Wanna Help Newfoundland?

[MJK]

I think the whole idea is for us to keep 100% of our own revenues for oursleves becasue right now we are being raped by the Government of Canada on it.

I think Danny Williams is willing to cut off the 'handout' by the federal government if we were to get the 100% revenue. but why do you think that the Fed. gov't wont go for it? becasue they know that they are raping us and that they will be 'losing' out in the long run.

these are Newfoundland's natural resources we are talking about here. I don't see what is so bad about fighting for 100% of its revenues.

[KevanGuy]

Originally posted by mjk123@Jan 3 2005, 02:20 PM
these are Newfoundland's natural resources we are talking about here. I don't see what is so bad about fighting for 100% of its revenues.

Any idea what exactly those resources are? How much are we really talking about here?

[Cowboy]

Personally I don't think each province needs to be entitled to 100% of there resources. We are one country and I believe, that some, not all, of the resources located with in specific province should be shared.

This idea of, we live here we own it, in our country, I don't think is very fair.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by mjk123@Jan 3 2005, 02:20 PM
I think the whole idea is for us to keep 100% of our own revenues for oursleves becasue right now we are being raped by the Government of Canada on it.

I think Danny Williams is willing to cut off the 'handout' by the federal government if we were to get the 100% revenue. but why do you think that the Fed. gov't wont go for it? becasue they know that they are raping us and that they will be 'losing' out in the long run.

these are Newfoundland's natural resources we are talking about here. I don't see what is so bad about fighting for 100% of its revenues.

No one is touching NFLD's oil revenues as far as I know. What the feds are doing is clawing back about 70 cents on the dollar in equalization money.

It's a semantic difference to some, but an important one I think.

I believe the money is in the hundreds of millions today, and will hit the billions once the Terra Nova project hits full stride.

Compare that to the size of NFLD's economy and thats not chump change.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by mjk123@Jan 3 2005, 08:34 AM
All we are asking for is a fair deal,

All you are asking is that your province be allowed to keep 100% of it's off-shore oil revenues, which could make it one of the richest provinces in the Country, plus keep on getting all of the equalization payments which are supposed to equalize provinces -- i.e. ensure that the citizens in the poorer provinces get the same standard of care and support from the government as the rich ones.

Link to story on this topic, which includes a link to a more indepth explanation of the equalization payment program.

"Premier Danny Williams, however, says Martin reneged on his pre-election commitment to a deal that would have allowed the province to keep all of its offshore oil revenues without clawbacks to its equalization payments:

Asking to still be treated as a have-not province even if your income makes you a have province isn't asking for a fair deal.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Cowboy@Jan 3 2005, 03:46 PM
Personally I don't think each province needs to be entitled to 100% of there resources. We are one country and I believe, that some, not all, of the resources located with in specific province should be shared.

This idea of, we live here we own it, in our country, I don't think is very fair.

Why stop at provincial borders? Lets give some of our resource money to the US. What makes the Federal borders stronger than provincial borders?

The reason why provinces should get 100% - and why NFLD should fight for it is that it is guaranteed within the constitution. If the federal government wont live within it's own constitution, what value does it have?

[MJK]

Bottom Line:

Martin said pre-election that we'd get 100% of revenues.

That is not the case anymore and that is why I started this. I didn't post this to argue with anyone about it. If you want to send the letter I encourage you to do so.

Everyone else can keep on 'arguing' about it if you want but I won't take part. Thats not why I did this.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by KevanGuy+Jan 3 2005, 02:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KevanGuy @ Jan 3 2005, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mjk123@Jan 3 2005, 02:20 PM
these are Newfoundland's natural resources we are talking about here. I don't see what is so bad about fighting for 100% of its revenues.

Any idea what exactly those resources are? How much are we really talking about here? [/b][/quote]
iirc, the value of what the feds want to steal is $1 billion over 8 years.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Jan 3 2005, 03:40 PM
The reason why provinces should get 100% - and why NFLD should fight for it is that it is guaranteed within the constitution. If the federal government wont live within it's own constitution, what value does it have?

Where exactly in the constitution is that guarantee?

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by mjk123@Jan 3 2005, 05:40 PM
Bottom Line:

Martin said pre-election that we'd get 100% of revenues.

That is not the case anymore and that is why I started this. I didn't post this to argue with anyone about it. If you want to send the letter I encourage you to do so.

Everyone else can keep on 'arguing' about it if you want but I won't take part. Thats not why I did this.

You ARE getting 100% of your revenues. Martin is trying to take that away. All he's doing is saying that any increase in revenue generated by off-shore resources is going to be met with a decrease in equalization payments, which is entirely fair. Premier Williams, however, wants to have his cake and eat it too. If Newfoundland becomes a richer province because of off-shore revenue, which it should, what makes you think you have a right to keep receiving equalization payments? Can you imagine what Alberta would be like if we got to keep 100% of our oil and gas revenue and received equalization? How is that fair?

[Fire]

Originally posted by MarchHare+Jan 3 2005, 06:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MarchHare @ Jan 3 2005, 06:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mjk123@Jan 3 2005, 05:40 PM
Bottom Line:

Martin said pre-election that we'd get 100% of revenues.

That is not the case anymore and that is why I started this. I didn't post this to argue with anyone about it. If you want to send the letter I encourage you to do so.

Everyone else can keep on 'arguing' about it if you want but I won't take part. Thats not why I did this.

You ARE getting 100% of your revenues. Martin is trying to take that away. All he's doing is saying that any increase in revenue generated by off-shore resources is going to be met with a decrease in equalization payments, which is entirely fair. Premier Williams, however, wants to have his cake and eat it too. If Newfoundland becomes a richer province because of off-shore revenue, which it should, what makes you think you have a right to keep receiving equalization payments? Can you imagine what Alberta would be like if we got to keep 100% of our oil and gas revenue and received equalization? How is that fair? [/b][/quote]
Yeah it looks like NFLD wants all the revenue and still get handouts from provinces like Alberta. Sorry I have no pity for them.

[HOZ]

Here is a list of provinces in the last 2 years getting equalization payments. CBC

Here is a page on how things are done, Not sure how good or accurate it is.
Mason Gaffney

Here is a CRIC guide
Guide to

[MarchHare]

You ARE getting 100% of your revenues. Martin is trying to take that away.

Whoops, just noticed my typo. Obviously that should read, "Martin is not trying to take that away."

[Flame On]

There's a few issues here. One is the politician who goes back on his word. That is to be objected to. But, it is a fact of life and the manor in which NFLD has chosen to object is offensive to many and in my mind childish.
There's the transferrence of revenue sharing (that topic is all consuming in our lives!) which seems to me from reading here, that Martin ISN'T EVEN GOING BACK ON HIS WORD.
Then there's the whole flag thing and seperatism; which is what the flag incident implies no matter what your semantics are, and the quick to knee jerk threaten to leave the bigger country. Which I can't stand. Some here ask where does it stop. Yeah where does it stop, perhaps Red Deer, Lethbridge, Nelson, Sarnia, Swift Current, Thunder Bay, all annex themselves from Canada cause they don't like what they're getting. Object to politicians that's commendable, but not with the flag or more importantly, with the threat that implies. IMO

[MJK]

http://stjohns.cbc.ca/clips/Stjohns/ram-lo...nt_20050112.ram

This is worth checking out.

[MarchHare]

Bump.

So Newfoundland (and Nova Scotia) got the deal they wanted and get to keep 100% of their oil and gas revenue without it affecting the amount of equalization payments they are entitled to. Now Saskatchewan is demanding a similar deal, since it's only fair, right? Perhaps Alberta ought to make similar demands...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...deal050201.html