Quebec and Ottawa Near Agreement on Oil Well Straddling NL Border

With a Quebec MP, Christian Paradis, in the role of Federal Natural Resources Minister, it'll be interesting to see the outcome of negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec over the Old Harry oil deposit straddling the Newfoundland and Labrador boundary.

The Canadian Press is reporting that a deal is near but what will this deal mean for the people of Newfoundland and and Labrador?

From the Canadian Press:
Federal government says Old Harry negotiations with Quebec going well

QUEBEC - Federal Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis says talks with Quebec over a disputed underwater energy deposit in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are progressing.

Paradis says he is hopeful negotiations with his provincial counterpart over the Old Harry reservoir will be completed shortly.

Quebec has tried to secure exclusive rights to the reservoir in the past, but the energy deposit straddles the border of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.

The dispute between the two provinces centres around ownership of the seabed and the territorial divide between Quebec and Newfoundland.

Paradis says negotiations are complex, but that it's important to reach a deal soon because Newfoundland already has an agreement in place with Ottawa.

The reservoir could represent billions of dollars in revenue for the two provinces and has a potential output of two billion barrels of oil and 5,000 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

A company has already started exploring the reservoir thanks to a permit from Newfoundland.

Content Provided By Canadian Press.

National Post: Williams slams Quebec hydro 'robbery'

Once again it's time to revisit the robbery Newfoundland and Labrador continues to suffer from at the hands of the Quebec government, Hydro-Quebec and, yes even the federal government (which played no small part in allowing the upper churchill fiasco to happen and continue to stand in the way of power export development in Labrador.)

The following appeared in the latest edition of the National Post and should be of interest to Web Talk readers:

Hypocritical, a bad neighbour, and guilty of "highway robbery": Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams called Jean Charest's Quebec government a few names in a St. John's speech, escalating a feud over hydroelectric power rights that has simmered between the two provinces for decades.

In a luncheon address to the St. John's Board of Trade on Wednesday, Mr. Williams denounced Quebec's opposition to Newfoundland's bid for federal funding to build a power transmission line from Labrador to Nova Scotia to potentially sell Labrador-generated power in the Maritimes and New England.

Calling Quebec's opposition to funding the project "shameful" and "abhorrent," Mr. Williams said Quebec "shafted us once" on the existing, 1960s-built hydro plant on the Churchill River and suggested it was trying to do so again with the proposed Lower Churchill project.

"[Quebec] wants it all, and that just doesn't go down well with me ... It needs to get out of the way of the progress of its neighbours," he said.

"The rest of the country and even Quebec itself is finally admitting that it has been getting away with highway robbery in Canada for decades."

The Quebec government has avoided the same kind of tough language so far. In a statement issued yesterday, Quebec Deputy Premier Nathalie Normandeau said the province does not oppose the construction of any undersea power transmission lines. What it opposes are federal subsidies for these on the grounds that they could distort the price and market for electricity. In a letter last month, Quebec asked Ottawa not to fund a joint Newfoundland-Nova Scotia hydro project on those grounds.

Mr. Williams characterized that move as "disgusting." His elaboration on that position on Wednesday was in keeping with his tendency to take aggresive stances against other Canadian politicians.

"Newfoundland and Quebec have been at loggerheads for a few decades now. The difference is, Danny Williams brings a very strong personal component to it. He has demonstrated
in relations with Ottawa and with other premiers that he [isn't] hesitant to butt in," said Nelson Wiseman, a University of Toronto political science professor, who noted public disagreements between premiers is rare.

That combative style plays well in Mr. Williams's home province, where his popularity ratings tend to stay above 80%.

"I guess his feeling is playing nice hasn't gotten them anywhere," said James Feehan, a professor of economics at Memorial University Newfoundland and the co-author, with Melvin Baker, of an article in the September issue of Policy Options magazine titled "The Churchill Falls contract and why Newfoundlanders can't get over it."

Driving Mr. Williams's anger is a desire to capitalize on Labrador's hydroelectric potential for the first time by piping power to the Maritimes, perhaps even finding a market for Labradorian electricty in New England.

The proposed Lower Churchill project could accomplish what the existing Churchill Falls project has failed to do for residents of Newfoundland and Labrador: namely, get hydro royalties flowing in the direction of St. John's.

For Newfoundlanders, Quebec's apparent blocking of attempts to develop the Lower Churchill project smacks of the Churchill Falls hydro deal signed in 1969, which has obliged their provincial power utility to sell electricity to Quebec for absurdly low prices. The deal angers Newfoundlanders still.

"There were events that took place that I think do not look all that clean in terms of business ethics. There were issues of conflict of interest, where Hydro-Quebec had an interest in [the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation] at the same time," Mr. Feehan said.

Nalcor Energy, parent company of the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation, launched a lawsuit against Hydro-Quebec in January. Several past attempts by St. John's to have the Churchill Falls deal changed or renegotiated have failed.

In the meantime, Mr. Williams reckons Newfoundland is selling Quebec more than $2-billion worth of electricity each year for around $50-million. The contract expires in 2041.

Latest Fishery Scores: BC 1 - NL 0

Today, June 15, 2010 is the day an official investigation into the collapse of sockeye salmon stocks on B.C.'s Fraser River is scheduled to begin.

The Cohen Commission of Inquiry is touted as being, “…a lengthy and technical probe into the disappearance of almost 10 million fish from the Fraser River sockeye run. The collapse of the stock prompted the federal government to order an investigation to be led by B.C. Supreme Court Judge Bruce Cohen.

According to reports, a discussion paper released in advance of this week's hearings indicates the inquiry will examine everything from fish biology to the organization of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and will attempt to gain a full understanding of the collapse.

One question Ottawa: In 1992 a moratorium was introduced after the collapse of the Atlantic Cod stocks, after 500 years serving as the economic engine of Newfoundland and Labrador. That collapse led, either directly or indirectly, to job losses for about 20% of the province’s workers. Why has there never been an official inquiry held to understand the reasons behind that collapse?

Could it be because the findings are already suspected in the circles of power and that those findings would finally expose to the light of day the way the stocks were mismanaged, sold off, bartered away for votes and foreign “favors” ending once and for all the fantasy Ottawa and DFO have foisted on the public?

In the absence of valid answers I simply ask.

Winning an Un-Winnable Battle

How do you win an un-winnable battle?

It’s a question that's been on my mind since learning that the Harper government, in spite of Parliament's rejection of new NAFO amendments that could see foreign vessels patrolling Canadian waters, has decided to go ahead and adopt those amendments anyway.

After such an incident there are those who question whether democracy is utterly and truly dead in Canada and whether our sovereignty itself has been bartered away. There are those as well who will see this as the final nail in the Atlantic fishery with NAFO nations freely able to rape the ocean clean once and for all. Already, in some circles, talk has turned to the need for independence and separation from this “undemocratic” Canadian federation.

All I can say to those good folks is that they might want to consider choosing their battles wisely and perhaps, in this instance anyway, the right way to counter Ottawa’s actions is to simply accept them as our new reality while seeking ways to address the underlying concerns on a more local level.

Let’s think outside the box on this one.

Beating our collective heads against an immovable object (the PMO, DFO, take your choice) isn’t going to solve the problem at hand and make no mistake this is indeed a problem.

The Harper government has shown in the past that it has no love for Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly isn’t going to backtrack on a very public decision simply to make Atlantic Canadians happy.

On the other hand, if we could find a way to mitigate the damage, and perhaps even enhance our power position in the fishery, over time, wouldn’t that be a victory in itself?

With that premise in mind, perhaps we should consider working within this new system rather than futilely fighting it without any real hope of victory.

A great example of just such a "novel" approach already exists in the province so there isn't even a need to re-invent the wheel.

A few years ago the provincial government and some local groups felt that the Feds weren’t doing enough to protect our rivers and salmon populations. They argued and fought with DFO for a while until finally deciding the best approach was to simply do something about the problem.

As a result a number of provincially funded wardens were hired and sent forth into the Newfoundland and Labrador wildneress. A public awareness campaign about poaching was started and this campaign led to citizens groups forming their own civilian river watches.

Thanks to these efforts and others salmon poaching in Newfoundland and Labrador is way down from where it was in the past, stocks are generally improving and Newfoundland and Labrador now has far more say in the protection of its rivers than it has had for decades.

Could a similar approach work with ocean stocks? Could this be the answer to so many of the concerns people have expressed about foreign influences on the offshore?

Let’s explore the possibilities for moment.

Instead of battling Ottawa over a decision they aren’t likely to undo we might be better off lobbying the provincial government and our own people to take the bull by the horns (or the fish by the tail) when it comes to fisheries conservation.

If we can find the collective will to act we might see a far different fishery a few years from now.

Every day Cougar Helicopter flights pass back and forth between St. John’s and our oil platforms at the edges of our 200 mile limit. Provincial Airlines planes travel over our Grand Banks on a regular basis every day. The Province’s newly purchased water bombers, when not fighting major fires, will be sitting idle. No doubt these bombers require test flights from time to time to help ensure they’re in good working order. Couldn’t those “test flights” skim over the Flemish Cap just to see what’s going on out there.

With enough eyes in the air reporting back on every fishing boat, row boat or rubber duck near our waters, in a very public manner, nobody at DFO will be able to claim they don’t know what’s happening or deny that anything illegal is going on at all.

The cost of these measures is essentially zero. All it takes is the will to co-operate.

But let’s take it a step further.

What about the countess cargo vessels and oil tankers that ply our waters every day? Couldn’t they be asked, as a courtesy, to help spot questionable fishing boats and report whatever they see? It’s just a quick radio call after all.

What about fishermen themselves?

Since the fishery has always been a major contributor to the province’s economy isn’t it time for Newfoundland and Labrador to invest a few dollars into helping the ground fish stocks recover? It doesn’t have to cost a lot and the return on investment might be surprising.

Most fishermen already know the tricks of the trade. They know where the most important fishing and breeding grounds are. They know where illegal fishing is happening and they know who is involved (both foreign and Canadian). Perhaps it’s time to get them directly involved in the conservation effort on a more formal level.

If Ottawa won’t adequately protect the fish stocks then the province should set aside 2 or 3 million dollars a year (a pittance in the grand scheme of things) to pay for provincial fisheries patrols.

Why not?

Once most fishing captains have caught their quota for the season many of them simply take their boats out of the water and sign up for EI. Why not put yearly contracts out to tender seeking local captains to help patrol our waters once they’re finished fishing?

Of course these “civilian” patrols wouldn’t have any legal authority to stop rogue fishing boats or arrest anyone involved but they could certainly take a page from the same environmental activists who so often branded them as “barbarians” over the seal hunt. They could video tape the offending vessels, request official intervention from on site, provide very public evidence against violators and generally make offender's lives a living hell on the high seas.

Who knows, Ottawa might one day even help defray a small part of the cost should such a plan prove itself effective. After all, if off season fishers are gainfully employed in conservation efforts rather than collecting EI it would not only help remove the “stamp fishery” stigma attached to the industry but the effort could actually lead to savings in the EI system itself.

With enough Newfoundland and Labrador eyes on the water and in the air it might finally become a losing gamble for anyone bent on illegal fishing and I’m willing to bet it won't take long before the risks begin to outweigh the benefits for these culprits and we begin to get things under control.

As for addressing Ottawa’s new found fondness for allowing foreign patrol boats into Canadian waters, well, with countless eyes already on the water what possible excuse could they come up with for asking foreign nations to “invade” our 200 mile limit?

I began my little rant by asking how you win an un-winnable battle. I’ll close by saying that sometimes winning can take on different forms depending on your perspective.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Are we trying to win a battle with Ottawa for the sake of winning or are we truly trying to protect fisheries habitat regardless of Federal meddling and mishandling?

A few years ago when inland salmon stocks were in trouble DFO wasn’t stepping up to the plate. Today, thanks to local efforts those stocks are improving and Ottawa has practically abandoned its inland efforts, preferring instead to leave much of it up to the province and the public (not officially of course but the result is the same). In this case the dynamic has shifted and Newfoundland and Labrador has grown in strength.

Perhaps there’s a lesson in this for the future of the offshore as well.

Where Have all the Fishes Gone?

“…In 1992, Ottawa imposed a moratorium on the Northern cod fishery. It resulted in the largest layoff in Canadian history: 30,000 jobs. The latest science says that stock has barely recovered.” – Jeffry Simpson, Globe and Mail, November 13, 2009.

The Globe & Mail article in which Mr. Simpson made that statement was dedicated to discussion of the Canadian government’s recently announced plans to hold a judicial inquiry into declining salmon stocks on the Fraser River in B.C.

Perhaps a judicial inquiry on the BC situation is a good idea but the announcement of one, not to mention the Globe’s comparison of the West Coast issue to the collapse of the East Coast cod fishery, brings to mind a very simple question: Why has an inquiry never been held into the Atlantic fisheries collapse?

Sure, studies have been conducted, scientists have debated the problem for years and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans continues to count all the little fishies in the sea, but where has any of that gotten us?

The fish are still on the missing list.

Eighteen years after the fishery was first closed the ground fish stocks haven’t recovered. Doesn’t that reality alone warrant an inquiry to help uncover not only what led to the collapse but what has been done, or hasn’t been, in the nearly 2 decades since.

The North Atlantic fishery collapse led to 10’s of thousands of people being thrown out of work overnight. In the years that followed entire towns and villages disappeared as the people who lived there were forced to give up their way of life. Ultimately the fisheries collapse led to the largest mass out-migration from any province in Canadian history.

To this day no inquiry has ever been conducted.

Admittedly some steps were taken. Fisheries task forces, committees and the like have come and gone and while those are all well and good they have their limits.

A judicial inquiry, with the power to access official records and question witnesses under oath, whether they like it or not, might be our only hope of ever shedding even a glimmer of light on one of the most devastating economic, commercial, cultural and environmental catastrophes of our collective history.

Did the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans really mismanage the fish stocks as they’ve so often been accused of doing? Are they mismanaging those stocks even today?

Are politicians, both Provincial and Federal, past and present, at fault for promoting unsustainable levels of fishing with no other goal in mind but to pander to voters?

Did Ottawa secretly barter away fishing rights as a means to improve trade relations with foreign nations and prop up the economy in other parts of Canada?

The questions that might be asked are almost limitless but sadly, to date, the answers have been non-existent.

Why, nearly 20 years into a fishing moratorium, has no official inquiry ever been called?

There are those who believe the time for an inquiry has passed, that perhaps one should have been conducted back in the mid-nineties when the moratorium was put in place. I disagree.

At the time the moratorium was introduced the public was led to believe that a couple of years down the road the stocks would rebound and all would be well again. That didn’t happen and I strongly believe an inquiry now would have the benefit of hindsight when looking for the reasons why.

Nearly 20 years after the fact many of the politicians, bureaucrats, government scientists and DFO staffers who were involved at the time but who might have been hesitant to answer the tough questions are likely to be retired from public life or close to being so today. This fact alone would help loosen stiffened tongues that might not have been as willing to be loosened back in 1992.

The timing is ripe for an inquiry of this nature unfortunately the collective spirit in Ottawa is, as usual, very weak.

The near collapse of salmon stocks on the West Coast is indeed a worthy reason to hold a judicial inquiry and I applaud the federal Conservative government for taking this action so quickly. That said, I can’t help but wonder why Mr. Harper and his recent predecessors (no matter the political stripe) have all been so comfortable in ignoring the devastation of the East Coast fishery.

If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal

Where are the grand visions? Where are the political figures that can see past the next set of polling numbers, past their personal objectives and past the next the next election?

Where are the true political leaders?

Not in Ottawa that’s for sure. In fact, if they exist at all, which I sincerely hope they do, they are nowhere near the political arena.

There are those, myself included, who firmly believe that Canada’s political system is completely dysfunctional and incapable of effectively accomplishing anything beyond petty pandering and self preservation. The exception that proves this rule is the complete efficiency with which anyone who exhibits any signs of altruistic intentions is brushed aside or, circumstances permitting, quickly and quietly thrown under a proverbial bus.

Canada’s political system breeds pariahs. They’re like flies feasting on a dead pig carcass.

The only thing that really matters to our political elite is obtaining power and retaining it at all costs, vision be damned.

The system has bred today’s crop of politicians and nurtured them with success. They are all clones of one another, regardless of party affiliation. Their philosophy differs little from one to the other and that philosophy goes something like this, “The future, beyond the next election cycle, is someone else’s problem not mine. The unemployed don’t matter (unless they’re in a vote rich urban center and might support my party), I have my own job to protect.”

How pathetic is that?

That my friends what passes for leadership in Canada today.

Take the past week or so as an example.

Canada’s deficit projections rose from 30+ billion to 50 billion and who knows what the final figure will be. 20% of that deficit is being handed over to General Motors, which plans to retain 4000 jobs in the Country, with no guarantees and no real hope of ever recovering those funds. Meanwhile forestry workers, fishery workers and hundreds of thousands of nameless, faceless individuals across every sector of the economy are being tossed out of work without even a nod of recognition from Ottawa. Less workers qualify for Employment insurance today than ever in the past and while the feds (under a former Liberal government) raped the EI fund of $50 billion dollars to pay down debt, the current (Conservative government) is refusing to put less than $2 billion back on that debt in an effort to increase eligibility during the economic disaster.

So, with all of that happening what did politicians focus all of their energies on last week? What did they spend practically every second of the day talking about? They went around and around about a federal minister left some questionably sensitive documents at a T.V. station in Ottawa.

During question period in the House of Commons that topic alone commanded everyone’s attention with demands for resignations, shouts of support for the minister and everything in between and all for political effect. Meanwhile only one solitary question, posed by a junior opposition member, addressed the multi-billion dollar taxpayer gift to GM and what it might mean for Canadian taxpayers.

Attacking your opposition has the potential for political advantage. Questioning the use of billions of tax dollars in Canada’s most vote rich province most assuredly doesn’t.

If Canada's politcal leaders can't even deal with the day to day business of running a government and protecting tax payer dollars what hope do we have for the grand visions of the past? What happened to the kind of vision that build the railway and opened up the Country? Where are the leaders who thoguht outside the box and introduced the EI program and universal health care? They don't congregate on Parliament Hill that's for sure, so don't hold your breath for an east/west power grid or a concerted effort to enact custodial management of fish stocks off Canada's shores. It's never going to happen in today's political environment.

In a recent Halifax Chronicle Herald editorial fellow Newfoundlander Greg Lock wrote that the low voter participation rates so often bemoaned by politicians aren’t, as is often reported, the result of voter apathy but rather of voter disgust. I tend to agree.

Politics has always been a dirty business but at least there used to be some glimmer of hope that, every once in a while, someone would step forward with the vision to truly lead and inspire. With every passing decade that faint possibility continues to diminish. In fact I have no doubt that in the current political state we find ourselves, any political figure with the audacity to be seen as a risk to the status quo would be crushed before getting out of the starting gate.

No matter what anyone might say, politics is not the voice of the people put into action. It’s the dreams of the people corrupted by self serving individuals.

There’s an old quote that speaks to the sad state of our political system and those who wallow in it.

“If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal”.

Truer words were never spoken and I wish I knew who said them. Unfortunately the author chose to remain anonymous. That’s too bad, with that kind of insight, he or she might have made a great political leader. On reflection, perhaps they chose to remain anonymous for a very good reason, self preservation.

Canada's Economic Recovery Plan (For Dummies)

With the economy on life support, businesses closing their doors and laid off workers stacked up like chord wood across the Country the political thermostat has been cranked up on bust in Ottawa and the self serving rhetoric is flying around like hungry bees at the hive.

Unfortunately the only ones with anything to gain from all the hyperbole are the politicians themselves. Like it or not, the rest of us are on our own.

They can spin it however they like but the fact remains that there is no money available to bail out the forestry sector or the commercial fishing industry, both of which until recently employed hundreds of thousands of individuals. You see the problem with those industries, according to the Conservative talking heads, is not one that Ottawa can address. It’s all about a lack of markets for their products.

On the other hand to listen to our elected officials, you’d somehow believe that pouring billions upon billions of our tax dollars into the auto sector, which employs tens of thousands, is simply the right thing to do.

Funny, but I thought I read someplace that a lack of buyers for North American gas guzzlers was what was killing the industry. My mistake I guess.

Meanwhile, up on the Hill, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are all claiming to be the champions of the working classes. Yes sir, they all want to be seen as standing up for little guy who’s lost his job. Why if the Harper government doesn’t soon implement changes to the qualifications for EI and help those people the opposition will…well it…

What? What exactly will Mike, Jack, Gilles do anyway?

Every MP in Ottawa knows the odds of electing another minority government are staggering. Nobody knows if the Liberals can actually win the next time out or not. According to the polls both the NDP and the Bloc stand to lose seats if an election were held right now. Add to this the fact that it would take all three parties to boot the Tories out of office, at a time when a huge percentage of MPs (mostly with the Bloc) need only one more year in office to qualify for their fat taxpayer funded pension and we all know exactly what they’ll do.

They’ll complain and attack each other for political advantage, protect their own incomes, ensure that 45 members of a party bent on splitting Canada apart get a good federally funded pension and they’ll do all of this, knowing full well that at the end of the day none of it will help the unemployed who need EI to survive.

On the topic of EI, I’m sick and tired of the rhetoric surrounding how many hours it takes to qualify. Once again the political elite and pundits have pulled Newfoundland and Labrador out of their back pockets (or from slightly to one side of it) in an effort to show how unfair the rest of the Country is being treated and how easy Newfoundlanders have it on the “rock”.

The latest trend these days is to compare the number of hours necessary to qualify in BC or Ontario, between 600 and 700 hours, while, and I quote, “…in most parts of Newfoundland it’s almost a God given right to collect and you only need the minimum of 420 hours”.

What they never mention is that the high number of hours quoted for Ontario, BC (or what ever province is the flavor of the day) is what’s needed in urban areas with low unemployment rates. By comparison, in the North East Avalon region (call it the St. John’s area if you like) you also need more than 600 hours to qualify, just as in most urban parts of Canada.

While I’m on the subject, they also don’t inform anyone that roughly half the population of Newfoundland and Labrador lives in that particular area or that in parts of Ontario and BC and across Canada there are rural areas, just like those in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the minimum number of hours are all anyone needs.

The only difference between Newfoundland and Labrador, when it comes to EI qualification, is that many other provinces have far more people living in those rural areas than Newfoundland and Labrador does and as a result are more likely to have large numbers collecting EI, or as Jim Flaherty is likely to refer to them these days, “EI finalists”.

Personally I don’t like the idea of someone only having a job for 45 days being able to collect EI for a year. On that one point Stephen Harper and I can agree, but really, why all the bawling and blaring over EI anyway? To hear Steve and Diamond Jim Flaherty talk about it you’d think lowering the number of hours required was going to crush Canada and send the national debt spiraling into some bottomless abyss.

It seems they’ve conveniently forgotten something. For years the Canadian debt was paid down by siphoning off EI premiums meant to be used in just the sort of situation the Country finds itself in today. Billions were diverted over the years to debt reduction instead of being put aside for income support. Some estimates put the figure at $50 billion or more.

In other words the comparatively low Canadian debt the Harper government is so happy to talk about in these hard times is there, in large part, thanks to $50 billion in EI premiums that were collected from individuals and businesses who thought they were paying an insurance premium. If the debt now needs to be increased by a billion or two in order to see workers and families through the tough times it’s only fair Mr. Flaherty get off his high horse and pony up.

But of course he won’t and the reason is simple.

Any increase in EI costs would impact the federal budget and debt. If, on the other hand, a large percentage of laid off workers don’t qualify for EI and instead have resort to joining the welfare rolls it’s a provincial cost to deal with and who really thinks Ottawa could give a crap about provincial deficits or crushing debt loads?

So what lessons can we take away from all of this?

1. Canada’s politicians are very concerned about job losses and stabilizing family incomes, primarily their own;

2. Money to bail out corporations in major urban centers and protect tens of thousands of jobs– Good. Money to bail out industries in rural areas and save hundreds of thousands of jobs – Bad;

3. Canada’s growing deficit isn’t the result of large corporate bailouts or unchecked federal spending. It’s being caused by laid off workers who paid into EI and who would now like to collect a little of the insurance they paid for; and

4. No matter how bad things get, or how much they improve, someone will always find a way to crap on Newfoundland and Labrador simply because it exists.

Not Quite Shovel Ready

As much as I hate to publicly admit it, during some of my weaker moments I’ve actually wondered if I have what it takes to enter the political arena.

To tell the truth I’ve actually been asked several times to consider exactly that. The suggestion has come both from serious proponents and those with less than complimentary opinions who have challenged me to either put up or shut up.

Without exception my answer has been a resounding no.

It’s not that I wouldn’t love to do more for the people with whom I share this corner of our planet but I question if I’m cut out for it.

Of course I do what I can to bring Newfoundland and Labrador’s issues to the public eye on my own web site and through other publications kind enough to provide a home to my ramblings but I wonder if that’s really enough.

In recent years I’ve also spent time quietly offering my assistance to various grassroots organizations, both political and social, as well as making my thoughts clearly understood by those elected officials willing to listen, as well as those who would prefer not. But to actually make a living as a politician – well it’s just something that remains a foreign concept to me.

I’ve always thought my biggest concern about taking something like that on was whether or not I actually have the leathery hide necessary to tackle the job. Putting that aside for a moment I also have to ask myself what more I could possibly say or do about the issues facing this place if I suddenly found myself on the election trail.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a very clear position on many of the problems facing Newfoundland and Labrador but that’s actually the crux of my problem isn’t it.

I mean what if I had to concern myself, not only with the problems at hand, but also with protecting my political future, both inside a mainstream party and with the voting public?

What if my party decided, as political parties are wont to do, that the needs of a more vote rich region of the Country should take priority over those of the people whom I profess to represent? How would I handle that?

What if I had to put the interests of my party on an equal or perhaps even greater footing than those of my constituents?

Could I do it? Would I even want to?

Under those circumstances I’m willing to bet I’d find myself suffering from a very terminal case of political suicide in record time.

Let’s take the economic turmoil we’re all facing these days. If I was on the election trail do I really hear myself saying things like…

“If elected I’ll see to it that each of your concerns are fully understood and acted upon in Ottawa.”

“Our party (pick party of choice) under (pick leader of choice) will see to it that the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador are not forgotten or callously swept aside during these hard economic times.”

“It won’t be easy but with your help and support we’ll make it happen together.”

“The former government (pick one) has painted our Province and our nation into a corner. For far too long they’ve ignored the concerns of the average working man and woman in Newfoundland and Labrador and right across this great Country. Once elected our party will see to it that this never happens again, no sir, not on our watch”

“I promise that if elected, within 30 days of entering office, our leader will form an expert committee to review the critical issues facing us today and we will bring forward a clear, concise and actionable list of recommendations to address the issues in a timely manner”

“At the end of the day we will ensure that there is a roof over the head and food on the table of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.”

“We’ll see to it that there are shovels in the ground so every decent and hard working Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this great Province can hold their head up high without having to worry about how they’ll pay their bills or if they’ll lose their home.”

“On that you can depend.”

No, I honestly can’t see myself doing that.

Upon reflection, perhaps it isn’t my lack of a thick skin that’s kept me out of the political arena for so long. More likely it’s my extremely low tolerance for the utter B.S. demanded of those who choose that path.

I guess I’ll just keep on doing what I do and leave the politics to those better suited to the role.

One thought does occur to me though. Perhaps I’ll take what few savings I have and invest them in a good shovel factory someplace. In more ways than one the demand for shovels seems to be growing with each passing day.

Liberal Senator Promotes Concept of NL Bloc Party

When Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Senator, George Baker, phoned into one of VOCM radio's call in talk shows earlier this week he stirred up a fire storm in Ottawa and raised the spirits of many nationalists in his home province.

Senator Baker told the show's host that Newfoundlanders may resort to separatism because of their treatment by the federal government. He also said that he believed his province might be better served by supporting a party similar to the Bloc Quebecois to defend its interests at the federal level.

"People will soon be advocating, you know, that we can't remain in the Confederation in which we're discriminated against and not respected," Baker said.

"How much are we going to put up with? You know, this should be reason enough to, to have a Bloc Newfoundland and Labrador running in the next election if this keeps up - and a real campaign to get them all elected."

The list of problems that have confronted Newfoundland and Labrador since entering Confederation is a long one. It includes Ottawa's continued mismanagement of a 500 year old fishery, being denied control of offshore resources the province brought into the Country in 1949, Ottawa's refusal to enforce the Constitution with regard to the Upper Churchill hydro development project in the late 1960's, the unilateral clawing back of offshore resource revenues and much much more.

It's these issues, and Ottawa's refusal to even awknowledge them, to which Mr. Baker was referring.

As a result of his comments the government of Canada did nothing to address the underlying problems but has instead demanded the Liberal party expel him from their caucus.

Outside the weekly Conservative caucus meeting, the Prime Minister's Office was distributing transcripts of the remarks and demanding Mr. Baker's ouster.

Sen. Mike Duffy is reported to have told reporters there won't be much left of Canada if people keep talking like Baker.

"There's no place for someone who holds those views in a party that purports to be in favour of national unity," said Kory Teneycke, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"You can't advocate for the creation of a Bloc Newfoundland, modelled after the separatist Bloc Quebecois, and sit in our caucus. So I don't think that should be the case in the Liberal caucus, either.

"These comments are beyond the pale, and he should be removed from their caucus."

Baker said his province contributes far more to the rest of Canada in per-capita exports than other provinces, and doesn't get the respect it deserves.

During his radio appearance Mr. Baker was asked by the host if a Newfoundland block could be effective in getting a better fiscal arrangement within Canada.

"Well, let me ask you the question: What about the Bloc Quebecois? Have they been effective? Of course they've been effective. . . . And just imagine the clout that we could present to the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada wouldn't dare to put into their budget a measure that's in there right now, stealing $1.7 billion from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador." Baker responded.

Here, here Mr. Baker!

Is Ottawa Party to a Cover Up?

Over the past few days several individuals and news agencies have been questioning the validity of a conspiracy theory making the rounds.

The theory speculates that perhaps someone onboard may have intentionally scuttled (sank) the Spanish Trawler, Monte Galineiro, which went down near the Flemish Cap off Newfoundland earlier this week.

According to media reports the vessel was being closely tracked by a Canadian Coast Guard patrol vessel, with the intention of conducting a fisheries inspection once the weather cleared, when she suddenly issued a distress call. The vessel sank minutes later.

All hands onboard were plucked from the frigid North Atlantic but questions have since arisen about the incident and whether the sinking might have been intentional.

The theory itself is deeply flawed but there are never the less a lot of valid questions that should, and likely never will be, answered.

For a fairly large vessel to sink as quickly as this one did it would need to take on a lot of water very rapidly.

The most likely reason for such a sinking would be a large hole in the hull. The other likely possibility is that the “sea cocks”, which allow water to be taken in for ballast, were opened, either intentionally or not, thus the conspiracy theory.

Since the ship did not impact with a foreign object like an ice berg, the concern over why a four year old vessel took on water and sank so rapidly is a real one.

Another question is what she was doing on the very edge of Canada’s 200 mile limit when she sank? Some estimates put her at about 214 nautical miles from shore.

It would be of value to know what direction she was traveling in when observed by the Canadian Coast Guard. Was she heading toward Canadian waters? Was she heading away from them? Did the vessel appear to be attempting to evade or outrun the patrol vessel?

The captain of the Monte Galineiro claimed he heard an explosion in the engine room and reported a fire onboard. Why wasn’t there smoke visible before the Monte Galineiro went down and why did some crew members claim to be wakened from their sleep by an emergency alarm, not an explosion as claimed by the ship’s Captain?

These are valid questions. Unfortunately the Canadian government, under the auspices of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has said it will not be conducting any investigation into the incident. Preferring instead to leave that to the ship’s Country of origin, Spain.

Personally I doubt very much that anyone would intentionally sink their own vessel during February in the North Atlantic while sailing in 10 foot waves.

If they did, the majority of the 22 member crew, some of whom were rescued in their underwear, could not have been informed. To do so before putting them in such a frightening life and death situation would almost ensure that they would want to get their revenge on the perpetrator by telling authorities.

Indeed the crew knew a Coast Guard vessel was in the area but in reality, would anyone, other than a total psychopath, throw himself and more than 20 others into a situation where mere minutes mean the difference between life and death?

What could the motive be?

Would someone take that gamble simply to avoid the slap on the wrist that would be waiting for them even if they were found to have tons of illegal cod onboard?

I doubt it.

Perhaps the most sensible statement regarding the conspiracy theory came from St. John’s Maritime Lawyer, Owen Myers, in a “Sou’Wester” article, when he said the Monte Galineiro wouldn't face serious fines under "toothless" North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) rules, even if it was convicted of illegal fishing. "It seems very unlikely to scuttle a $20-million vessel in order to escape a Canadian fisheries inspection," Myers said. "It's kind of like getting a traffic ticket. You're not going to blow up your Ferrari sports car because you've been given a parking ticket. I think it's really well-known that that is the problem with the NAFO convention - there are just no penalties in it."

There’s a lot of truth in those words.

It seems that nobody really knows what happened out there on the high seas but isn’t that the problem?

Shouldn’t somebody be trying to find out?

Putting aside the conspiracy theory itself for a moment, since it only clouds the issue, the question of exactly why this ship sank and what she was doing in the area prior to the sinking should not be cavalierly brushed aside, as is being done by Canadian authorities.

Late last week Newfoundland and Labrador premier, Danny Williams, issued a press release saying his government would not sign onto, or support, the latest trade discussions between Ottawa and the EU because of a number of ongoing issues, including NAFO’s lack of control over illegal fishing, the EU’s continued flouting of fisheries law and Canada’s lack of concern for protecting Newfoundland and Labrador’s interests.

The federal government’s lack of interest in finding answers to the questions being asked only serve to prove Mr. Williams point.

With trade talks taking place between Ottawa and the EU, with the premier’s position publicly known and with the lingering questions about this particular vessel left unanswered there is ample reason for the Newfoundland and Labrador premier and the people of the province to have concerns.

Was the vessel so loaded down with illegal fish that she ripped her engines apart, causing a fire, by pushing the ship to her limits in an effort to avoid inspection?

Were her fishing trawls in the water or onboard when the incident happened? Knowing this, or even if they were in neither place (had been cut) would add valuable information to the situation.

Was the crew of the Monte Galineiro doing nothing illegal at all? If so, an independent investigation would help clear the crew’s reputations, and that of their home nation.

Was there a design flaw in the ship, perhaps allowing the sea cocks to accidentally open or water to enter around the propeller shaft? If so, knowing the answer might save lives in future.

There are a lot of important questions left unanswered, not the least of which is why the government of Canada is doing nothing to find those answers.

The Fighting Newfoundlander (& Labradorian) Died in Battle

I’ve often criticized the Province's federal MPs for not having the courage to stand up and make our case to Ottawa, but I’ve come to a realization that it really isn’t them alone at fault.

I’ve begun to realize that the entire Newfoundland and Labrador population is "as gutless as a caplin", including myself I'm sad to say.

I never thought I’d write something like that but I have.

As sad as it makes me feel to put that in print, I’m glad I did.

Perhaps the fighting spirit has been bred out of us over the past few generations.

Perhaps we've become complacent under the “guidance” of our federal political leaders.

Perhaps the real fighting Newfoundlander (& Labradorian) was killed in battle.

Who knows, but whatever the cause it’s no less disheartening to realize that you are a part of the problem.

Where else but in Newfoundland and Labrador would an entire population sit idly by as their livelihoods, their future and their very way of life is under direct attack?

Where else but in Newfoundland and Labrador would people nonchalantly go about their daily routines, largely carefree, while the government of their Country robs them of their future?

No where, that’s where.

No where but in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sure there are rumblings among some about the injustices we face in Canada.

There are those who can recite a long list of the damages done.

Still others, like yours truly, speak out to anyone who will listen.

Some are quick to contact their MP or the Premier when issues arise.

Others lash out through letters to the editors of their local papers or on call in radio programs.

There are even those who talk of learning political lessons from Quebec, by creating a “bloc NL” to gain some form of influence within Canada.

These actions may make those who undertake them feel a little better in the short term but the one thing they have in common is the fact that they are all just talk and, as the old saying goes, "talk is cheap".

Our fishery has been stolen and destroyed taking our rural way of life with it.

Our oil and gas resources are controlled by Ottawa where someone else has the power to decide (through one means or another) exactly how much money we will or will not see from its exploitation.

Our Upper Churchill hydro resources benefit Quebec instead of us and will continue to do so long after many of us have moved to the other side of the sod.

Our plans for future hydro development in Labrador are hindered and may even be stopped altogether by forces from within Quebec and Ottawa.

Our mineral resources are used to supply mills, smelters and factories in other provinces while we are left to do the hard manual labor of extracting the ore from the earth and shipping it out.

Ottawa continues to pick away at what few federal dollars this place sees in transfer payments and in doing so helps add to the massive provincial debt, extreme unemployment, faltering health care system and crumbling infrastructure we see around us every day.

Perhaps there are indeed lessons to be learned from Quebec and not just political ones.

When Canada planned to support a re-enactment of a major historical battle, which was incidentally lost by the French forces of Quebec, they were told to cancel the event and walk away.

Not because the re-enactment was inaccurate or didn’t reflect a true history of Canada but because some Quebecers did not want to be reminded of that particular aspect of their past.

Threats were made, including mobilizing into the streets and at the event with paint guns, protesters and the like.

Organizers were warned about what would happen to them, on a personal level, if they proceeded.

I have no doubt that had the organizers gone ahead with that event it would not have been a peaceful one and clearly the federal sponsors understood that as well.

They knew Quebecers were willing to do far more than write letters of complaint.

This is a case where the people of Quebec undertook a misguided attempt to bury an aspect of their history.

It's not an act to be proud of for sure, yet Ottawa was quick to respond by cancelling the “offending” event, proving that the federal government knows full well what the people of Quebec are capable of.

Here in Newfoundland and Labrador we are not trying to bury our past, in fact we often celebrate it. What we want to do is ensure that we have a stable and secure future.

If we had any real guts we’d be doing a lot more about protecting our way of life and future than simply complaining.

I'm not here to advocate illegal acts, even though I sometimes wonder if it might be the only solution. What I'm saying is that if we had any guts at all we’d be in the streets in massive numbers here, in Ottawa and all across Canada and we wouldn’t let up until our future looked a hell of a lot brighter than it does right now.

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>

Federal Budget Will Do Litttle for NL Economy

With less than a week to go before the Harper government brings down its much anticipated budget, speculation about what it will contain is rampant.

Across Canada Provincial Premiers, Mayors, lobby groups, business interests and individuals have spent weeks pushing for their piece of the pie. With just a few days left to go the question is which line items will actually appear in the Harper stimulus package and how will it be distributed across the land.

The most likely outcome of next week's budget will see the Harper Conservatives deliver a two pronged approach with support for ailing industry sectors and individuals across Canada as well as a pot of money for infrastructure spending in specific regions.

Unfortunately, even if this broad approach is taken, it will mean very little for Newfoundland and Labrador and here’s why.

Industry Specific Support:

The sectors being most often discussed and touted as needing federal support are manufacturing and forestry. Neither of which are prevalent in Newfoundland and Labrador, with the exception of the Corner Brook paper mill. Abitibi has already decided to close its doors in the Province and nothing is going to change that.

The fishing industry needs massive support. Not necessarily direct cash injections but with the collapse of the Icelandic banking sector, which has provided cash flow to the industry for years, loan guarantees or some other form of funding needs to be made available before the new season begins or the industry will be in dire straits.

Unfortunately the fishing industry has never been more than an afterthought during Ottawa’s discussions about industry stimulus and as a result will likely find little, if any, support in the new budget.

Individual Support:

When it comes to assisting individuals the federal direction seems to be focused on middle class tax cuts and the EI system.

Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff (Iggy to his friends) has already said he won’t support across the board tax cuts. I can’t say I blame him on that point however since a small tax break that adds an extra $5 or $10 to an individual’s paycheck isn’t likely to make them rush out and gleefully spend the economy out of recession.

As for changes to the EI program that’s an entirely different kettle of fish but...

The EI fund has been so mismanaged and abused by Ottawa over the years that there may not be enough left in the pot to support the massive numbers of unemployed about to enter the current system, let alone one that has undergone an overhaul.

Even with an influx of new funds from Ottawa the most likely changes possible will be to shorten the waiting period by a week, extend the benefit period and lower the number of weeks required to qualify in certain areas.

Currently anyone living in places like Toronto, for example, requires more weeks to qualify and they are eligible to receive benefits for a shorter period of time than someone say in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The reasoning behind the existing approach is simple. Ontario has an unemployment rate of just over 6% while Newfoundland and Labrador has a rate of over 13%. As a result, under normal conditions, it ought to be much easier to find a new job in Toronto, in a shorter period of time, than it would be in Newfoundland and Labrador, but these aren't normal conditions.

With the economy the way it is these days finding a job, even in Toronto, may not be quite as easy as it once was. With this in mind any extension of benefits or lowering of requirements will likely bring places like Toronto in line with places like Newfoundland and Labrador. There’s nothing wrong with that under the circumstances but once again, it does nothing to help the economy in Canada’s Far East.

Regional Infrastructure Spending:

The third prong of a likely Stephen Harper stimulus package is infrastructure spending. Once again there will likely be very little benefit here for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It's not that the Province doesn't have any infrastructure needs, far from it. There are projects that have been on hold for years and are more than ready to go. The Trans Labrador highway immediately springs to mind as does rural broadband, bridge repairs and many other initiatives.

The problem for Newfoundland and Labrador is that the Premier’s of vote rich provinces like Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and BC have been lobbying hard to have their infrastructure needs met and they contend that the best way to distribute funding is on a per capita basis.

This would mean that Ontario and Quebec, for example, with more than 60% of Canada’s population would capture an equivalent amount of the funding.

Newfoundland and Labrador on the other hand would get somewhere in the order of 1.5% of federal infrastucture funds intended to get people working, even though the Province has the highest unemployment rate in the Country and when Canada's newest so called "Have" province is facing the potential of upcoming deficits.

Indeed there is likely to be very little in the way of stimulus for the Newfoundland and Labrador economy at a time when mills are closing, mining giants are cutting production and black gold has lost more than two thirds of its value.

On January 27th all across Canada, from Vancouver Island to Halifax the masses will gather around their T.V. sets in an effort to parse every word dripping from Jim Flaherty's lips only to wonder what it all will mean for them and theirs.

Author’s Note – Usually I’m the first person to jump on my soap box when a statement like “…across Canada, from Vancouver Island to Halifax” is made but in this case the term was intentional rather than bred from ignorance or neglect.

When you consider the likely outcome of the federal budget, what reason is there for anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador to bother tuning in on that day unless they're so desperate for help they want to be the first to discover the value of whatever table scraps are once again tossed their way?

Joint Review Panel Named for Lower Churchill Development

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in conjunction with the federal government, has named a joint environmental review panel to assess the Lower Churchill hydro development in Labrador.

A five person panel will review the proposed project, taking into consideration public comments during the process.

The panel has a mandate to examine the potential environmental impacts of the hydro development and determine means by which to mitigate those impacts.

The Lower Churchill hydro project, which has the potential to provide clean, renewable power to more than 1.5 million households, has been discussed for decades but has yet to become a reality for the Province. This latest action by government is seen as another step forward in bringing the project to fruition.

One of the biggest hurdles facing the project over the years has been the geographical location of Labrador and the inability of developers to reach energy markets hungry for “green” power.

During the late 1960’s and early 1970’s the Upper Churchill hydro project was developed in Labrador however at the time Newfoundland and Labrador was forced into a long term contract with Hydro Quebec because the Quebec and federal governments refused to permit the Province to wheel power through Quebec and on to waiting markets.

Newfoundland and Labrador, faced with the prospect of sitting on a massive power supply, that had already been developed, but with no ability to access markets, was forced to sell this power to Quebec at rates obscenely low even at that time.

Those low purchase rates have seen Quebec reap many billions of dollars over the years by reselling Upper Churchill power while Newfoundland and Labrador has barely made enough from its hydro resources to keep the generating station in operation.

The Upper Churchill ontract is still in place today and will remain in effect for decades to come.

As a result of the geographical roadblocks placed in front of it by Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador’s Lower Churchill development plans have been on hold for years.

With the maturing of new technologies the Province's plans for the development now include the examination of an alternate route for the export Lower Churchill power.

This alternate route would see any power not required inside of Labrador delivered via under water cable to the island portion of the Province and then on to the Maritimes and beyond, bypassing Quebec completely.

This alternate route, though more expensive to develop, is considered by many to be a valid option.

With the lopsided Upper Churchill contract always on the minds of the Newfoundland and Labrador people the ability of the Province to position itself in such a way that it can ensure it is not forced into another bad deal with Quebec is critical.

In addition to the local political advantage of developing a Maritime route for Lower Churchill many people are also concerned about what will happen to power produced on the Upper Churchill River if an alternate route is not in place when the Quebec contract expires in 2041.

They see the development of a Maritime route, with the capacity to handle power from the Upper Churchill as well, as the only way to avoid a future confrontation with Quebec over the issue.

Although the federal government has always had the authority to open up a power corridor through any Province, including Quebec (the so called east/west power grid) they have yet to do so.

Plans for such a grid were promoted by the federal Conservative government when they were first elected in 2006. At the time Stephen Harper called the east/west grid the most important development in Canada since the building of the railway opened up the Country.

The government of Quebec voiced its opposition to the plan very early on and since that time there has been no further promotion of the idea by Ottawa.

Canada, where democracy comes to die

If Stephen Harper used his powers for good instead of evil can you imagine the utopia we might all live in?

Can you imagine what might happen if the Prime Minister spent even a faction of the time addressing the real issues of the Country that he now devotes to his personal political ambitions.

Canada is suffering and will continue to suffer for some time to come but instead of doing anything about it Mr. Harper, in what can only be described as a cold, calculating and heartless political game, has decided to use this opportunity as an excuse to choke off funding to his political adversaries and strengthen his grip on power.

As a result, instead of our elected officials spending their time addressing the real problems facing Canada they are now battling for their political survival while Mr. Harper masterminds his attack to its inevitably successful conclusion: The destruction of all opposition to his rule.

911 was the crisis that gave the Bush administration the excuse they needed to move forward with a pre-planned war in Iraq and to oversee the removal of civil liberties and freedoms through the “Patriot Act”. The Harper government learned much from the U.S. Republican Party. So much that one might suspect Dick Cheney himself of working in the Conservative war room these days.

Thanks to the current financial crisis Stephen Harper now has the 911 he needs to move his political agenda forward.

For many voters the cutting of federal subsidies for political parties might seem reasonable. In fact I agree that it might even be the right thing to do, if handled properly, but doing it under the guise of defending the economy and without giving reasonable notice to the affected parties is nothing more than an opportunistic attack on democracy itself.

The halting of the $1.95 per vote federal subsidy for parties will save taxpayers about 27 million dollars but that’s a drop in the bucket in a multi-billion dollar economy.

The cut itself might not have much of a financial impact but doing it this soon after an expensive election, without warning and without giving the opposition parties a transition period that would allow them to adjust and evolve is like dropping an atomic bomb on your enemies.

This cut will all but silence political opposition in Canada for years to come and the only people who want to do that are within the Conservative Party of Canada.

These cuts will essentially destroy the ability of the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens to wage any kind of campaign in the foreseeable future. In fact it might even lead to the total collapse and disappearance of one or more of the parties and almost certainly prevent new political parties from ever forming.

Some analysts have referred to the Harper move as a gutsy “roll of the dice” but I disagree. In fact, just he opposite is true. This comes across to me as the act of an intelligent though gutless individual who doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to face his opponents head on.

No matter how many times I run the possible outcomes through my feeble mind I can’t find a single scenario that would see this backfire on the Conservative party. I can, on the other hand, find many that will be disastrous to their opponents and to democracy itself.

If one of the opposition parties decides to vote in favor of this action, or even to sit out some members so it can “passively” get through the House, it will mean that several of the opposition parties will find themselves teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, if not pushed over the edge, by losing between 60% and 80% of their funding.

This might not worry some voters who think the mainstream parties should raise their own money, but consider if you will that cutting off this funding will almost guarantee that small “grassroots” parties just starting up and hoping to bring a fresh new voice to Canadian politics will be crushed into silence before they can even get out of the starting gate.

It will also mean that only those with deep pockets can take part in the political debate of the federation and that’s a reality that should concern everyone.

In this scenario the Harper Conservatives are the only winners.

If, on the other hand, the opposition parties decide to topple the Conservative government they have two options before them.

The first is forcing another election. An election Canadian’s don’t want and the opposition parties can’t afford just 5 weeks after the polls closed on the last campaign.

The only party in the financial position to fight another election today is the Conservative party.

With the opposition parties nearly broke and because the Conservatives will be able to claim their adversaries forced an election because they felt “entitled to their entitlements” Mr. Harper will surely walk away with a majority.

At the end of the day, with the opposition parties even more in debt and their coffers emptier than they are now, Mr. Harper will simply re-introduce the funding cut and totally wipe his opponents off the political map.

In this scenario the Harper Conservatives are the only winners.

A third option is for the opposition parties to topple the government and form some sort of loose coalition to lead the federation.

This move will allow Mr. Harper to sit in opposition while his opponents are thrust into governing at a time when the economy is collapsing, job losses are growing, businesses are shutting their doors and deficits are mounting.

This scenario will see the fallout of Canada’s economic woes rest not on Conservative shoulders but squarely on the shoulders of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc equally. The Harper Conservatives meanwhile will be free to attack from the opposition benches while never getting the least bit sullied by the economic mess.

After a year (at best) of taking a political beating any coalition will likely fall apart, Canadians will end up back at the polls and Mr. Harper will be free to bill himself as a knight riding to the rescue on a shining white horse to claim a majority victory. (At which time he will once again simply re-introduce the election funding cut and strangle his indebted adversaries to death).

In this scenario the Harper Conservatives are the only winners.

It may be a brilliant political move but unfortunately the people who will suffer the most are the ones who have the least to gain from all this political wrangling, but everything to lose, the voters.

They are also, by the way, the last thing anyone in Ottawa is thinking about these days.

Once the political intrigue is over on Parliament Hill the economy will still be in the toilet and the smaller provinces or regions at the edges of the federation will still be neglected, abused and forgotten. As an added bonus however, any hope of nurturing a new or different political perspective in Canada will be dead once and for all and the Conservatives will have achieved their ambition of ruling with an unquestioned iron fist for many years to come.

Welcome to Canada, where democracy comes to die.

Ottawa Spending Scandal - A Case of Institutionalized Corruption

Thanks to widespread press coverage of the government spending scandal in Newfoundland and Labrador, with former provincial politicians and cabinet ministers winding their way through the courts for allegedly misusing constituency allowances, the report this week in the Toronto Star highlighting federal spending practices has a distinct ring of familiarity to it.

According to the news agency, federal Cabinet Ministers are making a practice of conveniently scheduling official business to coincide with Conservative party fund raisers and then claiming travel costs. The result: You and I pay for the expense out of our tax dollars while the Conservative Party of Canada reaps the benefit from the fund raising efforts.

The investigation highlights several trips made by a multiple Cabinet Ministers including Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, Defense Minister Peter MacKay as well as Ministers Jim Prentice, Stockwell Day, Chuck Strahl and Gary Lunn.

This kind of misuse of taxpayer’s money is a familiar happening to the folks in Newfoundland and Labrador but that’s where the similarity ends.

As soon as the situation was uncovered in Newfoundland and Labrador the government’s top cabinet Minister was immediately fired, resignations were tendered, in both government and opposition ranks, a police investigation ensued and charges were laid. The reaction from the Harper government is simply to… well, actually there has been no reaction from the Harper government unless you count offhand comments from representatives who simply qualify their actions by saying, “… this is the way it has always been done and the Liberals did it too”.

Now that's a novel defense. That one was tried in Newfoundland and Labrador as well. Court dates were still set.

The Prime Minister for his part appears to have lost his voice and is once again displaying an inability to make the “tough” decisions that need to be made by a responsible leader who has the best interests of constituents at heart rather than those of his party and political future.

For nearly two years Stephen Harper and Danny Williams have made no secret of how completely opposed to one another’s points of view they are. It seems that when it comes to the misappropriation of public funds their individual approaches are no different. One took the actions required to clean up government, the other, who ran on a platform of clean government, refuses to even awknowlege anything is wrong.

When elected officials spend countless thousands in tax dollars to attend party fund raisers it’s a situation that should raise the ire of all taxpayers, especially those who don’t support the party in question but who, through this backdoor practice, end up helping to fill party’s war chest.

The following Toronto Star excerpts speak volumes about the immoral and unethical practices taking place in Ottawa and being tacitly condoned by the Prime Minister.

The Star easily found 25 examples of Tory ministers mixing fundraising and department business, each trip typically costing taxpayers several thousand dollars.

The federal Conservatives – elected on promises to be squeaky clean – are using government resources to help fill their election war chest.

When Peter MacKay flew to British Columbia in January, he split his time between government business and two Tory fundraising gigs. Taxpayers footed the bill.

When then-Indian affairs minister Jim Prentice flew to Nova Scotia to meet with provincial chiefs, he headlined a Conservative fundraising dinner in Prince Edward Island. Taxpayers paid for the trip.

When Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn jetted off from a Quebec fisheries forum to attend a government meeting in Manitoba, he also guest-starred at a local Tory fundraising banquet.

Hearn was also in Nova Scotia and attended a fundraiser.

Total cost (for Hearn's travels): about $5,500.

Stockwell Day (public safety); Chuck Strahl (Indian affairs) and Gary Lunn (natural resources) gave keynote speeches at the conference, and the theme was getting ready for the next election.

Strahl billed taxpayers about $5,000 for a five-day period that included the Tory conference. His expense report says he had "First Nations meetings" in Vancouver.

For the Conservative party, the trip cost nothing, though about $40,000 was raised in Victoria and Kelowna.

Lunn's expense reports show a $10,000 expense for several trips in a short period, leading up to the conference, and ending in British Columbia. His assistant, who typically travels with him, shows on her expense report a $5,000 bill to taxpayers for a five-day period that includes the three-day conference in Harrison Hot Springs.

Former Indian affairs minister Prentice, a Calgary MP who is now industry minister, travelled in February 2007 to Nova Scotia to take part in negotiations with Mi'kmaq chiefs in the province. He then attended a Conservative fundraising dinner in Malpeque, P.E.I. According to reports disclosed by the department, the total cost for Prentice and his political aide for the eastern trip was just under $7,000. A charter flight was included; the documents don't explain the destination.

The regularity of these trips and the huge amount of money both expensed and raised, to help fill Conservative coffers, make the fridge magnet purchases and charitable donations of disgraced and criminally charged Newfoundland and Labrador politicians pale by comparison.

When political mishandling of public money became known in Newfoundland and Labrador sweeping new spending controls were put in place. A full investigation was undertaken by the Auditor General and charges were laid. The position of the Newfoundland and Labrador government was clear, clean up the mess and let the chips fall where they may. Stephen Harper’s silence and total inaction over Ottawa’s misuse of public funds is clear indicator of his government’s position.

In the first quarter of 2008, the Conservative party has raised $5 million – outstripping both the Liberals and NDP with a dollar ratio of about five to one.

Stephen Harper's Totalitarian Regime

The long delayed resignation of Canada’s Foreign Minister, Maxime Bernier clearly shows the pathetically small talent pool Prime Minister Stephen Harper has to choose from inside his party. It also shows that the PM would rather have fight to protect the job of a mediocre, or totally incompetent, Minister rather than relinquish the sort of totalitarian control he exerts over the government of Canada.

Bernier left his position this week after it came to light that he had left classified government documents at the home of a former girlfriend who has been reported to have direct ties with organized crime.

The incident came to light after several previous gaffs by the minister that included a public demand of the sovereign government in Afghanistan to remove the governor of Kandahar province from office and announcing his intention to use a Canadian military aircraft for foreign relief efforts but discovered there wasn’t one available.

Although it will doubtlessly get the lion’s share of media attention, the resignation of Minister Bernier is not the real story that needs to be reported. The real story in this is the reason why the resignation of this Minister was not asked for far earlier. On the surface it appears to be a story of ministerial incompetence but it is also a story of an incompetence that is only surpassed by the clear lack of judgment and blind ambition of Canada’s Prime Minister.

For months the opposition parties have pummeled Stephen Harper with questions related to Bernier’s ability to do his job and the security concerns he posed in the sensitive foreign affairs role. For just as long Stephen Harper brushed those concerns aside and went on the attack against the opposition members who asked questions on the issue.

In taking this dismissive approach to such a serious situation Stephen Harper inadvertently exposed his true motives for keeping Bernier in the role. Harper exhibited a level of poor judgment that should never be tolerated in a Prime Minister and proved that his political aspirations in Quebec, Bernier’s home province, and his burning need to completely control every aspect of governing Canada are the driving force behind his actions.

Canada’s Prime Minister sees himself as being more like a U.S. president than a Canadian PM. In reality the PM is simply the top minister within the nation. The entire cabinet is supposed to manage the interests of the Country, not one man. Stephen Harper does not see it that way.

Instead of elected officials leading Canada, as the system intends, Mr. Harper has surrounded himself with a hand full of cronies inside his office who are actually running Canada without ever being elected or ever being answerable in any way to the Canadian public.

The government of Canada today has very little to differentiate it from the leadership of the former Soviet Union. Closed door decisions, tight control of press coverage, elected officials turned into impotent figureheads, bureaucrats fired for doing their jobs and the public kept in the dark while being led in a direction that is at the sole discretion of one man, whether they like it or not.

In Canada, democracy appears dead and the smoking gun rests in the hands of one man, Stephen Harper.

Over the coming days the opposition parties in Ottawa and the press corps will no doubt want to know exactly which sort of documents were left exposed by the former minister and whether national security was ever at risk. Based on what we've seen of Stephen Harper to this point in his regime I'm willing to bet he'll claim he can't discuss the documents because they're classified.

Only in Canada.

The Politics of Churchill Falls Power

Although recent public comments by Newfoundland and Labrador’s Minister of Natural Resources, Kathy Dunderdale, led to a scramble to clarify what was going on, there are still positives to be found in her clumsy statements.

This week Minister Dunderdale left the impression that Newfoundland and Labrador was contemplating legal action against the Federal and Quebec governments related to the lopsided Upper Churchill power contract. This afternoon she clarified her position in front of the media.

Since coming on stream decades ago, the estimated direct revenue to Newfoundland and Labrador, from the Upper Churchill hydro electric project in Labrador, is estimated at $1 billion. In that time Quebec has garnered $19 billion, plus untold secondary revenues from business and industry attracted to that province by the abundant power. Ottawa has also been greatly enriched by the taxes generated there.

The situation has long raised the ire of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and has become a rallying point for anti-Canadian/Quebec sentiments over the years.

In a press conference this afternoon, also attended by Newfoundland and Labrador Justice Minister Jerome Kennedy, the official line was that the Williams government was in fact not considering direct legal action at the present time but was instead investigating ways to assist the Labrador Innu in their recent demands for redress over lands lost during the decades old development.

In the past Newfoundland and Labrador tried on several occasions to re-open the one sided contract, at one point bringing it to the Supreme Court of Canada, without success.

However in recent years new evidence has come to light that, at the time the contract was inked, a board member for Quebec Hydro also sat on the board of the company developing the project in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result it is believed Quebec Hydro had inside information to the effect that the project was only weeks from bankruptcy if a deal, any deal, were not signed immediately.

The federal government of the day, which had the authority to prevent Newfoundland and Labrador from being put in this precarious situation, refused to support requests to wheel power to markets through Quebec at fair market rates, leaving Newfoundland and Labrador at the mercy of the larger province.

The resulting contract has seen Quebec reap massive profits and in coming years will actually see Quebec Hydro utilize Upper Churchill power at a fraction of the obscenely low price it has been paying for decades. An amount that was below market value even 40 years ago.

Last week the people of Newfoundland and Labrador once again relived the facts of the situation when a spokesman for the Labrador Innu Nation publicly stated that new developments being planned for the Lower Churchill River, and requiring the agreement of the Innu people, would be blocked unless full redress for land losses from the earlier project were forthcoming.

Premier Williams noted that his government was not in a position to make good on losses suffered by the Innu since Newfoundland and Labrador itself had also suffered greatly from the situation and had not received any redress from the real beneficiaries of the project, Quebec and Ottawa.

It was these events that precipitated today's press conference. A scrum in which the Ministers noted that, rather than persuing legal action against Quebec and Ottawa, the Newfoundland and Labrador government was assisting the Innu in their efforts to determine which levels of government were libel for compensation, revenue sharing or other forms of redress to the native group. In doing so they also intend to factually determine who has benefited from the project and to what degree.

The Ministers said any legal action that might be taken would likely be initiated by the Innu people, not the province.

There are two old sayings that quickly come to mind in this situation.

"A smart politician can fall into crap and come out smelling like a rose" and “You don’t butt heads with native peoples during an election campaign”.

It seems clear Premier Danny Williams must have heard both of these sayings at some point in his life and took them to heart.

While the next election in Newfoundland and Labrador is still several years away, there is an axe perpetually hanging over the head of the current government in Ottawa. As a result the timing couldn’t be more fortuitous for the Innu people or the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which already has Stephen Harper firmly in its crosshairs.

Over the years it's always been easy for the governments of Canada and Quebec to downplay, brush aside and laugh off any concerns around the Upper Churchill, or anything else, expressed by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Labrador Innu may not be as easy to dismiss without a public backlash.

In one politically astute move the Williams government has taken a potential negative and turned it to their advantage.

The situation, which initially appeared to be the start of a battle between Williams and the Innu leadership has instead provided an opportunity to work in partnership and to very publicly support the Innu in their efforts. It also allows Newfoundland and Labrador, working with the Innu, to finally put the true story of the Upper Churchill project on the lips of the Canadian people. Something that has never before happened.

By assisting the Innu people the government of Newfoundland and Labrador finds itself in a position where it can once again legitimately begin delving into the circumstances of the Upper Churchill contract, and its ramifications, without the appearance of acting in its own self interests.

The Innu, in support of their cause will be better able to apply public pressure on the Federal government than the province ever could. The Innu have the ability to gain far more sympathy over the Upper Churchill, via the national media, than Newfoundland and Labrador would.

They can also assist themselves, as they already have, by threatening to block the development of power on the Lower Churchill. Electricity desperately needed in power hungry Ontario and the Maritimes.

For the Innu, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Williams government the situation, as ineptly as it was handled by one Minister this week, may yet prove to have an big upside. For the Harper government and for the national perception of Quebec the opposite is true.

Conservative Reps Flee Reporters after Secret Meeting

Tell me it doesn’t leave you with a dirty taste in their mouth, and the feeling of being unclean, when official representatives of Canada’s governing party secretly plan meetings and then sneak down the back stairs of hotels to avoid the media. In fact, for me, it conjures up thoughts of Watergate and the Nixon era in America.

On Friday information finally surfaced about the affidavit and resulting search warrant used to take documents and computer equipment from Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa.

The affidavit and the warrant that were used by Elections Canada to conduct the three-day search, seeking evidence of alleged election fraud, were unsealed on Friday. Instead of all 700 pages, only 70 pages of material were released to television networks by the Conservative party and Ryan Sparrow, a party spokesman, refused to explain when contacted by The Globe and Mail, why the Conservatives released only a portion of the documents.

According to a CTV report, the portions of the affidavit handed do not reveal much more about the case than was already known, but it does confirm that the search was not related to a lawsuit launched against Elections Canada by the Conservatives. Instead the warrant was related to a so called “In and Out” scheme that allegedly allowed the party to list the cost of national campaign ads as local ads and in doing so claim additional tax refunds while circumventing election spending limits by more than a million dollars during their 2006 campaign.

According to the Globe and Mail, “In releasing the abridged version of the documents to select media, the party hoped to give Mr. Sparrow, campaign organizer Doug Finley and party lawyer Paul Lepsoe a chance to explain the Tory point of view.”

“In the end, the plan went horribly awry.”

“On Saturday Mr. Sparrow called a number of reporters to ask them to come to meetings that had been scheduled for yesterday at the Lord Elgin Hotel in downtown Ottawa saying it "would be worth their while."

“But media outlets not among those invited got wind of the meetings …began to ask what was going on. When one reporter asked in an e-mail about the news conference, Mr. Sparrow replied: "No conference, not sure where you got that from."

“Shortly after, the Liberals found out about the briefings and advised all of the Ottawa press gallery, some of whom were quite miffed to find they had been excluded. When they threatened to show up at the Lord Elgin, despite the lack of an invitation, the meeting was secretly moved to the Sheraton.”

“The first briefing for select television outlets took place but, by then, the excluded reporters found out the new location and began to stake out the hotel. That led the Tories to cancel all subsequent briefings, including the one they had planned with The Globe.”

“Mr. Sparrow, Mr. Finley and Mr. Lepsoe fled from the Sheraton down a back set of stairs.”

I ask you, what has Canada become?

The government of Canada is quickly building a long resume of very questionable and perhaps even illegal activities.

The firing of Canada’s nuclear regulator because she did her job and made the Minister to whom she reported “look bad”.

An audio tape clearly identifying that the Prime Minister was aware of some kind of financial offer to the late MP Chuck Cadman in return for his vote in the House of Commons.

Attempting to blame the military for acting on its own with prisoner exchanges in Afghanistan, the equivalent of accusing them of no longer being under government control.

Ramming through immigration legislation, hidden inside the budget bill, that would allow the Conservative Minister to cherry pick which individuals or “types” of applicants will be reviewed for entry into Canada and which will be denied a chance to enter the Country.

Tabling censorship legislation (though they don’t call it that) which will leave it up to the governing party to decide which television programs or movies are “offensive” and denying much needed tax breaks to those they judge unworthy.

Now we find ourselves witnessing the RCMP and Elections Canada raiding Conservative headquarters. We see a PM claiming the 3 days of removing files and computers was not a raid but a “visit”. And we have party representatives attempting to hand pick which media will cover the story then running down the back stairs of a secret meeting location to escape reporters who want to provide the public with answers.

As one columnist put it recently, “The only difference between Canada and a Banana Republic is Canada’s inability to grow bananas.”

Justice for All or Only for Some?

With the surprise retirement announcement of Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache today speculation will soon begin to mount about where his replacement might be found.

While Quebec is always well represented on Canada’s highest court other areas of the Country often have only one seat, if any, on the bench.

Bastarache hailed from New Brunswick, as did his predecessor, so the door is now open in Atlantic Canada for a new representative to be appointed.

The question is, after nearly 60 years as a province, will the government of Canada finally see fit to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to be represented in the judicial branch of government, or will the province be forced, once again, to sit on the outside looking in?

It’s a sad reality that political maneuvering and favouritism, some of it enshrined in official procedures, should play any part in who is selected to the Supreme Court, but it’s a reality that exists never the less.

It’s shameful that a Supreme Court justice would be selected for any reason other than his or her ability to perform their very solemn duties. The fact that regional or provincial lineage would play a role in the decision is sad, to say the least, and a slap in the face for any truly democratic soul.

Be that as it may, the reality Canadians face is that lineage does make a difference and if that’s the game that has been thrust upon us then we must live with (unless the Supreme Court were to make it illegal, like that’s going to happen).

As a result the Country is left to wonder which part of Atlantic Canada the next member of the bench will come from. Will it be New Brunswick again, three times in a row? What about Nova Scotia or PEI? Or will it be (dare I say it) Newfoundland and Labrador, the outcast that has never been welcomed into the Federal Judiciary, or the Country for that matter?

Naming a Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court Justice would go a long way toward convincing “some” in the province that they are finally being accepted in Canada. It would also make a statement that the Prime Minister is able to look beyond his current squabbles with the province.

Such a move would mean a lot in some circles, little in others, but regardless, it will never happen.

If the most accomplished judge in the Country were living in Newfoundland or Labrador today he would most certainly be overlooked.

If the only judge left alive in the entire Country were living in Newfoundland or Labrador today he would not be appointed (Ottawa would probably import one from Elbonia.)

If all Judges, Lawyers and Justices of the Peace around the globe were suddenly to be abducted by aliens, except for a brilliant legal scholar in Newfoundland or Labrador, Ottawa would most assuredly appoint an experienced dog catcher to the job.

After 60 years it’s a shame that the door still hasn't opened.