unimaginative2
Senior Member
The Rock's new-found nationalism
It's easy to write off the province's grievances, but there's good reason why the word 'secession' is being heard
MICHAEL TEMELINI
Teaches political science at Memorial University in St. John's
June 29, 2007
Let's face it, in the dispute over the Atlantic Accord and equalization, it's hard to take seriously the position of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's easy to dismiss Danny Williams's behaviour as grandstanding or greed. Columnist Derek DeCloet described the Premier's equalization policy as a "popular stunt" and his government's demand for 5-per-cent public ownership in offshore oil projects as a "Danny Chavez routine." On the Atlantic Accord, this newspaper's editorial warned: "The mice should be careful not to bite off more than the country will let them chew."
The problem with superficial commentaries is that they underestimate the sincerity of popular opposition to federal policies. More critically, they fail to appreciate the authenticity of resurgent Newfoundland nationalism.
If we want a federalism based on just and fair principles, we need to start by taking this nationalism seriously - not as opportunism, but as an authentic form of patriotism aimed at progressive social improvement. Recognizing that Newfoundland clearly constitutes a national minority opens our eyes to the legitimacy of its various historical demands for self-determination and special status. Justice entails addressing historic grievances, not cleverly avoiding them.
Many Newfoundlanders, and I'm referring to those on the island, not in Labrador, are genuinely fed up with Canada. In letters to the editor, call-in shows and editorial columns, some have even suggested secession. But this is not Quebec (or Scotland). There are no popular political organizations actively promoting such strategies, at least not yet. Newfoundland nationalism is expressed in unique music, literature, art, and theatre, and finds its voice in provincial politics. Newfoundlanders regard their House of Assembly with more relevance than the Parliament of Canada as the guardian of national interest. The fullest expression of national self-determination is not based on language and culture, as in Quebec, but on resource ownership and control.
Some might be tempted to dismiss this as copycat nationalism, in light of the federal government's recognition of the Québécois nation. But this would be a profound ignorance of history. Several hundred years before incorporation into Canada, Newfoundland was a functioning European settler society with a distinct language and culture, within clearly defined borders, laws and institutions. The capital, St. John's, was founded in 1583, when Sir Humphrey Gilbert claimed the area under the Royal Charter of Queen Elizabeth I.
Its first civil court was established in 1791, and its first chief justice was appointed in 1792. A system of governors was established in 1729, the first popularly elected legislative assembly convened in 1832, and responsible government was achieved in 1855. From that date, Newfoundland was essentially a country and, except for the power to sign international treaties, it exercised all the normal powers of sovereignty that Canada did, including self-defence and the issuing of postage and legal tender. There's even a national anthem - the beloved Ode to Newfoundland - that is regularly performed at official ceremonies and still moves some to tears.
This long independent history profoundly influences Newfoundlanders' popular self-understanding. Many older citizens who were born in the Dominion of Newfoundland (and an increasing number of younger ones who were not) still lament the loss of their historic state. Refusing to see themselves as a region, "Atlantic" Canada and the neighbouring "Maritime" identity have no resonance. But Newfoundland nationalism is not a sentimental longing for a bygone era. Many are deeply disillusioned with Confederation, and have serious concerns about the province's steady economic decline since joining. In fact, there is compelling evidence that the billions of resource-based profits exported every year far exceed the net income received by federal transfer payments.
Another explanation for resurgent nationalism are the ominous demographic challenges. Unlike elsewhere in Canada, the 2006 census revealed that Newfoundland is slowly disappearing. Since the 1990s cod moratorium, 11 per cent of the population of just over half a million people has emigrated - 63,000 people. Dozens of historic outport communities are vanishing. This would be comparable to an exodus of more than a million people from Ontario. Imagine if the cities of Windsor, London, Kitchener, Sudbury and Thunder Bay began to disappear off the face of the map. Even more disturbing, the death rate has surpassed the birth rate. If these trends continue, very few people will be living outside the Labrador mining towns and the greater St. John's metropolitan area. We are witnessing an entire generation without hope, enthusiasm and access to meaningful, steady employment.
In this respect, many Newfoundlanders share the long-standing Québécois fear of disappearing and the historic struggle for survival. This is the motivation for special status under the equalization program. This need, not greed, explains the overwhelming consensus for the Atlantic Accord. It explains why this government, more than any other in Canada, has pursued public ownership and control over natural resources.
This is not to say that depopulation and economic decline are entirely Canada's fault. But Canadians and their governments do bear significant responsibility for siphoning off Newfoundland's wealth. Federal and provincial governments have refused either to recognize or help solve the province's economic and demographic crisis, and have offered no clear vision or assistance to address these problems. It seems that Canadians simply do not know, or care, that this 500-year-old civilization is disappearing.
This is the context in which the current demand for control over resources must be understood. Rather than seeing it as a money grab, this dispute must be understood as a golden opportunity to undo historic wrongs, and as an authentic desire for cultural survival and self-determination.
It's easy to write off the province's grievances, but there's good reason why the word 'secession' is being heard
MICHAEL TEMELINI
Teaches political science at Memorial University in St. John's
June 29, 2007
Let's face it, in the dispute over the Atlantic Accord and equalization, it's hard to take seriously the position of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's easy to dismiss Danny Williams's behaviour as grandstanding or greed. Columnist Derek DeCloet described the Premier's equalization policy as a "popular stunt" and his government's demand for 5-per-cent public ownership in offshore oil projects as a "Danny Chavez routine." On the Atlantic Accord, this newspaper's editorial warned: "The mice should be careful not to bite off more than the country will let them chew."
The problem with superficial commentaries is that they underestimate the sincerity of popular opposition to federal policies. More critically, they fail to appreciate the authenticity of resurgent Newfoundland nationalism.
If we want a federalism based on just and fair principles, we need to start by taking this nationalism seriously - not as opportunism, but as an authentic form of patriotism aimed at progressive social improvement. Recognizing that Newfoundland clearly constitutes a national minority opens our eyes to the legitimacy of its various historical demands for self-determination and special status. Justice entails addressing historic grievances, not cleverly avoiding them.
Many Newfoundlanders, and I'm referring to those on the island, not in Labrador, are genuinely fed up with Canada. In letters to the editor, call-in shows and editorial columns, some have even suggested secession. But this is not Quebec (or Scotland). There are no popular political organizations actively promoting such strategies, at least not yet. Newfoundland nationalism is expressed in unique music, literature, art, and theatre, and finds its voice in provincial politics. Newfoundlanders regard their House of Assembly with more relevance than the Parliament of Canada as the guardian of national interest. The fullest expression of national self-determination is not based on language and culture, as in Quebec, but on resource ownership and control.
Some might be tempted to dismiss this as copycat nationalism, in light of the federal government's recognition of the Québécois nation. But this would be a profound ignorance of history. Several hundred years before incorporation into Canada, Newfoundland was a functioning European settler society with a distinct language and culture, within clearly defined borders, laws and institutions. The capital, St. John's, was founded in 1583, when Sir Humphrey Gilbert claimed the area under the Royal Charter of Queen Elizabeth I.
Its first civil court was established in 1791, and its first chief justice was appointed in 1792. A system of governors was established in 1729, the first popularly elected legislative assembly convened in 1832, and responsible government was achieved in 1855. From that date, Newfoundland was essentially a country and, except for the power to sign international treaties, it exercised all the normal powers of sovereignty that Canada did, including self-defence and the issuing of postage and legal tender. There's even a national anthem - the beloved Ode to Newfoundland - that is regularly performed at official ceremonies and still moves some to tears.
This long independent history profoundly influences Newfoundlanders' popular self-understanding. Many older citizens who were born in the Dominion of Newfoundland (and an increasing number of younger ones who were not) still lament the loss of their historic state. Refusing to see themselves as a region, "Atlantic" Canada and the neighbouring "Maritime" identity have no resonance. But Newfoundland nationalism is not a sentimental longing for a bygone era. Many are deeply disillusioned with Confederation, and have serious concerns about the province's steady economic decline since joining. In fact, there is compelling evidence that the billions of resource-based profits exported every year far exceed the net income received by federal transfer payments.
Another explanation for resurgent nationalism are the ominous demographic challenges. Unlike elsewhere in Canada, the 2006 census revealed that Newfoundland is slowly disappearing. Since the 1990s cod moratorium, 11 per cent of the population of just over half a million people has emigrated - 63,000 people. Dozens of historic outport communities are vanishing. This would be comparable to an exodus of more than a million people from Ontario. Imagine if the cities of Windsor, London, Kitchener, Sudbury and Thunder Bay began to disappear off the face of the map. Even more disturbing, the death rate has surpassed the birth rate. If these trends continue, very few people will be living outside the Labrador mining towns and the greater St. John's metropolitan area. We are witnessing an entire generation without hope, enthusiasm and access to meaningful, steady employment.
In this respect, many Newfoundlanders share the long-standing Québécois fear of disappearing and the historic struggle for survival. This is the motivation for special status under the equalization program. This need, not greed, explains the overwhelming consensus for the Atlantic Accord. It explains why this government, more than any other in Canada, has pursued public ownership and control over natural resources.
This is not to say that depopulation and economic decline are entirely Canada's fault. But Canadians and their governments do bear significant responsibility for siphoning off Newfoundland's wealth. Federal and provincial governments have refused either to recognize or help solve the province's economic and demographic crisis, and have offered no clear vision or assistance to address these problems. It seems that Canadians simply do not know, or care, that this 500-year-old civilization is disappearing.
This is the context in which the current demand for control over resources must be understood. Rather than seeing it as a money grab, this dispute must be understood as a golden opportunity to undo historic wrongs, and as an authentic desire for cultural survival and self-determination.
