Atlantic Accord

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Skilly said:

It wouldn't go through New Brunswick.

I am not sure, but I believe the preliminary price tag on it is 5.8 billion. (Maybe less .... but I can easily find that out - I have a relative who is an executive with NL Hydro)

It would take less than a decade to complete once the funding is available.

For what? To get more from our resources. The current deal expires in 2039 I believe. That would mean 2 whole generations, plus half another, saw no benefit from developing the Upper Churchill. During that time Quebec has made a fortune off of it (Trillions of dollars) and will make more in the next 35 years. So spending Billions to make trillions make sense to some degree does it not?

The issue of turning off the power has been discussed by almost every lawyer in Newfoundland. While there is debate as to whether we would win or not (I think one in 10 lawyers or something say we would win ..... the argument being that GOC acting unconstitutionally towards Newfoundland and there was a conspiracy involving Smallwood, and one I heard was that Smallwood did not have the authority to give away a natural resource because at the time it was federal jurisdiction), it would be tied up in court (The World Court in the Hague more than likely) and an injunction would be sought by Quebec to have the power on while it is fought in court.

All that aside, it is not the way Newfoundland operates. We may not have much, and we might seems backasswards to the rest of the country, but we fight fair and do not like playing dirty pool with fellow Canadians. We'd rather get along with Quebec and come to an agreement that is to the benefit of both provinces, for both the Upper and Lower Churchill.

Your attitude is commendable. It's the way I remember the people of Newfoundland when I visited. At some point, the cost of maintaining the generating plant and infrastructure will exceed the payments by Quebec that were fixed when Smallwood was in diapers.
Quebec constructed aluminum smelters to take advantage of excess power generating capacity in remote areas. Could some sort of local industry taking advantage of inexpensive power be a solution for Nfld. It would generate employment, local growth and avoid long distance power transmission losses.

I'll speak to my friend, President Bush and see if we can spare any troops to bomb the area and bring peace and democracy to the troubled land. (just kidding)

[Skilly]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Your attitude is commendable. It's the way I remember the people of Newfoundland when I visited. At some point, the cost of maintaining the generating plant and infrastructure will exceed the payments by Quebec that were fixed when Smallwood was in diapers.
Quebec constructed aluminum smelters to take advantage of excess power generating capacity in remote areas. Could some sort of local industry taking advantage of inexpensive power be a solution for Nfld. It would generate employment, local growth and avoid long distance power transmission losses.

That sounds good, but not possible for us really. Newfoundland will find itself in need of other electricity generating sources in the next 5-10 years. The island has been pretty well drained. The Lower Churchill needs to be developed for the island. But that would mean also billions and trillions of money pissed away, without some sort of sensible agreement with Quebec. Premier after premier here have stated that any deal involving Quebec and the Lower Churchill will automatically be tied to a renegotiation of the Upper Churchill. And Quebec has no willingness to do that (don't fault them for that).

So developing the Lower Churchill (the only really inexpensive power solution) won't go until a solution to selling the excess power can be determined.

The power on the island is mostly diesel. There are some hydro-electric stations. The south coast of Labrador is mostly diesel. So the only spot I can see your venture really being possible is Labrador City or Goose Bay. But the problem there is this: Quebec buys power off of us for 2.0 - 2.1 mills. Then they turn around and sell it back to us (for Labrador usage) for 2-3 times that. So that isn't exactly an incentitive for Labrador entrepeneurs.

Now Churchill Falls itself does get cheap power. It is basically free, a small fee. But nobody can live in Churchill Falls unless they work for Hydro-Quebec or CFLCo.

The thing that irks me, is the same thing that irks people with the NHL lockout. Even if Quebec renegotiated the contract with us, they would still be making trillions of dollars, because they would have 2 sources now that would equate to one. But they want all of one and then worry about the other when the time comes. (Again well within their right)

We don't what to take anything away from Quebec. We are just trying to work with them as partners. Right now it is 90% + 0% for Quebec and 10% + 0% for Newfoundland. If we offered 60% + 40% for them and 40% + 60% for us, they would still be in the same ballpark. (btw .... those numbers woudl be negotiable .... it was just an example)

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Skilly said:

That sounds good, but not possible for us really. Newfoundland will find itself in need of other electricity generating sources in the next 5-10 years. The island has been pretty well drained. The Lower Churchill needs to be developed for the island. But that would mean also billions and trillions of money pissed away, without some sort of sensible agreement with Quebec. Premier after premier here have stated that any deal involving Quebec and the Lower Churchill will automatically be tied to a renegotiation of the Upper Churchill. And Quebec has no willingness to do that (don't fault them for that).

So developing the Lower Churchill (the only really inexpensive power solution) won't go until a solution to selling the excess power can be determined.

The power on the island is mostly diesel. There are some hydro-electric stations. The south coast of Labrador is mostly diesel. So the only spot I can see your venture really being possible is Labrador City or Goose Bay. But the problem there is this: Quebec buys power off of us for 2.0 - 2.1 mills. Then they turn around and sell it back to us (for Labrador usage) for 2-3 times that. So that isn't exactly an incentitive for Labrador entrepeneurs.

Now Churchill Falls itself does get cheap power. It is basically free, a small fee. But nobody can live in Churchill Falls unless they work for Hydro-Quebec or CFLCo.

The thing that irks me, is the same thing that irks people with the NHL lockout. Even if Quebec renegotiated the contract with us, they would still be making trillions of dollars, because they would have 2 sources now that would equate to one. But they want all of one and then worry about the other when the time comes. (Again well within their right)

We don't what to take anything away from Quebec. We are just trying to work with them as partners. Right now it is 90% + 0% for Quebec and 10% + 0% for Newfoundland. If we offered 60% + 40% for them and 40% + 60% for us, they would still be in the same ballpark. (btw .... those numbers woudl be negotiable .... it was just an example)

Interesting. What is the relative output of the Lower vs. Upper Churchill. Why not use the power in Newfoundland and Labrador instead of carrying it all the way to New England? Why not divert some of the power for Labrador use instead of selling and buying it back?
It seems too simple without factoring in engineering studies, jobs created and kickbacks. I see Nfld. with hibernia and Hydro power as a tremendous advantage. Fish stocks are depleted, the growing season is too short and the soil quality is poor. Far from markets, it's not hard to see where Nfld's only advantages lie.

[Skilly]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Interesting. What is the relative output of the Lower vs. Upper Churchill.

Unsure but can find out.

Why not use the power in Newfoundland and Labrador instead of carrying it all the way to New England?

Because we don't need all the power, just some. New England is willing to pay top dollar for it. That is where Quebec presently sends most of it.

Why not divert some of the power for Labrador use instead of selling and buying it back?

The deal was that we sell the power to Quebec. CFLCo can not call back power without approval from Hydro Quebec and they have to give something like a years notice if they want power recalled. The contract is just too crazy ........ a kindergarten student could have gotten a better deal.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Skilly said:

Unsure but can find out.



Because we don't need all the power, just some. New England is willing to pay top dollar for it. That is where Quebec presently sends most of it.



The deal was that we sell the power to Quebec. CFLCo can not call back power without approval from Hydro Quebec and they have to give something like a years notice if they want power recalled. The contract is just too crazy ........ a kindergarten student could have gotten a better deal.

In retrospect, the US should have signed a deal with the Saudi's to buy their oil for 100 years at a fixed $6.00 per barrel. They can't change the price and they have to sell it all to us and can't keep any.
It the US signed a deal like that, the world would be all over us as imperialists and carpetbaggers. Come to think of it, they are calling us that anyways.
The Nfld Quebec deal is so grossly unfair, that it should be recinded.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

In retrospect, the US should have signed a deal with the Saudi's to buy their oil for 100 years at a fixed $6.00 per barrel. They can't change the price and they have to sell it all to us and can't keep any.
It the US signed a deal like that, the world would be all over us as imperialists and carpetbaggers. Come to think of it, they are calling us that anyways.
The Nfld Quebec deal is so grossly unfair, that it should be recinded.

Who, then, should be appointed to broker deals on Newfoundland's behalf, since they apparently didn't do a decent job on this particular one?

Can the Habs get back all the players they unloaded in bad deals in the '90s?

Can the US reclaim the international respect they once had?

Will Mars bars ever again taste as good as they did 30 years ago?

Can Québec lose the battles but win the war?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

M. said:

Who, then, should be appointed to broker deals on Newfoundland's behalf, since they apparently didn't do a decent job on this particular one?

Can the Habs get back all the players they unloaded in bad deals in the '90s?

Can the US reclaim the international respect they once had?

Will Mars bars ever again taste as good as they did 30 years ago?

Can Québec lose the battles but win the war?

Panama insisted that they take over administration of the Canal and voided the treaty with the US that built it.
Prenuptials are overturned.
Give Manhattan back to the Indians for $26 dollars?
Return Alaska to Russia for $17,000,000?
Return Canada to British rule? or French rule before that? or bck to the indigenous peoples?
Return Iran to the Sha's family?
Restitution for the WW II Japanese internment.
Return Egypts' antiquities from Paris and London.
Repay Kobe Bryant for expenses incurred after his date for the night changes her mind.
Restitution for slave labor in the South.
Lemon laws for the 1977 Plymouth Volare I purchased from Chrysler Canada that self destructed.
Reparations for Atilla the Hun's destruction.
Return palestine to the Palestinians or to the Jews who were there first or to the decendants of homoerectus that proceeded them.

THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. A great injustice has been done, and it can be reversed, it should be reversed.
We could argue that the Bantu and Tsutsi leaders gave up their claims to South Africa to the Afrikans and so all the Black tribesmen should leave the country they gave away, but it doesn't make sense so it is overturned.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Panama insisted that they take over administration of the Canal and voided the treaty with the US that built it.
Prenuptials are overturned.
Give Manhattan back to the Indians for $26 dollars?
Return Alaska to Russia for $17,000,000?
Return Canada to British rule? or French rule before that? or bck to the indigenous peoples?
Return Iran to the Sha's family?
Restitution for the WW II Japanese internment.
Return Egypts' antiquities from Paris and London.
Repay Kobe Bryant for expenses incurred after his date for the night changes her mind.
Restitution for slave labor in the South.
Lemon laws for the 1977 Plymouth Volare I purchased from Chrysler Canada that self destructed.
Reparations for Atilla the Hun's destruction.
Return palestine to the Palestinians or to the Jews who were there first or to the decendants of homoerectus that proceeded them.

THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. A great injustice has been done, and it can be reversed, it should be reversed.
We could argue that the Bantu and Tsutsi leaders gave up their claims to South Africa to the Afrikans and so all the Black tribesmen should leave the country they gave away, but it doesn't make sense so it is overturned.

You have defeated your own argument.

[Skilly]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. A great injustice has been done, and it can be reversed, it should be reversed.
We could argue that the Bantu and Tsutsi leaders gave up their claims to South Africa to the Afrikans and so all the Black tribesmen should leave the country they gave away, but it doesn't make sense so it is overturned.

A great injustice has been done, but it is up to Newfoundland, and not Quebec, to get us out of this mess. I am fine with them reaping the rewards of the Upper Churchill from now until 2035 (what were they going to do , say no), but I would like for them to show a willingnes to work as partners on the Lower Churchill, and then that relationship can go forward past 2035 for the Upper Churchill. Working as partners eventually means everyone wins.

And that is the reason it broke my heart to see the Bloc Quebecois vote with the Liberals on the Atlantic Accord. It was in their best interest I would have thought. I would like to hear Gilles Duceppe's reasoning. If he was upset with the wording, or the equalization implications, or the lack of teeth then okay he voted on principle. (And from what I read he is a man of principle) ..... But if he voted against the overall comviction of the vote - that the province should be the primary beneficiary of its on resource then how can we look at him and support his cause - Quebec wanting to be the primary influence in their own affairs?

One thing has to be straighten out here. We do not want 100% of the oil reserves. The oil reserves are broken into federal and provincial taxes. What we want is 100% of our provincial portion/taxes on the oil. Ottawa still keep their share of the oil.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

M. said:

You have defeated your own argument.

"There is no right answer." He who has the biggest stick gets the most presents.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

"There is no right answer." He who has the biggest stick gets the most presents.

You contradict yourself. And you make Québec a clear winner in the power struggle.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

M. said:

You contradict yourself. And you make Québec a clear winner in the power struggle.

I agree. Quebec is the clear winner in this power struggle. I'm not sure what the contradiction is. The agreement was signed a long time ago and is not relevant to todays energy prices. Quebec has the signed agreement and the ability to shut off the pipeline. Labrador has no other place to go and no other buyer to compete. Quebec is bigger and stronger and better situated geographically. The only recource that Newfoundland has is to say that at $0.02 it is not economical to deliver power and shut down for repairs. That way they get nothing, but Quebec gets nothing too. Quebec then decides if buying at two cents and selling for much more makes it worth paying a little more. It's my two cents worth.
Both sides digging in and refusing to negotiate makes a perfect setting for hiring Bettenow and Goodman to lead the respective non-negotiating teams.
Long term deals might make sense when billions of dollars must be borrowed through government bonds and invested in large scale projects, but as time passes by the economics change. This was built before the internet, arab oil embargo, OPEC and jet planes became common. Before personal computers. The agreement was entered into by both parties and both parties have benefited. The economics and numbers don't make sense anymore. Would anybody in their right mind, as premier of newfoundland sign an agreement like this today? Yes it's spilled milk, but the only realistic recource that Newfoundland has is to withold delivery and Quebec then either witholds payment, sues in the courts or waits them out. Building an alternate powergrid using todays dollars and going underwater seems like an expensive risk, but I haven't studied it in detail.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Newfoundland does indeed for the moment appear to be between a rock and a hard place.

[franko]

Or between the devil and the deep blue sea.

[BadCompany]

Skilly said:

A great injustice has been done, but it is up to Newfoundland, and not Quebec, to get us out of this mess. I am fine with them reaping the rewards of the Upper Churchill from now until 2035 (what were they going to do , say no), but I would like for them to show a willingnes to work as partners on the Lower Churchill, and then that relationship can go forward past 2035 for the Upper Churchill. Working as partners eventually means everyone wins.

Sounds like the NHL and the NHLPA...

[Skilly]

BadCompany said:

Sounds like the NHL and the NHLPA...

Identical. With one exception.

My daughter, or her children, or her children's children are not affected by the NHL lockout. This resource could mean the difference between her raising her children in Newfoundland (bringing joy to her father's life), or moving to Alberta, Ontario, US, or god knows where and making her father a miserable man. Well, more miserable than I already am ...

[Skilly]

This is a letter I found on the www.fairdealfornewfoundland.com website. It explains in great detail and eloquence the way we feel in Newfoundland.

By Gil Dalton
Executive Vice-President and CFO of Baine Johnston Corporation
St. John's, NL, Canada
I think the current dispute between Canada and Newfoundland needs to be put in the context of 55 years (since 1949) of struggle by a proud but poor people from a disadvantaged and historically exploited area who are trying to do what's right and fair to better their lot in life. They do not want to take advantage or to be taken advantage of.

There is unfortunately an image in the rest of Canada that Newfoundland is a drag on the Canadian economy. In fact a well known Canadian, the late Mr. Gordon Sinclair, was once quoted as saying that Canada would be better of if Newfoundland was towed into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and sank. I happen to profoundly disagree that Newfoundland has been a drag on the Canadian economy and I will identify later why. As to Mr. Sinclair's comment, it reflects more an elitist attitude than a serious comment on the substantive issue of economic contribution to Canada.

At this stage in our history, I think it is important for the rest of Canada to understand the roots of why Newfoundlanders feel so deeply the way they do. The issues are not simple and it is difficult to express them sufficiently in a letter of this sort. I will try to summarize them in point form below:

1/ Many in Canada are probably not aware that when Newfoundland became a province, it came in with a significant government surplus. And while there was a vote and Newfoundlanders voted to become a province of Canada by a 52% majority; many people feel, and there is much evidence to support, that it was for the most part orchestrated by Ottawa and London. That being said however, I would say that today, Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans are proud Canadians and few would consider leaving this great country. Despite coming in with a surplus we find ourselves today with the highest provincial debt, the highest provincial tax rates, the lowest government services, including health care and in a desperate financial situation. What, after 55 years of confederation has gone wrong with the promised great Canadian experience? Canada prides itself in being a trading nation and if you talk to economists, they credit much of Canada's wealth to its tremendous savvy in international trade. Well most Canadians may not be aware of it, but the exports per capita of Newfoundland is greater than that of any other province in Canada. We have the trade, but who has the wealth and prosperity?

2/ The Upper Churchill contract with Quebec is always high on the list of grievances for Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans. A few short years after we became a province of Canada, the then premier, Mr. Smallwood was anxious to improve the lot of his people and promoted the development of the world class hydro electrical potential at Churchill Falls in Labrador. To do this, he needed to have a market for the electricity which, at the time, was readily available in the energy hungry eastern US. He then needed to be able to get the power from Labrador to the US border. He needed the right to wheel the power across Quebec to get it to market. This should not have been a problem since Alberta had previously been given the right to wheel its gas in a pipeline across Saskatchewan and Manitoba to market in Ontario. This was a constitutional matter and already accepted in Canada. However such was not to be the case for Newfoundland and Labrador's electricity. Quebec objected and said there would be no transmission line across Quebec unless it owned the line and owned the power. Quebec's position was that they would build the transmission line and purchase the power at the Newfoundland / Quebec border and they would sell it to the US. This represented a tremendous road block for the development as well as serous impacts on the financing.

It is important to understand that this was happening at a very difficult time in Quebec. The political situation was very unstable and the FLQ were putting bombs in mailboxes and the like. The Canadian prime minister at the time, Lester B. Pearson, a decent man, called in the new premier of Canada's newest province and said I have a problem. If you ask for the right to wheel your power across Quebec, I will have to give it to you, but if I do, there will be an uproar in Quebec, maybe civil war and a possible breakup of the country.

What tremendous pressure and what a tremendous burden to place on the shoulders of a young province...to be faced with a decision, one of the ramifications of which, was the breakup of the country...a country you had just played a major part in joining a few short years ago. Needless to say Smallwood did not insist on getting the wheeling rights and the current contract was entered into. I suppose you can forgive Quebec in part, since they were arguing for their own self interest as any province would do.

However the position that the federal government took regarding Newfoundland left it in a very untenable and precarious position. Quebec now had all the negotiating power and leverage. They now became the only possible customer for the power. They had all the cards and proceeded to negotiate Newfoundland into the ground on the deal. All Smallwood and Newfoundland got out of it was a few construction jobs for a few years. In fact, the leverage was so great for Quebec, that the contract term was extended to provide that after all the capital costs were recovered and after all the bond holders were paid off, the contract was now to continue for a further 25 years and the price per Kwh was to be reduced. It seems to me that, that by any measure of natural justice, the extended term of this contract should be unenforceable.

Maybe Mr. Pearson was right, maybe it was the right decision, at that time in our history, to save the country, BUT was it right and fair to ask Newfoundland and Labrador, the youngest and the poorest province of this country to bear the whole burden and face the economic consequences of doing so? The contract that resulted now gives Quebec one (1) billion dollars in profit annually which will likely keep climbing over time. The profit going to Quebec on this contract alone would many times exceed all the equalization Canada ever paid to Newfoundland and it continues for another 40 years or so. An interesting twist on this is that the Quebec profit is received by Hydro Quebec (a crown corporation) instead of going directly to the province. The effect of this is that this profit likely does not factor into Quebec's entitlement to Canadian equalization.

3/ Another grievance issue between Newfoundland and Labrador and Ottawa is the fishery. The people of Newfoundland came here and settled here in the beginning to fish. Successive generations since then have over the years continued to carry on this and other related activities. Fishing was the backbone of the local economy, culture and way of life. On joining Canada, the federal government took over management of the fishery. It is very important that Canadians living outside Newfoundland and Labrador understand how emotional and deeply-felt an issue this was and still is in this province. As I mentioned earlier it was our whole reason for being and with confederation someone else became in charge of it.

Well, in retrospect Ottawa's stewardship in managing the fishery has been a disaster. Successive federal governments have traded away fishing rights off Newfoundland's coast to foreigners to gain trading access for products of mainland Canada. Again a further example of Newfoundland and Labrador's unrecognized contribution to Canadian unity and prosperity. The federal government continues even today to give fishing rights around Newfoundland's coast to people and enterprises outside the province while Newfoundland fishermen sit idly by not being able to fish and earn a living.

Also the foreign over-fishing effort on the nose and tail of the grand banks which has been going on for years continues to take place. Yet in Ottawa, Canada's government Talks the Talk but they consistently refuse to Walk the Walk in getting any meaningful solution to this problem. In the meantime, one of the greatest fishing resources on earth, which Newfoundland brought with it into confederation, has been decimated.

[Skilly]

4/ Now to get to the current matter of dispute. When oil was discovered off Newfoundland, the federal government claimed it was theirs and not ours. The supreme court ultimately agreed that was the case in law. Again it is important to understand the context of time in which all this was taking place. During this time we had the energy crisis, the National Energy program was being brought in by the federal government and there was tremendous acrimony between Ottawa and the west. Trudeau, Chretien, Lalonde and others came to Newfoundland trying to work out / impose an offshore oil deal...none resulted. During this time the federal team is reported to have made a statement to the effect that 'There will never be another Alberta'. Well, while this was a put down for Newfoundland and Labrador, it was was an even more disparaging remark about the people of Alberta. The fact that Alberta had control of its resources instead of Ottawa clearly did not sit well with Ottawa. The elected government of Alberta, rightly so, were simply trying to prevent Ottawa from expropriating their resources. Alberta needs no support from me in this regard; they are quite capable and have done a fantastic job of protecting their rights. Newfoundland however has had a much more difficult time of it. The federal government seemed adamant that Newfoundland and Labrador be kept in its place and they were going to do whatever they could to prevent us from getting control over our offshore oil and gas resources.

I am not a lawyer and thus can not speak to the legalities involved here. I only know that the Newfoundland oil and gas resources are in our offshore and whatever rights existed then or arose later were rights that came as a result of our joining Canada. If we had not joined Canada, Canada would have no rights to them today. Despite this, the federal government steadfastly refused to give Newfoundland and Labrador its due. It took a change of government in Ottawa and a more balanced view of what Canada could and should be that we got the Atlantic Accord which provided that the offshore resources would be treated as if they were on land, thus making Newfoundland and Nova Scotia the prime beneficiaries of their offshore oil and gas resources.

The reality however is that this principle of being the prime beneficiaries has not worked out the way it was intended. The various federal revenues represents 54% of the total government take. The provincial revenues represented 46%. However the federal government takes back 70% of the province's 46% in its claw back mechanism, which gives the federal government 86% and leaves the province with 14%. Right now with the claw back, for every $1.00 of benefit to Newfoundland, Ottawa benefits by $6.14. Even if Danny Williams gets what he has asked for, for every $1.00 dollar of benefit to Newfoundland, Ottawa will still get $1.17. Who then, with this split in revenues (86:14) is the prime beneficiary in actual fact? This situation is what Premier Danny Williams is so upset about and what Prime Minister Paul Martin agreed to change during the election. He agreed that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia would get 100% of the provincial revenues without the claw back.

WHY you may ask, should Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia get 100% of the provincial oil revenues (still only 46% of the total government take) and at the same time get equalization as well. In other words, why is the claw back not appropriate here? Well, it is important to understand that the equalization bar is an annual measure of government revenues and government services. It essentially ignores the extent of provincial debt, tax burdens and infrastructure in place in a province. Consequently, when major funds such as oil revenues start to flow in, the equalization starts to flow out. The net result of this is almost a status quo position for the affected province which essentially prevents a province from being able to help itself.

The unfairness of this is recognized and understood by the federal government. In fact before oil was discovered in Alberta, that province was not doing so well in confederation in relative terms. It was a have-not province like many others. The federal government of the day recognized the problem at the time and gave Alberta a transitional period during which its oil and gas revenues were exempt from the equalization formula. This was to enable a reasonable period of time for it to get debt burdens under control, tax rates normalized and an appropriate level infrastructure in place to support a future industry which would bring benefits to both levels of government and in fact to the whole country.

This is what Danny Williams is looking for, for Newfoundland and what Paul Martin promised. However there is a small difference in that Alberta's rights flow from resources on land where provincial rights are constitutionally protected. Newfoundland is relying on a political accord (the Atlantic Accord) which is open to more political influence and maneuvering from Ottawa. I think that what should happen here is to come up with a solution that reflects Newfoundland's current hopeless financial fiscal capacity. The per capita debt in Alberta was never in the range of what it is in Newfoundland and Labrador and government services and infrastructure in Alberta in relative terms were never so divergent from the national average as it is in Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Skilly]

Unfortunately over time the poorest and the weakest, always have the least leverage in negotiating any deal. The feds know this and the current bureaucracy is playing it to the hilt. Given the history of exploitation in this province, the population is very circumspect at what is taking place. Will we be screwed again as in the past? Believe me, we understand our weak negotiating power and leverage in this confederation. We have difficulty many times when editorials in national papers that are written without true understanding of the underlying facts. Danny Williams is simply trying to minimize the effects of the power differential, for once in our lifetime. He is trying to get a fair deal for the province and not a deal, any deal, to get what ever monies are offered just because we need it so badly.

Furthermore, it seems to me that if the principal beneficiary provisions of the Atlantic Accord were not and are not being followed, (and it seems that Prime Minister Paul Martin agrees that to be the case or he would not have promised to fix it) then whatever changes are needed to correct it, should be retroactive to the start of production in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia as the case maybe to give these provinces a fighting chance to improve their economies. It should not just be retroactive to April 1, 2004 as offered by Minister Goodale.

5/ Another issue that is worth noting from a Newfoundland and Labrador perspective is with reference to the current sale of Petro Canada shares by the Federal Government which raised some hundred's of millions of dollars for Ottawa. It is important to know that a large part of Petro Canada's asset base is its holdings on the East Coast (Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose and Sable). Canadians may not be aware that those interests initially came as governmental crown share allocations for the discoveries on the East Coast. They were granted by the federal government who then claimed ownership in the resource and when Petro Canada was a federal crown corporation. If the principles later established in the Atlantic Accord had applied (namely that the resource was to be treated the same as on land), then any crown share would have accrued to the provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and not Ottawa. Clause 40 of the Atlantic Accord provides that the costs and benefits of crown share will be shared equitably by both governments. Does Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia have any claim to a share of proceeds of sale of Petro Canada shares? I don't know, but in principle, did a significant part of Petro Canada's asset base not include what was in essence a crown share in Newfoundland and Labrador's and Nova Scotia's offshore resources? Was the principle of the Accord upheld in this respect? Has anyone addressed it?

Yes, Ottawa has given us Family Allowance, Canada Pension, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance, but Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans pay the same premiums and rates of Federal taxes as the rest of the country for these benefits.

I offer the above comments in an effort to have every Canadian gain some insight and understand some of the history and background as to why we feel the way we do on this Atlantic Accord issue. It's not simple, and unfortunately the flag matter has created a diversion from the substance of the debate. The National Post and the Globe & Mail in editorials have jumped on the flag issue but surely the question that must be on the minds of all editorial writers is 'what are the underlying issues that are causing Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans to be so frustrated that something like this can happen?'

I assure everyone that lowering the Canadian flag does not represent disrespect for the flag. The prime minister called it disrespectful...no matter that the province of Quebec also does not fly the Canadian flag on their public buildings. For Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans, this is not a separatist issue. We are proud Canadians and we love the flag as much as Canadians anywhere and we wear it proudly where ever we go. If there are Canadians who took offence to this action, we are sorry. But give your head a shake...we treated the flag with respect. It was simply lowered as a symbolic protest of the legitimate emotional and deep feelings that continue to linger and be carried inside us about how we have been treated by our federal government.

This is not just about money, even though there are significant dollars being talked about in the press and by politicians. This is really about fairness and dignity for a portion of this country's population that have not been well done by, by the federal government of the country we chose to join, which we love and to which we have made a tremendous contribution. It's about promises made and promises not kept. We thought the current Prime Minister's promise was good and no one more so than Premier Williams who kept assuring the local skeptics among us that the prime minister's word was good. He kept saying the prime minister was an honorable man and he would keep his promise...after all he is the prime minister and if you can not trust the word of your prime minister who in government can you trust?

It seems the federal bureaucracy is now trying to put their own views and conditions into the loop and in doing so, changing the simple and direct promise of the prime minister. They even requested insertion of requirements on how Newfoundland and Labrador was supposed to spend the money that flowed from the agreement, as if we could not be trusted to spent it wisely...HOW INSULTING.

I hope the prime minister is man enough to bring an end to this turmoil and tell those around him that his promise will be honored. It was honorably given and should be honorably kept. I wonder how he feels as prime minister when civil servants say things like 'the prime minister when he made his promise did not really understand'.

There is much more that can be said about the tremendous positive contribution Newfoundland and Labrador has made to Canada, however I have gone on too long already. Hopefully, I have left you a little better informed on our province, the contribution we have made and will continue to make to this great country. Please also understand the frustration we feel in our dealings with the federal bureaucracy in Ottawa on this and other issues.

Sincerely,

Gil Dalton
Executive Vice-President and CFO of Baine Johnston Corporation
St. John's, NL, Canada

[Skilly]

And this article does not even mention the contributions we have made with our soldiers.

Newfoundlanders stayed in York during the War of 1812 while the british and canadian forces fled to Kingston, Newfoundlanders captured territory all the way down to the White House (In fact I believe we were apart of setting it on fire).

Twice the US has invaded and captured Canadian land (the revolutiionary War and in 1812) and twice the colony of Newfoundland came to their side and were a great influence in the victory. Were it not for Newfoundlanders much of southern Canada would be American.

Even today (as a result of our poverty amittedly) 25% of our armed forces is Newfoundlander. We have given way too much to keep this country together (even when we were not apart of it - we wanted to join in 1867 and asked to join but timing and circumstances beyond our control prevented it - but we had a contingent there to observe), more so than any other province I would venture to say. Not bad for the youngest province.

And now we ask to finally be treated fairly, and recognize how much this great Confederation has cost us, and we get the likes of Margaret Wente and this Bliss character with their elitist prejudicial racism. Why is Canada so afraid of a prosperous Newfoundland. Is it that they would miss their Newfie jokes?

I'd like to see what Quebec would have done if Wente went on about them being frogs, and that they should take their french culture and ribbit right out of Canada. Sure they even have laws now to prevent such crap from happening to Quebec (language commisioner), and yet we do not get a single word of support from the "belle province".

[blaise]

So why are you a Canadiens fan? ;D

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

So why are you a Canadiens fan? ;D

There is no single profile for Canadiens fans. We are just intelligent and fortunate individuals who pledge our allegience to the CH and the blue-blanc-rouge for which it stands.

[blaise]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

There is no single profile for Canadiens fans. We are just intelligent and fortunate individuals who pledge our allegience to the CH and the blue-blanc-rouge for which it stands.

After his complaints about how shabbily Québec treated Newfoundland?

[franko]

Blaise said:

After his complaints about how shabbily Québec treated Newfoundland?

Doesn't everyone know that Montreal is only part of Quebec on a map? In reality, it is a suburb of St. John's.

[PTH]

Skilly said:

Yes, Ottawa has given us Family Allowance, Canada Pension, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance, but Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans pay the same premiums and rates of Federal taxes as the rest of the country for these benefits.

Actually, no. I have to work more hours to get less UI time, given that I live in a low-unemployment area. I did a quick check - compared to living in the area of Memorial university (easiest postal code to find), I have to work 700 rather than 595 hours for UI, for 14 to 36 weeks of UI whereas the Newfie who worked 595 would get from 23 to 45 weeks of UI.
So I work for 17.6% more hours to get 30 to 24% *less*. The whole UI system is slanted to help areas like NF where there is endemic unemployment, at the expense of workers elsewhere across the country.

Maybe the rest of this guys babble is right, but when you find a glaring glitch....

Also, about Churchill Falls, why not just wait a few years to sign the deal, and get a better one ? If the premier made bad long-term decisions to help his short-term political prospects, I don't see why Quebec should take the blame.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

PTH said:

Also, about Churchill Falls, why not just wait a few years to sign the deal, and get a better one ? If the premier made bad long-term decisions to help his short-term political prospects, I don't see why Quebec should take the blame.

Didn't Bettman make a bad deal and waited ten years for it to expire to renegotiate a better one? That worked well!

[Skilly]

PTH said:

Actually, no. I have to work more hours to get less UI time, given that I live in a low-unemployment area. I did a quick check - compared to living in the area of Memorial university (easiest postal code to find), I have to work 700 rather than 595 hours for UI, for 14 to 36 weeks of UI whereas the Newfie who worked 595 would get from 23 to 45 weeks of UI.
So I work for 17.6% more hours to get 30 to 24% *less*. The whole UI system is slanted to help areas like NF where there is endemic unemployment, at the expense of workers elsewhere across the country.

Maybe the rest of this guys babble is right, but when you find a glaring glitch....

Also, about Churchill Falls, why not just wait a few years to sign the deal, and get a better one ? If the premier made bad long-term decisions to help his short-term political prospects, I don't see why Quebec should take the blame.

A few years? It expires in 2041! My daughter will be 38 (she is now 1). Paul Martin was quoted as saying the most valuable treasure of our country was our flag. I would argue it is our children. If the ROC (hehehe using Quebuc separtist abreviation ...how quaint) is so fed up with this "scenic welfare ghetto" (I believe that was the quote) then why are they so against us trying to get rid of that image. Why? Because they'd rather we move to somewhere in Ontario or Alberta or BC to help those province as usual. I believe I have a right to see my daughter and her children grow up and work in Newfoundland just as much as anyone has to see their children do the same. (Now, some will go anyway because of the type of work they choose etc .... but I am talking about something entirely different ... I am talking about openly willingly deciding that you want to stay home and are willing to work for less or whatever job to do so.) We can't do that in Newfoundland because the money is not there, but the jobs are.

Newfoundland was a victim of the GOC in regards to the Churchill Deal. We openly decided that the unity of the country was more important. Chastise us for that if you like, but I am not, and neither is the author, "blaming Quebec". We are accusing the GOC, of once again, using Newfoundland as a tool to help the rest opf Canada but not letting us get the greater benefit from our own resources.

[Skilly]

PTH said:

Actually, no. I have to work more hours to get less UI time, given that I live in a low-unemployment area. I did a quick check - compared to living in the area of Memorial university (easiest postal code to find), I have to work 700 rather than 595 hours for UI, for 14 to 36 weeks of UI whereas the Newfie who worked 595 would get from 23 to 45 weeks of UI.
So I work for 17.6% more hours to get 30 to 24% *less*. The whole UI system is slanted to help areas like NF where there is endemic unemployment, at the expense of workers elsewhere across the country.

As for this. I wouldn't know ..... so I defer to you. I have never been on EI, have never qualified for Family Allowance, never been on a pension. I have gotten a benefit from the medicare system. But the numbers in those programs can be skewed as many ways as the numbers in the current CBA dispute.

For instance. Because our population is so low it can be argued (rightly or wrongly is a matter of perspective) that Newfoundland does not get as much benefit from the medicare system as say Ontario. Obviously, where there is more population their will be more money pumped into the medicare system.

Now the author did not say that Newfoundland does not benefit greatly from the EI system, in fact he said we "pay the same premiums". And we do. Your beef would be that the poorer locations of the country (is Newfoundland the only such location?) pay the same for more benefit. I understand the objection, and to some extent I agree with it because I am not a fan of the EI system myself (but that is another story). But surely you can see the logic in that rational. If you have high unemployment then work is obviously harder to find, lowering the "work period / duration" makes sense to the extent that work for 700 hours is not readily available in Newfoundland, to the extent it is in Quebec or Ontario.

[Skilly]

Blaise said:

So why are you a Canadiens fan? ;D

I was an Oilers fan / Gretzky fan once. Back in the early 80's. And I was also a big Bobby Smith fan / Minnesota North Star fan. But then my mother told me stories about my father (who left us when I was 5 and was a Toronto Maple Leaf fan). She relayed the story (also My earliest memory of him) of one night I was sitting on his lap watching a Maple leafs game. He asked me who I was cheering for, before answering I asked him who he was cheering for. He said the team in blue, so I answer the team in red. Turned out it was the Montreal Canadiens. So I was a three team fan for much of the 80's, until I met Gretzky and was not impressed. When Bobby Smith was traded to Montreal I had no reason to cheer for Minnesota again. (When he was traded back, well I was older and changing teams/ cheering for another was looked on as unthinkable).

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

I was born in Quebec and had no real understanding of Newfoundland (other than quaint National Geographic depictions) until I went there.
(apologies to Skilly in advance)
It is a rock. The most difficult soil to farm. The climate is terrible and warm summer days are few and far between. It is remote, in the cold Northern Atlantic, surrounded by icebergs and close only to Greenland and Labrador.
They are blessed with declining fishing stocks and baby seals that they can't kill or sell that eat the few remaining fish not stolen by Portugese fishing boats.
They have snow and hydro electric power, but to get to customers they have to go through Quebec, a difficult negotiation in any language.
They have oil under the seas, freezing water with huge menacing icebergs that make drilling prohibitatively expensive and dangerous.
The people are wonderful and upbeat, self reliant and courageous. This is a result of survival in the harsh environment.
It has Gander, a stopover for propeller driven airplanes headed to Europe made redundant by todays jets.
St. John is a bustling expensive cosmopolitian city filled with Russian, Portugese and other visitors.
Newfies are getting a bad deal. It's the fault of a long dead negotiator who signed a long term agreement sitting in a weak negotiating position. The deal was made a long time ago and will run for a long time into the future. It's not fair to most of the current population born long after the ink dried.
Newfies are industrious and hard working, willing to commute to Toronto for employment of any kind. (Working in Toronto is a terrible thing I wouldn't wish on anybody)
Quebec is not legally obligated to reopen negotiations, but it is in both Quebec's interest and newfoundlands interest to increase Hydro production and carrying capacity in a fair and equitable manner for a hungry US market willing to pay top dollar for energy. Don't be like Bettenow and Goodman. Come up with a deal equitable and profitable to both parties.