Flashback - Nationalism and our Place in Canada

I recently came across an article written by Craig Westcott for the "Express" about 10 years ago. I found it to be a a piece that clearly shows the broad spectrum of citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador who question our place in Canada and also speaks to a number of the deep rooted issues we face in the Canadian federation.

Clearly the arguements for change coming from individuals like myself are not just the realm of what the mainstream media might like to marginalize as "wingnuts" or the "fringe element".

Read on.


Newfoundland's business and political elite make the case for a re-examination of Confederation
By CRAIG WESTCOTT, The Express

It started with Craig Dobbin. The Canadian Helicopters Corporation chief was sick of hearing mainlanders slag Newfoundland for being an economic sinkhole.

When Canadian Alliance strategist John Mykytyshyn said Newfoundlanders were too lazy to move away for work, Dobbin lost it. He wrote a speech. Then he delivered it in a venue where no one in the local who's who could miss it -- a St. John's Board of Trade luncheon.

"Let me pose a question to you," the former John-Crosbie-ally-turned- Brian-Tobin-backer began. "Who got the better deal from Confederation? Newfoundland? Or Canada?

"If we're such a drain, such a sinkhole, let us go. Cut us loose, baby."

It was a startling speech.

But even more surprising was that several months later, a similar one was delivered by none other than Vic Young, president and chief executive officer of Fishery Products International.
Young, a former senior government bureaucrat and executive with Newfoundland Hydro, turned his verbal assault on Ottawa and Quebec, lambasting the Churchill Falls deal.

"I can assure you, if it were Newfoundland and Labrador that had a geographic stranglehold over the export of Quebec's hydro resources, then Quebec would have fought," said Young. "Quebec would have won, and Canada would have changed national energy policy tout de suite."

To the appreciative ears of the 600 people attending the Board of Trade luncheon where Young came out of the closet with his feelings about Confederation, he shouted, "Vive Terre Neuve libre."

With two of Newfoundland's most successful businessmen questioning the quality of the ties binding Newfoundland to Canada, all that remained to completely open debate was for somebody from the provincial government to weigh in.

And that's just what then-Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Walter Noel did in an address to the Rotary Club of St. John's earlier this month.

"I've long felt some of the ways our federal system operates have to change to enable us to enjoy Canadian standards," Noel confessed. "Important interests are working against us."

Strong words indeed. But why do they sound so familiar?

Confederation's costs

Memorial University of Newfoundland historian John FitzGerald has been listening attentively to the questioning about Newfoundland's place in Canada.

As an expert on the Confederation issue, FitzGerald can't help but be fascinated by it.

"I'm not sure that it's new," FitzGerald said of the points being raised by Dobbin, Young and Noel. "Although quite clearly, the people who are saying it now would have very little in common with A.B. Perlin and the Responsible Government League who were saying these kinds of things back in '48 and '49.

"What you have now is people stepping back and taking a cold hard look at this and saying, 'All right, what really is in our best interest?' I'm not sure you'd call it nationalism. I think you'd call it enlightened self-interest."

Call it what you want, but there's no denying Newfoundland's established interests -- including Noel, a scion of Joey Smallwood's Liberal Party -- are saying strong things.

Take Dobbin.

"This province pumps tons of money into Central Canada annually," said Dobbin. "The hydroelectric facility at Churchill Falls contributes almost $1 billion each year to the economy of Quebec. That one item alone equals our transfer payments from Ottawa each and every year -- that one item.

"We're sending Canada our graduates. The Department of Education has suggested that about a quarter of our university graduates cannot find jobs and end up leaving the province. We move away to work more than anyone else in the country."

But for real facts and figures on the costs and benefits of Confederation, Noel is the man with the numbers.

An economist by training, the Virginia Waters MHA has spent a fair part of his time in office analyzing Newfoundland's relationship with Canada.

He's still a proud Canadian, albeit a troubled one. That's because, according to Noel's calculations, the national federation is built around two provinces -- Ontario and Quebec. Every other province is secondary.

"Ontario has been the primary beneficiary of Confederation," said Noel. "When Canada began, Nova Scotia was wealthier than Ontario. Central Canada has prospered because it dominates the House of Commons and because the Senate never became what the Fathers of Confederation intended it to be."

As a result, Ottawa has developed policies that principally benefit Ontario, Noel said. Among them is the Auto Pact. Noel estimates that for every car made in Ontario, Canadians have to pay an extra $2,000 for it to cover the subsidies that are propping up that province's auto industry.
And Newfoundlanders pay higher prices for other Ontario-made goods because Canadian tariffs keep cheaper imports out.

"Years ago, we had to sell our cod in blocks to the United States because they had a tariff policy against having it imported in one-pound packages, because Canada had tariff policies that hindered the importation of American goods," Noel said. "That favoured Central Canadian industry. It constituted a cost for us."

It also delayed Newfoundland from developing its secondary processing potential.
Ottawa itself, added Noel, is a testament to how Confederation has benefited Ontario and Quebec.

"Ottawa is probably the leading economic growth centre in the country, primarily because of the extent to which the federal government is concentrated there," said Noel. "And the spin-off from having it there has generated the high-tech industry. Ottawa would probably be nothing more than a farm service centre if it wasn't for the federal government being located there."

Then there's Quebec. In 1996, said Noel, Quebec received 39 per cent of Industry Canada's research and development grants -- even though it has less than 25 per cent of Canada's population.

Quebec also got over 50 per cent of federal technology "partnerships" funding. The four Atlantic provinces combined got two per cent.

In 1998, Noel added, business subsidies to Quebec came to $528 per capita. In Newfoundland, the number was $202.

"We have always gotten a disproportionately low share of Canadian government spending for goods and services, and military purposes," said Noel. "Between 1995 and 1999, (federal) public service employment here was cut by 32.5 per cent, compared with the national average of 17 per cent and 12 per cent in Ottawa. Nova Scotia has 20 federal departmental Atlantic Regional Headquarters -- we have none."

Then there is the issue of equalization payments. In 1997, said Noel, federal payments to Newfoundland came to $2.1 billion. Off-setting that was the $2-billion Newfoundlanders paid in taxes to Ottawa. And once you calculate Newfoundland's per capita share of the national debt charges, pensions to public servants, and other costs, Ottawa's net contribution to Newfoundland was just over $1-billion.

"In 1997, Quebec Hydro alone received about $1.1-billion from the sale of Churchill Falls power, enough in itself to cancel our total net gain," Noel argued.

To these costs, Dobbin would add others -- loss of control of our fishery, which resulted in mismanagement that nearly wiped out the cod stock; paltry royalties from our offshore oil; and no control over our fiscal capacity to lower business and personal income taxes to attract business investment.

Incontrovertible proof

Noel and Dobbin raise good points, said FitzGerald.

"History is incontrovertible on some of this stuff," he said. "Ottawa did not support our request for a power corridor through Quebec -- Confederation failed us."

But, FitzGerald added, Newfoundland has lost out on seemingly smaller, but vitally important items, too -- like no longer being able to regulate its own airspace.

Because they are independent countries, Ireland and Iceland were able to open their skies and markets to international carriers, FitzGerald pointed out, unlike Newfoundland, which has to put up with the Air Canada monopoly.

"I think it is a very good idea to question this relationship (with Canada)," said the historian. "It would certainly help demolish the myth that's put out there by The Globe and Mail and the National Post that we're a basket case, that we're a drain on Canada. They've been slandering us now for 50 years. And it's interesting to see who is exactly subsidizing whom. In fact, we're both subsidizing each other. But isn't that what the nature of the country is supposed to be anyway?"
Explaining the terms

While Newfoundland's business and political elite are publicly questioning the problems of Confederation, those problems are not new. They find their origins in the famous Terms of Union that Smallwood and a small band of politicians and local mandarins "obtained" for Newfoundland nearly 53 years ago.

"My interest in this as an historian is looking factually at the Terms of Union," said FitzGerald.
The terms were negotiated by people who were appointed, not elected, to go to Ottawa on Newfoundland's behalf, FitzGerald said. The delegation was appointed by the Commission of Government, which itself was appointed by the British government.

"And what they were up against?" said FitzGerald. "They were up against the Mitchell Sharpes and Hugh Keenleysides and the Jack Pickersgills and the Rhodes Scholars and the professional civil servants in Ottawa who had been studying the (Newfoundland) question for 10 years.

"We had nothing like that kind of advice. Essentially, we were told to take the terms or leave them. Mr. (Prime Minister Louis) St. Laurent put it to us, 'This is the best we can do.' But those terms were never submitted back to the Newfoundland people. There was never any discussion on them. They were signed, sealed and delivered before anyone here knew what was in them.
"And the whole time Smallwood was up there, he was trying to get himself appointed premier. His idea was, 'What we don't get now, we can negotiate later when I'm in charge.' You can see why people would be disgruntled with the Terms of Union if you factually look at the history of the thing."

Since the terms were signed, FitzGerald added, a whole raft of other arrangements between the province and Ottawa have been made, covering everything from the railway closure to the running of Marine Atlantic.

"The terms are not the only thing we've got to look at," FitzGerald said. "We've got all these subsidiary agreements. The point is, we don't have a road map and until we do, we're really at the mercy of all these civil servants up in Ottawa."

A new deal

For Noel, changing our place in Canada will mean changing the minds of important interest groups on the mainland. But before Newfoundland can do that, he said, Newfoundlanders themselves have to realize that a new arrangement is needed.

"If we are going to get change, we have to agree on what it should be, pursue it with determination and work with allies across the country," Noel argued. "An effective Senate, like they have in America, would be the best means of strengthening our influence in Ottawa, in my opinion. What other way is there? Simply asking for more of a role in federal decision-making has not worked."

But longtime Newfoundland nationalists like painter Grant Boland believe Noel may have his work cut out for him. For too long the province has neglected its own culture and history, not even teaching it in schools.

"The absence of that kind of information leaves people ignorant," said Boland. "How can you expect people to be nationalistic if they don't know where they came from?"

Some nationalists suspect the powers-that-be are afraid to open up the curriculum to Newfoundland culture too much. It might lead to a reawakening of feeling for the independent country Newfoundland was.

"If separatism came, I think I'd embrace it," said Boland. "But it seems like a sleeping dog situation."

Separatism is the last thing Noel wants.

"I think if we explain our case properly to the rest of the country we will make progress," Noel said. "We don't have many alternatives. We are an integral part of Canada today and I think it's dreaming for people to talk about separating. Newfoundlanders don't want to separate from Canada. We're integrated economically and politically with the other provinces, and socially we have relatives all across the country. We want to be Canadians. But we want to have a fairer share of the benefits of being Canadians."

Questions of nationalism aside, FitzGerald believes the arguments being made by Noel, Dobbin and Young signify something important.

"The one thing that is overwhelming in this is that I think people are starting to realize generally that Canada's best interests are not necessarily Newfoundland's best interests," said FitzGerald.
"And that's a good thing."

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Note: In the following “Newfoundland and Labrador” is sometimes referenced as simply “Newfoundland” or “the island”. This is due to the fact that some sections of text are derived from historical documents and/or publications that predate Confederation and, unfortunately, ignore Labrador’s importance.

Over the years I’ve written a great many articles about Newfoundland and Labrador’s position, or lack of it, within Canada.

With that in mind and with countless examples of inequity having been presented to the Canadian public by countless individuals, groups and provincial leaders for years I find it amazing that there are still people, mostly from outside the Province, who either, fail to, or refuse to, come to terms with the Newfoundland and Labrador situation.

What they don’t seem to realize is that each of the inequities brought forward and many, many more are, no matter how small, of the greatest importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This importance lies in the inescapable reality that each one helps to form a critical link in forging a long chain of national discontent that is growing with each passing day.

To those who still wonder why such deep rooted discontent exists all I can say is this:

Any house built on an unsteady foundation is bound to display cracks over time. The longer those cracks are left untended the weaker the entire house becomes until it eventually has no alternative but to collapse.

The manner in which Newfoundland and Labrador was brought into Canada has tainted everything and everyone that came after and it has guaranteed that an underlying anger and suspicion is deeply ingrained in the collective psyche of Newfoundland and Labrador’s citizens.

Remember, if you knew it in the first place, that at one time Newfoundland and Labrador was itself a fully independent Dominion, just like Canada.

During the dark days of the depression, in the 1930’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, like many others, found itself struggling under a crippling debt load. As a result the people agreed to place themselves under the direct stewardship of Great Britain, on a temporary basis, with the clear understanding that upon regaining their financial footing full independence would once again be restored.

The story of how Britain played an instrumental role in fostering Newfoundland and Labrador’s financial instability and suffering prior to actually taking control over the Dominion is itself a long and distasteful story, but one that will have to wait for another day.

In any event, during the 1940’s Newfoundland and Labrador’s financial situation had indeed reversed itself and the former Dominion was once again financially capable of managing its own affairs, yet the independence promised to it a few years before was now denied by Great Britain.

Instead, in December of 1945, the British government announced that a 45 member “National Convention” would be elected by the voters of Newfoundland to assist them in coming to a "free and informed decision as to their future form of government".

This so called “National Convention” was elected in June, 1946 and given the following terms of reference:

“To consider and discuss amongst themselves as elected representatives of the Newfoundland people, the changes that have taken place in the financial and economic situation of the Island since 1934 and, bearing in mind the extent to which high revenues of recent years have been due to wartime conditions, to examine the position of the country and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government as to possible forms of future government to be put before the people at a national referendum.”

Later that year the delegation traveled to London to determine what financial relations might be expected under (a) continuation of Commission of Government as it existed, (b) a revised form of the Commission, or (c) responsible (independent) government.

The reply was simple. Under the first option the financial relationship would remain the same and Great Britain would be responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador’s financial dealings; the outcome of the second option would depend upon the form of revision undertaken; and under responsible government Newfoundland and Labrador would bear full responsibility for her own finances.

In February of 1947 the newly formed “National Convention” passed a resolution to send representatives to Ottawa. Their mandate was to ascertain "what fair and equitable basis might exist for federal union of Newfoundland and Canada ". A similar resolution, to send a group to the U.S., was defeated by a majority of the Convention’s members and as a result never took place.

Seven members were sent to Ottawa in June of that year and in October Canada’s Prime Minister responded with a statement of terms which the Government of Canada would be prepared to recommend to Parliament as a basis for union.

After reviewing and debating the Canadian terms the 45 member delegation resoundingly decided against Confederation with Canada and recommended to the British government on Jan. 29, 1948 that only two choices be placed before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the restoration of Responsible Government or continuation of the British Commission of Government.

It’s worthy of note that the motion to exclude Confederation from the referendum was agreed upon by a vote of 29 to 16.

The British government however, after reviewing the decision, refused to accept it and instead ordered the Canada option added to the ballot.

The official statement out of England pointed to Canada's offer being based on long discussion, it spoke of the support for Confederation shown within the “National Convention”, and to the fact that the issues had been sufficiently clarified to enable the people to decide whether Confederation would commend itself to them.

Regardless of the position taken by the British government, the fact remains that the “National Convention” in reality did not support Confederation with Canada and the voting public was never actually informed or educated on what the terms of union with Canada would include until long after the vote was over and their futures had already been decided.

At the first referendum held on June 3, 1948, more than 88% of the 176,297 registered voters went to the polls. Responsible Government (a return to independence) won. It received 69,400 votes, Confederation 64,066 and continuation of Commission of Government (British rule) 22,311 votes.

In spite of the fact that a return to independence had triumphed, it was decided that since no single option was a resounding winner a second referendum was to be conducted and only the two top vote getters would be included this time around. One of those two options was Confederation with Canada, an option that the “National Assembly”, instituted by Britain itself and elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, had already rejected for inclusion on the original ballot but which Britain had ensured was there.

This meant that one of the options approved by the elected members of the National Convention would not appear on the second ballot and one that they had rejected after review and debate would remain.

In the second referendum held on July 22, 1948, approximately 85% of voters turned out. Stories of vote tampering, ballot box stuffing and physically pressuring or threatening voters were rampant throughout the entire referendum process. The well funded pro-Confederation side, the financing of which would make an interesting story in and of it self, claimed victory with 78,323 votes against 71,334 for independence.

On July 30, 1948, the Prime Minister of Canada who had long been in discussion with Britain over “the Newfoundland issue” proudly announced that the result of the referendum was "clear and beyond all possibility of misunderstanding".

Yet clearly it wasn’t.

There are several key points that this history lesson imparts to us.

The decision by England, to create a “National Convention” in the first place, rather than actually re-instating full independence to Newfoundland and Labrador, flies in the face of Britain’s mandate to ensure independence once the financial situation had been stabilized.

Only after independence from Britain had been attained should the citizens have been tasked with deciding if a referendum was warranted or what options should be included if there was one.

Once the “National Convention” delegation had been foisted on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador it should have been permitted to carry out its duties in an independent manner, free from interference by the British government.

When the Convention passed a resolution to send a fact finding delegation to Canada and rejected a similar plan to send one to the U.S. the decision was agreed to by Britain. That particular event might not raise any red flags however…when the Convention informed Britain that upon reviewing the Canadian position and after debating the option freely it had voted to strongly reject Confederation with Canada the “National Convention” was overruled and Confederation was placed on the ballot anyway.

In the end the second referendum saw a return of the delegation’s original plan for only two clear options but it was not the two decided upon by the elected delegation, in fact one of the choices was Britain’s pre-ordained solution.

Why was a decision by the delegation to reject a U.S. union acceptable to England yet the decision to reject a Canadian one not acceptable?

Whether the so called “National Convention” should have existed or not, once the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for a group of delegates that had been forced on them by Britain you have to believe that those voters had every right to expect the delegates they elected to make the appropriate decisions about their future, not the British government.

When the first vote was conducted the result was a win for a return to freedom for Newfoundland and Labrador. It won by more than 5,300 votes, yet it was rejected in favor of a second ballot.

The second ballot saw Confederation win by just over 7000 votes, by no means a landslide, yet this particular outcome, for a twice rejected choice (once by the Convention delegates and once by the people themselves), that had been forced on the public by the British government, was immediately applauded in England and hailed in Canada as a decision that was, “…clear and beyond all possibility of misunderstanding".

For anyone who has not come to understand why such deep-rooted problems have existed between Canada and Newfoundland & Labrador even after 60 years perhaps this little history lesson will help you see things a little more clearly.

None of us wants to live in the past, nor should we. Most of us would love nothing better than to move beyond it. For this reason we often speak instead of new issues, slights and neglect that arrive on the Province’s doorstep and which continue to color Newfoundland and Labrador’s perception of Canada as a ruling nation.

Yet even as those new assaults are discussed we do not forget the events outlined here. Though historical in nature they are still fresh in many memories and they continue to serve as the extremely shaky foundation upon which Newfoundland and Labrador’s entire relationship with Canada so precariously rests.

Today a Country Dies

What joining the Dominion meant for Newfoundland, sixty years ago this month.

The following article, by Dorothy Howarth, “New Province Tomorrow,” originally appeared in the Toronto Telegram on March 31, 1949, the eve of Newfoundland and Labrador's becoming a Province (colony?) of Canada.

It's sometimes interesting to take note of what others saw, heard and felt, not to mention the perceptions of others from outside Newfoundland and Labrador, at a time that was so dramatic and traumatic for our people.


Today a country dies.
By Dorothy Howarth
March 31, 1949

Not as they die in Europe by enemy fire and sword, or by aggressive annexation, but by its own hand, the democratic choice of its people.

By a majority vote of only 6,401 of its citizens, Newfoundland today gives up its life as an individual nation in the British Commonwealth to become, instead, the 10th province of the largest Dominion in the Commonwealth, Canada.

There is no celebrating in St. John’s today. People move quietly about their everyday business, through the steep up-and-down roads. Two-wheeled carts, filled with coal and produce, clatter in the cobbled streets. Fur-hatted policemen patrol their beats and long-shoremen wait on Water Street, leaning idly over the railing, above the docks where the tall ships come in.

“Ah, well, Miss, I think there are many of us feeling badly today, even though we be confederates,” said the doorman at the British Commission office.

“How would you feel in Canada if the United States were taking you over today? It’s like a country dying,” said the librarian.

“It doesn’t matter how you voted, confederate or responsible government, today still means that we are no longer a separate country. We’re only part of a larger one now.”

Above the hall of an Irish Benevolent Association rises in defiance what claims to be Newfoundland’s flag — pink, green and white. But far out the narrows from the top of Cabot Tower, whipped out in fierce wind, flies its real flag — the Union Jack.

“That’ll not change, thank God,” said a policeman.

In the hearts of many responsible government people there is real despair.

“We hate Canada; we hate Canadians,” said a well-known St. John’s professional man.

“Come in here with your baby bonus and take us over and you’ll name us a premier and cabinet that are like leopards that can change their spots. Now Tory, now Liberal. Well, once I was a Liberal but not any more. I’ll not be associated with that confederate outfit, I can tell you."

“Look at my office — it’s the same at my house . . .”

Every blind in the place was pulled down to the sill — as if death lay inside.

There is a rumour that before the day is out a number of anti-confederates will take a funeral cortege through the town to bury high on the hill above the city the body of what is supposed to be Newfoundland. But their procession, if it is carried out, will wind right by the same frame houses, lining the hill, from which nightsoil is still collected and from which issue nine and 10 children.


“Of course we’re glad to join with Canada,” said one woman, a baby in her arms. “Look what it will mean to us. I’ve five children and my husband’s work is uncertain. Those Water St. millionaires have bled us long enough,” she added, looking down into the town where the names of a number of merchants could mainly be read on the sides of their stores.


Store windows are the only evidence that Confederation has really come. Price tags on goods, with black lines drawn through the old prices, show the cuts. Nylons from $2.25 to $1.98: Linoleum at $1 a yard down to 50 cents. Drugs and cosmetics in particular show a tremendous difference.


“It’ll take me from three to six months to recover from the change,” said one druggist. “I’ll lose 20 percent on most of my stock.”


But his clerk, a girl, saw the other side of the story. “Now I’ll only pay $1.25 for creams, I paid $2 for before — and cologne is $1.98 now instead of $2.50.

“I saw a cotton summer dress in a store window today for $8.95 — last summer I paid $15 for the same dress. Confederation will certainly make things easier for me, but I am sorry to feel that I must sign my passport Canadian.”


There was an air of waiting over the whole city, waiting for what is going to happen, what Confederation is to bring in small things and in large.


“I was going to buy curtains for my living room, but I decided to wait and see,” said a woman, window-shopping.


Another window-shopper was interested in the drop of the price of linoleum. “I wanted new covering for my kitchen floor for Christmas, but we decided to wait. Now I see that I was wise to.”

Civil service in suspense

Waiting in government offices, figuratively biting their nails, are civil servants who have not yet been notified if their department is even going to exist after today.

Several slated to take trips to Canada on official business, find that financial provision has not been made for their journey.

Up at Government House, where tomorrow the official naming and swearing in of the new premier is to take place, faces are a little red. It isn’t too propitious that new government should be born on April Fool’s Day — a day kept here in the rowdy English fashion. It is said that is the reason the ceremony will not take place until 1:15, the traditional minute for April Fool’s Day to end.

The whole ceremony is being carried out as swiftly, as simply as possible with all the hush-hush trimmings of a military secret. There will be no fanfare: It was not even announced where or at what time the ceremony was to take place.

In schools there will be no special observance of the last day of Newfoundland’s nationhood. One schoolmaster said he thought he would probably address morning assembly for a few moments on the significance of the day, but other schools were ignoring it.

“We’ll be singing our national anthem, ‘Ode to Newfoundland,’ in the morning and ‘God Save the King’ when we leave at night,” another teacher said.

Baked seal a delicacy

Biggest event of the day will be when the first sealer comes in, its decks slippery with blubber and blood from the raw seal skins piled on it.

The Terra Nova, possession of the Eric Bowring stores, a Water St. merchant, was due today but because of high wind and its loaded decks, rolling in a heavy sea, it is still on its way.

“Oh you don’t have to worry about where it comes in,” said a clerk in the store. “Just tell the taxi driver; he knows where to take you. There’ll be lots other people there.”

Baked seal flippers and seal flipper pie will be on all menus when the first ship finally does arrive.

“Tastes just like beef, with a bit of a fishy tinge,” said a long-shoreman. “You’ll like it. Real Newfoundland dish. Can’t make it Canadian whatever you do.”

“I don’t know if we’ll have any here,” said the waitress in the restaurant. “Some-times we do,” then giving out the change, she noticed the silver. “There — there’s our 20-cent piece for you, and our little bitty nickel. Suppose they’ll go out of circulation. But I kind of like them. I’ll miss them. It’ll be all Canadian money instead of our own.”

She swabbed the table with her cloth for a moment.

“I’ve a sister in Toronto. She makes more than I do at the same work. But I don’t know, whatever happens, I still want to be a Newfoundlander.”

So it goes all through the city: Half sadness, some downright anger, some anxiety and some downright gladness. No one is quite sure about the future. Almost everyone realizing they’ve reached the end of an era and everyone waiting — waiting to see what Canada and Confederation will bring.

-end-

I don't know much about the cost of nylons or linoleum these days but knowing what we know now, I wonder what those who waited to "...see what Canada and Confederation will bring" might say today.

What was the true price?

The Butcher, Baker and Candlestick Maker

Much has been made of Senator George Baker’s recent comments identifying a growing discontent in Newfoundland and Labrador and the potential for a new “bloc” style federal party to emerge in the province.

The federalists, most notably the Harper Conservatives, jumped on his comment as a promotion of separation. I believe they even came perilously close to calling the Senator a “traitor”.

Never mind that Mr. Baker spoke of a party that would defend Newfoundland and Labrador’s interests in Ottawa and never said anything about separation. Why would he in the federal context? After all only a provincial party, not a federal one, can make such a move. This is why the Bloc Quebecois never held a referendum on separation, the provincial party in Quebec has done so in the past, but not the federal one. It can’t

In this case, once again, political expediency and the automatic attack instincts of the PMO took over and when that happens everyone knows that reality takes a back seat.

A week after Senator Baker’s comment perhaps it’s time to take a step back, put aside the rhetoric and political hyperbole for a moment, look at the facts behind his belief that there is growing unrest in his home province and what the situation may lead to.

Most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians don’t need to be reminded of the long list of reasons for their discontent but for the benefit of Canadians living outside the province here is a short and by no means complete, list of grievances.

1 - Questions still linger, even after 60 years, about whether or not the referendum that led to NL’s confederation with Canada was valid or not.

When Newfoundland and Labrador ceded power to Britain in the 1930’s the people were told they would one day be given back their autonomy as an independent Dominion. This was never done. Many believe it should have been done before the people were called upon to take part in a referendum on becoming part of another Country.

Most people don’t realize it but there were actually two votes held on Confederation.

In the first vote three options were presented on the ballot and Confederation with Canada DID NOT win that vote. As a result a second vote was undertaken the following year that offered only two options. In that vote Confederation won but by the narrowest of margins, just over 50%. A number that would never pass muster today if NL were to hold a referendum to exit Canada.

Also, as a side note, when NL entered Confederation it may not have been in the best fiscal or economic position but it had a financial surplus. Now, 60 years later it struggles under the highest per capita debt in the Country.

2 - In the late 1960’s Newfoundland and Labrador undertook development of the massive Upper Churchill hydro facility. Canada’s constitution guarantees the free flow of goods across provincial territories. In this case however Quebec refused to allow the province to wheel power across their territory and Ottawa refused to enforce their Constitutional duty by making them permit it.

As a result, Newfoundland and Labrador was forced into signing a ridiculous long term contract to sell the power to Quebec. Although NL still owns and runs the Upper Churchill power system it has made just a few million dollars in all the years that followed. Quebec, last year alone, made $2 Billion in revenues from Newfoundland and Labrador’s power and will make this or more every year from now until 2041.

3 - For 500 years visitors and settlers in Newfoundland and Labrador depended on the Atlantic Cod fishery as the mainstay of the economy. When NL joined Canada in 1949 Ottawa assumed control of fisheries management. By 1992 that 500 year old fishery had been mismanaged to the point of total collapse. This resulted in 15 – 20 percent of the province’s population being thrown out of work.

The fishery has still not recovered and is showing no signs of doing so. Foreign trawlers are still plying the spawning areas and Ottawa refuses to enact custodial management actions to protect them.

4 - The massive oil and gas reserves off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador are not controlled by the province but by Ottawa.

When NL entered Confederation 60 years ago it was standard practice for nations to have a 50 mile limit in the oceans around them (remember, NL was once a separate state), years later Countries around the world began adopting a 200 mile zone.

This means that had Newfoundland and Labrador not entered Canada the people of the province, not Canada, would control those reserves and receive all the benefits from them.

Essentially NL brought those reserves into Canada yet, unlike Alberta or Saskatchewan who control the oil beneath their soil, NL does not control the oil beneath its waters.

For clarification, recent battles related to the Atlantic Accord have nothing to do with equalization. They have everything to do with whether Ottawa or NL receives the most benefit from those oil and gas resources, not all the benefits, just the majority of them.

The Atlantic Accord was an agreement intended to ensure that the people who brought those resources into Canada would benefit the most from them. Recent unilateral moves by the Harper government have ensured that the agreement was watered down the point where it is practically worthless and that the benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador are severely limited.

5 - Newfoundland and Labrador, with less than 2% of Canada’s population has consistently provided about 10% of Canada’s military forces yet even with it’s strategically important geographical location (covering most of the nation’s Atlantic Coast) there is no appreciable military presence (or related jobs) in the Province.

As previously noted, the preceding list is by no means complete but it serves to show that although Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are often labeled as “whiners” or “malcontents” in the national media there are valid reasons for discontent to exist and grow.

So, the next question is what can be done about it?

This brings us back to Senator Baker’s comments.

Whether or not specific individuals in the province would or would not support a “bloc” style party just about everyone knows the situation as it currently exists. That situation is as follows:

Newfoundland and Labrador has no voice in Ottawa and nowhere to turn when serious concerns, like those identified above, come to pass. Under the status quo the province is essentially impotent.

Newfoundland and Labrador has only 7 federal seats out of the 308 in Parliament.

The vast majority of federal seats exist within Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, etc. As a result any federal action must, for purely political reasons, ensure that the voters of the larger provinces are served first, last and always even if that means harming smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador.

Whether it’s a question of wheeling power across another’s provincial jurisdiction, finding more money for vote rich areas, keeping peace with foreign fishing nations so not to upset trade deals that benefit central Canadian auto, textile, aerospace or candlestick makers, or any number of other issues, Newfoundland and Labrador has been, and always will be, less important to federal political parties than central Canada.

The senate, which has problems on so many fronts it would take volume of books to recite, is neither equal nor effective. If it were then each province would have an equal number of senators and the senate would have the ability to do more than rubber stamp legislation. They do not.

The senate, as it was intended, is supposed to be the chamber of “sober second thought”.

Thanks to their long term appointments (remaining in office until the age of 75) senators are supposed to be immune from having to concern themselves with how their decisions might impact on their personal or party political futures. After all, if you don’t have to run for election you don’t need to pander to popular positions and are free to ensure that things are done fairly.

That may work in theory but unfortunately it’s not the case in practice.

It’s common practice, and considered quite acceptable in political circles, for elected party leaders to pressure and control the actions of senators who are members of their party. How often have you heard Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatief and others say something like, “He can’t even control his Senators”.

How independent and immune to political games can the senate really be if comments like those are considered appropriate?

With all of this in mind one can easily see why discontent is growing every day in Newfoundland and Labrador and why Senator Baker (though it took some guts to do it) said what he did.

The facts are clear. With all the problems the province has experienced, and continues to experience in Canada, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have four options in front of them and only one that has any potential to provide some relief.

They can either:

Stay in Canada and sit quietly by as abuse after abuse is heaped upon them with no hope things will ever change. This is not an option anyone should be faced with or should even consider accepting in a democracy.

Or

Stay in Canada and desperately try to change the federal system, knowing full well that there is no political will in Ottawa to do so because the system works pretty well for highly populated and vote rich areas that politicians need to win elections. In other words Newfoundlanders are faced with another option that offers no hope of improving the situation.

Or

Determine, through an independent feasibility study, if separation really is a truly viable and reasonable alternative. Since a study would require provincial government approval, perhaps even assistance in gathering information from Ottawa and would likely take quite some time to conduct if it were ever undertaken, this options does nothing to help in the short term if ever.

Or there is the option put forward by Senator Baker.

Support a “bloc” style party that can voice Newfoundland and Labrador’s concerns in Parliament without concern for the political interests of MPs from other provinces. Those “bloc” style MPs would hold 7 votes that might be important enough during a string of minority Parliaments that old fashioned horse trading could very well serve to see at least some of the province’s concerns addressed going forward.

It’s really the only option that has any merit.

Since he made his now infamous comments Senator Baker has been butchered in the mainstream media across Canada and ridiculed as a dottering fool.

I wonder who the fools really are?

Of Mice and Men (and Women)

Editor's note: I originally published the following in the June 1, 2007 edition of the "Current Magazine" and a couple of weeks later here on Web Talk.

With the current discussion regarding a "bloc NL" party and what it could mean for the province I thought it might be a good time to republish it, with a few updates, for those who may not have read it the first time around.

Myles Higgins

Of Mice and Men (and Women)

Newfoundland and Labrador, to put it simply, is a bloody mess!

We’re represented by seven puppets in Ottawa.

Our people are second class citizens in Canada and everyone is looking toward the latest provincial savior to guide us into a future that’s a crap shoot.

What can we do?

Here’s a novel idea. Let’s get off our collective butts and fight back for once!

Enough is enough!

Our situation reminds me of the legendary tale of “Mouseland”.

If you’ve never heard of it, Mouseland is a parable once told by Saskatchewan political dynamo and father of universal health care, the late Tommy Douglas.

Mouseland tells of a society of mice who go about their daily routines, working, raising children and so on, just like we do every day.

Every four years or so these mice elect a new goverment to lead them.

The funny thing is, for years they always elected a goverment made up of cats, black cats to be precise.

To paraphrase Mr. Douglas, the black cats made wonderful promises.

One time they promised smaller round mouse holes so cats couldn’t stick their heads in and eat all the little mice.

They delivered, but in doing so they made sure the holes were just big enough so they could still get their paws inside and pull the mice out.

After years of suffering the mice decided it was time for a change so they elected a new government.

They threw the black cats out of office.

This time the little mice elected a government made up entirely of white cats.

The white cats promised to get rid of the round mouse holes that had been causing so much trouble for the helpless mice.

“That’ll fix the problem”, they said.

Once elected the white cats were true to their word. They closed up all the little round mouse holes and built square holes, but the square holes were bigger than the round ones had been so the cats could get their entire heads back inside again.

The moral: Cats, no matter their color, are still cats. They aren’t mice.

It’s not that cats are inherently bad. In fact they actually do good things, for other cats, not for mice.

To paraphrase Mr. Douglas once again, what’s good for a Nation of cats isn’t necessarily good for a Province of mice.

Just as in Mouseland, it’s time we do as Senator Baker suggested and elect 7 independent or Bloc style "mice" and sent them to Ottawa instead of the usual purring gang of red, blue or even orange cats.

I can almost see the usual curmudgeons and party faithful shake their heads and ask, “What in God’s name can 7 independent MPs accomplish in a parliament of 308?”

Don’t listen to them.

Canada is facing a string of minority governments for long time to come.

A bloc of 6 or 7 "mice" who aren’t obligated to toe ANY party line can do a lot in that sort of environment.

They certainly can’t do any worse than our usual 7 (fat) cats.

What do we have to lose?

We gave away the upper Churchill for the benefit of Canada and the glory of another almighty savior, Joey Smallwood.

The fish are gone, the railroad is gone, mills are closing, unemployment is rampant and people are leaving by the plane, bus and boat load.

We have to do something or by the time the oil runs out the locks will already be on the door.

Ben Franklin once said, “Those who give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

In 1949 our Nation was sold into confederation for baby bonuses and the old age pension.

According to Ben, we got exactly what we deserved.

It’s time each of us did something to get ourselves out of the mess we’ve fallen, gotten pushed or were forced into, depending on your point of view.

The Ode to Newfoundland contains the line, “Where once they stood we stand”. Sadly the circumstances we find ourselves in today make me realize that most of us don’t stand for much of anything anymore.

Dismiss me as nut, a crackpot or worse, I really don’t care.

I’ve been called far worse, including a Liberal, PC and NDP.

I’d prefer the former names to the latter.

Tommy Douglas noted at the end of Mouseland how one little mouse called on his fellow citizens to stop electing cats. He was dragged away to shut him up.

That prospect doesn't bother me much either. Whether a local lockup or an entire Country, one prison is the same as another, it's just a matter of scale.

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!

Ottawa Gives Implicit Nod to Quebec Annexation of NL Lands

The following article appeared in today’s Globe and Mail. It should be of great interest and concern to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The entire article speaks volumes about the attitude of Quebec and Ottawa toward Newfoundland and Labrador.

Take special note of the following passages within the article. They speak volumes:

“The federal government has sided with Quebec ...”

“…the federal government appears to have given tacit approval to Quebec's claim.”

“Ottawa says that any territorial dispute is a matter for the provinces to resolve.”

Web Talk Note: I guess it doesn’t matter to Ottawa that the border was, with NLs entry into the federation, written into the terms of union making it a constitutional issue. The constitution didn’t matter when during the Upper Churchill development so why would anyone be surprised that it's being ignored again at the expense of Newfoundland and Labrador.

“…the federal government appears to have given tacit approval to Quebec's claim.”

“The boundary has never been successfully surveyed. The last attempt was abandoned in the 1980s after the two provinces concluded the issue was too politically sensitive to tackle.”

Web Talk Note: This likely means that the Premier at the time was Conservative Brian Peckford, since both Rideout and Wells spent very little time in office during that decade. Why did no Premier, either Liberal or Conservative, do anythin about this? Once again we have a Conservative Premier in office who in 2006 said the border situation was not a concern for him. What’s up with that?

"Mr. Charest expressed confidence recently that the project will begin as planned..."

I bet he did. Anyway, enough of the analysis and comments. Here's the article:

Power play pits Quebec against Newfoundland

Where do headwaters of rugged Romaine River lie? Both provinces claim land where boundary has never been successfully surveyed

RHÉAL SÉGUIN
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
February 11, 2009

QUEBEC — The federal government has sided with Quebec by agreeing to hear the province's argument that a multibillion-dollar hydroelectric project is on Quebec territory, land also claimed by Newfoundland and Labrador.

The natural-resources fight pits Danny Williams's province against Quebec's plans to build the Romaine River hydroelectric project. Newfoundland has told Ottawa that Quebec's claims to the land are "invalid" and any such development by Hydro-Québec is "contemptuous of the Constitution of Canada."

Hydro-Québec is proposing to begin developing the 1,550-megawatt project as early as next summer, at a cost of $6.5-billion. It is waiting for the joint panel's environmental assessment report that will be submitted to the Quebec and federal environment ministers on Feb. 27. Both governments will then have up to 60 days to release the report before making their recommendations regarding the project.

Simply by participating in the joint Quebec-Ottawa environmental assessment panel, the federal government appears to have given tacit approval to Quebec's claim.

At issue is a substantial portion of a 3,500-kilometre-long boundary of rugged territory dividing Quebec and Labrador. The boundary has never been successfully surveyed. The last attempt was abandoned in the 1980s after the two provinces concluded the issue was too politically sensitive to tackle.

"Politically this was a real hot potato and it still is," said Eric Jerret, who at the time was president of the Association of Land Surveyors of Newfoundland and Labrador. "But now pressure is coming to bear on the governments to settle this. It's the only border in Canada that hasn't been surveyed. It can't be left unresolved much longer."

At some point it will have to be decided where the mining rights, property rights and especially the headwaters of five major Quebec Lower North Shore rivers reside. That could impact future hydroelectric and other economic developments. More importantly, it could revive tensions between the two provinces at a time when closer co-operation will be needed to develop power and transportation links.

For instance, Newfoundland resident Burford Ploughman has been working on developing a permanent transportation link between the two provinces across the Strait of Belle Isle. He was a member of the 1979 federal Commission of Inquiry into Newfoundland Transportation and fears a confrontation between the two provinces could harm potential progress on key issues.

"The federal government's position isn't helping matters. Are they going to use the Quebec border instead of the Newfoundland and Labrador one? How can they do an [environmental] assessment? If they do, does it mean they are recognizing Quebec's border rather than ours? That's the central question and in two weeks' time they're going to make a decision," Mr. Ploughman said.

A 1927 ruling by the Privy Council, confirmed in the Terms of Union with Canada, concluded the headwaters of the Romaine and four other rivers are in Labrador. Quebec has always considered them as being part of its provincial territory.

"The headwaters and entire watersheds of the Romaine and the four other major Quebec North Shore rivers appear, incorrectly to be within Quebec," the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador stated in its Nov. 27, 2008, brief to the joint review panel.

"It is unacceptable that the federal government would accept a document as sufficient with such a glaring error of fact and law, especially one which is inconsistent with the Constitution of Canada."

The statement implies a constitutional battle may be in the making if Ottawa doesn't act soon to support Newfoundland and Labrador's claim to the land.

A spokesperson for Mr. Williams said yesterday the Premier refuses to say whether he will act to stop Premier Jean Charest from proceeding with the Romaine River hydroelectric project.

At the federal Ministry of the Environment, officials didn't appear to be aware of the potential confrontation. Ottawa says that any territorial dispute is a matter for the provinces to resolve.
"It will be up to the provinces to respond.

The environmental assessment commission will make recommendations to help alleviate possible adverse effects of the project on the environment ... But it isn't in the commission's mandate to take a position on territorial issues such as this," federal Environment Ministry spokeswoman Lucille Jamault said.

Mr. Charest expressed confidence recently that the project will begin as planned, insisting it has become a centrepiece of his government's strategy to create jobs at a time of recession.

UPDATE - 10:09 PM

The following letter was sent to Premier Williams a few minutes ago. If you would like to voice your concerns as well, the Premier's email address is: Premier@gov.nl.ca

To Premier Williams
cc.The Telegram (for publication)

Premier Williams,

I have copied this letter to the Telegram and to VOCM because I'm sure, like myself, most of the people in this province are very concerned about the constitutional challenge Quebec, with the implicit approval of Ottawa, is making with regard to the annexation of southern Labrador.

I also believe that they would like you to clearly state for the record what your government is doing to ensure that the environmental process now underway, and scheduled to be completed in just two weeks, does not proceed until the border is clarified for all of those involved.

The border between NL and Quebec is clearly defined in the Terms of Union with Canada however, knowing our past history when it comes to dealing with Quebec, it is not good enough to depend on Ottawa to respect the Constitution. The happenings around the Upper Churchill are proof enough of that.

If one nation attempted to unilaterally take control of territory inside another it would be considered an act of war. Taken in that context, we cannot allow Quebec to proceed with what amounts to an overt act of aggression against Newfoundland and Labrador

I look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,
Myles Higgins

Putting the Cart Before the Horse

Chicken and Egg.

Cart before the horse.

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

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

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

I’m paraphrasing of course.

The logic behind the argument runs like this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth of NL's Place in the Canadian Federation

The following was sent to Web Talk by a regular reader of our site.

The letter below was written to the St. John's Telegram 10 years ago by John Fitzgerald. For those of you who may not be familiar with the name, Mr. Fitzgerald is an expert in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador and is currently working for the provincial government as our "Quasi-Ambassador" to Ottawa.

The letter itself may be a decade old but it speaks volumes about the truth of Confederation and the clear understanding Mr. Fitzgerald has when it comes to our beautiful homeland. It's a sad thing most of us in this province are not as familiar with the facts as our representative in Ottawa is.

The Telegram
St. John's - April 6, 1998

The Telegram editorial of April 1, celebrating 49 years of Confederation as a "qualified success," claimed that Newfoundland would have been much worse off as an independent country than as a Canadian province, and that without Ottawa , Newfoundland might return to the "grinding poverty" of the 1930s. This is the same tired orthodoxy that The Telegram and Smallwood preached in 1948: Newfoundland would not survive without Confederation.

Newfoundland very likely could have prospered without Confederation. For nine of the 10 years before Confederation Newfoundland had a balanced budget. On the eve of Confederation, Newfoundland had two-per-cent unemployment and a per-capita debt which was one-tenth of Canada 's. On the eve of Confederation, Newfoundland had an accumulated surplus on current account of $43 million and $12 million in interest-free loans to Britain . In 1998 dollars this would be close to $1 billion. Was this prosperity temporary? No. Newfoundland changed forever in the 1940s. If the absence of a House of Assembly at the time prevented Newfoundlanders from knowing it or doing anything about it, then Canada certainly did know the wealth and value of Newfoundland.

Confederation may have been an qualified success for Canada , but not so for Newfoundland . Canada feared that Newfoundland could have used its resources to survive and prosper independently. The Ottawa mandarins realized that Confederation would help extract the Americans from their bases in Newfoundland . Newfoundland also had two of the largest airports in the world, situated on the Great Circle air route.

Canada wanted them, and acquired them with Confederation. It then used the control of the airports and landing rights to force its own way into American markets which had previously excluded Canada . In 1946, Newfoundland had an estimated 300 million tons of iron ore in Labrador , which Canada was interested in exploiting. (In March 1996 the IOC blasted the one billionth ton of iron ore out of Labrador, while Newfoundland still collects revenues under the 1944 royalty regime established by the Commission of Government which allows Newfoundland five per cent of what the IOC tells us their profits are.) Ottawa knew that controlling Newfoundland 's fisheries would eliminate Newfoundland from competing with Nova Scotia for markets for its fish. (Could Newfoundland have managed its cod stocks any worse than Canada has?)

On Oct. 17, 1946 , the Canadian High Commissioner in Newfound land, Scott Macdonald, wrote Ottawa about the benefits Newfoundland would bring to Canada . Newfoundland had "very considerable mineral and forest resources as well as easy access to the finest fishing grounds in the world." Confederation "would solve, permanently, all questions of post-war military and civil aviation rights which are at present terminable after March 31, 1949 , on 12 months' notice. It would make possible a common jurisdiction over North Atlantic fisheries. ..."

And would Newfoundland return to poverty? Not likely. "Moreover," Macdonald wrote, "(Newfoundland) is richer by the investment of at least $100 million by Canada and at least $300 million by the United States primarily for defence but much of which was spent on roads, wharfs (sic), telephone lines, warehouses, similar buildings, radio ranges, airfields, the training of Newfoundlanders in various technical jobs, etc. and has redounded to the general development of the country." In Macdonald's view, Newfoundland thus had the infrastructure to sustain prosperity.

For Canada , Newfoundland 's Confederation was not about the welfare state or about helping Newfoundlanders "out of poverty" (for which, The Globe and Mail tells us, we must be eternally grateful). Rather, it was about acquiring valuable resources, eliminating competition, acquiring very valuable aspects of Newfoundland's sovereignty, and doing it all rather deeply [cheaply?]. After all, Smallwood's Confederation campaigns only cost CD Howe and the Liberal Party of Canada a cool half-million bucks.

The Truth is...

With the news that Newfoundland and Labrador will soon be moving away from equalization while Ontario will be moving toward a “have not” position, much has been said by government and the media alike on the subject.

Over the past week it seems, to this observer, as if the objective has not been to clearly discuss Ontario’s woes or even to congratulate Newfoundland and Labrador for its success. The objective of some seems instead to be an offensive against Newfoundland and Labrador by turning what should have been a good news story into some sort of blight.

During this time Newfoundland and Labrador has been called the “poor cousin” of Confederation. It’s been pounded home time and time again how Newfoundland and Labrador has “never been off of equalization since it joined Canada”. It’s been called a place that, “wants to have its cake and eat it too”. It’s been said that “Newfoundland and Labrador is the place to go if you want to see your (Ontario) tax dollars at work” and Newfoundland and Labrador’s Premier was even asked by one political reporter if he was willing to give up some oil wealth to help Ontario out of its troubles.

None of this was done with tongue firmly planted in cheek. In fact, for the most part, the tone was far darker than anything publicly said about Newfoundland and Labrador in recent memory.

Unfortunately, through it all, the true story of Newfoundland and Labrador’s existence and its first tentative steps toward so called “Have” status were, not even once, put before the people of Canada in an honest way.

The truth is: At the time Newfoundland and Labrador entered Canada in 1949 its total debt was about $100 million dollars. After 59 years of Confederation that debt mushroomed to over $11 billion dollars, the highest per capita debt in Canada. This is what happens when, as my dear Mother says, “you have to borrow money to pay the light bills and put food on the table”.

The truth is: For centuries the historic ocean trade routes between North America and Europe saw thousands of ships travel the eastern seaboard and fill the harbours of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the Maritime provinces. That isn’t the case any more. In an effort to centralize industry and grow the mega economies of Ontario & Quebec the Federal Government used the tax dollars of all Canadians, including those in Atlantic Canada, to construct the St. Lawrence Seaway, essentially killing commercial traffic flow into Atlantic ports.

The truth is: When Newfoundland and Labrador entered Canada it boasted the world’s most prolific fishing resource off its shores. It was a fishery envied around the world. Upon entering Confederation this fishery fell under the control and management of Ottawa. By 1992 this fishery had been mismanaged into collapse and overnight more than 40,000 people lost their livelihoods. The impact to Newfoundland and Labrador’s small population was the equivalent to Ontario losing one million jobs in the blink of an eye.

The truth is: In the 1960’s Newfoundland and Labrador began development of the Upper Churchill Hydro Electric project. At the time it was the biggest project of its kind in North America. The Province of Quebec refused to let Newfoundland and Labrador wheel electricity across its borders at market rates and although the federal government had the authority to force the issue it did not. As a result Quebec now makes billions directly from the Newfoundland and Labrador resource and billions more through the industries it attracted. The owners of that power, Newfoundland and Labrador, can barely afford to keep the turbines spinning. This situation will continue to exist for another 33 years.

The truth is: Even though most of the oil and gas discovered off its shores would never have fallen inside Canadian jurisdiction had Newfoundland and Labrador not entered into Confederation in 1949, the federal government never the less has control of those resources, not the province. The way the federal government views the subject, in Canada oil on land belongs to the province, oil under the water belongs to Ottawa.

The truth is: When Newfoundland and Labrador petitioned the federal government for the right to force oil companies to develop major finds, rather than sitting on them as a “nest egg”, Ottawa refused to stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador. This is why today if a company in Alberta does not develop a discovery within 5 years they lose control of it to the Province. In Newfoundland and Labrador an oil company can sit on a discovery forever, never produce a drop, and prevent anyone else from accessing that find.

The truth is: Although the original 1985 Atlantic Accord supposedly ensured that Newfoundland and Labrador would receive the full benefits of oil resources, it wasn’t until an update to the contract in 2005 that the spirit of the deal was actually fulfilled and a fairer sharing of revenues was delivered.

The truth is: After disputing the value of the 1985 Accord for 20 years and after fiercely battling the Federal Liberal Government for months Newfoundland and Labrador finally got the changes it wanted with the signing of the 2005 update to the Atlantic Accord contract. A little more than a year later the Federal Conservative Government, without consulting the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, unilaterally changed that contract denying Newfoundland and Labrador, according to independent economic estimates, of $10 billion dollars in potential revenue.

The truth is: The list of ways Newfoundland and Labrador has been impeded in improving its economic situation is a lengthy one, with many other examples similar to those identified here.

The truth is: In spite of those roadblocks Newfoundland and Labrador is finally beginning to see some small signs of progress. That progress is not due to the benevolence of the Canadian government. It is because the people who have clung to Newfoundland and Labrador’s rocky coastline for centuries simply refused to give up in the face of adversity.

The truth is: Today Quebec continues to make billions from the Upper Churchill power plant in Labrador. Ottawa still refuses to force oil companies to stop sitting on massive reserves. 16 years after the cod fishery collapsed the fish stocks still have not recovered, yet Ottawa continues to turn a blind eye to foreign fishing fleets raping the spawning grounds off Newfoundland and Labrador.

But…

The Truth is: In spite of it all, Newfoundland and Labrador is paying down its debt, to the tune of nearly 1.5 billion over the past couple of years.

Newfoundland and Labrador has finally recorded multi-year surpluses in its provincial budgets.

Newfoundland and Labrador has reached a point where it requires only $18 million dollars in federal equalization payments this year and will move off equalization completely next year.

The truth is: While the unemployment rate in Newfoundland and Labrador is still more than double the national average it is at least moving in the right direction and is currently at a 25 year low.

That’s the truth.

Now imagine for a moment what Newfoundland and Labrador might have accomplished if it had been given half a chance.