Not surprisingly, I suppose, managing editor Ryan Cleary's editorial in this week's Indy supports bringing down the federal government by defeating the budget bill - and the offshore money - because, as Ryan believes, the cash is safe.
Funny thing is, Stephen Harper said just this week that it will take more than a year to get an offshore revenue bill back before the House in some form. Am I the only person who heard that clip?
Ryan tries to link the Premier's pressure on Loyola Hearn to the fact Loyola backed Fabian Manning.
I'll just repeat a simple comment:
If the money was so safe or if Harper was potentially offering a better deal, then why exactly would Danny Williams risk ticking off a future PM by siding with the current one? That just doesn't make sense on any level.
I have a simple way of settling the whole matter, especially since Ryan Cleary puts great stock in the Harper letter:
Let's see the letter.
What does Harper actually say?
I am betting - and there is a whole $10 bill riding on this - that the letter isn't quite as unequivocal a commitment as Ryan and others would have us believe.
In the meantime, it is obvious Ryan Cleary hasn't read bill C-43, the one he criticizes. Otherwise he would notice that it is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation that gives money to seniors, children, cities and provinces.
Apparently Ryan believes that parliamentarians can only handle one topic and one bill at a time. An omnibus bill seems to overtax their brains, if you follow the Cleary logic.
Here's another simple suggestion, this time for Ryan Cleary - actually read bill C-43 and see just exactly how uncomplicated it is.
After reading it, Ryan you should be able to see how sweet it would be for people in this province to get their money and then defeat the government - if that's their wish - rather than put Harper in the PM's office and wait for the cash.
Why exactly can't we do the Fair Deal option, Ryan?