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.

Friday, May 25, 2007

My Visit to Canada

Hi folks,

I thought I'd take a minute to let you all know that I'll be away from the province for the next week or so visiting some of our neighbours in Canada. I hope to be back in early June and while there may not be any new commentaries published in the interim (though you never know) I hope you'll take some time to run back over our archives and enjoy those you may have missed the first time around.

Cheers and I'll be speaking with you again real soon.

Myles

234 comments:

1 – 200 of 234   Newer›   Newest»
WJM said...

Your visit to Canada?

Aren't you already in Canada?

Anonymous said...

WJM - Aren't you a native of the province of Labrador and Newfoundland? We wouldn't say so from your acidic posts! You certainly aren't helping matters in this province any! You are helping the everyone else, but the province of Labrador and Newfoundland.

Patriot said...

Not so I can tell

WJM said...

Aren't you a native of the province of Labrador and Newfoundland?

Yip.

We wouldn't say so from your acidic posts!

Why not? And who's "we"? How many of you did it take to type that?

You certainly aren't helping matters in this province any!

How not?

You are helping the everyone else, but the province of Labrador and Newfoundland.

Who am I helping?

WJM said...

Not so I can tell

Would you like a copy of my birth certificate?

Starrigan said...

Ottawally you are such an a$$hole.

Myles have a safe trip.

Already, looking forward to your return.

Anonymous said...

Birth certificate or not, you are doing absolutely nothing in furthering the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is of course if you were born in the province, as has been reported. I can't attest to that, of course, but I think it could be true.

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable! Some people will start an ruckus over virtually nothing at all it seems. Unfortunately there are those who will take the bait every time.

Have a safe trip Patriot.

Anonymous said...

Have a safe and enjoyable trip Mr Higgons .......time away from the internet is time well spent !!!!!Enjoy the heat !!!

Edward G. Hollett said...

"Birth certificate or not, you are doing absolutely nothing in furthering the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is of course if you were born in the province, as has been reported. I can't attest to that, of course, but I think it could be true."

It's difficult to know if this comment is aimed at Myles or WJM.

It certainly doesn't further the cause of anyone at anything to foster misrepresentnations and encourage people to believe things that aren't true.

Where one was born is irrelevant if what is being said is based on something that is not correct or true.

A combination of unfacts and the sort of petty remarks contained in this post seem to be about the sum of the whole enterprise.

WJM said...

Birth certificate or not, you are doing absolutely nothing in furthering the province of Newfoundland and Labrador

You mean, other than trying to further an appreciation for the truth, hard data, and the capacity for critical thought?

Anonymous said...

Which side? The data is plentiful on the side of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is quite plain to see the deficiencies in the province compared to the other provinces of Canada that seem have monies thrown at them from all directions, even though they cannot compare to the resources that have gone out of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to run some of those provinces. I know there are provinces that are making it on their own power, but some of them are feeding off the resources of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As far as Ottawa is concerned the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the Cinderella of Canada, let it suffer, take its resources put them someplace else and don't invest in it the things that Ottawa invests in the other places, such as Federal Regional Offices, Military bases, etc., etc.,

Also would Ottawa do to another province's agreement what it did to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's Atlantic Accord negotiated in 1985? You bet it wouldn't? Would it do something like that to Quebec or any of the other provinces? You can rest assured it wouldn't!

Ottawa sic'ed Scott Reid on the province three years ago. When the province of Newfoundland and Labrador got its payment for the Atlantic Accord signed in 1985, Scott Reid came forward and told the province that it would pay for the Atlantic Accord. Aren't we doing just that right now? It is awful the way the province of Newfoundland and Labrador gets treated under Ottawa's jurisdiction.

The province's Fish quota is under the direction of Ottawa and it delved out to whichever country Ottawa wants to have quotas. The 5800 megawatts of Upper Churchill Hydroelectric Energy has been going to Quebec for its distribution for 40 years now, with another 30 plus years on that deal. Its Minerals going to Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba and its Oil going to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to be refrined. With all of these injuries, nothing ever gets put back here.

How much more data and critical thought to do want put into the situation that exists in the province of Newfoundland and Lbrador WJM?

Ed Hollett said...

"Also would Ottawa do to another province's agreement what it did to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's Atlantic Accord negotiated in 1985?"

If by that you mean the changes currently in front of the House of Commons surely you know that the agreement contains a clause that says the deal can't be amended without both sides agreeing to the amendment.

Why hasn't the provincial government made ANY mention of this at all?

"Ottawa sic'ed Scott Reid on the province three years ago. When the province of Newfoundland and Labrador got its payment for the Atlantic Accord signed in 1985, Scott Reid came forward and told the province that it would pay for the Atlantic Accord."

This is utter nonsense on a couple of fronts.

First of all, it has long been established that the provincial government was receiving all along exactly what the 1985 agreement provided.

Second of all, Reid's comments referred to the approach Danny Williams was taking. Now if you actually look at the approach and what he was proposing initially - as opposed to what he settled for - the Premier was meeting in 2004 exactly the same criticism and the same resistance from other provinces. That was what Reid was referring to: the approach and the methods and what was being sought would generate consequences.

It was no threat; it was merely a prediction of what was happening. it turned out to be accurate.

"The province's Fish quota is under the direction of Ottawa and it delved out to whichever country Ottawa wants to have quotas. The 5800 megawatts of Upper Churchill Hydroelectric Energy has been going to Quebec for its distribution for 40 years now, with another 30 plus years on that deal. Its Minerals going to Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba and its Oil going to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to be refined. With all of these injuries, nothing ever gets put back here."

Once again we see the presentation of conclusions as facts even though the conclusions are simply not facts.

Canadian quotas (including quotas used by fishermen and fishing companies in this province are most emphatically NOT handed out to foreigners. The claim presented by this anonymous commentor is simply not true. It is nonsense.

Churchill Falls powers flows outside the province for a total of 65 years under a deal signed to agreed to and blessed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Minerals shipped out? Yes, in various states of processing and it has been done for decades under agreements signed by the provincial government. The whole business is totally under the provincial government's control.

In the case of Voisey's Bay, though, the ore will be smelted and refined before being shipped out. It would seem you conveniently forget that point.

It is sheer nonsense to say the province receives nothing from its resources and nothing is "put back. Consider the billions in revenues received, the thousands of jobs and so forth. This is no different than what occurs elsewhere.

"How much more data and critical thought to do want put into the situation that exists in the province of Newfoundland and Lbrador WJM?"

I can't speak for WJM but I would certainly like to see any critical thought and data presented. All you've done is repeat exactly the same untruths, unfacts and misrepresentations that everyone else does here.

I cannot understand for a moment why anyone would be as supercritical of a province you presume to defend. Your entire presentation seems to suggest that your fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are poor and stupid victims.

Indeed that is the basic message so many commenters here are sending.

How odd that when someone tries to disagree with that idea - i.e. that you are wrong to say we are stupid, poor, or victims - most of the anony-nonsense writers accuse people like me of working against Newfoundland and Labrador.

Frankly I think you all need to look hard in the mirror to see who it is that views Newfoundland and Labrador as the Cinderella, a character by the way from a children's fairy tale. It certainly isn't me.

Anonymous said...

Mr Hollett,

Its nice to see the Propaganda ,Lie's ,and Deception coming from a Liberial.
Let me play Devil's advocate here.You sound really sincere.Now act as you tell your fellow Newfoundlander's and Labradorian's to do and "PROVE" what you just said ,or shut the Fuck -up with your "Lie's and Deception."

"Ottawa sic'ed Scott Reid on the province three years ago. When the province of Newfoundland and Labrador got its payment for the Atlantic Accord signed in 1985, Scott Reid came forward and told the province that it would pay for the Atlantic Accord."

"This is utter nonsense on a couple of fronts."

I can simply prove you wrong here on this point ."Prove ME Wrong" that he didn't say that .

What a truely sick and deceptive society This country has become.What the Hell is Newfoundland and Labrador doing in bed with a bunch of Thiefs ,Liar's and Evil men .
The more I hear from people like this ,the more I fear our envolvement in this so called country .

Anyway ,enjoy your trip to canada Myles.And for the love of God watch out for all the sicko's. Canada is full of drug addicts ,murders,rapist's ,crimanal's and everyday low life.OH ,and don't sit on a public Toliet.Those are full of forgien disease's like AIDS,STD's and other un-pleasants disease's.

"Ya Know's How dat crowd is like up-along right."
They don't even believe in God now up that way.!!!

Anyway Patriot try to enjoy yourself.

Anonymous said...

Ed Hollett did you not once get a pay cheque from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador Government?

Who is paying you now?

It is quite plain to see what is happening and has happened to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's resources but you are trying to present it in a different light.

My God is it any wonder we cannot get ahead?

There are so many people working against us who once got a pay cheque from the government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is time for this to stop. Nowhere else in Canada would you find this sort of thing happening.

Anonymous said...

There is an old cliche that you can't fight City Hall, well you damn well can't fight Ottawa, that is if you are a Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

I wonder would they pay me to fight for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador against the inequities that exit with it and the other provinces. I doubt it!

Ed Hollett said...

"I can simply prove you wrong here on this point ."Prove ME Wrong" that he didn't say that ."

It's not a matter of what was said. it is a matter of what was meant.

If you can prove that the statement meant exactly, completely and totally that some sort of revenge would be wreaked them by all means do so.

What I have offered here comes as a result of a number things which I have written about previously on my own blog. I put the whole thing in context and I can point clearly to indications of how other provinces and other Premiers consistently and clearly opposed exactly what the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador originally intended to do - just as the Grimes administration had done.

I can also demonstrate in detail what the 1985 Accord contained and exactly why and how the terms were met in full. I can ultimately make that point because of the 2005 agreement and what it states.

can you do likewise? If you can, then by all means do it.

Ed Hollett said...

"It is quite plain to see what is happening and has happened to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's resources but you are trying to present it in a different light."

The only things that are quite plain are these:

1. You cannot provide a single shred of evidence to back up your claim in the quote.

2. You skulk behind the cloak of anonymity to make all sorts of claims and innuendo , likely - I suspect - because you cannot present any facts to back up whatever it is you believe.

3. There are no people "working against 'us'" unless you mean people who spread false information in order to delude people. I am not one of those people on either count.

Anonymous said...

Well Patriot ,

I said it befor ,and I will say it again.There was no sence talking to Wally ,and now Ed is taking his place .You are right when you wrote that you cannot talk to a federlist in this province .

Absolute lies,and propaganda coming from Mr Ed Hollett.This is absolute sickining Patriot ,having to let thease kind of people put this trash on the internet for the whole world to read the propaganda and lie's ,pure and simple,coming from Ottawa ,and the federal sopporters in the Province .

You really should have some sort of forum set-up ,to keep this kind of propaganda and half truths out of your blog.
It makes me physically sick to sit here and read the Outrageous lie's and half truths coming from the Federal supporter's on your Blog.

To think that this kind of behavoir can happen in a western society is truely sicking and repulsive .What in the name of God are people to think listening to this garbage .This is pre-world war two,when Hilter,would walk around spreading his hate literature.
The only way for Newfoundland and Labrador to get ahead is on it's own .I never supported or even thought that the nationalist's in the Province had a logical foot to stand on ,but now I see what they are fighting,and I can honestly say "I truely don't blame them one Bit"

"PLAIN AND SIMPLE,IT"S TIME TO LEAVE CANADA"

WJM said...

Which side? The data is plentiful on the side of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is quite plain to see the deficiencies in the province compared to the other provinces of Canada that seem have monies thrown at them from all directions

Oh?

You mean like the unbelievably cushie deal on federal highways spending that NL has gotten since the 1950s?

That kind of money-throwing?

And you say "compared to the other provinces".

Have you done this comparison?

Care to share the objective numbers? Thanks!

even though they cannot compare to the resources that have gone out of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to run some of those provinces.

Provinces don't run on resources.

You say "they cannot compare".

You've done the comparison?

Care to share the numbers? Thanks in advance.

I know there are provinces that are making it on their own power, but some of them are feeding off the resources of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Can you make a list of the two types of provinces, outlining which province belongs in which category?

such as Federal Regional Offices, Military bases, etc., etc.,

What is the content of your two "etc."s?

Also would Ottawa do to another province's agreement what it did to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's Atlantic Accord negotiated in 1985?

What's been done to it?

Ottawa sic'ed Scott Reid on the province three years ago. When the province of Newfoundland and Labrador got its payment for the Atlantic Accord signed in 1985, Scott Reid came forward and told the province that it would pay for the Atlantic Accord.

No, he didn't. Scott Reid said no such thing.

The province's Fish quota is under the direction of Ottawa and it delved out to whichever country Ottawa wants to have quotas.

Which countries?

The 5800 megawatts of Upper Churchill Hydroelectric Energy has been going to Quebec for its distribution for 40 years now

Why not? They bought it.

Its Minerals going to Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba and its Oil going to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to be refrined.

Open a refinery, then.

With all of these injuries, nothing ever gets put back here.

NL has a provincial government that is among the most dependent on federal-sourced revenues, and a provincial workforce that has among the highest federal civil service presences, of any of the 10 provinces.

How much more data and critical thought to do want put into the situation that exists in the province of Newfoundland and Lbrador WJM?

LOTS MORE.

WJM said...

It's not a matter of what was said. it is a matter of what was meant.

Actually, Ed, it IS also a matter of what was said.

Scott Reid never ONCE referred to the province or the people.

Danny Williams did.

And the People Who Can't Think For Themselves swallowed Lying Liar Danny Williams' lie, hook, line, and sinker.

Anonymous said...

babe in boyland says:

i'm having a bad day. my aunt is in hospital - thank you, healthcare system and providers, you are soooooo much better than you are advertised to be. you f**ks are fighting about totally meaningless bull$hit. you accuse ed of taking paychecks from the province in the past and wally of taking a paycheck from somebody else now. who the hell are you working for? does it matter? does your employers' agenda drive your agenda? yes? no? DOES IT MATTER?

after my recent healthcare system encounters, you all better hope to hell you come under medicare if you go into a hospital - and that means being part of the canadian system you all seem to hate so much. it's not so f**kin bad, you know, when there's a catheter in and a feeding tube up your nose.

my grandparents remember healthcare in newfoundland before we threw in our lot with canada. "last comes the doctor, the worst of them all, saying what was the matter with you all the fall?" when you had fish he would "give you your ease, but when the money's all gone you can die if you please". if you can't read history, economics or even folklore, listen to a bloody newfoundland song. it wasn't roses before confederation, and it won't be roses if we back out.

keep it in mind when your parents have their next doctor's appointment, or are you all so blinkin unconnected that you have noone you think about but yourselves??????????????

Ed Hollett said...

"To think that this kind of behavoir can happen in a western society is truely sicking and repulsive .What in the name of God are people to think listening to this garbage .This is pre-world war two,when Hilter,would walk around spreading his hate literature."

This is perhaps one of the most repugnant comments I have read here, bar none, and considering that it is coming from someone who will not even attempt to identify himself or herself only makes it all the more reprehensible.

There seems to be a consistent thread from this person which is simply to keep his or her mind firmly closed and not even think for one brief second that there might be some truth in what is being said by anyone else.

What are people to think? That they should think.

What are people to think? That this individual who made the last anonymous comment is not thinking, cannot think or is merely refusing to think.

Anonymous said...

When there is so much evidence of what has happened to Newfoundland and Labradors's resources, we have those people coming on this site and denying everything. It is shocking to me to see these posters in complete denial.

It is as plain as the nose on one's face what happened to the resources.

Are you suffering from amnesia? If you cannot remember what happended to the FISH, MINERALS, HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY and OIL you must have had all your senses disabled.

Starrigan said...

Crazy Eddy ... you are such an a$$hole. If you find the comments on this site repugnant then take a walk. I'm pretty sure that you weren't invited over here. That's why when you post something I call you an a$$hole because you are an a$$hole. If you don't like what you see here then get lost. Go back to your own site where no one posts any comments. Why because you are an a$$hole and the stuff you write on your site is too stupid for me to even go into. You are so lame that you have to come to this blog because there's activity. Yes I'll say that again, this blog has activity, your blog has none. Put 2 and 2 together a$$hole and you'll see that your blog is absolutely worthless. So we have to put up with your bull$hit here. It's really a shame. We all know that Ottawally is a totally useless a$$hole but we were surprised to see an a$$hole of your caliper showing up. This bring useless posts to the height of incredible a$$holeness. Tell us who's signing your paycheck. We all know Ottawall is being funded by our tax dollars, but what about you. There must be something that brings you here, besides the fact that there is absolutely no activity on your unimportant, irrelevant blog. So why the amount of time you spend here? I'm sure you must have some work to do, somewhere. But no, you seem to burn up a lot of time posting here. Who is paying for that time Crazy Eddy? I hope it's not the tax payers!!! At least Ottawally admits he works for the feds. How about you who's name is on the paycheck or do you and Ottawally and Simple Simon just have yourselves a little circle jerk to see who splatters the batter on the cheque and the closest wins.
I'm really not sure that a$$hole is a strong enough word.
I'll see what I can come up with. Any suggestions?

Anonymous said...

Starrigan: You are something else! ( and I mean that in every sense of the word) No wonder you are always talking about " tax payers " $$$s ! ( Just using your favourite symbol on the keyboard here!!!), you are a pi$$ a$$ little collector of $$$ from $ocial $ervice$$$$$, eh? You are an expert, no doubt, on the topic of "tax payers dollars. So many years would do that to you , no doubt.

Ed Hollett said...

"It is as plain as the nose on one's face what happened to the resources."

Then if it is, how many all of the people here who claim to know these things as a matter of fact can't offer any facts to support their beliefs?

It's pretty strange that when asked to explain something, all they offer is: the same unproven claim they made the first time. Then as in this case they express astonishment that no one believes these "true" things that are in fact "untrue".

Nonosbawsut said...

Ah, Starrigan the poor useless little bent fir tree, still speaking potty mouth; stop or your mommy will have to wash your mouth out with soap (remember how bad that tastes). This is the weirdest site on the web, great for comic relief on a grey Sunday AM. The spelling-impaired anon must be putting it on, or he/she is one sick puppy. The repetative chorus from the mines/hydro/people theft anon is positively Monty Pythonesque. Where is the CAPS-Rodney Dangerfield ("can't get no respect") anon; please alight. These three anons along with Starrigan constitute the best NL caricatures anywhere; please tell me that you are parodys.

Starrigan said...

Pretty funny stuff anonymous and nonosbawsut. I think that's a Beothuk word that means "you're an s$$hole". And anonymous, "you must be on social services", you are an enormous a$$hole. Is that the limit of your creativity, so sad. It's interesting that you would come to the aid of Ottawally and Crazy Eddy. Are both of you on the feds payroll too? I think you should all get together and have yourselves a big circle jerk. You could set a new Guinness World Record for the biggest a$$hole circle jerk ever. Give it some thought, I have confidence in you. Go for it.

And by the way, if you find this blog too much for your tender little ears. Then get lost, go hang out at the Bond Papers. I know that Crazy Eddy is just dying to have someone, anyone, post a comment there. What an a$$hole he is. Of course let's not forget Ottawally, he's a big a$$hole to. Bye for now a$$holes ( you know who you are ) lol

Anonymous said...

This is sickening to her someone bring in the health care system into this debate.
To even think that Newfoundland and Labrador wouldn't have health care if we left canada is too stupid to even bring into the debate.
But,to sit here and listen to the Lie's coming from those that support the moderate partys in the Province absolutly scares me half to death .And ,to deny that someone from your party had not threatened the Province,Mr Hollett is an absolute travisty .
Mr Higgons I must say ,your blog has turned into a den of "Liars and Thieves."Thease people need to find religion .Then I hope they can find the love in thier hearts to speak the truth .

And I 'am sorry to hear about your aunt my friend .I hope that she feels better soon.GoD Bless.

Glenn said...

This article is for all the economic experts who like to come on here pontificating about what Big Oil will have to do and how much they want our oil more than we need them. Good luck trying to get your "Stamps" this upcoming winter, as well as the drop in fed revenues for funding social programs. This does not even take into account the Kyoto/carbon/green tax that's coming. Oil and Gas companies are now leaving the western basin because it is not competitive enough. They are taking their money overseas where they can get a bigger bang for their buck. A lot of people out here are going to be hard done by, that includes many easterners who have migrated out here over the past 10 years.



Neil Waugh for the Edmonton Sun

The hammer came down on the oilpatch again.

Not the oilsands - which is still burning and turning despite a couple of fringe upgrader cancellations.

But the good old Western Sedimentary Basin, which has kept the Alberta economy humming - with the exception of the lost NEP decade - for 60 years.

Last week, the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors assessed the damage from the winter drilling season and the prolonged spring breakup - when rigs are traditionally racked and drillers go to the East Kootenays to play golf.

"The revision continues," sighed CAODC president Don Herring. "And deepens."

So Don had to retune his crystal ball. Back in October when the fleet was getting rigged up for the busy winter drilling season, Herring predicted a 15% cut in well spuds.

Now the news is worse - much worse.

"Following disappointing drilling results in the first quarter and activity levels below that expected in the second quarter," Herring has come up with a new number.

Overall drilling activity will take a worrying 27% drop over 2006 levels. And 6,000 fewer holes will be punched from the 22,298 drilled in 2006.

The fleet utilization will fall to 44%, which is the first year the rig count will drop below 50% since 2002.

And to prove that Herring wasn't just drinking from a half empty glass at Tuesday's weekly rig activity checkup, only 56 units of Alberta 728-strong rig fleet were making hole. In the entire Western Sedimentary Basin 788 out of 885 were down.

LESS WORK AVAILABLE

And when the rigs don't work, water haulers, lease-clearing companies, pipeliners, backhoe operators, battery and gas plant builders, camp cooks, motel chamber maids, waitresses and thousands of other Albertans don't work either.

Next to real estate sales, the weekly rig count is probably the most important indicator of the health of the economy, especially in rural Alberta.

A month earlier, Petroleum Services Association of Canada president Roger Soucy also noted a "slowdown" and cut his well count prediction by 18%.

Soucy blamed "commodity prices and a combination of weather, a lack of new small producer investment and overhanging environmental regulations.

"The operators lost confidence in the gas pricing early last summer," he shrugged, and have been cutting back on their exploration and development budgets ever since.

The bad news bearers have now shown up at Alberta Energy, where the petro-bureaucrats short weeks ago were crowing about the $2.4 billion the government raked in from land sales last year.

That included $1.32 billion in oilsands leases alone.

But there was already trouble brewing in the department's April activity report.

The number of well licences is down 25% for the year with a serious 54% crash in March alone.

There were only 148 well spuds in April, the lowest since 1991. Well completions in April were also off a hefty 34%, although oilwell completions - with companies obviously chasing the high crude prices - are up 19% this year.

But the stat that appears to be really shaking up the energy officials - and hopefully their Tory political masters - are the land sales, especially after Finance Minister Lyle Oberg banked $1.2 billion in 2007-08 lease sales in his spring budget.

DRASTIC REVENUE DROP

"Revenues are down drastically," the report gloomed. From $1.7 billion for the same four-month period in 2006 to just $532 million this year.

The downturn is already taking its toll with the drillers.

A week ago, Precision Drilling - the country's largest rig company - told its unit holders to expect a 30% cut in their June 15 income distribution.

Blame "low equipment levels and an increasingly competitive pricing environment."

And the activity downturn "became more entrenched" in the second quarter as gas well drilling dropped off drastically.

It was the same sorry story at Akita Drilling where the first-quarter management "discussion and analysis" warned of a utilization rate cut from 78% to 59% in Q1 from the same period last year.

Akita brass "anticipate" that the activity reduction will carry over to the second and third quarters because low gas prices "have resulted in a weaker demand for all depth ranges of drilling services."

Calfrac Well Services reported earlier this month low gas prices "had a significant impact on drilling activities within the Western Sedimentary Basin."

It told shareholders that "where necessary" the company had "reduced the number of operating and administrative staff."

Down the road, Trican Well Service also informed shareholders of a 21% decrease in activity "as our customers trimmed their exploration and development programs in the face of lower natural gas prices and reduced cash flows," which resulted in an 11% decrease in revenue in Q1 2007.

This is not a pretty oilpatch picture.

Anonymous said...

Patriot is an idiot and an instigator. He PURPOSEFULLY said he was "visiting Canada' just to get people riled up.

If "Canada" is so bad Myles, then why bother going there at all? Why not just stay in your own little shit-hole of a province and bask in it's glory???

Anonymous said...

Myles just couldn't wait to get out of Newfoundland (like the rest of us).

Anonymous said...

Mr " ed ",

Sir,I'm sick of your lies and your deception .Your remarks are totally false and destructive.By the admission from the Governement of Canada that you support.
Do not listen to the lie's and deception coming from this den of thieves and liars.Rather watch and prove to yourself how canada took and destroyed .

Mr Hollett ,you yourself said how Newfoundland and Labrador is too blame for destroying our fishery .Sit and watch.Then you decide who is the Liar folks.
The Human waste running rampent in the street ,when the govenment of canada says when don't need Term 29.Ask me again if we needed it.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-564-2890/politics_economy/nfld_confed/clip9

Mr Smallwoods defination of what happened.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-564-2885/politics_economy/nfld_confed/clip4


Then according to Mr Hollett ,we ,Newfoundlander's and Labradorians are to blame for the destruction of the Atlantic Cod fishery.Watch as Newfoundlander's and Labradorians shouted how Canada was destroying thier birth rigt ,and nothing was done .

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1595-10940/politics_economy/cod_economy/clip4

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1595-10944/politics_economy/cod_economy/clip7

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1595-10945/politics_economy/cod_economy/clip8

The propaganda and lie's coming from thease "LIARS ,and "Hypocrits" is too much for me to bear.The more you try to down play the GENOCIDE that canada is at fault for Mr Hollett the more you show your true colors.But,as a citizen of the world I ask you this .
As you watch thease clips and see what has transpired."Do you want this governement to watch out over us when it comes to Global Warming .
As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian ,First and Foremeost ,all I can say too this is one word .Scarey .Very ,Very ,Very Scarey.
Take out the Pistols Boys ,were going to have a game of rulete.

Ed Hollett said...

"It is as plain as the nose on one's face what happened to the resources."

Then if it is, how many all of the people here who claim to know these things as a matter of fact can't offer any facts to support their beliefs?

It's pretty strange that when asked to explain something, all they offer is: the same unproven claim they made the first time. Then as in this case they express astonishment that no one believes these "true" things that are in fact "untrue".

May 27, 2007 9:57 AM

The lies been spoken by "Mr Gomery".Your liberial aganda doesn't work here Mr Hollett.The only one not explaining this stuff would fall into your Lap ,Sir.

Ed Hollett said...

To the anonymous person who wrote this line, I have a couple of observations: "Sir,I'm sick of your lies and your deception."

That way there'll be no mistaking who said what.

First of all, if you want to accuse me of being deceitful and of telling lies then have the courage to identify yourself fully and completely. Do everyone here the courtesy of identifying yourself as I have done.

No more cowardice and excuses. Show your face.

Second of all, if you are going to accuse someone of telling lies and be deceitful try to show how that is so. You haven't provided one signle shred of evidence.

Not a think.

Again maybe that explains the coward's cloak of anonymity as much as anything else.

Third of all, if you are going to attribute comments to me at least get it right. It's a favourite tactic of some people to try and put words in other people mouths, but it simply won't work.

Fourth of all, on the fishery I have been very clear in my comments here and elsewhere.

Cod were not destroyed by some evil thing called "Canada" as you apparently believe. That statement simply isn't true.

Likewise it is not true that some evil thing called "Canada" or "Ottawa" traded away all the fish in the ocean.

Simply put: that is nonsense.

The cod were overfished by foreigners and by Canadian (Newfoundland and Labrador) fishermen and fish companies, consistently over a very long period of time.

No one is without blame.

No one.

Fifth of all, your question on global warming seems to be based on the idea I support Stephen Harper. I don't. That should make it pretty obvious I am not to thrilled with his plans on global warming.

So after all, that, what exactly have you done? Likely nothing more than proving that all you can do is hrul insults without any proof of anything at all.

That's scary.

Anonymous said...

It is has I have been saying for a long time on this blog, the oil patch is in a serious downturn.

And it is not because there is too much oil, IT IS BECAUSE THE WORLD ECONOMY IS GOING TO SLEEP FOR A WHILE. EVERYTHING DOESN'T GO ON FOREVER. IT IS A BOOM AND BUST CYCLE. THINGS WILL PICK UP AGAIN WHEN THE TIME IS RIPE. BUT AT THE MOMENT EVERYTHING IS OVERPRICED AND THE MARKET HAS TO TAKE AN OVERDUE CORRECTION.

PREMIER DANNY WILLIAMS WILL PROBABLY HAVE TIME TO NEGOTIATE IN THE DOWNTURN. AGAIN I WILL REITERATE IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF TOO MUCH OIL, OIL IS STILL IN GREAT DEAMAND, BUT NOT THE HIGHLY-POLLUTANT TYPE THAT IS IN WESTERN CANADA.

-----------------------------------

Last Friday Peace Air of Alberta closed up shop citing a downturn in the Oil Patch.

THE ARTICLE BELOW WAS QUOTED ON CBC NEWS;

QUOTE

The Canadian Press
A small airline that has served the northern reaches of Alberta for four decades says it's going out of business.

Albert Cooper co-owned Peace Air with his wife, Wendy, and says last-minute negotiations on Friday failed to keep the business alive.

The airline ceased operations Friday night. Staff have been laid off and the remaining planes are being sold.

"All I can say is just how unhappy and sad we are, as is our entire team. We wanted to thank all those people who have supported us," Cooper told Peace River radio station CKYL.

"We're just very disappointed that we can't continue the service."

Cooper said a slow winter, a downturn in the oil patch and high fuel and maintenance costs are to blame.


UNQUOTE

Glenn said...

Peace Air closed down mainly because Edmonton city airport would not let it land there after it changed its passenger flight quotas. This meant the airline had to pay higher landing fees at Edmonton International which came at an in-opportune time as the patch was slowing down already. I have met Albert Cooper, formerly an MP in Brian Mulrooney's govt., and I am good friends with his brother. The other reasons you've stated are a part of it but the decision by the City of Edmonton was the death knell for Peace Air. As the article stated it has been around for 40 years so it has been through the boom/bust cycles before.

You are still misinforming people about the economy, which you have been saying since last November, which you state is in decline. Any slack in the North American economy is easily tightened by markets in China, India and Pakistan. The old model of the economy being tied directly to the US is outdated with the advancements and growth in overseas Southeast Asian markets. The price of oil is still hovering at around $65 dollars per barrel. The problem with the patch in Western Canada is the cost of vendors or service companies. They are too high. So those companies that were investing here are now going overseas. The economy isn't in a downturn, its just that it has gotten too expensive to operate here since everybody and their dog wants more of the oil pie. Add the Kyoto/Green/Carbon tax, changes to the income trust structure and this uncertainty is driving away investors, much the same as what has happened in NL because of policy generated at the premier's office.

Your other fallacy is stating that the premier will negotiate a deal in the downturn cycle and that somehow it will be richer to the province when the it could have signed it during the upturn cycle. What kind of neo-marxist economic think tanks have you been attending?

What is highly pollutant type oil and what does that have to do with anything? The main variable in whether a project gets off the ground is the price of the commodity minus the lifting costs of that commodity. Likewise, Hebron was once non-economical to extract but last April it was considered economical mostly due to technological advances and increases in the price per barrel of oil. If you are referring to the Tar-Sands than please explain why there's $115 Billion worth of projects on the books over the next 10 years for that area and ZIPPO for NL's non-pollutant oil?

If you consider CO2 a pollutant than just say so and I will just remember to scroll by your ill-informed posts henceforth.

I don't agree with most of Ed's assessments, but he is bang on when he talks of offering a competitive environment to attract Big Oil and other investors. Apparently to many socialists and NL nationalist, profit is a dirty word.

Anonymous said...

I am basing my report on what is being said in Western Canada News Media that Peace Air cited among a couple of other reasons a downturn in the Oil Patch.

I quoted the article from CBC News in my last post.

And believe me the World Economy is in a downturn. The Housing Market in the United States is about to collapse. If it does completely, as some suspect, one analyst said that we will be handed our heads in our hands. The financial institutions have so much money tied up in that sector.

Some analysts predict it could be worst than the 1930s collapse.

I don't want to be a pessimist but that is how things are being reported in some areas.

You would have to be a person with a very inept mind to think things are going to go up and up forever without a corrtection. Nothing does. The economy cannot support it. Everything comes in boom and bust cycles.

Who would be able to buy houses, cars, furniture, tools, etc., etc., and even a gallon of oil if everything went up and up. The only people who would be able to afford anything would be the 4 per cent who hold 96 per cent of the wealth of the world.

nonosbawsut said...

Ah Starrigan, the poor little useless (dare I say retarded) fir tree, your last post finally exposes your anal fixation not to be some bad little boy potty mouth, but more about you own personal lifestyle persuasion. As to the spelling-impaired anon, who claims to be in excile (sic), it must be "Exile on Looney Bin Street". To help with yer spellin', try composing (probably better described as vomiting) your prose on Word and then cut and paste it into the blog. Now don't get carried away, I don't mean using scissors and glue because that could get quite messy on the public access computer you use and your keepers in the home may not like that.

PS Firry I don't work for Feds.

Anonymous said...

Ah, Starrigan, You are so anal,( literally!!) No wonder you are so fixated on one certain part of the human anatomy!!! Also your concern re. taxpayers dollars, as you like to call it. You know all about that as well eh, sponger!!! Nice try attempting to deflect your shortcomings at others!! Most readers of this blog know who you are, Starrigan. ( Actually, Starrigan is a rather nice name. Too bad you have tarnished it.

Anonymous said...

ussr_soviet2001@yahoo.com

ed ,
If you want to talk to me buddy ,no problem .I'll even give you a phone number to tell you what sent me to this place .Right now ,we are using this site as an excample at school.
We have a freind from another site that comes here alot.I guess he's from the province ,in canada that your from.
Anyway,if you would like to find out what is really going on with your site ,cmon over.Look forward to hearing from you all.So is it god bless canada or is that the wrong thing to say hear.You Canadain's get really touchy over your politics.I guess its a french thing.

Starrigan said...

Excellent a double shot of a$$holes. Anonymous and nomobuttwad. Pretty impressive. Most readers of this blog know who I am??? Does that mean something a$$hole???

Sponger, you mentioned earlier that NL's were a bunch of social service receiving losers. Where did you come up with that? A$$hole.

Oh and before I forget Crazy Eddy and Ottwally are big a$$holes too.

Once again you two make it seem like you're above this blog, but yet you keep coming back? Lot's of room on Crazy Eddies blog, why don't you mosey on over there and make Crazy Eddy happy. Give some purpose to his, and your, pathetic lives. Go on new git. See ya. Don't let the door hit you a$$ on the way out. Ta ta. Hit the road. Vamoose. Cherrio.

We are trying to make this an a$$hole free blog, sooooooooo..... beat it. LOL

You never fail to bring your a$$hole abilities to a new level. I applaud you. Now get on over to Crazy Eddies for you circle jerk. Atta boy. When you get a chance look in your mirror, see, that's what an a$$hole looks like.

WJM said...

We are trying to make this an a$$hole free blog, sooooooooo..... beat it. LOL

Why don't you set a positive example?

Anonymous said...

Glenn: Please read the article below. There are so many factors that will influence the slowdown in the world economy. If the United States economy slows down so will the rest of the world's, simply because of the tie-in to the American Greenback. It is the dollar by which most every other currency is judged since the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. And oil is priced in American dollars.



6 February 2007
Economic and Social Council
ECOSOC/6256

WORLD ECONOMY EXPECTED TO DECELERATE IN 2007, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL TOLD


Council Hears Presentation on Recent United Nations Report; Decides to Meet

With Bretton Woods Institutions on 16 April; Elects Members of Subsidiary Bodies



After three years of broad-based, upward growth, the world economy was expected to decelerate in 2007 as a result of a slowdown of the United States economy, said José Antonio Ocampo, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, in a briefing to the Economic and Social Council at the third meeting of that body’s 2007 organizational session today.



The Council had met to discuss preparations for its annual substantive meeting in Geneva in July, but also heard a presentation by Mr. Ocampo on the recently-published World Economic Situation and Prospects 2007, which was jointly produced by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and five United Nations regional commissions.



According to that report, Mr. Ocampo said world economic growth would decrease from 3.8 per cent in 2006 to 3.2 per cent in 2007. Similar slowdowns in Japan and Western European nations meant that those countries were not expected to replace the United States as the main driver of world economic growth.



An upside to the situation, Mr. Ocampo said, was that least developed countries had grown at an average rate of 7 per cent per year in recent years -– faster than most industrialized countries -- and their growth was predicted to remain strong in 2007. That development spelled “good news” for reducing world inequalities and presented a marked contrast to preceding decades, which had seen industrialized countries grow faster than those in the developing world.



An interactive discussion took place following the presentation by the Under-Secretary-General, who was accompanied by Rob Vos, Director of the Development Policy and Analysis Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. During the exchange, members suggested that more attention be paid in future reports to measuring the impact of growth on citizens of developing countries and analyzing the sustainability of that growth.



While taking up a slate of organizational issues earlier in the day, the Council adopted a draft decision naming 16 April as the date of its special high-level meeting with the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organization and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, to be held in New York. The Council also adopted a decision on the operational activities segment of its 2007 substantive session, deciding to devote that segment to the triennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development. [Both proposals were contained in document E/2007/L.1. The Council agreed to turn to the other draft proposals found in document E/2007/L.1 at a later date.]



Carlos Ruiz Massieu of Mexico, facilitator of the informal consultations on the 2007 high-level segment told the Council that an agreement had yet to be reached on themes for the 2007 substantive session, but that the Council would be informed of any progress.



Also, by adopting a draft resolution on the venue and dates of the sixty-third session of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (document E/2007/L.2), the Council agreed to hold that meeting in Almaty, Kazakhstan from 17 to 23 May. The Secretary of the Council explained, prior to the adoption of that resolution, that the cost of the session would be defrayed by the Government of Kazakhstan, resulting in no additional costs to the Organization.



In thanking the Council, the representative of Kazakhstan said the session’s high-level panel meeting would consider the Asian and Pacific region’s road map for the achievement of their internationally agreed development goals, while a ministerial round table would centre on the theme “Development of health system in the context of enhancing economic growth towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals in Asia and the Pacific”.



In other business, the Council elected Sri Lanka, by acclamation, to the Commission on Population and Development for the term from the forty-first session in 2007 through the forty-fourth session in 2011, but postponed the election of one member from the Western European and Other States for the same period.



Turkey was elected, also by acclamation, to the Commission for Social Development for the term from the forty-sixth session in 2007 through the forty-ninth session in 2011, while the election of one member from the Eastern European States for the same period was postponed.



The Council also elected Brazil, by acclamation, to the Intergovernmental Working Group of Experts on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting for the term effective immediately through 31 December 2009. The Council postponed the election of three members from the Asian States; two members from the Latin American and Caribbean States; and two members from the Western European and Other States for the same term.



It elected by acclamation Egypt and Zimbabwe to the Executive Board of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) for the term effective immediately through 31 December 2009 and postponed the election of two members from the Eastern European States for the same period.



Further, the Council elected by acclamation Argentina to the Governing Council of UN-Habitat for the term effective immediately through 31 December 2010 and postponed the election of two members from the Latin American and Caribbean States for the same period. The President reminded the Council of an existing vacancy on the Governing Council for a member from the Asian States for the period effective immediately through 31 December 2008. There were no candidates for the post to date.



The Council then elected by acclamation Luxembourg to the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission to replace Belgium for the term effective immediately through 22 June 2008.



Vice President Leo Merores of Haiti, who presided in place of Council President Dalius Cekuolis of Lithuania, said the Council should hold elections for candidates for the 10 new seats on the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Since the Secretariat had received only five endorsements to date, he reminded regional groups that had not yet done so to submit candidates as soon as possible for the remaining seats so that the Council could elect candidates for those seats during its next meeting.



The Economic and Social Council will meet again at a date to be announced.



Briefing by Under-Secretary-General



JOSÉ ANTONIO OCAMPO, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, said that, after three years of rapid economic growth, the world should expect a slowdown in 2007 from a growth rate of 3.8 to 3.2 per cent, based on the United Nations measurement of world gross product. The world economic slowdown was driven by a weakening United States economy, whose annual growth rate had fallen from 3.4 per cent to an estimated 3.2 per cent. A similar slowdown was expected in Japan and Western Europe, which meant that no country could take the place of the United States as the world’s economic driver.



However, he said that least developed countries could expect rapid growth, averaging nearly 7 per cent per year -- faster than most industrial countries. Such a development was “good news” for reducing world inequalities and presented a marked contrast to preceding decades, where industrialized countries had grown faster than those in the developing world.



Meanwhile, transition economies had benefited from a high demand for oil, gas and metals in 2006, in particular the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), he said. Rising export revenues in those countries, in turn, had spilled over into strong domestic demand, while an increase in private capital flows to the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan, along with official assistance and remittances for citizens of smaller CIS economies, acted as an important source of funding for domestic spending. But growth in that region was expected to slow down later in the year.



He said the rapid growth of China and India, coupled with their linkages to other developing countries through South-South trade and foreign direct investment, made them the alternative engines of growth for developing countries, including commodity-exporting countries in Africa and Latin America. Specifically, the nations of sub-Saharan Africa enjoyed four consecutive and “historic” years of growth.



However, he continued, developing countries continued to remain vulnerable to economic slowdown as a result of turmoil in commodities and financial markets, as shown in May and June 2006. Nevertheless, developing countries had done well in recent years because of high commodities prices and good financial conditions, in sharp contrast to the last two decades. High oil prices were a favourable factor to developing countries, although some did suffer. A strong market for agricultural goods and metals were other reasons for their growth.



In terms of international financial conditions, he said 2006 had seen the lowest risk premium level ever seen by the developing world, even when compared to the last historical low prior to the East Asian financial crisis. Because of that, the availability of private financing to the developing world had been exceptionally good. Despite such favourable circumstances, however, developing countries continued to be a source of financing for industrialized countries, belying the fact that “capital should flow downhill”. There was a net outward transfer of $658 billion by developing countries and $125 billion by economies in transition.



In addition, weak reserves meant the developing world was not insulated from major shock, he said. Furthermore, the threat of a severe downturn in the United States housing market -- weakening that country’s economy, and thus the global economy -- continued to pose great risks. The United States deficit of $870 billion meant that the country’s indebtedness had deepened, thus undermining the sustainability of the current global balancing act and calling for an urgent “global rebalancing”.



Indeed, the macroeconomic policies of major economies were not adequate for reducing global imbalances, he said. Consultative mechanisms were needed to produce a more coordinate macroeconomic policy; while the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had begun its programme of “multilateral surveillance”, it needed strengthening. The world also needed to think seriously about a multi-currency reserve system that was less reliant on the American dollar. The Economic and Social Council would do well to raise the subject at its dialogue with the Bretton Woods institutions in the spring.



Interactive Dialogue



During the ensuing question-and-answer period, the representative of Paraguay said the differing stages of development of developing countries must be acknowledged. Landlocked countries and countries with less access to energy sources had greater developmental problems. Latin America was lagging behind other regions in development despite its abundant energy resources and agricultural products.



In response, Mr. OCAMPO said the report highlighted the problems facing several energy-importing countries. It was evident in Latin America that Paraguay and other countries had deteriorating trade balances due to energy prices. That was not the case in Chile due to the bullish behaviour of copper, a major Chilean export. The contrast between energy-exporting and energy-importing countries was clearly evident in figures on Latin America. In the last 10 years, South America had performed better than Central America. The reverse was true now. Mexico and Brazil had performed more poorly than the rest of the region. Last year’s World and Economic Social Survey revealed that countries exporting manufacturing products performed better in the long term than countries exporting commodities.



The representative of Benin said this year’s report had taken into account the global economic impact on the least developing countries and had noted sustained but even growth in those countries. How could one analyze those countries’ challenges to achieving sustainable economic growth? Could there be a model for economic growth not pegged to the United States currency?



In response, ROBERT VOS, Director of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Development Policy and Analysis Division, said the report showed that great reliance on the United States dollar created greater risk for global economic imbalances. A further decline of the United States dollar could affect major countries holding official reserves in dollars. The goal was to move to a global economic system pegged to a multilaterally backed currency.



The representative of Ethiopia asked about implementation of the millennium targets in Africa and the role of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in that process, while the representative of the Netherlands asked about the effect of macroeconomic policy changes on growth in the African region. To what extent could pro-poor policies stimulate economic development in African countries?



Mr. VOS responded that NEPAD’s growth rate was still below target. African economies must become less reliant on commodity exports and must diversify in order to decrease their reliance on global economic fluctuations. They needed sustained growth, higher growth rates and greater investment in infrastructure and education. In a couple of months, the Economic Commission for Africa would release a report on how to diversify export products and strengthen growth.



As to the question from the representative of Costa Rica about priority public policy areas to reduce domestic and regional inequalities, Mr. OCAMPO said growth had been almost 6.8 per cent last year in the Caribbean, including in the Dominican Republic and Cuba. The region was made up mostly of service exporting countries. The struggle against inequality required greater public social spending.



The representative of Kenya asked about efforts to resume the Doha Round of trade talks and whether multilateral policy on debt and aid would take into account the collapse of Doha. How could the developing countries receive equal development support in return for the resources transferred to developed countries? What were better indicators to reflect the realistic situation faced by poor people who were getting power despite global economic expansion?



In response, Mr. OCAMPO said opportunities for negotiations were narrow (three months), given the difficulties of pending issues. Nevertheless, there were no indications that world trade had weakened in the meantime. Regarding resource transfer, he said a multicurrency reserve system rather than a system pegged to the United States dollar would be more stable, even for the United States. But it would mean, in turn, that developing countries were not likely to have a world currency in the foreseeable future. They were thus forced to accumulate international reserves, which then became transfers to the industrialized countries. France had pushed for special drawing rights of the IMF, which were the only truly global reserve currency. The only way to eliminate dissymmetry and manage the situation was through an institution like the IMF.



The representative of Mauritania asked to what extent economic growth had impacted people’s access to basic services. Unemployment of young people in West Africa showed that joblessness was on the rise.



Mr. VOS said it was difficult to predict what would happen regarding the World Trade Organization negotiations, but consultations on Aid for Trade were continuing despite the stalemate, thereby helping developing countries strengthen their capacity for trade. Unemployment was indeed a concern; the report focused on the short-term economic outlook, though its authors would have liked it to incorporate such issues.



The representative of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) stressed the need for freedom in the use of fiscal instruments, noting that fiscal caps had been imposed in many countries advised by the IMF and the World Bank.



Mr. VOS said that it was important that economies were able to avoid pro-cyclical adjustments and to survive the different cycles such as price drops in oil. He stressed the need to create stable resources and to stabilize long-term expenditures.



In closing remarks, the Council President expressed hope that by week’s end the Council would finalize the theme of the 2007 high-level segment and the programme of the 2007 substantive session.



* *** *


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For information media • not an official record

Anonymous said...

Wallace J McLean's WJM email can be contacted by email at.

ag737@ncf.ca

Starrigan said...

OPEC is now pricing oil in Euros.

The Euro has more currency in circulation than the US dollar.

China will surpass the US as the worlds strongest economy in the next 2 years.

You are seeing the start of the decline of US world influence.

Why would anyone want Wally's address? I thought is was a$$hole@hotmail.com

Anonymous said...

I am not sure whether any of the Oil Producing OPEC Nations have started to price Oil in Euros or not but it has been mulled over.

Is the following statement Fact or Theory?
----------------------------------

It is said that the reason why the
US went into Iraq and are currently threatening Iran is oil. Iraq was seeking to begin major oil production and have their oil priced in Euros instead of Dollars. This would be a HUGE non-confidence vote in the American Dollar which is pretty much based on international credit rather than a gold standard. So in acting on this, Iraq was attacked, Saddam removed, and a friendly government put in, that when the oil was eventually returned to a production level, it would be priced in Dollars. With Iran now, it appears that they are trying to get a nuclear program under way so as to free up more oil for export purposes and they would seek to do the same move of pricing in Euros and to protect the US market, the US is trying to prevent Iran from getting this nuclear power program running. This forces Iran to consume their own oil for power and reduces how much oil they can put out on the market.

Anonymous said...

A suggestion to make this an a$$hole- free blog--- Get rid of Starrigan first( the biggest a$$hole)This person has absolutely nothing constructive to offer, as shown by his posts. This Starrigan has some disturbing issues, well revealed by the content of his writings.

Ed Hollett said...

starrigan wrote: "OPEC is now pricing oil in Euros.'

Since when?

On OPEC's website (www.opec.org), price per barrel is quoted in dollars.

Here's a direct quote: "The price of OPEC basket of eleven crudes stood at 66.74 dollars a barrel on Thursday 24/5/07, compared with 66.18 dollars the previous day, according to OPEC Secretariat calculations."

Perhaps what you are picking up or getting confused by comes from the fact that OPEC's offices are located in Austria. As such it's various administrative reports gives figures in Euros. That's the currency used in the country where OPEc has its offices.

OPEC establishes production targets in barrels of oil. Oil prices per barrel are set based on commodity trading. The price paid will reflect the market in which the commodity is traded. usually, price is quoted in American dollars.

If you've got some different information, then please provide it but from OPEC's own website there's no sign of a formal change to quoting oil in Euros versus US dollars nor is there a sign that OPEC now sets targets for price per barrel as opposed to production quotas.

Anonymous said...

World economy
Published: October 6, 2005 - The Financial Times

The world economy is growing quickly but is rapidly becoming more imbalanced. Foreigners are building up stocks of US assets, keeping US interest rates low and supporting the US dollar, but their willingness to continue financing US consumers’ taste for imported goods at low interest rates cannot last forever. Economists and policymakers know the greatest challenge for the world economy is to reduce these financial imbalances without killing the prospects for continued healthy world economic growth.


Article List

Article 1 : Bright spots can’t hide a precarious balancing act
Article 2 : Global institutions: Sleepwalking into financial crisis
Article 3 : US economy: Greenspan successor faces hard decisions
Article 4 : Central banks: Asian reserves show global imbalances
Article 5 : European economy: Achieving growth but at a slow rate
Article 6 : Japanese economy: Slow, steady recovery from recession
Article 7 : Poverty: Have pious words left the poor in a spin?
Article 8 : Emerging markets: Investors eye growth with great interest
Article 9 : Trade: Multilateral negotiating faces its nemesis
Article 10 : The oil price: Policymakers hope their luck will hold
Article 11 : Oil wealth: Increase in wealth may help tackle problems
Article 12 : Greenspan’s conundrum: A riddle in a mystery in an enigma
Article 13 : Housing: Strong market may well be built on sand
Article 14 : China: Debate rages on nation’s place in the world









Register online to recieve
up to date information




I am not a US resident

Anonymous said...

U.N.: Global economy needs bloost
By Frank Jordans, Associated Press Writer | September 1, 2006

GENEVA --Japan and Germany are failing to stimulate the world economy, leaving the United States with the difficult burden of generating enough demand for goods and services to sustain growth around the world, a U.N. report said Thursday.

But Washington's steep trade deficit means that a downturn in the U.S. economy would cause "serious repercussions" for rich and poor countries dependent upon the engine of American economic growth, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development warned in its flagship report.

"It's a big credit to the U.S. economy that it has been providing the growth impetus while some parts of the world have not been participating, like Europe," said Supachai Panitchpakdi, the former World Trade Organization chief now heading the U.N. agency.

Supachai said, however, the time has come to issue a "warning signal" because Americans cannot continue buying so many foreign goods forever.

According to the U.N. body, the U.S. had a current account deficit of 6 percent of GDP last year.

"There needs to be a reduction in the trade deficit of the United States, that's for sure," Supachai said, adding that Japan and Germany, as two of the world's biggest economic powers, need to help shoulder the load.

He said poorer countries, who have made important gains in the last few years thanks to high export growth, will suffer if demand in other countries doesn't rise.

Holger Flassbeck, a senior official at the agency, said another country would need to take over the role as "the global engine of growth" in the next two years as Americans reach their spending limits.

The United States' largest trade deficit is with China, which enjoyed an overall surplus that surged to $160 billion -- or 7 percent of its GDP -- in 2005.

Japan and Germany, meanwhile, had surpluses of about 4 percent of GDP, a combined $355.2 billion according to the report.

But the report said China's rapid growth has benefited raw material exporters in Africa and Latin America, while the healthy trade surpluses for Japan and Germany, two of the world's most developed countries, have not contributed to export growth in poorer countries.

Robert Wade, a professor at the London School of Economics, agreed with the 237-page report's analysis. He said China has been unfairly singled out as the only culprit.

"It is Germany and Japan that are building up (trade) surpluses, and therefore they have a responsibility," he told The Associated Press.

A spokesman for the German Economics Ministry rejected the suggestion that Germany doesn't do enough to stimulate world trade, noting that the German economy grew 0.9 percent in the second quarter compared to the quarter before, its fastest pace in more than five years. The official spoke on customary condition of anonymity.

The U.N. report recommends that global trade rules should be changed to allow countries more leeway for promoting innovative sectors of their economy through selective tariffs and targeted subsidies.

"It is a strategic approach for trade integration," Supachai said.

The report argues that existing trade rules ignore the reality that poor countries don't have the same flexibility to promote their economies as rich countries because they lack the necessary infrastructure.

It recommends that poorer countries be allowed to increase certain import taxes as long as they remain under an average tariff rate for all goods.

This position puts the U.N. body at odds with the World Trade Organization, where countries have negotiated industry-specific tariffs as part of the Doha round of free trade talks, which collapsed in July.

But the differences between the U.N. and the WTO are less pronounced than in the past, say experts, because both sides agree that countries need to liberalize their industries in order to develop.

WJM said...

PS - dear Anonymous May 28, 2007 10:04 AM...

(1) The number of people who use that mailias is very, very, very, small.

(2) Keep those emails coming! Thank you, all those brave, anonymous people, who have identified themselves by sending snotty and ignorant emails. Anonymous May 28, 2007 10:04 AM, your plan worked perfectly! I have received hundreds of emails.

An even multiple of 100, in fact.

It's also an even multiple of 3.

Indeed, an even multiple of any prime.

Starrigan said...

You're right Ed, Opec has been talking about using the Euro, but haven't made the move yet. I thought they would have done it by now.

NL-ExPatriate said...

The fighting Newfoundland labradorian is finally starting to wake up.

Check out all of the people who have signed their name in the different FaceBook groups all with a common thread that NL will never get ahead as apart of canadaas it currently exists.

Newfoundland and Labrador Defense League

UNITED WE STAND FOR NEWFOUNDLAND

Harper Betrayed Newfoundland

Friends of The Republic of Newfoundland Labrador

BRING NEWFOUNDLANDERS BACK TO THE ROCK!

I support a Bloc Newfoundland Party

Newfoundland Liberation Army

Free Newfoundland!

Free Newfoundland -- Make Newfoundland its own Country!!

The Republic of Newfoundland

Republic Of Newfoundland

Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador

FaceBook is the ultimate in networking tools and a must for all expatriate and Patriotic NL'ians.

United; We stand where once they stood, Divided we will fall like domino's!

Glenn said...

Hey NL-Expat,

will you move to NL if NL separates from Canada or will you still have to wait for your wife to get a job in her profession as Human Resources?

I don't mean to ask the question in a snotty way, just that I read you over at MMZC forums commenting on this and found it odd that you would devote so much time and effort data-mining for a project and that you seem to have no intent on living in NL unless your wife could find a job in her profession.

Do oil and gas companies have a Human Resources Dept. and wouldn't the increase in oil & gas activity in NL been of a beneficial nature to you and your family with regards to you being able to live in NL and your wife being able to work in her profession?

Once again Greg I respect the amount of time and effort you have put into your cause but I find myself questioning your motives for NL to be independent when you don't seem to have that much interest in living here.

Respectfully,
Glenn

WJM said...

I wonder if any of those Facebook politicians will run on a separatist platform, and, if they do, whether they will do better than SKD did eight years ago?

Ed Hollett said...

So if I am reading ex-pat correctly, the Progressive Conservative Party of NL is now a separatist party?

Anonymous said...

Seriously - leave Canada.

Make Danny Williams and Gerry Reid each solemnly promise to have a referendum following the next election. Together we can do it.

If you're not jiust a bunch of anonymous whiny trolls sucking on the teet of Ottawa and bitching about it all day, then put yor money where your mouth is and get our politicians to call a referendum. A simple question, yes or no. Let's get out. Danny can lead us to victory.

Facebook groups and blogs are for sissies. Get a petition calling on Danny to force a referendum in three years. Make it real. Make it the law. Ryan Cleary will help at the independant. He's been saying this for years.

If you don't have the guts to have a referendum the way the Quebeckers do, then you're just wasting all of your time, acting like a bunch of whiners. Either you believe in this or you don't. Time to shit or get off the pot.

At least a$$hole and Ottawally work at what they believe in. THe rest of yo are just whiners. Let's get this started. Let's stop fooling around. No more pathetic rallies organized by political opportunists.

Let's put our mettle to the test. Let's have a referendum. Let's demand it of our politicians.

If you guys can't even put pen to paper to make that happen then you are really wasting time.

Starrigan said...

Take a pill anonymous, relax. Rome wasn't built in a day. There will come a time when there will be just cause for a referendum. There has to be political will and public will. People need to be eduacated as to what it would mean to be independent, the pros and cons. People need to make an educated, informed decision. All in good time.
As you can see from Expatriates posting, there are lots of groups getting together showing their disatisfaction with Canada. No doubt these groups with get larger and larger until one day there's a vote. Whether or not it will be for separation, we will have to see.

WJM said...

As you can see from Expatriates posting, there are lots of groups getting together showing their disatisfaction with Canada.

Among the groups which expatriate listed, is tha Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Does this mean that this party is now officially a separatist one?

Given Chairman Dan's rhetoric of late, it's obvious where his separatist sympathies lie. But has he, or his party, made it official?

Have they stopped being crypto-separatists, and become full-on real ones?

NL-ExPatriate said...

IMHO I'm not advocating separation so much as polical change not the mouseland kind either from the Blue cat to the red cat but real politcal change where every province has some form of equality.

Everyone knows canada is systemically flawed that is what the MeechLake and CharlotteTown accords were about.

I would be happy if NL owned and controlled it's own resources. Like is stated in the constitution. Provinces should own and control their own resources. Because with the political system we have right with no Equal representation for the provinces in any way shape or form Not in the Senate Nor the Supreme Court of canada. Ottawa owns and controls 98.5% of our resources either outright by having the SCC circumvent one of the founding principles of this phony federation in that the provinces are supposed to own and control their own resources By our weak kneed pansy provincial politicians or ON party line TOERS or through the back door by clawing back Non-Renewable resource revenues against the Health and Social transfers of D-Equalization designed as a provincial welfare wall to keep the colonies forever in perpetual servitude and dependant upon the federallies.

Ottawa by it's very nature has to do whats in the best interest of the majority of canadians ON/QU by default if not to get re-elected then for the majority even if the province and it's people who live adjacent to and rely upon that resource must suffer. Hence the reason one of the founding principles ofthis federation is that the provinces should own and control their own resources.

Why do you think Ottawa has never even attempted to utilize a clause in the United Nations Law of the Sea to claim ownership and control of the entire continental shelf? Because that wouldn't be in the best interest of the majority of canadians who live in ON/QU since the Quotas (Straddling stocks)from the Nose Tail and Flemish cap (comprisesthe best 40% of the Grand Banks where 60% of the worlds bottom dragging takes place) are utilized to garner international favor and help in establishing bilateral trade agreements.

Before you accuse me of fabricating things you three federalist amigos. Why then did Spain threaten to cancel all of the canadian contracts if the Turbot war didn't go away?

Glenn: why do you care your an economic refugee lost in exile; Alberta right?

I would be living in NL right now if NL has an operationally manned military base where I could of had my final posting.

As for including the Prov PC group right now that is the only option I can see out there. Besides that is a Provincial party.If I was advocating separation which you Federalist Status Quo fear mongerors seem to think is the only agenda going on here, wouldn't I have included the NLfirst party? Even the NLfirst party isn't a separatist party at least not yet until they try to change or work with the systemically flawed political system we have from within to benefit NL.

Newfoundland and Labrador First party

I've said this before and I guess I will say it again. I don't blame the politicians nor our federally elected representatives if anything I blame the people of NL for being so naive and insane in that they keep electing national party representatives expecting them to do whats in the best interest of NL. when by the very nature of electing a representative to a national party they have to Toe the party line drawn by Ontario with 106 seats out of 308 and do what's in the best interest of the majority of canadians. By default ON/Qu which has over 60% of the population living in 2% of the canadian territory.

Anonymous said...

NL-ExPatriate,my man ,I have too start reading your Blog,becuase my freind your the only guy in hear that makes any sence .

Being a Newfoundlander I totally agree with you on most every single point that you have made.It is our fault as a people that we continue to let the Politicans in this country walk over us and lie to us like we're children.It is us to blame for problems such as Churchill Falls,although I wouldn't say the same for the rapping of the Grand Banks.

Canada and the federal Governement mean absolute nothinhg to me as a Newfoundlander .Because ,my nation and my people are my first and foremost concern.When Newfoundlander's and Labradorians start to relise that charity and caring start at home,then hey ,maybe we will stop being used and abused by our nine cousins.

That still doesn't take away the financial exploitation that is canada.But,we should have relised what we were doing as a nation when we got involved with the "BRAT" in the family in the first place. So I do blame the people first.But ,in the same sence that was a weakness that was exploited by canada.Newfoundlander's and Labradorian's are very "Home Proud" by nature.

As For the Newfoundland and Labrador First Party.I think they will do well when the people of this province relise what any other person from anyother Province in canada thinks .That thier province and homes come befor any country or party.

And if anybody wants to debate that then Go right ahead.Like you Ex-pat,i live away from Home.And every day I see how specail interst groups ,minorty's and certain people think about themselves and thier home first and foremost.Anything else ,including national unity comes a far second.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Ex-pat wrote:

"I would be happy if NL owned and controlled it's own resources. Like is stated in the constitution."

Then you must be completely squared away and tickled pink.

Since 1949, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has controlled all the resources it controlled prior to that date.

In addition, it has gained control of development and royalties for offshore oil and gas.

it never controlled fisheries beyond three miles. Through the Government of Canada, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians control the fishery out to 200 miles.

Then there was this gem:

"Why do you think Ottawa has never even attempted to utilize a clause in the United Nations Law of the Sea to claim ownership and control of the entire continental shelf?"

Prior to 2003, the federal government hadn't sign the Law of the Sea treaty but still abided by its provisions. Until it signed on, it couldn't take advantage of that specific provision.

Once it signed on it immediately began the steps to extend jurisdiction to the entire continental shelf adjacent to Canada.

So now that we have addressed the two biggies on your list and demonstrated that you got your facts wrong - again - it makes you wonder what your point actually is.

Glenn said...

NL-Expat,

thanks for the well mannered response.

I care because we are moving back to NL. I will continue to commute back and forth because there's currently uber work and greater opportunity in my fields somewhere else than NL. We have the same problem I guess. You're perturbed because the feds don't have a fully armed ready base on the island and I'm disgruntled because the William's govt. won't develop it natural resources. But hey, St. John's can take the hit.

I asked because you didn't say "you would return to NL but you are stationed in the CF and.." it would have been obvious.

I am not accusing you of any nefarious motives either or of fabricating. I have read many of your links, some good some bad (zzzzzzzzzzzz) and was curious, that's all. Also, what if all those things that you present are true, do we get any value in return (How much and what's counted) or are you saying we don't get enough?

As for the separation/stronger Canadian prescence I'll say this much:

If the argument for separation is a financial one, as in we give out more than we receive, factually prove it, ala balance sheet. Even then is that a good enough reason?

If the argument for separation is on ideals, freer markets and trade, culture, beliefs, greater economic opportunity, liberties, family, free will, greater quality of life, values than let's start talking. As long as everyone is aware of all the pros and cons of staying or going.

I have no doubt tha Avalon and St. John's will do well both in/out of confederation. The rest of the island and Labrador would not be as well served under separation. We are struggling even now. (See how I have already acquired the tribalism monikers in the us and them mentality.) We would be having the same argument towards them except we would be complaining, for example, that the NL govt. has leased Port-aux-Basques harbour to a Chilean company in its trade agreements with that country to supply the elites(merchants) in St. John's(them) with their fresh fruit in the fall/winter months and that the hiring of Chileans to operate the summer ferry, which is winter in Chile, is driving jobs out of the south west coast and that housing prices are falling... round and round we go. Would you consider that fear mongering on my part?

You make it seem like NL's biggest problem is not enough money. Seems to me our biggest problem is not enough focus on what needs to be done instead of chasing straw men and the big oil boogey-man. Our local politicians are more of our biggest hinderances than we could ever wish the Fed's to be. Those truths are legendary. Yet the majority is focused on myths & sleight of hand. Yes, blame the people for being so naive, something else we agree on.

I appreciate the sacrifice you have made serving in the Canadian Forces. Enjoy your final posting in NB, see ya when you retire.

WJM said...

I would be happy if NL owned and controlled it's own resources.

Why the conditional? NL does own and control its own resources

Like is stated in the constitution.

Already happened. Be happy!

Provinces should own and control their own resources.

The do! Jubilate!

Because with the political system we have right with no Equal representation for the provinces in any way shape or form Not in the Senate Nor the Supreme Court of canada.

The Senate I can see, but why should there be "equal representation" on the Supreme Court?

Ottawa owns and controls 98.5% of our resources

Which resources would those 98.5% be?

On the flip side, what's the 1.5% balance?

How did you quantify this?

Why do you think Ottawa has never even attempted to utilize a clause in the United Nations Law of the Sea to claim ownership and control of the entire continental shelf?

That's in process...

Because that wouldn't be in the best interest of the majority of canadians who live in ON/QU since the Quotas (Straddling stocks)from the Nose Tail and Flemish cap (comprisesthe best 40% of the Grand Banks where 60% of the worlds bottom dragging takes place)

...and ownership of the shelf does nothing for management of the fish above it.

are utilized to garner international favor and help in establishing bilateral trade agreements.

With which countries?

Which quotas are so used?

Before you accuse me of fabricating things you three federalist amigos. Why then did Spain threaten to cancel all of the canadian contracts if the Turbot war didn't go away?

Because they can?

Did they follow through?

Even if they had... so what?

By default ON/Qu which has over 60% of the population living in 2% of the canadian territory.

2%?

Quebec and Ontario are the two largest provinces by area!!!

You are geographically illiterate, and innumerate to boot.

WJM said...

When Newfoundlander's and Labradorians start to relise that charity and caring start at home,then hey ,maybe we will stop being used and abused by our nine cousins.

You mean... like even though Danny Williams, who is a liar, says that the TLH is his "number one priority", the only project he put forward for federal-provincial funding was the Torbay bypass?

That kind of "charity"?

Or perhaps the kind in which Danny Williams, who is a liar, has promised $250-million in largely recycled funding for various Labrador initiatives over five years.... which is about how much the Labrador mines pump into his government's coffers in one year?

That kind of "abuse"?

NL-ExPatriate said...

Glenn you must be reading the National MSM only.

I could mention so many slights, slews, skews, ommissions, etc etc as to make your head spin. But picking on the MSM won't further our cause,nor will giving away our resources for short term gain and re-election like has been done in the past.

If you have a beef with Danny Williams take it up with him. I couldn't care less who is the Premier as long as he has the best long term interests of the province and my breteren at heart.

From what I've heard of Gerry Reid Danny Dumaresq and their Ilk they are compromised and as such have lost the moral autority to govern my province.

Anonymous said...

Glenn:

I would like your updated opinion on Big Oil and what the world economy is expected to do over the next year. Do you think it is going to keep on churning forever without a rest? I would love your opinion.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Since ex-pat is carefully avoiding dealing with his obvious problem with facts, let's try a few more:

"Because with the political system we have right with no Equal representation for the provinces in any way shape or form Not in the Senate Nor the Supreme Court of Canada."

No province has "equal" representation in the senate. Senate reform is an issue to be tackled.

As for equal representation on the Supreme Court this is one of those solutions in search of any rationale let alone a problem, usually based on the completely mistaken belief that somehow a lack of a Newfoundlander on the court caused the decision in 1984 on the offshore.

That interpretation misses entirely the 183 decision by the Supreme Court of NL that Ottawa had jurisdiction over the offshore.

There's a reason to make some changes to the appointment process, but it has nothing to do with the nationalist nonsense contained in Greg's contention.

But so far, his reasons for being a separatists have absolutely no basis in fact.

"Ottawa owns and controls 98.5% of our resources either outright by having the SCC circumvent one of the founding principles of this phony federation in that the provinces are supposed to own and control their own resources."

Aha. There's that Supreme Court of Canada nonsense.

Sorry, Ex-Pat this is just not true on any level at all.

Even if you are referring to the offshore you conveniently ignore 2 things:

1. The SCNL decision in 1983 (the year BEFORE the SCC decision); and,

2. The 1985 Atlantic Accord.

So once we run through your litany of complaints and doscover not a single one of them is factual, accurate or true, what exactly is left to justify your anti-Canadian, anti-Confederate position?

What's going on here is not a deliberate fabrication. Ex-pat is just another example of myths and fables that get spread around so often - sometimes by credible people - that people like Ex-Pat start to believe them. That's the real crime here, that people wind up being misled by the falsehoods.

Anonymous said...

Ed why are you spinning or fabricating the truth of what happened to Newfoundland and Labrador's resources?

Also you know darn well we do not have equal representation in Ottawa, Canada, whether it be in the Supreme Court of Canada, where the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has never had a Supreme Court Judge appointed, the House of Parliament where we only have 7 Representatives out of a 308 seat Representtive House or the Senate. How can you fool anybody on any of these matters? By doing what you are doing, aren't you huring yourself and your family, if you happen to live in this province?

YOU ARE TRYING YOUR DARNDEST IN SPINNING FALSEHOODS THOUGH.

It is a known fact that Governments employ Fact Spinners, and I have to ask you a direct question are you one of those creatures?

It is as plain as the nose on one's face what is going on.

And if we can't determine what happened to those wonderful resources that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador brought to the Canadian Table, well then, we have had all our senses disable.

FISH; It was passed over to Ottawa for maintainence when we became part of Canada; Canada distributed the quotas as it saw fit. It enabled Canada to do business with most of the world. Quotas of fish are sought after commodities!

Upper Churchill Hydroelectric Power: 5800 Mega Watts of that precious,clean energy passed over to Quebec so it go distribute that clean energy to Market. Ottawa didn't want to get its hands dirty in asking Quebec for weilding rights of the Energy for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Minerals: They are being refined in Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba.

Oi: Refined in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for consumption in the United States of America, a country with a ravenous appetite for oil.

PLEASE ED STOP TRYING TO SKEW THE TRUTH.

Ed Hollett said...

Anonymous, whoever you are, what exactly have I written that is not true?

Indicate one single thing.

Now that you have been shown to be wrong consistently on point after point after point, you have fallen back on accusing me - without evidence - of the doing what you have been doing all along.

It's a pretty transparent thing.

Like this:

"FISH; It was passed over to Ottawa for maintainence when we became part of Canada; Canada distributed the quotas as it saw fit. It enabled Canada to do business with most of the world. Quotas of fish are sought after commodities!"

This is simply not true. In 1949, Nl did not control fish resources beyond three miles. The Commission didn't control it nor did the UK government. Therefore there is simply no legal, factual means by which someone can "hand over" something that was never in their possession.

There is simply no evidence that quotas were handed out as you claim. I have challenged people to provide evidence of it. They have offered not a single example. They might well be right. I have simply asked for evidence. People who claim this - like you - do not offer any.

The only thing people do offer - as you do - is to attack me personal with all manner of innuendo.

Then you add this falsehood:

"Ottawa didn't want to get its hands dirty in asking Quebec for weilding rights of the Energy for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador."

This has been well discussed elsewhere. There is overwhelming evidence on the matter. You chose to misrepresent it. Why you do that is your business.

However, no matter how many times you repeat false statements and provvide no evidence to support your claims, you just show which one of us is dealing in truth and which one of us is spreading falsehoods.

Anonymous said...

Everythng concerning our resources and how well we are represented in Canada.

If you think we have ON PAR representation in Ottawa and that our resources are working for us instead of some other part of the Canada or the World, you must be living in a different world than the rest of the half million Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, or have all of your senses been disabled?

Anonymous said...

If Newfoundland and Labrador didn't control fish beyond the 3 miles limit, how did Canada get to control them to the 200 mile limit at the present? Wasn't it because N and L joined Canada?

If N and L hadn't joined Canada, would Ottawa be controlling the fish quotas now or would Newfoundland and Labrador?

You are making crazy statements, Sir! Do you realize how silly and worthless your statements are?

Ed Hollett said...

"Everythng concerning our resources and how well we are represented in Canada."

Well, we all know that whoever you are, you just don't agree with what I have written.

But we can all see that you don't have any evidence or information to back up your argument.

You also overestimate how many people share your views.

So just provide one specific example of where what I have written is not correct.

try just one.

See if you can do it.

Ed Hollett said...

I do realize how crazy statements made by some people are, but since you asked, here's the answer to your question.

"If Newfoundland and Labrador didn't control fish beyond the 3 miles limit, how did Canada get to control them to the 200 mile limit at the present?"

In 1949, NL's territorial sea was three miles. Canada and many other countries had claimed 12 miles. Anything beyond that was international waters.

The 200 mile limit came as a result of changes in international law in the 1970s. Coastal states claimed to 200 miles.

Within Canada, as agreed in 1949 under the Terms of Union, fisheries management is a federal jurisdiction.

"If N and L hadn't joined Canada, would Ottawa be controlling the fish quotas now or would Newfoundland and Labrador?"

Well, obvious the Government of Canada would have jurisdiction over fish stocks within Canadian waters in that case and the Government of newfoundland and labrador would within Newfoundland and labrador's 200 mile EEZ. That's a penetrating insight into the obvious.

Either way, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians control the fishery within 200 miles of the coastline. It just is a matter within Canada of whether it is a federal or provincial jurisdiction.

"You are making crazy statements, Sir! Do you realize how silly and worthless your statements are?"

My statements only appear crazy if you accept the myths and distortions that have been spread for so long. if you believe those things, then you find anything else to be crazy. That doesn't make it so.

I'd wonder if you realize how silly and worthless it is to tell me my statements are silly and worthless when you haven't shown where what I have said is actually not true.

by the same token, it's pretty obvious a whole bunch of anonymous people around here write and believe a whole bunch of things that are as true as saying Elvis is alive and living in Botwood.

Ed Hollett said...

Of course I should point out that the last anonymous writes about these things as if Canada is a foreign country.

That's just part of the illusion some people have that leads them to all sorts of wrong conclusions about their own political power and influence.

Anonymous said...

You who posted May 30, 2007 11:35 AM are spining the Truth. It is plain to see.

Spinning the Truth is a great Tool that has been adopted by Government for quite a while now since it covers up a lot of sins on thier behalf, and it helps Government officials to get through difficult questions.

Everyone with one brain cell knows that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is not on par with the other provinces with representation in the Canadian Parliament or the Senate or the Supreme Court judicial system.

How can we be with 7 seats out of 308, how can we be without ever having a Supreme Court Judge?

And as for our resources, we are not blind, we know that Quebec is the Marketer of the 5800 mega watts of Upper Churchill Hydro Electricity Power, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba smelters are refining the minerals, our Oil is being refined in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and being consumed in the United States. And the fish quotas are being dealt out by Ottawa.

I don't know how many people read this blog, but for the ones who do, please do the research yourselves, becaude people like the above poster who is acting on behalf of the Federal Government, whether being paid or not, are only trying to undo the truth by posting the way he/she does?

How stupid do the Federal Government think people are to believe that we think that we are fairly represented in a 308 seat Parliament with 7 seats, not ever having a Supreme Court Judge and the knowledge of who is refining our minerals and oil is as plain as the nose on our face. You poster are not giving the readers of this blog much credit for their intelligence.

WJM said...

Also you know darn well we do not have equal representation in Ottawa, Canada, whether it be in the Supreme Court of Canada, where the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has never had a Supreme Court Judge appointed

Yet.

the House of Parliament where we only have 7 Representatives out of a 308 seat Representtive House

Whereas under Australian or US apportionment rules, in a 308-seat chamber, NL would get 5.

What's your point? That NL should have more seats in the House of Commons? All provinces should have teh same number?

Set a good example: take 20 House of Assembly seats out of Newfoundland and put them in Labrador.

After all, Labrador's share of the provincial population is three times the size of NL's share of the national population.

WJM said...

FISH; It was passed over to Ottawa for maintainence when we became part of Canada; Canada distributed the quotas as it saw fit. It enabled Canada to do business with most of the world.

How did Canada use fish to "enable" business with Nepal?

Or Chad?

Or Chile?

Or Australia?

Or Romania?

OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY?

Upper Churchill Hydroelectric Power: 5800 Mega Watts of that precious,clean energy passed over

Passed over.

Again with the passive voice, the usual sign of someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

"Passed over" BY WHOM?

Ottawa didn't want to get its hands dirty in asking Quebec for weilding rights of the Energy for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Wheeling rights, maybe? Again, proof you have no idea what you are talking about.

Minerals: They are being refined in Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba.

And?

Oi: Refined in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for consumption in the United States of America, a country with a ravenous appetite for oil.

And? Build a refinery. Nothing's stopping you.

WJM said...

If you think we have ON PAR representation in Ottawa

Define "on par representation".

Thank you.

WJM said...

How can we be with 7 seats out of 308

Or, in other words, with a larger share of seats than of the population.

how can we be without ever having a Supreme Court Judge?

Yet. Other provinces also went a long time without a member of their bars on the court.

And as for our resources, we are not blind, we know that Quebec is the Marketer of the 5800 mega watts of Upper Churchill Hydro Electricity Power

Who sold it to them?

Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba smelters are refining the minerals, our Oil is being refined in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and being consumed in the United States.

And?

And the fish quotas are being dealt out by Ottawa.

Yip. Primarily, in the case of NL waters, to NL fishers and fishing enterprises.

How stupid do the Federal Government think people are to believe that we think that we are fairly represented in a 308 seat Parliament with 7 seats

What's unfair about that?

What WOULD be fair?

Ed Hollett said...

"I don't know how many people read this blog, but for the ones who do, please do the research yourselves,"

Bravo. If people actually start to dig into these things they will see the extent of the falsehoods and misinformation posted by people who sign only as "anonymous".

As for the rest of your post, it is just the same pathetic attempts to distract from the facts and the truth by making completely false accusations against people.

It's a shame you can't do any better than that, but then again, no one should expect better from someone posting anonymously.

Anonymous said...

At least one of the countries you mentioned is probably receiving AID from Canada. Chile has it own FISHERY. But I do know that Canada sold Romania a Candu Reactor. Maybe it was a trade deal? Who knows what is traded and for what? All I do know is that Canada is not such a generous country that it would give away precious FISH QUOTAS and received nothing in return. Where once there were four countries off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, there are many now and from as far away as KOREA.

WJM, I am not going to be able to persuade you to tell it like it is because you are telling it the way Ottawa wants it to be told. After all from a report I saw on this blogsite, you write from an IPO out of the Ottawa Government. Ottawa wants a spin to be put on certain things and you are the enabler or the tool, most likely, who enables Ottawa to fulfill its wish on the spin it wants spun? Are you?

I cannot argue against people who are paid to do such things. I know people are paid by governments to do such things? Are you one of them? The question is since you spend so much time on this blog defending Ottawa against things that Ottawa is doing that are detrimental to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's welfare, are you the enabler who spins the stories? I don't know maybe you are doing it for a pastime, but you are not telling the truth as it applies to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

You have said on this blogsite that there is only one WJM AND you are registered as such. You refuse to say whether you are a paid employee of Ottawa. You will not deny that you write postings to this blog from an IPO in Ottawa. So it is hard to get the whole story from you because you put a SPIN on everything?

I would think if a person is posting from an IPO in Ottawa that the person would have to be an employee of that organization or else wouldn't that be a breach of some law? Does Ottawa have any old body coming to its computer and posting away without knowing who is within its offices? Good Grief that is a scary thought. I know we have problems emananating from Ottawa, but that is scarier than scary.

GMT said...

WJM worte
"Whereas under Australian or US apportionment rules, in a 308-seat chamber, NL would get 5."

No this is not the case - Australia has a long history of the allocation of more or fewer electoral districts to one part of a country or state than its population would merit.

In addition both Australia and the states have an elected senate which is not based on population but equal representation from each state - in australia each state elects 12 senators. This counters the influence/power of the more populous states over those with low populations.

by leaving out information you can clearly give the wrong impression.

babe in boyland said...

1) "If Newfoundland and Labrador didn't control fish beyond the 3 miles limit, how did Canada get to control them to the 200 mile limit at the present? Wasn't it because N and L joined Canada?"

canada got control of resources to the 200 mile limit by negotiating, as canada, with other sovereign coastal states

2) "If N and L hadn't joined Canada, would Ottawa be controlling the fish quotas now or would Newfoundland and Labrador?"

i dont think so. it would probably be the US. it would have been very hard for newfoundland to maintain independent status as a sovereign state in the late 40s through the 60s. our population was too small, our economy was to weak at the time, our resources and strategic location were too attractive - who really thinks the US would have left us alone?

if you guys want to argue for newfoundland's place globally, you gotta get your heads around the geopolitics of the time.

go read something other than fitzgerald's isolationist bullshit.

GMT said...

"How can we be with 7 seats out of 308

Or, in other words, with a larger share of seats than of the population."

7 out of 308 is 2% of the seats in the house of commons
500,000 out of 30 million is approx 2% of the population.

the population of Labrador makes up about 5% of poplulation of Newfoundland and Larbrador and has 8% of the seats. So if Newfoundland and Labrador had the same relative representation to population in Ottawa as Labrador has in St John's they should have 14 seats.

Anonymous said...

Every country in the world has control over its 200 mile limit so if Newfoundland and Labrador wasn't a part of Canada, it would have remained an independent country, and therefore, it would have negotiated on its on behalf just as it did for 450 years. Please do not talk so stupidly!

Ed Hollett said...

"I am not going to be able to persuade you to tell it like it is because you are telling it the way Ottawa wants it to be told."

One of the basic problems with your comments, anonymous whoever, is that you don't want to review any of your conclusions so you wind up inventing all sort of things to explain away the fact that some people just don't accept what you believe.

In this case you have to invent a motive for WJM that isn't supported by anything at all.

It is just your invention. That's all it is.

And that is also just a dodge to keep you from taking your own advice, doing your own research and thinking a bit about some of the supposed facts you believe to be true (but which in fact aren't).

"Where once there were four countries off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, there are many now and from as far away as KOREA."

When Cabot arrived, there were French, English, Spanish and Portugese fishing offshore here.

By the 19th century, there were French, Americans and Canadians added to that mix.

By the 1960s that number had swelled to include a host of other countries. The reason the numbers swelled had nothing to do with any trade deals. It most likely came about because of the growth of industrial fisheries. Up to 1977, anything outside 12 miles was the high seas and quotas were allocated by the member countries of NAFO or whatever went before it.

Since 1977, anything out to 200 miles is Canada's exclusive jurisdiction and with the exception of some French fishing (historic rights plus the 1988 boundary agreement), international fishing takes place outside 200 miles.

Basically, you have invented a reason (blame "Canada") even though the issue is considerably more complex and has necessarily nothing to do with this business of trading fish for one thing or another.

It's amazing that I am still waiting for someone to show one concrete example of this trade off some people claim occurred. All you have done is invented possible trades.

Surely if there was one, someone could bring it forward. Like I said before, I simply haven't seen any evidence to believe it is true. Let's see some evidence.

Then you have to consider that only one paragraph of that comment dealt with the issue. The other three or four paragraphs all focused on irrelevant issues and a claim that has no foundation.

How do you know that all the people in whom you have faith haven't been spinning you and telling you things that aren't exactly true maybe for their own purposes? Scepticism is great, but you should be sceptical of everyone, not just the people who you disagree with.

Anonymous said...

gmt

Is it possible that you could comment on the survival of Iceland with a population of 300,000 which received its independence in 1944 from Denmark?

WJM said...

But I do know that Canada sold Romania a Candu Reactor. Maybe it was a trade deal? Who knows what is traded and for what?

Apparently a lot of people "know" that fish quotas are traded to someone for something.

No one can ever name the someone or the something, though.

Why not?

All I do know is that Canada is not such a generous country that it would give away precious FISH QUOTAS and received nothing in return.

Nope. And Canada hasn't done so.

Where once there were four countries off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, there are many now and from as far away as KOREA.

Which four countries are you referring to?

Are you?

Nope.

I cannot argue against people who are paid to do such things.

I wouldn't either. Who's being "paid to do such things"?

Are you one of them?

Nope.

The question is since you spend so much time on this blog defending Ottawa

No, I spend time defending truth against lies.

You have said on this blogsite that there is only one WJM AND you are registered as such. You refuse to say whether you are a paid employee of Ottawa.

When did I "refuse" to say that?

What do Initial Public Offerings have to do with anything?

You don't know what you are talking about, do you, Agnes?

WJM said...

No this is not the case - Australia has a long history of the allocation of more or fewer electoral districts to one part of a country or state than its population would merit.

No, Australia has no such history, at least not recently.

Australia's apportionment rule is, like the American one, close to strict arithmetical rep-by-pop. There are no "Senate floor" or "grandfather" clauses as in Canada.

Within the states, the population of the federal seats must be within +/- 10% of the electoral quota for that state. There are no allowances, as there are in Canada, for geography.

Where did you get your info from, GMT?

In addition both Australia and the states have an elected senate which is not based on population but equal representation from each state - in australia each state elects 12 senators.

Yip. Penetrating insight into the obvious.

by leaving out information you can clearly give the wrong impression.

What information did I leave out?

Now, go look up the Australian constitution and the Commonwealth Electoral Act, okay?

WJM said...

7 out of 308 is 2% of the seats in the house of commons
500,000 out of 30 million is approx 2% of the population.


7/308 is 2.3% of the seats.

The latest population figure is 508,955 out of 32,730,213, or 1.6%.

Like I say: NL has a larger share of federal House seats than of the national population.

the population of Labrador makes up about 5% of poplulation of Newfoundland and Larbrador and has 8% of the seats.

Yip.

So if Newfoundland and Labrador had the same relative representation to population in Ottawa as Labrador has in St John's they should have 14 seats.

But NL doesn't. NL's share of the national population is less than 1/3 that of Labrador's share of the provincial population.

If Labrador's over-representation - Labrador has 1.6 times as many provincial seats as its population would strictly warrant - were applied to the province as a whole, then the province would wind up with... eight seats instead of seven.

Or, conversely, if NL deserves more seats in Ottawa because it only has 1.6% of the national population, then Labrador, with 5.2% of the provincial population, should also get more seats... right?

WJM said...

Every country in the world has control over its 200 mile limit so if Newfoundland and Labrador wasn't a part of Canada, it would have remained an independent country, and therefore, it would have negotiated on its on behalf just as it did for 450 years

Newfoundland negotiated for 450 years?

Who did the negotiating?

With whom?

Anonymous said...

WJm - You put put a spin on everything without even coming anywhere in sight of giving an answer.

That is the tool used by government now for close to 40 years.

You will evade and avoid completely answering any question but instead you will ask question upon question.

If you don't want to face up to what Ottawa is doing against your province, but instead you want to defend them, I don't have the time to waste please go on and do so. Those of us who are aware of what happened to the province of Newfundland and Labrador and its resoources know what games Ottawa plays. But I guess somepeople have to keep the game going to keep getting their pay cheques. The same type of make work projects that Ottawa creates for farmers and fishers when times are bad, but theirs are as not as high paying. What a Pity that we have such high-paying make work projects for such needless work? Happy Questioning WJM!

Anonymous said...

The poster with the initials WJM, does the poster think that Ottawa just metes out fish quotas without getting absolutely anything in return? No trade, no foreign affairs clout, nothing? Happy dreams to you WJM, please be careful not to wake from that wonderful dream.

That would mean Utopia for the countries on the receiving end.

How does Ottawa determine who is going to be the beneficiary of that much coveted resource? Is it by just saying eenie, meenie, miny, mo, you are the winner, OR whoever wishes may come to our fishing waters and Happy Fishing everyone! It is yours for the taking. I didn't realize that fish was that plentiful.

What a wonderful gift to receive from generous Ottawa - quotas of fish protein for not even even having to lift a finger.

OOPS! WJM! It is time to wake up from your Utopian Dream and stop the spinning!

WJM said...

You will evade and avoid completely answering any question

oh?

but instead you will ask question upon question.

Yip. Questions are good things. I know that's a difficult idea to grapple with in Danny-Land these days, but do try.

Questions are good.

Asking questions is good.

If you don't want to face up to what Ottawa is doing against your province

Which is... what?

Those of us who are aware of what happened to the province of Newfundland and Labrador and its resoources

What was that?

know what games Ottawa plays.

What are they?

You seem to know. Please share.

The same type of make work projects that Ottawa creates for farmers and fishers when times are bad

Make-work for farmers? Where and when?

Happy Questioning WJM!

Happy Sticking Your Thumbs In Your Ears And Accepting As Truth Whatever Lies Your Fellow Separatwits Tell You, Whoever You Are!

WJM said...

The poster with the initials WJM, does the poster think that Ottawa just metes out fish quotas without getting absolutely anything in return?

The only quotas Ottawa metes out are the ones it metes out to Canadians, or, per international rules, to others when no Canadians want to fish an existing quota.

No trade, no foreign affairs clout, nothing?

You're the one who believes in the "trade and foreign affairs clout" thesis. So, please, tell us: What did Canada trade with whom for what, and when?

OOPS! WJM! It is time to wake up from your Utopian Dream and stop the spinning!

It is time for you to start questioning your own beliefs, and ask why the facts don't seem to exist to support them.

Ed Hollett said...

"Those of us who are aware of what happened to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and its resources know what games Ottawa plays."

Oddly enough the whole point has been to demonstrate the extent to which the anonymous comments here are almost completely unaware of the facts of anything.

It's actually been surprisingly easy to demonstrate that most, like anonymous commenter quoted above, have almost facts whatsoever.

Take for example this comment made to WJM:

"does the poster think that Ottawa just metes out fish quotas without getting absolutely anything in return?"

Since the Government of Canada does not "mete" out fish quotas outside 200 miles, it is a bit difficult
to try and figure out:

a. what this person wants to have answered; or,

b. what this person thinks actually goes on.

If we look at what the federal government does with fishing quotas under its control, it's actually a really interesting question.

What exactly does the federal government get from FPI and other Canadian companies? What does it get from the individual fisherman or woman in any community around Newfoundland and Labrador?

Perhaps rather than avoid answering questions on the topics being discussed, someone might actually try answering one.

I am certainly curious to know what this whole fish quota thing is about.

Anonymous said...

The facts exist but Ottawa will not release them. It is part of the non-transparency package under which Ottawa practices.

That is all I will say on this subject. You and your Federal Government are sitting on the details. If the Feds (Liberal or Conservative) it is no different in the two, whichever is in power, want to take your fat cat heavy leaden fingers of the lid, they will be released and not until that time, which maybe until the 12th of Never. I will not hold my breath until information is released because as long as the pressure is not put on the Feds to relased such information, it will not happen. All parties are in agreement with the policy, since it makes international trade and foreign affairs much easier in Ottawa.

WJM said...

The facts exist but Ottawa will not release them. It is part of the non-transparency package under which Ottawa practices.

Of course. All part of the conspiracy.

But if Ottawa won't release the facts, how do you know these deals happened?

How does anyone?

GMT said...

WJM said
"7/308 is 2.3% of the seats."

or approx 2% to one significant figure

WJM said
"The latest population figure is 508,955 out of 32,730,213, or 1.6%".

no its 1.5551228% to be exact or approx 2% to one significant figure so Newfoundland and Labrador has pretty much the correct representation in Ottawa for its population.
If a seat was to be dropped from newfoundland and Labrador to make a closer match of one seat per 106,267 people it would be Labrador's. east Avalon would have 5 and the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador would share the other seat.

GMT said...

WJM said
"No, Australia has no such history, at least not recently"

what do you mean by "not recently"
yesterday?
last year
two years ago?
10 years ago?

WJM said...

so Newfoundland and Labrador has pretty much the correct representation in Ottawa for its population.

No, NL does not. If Canada had US or Australia style adherence to rep-by-pop, on a 308-seat house, the province would lose two seats.

For a 308-seat house, rounding to the the nearest whole is not statistically sound methodology.

If a seat was to be dropped from newfoundland and Labrador to make a closer match of one seat per 106,267 people it would be Labrador's.,

Two seats would have to go.

east Avalon would have 5 and the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador would share the other seat.

Why? The Avalon Peninsula only has less than half the population of the province (248,418 out of 505,469 per the census); why should it get all but one seat?

WJM said...

what do you mean by "not recently"
yesterday?
last year
two years ago?
10 years ago?


I mean that at least under the current law in Australia, the rules of apportionment and redistribution are much, much stricter than those in Canada.

That may have been different in the past. I don't know; I haven't done the necessary research.

All I know is that recently, as in for as long as the current Australian law has obtained, the rules have been very strict.

They may always have been so. I don't know one way or another, hence the qualification.

So, what's your source for your "information" about how "Australia has a long history of the allocation of more or fewer electoral districts to one part of a country or state than its population would merit"?

Can you provide a web link or some bibliographic references?

Thanks!

Glenn said...

Anon says:

Glenn:

I would like your updated opinion on Big Oil and what the world economy is expected to do over the next year. Do you think it is going to keep on churning forever without a rest? I would love your opinion.

May 30, 2007 1:22 AM


Glenn says,

over the next year things may settle down a bit, as for big oil though to tell. I'll give you an answer in October when the US decides whether or not they will pull out of Iraq. We could see oil at $100 per barrel if Iran controls the Persian Gulf, along with China and Russia. Or we could see it back to $40 per barrel if Iraq calms down and can double its exports. Iran will do its best to prevent that of course. There was a time when low oil prices meant the economy would take off since everything is more affordable.

Also, barring any nuclear detonation in an urban locale, I will predict with 92.3754% certainty that the average rate of return on the North American stock markets over the next 12 year peiod, starting at 12:01 am today, will average about 10-12% per year.

Invest now, natural gas companies, coal gasification, uranium (too late?), gold, silver. Even, oh horror, oilsands companies like Western oil sands and Canadian oil sands.

Cheers

Ed Hollett said...

"The facts exist but Ottawa will not release them. It is part of the non-transparency package under which Ottawa practices."

This is fairly typical of a claim for which there is no evidence.

There are plenty of people claiming to know of these deals, claiming they occurred and yet when pushed for details, there is the old conspiracy cop out.

Well, there are people who claim the entire space program is a giant conspiracy, aliens walk among and there is Big Foot too. All is known but some super secret conspiracy keeps it silent.

Chris Carter had a brilliant run with the X-Files all based on the popularity of conspiracy theories. They make wonderful fiction but, as in the case of this sort of comment by some anonymous person, until we see some evidence that's about all they remain: pure fiction.

Anonymous said...

Glennn: Thanks for your opinion.

I see China's stock market was down over 7 per cent today.

babe in boyland said...

"Every country in the world has control over its 200 mile limit so if Newfoundland and Labrador wasn't a part of Canada, it would have remained an independent country, and therefore, it would have negotiated on its on behalf just as it did for 450 years"

newfoundland was a part of the british empire for most of that 450 years. britain didn't negotiate on newfoundland's behalf, they fought wars to retain control of the fishery themselves. britian didn't even want newfoundland to exist as a colony, much less an independent country - that's why they outlawed settlement for a period, outlawed chimneys (so people couldn't stay here over winter) and so on. britain wanted control of newfoundland waters and fish resources, and it got them, held onto them and prevented such a thing as a society in newfoundland from developing for most of that 450 years.

newfoundland didn't exist as anything like a unified social or political entity till about 150 years ago. and at that time, we did not represent ourselves or negotiate with anyone on our own behalf. that came later. i think we only existed as an independent country about the same length of time we've been a province of canada. before that we were a possession of britain, occasionally a colony.

you guys really have to read some history. start with newfoundland history. you wouldn't sound so silly if you had at least most of the facts straight.

Starrigan said...

If anyone would like to have WJM's (Ottawally's) IP address, just ask patriot when he gets back from vacation, he has it. And yes it is a parliament of Canada IP. Also WJM or Wallace J. MacLean does work for the feds, paid with your tax dollars. SUCKERS!!! Yes is has a mandate to disrupt these blogs with his stupid questions.

Just curious Ottwally and Crazy Eddy, do you think that NL is a Utopia these days? Seriously, you decry everything anyone says badly about the feds. So do you think NL is in great shape? couldn't get any better? we should stop whining?
Or are you just big a$$holes?

babes in boyland said...

starrigan:

if nl is not a utopia, if nl isn't in great shape, if NL could get better - why are you fixating on the feds? shouldn't you look at what NL can do to get better, get into great shape and make a utopia?

or are we just weak-willed, talentless, powerless fools who have to look to the feds for everything - to give the hand-out and take the blame.

we're not getting anywhere till we respect ourselves and rely on ourselves.

WJM said...

Yes is has a mandate to disrupt these blogs with his stupid questions.

No, is has not.

What is the source of your "information" to the contrary? Bear in mind, in your answer, that I know it better than you do.

Just curious Ottwally and Crazy Eddy, do you think that NL is a Utopia these days?

What an odd question? Why would you even think so? Perhaps... perhaps you don't know what "Utopia" means?

Seriously, you decry everything anyone says badly about the feds.

For my part, no, I do not. I decry everything anyone says that isn't true.

So do you think NL is in great shape? couldn't get any better?

It could get much better.

I'd start with making everyone appreciate the truth; with stopping the dissemination of lies, half-truth, myth, and misinformation; and making people more open to critical thought and question.

WJM said...

we're not getting anywhere till we respect ourselves and rely on ourselves.

But Babes in Boyland, when Danny was in TO, he said that "self respect" is something he, and "We", is demanding from the rest of Canada!

babe in boyland said...

WJM:

gah. don't mention that offensive speech. the premier of newfoundland doesn't understand self respect. he seems to think it can be conferred by an outside party.

"newfoundlanders are too weak. newfoundlanders are too stupid. newfoundlanders need someone to tell them they respect themselves. that's why they love me!"

GAH!

Anonymous said...

starrigan -

if newfoundland is in bad shape - and there's many a reason to think it is, then why is it in your pea-sized brain that the only possible reason for it being so is confederation?

Confederation doesn't force us to buy Chinese goods at Ontario owned stores. Confederation doesn't tell us to try and employ 10 times the number of people in an industry than it can sustain. Confederation didn't make us run a forest industry for 40 years with no replanting of trees. Confederation didn't force us to make the decision that we would spend more money per capita on highways and health care than any other juridiction in the country and have nothing to show for it. Confederation isn't the reason there are zero dollars of our own public sector pension funds invested here at home while Ontarians' invest the vast majority of theirs on the TSX. Confederation didn't make our great business leaders ---cough-- sell off their businesses to mainland intrerest the minute they could turn a profit or force our "captains of indutry" to relocate to avoid taxes and foul weather. If Newfoundlanders won't invest in their own province, why the hell should anyone else? If Newfoundlanders choose to live spread out in more municipalities than Ontario, who should pave the miles of roads in betweeen?

How about having a discussion on how our economy functions, why it attracts so little investment, why our social programs are geared entirley toward one generation, why our public service closes its doors to anyone under the age of 50. Why we spend more money on ski doo trails than we do on child care or supporting young families. Why is it that Newfoundlanders own more vehicles per household than anyone in Canada, yet simultaneously has the highest percentage of 30 year olds living at home with their parents? These are all choice WE make as a society, ones which have nothing to do with "confederation".

GMT said...

WJM thinks that under Australia rules Newfoundland and Labrador with a population of 1.6% of the total would not have 2.3% of the seats in the house of commons

WJM wrote
"Whereas under Australian or US apportionment rules, in a 308-seat chamber, NL would get 5."

Tasmania has 5 seats out of 150 in the Australia parliment - or 3.3%
Its current population estimates are 489,600 while Australia's is 20,830,000 or 2.35% of the population.
If seats of the house were determined soley by population in Australia as WJM told us tasmania should have 3.5 seats even using a 10% error 3.8 seats - we can round that up to 4.

Tasmania is over represented in the Australian parliment (dfferntial of 0.95% between representaion and popultaion) more than what as is Newfoundland and Labrador in the Canadian parliment (0.73% differential).

So who is misleading who.

Anonymous said...

"The facts exist but Ottawa will not release them. It is part of the non-transparency package under which Ottawa practices."

these facts - have you ever asked for them?

WJM said...

Tasmania has 5 seats out of 150 in the Australia parliment - or 3.3%
Its current population estimates are 489,600 while Australia's is 20,830,000 or 2.35% of the population.
If seats of the house were determined soley by population in Australia as WJM told us tasmania should have 3.5


How do you have a partial seat?

seats even using a 10% error 3.8 seats - we can round that up to 4.

Tasmania is over represented in the Australian parliment (dfferntial of 0.95% between representaion and popultaion) more than what as is Newfoundland and Labrador in the Canadian parliment (0.73% differential).

So who is misleading who.


You are.

In Australia, you take the population of the six states (not including the territories) and divide by twice the number of Senators those six states have. In 2003, this was 19,205,190/144(12 Senators per state, times 2) = 133,369. That’s the quota. You divide the population of each state by the quota, and round to the nearest whole to get that state’s House of Representatives entitlement. Tasmania’s 473,371 in 2003 works out to 3.55, round up to 4. There’s also a “floor” provision of a minimum five seats per “original state”. In Australia, as in the U.S., the representation in a state can go down (as it has recently for South Australia).

In Canada, it cannot. It used to. But no longer. (BTW, guess which is the ONLY province which has never once lost an MP to re-apportionment…)

The “differential” between Tasmania’s share of the Australian lower house (3.3%) and of the Australian population (2.4%) is about 1.4. Tasmania has 1.4 times as many MPs as its population would strictly warrant, thanks to the rounding, the floor provision, and the effect of representation for the territories on overall House size.

The differential for NL, within Canada, is larger: 1.46.

How did you calculate 0.95% and 0.73%?

Anonymous said...

The global acceptance in the mid-1970s of the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, the "EEZ", must be considered one of the most significant events in the history of international maritime law. As civilization had developed States had effectively controlled, off their maritime coasts, only a very narrow belt of waters, restricted over recent centuries to a territorial sea limited to 3 or 4 nautical miles (12 in more recent years, for some countries). The legal regime of "high seas" and "freedom of the seas" had applied to all waters outside the territorial sea. Virtually overnight, in historical terms, the transition was made to a new legal regime under which every coastal State has control, for economic purposes and for its own benefit, over a broad swath of waters beyond its territorial sea to a distance of 200 nautical miles.

The waters within 200 nautical miles, embracing some 30% of the world's oceans and seas[1] produced more than 90% of the world's marine fish catches, which totalled approximately 66 million metric tons in 1973.[2] These waters were also superjacent to almost all contemporarily exploitable undersea oil and gas deposits. By the 1970s the undersea area containing these deposits already belonged to the adjacent coastal States through general acceptance in the period after World War II of the international legal concept of the continental shelf (with undetermined outer limits) as the territory of the coastal State. For the future the waters within 200 nautical miles, because of their coastal proximity, were the most likely source of economic benefits to become available through new ocean uses, such as energy production.

These waters had been part of the high seas, open to the vessels of any State to use and exploit largely as they chose, subject, with minor exceptions, only to the power of their "flag State" to make and enforce laws to control their activities. That this would remain so for the indefinite future must have seemed likely to many people in mid-century, bearing in mind that at two United Nations conferences on the law of sea, UNCLOS I in 1958 and UNCLOS II in 1960, the world community could not agree to allow extension of jurisdiction even to a 12 nautical mile limit worldwide for coastal State control.[3] Suddenly this was all changed.


The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea that began in 1973 and precipitated it, the Canadian perspective, the contents of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, "UNCLOS"[4] that emerged from this conference and codified the EEZ together with other elements of and changes in the law of the sea, and major problems that remained or developed after the EEZ came into effect and UNCLOS was finalized.

Starrigan said...

Wow ask a simple question and instead get an a$$hole-fest. WJM, stop being an a$$hole for one second and answer the question. Do you think that NL is living in some kind of Utopia? You seem to try to crush any indication that it might be otherwise, so tell us, is NL now at a point in their history where it couldn't get any better?

As for the anonymous pig, you're beyond the a$$hole catagory. You are just an ignorant racist.

Anonymous said...

Sorry but I think Confederation can be to blame for many things, including the ones mentioned in the post above.


Had we not been stolen when we were we would have been in far better shape than we are now. We could have used our resoures and created manufaturing jobs here, instead of Canada's povinces using them to create industries and jobs in their areas. We would have figured out a way no differently than any other country at the time.

Europe was destroyed from the war and it bounced back and we would have done the same. We had a lot less to deal with than they did. Plus the resources that were needed to rebuild Europe were in great demand and since we were close to Europe we could have suppplied some of the resources, instad of our resources being sent to the rest of Canada to have been resold to Europe and Japan.



The whole world surged ahead after the Second World War, Germany and Japan became part of the G7 Nations, now the G8 with the help of the Marshall Plan instituted by the US. Little Iceland got its independence from Denmark in 1944 and surged ahead, that was just one year before the war hand ended. I think it was a rush job, Canada knew it had to get Newfoundland or Canada would never have it. Instead of having a rich country on its Eastern Flank Canada that could have been promlematic, it ate up that territory known as Newfoundlandand and its resourrces. That made life much easier for Canada. Canada knew things were about to change for every country in the Western Hemisphere for the better. Plus Newoundland at the time wasn't exactly broke as it had $48 million in the bank and loads of wonderful resoures plus it made up the complete eastern flank for Canada. It was then or NEVER. What a prize it got with little resistance.

Had we put up a resistance, we had four large US bases on our territory at the time manned with thousands of military personnel. Too bad we were so passive and complacent!

Anonymous said...

Here ,Here !!!!
Something that isn't Full Of Lie's And Deciet!!!!

Anonymous said...

Now this sounds like a call for teaching deceit-detection!

Starrigan said...

Anonymous you are of course right. Sir Robert Bond had actually put together a free trade deal with the US but that was destroyed by our good friends over in London at the behest of our other good friends in Ottawa. And let's not forget our debt after WWII. NL had racked up quite a debt after the war but do you think that Britain would forgive our debt? No sir, they forgave debt for lots of countries, Spain for example, but not good old Newfoundland. Even after the incredible sacrifices made by our tiny nation. Why did they scrap free trade with the US? Why did they not forgive our debt? Obviously, to set us up for a Canadian take over. Even then it took 2 votes to get what they wanted. Still to this day you can be sure there was tampering with ballot boxes and the like. Newfoundland didn't embrace Canada, Newfoundland, was stolen. And here we are decades later, saddled with billions of dollars of debt, our resources being drained, constantly insulted by Canadians, having to put up with the most vile racism imaginable, our fisheries destroyed, our railway gone, our people gone, we have to kick and scream to get a few scraps from the Canadian table. Then we are called whiners and ingrates. The prime minister of Canada insults us, lies to us, and we are the ones made to look bad by the national media. Oh yes Ottawally and Crazy Eddy we are basking in a wonderful red and white utopia. I know why you won't answer the question I posed earlier. It's because you two stupid a$$holes are living in some kind of dream world. Ottawally is nothing more than a trained dog. Paid by our tax dollars to come on to sites like this and constantly insult us. It's disgusting, I don't know how scum like that can live with themselves. He can't even answer a simple question, yet he can make post after post of stupid questions in an attempt to irritate people. Of course anyone who reads this blog knows all about his childish games. As for Crazy Eddy, well he's just an a$$hole. Longing for the day that he can kneel before Steven Harper and kiss his feet. Excuse me while I puke. These two a$$holes are simply here to be just that, a$$holes. Why do they even bother to lower themselves to this level? Simple, they are being paid folks, it's their job. Absorb that for a second .... they are being paid by your tax dollar to insult you and your families and all NL's. I know it's traitorous, hard to believe, but true. What has the world come to. Sad really. The thing to remember is that it's just these two a$$holes trying to cause trouble, well, "paid people", that are causing trouble. There are other a$$holes that post just to insult NL'ers in general but they are your basic run of the mill racist pigs.
We know our place in Canada and we will one day know our place outside Canada. It can't come soon enough.

Starrigan said...

Anonymous of
May 31, 2007 11:05 PM

Hey folks looks like Simple Simon poked his a$$hole mug in here as an anonymous. What a cowardly a$$hole he is indeed. Now that he's running for council he's not so smart using his name after he imploded on this site earlier. His comments were some of the most offensive I've ever seen. Worse than Margaret Wente, if you believe that possible.

Ed Hollett said...

"Had we not been stolen when we were we would have been in far better shape than we are now. We could have used our resoures and created manufaturing jobs here, instead of Canada's povinces using them to create industries and jobs in their areas. We would have figured out a way no differently than any other country at the time."

Here we have once again nothing more than a statement of the unfacts that people here, like starrigan seem to be relying on.

Right from the outset, the comment makes a complete incorrect statement. "We" ere not "Stolen".

Every resource that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would have had as an independent country in 1949 it had as a province of Canada. Every single one.

There is absolutely nothing of consequence when it comes to development that could have happened in NL as an independent country that could not have occurred with NL as a province.

In fact, with federal transfer payments, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had access to large amounts of stable cash than it had as an independent country.

Resources were not "taken" or "stolen" as this commenter suggests. This is completely false.

What we are left with in that comment is a pile of unfacts that comes ultimately to some excuses for the supposed state the province is currently in.

The simple question that this anonymous person cannot answer is this: since Newfoundland controlled all the resources as a province it had as a Commission government and Dominion and would have controlled as a Dominion after 1949, how do you explain your claim that things were "stolen"?

What is your evidence to support your repetition of the same shrivelled old myths?

Anonymous said...

What is up here in this province, we have a person who is monitoring the Open Line shows and the blogosphre in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Tonight on Linda's line he was on the Open Line Show bashing a poor guy who is trying to fight the 3 mile limit and now here on the blog he is bashing someone who has the opinion that had Newfoundland not become part of Canada that it would have been okay and would have gone forward just the same as every other place after the second world war.

Is the Federal Government paying people to do this job? I know that people are paid in the provincial government to monitor the open line shows and every politician gets a transcript of al the shows both provincially and federally.

wake up you morons said...

"We could have used our resoures and created manufaturing jobs here"

We still can.

The province has absolute complete unfttered jurisdiction over these resources. Nickel, Iron ore, Pulp and paper, coal, cobalt, etc. Anything you can dig out of god's green earth is 100% controlled by the NL government.

Go start a mining company. Go build a smelter. Go build a refinery. Open a mill. Do whatever the hell you like. It all belongs 100% to the province. Always has. Always will.

What's stopping yo?

Starrigan said...

Ed, are you saying that Britain didn't destroy Sir Roberts free trade deal with the US? Do you agree that Britain did not forgive our war debt?

Anonymous said...

The pressure Sir is not to have more smelters built but to use the ones already in existence. And as you are, no doubt, aware these smelters exist in places like Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba.

We have no more control over the mineral resource than we do over the fish quota resourcewhich Ottawa holds in its hands. When a resource is up for development, then the pressure is put on by the National News Media, as we saw first hand with the Voisey's Bay Nickel Ore. We know where that was destined right from the moment the 'go ahead' was given to take it out of the ground.

Anonymous said...

The province can do whatever it likes with its nickel. The province (like all provinces) owns every ounce of it.

If the market dictates that the province gets a better return by smeting it elsewhere, or if nobody in newfoundland has the wherewithall to develop it, then blame the market for that, don't blame confederation.

As for the fishery, we'd have lots of fish if three generations of Newfoundland politicans didn't do eveyrthing they could, federally, provincially, and municipally, to employ as many people on as many boats and in as many plants as possible for fifty years. It killed the fishery. Ottawa managed it just as the local idiot politicans demanded. There are very few NL politicans of any stripe from any district from '49 until the moratorium with clean hands in the whole affair.


As for your last quote "We know where that was destined right from the moment the 'go ahead' was given to take it out of the ground." Who gave the go ahead? The province. Why? Because it was the best offer they'd get anywhere. So good an offer that five years later, INCO got swallowed up whole.

If NL doesn't like the INCO deal (and there's no better one like it in the world) then why doesn't your hero Danny "go it alone"?

I'll tell you why - because there isn't a single capitalist or investor in the province willing to put a dime into such a thing. That's why we're dependant on outsiders to develop the stuff. And that has absolutely SFA to do with "confederation".

Your arguments are baseless, triresome and completely ridiculous.

Lobby your local politicians to force a referendum, Let's get this over with.

Anonymous said...

Jeez, but you couldn't have been around when the people were lobbying with the smoke screen of Brian Tobin bellowing around us "that not one teaspoon of Nickel Ore was going to leave the province for smelting". The Globe and Mail Newspaper columnists were in a frenzy because our people were demanding that it would be the case, and not one teaspoon would leave the province, and we thought our Mr. Tobin was sincere, but the ordinary person's lobby in this province made no difference at all, since the Nickel Ore was exported against our will to Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba to keep those cities thriving.

So please don't say that we have control because we don't. It is a ruse to say so!

That is the way we have been hoodwinked forever. We have had smoke screens thrown about right left and center. Smoke screens certainly serve the purpose for which that tool was created. But now that we know there is such a thing as "smoke screens" there is no reason why we should go wrong. Let us grow up like the rest of the other provinces, they have figured things out a long time ago. You won't see themm hoodwinked.

There are people on the blogs who try to hoodwink us and there are people on the open line shows who do the same. They are valuable paid employees of , say of a Corporation, or of a Government. One has to decipher who is paying who? Be careful!

Ed Hollett said...

"The pressure Sir is not to have more smelters built but to use the ones already in existence. And as you are, no doubt, aware these smelters exist in places like Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba."

Obviously you are completely unaware of the smelter being built at Long Harbour. That alone makes your comment incorrect.

Anonymous who listens to Night Line: have the courage to both identify yourself and get it right before resorting to silly comments.

"Tonight on Linda's line he was on the Open Line Show bashing a poor guy who is trying to fight the 3 mile limit and now here on the blog he is bashing someone who has the opinion that had Newfoundland not become part of Canada that it would have been okay and would have gone forward just the same as every other place after the second world war."

No less than four people called last night to say the same thing: Bouzan is completely, utterly, totally wrong in his arguments. He is wrong. it is not a matter of a difference of opinion; Bouzan said things that go directly contrary to the plain English meaning of the words on the page.

He even misrepresented the issues in his own cases, not to mention the issues surrounding his conviction.

He is not fighting the three mile limit, at all. First of all he is still fighting a $100 fine for not having his cod tagged.

He is trying to do it on the basis of a legal nonsense.

If you want to get the facts you can head to Bond Papers (click on my name) and read the court decision - including, if memory serves, Bouzan's agreed statement of facts on what occurred.

Then there's this foolishness:

"That is the way we have been hoodwinked forever. We have had smoke screens thrown about right left and center. Smoke screens certainly serve the purpose for which that tool was created. But now that we know there is such a thing as "smoke screens" there is no reason why we should go wrong. Let us grow up like the rest of the other provinces, they have figured things out a long time ago. You won't see themm hoodwinked."

So your position is that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are stupid or have been stupid for some time. I would and have disagreed with that argument. The whole point of looking at the facts - versus looking at the myuths and nonsense spread by so many here - is that you quickly realize just how mistaken it is to believe that the people of this province have been hoodwinked by anyone.

I would agree we should change how we look at the world - grow up as you put it - but I would say that growing up would involve stop doing as you do and blame everyone else for our own decisions or, for things that never occurred in the first place.

Starrigan said...

So Ed, How about answering my questions???

"Ed, are you saying that Britain didn't destroy Sir Roberts free trade deal with the US? Do you agree that Britain did not forgive our war debt?"

WJM said...

is NL now at a point in their history where it couldn't get any better?

Nope. It could get a lot better.

Getting rid of Chairman Dan, and the people who believe and promote lies, rather than value truth, would be two terrific ways to start.

WJM said...

Ottawally is nothing more than a trained dog. Paid by our tax dollars to come on to sites like this and constantly insult us.

Nope.

WJM said...

I know that people are paid in the provincial government to monitor the open line shows and every politician gets a transcript of al the shows both provincially and federally.

Really?

You "know" this?

Interesting.

WJM said...

We have no more control over the mineral resource

Who has control over "the mineral resource", if not "we"?

Anonymous said...

"So please don't say that we have control because we don't"


We don't because we don't.

That's a highly enlightened argument.

Mensa? Rhodes?

Anonymous said...

Nope, ANON/WJM, it isn't Mensa, but neither is what you write, when you copy and paste another person's writing, and write a one word or 3 word sentence fo an answer. But the non-mensical sentence sure received your attention, didn't it? Gotcha!

Anonymous said...

Do you see how low the Conservatives in Ottawa will stoop? They hire ex-appointed Lberals of the Newfoundland and Labrador Government to peruse the Open Line Shows and the Blogosphere to counteract everthing said that they don't like. That is the reason we cannot get ahead in Newfoundland and Labrador. But the Liberals have done the same. That was the reason the National Newspapers were sic'ed upon us during the Atlantic Accord dispute and during the negotiation process of the Voisey Bay Agreement. The Federal Liberals were responsible for that. The set up in Ottawa is the problem. The Ottawa system needs to be reinstituted!

Anonymous said...

Patronage has to be eliminated from the Government systems, both Provincially and Federally.


With such inequities existing in the the Government system, there is no fairness and there never will be. As we know money can buy and secure anything. All you need are people with the mindset to go against their people. And we know they are out there and can be bought and are bought. The government side can fight on and on, and the common man loses every time. It is time that Prime Minister Stephen Harper put a stop to that system. Doesn't he come from the Religious side of things? And if so where is the righteousness in that system?

WJM said...

Nope, ANON/WJM,

I'm not ANON.

it isn't Mensa, but neither is what you write, when you copy and paste another person's writing, and write a one word or 3 word sentence fo an answer.

Copying and pasting the previous post is a common internet courtesy.

Maybe you're not familiar with the convention. You'll get it eventually. You just haven't been on the interweb as long as I have.

NL-ExPatriate said...

While we might own and control our own resources on land. It won't benefit us to develop them because every cent we get from those resources will get clawed back through the Federally imposed provincial welfare wall called the D-Equalization program.

D-Equalization doesn't contribute to building an economy or infrastructure it only maintains the status Quo of Health and social programs.

Think about this; Alberta would still be a Have not province if they would of had their Non-Renewable resource one time resources revenues clawed back against the D-Equalization Health and Social tranfers program.

Ed Hollett said...

"But the non-mensical sentence sure received your attention, didn't it? Gotcha!"

and then another commenter wrote:

"Do you see how low the Conservatives in Ottawa will stoop? They hire ex-appointed Liberals of the Newfoundland and Labrador Government to peruse the Open Line Shows and the Blogosphere to counteract everything said that they don't like."

For some of us, this is not an exercise in childish "Gotcha" nonsense. It is about engaging in a discussion based on facts and on some amount of reason.

"Gotcha" is a game and the province and it's future is not a game.

As for the second quote, this is yet another example of the completely false statements that are made by individuals who, obviously, cannot contribute anything substantive to a discussion.

If I knew who the individual was and knew that they knew the difference I could say it was a bald-faced lie.

As it is, since the person skulks behind a coward's cloak of anonymity in order to make false statements, I can only point out, yet again that when someone doesn't have anything of substance to say or cannot engage in a factual discussion, he or she resorts to the sort of sheer nonsense contained in the quoted comment.

Paranoid delusions, such as the one contained in the quoted comment, are simply no basis for discussing the province and its future any more than is the silly game of "gotcha."

Ed Hollett said...

Ex-pat wrote:

"Think about this: Alberta would still be a Have not province if they would of had their Non-Renewable resource one time resources revenues clawed back against the D-Equalization Health and Social transfers program."

Ex-pat, there are some really good articles available on line about Equalization, Alberta and the development of resoruces and how those revenues are treated or can be managed.

Obviously you haven't read them, but it would be really worthwhile.

Here again, you are simply stating things that are not true.

The Equalization program began in 1957. In 1962, the Equalization program was changed and, as a result, Alberta stopped receiving Equalization, first at the level it originally received and then within a few years it stopped receiving it altogether.

Ever since that time and to use your own "claw-back" argument, Alberta has had 100% of its oil and gas revenues clawed back by the federal government's Equalization program.

If you want to know how Alberta has succeeded you need only look at how the provincial government handled the revenues. Among other things, Alberta put some of its revenues toward debt reduction, some to an investment fund, and some to build infrastructure.

Basically, Alberta did not shy away from developing its resources. It developed them and managed the revenues to produce lasting benefit.

The situation in Newfoundland and Labrador is no different except successive provincial governments have not done what Alberta did on any level. That's the only difference, that is what the provincial government has decided to do with things it controls.

Under the 1985 Atlantic Accord, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador sets its own revenues from offshore resources as if those resources were on land. It receives - and has always received - 100% of those revenues. Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the current provincial government that signed the 2005 agreement. Go read that agreement and you will see exactly what I just stated: the province has always received 100% of revenues and certainly 100% of royalties as the provincial government set them.

If you want to take a look at one very good article, read the one by Tom Courchene at www.irpp.org. I believe it was the March issue of their monthly magazine.

Anonymous said...

"Alberta would still be a Have not province if they would of had their Non-Renewable resource one time resources revenues clawed back against the D-Equalization Health and Social tranfers program."




That is sheer nonsense. Alberta's oil revenue is so huge that they have been off of Equalization for a very long time. Your point is completely irrelevant. When a province doesn't receive Equalization there is no

Equalization to claw back. How can you claw back what doesn't exist? Serves as a reminder of how dependant we have become in Newfoundland on all that money from Ottawa.

But imagine this - if Danny Williams and Stephen Harper got their way and removed all non-renewable resources from the Equalization formula it might become possible that Alberta, the country's richest province, would be on the verge of receiving Equalization money, while provinces like PEI, the poorest, would not.

Or, imagine if when our province's economy relied a little more on resources like fisheries, pulp and paper, etc. Ottawa tried to bring in such changes, We would have screamed bloody murder.

Anonymous said...

Gotcha is a game played by some of you bloggers who will do anything against your own province, even accept monies as earnings to peruse the Open Line Radio Shows and the Blog sites of the province. How low will you people go anyway when you do such a thing?

Anonymous said...

those bloggers are evil. I hear some of them read books. I don't trust people who read books. They say things different from our premier. That ought to be against the law. That and reading books. These people are truly evil and treacherous.

babe in boyland said...

"Gotcha is a game played by some of you bloggers who will do anything against your own province, even accept monies as earnings to peruse the Open Line Radio Shows and the Blog sites of the province. How low will you people go anyway when you do such a thing?"

there is no need for governments, either federal or provincial, to pay individuals for this. several media monitoring companies provide the same service. government uses this service and pays for it. in addition, internal government communications people monitor talk radio and other media as well as they can. there is no need to hire outside talent, except in bulk through companies like bristol communications.

why can't people just dislike you, free of charge? ya know, the simplest answer is always the right one - that's occam's razor

Anonymous said...

It is time that you disclosed that you are paid puppets for the Federal Goverment. Stop it, you three highly paid spies, you are screwing the rest of us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from everything that is rightfully ours and you are putting the screws to us from getting ahead any further in this province. You are despicable people who are are acting in a very avaracious manner.

It is high time you disclosded who is paying you to do the dirty work that you are doig.

Anonymous said...

babe: The individuals you are referring to do nothing for free. They have always been freeloaders of governments in one way or the other, ever since they have een in the work force. We know the names in Newfoundland and Labrador, they even have the details contained in their resumes on their blogsites. They have been brown nosing politicians since they have been in the work force. Please do not protet them.

Super-Patriot! said...

I've been busted!

You are right on. I've been taking cash money from a secret division of the RCMP to monitor blogs, post sympathetic ideas, encourage NL speratism and generally keep the debate lively and active making sure that the blame for the NL condition goes far, wide and low.

The goal is to identify dangers to Canada and to ensure that NL nationalism remains so ridiculous that it can never be taken serously. Putting down NL makes Canada strong!

But I can't do it anymore. I just can't sleep at night knowing that I'm betraying my nation and my country. I have come to see the light.

I confess - I am a (well-paid) federalist stooge and agent provocateur.

Starrigan. . . . it's ok to come out too. Just confess your sins and the good NLer's won't hold it against you.

babe in boyland said...

anonymous one - what three? anonymous 2 - prove it. there is no evidence of your claim at all. try an access to information request to the feds, if you want proof. under the law they can't deny to disclose whether they are employing people for this function, though they can refuse to say who, because of protection of privacy legislation.

oh, and by the way, i'll speak on behalf of who and what i want. or are you saying i don't have the right to do that in my own province? please don't try and tell me i can't. that's not likely to work till you guys get the gestapo you clearly want to enforce your idea of what a newfoundlander should be - just like the nazis had the ss to enforce their idea of what a german should be. my dad fought a war to stop that shite.

Anonymous said...

If you are stun enough to believe these people ae working on behalf of the Federal Government for free, I guess you don't have enough brain cells to understand and you are very unaware of how governments work. If that is the case there is not enough time in my life now to teach you. You will have to go on believing that the world is a Utopian place. Good luck to you, but I suspect you are probably feasting off the Federal Government as well. Your post like the others was created for deflection. The deflection was widely used by the Governments for a long time, we are a more aware people than we were and that tool has become outdated. It is time that the governments decided to revamp the way they do things. The only way now is for them to become honest and have things done in a truthful and honest way. We, here in Newfoundland and Labrador have had the wool pulled over our eyes for far too long.

Anonymous said...

No babe and and What you don't know is that there will never be any evidence, since that is how Governments work.

The Canadian Federal Government has been downgraded by Transparency International on a number of occasions for that very reason "lack of transparency".

Lack of transparency on the part of goernments have been their greatest tool, and, whether, at least, three of the posters operating here know it or not, that is the service they have been providing for the Fedeeral Goverment for their wages earned, so as to try and pull the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It is part of the Mr. Reid Symndrome that was sic'ed upon us during the end of the last Federal Liberal Government in Ottawa.

Ed Hollett said...

"If you are stun enough to believe these people are working on behalf of the Federal Government for free, I guess you don't have enough brain cells to understand and you are very unaware of how governments work."

Let's just ask one simple question: who are the "these people" who you think are working for the federal government?

Ed Hollett said...

"Lack of transparency on the part of governments have been their greatest tool,...".

Now this is an interesting idea.

Since you didn't qualify it, presumably you believe that all governments operate with a lack of transparency.

That would include the provincial government as well.

So logically if you think three people are posting here because they are paid by the federal government you must believe that some or all of the others are here because they are paid by the provincial government.

Does that include you?

Anonymous said...

Dear idiot - I hate this federal government and would hope for nothing more than for it to be defeated.

But that won;t stop me or any of the five or six other who post here from being able to think critically about the crap you write or the bullshit our premier spews.

I visited this blog for the first tome this week. It's good to see that the author is leaving the province for awhile. I thought only smart people left. I guess he's evening things out.

Starrigan said...

Very nice anon, clever, articulate to the point. We have yet another a$$hole joining our little group.
I see the biggest a$$hole anon got himself a name. Yes indeed, super patriot, now I know where to direct my a$$hole designations. Super Patriot indeed, wonder why you chose that name ..

Who is paid by the feds you ask??? One for certain is WJM, he has already admitted his role.

And ED, here's my third request, this is not a complicated question it only requires a yes or no answer, I'll try one more time...

So Ed, How about answering my questions???

"Ed, are you saying that Britain didn't destroy Sir Roberts free trade deal with the US? Do you agree that Britain did not forgive our war debt?"

Danny's quest for self confidence said...

Not only did they not forgive our war debt, the colonial office also got tired of paying for thegovernmet here after awhile...

Newfoundland had a booming war time economy, because, temporarily, a lot of people, goods and equipment had to pass through here. Gander, Torbay, Argentia, there were literally thousands and thousands of Brits, Americans, Canadians and millions worth of supplies passing through one of the Allies' most strategic locations - our island.

But then the war ended. And you would swear tha every Newfoundland 70 years laters acts as if the economy that the war cretaed in this province was stolen from us.

Why don't some of you get off of your couch and do something for this province instead of sitting around whining all day about imaginary war debts from over 60 years ago?

We're going to "go it alone" we're going to "stand on our own two feet" we're going to "be masters of our own house" butfirst someone else somewhere send us a cheque for our war debts.

Pathetic.

Right up there with - "let's charge rent for planes to fly over us"

You people are nuts.

Like the person who posted above, my first time visiting this site too. It makes for great comedy.

Anonymous said...

I know ONE who is here and WHO is Not being paid by the Provincial Government and that is ME. I am not totally in sync with what the provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador is doing but what I am totally in sync with is not siding with the Federal Government of Canada which has run the province of Newfoundland and Labrador into the ground despite all of its RICH natural resources. I WOULD NEVER BE A TRAITOR TO MY PROVINCE LIKE SOME OF THE POSTERS HERE, WHO ALSO AT ONE TIME DID WORK FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT.

What type of corrupt mind does one need to have worked with the Provincial Government and then to turn around and be a traitor? That is deprivation at its worst.

Anonymous said...

Rich natural resources are something to be proud and protective of, but we also have to view them in context. Up until the opening of Voisey's Bay (which Williams opposed) we ranked ninth out of ten provinces for mineral production.


We're not the only province with non-renewable resources. We are relatively small compared to Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, even New Brunswick.

People who have a differing opinion than you are not traitors to their province. You can disagree with them without making outlandish accusations that they are being "paid", that they are "traitors", etc.

Pedestrian said...

The scrapping of the Bond-US deal has more to do with the delicate sphere of colonial/dominion brokerage politics which, while anomolously partitioned, the province was part of. It's asinine to the nth degree no matter whos side you're on,but the need for compromise in order to prevent discord in the Maritimes was a very real part of the political landscape.

It was and still is a world and scene of compromise, We have a tendency to forget that, as a group, we are stronger than we are as individuals. We start to think we want everything for ourselves and we don't want to help anybody else. We want to succeed, but we don't want anybody else to succeed, because we want to be the winner. Once you get that mentality,you lose. You can't possibly win that way.

Ed Hollett said...

"I know ONE who is here and WHO is Not being paid by the Provincial Government and that is ME."

Well, obviously we have no way to know who you are nor determine whether that is true or not. So that would make both your denial and any accusations about as useless as anything.

"...the Federal Government of Canada which has run the province of Newfoundland and Labrador into the ground despite all of its RICH natural resources."

Of course, this nothing more than the mythology that has been the subject of discussion.

"I WOULD NEVER BE A TRAITOR TO MY PROVINCE LIKE SOME OF THE POSTERS HERE, WHO ALSO AT ONE TIME DID WORK FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT."

To whom are you referring?

Ed Hollett said...

^Right up there with - "let's charge rent for planes to fly over us"^

It's likely only a matter of time before someone picks up on one idea coming from aboriginal communties: charging for cellular airtime since it is a use of the atmosphere. Apparently, air belongs to some people.

Starrigan said...

Nice comment by "Danny's quest for self confidence" yet another a$$hole who doesn't know his a$$ from his head. You may want to check your facts instead of posting here and looking like an idiot. Well done. You are a first time visitor, why don't you make it a double visit, your first and last. Like other whiners before you, if you don't like what's going on here, then go somewhere else. I'm constantly amazed at these a$$holes who post with the purpose of insulting NL'ers and making all sorts of vile, racist remarks. If you are that disgusted with us why do you even bother to read this blog? Surely if we are so far below you, why would you waste your time? Unbelievable, I'll see if I can come up with a better word than a$$hole, might be tough.

And Eddy, I'll try for a third time, how about a yes or no answer:

"Ed, are you saying that Britain didn't destroy Sir Roberts free trade deal with the US? Do you agree that Britain did not forgive our war debt?"

Anonymous said...

The give away artists who once worked for the Provincial Government and who are now moaning and groaning because Premier Williams wants to slow down that giveaway process and try and change directions, are gone crazy with rage on this blogsite.

Someone has to rein in these once "giveaway artists" and now wantabe "giveaway artists".

I know at least one radio show host put one of the giveaway artists in his place, but will the others do the same?

These renegades have to be brought to task for the havoc they are heaping on the province with their points of view! They are pure unadulterated idiots and money grabbers! They don't care where the money comes from or what they have to do to get it. They will do anything for a buck.

I never knew we had renegades with the Wild West mentality within our midst? But we do.

Ed Hollett said...

"These renegades have to be brought to task for the havoc they are heaping on the province with their points of view! They are pure unadulterated idiots and money grabbers!"

Since you can't seem to identify these individuals, I think perhaps you are making all this up.

In fact, it would seem that most of your comments are just nonsense, the product of some fever or delusion.

There isn't a single person here that I can tell fits your description.

Are you sure you are posting to the right blog?

Starrigan said...

Good one ED, but we all know that WJM or Wallace J McLean, or Ottawally is paid by federal dollars to cause whatever Havoc he can on this site. I'm not sure what your game is.

But you should answer my question, this is my fourth request.

"Ed, are you saying that Britain didn't destroy Sir Roberts free trade deal with the US? Do you agree that Britain did not forgive our war debt?"

Robert Bond said...

starrigan - I'll answer for you.
Yes to question 1
No to question 2

Now please answer question 3 - what the hell relevance is it?

Did Britain pay for our government for the better part of 300 years? Did it bail it ourin the 1930s? Did it drive the economy in the war years?
What the heck does it matter about this nonsensical trivial war debt bs?

babe in boyland said...

ok - the anonymous posters seem to know a lot about how government works. how many of YOU guys work for government? youre in a bind. if youre not on the inside how do you know how "government works"???? what i see here on this blog is a bunch of anonymous posters attacking a few people who sign their name and accusing everyone who doesnt agree with them of being traitors, a$$holes - very clever starrigan, you must be a real genius - and know-nothings. i have no idea why i visit this blog, except to remind myself of how stupid and nasty some people can be. grow some balls all you anonymous guys and try to actually think and discuss and do something with this space except schoolyard insults.

Anonymous said...

I don't work for government and I never will, but I have friends who have worked for Government from time to time and from what I have been told by my friends, I find it despicable, the way that government is run. I am a news decipherer and I hear and see many things from that media, television, radio and in the newspapers,. If it is not the sponsorship scandal, well then it is some other scandal or impropriety going on with government. They lie to cover up things. Just recently , we saw the lies over the Afghanistan debacle , to which an apology had to be given.

Good Grief Babe I don't think you even listen to the News, either Local or National. And if you are so out of touch why would you even comment?

If the pubic is unable to glean enough information from the news medias to turn them off completely against what is going on out there, the public must have its senses, all of them disabled?

Babe, are you not aware that the Ottawa government has been downgraded by Transparency International on a number of occasions for low grade transparency. Canada was once rated the number one Nation in the world, it has now dropped to the 11th position because of poor grade transparency in its operations. Why would you defend an organization

Ed Hollett said...

"Babe, are you not aware that the Ottawa government has been downgraded by Transparency International on a number of occasions for low grade transparency. Canada was once rated the number one Nation in the world, it has now dropped to the 11th position because of poor grade transparency in its operations. Why would you defend an organization?"

Anon, if you are going to make a statement like that, the very least you could do is to get the facts and figures right.

Transparency International's website is located at transparency.org. Year-by-year results of a public opinion assessment of corruption/transparency is available for the first survey in 1995 down to the most recent one for 2006.

In 1995, Canada ranked fifth in the world with a score of 8.87.

In 2001, Canada ranked 7th on the list, with an average score across the surveys used of 8.9 out of 10. The higher the number the lower the perceived corruption.

In 2006, Canada ranked 14th but its average score was 8.5.

If you look at the figures, Canada is still perceived - by Canadians surveyed - very favourably.

The change in its relative position globally is largely the result of changed perceptions (and likely changed surveying practices) within countries that have changed positions and overall average scores.

This index is not confined to one order of government, nor indeed is it confined to government. The corruption index includes attitudes toward business practices.

If you look at the regional breakouts for 2006, you will find that Canada ranks number 1 in the Americas. That means that on the survey index Canada was perceived as having the lowest level of corruption of all the North, South and Central American countries.

What we see here - yet again - by an anonymous commenter is a complete, utter and total misrepresentation of the facts. The comments made by this person are wrong - absolutely wrong.

The question people should ask is why someone would so deliberately and obviously misrepresent information as this anonymous person clearly has.

In light of the sort of nonsense just posted by this person, we don't need to wonder why that person continues to remain anonymous.

If I presented that kind of nonsense, I'd keep my identity secret as well.

Anonymous said...

Canada is the Number one country in the America but not the World. The World consists of more countries than the Ameiricas. Are you prejudiced or what?

Edward G. Hollett said...

Confused would seem to be the word for decipherer.

Anonymous said...

How simplistic - Please wait until Canada is graded on how it handled the Jewel in its Crown the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I wonder how many points will it get downgraded on that score?


And, oh by the way, Sir if I am confused you must be the CONFUSER. You are trying quite hard, but I think from what I am hearing from the people who lisiten to you on the Open Line Shows , is that people see you as a worker for the Federal Government. You are really trying to confuse the situaion but everyone sees right through you. You have had your hands in too many government pies and now you have destroyed your creditbility. Fro listeneing to you on Radio you come across as a very arrogant and 'know it all' person. Why do you not stop and listen to yourself once in a while?

WJM said...

we all know that WJM or Wallace J McLean, or Ottawally is paid by federal dollars to cause whatever Havoc he can on this site

No, he isn't, which makes me wonder how much of everything else "we all know" is garbage as well.

babe in boyland said...

"Good Grief Babe I don't think you even listen to the News, either Local or National. And if you are so out of touch why would you even comment?"

chum, you have no idea what i listen to and read. but your post suggests you spend a lot of time reading conspiracy theories.

GMT said...

WJM wrote
“That’s the quota. You divide the population of each state by the quota, and round to the nearest whole to get that state’s House of Representatives entitlement. Tasmania’s 473,371 in 2003 works out to 3.55”

How do you get a partial seat – oh yeah only a moron would think that if you divide a population by the number of seats in parliament you would get a whole number and only an imbecile would not read the rest of the sentence to see that this number was rounded up.

WJM wrote

“Within the states, the population of the federal seats must be within +/- 10% of the electoral quota for that state. There are no allowances”

And in a latter e-mail WJM wrote

“Tasmania has 1.4 times as many MPs as its population would strictly warrant, thanks to the rounding, the floor provision, and the effect of representation for the territories on overall House size”.

So – lets see Tasmania should only have 4 seats by population and they have 5. Seems to be some sort an allowance and not a strict adherence to +/- 10%.

WJM Wrote
“What information did I leave out.”

That there is a minimum number of seats therefore in Australia a state can have more seats in parliament than its population merits.

Now seeing that Australia has 150 seats in parliament and Canada has 308 if Canada adopted the Australia system of allocating votes the minimum of seats in a province could probably be higher than the 5 set in Australia - maybe 7 or even 10.

In fact if Canada adopted the Australian system Newfoundland and Labrador would be better off with equal representation of senators per Province (in Canada’s case) NL would have the same amount of senators as Ontario or any other province in Canada. Plus the Australian Senate is a far more powerful body than its Canadian counterpart.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"How simplistic - "

How simplistic it is indeed anonymous to make statements which are demonstrated to be incorrect and to then dismiss the whole issue.

It would seem that having been shown to be mistaken - quite seriously mistaken - you can do nothing but attack the individual.

"Why do you not stop and listen to yourself once in a while?"

I do. I also stop and listen to others. When I find that those others are stating things which are incorrect, then I do as I have done here: I point out the incorrect statements.

The only credibility that suffers in such a case is that of the person stating incorrect things.

Edward G. Hollett said...

GMT:

Some time ago, WJM made this comment in response to your remarks on the Australian national parliament:

"Tasmania’s 473,371 in 2003 works out to 3.55, round up to 4. There’s also a 'floor' provision of a minimum five seats per 'original state'."

You subsequently responded:

"So – lets see Tasmania should only have 4 seats by population and they have 5. Seems to be some sort an allowance and not a strict adherence to +/- 10%.

WJM Wrote
'What information did I leave out.'

That there is a minimum number of seats therefore in Australia a state can have more seats in parliament than its population merits."

I've been trying to follow the exchange but it would seem WJM didn't leave anything out at all. You both seem to be in agreement on this point.

Your comments on senate reform are well taken. Those of us who support senate reform along the lines of a triple-e senate have long suggested this would deal with many of the problems in achieving proper representation in the national parliament in Ottawa.

WJM said...

So – lets see Tasmania should only have 4 seats by population and they have 5. Seems to be some sort an allowance and not a strict adherence to +/- 10%.

The +/- 10% is not for apportionment, it's for redistribution.

You see, once the census has been applied to the apportionment formula, in order to determine how many seats each state gets in the Australian House of Representatives, then the individual electorates (we call them ridings) have to be redistributed so that the population of each falls within +/- 10% of the representation quota for that state.

The Canadian system is much more tolerant of larger deviations, and more of them, than Australia. In Australia, Labrador, for example, would not have its own federal seat.

That there is a minimum number of seats therefore in Australia a state can have more seats in parliament than its population merits.

No more "left out" than the fact that you were ignorant of the stricter redistribution quotas, and the possibility of the reduction of representation of a state, under the Australian system.

In fact if Canada adopted the Australian system Newfoundland and Labrador would be better off with equal representation of senators per Province (in Canada’s case) NL would have the same amount of senators as Ontario or any other province in Canada.

Yes, and rutabagas are expensive in Kazakhstan at this time of year.

Irrelevant.

Plus the Australian Senate is a far more powerful body than its Canadian counterpart.

Yip.

And?

WJM said...

It's likely only a matter of time before someone picks up on one idea coming from aboriginal communties: charging for cellular airtime since it is a use of the atmosphere. Apparently, air belongs to some people.

Yes, it belongs to Ed Martin. Every time you breathe, you owe him royalties.

GMT said...

Ed Hollet said

I've been trying to follow the exchange but it would seem WJM didn't leave anything out at all. You both seem to be in agreement on this point.
yes we are both in agreement that Tasmania has 5 seats in parliament when if seats were strictly allocated by population it should only have 4.

what WJM left out was that under Australian rules there is a provision for a minimum number of seats and in fact due to under populated territories a State can have an over representation so when he makes statements like

“Whereas under Australian or US apportionment rules, in a 308-seat chamber, NL would get 5”

Is clearly not the case and an incorrect assumption, as shown by fact Tasmania has more seats than what its population merits due to the above reasons (Canada also has under populated territories). In a 308 seat chamber compared to a 150 seat chamber it would not be unreasonable to assume that the minimum number of 5 seats would be increased. Therefore in all probability NL would retain its current number of seats.

Ed Hollett said...

GMT:

Maybe I am missing something. WJM noted, and as I quoted "There’s also a 'floor' provision of a minimum five seats per 'original state'."

Is this not the same thing as your comment:

"what WJM left out was that under Australian rules there is a provision for a minimum number of seats and in fact due to under populated territories a State can have an over representation so when he makes statements like..."

It seems to me there is basically the same thing said in both cases, with nothing being left out.

Perhaps I am missing something.

GMT said...

ed Hollet said
"It seems to me there is basically the same thing said in both cases, with nothing being left out.

Perhaps I am missing something."


In WJM first message with regards to this he stated

“Whereas under Australian or US apportionment rules, in a 308-seat chamber, NL would get 5.”

The implication that Newfoundland and Labrador would be worse off as far as representation went under Australian rules.

It wasn’t until a latter message that WJM admitted that there is in fact a provision of a minimum number of seats for a state in Australia and the fact that some states within Australia have more seats than there population merits means that WJM’s original statement is misleading as under the Australian rules in a 308 seat house it’s highly likely NL would have the same number of seats we have now.

Anonymous said...

If I wanted to read Ed Hollet's diatribe I would visit his cesspool of a Blog.

This is getting to be ridiculous.

Ed Hollett said...

GMT:

Got it.

I was having a bit of trouble following the sequence. Thanks for the clarification.

Ed Hollett said...

And anonymous, presumably if you had something of substance to say you'd sign your name.

WJM said...

It wasn’t until a latter message that WJM admitted that there is in fact a provision of a minimum number of seats for a state in Australia and the fact that some states within Australia have more seats than there population merits means that WJM’s original statement is misleading as under the Australian rules in a 308 seat house it’s highly likely NL would have the same number of seats we have now.

You're right.

Under Australian rules we'd have five.

Now, when will you admit that in Australia, unlike in Canada, a state's seat-count can go down?

Or that in Australia, unlike in Canada, the rules for redistribution are exceptionaly strict?

Both of these contradict your obviously wrong statement that "Australia has a long history of the allocation of more or fewer electoral districts to one part of a country or state than its population would merit."

Starrigan said...

Oh my god what an incredible bunch of a$$holes, if you want to debate the appropriate number of seats for Australia why don't you save it for your next circle jerk or move it over to The Bond Paper.
Really such useless discussion is beyond belief. Try to imagine for one second how utterly stupid that discussion is. Not to mention irrelevant. How much difference do you really think it would make to NL if we had 8 seats or 5 seats. Either way we have no influence on the national stage you moronic a$$holes. You have slipped to a new low, really, you have to do better.

babe in boyland said...

CIRCLE JERK?????????? can you miserable emasculated ignorant whiners see or hear yourselves?

this is the biggest circle jerk in town and the only thing standing in the way of your getting off is wjm and hollet. no wonder you hate them.

Starrigan said...

Hey look it's babe in boyland, lol, you're funny, nice name, oh please, think a lot of yourself do you??? What an unbelievable a$$hole you are. You mentioned before that you don't know why you even bother to come to this site. And you know something, we don't know why you come here either. So do yourself and us a favour and get lost. You obviously don't like what you see here so leave, depart, vamoose, move on, go somewhere else. It looks like this blog is causing you too much stress, so take a walk sweet cakes.

Anonymous said...

To Ed, WJM and company. Consider the following definition since it describes your behaviour on blogs such as this one...

"Troll:
A commenter whose sole purpose is to attack the views expressed on a blog and incite a flame war, for example, a liberal going to a conservative blog, or vice versa. The word trolling means literally 'to fish', ie. when the troll fishes for a clashback from the blog writer and/or pro commenters. Many trolls will leave their remarks on multiple posts and continue to visit the blog, sparking spirited debate amongst the blog's regular readers. Trolls' verbosity can range from eloquent to crass, although most trolls probably fall into the latter category. Originally, trolling only meant the custom where someone was commenting just to get a flamewar going, by using exaggarated points of view not held by themselves.

Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning "Please do not feed the troll", for which PDNFTT is a common initialism."

Starrigan said...

Very well said. Troll seems like an appropriate name for Ottwally, Crazy Eddy and the like. And here I was calling them a$$holes when I really should have been calling them trolls. Silly me. Good advice not to feed the trolls, especially Ottawally. That one trick pony is is well past his prime. Ignoring him is good mojo. I still think it's valid to call them a$$holes.

Starrigan said...

Ottawally troll #1

Starrigan said...

Crazy Eddy Troll #2

Starrigan said...

Super Patriot Troll #3

Starrigan said...

Those various anon posters that show their ignorance and racist tendencies, Troll #4

Starrigan said...

Trolls or not, they are certainly all a$$holes

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 234   Newer› Newest»