Harper: Canada never so united since 1967

M.Dancer · August 7, 2007

I believe that the next election .....................
Jorge Torrealba,

Halifax, NS.

Cc: The Three Leaders,

Mr. Danny Williams, NL Premier,

Presidents of the three political parties.

Stop Spamming.

jawapunk · August 7, 2007

Well, I don't really have a link to the long term plans of Danny Williams or any Newfoundland government, but I am fairly sure that 2 billion dollars as a start wouldn't hurt things. I realize that Alberta doesn't keep 100% of oil revenues ANYMORE, but it has reaped the benefits of about 30+ years of that revenue wheras we don't get a pittance.

As far as government installations...in the last 50 years the federal government hasn't put that much money into Newfoundland in that regard so I would say we could probably pay for it. Most of the buildings are falling apart and ill used.

Also, sorry for assuming you were only jumping on the maritimers. I just feel that Newfoundland, as well as some other provinces may have done better outside of Confederation.

Michael Bluth · August 7, 2007

Well, I don't really have a link to the long term plans of Danny Williams or any Newfoundland government, but I am fairly sure that 2 billion dollars as a start wouldn't hurt things.

See there's the rub.

If there is an actual plan in place and NL could assure the rest of Canada that keeping those funds for a few more years would guarantee self-sufficiency in 10 to 15 years than most Canadians would probably go for it.

But terms like "wouldn't hurt things" make Danny's protestations sound weak. Of course every province wouldn't mind an extra $2 Billion because it wouldn't hurt things. Does that make it fair or right? Absolutely not.

jawapunk · August 7, 2007

Ha,

I don't have access to long term plans, but you almost take that as if there were none. Obviously there are plans for this province and there are also plans that had depended on that money until Harper took it away. It was to go to alot of infrastructural projects, guaranteeing the livelihood of our nurses and teachers and also pay down a large portion of Newfoundlands debt.

I simply said I do not have access to the actual long term plans now that the Atlantic accord is being dishonored. This is an accord that has been in place for a long period of time, was guaranteed by the previous governments and now is being dismissed by Harper, it hurts every Atlantic province as well as Saskatchewan.

"Wouldn't hurt things" are my words not Danny Williams who I feel is quite a competent leader who deos not want the province to be sold short once again.

I cannot guarantee self-suffiency within 10-15 but I can guarantee there were plans in place to use the funds to grow this provinces industry, to keep skilled people here and increase employment. I think that the Canadian people would be much more reassured to let us keep our $2 billion now in order that we don't have to have equalization payments from here to eternity.

Michael Bluth · August 7, 2007

I cannot guarantee self-suffiency within 10-15 but I can guarantee there were plans in place to use the funds to grow this provinces industry, to keep skilled people here and increase employment. I think that the Canadian people would be much more reassured to let us keep our $2 billion now in order that we don't have to have equalization payments from here to eternity.

But you don't have access to these plans?

How can you guarantee their existence?

Why is it *your* $2 billion? These funds come from the revenues of Alberta, BC and Ontario.

If these plans exist, please share them with all Canadians to look at and decide together if we are going to subsidize the future growth of NL. In essence you are asking for extra money now and are offering the promise of fewer subsidies down the road. Surely Danny can't expect taxpayers from the other parts of Canada to cough up an extra $2 billion solely on his word.

jawapunk · August 7, 2007

No the $2 billion is the revenue from the oil, not from Alberta etc... They call it a "claw-back". Meaning we pay federal taxes, get equalization payments and then they claw back funds based on the amount of oil revenues.

These funds don't go back to any other provinces, simply back to the Federal government to spend on as they see fit. So you still pay into equalizatin payments and Newfoundland still receives them even though now at a far reduced rate. Newfoundland is just looking for what every other province gets, in that their oil/resources are excluded from the equalization formula/calculations just as Albertas are and any other province.

I can guarantee that the government has plans because every government has plans. The premier gave numerous speeches regarding what the access to extra funds would be used for, therefore going on public record. I guess if he decided not to follow though with that, he would pay with his political life, but given that the funds are being taken because another politician renegged on the Atlantic Accord, we can't hold Danny Williams repsonsible.

Basically we are asking that there no longer be a subsidization of our growth, just that we keep the revenues generated from our resources to help grow the province. I don't think this is unreasonable.

I suppose this will suffice as proof that the government had plans for that money: (this is before the Atlantic Accord was broken)

http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/energyplan/papers/introduction.pdf

http://www.pcparty.nf.net/plan2003.htm (you can view the different aspects)

http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/exec/1013n03.htm

http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/energyplan/

http://www.gov.nl.ca/atlanticaccord/pdf/feb14premier.pdf

Here are links that discuss the Atlantic Accord (which has subsequently been broken by Harper)

http://www.gov.nf.ca/atlanticaccord/agreement.htm

http://www.cnlopb.nl.ca/publicat/reg/aa_mou.pdf

There you go. If you don't think we deserve to be self-sufficient I would like to know why? I think this country needs to wake up and realize we are not the stereotype perpetuated. Anyways, I am not talking out of my ass.

White Doors · August 7, 2007

that had depended on that money until Harper took it away

Harper never took any money away from NL. Please provide proof that he did.

Time to walk on your own two feet.

It's scary at times, but it will be better for all if you do (especially when you can).

jawapunk · August 7, 2007

I will try to ignore your extremely condescending comments and merely comment on their content.

That is what we are trying to accomplish, walking on our own two feet. After the fishery collasped, understandably there has been a gap as people were forced to adjust. It would be similar if a large percentage or the prairies were no longer arable and the government was trying to take oil revenues back for subsidizing the farmers. There would be many people needing to adjust, change vocations etc...

For my argument, I am equating Harper with the Federal government, as he is the leader of the ruling party at this time. Harper isn't necesarily taking money from us but if you read the Atlantic Accord, which I assuming you didn't, we were to be entitled to 100% of revenues from the offshore oil and there was to be no claw backs from the federal government.

Harper agreed to honour the accord and then reneged on that.

Newfoundland has been standing up and performing excellently, it has been near the top for economic growth ( see : http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070425/d070425a.htm ) at 2.8%.

There is no need for the veiled condescension. You shoudl just say what you really feel, it will be nothing new to me. Ignorance is prevalent.

Another aspect I would like to state is that Newfoundland receives the 2nd least of the 7 receiving provinces:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html

flaquisimo · August 7, 2007

I will try to ignore your extremely condescending comments and merely comment on their content.
That is what we are trying to accomplish, walking on our own two feet. After the fishery collasped, understandably there has been a gap as people were forced to adjust. It would be similar if a large percentage or the prairies were no longer arable and the government was trying to take oil revenues back for subsidizing the farmers. There would be many people needing to adjust, change vocations etc...

For my argument, I am equating Harper with the Federal government, as he is the leader of the ruling party at this time. Harper isn't necesarily taking money from us but if you read the Atlantic Accord, which I assuming you didn't, we were to be entitled to 100% of revenues from the offshore oil and there was to be no claw backs from the federal government.

Harper agreed to honour the accord and then reneged on that.

Newfoundland has been standing up and performing excellently, it has been near the top for economic growth ( see : http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070425/d070425a.htm ) at 2.8%.

There is no need for the veiled condescension. You shoudl just say what you really feel, it will be nothing new to me. Ignorance is prevalent.

Another aspect I would like to state is that Newfoundland receives the 2nd least of the 7 receiving provinces:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html

flaquisimo · August 7, 2007

Jawapank

I read you again and I must admit that you make sense. Sorry, the next time I will try to diggest you style because in spite of appearing to me to be right, it is a little confusing and there too many subjects alined.

Anyhow, pal, I will learn to read you.

Regards,

Jorge

Leafless · August 7, 2007

We don't want any Eastern Ontario culture out here. Good luck selling your culture to Quebec or the Maritimes. Canada cannot ever possibly have a culture. We need to stop trying. Just split it up and form a nice little economic co-operative.

I didn't really mean culture, I meant 'single Canadian identity' which currently we don't have.

What kind of economic co-operative are you driving at?

jawapunk · August 7, 2007

I am assuming he means something along the lines of the E.U.

Michael Bluth · August 7, 2007

There are still a number of inter-provincial trade barriers.

I believe the most recent example was Ottawa cabbies not taking fares into Gatineau because of the inspections the Quebec Government had ordered as payback for some perceived slight.

geoffrey · August 8, 2007

Here in Newfoundland, we have felt we have had a raw deal for quite a while, contributing to our own economic demise. When finally there is a path to prosperity through oil revenue the Harper government wants to screw us out of it.

And the crediability can be heard crashing through the floor.

My total point was that if we were allowed to keep oil/resource revenues now, then like Alberta we would not have to take out equalization payments within 10-15 years.

What are you talking about? Alberta became a have province in 1964 and has paid into equalisation every year since except for one year in the 70s.

Danny is asking to have more money than Ontario, but still require those in Ontario to send him a cheque every month. That's absolutely absurd. If anyone believes it, they are a fool.

One of the main reasons Alberta does not take out as you say, but pays in, is because of its rich oil/resource reserves and the fact that the province keeps all of its revenues from that. I doubt seriously that the agricultural sector that would have been the mainstay of Alberta's economy before Oil would make it the province the economic power that it is today.

Eh? Keep all of our revenues? You don't think we pay Federal taxes? How about the ridiculous imbalance in EI pay-ins vs. pay-outs? By the way, Alberta is subject to the 50% resource inclusion as well, not just Newfoundland. A fair deal is one that treats all provinces equally.

I find it hilarious that there have been comments of Alberta or the west separating and that is not a problem, but when I bring up Newfoundland, the first comment has some sting to it.

Well, if Newfoundland had money to seperate, then sure. Where do you think all this money Danny keeps begging for is going to come from once you say good bye to Ontario and Alberta footing your welfare programs?

I'm not sure what there is to put on the table as it were, but I suppose we would leave Canada with what we brought with us in entering, The grandbanks fishery/oil reserves and all of labrador. The only forseeable problems I would have seen is patroling the waters to make sure overfishing wasn't happening, but since the maritime fishery has been destroyed in the last 50 years, it doesn't matter anyways.

Well, to be honest, in the constitution off-shore oil belongs to the Federal government. They were nice and gave Newfoundland the choice to develop it. Big mistake. Danny has aggressively chased all possible exploration right out of the province. He has single handedly set Newfoundland back decades because of his vicious anti-business mandate.

Ralph Klein didn't lead Alberta to be the richest region outside of Luxembourgh by telling oil to go shove it. If you want to address Newfoundland's problems, tell Danny to allow business to prosper instead of telling it to go to hell.

Or better yet, do as the wise Newfies have and move to Alberta. We need you.

Michael Bluth · August 8, 2007

Danny is asking to have more money than Ontario, but still require those in Ontario to send him a cheque every month. That's absolutely absurd. If anyone believes it, they are a fool.
Eh? Keep all of our revenues? You don't think we pay Federal taxes? How about the ridiculous imbalance in EI pay-ins vs. pay-outs? By the way, Alberta is subject to the 50% resource inclusion as well, not just Newfoundland. A fair deal is one that treats all provinces equally.

Well, if Newfoundland had money to seperate, then sure. Where do you think all this money Danny keeps begging for is going to come from once you say good bye to Ontario and Alberta footing your welfare programs?

Or better yet, do as the wise Newfies have and move to Alberta. We need you.

I find it quite odd that Ontarians aren't up in arms about Danny's whinging in this case.

Geoff, of course the taxes Albertans pay shouldn't count. This is all about Newfs getting a few extra billion that won't hurt. It's gotta come from somewhere.

That's Williams' brilliance. He has actually convinced the people of his province that they are 'entitled' to equalization money. No gratitude. Meh what can you do?

Forget the need for Newfies. If they want to come and be grateful power to them. If they want to come and whine about big bad Alberta better they should stay home.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Michael Bluth

geoffrey · August 8, 2007

I find it quite odd that Ontarians aren't up in arms about Danny's whinging in this case.

Probably because some of his whining is directed at Alberta.

Never the less, Ontario would be the most hurt by such a decision.

Black Dog · August 8, 2007

How about how upset Albertans are about the Quebec pandering? Alberta seperatism won't be an issue as long as Harper is in office, but the day he leaves it's going to be back alot stronger than before.

So if Harper gets out of office, support for western separation might crack the elusive double digits?

Give me break. Anyone-Quebecois or Albertan-who harbours visions of separation in their lifetime needs to stop warming up their car in a closed garage. Such a change would require a significant number of people to support and would cause a lot of upheaval, something Canadians in general are not too big on. It's just not gonna happen.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Black Dog

jawapunk · August 8, 2007

I never stated that Albertans don't pay taxes...ofcourse they do, my point was that at one point Albertans were not the economic power they are today and they have had help on their way.

It would be easy to pay for our "social" programs here if we separated, since we would then have our own 200 mile Ocean limit, being our own country, we would have complete control over the grand banks and its oil, plus labrador and all of its resources. In 1949, we joined the country and the federal government was granted the extra offshore area.

I am not whining about Alberta, I could really care less. I was just trying to form an argument that would show what the situation in Newfoundland would be similar to in a prairie/western geoghraphical context. Apparently you all missed the point. But, the 50% inclusion of oil revenue is a new formula that came from this years federal budget. Alberta in the past has had resources excluded from the formula, that was my point.

We aren't asking for a handout, nor do we feel that equalization is an entitlement. In fact, Newfoundland is continuing to find a way to reach a point where equalization is not needed. We would like to join B.C., Alberta and Ontario as provinces that do not receive these payments and we feel that keeping a higher percentage of oil revenues is a path to that goal.

The only province which I could say felt that they were "entitled" to anything, has to be Quebec.

Newfoundlanders seem to take a larger crack than other provinces over this issue; We, next to Saskatchewan, take the least money from this program....why all the hatred?

Also, "Do as the wise Newfies have done and move to Alberta." Believe it or not, we actually love our own province and want to make it work here. We want this province to grow and more people want to move home from Alberta than stay there. I lived in Alberta for 6 years. It is nice and has it moments..the mountains are good, but I would prefer to live here and be able to have children that will be able to live here.

I don't know what else to add. I think people have some strong pre-conceived negative ideas about this province which is a shame. Alberta is a 'have' province but obviously wasn't at one point, the only province not to receive equalization is Ontario.

Anyways, from the conversation you can tell that the original statement of the thread "Canada never so United since 1967" is untrue.

Edited August 8, 2007 by jawapunk

August1991 · August 13, 2007

I am not whining about Alberta, I could really care less. I was just trying to form an argument that would show what the situation in Newfoundland would be similar to in a prairie/western geoghraphical context. Apparently you all missed the point. But, the 50% inclusion of oil revenue is a new formula that came from this years federal budget. Alberta in the past has had resources excluded from the formula, that was my point.

Quebec receives about $5 billion annually through the federal system. Newfoundland gets about $1 billion. Quebec has had two referenda and Newfoundland Prime Ministers make noises.

As much as I would like to see Canada's federation change (and as much as I believe that bothe Newfoundland and Quebec could do better), I am not holding my breath for any wisdom from Quebec City or St. John's.

Anyone-Quebecois or Albertan-who harbours visions of separation in their lifetime needs to stop warming up their car in a closed garage. Such a change would require a significant number of people to support and would cause a lot of upheaval, something Canadians in general are not too big on. It's just not gonna happen.

Trust BD to weigh in with an intelligent comment in an otherwise ridiculously hijacked thread.

Indeed, this thread makes we want to watch another Quentin Tarantino movie on the cheap motel satellite TV.

----

Like it or not, Stephen Harper has remained PM longer than most people imagined, and he has brought far more peace to Canadian federal politics than either the PQ, the BQ or the federal Liberals would like.

Canada is more united than it has been since 1967. It's a fact. Harper can take credit.

August1991 · July 1, 2008

I have no idea how this has played out but I think Harper should take credit once again. I suspect that no one will notice.

English Canadians eat their own. English Canadians are too envious. They will never accept that another English Canadian can achieve any success in Canada, certainly not political success.

Despite his Canadian accomplishments, Stephen Harper will never be considered a success in English Canada. At most, he'll be respected.

jdobbin · July 2, 2008

I have no idea how this has played out but I think Harper should take credit once again. I suspect that no one will notice.
English Canadians eat their own. English Canadians are too envious. They will never accept that another English Canadian can achieve any success in Canada, certainly not political success.

Despite his Canadian accomplishments, Stephen Harper will never be considered a success in English Canada. At most, he'll be respected.

Please. The generalized rant on English Canada is an inappropriate as some of the anti-Quebec claptrap we hear.

If Harper can't get majority support in Canada, it is because his policies and his personality affect that.

Also, if Harper was the shining beacon in Quebec, he would be in first place rather second or third depending on what poll you look at.

August1991 · July 2, 2008

Please. The generalized rant on English Canada is an inappropriate as some of the anti-Quebec claptrap we hear.
If Harper can't get majority support in Canada, it is because his policies and his personality affect that.

Also, if Harper was the shining beacon in Quebec, he would be in first place rather second or third depending on what poll you look at.

When was the last time that English-Canadians openly accepted one of their own as a federal leader? Diefenbaker in 1958? And even Diefenbaker was quickly eaten by English-Canadians.

I think the problem is that the English-Canadian media in Toronto will never accept someone from the hicks and in the hicks, no one will accept someone from Toronto.

But even at the provincial level, there are few if any leaders accepted by English Canadians (except in Newfoundland).

Harper may place behind Duceppe in Quebec but that's a remarkable achievement given who Harper is and the past history of the Conservative Party.

-----

Harper's policies have been MOR. He has offered honest, clean administration with few if any scandals and no wholesale patronage. His government has not governed by entitlement as the Liberals invariably do. Harper's government is kenly aware of who pays the bills.

For such a successful government, it's a surprise that they are low in the polls. I reckon that some English Canadians just can't accept that one of their own can be a success. Maybe it's something in the water.

Topaz · July 2, 2008

When was the last time that English-Canadians openly accepted one of their own as a federal leader? Diefenbaker in 1958? And even Diefenbaker was quickly eaten by English-Canadians.
I think the problem is that the English-Canadian media in Toronto will never accept someone from the hicks and in the hicks, no one will accept someone from Toronto.

But even at the provincial level, there are few if any leaders accepted by English Canadians (except in Newfoundland).

Harper may place behind Duceppe in Quebec but that's a remarkable achievement given who Harper is and the past history of the Conservative Party.

-----

Harper's policies have been MOR. He has offered honest, clean administration with few if any scandals and no wholesale patronage. His government has not governed by entitlement as the Liberals invariably do. Harper's government is kenly aware of who pays the bills.

For such a successful government, it's a surprise that they are low in the polls. I reckon that some English Canadians just can't accept that one of their own can be a success. Maybe it's something in the water.

Did you say HONEST??? Few sandals??? THIS PM was suppose to be the PM that was 100% honest without corruption and show the country HE was different and take the country in the opposite direction of honesty!! BULL!!!!! They are low in the polls because he was a member of the Reform/Alliance parties and voters don't TRUST him 100% and seeing how this government operates, the Conservatives will never be trusted. Just watching Question Period in Parliament makes anyone disgusted with the behaviour of these guys! It was reported that one of the ministers had a soldier back from Afghanistan in the gallery watching Parliament and the minister asked what the soldier what he thought and the soldier relpied, "Is THIS what I'm fighting for?" he too was disgusted. Maybe if the Cons has a former PCer as PM it wouldn't be as bad, but who knows.

M.Dancer · July 2, 2008

It was reported that one of the ministers had a soldier back from Afghanistan in the gallery watching Parliament and the minister asked what the soldier what he thought and the soldier relpied, "Is THIS what I'm fighting for?" he too was disgusted. Maybe if the Cons has a former PCer as PM it wouldn't be as bad, but who knows.

Apparently you can get an LG fridge with internet capability. That would be perfect for you, an appliance that can tell you things and maybe even be smart enough to post a link.

jdobbin · July 2, 2008

When was the last time that English-Canadians openly accepted one of their own as a federal leader? Diefenbaker in 1958? And even Diefenbaker was quickly eaten by English-Canadians.

You see, this is where I disagree with you right from the start. You assume that English speakers assume one of their own speaks English or is not from Quebec. That certainly might be true of some but I think the evidence is there that people in majority English speaking provinces don't have an issue with the religion of who they vote for. All of the major parties have had Catholics at the helm.

So what do you mean: one of their own? McGuinty, Doer, Stelmach, Wall and whoever else is Catholic is not "one of us?"

I think the problem is that the English-Canadian media in Toronto will never accept someone from the hicks and in the hicks, no one will accept someone from Toronto.

So far, Ontario leaders have not stepped up and won over enough people to take over as leader of the two major parties. I don't know if it has anything to do with the media.

But even at the provincial level, there are few if any leaders accepted by English Canadians (except in Newfoundland).

Another falsehood. Doer has great popularity. We have just seen another poll showing Campbell way out in front. We've seen strength in a lot of Atlantic leaders.

Harper may place behind Duceppe in Quebec but that's a remarkable achievement given who Harper is and the past history of the Conservative Party.

It seems to say more about the Liberal prospects than on Harper's at the moment. It also shows the resiliency of the BQ.

Harper's policies have been MOR. He has offered honest, clean administration with few if any scandals and no wholesale patronage. His government has not governed by entitlement as the Liberals invariably do. Harper's government is kenly aware of who pays the bills.

His conservatism by incrementalism still goes in places that Canadians are not comfortable with. The death penalty outside of Canada for Canadians was a decision Harper made unilaterally without debate. Makes you think what else he hopes to do by inches if not miles.

This thinking is what leads to a fall off in support for a majority.