My Old Colonial Home

Does Canada see Newfoundland and Labrador as province or as a resource rich colony?

In the late 1940s the British government divested itself of many of its colonies by ending its rule in places like India, Africa and yes, Newfoundland. The colonies had out lived their usefulness to England and were, by and large, returned to the people who had historically lived there. This was not the case with Newfoundland.

Instead it was decided that Newfoundland and Labrador should be brokered to Canada under the guise of a free vote. Does anyone among us really believe Canada took us in out of the goodness of their hearts with nothing to gain? If so, why not take in the people of Rwanda or Somalia.

While officially the province is spoken of an equal partner in the federation the evidence doesn’t support the rhetoric and the question remains, did we exchange one form of colonial rule for another?

A quick scan of several dictionaries reveals the following commonly accepted definition of Colonialism:

A policy by which one nation rules another and develops trade for its own benefit; an area controlled politically by a more powerful country; belief in and support for the system of one nation controlling another.

Does this sound familiar?

Newfoundland and Labrador, once a separate Dominion, is controlled by Canada. It has little, if any, political power within the ruling government and it’s a place that has seen its resources used and traded for the benefit of Canada.

Federal presence in this province has dropped by around 30% in the past few of decades leaving a limited federal presence here. While much of Canada's eastern coastline, 17,500 kms of it, lies in the province there is no military presence to speak of. Resources are used to help prop up the economies of central Canada and improve foreign relations while the province itself is left to fight over the scraps that remain.

If NL is indeed an equal partner in Canada why was it less important than Quebec when it came to bringing billions of dollars worth of Upper Churchill power to market? Why are natural resources under ground, such as those in Alberta, the domain of the province while those under water, in NL, fall under federal control? Why are foreign fleets given fishing quotas off our shores while our people struggle to maintain a dying fishery and the way of life that goes with it?

Federal politicians, and their lackeys, say that in becoming a part of Canada Newfoundland gained much we would never have otherwise had. Benefits like roads, hospitals, improved education and so on. “Where would we be today if it weren’t for Canada?” they say. Where indeed?

The following is a quote from the “History of the Indian Sub-Continent”.

“While few(of the educated)…would deny that British Colonial rule was detrimental to the interests of the common people…several harbor an illusion that the British weren't all bad. Didn't they, perhaps, educate us - build us modern cities, build us irrigation canals - protect our ancient monuments - etc. etc.”

In Newfoundland and Labrador we also have hospitals, schools and roads but at what cost and to what benefit?

Our hospitals are seriously under funded and our province’s literacy rate is one of the lowest in Canada. Anyone who has traveled the roads of the province will attest to the fact that they are in deplorable shape and worsening every year. Our youth are leaving by the thousands and our population is slowly being decimated through age and attrition.

We once had a railway. It’s gone.

Our fisheries have been destroyed under federal control.

We have no real representation in Canada’s centralized government.

After more nearly 60 years of Canadian rule, Newfoundland and Labrador remains the butt of countless slurs and jokes while providing grease for the wheels of the Canadian economy and the foreign affairs office.

Is Newfoundland and Labrador a province or a colony?

All I have to say is, “Welcome to my old colonial home”.

Harper Climbing Greased Poll

Stephen Harper is on a whirlwind tour of the Maritimes and Saskatchewan in an effort to rebuild support there after implementing a budget that will cost both areas billions of dollars. He's apparently given up on Newfoundland and Labrador all together but even in the Martimes rebuilding support is a job he will have difficulty with in light of his recent poll numbers.

According to a Decima Research poll released last week only 6% of Atlantic Canadians support Harper's stand on equalization and even when the undecided factor is removed the numbers show that a full 69% of the people in the region (including those in NB and PEI who are not involved in the Atlantic Accord debate) support the stand taken by Premier's Williams and MacDonald.

The poll, provided to The Canadian Press, also found that Harper has lost a lot of support in the rest of the country for his equalization policies. Nationally, only 27 per cent of respondents leaned toward Harper’s position, while 32 per cent sided with the premiers.

For the Tories, that means a national, not just a regional problem. This is a tricky issue everywhere for them, not just in Atlantic Canada.

When you add the national feeling over the ongoing Afghan mission and the mounting casualties there the picture for the PM doesn't look good. Just this week the list of fatalities increased when more Canadian soldiers died in a roadside bomb attack and in August soldiers from the Van Doos regiment in Quebec, a province already polling well over 70% against the mission, will be rotated into the battle zone.

It looks like it's going to be a long hot summer for the PM. The expectation is that overall national support for Stephen Harper's Conservative/Reform/Alliance/PC government, or CRAP for short, will slip into the low 20% range making them much more reflective of the numbers being experienced by his friend and mentor, U.S. President George W. Bush.

Situational Ethics

Have you ever noticed that just before getting royally screwed someone will always make it a point to tell you how honest they are?

Whenever I hear, “have I got a great deal for you” or, “just trust me”, I grab my wallet with both hands and back quickly and carefully away.

As sleazy as those characters might be nobody, and I mean nobody, takes bottom crawling to the same depths as politicians, especially federal ones. These days when I hear the word “Honourable” used in reference to elected officials my ears burn, my lip sweats and my skin crawls as if covered by fire ants.

Only someone with no honour at all would insist on using that word in their title.

Someone once said, a politician’s first job is to get elected. Their second job is to get elected and their third job is to get elected. When you apply that logic to an entire party it’s easy to see how everything else gets pushed aside, especially those pesky little problems facing the cod tongue gumming crowd back home.

Whether we’re eventually offered some sort of compromise on the Atlantic Accord or not, in the past few months the battle over the issue has stacked up a long list of casualties and ethics have been thrown out the window. We’ve all heard how Harper broke his election promises, how the Accord was torn up and how our future is in jeopardy. Fair enough, but how many of us have stopped to consider the reason Harper did what he did or why Hearn, Doyle and Manning refused to stand up for their people?

Simply put, Harper’s Conservatives want to win the next election and they hope to do it by pandering to Ontario and Quebec. Even more frightening for ALL Canadians is the fact that, in the process, they decided to buy a provincial election in Quebec by sending billions there.

Democracy surely is dead.

In that context Newfoundland and Labrador is nothing more than collateral damage, a casualty of a much bigger struggle.

When it comes to our “honourable” members of parliament the only sign of ethics they display on a regular basis are “situational ethics”. They’re willing to stand behind anyone, vote for anything and even eat their own if it protects their position in the halls of power and ensures the survival of the party.

Some people blame that kind of mentality on the system rather than on the person. They say it’s sickening that our federal system encourages politicians to perform morally reprehensible acts against the people who elected them. Bull!!!

A system is nothing more than those who are a part of it. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the individual.

Morals and ethics are not situational. They’re an integral part of a person’s nature. You either have them or you don't. Unfortunately, when it comes to successful politicians in this Country, whatever character trait is required for ethical thought appears to have been surgically removed at birth.