Battles between N.L. premiers and Ottawa nothing new

From Smallwood to Furey, it’s become a time-honoured tradition to raise the ‘us versus them’ cry

Andrew Furey’s recent spat with Justin Trudeau about that infuriating carbon tax — a spat during which the province witnessed a rare growth spurt for the premier in the political bollocks region, as well as an odd dose of affected vocabulary — begs for historical perspective.

First off, we shouldn’t forget that Furey is just the latest example in a long line of Newfoundland premiers who have realized that taking on the federal government, complete with a battle cry of “us versus them,” works extremely well in eliciting bonus points with the home town troops; always has, always will.

And if you happen to be mourning a byelection loss, as Furey was, what better way to distract the public than an old-fashioned racket with the feds — just what the doctor ordered, so to speak.

SIDE BENEFIT

Now I’m not suggesting that this Furey-trudeau set-to was deliberately born out of a desire by the premier to have his constituents dwell less on, or even forget, the results in Fogo Island-cape Freels; but, come on now. The publicity surrounding the acrimonious exchange between the two leaders was certainly a timely side benefit for the premier.

Way back to Joey Smallwood days, and throughout the years, quarreling between leaders here and in Ottawa has always resonated well in Newfoundland, with the local cheerleaders forever in full-throated support of whichever premier happened to occupy the eighth-floor offices of Confederation Building.

SMALLWOOD AND PECKFORD

Joey’s row with John Diefenbaker in the late 50s over a financial commitment in the Terms of Union was the first example of the inherent popularity boost generated by such disputes — although it should be noted that Joey’s dictatorial rule at the time meant he could do no wrong.

Further down the political road, we had Brian Peckford taking on Pierre Trudeau, a clash punctuated during a First Ministers Conference in Ottawa when the thenpremier told a patronizing Trudeau: “Don’t put words in my mouth, Prime Minister, I’m quite capable of speaking for myself.”

The home crowd fans roared their approval.

(I’ve referenced that exchange a few times in this space in the past, mainly because it was an important moment in Newfoundland’s efforts to exert its sense of pride and independence; the rebuke bears repeating).

WELLS AND WILLIAMS

As to other Newfoundland/ Ottawa rackets: even Clyde Wells’ detractors couldn’t help but applaud his principled stand during his Meech Lake debates with Brian Mulrooney, and an emotional stand, at that, given the normally sedate persona of the then premier.

And who can forget Danny Williams’ famous battle royale with Prime Minster Stephen Harper (derisively referred to as “Steve” by Williams) over equalization payments? The beatification of Williams as Newfoundland’s savior was allowed to continue, unabated. He had, after all, his disciples argued, told a prime minister where to go, and how to get there. The issue was irrelevant.

There were other such showdowns between Newfoundland premiers and Canadian prime ministers, too many to reference here.

But, to belabour the point, Furey’s brouhaha with Trudeau is certainly nothing new in the annals of Newfoundland/ottawa affairs, and, more to the point, they have been known to deliver a healthy surge in the polls for whichever premier happened to be baring teeth.

THESAURUS?

Now, having said all that, I can’t help but wonder in Furey’s case whether his flacks had a thesaurus in their back pockets when they suggested to their boss the kind of language he might wish to use in his take-down of the Prime Minister.

Or whether, in fact, it was his own noggin at pretentious work.

For example, the premier accused the prime minister of using “certain ad hominems.”

Well, good God almighty, can you believe it? Not an ad hominem? No wonder the premier was upset. I’d be shaking with anger if I was ever struck with an ad hominem.

(It means attacking the person, rather than the argument, in case you’re wondering; I looked it up.)

And our premier, on a wordsmith roll, didn’t stop there.

The prime minister, Professor Furey charged, was “being very sclerotic.”

Well, I’ve never heard the like! The nerve!

(It means an inability to compromise, to be overly rigid, in case you didn’t know, and were dyin’ to know, and would lose sleep if I didn’t inform you so).

FUREY’S POINT STANDS

As to the carbon tax itself, I actually agree with our linguistic premier.

Trudeau’s argument that the rebate associated with the carbon tax will actually benefit low-income Canadians rings hollow and means shag all to those Canadians having to choose between paying for groceries or taking care of the light bill.

As for me: When it costs $150 to fill my aging truck with gas, I can become quite cynical about my obligations to help future generations deal with climate change.

It’s my generation I’m most concerned about these days.

Oh, oh.

Am I being sclerotic? Perish the thought! Obdurate perhaps.

Or even refractory.

But sclerotic? Absolutely not.