After listening to the public commentary of Martin Sullivan CEO of Ocean Choice - one could only be left with a feeling of sympathy for the owners.
The absolute hardship OCI is feeling is hard to fathom. The Hook Line and Sinker sob story that Martin portrayed was really tough to take without tears.
What is wrong with the people of our province - can't we see that the Sullivan's are like everybody else in the fishery? Can't we see the hardship this is causing them personally? They need a job too and they might be too old to be retrained. What about the value of their houses - in communities where the fishery is all but gone? Can't we see that they are under the same pressure as the plant workers in Marystown or the fishers with no fish?
Then there was this bit about them living up to their commitments to government - per their legal agreement for the FPI assets. Martin moaned and groaned about losses since 2007. Yes they must have had a clue that was going to happen when they bid on the assets and made commitments relative to plant operations. They also knew that they could ditch some of these obligations after a period of time or if they could prove financial hardship relative to them.
The investment decision was made based on all of that and they knew that some losses would be acceptable if the value of the overall netted them a profit.
Their interest in Newfoundland and Labrador does come after the interests in their corporation and they should not attempt to portray anything other than this.
More importantly than all of this is the following question which I trust will be asked by our local journalists:
Martin Sullivan stated that some information was asked for verbally and was delivered verbally - this outside information which was asked for in writing and delivered in writing. What was the information asked for verbally and what information was delivered verbally?
Showing posts with label Loyola Hearn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Loyola Hearn. Show all posts
Monday, January 09, 2012
Doyle to Senate - A player in Harper's Lie Book
Norm Doyle is a nice guy. That is the general consensus of most who know him.
He did in fact do a very honourable thing when he donated a pension to charity. It was also very open and accountable in that where the money went was publicized to his constituents on a regular basis.
Norm was - I believe - a good constituency representative and made himself available. It was my experience that he also was above pure partisan zealotry as I am aware that he assisted people who were not openly conservative.
This is why - unlike with Loyola Hearn - I was shocked and saddened when Doyle sided with Harper - against the better interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Norm Doyle - at the end of his political career - chose his party and his leader instead of his province and her people. For this reason - I am not supportive of Mr. Doyle's appointment to the Senate. It is now my assumption that his votes in the Senate will be partisan and can be predicted to be against Newfoundland and Labrador when Harper wants it.
With respect to Harper's Lie Book - this Prime Minister guaranteed he would bring Canada into an elected Senate. He was harping on it for years if not over a decade. I heard some excuses from Steve - that Opposition MP's were delaying it etc. The PM has no problem shoving other legislation through - despite the pounding fists in the House of Commons. He now has a majority - and he could have pushed through a Bill to deal with an unelected, unaccountable, and inequitable Upper Chamber.
This would not suit Steve - so he will hang on to his power base and appoint Conservatives until he is blue in the face. Once he gets the Senate where he wants it - a massive Conservative majority - he might then revive his holier that thou attitude and advise Canadians that we need to move toward an elected body.
Stephen Harper is a liar. He has harmed our province to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and he will continue to do so. Premier Dunderdale has chosen to hold his hand and for pennies on the dollar agree to be his champion here at home.
For these reasons and others - I hoped that Doyle would have declined when the dirtied hand reached out to welcome him in.
He did in fact do a very honourable thing when he donated a pension to charity. It was also very open and accountable in that where the money went was publicized to his constituents on a regular basis.
Norm was - I believe - a good constituency representative and made himself available. It was my experience that he also was above pure partisan zealotry as I am aware that he assisted people who were not openly conservative.
This is why - unlike with Loyola Hearn - I was shocked and saddened when Doyle sided with Harper - against the better interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Norm Doyle - at the end of his political career - chose his party and his leader instead of his province and her people. For this reason - I am not supportive of Mr. Doyle's appointment to the Senate. It is now my assumption that his votes in the Senate will be partisan and can be predicted to be against Newfoundland and Labrador when Harper wants it.
With respect to Harper's Lie Book - this Prime Minister guaranteed he would bring Canada into an elected Senate. He was harping on it for years if not over a decade. I heard some excuses from Steve - that Opposition MP's were delaying it etc. The PM has no problem shoving other legislation through - despite the pounding fists in the House of Commons. He now has a majority - and he could have pushed through a Bill to deal with an unelected, unaccountable, and inequitable Upper Chamber.
This would not suit Steve - so he will hang on to his power base and appoint Conservatives until he is blue in the face. Once he gets the Senate where he wants it - a massive Conservative majority - he might then revive his holier that thou attitude and advise Canadians that we need to move toward an elected body.
Stephen Harper is a liar. He has harmed our province to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and he will continue to do so. Premier Dunderdale has chosen to hold his hand and for pennies on the dollar agree to be his champion here at home.
For these reasons and others - I hoped that Doyle would have declined when the dirtied hand reached out to welcome him in.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Fish and Chips - Shame on us and shame on you Dunderdale and Harper
The head of Iceland’s Marine Research Institute (Hafro) says that stock measurements indicate the country’s cod stock is getting stronger.
The headline above says it all - in a country where fishing activities remains the single biggest economic activity. So I guess taking real action in the past - regarding foreign fleets and the protection of their livelihood is paying off.
What a sad reflection of Canada and our provincial governments. You think maybe someday we will feel the pride of being our own nation or even just feeling pride - and do what's necessary to protect the future of our children.
Shame on us!
With all due respect to Gus Etchegary, Dr. Phil Earle and others - the time for study and inquiries is over. Sue the federal government for mismanagement, the loss of our fishery, communities and tens of thousands of people. Is McCurdy still trying to get a buy-out package? What a disgrace we will be in the eyes of future generations.
The headline above says it all - in a country where fishing activities remains the single biggest economic activity. So I guess taking real action in the past - regarding foreign fleets and the protection of their livelihood is paying off.
What a sad reflection of Canada and our provincial governments. You think maybe someday we will feel the pride of being our own nation or even just feeling pride - and do what's necessary to protect the future of our children.
Shame on us!
With all due respect to Gus Etchegary, Dr. Phil Earle and others - the time for study and inquiries is over. Sue the federal government for mismanagement, the loss of our fishery, communities and tens of thousands of people. Is McCurdy still trying to get a buy-out package? What a disgrace we will be in the eyes of future generations.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The Coalition of 2007 between Harper and Duceppe - yes it was there for that budget!
You want to see a Stephen Harper coalition? Read this post and remember when the Bloc was the best thing since maple syrup.
Whatever happened to Stephen Harper's promise? The one after the budget in 2007 - when Danny Williams and a population said you lied Prime Minister. When Harper and Conservative MP's from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia (but one) voted away the promise to remove non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula.
For Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador - it was a devastating blow. For our province and her people it meant the loss of 10 billion dollars.
If we all remember it was a Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey who voted against his own government and budget and was booted from the Conservative caucus. Why? Because Mr. Casey had the integrity and backbone to stand for the people of his province and in fact - all of Atlantic Canada and Saskatchewan.
In case you don't remember - it was the Bloc that voted with Harper and removed this opportunity for our province and her children. This would be the same Bloc that Harper now says is dangerous and bad for the country. Harper and Fabian Manning did not blink when they used the Bloc to remove that "promise" from us and with it - the billions our children will now do without after the oil reserves are exhausted.
That money that would allow us to develop the Lower Churchill properly and without selling out yet another renewable energy asset.
So when it was convenient to use the Bloc to harm our province - Harper said yes - and worked with that coalition to get the budget implementation bill passed.
So when Harper says the Bloc is bad for Canada - and when Fabian Manning warns you at your door about the Big Bad Bloc - understand one thing - these liars and cheats will say and do anything with anyone to get and retain power.
By the way whatever happened to Harper's long since forgotten comment - that he would go to court to rebut critics who said he broke his word? I'm still here Harper - come on - have guts - don't do it in the shadows with your unknown helpers.
Whatever happened to Stephen Harper's promise? The one after the budget in 2007 - when Danny Williams and a population said you lied Prime Minister. When Harper and Conservative MP's from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia (but one) voted away the promise to remove non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula.
For Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador - it was a devastating blow. For our province and her people it meant the loss of 10 billion dollars.
If we all remember it was a Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey who voted against his own government and budget and was booted from the Conservative caucus. Why? Because Mr. Casey had the integrity and backbone to stand for the people of his province and in fact - all of Atlantic Canada and Saskatchewan.
In case you don't remember - it was the Bloc that voted with Harper and removed this opportunity for our province and her children. This would be the same Bloc that Harper now says is dangerous and bad for the country. Harper and Fabian Manning did not blink when they used the Bloc to remove that "promise" from us and with it - the billions our children will now do without after the oil reserves are exhausted.
That money that would allow us to develop the Lower Churchill properly and without selling out yet another renewable energy asset.
So when it was convenient to use the Bloc to harm our province - Harper said yes - and worked with that coalition to get the budget implementation bill passed.
So when Harper says the Bloc is bad for Canada - and when Fabian Manning warns you at your door about the Big Bad Bloc - understand one thing - these liars and cheats will say and do anything with anyone to get and retain power.
By the way whatever happened to Harper's long since forgotten comment - that he would go to court to rebut critics who said he broke his word? I'm still here Harper - come on - have guts - don't do it in the shadows with your unknown helpers.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
How to lie and make it okay. Harper takes lessons from Mulroney
Yesterday's election events revealed a new tactic by Stephen Harper. Lie - four years out.
Yes the leader of the Conservative/Reform/Alliance Party promised income splitting for some young families - as soon as the budget deficit was erased. Predicted to be four years out. In this way Harper can lie now and not have to pay later. You see Harper is a liar - but Canadians are getting used to that fact - and must really consider how they can vote for such a person.
Remember Mulroney and his income tax fiasco - running between the USA and Canada in and out of hotels, briefcases full of money, envelopes, safety deposit boxes - for all we know secret panels in a shoe. Mulroney proved that the passage of time - associated with cheating the system - ripping off Canadians seemed more palatable with the passage of time - and of course a really good expensive lawyer.
Then there was Harper's newly created and most recent lie - where he concocted something - he hoped would pacify Terry Milewski CBC - when he asked Harper yet again about his own plan to form a CO-A-LI-TION. Harper now says - I was not really going to form a CO-A-LI-TION - I was just trying to scare the Liberals by having them think I was. Once again - this lie - has become somewhat more palatable with the passage of time.
Do you remember last week? That's when Harper suggested that the opposition parties did not have to FORCE us into an election - no - Harper suggested the other parties could have gone to the Governor General and asked - can we form a CO-A-LI-TION?
The irony of Harper taking lessons from Mulroney is this; Harper exists because Canadians threw Mulroney and his party to the curb. Then like the recyclers Harper is not really fond of - we green Canadians recycled the lot to form the "new" Conservative Party. Then with the likes of Peter MacKay and our own Loyola Hearn they stabbed each other in the back so many times - there was a run on knives - that PC blood flowed out spilling integrity, honesty and trust.
If Harper wants to lie to Canadians - in an attempt to scare them - by suggesting the CO-A-LI-TION already exists - then let me add this; if Harper were ever to form a majority - the Reform Party not the Conservatives - would be running our country. That is something we all should be very afraid of.
Yes the leader of the Conservative/Reform/Alliance Party promised income splitting for some young families - as soon as the budget deficit was erased. Predicted to be four years out. In this way Harper can lie now and not have to pay later. You see Harper is a liar - but Canadians are getting used to that fact - and must really consider how they can vote for such a person.
Remember Mulroney and his income tax fiasco - running between the USA and Canada in and out of hotels, briefcases full of money, envelopes, safety deposit boxes - for all we know secret panels in a shoe. Mulroney proved that the passage of time - associated with cheating the system - ripping off Canadians seemed more palatable with the passage of time - and of course a really good expensive lawyer.
Then there was Harper's newly created and most recent lie - where he concocted something - he hoped would pacify Terry Milewski CBC - when he asked Harper yet again about his own plan to form a CO-A-LI-TION. Harper now says - I was not really going to form a CO-A-LI-TION - I was just trying to scare the Liberals by having them think I was. Once again - this lie - has become somewhat more palatable with the passage of time.
Do you remember last week? That's when Harper suggested that the opposition parties did not have to FORCE us into an election - no - Harper suggested the other parties could have gone to the Governor General and asked - can we form a CO-A-LI-TION?
The irony of Harper taking lessons from Mulroney is this; Harper exists because Canadians threw Mulroney and his party to the curb. Then like the recyclers Harper is not really fond of - we green Canadians recycled the lot to form the "new" Conservative Party. Then with the likes of Peter MacKay and our own Loyola Hearn they stabbed each other in the back so many times - there was a run on knives - that PC blood flowed out spilling integrity, honesty and trust.
If Harper wants to lie to Canadians - in an attempt to scare them - by suggesting the CO-A-LI-TION already exists - then let me add this; if Harper were ever to form a majority - the Reform Party not the Conservatives - would be running our country. That is something we all should be very afraid of.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Lifting the Cone of Silence - Let the debate begin!
I assume everybody remembers the "we got it we got it" performance of Premier Danny Williams at the St. John's Airport right? Picture below property of CBC
Okay - let's give the Premier that credit. He did what the previous Liberal provincial governments did not have the guts to do.
That was 2 billion dollars right?
Were there restrictions placed on what the money could be used for?
Was that payment directed by Ottawa to be used for debt repayment of one sort or another?
Did we use that money to partially fund - unfunded pension liabilities?
When that 2 billion dollars was used on refunding pensions (invested) did we lose a chunk of it when the markets collapsed? If so how much did we lose?
If the money were used for NALCOR - then we would be able to finance our project on the Lower Churchill right?
Are we now going cap in hand to Ottawa to get a guarantee? Why?
After receiving the 2 billion from Paul Martin did we then proceed to lose 10 billion from Stephen Harper?
Premier Danny then proclaimed the ABC campaign to punish Harper right?
What was the ultimate punishment?
Where is Loyola Hearn now? What job is he holding? Do you feel he has been punished?
Where is Fabian Manning now? Do you think he has been punished?
Who is the Federal Minister for Newfoundland and Labrador? Have we been punished?
Did Danny accomplish anything from Stephen Harper? Did Danny finish the job?
Each of these questions will have answers one by one - here on Sue's Blog.
Now the biggest questions for Danny Williams - why did you attempt to give away the Lower Churchill - then leave? Why was Kathy Dunderdale chosen by you to replace you? Did you dissuade any individual either directly or indirectly from running for the leadership? Are you or anybody on behalf of you still advising Kathy Dunderdale?
Answers coming one by one.
Why is this province under a cone of silence? Why is our media focused on Brad Cabana, carnage, and the courts? Why are critical questions not being asked by our media?
What about the tobacco suit?
What about any past staffers? Where are they?
What about the fibre optic fiasco?
Answers coming one by one.
Who has major shares in Emera? Who is driving the Muskrat Falls deal? Why is the public not involved? Why will our rates go up? Why are we shipping power out? Why do the PC MHA's not believe we will need the power?
Answers coming one by one.
Make no mistake - this is for the record - for in the off chance this project proceeds the children of tomorrow will know - who is responsible for the deeds of today.
Solid Gold piece of work.
That was 2 billion dollars right?
Were there restrictions placed on what the money could be used for?
Was that payment directed by Ottawa to be used for debt repayment of one sort or another?
Did we use that money to partially fund - unfunded pension liabilities?
When that 2 billion dollars was used on refunding pensions (invested) did we lose a chunk of it when the markets collapsed? If so how much did we lose?
If the money were used for NALCOR - then we would be able to finance our project on the Lower Churchill right?
Are we now going cap in hand to Ottawa to get a guarantee? Why?
After receiving the 2 billion from Paul Martin did we then proceed to lose 10 billion from Stephen Harper?
Premier Danny then proclaimed the ABC campaign to punish Harper right?
What was the ultimate punishment?
Where is Loyola Hearn now? What job is he holding? Do you feel he has been punished?
Where is Fabian Manning now? Do you think he has been punished?
Who is the Federal Minister for Newfoundland and Labrador? Have we been punished?
Did Danny accomplish anything from Stephen Harper? Did Danny finish the job?
Each of these questions will have answers one by one - here on Sue's Blog.
Now the biggest questions for Danny Williams - why did you attempt to give away the Lower Churchill - then leave? Why was Kathy Dunderdale chosen by you to replace you? Did you dissuade any individual either directly or indirectly from running for the leadership? Are you or anybody on behalf of you still advising Kathy Dunderdale?
Answers coming one by one.
Why is this province under a cone of silence? Why is our media focused on Brad Cabana, carnage, and the courts? Why are critical questions not being asked by our media?
What about the tobacco suit?
What about any past staffers? Where are they?
What about the fibre optic fiasco?
Answers coming one by one.
Who has major shares in Emera? Who is driving the Muskrat Falls deal? Why is the public not involved? Why will our rates go up? Why are we shipping power out? Why do the PC MHA's not believe we will need the power?
Answers coming one by one.
Make no mistake - this is for the record - for in the off chance this project proceeds the children of tomorrow will know - who is responsible for the deeds of today.
Solid Gold piece of work.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
the Liar
Last night I was watching the Mansbridge interview with the Prime Minister. At times I just sat there - saddened by the fact that this leader of the country I am stuck in - is likely not telling me the truth.
I listened to what Stephen Harper was saying and all I could see was the same expression of (sincerity) he had displayed to me in person as he explained to me the importance of removing the non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization equation. While Harper has always been described by most as "stiff" or "contrived" or even "robotic" - he has of late shown us another "image" the rocker. One can be sure or at least I can be sure - that all I am seeing is an image.
I cannot restate this often enough - outside of him promising the Premier and thereby us as a population that he would make these changes - he looked directly one on one at me and explained the following:
I am an economist from western Canada - I know that Canada has not worked for some provinces as it has worked for others and I recognize that the formula for equalization is inequitable. More particularly and as an economist - it is absolutely essential for provinces that are developing non-renewable resources - to have the ability to keep that revenue so that when the resource is depleted - the revenues derived from it could be used to develop infrastructure which then may be used to diversify and build the economy.In this way the province - after having lost the temporary and significant revenues from oil - would not slip back to the position they were in prior to these revenues.
I did ask him about Quebec as I knew that province would scream foul if somehow other provinces reliant on significant non-renewable revenues would get the edge on them - a renewable resource based economy (including those lovely revenues from our Upper Churchill).
He responded by saying he understood that political quandary - but that would not change his fundamental belief that removing these non-renewable oil revenues was the correct thing to do. He added that there were other ways to satisfy Quebec on their concerns. He ended by assuring me as one citizen - that this promise would be fulfilled.
The rest as they say is history - and regrettably a piece that has cost us and more particularly our children 10 billion dollars. Now he would like a majority - and Peter then asked him about this. He said things like "I do not see myself doing this or that" or in some instances said he would not do this or would do that. Mr. Harper you are a liar and I must not take any chances that you turn this country into a mini-me USA.
Then Mansbridge brought up the Senate reform to him and the fact that he had appointed many unelected Senators.If you recall that is something else that Harper promised to improve our democracy and make it more accountable to people. In either case Harper explained that now that he had filled the Upper Chamber with Conservatives - he could look at getting Conservative policies through. Not only is our Prime Minister a liar - he now believes that the people are fools.
What do I expect from Harper? I expect he will lie in the next election campaign in the same way he has done in the past. What do I expect Canadians will do? I expect they will continue to distrust him just enough to deny him a majority.
I listened to what Stephen Harper was saying and all I could see was the same expression of (sincerity) he had displayed to me in person as he explained to me the importance of removing the non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization equation. While Harper has always been described by most as "stiff" or "contrived" or even "robotic" - he has of late shown us another "image" the rocker. One can be sure or at least I can be sure - that all I am seeing is an image.
I cannot restate this often enough - outside of him promising the Premier and thereby us as a population that he would make these changes - he looked directly one on one at me and explained the following:
I am an economist from western Canada - I know that Canada has not worked for some provinces as it has worked for others and I recognize that the formula for equalization is inequitable. More particularly and as an economist - it is absolutely essential for provinces that are developing non-renewable resources - to have the ability to keep that revenue so that when the resource is depleted - the revenues derived from it could be used to develop infrastructure which then may be used to diversify and build the economy.In this way the province - after having lost the temporary and significant revenues from oil - would not slip back to the position they were in prior to these revenues.
I did ask him about Quebec as I knew that province would scream foul if somehow other provinces reliant on significant non-renewable revenues would get the edge on them - a renewable resource based economy (including those lovely revenues from our Upper Churchill).
He responded by saying he understood that political quandary - but that would not change his fundamental belief that removing these non-renewable oil revenues was the correct thing to do. He added that there were other ways to satisfy Quebec on their concerns. He ended by assuring me as one citizen - that this promise would be fulfilled.
The rest as they say is history - and regrettably a piece that has cost us and more particularly our children 10 billion dollars. Now he would like a majority - and Peter then asked him about this. He said things like "I do not see myself doing this or that" or in some instances said he would not do this or would do that. Mr. Harper you are a liar and I must not take any chances that you turn this country into a mini-me USA.
Then Mansbridge brought up the Senate reform to him and the fact that he had appointed many unelected Senators.If you recall that is something else that Harper promised to improve our democracy and make it more accountable to people. In either case Harper explained that now that he had filled the Upper Chamber with Conservatives - he could look at getting Conservative policies through. Not only is our Prime Minister a liar - he now believes that the people are fools.
What do I expect from Harper? I expect he will lie in the next election campaign in the same way he has done in the past. What do I expect Canadians will do? I expect they will continue to distrust him just enough to deny him a majority.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Cod and who pays?
Below is a response to my fisheries blog yesterday. I believe it is very important to dialogue back and forth agreeing or disagreeing - in an effort to find solutions to significant problems. Please read the response by a reader and my response to it.
Response
Welcome back Sue. While I love your passion for our province I feel your bent about any of our provincial leaders ability to control or do anything about the fishery is misplaced as we only control processing licences.
Since the fishery is a national/international common property resource and the majority of Canada's population lives either in ON/QU or Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver for all intensive purposes we have no say in how the fishery is managed or controlled. In fact I submit to you that all of the national parties use it as a bargaining chip to better the majority of the population through DFAIT.
Until we start electing Independent federal MP's nothing will change because it is essentially an
National/International Tragedy of our Commons at the hands of our
Tyranny of the majority political system
where by any and all of the national party MP's we elect to represent us on the federal stage will continue to toe their national party lines of doing what is in the best interest of the majority of the population to get their national party elected or re-elected.
We need a veto on fisheries issues in the national party cabinets,and NAFO. Even if we have to do it in conjunction with the maritime provinces.
Wanna make a bet that the 2013 UNLOS deadline will come and pass with the flemish cap being given away and or ownership and control since we already have custodial management being the adjacent state just we all of hte national parties choose not to act on it.
Response to the Response
You will notice that I continue to state the federal government is responsible for the mismanagement and therefore responsible for compensation.
Provincial leaders have the responsibility to go after the feds if they believe we have been wronged.
The federal government is not going to pursue itself.
If you were wronged personally or in business due to mismanagement of a responsibility of the other party you are the only one that could take an action.
While the provincial leaders do not have jurisdiction over many areas (confederation) all provincial leaders fight for fairness and equity for their province.
This case is unique - the feds manage our fish stocks unlike manage the weather in the case of western farming losses year over year. And even though the farms are not the responsibility of the feds (unlike our fishery) they are still compensated year over year.
Regardless of who goes to Ottawa - the federal system will never work for our province.
It is time that this province sought and received compensation for the following:
Loss of economic value of the ground-stocks for ten years.(first ten years tags encarp)
Loss of population = loss of transfer payments (not equalization)
Revenue to the province for increased costs due to increased need for seniors care (once provided for by the moved away family members)
Compensation directly to rural communities for outrageous losses of property value and tax base
Compensation in the form of increased federal presence in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Response
Welcome back Sue. While I love your passion for our province I feel your bent about any of our provincial leaders ability to control or do anything about the fishery is misplaced as we only control processing licences.
Since the fishery is a national/international common property resource and the majority of Canada's population lives either in ON/QU or Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver for all intensive purposes we have no say in how the fishery is managed or controlled. In fact I submit to you that all of the national parties use it as a bargaining chip to better the majority of the population through DFAIT.
Until we start electing Independent federal MP's nothing will change because it is essentially an
National/International Tragedy of our Commons at the hands of our
Tyranny of the majority political system
where by any and all of the national party MP's we elect to represent us on the federal stage will continue to toe their national party lines of doing what is in the best interest of the majority of the population to get their national party elected or re-elected.
We need a veto on fisheries issues in the national party cabinets,and NAFO. Even if we have to do it in conjunction with the maritime provinces.
Wanna make a bet that the 2013 UNLOS deadline will come and pass with the flemish cap being given away and or ownership and control since we already have custodial management being the adjacent state just we all of hte national parties choose not to act on it.
Response to the Response
You will notice that I continue to state the federal government is responsible for the mismanagement and therefore responsible for compensation.
Provincial leaders have the responsibility to go after the feds if they believe we have been wronged.
The federal government is not going to pursue itself.
If you were wronged personally or in business due to mismanagement of a responsibility of the other party you are the only one that could take an action.
While the provincial leaders do not have jurisdiction over many areas (confederation) all provincial leaders fight for fairness and equity for their province.
This case is unique - the feds manage our fish stocks unlike manage the weather in the case of western farming losses year over year. And even though the farms are not the responsibility of the feds (unlike our fishery) they are still compensated year over year.
Regardless of who goes to Ottawa - the federal system will never work for our province.
It is time that this province sought and received compensation for the following:
Loss of economic value of the ground-stocks for ten years.(first ten years tags encarp)
Loss of population = loss of transfer payments (not equalization)
Revenue to the province for increased costs due to increased need for seniors care (once provided for by the moved away family members)
Compensation directly to rural communities for outrageous losses of property value and tax base
Compensation in the form of increased federal presence in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Whistle-Blower - Gross Mismanagement - and the DFO?
We are half way there - Headlines in the Nova Scotia Chronicle Herald says: Ottawa to probe DFO mismanagement claim.
Apparently the DFO has placed a tender call to:
Conduct a fact-finding exercise to determine if there are sufficient grounds to commence an investigation to validate the allegations of gross mismanagement.
Currently the DFO will not reveal the details of the allegation but if there are sufficient grounds to deal with the complaint then all will be made public.
Is it possible this has to do with fish? Our groundfish? Or the Coast Guard?
In either case our crack reporters should get on the ball to find a whistle-blower of their own - to get some information.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Does Risley want another piece of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Just two days away from the "vote" - and I am thinking about FPI. This once king of "seafoods" companies gone from our rural communities - gone from the memories of our politicians - as well.
John Risley - the "Danny" slayer has done what media and opposition could not. Risley has taken Danny on and won.
On Friday FPI issued a news release - advising of a special meeting of shareholders. On October 22nd - the shareholders will vote on the sale of FPI assets. The get-together will also be used to discuss the future of FPI. The release says in part:
So now that our politicians have allowed the company to moan and groan its way out of commitments to our communities - and at the same time making some millionaires of a select few - what are the boys going to do with the money? What exactly does the statement above mean? An investment and holding company?
Why not let John Risley answer that question. The Montreal Gazette attributes the following quote to Danny's conqueror:
Apparently the name of the new company will be FP Resources Ltd. What now - will they come after energy investments? Do they want a piece of the Lower Churchill? How about Labrador uranium? Or maybe gas projects? Will they suck the good out of other resources in Newfoundland and Labrador and then change-up again?
And in a twist of irony - FPI announced today the appointment of a new director - another "Newfoundlander and Labradorian" - Mr. Graham Roome - who started his career with the "Lake Group" - one of the fish companies that had to be rescued by the formation of FPI - when we the taxpayers became the owners. Talk about having sea-legs - apparently Mr. Roome who went from Lake to FPI in Bonavista - to Clearwater - and then back to FPI - is doing a hell of a lot better that our fishermen.
Danny - Tom - Gerry - Loyola - and Loyola - "hook line and sinker". Way to go Risley - no wonder you and Ches Penney have the personal wealth you have.
John Risley - the "Danny" slayer has done what media and opposition could not. Risley has taken Danny on and won.
On Friday FPI issued a news release - advising of a special meeting of shareholders. On October 22nd - the shareholders will vote on the sale of FPI assets. The get-together will also be used to discuss the future of FPI. The release says in part:
FPI intends to transition from an operating company engaged in the harvesting, processing, global sourcing and marketing of seafood products to an investment and holding company.
So now that our politicians have allowed the company to moan and groan its way out of commitments to our communities - and at the same time making some millionaires of a select few - what are the boys going to do with the money? What exactly does the statement above mean? An investment and holding company?
Why not let John Risley answer that question. The Montreal Gazette attributes the following quote to Danny's conqueror:
"our historical business has been the seafood business and our future business will be something other than the seafood business"
Apparently the name of the new company will be FP Resources Ltd. What now - will they come after energy investments? Do they want a piece of the Lower Churchill? How about Labrador uranium? Or maybe gas projects? Will they suck the good out of other resources in Newfoundland and Labrador and then change-up again?
And in a twist of irony - FPI announced today the appointment of a new director - another "Newfoundlander and Labradorian" - Mr. Graham Roome - who started his career with the "Lake Group" - one of the fish companies that had to be rescued by the formation of FPI - when we the taxpayers became the owners. Talk about having sea-legs - apparently Mr. Roome who went from Lake to FPI in Bonavista - to Clearwater - and then back to FPI - is doing a hell of a lot better that our fishermen.
Danny - Tom - Gerry - Loyola - and Loyola - "hook line and sinker". Way to go Risley - no wonder you and Ches Penney have the personal wealth you have.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Iceland toSecure Rights on Continental Shelf (News Bytes)
Read the story in the Iceland Review HERE
Here's a couple of paragraphs to get you started...
In less than two years Iceland has to submit a report to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), which will then estimate reports from all nations claiming rights to the continental shelf in question and propose how it should be divided.
Iceland automatically has the rights to an area of the continental shelf limited by 200 nautical miles around the island, but can, under certain natural circumstances, claim rights to other parts of the continental shelf as well.
Here's a couple of paragraphs to get you started...
In less than two years Iceland has to submit a report to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), which will then estimate reports from all nations claiming rights to the continental shelf in question and propose how it should be divided.
Iceland automatically has the rights to an area of the continental shelf limited by 200 nautical miles around the island, but can, under certain natural circumstances, claim rights to other parts of the continental shelf as well.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans...
...gives best reason yet to sue the feds over the groundfish stocks collapse.
After "Fisheries Conservation Ambassador Loyola Sullivan and I recently travelled to Spain and Portugal" the Minister spews - as if that's not enough to make any Newfoundlander and Labrador gag or run out and buy some hockey tickets - he goes on in this News Statement to say the following:
Now this is just the ramblings of a man - who became a boy (Federal Minister) - as he and his leader broke promise after promise to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - and Canadians. However if one can put aside that the Loyola's both with "fisheries" backgrounds from the shore and both with parliamentary power - opposition and government - are probably just as much to blame as the bureaucrats they take swipes at - then we can see the practical components of the Minister's statement.
What Loyola Hearn is claiming - is that federal public servants did not tell federal politicians and the public that federal policies and international treaties were decimating Newfoundland and Labrador's most important renewable industry.
The truth is - Loyola H is taking a hit for missing significant components of proposed NAFO changes and taking a hit for components that may yet still destroy our fisheries autonomy. Loyola S is taking a hit for bailing on the province and taking a job from Ottawa despite the feds screwing us on equalization - and of course the hockey tickets. This does not change however - the fact that Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has mused on the feds destruction of our fish stocks.
So let's see the boys in action - take that accusation Minister and present it to your colleagues in Ottawa to see if they will pony up the 500 million a year compensation - until the stocks recover - if they ever do.
Then as if to drive the last nail in the coffin of rural Newfoundland and Labrador - Hearn forgets - once again - that this province is where his heart should be - by stating:
After "Fisheries Conservation Ambassador Loyola Sullivan and I recently travelled to Spain and Portugal" the Minister spews - as if that's not enough to make any Newfoundlander and Labrador gag or run out and buy some hockey tickets - he goes on in this News Statement to say the following:
I have watched with curious amusement as some people who were responsible for the creation and implementation of the old, failed NAFO system speak out. Unfortunately, they are 30 years too late. Perhaps if they had been so diligent in raising concerns when they were being paid by the Canadian public to do so, our stocks might not be in the shape they are today.
Now this is just the ramblings of a man - who became a boy (Federal Minister) - as he and his leader broke promise after promise to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - and Canadians. However if one can put aside that the Loyola's both with "fisheries" backgrounds from the shore and both with parliamentary power - opposition and government - are probably just as much to blame as the bureaucrats they take swipes at - then we can see the practical components of the Minister's statement.
What Loyola Hearn is claiming - is that federal public servants did not tell federal politicians and the public that federal policies and international treaties were decimating Newfoundland and Labrador's most important renewable industry.
The truth is - Loyola H is taking a hit for missing significant components of proposed NAFO changes and taking a hit for components that may yet still destroy our fisheries autonomy. Loyola S is taking a hit for bailing on the province and taking a job from Ottawa despite the feds screwing us on equalization - and of course the hockey tickets. This does not change however - the fact that Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has mused on the feds destruction of our fish stocks.
So let's see the boys in action - take that accusation Minister and present it to your colleagues in Ottawa to see if they will pony up the 500 million a year compensation - until the stocks recover - if they ever do.
Then as if to drive the last nail in the coffin of rural Newfoundland and Labrador - Hearn forgets - once again - that this province is where his heart should be - by stating:
During and after the NAFO meeting, Canada's New Government will be working to ensure our hard fought reforms are fully implemented, and that Canada is now taking its role as a global leader in fisheries management.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Minister Flaherty states the Fed's case on Equalization...
After the last federal budget - the one in which Stephen Harper reneged on his promise to remove non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula - I wrote Canada's Minister of Finance to ask a question and to make a few points.
Well lo and behold his response showed up yesterday in my email (only 6 months later).
Contained in my letter to the Minister was the following question:
Here's the Minister's Spin:
September 12, 2007
Dear Ms. Kelland-Dyer:
Thank you for your correspondence of March 8, 2007 regarding Budget 2007 and the Atlantic Accords. Please excuse the delay in replying.
Budget 2007 delivers on the commitment of Canada’s New Government to restore fiscal balance in Canada. A major feature of this commitment is a renewed and strengthened Equalization program that will now help to better ensure that all provinces are able to provide their residents with reasonably comparable levels of services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
The Government of Canada’s position has been clear and fair.
First and foremost, the Budget fully protects the Atlantic Accords. They have not been tampered with; they remain intact. Nothing has been taken away from provinces that currently benefit from the Atlantic Accords. Under Budget 2007, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can operate under the existing Equalization formula for the life of the Atlantic Accords – and receive the same benefits as before, with no fiscal capacity cap on either Equalization or Atlantic Accord payments. This means that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will receive every dollar to which they are entitled under the Atlantic Accords.
This also means Nova Scotia keeps the very same arrangement that provides benefits under the 1986 and 2005 Accords, which includes an $830 million up-front payment, and Newfoundland and Labrador keeps the arrangement that provides benefits under the 1985 and 2005 Accords, including a $2billion up-front payment. This arrangement is not available to any other province.
In addition to respecting the Accords, Budget 2007 goes further by offering both provinces a positive choice for the future. At any time over the life of the Accords, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can choose to opt into the renewed Equalization program, if either province determines this as being advantageous. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador could therefore receive even higher benefits than under the existing formula, while retaining their right to offset payments under the Accords. This is a choice that is up to each province to make; it will not be imposed upon them.
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have also been given even more flexibility beyond what was set out in Budget 2007. The budget legislation passed by Parliament allows both provinces to opt into the new Equalization formula for 200708, while preserving their ability to stay in the existing formula for the life of the Accords.
If Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador choose the new Equalization formula, it is only fair that the whole package would apply, including the fiscal capacity cap that is an integral part of the new Equalization program. It would not be fair to other provinces if only these two provinces were allowed to choose those parts of the new Equalization program that benefit them.
It must not be forgotten that placing the Equalization program on a principled basis going forward was an important, shared goal of the Government of Canada and all the provinces. The report of the Expert Panel on Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing provided an independent, balanced basis to do just that. An important principle was the application of a fiscal capacity cap, which sets a ceiling on Equalization payments based on the fiscal capacity of the highest non-receiving province. As stated in the report, “Equalization…should not result in less wealthy provinces having a greater fiscal capacity than provinces that do not receive Equalization.” The Government of Canada recognized this important principle last fall in Advantage Canada.
The growing prosperity of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador is something to celebrate. The fiscal position of both governments is getting stronger – both provinces are forecasting surpluses for 200607 and onward, while providing their residents with general tax relief. With 100percent protection of the Atlantic Accords, each province can more than ever make sustained improvements to its economic and fiscal situation.
In short, we have delivered on our commitment to the provinces and territories. Our plan to restore fiscal balance ensures that this federation works for the good of all Canadians – including those in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you for communicating your views.
Sincerely,
James M. Flaherty
I highlighted the last paragraph for emphasis.
You will note the one question asked was not answered.
I also note that Flaherty only used commitments stated after they became government. The Minister is not prepared to address Stephen Harper's promises made to get elected. In this one finds the reason not to vote Conservative based on any promises or commitments made during the next federal election - for they are worthless.
Well lo and behold his response showed up yesterday in my email (only 6 months later).
Contained in my letter to the Minister was the following question:
My question to you is simple - will you honour the written promise made to voters during the last federal election - that is to remove all non-renewable natural resource revenues from the equalization formula?
Here's the Minister's Spin:
September 12, 2007
Dear Ms. Kelland-Dyer:
Thank you for your correspondence of March 8, 2007 regarding Budget 2007 and the Atlantic Accords. Please excuse the delay in replying.
Budget 2007 delivers on the commitment of Canada’s New Government to restore fiscal balance in Canada. A major feature of this commitment is a renewed and strengthened Equalization program that will now help to better ensure that all provinces are able to provide their residents with reasonably comparable levels of services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
The Government of Canada’s position has been clear and fair.
First and foremost, the Budget fully protects the Atlantic Accords. They have not been tampered with; they remain intact. Nothing has been taken away from provinces that currently benefit from the Atlantic Accords. Under Budget 2007, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can operate under the existing Equalization formula for the life of the Atlantic Accords – and receive the same benefits as before, with no fiscal capacity cap on either Equalization or Atlantic Accord payments. This means that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will receive every dollar to which they are entitled under the Atlantic Accords.
This also means Nova Scotia keeps the very same arrangement that provides benefits under the 1986 and 2005 Accords, which includes an $830 million up-front payment, and Newfoundland and Labrador keeps the arrangement that provides benefits under the 1985 and 2005 Accords, including a $2billion up-front payment. This arrangement is not available to any other province.
In addition to respecting the Accords, Budget 2007 goes further by offering both provinces a positive choice for the future. At any time over the life of the Accords, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can choose to opt into the renewed Equalization program, if either province determines this as being advantageous. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador could therefore receive even higher benefits than under the existing formula, while retaining their right to offset payments under the Accords. This is a choice that is up to each province to make; it will not be imposed upon them.
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have also been given even more flexibility beyond what was set out in Budget 2007. The budget legislation passed by Parliament allows both provinces to opt into the new Equalization formula for 200708, while preserving their ability to stay in the existing formula for the life of the Accords.
If Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador choose the new Equalization formula, it is only fair that the whole package would apply, including the fiscal capacity cap that is an integral part of the new Equalization program. It would not be fair to other provinces if only these two provinces were allowed to choose those parts of the new Equalization program that benefit them.
It must not be forgotten that placing the Equalization program on a principled basis going forward was an important, shared goal of the Government of Canada and all the provinces. The report of the Expert Panel on Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing provided an independent, balanced basis to do just that. An important principle was the application of a fiscal capacity cap, which sets a ceiling on Equalization payments based on the fiscal capacity of the highest non-receiving province. As stated in the report, “Equalization…should not result in less wealthy provinces having a greater fiscal capacity than provinces that do not receive Equalization.” The Government of Canada recognized this important principle last fall in Advantage Canada.
The growing prosperity of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador is something to celebrate. The fiscal position of both governments is getting stronger – both provinces are forecasting surpluses for 200607 and onward, while providing their residents with general tax relief. With 100percent protection of the Atlantic Accords, each province can more than ever make sustained improvements to its economic and fiscal situation.
In short, we have delivered on our commitment to the provinces and territories. Our plan to restore fiscal balance ensures that this federation works for the good of all Canadians – including those in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you for communicating your views.
Sincerely,
James M. Flaherty
I highlighted the last paragraph for emphasis.
You will note the one question asked was not answered.
I also note that Flaherty only used commitments stated after they became government. The Minister is not prepared to address Stephen Harper's promises made to get elected. In this one finds the reason not to vote Conservative based on any promises or commitments made during the next federal election - for they are worthless.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Giving away that last lonely fish...
That's the title of a column today in the Chronicle Herald - Nova Scotia.
The story is a continuation of the concerns expressed by Bob Applebaum and Gus Etchegary over potential changes to NAFO.
This piece is worth reading if we care at all about our fishery. Something which our provincial politicians are not "con"vincing me they are.
Here's a couple of paragraphs from the column by Jim Meek:
Ottawa, in short, has severely weakened its ability to manage and conserve trans-boundary stocks in the area of the Grand Banks. It is cold comfort that there are so few fish left to protect in what were once the best fishing grounds on the planet.______________________________________________________________________
And it’s colder comfort that this is the federal government that came to power promising to extend Canada’s "custodial management" of fish stocks beyond the 200-mile zone.
As for Loyola Hearn - what should we expect?
PEI drops lawsuit against Feds - Will we pay the Price?
PEI drops Lawsuit against Feds over fisheries management...according to a Canadian Press Story.
The action, launched two years ago by the former provincial Conservative government - challenged the absolute constitutional power of the federal minister to make licensing and management decisions.
It appears the legal challenge - which had no guarantee of being successful - was becoming too costly and apparently the government of PEI and the feds are making some headway in negotiations.
Provincial Fisheries Minister Allan Campbell cited progress on some outstanding issues, such as the herring seiner exclusion line - which the Minister says has been resolved.
Now what's next on the negotiation agenda? According to Ed Frenette - managing director of the PEI Fishermen's Association:
So Newfoundland and Labrador fishers - my question is and yours should be - what regional share of crab - shrimp - and ground fish? Now that Loyola Hearn and PEI appear to be cozy - and the law-suit is gone - will we pay part of the price with resources adjacent to us?
Maybe we should sue the feds - we might get some cooperation on our fisheries issues.
The action, launched two years ago by the former provincial Conservative government - challenged the absolute constitutional power of the federal minister to make licensing and management decisions.
It appears the legal challenge - which had no guarantee of being successful - was becoming too costly and apparently the government of PEI and the feds are making some headway in negotiations.
Provincial Fisheries Minister Allan Campbell cited progress on some outstanding issues, such as the herring seiner exclusion line - which the Minister says has been resolved.
Now what's next on the negotiation agenda? According to Ed Frenette - managing director of the PEI Fishermen's Association:
It rests now on negotiations between the two levels of government to increase access to various resources for Island fishers: specifically snow crab, shrimp and ground fish.
So Newfoundland and Labrador fishers - my question is and yours should be - what regional share of crab - shrimp - and ground fish? Now that Loyola Hearn and PEI appear to be cozy - and the law-suit is gone - will we pay part of the price with resources adjacent to us?
Maybe we should sue the feds - we might get some cooperation on our fisheries issues.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
The People's Paradox
Kowtowing to a savior.
Is this what we want from our provincial MHA's or federal MP's?
What the people say they want - what the political parties will tolerate - and our weak 2 party sharing system.
How many times have you heard people express dismay when politicians tow the party line instead of standing for the position widely held by a particular constituency?
When Charlene Johnson - Trevor Taylor - and Harry Harding stood by the party during the RMS fiasco in the fishery - despite the wishes of the fishermen - people were angry and perplexed - it also turned out they were right - but 1 fishing season suffered catastrophic consequences.
When Stephenville lost the paper mill - workers wondered where Joan Burke and Jim Hodder were.
When Loyola Hearn - Fabian Manning - and Norm Doyle did not support this province respecting the broken equalization promise - people were angry and still are.
When John Efford did his song and dance over equalization - while Paul Martin was trying to get out of his promise - people were shocked and upset.
When John Hickey ignored the broken promise of his leader to the Metis Nation - people in Labrador were incensed.
What all these people - some of them long-standing respected politicians - chose to do - was tow the party line.
The people claim they want a representative who will stand by them and their communities - and when a choice has to be made - the member should stand with their constituency not the party line.
The political parties will avoid at all costs - independent thinkers who will do this.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will only elect the two traditional parties - and very rarely an independent member - who in short order joins one of the parties anyway.
Our system is weak and the two party system (the NDP never present themselves as government in waiting) we have does absolutely nothing to deliver the representation people say they want.
The two main parties in this province are the Liberals and the PC's who swap power back and forth - usually with one savior leader or another. Then of course the corporations which like to control and run the province - especially resourced based companies and financial institutions fill the coffers of who they think will win.
In order to change up the 2 party system - people need to find the courage and the sense to vote another way - they have to be open to and support new parties and independents federally and provincially - and become more involved in the NDP. The latter is more difficult as the NDPas similar to the PC's and Liberals have their long-standing members who tend to dominate the party executive and control the party message. We need to look at proportional representation and public funding of elections - so new parties or even the NDP can get some money in the bank for votes they receive. (The same as the new federal system)
Understand this clearly - it is unlikely that until we do this - anybody you vote in under the traditional party system will ever choose you the constituent over a party position. It is also unlikely that new leadership will come from within - as the parties tend to seek names and personality types that appear to be knights on a horse with all the answers from outside.
That's why Tom Rideout did not last long - Bill Rowe gained leadership but not government - Ed Roberts was rejected - Don Jamieson did not get the nod. Loyola Sullivan - Ed Byrne - Lynn Verge - and Len Simms could not take government either. That is why Roger Grimes never had a chance. Instead we had a long list of saviors riding in and carrying their parties to victory.
This also causes another problem. The people who choose to run when a new savior presents are more opportunistic than anything else. They do not have to be strong in their own right - and they fully expect to get a well paying job with great benefits because their leader has the population spellbound. Unfortunately this means they are too grateful to their boss to do anything but nod in agreement. They are lead around by the nose - and despite their claims of protestations from within - they fail in changing policy which they know is bad for their constituents. Look at the numbers of people who sought PC nominations - then look at the other two and their candidate rosters.
Newfoundland and Labrador could use a couple of minority governments to shake up the status-quo - and members feelings of entitlement. In order to do this at least 3 strong parties must be present - and sadly as I write this today - we only have one.
Freedom of speech and independent thinking is not permitted in our two party system - unless you are the leader - and there is no fear that the populous will turn on that leader for the weak members he/she is stuck with.
Governments and Oppositions need more than one strong - articulate - and educated person - they need many people who can get in there and voice new - creative - and progressive policy. They do not need a bunch of bobbing heads calling open-line programs and saying I am part of so-and-so's team and that person is great. When is the last time you heard Wally Young call open-line and say this new policy initiative is something I have researched and proudly put forth to my colleagues?
Now the party system also protects itself - they will weed out any voices who may call it as they really see it - and stick to either weak or partisan fanatics who cannot see anything good in the other party's platform. Parties also discourage independents by telling us that if you are an independent - you will not be heard and you will be placed in the wilderness. This is of course not true - and some of the best work done by Yvonne Jones is when she sat as an independent - after the party system chose Danny Dumeresque and not the real choice of the people of Cartwright - L'Anse Au Clair.
Quebec is a good jurisdiction to look at - and examine how the wishes of Quebecers do come first and they are prepared to cross the floor - sit on their own - create a new party if they are forced to tow a party line contrary to interest of Quebecers.
Most other provinces have a strong 3 party system and some of them more to ensure that no one party or two become complacent and arrogant toward the needs of their constituents.
So when I hear some people lambaste Fabian or John or Loyola or Joan or Charlene - I can only conclude they don't really mean it. There are no consequences to these people because either - the party they represent have a savior as their leader (meaning they will get re-elected anyway) or the party will convince the particular member that the party will take care of them if their voters boot them out.
It is time for the voters of Newfoundland and Labrador to get more savvy when it comes to elections and political parties - and it's time for those parties to worry that the same old system won't protect their entitlements.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Just a little backbone - could have saved Canada from...
...right wing fundamentalists like Harper and other Reformers. Make no mistake that's what they are - eerily similar to Bush and the gang south of us.
They will lie through their teeth - sell out their principles in a heartbeat if that meant power and the ability to control a country while gaining favour with the corporate elite. These people are puppets - as evidenced by Harper's lies during the last federal campaign. Lies that cost people billions of dollars. Lies that threatened the retirement of seniors and the budgets of entire provinces.
You see their holier than thou attitude with respect to things like same sex marriage - abortion - and troubled youth are simply that - attitudes - designed to evangelize the people - get the vote - and let the trouble begin.
Harper sold out his "judgemental" followers who are against abortion et al - those without tolerance - the minute he gained "power". The "progressive" part of conservative was gone the minute Harper became leader of the hostile "takeover".
The need to write about this today comes from a news story last night - about Scott Brison and his longtime partner Maxime Saint-Pierre getting married. Among the attendees were Paul Martin, Joe Clark and Frank McKenna - all progressive - all successful - and all believe in the Charter.
Scott bailed on the new "Conservatives" presumably after determining that leopards don't change their spots. Brison showed guts while Loyola Hearn and Peter MacKay stood silent - gutless as the remains of their party (PC) was eviscerated and tossed in the non-recyclable bin.
The PC's of old would not have us in Afghanistan - fighting a civil war between people and poppies. They would not have our men and women in uniform battling in a country where the rights of women or those of different faiths continue to be violated even by the "new" leadership.
Loyola and Peter - both of whom take some credit in creating this monster - Loyola by playing a key role in the merger (takeover) - and Peter by stabbing a fellow PC to allow Harper to rise to the top - sit back and take it all.
Canada will not be Canada under Stephen Harper and his right wing fanatics - it will be a poor take-off of the Republicans. Hearn and McKay know this but yet they do nothing - fear of admitting they were wrong - or loving the scraps Harper and the corporate gang throw to them. They would rather see Canada dragged into a world of intolerance and fear - dragged into conflicts which have more to do with protecting oil supply than protecting democracies - dragged into the conservative world of evangelistic moral values and legalized mob activities - than stand up - be men - admit they were wrong - and leave Harper dangling in his jungle of puppetry.
The PC's are gone and due to people like Harper and Hearn it will be a long time before the Progressive Conservatives will come back. I'm sure they will in time - as Canadians reject the war mongering - money loving - hypocrisy of these right wingers. Harper will not get a majority - unfortunately it will not be on the strength and courage of a Hearn or a MacKay. They are satisfied to sell out their own people and repeat messages spun by the likes of a Timothy Powers. You see there are Liberals and Progressive Conservatives who will be chameleons if it means a good government or corporate contract. They have money in their ass pockets - be damned with everybody else.
What will destroy Harper is the Quebecers and possibly Ontarians who will not trust their country or provinces to the ilk of Stephen Harper. They are smart though - they will get every last copper out of the feds - because they know Harper wants power at any price. They are filling their coffers while they have the chance and then they will vote Liberal or NDP or Bloc.
Norm Doyle knew better and just ducked his head and moved forward to his own retirement - guilty of inaction costing Newfoundland and Labrador billions of dollars - Loyola Hearn lacking courage to admit a mistake took shelter under Harper's wing and finds it easier to take mocking from his own people than face the ire of Harper - and poor Fabian Manning - he's just along for any ride (as short as it might be) and therefore will follow the crowd that accepts him. Remember the day - he sat along side the PM in the House of Commons - that's all it took for Harper to convince him that selling out his own people was okay. For those of you who may have thought Manning showed guts when he was booted out of the Williams caucus for speaking his mind on RMS - think again - Manning just did not believe he would be kicked out - else he would not have done it to begin with. A mistake which made him look courageous.
I can't wait for the next federal election - I can't wait to get rid of Harper and the boys in his back-room. The federation is fragile enough without these liars hiding behind a Bush.
For my part - because I stood behind Hearn in the last election as I felt that the PC's in the new party would keep Harper in check while possibly correcting regional disparities - I must work twice as hard to ensure these people never see a majority. As I said then - we will get a chance to kick the tires of this new minority - well I've kicked them and the rubber is flawed and the air is leaking out - they are going flat. I wonder were they made in China?
One final note - congratulations to Scott and Maxime - may they live a long and healthy life together.
They will lie through their teeth - sell out their principles in a heartbeat if that meant power and the ability to control a country while gaining favour with the corporate elite. These people are puppets - as evidenced by Harper's lies during the last federal campaign. Lies that cost people billions of dollars. Lies that threatened the retirement of seniors and the budgets of entire provinces.
You see their holier than thou attitude with respect to things like same sex marriage - abortion - and troubled youth are simply that - attitudes - designed to evangelize the people - get the vote - and let the trouble begin.
Harper sold out his "judgemental" followers who are against abortion et al - those without tolerance - the minute he gained "power". The "progressive" part of conservative was gone the minute Harper became leader of the hostile "takeover".
The need to write about this today comes from a news story last night - about Scott Brison and his longtime partner Maxime Saint-Pierre getting married. Among the attendees were Paul Martin, Joe Clark and Frank McKenna - all progressive - all successful - and all believe in the Charter.
Scott bailed on the new "Conservatives" presumably after determining that leopards don't change their spots. Brison showed guts while Loyola Hearn and Peter MacKay stood silent - gutless as the remains of their party (PC) was eviscerated and tossed in the non-recyclable bin.
The PC's of old would not have us in Afghanistan - fighting a civil war between people and poppies. They would not have our men and women in uniform battling in a country where the rights of women or those of different faiths continue to be violated even by the "new" leadership.
Loyola and Peter - both of whom take some credit in creating this monster - Loyola by playing a key role in the merger (takeover) - and Peter by stabbing a fellow PC to allow Harper to rise to the top - sit back and take it all.
Canada will not be Canada under Stephen Harper and his right wing fanatics - it will be a poor take-off of the Republicans. Hearn and McKay know this but yet they do nothing - fear of admitting they were wrong - or loving the scraps Harper and the corporate gang throw to them. They would rather see Canada dragged into a world of intolerance and fear - dragged into conflicts which have more to do with protecting oil supply than protecting democracies - dragged into the conservative world of evangelistic moral values and legalized mob activities - than stand up - be men - admit they were wrong - and leave Harper dangling in his jungle of puppetry.
The PC's are gone and due to people like Harper and Hearn it will be a long time before the Progressive Conservatives will come back. I'm sure they will in time - as Canadians reject the war mongering - money loving - hypocrisy of these right wingers. Harper will not get a majority - unfortunately it will not be on the strength and courage of a Hearn or a MacKay. They are satisfied to sell out their own people and repeat messages spun by the likes of a Timothy Powers. You see there are Liberals and Progressive Conservatives who will be chameleons if it means a good government or corporate contract. They have money in their ass pockets - be damned with everybody else.
What will destroy Harper is the Quebecers and possibly Ontarians who will not trust their country or provinces to the ilk of Stephen Harper. They are smart though - they will get every last copper out of the feds - because they know Harper wants power at any price. They are filling their coffers while they have the chance and then they will vote Liberal or NDP or Bloc.
Norm Doyle knew better and just ducked his head and moved forward to his own retirement - guilty of inaction costing Newfoundland and Labrador billions of dollars - Loyola Hearn lacking courage to admit a mistake took shelter under Harper's wing and finds it easier to take mocking from his own people than face the ire of Harper - and poor Fabian Manning - he's just along for any ride (as short as it might be) and therefore will follow the crowd that accepts him. Remember the day - he sat along side the PM in the House of Commons - that's all it took for Harper to convince him that selling out his own people was okay. For those of you who may have thought Manning showed guts when he was booted out of the Williams caucus for speaking his mind on RMS - think again - Manning just did not believe he would be kicked out - else he would not have done it to begin with. A mistake which made him look courageous.
I can't wait for the next federal election - I can't wait to get rid of Harper and the boys in his back-room. The federation is fragile enough without these liars hiding behind a Bush.
For my part - because I stood behind Hearn in the last election as I felt that the PC's in the new party would keep Harper in check while possibly correcting regional disparities - I must work twice as hard to ensure these people never see a majority. As I said then - we will get a chance to kick the tires of this new minority - well I've kicked them and the rubber is flawed and the air is leaking out - they are going flat. I wonder were they made in China?
One final note - congratulations to Scott and Maxime - may they live a long and healthy life together.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Punishment by Premier - Select and Inconsistent
This anything but conservative (ABC) campaign by Premier Danny Williams is apparently limited and a matter of convenience.
It apparently applies to votes but not money.
You see while Danny says we must punish Loyola Hearn - Norman Doyle - and Fabain Manning - he turns his head and ignores our province paying a lobbyist who feels the Prime Minister keeps his promises to Canadians.
Here's an example - as we already know - Conservative strategist and Summa VP Tim Powers has been hired as a lobbyist for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on the Lower Churchill development and an east-west energy grid. CLICK HERE
Tim Powers was commenting to a CTV reporter in March - after the federal budget - on a poll showing Harper was making gains in Quebec. That is the budget which seen our province take a big hit on equalization based on the pre-election promises by Harper.
The CTV Story included the following:
Tell me something Danny - why is it we have hired this fellow to lobby for us on such a significant file - the Lower Churchill?
Why is Danny punishing our Conservative MP's but not the strategists that spin their message?
Why is your punishment select and inconsistent?
Why does your ABC strategy not extend to Conservative Lobbyists?
It apparently applies to votes but not money.
You see while Danny says we must punish Loyola Hearn - Norman Doyle - and Fabain Manning - he turns his head and ignores our province paying a lobbyist who feels the Prime Minister keeps his promises to Canadians.
Here's an example - as we already know - Conservative strategist and Summa VP Tim Powers has been hired as a lobbyist for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on the Lower Churchill development and an east-west energy grid. CLICK HERE
Tim Powers was commenting to a CTV reporter in March - after the federal budget - on a poll showing Harper was making gains in Quebec. That is the budget which seen our province take a big hit on equalization based on the pre-election promises by Harper.
The CTV Story included the following:
Conservative party strategist Tim Powers says that while Quebecers, like many other Canadians, might not be enthralled with Harper personally, they appreciate what he's accomplished.
"You're seeing that reflected in the polls," Powers said. "They see that Harper's kept his promises to them."
Tell me something Danny - why is it we have hired this fellow to lobby for us on such a significant file - the Lower Churchill?
Why is Danny punishing our Conservative MP's but not the strategists that spin their message?
Why is your punishment select and inconsistent?
Why does your ABC strategy not extend to Conservative Lobbyists?
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Welcome Summa - Welcome to Democracy
I love a lobbyist under oath. Jack Abramoff super lobbyist appearing before a US Senate hearing. From an NBC story.
Summa appears to be spending time here at Sue's Blog - so I have some questions.
The Tory Strategist and Summa VP Tim Powers - has his fingers in many pies.
Currently Tim is a lobbyist for CTV globemedia. That's great Tim - and you also appear on CTV programming too right - speaking conservatively of course.
Here's the registration basics.
Mr. Timothy Powers
Consultant Lobbyist
Lobbyist number: 13527
Registration number: 13527-29
Effective date: 2007-01-09
It also says on that particular registration document - that your client CTV globe media has subsidiaries which have a direct interest in the lobbying activities.
They are:
CTV INC.
BCE Inc
THE GLOBE AND MAIL
Your work includes:
Any policies or programs with respect to broadcast matters within the Department of Canadian Heritage, Canadian Radio Television Commission, Industry Canada and any other related issue that impacts CTVglobemedia .
Who you may lobby includes:
Prime Minister's Office, Finance Canada, Health Canada, Privy Council Office, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board of Canada, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
Let's see if I can get this all straight. You sit on television and defend the Conservatives - on the same station you lobby for to the Prime Minister - seems everybody is happy here.
The question is - how do you have such access to the Prime Minister's Office?
Why do you have such access to various government departments?
Remember now this is the Prime Minister that's going to clean all this up - renew democracy. So Harper replaces the Liberal lobby hacks with his own.
Who is this person Timothy Powers? He is not elected is he? He has a job where we sells the ear of the Prime Minister. Wonderful! How about the Conservative MP's - the people we elect and pay - their staff including Minister Hearn and staff - John Fitzgerald the Province's connection to the feds in Ottawa - our Premier - his staff - the Minister of Business - Minister of Energy - Chairperson of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or the CEO of NLH - all paid for by the people - except the Chairperson - but he got 15 million from government for his communications company - all get off their behinds and do their jobs. Why is it necessary for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to pay some unelected Conservative hack in Ottawa to have "communications" with the PM and Ministers?
What specifically are you paid to lobby for Tim?
Have you been instructed on what to ask the feds for with regard to the Lower Churchill development? Have you seen the elusive energy plan or draft thereof? How much are you paid by our Crown Corporation? Who do you speak on behalf of? What have been the results? What have any of the office holders said to you?
You see as one of the owners of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - I for one want the details. Next time you are on CTV sparring with Scott Reid - give us some answers.
Here's how a reasonably minded person could see this. You hop in a cab - run down to the CTV studios - while there you spin the Prime Minister's message - then you hop back in the cab and run to the PMO and spin CTV's message. You call it lobbying - I call it political prostitution. It would be good to remember Tim this is a democracy - and likely will be more of one when Harper is defeated.
On your issue with the IFAW - why not take the reference to them off the Summa site -if you don't want to recall the services and strategy you provided them. It remains however all over the Internet. Why don't you tell us specifically what advice and strategy you gave them. You are originally from Newfoundland and Labrador Tim - so I assume you know the damage that organization has tried to cause this province and our fishermen.
Of course Hydro is just one client:
Here are some of your others.
How do you get all those interests packed into a cup of tea at the PMO or Privy Council?
The Canadian Transit Company
Oracle
CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (CICA)
Invista (Canada) Company
and more....
Remember Tim - none of these clients (organizations or companies) are voters - we are - and the access you sell to the PMO's ear is interesting. Is that what it takes to get something done in Canada?
I am not a fan of lobbyists - unless it is unpaid and for the public good.
One last question - how do the "informal" conversations on hydro go? Something like this? I know you and the Premier really can't stand each other - and he's promised to wipe you out of Newfoundland and Labrador - but how about that loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill? Loyola is really not up to meeting with you today and Dean and Ed are tied up so - it's all on me now?
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Saving Private Hearn
is not something Harper appears anxious to do. Today in the Globe and Mail Online Private Hearn appears to be left on the political battlefield while Harper spends his time saving his regional lieutenant Peter MacKay.
The federal Conservatives are holding their annual summer caucus in PEI. The Prime Minister will make a special side visit to New Brunswick and a quick trip to Nova Scotia - but no time available for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Here's an interesting quote from the Globe Story:
"In Nova Scotia you can try to stop the bleeding, but the leg is cut off in Newfoundland," said a senior Atlantic Canadian Conservative. "New Brunswick is really the only place where he can show potential pickup."
The federal Conservatives are holding their annual summer caucus in PEI. The Prime Minister will make a special side visit to New Brunswick and a quick trip to Nova Scotia - but no time available for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Here's an interesting quote from the Globe Story:
"In Nova Scotia you can try to stop the bleeding, but the leg is cut off in Newfoundland," said a senior Atlantic Canadian Conservative. "New Brunswick is really the only place where he can show potential pickup."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)