We have a problem here. This "have" status that we are relishing is nothing more than a mathematical equation that Ottawa created to punish Newfoundland and Labrador over our bad behavior.
The equalization formula has changed and we are now "have" because the mathematics of the new equation says we are. Translated - we lose a ton of money and we are now a "have" province. Broadcasting, commentating, reporting, or investigative can somebody please in the media examine this issue.
What is "have" now - what did it used to be?
How much money are we losing for being a "have" province?
Since Danny started his campaign against Ottawa how much money have we lost?
The 2 billion we gained; what happened exactly to that money and how much did we lose because of the way we spent it?
How are we a "have" province when our unemployment level remains in the mid teens - currently 14.3 per cent?
How are we a "have" province when our infrastructure is so deteriorated?
How are we a "have" province when during the time of this crossover we lost two paper mills, fish plants, industry?
Let's look at two comparisons - the Americans feel they are in the throws of a recession when their unemployment level remains in the single digits and Iceland the proud independent country of less than 300,000 people - that just took a significant hit as other European countries who suffered from the stock market crimes - has an unemployment rate of 8 percent in the middle of the worst economic disaster they have faced.
Then let's look at the opposite - Quebec remains a "have not" province and actually receives greater equalization than any other province and their unemployment rate sits at 7.6 per cent - houses half the federal government - still sits with tremendous industry much developed on the back of our Upper Churchill power - still have their paper mills and a tremendous aerospace presence.
Ontario the newly become "have not" province has an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent, houses the other half of the federal government, industry over industry and those which Canadians have just bailed out of the stock crisis such as the auto giants. The land of we have the best of everything and the largest population.
Seriously people - and please some reputable journalist have a go at this - this "have" status only represents one thing. Danny Williams was unable to convince Harper to live up to his promise on non-renewable resources related revenues (be able to remain in the province) - so that once the oil resource is depleted we will something to show for it and have infrastructure which would allow our continued survival.
The formula which made us a "have" province and Ontario a "have not" has done exactly the opposite. We will continue to lose and when the oil is gone we are finished. Ontario will still continue to shine under it's favorite child status.
So on the provincial level - what are we doing? Nothing - the irony is that tremendous loss of revenues because Harper did what he did has made Danny a hero. Why? He lost the fight - and that's okay - the problem is he quit the fight. There is no doubt that Harper lied - but what did we really do about it?
They are now proposing to giveaway the Lower Churchill in order to drive a short term economy. This will result in nothing more that the further ruination of our future. There are no long term gains in this - we will lose and we will find ourselves subservient again to Hydro Quebec.
Danny Dumeresque - continues to talk about the giveaway and the bad deal regarding recalled power - and that is accurate but what he fails to tell you is that when he and the Liberals with hydro under Dean MacDonald gave away management authority of the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation (Upper Churchill) to Hydro Quebec - so even though Newfoundland and Labrador owns two thirds and Hydro Quebec one third - Hydro Quebec - in many significant areas of planning and management - has the ability to block us. Funny there was no problem changing the terms of the Upper Churchill contract then.
As people we must protect what we have left and we and the media need to take a critical look at what we are being fed. We must be able to debate these issues openly and honestly and we need the media to concentrate more on journalism and less on reporting and editorials.
No comments:
Post a Comment