• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Vex Murphy
    June 13, 2011 - 13:37

    Canada lusted after the fishing rights to the Grand Banks long before Confederation and this was the sole reason they colluded with Britain to ensure that Newfoundland joined Canada rather than the USA or become a sovereign nation. The fishery was seen by Canada at that time, and continues to be, a bargaining chip used by Ottawa to negotiate better trade deals and market access in Europe for Canadian wheat. Canada has never had any serious regard for fishery as a Canadian industry as evident by their complete aversion to defend the Grand Banks. While subsidizing the wheat industry with billions of dollars, Ottawa refused to take a stand against foreign overfishing (compare 857 foreign trawlers to Newfoundland's 12 in 1962), resulting in debacles such as the Estai fiasco. Compare Canada's approach to the fishery, Newfoundland's primary industry (releasing the ship, reimbursing the cost of the lost catch) with how this scenario would have played out if the Estai were caught fishing in Japanese or Russian waters (where foreign vessels are routinely fired upon, rammed or scuttled). Compare, and argue that Ottawa was not complicit in the collapse of the fishery.

  • Vex Murphy
    June 13, 2011 - 13:35

    Canada lusted after the fishing rights to the Grand Banks long before Confederation and this was the sole reason they colluded with Britain to ensure that Newfoundland joined Canada rather than the USA or become a sovereign nation. The fishery was seen by Canada at that time, and continues to be, a bargaining chip used by Ottawa to negotiate better trade deals and market access in Europe for Canadian wheat. Canada has never had any serious regard for fishery as a Canadian industry as evident by their complete aversion to defend the Grand Banks. While subsidizing the wheat industry with billions of dollars, Ottawa refused to take a stand against foreign overfishing (compare 857 foreign trawlers to Newfoundland's 12 in 1962), resulting in debacles such as the Estai fiasco. Compare Canada's approach to the fishery, Newfoundland's primary industry (releasing the ship, reimbursing the cost of the lost catch) with how this scenario would have played out if the Estai were caught fishing in Japanese or Russian waters (where foreign vessels are routinely fired upon, rammed or scuttled). Compare, and argue that Ottawa was not complicit in the collapse of the fishery.

  • B
    February 28, 2011 - 12:12

    Its funny reading these comments and seeing Newfoundlanders reacting exactly how Marland and Kerby predicted. As a student at MUN, I can safely say that Marland is one of the most insightful and intersting Profs to listen to. I unfortunately haven't had the chance to learn from Dr. Kerby. It's a shame I'm finished and won't have a chance at more classes with them. Regardless, the first article in this two part series points out how effective MUN's new hires (such as these two) have been when it comes to putting Newfoundland Political Science on the map. The reason, as stated, is that they are challenging norms and suggesting new ways of looking at things. For some, like Maurice and John, this change won't be one that they like. Sort of like these two said in the article. Great two part series regarding MUN Poli Sci, btw.

  • Dan
    February 20, 2011 - 15:04

    Some people clearly can't read and are a little too sensitive. Read Gena's comment. I think she got it right. It's nice to hear some different views rather than the usual chorus from Dannystan.

  • Ed Hollett
    February 20, 2011 - 14:17

    Interesting to see that from Maurice to John to Michael Collins not a single person has been able to deal with the substance of Kerby and Marland's comments. They have, however, made all sorts of other comments and taken offence wherever it was convenient. Michael, for example, refers to budget surpluses. But perhaps Michael you'd like to discuss standards of living, health care, education and other aspects of the state the country was in during the 1930s and 1940s. If you can demonstrate that this place was turning surpluses AND meeting public needs, then maybe you have the start of an argument to counteract Marland and Kerby. And to Maurice, Wally Maclean's challenge is still unanswered. So far, all that commenters have offered is more of the mythology which the two professors have pointed out. Anyone able to refute their comments?

    • EdSimonMark Wally and the Beav
      February 22, 2011 - 18:13

      Are Ed , Mark, Wally, and Simon capable of independant thought? Wallace likes to throw out stupid challenges. Here's my challenge for Wally. Find just one statement ED, Simon, or Mark have made that you disagree with. I am anxious to see one line of independant thought. It really shouldn't be two hard; in the case of Simon and Mark at least, they have looked for the people's support at the polls and have failed miserably. So you really should be able to find something in their polical thinking that you disagree with? I mean these are nice enough people but they can't be right all the time can they Wally? Anything?

  • Ranter
    February 20, 2011 - 12:55

    I got one thing to say about this Montrealer - Go the hell back to where you came from and stop trying to persuade big business with your words. When we joined Canada we had millions in the bank - go read the history books that you were never taught in your Quebec-Canadian school system! That's the real issue with our province - no one really knows us, our history or our contributions. You sir have just highlighted that point! Get the hell out of my education institution - your not welcomed to spread your viral words and propagandist views and opinions to the world. MUN should fire this guy!

  • Mary
    February 20, 2011 - 11:00

    'It’s easy to be aware of politics in a small polity,” said Kerby. “The entire population of this province is the size of the neighbourhood I grew up in in Montreal.” A very dismissive comment and the part about Kerby's neighbourhood - I bet that is a myth! Comments such as these are what rankles people, they are dismissive and arrogant. They are opinion, not fact, and reflect the starting viewpoint of the commentator.

    • Gena
      February 20, 2011 - 12:00

      I think Kerby was merely pointing out that Newfoundland has a small population and that living in a sparsely populated area can sometimes affect people's perceptions. The same observation could be made about small, isolated, rural communities on the mainland. I don't view his comments as dismissive at all.

  • Mary
    February 19, 2011 - 17:44

    So, we here in NL are just like those elsewhere - Seems to me every province has its' scandal. It hasn't anything to do with trusting, it has more to do with not having accountable governments - everywhere. It seems to me that it is the media that puts out this "everyone loves Danny or whomever" image. It isn't a true reflection of what people actually think and feel. I question whether these Academics have looked at all the info around the Churchill Falls Deal. It seems also they haven't accurately researched their mentioned subjec as far as the bankruptcy comment goes. So, yeah, forgive me if I think "a couple of arrogant CFAs"

    • Lydia
      February 20, 2011 - 09:05

      It's true that places elsewhere have political scandal too, just as the article states. In a democracy, we have a responsibility to scrutinize the actions of our politicians and hold them accountable, but most of us don't do enough of it. As for the media promoting "Everyone Loves Danny," you gotta be kidding. Media is reflecting the truth on that one. Most people here truly seem to believe that he is a practically a God. All you have to do is mention his name and listen to the response or look at popularity polls conducted when he was in politics to know what I mean. And finally, for the life of me I don't understand how these academics can be described as "arrogant" just because they've conducted scientific research that you don't like the results of. Do you honestly think they came here with a pre-set agenda to make Nfld look bad? I'd say they have more interesting things to do with their time - such as view life objectively.

  • Erax
    February 19, 2011 - 14:53

    Newfoundland was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time of Confederation...? You mean like California is right now, in 2011? Or the USA as a whole? “The entire population of this province is the size of the neighbourhood I grew up in in Montreal.” So, what? And he had to leave Montreal to find a job? Just like some people Newfoundland??

  • Frank Blackwood
    February 19, 2011 - 12:08

    Don, I think you are very misleading when you say rural Newfoundland is dead since a long time ago. The fishery may be dead, but not totally. Those who were involved in the fishery prior to going into politics continued to reap wealth from the fishery through their own business connections. They packed their bags and moved onwards when it became too hot in the kitchen for them. I am a firm beleiver in that the fishery never really died in Newfoundland. I think the global balance is really off and this has affected the ocean, the atmosphere, and growth of species worldwide. Also, man has been a poor manager of consumption that was plentiful. A good example of this is the cod fishery and the seal hunt. We caught the cod, let foreign fishermen come in and do the same with factory ships. The seal polulation has trippled, and now it is dining on tons of cod daily, not giving nature the time to replinish itself. The big storms hit Newfoundland and Labrador very hard in 2010, and it was coming for a long time. It did not start to brew in 2010, it started before the moritorium was put on the codfishery, beleive it or not, There are many reasons why there is less cod in the sea and an increase in stormy weather, more than ever before. It is unfortunate that people get to talk big bucks about the fishery. The big bucks went into the pockets of those who owned big fish plants and large ships in the province. It has never changed since the 1930's, the businessmen in St' John's robbed the fishermen and also helped to destroy the fishery with their greed in our province and connections globally. The overfishing was one thing, but overselling by greedy businessmen and giving foreigners was the call of the businessmen, not the poor fishermen themselves.

  • Brett
    February 19, 2011 - 12:00

    Wow Maurice & John, I think your comments just made the author's point.

  • Gordon
    February 19, 2011 - 10:57

    M-I-C-K-E-Y Mouse-i-ver-si-t-y Sorry, but reading this article makes me think that MUN is seriously lowering its standards in recruiting scholars. In the future, I will be offering my son the chance to study at MUN not as a reward for studying hard in school, but as a threat if he screws up.

  • james
    February 19, 2011 - 10:55

    the fishery would have been gone 50 years ago only the feds and the provincial goverment pumping money into the fishery to keep it alive newfoundlanders are as responsible as anyone for the end to the fishery

  • Michael Collins
    February 19, 2011 - 10:50

    Newfoundland was on the verge of bankruptcy when it joined Canada? It was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1934, when it suspended self-government. It was turning budget surpluses throughout the 1940s. The snide remark about the population of the province being equal to some unnamed neighbourhood of Montreal tells you all you need to know. What an attitude! Newfoundland has a long history of experts coming in from the power centre of the current Empire (the UK then, Canada now), having a little bit of a look around, and then patiently explaining to us poor dolts who've lived here for centuries what it is we're doing wrong. Talk about repeating history: it's the same kind of thing as the bloody Amulree Commission.

  • D
    February 19, 2011 - 10:41

    John just proved Professor Marland's and Professor Kerby's point. To even open the discussion and question these political myths results in hostility and immediate dismissal. "If Canada had'nt joined with us." Come on, wake up. How can we be the most politically aware people in the country if we limit discussion and only listen to one side of the agrument, ours. I hope John's CFA attitude is not the norm or we'll quickly lose out friendly reputation as well. And Don's right, technology along with growing global demands for fish and many other factors doomed the inshore fishery long before fishermen began noticing declines in stocks. And the provincial government reacted by opening up fish plants like they were Tim Hortons. But people like John would rather you not focus on that, because that doesn't fit with the "blame Ottawa" stance. It's a good thing Premier Dunderdale doesn't have that attitude in the Upper Churchill discussions or that would be another failed project that we could blame on Ottawa.

  • Monica
    February 19, 2011 - 10:32

    Outstanding article! And regarding the collapse of the Nfld fishery, I believe it occurred due to sheer corporate greed - nothing more, nothing less. Even if Nfld had not been part of Confederation, would the province on its own have been able to prevent said collapse? I think not.

  • Casey
    February 19, 2011 - 09:40

    I believe we need to have a balanced approach to any issue. However, this is not a balanced approach. To use John Crosbies quip, 'I didn’t take the fish out of the God damned water’, show lack of insight and ignorance. True Crosbie didn't take the fish out of the water, but why wasn't he questioning and pressuring Ottawa about allowing foreign fishing boats to pillage the Grand Banks and Hamilton Bank for decades. The world is not black and white!

  • Casey
    February 19, 2011 - 09:23

    I believe we need to have a balanced approach to any issue. However, this is not a balanced approach. To use John Crosbies quip, 'I didn’t take the fish out of the God damned water’, show lack of insight and ignorance. True Crosbie didn't take the fish out of the water, but why the hell wasn't he questioning and pressuring Ottawa about allowing foreign fishing boats to pillage the Grand Banks and Hamilton Bank for decades. Get Real!

  • Rob
    February 19, 2011 - 09:20

    As the old song goes, "two out of three ain't bad." Yes, the collapse of the fishery had nothing to do with joining Canada in 1949, although Canada certainly has made some poor choices in same. Upper Churchill was sure as heck the fault of our provincial government. However the third claim, that Newfoundland was near bankruptcy in 1949, is inaccurate. We WERE bankrupt in 1933, hence the Commission of Government. However the Second World War was financially kind to this Dominion, and the finances were sound in the late 40s. We might have made a go of it as an independent nation. I'm not saying we should have, or that we would have been better off, and so on... just pointing out an inaccuracy in the story. Your main point that Newfoundland residents (generally speaking) have a little too much nationalist fervour... is well taken and quite right.

  • Don
    February 19, 2011 - 07:10

    Rural Newfoundland died a long long time ago. It served one purpose and that is the fishery. That was the time when the fishery was carried out in trap skiffs and operated just off shore. However with long liners and trawlers now the fishery can be conducted from mayor centres such as St. John's, Corner Brook, etc: However for a politican to say the in public would be a career ending comment. Like the old saying, "No guts, no glory."

  • Maurice E. Adams
    February 19, 2011 - 07:06

    On the one hand Mr. Marland says he has no evidence that NL would be very successful on its own, but he also goes on to say (without providing one shred of evidence whatsoever) that the fishery is ---- heavily subsidized. If he talking about the paultry bit of EI that some fishers and plant workers get to help them through the winter, then that scrap of money is not a subsidy. It is not taxpayer funded money. It is worker and employer funded money. If Mr. Marland wants to talk about subsidies, perhaps he should look at the farmers in central and western Canada. Government ---, TAXPAYERS, ---- subsidize central and western farmers to the tune of EIGHT (8) BILLION, yes that's ---- 8 BILLION dollars PER YEAR. Now compare that to the few pannies in EI that the NL fishery gets. If that 8 Billion per year was distributed evenly between every fisher and plant worker in NL, they wouldn't be getting the 1 or 2 thousand dollars in EI for a few months during the winter, instead EACH fisher and each plant worker would be getting ---- now you are understanding this right ---- $400,000.00 EACH PER MONTH is subsidy. It is time for so-called experts like Mr. Marland to stop this unwarranted misleading and spreading of unsubstantiated myths about the NL fishery living off government subsidy. While that may play well in the ongoing myth about the fishery, and may be well received by Canadian government officials who wish to further INDUSTRIALIZE the NL fishery and treat it like a CASH CROP (cheap and easy to manage by government), such dribble does not in my book pass for the kind of intellectual research and positive contribution that our mighty university should be making when it comes to coastal NL and the fishery. Go back to the drawing board ---- Mr. Marland. Maurice E. Adams, Paradise Nevertheless, as Mr. Marland says,

  • John
    February 19, 2011 - 06:51

    These 2 people should get their facts straight. If Canada had'nt joined with us, we would still have had a fishery, contrary to their idea, as we would not have had to give the fish to Spain, Portugal, Japan, Russia, etc. so they could get/keep car plants for Canadas big vote districts. By not listening to the fishermen when they were told that the fishery had problems, they said that their scientists were educated and knew better than the uneducated fishermen; those one the water every day and DID know better than their scientists. Ottawa was therefore directly responsible for the collapse of the fishery. On the Upper Churchill, one only has to read a paper put out by their co-workers at MUN to know how Quebec and Ottawa screwed us on this project - Ottawa by being afraid of Quebec and giving into Quebec by not allowing a right-of-way for the power distribution lines etc. like they gave the western provinvces for oil. HQ also played its role in this. They had a member on BRINCO's board of directors and consequently knew exactly their monetary and used that as leverage to get what they wanted, even renegging on a clause already agreed to, to get the renewal clause automatically renewed, AT A LOWER RATE. Even they said that it was an excellent deal for them. I get the feeling that they didn't expect to get a perfect deal, which they got. Why did we have money in the bank if we were almost bankrupt, this doesn't make sense, even to uneducated Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I guess you have to be from up-along to understand this. If some CFA is going to come here and tell us what our history is, they better know what they are talking about. These two don't have their facts straight.

    • W McLean
      February 19, 2011 - 20:36

      Which car plants were got or kept going by giving fish to Spain, Portugal, Japan, or Russia? Can you provide more specifics?