Thursday, February 21, 2008


Originally uploaded by Oldmaison

He did say next Alberta right???

There's oil in our hills???


In New Brunswick??? I don't get it!!!

Please make me understand????


moncton news said...

there is oil well right in your home village but they cap them

Anonymous said...

The oil being extracted in Northern Alberta has been known by the natives for thousands of years and the knowledge of this was given to the Hudson bay company in early 1700's.
So there are no "new" finds as oil was seen seeping in the ground in souther NB and from it was the first discovery of kerosene by a New Brunswicker.We know graham has a problem so keep searching.A pateticoligist and Danny Williams,think its pinis envy,a liberal inflection.We pray

Anonymous said...

And when people find out about this,he better head for the paddocks.
As if the canadian parents for french immersion money lobby group funded by the federal government isn't enough,GET A READ ON THIS!!!!!!

Private university says it will build in NB
Ordered to close in BC, but Lansbridge plans to expand operations in Fredericton staff | Apr 24, 2007 | 11:17 am EST

Lansbridge University-New Brunswick intends to expand by building a campus in Fredericton, president Chris Pilgrim said during public hearings for a provincial post-secondary commission. The announcement comes one week before its sister school of the same name in B.C. is set to close because of violations of the Degree Authorization Act.

Landsbridge University-BC was investigated after the fall closing of another BC private institution, Kingston College. It is owned by Michael Lo’s Kingston Education Group, the same company that owns Landsbridge-BC and Landsbridge-NB.

But Pilgrim insists that the institutions are separate entities. “Our students and faculty are fully aware of the situation and understand that it has nothing to do with Lansbridge University-NB, except with respect to ownership and a similarity in names.”

The B.C. government investigation revealed that Lansbridge-BC advertised degree programs before gaining authorization, submitted misleading documents when applying for degree-granting status, and did not maintain the required financial security to protect students, among other violations. The investigation also reported, “The state of student files raises serious questions about administration, admissions standards, credit transfer criteria, and like issues.” Shockingly, one student transcript was discovered on the back of an old email regarding Lo’s credit limit.

The NB commission also heard from Jack Vanderlinde, president of the Federation of New Brunswick Faculty Associations, who urged the province to ban the creation of more private institutions.

"When someone does a thing for profit, clearly what you're most interested in is the profit, and not the product," Vanderlinde said last week. "If I were a student, I would be really very hesitant to go to a private institution, where, first of all, your fees would be much, much higher than the public universities, and there's absolutely no guarantee at the other end that you'll get anything out."

Approximately 300 students attending Lansbridge University-BC and Kingston College – the majority international students from India and China – spent up to $40,000 in tuition for a four-year degree, in addition to living costs, and are now left without credentials. Many of these students are facing the possibility of having to leave Canada as their student visas run out, having wasted their families’ savings and their chance to study in Canada.

Pilgrim accused the faculty association of having ulterior motives because private universities are not unionized.

Anonymous said...

CHRETIEN and friends
Should their not be charges over this,lying.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in July last year, the multiculturalism minister joined the cabinet and was advised by the Ethics Commissioner to divest himself of Grand Canadian Academy, the school that he owned at that time in China. The divestiture did not take place until December. Fair enough, these things can take time, and in the interim there is nothing wrong if the minister tried to seek out the highest possible sale price for his school.

What is illegitimate is to engage in any action that puts the minister into a conflict of interest. Let me quote from section 8 of the House of Commons Conflict of Interest Code:

When performing parliamentary duties and functions, a Member shall not act in any way to further his or her private interests...or to improperly further another person’s private interests.

Therefore it is a conflict of interest to do what the minister did in January. Specifically, the minister went on a team Canada trade mission to China with Michael Lo and Queenie Tin, the partners to whom he had sold Grand Canadian Academy only a month earlier. While in China, performing his ministerial and parliamentary duties, he signed a contract that had the effect of boosting the school's value.

When I raised this issue twice in question period, the minister refused to deny that this is what he did. In fact, he refused to stand at all and answer questions on this subject, and I can see why he was reticent. The only rational explanation for what he did while on the team Canada mission is that he was using an official trade mission either to enrich his partners, by ensuring a boost in the value of the company he had just sold to them, or that he had used the trip to enrich himself.

This latter scenario could easily have been the case if, as seems plausible, the purchasers had known in December that in January the minister would be facilitating a new contract for the school that he was selling to them. This knowledge would have increased the value of the school to them, and hence would have increased the price that they would be willing to pay to the minister, which constitutes a conflict under the section that I cited. Both the actions of course are in fact prohibited under the provisions of the Conflict of Interest Code.

Up until now, the only defence that has been presented on behalf of the minister is that he complied with the Ethics Commissioner's instructions to divest himself of Grand Canadian Academy, but this is not a fact that is really in dispute here. What is significant is the manner of the divestiture.

I pause at this point to point out that this is almost a perfect parallel to what happened to Bill Vander Zalm. When Bill Vander Zalm was premier of British Columbia in 1990, he was caught using official hospitality as a way of securing a potential buyer for Fantasy Gardens, his company. Specifically, Mr. Vander Zalm was forced to resign after he had caused the Taiwanese buyer of Fantasy Gardens, Mr. Tan Yu, to be provided with VIP treatment and a lunch with the lieutenant-governor prior to the sale. The matter went to court and the court ruled that in providing this access, Mr. Vander Zalm had been using his position as premier to promote his own business transactions by providing access to cabinet ministers for Tan Yu.

The question I have today is this. Why is it that the action which cost Bill Vander Zalm his job as premier of British Columbia is just business as usual in the eyes of the government, when the same thing is being done by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism from British Columbia?


Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the allegations the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington has been making are essentially ridiculous. I am rather surprised that he is at it again. He has asked questions during question period on this twice and I gave precise answers on behalf of the government.

The Minister of State for Multiculturalism has acted in an open, transparent and most appropriate manner. As I said during question period, I indicated that the minister upon being invited by the Prime Minister to join the cabinet, did as all ministers do, consulted the Ethics Commissioner within the timeframes allowed to seek advice.

The advice given was that the minister dispose of the shares that he may have had in the school in China. In December 2004, within the timelines that ministers had to settle their affairs in order to comply with the guidelines, the minister did exactly what was suggested of him.

By the time the trip to China occurred, the trip to which the member across refers, he had fully divested himself of the shares and, therefore, of any interest in this company.

We have a minister who did exactly what the Ethics Commissioner suggested he do. The member essentially is complaining that the minister followed the law. He followed the advice given to him by the Ethics Commissioner.

It is not good enough it seems for the member opposite. He keeps casting about innuendoes and suppositions of profiteering and so forth. I am rather surprised at the member because he has never, as far as I can recall, engaged in that kind of tactics before. I do not know what has become of him, for him to engage in this kind of behaviour.

We have a situation that is clear-cut. The minister was invited into cabinet and he sought advice from an independent Ethics Commissioner. Incidentally, it is rather ironic that the member who makes these allegations is on the record as having supported the establishment of an independent ethics commissioner. Now that we have one and the minister has followed the advice of the independent Ethics Commissioner, exactly as was suggested and did what he was told to do, it is still not good enough.

I find this rather bothersome that we in the House would engage in this kind of behaviour. We have codes that were followed and adhered to, and the advice given was followed. There is no conflict because the minister divested himself of all his interests. Yet a member goes about pointing the finger and saying that there is a conflict. They are created when they do not exist. I am really disappointed with the member for pursuing this line. I thought he had managed to rise above that, but obviously I was wrong.

I am sorry that the member persists in trying to slur the reputation of hon. members of the House. That is not a behaviour that I would encourage him to continue, especially when the facts are clear.

We have a situation where a minister sought advice, advice was provided, advice was followed and acted upon in due course, as per all the codes that exist. There is no conflict, yet the member across the way keeps trying to paint the picture of a minister in conflict of interest, when the truth and facts paint the exact opposite picture.

I would invite the member across to cease and desist these tactics that are beneath his reputation.

Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact the minister was restrained today. When I brought this issue up last time, he said that my comments were verging on the despicable. I thank him for his self-restraint.

The problem is not that the minister divested himself of Grand Canadian Academy. We all agree that that occurred within a reasonable timeline and there is no dispute there.

The question is whether the value of Grand Canadian Academy at the time of its divestiture had been increased by the foreknowledge that the minister would be accompanying the future owners of that company to China and assisting them in signing a contract. If that were the case and it raised the price, then he was enriching himself at taxpayer expense. Canadians paid for that trip and that is a very serious conflict.

Alternatively, he may simply have caused the price to go up for the benefit of those partners, in which case they were being enriched.

As I cited under section 8 of the Conflict of Interest Code, both of those are conflicts of interest and are inappropriate in his position.


Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, repeating allegations, suppositions and innuendo does not make it fact. Again, I would invite the member to be more careful in his approach of treating other members of the House, from whatever party they may be, or ministers of the government. It behooves us all to rise above petty partisanship.

There is no conflict here. The minister followed the advice given to him by the independent Ethics Commissioner to the letter. The Ethics Commissioner has a role to play. The minister followed his advice and divested himself of any and all interest he may have had, therefore ending any possibility of conflict.

To keep supposing that there is conflict is irresponsible, not to use that other word. I would really invite the member opposite to--


Anonymous said...

Barnes says that potential may lead to increased exploration activity from outside companies, working to propel New Brunswick into the spotlight.
Because of the find in Sussex, we have more companies looking to explore New Brunswick because the potential to find something is greater," he says.
Increased industry interest in the area is something that we haven't seen in a while. Over the greater part of this century, there's been activity in New Brunswick, but only recently are we seeing more companies wanting to undertake activity here." Industry analysts predict New Brunswick could soon be leading the way, as far as onshore interests are concerned, in the Atlantic provinces. While Nova Scotia may have more offshore activity than New Brunswick, Barnes says the province doesn't have a producing onshore field like New Brunswick. Barnes added Newfoundland isn't seeing much onshore activity, as there have been no recent discoveries. He says companies are having problems producing in commercial quantities and
a lack of infrastructure, the province is at a disadvantage.
in New Brunswick, we're seeing new companies arriving, at least one company looking to produce, and with those signs, it bodes well for future continued activity of this level," says

Anonymous said...


Well good luck,

phew,phew.whats that smell.