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.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Tory MPs Sell Out Constituents

Last week, in a disgusting display of partisan party politics, Conservative MPs from Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada voted to approve their party’s budget implementation bill. Legislation that will see Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Labrador combine to lose billions in oil and gas revenues so badly needed to grow their economies and become fully contributing members to the federation.

Thanks to the votes of those MPs, including cabinet ministers Loyola Hearn and Peter Mackay, and with the assistance of the Bloc Quebecois, the bill passed second reading and moved one step closer to impeding the financial futures of the Province’s affected and the Country as a whole. Their actions also helped Stephen Harper break his often repeated promise and proved once again that when it comes to party politics the wishes of voters mean nothing in the scramble for position inside the party machine.

The Tory MPs involved all appear to believe they are in Ottawa to serve their leader rather than their constituents. They’ve vehemently argue that the PM has kept his promise, when it’s quite clear to anyone even vaguely familiar with the situation that he hasn’t, whether you agree with the concept of resource removal from the equalization formula or not.

One back bench MP, Newfoundland and Labrador member Fabian Manning, even allowed himself to be made a fool of by sitting in the House of Commons on the minister's bench a few weeks ago. In the Finance Ministers seat no less.

At the time the PM was standing in the House to taunt the province of Newfoundland and Labrador saying it had been treated so well in the federal budget bill the province wanted more of the same from Ottawa. Manning could be seen beside the PM clapping on cue like a trained seal. The only thing absent was a bucket of fish for harper to feed the newly elected MP.

Can anyone say “electoral suicide”?

When a politician puts his or her career, salary, perks, connections and retirement funds before the wishes of people they were elected to represent, publicly they say they are protecting their place in caucus so they can accomplish other good works. They say that because it usually works and because history has proven that they can get away it. This time that isn’t likely to happen.

There’s a saying that goes, “For every rule there is an exception”. I believe this is the exception that proves the rule. This time the people are angry enough to remember their MPs actions no matter how long it takes for the next election to roll around. This time the feeding frenzy at the parliamentary trough will be cut short long before those involved have taken their fill.

As the summer break approaches many MPs will be returning to their ridings and getting back in touch with their constituents for a couple of months. Up to now most of what they've been hearing of public reaction to their betrayal has come second hand through media reports, constituency workers, advisors and the like. This summer will be their first opportunity to actually walk down the street in their home towns and get a good look at the faces of those they’ve sold out. Each of them may want to think long and hard about what they hear from those voters and what they see in their eyes.

If it was me and I was on the BBQ circuit this summer, I think I’d avoid eating anything I hadn’t personally prepared.

161 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great Article Patriot,

Lets hope that the "Conservative's" have done what they need to get a majority.Every Newfoundlander I talk too on the mainland knows what "Stevie" has done to the people of thier home nation.And ,judgement shall be passed when we vote.No wonder they call it "Canuckistan".Can anybody put this shit-hole of a country out of it's misery.The yoke of confederation is killing Newfoundland and Labrador,thats easy to see.We are going the way of the cod-fish.Endangered.But,of course that didn't happen on canada's watch did it .

As Always Lost-in-Excile

Anonymous said...

I don't think it matters for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberals were in power for 68 per cent of the duration since we have been part of Canada. They did nothing to improve the situation in the province, they pilfered our resources to imporve the situation of the other provinces. Do we expect anything different from the Conservatives? According to the sampling we received over the past 2 years, I don't think so. I think we can only expect to go further downhill from here on. Nobody cares about this province, except for its resources.

Anonymous said...

Excactly Anon ,May 23, 2007 2:36 PM .People ask me why I support an independant Newfoundland and Labrador.
If they knew of the money that the province is losing because it is a partner in Confederation with canada they would surely see that we are on the losing end of this stick.
But,lets be honest with each other.The action that canada would take agaisnt this Province if we broke away ,Would be unbelievable.

Hey they whined and complained when we tried to get a Free trade deal with America befor.What do you think they would do now.Newfoundland and Labradore has two options to debate when it comes to Canada."Doggy style or mission."
When will the world see this shit-hole for what it is.Just an exstion of the Great Republic of America.
Facts are Facts.So I don't believe thease sick Liberail types have the right to even think of bitching about George Bush and his foriegn policey.The United States might be a war like nation,but at least it doesn't FEED on it's own like canada.What the hell were we thinking in 1949.

WJM said...

They did nothing to improve the situation in the province, they pilfered our resources to imporve the situation of the other provinces.

Which resources?

Which provinces?

WJM said...

The United States might be a war like nation,but at least it doesn't FEED on it's own like canada.

What does that mean?

While you're trying to figure that out and explain it, perhaps you can research the amount of money the US federal government transfers to the States. You can also research the amount of mining and petroleum royalties — on-shore and off-shore — which the US federal government collects, and compare it to those which the federal government collects in Canada.

Hint: the latter figure is 0.

Anonymous said...

You are quite aware WJM - FISH, HYDROELECTRICITY, MINERALS, OIL and the HUMAN RESOURCE.

WJM said...

FISH, HYDROELECTRICITY, MINERALS, OIL and the HUMAN RESOURCE.

The federal government has no jurisdiction over minerals or hydro. How can it "pilfer" them?

The province has equal jurisdiction over offshore oil. It can't be developed except with the province's consent. How did the federal government "pilfer" that?

How was "fish" pilfered?

How did the federal government "pilfer" humans?

Anonymous said...

The paid employee for of Todd Russell speaks (nonsense) again.

Anonymous said...

The Federal Government had enough jurisdiction when the Voisey's Bay Nickel was being negotiated to influence not only the National Newspaper Coulumnists, but also one of Newfoundland and Labrador's politicians at the time, to use his way with words and throw up a smoke screen on the Voisey Bay Nickel resource, by telling us that not one spoonful of Nickel Ore would move out of Newfoundland and Labrador to be processed. The next thing we knew was that particular politician was operating in Ottawa for the Federal Government and the Nickel Ore was operating in two cities, fueling the Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba refineries. How sad that we still have people throwing up smoke screens? There are people out there who would kill for a dollar. And it is sad that Ottawa would hang plums in front of people's eyes to encourage the weak of heart, as it pertains to coveting money to do such a thing.
We see a few of them on this particular blogsite, when we bring up the way that Ottawa operates and how it influences people.

Yes, Indeed, it is sad for those of us who are trying to get the message out there and also for the masses of us who want to see the province of Newfoundland and Labrador profit from its resources.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Another work (post and comments) of exaggeration and in some cases completely false statements.

1. False: "combine to lose billions in oil and gas revenues".

Neither this province nor Saskatchewan loses a single nickel of oil and gas revenues as a result of anything in the Equalization formula.

Don't take my word for it. Believe the 2005 agreement singed by the current provincial government.

2. "Stephen Harper break his often repeated promise..."

Sure the promise was broken. The political consequences for the country as a whole were such that it was never a realistic promise in the first place.

The question we should probably be asking is why the provincial government is pursuing an impossible option and ignoring entirely an attainable alternative (removing the illegal cap on the 1985 Atlantic Accord).

If this federal government would break the 1985 Accord and change the Equalization provisions without agreement by the Gov of NL, what else would they change?

3. False: "they pilfered our resources to imporve the situation of the other provinces."

Whoever "they" are, they certainly aren't the federal government.

The provincial government continues to control all resources it controlled in 1934. In addition the provincial government currently controls offshore oil and gas, collecting 100% of revenues - which the provincial government alone sets for itself.

4. Then there's the last anonymous post which is basically just complete paranoid delusion. The only thing that person can offer is bizarre accusations that are no more factual now than when they were first thrown around.

basically, when the facts don't fit the preconceived ideas of some of the people on this blog, they just ignore and make up a few others for good measure.

The only "message" being "gotten out" is that people who won't identify themselves moan and complain about something based on what amounts to falsehoods and untruths. Then the same anonymous people wonder why no one believes them.

Anonymous said...

There is no falsehood to the fact that the Nickel Ore coming out of Voisey's Bay goes to Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba to keep the refineries going there. There is not falsehood to the fact that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were told that not one teaspoon of Nikel Ore would leave the province for processing somewhere else.

There is no falsehood in the fact that a politician operating in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador at the time said not one teaspoon would be shipped out without being refined in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. And it is no falsehood that the politician in question ended up working in Ottawa.

So Ed what are you talking about?

WJM said...

The Federal Government had enough jurisdiction when the Voisey's Bay Nickel was being negotiated to influence not only the National Newspaper Coulumnists

Neither of whom have any jurisdiction over mines and minerals in Labrador.

ONLY the government in St. John's can authorize a mine in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

A mine can ONLY be developed in the province if that government approves of it.

Yes, Indeed, it is sad for those of us who are trying to get the message out there and also for the masses of us who want to see the province of Newfoundland and Labrador profit from its resources.

The province DOES profit from them.

Anonymous said...

May 23 8:17p.m. Anon--You're too stunned to understand what WJM is saying, so you choose to call it "nonsense". Pathetic!!! Find something better to do with your time. Go back to school. Oh, what am I saying? You probably couldn't learn anyway.

Anonymous said...

And, May 23rd 8;17 Anon, I realize you will need $omeone to write your next po$t for you, a$ you are too $tunned to write it your$elf!You are $ickening!!!

Anonymous said...

MrEdward G. Hollett ,first Sir ,let me say how much of a plesure this is for me to come forward and say ,what I think of your Liberial Sick ways of Governement.You preech of values, sir, that your handler cannot owe up too ,and yet you name your "Blog" after one of Newfoundland and Labradors Great Nationalists.
You ,Sir,have one "FUCK' In Sick Mind !!!!!!!!!

And ,you have the balls to call yourself a Newfoundlander!!!

Myles,you have to do something about letting the trash in the Door .This is pathetic.

by the Governemnet you so Gladly supoort" Mr ed "

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73-1595/politics_economy/cod_economy/

They didn't listen then either!!!!

Starrigan said...

Myles, excellent article as always. Doesn't seem to matter what government rules Canada the nation of Newfoundland and Labrador still gets the short end of the stick. The Harper flavour is just a little more bitter than usual.

As for WJM and Crazy Eddy, I have to say their posts are getting tiring and irrelevant. They take up too much real estate. Could you please make them go away.

Anonymous said...

The Government of Newfoundland and Labradr would profit so much more had it decided that not one ounce of Nickel was to be shipped out and stuck to its word. When it let the Nickel go to Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba to be processed, billions of dollars that would have otherwise come to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, over the next 30 years went along with that decision.

It is the reason we cannot move forward in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we do not keep our resources at home to be processed here. I do not know whose fault it is, but it is factual and it is the reason we cannot keep up with the infrastructure of the other provinces. The other provinces are much smarter and they do what is right with their resources and therefore they are living in the 21st century with regards to their infrastructure.

WJM said...

The Government of Newfoundland and Labradr would profit so much more had it decided that not one ounce of Nickel was to be shipped out and stuck to its word.

How so?

100% of nothing is nothing.

In any event... how does that implicate the federal government? You have just conceded, in effect, my main point: the province, and only the province, has jurisdiction.

WJM said...

The other provinces are much smarter and they do what is right with their resources and therefore they are living in the 21st century with regards to their infrastructure.

No, the other provinces have long since given up the 19th-century fixation with natural resources (and political saviours) as the sole tickets to economic success.

That's the key difference.

Edward G. Hollett said...

Let's run down through it:

1. To the foul-mouthed anon, please sign your name and let's have a discussion. Otherwise, please spare us the silly ranting and personal abuse.

2. "There is no falsehood in the fact that a politician operating in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador at the time said not one teaspoon would be shipped out without being refined in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador."

There is complete falsehood in any suggestion that any phantom "they" took anything from anyone.

The Voisey's Bay agreement was signed by the provincial government. It was agreed to by the provincial government. When people say that "they" as in the federal government or "they" as in mainlanders "stole our resources", they are saying something that isn't true.

That politician - Brian Tobin - said a very silly thing. But you must remember: be was elected to the House of Assembly and a majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians supported him.

In fact when he said his "not one teaspoon" thing, I'd venture that most of the people who post here anonymously were cheering for him. Now they condemn him for one reason or another.

Well, the thing is that if "not one teaspoon" meant that the ore field was not developed yet, where would the provincial get money to pay for goods and services? That agreement is providing millions in provincial government revenue and it will keep doing so for decades.

To the individual who said the province would be making more, well that might be true. Interestingly enough, within the next two years, not one teaspoon of ore will leave the province without going through a smelter refinery.

So how is it that the "not one teaspoon" promise wasn't honoured?

It would seem that you and your anon friends make a big deal of this not one teaspoon thing and then forget about the smelter.

In some cases, though, they don't forget about it, they just use the same sort of completely false statements made about every else: "over the next 30 years went along with that decision."

That's just not true, just like virtually every other comment here and a goodly chunk of the original post.

False. Untrue. Wrong. Mistaken.

Anonymous said...

Hollett, you say with one statement that no money will be lost by the provinces then he says the feds put an illegal cap in place on the accords.

You also say it's unrealistic to expect the 100% promise because it would hurt the Country. Why don't you explain to me what's wrong with the AIMS report that says 100% exclusion would actually save the fed money in the long run and help have not provinces get off equalization permanently even after the resources are used up.

Anonymous said...

Of course they were cheering him on. The politician said not one teaspoon, isn't that what we wanted? Aren't we supposed to be able to trust our politicians?

We thought our politician was fighting the National Newspaper columnists on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but instead we saw him leave the province after the contract was signed and get promoted by the Federal Government. What are we to think of somebody, who was once our chief politician telling us and the country that not one teaspoon of Nickel Ore will go out of Newfoundland and Labrador without processing added, and the aftermath of that statement was we saw all the teaspoons of ore go and the politician along with the ore?

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador didn't want one teaspoon of Nickel ore to move out of Voisey's Bay, the people wanted the processing to be done in the province, so as to create jobs here, no differently than how you, Ed Hollett, tell us that is how the province of Alberta is doing things. Alberta processes its resources at home and it has a booming economy. If a province exports its resources, well then it is impossible for it to create economies at home. The economies are created in whatever territory becomes the recipient of the resource, that is in question. In the case of which we are writing about here, it is the Nickel Ore from Voisey's Bay that got exported to Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba to boost their economies.

Anonymous said...

Why would a Newfooundlander and Labradorian stand up for the Federal Government against his own people, the way one of the posters to this blogsite is doing?

I am baffled!

Everyone knows what happened to our resources and the sequence of when and how it happened?

The picture is quite plain in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Everything that was done has left a footprint. It cannot be argued. And the devastation of a lack of economies in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has been devastating to its people.

The resources are accounted for. We know the types of resources, we know where they have gone, we know that the province is not the primary beneficiary, so how can a poster to this blogsite stand up when someone recounts the resources and where they have gone to for processing and state that it is a falsehood?


I am not sure whether the blogger is an employee in some way or not of the Federal Government? I hope the poster doesn't mind me asking the question?

It just baffles me when the picture is so plain that the resources are not working for the province, that we would have a poster to this blogsite approving of the fact that the resources were exported out of the province to fuel the economies of the locations which received them.

Anonymous said...

I have a question or two for Mr. Hollett:

Does Mr. Hollett approve of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's resources being exported out for processing in some other locale?

Can Mr. Hollett explain how a province can move forward with economies, when it exports most of its resources out of the province for processing, to enhance the economies of some other province or country?

Does he know why Newfoundland and Labrador's politicians allow this to happen. Is it an external force that causes it to occur? Is it because there are smelters in places like Sudbury and Thompson that are in dire need of the Nickel Ore and it has to be that way?

Would some of that pressure be emanating from Ottawa? After all Ottawa has to fine tune its pollution standards and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has to pay the price for the other places with the smelters, but less the ore?

We are the losers all around, we lose our ore and we don't get to create the wonderful processing economies that are present in places like Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia.

We receive the pollution from the places West of here that refine our ore, since the weather systems move West to East and the Acid Rain drops on the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Shouldn't there be an extra payment for all of the crap we have to endure?

WJM said...

We thought our politician was fighting the National Newspaper columnists

Who cares about "National Newspaper columnists"?

Do you think they run the country, any more than "Provincial newspaper columnists" run the province?

Anonymous said...

An ex politician of Newfoundland and Labrador once made a stupid statement.

The statement was resources don't create economies.

Good Grief why are Alberta and British Columbia prospering so well?

It is, of course, because they are processing their resources.

WJM said...

Does Mr. Hollett approve of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's resources being exported out for processing in some other locale?

Why do you use the passive?

Can Mr. Hollett explain how a province can move forward with economies

What does "moving forward with economies" mean, other than, perhaps, some rambling corporatese way of saying "find ways to save money"?

You don't really know what an economy is, do you, Agnes?

Anonymous said...

Yes, indeed, National Newspapers and their writers try to sway the moods and thoughts of the country with their writings.

No doubt in some cases sanctioned by the Federal Government.

Anonymous said...

WJM - I didnt direct the question to you, I asked Mr. Hollett the question.

But since you rushed in to answer it so quickly, are you and Mr. Hollett employees of the Federal Government?

Also why are you rushing in to try and deflect the pressure of Mr. Hollett? Mr. Hollett should have enought gusto to answer questions aimed at him.

Anonymous said...

Surf on over to Hollett's blog and you will notice that most of his pieces have 'o' comments attached to them, that is other than love fests with Wally and Lono.

Surprised anybody?

WJM said...

Yes, indeed, National Newspapers and their writers try to sway the moods and thoughts of the country with their writings.

Yes, they do. And?

No doubt in some cases sanctioned by the Federal Government.

"Sanctioned" how?

Boy, people are getting paranoid in Dannystan.

WJM said...

Good Grief why are Alberta and British Columbia prospering so well?

It is, of course, because they are processing their resources.


Is it?

WJM said...

WJM - I didnt direct the question to you, I asked Mr. Hollett the question.

So what?

But since you rushed in to answer it so quickly, are you and Mr. Hollett employees of the Federal Government?

You can ask Ed about Ed.

As for myself, I don't know anything about you, anonymous, so I don't feel the need to share until you stop posting anonymously.

Also why are you rushing in to try and deflect the pressure of Mr. Hollett?

I'm not. Ed can handle the pressure quite nicely, thanks.

Mr. Hollett should have enought gusto to answer questions aimed at him.

Unlike the anonymous losers here, Ed probably has a real life that prevents him from lurking online, from his mother's basement, 22 hours a day.

Anonymous said...

WJM - I post anonymously, so why do you ask questions of my post in the first place? If you are not going to answer my direct question to you, please do not respond with deflection questions.

You ask me questions on my posts, yet since you say I am anonymous you are not going to answer my question. I want to ask you if the question I posed to you is too embarassing and that is the reason you do not want to answer?.

I asked you if you were an employee of the Federal Government? Someone who posted a while back said you were. I don't know because the WJM initials are as anonymous to me as someone who is truthful and posts anonymously anyway. Until you give me the name for WJM I do not know who you are.

WJM said...

I asked you if you were an employee of the Federal Government? Someone who posted a while back said you were. I don't know because the WJM initials are as anonymous to me as someone who is truthful and posts anonymously anyway. Until you give me the name for WJM I do not know who you are.

Who are you?

What is your name, or at least your initials?

Bring some symmetry into this debate.

You know who I am.

Who are you?

babe in boyland said...

this is the most bizarre 'outing-counterouting' string i've ever seen. does it matter who says what? if it does, nobody should post anonymously.

Anonymous said...

WJM - You just deflect. In other words you are corrupting Patriot's blog through deflection. Why do you do that and who is paying you?

I read on this blogsite that you work for the Federal Governnment. You seem to have a motive that is different than mine and others on this site. Your motive seems to concur with Ed's.

Your actions on this site show that you are purely operating here to disrupt what is being said.

What a shame, we cannot get our points across through the National Media, since even Premier Williams article was disallowed and now you keep disrupting this blogsite, and as it is purported you work for the Federal Government? Do You? It is time that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians opened their eyes to the optical illusions of this country.

Anonymous said...

I do not know who you are. I just know that you are WJM. Someone wrote your full name, address and supposedly where you work on one post to this blogsite. But I am not sure that is who you are? Why do you not use your full name and disclose where you work, if indeed, you are working for a government or a corporation? I do think if that is true, that is very important information to the posters to this blogsite.

I don't really care who you are if you are an ordinary person, like myself. But if you are an employee of the Federal Government or a corporation, I do want to know. Otherwise I do not care whether you post anonymously or with the initials WJM.

At least Ed Hollett posts with his full name. We do know a bit of information on this individual and that he was associated with the Provincial Liberals. Ed Hollett is being very honest in that aspect and I thank him for it.

If I were paid by anyone, I would never post anonymously, I would divulge my name. And since I am an ordinary citizen and I hold no loyalty to anyone other the my fellow citizens of this province, I can remain anonymous. And I will fight for a fairer deal for our people until the day I die. I will not betray them with a plum position from any Government or Corporation. I am sick and tired of the sick economy that exists in Newfoundland and Labrador despite our resources. It is time that every man, woman and child stood up and demanded more. You should do the same WJM.

WJM said...

You just deflect. In other words you are corrupting Patriot's blog through deflection. Why do you do that and who is paying you?

I am not corrupting anything, and no one is paying me to do so.

You seem to have a motive that is different than mine and others on this site. Your motive seems to concur with Ed's.

My motive is truth and sanity, to counteract the lies and insanity that have pervaded our local political culture.

Your actions on this site show that you are purely operating here to disrupt what is being said.

How have I "disrupted" anything?

Sheesh.

You must be fun at parties.

ANONYMOUS: ... and that's why we never went back to Mozambique.

HOST: That reminds me of the time we were in Morocco and...

ANONYMOUS: STOP DISRUPTING!

What a shame, we cannot get our points across through the National Media, since even Premier Williams article was disallowed

Was it, Liz?

Danny said so. Why do you uncritically believe everything that comes out of his mouth?

WJM said...

Someone wrote your full name, address and supposedly where you work on one post to this blogsite.

My address? Yikes; first threats, now stalkers?

Why do you not use your full name

Anonymice don't; why should I?

and disclose where you work

Because it's irrelevant.

I don't really care who you are if you are an ordinary person, like myself. But if you are an employee of the Federal Government or a corporation, I do want to know.

You already do.

If I were paid by anyone,

You are unemployed?

And since I am an ordinary citizen and I hold no loyalty to anyone other the my fellow citizens of this province

That's a strange loyalty. You are loyal to over 500,000 people? How do they instruct you? What if 250,000 tell you to do one thing, and 250,000 tell you to do another?

I can remain anonymous. And I will fight for a fairer deal for our people until the day I die.

Fairer deal than what?

It is time that every man, woman and child stood up and demanded more. You should do the same WJM.

I do.

It is time that Newfoundlanders kept more of Labrador's provfincial revenues in Labrador.

Do you agree?

What are you doing about that?

Anonymous said...

babe in boyland says:

so only those who work for the federal government or a corporation need identify themselves? so if you work for the provincial government, own your own company or are unemployed, then you have no agenda and are really only an 'ordinary person'?

how does that make sense?

Anonymous said...

I agree that most of Labrador's and Newfoundland revenues from its Hydroelelectricity, Minerals, Fish and Oil have gone to such provinces as Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba.

Those resources should have remained in Labrador and Newfoundland and should have been utilized here to have created economies here. Then the revenue derived would have been in the Labrador and Newfoundland provincial coffers so that the infrastructue that was needed in Labrador and the rest of the province could have been carried out so that we would have been more on par with the rest of the province's infrastructure.

When a resource such as Hydroelectricity brings in a billion or more to the Quebec coffers, Fish - God only knows what to Canada's coffers, Oil - billions and Minerals - hundreds of millions to other provinces coffers, instead of Labrador and Newfoundland, and to boot the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the responsibility to keep this province running, with most of the revenue from its resources going to some other province and Ottawa, well that is really unfair and unequitable.

Why do you not ask that question WJM?

Edward G. Hollett said...

"Hollett, you say with one statement that no money will be lost by the provinces then he says the feds put an illegal cap in place on the accords."

Well, anon, go back and read what I wrote.

No oil and gas revenue is lost. That's a matter of fact.

In the ordinary, course of things, as a provincial government's own source revenue increases, its Equalization top-up would decline; that's the way the system has always worked.

In the case of the 1985 Accord, there is a very specific group of provisions on the temporary declining offset that the current federal government appears to be changing unilaterally. Under the 1985 Accord, changes must be only done with mutual consent.

Now to be frank, no one has asked and the province has not indicated if it gave consent for the changes. I'd be astonished if it did.

"You also say it's unrealistic to expect the 100% promise because it would hurt the Country. Why don't you explain to me what's wrong with the AIMS report that says 100% exclusion would actually save the fed money in the long run and help have not provinces get off equalization permanently even after the resources are used up."

If you look at thee several AIMS studies, they do make those points. One of the obvious implications of that approach is that some provinces, like NL, would continue to receive both Equalization and its own revenues while others, like NB or Quebec or Manitoba would receive less Equalization.

Some provinces are given a huge advantage while others are disadvantaged. Why is it fair to disadvantage some and not others? Surely the objective should be a fair system applied equally to all.

The O'Brien report suggests changes to the system that would consider only 50% of all resource revenues. It's an approach that might be dismissed by one province or another but overall, it is a fair system.

Through it all though, there is nothing that prevents any province from developing its resources and do exactly as Alberta has done: used those revenues to pay down debt, provide services and develop infrastructure.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"...the aftermath of that statement was we saw all the teaspoons of ore go and the politician along with the ore?"

Of course in Voisey's Bay, not all the teaspoons will be exported.

In Alberta, local refining is not necessarily a demand of the provincial government. In many cases raw resources are shipped out of the province. Natural gas is exported by pipeline, for example.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"Would some of that pressure be emanating from Ottawa? After all Ottawa has to fine tune its pollution standards and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has to pay the price for the other places with the smelters, but less the ore?"

There's not particular reason for the Government of Canada to demand export of raw materials from this province to some other place.

There's no evidence that I am aware of it has ever been even vaguely suggested. If you've got some, then by all means share it.

If there's a good and economic reason to process raw materials here, then it will be done. The Come by Chance refinery, for example, imports oil from Iraq and has done so for a decade or more. That can be done cheaply and economically.

Fish is processed here in various forms and to various levels.

We don't build cars here, though, likely because it can be done more economically somewhere else.

It all forms part of trade that goes on. Trade is how countries and provinces and so forth make money

Edward G. Hollett said...

"At least Ed Hollett posts with his full name. We do know a bit of information on this individual and that he was associated with the Provincial Liberals. Ed Hollett is being very honest in that aspect and I thank him for it.

If I were paid by anyone, I would never post anonymously, I would divulge my name. And since I am an ordinary citizen and I hold no loyalty to anyone other the my fellow citizens of this province, I can remain anonymous. And I will fight for a fairer deal for our people until the day I die. I will not betray them with a plum position from any Government or Corporation. I am sick and tired of the sick economy that exists in Newfoundland and Labrador despite our resources. It is time that every man, woman and child stood up and demanded more. You should do the same WJM."

This is an odd sort of comment since it appears to be a compliment.

Of course, it comes from someone who insists on being anonymous. Therefore no one knows anything at all about this person.

When this persons insists on only speaking with one motive and so forth, it not only implies others are doing something for less virtuous motives but it also makes a mockery of the high motives.

How does anyone know who this person is?

Anonymous said...

Patriot---ever the Drama Queen.

Starrigan said...

Anomymous - WJM is Wallace J. MacLean, he works for the feds, and yes he is paid with our tax dollars. He's also a huge a$$hole, much like Crazy Eddy Hollet. Ottawally, as we like to call him has been disrupting this blog for quite some time, but people have gotten used to him and his stupid line of questioning. You see that's all he does, question everything someone posts. He actually got to the point where he was questioning partial senctences. Talk about absurd. In any case people started ignoring him, which was inevitable, he enlisted the help of Crazy Eddy. Now this a$$hole is a little different from Ottawally, Crazy Eddy has a tendency to go on and on about basically nothing. So not only is he as irritating as Ottawally he's also long winded. Thank god for the arrow key. You've had some good posts, keep it up. Just remember in the future to ignore Ottawally and Crazy Eddy they are basically a$$holes bent on, as you would say "deflecting" the conversation and flow of this blog. Shameful really.

Anonymous said...

I am not bought or enslaved by anyone to whom I have to toe the party line, so there is no need for me to reveal my identity.

Nobody pays me one copper cent.

Anonymous said...

I must say Mr Higgeons ,your blog has drawn out the finest our great nation has to offer.Or,at least in thier minds .
Now I see we have Mr Hollett over from the Bond paper's ,skimmying the cream from the top of your hardwork.But,what can you expected from a federalist ,or a Liberial for that matter.
My question to Mr Hollett is this.Do you honestly want people to throw thier names out on the internet because you think they are afraid of what they are saying or are you taking the job from the federal govenment on monitoring and exposing the raising Nationalist movement in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I believe that Mr Higgons can vouch for me when I say that I will not tolerate any federal presence here from you Mr Hollett or anyother person coming to this site .

I believe we all know who this is http://www.thiscanada.com/2007/02/21/sheep.

This person has been dealt with.He is in the middle of repairing what life he had .Let me be straight with you Mr Hollett.Having your life stolen from you is no easy task .On my part it takes a great deal of work to destroy an individuals life.But,let this be known.
If you think that I will stand by and allow you or any member of the federal govenment to illegal gain any information coming from this site you are sadly mistaken.

The freedom that the Governement of canada had to do such things as this
http://nsp28.tripod.com
and
n-s-p@hotmail.com,this is done .

No more will you go un-noticed.I am here to say that you being able to follow people like Sue-Kelland Dyer,Myles Higgons,Proffesor Dalton ,and local entertainer's is done .
Please feel free to excuse this as the rambblings of a sick teenager.But ,take it as a warning to all memebers of the federal governement .When all is re-vealed,and that time is coming soon,the truth will make every federalist in the great province of Newfoundland and Labradore squirm below the pile of worm dunge that they have spewed from .

As Always ,Lost-In-Excile

PS ,I love what you have done for My Proxey Mr Higgons .OH ,and if she writes .Tell Sue that we love her and miss her writtings .One day she shall lead this place.We Love you and Miss you Sue.
Keep the fight strong Patriot.

WJM said...

Why do you not ask that question WJM?

Which question?

WJM said...

One day she shall lead this place.

And on that day, I shall become the leader of the Draft Danny Williams movement.

Anonymous said...

WJM - The question is: Why are the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba getting far more from the resources of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, yet their governments have no responsibility to keep up the infrastructure in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, while the Treasuary of the government of Newfoundland and Labrador gets far less and is burdened with non-existant infrastructure and infrastructure that needs so much repair. While the provinces on the receiving end of the Newfoundland and Labrador's resources have absolutely no responsibility to this province at all?

It might sound like a crazy question, but it is one that needs to be asked.

Who were the crazy administrators of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's resources who allowed such an awful distribution of the province's resources without getting a fair share in return?

Every part of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is suffering greatly because of it.

Anonymous said...

Big Oil takes responsiblity for a lot of the infrastructure in Alberta and British Columbia. Their administrators did it right.

Artfull Dodger said...

We have seen members from both mainstream parties go to ottawa and toe the party line. We see now that Harper wants ALL his team to stick to his gameplan, in fact he went as far as having one member from Newfoundland & Labrador join in with the mocking of the province's latest budget. Just deserts for Manning would be a thumbs down next time around at the ballot box.

Starrigan said...

True, it's the same game every time we send someone to Ottawa. What are these MP's promised or threatened with to have them turn on their own nation. (maybe Ottawally can find out from his buddies on the hill). It certainly looks like it's time to send a new party to Ottawa. If someone could just put together the right people with the right agenda...

WJM said...

The question is: Why are the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba getting far more from the resources of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

The premise of your question is false.

They aren't.

while the Treasuary of the government of Newfoundland and Labrador gets far less

Far less than what?

What royalties does any other province, or any other government, collect on Voisey's Bay?

While the provinces on the receiving end of the Newfoundland and Labrador's resources have absolutely no responsibility to this province at all?

What is Newfoundland giving to Greenland in return for gold ore?

What is Newfoundland giving to Nunavut for turbot?

What is Newfoundland giving to NS and QC for fish?

What is Newfoundland giving to QC for pulpwood?

Who were the crazy administrators of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's resources who allowed such an awful distribution of the province's resources without getting a fair share in return?

What's a "fair share"? How do you define it? How do you know when you have one?

WJM said...

Big Oil takes responsiblity for a lot of the infrastructure in Alberta and British Columbia. Their administrators did it right.

What infrastructure?

Does Small Oil do so as well?

"Big Oil". Sheesh. People slavishly imitating The Master.

Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

WJM - YOU ASKED

What is Newfoundland giving to Greenland in return for gold ore?

THE FIRST LOAD OF ORE TO EVER COME TO THIS PROVINCE WAS THE LOAD OF ORE FROM GREENLAND, IT HAPPENED JUST RECENTLY. GREENLAND IS ONE OF THE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE BEEN OVERFISHING OFF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR FOR YEARS.

What is Newfoundland giving to NS and QC for fish?

THAT IS SMALL FRY FROM NS AND QC COMPARED TO THE OIL THAT GOES TO NS FOR REFINING AND THE HYDROELECTRICITY WORTH $1 BILLION PER YEAR FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS GOING TO QUEBEC PLUS THE MINERALS. NOVA SCOTIA AND QUEBEC ASO FISH IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR'S WATERS.

What is Newfoundland giving to QC for pulpwood?

AGAIN MINERALS, HYDROELECTRTICITY ENERGY AND FISH



THESE PROVINCES GET FAR MORE OUT OF THE PROVINCE AND NEWFOUNDLAND THAN THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND GET OUT OF NS AND QC.

PLUS THESE PROVINCES GET MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICES AND MILITARY BASES, SOME, NO DOUBT, IF THINGS WERE FAIR SHOULD HAVE COME TO THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR, WHICH HAS NONE.


WJM - YOU ARE THE MOST CHILDISH POSTER TO THIS BLOGSITE. I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU WORK FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WHAT A PITY?

WJM said...

THE FIRST LOAD OF ORE TO EVER COME TO THIS PROVINCE WAS THE LOAD OF ORE FROM GREENLAND, IT HAPPENED JUST RECENTLY.

Not true, actually. The provincial government pumped it up as such, but that doesn't make it true.

GREENLAND IS ONE OF THE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE BEEN OVERFISHING OFF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR FOR YEARS.

Greenland?

Really?

And if so... isn't that only fair, given that Newfoundlanders also fish in the Davis Strait off Greenland?

THAT IS SMALL FRY FROM NS AND QC COMPARED TO THE OIL THAT GOES TO NS FOR REFINING

What's stopping you from opening your own refinery? (Hint: nothing nefarious.)

AND THE HYDROELECTRICITY WORTH $1 BILLION PER YEAR FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS GOING TO QUEBEC

They bought it; why shouldn't it go there?

PLUS THE MINERALS.

Which minerals, plural, have gone to Quebec?

What's stopping anyone from processing them in the province where they are mined?

NOVA SCOTIA AND QUEBEC ASO FISH IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR'S WATERS.

Yip. "Also". Just as they have for centuries.

THESE PROVINCES GET FAR MORE OUT OF THE PROVINCE AND NEWFOUNDLAND THAN THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND GET OUT OF NS AND QC.

"Far more"?

Have you quantified it?

How far is this more?

PLUS THESE PROVINCES GET MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICES AND MILITARY BASES

Quebec has a smaller federal presence, adjusted for population, than NL does.

SOME, NO DOUBT, IF THINGS WERE FAIR SHOULD HAVE COME TO THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR, WHICH HAS NONE.

Newfoundland and Labrador has no federal jobs or military bases?

None?

Not one?

Really?

WJM - YOU ARE THE MOST CHILDISH POSTER TO THIS BLOGSITE. I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU WORK FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WHAT A PITY?

Turn your caps lock off, and learn how to use a question mark.

Edward G. Hollett said...

It must be getting frustrating since the capslock key is going on, so for capslock anon, there is the following:

1. Greenland: This may be the first ore imported but the principle of the questions Wally raised is still valid. If your argument is that the place processing the ore gets way more than the place that produced the ore, you are saying that we owe something to Greenland or that we are ripping Greenland off.

You try and dodge that by talking about overfishing, as if this is just "payback". Well, Newfoundland overfished the Grand Banks just as badly or worse than anyone else.

So basically, if there is a problem with exporting resources, we shouldn't be taking jobs away from Greenland for any reason at all.

2. "THAT IS SMALL FRY FROM NS AND QC COMPARED TO THE OIL THAT GOES TO NS FOR REFINING AND THE HYDROELECTRICITY WORTH $1 BILLION PER YEAR FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS GOING TO QUEBEC PLUS THE MINERALS. NOVA SCOTIA AND QUEBEC ASO FISH IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR'S WATERS."

As far as I know, the bulk of offshore oil from this province goes to the United States for processing. Nova Scotia doesn't enter into it.

This Hydro thing is just another of the unproven stories that gets passed around.

But the point still remains: you squak when resources are exported from this province. When evidence is presented of imports to other places, you claim it is only fair for us to be screwing other people.

So what about the poor people of Iraq? By your logic we should shut down Come by Chance or we should pay the Government of Iraq for all the job Arnold's Cove steals.

3. "THESE PROVINCES GET FAR MORE OUT OF THE PROVINCE AND NEWFOUNDLAND THAN THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND GET OUT OF NS AND QC."

You keep saying this but you never prove it in terms of dollar value, revenue to the provincial treasury or anything of the sort.

Trying in all caps may be easier for you to type but it doesn't make your unproven claims any more true.

4. "PLUS THESE PROVINCES GET MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICES AND MILITARY BASES, SOME, NO DOUBT, IF THINGS WERE FAIR SHOULD HAVE COME TO THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR, WHICH HAS NONE."

First of all, federal government offices seem to be just another form of booty, graft or some kind of pay off in your world. it is just your tax dollars.

More and more people look on taxes as something they don't want to pay. Better to cut taxes than take the sort of pork you seem to want from the federal government and the provincial government.

This is basically the same as the Equalization argument: give me more hand-outs please.

Leaving that aside, however, it would be interesting to know how you look at "fair share". On a population basis or on a per person basis Newfoundland and Labrador has a considerable number of jobs.

There are federal jobs in the national capital and that happens to be spread between Ontario and Quebec, but that's the same as saying St. John's and Mount Pearl gets all the benefit from where the provincial government is located.

If you look at federal taxes out versus transfers (which includes federal procurement) back in, Newfoundland and Labrador gets back $2 for every $1 in taxes. I'd have to pull out the per person figures, but NL does quite well in the whole scheme.

I think the problem here is that you don't have any really hard evidence. You just have some idea that NL is hard-done-by. When people show that you:

a. don't have any proof; and/or,
b. aren't being logical;

you convert to typing in caps.

Anonymous said...

Ed - Newfoundland and Labrador has not one Federal Regional Offices or Military base.

Ed could you please confirm for me how many Federal Regional offices and Military bases are in Quebec?

You made the statement that Quebec has a smaller federal presence than the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.

Please count the Federal Regional offices there and Military bases.

Newfoundland and Labrador has absolutely none. There is a small contingency of militarey personnel, the last count I heard was that the number amounted 331 personnel.

Anonymous said...

Ed Hollett are you a Newfoundlander and Labradorian who once worked with the Liberal Government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Why are you spreading such falsehoods that the Hydroelectrcity that comes out of the Upper Churchill is not worth a billion dollars to Quebec. Or am I reading you wrong?

Are you saying Ed that the Imperial Oil Refinery that operates in Nova Scotia does not refine any of the oil from the the province of Newfoundland and Labrador oilfields? By the way Irving Oil of New Brunswick also processes our Oil.

I would like your answer on those questions.

It is shocking the quality of people that have worked as politicians and bureaucrats for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and how they will turn their backs on this province which is suffering so badly under Ottawa's rule.
My God with FISH, HYDROELECTRICITY, MINERALS, OIL and all the other resources; and with only one-half million people, we should be prospering if those resources had been utilized and processed here.

Is it any wonder that we are doing so badly as we are? It is the politicians and bureaucrats who are supposed to act as the administrators of our resources and see that they are appointed in the right direction. No such thing was done here in Newfoundland and Labrador by the people we elected and hired to do so.

Anonymous said...

Ed you better check your information on who refines the province of Newfoundland and Labrador off-shore oil.

I think you will find your opinion very wrong.

Refineries in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick process the oil that is produced in Newfoundland and Labrador's off-shore wells.

Anonymous said...

Denmark "owns" Greenland but Greenland's residents control it themselves.

Ed do you realize that Denmark is one of the countries who won't accept the quotas passed out to it by NAFTO of which Canada is a partner? I do hope I have the acronym right for that organization!

Denmark overfishes in our waters. It is proven and they wouldn't accept the quota that was given them last year for one species and said that they would set their own quotas.

Why are you not supporting your own province Ed in their quest to stop overfishing but instead you seem to be supporting those countries which are overfishing? From what you wrote above, that is what I gather from what you said?

Anonymous said...

Ed are you saying that Federal Regional Office and Military bases do not mean anything to the areas where they are situation?

You must have no clue about economies if you don't know that the Federal Regional Offices and Military Bases have a great infusion of monies from Ottawa. As a result the jobs produced are high paying and the spin offs are wonderful for the areas that are graced with these installations.

If you truly believe Ed that this is not true, you Sir do not have one iota of knowledge of how economics work. Or is it truly your belief or are you trying to throw the readers of this blogsite off?

Anonymous said...

It is time the province of Newfoundland and Labrador got an "oath of allegiance" at the time it appoints bureaucrats and even from the newly elected politicians.

As we see it sure doesn't stop some people from working against the province of Newfoundland and Labrador while they are presently working within the confines of government. So with that being the case, so therefore when they are outsted from government and no longer are part of government that disloyalty comes much easier.

We see examples of both these scenarios of people who are working against the province of Newfoundland and Labrador posting on this blogsite. SAD! SAD!

Anonymous said...

It is time the province of Newfoundland and Labrador got an "oath of allegiance" at the time it appoints bureaucrats and even from the newly elected politicians.

As we see it sure doesn't stop some people from working against the province of Newfoundland and Labrador while they are presently working within the confines of government. So with that being the case, so therefore when they outsted and no longer are part of government that disloyalty is even easier for them.

We see examples of both these scenarios of people who are working against the province of Newfoundland and Labrador posting on this blogsite.

Anonymous said...

Typical Liberial Liar.

Mr Hollett ,I know Newfoundlander's and Labradorian's like to extend the truth and excagerate,but what you have said on this site is nothing more then "Red Liberial Propaganda Lie's'"and you wonder why your party cannot get elected in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Doe's anybody in the forum have any reality pills for Mr Hollett,or is he smoking cheep crack.

Where in the name of God do thease people think they are .1949.For the love of pete ,buddy ,get your shit together Ed .You have more contradiction's then Kellogs has corn flakes.Maybe if you started to point out some facts my friend somebody would give you an ounce of crediability.
Typical canadain.If you can't dazzle them with brilliance ,bathel them with bullshit.Your quickly becoming the second "Wallace J McLean" and losing all respect that you had doing your Bond paper's .
Stick around Ed ,we all need a second shit distruber.Or are you waiting for Myles to teach you how to write .

FREE NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

Anonymous said...

My question: Is it not customary for bureaucrats and politicians to have to sign an "oath of allegiance" and if so, why isn't it enforced? I thought it was the case, but please forgive me if I am wrong!

Anonymous said...

babe in boyland says:

"cheep crack"? is that crack FOR or MADE FROM chickens???

Edward G. Hollett said...

It is always interesting to see people misrepresent what is written"

"Ed - Newfoundland and Labrador has not one Federal Regional Offices or Military base."

There are, in fact three Canadian Forces establishments in this province. 5 and 9 Wing, plus Canadian Forces Station St. John's. In addition there are reserve units in several towns and cities across the island portion of the province.

Gander was a Canadian Forces base, allbeit a small one, until the mid 1990s. At that point a change in operational requirement and technology led to the relocation of work done there to another site.

As for regional offices, I'd have to check currently but the DFO office was a regional headquarters and at least one other department, namely Public Safety had a regional office here.

"Ed could you please confirm for me how many Federal Regional offices and Military bases are in Quebec?"

The major army base is Valcartier. In addition there is an air force base at Bagotville and the naval reserve headquarters at Quebec City.

That information is readily available on the internet, as is the information on regional offices.

"You made the statement that Quebec has a smaller federal presence than the province of Newfoundland and Labrador."

Did I? Please provide the quote where I said that.

Anonymous said...

I suspect there is consultation going on with the upper levels before a reply can be made.

The facts are the facts, the carbon footprints are there.

A law in Physics says that matter cannot be destroyed, the same goes for the carbon footprints of the resources that were exploited in Newfoundland and Labrador and used elsewhere outside the province. That is great for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The accounting is embedded in carbon.

Anonymous said...

babe in boyland says:

"embedded in carbon"? this blog is getting weirder.

Edward G. Hollett said...

To the second anonymous, yes you are attributing comments to me on Churchill falls I did not make.

On the point of offshore oil, I never said that the oil was not refined in Canada. I said - if I recall correctly - that I understood the bulk of it sailed south of the border. It might well be that some oil is processed in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick.

Interesting that you made no comment on the importing of Iraqi crude for processing in NL.

What I find shocking are the people who invent comments or post things from behind the cowards screen of anonymity and then criticise unnamed "politicians and bureaucrats" or anyone else.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"Denmark overfishes in our waters. It is proven and they wouldn't accept the quota that was given them last year for one species and said that they would set their own quotas."

I'll have to check, but I don't believe that Denmark has quotas inside Canada's 200 mile exclusive economic zone.

What they do outside 200 miles wouldn't constitute our waters, but we should be concerned about it and doing something about.

"Why are you not supporting your own province Ed in their quest to stop overfishing but instead you seem to be supporting those countries which are overfishing? From what you wrote above, that is what I gather from what you said?"

You certainly wouldn't be alone in leaping to conclusions about what I believe or have said. It seems to be commonplace among anonymous commentors around here, merely because I challenge their fundamental assumptions.

Anonymous said...

Everything we do in life leaves a carbon footprint. There is nothing weird about it!


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


Everything You Do Leaves Footprints
Almost everything you do contributes to the Greenhouse Effect by directly or indirectly causing the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.

Carbon Planet's mission is to enable every individual and organisation on the planet to eliminate their global warming impact. We do this with a combination of education on emissions reduction strategies, and retail of properly certified carbon credits.

For individuals we offer a suite of offset packages to make your personal fight against climate change as simple as possible. At the end of the day, after making some obvious changes to our lives to minimise carbon emissions, we still want hot showers. Some things you just can't avoid. Carbon credits are a way you can remove your personal impact on the greenhouse effect and thereby remove your contribution to climate change.

Erase my personal carbon footprint now!

For businesses we offer tailored carbon emissions audits, emissions reduction strategies and a carbon credits brokerage service that means you can tailor your offsets to suit your exact requirements.

Erase my business's carbon footprint now!
How does purchasing carbon credits
erase my CO2 footprint?

Forests NSW Carbon Pool
Photo: Courtesy of Forests NSW

Newsletter
Keep up to date by subscribing to the Carbon Planet Newsletter. The Carbon Planet newsletter contains the latest news on global warming, climate change, and Carbon Planet as well as tips on how you can reduce your greenhouse emissions through behavioural change.
Download the latest issue here *NEW!* March 2007.

Carbon Planet Blog
Visit the Carbon Planet Web Log (Blog) (with RSS feed) for the very latest Carbon Planet news and information on global warming, climate change, carbon credits and related topics.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"I suspect there is consultation going on with the upper levels before a reply can be made."

That may be the case with the anonymous commentors but I can assure you I don't consult with anyone.

There are indeed facts and sadly facts have largely been absent from the comments of too many anony-posters here.

Anonymous said...

Ed your facts are not factual. The accounting is there to disprove everything you said above.

WJM said...

You made the statement that Quebec has a smaller federal presence than the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.


I made the statement that, adjusted for population, NL has a LARGER federal civil service presence than Quebec.

And it ABSOLUTELY IS TRUE.

In 2006, 1.36% of the NL population worked directly for the federal government. The figure for Quebec is 1.01%. Only three other provinces had larger percentages of their populations working for the federal government (and Manitoba is tied with NL.)

Among major cities, St. John's, for its population, also has the fourth-largest federal civil service presence by number and by payroll. Only Ottawa, Halifax, and Victoria have larger ones.

WJM said...

Newfoundland and Labrador has absolutely none. There is a small contingency of militarey personnel, the last count I heard was that the number amounted 331 personnel.

5 Wing Goose Bay is a base and is in NL.

9 wing Gander is a base and is in NL.

See: you are wrong.

WJM said...

As a result the jobs produced are high paying and the spin offs are wonderful for the areas that are graced with these installations.

Like St. John's, the Canadian city which ranks fourth in terms of its economy's dependence on the federal civil service.

If you truly believe Ed that this is not true, you Sir do not have one iota of knowledge of how economics work.

If you think the key to economic growth is to bulk up on civil servants — and sadly, too many in NL are convinced of that these days — then you have abdicated your right to question anyone else's knowledge of economics.

WJM said...

FREE NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

From what?

Anonymous said...

WJM - However you look at it, in the whole province there are only Three Hundred and Thirty One Military Personnel (331 Military Personnel) stationed in Newfoundland and Labrador, out of a contingency of 65,000 (sixty five thousand) Military Personnel in the whole of Canada. A pittance. And the installation in Goose Bay does not have all of the 331. Why aren't there more people stationed in this province out of the 65,000 Military personnel?

WJM you appear to be thanking Ottawa for that small number out of such a large number of Military personnel. Are you out of your mind to be thankful for such a small number? You should be lobbying for a fair share of that 65,000 Military for the base in Goose Bay. Three Hundred and Thirty One (331) Military personnel for the whole province is much too small when the province of Newfoundland and Labrador services Canada with approximately 10 per cent of the 65,000 Military Personnel. That 10 per cent amounts to 6500 personnel. We have 331 personnel stationed here.

The Telegram ran a story on just that not too long ago. Do the accounting 331 Military Personnel out of 65,000 is just one-half of one per cent. The other 99.5 per cent is stationed in the rest of Canada, while the province provides approximately 10 per cent of that number.

Anonymous said...

What would it be for Nova Scotia as compared to Quebec. Nova Scotia has a large number opf Federal Regional Offices while the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has none?

It is an unfair Federation no matter how you look at it. Beside I am not comparing the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to Quebec, I am comparing it to all the provinces of Canada.

You can take any statistic and skew it whichever way you like, since there are lies, damned lies, and statistics

But please WJM compare Newfonudland and Labrador against all the provinces not only Quebec. God Only Knows that Quebec gets its fair share in everything. You need not worry about that.

Andd please do the statistics right next time, you are not going to pull the wool over my eyes. Obviously WJM you haven't a clue about Accounting.

Anonymous said...

Propaganda ,Propaganda,Propaganda!!
Great leader Harper would be very please Masssier!!!

Thease people are un-real??????

Anonymous said...

Yes, indeed, Canada is no different than any other country, the Propaganda tool can get it far and it has! How much, longer I wonder, can it go on?

Edward G. Hollett said...

Some anonymous wrote:

"Ed your facts are not factual. The accounting is there to disprove everything you said above."

So show the accounting.

As with a challenge I made to Sue Kelland-Dyer.

She refused saying I would need to pay her a sum of cash to see the facts.

Well, that is simply a dodge. it only served to show that she had no facts whatsoever. Not a one. Not a shred. And to demonstrate the bankruptcy of her position she even closed her blog.

If you have facts, show, them even if you won't show your identity.

Edward G. Hollett said...

And yet more unfacts repeated as if they were true:

"Nova Scotia has a large number of Federal Regional Offices while the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has none?"

Clearly there is another kind of falshood to go with lies, damned lies and statistics.

And from another accountant of nothing, comes this sort of stuff: "Why aren't there more people stationed in this province out of the 65,000 Military personnel?"

How many should be here and on what basis should military people be deployed around Canada?

That seems a simple enough pair of questions to answer.

WJM said...

However you look at it, in the whole province there are only Three Hundred and Thirty One Military Personnel (331 Military Personnel) stationed in Newfoundland and Labrador, out of a contingency of 65,000

The use of an exceptionally precise statistic (331) with an obviously approximate one (65,000) is always a red flag.

Where did you obtain these statistics from?

Why aren't there more people stationed in this province out of the 65,000 Military personnel?

Assuming the premise of your question is correct, you should direct it at someone who knows.

Meanwhile, what do you think those additional military personnel should be doing, once stationed in the province? What strategic purpose would they serve for Canada?

You should be lobbying for a fair share of that 65,000 Military for the base in Goose Bay.

What is a "fair share"? Define this concept.

when the province of Newfoundland and Labrador services Canada with approximately 10 per cent of the 65,000 Military Personnel.

According to whom? Again, where does this statistic come from?

WJM said...

What would it be for Nova Scotia as compared to Quebec.

Much higher; NS has the largest per-capita federal civil service presence in the country.

Nova Scotia has a large number opf Federal Regional Offices while the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has none?

Where is the head office of Marine Atlantic, a federal crown Corp.?

It is an unfair Federation no matter how you look at it.

How is it unfair?

What's unfair about it?

If you want NL to have the same federal civil service presence as NS, then, in order to be fair to all provinces — fairness IS a two-way street, right? — you would hav to triple the size of the federal civil service.

Or, if you want the civil service to be the same size as it is now, or even slightly larger, in order to even out the federal civil service presence across Canada, NL would have to LOSE federal jobs to the three westernmost provinces, Ontario, and Quebec.

Beside I am not comparing the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to Quebec, I am comparing it to all the provinces of Canada.

No you are not.

If you were doing so, you would find, as I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT, that NL is in the middle of the pack among the provinces for its federal civil service presence, as large or larger than all but three provinces.

You would also find out that NL has a larger federal civil service presence than the all-Canada average.

You can take any statistic and skew it whichever way you like, since there are lies, damned lies, and statistics

And there are people who will cling to their stupid separatists myths no matter how hard they are hit over the head with a factual clue-by-four.

But please WJM compare Newfonudland and Labrador against all the provinces not only Quebec.

You are the one who put the Quebec comparison into play. ("THESE PROVINCES GET FAR MORE OUT OF THE PROVINCE AND NEWFOUNDLAND THAN THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND GET OUT OF NS AND QC. PLUS THESE PROVINCES GET MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICES").

I have already ranked NL among ALL ten provinces for you. Comparison done.

God Only Knows that Quebec gets its fair share in everything. You need not worry about that.

Define "fair share". What is this "fair share" you keep talking about?

Andd please do the statistics right next time, you are not going to pull the wool over my eyes. Obviously WJM you haven't a clue about Accounting.

How should I do the statistics? I will be more than glad to oblige. Tell me what stats on federal presence you'd like. Tell me what was wrong with my previous ones.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Absolute Shame and Disgust is all I can say after reading such hateful material.Its a sin to see the Province's moderates having to fall on lie's and deception to try and win back favour for Ottawa.

I truely believe that the time for Newfoundland and Labrador to leave this confederation has come to pass.The people in this country have no right to critise the United States.This evil empire that we helped create must come to an end for the good of all democraceys around the world .God help us all .

Edward G. Hollett said...

"Its a sin to see the Province's moderates having to fall on lie's and deception to try and win back favour for Ottawa."

The only sin are the people who refuse to think for a moment that some of their precious beliefs are founded on myths and in some instances outright nonsense.

The only deception would be to have the province leave Confederation on the basis of myths and nonsense. God help us all indeed if those people and their anonymous supporters win out. You are certainly doing your bit to help them.

Anonymous said...

Mr Hollett ,

When you have to attack someone like Sue Kelland-Dyer on matters of the Churchill Falls fiasco ,all I have to say to you ,Sir,is sad ,very ,very sad.

Befor you came here Mr Hollett ,I gave you a shot to make your points and present your arguements ,but when you attack an individual that has more love in her pinky for Newfoundland and Labrador .

you ,Sir,are a small ,pathetic ,little man,that has no right in my eye's to speak.If all we had was you Mr hollett,our dear province would be nothing more then a strip mine for the federal governement.

I pray to God above that someday ,she can come back and represent us once more.It was people like you Mr Hollett that drove sue underground.Where were her rights when she wished to speak Mr Hollett.Yeah,its easy to see what the federalist call fair .Pathetic.

WJM said...

I pray to God above that someday ,she can come back and represent us once more

Good Lord, when did she ever "represent us"?

And who's "us"?

The one time she DID run to represent anyone, she got 876 votes. Her "Newfoundland and Labrador Party", which, BTW, ran no candidates in Labrador, got 2576 votes province-wide.

For reference, that's less than a third what Simon Lono got in the St. John's municipal election in 2005.

Anonymous said...

babe in boyland said:

what's stopping su? is she in a dungeon somewhere? keep on prayin, anonymous. why do you folks always need a saviour?

Ed Hollett said...

"When you have to attack someone like Sue Kelland-Dyer on matters of the Churchill Falls fiasco ,all I have to say to you ,Sir,is sad ,very ,very sad."

Once again we see a complete misrepresentation followed by the trotting out of a pile self-righteous garbage.

I did nothing other than point out the fact: I challenged a proponent of the view. She refused to provide any information without being paid for it. That was a matter of public record before she closed public access to her blog.

And of course, it is obvious you have no evidence, no facts, not a shred of anything to support your view. if you did, anonymous, you'd identify yourself and state the facts.

Instead you engage in nothing but smears. You speak eloquently on behalf of your cause. More and more people will obviously realize the bankruptcy of your position and leave you and the few others to carry on your exercise in self-delusion.

Anonymous said...

Not only is Quebec the Lord, Overseer and Marketer of the most sought of Clean Energy in the World, 5800 meaawats of Renewable Upper Churchill Hydroelectricity Energy, which is worth billions directly and indirectly, AND forever it has not been including that revenue derived in its equilization numbers to Ottawa, but instead the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was apparently including it in its numbers to Ottawa. Imagine including a revenue we didn't receive? We were paying in two ways. NOT ONLY were we letting the Energy go to Quebec to be distributed to the Markets whcih allowed Quebec to be the Primnary Beneficiary of that energy, but we also included it on the revenue side of the balance sheet as if we were receiving all the profits that Quebec was receiving. This went on for a number of years, some say 20 years. I heard that story just a few short months ago. I am still shocked by it!

Can you imagine Quebec was the primary beneficiary of the Upper Churchill Hydroelectricity Energy and marketed it for the profit, which has brought in billions and billions of dollars over the past approximately 40 years to Quebec. And the scary part about it was that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was reporting it has a revenue which it didn't receive and as a result we were digging a bigger hole for ourselves all the way around in which we were losing revenue.

Not only did we lose the right to market the power to the markets which were thirsting for it, but we put the figure as revenue on our balance sheet and sent it of to Ottawa. Quebec got away on both ends and as far as I know Quebec still does not report the revenue from the Energy to Ottawa. Apparently it devised a plan so as not to show it as a revenue.

Somebody please can explain that one for us. Maybe THE VERY INTELLIGENT SUE KELLAND DYER CAN DO SO. She knows that program inside out. And if she demands a payment for it, at least she is not destroying Newfoundland and Labrador by doing so, as some of the posters are doing here. The story needs to be told and explained. She would be just pointing out how we have had the wool pulled over our eyes, whether we were stupid in drawing up that contract or not.

I have a great deal of faith and respect in that Lady's ability to explain things.

Anonymous said...

ussr_soviet said:

If it wasn't for sue ,bud,there would be no Newfoundland and labrador Hydro.It would have already been stolen by the federal governement.
You are right on one very good point .NOBODY ,absolute NOBODY,has more knowledge on that subject then Sue Kelland-Dyer.If I had it my way.She would be Premeir of this Province.But,until Newfoundlander's and labradorian' can see how much they need her,then I fear we are going to be ripped off by the other 9 ugly sisters that we have .look at what Quebec gets because they POP the finger to Ottawa .
End of story .Canada I fear ,for Newfoundland and Labrador is nothing more then a Lost Cause.The quicker that we can have someone lead this Province out of Confederation ,the quicker we as a peopel will be able to use the respource's that we have as a nation.And ,that includes people like Mrs Kelland-Dyer.To bad the evil that is ottawa drove her underground just so she could get some piece of mind.

As one evil empire falls ,another rises to take it's place.To bad it had to be canada.

Anonymous said...

Patriot ,

You really need a forum of some sort to keep some of the federal trash off this site ,Sir.
The Propaganda machine has swung into over-drive on your site.Some of the Sheer garbage and political trash that is being attempted here by certain partys to regain favour from the Newfoundland and labrador people is truely shamefull.

I would expect alot better behavoir from Ottawa's champions.
Secondly ,Sir,I must place some attention to the facts that are being spoken here.Thease statements can easly have some light placed on the subject if the individaul does a five minute google on the subject being discussed .But,having certain party's deny everything when certain subjects have been shown on film is nothing more then degradation of community.

I would like to wish you the best with your blog and I hope you have better luck getting your messege out

WJM said...

But,having certain party's deny everything when certain subjects have been shown on film is nothing more then degradation of community.

Which subjects have been "shown on film"?

Which films?

What is inherently trustworthy about film as a medium?

Starrigan said...

WJM, I'm surprised, those are the dumbest questions I've ever seen you ask. You're losing you edge. I know Crazy Eddy is here to back you up of your pathetic little cause. But seriously, you can do much better than that. I'm disappointed. You as such an a$$hole. I think your time here is done, you're becoming more and more irrelevant every day. Sad, really.

ussr_soviet, keep posting, we are getting swamped on this blog by NL's that are the vilest traitors one could imagine. Some of their comments are worse than anything Margaret Wente ever said. Makes me physically sick. In the future just ignore WJM, as you can see from his above questions he has nothing to offer. In fact he never gets into a discussion, he just asks lots of stupid question hoping that someone will take the bait. He works for, and is paid by, the federal government. Yes, your tax dollars in action. One of his jobs is to disrupt various pro NL blogs. Imagine if you could what kind of lousy dog a person has to be to do that sort of thing. So, I like to remind WJM or Ottawally and Crazy Eddy that they are huge a$$holes as often as I can. We would like to see those two a$$holes hang out at the Bond Papers, but then again there's no activity over their. Just some a$$hole blabbering on about nonsense. When you see a post by either of these two clowns, just arrow past it. Their posts are really not worth reading, and responding to them is just playing into their hands. I'm surprised Myles hasn't banned them yet.

Starrigan said...

BTW ussr_soviet, did you see the scathing post by Simon Lono on this blog? Most insulting thing about NL's that I've ever seen. If you haven't seen it let me know, I'll repost it.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"This went on for a number of years, some say 20 years."

Whoever the "some" are, they are completely mistaken.

This issue has been known about for some time. it existed from 1974 or thereabouts and lasted until 1982.

1982.

Then there's this comment: "Quebec got away on both ends and as far as I know Quebec still does not report the revenue from the Energy to Ottawa."

Hydro Quebec is a Crown Corporation like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

If the province does not take revenue from the corporation, usually in the form of dividends for its shares, then the revenue does not get included in calculations of the provincial government's income for Equalization calculations.

The same approach applies to this province as applies in Quebec.

Hydro Quebec spends its money on public projects, which is something NL Hydro could have done as well. For whatever reason, that wasn't done here.

There is nothing sinister, underhanded or unfair about it. Sue didn't reveal anything that wasn't already well known.

"I have a great deal of faith and respect in that Lady's ability to explain things."

of course for all we known, anonymous, you ARE Sue.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"These statements can easly have some light placed on the subject if the individaul does a five minute google on the subject being discussed"

If it is so easy, then please do so.

Disprove any statement I've made or disagree based on evidence.

It's pretty simple.

How come you don't do it?

Anonymous said...

I suppose Mr. Hollett you will say that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador got a fair deal out of the Upper Churchill Project? Is that the way you are trying to skew things?

From reading your posts, it is as if you, have turned on the province of Newfoundland and Labrador completely, even though as far as I hear, if you are the same Mr. Hollett, who received a cheque from the province for many years? Am I right in both of those assumptions? If I am wrong I will apologize.

But nevertheless the fact that the province and Newfoundland and Labrador reported on the wrong side of the Balance Sheet for 8 years certainly cost the province of Newfoundland and Labrador a lot of money. Thank You for confriming the number of years.

Imagine the fact that Quebec was receiving the Revenue for 8 years and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was reporting the Revenue that Quebec was receiving, as if the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was receiving and benefiting from that Revenue. What an oversight? And how sad for the people of this province to have been deprived of the money it cost us from having the Revenue reported on the wrong side of the Balance Sheet?

Anonymous said...

No, Mr. Hollett I am not Sue Kelland Dyer.

If I will not sign my own name, I certainly will not impersonate someone else.

It is still legal to sign anonymously on this site, so I will continue to do so until it changes. When, and if, Patriot changes the rules, then and only then will I sign my name, it is possible I will discontinue posting, but I definitely will not resort to impersonating someone else. That is totally illegal.

My morals would not allow me to do that, neither would they allow me to turn against my province in order to receive an income. Though if my province was in the wrong someway, neither would I uphold it.

Anonymous said...

I am now told that it was a 12 year time frame that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was reporting Revenue that Quebec earned and should have reported.

So can someone confirm is it 8 years of 12 years.

Whatever number of years it was, it is too bad for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that it was reporting Revenue for so many years that it wasn't receiving on one of its resources that Quebec was already benefitting greatly on.

What a sad state of affairs that nobody pick this discrepancy up either on the province's or Ottawa's side.

Anonymous said...

babe in boyland said:

starrigan, you gotta be kidding. lono's stuff is the most insulting comments on newfoundland you ever saw? dont get out much do you?

Anonymous said...

I am perplexed myself! What is happening here where we have two people who once worked for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador who seem now to be practising some sort of backstabbing of the province right here on this site?

Anonymous said...

Starrigan said...

BTW ussr_soviet, did you see the scathing post by Simon Lono on this blog? Most insulting thing about NL's that I've ever seen. If you haven't seen it let me know, I'll repost it.
May 27, 2007 8:08 PM

Go ahead my brother .Post it for me.

Patriot .The picture that you have of Steve .I would absolutley love to have a copy of that sometime.A fellow Newfoundlander sent me a copy ,but I forgot to back it up.It's a real hot itiem that I would love to have .

OH ,and by the way Eddy.I hope that wife of yours learns to keep her mouth shut ,cause I just might have her licience re-voked ,and her property taxes changed .Ask "Mr S" how I do things ,shit for brains.

OH and Wallace.The reason my friend that I never really got into too many arguements with you is becuase your a F$#@ AS%$@#!.

Argueing with you guys is like running in the special Olimypic's.No matter if you win or lose ,your still F%@#$ retarded .

What I am here to say tonight though has nothing to do with politics or religion ,or sex for that matter .It has everything to do with destroying someones character.

Ed ,what you said here about Sue Kelland-Dyer is truely shameful.Congradulation's ,you have fallen to the level of worm shit and maggot spawn.Why don't you learn to shut the f#$% up buddy ,or prove something .You haven't made one solid contribution to the province since I've had the mis-fortune of knowing your shitty writings .Know wonder your into "HUMAN-RELATIONS."buddy ,cause you know shit about what people here are talking about .To me your worse them maggot shit because you feed on your own people .

Newfoundlander's helped play a role in over fishing .What are you buddy a F$@#! complete Idiot or did you forget to take your medicaine today.Everybody and his nan knows what happened to the fishery and you have the balls to say that the fisherman of newfoundland had a hand in that .

Better words though Eddy ,what the fuck are you doing over here at Patriots Blog for in the first place if your not here to just cause shit or are you working .Take the hint Eddy ,befor your Social insurance number runs out and they think you came from Poland or something.Walace ,you can stay .Your harmless anyway.You Eddy,you have to learn the hard way.Your just that type.So I feel that you just might have to learn here ,who is baiting who.Keep it up captain canada.I'm the sick bastard that burnt your maple leaf.

I apologise Mr Higgons for the language that I used on your blog.

FREE NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

babe in boyland said...

starrigan said - "OH ,and by the way Eddy.I hope that wife of yours learns to keep her mouth shut ,cause I just might have her licience re-voked ,and her property taxes changed .Ask "Mr S" how I do things ,shit for brains."

now that was a threat. or might have been one if anyone believed you have any power of any kind. anyone as overbearing as you are must have a really teeny d*ck.

but starrigan, cheer up. its not the size, its how you use it.

so they say.

Ed Hollett said...

"My morals would not allow me to do that, neither would they allow me to turn against my province in order to receive an income. Though if my province was in the wrong someway, neither would I uphold it."

There's an interesting definition of morality going on here.

Presumably you and another anonymous (unless you are the same person pretending to be two people) think it is okay:

1. to say anything you want from behind the coward's cloak of anonymity;

2. to insinuate - or in some other commentsflat out state - that someone else is immoral, corrupt or otherwise doing something improper; but,

3. acknowledge that if you believed som was wrong you wouldn't back it.

and to keep doing it simply because the "rules" allow you to do it.

I suggest your definition of ethics if not morality needs a serious overhaul.

Maybe you'd tell me it's okay to claim all sorts of expenses because the "rules" didn't say you couldn't do it.

Interesting that you state that if you didn't believe in something you wouldn't back it. Yet, all I have done here is question some of the assumptions people make. I don't believe something to be true. How come I am supposedly doing something wrong just by questioning assumptions - not that I am mistaken but that it is wrong to even question something - yet it would be okay for you to do the same thing?

As for the "Free NL in all caps individual", I think your last post demonstrates quite clearly that you have no grasp on very much of anything at all.

You have uttered foolish threats against people you don't even know.

You have made comments like this one:

"Why don't you learn to shut the f#$% up buddy ,or prove something."

Perhaps you might take your own advice, at least on the part about proving something. Well proving something other than that you can't actually back up anything you say.

Oh yes.

And that you high behind the coward's cloak as you spew your foul-mouthed nonsense.

There was a reason why Patriot should have banned anonymous posts a long time ago. However since he seems to think that it's a good idea to have you all doing that I should thank him.

He has allowed you to demonstrate the base of support he has and for that I should thank him. Each anonymous commentor discredits this blog, it's arguments and whatever cause you represent.


Bravo to the foul-mouthed wonders. You do a far better job of undermining your cause than anyone else anywhere.

WJM said...

WJM, I'm surprised, those are the dumbest questions I've ever seen you ask. You're losing you edge. I know Crazy Eddy is here to back you up of your pathetic little cause. But seriously, you can do much better than that. I'm disappointed. You as such an a$$hole. I think your time here is done, you're becoming more and more irrelevant every day. Sad, really.

Dumb questions? Maybe.

But you must be really dumb. You couldn't answer them.

I'll ask again. Maybe some person, smarter than you — and that's pretty well everyone now, innit? — can answer:

Which subjects have been "shown on film"?

Which films?

What is inherently trustworthy about film as a medium?

Starrigan said...

With regards to this post by:
"babe in boyland said...

starrigan said - "OH ,and by the way Eddy.I hope that wife of yours learns to keep her mouth shut ,cause I just might have her licience re-voked ,and her property taxes changed .Ask "Mr S" how I do things ,shit for brains.""

I just want to point out that I didn't post that, it was, USSR-Soviet. You a$$hole, learn to read.

Same again for Ottawally,

"Which subjects have been "shown on film"?

Which films?

What is inherently trustworthy about film as a medium?"

You are asking me about a post I didn't make? How could you be such an a$$hole. I don't expect very much from you, very little indeed. Now you're assuming I can read someones mind, that's flattering but you may want to ask the person who did that posting those questions. You are bringing a$$holedness to a new level.

USSR-Soviet - here's the posting by Simon Lono, I hear he's running for council. He should be ashamed of himself, feel free to spread around his kind words.

Posting by SIMON LONO:

"Look up. . .waaaaay up .. .and you'll see several answers to the question: "Won't won't the Globe and Mail print the letter".

The answers are clear, unambiguous, based in real world circumstances and so simple.

Yet it seems that's not acceptable.

My bet is that no answer that not based on paranoia, perceived repression, and possible political contempt will ever be acceptable because those are the only answers acceptable to you.

There are none so blind as those who will not see and none so closed as those who will only accept the answer that panders to their own prejudices.

But of course the *real* question is "Why won't the world bend to the will of Danny Williams and give is what we want?"

I won't be at the event on Friday because i have a real life and real activities in the real world - I coach and train the next generation of NL leaders to become clear and articulate speakers and thinkers. And I do that the old-fashioned way: through patient effort and mentoring.

Now I will be accompanying a crew to a prestigious national event and they will be going because they *earned* their way out - not because of any sense of entitlement or reparation.

I remember why I stayed out of these discussions and why I normally refrain from contributing. This is a snake's nest of hateful venomous neo-nationalist navel-gazing presented by a gang of the NL equivalent of Archie Bunkers who blame the world for their problems and and can't figure out why a red-blooded white-skinned proud patriotic NL'er can't get an even break in a cruel and contemptuous world as you sit in your comfy chair, read the Independent, listen to Great Big Sea on the stereo and drink a bottle of Screech in your fisherman's sweater in the big plastic-covered house in the samey suburbs of Commonwealth Avenues.

It's the same kind of professional NL'er who wears the Pink-White-Green to cocktail parties with your buddies from MUN res - ready to defend the outports but secretly grateful for not living there because it's too far from George Street, the Mall and the LSPU.

Shallow, hollow, empty, negative pseudo-pride with no motivating force of expression other than greedy grasping demands for endless compensation for historical grievance.

We have the Premier we deserve."

Anonymous said...

I just read the Lono post and it is indeed sad that a person who it is purported to have once worked for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador Government would have made the statement below in quotes. Any province with grievances such as the province of Newfoundland and Labrador have would be looking for retribution.

For instance when the province of Newfoundland and Labrador finally got a payment after all of these years on the Atlantic Accord. Dalton McGuinty went after $5 billion dollars from the Feds and got it. Ontario has been getting Transfer payment handed over from Ottawa for the mere reason of asking. Yet the province of Newfoundland and Labrador couldn't even get paid the amount it was promised in the Atlantic Accord without having to go through the motion of taking down the Canadian flag. The payment was for its oil resource that had been exploited for 8 years at the time of payment.

I DO FIND THE STATEMENT BELOW MADE BY MR. LONO VERY DISTURBING

QUOTE "It's the same kind of professional NL'er who wears the Pink-White-Green to cocktail parties with your buddies from MUN res - ready to defend the outports but secretly grateful for not living there because it's too far from George Street, the Mall and the LSPU.

Shallow, hollow, empty, negative pseudo-pride with no motivating force of expression other than greedy grasping demands for endless compensation for historical grievance." UNQUOTE

babe in boyland said...

sorry starrigan - i couldnt tell when the quote broke off and the other guy began. thats because you all sound alike.

oops. sorry. was that racist? sexist? a$$holist?

babe in boyland said...

you disagree with lono? so youre saying we DONT have the premier we deserve.

oh dear. we better tell danny. and then find the premier we deserve. starrigan says so.

WJM said...

You are asking me about a post I didn't make?

Why not? You felt free to comment on the dumbitude of it. Surely, if you think the questions are that dumb, you could answer them... right?

So how about it?

Either answer the "dumb" question, or admit you're wrong.

WJM said...

I DO FIND THE STATEMENT BELOW MADE BY MR. LONO VERY DISTURBING

I think he's right on the money.

Ed Hollett said...

Once again we see a statement of fact when in fact the information is completely untrue:

"Yet the province of Newfoundland and Labrador couldn't even get paid the amount it was promised in the Atlantic Accord without having to go through the motion of taking down the Canadian flag. The payment was for its oil resource that had been exploited for 8 years at the time of payment."

Under the 1985 Atlantic Accord, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador establishes royalties and so forth as if the resource was on land.

It received (from the time of first oil in 1997) and has received in each and every year 100% of the royalties and similar revenues it set.

That fact was confirmed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in the 2005 Equalization offset agreement.

In addition, under the 1985 agreement, the provincial received a series of temporary declining offset payments. That too had been paid in full as required under the agreement.

It will no longer be paid in full as originally intended if the provincial government accepts the changes contained in the current federal budget bill. However, that is not what this anonymous individual referred to.

The statement made by this anonymous individual is incorrect, completely and utterly.

Anonymous said...

Well then WJM if Newfoundlanders and Labradorian's have Shallow, hollow, empty, negative pseudo-pride with no motivating force of expression other than greedy grasping demands for endless compensation for historical grievance.

THEN How would you describe Ontario's demand for $5 billion dollars right after the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's demand for the payment of the Atlantic Accord was met, and which Ottawa promptly gave in to Ontario's McGuinty. It took the province of Newfoundland and Labrador years of attempting to get $2 billion, money that it should have gotten under the Atlantic Accord Agreement for its oil and it had to take down the Canadian Flag to make its point?

Why would you be so against the province of Newfoundland and Labrador having the Atlantic Accord fulfilled, a contract that was drawn up by Ottawa, yet you don't make a peep concerning Ontario's covetous demand, after Newfoundland and Labrador got its rightful $2 billion, nor do you make any noise about the transfer of billions from Ottawa to Corporations such as Bombardier, Pratt and Whitney, etc, and the other provinces? In the last Budget brought down by Ottawa, Quebec got a payment of approximately $1 billion, Quebec's premier promptly reduced the taxes for its citizen. That is rather strange to me for you to be upset that your province has demands that are historical, but you don't make a squeak about the other provinces and corporations which get so much Federal Largesse sent their way. Strange Indeed!

nonosbawsut said...

Starrigan, poor little, useless, bent, retarded, fir tree, and the FREE NEWFOUNDLAND anon cretin... wow, I say WOW.. how much lower can you two go? you are actually scarey. where does all that hate and venom come from.. you two are in some serious need of pyschological help and I'm being serious, not trying to bait you.. all that anger cooking up in you is not good for either you or your families (if they still talk to you)... I suggest that you talk to a doctor as soon as possible and stay away from sharp objects

Starrigan said...

WJM has now reached his lowest point yet. You want me to answer someone else's question for them. Are you that much of an a$$hole? Are you that desperate to get someone to answer one of your stupid questions? Please try to rub together a couple of brain cells and maybe spark something up there if the old noggin. You a$$hole.

Babe in boyland, (oh please), what an a$$hole. I'm just curios, what was it you said that you thought was racist?

Nomobuttwad, what makes you think I'm angry? Just because I point out the fact that many people here are aSSholes doesn't mean I'm angry. You on the other hand sound like you're about to snap. Maybe you should get together with your buddies and have yourself a circle jerk. Blow off some of the tension that's building up. A$$hole.

nonosbawsut said...

I first wandered across this zone of alternate reality having read Geoff Meeker's blog on the distortions re attendance at Danny's picnic. I have been amazed at the half-wits and nit-wits that spout, nay vomit, drivel about how NL'ers have been shafted etc.. Simon Lono's post, which one of you idiots kindly reposted, is spot on. And Ed Hollett's comments above, about how your collective rantings and foul-mouthed obsecnities prove how shallow and delirious your whole philosophy of victimhood is, similarly drives the stake through the heart of your delusions and idiocy. You make NL'ers look utterly foolish and stupid.

Anonymous said...

Well we talk about the fact there are no high paying Federal employees based in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have to give a small apology since, I can see there at at least Three and maybe Five that post on this site disputing everything that is said THAT is the Truth as it applies to the treatment of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador by Ottawa. They have to be paid by Ottawa, since no one would spend his/her whole day monitoring this site to refute posts that Ottawa doesn't like.

WJM said...

Well then WJM if Newfoundlanders and Labradorian's have Shallow, hollow, empty, negative pseudo-pride with no motivating force of expression other than greedy grasping demands for endless compensation for historical grievance.

That's a big IF. And I don't agree with it, so your premise is flawed.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not, as a class, have have "Shallow, hollow, empty, negative pseudo-pride with no motivating force of expression other than greedy grasping demands for endless compensation for historical grievance".

Newfoundland nationalists do.

Why would you be so against the province of Newfoundland and Labrador having the Atlantic Accord fulfilled, a contract that was drawn up by Ottawa

The Atlantic Accord was NOT "drawn up by Ottawa", it was negotiated and entered into by two governments. And not one clause of the Accord was breached up to and including 2005. In fact, the only government, until recently, which had EVER breached the 1985 Atlantic Accord was that of Danny Williams, when it refused to be bound by the process set out in the Accord for appointing the Chair of the CNLOPB.

yet you don't make a peep concerning Ontario's covetous demand

Why should I?

after Newfoundland and Labrador got its rightful $2 billion

What's "rightful" about that amount?

nor do you make any noise about the transfer of billions from Ottawa to Corporations such as Bombardier, Pratt and Whitney, etc, and the other provinces?

Why should I?

In the last Budget brought down by Ottawa, Quebec got a payment of approximately $1 billion, Quebec's premier promptly reduced the taxes for its citizen. That is rather strange to me for you to be upset that your province has demands that are historical

Yeah, real "historical".

The phoney "Atlantic Accord is being breached!" argument was invented about six years ago.

WJM said...

WJM has now reached his lowest point yet. You want me to answer someone else's question for them.

You're the one who says it's a dumb question.

Why not prove how dumb it is, and how smart you are?

Come one, smart person. Do it.

Hi, Mick!

WJM said...

Well we talk about the fact there are no high paying Federal employees based in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Define "high paying".

Thank you.

They have to be paid by Ottawa, since no one would spend his/her whole day monitoring this site to refute posts that Ottawa doesn't like.

I have a strong suspicion that "Ottawa" is utterly apathetic about posts on this site.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"They have to be paid by Ottawa, since no one would spend his/her whole day monitoring this site to refute posts that Ottawa doesn't like."

What an amazingly silly assumption.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are concerned for the unfacts, misrepresentations and in some cases out and out untruths that are being spread by some make simple, factual comments.

Of course, by you logic, anonymous, the people who keep spreading the falsehoods must also be paid by someone since they do it relentlessly as well.

So if some people are paid to correct falsehoods - following your logic - who is paid to spread the falsehoods in the first place?

Edward G. Hollett said...

It's amazing that someone would continue to spread this sort of false statement immediately after the statement had been shown to be false:

"It took the province of Newfoundland and Labrador years of attempting to get $2 billion, money that it should have gotten under the Atlantic Accord Agreement for its oil and it had to take down the Canadian Flag to make its point?"

Check my comment immediately before it and go check the 2005 deal to see the simple statement that proves this anonymous comment to be completely false.

It is untrue.

On top of that we get this beaut:

"That is rather strange to me for you to be upset that your province has demands that are historical...".

The whole point is that much of what this person claims to be "historical demands" are merely claims made on the basis of false, untrue, inaccurate, wrong and otherwise incorrect information.

It is a list built on - and consisting of - myth and fabrication.

The province doesn't have these "demands".

A few ill-informed people do.

And if we follow the logic of the person making other comments, the people spreading these falsehoods must be paid.

Paid by whom?

Anonymous said...

Are you the WJM who was reported a few months back on Web Talk Newfoundland and Labrador to be sending posts to this blogsite from an Ottawa IPO address?

There could be two WJMs posting to this blogsite, I am not sure of that?

But I am wondering if you are the one who posted on May 28, 2007 8:54 PM, at this moment it happens to be the second post from this one.

Anonymous said...

The reason I asked the question whether people are paid, is that I know that there are at least 2 names on this blogsite that have gotten appointments from governments over the years. And not just one appointment, but a few. So I suspect the trend is continuing into monitoring the blogosphere FOR GOVERNMENT as well. Such people do not freely give up their time to protect government without getting paid dearly. By that I mean people who have already had appointment with government, they know how to keep getting their feet into the patronage door. It is a sick system and it is time that both levels of governments stopped the CORRUPT process. It makes me so angry to know people are so disloyal to their province that he/she would do such a thing. As far as I am concerned they are the SCUM of the Earth.

It is the Governments fault to have such a system in place, whether it is provincial or federal. There are weak minded people out there who will do anything to make an easy dollar.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"It makes me so angry to know people are so disloyal to their province that he/she would do such a thing. As far as I am concerned they are the SCUM of the Earth.

It is the Governments fault to have such a system in place, whether it is provincial or federal. There are weak minded people out there who will do anything to make an easy dollar."

Who exactly are you talking about?

Certainly there isn't anyone here "protecting government" at least not in my case.

It's really odd that you would see someone challenging false information as being a case of protecting one government or another. Then you seem to have to invent all sorts of conspiracies in order to do what?

Well, the reason for dredging up all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories is to avoid having to deal with the simple exchange of information or, more accurately, to avoid a discussion of how much false information is offered up here by the anonymous commenters.

As for being disloyal, that's just another one of the silly dodges offered up by people who cannot engage in a simple discussion.

Frankly, though, I'd consider it far more disrespectful if not disloyal - to use your term - to spread false information, as so many of the anonymous commenters do, even after the facts have been established and established again.

The only corruption anyone might find here is the corruption of facts and truth into the sort f consistent pattern of misrepresentations offered up by any of number of people here who claim to be "patriotic", "loyal" and all sorts of other things.

WJM said...

Are you the WJM who was reported a few months back on Web Talk Newfoundland and Labrador to be sending posts to this blogsite from an Ottawa IPO address?

There could be two WJMs posting to this blogsite, I am not sure of that?


No, there can't be. I have a registered blogger account (WJM) which is unique to me.

It's easy to register. You should try it.

And question marks are customarily used at the end of questions, not statements.

WJM said...

So I suspect the trend is continuing into monitoring the blogosphere FOR GOVERNMENT as well.

It was recently reported that the Harper PMO does do regular monitoring of high-traffic Canadian blogs.

I'm not part of that, and I doubt if this blog qualifies for even Harper's paranoid attention.

Such people do not freely give up their time to protect government without getting paid dearly.

Maybe, maybe not, but I wouldn't know. I'm not one of those people.

Anonymous said...

You are still evading the question WJM, are you the person behind the initials of WJM who it was reported, a few months ago, posted from an IPO in Ottawa to this blogsite.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: are you the person with a provincial government IPO?

WJM said...

You are still evading the question WJM, are you the person behind the initials of WJM who it was reported, a few months ago, posted from an IPO in Ottawa to this blogsite.

I'm not evading: There's only one WJM.

Anonymous said...

So you are the WJM who was purported to be writing from an IPO address belonging to the Government of Canada in Ottawa.

Anonymous said...

so anonymous, are you an employee of the Premier's Office or perhaps a former Liberal staffer who organized a political rally for the Premier?

Anonymous said...

so anonymous, you are the the same anonymous purported to be writing from a provincial government IPO?

Anonymous said...

Please forgive me WJM, I get a little indolent sometimes with my punctuation. I guess since this is a casual thing, I thought I have the right to do it, but really I shouldn't. Sorry!

Anonymous said...

I have never had a provinvial government job in my life. Nor would I post anything detrimental to my province which has been struggling to get ahead in this country, despite its resources and stragegic location. To do so on my part would be blackmail.

I see blackmail being carried out on this site by a couple of people who once worked for the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador and it makes my stomach churn! How could these people be traitors to the province and its people? Some people will do anything to make an easy dollar, NOT ME!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, how do we know you never had a government job if we don't know who you are.

Anonymous said...

I had a government job once and I saw anonymous there.

She worked next to anonymous and they used to hang out in the caf with anonymous and his friend anonymous.

Anonymous said...

You didn't sees this anonymous. I swear to God I didn't dine with any other anonymous in the Cafe. So anonymous, you are dead wrong on that count. Anonymous: Please stop spreading information that isn't factual.

Anonymous said...

But anonymous I did see you.

And another anonymous used to run a blog but closed it down.

Anonymous said...

If you are referring to Sue Kelland Dyer, I adore the person for what she stands for and I think she is the most intelligent person in Canada, but I have never met the lady. I hope I have quenched your thirst, if I haven't I can't help you in that department.

Anonymous said...

Plant a tree, jet to Cancun? Eco-conscious 'offset' schemes are not that simple
28/05/2007 6:10:00 PM

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

Printer-friendly page



ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - If you plant some trees, is it OK to drive an Escalade? The question isn't as silly as it sounds. People worried about global warming increasingly are trying to "offset" the carbon dioxide - the leading greenhouse gas - they spew into the atmosphere when they drive, fly or flick on a light. One idea popular with the eco-conscious is to have trees planted for them. You get to keep driving and flying, but those trees are supposed to suck in your trail of carbon.


MICHAEL HILL


Whole forests have been funded by tree-loving celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and Coldplay, and more modest packages tailored to typical consumers are proliferating.

But some researchers say planting trees - while a good thing - is at best a marginal solution to global warming. Still others decry tree planters who continue to jet off to Cannes, drive their SUVs or generally fail to reduce their fuel-hungry lifestyle. To those critics, plantings and other carbon offsets are like the medieval practice of selling indulgences to wash away sins: It may feel good, but it doesn't solve much.

"The sale of offset indulgences is a dead-end detour off the path of action required in the face of climate change," says a report by the Transnational Institute's Carbon Trade Watch.

Groups that offer tree offsets typically rely on Web calculators requiring users to type in how many miles they drive, how much electricity they use and how far they fly. Figure out how much CO2 someone is responsible for (output), compare it to the work average trees can do (input), and you have a formula for neutralizing a person's "carbon footprint."

While the band Coldplay famously funded 10,000 mango trees in India to soak up emissions related to the production of a CD, the average consumer can get off far easier. For $40, Trees for the Future will plant 400 trees in a developing country to handle your car emissions. In June, Delta Air Lines will allow online ticket buyers to help offset emissions of their flights through tree plantings in the U.S. and abroad: $5.50 for domestic round trips, $11 for international.

"It's easy to do and it makes a big difference," said Jena Thompson of the Conservation Fund, Delta's partner and one of many groups that will plant trees on your behalf.

The science is sound: Trees take in carbon dioxide as part of photosynthesis and store the carbon. But even conservationists caution it's not as simple as planting a sapling so you can crank up the air conditioning without guilt.

Offset groups use averages to estimate how much carbon a given tree or forested acre can capture. For instance, the nonprofit Conservation Fund figures that each tree planted captures less than 1 1/2 tons over 100 years.

To put that in perspective, consider that about 7.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide was produced from the burning of fossil fuels worldwide in 2003, the most recent estimate available.

And how much carbon dioxide a tree can soak up varies, said John Kadyszewski of Winrock International, a nonprofit that works on environmental projects. A huge California redwood might have 30 tons of carbon stored while a 100-year-old pine might have less than a ton.

"Trees are all different," said Kadyszewski, coordinator for ecosystem services for Winrock, "and the amount of carbon in the tree depends on how old it is and where it's growing and what kind of tree it is."

Kadyszewski notes that most of the calculators use conservative numbers, meaning they're not likely to exaggerate benefits. The Conservation Fund and Carbonfund.org both say they plant more than enough trees to deliver on promised offsets.

There are other potential problems, however. Some researchers suggest forests in the snowy North might actually increase local warming by absorbing sunlight that would otherwise be reflected into space. And dead, decaying trees release some of that captured carbon back into the atmosphere.

Maybe most importantly, some researchers say it's simply not possible to plant enough trees to have a significant effect on global warming.

Michael MacCracken, chief scientist at the nonpartisan Climate Institute in Washington, said tree-planting has value as a stopgap measure while society attempts to reduce greenhouse gases. But University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver fears tree offsets could steal the focus of a problem that requires technological advances and behavioral changes.

"The danger is that you could actually think you're solving a problem," Weaver said. "It makes you feel good. It makes you feel warm and fuzzy, like changing a couple of light bulbs. But the reality is it's not going to have a significant effect."

Eric Carlson of the tree-planting nonprofit Carbonfund.org notes that his group does not promote trees as the only solution to climate change. Participants also can purchase offsets that support projects aimed at expanding renewable energy or improving energy efficiency.

Carlso bristles when critics focus on the perceived hypocrisies of the jet-setting, tree-planting rich people.

He fears the indulgence argument shifts the focus from what normal, everyday people can do to fight global warming: Cut down on electricity and gasoline use, support renewable energy and, yes, plant trees.

"You can find pluses and minuses to all the offset options," Carlson said, "but the worst thing is to do nothing."

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows that the PCs and the Liberals give people things to say. You and the other the anonymous get those messages, dont you?

WJM said...

Hey anonymous!

You still haven't told me how to do the statistics correctly.

Let me know, mkay?

WJM said...

I think she is the most intelligent person in Canada

You need to get out and meet more people.

Anonymous said...

She is much more intelligent than what you have displayed here by copying, pasting and asking a question on someone else's work. Although I am pretty sure you are a very intelligent individual.

I would like to see you write a paragraph for once on your own. I should think that after all these months of questioning, you certainly would have written an independent paragraph by now. Let us see your ability WJM? I know you can do it!

WJM why is it inherent in your nature to always bring others down? There is absolutely no need for it!

Ed Hollett said...

While I am sure WJM can speak for himself, it's odd you would make this sort of comment:

"WJM why is it inherent in your nature to always bring others down? There is absolutely no need for it!"

If you go through it, WJM has simply asked people who make comments and claims to explain what they mean.

If that brings them down, then they really weren't very high up in the first place, were they?

WJM said...

Although I am pretty sure you are a very intelligent individual.

You have good instincts!

I would like to see you write a paragraph for once on your own.

All you could ever want and more:

labradore.blogspot.com

That's:

labradore.blogspot.com

I should think that after all these months of questioning, you certainly would have written an independent paragraph by now. Let us see your ability WJM? I know you can do it!

Come on down to labradore.blogspot.com!

WJM why is it inherent in your nature to always bring others down? There is absolutely no need for it!

Anonymous said...

WJM - I wouldn't dare. I do not want to be caught in your WEB. It would be too time consuming anwering your questions and then having a thousand more questions asked on the original question.

A quote from a poem that I had to learn in grade school:

Will you come into my parlour said the Spider to the Fly, I have the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy, the way into my parlour is up a winding stairs and I have many curious things to show you while your there.......

WJm - You want to catch me in the web of your blogsite, don't ya?

WJM said...

WJM - I wouldn't dare. I do not want to be caught in your WEB. It would be too time consuming anwering your questions and then having a thousand more questions asked on the original question.

And you'd also have to de-lurk and no longer be anonymous. That's the real problem, isn't it?

WJm - You want to catch me in the web of your blogsite, don't ya?

Yes, and sprinkle you with pepper and vinegar, and slow-roast you for dinner. Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

WJM - An explosive end to a long line of dead-end questioning. I concede defeat since I do not have the time nor the money on my side to keep this exchange going. Nor do I have the power to demand that Ottawa release the files to expose the information we both need.

WJM said...

I concede defeat since I do not have the time nor the money on my side to keep this exchange going.

What's money got to do with it? I'm not being paid to post.

Nor do I have the power to demand that Ottawa release the files to expose the information we both need.

Yes, you do. Write your MP and ask for it directly. Ask your MP to put a question on the Order Paper. And file an ATIP request.

Anonymous said...

Accord Debacle Hurting Federal Tories: Poll
June 8, 2007


It appears the fuss over offshore resource revenues is taking a political toll on the federal Tories. A Corporate Research Associates survey conducted last month shows only 17 per cent of respondents in Newfoundland and Labrador said that they were satisfied, or mostly satisfied, with the performance of the federal government down from 47 per cent in February. 78 per cent said they were completely or mostly dissatisfied with Harper's government. In Nova Scotia, satisfaction with Ottawa declined from 50 per cent in February to 37 per cent in May, while dissatisfaction rose from 41 per cent to 56 per cent. Approximately 4-hundred people were surveyed in each of the provinces, and the results are considered accurate to within 4.9 percentage points 95 times out of 100.

Meantime, reports indicate the federal Conservatives are offering this province and Nova Scotia an 'insurance policy', which guarantees they won't lose anything from the Atlantic Accords if they sign a revised equalization deal. The federal finance minister says he's 'clarifying' government's position.