As part of re-shaping defence spending, the Pentagon is proposing to scrap a purchase of an EH-101 variant, dubbed the VH-71, to replace the aging Sea Kings used by the Marine One presidential flight.
The 101 beat out Sikorsky’s S-92 in a competition that ended last year.
-srbp-
Via company news release:
Rio Tinto Alcan today announced it will slow the construction of the Yarwun alumina refinery expansion in Gladstone and curtail annual bauxite production at its Weipa mine to 15 million tonnes (from 19.4 million tonnes in 2008) due to the sharp fall in alumina and aluminium demand and prices in recent months.
Announcing the decision, Rio Tinto Alcan Bauxite and Alumina president Steve Hodgson said the depressed state of the market and a sharp cutback in demand made further tough decisions necessary.
Someone needs to ask Wade Locke about that great big gi-enormous project that was supposedly coming any day now to Labrador. Hint: it was an aluminum plant.
-srbp-
CBC is running an exclusive interview with Cougar helicopters employees about the search and rescue mission its dedicated SAR helicopter flew the day one of its S-92s crashed.
There’s a paragraph in the middle of the CBC online story that leaps out for attention, given the focus in media coverage on the whole issue of 103 Squadron being on exercise at the time of the incident:
Cougar normally supplies backup to the Canadian Forces for search and rescue operations run out of its base in Gander, in central Newfoundland. But on March 12, the base's Cormorant helicopters were involved in a training exercise in Cape Breton, so Cougar's own rescue team was pressed into service.
“Pressed into service”.
That makes it sound like something was jury-rigged and unprepared, like Cougar didn’t normally do this sort of thing.
As the saying goes, nothing could be further from the truth. Cougar provides dedicated search and rescue service to the offshore oil industry. It isn’t an accident. They didn’t throw something together in haste that day.
Well, they shouldn’t have thrown it together because they apparently already knew where 103 Squadron was when CHI91 launched that Thursday morning and therefore knew the flying times involved.
Nothing in the CBC online story explains why it took the Cougar SAR flight so long to launch.
There is plenty of good stuff for Cougar and its people. It’s a nice piece, the kind any public relations person would be happy to see in this sort of story given the inevitable questions that are already being asked about every aspect of this incident including Cougar’s own SAR response.
But given that the attack on 103 Squadron is largely a media-driven angle, one has to wonder: is the spin in this piece coming from CBC or Cougar or both?
-srbp-
Gunplay - or more accurately stating that people ought to be shot for certain things not normally associated with capital punishment offences - is apparently quite the popular rhetorical device.
MP stirs up new fuss in apology to taxmen
The Gazette February 2, 1985
A Progressive Conservative member of Parliament who said last year that federal income tax officials should be shot has re-ignited the controversy with a grudging "apology."
Union officials who represent Revenue Canada's 14,000 taxation workers say the so-called apology from Cariboo-Chilcotin MP Lorne Greenaway amounts to a further "deliberate insult." They have now complained to
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney about the British Columbia back-bencher's behavior.
Greenaway set off the fuss last March when, as a member of a Tory caucus task force on Revenue Canada, he told a public meeting in Kamloops: "The only way we are going to straighten (tax department officials) out is to take them out and shoot them."
Said it before
Greenaway noted at the time that he had said the same thing on at least one other occasion.
But despite repeated demands by the Public Service Alliance of Canada for a retraction, and complaints to the prime minister and Revenue Minister Perrin Beatty, Greenaway did not respond for 10 months. Finally, on Jan. 25, he wrote the following letter to David Flinn, president of the union's taxation component:
"Dear Mr. Flinn:
"Perhaps if some of your people heard the witnesses that came before our Revenue Canada task force last March in Kamloops, B.C., heard of the abuses by Revenue Canada employees (against) taxpayers, saw the devastation caused, you might just begin to understand why one could be
driven to such an intemperate remark as I made at the time. I'm sorry we have a system that allows such horrors. I've been ordered to apologize and I do so."
That reply is "totally unacceptable," Flinn insisted. "This whole thing has been 10 months in the commode and still his attitude hasn't changed. In a brief telephone conversation Greenaway denied he had been
ordered to apologize by Mulroney and said his comments were "no big deal."
"I was told to apologize by my staff, so they wouldn't have so much work to do and so many phones to answer," he said.
Beatty characterized Greenaway's Kamloops remarks as regrettable but understandable.
"What he tried to do was set it in some context, which was that over the course of the time he spent as a very diligent member of the task force he'd heard a succession of stories where ordinary people had their rights affected, and he felt very strongly about it."
Beatty said nobody believes Greenaway's comment about shooting tax officials was meant to be taken literally.---------------------Rookie Liberal MP sorry for Lepine lineTimes Colonist, January 25, 1994Rookie Liberal MP Jag Bhaduria apologized and pleaded for forgiveness Monday for once telling Toronto school board supervisors they should be shot.
In a trembling voice, Bhaduria told the Commons he “deeply regrets” the comments in a 1989 letter to his former employers.“The letter was written at a low point in my life, when I was under tremendous stress relating to my career and my family,” said the MP for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
The statement appeared to satisfy Prime Minister Chretien. “It's enough because it's an apology,” Chretien said as he hurried past outside the Commons.
Herb Gray, the government House leader, said Bhaduria had not offered to withdraw from the Liberal caucus and gave no indication the party was pressing him to do so.
In 1989, Bhaduria wrote to the Toronto board of education's director saying that Marc Lepine, who massacred 14 women at the University of Montreal, should have lined up certain school board supervisors “against the wall and shot all of you. That would have been the most satisfying day of my life.”That statement was written just a few days after the rampage.
He was in a long-running battle with the board at the time. Bhaduria, a teacher who was born in India, argued he had been denied a promotion to vice-principal because of racial discrimination.
Liberal Party officials have said they learned of the letter after Bhaduria's name was already on the ballot for the Oct. 25 federal election.
Meanwhile, other controversies about Bhaduria's have surfaced.
In a 1977 interview in Maclean's magazine, Bhaduria said he had bought “quite a few” high-powered rifles after being racially attacked and threatened.
Shortly after his election last October, Bhaduria appeared in court as a character witness for Kuldip Singh Samra, who had already admitted to killing two men and wounding a third in a 1982 courtroom shooting.
Samra, who defended himself, argued he should be convicted of manslaughter. But he was found guilty of first-degree murder.
Bhaduria, 50, testified that “I found you [Samra] were a great humanist who believed in humanity and equality for all.”
---------------------Cabinet ‘should be shot' over flights, Mohawk saysOttawa Citizen, October 13, 1994Mohawk leader Billy Two Rivers angrily suggested Wednesday that the federal cabinet should be executed for their support of low-level military flights over Labrador.
Calling them "pimps and "whoremasters”, Two Rivers said Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his ministers are making money from foreign countries for the flights even though it is causing Innu women to have miscarriages.
"Sometimes, I don't think they are human beings in the way that they think If they are robots and they are just machines serving the establishment, then maybe they should be put against the wall and shot,” said Two Rivers.
He also said the Pope is a "hypocrite” for not vocally supporting the Innu after they met him in Rome.
The former professional wrestler, who is known for being outspoken, made the comments to a meeting of Quebec and Labrador Indian chiefs.
Peter Penashue, president of the Innu Nation, immediately distanced himself from Two Rivers' comments. He said the Kahnawake leader's intentions were good but he should rephrase his harsh statements.
But while Two Rivers acknowledged that he made his speech in anger he refused to apologize. He said he was speaking on behalf of the Mohawk community of Quebec.
Quebec and Labrador chiefs approved a resolution demanding the government immediately stop the "murderous flights and begin environmental hearings.
The government is looking at increasing the number of annual flights by 5,000, bringing the number to 15,000 a year.-----------------------
Elton John says he will apologise over Madonna tirade
Agence France Presse (English)
October 29, 2004
Elton John has said he will apologise to Madonna, after launching an expletive-laced attack on the Material Girl for lip-synching on stage.
"Would I apologize to her if I saw her? Yeah, because I don't want to hurt any artist's feelings," Sir Elton said in an interview in the latest edition of Entertainment Weekly magazine.
"It was my fault. I instigated the whole thing," he said. "But (lip-synching) applies to all those bloody teenage singers."
Attending an awards ceremony in London earlier this month, Sir Elton was incensed to find that Madonna had been nominated for best live act.
Taking to the stage, Sir Elton blasted: "Madonna - best f****** live act? F*** off. Anyone who lip-synchs in public on stage ... should be shot."
In the interview, the pop legend acknowledged that he had spoken out of turn.
"I don't want to escalate it because I like Madonna," he said. "She's been to my house for dinner. It was something that was said in the heat of the moment, and probably should not have been said."
At the time, Madonna's US spokeswoman Liz Rosenberg had flatly rejected Sir Elton's accusations, saying that Madonna neither lip-synched nor spent time "trashing" other artists.
Sir Elton argued that the media reaction to his comments had been out of proportion to their content.
"It was like I said I think all gays should be killed or I think Hitler was right," he said. "I just said someone was lip-synching."----------------
MLA demoted for saying Premier should be shotThe Globe And Mail March 10, 2005A Saskatchewan opposition politician who suggested Premier Lorne Calvert should be shot has been taken off committees and stripped of his critic duties.
Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall took action yesterday against MLA Jason Dearborn for his comments at a public meeting last month. Mr. Dearborn member of the legislature for Kindersley, was meeting municipal officials when a reeve suggested someone would be shot if school board amalgamation caused taxes to go up. Mr. Dearborn replied his candidate would be the Premier. He has since apologized.
Danny Williams is miffed that Eastern Health issued a news release Friday that included information that 38 more people had been identified who should have had their cancer screening tests redone.
Well, miffed is not the right word. He’s pissed off.
To quote the Premier:
"It's disgraceful. They should be shot over there."
Now that’s bad enough.
Just imagine just for a second if someone – in an authentic and understandable rage - had used those very words to described, for argument’s sake, the inactions of ministers or other officials a wee bit closer to the Premier’s heart than the bureaucrats at Eastern Health.
Okay, that’s a fairly obvious bit of Danny Williams’ favourite standard: the double one. He’s also practicing his other art: spin doctoring.
Then he added this bit:
"This is about people's lives … They have a right to be told," Williams said. "They have a right to be told in a proper manner. There has to be proper disclosure; there has to be someone there to answer questions. It's not something you do at the tail end of a Friday afternoon."
He’s right about that much.
And he’s right that the crucial bit of hard news ought not to have been buried in a news release that, as it would seem, was deliberate structured in all respects to obscure the kernel of news that directly affected people’s lives.
But to be perfectly frank, on a go backwards basis, it’s not like a whole raft of people much closer to the Premier’s political and administrative heart than the Eastern Health crew haven’t done exactly the same thing at least once before.
The culprits: Jerome Kennedy and the crew in government comms.
The incident: the risk of identity theft, not to forget potential disclosure of the details of medical records over the Internet.
The time: January 2008.
The news release: hard news buried at paragraph seven of an 11 paragraph news release.
Can we really fault people for following the examples offered by the tone at the top?
Say it ain't so update: The irrepressible fountain of uncomfortable truths, otherwise known as labradore, has compiled the Chronicles of Ridicule, that is, the litany of examples of the current administration releasing information late on a Friday or at other odd times when no one is available to comment.
He missed a couple on Equalization within the last six months, of course, but that's for another time.
-srbp-
According to the Globe and Mail, the S-92 failed a test to confirm the aircraft can run for 30 minutes without oil in the main gearbox.
Documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show that the S-92 failed a critical test of whether the aircraft can keep flying if the oil in its main gearbox leaks out, a key safety feature found in other makes of helicopter – including a model that was beaten out by the Sikorsky for the Canadian military contract. The delivery of the helicopters to the Department of National Defence has already been beset by a series of delays.
-srbp-
1. Five year sale of 130 megawatts (MW), 2004-2009: $46 million annually. [See Note 1]
2. Price (per kilowatt hour) for the five years: 4.0 cents per KWH.
3. Two year deal to sell 130 MW of power to Emera: Minimum $40 million annually.
4. a. Price for Emera deal (low; $40 million for 130 MW): 3.5 cents per KWH
b. Price for Emera deal (high; $80 million for 250 MW): 3.6 cents per KWH [See Note 2]
5. Cost of wheeling (paid to Hydro Quebec Transenergie): $19 million.
6. Cost of wheeling: 1.6 cents per KWH.
7. Average consumer electricity price, New York, 2008: 16.9 cents per KWH. [21.125 Canadian cents per KWH at 25% exchange rate]
8. Average consumer electricity price, New York, June to Sept 2008: 19.825 cents per KWH. [See Note 3]
The figure at left shows pricing trends to 1999 for New York State. (Source: US EIA)
The information released thus far covers wheeling costs to the New York border.
Additional wheeling costs would apply for each transmission system through which the power is wheeled before delivery to the final consumer.
Emera is a broker, not a New York state energy retailer.
10. The GWAC is apparently still in place. This requires Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to operate the plant at Churchill falls at peak efficiency to deliver at least 682 MW to Hydro Quebec during the winter months. This amount may have been increased under this deal to 800 MW to replace the power that was sold to Quebec from 1998 to 2009 as part of the GWAC but which will now be wheeled to New York.
----------------------------
Note 1: Values in Canadian dollars. American prices in American dollars, except as noted.
Note 2: 130 megawatts is equivalent to 1.1388 billion KWH. 250 MW is equivalent to 2.19 billion KWH. The figures at Line 4 are derived by simply dividing the revenue by the power output. Since Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro did not release sufficient detail it is unclear if the revenue figures correspond to the power output or not. 130 megawatts at the higher price yields a price of 7.0 cents per KWH.
Note 3: Source: New York Energy Research and Development Authority
Factual.
Right now, we’ll have Nova Scotian energy firm Emera handle the deals with customers.
But in fact, the big change involved is not as much the result of us meeting a giant challenge with some newfound strength and determination as it is that Hydro-Quebec changed its rules.Not only for us, and not recently, either.
No, it’s not so much our strength and determination as the creation by Hydro-Quebec of a transmission unit called Hydro-Quebec Transenergie, and something called the Open Access Transmission Tariff.
In 1997. It hasn’t been a secret, either.
It’s amazing how newsrooms across the country were snookered in the first news cycle by the torque in the official news releases.
-srbp-
Running a block of 130 megawatts of power through Quebec will cost Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro $19 million annually over the course of a five year deal with Hydro Quebec Transenergie.
The wheeling arrangement facilities the sale of the power to American markets. The sale in the Untied States is brokered through Emera. The Emera deal is for a duration of two years. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is expected to net between $40 million and $80 million annually.
A previous deal to sell the same block of power directly to Hydro Quebec netted the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial energy company $46 million a year over a five year period. According to Le Devoir, Quebec sold the block on the American spot market.
In effect that would mean the deal announced Thursday merely replaces Hydro-Quebec with Emera as the broker. Hydro-Quebec still earns money on the project through its transmission arm and ultimately through its share of Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation, which generates the power.
Quebec energy minister Claude Bechard described the deal as win-win since it shows Newfoundland and Labrador had accepted the rules of the market instead of seeking special access to the Americans and a federal subsidy for a transmission line through Quebec.
«C'est aussi une bonne nouvelle pour le Québec en ce sens qu'on sait que Terre-Neuve voulait que le fédéral subventionne une ligne, voulait avoir des conditions spéciales pour exporter de l'énergie aux États-Unis. Donc, ils viennent d'accepter, si on veut, les règles du marché.»
Le Devoir said the deal includes a block of 800 megawatts of power for Quebec and 300 MW for Newfoundland and Labrador. Out of the 300 MW, Newfoundland and Labrador will ship 130 MW to the United States after satisfying local demand with the other 170 MW.
However, under the 1969 Churchill falls deal, Hydro-Quebec purchases the lion’s share of Churchill Falls power – more than 5200 MW – at a fixed cost of fractions of a penny per kilowatt hour.
This arrangement of 800 MW for Hydro Quebec seems to be an increase in the amount guaranteed for winter availability (GWAC) in Quebec under a special 1998 agreement. Under the original 1998 deal, Hydro Quebec received a guarantee on delivery of 682 megawatts during winter months and the Churchill Falls power plant would be operated at peak performance during the inter months to guarantee the additional power.
Winter is the peak demand time for Quebec. American peak demand is in the summer.
A news release at the time suggested it was a long-term contract valued at $1.0 billion. [link corrected; amount corrected] The wheeling arrangement may have involved more complex negotiations than it first appeared. The news release on Thursday about the Emera deal contained few facts.
Details of the GWAC deal have been removed from the provincial government website. The Hydro website now archives news only as far back as 2002. A search of the site for guaranteed winter availability contract using the sites own search engine returned no results. A google search for the same term yielded several hits, all of which have been apparently removed from the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro website.
-srbp-
For those who run any kind of online opinion space, the issue of reader comments gets to be an issue.
Over at the telegram, they get way more comments than any local blog and they have an ongoing issue with derogatory posts, spam and the use of sock puppet identities. They’ve also got a set of terms and conditions people have to accept in order to make comments.
Fair enough.
Around these parts, it’s been a live and learn affair. Initially, there were no comments. Over time, we’ve relaxed the rules so now anything posted as a comment shows up on the blog immediately. If you make a comment and post it, the thing should be there right away. Just as a clue, hit refresh or reload in case your browser doesn’t refresh automatically.
One category that gets deleted – after the fact – are comments that are clearly nothing but spam. That would be like the freighter one which just listed off a bunch of services. These are usually posted by people who get paid to drop spam comments into blog spaces.
The other category is one that is clearly abusive and possible defamatory. These are few and far between and there has only been one example of that within the past six months or so.
Other than that, just about anything goes.
This has been questioned a couple of times by people whose comments apparently didn’t appear. if you’ve followed the threads of those discussions you’ll see the simple explanation. And here’s the thing: you don’t have to take my word for it. You can post a comment and it will appear right away. Poof.
Other places do things differently. Some have no comments and others practice censorship. It’s called comment moderation, but in practice it’s a way of letting the blog author simply block any comments from appearing that don’t fit what - as experience shows - are usually entirely arbitrary criteria.
Just as an experiment, your humble e-scribbler tested one of those censorship sites. Two posts that were on topic to the the discussion were done using my own blogger ID. They didn’t appear.
In another case and on a different post, two comments were made anonymously.
Interestingly enough, the first one – which queried the figure 35,000 megawatts in a discussion of Churchill Falls got through. It also got a reply that the figure was what came from the original, i.e. the 1969, agreement.
The second comment pointed out very simply and succinctly that “Churchill Falls only produces a little under 6,000 MW”.
That one didn’t appear either, perhaps because the author suddenly clued in that he’d made a boo-boo. He acknowledged the boo-boo in a comment of his own but never made any reference to the second anonymous comment at all.
Comments can wind up being a pain for anyone running an online opinion site. Around these parts, the initial impulse to have no comments was wrong. Even anonymous posts can bring a huge value to the discussion at hand.
if comments are moderated, then things depend very much on the blog author. As experience shows, that’s often a case of saying one thing - we don’t censor – but actually doing something radically different.
Inform the debate or stifle the discussion.
It really is an either/or proposition.
-srbp-
State-owned energy company Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has inked a two-year deal with Emera to for the latter to broker the sale of up to 250 megawatts of power from Churchill Falls into the north-eastern United States.
On the face of it, the deal looks like an arrangement to sell power on the spot market instead of the guaranteed purchase arrangement it replaces.
Premier Danny Williams said the agreements mean the province will get the “lion’s share” of the profits from the sale of the power. He said the $40 million to $80 million per year expected for the province comes after HQ and Emera Energy take their cuts.
Williams told members of the media today that, as the price of energy goes up, the revenue for the province will also increase.
By the same token, as prices go down so too would revenue, presumably.No details of the financing were released outside of estimates that Hydro would receive between $40 million and $80 million annually for the power, depending on electricity prices, the available power and the load capacity on the grid at the time of sale.
A separate five year agreement with Hydro Quebec Transenergie, owner of the Quebec energy transmission grid, facilitates the sale. News media reports have been erroneously playing up the Quebec angle on the story even though that aspect was pretty straightforward. Since the American federal energy regulator established a free markets policy in 1992, Canadian electricity markets have had to adopt what is known as an open access transit tariff for electricity that allows power to be wheeled competitively across the province at rates set by the provincial electricity regulators.
Quebec Transenergie didn’t have much choice, provided the existing grid could handle the load. by the same token it’s unclear what New Brunswick premier Shawn Graham meant when he stated that he would not stand by and allow energy to be wheeled through his province at the expense of development in his province. New Brunswick will have to abide by the same free market rules as other energy-producing provinces if it wants to sell power into the United States.
Interestingly, the sale is being handled by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, although the power is generated by Churchill Falls Labrador Company. While Hydro used to be the CFLCo parent, the two are now sister companies within the provincial umbrella energy corporation.
The power deal appears to replace a similar arrangement with Hydro Quebec known as the guaranteed winter availability contract. First signed in 1998, the GWAC saw Hydro recall 130 megawatts of power from Churchill Falls under the terms of the 1969 CFLCo development agreement and then re-sell the power to Hydro Quebec at a defined price far above the pernicious terms of the 1969 deal.
The original three-year GWAC contract was renewed for a further three years in 2001 and then for five years by the current provincial government. The five year deal expired on March 31, 2009. The five year deal generated $46 million revenues annually.
The GWAC was a way of forestalling a possible bankruptcy by CFLCo since the 1969 agreement returned insufficient revenue to keep the company solvent over time. The original news release, linked above contained a background presentation but this has disappeared from the provincial government website.
The original GWAC became the subject of some controversy with accusations arising from then opposition energy critic and current Hydro board chairman John Ottenheimer.
It is unclear from Thursday’s announcement if the GWAC and the related shareholder’s agreement within CFLCo have expired, been replaced or will be honoured in some other way. CFLCo is owned by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (65.8%) and Hydro Quebec (34.2%).
That information might change the claim today that Hydro captures the “lion’s share” of the revenues from the Emera deal.
Also unclear at this time is the status of the 225 megawatts of power from Churchill Falls that currently flows to western Labrador through Twin Falls Power Company. Twin Falls was a joint venture of the two iron ore companies in western Labrador and BRINCO. The power plant was shut down and TwinCo received a guaranteed price on a block of Churchill Falls power. That agreement expires in 2014.
-srbp-
If you weren’t at the Confederation panel discussion on Wednesday night you’re bound to have no idea what actually happened.
But if you were there you wound up as part of a great two hour discussion of a current issue that thankfully avoided turning into another edition of Radio Free Spindy.
The political science department at Memorial University organized a panel discussion on Confederation titled Terms of (Dis)union: Confederation 60 years on.
The panel comprised Terry Bishop-Stirling and Jeff Webb from the history department, political scientist Christopher Dunn, Jim Feehan from the economics department and Russell Wangersky from The Telegram. Moderator for the evening was Doug Letto. After some opening remarks and a series of questions put to the panel by Letto, the moderator opened the floor for what proved to be where the real meat for the evening appeared.
The telegram coverage gives only a tiny portion of it, incidentally, and it isn’t online. It also gets the vote count wrong. The majority of hands opted for Confederation but the difference wasn’t overwhelming. That’s what prompted panellist Terry Bishop-Stirling to comment that the result was pretty much what happened 60 years ago.
When asked about what was needed to change things from this point onward, there was an apparent consensus on the panel about the need for greater awareness of provincial issues among people across the country. That thread wound through the night on one way or another.
On the surface that seems like a good idea and certainly the obsession in some quarters with what is written about the province in the Globe and Mail reflects that view.
But is there really a need for people in Saskatchewan or even Nova Scotia to be familiar with Newfoundland and Labrador history and issues on most of the things that dominate provincial politics here? While it’s a wonderful Katimavik/national unity kind of idea, typically most of us do not bother with issues that are of a local and private nature somewhere else.
All the issues of economic development are the ones that get people agitated the most but they are also entirely under provincial jurisdiction. While people not from here ask the sorts of questions some of the panellists mentioned - and we've all had them – their inquisitiveness might be taken less as a sign of their ignorance and more as a normal curiosity at why that crowd down there are on our TVs again ranting about something.
In other words, it's not just a matter of why they don't know as much as a question of should they know or do they need to know in the first place.
Economist Jim Feehan repeated several times the idea that the history of Newfoundland and Labrador is a struggle for control of natural resources. That’s certainly one view but provincial political control, which is what he seemed to be talking about, was sorted out in 1949 and reinforced in 1985. At that point of realization, it gets a bit hard to figure out what value there would be in educating people in the lower mainland of British Columbia about Churchill Falls.
Heck, most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians aren’t up to speed on that except as myth. That goes to perhaps the most incisive point made during the night by one of the audience members.
What may be needed came out of another part of the discussion, namely the need for a wide, local and public debate about local political priorities. That’s something which has been absent for the past five or six years. if that sort of thing were to take place maybe we could realise we are already masters of our own house.
We just have to start acting like it.
-srbp-
New Brunswick premier Shawn Graham issued a warning to Rodney and Danny about any plans they might have for energy development involving his province:
Premier Shawn Graham sent a shot across the bows of his Atlantic Canadian counterparts Tuesday, saying the other three provinces cannot simply expect to build new energy projects and then ship the electrical power to the United States through New Brunswick's power grid.
Then he made it plain:
For example, he [federal defence minister Peter MacKay] pointed to Newfoundland and Labrador's hydro projects at Lower Churchill Falls.
The Newfoundland government's hydro corporation is currently in negotiations with several utilities in the Maritimes, discussing the possibility of bringing that electricity to the region via sub-sea cable.
Not so fast, Graham said Tuesday.
The premier, at an event in Toronto promoting his tax reforms, said he was "surprised" by MacKay's comments.
While Graham said he will co-operate with Ottawa and the other provinces, he warned that New Brunswick won't be taken advantage of or pushed aside.
In a follow-up interview, he went further.
"That energy has the potential to flow through our province, but we want to make sure it doesn't jeopardize the projects that we're trying to achieve here," he said.
"The marker that we're putting in the ground is: we're not just going to (allow) the erection of lines for electricity transmission in New Brunswick that benefit other regions, but not (us)."
-srbp-
The 60th anniversary of Confederation in 1949 is gaining a fair bit of attention but not nearly as much as it should.
The one feature of the reporting and commentary seems to be the list of grievances, complaints and problems. Now to be sure, this comes from a relatively small group of people to be found largely in St. John’s. They are the progeny of the crowd who, for their own reasons, have never gotten over losing the two referenda in 1948 that led to Confederation.
For the past 60 years this relatively small band has thrived on the belief that the whole thing was a plot and that all the ills of Newfoundland and Labrador can be placed squarely at the feet of “Canadians” and Confederation. They have thrived on the belief but not on the fact of the matters, and that is definitely not from lack of trying.
There are three other reasons why they are such a small number, however, than the fact that they haven’t turned up evidence to back their claims. There is a reason why the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not give any support to their pseudo-separatist cause.
First, theirs is a negative message. Not only does it claim this place is a mess, a claim that is hard to sustain for any length of time, it places blame for the mess squarely at the feet of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for being too stunned – in the local meaning of the word – to look after their own affairs.
You’ll find no less an authority than Mary Walsh delivering just such a judgement in Hard rock and water, a fantasy film a few years ago that compared Newfoundland and Iceland. Most of the crowd that flocked to the showings of the film in St. John’s likely didn’t hear that part but it’s there if you listen. This is not to say Walsh is one of that small band, but her judgment is the logical conclusion one must come to from listening to the litany of grievances.
You’ll see the same thing in comments by the current Premier delivered in jest admittedly to a crowd of writers for Macleans back in 2004. The transcript is online, but here’s a synopsis from that first link along with the facetious view of the whole interview:
Understand that the editor’s question came after the Premier volunteered the opinion that the House of Assembly was “unproductive” and joked that if he had his way he would probably never call it in session. D’oh! That question came after the Macleans crowd asked the Premier why the provincial deficit was so big. His response was mismanagement over the past 10 years. There was a lengthy bit about the Stunnel; two sentences on the fishery. D’oh! The last question had the Premier calling for a seal cull. D’oh! The Premier made some misstatements of fact, for good measure (D’oh!) and a couple of big ideas got a handful of words, without explanation. D’oh! Take the whole interview and you have a bunch of poor, laughing drunks, complaining about having no money, who apparently can’t manage their own affairs, and yet who want to build grandiose megaprojects and kill seals.
There is a corollary to this that is worth mentioning in passing. The story they tell is of a hard-done-by crowd victimised by the outside world and constantly needing a hand-out. it’s a cliche, of course, and one that they rightly find insulting but it is the essence of the story they tell.
Secondly, their message is almost invariably nothing more than a photocopy of something from somewhere else. Masters of our own house, the constant airing of grievances, the list of demands, and the idea of getting into Confederation are all ideas advanced by the nationalist/separatist movement in Quebec. They are nothing more than a variation on the hand-me-down political ideas of copying the Irish or Icelandic models. They don’t resonate with people who have a substantively different understanding of the world than Quebeckers, Icelanders or the Irish.
Thirdly, and flowing from that, their message has no vision for the future, no substantive way of correcting the pattern of behaviour they claim is responsible for the mess. They do not speak to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador about their future in a way that people can actually relate to.
The time before Confederation is within the memory of people living today. Even those of us first generation Canadians can recall how far we have come since the 1960s but except for those inculcated with what John Crosbie once called townie bullshit talk, our experience of the world is not driven by innate insecurity and feelings of inadequacy, individually or collectively.
And what’s more, the second generation Canadians now in adulthood do not recall the days of self-imposed insecurity. Theirs is a world where it is perfectly natural for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be judged on their own individual merits. They are able to go anywhere in the world and succeed and, with few exceptions, they do. Theirs is a world much larger than what can be seen from the nearest headland. The revolution between the ears of the people of this place happened a long while ago.
Confederation came quietly in 1949 but the reverberations from it continue to shake Newfoundland and Labrador.
The most obvious change after April 1, 1949 that most people saw was a change in their individual financial standing. Not only did Canadian social welfare programs start to flow, but prices dropped throughout the former country as protectionist tariffs disappeared. Traveling to Canada no longer required a passport and leaving Newfoundland to work on the mainland no longer meant traveling to a foreign land. The walls that had once served to hold Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in came down immediately.
With Confederation, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians found a financial prosperity they had not known before but they also found a financial security. Economic problems in a town or industry no longer had to mean local disaster and the permanent departure of local residents.
Before Confederation, a community like Stephenville would have assuredly faced disaster. The provincial government, as it turned out, did not need to lift a finger and indeed its meagre efforts to respond to the closure did not spell doom for the community. Residents who used to work at the paper mill found work easily elsewhere in Canada and could continue to live in their homes. It may not be ideal and indeed we may take it for granted but the experience in Stephenville in 2005 stands in stark contrast to the experience of communities in Newfoundland in the century and more beforehand.
The Newfoundland and Labrador government also benefitted as well from the strategic financial depth provided by Confederation. Government had the room to explore and to make mistakes in economic development – like the chocolate factories and rubber boot plants and cucumber hothouses – without the fear such mistakes would translate almost instantly into suffering for ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Confederation gave the provincial government a wealth of cash in addition to its own modest surplus from the Commission. Schools, roads and hospitals came as a direct consequence.
The most profound change that came with Confederation, though, was the restoration throughout Newfoundland and Labrador of responsible government. That one change gave individuals in the province – Labradorians for the first time ever – the direct responsibility to elect the people who would represent them not only in the provincial legislature but in the national parliament as well. No longer confined to dealing with only local affairs or with issues directly related to Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of the province could have a hand in shaping the policies of a country with much wider influence globally and much wider responsibilities than they had known before.
Newfoundland and Labrador today enjoys a measure of individual and collective prosperity earlier generations could only dream of. All is not perfect, but it is immeasurably better than it might have been.
It is immeasurably better because we have – individually and collectively – been able to apply ourselves to making it better. We have made mistakes and learned from them and we have also enjoyed great success. The current prosperity comes entirely from policies followed by successive governments in the 1980s and 1990s that are denigrated as give-aways only by the ignorant or the self-interested.
The broader foundation of economic success grew out of policies which took advantage of the move toward a global economy and free trade. The 1992 Strategic Economic Plan, which remains in place to a great extent, grew out of the ideas of two projects of public consultation, one in the 1980s and the other to develop the plan itself. These were meaningful consultations in which many people had a direct impact on what the final documents said.
As we mark this anniversary it is worth considering the three fundamental changes needed to implement the 1992 SEP. Those three changes are important because they are fundamentally related to the changes that began in 1949:
As we mark this 60th anniversary of Confederation, it is worth considering the extent to which current government policies fail to continue those changes. It is worth noting that in the endless wars with outsiders, there has been a steady rebuilding of the walls and barriers we have worked so hard to tear down. We worked to tear them down because they served only to restrict us.
It is worth noting that genuine pride, innovation and self-reliance can be stifled by a late-night telephone call and by the relentless personal attacks that come from merely dissenting from official views. By choking off healthy debate about public policy issues within Newfoundland and Labrador, by strangling any alternative views we serve only to return this place to self-defeating isolation.
Confederation gave Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the tools and opportunities to make for themselves a better place in the world. In 1949, we became once more masters of our own destiny and masters of our own house.
On this 60th anniversary of Confederation, we must be mindful of how far we have come and at the same time, be aware that if we are to continue to grow and prosper we must safeguard the foundation on which our current prosperity is built.
-srbp-
Even as we sit here today, the bells of Parliament Hill in Ottawa are chiming the Ode to Newfoundland over the National Capital Region in celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Confederation of this Province with the nation of Canada.
In the 500-plus years of our history as a people, Confederation represents one of the greatest milestones that we have achieved in our Province, a union fostered by former Premier Joseph R. Smallwood, a founding father of Confederation who championed the cause as one of the greatest orators this country has ever seen or heard.
Since Confederation, we have seen greater prosperity for the people of our Province than ever before. I do not need to go through the entire list. They are already familiar to us: social supports for families and individuals, such as the baby bonus; income support and old age pension benefits; institutions of higher learning across the Province, such as Memorial University, trades colleges, and the Marine Institute; economic opportunities for our people, both here at home and across Canada as we industrialize through the development of hydro resources and iron ore mining, and further development of the pulp and paper industry; transportation links within our own Province, through the completion of the Trans-Canada Highway on the Island portion.
These improvements to our lives are very obvious to those who recall life in Newfoundland and Labrador before Confederation. But, Mr. Speaker, Confederation was not all about our wallets and what we can get out of it for ourselves. Confederation was also about what we brought to Canada: a proud people ready to contribute and to take our place within the larger Canadian federation.
In sixty short years, there is no doubt that this Province has left a mark on Canada, just as Canada has left a mark on Newfoundland and Labrador, and we can never forget the brave people of this Province who have fought and died fighting for freedom under the flag of Canada, just as their forefathers fought for freedom under the Union Jack.
My district in Labrador has particular attachment to Confederation, and voted overwhelmingly in its favour. Those referendums were the first time that the people of Labrador were permitted the right to vote during more than a century of Responsible Government in Newfoundland. For the first time, the people of Labrador felt that their opinions were valued, that they felt included which is why today they have a strong attachment and pride in our union with Canada.
Confederation is like a marriage: no doubt there are occasional spats and fights, we might take each other for granted from time to time and we have periods of not speaking to each other. But, just like a marriage, the relationship is based on lasting mutual respect for each others positions.
On this sixtieth anniversary, as the bells of Ottawa ring, I think all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people of Canada, should take a moment to reflect on how fortunate we are to live in a nation with publicly funded social programs, a country known the world over for champion freedoms and equality for all peoples and a country that promotes peace around the world.
-srbp-
Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago today just before midnight, Canada gained its tenth province and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador became Canadian citizens.
Today is the anniversary of our Confederation with Canada. The past six decades have brought great change. There have been ups and downs. But on balance, we are richer for being part of Canada and Canada is richer for our presence.
In my riding of Labrador the decision was clear. Voting in 1948 for only the third time in our history, my ancestors achieved a long- held dream. With 80% support, we chose Canada, and we still do.
March 31, 1949, gave new meaning to our country's motto: A mari usque ad mare, “From Sea to Sea”.
When the day breaks over Canada, it breaks a little earlier than it did on July 1, 1867, and we are all better because of it.
On this date we became part of this great country, this united country, the best country in the world.
On this date, Canada became complete.
Vive le Canada!
-srbp-
From pseudo-separatist actor Greg Malone as told to Canadian Press:
"It's [Confederation’s] a total failure," Malone says.
"I think we need to be prepared to separate as much as Quebec is. I think we need to be that strong ourselves."
On the basis of what Greg evidently knows about Quebec, that would mean Confederation has been an overwhelming success for Newfoundland and Labrador.
And here’s another thing: if he hadn’t already achieved some notoriety as a comedian would anybody be giving him the time of day, least of all Canadian Press?
For the fact checker:
Like Canada, the Dominion of Newfoundland had functioned much like its own country, with its own currency and passports. But tough economic times in 1934 forced the Newfoundland government to let a British-appointed commission oversee the region until the economy improved.
“Much like” suggests that Newfoundland really wasn’t “its own country”. Before February 1934, Newfoundland was a Dominion like the others.
The tough economic times didn’t bring about the collapse of self-government in 1934. Bankruptcy brought on by a decade and more of political mismanagement led to the surrender of self-government.
-srbp-
1. An old nottawa post that still rings true.
2. “This day in history”, from Bond Papers, July 2008:
This was a truly democratic exercise in self-determination in which the fate of the country was placed, not in the hands of a few, but in the hands of the many. The issues were debated and widely discussed. The choices were clear and there were few restrictions on the campaigns. As it turned out, the first referendum showed an over-whelming preference for self-government.
The second referendum decided the form. In the event, voters settled for self-government through Confederation. It has been self-government, that is, government in which the people are responsible for controlling their own affairs, ever since. There are some who find that truth a tad inconvenient, but it remains a fact.
Responsible government returned to Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949 by popular vote. You don't need to argue about what happened after 1949 to celebrate what happened beforehand, culminating in the 1948 referenda.
Too bad Newfoundlanders and Labradorians don't know more about the events.
Even worse that Canadians elsewhere in the country know even less.
-srbp-