|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 31, 2007 10:59:48 GMT -5
No it is not all moot ... the oil is still there, and will stay there until we get a fair royalty benefit. That's the problem, no one wants to give Newfoundland royalties, just jobs. Poor NewFoundland, nobody wants to give it anything.....  Poor NewFoundland, ROC is conspiring agianst it....... Poor Newfoundland always getting the shaft.... Why do you expect that oil companies should put billions and billions of dollars of risk and just hand you the profits? If they are "shafting" Newfoundland, why don't you just build your own oil platforms and push them out there to collect all that oil? If it's so easy and so cheap, why don't you do it yourselves? As for manufacturing JOBS....it ain't going to happen. EVER. I went through the exercise 5 years ago. I looked at all the governments incentives, I looked at every angle possible and it was not going to work. It's an island whose inhabitants are demanding EQUAL pay to Ontariop and Quebec and yet are thousands of miles away from major markets. Do you have any idea what it costs to get product to Ontario/Quebec? Transportation costs were ridicilous and are far WORSE NOW. Before you take me to task, find out what a trucking costs are to Toronto or New York versus getting a 66,000 pound container from ASIA. Do you know what it costs to get a truck from Quebec into Ontario? $700 for 85,000 pounds of product. Now, if you have a truck that has $50,000 of product of which $5,000 is labour, why would ANY businessman in his right mind want to go and spend an additional $4,000 to move his product into market? Last but not least.... There are no human rights charters anywhere on this planet that guarantees people to have good paying jobs where they want them. My parent and I emigrated from Greece to come to Quebec for a BETTER living. I emigrated from Quebec to Ontario for a BETTER living. If the economy sucks where you live, you pick up and go where there is a better living. We move to where the food is. We did it as apes, we did it as hominids, we did it as Neanderthals, we did it as Europeans and we are doing it TODAY. That's life. That's the way the ball bounces. Honestly, all this "our fair share OR ELSE" victim mentality is getting old...really old. Even Quebec is giving up on it. Then let us seperate .... case closed. We won't such the poor burden to you, dragging you down, taking all your money from you .. (look I can use emoticons too!) EDIT: So you are basically saying .. move and shut your traps, you don't need refineries there because it will take away from elsewhere. nice. With the hydro, the ore, the oil, the forestry, ... the jobs are here ... people move because those jobs are going to mainland companies because the ore, the oil, the trees, the water is all getting shipped out instead of processed here and people here getting first benefit. If we aren't allowed to benefit from our own resources, then we will cow-tow to Massa-Canada and throw us a few scraps would you (read:ROC), when you (again read:ROC) feel so inclined. Don't rush though, we wouldn't want to put anyone out. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 31, 2007 11:08:50 GMT -5
Then let us seperate .... case closed. We won't such the poor burden to you, dragging you down, taking all your money from you .. (look I can use emoticons too!) I can see Quebecs demands based on trying to keep their cultural identity but to me, NewFoundland is about "fair share" which really means "a better deal" which really means, gives us MORE MONEY. I'm a Federalist but honestly, I'm tired of the endless demands. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 31, 2007 11:12:21 GMT -5
Then let us seperate .... case closed. We won't such the poor burden to you, dragging you down, taking all your money from you .. (look I can use emoticons too!) I can see Quebecs demands based on trying to keep their cultural identity but to me, NewFoundland is about "fair share" which really means "a better deal" which really means, gives us MORE MONEY. I'm a Federalist but honestly, I'm tired of the endless demands. And we are tired of the endless raping and pillaging of our resources and getting nothing from it, unless you call "the shaft" something. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 31, 2007 11:54:09 GMT -5
I don't know, Skilly . . . was Newfoundland/were Newfoundlanders that much better off when they were [somewhat] on their own. Seems from my limited reading that Britain was looking for an excuse to have Newfoundland separate/go your own way . . . and that having Newfoundland as part of Canada wasn't on everyone in the ROCs mind in the beginning.
I can sympathize with you because of Smallwood's lack of I want to say "brains" or "smarts but instead I'll say acumen (though I’m sure he thought he was being shrewd) and Churchill Falls, but I think that Mr. Williams is just playing the “woe is us” card to score political points. Heard a commentator yesterday (the benefit of living in Ottawa – you never run out of commentary) say that (as my rather limited memory replays it) Newfoundland can accept the Accord as it is and that the changes “suggested” in the budget can be accepted or rejected in [whatever timeframe it was], and that discussions can be ongoing. Conclusion: Williams is letting a good thing fly past him (and this wasn’t even a Conservative spokesperson!). If indeed the Accord can be reopened or the “new” deal rejected by Newfoundland what’s the hold-up . . . other than the fact that Williams has played hardball and that the gas companies have walked away from the table. So even if the Conservative government now told Newfoundland that they/[you]* could have everything that they/[you] want nothing will happen because Williams took his ball and ran home when he didn’t get his way and the gas companies are not going to come begging to play again.
*that's the "royal" you
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 31, 2007 12:19:23 GMT -5
Rather than quote block by block, let me do it the lazy man’s way:
Section (a) clearly identifies the railway as being one of the services to be managed by the federal government after Confederation. As many in the province will remember, when it was decided by Ottawa that the running of this railway was no longer feasible, the government of the day was obligated to make reparations to the province for its retirement. In exchange for provincial agreement to dismantle rail services the federal government instituted the "Roads for Rails" program. This saw money flow from Ottawa to improve the provinces road network in preparation for the loss of the railway. An acceptable alternative to something that was no longer feasible; the same alternative that was given other parts of the country.
Section (b) The Newfoundland hotel. This hotel was privatized years ago. As were other federal enterprises of the ilk (Chateau Laurier, for example).
Section (c) Postal and Publicly owned telecommunications services. Currently most postal outlets are privately run in the province and in recent years, when some of these have shut down, the federal government has not stepped in to replace them and the provinces telecommunications systems are now privately run. As in TROC. I buy my stamps from Shoppers around the corner, licensed by Canada Post. New subdivisions in Ottawa do not have door-to-door delivery.
Section (d) Civil aviation, including Gander Airport. Civil aviation in the province is a private enterprise. Gander airport itself was sold by the federal government. Canada’s airports are going private. Period.
Section (f) defense. The level of defense, as addressed previously, is a clear issue in the province and one that could have a detrimental effect on the entire nation and the continent as a whole. It is clear that we are a nation who’s front door is wide open to anyone who would like to use it. As in TROC
Section (g) protection and encouragement of fisheries and operation of bait services. This particular section is a sore point for many separatists and anyone else in the province who feels they have been wronged by Ottawa. Beyond the scope of my understanding. You were over-fished. Did the feds allow it? Did they protect it? Would Newfoundlandfisherpersons have stopped fishing to allow restocking, as this was their “way of life”?
Section (i) lighthouses, fog alarms, buoys, beacons, and other public works and services in aid of navigation and shipping. This section clearly identifies, "works and services in aid of navigation and shipping", yet lighthouses have been closed as in TROC and marine weather services have been moved out of the province to other locales. Every year the number of federal employees in the province becomes less and less. I’d like the number o federal employees to continue to become less and less – especially in Ottawa. Too much waste. But if there is a need that’s another matter.
___
We in TROC also feel the pain of broken promises and reduced support. I imagine that if Mr. Williams came up with an economic plan that the federal government of the day would throw money at it (cucumbers? sheesh!) to try to buy votes encourage the economy in Newfoundland. The oil project will soon be reopened for discussion . . . but I suggest that if Mr. Williams were a little more conciliatory and a little less confrontational it would go a long way.
[an aside: when Ms. May was elected as leader of the Green Party she said that she wanted to work with all of the parties in order to come up with decent ecological plan for Canada. She was interviewed on CBC morning radio and was told that Mr. Baird would be interviewed later in the day, and was asked what she thought of him. She said that she’d only met him once briefly and in the minute or two she was with him discovered him to be a pompous self-righteous idiot. I thought “good way to get him on your side and to get him to listen to your ideas”.]
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 31, 2007 13:38:28 GMT -5
Then let us seperate .... case closed. We won't such the poor burden to you, dragging you down, taking all your money from you .. (look I can use emoticons too!) I can see Quebecs demands based on trying to keep their cultural identity but to me, NewFoundland is about "fair share" which really means "a better deal" which really means, gives us MORE MONEY. If, as you suggested, everyone leaves Newfoundland for somewhere with a better economy, what do you think will happen to their cultural identity? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 31, 2007 15:17:52 GMT -5
I don't know, Skilly . . . was Newfoundland/were Newfoundlanders that much better off when they were [somewhat] on their own. Seems from my limited reading that Britain was looking for an excuse to have Newfoundland separate/go your own way . . . and that having Newfoundland as part of Canada wasn't on everyone in the ROCs mind in the beginning. OK .... before I go into the history lesson, I would like to say .. I'd rather be a poor (third world?) country on our own (even though I know we'd never be that bad off) than paupers at the hand of the federal government always looking like we are out for hand-outs (when in fact we are given the hand-outs to keep us quiet so our resources can be stripped) In Charlottetown in 1867, Newfoundland was at the table. We were their as observers, and wanted to be apart of something special and to learn for our own well being (knowing we would not be a colony forever). The next group to join the Dominion, well we were their too .... this time asking to join. We were rejected. It is one of the main reason why so many (50%) of the population did not want to join Canada in 1948. The only reason we are in Canada, is through fraud. But we joined. Canada wanted us in 1949 only because of one thing ... our resources, and the biggy was Churchill Falls. In 1915, the technique that is used at Churchill Falls (dykes, channels, to form one big reservoir) was developed ...prior to that we had nothing , hence we were rejected. But once Canada saw our resources, and their potential, we were wanted. What is different from what you, quite rightly, pointed out and Newfoundland ... is thatthese were legal terms of Union for us. Not the rest of Canada. If I have a contract that says I get something, that doesn't mean the person next to me gets it too. Look at hockey players. They are paid to do the same thing for the most part but they have different conditions in their contracts. (some have NTC, some bonuses, some get paid more) I appreciate the sympathy. But Newfoundlanders are past the Churchill deal ... we know we got screwed, we also know that our descendants will have a better life post 2041. Here is the deal with the budget. Newfoundland was given three options. 1) we can sign on to the new equalization formula. That means giving up the Accord. And it is the way our premier is leaning because it contains a little more money than what is in the Accord. (over the eight year span). We were told we could sign on to the new formula at any point, doesn't have to be right away, but once we do we can not opt out ever again. And this will include a 10-province standard, with a cap on resource revenues. 2) We can take the Accord as is, with no cap, but when the deal runs out (the Liberal deal was to end somewhere between 2012 and 2020 depending on the price of oil and other factors) we will go back to the pre-Accord arrangement where the federal government gets all the revenue from the offshore. The concept for us is pretty simple: provinces should be allowed to use their own non-renewable resources to provide for their citizens and have that sheltered from equalization, since it is a one shot deal. It is a concept that the PM supported, advocated, and campaigned on. He is now saying that he promised us that "no province would not be adversely affected under the new equalization". One can not argue that they didn't keep this commitment .... but that was not the commitment made to us. The commitment made to Newfoundland was that non-renewable resources would be exempted from the equation. In the rest of the country Harper was losing political points because of this commitment - just look at all mainland media that says we are trying to "have the best of both worlds". So Harper decided to keep another promise. The arguement from Newfoundland's perspective was never about keeping gains from the Atlantic Accord (which is what Harper is trying to make it .... "they are not losing one cent from the Accord"), the province's arguement is that we had a commitment to exempt non-renewable resources from equalization with no cap on the revenue. That is a broken promise most assuredly. 3) |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 31, 2007 15:20:29 GMT -5
I'm a Federalist but honestly, I'm tired of the endless demands. Everybody is a Federalist ..... until they get something taken away (whether it is an actual something or a perceived something). You are crying over "wasted tax dollars" ... and we are crying over "lost resources". A true federalist would want the entire country to flourish, and not care about what order they do it in. The concepts I am hearing on this thread are not federalist - they are centralist. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 31, 2007 15:35:53 GMT -5
Thanks for the history lesson -- this place is a great place to learn.
"A strong central government within the federation" -- isn't that Canada? From htere, it is all interpretation -- how strong is strong, how central is central, how much of a federation are we?
The Reform Party spoke of a stronger federation -- Manning even went so far as to say that we have 10 distinct socieites within Canada (and was mocked and reviled for it, even though it is true). Like a large family with 10 siblings (and 3 adopted siblings -- the territories -- and OK, hte analogy breaks down -- is the PM the dad or the family psychiatrist or what?) we don't always agree and we don't always get along, and often one is put out by the actions of others, but for the benefit of the family we must come to some agreement/compromise in every situation.
In this particular incident, it seems that one brother sees things one way and the ___ (dad, psycologist, adpting parent, whatever) sees things another, and rather than talk things out they've gone to the neighbours [I'm losing the analogy big time now!] other siblings with their beefs for support. And the siblings don't care -- they have problems and beefs of their own.
As we see it (that is, those of us who are not Newfoundlanders), Mr. Williams has shut the door to his bedroom and said "don't bother me unless you are going to do what I want" while Mr. Harper has said "you get out here right now!". A time out is necessary for both of them, then they can sheepishly get together, talk, and hammer things out -- probably just in time for a federal election followed by a provincial election. Mr. Harper will say "see, I was able to work things out with Mr. Williams", and Mr. Williams will say "see, I wa able to stand firm and get what Newfoundlanders want". Smiles all around until the next battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 31, 2007 17:01:14 GMT -5
I'm a Federalist but honestly, I'm tired of the endless demands. Everybody is a Federalist ..... until they get something taken away (whether it is an actual something or a perceived something). You are crying over "wasted tax dollars" ... and we are crying over "lost resources". A true federalist would want the entire country to flourish, and not care about what order they do it in. The concepts I am hearing on this thread are not federalist - they are centralist. 1. In hindsight, you made a bad deal with Quebec. Nobody forced you to agree to it. 2. The waters was overfished by NewFoundlanders AND overseas boats. Please don't tell me about the quotas because I had this discussion over and over with several man that worked for me INCLUDING a couple of fishermans sons. TheCanadian government had nothing to do with it. What was and is clearly apparent is that there is a concerted effort to re-direct blame to the federal level. It works even better if one potrays himself as a "vicitm". 3. As for the oil, your provinical leader is a fool of immence proportions. First you let the oil companies develop the resource THEN you tax them to death. That is what any intellegent person does. Ask Russia. Ask England. Nobody stole anything from NewFoundland. As for the Federalist part..... I bought into the "one for all and all for one" and I bougth into it with willingly with enormous tax chunks of my hard earned dollars. These days, it's cristal clear that there is no vision of a greater Canada with our current crop of "leaders". It's an endless parade of Provinces and special interest groups whose only concern is "give me or else". And there is an endless parade of politicians who will feed on this.....or try to buy votes because of this. Which, in the end, it makes me an idiot to still believe in the fairy tale of "one for all and all for one". |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 31, 2007 17:06:57 GMT -5
I can see Quebecs demands based on trying to keep their cultural identity but to me, NewFoundland is about "fair share" which really means "a better deal" which really means, gives us MORE MONEY. If, as you suggested, everyone leaves Newfoundland for somewhere with a better economy, what do you think will happen to their cultural identity? Unless you are aboriginal, at some point, you or your family came to Canada for a better life. If you no longer make a living where you are, you will move to find a better life. Or do you expect the Federal/Provincial government (which is code word for tax payers) to give you a lifetime stipend to stay where you are? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 31, 2007 18:06:39 GMT -5
1. In hindsight, you made a bad deal with Quebec. Nobody forced you to agree to it. No we weren't forced into it. Just promised help at the table that wasn't given, and threatened that if we got our Constitutional right that the towers would be sabbotaged. Golly Geee ....  My wife works for DFO. Canada had nothing to do with it? Do you know what part of my wife's job is? She collects data and then formultes mathematical formulas to calculate quotas. The results of these formulas are sent up the line and either accepted or rejected by ....wait for it ... the Minister. A representative of the Government of Canada. Canada sold fish for interests elsewhere ... the fishermen were telling the government 30 yrs (thats right 30 years!!) before the moratorium that there was less fish in the sea than they were fishing ... .. it took the government 30 yrs to catch on that it was the foreign catch they weren't counting. And I can tell you this ... there is hardly a Newfoundlander out ther enow fishing, and Europe still is ... where is the government to stop them? No military stationed here, and most Coast Guard boats not fit for the sea. (wife goes out on them to get her data so I know the condition of them from her) How can you tax them when they won't develop the oil because they want tax relief? Once it is written into the contract, us taxing them would be breach of contract. Just our chance at dignity ... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 31, 2007 18:10:02 GMT -5
Then let us seperate .... case closed. We won't such the poor burden to you, dragging you down, taking all your money from you .. (look I can use emoticons too!) I can see Quebecs demands based on trying to keep their cultural identity but to me, NewFoundland is about "fair share" which really means "a better deal" which really means, gives us MORE MONEY. I'm a Federalist but honestly, I'm tired of the endless demands. How much of Quebec $919 million, and $3.2 billion in federal transfer payments (you know the reasons Duceppe said he voted for the budget) was because of their cultural identity? The whole fiscal imbalance debate is because the Canadian Government over taxes the provinces and is about more money. People complain about Newfoundland being a drain and when we have the chance to get out of it, and contribute to the country , they don't want it because ....  ... Newfoundland somehow doesn't deserve that right? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 19, 2007 18:00:16 GMT -5
So first the federal government comes out and says that the Accord is protected, (which this was never about) and that no provincial government woudll be adversely affected by the new equalization formula.
The mainland press jumped on the Newfoundland point of view as whiners and "wanting our cake an eat it too".
So an economist from Newfoundland analyzes the different scenarios, just to put a number on the bickering, and stays away from the "promise made, promise broken" debate. He just want numbers.
This respected economist's first report caught Newfoundland off-guard. Newfoundlanders were joining the mainland in thinking "what the hell is Danny bickering about". The original report showed that if non-renewable resources were excluded then Newfoundland would get 11 billion dollars between now and 2020. If Newfoundland signed on the new equalization formula then we would gain 5.6 billion above what the Accord would provide. So the province was leaning towards giving up the Accord.
Then Ottawa tabled the budget implementation act, which outlined how all the money in the passed budget would be handed out and there were huge differences as to whatthey told Newfoundland and this respected economist. There were triggers and caps abound, ones that the federal government kept from the public while the press was plowing into the Newfoundland government; and therby making Ottawa look like little angels.
Now this respected economist tables a report that says his original report is wrong. Totally wrong. He sent to the press, only because Ottawa attacked his reputation, correspondance between himself and the Department of Finance, correspondance that deliberatley misled the people of Newfoundland.
Now, instead of getting the 11 billion that Harper promised Newfoundland in his campaign promises, if Newfoundland signs onto the new equalization formula we will receive 1 billion LESS than the staus quo!!!
The Accord was always outside equalization under the Liberals, to in essence give Newfoundland a benefit, since Newfoundland was paying more to the federal governement in offset payments, since 1984, than it was receiving under the way equalization was implemented. (in layman's terms, we were taxed $1.10 for every $1.00 ... as an example)
The Conservatives in essence are telling Newfoundland they are not eligible for equalization with the Accord, and if they sign on to the new formula you will never get off equalization. Flaherty was actually quoted as saying that this new formula helps Newfoundland keep the Accord longer because it ensures we will be a have-not.
Nice. Like I said, this was never about the Accord. The Accord was a signed agreement that was suppose to be protected and outside the equalization debate. Ottawa lied, Harper lied, Flaherty lied .... Newfoundland suffers once again. The same old story rages on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 19, 2007 22:19:42 GMT -5
Williams calls for Flaherty to resignBy TARA BRAUTIGAM ST. JOHN'S, N.L. (CP) - Premier Danny Williams accused federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty of perpetrating a "fraud" on Newfoundland over equalization and demanded Wednesday that he resign immediately.
At a scathing news conference where he lashed out at Flaherty and three Newfoundland Conservatives MPs, Williams alleged the minister kept quiet for a week about misleading economic statements to deflate Newfoundland's push for more money under equalization.
"What the federal government did was deliberately mislead the people and left an incorrect scenario out in the public domain for over a week, which in fact buffers their position," Williams said.
"This is not about a broken promise anymore. This is about a federal Finance Department that is acting inappropriately."
The province's fight with Ottawa was rejuvenated last week when Memorial University economist Wade Locke found that an alternative equalization formula offered under the federal budget offers the province $1 billion less than if it sticks with the Atlantic Accord and old equalization formula until 2020.
A week earlier Locke said the budget could provide Newfoundland with $5.6 billion in additional revenues.
He later revised his figures after federal Finance officials told him there was new legislation in the budget that outlines a new criterion for Atlantic Accord eligibility, something he said he was not told when he did his original analysis.
"We have a situation in this country right now where the federal minister is saying one thing, his officials are saying another thing, and they are both misleading a province of this federation," Williams said.
"They've perpetrated basically a fraud on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. . . . I'm calling on the federal minister of finance to resign effective immediately."
Williams also attacked Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, saying the province was "unlucky" to have him as their federal representative in cabinet.
"Who cares about Minister Hearn?" he said. "He either knew and he was complicit and therefore he should step aside . . . or otherwise he didn't know. And if he didn't know, he was negligent as a minister."
Newfoundland's two other Conservative MPs, Fabian Manning and Norm Doyle, "should be ashamed of themselves" for supporting the federal budget, Williams continued.
Flaherty was unavailable for comment, but his spokesman said the premier's accusations were predictable.
"The allegations by the premier are completely ludicrous and I believe that it's just another attempt to grab a headline," said Dan Miles, Flaherty's director of communications.
"Under our approach, Newfoundland and Labrador will become a have province, but clearly the premier is not prepared to give up until he has a have-more province, although that is inherently unfair to the other provinces and territories."
Miles insisted that Finance officials gave Locke the correct methodology to calculate his numbers.
The department hasn't released its own calculations, but Miles said that's because such projections are virtually impossible to make.
"Let me ask you this question: Tell me what the price of oil is going to be next year?" he asked.
Locke based his calculations on a range of factors, including a two per cent inflation rate and a US$51 barrel of oil price. He called his numbers reasonable estimates.
Williams and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have been engaged in a fierce dispute since the budget was released a month ago.
Williams has accused Harper of breaking a campaign promise by introducing a new equalization formula that includes 50 per cent of non-renewable resource revenues, as well as a fiscal cap.
But Harper has denied breaking any promise because Newfoundland has the option of sticking to the principles of the Atlantic Accord, which protects the province from clawbacks in equalization until at least 2012. cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/04/18/4057337-cp.html
|
|
... Newfoundland somehow doesn't deserve that right?