Truthiness
Ryan Cleary, in full separatist flight this week, writes:
The truth is we don’t have much to show for 58 years of Confederation.No, Ryan.
That is not "the truth."
posted by WJM @ 11:20 AM
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
That is not "the truth."
15 Comments:
What is the "truth"? Do we have lot to show for 58 years in Confederation? What would that be?
Do we have lot to show for 58 years in Confederation? What would that be?
A larger and much more prosperous population, with a more diversified economy, readier access to opportunities in a broader common market, and access to a better and wider variety of public services and infrastructure than we did in 1949.
Let me ask the reciprocal question: What do we lack, after AND BECAUSE OF 58 years in Confederation, that any other province lacks?
A larger and much more prosperous population
That's now rapidly declining due in large part to Canadian government mismanagement of the fisheries.
readier access to opportunitiesin a broader common market
We may have had this on our own if efforts such as Robert Bond's free trade treaty with the US wasn't shot down by Canada.
Canada is a rotten country that has shown in its behaviour contempt and disregard for Newfoundland and Labrador and its efforts, past and current, to better itself.
access to a better and wider variety of public services and infrastructure than we did in 1949.
We couldn't have had the same thing on our own? Most countries only initiated welfare state policies post-war and you'd be naive to think farmers in Alberta or fishermen in the Maritimes were laughing to to the bank in terms of standard of living before the war. Your statement here isn't a little foolish considering everywhere in the western world currently has "better and wider variety of public services and infrastructure than...in 1949".
Iceland is better off for standard of living and gdp per capita than Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador with more resources and people and territory IF we hadn't been burdened with membership in the British Empire and rotten Canadian influence could have done the same. In the end we can only blame ourselves for feeling attached to the idea of "British Union".
What do we lack, after AND BECAUSE OF 58 years in Confederation, that any other province lacks?
We lack a major food production industry WHICH we did have. Ottawa's mismanagement of the fisheries is quivalent to salting Saskatchewan's fields.
Simply put our fishery was destroyed BECAUSE OF 58 years of Confederation and arrogant Canadian mismanagement of the resources that were/are so important to us.
That's now rapidly declining due in large part to Canadian government mismanagement of the fisheries.
Canadian government mismanagement that, in many respects, responded to the political demands of Newfoundlanders themselves.
We may have had this on our own if efforts such as Robert Bond's free trade treaty with the US wasn't shot down by Canada.
That happened 100 years ago. What does it have to do with Confederation?
Canada is a rotten country that has shown in its behaviour contempt and disregard for Newfoundland and Labrador and its efforts, past and current, to better itself.
Some current examples would be?
We couldn't have had the same thing on our own?
Not judging by how much more money has come into the province in transfer payments, transfers to individuals, and federal government services and procurement, than has left in federal revenues, no, it would seem we couldn't have.
Your statement here isn't a little foolish considering everywhere in the western world currently has "better and wider variety of public services and infrastructure than...in 1949".
And your assertion that we would have had them anyway... no foolishness there? None at all?
Iceland is better off for standard of living and gdp per capita than Canada.
And?
Newfoundland and Labrador with more resources and people and territory IF we hadn't been burdened with membership in the British Empire
What was the "burden" of the British Empire?
and rotten Canadian influence
What is "rotten" about Canadian influence?
We lack a major food production industry WHICH we did have.
We also lack the favourable climate and soil conditions that other provinces have, but even with what we do have, guess what? Production in many categories, and cash receipts have been increasing in the past two decades.
The three biggest drags on agricultural production are (A) the urbanization around St. John's, stimulated by the growth in the public sector thanks to federal transfer payments, which has eaten up a great deal of pre-Confederation farm land; (B) the heavily-subsidized Gulf ferry service makes it more advantageous to the consumer, in many cases, to buy foodstuffs imported to the province rather than locally grown; and (C) the protectionism of existing producers in Newfoundland, who have inhibited the growth of agriculture in one area of the province that does have climate and soil conditions that could support agriculture, central Labrador.
Ottawa's mismanagement of the fisheries is quivalent to salting Saskatchewan's fields.
Only if the farmers had made unreasonable political demands on Ottawa that the federal government come in and salt the fields.
Simply put our fishery was destroyed BECAUSE OF 58 years of Confederation and arrogant Canadian mismanagement of the resources that were/are so important to us.
How would Newfoundland have managed them differently?
Come to think of it, how DID Newfoundland manage the fisheries before Confederation, or other renewable resources before or after?
Canadian government mismanagement that, in many respects, responded to the political demands of Newfoundlanders themselves.
Or Ontario and Quebec's need not to disturb the rapport they had built up with international trade partners.
That happened 100 years ago. What does it have to do with Confederation?
It has to do with Canada's attitudes, past and present, towards NL initiative.
Some current examples would be?
Oh I dunno. Maybe the current Canadian government's refusal to consider fallow-field legislation for offshore oil. "We don't interfere with the market" is essentially what Harper said at te time. This mind you from the same government that goes to bat with Canadian retailers lower their prices when the dollar is strong - it's ok to influence the market now it seems - especially for residents of Ontario and Quebec who have the option of driving to the border.
Not judging by how much more money has come into the province in transfer payments, transfers to individuals, and federal government services and procurement, than has left in federal revenues, no, it would seem we couldn't have.
Well if we hadn't bought into Smallwood's assertion that we weren't much better than an apendage - that we couldn't exist in our own right - perhaps things wouldn't have developed the way they did. Perhaps we wouldn't have become so dependent.
Iceland's example tells us that if a people are willing there's a way.
And your assertion that we would have had them anyway... no foolishness there? None at all?
I didn't "assert" anything WJM. Read the passage again.
I do believe that on its own - I mean outside of Empire to boot - Newfoundland and Labrador could have managed its own affairs sufficiently well to build roads, and whatever else, on our own.
You assertion, by implication, that people in this province can't do anything for or by themselves is an insult. Only by handouts you say.
And?
Iceland stands as an example of how we could develop, and could have have developed, our country to the maximum benefit of its residents.
We also lack the favourable climate and soil conditions that other provinces have, but even with what we do have, guess what? Production in many categories, and cash receipts have been increasing in the past two decades.
The three biggest drags on agricultural production are (A) the urbanization around St. John's, stimulated by the growth in the public sector thanks to federal transfer payments, which has eaten up a great deal of pre-Confederation farm land; (B) the heavily-subsidized Gulf ferry service makes it more advantageous to the consumer, in many cases, to buy foodstuffs imported to the province rather than locally grown; and (C) the protectionism of existing producers in Newfoundland, who have inhibited the growth of agriculture in one area of the province that does have climate and soil conditions that could support agriculture, central Labrador.
Nice Wikipedia entry WJM. You're good at that. In the meantime you didn't read "food production". You see food production doesn't mean agriculture - agriculture is a part of food production but food production means more than simply agriculture. I was talking of the fisheries. That's food production too.
If you want to talk about agriculture that's fine but it will never replace what was the fishery.
Only if the farmers had made unreasonable political demands on Ottawa that the federal government come in and salt the fields.
How did Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen demand the destruction of the fishery?
How would Newfoundland have managed them differently?
Come to think of it, how DID Newfoundland manage the fisheries before Confederation, or other renewable resources before or after?
Good question. We'll never really know will we?
As for NL's management of the fisheries before Confederation? It was terrible.
The difference was that it wasn't disastrous - only Canada can make a claim to have destroyed Newfoundland's fisheries.
Or Ontario and Quebec's need not to disturb the rapport they had built up with international trade partners.
Which "trade partners"?
I keep hearing this stuff about how fisheries was used for trade purposes. No one can tell me: when? with which countries? for what trade considerations?
Do you know? Or are you just repeating the urban (rural?) legend?
It has to do with Canada's attitudes, past and present, towards NL initiative.
It also shows how venerable the Newfoundland nationalist "blame someone, ANYONE, especially Canada" attitude is.
Oh I dunno. Maybe the current Canadian government's refusal to consider fallow-field legislation for offshore oil.
That says something about the current government.
What does it say about Canada?
And why do we want or need fallow-field legislation?
Perhaps we wouldn't have become so dependent.
Perhaps not.
But we also wouldn't have become so prosperous, either.
Iceland's example tells us that if a people are willing there's a way.
It also tells you that outmigration will be a fact of life, too.
I didn't "assert" anything WJM. Read the passage again.
Yes, you did:
Newfoundland and Labrador with more resources and people and territory IF we hadn't been burdened with membership in the British Empire and rotten Canadian influence could have done the same.
You assertion, by implication, that people in this province can't do anything for or by themselves is an insult.
I never asserted or implied that people in this province can't do anything for or by themselves.
However, there is a definite limit to what the province would have been able to do without the very real, and very large, net influx of public money that Confederation has resulted in.
Only by handouts you say.
"Handouts" is your word.
Iceland stands as an example of how we could develop, and could have have developed, our country to the maximum benefit of its residents.
What's stopping us from emulating Iceland now?
What is desirable about what Iceland has done?
You see food production doesn't mean agriculture - agriculture is a part of food production but food production means more than simply agriculture. I was talking of the fisheries. That's food production too.
And the fact that not as much food, in the form of fish, is being produced now, is in large degree a product of the political, economic, and biological demands that Newfoundlanders themselves placed on the resources.
How did Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen demand the destruction of the fishery?
By demanding bigger quotas and resisting efforts to reduce them, easier qualification for income support, and by engaging in high-grading and other destructive fisheries practices.
Good question. We'll never really know will we?
How can we never really know how Newfoundland managed renewable natural resources, which were under its jurisdiction before 1949, as they still are, such as forestry, wildlife, and hydro-electricity?
As for NL's management of the fisheries before Confederation? It was terrible.
The difference was that it wasn't disastrous - only Canada can make a claim to have destroyed Newfoundland's fisheries.
Oh? Then why did the Labrador fishery start its decline in the years just after World War One?
Stephen - There is nothing preventing you and your buddies from initiating a campaign or a referendum to take Newfoundland out of Canada if you feel that strongly. Personally, I think you're nuts. But if you really believe in Ryan's tripe, you should do something about it.
We have lots to show for 58 years. Justice, money, health care, education, literacy, and countless amounts of infrastructure and institutions that would never have been possible if not for Confederation.
Of course, some will always believe that the serfdom of Water Street merchants and dependence on foreign nations for basic necessities is somehow something we should all desire to return to. Not me.
But if that's what the majority believes, then why not put it to a test?
But if that's what the majority believes, then why not put it to a test?
And Mark, who knows? Maybe they'll get more than 31 votes this time, too.
Which "trade partners"?
I keep hearing this stuff about how fisheries was used for trade purposes. No one can tell me: when? with which countries? for what trade considerations?
Do you know? Or are you just repeating the urban (rural?) legend?
I never said there was an official exchange or trade agreement between countries. Believe it or not WJM not all that transpires or is agreed upon is decided formally.
You seem hooked on the idea that such understandings can only happen explicitly and that's why you're so confused about the idea. It seems perfectly plausible to me that Canada and its trading partners would have a TACIT agreement to neglect fisheries management and enforcement. That's why I use words like rapport to indicate the health of trade relationships based on mutual understandings - not based on some document that's been hammered out over laborious negotiations.
Keep looking for, and demanding, documents WJM but really there's probably nothing there. What you will find is decades of Canadian indifference and lack of action on the fisheries.
It also shows how venerable the Newfoundland nationalist "blame someone, ANYONE, especially Canada" attitude is.
So you agree with me that such actions indicate Canada's disdain for NL's attempts to better itself?
That says something about the current government.
What does it say about Canada?
And why do we want or need fallow-field legislation?
Well the current government is not that different from any other party that is power hungry and simply wants to control the government. Same goes for the Liberals - satisfy the majority of the country (Quebec, Ontario and maybe BC/Alberta) and damn the less populous provinces. The Conservatives are the same ilk as the Federal Liberals - self-propagating power blocks that function that will lie and manipulate to maintain power for their own interests. They're composed of career politicians
who serve their parties before their constituents.
More importantly, it speaks to the decrepit structure of this Federation which makes some provinces more equal than others.
Why do we need fallow-field legislation? So oil companies don't act as speculators and sit on public resources simply because it conveniences them. Alberta has and you've often cited Alberta as a wonderful bastion of reason and good business sense.
Perhaps not.
But we also wouldn't have become so prosperous, either.
Prosperous? A rapidly declining population and a world-class resource left in ruins. Not to mention health and education stats that are disastrous. Canada's wonderful.
Iceland ranks higher in standard of living and per capita GDP so how can you justify saying we wouldn't have become so prosperous either?
"We" doesn't mean anything either - there is no "we". Newfoundlanders and Labradorians aren't included in that prosperous "we" you claim they are a part of - to experience that prosperous "we" you speak of one has to cease to be a Newfoundlander or Labradorian and become an Ontarian or Albertan perhaps.
It also tells you that outmigration will be a fact of life, too.
How's that? I didn't know Iceland's population was declining. I have to wonder if it's because Iceland's fisheries were put under the management of a central government that really had no interest in the well-being of Iceland's fishing industry and was preoccupied with satisfying the wants and needs of greater populations in some other region? Out-migration has many cause but I doubt Iceland's population has declined by 13% in the past 15 years and I also doubt its because of a lack of jobs.
Yes, you did:
Newfoundland and Labrador with more resources and people and territory IF we hadn't been burdened with membership in the British Empire and rotten Canadian influence COULD have done the same.
Get your reading glasses checked WJM. The operative word here is COULD. I didn't assert anything.
I never asserted or implied that people in this province can't do anything for or by themselves.
However, there is a definite limit to what the province would have been able to do without the very real, and very large, net influx of public money that Confederation has resulted in.
There are so many countries in the world that are of a comparative size to Newfoundland and Labrador with more or less advantages of their own. I've cited Iceland as one example - Iceland was piss-poor when it broke from Denmark and it's doing great, better than Canada on a per capita basis. There are other worthy examples that tell us that any group of people with the will to develop their economy to highly prosperous levels can do so.
Federalists like yourself rely on the argument that people are helpless and will never attain any considerable success unless they subject themselves to some greater national or federal project. Joey Smallwood was of that mind - nothing more than a mid-size municipality was NL, he contended. With that kind of faith in this province and its people its no wonder that all that money the Federal government pumped in went to waste. The Confederate project was never built on the idea of Newfoundland and Labrador having its own merits and unique abilities and being able to sustain itself and more - the whole project was and is based on the idea that we "need" something else - a greater project to be a part of because we can't pay our own bills. This is nonsense and is pregnant with disdain for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
You speak of definite limits to what NL could have attained on its own? What are those limits? Does Iceland, Norway, Singapore, Ireland, Hong Kong, and all the other wealthy developed small countries in the world know about these limits?
"Handouts" is your word.
What were you speaking of then? Money that comes from the Federal government on what basis - an equal exchange of some sort? You're the one that paints the portrait of Newfoundland and Labrador being a basket case - you're the one implying that such payments are benevolent gifts from Canada.
What's stopping us from emulating Iceland now?
What is desirable about what Iceland has done?
The fact that we don't have control over two of our most important resources - oil and fish is a huge stumbling block to emulating Iceland's success. The Canadian Constitution binds us.
Iceland's example is desirable for numerous reasons - they have a diverse well developed economy and infrastructure. As a result there communities and culture are intact as much as they wish them to be without outside forces making decisions for them. I think these are pretty good reasons.
And the fact that not as much food, in the form of fish, is being produced now, is in large degree a product of the political, economic, and biological demands that Newfoundlanders themselves placed on the resources.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians definitely had a hand in the demise of the resource - there's no sense in denying that.
At the same time the Federal government has jurisdiction over the resource and is solely responsible for its well being or, as it happened, destruction. Since the Moratorium there's been nothing done to remedy such problems as bottom trawling and overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks - Canada voted against a ban on bottom trawling OUTSIDE the EEZ. This is not the behaviour of a government that cares.
By demanding bigger quotas and resisting efforts to reduce them, easier qualification for income support, and by engaging in high-grading and other destructive fisheries practices.
Well they weren't the only ones engaged in this. And nowadays they're probably the only ones not engaged in this - there's still lots of fishing going on just not in Canada's portion of the Grand Banks.
If the province had control over offshore resource I believe that more proximate control and responsibility over fisheries management would have averted this disaster or at least curtailed the damage done. It's a serious failure of Canada's Constitution that these resources are under Ottawa's jurisdiction.
Please don't mention Danny Williams . I'm disgusted that he hasn't pursued the issue when the Feds had already agreed to talk about it.
How can we never really know how Newfoundland managed renewable natural resources, which were under its jurisdiction before 1949, as they still are, such as forestry, wildlife, and hydro-electricity?
Hadn't caught the renewable resources. To start, let's speak of the real end of Newfoundland's self-governance - 1933. The Commission was in from that time.
Before '33 there were successes and failures in managing those resources. I don't know a great deal about "wildlife" nor hydro-electricity. Forestry and the paper mills had only really been on the go with the railway (a disaster in itself) and from what I know they were generally successful.
What I think is important is that NL neglected its most obvious resource - the sea - during this period. You see, we had fooled ourselves into thinking that was good for Canada was good for us. In fact building railroads made sense in Canada but in Newfoundland it didn't. If NL had made its own program and concentrated on standardizing and modernizing the fisheries we could have gained on that end and not been buried with railway debt on the other end.
Oh? Then why did the Labrador fishery start its decline in the years just after World War One?
It probably had something to do with the American and Canadian fishing fleets that were fishing there. At the time remember those would have been international waters. Newfoundland would only have had control over port access and the selling of bait (if it were needed). Realistically as trawlers were in operation at that time bait probably wouldn't have been a real concern.
Stephen - There is nothing preventing you and your buddies from initiating a campaign or a referendum to take Newfoundland out of Canada if you feel that strongly. Personally, I think you're nuts. But if you really believe in Ryan's tripe, you should do something about it.
I'm not a pure separatist. I think how Canada is run and structured needs to change drastically. I would suggest it be reborn. Something tells me that Quebec and Ontario might be opposed to the kind of power-dispersing reforms I have in mind.
Otherwise I can perceive an organized separatist movement materializing here in the province. I also don't see it going anywhere anytime soon. Nevertheless it would be nice to see this option on the table and to see it promoted by someone who isn't a redneck.
We have lots to show for 58 years. Justice, money, health care, education, literacy, and countless amounts of infrastructure and institutions that would never have been possible if not for Confederation.
Please read my comments above in response to WJM for my thoughts on this.
You're basically suggesting that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians could never have done anything for themselves and for only two reasons: they're deficient or their land is deficient. I think this is a disgusting way to perceive people in this province. "We're helpless! Thank God for Canada!"
Of course, some will always believe that the serfdom of Water Street merchants and dependence on foreign nations for basic necessities is somehow something we should all desire to return to. Not me.
The Water Street merchants are all gone now. You can get a decent espresso down there now if that's the kind of merchant you're worried about.
As for basic necessities we can buy or make those like everyone else does.
But if that's what the majority believes, then why not put it to a test?
I'm a little busy at the moment. Just trying to get established you see. Perhaps in 6-7 years.
Seriously though, unless the political scene goes through and overhaul shortly these questions might become more prominent in public - I don't forsee any referendum though.
I never said there was an official exchange or trade agreement between countries.
You said there was trade.
With which countries? When? What was exchanged?
You seem hooked on the idea that such understandings can only happen explicitly and that's why you're so confused about the idea. It seems perfectly plausible to me that Canada and its trading partners would have a TACIT agreement to neglect fisheries management and enforcement.
That's because you are nuts. That's not the way international trade relationships between countries happen.
But let's pretend it is.
Something still must have been traded. What?
Someone must have traded. Which countries?
It must have happened at some point in time. When?
Keep looking for, and demanding, documents
Documents? Some mere specifics would be nice: What was traded with whom when, with or without a "document"?
What you will find is decades of Canadian indifference and lack of action on the fisheries.
What I've been unable to find, and I've tried, is ANY evidence of the "fish was traded" myth being true.
Do you have any? Put up or shut up.
So you agree with me that such actions indicate Canada's disdain for NL's attempts to better itself?
No, I do not. Britain killed the Blaine-Bond convention, after pressure from Canada tis true. Canada was acting in its own best interests. Shock! Horror! I guess doing that is only reserved for Newfoundland nationalists; when anyone else does it, it's nefarious.
More importantly, it speaks to the decrepit structure of this Federation which makes some provinces more equal than others.
Which provinces are "more equal", and in which ways?
Why do we need fallow-field legislation? So oil companies don't act as speculators and sit on public resources simply because it conveniences them.
Should this also run against the provincial government, which is allowing small-scale hydro sites in Labrador to go fallow, when they could be displacing diesel?
Alberta has and you've often cited Alberta as a wonderful bastion of reason and good business sense.
Often? When? Care to point out an instance of that?
Prosperous?
Yes, prosperous.
A rapidly declining population and a world-class resource left in ruins. Not to mention health and education stats that are disastrous. Canada's wonderful.
Health and education are under provincial jurisdiction. If they are "disastrous", it's DESPITE Canada, which transfers hundreds of millions of dollars to the province for those purposes, not BECAUSE of Canada.
Iceland ranks higher in standard of living and per capita GDP so how can you justify saying we wouldn't have become so prosperous either?
Because as near as I can tell a great deal of the standard of living we DO have is because of the net fiscal benefit the provincial government, and the provincial economy, receive as part of Canada.
"We" doesn't mean anything either - there is no "we".
I agree, but it's a useful pronoun, as your first posting in this commentary shows.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians aren't included in that prosperous "we" you claim they are a part of - to experience that prosperous "we" you speak of one has to cease to be a Newfoundlander or Labradorian and become an Ontarian or Albertan perhaps.
Not at all. There are many people who are doing quite well in NL. There could easily be more.
How's that? I didn't know Iceland's population was declining.
Not at the moment, it isn't. But have you ever been to Manitoba? Iceland has experienced long bouts of population loss, and even in recent decades has experienced net-outmigration. Its population has continued to increase, and for the same reason that NL's increased, despite net-outmigration, during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s: natural increase (more births than deaths) offset the migratory loss.
I have to wonder if it's because Iceland's fisheries were put under the management of a central government
In a non-federal country like Iceland, which other government would they be under?
that really had no interest in the well-being of Iceland's fishing industry
How did the federal government of Canada have no such interest?
and was preoccupied with satisfying the wants and needs of greater populations in some other region?
How did the government of Canada use the fisheries for that purpose? BE SPECIFIC.
Out-migration has many cause but I doubt Iceland's population has declined by 13% in the past 15 years and I also doubt its because of a lack of jobs.
No, but until the last year or two, Iceland was experiencing net-outmigration. Seriously. Outmigration is as much a fact of life and history in Iceland as it is in Newfoundland.
Get your reading glasses checked WJM. The operative word here is COULD. I didn't assert anything.
It is perfectly possible to make a conditional assertion. ("If X then Y...")
There are so many countries in the world that are of a comparative size to Newfoundland and Labrador with more or less advantages of their own. I've cited Iceland as one example
Iceland is not comparable in size to Newfoundland AND LABRADOR, no.
Iceland was piss-poor when it broke from Denmark and it's doing great, better than Canada on a per capita basis.
What's stopping NL from doing the same, now, within Canada?
There are other worthy examples
Do they have names?
that tell us that any group of people with the will to develop their economy to highly prosperous levels can do so.
What's stopping NL? Will?
Federalists like yourself rely on the argument that people are helpless and will never attain any considerable success unless they subject themselves to some greater national or federal project.
When have I ever made that argument? Be specific.
You also draw a distinction between federalists and you. Does that make you a separatist?
With that kind of faith in this province and its people its no wonder that all that money the Federal government pumped in went to waste.
Waste?
Building roads, schools, hospitals, and a modern public service, that was "waste"?
You speak of definite limits to what NL could have attained on its own? What are those limits?
The limits that are self-evident when you look at the net financial inflow into the province, as a province. If the province had not become a province, where would the money have come from that it has enjoyed as a province?
Does Iceland, Norway, Singapore, Ireland, Hong Kong, and all the other wealthy developed small countries in the world know about these limits?
Yes. They, unlike Newfoundland, lived within their means, although Ireland did receive EU inflows at times.
What were you speaking of then? Money that comes from the Federal government on what basis - an equal exchange of some sort?
No, as an incident of being part of Canada, the same as any other province.
You're the one that paints the portrait of Newfoundland and Labrador being a basket case
No, you're the one who chooses to view the province as a basket case.
The fact — and it is a fact — that the province receives an inflow from the rest of Canada, in your eyes, makes the inflow a "handout", makes the province a "basket case". Those are your views, your words, not mine. Don't be like Danny Williams, now, putting words in other people's mouths or keyboards.
you're the one implying that such payments are benevolent gifts from Canada.
Not "benevolent gifts", no: just an inherent part of being part of Canada.
You're the one saying, openly and blatantly, that they are "handouts".
The fact that we don't have control over two of our most important resources - oil
We DO have control over oil! Are you not paying attention in civics class or something? Nothing - not a thing - can happen in the offshore development without the provincial government's approval. That is as much control over the resource as any province, including NL, has over any terrestrial resource.
and fish is a huge stumbling block to emulating Iceland's success. The Canadian Constitution binds us.
How so?
Iceland's example is desirable for numerous reasons - they have a diverse well developed economy and infrastructure.
Good for them. What's stopping us from doing the same?
As a result there communities and culture are intact
How is a culture "intact"?
How is Icelandic culture "intact"? And how is NL culture not "intact"?
Since the Moratorium there's been nothing done to remedy such problems as bottom trawling
POP QUIZ! What's the Newfoundland position on bottom trawling?
Well they weren't the only ones engaged in this. And nowadays they're probably the only ones not engaged in this
I disagree.
there's still lots of fishing going on just not in Canada's portion of the Grand Banks.
How much? Care to quantify that, or are you just going on what everyone says on the radio?
If the province had control over offshore resource I believe that more proximate control and responsibility over fisheries management would have averted this disaster or at least curtailed the damage done.
I don't. I believe the province would have fished the resource into the ground no differently than the way it did, in fact happen, with the possible exception that it might have happened even more quickly.
It's a serious failure of Canada's Constitution that these resources are under Ottawa's jurisdiction.
How is it a "failure"?
If it were under provincial jurisdiction, how would things be any different? The disastrous example of Quebec and Newfoundland utterly failing to co-operate on the George River caribou herd doesn't give me much confidence.
Before '33 there were successes and failures in managing those resources.
Successes?
Let's see: Nfld. wolf: extinct. Auk: Extinct. Beaver: was under a moratorium in Newfoundland for much of the early 20th century after it was overhunted. And not by the Spanish, either. Forests: woefully mismanaged, though the extent of the bad, pre-Confederation decisions took decades to come to light.
What I think is important is that NL neglected its most obvious resource - the sea - during this period.
So, then.... Newfoundland has the same moral culpability — not caring about the fishery — that you attribute to Canada... right?
It probably had something to do with the American and Canadian fishing fleets that were fishing there.
American and Canadian? The Americans, Nova Scotians, and to a lesser degree New Brunswickers, were pretty well gone by the 1880s or so from Labrador. The Lower Canadians vanished even earlier.
Realistically as trawlers were in operation at that time bait probably wouldn't have been a real concern.
Trawlers? Labrador? In the late teens and early 20s? Trawlers from where?
Seriously though, unless the political scene goes through and overhaul shortly these questions might become more prominent in public
Charlie Devine said so, too.
You said there was trade.
With which countries? When? What was exchanged?
Yeah, that's right there was trade.
Canada's trade in general is the object and especially with those countries that wish to fish on the Gran Banks. There is trade with countries that like to fish on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks - several in the EU, Russia, Japan, Korea etc etc.
You're clearly having trouble understanding that things don't always happen on a one-to-one formal ratio. Canada's neglect of its fisheries and indifference to conservation measures within and without the EEZ is in favour of countries that fish on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Through that neglect Canada indirectly cultivates a better climate to negotiate the trade of other goods.
Don't bother asking for specifics. If you can't understand cultivating rapport, if you can't understand anything out of direct trade for trade than I can't help you.
You'd think that events such as the Liberal spending scandal would already have opened your virgin eyes to the corrupt nature of politics and the reality that not everything happens above board; that spheres of activity and jurisdiction do indeed cross.
That's because you are nuts.
Nice insult WJM. A true testament to your arrogant nature.
That's not the way international trade relationships between countries happen.
Really? According to what? Seriously, do you think that trade is a stand alone issue or that different areas of trade don't carry over one from the other.
The US might be a prime example of this: it's not an uncommon idea that by engaging in its Iraqi and Afghanistan campaigns those countries involved are sweetening their relations with the US - which has no small affect on trade. Do you really think that Poland was upset enough about WMD's that it mobilized troops to go to Iraq? Get real.
But let's pretend it is.
Something still must have been traded. What?
Someone must have traded. Which countries?
It must have happened at some point in time. When?
Yeah, that's right there was trade.
Canada's trade in general is the object and especially with those countries that wish to fish on the Gran Banks. There is trade with countries that like to fish on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks - several in the EU, Russia, Japan, Korea etc etc.
You're clearly having trouble understanding that things don't always happen on a one-to-one formal ratio. Canada's neglect of its fisheries and indifference to conservation measures within and without the EEZ is in favour of countries that fish on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Through that neglect Canada indirectly cultivates a better climate to negotiate the trade of other goods.
Don't bother asking for specifics. If you can't understand cultivating rapport, if you can't understand anything out of direct trade for trade than I can't help you.
You'd think that events such as the Liberal spending scandal would already have opened your virgin eyes to the corrupt nature of politics and the reality that not everything happens above board; that spheres of activity and jurisdiction do indeed cross.
Documents? Some mere specifics would be nice: What was traded with whom when, with or without a "document"?
There are no specifics to cultivating rapport and building warm relationships with trade partners.
What I've been unable to find, and I've tried, is ANY evidence of the "fish was traded" myth being true.
Do you have any? Put up or shut up.
Probably because it is a myth. I never spoke of trading fish for anything. I spoke of neglecting the fisheries and of not being proactive when it came to conservation especially outside the EEZ. Refer to my past few comments.
No, I do not. Britain killed the Blaine-Bond convention, after pressure from Canada tis true. Canada was acting in its own best interests. Shock! Horror! I guess doing that is only reserved for Newfoundland nationalists; when anyone else does it, it's nefarious.
??
You're right everyone acts in the own self-interest. So why shouldn't Newfoundland and Labrador act in its own self-interest? We've been proud partners in Confederation for 58 years and it's not working - any suggestions on how to proceed from here?
One more question: Canada has shown in the past a willingness to squash NL's interests so why wouldn't it do so now? I mean, maybe NL prostrate has more value to Canada's overall interests - less of a population who claim resources to bother with and lots of workers for industries elsewhere in Canada. Who knows, this might be in Canada's self-interest.
Which provinces are "more equal", and in which ways?
I would say that Quebec and Ontario are more equal than all others even although Alberta and BC are now ascendant. Why? Well their populations entitle them to the vast majority of MPs. The MPs determine laws and policy. The Senate is useless. So Ontario and Quebec always have the majority of MPs and that majority of MPs serve their own and their constituents needs first. Provinces like NL are so insignificant in terms of their share of MPs that they will never determine policies the way QC and ON do.
Should this also run against the provincial government, which is allowing small-scale hydro sites in Labrador to go fallow, when they could be displacing diesel?
Yes, that should be the case with the provincial government and thats a good example.
But, we're talking about the federal government though and its refusal to support fallow-field legislation for offshore oil. I'm guessing you agree with me.
Often? When? Care to point out an instance of that?
I don't know where or on what blog I've read your comments to this effect. What you were saying generally is that Alberta is not rich by oil alone but by a business-friendly, progressive political and social environment.
Health and education are under provincial jurisdiction. If they are "disastrous", it's DESPITE Canada, which transfers hundreds of millions of dollars to the province for those purposes, not BECAUSE of Canada.
Jurisdiction over something isn't much when the population and industrial base has been decimated by Federal indifference and neglect over what was the main industry and employer in the province.
Because as near as I can tell a great deal of the standard of living we DO have is because of the net fiscal benefit the provincial government, and the provincial economy, receive as part of Canada.
Why is it that 8 out of 10 provinces in this rich, super-egalitarian country can't pay their own bills?
Canada, as a matter of fact has slipped considerably from its once leading position in terms of standard of living in the world. Perhaps if you'd take your blinders off and even go on a trip somewhere besides the Parliament Buildings (preferably outside of North America) you'd realize, lo and behold, Canada is not nearly what it's cracked up to be.
Not at all. There are many people who are doing quite well in NL. There could easily be more.
Maybe you could start suggesting some ways in which there could easily be more. You do nothing but complain and bash people - that's the entire content of your blog. Perhaps you should start including commentary on what policy ideas you perceive to be better ways to grow the economy and increase prosperity. It's one thing to rant and it's another to contribute to the solution. You certainly don't do any of the latter.
Not at the moment, it isn't. But have you ever been to Manitoba? Iceland has experienced long bouts of population loss, and even in recent decades has experienced net-outmigration. Its population has continued to increase, and for the same reason that NL's increased, despite net-outmigration, during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s: natural increase (more births than deaths) offset the migratory loss.
Is Manitoba's population decreasing? Is it because the Federal government destroyed its primary industry?
Iceland, I'm betting, is an example of optional out-migration. I know lots of people who have left the province for personal or social reasons and that's their right. The difference is that people were probably not leaving Iceland in the same numbers and probably not because their industries had been decimated. Newfoundland and Labrador has been exceptionally hard hit by the destruction of the fishery that it's ability to naturally compensate for population decline with high birth rates has also been damaged. Less out-migration, as in Iceland's case, probably left a youthful base of the population that could and were still having babies. Octogenarians don't have kids.
In a non-federal country like Iceland, which other government would they be under?
See the difference. Iceland isn't in a Federal country and it's doing well. Perhaps if Newfoundland and Labrador followed Iceland's example and were not in a Federal country it would also be alright.
How did the federal government of Canada have no such interest?
They've made no effort to extend the EEZ or seek custodial management of the Nose and Tail. Also, they've been very weak within NAFO and actually voted against a ban on bottom trawling OUTSIDE the EEZ. Not the behaviour of a conservation minded government but certainly the mark of a neglectful and indifferent one.
How did the government of Canada use the fisheries for that purpose? BE SPECIFIC.
Building rapport and cultivating warm relations isn't a specific - try all you might but those things are vague occurrences and they can't be quantified. Neglecting fisheries is evident in the Federal government's refusal to support a ban on bottom trawling OUTSIDE the EEZ. Not to mention unwillingness to extend the EEZ or seek custodial management of the Nose and Tail.
No, but until the last year or two, Iceland was experiencing net-outmigration. Seriously. Outmigration is as much a fact of life and history in Iceland as it is in Newfoundland.
That's good to know. Perhaps you can tell me if Iceland's fishing industry was destroyed or not? Was outmigration as devastating in Iceland as in Newfoundland and Labrador? Was it because there were no jobs?
It is perfectly possible to make a conditional assertion. ("If X then Y...")
Right. And what I had said, essentially, is things could have unfolded much differently, perhaps even for the better if NL hadn't joined Canada.
Iceland is not comparable in size to Newfoundland AND LABRADOR, no.
Exceptional research skills!
Perhaps if you could understand things in the abstract or general you'd understand that I was speaking of small countries.
What's stopping NL from doing the same, now, within Canada?
Probably the fact that the federal government holds jurisdiction over fisheries and offshore oil (they legally own and have co-jurisdiction over it), two of the province's most important resources. That's probably what's stopping it.
Do they have names?
They do and with your amazing research skills you could probably identify them yourself. Small countries that are well off and have more or less resources than NL. Go to it.
What's stopping NL? Will?
Probably the fact that it exists within a decrepit federal union.
When have I ever made that argument? Be specific.
You also draw a distinction between federalists and you. Does that make you a separatist?
Your whole reason for existence is to shoot down any notion of Canada not being perfect and that dissenting group in Canada who would prefer more autonomy over their own affairs can't do it alone. In this whole thread you're essentially suggesting that any good NL has ever experiences came from its joining Canada and you mock the idea that it could go it alone - clearly you think people in this province, or their resources, are deficient.
I'm a Newfoundland nationalist. Canada comes a distant second for me. If Newfoundland and Labrador can find a better situation within Canada I'm all for it. As it stands there seems to be no ground shaking changes on the way and at the moment separation seems like a viable alternative for NL.
Waste?
Building roads, schools, hospitals, and a modern public service, that was "waste"?
No, those things were all wise investments. But the massive debt the province now faces is due largely to Smallwood era bad industrial and business developments. Smallwood's industrial and resettlement schemes were madness and he blew a lot of money on those things.
The limits that are self-evident when you look at the net financial inflow into the province, as a province. If the province had not become a province, where would the money have come from that it has enjoyed as a province?
The money would have come from the industry of its people and the exploitation of its resources. I think if NL had ever gotten its head on and said to hell with Britain and Canada things could have worked out.
Yes. They, unlike Newfoundland, lived within their means, although Ireland did receive EU inflows at times.
There's something to be said for going it on your own and being forced to take responsibility for your own affairs isn't there?
No, you're the one who chooses to view the province as a basket case.
The fact — and it is a fact — that the province receives an inflow from the rest of Canada, in your eyes, makes the inflow a "handout", makes the province a "basket case". Those are your views, your words, not mine. Don't be like Danny Williams, now, putting words in other people's mouths or keyboards.
You've constantly asserted here that NL couldn't make it on its own. What other definition of basket case is there?
You suggest that NL could pay its own bills within Confederation but not without? How does that make sense?
Not "benevolent gifts", no: just an inherent part of being part of Canada.
You're the one saying, openly and blatantly, that they are "handouts".
"Just an inherent part of being Canada"??!?!? LOL. What do you receive at Christmas? "An inherent part of being in this family" "An inherent part of being in my life" Label it man. It's a gift. OR it's a transfer of money that is resented by those who are giving and unwanted by at least some of those receiving (speaking for myself).
We DO have control over oil! Are you not paying attention in civics class or something? Nothing - not a thing - can happen in the offshore development without the provincial government's approval. That is as much control over the resource as any province, including NL, has over any terrestrial resource.
WJM - look at what you've said here. You're saying NL has CONTROL over the oil. I want to be clear - can NL arbitrarily introduce fallow field legislation? Yes or No? Is that really CONTROL? Wake up man.
How so?
Because NL doesn't have control over its fishing resources - that's why. Are you actually unable to recognize this?
Good for them. What's stopping us from doing the same?
The fact that the rag we call the Canadian Constitution determines that resources extremely important to NL, oil and fish, are under Federal jurisdiction. The Federal government should have no control over NL's offshore resources when NL has no control over the Federal government.
POP QUIZ! What's the Newfoundland position on bottom trawling?
It's in favour of it!! I'm no fan of Danny William's either. Unlike you I'm actually free enough to blame both levels of government.
I disagree.
Yeah? What are those Russian, Portuguese, French and other countries' fishing boats doing on this side of the world. Vacation? Fisherman love to take their industrial fishing boats across the Atlantic and vacation in NL don't they?!
They're in St. John's harbour all the time so what are you disagreeing with?
If it were under provincial jurisdiction, how would things be any different? The disastrous example of Quebec and Newfoundland utterly failing to co-operate on the George River caribou herd doesn't give me much confidence.
A wonderful example of how "co-jurisdiction" doesn't work. Perhaps we should apply such lessons to offshore oil and let the province alone own and manage it.
Successes?
Let's see: Nfld. wolf: extinct. Auk: Extinct. Beaver: was under a moratorium in Newfoundland for much of the early 20th century after it was overhunted. And not by the Spanish, either. Forests: woefully mismanaged, though the extent of the bad, pre-Confederation decisions took decades to come to light.
Species go extinct all over the place - including in mainland areas that are highly developed economically and independent. I don't know why the Great Auk (which has been extinct since 1844 - before NL even had responsible government) and the Newfoundland Wolf have to do with managing resources. These aren't resources. A weak weak point on your part - stretching a lot more than usual WJM.
As for the beaver it was under massive pressure everywhere so that's not unique to NL.
How badly was forestry mismanaged? Worse than anywhere else? Give me a break.
So, then.... Newfoundland has the same moral culpability — not caring about the fishery — that you attribute to Canada... right?
I'd say any NL government that is committed to the project of Canada (and everyone since Canada has been even if they get on with nationalist rhetoric), that doesn't have a vision for a self-sustaining and more sovereign NL is bound to fail on this front.
American and Canadian? The Americans, Nova Scotians, and to a lesser degree New Brunswickers, were pretty well gone by the 1880s or so from Labrador. The Lower Canadians vanished even earlier.
Trawlers? Labrador? In the late teens and early 20s? Trawlers from where?
The Gloucester fishery had experienced troubles in the early 20th and they were quick to take advantage of new technologies. The French and British had done the same. Trawlers were increasingly common at this point and yes Americans were fishing off Labrador.
I'm done contributing to this thread.
You're clearly having trouble understanding that things don't always happen on a one-to-one formal ratio. Canada's neglect of its fisheries and indifference to conservation measures within and without the EEZ is in favour of countries that fish on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Through that neglect Canada indirectly cultivates a better climate to negotiate the trade of other goods.
What goods? You’re having trouble understanding that when it comes to trade deals, thinks DO happen on a formal basis.
Don't bother asking for specifics. If you can't understand cultivating rapport, if you can't understand anything out of direct trade for trade than I can't help you.
Rapport with which countries? What did Canada get in return? If there are no “specifics”, then there’s nothing, other than, as usual, Newfoundland nationalist mythology.
You'd think that events such as the Liberal spending scandal would already have opened your virgin eyes to the corrupt nature of politics and the reality that not everything happens above board; that spheres of activity and jurisdiction do indeed cross.
And you would have thought they’d open your eyes to the nature of evidence, and that things can be proven with evidence.
Nice insult WJM. A true testament to your arrogant nature.
No, a testament to my honest one: I have to call it like I see it.
Really? According to what? Seriously, do you think that trade is a stand alone issue or that different areas of trade don't carry over one from the other.
There are thousands upon thousands of pages of international trade agreements that Canada has with other countries. Where is the evidence, in any of them, of fish being traded for other considerations? If Canada had such deals, with so many countries, over so long a period of time, why was not one of them ever formalized in any written document?
Canada's trade in general is the object and especially with those countries that wish to fish on the Gran Banks. There is trade with countries that like to fish on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks - several in the EU, Russia, Japan, Korea etc etc.
What was traded?
WHAT? WAS? TRADED?
You’re clearly having trouble understanding that in order for there to be “trade”, something has to be traded.
WHAT WAS TRADED?
There are no specifics to cultivating rapport and building warm relationships with trade partners.
Then there are no “trade deals”, then, right?
Probably because it is a myth. I never spoke of trading fish for anything. I spoke of neglecting the fisheries and of not being proactive when it came to conservation especially outside the EEZ.
Why would Canada act outside of its jurisdiction?
You're right everyone acts in the own self-interest. So why shouldn't Newfoundland and Labrador act in its own self-interest?
It does.
We've been proud partners in Confederation for 58 years and it's not working - any suggestions on how to proceed from here?
What’s not working?
One more question: Canada has shown in the past a willingness to squash NL's interests so why wouldn't it do so now?
In 1904, NL wasn’t part of Canada, for starters.
I would say that Quebec and Ontario are more equal than all others even although Alberta and BC are now ascendant. Why? Well their populations entitle them to the vast majority of MPs.
Yip. How does that constitute inequality? In your answer, you may wish to make reference to the fact that Ontario and Alberta have FEWER MPs than their population, under a strict rep-by-pop formula, would entitle them to, and that NL, like most of the provinces, has MORE.
The Senate is useless. So Ontario and Quebec always have the majority of MPs
Just like they have a majority of the population.
Just like Newfoundland has 44 seats in the House of Assembly, and Labrador four.
Provinces like NL are so insignificant in terms of their share of MPs that they will never determine policies the way QC and ON do.
Quebec and Ontario don’t determine federal policy. Members of Parliament and Senators do. They are not delegates of provinces.
I don't know where or on what blog I've read your comments to this effect. What you were saying generally is that Alberta is not rich by oil alone but by a business-friendly, progressive political and social environment.
And that statement would be problematic how, again?
Jurisdiction over something isn't much when the population and industrial base has been decimated by Federal indifference and neglect over what was the main industry and employer in the province.
Jurisdiction over something is a great deal, especially when you have an influx of money from outside the province to help you exercise it.
Why is it that 8 out of 10 provinces in this rich, super-egalitarian country can't pay their own bills?
Who says they can’t, other than the equalization program?
Canada, as a matter of fact has slipped considerably
Considerably? How far?
(preferably outside of North America) you'd realize, lo and behold, Canada is not nearly what it's cracked up to be.
Indeed! Take a trip to a Bangladesh, or Mozambique, or Bolivia! Open your eyes! Take off your anti-Canada, anti-Confederate, lunatic-fringe blinders.
Maybe you could start suggesting some ways in which there could easily be more.
I’d start by changing the attitude that a job is solely something you are given or something you get, instead of being something you can make. Or that prosperity is found at the end of a government program. Or that profit, including profit from natural resource development, is bad.
You do nothing but complain and bash people - that's the entire content of your blog. Perhaps you should start including commentary on what policy ideas you perceive to be better ways to grow the economy and increase prosperity.
I already have. Not driving away private-sector investment would be a big start. So would not allowing the state to monopolize things or intervene unduly in the economy.
Is Manitoba's population decreasing?
As usual, you miss the point: Manitoba has thousands of people of Icelandic descent, whose ancestors came from Iceland in previous periods of outmigration from that country.
Iceland, I'm betting, is an example of optional out-migration.
As opposed to what? Is NL out-migration not optional?
I know lots of people who have left the province for personal or social reasons and that's their right. The difference is that people were probably not leaving Iceland in the same numbers and probably not because their industries had been decimated.
That’s exactly what drove Icelandic out-migration, in fact.
See the difference. Iceland isn't in a Federal country and it's doing well. Perhaps if Newfoundland and Labrador followed Iceland's example and were not in a Federal country it would also be alright.
Perhaps. And perhaps it would be worse off. “Perhaps” works in multiple directions.
They've made no effort to extend the EEZ or seek custodial management of the Nose and Tail. Also, they've been very weak within NAFO and actually voted against a ban on bottom trawling OUTSIDE the EEZ.
What is the Newfoundland position on bottom trawling?
Not the behaviour of a conservation minded government but certainly the mark of a neglectful and indifferent one.
Much like Newfoundland’s pre- and post-Confederation renewable resource management.
What is the Newfoundland position on bottom trawling?
Building rapport and cultivating warm relations isn't a specific - try all you might but those things are vague occurrences and they can't be quantified.
Can you at least identify the countries involved? What did Canada get in return for this warmth and fuzziness?
Neglecting fisheries is evident in the Federal government's refusal to support a ban on bottom trawling OUTSIDE the EEZ.
What is the Newfoundland position on bottom trawling?
Not to mention unwillingness to extend the EEZ or seek custodial management of the Nose and Tail.
Which countries have internationally-accepted EEZ’s beyond 200 miles?
That's good to know. Perhaps you can tell me if Iceland's fishing industry was destroyed or not? Was outmigration as devastating in Iceland as in Newfoundland and Labrador? Was it because there were no jobs?
Several of Iceland’s fisheries have experienced declines, including cod. Fishermen have expanded into other, more valuable per-pound species, such as shellfish (Sound familiar?)
Perhaps if you could understand things in the abstract or general you'd understand that I was speaking of small countries.
In which case the comparison is still false: Iceland is NOT comparable to Newfoundland AND LABRADOR.
Probably the fact that the federal government holds jurisdiction over fisheries and offshore oil (they legally own and have co-jurisdiction over it), two of the province's most important resources. That's probably what's stopping it.
The federal government jurisdiction over offshore oil only extends as far as the provincial government: if the province doesn’t want the offshore oil developed in a certain way, then the province rules. It’s no different than how any other resource is managed in any province, including terrestrial resources in NL.
As for the fisheries, Canadian management decisions generally responded to political demands coming from NL. Some of the biggest conflicts between DFO and NL have been when the department wanted to take conservation measures that NL, population and government, have resisted. How would provincial jurisdiction have improved that situation?
They do and with your amazing research skills you could probably identify them yourself. Small countries that are well off and have more or less resources than NL. Go to it.
It’s your thesis; I’m not going to prove it for you.
Probably the fact that it exists within a decrepit federal union.
What’s “decrepit” about it?
Can you identify a non-decrepit federal union?
Your whole reason for existence is to shoot down any notion of Canada not being perfect and that dissenting group in Canada who would prefer more autonomy over their own affairs can't do it alone.
No, I have many reasons for existence. That’s not one of them. Perhaps you are getting it confused with one of my reasons for existence: debunking Newfoundland nationalist nonsense.
In this whole thread you're essentially suggesting that any good NL has ever experiences came from its joining Canada and you mock the idea that it could go it alone - clearly you think people in this province, or their resources, are deficient.
No, I think they are insufficient for NL to “go it alone’, as you, and Danny Williams, like to say.
I'm a Newfoundland nationalist. Canada comes a distant second for me. If Newfoundland and Labrador can find a better situation within Canada I'm all for it. As it stands there seems to be no ground shaking changes on the way and at the moment separation seems like a viable alternative for NL.
If Newfoundland wants to separate, go for it. I’m not stopping you. I won’t like it, but hey – it’s a free vote. Organize a separatist party. Win an election. Hold and win a referendum. Negotiate terms of secession. Knock yourself out.
Labrador won’t be going, though.
No, those things were all wise investments. But the massive debt the province now faces is due largely to Smallwood era bad industrial and business developments. Smallwood's industrial and resettlement schemes were madness and he blew a lot of money on those things.
Actually, the Smallwood-era debt is small and long-since paid off. The big inflationary period of provincial debt came under Moores and Peckford.
The money would have come from the industry of its people and the exploitation of its resources.
The province already gets that money. Where would the extra money come from?
There's something to be said for going it on your own and being forced to take responsibility for your own affairs isn't there?
You can do so within a federal system. The US, which has no equalization program, shows that.
You've constantly asserted here that NL couldn't make it on its own.
Not with the level of public services or standard of living that have resulted from Confederation, no.
What other definition of basket case is there?
That’s your phrase, not mine.
You suggest that NL could pay its own bills within Confederation but not without? How does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense, if you are are willing to live within the means available. Within Canada, those means are much larger than they would be without.
"Just an inherent part of being Canada"??!?!? LOL. What do you receive at Christmas? "An inherent part of being in this family" "An inherent part of being in my life" Label it man. It's a gift. OR it's a transfer of money that is resented by those who are giving and unwanted by at least some of those receiving (speaking for myself).
“Gifts” is your word, not mine.
WJM - look at what you've said here. You're saying NL has CONTROL over the oil. I want to be clear - can NL arbitrarily introduce fallow field legislation? Yes or No? Is that really CONTROL? Wake up man.
You do the same: can an oil project go ahead without provincial go-ahead? who sets the royalty rates and benefits regimes?
Because NL doesn't have control over its fishing resources - that's why. Are you actually unable to recognize this?
NL has no less control over its fishing resources than any other province. Remind me again: How did pre-Confederation Newfoundland exercise “Control” 12 miles offshore, let alone 200, let alone on the Nose and Tail beyond 200?
The fact that the rag we call the Canadian Constitution determines that resources extremely important to NL, oil and fish, are under Federal jurisdiction.
Just as offshore oil and fisheries are in every other province, except that, in the case of NL and NS, and unlike Quebec, NB, PEI, or BC, the province has full veto power over offshore development. What’s your point again?
The Federal government should have no control over NL's offshore resources when NL has no control over the Federal government.
NL has the same control over the federal government as any other province, and then a little bit more: NL, unlike the four largest provinces, has a larger share of the federal parliament than of the national population.
It's in favour of it!! I'm no fan of Danny William's either. Unlike you I'm actually free enough to blame both levels of government.
So you are blaming the federal government for doing, in respect of that fisheries policy, what the Newfoundland government wants?
Geeze, Newfoundland nationalists are like Quebec ones. In your universe, heads, Newfoundland nationalism wins, tails, federalism loses.
Yeah? What are those Russian, Portuguese, French and other countries' fishing boats doing on this side of the world. Vacation? Fisherman love to take their industrial fishing boats across the Atlantic and vacation in NL don't they?!
How many boats? What are they fishing, and how much of it? Under whose rules? What are they taking that NL fishermen would otherwise be fishing?
A wonderful example of how "co-jurisdiction" doesn't work.
If it doesn’t work, then how would simple “jurisdiction” work, when fish, like the George River caribou, don’t notice political boundaries?
Perhaps we should apply such lessons to offshore oil and let the province alone own and manage it.
Which “the province”? Are you going to issue little passports to the fish and caribou?
Species go extinct all over the place - including in mainland areas that are highly developed economically and independent. I don't know why the Great Auk (which has been extinct since 1844 - before NL even had responsible government) and the Newfoundland Wolf have to do with managing resources. These aren't resources.
Any wildlife is a resource. The auk is a great example of how short-sighted greed can destroy a resource. The auk was extirpated in Newfoundland despite local colonial ordinances designed to protect it.
A weak weak point on your part - stretching a lot more than usual WJM.
As for the beaver it was under massive pressure everywhere so that's not unique to NL.
Just as resource mismanagement isn’t inherently Canadian or Confederation, either. See? Not so weak point.
How badly was forestry mismanaged?
To the point that Newfoundland paper mills were importing pulp logs from PEI and Quebec. That’s how badly. I’ve stood on a pulp-log barge in Port-Menier on Anticosti Island with a cargo that was bound for Newfoundland because not enough supply could be obtained locally.
The Gloucester fishery had experienced troubles in the early 20th and they were quick to take advantage of new technologies. The French and British had done the same. Trawlers were increasingly common at this point and yes Americans were fishing off Labrador.
Not in the early 20th century, they weren’t, not in any numbers worth noting. The American fishery off Labrador was effectively over by the third or early fourth quarter of the 19th century.
What we have, Stephen, is the right to post the truthy nonsense you've posted from an essentially anonymous identity.
What more freedom could one want than to spout utter nonsense and yet hide ones identity so no one can really know who it is that says this ridiculous things.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home