2,153
edits
World: Difference between revisions
m
Reverted edits by Osejisycym (Talk) to last revision by Davidm
Osejisycym (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m (Reverted edits by Osejisycym (Talk) to last revision by Davidm) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Economy == | == Economy == | ||
| Line 17: | Line 9: | ||
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080119.wprimary-economy19/CommentStory/usElection2008/home | http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080119.wprimary-economy19/CommentStory/usElection2008/home | ||
<b>Chris Young from mount pearl,nl</b>, Canada writes: <b>diane marie from calgary, Canada</b> writes: George S:-- You know, it just absolutely astounds me that Newfoundland hydro can't be transmitted to Ontario, where it is badly needed. | |||
Excellent point you are making. As a Newfoundlander I have been exposed to the issue for awhile. Newfoundland and Labrador got a very bad deal when it negotiated the Upper Churchill River, Labrador hydro deal back in the 1960s. No one knew the cost of energy would sky rocket and we did not get the needed financial help from Ottawa. I am not blaming Quebec, they negotiated a good deal for them and Hydro Quebec engineers helped to make it all possible. | Excellent point you are making. As a Newfoundlander I have been exposed to the issue for awhile. Newfoundland and Labrador got a very bad deal when it negotiated the Upper Churchill River, Labrador hydro deal back in the 1960s. No one knew the cost of energy would sky rocket and we did not get the needed financial help from Ottawa. I am not blaming Quebec, they negotiated a good deal for them and Hydro Quebec engineers helped to make it all possible. | ||