So the Government and the MMSB are showing that EPRA the Electronics Products Recycling Association were listed under the Province's Lobbyist Registry in March of 2013 - and by April of 2013 - they had a deal.
So in the Department of Environment's News Release in April of this year - one quote:
“We have been working with electronics manufacturers to help them take a
leadership role in handling the treatment of their products after their
useful life,” said Mike Samson, Chief Executive Officer of the MMSB. “By
having manufacturers take responsibility for their products – from
development to disposal – they will increasingly think of ways to redesign
their products to be more environmentally friendly, more cost efficient and
easier to recycle.”
The approved plan was submitted by Electronic Products Recycling Association
(EPRA), an electronics industry organization that currently is operational
in six provinces across Canada.
When was the Plan submitted? Where's the approved Plan? Did anybody else submit a plan? Was anybody else asked? What did the Plan call for? How much would it cost consumers? Who monitors the fee? How many drop-off locations were promised and where? How would EPRA choose the drop-off locations and the consolidation location? How would they work to see some recycling done in this province?
We need some answers now.
We have 60 year old Newfoundland and Labrador companies that can't get a meeting with any Minister in government yet - this company in and out in a month with a deal.
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
EPRA - the Good,the Bad, & the big FEE
EPRA Electronic Products Recycling Association
Today was a day of the upset consumer.
Buy a $150 Television and pay an additional $42.50 for a recycling fee.
There are some pretty upset people out there and they want answers.
Sometimes when trying to listen to politicians on something they have already bungled becomes more and more difficult.
Every now and then for various reasons - I will go at something in an attempt to find the real skinny on the subject. This was one of those times - and is a result of one consumer who got to the checkout and realized they could not afford the purchase. They had received advertising - as is so obvious this time of year - and were delighted to find they could afford a very special gift for their child. The sale meant there would be a very special surprise for one little guy very proud parents that they could achieve this. You probably have guessed by now that they became very embarrassed at the check-out and more importantly somewhat devastated that the surprise for their son had just evaporated.
What happened?
What happened was an environmental recycling fee of $42.50 that they were unaware of and the company had not informed them of in the advertisement.
Time to go backwards:
1. The government decided that electronics must be recycled and that industry players must become stewards of these materials.
2. The regulations were put in place and EPRA was chosen to be the administrator of such a program.
3. This was first advertised by EPRA in July and became effective in August.
4. The MMSB and government worked with EPRA to see the program established.
5. The Government and the MMSB did not conduct public consultation or awareness on electronic recycling and did not involve the public in choosing the agency or corporation private or public that would undertake and manage the program.
6. The public for the most part does not know who the EPRA is and does not know what they do and why they are doing it.
Different electronic products have different fees and they are established by EPRA - all manufacturers and retailers of these products within Newfoundland and Labrador must collect the set fees and remit them to the EPRA. These fees are for the administration, collection, and processing of these materials.
The EPRA is a not-for-profit corporation without share capital and its members are retailers and manufacturers of electronic products.
Currently the EPRA's head office is in Ontario and they operate provincially in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, PEI, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
First thing that strikes you is that Ontario does not currently operate under EPRA but the national office is there. I write that off to normal arrogance. I am advised however that Ontario will be the next EPRA location.
Now let's get to the fees. The fees are different based on the product but one significant example is for what's termed a big-screen TV. I am told that that is any TV over 30 inches. In Newfoundland and Labrador the fee is $42.50 and is higher than in other provinces - which I am advised is because of additional transportation costs.
In Newfoundland and Labrador there are 17 drop-off locations which is not acceptable if the program is to succeed. Nova Scotia has 39 locations - which when you compare the geography - is ridiculous. There is 55,000 square kilometres in Nova Scotia and 405,000 square kilometres in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Clearly we are going to need some hundreds of locations in this province. With a mere 5,000 square kilometres in PEI - they have 6 drop-off points. So right off the bat we are not rolling this project out in the best possible way.
Once products are dropped off in any of the 17 locations they are forwarded to a collaboration centre in Mount Pearl and from there head to the mainland.
That is to say Newfoundland and Labrador does none of the processing of the products. Our products are shipped to Quebec for processing. Nova Scotia currently has a processor that handles about 20% of their recycling. There is no Atlantic regional facility and that - in my opinion - is a lost opportunity for us.
The choice of processing location I am told was through an RFP (request for proposals) but not within Newfoundland and Labrador. That - in my opinion - was another mistake and we should now work diligently to establish an Atlantic Processing facility here in our province. In that way we can gain employment from this recycling initiative.
The choice for the collaboration facility was not done through tender or an RFP but was done by the company based on their own research - leading to communication with a few potentials and ultimately chosen by them - I am told on the basis of price, service, and experience. This too - in my opinion was a mistake and leaves the door wide open to speculation on why so and so got the contract.
Now for the breakdown. A drop-off location is paid a fee to collect and store materials dropped off to them by us the consumers - then a processing centre is paid to recycle the materials. The processing centres - which are private - for-profit enterprises also retain all revenues generated by selling the recycled materials. Clearly these processors are not paying corporate tax or benefits in our province because we have no processors here. EPRA is paid to administer and manage the program.
I do not yet have specific breakdowns with respect to what percentage of the fee we pay goes to EPRA, the drop off centres, or the processors. I do not know what remuneration is in place for the national and provincial executives. The list of these individuals can be found at the end of this post.
EPRA will be tested over the next year and then we can determine if the organization here in our province and in fact nationally is run well. Whether or not the MMSB could have administered this program more efficiently is a question worth asking. Whether or not the best drop-off locations have been established is a good question. Whether or not the best collaboration centre has been achieved is a good question and whether or not we could have done at least a percentage of the processing here is a good question.
There clearly was an opportunity here for government to go after processing these materials for Atlantic Canada and we certainly have enough empty plants etc. to put such a facility in - and our private sector could have been tapped for a partnership initiative.
My experience with EPRA today was mixed. The first phone call I made was to the head office - in Ontario. I was met with significant resistance first and then promised that my questions could be answered by Christy Teasdale, National Director Marketing and Communication for EPRA. I called back at the scheduled time and was left on hold for 45 minutes. I then called the main office again and asked some general questions of the staffer and was further advised to talk to Terry Greene - Program Director for Newfoundland and Labrador. The Executive Director for our region is located in Nova Scotia - in my opinion - another mistake.
Terry Greene is a personable fellow with a good grasp of the company he works for and the program. He was able to answer the questions I had with confidence and for the most part without hesitation. The problems I have with this program are not with him - they are with government and the MMSB.
Before EPRA was chosen for this province there should have been broad public consultations with more than one option for proceeding. Further the government and the MMSB should have taken the transitional lead in the introduction of this program to consumers here in our province.
Secondarily - but as important - are the retailers and manufacturers who are the members of EPRA - they should have collectively decided to conduct responsible advertising and list the environmental fees alongside product costs in their flyers and promotional materials.
EPRA needs to outline its executive remuneration and also more particulars about how are money is spent. Without this information the consumer who pays the fee will be left to speculate on whether or not money is being spent wisely and ethically. It is also important to know that some of our money will be spent in the USA and Europe as some of the processing will be done there.
Is recycling electronic products the right thing to do? Sure it is. Is this the best program to do it? I don't know and I suspect our politicians don't know either. Is EPRA the best company to administer it? I don't know - perhaps the MMSB could have. Are we maximizing our full potential to gain additional employment? No. Has EPRA used the best process in choosing drop-off and processing facilities - I don't believe so. Have the retailers and manufacturers done enough to educate and promote openly this initiative? No. Has the government explained how this whole thing started, why it started, and who started it? No.
Most importantly the fees are determined and established by EPRA without government involvement. Therefore they should have to answer to a PUB like regulator to ensure the fees are appropriate and the expenditures warranted.
EPRA represents the industry retailers and manufacturers - middlemen to accommodate government regulation. Is this the best process? It's time we had the discussion with the people we elect to govern and make policy and legislation.
The Opposition parties hold some responsibility here as well - where were they when this all went down and what did they recommend?
Today was a day of the upset consumer.
Buy a $150 Television and pay an additional $42.50 for a recycling fee.
There are some pretty upset people out there and they want answers.
Sometimes when trying to listen to politicians on something they have already bungled becomes more and more difficult.
Every now and then for various reasons - I will go at something in an attempt to find the real skinny on the subject. This was one of those times - and is a result of one consumer who got to the checkout and realized they could not afford the purchase. They had received advertising - as is so obvious this time of year - and were delighted to find they could afford a very special gift for their child. The sale meant there would be a very special surprise for one little guy very proud parents that they could achieve this. You probably have guessed by now that they became very embarrassed at the check-out and more importantly somewhat devastated that the surprise for their son had just evaporated.
What happened?
What happened was an environmental recycling fee of $42.50 that they were unaware of and the company had not informed them of in the advertisement.
Time to go backwards:
1. The government decided that electronics must be recycled and that industry players must become stewards of these materials.
2. The regulations were put in place and EPRA was chosen to be the administrator of such a program.
3. This was first advertised by EPRA in July and became effective in August.
4. The MMSB and government worked with EPRA to see the program established.
5. The Government and the MMSB did not conduct public consultation or awareness on electronic recycling and did not involve the public in choosing the agency or corporation private or public that would undertake and manage the program.
6. The public for the most part does not know who the EPRA is and does not know what they do and why they are doing it.
Different electronic products have different fees and they are established by EPRA - all manufacturers and retailers of these products within Newfoundland and Labrador must collect the set fees and remit them to the EPRA. These fees are for the administration, collection, and processing of these materials.
The EPRA is a not-for-profit corporation without share capital and its members are retailers and manufacturers of electronic products.
Currently the EPRA's head office is in Ontario and they operate provincially in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, PEI, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
First thing that strikes you is that Ontario does not currently operate under EPRA but the national office is there. I write that off to normal arrogance. I am advised however that Ontario will be the next EPRA location.
Now let's get to the fees. The fees are different based on the product but one significant example is for what's termed a big-screen TV. I am told that that is any TV over 30 inches. In Newfoundland and Labrador the fee is $42.50 and is higher than in other provinces - which I am advised is because of additional transportation costs.
In Newfoundland and Labrador there are 17 drop-off locations which is not acceptable if the program is to succeed. Nova Scotia has 39 locations - which when you compare the geography - is ridiculous. There is 55,000 square kilometres in Nova Scotia and 405,000 square kilometres in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Clearly we are going to need some hundreds of locations in this province. With a mere 5,000 square kilometres in PEI - they have 6 drop-off points. So right off the bat we are not rolling this project out in the best possible way.
Once products are dropped off in any of the 17 locations they are forwarded to a collaboration centre in Mount Pearl and from there head to the mainland.
That is to say Newfoundland and Labrador does none of the processing of the products. Our products are shipped to Quebec for processing. Nova Scotia currently has a processor that handles about 20% of their recycling. There is no Atlantic regional facility and that - in my opinion - is a lost opportunity for us.
The choice of processing location I am told was through an RFP (request for proposals) but not within Newfoundland and Labrador. That - in my opinion - was another mistake and we should now work diligently to establish an Atlantic Processing facility here in our province. In that way we can gain employment from this recycling initiative.
The choice for the collaboration facility was not done through tender or an RFP but was done by the company based on their own research - leading to communication with a few potentials and ultimately chosen by them - I am told on the basis of price, service, and experience. This too - in my opinion was a mistake and leaves the door wide open to speculation on why so and so got the contract.
Now for the breakdown. A drop-off location is paid a fee to collect and store materials dropped off to them by us the consumers - then a processing centre is paid to recycle the materials. The processing centres - which are private - for-profit enterprises also retain all revenues generated by selling the recycled materials. Clearly these processors are not paying corporate tax or benefits in our province because we have no processors here. EPRA is paid to administer and manage the program.
I do not yet have specific breakdowns with respect to what percentage of the fee we pay goes to EPRA, the drop off centres, or the processors. I do not know what remuneration is in place for the national and provincial executives. The list of these individuals can be found at the end of this post.
EPRA will be tested over the next year and then we can determine if the organization here in our province and in fact nationally is run well. Whether or not the MMSB could have administered this program more efficiently is a question worth asking. Whether or not the best drop-off locations have been established is a good question. Whether or not the best collaboration centre has been achieved is a good question and whether or not we could have done at least a percentage of the processing here is a good question.
There clearly was an opportunity here for government to go after processing these materials for Atlantic Canada and we certainly have enough empty plants etc. to put such a facility in - and our private sector could have been tapped for a partnership initiative.
My experience with EPRA today was mixed. The first phone call I made was to the head office - in Ontario. I was met with significant resistance first and then promised that my questions could be answered by Christy Teasdale, National Director Marketing and Communication for EPRA. I called back at the scheduled time and was left on hold for 45 minutes. I then called the main office again and asked some general questions of the staffer and was further advised to talk to Terry Greene - Program Director for Newfoundland and Labrador. The Executive Director for our region is located in Nova Scotia - in my opinion - another mistake.
Terry Greene is a personable fellow with a good grasp of the company he works for and the program. He was able to answer the questions I had with confidence and for the most part without hesitation. The problems I have with this program are not with him - they are with government and the MMSB.
Before EPRA was chosen for this province there should have been broad public consultations with more than one option for proceeding. Further the government and the MMSB should have taken the transitional lead in the introduction of this program to consumers here in our province.
Secondarily - but as important - are the retailers and manufacturers who are the members of EPRA - they should have collectively decided to conduct responsible advertising and list the environmental fees alongside product costs in their flyers and promotional materials.
EPRA needs to outline its executive remuneration and also more particulars about how are money is spent. Without this information the consumer who pays the fee will be left to speculate on whether or not money is being spent wisely and ethically. It is also important to know that some of our money will be spent in the USA and Europe as some of the processing will be done there.
Is recycling electronic products the right thing to do? Sure it is. Is this the best program to do it? I don't know and I suspect our politicians don't know either. Is EPRA the best company to administer it? I don't know - perhaps the MMSB could have. Are we maximizing our full potential to gain additional employment? No. Has EPRA used the best process in choosing drop-off and processing facilities - I don't believe so. Have the retailers and manufacturers done enough to educate and promote openly this initiative? No. Has the government explained how this whole thing started, why it started, and who started it? No.
Most importantly the fees are determined and established by EPRA without government involvement. Therefore they should have to answer to a PUB like regulator to ensure the fees are appropriate and the expenditures warranted.
EPRA represents the industry retailers and manufacturers - middlemen to accommodate government regulation. Is this the best process? It's time we had the discussion with the people we elect to govern and make policy and legislation.
The Opposition parties hold some responsibility here as well - where were they when this all went down and what did they recommend?
Chief Executive Officer and Staff
Cliff Hacking
as Chief Executive Officer.
Other senior EPRA staff includes:
Lynda Kitamura
Chief Financial Officer
Jay Illingworth
Director of Harmonization
Sean De Vries
Director, Recycler Qualification Office
Christy Teasdale
Director, Marketing and Communications
Each provincial EPRA program has an Executive or Program Director responsible for the day to day management of
the programs:
Craig Wisehart
EPRA Western Canada
Dennis Neufeld
EPRA Manitoba
Dominique Levesque
EPRA-Québec
Gerard MacLellan
EPRA Atlantic Canada
Thursday, October 11, 2012
For the Record with Bruno Marcocchio
Talk with Sue - For the Record will host Bruno Marcocchio, Thursday October 18th, 8pm Island Time and 7:30 in most of Labrador and Nova Scotia.
Over the past few months many of you have probably heard the feisty conversations between Bruno and talk-show hosts in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Bruno is an environmental activist and has led or participated in many significant campaigns throughout the country.
He has also participated in hearings and meetings regarding the proposed Muskrat Falls deal at the request of Labradorians.
His knowledge of regulatory issues relative to industrial development and environmental remediation is significant and important as part of our understanding as we examine the proposed Muskrat Falls development.
This will be an interesting and probing conversation as we look at this issue through another glass.
The program will run for 90 minutes allowing us the time to really understand what Bruno's concerns are and to focus on Labrador issues.
I hope you join us next Thursday as Talk with Sue continues to gather as much information as possible with respect to the broad range of concerns held by critics of this project.
Press HERE to visit the show page.
Press HERE to listen to the conversation with former Premier Roger Grimes
Press HERE to listen to the conversation with former Director of Hydro & MHA Danny Dumaresque
Over the past few months many of you have probably heard the feisty conversations between Bruno and talk-show hosts in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Bruno is an environmental activist and has led or participated in many significant campaigns throughout the country.
He has also participated in hearings and meetings regarding the proposed Muskrat Falls deal at the request of Labradorians.
His knowledge of regulatory issues relative to industrial development and environmental remediation is significant and important as part of our understanding as we examine the proposed Muskrat Falls development.
This will be an interesting and probing conversation as we look at this issue through another glass.
The program will run for 90 minutes allowing us the time to really understand what Bruno's concerns are and to focus on Labrador issues.
I hope you join us next Thursday as Talk with Sue continues to gather as much information as possible with respect to the broad range of concerns held by critics of this project.
Press HERE to visit the show page.
Press HERE to listen to the conversation with former Premier Roger Grimes
Press HERE to listen to the conversation with former Director of Hydro & MHA Danny Dumaresque
Monday, October 08, 2012
Fraud, Theft, Lies, and Giveaways - Politics 101
Lately we have suffered the consequences of a massive meat recall in Canada.
So many products recalled it was hard to keep track.
Health care in Newfoundland and Labrador cut at the front lines and always some problem relative to privacy of personal information.
Housing is in a mess leaving families and children homeless.
Failing submarines and over budget - unethical purchasing of F-35's.
Election fraud and deception abound in the House of Commons and in the House of Assembly, MHA's jailed for fraudulent collection and use of taxpayer dollars.
The transportation infrastructure in our province is crumbling, horrific highway in Labrador the rutted Avalon peninsula and failing aged pavement on the South Coast. The ferries are always down disconnecting people and communities and the Marine Atlantic crossings continue to eat away at our ability to attract tourists or move goods.
Search and Rescue downsizing or inadequacies failing to save lives while our oceans are littered with oil being dumped at will by passing vessels.
Federal - Provincial relations ruined by a Prime Minister who lies at will and refuses to hold a first Ministers conference.
Politicians diminishing access to information on how they are spending our money - then asking for your vote to continue.
Our aging corrections facilities now at a third world level - while one politician seemingly without discourse closing the only open facility for low-risk offenders in Salmonier.
Politicians handing their buddies contracts worth tens of millions without tender and further gaining access to public resources and land at prices not available to the average citizen.
Water problems in many communities persist while waste management policies have failed leaving our pristine woods full of junk metal, dirty diapers, and chemicals.
Foreigners developing personal properties with closed access to waters and beaches which are crown owned. Provincial parks - privatized and leased to particular people - some now unrecognizable and inaccessible to many.
The science needed to protect our fishery destructed by a federal government that managed the resource into commercial extinction.
All of the things noted above are what a government is supposed to do. It is the role of our elected representatives to insure that public safety, food safety and supply, transportation, recreation, education, health services, national defence, successful resource management, clean water, and our environment are taken care of through the tax dollars we provide.
Somewhere along the line - particularly over the past decade Conservatives have redefined their role in governing our country and province.
The Conservatives who believe in free enterprise and condemn anything with social in its economic heading have become the party and members that spoon feeds multimillionaires and large corporate interests. They have become the trough that feeds the hungry pigs every time they grunt for more.
Do not confuse this with small-medium sized business owners who make their way as best they can while employing and paying taxes in our province. These are the good ones.
What I am referencing are the private and publicly traded monstrosities that want to make money by using our natural resources without proper return to the shareholders - you and I. The same ones that cry "free enterprise and profit" to the top of their lungs while providing employment and selling their companies using our resources to state-owned China.
I refer to those "persons" who have to continually satisfy their global shareholders by taking more, processing less, and employing as few as possible.
It is time that we as the shareholders of mines, energy, fish, forest, and water take back control and demand to be satisfied as a society.
However - many millions and billions that are being funnelled to these big corporates and multimillionaires from our tax dollars and natural resources needs to be hauled back. It is time we asked for real vision for resource development and demanded proper use of our tax dollars for things that are essential to life and our future.
Conservatives don't want big government but they don't mind big tax dollars and massive debt loads to fuel the greed of corporations and individual elite and they don't mind turning everything we own as a society over to their buddies at the cheapest possible cost.
The proposed Muskrat Fall deal is the epitome of the Conservative ideology. It is the reason the government is trotting out the business elite to demonstrate support while we as citizens of the province and owners of the resource fail to see the benefits of the development.
If these elected Conservatives wanted to serve the corporate elite and the wealthiest people in our society - they should work their way to the top within a corporation, they should apply to be employed in the private sector, or they should spend their own money to invest. They work for us and it's about time we reminded them of that. They are spending our money and developing our resources. They are putting us in debt. They are refusing information to us about expenditures of our tax dollars - while more than happy to meet with corporate executives about the giveaway of our resources.
So many products recalled it was hard to keep track.
Health care in Newfoundland and Labrador cut at the front lines and always some problem relative to privacy of personal information.
Housing is in a mess leaving families and children homeless.
Failing submarines and over budget - unethical purchasing of F-35's.
Election fraud and deception abound in the House of Commons and in the House of Assembly, MHA's jailed for fraudulent collection and use of taxpayer dollars.
The transportation infrastructure in our province is crumbling, horrific highway in Labrador the rutted Avalon peninsula and failing aged pavement on the South Coast. The ferries are always down disconnecting people and communities and the Marine Atlantic crossings continue to eat away at our ability to attract tourists or move goods.
Search and Rescue downsizing or inadequacies failing to save lives while our oceans are littered with oil being dumped at will by passing vessels.
Federal - Provincial relations ruined by a Prime Minister who lies at will and refuses to hold a first Ministers conference.
Politicians diminishing access to information on how they are spending our money - then asking for your vote to continue.
Our aging corrections facilities now at a third world level - while one politician seemingly without discourse closing the only open facility for low-risk offenders in Salmonier.
Politicians handing their buddies contracts worth tens of millions without tender and further gaining access to public resources and land at prices not available to the average citizen.
Water problems in many communities persist while waste management policies have failed leaving our pristine woods full of junk metal, dirty diapers, and chemicals.
Foreigners developing personal properties with closed access to waters and beaches which are crown owned. Provincial parks - privatized and leased to particular people - some now unrecognizable and inaccessible to many.
The science needed to protect our fishery destructed by a federal government that managed the resource into commercial extinction.
All of the things noted above are what a government is supposed to do. It is the role of our elected representatives to insure that public safety, food safety and supply, transportation, recreation, education, health services, national defence, successful resource management, clean water, and our environment are taken care of through the tax dollars we provide.
Somewhere along the line - particularly over the past decade Conservatives have redefined their role in governing our country and province.
The Conservatives who believe in free enterprise and condemn anything with social in its economic heading have become the party and members that spoon feeds multimillionaires and large corporate interests. They have become the trough that feeds the hungry pigs every time they grunt for more.
Do not confuse this with small-medium sized business owners who make their way as best they can while employing and paying taxes in our province. These are the good ones.
What I am referencing are the private and publicly traded monstrosities that want to make money by using our natural resources without proper return to the shareholders - you and I. The same ones that cry "free enterprise and profit" to the top of their lungs while providing employment and selling their companies using our resources to state-owned China.
I refer to those "persons" who have to continually satisfy their global shareholders by taking more, processing less, and employing as few as possible.
It is time that we as the shareholders of mines, energy, fish, forest, and water take back control and demand to be satisfied as a society.
However - many millions and billions that are being funnelled to these big corporates and multimillionaires from our tax dollars and natural resources needs to be hauled back. It is time we asked for real vision for resource development and demanded proper use of our tax dollars for things that are essential to life and our future.
Conservatives don't want big government but they don't mind big tax dollars and massive debt loads to fuel the greed of corporations and individual elite and they don't mind turning everything we own as a society over to their buddies at the cheapest possible cost.
The proposed Muskrat Fall deal is the epitome of the Conservative ideology. It is the reason the government is trotting out the business elite to demonstrate support while we as citizens of the province and owners of the resource fail to see the benefits of the development.
If these elected Conservatives wanted to serve the corporate elite and the wealthiest people in our society - they should work their way to the top within a corporation, they should apply to be employed in the private sector, or they should spend their own money to invest. They work for us and it's about time we reminded them of that. They are spending our money and developing our resources. They are putting us in debt. They are refusing information to us about expenditures of our tax dollars - while more than happy to meet with corporate executives about the giveaway of our resources.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Beautiful Humber West - Great District - Tough Decisions
Humber West is beautiful - the potential is astronomical for future tourism development and industrial growth. The electors are intelligent and they must consider many factors as they head to the Polls.
In my opinion as I have mentioned many times before - this district is a leader in environmental advocacy and has shown the way in many areas of discussion - forestry, tourism, construction, development, greening up, and land-use planning. The citizens are engaged and are never shy to state an opinion.
When Danny was the Premier - it was extremely difficult to support anybody else from the practicality of partisan politics. Although this is one of my most undesirable state of affairs - I do understand.
Vaughn Granter is not Danny Williams and does not have the ability to lead versus follow. This was evident in his poor choice regarding the community debate. If you really believe in democratic principles - which I have to believe a high school principal must - then you absolutely do not refuse a debate.
When a people driven organization sets up an all-candidates debate on whatever the issues - and a candidate does not show up it only means one thing. That individual has complete disrespect for the electorate - and the choices they make to assist them in choosing a representative. When the candidate says - I have decided to go my route instead (knock on doors) then he has said it will be my way - or in this case what the party wants.
You see the debate was set up for the people - by the people - is there anything more democratic? No there is not.
I am but one citizen and I am not a voter in this by-election - but I trust the people of Humber West will consider that one decision of Granter's very seriously and also believe that because a general election is coming in the fall - it is very practicable not to elect one from the government side. This I am sure will get Humber West some real attention and perhaps send a message to anybody who seeks to represent them - that the people decide how they want their democracy to unfold.
In my opinion as I have mentioned many times before - this district is a leader in environmental advocacy and has shown the way in many areas of discussion - forestry, tourism, construction, development, greening up, and land-use planning. The citizens are engaged and are never shy to state an opinion.
When Danny was the Premier - it was extremely difficult to support anybody else from the practicality of partisan politics. Although this is one of my most undesirable state of affairs - I do understand.
Vaughn Granter is not Danny Williams and does not have the ability to lead versus follow. This was evident in his poor choice regarding the community debate. If you really believe in democratic principles - which I have to believe a high school principal must - then you absolutely do not refuse a debate.
When a people driven organization sets up an all-candidates debate on whatever the issues - and a candidate does not show up it only means one thing. That individual has complete disrespect for the electorate - and the choices they make to assist them in choosing a representative. When the candidate says - I have decided to go my route instead (knock on doors) then he has said it will be my way - or in this case what the party wants.
You see the debate was set up for the people - by the people - is there anything more democratic? No there is not.
I am but one citizen and I am not a voter in this by-election - but I trust the people of Humber West will consider that one decision of Granter's very seriously and also believe that because a general election is coming in the fall - it is very practicable not to elect one from the government side. This I am sure will get Humber West some real attention and perhaps send a message to anybody who seeks to represent them - that the people decide how they want their democracy to unfold.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Danny to save Canada....
...because Ontario and Alberta are looking after themselves.
While our Premier (Joe Generous) is finding ways to save Canada from its energy woes - his idol - Alberta - is not so infatuated with security of supply.
While attending the Premiers meet - greet - and heat - Danny Williams was very magnanimous with our potential power from the Lower Churchill. He was gushing over Newfoundland and Labrador's ability to supply superior energy to "Canada".
A Montreal Gazette story on Saturday was commenting on the Security and Prosperity conference being held in Quebec between Canada - United States - and Mexico. The piece points out that while Harper says Canada is an energy superpower - Gordon Laxer, director of the Parkland Institute, a research network at the University of Alberta says "It's an energy satellite."
While Danny worries about Alberta's economy taking a hit with proposed emission targets - Alberta cares little about Newfoundland and Labrador.
Consider this:
Canada exports more than 1.6 million barrels of oil a day to the United States, close to two-thirds of our production. Guess where most of that comes from.
The story goes on to say:
When it comes to natural gas, Canada meets domestic needs with minimal - though growing - recourse to imports. But we continue to sell more natural gas to the United States than we consume ourselves, even though Canada has less than nine years of proven reserves at current levels of production.
Laxer continues:
Canada's current approach puts our long-term energy security at risk, Laxer said. "If Canadian governments don't look after Canadians, then who will? You can be sure the Americans are going to look after themselves."
Williams is determined to fuel the economy of Ontario by exporting our superior energy from the Lower Churchill. As Ontario's Minister of Energy - Dwight Duncan said earlier this year:
"...the planned Lower Churchill project fits perfectly with Ontario's future energy demands."This is clean, green, renewable power that we'd like to get into the southern Ontario market..." "We have an air quality problem. We have a need for new power.
All the Premiers except one would go along with reduction in tail-pipe emissions - Ontario of course - because they will protect their 325 thousand jobs in the auto-sector. What a joke Danny - what a joke.
While our Premier (Joe Generous) is finding ways to save Canada from its energy woes - his idol - Alberta - is not so infatuated with security of supply.
While attending the Premiers meet - greet - and heat - Danny Williams was very magnanimous with our potential power from the Lower Churchill. He was gushing over Newfoundland and Labrador's ability to supply superior energy to "Canada".
A Montreal Gazette story on Saturday was commenting on the Security and Prosperity conference being held in Quebec between Canada - United States - and Mexico. The piece points out that while Harper says Canada is an energy superpower - Gordon Laxer, director of the Parkland Institute, a research network at the University of Alberta says "It's an energy satellite."
While Danny worries about Alberta's economy taking a hit with proposed emission targets - Alberta cares little about Newfoundland and Labrador.
Consider this:
We import close to one million barrels of oil a day to supply 90 per cent of market demand in Quebec and Atlantic Canada and about 35 per cent in Ontario.
Canada exports more than 1.6 million barrels of oil a day to the United States, close to two-thirds of our production. Guess where most of that comes from.
The story goes on to say:
When it comes to natural gas, Canada meets domestic needs with minimal - though growing - recourse to imports. But we continue to sell more natural gas to the United States than we consume ourselves, even though Canada has less than nine years of proven reserves at current levels of production.
Laxer continues:
Canada's current approach puts our long-term energy security at risk, Laxer said. "If Canadian governments don't look after Canadians, then who will? You can be sure the Americans are going to look after themselves."
Alberta is not likely to slow down its extreme production levels despite what that may mean for Canada in the short-term (environmental treaties) or the long-term (security of supply). Despite this obvious self-serving policy in Alberta - our Premier is going to be a gentleman - save Canada (Ontario Nova Scotia New Brunswick and Alberta) from itself.
Williams is determined to fuel the economy of Ontario by exporting our superior energy from the Lower Churchill. As Ontario's Minister of Energy - Dwight Duncan said earlier this year:
"...the planned Lower Churchill project fits perfectly with Ontario's future energy demands."This is clean, green, renewable power that we'd like to get into the southern Ontario market..." "We have an air quality problem. We have a need for new power.
If Ontario has an air quality problem and shortage of supply - our policy should be to remove some of the industry from them - not to give them more power to crush our own economic potential and the subsequent loss of our people.
All the Premiers except one would go along with reduction in tail-pipe emissions - Ontario of course - because they will protect their 325 thousand jobs in the auto-sector. What a joke Danny - what a joke.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Minister of Environment having identity crisis...
He thinks he's the Minister of Industry!
Hey Clyde - Here's the latest from The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
"Although Health Canada last month said 2,4-D is
safe to use on lawns and turf "when label directions are followed," the association warned pesticides have been linked to childhood cancer, birth defects and neurological disease."
Now that's compared to the advice from pesticide industry reps here in Newfoundland and Labrador - one of which said I was getting blood tests for years and nothing got into me.
Then there is this Clyde -
Michel Gaudet, president of the Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, said that Quebec law is now in line with 2,4-D prohibitions in effect in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
"Sweden prohibited 2,4-D in 1977 and 12 years later they noted the increase in some of their cancers started to go down," he said.
Here's the complete story from the Montreal Gazette...
Quebec now has some of the toughest laws in North America - we should be "green" with envy not "green" like we were on Hydro when Quebec cleaned up and we swabbed their decks. A local nursery merchandiser added - "To have a healthy lawn, you need good soil, add lots of grass seed, and use fertilizer to put nutrients in your soil." Back to the basics Minister - and we are certainly not short of fertilizer.
Now for the Minister in case he does not know or has secret ambitions here is the Minister who yaps on behalf of industry and us "of course".
Update:
The Minister was commenting today on all the containers that remain unrecycled in the province. You know what he said? The quicker we get that done the better for us all. Wow now that's amazing Minister. You think?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Missing - One Minister of Environment - Lost while "CON"serving
WHO IS THIS MAN???
Minister of Environment and "Con"servation???
This man appeared on a VOCM open line program and explained why government was preventing some community from completing a sewer project or some such. Anyway the Minister went on and on about how we no longer dump waste in ponds these days. The times have changed says Clyde.
This is the same Minister who did not prevent AUR Resources from dumping its tailings in a pond for the sake of the DUCK POND project. Then again that's the bunch about to be bought out with oodles of cash going to many foreigners. But he's just a Newfoundlander and Labradorian - that's what they expect.
And if you would like information on that - maybe you can call our Tourism Parks Reservation system and ask "Pourquoi feriez-vous ce Ministre ? Etes-vous cela stupide ?"
You must really believe you are the Minister of "CON"servation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)