Energy East Causing Uproar

[waldo]

You mean the same mayors that were PISSED at Coderre for dumping in the St Lawrence but then coward once he puffed his chest? Ya....you can tell who the ring leader in that area is.

ok... so you are discounting the 81 Mayors of the 'Montreal Metropolitan Community'! I'm shocked; shocked I tells ya!

wait! What's this... those 81 MMC Mayors represent 12% of the total population of Canada... 12% of the total! And you're just going to outright dismiss them?

.

Edited January 30, 2016 by waldo

[waldo]

Lil waldo and Reefer...its been fun but I'm off to Florida tomorrow for a couple weeks. Not sure how much time I'll have for your cycles so please do me a favor and discuss among yourselves!

you mean you won't be around to purposely derail the thread over wastewater discharge... in spite of me repeatedly suggesting you stop it and get back on thread topic!

.

[waldo]

you hear it and read it 'everywhere'... the constant drum-beating along the lines of, "Alberta's equalization payments are keeping Quebec afloat". Comments that show most people have absolutely zero understanding of transfer payments, equalization payments!

I trust Montreal area mayors will politely return their share of $10B in equalization supported by west

You can’t dump raw sewage, accept foreign tankers, benefit from equalization and then reject our pipelines

equalization monies, proper, are relatively small in relation to overall federal revenues and TOTAL federal expenditures to the respective provinces. There is no such thing as an "equalization transfer of Alberta government monies" to the federal government. What's really being spoken to is the difference between revenues and expenditures... in that regard, more pointedly, the federal government does not receive anything directly from any province; rather, federal taxes/revenue are collected WITHIN a respective province from individuals/business, not FROM a respective province... be that personal income tax, corporate income tax, GST, investment income, etc. And most pointedly, federal expenditures to the provinces are, of course, more than just the so-called 'formal transfers' like health (CHT), social (CST) and equalization... they also include all manner of spending like for infrastructure, transportation, education, national defence, grant/funds for recreation & cultural events/festivals, environment, security, etc..

what's really being highlighted is the distinction between federal revenue collected within the province of Alberta versus the amount of federal expenditure... and, of course, a focus on the distinction between so-called "have versus have-not" provinces within the equalization program. Presently, 4 "have" provinces are not receiving any equalization payments... for 2014/15, approximately $16 billion was shared in equalization funding to the other 6 provinces and 3 territories... that's it - equalization, proper, for the whole country, had the federal government transferring "equalization payments" of ~$16 billion from general revenues to all of Canada (those 6 provinces and 3 territories eligible).

the real crux of this false/presumptive claim that, "Alberta is keeping Quebec running", would be to show the actual disparity for Alberta (federal revenues collected within the province versus federal expenditures spent within the province)... and provide attribution to that end. The key part of related analysis in that regard would recognize the fundamental principle being followed with most federal transfers/expenditures --- that it is done on a per capita basis. Now, for example, from a dated 2012 article (referencing StatsCan 2009 data), Alberta received ~$16 billion less in federal expenditure monies as compared to federal revenue collected within the province... but this has nothing to do with equalization!
.

Edited January 30, 2016 by waldo

[ReeferMadness]

the real crux of this false/presumptive claim that, "Alberta is keeping Quebec running", would be to show the actual disparity for Alberta (federal revenues collected within the province versus federal expenditures spent within the province)... and provide attribution to that end. The key part of related analysis in that regard would recognize the fundamental principle being followed with most federal transfers/expenditures --- that it is done on a per capita basis. Now, for example, from a dated 2012 article (referencing StatsCan 2009 data), Alberta received ~$16 billion less in federal expenditure monies as compared to federal revenue collected within the province... but this has nothing to do with equalization!

.

Also, when these claims are trotted out, people neglect to mention that reckless development in the oil sands caused the dollar to go up, which in turn caused economic issues in Canada as a whole. Workers in oil producing provinces capture much less of the GDP than in other provinces, due to massive purchases of heavy equipment, little of which is manufactured in Canada.

[-1=e^ipi]

Also, when these claims are trotted out, people neglect to mention that reckless development in the oil sands caused the dollar to go up, which in turn caused economic issues in Canada as a whole. Workers in oil producing provinces capture much less of the GDP than in other provinces, due to massive purchases of heavy equipment, little of which is manufactured in Canada.

Dutch disease is primarily a problem due to wage inflexibility. The reason wage inflexibility is so high in places like Ontario and Quebec is due to unions. If you just introduced right to work legislation and reduce union power, wage flexibility increases, and you can have a decent manufacturing sector and a resource sector. Not to mention that even with high union power, dutch disease is not a very long term problem.

Also, having energy prices at double-triple most other places in North America, which Ontario has done, is not good for manufacturing. Magna will not invest in Ontario because of excessive energy prices.

[Accountability Now]

your comprehension is limited to your self-serving interpretations. Again, I never said anything about 2005... I never questioned it... why do I need to keep repeating this for you? It's your assertion the 2 events are one and the same - and you NOW only do so because you can't deny the 4 separate cited reference

waldo...I have taken time out of my well deserved holiday to bring to your attention a very educating and enlightening piece of journalism that will help....or should I say confirm the fact that ol' AN has been trying to explain to lil' waldo this whole time. One might say....this is the Silver Bullet. Grab a seat....ok?

Remember when you quoted this article:

--- There is no other option but to shut down 30 kilometres of the sewage collector pipe and divert one-third of the city’s waste water into the river over a week, as was done in 2003 and 2007 with the approval of Environment Canada, the city says.

Go back and check that article which was updated on February 1st. The article now says:

There is no other option but to shut down 30 kilometres of the sewage collector pipe and divert one-third of the city’s waste water into the river over a week, as was done in 2003 and 2005 with the approval of Environment Canada, the city says.

But here is the best part....scroll down to the bottom of the article.....ready? ready? here it is....

An earlier version of this story stated that Montreal’s previous sewage dumps occurred in 2003 and 2007. The dumps occurred in 2003 and 2005. The Montreal Gazette regrets the error.

As Ace Ventura once said: I have exorcised the demon!!

As I said all along, the journalists were confusing the dates for the SAME event. To be fair, Coderre may have actually stated it and started this chain of incorrect journalism....so I could go on talking about your inability to read or other subtle insults but the reality is that anyone might have actually thought this happened in 2007 based on the articles out there. Of course, no one would have been made such a ridiculous claim and state this:

while you also comment on the 2 prior occasions the Harper Conservative government authorized waste dumping by the City of Montreal into the St. Lawrence.

Even if you believed the articles about 2007 then why.....WHY would you state TWO PRIOR OCCASIONS? TWO? Ummmmmm.....maybe one but actually as of today.....NONE. You were so boldly trotting that line out there even though no one (other than you) brought the Federal government into the Montreal sewage discussion. You brought it in and now you get the feel the complete wrath of the utter nonsense that your claim holds.

So lets just recap here to make sure that you have your head wrapped around this:

In 2003 and 2005 the City of Montreal dumped billions of gallons into the St. Lawrence. They again did this recently in Nov of 2015.

EVERY event was under a LIBERAL GOVERNMENT!!! What makes it worse is that every event had a Prime Minister from QUEBEC. YIKES!

Yup....a solid 10 and 0 versus the waldo.

[Accountability Now]

but this has nothing to do with equalization!

I agree with you. The amount that the 'Alberta' tax base actually gives to the Federal government to distribute within the equalization plan is very small compared to other provinces including Quebec. Ontario is the largest donor to the program and even though it is a have not province, it receives a smaller amount than it contributes and therefore makes it still a net contributor.

Quebec on the other hand does contribute a lot on the aggregate amount however takes out far more and is noted as being the largest net recipient.

The reality is that this pool of equalization money is only achieved if a given provinces tax base is lower than the average tax base of provinces across the country. So where the 'West vs Quebec' battle comes in is what would happen if Alberta and Sask had a significant drop in oil revenue which lowered their tax base which then brings down the average AND puts them into the have not status. I assume Newfoundland would join them too. So....how many have not provinces could you have?

Certainly Ontario would quickly become a have province again....and I would guess that Quebec would or could too. As such, having the 'West' develop oil products typically puts these provinces into the have category allowing Quebec to continually be in the have not column. As a result, the WEST and oil development in the West is indirectly allowing Quebec to be an equalization recipient to the tune of billions.

Here is a good article showing that Ontario is in direct threat of becoming a have province if the West falls. Could be the reason that Wynne now supports this pipeline! Perhaps Quebec is too far off to even worry about this...which is why they can reject the project and it doesn't matter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-price-plunge-could-cost-ontario-billions-in-equalization-1.3204437

Ontario is near the divide separating wealthy provinces and those less-prosperous.

The Ontario government expects its residents to contribute about $6.7 billion to equalization this year, with the province receiving about $2.4 billion in return in 2015-16. Next year, if its status changes, it might not receive a penny in return.

[waldo]

In 2003 and 2005 the City of Montreal dumped billions of gallons into the St. Lawrence.

as before, as stated several times, I never disputed those early date references; more to the point I had no interest in them or concern over them. Equally, they warranted the focused attention put towards NDP leader Mulcair given he was the Quebec Environment Minister up to early 2006. I provided many distinct and separate links speaking to 2007, there are many more available (separate and distinct) should you be inclined to apply a focused googly... separate from the one you're now speaking to. For example (as previously provided with linked citation)

- "The City of Montreal has discharged raw sewage on three other occasions in the past twelve years, sending 10 billion litres into the St. Lawrence in the spring of 2003, 7.6 billion litres in the fall of 2003 and 800 million litres in the fall of 2007";

- “In 2003, we did the same. In 2007, we did the same, and Environment Canada said yes to that,” Coderre said. “What’s going on? It’s exact same thing.”

as I said, I never had occasion to be concerned with 2003/2005 references; I had no focused interest in them other than to confirm the requisite attention put on them, including yours, in regards NDP leader Mulcair's tenure as Quebec's Environment Minister. However, I will now draw your attention to the above 2 quotes (cited reference previously provided), that only speak to 2003 and 2007. Perhaps in your zeal to finally, as you say, "exorcise your demon", you may need to contact the City of Montreal and/or the office of Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre and/or Environment Canada directly to help alleviate your confusion over all these varying sourced articles. I fully appreciate you only want to accept source references that align with your predilection; however, as before: "you are entitled to your own opinion/sources, but not your own facts".

.

[waldo]

I agree with you. The amount that the 'Alberta' tax base actually gives to the Federal government to distribute within the equalization plan is very small compared to other provinces including Quebec. Ontario is the largest donor to the program and even though it is a have not province, it receives a smaller amount than it contributes and therefore makes it still a net contributor.

Quebec on the other hand does contribute a lot on the aggregate amount however takes out far more and is noted as being the largest net recipient.

more pointedly, it is incorrect for anyone to use equalization monies as "the determiner" in presumed inequality in the share of dispersed federal monies. As I wrote recently in another thread:

"... equalization monies, proper, are relatively small in relation to overall federal revenues and TOTAL federal expenditures to the respective provinces. Again, there is no such thing as an "equalization transfer of Alberta monies" to the federal government. What you're really speaking to is the difference between revenues and expenditures... in that regard, more pointedly, the federal government does not receive anything directly from any province; rather, federal taxes/revenue are collected WITHIN a respective province, not FROM a respective province... be that personal income tax, corporate income tax, GST, investment income, etc. And most pointedly, federal expenditures to the provinces are, of course, more than just the so-called 'formal transfers' like health (CHT), social (CST) and equalization... they also include all manner of spending like for infrastructure, transportation, education, national defence, grant/funds for recreation & cultural events/festivals, environment, security, etc..

what you're really highlighting is the distinction between federal revenue collected within the province of Alberta versus the amount of federal expenditure... and, of course, you're too focused on the distinction of so-called "have versus have-not" provinces within the equalization program. Your supposed premise of a disparity for Alberta... as compared to any province, needs to be in terms of federal revenues collected within the respective provinces versus federal expenditures spent within the respective provinces. Additionally proper attribution of any monetary disparity is necessary factoring, for example, that the fundamental principle being followed with most federal transfers/expenditures is that it is done on a per capita basis."

.

[waldo]

Could be the reason that Wynne now supports this pipeline!

you sure have tried to use this "Wynne supports Energy East" many times throughout this thread... even to the point of presuming on my personal position and something along the lines of, 'how could I be against it... if Wynne is for it'. Notwithstanding I haven't offered a position statement, imagine my confusion when reading... and hearing, Alberta Wildrose leader 'Brian Jean', adamantly proclaim that Wynne has not offered her endorsement. Rather, he contends she has simply given "conditional support"... you know, like detailed within this article: Kathleen Wynne gives tentative backing to Energy East pipeline as Rachel Notley faces criticism over project

Wynne says that many of Ontario’s conditions for supporting the pipeline — including working with communities and aboriginal groups and making sure climate change is taken into account– are “starting to be addressed.”

She said that Alberta’s environmental plan, along with the Trudeau government’s pledge to strengthen the National Energy Board review process for pipelines, help projects gain credibility.

I trust you will readjust accordingly.

.

[Accountability Now]

as before, as stated several times, I never disputed those early date references; more to the point I had no interest in them or concern over them. Equally, they warranted the focused attention put towards NDP leader Mulcair given he was the Quebec Environment Minister up to early 2006. I provided many distinct and separate links speaking to 2007,

You can flip, flop, flail and show your repeated bluster all you want. THERE WAS NO 2007 event. The article that YOU posted has now come out and corrected itself and stated explicitly that the dump did not happen in 2007. More importantly, there were no TWO PRIOR EVENTS that you boldly trotted around here. Those are the FACTS pal.

But I know what you're doing here. Constant cycles and deflection just so you don't have to step up and admit that you were WRONG!!! Your narcissistic prowess is showcasing itself once again and to be honest I am truly happy to sad to see it. I can't believe that someone can be so wrong, yet continue down a path just for the sake of not looking bad on an anonymous internet forum. I can't imagine what it must be like for you in real life.

you may need to contact the City of Montreal

Did you ever wonder how an article that was originally posted in October was suddenly corrected On February 1st? I did contact the City and I contacted the journalist who wrote the piece. Here was the official response from the City:

Pour les déversements antérieurs, cela remonte à 2003 et 2005. Nous devions alors procéder à des raccordements de l'intercepteur. Par exemple, en 2003, il s'agissait d'un branchement d'un collecteur d'égout à l'intercepteur.

Voici ce que j'ai comme volume pour les déversement antérieurs:

2003 : 10 500 000 mètres cubes en mars

7 600 000 mètres cubes en novembre

2005 : 4 arrêts pour un total de 769 278 mètres cubes

2015: 4,9 milliards de litres.

Yup....a simple email sorted this out but yet you continue to bluster your way into denial. But thats ok. I know you know.....

All events point back to LIBERAL GOVERNMENTS.

[Accountability Now]

. Again, there is no such thing as an "equalization transfer of Alberta monies" to the federal government.

Which is why I explicitly said money from the 'Alberta' tax base. Money that is generated from within Alberta DOES contribute to the Federal coffers and that money ends up in the Equalization program. The fact is that tax bases from every province contribute....just some take more than they give.

Your supposed premise of a disparity for Alberta... as compared to any province, needs to be in terms of federal revenues collected within the respective provinces versus federal expenditures spent within the respective provinces.

Do you mean like this one...

We begin by looking at the federal government’s revenues and expenditures by province. Figure 17, below, shows the aggregate amounts in billions of dollars. To moderate for some of the year to year movements, we look at the average annual amounts over the five year period 2004-2008. 2008 is the latest year for which there is data. Note that most of the federal government’s revenues and expenditures come from and are made to Ontario and Quebec. The next largest sources and recipients are Alberta and British Columbia. The federal fiscal impacts on the other provinces are all less than 10.6 billion dollars annually. In terms of fiscal flows, the main feature is that Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia generate more federal revenue than they receive in federal outlays. In the other seven provinces, the federal government spends more than it collects in revenues. To illustrate, Quebec generates 19 percent of the federal revenues but 23 percent of federal expenditures are made there. Although revenues and expenditures do not match, it is still clear that the aggregate federal impacts parallel population sizes.

https://business.ualberta.ca/Centres/~/media/business/Centres/WCER/Documents/Publications/155ElectronicApril2final.pdf

We can also look at this in the per capita sense:

In either scenario, Ontario/BC/Alberta give more than they receive and Quebec take more than it gives. The point that others and Brad Wall per se is making regarding equalization is that Quebec annually receives money (more than they give) based on a national/federal program yet when a national pipeline is discussed which will benefit Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and NB, Montreal's first comment is 'whats in it for Quebec'. That's the part that I disagree with....as does Quebec City mayor who agrees with these national projects.

As stated in the article I posted, Ontario may lose its equalization program money if Alberta or other provinces start to lose their tax base. Hence it may be in their better interests to have this pipeline go through...hence the turn in support.

[Accountability Now]

Rather, he contends she has simply given "conditional support"... you know,

All support is conditional until the project is approved. We have been through this, so if you really feel like running cycles on this then have at er'

[cybercoma]

In either scenario, Ontario/BC/Alberta give more than they receive and Quebec take more than it gives.

Barely. Quebec is perhaps the closest province to revenue neutral save for BC, according to your own graph. The Atlantic Provinces are by far the least revenue neutral. Hell, even when you look at absolute dollars, Quebec is still the closest to neutral.

[Accountability Now]

Barely. Quebec is perhaps the closest province to revenue neutral save for BC, according to your own graph.

Barely? Just eyeballing the graph, Quebec received about 4-5 billion more per year based on the five year average. That's barely?

The Atlantic Provinces are by far the least revenue neutral. Hell, even when you look at absolute dollars, Quebec is still the closest to neutral.

And the Atlantic provinces aren't opposing the national pipeline....just Montreal and its surrounding mayors. And yes...Quebec is the closest to revenue neutral....out of those who are net recipients. How in any way does that justify Montreal's position in having its hand out for another national program?

[waldo]

Did you ever wonder how an article that was originally posted in October was suddenly corrected On February 1st? I did contact the City and I contacted the journalist who wrote the piece. Here was the official response from the City:

Yup....a simple email sorted this out but yet you continue to bluster your way into denial. But thats ok. I know you know.....

I am heartened to read that your nemesis, 'the waldo', so inspired you to claim you contacted one of the many distinct and separate articles/authors that clearly identified a wastewater discharge event from 2007. You asked me if I wondered how that one article was updated relative to the timing of this thread/our exchanges... I actually did think that you were so invested in trying to finally 'one-up the waldo', you just might have actually gone to such an extreme. But I dismissed it as I didn't think you'd take it that far; didn't realize you had that many free cycles! Your extreme measure was no more than one you predicated upon, "your preferred sources not including a 2007 reference being factual" and my 4 separate and distinct articles/journalists sources with a 2007 reference (along with reference to many others that exist) were not factual. You had a battle of the sources throw-down and you kept all the details and particulars to yourself. Share much!

of course, your extreme measure was all undertaken 'after-the-fact', after respective sources were being set up for your 'waiting baited-breath' to, as you said... literally said, "exorcise the demon"! I truly am heartened to realize that your life is so invested in me... and you hold me to such an elevated level! As I kept repeating to you, I had no interest in them and no concern over them... and never questioned the validity of the 2003, 2005 dates. Well, other than to qualify that yes, those dates did align with the period Mulcair held the position of Quebec Environment Minister... and to snicker big-time at your related Mulcair fail. Now, you claim to have contacted the City of Montreal (whatever that actually means in terms of authority and "official"). I guess all those other myriad of linked sources attaching 2007 to the City of Montreal came from the "unofficial City of Montreal"... and those direct Denis Coderre quotes and indirect Coderre stated attributions referencing 2007 came from the "unofficial Mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre".

it's clear there's been some grand cock-up as to what's been attributed to the City of Montreal; even your own provided links only directly speak to one 2003 discharge (uhhh... if one actually accepts your latest volley that says two discharges in 2003). So many media outlets (where we even had some commonality), so many journalists, so many differing accounts. Since you're so invested now, I trust you will also, as I earlier suggested, contact the office of the Montreal mayor (or the mayor directly) to have them/him rescind and/or update all 2007 reference statements attributed to the City of Montreal and correct all those Mayor Coderre direct quotes along with indirect Coderre stated attributions that all speak to a 2007 discharge event. On the other hand, given the grand media confusion, perhaps you should follow my other earlier suggestion to contact Environment Canada as the final, definitive arbiter of discharge approval... since I've got you to dance to extremes this far, surely you'll extend your extremes further and finally put to end all this confusion and uncertainty - dance, dance more, dance harder!

since you repeat it again, showing just how committed and invested you are in jumping to Harper's defense, you actually have the gall to, once again, refuse to accept the 2015 discharge associates to the Harper tenure, the Harper Conservative government's effective approval. An approval in spite of the last minute Harper Conservative lies during the recent election campaign; lies that forced the initial planed discharge to be delayed (by a matter of weeks) to push the revised discharge date into the immediate week following the official transfer of government from the Harper Conservative election losers to the Trudeau Liberal election winners. In any case, I laid out all the timing and related circumstances of this rancid election campaign ploy and you still refuse to attach the 2015 discharge to Harper's governance. So sad is your want to go to such lengths to provide presumed cover for Harper!

.

[Accountability Now]

I am heartened to read that your nemesis, 'the waldo', so inspired you to claim you contacted one of the many distinct and separate articles/authors that clearly identified a wastewater discharge event from 2007. You asked me if I wondered how that one article was updated relative to the timing of this thread/our exchanges... I actually did think that you were so invested in trying to finally 'one-up the waldo', you just might have actually gone to such an extreme.

.

Extreme? It was a simple email. The article even had an email link to simplify it. Are emails complicated for you? Perhaps I have over estimated you.

Truthfully...I do enjoy one upping you. I specifically enjoy watching you squirm and write long winded nonsense as you just have above not once addressing the fact that you were wrong about your stupid claim that Harper had two prior discharges. Anyone else on this site would have just acknowledged the mistake but not you...you kept digging and digging and digging!! This certainly was enjoyable lil' waldo

The funniest part is you keep coming back to the Mulclair thing which stated so aptly as happening in 2003 and 2005 as per the Liberal website. If only you would have listened to them hey?!

Let me save you a boat load of time and allow you to copy and paste this next line as you're bound to use it as your argument repeatedly:

Bluster, fail, flip flop,deflect....your argument in five words

[waldo]

what mistake? The extreme is the claimed measure taken to externally connect with 2 separate contacts. Again, you are entitled to your own opinion/sources/claimed "official", but not to your own facts. Your "official" seems pointedly lacking in details! In any case, as I said, I guess all those other myriad of linked sources attaching 2007 to the City of Montreal came from the "unofficial City of Montreal"... and those direct Denis Coderre quotes and indirect Coderre stated attributions referencing 2007 came from the "unofficial Mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre". Will you be contacting the office of the Montreal mayor (or the mayor directly) to have them/him rescind and/or update all 2007 reference statements attributed to the City of Montreal and correct all those Mayor Coderre direct quotes along with indirect Coderre stated attributions that all speak to a 2007 discharge event? Or, alternatively, as I suggested, will you be contacting Environment Canada as the final definitive arbiter of discharge approval? Truly, given the grand media variance, who can trust the City of Montreal, assuming one gives even the slightest legitimacy to your "official" contact... a call center contact doesn't really count, hey! Now dance, dance more, dance harder!

point of order Mr. Speaker: it was you posturing that the article focused on Mulcair's stated hypocrisy didn't include a 2007 reference... therefore, by your blistering logic, there could be no 2007 discharge. And here you've blown it again! Again (jeezaz how many times does this need to be written before it sinks in for you?)... any presumed criticism of Mulcair wouldn't include anything to do with 2007... couldn't rightly include... again, Mulcair was out of Quebec politics as of early 2006! Oh my... just what will it take for you to finally get this?

.

[Accountability Now]

what mistake?

you know...the one you've been avoiding from the start....about how you said that Harper had TWO similar dumps prior to the 2015 event. Man...that wasn't just a mistake...it was an epic fail which is why you scurried away from any request for a citation when I first asked. The big dog was whimpering that day.....

The extreme is the claimed measure taken to externally connect with 2 separate contacts.

Again...do you find sending an email hard? It took all of two minutes and coherent sentences. Ah....the last part is what you find hard. I get it now.

, you are entitled to your own opinion/sources/claimed "official", but not to your own facts.

.

You want a fact....how about you check out the correction on YOUR supplied link. The one that you boldly put forward but now actually states as fact that there was no dump in 2007. Yup...you certainly are entitled to your opinions waldo because the FACTS are working against you. BIG TIME!

Will you be contacting the office of the Montreal mayor (or the mayor directly) to have them/him rescind and/or update all 2007

It would take so much effort to send an email....why would I go to such a painstaking, EXTREME step? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA.

Again, the City of Montreal has already commented and corrected the matter. They explicitly stated the only dumps were in 2003, 2005 and 2015. I know it was in French but I thought you could still read numbers. Maybe not.

point of order Mr. Speaker: it was you posturing that the article focused on Mulcair's stated hypocrisy didn't include a 2007 reference... therefore, by your blistering logic, there could be no 2007 discharge.

Would you like that referenced article posted again....you know the once from the Liberal Party of Canada website...where they explicitly state 2003 and 2007. And your brilliant logic says well since they DIDN'T say 2007 that it could still happen. Keep in mind waldo, your really should have trusted the Liberal Party of Canada as they are in fact the EXPERTS on St. Lawrence river dumps in Montreal.....they have ALL THE EXPERIENCE.

[waldo]

you know...the one you've been avoiding from the start....which is why you scurried away from any request for a citation when I first asked.

no avoiding; none whatsoever. As you're well aware, in the interests of avoiding your purposeful thread derail with an off-topic subject you were ignored and I kept telling you why. That is, you were ignored up to the point your incessant nattering took over. After that and it appeared there would be no mod shutting it down for derailing... I engaged. Quit making shyte up!

.

[waldo]

Again, the City of Montreal has already commented and corrected the matter. They explicitly stated the only dumps were in 2003, 2005 and 2015. I know it was in French but I thought you could still read numbers. Maybe not.

you never read me ever question 2003/2005... even though all the sources I provided referenced 2003 and 2007... all those statements attributed to "the City of Montreal" and the direct quotes from the Mayor of Montreal Denis Coderre - all referencing 2007. Your provided sources didn't have any more legitimacy than the one's I provided... although there was one significant distinction - you didn't have a source providing a direct quote from Mayor Coderre. You really had nothing to give you any absolute confidence in your sources. The difference is I didn't care about 2003/2005 and had no interest in them. You on the other hand were on a mission to protect your past failed leader Harper from any attachment to a wastewater dump in 2007. A holy mission no less - one you literally referred to as "exorcising the demon"!

all our respective provided sources are mainstream media... and we had some commonality in media outlet, just with differing journalists (we both had provided sources from the CBC, we both had provided sources from the Postmedia Montreal Gazete... my other 2 sources were also mainstream). And what made yours any more correct than mine, notwithstanding the direct quote in mine from Mayor Coderre referencing 2007? And as I highlighted, there are also no shortage of other mainstream sourced articles that also identify a 2007 discharge event, some that also have a discharge volume for 2007 like the one I provided within my mixed grouping. If your "official" response actually has any degree of legitimacy... your big gotcha is that your mainstream sources trumped mine! Do you actually get that this is not the equivalent of one of us making unsubstantiated statements and having the other bust the statements with a cited reference? You do get that, right? Do you also get that relying on legitimate references isn't a foundation for truth or lie declaring... as you're now choosing to do?

you didn't bite earlier. What gives your claimed email short snippet extract legitimacy and "official" attachment?... you mean, because, as you highlight, "the short snippet is written in French"? Who is it from, what association and authority does the author have? What was the context of exchange to facilitate a response? Etc. Why not put up the complete email exchanges... you can most certainly keep your personal address and name anonymity. Why such a short cryptic extract... why not the complete emails? Etc. Given all your most suspect tactics, why should you be believed? Again, all my provided sources made reference to the City of Montreal, to the Mayor of Montreal... implicitly official. You do get that, right?

.

[waldo]

Would you like that referenced article posted again....you know the once from the Liberal Party of Canada website...where they explicitly state 2003 and 2007. And your brilliant logic says well since they DIDN'T say 2007 that it could still happen. Keep in mind waldo, your really should have trusted the Liberal Party of Canada as they are in fact the EXPERTS on St. Lawrence river dumps in Montreal.....they have ALL THE EXPERIENCE.

you supplied the linked reference. You did so because it only speaks to 2003 and 2005 because that's coincident with the highlighted Mulcair hypocrisy and his tenure. Again, your failed logic was to throw down another of your HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA juvenile outbursts and declare that since it didn't include 2007, it never occurred... the most asinine statement given Mulcair wasn't in Quebec politics after early 2006 and the article focused on Mulcair would never include a reference to something he had no attachment to. You still don't get this! So sad.

as I said, I never questioned/challenged 2003/2005... had no interest in them. A 2007 discharge meant there were 4 in total including the most recent 2015. Given the extent of references to 2007 in a myriad of mainstream sources, I was quite content... and remain so... to accept there were 4 discharges. An update to one of many articles from such a wide dispersed grouping of articles from separate mainstream sources and distinct journalists does not simply usurp all other mainstream media outlets and all other distinct journalists. Certainly not based on the minimal level of information/detail you've provided. Having Denis Coderre revise his quoted statement to change his 2007 reference to 2005... that might do it, that might be enough! C'mon, get to it - chop, chop!

.

[Accountability Now]

no avoiding; none whatsoever.

You're still avoiding it. You stated that two previous dumps occurred under the Harper watch. Is that correct or are you willing to retract that incorrect statement.

even though all the sources I provided referenced 2003 and 2007...

Yup....and now one of YOUR sources has switched that statement and now states that the dump occurred in 2005...not 2007. I could keep going down the list of sources that you've provided and get them to correct their story but even then your blatant dishonest approach would deflect to some other off topic reason to not admit you are wrong....which you most clearly are.

although there was one significant distinction - you didn't have a source providing a direct quote from Mayor Coderre. You really had nothing to give you any absolute confidence in your sources.

This is where you either CAN"T READ or are utterly and completely DISHONEST. Take a look at post 158 which has Coderre quoting this:

Coderre also had strong words for the NDP, which has also come out against the city's plan.

"We also did a waste dump in 2003 and 2005. You know who was the environment minister at the time? Thomas Mulcair," Coderre said.

Mulcair was Quebec's environment minister with the provincial Liberal party from 2003 to 2007.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...deral-1.3272048

EPIC FAIL!!!!

You on the other hand were on a mission to protect your past failed leader Harper from any attachment to a wastewater dump in 2007. A holy mission no less - one you literally referred to as "exorcising the demon"!

Nah...I let it go the first time because I thought it might actually be true. When you spouted it a second time I thought I should look into it since you obviously didn't provide a link to support your unsubstantiated claim. It took me TWO seconds realize that lil' waldo was spouting his mouth off with total BS. My only 'mission' at that point was to show you how incorrect you are AGAIN. Like I said....I'm in double digits with you.

all our respective provided sources are mainstream media... and we had some commonality in media outlet, just with differing journalists (we both had provided sources from the CBC, we both had provided sources from the Postmedia Montreal Gazete... my other 2 sources were also mainstream). And what made yours any more correct than mine, notwithstanding the direct quote in mine from Mayor Coderre referencing 2007?

Up until February 1st I would have agreed with you but the turning point was that fateful day. The day which Rene Bruemmer, the journalist for the Montreal Gazette article updated his piece....one of your GO TO pieces from saying 2007 to 2005. No other piece of journalism discusses this change. No other piece of journalism even mentions the years 2005 and 2007 in reference to similar sewage dumps. No other piece but this one from Montreal Gazette. I have provided you with something showing that the 2007 event DID NOT occur....yet you have NOTHING to show me that 2005 did not occur.

Of course for your other tidbit about not having a direct Coderre quote....please reference EPIC FAIL above!

I will wait for any sort of backing to show the 2005 event did not occur.

[waldo]

I will wait for any sort of backing to show the 2005 event did not occur.

the same thing I've written now... probably a half-dozen times (at least): I never questioned the 2003/2005 dates; I had no need to... I had no interest in them.

where did the 2007 date come from? I didn't make it up. The many mainstream media sourced articles referencing 2007 are written by differing journalists from distinctly separate media outlets:

- all those mainstream media articles referencing 2007 are based on something - what?

- all those mainstream media articles associating 2007 to the City of Montreal are based on something - what?

- all those mainstream media articles referencing the Mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, referring to 2007 (and directly quoting Mayor Denis Coderre referring to 2007) are based on something - what?

you claim to have contacted the "City of Montreal"... it would be most worthwhile to have your supposed contact speak to where the 2007 date originates; in relation to what? Not sure why you're resistant to putting forward the full/complete correspondence you claim to have initiated and received; surely you can ensure your anonymity when presenting it.

I've already addressed your juvenile reactions... your charges of lying. Again: do you actually get that this is not the equivalent of one of us making unsubstantiated statements and having the other bust the statements with a cited reference? You do get that, right? Do you also get that relying on legitimate references isn't a foundation for truth or lie declaring... as you're now choosing to do? Mainstream media sources are mainstream media sources and, quite obviously, one's understanding reflects upon those sources. If your supposed contact has any legitimacy and an accounting for the origination of the 2007 date is established and confirmed not to be accurate, then it simply shows not all mainstream media outlets got it right. If so, only a petulant juvenile would charge the journalists and media outlets as being liars... as being purveyors of lies!

.

[waldo]

again! You keep insisting the 2015 wastewater discharge event can't be associated with Harper Conservatives! I've provided a full accounting of events/timing related to the recent Nov 11, 2015 discharge. I highlighted the failed election campaign ploy that Harper Conservatives used to delay the discharge for a few weeks pushing it into the subsequent week after the official transfer of government after the election... given all that lead-up planning the prior 1.5 years, with Environment Canada never raising any concerns, with the Harper Conservative Environment department fully engaged and in the loop for the prior year, what is your justification for wanting to associate that discharge event to the Liberal government... other than your uber-campaign to try to ensure your boy Harper isn't tagged with having a government that approved a wastewater discharge event? Really?