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.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Does Harper Still Believe in Atlantic Canada's "Culture of Defeat"?

EDITOR'S UPDATE:

Today, June 12 at 6:45 NL time the final commons vote on this issue will take place. I encourage all readers to send an email to Newfoundland and Labrador's 3 conservative MPs urging them to stand by their province and vote against the budget.

You can reach them at the following email addresses:

Norman Doyle - doyle.n@parl.gc.ca

Fabian Manning - manning.f@parl.gc.ca

Lloyla Hearn - hearn.l@parl.gc.ca

Please make sure they hear you loud and clear.

BEGIN ARTICLE:

Does Harper Still Believe in Atlantic Canada's "Culture of Defeat"?

Wouldn’t I love to be a fly on the wall inside the federal conservative caucus this week. It must feel like ground zero in there with casualties mounting and nothing but scorched earth as far as the eye can see.

If everything goes according to schedule the federal budget bill will go to a final vote by Friday. The decisions some MPs make at that time will determine if they survive inside their often autocratic party, if they become outcasts in their home provinces and even the very future of the party in much of Atlantic Canada.

When it was just NDP Premier Lorne Calvert fighting the new equalization formula the Harper government could spin it as party politics. When the PC Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador went on the attack he was written off as another hot headed Newfie. In Harper’s world, as long as his MPs were kept in line and Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald was content to discuss the problem behind closed doors, the train was solidly on the track. I don't believe he expected the kind of derailment that was about to happen.

Last week, despite aggressive arm twisting and threats, one of the longest serving, most highly respected and level headed Conservative MPs in Ottawa, Bill Casey, took his party and the PM to task over their broken promises and lies. To paraphrase Mr. Casey, there are 18 separate points in the budget that affect the Atlantic Accord. Canada’s word should be taken as gospel. When you can’t trust the government of Canada to respect a signed contract with two of its own provinces, that word becomes worthless.

That was a blow that hit the party much harder than anything else that had been thrown at them since the budget was released but if they thought the worst had come they were all mistaken.

Until now Nova Scotia’s Rodney Macdonald had been very restrained in his public comments, preferring instead to discuss the issue internally and support the Conservative party line. That changed this weekend, following the stand by Bill Casey and a letter to the Chronicle Herald by finance minister Jim Flaherty.

In the letter Flaherty denied any new deal was in the works and once again claimed that Nova Scotia was not being short changed over offshore revenues. Apparently Casey’s stand, Flaherty’s comments, Harper’s continued strength in the polls and MacDonald’s slip to 29% support all combined to convince the Premier he had no choice but to stand up, find a voice and add fuel to the ongoing firestorm.

This week MacDonald said the finance minister is actively trying to undermine the negotiation process. The Premier is also lobbying the senate to delay the budget bill and asking Nova Scotia MPs to follow Casey’s lead and vote against the budget.

Boy oh boy, the walls of meeting rooms all over Parliament Hill must be vibrating to the point of near collapse, phones are ringing off the hook and blackberries across the Country are likely melting under the stress. It’s about time.

When an NDP Premier attacks a Conservative PM that’s one thing, but when two conservative Premier’s and a respected conservative MP all go on the attack it’s a completely different story.

The loose threads of the Alliance/Conservative/Reform/PC party are starting to unravel under the unrelenting pressure. These things happen when a quasi-coalition minority government reneges on written promises, unilaterally changes bilateral contracts and expects to maintain control of the situation.

They say that in politics a week is a lifetime, and it often is. With that in mind Harper, Flaherty and the rest probably believed this whole sordid mess would slip to the backburner in short order. It hasn't and it isn't going to.

What they didn’t count on is the tenacity of the people of Atlantic Canada, a place Harper once referred to as having “a culture of defeat”.

In fairness though, it’s easy to understand why the PM believed there was a culture of defeat in Atlantic Canada. Most of his exposure to Atlantic Canadians has come through his association with spineless MPs like Hearn, MacKay, Keddy, Doyle and Manning. Is it any wonder he figured he’d have no problem riding rough shod over the place?

It makes me wonder what his personal opinion is of the people of Saskatchewan, based on inactivity of that province's MPs, who also refuse to stand up for their constituents. The impression can't be a good one.

88 comments:

Anonymous said...

Culture of defeat. What else would you expect from an ignorant PM?

Add to that we have a Premier who believes "his people" have no self-confidence, and he travels the country to tell everyone else how weak and desperate they are.

Frankly, I have no time for either of them.

Starrigan said...

Conservative/Reform/Alliance/PC party, or let's use the acronym C.R.A.P. How appropriate.

Great article Myles, as always.

Anonymous said...

Artfull Dodger said....

Harper is proving to be a political opportunist. He and the party he leads, the CONservatives, campaigned on accountability as a hallmark of their party. Flash forward a few monthes and we bear witness to the CONservative's idea of accountability. Harper and his minions have tried every trick in the book to attempt to build enough support in vote rich portions of the country, for a shot at a majority government next time at the polls.

I will no doubt be very conflicted the next time we cast our ballots in a federal election. None of the mainstream federal political parties strike me as being worthy of my vote.

I don'y know about Harper's idea of "culture of defeat", however I would not be at all surprised if the word defeat may well be a familiar word for the federal CONsrvatives in this province.

Anonymous said...

I see the Globe and Mail was advised to turn the heat up on Premier Danny Williams in an article published last weekend, since I noticed he was sharply rebuked over the lack of growth in the economy and called Premier Danny Chavez.

Also he was chided for not growing the economy of the province.

How hypocritcal of Ottawa to make such a statement, when Ottawa has never attempted to grow the economy of this province with any of its high paying Federal Regional offices or Military bases? Such infrastructure has assisted and augmented the economies of the other provinces greatly. Neither did Ottawa do anything to assist the province in securing a corridor to wield the Upper Churchill Hydroelectric Energy to market in Canada and the Eastern Seaboard of the United States in 1969, a contract which saw Quebec Hydro become the primary beneficiary of that resource in a gross 75 year contract. Ottawa certainly didn't act in our best interest in that one and neither has it worked in the best interest with the fish resource it received stewardship over in 1949.

WJM said...

How hypocritcal of Ottawa to make such a statement, when Ottawa has never attempted to grow the economy of this province with any of its high paying Federal Regional offices or Military bases? Such infrastructure has assisted and augmented the economies of the other provinces greatly.

But most provinces, not as greatly as the provincial economy of NL has been "assisted and augmented" by federal jobs.

Only PEI, NS, and NB are more dependent on federal government jobs in terms of the share of employment income of the population, and for percentage of people employed, than NL.

Neither did Ottawa do anything to assist the province in securing a corridor to wield the Upper Churchill Hydroelectric Energy to market in Canada and the Eastern Seaboard of the United States in 1969

"Ottawa" wasn't asked.

And why should "Ottawa" intervene? Don't you believe in provincial autonomy?

a contract which saw Quebec Hydro become the primary beneficiary of that resource in a gross 75 year contract.

What's gross about it?

And since when did it become a 75-year contract?

Anonymous said...

Sorry it was signed in 1969 and set to expire in 2041. That makes it a 72 YEAR CONTRACT, too childish to quibble about. It still makes it a very gross and inequitable contract.

Ed Hollett said...

"I see the Globe and Mail was advised to turn the heat up on..."

That's just a paranoid delusion.

Odd how neither this anony-slagger nor any other anont-slagger here mentioned the two - count 'em - two positive articles on the province and the Premier that appeared before this one.

Paranoid delusions and selective perception.

There's a basis for an argument.

Anonymous said...

To the person who said: Paranoid delusions and selective perception.

I heard Premier Williams on Radio yesterday and he mentioned the article that was written in the Globe and Mail that referenced him as Danny Chavez. The Premeir thinks that was what happened there as he said so in his talk on radio. And I concur with the Premier on that. That would never happen with any other Premier in Canada.

Anonymous said...

Ontario is not an equalization recipient because it has been the prime beneficiary in other ways. Quebec gains the most through equalization and ranks second in other assistance, such as the recent $900 million commitment to the aerospace industry. They have been the big winners because they control the House of Commons. They win through the concentration of business and government activities Ottawa bestows on them through national policies, subsidies and transfers.

Ontario has not received equalization because it enjoys so many other benefits provided by Ottawa. Alberta is not presently receiving because its economy is doing well - as a result of its oil wealth. Unlike Ontario, its prosperity is not dependent on federal government favors. All the other provinces have been recipients, with Quebec consistently receiving the most, in addition to receiving the second highest share of other benefits. It only has 25 per cent of the population but will receive 33 per cent of all transfers this year.

Years of equalization payments have not changed the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador contributes more financially to the country than it receives. The federal government might spend more than it collects here directly, but our contribution to the economies of other provinces far exceeds their contribution to ours.

We contribute through buying goods and services from Ontario and Quebec, instead of from other countries where they could be obtained more cheaply. We contribute our own taxes, in addition to those collected elsewhere because of economic activities we create. We contribute through exploitation of our resources, in particular through providing far more revenues for Quebec than for ourselves as a result of the Churchill Falls Hydro project - because Ottawa refused to enforce our right to transmit power across Quebec, or to compensate us for the loss. We contribute through the inflated food prices we pay to subsidize mainland businesses. We contribute through the enormous debt we’ve accumulated to finance the purchase of goods and services from Central Canada.

April 30, 2007 8:38 AM


Anonymous said...
Manning and Hearn have burnt their political soul. What they will have to depend on from the next election on is the Cadillac policy of the Federal Government which looks after old politicians after they have burned all bridges with their voters.

April 30, 2007 12:29 PM


Anonymous said...
I think Ottawa's Cadillac policy has to go. It is detrimental to a province like Newfoundland and Labrador when its politicians are encouraged to toe the party line for Ottawa while letting their own people languish with no jobs and no economies, while being endowed with many resources. That is how we lost so many of our resources to the rest of Canada. The bloody
politicians toed the line for Ottawa, knowing full well there was no need to worry since Ottawa has a Cadillac policy to see politicians through who toe the party line. That is Corruption at its worse. That policy will kick into place at the end of this term when the afflicted politicians do not win back their seats. What a job when you don't do what is right for the ones who elected you, you have 100 per cent security from the entity for whom you toed the party line. Make no wonder we haven't been able to move forward!

Anonymous said...

ATLANTIC ACCORD DISCORD


Last updated at 8:44 AM on 12/06/07


Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald says Prime Minister Stephen Harper broke his promise to exclude offshore resource revenues from the federal equalization formula. (CP PHOTO)

What the Premier said

Post a comment
The Daily News


Excerpt from Premier Rodney MacDonald's speech Monday to the TD Bank's Bay Street Executive luncheon in Toronto:

In Nova Scotia we want to contribute to a stronger Canada by building a stronger and a new Nova Scotia. A Nova Scotia that is confident and ready to take its rightful place in Canada and the world.

Central to creating the New Nova Scotia is the 2005 Canada Nova Scotia offshore accord. The offshore accord is the federal-provincial agreement that we fought so hard to reach for so many years, and so hard to protect over the past several months.

The history behind this accord goes back 27 years, and it is a complex story. When you go back to your offices, and some one asks, “How was the speech”, I do not want anyone to reply “I don’t know, he started talking about equalization and some accord and I fell asleep.”

So while I will spare you details, the executive summary is this:

The 2005 offshore accord guaranteed that no matter how the federal equalization formula is changed, Nova Scotia remains entitled to 100 percent of its offshore resource revenues. This agreement set our offshore revenues apart from the equalization formula. It recognized that the offshore activity represented a relatively brief opportunity for economic development and fiscal stability in Nova Scotia.

In its March 19th budget, the federal government changed the equalization formula, which they are entitled to, and which we expected. But they also effectively canceled our accord, a bilateral agreement, which they are most definitely NOT entitled to.

Needless to say, this development did not sit very well with us, and we pushed back. We have had discussions with Ottawa since then at every level.

The past several weeks have been a series of exasperating highs and lows, mixed messages, optimism and in the end, dashed hopes.

We began discussions with federal officials almost immediately after the budget. We did so in good faith, assuming the federal government also wanted to resolve our impasse.

But we were wrong.

It is now obvious that the federal government never intended to settle this dispute on any terms but its own.

We tried the carrot, and now it is time for the stick. Yesterday, I called on every Nova Scotian Member of Parliament to stand in their place and vote against the federal budget on third reading.

And I’ve asked our Senators to delay passage of the budget bill through the Senate.

In doing so they would be standing up for their province, and against the kind of thinking that says it’s OK to break your word. And the kind of thinking that says Nova Scotia must be denied the opportunity for prosperity that is our birthright as Canadians.

This is a defining moment for our elected representatives.

Anyone who thinks Ottawa can run over small provinces at will and break legally binding agreements without any consequences is wrong. We want to be a “have” province – there is no culture of defeat in Nova Scotia.

Nova Scotians do not respond well to bullies.

Ed Hollett said...

"I heard Premier Williams on Radio yesterday and he mentioned the article that was written in the Globe and Mail that referenced him as Danny Chavez."

The article was written and it did make that comment. However, it is a paranoid delusion to believe that the column was ordered by the Government of Canada.

How many editorials have appeared in the Telegram over the years because the Premier's Office ordered them up?

Anonymous said...

You wouldn't see the Globe and Mail referreing to Prime Minister Harper as Prime Minister Hilter or any other moniker, would you? Or for that matter you wouldn't see the Globe and Mail write Premier Rodney Chavez for Premier Rodney MacDonald or Premier Loren Chavez for Premier Lorne Calvert. This type of 'not called for' journalism would only happen to highlight a Newfoundland and Labrador politican. I would be only too willing to listen if you would present a political name where this type of journalism occurred with another Canadian politician other than one from Newfoundland and Labrador politician.

Anonymous said...

According to the latest news reports, Manning, Doyle and Hearn are saying they met with Harper and will vote for the budget because he assured them any shortfall resulting from it would be made up to the province.

Bull!!!

He has already said that no province would be adversely affected and that the accord was not affected. If that's the case why does he need to make this assurance and who the hell can trust him on it?

Apparently Hearn, Doyle and Manning are about to. So much for representation in Ottawa.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"This type of 'not called for' journalism would only happen to highlight a Newfoundland and Labrador politican. I would be only too willing to listen if you would present a political name where this type of journalism occurred with another Canadian politician other than one from Newfoundland and Labrador politician.'

On the last point first:

if you are the same anonymous who went on and on about this issue before, there really isn't anything that will get you off your pre-determined belief in another aspect of The Great Conspiracy.

On the first point, the comparison is drawn since the rhetoric leads to the comparison. It's one person's opinion; that's all it is.

You don't have to like it any more than you have to agree with an editorial or column in the Telegram.

If you want to portray yourself as some sort of ethnic victim, then go right ahead. if you want to delude yourself into believing some Great Conspiracy ordered up this editorial, then there's nothing wwill change your mind.

The fact remains that it is simply one person's opinion and it is not part of some great conspiracy. Incidentally, CBC interviewed the guy yesterday. he admitted his language was deliberately strong but he intended simply to provoke a discussion.

That presumes that people are willing to discuss, rather than - as you've done - simply jumped to a conclusion and gone off on some tangent.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"So much for representation in Ottawa. "

Well, rather than generalize, look at the performance of specific individuals.

Anonymous said...

The Telegram is a local newspaper, the Globe and Mail is a National. It is a big difference.

Edward G. Hollett said...

"The Telegram is a local newspaper, the Globe and Mail is a National. It is a big difference."

The Globe is a Toronto based newspaper owned by a national company with television and radio in addition to newspapers.

If a government can order an editorial for a private Toronto newspaper owned by a major national company, why wouldn't a provincial government be able to order up an editorial in a local newspaper?

If it isn't the Telegram, why wouldn't a provincial government be able to order up an editorial in any local paper?

Conspiracies like the one you claim exists don't only have to exist for one situation.

Why wouldn't the federal government be able to order up an editorial in any newspaper in the country, including the Telegram?

WJM said...

We contribute through buying goods and services from Ontario and Quebec, instead of from other countries where they could be obtained more cheaply.

Which goods are those?

WJM said...

You wouldn't see the Globe and Mail referreing to Prime Minister Harper as Prime Minister Hilter or any other moniker, would you? Or for that matter you wouldn't see the Globe and Mail write Premier Rodney Chavez for Premier Rodney MacDonald or Premier Loren Chavez for Premier Lorne Calvert.

That would be because there's really no case to make for comparing Harper to Hitler, or Macdonald or Calvert to Chavez.

WJM said...

I would be only too willing to listen if you would present a political name where this type of journalism occurred with another Canadian politician other than one from Newfoundland and Labrador politician.

Guess who said this, and guess about whom:

"...this slimy politician, this fascist, this Nazi, this... VOTE-GETTER!"

Starrigan said...

Anonymous don't bother to debate any national newspaper with Crazy Eddy, he'll defend crap newspapers like the Globe and Mail to his death. We all know that paper has an agenda. The Mop and Pail is just dripping with insult an racism, sickening really. But Crazy Eddy he'll stick up for it. Just another example of him bowing down to his mainland overlords.
Much the same as Ottawally (WJM). One thing to be sure of, they are both huge a$$holes. Just ignore them, maybe they'll go back to their own blogs and leave us alone. No wait, there's really nothing for them to go back to.

a rat's ring said...

Anonymous don't bother to debate any national newspaper with Crazy Eddy, he'll defend crap newspapers like the Globe and Mail to his death. We all know that paper has an agenda. The Mop and Pail is just dripping with insult an racism, sickening really. But Crazy Eddy he'll stick up for it. Just another example of him bowing down to his mainland overlords.

Much the same as Ottawally (WJM). One thing to be sure of, they are both huge a$$holes. Just ignore them, maybe they'll go back to their own blogs and leave us alone. No wait, there's really nothing for them to go back to.

Anonymous said...

WJM you said:That would be because there's really no case to make for comparing Harper to Hitler, or Macdonald or Calvert to Chavez.

Yes, there is because they are asking for the same deal with Ottawa on non-renewable resources that Newfoundland and Labrador's Premier is asking for. The deal that was promised.

Anonymous said...

The Globe and Mail and their counterpart BNN Television services the whole country, while the The Telegram is a very local newspaper and it barely services the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is comparable to the difference between the Supreme Court of Canada and the Provincial Courts.

Anonymous said...

Here's an excerpt of a note I sent to my MP, Gerald Keddy. It was CC'd to Manning, Hearn and Doyle.

It suggests a practical solution that WILL work, even at this late stage in the game, and should have been done long ago. It also lists a lot of good reasons to vote against this disastrous budget and oppose Flaherty as Finance Minister. And incidentally points out some disastrous impacts for Canada if the EU goes for a carbon tax on imports instead of a broad ecological footprint tax. The latter could even head off moves to boycott Canada over the seal hunt (as whatever real or imagined impacts of this would be factored in as one of many factors in an EF tax).

So don't let ANY Conservative in Atlantic Canada tell you that they had no options.

"I think this situation can be resolved very easily.
The real problem is that have-not provinces are being
literally forced to declare a lack of faith in their
non-renewable resource industries, e.g. Nova Scotia is
forced to declare that future gas finds are unlikely.

So I would suggest that you make at least the initial
moves to broker a deal between Ottawa and Halifax to
remove the obnoxious choice between Atlantic Accord
and the new equalization formula, by simply declaring
that the HIGHER of the two figures will always apply
and Halifax will accordingly NEVER receive less than
it would under the Accord. Given the political and
media pressure, and the expiry date on the Accord, I
think no one will blame Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty
for giving in. In my opinion, they could have done
this in the first place with no political consequence
as Mr. Martin's government signed the Accord and they
had advocated it themselves. The fact that Flaherty
did not do this in the first place is a sign either of
his incompetence (my opinion) or shallow politicking
to portray have-not provinces as somehow "greedy" even
though we receive a pittance for our lost youth and
disadvantageous money supply, investment and insurance
position (our money goes west so youth must follow it,
and what we get back doesn't compensate for that
loss).

While I appreciate very much your careful analyses and
principled decisions, for instance on the SSM vote, it
is obvious that long service and high integrity count
for nothing with Mr. Harper, Mr. Flaherty, or MacKay.
MacKay's inexcusable lying to Bill Casey is abhorrent.

In my opinion this artificial "crisis" was created for
political reasons, and the budget is unacceptable for
a number of other reasons including its total lack of
attention to Canada's ecological footprint and trade
position. Should Europe institute a carbon tax, as is
widely anticipated, Canadian goods would be harshly
punished. Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay should therefore
have (when in Europe) advocated the alternative, a
more broadly based EU tax on ecological footprint,
which would punish Canada far less, as its performance
(relative to others) on a broad range of ecological
issues is better than on CO2.

The budget further did nothing to require federal
funds to flow only to sustainable projects or for
accelerated CCA deductions to be disallowed for
non-sustainable activities. It unwisely leaves taxes
on services high rather than shift off service and
income taxes onto resource and emission and footprint
taxes."

If any Conservative votes for this budget, you can throw the options in their face. They were warned.

I've even provided the rhetoric for them to use to oppose mindless comments from Ontario and Alberta that imply that what these places receive in return for their money (mostly our youth, investment and insurance payments) is worthless.

I can't imagine a deeper insult to Atlantic Canada than the comments leading up to tonight's vote that have come from Harper and Flaherty.

MacKay's silence speaks for itself.

- Craig Hubley

WJM said...

Yes, there is because they are asking for the same deal with Ottawa on non-renewable resources that Newfoundland and Labrador's Premier is asking for. The deal that was promised.

That's not what engenders the comparison with Hugo Chavez.

You don't really know who Chavez is, or why DeCloet made that comparison, do you?

Ed Hollett said...

"The Globe and Mail and their counterpart BNN Television services the whole country, while the The Telegram is a very local newspaper and it barely services the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is comparable to the difference between the Supreme Court of Canada and the Provincial Courts."

This is sort of a bizarre rationalization on a number of fronts.

First of all the Globe is the largest circ paper in the country; the telly is the largest circ paper in the province. It covers the entire province except for an area around Corner Brook served by the Telly counterpart the Western Star.

That's pretty much comparable, in proportion.

So on a paranoid level with all your conspiracies, what is to stop the provincial government here from ordering up an editiorial from a provincial newspaper if, as you claim, the feds do it in the Globe?

Anonymous said...

Canada can go to Hell ,along with all the liberial speakers on this site .
They have bigger Balls then most of the working ladys on young street in "Tar 'on 'toe"
Makes me physically sick to see how some people can write stuff about thier home .I hope the money they get from the Governments makes them and thier familys better.
Thier fellow citizens are paying for it ,enjoy it scum-bags

Anonymous said...

Who doesn't know who Hugo Chavez is?

Hugo Chavez, is the gentleman who rules oil rich Venezuela, his beloved country. He is looking out for his beloved people, all 24 million of them, who are amongst the poorest in the world, despite their great oil wealth. He wants his oil to be used for the betterment of his people and not for the large oil conglomerates, who were the beneficiaries of that country's oil for far too long, and one the sole reason why the people are so poor. The oil wealth wasn't working in creating economies for his people, it was being sucked out of the ground by the big oil conglomerates to make them richer. That is no different than what Premier Williams wants for his people.

And like a lot of people, Hugo feels he is dealing with the devil in Washington who happens to be the greatest worshiper of big oil in the whole world, and who doesn't care one iota about the poor of the world.

There are a couple of people to this blogsite who share the same idealogy as that devil who resides in Washington.

Anonymous said...

Yes Hugo Chavez. Man of the people. Made it illegal to criticize him on the radio. Forced private broadcasters out of their station at gunpoint with armed thugs.

If that's what you want in Newfoundland you can have it.

As for yor whining about the Globe and Mail, there is no politican in this country who has been given more free editorial pages in the past year than Danny Williams in the national newspapers.

None.

You people are fucking whiners, It's true what you write - the best and brightest are leaving newfoundland. The rest stay behind and write ill-informed tripe.

Anonymous said...

Artfull Dodger said....

This Chavez foolishness is simply the latest in overused potshots taken on the cheap by Harper/CONservative fans and media whores from certain mainland print rags. Hyperbole such as this is common on a few of the blogs and political forums I have been watching as of late. According to some on those blogs and forums, we are not pulling our weight in this country and exist merely because their tax dollars are robbed from them and handed to us, or at least that is their opinion.

I don't agree with all which Williams espouses, but at least he is calling Harper out on his reneging of a promise made. If that upsets the anti Newfoundland & Labrador crowd then so be it, those people despised before all of this and will despise us after it is forgotten. I've gotten used to we folk in this province being called whiners, lazy, inbred and any other number of insulting adjectives/remarks by the intolerant types outside the province, to hell with them all.

By the way, I heard Sue on backtalk today say that she has finally come around to the separatist point of view. I think it is safe to say the she has finally had it with the Canadian federation thanks to the likes of Harper.

Anonymous said...

Yes Hugo Chavez. Man of the people. Made it illegal to criticize him on the radio.

THAT IS NOT NEARLY AS BAD AS HAVING YOUR OIL STOLEN BY THE LARGE OIL CONGLOMERATES, AND HAVING NOTHING TO CREATE ECONOMIES FOR YOUR PEOPLE.

WJM said...

If that's what you want in Newfoundland you can have it.

That's what at least one Newfoundlander wants.

No questions.

No criticism.

No opposition.

As his right-hand henchman says, yer fer us, or yer agin' us.

WJM said...

By the way, I heard Sue on backtalk today say that she has finally come around to the separatist point of view.

"Finally"?

Was that her word?

Who is she trying to kid? She's always been a separatwit.

I think it is safe to say the she has finally had it with the Canadian federation thanks to the likes of Harper.

You should ask Sue, next time you see her, who did she campaign for in the last federal election?

Whose campaign bus did she ride?

Ask Sue that.

WJM said...

THAT IS NOT NEARLY AS BAD AS HAVING YOUR OIL STOLEN BY THE LARGE OIL CONGLOMERATES, AND HAVING NOTHING TO CREATE ECONOMIES FOR YOUR PEOPLE.

What about when someone does try to create "economies" for "their people", and the government shuts them down?

Where does that rank on your moral turpitude-o-meter?

babe in boyland said...

"YOUR OIL" "YOUR PEOPLE"

who is the you youre talking about?

and by the way, i cant see that there is much worse than having freedom of speech and thought taken away.

better red than dead, huh anonymous?

Anonymous said...

What I don't want is the Big Oil taking the biggest part of the profits.

Lee Raymond retired from Exxon last fall, his retirement package consisted of $400 million dollars, a car with a driver, access to a private jet and these were just some of the perks he received.

Exxon itself had the greatest quarterly profit last year in its history, that was $40 billion dollars for a 3 month period.

I cannot justify that kind of take when most of the areas from where the oil is extracted, the average person is very poor.

Countries in Africa are suffering greatly because the oil conglomerates robbed them blind, and what the oil companies don't get the dictators do. Some peasants there have had their arms lobbed off for protesting against the Oil Companies taking over their plot of land they lived on to drill for oil.

Even the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is suffering from a lack of economies and when our Premier asks for a 5 per cent equity in our off-shore oil, we have people like you WJM going crazy on this blog, lambasting Premier Williams for daring to ask for even that amount of equity.

We also have Ottawa doing the same. It seems that Ottawa doesn't want us to have equity into our oil wells while it has an 8 per cent stake. It is more than strange to me that we would face opposition from inhabitants of the province like you WJM and our Federal Government.

WJM who are you lobbying on behalf, since it is certainly not your province?

settle this said...

Quit whining, all of you. On both sides. Call a referendum.

WJM said...

Even the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is suffering from a lack of economies

Why should it have economies? Every other province makes do with one economy.

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

WJM said...

It seems that Ottawa doesn't want us to have equity into our oil wells while it has an 8 per cent stake.

Ottawa bought that stake.

How is Ottawa preventing NL from buying an equity position, or otherwise obtaining one?

How?

WJM who are you lobbying on behalf, since it is certainly not your province?

I'm not a lobbyist, so I'm not lobbying on anyone's behalf. I do, occasionally, apply pressure on my own behalf, to some order of government or another.

You don't really know what lobbying is, do you, Minnie?

Anonymous said...

There is a Macro picture and a Micro picture.

As I said before, Wabush has an economy, Goose Bay has an economy, Churchill Falls has an economy, St. John's has an economy,
and Gander has an economy. As small as they all are, collectively they are the economies of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WJM said...

As small as they all are, collectively they are the economies of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

No, they are the economies of their respective municipalities or localities.

A given unit has AN economy, not multiple ones.

Anonymous said...

Definitions of Lobbying on the Web:


Below are some of the definitions of lobbying.

You WJM are lobbying us on behalf of someone, most likely the Federal Government, to break down our resolve to change things for the better in this province.

For instance the province of Newfoundland and Labrador wants a 5 per cent equity in our Oil, it is clear to me that the federal government, the oil companies and you don't want us to have that equity. Example: we are lobbying for the 5 per cent equity stake, you are lobbying against it, for whom I do not know. In other words all three groups are trying to influnce somebody or something.

DEFINITIONS OF LOBBYING

The process of trying to influence policymakers in favor of a specific cause. ^
youthink.worldbank.org/glossary.php

any activity designed to influence a Member of Congress to favor or oppose any legislation (including appropriation), whether before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legislation. Accordingly, OSM grant funds may not be used to:
www.osmre.gov/fam/defin.htm

Communication with elected officials or their staff, which expresses a position on a pending piece of legislation.
www.npaction.org/article/articleview/381/1/227

Using personal contacts, public pressure, or political action to persuade legislators to vote in a particular manner.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_e-l.html

Seeking to influence the passage or defeat of legislation. Originally the term referred to persons frequenting the lobbies or corridors of legislative chambers to speak to lawmakers.
www.nvfc.org/leg/wglossary.html

Efforts to influence legislation by influencing the opinion of legislators, legislative staff and government administrators directly involved in drafting legislative proposals. The Internal Revenue Code sets limits on lobbying by organizations that are exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(3). Public charities (see Public Charity) may lobby as long as lobbying does not become a substantial part of their activities. ...
www.yscf.org/glossary.html

Employing persons to influence state and federal legislators to sponsor laws that further one's own interest or inhibit those of one's opponents.
www.crfonline.org/orc/glossary/l.html

Contacting local, state and national government officials to support funding and initiatives which improve libraries. Lobbying is a major responsibility of library trustees. Legislators can be contacted by personal visits, telephone calls, letters and faxes.
www.odl.state.ok.us/servlibs/l-files/glossl.htm

"Lobbying" means to communicate directly with any official in the Legislature for the purpose of influencing any legislative action or with the Governor for the purpose of influencing the approval or veto of a legislative action when reimbursement for expenditures or compensation is made for those activities. ...
janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/3/title3sec312-A.html

all attempts to influence directly or indirectly any government activity, and includes any attempt to influence legislators, their staff, civil servants, and members of regulatory agencies. Page 81
www.ucs.mun.ca/~rsexty/business1000/glossary/L.htm

An activity of interest groups aimed at influencing governors and the public to achieve a favourable policy decision(s).
www.comune.venezia.it/atlante/documents/glossary/nelson_glossary.htm

Lobbying is the practice of private advocacy with the goal of influencing a governing body, in order to ensure that an individual's or organization's point of view is represented in the government. A lobbyist is a person who is paid to influence legislation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

WJM said...

You WJM are lobbying us on behalf of someone, most likely the Federal Government, to break down our resolve to change things for the better in this province.

The federal government is the target of lobbying, not the client of it.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

For instance the province of Newfoundland and Labrador wants a 5 per cent equity in our Oil

Who's stopping it from buying oil stock? Or setting equity as a condition of development?

it is clear to me that the federal government, the oil companies and you don't want us to have that equity.

Clear on what basis? I'd be particularly intrigued to know how you know my views on the subject.

Example: we are lobbying for the 5 per cent equity stake, you are lobbying against it

Am I? What do you base that assertion on?

The process of trying to influence policymakers in favor of a specific cause.

Nope. That's not lobbying.

Lobbying is doing that ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE.

Really, you don't have a clue, do you?

Not a click.

As your bosses are fond of saying, "there are 360 clicks in a clue"....

Anonymous said...

Came across this earlier today.

http://www.mrdconservative.com/equal_how_here.htm#option1



When the Conservatives took government in 2006, equalization was in a mess. As witness to this fact, we need look no further than the repeated meetings between the provinces on that issue. They failed to produce any consensus and each province remained fixated on bringing home as much federal pork as possible to help them win another election.
If the provinces were altruistic, they would tax on the provincial level to fund their spending habits, and only ask for “equalization” when the provincial tax base would not bear the standard of essential services offered elsewhere in Canada. Instead, they continue to hold their hand out to the Federal government to raise taxes for their programs and give it to them as an allowance. Equalization was conceived to be a program that calculated the wealth of each province according to a nationwide standard; their respective wealth was then measured against their ability to provide comparable services to Canadians, no matter where they live. Thus the federal government would ‘top up’ those provinces who did not have a sufficient provincial tax base to provide the same quality of essential services as larger, wealthier provinces.
Originally commissioned by the former Liberal government, the independent O’Brien panel studied equalization and came up with a formula that evaluated a common set of factors for every province. That formula produced a measure of each province’s ability to fund essential services. A province unable to fund a standard level of services on their own, is considered a ‘have not’ province and receives “equalization payments” to bring their ability up to par.
The Conservative government introduced the recommendations of the O’Brien report in the 2007 Budget and incorporated its solutions for fixing the fiscal imbalance and equalization. The Conservatives made an exception to the O’Brien recommendations and exempted NF/LB and NS from caps on their natural resources (because of the existing Atlantic Accords).
The foundation of the O’Brien formula was a “10 Province Standard” for evaluating each province’s wealth vs. its ability to provide services. That national standard for this national program was, in turn, the foundation of Budget 2007’s solution for equalization. Most of Canada’s provinces welcomed the new formula because it provided a fair, stable and predictable source of funding for the long term. The notable exceptions were NS and NF.
In order to respect the existing agreement (Atlantic Accord), the Conservative government made a special exception to the “10 Province Standard” by allowing the Atlantic Accord to runs its course until the expiration of its term in 2012. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland can continue to operate under the terms of the 2005 Atlantic Accords until they expire in 2012. There is no change to the terms of the Accords. There are no clawbacks under that scenario.
As a second scenario, the Conservative government gave NS and NF the option of being included in the new “10 Province Standard” formula – IF THEY FOUND IT TO BE TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. Imagine the outcry if the government insisted that NS / NF serve out the term of the Atlantic Accord with no choice to opt into the new, richer equalization! Furthermore, they did not have to opt in right away; they could evaluate their position each year and opt in at any point right up until the Atlantic Accords expire in 2012. They alone would make the choice whether to opt in or not, if the new formula proved more beneficial to their province.
The Atlantic Accord has been fully respected up until the expiration of its term in 2012 (no changes, no clawbacks – Scenario 1). As a second option, NS and NF were not precluded from joining the rest of Canada in a new standard of equalization recommended by a non-partisan, independent O’Brien commission. If their respective Premiers felt that the province would benefit greater from the new formula, they can opt in at any time. Nova Scotia, not wanting to rush into a potentially bad decision, was further granted a one year ‘trial period’ in which they could return to the Atlantic Accord option if they so chose.
The one option that was not put on the table, was for either province to ‘have their cake and eat it too.’ In other words, if NS and NF opted into the new equalization AND still had the additional benefits of the Atlantic Accord, that would put the other provinces at a disadvantage in their ability to provide the same services as NS and NF. That subverts the whole purpose of equalization. What is uncomfortable for Premiers Williams and MacDonald is explaining to provincial voters why they didn’t fight harder for a bigger piece of the Federal pork. That is why the Premiers could never come to an agreement on their own. That is also why Premiers Williams and MacDonald want this issue tried in the ‘court of public opinion1’ rather than having the legal opinion of the court – they both know that, legally, the Accord was fully respected and they have to make the difficult choice between a great deal, and an even better deal.


1 Premier Rodney MacDonald, press conference in Toronto, 11 June 2007 as aired live on CTV.



Glenn

Edward G. Hollett said...

"when our Premier asks for a 5 per cent equity in our off-shore oil, we have people like you WJM going crazy on this blog, lambasting Premier Williams for daring to ask for even that amount of equity."

While admittedly I haven't seen every single post WJm has made, I doubt very much this is even close to true.

And of course that's part of the problem, any questioning of certain points of view is automatically said to be treason or some other euqally evil idea.

While it might be difficult for some, they should try and stick to establish fact rather than simply make things up.

take this comment for example:

"It seems that Ottawa doesn't want us to have equity into our oil wells while it has an 8 per cent stake.'

Sheer nonsense. pure fiction. A total fantasy, maybe even a paranoid delusion.

There's not a shred of evidence for it at all.

Anonymous said...

WJM why should we have to buy a 5 per cent equity in our own oil. It should be a given that we would be allowed 5 per cent.

You see the Oil conglomerates are so covetous, the way they operate can only be referred to as satanic.

And you WJM, you can think how you like, you are lobbying this blogsite so as to break us down in spirit, so that we will fold our hands under our arms and retreat. That is what you are up to. You are wishing that this blogsite and the information that comes forth on it would cease, and that is the reason you are pestering the posters on this site. It is all paid for by the Feds and the Oil Companies. I cannot prove it, of course, because such information is kept under lock and key.

You say you are not lobbying here but that is exactly what you are doing. You are operating no differently than somebody lobbying government or some or agency person who has influence for some plum/contract of some sort.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU ARE TRYING TO INFLUENCE, and RIGHT HERE ON THIS BLOGSITE YOU ARE TRYING TO INFLUENCE US BY BREAKING US DOWN IN SPIRIT AND THUS STOPPING ALL POSTS TO THIS IMPORTANT BLOGSITE, AT LEAST IMPORTANT FOR US. IT IS ANOTHER TYPE OF LOBBYING OR INFLUENCING.

IT IS PROBABLY THE NEWEST TYPE OF LOBBYING THAT IS AROUND RIGHT NOW, AND YOU MIGHT NOT INTREPRET IT AS SUCH, BUT IT IS, AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT IS LOBBYING. WHEN I WRITE TO THIS BLOG YOU LOBBY ME.

PLEASE FORGIVE ME WITH THE CAPS, BUT I AM TRYING TO GET MY POINT ACROSS AND DEFINE LOBBYING IN ITS NEWEST FORM.

Anonymous said...

http://www.harperindex.ca

Anonymous said...

With regards to lobbying:
Is using the internet to voice opinion and share information reserved solely for those that share the same views? By the definitions presented here, one could argue that there are many lobbies being forwarded, it all depends on your perspective. The reason that forums, weblogs, newsgroups and even radio talk shows exist is to provide a vehicle for expression of views and sharing of thoughts. Instead of attacking the individual, argue the individual's position with confirmable fact. It is more difficult to do so and requires educating one's self on the issues, but is irrefutable and much more persuasive to an open minded reader.

Anonymous said...

The facts are out there on everything, but when we have the Federal Government with its paid lobbyists entering the fray, matters get corrupted. These people can make the truth look like a pack of lies. We see what has happened to the Atlantic Accord and the fact that Prime Minister Harper promised Premier Danny Williams, Premier Rodney MacDonald and Premier Lorne Calvert that there would be no caps on the Atlantic Accord, that their provinces non-renewable resources would not be included in the equilization and all those promies were in writing, yet the Prime Minister and his Merry Band of Lobbyists make it look like they didn't promise anything.

Starrigan said...

Anonymous, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just ignore WJM (Ottawally and Crazy Eddy), they are both traitorous scum. These a$$holes are just here to get a rise out of you and insult our people. The best thing to do is just arrow past their posts, don't even bother to read their tripe. Whenever you respond to their crap you are getting sucked into to their little game. Just ignore them. You'll feel better and piss them off at the same time.

What's with Babe In Boyland, he/she is starting to ask questions just like WJM.

Anonymous said...

"It seems that Ottawa doesn't want us to have equity into our oil wells while it has an 8 per cent stake.'

Sheer nonsense. pure fiction. A total fantasy, maybe even a paranoid delusion.

There's not a shred of evidence for it at all.

Ed ,take your own advise buddy .Youre the biggest Bullshitter on this blog ,SNIFF ,SNIFF ,I smell another spending Scandel coming from Quebec.Or ,is that my imagination.No aith i can't get ed "HIS PROOF"so its all bullshit.

There was no Governement involvement in the Ipperwash affair either right ed.Mike Harris never said shit and the Provincail Governement of Onatrio didn't have to spend MILLIONs to prove that.

There was no Governement invilvement in the 95 Quebec referrenduim either Right Ed.Thank God elections canada didn't make that public information right ed,or am I seeing things on the national news.

Mr Holliet,your a typical Liberial Bullshitter that spreads nothing but his own political aganeda .you might have some respect in Newfondland and Labrador ,but to the rest of us ex-pats,your nothing more then a liar.
If you wish for me to disclose myself ,sure ,do you want a phone nuber ,we can talk.
But ,the propaganda machine that is the Newfoundland and labrador Liberial Party is easy to see.Your just making yourself look like an idiot.Good Luck .

WJM said...

WJM why should we have to buy a 5 per cent equity in our own oil. It should be a given that we would be allowed 5 per cent.

"Allowed" by whom?

If it's our own oil, wouldn't we be doing the own allowing?

I said it could be bought — that's how the federal government got its share of Hibernia — or the province could make it a condition of license, as it has tried to do.

But guess what? No one's stopping the province!

You see the Oil conglomerates are so covetous, the way they operate can only be referred to as satanic.

Is it also "satanic" when Newfoundland "covets", say, the nickel concentrate that will supply the refinery in Placentia Bay?

Why or why not?

And you WJM, you can think how you like, you are lobbying this blogsite

How do you lobby a "blogsite"? (And why is that one word?)

Better question: WHY would anyone "lobby" a blog?

so as to break us down in spirit

Is it working?

It is all paid for by the Feds and the Oil Companies.

I wish it were. Oh, how I wish it were!

I cannot prove it, of course, because such information is kept under lock and key.

Or, perhaps, that "information" doesn't exist at all, Liz.

You say you are not lobbying here but that is exactly what you are doing.

No, lobbying is when someone works on behalf of someone else to try and effect changes in public policy or the actions of a government.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU ARE TRYING TO INFLUENCE

So are you. You are a lobbyist, right?

Right?

PLEASE FORGIVE ME WITH THE CAPS, BUT I AM TRYING TO GET MY POINT ACROSS AND DEFINE LOBBYING IN ITS NEWEST FORM.

You don't get to make up words.

WJM said...

The facts are out there on everything, but when we have the Federal Government with its paid lobbyists

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Governments are the TARGETS of lobbyists, not their employers.

I would like to find whoever introduced the word "lobby" to Newfoundland, and whack it out of them with a large board with a nail in it.

yet the Prime Minister and his Merry Band of Lobbyists make it look like they didn't promise anything.

Why would the PM have lobbyists?

You don't know what a lobbyist is, do you, Minnie?

Edward G. Hollett said...

Some anonymous prson wrote:

"The facts are out there on everything, but when we have the Federal Government with its paid lobbyists entering the fray, matters get corrupted. These people can make the truth look like a pack of lies. We see what has happened to the Atlantic Accord and the fact that Prime Minister Harper promised Premier Danny Williams, Premier Rodney MacDonald and Premier Lorne Calvert that there would be no caps on the Atlantic Accord, that their provinces non-renewable resources would not be included in the equilization and all those promies were in writing, yet the Prime Minister and his Merry Band of Lobbyists make it look like they didn't promise anything."

The facts indeed are out there. One of things I have been dealing with is that a lot of things presented here by some people as facts aren't actually facts at all.

The easy proof of that is that when asked for evidence, there is never any presented.

There is no question that the Harper government did not keep its election commitment, nor did the Harperites do what they talked about before the election by applying a cap to the 1985 and 2005 Equalization offsets.

I don't know who the paid lobbyists are that you are referring to but obviously, some people are claiming that the Accords are intact when they obviously aren't.

So what exactly was your point?

Edward G. Hollett said...

"If you wish for me to disclose myself ,sure ,do you want a phone number ,we can talk."

Why not just click the "other" option at the bottom of the post and type your name before you type in the letter code to get the comment posted?

It would be far easier, especially when you want to engage in the nonsense you just posted.

Anonymous said...

Ed Hollett do you agree with Premie Danny Williams, Premier Rodney MacDonald and Premier Lorne Calvert that Prime Minister Harper broke his promise to their 3 provinces that there would be no cap on the Atlantic Accord and that non-renewable resources would be left out of the equilization formula?

It is a fact that he made a promise. Everyone who had their ears and eyes opened either heard the Prime Minister in audio news clippings or read it in a newspaper or brochure of some sort. The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador says he has it in writing.

Again are you denying that he made the promise?

Edward G. Hollett said...

Apparently, the English language is somehow not English here.

Some anonymous wrote:

"Again are you denying that he made the promise?"

Just prior to that I wrote:

"There is no question that the Harper government did not keep its election commitment, nor did the Harperites do what they talked about before the election by applying a cap to the 1985 and 2005 Equalization offsets." [Emphasis added]

So what exactly wasn't clear about what I wrote?

Anonymous said...

Ed Hollett you are so ambiguous or is it hazy? And some people would say you oscillate wildly between your posts and your talks on the radio.

From what I gather when you speak on Radio, you always appear to be pro Federal Government and pro Oil Corporation. And I gather, even though, you are a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, you come across always to me as not agreeing to what the rest of us want out of our resources, that is a Fair Deal. You appear to be a "give away" man? That is what I gather and many others. Are we all wrong?

When a person comes across in such a manner, one has to wonder, is the person being paid by either the Federal Government or the Oil Corporations. You appear to be there on a second's notice to rebut anything written about the oil corporations treatment of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or when things are written on the Federal Government.

People can deciminate what is being written and I very rarely, if ever, see you supporting your own Progressive Conservative Provincial Government which appears to be out there trying to right the wrongs of the way the people and the government of Newfoundland and Labrador have been treated over the past 58 years under the Federal Government of Canada and the Corporations who have exploited our resources?

Ed Hollett said...

"you are so ambiguous or is it hazy?"

Actually the confusion is all yours.

So let's make it really simple.

You asked:

"...do you agree with Premier Danny Williams, Premier Rodney MacDonald and Premier Lorne Calvert that Prime Minister Harper broke his promise to their 3 provinces that there would be no cap on the Atlantic Accord and that non-renewable resources would be left out of the equilization formula?"

Yes. Although, it was actually a promise made to all 30 odd million people of Canada in all 10 provinces.

"Again are you denying that he made the promise?"

I never denied it in the first place.

Then I said it again.

I said it in plain English. Twice:

"...the Harper government did not keep its election commitment...".

Now I've said it a third time.

What is your point, exactly, since I've made exactly the same point three times?

Certainly that last three paragraph rant of yours is a complete fiction.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that a certain individual here, or is it two individuals are playing a shell game in an attempt to frustrate the topic at hand, too bad it isn't working.

Ed Hollett said...

"Seems to me that a certain individual here, or is it two individuals are playing a shell game in an attempt to frustrate the topic at hand, too bad it isn't working."

This anon commenter might well be on to something. There indeed are a couple of people who post anonymously who seem to deliberately misrepresent points or engage in personal smears as a way of frustrating any substantial discussion.

Thanks for pointing it out. Good to know you aren't fooled by their efforts.

Anonymous said...

Why did you oppose what John Crosbie had to say last week on Night Line? If you say you agree with Premier Danny Williams and I know you didn't agree with John Crosbie, well something is not right here, since John Crosbie was defending Premier Williams with regard to the changes in the Atlantic Accord. YOU CONFUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE ED.

It appears that you have two opinions and you do not hesitate to use them. We all hear you from time to time Ed pontificating on the Open Line Shows. What you say and what you write don't seem to jibe. So you are the one who is causing the mass confusion, not me.

Edward G. Hollett said...

I only the confuse those who are already confused. This is sometimes a subject that appears complicated but in fact it isn't.

If you were genuinely following my comments, you would know that I was one of the first people to raise the point that Mr. Harper was violating the 1985 Accord. That puts the whole offshore in jeopardy. I have consistently made that point even though the Premier ignores it for some reason.

I pointed out on several occasions that Mr. Crosbie said something that is fundamentally untrue. He said the original intention of the 1985 Atlantic Accord was to give NL oil revenues in full and Equalization in full as if oil and gas revenues didn't exist.

That is simply not true. it is completely false.

Mr. Crosbie himself told NL to stop biting the hand that feeds it when the idea of clawbacks was raised in 1990. If you had read the post on Bond, it's there in plain English. i pointed out that Mr. Crosbie was wrong and that in 1990 he himself had said exactly the opposite of what he is saying now

All Harper had to do is remove the amendment portions of his budget bill taking off the cap and he would have essentially honoured in full the 1985 and 2005 agreements. That's all he really needed to do to avoid the huge problems he has created.

Mr. Crosbie wasn't supporting the Premier. He was actually trying to come up with some kind of fiddle to save Harper's skin. The premier has already abandoned the Accords in favour of the Harper promise. of course, the Premier knows full well he will never get that.

My position is consistent, however. For some reason, you can't seem to follow it. Even when I say something clearly in a single word like "yes", you respond: "so you are saying "no".

Obviously that's your issue.

Republican said...

WJM said...

By the way, I heard Sue on backtalk today say that she has finally come around to the separatist point of view.

"Finally"?

Was that her word?

Who is she trying to kid? She's always been a separatwit.

Well this will probably get erased out by the blogs owner so I will make it short and sweet.
Quebec ,whom ,you seem to ahve a great deal of favour for Mr Wallace,has a separtist party since when.And ,you seem to have nothing but good to say for quebec.

When someone comes around and starts agreeing with thier mentality you call them "WHAT"

You dear man,are a piece of maggot shit.Pardon me ,that s giving maggot shit a bad name.You are lower then pond scum.You don't deserve to breath that great Labrador air.If you had an 1/8 the love in your heart for labrador that Sue Kelland-Dyer has you would be twice the man you are now .
Pathetic pile of "Sculpine Shit"

feel free to remove the Post Patriot.And may my fellow Newfoundlander's and labradorians forgive me for my language.

OH ,and as for the separtist thing.Hey why the hell not.Look at what 58 years of being in Canada had done for Newfoundland and Labrador .maybe we should play on the flag thing somemore.Thats the only language that is understood in this country anyway.Why continue to be apart of such a massive den of "Thieves and Liars."

Anonymous said...

Pius, is that you?

Anonymous said...

I just noticed that as we spend all this time demonizing Hearn, Harper and Manning, much to the delight of both NL Nationalists and NL Liberals, there aren't any drilling rigs currently drilling new wells off the NL coast. Nor are there any industries trying to beat down the door to enter the NL marketplace.

I have to give credit where credit is due. Premier Williams, all I can say is brillant! You are holding out on signing a deal with industry while being subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer. Can I get a woop woop?


To the ANON above who waxed on and on about the evil, capitalist, oil companies and the great leap forward movement of Chavez and other tyrants and dictators standing up for their peoples:

There are 2 types of classes of people in a Socialist or Communist society. They are the upper, elite, government class and the poverty stricken, labourer, lower class, there isn't a middle class in pure Socialist/Marxist societies such as what Chavez is imposing.

My question to you would be, which of the 2 groups do you fall into?

Voltaire once remarked "As much as I detest what you say, I would lay down my life for your right to say it."

You strike me as the type of person who would condone the taking of someone's life for what they felt they were right in saying.

It is understandable now why such a coward as yourself doesn't sign their name to their words. You are afraid of the persecution you feel you would attract since that is how you regard the words of others.

Glenn

WJM said...

Quebec ,whom ,you seem to ahve a great deal of favour for Mr Wallace,has a separtist party since when.

The 1960s. I don't much like those separatists, either, but hey, at least they're honest about it, unlike the separatists skulking about in both the provincial PC and provincial Liberal parties.

And ,you seem to have nothing but good to say for quebec.

Quebec has done a lot of good things and implemented a lot of intriguing policies.

There are some in Dannystan who want to emulate nothing more out of Quebec than the rise of nationalism and separatism.

On the other hand, I'd like to see us take the Quebec approach on private wind and hydro development.

Chacun à son gout.

You dear man,are a piece of maggot shit.Pardon me ,that s giving maggot shit a bad name.You are lower then pond scum.You don't deserve to breath that great Labrador air.If you had an 1/8 the love in your heart for labrador that Sue Kelland-Dyer has

I've got more "heart" for Labrador on my one persistent skin tag, than Sue Kelland-Dyer has, had, or ever will have, in her entire body.

Sue Kelland-Dyer, like all Newfoundland nationalist hypocrites, has "heart" for Labrador's resources... but is utterly ignorant about Labrador and Labrador people.

Sue Kelland-Dyer can take her "heart" and try and win a few more votes in her beloved Newfoundland and Newfoundland the next time she runs on her crypto-separatist ticket.

Maybe this time she'll get half as many votes as Simon Lono did.

Pathetic pile of "Sculpine Shit"

I think I'll get a t-shirt made with that phrase. Coming from an anonymous coward like you, fortifying your courage with anonymity, and probably booze, I take that as a compliment.

OH ,and as for the separtist thing.Hey why the hell not.Look at what 58 years of being in Canada had done for Newfoundland and Labrador.

You mean, other than provided net billions for public services that otherwise would not have been available? Provided education and employment opportunities that wouldn't have been there?

maybe we should play on the flag thing somemore.Thats the only language that is understood in this country anyway.Why continue to be apart of such a massive den of "Thieves and Liars."

So, would you also recommend that Labradorians "play on the flag thing" by taking down the provincial flag? Why continue to be apart of — hi, Greg Byrne! — such a massive den of "thieves and liars" as that represented by Newfoundland nationalist separatist colonialist-imperialist hypocrites who only care about Labrador as long as they can turn a buck?

Anonymous said...

The fact that oil drilling is not going as well as you wish in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore waters has nothing to do with Premier Danny William's stance on having a 5 per cent equity in our Oil resource, but more to do with the World Economy and other demographics. Things are somewhat in hibernation in the drilling department compared to what they were a few years ago. Give it time and it will revive again. It is as a result of a whole lot of settling down in the World economy. After all the commodities' sector is cyclical in nature. It always has been and it always well be, despite the emergence of China and India into the biggest developing economies in the World. Nothing goes up forever, if it did, things would get to be so expensive, nobody would be able to afford anything that was produced or manufactured and there would only be an economy for the 4 per cent of the wealthy, who own 96 per cent of the wealth. And don't you think that would even spoil it for them, the 4 per cent?

Anonymous said...

hi, Greg Byrne!

Hello Wallace!

Hello Patriot!

Hello Sue !

Hello Mr Bond !

Hello Judas!

Is Hell getting Hott this time of year ,or is that just my soul pouring away from this place ,my family,and everything that I am.Look inside yorself Wallace.Remember what we say today ,reflects on us tommorow.

I would say the same to Mr Hollett.The internet is a wonderful place.But don't Fool yourself into thinking that no one is not watching .

I think that if we all knew how much attention we have here ,the words chosen would be a little differant to say the least.

Good-LucK guys and keep watching that big eye in the sky

Edward G. Hollett said...

"But don't Fool yourself into thinking that no one is not watching."

Of course, people are watching. All sorts of people are watching.

Would you be surprised to know that the provincial government and its supporters monitor Bond Papers?

So do lots of others, but the Premier wouldn't have threatened to sue me if he wasn't reading Bond or having it presented to him in some digested form.

One of the reasons the anony-slaggers post anonymously is that they fear people knowing who is saying what.

Democracy doesn't work in a climate of fear, so if you were threatening people then maybe you should take off the cloak and let us know who you are.

So what exactly was the purpose of that comment - even with the double negative?

Artfull Dodger said...

It is fair to assume that government and indeed the official opposition are up to speed on what is said during call in programs such as the three offered by VOCM and political blogs.

WJM said...

Yes it is a fair assumption, artful dodger, especially when we have a thin-skinned, pitiful excuse of a Premier who rushes out of sittings of the House of Assembly, or even cabinet meetings, in order to call 273-5211 when another caller goes on open line and dares say something against the Great Man.

Public image takes priority over the public business.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said
"But don't Fool yourself into thinking that no one is not watching .

I think that if we all knew how much attention we have here ,the words chosen would be a little different to say the least."

Ominous words.

Will the contrary posters be the first to feel the rope on independence day? Perhaps the province will punish the communities that house these insurgents, burn their fields, poison their wells, and banish them from the kingdom.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, too bad that some feel it should only apply to those that are in agreement with the mob. Those that capitulate will be rewarded handsomely, leaders bequeathed a knighthood in honour of service to the kingdom - or a executive position at a crown corporation.
The emperor's new cloths are looking a little transparent, while he's off fighting crusades his empire is burning - and it's only getting started. Didn't Joey have 70% support at one point or another? Wasn't Ottawa to blame for all of the economic woe in the province? Times haven't changed, just the faces. Enjoy patting each other on the back ye great bananna republic nationalists, but in case you haven't noticed, you're making the same difference to this province as your chosen one, the downturn is only starting.

Anonymous said...

Great Inflamatory Speech Mr. Open Line.

WJM said...

Didn't Joey have 70% support at one point or another?

Yip, and in 1966 he won all but three seats.

Three years later? Churchill Falls contract.

babe in boyland said...

"World Economy and other demographics" - the world economy is not a demographic. demographics are characteristics of populations - peoples age, gender, where they live and so on.

"Things are somewhat in hibernation in the drilling department compared to what they were a few years ago. Give it time and it will revive again. It is as a result of a whole lot of settling down in the World economy." im afraid youre wrong, chum. every other oil jurisdiction in the world is booming, lots of exploration, lots of development. just not here.

there is no reason to assume that it will heat up again here - how much better can it get? what would attract explorers? especially if, as you say, oil price will go down.

Anonymous said...

Chum it will not only be Oil Sector that will go downwards, in a down World economy most every Sector will end up in the downward position. One or two of the Sectors sometimes fare fairly well, but not always.

Once things have been in the hibernation state for a while, then everything evens itself out again for the next cyclical upturn in the World economy. If you aren't aware, it happens every 5 to 7 years, it is inevitable, and this booming economy is about 6 to 7 years of age, and be assured it will not go on forever. And according to a lot of analysts, it has already turned downwards.

Anonymous said...

"Chum it will not only be Oil Sector that will go downwards, in a down World economy most every Sector will end up in the downward position."
Perhaps it would be useful to familiarize yourself with the concept of peak oil. Oil exploration and production is not decreasing, and will not until a viable substitute has been adopted (that can take decades). In the interim, the most profitable fields will be developed. If Newfoundland and Labrador's field do not make the cut, they will not be developed. It's a simple formula, with part of the equation being political risk. Political risk in this neck of the woods is probably a deciding factor for the production to be sought elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

If the wheels of industry stop churning for a while in a recession or depression, a lot less oil will be needed, if that recession or depression lasts a while.

Anonymous said...

settle this said...

Quit whining, all of you. On both sides. Call a referendum.

June 13, 2007 12:44 AM

I'm with you !!!!Call a Bloody referenduim and get thease damb Canadain Bastards outta here!!

Starrigan said...

Ed Hollett aka Crazy Eddy said,

"Would you be surprised to know that the provincial government and its supporters monitor Bond Papers?"

LOL be surprised? I'd be shocked, that's the most useless piece of crap blog ever posted on the web. No, I don't think the provincial goverment and their supporters are monitoring that site. Put a counter on it a$$hole and then we'll see how much traffic it gets. Your site has nothing to offer, that's why you hang out here like a leech. You're like a welfare recipient, you have to come here with your hand out and then we have to listen to you whine. Too Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I read as many perspectives as I can, including "Crazy Eddy's" and "WJM's". There is a lot of verifiable fact there, and not a lot of rhetoric.
Starrigan, if the fact that blogs are monitored by government and supporters shocks you, you're in for a rude awakening should you ever see the real landscape, instead of the one that is painted for you. You should read all the information that you can get your hands on, and believe what can be proven, and doubt what cannot.

Anonymous said...

I apologize starrigan, I should not have told you what you should do without qualification - it would have been best prefaced with "if you want to have an informed opinion, you should read all the information....
I wouldn't tell anyonyone what they should do without providing a reason, nor do I follow anyone's advice who fail to do the same. Incidentally, if you want to know what government does, call any of the services that monitors information on behalf of clients (Bristol, M5 etc.) and ask them if they do provide that service, and a list of clients.

a rat's ring said...

Ed Hollett aka Crazy Eddy said,

"Would you be surprised to know that the provincial government and its supporters monitor Bond Papers?"

LOL be surprised? I'd be shocked, that's the most useless piece of crap blog ever posted on the web. No, I don't think the provincial goverment and their supporters are monitoring that site. Put a counter on it a$$hole and then we'll see how much traffic it gets. Your site has nothing to offer, that's why you hang out here like a leech. You're like a welfare recipient, you have to come here with your hand out and then we have to listen to you whine. Too Pathetic.

WJM said...

Put a counter on it a$$hole and then we'll see how much traffic it gets.

There is a counter on it.

Since you seem to be innumerate, I'll let Ed himself tell you how many hits it's had since he set it up.

Ed Hollett said...

There are actually a couple of counters on the site with their results displayed.

Poor old rat's ring seems to have a number of problems, including getting his facts straight.

gee that's a rather common problem among the anony-slaggers.

Starrigan said...

See Crazy Eddy, it just goes to show that your sight is so insignificant that I couldn't even bother to waste my time to see if there actually was a counter on you site.
Maybe one day it will roll over the 100 mark.