Da Legal Stuff...

All commentaries published on Web Talk are the opinions of the contributor(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of any other individuals, groups or organizations.

Now, with that out of the way...Let's Web Talk.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

"Maîtres chez Newf", ala National Post

This week the National Post again proved itself to be nothing more than the equivalent of a roll of cheap toilet paper. Not the soft and pleasant kind either and not nearly as relative, readable or insightful as a square or two of that famous kitten brand.

In an opinion piece entitled, "Maîtres chez Newf", writer Jonathan Kay verbally assaulted Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams, the people of the province and even the province itself.

During the attack Kay recounted (in reference to Williams) “…his juvenile decision to lower the Canadian flag during a 2004 spat with Paul Martin’s Liberals about — what else? — the size of the handouts Newfoundland was getting from the rest of Canada.”

In reference to this week’s throne speech and the issue of becoming more autonomous Kay said, “That’s all very nice. But if Mr. Williams is so keen on becoming master of his house, why does he spend most of his time playing the surly teenager, endlessly haranguing his parents over the size of his allowance? A “proud nationalist” would be embarrassed by the fact that his province survives only because it receive transfers from Ottawa of $1.67-billion…”

His final hit (these guys always use the 3 strikes your out rule) was aimed directly at the province and people and it was by far the most interesting and telling.

“Mr. Williams”, Kay observed, “and the voters who support him — have got to decide what their political schtick is. Either they’re rugged individualists, proud of their identity and self-reliance. Or they’re professional welfare cases, endlessly harassing the rest of us for more handouts. You can’t have it both ways.”

Good one. Where did you ever come up with such original material? Have you been reading your own paper or was it the Globe and Mail? Never mind, it’s clear such a witty observation could only be gleaned by sticking your head firmly up your posterior (or that of someone else) and rotating it a full 360 degrees. Not very enlightening but a nice trick none the less.

Well folks all joking aside, I’m going take the high road here. That's a place where I know I won't run into anyone else of Mr. Kay’s ilk who might make some nasty remark about me, like I care.

I’ll put aside the rhetoric, forget the stereotypical and racist comments made in the article and even forget for a moment that this guy writes for a so called National paper, so respected in Atlantic Canada, that they couldn't even sell enough copies here to warrant distributing it.

Instead I’ll focus on the underlying message in the article. No, not the clear evidence of Mr Kay’s narrow minded bigotry or his afore mentioned ability to twist his body in freakishly unnatural positions, but the political and social statements he put forth.

What you are saying Mr. Kay, if I might respond to you directly, is that any political leader, province or people who claim to want autonomy and a stronger role in their own destiny should not fight with Ottawa for improved funding arrangements and transfers. If they do they are nothing more than, “professional welfare cases” and should be embarrassed to call themselves “proud nationalists”.

Thanks for that and may I just say, I appreciate the stand you've taken. I also know that since nobody reads your paper here you likely feel free to take those sorts of shots with impunity. Though you may want to reflect on how your comments will play out with your readers in that other autonomy seeking, equalization receiving province, Quebec.

The so called “professional welfare cases” there might not be as easy going and charming as I am.

Johnathan Kay, "National" Post writer and part time contortionist, can be reached at jkay@nationalpost.com

52 comments:

NL-ExPatriate said...

I love how they frame the Lower Churchill promise of Loan Guarantees as a Loan.

Either he is inept or just down right skewing the story.

The fact of the matter is Loan guarantees won't cost Ottawa one penny. Loan guarantees are the equivalant of co-signing in case the original borrower defaults on that loan but the guarantee allows the borrower us in this case NL to get more favorable rates with the promise of a loan guarantee from big brother Ottawa as a co-signer.

I've also seen this slight and lie repeated in other so called national media outlets. I don't know if they are just ignorant, complicit in repeating a falsehood or they are printing what they think to be true about NL. Perception.

I actually made a comment on that article explaining our position in detail 2000 words to be exact and they didn't post it.

I also had similar things happen to me when I phoned into open line shows on the mainland specifically CFRA when the host gave me short shrift and didn't want to hear the truth.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Finally someone who writes and tells it like it is.

Now all the indignant Newfoundlanders have a new target. So I guess we'll all hear this writer's name on VOCM and people will write letters, and there'll be the predictable call to boycott the National Post.

You know, all the typical Newfie reponses.

Anonymous said...

It's Newfoundland........of course you'll default on the loan. Then the rest of Canada will have to bail you out...again.

Ottawa's not stupid you know.

Anonymous said...

Patriot...everytime someone writes an article you don't like you resort to using juvenile phrses like

"Never mind, it’s clear such a witty observation could only be gleaned by sticking your head firmly up your posterior (or that of someone else) and rotating it a full 360 degrees. Not very enlightening but a nice trick none the less"

Grow up already. You sound like a pimply teenage boy.

Anonymous said...

Obviously you DO care patriot or you wouldn't have responded no nastily.

Oh, and lots of people read the National Post here....AND the Globe and Mail.

You honestly think there's anything newsworthy in the Telegram??

We have to stay connected to the rest of the world somehow and the "Telly", VOCM, and NTV news just doesn't cut it.

Anonymous said...

Oh Lord!! NTV!! HAhahaha!
"Canada's SuperStation"...........might possibly be true if anyone off the island has ever heard of it! Maybe "Canada's LoserStation" is more appropriate.

Anonymous said...

Boy the knobs really came out today, jumping up and down to defend the National Post of all things.

The fact they would launch such a vigorous defense of that rag tells us all we need to know about them I suppose...

Starrigan said...

I have to agree, the knobs pounced on this one pretty fast. That's a good sign, it means the blog is being watched very closely by other interests. Maybe in the future you shouldn't allow anonymous posts. I can't help but wonder how many of them come from our jerk off friend Ottawally.
Seriously these anonymous a$$holes are not adding anything to the discussion, they are just being ignorant. I have no idea why they even bother to read this blog, there must be somewhere else the could go. In fact I could suggest a few a places.

Mike said...

I sent a comment to Johathan:

Hi Jonathan:

www.freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogspot.com today made a comment on your article " maitre chez newf " in the National Post.

Jeez, I wish I could have read it ( The Post ) I mean !

Unfortunately the Post is not available in this part of the Country. It just couldn't generate the readership to keep it afloat. Seems like readers were demanding of certain quality standards from their newspapers.

If the article is quoted properly on the blog then I guess it is just as well it isn't available here.

National in name only eh?

Mike Kehoe

Patriot said...

Hi Mike,

I can assure you the article was quoted correctly.

As for a response to the Anon who said he reads the National Post and noted that he was from here, all I can say is I guess that puts you in the 2% of the Atlantic Canada population (the papers statistic not mine) who read it.

The fact that 98% don't want anything to do with it and you do must make you feel really confident that you have a clear and full understanding of what the pulse of the population here is I guess.

I guess you speak for the 2% who do. Good on ya!

Anonymous said...

dumb but not stupid

I question the comment from NL-expatriate that the sole reason you have a loan guarantee is because of the likelihood of default. It is neither accurate nor appropriate in the context of most governmental loan guarantees.
And it is most especially accurate in the context of capital projects resulting in new resource capabilities and acquirable assets.

Rather loan guarantees are sought for several reasons, among which can include any or all of the following:

1. Indication of the larger governmental body's interest in the success of the program or project.
2. Confirmation of the larger governmental body being fully aware of the project.
3. More favorable credit rating thus reducing the bond's load to the smaller governmental unit.
4. It does hamper one governing body from unilaterally altering the ownership and underwriting rules surrounding the bond. In simple terms it reduces (although marginally) the likelihood of nationalization of public works projects.

Having considered all of the above, the only political reason not to include a request for loan guarantees from the federal government is that it does provide the national government with an interest in the continuing relationship with the province, that is being yet another tie that binds.

In the context of all of the above being considered, the comment from anonymous that of course Newfoundland will default should be considered.

I noted that there is only one political reason for loan guarantees. However there are social consequences as well. To make the point consider the following,

Would any Canadian question a loan guarantee by Ottowa for an Ontario or Quebec loan? No.

Would any Canadian question the reasons that would cause Ontario or Quebec to request such a loan?
Of course not.

Would Ottowa allow either Ontario or Quebec to reach a point of such endebtedness by fostering exile of the population. Hell No. That sort of action would dismantle the core of the colonial Canada where you are one of the colonies.

Would Ottowa implement international trade agreements which fail to protect the industries and commerce of either Ontario or Quebec? Don't make me laugh. But the fisheries weren't protected, and the Banks still aren't

Would Ottowa allow for New Brunswick to annex the Gaspe peninsula on its maps and tourist brochures without taking action to curb the offense? Hell No, but Quebec can do so without a twitch from the federal government's bloated plutocrats regarding the borders of Labrador.

There is indeed a price to pay for a loan guarantee, but the price is not a financial one.

The price is the cost of continued colonialism, continued second class citizenship, continued paternalism, and continued defamation of those who only want equal treatment under rules that are not modified by whimsy or votes.

You ought to be too "damn proud" to accept a single guarantee, especially from those whom the word guarantee is meaningless.

Being a Newfie is not a badge of honor when it is used as a curse. And it will be used that way, until those who can say : "No More"

Anonymous said...

Margarette Wente "the most vast and scenic welfare ghetto in the world"

Stephen Harper " Culture of defeat"

Bill Lankoff "Locals now have something to chew the fat over --other than that yucky whale blubber"

WJM said...

The fact of the matter is Loan guarantees won't cost Ottawa one penny.

Wrong.

Treasury Board requires the federal government to bank a certain amount (25% comes to mind) of the amount of any loan guaranteed by the federal government, as a hedge against default.

WJM said...

I've also seen this slight and lie repeated in other so called national media outlets.

The other lie, repeated by Danny Williams and others, is that Harper even promised a loan guarantee to begin with.

WJM said...

Maybe in the future you shouldn't allow anonymous posts. I can't help but wonder how many of them come from our jerk off friend Ottawally.

If you're referring to me, let me end your wondering: none of them do.

Starrigan said...

WJM said:

Treasury Board requires the federal government to bank a certain amount (25% comes to mind) of the amount of any loan guaranteed by the federal government, as a hedge against default.

So where did you come up with the 25%? just pull it out of a hat?

WJM said:

The other lie, repeated by Danny Williams and others, is that Harper even promised a loan guarantee to begin with.

So who are these others you mentioned?

WJM said...

Hell No, but Quebec can do so without a twitch from the federal government's bloated plutocrats regarding the borders of Labrador.

Hi Carl!

When did Quebec annex any part of Labrador?

WJM said...

So where did you come up with the 25%? just pull it out of a hat?

Nope, out of a government document. I have to hedge the exact figure, because I don't recall right off hand, but 25% sounds about right.

So who are these others you mentioned?

Both the CBC and the Telegram have repeated the "loan guarantee" line unquestioningly in the past year and a half.

Anonymous said...

The reason only 2% of newfoundlanders read the National Post (or anything else) is because only 2% of Newfoundlanders can read.

Anonymous said...

You can get the NP online for all those morons who say "duh, they don't sell it here".

No excuse to limit yourself to the waste of newsprint called the Telegram.

Anonymous said...

WJM said
"Nope, out of a government document. I have to hedge the exact figure, because I don't recall right off hand, but 25% sounds about right."

So in other words you made it up. Whats the document? Come on Wally you wnat people to state facts and produce evidence - wheres yours

Anonymous said...

to wjm

A picture is worth a thousand words. Yes, Quebec does portray itself as having a part of Labrador as far as the maps on the provincial web site.

Follow the links

http://vuesensemble.atlas.gouv.qc.ca/site_web/accueil/index.htm

http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/en/information/carte_routiere/index.asp

http://www.bonjourquebec.com/qc-en/regions0.html

Winston Legge said...

Once again all the anonymous bashers come crawling out from under their rocks like the roaches they are and make their smart-alec remarks while hiding behind an anonymous post. Well done chicken shits. Well done.

I bet when a boat is sinking you'll be the first to rip the life jacket from the baby's hand to save yourself like all cravens everywhere.

Anonymous said...

To the Anon who said that only 2% of NLers read the National Post because only 2% can read. It's obvious that you can't read or at least can understand what you do.

The article notes that 2% of ATLANTIC CANADIANS read it, not NLers. I guess then by your logic only 2% of NS, NB, PEI and NL can read. Way to go. It's clear you have nothing but distaste for all of Atlantic Canada or you just don't know how to read.

Anonymous said...

Artfull dodger said....

Well said Winston!

Those posters are similar to the black flies and mosquitos we encounter, they fly in to suck your blood and generally make a nuisance of themselves.

Must be adults with psycological issues or kids with too much free time on their hads.

Anonymous said...

Babies can't put on their own life jackets. Besides....wouldn't catch me on a fishy-smelling newfie boat for all the money in the world.

Anonymous said...

My mistake..I meant to say that only .5% of NL'ers can read. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

WJM said...

So in other words you made it up.

No, I made a best guess.

Whats the document? Come on Wally you wnat people to state facts and produce evidence - wheres yours

It's from an Access to Information request somewhere in my piles o' paper. Want a copy when I find it?

WJM said...

A picture is worth a thousand words. Yes, Quebec does portray itself as having a part of Labrador as far as the maps on the provincial web site.

So?

That has no legal effect whatsoever, let alone constituting "annexing" part of Labrador.

The Labrador boundary is set in the constitution. The only way it can be changed is by consent of both provinces involved. It can't be changed by maps, which is a good thing. After all, for decades Newfoundlanders published maps of "the province" which left Labrador out altogether.

Anonymous said...

But why doesn't Ottawa make oneofit's member provinces respect the constitional boundaries?

Silence is acceptance. It is setting terrible precident by allowing it to continue and should be stopped immediately.

Precedents are how boundaries are set.

WJM said...

But why doesn't Ottawa make oneofit's member provinces respect the constitional boundaries?

Nothing Quebec does "disrespects" those boundaries, any more than Newfoundland maps which omit Labrador do.

You can't change a boundary with a map.

Silence is acceptance.

Which works AGAINST Quebec. Quebec has silently accepted the boundary since 1927. The Quebec government's own Dorion commission found as much over 30 years ago.

It is setting terrible precident by allowing it to continue and should be stopped immediately.

How is it a precedent, Carl?

Precedents are how boundaries are set.

Only if there is no statute setting them.

There is a statute setting the Labrador boundary, and it can't be changed merely by imaginary maps. If it were, then Newfoundland could start publishing maps claiming Cape Breton, and lo, it would be.

It would also mean that after decades of omitting Labrador from its maps, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador no longer includes Labrador.

You can't change a constitutional statute with anything short of a constitutional amendment, Carl Cooper. Not with a map. Not with a pen-knife. Not with nothing other than a constitutional amendment. You are spreading ignorance and fear, and should shut it if, as is abundantly clear, you have no idea what you are talking about.

WJM said...

"... loan guarantees are not costless and the Department of Finance's accounting procedures require that at least 25% of the principle of such loans be charged to the fiscal framework."

Anonymous said...

wjm said "the department of finance accounting's procedures require that at least 25% of the principle of such loans be charged to the fiscal framework."

Could you provide the publication number or the URL on the Department of Finance site regarding this? I've been searching through both the Auditor General and the Department of Finance and I can find no indication of a direct expense approaching 25%.

or is it still lost on the pile of papers on your desk.

Anonymous said...

in a follow on to Wally world the following URL

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/ch9213e.html

contains a 1992 Auditor General report recommending changes to the handling of various loan guarantee programs, specifically to the need to set aside escrows for the potential of default.

For those like wjm who cannot make a distinction between an escrow and a direct expense, the escrow is retained in most financial institutions books as a reserve against future liabilities. That is why such reserves are calculated in terms of a percentage of the potential liability. These funds are then set aside. They are not spent until and unless there is a default. However, in no sense of the financial term can an escrow be considered an expense.

wjm is correct on 1 technicality. Or should I say a dollars worth of technicality. It does cost something. Parliaments own rules mandate an expense be determined of at least $1.

I do have one question for wjm though, which is if one agency of a province should be ignored because it's maps don't have the force of law, why should the regulations of another agency such as the Department of Finance be used as a law? Or is it that you don't like one, and do like the other.


This is also referenced in the URL above.

Anonymous said...

correction to the previous post.

The last sentence which indicates that the item is also reference in the URL above deals with the $1 direct cost of a loan guarantee. It does not deal with wjm's omniscient determination of which ruling authority should be considered the legal authority.

Sorry for the confusion.

NL-ExPatriate said...

Thanks for the clarification Anon, but the point I was getting at was how our so called unbiased national newspapers have slighted the people of NL. A province in this federation. By trying to say that the people of NL want their cake and eat to. By referring to the promise of a loan guarantee for the constuction of the lower churchill as a loan. When in fact it wasn't a loan at all but a loan guarantee. That is 9 billion dollar error.

Besides isn't NL a part of this federation and a loan guarantee for an enviromentally friendy hydro electric generation project should be something this federation would be jumping at the opportunity to back?

Ah but the rub is that QUebec and Ontario don't want NL to develop this on their own, but like the upper churchill will do everything in their power to try and wrestle the benefits from such a project out of the hands of NL and into the hands of Quebec and Ontario. Just like was done with the Upper Churchill.

WJM said...

or is it still lost on the pile of papers on your desk.

Obviously not, since I was able to quote from it.

Could you provide the publication number or the URL on the Department of Finance site regarding this?

No, because it's not published, online or otherwise. It's from an ATIP return.

If you weren't an anonymous coward, I'd know who to email a copy to.

WJM said...

I do have one question for wjm though, which is if one agency of a province should be ignored because it's maps don't have the force of law, why should the regulations of another agency such as the Department of Finance be used as a law?

A regulation, unless it is beyond constitutional bounds or those of its governing statute, always has the force of law.

A map, unless it is incorporated by reference into a statute or other instrument, and subject to the rule above, does not.

WJM said...

By referring to the promise of a loan guarantee for the constuction of the lower churchill as a loan.

Sentences usually have verbs in them.

When in fact it wasn't a loan at all but a loan guarantee.

And it wasn't a "promise" of a loan guarantee, either, no matter what lies Danny Williams tells.

Anonymous said...

I see Otta-Wally is at it again. Shame on you WJM. I would have figured all your time working in political circles would have given you more insight into what's going on but once a federalist always a federalist I guess. Even at the expense of your own province.

By the way, I couldn't help noting somthing you said in an earlier comment on this site.

"...Does that mean Newfoundland separation without Labrador? That might be a good plan.

"As for resources, though... remember that last week the province noted that 98% of the province's mineral resources are in Labrador."

Again shame on you. You should know quite well that Newfoundland and Labrador are the same province and if one left the other would have no choice. I know you don't want to hear that but it's a simple truth.

The Clarity Act (the mechanizm that would allow for separation in Canada) in summary says (I've uppercased the key words so you can understand them):

Whereas the government of any PROVINCE of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum…;

Whereas …the result of a referendum on the secession of a PROVINCE from Canada must be free of ambiguity…;

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that, in Canada, the secession of a PROVINCE, to be lawful, would require an amendment to the Constitution…;

Whereas it is incumbent on the Government of Canada not to enter into negotiations that might lead to the secession of a PROVINCE from Canada, and that could consequently entail the termination of citizenship and other rights that Canadian citizens resident in the PROVINCE enjoy as full participants in Canada, unless the population of that PROVINCE has clearly expressed its democratic will that the PROVINCE secede from Canada;

I don’t know how much more clarity the federalist forces in Labrador need to convince them that if Newfoundland and Labrador were ever to vote in favor of Independence, Labrador would have to come along for the ride whether they liked it or not.

This would mean the reasources of the PROVINCE that you claim for your own so often would come with them. There is no provision for parts of a province to separate or opt out of separation. Bell Island can't choose its own direction, The Northern Peninsula, The Avalon can't and neither can Labrador.

Once the separation was completed it would then be up to Labrador to discuss the potential for their own separation from the newly re-formed Nation. If that were even allowed, how it might be managed would be something for the new federal government of Newfoundland and Labrador to determine, not the government of Canada.

Anonymous said...

I noticed that while WJM responded to one question posed on this thread he neglected to respond to another by the same person. Was this intentional Wallace?

Why don't you tell us all how putting 25% of the cost of a loan into esgrow just in case there is a default, actually costs the government of Canada? You are the one who claimed it would cost the government 25% of the loan so lets see you back that up since it would seem that putting it aside as a contingency means that if the loan is paid back it effectively means the cost to Ottawa is nothing and the funds are freed up for use elsewhere (likely to help Bombardier out).

So WJM, please answer that.

WJM said...

Again shame on you. You should know quite well that Newfoundland and Labrador are the same province and if one left the other would have no choice.

Why would the other — Labrador, in this case — have no choice?

I know you don't want to hear that but it's a simple truth.

How is it "truth"?

(I've uppercased the key words so you can understand them):

Before you uppercased them (thank you for your kind consideration), you should have read them. I've boldfaced the key words in this section, so you can understand them:

3. (2) No Minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.

I don’t know how much more clarity the federalist forces in Labrador need to convince them that if Newfoundland and Labrador were ever to vote in favor of Independence, Labrador would have to come along for the ride whether they liked it or not.

Did you read the Clarity Act? You are very, very, very clearly (ha! funny) wrong.

This would mean the reasources of the PROVINCE that you claim for your own so often would come with them.

If they are in the part of the province that secedes from Canada, sure.

There is no provision for parts of a province to separate or opt out of separation. Bell Island can't choose its own direction, The Northern Peninsula, The Avalon can't and neither can Labrador.

If Canada is divisible, so is Newfoundland and Labrador. Did you really read the Clarity Act?

Just so we're clear, here it is:

Clarity Act

Once the separation was completed it would then be up to Labrador to discuss the potential for their own separation from the newly re-formed Nation.

Labrador was never part of the old nation of Newfoundland. And the boundaries of the Newfoundland that secedes from Canada would be set as part of the secession. They are not necessarily the same boundaries as now. Did you read the Clarity Act?

If that were even allowed, how it might be managed would be something for the new federal government of Newfoundland and Labrador to determine, not the government of Canada.

Federal government? Newfoundland and Labrador would be a federation? What would be the constituent sub-national units of this federation?

WJM said...

So WJM, please answer that.

Where do you get "escrow" from?

The federal government has to tie up 25% of the cost of a loan guarantee, meaning the money can't be used for any other purpose, meaning the cost of a loan guarantee to HMR in Right of Canada is a non-zero amount.

Perhaps the provincial government, with its record of fiscal mismanagement, handles loan guarantees differently.

Starrigan said...

Wally must have a boner. He just sucked you into his little game. As always why do you even bother to respond to Wally, you know he's just going to keep on asking questions and doing his little bog the blog routine, paid for by our "tax dollars".
Again, let's ignore this traitorous snot. It just gets him excited when someone takes the bait. That of course leads to him getting sticky stuff on his screen and keyboard. Yuck, jolly wally goo!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

You bloody idiots ( in every sense of the word ). You will never be able to get past WJM. You are painfully, obviously too "stunned" Even your level of intellect ( or lack thereof ) should know that by now. Pitiful lot you are, especially you " Starrigan" My God, woman man, or it ( or all of the above ) just accept WJM is way past your level of understanding, and get on with your pitiful lives.

Anonymous said...

Also Starrigan, from your April 30th 8;52 p.m. post, you are speakink from experience, aren't you!!! Sounds like you need more than your computer to keep you happy. Poor troubled whatever you are!!!!

WJM said...

Again, let's ignore this traitorous snot.

Snot, and proud!

But who am I a traitor to?

Anonymous said...

You are nothing but a sneaking little federalist WJM. You know damn well that putting aside money for a guarantee is not an expense. The money is still there and once the obligation is over the money is again in the hands of Ottawa to do what they want with. You are just a lying bastard twisting the truth but I guess I shouldn't expect any better from an Ottawa puppet like yourself. They are used to lying and underhanded deals.

Anonymous said...

Out West all Atlantic Canadians, when reference is made to the people, are considered to be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I can't believe out there that they are so illiterate in their geography .

I have tried to correct this in several encounters.

Anonymous said...

You're all sheep.

Anonymous said...

How wonderful it is to be called a sheep! At least we aren't an OGRE like you Anon of May 01, 2007 8:48 PM.

I am wondering if you do realize how childish, stupid and heartless you come across with your one line slurs all throughout this blog. For months now we have had to endure your drible. You are Soooo elementary and soooo childish. Wow what a brain you have! Honestly, you sound like you have the brain of a one-celled animal. Maybe it is time you attended elementary classes.

WJM said...

You are nothing but a sneaking little federalist WJM.

Federalist, yes.

Sneaking, no.

You know damn well that putting aside money for a guarantee is not an expense.

Yes, it is.

The money is still there and once the obligation is over the money is again in the hands of Ottawa to do what they want with.

In which case it would be booked again, and, subject to accounting for interest, everything would even out.

Until then, it's an expense. It's not "free" for the general taxpayer of Canada.

They are used to lying and underhanded deals.

You mean like the lying of Danny Williams, the liar?