Da Legal Stuff...

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

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

Friday, June 15, 2007

Battle of the Atlantic

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article by Michael Harris appeared today in the Ottawa Sun. With the battle over equalization raging, verbal attacks on Atlantic Canada are growing in some quarters. The name calling in certain media is becoming a daily affair and now Ontario Premier McGuinty has weighed in saying the Atlantic provinces want too much from his people, (never mind that not so long ago he was the one whining about needing more from Ottawa because of the so called fiscal imbalance).

With the attacks growing louder on both sides of this issue its good to see that at least one columnist in Ontario actually understands what's happening and isn't afraid to say so.

The issue of equalization has moved far beyond one of dollars and sense (no, that isn't a misspelling). It's become an issue where the fabric of Canada is being stretched to the limit. Where province is pitted against province, where the small are battling the mighty and where the federal government is abandoning the ideal of an equal and fair federation.


Mr. Harris' points provide a view into this growing crisis.

Battle of the Atlantic
by Michael Harris

Occasionally, something is said on the airwaves and the ground trembles.

This week on my radio show, the cups rattled as Caller Donald denounced Maritimers as grasping, greedy freeloaders. Others argued there were nooks and crannies in Ontario every bit as needy as the East. Clearly true.

Pundits like Andrew Coyne reinforced the sense that Atlantic Canada was scamming. He spoke of the region's "phony grievances" and its premiers as "shake-down" artists.

Coyne cited per capita income in Newfoundland and Labrador and compared it to Ontario, using one year of projected data, this year and next, during which Newfoundlanders will get $500 more. Coyne called this "untenable" and approvingly cited the O'Brien report and its call for a cap on equalization right now to avoid injustices.

Coyne's analysis is no worse than a lot of other Canadians who don't know the East Coast or its people.

Eager to cite a historically high per capita income number for Newfoundland, he neglected to report in his "facts" that the Rock has the highest per capita debt in the country, and remains firmly at the bottom of the national ladder, where it will remain for decades unless that debt can be paid down.

Phony grievances? Let's see: The destruction of the northern cod by federal mismanagement; silence from the feds on the ruinous Upper Churchill Hydro development, which has allowed Quebec to gorge for decades on profits from power generated in Newfoundland and Labrador while Newfoundlanders got table scraps; a declining population that has already seriously reduced equalization payments to the most indebted province in the country.

Next time Coyne is in Newfoundland, he should try taking the train from St. John's to Corner Brook. It will be hard because they hauled up the narrow gauge tracks years ago and sold them to an African nation.

Newfoundland, unlike Ottawa, has no trains.

Like a lot of other people, the pundit is merely changing the channel on the only question involved here: Did the Harper government break the terms of the Atlantic Accord?

Three premiers, two Conservative, say it did. Iconic Tory John Crosbie says it did. Bill Casey quit rather than market lies back home.

Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, and the dubious Peter MacKay say the accord has not been violated, just retroactively and unilaterally improved for people too stupid to see what's good for them.

But the federal government's bad faith is not what made the cups rattle in the studio this week.

In a journalistic age that has opted for partisan cant rather than getting to the truth is bound to leave us awash in a sea of casuistry and sophism.

What made the cups rattle was that call from Donald. For him and others like him, charity started at home and that meant Ontario. He saw his fellow Canadians in the Maritimes sponging off their betters, constitutional street people looking for yet another handout.

That view rests on a very new idea of Canada, one that is light-years from the old notion of one for all and all for one. If it is a sea of change in our national life, how fitting that it started with Atlantic Canada.

166 comments:

Patriot said...

A few moments ago the following letter was sent to all members of the Senate of Canada by yours truly. Copies were also sent to NL members of parliament, the premier of the province and multiple local and national media outlets.

Myles Higgins

BEGIN LETTER:

To all Senators Reviewing Bill C-52,

As a concerned Canadian taxpayer, voter and resident of Newfoundland and Labrador I believe it is my civic duty to express my concerns regarding Bill C-52 as it relates to equalization and its impact on the Atlantic Accord contract signed by the government of Canada in 2005.

Much political rhetoric has surrounded this issue and as such it’s often difficult for those not directly affected to wade through the mire and arrive at the core issue that needs to be addressed.

When the Atlantic Accords were negotiated and agreed upon in 2005 it was clear to the premier's of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Labrador that changes to equalization would be implemented over time. With this reality in mind the contract specifically includes a clause ensuring that the Accords are reflective of the equalization formula, "in place at the time of calculation", not the one existing at the time the contract was signed.

Bill C-52 would have the two provinces affected retain the accords using the old equalization formula or opt out of the contract in order to be permitted into the new formula. This creates a situation where a contractual agreement is circumvented and it creates a two tiered system of equalization, all in an effort to break the spirit and letter of a signed contract between the government of Canada and two of its provinces.

Bill C-52, if adopted, will create one system of equalization for the Atlantic Accord signatories and a different one for the rest of Canada . It is divisive and creates a situation where the two Atlantic provinces cannot partake of the equalization formula, "in place at the time" as agreed upon in the Atlantic Accord contract without opting out of the very contract that guarantees they can.

Key members of the governing party, in addition to the leader of the official opposition, have been applying undue pressure on the senate to pass this Bill. In doing so they are attempting to usurp the power of the Senate, render it impotent and destroy the very purpose of the chamber itself, that of, "sober second thought".

What more appropriate Bill has ever, or will ever, come before the Senate requiring as much sober second thought as Bill C-52, a Bill that will break a signed contract with two members of the federation and threatens to tear apart the very fabric of Canada.

If ever there was a time when the Senate has an opportunity to prove that it serves a valid purpose, is relevant in today's Canada and is not simply a rubber stamp factory for the government of Canada this is that opportunity.

Please do not let it slip away.

Sincerely,

Anonymous said...

NEWS ARTICLE:

The prime minister's fighting words about going to court over the Atlantic Accord may not be such a bad idea, says a McGill constitutional law professor.

Stephen Harper challenged Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald and Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams on Monday to take the federal government to court to see if it had broken the law over the Atlantic Accord. He also threatened to go to court himself to defend his honour.

The Atlantic Accord isn't a contract, it's a political arrangement, Stephen Scott said yesterday.

The fastest, most economical route through the legal system would be to start an action for a declaratory order to see if the agreement is legally binding.

Then Nova Scotia could use the power of reference that every province has in its statute books to send a set of detailed questions to the court of appeal.

That decision could then be sent to the Supreme Court of Canada, he said.

"Why not take the questions to the court of appeal in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia so the courts could render their certified opinion?" Scott asked.

'A gentlemanly way'

"It can all be done in a gentlemanly way, 'We think we're right, you think you're right.' Well, let's have the courts interpret this."

Harper's so-sue-me comments were scoffed at by Williams and MacDonald, who said they refuse to waste taxpayers' money on expensive legal battles that would turn the spotlight from their budget criticisms.

Scott thinks the premiers were too hasty to dismiss the idea.

"When you get a sarcastic dismissal of the idea of that, that seems to me to invite the obvious conclusion that those who object to it aren't so sure of the strength of their case."

Harper is "perfectly reasonable" to suggest the matter go to court, because his "good faith is being impugned," Scott said.

"Very strong language is being used."

In the end, a lot depends on what was implied in the Atlantic Accord and what was said in the document.

"I think it would be a good idea for the public to have a decisive and authoritative ruling," he said.

"Spell it out. What fair-minded person could object to that?"

Republican said...

"Where province is pitted against province, where the small are battling the mighty and where the federal government is abandoning the ideal of an equal and fair federation."

"Mr. Harris' points provide a view into this growing crisis."

As I stated befor ,we are watching the death of a nation.Canada my friends may look good on paper ,but in the real world it CANNOT live up to it's own priciples.

"Lazy SNOTT Nosed Newfie's, Welfare-Bums,looking for YET ANOTHER HAND-OUT"

Its "OK" when they have access to resources from Labrador.Who's getting the money from there.Not the people of Labrador,or Newfoundland .

Danny Williams is such a Bastard for Giving everything away Hey WJM.Charity Starts were Guys.

Keep living in your dream world Canada ."Eqaulity ,Fairness,and Sharing"
Who in the name of God are they fooling?I would rather have a simple life ,then this .

THIS IS A SHAM OF A DEMOCRACEY!!!

Ed Hollett said...

After reciting a few of the convenient myths, Michael Harris wrote:

"Like a lot of other people, the pundit is merely changing the channel on the only question involved here: Did the Harper government break the terms of the Atlantic Accord?

Three premiers, two Conservative, say it did. Iconic Tory John Crosbie says it did. Bill Casey quit rather than market lies back home."

Actually, that's not really what is taking place.

Premier Williams is not arguing about the Accord. He has focused his attention on the 100% exclusion, an unattainable goal. It is the same goal that he started with in 2004 and the one that only reinforces the point made by McGuinty and others.

That's the idea they are opposing: collecting considerable oil revenues (100% of them) and at the same time collecting Equalization as if the revenues didn't exist.

Mr. Crosbie has aided that problem by claiming, entirely incorrectly that the 1985 Atlantic Accord intended to do that. It did no such thing and he, of all people, should know better.

The onyl way to resolve a problem is to correct define the issue. Harris doesn't do that, not by a long shot.

Anonymous said...

But Ed 100 per cent exclusion of non-renewable resources is what Prime Minister Harper promised the province should he become Prime Minister, which he did.

Why shouldn't Premier Danny Williams expect to have that promised fulfilled?

And if you say Premier Williams shouldn't expect to have the promised by Prime Minister Harper fulfilled, you really are saying you, yourself, believe in deceitfulness because that is exactly what went on there. The now Prime Minister Harper made a promise and now he is reneging on his promise.

Republican said...

"The now Prime Minister Harper made a promise and now he is reneging on his promise."

C'mon Folk's ,lets be completely honest here.Can you be honest with yourselves .

Did you expect Anything Differant in the long run.I didn't ,and I can be Honest with myself.

Someone has to gain,someone has to lose.That is this thing we have embraced called capitalisaim.But,it just so happens that Newfoundland and Labradore is in a position that they cannot win or even play by. The rules that have been laid out by Ottawa,and you have been set-up to fail .Does it have to hit you in the face .

Keep your faith in Canada.LOL,my God do you know what you are dealing with .It seems not .

WJM said...

Its "OK" when they have access to resources from Labrador.Who's getting the money from there.Not the people of Labrador,or Newfoundland .

The provincial government is - I hate this phrase - the principal beneficiary of Labrador resource and other revenues.

Ed Hollett said...

"And if you say Premier Williams shouldn't expect to have the promised by Prime Minister Harper fulfilled, you really are saying you, yourself, believe in deceitfulness because that is exactly what went on there. The now Prime Minister Harper made a promise and now he is reneging on his promise."

Nonsense.

There is no endorsement of deceit at all.

The point is that the 100% exclusion of non-renewables was a political non-starter from the beginning.

Harper may or may not have been deceitful, but he was certainly stupid to promise something that he was unlikely to be able to deliver politically.

By the same token, I would have to question those to accepted the promise at face value and who campaigned for Mr. Harper on that basis. It is not as though the inherent political problems with the idea were not well known at the time, especially among people in governments across the country.

I can forgive others for being taken in by the issue - if it was important to anyone outside government at all - however, i find it hard to believe that anyone currently in government or who worked at a very senior level in government at any time recently would have been naive enough to believe that every promise made will kept, especially that one.

The 100% non-renewables idea has been off the political table since very shortly after the last election. It is unfathomable why the provincial government here would have persisted in believing the idea would somehow magically re-appear despite having been disowned by the Harper administration by at least May of 2006 by my recollection.

Bear in the mind the promise was not made uniquely and specifically to one person or one province. It was made to all. That only reinforces my point that the problems inherent in 100% exclusion of non-renewables would have been quite easy to see for someone in government.

Incidentally, if you hold Mr. harper to an absolute rule that all promises must be kept, what politicians do you vote for more than once?

Every single political party of every stripe led by ever leader will fail to deliver on at least one promise in a campaign platform.

Ed Hollett said...

"C'mon Folk's ,lets be completely honest here.Can you be honest with yourselves .

Did you expect Anything Differant in the long run.I didn't ,and I can be Honest with myself."

The first part of that quote sounds exactly like one of Sue's favourite phrases. in fact the whole comment sounds like Sue's recent rants.

If, in fact, "republican" is Sue then we have a remarkable admission. After all she campaigned vigorously on every Open Line show available to have Harper elected.

If it isn't Sue then we just have someone typing a bunch of words that make no real point.

Is that you, Sue?

Anonymous said...

What do you mean Ed when you say there is no endorsement of deceit? Sure Harper put it in writing on several occasions. If you say there is no deceit there, your sole purpose operating on this site must also be classed as deceit. You deny everything that is written here concerning the fact that Harper put in writing to Premier Williams that he would exclude 100 per cent of non-renewable resources.

It is hard to get a handle on your modus operandi on this site. You are like a chameleon.

Are you saying that you would use the same ruse to get elected if you were running for Prime Minister?

Ed Hollett said...

Actually I'd classify your comments as being deliberately deceptive.

Look at what you wrote, carefully.

"What do you mean Ed when you say there is no endorsement of deceit?"

At no point did I endorse deceit. I have stated repeatedly that Harper's promise was made across the country in countless speeches and in writing in various forms.

The interesting thing is that my comments on this blog have been consistently aimed at rooting out untruths, incorrect and inaccurate claims and deceit.

I have been absolutely consistent in my position. I have also been successful since the only thing the anony-slaggers, like yourself, have been able to do is continue the misrepresentations and do so from behind the deceptive mask of anonymity.

"Sure Harper put it in writing on several occasions."

Absolutely true and I have agreed with the point repeatedly.

"If you say there is no deceit there, your sole purpose operating on this site must also be classed as deceit."

At no point did I say there was no deceit. That is your deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I said - to be deliberately deceitful - since you can read and understand English.

At no point have I endorsed any deceit by anyone, including you.

In fact i am deliberately and consciously drawing everyone's attention to your deceit in your remarks.

My words are clear and plain.

The only thing I deny is your obviously deliberate effort to misrepresent what I wrote. i deny you the opportunity to deceive.

The only question I'd have is why you would chose to lie repeatedly about my remarks. The only motive would seem to lie in your inability to deal with the truth and with facts.

Plus, you are obviously a coward since you will not reveal your your identity as you go about your deceit.

There you have it: a double deceiver - no identity and misrepresenting my remarks - accusing me of being deceitful, when in fact my identity is known and remarks are consistent.

Anonymous said...

Ed I will state categorically that I was naive, and apparently still am naive, with regard to this type of deceit being used to get elected. I am new at this game of following political shenanigans, the way that I have been recently following through the channels of this Blog and the Open Line Shows over the the past 3 to 4 years, since John Efford emerged on the Federal political scene in Ottawa.

Not for the life of me, did I ever think that a politician would promise us something so important to the well-being of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, given its inequality with the other 9 provinces, and then renege on it. And not only did the politician state it orally, but he put it in writing. I must have been too green to burn to have believed it, according to you, but I did believe what he said and I can't believe that someone like you, who worked with the Provincial Government for years, would actually agree that this is the way things are done in politics, it appears to me that you sanction it, or am I being fooled here again to believe that is what you said, since I cannot fully disseminate what you are writing?

You have a way with words that was adopted in the Nixon era that puts many different spins on speech and writing, no different than what the politicians and lawyers do. You write words so people cannot select from those words what you are really saying? You are no different than the politicians or the lawyers who do not want to write things in a concise and clear manner, since that type of writing can protect the person who writes it, because there are so many different interpretations of each statement written. In other words you are putting a spin on things and I would like to see that type of creative writing stopped. When a politician makes a promise, so clear as the one made by Prime Minister Harper, so many times and in so many place and in writing, it should be kept. That is a corrupt bit of business, when that politician reneges on what he/she said orally or in writing.

We were here on this blogsite, and we still are here arguing for the truth and then you crossed over the blogosphere spectrum and came to this blog to refute the things we were saying. Why would you do such a thing? We want what is equal for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, no different than what the other Canadians of each of the other provinces want for their province. We are 500,000 people, we have many resources, much more than is needed to keep one-half million souls occupied in making a living, but we do not have equality for the province with the other 9 provinces. We are far behind all the other provinces with regard to our economy and infrastructure, since most of our resources go to other places to be processed, and you might dispute this, but the processing sector is one of the main sectors in which economies are created, and everything else flows indirectly from there. Since we have not being processing our resources we have been left in the dust with no appreciable economy in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are trying to stop that destructive way of life, and you come to the scene and try to put a halt to it on behalf of Big Business, or that is who I see you operating on behalf. I will confess right here I do not know what the devil is going on with your reasoning? And I do not think you will be able to give us any more insight unless you drop your style of writing and put it in plain and simple writing, a writing that only contains one answer, not the spin cycle style writing, writing as it used to be before the wool was pulled over our eyes.

We, the electorate, can only go by what was promised in the voting process, or I thought that was the case from my naivety, but now I have learned through what we were promised by Mr. Harper that you cannot believe what politicians say at all, and from the moment he made the statement and reneged on it, I will never trust another politician. I am still shock and have absolutely no faith at the moment in the political system which I thought was not in shape that it is in. I do believe that our political system has gone downhill 100 per cent over the past 3 years, and I cannot believe that you, Ed, are defending it. Or are you spinning words that make me think, it that way. I will confess my brain is unable to decipher what you are saying.

From what I can see you wanting is to keep giving away our resources for the sake of Big Corporations. You do not want us to ask for equity in our Oil, that is quite plain and you have spun words on that statement as well, and, no doubt, you will again.

Premier Williams is asking for 5 per cent in our Oil Fields and you and others keep referring to him as Chavez. It is only right and fair that we have equity there.

Anonymous said...

Is it Creative Writing or Deceptive Writing?

Starrigan said...

Anonymous don't waste your time overthinking what Crazy Eddy posts. He and Ottawally (WJM) are both being paid by their mainland overlords to seek out sites such as these and disrupt any kind of discussion. They both have different approaches to their task, Ottawally likes to question everything that someone with a differing opinion posts. Just look over his posts, you'll see that he will even go as far as questioning every line, and sometimes partial sentences. Not very creative, more lame than anything else. Best to just arrow past anything you see from Ottawally, he really has nothing to say.
Ed Hollett or Crazy Eddy, well his little game is to be verbose. It doesn't matter what the topic is, if it's pro NL he will poo poo it. Go back over his posts and you'll see that he contradicts himself on a regular basis. He doesn't care about the topic, he's just here to cause discord. He opens his mouth and the diarrhea flows freely. So his shtick is volume, he just goes on and on. As you can see from reading his posts, he likes to bamboozle. Just try not to get sucked in by this guy, in the future. Ignore anything that Ottawally or Crazy Eddy my post in the future. We all know that Harper lied to us, we all know that we are being held down by Canada. Don't buy into the spew that comes from these two a$$holes. They are traitors. It's always interesting to see how people behave, here we are again in NL being screwed by the rest of Canada and now we have to put up with scum like these people trying to disrupt discussion on our place in this federation. Their mainland overlords must be so proud.

Ed Hollett said...

There are more than a few things that I would disagree with in your post. As for what I write and how I write, to me the meanings are clear and the objective is clear:

get rid of the myths, misunderstandings and in some cases fabrications and then we can actually figure out what is going on and what to do.

In no way at all do I either condone the federal Conservatives' actions on Equalization nor would I suggest for a moment that all politicians act in this way.

Politicians will make promises they intend to keep but cannot sometimes for entirely understandable reasons. What the federal Conservatives have done is absolutely not in that category at all.

"I do believe that our political system has gone downhill 100 per cent over the past 3 years, and I cannot believe that you, Ed, are defending it."

I think my comments just now are absolutely clear on this. I am not defending it at all.

"We want what is equal for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, no different than what the other Canadians of each of the other provinces want for their province."

One of the big things I would point out to you is that when it comes to Equalization and resources, the province has been treated exactly as all the others, except that in some cases it has actually received a better shake.


"We are far behind all the other provinces with regard to our economy and infrastructure, since most of our resources go to other places to be processed, and you might dispute this, but the processing sector is one of the main sectors in which economies are created, and everything else flows indirectly from there."

This is part of the mythology or misperception that I would disagree with. In 1949, NL was very far behind the rest of Canada on many fronts. Not so any more.

In many parts of the world, resources are moved to another place to be processed and refined into finished products. There's nothing special or unique in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador compared to Canada or anywhere else in North America.

It has happened historically with fish and just about every other resource. What we need to look at is the economics of it. We also need to make sure the provincial government is making the sharpest deal at the right time on revenues. Just as the provincial government has undoubtedly been caught in tight times and had to take deals it would otherwise have left behind (because we needed the cash), we need to guard against simplistic claims like "no more give aways". That just becomes an excuse for missing big opportunities like Hebron and Hibernia South.

On another front though, in some parts of the economy we have been very successful at shipping finished products to market.

In others, we have been able to add some extra value by further refining natural resources.

Fundamentally, though, we have to trade, we have to sell our products and resources in a global marketplace. We are competing directly with companies and countries around the globe. In some instances it would make absolutely no sense at all to insist that something be refined and processed here to the end state if in the process we price that end product right out of the marketplace.

As much as we don't like it, and we don't have to like it, the fact remains that a NL company can ship fish to China and back again in finished form and get on the market here or anywhere else for the same price or, more likely, less than if we tried to do everything with it here. We can't forget that at any point.

I won't pretend to have magic answers. I'd suggest to you that people who do claim to have magic answers - like saying things like "not one teaspoon" or we are always ripped off or we must insist on all processing here - are actually the ones who are deluding themselves and others.

"You do not want us to ask for equity in our Oil, that is quite plain and you have spun words on that statement as well, and, no doubt, you will again.

Premier Williams is asking for 5 per cent in our Oil Fields and you and others keep referring to him as Chavez. It is only right and fair that we have equity there."

Again, this is a complete misrepresentation of the basic facts of the matter and my position.

Let me make it abundantly clear.

First of all, in Canada, all natural resources are owned by government. That's a matter of fact.

Second of all, companies pay government a rent - called a royalty usually- for the right to extra a natural resource and get it to market.

Third of all, in the case of the NL offshore, while legally the jurisdiction rests with the federal government, the NL government sets royalties and other revenues as if the resource was on land, as if the NL government had jurisdiction.

That's set down in the terms of the 1985 Atlantic Accord.

Fourth of all, since oil revenues started flowing in 1997/98, the NL government has set and collected 100% of the revenues and other royalties as if that resource were on land. On this aspect, NL is treated fundamentally no different on this resource than if the resource were on land.

Fifth of all, the existing NL royalty and revenue scheme gives the provincial government about 40% of the cash flow from Terra Nova and White Rose and about 25% from Hibernia, over the life of those projects.

Sixth of all, the provincial government will likely be looking for a 10% "equity" stake in future developments.

Seventh, the oil companies have said they would welcome an equity partner that functions like Norsk Hydro or Statoil. What they don't want to deal with is a case where the government-owned oil company gets a free entry into any project without taking any risk at all. That's a level playing field from the company perspective and I suspect the objection applies just as much to any of the state-owned companies working offshore as it does to the private ones.

The question we have to ask is what value that gives to the provincial government and to the province as a whole.

After all, it's not like the province already doesn't take almost half the cash flow. And it's not like there aren't other ways of getting revenue.

It doesn't give us ownership because basically we already have that - individually as Canadians - and through the 1985 Atlantic Accord the provincial government exercises the right to set and collect revenues just like any other natural resource in NL. [The federal government doesn't collect a penny in royalties, for example]

What it boils down to is this:

1. We need to know what the "equity" stake brings that we couldn't get some other way. We don't know that now. It might be in the energy plan. Until we see what it means - in detail - let's not just jump on the bandwagon.

We've made that mistake all too often in the past and we are still paying for it today.

2. We have to understand how the energy company and the equity will be financed. If we forego revenues to pay for it or borrow to pay for it, then we are just peeing money down a hole for no apparent gain. Better to adjust the royalty and tax regimes and get the cash that way.

Then we pay down debt, salt some away in investments and do whatever else we need to do with it. We should be doing that anyway, but if we are going to start an oil company then we really need to define what it is, and what it is going to do. Let's not set something up so that we all wind up on the hook for its mistakes.

3. If we simply demand the stake as some sort of right, and no companies invest here, then it is useless. After all, it takes capital to develop oil and gas. We have the resources. Oil companies have the cash. Somewhere in there we have to strike a deal that gives both parties a fair return.

4. If the equity stake just lets us create an oil company, then we need to see some real business plan that tells us what the long term risks and rewards are.

If the whole thing doesn't bring any sizeable cash rewards or the long term potential to develop into a company doing business on other people's oil, then it might not be worth the cost.

5. If we are going to continue with this oil company (and the equity) we should look at following the Norwegian model. Put the thing out there at arms length. Set it up and let it sink or swim, depending on the talent of the managers and workers. No special favours should be granted.

All too often we have found ourselves pouring money down losing ventures because the political value of keeping the thing going is worth more than the economics of it. That's a chunk of where our $12 billion debt came from, not from some idea we have been just giving away our resources.

I don't doubt that there are talented people we can find to make that sort of venture work, without a guaranteed equity stake. When the provincial government gets involved in business, we have a sorry history of huge failures and we continue to pay for it. Let's profit from the lessons of our own history and the history of places like Norway and do something different. So far, it doesn't look like the energy company has been set up that way.

My concern, apart of the lack of clear information from government on either equity or the oil company, is that we are really planning to repeat the same approaches we have used before that have failed.

As for the Chavez thing, I think it is overblown and I've said so.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hollet you said:"No special favours should be granted".

It is quite plain to see that you are not rooting for the provincial government, for whom you once worked and earned your living, and under which you supposedly live at the moment, since everything you said above favours the Oil Corporations and the Federal Government.

It is strange how far some people will go with the 'Me Syndrome'.

Anonymous said...

Buddy ,get this in your head.One of thease guys is from the capaital of Newfoundland.St John's.That is "Eddy" or Mr Hollett ,as YOU like to call him.

starigan,is what we like too call a BayWop.He comes from the out-port part of the province ,like the rural part of any other province.
"FuckHead" in Labrador ,Mr WJM as you like to call him,is a Pretty F%$#@ -up dude in Labrador City that likes to ,now hold on and wait for this,he like's to blame all the short comings of Labrador on the crowd in St Johns ,or Danny Williams .
All in all a pretty disfunctional family .The rest are just Governement people that monitor the stae of the blog.Like you know already when your firewall ,and anti-virus went crazy when you first came here right.
They normally run cross-site scripting attacks to grab your browser first ,then track you thru the web pages that you visit.By the end of it ,your nothing more then a "Zombie" machine.
This one guy tracked it too a guy in Ontario ,but he shut him down when they said they could track it too the feds.Pretty far fetched but thats what Im watching for.Anyway ,brother good luck talking to this bunch,your going to need it .

Ed Hollett said...

"...since everything you said above favours the Oil Corporations and the Federal Government."

Would you care to explain that comment?

As it stands right now the comment doesn't make any sense, any more than it would make sense for the province (and the taxpayers) to set up a company, have it spend hundreds of millions and get little if anything in return for the spending.

If we ask taxpayers are being asked to back any business venture, we should think about the costs and benefits and make sure we are clear about it from the start.

Anonymous said...

I was wondering if that type of activity was going on here on this blogsite. So these "Me Syndrome" dudes, who have always been sucking of the 'teat' of some government can catch us in their webs, you, or me, or anyone, by just clicking on to their handle which appears on this blogsite and then they deliver you to the Federal Government, is that exactly what you are saying? That is a way of gathering information on what is being said. It is a spying activity?

Patriot can you please confirm if that is the case on your blogsite?

I do not trust any of these shady characters, who appear to be working right here on your blogsite Patriot for Big Industry and the Federal Government?

Patriot would you please allay my fears that what was described in the post above on June 16, 2007 2:43 PM is not what is going on here.

Ed Hollett said...

"I do not trust any of these shady characters, who appear to be working right here on your blogsite Patriot for Big Industry and the Federal Government?"

Perhaps the first question you should ask yourself is why some anonymous individual came here and made a comment about other people's motives that isn't true.

Whose interest is served by creating fear and suspicion in your mind?

Perhaps it would be in the interest of those who don't want you to think about issues and make up your own mind.

That's another reason for eliminating anonymous comments. Then sincere people can't be misled by those whose motives might be something other than having a reasonable discussion.

What possible reason could anybody have for spreading false information like the foul-mouth above?


Of course if you are actually one of those people, then the point is proven.

We just need to wonder who you are and who you work for. That would be the really shady thing, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

June 16, 2007 3:18 PM

First of all buddy ,relax.Why do you guys think that you you have been getting alot of starnge traffic here .Its posted over in a few sites we visit.This patriot guy can't help you because he doesnt have access to the server,this folks is a Google server.

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/

Check it out for yourselves.simply put the URL:

http:freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogspot.com/

Into http://www.dnsstuff.com/

it has a little VB box that says timing.right beside it you will see A records.tell me who owns this blog.

its even in Astalavista,everybody knows about it .whats the big deal.

republican said...

" That just becomes an excuse for missing big opportunities like Hebron and Hibernia South."

Mr Hollett how can you say that Hebron was a wasted oppurtunity when it has been proven by Mr Wade Locke from the University of Newfoundland and Lanbardor that while Newfoundland is in the state that it is in.The develpomnt of this resource would have absolutly no benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador .Simple question,if you would like a copy of this staement i could forward one to your blog if you wish .

A line from Mr Lockes Blog that I believe you should have a look at.

"The hard facts are these: barely half – 51.5 per cent – of working-age Newfoundlanders have a job, trailing everywhere else by a country mile. Forget Alberta. If only Newfoundland had the same employment rate as tiny Prince Edward Island (61 per cent), it would have 40,000 more inhabitants drawing a paycheque."
"This is part of the mythology or misperception that I would disagree with. In 1949, NL was very far behind the rest of Canada on many fronts. Not so any more"
.
But i would like to question your post .How have you come to this conclusion.Unless I am seeing a far differant picture Mr Hollett,I see the resources from Labrador going to Quebec.Its a simple fact that I think to people of sound mind can agree on.
I also see that the majority of off-shore resources going to the federal goverment now.So my question to you Mr Hollett is this.How can a man of your reason, make such claims agiasnt the Province.Is there something going on here in your writings .It sounds un-relistic too me ,but that is the conclusion that I am forced to draw.
And ,you by all means are entitled to your opinoin.

"In many parts of the world, resources are moved to another place to be processed and refined into finished product"

In many aspects I totally agree with your point.In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador ,I'm sorry i just can't follow your reasoning.The hydro is in labrador.
The material to make the resource is in Labrador.The people have the highest amount of out-migration in the country,and the Governement is shipping this resource how far away to be processed.Contributing how much to global warming.It doesn't make sence.The labrour cost is far cheeper in labrador then anywere else in Canada.What is going on here.

"processed here to the end state if in the process we price that end product right out of the marketplace."

Why can we not finish everything in the Province Mr Hollett.Everywere that Newfoundlanders and labradorians go they are sought after for thier work ethic,thier drive and enthusiam ,and thier sheer qaulity of work.What would draw you to the conclusion that we are not going to be just as successfull if we do it in Newfoundland and labrador.

"When the provincial government gets involved in business, we have a sorry history of huge failures and we continue to pay for it"

Dont get me wrong Mr Hollett ,I strongly agree with a great many points youve made here ,but I do think as well that your not making the whole picture as clear as you could be making it.The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador had a great deal of help getting into debt ,that of course is a topic of discussion that is not being presented here today so I will stay on course.

"is that we are really planning to repeat the same approaches we have used before that have failed."

I strongly feel that until you have eqaulity in confedaeration,Newfoundland and Labrador ,will continue to have the same results.I strongly believe that Mr Harper ,seeing the weekest link ,thought that he could force Premeir Williams ,into developiing certain oil fields .This of course would benefit no one but the federal governement of Canada
As a Canadain I feel nothing but shame ,that a Prime Minister that comes from the west,would try something like this.After the years that they have screamed in-justice to Ottawa ,they themselves seem to be doing the same thing to thier so called fellow citizens.A little ironic to say the least ,would you not agree..

Ed Hollett said...

"The development of this resource would have absolutely no benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador."

That's the first time I ever heard anyone say that 3000 jobs and $8-10 billion in revenues would be no benefit.

I also doubt very much Wade Locke ever said anything of the sort about Hebron. He's the guy who did the original financial analysis that demonstrated the project would produce more benefit to the province than the other three existing fields combined.

If you've got the link then by all means share it.

The next section you quoted includes a comment from me but also a comment from a mainland columnist discussing relative participation rates in the economy.

That's just one indicator and while it is still relatively low, overall, the province is significantly better off in many more ways now than it was in 1949.

Even relative to other province's the province as a whole and even the provincial government is in very good shape.

"I also see that the majority of off-shore resources going to the federal government now."

ANother one of the great myths.

The provincial government collects 100% of offshore revenues to which is entitled and keeps ever nickel. Not one penny is taken away.

If you look at Wade Locke's figures, the provincial government receives more revenue - as a percentage of cash flow - than the federal government does, and the margin is huge in some projects; 40% provincial versus 15% federal.

What you stated is just an example of the "unfacts" that some people believe. Just because people believe them doesn't make them anything but unfacts.

These are not claims against the province. They are simple statements of fact. It is far more damaging to have "unfacts", untruths and misreprepresentations out there than it is to understand exactly what is going on.

"Why can we not finish everything in the Province Mr. Hollett?"

Like what for example?

In some cases we can and do. Boots from Harbour Grace are a case in point. In fact we likely have to import many of the components to make them.

Why don't we make cars here? because it is simply cheaper and easier to make them somewhere else. If there were 500 million people in NL, then the local demand alone would make many more industries economically viable.

Starrigan said...

Just to clear a few things up that anonymous mentioned earlier. I'm not a bay wop, I'm from St. John's, but my heart is around the bay. WJM is from Labrador but works in Ottawa and he does indeed work for the feds, being paid by your tax dollar. And he is a huge a$$hole. Crazy Eddy is also getting he's palms greased by his mainland overlords. It's just not as obvious as WJM, but we know he's on the take, we also know he's another huge a$$hole.
Take for example my last post, then look at the next post right after that by Crazy Eddy. It just went on and on, I hope no one actually read it. Personally I just arrow past his drivel. You won't find anything of substance there. Again don't by into their crap. Post your opinions and make your statements, don't waste you time getting frustrated with these two clowns, we should all speak our mind about how we feel about NL and the way it's treated. Don't let these fools sidetrack you.

Anonymous said...

Seldom has anyone displayed such consistent ignorance and fear as starrigan.

Why is he so desperate?

What is he afraid of?

WJM said...

We are 500,000 people, we have many resources, much more than is needed to keep one-half million souls occupied in making a living, but we do not have equality for the province with the other 9 provinces.

What's unequal?

Let me refine that question: What's unequal in a way that disadvantages "us"?

WJM said...

He and Ottawally (WJM) are both being paid by their mainland overlords to seek out sites such as these and disrupt any kind of discussion.

Your evidence of this is.... ?

Ottawally likes to question everything that someone with a differing opinion posts.

No, I like to question everything that someone with a shaky grasp on reality posts.

Just look over his posts, you'll see that he will even go as far as questioning every line, and sometimes partial sentences.

It's called interlineation. It's an old internet convention — I've been online since 1991, how about you? — that puts the intervention right at the point being intervened about, so as to provide the original poster, and third parties to the discussion, with context.

Their mainland overlords must be so proud.

Why do you use the word "mainland" as if it's an insult? I was born and raised on the Canadian mainland, in Labrador, which accounts for almost three-quarters of your province's landmass, and most of the mineral wealth you love to bandy about as a topic for discussion. You might want to be a bit more respectful.

republican said...

"Anonymous said...

Seldom has anyone displayed such consistent ignorance and fear as starrigan.

Why is he so desperate?

What is he afraid of?

June 16, 2007 9:30"

I think I can answer that .I think he is afaid of Canada .And from what we as Canadians have showed him and his nation of people is that Canada is something to be feared .

We as Canadains,then rip each other apart ,and what.For rich men to get more money ,so they can rip people outta thier homes.I think that Canada is failing somewere.I think it has failed in each one of us.then people ask why I have given up on such a place.

You have all proved a great point.My many thanks to all of you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Is it Creative Writing or Deceptive Writing?

June 16, 2007 11:36 AM

Socail Engenering,Is not nice to doo too anyone.This is the second time,don't get caught again.:).

republican said...

"The provincial government collects 100% of offshore revenues to which is entitled and keeps ever nickel. Not one penny is taken away."

Can you provide any documentation to show us an excample of your point of view Mr Hollett.

A simple URL and referance to a paragraph will do ,thank-you,if you dont mind ,please.

Anonymous said...

social engineering

(sō ´sh&l en´´j&-nēr´ing) (n.) In the realm of computers, the act of obtaining or attempting to obtain otherwise secure data by conning an individual into revealing secure information. Social engineering is successful because its victims innately want to trust other people and are naturally helpful. The victims of social engineering are tricked into releasing information that they do not realize will be used to attack a computer network. For example, an employee in an enterprise may be tricked into revealing an employee identification number to someone who is pretending to be someone he trusts or representing someone he trusts. While that employee number may not seem valuable to the employee, which makes it easier for him to reveal the information in the first place, the social engineer can use that employee number in conjunction with other information that has been gathered to get closer to finding a way into the enterprise’s network.
Phishing is a type of security attack that relies on social engineering in that it lures the victim into revealing information based on the human tendency to believe in the security of a brand name because they associate the brand name with trustworthiness.

Anonymous said...

I just read the Editorial below in The Telegram. I think there are a few points in it that, we as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should keep in our minds.


Atlantic Accord Editorials

Thursday, June 14, 2007 Editorial

Get ready for the crumb toss

The broken record continues. The federal budget - including amendments to the way offshore oil revenues are treated - has passed through the House of Commons, and is now on its way to the Senate, while federal cabinet ministers continue their ritual chant of "there's nothing wrong with the budget changes, that's why we're trying to fix them behind the scenes."

The Senate will no doubt pass the budget, simply because parliamentary procedure basically dictates that the budget, once passed by the House of Commons, will be passed through the upper House unamended.

In the meantime, the Senate will do what the Senate does best: it will delay and stall and hold hearings, but in the end it will bang and clatter and harrumph, and then the senators will pass the bill and go home for the summer.

So, where are we now?

In all likelihood, we're in that political limbo known as the crumb-toss.

Over the next few months, the federal government will modify and tinker, trying to see if it can improve its fortunes in this province and Nova Scotia without offering anything that could possibly inflame governments or voters in other, more populous provinces.

The Harper Tories will hope that people in this province will forget the broken promises, and cabinet members will take speaking engagements where they will trumpet the party line: that provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador have been offered a good deal or a better deal.

What they will ignore - and hope that everyone forgets - is not the question of how bad the damage is, but that they actually promised something completely different than either of the two oil revenue offers now on the table. They promised to completely exclude offshore oil revenue from the equalization calculation.

If they were retailers, they'd be charged for false advertising. Essentially, they offered us a cabin cruiser for an excellent price, but when we showed up at the store with our money, they gave us two different prices on an inflatable raft instead.

It's a point that often gets missed in this argument and one the federal government hopes will just go away, once our vision is clouded by thrown crumbs.

You can say all sorts of things about behind-the-scenes negotiations and closet improvements - the only action on the Accord right now.

One thing you can say for certain is that if a government can't be counted on to keep its public promises, its behind-the-scenes deals aren't worth the paper they're not even printed on.

Fact is, if Prime Minister Stephen Harper were sitting across from you saying he'd meet you for lunch, at this point you'd probably want the commitment notarized before you'd bother making the trip to the restaurant.

Politicians have a nasty habit of forgetting that they can be held responsible for their records.

The problem with us voters is how easily we tend to let them off the hook.

Anonymous said...

In the meantime, the Senate will do what the Senate does best: it will delay and stall and hold hearings, but in the end it will bang and clatter and harrumph, and then the senators will pass the bill and go home for the summer.

Anonymous said...

Over the next few months, the federal government will modify and tinker, trying to see if it can improve its fortunes in this province and Nova Scotia without offering anything that could possibly inflame governments or voters in other, more populous provinces.

Anonymous said...

What they will ignore - and hope that everyone forgets - is not the question of how bad the damage is, but that they actually promised something completely different than either of the two oil revenue offers now on the table. They promised to completely exclude offshore oil revenue from the equalization calculation.

Ed Hollett said...

Some anon write:

**"The provincial government collects 100% of offshore revenues to which is entitled and keeps ever nickel. Not one penny is taken away."

Can you provide any documentation to show us an example of your point of view Mr Hollett.**

Too easy.

From the 2005 offshore agreement, clause 2, first bullet:

"Newfoundland and Labrador already receives and will continue to receive 100 per cent of offshore resource revenues as if these resources were on land;"

If you'd like more, then by all means trip over to Bond Papers and read "Which is to be master?" There are plenty of references, but I thought that one was the most obvious.

Anonymous said...

The Harper Tories will hope that people in this province will forget the broken promises, and cabinet members will take speaking engagements where they will trumpet the party line: that provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador have been offered a good deal or a better deal.

Anonymous said...

One thing you can say for certain is that if a government can't be counted on to keep its public promises, its behind-the-scenes deals aren't worth the paper they're not even printed on.

Fact is, if Prime Minister Stephen Harper were sitting across from you saying he'd meet you for lunch, at this point you'd probably want the commitment notarized before you'd bother making the trip to the restaurant.

Anonymous said...

and the same crowd that worked for them and voted for them the last time will vote for them again.

Anonymous said...

Politicians have a nasty habit of forgetting that they can be held responsible for their records.

The problem with us voters is how easily we tend to let them off the hook.


MY QUESTION IS: WHEN IS THE VOTER GOING TO DEMAND FROM THE POLITICAN A SIGNED AGREEMENT THAT WHAT HE/SHE IS PROMISING WILL BE DELIVERED.

IF WE DO THAT, YOU CAN BET THERE WILL BE FAR LESS PROMISES. SO WE ARE PARTIALLY TO BLAME TO ACCEPT THE TYPE OF SYSTEM THAT IS IN EXISTENCE. WE HAVE TO DEMAND THAT IT BE CHANGED.

Anonymous said...

n other words you are putting a spin on things and I would like to see that type of creative writing stopped. When a politician makes a promise, so clear as the one made by Prime Minister Harper, so many times and in so many place and in writing, it should be kept. That is a corrupt bit of business, when that politician reneges on what he/she said orally or in writing.

Guy does make a strong point eddy.

Ed Hollett said...

"In other words you are putting a spin on things and I would like to see that type of creative writing stopped."

Who is spinning what?

This comment makes no sense since it isn't clear what is being referred to.

republican said...

"IF WE DO THAT, YOU CAN BET THERE WILL BE FAR LESS PROMISES. SO WE ARE PARTIALLY TO BLAME TO ACCEPT THE TYPE OF SYSTEM THAT IS IN EXISTENCE. WE HAVE TO DEMAND THAT IT BE CHANGED.

June 17, 2007 9:58 AM"

this is what Iam talking about ,finally.A newfoundlander or Labradorian that is ready to see this country for what it is.Throw off the shackels that be Confederation.Relize what this yoke has cost us as a people and believe in your own.I know the people of Alberta believe in us,my God ,how many want adds can they run in the province.

Everywere we go communitys ,buissness,and Industry want our capibilitys ,our trades ,our Highly skilled people .My only worry is ,how are we going to replace the greatest gift that we have given Canada.How are we going to replace the people .The out-ports are drained ,there is nothing left.Canada came with all its falsh and glory ,and did in a generation what the nazis couldn't do in six years .They killed off an entire group of distinct persons.But,what makes me laugh is that no one in Liberail canada really cares or knows.

But,in the end canada asks us to believe in thier system of Governement.

I think that we as a people must relise that Canada only cares about canada.We cannot afford this pride of them waiting to see wht we have brought to the table of Condfederation.

If canada will not allow us to be treated as an eqaul ,then I say there is no reason for us to be here.

Why wait to have Canada develop our resources while our people are scattered thru out the world like homeless Jews .Get an international second party to come and develop our resources.The world community is wanting resources ,we have them,lets do it for ourselves.

How many more years are we going to be sitting here while we fall prey to lies,lies amd more lies.No wonder canada just walks in and does what they want ,because we let them.ITS OUR FAULT.lets re-invest this oil money,and do something for us.

As far as Canada is concerned ,it can goto Hell.Along with its beliefs and charater of rights and freedoms.Its just another rag to wipe your ass with .The quicker that we relise how bad we have been treated ,the quicker we can get on with doing something about it.

http://www.nlfirst.ca/

Is there still hope ?

Anonymous said...

Ed Hollett said...

"In other words you are putting a spin on things and I would like to see that type of creative writing stopped."

Who is spinning what?

This comment makes no sense since it isn't clear what is being referred to.

June 17, 2007 11:48 AM

C'mon Ed is that the best you have or do you have to go to mass.I thought that Canadas champion would do better then that .Or,is that Liberial mind of your your taking a day off from the fight.

"NO EQUALITY,NOPEACE,NOSURRENDER" "

lets go eddy

Starrigan said...

You see what's happening, you're letting the a$$holes take control of this site.

To Republican, I can answer my own questions, I am neither desperate nor do I have any fear from those losers. You do, as usual make some good points. Just be careful not to get sucked into to what these bone heads post.

Anonymous posted this:

"Why is he so desperate?

What is he afraid of?

June 16, 2007 9:33 PM"

He was referring to me, I'm assuming he's an idiot. How he can associate my calling Ottawally and Crazy Eddy, a$$holes, is some how related to fear and desperation is probably one of the most incredibly stupid things I've seen posted in my life. Anonymous, I'll help you out so you can understand. It's too bad I can't use finger puppets to help me explain it to you, it really helps with the 5 year old mentality. Let me start from the beginning, I'll go slow just for you. OK, pay attention, you see Ottawally and Crazy Eddy are a$$holes. Now stop and let that settle in for a few seconds. OK, next, they come to this site to disrupt the conversation on anything that is pro NL. Stop again, let that sink in, image the dancing finger puppets, good boy anon. Third and last point. They do this because they are paid to do it. Stop and watch the flashing dollar signs. There you go, that should be easy for someone with you diminished cranial capacity to understand. But fear and desperation, I would say that's a bit of a leap you moron. It's nice to see you protecting the circle jerk boys, are they paying you? What's the link? You think they can't protect themselves? Are they too afraid?

One more thing, this posting:

"starrigan said...

No fear.

Just click my name.

June 16, 2007 10:07 PM"

Oddly enough that wasn't me posting that. But someone took the time to use my profile name to make a bogus post. That's a little bit sleazy and that may just get you blocked from this blog. I'll be having a chat with Myles about who's IP this little piece of dirt come from. Someone can't seem to take the heat.

Ed Hollett said...

Seems the warm weather is bringing out the very best in the taunts and the usual avoidance of the issues by the taunters.

Oh well, let's stick to the facts and the issues:

Newfoundland and Labrador sets its own oil and gas revenues.

It collects every penny and not a single nickel is taken away.

Newfoundland and Labrador does not surrender a copper of its oil and gas revenues to any other government.

I've already made the point and backed it up with evidence.

If anyone has other information, bring it forward.

In the meantime, apparently, all that we have here is more of the same, tired and completely false comments like this one:

"Why wait to have Canada develop our resources..."

No one is waiting for something called "Canada" to develop resources in this province.

What exactly is your point, other than you base your entire comments on falsehoods, untruths, misrepresentations and sheer fantasy?

republican said...

No one is waiting for something called "Canada" to develop resources in this province.

What exactly is your point, other than you base your entire comments on falsehoods, untruths, misrepresentations and sheer fantasy?

June 17, 2007 1:35 PM

Its called waiting for permission to develop.Its called Fallow Field,its called getting the same treatment as Alberta.

Your view has proved only one thing Mr Hollett.That while we have a differant system for each differant province ,there can and there will be no fairness in Federalisam.

Write about those lies and deceptions.Those falsehoods.

Are you now saying that Alberta ,Ontario,and Quebec have an inferoir system to what Newfoundland and labrador has .In regards to who access thier resources.Please ,who is spinning falsehoods, untruths, misrepresentations and sheer fantasy?

Anonymous said...

Republican and Starrigan: Your rantindgs on this site are indicative of schizo tendencies. Examples: No real train of thought, definite paranoia, and whats with the name calling? You appear to have a great deal of difficulty with posters on this site who make real sense. Also you seem to need assistance with sorting out some issues with your self-esteem.Go for it. You never know, it just may be of some benefit to you both.

WJM said...

No one is waiting for something called "Canada" to develop resources in this province.

Wrong! Danny Williams, and his "go it alone when Canada gives us the money to go it alone with" plan, is a textbook case of that!

WJM said...

Its called waiting for permission to develop.

From whom?

Its called Fallow Field

Should the fallow field principle also run against the provincial government, when it refuses to both develop an industry itself, or let anyone else do so?

its called getting the same treatment as Alberta.

The "same treatment" as Alberta would mean that offshore oil and gas revenues would result in a dollar-for-dollar reduction in equalization entitlements, as they used to in Alberta until the last federal budget.

WJM said...

Are you now saying that Alberta ,Ontario,and Quebec have an inferoir system to what Newfoundland and labrador has .In regards to who access thier resources.

What do you mean by "who access thier resources"?

And, by the way, Greg Byrne, you still think you have anonymity?

Anonymous said...

:No one is waiting for something called "Canada" to develop resources in this province.

WJM SAID Wrong! Danny Williams, and his "go it alone when Canada gives us the money to go it alone with" plan, is a textbook case of that!

June 17, 2007 2:33 PM

TO WJM: I WILL SAY YOU ARE SETTING YOUR PROVINCE BACK 58 YEARS WITH A STATEMENT SUCH AS YOU MADE ABOVE. NOBODY IN THIS PROVINCE WANTS THAT, WE WANT TO HAVE EQUALITY. WE HAVE GIVEN SO MUCH AND GOTTEN SO LITTLE FROM OUR RESOURCES. IT IS NOW TIME TO RIGHT A WRONG!

republican said...

"To Republican, I can answer my own questions, I am neither desperate nor do I have any fear from those losers. You do, as usual make some good points. Just be careful not to get sucked into to what these bone heads post."

Thank-you for the warning. I guess i should have given more thought tho those I was trying to carry a sensible conversion with .I guess that i was mistaken.

How typically canadain of those that come here spell half truths and lie,then pull out and shout victory .This is typical of those involved in the federal aspect of Politics in Newfoundland and Labrador.
They have yet to discover that mass media in todays world shows a totally differant picture of how ,and what is happening to Newfounldand and Labrador .

This is typical governement cover-up.Something that I am sorry to say, I would never have thought
that the federal Governement in this country was capabile of.

"you appear to have a great deal of difficulty with posters on this site who make real sense."

then thease people simpliy turn to this,when they are incapable of telling the truth.Yet again,another reason ,for the decay of federalism in canada.

This could definatley show us why so many are falling away from the beliefs that are canada.

Chelmo,and Judas.Fitting names for those that would destroy us.

republican said...

"If you'd like more, then by all means trip over to Bond Papers and read "Which is to be master?" There are plenty of references, but I thought that one was the most obvious.

June 17, 2007 9:53 AM"

Chelmo ,and Judas.This is thier way of proving thier points ,this is thier evidiance.My ,my,what have we done to have such champions amongst us.

Captain Canada ,can you not provide better champions then this to defend your week house.

Starrigan said...

Imagine someone saying we should "trip on over to the bond papers". Oh my God who would waste their time on that piece of tripe.

All of the pro NL posters on this blog know darn well we are being held down by Canada. The most obvious knife in the back is fallow field legislation. Harper says it will be bad for big business, actually he means it will be bad for his new found big oil buddies. Odd that the Atlantic region of Canada is the only place on planet earth that doesn't have fallow field legislation. I guess Ottawally and Crazy Eddy are OK with the fact that big oil can put off development of our resources until they see fit. Is this OK in your books? Is holding back fallow field legislation not affecting how our oil and gas resources are developed?

Ed Hollett said...

"Its called waiting for permission to develop.Its called Fallow Field,its called getting the same treatment as Alberta."

Name a single field offshore Newfoundland and Labrador right now that is being deliberately held up from development by any one of the SDL holders and that is otherwise commercially and technically viable?

There isn't one.

Hebron is currently in the slings because the provincial government and the compnaies couldn't reach a royalties and benefits agreement.

So-called fallow field legislation is designed to deal with an entirely different problem, such as the one that existed in the UK.

In Alberta and in other jurisdictions, there is actually very little negotiation on these points. The rules are set down and they apply to all projects.

In the case of Hebron, the provincial government added new, additional revenue and other demands on top of those already established. The government can certainly do that but there is always the possibility,as in hebron, that the parties will not reach an agreement both sides can accept.

In the case of Hibernia South, there would also be no application of fallow field. That development is being held up by the provincial government.

Is there another one out there where fallow field might apply? Otherwise, what you have here is a solution in search of a problem.

"Are you now saying that Alberta ,Ontario,and Quebec have an inferoir system to what Newfoundland and labrador has .In regards to who access thier resources.Please ,who is spinning falsehoods, untruths, misrepresentations and sheer fantasy?"

In some respects, Alberta's royalty regime is not as lucrative on an individual project as the NL one is. But then again the two situations are completely different, except maybe in the oil sands.

In terms of who can access projects, I am not sure what you mean. Anybody with the cash can acquire a license to develop resources in pretty well any province. The royalty regimes and so on will vary but that is to be expected. In terms of access, they are all pretty much the same.

Ed Hollett said...

"This is thier way of proving thier points ,this is thier evidiance."

Well, if you actually took the time to read some of the information available online - such as the paper I referred to - you'd find an argument presented and backed with footnotes and references.

Greg Locke linked to a pdf of the original which had all the footnotes and references so people can see where I get my information.

That's the big difference between what I have been presenting and what some others offer here, especially the anony-slaggers and other anonymous posters.

I can actually back my argument up with substance and evidence.

Perhaps that's what gets up starrigan's nose so much that all he can do is spout personal insults. It's childish on his part but apparently that's the best he can do.

republican said...

Well Mr Hollett ,I really don't know why I should continue this conversion as well .

"In Alberta and in other jurisdictions, there is actually very little negotiation on these points."

As you have stated .But,I would simply have to agree with one of your fellow liberials and the way that they have discribed the situation.

I believe that Mr Mercer ,is a fellow Liberail is he not.And ,a fellow Newfoundlandlander ,as well.And from what he says here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBQvjNvCmng

and from you have just posted above seems to be a little differant.I just thought that i would point that out seeing how everybody wishes to have thier points backed up by what other people say .

Maybe we could learn to disagree on somethings then .Or,until the Liberial party can decides what road it wants to take on specific topics that concern the province.

Ed Hollett said...

"Maybe we could learn to disagree on somethings then .Or,until the Liberial party can decides what road it wants to take on specific topics that concern the province."

We'll if your mind is as closed as it seems and since it appears that no facts or evidence can penetrate, it wouldn't be a matter of agreeing to disagree.

Rather it would be a case of your admitting that no matter what, you will continue to believe whatever you decided to believe.

Then you will hunt around and quote comedians to back up your case. I think that just about says it all.

I can only wait to hear you reciting the history of Newfoundland according to the Wonderful Grand Band. I think Mr. Budgell was premier at one point.

BTW, Rick Mercer is a New Democrat, if he is a member of any political party at all. Whatever he said in his rant doesn't deal with the point I made, but then again, that really doesn't matter to you. Facts and information don't matter.

You just want to stay in with your comfortable delusions and make grossly inappropriate references to Nazi concentration camps.

good for you, but you'll excuse the rest of us for rejecting your views and your approach.

Starrigan said...

Crazy Eddy, I'm not sure if you're just being simple minded or if you're just a Danny basher. To say that our oil and gas development woes are caused by the provincial governments inability to cave to big oil, regarding a royalties and benefits agreement, is beyond irresponsible. Do you remember what happened the last time Danny went to sign a deal? No? They changed what they had agreed to at their last meeting. They expected the premier of NL to sign something other than what they had agreed to. How insulting is that, how much of a sucker did they think they had walking into that meeting. Thank God he walked away. Grimes probably would have given it away, just like Voiseys Bay. What you don't seem to understand is that the Oil Companies can hold on to their claims forever, they are the ones that decide when something gets developed. They can out wait any premier that doesn't decide cave to their wants. And that is why we need fallow field legislation, we need the ball to be in our court. If an oil company doesn't like the deal they're getting then they can look elsewhere. There's always someone standing in line that would be more than happy to develop OUR resource. If you don't see the sense in fallow field legislation then there's little hope for you.
I understand that you're a liberal, and that's fine, I could care less, I don't feel any particular draw to any party, but I am curious, are you just slagging Danny for not signing the latest offshore deal because he's conservative or do you really believe we don't need fallow field legislation?

republican said...

"make grossly inappropriate references to Nazi concentration camps"

Since coming to this blog Mr Hollett can you please show me one.Just one excample ,were i made any referance to "Nazi concentration camps."

And i would like it stated that your statments are rude and very offensive.And carry no wieght what so ever on the topic that is being discussed here.

As for Mr Mercers political stripe ,yes,he is a card carrying memeber of the Liberial Party of Canada.

as for me laying out questions ,Im starting to see why certain people are staying away from carrying a conversion with yoiu and another person that comes to this Blog.

And as for what I believe Mr Hollett ,that is for me and me alone to decide what is in my heart of hearts .That is why I ask questions so I can have my own train of thought on matters that matter to the province of Labrador and Newfoundland .For you to sit at your desk and to critise me for wanting to get the view points from many sources and then not agreeing with you goes agaisnt the fabric of the country you so somenly defend on this site .Don't look to me to carry your beliefs Mr Hollett ,I am a educated individual and I can come to my own cnclusions.If you do not agree with me ,then you are entitled to do so.But ,do not be ignorant to the fact that other people are entitled to thier opinoin as well .

And i would prefer to conduct myself as an excample of how Newfoundlanders and labradorians are seen thru-out the world .Not like this .This is insulting to the image of what we are,so with that I will choose to walk away from this conversion seeing that it is fruitless and is quicley turning sour.

WJM said...

Hi, Greg Byrne!

I WILL SAY YOU ARE SETTING YOUR PROVINCE BACK 58 YEARS WITH A STATEMENT SUCH AS YOU MADE ABOVE. NOBODY IN THIS PROVINCE WANTS THAT

Danny Williams wants it. He has said so. He wants to "go it alone" on the Lower Churchill. And his definition of "go it alone" is that someone else pays for it.

WE WANT TO HAVE EQUALITY.

Oh? Then what's with the Atlantic Accord, or demanding that the federal government put even more money than the 90% it already has into the TLH? Other provinces don't get those deals.

WE HAVE GIVEN SO MUCH AND GOTTEN SO LITTLE FROM OUR RESOURCES. IT IS NOW TIME TO RIGHT A WRONG!

What have we "given", and to whom? What have we received? Can you quantify those figures, and compare them to other provinces?

WJM said...

Odd that the Atlantic region of Canada is the only place on planet earth that doesn't have fallow field legislation.

On earth?

Really?

Really?

WJM said...

Do you remember what happened the last time Danny went to sign a deal? No? They changed what they had agreed to at their last meeting.

How do you know?

Where you at that meeting?

And it's not like Danny Williams has never changed his mind about what he had agreed to.... Boy, it must be fun to be in a negotiating room with him!

Anonymous said...

see bud ,all FUCKED-UP ,big-time!!! watch the tag-team puor out on this guy,sucker!!!you were warned ,lol!!!

Ed Hollett said...

1. Republican wrote: "Since coming to this blog Mr Hollett can you please show me one.Just one excample ,were i made any referance to "Nazi concentration camps."

Sure. At one point earlier today, republican wrote:

***"Chelmo ,and Judas.This is thier way of proving thier points ,this is thier evidiance.My ,my,what have we done to have such champions amongst us.

Captain Canada ,can you not provide better champions then this to defend your week house.

June 17, 2007 3:00 PM***

Chelmo. Mis-spelled maybe but undoubtedly a reference to an extermination came in Poland during the Second World War.

2. Republican also wrote: "That is why I ask questions so I can have my own train of thought on matters that matter to the province of Labrador and Newfoundland"

Actually my point was that you obviously don't ask questions or, if you ask questions, you discard answers that don't fit the conclusions you've already reached.

You don't seem to get get viewpoints from very many sources at all, again contrary to what you just claimed.

3. Republican also wrote: "As for Mr Mercers political stripe ,yes,he is a card carrying member of the Liberial Party of Canada."

Do you have any evidence for that at all?

Frankly I wouldn't know how you could tell what political party anyone belonged to. members of the federal Conservative Party like to make some sort of accusations about Mercer, but frankly, have you ever seen a Liberal party membership list?

I think what we have here is someone getting their nose out of joint for making some pretty outrageous claims without any evidence.

Just to go back to the Chelmno reference, though, I will say this. If there are two different people posting as "republican", both of whom have a bad case of typonese, perhaps that would be yet another good reason to ban the anonymous and pseudonymous posts.

However, since the name's the same and the reference is unmistakeable, I draw the obvious conclusion.

republican said...

and,... you are entitled to it .

republican said...

twist it left,.........twist it right,.....twist it this way,.........twist it that way....

Starrigan said...

WJM you a$$hole it was in the news!!! But go ahead and ask you stupid questions anyway, we know that's what you do. I'm not about to waste my time digging up articles that you darn well know exist. See republican, this is an example of how pathetic Ottawally is. Look at the skill of that guy. We tire of these one trick ponies so easily.

And Ed, I'll ask you this simple question a second time. Are you just slagging Danny for not signing the latest offshore deal because he's conservative or do you really believe we don't need fallow field legislation?

Ed Hollett said...

Thanks, republican for conceding that you did use a reference to a Nazi extermination camp, even though you initially denied it.

Meanwhile, one of the starrigans wrote:

"And Ed, I'll ask you this simple question a second time. Are you just slagging Danny for not signing the latest offshore deal because he's conservative or do you really believe we don't need fallow field legislation?"

Let's leave aside your perpetual habit of misrepresenting what occurred and what people say.

Let's look at the point I made.

Offshore NL, there is not a single commercially viable field that is laying fallow because a license holder simply is failing to develop it. If there is one, please point it out.

The only thing holding up Hebron, for example, is a dispute between the SDL holder and the provincial government over revenues.

While I know you dislike reading (leaping to conclusions does save time at least), I did piece together on Bond Papers what happened in the Hebron negotiations from comments made by both parties. I may have some of it wrong, but I took what was said by both parties and pieced it together.

There was an apparent agreement on some issues by the end of January 2006.

At that point, additional demands were either added to the table or dealt with at that point in the negotiating process. At the end, both parties walked away claiming that the demands of the other were excessive. That's it.

The companies wanted things the province wouldn't accept and the province wanted things the companies wouldn't accept. It happens all the time in negotiations.

Interestingly enough, you seem to be arguing that the Hebron partners should now be stripped of their license unless they accept whatever demands the provincial government makes.

You apparently believe that some other company can then come forward and develop the field based on the terms dictated by the provincial government.

That's an interesting point of view and if I have gotten something wrong on how you view it, please make your position clear.

Let's see what you think would be appropriate.

First, how would you structure this fallow field thing? Would five years be enough one a significant discovery has been? After five years a company would be forced to develop a field or have the license stripped away. Would you think that is reasonable?

Second, what factors might affect whether or not a company develops a field?

Is it just five years or be shagged, or are there circumstances in which a field might legitimately be left developed?

Starrigan said...

Ed, I know where you're coming from, my question was simple, Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?

Anonymous said...

starrigan:

I already dealt with that, more than once in fact

Let's see what you believe or understand.

Ed Hollett said...

Just that there is no misunderstanding, that last comment was from me, namely -

starrigan:

I already dealt with that, more than once in fact

Let's see what you believe or understand.

WJM said...

WJM you a$$hole it was in the news!!!

Where did "the news" get it from?

"The news" has also reported, among other things, that "our offshore oil gets clawed back", or "Stephen Harper promised a loan guarantee".

That is, "the news" often repeats Danny Williams' claims of fact, uncritically, and without question, even when they are patently, obviously, and verifiably false.

I'm not about to waste my time digging up articles that you darn well know exist.

What did "they" change what they asked for to?

According to a Report on Business story - they are part of "the news", aren't they? - the tax credits the Hebron partners were looking for, which Danny Williams said were "non starters", had previously been on the table.

Who REALLY changed their position at the last meeting, and why?

Anonymous said...

OH My God,thease too guys are Good!!!what did I say buddy,lol,see that.That was paid for ,BooOOOooyyy!!!

Starrigan said...

Nice try WJM.

Ed, interesting you would post something as anonymous and then under your own profile, Freudian slip?

Anyway, you have said a lot of things, in a lot of round about ways, I'm asking you a straight forward question. Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?

Ed Hollett said...

Starrigan,

Stop dodging a simple set of questions posed to you in straight English.

Since you believe there is a need for fallow field:

First, how would you structure this fallow field thing? Would five years be enough one a significant discovery has been? After five years a company would be forced to develop a field or have the license stripped away. Would you think that is reasonable?

Second, what factors might affect whether or not a company develops a field?

Is it just five years or be shagged, or are there circumstances in which a field might legitimately be left developed?

By contrast I have made my position clear: "There is not a single commercially viable field that is laying fallow because a license holder simply is failing to develop it."

In other words, there are no fields offshore to which a properly constructed fallow field regime would apply.

If there are such fields, then one might be useful.

So, since you propose such a field, let's see how you'd construct it.

I doubt very much you'll reply since actually having a substantive discussion seems to intimidate you.

Anonymous said...

You are so manipulative with words Sir. A great skill but when used on the wrong people it is destructive. It only serves to dig a bigger hole for your province.

A Master of deception is how I would describe your style of writing, and that is the tool that Big Governments and Big Corporations have used now for many years to deceive the public.

Who taught you that skill, especially as it pertains to the fallow field legislation?

There is big money paid out by both of those entities, Government and Industry, for anyone with the ability to conquer that system and deliver it to the unsuspecting public. But your public, the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, are no longer unsuspecting, since your they know what is happening here, but the public is at a loss to do something about it, since the two most evil components of society are having it served up and delivered to us, and the solution to putting a halt to it is held tightly in their grip. And since those two entities thrive on the voters from the most populous part of Canada, it is guided by their votes. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador's future, with LESS THAN 2 per cent of the votes of Canada, but God only knows how much resources, MORE THAN for the number of citizens its share of resources. Resources such as Fish, Hydroelectric Energy, Minerals, Oil, Strategic Location, etc, etc.

Deceit and lies are the tools, which have caused the province of Newfoundland and Labrador so much grief with our resources and which have resulted in a lack of infrastructure and economy being structured here in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, since the resources were exported to other places to provide infrastructure and boost the economy to the places where the resources ended up.

To think we have people living amongst us who would consider themselves Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and who are great proponents of the system that is in place and who would do such a thing as con us into thinking otherwise is a terrible crime.

republican said...

June 18, 2007 8:24 AM - to your point .I followed a URL to your Blog.Since coming here I have been made referance to many people and have been made excample of because i do not share someones opinion.

When a week momenet was created because i wouldnt conform to what thease individuals believe.

I said something thats some may consider to vulgar and out of line.For that I wish to apologise.

I have admitted my fault but I in no way will say that I was first in bringing to topic the topic of name calling and the use of nazi names.

A gentlmen by that uses the name WJM made referance to Chamel.But that is not relavent .

I wish the best to all involved and good-day.

republican said...

Starrigan said...

"You see what's happening, you're letting the a$$holes take control of this site.

To Republican, I can answer my own questions, I am neither desperate nor do I have any fear from those losers. You do, as usual make some good points. Just be careful not to get sucked into to what these bone heads "

thank -you for the previose warning my friend.I now see what you have been saying .
there is absoltuly no one here discussing the topics that are Hurting the Province today.

What I would like to state however is that I strongly feel that the same thing is happening to Danny Williams and Canada.And ,what is happening to our beloved province .

If I can quote a brilliant man,"you cant talk about canada with canadains,let alone confederation"

those words were spoken in front of me for the first time by my father.I think they reflect our relationship with canada.Something i fear that will never change.

"To think we have people living amongst us who would consider themselves Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and who are great proponents of the system that is in place and who would do such a thing as con us into thinking otherwise is a terrible crime."

June 18, 2007 8:24 AM - an excellent observation anonymous.something does smell a little fishy here doesnt it .

Ed Hollett said...

Thanks, republican.

I singled out the point because I found your comment distasteful in the extreme.

It didn't look to me like you were merely taking the comment from someone else.

But hey, you apologised and that is appreciated.

Now if you want to have a substantive discussion, let's go.

Ed Hollett said...

"something does smell a little fishy here doesnt it."

The only thing fishy are the anonymous.pseudonymous commenters who refuse to identify themselves yet who contribute little more than slagging and insults.

Starrigan said...

I'm glad Republican is able to see what's going on with WJM and E.H., I think the proper term would be hi-jacking.
Ed I admire your ability to prattle on, I'm not saying your points are not valid I'm just asking you a simple yes or no question, and I'll ask it again:
Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?

Anonymous said...

And you smell the fishiest with your twisting of the truth. It doesn't matter that you provide your name, what matters is you spin stories on facts.

Ed Hollett said...

starrigan tried again:

"Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?"

The answer is not a simple yes or no.

I won't apologize for not playing your game but there isn't a yes or no answer to the question if it is to be answered accurately and honestly.

I simply haven't found an example where fallow field would apply. If it doesn't accomplish anything, then why waste time on it?

If you have a different, then by all means share it.

That's why I asked you the questions I posed.

You haven't answered them or even attempted to answer them.

That perhaps should tell people more than my honest and direct answer to your question.

Three times.

Ed Hollett said...

"And you smell the fishiest with your twisting of the truth."

Rather than remain a coward behind the cloak of anonymity and accuse me of being liar, are you able to provide a single example of where I have twisted the truth?

Just one.

Anonymous said...

Go to bond papers to find the truth ,second bullite down.this is thier view of objective excamples,.........OH please.Then they say they are defending the honour of true newfoundlanders.censorship and propaganda.have you ever wondered why thease people are angery and frustrated .One weekend here trying to get a conversion started and it turned out to be nothing but an arguement not with the nationalist ,but rather the federlists .

then its that persons short coming when they refuse to go to someones blog and give them a hit on thier counter .What a sham of a debate.

Anonymous will siut me just fine Mr Higgons .I hope that you do not remove the choice.

WJM said...

The province of Newfoundland and Labrador's future, with LESS THAN 2 per cent of the votes of Canada, but God only knows how much resources, MORE THAN for the number of citizens its share of resources. Resources such as Fish, Hydroelectric Energy, Minerals

NL's mineral resources are pretty much what you'd expect for its landmass.

Oil, Strategic Location, etc, etc.

What's "strategic" about our locaion in 2007? How much is our location worth, and to whom? If it's so valuable, why isn't it already being developed?

Deceit and lies are the tools, which have caused the province of Newfoundland and Labrador so much grief with our resources

Absolutely. There's been too much deceit and lies about how this project is going to save us all, or the "clawback" myth.

since the resources were exported to other places to provide infrastructure and boost the economy to the places where the resources ended up.

"were exported" by whom?

Why do you use the passive?

WJM said...

A gentlmen by that uses the name WJM made referance to Chamel.But that is not relavent.

Especially since THIS WJM made no such reference. You are a liar.

Anonymous said...

It was worth its weight in Gold during the Second World War to both the United States and Canada and that usefulness presented its 'strategic head' again during the 911 crisis when the airports in Labrador and Newfoundland became flush with Trans Atlantic Flights which touched down here so as to avoid anything unforeseen happening in the bigger centers of North America. What thanks have we gotten as a result? Nothing only a kick in the backside.

Anonymous said...

I have provided many examples of the twisting of the truth over the past number of months with my postings to this site, but you keep twisting things and spinning webs around facts that are presented. It is a situation where, when there are astute spinners, the people with the facts are always drowned out. And besides spinners are usually selected by their employers from people, who like yourself, have a very creative way with words. People listening to your type get pulled into the eddy of words that swirl around the fact that appears to be the truth.

Please stop the deceit, people aren't as unaware as they once were.

Ed Hollett said...

"I have provided many examples of the twisting of the truth over the past number of months with my postings to this site, but you keep twisting things and spinning webs around facts that are presented."

Since no one knows who you are - that's what anonymous means - we have no way of knowing who you are or what you have said before.

All you have done is here is demonstrated an inability to even try and give an exampe of the accusation you made.

Please, stop the deceit of everyone:

1. Reveal who you are.

2. Provide a single example of where I have twisted, the truth as you claim.

Anything else on your part simply counts as the real deceit here.

Starrigan said...

Not good enough Ed, you can provide all the scenerios you want. You can spin what's going on at the present time. There will be new fields discovered in the future.
So answer the question, it's a very simple yes or no:
Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?

Anonymous said...

Ed: Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?

Ed your answer: The answer is not a simple yes or no.

Ed: You either spin or evade the question as you did above with two answers. Stop your postings will you? You are solving nothing, only adding confusion with your spinning and dual answers.

Ed Hollett said...

There's no evasion at all.

If there is a legitimate purpose to fallow field, i.e. to deal with oil and gas fields being deliberately left fallow by corporate inaction, then by all means bring it on.

If there isn't, then there's no need.

As I've noted, I can't find a single example that would justify bringing it in. As such, let's not waste time on side issues and see what can be done to stimulate exploration and development offshore.

So why do you continually evade simple questions on the saem subject that I posed?

Let me make it even easier for you. Let's cut it down to one question:

Do you think fallow field legislation is necessary?

WJM said...

It was worth its weight in Gold during the Second World War to both the United States and Canada

That's because the main theatre of war was in Europe. You may not know this, but the war ended over 60 years ago.

and that usefulness presented its 'strategic head' again during the 911 crisis when the airports in Labrador and Newfoundland became flush with Trans Atlantic Flights which touched down here

And in NS, and NB, and Quebec, and Ontario. How does that, hopefully on-time event, make NL strategic-er than anyone else?

What thanks have we gotten as a result? Nothing only a kick in the backside.

Who did the kicking?

How much thanks do we want for doing what had to be done under the horrific circumstances?

Anonymous said...

How many jobs do Ottawa have availabe under your job description WJM?

All you do is sit on your ass and get paid for it by the Feds? I wish I could get a job like that without having to betray my province. But if that is what I would have to do, the Feds could take the job and shove it up their lower orifice. It is quite obvious betrayal comes easy to some people and it is no more difficult than wiping the sweat off their brow.

1. I am quite aware the Second World War ended over 60 years ago and it was fought in Europe. But the United States Military personnel were not stationed in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, or Ontario they were stationed in NEWFOUNDLAND and LABRADOR.

2. All of the Trans Atlantic Flights would have touched down in NEWFOUNDLAND and LABRADOR if we had enough landing room at our airports. These pilots would have loved to have ended their ordeal earlier, especially if they were within closer range to us than the other provinces.

WJM said...

How many jobs do Ottawa have availabe under your job description WJM?

Ask PSAC.

All you do is sit on your ass and get paid for it by the Feds?

Nope.

I am quite aware the Second World War ended over 60 years ago and it was fought in Europe. But the United States Military personnel were not stationed in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, or Ontario they were stationed in NEWFOUNDLAND and LABRADOR.

And Quebec and the Arctic and Western Canada; what's your point?

All of the Trans Atlantic Flights would have touched down in NEWFOUNDLAND and LABRADOR if we had enough landing room at our airports.

Goose Bay was nowhere near full. Why would a flight that was already closer to Moncton, Halifax, Toronto, Dorval, or Vancouver have turned around to go to Deer Lake, Stephenville, or Gander?

These pilots would have loved to have ended their ordeal earlier, especially if they were within closer range to us than the other provinces.

What "ordeal"? They were already planning to fly, on safe and comfortable aircraft, to JFK, Chicago, LAX, or other US airports; if anything they would like to have gotten as close as possible to their end destination.

Starrigan said...

Ed, I'm a tad disappointed, I'm not trying to spin anything, I just posed a simple question 6 times, and you have yet to answer.
Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?

Anonymous said...

I am not sure about Goose Bay but Newfoundland's airports were
unable to take any more planes. I guess Goose Bay might have been out of range.

What I read in the history books is how much Newfoundland and Labrador contributed to the war efforts. I know that there were at least 4 large American bases here and that our strategic location was very important.

The three initials WJM can argue all it likes, but I will take my information from history not from the three initials which is paid by the Federal Government to bring the province of Newfoundland and Labrador down.

Ed Hollett said...

Actually starrigan or anonymous (did that second post actually change names?), the question has answered each time it was posed.

You just don't like the answer.

That's your issue.

Anonymous said...

Yes or No is not an answer. It can only be one answer, either Yes or No. You are straddling two sides of the fence trying to please two Masters. With that answer you will be endowed with Contracts for ever and a day.

Is that all one has to do to be employed Provincially, Federally and with Industry?

It seems some people have learned the tricks of the trades quite early. It is time for Patronage to End. It has destroyed the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I wish this type of two way conversation was taking place on the Open Line Shows where the listernership is quite high. Then and only then would the average person know who is trying to call the shots and trying to influence things. But you can be assured, even though, one of the regular posters to this blogsite is a frequent poster here, he would never let his guard down on the Open Line Shows and let the listeners know what he is really doing to bring his and their province down, all for the "Me Syndrome".

Starrigan said...

Ed, for starters, I have never posted on this blog as anonymous (even by mistake). I don't even have any issues with how you feel about fallow field legislation. I have also not seen a yes or a no from you on the question I posed. There was much inference, but no definites.
So I'll ask you again for the 7th time.
Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?

Ed Hollett said...

"Yes or No is not an answer."

Absolutely yes it can be an answer: If there's a case for it, then by all means. Otherwise, no.

Since there are no examples offshore NL where fallow field would apply, there is no legitimate reason to even bother entering into a discussion about something that essentially is a waste of time.

If you think there's a case for it, then by all means bring it on and let's discuss the facts.

What I have given might not be the answer you'd like me to say - that is I don't fit into the place you have set for me in some simplistic world - but it is an honest and truthful answer.

Now if you think there is a case for fallow field, then make the case. bring on the facts and the argument and let's see what it looks like.

I doubt very much we'll see that for you or starrigan since the only me syndrome here is the "Don't confuse me with facts" syndrome that you seem to espouse.

Ed Hollett said...

starrigan wrote:

"I'm not trying to spin anything..."

As a general rule, when someone offers that comment - out of context to anything else and entirely unprompted - it is usually a clue to what is really going on in that person's head.

For the seventh time:

If there is a legitimate purpose to fallow field, i.e. to deal with oil and gas fields being deliberately left fallow by corporate inaction, then by all means bring it on.

If there isn't, then there's no need.

As I've noted, I can't find a single example that would justify bringing it in.

As such, let's not waste time on side issues and see what can be done to stimulate exploration and development offshore.

Starrigan said...

Interesting, you want to have it both ways. You should stop hanging around this blog and run for politics. You would have no trouble running rings around a media that has an attention span of around 15 seconds. Your talents are being wasted. But I'll ask again for the 8th time, and this time actually make a choice:
Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?

Anonymous said...

WJM said...

A gentlmen by that uses the name WJM made referance to Chamel.But that is not relavent.

Especially since THIS WJM made no such reference. You are a liar.

June 18, 2007 12:36 PM - I came here not to be insulted or thrashed but rather to join a simple conversion and perhaps contribute my opinoin.

Then I get insulted and thrown to the ground because i wont tell this guy who i am ,after he spends half his week end trying to guess who am i.

No wonder you are not liked here by certain people ,and i dont think for one minute it has to do with your politcal stripe.I have never met a Newfoundlander or Labradorian that is as ignorant a fool such as you.For a person to say something ,be it on line or thru any debate,such as that is nothing but venamouse .you have proven to me to be nothing more then an ignornat punk that should have had his mouth slapped by his mother another few times.
If you ask me ,i dont even think that you were born in this province ,because the amount of manners you have showed me here this weekend friend leads me to believe that you are incapable of learning anything.Only using that serpents tounge in your mouth.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth friend ,if you do you should be ashamed of yourself.

Absolutly disgusting

GMT said...

Ed Hollet wrote
If there is a legitimate purpose to fallow field, i.e. to deal with oil and gas fields being deliberately left fallow by corporate inaction, then by all means bring it on.

If there isn't, then there's no need.

As I've noted, I can't find a single example that would justify bringing it in


A quick look at the map of discoveries off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador show quite a few small finds of oil e.g., South Tempest and large natural gas deposits which since their initial discoveries have pretty much been left alone i.e left fallow. The companies that did the initial work still hold the rights and will do so forever. There is no reason for the company with the rights to do further exploration to determine the actual size of the finds which are most likely larger than initial estimates – look at how the reserves of Hibernia etc have increased with further work. In fact from an oil companies perspective it is better to leave the oil in the ground and exploit other regions where a. its cheaper to extract and therefore higher profits and b. where an unstable political environment may result in removal of rights by subsequent governments. Then come back to offshore NL in the future.

This however may not be optimal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Bringing in Fallow filed would bring offshore exploration into line with onshore exploration. For exploration on land a certain amount of money has to be spent each year and there are set time limits on how long an exploration company has rights to exploration in a certain area and the development of any mineral deposits found.

What a fallow field legislation would mean that offshore exploration companies couldn’t sit on licences indefinitely and would operate much the same as onshore exploration companies. Of course there would be subtle differences due to the expense of offshore exploration opposed to onshore exploration. This operates in the rest of the world for example off the southern coast of NZ, the government revoked a licence and gave it to Exon-mobile due to the fact the original holder was demeaned unable to develop the field (this happened around the same time that talks broke off between NL and Exon-Mobile).

In short by having fellow field legislation would give the province of NL a stronger position in the development of its offshore industry. At present when bargaining with the likes Exon-Mobile they hold the cards i.e., do it there way or not at all they have the means to wait 10, 20, 30 years before they develop or do further work on any field or area they hold the rights to.

I don’t care whether it’s the P.C’s, Liberals or Joe Blow negotiating for the province I want them to have the strongest position possible – Exon-Mobile is there to make money not look after the welfare of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you want to see what oil companies will do if given half the chance check out Nigeria. I’d prefer the premier was referred to as Danny Charvez than Danny Yar'Adua.

WJM said...

I am not sure about Goose Bay but Newfoundland's airports were
unable to take any more planes. I guess Goose Bay might have been out of range.


Possibly. Goose Bay airport had plenty of room, though.

What I read in the history books is how much Newfoundland and Labrador contributed to the war efforts. I know that there were at least 4 large American bases here

And?

And what about the large Canadian bases, including -tada- Goose Bay?

and that our strategic location was very important.

Yip. When there was a war on in Europe, and the men and materiel to fight it were coming largely from Canada and the U.S., our location was very important strategically.

The three initials WJM can argue all it likes, but I will take my information from history

That's fine, when you are talking about history, what "was".

But what about what "is"? What IS, now, especially strategic about or location.

And why didn't your history teach you about the Canadian bases in NL during WWII?

not from the three initials which is paid by the Federal Government to bring the province of Newfoundland and Labrador down.

Those initials would be?

WJM said...

Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?

Starrigan, I do! I think the province should have fallow field legislation which runs against the provincial government. THe province owns wind and hydro sites in Labrador which it won't develop, but it won't let anyone else develop them either. Don't you agree that this is an untenable situation?

WJM said...

If you ask me ,i dont even think that you were born in this province ,because the amount of manners you have showed me here this weekend friend leads me to believe that you are incapable of learning anything.Only using that serpents tounge in your mouth.

In other words, you can't point out the non-existent Nazi comparison that Greg Byrne/Republican/anonymous alleges that I made, either?

Where were you born? I'm pretty bold and brazen, but you're even worse. You couldn't have been born in Newfoundland and Labrador, either, if people born in NL are known for their manners.

republican said...

WJM said...

Then why is it, person posting as Republican, you consistently mis-spell the same words, and use the same stock phrases, as our good friend Greg Byrne?

June 15, 2007 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...

Is "republican" pius' new name?

June 15, 2007 8:59 PM - Here you go FOOL ! who started what shit here on this Blog .Go ahead look back .

Like you say Mr Wallace ,prove me wrong .Here you go ,say that you didnt start an arguement just for sake of.YOUR A LIAR ,now who owes who an apology.

yeah ,just as I thought,when those of us with character step -up we step-up.When those that dont just shut up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII

with your referance Mr Hollett ,and i hope your still reading.This is what i was referancing too.But ,i see that your commarade in arms does not share the same character that you have asked of me.

So we see who has what in times of moral judgment do we not.

HMMMMM, as they say you are the comapny you keep.Then you still wish to attack me.Arm pits are arm pits no matter were they re-side it seems .

No integrity ,no cooth,no character.

republican said...

Mr Higgons ,I would like to say that im sorry that i came to your blog and started all this.It was not inteneded.
The only reaason that i did join the conversion is that rumour holds and says that Sue Kellard-Dyer,sometimes posts here.

I was simply hoping to hear something from her maybe and join in a conversion.

For those here that do not hold her writings to heart i can see why they do not want to hear from her,but she did leave behind a great fan bass ,that believe it or not ,still gathers in places.

http://freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogspot.com/2007/04/sue-kelland-dyer-adding-sarcasm-wit-to.html

Sue ,if you read this ,Republic Of Avalon radio is back .OUT of its death bed.Jim decided to bring it back.For the most part alot of us still gather there .All our love.

Again Thank-You for the use of your Blog space Mr Higgons and for the last ,lol,Good-Bye.

Ed Hollett said...

GMT wrote, among other things:

"A quick look at the map of discoveries off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador show quite a few small finds of oil e.g., South Tempest and large natural gas deposits which since their initial discoveries have pretty much been left alone i.e left fallow."

Indeed. South Tempest has an estimated eight million barrels of oil and no gas. East Rankin has seven million barrels of oil.

Outside of the Hebron/Ben Nevis/West Ben Nevis fields, the largest undeveloped field is West Bonne Bay with an estimated 36 million barrels of oil. Norsk Hydro has done some further exploration work but to date there has been no update of that number.

To put that in perspective, Hebron alone has an estimated 581 million barrels of heavy sour crude.

As I said, there is not a single field I can identify which is commercially viable which is being deliberately left fallow in the manner GMT describes. Not a one. There is a suspicion by some people this is going on, but frankly, I haven't seen any sign that this is real.

Using an example like South Tempest suggests that GMT doesn't have any sign either. Even if we assume an average price of US$60 per barrel, South Tempest's market value is $480 million.

The cost of a floating production system for that field would come to something around US$500 million (that's a lowball estimate) even if we assume a small and very cheap build. An FPSO may be leased but that would mean it would have to be leased from some other region of the world where it is currently being used for production of another, likely very much larger field.

Add to that the costs of drilling a production well or wells and it doesn't take too long to realize that South Tempest doesn't look like a very attractive investment. It's not commercially viable.

West Bonne Bay may well be the next field to be developed (outside the Hebron and associated fields). All things considered the most likely way to develop that would be an FPSO lease or simply a wait until the Terra Nova FPSO can be freed up for a tieback. That development, however will likely be some years away simply based on costs and equipment availability.

The same can be said for the gas offshore Labrador which is currently estimated at a little over four trillion cubic feet (tcf).

The cost of developing that gas (including engineering and associated issues), up to this point, has been held to exceed the value of the field.

Obviously, a more detailed look at the local offshore and factors such as cost and reserve size (do you really believe 8 mmbls is commercially viable GMT?), the case for fields being deliberately left fallow quickly vanishes.

On top of that, GMT also makes the ludicrous statement: "Of course there would be subtle differences due to the expense of offshore exploration opposed to onshore exploration."

If by subtle one means 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars well, yes, perhaps it is subtle. The comment might be more accurately described in another way, however. The cost differential offshore/onshore is typically 10:1.

Likewise, it would appear that GMT is unfamiliar with even the basic rules applying in the local offshore.

To wit, GMT wrote: "For exploration on land a certain amount of money has to be spent each year and there are set time limits on how long an exploration company has rights to exploration in a certain area and the development of any mineral deposits found."

An exploration license issued by the offshore regulatory board lasts for a period nine years and consists of two consecutive periods of five and four years.

"The interest owner is required to drill or spud and diligently pursue one exploratory well on or before the expiry date of period I as a condition precedent to obtaining tenure to period II. Failure to drill or spud a well will result in reversion to Crown reserve of the licence, and forfeiture of the security deposit or any balance thereof."

The exploration license requires certain work commitments within the periods and it cannot be renewed beyond nine years. Licenses have been taken away for failure to perform required work.

It is actually useful to look at the number of exploration licenses where the license holder has elected to suspend work and forfeit a deposit. This typically occurs because initial exploration does not show sufficient promise to warrant further work.

The variation between the NL onshore and NL offshore exploration license regimes reflects the significant differences in costs and other operating circumstances.

GMT's argument only works if one ignores entirely the issues of cost of development or one makes rather remarkably naive statements about the relative costs of onshore versus offshore drilling.

Is there really the case for fallow field legislation?" Not according to a the information GMT didn't present. Rather it would appear we have been treated to a selective presentation of information designed solely to support the contentions in the last two paragraphs of his original post.

As for GMT's last comment, I've always thought the Chavez comparisons were overblown. Unlike, GMT, I would never have considered never looked on NL as a developing world dictatorship.

Rather, if we want to develop our offshore sensibly, GMT, I'd think it better to look for examples from Norway or Alberta. Part of that would be an appreciation of what is actually occurring offshore and where our offshore fits into the greater scheme of things.

Telling me that 8 mmbls is a commercially viable oil field offshore NL, GMT, or that there are subtle differences between onshore and offshore exploration costs suggests you need to do some more research.

Anonymous said...

News Flash:

from the heart of St Johns today comes this half baked truth from Ed Hollett and His crazy side kick in Labrador .There new book .


http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Lying-Liars-Tell-Them/dp/0452285216

too a tee

Starrigan said...

WJM ... I don't believe I asked you any question regarding fallow field legislation, ergo I don't need and answer from you. My god you are such an a$$hole. You mean as much to me as dried snot, I have absolutely no interest in anything you would have to say about, well, anything. Don't flatter yourself by thinking I would want an opinion or answer from you.

As for Ed, I'm still waiting for a simple answer, a yes or a no, for try number 9:
Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?

Ed Hollett said...

And for the eighth time, starrigan, the individual who seems intent on displaying nothing but his/her ignorance:

If there is a legitimate purpose to fallow field, i.e. to deal with oil and gas fields being deliberately left fallow by corporate inaction, then by all means bring it on.

If there isn't, then there's no need.

As I've noted, I can't find a single example that would justify bringing it in.

As such, let's not waste time on side issues and see what can be done to stimulate exploration and development offshore.

and if that wasn't clear enough, let's have it for the ninth time for the individual bent on displaying sheer ignorance repeatedly:

If there is a legitimate purpose to fallow field, i.e. to deal with oil and gas fields being deliberately left fallow by corporate inaction, then by all means bring it on.

If there isn't, then there's no need.

As I've noted, I can't find a single example that would justify bringing it in.

As such, let's not waste time on side issues and see what can be done to stimulate exploration and development offshore.

Anonymous said...

"Since 1949 the government of Canada has been systematically robbing Newfoundland and Labrador of any hope for a future. I believe that immediately after confederation it may have been done intentionally in order to achieve a backroom plan intended to break the will of the people, get them under control (remember only about half the population wanted to be a part of the Canada) and ensure that they could be assimilated into the Canadian framework. Over the years the minds behind this horrendous practice have come and gone but by the time they did the practice itself had become second nature and was such a common practice that it simply continued to exist. It’s doubtful that today’s political leaders even realize what they are perpetuating but the effects are the same."What we see today are a people who, by and large, have lost the will to stand up and fight to protect their heritage, their homeland and their way of life. We see a people who appear on the surface to be just like any other Canadian but they most certainly are not. Instead they have lived on the fringes of Canada, both physically and figuratively, for so long that many don’t even see the reality of what this ongoing practice means for them. They don’t even realize that by standing up as one they may have a chance for survival. Most of them simply go about their daily activities oblivious to the fact that they are, in many respects, worse off than the rest of the Country and that if current trend continues, in a few generations the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will become as extinct as the original Beothuk population "

- Canadain PIG ,"GO LEARN TO Write FooL,Then COME and Talk"Ed SUCKS!!!

Anonymous said...

"CONTESTED GEOGRAPHIES

Johanne Devlin Trew
Queen's University Belfast
Diane Tye
Memorial University of Newfoundland

To live in St. John's, Newfoundland during 2000 was to inhabit contested terrain. At the time residents of the city were caught up in an intense debate about the impending construction of The Rooms, a much needed heritage facility to house the provincial art gallery, museum and archives. The decision to build The Rooms over the ruins of an eighteenth century fort had split the cultural community into camps: those who felt that the dire need to adequately protect the provinc's art, artefact and manuscript collections outweighed any reservations about site choice, and those who could not get past the irony of destroying archaeological remains in the name of preserving provincial heritage. The controversy became a lightning rod for the discussion of government mishandling of other issues and of earlier injustices. Hard feelings surfaced as pleasant dinner conversations quickly erupted into heated debates when the topic of The Rooms was raised. It was a time to tread carefully and yet amidst intense local media coverage, it seemed almost impossible to do so. Bitter disagreement about The Rooms split apart families and divided heritage supporters who had long worked together on preservation projects. This special issue of Ethnologies had its genesis in this debate as we reflected on our personal negotiations of a very tricky terrain.
The articles that follow challenge the very concept of geography in explorations of sites as diverse as The Rooms heritage facility: Romanian agricultural policies; a Nova Scotian Celtic festival; Filipino Balikbayan boxes; competing discourses of humanitarianism in Québec; an Ontario hospice room; and contemporary legends of women alone in the urban landscape. They show that, as feminist geographer Linda McDowell has written,
one positive effect... of the anxiety about the meaning of place, and the understandings that globalizing forces reconstruct rather than destroy localities, has been a shift towards a more sophisticated conceptualization of the notion of locality or place itself. The commonsense / geographical notion of a place as a set of coordinates on a map that fix a defined and bounded piece of territory has been challenged. Geographers now argue that places are contested, fluid and uncertain (McDowell 1999: 3-4).

We begin this special issue with two articles that examine facets of the heritage controversy that first sparked our interest. In the opening article, Peter Latta recounts the history of The Rooms debate, drawing attention to processes of public decision making and in particular, questioning the role of public consultation in government decision making around heritage matters. The second article to address The Rooms dispute takes a different tack. Here Johanne Devlin Trew focuses on the controversy to explore constructions of Newfoundland as an Irish place, and shows how this local discourse of space and place is grounded in two competing narratives of the Newfoundland nation: Republican and Confederate.
The focus moves from urban to rural settings with the next two articles. Sabina Stan examines agricultural policy frameworks in Romania and competing visions of socialism. Stan reminds us that one's position determines one's memories and that in remembering we also look forward. Our version of the past informs our present and future and, as Stan argues in the case of Romanian farming collectives, visions of the past are not simply reconstructions but also commentaries on the types of societies in which we wish to live. Adrian Ivakhiv identifies Cape Breton's Celtic Colours International Festival as another site where historical and geographical claims are contested. Here, cultural identities and natural landscapes come together in a construction of both Celticity and ecology. Ivakhiv argues that views of nature and culture intertwine as products of social, economic and ecological practice.
The gaze widens further to the transnational with Jade Alburo's consideration of Filipinos living in the United States. The gifts they bring to relatives and friends in the Philippines, known as Balikbayan boxes, become symbolic of the ties these immigrants have to their families and their homeland. The gifts, as well as souvenirs that the immigrants bring back to their new homes in the United States, reflect their sometimes competing identities as native Filipino and new American. Francine Saillant, Mary Richardson and Marie Paumier continue to explore questions of the global and the local in their discussion of discourses of humanitarianism. The authors present two competing approaches to humanitarian organisation, demonstrating, as McDowell notes above, how globalism can often reconstruct rather than destroy the local.
This special issue of Ethnologies closes with two papers that problematize notions of public and private space. Ian Brodie's autoethnographic reflection explores the decoration of a hospice room in the context of his dying father.s declining health and shifting family relationships. Finally, in turning her attention to contemporary legends that feature lone female protagonists, Diane Tye raises the issue of nonplaces, those spaces of supermodernity, like shopping malls and parking lots, where people increasingly spend their time. She argues that the legends reveal female challenges to the male domination of public space at the same time they expose powerful male defences.
In these varied contested spaces, as Adrian Ivakhiv writes, "cultural identities and natural landscapes intermesh at every possible level, from the local to the global. They do this through the medium of technology, discourses, representations and material practices." The sites of contestation take a variety of forms: festivals, objects, legends, or state policies, but from cultural institution to cultural discourse, the geographies speak loudly of who we are and how we see ourselves. From family to local community to nation state, we constitute ourselves through "the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves," to cite the familiar words of Clifford Geertz (1973). By contesting these geographies, individuals and groups challenge the hegemonic control of dominant, publicly sanctioned narratives that tell us who we are, what constitutes our past, our gender, our ethnicity, our nationality, and significantly, what will be our future. Together these articles raise fundamental questions about what localities count as family, community and home and, through their analyses of spatial contestations and negotiations, the authors explore the nature of belonging. In examining constructions of family, ethnicity, region and gender, they reveal complexities that illustrate how both feelings of belonging and of entitlement alter as geographical boundaries shift. Perhaps above all, the studies in this issue underscore the notion of multiple realities. They argue forcefully that it is not simply one story we tell ourselves about ourselves, but many stories.
Building on the premise that one cultural text may have many meanings (Geertz 1973; Miller 1998), and that an examination of traditional culture may provide opportunities for debate as well as consensus building (Dégh 2001; Firestone 1967), the articles in this volume highlight how people.s experiences of places and the narratives they construct of those places underline power dynamics. As McDowell argues,
it is socio-spatial practices that define places with multiple and changing boundaries, constructed and maintained through social relations of power and exclusion. Places are made through power relations which construct the rules which define the boundaries. These boundaries are both social and spatial . they define who belongs to a place and who may be excluded, as well as the location or site of the experience (McDowell 1999: 3-4).
While many of the articles in this collection document the construction of master narratives (Latta, Devlin Trew, Ivakhiv, Saillant, Richardson and Paumier, and Tye), they also document resistances to dominant discourses. Folklore has long been recognized as an expression of contestation or resistance (Scott 1985; Radner 1993), and the articles in this volume clearly show how places are interpreted and reinterpreted fluidly in ways that link not only to people's pasts but to their present and their future. Importantly, all the accounts of contested geographies here hold implications for the future. They envision change on both individual and societal levels for the ways things are done and how those processes are understood. From reflection on changing family dynamics through death (Brodie) or migration (Alburo), to explorations of alternate political visions (Devlin Trew, Saillant, Richardson and Paumier, Stan) and examination of women in public spaces (Tye), these articles examine aspects of traditional culture as expressions of contestation, and sometimes negotiation. In so doing, they offer hopeful glimpses of fairer ways of organizing our lives and our world.

References
Dégh, Linda. 2001. Legend and Belief: Dialectics of a Folklore Genre. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Firestone, Melvin. 1967. Brothers and Rivals: Patrilocality in Savage Cove. St. John.s: Institute for Social and Economic Research.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight." In Clifford Geertz, ed., The Interpretation of Cultures: 412-453. New York: Basic Books.
________.1973. The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.
McDowell, Linda. 1999. Gender, Identity and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Miller, Daniel. 1998. "Coca-Cola: A Black Sweet Drink from Trinidad." In Daniel Miller, ed., Material Cultures: Why Some Things Matter: 169-188. Urbana: University of Chicago Press.
Radner, Joan Newlon, ed. 1993. Feminist Messages: Coding in Women's Folk Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press." - BLOW It OuT yOUR F%$# A$$ Lallace,Bi-Guy!!!
 
 

Anonymous said...

Bond PAPeers Blow Cheese Chunks BOOOoooOOOY!!!!

Anonymous said...

"And lo, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians led all the rest


Cross Examination by Averill Baker
The Charter
The last line in the poem Abou Ben Adam reads, “And Lo Ben Adam’s name led all the rest.” Amen.
Figures were released three weeks ago identifying the provinces that contribute the most to the Canadian economy in exports to foreign countries and lo Newfoundlanders and Labradorians led all the rest – again. But, this time, it’s in spades, as the gamblers say, with the one-eyed-jack-of-diamonds-and-the-devil-close-behind way.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians now contribute more to the Canadian economy per capita than any other Canadians to such a remarkable degree that it makes one feel sympathy toward Canadians from other provinces.
Other Canadians who look at these recent figures must feel embarrassed that Newfoundlanders are, in economic terms, contributing so much more than they are to the Canadian economy.
Canadians in Ontario and Alberta must feel like they’re on unemployment insurance with Newfoundlanders paying the bill. Quebecers and Maritimers must feel they are on welfare with Newfoundlanders paying the bill.
In economic terms each Newfoundlander is now worth four Canadians from other provinces.
It’s becoming embarrassing.
And what is just as embarrassing is that historically, since 1949, this province, on average, on a per capita basis, has led all other Canadians in contributions to the Canadian economy.
Of course, the billion dollars of power that we export indirectly to the United States shows up as Quebec’s power on the official figures. That’s one billion dollars of exports that must be taken from the Quebec column and counted as coming from this province.
Oh yeah, says the economist, we lead every other province on a per person basis with just over a half a million people - of course Newfoundlanders and Labradorians lead the rest of Canada. Also we have always exported practically everything we produce - wood, pulp and paper, minerals, fish, and now oil. That is why we have always contributed more to the Canadian economy than any other Canadians on a per capita basis.
And that is why some people sometimes suggest that we would have been better off had we not joined Canada or if we were today to separate from Canada. On the economic yardstick this province is in a far better position to separate and print its own money – just like we did prior to joining Canada.
The Export Development Corporation in releasing its figures last month claimed that this province is now exporting about $4 billion of crude oil to the United States. It points out that Statistics Canada figures, used by the provincial government, are incorrect.
Those incorrect figures, used by provincial governments and Ottawa, show that most of our exports of crude oil are going to other Canadian provinces for refining. The Export Development Corporation claims in their end of July report that in fact most of our crude is being shipped to the United States for refining and not to Canadian refineries. I believe the Export Development Corporation.
Together with the power through Quebec, these adjustments are necessary to get to the truth about our exports to foreign nations.
Some of our offshore crude and all of Voisey’s Bay nickel are shipped within Canada for processing and cannot be counted in values of exports. Voisey’s Bay nickel and Duck Pond copper and zinc, and iron ore, will lead exports of minerals next year. Where is Duck Pond you might ask? It’s around Trout Pond, which is next to a smaller pond called Goose Pond.
The Newfoundland separatist makes a valid point in saying that if we were not a part of Canada all of our exports would be to foreign nations.
Then look at the fantastic economic position we would be in.
Maybe Major Peter Cashin and Malcolm Hollett were right in 1948.
The only thing missing today is the quality of politician we had years ago - from the records of the National Convention and Hansard, quality politicians like Peter Cashin, Malcolm Hollett, Gordon Bradley, Joey Smallwood, James Chaulker, Dr. Jim McGrath, Dr. Fred Rowe, Bill Rowe, Charlie Ballam, C. Max Lane, Ed Roberts, John Crosbie, James McGrath, Clyde Wells, Nathaniel Noel, Bill Marshall, Dr. Noel Murphy, Ambrose Peddle, Jack Pickersgill, Dr. Frecker, Tom Hickey, John Lundrigan, Jim Morgan etc. etc.
Yes, today we do have some outstanding politicians, like Danny Williams, but they are like hen’s teeth – they’re hard to find." - REPUBLIC OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR ,FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!
December 01, 2006 5:53 PM

WJM said...

I don't believe I asked you any question regarding fallow field legislation, ergo I don't need and answer from you. My god you are such an a$$hole.

You must be fun at parties.

Fran: And last year we went to Kenya. Did some trekking.

Starrigan: Did you go into the mountains?

Fran: No, we didn't have time. Next trip maybe.

Bob: We went there three years ago, it was...

Starrigan: I don't need and answer from you! My god you are such an a$$hole!

You mean as much to me as dried snot, I have absolutely no interest in anything you would have to say about, well, anything.

Then why do you ever reply to anything I write?

Anonymous said...

"Current Economic Profile
Newfoundland’s economy continues to suffer from the sustained negative impacts of the fisheries moratoria and the large cutbacks in federal government transfer payments that were imposed earlier in this decade. Under the weight of these negative factors, the provincial economy actually experienced a recession (that is, a contraction in the output of goods and services) in 1996. The economy recovered somewhat in 1997, and growth is expected to pick up further in 1998 (to a robust 4 percent, largely on the strength of increased production and investment in the offshore oil industry).
Needless to say, unemployment has remained painfully high throughout the 1990s, thanks to the lack of sustained economic growth. The official unemployment rate still hovered at almost 19 percent by the summer of 1998, just one point lower than at the peak of the 1990-91 recession. But in reality, the problem of unemployment is actually significantly worse than the official unemployment statistics suggest. Many jobless Newfoundlanders are not included in the official unemployment statistics, by virtue of the fact that they are not considered to be "actively seeking work." In other words, the official unemployment rate excludes thousands of so-called "discouraged workers" in the province–those who would like to work if jobs were available, but who have simply given up hope of finding work, and hence (quite logically) do not waste further effort on a pointless job search. One symptom of the growth of discouraged workers is the decline in Newfoundland’s labour force participation rate–that is, the proportion of adult residents who are either working or actively seeking work. The participation rate fell from 56.2 percent in 1990 to just 52.8 percent (the lowest in Canada) in the summer of 1998. Without this decline in officially-measured labour-force participation, Newfoundland’s unemployment problem would look far worse. If these "missing" individuals were included in the labour force, the provincial unemployment rate would equal 24 percent.
There are other symptoms, too, of the shattering effect on Newfoundland’s labour market of the economic contraction of the 1990s. Total employment was still lower in 1997 than at the depths of the recession in 1992. No net jobs have been created in the province over the past decade. The only reason the unemployment rate has fallen at all since 1992 is not because of job-creation (there has been none over the past 6 years) but because of shrinkage of the labour force, due both to out-migration and to the growth of discouraged workers. The youth labour force (counting 15 to 24-year olds) has shrunk by almost one-third since 1990–again due both to out-migration and to young people simply abandoning hope of finding work.

Newfoundland’s Shattered Labour Market
· 15,000 jobs lost since 1990. No significant recovery.
· Official unemployment rate 19 percent. True rate is 24 percent.
· Participation rate declined by 3.5 points since 1990 (15,000 lost workers).
· 40,000 migrants left the province since 1992.
· Youth labour force down by _ since 1990 (17,000 lost young workers).
· 7 percent decline in real wage since 1994.
· 5 percent decline in personal disposable income since 1995 ($660 per person).
SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Provincial Economic Accounts (13-213) and Labour Force Annual Averages (71-201).
Another factor reflecting the incredible slackness in labour demand in Newfoundland and Labrador has been the erosion of wages in the province. In the last three years alone, real wages (adjusted for inflation) have declined by 7 percent. This compares poorly to a slight increase in real wages over this period in the rest of Canada. Even measured in nominal terms (without adjusting for inflation), the average worker in Newfoundland has not had a raise since 1993. Employers have the upper hand in any labour market in which supply so vastly exceeds demand, so it is no surprise that wages have fallen so quickly in Newfoundland during the 1990s.
Falling wages combined with huge cutbacks in government transfer payments have produced dramatically lower incomes for Newfoundland’s households. Disposable incomes per person have declined by $660 per person, in inflation-adjusted after-tax terms, over just the last three years. That represents a decline of 5 percent–and this in turn translates into reduced consumer purchasing power, fewer sales for Newfoundland businesses, and slower growth. In the face of declining disposable incomes, personal savings in Newfoundland and Labrador have totally collapsed, falling to zero in 1997. In 1990, Newfoundlanders accumulated savings from their disposable incomes at a slightly higher rate than the Canadian average, despite their lower incomes. Now they can save nothing. The collapse of personal saving is both a symptom of Newfoundland’s economic weakness this decade, and also a gloomy predictor of continued stagnation in coming years. How can a society develop economically, when its citizens cannot afford to save for the future?
Finally, in the wake of chronic unemployment and stagnant incomes, it is not surprisin to note that the meagre economic growth which has occurred during this grim decade has been grossly lopsided in favour of business. Between 1992 and 1997, Newfoundland’s overall GDP (the total value of goods and services produced in the provincial economy) expanded by just over 14 percent. Workers received virtually none of that expanded output. Corporate profits, on the other hand, shot up by over 120 percent. Small business incomes grew by about 30 percent. It is true, of course, that business needs profits in order to both finance and motivate expanded investment spending. But when virtually the entire growth of the economic pie is handed over to the business sector, then the economy becomes dangerously unbalanced. There is no growth of domestic purchasing power in households (let alone in the public sector) to supplement the expansion (such as it is) of private for-profit activity. As a result, the benefits of growth in the business sector do not "trickle down" to workers and their households.
Newfoundland and Canada
Cutbacks in federal transfer payments to the provincial government and to individual residents of Newfoundland have played a major role in the province’s economic difficulties in recent years. Between 1994 and 1996 alone,2 net federal transfers to the province declined by over $725 million, or about 7 percent of the province’s GDP. Any other jurisdiction which experienced such a dramatic reduction in incoming funds would also have suffered severe economic dislocation. For example, an equivalently sized cutback in federal transfers to Ontario would have equaled a $23 billion reduction for Ontario (several times greater than the actual federal cutbacks which were imposed on that province).
The federal cutbacks have been justified with strong moral messages about Newfoundland’s need to develop more "self-reliance," to "wean" itself from the nurturing of its mother in Ottawa, to resolve the economic "distortions" that have been caused by too much "dependence" on hand-outs. This stereotype describes the economic relationship between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada in unidimensional, unidirectional terms. In contrast to the popular image of Newfoundland as a persistent and annoying "drain" on the rest of the country, Newfoundland in fact makes a major economic contribution to the Canadian federation.

What Newfoundland Offers Canada
· $11 billion in Gross Domestic Product.
· $7.5 billion in consumer demand.
· Purchase of 21,000 new vehicles.
· $2 billion in federal tax revenues.
· $1.7 billion in manufacturing output.
· $3.4 billion in exports to the rest of the world
· $1 billion contribution to Canada’s trade surplus.
· $4.5 billion in imports from the rest of Canada.
· $3.3 billion trade deficit with the rest of Canada.
· 10,000 young, ambitious, educated workers per year.
SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Provincial Economic Accounts (13-213) and Labour Force Annual Averages (71-201).
The economy of Newfoundland and Labrador accounts for $11 billion in goods and services production. That equals about 1.25 percent of total Canadian GDP. If the entire economy of Newfoundland were to suddenly disappear from Canada, it would spark a recession in the rest of the country worse than the 1990-91 recession.
Despite their low and stagnant personal incomes, Newfoundlanders add $7.5 billion in consumer demand to the Canadian economy. Among other important industries, this translates into the annual purchase of over 20,000 new motor vehicles per year.
The province contributes $2 billion per year to total federal tax revenues, and $1.7 billion to the country’s total manufacturing shipments. Newfoundland’s contribution to Canada’s success in international trade is especially important. Newfoundland delivered $3.4 billion in exports to world markets during 1997. Newfoundland exported another $1.2 billion in exports to the rest of Canada. It is worth noting, however, the difference between Newfoundland’s net trade relationships–that is, its exports less its imports–with other provinces and with other countries. With the outside world, Newfoundland runs a $1 billion trade surplus–that is, the province exports $1 billion more to other countries than it imports from those same countries. This represents a significant contribution to Canada’s overall balance of payments.
With the rest of Canada, however, Newfoundland runs a much larger trade deficit. Newfoundland imports $4.5 billion in goods and services from those provinces, but exports only about $1.2 billion to those other provinces. Without the Newfoundland market, therefore, the rest of Canada would lose a trade surplus worth some $3.3 billion per year. In fact, Newfoundland’s trade deficit with the rest of Canada actually exceeds the net transfer of income into Newfoundland by the federal government. In 1996 (most recent data available), the federal government spent $3.1 billion more in Newfoundland and Labrador than it received back in taxes.3 In other words, every dollar of net federal payments to Newfoundland (and then some) is used to finance a large and ongoing trade deficit between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada. Without those transfers, an important market for business in the rest of Canada would likely dry up. So who is subsidizing whom?
Perhaps the most valuable, but also the most tragic, contribution of Newfoundland and Labrador to the rest of Canada is embodied in the province’s annual "export" of thousands of skilled, healthy workers fleeing the province’s devastated economy. With few regional job opportunities available, and no willingness of the part of the Canadian government to finance sensible development or adjustment programs, these Newfoundlanders–most of them young–feel they have little choice but to migrate to other provinces. Perversely, this out-migration is seen by mean-spirited advocates of economic "rationalism" as a sensible solution to the assumed "overpopulation" of Newfoundland, and a good alternative to social "dependence." But of course it leaves the province’s economy in even worse shape than it started out in. While the official unemployment rate might look lower in the wake of out-migration, the impact of depopulation on domestic demand, housing values, the provincial tax base, and the competitiveness of domestic businesses is hugely negative.
One hates to attach a dollar value to the immeasurable economic and social costs associated with this out-migration. But if we assume that each departing worker represents the capacity to earn an average Canadian wage ($31,000 in 1997) for 35 years, then the present value of each departing Newfoundlander to the rest of Canada is some $1.1 million. The 10,000 educated, healthy individuals who left Newfoundland for the rest of Canada last year thus represents an annual "subsidy" of $11 billion to other provinces. That represents an amount greater than Newfoundland’s total GDP, and almost four times greater than the annual value of net federal transfers to Newfoundland. Newfoundlanders raised these young workers, and the provincial and municipal governments paid for their health care and their education. Yet the value of their future work efforts will be appropriated by other provinces, in large part because of the refusal of the rest of Canada to make adequate provisions for economic development and adjustment in its poorest province. Once again we must ask: who is subsidizing whom?
Newfoundland in International Perspective
An implicit theme of the "depopulaters"–those who argue that the only long-run solution for young Newfoundlanders is to simply leave the province–is that Newfoundland’s rugged, remote economy is simply not viable in light of modern global trends. It is only by virtue of continued government subsidies that this outpost economy exists at all, or so the argument goes. This pessimistic view coincides with the popular stereotype that Newfoundland is an ongoing "drain" on the rest of the country.4
In the first place, this depressing conclusion goes completely against the grain of the faith in "free" markets and reliance on "supply and demand" forces that is also characteristic of those who rail against government "handouts." Get government out of the way, it is argued, and the free market will take care of the rest. In the textbook world of the perfect free market, a "rugged" environment should be no barrier to full-employment and rational efficiency. Supply and demand forces should ensure that all workers are employed in the most productive occupations possible. And that balance between labour supply and labour demand, in the free-market vision, should not require large out-migration to be attained. The pessimistic view of the "depopulaters," therefore, is itself an admission that free market decisions cannot ensure an adequate economic future for this province.

Northern Islands: For Richer or for Poorer
  Newfoundland Ireland Iceland
GDP per capita
($Cdn., 1996) $18,700 $26,630 $36,930
Average GDP growth, 1992-97 (% per year) 1.3% 6.8% 3.2%
Average inflation rate, 1992-97 (% per year) 1.5% 2.2% 2.6%
Employment growth (%, 1992-1997) -1.0% +13.3% +5.4%
Unemployment rate (%, 1997) 19% 12% 4%
Labour force participation rate (%, 1997) 52.5% 64.3% 78.1%
Government programs as share GDP (%, 1996) 57% 34% 36%
Government taxes as share GDP (%, 1996) 43% 37% 36%
Government debt as share GDP (1997) 58%1 69% 32%
Average hourly manufacturing wage (1996, $Cdn.) $14.92 $16.052 na
Average growth real earnings (% per year, 1992-97) -0.8% +1.5% +0.6%
Personal saving rate (% disposable income, 1997) 0.9% 10.3% 14.2%
Population density (persons per sq. km.) 1.4 52 2.7
Passenger cars per 1000 people (1994) 386 264 434
Life expectancy at birth (years, 1992) 76 75 78
Infant mortality rate (deaths per 1000, 1995) 7.8 6.3 6.1
SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Canada Year Book 1997, Provincial Economic Accounts, Labour Force Annual Averages, Annual Estimates of Employment, Earnings and Hours; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs for Production Workers in Manufacturing, OECD Economic Outlook, OECD Economic Surveys for Iceland (1998) and Ireland (1997).
1. Provincial level only.
2. Assumes 20 percent non-wage benefits in total hourly labour cost.
More importantly, those who argue that Newfoundland’s economy is in some sense fundamentally unviable ignore the successful experience of other countries which have developed productive, socially beneficial economies despite similar difficulties of geography and remoteness. Iceland and Ireland, for example, are also small, rugged northern islands. Yet these two economies have enjoyed faster growth, higher living standards, and lower unemployment than in Newfoundland (see table).
How do we explain the disappointing difference between the progress of Newfoundland and the progress of other comparable jurisdictions? Since these other northern islands are independent national economies, their governments have more policy levers at their disposal than does a provincial government: more control over interest rates, exchange rates, immigration, and fiscal policies. Similarly, these islands will not have been hard-hit by spending decisions made by other levels of government–such as the radical downsizing of federal transfers in the 1990s. (Of course, those other islands did not benefit from the inflow of those transfers when they were still occurring–although Ireland does receive significant regional development transfers from the European level of government.) Iceland, like Newfoundland, is very dependent on the fishing industry, and a case can be made that Iceland’s fish resources were managed more sensibly than Newfoundland’s, and hence Iceland has not experienced the same devastation from the collapse of fish populations. Iceland’s economy is based on exports (including metal processing and refining developed on the basis of geothermal energy) and high-value services (including extensive social services) produced for the domestic economy. Ireland’s economy has been driven by manufacturing exports to the European Community and (more recently) by the demand growth generated by the return of thousands of former emigres. Ireland and Iceland both benefit from much higher rates of domestic saving, generating funds which are channeled aggressively into public and private capital formation. Domestic, independent financial institutions and investment intermediaries also contribute to faster growth.
Perhaps the greatest differences between Newfoundland and these other island economies are their human resources–the number of people who reside there, and the extent to which their respective governments treat those human resources with care and respect. One immediate contrast between Newfoundland and the other islands is apparent by examining population density: Newfoundland’s population density is barely 2 percent of Ireland’s, and one-half of Iceland’s.5 Ireland and Iceland have both invested heavily in the skills and education of their citizens, turning the rhetoric of training (which is propogated every day in Newfoundland) into an economic reality. For example, both countries maintain well-funded public university systems, with no tuition fees. Newfoundland, on the other hand, has increased its reliance on private for-profit training providers, subsidized through dubious retraining provisions of UI and other programs–which have proven in experience to be painfully prone to bankruptcy! The state plays a generally more active and interventionist role in directing the economic development of both Ireland and Iceland; Newfoundland’s public sector, on the other hand, is retreating fast.
There is no single, simple recipe for the economic success of Ireland and Iceland which could be followed for Newfoundland’s benefit. Each island economy has its own specific circumstances which must be reflected in its respective development plans. What is clear, however, is that the mere fact of being an isolated, rugged island hardly implies inevitable poverty and stagnation. If anything, the more difficult geographical context of an island economy may be beneficial in forcing its residents to identify and develop non-geographical assets–and especially its human resources. A successful economy needs people: healthy, well-educated, energetic, and optimistic people. With that key ingredient, any economy can thrive and grow, no matter how rugged its physical setting. The gradual loss of Newfoundland’s greatest asset through out-migration, and the withdrawal by governments at all levels from the investments that need to be made in human well-being, represent the true source of Newfoundland’s weakness–not its rugged geography or its remote location.
What Hasn’t Worked for Newfoundland
Before moving on to consider some of the alternative policy directions which might shift the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador onto a faster growth track, it is worth reviewing the record of the business-centred development strategy which has been so much in vogue during the last two decades. The core idea is that if we create a very favourable environment for private, profit-seeking businesses, new investment by those businesses will boom and the whole economy will expand as a result.

A Paradise for Business?
· Record-low inflation (1.5% per year since 1992).
· Government programs shrank from 66% of economy in 1992 to 57% in 1996.
· Public-sector employment down by 3,000 (or 15%) since 1990.
· Corporate profits up 125% from 1992 to 1997.
· Effective provincial corporate tax rate down from 15% to 8% since 1992.
· EDGE land and tax giveaways.
· Provincial government financial surpluses for 3 consecutive years.
· Steep fall in provincial debt burden: 64% of GDP to 53% since 1996.
· KPMG Study: St. John’s most cost-effective site in North America.
SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Provincial Economic Accounts (13-213) and Labour Force Annual Averages (71-201); Newfoundland and Labrador Budget 1998, Exhibit V.
The sorts of conditions that are considered to be especially attractive to business include:
· small government; few regulations
· balanced government budgets and low government debt
· low inflation
· low wages
· a skilled, readily available workforce
· weaker social programs (to encourage labour force "discipline")
· lower taxes on businesses and the high-income people who own and manage them.
Both the federal and provincial governments have accepted this economic philosophy as the mainstay of their economic and social policies. The notion that creating "healthy fundamentals" will eventually pay off in faster business-led growth has been repeatedly invoked to justify a range of policy measures that have brought immediate pain and hardship to average working people. And by the standards of this business-centred development strategy, Newfoundland’s economy should be booming today.
The reduction of the role of government in Newfoundland’s economy has been especially marked. Total program spending by all levels of government in Newfoundland declined from 66 percent of provincial GDP in 1992 to some 57 percent in 1996–and it has certainly fallen farther since then. The provincial government budget has been effectively balanced for three consecutive years.6 Public sector employment has declined by 15 percent since 1990.7 The provincial debt has fallen steeply as a share of provincial GDP, from 64 percent in 1996 to less than 55 percent today. In short, Newfoundland’s public sector–which has long been a mainstay of the provincial economy–has been radically downsized. Has private business stepped into the void to take up the economic slack? Not exactly: it turns out that laying off public servants is more likely to simply increase unemployment, than it is to spark a great resurgence of private entrepreneurship. The notion that "big government" was somehow squeezing private business out of the picture was never believable in Newfoundland’s case: how could it be argued that the public sector was taking up too much economic room, when there were still tens of thousands of unemployed workers and abundant underutilized resources just waiting to be put to work? The failure of the private sector to fill the economic void created by public sector downsizing is further evidence that Newfoundland’s economic problems were not the fault of too much government. Rather, the province’s fundamental difficulty has arisen from the failure of private markets to ensure that available economic resources (including, most importantly, people) are put to work.
A similar result has occurred in Newfoundland’s labour market. Public income security programs have been radically scaled back–none more so than the Unemployment Insurance program. UI benefits paid to Newfoundlanders declined by $430 million (or over 40 percent) between 1990 and 1996, even though the number of unemployed in the province actually increased during this same period. And there is ample evidence that the worst is not over yet. On a seasonally adjusted basis, the number of regular UI recipients has declined steadily since 1996 in the face of new eligibility restrictions. Other income security programs–most notably the TAGS program–are also under attack, again in the name of helping idle Newfoundlanders to recapture that spirit of "entrepreneurship" which has evaded them in the past. Has cutting desperate people off of their income security restored that "get-up-and-go" initiative that the free market demands? Not exactly. Self-employment in Newfoundland actually declined between 1994 and 1997–in contrast to the trend elsewhere in Canada, where self-employment grew by almost 20 percent during this same period. And paid employment in the private sector was similarly stagnant. Total employment in the province was still 15,000 lower in August 1998 than it was in 1990–before our UI system became radically "rationalized." It is not a lack of initiative that is the problem in Newfoundland’s labour market: it is a lack of strength in the provincial economy. It turns out that rather than undermining private initiative, a well-functioning social safety net might actually enhance it–by putting money in peoples’ pockets, and providing a demand base on which local businesses can depend. The chilling impact of social cutbacks on personal incomes and consumer confidence in Newfoundland has far outweighed any conceivable "distortionary" impact those programs had on the "initiative" of Newfoundland workers.
The financial situation of private businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador has indeed improved under the business-centred development model espoused by the federal and provincial governments. For example, before-tax corporate profits in Newfoundland grew by 125 percent between 1992 and 1997. And corporate tax collections did not keep pace with this windfall: the effective provincial corporate tax rate fell from 15 percent in 1992 to 8 percent in 1996 (most recent comparable data); in contrast, the average provincial corporate tax rate in other provinces that year was over 13 percent. No other province relies less on corporate income taxes as a share of total provincial revenues than Newfoundland. Private firms have benefitted from a battery of location incentives, including free land and other giveaways, under the provincial EDGE program and other initiatives. Has the real economic effort of the business sector responded accordingly to this ultra-attractive climate? Business investment has indeed grown this decade, largely thanks to offshore megaprojects. But the scale of the increase is small relative to the scale of the increase in corporate profits. For example, between 1993 and 1997, business investment spending grew by just 8 percent–less than one-tenth the 89 percent rise in corporate profits over that same time period.
Obviously, the provincial government needs to continue its efforts to attract new business investment to Newfoundland. This investment is a key source of growth, job-creation, and diversification. Even measures like corporate tax holidays for new investment projects can be effective tools in stimulating new investment–particularly given that other jurisdictions (such as many U.S. states) are able to offer large up-front cash subsidies for new investments in manufacturing and other key sectors. The income generated for government and for the economy as a whole from these types of investments can more than offset the cost of the foregone taxes. But efforts to attract new business must not undermine the social and legal status of Newfoundlanders, nor impair their ability to win a fair share of the expanded economic pie that results from these investments. In this context, the suggestion that basic labour rights (such as the right to strike) should be suspended in the interests of attracting investment is repulsive and must be rejected completely. And efforts to woo business investment must be placed in their proper economic context. Business investment will never respond sufficiently to the incentives of higher profits and an underutilized, desperate workforce with enough new investment to offset the lost economic potential that results from falling wages and a downsized public sector. Growing business investment can be one pillar of a balanced development strategy. But if we undermine the other pillars of that strategy–household demand and a vibrant, ambitious public sector–in order to motivate marginal improvements in business investment, then we are surely cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Privately, the architects of the business-centred development strategy must be richly disappointed with the meagre results of their project. Despite a decade which has seen the most radical downsizing of government in Canadian history, and the unprecedented rollback of important social programs, the response of business to this brave new world has been at best lacklustre. And whatever recovery Canada was enjoying later in the 1990s may now be cut short by the turmoil arising from the same private financial markets to whom we have granted so much influence over our economic policies. Gutting Unemployment Insurance has not magically created new jobs–but it has left a lot of poor people even poorer. Downsizing government has not magically enhanced private sector job-creation–but it has left a weak labour market even weaker. Enhancing the profit motive has not stimulated a huge new economic effort by business–but it has made the strong bargaining position of businesses even stronger. Perhaps these right-wing policy changes were motivated less by a desire to expand the economic pie, than by a desire to redistribute it–from the bottom towards the top. If we really want to expand economic opportunities for the rest of us, we need to start thinking in a new economic direction.
Newfoundland’s Strengths and Weaknesses
In thinking about a direction for the Newfoundland and Labrador economy that might be more effective and socially beneficial than the current business-centred approach, it makes sense to start with an inventory of the province’s economic strengths and weaknesses. Some of the province’s strengths are well-known, of course. Relative to its population, Newfoundland and Labrador possesses a huge land mass with an incredible wealth of natural resources. The province probably ranks only behind Canada’s northern territories as possessing the greatest resource abundance per resident. The province is keenly competitive in interprovincial and international trade: low labour costs, relatively cheap resources (including low energy costs in future years, thanks to the coming development of petroleum and hydroelectric resources), and the low value of the Canadian dollar all contribute to the province’s ability to participate successfully in trade. The skills and capacities of Newfoundlanders themselves, of course, are the province’s greatest asset–although this is threatened, unfortunately, by the chronic underutilization of labour in the province and cutbacks to the very sorts of investment in human capacities (education, health care, and social security) that are required to maintain and enhance that human wealth.

Newfoundland’s Strengths
· Natural Resources
· Trade Competitiveness
· Skills & Human Capacities
· Labour
· Equality
Other of the province’s strengths are less well-known–probably because business-oriented newspapers and development experts are less interested in espousing them. For example, Newfoundland has the largest proportion of trade union membership (measured as a proportion of employment) of any province in Canada. This reflects a variety of causes: the province’s relatively large public sector, and a tradition of cooperation and community self-reliance that is reflected in widespread unionization even in dispersed industries (such as fishing) that would otherwise be hard to organize. Wages in Newfoundland are low, relative to the rest of Canada–and even more so in comparison to other countries. Newfoundland is very competitive in terms of the cost of productive inputs (such as labour, resources, and land). It is only because of other factors (considered below) that local enterprises face difficulty surviving. So it cannot be argued that strong unions have somehow priced Newfoundland out of global competition. And as a vehicle for channeling the collective participation of Newfoundlanders in their economic future (through bargaining in the workplace or policy-development in the political arena) Newfoundland’s unions are clearly one of the province’s economic assets.

Newfoundland’s Record of Equality
Criteria Score Rank
Income Distribution (Gini Coefficient) 0.334 1
Ratio of Hourly to Salaried Worker Earnings 79.9% 4
Public Spending per Capita $10,781 3
Social Assistance Rate (1 parent, 1 child) $11,262 4
Overall Equality Index 103.6 2
SOURCE: Economic Freedom for the Rest of Us, by Jim Stanford (Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 1998).
It is rare for Newfoundlanders to see themselves at the top of interprovincial rankings; usually the province is stereotyped as lagging the rest of the country. But in the important matter of economic equality, Newfoundland and Labrador also has an outstanding record. According to Statistics Canada data, Newfoundland has the most equal distribution of income in the entire country. And on other criteria of equality and economic security, Newfoundland also scores high. Earnings are paid out relatively equally between hourly and salaried or supervisory workers, for example. And relative to the province’s level of economic development, social assistance benefits (for families with children, at any rate) rank relatively highly. On a composite measure of equality and social security recently constructed by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives,8 Newfoundland ranked second among all provinces (behind only Prince Edward Island) in its overall record of economic equality. How is equality an economic advantage? Many important benefits spring from a more equal distribution of income and economic opportunity. For example, if wages are distributed relatively evenly in a society, this implies that labour costs in relatively high-wage occupations (such as high-tech manufacturing or high-value service industries) will be competitive in comparison to jurisdictions where income distribution is poor. This will help to attract these desirable industries to the province. Similarly, when income distribution is quite equal, a greater culture of social solidarity is promoted: the members of a community feel that they will rise and fall together, and this can lead to more efficient and effective adjustments to economic changes and new opportunities than in a culture in which the economic pie is divided according to brute force and the law of the jungle.
What about the province’s economic weaknesses? Despite an abundance of resources (including human and social resources) which are priced relatively cheaply, Newfoundland can still be an expensive place for companies to operate. The main culprit here is geography (both physical geography and social geography). As a relatively remote region, the costs of transportation, communication, and infrastructure services linking the province to other markets are proportionately very high. This offsets the province’s cost advantage in terms of locally supplied productive inputs (relatively cheap labour, resources, and land), making Newfoundland a relatively expensive place for export-oriented businesses to operate from. And the lack of a concentrated population base means that enterprises producing for the domestic market will not enjoy the inherent efficiencies and economies of scale that typically come with production in larger volumes.

Newfoundland’s Weaknesses
· Remoteness From Major Population Centres
· Small Population
· Lack of Investment
· Lack of Demand
The result is a general shortage of private business investment, which is a crucial driving force of economic growth. Despite an incredibly favourable pro-business regime of low taxes, generous incentives, cheap labour, and other factors, private investment remains weak. That investment which has occurred has been dominated by offshore megaprojects which are welcome but too unpredictable to be the sole base of the provincial economy. Combined with government cutbacks and low personal incomes, the result is a general lack of demand in the provincial economy–too little spending power, and hence too little demand for the workers who produce the things we need. This in turn undermines business investment even further, especially for businesses focused on the domestic (rather than the export) market–since there is no growth in demand for the products that those businesses would supply. Somehow this vicious circle of slow investment and weak demand must be turned around. And we have already seen that the private sector by itself cannot do the job, no matter how large are the carrots dangled in front of its nose.
A New Direction
A fundamental shift in the basic philosophy of economic development is required in order to push the Newfoundland and Labrador economy onto a more dynamic, socially beneficial track. Rather than assuming that private business alone is the only player that really matters, and hence that the main task of government must be to make the environment as business-friendly as possible, it is necessary to remember that the purpose of economic development in the first place is to improve the lives of people. Let’s elevate those people to centre-stage in our thinking about economic development and how it occurs, rather than hoping that the trickle-down benefits of private, profit-led activity will somehow suffice.
A people-centred development strategy would have many different elements, but linking them all is a fundamental willingness to question the efficiency and desirability of private markets as the fundamental organizing principle of the economy. Yes, private markets and the actions of private business are going to play a crucial role in any economy. But we need to keep an eye on those markets to ensure that their workings are compatible with the fundamental goals of economic development: growth, equality, and well-being. And where this is not the case, we need to be willing and able to step in with measures to correct and supplement what those markets do.
The alternative to "markets" is not necessarily "big government." This is an artificial dichotomy that has been well-established by pro-business editorialists and economic experts. Private markets are rooted in the self-interested activities of individual companies, who seek to maximize their individual profits (and in so doing may or may not produce something of value to the community as a whole). The true alternative to this individualistic, profit-inspired model is a form of growth rooted in the cooperative, collective activity of the members of a community who get together and consciously undertake some form of work activity in the interests of concretely improving the quality of their lives. Government is one important way in which this collective activity takes place (through the organization and provision of public services like health care and education, for example). But it need not be the only way. Other forms of collective, cooperative economic activity can also be important: co-ops, community economic development projects, non-profit or charity activity, or even the simple co-operation of neighbours who get together to build a new dock or a children’s playground. Particularly in an economy such as Newfoundland’s, which has been under-served and at times outrightly abandoned by the profit-seeking private market, stimulating and diversifying these various forms of non-market economic activity must be a crucial element of any future development strategy. Yet the specific policy conclusions which emerge from an alternative, human-centred model can be quite at odds with the "lean-and-mean" dictates of the business-led approach.
Let us consider some of the specific economic and social policies that could form part of this alternative development strategy.
Rebuild Public-Sector Activity: The rapid downsizing of the public sector in Newfoundland and Labrador has not led to an upsurge in private-sector growth. Far from it: more idleness and poverty has been the main result of this "rationalization." The province needs to step up its investment in important public services and infrastructure: health care, education, transportation, communication. In so doing it will both enhance the skills and capabilities of its workforce (especially its young workers), and simultaneously provide interesting jobs for many of those workers to fill. The underdevelopment of Newfoundland’s rural and urban areas alike implies a tremendous opportunity for productive public investment in housing, transportation, and public services. How could the province pay for these investments? Government budgets do, indeed, need to be roughly balanced (on average) over the business cycle.9 But by focusing its spending activity on domestic services and investments with a high Newfoundland-content, the province can maximize the economic spin-offs resulting from its own projects, and hence capture back much of the expense in the form of incoming revenues.
Focus on Meeting Domestic Needs: Exports will play a crucial role in any economy, and particularly in a small economy such as Newfoundland’s. The vast majority of manufactured goods and other specialized materials will be imported of necessity, and hence the province must export enough to pay for those imports. But this does not imply that export-industries should be the sole focus of development (as is usually the case in a business-centred philosophy). Indeed, by shifting the structure of both demand and supply in the provincial economy toward what economists call "non-tradeable" goods (products and services which are produced and consumed locally), the province can help to overcome its greatest disadvantage: its small size and remote location. Imagine taking 20,000 of the province’s unemployed workers and putting them to work providing public services or building roads and housing for the province’s own residents. This creates a new source of income for residents (those who are employed in these projects) that is not dependent on exports. It simultaneously makes the provincial economy more competitive in the export race (healthier, better-trained workers; modern efficient infrastructure). And the taxes collected to pay for those projects reduce the extent to which purchasing power in the province is undermined by imports of consumer goods and other manufactures. It is not easy, of course, to argue for taxes. But we can make a convincing case that a picture in which someone is employed but paying taxes at a higher rate (and thus consuming a large share of their total income in the form of collective public services) looks a lot better than one in which the person pays a lower rate of tax on a non-existent income.
Manage Trade and Investment: To maximize the spin-off benefits for the provincial economy of those private export and investment projects which do occur, government must take an energetic, pro-active role in negotiating and regulating their overall economic effects. This means pushing for a high Newfoundland content in those investment projects which benefit from public incentives, regulatory approval, or resource grants. In this regard, the current government’s hard line in negotiations over the Voisey’s Bay project is entirely appropriate, and goes completely against the grain of the "free-market" thinking which dominates the rest of government policy in the province. Private companies will always claim publicly that these types of regulations will "bankrupt" them and "force" them to cancel their projects entirely. But in reality, companies will respond favourably to a sufficiently-profitable opportunity, regardless of the degree of government intervention which oversees that opportunity. A similar approach could be taken with regard to negotiating Newfoundland content (or equivalent "offset" commitments) in return for major purchases (especially public purchases) of imported manufactures or machinery. Examples of purchases for which this strategy would make sense include major public procurement of products such as computers, motor vehicles, and machinery. Even if Newfoundland does not currently manufacture the product in question (as will usually be the case), companies faced with an appropriate incentive will be quite creative in finding products or services that it can produce or purchase in the province in order to meet provincial-content guidelines. If an importing company benefits from a substantial injection of Newfoundland purchasing power, then it should be obliged to take measures (through local purchasing or investments) to sustain that purchasing power. Once again, this type of intervention goes completely against the grain of the laissez-faire thinking reflected in policies such as the Interprovincial Free Trade Agreement (an agreement which has not yet demonstrated that it has any real force anyway). But if the end-result is more jobs and more production in the province, then the provincial government should not shy away from applying the tough talk it has practiced with Inco on major importers. And for any product or service which can be produced in Newfoundland, a very strong Newfoundland-first policy should guide any procurement for public agencies or publicly-regulated companies.
Activist Sectoral Development Planning: Newfoundland’s economy is the sum of its respective industries and sectors. All of these sectors–fisheries, mining, forestry, manufacturing and processing, private services, and public services–need to make a stronger contribution to the province’s overall growth and development. And in no case will that stronger contribution occur solely as a result of "free market" forces. The provincial government and non-government bodies (including the labour movement) need to take a leading, energetic role in developing and implementing sector-specific development plans for each of these industries. While the details of these sectoral plans will obviously vary, they will include some common themes:
· enhance value-added in the Newfoundland economy
· coordinate and regulate investment in accordance with social costs and benefits
· upgrade the contribution (and subsequently the earnings) of labour
Private business will obviously play an important role in this sectoral economic planning, and a structure of sectoral development councils could be established to facilitate exchange and decision-making amongst the various stakeholders in each industry. But these councils will degenerate into symbolic roundtables unless government arms itself and the other non-business participants with the real resources and decision-making powers (such as public equity stakes in industrial developments and strong regulatory oversight over private investments) which can force business to take the process seriously. Examples of the sorts of sectoral plans which could make an important contribution to the provincial economy in future years would include a coordinated strategy to enhance volumes and value-added in non-traditional fisheries, a shipbuilding and marine construction policy to enhance the level of Newfoundland content in offshore petroleum developments, and a public-private training and investment strategy to stimulate the development of high-value communication and technology services–to move Newfoundland’s participation in this crucial sector beyond call centres.
Promote Community Entrepreneurship: The government needs to actively foster the sorts of community-rooted, non-profit economic activity that will be essential for filling the void left by the failures of the private sector. It is naive to expect that residents of the province will somehow naturally organize themselves into community-based projects aimed at meeting fundamental community needs. There is a huge degree of initiative and creativity amongst those who are working so energetically in non-profit development projects, but the government needs to pave their way with a structure of incentives and encouragement that is at least as ambitious as the carrots they hold out to private companies. Many different sorts of policies would be useful in this regard. For example, one important structural weakness in the Newfoundland economy is the lack of an indigenous financial industry, which leaves the province dependent on investment decisions made offshore. The drain of purchasing power in the form of profits and salaries to offshore-based financial service providers further undermines provincial economic activity. Why not move to establish a public provincial bank, and/or a more powerful provincial network of credit unions (sufficiently coordinated so as to be able to finance major projects)? The government could support this development with favourable enabling legislation and (more importantly) by directing its own purchases of financial services (and those of provincially regulated industries) through the new home-grown financial industry. Other measures to support the "social economy" might include legal and economic support for non-profit and charitable activities.
A Change in Federal Perspective: Much can be done within Newfoundland and Labrador to improve the province’s economic trajectory. But recent federal government policies have cast a huge economic pall over the whole province. And undoing some of that damage from the federal side of the relationship would do a huge amount to restore the momentum of the provincial economy. The federal government’s approach to deficit-reduction at the expense of Canada’s neediest individuals and least developed regions has been both mean-spirited and economically destructive. A whole new approach from the federal government is needed in numerous areas: fisheries management and adjustment programs, Unemployment Insurance, and interprovincial transfers are clearly the most important. Simply changing the fundamental belief that dominates Ottawa these days–namely, that government can do nothing better for the economy than get out of the way–would be huge step forward, and would relieve much of Newfoundland’s economic hardship. The federal government should adopt an economic and fiscal strategy much like that advocated by the Alternative Federal Budget–emphasizing debt-reduction through economic growth rather than spending cutbacks, recuperating the social safety net and the "fiscal federation," and redistributing the burden of taxation onto those that can best afford it.10 Economic simulations have shown that the fiscal and economic benefits to provincial governments of an AFB-type program of lower interest rates, more federal spending, and faster economic growth would be huge. And with a stronger base level of growth and incoming federal transfers, the provincial government would have all the more resources available to support its own energetic development strategy. It is easy to blame the policies of a far-off government for domestic problems, but in Newfoundland’s case this is very much justified. It is time the federal government became part of Newfoundland’s solution, rather than its problem.
Getting Really Creative
Desperate times demand desperate measures. If this adage is true, then we need to perhaps get even more creative and far-reaching in our thinking about Newfoundland’s economic future. In light of the province’s fundamental economic strengths and weaknesses, here are some unconventional suggestions that might help to get the provincial economy back on track. None of these policies could be implemented tomorrow; some would require a long-term redefinition of provincial government powers. But they are suggested here as topics for further discussion and debate.
A New Immigration Policy: Part of the weakness in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador stems from having too small of a population spread out over too great of a land mass. This problem is made worse, obviously, by current out-migration from the province. Newfoundland’s economy would receive a major boost from new migration to the province–providing the human energies and skills that are needed to fully develop the province’s economic potential. There are millions of people in the world for whom a new life in Newfoundland would be a welcome escape from poverty or war. Why not develop an immigration policy that brings some of these people to the province? At present almost none of the quarter-million immigrants to Canada each year settle in Newfoundland; they go instead to Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and other major cities where support services are more developed and jobs more abundant. In so doing they add significantly to the growth of those vibrant cities. It is a myth that immigrants "steal" existing jobs from the initial residents of a city or province; in fact, immigration creates new jobs (for immigrants and existing residents alike) thanks to new demand for housing and services and as a spin-off of the business activities that the immigrants undertake. The provincial government should consider negotiating an immigration pact with the federal government which would help to direct a fairer share of immigrants (perhaps 5,000 per year) to Newfoundland–along with a fair share of funding for the necessary adjustment and social programs. Failing that, the government should consider developing an independent immigration policy (as the Quebec government seeks to do), so that immigration can be opened and managed in a fashion consistent with the economic needs of the province. Of course, large-scale immigration carries with it many difficulties of social and economic adjustment. But in the long-run, a much more open immigration policy could be an important plank in the development of Newfoundland’s physical and human resources.
An Alternative Provincial Currency: One fundamental difficulty in using provincial programs to spur new economic activity in the province is that much of the resulting economic stimulus "leaks out" of the province (through purchases of imported products by consumers and businesses). This undermines the extent to which Newfoundlanders are able to mobilize their own economic resources to meet their own social and economic needs. The gradual development of an alternative provincial currency, which would be used to facilitate particular types of economic transactions within the domestic economy, could make a positive difference here. Private businesses have long recognized the usefulness of alternative monetary systems to channel expenditure into particular areas: witness the growing use of programs such as frequent flyer points or merchandise "reward" money to compensate customers and attract demand. Like these programs, a provincial currency would have some positive economic value (although not a "par" value with "real" money), and it would be used on particular types of transactions (rather than generally accepted within the economy as a whole). It would be similar in concept to local trading networks which are commonly applied in community development initiatives–except writ large, with the official sponsorship of a provincial government, to enhance its scope and usefulness. Consider, for example, a major expansion of provincial public works and social services undertaken as part of an ambitious job-creation strategy. Suppose that individuals who were placed in new jobs through this program received a share of their compensation (say 20 percent) in the form of the provincial currency.11 They could spend that money on any of the newly produced public services that they themselves helped to generate, or on any other provincial program (such as university tuition, or drivers’ license fees, or perhaps even energy from a provincial crown corporation). They could also trade the provincial currency for "real" money through some currency exchange system (with the "exchange rate" determined by the relative supply and demand of the provincial currency).12 It would be a challenging and radical initiative to attempt to establish such a system, one that fundamentally challenges the existing domination of private finance over our economy. But it could possibly play a useful supporting role in the process of trying to overcome the great gulf of purchasing power in the provincial economy–the seemingly anomalous co-existence of unused resources (especially labour) with unmet needs for more goods and services.
Local Employment Boards and the Right to a Job: Here is another far-reaching idea that would also try to address the irrational coexistence of idle labour with unmet social needs. Newfoundlanders want to work. And there is a list of a thousand things we need them to do: repair roads, improve schools, care for the elderly in their own homes, build new homes, educate young people and displaced workers alike. One institutional factor preventing society from resolving this apparent contradiction is the lack of formal accountability placed on any governing body for ensuring that idle human resources are used wisely. At present all communities have school boards which are charged with the responsibility of educating all children in the community–and which are provided with tax revenues to perform that task. Why not empower similar "community employment boards" whose mandate would be to arrange for the employment of all willing residents of their communities? In part the boards would be designed to play a planning function: conducting an inventory of local labour resources, evaluating the training and adjustment needs of the workforce, identifying and promoting employment opportunities. But in part the boards would also function as job-providers in and of themselves–as "employers of last resort," who would be responsible for putting idle labour work in projects of at least some social value, overcoming the failure of the private labour market to find work for all willing workers. Many difficult economic and political issues would have to be addressed in the course of developing such a structure: their funding, their method of election and accountability, the protection of labour standards in employment board projects, the interaction between employment board hiring and the private labour market. But the fundamental premise is an important one: willing workers have the right to a job, and if the private labour market fails them then society has a responsibility to collectively find something for them to do.13
Conclusion
There are a wide variety of policy measures, big and small, that will be required in order to stimulate a more lasting, balanced, and socially beneficial path of economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland’s economic difficulties are numerous and varied; and there is no single recipe that can be followed to resolve them all. What is clear from the province’s current predicament, however, is that the current strategy of relying on private business as the sole engine of development, and focusing solely on making Newfoundland as business-friendly as possible, will fail–both as an economic development strategy, and more fundamentally as a means of bettering the economic conditions of the vast majority of the province’s residents. We need a more diversified and socially accountable vision of economic development–one that is interested first and foremost in the economic improvement of our communities. The policies proposed in this document do not yet constitute a fully-developed strategy in this regard. But they are a step in the right direction, and will hopefully spur wider discussion about a more broadly-based approach for Newfoundland and Labrador.
 
1  The views contained in this report should be ascribed to the author, and do not necessarily represent official policies of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour or of the Canadian Auto Workers.
2  This is the most recent comprehensive data published by Statistics Canada. Federal transfers have continued to decline since 1996, but consistent data is not yet available showing by how much.
3  Data for 1997 are not yet available, but net federal transfers were certainly smaller than they were in 1996, and thus the point is even stronger than indicated in the text.
4  A particularly objectionable statement of this view can be found in the recent Industry Canada report, "Regional Disparities in Canada: Characterizations, Trends, and Lessons for Economic Policy."
5  Moreover, Iceland’s population is concentrated in the island’s major city, and hence its economically effective population density is higher than the average statistic suggests.
6  While strictly speaking the government has incurred a small annual deficit since 1996, its net financial requirements have actually been negative (in other words, the government takes in more money than it spends). The difference between the two measures is due to the inclusion of non-cash items (such as public service pension obligations) as current expenses.
7  This figure includes only employment in narrowly-defined public administration. Other jobs have been lost in broader public services such as health care and education, but comparable numbers were not available.
8  See Economic Freedom for the Rest of Us, by Jim Stanford, forthcoming in autumn 1998 from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Ottawa.
9  More precisely, the ratio of provincial debt to GDP needs to be stabilized. The recent steep fall in the debt ratio implies that the province has more fiscal room than it claims.
10  See The 1998 Alternative Federal Budget Papers (Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives) for the most recent set of AFB policy statements.
11  This strategy for funding the expansion of public services would have to be very carefully negotiated with public service unions, of course, to ensure that prevailing wages and working conditions were not undermined.
12  The afore-mentioned proposal for a provincial bank or strong network of credit unions would be quite compatible with this function.
13  The idea of employment boards is discussed in more detail in The Ontario Alternative Budget Papers (Toronto: Lorimer, 1997), Chapter 4." -" NEWFOUNDLAND, REPUBLIC OF "forever!!!

Anonymous said...

"Offshore royalty offer a 'slap in the face': Newfoundland premier
Last Updated: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 | 7:52 PM ET
CBC News
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams says offshore royalty talks with the federal government are over, describing Wednesday's negotiations with federal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale as fruitless.
Williams – who had set a Christmas deadline for a new deal on offshore royalties – said his province and Nova Scotia were told they could not keep their energy revenues without conditions.
Describing the federal government's last offer a "slap in the face," Williams said he saw little point in talking further with Goodale.
"I am deeply disappointed," he said.
"I am not as disappointed for myself as I am for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador," he said.
Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm has said he will return to negotiations in January.
Goodale remained optimistic and said some progress was made.
"I believe success for all of us is within our grasp," Goodale told reporters.
"Nothing is over until it's over," Hamm said of the talks. "Newfoundland does not have a deal. Nova Scotia does not have a deal, but eventually we hope Nova Scotia will have a deal."
Goodale said Williams' deadline of reaching a deal by Christmas did not help.
"With the greatest of respect, I really do not believe that the best solutions are found under very tight and artificial deadlines that perhaps may not be realistic," Goodale said.
"The current fiscal year does not expire until March 31, so there's a long way to go in terms of the available time to work at this. Artificial deadlines don't help in the search for solutions."
The provinces have been pressing to retain 100 per cent of offshore energy revenues without paying a penalty in clawbacks to equalization payments.
Williams walked out of October's first ministers meeting on federal-provincial equalization payments, saying Prime Minister Paul Martin reneged on a deal to allow the province to keep 100 per cent of its oil and gas revenues.
· FROM OCT. 26, 2004: Nfld. premier says PM broke"- LIES, DECEPTION, AND PROPAGANDA COME FROM CANADA,BEWARE THE CANADIAN WOLF!!!

Anonymous said...

"Atlantic East Coast Report
Newfoundland's Blossoming Separation Movement
By Myles Higgins
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Since Newfoundland and Labrador entered the Dominion of Canada in 1949, some in the province have questioned whether or not that decision was the right one. Fifty-six years later there are still many who wonder if, "the fix was in", so to speak, or "what would Newfoundland and Labrador be like today if we were an independent country again"?
For those too young to remember, there were two public votes on the subject of Confederation, not one. In the first vote the outcome did not see the population choose to join Canada. The ballot that year contained three options:
Confederation with Canada;
Responsible Government (Independence); and
Commission of Government,(Outside appointed rule).
The result of that vote was 44.6% for Responsible Government, 41.1% for Confederation and 14.3% for Commission of Government.
Although Responsible Government received the most votes, neither of the options had won a clear majority of public support, as a result, Commission of Government, the lowest in the poll, was dropped from the ballot and a second referendum was scheduled.
This time the result was 52.3% for Confederation and 47.7% for Responsible Government, hardly a resounding show of support. Factor in as well rumors of vote buying and ballot box tampering and the fact that a couple of ballot boxes turned up years later still unopened and uncounted. The table was set for decades of debate.
When you add it all up, the result is a situation where questioning the referendum result, and our place in Canada, has become a major pastime in the province.
Separatist rumblings have been growing in the province since the day the ballots were counted. Today you can see green white and pink Newfoundland Republic flags, which have become a symbol of separatist sentiment, flying from homes in all parts of the province. Lately, more and more people have been re-examining the contents of the Terms of Union itself. This document, signed by the governments of the province and the country, contains the official terms by which Newfoundland and Labrador’s union with Canada was formed.
Examination of the document from a legal perspective is an interesting exercise and even a cursory reading would lead one to believe that perhaps the federal government has not lived up to many of its obligations to the province as set out half a century ago.
Perhaps one of the most obvious situations is related to resource royalties in the province. Many people throughout Canada are familiar with recent changes to the Atlantic Accord which, which just passed through the senate yesterday, will see NL receive billions in revenues from offshore oil. What most people don’t realize however is that this accounts for less than 50% of the overall royalties, the remainder still goes into the federal purse. In addition to this, the province makes very little, if any revenue, from other natural resources like nickel, gold and iron ore, even though article 37 of the Terms of Union clearly states:
"All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to Newfoundland at the date of Union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador"
Another point clearly defined, this time in article 44 of the document, clearly states:
"Canada will provide for the maintenance in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador of appropriate reserve units of the Canadian defense forces, which will include the Newfoundland Regiment".
Currently this article is of major interest to many in the province. The town of Happy Valley Goose Bay is desparately struggling to convince the Canadian government that the military base at 5 Wing should be maintained and utilized by our own forces. As things stand today, it is clear that the spirit of this particular article is not being met. There are currently more McDonalds employees in this province than there are armed forces personnel. This might be fine if the province is attacked by the Hamburglar, but not so good if a foreign force decides Canada’s east coast would make a good entry portal to the rest of North America.
Article 32 of the act deals with the gulf ferry service. It states:
"Canada will maintain in accordance with the traffic offering a freight and passenger steamship service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, which, on completion of a motor highway between Corner Brook and Port aux Basques, will include suitable provision for the carriage of motor vehicles"
As recently as a few years ago, Ottawa had been entertaining the notion of privatizing this ferry service, a service which provides the primary physical link between the province and the rest of the country. This ferry service is considered to be a part of the TCH itself yet just a few days ago it was prevented from running by protesting fishermen in Nova Scotia. The federal government did nothing to stop the protest. Would they have done something if a section of the TCH leading into one of the other provinces was blocked by a protest group for the best part of a day?
Another point of contention is article 31. This article encompasses most public services in the province and specifies that the government of Canada would assume responsibility for the following:
(a) the Newfoundland Railway, including steamship and other marine services;
(b) The Newfoundland Hotel, if requested by the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador within six months from the date of Union:
(c) postal and publicly owned telecommunication services;
(d) civil aviation, including Gander Airport;
(e) customs and excise;
(f) defense;
(g) protection and encouragement of fisheries and operation of bait services;
(h) geological, topographical, geodetic, and hydrographic surveys;
(i) lighthouses, fog alarms, buoys, beacons, and other public works and services in aid of navigation and shipping;
(j) marine hospitals, quarantine, and the care of shipwrecked crews;
(k) the public radio broadcasting system; and
(I) other public services similar in kind to those provided at the date of Union for the people of Canada generally.
This article contains many key areas of concern to those in the province.
Section (a) clearly identifies the railway as being one of the services to be managed by the federal government after Confederation. As many in the province will remember, when it was decided by Ottawa that the running of this railway was no longer feasible, the government of the day was obligated to make reparations to the province for its retirement. In exchange for provincial agreement to dismantle rail services the federa l government instituted the "Roads for Rails" program. This saw money flow from Ottawa to improve the provinces road network in preparation for the loss of the railway.
Clearly the federal government at the time was fully aware of its obligations as set out in article 31 of the Terms of Union. But what about their obligations related to some of the other items identified in the same article?
Section (b) The Newfoundland hotel. This hotel was privatized years ago.
Section (c) Postal and Publicly owned telecommunications services. Currently most postal outlets are privately run in the province and in recent years, when some of these have shut down, the federal government has not stepped in to replace them and the provinces telecommunications systems are now privately run.
Section (d) Civil aviation, including Gander Airport. Civil aviation in the province is a private enterprise. Gander airport itself was sold by the federal government. What guarantee s or concessions did the province get for this breach of contract?
Section (f) defense. The level of defense, as addressed previously, is a clear issue in the province and one that could have a detrimental effect on the entire nation and the continent as a whole. It is clear that we are a nation who’s front door is wide open to anyone who would like to use it.
Section (g) protection and encouragement of fisheries and operation of bait services. This particular section is a sore point for many separatists and anyone else in the province who feels they have been wronged by Ottawa.
The argument people in the province are making is that Ottawa has not provided adequate protection or management of this valuable and renewable resource, and in fact, has mismanaged it to the point where the cod fishery, which was the backbone of Newfoundland’s economy at the time of confederation, is now dead. Rather than protect these stocks, Ottawa issued quota after quota to foreign fleets in exchange for auto plants, textile products and aerospace contracts in other parts of the country.
When the fishery was closed in 1992 income support for those displaced by the loss of the industry was provided to cover the 10 years it was expected to take for the stocks to rebuild. That time has come and gone and still there is no viable cod industry. In fact, the switch to other species like crab, at the encouragement of the federal government, has seen those stocks dwindle as well.
Section (i) lighthouses, fog alarms, buoys, beacons, and other public works and services in aid of navigation and shipping. This section clearly identifies, "works and services in aid of navigation and shipping", yet lighthouses have been closed and marine weather services have been moved out of the province to other locales. Every year the number of federal employees in the province becomes less and less.
There are many other examples like these throughout our short hist ory as a Canadian province, the list is a long one. Some feel that material and multiple breeches of contract have taken place and are continuing. The current feeling is that Ottawa should be pushed to rectify the situation so the province can become an equal partner in Confederation or that a case for nullification of the Terms of Union should be brought before the Supreme Court of Canada.
While there has always been a segment of the population who feel that we do not belong in this country, most would simply like to see the kind of fair and ethical treatment that is to be expected from a nation like Canada. Times were hard when the decision was made to become a part of the Dominion of Canada, but they were hard everywhere. The great depression had just ended a little over a decade before and Newfoundland was suffering from the fallout of WWII.
Times have changed a lot since then and as a result, it is difficult for many to believe that a Newfoundland and Labrador, which entered Canada with a financial surplus in 1949, is somehow better off fifty-six years later while running yearly deficits and staggering under an $11 billion debt.
Myles is freelance columnist originally from the central region of Newfoundland. He now resides with his wife and a•terminally lazy Terrier named "Molson" in the beautiful town of Portugal Cove - St. Philips, "Where the sun meets the sea".
Myles'•interest in Newfoundland and Labrador political and social issues is obvious in his writing for several publications and on his own web site, Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador. A site where Myles dedicates his time to providing an open commentary and discussion forum on•newsworthy items of the day." -GOD BLESS NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR FOREVER!!!

Anonymous said...

I REMEMBER!!!

DONT TELL LIES IN OUR HOUSE!!!

Anonymous said...

"A public gathering of citizens who are concerned with Newfoundland and Labrador’s status in Confederation was held at the Capital Hotel in St. John’s last evening.
The meeting, which was organized by former school teacher Lloyd Taylor, attracted people from all walks of life and widely varied social and political backgrounds. Perhaps the only thing those attending had in common was the deep belief that the province has not being treated fairly by Ottawa or by many of its political representatives both federally and provincially over the years.
The meeting, which the organizer hoped would mark the formation of a citizen’s action committee or think tank on our place in Canada, was attended by members of the general public as well as several well known local personalities, including the former head of Fishery Products, who in later years became a well known fisheries advocate, Mr. Gus Etchegary. Also in attendance was former Conservative MP Tom Hickey, now heading up the newly formed NL First Party and of course, yours truly.
Although the session started slowly, the room quickly came to life with many emotional and often eloquently delivered testimonials from those in attendance. Many topics were discussed during the meeting including Churchill Falls, federal representation, or lack thereof, out migration, fisheries issues and natural resources.

For those in attendance it provided an opportunity to vent long held frustrations and in some cases the meeting helped attendees understand that they were not alone in their feelings. That indeed, there are others out there who feel similarly, on a myriad of topics.
Although nearly everyone in the room agreed on what the issues facing the province are, one of the biggest roadblocks to anyone hoping to change the current situation became painfully clear, a lack of unity on the approach to fostering change.
While some liked the idea of forming a committee to “brainstorm” on issues and look for solutions, which was the primary intent of the organizer, others like Mr. Hickey of the NL First party took the stance that the only route to change is to back his party and make a political stand. According to Mr. Hickey, there are already too many splinter groups in the province and the only way to move forward was to unite under the NL First banner.
Although it was generally agreed that unity was critical, some wondered if unity under the party’s banner was the only option.
Many in attendance agreed that eventual change would only come through political actions, however that doesn’t mean that groups like the citizens committee, which formed last evening, do not have a role to play. It also doesn’t mean that individual groups necessarily need to be at odds with each other.
There is no reason that groups like NL First, the Rural Rights and Boat Owners Association or any other group in the province could not make use of a politically independent “Think Tank” type of committee to help plan their party platforms, direction or strategies based on the group’s research and recommendations.
Regardless of how various factions might unite for the common goal of improving their lot in life, it is very clear that a lack of unity will always be a major stumbling block to change unless someone finds a way to bring various factions together.
What form this type of coalition might take is open to discussion. Perhaps the solution will require bringing the various factions together under a common banner or perhaps a loose affiliation of independent organizations. Organizations that while remaining focused on their individual efforts, are also coordinated and supportive of each others actions. After all, there is power in numbers.
Regardless of the direction, unity is critical. Perhaps this might be the first challenge that should be addressed by the new citizens committee.
Unfortunately, this task might prove to be the most difficult one to accomplish.
For more by Myles Higgins: http://www.freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogsp"ot.com"/

Anonymous said...

"Newfoundland’s flag flap
It’s not likely the governor of Alaska would order the Stars and Stripes removed from state buildings to get his way in a dispute with the federal government about oil and gas revenues.
Although their populations are roughly the same, as is their geographic position on the harsh extremity of a coast and their beneficent proximity to oil and gas fields, Alaska is not Newfoundland and Labrador, and, as experienced a politician as he may be, Gov. Frank Murkowski is no match for Danny Williams, the feisty first-term premier of Canada’s 10th province.
Just before Christmas, Williams did in fact decree that the Canadian maple leaf flag be pulled from poles on all provincial buildings, including the provincial legislature in St. John’s. The gesture did as it was intended and seized national attention, not to mention sparking wrath and ridicule.
Canadians, though generally familiar with the concept of provincial rights to energy revenues, were left puzzled by Williams’s seemingly unpatriotic deed. One foolhardy columnist in the Globe and Mail, one of Canada’s two national newspapers, dared to accuse Newfoundlanders of brazenly extorting cash out of Canada.
Wrote Margaret Wente: "I like Newfoundlanders. I really do. But their sense of victimhood is unmatched. And their flag protest isn’t winning them much sympathy on this side of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In fact, the sensation on this side is of a deep and painful bite to the hand that feeds. Mr. Williams reminds me of a deadbeat brother-in-law who’s hit you up for money a few times too often."
Naturally, Wente’s frank rant unleashed a torrent of outrage — "If flame mail could incinerate an in-box, mine would be in ashes. I’ve heard from more than 2,000 Newfoundlanders so far, and 98 percent of them want to boil me in a vat of seal oil."
As much as Wente may have poked a stick in the eye of residents of the Rock, the dispute has reopened a debate that goes back at least 150 years to when Newfoundland, then a quasi-independent British colony, first rejected federating with other British colonies to form Canada.
Ever since the place finally joined the country in 1949 — in an extremely close and hotly disputed referendum — Newfoundlanders and mainlander Canadians have been arguing about who got rooked most by the deal.
On one hand, Canadian taxpayers have been sending billions of dollars in various subsidies to Newfoundland and Labrador ever since 1949. But that’s true of virtually all provinces at one time or another; indeed, at the moment, only Alberta and Ontario do not receive equalization payments from the federal government. These payments, guaranteed by the Constitution, provide a rough parity to provincial government programs.
On the other hand, Newfoundland nationalists argue, the province has been bilked of potential revenues through the contrivance of other governments. The most notorious of these is the deal for Labrador hydro power. That agreement committed Newfoundland to selling power to Quebec at a ridiculously under-market rate until 2041 in return for its neighboring province’s help financing the project back in 1972.
A newspaper in St. John’s has actually drawn up what is known as "the balance sheet," which presents what it claims is a thorough accounting of what’s gone into and out of the province since it joined Canada. That ledger shows Canada sending $8.9 billion (Cdn) the province’s way, while $53.5 billion left. Other players have dismissed the tally as fanciful and self-serving nonsense.
Regardless of who’s exploiting whom, the very real political question remains of addressing William’s flag-dropping grievances. What the premier wants is 100 percent of all off-shore oil and gas revenues, and he doesn’t want his province to lose equalization payments as a consequence of receiving the extra revenue.
At issue is the interpretation of what Prime Minister Paul Martin did or did not promise in the election campaign last June. Martin is clearly on record as being willing to grant Newfoundland the 100 percent; what he cannot agree to is a promise to never, ever reduce the province’s payments under the equalization formula.
The spat between Martin and Williams comes as a surprise, since the two seem to have been cut from the same cloth. Both are extremely successful businessmen who made their way by building a company into something formidable — Martin in shipping, Williams in cable television.
While Williams is by far the smoother public performer, Martin is no slouch in the political-hardball department, having effectively chased a sitting prime minister — Jean Chretien — from power. Indeed Martin trumped Williams’s flag stunt by saying there would be no energy talks until the flags went back up — Williams promptly backed down.
Williams was gambling he could get Martin, weakened by a minority government, to cave quickly to his demands. It didn’t happen, and as a result, having played the patriotism card too early and too hard, Williams may find Martin less willing to compromise.
Williams may now be wondering what the governor of Alaska would have done instead.
Peter Black is a syndicated columnist writing about Quebec and the producer of a daily current-affairs program for Canada’s public radio broadcaster (CBC), based in Quebec City. His column appears every Friday. He can be reached by e-mail: pmblack@sympatico.ca " - CANADAS LIES!!!NO Representation ,NO TAXES!!!

Anonymous said...

"Tricolour don't-push-us flag gains popularity in Newfoundland and Labrador
Posted 2005-10-12
By MARK QUINN
Wednesday, October 12, 2005 Posted at 4:13 AM EDT
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
St. John's, Newfoundland What started as a lark has grown into a full-fledged movement to replace Newfoundland and Labrador's provincial flag with a traditional, more rebellious one.
The idea gained momentum recently when Premier Danny Williams endorsed it.
Newfoundland nationalists have flown the pink-white-and-green since before the province joined Confederation.
In late May, four young men climbed the hills across the harbour from downtown St. John's and raised it again.
Twenty-one-year-old Greg Pike was one of them.
"Initially we did it for a laugh. The long weekend was coming up and we wanted to do something to challenge ourselves," said Mr. Pike, a university student in St. John's. "It caught many people's attention."
Mr. Pike says it felt right and after a discussion at a downtown bar, the group took it a step further.
"Someone suggested an on-line petition. I loved the idea and went for it," he said.
"It seemed to explode through word of mouth and now it's gathering all sorts of favourable attention."
More than 1,600 people have signed the petition. Recently, when reporters asked Mr. Williams if he supports adopting the pink- white-and-green as the provincial flag, the Premier replied: "From a personal perspective, I have that preference."
He says he doesn't feel as strongly about this issue as he did when he ordered Canadian flags removed from provincial buildings last year, a move many believe helped to put pressure on Ottawa to rewrite the Atlantic accord and sign over more than $2-billion in offshore oil revenues to the province.
"I have a personal leaning, but I would have to [gauge] the will of the people. It would be premature to say how we would do that."
Government officials say Mr. Williams hasn't discussed this proposal with all cabinet or caucus members yet. He told reporters that if a majority of government members oppose the change he won't push for it.
Mr. Pike says that whether Mr. Williams supports it or not, the pink-white-and-green isn't going away. It's already proved to have impressive staying power.
It is popularly believed that the "Newfoundland tricolour" was originally designed during the 19th century to make peace between competing Irish and English sealers in St. John's.
As the story goes, Bishop Michael Fleming created the flag using a white handkerchief to join a pink flag, representing the English rose, with a green flag, representing the Irish shamrock.
In the 1940s, people who objected to Newfoundland joining Canada raised it.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Pike and the original flag-raising crew replaced the flag on South Side Hills with a slightly larger, 16-foot version.
This fall, the tricolour is increasingly appearing above homes and businesses in St. John's.
Mr. Pike says as far as he's concerned, it's not about taking Newfoundland and Labrador out of Canada.
"To me it is a sign of hope and strength for our future. I feel it is a symbol of a new attitude that Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans have taken on; an attitude that says we are not going to be pushed around any more," Mr. Pike said. "This campaign is not about separation. This campaign is about changing our current geometrical mess of a flag into something meaningful for our province."
After joining Canada, Newfoundland flew the British Union Jack. In the late 1970s, artist Christopher Pratt was commissioned to design a new provincial flag. Adopted in 1980, it retains the colours and a series of triangles, that are reminiscent of the old Union Jack, and a gold arrow meant to point to a promising future.
© Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc.
News Archive" - I BELIEVE!!!

Anonymous said...

"Williams responds to Globe and Mail column by Margaret Wente
January 6, 2005 - Premier Danny Williams has submitted the following Letter to the Editor of The Globe and Mail in response to a column by Margaret Wente (which is also included below for context).
Letters to the Editor
The Globe and Mail
444 Front St. W.
Toronto, ON M5V 2S9
Email: Letters@GlobeAndMail.ca
Fax: 1 416 585-5085
Dear Editor:
It is with a heavy heart that I write today in response to Margaret Wente's commentary, "Oh Danny Boy, pipe down." As the Premier of the great and proud province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I found Ms. Wente's column to be more than insulting. I found it very, very sad.
If people around the country wonder why we removed the Canadian flag to protest the treatment of our province by the federal government, I suggest they look no further than Ms. Wente's column. Her comments perfectly demonstrate why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to take such firm action to get the attention of the people of this country. Her paternalistic and condescending attitude serves only to further ignite the passion of our people at home and abroad.
While Ms. Wente goes on at length to speak of federal monies flowing to our "vast and scenic welfare ghetto," she fails to mention the resources – human, cultural and, no less importantly, vast natural resources – that our province brought with us to this federation, such as our fishery, our forests, our farms, our clean hydroelectric resources, our iron ore, nickel, copper, cobalt, gold and other minerals, and our oil and gas.
Yes, Newfoundland and Labrador has benefited as a partner in Confederation, as has each and every other province and territory. That is what Confederation is about, after all. However, make no mistake, this country has reaped untold billions from our natural and human resources as well. Ms. Wente may be tired of hearing us complain about how the federal government mismanaged our fishery; however, being sick of hearing about it does not make the reality go away. Canada permitted foreign overfishing off our coast to continue, to our detriment, in order to secure trade agreements that benefited other regions of our country. Great for the rest of Canada, but certainly not great for the tens of thousands of fisheries-dependent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who left our province – their homes – to live and financially contribute to the economies of other provinces.
As you read through Ms. Wente's column, it also becomes very clear that she is completely uninformed on our province's position. She says, "If you make the error of suggesting that people might have to become self-sufficient, your political career is dead." I only wish that Ms. Wente had been paying greater attention to what I have been saying for the past six months. Our government's primary goal in pushing the federal government to implement Prime Minister Martin's commitment of June 5 (100 per cent of our provincial offshore revenues) is to provide our province with the necessary tools to finally become self-sufficient: a strong, contributing partner to the federation.
That is what this is all about, Ms. Wente. It is about the province of Newfoundland and Labrador finally achieving our true potential: the potential that comes from having some of the most precious, bountiful natural resources in the world. We are not asking for the federal government's share of these resources – a share that accounts for more than 50 per cent of total government revenues. We are asking only for our provincial share. We are asking only for a chance. A chance we deserve.
Ms. Wente wants us to stop complaining. Maybe we will stop complaining about being a victim when those who share her opinions recognize and address the historic pattern of abuse and mistreatment we have suffered. We are a proud people. Proud of our "quaint and picturesque" communities. Proud of our resilience in difficult times. Proud of our giving and kind-spirited disposition that comes so naturally. And we are proud to support other provinces and territories who benefit from the largesse of the federal government. But we are not too proud to demand from the same federal government that they fulfill the clear and unequivocal commitment of the Prime Minister.
When Ms. Wente faults Canada's "hallowed policy of siphoning money from the haves to the have-nots, so that everyone can be equal", she forgets section 36 of the country's Constitution, which obligates Canada to promote equal opportunity for all Canadians in all regions. Throughout Canada and the world, the Canadian Maple Leaf symbolizes fairness, justice, compassion and cooperation in the quest for equality of opportunity for all people. Our province removed the Maple Leaf, not to reject those values, but to draw attention to the fact that the Martin government's broken commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador frustrates those values. While it is true that we have only seven seats in the Commons and barely more than half a million residents, we are an equal partner in Confederation, and we have a small window of opportunity to turn our bountiful petroleum resources into long-term opportunities for our people and our province to stand on our feet. We do not deserve to be accused of wanting the fine people of Scarborough to subsidize us, or being compared to "deadbeats". We are equal partners of a great country that accepts and supports our province's aspirations to achieve equality of opportunity and self-reliance. You should be ashamed of your comments.
Yours sincerely,
DANNY WILLIAMS, Q.C., M.H.A.
Premier
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

(The following is the text of the column from The Globe and Mail by Margaret Wente, which is included here for context. Originally available here: LINK)
"Oh Danny Boy, pipe down"
Thursday, January 6, 2005 edition of the Globe and Mail, page A19
In Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams can do no wrong. These days, he's more popular than God. Following his lead, the people of the Rock have banished the Maple Leaf from their dominion. Angry citizens are flooding open-line shows and threatening that, unless they get what's owed to them by Canada, Newfoundland should go it alone.
My grandpa had a saying for moments like this. He would have said, "Here's your hat, what's your hurry?"
I like Newfoundlanders. I really do. But their sense of victimhood is unmatched. And their flag protest isn't winning them much sympathy on this side of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In fact, the sensation on this side is of a deep and painful bite to the hand that feeds. Mr. Williams reminds me of a deadbeat brother-in-law who's hit you up for money a few times too often. He's been sleeping on your couch for years, and now he's got the nerve to complain that it's too lumpy.
The ins and outs of the current squabble between Newfoundland and Ottawa would baffle any normal human being. Technically, the fight is over the esoteric details of equalization payments and offshore revenues. But according to Mr. Williams, it's really about treachery, deceit and betrayal.
Peter Fenwick has a different view. Mr. Fenwick, a long-time Newfoundland political commentator, says it's about having your cake and eating it, too. "He's going to end up with a cake and a half," he says. "And he's got 95 per cent of the province behind him."
Over the years, those of us not blessed to be born on the Rock have sent countless cakes its way in the form of equalization payments, pogey, and various hare-brained make-work schemes. (Who can ever forget the hydroponic cucumber farm?) In return, the surly islanders have blamed us for everything from the disappearance of the cod stocks to the destruction of the family unit, because if people had to work more than 10 weeks before they could collect EI, they might have to move away.
This hallowed policy of siphoning money from the haves to the have-nots, so that everyone can be equal, has turned Canada into a permanently aggrieved nation, in which every region of the country is convinced that it's being brutally ripped off by every other region. No one is better at this blame game than the Newfs, egged on by generations of politicians. The only way to get elected there is to pledge to stop the terrible atrocities of Ottawa (i.e., not sending enough money). If you should make the error of suggesting that people might have to become more self-sufficient, your political career is dead. Politicians like to get elected, which is why things never change.
Newfoundland's population has dwindled to something less than that of Scarborough, Ont. Because of stupendous political malfeasance, it is at least $11-billion in debt. But it still has seven federal seats. And so we send more money so that people can stay in the scenic villages where they were born, even though the fish are gone and there's no more work and never will be, unless they can steal some telemarketing from Bangalore. Rural Newfoundland (along with our great land north of 60) is probably the most vast and scenic welfare ghetto in the world.
But who can blame people for wanting to stay put? Not me. No one will ever gobble down a plate of cod tongues and pen an ode to Scarborough. Scarborough is not romantic. It is filled with ugly high-rise towers of immigrants scrambling to gain a foothold in a new land far from home. The difference is that, when they do it, we congratulate them and call it enterprise. No one will ever buy a scenic picture postcard of a strip mall. But Scarborough supports itself, and Newfoundland does not, and I wish Danny Williams would explain why it's a good idea to keep picking the pockets of Chinese dry cleaners and Korean variety-store owners who work 90 hours a week in order to keep subsidizing the people who live in Carbonear, no matter how quaint and picturesque they are.
I like Newfoundlanders, I really do. Where would we be without Rex Murphy and Mary Walsh and Rick Mercer? On the other hand, they left.
As for you other people of the Rock, maybe we can strike a deal. You can keep all the oil and gas revenues. And you can pay us back all the money we've sent you since you joined Confederation. Fair enough?
I thought not." - CANADS VERSION OF EQAULITY,FAIRNESS,AND RESPECT!!!
(mwente@globeandmail.ca)
 

Anonymous said...

Peek-A-Boo!!!!I'm Over here Guys ,DID YOU ENJOY THE READ!!!!

GOD BLESS DANNY WILLIAMS!!!

Anonymous said...

Starrigan,..........Buddy ,Let Me know ,WHEN YOU ,think They Have LEARNED thier Lession!!!OH and Have I made any good points lately!!!lol

Anonymous said...

who am i wallace !!!

I am Greg Byrne ,I am Sue Kelland -Dyer,I am Greg Locke,I am Myles Higgons ,I am Liam o'Brien,.......

I am all the voices that sream at you .I am the Newfoundlander or Labradorian that has been drivenen from his home ,because of the Federal Government ,......hear me NOW CANADA!!!

DONT LIE TO ME ,IM LIVING PROOF OF WHAT CANADA IS ALL ABOUT!!!READ!!!

WJM said...

I wonder how much more of this Myles will put up with before he finally realizes what a good idea it is to prohibit anony-posting?

Mr. Anonyspammer, you have WAY too much time on your hands.

Anonymous said...

well then let me get down too it and waste some more of my time .

Its not about fallow field legislation my friend ,or wieher we need that or not .Its not about how many oil fields are sitting dorment of the coast of newfoundland waters .

What it is all about is fairness,eqaulity ,and justice for the people of newfoundland and Labrador .

Its about having a Prime Minister that will look at the stats and see that he has a group of people that are in trouble .Its about having a Governement that was elected by the people of this Province to finally say hey ,lets not get in thier way if they wish to make life better for thier citizens.Its about having a home.

A home that was not destroyed by federal involvement and the systamatic rape of thier oceans.Its about belonging to a place and caring for the people and its cultures.

you ,and that thing from St Johns .

you want evrything that is canada.well i will say this and am proud to do so.I dont buy my reading at chapters i go here:

http://www.rattlingbooks.com

when i wish to listen to music ,i go here.

http://www.radionewfoundland.net

when i wish to socalise,i go here:

www.republicofavalonradio.com

you and that individual in St Johns dont deserve the air that you get from our beloved home.With your Pro-canada this and Pro-canada that.
After they bleed what blood they can from your fellow countryman.By the familys that you had grown up with .

Well if you love canada ,both of you ,why not leave the province and just go west .Just another couple of homelss jews trying to find your nirvana.Your peace of mind.If it was up too you there wouldnt be a Newfoundland and Labrador anymore,all we would have is a sick cancer.a cancer called canada.

Well if you want it so bad ,why not leave ,and go and get it.Here you love it so much ,I ll give you my part.and you can take it for nothing.

All it has cost me is my soul.

Anonymous said...

"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." - Lord Acton

NO MORE SCRAPS CANADA!!!WE EAT FROM OUR OWN TABLE!!!

GMT said...

Ed Hollet wote

(do you really believe 8 mmbls is commercially viable GMT?), the case for fields being deliberately left fallow quickly vanishes.

No I never said it was commercial – I said it was a significant discovery which has been essentially been left untouched for 20 years. Who owns the rights to the south tempest field? Can the government of NL reissue an exploration license to another company which may be interested in doing more work and expanding the resources and therefore making it an economically viable field.

Ed Hollet wrote

On top of that, GMT also makes the ludicrous statement: "Of course there would be subtle differences due to the expense of offshore exploration opposed to onshore exploration."

If by subtle one means 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars well, yes, perhaps it is subtle. The comment might be more accurately described in another way, however. The cost differential offshore/onshore is typically 10:1.


On top of that Ed Hollet shows his inability to read - no where did I say that there was a subtle difference in the cost of onshore compared to offshore exploration. I said there was a difference in costs with no mention to the magnitude of the difference and that any legalization would have to reflect this, subtle difference would be in timelines, expenditures etc but the spirit remaining the same.




Ed Hollet wrote

Telling me that 8 mmbls is a commercially viable oil field offshore NL, GMT, or that there are subtle differences between onshore and offshore exploration costs suggests you need to do some more research.

Or maybe you could just improve you comprehension skills.

Ed Hollett said...

GMT:

Well to be fair, you suggested that the eight million barrels was just a token amount and there might well be a secret stash that no one knew about.

Highly unlikely.

Neither the experts at the offshore board nor any others out there that I am aware of have suggested that these tiny SDLs actually conceal commercial quantities of oil or anything else.

What you would be talking about is a some secret stash that would be upwards of 50 times the size of the existing SDL. At Hibernia, the original P1 estimate was about 500 million barrels, with P2 and P3 out beyond that ( if memory serves).

Those have been refined upwards with additional work but the growth in the original P1 estimate has not been on the order of magnitude needed to turn some of these very small SDLs into commercial fields.

The real issue is stimulating greater exploration in areas that haven't been touched, not in picking over areas that are already well known. Fallow field is a sideshow issue.

Since there wouldn't appear to be any reason to do further work on the small SDLs and there is greater opportunity in unexplored areas, so why would anyone need a legal hammer to force the further exploration in areas where there doesn't appear to be anything commercially viable at the moment?

Do you have any geological data or anything else to suggest your idea is anything other than a vague hunch?

As for the onshore/offshore thing, there are a couple of points and it is telling that you didn't hit the main point:

There is already a time-limited exploration license structure that sets certain performance targets and that takes into account the very unsubtle differences in cost between onshore and offshore exploration.

Even if none of that were true, the fact remains there is not a single, commercially viable field out there that is laying fallow because of the corporate inaction or secrecy you claim.

Not a one.

Starrigan said...

Ed, you can't have it both ways. You can't say war is good, but if people get hurt, then war is bad. You keep making the same ludicris arguement about fallow field legislation. You wonder why people think you're a pain in the butt. Well it's because you're all over the place, you don't deal in definites, it's all maybe's and if's, wishy washy.
So I'll ask you again for the 10th time:
Do you believe that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador should have fallow field legislation?

Anonymous said...

Ed:Nobody amongst us ordinary citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador knows what out there, but we know that it was worth Big Oil getting involved in the first place. It is a vast ocean out there, where they are. Big Oil, of course, has some idea, of course, but do you think they are going to tell us the ordinary mortal? They want to get the maximum out of the oil resources out there.

Ed Hollett said...

starrigan:

For the 10th time and being definite here it is again:

If there is a reason to have fallow field legislation, then let's have it.

if there isn't then let's not have it.

As it stands right now there isn't a single field offshore to which a fallow field policy would apply.

Not one.

So what problem would fallow field address, particularly in the current environment where the issue is to get exploration to find commercially viable fields that are likely there yet remain undiscovered through lack of exploration activity?

There it is. As definite as definite can be. Rather than continue your rather childish approach, perhaps you'd like to discuss why you feel there ought to be fallow field policy offshore. let's see if you can do more than simple type the letter "s" in a vaguely creative way.

To the anonymous person who wrote:

"Nobody amongst us ordinary citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador knows what out there, but we know that it was worth Big Oil getting involved in the first place."

The information is readily available at www.cnlopb.nl.ca. That's the board that regulates offshore activity. An ordinary person who can speak and read English at a Grade 4 level can get all the information they want right there.

Starrigan said...

Interesting Ed, so you're saying that there's no more oil and gas out there to discover?

Anonymous said...

Keep up the probing starrigan that question should be answer by Ed, he is the person who was so against the province of Newfundland and Labrador securing an equity stake. We need a forthright answer.

I suspect he will keep beating around the bush and you will never get an answer.

Ed Hollett said...

I never said anything of the sort, starrigan.

You seem to have a problem understanding plain English.

Anonymous said...

Mr Hollett ,you are a LIAR,and a persona of low moral character.

Ed Hollett said...

What does calling me names accomplish?

I know I am not any of the things you just called me.

However, since you tossed an insult from behind the cloak of anonymity, there's no other word for it but cowardice.

NL-ExPatriate said...

I would like to thank the Anon poster who posted

Anonymous said...

"Current Economic Profile

June 19, 2007 12:12 AM


While it is a long read it seems to be very well researched with lots of references to studies and corroborating links.

Thank-You!

Ed Hollett said...

Greg:

If you want references on the provincial economy and economic outlook there are plenty besides that one.

I'd be happy to supply you with a bunch of references that cover the spectrum of opinion.

The clips above seem to be just that - media clippings. The full report is available online, if I understood correctly which one it was.

NL-ExPatriate said...

As long as they don't come from Ottawa.

My faith in this phony federation is beyond repair.

WJM said...

My faith in this phony federation is beyond repair.

Does that mean you'll be leading the charge for New Brunswick to leave Canada?

Edward G. Hollett said...

"As long as they don't come from Ottawa.

My faith in this phony federation is beyond repair."

Well, let's just say they don't come out of the bodily orifice some people seem to pull their research from.

Starrigan said...

ED!!! take it easy big fella, that last comment was a little low brow, especially from you. I'm surprised, I thought I was the only one here with the potty mouth. I'm not too sure I like the competition, you're stealing my schtick, stop it. Next thing you know you'll be calling Ottawally an a$$hole. That's just not accepatable.

You know that you aggrivate people because you're too wishy washy with your answers. So let's nail down one thing:
Do you think that there's no more oil and gas out there to discover?

Anonymous said...

It is a wonderful asset to be able to write creatively, but when that creativity is turned against ones people, it is nothing short of a crime which I will file under traitorism.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been waiting for people to come by with such ability for many years now to try and turn the economic situation around in this province. But when it is used as ammunition against ones people, I would have to class it as a crime and the perpetrator as the traitor.

God only knows we have been well endowed with resources here and it should have been a cinch to get those resources working for us right here in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, since we are bordering on the trading route of the Atlantic Ocean, but it didn't happen, everything that came up for development had to be shipped out or passed over to some other province. By the way the loudest and vociferous voices were those people with the wonderful ability to speak clearly and creatively, but they were cheering for the wrong teem, and it happened not to be for the side where they lived. So these people were getting paid dearly, but they were keeping the masses in their birthplace and where they lived in an atmosphere of despair from the lack of an economy and therefore no substantial jobs. It is an irony given the resources of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Some of us are still shaking our heads over that malady, because we do not know what to do about it, as you know we only have 7 seats in a 308 seat Parliament, that equates to just over 2 per cent. It is a no move situation.

A few of us have sang out loud and hard over the last resource that got shipped out of this province for processing elsewhere, that being the Voisey's Bay Nickel Ore, that got shipped to Sudbury, Ontario and Thompson, Manitoba, but the creative voices got the better of us and it happened anyway. And of course the smoke screen of a particular politican and the penmanship of the columnists of the National Newspapers are still fresh in our minds. I am at a loss to understand the interference we have had in this province from outside interests to keep us down and out. It is nothing short of a crime.

Ed Hollett said...

Well, anon, it is a terrible crime when people spread false information repeatedly, even after their false information has been shown to be false.

What better way to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians never achieve all that they can achieve individually and collectively than to spread falsehoods and then propose solutions based on falsehoods?

From my perspective, the single biggest problem we have to overcome as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is the tendency in some quarters to keep spreading myths, including the myth that there is "interference" from outside interests.

It's an old approach that goes back in Newfoundland and Labrador over a century. It is as false today as it was then.

Just because people don't believe all the myths you apparently believe makes them neither traitors nor criminals.

However, as long as you hold to the myths and falsehoods you'll never be able to break out of the cycle.

That's neither treason, nor a crime. It's just a shame.

Starrigan said...

Very well said anon, and just look at the pile of tripe that was posted immediately afterward by Ed. Sometimes Ed makes a few good points but the majority of the time he spouts off nothing but traitorous puke. Ed is liberal to the bone and anything a provincial Tory would do that is good for the province is nothing but bad in his eyes. The only way we're ever going to get anything in this country is to kick and scream. We all know that playing nice doesn't work. I'm for whatever works and could care less if it's a grit or a tory.
Just look at this line from Ed:
"the single biggest problem we have to overcome as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is the tendency in some quarters to keep spreading myths"
You see what he does? It's just plain wish washy, myths, boogey men, good lord. We all know how we've been screwed since we got sucked into joining Canada, it's in black and white. It's in the destruction of our fisheries, it's in the exodus of our young, it's in the pillaging of our minerals. It's not some "myth" as Ed would have you believe. Sometimes he gets a little overzealous and goes way beyond even his bounds. Yes there you have it, the answer to all the problems is NL is to over come "myths". Why didn't you tell us earlier Ed, don't keep these great secrets to yourself. What a complete and utter a$$hole you can be sometimes. Try putting together a decent response next time. That verbal garbage you just posted is way below your standard. Smarten up.

Anonymous said...

So your straddling the employment fence. You do not want to offend one party or the other, so you are always safe. It is quite okay to give answers that are not discernable, or in other words have ambiguous intrepretation. You have a wonderful way of spinning words for your own benefit and not the masses of your province.

You think you can't be beaten, but some of us see right through you. We know the tricks of your game, and we will refuse to be fooled.

Anonymous said...

I asked you three plain and simple questions. You refused to answer them, why? There is nothing slanderous about the questions, I just wanted a plain answer to know just where you are coming from.

You refused to answer them on two occasions. And for a person who is not shy about answering questions in a roundabout way, why won't you not answer the questions in a forthright way?

I just want an simple, honest and forthright answer, that is all, nor more or no less.

By not answering the simple and direct questions, one can only assume what your motives are?

Ed Hollett said...

Actually, anon, you've already started to misrepresent what I said, repeatedly.

1. "You refused to answer them, "

Absolutely not true.

I simply asked you to provide your identity before I did so.

You are consistently refusing to provide a simple, unobtrusive piece of information that should be of no consequence.

yet you are consistently refusing.

Why? What are you afraid of? Why are you hiding?

2. "You refused to answer them on two occasions."

Again, absolutely untrue.

I simply attached a condition, namely that you show the simple courtesy to me and everyone else of revealing your identity.

you have consistently refused.

Why?

3. "And for a person who is not shy about answering questions in a roundabout way,..."

Again, categorically untrue.

Every question has been answered completely and fully.

You may not like the answers - because they do not fit some preconceived notions you have, perhaps - but they have been answered. in some cases, they have been answered repeatedly.

4. "I just want an simple, honest and forthright answer, that is all, nor more or no less."

You'll get the answer.

Just show the simple courtesy of letting me know who I am dealing with.

Why do you persist in hiding?

5. "By not answering the simple and direct questions, one can only assume what your motives are?"

I am not the one persistently hiding and refusing to identify himself.

You are.

You can't even provide a legitimate reason for hiding.

You simply avoid the issue altogether.

Why?

People should be more concerned about the motives of someone who hides and refuses to reveal his identity.

What do you have to hide?

Anonymous said...

NOTHING! I AM NOT BEING PAID BY ANYONE TO DEFEND MY PROVINCE, JUST A LOVE FOR IT AND MY FELLOW INHABITANTS, THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE TO REVEAL MY NAME. IF I WERE PAID WELL THEN IT WOULD ONLY BE RIGHT TO DO SO.

I AM SURE IF I WERE PAID BY IT, MY EMPLOYER WOULD EXPECT AND WANT ME TO DIVULGE THAT INFORMATION FOR ITS BENEFIT, OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE PAYING MONEY OUT USELESSLY.

Ed Hollett said...

Well, Caps Lock, since I am not being paid by anyone and just comment here for the love of my province and its people, I am not obliged to answer your questions.

I still have to wonder why you are hiding, though. I mean all you have to do is click the "other" option at the bottom of the comment screen and type a name where it says "name". How scary can that be?

Must be really scary since you keep refusing a simple request and type in all caps (the Internet equivalent of shouting.)

Starrigan said...

I would have to agree with Ed on the anonymous thing, chosing the "other" option and putting in a name would be helpful in addressing comments. Even if you used anonymous 123 or X it would still help differentiate between posters.

WJM said...

I would have to agree with Ed on the anonymous thing, chosing the "other" option and putting in a name would be helpful in addressing comments.

Except that there's nothing stopping five or six people from posting as "republican" or whatever.

Caps Lock said...

Wonderful, shouting via the Caps Lock gives attention to ones message.

Anonymous said...

What do you have to hide?

June 21, 2007 3:07 PM - Mr Hollett.Seeing that you wish too be civial ,I will asnswer your question. I remain anonymous for the protection of "My Identity."

Anyone ,including the owner of this Blog should be fully aware of the dangers of placing your name ,and identification on the internet.

I can assure you that not taking steps to protect yourself like some have dome here is very ,very ,dangerouse,in my expert opinoin.
Let me state that I in no way use what skills I have to hurt,intimidate,or willfully cause anybody strife or damage.

I in no way mean anybody from my home province any ill Intent.Thats just the kind of person I am .I dont know why,I just feel a kin-ship with anybody from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know that some would say Im a "S%$@-Disturber,because I practise the skills of my trade on you ,but I apologise for that .

I would like to say that I offer my personal apolgy to you and to Mr Wallace for anything that I may have said to you in a foul way,but sometimes I like to lets "Loose" with a good RANT.

Being a fellow Newfoundlander Mr Hollett I would hope that you could understand.But,in my own defence ,sometimes getting a rise out of certain people is easy to accomplish.

I have said this to you befor Mr Higgons but thank-you for allowing me to particate in your discusions here on your Blog ,and I would like to wish each and everyone of you the best.
Bye ,Bye and God Bless.........

"keep her going starigan" lol

Ed Hollett said...

Anon, there are a couple of obviously nonsensical things in your excuse.

First, as I noted elsewhere we don't know who you are. Therefore your "expert opinion" is not worth a tinker's damn.

Second, billions of people post far more than their name to the Internet on a daily basis...and nothing bad happens.

You are simply offering an excuse.

Part of free speech is holding people to account for what they say, for having them take some responsibility for their remarks.

It's a simple idea.

Yet for some reason, the attitude around here is for people to remain hidden as they carry out their smears.

Why is that really?

All you've offered so far are pretty thin excuses.

Anonymous said...

NL-ExPatriate said...

I would like to thank the Anon poster who posted

Anonymous said...

"Current Economic Profile

June 19, 2007 12:12 AM

While it is a long read it seems to be very well researched with lots of references to studies and corroborating links.

Thank-You!

June 20, 2007 3:24 AM - Your Very Welcome NL-EXpat.OH shit,I'm talking to myself again,sorry!!!!

OH and by the way ,love your Blog ,Oh I mean my Blog ,or is it his ,AGGGGGGGG ,I'm all confused .Anyway ,enjoy the read!!!