Budget 2015 is an embarrassment. It is an acknowledgement of abject failure in the running of provincial finances.
The Tories just love to remind people regularly about the past Liberal governments and point to this and that.
So for the next week or so I will blog on what the PC's said when in Opposition. It will of course be relevant to this years budget.
Budget 2003 Loyola Sullivan expressed this point of view:
Mr. Speaker, when the government brought down its election budget just two
weeks ago, they justified quadrupling the deficit and increasing the Province's
debt to well over $11 billion by saying they were only listening to the will of
the people.
In that same breath, the Minister of Finance said she plans to
privatize the provision of long-term care in Corner Brook Mr. Speaker, the Romanow Commission into Canada's health care system
recently reported that the overwhelming majority of Canadians do not want a
private health care system. My question for the Premier is this: Why is it that
his government is prepared to listen to the people in order to justify its
election budget, but is not prepared to listen to the people when it comes to
privatizing health care? Could it be that government is only interested in
listening to the people when it suits their political agenda? (emphasis added)
Good question Minister Sullivan. Now let's see if we can get Steve Kent or the Premier to answer it.
Let's all remember that this current government has enjoyed a wealth of revenues from oil and minerals that previous governments did not have. Let's all remember the majority of that wealth came from deals made by the previous Liberal administration.
This budget must be defeated.
Showing posts with label corner brook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corner brook. Show all posts
Friday, May 01, 2015
Thursday, April 09, 2015
Role of the Media - Dunphy death
This morning - fourth day after the shooting death of Don Dunphy.
Yesterday we were informed that the RCMP has called in retired justice David Riche to oversee the independence and thoroughness of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.
Clearly this is a good decision and one which I hope sets the stage for a continued presence of logic into this tragic death.
It is also comforting to see local lawyers weigh in with commentary on the processes of investigation and policies of the police forces. Having the discussion means we are moving away from the cloak of secrecy.
The media response to this horrific event must also be placed under scrutiny. How our journalists cover such events is also essential to the integrity of the justice system.
Let me start here:
Almost immediately following the death of Mr. Dunphy - media reports stated that "source/s told" followed by a proclamation that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun at the officer before he was shot and killed by the officer.
Let me point out what was glaring in its absence. The name of the officer. It was and continues to be protected by all. The media had sources close enough to the investigation to inform the public that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun - but not close enough to say "source/s" told ... the officer's name is .... and he/she has ___ years of service and has the following rank. Does the officer have a lawyer? What does he/she say?
In the past few days the media has been hunting down and reporting that sources/s said what type of person Mr. Dunphy was - his family - his means of income. We feel as if we know the guy. The family through a lawyer has had to ask for privacy during their time of mourning.
What do we know about the officer? Surely "sources/s" must have told the media who the officer was. Or did the "source/s" stick to what Mr. Dunphy allegedly did on that fateful Easter Sunday.
This is - by the way exactly what fuelled the fire in Ferguson. It is part of what continues to haunt the residents of that town in the USA.
We need some answers on this and what the media deems okay to report. I believe some of the media know who the officer is and are simply respecting a privacy request.
Let me add this:
In the past week we have had two citizens of our province involved with police regarding perceived "threats" on Twitter.
The first is Mr. Dunphy and he is deceased. He was killed by an plain clothed officer in an unmarked SUV who went to the Dunphy residence by himself.
The second reported event is the detention of Andrew Abbass of Corner Brook. This man was apparently taken from his home by two RNC officers and detained under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act. Mr. Abbass is still alive.
Has there been an internal change in policy at the RNC?
Two individuals that allegedly may have threatened politicians through twitter - treated completely differently. Why?
First Mr. Dunphy was in RCMP turf but the RNC responded - while in Corner Brook RNC turf the RNC responded.
In Mr. Dunphy's case there was one plain clothed officer while in the case of Mr. Abbass there were two uniformed officers.
Mr. Abbass has reported that the RNC telephoned him and asked him to come to the station prior to the detention at his home. What about Mr. Dunphy - was he asked to come in? Was he told an officer was coming? Was there a warrant?
How about the media start "working their sources" and get some answers to these questions.
Let me end by saying that while it's great that a healthy discussion has started by ordinary citizens, municipal leaders, and lawyers - we must have an independent inquiry on the death of Mr. Dunphy.
Regardless of whether the investigation finds fault or no fault with the officer - the events that lead to this horrific outcome must be thoroughly vetted through an independent and public process.
Yesterday we were informed that the RCMP has called in retired justice David Riche to oversee the independence and thoroughness of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.
Clearly this is a good decision and one which I hope sets the stage for a continued presence of logic into this tragic death.
It is also comforting to see local lawyers weigh in with commentary on the processes of investigation and policies of the police forces. Having the discussion means we are moving away from the cloak of secrecy.
The media response to this horrific event must also be placed under scrutiny. How our journalists cover such events is also essential to the integrity of the justice system.
Let me start here:
Almost immediately following the death of Mr. Dunphy - media reports stated that "source/s told" followed by a proclamation that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun at the officer before he was shot and killed by the officer.
Let me point out what was glaring in its absence. The name of the officer. It was and continues to be protected by all. The media had sources close enough to the investigation to inform the public that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun - but not close enough to say "source/s" told ... the officer's name is .... and he/she has ___ years of service and has the following rank. Does the officer have a lawyer? What does he/she say?
In the past few days the media has been hunting down and reporting that sources/s said what type of person Mr. Dunphy was - his family - his means of income. We feel as if we know the guy. The family through a lawyer has had to ask for privacy during their time of mourning.
What do we know about the officer? Surely "sources/s" must have told the media who the officer was. Or did the "source/s" stick to what Mr. Dunphy allegedly did on that fateful Easter Sunday.
This is - by the way exactly what fuelled the fire in Ferguson. It is part of what continues to haunt the residents of that town in the USA.
We need some answers on this and what the media deems okay to report. I believe some of the media know who the officer is and are simply respecting a privacy request.
Let me add this:
In the past week we have had two citizens of our province involved with police regarding perceived "threats" on Twitter.
The first is Mr. Dunphy and he is deceased. He was killed by an plain clothed officer in an unmarked SUV who went to the Dunphy residence by himself.
The second reported event is the detention of Andrew Abbass of Corner Brook. This man was apparently taken from his home by two RNC officers and detained under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act. Mr. Abbass is still alive.
Has there been an internal change in policy at the RNC?
Two individuals that allegedly may have threatened politicians through twitter - treated completely differently. Why?
First Mr. Dunphy was in RCMP turf but the RNC responded - while in Corner Brook RNC turf the RNC responded.
In Mr. Dunphy's case there was one plain clothed officer while in the case of Mr. Abbass there were two uniformed officers.
Mr. Abbass has reported that the RNC telephoned him and asked him to come to the station prior to the detention at his home. What about Mr. Dunphy - was he asked to come in? Was he told an officer was coming? Was there a warrant?
How about the media start "working their sources" and get some answers to these questions.
Let me end by saying that while it's great that a healthy discussion has started by ordinary citizens, municipal leaders, and lawyers - we must have an independent inquiry on the death of Mr. Dunphy.
Regardless of whether the investigation finds fault or no fault with the officer - the events that lead to this horrific outcome must be thoroughly vetted through an independent and public process.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Corner Brook company Turning Heads with creative idea...
Marble Auto Gallery a seller of premium, luxury, exotic and antique cars in Corner Brook has combined the love of cars and love of Western Newfoundland to create a one-of-a-kind plan to put a Car and Driver journalist and an Autoblog journalist in a dream car and make their way from California to our province's west coast.
In an hour there have been over 400 likes on Autoblog.com's Facebook Page with plenty of comments coming in from all over the world.
This car: 1999 Ferrari 355 Spider
is now on route and will be enjoying the beautiful west coast of our province in 12 days - having travelled some 8500 km's to get here.
There will be many posts along the way and no doubt stirring up some major interest in Newfoundland and Labrador
The drivers
Johnathon Ramsey Associate Editor Autoblog.com who writes:
No matter how many new boxes the court system, the human resource department, the college admissions office and the census come up with, we know that people are wildly ill-defined by their specs. And no matter how delightfully we atomize everything with wheels, cars – the most enjoyable ones, at least – are just as impossible-to-pin down as the humanoids who pilot them. That’s the world of transportation that interests me. Sure, it’s handy to pencil in some of the details, but we don’t drive details – we drive cars, camions, bi-, moto- and tricycles, Robins and roadsters, Gumperts and Gmunds and Goggomobils and anything with a motor and a “Go!” button. Where the spec sheets end and the high mountain road begins, that’s the story worth telling.
Can't wait to see what his posts are on both the car and Newfoundland and Labrador.
and
James Tate of Car and Driver - MSN Autos has this to say about James:
Cut his teeth in the business as a race team crew member before moving to the editorial side as Senior Editor of Sport Compact Car, and his work has appeared in Popular Mechanics, Automobile, Motor Trend and European Car. When not writing, Tate is usually fantasizing about a vintage Porsche 911.
So all in all this is a great promotion for auto travellers who want to experience our beautiful province - our coastlines - mountains - fjords - parks - history - and culture.
No doubt the people from the west coast will deliver a warm welcome demonstrating once again how friendly and hospitable our people are.
Congratulations to this new company in Corner Brook - Marble Auto Gallery for putting together such an interesting promotion for both our province and the company.
For all you car enthusiasts in our province - and there are many - the west coast is the place to be in a couple of weeks.
In an hour there have been over 400 likes on Autoblog.com's Facebook Page with plenty of comments coming in from all over the world.
This car: 1999 Ferrari 355 Spider
is now on route and will be enjoying the beautiful west coast of our province in 12 days - having travelled some 8500 km's to get here.
There will be many posts along the way and no doubt stirring up some major interest in Newfoundland and Labrador
The drivers
Johnathon Ramsey Associate Editor Autoblog.com who writes:
No matter how many new boxes the court system, the human resource department, the college admissions office and the census come up with, we know that people are wildly ill-defined by their specs. And no matter how delightfully we atomize everything with wheels, cars – the most enjoyable ones, at least – are just as impossible-to-pin down as the humanoids who pilot them. That’s the world of transportation that interests me. Sure, it’s handy to pencil in some of the details, but we don’t drive details – we drive cars, camions, bi-, moto- and tricycles, Robins and roadsters, Gumperts and Gmunds and Goggomobils and anything with a motor and a “Go!” button. Where the spec sheets end and the high mountain road begins, that’s the story worth telling.
Can't wait to see what his posts are on both the car and Newfoundland and Labrador.
and
James Tate of Car and Driver - MSN Autos has this to say about James:
Cut his teeth in the business as a race team crew member before moving to the editorial side as Senior Editor of Sport Compact Car, and his work has appeared in Popular Mechanics, Automobile, Motor Trend and European Car. When not writing, Tate is usually fantasizing about a vintage Porsche 911.
So all in all this is a great promotion for auto travellers who want to experience our beautiful province - our coastlines - mountains - fjords - parks - history - and culture.
No doubt the people from the west coast will deliver a warm welcome demonstrating once again how friendly and hospitable our people are.
Congratulations to this new company in Corner Brook - Marble Auto Gallery for putting together such an interesting promotion for both our province and the company.
For all you car enthusiasts in our province - and there are many - the west coast is the place to be in a couple of weeks.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Minister Jerome Kennedy - Running Interference?
Let's look at the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Mill situation using logic.
Minister Jerome Kennedy is accusing Gerry Byrne MP of escalating the situation. He says that what Byrne is doing is not helpful.
The Premier made her position clear - let the union and company work out their issues.
So when Kennedy stated that the mill was on the "verge of bankruptcy" - he demonstrated hypocrisy and absolutely acted contrary to the Premier's wishes.
First of all - Joesph Kruger the owner of the mill - did not state publicly that the mill was on the "verge of bankruptcy". This means either Kennedy was negligent and out of his authority when he made the statement - or Kennedy was speaking with the full approval of Kruger.
If it is the first - Kennedy has done more harm than anybody else could with respect to the continued operation of the mill and if it is the second - then the Minister is acting as an agent of the company.
If Joseph Kruger wanted to cause a panic in the workforce of the mill - in order to gain an unfair contract - he certainly was backed up by the Minister.
If the mill is - in fact - on the "verge of bankruptcy" then let that statement come from Kruger himself. In that way the bankers, the city, workers, and taxpayers will take note and judge their actions accordingly.
But the Minister was very cute what he said was "based on what we know" the mill is on the "verge of bankruptcy" - leaving the province clear in the event the statement was found to be false or misleading.
If the statement is misleading or false it serves only to pressure employees to accept something/anything in a panic.
If the statement is true then it should have been made by Kruger himself - followed by absolute direction such as entering a process with suppliers, banks, and the union to prevent bankruptcy and determine a long-term viability plan.
Instead the only thing Kruger did was to deliver an ultimatum which essentially said that a deal MUST be reached with the union by this Friday or the mill would close.
In normal circumstances the union may have seen this as a negotiation tactic of a hardball capitalist. But the circumstances were changed by ministerial interference when Kennedy made reference to bankruptcy.
There is no doubt the Gerry Byrne is a political animal from the Tobin era. He was raised by him (politically speaking) - and no doubt has learned how to talk to the electorate - like him. On this issue though what Byrne has offered up is probably helpful - at least to the workers. Byrne was discussing like he usually does - with reports and figures - a topic that is of great importance to his constituents.
I have no idea what Kennedy was doing - but I'm guessing based on the "information available to me" that he was running interference for Kruger. The Minister should know that Kruger is not a part of his electorate.
Minister Jerome Kennedy is accusing Gerry Byrne MP of escalating the situation. He says that what Byrne is doing is not helpful.
The Premier made her position clear - let the union and company work out their issues.
So when Kennedy stated that the mill was on the "verge of bankruptcy" - he demonstrated hypocrisy and absolutely acted contrary to the Premier's wishes.
First of all - Joesph Kruger the owner of the mill - did not state publicly that the mill was on the "verge of bankruptcy". This means either Kennedy was negligent and out of his authority when he made the statement - or Kennedy was speaking with the full approval of Kruger.
If it is the first - Kennedy has done more harm than anybody else could with respect to the continued operation of the mill and if it is the second - then the Minister is acting as an agent of the company.
If Joseph Kruger wanted to cause a panic in the workforce of the mill - in order to gain an unfair contract - he certainly was backed up by the Minister.
If the mill is - in fact - on the "verge of bankruptcy" then let that statement come from Kruger himself. In that way the bankers, the city, workers, and taxpayers will take note and judge their actions accordingly.
But the Minister was very cute what he said was "based on what we know" the mill is on the "verge of bankruptcy" - leaving the province clear in the event the statement was found to be false or misleading.
If the statement is misleading or false it serves only to pressure employees to accept something/anything in a panic.
If the statement is true then it should have been made by Kruger himself - followed by absolute direction such as entering a process with suppliers, banks, and the union to prevent bankruptcy and determine a long-term viability plan.
Instead the only thing Kruger did was to deliver an ultimatum which essentially said that a deal MUST be reached with the union by this Friday or the mill would close.
In normal circumstances the union may have seen this as a negotiation tactic of a hardball capitalist. But the circumstances were changed by ministerial interference when Kennedy made reference to bankruptcy.
There is no doubt the Gerry Byrne is a political animal from the Tobin era. He was raised by him (politically speaking) - and no doubt has learned how to talk to the electorate - like him. On this issue though what Byrne has offered up is probably helpful - at least to the workers. Byrne was discussing like he usually does - with reports and figures - a topic that is of great importance to his constituents.
I have no idea what Kennedy was doing - but I'm guessing based on the "information available to me" that he was running interference for Kruger. The Minister should know that Kruger is not a part of his electorate.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Clyde Jackman - huh?
What was it the Minister said this morning? Sue agrees with the roads!!!!
I know he made one thing clear - they are the government and they will decide the fate of Lower Churchill Power - not the people - no debate.
He did not answer the big question - why export power?
There will be no future without power.
As for Grenfell - my question was for the students. What would they prefer money be spent on?
Then there was the irony of Brent Quilty's campaigner - wondering why Sue does not SEEM to support Grenfell. Number one - my point was - what do the students want. Second as for money on the East Coast versus elsewhere - I am stronger than Wiliiams and Jackman on that one.
Labrador Power for Labrador industry - or Labrador Power export for general revenue and some token projects.
Back to Clyde - he's a little upset that I pointed out his clothesline in Toronto and pitcherless mints on a stick logo has netted 500,000 tourists - while Anne of Green Gables keeps knocking the daylights out of our industry - PEI with 750,000 to 1,000,000 tourists a year.
Then there was the annoyance of having to hear the employment numbers.
I know he made one thing clear - they are the government and they will decide the fate of Lower Churchill Power - not the people - no debate.
He did not answer the big question - why export power?
There will be no future without power.
As for Grenfell - my question was for the students. What would they prefer money be spent on?
Then there was the irony of Brent Quilty's campaigner - wondering why Sue does not SEEM to support Grenfell. Number one - my point was - what do the students want. Second as for money on the East Coast versus elsewhere - I am stronger than Wiliiams and Jackman on that one.
Labrador Power for Labrador industry - or Labrador Power export for general revenue and some token projects.
Back to Clyde - he's a little upset that I pointed out his clothesline in Toronto and pitcherless mints on a stick logo has netted 500,000 tourists - while Anne of Green Gables keeps knocking the daylights out of our industry - PEI with 750,000 to 1,000,000 tourists a year.
Then there was the annoyance of having to hear the employment numbers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)