Help me understand

So. Rodney MacDonald, almighty premier of Nova Scotia, has a new deal with the federal government with respect to offshore revenues.

Well, let's just read that ov........what's that? It's not written down anywhere?

MacDonald said today that he is satisfied the federal government will live up to it's promise and implement the deal exactly as it was negotiated. Can anyone say Atlantic Accord?

The snow job

The media is inherently skeptical of politicians. As we are going through J-school or a broadcasting college, we are told that politicians will use us to try and advance their own causes. That’s inherent. We know that all those news releases that come from departments of government aren’t just to keep some PR person in a job, but to try to get the media to bite on them. Any advertising (as it can be mis-construed) is better than none, right?

Some journalists do not hide their biases. That’s fine too. Anyone who watches the news can most likely interpret the CTV has a liberal bias, while the CBC is more conservative. The National Post- Conservative. The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star- Liberal. All fine. However, the general public have to understand those biases, so as not to think these columnists are approaching these stories from a purely factual or unbiased point of view. And most of the time they’ll pull no punches about who they support and who they despise.

The overriding problem is we in the media give the general public too much credit. Not everyone follows the political process like we are paid to do. That’s why questions about the offshore deal between our political masters has left such a bad taste in my mouth. For lack of a better term, we’re being snowed.

A number of questions really have to be asked here....

1. The Prime Minster and his Finance Minister said months ago there would be no side deals with any province. Isn’t that what this is?

2. The Minister of Defence (Nova Scotia MP Peter MacKay) said during an interview that the province would have to decide on one deal or the other and would not be permitted to opt in and out of whatever deal suited them best. The deal signed yesterday allows the province to do just that. Why?

3. The Premier of Nova Scotia, Rodney MacDonald, is in a minority government situation and needed this deal to try to bolster his government’s record in the province. What did he give up in signing this deal that’s “so good for Nova Scotia?”

These are questions that the general public will not ask. But they’re not stupid, they’re just uninformed. These two governments know the complexity of these deals and know even the astute political observer would be confused by what is happening with respect to the Atlantic Accord.

Don’t let this happen to you. Ask questions about the Atlantic Accord and don’t let Peter MacKay, or Gerald Keddy or the Premier snow you. Ask why they didn’t stick to their guns. Ask why they gave up on several positions in the process of making this deal. This is not the Atlantic Accord. Don’t let anyone tell you it is. Expect more out your politicians. They sure aren’t expecting anything out of you, other than to believe what they tell you and vote for them in the next election.

Williams on the verge of history....but good history?

Is Danny Williams the next Frank McKenna?

People who watch politics closely will remember the landmark victory of McKenna’s Liberals in 1987, when they ran the table on the Conservatives, capturing every seat in the provincial legislature.

The Liberals grabbed all of those seats with 60 percent of the popular vote. Danny Williams Conservatives enjoy an even larger margin than that. Last month, William’s numbers were in the 70 percent range and that was before the Hebron Offshore announcement, sure to give the government a slight bump in the polls.

Nodice.ca projects the Conservatives will run the table on the Liberals, but not the NDP. Their final projection comes out at 46 seats for the Tories and the NDP holding onto the 2 they currently hold.

What is the up side of having a House of Assembly where there is absolutely no opposition? There isn’t one. A complete run of the table, or what we’ll call “total governments” are devoid of the very thing that makes politics work- opposition.

Opposition keeps the government on their toes. In the case of no credible opposition, governments tend to rest on their laurels. Government needs the opposition as well; it helps them show they are, in fact, getting things done. If William’s feels that he is going to shutout the Liberals he should think of what McKenna did in the same instance. Premier Frank allowed the parties not in the house, to actually ask questions of the government on the floor of the house. It would show some co-operation that would be much appreciated by the Liberals. Afterall, they could be exiled to political nowhereness in the near future.

So, with just over 30 days until election time, Liberal leader Gerry Reid needs to mobilize the historically dominant Liberal vote in the province. But how? The Liberals are mired at 19 percent provincial support, a number so low ex-Premier Joey Smallwood is turning in his grave.

Smallwood would never have thought the Liberals would get this low in popular support, considering his run as premier of the province. The Liberals once enjoyed the kind of support the Tories are now, causing Joey (as he is commonly referred) to pen the phrase, “I could hang a Liberal sign on a Newfoundland dog and get it elected.” Those times are long gone. But Liberals in the province need to remember what those times were like and need to bring back the energy that charged the Liberals to victory from 1949 until 1972.

It won’t be easy. They need clear ideas and a policy framework that differs slightly from the Tories. I say differs, because what’s right for the province is right, and it’s hard to disagree with the fact the William’s Conservatives could be the government that transforms Newfoundland and Labrador into a have province.

Mulroney not able to let go

Alright, I’ll admit it. I can hold a grudge like it’s nobody’s business. I still have no want to see several people from my high school days who had a little of the “holier than thou” attitude. But there’s one person, who just doesn’t know that sometimes enough is enough.

That person is Brian Mulroney.

The ex-Prime Minister had some turbulent times while he occupied the Country’s highest elected office, and could never seem to get his government off the ground, as they lurched from scandal to scandal. (Remind you of any, oh I don’t know, current government?)

There is no doubt as well that Mulroney had some great successes in office (NAFTA) and some defeats that would make the best among us whimper and slink into a corner to lick our wounds.

Mulroney’s greatest defeat was undoubtedly the Meech Lake Accord. Meant to bring Canada together and get Quebec’s signature on the constitution, Mulroney instituted the constitutional talks thinking (like most Canadian politicians) if he played into Quebec’s hand, he would haul down a major victory.

It wasn’t to be.

After the accord was signed by the 10 premiers, public opinion polls across the country showed that people were generally in favour of the signed deal. However, as citizens began to get the crux of the accord they noticed what has now become a defining term in Canadian politics- Distinct Society. Many people still opposed to the term believe that it grants Quebec some sort of special treatment from the federal government. The accord fell apart after that and problems with provincial government’s (notably Newfoundland and Manitoba) inability to ratify it in their houses of Assembly.

There’s your little history lesson on the Meech Lake Accord. Back to business.....

I’ve never seen a person hold a grudge so hard as Mulroney. He is back in the spotlight, granting an interview to CTV’s Lloyd Robertson on the eve of the release of his memoirs.

During the interview (set to air Sunday evening) Mulroney blames the failure of the Meech Lake Accord on one person- Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Mulroney’s arch rival of Canadian politics has come back into the spotlight with him, but if you think the Conservative would hold back on any criticism of the now deceased leader, think again.

Not only does Mulroney tear a strip off PET for torpedoing the Accord, but he also accuses the oft-hated Liberal Leader as being a Nazi Sympathizer. These allegations have never been proven and are both hearsay and conjecture. When Trudeau didn’t comment about Nazi war crimes and the unspeakable horrors they committed, no one actually knew the extent of what was ACTUALLY happening. I’m not picking up for the ex-PM, just making a statement of fact.

I won’t read the memoir. Anyone who writes a twelve hundred page book about himself seems a little suspect to me. I wouldn’t doubt but PET isn’t the only one that is made to bear Mulroney’s failings. I’m sure there’s a heaping helping of criticism for Lucien Bouchard and Clyde Wells– but to me it’s just a diatribe of a man who has never accepted responsibility for his own failings and is content to take pot shots at a man who cannot defend himself.

Consequences? Amm, non-existent

Bloggers all over Atlantic Canada, and indeed across the country, have been calling for more help in dealing with out of control youth for sometime. A surge in youth violence in Nova Scotia over the past couple of weeks has given legitimacy to their calls.

It seems every crime that hits the media these days has a youth involved. A grandmother beaten down on the Halifax Commons, a cab driver stabbed to death, security guards being stabbed and a young girl allegedly killing her entire family (in Alberta) seem to be commonplace in police reports over the past year.

There is obviously more than enough blame to go around. Family, school, the media, peer pressure, video games and television violence all have their place in the cornucopia of problems inciting these youth to break the law.

However, it seems the youth themselves never come out on bad end of the “blame game.”

Why not? These youths the ones committing the crimes. Shouldn’t they, at 14, 15 or 16 years old know the difference between right and wrong? Of course they should.

Then why is it they never seem to bare the brunt of criticism of their actions? The father of a young man who allegedly stabbed security guards at the Forum in Halifax last week says the police and the system are “trying to make an example” out of him. Good.

It’s not more cops. Not more prisons. Don’t throw more money at a problem and expect it to go away. No. We need to send the message as a society- this type of idiotic behavior will not be tolerated in any fashion, and you will face the consequences of your actions.

Consequences. Isn’t that the correct term to use, and further, shouldn’t these kids have some sort of idea what consequences are? Do they expect they’ll be able to stab someone and get away with it? Haven’t they watched enough Law and Order and CSI to know they will be found, someone will have saw something and they will face the consequences of their actions.

So, yes, an example. That is what is needed. Not just one example- keep on making examples out of these youth who keep on making bad decisions. Sentence them as adults, so they bare the full brunt of their failings to treat others in society with an ounce of respect. Make sure society knows who these people are, and what they did. If you are convicted of a heinous crime, your name should be released and you should be the object of public scorn.

Why not? You almost killed an old women, out for a walk on a warm night. Shame on you.

Jack and me

I don’t advise listening to every little thing that comes out of Jack Layton’s mouth. Most of the time I’d compare what I hear to the senseless mumbling of my 11 month old niece. Sometimes I think even she makes more sense. So, it will most likely come out of left field to most people on the one area of black and white agreeability between the two of us.

Sometime ago, Jack Layton mused that the Taliban had to be involved in negotiations to end the war. At the table he said! Almost laughed out of the Commons, he was!

But it’s not a half bad idea. When we look at the major conflicts in the world over the past one hundred or some years, those that were settled ultimately had the co-operation of all the warring parties sitting at one table discussing the various give and take that would form the basis of a lasting peace.

The Treaty of Versailles (WW1) and the Paris Peace Treaties (WW2) are definitely the two best known treaties signed in the past couple hundred years. Both had all parties involved sitting at the table setting out the terms of peace. Granted, both wars were essentially won for the Ally side, but the defeated parties were still present. Those two treaties delivered peace until this day, and in the terms of The Paris Peace Treaties, it delivered an ally to the West in Germany.

The difference between this conflict and the hundreds that preceded is there is going to be no clear winner or loser in Afghanistan. Unless you consider the pull out of occupying forces a “win” for the Taliban. If that happens, another group will be in Afghanistan in 20 years, trying to fight a war that couldn’t be won by our Allied Forces or the Russians before.

That absence of a clear winner in this conflict makes it so much more important for the governments of the occupying forces to welcome the Taliban to the table. And it is much easier in Afghanistan than in Iraq, because the Taliban have made it clear they are the force being fought, whereas in Iraq, the insurgency is moreover based on a civilian militance, and then backed up by Al Qeada. Iraq also has a large amount of sectarian violence, violence that the U.S. soldiers cannot stop, even if they wanted to.

Until the U.S. government is ready to end these conflicts there will be fighting. Ending them will mean more than crushing the insurgency. It will mean showing real progress on rebuilding efforts in the country and in particular, showing Afghans that progress without it being wiped out by militants.

The ability to re-construct schools, hospitals, and office buildings will not happen without their wanton destruction unless there is a genuine effort to settle the conflict. The reason for invading Afghanistan was to catch Osama Bin Laden and rid the country of the Taliban. Neither is close to happening, in fact, the Taliban are arguably stronger than they have ever been and Bin Laden is nowhere near capture. Therefore, instead of talking about scaling back a combat role for our soldiers, and training Afghan troops to take the fight to the Taliban, let’s engage a discussion that would see positive results that may be the beginning of another Paris or Versailles sort of treaty. One for a lasting peace.

Dion loves Atlantic Canada

“Well of course he is.”

That’s the response I hear from people in Central Nova when I tell them that Stephan Dion is in favour of implementing the Atlantic Accord the way it was written. And it’s the right response to hear.

It has a little of two view points.

The first is that if Stephan Dion WASN’T in favour of giving Newfoundland and Nova Scotia what was promised to them, then he’d be selling himself and the Liberals down the river in Atlantic Canada. The second is a little more satirical- as if to say “well, of course he is, he has to have the opposite position of the Prime Minister.”

The point that is missed though, is that Dion doesn’t realize we ALREADY KNEW he supported the Accord. It was, afterall, his government that signed the now defunct deal with both provinces, under then-PM Paul Martin. He, as a cabinet minister, wasn’t all that hot on the idea, but ultimately bowed to the wants of a PM who wasn’t all that hot on him.

But, why does the Liberal Leader feel the need to continue this debate? He can gain very, very little from it politically. Dion already has monumental support in Atlantic Canada. And, there are only a few politicians in the region that are even close to losing their chairs in the Commons.

You have to think that Bill Casey has punched his ticket for the foreseeable future because he acted decisively on behalf of his contituents. Unlike Gerald Keddy. If the issue stays in the minds of Atlantic Canadians, it’s a good bet the South Shore MP could find himself without a job after the next election. The same fate could befall Fabian Manning in Avalon, NL. The same can’t really be said for political heavyweights like Central Nova MP Peter MacKay and Federal Fisheries minister Loyola Hearn, both of whom will probably have their seats for as long as they care to keep offering.

Back to Dion.

The Liberal Leader sure seems like he’s spending an awful lot of time in Atlantic Canada. The party is holding a caucus meeting in St. John’s over the next several days to map out strategy for the fall sitting of the house. Why St. John’s? Why not somewhere where the Grits support is softer? B.C., Saskatchewan, hell, even Quebec would be better than a province where the Liberals took 4 of 7 seats in the last election. It would make just as much sense for the Grits to hold their annual caucus in P.E.I.

Dion seems to be playing a game of follow the leader with the Prime Minister. He’ll see trouble with that if he starts to mirror Conservative policies and especially if he starts to backtrack on the Liberal position on Afghanistan. Any change in position on that issue would only help Dion get crucified during the next election– as he has become the voice for positive change in the combat role for Canadian Troops– differing in opinion from the PM, who wants to keep troops there for as long as the US needs them, and also from Gilles Duceppe, who will force the issue by threatening defeat in the Commons and will ultimately be seen both in Quebec and other parts of the country as a french Jack Layton- when the going gets tough, turn and run.