Danny Williams lowers the Canadian Flag

[Kirkhill]

You know, I can't help but seeing the fly in the ointment here as that dammed equalization programme and by extension the entire federal tax structure.

The equalization plan allows the Feds to play favourites and curry favour.  It is the ultimate in socialism and social engineering.  If the tax structure conformed to the founding principles of Confederation citizens would pay taxes to their Province and the Province would dispense funds to the Feds for National Defence, Foreign Affairs and Arbitration (civil and commercial). Full stop.

Coming from good Presbyterian stock (the people that said that they - not the Pope, not the King, - would appoint their Ministers and if they didn't do a good enough job they would chuck'em out and hire somebody who could preach a good sermon) in my view my mioney is mine first, my town's second, my province's third, my country's last and the UN isn't on the list.

The problem with this is that with this scenario folks in cities would quickly find that they can only sell what they buy, having nothing of their own to sell but themselves, and that wealth is generated from having things and selling them (things like oil, water, nickel, iron, hydro, lumber, fish, grain what have you).  All else is sophistry.  You can't build a car, or run it without hydro, water, iron, nickel or oil).

Canada's provinces have resources in abundance.  The only reason we are all not as rich as the ruddy Saudi royal family is that we allow our governments to place silly restrictions on us in the name of cafe environmentalists.

As individual share holders in this Enterprise Canada we have more ruddy underutilized assets than any other country in the world.  Bar None.  We have something of just about everything that the rest of the world wants to buy.

And here is the real pity of the situation - we have so much that we could afford to screw up so royally and completely environmentally devastate an area the size of Switzerland and not even notice it -  Nobody wants to do that and we know how to do it better and do it without doing the damage - but we have so much we can afford to take chances and yet we refuse to take the risk and act.

Rant ends....'pologies sent.

Here, by the way of nothing, a study of the data that I gleaned from Jean's Liberal Party Testimonial published by StatsCan, otherwise known as the 2001 year book.

56 Hectares - Area of Earth's surface owned by each Canadian
14 Hectares - Area of Coastal Waters
                - 8 Hectares - Ice covered Coastal Waters
12.6 Hectares - Area of Undifferentiated Lands (exists but no assigned used - rock, 'skeg and tundra)
7.8 Hectares - Area of Productive Forest
6.3 Hectares - Area of Scrub Forest
2.5 Hectares - Area of Fresh Water
2.1 Hectares - Area of Arable Land
1.3 Hectares - Area of Parks
0.09 Hectares - Area of Urban Settlement
0.033 Hectares - Area of Annual Forest Cut (representing 0.42% of the Productive forest and allows for a 250 regrowth cycle or 0.2% or the total forest and allows for a 500 year harvest cycle
0.019 Hectares - Area of lands mined or quarried (less than the per capita share of land covered by Metro Toronto)

By comparison the average citizen of the world's GREEDIEST nation, the USA, is entitled to an area of about 4 Hectares and Israelis and Palestinians are squabbling over 0.3 Hectares of ruddy desert.

If we don't spend some of this wealth we hold, rather than hording it, we do the world no service.  We are the world's Scrooge.

OK, now the rant really ends.  Let fly the slings and arrows.....

Cheers you lot.

 

[Bograt]

<off topic>
Metric is killing me. How many cups are in a hectare?

<on topic>
Kirkhill... ummm hun? You lost me at the Presbyterian stock line. I couldn't get the picture of intimate presbyterians out of my head.

<serious>
My apologies for my anti-liberal diatribe. It really gets boring after a while. The Globe and Mail editorial was like throwing gas on a fire. I imagine lots of PMO clerks scrurring around trying to find a place to hide under. Got a laugh, the liberal machine miscalculated this one.

 

[Kirkhill]

So you should apologise Bograt - it set me off something horrible myself.

Intimate Presbyterians - fairly sure there have been some of them around. ;D

Cutting to the bottom line, Canadians have got lots of stuff and thus are wealthy.  It is our stuff, not the politicians' stuff.  Just like the Presbyterians decided they could make a better job of making decisions than Popes or Kings I think that rather than assuming that the Government owns the lot and passes it down as it sees fit, I believe we own the lot and should pass it up as we see fit.  Charity begins at home.

Cheers.

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/06/williams050106.html

Looks like Danny is going to back down on the flag issue and turn it around on the PM.  We have no beef with the people, just the leader.  Its a good spin, puts more focus on the issue of the PM and the once worthy John Effort.  Never thought that the son of a fisherman would sell out the people of Newfoundland while a rich townie is the white knight.

 

[Bograt]

This is a response to the Globe and Mails slander of yesterday. I would strongly earge those interested in the issue to listen to it.

It is a Real Audio clip.

http://stjohns.cbc.ca/morningshow/realaudio/20050107cleary_wente.ram

 

[227Tech]

Thanks for the link.


You might find this ineteresting aswell.





... and Danny Williams responds
From Friday's Globe and Mail, January 7, 2005



It is with a heavy heart that I write in response to Thursday's commentary by Margaret Wente, "Oh Danny Boy, pipe down." As Premier of the great and proud province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I found Ms. Wente's column to be more than insulting. I found it very, very sad.

If people around the country wonder why we removed the Canadian flag to protest against the treatment of our province by the federal government, I suggest they look no further than Ms. Wente's column. Her comments perfectly demonstrate why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to take such firm action to get the attention of the people of this country. Her paternalistic and condescending attitude serves only to further ignite the passion of our people at home and abroad.

While Ms. Wente goes on at length to speak of federal moneys flowing to our "vast and scenic welfare ghetto," she fails to mention the resources -- human, cultural and, no less important, vast natural resources -- that our province brought with us to this federation, such as our fishery, our forests, our farms, our clean hydroelectric resources, our iron ore, nickel, copper, cobalt, gold and other minerals, and our oil and gas.

Yes, Newfoundland and Labrador has benefited as a partner in Confederation, as has each and every other province and territory. That is what Confederation is about, after all. But make no mistake: This country has reaped untold billions from our natural and human resources as well. Ms. Wente may be tired of hearing us complain about how the federal government mismanaged our fishery; being sick of hearing about it, however, does not make the reality go away. Canada permitted foreign overfishing off our coast to continue, to our detriment, in order to secure trade agreements that benefited other regions of our country. Great for the rest of Canada, but certainly not great for the tens of thousands of fisheries-dependent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who left our province -- their homes -- to live and financially contribute to the economies of other provinces.

As you read through Ms. Wente's column, it also becomes very clear that she is completely uninformed on our province's position. She says, "If you should make the error of suggesting that people might have to become more self-sufficient, your political career is dead." I only wish that Ms. Wente had been paying greater attention to what I have been saying for the past six months. Our government's primary goal in pushing the federal government to implement Prime Minister Paul Martin's commitment of June 5 (100 per cent of our provincial offshore revenues) is to provide our province with the necessary tools to finally become self-sufficient: a strong, contributing partner to the federation.

That is what this is all about, Ms. Wente. It is about the province of Newfoundland and Labrador finally achieving our true potential -- the potential that comes from having some of the most precious, bountiful natural resources in the world. We are not asking for the federal government's share of these resources -- a share that accounts for more than 50 per cent of total government revenues. We are asking only for our provincial share. We are asking only for a chance. A chance we deserve.

Ms. Wente wants us to stop complaining. Maybe we will stop complaining about being a victim when those who share her opinions recognize and address the historic pattern of abuse and mistreatment we have suffered. We are a proud people. Proud of our "quaint and picturesque" communities. Proud of our resilience in difficult times. Proud of our giving and kind-spirited disposition that comes so naturally. And we are proud to support other provinces and territories that benefit from the largesse of the federal government. But we are not too proud to demand from the same federal government that they fulfill the clear and unequivocal commitment of the Prime Minister.

When Ms. Wente faults Canada's "hallowed policy of siphoning money from the haves to the have-nots, so that everyone can be equal," she forgets Section 36 of the Constitution, which obligates Canada to promote equal opportunity for all Canadians in all regions. Throughout Canada and the world, the Maple Leaf symbolizes fairness, justice, compassion and co-operation in the quest for equality of opportunity for all people. Our province removed the Maple Leaf, not to reject those values, but to draw attention to the fact that the Martin government's broken commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador frustrates those values.

While it is true that we have only seven seats in the House of Commons and barely more than half a million residents, we are an equal partner in Confederation, and we have a small window of opportunity to turn our bountiful petroleum resources into long-term opportunities for our people and our province to stand on our feet. We do not deserve to be accused of wanting the fine people of Scarborough, Ont., to subsidize us, or being compared to "deadbeats."

We are equal partners of a great country that accepts and supports our province's aspirations to achieve equality of opportunity and self-reliance. You should be ashamed of your comments.

 

[Cakear]

RIGHT ON DANNY BOY!!!!!!

 

[Bograt]

I wrote her this morning as well. Unfortunately, I am not nearly as articulate as Mr. Williams.

Ms. Wente,

Well, if we are being "colourful" in the use of language to make a
statement, let me take a crack at your proverbial ball.

Your ignorance is only matched by your sense of moral self
righteousness. You cleverly compared Mr. Williams to a bumbling uncle.
If we are throwing analogies around, the federal government is like an
abusive step father who regularly beats and sodomizes his step child
while favouring his own. You are like the step father's family who
supports the abuse during the inevitable court case.

And if we are throwing ignorant nouns around (your use of the
word Newf is offensive), I think you are a dirty c*nt.

Cheers,

I don't think it will get published.

 

[Cakear]

You're right . . . it probably won't be bulished  :

Here's a pretty good retort . . .

January 7, 2005

To paraphrase Pierre Trudeau, patriotism is something that we feel in our bones. It is very natural and instinctive for humans to identify with the land and people of their birth. This revelation came to me as I stared out at Conception Bay from my grandparents' home in community of Carbonear, an hour's drive outside St. John's.

On a cold, but sunny Boxing Day I walked down to the bay's shore and saw the waves crashing up against the barren rocks, staring at a horizon which will see no more land until these waves crash upon the shores of Great Britain, Newfoundland's first imperial conqueror. On my way to the shore I see an inshore fishing boat, a craft which has been the staple in a lifestyle which has not completely died out, but at the rate the offshore trawlers are taking the snow crab and scallop off the ocean's floor I fear fishing may soon be only seen by tourists of what Newfoundland looked like in a by-gone era.

I was also in Carbonear on summer vacation in 1992 when federal fisheries minister John Crosbie announced a moratorium on the northern cod fishery, which economically devastated communities like Carbonear and the thousands of small fishing communities all around the island. I have a vivid memory of how dark it was that July day and how the clouds hung down as if they wanted to fall out of the sky. When oil was discovered off our shores, a brighter future didn't seem very far away.

This feeling of pride for the land and people of Newfoundland and Labrador is what, the premier of my province, Danny Williams, pointed to rhetorically on December 22, as he walked out of talks with the federal government, â Å“for the last time.â ? From this moment on, I am a Canadian in name, not in heart.

Though the Atlantic Accord talks talks have only appeared to be a small blip on the Canadian radar, they are huge news in Newfoundland and Labrador and could have huge ramifications. These talks are not just between a group of political elites about equalization formulas, the price of oil, or how much revenue we'll receive after five years; they are about being recognized by a country and a government which treats us as if we don't even exist. The letters and editorials of fury couldn't come fast enough from around Canada condemning Danny Williams for taking down the Canadian flag on all provincial buildings.

Going to war with feds draped in the provincial flag is nothing new here in Newfoundland or the rest of Canada for that matter. Newfoundland Prime Minister Robert Bond did it in the early 1900s, Joey Smallwood did it with John Diefenbaker Joey Smallwood did it with John Diefenbaker, Brian Peckford did it with Trudeau and Danny (as he's affectionately called these days) is doing it with Martin. I did not vote for Williams. I did not like how he threatened draconian measures in legislating public sector workers back on the job and I'm generally very sceptical when rich Newfoundlanders come in on a white horse to save the province's people from themselves. But on this one, I support Danny.

But my support for Williams has some reservations. I do not like this attitude of â Å“Father knows best,â ? that Newfoundland politicians take in their dealings with Ottawa. The only way that Newfoundland is ever going to make any headway with the federal government is if, like Quebec, we become masters of our own house. Though some may snicker at the notion of Newfoundland's seven seats, these could very much benefit either one of the opposition parties and could be a determinant on the size of a minority government.

In order for the Canadian federation to work there has to be a middle ground between the unworkable centralizing federalism of Trudeau and the even more ridiculous decentralization of Brian Mulroney. I believe that it is imperative for the federal government to involve itself in delivering social programs, especially post-secondary education. But I do think that it has to be fair to all provinces and peoples in ensuring that they receive the full benefits of their natural resources.

But if we do get 100 per cent of oil revenues it will signal the biggest change to Newfoundland since Confederation. This also worries me because a lot of wealth will be brought into the province, which will fundamentally change the class relationships in our province and could even widen the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. It could also spell the end of rural Newfoundland as people and resources are pulled into St. John's and its resource draining suburbs.

As always, however, Canadians and their arrogant pundits like Margaret Wente seem to think that Newfoundlanders sponge off the hard-working Chinese and Korean immigrants of Scarborough who shouldn't have to subsidize â Å“the people who live in Carbonear no matter how quaint and picturesque.â ? Is this how Newfoundland is thought of in the rest of Canada? As simple ornaments in the Canadian mosaic? Oh look, we'll throw coins and watch how the stupid Newfies dance, play, and laugh like jesters in the Imperial Court. Or are we viewed as Wente puts it, as â Å“the most vast and scenic welfare ghetto in the world.â ?

For a long time I was very suspicious of nationalism; when put in the wrong hands it can have deadly results, as the Bush administration has clearly shown. I understand now how Quebec nationalists and First Nations feel. Though some Newfoundlanders will disagree, I think that voting to join Canada in 1949 was the best decision Newfoundlanders ever made. But our role within Confederation has to change and change now, so I will be as Canadian as someone in Truro, Trois Rivières, Toronto or Taber.

So when my colleagues on the political left wish to cluck their tongues in disgust at the United States, I suggest you look a little closer to home, my home. I'm sick and tired of hearing about this notion of a Canadian nation. There's no such thing. How can you possibly identify yourself as being Canadian, when it defines itself as being the opposite of an American. This notion of â Å“True Patriot Loveâ ? is a joke because it is used to sell Tim Horton's coffee and Molson Canadian beer.

But in this very uncertain world, I take great comfort in the pride I feel for Newfoundland. Canadian intellectuals can all wax well into the night as to how Canadians are not Americans. I, however, will take pride in what Newfoundland is â ” its culture, its language, its music, its history, its food, and especially its sense of humour which it needs more than ever, right now.

John Matchim writes from Newfoundland where he is a student at Memorial University.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

  This is a very touchy issue when you start to deal with Federal and Politcal politics on a national level.  All kinds of comparisons are made not all are good and not all are bad.  We seem to have to very seperate sides on this issue.  Those from Ont and those who are not. 

Was it a good move, politiaclly (my opinion) NO.

Did it get the attention it was meant to. YES

As can be seen by the 1400 hundred and some reads on this issue alone.

I think it is a dangerous game when you start to remove Federal flags from the buildings in a provice much as it would be to remove provincial flags from federal offices.  Newfoundland has gone through some very tough times and they want to ensure that this "new money" stays in that province.  I get that, but does that like all stories by politicians not scare you.  How many times have we see new money found only to go from right hand to left with no one in the know.  It happens at all levels federal and provincial.  But i think that a federal government suffers more scrutiny then a provincial one if it disapears.  OHH yes i know the sponsership scandal and all kinds of things have gone on, and yet the liberals are still in power right.  I think the PC failed to take full advantage of that and stick to what Harper knew how to do and be a human he changed and that i think scared Ont.  >Better the devil you know then the one you don't. But you cannot tell me the Liberals did not pay a hefty price in the election for it.  The PQ well that is another story for another coloum.

I disagree with the removing of the flag for political gain.  It is not a toy it is a national symbol and should not be used by any political party federal or provincial for posturing.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Wizzard, this country is a federation and by definition that means that provincial and federal politics exist precisely for the reason of interaction. Otherwise we would live in a unitary state like France with all our decisions made by a central power. Wouldn't that be great  :

A federation is designed to bring continuity to a large and diverse nation, for far too long the Federal government has been with one hand holding the have not provinces back through cuts to transfer payments while on the other hand creating what Steven Harper refered to (and rightly IMO) as a culture of dependancy on those very same transfer payments by denying the provinces the ability to invest and build on their natural resources. Yes I know under the constitution the oil off Newfoundland's shore belongs to the federal government but as someone has already said PM Martin made a promise, is it too much to ask that he honour it?

Nfld isn't the only place this is happening, recently Oil was also discovered in the Arctic, but the Fed are trying again to play their financial terrorism games because the oil is just off the coast. Anyone who has ever been to the high arctic knows that it is a little piece of the third world right here in Canada, but rather than create a prosperous and self sufficient region the feds are willing to live with the regional disparity and inherrent inequality in order to maintain their multi-billion dollar surpluses and stranglehold over the social safety net.

As for this being a Nfld vs Ontario thing I think you are dead wrong. It is however a question of power. Who do you want to have the power the fed or the provinces? Do you want to be dictated to by the all too distant talking heads in Ottawa or someone closer to home?
Do you want to have to ask Ottawa for transfer payments or do you want to have the ability within your own province to get things done?

 

[Kirkhill]

You might want to be careful about asking those questions reccesoldier.  You might not like the answer.

Shortly after I moved out to Calgary in 1986 from Ontario I went back to Ontario on business.  This was my second life in Calgary by the way.  Anyway politics came up with a senior Ontario colleague of mine and we were discussing triple E senate.  I took the same stance then that I take now.  It is the right thing to do.  This chap took the opposite view.  "Why would on earth would we give up the power that we have."

Cheers.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
I know a good few people were angry about their flag too when it was taken down because of a rigged vote and we are suddenly Canadians. Theres no difference between lying in 1949 and lying in 2005.

...allright we get it!........so is this still your one trick-pony or do you have facts? These accusations without facts are now starting to bite on the Moderator side of things.

I said it before but, just for you, I will reiterate, we try to stick with reality on this site, if all you have to offer is the same "kife" without proof then I suggest you take it to other forums where that sort of stuff seems to be the norm.
Thank you

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

All right Deminer, lets try it again, your rebuttal skirted around everything but the issue I'm taking exception with as a moderator.... your accusation of a RIGGED VOTE.........thats it, nothing else. This is at least the second time you have stated that and I want some sort of proof of this. Not a lot to ask for really. So far all we have heard from you is "secret memos/rigged votes/nicknames/etc and no facts.
It would seem you just want a moderator who will say "yes sir" and thats not why I do this, I have opinions as do the other mods, and sometimes we disagree, but we are here to keep pertinent information flowing  and if I post something as a mod, than I state that it is such, as I did in your previous post.

So lets see something to even suggest it was a "rigged vote", if you have it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

ex_coelis
,...I bookmarked the Indepenent web site,[looks like a good read] but I could not find the story with the numbers in it. Do you have the bookmark for that story, please?
Thanks

 

[Bograt]

Bruce,

There are rumours of ballot burning and backroom deals on both sides of the debate. It is so ingrained in the Newfoundland psyche now its hard to distinguish the the truth from the tales. It is really pointless now to debate it- its kind of like arguing whether Jesus slept on his side or his back- no one knows for sure, and those who witnessed it are long since dead.

In the face of the large American presence in Newfoundland, the Canadian government kept a close watch on its economic and military interests there, appointing a High Commissioner in 1941. But if the links between Canada and Newfoundland were strengthened during the war, the idea of a political union aroused little public interest. Reporting on Newfoundland public affairs to the Dominions Office in London in 1943, Gov. Humphrey Walwyn observed that the people were "so dazzled by American dollars, hygiene and efficiency that many of the public rather play up to America in preference to Canada."

In planning for the postwar restoration of democracy to Newfoundland, Britain was concerned that the island Dominion would regain its political independence only to slip back into a state of economic dependence. Britain therefore proposed to fund a 10-year economic development program in Newfoundland, while keeping a tight rein on the island's finances.

That plan fell apart, however, when the British government found in 1944 that it could not afford to pay for Newfoundland's development. By 1945, it was clear to Britain that under the circumstances, Newfoundland's best hope lay in union with Canada. The Canadian government, concerned at the prospect of growing U.S. influence in Newfoundland, easily saw eye to eye with Britain. Britain wished to divest itself of the financial and administrative responsibility for Newfoundland, and confederation was an attractive alternative. On Dec. 11, the Labor government of Clement Atlee announced that a "National Convention" of 45 delegates, elected from all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, would be held the following year to consider the economic and political situation and to recommend constitutional alternatives that might be submitted to the public in a referendum.

Joey Smallwood, a journalist, former popular radio host and delegate from Bonavista Center, was the leader of the confederate cause. He saw union with Canada as a means of giving the people "a half decent chance in life," through the introduction of "North American standards of public services" and social welfare. As part of the larger Canadian trading bloc, Newfoundland would also benefit in international trade.

Anti-confederates favored a return to the pre-1934 system of responsible government. Supported by the St. John's mercantile community and led by Maj. Peter Cashin, a former member of the legislature, they appealed to local patriotism, and warned their fellow countrymen that confederation would mean selling their birthright for the Canadian "Baby Bonus." Newfoundlanders would also have to "take on a burden of taxation, the like of which they nor their fathers have never known."

In pursuit of a common policy with Canada, London kept pointing Newfoundland towards Canada by repeatedly warning that Britain had no financial help to give. Canada's role was simply to open its arms. When the National Convention urged that Newfoundlanders be asked to choose in a referendum between responsible government and commission government, Britain tacked on a third possibility - confederation with Canada - even though the convention itself had voted down a motion to place confederation on the referendum ballot.

In the referendum of June 3, 1948, 44.6 percent of voters supported the restoration of responsible government, 41.1 percent voted for confederation with Canada, and 14.3 percent opted for the existing system of government by commission. A second referendum was held July 22 to settle the issue, whereupon 52.3 percent voted for confederation, versus 47.7 percent for a return to the pre-1934 system. On March 31, 1949, Newfoundland officially became part of Canada, and on the following day, Smallwood was sworn in as the first premier.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Well, for anyone wondering who I was posting to earlier, Deminer/Zerodarkthirty, deleted his posts, took his ball and went home.
It is a pity when ranting is all some people have, I think for the most part this has been a good [and lively ]thread.
I have learned some stuff here that I had no idea of before.

 

[Sailing Instructor]

Purely on the topic of the hoisting of colours: I think that, as an object used to symbolise nationality, the Canadian flag ought to be used for this purpose.  Logically, it can therefore be taken down to symbolise a lack of nationality.  I am not saying that it doesn't matter what Mr Williams does because it's all just rhetoric.  Quite the opposite, I think not only that rhetoric is very important in formal politics, but it's far better to use words (symbols, whatever) than bullets.  (Mind you the latter is a moot point, since the feds have the monopoly on violence but conceivably rhetoric is the best way to get one's point across.)

If taking down the Canadian flag didn't make so many people react only a fool of a premier would do it.

 

[Glorified Ape]

I'm not sure what he was trying to accomplish with this except to appear a buffoon. Congratulations Dan, you can act like a petulant 5 year old whose been denied his cookie. He keeps claiming the feds are trying to "humiliate" him but he seems to be doing that all by himself.

It seems like every time the provinces don't get what they want nowadays, they go back to the whole "f-ck Canada" thing. Be it Quebec, Alberta, and now Newfoundland (irony???). What ever happened to "beggars can't be choosers"?

 

[227Tech]

Glorified Ape,

I think you should take a long look at the last 11 pages of posts, you seem to have a completely uneducated point of view.  The only people looking like a buffoon are those with the same attitude you seem to portrait.

I'd like ask what you exactly mean by "beggars can't be chooser's" cause I've walked through the streets in St. John's and other parts of Newfoundland many times and not seen a beggar yet, can't say the same thing for cities in Ont though.

When you grow up and have an  real, educated opinion, come back...otherwise your just wasting our time with written diarrhea