Will politicians ever change? It’s like they’ve all graduated from the school of thought that says you address every issue by playing the blame game and ignoring what’s really happening. We see it all the time in Ottawa and in our local legislatures from coast to coast. Opposition member’s rail against the government for its inaction only to be rebuffed by the current government who says the problems began when the former government was in power. Never mind that the issue itself is swept aside during this game of “he said she said”, it plays well for the media and a sound bite is worth a thousand votes (or something like that).
We have a perfect example of this sort of school yard mentality playing itself out in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador these days. Thousands of people are leaving the province because there is simply not enough work to keep them here. Families are split apart, the population is shrinking and more communities are dying every day. While all of this is happening, the Liberal opposition is blaming the current PC government and the government is blaming the former Liberal leadership for years of inaction while they were in office. Who’s right and who’s wrong? The answer is nobody and everybody.
Yes, the current government has some blame and should do everything it can to correct the problem but it’s an issue that’s been around a lot longer than the 3 years this government has been in power. Yes, the former Liberal government had over a decade to address the issue and did little to stem the tide. The fact of the matter is that people have left this province to find work elsewhere since day one. Ever since John Cabot landed here people have worked seasonally and moved on to other areas when times got hard. It’s a reality that’s been around for hundreds of years, long before anyone in government today was even a gleam in their Daddy’s eye but it’s a problem that needs to be addressed now, not by the next government. Playing the blame game for the benefit of the news media isn’t going to change anything.
Politicians, as a rule, have a very limited view of the future. Their vision of long term extends out to about 3 months before the next election. As such they have no appetite for doing anything that would benefit the public in the long term. They simply want actions that are seen to happen within their current mandate. God forbid a decision or action might actually come to fruition years down the road when the “other” party is in power because they might want to take the credit for it. It doesn’t matter that it’s the right thing to do it just can’t be done.
Watching our elected officials yell, scream, heckle and taunt each other while in office may have become a favorite pass time for many but isn’t it time politicians realized that the silent majority would much rather they got down to business and did what they were elected to do. The electorate is getting smarter with every generation and information is now at the finger tips of anyone who chooses to access it.
With the wide spread availability of the internet, twenty four hour news coverage and the independent voices of groups from across Canada like the NLDL in Newfoundland and Labrador, people no longer have to depend solely on what they are told by political leaders. With any luck this will eventually translate into a new breed of elector and a new breed of politician. A politician who understands that he must address the issues rather than simply jumping up and down about them and pointing the finger. Our political leaders need to be reminded that they are no longer children and that it’s time to put away their childish ways.
Patriot, Politicians only care about getting elected/re-elected, none of them really give a rats ass about the province's future.
ReplyDeleteWhere did Frank Moores, Brian Peckford, Brian Tobin etc. go after their term's were up..I'll give you two guesses and the first one doesn't count.
As for the province's future, well lets just say that we aint seen nothing yet. Get used to doom and gloom cuz thats all that there will be.
Williams will get in for another term and piss even more prospective businesses off, driving the final nails into the coffin. By the way, it has been forcasted that Alberta will need approximately half a million people to fill the new jobs within the next ten years. Guess what the population of N&L is?
To tell you the truth, I am very very concerned. I have a sister, my only other family member besides my mother, who had to leave to find work. If I didn't have a senior family member still living here, I would be fixing to leave also, and not because I don't love this bloody place because I do, but only because I don't see much of a future here, isn't that bloody sad!
FREE CANADA FROM NEWFOUNDLAND!!!!
ReplyDeleteI wish it were as easy as saying myself to reverse that statement. I would love to be free of Canada and have our resources working for us resources that the rest of Canada has working for it instead. How do we rid ourselves of such ungreatful leeches? If you can tell me how, I would only be too happy to comply.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure you know what you have really gotten from the province of which you wish to free Canada from. You would be a much more miserable lot, ours would be better lot, that is we can get control of the resources you have leeched from us. The International clout you receive in Canada, most of it is attributable to the fish quotas doled out to the many Nations off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Then if you throw into the mix, the Minerals, Hydroelectric and Oil you have gotten by hook or by crook, you people would not be half as fortunate as you are. Please count your blessings and keep your mouths shut before we put a fast forward on that request.
Oh boo-hoo.poor baby.
ReplyDeleteYou silly creature. You ae sorrowful.
ReplyDeleteAnon when you make a statement such as the one above that said "FREE CANADA FROM NEWFOUNDLAND""!!!! You do yourself an injustice by not following up the statment with the 'facts and arguments'.
ReplyDeleteBut I guess the facts for you would hurt. You just do not want to know that facts of how Canada raped the province of NL of its resources and the people of their self-esteem. Let me tell you, we had a great supply of both of these things at the time we joined Canada. We were not only a proud people we were a rich people in 1949. We had very little in the form of the modern gadgets, but so did most of the people of the world. What we did have though at that time were natural resources still untouched and a pride of place and self which we do not have now and will never get back in a life-time.
If you want to discuss the 'facts and arguments' of such an idiotic statment, I am sure there are people who respond to this blog, who would love to discuss them with you.
Pc or liberal or NDP if they ever got in are all the same. Working to get reelected, and trying to stay thee long enough to get a pention.
ReplyDeleteThe only way that anything of any real significants will happen is if they are forced to do it, maybe.
You can't blame the politicians because they are just working within the system that the people support by voting for it.
ReplyDeleteIt's called toe the party line.
Who draws the party line?
Think in this context when you read Tommy Douglas's Mouse Land. Not as a campaign slogan for the NDP.
Ontario draws the party line which the rest of the MP's from the colonies of Ontario are expected to toe.
The majority of MP's just by the fact of mob rules. The majority of MP's are from Ontario 106 out of 308 with Quebec wagging the tail of the Dog ON in that they have 75 seats out of 308 and are discontent in this federation.
When you hear politicians say they are doing what in the best interst of the country what they are really saying what is in the best interst of ON/QC just by sheer numbers.
That is why Ottawa isn't supposed to have control of the provinces resources because whats good for canada isn't necessarily what's good for the province which depends on the resource. Case in Point the Grand banks (ruptcy). It isn't good for the majority of canadians to take control of the 40% of the continental shelf which lies outside the 200 mile limit. Nor is it in the best interst of the majority of canadians ON/QC to support a call for a moratorium on bottomn dragging on the high seas of which 40% of our NL's continental shelf is considered to be aprt of the high seas.
Even though canada by it's own admission says canada doesn't bottom drag on the high seas very much. What they ommit to tell you is that 60% of the worlds Bottom Dragging takes place on the 40% of NL's continental shelf which lies outside the 200 mile limit.
If canada were to support a moratorium on bottom dragging on the high seas by extention that would include the Nose Tail and Flemish Cap which canada uses to garner favor on the world stage as well as improved trade relations with the EU and the 20 countries bottom Dragging night and day on NL's continental shelf.
Remember the Turbot wars? When canada Tobin arrested the Estai Spain threatened to cancel any and all Bombardier contracts if canada didn't drop the issue.
Canada dropped it in the best interest of canada and by extension the majority of canadians ON/QC to the detriment of NL's fishery.
That is why Ottawa isn't supposed to have control of the provinces resources because the best interest of canadians is very seldom what is in the best interest of the province which depends on the resource.
I believe it is even in canada's constitution that the resources belong to the province. But because the Supreme court of canada ON/QC is stacked in ON/QC favor it is nothing more than a kangaroo court with 3 judges from ON 3 from QC and the remaining 3 from the colonies of ON/QC.
That is why the fishery is owned and controled by Ottawa in contravention of foundation of canda as a federation as well it is highly probably that is why the SCC ON/QC ruled in favor of not renegotiating the Upper Churchill contract.
So what is the solution seeing as our political system is systemically flawed in favor of ON/QC?
Don't vote.
By voting you are just confirming your acceptance of being a colony of ON/QC and as such the sysem will never change and canda IMHO is doomed to fail.
The provinces need equality for canada to work or else it is doomed to failure.
Triple E senate
One bilingual SCC judge from each of the provinces and territories.
Canada cannot steal from itself or "rape" itself.
ReplyDeleteThis is one country. You joined it.....deal with it.
The majority of MP's just by the fact of mob rules. The majority of MP's are from Ontario 106 out of 308 with Quebec wagging the tail of the Dog ON in that they have 75 seats out of 308 and are discontent in this federation.
ReplyDeleteIt may come as a shock to you to learn that Quebec comes closest to having a share of seats proportional to its population. Ontario is actually "under-represented" if Canada had retained the original 1867 apportionment formula, or had the much stricter ones in place in the US or Australia.
When you hear politicians say they are doing what in the best interst of the country what they are really saying what is in the best interst of ON/QC just by sheer numbers.
Question: Is that also what happens in NL, with N having 44 seats, and L having just 4? Discuss.
That is why Ottawa isn't supposed to have control of the provinces resources
Not only is "Ottawa" not supposed to, Ottawa does NOT, in fact, have control of provinces' resources!
Even though canada by it's own admission says canada doesn't bottom drag on the high seas very much. What they ommit to tell you is that 60% of the worlds Bottom Dragging takes place on the 40% of NL's continental shelf which lies outside the 200 mile limit.
What is the source for this statistic? I have asked before. Can anyone answer? Where and when was this figure quantified, by whom?
That is why Ottawa isn't supposed to have control of the provinces resources
"Ottawa" does NOT have control of ANY province's resources.
I believe it is even in canada's constitution that the resources belong to the province.
Yip.
But because the Supreme court of canada ON/QC is stacked in ON/QC favor it is nothing more than a kangaroo court with 3 judges from ON 3 from QC and the remaining 3 from the colonies of ON/QC.
What does the Supreme Court have to do with anything? When have they ever decided that the federal government has jurisdiction over provincial resources?
That is why the fishery is owned and controled by Ottawa in contravention of foundation of canda as a federation
Huh?
The founding document of Canada as a nation, the Constitution you just mentioned, but obviously have never read, gives the federal government jurisdiction over fisheries. It is not a "contravention of the foundation of Canada", it is an integral part of the foundation of Canada:
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
...
12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
as well it is highly probably that is why the SCC ON/QC ruled in favor of not renegotiating the Upper Churchill contract.
When was the issue of "renegotiating" ever put before ANY court, let alone the Supremes?
One bilingual SCC judge from each of the provinces and territories.
Why?
The majority of MP's just by the fact of mob rules. The majority of MP's are from Ontario 106 out of 308 with Quebec wagging the tail of the Dog ON in that they have 75 seats out of 308 and are discontent in this federation.
ReplyDeleteIt may come as a shock to you to learn that Quebec comes closest to having a share of seats proportional to its population. Ontario is actually "under-represented" if Canada had retained the original 1867 apportionment formula, or had the much stricter ones in place in the US or Australia.
NL-Ex wasn't talking about proportional representation - he was talking about absolute weight. Try putting on your reading glasses before you step into the debate. Why would a small player be interested in taking part in a system that it finds it has no sway in - you may mention Labrador in relation to Newfoundland if it pleases you.
Even though canada by its own admission says canada doesn't bottom drag on the high seas very much. What they ommit to tell you is that 60% of the worlds Bottom Dragging takes place on the 40% of NL's continental shelf which lies outside the 200 mile limit.
What is the source for this statistic? I have asked before. Can anyone answer? Where and when was this figure quantified, by whom?
WJM - Who cares if it's 60% or 40% or whatever? Do you really care if it's 1-100%? Bottom trawling has been proven to be disastrous for ocean ecosystems and their dependent species and Canada has failed to adequately pursue the end of such practices:
a) within its own waters
b) in international waters as a member of NAFO
c) by extending its EEZ to the maximum limit and ban bottom trawling in an effort prevent further destruction of fish stocks etc.
The founding document of Canada as a nation, the Constitution you just mentioned, but obviously have never read, gives the federal government jurisdiction over fisheries. It is not a "contravention of the foundation of Canada", it is an integral part of the foundation of Canada:
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
...
12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
Are all things eternal? Is this document the word of God or something? What a pathetic sight you must be every time you bow down to worship at the altar of Ottawa. This document could change theoretically and it should. Things couldn't be worse in regards to the fishery.
But because the Supreme court of canada ON/QC is stacked in ON/QC favor it is nothing more than a kangaroo court with 3 judges from ON 3 from QC and the remaining 3 from the colonies of ON/QC.
What does the Supreme Court have to do with anything? When have they ever decided that the federal government has jurisdiction over provincial resources?
Didn't the Supreme Court Judges from Quebec and Ontario rule against transferring full jurisdiction of offshore oil resources to Newfoundland and Labrador? Would there have been a better result for NL if the Supreme Court Judges were from other provinces? Probably.
>>Hey WJM, what do you stand for exactly? The way you intentionally misrepresent other people's statements like in the first instance above I know you're not chasing objectivity. You could care less about that. You hate Newfoundlanders and don't bother saying your target is specifically Newfoundland nationalists - as soon as anyone raises a squeak that resembles pride or concern for Newfoundland and Labrador you accuse them of being an out-of-control separatist madman.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWally is a government sponsored troll (excrement disturber). He gets his kicks slagging those who live on the island portion of the province.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it refreshing to see how hard earned tax dollars are spent.
He gets his kicks slagging those who live on the island portion of the province.
ReplyDelete"Island portion of the province".
Sheesh. Can't you just say "Newfoundland"?
And no, I don't "slag" Newfoundlanders. I slag government indifference and hypocrisy towards Labrador, and the myths and two-facedness of Newfoundland nationalists.
Isn't it refreshing to see how hard earned tax dollars are spent.
Where are tax dollars being spent?
NL-Ex wasn't talking about proportional representation - he was talking about absolute weight.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with absolute weight?
What do you propose doing? Exterminating several million people to make the provinces' populations more similar to one another?
WJM - Who cares if it's 60% or 40% or whatever?
Me.
This "statistic" has been bandied about.
I want to know if it is real, and if so, where it comes from.
Unlike you, I don't take Newfoundland nationalist rhetoric at face value.
Do you really care if it's 1-100%? Bottom trawling has been proven to be disastrous for ocean ecosystems and their dependent species and Canada has failed to adequately pursue the end of such practices:
Question: What is the provincial government's position on this question?
Are all things eternal? Is this document the word of God or something? What a pathetic sight you must be every time you bow down to worship at the altar of Ottawa. This document could change theoretically and it should.
Why should it change? In any event, it is clear that it's a lie to say that federal jurisdiction over fisheries is inconsistent with the Constitution. It's written right into the Constitution.
Didn't the Supreme Court Judges from Quebec and Ontario
And every other province, too. But what is your point? What is the evidence that the province of birth, residence, or practice of the justices had ANYTHING to do with the legal outcome?
rule against transferring full jurisdiction of offshore oil resources to Newfoundland and Labrador?
When were they ever asked to "transfer" that jurisdiction? There is no case on that question that I'm aware of.
Would there have been a better result for NL if the Supreme Court Judges were from other provinces? Probably.
How do you figure? Bear in mind, that the Newfoundland Court of Appeal reached essentially the same conclusion as the SCC on the offshore question, in the provincial government's own court reference, reported as Re Mineral and Other Natural Resources of the Continental Shelf, reported at 145 DLR (3d) 9.
Where do you get your conclusion from? If judges from Newfoundland agreed with the SCC, why would judges from Nova Scotia or Manitoba decide differently?
The way you intentionally misrepresent other people's statements like in the first instance above I know you're not chasing objectivity.
What did I misrepresent?
You hate Newfoundlanders
No, I hate lies, misinformation, empty nationalist rhetoric, base appeals to the grossest emotions, and hypocrites.
that resembles pride or concern for Newfoundland and Labrador you accuse them of being an out-of-control separatist madman.
"Pride and concern" are one thing.
Lies, myth, and hypocrisy are different things altogether.
What's wrong with absolute weight?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you propose doing? Exterminating several million people to make the provinces' populations more similar to one another?
Go to hell WJM. Comparing me to a f'ing Nazi is an insult. There's nothing wrong with suggesting that a handful of people are at a loss when competing with a mob doesn't equate with advocating genocidal slaughter - go F$%# yourself.
Me: WJM - Who cares if it's 60% or 40% or whatever?
You:
"Me.
This "statistic" has been bandied about."
My point is that there might be a motion to increase jurisdiction over the continental shelf and I DON"T CARE whether or not it's 1-100 percent. If you want to spend your days pondering such figures thaan go for it. It's our continental shelf and I don't feel obliged to share it's resource wealth with other countries. You can't argue with what I feel or want.
Question: What is the provincial government's position on this question?
Without doing the research you're right - the provincial government is also opposed to a ban. I'm opposed to this position whether or not it's the provincial government or the federal government. The point is, of course, that the federal government is the one in charge of the fishery. They're the ones in the spotlight here and the ones that have guided the fishery to destruction.
Are all things eternal? Is this document the word of God or something? What a pathetic sight you must be every time you bow down to worship at the altar of Ottawa. This document could change theoretically and it should.
Why should it change? In any event, it is clear that it's a lie to say that federal jurisdiction over fisheries is inconsistent with the Constitution. It's written right into the Constitution.
I never said anything about jurisdiction over fisheries being inconsistent with the Constitution - why do you bring this up? As to why the constitution should change well that's simple - cause a potential majority of people in NL might want it. You seem to think you're talking to people that have the same values as you do. Get it? I don't care about Canada for the most part. I would say for most of the people that frequent this forum Canada isn't a priority - you speak to them as if that's the case instead of trying to sell the country. You're a Federalist that doesn't actually sell Federalism - you simply attack nationalists with arguments that rely on Federalist values. Once again - I only care about the Constitution Wally as long as I have to live under it AND AS LONG AS IT SERVES NL'S INTERESTS. See the rest of the country can disappear for all I care so don't bother mentioning it again.
How do you figure? Bear in mind, that the Newfoundland Court of Appeal reached essentially the same conclusion as the SCC on the offshore question, in the provincial government's own court reference, reported as Re Mineral and Other Natural Resources of the Continental Shelf, reported at 145 DLR (3d) 9.
Where do you get your conclusion from? If judges from Newfoundland agreed with the SCC, why would judges from Nova Scotia or Manitoba decide differently?
Yeah well I'm no fan of the provincial government either. The attitudes of many NL politicians is that they're simply administrators - not leaders. They often fall in line with Canadian trends instead of being innovative. Simply pay your taxes to Rome and make the citizens stay sedated.
As for evidence that judges from NL might serves NL interests I don't have any. Considering that - visible minorities, women, religious minorities etc shouldn't bother looking for any noticeable representation in politics or the judiciary either. I mean why don't those silly women or black people understand that rich white guys will always look out for their interests? The difference Wally - and I haven't uncovered any diaries of supreme court judges or secret RCMP investigation evidence to corroborate my view - the difference is that if all of the Supreme Court Judges are from two provinces only their perspectives and value systems are naturally formed by those places . That plays heavily into how they read the law.
What did I misrepresent?
I'm going to speak very slowly so you can understand:
NL-EX was talking about absolute weight of Ontario and Quebec's MP's NOT proportional representation as you claimed in your response. See the difference? Absolute numbers VS. Proportional Representation. You don't actually want objective debate - you never did. You just twist or misrepresent people's words and spit your verbal garbage in their face.
o, I hate lies, misinformation, empty nationalist rhetoric, base appeals to the grossest emotions, and hypocrites......Lies, myth, and hypocrisy are different things altogether.
Where did you get this information? What are you talking about exactly? Be specific - please provide website links, references to court cases, newspaper articles, interviews, etc. Please be very specific in identifying the items you named above. Please don't express any opinion, viewpoint or general sentiment because it will be scrutinized and misinterpreted. Just cold hard fact that goes uninterpreted and please make sure everything you have to say to defend your above statement is addressed in such a fashion that it does not speak to the values and perspective of the people you are addressing in order for them to be able to appreciate it. Also be sure to not provide any suggestions or positive contribution that might actually adress the problems.
Go to hell WJM. Comparing me to a f'ing Nazi is an insult.
ReplyDeleteNice. Mind your manners.
I didn't compare you to a Nazi. I merely pointed out that, short of depopulating more populous provinces, there's not much you can do about the differences in seats that they are allocated.
There's nothing wrong with suggesting that a handful of people are at a loss when competing with a mob doesn't equate with advocating genocidal slaughter - go F$%# yourself.
My point is that there might be a motion to increase jurisdiction over the continental shelf and I DON"T CARE whether or not it's 1-100 percent.
The statistic has been cited. I want to know the source of it. If you don't know, then you can leave the question to be answered by someone who does... if there is such a person.
I never said anything about jurisdiction over fisheries being inconsistent with the Constitution - why do you bring this up?
I didn't bring it up. NL-expatriate did. I didn't attribute the comment to you.
As to why the constitution should change well that's simple - cause a potential majority of people in NL might want it.
No one province can change the constitution.
Once again - I only care about the Constitution Wally as long as I have to live under it AND AS LONG AS IT SERVES NL'S INTERESTS. See the rest of the country can disappear for all I care so don't bother mentioning it again.
See, the rest of the country's consent would be needed to change the constitution.
Your irrational hatred of the rest of the country makes me wonder who's really the fascist around here...
difference is that if all of the Supreme Court Judges are from two provinces
When have "all of the Supreme Court Judges" ever been from two provinces?
Which two provinces?
That plays heavily into how they read the law.
Evidently not, since, even assuming, as you do, incorrectly, that all the SCC judges are from two provinces, THEY REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION OF A COURT COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF NEWFOUNDLANDERS.
I'm going to speak very slowly so you can understand:
NL-EX was talking about absolute weight of Ontario and Quebec's MP's NOT proportional representation as you claimed in your response. See the difference? Absolute numbers VS. Proportional Representation.
Why shouldn't Ontario and Quebec have those "absolute numbers"? What's the problem here?
Where did you get this information? What are you talking about exactly? Be specific - please provide website links, references to court cases, newspaper articles, interviews, etc. Please be very specific in identifying the items you named above. Please don't express any opinion, viewpoint or general sentiment because it will be scrutinized and misinterpreted. Just cold hard fact that goes uninterpreted and please make sure everything you have to say to defend your above statement is addressed in such a fashion that it does not speak to the values and perspective of the people you are addressing in order for them to be able to appreciate it. Also be sure to not provide any suggestions or positive contribution that might actually adress the problems.
I have no idea what you mean in that paragraph.
NL-EX was talking about absolute weight of Ontario and Quebec's MP's NOT proportional representation as you claimed in your response
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I wasn't talking about "proportional representation", either.
I was talking about proportional apportionment.
Two different things.
I ask again: what is the problem with the number of seats Ontario or Quebec have in the House of Commons?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI didn't compare you to a Nazi. I merely pointed out that, short of depopulating more populous provinces, there's not much you can do about the differences in seats that they are allocated.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who mentioned the freakish idea of killing millions of people - not me. I was thinking one could advocate NL separate so that it wouldn't be subject to the political whims of Quebec and Ontario. The sovereignty movement in Quebec sees this as their alternative to domination by English Canada. Also, WJM, the Constitution isn't the word of God as you think it is - it could change or those parties subject to it may decide to go their own way.
No one province can change the constitution
You're right - it can't - but one province CAN decide to go its own way and separate if it finds the arrangement it has with Canada is unsuited to its needs. Confederation was only a political and business agreement after all - that's why Canada is so desperate when it comes to nation-building because it's population are not a people. Business agreements can change.
See, the rest of the country's consent would be needed to change the constitution.
Your irrational hatred of the rest of the country makes me wonder who's really the fascist around here...
The rest of the country's consent wouldn't be needed for NL to have a referendum on whether or not to separate unless the Constitution is changed to accomodate it.
Not caring about something isn't equivalent to hating it. I don't think about care for Australia very much but that doesn't mean I hate it. You on the other hand spend a great deal of time attacking people that want change for the better in NL - enough so that it's clear you hate Newfoundland in particular and the people that live there.
When have "all of the Supreme Court Judges" ever been from two provinces?
Which two provinces?
Of the current Supreme Court of Canada judges 6 are from Quebec, 1 from Alberta, 1 from Manitoba and 1 from Ontario. I was wrong about them all being from two provinces but six from Quebec alone is lopsided enough for me to complain.
Why shouldn't Ontario and Quebec have those "absolute numbers"? What's the problem here?
There's nothing wrong with Ontario and Quebec having these absolute numbers IF you're a committed Federalist. If, as in your case, the health of the Canadian union comes before the health of vast regions or social classes etc than it's ok that Ontario and Quebec determine the economic policy of the country, etc. If you're not a Federalist than having so much jurisdictional power and policy-making influence concentrated in only one region of the country it's a problem.
I have no idea what you mean in that paragraph
Of course you don't understand sarcasm - you're a government sponsored automaton. For instance in your search for "absolute truth" you think people's opinions have to be justified - opinion is only arbitrary Wally. Go and look it up.
Mount Pearligan you are such a moron.
ReplyDeleteYou can't deal with the truth so you attack it.
For all your high ideals NL cannot separate because it would collaspe where it stood.
Plus, you'd lose having Ottawa to blame for all your bad decision-making.
Maybe a better solution would be to stop electing such pathetic politicians.
What truth am I attacking exactly? I don't necessarily have the answers but I know Wally's brand of Ottawa-or-die politics (which is about as polarized as I've seen it when it comes to "high ideals") hasn't worked for NL and also other regions and people in Canada.
ReplyDeleteAlso what bad decision making on NL's part could be blamed on Ottawa? Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are indeed responsible for the state their province is in but Ottawa routinely doesn't co-operate with the province (fallow field legislation) nor does it take the lead where it should (saving the fisheries by extending jurisdiction to include the continental shelf and working to ban destructive fisheries practices). Anon- I don't advocate separation but I do advocate change that appears like it will never happen unless the threat of separation becomes real. The bite has to be worse than the bark so to speak.
For once I agree with Wally on one thing - Myles ban anonymous posters.
Typical Newfoundlander response........get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
ReplyDeleteI think it's absurd to have people involved in debate who are faceless and seemingly represent nothing. Apparently you're not a Newfoundlander so are you a Labradorian and if not why do you care? I don't mind people disagreeing with me - it's a great test of one's ideas and a great way to learn but, "anonymous", you're unidentifiable and because there are so many people calling themselves "anonymous" it's hard to get a grasp one who you're talking to. I don't agree with Wally on most things but I follow his blog somewhat and am able to identify him and his general position on things because he actually has an identity. Both of you are only capable of contributing (an oxymoron?) negative comments but at least the one isn't completely an unknown entity.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah....Mt. Pearligan is a real identifying name. You could be anyone. Where's your real name??What's the diff?
ReplyDeleteThe "diff" moron is that there aren't 30 Mt. Pearligans but there are a multitude of anonymous'. There's no way to distinguish which anon you are.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the no more anonymous stance. It is very difficult trying to follow and respond to the many anonymouses.
ReplyDeleteHow hard is it to come up with a handle? Use your imagination. It would also lend credibility to your arguments ie: do you actually have any convictions or beliefs or are you just arguing for arguements sake?
Edgar
See... eventually people come to realize that I am just expressing common sense! ;)
ReplyDelete