Think about what you are saying Randy! Let's have a Debate

Randy - thanks for your post in response to my blog post on the fishery. I unlike you am very concerned if many of our people have the myopic view you continue to demonstrate respecting the fishery.

The fishery was destroyed by mismanagement - the question is was the destruction so horrific - that it was unable to rebuild the way we were lied to it would. That makes sense from the federal side of the equation - as they are responsible for the mismanagement. These things should not be difficult to follow - and the fishery is not half as complex as those sent with propaganda want us to believe.

If you believe the rest of the world has stopped fishing - what is our recovery stock - you are not myopic you are painfully naive. Can you find St. Pierre and Miquelon?

Then if we are to believe your fisheries argument - then it becomes who should be entitled to what's left? The John Risley's of the world or the fishers of Newfoundland and Labrador. That too should be easy to conclude.

Back to the issue of the consequences to our people - your position is    
"Sadly that means people will have to look for alternate employment in other areas and in other industries. This is not a matter of opinion but one of fact."

Really - it is a fact? If the Federal Government is responsible for the mismanagement - which it constitutionally is - and that mismanagement has lead to the continued inability to commercially prosecute the fishery - then they pay - NOT OUR PEOPLE. The federal government annually contributes more to farming disasters - for which they are not responsible than they do for our situation which is their fault. If you wish to inflict the harm on our people versus having the guts to go after those which are responsible for the mess - then good for you - I am not in your flock. 

We are owed at least 500 million per year for at least the past 10 years as well as monies lost from population exodus as a result. This includes things such as transfers, taxation, brain drain, additional costs for things such as home care as our elderly have seen their young families leave the community. Then there are the financial consequences to our municipalities and the families that have had to leave what once were hundreds of thousands in assets - which are now rendered valueless. I do not elude or say that you are taking pleasure in the situation - as you assume - I am saying you are flippant - when somebody has been harmed by a party that had a fiduciary duty to manage a stock - that in your opinion they just have to accept it and move on. That is defeatist. Tis easy to be that way when you - personally - financially - have not been harmed. 

Then you add:

"If anything is implemented it has to include some form of pension (compensation) for older workers forced to retire because of the current reality. I have proposed that if Ottawa is not willing to help we should do it ourselves while we have the money to make it happen"  

This is the height of it Randy - if there is to be some compensation - you think????? We should do it! Why is that? There is a party responsible for it and they should be made to pay for it. If your house burned down and you had insurance - if your insurance company refused to pay for it and promised you over and over that they would replace your house and 20 years later it did not happen - would you ask the citizens of Mount Pearl to pay for it.

The absolute bunk we have been fed on the fishery over the past few decades is nothing more than buying political time election over election until so many people have left the fishery - that there is nobody left to fight. That is a social experiment in political expediency which you have fallen for hook line and sinker.

It is time for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to stand side by side and deal with this travesty. We do not need apologists for the feds, apathy from our community leaders, or bobbing heads repeating the corporate line. We need guts.

As for the oil revenues and 30 years - wishful thinking - and doing something with it to try and guarantee our future when the resource is exhausted - well then. We are unable to keep the benefits of our oil resources because of the equalization formula - which if not changed guarantees our failure. Even if we could it would only make up for the revenues that will no longer be there from oil. It does not and will not compensate us for the loss of a natural renewable resource.

You want to debate the fishery outside of the microphone you control - I and others would be happy to do it in a public forum. Let's see then what the collective public opinion would be.