direct result of her environment and the attitude within it. She probably thought what she was saying was just fine based on her experiences inside the Conservative caucus.

On the tape Minister Raitt came across as quite comfortable with the shortage of medical isotopes and their effect on cancer and other diagnostic imaging tests. She seemed almost happy when referring to the problem as “sexy” because it dealt with “cancer” and “radioactive leaks”. This is not the attitude most of us expect from a Member of Parliament, but then again, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch and when the worst rot of all exists in the biggest apple in the pile what hope is there for the entire crop?

If You Don't Vote You Shouldn't Complain

2009-06-09T10:50:00.004-02:30

“If you don’t vote then you shouldn’t complain about what government is doing.”

It’s an old saying that I’ve always seen for what it truly is, total B.S.

That sort of sentiment might serve the interests of politicians who want your vote or who would love nothing more than for the public to shut up and not complain when government runs amok, but to say somebody doesn’t have the right to complain because they didn’t vote is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.

If non voters don’t have the right to complain then who does?

From my perspective anyone who doesn’t vote has a much greater right to complain than those who visit the polls and mark an X for one of the mainstream parties.

Think about it. Voters elect government members to office and in doing so ultimately decide the form and shape a government takes on both sides of the House.

When government neglects the needs of the public, wastes tax dollars and makes decisions that cause great harm to the public good voters should share in some of the blame.

In fact it’s voters who have far less right to complain about the actions of elected officials than anyone else, after all it was voters who put them in office in the first place.

Far too often political spin doctors and the mainstream media talk about the growing problem of low voter turnout at elections and claim it’s the result of disinterest or apathy rather than identifying it for what it is. Either they blindly choose to believe this falsehood or they simply don’t understand what’s happening around them which is entirely possible from what I've seen. Either way they’re dead wrong.

Sure, some citizens have absolutely no interest in politics or elections, those people have always existed, but there are growing numbers of people who have come to the realization that no matter which party or individual is elected the end result will be the same and it won’t likely be good.

Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It’s the non-voters, not the voters, who have adopted those words of wisdom and who have given up on Canada’s elitist and centric political system. Good on them.

Until the system can be changed to better ensure that the public interest is being served, not the parties or the politicians, the act of voting is nothing more than the act of abetting corruption, lies, deceit and fraud.

I’d rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty nail than support any of today's federal mainstream parties so don’t expect to see me at the polls any time soon. Rest assured however that the complaining will continue as it always does. I have every right to complain and plan to use that right as much as possible.

The next time someone says to you, “if you don’t vote you shouldn’t complain” tell them the same thing I will. Here’s a hint, its two words, starting with F and ending with OFF.

If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal

2009-06-08T11:40:00.001-02:30

Where are the grand visions? Where are the political figures that can see past the next set of polling numbers, past their personal objectives and past the next the next election?

Where are the true political leaders?

Not in Ottawa that’s for sure. In fact, if they exist at all, which I sincerely hope they do, they are nowhere near the political arena.

There are those, myself included, who firmly believe that Canada’s political system is completely dysfunctional and incapable of effectively accomplishing anything beyond petty pandering and self preservation. The exception that proves this rule is the complete efficiency with which anyone who exhibits any signs of altruistic intentions is brushed aside or, circumstances permitting, quickly and quietly thrown under a proverbial bus.

Canada’s political system breeds pariahs. They’re like flies feasting on a dead pig carcass.

The only thing that really matters to our political elite is obtaining power and retaining it at all costs, vision be damned.

The system has bred today’s crop of politicians and nurtured them with success. They are all clones of one another, regardless of party affiliation. Their philosophy differs little from one to the other and that philosophy goes something like this, “The future, beyond the next election cycle, is someone else’s problem not mine. The unemployed don’t matter (unless they’re in a vote rich urban center and might support my party), I have my own job to protect.”

How pathetic is that?

That my friends what passes for leadership in Canada today.

Take the past week or so as an example.

Canada’s deficit projections rose from 30+ billion to 50 billion and who knows what the final figure will be. 20% of that deficit is being handed over to General Motors, which plans to retain 4000 jobs in the Country, with no guarantees and no real hope of ever recovering those funds. Meanwhile forestry workers, fishery workers and hundreds of thousands of nameless, faceless individuals across every sector of the economy are being tossed out of work without even a nod of recognition from Ottawa. Less workers qualify for Employment insurance today than ever in the past and while the feds (under a former Liberal government) raped the EI fund of $50 billion dollars to pay down debt, the current (Conservative government) is refusing to put less than $2 billion back on that debt in an effort to increase eligibility during the economic disaster.

So, with all of that happening what did politicians focus all of their energies on last week? What did they spend practically every second of the day talking about? They went around and around about a federal minister left some questionably sensitive documents at a T.V. station in Ottawa.

During question period in the House of Commons that topic alone commanded everyone’s attention with demands for resignations, shouts of support for the minister and everything in between and all for political effect. Meanwhile only one solitary question, posed by a junior opposition member, addressed the multi-billion dollar taxpayer gift to GM and what it might mean for Canadian taxpayers.

Attacking your opposition has the potential for political advantage. Questioning the use of billions of tax dollars in Canada’s most vote rich province most assuredly doesn’t.

If Canada's politcal leaders can't even deal with the day to day business of running a government and protecting tax payer dollars what hope do we have for the grand visions of the past? What happened to the kind of vision that build the railway and opened up the Country? Where are the leaders who thoguht outside the box and introduced the EI program and universal health care? They don't congregate on Parliament Hill that's for sure, so don't hold your breath for an east/west power grid or a concerted effort to enact custodial management of fish stocks off Canada's shores. It's never going to happen in today's political environment.

In a recent Halifax Chronicle Herald editorial fellow Newfoundlander Greg Lock wrote that the low voter participation rates so often bemoaned by politicians aren’t, as is often reported, the result of voter apathy but rather of voter disgust. I tend to agree.

Politics has always been a dirty business but at least there used to be some glimmer of hope that, every once in a while, someone would step forward with the vision to truly lead and inspire. With every passing decade that faint possibility continues to diminish. In fact I have no doubt that in the current political state we find ourselves, any political figure with the audacity to be seen as a risk to the status quo would be crushed before getting out of the starting gate.

No matter what anyone might say, politics is not the voice of the people put into action. It’s the dreams of the people corrupted by self serving individuals.

There’s an old quote that speaks to the sad state of our political system and those who wallow in it.

“If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal”.

Truer words were never spoken and I wish I knew who said them. Unfortunately the author chose to remain anonymous. That’s too bad, with that kind of insight, he or she might have made a great political leader. On reflection, perhaps they chose to remain anonymous for a very good reason, self preservation.

Layman's Blueprint for a Truly Green Economy

2009-06-04T14:21:00.007-02:30

Far too often I'm accused of only discussing the problems that face my little corner of the world rather than looking for solutions. With that in mind I decided to take some time (granted it was only a couple of hours) to consider a "Manufactured Right Here" solution to what many people around the world believe is the biggest concern of our times. Global warming.

Tackling such a major issue is a tall order and since I'm not scientist, politician, economist or even an environmentalist the concept I've come up with may be totally out to lunch. Never the less here it is. A layman's plan for carbon management.

Feel free to poke holes in it, tear it up and spit it back out. Don't hesitate to tell me how naive I am to think something this simple might really work. I'm fine with that, in fact your comments are welcome.

At least I can honestly say I thought about the issue and maybe, if just for a moment, I can silence those who believe I spend far to little time thinking about solutions. After all, with the schedule I have 2 hours is a major committment.

Enjoy.

Cap and Tax Jurisdictional Plan

Background

When considering Canada’s most highly discussed greenhouse gas reduction plans, “Cap and Trade” and the “Green Shift”, three questions immediately come to mind:

Why should corporations be encouraged to profit through the trading of emission credits which are essentially the equivalent of cleaner air? (Cap and Trade)

Why should corporations be permitted to meet their environmental obligations by simply purchasing “clean air” credits rather than actually reducing destructive emissions? (Cap and Trade)

Why should every person in Canada be expected to pay higher taxes regardless of whether or not they live in a jurisdiction that allows excessive levels of greenhouse gas emissions to exist? (Green Shift)

Consider the case of a province like Newfoundland and Labrador, where emissions have remained virtually unchanged for nearly 2 decades.

In 1990 (the target setting year for Kyoto) Newfoundland and Labrador’s emissions accounted for about 2% of Canada’s total output, a number within reason when you consider that it also accounted for between 1.6% and 2% of Canada’s population during the same period.

Other Canadian jurisdictions have a similar story to tell while some have seen their emissions grow by a staggering amount.With these realities in mind important questions need to be answered and a real solution implemented to address a growing environmental problem.

Perhaps the best solution is an approach that incorporates components of the “cap and trade” and “green shift” options with the inclusion of a jurisdictional or provincial component that empowers distinct regions while addressing national concerns.

The Cap and Tax Jurisdictional Plan is based on four fundamental principles:

1) Most federal funding initiatives and programs: equalization, health care transfers, etc. are managed and delivered on a per capita basis across Canada.

2) Political representatives are, quite rightly, quick to remind us that there is a real dollar value or cost associated with carbon emissions.

3) Every person in the Country, as a natural part of their existence, should have an equal right to emit a set amount of carbon per year.

4) No individual should have the right to infringe upon another’s rights through an over production of carbon that would jeopardize the environment in which we all live.

A Cap and Tax Jurisdictional Plan takes into account all four of these basic principles by placing a per capita cost on the value of greenhouse gas emissions and targeting those emissions based on the principle of equity.

How it works

Calculating Canada’s overall emissions and dividing the result into provincial or territorial shares, on a per capita basis, one can quickly see where the biggest problems exist and easily identify precisely how much of the excess emissions (those beyond the Kyoto targets) each jurisdiction is responsible for.

Emissions are already tracked in this way by the federal government today.

By setting a cost per ton on CO2 emissions, knowing each jurisdictional output and population, the federal government can charge each provincial or territorial government, not individuals or business, for a fair share of the “carbon costs” that region produces in excess of per capita limits.

(Eg: Newfoundland and Labrador, with 1.7% of Canada’s population, would be permitted to produce 1.7% of Canada’s targeted emissions. The province would be held responsible for paying the cost of additional emissions produced beyond that target.)Jurisdictions allowing unchecked industrial development without concern for the environment can then be held responsible for the cost of their excess emissions. Under the plan jurisdictions would be obligated to pay the cost of excess emissions into a federal “green renewal fund”.

Precisely how jurisdictions meet their emission expense obligations should be left to the individual jurisdictions to decide. This will allow them to determine their own approach to correcting or paying the cost for the emission problems in their region, either by collecting additional taxes, charging industrial polluters, using general revenues or implementing a unique “made right here” solution that best fits their unique situation.

Ensuring fairness and equity for all

Under a Cap and Tax Jurisdictional Plan each region pays its fair share of the “cost of carbon” rather than forcing everyone to pay equally. This is the fairest and most equitable solution. Emissions are not produced equally across the Country, nor are the direct benefits that stem from those emissions enjoyed equally.Carbon emissions are primarily the result of manufacturing output, industrial development and population density (autos, homes, etc.). The reason some jurisdictions have higher emissions than others is because they have more industry and more people producing those emissions.

This is not a bad thing, in fact the opposite is true, but by accepting the premise that there is a carbon cost connected with the emissions produced, through economic growth and its resulting prosperity, it must also be recognized that those who benefit most from those emissions should be responsible for the associated costs.

Environmental impacts aside, higher emitting regions benefit greatly from the carbon emissions they release. These benefits include lower unemployment rates, a wider corporate tax base, access to resource royalties and a larger personal or corporate income tax base on which to draw. These levels of these benefits that exist within a jurisdiction are a direct result of the industries that operate there and the people who work in those industries.

Is it fair to expect people living in less developed regions (with lower emission output) to pay the same “carbon costs” as those who enjoy the additional benefits available in more developed (higher emission) areas?

Under a Cap and Tax Jurisdictional Plan the areas that benefit the most will be expected to pay their fair share for the economic benefits they enjoy.

The benefits of a jurisdictional approach are clear

Canada is not a “one size fits all” Country and as such a “one size fits all” solution is not the answer.

Not all jurisdictions produce the same levels of emissions and not all jurisdictions have the same economic capacity or growth agenda.

Placing the burden of responsibility directly on provincial and territorial governments, rather than on all taxpayers, provides an incentive for jurisdictions to find creative ways of reducing emissions. It also puts those jurisdictions in direct control of their own carbon destiny while ensuring national and international concerns are addressed.

A Cap and Tax Jurisdictional Plan allows each jurisdiction to tailor a unique solution to their carbon emissions and related costs. This ensures that the solution is one that will work best for their constituents and local industries. It does not place a blanket tax on every individual or business in the Country and it does not make the assumption that the federal government knows what is best for each unique region.

As with any plan that puts a dollar value on emissions there will be a resulting increase in the cost of goods and services. This is unavoidable however most Canadians are willing to shoulder those costs as long as they are fair and reasonable and as long as they recognize that it will truly make a difference to their environmental outlook.

Additional costs are a reality under either a “cap and trade” or “green shift” plan just as they are a reality under a Cap and Tax Jurisdictional Plan. The difference is that under this plan individuals and businesses in more economically depressed jurisdictions, those that are not responsible for the lion’s share of emissions, are not expected to pay higher additional taxes without regard for their role in the production of those emissions.

The plan also ensures that when a region is in compliance with their targets they are positioned to recognize additional economic benefits.

Under this plan the federal government can charge the provincial and territorial governments directly for excess emissions. This allows the process of collection to remain streamlined and cost effective so more of the revenues can go directly into a fund that can be used to help reduce emissions on a national level.

The same level of simplicity would not be possible with the collection of taxes from over 30 million individuals on a variety of products and services or in taxing/fining individual corporations for their emissions. Under those approaches the bureaucratic costs alone would seriously erode the value of any revenues collected.

With a direct provincial/territorial approach the options exist to either collect emission taxes from the 13 jurisdictional governments on an annual basis or simply deduct the value of excess emissions from existing federal transfer payments and route those revenues into the new federal “green renewal fund”.

This newly created “green renewal fund” should be dedicated to the lowering of Canada’s overall carbon footprint.

This objective can be accomplished through investments in green technology solutions, providing funding for projects such as CO 2 sequestration, the east/west power grid, clean energy development, wind and solar projects, mass transit initiatives and investment in R&D opportunities.

This approach will drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions nationally while being fair and equitable to all taxpayers and providing each jurisdiction with the flexibility and empowerment they need to manage their unique situation.

A green economy provides limitless opportunities.

A Cap and Tax Jurisdictional Plan provides an opportunity for jurisdictions to take advantage of new and positive economic opportunities that would otherwise not exist.Not only would those who enjoy the economic benefits inherent from the emission of greenhouse gases be required to pay the cost of those emissions but it is also true that new opportunities will become available for those that meet or fall below their emission targets.

Federal investment in green technologies and projects across Canada would allow jurisdictions already close to meeting their targets to almost immediately reduce their carbon footprint below the limit. It can help others to work toward meeting their goals.Once again let’s use the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as an example.

With the completion of a project like the Lower Churchill hydro development and a means to get that power to market (the east/west power grid) Newfoundland and Labrador would be capable of shutting down its major oil fired generating plant and immediately falling below its per capita Kyoto target, even based on 1990 numbers.

Once Newfoundland and Labrador has met its power needs and ensured its future capacity it could then sell any excess power generated to other jurisdictions, such as Nova Scotia or Ontario, and in doing so help them reduce their carbon footprint dramatically.This is just one example of how a Cap and Tax Jurisdictional Plan and its “green renewal fund” can benefit everyone.

While a Cap and Tax Jurisdictional Plan calls for a cap on emissions and a tax on excess output it does not directly tax individuals or allow for the trading away of carbon credits. Instead it allows each region to determine how to best handle carbon emissions and related costs and it ensures that any under-capacity in output directly benefits the people of the region by allowing them to leverage their emission shortfall in attracting new industrial and commercial growth.

Jurisdictions that meet or fall below their targets will benefit from the ability to more easily attract new industry and employment. This can be accomplished by offering less expensive carbon regimes than those to be found in already overly developed areas with higher carbon costs. This in turn would allow companies setting up shop in low carbon areas to produce their products or services at less cost than they would find in a higher carbon region.

The ability to attract new industry to underdeveloped regions would improve the economic outlook those regions and encourage higher emitting jurisdictions to further reduce their own emissions and related costs to better align their emission limits and growth potential.

A Cap and Tax Jurisdictional Plan would create a cleaner environment, fairer distribution of emission costs, a streamlined tax collection program, lower unemployment in underdeveloped regions, a more geographically dispersed economy for the benefit of all Canadians, a well funded environmental development fund and make Canada a leader in the green economy.

Canada's Economic Recovery Plan (For Dummies)

2009-06-03T16:12:00.002-02:30

With the economy on life support, businesses closing their doors and laid off workers stacked up like chord wood across the Country the political thermostat has been cranked up on bust in Ottawa and the self serving rhetoric is flying around like hungry bees at the hive.

Unfortunately the only ones with anything to gain from all the hyperbole are the politicians themselves. Like it or not, the rest of us are on our own.

They can spin it however they like but the fact remains that there is no money available to bail out the forestry sector or the commercial fishing industry, both of which until recently employed hundreds of thousands of individuals. You see the problem with those industries, according to the Conservative talking heads, is not one that Ottawa can address. It’s all about a lack of markets for their products.

On the other hand to listen to our elected officials, you’d somehow believe that pouring billions upon billions of our tax dollars into the auto sector, which employs tens of thousands, is simply the right thing to do.

Funny, but I thought I read someplace that a lack of buyers for North American gas guzzlers was what was killing the industry. My mistake I guess.

Meanwhile, up on the Hill, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are all claiming to be the champions of the working classes. Yes sir, they all want to be seen as standing up for little guy who’s lost his job. Why if the Harper government doesn’t soon implement changes to the qualifications for EI and help those people the opposition will…well it…

What? What exactly will Mike, Jack, Gilles do anyway?

Every MP in Ottawa knows the odds of electing another minority government are staggering. Nobody knows if the Liberals can actually win the next time out or not. According to the polls both the NDP and the Bloc stand to lose seats if an election were held right now. Add to this the fact that it would take all three parties to boot the Tories out of office, at a time when a huge percentage of MPs (mostly with the Bloc) need only one more year in office to qualify for their fat taxpayer funded pension and we all know exactly what they’ll do.

They’ll complain and attack each other for political advantage, protect their own incomes, ensure that 45 members of a party bent on splitting Canada apart get a good federally funded pension and they’ll do all of this, knowing full well that at the end of the day none of it will help the unemployed who need EI to survive.

On the topic of EI, I’m sick and tired of the rhetoric surrounding how many hours it takes to qualify. Once again the political elite and pundits have pulled Newfoundland and Labrador out of their back pockets (or from slightly to one side of it) in an effort to show how unfair the rest of the Country is being treated and how easy Newfoundlanders have it on the “rock”.

The latest trend these days is to compare the number of hours necessary to qualify in BC or Ontario, between 600 and 700 hours, while, and I quote, “…in most parts of Newfoundland it’s almost a God given right to collect and you only need the minimum of 420 hours”.

What they never mention is that the high number of hours quoted for Ontario, BC (or what ever province is the flavor of the day) is what’s needed in urban areas with low unemployment rates. By comparison, in the North East Avalon region (call it the St. John’s area if you like) you also need more than 600 hours to qualify, just as in most urban parts of Canada.

While I’m on the subject, they also don’t inform anyone that roughly half the population of Newfoundland and Labrador lives in that particular area or that in parts of Ontario and BC and across Canada there are rural areas, just like those in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the minimum number of hours are all anyone needs.

The only difference between Newfoundland and Labrador, when it comes to EI qualification, is that many other provinces have far more people living in those rural areas than Newfoundland and Labrador does and as a result are more likely to have large numbers collecting EI, or as Jim Flaherty is likely to refer to them these days, “EI finalists”.

Personally I don’t like the idea of someone only having a job for 45 days being able to collect EI for a year. On that one point Stephen Harper and I can agree, but really, why all the bawling and blaring over EI anyway? To hear Steve and Diamond Jim Flaherty talk about it you’d think lowering the number of hours required was going to crush Canada and send the national debt spiraling into some bottomless abyss.

It seems they’ve conveniently forgotten something. For years the Canadian debt was paid down by siphoning off EI premiums meant to be used in just the sort of situation the Country finds itself in today. Billions were diverted over the years to debt reduction instead of being put aside for income support. Some estimates put the figure at $50 billion or more.

In other words the comparatively low Canadian debt the Harper government is so happy to talk about in these hard times is there, in large part, thanks to $50 billion in EI premiums that were collected from individuals and businesses who thought they were paying an insurance premium. If the debt now needs to be increased by a billion or two in order to see workers and families through the tough times it’s only fair Mr. Flaherty get off his high horse and pony up.

But of course he won’t and the reason is simple.

Any increase in EI costs would impact the federal budget and debt. If, on the other hand, a large percentage of laid off workers don’t qualify for EI and instead have resort to joining the welfare rolls it’s a provincial cost to deal with and who really thinks Ottawa could give a crap about provincial deficits or crushing debt loads?

So what lessons can we take away from all of this?

1. Canada’s politicians are very concerned about job losses and stabilizing family incomes, primarily their own;

2. Money to bail out corporations in major urban centers and protect tens of thousands of jobs– Good. Money to bail out industries in rural areas and save hundreds of thousands of jobs – Bad;

3. Canada’s growing deficit isn’t the result of large corporate bailouts or unchecked federal spending. It’s being caused by laid off workers who paid into EI and who would now like to collect a little of the insurance they paid for; and

4. No matter how bad things get, or how much they improve, someone will always find a way to crap on Newfoundland and Labrador simply because it exists.

Peter Mackay "Happy" about NL Search and Rescue Services

2009-06-01T15:00:00.007-02:30

Just two months after 17 offshore oil workers tragically lost their lives in a helicopter crash off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, Federal Minister of Defence, Peter Mackay, said last week that his government will not be looking into changing the way Search and Rescue activities are conducted in Newfoundland and Labrador and that he is, “happy with the current configuration”.

I’d like to suggest to Mr. Mackay that perhaps he should pull on a survival suit and have someone drop him off about a hundred or so miles off the coast on a chilly spring day. After an hour or two of bobbing around, if he’s still breathing, the Minister should once again be asked if he is comfortable with the status quo.

Mr. Mackay’s comments came on the same day that former Chief Justice, T. Alex Hickman, the man who headed up the inquiry into the Ocean Ranger disaster, reiterated his concern about rescue services in the area and called once again for an improvement to those services.

Mackay's comments also came after a Cougar Helicopters spokesperson informed the public that Cougar, which runs the closest commercial rescue helicopters to the Province's offshore oil platforms is incapable of performing night rescues. A service that can be performed by Search and Rescue choppers which are not stationed near the oil fields and are not available for immediate response during the overnight hours.

Nobody is saying that any of the seventeen people who died during the recent offshore helicopter crash would have survived if Search and Rescue services had been faster but one thing is for certain. At the time of the crash there was not a single Search and Rescue helicopter in the Province. They were all away on training exercises in Nova Scotia.

The lone survivor was rescued by a Cougar Helicopter crew.

In my day one and one always equaled two.

In this case it's pretty clear that had that terrible crash happened at night instead of in the morning, the death toll would have surely included another name.

Luck and good timing are not the kind of "configuration" most of us would want to depend upon for our survival if we were the ones suddenly faced with a life expectancy of hours or even minutes.

For Mr. Mackay to say he's OK with the practice of allowing Search and Rescue to leave the Province without any service while conducting training is callous at best. To say it's acceptable that rescue crews are available "on call" after regular business hours (4 pm) while knowing full well that the private sector backup option cannot operate at night, is nothing more than cold hearted, disgusting and neglegence of the highest order.

The Minister's attitude is a slap in the face to the family of every person who has died at sea in recent years.

In the latest tragedy off Newfoundland and Labrador's shores nobody can directly point to an impact relating from the poor level of service being offered by the federal government but there are other cases where its been shown that even a reasonable level of service would have saved lives.

I’m sure in all these cases the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and especially the families of the victims involved, will find it hard to understand Mr. Mackay’s cold and callous position on this.

I began this article by suggesting that Mr. Mackay might benefit from spending a little time bobbing around the North Atlantic in a survival suit. I’d like to retract that statement and suggest instead that the Minister of Defence try it in February, without a survival suit, after dark, on a weekend while Search and Rescue crews are away on training.

In doing so he might actually accomplish something worthwhile for his Country, if only once.

The Demise of Newfoundland & Labrador - Manufactured Right Here

2009-05-25T11:04:00.012-02:30

What do hand soap and bathroom tissue have in common?

Both can be found in the bathroom. They are both considered basic necessities and, as far as I can tell, every scrap of either one used in Newfoundland and Labrador is imported from someplace else.

Why is that?

I mention those two products simply as an example but the same holds true for much of what we consume in Newfoundland and Labrador. For centuries our people have been contented to import almost all of the basic necessities of life while exporting our valuable raw materials elsewhere.

Will this outdated and short sighted practice ever end?

I recently read an article out of Memorial University that was written nearly a decade ago. One passage noted, “Newfoundland continues to import many of the products its people consume while exporting primarily raw materials, a trade imbalance which has served to exacerbate the island's economic troubles.”

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

Before Confederation our biggest trade imbalance was with the United States, afterward it was (and is) with Canada. Only the players have changed, the game remains the same and it’s a one sided game that’s not in our favor.

The reality of 1949 is that many of those who voted for Confederation did so because they hoped for lower prices on imporated products. Very little consideration was given to producing many of those products, and related jobs, right here.

For as long as anyone alive today can recall Newfoundland and Labrador depended primarily on two major exports, fish and forest products. Today Newfoundland and Labrador’s economy isn’t as dependent on the fishery or the forest as it once was but the numbers show that little has changed with the overall picture of where we once were and where we are now.

In 1948 fish and fish products accounted for 40% of Newfoundland and Labrador’s exports, pulp and paper products 32% for a combined total of 72%.

These days (as of 2007 anyway) energy exports accounted for (wait for it) 72% of the Province’s exports.

We’ve traded fish and forests for oil and gas all the while continuing to import the vast majority of our manufactured goods.

Either way you slice it the Province still exports its resources instead of creating value added products for the local and export markets.

It seems we’d rather ship off our raw materials instead of creating a genuinely diversified economy through manufacturing right here.

Even after centuries of economic turmoil we've yet to learn the lesson that ending our narrow minded practice of exporting all raw materials and instead increasing our manufacturing capability will help us become a more economically stable place to live.

Increased manufacturing and local purchasing would eventually improve our export values, decreasing our import costs and create much needed employment. Something that might be quite helpful in an area accustomed to double digit unemployment.

The fishing and pulp & paper industry are now mere shadows of what they once were in Newfoundland and Labrador. Eventually the same will happen to the oil, gas and mining industries.

Unlike Fish and forests (both currently mismanaged) oil and minerals are non-renewable. Once they’re gone they’re gone. When that happens, as it surely must, gone as well is the last of the work in Newfoundland and Labrador. Gone as well are the exports and the Province’s revenues. Newfoundland and Labrador will cease to exist in any relevent way.

Why, after 500 years have we not learned from our past?

Why do we continue to depend on others to manufacture the goods we depend upon instead of supporting, encouraging and facilitating the development of local goods through our purchasing power and with provincial incentives?

Until the public demands more locally produced products at their favorite stores nothing will ever change.

Make no mistake, the Wallmart’s and Sobey’s of the world don’t give a damn about where they buy their products as long as their customers keep coming back. They also don't care who they sell them to and won’t hesitate to pull up stakes and move elsewhere when the resources and money run out.

The way I look at it, a simple bar of soap may not be as glamorous or as lucrative as high seas oil development but after a hard days work on the rigs I defy anyone to tell me it isn’t worth producing.

Walking a Mile in Someone Else's Shoes

2009-05-20T10:52:00.009-02:30

After months listening to Ontario politicians and the national media crying a river about how Ontario has had to stoop to collecting equalization payments I believe I’ve finally figured out what all the fuss is about.

The shame they are now wearing on their sleeve hasn't come to them because Ontario’s economy is on a downswing. It is, but that can happen anywhere.

It’s not even that Ontario doesn’t want to accept handouts from Ottawa, they do it all the time in other ways.

No, the reason for Ontario’s new found state of mental depression is that the province doesn’t like to receive their handouts in such a transparent and public way.

You see doing so makes it very difficult to continue pretending that Ontario is somehow better than the rest of Canada.

How many of us remember the words of Ontario’s interim Tory leader, Bob Runciman, when he told the Globe and Mail, “I think it’s a very sad day in the history of this province that we’re now going on the dole”?

What about references made in the Ontario Legislature to the effect that Ontario is now a “have not” province while, “Newfoundland and Labrador is not. Look how low we’ve sunk”. Clearly a statement intended to use Canada’s favorite whipping boy, Newfoundland and Labrador, as a means to show just how sad it was that Ontario was about to receive equalization payments.

With equalization now a reality for Ontario the province is screaming to change the way the system works or even to scrap it completely. They wonder how the people of Ontario can possibly continue their good work of subsidizing the rest of Canada through their tax dollars if they have to pay themselves out of that pot. It's like someone forgot to tell them that people in other parts of Canada (equalization receiving or not) also pay federal taxes and fund federal transfers.

The fact of the matter is that the $347 million in equalization payments Ontario will receive this year is a drop in the bucket when it comes to that province’s overall budget, yet to read the editorials, comments and news stories you’d think Ottawa transferring those funds to the province was a slap in the face rather than a simple financial exchange.

Equalization is simply one of many federal transfers to the provinces, including Ontario. Transfers that are funded by tax revenue, everybody’s tax revenue both inside and outside the self proclaimed "Center of the Universe".

Billions in Health transfers flow to Ontario each year but it doesn't make politicians there spout off about how hard times have gotten.

Gas tax transfers don’t either, neither does funding for highways or education or infrastructure.

Oddly enough, no fuss is made even after the most blatant handouts Ontario receives on a regular basis. Handouts like the recent multi-billion dollar payoff intended to convince Ontario to harmonize its sales taxes with the fed. Something other provinces received absolutely nothing for doing just a few years back.

Does Ontario hide its head in shame when Billions in infrastructure stimulus is offered to them? Of course they don't, instead every politician at Queens Park lines up for a chance to get in on the requisite photo op that accompanies any such announcement.

What about the billions being poured into Ontario’s auto industry these days? How shameful is that when forestry workers, fishermen and others across Canada are being ignored by Ottawa?

Apparently there is no shame when those sorts of bailouts take place so why the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the so called “dole” or equalization?

Is it truly because of Ontario’s self professed pride in “helping” the rest of Canada or is it really about the desperate need to Lord their “generous” nature over what are perceived to be lesser provinces and peoples, a sort of holier than thou scenario?

I suspect it’s the latter.

Certain small minded individuals tend to make themselves feel good by ridiculing others, we've all seen that sort of thing before, but when you have to walk a mile in someone else's shoes and those shoes are stepping out in a very public way, everything changes.

Some readers may view this commentary as a serious case of Ontario bashing. It isn't intended to be. In fact I see it as something of a long overdue reality check. After all, it surely can't be easy to look down your nose at yourself.

Let’s Be Honest for Once

2009-05-13T10:22:00.007-02:30

George Washington is remembered to have said, “I cannot tell a lie.” Since then no politician has been able to make the same claim without being guilty of telling one.

These days truth itself should be placed on an endangered species list.

It’s gotten to the point where the truth is coming under a constant attack from all sides.

Today its truth, not lies, that have become something to be avoided at all costs and it’s no longer just politicians who have a monopoly on the practice, we’ve all gotten into the act.

With that in mind Web Talk is proud, well at least mildly pleased, to present a hastily compiled:

Top 10 list of (politically incorrect) Comments You Won’t Find in the National Papers

Or

10 Rants For the Price of One

10 – I feel for Ontarians who are losing their jobs. Being from Newfoundland and Labrador I can sympathize with their plight and wish them the best. Having said that, I wouldn’t be human if some small part of me, deep in the back of my mind, didn’t feel like shouting the following from the roof tops:

“If Ontarians are really suffering from rising unemployment why don’t they stop their incessant whining about wanting more EI and do what they’ve been telling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to do for decades, suck it up and move someplace where they can find a job. The rest of us can’t be expected to keep Ontarians living in a place where there’s no work so pack up and move on. By the way Ontario, your unemployment rate is still only about half of what it is in Newfoundland and Labrador so slag off.”

But I won’t say it. I really do care about the individuals being hurt in this recession, including in Ontario and I hope they work their way through this.

9 – North Atlantic Harp seals are not endangered. North Atlantic Harp seals are highly efficient and effective carnivores with big sharp ugly teeth. They are not cuddly little “ice bunnies”.

Activists say seals are not hunted for food so they shouldn’t be hunted at all. In reality it was anti-sealing activists who lobbied to destroy a once profitable market for seal meat and are now using the lack of one as an excuse to ban the hunt.

The seal herd is thriving, the meat tastes great (yes it’s still eaten across Newfoundland and Labrador) and the furs are warmer, softer and more beautiful than anything else you’ll ever wear.

Thanks to their screwed up view of the world animal rights activists will cause far more damage to the seals, the fish stocks those seals depend upon and the entire ecosystem in the region than the annual seal hunt ever did.

By the way, for anyone interested I’ve got a great seal flipper pie recipe I can send you, just let me know and I’ll get it right out to you.

8 – Yes the Alberta oil sands are without any shadow of a doubt a messy and destructive environmental catastrophe.

They are destroying the air, land and water, but droning on and on in a vain attempt to force oil companies into cutting emissions in an effort to meet Kyoto targets is the environmental equivalent of the misguided anti-sealing movement.

Those companies cannot and will not meet those targets without running themselves out of business and that isn’t going to happen. It would take a shutdown or at least a major scale down of most oil sands activity in order to meet those targets and simply put, neither Canada nor the U.S. can afford to do that no matter what it might mean for the environment.

Enough is enough. It’s time to tell the Kyoto zealots to go to hell (as should have been done with the seal protestors), find a sensible way to manage the problem, cut the grandstanding on all sides of the political arena and reach a compromise on this issue that will do the least harm to everyone and everything involved. If not then forget about it and move on.

7 – The future of Canada means absolutely nothing to Stephen Harper who is a right wing, egomaniacal, hillbilly, educated beyond his intelligence level. He is a man who would gladly sell his soul and those of his children, if he hasn’t done so already, for the one thing he craves above all else, absolute power and control.

Canada’s future also means nothing to Michael Ignatieff, who is a thinly veiled American decked out in Canadian clothing. A man who wants nothing more than to add the title “Canadian Prime Minister” to his scholarly C.V. so he can demand more for his book sales in the future.

Jack Layton, well, enough said about Jack. No point in kicking a dead horse, especially with so many animal rights activists around these days. It’s getting so you can’t swing a dead cat (or a live one) without hitting one of them.

6 – Stephen Harper claims to be defending Canada’s territory, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador interests, by not accepting a French claim for extended offshore territory. His position is pure and unadulterated crap.

All St. Pierre – Miquelon is looking for is a means to survive its economic challenges by extending its existing 200 mile corridor (away from Canada) to the edge of the Continental Shelf. This is no more or less than Canada itself plans to do under the U.N. Law of the Sea.

The small French islands should have a right to an extension of that little strip of territory and France is correct to demand it. Otherwise the islands will effectively be trapped inside Canadian waters with no free access to the open ocean once Canada makes its claim to an extended economic zone.

No matter what the Prime Minister says, this has nothing to do with protecting Canadian sovereignty or NL’s interests. It has everything to do with lucrative oil potential in the region.

5 – The Quebecois culture is no more distinct than that of Newfoundlanders & Labradorians. Period.

4 – Contrary to popular belief, Quebec is not benefiting from a one sided contract to purchase Churchill Falls power.

Neither Quebec nor Newfoundland and Labrador ever actually signed a legal contract.

Quebec committed fraud by using insider information and blackmail to get the signatures it wanted. Quebec has committed a criminal act and has been stealing billions of dollars from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for decades. What’s more they’ve been doing it with the tacit acceptance of successive Federal and Newfoundland & Labrador governments, both of which refuse to take any decisive or clear action.

Personally I’d love to see the Province throw the damn switch at the generating station and turn off the lights right across the so called “Quebec Nation”.

3 – Canada is not a Country. It’s a group of individual provinces financially controlled, oppressed and blackmailed into subservience by a corrupt central regime.

Thanks to the lopsided political power wielded by Ontario and Quebec, Canada is nothing more than an excuse for ensuring the advancement of those two jurisdictions (upper and lower Canada) regardless of what that might mean for the rest of the population.

Calling Canada a real Country is an insult to honesty and intelligence on an epic scale.

2 – Brian Mulroney is corrupt and he is without a doubt guilty of all sorts of immoral if not illegal acts. Everybody knows it but nobody really gives a crap so let’s enjoy the death of his legacy, not to mention his squirming on the hot seat, and then move on.

1 - We are told that we have freedom of speech but that’s one of the most widely accepted lies out there.

Show me someone who has expressed their frustration at the political system by simply “saying” they would “like to see” something blown up and I’ll show you a person either under federal surveillance or actually in custody.

In fact, even this article has been self edited. Just try making a public statement about Brian Mulroney, as I did in the previous section, without qualifying it with a phrase like “if not illegal acts” and see how quickly you end up being sued.

Even if you forget the legal or civil methods of stifling our freedom of speech, the docile acceptance of so called political correctness we all subscribe to has done more to quiet the masses than any law ever could. Everyone is so afraid of being ostracized by their friends, neighbors and co-workers for being politically incorrect that nobody really says what’s on their mind anymore.

This top-ten list may not be as funny as some others but the truth seldom is.

In an effort to help fight censorship and political correctness Web Talk will, on occasion, tackle this subject just as it has today. Feel free to add your two cents but please remember, as much as it sucks, for our own protection even Web Talk must adhere to the same anti-free speech edicts as everyone else, so act accordingly (but don’t hesitate to push the envelope).

Not Quite Shovel Ready

2009-05-11T16:01:00.006-02:30

As much as I hate to publicly admit it, during some of my weaker moments I’ve actually wondered if I have what it takes to enter the political arena.

To tell the truth I’ve actually been asked several times to consider exactly that. The suggestion has come both from serious proponents and those with less than complimentary opinions who have challenged me to either put up or shut up.

Without exception my answer has been a resounding no.

It’s not that I wouldn’t love to do more for the people with whom I share this corner of our planet but I question if I’m cut out for it.

Of course I do what I can to bring Newfoundland and Labrador’s issues to the public eye on my own web site and through other publications kind enough to provide a home to my ramblings but I wonder if that’s really enough.

In recent years I’ve also spent time quietly offering my assistance to various grassroots organizations, both political and social, as well as making my thoughts clearly understood by those elected officials willing to listen, as well as those who would prefer not. But to actually make a living as a politician – well it’s just something that remains a foreign concept to me.

I’ve always thought my biggest concern about taking something like that on was whether or not I actually have the leathery hide necessary to tackle the job. Putting that aside for a moment I also have to ask myself what more I could possibly say or do about the issues facing this place if I suddenly found myself on the election trail.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a very clear position on many of the problems facing Newfoundland and Labrador but that’s actually the crux of my problem isn’t it.

I mean what if I had to concern myself, not only with the problems at hand, but also with protecting my political future, both inside a mainstream party and with the voting public?

What if my party decided, as political parties are wont to do, that the needs of a more vote rich region of the Country should take priority over those of the people whom I profess to represent? How would I handle that?

What if I had to put the interests of my party on an equal or perhaps even greater footing than those of my constituents?

Could I do it? Would I even want to?

Under those circumstances I’m willing to bet I’d find myself suffering from a very terminal case of political suicide in record time.

Let’s take the economic turmoil we’re all facing these days. If I was on the election trail do I really hear myself saying things like…

“If elected I’ll see to it that each of your concerns are fully understood and acted upon in Ottawa.”

“Our party (pick party of choice) under (pick leader of choice) will see to it that the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador are not forgotten or callously swept aside during these hard economic times.”

“It won’t be easy but with your help and support we’ll make it happen together.”

“The former government (pick one) has painted our Province and our nation into a corner. For far too long they’ve ignored the concerns of the average working man and woman in Newfoundland and Labrador and right across this great Country. Once elected our party will see to it that this never happens again, no sir, not on our watch”

“I promise that if elected, within 30 days of entering office, our leader will form an expert committee to review the critical issues facing us today and we will bring forward a clear, concise and actionable list of recommendations to address the issues in a timely manner”

“At the end of the day we will ensure that there is a roof over the head and food on the table of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.”

“We’ll see to it that there are shovels in the ground so every decent and hard working Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this great Province can hold their head up high without having to worry about how they’ll pay their bills or if they’ll lose their home.”

“On that you can depend.”

No, I honestly can’t see myself doing that.

Upon reflection, perhaps it isn’t my lack of a thick skin that’s kept me out of the political arena for so long. More likely it’s my extremely low tolerance for the utter B.S. demanded of those who choose that path.

I guess I’ll just keep on doing what I do and leave the politics to those better suited to the role.

One thought does occur to me though. Perhaps I’ll take what few savings I have and invest them in a good shovel factory someplace. In more ways than one the demand for shovels seems to be growing with each passing day.

The Seal Hunt - An Environmentalists Perspective

2009-05-08T12:43:00.011-02:30

In no way would I ever try to equate the current seal hunt ban to the terrors of the Holocaust but in some ways the words of a well known poem by Martin Niemoeller seem appropriate in the current context.

With a pending ban on seal products in the EU, can it be long before the industry is on death's door? Then, who will be next? What industry will serve as the next target for activist groups once the revenue generated from anti-seal hunt supporters has dried up and the cause itself is no longer a factor?

In the immortal words of Mr. Niemoeller:

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Any politician who is concerned about the future of the cattle, pork, poultry or fishing industries had better take note of what has happened and any who represent districts or regions where logging, mining or oil and gas developments exist had better be careful where they stand on the sealing issue.

Once the animal rights activists have effectively destroyed the sealing industry they will have lost their prime source of revenue and reason for existence. Do you think they'll just stop being activists?

More likely they will, coming off this triumph, begin searching for the next cause to fight for. Your region's industry and your people's way of life may be next.

With the recently approved EU ban on Canadian seal products capturing headlines across the Country and with anti-Newfoundland and Labrador columnists like the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente callously recommending that displaced sealers simply move on and buy themselves some laptops, I thought it timely to re-publish an article from two years ago that speaks to this very subject.

The article was written by a member of the environmental and animal welfare community (note I refer to him as being involved with "animal welfare" not "animal rights", there is a big difference).

I believe this article cuts through lot of the myths and misperceptions that those living outside of Atlantic Canada often accept far too readily. It also highlights the sad reality that the anti-sealing movement is itself far more harmful to the protection of our planet than any sealer could ever be.

Cuter than cod
By Terry Glavin
March 7, 2007
Re-published on Web Talk with the kind permission of the author

I saw something the other day that made me sick to my stomach. It was in the February edition of The Grocer, a British retail-food magazine.

There was an article about a campaign that a group called Respect for Animals is waging to convince consumers to boycott Canadian seafood products. The magazine also carried two huge advertisements from the same outfit.

One of the ads consisted of a photograph of a masked man on an ice floe, and a seal lying prone at his feet. The man was brandishing a club with a spike on the end of it. The words "You Can Stop This" were superimposed upon the picture. The other advertisement proclaimed, "Boycott Canadian Seafood and Save the Seals," with a picture of a can of Canadian salmon.

The Canadian fishing industry exports more than $100 million worth of products into Britain every year. The point of the campaign is to squeeze those sales until the industry begs our government to end the seal hunt.

Here's what makes me sick.

The Newfoundland seal hunt is transparently and demonstrably sustainable and humane.

There are roughly half a million people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and nearly six million harp seals, which is almost three times as many seals as when I was a kid.

Free range seals

Roughly 6,000 fishermen, mostly Newfoundlanders, but some are from Quebec and the Maritimes, take slightly more than 300,000 harp seals annually. The fishermen share more than $16 million from the hunt at a critical time of year when there's little in the way of fishing income to be had.

The seals are harvested for their pelts and their fat, for a range of products, mostly for clothing and for Omega-3 vitamins. The killing is as about as clean as anything you're likely to find in an abattoir.

Seals don't spend their lives cooped up in paddocks or feedlots. They live free, and in all but the rarest cases, the ones that die at the hands of a swiler (a sealer) die instantly.

The hakapik (a spiked club) is an effective instrument. Even so, most seals are first shot with rifles.

The killing of nursing whitecoats was banned 20 years ago.

Exploiting empathy

Here's one of those obligatory disclosures: over the years, several environmental organizations -- the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace, etc. -- have subsidized my preoccupation with things that move in the water by having me do research projects for them and so on.

With that out of the way, I can now say, if it isn't obvious already, that it's the seal hunt's opponents who turn my stomach.

It's not just that anti-hunt crusades like this are especially foul in the way they dishonestly misrepresent facts. It's also that they dishonestly manipulate one of the most redeeming traits the human species has inherited from hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection and cultural evolution -- our capacity to expand the embrace of our empathy to include other forms of life.

But far worse than all that, boycott campaigns like this muddy the important distinction between sustainability and sentiment, and between broadly co-ordinated acts of social responsibility and mere lifestyle choices.

When we fail to make these distinctions we undermine everything worthwhile that environmentalism has accomplished since it emerged in the early 1970s.

As citizens and consumers in free societies, we are burdened with the duty to make important decisions at the ballot box, in the work we do, and also in the marketplace. Boycotting Canadian seafood to try and stop the seal hunt is the consumer-choice equivalent of deciding to buy a tie-died shirt, move into a Volkswagen van and subsist solely on lentils and tofu.

Serious stakes

Just as the excesses of postmodernist relativism have enfeebled the left over the past quarter-century or so, a corrosive strain of fact-distorting, science-hating, Gaia-bothering obscurantism has enfeebled environmentalism.

It was there from the beginning, and it persists most noticeably in animal-rights crusades.

It is the environmentalist equivalent of anti-evolution, rapture-seeking Christian zealotry. It has to be attacked wherever it rears its head. There's too much at stake to pretend we can be innocent bystanders here.

This is a fight we all have to join. Here's why

The last time the planet was in the throes of an extinction spasm this cataclysmic was when the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. One in every four mammal species, one in eight bird species, one in nine plants, a third of all amphibians and half of all the surveyed fish species on earth are threatened with extinction.

When Greenpeace was born in Vancouver in 1971, the single greatest cause of species extinction was understood to be habitat loss. Now, the greatest threat to biological diversity is global warming.

The last time the atmosphere was accumulating greenhouse gases this fast was 650,000 years ago. The prospects look exceedingly grim -- broad-scale ecological disruption, crop failure and famine, desertification and the mass dislocation of some of the most heavily-populated regions of the world.

A key reason environmentalists found themselves so ill-prepared to convince the world to take global warming seriously was that their movement had been corrupted by precisely the same trippy sentiment-mongering that has animated the holy war against the Newfoundland seal hunt, which now turns its sights on Canadian fisheries products.

Where was Greenpeace?

When the founders of Greenpeace were being born, back in the 1950s, the world's fishing fleets were taking roughly 40 million tonnes of marine biomass from the world's oceans every year. By the 1980s, it was 80 million tonnes. Then the seas just stopped giving. Fully 90 per cent of all the big fish in the sea -- the tunas, the marlins, the sharks, the swordfish -- are now gone.

Of the many fisheries collapses that have occurred around the world in recent years, it is sadly ironic that the greatest single collapse occurred in the seas around Newfoundland, where the bulk of Canada's Atlantic seal hunt takes place.

The Grand Banks cod fishery was the largest and oldest pelagic fishery in the history of the human experience. The cod were mined from the sea by the same big-boat offshore fleets that had caused such devastation everywhere else. A way of life disappeared, and by the early 1990s, tens of thousands of workers were reduced to welfare.

While all this was happening, what were environmentalists doing on the Newfoundland coast, in the country where Greenpeace was born, at a time when Greenpeace was at the height of its powers? They were out cavorting with rich hippies and snuggling up to harp seal pups on the ice floes. They were meditating cross-legged in the snow and posing for the television cameras and demonizing the good people of Newfoundland, while the seas around them were being emptied of cod.

Rational agreements

When you go looking for the good that environmentalism has accomplished, you'll find it in such covenants as the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances, and the Kyoto Accord.

It's in the sustainability provisions of elaborately negotiated efforts such as the Brundtland Commission on the Environment and Development, and the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing.

The toughest global instrument to protect biodiversity is the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

Fuzzy eco-drivel has already severely damaged CITES by forcing non-threatened species, such as North Atlantic minke whale, onto the CITES appendices. Now, in Germany and Belgium, animal-rights activists and their friends in the European Parliament are attempting to override CITES, and the European Union's own rules, with an outright ban on products from Canada's perfectly abundant harp seal population(Web Talk note: This article before the ban passed its vote in the EU Parliament this week).

Similarly, seal-hunt opponents are dangerously undermining the historic victory that flowed from the Brundtland Commission.

The commission established a commitment to sustainability as the key universal value to guide natural-resource harvesting policies for all the peoples of the world, regardless of their distinct cultural practices and sensibilities. The whole point of sustainability is to ensure that people can exercise the rights and accept the responsibilities that come with sustainably harvesting the natural resources of the ecosystems within which they live.

The harp seal hunt is a living embodiment of that principle. That's why environmentalists should not just give the boycott a pass, or stay neutral, but should actively support and defend the seal hunt.

The one consolation we can take from the recent hullabaloo is that it's faltering.

Last year, when animal-rights activists in the United States boasted that they'd convinced more than 200 restaurants and seafood retailers to boycott Canadian products to protest the hunt, it turned out that only a small minority were doing so. Most of them didn't even know they'd been listed as boycott-compliant.

Also, the European Commission, citing the absence of evidence to support contentions that the hunt is inhumane, has refused, for now, to enforce the European Parliament's proposed ban on seal products. (Web Talk note: the EU later reconsidered and voted for the ban.)

Contested Council

But the consumer boycott campaign that's just begun in Britain is particularly insidious. Its aim is all Canadian fisheries products, and its targets are Tesco, Sainsbury's, Somerfield and other major retail chains that have already made a commitment to eventually carrying only those seafood products that have been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.

The MSC standard remains hotly contested by responsible environmentalists, but its coveted "eco-label" holds out the hope of forcing improvements to fisheries-management policies around the world.

In Canada, those improvements are increasingly driven by the fishermen themselves, because they want the MSC label on their product.

British Columbia's halibut fishery was turned down once, and has since re-applied, because groundfish management has significantly improved -- thanks in no small part to halibut fishermen.

Other fishermen are now lobbying federal fisheries officials to improve stock-assessment research to give B.C.'s dogfish fishery a shot at the MSC label. British Columbia's sockeye salmon fisheries have just undergone an arduous certification examination, and a decision is imminent.

If the cuddliness of a particular species harvested in a particular country is allowed to become the factor that determines whether that country's products are considered environmentally acceptable, then everything we won at CITES and in the Brundtland Commission is lost.

If those are the kinds of choices we present to everyone from major retailers down to ordinary seafood consumers, then we'll have wasted all our efforts to marshal consumer power to force the sustainable use of the oceans.

It's long past time for conservationists to make a clean, clear, open and unequivocal break with crystal-gazing animal-rights eccentrics and all their camp followers. For them, the conservation of wild resources was always just a flag of convenience. They're dead ballast, so over the side with them.

On the question of the Atlantic harp seal harvest, there's only one defensible and honest position for a conservation-minded citizen to take.

Support the swilers!!!

Once again Terry - Thank-you for your very enlightening article.

With the EU ban now well on the way toward implementation I believe it's only right to remind those political figures who made the decision, and those who secretly support them within Canada, that the road we are now following is a slippery one indeed.

Beware the Ides of March (or June or July or...)

2009-05-07T12:37:00.015-02:30

Well thank goodness the rest of Canada, excluding Alberta perhaps, has finally begun to figure out what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have known almost from day one.

Stephen Harper is not a national leader, in fact some might say he isn’t fit to run a third world sweat shop, let alone an entire Country.

Newfoundland and Labrador voters unceremoniously booted the Harper Conservatives off the island (sorry about the survivor reference Labrador but it was just too easy) during the last election by denying them a single seat in the Province. Now that the rest of Canada is starting to see the wisdom of that action its beginning to look more and more like the dark days of Stephen Harper will soon be over.

All the signs are there.

The Liberals under Michael Ignatieff are consistently trending higher in the polls as the weeks roll on. Mr. Harper himself can’t wait to race from international meeting to international meeting, far preferring life outside Canada to that inside the nation he so poorly leads. For most political junkies nothing underscores the end of a political career like massive travel expenses.

Even Conservative MPs and Ministers, who until recently had their mouths hermetically sealed by the PMO as a right of passage, have now begun to publicly disagree with and freely contradict their soon to be ex-leader. Could anything send a clearer message of Mr. Harper's future in politics?

All is not well at 24 Sussex Drive. Who knows, with any luck the packing may have already begun.

What was it Newfoundland and Labrador's Premier, Danny Williams, said after one broken Harper promise or another?

“He did it to us and he can do it to you (referring to the Canadian public)".

Those words might seem almost prophetic in hindsight, to anyone outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those inside the Province had already recognized what the man is like.

Or perhaps a better Williamsism might be his very public claim that, “I can assure you I’ll be around long enough to see the back of his (Harpers) head”.

It looks like Mr. Williams and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will get their wish sooner rather than later now that Stephen Harper’s true persona is not only recognized in Newfoundland and Labrador but more so across the Country.

Failing to win a majority government the last time out, against a bumbling and ineffective Stephane Dion, certainly didn’t cement Mr. Harper’s support within his party, nor has his penchant for Liberal style spending in an effort to buy Quebec voters (those aren’t side deals folks they're just good politics). Add to this the mounting deficit and a very public attack on the Conservative party’s iconic Grand Poobah, Brian Mulroney, and it isn’t hard to see the writing on the wall for the PM.

Outside the party itself, Mr. Harper’s denial and later miraculous epiphany, thanks to his party’s near death experience, that an economic crisis actually does exist certainly didn’t help his chances of re-election.

His mean spirited and divisive approach to both politics and leadership has manifested itself so often and in such a manner right across the Country that there can be little doubt left about his self inflicted fate.

There are only three questions left for the Conservative party to answer:

Who will replace Mr. Harper?

When is the best time to do the nasty deed of decapitating him? (Figuratively of course, though Mulroney supporters in the party may wish it otherwise)

What approach will least harm the party brand? (In other words should their leader die the death of a thousand cuts or will he be permitted to quietly fall on his own sword?).

It’s all just a matter of time now. Once the decisions are made in some dark, dank and secluded back room of the evil empire it will be done quickly and decisively. If it isn't done, before the next election anyway, the electorate will make the party's decision for it and make them pay a price for their delay.

It’s a sad thing that it's taken so much time for Canadians to understand what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians figured out, and tried to tell them, a long time ago. At least they've finally begun to do so.

Political ideology and ambition aren’t necessarily a bad thing, within moderation, but when it comes to actually running the entire show you can’t survive forever by placing your personal agenda above all else or by pitting one group, one region and one individual against the other.

Sooner or later those who have been wronged or damaged by your actions will reach a certain critical mass where by they begin to outnumber those who have benefited from them. When that happens, the game’s over, as it surely is for Mr. Harper.

For the rest of us, perhaps unfortunately, Mr. Harper's pending political demise means one of two things:

Either the devil we know is better than the one we don’t, or he isn’t.

Only time will answer that question. Let’s all hope the majority of Canadians aren’t as slow to figure it out as they were on this go around.

EU Bans Seals, Ottawa Sits on Fence

2009-05-05T11:20:00.004-02:30

In the wake of a vote in the European Parliament the government of Canada has once again proven itself a champion at political doublespeak and dereliction of its duty to Canadian citizens.

This morning the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of a ban on seal products, a move that has branded Canada internationally as being inhumane to the animals, will see many fishermen suffer financial hardship and may ultimately lead to the further decline or all out extinction of already threatened fish stocks in the region.

In response the Canadian government said it plans to challenge the EU ban at the World Trade Council (WTO). Unfortunately, the government of Canada, while talking tough at home, still plans to move forward on detailed Free Trade negotiations with the European Union.

Starting tomorrow Canadian representatives will be in Prague to begin detailed Free Trade talks with the EU and it has already been decided by the Canadian government that those talks will not include any discussion of the EU ban or its implications for Eastern Canada.

It’s clear from the position being taken by the government of Canada that they have no intention of doing anything beyond paying lip service to the demise of the an industry and a potential death blow to endangered fish stocks should predatory seal populations be allowed to increase unchecked.

By blustering and talking tough at home about a WTO challenge Ottawa hopes to silence those directly impacted by the unfair actions taken in the EU, actions spurred on by misleading anti-sealing propaganda, but on the international stage nothing has changed.

The government of Canada still plans to move forward with Free Trade talks and has no intention of actually standing up to protect Canadians who will not only see an important part of their annual income wiped out in the short term but may well lose their livelihoods completely if increased seal predation causes a further decline in commercial fish stocks.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

2009-04-29T09:52:00.004-02:30

Note: In the following “Newfoundland and Labrador” is sometimes referenced as simply “Newfoundland” or “the island”. This is due to the fact that some sections of text are derived from historical documents and/or publications that predate Confederation and, unfortunately, ignore Labrador’s importance.

Over the years I’ve written a great many articles about Newfoundland and Labrador’s position, or lack of it, within Canada.

With that in mind and with countless examples of inequity having been presented to the Canadian public by countless individuals, groups and provincial leaders for years I find it amazing that there are still people, mostly from outside the Province, who either, fail to, or refuse to, come to terms with the Newfoundland and Labrador situation.

What they don’t seem to realize is that each of the inequities brought forward and many, many more are, no matter how small, of the greatest importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This importance lies in the inescapable reality that each one helps to form a critical link in forging a long chain of national discontent that is growing with each passing day.

To those who still wonder why such deep rooted discontent exists all I can say is this:

Any house built on an unsteady foundation is bound to display cracks over time. The longer those cracks are left untended the weaker the entire house becomes until it eventually has no alternative but to collapse.

The manner in which Newfoundland and Labrador was brought into Canada has tainted everything and everyone that came after and it has guaranteed that an underlying anger and suspicion is deeply ingrained in the collective psyche of Newfoundland and Labrador’s citizens.

Remember, if you knew it in the first place, that at one time Newfoundland and Labrador was itself a fully independent Dominion, just like Canada.

During the dark days of the depression, in the 1930’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, like many others, found itself struggling under a crippling debt load. As a result the people agreed to place themselves under the direct stewardship of Great Britain, on a temporary basis, with the clear understanding that upon regaining their financial footing full independence would once again be restored.

The story of how Britain played an instrumental role in fostering Newfoundland and Labrador’s financial instability and suffering prior to actually taking control over the Dominion is itself a long and distasteful story, but one that will have to wait for another day.

In any event, during the 1940’s Newfoundland and Labrador’s financial situation had indeed reversed itself and the former Dominion was once again financially capable of managing its own affairs, yet the independence promised to it a few years before was now denied by Great Britain.

Instead, in December of 1945, the British government announced that a 45 member “National Convention” would be elected by the voters of Newfoundland to assist them in coming to a "free and informed decision as to their future form of government".

This so called “National Convention” was elected in June, 1946 and given the following terms of reference:

“To consider and discuss amongst themselves as elected representatives of the Newfoundland people, the changes that have taken place in the financial and economic situation of the Island since 1934 and, bearing in mind the extent to which high revenues of recent years have been due to wartime conditions, to examine the position of the country and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government as to possible forms of future government to be put before the people at a national referendum.”

Later that year the delegation traveled to London to determine what financial relations might be expected under (a) continuation of Commission of Government as it existed, (b) a revised form of the Commission, or (c) responsible (independent) government.

The reply was simple. Under the first option the financial relationship would remain the same and Great Britain would be responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador’s financial dealings; the outcome of the second option would depend upon the form of revision undertaken; and under responsible government Newfoundland and Labrador would bear full responsibility for her own finances.

In February of 1947 the newly formed “National Convention” passed a resolution to send representatives to Ottawa. Their mandate was to ascertain "what fair and equitable basis might exist for federal union of Newfoundland and Canada ". A similar resolution, to send a group to the U.S., was defeated by a majority of the Convention’s members and as a result never took place.

Seven members were sent to Ottawa in June of that year and in October Canada’s Prime Minister responded with a statement of terms which the Government of Canada would be prepared to recommend to Parliament as a basis for union.

After reviewing and debating the Canadian terms the 45 member delegation resoundingly decided against Confederation with Canada and recommended to the British government on Jan. 29, 1948 that only two choices be placed before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the restoration of Responsible Government or continuation of the British Commission of Government.

It’s worthy of note that the motion to exclude Confederation from the referendum was agreed upon by a vote of 29 to 16.

The British government however, after reviewing the decision, refused to accept it and instead ordered the Canada option added to the ballot.

The official statement out of England pointed to Canada's offer being based on long discussion, it spoke of the support for Confederation shown within the “National Convention”, and to the fact that the issues had been sufficiently clarified to enable the people to decide whether Confederation would commend itself to them.

Regardless of the position taken by the British government, the fact remains that the “National Convention” in reality did not support Confederation with Canada and the voting public was never actually informed or educated on what the terms of union with Canada would include until long after the vote was over and their futures had already been decided.

At the first referendum held on June 3, 1948, more than 88% of the 176,297 registered voters went to the polls. Responsible Government (a return to independence) won. It received 69,400 votes, Confederation 64,066 and continuation of Commission of Government (British rule) 22,311 votes.

In spite of the fact that a return to independence had triumphed, it was decided that since no single option was a resounding winner a second referendum was to be conducted and only the two top vote getters would be included this time around. One of those two options was Confederation with Canada, an option that the “National Assembly”, instituted by Britain itself and elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, had already rejected for inclusion on the original ballot but which Britain had ensured was there.

This meant that one of the options approved by the elected members of the National Convention would not appear on the second ballot and one that they had rejected after review and debate would remain.

In the second referendum held on July 22, 1948, approximately 85% of voters turned out. Stories of vote tampering, ballot box stuffing and physically pressuring or threatening voters were rampant throughout the entire referendum process. The well funded pro-Confederation side, the financing of which would make an interesting story in and of it self, claimed victory with 78,323 votes against 71,334 for independence.

On July 30, 1948, the Prime Minister of Canada who had long been in discussion with Britain over “the Newfoundland issue” proudly announced that the result of the referendum was "clear and beyond all possibility of misunderstanding".

Yet clearly it wasn’t.

There are several key points that this history lesson imparts to us.

The decision by England, to create a “National Convention” in the first place, rather than actually re-instating full independence to Newfoundland and Labrador, flies in the face of Britain’s mandate to ensure independence once the financial situation had been stabilized.

Only after independence from Britain had been attained should the citizens have been tasked with deciding if a referendum was warranted or what options should be included if there was one.

Once the “National Convention” delegation had been foisted on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador it should have been permitted to carry out its duties in an independent manner, free from interference by the British government.

When the Convention passed a resolution to send a fact finding delegation to Canada and rejected a similar plan to send one to the U.S. the decision was agreed to by Britain. That particular event might not raise any red flags however…when the Convention informed Britain that upon reviewing the Canadian position and after debating the option freely it had voted to strongly reject Confederation with Canada the “National Convention” was overruled and Confederation was placed on the ballot anyway.

In the end the second referendum saw a return of the delegation’s original plan for only two clear options but it was not the two decided upon by the elected delegation, in fact one of the choices was Britain’s pre-ordained solution.

Why was a decision by the delegation to reject a U.S. union acceptable to England yet the decision to reject a Canadian one not acceptable?

Whether the so called “National Convention” should have existed or not, once the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for a group of delegates that had been forced on them by Britain you have to believe that those voters had every right to expect the delegates they elected to make the appropriate decisions about their future, not the British government.

When the first vote was conducted the result was a win for a return to freedom for Newfoundland and Labrador. It won by more than 5,300 votes, yet it was rejected in favor of a second ballot.

The second ballot saw Confederation win by just over 7000 votes, by no means a landslide, yet this particular outcome, for a twice rejected choice (once by the Convention delegates and once by the people themselves), that had been forced on the public by the British government, was immediately applauded in England and hailed in Canada as a decision that was, “…clear and beyond all possibility of misunderstanding".

For anyone who has not come to understand why such deep-rooted problems have existed between Canada and Newfoundland & Labrador even after 60 years perhaps this little history lesson will help you see things a little more clearly.

None of us wants to live in the past, nor should we. Most of us would love nothing better than to move beyond it. For this reason we often speak instead of new issues, slights and neglect that arrive on the Province’s doorstep and which continue to color Newfoundland and Labrador’s perception of Canada as a ruling nation.

Yet even as those new assaults are discussed we do not forget the events outlined here. Though historical in nature they are still fresh in many memories and they continue to serve as the extremely shaky foundation upon which Newfoundland and Labrador’s entire relationship with Canada so precariously rests.

Fishermen demand public inquiry

2009-04-28T07:30:00.005-02:30

The following appeared in the Sou'Wester and it's worth a read if you ever wanted to see a clear example of how the fishery has been mis-managed by Ottawa.

Fishermen demand public inquiry
April 27th 2009

By Pam Snow

GREEN BAY/WHITE BAY, N.L. - There are 262 core licence holders, plus crew represented by the Small Boat Committee for Green Bay and the White Bay area, and all members are tired of a mismanaged fishery.The chair of the committee, Ray Wimbleton, said the blame rests on the shoulders of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

“It has been mismanaged for years,” claims Wimbleton.

“There are fish being dumped when it really isn’t necessary.”

Wimbleton said the individual quota laws for fishermen to follow, need to be revamped.

“If I have a quota of 20,000 tonnes and I drop a seine and get 25,000 tonnes; those fish are already dead, but I can’t give that extra 5,000 to a fisherman to meet his quota,” said Wimbleton.

“Instead, I have to dump that 5,000 tonnes of dead fish back into the water. It’s not because we want to do it – it’s because by law we have to do it. As fishermen we think it’s ridiculous because we want to utilize our resource, not completely destroy it.”

On behalf of the committee, Wimbleton has been writing letters to the Member of the House of Assembly (MHA), Member of Parliament (MP) and members of the opposition, in hopes of getting an inquiry the fishermen demand into fishery management by DFO.

“The general public says that all our marine resources are public property, to be managed by those in power for the good of the country and its people. Anyone managing a public property must be accountable to the public,” stated Wimbleton in a letter to MP for Humber-St. Barbe and Baie Verte, Gerry Byrne.

After recieving Wimbleton’s letter, MP Gerry Byrne said the concept of a public inquiry is a great idea.

“Reading the letter and listening to Wimbleton’s comments, it really makes you think about how the fishery has almost slid onto the backburner, so to speak,” he said. “The committee is expressing a great deal of frustration because the fishery is not on the fore-front of any agenda.”

Byrne fully supports an inquiry into the management of the fishery.“I have encouraged Wimbleton to focus on specific issues and what a commissioner should focus on,” he said. “Right now the committee has a broad based inquiry, the focus on the objections need to be tighter. “Then there’s the question of who should be the head commissioner as well.”

The fishermen are demanding to know why DFO has eroded the buddy-up system they have always had and who has access to the fish resource.

“How many processors, business people and foreigners have quotas of different species that can be sold?” questioned Wimbleton.

Wimbleton said it would be interesting to know exactly know much of Newfoundland and Labrador’s resource has been traded off over the years to foreign countries for industry development and how much is still harvested inside the 200 mile limit today.

“DFO operates on tax payers dollars, so how much is spent on real science? Who has received funding from DFO and for what purpose?” he said. “Is the money being spent to wisely manage and conserve our fish stocks or is millions of dollars being wasted through third party involvement?”

Wimbleton charged that knowledgeable advice is being ignored by DFO from fishermen.

“These are just a few concerns that really bother the fishermen.”Leo Seymour, from Harbour Round on the Baie Verte Peninsula, has been a fisherman for 38 years and said the demand for an inquiry is high.

“I talk to a lot of fisherman around the area and there are even people besides fishermen who want to see a public inquiry,” he said. “DFO is saying to us that there are too many fishermen and too little fish, but that’s not the case. There are not too many fishermen and too little fish.“There’s a big difference in what DFO is saying and what fishermen are saying about the number of cod stocks around the island. An in-depth inquiry would bring it all onto the table and would put the information out there for people to see.”

With 18 fishermen making their living from the sea in Harbour Round, Seymour said that’s the only life the residents know.“You take the fishermen out of Harbour Round and there would be nothing left,” he said.

“With all these tourism advertisements that the government have been releasing on television, they all focus on outport Newfoundland. But DFO and Government are slowly cutting the life line of outport Newfoundland, and I think if rural areas were to disappear tomorrow, there wouldn’t be one tear shed from anyone in government.”

Wimbleton agrees that the impressions from a recent meeting with DFO in Grand Falls -Windsor were the soon-to-be extinction boat fishery.

“There will not be a next generation of small boat fishermen, under DFO policy the door only swings one way, you can get out, but not in,” he said.

“ Why have the federal government of Canada and DFO decide that the small boat fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador must go, to become a page in history? If we are to become history, we must know why.”

DFO was unavailable for comment at the time this story was written, however in the Stock Assessment of Northern 2J3KL Cod for 2009 that was released in March, the report states “any fishery should be managed such that catches are not concentrated in ways that result in high exploitation rates on any stock components.”

If you would like to support the call for a full inquiry into the Atlantic Fishery you can find contact information for your federal MP and various media outlets in the links section at the upper left side of this page.

Hysteria in Hogtown

2009-04-24T09:04:00.002-02:30

The following editorial appeared in the April 15 edition of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. I believe it's worth repeating here for anyone who may not have read it, as is one of the comments it generated from from a reader. Have a great weekend.

Myles

Hysteria in Hogtown

WHEN QUEBECERS surprised and scared themselves by electing René Lévesque as their first separatist premier, cartoonist Terry Mosher told them to "take a Valium." Thirty-three years later, some elites in Ontario could use the same advice.

Their take-a-Valium moment arrived Tuesday when Ontario received its first equalization payment from the federal government.

The $14.46 million was the first instalment of $347 million in equalization Ontario is entitled to collect this year. In the context of Ontario’s budget – with spending of $109 billion and a deficit of $14 billion – equalization is not going to be a huge factor in the economic life of Ontario this year. It amounts, for Pete’s sake, to $27 per Ontarian, or a third of one per cent of provincial spending.

Yet you’d never glean this from the hyperventilating that has accompanied Ontario’s exaggerated descent into that caricature rock-bottom corner of Confederation — "have-not" status.

"I think it’s a very sad day in the history of this province that we’re now going on the dole," Bob Runciman, Ontario’s interim Tory leader, told the Globe and Mail. A National Post editorial called for the end of equalization, now that Ontario "has sunk to have-not status" and Ontarians can no longer "subsidize the aspirations of the country’s have-nots" as "part of their patriotic duty." Liberal Finance Minister Dwight Duncan tried to blunt the supposed shame of it all by arguing that Ontarians, through their federal taxes, are paying themselves equalization (as if Canadians in other equalization-receiving provinces didn’t pay federal taxes).

What a lot of empty fuss and vanity over what is, after all, just one federal program among many for stabilizing provincial economies and public services. Why have Ontario politicians from Mike Harris to Dalton McGuinty been delighted to receive billions in federal transfers for industrial subsidies, social programs and health services without characterizing them as panhandling? Why single out equalization to stigmatize as "the dole"?

Ontario gets equalization this year because its tax base (a mirror of its economy) is underperforming relative to provinces that are being cushioned by resource revenues. Ontario’s weakness is driven by upheaval in the auto sector. So its $347 million in equalization is no more or less shameful than the $5 billion in infrastructure stimulus Mr. Duncan expects to get from Ottawa or the $8 billion Ottawa will probably contribute to sorting out General Motors and Chrysler in Ontario.

These are all stabilization measures to help people in Ontario get through a tough time that we hope is temporary. Their leaders should get over the fact that a small part of this stabilizer/stimulus is called equalization. Then maybe we could ditch the whole useless caricature of "have-nots," period.

COMMENT:
wayne moores wrote:

Perhaps all the hysteria from Ontario politicans isn't the fact they are receiving funding from Ottawa, but the fact that it's out in the open.

For years while Southern Ontario in general and Toronto in particular passed themselves off as the center of the Universe, it was quietly raking in billions in subsidies of all sorts from the feds. Second only to Quebec in federal largesse, the only difference being that Quebecers felt it was their God given right to extort billions from Ottawa and made no bones about it.

Bombardier alone reaped uncountable billions(all it's operations in Que. and Ont).

Ontario always sneered at any regional development money as welfare and a waste. The same money doled out to GM and Ford(at a time when they were the most profitable companies in the world),in industrial grants, was money wisely doled out. Doesn't look so wise now, does it.

A little known fact about Michalin Tire opening up in Nova Scotia was that the powers that be in Ontario were seething that they located here at all.(Didn't those bloody Frenchmen know that Ontario was the only rightful place for any part of the auto industry!!!Bloody hell!!!)And let's not forget Ottawa itself, providing thousands of high paying jobs to people who pay Ont/Que income taxes.

Confederation itself was set up to save Ontario's bacon and it has worked out pretty well for them. Nova Scotia has payed a heavy price.Now that manufacturing is in decline perhaps the time has come for the West and the East.

Ottawa To Address Forestry Woes - Only Quebec Need Apply

2009-04-22T09:43:00.003-02:30

When the auto sector ran into financial trouble Ottawa was there, Johnny on the spot, to lend a helping taxpayer funded hand.

When the manufacturing sector stumbled Ottawa was there to offer taxpayer funded bridge funding.

When the banking sector hit a brick wall Ottawa dug deep into taxpayer’s pockets faster than a Younge Street pickpocket.

When the forestry slipped under water, while mills closed in places like Newfoundland and Labrador, and while laid off workers were being denied their severance pay, all that could be heard in Ottawa was the sound of crickets chirping outside 24 Sussex Drive.

There are two things the federal government never turns a blind eye toward. In no particular order those are: Ontario and Quebec (actually those both equate to large numbers of federal votes and as such are really same thing).

Large scale manufacturers, auto makers and major banks all have one thing in common. They are, by and large, headquartered in the only important part of Canada, from the federal governments perspective.

Well it turns out that while the federal government was enjoying a collective snooze after patting itself on the back for all the tax money it’s doled out recently, and while 50,000 forestry related jobs were lost right across Canada (and I mean RIGHT ACROSS Canada, from BC all the way to NL, not just as far as NS) somebody forgot to tell the political elite that they should do something for that industry as well. It looks like somebody finally did.

Ottawa may have turned a blind eye to the problems in the forestry sector up to now but not any more.

I can almost hear the warnings now, “Come on, we’ve got to do something. Never mind that troublesome crowd who lost their jobs in places like Newfoundland and Labrador but come on, Quebec is also being hit. Quebec for God’s sake!!!”

Suddenly out of nowhere Ottawa has begun making a show of having an interest in the forestry sector.

A joint federal/Quebec panel (note, the involvement of only one province) has been setup to see what can be done to protect Canadian forestry jobs (in Quebec of course).

Ottawa has, according to one political figure, “…fostered an agreement with the government of Quebec…” to the tune of 100 million dollars in loan guarantees to be delivered by the Quebec government. No doubt this is just a small down payment with future installments to come in the near future. You can bet your last dollar (if you have any left after taxes) that it won’t just be Quebec taxpayers footing that bill either.

Calls are being made for Ottawa to offer tax credits to the forestry industry (similar to ones now being offered in the U.S.). Credits that will save companies like Abitibi millions of dollars a year.

Yes indeed. Quebec stands to lose nearly 10,000 jobs unless something is done quickly and, as Ottawa is wont to do, the squeaky wheels have begun turning as they get well greased once again.

Unfortunately Ottawa’s sudden interest in the forestry sector is too little, too late and certainly too Quebec focused to do anything for the 50,000 non-Quebecers who’ve already lost their jobs or the thousands more who will in the future (outside of Quebec that is).

Canada-France Dispute Leaves Two Cultures Caught in the Middle

2009-04-21T10:14:00.004-02:30

In a letter sent to Premier Danny Williams this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada does not recognize France’s claim to a larger area of seabed around St. Pierre-Miquelon.

Harper informed the Premier that he has conveyed his position to French President Sarkozy, saying the maritime boundary between Canada and the French territory was settled in June 1992 after a decision by the International Court of Arbitration.

The reason for Mr. Harper’s letter is a French claim to the United Nations seeking an expanded economic zone that would allow them greater access to offshore resources.

Xavier Bowring, a member of a citizens group in St. Pierre says they are seeking a “new economic arrangement with Canada. We don’t want a war with Canada. We only want discussions, so we can have a piece of the resource — a piece of the pie.”

Like Newfoundland and Labrador itself the tiny French islands, with just 6000 residents, was hard hit by the 1992 cod moratorium but while their economy continues to flounder and die, the local residents — many of whom come from mixed St-Pierre-Newfoundland families — have watched Newfoundland and Labrador’s economy grow through offshore oil revenue.

St. Pierre-Miquelon’s offshore rights are confined to a small slice of territory just 2.5 miles wide and 200 long —— known locally as “the baguette.” An area that allows for very limited access to potential resources.

Islanders want either an enlarged French economic zone in which to exploit petroleum resources, or at least the right to share with Canada revenues from undersea natural gas finds that span across the tiny strip of seabed they have been allotted.

“Six thousand people cannot hurt the economy of Canada.”

“We don’t need much to live here and be in good economic health. We only want co-management of the resources around us — not simply those inside that ridiculous little baguette. Otherwise we won’t have a future here. This is our last chance.”

While some people in Newfoundland and Labrador may choose to view Stephen Harper’s letter to Premier Williams is a long overdue show of support for Newfoundland and Labrador my perspective on the subject is a different one completely.

The Harper government, in fact the Canadian government itself regardless of party stripe, could care less for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s the resources, not the people, that matter. It’s always been that way and it always will.

Make no mistake. The government of Canada isn’t taking a stand with France because they want to protect potential resource developments for the good of Newfoundland and Labrador but because of the benefits Canada itself reaps from those resources.

Newfoundland and Labrador, unfortunately in the view of some federal MPs, just happens to be in the area from which those petro-dollars flow.

I believe most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can fully understand and empathize with the plight the residents St. Pierre-Miquelon are facing. After all, the tiny area is a small island community (two islands actually), that have been largely dependent on the Atlantic cod fishery for centuries and are controlled by a Country that only recognizes them as an afterthought, if at all. This situation is nothing new to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be sure.

For a myriad of reasons it’s actually too bad the seabed itself and the resources within them are controlled in Ottawa rather than in St. John’s. The St. Pierre-Miquelon situation simply being another one of those reasons.

This is not to say that the Provincial government would or should be willing to cede rights to those resources any more than Ottawa would but at least with Newfoundland and Labrador leading the discussion there might be more room for open dialogue and perhaps even a livable compromise between the two closely linked peoples who know and understand each other far, far better than Ottawa understands either of them, even the ones within its own borders.