Crosbie Pushed PM to Honour Offshore Deals
I'm still out of Newfoundland folks (Nova Scotia last week and New Brunswick this week) Just to make sure you all stay informed of the equalization situation here's an article from the Halifax Chronicle Herald that says a lot about what's happening on that front. It also says a lot about what Loyola Hearn, Fabian Manning and Norm Doyle were aware of when then voted against their own people yesterday.
Memos rip into Flaherty’s budget
By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA — Former East Coast Tory godfather John Crosbie sent two memos to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a vain attempt to convince him to honour the 2005 offshore accords between Ottawa and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
The memos provide a strong argument in support of those, like Nova Scotia Tory MP Bill Casey, who argue that Mr. Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty have violated the accords with the March budget.
It is likely to contribute to the already widespread impression in the two provinces that the federal Tories have broken their promise to honour the accords.
Certainly, few people know more about the issue than Mr. Crosbie, who was instrumental in negotiating the 1980s deals under which the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney ceded control of offshore petroleum to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
There are unconfirmed rumours in Ottawa that Mr. Mulroney has tried unsuccessfully several times to resolve the dispute over the accords.
The Chronicle Herald has obtained copies of Mr. Crosbie’s two memos, which were coauthored by Roland Martin, an equalization expert who advised former premier John Hamm on the negotiation of the offshore accords.
The memos are scathing in their condemnation of the Flaherty-Harper budget, which, according to Mr. Crosbie and Mr. Martin, “does not fulfil the 2005 agreement."
The memos were sent to Mr. Harper and Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, Newfoundland’s federal cabinet representative. One is dated May 16; the other is undated. Both are marked “strictly confidential."
The memos make it clear that Mr. Crosbie and Mr. Martin do not accept the federal spin on the offshore accords.
The federal Tories, led by Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty, insist the two provinces have a choice between continuing with the offshore accords and the old equalization system, or accepting the new equalization system along with a cap on the amount of offshore revenue they can receive.
“This choice does not fulfil the 2005 agreement," says one of the CrosbieMartin memos.
The 2005 offshore deals promise the provinces 100 per cent of offshore revenue without an equalization clawback, “under the equalization formula in effect at that time," meaning however it is changed during the course of the agreement, which can be renewed until 2020.
By imposing a cap on revenue payments, Ottawa has unilaterally changed the deal, the memo says.
“Therefore, the federal government should honour the spirit and intent of the 2005 arrangement and legislation by using the equalization formula in its 2007 budget to calculate the amount owing (the provinces) but not to apply any cap to those payments," Mr. Crosbie and Mr. Martin write.
The memos urge the Harper government to remove the cap on offshore offset revenue for the two provinces.
“This was not the agreement entered into by the three governments, and if not corrected, will set a poor example for future public policy-making within the Canadian federation."
The memos attack the idea that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland want to have their cake and eat it too, pointing out that Newfoundland’s equalization revenue is declining because of a clawback in its petroleum revenue but also because its population is declining.
“Meanwhile its per capita debt remains the highest in Canada, while the tens of thousands of relocated Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are paying federal and provincial taxes in other provinces, yet leaving behind approximately $1.5 billion of ‘stranded debt’ to be serviced and repaid by a smaller and rapidly aging population. There is no cake, only a long struggle for economic and social survival."
The memo urges Mr. Harper to undo his budget’s changes to the accords.
“Like any fair and professional leader, the prime minister should re-evaluate the performance of his budget in this particular area and apply the principles of fairness and consistency in public policy."
The memo points out that in opposition, Mr. Harper “energetically championed" the accords.
90 comments:
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
- Mark Twain
This quote from Mark Twain is accurate; statistics are often used to lie to the public because most people do not understand how statistics work.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HAD FAST ONES PULLED ON US WITH GOVERNMENT STATISTICS and COMPLEX MATHEMATICAL FORMULAE?
QUICK TAKES ON SOME IDEAS AND DISCOVERIES IN A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE
(Prepared as starting points for early NKS briefings and media discussions.)
Print Version (PDF)
Mathematical equations do not capture many of nature’s most essential mechanisms
For more than three centuries, mathematical equations and methods such as calculus have been taken as the foundation for the exact sciences. There have been many profound successes, but a great many important and obvious phenomena in nature remain unexplained–especially ones where more complex forms or behavior are observed. A New Kind of Science builds a framework that shows why equations have had limitations, and how by going beyond them many new and essential mechanisms in nature can be captured.
Thinking in terms of programs rather than equations opens up a new kind of science
Mathematical equations correspond to particular kinds of rules. Computer programs can embody far more general rules. A New Kind of Science describes a vast array of remarkable new discoveries made by thinking in terms of programs–and how these discoveries force a rethinking of the foundations of many existing areas of science.
Even extremely simple programs can produce behavior of immense complexity
Everyday experience tends to make one think that it is difficult to get complex behavior, and that to do so requires complicated underlying rules. A crucial discovery in A New Kind of Science is that among programs this is not true–and that even some of the very simplest possible programs can produce behavior that in a fundamental sense is as complex as anything in our universe. There have been hints of related phenomena for a very long time, but without the conceptual framework of A New Kind of Science they have been largely ignored or misunderstood. The discovery now that simple programs can produce immense complexity forces a major shift in scientific intuition.
Simple programs can yield behavior startlingly like what we see in nature
How nature seems so effortlessly to produce forms so much more complex than in typical human artifacts has long been a fundamental mystery–often discussed for example in theological contexts. A New Kind of Science gives extensive evidence that the secret is just that nature uses the mechanisms of simple programs, which have never been captured in traditional science.
Simple programs can do much more than typical programs written by programmers
A New Kind of Science shows that extremely simple programs picked for example at random can produce behavior that is far more complex than typical programs intentionally set up by programmers. The fundamental engineering concept that one must always be able to foresee the outcome of programs one writes has prevented all but a tiny fraction of all possible programs from being considered. The idea of allowing more general programs has great potential significance for technology.
Simple computer experiments reveal a vast world of new phenomena
In their times both telescopes and microscopes revealed vast worlds that had never been seen before. Through the ideas of A New Kind of Science, computer experiments now also reveal a vast new world, in many ways more diverse and surprising even than the world seen in astronomy, or than the flora and fauna discovered by explorers of the Earth in past centuries. Many of the basic experiments in A New Kind of Science could in principle have been done by mosaic makers thousands of years ago. But it took new intuition and new tools to unlock what was needed to do the right experiments and understand their significance.
Randomness in physics can be explained by mechanisms of simple programs
Despite attempts from approaches like chaos theory, no fundamental explanation has ever been found for randomness in physical phenomena such as fluid turbulence or patterns of fracture. A New Kind of Science presents an explanation based on simple programs that for example predicts surprising effects such as repeatable randomness.
Thermodynamic behavior can be explained by mechanisms of simple programs
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy Increase) has been a foundational principle in physics for more than a century, but no satisfactory fundamental explanation for it has ever been given. Using ideas from studying simple programs, A New Kind of Science gives an explanation, and in doing so shows limitations of the Second Law.
Complexity in biology can be explained by mechanisms of simple programs
From traditional intuition one expects that the observed complexity of biological organisms must have a complex origin–presumably associated with a long process of adaptation and natural selection. A New Kind of Science shows how complex features of many biological organisms can be explained instead through the inevitable behavior of simple programs associated with their growth and development. This implies that biology need not just reflect historical accidents, and that a general study of simple programs can lead to a predictive theory of at least certain aspects of biology.
Simple programs may lay the groundwork for new insights about financial systems
The underlying mechanism that leads for example to seemingly random fluctuations in prices in markets has never been clear. Discoveries about simple programs–such as the phenomenon of intrinsic randomness generation–provide potentially important new insights on such issues.
Our whole universe may be governed by a single underlying simple program
In its recent history, physics has tried to use increasingly elaborate mathematical models to reproduce the universe. But building on the discovery that even simple programs can yield highly complex behavior, A New Kind of Science shows that with appropriate kinds of rules, simple programs can give rise to behavior that reproduces a remarkable range of known features of our universe–leading to the bold assertion that there could be a single short program that represents a truly fundamental model of the universe, and which if run for long enough would reproduce the behavior of our universe in every detail.
Underlying space there may be a simple discrete structure
Throughout almost the entire history of science, space has been viewed as something fundamental –and typically continuous. A New Kind of Science suggests that space as we perceive it is in fact not fundamental, but is instead merely the large-scale limit of an underlying discrete network of connections. Models constructed on this basis then lead to new ideas about such issues as the origins of gravity and general relativity, the true nature of elementary particles and the validity of quantum mechanics.
Time may have a fundamentally different nature from space
The standard mathematical formulation of relativity theory suggests that–despite our everyday impression–time should be viewed as a fourth dimension much like space. A New Kind of Science suggests however that time as we perceive it may instead emerge from an underlying process that makes it quite different from space. And through the concept of causal invariance the properties of time seem to lead almost inexorably to a whole collection of surprising results that agree with existing observations in physics–including the special and general theories of relativity, and perhaps also quantum mechanics.
Systems with exceptionally simple rules can be universal computers
Seeing the complicated circuitry of existing computers, one would think that it must take a complicated system to be able to do arbitrary computation. But A New Kind of Science shows that this is not the case, and that in fact universal computation can be achieved even in systems with very simple underlying rules. As a specific example, it gives a proof that the so-called rule 110 cellular automaton–whose rules are almost trivial to describe–is universal, so that in principle it can be programmed to perform any computation. And as a side result, this leads to by far the simplest known universal Turing machine.
Many systems in nature are capable of universal computation
If universal computation required having a system as elaborate as a present-day computer, it would be inconceivable that typical systems in nature would show it. But the surprising discovery that even systems with very simple rules can exhibit universality implies that it should be common among systems in nature–leading to many important conclusions about a host of fundamental issues in science, mathematics and technology.
The Principle of Computational Equivalence provides a broad synthesis
Many of the discoveries in A New Kind of Science can be summarized in the bold new Principle of Computational Equivalence, which states in essence that processes that do not look simple almost always correspond to computations of exactly equivalent sophistication. This runs counter to the implicit assumption that different systems should do all sorts of different levels and types of computations. But the Principle of Computational Equivalence has the remarkable implication that instead they are almost all equivalent–leading to an almost unprecedentedly broad unification of statements about different kinds of systems in nature and elsewhere.
Many systems in nature are computationally equivalent to us as humans
We would normally assume that we as humans are capable of much more sophisticated computations than systems in nature such as turbulent fluids or collections of gravitating masses. But the discoveries in A New Kind of Science imply that this is not the case, yielding a radically new perspective on our place in the universe.
Many systems in nature can show features like intelligence
Statements like "the weather has a mind of its own" have usually been considered not scientifically relevant. But the Principle of Computational Equivalence in A New Kind of Science shows that processes like the flow of air in the atmosphere are computationally equivalent to minds, providing a major new scientific perspective, and reopening many debates about views of nature with an animistic character.
Extraterrestrial intelligence is inevitably difficult to define and recognize
It has usually been assumed that detecting extraterrestrial signals from a sophisticated mathematical computation would provide evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence. But the discoveries in A New Kind of Science show that such computation can actually be produced by very simple underlying rules–of kinds that can occur in simple physical systems with nothing like what we normally consider intelligence. The result is a new view of the character of intelligence, and a collection of ideas about the nature of purpose, and recognizing it in ultimate extrapolations of technology.
It is easy to make randomness that we cannot decode
One might have thought that we would always be able to recognize signs of the simplicity of an underlying program in any output it produces. But A New Kind of Science studies all the various common methods of perception and analysis that we use, and shows that all of them are ultimately limited to recognizing only specific forms of regularity, which may not be present in the behavior of even very simple programs–with implications for cryptography and for the foundations of fields such as statistics.
Apparent complexity in nature follows from computational equivalence
We tend to consider behavior complex when we cannot readily reduce it to a simple summary. If all processes are viewed as computations, then doing such reduction in effect requires us as observers to be capable of computations that are more sophisticated than the ones going on in the systems we are observing. But the Principle of Computational Equivalence implies that usually the computations will be of exactly the same sophistication–providing a fundamental explanation of why the behavior we observe must seem to us complex.
Many important phenomena are computationally irreducible
Most of the great successes of traditional exact science have ultimately come from finding mathematical formulas to describe the outcome of the evolution of a system. But this requires that the evolution be computationally reducible, so that the computational work involved can just be reduced to evaluation of a formula. A New Kind of Science shows however that among most systems computational reducibility is rare, and computational irreducibility is the norm. This explains some of the observed limitations of existing science, and shows that there are cases where theoretical prediction is effectively not possible, and that observation or experiment must inevitably be used.
Apparent free will can arise from computational irreducibility
For centuries there has been debate about how apparent human free will can be consistent with deterministic underlying laws in the universe. The phenomenon of computational irreducibility described in A New Kind of Science finally provides a scientifically based resolution of this apparent dichotomy.
Undecidability occurs in natural science, not just mathematics
The phenomenon of formal undecidability discovered in mathematics in the 1930s through Gödel’s Theorem has normally been viewed as esoteric, and of little relevance to ordinary science. A New Kind of Science shows however that undecidability is not only possible but actually common in many systems in nature, leading to important philosophical conclusions about what can and cannot be known in natural science.
The difficulty of doing mathematics reflects computational irreducibility
Mathematical theorems such as Fermat’s Last Theorem that are easy to state often seem to require immensely long proofs. In A New Kind of Science this fundamental observation about mathematics is explained on the basis of the phenomenon of computational irreducibility, and is shown to be a reflection of results like Gödel’s Theorem being far more significant and widespread than has been believed before.
Existing mathematics covers only a tiny fraction of all possibilities
Mathematics is often assumed to be very general, in effect covering any possible abstract system. But the discoveries in A New Kind of Science show that mathematics as it has traditionally been practiced has actually stayed very close to its historical roots in antiquity, and has failed to cover a vast range of possible abstract systems–many of which are much richer in behavior than the systems actually studied in existing mathematics. Among new results are unprecedentedly short representations of existing formal systems such as logic, used to show just how arbitrarily systems like these have in effect been picked by the history of mathematics. The framework created in A New Kind of Science provides a major generalization of mathematics, and shows how fundamentally limited the traditional theorem-proof approach to mathematics must ultimately be.
Studying simple programs can form a basis for technical education
As a vehicle for teaching precise analytical thinking, A New Kind of Science represents a major alternative to existing mathematics, with such advantages as greater explicitness and visual appeal, more straightforward applicability to certain issues in natural science, and side benefits of learning practical computer science and programming.
Mechanisms from simple programs suggest new kinds of technology
In existing technology complex tasks tend to be achieved by systems with elaborately arranged parts. But the discoveries in A New Kind of Science show that complex behavior can be achieved by systems with an extremely simple underlying structure–that is for example potentially easy to implement at an atomic scale. Many specific systems, such as cellular automata, studied in A New Kind of Science are likely to find their way into a new generation of technological systems.
SOME LINES TO PONDER
Hello, this is probably 438-9012, yes, the house of the famous statistician. I'm probably not at home, or not wanting to answer the phone, most probably the latter, according to my latest calculations. Supposing that the universe doesn't end in the next 30 seconds, the odds of which I'm still trying to calculate, you can leave your name, phone number, and message, and I'll probably phone you back. So far the probability of that is about 0.645. Have a nice day.
mathematics
[
Did you hear the one about the statistician?
Probably....
mathematics
[
It is proven that the celebration of birthdays is healthy. Statistics show that those people who celebrate the most birthdays become the oldest.
mathematics
THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF STATISTICS
* Ten percent of all car thieves are left-handed * All polar bears are left-handed * If your car is stolen, there's a 10 percent chance it was nicked by a Polar bear * 39 percent of unemployed men wear spectacles * 80 percent of employed men wear spectacles * Work stuffs up your eyesight * All dogs are animals * All cats are animals * Therefore, all dogs are cats * A total of 4000 cans are opened around the world every second * Ten babies are conceived around the world every second * Each time you open a can, you stand a 1 in 400 chance of falling pregnant Johan
mathematics
"According to a recent poll, 51% of all Americans are in the majority."
-k.n.
mathematics
The pointy-haired boss: "40% of the sick leaves are on a monday or
friday. This must change"
mathematics
I'm not an outlier; I just haven't found my distribution yet
mathematics
)
Clem asks Abner, "Ain't statistics wonderful?"
"How so?" says Abner.
"Well, according to statistics, there's 42 million alligator
eggs laid every year. Of those only about half get
hatched. Of those that hatch, three-fourths of them get
eaten by predators in the first 36 days. And of the rest,
only 5 percent get to be a year old because of one
thing or another. Ain't statistics wonderful?"
Abner asks, "What's so wonderful about statistics?"
"Why, if it wasn't for statistics, we'd be up to our
asses in baby alligators!"
mathematics
In my last stats course I was amazed to hear my teacher announce that If we did not like our results, all we needed to do was change our levels of confidence. In short fib. This time to ourselves.
mathematics
Two statisticians were travelling in an airplane from LA to New York. About an hour into the flight, the pilot announced that they had lost an engine, but don't worry, there are three left. However, instead of 5 hours it would take 7 hours to get to New York. A little later, he announced that a second engine failed, and they still had two left, but it would take 10 hours to get to New York. Somewhat later, the pilot again came on the intercom and announced that a third engine had died. Never fear, he announced, because the plane could fly on a single engine. However, it would now take 18 hours to get to new York. At this point, one statistician turned to the other and said, "Gee, I hope we don't lose that last engine, or we'll be up here forever!"
mathematics
From:
AVOIDING ACCIDENTS
A mathematician and a...eh...non-mathematician are sitting in an airport hall waiting for their flight to go. The non has terrible flight panic. "Hey, don't worry, it's just every 10000th flight that crashes." "1:10000? So much? Then it surely will be mine!" "Well, there is an easy way out. Simply take the next plane. It's much more probable that you go from a crashing to a non-crashing plane than the other way round. So you are already at 1:10000 squared."
(I might add that the mathematicians flight got abducted by some aliens doing some nasty experiments on him, which proves that poking fun at somebody else is much more fun than poking fun on you :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mathematics
Statistics means never having to say you're certain.
mathematics
December 30
March 28
In earlier times, they had no statistics, and so they had to fall back on lies. - STEPHEN LEACOCK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mathematics
"The group was alarmed to find that if you are a labourer, cleaner or dock worker, you are twice as likely to die than a member of the professional classes" [The Sunday Times 31st August 1980]
I heard Mr. Crosbie on VOCM Night Line last night, he said that the Equilization program of 1985 could not be changed, but he said a change of "intention and objective" did occur in the Budget of 2007.
Apparently there was a clause in that contract that said "no ceiling" would be imposed on what the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia were to receive from equilization or any other revenue. Under the Atlantic Accord Contract the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia were supposed to be the primary beneficiaries of their non-renewable energy resources but the 2007 Budget change cancelled that clause.
When something as serious as this can occur in a negotiated Contract, what security exists for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador within Canada? I would say never in a million years would a change such as this be made to a contract that was negotiated with a province such as Ontario or Quebec?
Interesting, maybe this contract can set a precident.....
June 07, 2007 6:47 AM,anon:
Here ,Here ,Sir .Truer Words Could never be spoken.If it was Capatin Ontario,or Quebec ,crying rascisim ,or some shit ,the shoe would be differant wouldn't it .Damb right it would be .
The Federal Governement hasn't kept a promise to Newfoundland and Labrador since they broke Term 29.
As far as I'm concerned they can keep thier socail safety net ,and put it as far up thier A%$'@ as they can .They need us ,we don't need them.Time to go guys .And ,if you want to stay Canadain.Get the Hell OUT!!!!!
Coward ANON says
"And ,if you want to stay Canadain. (sic) Get the Hell OUT!!!!!"
Glenn says:
"You'll have to pry my Canadian citizenship from my cold, dead fingers!"
Update
Tories offer N.L., N.S. an 'insurance policy'
Updated Thu. Jun. 7 2007 3:13 PM ET
Canadian Press
HALIFAX -- The Conservative government is scrambling to dampen a political firestorm by offering Nova Scotia and Newfoundland an "insurance policy'' on their cherished offshore accords, The Canadian Press has learned.
The provinces are being offered "a cumulative/best of'' agreement guaranteeing they won't be out of pocket if they give up their accords, federal and provincial sources said.
The new deal would essentially replace the revenue-sharing deal negotiated with the former Liberal government.
The Conservatives have committed that both provinces will "never get anything less than what was agreed to in the Atlantic accords'' if they choose to sign on to a new equalization formula which was one of the highlights of the March 19 budget.
When the accords are due to be renewed in 2012, the Conservatives are pledging to "calculate the difference'' between what the provinces received under the new equalization plan and what they potentially could take in under the offshore arrangement and to "provide a top up if necessary,'' said a federal source.
"The government of Canada will assume all financial risk.''
The offer to make up the difference has been at the heart of back-and-forth verbal negotiations between the provinces for weeks and was put in writing late Tuesday just before Nova Scotia Tory MP Bill Casey broke ranks and voted against a key budget bill.
Nova Scotia has been prepared to buy in to the notion of Ottawa "mitigating any losses,'' said a provincial source, but a major sticking point involves offshore oil and natural gas projects beyond the ones currently in production and pumping royalties.
"The feds are trying to limit the future application of the accord,'' said the provincial source.
"As far as I know, the offer hasn't been accepted.
"The feds want it parlayed in such a way as to make it appear that they haven't blundered,'' said the provincial source.
Further incentives, such as one-time cash programs, are also on the table, but the province remains focused on the central issue of not being penalized for its natural gas revenues, said the provincial source. Under a complicated equalization formula, as revenues in have-not provinces rise, their equalization payments are reduced.
Casey, who has been ejected from the Conservative caucus, accused the government of breaking its promise not to touch provincial offshore resource revenue. He was ejected even though Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said the Tories would not punish any MP who voted with their conscience.
Opposition parties have had a field day with Casey's defiance and resulting expulsion. The Liberals introduced a motion in the House of Commons on Thursday demanding Prime Minister Stephen Harper live up to election campaign promises on the accords and equalization payments.
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said the Tories broke their promise to Atlantic Canadians by imposing a cap on resource revenues.
"The prime minister himself stated in this House on October 26, 2004, that when it comes to the Atlantic accords, there is `a moral obligation to keep these promises: no caps, no clawbacks, no limitations, no conditions, no big exceptions in the fine print,''' Dion said.
"Yet, Budget 2007 had just that. A cap. Fine print. Limitations. Conditions. A broken promise to Atlantic Canadians.''
Saskatchewan is also upset that the Conservatives failed to live up to a commitment over its resource revenues.
During the last election, the Conservative platform stated that non-renewable resource revenues would be excluded from the federal-provincial equalization formula. However, the spring budget didn't include such a commitment.
"Those who voted for the Conservatives in Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada put their trust in the commitments made by Mr. Harper,'' Dion said.
"That trust was broken.''
Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, a Newfoundland MP who has faced his own pressures over the issue, told the Commons that the budget won't take Atlantic Accord money away from the provinces that now receive it, even if their economies improve.
"Some people think, if anything happens, if there are caps, we'll lose (equalization money),'' Hearn said.
"Absolutely not. Let me state it clearly, categorically. The advance money given Nova Scotia >(and) Newfoundland, regardless of what happens, will not be clawed back.''
"The accord will not be capped.''
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's press secretary insisted the budget doesn't affect the Atlantic accords as they were signed in 2005.
"Nova Scotia can continue to operate under the Atlantic accord, or it has the positive option of going into a new principles-based equalization formula that applies to everybody across the country,'' said Chisholm Pothier.
"There is no cap on offshore resource revenues.''
Now Danny will have to find another strawman (big oil boogeyman?) to present to NL'ians in order to hide the shortcomings of his govt.
Let the slagging begin.
Fuck you !!!!Bacon Boy
Glenn says:
"You'll have to pry my Canadian citizenship from my cold, dead fingers!"
Update
Tories offer N.L., N.S. an 'insurance policy'
Updated Thu. Jun. 7 2007 3:13 PM ET
OK ,You can burn mine then ,no differance.It doesn't mean shit anyway !!!Your Just A Nigger For Ottawa anyway Idiot.
"The government of Canada will assume all financial risk.''
Just Like the fishery ,folk's .OH Thank-You so much capatin canada for giving us our money Masse'r!!!
"I Be A Good NEWFIE Boy Now"
Nice to see the racists come out.
Still don't know why you even bother to read this blog.
Just curious, the feds keep telling us that there is no difference between the old accord and the new version, no caps, no lost revenue etc. Then I can't help wonder why they went through so much trouble to change it in the fist place.
Goof Grief those ANTI the province of Newfoundland and Labrador want to keep the status quo going. That is keep digging the NON-RENEWABLESS, Newfoundland and Labrador Ore and Oil out of the ground and keep it being exported to the other parts of Canada to be utilized in the processing plants there, so as to keep their economies going. Not only those resources, BUT Ottawa is treating the Fish Resource, they have title to as a non-renewable, just as they are treating the Ore and Oil, since they are allowing foreigners to suck the last fish of every species out of the Ocean, and soon they will be down to harvesting the undersea flora or kelp, just like Spain, which happens to be one of the culprits off our N and L Coast. And, of course, keep the Upper Churchill Hydroelectricity Energy going across Quebec with puts billions into the Quebec coffers and the comtract still has another 35 years on a 72 year cntract, with Quebec being the Primary Beneficiary of that resource. Everything will be Utopian in Canada, since they have control and THE BIG PROBLEM for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is, the Canadians who are the beneficiary of our resources, DO NOT WANT to pay for those resources. Do they not realize that if that is the way they grow their economies, that is with, Ores, Oils, Fish and Hydroelectricty to create processing jobs and every other type of industry that is spun-off because of the processing of those wonderful Newfoundland and Labrador resources, THEN that is the way eeconomies would have to be created here in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? But as a result of joining Canada we have to give up living in our province PERIOD.
It's no secrect that NL was tricked into confederation. Canada wanted a colony with tons of resources and they got it. They care so little about our fisheries that they let it be destroyed. They maximized profits for decades by trading quoata's as part of deals for manufactured goods in Ontario and Quebec. A practice they maintained until the resource collapsed. They will do the same with our forests and our minerals. Eventually we will be depleted of oil, minerals and forests. And at that time we will still have a$$holes like Crazy Eddy and Ottawally singing the praises of Canada.
Starrigan, Steady eddy will tell you this is a myth.
I would say that Canada not only wanted a province with tons of resources, it wanted the country that would give it the whole land mass from west to east along with the Atlantic Ocean. After the country of Newfoundland was safely in its breast, Canada was then wholly a country from Sea to shining Sea. It not only had its complete frontage on the Pacific Ocean, it then had its frontage on the Atlantic Ocean. At the time just after the Second World War, that was a coup de etat , indeed, without even to have to fire off one piece of ammunition. How much easier could it have been? Not one iota!
Believe me if the land mass it acquired had not one ounce of resource, it still would been a coup for Canada, since then the land and the frontage on the Atlantic Ocean would be plusses enough, but the fact that the land mass itself was abundant with resources was only an extra.
After the acquisition, Canada then didn't have to worry about the antics of the Country to its East because it owned it. That land mass to the East called Newfoundland and Labrador at the time must have posed a bit of a problem for Canada. We know it cancelled through negotiations one free trade deal that was negotiated between the country of Newfoundland and Washington. We know that both American and Canadian Military were stationed in the thousands in the country of Newfoundland and in Labrador during the War Years. The Americans alone had four large bases stationed here. So the strategic location meant as much to Canada as did the resources that came with the land mass.
"Canada was then wholly a country from Sea to shining Sea. It not only had its complete frontage on the Pacific Ocean, it then had its frontage on the Atlantic Ocean. At the time just after the Second World"
In the words of "Canada's First Prime Minister"
"Only when Newfoundland joins confederation with canada shall our unoin be cimplete.For it is she ,Newfoundland ,that holds the key to our front door."
With the help of Great Britian and the treachery that is Canada ,Newfoundland was occupied by a force that it cold not fight.When we were down and couldn't protect oursleve's ,They smelled the blood in the water and came in for a kill that they are still doing to this very day.
Never mind the oil,fish ,and hydro that they have stolen .They knew excactly what they were doing when they "KILLED" the fishery.I'm no farmer by any means ,but,I have the common sence to know that if I take an axe,and I stike the tree at the root.Will I ,or won't I kill the tree.Hey ,I know what .lets hold a governement inquirey and see if we can get some science to back us up.
Please,this is the propaganda tree that is Ottawa.If the United states had done this to say Cuba there would have been global out-rage.
Your children are going to starve .Yeah ,that's why we as a nation were sending salt fish to the prarries to feed the farmers ,and they were so stupid they were using it to make "roofs"on thier mud huts.
Then they take us ,kill our fishery.Which is still today the back-bone of our culture and they scatter us ,like Homeless jews ,thru north america.divide and conquer ,then kill to assimulate us later into what is this Pile of Maggot shit called canada .
Well capatin canada ,I wish for you the fate that you have intended for us.
Quebec will never leave this bed of roses.canada wants us to stay and continue this love affair ,while we buy thier goods that are made in Ontario,while Quebec sucks the life blood from the Labrador.
What a "SICK DISGUSTING FARCE"OH and Ed ,I know that this will get a reaction from you ,you sick crimanal minded fuck you .You have my email ,C'monm you want to talk to me .Lets talk .I even have a phone number for you .I would love to tell you what I think of your country and your party right to your face .
Join ranks with that lot,yeah,right.The smell of Geomery is still in the air .We all know what liberial values are right.
Poor ,Poor ,Quebec .Downtrodden and treated so poorly by Canada ,while it sucks the blood outta Labrador .While ,my countrymen are forced to leave thier homes and familys to try and find something better .
Thease are the people that have had the blessing's of "GOD" himself passed down to them by being able to stay in The Province ,and this is what they sound like when the "Province has to Fight ,Scratch and Claw"for every red nickel that it "own's".
Well Guys ,seeing you love this shole-hole of a country so much ,I wish for you what you have bestowed upon your fellow man.A life of living away from home.See how the shoe fits when your wearing it .See how you like to be treated like the "African Canadain "that we are treated like on the mainland.
If I wasn't so Damb Proud ,I would be at home living on welfare .
I have something for this country .Can you see it .It's my middle finger standing straight-up,and a Big "FUCK-YOU" too
Separtion,were do I sign my name.
Starrigan said...
Nice to see the racists come out.
Wanna see racists,go to Ontario,and say that your from Newfoundland and Labrador .Then come talk to me buddy.Until then .Blow it out your ass.Fuck'in Liberial .
I should have voted for the Newfoundland and Labrador Party when I had the chance .
Screw Ottawally and Crazy Eddy.
At least we know the truth, right starrigan?
Yes, partially but once it acquired the area of Newfoundland and Labrador it got a much larger ocean frontage and it didn't have that inhabited land mass to its East which was known as Newfoundland and Labrador. I heard a figure that Canada gained 67 per cent more ocean on its Eastern periphery when Newfoundland and Labradorjoined the fold? I would like someone to confirm that figure?
Which country would not prefer to have a land mass on either of its extremities, that it would have to contend with? That is what was the case with an independent land mass to its East with absolutely no say over that territory and that mass having the main part of the Atlantic Ocean as its frontage. It was lucky enough to get it when Newfoundland and Labrador became part of the fold, whether it was by hook or by crook, nobody will ever know for sure?
And, of course, if it didn't want Newfoundland and Labrador, you can bet your bottom dollar it would not have taken it over, neither would it have had it imposed upon it.
Like I say it was a coup for Canada. It gained an astronomical amount of Ocean more than it had before, the Atlantic, of course, which included the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, a very prolific fish nursery, and now, of course, we know that Oil is amongst the resources there, and approximately 500,000 barrels per day are produced out of those waters, a resource which is only in its infancy in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Canada gained more than a province when it got Newfoundland and Labrador. It gained a Jewel!
It's no secrect that NL was tricked into confederation.
It takes two to "trick".
Canada wanted a colony with tons of resources and they got it.
NL's resource load is not terribly large compared to most other provinces besides the Maritimes.
They care so little about our fisheries that they let it be destroyed. They maximized profits for decades by trading quoata's as part of deals for manufactured goods in Ontario and Quebec.
What deals for what manufactured goods? With which countries? When were these deals made?
They will do the same with our forests and our minerals.
How? Forests and minerals are under EXCLUSIVE PROVINCIAL jurisdiction.
Question: was it morally improper for Newfoundland to acquire Labrador?
Was this a case of Newfoundland wanting "a colony with tons of resources"?
Why or why not?
Your right I read in one of the DFO documents that our continental shelf is the size of the three prairie provinces combined.
ottawa is a figment of your imagination there is no land mass called ottawa, no province called ottawa, no country called ottawa. There is only the federation of 10 provinces and three territories.
It states right in the constitution that the provinces own and control their own resources. Our resource is the continental shelf always has been and always will be. In or out of this phony federation.
Read the United Nation Law of the Sea Which canada signed onto. Continental shelfs belong to adjacent states from point of land all the way out to the edge of the continental shelf slope for whats on the sea bed and under and 200 miles for whats in and above the water.
We already have custodal management we are responsible for the well being and environment of the entire continental shelf.If we wanted to we could apply for the entire continental shelf but ottawa doesn't want to they want to continue to use it as a bartering chip for international trade and relations.
Turbot War Spain threatens to cancel all Ontario contracts with Bombardier if it didn't go away.
United Nations Law of the Sea
Constitution
Newfoundland and Labrador First Party
Wonder why it took so long for Ottawally to jump in, and where's Crazy Eddy? Must have been an a$$holes convention going on somewhere.
Yes anonmymous I've been to Ontario, and yes I was shocked at their ignorance. Fisrt they automatically assume you're stupid if you're from NL. Secondly they expect you to start telling jokes about how backward NL is. The worst part is that they are sooooo politically correct. But when it comes to NL they are absolute, ignorant racists. And they are the worst kind of racists because they have no idea that there is anything wrong with how they are acting. How sick is that.
Anonymous said...
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
- Mark Twain
This quote from Mark Twain is accurate; statistics are often used to lie to the public because most people do not understand how statistics work.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HAD FAST ONES PULLED ON US WITH GOVERNMENT STATISTICS and COMPLEX MATHEMATICAL FORMULAE?
answer: lots. mostly by our own provincial governments - of all stripes.
some anonymous said: "Wanna see racists,go to Ontario,and say that your from Newfoundland and Labrador."
are you saying newfoundlanders and labradorians are a DIFFERENT RACE??????????????????
good god! how did you come to THAT conclusion???????
different ethnicity i might buy, but DIFFERENT RACE????? are we black? no, that's taken. oriental? nope, that's taken too. asian? oops.
we're not a different RACE you dimwit. we're a different culture. or sub-culture. but we're pretty much human, lets agree on that.
Ex-pat typed some stuff:
"It states right in the constitution that the provinces own and control their own resources."
Yes it does. And NL does.
Then there was a bunch of stuff on continental shelf followed by this false statement:
"If we wanted to we could apply for the entire continental shelf but ottawa doesn't want to they want to continue to use it as a bartering chip for international trade and relations."
It's not clear if you mean "we" the province or "we" the country, Canada. let's take it for granted that you mean Canada.
Canada is working on filing the claim (as is France BTW) to extend jurisdiction from 200 miles to the edge of the shelf. When you say Canada is not interested, your information is not correct.
The only figment of your imagination is that the people paying your salary or pension don't exist. Oh yes, and that bit about Canada not filing a claim and the part about trading offshore resources (i.e. fish) for all sorts of other things.
If you had a single example of that last bit, you'd use it. You don't so instead you apparently have to tell everyone things that aren't true.
So like starrigan bro how could you tell someone else is ignorant.
It was real funny when you told off that Loono dude about steroetyping, too. But tell us again about how "all Ontarians are" something or other.
That's ok, though starrigan cause we brother rodent butts would never stereotype, would we.
Anonymous said...
some anonymous said: "Wanna see racists,go to Ontario,and say that your from Newfoundland and Labrador."
are you saying newfoundlanders and labradorians are a DIFFERENT RACE??????????????????
NO, what I mean is that when you are introduced to a group .And ,some may ask what you do .Then they start to ponder were that starnge diealect comes from.It Hit's you when ,you see the starnge look in thier face ,as you ask the question."Is something wrong ,you look lost in thought."
And ,then they look at you and say "Gee ,NO ,you said that you were from Newfoundland ,I never knew that those people were smart enough to do that Kind of work "
And ,you relise that Hey ,your not were you belong .Multi-culture.When has anyone ever stood -up for our culture .Were was the federal Governement when we were being trashed by the international media for getting a few seal's .
WHO IS STICKING -UP FOR NEWFOUNDLAND ,AND LABRADOR!!!!
Your too busy argueing amonst yourselfs ,while canda kills up off .WAKE-UP!!!!!
a rat's ring said...
"Nice trick Dude ."
"C'mon,you want to see who or what I am "Wanna see who I am Mr Edd.
http://www.mediaplantage.ch/images/content/portfolio/intro2004.swf
Who's your bitch now Spy!!!Go HackYOURSELF!!!
Ottawa is denying the overfishing just as Exoon is denying global warming.
Ottawa is denying the overfishing just as Exxon is denying global warming.
I just watched Fifth Estate Tonight and it is sickening what is going on in the world with global warming and the denial that it even exists.
The Fifth Estate quoted examples of how a spin on words have been used for decades by the Tobacco Industry and Oil Industry to procrastinate and put off the inevitable. The same spin on words have been used to delay the inevitable in the Fishing Industry.
Maybe it is time we got the Fifth Estate involved in the Fishing Industry. An investigation there by someboy like Bob McEwan is long overdue.
Anonymous said...
Ottawa is denying the overfishing just as Exoon is denying global warming.
June 09, 2007 12:18 AM
Holy Shit ,look over here guys.Someone with some ball's .Well holy shit ,I think that I'm going to have a F%$#'in Heart Attack!!!!
A fellow Newfoundlander thats pissed off.C'mon brother ,let the shit out .It's good therapy.I'm home sick too,I want to go home to my family ,I want the right to make a living ,I want the same treatment as every other working Canadain.I want to be were my family is from.
I WANT TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR.
"Maybe it is time we got the Fifth Estate involved in the Fishing Industry. An investigation there by someboy like Bob McEwan is long overdue."
Here,Here to that Budd!!!!
"ottawa is a figment of your imagination there is no land mass called ottawa, no province called ottawa, no country called ottawa. There is only the federation of 10 provinces and three territories.
It states right in the constitution that the provinces own and control their own resources. Our resource is the continental shelf always has been and always will be. In or out of this phony federation.
Read the United Nation Law of the Sea Which canada signed onto. Continental shelfs belong to adjacent states from point of land all the way out to the edge of the continental shelf slope for whats on the sea bed and under and 200 miles for whats in and above the water"
Now here is a Guy that knows his shit folks.This guy can "RANT".But,in the same sence he has his shit sowed-up real good .
Shout this shit out ,brother .The world has a right to know what this shit hole of a FAKE country is all about.
Mr. Hollett I would like an explanation from you as to why Canada would give away fish quotas for nothing in return, especially when it does international trade deals every week of the year. Why are you so sure that Ottawa is not trading fish to do those international trade deals. Why is Ottawa allowing the pressure to be put on the fish quotas in its waters, if it is not getting anything in return. Ottawa will have to pay the piper for the destruction of the fishery in the not too distant future. Will it shoulder the burden alone or will it ask the nations fishing in our waters to shoulder the blame? Why is Ottawa worried about causing a foreign affairs rowover the over fishing? Why is Ottawa always treading softly in that area, and while it is doing so it is allowing the fish resource to go the way of the dodo.
June 09, 2007 1:05 AM,
"just Itch'in to hear a replye for that one Holliett"
June 09, 2007 1:05 AM
And waiting ,.........
for your viewing manner while we wait ,for mr Hollietts re-plye :
Anonymous said...
No, Mr. Hollett I am not Sue Kelland Dyer.
If I will not sign my own name, I certainly will not impersonate someone else.
It is still legal to sign anonymously on this site, so I will continue to do so until it changes. When, and if, Patriot changes the rules, then and only then will I sign my name, it is possible I will discontinue posting, but I definitely will not resort to impersonating someone else. That is totally illegal.
My morals would not allow me to do that, neither would they allow me to turn against my province in order to receive an income. Though if my province was in the wrong someway, neither would I uphold it.
May 27, 2007 10:58 PM
Now isn't that A true citizen of the Province Of Newfoundland and Labrador.Can someone point me to something like this ,on the mainland ,that has thease moral's.
Sue Kelland Dyer For Premeir.Not Too Bad !!!
Some of the previous posts were deleted for two specific reasons:
1) they did not relate directly to the topic at hand and
2) the language used in them was higly offensive.
If you want to debate the issues or make a statment go ahead but keep it clean and let's get off the personal attacks.
Mr. Hollett I would like an explanation from you as to why Canada would give away fish quotas for nothing in return, especially when it does international trade deals every week of the year? Why are you so sure that Ottawa is not trading fish to do those international trade deals? Why is Ottawa allowing the pressure to be put on the fish quotas in its waters, if it is not getting anything in return? Ottawa will have to pay the piper for the destruction of the fishery in the not too distant future. Will it shoulder the burden alone, or will it ask the nations fishing in our waters to shoulder the blame with it? Why is Ottawa worried about causing a foreign affairs row over the over fishing in our offshore waters? Why is Ottawa always treading softly in that area, and while it is doing so it is allowing the fish resource to go the way of the dodo?
The big question is why has Ottawa allowed countries from every continent of the world to fish in our offshore waters? When Ottawa was given the fish quotas for maintenance and protection, there were only a few European countries fish there, why have those countries increased in numbers so vastly that the whole world is represented out there?
"My morals would not allow me to do that, neither would they allow me to turn against my province in order to receive an income."
Well, it's interesting that you consider it moral to remain anonymous while making false accusations against other people either directly or by innuendo.
Actually, by most standards that would be considered highly immoral.
And since we don't know who you are your insistence that you aren't someone else, isn't an issue of morality, it's just silly on your part.
"I would like an explanation from you as to why Canada would give away fish quotas for nothing in return, especially when it does international trade deals every week of the year?"
The first thing that you have to do is demonstrate that this is happening.
You and your anonyfriends here have been challenged on several occasions and so far they have offered not a single shred of evidence to back claims about fish quotas being given away for free or for trade.
You can ask as much as you want, but it is impossible for me to give information or an explanation for something that isn't actually happening.
Perhaps you or your friends would like to prove that what you claim is true first.
And please, spare the excuses about secrecy and big giant cover-ups. That as useless as the Secret Slagger claiming to be acting morally/ethically.
"Ottawa is denying the overfishing just as Exxon is denying global warming."
To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a person or organization in the country that denies foreign over-fishing exists, except the countries doing it.
Once again we have a completely false statement that then leads to a bunch of rants - looking like they are coming from the same person, BTW - on the first one and the false information it contains.
As someone posted earlier, the tobacco industry argued against a link between cancer and smoking even though there has been independent scientific evidence of the health damage of smoking since the 1950s and 1960s.
Independent,scientific evidence.
Those are the key words.
What you often find among the the anony-slaggers, anony-moralists and the anony-posters on this blog though is something different.
There is no evidence at all - let alone no evidence that is independent and scientific - to back up their claims. Instead, as with ex-pat and others, they just keep on saying it over and over and over.
There is a huge difference between denying something for which there is scientific, independent evidence and making wild, outrageous claims without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Is this Mr. Ed a paid lobbyist om behalf of the Feral Government? He skirts around every question by asking for some evidence. That is what I am saying, I don't have the evidence, but Ottawa does. Why would Ottawa allow to whole world to come to its off-shore waters to fish without questioning it?
Because of Ottawa's responsibility out there, if it is not giving its ok, it is taking on a big liability, because it has the resposibility to keep the fish stock healthy.
Is this Mr. Ed a paid lobbyist om behalf of the Feral Government? He skirts around every question by asking for some evidence. That is what I am saying, I don't have the evidence, but Ottawa does. Why would Ottawa allow to whole world to come to its off-shore waters to fish without questioning it? Because of Ottawa's responsibility out there, if it is not giving its ok, it is taking on a big liability, because it has the resposibility to keep the fish stock healthy.
Is Ottawa going to take the full blame for this when our off-shore fishing grounds are completely fished out and they are down to the flora.
Who are you protecting Ed on this aspect, it is certaingly not your province Newfoundland and Labrador?
DFO has the stats that show that the once plentiful Cod biomass is down 90 per cent since the 1970s and it hasn't bounced back any? Why?
Is Ottawa going to take the full blame for this when our off-shore fishing grounds are completely fished out and they are down completely to the flora?
Who are you protecting Ed on this aspect, it is certaingly not your province Newfoundland and Labrador?
We have the evidence that there is foreign overfishing, but who is allowing those countries to fish there? They do not appear there without Ottawa,at least,cosigning with NAFO.
folks: that was me who challenged the idea newfoundlanders and labradorians are a different race. i dont know why i showed as anonymous.
somebody wrote: And ,then they look at you and say "Gee ,NO ,you said that you were from Newfoundland ,I never knew that those people were smart enough to do that Kind of work "
man, youre hanging out with the wrong people and going to the wrong places. sure there are ignorant blockheads out there who take a negative attitude to newfoundlanders and they seem to be concentrated in ontario. but i have travelled a lot and lived lots of places in the world. that isnt the way the world sees newfoundlanders. that isnt the way most canadians see newfoundlanders. its just a group of jerks. why take your sense of the newfoundland image from them? theyre not worth paying attention to. it just makes you bitter and resentful - like the tone on this blog.
like my mom said about jerks in the playground who called me names because i wore glasses - ignore them; theyre not worth your attention. we cant keep defining ourselves in contrast to what a few ignorant yobs say about us. lets define ourselves.
Right on babe - I am a Newfoundlander and proud of it. I will be to the day I die, and I can compete with any of the ones who call me names. I will not let them destroy me nor my province. I will not flinch on that, you can mark my word.
There is no skirting around any issue if one simply challenges those making a specific claim to present even the tiniest shred of evidence to support the claim.
Skirting the issue is to say this: "I don't have the evidence, but Ottawa does." You make a claim, admitting you have no evidence, but suggesting someone else does, presumably keeping it secret.
"Why would Ottawa allow to whole world to come to its off-shore waters to fish without questioning it?"
The simply reality is that the whole world, in one form or another, has always come to the Grand Banks to fish.
The simply reality is the the Government of Canada has taken steps to deal with overfishing outside 200 miles and it has taken steps to crack down on domestic overfishing inside 200 miles. It may not be enough but an effort is being made.
The simple reality is also that this anonymous slagger merely makes accusations aginst me in the form of a question that:
1. are simply untrue; and,
2. are despicable and cowardly given that the individual continuously posts in such a cowardly way.
That is the substitute for whatever argument you have:
No evidence and cowardly accusations attacking the integirty of someone who has done nothing other than point out that your argument has no merit and no foundation.
When you state you have no evidence to back your claim, you admit my point.
The question we should perhaps wonder is why someone would persist in spreading false claims - you admit you have no evidence - and why someone would persist in despicable personal attacks on an individual.
Prove it to me Mr. Ed that Korea was out there in those water before 1949. Please show me the evidence that Korea was out there. It isn't true Ed. Who are you spinning words for?
I wonder if Mr. Gus Etchegary reads this blog and if he does would he please give us his knowledge on that question. He is very knowledgage on the subject of the fishing industry since I believe I heard the man say he was in the fishing industry in the 1940s.
No evidence, yet again?
Seems to be that you are an anony-slagger simply because you have no information.
Since 1949 fishing has expanded globally and many fishing grounds are fished by coutnries that 60 odd years ago lacked the industrial and technical skill to fish so far from home ports. The global fishery is in severe decline because of human activity everywhere.
Cod didn't disappear from the Grand Banks because someone is driving a Hyundai.
If you had evidence of the Great Canadian Conspiracy you claim exists, you'd present it.
It's that simple.
Everything else, as we have seen repeatedly, is just you repeating the same cowardly attacks on me.
My question is when Ottawa was entrusted with the fish quotas off Newfoundland and Labrador's coast for maintenance and preservation, why did Ottawa allow extra countries to be added to fish the stocks of fish off our coast? After all the stocks were put into their hands for preservation and conservation, but we see the exact opposite occur.
If you are speaking on behalf of the Federal Government, and it appears that your are, because when posts are submitted that concern the Feds you jump in right away to try and put a spin on things, and you never provide an answer, you just ask another question or spin my statement out of control. That was the same subject talked about on the Fifth Estate last evening with Bob McEwan the great investigative journalist, the subject of Governments and Big Corporations, and how they put a spin on everything they have to respond to that is of any urgency. Why are you not presenting reasons why things are happening the way they are? It is quite plain from my point of view and everyone else's except, for you and the Federal Government, that in fact those extra countries have appeared off our fishing waters and it is quite plain that the fish are in a sad state of depletion? We also know that many times the floating fish plants or fishing vessels have been caught overfishing and absolutely nothing has been imposed on them for their serious infraction. Every time they get sent back home to their home country, unload their cargo of fish, and then their home country sends them back to our fishing waters to do the same corrupt things over and over. Ottawa has no teeth in the matter, a matter where it made its promise to us that it would take due diligence and protect the stocks. We are right in taking them to task on the issue, we should take a class action suit against them as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They have assisted in destroying one of our valuable renewable resources and have cause great hardship to our fishers.
Why would you defend Ottawa under these circumstances? Are you thinking straight? Or are you in such desperate straights to earn an income that you would do anything, even turn your back on your own province and a valuable renewable fish resource that is nearing extinction, but otherwise could provide a living for many rural communities in this province if the resource was maintained properly like they promised us they would do?
"My question is when Ottawa was entrusted with the fish quotas off Newfoundland and Labrador's coast for maintenance and preservation, why did Ottawa allow extra countries to be added to fish the stocks of fish off our coast?"
Prior to 1977, anything outside of 12 miles was international waters and Canada had no control over it, just as in 1949, Newfoundland had no control beyond three miles.
After the 200 mile EEZ came into effect, that line loved out to, well, 200 miles.
That's the issue in a nutshell.
"After all the stocks were put into their hands for preservation and conservation, but we see the exact opposite occur."
You raise a good question but the answer has less to do with Korea than it does with domestic fishing, at least after the 200 mile EEZ. Consistent overfishing for a variety of reasons helped to destroy some stocks. The culprits as as much Canadian as they are any other nationality.
As for the rest of your lengthy post, let me just say one thing: I have consistently challenged false staements, incorrect statements and anything else which is not accurate. When it comes to your claims I have simply challenged you for evidence to back your claims.
The assumptions you make are your own, but they are incorrect, just as surely as the rest of your claims are incorrect.
What you wind up at the end with is just cowardly crap. I have been icnreasingly wondering why you and others hide your faces when making such unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks on me and others.
Cowardly and slimey are the two words that come to mind to describe your approach.
Then again, since you clearly have no facts to discuss, slime is about all that seems to be left.
Lots of money in Ottawa to fund spin talk on the dismal state of the fishery and the fact the whole world is fishing in our off-shore waters but on whose invitation it is rather hard to decipher, but very little to assist the fishers who are having a hard time with their fishing duties because of the ice situation that exists in their fishing waters.
Isn't it awful how the Federal Government squanders our hard earned tax dollars and destroys the fish resource all in one breath?
First of all to the anonymous a$$hole who said " Anonymous said...
some anonymous said: "Wanna see racists,go to Ontario,and say that your from Newfoundland and Labrador."
are you saying newfoundlanders and labradorians are a DIFFERENT RACE??????????????????
good god! how did you come to THAT conclusion???????""
I suggest you look up the definition of racism you moron.
I would say anyone who receives monies from Ottawa to become Spin Doctors are the slime.
ED YOU SAID:QUOTE "Since 1949 fishing has expanded globally and many fishing grounds are fished by countries that 60 odd years ago lacked the industrial and technical skill to fish so far from home ports".UNQUOTE
But Ed that is one of my points which you don't agree with me on. I asked why are those foreign countries out there fishing, countries that were not there before. Well if you check, I believe we passed over the fish quotas to Ottawa in 1949 for maintenance and protection, AND YOU TELL THIS BLOG that fishing has expanded globablly since 1949. What business did Ottawa have to go against its promise to protect and maintain the fish resource that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador passed over to it in 1949, or was it really 1948 when Ottawa drew up the Terms of Union?
Ottawa had no business giving out quotas of fish to all the countries in the world, fish that was under its protection for maintainence.
as I said before, starrigan: that was me who challenged the idea newfoundlanders and labradorians are a different race. i dont know why i showed as anonymous.
why dont YOU look up the definition of racism, starrigan??
from the Dictionary:
rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) n.
1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
and just to be SUPER clear:
race (rās) n.
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
so, starrigan, unless you can produce evidence that newfoundlanders are GENETICALLY different, like asians are from africans or europeans are from inuit, the term "racism" doesnt apply.
i wouldnt be throwing around words like moron, if i were you. they come back like a boomergang.
Ed you said: QUOTE You raise a good question but the answer has less to do with Korea than it does with domestic fishing, at least after the 200 mile EEZ. Consistent overfishing for a variety of reasons helped to destroy some stocks. The culprits as as much Canadian as they are any other nationality. UNQUOTE
Ed I didn't say it had all to do with Korea, there are many Nations fishing in our offshore water, Korea is but one of them. Collectively they have destroyed the biomass of many species.
Ed I am surprised in the quote above, to see you blaming Canadians more so than the foreign Nations who are fishing in our waters who have no right to be fishing there. And don't forget Ed Ottawa has allowed some of the biggest deep sea fishing pirates to come to our waters. Please don't forget the Spanish and Portuguese Fishing fleets. They have long ago exhausted the fish quotas in their waters, now they have just about depleted the fish stocks in our waters and West Africa. But we do not have control over their areas, what Ottawa has control over is the fish that Newfoundland and Labrador passed over to Ottawa in 1949 and they should have practised due diligence to see that those fish stocks stayed healthy, but they didn't and now Ottawa has a big liability on its hands.
"Ottawa has control over is the fish that Newfoundland and Labrador passed over to Ottawa in 1949 and they should have practised due diligence to see that those fish stocks stayed healthy, but they didn't and now Ottawa has a big liability on its hands."
Three obvious things'
1. NL didn't pass any such control to Ottawa in 1949, so your starting premise is wrong.
2. Foreigners alone did not destroy any fish stocks offshore NL. You persist in that eqwually false premise. If you stick with that you will miss the damage done by ALL those who fish or fished the Grand Banks.
3. you still remain anonymous for no apparent good reason. That still takes away whatever credibility you have.
Anomyminity of the person posting does not erase the harm that occured to the fish stocks that Newfoundland and Labrador passed over to Canada.
Good responsible government does that.
Ed you appear to want to place the blame on Canadians and exonerate the foreigners. The footprints are there that the foreigners overfished those stocks, people who should not have been there in the first place. They destroyed their stocks back home, so why should they have been given the rights to come to our off-shore waters and commit the same crime?
I can see Ottawa paying someone to do that. We know now that the same foreign countries have depeleted the fish stocks of West Africa and the other Oceans of the World and now they have done the biggest part in destroying our fish stocks.
They should never have been given quotas here in the first place. Global Free Trade, where countries get to trade their goods, by doling out something they have that they are not utilizing to full capacity to sell something they produce, like wheat, car parts, Candu reactors, oil and whatever else Canada produces to aid and abet in the sales of those products is what put the pressure on the Fish Stocks that Newfoundland and Labrador passed over to Canada for protection and maintenance. Sorry Sir you will not convince me otherwise. Why would a country give away something it was entrusted with for protection and maintenance, if it didn't aid and abet the sale of something it was having trouble getting rid off? Countries do not allow other countries to come and rape their coasts of fish or their land of its forest or agriculture products. These items are negotiated away. It was no different for the fish. It was traded internationaly. Ottawa must have had to put its signature on any deal that saw quotas of fish taken out of its waters. Now I am sure it didn't sign for the amount that got taken out, because once you allow pirates to come, then they do what they want to do and, of course, that is not stick to the quota amount that they were given. They are highway robbers and they steal. They take as much as they can fill the holds of their monstrous ships with. That has been the case. When our patrols have found them, they have EVEN had false holds in their ships where they store the excess fish, trying to conceal the amount they had.
"Ed you appear to want to place the blame on Canadians and exonerate the foreigners."
Absolute nonsense. Go back and read what I wrote.
"They should never have been given quotas here in the first place."
If by "they" you mean the Government of Canada, "they" didn't, at least for foreign vessels fishing outside 200 miles.
The rest of your comments on this point just assign blame to the Government of Canada because your original assumption is wrong.
"Sorry Sir you will not convince me otherwise."
Quite obviously. Your entire belief system appears to be founded on your own peculair interpretation and facts are unable to penetrate.
If something confront your predetermined beliefs you attempt to smear the individual who challenges your accepted beliefs rather than re-evaluate the issue.
Personally, I consider a closed mind to be about the saddest thing there is. Yours appears to be not merely closed but padlocked and buried in the yard.
If you want to take a look at the global collapse of the fishery, there are plenty of good sources on line. They all point to similar issues, including rampant overfishing. In our own case that overfishing occurred outside 200 miles by foreigners working the high seas and through international agencies.
Inside 200 miles, well that's entirely another matter and it didn't involve foreigners. Sadly, we were too late - that is we as in Canadians - in closing the cod fishery or in drastically cutting back landings.
Since 1992, the federal government has been pressured by domestic interests to resume cod fishing in various forms. It needs to stop completely both inside and outside 200 miles.
You don't need to go to Ottawa to find someone paid to destroy the fish stocks. Many of us did voluntarily. They continue to do so by advocating any form of fishing on a stock which on the brink of extinction.
As for your persistent anonymity, it merely makes it plain that you do not wish to stand behind your comments on any level.
It should certainly make people wonder why you insist on hiding.
I would say anyone who receives monies from Ottawa to become Spin Doctors are the slime.
Who are they?
They should never have been given quotas here in the first place. Global Free Trade, where countries get to trade their goods, by doling out something they have that they are not utilizing to full capacity to sell something they produce, like wheat, car parts, Candu reactors, oil and whatever else Canada produces to aid and abet in the sales of those products is what put the pressure on the Fish Stocks that Newfoundland and Labrador passed over to Canada for protection and maintenance.
Which countries did Canada sell wheat, care parts, Candu reactors, oil, or whatever else to, in return for fish quotas?
Which countries?
Name them.
Put up or shut up.
Your beliefs are based on the spin Ottawa wishes people to believe. Mine is based on the facts of what are happening out there in our off-shore waters. I believe what is being printed by responsible people. I don't believe the spin that Ottawa puts on things. If you want to know the truth of what is going on in the world just read reports put out by Probe International or Transparency International.
Your beliefs are based on the spin Ottawa wishes people to believe.
I don't "believe" anything.
Mine is based on the facts of what are happening out there in our off-shore waters.
What are those facts?
I believe what is being printed by responsible people.
Who are these "responsible people"? Do they have names? If so, what are they?
I'd like to read what they have printed.
Anony-slagger wrote:
"Your beliefs are based on the spin Ottawa wishes people to believe. Mine is based on the facts of what are happening out there in our off-shore waters. I believe what is being printed by responsible people. I don't believe the spin that Ottawa puts on things. If you want to know the truth of what is going on in the world just read reports put out by Probe International or Transparency International."
Well, if you are the same person who previously quoted Transparency International, we see exactly how you misrepresent things, deliberately or otherwise.
Your beliefs are clearly not based on facts.
Of course, since you post anonymously, we don't know which of the anony-posters you are. Therefore you could be just one person who consistently makes the same mistakes or you could be one of four or five.
There's no question though that if you are the person who has been posting anonymously here, your beliefs aren't based on facts. That's the problem. But since you post anonymously, we can';t tell which anonymous person you are who can't tell facts from the nonsense that is typed by anonymous people.
I really think monies paid out to random people to spin stories for Ottawa have to stop. They are not only destroying the fishery completely, they are stopping us from getting a better deal from our oil wells and the Atlantic Accord.
People who would turn their backs on their province are a sickening sub group. How can they live with themselves? Obviously such people do not have any emotions.
You know what happened to the fishery, you know what is happening to this province with regards to getting a 5 per cent equity out of our oil, and you know what is happening to the Atlantic Accord which was signed in 1985 under another government.
You are denying everything that is happening right now in front of our eyes. How stupid can you be to deny when we are immersed front and center in all the goings on with regards to the equity in oil, Atlantic Accord destruction, and the destruction of the fish resource that was passed over to Ottawa or was it Ottawa stoled?
Open your eyes and ears Sir? Because you are spewing out blasphemous lies.
"blasphemous lies"????
Just what religion are we talking about here? Just what god is being blasphemed against? However strongly anyone may feel about these political issues, it is wrong and dangerous to blur the line between beliefs about history and politics and truths about God and the nature of life. THAT is what blasphemy is about.
"You are denying everything that is happening right now in front of our eyes. How stupid can you be to deny when we are immersed front and center in all the goings on with regards to the equity in oil, Atlantic Accord destruction, and the destruction of the fish resource that was passed over to Ottawa or was it Ottawa stoled?
Open your eyes and ears Sir? Because you are spewing out blasphemous lies."
Right off the bat, we are not talking about theology, so whatever we are discussing, there is no one correct dogma. Therefore, there is no one who can be committing "blasphemy".
Second, to accuse me of lie-ing is just part of the cowardly anonymous slagging some people resort to when their argument is demolished based on facts and evidence.
I disagree with you. That's it. That's all it is.
Drop the coward's cloak and call me a liar in plain view.
Ditto for calling me stupid. If all you can do is insult me, then you really are only admitting you have no evidence to back up anything you say.
Third, the equity position on the offshore isn't a subject we've discussed but I'd be more than happy to discuss it on the basis of fact.
Fourth, on the fishery, I have in no way denied what occurred, ie, that the cod stock was destroyed.
I have simply pointed out that your accusation that it was done solely by the Government of Canada as some sort of trade for other interests isn't borne out by evidence. If you have the problem wrong, then you'll also go chasing after the wrong solutions.
Since you have not been able to offer a single shred of evidence for your claim, I think we can safely conclude you don't have a thing to base your argument on.
According to the two paid Federal Government Spin Doctors:
1. Everything is okay with the Fishery. Ottawa looked after it, didn't undermine it by giving out fish quotas to countries on every continent on the globe, so say the
two Spin Doctors, for nothing in return and all we have to do now is put our selves back on auto pilot and ask Ottawa to carry on. My, oh my what kind of people are in this world that would advocate such things?
2. According to the same two Spin Doctors, we do not need 5 per cent equity in our Oil. Let the big oil conglomerates and the Federal government use it as they please, Newfoundland and Labrador keep the pattern in motion that you have adapted yourself to, that is give away everything and ask not that you should create economies here so that you inhabitants can stay in the place they love and work there as well.
3. Again According to the two Spin Doctors, the Atlantic Accord hasn't been undermined by the changes made in the 2007 Federal Budget. Newfoundland and Labrador keep your faith in Ottawa; follow the same pattern that you have followed for the past 58 years. Don't worry be happy!
Really I am wondering where these two Spin Doctors got their education in economics. It must have been from a Cracker Jack Box. An amoeba has more economic sense than the two of the Spin Doctors brains put together.
last anonymous - since you brought it up, what's YOUR educational and work background? you write as if you cant actually absorb what you read. people write things, you dont respond to the information and then you accuse them of saying something entirely different. my primary school kids do better in reading comprehension than you do.
all i can think of is that your 'education' comes from listening to open line.
Obviously, some people are feeling rather intimidated.
Their ability is being threatened.
Their knowledge is called into question.
They are feeling insecure.
Otherwise, they wouldn't hide behind the coward's cloak of anonymity and then engage in a series of smears like the one committed by the last anony-slagger.
Thanks for admitting your shortcomings.
It is quite apparent how the last two posters spin for the Federal Government.
Everyone in this province except the two of them know that the Fishery has been undermined by Ottawa through allowing too many countries to fish off our coast yet they deny it. It should be a given that we should be taking some equity into our Oil resource, at least 5 per cent, but the two of them vehemently oppose it. Is it because the two of them are also getting some monies from the Oil companies to oppose this, or are all of your salaries coming from the Federal Government. And the fact that they are opposing the changes made in the 2007 Federal Budget to a 1985 Contract between the Provincial Governement and the Federal Government, namely the Atlantic Accord, should also tell you where these people are coming from. They are not working for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, nor the province. Or have they changed their minds on all three? I notice one of the two changes his mind on things on the toss of a coin, I cannot keep up with the person. He believes what he says is Gospel. He appears to have many personalities. I remain the same.
babe from reading your posts, I don't think you have many creditentials in the advanced education department, but I really don't care what your education level is. It is nice to know though where people are coming from in their idealogies towards the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, so please keep on posting, since through your postings we know with whom we are really dealing with and whose side you are on. I hope somebody in government is taking note of that.
"And the fact that they are opposing the changes made in the 2007 Federal Budget to a 1985 Contract between the Provincial Governement and the Federal Government, namely the Atlantic Accord, should also tell you where these people are coming from."
Actually, this complete falsehood tells everyone where you are coming from, whoever you are.
Can you provide one signle shred of evidence to support the claim?
I didn't think so. otherwise you wouldn't be hiding your identity.
Why is that?
Why do you want to keep people from knowing who you are?
According to the same two Spin Doctors, we do not need 5 per cent equity in our Oil. Let the big oil conglomerates and the Federal government use it as they please
How would the federal government "use" equity in "our Oil", other than by doing what anyone else does to get equity: paying for it?
Didn't I hear you completely opposing Premier Williams back three years ago in his quest in getting a better deal for Newfoundland and Labrador from the Atlantic Accord? Matter of fact I couldn't believe the utterances I was hearing out of you. And what I have heard you say recently doesn't really concur with what the Premier is saying.
Maybe you can state here why you opposed the Premier back three years ago and how much in sync you are today with his ideologies on the changes that the Budget of 2007 will present to the Atlantic Accord and the benefits to be accrued by the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of the changes.
Maybe our differences can be put to rest if you state in a clear and consice way what your views were back three years ago and what they are today. THANKS
Well, if those comments are addressed to me, anon, maybe you can state what you heard and I'll set the record straight.
There are too many anony-slaggers stating things that aren't true.
I can state unequivocally that the Premier is on another tack from me when it comes to the federal budget even though the starting point is the same.
He's chasing after defeating Harper and getting something that is politically impossible (he's also known it was politically impossible for most of the past year).
What I have talked about is the unilateral changes to the 1985 Atlantic Accord and the 2005 side deal. There is absolutely no need to cap either agreement, and the way the 1985 deal is being changed puts in jeopardy the entire 1985 Accord on which the oil industry is built.
But look, I can state my position clearly and concisely, as I have repeatedly on these comment threads.
Some people deliberately misrepresent my views for their own purposes and do so from behind the coward's cloak of anonymity.
Thanks! But it is still not explained to my satisfaction. I would like to know where you differ with Premier Williams and how you differ on all points.
anonymous:
youre right. you have no idea of my educational background, as i have no idea of yours. as it happens, i dont think much about most educational credentials. some of the best and wisest people ive ever known never went to school at all.
by the way - you introduced the idea of education and you still havent answered my question. whats your claim to fame? what credentials do YOU have for stating your opinions like theyre fact? are you an expert in economics? history? geopolitics? who recognizes you as an expert? except you i mean.
you said "It is nice to know though where people are coming from in their idealogies towards the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, so please keep on posting, since through your postings we know with whom we are really dealing with and whose side you are on. I hope somebody in government is taking note of that."
you have no idea of my ideology either. i am a newfoundlander. i wont be told how to be a newfoundlander or how to love my province, not by anyone. but i do reserve the right to comment on issues that interest me, just as you do.
you hope "someone in government will take note of" - what? babe in boyland's ideology and loyalties, as interpreted by an anonymous poster on a private blog? i cant see why anyone in government, federal or provincial, would care. monitoring the comments coming out of these blogs may be interesting and might give some insight into general public opinion but i think both levels of government are too busy with running the province and the country to monitor blogs and then hunt down the identities of particular posters.
despite what some posters think, neither level of government is operating some kind of "v for vendetta" government control operation.
i dont see eye to eye with either level of government, but i have more faith in both of them than to believe THAT - if for no other reason than they cant be bothered to allocate scarce resources so foolishly.
"Thanks! But it is still not explained to my satisfaction. I would like to know where you differ with Premier Williams and how you differ on all points."
On all points? We could be here for months covering the agreements and disagreements.
Try reading Bond Papers and you'll get a much better sense of what is going on and what my views are.
I popped on over to 'toilet papers', nothing but federal hackery at its finest!
Thanks!
anonymous said "Thanks!"
to who? for what? this is so confusing :-( i try to keep on top of the posts, but even handles would make it easier than "anonymous" :-(
Thanks to Mr. Hollett! Sorry I didn't mean to confound you babe.
thanks, latest anonymous, for clearing that up :-S
Edward G. Hollett said...
"Thanks! But it is still not explained to my satisfaction. I would like to know where you differ with Premier Williams and how you differ on all points."
On all points? We could be here for months covering the agreements and disagreements.
Try reading Bond Papers and you'll get a much better sense of what is going on and what my views are.
Typical Liberial.Using the hardwork of others .Namely Patriot and his Blog.To promote the usage of his own point of view.Now if's thats not a typical Canadain Liberial theni don't know what isn't .
Hey Scumbag ,why not try and reach reader's thru your own hard work ,F$#@^ Parasite.Hers another idiot that needs to be woken-up to the real world .
Buddy if you did that in anyother part of canada ,you would be sued.lol,the great canadian defender gets sued.Loser.
"why not try and reach reader's thru your own hard work"
The Sir Robert Bond Papers.
Try reading it some time.
"Typical Liberial.Using the hardwork of others .Namely Patriot and his Blog.To promote the usage of his own point of view.Now if's thats not a typical Canadain Liberial theni don't know what isn't .
Hey Scumbag ,why not try and reach reader's thru your own hard work ,F$#@^ Parasite.Hers another idiot that needs to be woken-up to the real world .
Buddy if you did that in anyother part of canada ,you would be sued.lol,the great canadian defender gets sued.Loser."
i would chastise my children for being so mentally lazy and using such poor language.
be better, anonymous.
Post a Comment