The combined collection of material from those opposed to Muskrat Falls is starting to become a file that ends up on a shelf to collect dust.
There are enough reasons to demand the immediate shut down of the project and the immediate start-up of a forensic audit.
This will not be accomplished through this blog, any other blogs, tweets of discontent, letters to the editor, or calls to a radio program.
The only way to accomplish this is to provide new leadership - now. The coming together of people for a common goal - regardless of their past political stripes or non-stripes.
Being right is not a happy place right now. Many of us were right in our past assessments of Muskrat Falls. It is actually miserable to be right and will remain so until some real change occurs.
Dwight Ball - Danny Williams and the elite making a killing off this project and have thick skin with respect to keeping this "boondoggle" going.
They do not fear repercussion - Danny's already out of politics and Dwight will soon be. The Corporate elite just want to keep taking our money and the money of our kids and grand-kids and great grand kids The debt, the burden, and the mess will remain long after they are deceased from old age - unless we stop it now.
A - alliance of like minded people
C - coordination of action required
T - target the politicians who want to be re-elected
I - imminent understanding that they will be thrown from office at next election
O - onslaught of activities designed to raise awareness and participation
N - network with people from all around Newfoundland and Labrador
I like George Murphy - always have. Right now he is encouraging all of us to write the PUB to protest the Hydro proposed increase. It is an action and it will be felt - however this will not rid us of the burden - it will simply shift the debt from the ratepayer to the taxpayer. We need action to rid us of Muskrat Falls and do what we can to mitigate losses.
So the day of action is here. Who is going to stand up and join with others to provide leadership and a future for Newfoundland and Labrador?
The taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot afford the burden of a 30 billion dollar debt. This is what successive governments have done to us - and we are allowing it.
Demand the immediate cessation of Muskrat Falls until a complete forensic audit and financial investigation is complete on the project to date. Then we can look at what alternatives and choices we have. Anything short of that is philosophical discussion that nets us nothing more than an historical record of misery - just like the Upper Churchill.
Showing posts with label Nova Scotia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nova Scotia. Show all posts
Monday, September 25, 2017
Thursday, December 12, 2013
"Minor Regulatory Noise" Expected for Emera
Please read the statement below and give me your opinion on the state of affairs in Newfoundland and Labrador. Talk about being seen as neutered - guess the Public Utilities Board has become a simple waste of money.
Investment thesis: "We view Emera's largely visible capital plan positively in the current interest rate environment allowing for a stock re-rating. Electricity transmission focused endeavours, in particular related to the Nalcor projects, in our view, are the key drivers for the stock in the future. Finally, we expect a minor (yet manageable) amount of regulatory noise mainly in Nova Scotia."
(emphasis added)
Investment thesis: "We view Emera's largely visible capital plan positively in the current interest rate environment allowing for a stock re-rating. Electricity transmission focused endeavours, in particular related to the Nalcor projects, in our view, are the key drivers for the stock in the future. Finally, we expect a minor (yet manageable) amount of regulatory noise mainly in Nova Scotia."
(emphasis added)
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
Minister Marshall is a Genius right?
Economic Update:
It's not as bad as we thought.
Projected deficit only half billion dollars.
Budgetary projections based on overestimating deficit and then re-estimating less of a deficit.
How about this Minister Marshall - look into your Muskrat Ball and project the following - based on your policies today:
In 20 years the debt will be ___
In 20 years the deficit will be ___
In 20 years the cost of residential power will be ___
In 20 years our population will be ___
In 20 years our unemployment rate will be ___
In 20 years the public pensions will be a) bankrupt b) underfunded c) healthy
In 20 years the percentage of our population over 65 will be ___
In 20 years how many more communities will be lost ___
In 20 years the fishery will be controlled by ___ people
In 20 years we will have ___ paper mills
In 20 years we will have ___ communities in Labrador still without power from Labrador hydro resources
In 20 years will we have an oil or gas refinery - using our own resources?
In 20 years will it be determined that you and the PC Dunderdale Government have done more to advance Nova Scotia than for Newfoundland and Labrador?
In 20 years will we have a shipyard?
There are no consequences to you if you are wrong - but the consequences to the next three generations can be profound.
I watch you and your colleagues banter and play in the House of Assembly like you are having a private poker game - playing with your own money. I watch the partisan tripe and manipulation of facts. I watch you and your colleagues answer from script and ignore the real situation. It looks like a game of monopoly wherein the consequences are a bruised ego - not the failure of a province.
I watch the backbenchers do whatever is necessary to get a crack at a Cabinet post. A giant carrot wielded by the Premier to keep herself in power.
When you were elected to govern in 2003 - do you believe that all governments that came before you did a great job? Did Tory governments before you leave us in a better place? Guess not - you continue to complain about it today. They were all telling the truth like you - right? They were all doing what was in our best interest like you - right? They were all building a bright future like you - right? Or do you believe that you and your colleagues have been the only competent, unselfish, and successful public servants?
The problem is Minister Marshall - if you - the Premier and the other PC's think you have the market on brains and integrity cornered - you are doing us a disservice and you should really pack it in and move on.
This situation becomes worse when you continue to be the only potential to even carry the portfolio (based on Premier's appointments) - what does that say about your colleagues?
It's not as bad as we thought.
Projected deficit only half billion dollars.
Budgetary projections based on overestimating deficit and then re-estimating less of a deficit.
How about this Minister Marshall - look into your Muskrat Ball and project the following - based on your policies today:
In 20 years the debt will be ___
In 20 years the deficit will be ___
In 20 years the cost of residential power will be ___
In 20 years our population will be ___
In 20 years our unemployment rate will be ___
In 20 years the public pensions will be a) bankrupt b) underfunded c) healthy
In 20 years the percentage of our population over 65 will be ___
In 20 years how many more communities will be lost ___
In 20 years the fishery will be controlled by ___ people
In 20 years we will have ___ paper mills
In 20 years we will have ___ communities in Labrador still without power from Labrador hydro resources
In 20 years will we have an oil or gas refinery - using our own resources?
In 20 years will it be determined that you and the PC Dunderdale Government have done more to advance Nova Scotia than for Newfoundland and Labrador?
In 20 years will we have a shipyard?
There are no consequences to you if you are wrong - but the consequences to the next three generations can be profound.
I watch you and your colleagues banter and play in the House of Assembly like you are having a private poker game - playing with your own money. I watch the partisan tripe and manipulation of facts. I watch you and your colleagues answer from script and ignore the real situation. It looks like a game of monopoly wherein the consequences are a bruised ego - not the failure of a province.
I watch the backbenchers do whatever is necessary to get a crack at a Cabinet post. A giant carrot wielded by the Premier to keep herself in power.
When you were elected to govern in 2003 - do you believe that all governments that came before you did a great job? Did Tory governments before you leave us in a better place? Guess not - you continue to complain about it today. They were all telling the truth like you - right? They were all doing what was in our best interest like you - right? They were all building a bright future like you - right? Or do you believe that you and your colleagues have been the only competent, unselfish, and successful public servants?
The problem is Minister Marshall - if you - the Premier and the other PC's think you have the market on brains and integrity cornered - you are doing us a disservice and you should really pack it in and move on.
This situation becomes worse when you continue to be the only potential to even carry the portfolio (based on Premier's appointments) - what does that say about your colleagues?
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Dunderdale Spin does not add up!
Nothing worse than waking up in the morning - and hearing Premier Dunderdale on the CBC Morning Show discussing how we - the people - will thank her in time.
The Premier and Co. really believe we are ignorant - almost beyond hope - and she like any concerned parent will guide us through the haze.
This patronizing drone is worse than annoying and condescending - it is dangerous.
If Dunderdale believes she must parent us versus serve us - then she is delusional.
The latest spin from DJ Reid is the low polling has nothing to do with Muskrat Falls. The Premier - as the "point" person of the party - claims the absolute collapse of the polls has to do with laying off 1000 people.
First - the destruction of faith in this government began long before this budget. Second - it absolutely has to do with Muskrat Falls as more and more information has been coming out by opponents to the deal. Finally the fact that Don Mills of CRA and the Premier are protesting too much - that it is absolutely NOT Muskrat Falls.
I say that it absolutely is Muskrat Falls and the damage to the party fortunes initiated shortly after the last election - when the deal was discussed in greater detail.
The Dunderdale government has spent a fortune getting study after study produced to verify that Nalcor and government are right on the development. Unfortunately it is becoming more and more obvious that the "independent" reports paid for by Nalcor and Government (us) were restricted and essentially mathematical recalculations of the sums already provided.
The government and/or PC Party did an untold number of polls (unreleased) on the subject and only released one when they eked over a majority of the population. The poll itself could be challenged - but that's a waste of time - as historical data on weak support exists - else the exercise of advertised brainwashing would have been a waste of money.
In my opinion - the greatest fear of Kathy and her handlers is that Muskrat dissent will become more vociferous in light of the disastrous poll results - and they might actually be politically forced to stop it.
The 5 or 6 people/corporations standing to actually make a tonne of money here will do anything to prevent that from happening.
There is no way a government polling this low can justify spending $24,000 for every child - woman - man in Newfoundland and Labrador - on one project - during one term in office. 240 - hundred dollar bills for us all - not a chance.
Spending at one time an equivalent of more than our debt - accumulated since 1949. Over 60 years - of spending and debt - Dunderdale wants to do for one project.
Considering the Premier and her government are clearly in third place of three - and considering that she and her Ministers and Backbenchers believe the poll has nothing to do with Muskrat - why not hold a referendum on Muskrat? What does the Premier and her government have to lose?
The people deserve a clear and specific say on the expenditure of this much money and particularly because it's a hydro resource.
The truth is plain to see - the people of this province are afraid of this deal - afraid of the impacts - afraid of the future ramifications.
Imagine the polling results if Dunderdale and Co. had done the honourable thing and funded opponents of the deal to present equally funded research and associated public relations and advertising for the findings.
The Muskrat Falls development must be stopped.
The Premier and Co. really believe we are ignorant - almost beyond hope - and she like any concerned parent will guide us through the haze.
This patronizing drone is worse than annoying and condescending - it is dangerous.
If Dunderdale believes she must parent us versus serve us - then she is delusional.
The latest spin from DJ Reid is the low polling has nothing to do with Muskrat Falls. The Premier - as the "point" person of the party - claims the absolute collapse of the polls has to do with laying off 1000 people.
First - the destruction of faith in this government began long before this budget. Second - it absolutely has to do with Muskrat Falls as more and more information has been coming out by opponents to the deal. Finally the fact that Don Mills of CRA and the Premier are protesting too much - that it is absolutely NOT Muskrat Falls.
I say that it absolutely is Muskrat Falls and the damage to the party fortunes initiated shortly after the last election - when the deal was discussed in greater detail.
The Dunderdale government has spent a fortune getting study after study produced to verify that Nalcor and government are right on the development. Unfortunately it is becoming more and more obvious that the "independent" reports paid for by Nalcor and Government (us) were restricted and essentially mathematical recalculations of the sums already provided.
The government and/or PC Party did an untold number of polls (unreleased) on the subject and only released one when they eked over a majority of the population. The poll itself could be challenged - but that's a waste of time - as historical data on weak support exists - else the exercise of advertised brainwashing would have been a waste of money.
In my opinion - the greatest fear of Kathy and her handlers is that Muskrat dissent will become more vociferous in light of the disastrous poll results - and they might actually be politically forced to stop it.
The 5 or 6 people/corporations standing to actually make a tonne of money here will do anything to prevent that from happening.
There is no way a government polling this low can justify spending $24,000 for every child - woman - man in Newfoundland and Labrador - on one project - during one term in office. 240 - hundred dollar bills for us all - not a chance.
Spending at one time an equivalent of more than our debt - accumulated since 1949. Over 60 years - of spending and debt - Dunderdale wants to do for one project.
Considering the Premier and her government are clearly in third place of three - and considering that she and her Ministers and Backbenchers believe the poll has nothing to do with Muskrat - why not hold a referendum on Muskrat? What does the Premier and her government have to lose?
The people deserve a clear and specific say on the expenditure of this much money and particularly because it's a hydro resource.
The truth is plain to see - the people of this province are afraid of this deal - afraid of the impacts - afraid of the future ramifications.
Imagine the polling results if Dunderdale and Co. had done the honourable thing and funded opponents of the deal to present equally funded research and associated public relations and advertising for the findings.
The Muskrat Falls development must be stopped.
Sunday, May 05, 2013
Muskrat Falls - Roger Grimes - Kathy Dunderdale - PUB
Roger Grimes made a public statement yesterday in a Letter to the Editor; the Telegram's Weekend Edition.
With reasoning - more thoughtful than the garbage information we have been fed by Dunderdale and Co. - Grimes highlights gaping errors in the thinking used to make this particular Muskrat Falls deal.
The former Premier also made a comment which reflects the true signs of leadership - the project can still be stopped. The Tories approach of well now that its started, sanctioned, signed - gotta keep going - is simply trying to convince people that there is no hope left to stop this mess.
The NDP in Nova Scotia has shown two qualities during this process - an ability and a weakness.
Somehow their politicians have shown that they are able to convince our politicians - that subsidizing power for Nova Scotia is a good thing and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be happy to do that. The weakness of course is that they appeared to do this work for a private company, Emera and by doing so just simply ammassed wealth for the private corporation on the backs of their own people.
So for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the deal is bad - very bad - and in my opinion that is either from naivety or corruption on some level or a combination of both.
Corporately, Emera and Nalcor, will make money on each and every kw - Emera (private) - Nalcor (crown). The question is who is that good for specifically?
Emera's shareholders (private) will make a killing if they operate in any way similar to how they currently operate both domestic and foreign assets while Nalcor's shareholders (the people of NL) will be gouged to keep Nalcor's spending viable.
When the PUBlic Utilities Board was banished from it's role as a regulator - protecting us - from unnecessary spending by our own corporation - Nalcor - became an agent by which politicians could cut deals that they wanted for whatever reasons - and those reasons can be very self-serving and sinister.
The PUB may have rejected this expenditure on behalf of the consumers of electricity - and the fact that people like Kathy Dunderdale, Jerome Kennedy, Tom Marshall, and Darin King felt it okay to bypass the ratepayer component of the process is legislatively corrupt.
Now the PUB should have no right to stop a deal for power development - if others - not us - the ratepayers - are paying for it. If the government wanted to make this pet project a legacy - they should have directly pinned it on the taxpayers and forced every taxpayer in the province to pay for this disaster. In this way the political fall-out is more instant - more direct.
Roger's points in his letter make sense - in a very basic real way. We have no real idea what the true energy asset base is in the province and whether or not those assets could have been used differently, expanded, or altered to accommodate the Island need for power. As for Labrador - this development - if allowed to proceed would not remove many Labradorians from thermal generation or supply from Quebec. That is ridiculous.
The idea of developing such a valuable resource such as Muskrat and then Gull Island in either order should have accomplished the following:
1. Mandatory renewable assets for all inhabited regions of Labrador,
2. Development of Industry which would spur tens of thousands of jobs (long-term) after the construction phase is complete, or
3. The sale of the majority of power to another Province or State wherein the power produced would cause our rates to be kept where they are now - for a generation or two, money for our treasury, and equity build-up for our people (similar to a tenant renting your property) they pay the mortgage - we own the asset,
4. Some combination of 2 and 3.
The added little bonus for the private Emera is that they now are going to be paid every time you and I pay our electric bill. They get a cut of the action that was once held solely for Newfoundland Power and Nalcor (Newfoundland and Labraor Hydro division). Why are they getting that cut? The truthful answer to that will start to unravel some pretty questionable decisions by our government.
There was and is a real potential to stabilize our rates by simply acquiring Newfoundland Power and eliminating the doubling up profits and eliminate administrative and asset duplication. By doing what we have done - Nalcor gets it up price, passed to Emera for its up price and then on to Newfoundland Power for its piece.
If we continue with this project - we are absolutely getting the least out of this asset - which in time will look worse than the Upper Churchill.
The former Premier should be commended for his leadership and be an example for those seeking to take office and government. The project should be stopped.
With reasoning - more thoughtful than the garbage information we have been fed by Dunderdale and Co. - Grimes highlights gaping errors in the thinking used to make this particular Muskrat Falls deal.
The former Premier also made a comment which reflects the true signs of leadership - the project can still be stopped. The Tories approach of well now that its started, sanctioned, signed - gotta keep going - is simply trying to convince people that there is no hope left to stop this mess.
The NDP in Nova Scotia has shown two qualities during this process - an ability and a weakness.
Somehow their politicians have shown that they are able to convince our politicians - that subsidizing power for Nova Scotia is a good thing and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be happy to do that. The weakness of course is that they appeared to do this work for a private company, Emera and by doing so just simply ammassed wealth for the private corporation on the backs of their own people.
So for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the deal is bad - very bad - and in my opinion that is either from naivety or corruption on some level or a combination of both.
Corporately, Emera and Nalcor, will make money on each and every kw - Emera (private) - Nalcor (crown). The question is who is that good for specifically?
Emera's shareholders (private) will make a killing if they operate in any way similar to how they currently operate both domestic and foreign assets while Nalcor's shareholders (the people of NL) will be gouged to keep Nalcor's spending viable.
When the PUBlic Utilities Board was banished from it's role as a regulator - protecting us - from unnecessary spending by our own corporation - Nalcor - became an agent by which politicians could cut deals that they wanted for whatever reasons - and those reasons can be very self-serving and sinister.
The PUB may have rejected this expenditure on behalf of the consumers of electricity - and the fact that people like Kathy Dunderdale, Jerome Kennedy, Tom Marshall, and Darin King felt it okay to bypass the ratepayer component of the process is legislatively corrupt.
Now the PUB should have no right to stop a deal for power development - if others - not us - the ratepayers - are paying for it. If the government wanted to make this pet project a legacy - they should have directly pinned it on the taxpayers and forced every taxpayer in the province to pay for this disaster. In this way the political fall-out is more instant - more direct.
Roger's points in his letter make sense - in a very basic real way. We have no real idea what the true energy asset base is in the province and whether or not those assets could have been used differently, expanded, or altered to accommodate the Island need for power. As for Labrador - this development - if allowed to proceed would not remove many Labradorians from thermal generation or supply from Quebec. That is ridiculous.
The idea of developing such a valuable resource such as Muskrat and then Gull Island in either order should have accomplished the following:
1. Mandatory renewable assets for all inhabited regions of Labrador,
2. Development of Industry which would spur tens of thousands of jobs (long-term) after the construction phase is complete, or
3. The sale of the majority of power to another Province or State wherein the power produced would cause our rates to be kept where they are now - for a generation or two, money for our treasury, and equity build-up for our people (similar to a tenant renting your property) they pay the mortgage - we own the asset,
4. Some combination of 2 and 3.
The added little bonus for the private Emera is that they now are going to be paid every time you and I pay our electric bill. They get a cut of the action that was once held solely for Newfoundland Power and Nalcor (Newfoundland and Labraor Hydro division). Why are they getting that cut? The truthful answer to that will start to unravel some pretty questionable decisions by our government.
There was and is a real potential to stabilize our rates by simply acquiring Newfoundland Power and eliminating the doubling up profits and eliminate administrative and asset duplication. By doing what we have done - Nalcor gets it up price, passed to Emera for its up price and then on to Newfoundland Power for its piece.
If we continue with this project - we are absolutely getting the least out of this asset - which in time will look worse than the Upper Churchill.
The former Premier should be commended for his leadership and be an example for those seeking to take office and government. The project should be stopped.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Conservative Deceptive Ads - Placing one Region above another
Trudeau puts one region above another - That's what the Conservative Ad says.
Who said the following?
"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism"
Oh yeah that's right - Mr. Harper - about Atlantic Canada
He just puts one region under the rest.
On that basis I would think Mr. Harper will vote for Trudeau.
I think the difference is Harper said this when he was the leader of Canada's Opposition.
So Atlantic Canada lets practice defeatism - Defeat Harper in every Atlantic Canadian seat.
Next up - what did Harper say in his younger political career?
Who said the following?
"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism"
Oh yeah that's right - Mr. Harper - about Atlantic Canada
He just puts one region under the rest.
On that basis I would think Mr. Harper will vote for Trudeau.
I think the difference is Harper said this when he was the leader of Canada's Opposition.
So Atlantic Canada lets practice defeatism - Defeat Harper in every Atlantic Canadian seat.
Next up - what did Harper say in his younger political career?
Friday, October 26, 2012
News keeps getting Worse! Muskrat Exports?
Below please find an excerpt from a recent Globe and Mail article: Should we continue to ignore this?
This “over my dead body” attitude from a former engineer and environmentalist made Natural Resource Minister is emblematic of what former Parti Québécois premier Bouchard refers to as the “new religion” of Quebec. In a province where the gas industry’s first and often tactless developments have divided the population, gas wells – and even hydroelectric dams – have come to symbolize man’s self-destructive appetite for energy, at the expense of land, water and air.
It is a fine debate. Yet for all its sociological, environmental and economic considerations, it is somewhat vain. The valve on Quebec’s gas industry is shut for a foreseeable future that extends well beyond the current ban on gas exploration – which will last until environmental studies are completed, by 2014. Blame it on the shale gas boom in the United States. Blame it on the low gas prices that have ensued.
And the consequences of these depressed prices are felt not only by the province’s nascent gas industry, which had already drilled before the ban some 30 wells in Quebec in the hopes of creating a 5,000- to 19,000-job industry.
They also hurt the venerable Hydro-Québec, the state-owned electricity producer that has seen its export revenues since 2008 melt even as it is pumping more electricity into the northeastern U.S., its main export market. Gas-powered thermal electricity plants are heating up Hydro-Québec’s competition.
The price of natural gas has rebounded in recent months after it cratered in April under $2 (U.S.) per million British thermal units (BTU). As gas prices rise while the mercury falls on the eve of the winter heating season, it now trades close to $3.50 per million BTU in New York. However, Quebec’s gas industry estimated in earlier public hearings that the price of gas needs to trade between $5 and $6 for it to cover its production and delivery costs.
Even if gas-powered plants replace coal plants, even if diesel trucks are converted to gas, it will likely take a decade before the increased demand allows the price of natural gas to rebound significantly – it spiked at close to $9 in 2008. Quebec’s main gas distributor, Gaz Métro, expects prices to hover around $5 for the next 10 years. Jean-Thomas Bernard, guest lecturer at the University of Ottawa’s faculty of economics and an energy expert, thinks the depressed prices could even last 15 years.
This presents a headache for Hydro-Québec, which is already swarming with electricity surpluses as the recession weighs on industrial demand, especially from the pulp and paper mills that are in the midst of a structural downturn. And the problem will only be made worse as the state-owned electricity producer brings new capacity into service.
The complex project Eastmain-1-A-Sarcelle-Rupert, which includes the construction of two plants, four dams and the diversion of the Rupert River in the James Bay region, will add 8.7 terawatt-hours of electricity production. The Romaine hydroelectric complex in the Côte-Nord region will add another eight TWh on average a year.
Hydro-Québec‘s electricity exports have steadily gone up since 2007 to 26.8 TWh from 19.6 TWh. Yet as electricity prices have fallen while the Canadian dollar has shot up, the revenues the state producer collects from these out-of-province sales have gone down – although they slightly rebounded in 2011. The trend has continued in the first quarter of 2012: The year-over-year exports shortfall accounts for Hydro-Québec’s 28 per cent drop in revenue and 18 per cent reduction in profit.
And with any fall in Hydro-Québec’s profits comes a reduction to the dividend it pays the government, as 75 per cent of its profit are funnelled to Quebec.
To paraphrase the title of an acclaimed Louis Bélanger film, Quebec is suffering a severe case of “Gaz Bar Blues.”
So as Western Canadian energy producers are lamenting the surge in U.S. shale gas and oil production, which are threatening their exports south of the border, this time around, they will find a sympathetic ear in Quebec.
This “over my dead body” attitude from a former engineer and environmentalist made Natural Resource Minister is emblematic of what former Parti Québécois premier Bouchard refers to as the “new religion” of Quebec. In a province where the gas industry’s first and often tactless developments have divided the population, gas wells – and even hydroelectric dams – have come to symbolize man’s self-destructive appetite for energy, at the expense of land, water and air.
It is a fine debate. Yet for all its sociological, environmental and economic considerations, it is somewhat vain. The valve on Quebec’s gas industry is shut for a foreseeable future that extends well beyond the current ban on gas exploration – which will last until environmental studies are completed, by 2014. Blame it on the shale gas boom in the United States. Blame it on the low gas prices that have ensued.
And the consequences of these depressed prices are felt not only by the province’s nascent gas industry, which had already drilled before the ban some 30 wells in Quebec in the hopes of creating a 5,000- to 19,000-job industry.
They also hurt the venerable Hydro-Québec, the state-owned electricity producer that has seen its export revenues since 2008 melt even as it is pumping more electricity into the northeastern U.S., its main export market. Gas-powered thermal electricity plants are heating up Hydro-Québec’s competition.
The price of natural gas has rebounded in recent months after it cratered in April under $2 (U.S.) per million British thermal units (BTU). As gas prices rise while the mercury falls on the eve of the winter heating season, it now trades close to $3.50 per million BTU in New York. However, Quebec’s gas industry estimated in earlier public hearings that the price of gas needs to trade between $5 and $6 for it to cover its production and delivery costs.
Even if gas-powered plants replace coal plants, even if diesel trucks are converted to gas, it will likely take a decade before the increased demand allows the price of natural gas to rebound significantly – it spiked at close to $9 in 2008. Quebec’s main gas distributor, Gaz Métro, expects prices to hover around $5 for the next 10 years. Jean-Thomas Bernard, guest lecturer at the University of Ottawa’s faculty of economics and an energy expert, thinks the depressed prices could even last 15 years.
This presents a headache for Hydro-Québec, which is already swarming with electricity surpluses as the recession weighs on industrial demand, especially from the pulp and paper mills that are in the midst of a structural downturn. And the problem will only be made worse as the state-owned electricity producer brings new capacity into service.
The complex project Eastmain-1-A-Sarcelle-Rupert, which includes the construction of two plants, four dams and the diversion of the Rupert River in the James Bay region, will add 8.7 terawatt-hours of electricity production. The Romaine hydroelectric complex in the Côte-Nord region will add another eight TWh on average a year.
Hydro-Québec‘s electricity exports have steadily gone up since 2007 to 26.8 TWh from 19.6 TWh. Yet as electricity prices have fallen while the Canadian dollar has shot up, the revenues the state producer collects from these out-of-province sales have gone down – although they slightly rebounded in 2011. The trend has continued in the first quarter of 2012: The year-over-year exports shortfall accounts for Hydro-Québec’s 28 per cent drop in revenue and 18 per cent reduction in profit.
And with any fall in Hydro-Québec’s profits comes a reduction to the dividend it pays the government, as 75 per cent of its profit are funnelled to Quebec.
To paraphrase the title of an acclaimed Louis Bélanger film, Quebec is suffering a severe case of “Gaz Bar Blues.”
So as Western Canadian energy producers are lamenting the surge in U.S. shale gas and oil production, which are threatening their exports south of the border, this time around, they will find a sympathetic ear in Quebec.
Province's MHAs pale in Comparison to Business Leaders
As we review the performance of the people involved, impacted by and/or responsible for the proposed Muskrat Falls development - big business shines.
If we as people had MHA's who performed close to the level of big business in representing their shareholders interests - we would not be considering this Muskrat Falls fiasco.
If a business has any opportunity to get it on an 8 billion dollar spend - the decsion gate is clear.
Let's look at what it considers:
1. Can the business make any money on this venture?
2. How much money can the business make on this venture?
3. How many years can the business profit from working on or for this project?
4. What will the business cost be to deliver product, service, manufacture or consulting to the project?
5. What will be the increase in the value of a share and therefore the value of the business?
Let's look at what it does not consider:
1. Who is paying the bill? (other than if the party was not creditworthy)
2. How will it impact this community or that community?
3. Are the owners of the natural resource getting value from the proposed deal?
4. How will this proposed project affect the province's debt?
5. How many long-term jobs will be created for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
This is why I am not concerned or surprised that businesses around the province and the country are supporting the proposed development.
I am concerned about the mindset of our MHA's who are there to represent us - the people.
Let's look at what they should consider:
1. Who is paying the bill?
2. How will it impact the ratepayer, taxpayer, and shareholder of the resource?
3. How many long-term jobs will be created for billions of dollars?
4. How much value can we add to shareholder?
5. Is this development needed for domestic supply?
6. Is this the only alternative?
7. Can we sell this power competitively in the export market?
8. Will the shareholder subsidize cheap power for business, another province, or American Export?
9. How will the increased price of power to domestic consumers affect our seniors, low/middle income families, and local small business (recessionary impact)?
10. Have I achieved support from the people I represent as an MHA?
As for Nova Scotia - they are playing it coy:
1. The proposed project will go to the PUB there - while Newfoundland and Labrador MHA's are preventing the same process here.
2. They do not have to buy in before the project starts.
3. They can play one energy competitor off against another for the best price - thereby eliminating Muskrat supply or reducing the price wherein the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to pay more for their power so Nova Scotians get cheaper power.
4. Currently the NDP government in Nova Scotia is in political trouble as it relates to Emera - where people are suffering the impacts of energy privatization that occurred at the same time as we prevented it.
5. Nova Scotia is presenting itself as the energy hub as it continues to attract industry away from Newfoundland and Labrador and to themselves.
As for the Mining exporters in Labrador - they are waiting like the wolf - we are the prey:
1. They are quickly becoming the raison du jour for the proposed development.
2. They have already threatened that without this type of infrastructure they may cancel or downsize development.
3. As other reasons for Muskrat development are destroyed - domestic island supply and export - their hands are wringing for cheaper subsidized power.
4. If they become the only reason for Muskrat - their demand for cheap prices will increase as other competitors (Hydro-Quebec) offer a cheaper price. All the while of course - Quebec gets secondary infrastructure to ship out our raw resources.
5. They have government's ear.
As for performance of CEO's - dead last in my opinion - Ed Martin
If we as people had MHA's who performed close to the level of big business in representing their shareholders interests - we would not be considering this Muskrat Falls fiasco.
If a business has any opportunity to get it on an 8 billion dollar spend - the decsion gate is clear.
Let's look at what it considers:
1. Can the business make any money on this venture?
2. How much money can the business make on this venture?
3. How many years can the business profit from working on or for this project?
4. What will the business cost be to deliver product, service, manufacture or consulting to the project?
5. What will be the increase in the value of a share and therefore the value of the business?
Let's look at what it does not consider:
1. Who is paying the bill? (other than if the party was not creditworthy)
2. How will it impact this community or that community?
3. Are the owners of the natural resource getting value from the proposed deal?
4. How will this proposed project affect the province's debt?
5. How many long-term jobs will be created for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
This is why I am not concerned or surprised that businesses around the province and the country are supporting the proposed development.
I am concerned about the mindset of our MHA's who are there to represent us - the people.
Let's look at what they should consider:
1. Who is paying the bill?
2. How will it impact the ratepayer, taxpayer, and shareholder of the resource?
3. How many long-term jobs will be created for billions of dollars?
4. How much value can we add to shareholder?
5. Is this development needed for domestic supply?
6. Is this the only alternative?
7. Can we sell this power competitively in the export market?
8. Will the shareholder subsidize cheap power for business, another province, or American Export?
9. How will the increased price of power to domestic consumers affect our seniors, low/middle income families, and local small business (recessionary impact)?
10. Have I achieved support from the people I represent as an MHA?
As for Nova Scotia - they are playing it coy:
1. The proposed project will go to the PUB there - while Newfoundland and Labrador MHA's are preventing the same process here.
2. They do not have to buy in before the project starts.
3. They can play one energy competitor off against another for the best price - thereby eliminating Muskrat supply or reducing the price wherein the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to pay more for their power so Nova Scotians get cheaper power.
4. Currently the NDP government in Nova Scotia is in political trouble as it relates to Emera - where people are suffering the impacts of energy privatization that occurred at the same time as we prevented it.
5. Nova Scotia is presenting itself as the energy hub as it continues to attract industry away from Newfoundland and Labrador and to themselves.
As for the Mining exporters in Labrador - they are waiting like the wolf - we are the prey:
1. They are quickly becoming the raison du jour for the proposed development.
2. They have already threatened that without this type of infrastructure they may cancel or downsize development.
3. As other reasons for Muskrat development are destroyed - domestic island supply and export - their hands are wringing for cheaper subsidized power.
4. If they become the only reason for Muskrat - their demand for cheap prices will increase as other competitors (Hydro-Quebec) offer a cheaper price. All the while of course - Quebec gets secondary infrastructure to ship out our raw resources.
5. They have government's ear.
As for performance of CEO's - dead last in my opinion - Ed Martin
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Desperate Dunderdale Disingenuous?
The Premier chose Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador to extend a challenge to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prove her wrong on Muskrat?
First Ms. Dunderdale - the challenge is to you not the voters who pay your salary or the ratepayers who pay for electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. You prove that this and only this proposed development of Muskrat Falls is the best option for us. You prove that the costs are acceptable. You prove that there is an urgent need for power on the Island. You prove the benefits for us of green energy for Nova Scotia. You prove that there is not a better deal to be had. You prove that there are not other and better options. To date - you have not proven these things. To date - you have had reports based on your government's and Nalcor's assumptions.
Now let's take it a little further. You want citizens of the province to prove why the deal is bad. Okay let's say we accept the challenge - will you and your government allot public funds for other research to be completed? Will you and your government provide access to ALL information you are using to make your decisions on? Your government and Nalcor have spent tens of millions of dollars of our money to prove out your theory - now give us the equivalent to prove you wrong.
This is not unheard of and unreasonable - it was offered to ordinary citizens and groups regarding the development of the White Rose field. That is a non-renewable resource that we are not bearing the debt of - Muskrat is renewable and will put us in severe debt - that we will service.
Last week you took it a step further - you gave a speech of fear to the Board of Trade. In that address you made many statements about Quebec and Hydro-Quebec. Prove those statements. Prove that the fear is warranted.
Let's just say this - the following are basic reasons why people oppose this deal:
1. Some citizens simply do not want the river dammed. They do not need to prove anything to hold that ideology.
2. Labradorians have expressed that they will not receive enough benefit from the development - as those who are adjacent to it. They do not need to prove that the benefits do not satisfy them.
3. Your primary reason for this proposed deal has changed more times than we can reasonably keep track of. You pick which one of these paths to disprove.
4. You have not proven that we need this power for the Island. The statements be they referring to 2017 or 2019 as the time when we will not be able to service the Island's power needs are troubling and should cause grave concern regarding the planning competency of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
5. The continued statement about us contributing to "greening up" Canada is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. You do some research and tell us what our current contribution of 5000 MW's from the Upper Churchill equates to on a per-capita basis of "greening up".
6. You made contemptuous in your BOT speech that Hydro-Quebec in your words: "Think about that! Does anybody have any confidence that, when mines in this province go to Hydro-Québec looking for energy for development in Labrador, they are going to get the best industrial rates in Atlantic Canada? Not likely. Hydro Quebec’s history is to seek the best deal for itself..." Yes Premier that is the point and we want you to prove that this current proposed deal is the best for us.
7. You are not the Premier of Atlantic Canada (Atlantica) or the Premier of mining companies or publicly traded companies you are the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prove that what you are doing is best for us - not them.
8. Prove that you are supplying ALL information to us and that none is being withheld.
9. The people are concerned that they are being bullied into this deal - wherein if you ask questions or are opposed to this proposed undertaking - they will be called partisan, naysayers, armchair critics, or worse. The people are concerned that there may be opposition to the deal inside the walls of Nalcor and government but they cannot speak for fear of repercussion. The same could be true for businesses and organizations who rely on government support either fiscally or from a policy perspective.
10. You have not proven that other options for generation or development of any part of the Lower Churchill are not more beneficial than the deal you have proposed.
Either you are being sincere or disingenuous when you challenge the people who employ you. If you are serious - show us the cash, the human resources, and process to respond to your challenge. If not this is just more smoke to cover a rotten deal.
First Ms. Dunderdale - the challenge is to you not the voters who pay your salary or the ratepayers who pay for electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. You prove that this and only this proposed development of Muskrat Falls is the best option for us. You prove that the costs are acceptable. You prove that there is an urgent need for power on the Island. You prove the benefits for us of green energy for Nova Scotia. You prove that there is not a better deal to be had. You prove that there are not other and better options. To date - you have not proven these things. To date - you have had reports based on your government's and Nalcor's assumptions.
Now let's take it a little further. You want citizens of the province to prove why the deal is bad. Okay let's say we accept the challenge - will you and your government allot public funds for other research to be completed? Will you and your government provide access to ALL information you are using to make your decisions on? Your government and Nalcor have spent tens of millions of dollars of our money to prove out your theory - now give us the equivalent to prove you wrong.
This is not unheard of and unreasonable - it was offered to ordinary citizens and groups regarding the development of the White Rose field. That is a non-renewable resource that we are not bearing the debt of - Muskrat is renewable and will put us in severe debt - that we will service.
Last week you took it a step further - you gave a speech of fear to the Board of Trade. In that address you made many statements about Quebec and Hydro-Quebec. Prove those statements. Prove that the fear is warranted.
Let's just say this - the following are basic reasons why people oppose this deal:
1. Some citizens simply do not want the river dammed. They do not need to prove anything to hold that ideology.
2. Labradorians have expressed that they will not receive enough benefit from the development - as those who are adjacent to it. They do not need to prove that the benefits do not satisfy them.
3. Your primary reason for this proposed deal has changed more times than we can reasonably keep track of. You pick which one of these paths to disprove.
4. You have not proven that we need this power for the Island. The statements be they referring to 2017 or 2019 as the time when we will not be able to service the Island's power needs are troubling and should cause grave concern regarding the planning competency of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
5. The continued statement about us contributing to "greening up" Canada is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. You do some research and tell us what our current contribution of 5000 MW's from the Upper Churchill equates to on a per-capita basis of "greening up".
6. You made contemptuous in your BOT speech that Hydro-Quebec in your words: "Think about that! Does anybody have any confidence that, when mines in this province go to Hydro-Québec looking for energy for development in Labrador, they are going to get the best industrial rates in Atlantic Canada? Not likely. Hydro Quebec’s history is to seek the best deal for itself..." Yes Premier that is the point and we want you to prove that this current proposed deal is the best for us.
7. You are not the Premier of Atlantic Canada (Atlantica) or the Premier of mining companies or publicly traded companies you are the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prove that what you are doing is best for us - not them.
8. Prove that you are supplying ALL information to us and that none is being withheld.
9. The people are concerned that they are being bullied into this deal - wherein if you ask questions or are opposed to this proposed undertaking - they will be called partisan, naysayers, armchair critics, or worse. The people are concerned that there may be opposition to the deal inside the walls of Nalcor and government but they cannot speak for fear of repercussion. The same could be true for businesses and organizations who rely on government support either fiscally or from a policy perspective.
10. You have not proven that other options for generation or development of any part of the Lower Churchill are not more beneficial than the deal you have proposed.
Either you are being sincere or disingenuous when you challenge the people who employ you. If you are serious - show us the cash, the human resources, and process to respond to your challenge. If not this is just more smoke to cover a rotten deal.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Regional Cooperation = Robbing Newfoundland and Labrador
The word "regional" flows from the lips of our provincial Tories much too loosely.
First of all I must remind each and every one of you accepting a salary from us and stating that for that salary you represent us - that your job is NOT regional growth.
Nova Scotia - New Brunswick - Prince Edward Island and Quebec "region' have their own politicians as well as federal representatives.
Regional to us has meant - the giveaway of the Upper Churchill, the giveaway of fisheries stocks, the giveaway of our people, the giveaway of our secondary processing of minerals, and the giveaway of refining for our top grade oil.
Regional cooperation has not returned resources and people from other provinces including the "region".
We have sent our people to Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island for work. What do they do? Well they process and refine fish, oil, gas, and minerals in these provinces.
We have sent 5000 MW's of power to Quebec at outrageous prices and in return they have created tens of thousands of jobs that we cannot qualify for.
We do not have the transportation infrastructure that other provinces in our region do. In fact our transportation has seen the elimination of railway, inadequate ferry service to Canada, and inadequate search and rescue assets.
We do not have the population growth and size of other provinces and yet we continue to export raw resources and minerals.
Now they want cooperation in order they may take even more hydro resources. We will subsidize power going to Nova Scotia. Why? They (Ottawa included) feel that Muskrat Falls is a good project so we can do OUR SHARE in the reduction of greenhouse gasses. Listen up - the 5000 MW's 5 BILLION Watts that we send from the Upper Churchill is the largest per-capita contribution to greening up in Canada. It is now time to do what we do for us.
We cannot be a "have province" in a region of "have-nots" that have more jobs, people, and infrastructure that we do. Where is our equivalent population growth or where is the lowering of our average age?
How about our cooperation on our fisheries resources?
What did we ultimately get in return? What did we give up? What other provinces benefited from the giveaway of fish stocks to foreign nations? How many communities have we lost?
Tourism numbers - how many tourists in the other provinces in our region? How many do we see?
Regional cooperation has always been a one way benefit and it has not been for us.
Tell me - what have we received from our historic cooperation (giveaway) of our resources? Nothing other than loss of communities, resources, and people.
Then there is Labrador - what can I say? Missing one gold plated highway, search and rescue resources, two smelters, four refineries, and hydro power for all communities.
First of all I must remind each and every one of you accepting a salary from us and stating that for that salary you represent us - that your job is NOT regional growth.
Nova Scotia - New Brunswick - Prince Edward Island and Quebec "region' have their own politicians as well as federal representatives.
Regional to us has meant - the giveaway of the Upper Churchill, the giveaway of fisheries stocks, the giveaway of our people, the giveaway of our secondary processing of minerals, and the giveaway of refining for our top grade oil.
Regional cooperation has not returned resources and people from other provinces including the "region".
We have sent our people to Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island for work. What do they do? Well they process and refine fish, oil, gas, and minerals in these provinces.
We have sent 5000 MW's of power to Quebec at outrageous prices and in return they have created tens of thousands of jobs that we cannot qualify for.
We do not have the transportation infrastructure that other provinces in our region do. In fact our transportation has seen the elimination of railway, inadequate ferry service to Canada, and inadequate search and rescue assets.
We do not have the population growth and size of other provinces and yet we continue to export raw resources and minerals.
Now they want cooperation in order they may take even more hydro resources. We will subsidize power going to Nova Scotia. Why? They (Ottawa included) feel that Muskrat Falls is a good project so we can do OUR SHARE in the reduction of greenhouse gasses. Listen up - the 5000 MW's 5 BILLION Watts that we send from the Upper Churchill is the largest per-capita contribution to greening up in Canada. It is now time to do what we do for us.
We cannot be a "have province" in a region of "have-nots" that have more jobs, people, and infrastructure that we do. Where is our equivalent population growth or where is the lowering of our average age?
How about our cooperation on our fisheries resources?
What did we ultimately get in return? What did we give up? What other provinces benefited from the giveaway of fish stocks to foreign nations? How many communities have we lost?
Tourism numbers - how many tourists in the other provinces in our region? How many do we see?
Regional cooperation has always been a one way benefit and it has not been for us.
Tell me - what have we received from our historic cooperation (giveaway) of our resources? Nothing other than loss of communities, resources, and people.
Then there is Labrador - what can I say? Missing one gold plated highway, search and rescue resources, two smelters, four refineries, and hydro power for all communities.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Harper Enemy of the State? Premiers must take Action
I always begin my posts on the Prime Minister by reminding the reader that Stephen Harper is a liar. No doubt that causes problems in our nation - not the least of which is setting a very bad example for young Canadians.
Now our "leader" is threatening our country. How? Well this man who sits atop the Canadian political heap is shovelling sh-t (figuratively speaking) and tossing it on the masses below.
Once again this ne'er-do-well is saying no to yet another First Ministers meeting.
Canada consists of provinces and territories and under confederation agree to a federal presence in areas of joint service delivery, national security, and to a certain degree matters of law. Under such terms provinces and territories agree to a federal taxation base provided by personal and corporate interests. Considering the monies raised to allow a country to exist are garnered from these sources - it is necessary and only reasonable that these parties are directly involved in the allocation of those funds.
Harper's insistence on running a one-man state and his determination to design Canada in his vision continues to jeopardize both the national economy and sovereignty. Make no mistake the international corporate giants do have his ear - while the electorate does not. This is a recipe for disaster. Harper's obvious desire to be a CEO should be achieved in private not public service.
The Premier's for their part are starting to wear some of the blame here. It is unacceptable to be ignored by the federal government and therefore the provinces and territories must take action to correct this problem. The whining of these individuals to the media has not and will not achieve regular meetings with Harper.
As Quebeckers go to the polls my instinct tells me that this is a real problem for Charest and will become a bigger problem as the dog days of summer continue to the fall. This in turn may cause additional and constitutional problems as we head into the winter of our discontent.
The people of Canada elect their respective provincial governments and they fully expect these politicians to represent their interests in the federation. If they fail in doing so - the people look to the media for proper questioning of the situation. I cannot think of anything more important in Canada right now than the state of communication, collaboration, and cooperation between the PMO and the Premier's. This means a first Ministers meeting must occur at least on an annual basis.
Currently the aloof Harper is winning the battle without having to raise a sword. This is not acceptable.
The Premiers, media, and federal MPs have the responsibility to deal with this situation or run the risk that Harper's spoiled honey will stick to them.
Now our "leader" is threatening our country. How? Well this man who sits atop the Canadian political heap is shovelling sh-t (figuratively speaking) and tossing it on the masses below.
Once again this ne'er-do-well is saying no to yet another First Ministers meeting.
Canada consists of provinces and territories and under confederation agree to a federal presence in areas of joint service delivery, national security, and to a certain degree matters of law. Under such terms provinces and territories agree to a federal taxation base provided by personal and corporate interests. Considering the monies raised to allow a country to exist are garnered from these sources - it is necessary and only reasonable that these parties are directly involved in the allocation of those funds.
Harper's insistence on running a one-man state and his determination to design Canada in his vision continues to jeopardize both the national economy and sovereignty. Make no mistake the international corporate giants do have his ear - while the electorate does not. This is a recipe for disaster. Harper's obvious desire to be a CEO should be achieved in private not public service.
The Premier's for their part are starting to wear some of the blame here. It is unacceptable to be ignored by the federal government and therefore the provinces and territories must take action to correct this problem. The whining of these individuals to the media has not and will not achieve regular meetings with Harper.
As Quebeckers go to the polls my instinct tells me that this is a real problem for Charest and will become a bigger problem as the dog days of summer continue to the fall. This in turn may cause additional and constitutional problems as we head into the winter of our discontent.
The people of Canada elect their respective provincial governments and they fully expect these politicians to represent their interests in the federation. If they fail in doing so - the people look to the media for proper questioning of the situation. I cannot think of anything more important in Canada right now than the state of communication, collaboration, and cooperation between the PMO and the Premier's. This means a first Ministers meeting must occur at least on an annual basis.
Currently the aloof Harper is winning the battle without having to raise a sword. This is not acceptable.
The Premiers, media, and federal MPs have the responsibility to deal with this situation or run the risk that Harper's spoiled honey will stick to them.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Reason for Emera not Hydro Quebec? We Will Pay!
And so the fiasco which is the Muskrat Falls deal with Emera continues.
So how about we ask the following questions:
1. Would Quebec agree to a 20-20 deal that is 20% cost = 20% power output - considering overruns would be at our cost not theirs?
2. Would the construction be cheaper with Quebec?
3. Which company would give us better opportunities into the marketplace?
4. What about the ownership of the transmission route?
In my estimation a deal with Quebec would be more beneficial and could accommodate the Gull Island component as well.
In my estimation a deal with Quebec could give us greater returns at a lower cost.
In my estimation the only thing that is really different about the two potential partners is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Quebec are Crown Corporations owned by the people - whereas Emera is private.
That means the rich bugs get more and the people get less.
Straight forward explanation for a disaster of a project.
Better than all of the above - use the power in Labrador with industrial partners.
30 years of gouging so that particular interests make a fortune. That ladies and gentlemen is our history. Congratulations to the current nitwits who are facilitating the giveaway.
So how about we ask the following questions:
1. Would Quebec agree to a 20-20 deal that is 20% cost = 20% power output - considering overruns would be at our cost not theirs?
2. Would the construction be cheaper with Quebec?
3. Which company would give us better opportunities into the marketplace?
4. What about the ownership of the transmission route?
In my estimation a deal with Quebec would be more beneficial and could accommodate the Gull Island component as well.
In my estimation a deal with Quebec could give us greater returns at a lower cost.
In my estimation the only thing that is really different about the two potential partners is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Quebec are Crown Corporations owned by the people - whereas Emera is private.
That means the rich bugs get more and the people get less.
Straight forward explanation for a disaster of a project.
Better than all of the above - use the power in Labrador with industrial partners.
30 years of gouging so that particular interests make a fortune. That ladies and gentlemen is our history. Congratulations to the current nitwits who are facilitating the giveaway.
Friday, June 29, 2012
RIM - Time for Stock Innovation
Okay - I do like my Blackberry and PlayBook. I like the fact that this is a Canadian Company.
You have fallen on hard times - time for some more innovation.
How about you offer shares with the sale of your products.
Buy a Playbook for $200 get 20 shares. Let us in - let average Canadians in on the action.
People buying your products now are afraid - it's risky - are you going to be there in a month.
For the risk - offer shares.
Market your innovation, your history, and your maple leaf.
Surely the shareholders that remain would go for something that has a real chance of recovering value.
You want a chance to show your stuff again - you need time - you need shareholders.
Come on Research in Motion - get mobile - and share a Cinderella story with fellow Canadians. Go from Province to Province and meet with people. Do the BBQ circuit. Time for the Nerds to let loose and seek support from those of us who use your technology and support it.
You have fallen on hard times - time for some more innovation.
How about you offer shares with the sale of your products.
Buy a Playbook for $200 get 20 shares. Let us in - let average Canadians in on the action.
People buying your products now are afraid - it's risky - are you going to be there in a month.
For the risk - offer shares.
Market your innovation, your history, and your maple leaf.
Surely the shareholders that remain would go for something that has a real chance of recovering value.
You want a chance to show your stuff again - you need time - you need shareholders.
Come on Research in Motion - get mobile - and share a Cinderella story with fellow Canadians. Go from Province to Province and meet with people. Do the BBQ circuit. Time for the Nerds to let loose and seek support from those of us who use your technology and support it.
Friday, June 08, 2012
Poll on Muskrat/Emera Deal Disastrous?
The Premier's comments yesterday to the media may have revealed poll results we have not seen.
While answering the question posed by CBC's David Cochrane - as to why she thought the polls were down for the PC's - Dunderdale referred to what appeared to be negative issues.
Dunderdale listed the fisheries closures, search and rescue, federal cuts, and MUSKRAT FALLS.
The Premier also mentioned that they won the biggest poll - the election last fall.
Then the Premier added that tough decisions or things not going great are bound to cause poll fluctuation but that she did not govern by polls.
Which is it I wonder?
Then as if explaining how or why Muskrat might be negative - Dunderdale claimed there was a lot of "propaganda" around on the project.
The Premier seemed more than certain that the Emera/Nalcor proposed project on Muskrat was currently suffering a negative reaction from the public.
Where are the polls on this project?
There was no problem with polls during the election - including these "freebie" polls by MQO spouting very disastrous numbers for the opposition parties.
Has the government done polling on Muskrat? What do you think?
Then the woman who had no problem with the polling numbers during the election - threw in a hint - that perhaps this time - or any time when the PC's are losing ground - the polls may be wrong.
She asked reporters to look at the Alison Redford scenario in Alberta where the polls said she should be in Opposition - yet she is now the Premier.
Considering the dollars needed to do Muskrat between 6 and 8 billion - do you believe there have not been polls done?
Where are the polls on this project?
While answering the question posed by CBC's David Cochrane - as to why she thought the polls were down for the PC's - Dunderdale referred to what appeared to be negative issues.
Dunderdale listed the fisheries closures, search and rescue, federal cuts, and MUSKRAT FALLS.
The Premier also mentioned that they won the biggest poll - the election last fall.
Then the Premier added that tough decisions or things not going great are bound to cause poll fluctuation but that she did not govern by polls.
Which is it I wonder?
Then as if explaining how or why Muskrat might be negative - Dunderdale claimed there was a lot of "propaganda" around on the project.
The Premier seemed more than certain that the Emera/Nalcor proposed project on Muskrat was currently suffering a negative reaction from the public.
Where are the polls on this project?
There was no problem with polls during the election - including these "freebie" polls by MQO spouting very disastrous numbers for the opposition parties.
Has the government done polling on Muskrat? What do you think?
Then the woman who had no problem with the polling numbers during the election - threw in a hint - that perhaps this time - or any time when the PC's are losing ground - the polls may be wrong.
She asked reporters to look at the Alison Redford scenario in Alberta where the polls said she should be in Opposition - yet she is now the Premier.
Considering the dollars needed to do Muskrat between 6 and 8 billion - do you believe there have not been polls done?
Where are the polls on this project?
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Will Dunderdale Hire MacDonald for Muskrat Falls Debacle?
Please read the VOCM news story below:
[Premier Kathy Dunderdale says there will be no public survey commissioned to ask residents about their opinions on Muskrat Falls. Last week Dunderdale announced that government will be sending out a flyer with information she says residents need to know about the hydro development. Dunderdale says a survey will not be part of that information process. Dunderdale says to ask residents about the technicalities of the Muskrat project would be beyond the scope of most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.]
Clearly the Premier plans to continue mocking the people by questioning their intelligence and ability to understand the expenditure of billions of dollars and the reasons for that expenditure.
I ask the Premier - what special ability does she have that makes her any more able to understand the project? In fact - she's the one ultimately setting the direction and guiding decisions and in this regard I want to ensure that the project is not beyond her scope of understanding. In my opinion it is.
Then enter Dean MacDonald who supports the project but dismisses Dunderdale's ability to sell it. Well - Danny has been a mentor for both - so perhaps he can step in and control the fuss.
Dunderdale seemed willing to accept the accolades given to the project by Dean - when it was politically expedient but is she willing to take the slings and arrows from him regarding her ability to present the merits of the project?
From where any reasonably minded person sits - Danny appears to be controlling the Liberals and the PC's at the same time. Either that is by agreement of the parties involved or they are too naive or power hungry to see.
The backbenchers must be really confused as:
1. The Premier probably considers they are among the "most" Newfoundlanders and Labradorians she speaks of, and
2. They must not know who the real leader is.
In either case both of them - Dean and Kathy - want to play up their own intellectual prowess beyond the ordinary mortal and both dismiss the intelligence of the people.
This is an improvisational comedy playing out before us and we must remind these comics that monopoly money is fine - but playing with real resources and tax dollars is not acceptable.
Then again - I can't help but wonder if the Monopoly property names won't repeat themselves in Dannyville while ordinary mortals have to pay $30,000 for a cottage lot.
[Premier Kathy Dunderdale says there will be no public survey commissioned to ask residents about their opinions on Muskrat Falls. Last week Dunderdale announced that government will be sending out a flyer with information she says residents need to know about the hydro development. Dunderdale says a survey will not be part of that information process. Dunderdale says to ask residents about the technicalities of the Muskrat project would be beyond the scope of most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.]
Clearly the Premier plans to continue mocking the people by questioning their intelligence and ability to understand the expenditure of billions of dollars and the reasons for that expenditure.
I ask the Premier - what special ability does she have that makes her any more able to understand the project? In fact - she's the one ultimately setting the direction and guiding decisions and in this regard I want to ensure that the project is not beyond her scope of understanding. In my opinion it is.
Then enter Dean MacDonald who supports the project but dismisses Dunderdale's ability to sell it. Well - Danny has been a mentor for both - so perhaps he can step in and control the fuss.
Dunderdale seemed willing to accept the accolades given to the project by Dean - when it was politically expedient but is she willing to take the slings and arrows from him regarding her ability to present the merits of the project?
From where any reasonably minded person sits - Danny appears to be controlling the Liberals and the PC's at the same time. Either that is by agreement of the parties involved or they are too naive or power hungry to see.
The backbenchers must be really confused as:
1. The Premier probably considers they are among the "most" Newfoundlanders and Labradorians she speaks of, and
2. They must not know who the real leader is.
In either case both of them - Dean and Kathy - want to play up their own intellectual prowess beyond the ordinary mortal and both dismiss the intelligence of the people.
This is an improvisational comedy playing out before us and we must remind these comics that monopoly money is fine - but playing with real resources and tax dollars is not acceptable.
Then again - I can't help but wonder if the Monopoly property names won't repeat themselves in Dannyville while ordinary mortals have to pay $30,000 for a cottage lot.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
More taxpayer dollars up in Smoke? Make the Call!
Here is the situation:
B.C., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island are retaining a national legal team to help them prosecute Canadian tobacco companies.
Why are these provinces teamed together?
The provincial governments believe that because of the many common elements of the claims, combining forces with other provinces and co-ordinating legal resources will bring their cases to trial faster.
What is the cost?
Is it cheaper for each province?
So what is Newfoundland and Labrador doing?
Ask Dunderdale or Williams. What is the cost of our legal team that includes the law firm of Roebothan, McKay, Marshall - the law firm previously headed up by Danny Williams?
Will they tell us the compensation terms of our legal team?
Where are the questions? Why are they not being asked?
All the media has to do is "make the call". It costs absolutely nothing to "make the call".
Perhaps Manitoba could confirm for us "independently" if the way are approaching this lawsuit is the lowest possible alternative.
B.C., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island are retaining a national legal team to help them prosecute Canadian tobacco companies.
Why are these provinces teamed together?
The provincial governments believe that because of the many common elements of the claims, combining forces with other provinces and co-ordinating legal resources will bring their cases to trial faster.
What is the cost?
Is it cheaper for each province?
So what is Newfoundland and Labrador doing?
Ask Dunderdale or Williams. What is the cost of our legal team that includes the law firm of Roebothan, McKay, Marshall - the law firm previously headed up by Danny Williams?
Will they tell us the compensation terms of our legal team?
Where are the questions? Why are they not being asked?
All the media has to do is "make the call". It costs absolutely nothing to "make the call".
Perhaps Manitoba could confirm for us "independently" if the way are approaching this lawsuit is the lowest possible alternative.
Monday, February 06, 2012
The First Characteristic of a Muskrat
The Characteristics of a Muskrat are very interesting.
First and most importantly it can swim backwards and forwards.
Oh yes - you see up until a couple of years ago - the primary reason for developing Muskrat was to go-around Quebec. There was no talk of imminent power outages or as the Minister says - the need to bring hot bricks to bed with you. No it was not from cold houses - it was from a frosty relationship with Hydro-Quebec and Quebec.
Now how do you justify spending us into debt oblivion and catapulting our power bills beyond affordability? Well fighting with Quebec would not do it - so a power crisis might work.
I want you all to think back before the Emera deal was concocted. Who was talking about the emergency need to develop power for the Island? Where is that in Hansard?
We must believe that nobody in their right mind would seek to spend 6 billion of our dollars - unless we were so desperate for power that we would be living in third world conditions - if we did not heed the warning.
This being the assumption from Nalcor and Government - when did they first realize the crisis was upon us?
We have had years and years of people complaining about the Holyrood power-plant pollution. I don't remember once when government said - the ONLY solution was to develop Muskrat Falls - and more particularly doing so separately from Gull Island.
When Williams was first talking to Quebec or about Quebec - it was to develop all of the Lower Churchill for export and for some industry use in Labrador. There was talk of renegotiating terms of the Upper Churchill before any deal on the Lower Churchill was reached.
I will say this once more and as many times as needed. We have been running out of power for decades according to reports from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We should have run out in 1980 - 1990 - 2000 - and now 2016.
Meanwhile our population has shrunk by almost 15% since the crisis was first identified. Power intense industries have continued to disappear on the Island. Houses are more efficient as are the appliances we use in them.
Show me where Williams was concerned about shortage of power for the Island portion of our province prior to the Emera fiasco?
If this assumption is fundamentally flawed - how then could any independent review detect that - without open - unfettered - access to all the information? It can't - so once again - government denies people the whole truth.
Swim - swim - backwards and forwards.
First and most importantly it can swim backwards and forwards.
Oh yes - you see up until a couple of years ago - the primary reason for developing Muskrat was to go-around Quebec. There was no talk of imminent power outages or as the Minister says - the need to bring hot bricks to bed with you. No it was not from cold houses - it was from a frosty relationship with Hydro-Quebec and Quebec.
Now how do you justify spending us into debt oblivion and catapulting our power bills beyond affordability? Well fighting with Quebec would not do it - so a power crisis might work.
I want you all to think back before the Emera deal was concocted. Who was talking about the emergency need to develop power for the Island? Where is that in Hansard?
We must believe that nobody in their right mind would seek to spend 6 billion of our dollars - unless we were so desperate for power that we would be living in third world conditions - if we did not heed the warning.
This being the assumption from Nalcor and Government - when did they first realize the crisis was upon us?
We have had years and years of people complaining about the Holyrood power-plant pollution. I don't remember once when government said - the ONLY solution was to develop Muskrat Falls - and more particularly doing so separately from Gull Island.
When Williams was first talking to Quebec or about Quebec - it was to develop all of the Lower Churchill for export and for some industry use in Labrador. There was talk of renegotiating terms of the Upper Churchill before any deal on the Lower Churchill was reached.
I will say this once more and as many times as needed. We have been running out of power for decades according to reports from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We should have run out in 1980 - 1990 - 2000 - and now 2016.
Meanwhile our population has shrunk by almost 15% since the crisis was first identified. Power intense industries have continued to disappear on the Island. Houses are more efficient as are the appliances we use in them.
Show me where Williams was concerned about shortage of power for the Island portion of our province prior to the Emera fiasco?
If this assumption is fundamentally flawed - how then could any independent review detect that - without open - unfettered - access to all the information? It can't - so once again - government denies people the whole truth.
Swim - swim - backwards and forwards.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The House of Dis-Assembly - Get your Act(s) Together
Okay now maybe I get it. If the House of Assembly were opened now - the questions would be primarily about closures, downsizing, rationalizing, outsourcing, and generally the disassembling of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Seal Harvest
Fish Plants
Shipbuilding
Fabrication
Old Harry
New Energy
Old Stephen
New Stephen
Lost Jobs
Lost Communities
Lost Plants
Abandoned Proposals
Federal Cuts
Marine Atlantic
Paper Mills
Aging Population
If Danny were Premier now would he admit the Hip and Coolest Province in this Country today is Nova Scotia? He should - he has been a real part of their growth. Try and compare the headlines over the past year for Nova Scotia and then do the same for Newfoundland and Labrador.
No worries the House of Dis-Assembly has more important things to deal with - like perhaps how much money each side gets to generate no ideas, no questions, and from our government - how low can we go? The reality is - they each have a compliment of staff - plenty to do what is necessary to keep this government in check. Is it fair? No probably not - but get on with it - with the numbers you have there is no trouble challenging this government.
They should remember all the bloggers - most have other jobs - look at the questions they generate, the news stories they cause, the talk shows they fuel and all that for what? Okay Stephen (NL Blogroll) we need you to head up a committee on this. The government spends more time on the local Bloggers sites than searching through the policy papers, News Releases, or studies generated by the Opposition parties.
And finally this recommendation: your new bedtime story should be a Chapter of the Auditor General's Annual Report. Happy Reading.
Seal Harvest
Fish Plants
Shipbuilding
Fabrication
Old Harry
New Energy
Old Stephen
New Stephen
Lost Jobs
Lost Communities
Lost Plants
Abandoned Proposals
Federal Cuts
Marine Atlantic
Paper Mills
Aging Population
If Danny were Premier now would he admit the Hip and Coolest Province in this Country today is Nova Scotia? He should - he has been a real part of their growth. Try and compare the headlines over the past year for Nova Scotia and then do the same for Newfoundland and Labrador.
No worries the House of Dis-Assembly has more important things to deal with - like perhaps how much money each side gets to generate no ideas, no questions, and from our government - how low can we go? The reality is - they each have a compliment of staff - plenty to do what is necessary to keep this government in check. Is it fair? No probably not - but get on with it - with the numbers you have there is no trouble challenging this government.
They should remember all the bloggers - most have other jobs - look at the questions they generate, the news stories they cause, the talk shows they fuel and all that for what? Okay Stephen (NL Blogroll) we need you to head up a committee on this. The government spends more time on the local Bloggers sites than searching through the policy papers, News Releases, or studies generated by the Opposition parties.
And finally this recommendation: your new bedtime story should be a Chapter of the Auditor General's Annual Report. Happy Reading.
Monday, January 16, 2012
One by One - What did Danny Williams mean?
"Mr.
Speaker, would the Premier confirm what was told to the private meeting in
Labrador, that at the end of construction of this multi-billion development of
our resource, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will only get fifty - fifty, Mr.
Speaker - long-term jobs while Quebec will use more of our cheap power to
create thousands of new jobs for Quebecers?"
The above statement was made by Danny Williams in the House of Assembly when he was the Leader of the Opposition.
Please advise the public of Newfoundland and Labrador what you meant by this question?
What long-term jobs will Newfoundland and Labrador get after the construction of the Muskrat Falls project?
How many long-term jobs will be created in Nova Scotia?
What have you done any differently with this Emera Deal?
What exactly were you opposing Mr. Williams?
What were you implying?
What is the percentage of long-term jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians compared to what will be created for Nova Scotians?
Will the media ask these questions? It is for the record right?
The above statement was made by Danny Williams in the House of Assembly when he was the Leader of the Opposition.
Please advise the public of Newfoundland and Labrador what you meant by this question?
What long-term jobs will Newfoundland and Labrador get after the construction of the Muskrat Falls project?
How many long-term jobs will be created in Nova Scotia?
What have you done any differently with this Emera Deal?
What exactly were you opposing Mr. Williams?
What were you implying?
What is the percentage of long-term jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians compared to what will be created for Nova Scotians?
Will the media ask these questions? It is for the record right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)