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 This is due to the fact that some sections of text are derived from historical documents and/or publications that predate Confederation and, unfortunately, ignore Labrador’s importance.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.

Fishermen demand public inquiry

The following appeared in the Sou'Wester and it's worth a read if you ever wanted to see a clear example of how the fishery has been mis-managed by Ottawa.

Fishermen demand public inquiry
April 27th 2009

By Pam Snow

GREEN BAY/WHITE BAY, N.L. - There are 262 core licence holders, plus crew represented by the Small Boat Committee for Green Bay and the White Bay area, and all members are tired of a mismanaged fishery.The chair of the committee, Ray Wimbleton, said the blame rests on the shoulders of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

“It has been mismanaged for years,” claims Wimbleton.

“There are fish being dumped when it really isn’t necessary.”

Wimbleton said the individual quota laws for fishermen to follow, need to be revamped.

“If I have a quota of 20,000 tonnes and I drop a seine and get 25,000 tonnes; those fish are already dead, but I can’t give that extra 5,000 to a fisherman to meet his quota,” said Wimbleton.

“Instead, I have to dump that 5,000 tonnes of dead fish back into the water. It’s not because we want to do it – it’s because by law we have to do it. As fishermen we think it’s ridiculous because we want to utilize our resource, not completely destroy it.”

On behalf of the committee, Wimbleton has been writing letters to the Member of the House of Assembly (MHA), Member of Parliament (MP) and members of the opposition, in hopes of getting an inquiry the fishermen demand into fishery management by DFO.

“The general public says that all our marine resources are public property, to be managed by those in power for the good of the country and its people. Anyone managing a public property must be accountable to the public,” stated Wimbleton in a letter to MP for Humber-St. Barbe and Baie Verte, Gerry Byrne.

After recieving Wimbleton’s letter, MP Gerry Byrne said the concept of a public inquiry is a great idea.

“Reading the letter and listening to Wimbleton’s comments, it really makes you think about how the fishery has almost slid onto the backburner, so to speak,” he said. “The committee is expressing a great deal of frustration because the fishery is not on the fore-front of any agenda.”

Byrne fully supports an inquiry into the management of the fishery.“I have encouraged Wimbleton to focus on specific issues and what a commissioner should focus on,” he said. “Right now the committee has a broad based inquiry, the focus on the objections need to be tighter. “Then there’s the question of who should be the head commissioner as well.”

The fishermen are demanding to know why DFO has eroded the buddy-up system they have always had and who has access to the fish resource.

“How many processors, business people and foreigners have quotas of different species that can be sold?” questioned Wimbleton.

Wimbleton said it would be interesting to know exactly know much of Newfoundland and Labrador’s resource has been traded off over the years to foreign countries for industry development and how much is still harvested inside the 200 mile limit today.

“DFO operates on tax payers dollars, so how much is spent on real science? Who has received funding from DFO and for what purpose?” he said. “Is the money being spent to wisely manage and conserve our fish stocks or is millions of dollars being wasted through third party involvement?”

Wimbleton charged that knowledgeable advice is being ignored by DFO from fishermen.

“These are just a few concerns that really bother the fishermen.”Leo Seymour, from Harbour Round on the Baie Verte Peninsula, has been a fisherman for 38 years and said the demand for an inquiry is high.

“I talk to a lot of fisherman around the area and there are even people besides fishermen who want to see a public inquiry,” he said. “DFO is saying to us that there are too many fishermen and too little fish, but that’s not the case. There are not too many fishermen and too little fish.“There’s a big difference in what DFO is saying and what fishermen are saying about the number of cod stocks around the island. An in-depth inquiry would bring it all onto the table and would put the information out there for people to see.”

With 18 fishermen making their living from the sea in Harbour Round, Seymour said that’s the only life the residents know.“You take the fishermen out of Harbour Round and there would be nothing left,” he said.

“With all these tourism advertisements that the government have been releasing on television, they all focus on outport Newfoundland. But DFO and Government are slowly cutting the life line of outport Newfoundland, and I think if rural areas were to disappear tomorrow, there wouldn’t be one tear shed from anyone in government.”

Wimbleton agrees that the impressions from a recent meeting with DFO in Grand Falls -Windsor were the soon-to-be extinction boat fishery.

“There will not be a next generation of small boat fishermen, under DFO policy the door only swings one way, you can get out, but not in,” he said.

“ Why have the federal government of Canada and DFO decide that the small boat fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador must go, to become a page in history? If we are to become history, we must know why.”

DFO was unavailable for comment at the time this story was written, however in the Stock Assessment of Northern 2J3KL Cod for 2009 that was released in March, the report states “any fishery should be managed such that catches are not concentrated in ways that result in high exploitation rates on any stock components.”

If you would like to support the call for a full inquiry into the Atlantic Fishery you can find contact information for your federal MP and various media outlets in the links section at the upper left side of this page.

Hysteria in Hogtown

The following editorial appeared in the April 15 edition of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. I believe it's worth repeating here for anyone who may not have read it, as is one of the comments it generated from from a reader. Have a great weekend.

Myles

Hysteria in Hogtown

WHEN QUEBECERS surprised and scared themselves by electing René Lévesque as their first separatist premier, cartoonist Terry Mosher told them to "take a Valium." Thirty-three years later, some elites in Ontario could use the same advice.

Their take-a-Valium moment arrived Tuesday when Ontario received its first equalization payment from the federal government.

The $14.46 million was the first instalment of $347 million in equalization Ontario is entitled to collect this year. In the context of Ontario’s budget – with spending of $109 billion and a deficit of $14 billion – equalization is not going to be a huge factor in the economic life of Ontario this year. It amounts, for Pete’s sake, to $27 per Ontarian, or a third of one per cent of provincial spending.

Yet you’d never glean this from the hyperventilating that has accompanied Ontario’s exaggerated descent into that caricature rock-bottom corner of Confederation — "have-not" status.

"I think it’s a very sad day in the history of this province that we’re now going on the dole," Bob Runciman, Ontario’s interim Tory leader, told the Globe and Mail. A National Post editorial called for the end of equalization, now that Ontario "has sunk to have-not status" and Ontarians can no longer "subsidize the aspirations of the country’s have-nots" as "part of their patriotic duty." Liberal Finance Minister Dwight Duncan tried to blunt the supposed shame of it all by arguing that Ontarians, through their federal taxes, are paying themselves equalization (as if Canadians in other equalization-receiving provinces didn’t pay federal taxes).

What a lot of empty fuss and vanity over what is, after all, just one federal program among many for stabilizing provincial economies and public services. Why have Ontario politicians from Mike Harris to Dalton McGuinty been delighted to receive billions in federal transfers for industrial subsidies, social programs and health services without characterizing them as panhandling? Why single out equalization to stigmatize as "the dole"?

Ontario gets equalization this year because its tax base (a mirror of its economy) is underperforming relative to provinces that are being cushioned by resource revenues. Ontario’s weakness is driven by upheaval in the auto sector. So its $347 million in equalization is no more or less shameful than the $5 billion in infrastructure stimulus Mr. Duncan expects to get from Ottawa or the $8 billion Ottawa will probably contribute to sorting out General Motors and Chrysler in Ontario.

These are all stabilization measures to help people in Ontario get through a tough time that we hope is temporary. Their leaders should get over the fact that a small part of this stabilizer/stimulus is called equalization. Then maybe we could ditch the whole useless caricature of "have-nots," period.

COMMENT:
wayne moores wrote:

Perhaps all the hysteria from Ontario politicans isn't the fact they are receiving funding from Ottawa, but the fact that it's out in the open.

For years while Southern Ontario in general and Toronto in particular passed themselves off as the center of the Universe, it was quietly raking in billions in subsidies of all sorts from the feds. Second only to Quebec in federal largesse, the only difference being that Quebecers felt it was their God given right to extort billions from Ottawa and made no bones about it.

Bombardier alone reaped uncountable billions(all it's operations in Que. and Ont).

Ontario always sneered at any regional development money as welfare and a waste. The same money doled out to GM and Ford(at a time when they were the most profitable companies in the world),in industrial grants, was money wisely doled out. Doesn't look so wise now, does it.

A little known fact about Michalin Tire opening up in Nova Scotia was that the powers that be in Ontario were seething that they located here at all.(Didn't those bloody Frenchmen know that Ontario was the only rightful place for any part of the auto industry!!!Bloody hell!!!)And let's not forget Ottawa itself, providing thousands of high paying jobs to people who pay Ont/Que income taxes.

Confederation itself was set up to save Ontario's bacon and it has worked out pretty well for them. Nova Scotia has payed a heavy price.Now that manufacturing is in decline perhaps the time has come for the West and the East.