Why does your friend say that? I know many Nwefs, and they feel they are having the best time of their lives away from 'The Rock'. Most tell stories of growing up in places that seem economically depressed, and would not ever go back, even to visit. Some are fascinated by the fact we can get fresh milk and vegetables down at the corner store.<p> <br />Perhaps it's because of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans incompetence? Even if DD comes in as some form of actual progress, there will still be the need for someone to administrate the will of the people.<p> <br />

   

I was talking mainly about people that are still "on the Rock". Obviously for the People that have left the Rock, it is better for them that Newfoundland is in Canada. Looks to me like an other Two Solitudes problem in the making... There is now much desolation there, many living off welfare with little prospects for the next generation. I am not sure if the blame can be limited to the bureaucracy of the fisheries in Ottawa. There is perhaps a much larger lesson here. <br /> <br />The "Canadian Sovereinty" irony is that foreigners can now buy waterfront cheap land in Newfoundland away from all the busy centres. I note many Americans and Europeans are buying land elsewhere in Canada. I am not sure if this good for Newfounlanders (or Canadians).

   

Personally, I think the over-centralized government is a bit of a distraction from the real problem in governance. See, the money is in Ottawa. But when a community or region has a good idea about how to better the lives of the people living there (local expertise), they don't approach the federal government. Rather, they have to ask the provincial government, through some agency or another, for the money. So that's an unnecessary level of beauraucracy. <br /> <br />But that's not all. Because you don't just ask the provincial governement for money for a daycare (for example). You ask the Ministry of Children and Families. Or if you live in BC, you ask the Ministry of everyone Gordo doesn't care about (children, families, and aboriginals... this might have changed in the last shuffle). But that's just another level of worthless government. <br /> <br />It seems to me that it's always local or regional (in rural areas) groups that come up with innovative solutions to the distress of the people. But the federal goverment likes to dole out cash in lump sums that look pretty to voters. "We'll add $6billion to Health Car". Well, sure you will, but how do you plan on adding it? Do federal, provincial, or ministerial beaurocrats know anything about health care? Maybe, but the local health authorities, in conjunction with local doctors, nurses, support staff, and, of course, patients, know a lot more. <br /> <br />So, I think Newfoundland got the short end of the straw the way BC did. Just so you know, we got screwed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' incompetence as well. And we are in the process of being screwed by the Softwood Lumber Disagreement. And in terms of value for our products, ALL Canadians got screwed by NAFTA. <br /> <br />So yes, maybe Newfoundland would have been better off staying out of this mess of governments bent on taking credit for each others achievements.

   

A lot of my Newfoundland expatriate friends plan to return there after they retire.

   

I must note that the topic of "beer" does generate far more interest than the topic of redefining Canada in light of important lessons learnt thus far in its history. <br /> <br />Could there be a blind spot on Vive in regards to discussing what powers would be best transfered at a more local level? I realize that the discussion could be a real challenge to our Canadian sovereinty advocates.

   

I am not that concerned with the beer topic, just as it relates to the overtaking or selling out of Canadian companies. I am not opposed to Ottawa having the power per se, I am opposed to government of all levels forgetting why they are elected. I think that is the problem everywhere. If the federal officials understood they are suppose to be working for all Canadians and the provincial officials understood they too answer to the people and they both learned to work together for the people, we wouldn't have this power struggle. <br /> <br />I really feel like the people are the pawns in an every increasing power struggle. We need to start holding them all accountable. I have never figured out the judge that advocating lying was ok during an election, it is a statment which really infects the entire system. I can't find the exact statement, anyone know where, when etc. I think we should start there, get rid of that attitude, it is not ok to lie to the people, period.

   

Thanks Kory for sticking to the original topic and show the example as the Moderator! <br /> <br />I read from you that too much money go to Ottawa and would be better off to stay local. However, how do you deal with poor provinces that do not have money and need it to develop themselves? <br /> <br />I see a big challenge for "Canadian Sovereinty" is to convince the have provinces that there are benefits to share wealth with the have not provinces without the usual premiers bickering and posturing. The haves are of course opposed to any form of provincial welfare and perhaps rightly so IMO. <br /> <br />I look forward to hear more on how equalization of revenues to a province such as Newfoundland would work in a modern Sovereign Canada. Are we going to have provinces (or even rural portions of provinces) that will empty themselves out before we solve the problem?

   

Gaulois has posed a very interesting question. <br /> <br />As concerns his friend's comment, the luxury of a 'grass is always greener' perspective is that one can always imagine the road not taken to have led to a more desirable destination. It could be that Newfoundland might have been worse off today had it not joined Canada however, no one will ever know. <br /> <br />From an individual perspective, if I have a national government that serves no apparent purpose, why do I need that government? <br /> <br />Most people see the workings of their municipal or provincial governments in their day to day life, e.g., taking the kids to school, lights on the streets, parks, etc.. <br /> <br />However most don't have dealings with the federal level beyond the yearly filing of a tax return or monthly receipt of a benefit cheque. The federal level deals with national (at times through the provincial governments) and international concerns, programs and projects which while of critical importance will seem pretty distant, or will be totally unacknowledged or taken for granted, in the day to day life of most Canadians. <br /> <br />The fact is that every Canadian province could form its own little nation, some with perhaps a greater chance of success for their citizens than others. What it comes down to is the question of whether I perceive greater long-term value in being a Canadian than an Ontarian, Albertan, Quebecois, etc.. <br /> <br />However, the fact of our even discussing this leads one to the understanding that federal government has not for many years fulfilled its role in the eyes of many Canadians. We've had many governments who desired to govern however, were unwilling or unable to lead. <br /> <br />As I've indicated elsewhere, I believe for a number of reasons, some of which have been expressed by CWC, Kory and gaulois, that a significant 'overhaul' is required in Canadian federal/provincial administration processes to better align these to their intended purposes, i.e., administer national/provincial public infrastructure on behalf of citizens. What that overhaul could involve strikes back to the question of whether we see greater value in being Canadians than individual 'Balkan' states. If we do perceive value in being Canadian, a federal infrastructure of some sort remains necessary, perhaps moreso than its provincial counterparts. However, that infrastructure must be seen to deliver value to citizens, as is often not the case today.

   

Alright when I first responded to this topic, I went on a little rant about how we get screwed here in BC. My point was that Newfoundland should not feel alienated. The "grass is greener" analogy seems to apply uniformly across Canada. In the West, we say the East gets everything. And when we say the East, we mean Ontario and Quebec. The Maritimes feel like they're being ignored for the same reason - Ontario and Quebec. And in Ontario and Quebec, who do they blame? Well, Quebec blames all of english Canada, and Ontario whines about Quebec basically being on welfare. <br /> <br />So if we throw the Territories into this (and they do have their fair share of problems), then we notice that Canada is uniformly disgusted with the government. And more importantly, we all blame each other. <br /> <br />And maybe there's some truth to it. Maybe Quebec and Ontario DO get listened to more than the rest of the country. After all, those two provinces compose two thirds of the House of Commons. <br /> <br />But I think the problem is a little more fundamental than that. I remember hearing a CBC Radio discussion on the Canadian Criminal Code this summer. They had a prof from the University of Toronto (I think) who was describing how most Canadians don't know what is and isn't legal. The reason, he said, is that the criminal code doesn't make sense. Rather than being a comprehensive code based on some fundamental concepts, it is a patchwork of over-reactions. For example, this summer the topic of child pornography came up when a particularly heinous act was committed. An over-reaction to this could lead to exaggerated child pornography laws that stifle other freedoms. But more importantly, those laws would stifle freedoms that had been upheld in the face of other laws that would stifle them. The point is that the system isn't consistent. What we expect to be legal isn't necessarily legal and there is no general overall principle behind the Criminal Code. <br /> <br />Now, think about how the Canadian government works. There are some basic rules in the constitution which must be followed. And there are patchwork amendments. But on top of that there are inter-governmental contracts, agreements, and traditions. Our entire system is patch-work and every time we elect someone new, we are giving power to a new vision. Thus, the entire structure changes every 4 years. Except it's not the entire government that changes. It's just a few people that change at any given level in any given election. <br /> <br />So then you have these inter-governmental contracts that a new government has to adhere to, but they don't believe in them. And so they have to try to live up to those commitments while simultaneously attemping to realize their own vision. It's a terribly complex scenario and the bureaucracy of it all can often thwart a government's ability to govern efficiently. <br /> <br />But as to whether or not we need a complete overhaul, I'm a little confused still. Obviously the way things work now is flawed. However, I don't really have a perfect solution to it. <br /> <br />Some things we might want to consider are: <br />-we need to exploit local expertise <br />-people should not suffer due to their geographical locations. However, we need to give incentives to get people to live in areas where they will contribute and not simply live off others (A contradiction, I know.. but again, I'm a little confused here) <br />-different levels of government need to be made more cooperative... <br />-the government needs to actually represent the will of the people <br /> <br />I think one step in the right direction would be to have an honest and accountable government. One way to help achieve this is to legally bind politicians to live up to their pre-election promises. At least then the people would get what they vote for, and politicians would only make promises they could keep. <br /> <br />Oh and one more note: Gaulois, I don't believe that local money should stay local. I just think local groups should have more control over how federal money gets spent. Instead of giant lump sums that look good on ads, we need a government that can effectively use the money. <br /> <br />-Kory

   

Reading all of this, I have to go back to this Government for the People by the People thing. I came across recently this Canada Heritage grant that asks First Nations how to go about "harmonizing" the best of their Laws with the best of ours. Of course the First Nations response is one of high scepticism given difficult histories of processes, treaties, etc... I could certainly imagine what would happen in this "harmonization" effort. Our laws are so complicated and convoluted that we need a whole bureaucracy to look after it; and of course it is self-serving. It seems to me that the First Nations laws are simpler and more noble and could provide an independent checkpoint to our convoluted mess and challenge the comfort of the operating monopoly. I think ultimately these various forms of Governments need to compete with one another for best providing government by the People for the People. We have got somehow to get to a point where we see government as us -vs- them. I am not sure if the current political political system can do this anymore. I remain hopeful that one party will see this and move us in that direction. Perhaps they can even compete on the basis of how fast they are moving in that direction.