Cancer-causing asbestos too dangerous for Parliament, but Canada gladly exports for profit

It is being removed from Canada’s public buildings, was banned by the European Union and caused Transport Minister Chuck Strahl’s lung cancer, but Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is defending asbestos exports. (The Star, Apr. 26, 2011)

So we know it is medically linked to a rare cancer of the lungs called mesothelioma, but Prime Minister Harper has no problem letting those with less knowledge of it, use it - India, for example.

Harper's attitude: Canada "will not put Canadian industry in a position where it is discriminated against in a market where sale is permitted." ("Canada's Shame...", Vancouver Sun, June 15)

What kind of message does this send to anyone, individuals, businesses, groups, society in general?! To this watcher, it is not an optimistic, helpful, healthy or caring message. It's one thing to present a product where people can make an educated decision on whether or not to use a product. In Canada, we are fortunate to a large extent to have access to reams of information about virtually anything, in addition to the warnings and news already circulating about dangerous materials like asbestos. In developing countries, crucial knowledge and life saving awareness is not as developed as here. So how ethical is it to export stuff that even Parliament Hill, and the Prime Minister's residence, has removed from their premises?

Should profit trump ethics? Is making a profit by any means equal to some sort of success or victory here? Is this how developed or "evolved" or civilized we are? In 2006 the Canadian government did not even want asbestos to be on a hazardous materials list under the United Nations treaty called the Rotterdam Convention.

The message could be, what they don't know won't hurt us .. only them. We should be proud, how progressive! This is one clue as to how Canada survived the recession. When it comes to profits of mining companies at least, let's not care about who buys asbestos, just as long as they buy.

A Quick first impression of the Leader's Debate

Overall it was quite lively (missed the first 15 mins of it on the screen). Like many things in life, it is not easy to find everything you want in the one package. There are good points about each leader, but they each highlighted each others' weak points. Here's what stood out to this observer:

They all presented well, showed crafty political and high level public speaking experience, though Liberal Michael Ignatieff was the rookie in the top office debate.

Harper has probably gotten more polished as appearing "Prime Ministerial", with his cool composure under exploding shrapnel from his opponents. In fact there was barely a time where he did not have a calm controlled smile or hint of one. Any observer can notice at least one key point about being polished and having good coaching, that is, no matter what criticism is levelled at you, you can always paint your answer in a positive way. It's more convincing when the speaker seems to be sincere as he smiles while delivering. Stephen Harper appears to have perfected that very well, not to mention, always looking at the camera, the Canadian audience, as he responded to questions from one of the other parties. In these ways, he did very well in the debate.

Both NDP Jack Layten, and Liberal Ignatieff made some great points, and some sharp shots at Prime Minister Harper, and each other. The Bloc party leader, Gilles Duceppe, did his role of slamming anything federal. Basically he could use his notes from the last two federal debates.

The debate from this armchair was great also, in that it helped to highlight the philosophical beliefs, and show where the politicians' emphasis was not. For example, it is clear that for NDP Layton, it is with healthcare, and promoting programs that emphasized more grass-roots social improvements. He gave an excellent example of some Native Indian communities who have to endure one home for up to three families, and how impoverished upbringings can affect poor health, education, and crime.

Ignatieff had just mentioned a similar stance, and a very important point about social roots, support, and the relationship between crime, poverty and adult outcome. His position emphasized an approach that would put in place programs, supports for people to develop themselves, to get involved in positive alternatives, like after-school programs, as opposed to nothing, and end up with more bullying. Ignatieff's attitude seems sensible - prevent future problems by supporting more education and needs to families and youth. It was also refreshing to hear him mention prevention in regards to health, and promote health education. This blogger could not agree more.

Harper did not criticize these specific points of view, but he did not emphasize the same important social issues with anywhere near the conviction of both Layton and Ignatieff. To be simplistic about the leaders, Harper definitely is more business, and economics. All Opposition leaders repeated his corporate tax breaks, putting friends in the Senate, giving billions to corporations. Harper did not waste time defending with any specifics, the accusations, instead he repeated how well Canada did economically during the recession - again making a positive out of a negative.

Layton, and perhaps Ignatieff even more, blasted the Prime Minister on as they name it, anti-democratic ways, and disrespect for Parliament. They do certainly cause listeners to question, again, 'what kind of guy is Harper'! If Canada's economy were in much worse shape Harper would have fewer trumps to deal with the coalition of opponents.

Each made good points, and delivered them strongly. From a philosophical point of view, during this particular debate, Ignatieff's attitude made sense because he attempted a couple of times to show a relationship between good social support and future outcomes. Layton's social emphasis was welcome and needed, yet more emphasis on economic realities would be welcome as well. Harper presented well, and made no errors. There were no knock-outs, and perhaps not a great deal of voter change overall.

If you watched or listened to it, what did you think?

A Divided House Closes for the Seizin'

So much for cooperation and national unity for the good of the country. This seven week hiatus should really help. The skies are filled with blame missiles going back and forth. There won't be any winners in the political games going on. The liberals, NDP and Bloc do not appear as saviors of Canada's well being. But they did put more doubt on Harper's government. Even the Governor General might have to take some blame for a delay in Parliament. After all she did not have to sanction the request from Stephen Harper to suspend the next sitting of Parliament till Jan. 26, but she chose to.

The whole talk of a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP, backed by the separatist Bloc Quebecois, was from out of the blue it appears, to Canadians. The story has dominated Canadian media coverage since the idea was aired last week. One has to wonder if the opposition had not created such a buzz that it has, would there have existed a public outcry over Harper and Flaherty's lack of an economic stimulus package in the financial announcement a couple of weeks ago. It had been an option, and they had said that such a package could be released in 2009. So would have this been for the most part, a non-issue with most Canadians? That is, most Canadians would be willing to let the government run business as usual.

In the meantime, the next seven weeks people can really take time to decide what is the best route. Will the economy really tank during that time, or will there be a trend to? If so, then that will help people decide to either stay the course with the Conservatives or change the course with a coalition.

House Fire! Sparks Fly Between Dion and Harper

The stunning news of a Separatist backed coalition has made for some hot tempered political theatre in the House of Commons Tuesday. Having not seen all episodes of the last few seasons of This Week in Parliament, I will still bet though, that yesterday's word fight between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Stephane Dion, has to be the best, i.e., most real and fang showing to date!

The unprecedented nature of the debate was passionate and befitting the dramatic, surprising and historical political stunt schemed by the three opposition parties.Harper's Tories are on the verge of being ousted from power, but will not go down without at least at week's worth of battle against what they claim, and will continue to claim, are the Liberal and NDP's dangerous affiliation with a party that has no interest in improving Canada, only Quebec. He makes an interesting point for Canadians to consider - three opposition parties, opposed to each other, with one whose goal is to get out of Canada.
Click to see exchange, then scroll slightly down the page to view

He also makes the point, again, to be repeated, that Canadians voted convincingly not for Stephane Dion. As well, he said that Canadians did not vote to have a coalition formed which was backed by the Bloc.

Dion, on the other hand, should have been this fiery and passionate leading up to the Oct. 14^th perhaps. As he shot back that Harper has lost the confidence of the majority of the members, it was not detectable in the video, but he must have had to wipe the spit from his chin as his busting anger toward Harper was on the extreme high blood pressure level.

Canadian politics is dramatic to watch at this moment. Harper is a fighter, Dion is showing his charging bull side, and they both make strong arguments. The parties will be making their case for the next week. So far Harper is saying that to be fair to Canadians, an election ought to be held to prove that they in fact approve of Stephane Dion becoming Prime Minister. But will the Governor General be convinced? This is getting interesting.

How a Liberal NDP Coalition Could Come to Power

I'll give the Opposition parties credit for at least injecting some innovative drama back into the often barren, pallid landscape of Canadian politics. Speaking of pallid, Stephane Dion, the defeated Liberal leader from the Oct. 14 election, could become Prime Minister very soon. The same man that almost immediately had Liberals planning a leadership race to replace him, and the same man charged with the Liberals' poor showing in the election. This would be a pretty neat curve ball at the Canadian electorate, who said through their votes, that they did not want Dion as Prime Minister.

So would giving Harper's government a non-confidence vote this month, automatically mean that another election would be called? The answer is (from what this non-political expert found out) is no.

According to Carleton University political scientist Jonathan Malloy, there is no constitutional text to describe how this specific government transition should be handled. A coalition at the federal level would be a Canadian first.

[In 1979, Prime Minister Joe Clark who lead a minority government, could have formed a coalition government with the six Social Credit MP's, and achieved a majority government. He may have regretted not doing that, since his minority government lasted only nine months before Trudeau, who had suggested he was quitting, beat Clark in a 1980 election.]

It could be an instance, according to Malloy, where the Governor General, Michelle Jean, could make a major political decision. If Harper's government falls, Harper could ask the Governor General to approve another federal election, but she has the discretion to not oblige, and instead, ask the Opposition to try forming a government. This scenario could conceivably be more palatable to most Canadians given that just some weeks ago, the election signs were only being picked up, taken down and stored away for future recycling.

Interesting food for thought, but this Canuck has no appetite for what would be a wasteful election, requested by anyone, just after an unnecessary October election. Imagine the possible Liberal/NDP slogans, "You Didn't Like Dion then, But He's Great Now!", or "New Democratic and Improved"...
see possible Liberal/NDP coalition names

Now What!

Prime Minister Harper has a bigger and stronger minority government with 143 seats. Even previously Connie-free PEI now has a Conservative. The Liberals went down by 20 seats.

There are more Conservatives than before, more in other Atlantic Canada provinces, 9 which despite NL's Conservative banishment, equals the previous number.

So Newfoundland and Labrador has zero Conservatives, no possible cabinet representation from the province.

Boy, that showed 'em!

What were the benefits of trouncing all Conservatives again?

Was this a win for NL, or was it a failure to kick the prime minister out? What exactly is there to celebrate? Getting revenge on Harper?

Had Willams campaigned for fellow NL Conservatives and helped them get elected - there could possibly be 7 reps to choose from, rather than 0.

Oh well, it should be interesting to watch the benefits of this "goose egg" unfold.

Cabinet Minister Defends Campaigning Against Manning

One of the interesting things about having your own blog is that you can record a piece of history relating to the country, world and one's own province. As it stands right now, there appears to be a great deal of support for the Premier's Anything but Conservative campaign. A CBC news story yesterday received over 240 comments on a story about this, and Peter MacKay's visit to the province. By far most of the comments were very anti-MacKay, and pro "campaign". Some were against the Premier's campaign.

Also happening yesterday, three NL Government Cabinet Ministers were reported to have been campaigning against Fabian Manning in his riding of Avalon, specifically in the Bay Robert's area. Trevor Taylor, Minister of several portfolios, has made no apologies for doing this. (see VOCM again)

Understandably people were and are still pissed at Stephen Harper for reneging on his promise of excluding non-renewable resources from the equalization formula, which would have put $10 billion or so into NL's coffers in years to come. This blogger was also very ticked at Harper for doing this. It was a huge disappointment.
It will affect peoples' voting this time. For many others, it won't. After all, we are all individuals and can use our own best judgement to choose the best candidate we personally view as being the most attractive choice, without being reminded daily about who not to vote for.

Today in the local daily paper, Premier Williams mentioned that he "works 24/7, and puts 90% of his time on Newfoundland and Labrador domestic affairs." I do feel that he is sincere about this, and does work hard. I also commend him for working for the province and not taking his salary. As mentioned in a previous post, he is a bright, talented, capable and successful person. However, I would rather the province was not obsessing with it's anti-Harper and anti-Manning campaign. It takes people to run this campaign, but Cabinet Ministers now? If there was still a $10 billion goose egg as a result of a successful anti-Harper campaign, things would be different. But it is not the case, and it is unclear what the reward for the province really is.

I do think we have an extremely capable Premier, a man that can motivate citizens of the province to achieve to their highest potential. Certainly he is an example of this, and he can offer much to motivate people to build Newfoundland and Labrador.

While I didn't mind being reminded about Harper's broken promise, I respectfully disagree with a full out campaign to further cool our province's relations with the federal government. The preference here is for our MHAs and Cabinet Ministers to devote 100% of their work time strictly to matters that are immediate and essential to the province.

Here is an interpretative summary of how some commenters from yesterday's CBC story felt about the ABC campaign:

I guess all the work is done on matters of justice, trade and rural development, fisheries, and intergovernmental affairs. It's nice to know that with all that time on their hands they have willingly helped out the Danny
ABC campaign against enemies Fabian Manning and Stephen Harper. That should really help the province. It's also good to see that there are so many volunteers working on the ABC campaign. There must be, surely public servants who are hired to run provincial affairs would not have "extra-curricular" duties piled on them. Someone is moving the campaign forward. What a good use of time, money and resources. And no sir, this is not a personal grudge Danny has against Harper or Manning, this will benefit the province - no need for me to explain why, you just know it. Then once we've shown our hate towards Harper, the Conservatives and Manning, Tom Hedderson, can productively carry on his role as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and really get things done, ever more efficiently.

Layton's Debate Performance Causing an Orange Shift?

As mentioned in my previous post on the leaders' debate Thursday night, NDP leader Jack Layton was strong, and may have given some "on the fence" voters more reason to switch to NDP. This lone Canadian suggested immediately after the debate that both Elizabeth May and Layten were the most impressive, and it appears a new poll is reflecting the same from other Canadians.

The NDP are now only two points behind the federal Liberals. In that debate, it seemed like he had his sights set not only on Harper but also on Dion. Among other salvos, he did score a few points by reminding the public of Liberal's health cuts in previous administrations.

At this point in NL, unless Walter Noel or Craig Westcott can make some solid appeals to voters, it looks like Jack Harris will be at least one Dipper going to Ottawa. Layton has boosted his party's image as a real Opposition party alternative, and this may help the campaign of other local NDP candidate Ryan Cleary in his bid to replace current front runner Siobhan Coady, and eventually win.

Jack Layton will be in St. John's Sunday morning at the Admiral's Green Clubhouse at Pippy Park Golf Course at 10 a.m. Local NDP candidates and provincial leader Lorraine Michael will be there as well.

A Lively Debate with May and Layton Impressing

This was one of the most lively leaders debates ever in Canada. All five appeared strong at different times in different ways. Particularly impressive was Green Party leader Elizabeth May. She came out aggressively from the start and made some no-nonsense statements to PM Harper about his environmental plan, his being "out of touch" with families who are hurting as a result of the economy. She spoke with conviction on every point she made, and stared Harper directly in the eye and asked no bs questions.

Jack Layton was impressive when he went on the offence against Harper, and also Dion. He did not let Stephane Dion off the hook after Dion stated that Liberals would not be breaking promises as Harper did. Layton reminded him that back in the 1990s, under Jean Chretien, the child-care program was promised and never delivered. That took away some of the Liberals credibility. Dion responded with a weakness in NDP stance on Troop deployment in Afghanistan, voting for the 2011 exit date with Harper. Layton later spoke about the Chretien years when health spending was cut, to the detriment of patients - a history reminder of Dion's party tradition.

Layton did bring up Harper's tax breaks to big oil and banks, mentioning Exxon's tax break to do more tar sands drilling. The tax break figure mentioned was $50 billion. He said he would get rid of that as PM and use it for improved social needs like health care and child care.

Several leaders pointed out that exporting raw materials in some cases is exporting jobs. Layton said "what wooden product can't be made here that can be in China?"
They also brought up Harper's past support of privatized health care, and his Emission Reduction plan. Ducette and maybe Layton pointed out that the Conservatives would lower the emissions rate per barrel but still more barrels of oil to be produced, thus only contributing to the greenhouse gas problem

Harper responded to many questions by describing the government's current approach to each issue.

As for his 2003 statement while opposition leader, concerning sending troops to Iraq, he finally said it was an error.

Ducette had nothing to lose as usual because he does not have to offer Canadians outside Quebec anything.

Through it all, Harper appeared the most composed, smiling, and with attacks from four others, was reminded the whole time that he was the man to beat. Possibly damaging to him was the big oil tax breaks mentioned by Layton, and the recent youth jail time idea. On that topic, and it was good it was mentioned a couple of times, by May, Ducette, and Harper that implementing social programs and resources to direct at "at risk" youth, to diminish the risk of youth crime from happening, was discussed. As well, May mentioned that one law enforcement officer experienced with youth, noted that many who were arrested had little or no literacy skills. So it raised the idea of more emphasis and funding on literacy skills. Though this was not discussed at much length, it was an important topic, and should be raised more often. It related to getting to the root of youth crime.

If anyone gained in tonight's debate it was May, and Layton. Dion appears to be reasoned and sincere, a person who appears to emphasize with real people's needs. However, and this is unfortunate, his English is sometimes a problem. The message is sometimes lost in his English pronunciations, at least to this blogger. He is the person Harper paid more attention to, because of the Liberal Green Shift plan, and their own history.

It was an excellent exchange, with no personal insults, just a couple small jabs. Follow up poll results will be eagerly awaited to see if a party got a bounce from the leader's performances. For the NDP candidates in NL and other provinces who were in the underdog or "iffy" categories, Layton's performance may have helped their cause by making the electorate give a second look at the NDP. Layton was certainly seeing an opportunity to replace Dion as official Opposition.

There were two major debates last night, and the U.S. VP debate couldn't have been more dramatic this the Canadian leaders debate.

Puff Danny Raps the ABC

"Give me a beat. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. That's it, just like that. Here we go." Ya know my name is Dan, and I have a plan, To cleanse the nation of that lyin' man. He wuz gonna change the lay of the equalization, And man a vow like dat caused a big sensation. Then he pledged his word, and in that I trusted, Even signed his name, but the letter got dusted. The hopes were high in this provincial "nation", But Steve dissed us with his, fabri-cation. I'm a hopin' and a prayin', that you'll all agree, That there's no other way but da ABC. So listen up bro's, I'm no doubtin' Thomas, I'm just rappin' for my homies, coz he broke his promise. He fooled me once but it won't be two, And if ya elect him again, then shame on you. Vote ABC, is the message I give, Trust Anyone else But a Conserva-tive. "Yo. Yo. Break it down for me fellas .." (repeat same monotonous chord endlessly to fade)

Hat tip to Susan Evans for "Puff Danny" name!

This is an ABC News Break

What is in it to win? I mean spending time, energy and resources on the ABC campaign, for what?

When Harper reneged on his promise it was maddening! He had given people in Newfoundland & Labrador a hope of being loosened from the shackles of debt, much sooner, and at the same time, some major compensation for the thorn of the Upper Churchill Falls deal, which according to Joey's encyclopedia, way back in 1969, PM Pearson of Canada could have stepped in to assist NL get a fairer deal.

Smallwood said that his request to Lester Pearson to use federal authority to allow a transmission line across Quebec, was rejected before he could formally present the request out of fear it would jeopardize national unity

Fine, if Premier Williams wants to remind NL voters about Harper's broken promise two years ago, sure take a very brief amount of time to do that, many will remember it anyway. But the Premier who is very energetic, successful at business, bright and talented, should concentrate all his efforts on this province's needs, rather than going to Ontario to convince Canadians who have a vague memory of NL's beef with Harper. Even if they are reminded, they won't care, and if they did care, how does taking away Harper's seat total benefit Newfoundland and Labrador right now?

At this point the Harper lie is history, and he isn't going to own up now, nor will Dion, Layton or the friend of extremist Paul Watson, Liz May of the Green Party.

I bet we all know people who will simply vote for the candidate who they feel has the best qualities to represent them, regardless of party. If they like the person, feel a certain level of trust for that candidate, then that's often where their 'X' will go. There are some true blues or reds or Dippers, and some will take Danny's lead. But what does that accomplish right now. Revenge? If there was some realistic possibility that Harper would follow through on his "unrealistic" though promised equalization bonanza, then Premier Williams would have more of a case to pursue his ABC campaign. The reality is, it's just not the case.

So what if NL votes ABC out of spite two years since Harper's fib? It won't change anything, except to make our province look negative. Who is the ABC campaign for anyway? Is it for the people of Newfoundland & Labrador? And, what will the desired outcome do for people here?

It will surely cool the already cold relations with the Feds back to the ice age. As for Harper, history has already recorded his broken promise and what it said about him in 2006. It was not a proud moment. This ABC campaign right now is a waste of time, energy, human and financial resources. It's time to move away from that episode, as it does not appear to be an profitable investment for the province, rather, just a misdirecting of energies.

3 Elections in 5 Years - Is There a Need?

The talk is getting louder that Prime Minister Harper will go ahead and call a fall election. What is the reason? Apparently, Arctic sovereignty and economic stewardship, according to national media. Harper also says that the Liberal's "green shift" plan is so opposed to the Conservatives that it is very difficult to work with them on economic matters. If the government in power did have a majority it would make them more secure, hence, be a less hassled by opposition when trying to achieve its goals. He told reporters that Opposition leaders have not been returning calls to discuss the government's fall agenda, and the outlook did not look promising for productivity. So Harper has a point there.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion says Harper is panicking, and inventing reasons to call an election. That's politics - the opposition in the last year and a half have been tempting to bring down the government, but the polls of the day told them they did not have the public's support to win an election.

This could be a case of "be careful what you wish for". An August 8 Angus Reid poll showed the Conservatives at 35%, Liberals at 30%, and the NDP at 20%. Dion's criticism of Harper side-stepping his fixed election date legislation, was rebuffed by Harper when he replied that it only applied to Majority governments - he got you there Dion.

Still, couldn't Harper wait till the fixed election date of October, 2009? It's quite possible that the result will be another Minority government anyway, so does that mean another near future election yet again?

If someone declared war on Canada I think the parties would come together fairly quick with some consensus on how to defend ourselves, but I am not so sure that Arctic sovereignty is something that requires a third election in such a short period. At this point, it seems like a waste of time, money and effort.

Rivers and Fuming Subside

There were two silly reports following the recent floodings in Dunville and area, and Conception Bay. The first was reporting that Harper's visit to the naturally imposed, unsought, and spontaneous road river damage, was a surprise. Judging by news video it was pretty significant damage,
and worthy as any disaster zone visit by a PM to view firsthand. He wasn't obligated to come but did. No surprise at all, and no big deal. Second, CTV reported that Danny Williams was fuming because Harper did not let him know he was coming. Again, by the interglobalmental temperature this year, which is see your breath cool, it's no surprise that Stephen Harper did not ring up Danny to say , "hey buds, see you at Dunville at 10, and we'll throw on some moose sausages on the grill after." Yet again, no big deal anyway. It was not surprising he did not contact the Premier, and in a way, it's not surprising Danny said he's disappointed. However, "fuming" may or may not have been an appropriate term to use. What does matter is for repairs to be made to road work, sewer lines, drain systems, and an organized arrangement to help people where insurance does not cover natural disaster damage. The childish political flying words should be water under the bridge.

Harper's Government Bamboozling Canadians: David Suzuki

Our federal government's blatantly obvious strategy is to bamboozle Canadians into thinking it's on the ball when it comes to the environment by presenting plans that have one flashy element, which everyone remembers, and then essentially supporting the status quo in everything else.

These strong words from environmental expert Dr. David Suzuki appeared on his web site, and in Sunday's Telegram. Here's why the Harper "Green Plan" is deceptive. Suzuki explains, that by

focusing on emissions “intensity” rather than actual emissions reductions, we end up with a plan that is guaranteed to keep Canada at the back of the pack in the industrialized world. Let's take an example. Alberta's tar sands are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing intensity means a reduction in the amount of emissions per barrel of oil, and that's good. But if the total amount of oil extracted doubles or more, then any modest gains in efficiency are completely wiped out.

Gore called the Conservatives' environmental plan is a "complete and total fraud" that is "designed to mislead the Canadian people." He said he was surprised to see that

the Tory plan employs the concept of "intensity reduction," which he said is poll-tested phrase developed in Houston by the so-called think tanks financed by Exxon Mobil and some other large polluters.

By the way, a favorite writer of most Newfoundlanders, Margaret Wente, also seems to lean towards the conservative ideology. In a January, 2007 article, she talked about adaptation, scientists who take a broad middle ground, and the benefits of a warmer Canada. She must have been content to see the following headline.

Arctic sea ice melting faster than most scientists project: study

Power Trip

In the heat of the equalization squabble climate change is a welcome topic as far as Newfoundland and Labrador is concerned. The Council of the Federation meeting tomorrow in Toronto will see premiers and territorial leaders discuss the now much criticized Canadian greenhouse-gas action plan. The plan is at best, getting mixed reviews. It seems to be generally supported by industry, but that's not necessarily a good thing. Outspoken and respected scientist David Suzuki, Inconvenient Truth's Al Gore, and now a UN official, Yvo de Boer, have condemned the plan. So there is a strong desire for a better plan, sooner rather than later.

Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty is also thirsty for some clean hydro energy. Ontario has reduced reliance on coal plants by one third and wants to do more.

Provincial leaders should also ponder the idea of a national power grid in much the same way as the trans-Canada railway helped knit the country together ... The great thing about hydroelectric capacity is that it's a great renewable resource and it doesn't contribute to climate change. (CTV)

Ontario wants it, Canada, the U.S. and the world needs cleaner energy, so it would seem that NL's hydro potential is only becoming more valuable.

We’ve already reduced our reliance on coal by one third, which is the equivalent of taking two million cars off the road. The previous government increased emissions from coal by 127% and slashed the Ministry of the Environment budget... The leader of the official opposition wants to wait 13 years before even beginning to reduce greenhouse gases, and we would then have to wait another 30 years for any other significant change.- Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing), Apr. 26, 2007: Ontario Legislative Assembly Hansard

Danny Williams said that the meeting will not be a fed-bashing event. Perhaps it might even be a time of political climate changes where cooler heads prevail. Since clean energy is what provinces and the nation want, developing NL's hydro potential could also be an opportunity for Harper, though he won't be at this meeting, to try and redeem himself by at least offering assistance to our province in developing this, in such a way that Newfoundland and Labrador is favored similiar to the way Quebec was for the Upper Churchill project. That very scenario probably won't happen, but it could be a chance for the Government of Canada to step in to repair current and historical wounds. How to best develop Lower Churchill is not certain, but it would be good to see all possible options.

Berated Birthday Greetings to Steve

Lordy, Lordy
Look who's a
Lying, Conniving,
Deceitful, Insulting,
Unprincipled, Underhanded,
Back-stabbing Pri.. me Minister

History will show that Harper deceitfully used at least two provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan, to garner enough seats to win a minority government. His margin of win was 21 and that was the number of Conservative seats in SK, and the Atlantic provinces combined. If NL had the population and say 30 plus seats, then he probably would not have broken his commitment on equalization to begin with. His time as PM is only 14 months, and the next election may not be this spring or year. Many here in NL and maybe Saskatchewan will be voting ABS, anybody but Steve. It is unclear who will win next time. But his image from Newfoundland and Labrador's perspective will not be great when history looks back on his tenure. Then again, most historians are not from NL and the perspective could be rosier. But if they will overlook his treatment of NL and SK, then that's their prejudice. On his 48th birthday, it's nothing to be proud of.

Faint Hope in a Time of Distrust

When new political leaders come on the scene and want to build a support base they will often say what they know will please a particular regions palate. Example, Stephen Harper promising a too good to be true deal on equalization, and then avoiding the issue until B Day. While Stéphane Dion is reservedly saying agreeable things so far, which seems to be making a good impression on Premier Williams, he has not actually promised anything. He basically said "I am a man of honour who sticks to commitments." That's fine if you've made a commitment, better if it's in detailed writing, and best if there is some legal obligation to it.

He did say a Liberal government would respect the offshore accord without capping the amount of money East coast provinces can receive in offshore revenue and equalization. The next time a potential Prime Minister makes a commitment/promise in writing, there should be more detail. You can promise things with general wording, and if you have lived up to a small part of that, then you can argue, promise kept. It's like a food item advertising "fat free". One might have thought when these types of phrases first appeared on packaging, that there was a zero fat. Now it can mean 50%, 75% or 20% fat free, plus with other harmful things like a certain amount of trans fats. But still it's not lying to call itself "fat free" because it's true to an extent.

If possible the next time, any "equalization promise" should be legally binding, with clear specifics, especially since it deals with huge amounts of money, and is a politically touchy issue. Why not have Wade Locke-type analyses done by federal and provincial officials based on such detail to give us a more informed picture of what promises will actually entail. If this is not realistic to expect prior to a leader like Dion possibly becoming PM, then we still only have to cross our fingers and hope that the potential new parent of the mother country is trustworthy, objective, and has fair sense of how to treat the family.

Harper Not Taking any Chances

The Harper government certainly wants to ensure that they do not lose more public support. They are taking out radio and newspaper ads Tuesday to say that Ottawa never broke its promise, and that Danny Williams wants a special deal which would be unfair to other provinces. Perhaps the Harper government realizes that the 21 Conservative seats in NL, Sasketchewan and the other Atlantic provinces, can make a difference in getting a majority in the next election. Or, he is trying to dissuade voters in general from voting for Layton and Dion, or he is turning the tables on Danny to paint him and/or Newfoundland and Labrador as greedy and being out of line in his demands. In any case it is an acknowledgement that yes, we do exist. I guess the image as a promise breaker is getting a tad worrisome.

There was a CTV interview with Premier Williams on Saturday in which he said that it was the long term potential benefits to the province that was in question, not the Atlantic Accord as it is. However, the Harper government line is that no promise was broken, which refers to the Atlantic Accord being untouched till 2012, or 2020. But that time frame is not what is in contention - correct me if this is not the case. So if the ads approach is to tell the public that Premier Williams' asserts that an Atlantic Accord promise has been broken, then that would be a misleading advertisement by Harper's government. The Atlantic Accord stays the same at least till 2012, that is not what Williams is arguing against. If the Conservative ads are informing the public this way, it would amount to the same level of honesty the anti-sealing propaganda offers each year, and that is malicious.

21 Seats: Could Harper's PQ Investment Backfire?

Coincidentally, 21 is the margin of the Conservative victory over the Liberals in the 2006 election, and also, the number of Conservative ridings in Sasketchewan, and the Atlantic provinces.

Irritation is apparently growing among western and eastern provinces with the news that Jean Charest is already spending a huge chunk of his $2.2 billion budget windfall to lure voters by a $700 million tax cut.

(From today's National Post)

Keep in mind that this most desperate of premiers governs a province that debt-finances Canada's most unaffordable lifestyle. Yet Mr. Charest diverted the windfall given Quebec in this week's budget to a tax cut worth $750 per average Quebec family, buying votes using Ontario, Alberta and B.C. currency.

The galling spectacle of Mr. Charest stripping $700-million for tax reduction from his $2.2- billion haul just 24 hours after receiving word of the federal handout may well bring back Quebec-bashing as a Canadian heritage sport.

Stephen I'll say or do anything to get elected Harper enticed 12/14 Sasketchewan ridings to vote Conservative based on the promise made to Premier Lorne Calvert to exclude all non-renewable resources from the new equalization formula. He clearly misled Newfoundland and Labrador, and Sasketchewan to get elected. On Monday, he just invested in Quebec in order to form a majority government in the next election. But with Quebec on side, and Ontario for the most part liking this budget, which is what really counts, Harper's chances of shaking minority government status would be much greater. However, if Charest does not win the Quebec election, then there might again be a frenzied atmosphere of a separatist government promoting the Bloc, which will make it tougher for the Conservatives in the next federal election.

Also, Harper's image as a promise-breaker is getting a steady mention in political editorials in Canada.

From his article, "Dishonest Budget", Andrew Coyne had this to say:

The budget claims to have solved “the fiscal imbalance” -- a debatable claim about a debatable problem... Yet the Tories campaigned on a promise to exclude these revenues from the equalization formula, in their entirety.

A broken promise, right? Not according to the budget. Thanks to various add-ons and one-time payments, it claims, no province will be worse off under the 50% inclusion rate than it would be if resources were kept out entirely. This, it says, will “fulfill the Government’s commitment to fully exclude non-renewable natural resources revenues from the calculation of Equalization.” But it didn’t fully exclude them. It half-included them. It might have compensated provinces for breaking its promise, but it still broke the promise.

(from the Prince Albert Daily Herald) Deal, but no Deal

We don't think that promise was kept, and either should the electorate who sent Tories to Ottawa from 12 of our 14 seats. Those votes were cast, in part, on the basis of that commitment, and Monday's federal budget made it clear the assurance was not kept.

The tone of CBC and CTV journalists, especially just after the budget announcement, was, as it often is, snobbish, towards Newfoundland and Labrador. However, to this blogger, it seems to be changing, to one which is more serious about the weaknesses in the budget. This is due in large part to the fact that SK, NS have similiar concerns as NL, and NB and BC have reasons for disliking the budget as well.

It's not like Harper said just once that non-renewables were to be excluded from the new formula, he said it on many occasions, on video and in writing, to NL and SK. He condemned Paul Martin for trying to impose a cap on equalization. However, there was a gradual erosion of his commitment of his promise noted in Jan., 2006 by Premier Calvert, and throughout the rest of last year, so it was no surprise that he offered the 50% inclusion option.

Technically, NL still gets the benefit of the Atlantic Accord till 2012, and possibly another eight years, and in that time frame, a promise kept. But Harper is not deferring his promise/suggestion to exclude 100% of non-renewables, he is changing it on paper.

Danny Williams should, and as he said, will, focus on other economic and provincial issues. As we know there's enormous economic potential for the province, and equalization is no more a crutch for our province than it is for other "have-not" provinces. (see previous post on federal transfers)

Here's more Quebec food for thought

(National Post)

Quebec runs a nation-leading debt of $122-billion, which drains a staggering $7-billion in interest payments from general revenue every year.

The government provides a distinct society of $7 daily daycare, tuition fees a third of the Canadian average, child care allowances that can hit $2,091 a year for the first kid and top-ups for registered education savings plans all wrapped in thick layers of heavily unionized job protection.

Equalization: From "Promise" to ComPromise

Alberta paid off its debt several years ago and hence does not receive equalization because it is a rich "have" province. The longer our provincial debt exists the more we pay out to service the interest on the debt. Conversely the quicker we get it paid off, the better the province and ultimately the country benefits. If Stephen Harper stuck to the "promise", or the idea that he supposedly inferred, that all (100%) non-renewable resource revenue would be exempt from the equalization formula, then that would mean billions more for the province. That scenario would be an excellent opportunity to pay down the province's debt more expediently, and get out of the equalization business, albeit still many years away.

Harper's Letter to Danny Williams - quote on non-renewables in the equalization formula:

We will remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors across Canada. The Conservative government will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula. (Feb. 4, 2006)

That's what he told Williams in writing, it's pretty general and leaves the percentage of non-renewable removal wide open. It does not actually say 100%, but did he mean 100% by verbally expressing that to Danny Williams?

It would appear that Harper has gone from "promise" to compromise. As long as Harper looks pretty in the polls, then he probaly won't budge much from the much talked about, and seemingly expected, 50% of non-renewables, rather than 100%, excluded from the equalization formula. One argument for keeping 100% of non-renewable revenue is that it is a one time only opportunity for that particular resource, e.g., oil and gas. That type of income for the province is finite.

How will the Liberal or NDP's version of equalization compare to Harper's and to Danny Williams' vision of a fair formula? Even if Stéphane Dion made a "promise" to Premier Williams to totally clear non-renewables from equalization, or say 25% inclusion of non-renewables, offer to Danny Williams, which would sound better, then we will still have to ask, "what is a promise?" What does general wording really mean other than wishful thinking? On the other hand, even if we had more detail in writing up front, e.g., "100% of non-renewables will be removed ..", does that matter anyway?

If the province is ultimately stuck with some compromise on equalization, then how about a counter compromise offer? For example, if 50% is the amount, then what if 25% of that were to be mandatorily put towards our provincial debt. That is, in addition to what the province normally pays or should pay, according to income percentages (or at least an average of the last 10 payments, for example). The rule could be that the province has to make its payment towards the debt each year first, then the federally held in trust 25% portion can then be paid towards the debt also.

The net debt per capita for Newfoundland and Labrador, for 2005-06 was $22,733. The debt for the same year was $11.7 billion.