Putting the Cart Before the Horse

Chicken and Egg.

Cart before the horse.

However you want to describe it, it’s becoming clearer all the time that most Canadians simply don’t understand Newfoundland and Labrador and never will.

When you listen to most of the national media pundits, federal politicians and even the man on the street in places like Ontario or Alberta, one thing becomes abundantly clear, they all believe that Newfoundland and Labrador Premier, Danny Williams, is power mad and dictatorial.

They believe, as former media darling and newly minted Conservative senator, Mike Duffy, recently insinuated, that Danny Williams is a greedy hot head with a swollen ego and that the people of the Province have under his spell.

I’m paraphrasing of course.

The logic behind the argument runs like this.

Danny Williams is combative, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are a friendly and happy people, so therefore Williams must be running amok and stirring up trouble.

The argument doesn’t hold water for anyone who knows the first thing about the issues that matter to Newfoundland and Labrador or has any insight into the collective history of the people in the Province.

In fact the misconception is a perfect example of putting the cart before the horse.

Simply put, Danny Williams doesn’t have an 80% popularity rating because he has the ill informed yet contented masses suddenly riled up.

He was not re-elected with a larger mandate during his second election campaign because the people are afraid of his dictatorial vengeance.

In truth, Danny Williams enjoys his impressive level popularity because he is doing the bidding of his constituents rather than ignoring them.

When it comes to addressing their concerns over economic development, the oil industry and, perhaps most of all, dealing with the inequities that the Province faces in the Canadian federation Williams is the first political leader the Province has had in years who is willing to speak up.

His approach is like a breath of fresh air inside the Province but this reality is something that has been totally missed in the rest of Canada.

This is not to say Premier Williams is perfect, far from it. There have been, and continue to be, issues inside the Province that have put him at odds with much of the population but this doesn’t take away the deep respect many have for his willingness to take a stand when it matters most.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been disheartened for decades by successive provincial leaders who have either failed to stand up when needed or have consciously chosen to ignore the public will and for their personal benefit.

From the backroom deals that led to a loss of independence, to Ottawa’s refusal to enforce the Constitution and force Quebec into permitting the transport of Upper Churchill power across its borders, from federal mismanagement of a 500 year old Atlantic cod fishery to the recent unilateral gutting of an agreement intended to ensure that the Province would be the primary beneficiary of its offshore oil industry, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a lot of painful memories pressing concerns to screaming to be addressed.

Newfoundland and Labrador has a long history both inside and outside of Canada. Over that time the people, who have a far longer political memory than most, have been used, abused and misused for as long as anyone can recall.

No, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have not fallen under some kind of spell perpetrated by a ruthless leader.

Yes, they are indeed a friendly people, but nobody should ever take their sunny disposition for granted.

After decades of suffering most of the people have learned that in order to survive when the odds are stacked against you the best approach is often to simply smile and crack a few jokes, but in reality the anger run very, very deep.

As much as many Canadians might prefer to believe it, Danny Williams isn’t stirring up an otherwise happy go lucky people. He’s simply giving voice to their collective anger.

Is The Mainstream Media Bias or Simply Negligent?

It’s a question I’ve been pondering more and more in recent years.

Examples of structural problems in today’s media are as easy to find these days as snowflakes on a January morning in Winnipeg.

Before Christmas television news outlets were all too willing to spoon feed the public snippets of Conservative MPs referring to a potential Liberal-NDP coalition as a “Coup” or calling the actions of the opposition “illegal” or “immoral”. They were far less willing to clarify those partisan words by informing the public that the position espoused was untrue, non-factual and an out and out lie.

The Canadian Parliamentary system is designed to permit exactly the sort of coalition that was being contemplated but unless the viewer had already informed him or herself of this fact the media was not about to take on that job.

Another example now being splashed across the front pages across Canada is the ongoing battle between Ottawa and Newfoundland & Labrador over the Atlantic Accord.

On the surface it might seem that a great deal of attention is being paid to this particular dust up but in realty very few of the facts have ever seen the light of day.

The act of ignoring the underlying facts of any news story in Canada today has become more than simply an annoying weakness of the media. It’s seemingly become a pre-requisite for every news agency and one that threatens the ability of the electorate to make informed decisions about the direction their Country takes on any issue.

With the introduction of the Harper “fiscal stimulus” package the gloves have once again come off between the Province and Ottawa. The attack dogs have been loosed on the Province’s population by Parliament Hill and predictably the Canadian media, in its never ending quest for an attention grabbing quote, even at the expense of the facts, has missed the point of the story entirely.

Every day another headline screams, “Danny Chavez is at it again”, referring of course to Newfoundland and Labrador Premier, Danny Williams. It’s a term that the media has happily adopted to compare the Premier to Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez.

The fact that Mr. Williams is not a dictator at all but is in fact a duly elected leader in Canada who enjoys an 80% approval rating doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that his continued approval by the electorate means he is doing what his constituents expect him to do matter not. Instead of being depicted as a responsive leader, regardless of his approach to specific issues, he is tarred as a dictator.

The easy surface comparison sells papers. The truth doesn’t.

The television networks incessantly play clips of Mike Duffy, formerly one of their own who was recently awarded a Senate seat for his less than unbiased coverage during the last federal election, attacking two Premiers, NL’s Williams and PEI’s Ghiz for saying that the federal budget will have a damaging impact on the Province.

No attempt is made to find out if the claim is true or not. The attacks sell advertising time. The truth does not.

Pundits and editorialists are all too happy to perpetuate the biases and talking points of federal politicians as they rally to defend “all Canadians” from the greedy and demanding people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One can only assume from their position that Canada’s 30 million souls are in extreme danger from the 500 thousand people in Newfoundland and Labrador, a place that it seems must not be a part of the Country if Canadians need to be defended from its actions.

The news media finds easy to preface every sentence related to the $1.6 Billion dollars involved in the dispute with the tag line, “according to Mr. Williams the federal budget will…”. It would be far harder and require much more effort to actually investigate whether the Province is truly being targeted by the Conservative government or not.

This approach to informing, or more accurately, misinforming the public tells us far more about the mainstream media itself than it does about any story they might be covering on a given day.

It tells us, or ought to tell us, that most reporters, editors and news managers are not in the business of reporting the facts but of producing a steady diet of ready to eat, easy to digest, fluff for the sole purpose of attracting a larger audience and, as a direct result, securing more of those lucrative advertising dollars that pay their salaries.

I challenge anyone who has followed the ongoing battle between Ottawa and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over the past 3 governments (one Liberal and two Conservative) to think of a single mainstream news outlet, be it the Globe and Mail, National Post, CBC or CTV that has actually taken on the task of investigating the situation thoroughly and reporting the facts behind the headlines.

It isn’t easy is it?

Personally I can’t think of a single one that has been willing to move past the political rhetoric on both sides of the argument, go directly to the bean counting bureaucrats who manage the day to day operations of both the federal and provincial finance departments and actually investigate the story as most Canadians assume reporters are supposed to do.

Not one.

Instead these so called “news” agencies now serve as little more than a venue for the regurgitation of whatever they are told by politicians with a vested interest in the situation and, in the case of national media outlets, more often than not that means providing the public with a daily diet of spin provided by partisan staffers and Federal MPs.

Recently Newfoundland and Labrador MP, Judy Foote, who was the first “uncooperative” MP to be dubbed “the Newfoundland Six” by the media for their refusal to support the budget vote, sent me an email in which she summed up the struggle taking place inside the Liberal caucus and on Parliament hill generally over the Accord issue.

According to Ms. Foote, “One of the problems in Ottawa is getting people to understand the seriousness of the situation. I can talk until I am blue in the face…”

Her words belie her frustration.

When she sent that email, which was before Michael Ignatieff gave his Newfoundland and Labrador caucus a so called “free pass”, Ms. Foote was frustrated at a situation where she had been unable to make her fellow MPs understand that the legislation they were about to pass would have dire consequences for her Province and her people and set a bad precedent across the Country.

Ms Foote’s words also convey a general lack of knowledge within federal political circles, not only over the impact of the budget in the region, but of the Newfoundland and Labrador’s place in Canada.

With the media blindly relaying the uninformed position of federal political figures, is it any wonder Danny Williams could only find one Canadian Premier, from PEI, who was willing to stand up and support his Province’s position, a move that led to the political hatchet job delivered by Senator Duffy in is maiden address to the Red Chamber.

Perhaps American comedian and SNL Alumnus, Al Franken, said it the best when he said, “The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover.”

Those words do not just convey a problem within the media itself but foreshadow a situation that has the potential to affect the direction of the entire Nation.

Is it surprising that the general public across Canada has so easily adopted the misguided belief that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is acting as a dictator, that the people are simply greedy and that the Province wants to have their cake and eat it too?

It isn’t.

That’s a story far easier to deliver and for the public to digest than one that identifies the inequities, political games, partisanship, lies, propaganda and systemic unfairness that is an everyday reality of the Canadian federation today.

The stories making the headlines may be easy to accept and they may sell papers but do they really serve the best interests of the public who must ultimately make the decision on the direction their Country should take?

Ignatieff Puts Ambition Ahead of National Unity - Todd Russell Toes Party Line

UPDATE 5:15 PM - Although he is turning his back on Newfoundland and Labrador, Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, announced today that is willing to make a token gesture by giving a one time only "free pass" to the NL MPs so they can vote with their constituents.

In a clearly opportunistic move, Todd Russell immediately announced that he is now willing to vote against the federal budget along with the other party MPs who made their decisions before being given the nod and wink of their federalist leader.

It seems Todd Russell believes he can have his cake and eat it to by happily toeing the party line until his federal handlers approved of him voting in support of his constituents.

One can only hope the people of Labrador will not fall for his self serving actions and take him to task when the next federal election rolls around.

In offering this meaningless gesture to Newfoundland and Labrador Mr. Ignatieff said he is doing so because of the "radical unprecedented" cut to transfer payments by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He noted that the move "weakens the federation" which can only mean he supporting it for political and personal gain rather than in the best interest of Canada.

END UPDATE


The federal budget, which was intentionally designed to single out Newfoundland and Labrador in retaliation for not electing any Conservatives in the last election, will be passed in the Commons this evening with the support of the Liberal Party.

In a move that can only be seen as an attack by Stephen Harper, new measures will be introduced to remove $1.6 Billion in offshore oil transfers to Newfoundland and Labrador. This has been estimated as an amount equivalent to the Province of Ontario suddenly being stripped of $22 Billion dollars a year.

The move comes at a time when the economy is staggering, unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador is over 13% and is part of a so called “fiscal stimulus” budget.

When challenged over the issue Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty said in the House of Commons recently that, “…one of the principles involved in equalization is that all provinces should be treated equally."

He used that arguement as the reason he does not intend to change the legislation for Newfoundland and Labrador.

What he didn’t say was that this has nothing to do with equalization and is not directly impacted by the new cap being introduced.

Newfoundland and Labrador no longer receives equalization payments, however the formula used to calculate equalization itself is also a determining factor in calculating offshore oil revenue transfers which are intended to ensure that the province is the primary beneficiary of its offshore oil production rather than Ottawa.

Mr. Flaherty’s position that “…all provinces should be treated equally” has since been shown to have no merit.

On Tuesday Finance officials confirmed that Newfoundland and Labrador will be the only Province in the federation to lose revenue because of the specific changes that will be put in place.

It was also confirmed that two other provinces, specifically Nova Scotia and Manitoba, would also have been affected by the change however the Harper government have decided to provide those Provinces with one time payments to shelter them from the economic impact.

No such arrangement was put in place, or even offered, to Newfoundland and Labrador leaving it the only jurisdiction in Canada to be impacted.

This “poison pill” for Newfoundland and Labrador may have been an intentional act of the Conservative government but it is being abetted and supported in its implementation by the Liberal Party.

In his post budget address to the media Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, said that one of the “tests” he will be conducting in order to permit the Conservatives to remain in power is ensuring that the budget “addresses the needs of all regions of Canada”.

Since the financial attack on Newfoundland and Labrador was identified Mr. Ignatieff has lobbied the Prime Minister over the issue but is not willing to take away his support of the budget regardless of the damage it will cause.

The fact that the Liberal party intends to pass the budget and allow the Conservatives to remain in power even after failing on a Liberal imposed test calls into question the ethics of the Liberal leader himself and whether he is truly acting in the best interests of “…all regions of Canada” or simply serving his own political ambitions.

The singling out of Newfoundland and Labrador for punitive actions by the Harper government, with the support of the Liberal caucus, has resulted in an internal challenge to Mr. Ignatieff’s leadership abilities.

Confidence votes, such as this budget vote is, are generally considered a “Party” rather than a “free” vote in the Commons. This means the entire party is expected to vote in unison at the direction of their leader. In this case however 5 of the 6 Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador have decided they will defy their leader, refuse to toe the party line, and instead support their constituents by voting against the budget.

The only hold out is Liberal MP Todd Russell, from the Labrador riding, who, in spite of the serious impact to his province, has been quoted as saying he will “…vote for the budget to promote party unity”.

It’s a move that may ingratiate him to his Mr. Ignatieff but will almost surely make it impossible for him to gain re-election in the future.

A similar situation occurred a few years ago when Newfoundland and Labrador Conservative MP Fabian Manning supported his party over his constituents.

Manning was defeated by Liberal Scott Andrews in the most recent election however he was given a special thank-you gift for his actions by Stephen Harper this past Christmas. In return for supporting the Conservative party Mr. Manning was gifted with a Senate seat.

Its likely Mr. Russell, a career politician, arrived at his decision with the Manning experience in mind and that he is also expecting a senate pay off should the Liberals form government during the next election.

Nova Scotia Makes Secret Side Deal - NL Gets Budget Shaft

The government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and independent economist Wade Locke, has determined that the federal budget will cause Newfoundland and Labrador to lose approximately 500 million each year or $1.5 Billion over 3 years.

This comes at a time when the economy is already sputtering to hang onto life and the province is forecasting multi-year deficits which will be compounded by another half a billion a year thanks to this latest move in Ottawa.

The expected loss comes as a result of changes about to be introduced to the O’Brien formula and Atlantic Accord arrangements forced on the province by the Harper government. Changes which touched off the province’s ABC campaign during the last election.

Now the federal Conservatives have again changed the calculations unilaterally.

Premier Williams says he sees this move as a direct attack on Newfoundland and Labrador. Credence was given to this allegation today when reports surfaced that Nova Scotia Premier, Rodney MacDonald, has entered into a secret side deal with Ottawa to ensure that his Province will not be affected by this latest unilateral change to the Accord, leaving Newfoundland and Labrador the only Province of Canada adversely affected.

When asked by Randy Simms of VOCM radio if the six Liberal MPs from the Province plan to support their leader in voting for the budget MP Judy Foote responded that she will support the budget because her party has determined that “Canadians don’t want an election. They want us to get the job done…we have to do something and it means getting on with the job.”

Left unsaid was the fact that in “getting the job done” Ms. Foote and the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal caucus plan to do so on the backs of their constituents.

Perhaps Ms. Foote and her Liberal colleagues from the province might do well to remember the legacy left by Conservative MPs Fabian Manning and Loyola Hearn when they opted to toe the party line over the Accord rather than standing up for their province when the time comes to stand up in the House of Commons.

Even if the budget passes an election is likely within a year. Voters in Newfoundland and Labrador have already seen to it that no Conservatives were elected in the last election and they may well decide that the future is one where not only blue, but red as well, are no longer a part of the Newfoundland and Labrador election palette.

UPDATE January 30, 2009 - 2:03 PM NL Time:

News reports are surfacing that MP Scott Simms will vote NO on the budget in its current form.

Still no word from MPs Sibon Coady, Gerry Byrne or Todd Russell.

Will they stand with their constituents or will they decide to toe the party line in Ottawa instead?

UPDATE January 30, 2009 - 11:17 AM NL Time:

Thanks to the letters, phone calls and emails of constituents in the province Liberal MP Judy Foote has decided to support her province and vote NO on the budget if changes are not made to rectify this issue.

Here is an email I recieved from Ms. Foote today:

Thank you for getting in touch. I really appreciate hearing your views.

Let me put your mind at ease. For me, doing what is right for our province is to vote against this Conservative budget which I will be doing.

One of the problems in Ottawa is getting people to understand the seriousness of the situation.
I can talk until I am blue in the face but what I needed was hard evidence that the views I am expressing are real and represent the thoughts of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a result of my comments on Open Line yesterday morning I now have that hard evidence.
While I could have gone on open line and asked for e-mails and telephone calls to get your views, that could have been viewed as being contrived.

By laying out the options available to the NL MPs it generated the correspondence I needed that there is no question the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want their representatives to vote against the budget even that means sitting as independents.

I will be voting NO.

Judy

News reports today indicate that Avalon MP Scott Andrews has also decided to vote NO in support of the Province's position.

Author's Note: Web Talk encourages everyone to contact the Province's Liberal MPs and express their feelings over this issue. Anyone wishing to do so can contact them at the following email addresses:

Scott Andrews: Andrews.S@parl.gc.ca

Gerry Byrne: Byrne.G@parl.gc.ca

Sibon Coady Coady.S@parl.gc.ca

Judy Foote: Foote.J@parl.gc.ca

Todd Russell: Russell.T@parl.gc.ca

Scott Simms: Simms.S@parl.gc.ca>

Atlantic Accord Made Bill Casey a Star

The following appeared today in the Nova Scotia Business Journal and speaks to the position held by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador and a large segment of the Province's population when it comes to both the Harper government's actions and those of Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey.

TRURO - N.S.

Bill Casey is taking nothing for granted. “I would be very honoured to again represent my constituency,” says the 63 year-old incumbent MLA for Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley. “However, in this job, that is a trust that must be earned each and every day, one individual at a time.”

Casey has done well to gain the confidence of his community in recent years, and – aside from a small blip in the mid 1990’s when the riding was held by Liberal Dianne Brushett – has represented his riding for the past two decades.

“I had no idea when I first got involved that I would have been so fortunate to have enjoyed the career that I have,” he says.

And while he admits that political life hasn’t been an easy ride at times – with both professional and personal challenges having taken their toll – Casey is ready for another round in Ottawa should members of his riding choose to re-elect him when they go to the polls in the October 14 Federal Election.

“I guess I’m just a sucker for punishment,” he laughs.

Casey has found widespread support as an independent MLA in recent months - both here in the Atlantic region and across the country - for his outspoken stance on issues surrounding the environment and the economy, and for his criticism of his former party.

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams has gone public with his backing of Casey, and Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald recently announced that he would not be campaigning against Casey out of sheer respect for the man.

As well, a recent endorsement from Green Party leader Elizabeth May also came as a pleasant surprise when she also announced that her party would not field a candidate in Casey’s riding for the upcoming election.

"I think Bill is as Green as they come," she told the local media last month. "He’s an honorary Green anyway, because he’s the kind of representative the people of Nova Scotia need to fight against Stephen Harper."

“Well, I appreciate her support,” chuckles Casey, “but I am still going to run as an independent. Really, the most important thing for me is that I have the trust and respect of the constituents of my community. They have been wonderful to me.”

The sentiment, it would appear, is mutual.

“Bill has been a real blessing for this community,” says long-time Truro resident Margaret Hull. “He knows his roots, and has done a marvelous job representing the people of this area for a long time. I wouldn’t want anybody else.”

Amherst native Michael MacInnis agrees. “He has become a bit of a local legend in these parts, especially the way he stood up for us here against his own party. It is a mighty rare thing these days to find an honest politician who is willing to stand up for his own beliefs.”

Casey says he wouldn’t change a thing about the experience.

“I have absolutely no regrets,” he says of his decision to vote against the 2007 Tory budget which effectively axed the Atlantic Accord.

“I hired two lawyers to get to the bottom of the whole complicated issue and what I discovered was that it wasn’t right then, and it still isn’t right today. Our people were deceived and dishonoured, and as an Atlantic Canadian, I won’t stand for it.”

He says that he is grateful for all the support that he has received.

“I have worked very hard to represent the people of my community,” says Casey, “and want to express my gratitude by continuing to represent their best interests in Ottawa.”

Loyola Hearn & John Crosbie - A World Apart Politically

Recently former federal fisheries minister, John Crosbie, has, believe it or not, been the voice of reason in the equalization battle between Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador. He has asked both parties in the dispute to find a way past the current impasse and resolve the issue. Not bad advice and if anyone is questioning Mr. Crosbie’s motives, an article written by him in this weekend’s Independent should put those questions to rest.

In case you missed it, it’s a great article. Here are a few excerpts:

“Is the future of NL one of prosperity and self-reliance achievable within Canada today or not? Can the present pattern of confrontational federalism be changed and improved upon? Is the Government of Canada going to continue to be the beneficiary of 75-80 cents on every dollar of government royalties and taxation revenues generated by existing oil projects in NL or not?”

“How can we expect to build a long term sustainable and growing economy as predicted by both levels of government during the long negotiations over the Atlantic Accord when the “principal beneficiary” of its only foreseeable non-sustainable natural resource revenue is Canada?”

“We were told that after we became a “have” province, the sharing of benefits with other Canadians was to start. But that sharing of benefits started long before NL became a “have” province because of the unfair application of the equalization program, which has prevented the achievement of the objectives and purpose of the accord.”

“…the economic and fiscal disparities among the 10 provinces and three territories are an ever increasing threat to our political, social and economic survival as a nation. We are all citizens of the same nation. How can our country permit provinces such as NL and Nova Scotia not to receive the benefits from their own depleting resources while most other provinces were given the right to their natural resources by Canada and so prosper as they receive and enjoy the benefits...”

“…With the apparent change to the commitments made by Stephen Harper… the stage is set for the next battle to erupt over the Atlantic Accord. It is 10 years since first oil was produced at Hibernia. How many more decades must pass before a lasting settlement is reached to this bitter and disruptive national unity issue?”

Well said John. I’d also add that the province has a limited number of decades left before the oil is gone. This is why the people of NL are so determined to find a solution to the problem sooner rather than later.

The article by John Crosbie is an informative, interesting one that’s well worth the read if you get the chance.

Also interesting, but quite sad, is the clear difference in attitude between Canada’s former fisheries minister, John Crosbie, and its current one, Loyola Hearn.

While Mr. Crosbie is standing firmly behind his province, in another article in the same edition of the Indy, Loyola Hearn responds to calls for the province to vote against the Conservative’s in the next federal election by saying, “It’s extremely important for our province to be represented around the cabinet table in Ottawa. If not, who’s going to look after us?”

Interesting point Loyola. I mean where would we be on Custodial Management and the Atlantic Accord if you weren't at the cabinet table?

Here’s a news flash for you Loyola, Newfoundland and Labrador can look after itself without keeping you gainfully (or otherwise) employed. We don’t need you or anyone else in Ottawa to “look after us”. All we need, and are fighting for, is to have the federal government treat us fairly and to stop tying our hands behind our backs at every turn.

Harper's Big Election Gamble

With Wednesday’s announcement of a compromise deal over the Atlantic Accord, Stephen Harper sent another clear signal he plans to force an election in the coming weeks. The question is whether the gamble to shore up support in Atlantic Canada will actually help him or cost him in the long run.

Although the deal will provide additional funds to the province, the amount will be far less than Nova Scotia had been fighting for. The move could, and likely will, be seen as an attempt by Harper to buy off the province before an election and to shore up a weak Conservative governemnt in that province.

Some analysts believe Harper wants to continue to govern but based on recent events it’s far more likely that, even with less than perfect polling numbers, the PM sees the time as ripe to make his move and force an election.

All sorts of scenarios are being tossed around by strategists and party insiders. Anything and everything that could possibly help or hinder the party’s election chances are being examined. Correction, almost everything. Clearly something has been overlooked in Harper's quest for glory.

What has not been considered is a factor outside the control of Stephen Harper and his party. An intangible that has the potential to do some serious damage to the Conservatives in light of recent events, and one that has once again moved to the forefront with Wednesday’s announcement.

That uncontrollable and indefinable factor is none other than the outspoken Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams.

It may sound a little odd that the Premier of one of Canada’s smallest and poorest provinces, one with only 7 federal seats, might somehow be able to throw a monkey wrench into the PM’s chances for re-election, but odd or not, the possibility exists and Stephen Harper is not giving that possiblity the attention it deserves. It's an oversight that could prove far more expensive than he knows.

Williams has already verbally attacked the PM over back peddling on equalization promises and for making unilateral changes to the bi-lateral Atlantic Accord agreement. At the time of those changes Williams complaints were easily brushed aside as those of a premier with limited political experience but my how times have changed.

Today the Premier is viewed in many parts of Canada as a bit of a giant killer, a leader who isn’t afraid to fight with anyone standing in the way of his province’s future. Simply put, he's a street fighter that Stephen Harper has just poked with a very big stick.

Williams has already told the people of Canada that the PM can’t be trusted to keep his word. He warned them that by breaking a written promise to Newfoundland and Labrador Harper proved he was not above doing the same thing to them. Now, with the Nova Scotia agreement in place, Harper has done just that.

The PM would have been better off if he had simply done an about face, for whatever "technical" reason, and honored the Atlantic Accord. At least then he could have claimed he was bound by a contract signed by the preceding Liberal government and that his hands were tied. Instead he has opted to do something he told the Country he would never do.

Whether you support the fight over equalization or not, yesterday’s agreement, with Nova Scotia, is clearly a new side deal for that province. When Harper brought down the equalization formula in March, the one that got him into this mess in the first place, he told the Canadian people there would be, “No more side deals”.

All Williams has to do now is lock and load for an attack that will surely resonate with Canadian voters. On Wednesday Stephen Harper provided the ammunition he needed and he also gained the scrappy Premier an even more emboldened ally in the form of the normally reserved Saskatchewan Premier, Lorne Calvert.

The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is often accused of picking fights for the sake of fighting but that’s a misperception that has come back to haunt several of his opponents. In reality he more often picks fights he feels he should, and can, win. Stephen Harper is aligned squarely in his crosshairs and Williams' finger is poised on the trigger.

Since first elected Williams took on former PM Paul Martin over the very same Atlantic Accord contract. He won.

He fought big oil over an improved royalty regime and a provincial equity position. Big oil closed up shop and moved away. A year and a half later they quietly returned and agreed to an enhanced royalty regime and the very equity position he wanted. He won.

Williams, while in his first term, took a hard line by legislating over 40,000 public sector employees back to work, laid off highway staff after shutting down a number of depots, sent the provincial oil industry association into hysterics by walking away from Hebron development talks and completely alienated two federal governments. This week he sought re-election from just over 300,000 voters, most of which were impacted in some way by his previous actions. He won in a landslide vicory with the largest percentage of popular vote in the province’s history.

Williams is now much more widely recognized across Canada than he was even a few short months ago. His exploits have led to a re-evaluation of oil royalties by the Alberta government. He has emboldened provinces like Saskatchewan - which is now tackling the federal government in court and threatening to campaign against Harper- and his fighting persona has even led some in Nova Scotia to jokingly muse about him leading their province as well.

When he walked out on meetings with Paul Martin and he proved he doesn’t pull his punches.

When he waved goodbye to oil companies, as they packed up and left the province over stalled negotiations, he proved he doesn’t pull his punches.

When he went on a media tour and took out full page ads across the Country criticizing Stephen Harper he proved he doesn’t pull his punches.

When he told the electorate in Newfoundland and Labrador to vote “ABC” (Anyone but Conservative) during the next federal election he proved he doesn’t pull his punches.

And when he won his second mandate on the day before Harper's Accord announcement, with a majority that even the first Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and late father of Confederation, Joey Smallwood, would have been envious of, Williams greeted the crowds by saying,

"There's a message here, Steve. If you want to take me and my team on, you have to take on all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador."

Once again, he proved he doesn’t pull his punches.

Any federal election will naturally center on the issues and personalities directly involved but who really knows what kind of chaos one very determined premier can create when he puts his mind to it.

It’s one thing to force an election when you’re sporting minority level numbers but are in control of the agenda. It’s a completely different game when you're faced with an unknown and volotile variable like the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Unfortunately for the PM he has no control over which issues the public ultimately decide to latch onto, especially when a wild card like Williams is waiting in the wings stockpiling his ammunition and patiently preparing to fire.

I don’t know about Stephen Harper, but if I were planning to go to the polls any time soon I’d sure as hell be looking for some way to neutralize the Williams factor first.

Editor's Note: As an aside, Both Harper and MacDonald claim this deal was in the works for months (and not just a quickly engineered election ploy) there may be some evidence to the contrary.

The announcement of this deal (also offered to Newfoundland and Labrador) was made on October 10th, but as late as October 5th someone at the department of finance in Ottawa was spending a little time investigating the numbers involved. Check out the following link to another article on my site a few days ago:

http://freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogspot.com/2007/10/atlantic-accord-revisited.html

Nova Scotia Signs Deal - Resolves Atlantic Accord Dispute

The Canadian Press is reporting that Harper has reach deal with Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald over offshore revenues.

Just in case anyone has trouble reading between the lines here's my humble analysis:

In essence Premier Rodney Macdonald sold out his province in order to help Stephen Harper win the next election and to protect the career of Federal MP (and Defence Minister) Peter MacKay.

The "deal" does nothing to address the fact that Harper promised to leave 100% of non-renewable resources out of the equalization formula and didn't.

The "deal" allows the province to either take part in the new equalization formula or keep the accord using the old and less valuable 2005 formula any time they choose. Essentially the same choice offered by Harper when he first left the accord in tatters but over a longer period.

The "deal" doesnt allow Nova Scotia to participate in the current equalization formula and keep the accord, even though the accord clearly states that is what should be happening.

The only value of this "deal" for Nova Scotia may be in finally getting some kind of settlement on royalties already owed by Ottawa for decades but never actually paid. No doubt it won't be the full amount owing however so whether that's actually a plus is questionable.

The timing of this announcement is interesting as well, coming the day after a big election in NL, on the day Ontario is at the polls, within a day or so of an election in SK and while the House of Commons is not sitting. It almost seems as if the PM wanted this to slip through without anyone paying too much attention to it. It didn't work.

Atlantic Accord Revisited

Hi all,

I know that just today I told everyone I wouldn't be posting anything new until after the provincial election, but I just found something in my own web site statistics that is too curious to overlook. It may mean nothing but then again...

You see I sometimes check my site's statistics to see how many visitors have come by, what part of the Country they hail from and so on. Don't worry, the statistics don't tell me who you are, just a few general facts that are somtimes interesting, especially today.

With Stephen Harper posturing for a federal election rumors surfaced last week in Nova Scotia that Bill Casey, the Conservative castaway who had the cubes to stand up to the PM over the Atlantic Accord, might run for the party again, if they are willing to make amends over the issue.
Of course we all know the Harper government has about as much support in Atlantic Canada as a spanish trawler on the Grand Banks, so with an election looking more and more likely the question is if the Conservatives taking another look at the Atlantic Accord debacle in the hopes of regaining some ground.

Maybe they are.

Today in my statistics I found two very interesting entries.

The first was the recording of a visitor who came to us via the parliamentary server and stayed on for nearly 3 hours. This isn't that odd since Big Brother usually stops by for a visit, but the length of the visit was a little out of the ordinary.

What was a even stranger was the following entry.



As you can see, some industrious little beaver at the Federal Finance Department also paid Web Talk a visit and interestingly they stumbled on the site while searching Google for: Cost Wade Locke Equalization Cap.

Go ahead and perform that search for yourself and see what you get. Essentially, for the most part, it's a bunch of material on economist Wade Locke's assessment of the damage done thanks to Ottawa's callous actions on the Atlantic Accord.

It would seem that months after side stepping its obligations on the Atlantic Accord and dismissing the concerns of the provinces involved, with an election looming, someone at the Department of Finance is, for whatever reason, clearly interested in the situation and the numbers.

It may mean nothing but it certainly falls into the category of -

Things that make you go Hmmmmm......

MacKay - Ousted MP Bill Casey May Rejoin Conservative Caucus

The following is from the Halifax Chronicle Herald today. Oh the interesting times we live in!

OTTAWA — Bill Casey may run again for the Conservatives in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, Peter MacKay said Monday.

"I don’t think that decision has been made yet," said the Central Nova MP and defence minister.

"But the riding association will obviously have something to say about that."

Mr. Casey was ejected from the Conservative caucus in June when he voted against budget-enabling legislation that, he says, violates the Atlantic accord that shielded Nova Scotia’s offshore revenue from a federal equalization clawback.

Mr. Casey is sitting as an Independent but he is already the nominated Conservative candidate in the riding, and he has the support of the Tory riding association.

"Our entire association stands right behind Bill," Scott Armstrong, the riding association president, said Monday. "We want to see a resolution of the Atlantic accord so that he can get back into caucus."

Mr. Armstrong is a longtime supporter of Mr. Casey and a key Tory organizer at both the federal and provincial levels.

He said the community is behind Mr. Casey and, as a good Tory, he hopes he never has to choose between campaigning for Mr. Casey or a different Conservative.

It would be unusual for the prime minister to accept a dissident like Mr. Casey back into the fold, and Mr. Armstrong acknowledged that it may not happen.

"That’s what we’d like to see as a local organization," he said. "But that decision will lie with the prime minister."

Don Plett, president of the federal Conservative party, was in Nova Scotia for meetings last week but Mr. Armstrong said there is no pressure from the national party to rush a resolution.

"The election for us, the farther away the better, so we can work through this and hopefully get back in before the writ’s dropped," he said.

For his part, Mr. Casey said he’s not sure if he would re-enter the Tory caucus, although he’d think about it if the federal government reverses itself and honours the Atlantic accord.

"Well, they booted me out, so I don’t know," he said Monday. "And I can’t go back unless they reverse it."

Mr. Casey issued a tongue-in-cheek news release on Monday after the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals each released lists of conditions for their support of the Tory throne speech next month.

"As an Independent Progressive Conservative MP from Nova Scotia, I have only one condition for me to vote in favour of the throne speech," the release said. "Reverse the seven pages of amendments to the Atlantic accord agreements which were imposed on Nova Scotia and Newfoundland without their consent or agreement in the 2007 budget."

The federal Tories say they haven’t violated the Atlantic accord, as the province has the choice of sticking with the accord and an older, less generous equalization scheme, or opting into a richer system that includes an offshore revenue clawback that the accord was designed to remove.

How Will You Vote in The Next Federal Election?

Speculation is already starting that Canada could be into another federal election before Christmas. The Bloc has presented the Harper government with several non-negotiable demands they want addressed in the October throne speech.

The Liberals are facing a situation where they may either have to go to an election, in order to force all their troops to fall in line behind Dion, or head into another leadership convention.

The NDP already see themselves in a position to pick up some seats thanks the the momentum the gained in a recent Quebec by-election.

Stephen Harper appears to be willing to take on the opposition parties thanks to largely consistent, if not stellar, polling numbers.

The Greens don't have a say in an election call but their new found popularity and the Canada's inaction on the environment means they must be factored into any election strategy.

If an election is called, the Question facting Newfoundland and Labrador voters is which party should they support.

All of federal parties govern by playing the numbers game, caving in to the area of the Country where they want more seats, rather than doing what's best for the public in various parts of this diverse nation. Usually this practice leaves smaller provinces like NL to fend for themselves while desperately trying to fight off federal legislation that will actually harm the them.

Deciding who to vote for is a complex issue.

Just by examining the track records of recent governments (let's put a boat load of historical grievances aside for a moment), you have to ask yourself, should I vote for the party that tried to screw us on the Atlantic Accord but didn't get away with it, the party that succeeded in screwing us on the Atlantic Accord or the ones that never had a chance to screw us?

Or is there another option?

Maybe when this election rolls around we should put aside all the past actions of the various parties and simply focus on their philosophies, political leanings and so on.

Rather than try to outline these in words, perhaps the following versions of the Canadian Flag (as sent to me by a regular visitor to Web Talk) say it better. As someone once said, "A picture is worth a thousand words".


Green Party Flag:





NDP Flag:


Liberal Flag:



Conservative Flag:


It paints a pretty scary picture doesn't it? But who knows, perhaps this time around there may be another option to consider.

The NL-First Party Flag: