Where Will You Mark Your X on October 14th?

In January of 2006, just prior to the last federal election, I wrote an article outlining the responses of each party leader, to a letter written by Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams, asking each what their position was on several key issues of importance to the province.

They say that in politics a day is like a week and a week can be a lifetime. They (politicians being they) also say that the public has a short attention span and an even shorter memory when it comes to issues. With this in mind, and with Premier Williams actively campaigning against the Harper Conservatives, I thought a look back at exactly what each party’s position on those issues was just a little over 2 years ago might be in order.

A note of caution:

Recall that at the time the Liberal party was led by Paul Martin so it may be a little unfair to tar the current leader, Stephane Dion, with the same brush on these issues. Then again many of the same old party faithful are still in place in Liberal land so there may be some comparisons to be drawn.

One might also want to take Jack Layton’s responses with a large grain of salt since, at the time anyway, he was clearly not in a position to become the Prime Minister or even the leader of the official opposition and as such knew he would never have to act on his promises.

That said, if Mr. Layton's tactic was to simply make promises he knew he wouldn’t have to keep, and I’m not saying it was, that would tell voters a lot about the true character of the man.

It seems that in this election the character of the leaders is about the only real issue being debated.

The history:

Just prior to the 2006 Federal election Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams sent a letter to the leaders of the Liberal, Conservative and NDP parties identifying 17 key priorities for the province and asking each leader to respond with their level of support for each item.

The Responses:

As a disclaimer, my understanding of the content in each response is open to interpretation but having studied the precise wording, phrasing and tone of each response has led me to the following conclusions.

My analysis of course is no substitute for reading the details yourself (available at http://www.gov.nl.ca/) but if you’re not inclined to hunt the letters down and read them yourself here is the straight story. The Coles Notes version you might say.

Do you support cost sharing an early retirement program in fisheries workers:
Liberals – NO, Conservatives – NO, NDP – YES

Will provide a northern shrimp allocation to the Province:
Liberals – Evasive, C – Evasive, NDP – YES

Will you take Custodial Management on the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – YES

Will you adopt the Northern Cod Strategy and not List cod as endangered:
Liberals – YES, Conservatives – YES, NDP –YES

Will you support a comprehensive federal/provincialAquaculture Agreement:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – Evasive

Will you assist with the Lower Churchill hydro development:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – Evasive

Will you sell the Federal share of Hibernia to NL:
Liberals – NO, Conservatives – NO, NDP – YES

Will you re-open Gander Weather Office:
Liberals – NO, Conservatives – YES, NDP – YES

Will you increase the Federal presence in Newfoundland and Labrador:
Liberals – YES, Conservatives – YES, NDP - YES

Will you undertake Equalization Reforms:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives - Evasive, NDP – YES

Will you cost share Trans Labrador Highway:
L – Evasive, Conservatives – YES, NDP – YES

Will you make 5 Wing Goose an operational requirement (with troops):
Liberals – NO, Conservatives – YES, NDP – Evasive

Will you create a reserve at Sheshatshiu by June of 2006:
Liberals – YES, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – Evasive

Will you stabilize Marine Atlantic services and cut fees:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – Evasive

Do you support bilateral cost sharing for economic development:
Liberals – Evasive, C – Evasive, NDP – YES

Will you ensure federal contracts for Marystown and Bull Arm shipyards:
Liberals – NO, Conservatives – NO, NDP – YES

Will you participate in costing sharing of a waste management strategy:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – Evasive

Final Tally: Liberal: 5 NO, 3 YES and 9 Evasive
Final Tally: Conservative: 3 NO, 5 YES and 9 Evasive
Final Tally: NDP: 0 NO, 12 YES and 5 Evasive

Of course there’s a certain level of subtlety to each of the evasive answers that might allow them to be interpreted either a yes or a no, but I thought it best to simply label those as evasive and be done with it. We all know it doesn’t pay to read between the lines with political types and unless a promise is spelled out in great detail, and sometimes even if it is, what does it really mean anyway?

There’s nothing a politician loves more than a good loophole he or she can crawl through when the time comes to deliver the goods.

In all fairness, a few of the evasive answers may have been valid and perhaps the Premier himself should have been aware of potential problems prior asking the questions.

For example, how could anyone support a shrimp quota for a community until ensuring stock viability and availability prior to allocating it? I believe it was moves like handing out quotas willy-nilly that helped lead us to the sorry state of a fishery we have today.

In another response it would have been difficult for a government leader to promise contracts to a specific shipyard when a little annoyance like the public tendering act is in place.

Those realities lead to another interesting point. Some of the questions NDP leader Jack Layton responded affirmatively on should perhaps have elicited a more evasive answer than was given, including the aforementioned question of shrimp quotas.

So, what does all of this mean to the average voter today?I guess it means that when you get right down to it we all have to do some soul searching and hard thinking before we step into that ballot box on October 14th. How many promises were met and how many were broken, who stands for what and who deserves your support are all important questions.

Whether Stephen Harper, or any of the leaders for that matter, can be trusted will likely play a big part in the decision of where to mark your X, or at least it should.

In Newfoundland and Labrador in particular the impact of Williams' ABC (Anyone But Conservative) campaign and the string of broken promises left behind by the Harper government, as well as previous federal leaders, both locally and nationally will no doubt be on people’s minds as will the very structure of the Canadian parliamentary system and the province's lack of voice in it.

For those of you with the kind of short memory politicians love to talk about (and who are not yet tired of reading this lengthy review) here is a short list (certainly not all inclusive) of the broken promises given by the current Conservative government (some of which were given in writing).

Taxing Income Trusts after saying he wouldn’t tax them and in doing so encouraging thousands to invest and lose their savings.

Promising to remove of non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization calculation and then including them anyway.

Promising to station a 650 person rapid response battalion at 5 Wing Goose Bay and a military contingent in St. John’s and walking away from that promise. Nothing has been said about the issue since the 2006 election.

Passing a federal fixed election date law and setting the date of the next election for October of 2009, in an effort to prevent a ruling party from timing elections when it is most favorable to them politically, and then disregarding that law and calling an election anyway.

Campaigning on a platform that included plans for the election of senators and providing a government that would be truly accountable to the public. In his first days in office the PM appointed his campaign manager to the senate, and put him in charge of public works by making him cabinet minister, a cabinet minister who is not really accountable to the public since he does not have to face questions in the House of Commons.

And the list goes on…

Dion to "Shift Green" Among Provinces.

A recent respondent to one of my articles spoke of their concerns with Stephane Dion's new carbon tax or “Green Shift”. In their words:

“…supposedly it's revenue neutral…The logic is that by "deciding" to use less fuel you can keep more of your tax money and spend it on the things that matter to you.”

“People in places like cold Labrador… who suffer through long cold winters can't "decide" to not heat their homes. It may have some benefit in BC…where winter temperatures are much higher but not here and not up north.”

“What about those living in rural areas who drive 20 or 30 kilometers to get to work. No mass transit for them. Great for Toronto or Montreal though (with mass transit).”

“What about Newfoundland and Labrador where, thanks to the fact that there is very little manufacturing, nearly everything consumed has to be trucked, shipped or flown in? Don't tell me the added cost of fuel won't cause skyrocketing prices.”

“This is a crock.”

Well said, but I’ll go further than calling it a “crock” and call it exactly what it is. A fraud.

The Liberals are absolutely right when they call it a “green shift” because ultimately it will shift a lot of green (dollars) out of places like Newfoundland and Labrador and into Ontario and Quebec.

Recently former Liberal MP, cabinet minister and interim leader, Bill Graham, posed a series of questions to a panel of experts reviewing the plan that cuts to the heart of the issue: “What does revenue-neutral mean? It sounds nice when you say it, but it will create winners and losers. Who’s going to win, who’s going to lose and who’s going to pay?”

Good point Bill. There is no such thing as “revenue-neutral”.

Perhaps from Ottawa’s perspective it makes sense in that government can return every dollar of carbon tax to the public in the form of other tax breaks, but that doesn’t mean that those dollars will flow back to the individuals it came from.

In essence the Liberal “green shift” is a system of taxes that will, much like the much hated national energy plan before it, shift a large amount of money from places like Newfoundland and Labrador to the wallets of voters in Ontario and Quebec.

In order to produce oil, for example, natural gas is often used in the extraction process. This will increase the cost of oil production leading to lower royalties for Newfoundland and Labrador and raise second thoughts among oil executives considering future projects that might be “gas intensive”.

The Holyrood generating plant, which currently supplies a huge amount of the island’s power, burns heavy oil by the millions of barrels a year. Meaning an increase in carbon tax will increase the electrical bills of every householder and business.

In Labrador a large number of communities depend on diesel generated power. Neither they, nor anyone using oil to heat their homes, can afford to simply cut back on their usage to any appreciable degree.

Granted the Liberal plan would provide tax cuts to offset carbon taxes but will it be enough to cover the cost for individuals who really don't have a lot of choices that might allow them to go greener and where do you think most of those tax breaks will have the biggest effect?

It’s not hard to figure out. Simple math will tell you. Surely the manufacturing sector in Central Canada will pay more carbon tax as well, but with more 60% of Canada’s population residing in Ontario and Quebec (many of which have access to cheap Churchill Falls power and mass transit systems) most of the tax breaks will be enjoyed there as well.

As far as Stephen Harper is concerned Newfoundland and Labrador may as well be a far off land that is of no concern to him. The Liberal Party of Canada, if elected, will try to push forward with their latest “Green Ontario/Quebec tax shift”. Either way you slice it this is not a good day for places like Newfoundland and Labrador on the federal scene.

Perhaps, as some have said before, it’s time to consider a “shift” of our own in Newfoundland and Labrador. Perhaps what we need is a political shift.

With a string of minority governments almost guaranteed in Ottawa these days, electing a locally focused “Newfoundland and Labrador” party may well be the way to go. Seven representatives in Ottawa fighting for Newfoundland and Labrador, rather than toeing the line for Canadian parties, may be the only hope this place has to block harmful legislation introduced by either of the mainstream parties.

It's certainly a better option than doing nothing and waiting for the axe to fall.