In a democracy - there must be a price for lies, hypocrisy, and misleading the public.
The first and obvious price is that deals proposed on natural resource developments that do not fall completely under the stated intent to the electorate must be stopped.
If a leader - Danny Williams and PC members under his leadership - claimed while in Opposition to support development of the Lower Churchill using defined terms of benefits and then proposes a deal which is contrary to those stated benefits then it must be stopped.
Further if the process for including and informing the public of all negotiations and relevant material is not followed as was articulated by Premier Williams and PC members under his leadership in the past - the deal must be stopped.
Loyola Sullivan April 15, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
Whether it is the Lower Churchill, or whether it is Voisey’s Bay, or whether it is our offshore oil and gas, it is ours. If you want it, you develop under our terms that we consider competitive but we will become the major beneficiaries of our resources, not shareholders situated in the United States, whether it is eastern townships, Bay Street, or wherever they may be, or all over the world in other countries.
Danny Williams November 26, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
The negotiations that are before the people of this Province are very, very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier. Isn’t is a fact that Section 23(1)(c) of the act gives you and your government virtual veto power to deny the public information about any negotiations which your government carries on, including Voisey’s Bay and including the Lower Churchill?
John Ottenheimer December 3, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier about a story in The Telegram which quotes the Premier as saying that he will reveal a Voisey’s Bay deal to the people of the Province after it is signed, sealed and delivered. In other words, I say to the Premier, you are going to present the people with a fait accompli.
My question is, and I ask the Premier: Isn’t that exactly what was done with the infamous Upper Churchill contract exactly forty years ago?
Danny Williams December 3, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
... Of course, that was the subject of a question last week: in fact if someone took exception to that, let’s call them private meetings, called the meetings in the absence of the public, the public is excluded, that is the bottom line on it. Those are accepted. As well under this section, plans that relate to the management or the administration of a public body that have not yet been implemented or made public, those as well cannot be disclosed. Those should be disclosed. Then comes the important one as well, one that is equally important: information about negotiations carried on by or for a public body for the government of this Province. That is the Voisey’s Bay clause. whether what I termed secret meetings,That is the Lower Churchill clause one that this government can use to prevent disclosure of negotiations. Their answer to that is: Well, you cannot disclose the negotiations. If negotiations are going on in private, it is not right to get out and disclose those negotiations. You cannot do that.
Well I submit, Mr. Speaker, we should do that. The people of this Province have a right to know what is going on. It should not be done behind closed doors. It should not be a fait accompli. It should not be signed, sealed and delivered and then rammed down their throats after it is all over.
Danny Williams March 12, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
... I would suggest as well, if anything happens with regard to the Lower Churchill, if there is any tentative agreement or any framework of an agreement - not a tentative agreement, the framework of an agreement struck on the Lower Churchill - that before anything is signed, before anything is agreed to, the Minister of Mines and Energy, as Chairperson of that particular panel, should go around - in the event of a Voisey’s Bay deal, or in the event of a deal on the Lower Churchill, there should be an all party, non-partisan committee of this House struck to go around and listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to hear what they want, to hear what their interests are, and to hear what they think a deal should be. That is what should be done.
Loyola Sullivan May 13, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
...Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to get back to this very serious issue at hand, it is a very serious issue. Why wouldn’t the Premier of this Province, why wouldn’t government, want Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have a say, a fundamental say, into any major agreement?
When we are looking at this agreement, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at billions of dollars over the life of this agreement. We are looking at a mine and a mill with a smelter and refinery; we are looking at a multi-billion project.
...We do not want any major deal to go through without the scrutiny of this Legislature or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have an opportunity here in this House to voice concerns on behalf of our constituents. All forty-eight districts represented by members in this House, and one soon to be, we hope. It is not represented, there was no by-election called, but forty-seven at the moment. We feel we are members who can represent their concerns, listen to them, convey to them aspects of this particular deal and have it debated here in a public forum.
What is wrong with informing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador about a deal? Is there something sinister? There seems to be something sinister when you do not want people to see it.
Paul Shelley May 13, 2002HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
I rise today to present a petition also, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the House that on many, many occasions in this House in the last nine years I have been very proud to present petitions on roads, certainly I have done that many times in this House, and on different issues throughout the Province like the privatization of Hydro...
...I will read the prayer of the petition:
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring any proposed Voisey’s Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full disclosure and a thoroughgh debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
...I will tell the hon. members opposite that not just this petition but in any discussions that you have with - not everybody in this Province, but certainly the majority that I have spoken with clearly say that if the government of the day are about to do a deal on another resource of this Province - Mr. Speaker, there in lies the point, another deal on a resource of this Province because the track record of this Province on doing good deals on our resources is, to say the least, not very good. Let’s put it that way and be polite today, Mr. Speaker; not very good. When we look at something like Churchill Falls, when we look at our fishery, and we can go on and on, Mr. Speaker, because throughout this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador the track record on good deals on resources is a dismal attempt to get the right deal for people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the point that I will make first today on this petition is if the deal - and that is the biggest if probably in a long time in this House of Assembly - is such a good deal than why not debate it here in the people’s House so that each and every member on both sides of the House get a chance to make their own points? As was said many times in this House, it is not where you sit in this House but it is where you stand. Everybody will get their chance and will have their say by standing in their seat - which represents 10,000 to 12,000 people throughout this Province, most seats. They will get a chance to stand in their place and speak on behalf of the people that they represent.
Fabian Manning May 14, 2002
...I thank the members opposite for the opportunity, by leave, to clue up my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very important topic to the people I represent. It is a very important topic to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why it is very important that we bring it here to the floor of the House of Assembly. I know that there are members on that side of the House who want this brought here to the House of Assembly. I know that there are members there who want to fully debate it. I know there are members opposite who want to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know exactly what is in this deal before it is signed, sealed and delivered. Before our future is sold down the drain we want to make sure that this is a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have seen deals in the past, Mr. Speaker. We have seen deals on the Lower Churchill. We have seen deals on Marystown. We have seen deals that have been signed; that have been too late once they are signed. We had Friede Goldman - I talked to a gentleman the other day who called it Freebie-Goldman. Well, we do not want a freebie-Inco. I say it is very important that we make sure we get a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that we have a good deal brought here to the floor of the House of Assembly for a full and thorough debate before it is signed, and that is what these petitioners ask.
Tom Hedderson May 21, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
A proper deal, Mr. Speaker, is the catch word here. We certainly want a deal that is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we do not see that deal until after it is signed and binding, again, the debate on it would, I guess, be useless to some degree because once a deal is binding, once a deal is signed, once it is sealed - and we have seen previous deals, and I do not have to remind the House of the Churchill Falls deal and the difficulty that previous governments have had in even opening up clauses in that deal, in looking at the deal and trying to change the deal. So, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the time will come when a deal, hopefully, will be gotten, but a deal that is not signed, sealed and delivered without, at least, the ratification of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why the members on this side of the House are asking that the ratification take place before the deal is signed, before it is binding, because the implications of it not having been properly debated before it is signed certainly is going to put the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a weakened position.
Ray Hunter May 21, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
That is what was done in the Upper Churchill contract. When we signed a deal on the Upper Churchill, Mr. Speaker, that deal was a contract signed for the length of that contract. There are many more years, forty-odd years left in that contract, before we can sit down and renegotiate a better deal.
We cannot sit here and be a part of this House, to represent all the people in our districts and the people in this Province, sit back and say: Okay, Premier, you do what you want to do, we are going to sit back. We will come in and debate it after you sign a deal.
We have to make sure we do not have deals like we had in the past; like the Upper Churchill deal. Back in the days when the Upper Churchill deal was signed everybody thought it was a good deal. We do not want to make that mistake again. We do not want, in twenty years from now when our children look up at us and say: Well, why didn’t you do a right deal when you had a chance to do a right deal? Let’s do it right this time. Let’s not wait twenty years. These deals are made and they cannot be reopened.
Danny Williams May 21, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
SNC Lavlen Mount Pearl, NL 2,000.00 PC - IS THIS A CONTRIBUTION (FIRST ONES TO GET A CONTRACT UNDER A DEAL WHICH IS APPARENTLY JUST A PROPOSAL.
WILL OTHER COMPANIES WHO HAVE SAT WITH DANNY WILLIAMS AT HIS 500 DOLLAR A PLATE DINNERS BENEFIT FROM THIS LOWER CHURCHILL PROPOSAL
ANY OF THE ENGINEERING FIRMS, OR BANKS, ETC.....
John Ottenheimer June 18, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
... Very often, Mr. Speaker - and the Premier made reference to it, the fact that, oh yes, we will hear during the next three days what happened in the 1960s and we will hear about the failure of the Upper Churchill agreement and so on. Well, I think it is important - and again, this is why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are often skeptical and truly concerned about any major deal such as this. But, we do not have to go back to the 1960s, and we do not have to go back to thirty, forty, fifty years ago. We can go back to several years ago. I think that this is important, Mr. Speaker, so that we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, can reflect upon, really, what can happen when things go wrong.
Danny Williams November 18, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker, a Liberal government sold us up the Churchill River and we will not be sold down the Churchill River.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition and myself are placing the Government of Quebec and Hydro Quebec on notice here today that we will subject this deal to the utmost scrutiny. It will be under a microscope. We will hire the best available experts in the world to review this documentation.
I have not read it, but I will. I will analyze it and our team will analyze it, and we will not prejudge it.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, and let me tell this government, that if this deal does not stand up and does not take care of the best interests of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, if and when we form a government, I will do everything in my power to stop this deal.
...Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are for the Premier. I guess after the by-election last week and the stormy weather last night, it is an indication of a stormy session for the Premier to come, so I hope he battens down the hatches.
Mr. Speaker, by 2010 the Government of Quebec is forecasting a shortage of power that will leave them unable to meet their commercial obligations. Cheap power is the foundation of their energy plan and their key to economic development. One would think, therefore, that Quebec’s shortage of power would put our negotiating team in the driver’s seat during negotiations on the Lower Churchill. With such obvious negotiating power, Mr. Speaker, could the Premier please tell the people why he did not use the Lower Churchill as a bargaining lever to address the inequities of the Upper Churchill contract? Would the Premier explain why he quit on the objective of every single Government of Newfoundland and Labrador since the deal was signed over thirty years ago?
Mr. Premier, you might be prepared to quit on the Upper Churchill but the people on this side of House are certainly not prepare..
Mr. Speaker, the consultation document for the Royal Commission, the Premier’s Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada, says that a significant contributor to our prosperity and self-reliance is exported to Quebec in the form of power and energy from the Upper Churchill project. Mr. Speaker, the Commission in that document asks: What does this inequitable agreement say about our place in Canada?
My question for the Premier: If the Premier is prepared to give up on the Upper Churchill and allow this lopsided agreement to continue for another forty years, what does that say about this Premier and this government and their view of our place in Canada? Are they quitters or are they merely trying to -secure their political future rather than securing the best interest in the future of the children of this Province?
Mr. Speaker, the Chair of this government’s $3 million-plus Royal Commission on our place in Canada has long since advocated the importance of addressing the inequities of the Upper Churchill as part of any new deal to develop the Lower Churchill. In fact, that Chairman said
It would be another sad day in our history if the benefits of a new deal were not placed before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in that context.
... Well, what kind of a responsible action is it, Mr. Speaker, to have the Lower Churchill agreement signed within days in this Province? What is this Premier going to do? He is going to give away our cheap, our renewable energy, rather than create jobs in this Province. He is going to give away our -
...yesterday, as a result of questions, four matters were confirmed: One, that there is no redress on the Upper Churchill, that the Premier and his government have quit on us and have quit on this issue. Two, the Premier failed to use Quebec shortage of power in the next ten years as a lever to renegotiate the Upper Churchill.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. According to media reports last night and this morning, the term of this agreement, the agreement on the Lower Churchill, will be forty-five years from the completion of the project which means that it would expire in the year 2055 at the earliest. Would the Premier please confirm that the term of this contract is, in fact, forty-five years or more and takes us fourteen years beyond the expiration of the Upper Churchill agreement?
Mr. Speaker, I have said before, that my granddaughter, Abby, will be sixty years of age when the Lower Churchill contract expires, and she will probably have grandchildren herself, at that particular point in time.
Mr. Speaker, imagine, a Premier who was not elected by the people is negotiating a contract that will impact my great-great-grandchildren.
Danny Williams November 20, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
My questions this afternoon are for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, a number of individuals have raised concern over the Lower Churchill agreement and, in particular, the fact that there will not be any hydroelectricity available for domestic use, neither in Labrador nor on the Island. We have heard these concerns from the Member of Parliament for Labrador, Lawrence O’Brien. We have heard concerns -
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is because the Premier said he had no ability whatsoever on the Open Line this morning. We have heard concerns from the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and we have also heard concerns from the Premier’s own member from Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has indicated that there will, in fact, be recall of hydroelectricity. I would ask the Premier: Will that recall power be specifically targeted for those current needs of Labrador; the 500 megawatts requested for the Goose Bay area as requested by the mayor; the power for Southern Labrador as requested by the MHA, and also for domestic and commercial use in the rest of Labrador as requested by the Member of Parliament for Labrador, Lawrence O’Brien?
I say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, and I quote the words of the chairman of his task force on our place in Canada, that it would be a sad day for this Province if there is no redress on the Upper Churchill.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is we won’t be able to attract any new business. The fears of Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hickey and the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair are well-founded.
Mr. Speaker, what about all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who consume electrical energy in their homes? Why is electricity more than twice as expensive in Goose Bay and Corner Brook than it is in Montreal?
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why there is nothing in this agreement to enable them to get the benefit of the cheap electricity which they rightfully own and which is being given away for a second time to the Province of Quebec?
John Ottenheimer November 20, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
I will read it for the benefit of members present: To move that the Private Member’s Resolution now before the House be amended by adding immediately following the resolution clause, the following additional resolution clause: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the measures taken by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include the replacement by the year 2012 of all oil-fired thermal and diesel generated electricity in Labrador and on the Island of Newfoundland with clean hydroelectricity generated at Gull Island on the Churchill River in Labrador.
Loyola Sullivan November 20, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
Finally, I get an opportunity to say a few words about this particular resolution that is here today. We support, I might add, a reduction in greenhouse gases, of carbon dioxide in the environment and methane. We have to reduce it by 5.8 per cent, I think, in this country by 2012, basically, based on the amount of pollution that was there in 1997. We understand that equates now to a 22 per cent reduction based on what is estimated to be the 2004 levels. So we have a significant job to do to nip it in the bud and to stop the increasing costs.
How can we do that? There are avenues to do that, Mr. Speaker. One avenue is to use clean electricity here in our Province, to use the power from the Upper Churchill and the Lower Churchill to replace fuel-fired generation here in our Province and diesel fuel generation along the coast of Labrador and in other more isolated parts of our Province. We can do that by properly securing our future.
The member is asking questions to interfere with the five minutes I have, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair. Yes, I have been there in your district. I have been in many communities there, I might add. Have you been in any communities in my district, I might add?
We have to look at ways to do that. There is no better form of electricity than hydroelectric power. We have the plum of North America in terms of untapped electricity at Gull Island on the Lower Churchill. This is an opportunity for us to do it right, to ensure that the people of Labrador will have sufficient resources of hydroelectric power set aside for future industry, that this Island will have sufficient power, not to utilize in other North American markets. Shouldn’t we look after ourselves first, Mr. Speaker? We should look after ourselves in ensuring we have the power that is available.
...That is far more power than is used in all fuel-fired in our Province today. So, we are saying that we have an opportunity to have efficient power, user-friendly, that is not polluting the environments around us. We can live and grow and prosper, and, I might add, in doing so, have availability of a cheaper form of electricity than what we would get from fuel-fired electricity.
Danny Williams November 21, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
because they cannot possibly be aware of the issues.
- that there is no guarantee of 100 per cent ownership of the project by Newfoundland and Labrador; that there is no guarantee of 100 per cent management and control of the project;...
Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec’s comparison of prices in North American cities shows that Corner Brook residents, for example - I think St. John’s is probably used as an example, but let’s use Corner Brook, my district - would pay nearly 40 per cent more per kilowatt hour for electricity than residents in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the price difference of 40 per cent will probably increase for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who depend on burning oil for electricity while Quebecers will continue to use our cheap power from the Lower Churchill?
Danny Williams November 25, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Premier’s Royal Commission stated on Friday last week that in their numerous public meetings throughout the Province there have been discussions against the lost windfall profits from Churchill Falls, the total control of the Churchill River exercise by Quebec, and the significant role played by the Government of Canada in denying a power accord thirty years ago. The chairman said: If we don’t resolve the Upper Churchill situation this time around, this will be a very significant and fundamental sore on our place in Canada for the next thirty-nine years.
... my question for the Premier is, due to the fact that his government intends to give away power from the Lower Churchill agreement until 2055, which is fifty-two years from now, and do nothing with the Upper Churchill contract, does he agree with Mr. Young that it will be, in fact, a very significant and fundamental sore on our place in Canada?
Does the Premier know that the Quebec newspaper, La Presse, reported on Tuesday that most of the design and engineering work for the Lower Churchill will be done in Quebec? Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please confirm that, in fact, most of the design and engineering work on the Lower Churchill will be done in Quebec?
Danny Williams December 4, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
...Mr. Speaker, with each passing day we learn more and more about the terms of the secret deal on the Lower Churchill, which appears to be a very, very bad deal for Newfoundland and Labrador and a very, very good deal for Quebec. Now we all know why it is, in fact, a hidden deal and why the Premier will not answer any questions on the terms.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm what was told to the private meeting in Labrador, that at the end of construction of this multi-billion development of our resource, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will only get fifty - fifty, Mr. Speaker - long-term jobs while Quebec will use more of our cheap power to create thousands of new jobs for Quebecers?
According to the Premier of Nova Scotia - the jobs, benefits, and leadership of renewable resources is going to that province from our resources - what is the difference.
Loyola Sullivan December 17, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
I asked questions in this House of Assembly of Premier Brian Tobin, and asked that very question: Why? It might not have been that day, but you go back in the records of Hansard and you will see. How can you get redress on the Upper Churchill if you are dealing with somebody else? That is the gist of my thought.
Danny Williams March 19, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
Our iron ore is shipped to Quebec and other countries for processing. Our cheap hydroelectricity from the Churchill is sent to Quebec, where it is used as an enticement for economic development and job creation for Quebecers. Our oil is sent to the United States. The only jobs Newfoundlanders and Labradorians receive from its processing is by working on the tankers that steam to and from refineries in the United States. Our fish has been caught by many vessels carrying flags from many different countries all around the world, and soon our nickel and our copper and our cobalt will be shipped to Manitoba and Ontario where it will create jobs for Ontarians and Manitobans.
What few benefits we receive in the form of royalties from our natural resources are almost entirely clawed back by a government in Ottawa that seems only interested in taking jobs from us rather than creating new jobs with us. Mr. Speaker, my point is that too many of our resources are used to benefit people outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is wrong and it must be stopped.
Our government boasts that we have led the country in GDP growth in three of the past five years, but what do Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to show for it? They had the highest rate of unemployment in the country, at 18 per cent. They have among the highest per capita debt, the highest out-migration and tax burden in the country, and they have among the lowest per capita income, birth rate and fiscal strength.
...that strong desire to create long-term opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is why our party took such a strong position on the development of Voisey’s Bay and the Lower Churchill. It is not that we were anti-development, Mr. Speaker. Quite the contrary. We want to see these resources developed, but developed in such a way that maximum benefits accrue to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We talked for months and months in the debate about the privatization of Hydro as to role that Hydro-Quebec played in Quebec - the engine of economic growth for that province. We have, in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, a public organization that has the ability, the size, the strength, the resources, with what they have in Churchill Falls, both Lower and Upper Churchill, and the ability of that organization to transform parts of this Province and they play a significant role in our own future and control of our own future.
__________________________________________________________________________________
I was asked to decide - right Tories - well I have made my choice - I will fight you to the end on this emera deal. You will not ruin another generation`s future. Sue
9 comments:
Danny Williams is the ultimate hypocrite.
"Control of our own future".
Is that why we make deals with Nova Scotia's EMERA and give them the benefit of a secure source of energy at a fixed and stable rate ?
All the while asking our own people to deny future generations the right to "control their destiny" .
In the case of Dexter , is he not looking out for his people , securing jobs and looking to their future ?
While here in this province are our politicians securing a deal that sees our grandchildren labouring under the restrictive burden of having to pay for the freedoms of Atlantic Canadians , so that they and this country of Canada will be made STRONGER?
Why are we being asked to sacrifice our futures and that of our childrens' children , to satisfy the RAPACIOUS desires of a handful of unscrupulous politicians ?
The sad part of this is that in the climate of intimidation and fear fostered by Danny Williams and his regime, there are too few people as articulate and intelligent as you, Sue, who are brave enough to speak out against this deal. Speaking out is seen as being traitorous - going against the steady march of "progress". And the last thing anyone wants is to be anti-progress. This deal stinks, and the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador know it. Whether they are brave enough to say it is another thing.
Everything there smacks of total, utter, shameful hypocrisy, but this following quote from Danny Williams really jumped out at me when you consider his deal in November 2010, his giveaway to Emera, and the current leadership situation/vacuum in that same Party where someone who wanted to contest the leadership, regardless of whether or not he ever had a chance, was thwarted by the cabal.
Williams in November 2002, 8 years before he signed his giveaway and then quickly walked away:
"Are they quitters or are they merely trying to secure their political future rather than securing the best interest in the future of the children of this Province?"
Yes, this same question can be asked of you now, someone who "quit" before his second mandate was up and someone who did everything to "secure" his own political power and legacy and that of his Party. Talk about dirty, hypocritical politicking. And this deal is in NO WAY in the "best interest in the future of the children of this province." Not by a LONG shot.
Giving away our power, adding untold BILLIONS more to our already crippling debt, and doubling power rates for consumers is in our collective best interests right now and for the future????
For shame, Mr. Speaker. For absolute shame.
Ok, final word from me:
The theatrics of it all!
Williams: "Mr. Speaker, imagine, a Premier who was not elected by the people is negotiating a contract that will impact my great-great-grandchildren."
Wow, kinda like the current unelected Premier anointed by you who is going to Ottawa, cap in hand, looking for money and a loan guarantee for a deal that will impact your great-great-grandchildren???
Like that, Danny??
"contract that will impact my great-great-grandchildren."
Williams apparently likes to use the possessive case .
When Westcott's e-mail surfaced [he] was worried that it would distress "his" grandchildren .Never mind that other people's children or grandchildren would be effected .
On the day he was resigning and he said " I love you all", three guesses on whom he meant ----- your children or mine ?
Sue, given all the information that you have provided here on this site, that appears to be factual, I can only deduce there is NO DIFFERENCE in either of the 2political parties that have ruled our province for the past 61 years that we have been under the Canadian Federation. Their rulers and their politicians have been looking after Number ONE, that is THEMSELVES! I must say I think a lot of our politicians have had a serious case of the 'ME SYNDROME'.
I deduce:
LIBERALS = CONSERVATIVES
CONSERVATIVES = LIBERALS!
The time has come in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador for there to be an Information based Revolution. First things first and the first thing is we have to inform our people on what has transpired with all the computations, but how do we do it through a Blog?
I truly feel that for all of our existence in this province we have been governed by a political system that closely resembles a Kleptrocracy instead of a Democracy.
How in the name of Creation could all of our coveted natural resources have ended up in the other provinces of Canada to have created economies and jobs, with our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians having to follow to find work? We have lost upwards of 90,000 people over the past 18 years. Something does not add up here.
It is a bit of a mess - and there needs to be an information revolution, I agree. How do you feel is the best way to do this?
In this age of social networking - are we able to link in thousands of people?
How do we spread this word?
Sue, the how to do so presents a conundrum, since I know you were quite vociferous on the Open Line shows over the years on the corruption that was being perpetrated on our electorate, but those who wanted to shut you up, won the day. I find even the News Media outlets were complicit in perpetrating the devious act of having you shut down. They would bring you on for the entertainment factor and then they would set out to denigrate you.
As far as I am concerned all the Media, Newsprint - both commercial and free-print, Radio and T.V. seem to be reliant on both levels of government for advertising monies, or whatever it is they get from them that helps keep them going. And in order to get those advertising dollars they, no doubt, have to keep people like you, who hold so much information, silenced so as to keep the rest of us ignorant.
I can only suggest that you run as an Independent in the political arena. I am sure not one of the 3 political parties would want you to represent them, as they are all tarred with the one brush and none of them want the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador to know the truth of why their province has languished for the past 61 years with very little economy established, despite being part of supposedly the best country in the world and being endowed with a coveted supply of natural resources and a great geographic location. You are too smart a lady for any of them and that's a liability for any of the political parties.
Sue, really running as an Independent is the only suggestion I can give you unless you can get someone to Fund one of these free newsprints that I see hanging around in the coffee shops, but I doubt that you will have someone come on side with the funds needed to do so because your rason d'etre is to inform your fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of what has been perpetrated on them in the past by our political system; and to have done in our province, in the future, what is right and honest for its people. That is not what both levels of government want, they want our people (Newfoundlanders and Labradorians) to remain ignorant, it is much easier to tow away our resources when gravity isn't present. Unless you can get a philanthropist to come forward with no agenda of his/her own on what truth you will print in the newsprint that he/she will fund, you might be out of luck in getting the very informative stuff you have in your memory files on what has transpired in our province out there to the general public. Good Luck to you my dear, the factual stuff needs to be presented so that everyone can hear and read it for themselves.
I am sick of being looked down upon by my fellow Canadians, who have no idea what we have contributed to their country and their provinces at the expense of my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
The politicians who have aided and abetted in the deviant acts are not looked down upon, they are wealthy and they don't give a hoot. They can afford all the necessities in life, including expensive Medicare if they need it. They all suffer from the "Me Syndrome".
Post a Comment