|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 13, 2005 20:53:07 GMT -5
A few years? It expires in 2041! Please re-read. I meant that NFLD could have waited 5 years to sign a decent deal if what they were being offered was that bad. Huh ? How should that be a right ? Why should my income tax go to subsidize the fact that you want to stay somewhere that isn't economically viable ? Huh ? Odds are NFLD costs more per person than Quebec or Ontario, simply because with its low population you still have to pay a bundle for basic health infrastructures that cost the same for any tiny hick town as they do for Toronto... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 20, 2005 12:40:38 GMT -5
Please re-read. I meant that NFLD could have waited 5 years to sign a decent deal if what they were being offered was that bad. Huh ? How should that be a right ? Why should my income tax go to subsidize the fact that you want to stay somewhere that isn't economically viable ? Huh ? Odds are NFLD costs more per person than Quebec or Ontario, simply because with its low population you still have to pay a bundle for basic health infrastructures that cost the same for any tiny hick town as they do for Toronto... Economically viable. That would require a definition. By whose standards? Newfoundland is the most economically viable province in the country. That is a fact. The truth is that we are subsidizing the rest of the country. Iron Ore mined in Lab city - processed in Quebec. Electricity created in Churchill Falls - benefits to Quebec Nickel mined in Voisey's Bay - processed in Ontario and Manitoba Oil on our territorial rights - benefits to the ROC Air rights that the GOC refuse to let us benefit from even though it was in the terms of union with canada that we keep those rights Fish ROC eats - used to come from here until the gov't screwed it up Highest GDP for 2 years until 2004. The list goes on and on. And we do this DESPITE an aging population and a workforce that is in all likelihood the oldest in Canada (maybe worldwide). A recent job posting garnered 1500 applicants here in Newfoundland. Only 2 were under the age of 30. So our young population moves away and pay income tax in other provinces and subsidize/help their economy. Count the 1 billion dollars Quebec makes from Churchill Falls in the equalization formula or the billions Alberta makes off their oil and then talk to me about subsidizing and moving. Your tiny hick health care comment is irrelevant. Newfoundland has trimmed the health care boards down. We had 14, now we have 4. There is only 6 hospitals (that I can think of quickly while writing this), the rest are clinics that are quickly being shut down in favour of medivacs/other means to get patients into the larger centers. While it may have cost more per person (I don't know the numbers) it is also a function of our aging population. Older means more care needed usually. But the cost cutting measures implemented because of the ROC raping and pillaging the poor defenseless Newfs (here take this charitable donation and go shut up), will have changed those numbers. A reporter from Quebec was on the radio here the other day (his name escapes me) saying that Newfoundland should play ball with Quebec over the Lower Churchill because we need an ally with the Accord issue. Hello? It was the Bloc that "bloc-ed" Harper's motion. Some ally. We have never said we do not want to cooperate with Quebec with the Lower Churchill. In fact we do want to cooperate. And by cooperate we mean negotiate - give and take. We enter into a fair deal for the Lower Churchill with them, and they open the Upper Churchill to re-negotiation. Quebec is unwillingly. They want it all in a "Bettman-Goodenow"- esque sort of way. My guess is Newfoundland will have to show Quebec how to seperate. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 20, 2005 20:13:57 GMT -5
Iron Ore mined in Lab city - processed in Quebec. Nickel mined in Voisey's Bay - processed in Ontario and Manitoba That's NFLD's problem if they don't have the infrastructure to use their ressources. Not our fault. It's basic equalization - you benefited from all those rights just as much as I did, just as you benefited from some ressources in Quebec. That's a basic democratic problem - no one wanted to face the problem because they'd lose votes. Even now fishermen want to go out there and get fish even though more fishing will kill them off forever. It's the same everywhere - young people leave the countryside and go to big cities, your province just happens to lack big cities. Should we pay you 100 billion to build up a big city, and then another 100 billion to get people to move there ? Both situations are due to your bad choice of leaders who made bad decisions themselves... Exactly - there is still a large infrastructure in place (and there has to be) whereas there are more people for less overhead in most urban areas. If you elected decent leaders that might change. So Quebec should give up something it negotiated fairly just to be able to get a fair deal for the rest of the deal ? A contract is a contract is a contract. It's really too bad if NFLD doesn't want to discuss a reasonable deal on the Lower Churchill. Don't blame us for your problems, blame your provinces' childish behaviour.... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 21, 2005 10:54:58 GMT -5
That's NFLD's problem if they don't have the infrastructure to use their ressources. Not our fault. It's basic equalization - you benefited from all those rights just as much as I did, just as you benefited from some ressources in Quebec. That's a basic democratic problem - no one wanted to face the problem because they'd lose votes. Even now fishermen want to go out there and get fish even though more fishing will kill them off forever. It's the same everywhere - young people leave the countryside and go to big cities, your province just happens to lack big cities. Should we pay you 100 billion to build up a big city, and then another 100 billion to get people to move there ? Both situations are due to your bad choice of leaders who made bad decisions themselves... Exactly - there is still a large infrastructure in place (and there has to be) whereas there are more people for less overhead in most urban areas. If you elected decent leaders that might change. So Quebec should give up something it negotiated fairly just to be able to get a fair deal for the rest of the deal ? A contract is a contract is a contract. It's really too bad if NFLD doesn't want to discuss a reasonable deal on the Lower Churchill. Don't blame us for your problems, blame your provinces' childish behaviour.... Neglecting your atagonistic tones, (I myself have no problem with them, I am sure I do it as well sopmetimes) but explain to me how the Upper Churchill was negotiated fairly? It is a fact, that the Government of Canada was going to give Newfoundland a corridor through Quebec. They did the same thing for Alberta and they agreed to do the same thing for Newfoundland under the term "benefitting the greater good of Canada". When Quebec heard of the GOC intentions they played hardball and stated that there would be no electricity going over their land unless they owned it. Then they pulled the "separation card" out. The GOC was afraid of this threat and asked Newfoundland to help them keep the country together. Pearson agreed to give Newfoundland the corridor if they insisted. Newfoundland was only in Confederation for 20 years at the time, yet they were faced with the responsibility of keeping the country together or causing its break-up. We agreed to deal with Quebec, in the spirit of friendship and also because Newfoundlanders has identified with Quebec, their people and their problems more so than any other part of Canada. (whether you want to believe that or not). Trust me if it had been Ontario we had to deal with the country would be broke-up. Then once we agreed to deal with Quebec, there were no other parties that could get involved. Smallwood asked the federal government to monitor the negotiations to ensure a fair deal. They refused. The fact we had no other party to compete against Quebec, ensured that the contract was going to favour Quebec or the development would not go ahead. At that time in Newfoundland's history (because we took on some of the federal government's debt when we joined confederation, we had no debt in 1949), the project was seen as the future for Newfoundland and a must. I have no problem when you say Newfoundland acted poorly, I agree fully, but don't get condescending and say Quebec is blameless. They took advantage of the deal. Legally, I would say Newfoundland could win a case against canada and Quebec. We were basically coerced into a contract that was onerous. Then when you look at the fact the referendum to joined Confederation reeks with evidence of it being rigged by Canada (who wanted us for our fish, airspace, and strategic location), and Britain (who thought it too costly to have a presence anymore), we could make a case for not even being a part of Canada in the first place, (which would make the contract null and void since we only agreed to term of the contract as apart of the term of union.) |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 22, 2005 2:01:07 GMT -5
Solomon like wisdom. (or maybe Moses)
Allow Quebec to separate......................(approximately 100 feet)
Create a corridor and allow Newfoundland to walk through to the US on dry land erecting transmission towers as they pass.
Newfoundland negotiates payment for the right of way, and Ottawa intervenes to protect the Newfies from themselves and doesn't allow them to make a long deal or a bad deal. Ottawa helping somebody, there's a concept.
I get the feeling that neither PTH or Skilly disagree on what happened, neither can agree on what should happen, and negotiations are getting as far as Linden did.
It's a shame because both sides are losing.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 22, 2005 13:42:25 GMT -5
but explain to me how the Upper Churchill was negotiated fairly? Well, if NFLD signed the deal, it's because they thought it was fair, right ? If it wasn't, why did they sign it ? EVen if NFLD screwed up on this one, Quebec shouldn't have to sacrifice its gains. Otherwise we could re-open just about every deal that's ever been made. You know, Quebec always felt it got screwed over when the Labrador border was finalised, maybe we should complain and get some of that land back ? When a deal is made, good or bad, you make do. In 1969 separation was a wild dream, until 1976 there was no likelihood of its ever occuring. Well, then if NFLD was willing to sign a bad deal rather than no deal, I still don't see why later on they could change their minds. If I sign a fixed-rate mortage, I can't exactly go back later on when rates have dropped and complain... If it was that bad a deal, you just don't sign it. Where's the coercion ? Well, I think you're overestimating the value of NFLD, I think Canada was fine with getting bigger, but wasn't THAT badly after more ressources. That Britain wanted out is simple enough to understand, they were in a bad situation and wanted to limit their commitments. As to the referendum, I always figure that it's the best garantee around that for QC to be able to leave, it just needs a simple majority - why would it be easier to join than to leave, after all ? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 22, 2005 14:05:23 GMT -5
Didn't Newfoundland get Labrador as part of the Confederation deal?
The ink is dry on the old deal. It's a done deal, as bad as it is. Now it's time to negotiate a new deal for new power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 24, 2005 13:56:19 GMT -5
Didn't Newfoundland get Labrador as part of the Confederation deal? The ink is dry on the old deal. It's a done deal, as bad as it is. Now it's time to negotiate a new deal for new power. No. Well let me qualify that, not on paper. What happens behind close doors we will never know. Newfoundland and Quebec went to the Supreme court to settle the boundary dispute. The supreme court decided who owned what land. The craziest thing about the Labroador-Quebec boundary situation is (from my own personal experience, nothing based in fact) that most people I talked to on the Quebec north shore what to be apart of Newfoundland and most people in Labrador think they would be better off as apart of Quebec. I actually posed the question to a group of my friends the other day while having a few beers; "What if Newfoundland and Labrador" joined Quebec?" They'd certainly take Labrador, but what if the whole province joined. Let's leave the language issue out of the equation (although that would be a biggy). The hydro issue would be mute, and Quebec and Newfoundland are regarded basically in the same light by many. Join forces. I know the logistics would be insurmountable; what is the difference between being treated as a third world province by Ottawa or Quebec City? But it made for interesting talk. Back to the issue at hand. Canada wanted Newfoundland for one major reason. They did not want an Alaska on the east coast. In 1940's, the support for joining the USA was gaining momemtum. But the option was not given to the voters, mainly because their was 2 other anti-confederate options (responsible government, and commission government)and they stole votes from one another. In 1948, it took 2 ballots for us to join Canada. On the first ballot Responsible government was first, Confederation second, and Comission government last. They dropped Comission of Government and had a second referendum. I often wonder what if the US option was given to the voters. In 1949 Newfoundland had more trade with New York and the eastern US states than Canada, and we had a much stronger relationship with them than Canada. What PTH fails to see is that Canada made Newfoundland poor. Newfoundland was richer than Canada when we joined Confederation. We became so poor that it was better to have a bad deal, than no deal. The province could not wait, it needed the revenue. Quebec knew this and that is why they did what they did. Now, that being said PTH is also right in that a deal is a deal. But deal's are open for renegotiation all the time (even mortgages as he alludes too). All Newfoundland has said to Quebec is that any deal on the Lower Churchill will not be viewed separately from the Upper Churchill. As for Quebec leaving Confederation. Well, I don't want to see it, but every lawyer and their dog has a view as to what the ramifications are with regards to the Churchill Hydro project if they do seperate. It was a deal that was made to keep the country together, with the country divided, then what effect does it have? I am not a lawyer and don't know, but alot of people have varying degrees of opinion on it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 24, 2005 15:55:44 GMT -5
Jan 31's MacLean's (p. 24ff) is an interesting commentary . . . not on-line yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 24, 2005 19:28:05 GMT -5
No. Well let me qualify that, not on paper. What happens behind close doors we will never know. I see that it's your opinion, but I don't see how it's a proven, objective fact. Anyways, Quebec could make a similar point - at first it was the biggest part of the country and Montreal was the industrial center, yet over the years we've subsidized the colonising of the rest of the country, especially out west. But why cry over spilled milk ? What's sad here is that NFLD is screwing itself over, again. The first time was by signing a bad deal, and now it's by refusing to sign a reasonable deal now, out of childishness. Given that it's not exactly written into the contract that it's for Canadian unity, I don't see how unity or lack thereof would have any effect on the contract. If Quebec separates and the ROC isn't willing to respect it's contractual commitments, then we just won't take our share of the national debt, and we'll be better off that way. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 25, 2005 10:58:59 GMT -5
Given that it's not exactly written into the contract that it's for Canadian unity, I don't see how unity or lack thereof would have any effect on the contract. If Quebec separates and the ROC isn't willing to respect it's contractual commitments, then we just won't take our share of the national debt, and we'll be better off that way. Well the legalese I have heard has nothing to do with unity. And more to do with Canada neglecting its duties to protect canadian citizens, and another centers on the fact that the Canadian gov't has admitted in land claims that the gov't of Newfoundland did not own the land - so we were not in a legal right to build anything on the land or sell any of the resources. All fodder I know. Something else you fail to understand is that this deal is Newfoundland's last chance. Without it 300,000 people are doomed to poverty, and our culture will be eliminated. Our culture is in our outports, taking them away from Newfoundland is like telling Quebecers they are no longer allowed to speak french. The reason Clyde Wells objected to the Meech Lake accord is because he recognized this and he agreed that Quebec is a distinct society, but so is Newfoundland. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 25, 2005 14:44:52 GMT -5
As to the referendum, I always figure that it's the best garantee around that for QC to be able to leave, it just needs a simple majority - why would it be easier to join than to leave, after all ? It is easier to join than to leave.  Nfld wants to leave the old agreement to sell power to Quebec at a fixed low rate. It's harder to break the agreement than to sign it.  Quebec joined Canada. It's harder to get out of the commitment that was made than to get into it.  It was easy to get married, but it's a lot harder to get out with your shirt. A commitment has to be honored.  Nfld made a bad deal. They can't get out. Now they want to expand the scope of the deal under new terms. They have to honor the original commitment while negotiating an expansion. Quebec has to determine of no deal is better than a new or expanded deal. Labrador is between the Rock and a hard place.  I don't think Quebec should be allowed to leave no matter what % of Quebec votes for separation. Unless the ROC votes and agrees to let Quebec walk, the only way for Quebecers to leave would be to return to France or St. Pierre Miquelon or wherever they individually want to go. They could try to negotiate for Anticosti Island and set up shop there in whatever language they want.  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 28, 2005 22:38:59 GMT -5
this deal is Newfoundland's last chance. Without it 300,000 people are doomed to poverty, and our culture will be eliminated. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia taking home pledge of cash SANDRA CORDON OTTAWA (CP) - Months of acrimony ended Friday after a late-night deal to share offshore resource revenues was finally hammered out between Prime Minister Paul Martin and the premiers of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
Under the deal, Nova Scotia can count on at least $830 million over eight years while Newfoundland and Labrador will receive at least $2 billion over the same period.
the deal can be extended another eight years.
That's a more lucrative pact that other provinces have with Ottawa. yahoo.ca linkI don't want to hear any more belly-aching! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 21, 2005 11:26:16 GMT -5
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia taking home pledge of cash I don't want to hear any more belly-aching! Actually, that was the easy part. Now the real belly-aching starts. Every province is going to complain that Newfoundland should not be allowed to escape poverty. If they all want what we got so bad, then I say they should be forced to live 50 years like we have first ....... it ain't pretty, it is emabarassing, and all we asked for is a chance to use our own resources to have a chance to get out of it. Lorne Calvert has a strong point to get a similar deal for Saskatchewan. But McGuinty should be sent to the loony bin. Newfoundlanders have argued for the past decade that non-renewable resources should not be in the equalization formula (although the mainland is now giving credit for that idea to calvert ... oh well), and now there is talks Quebec wants the same deal for their electricity (a renewable resource!) in which they "steal" 30% of it from us. The country's gone mad! |
|
