Last night was a spectacle to behold. Dwight Ball's Muskrat dinner was something to forget - if we could.
First let me thank some of the media for tweeting the latest Liberal Party function. Last night was a show of support for Dwight Ball by the party - thereby connecting themselves fully to his disastrous performance on the job.
From a media perspective - any journalist who is willing to portray that what the public (used to be naysayers, partisans, and conspiracy theorists) wants is an Inquiry is ignoring the so-called longstanding opposers to the project.
The indigenous people want the project to stop completely and they want specific material on the North Spur.
The longstanding opposers to the project want and are demanding a forensic audit now.
I believe most want the project to stop until an audit is complete so as the people can review all options for Muskrat Falls.
There is a strong belief that there is corruption, incompetence, straight up lies, hidden information, and incomplete data - regarding the project.
VOCM's question of the day - treats the public as if they got what they wanted with the announcement of an Inquiry. Then it encourages the public (based on that false assumption) to say what they want to find out from an Inquiry. Table #8 was Steele Hotels.
Then there is the permanent speaking note for Ball. "It's too late to stop it now". Then couched in - if I could I would tomorrow. Dwight Ball is just lying here. He uses Stan Marshall to back him up - so that he won't be responsible for that decision.
An Inquiry is going to review a project that will destroy us economically. An Inquiry is like reading a postmortem report. This is not what's going to get us out of this fiasco.
Next thing Ball's managers do is craft a little bit of we will get our way out of this through a new relationship with Quebec. In plain language - we are going cap in hand - completely vulnerable - to a savvy hydro giant to seek help. It means we are giving something else away.
Unbelievably but yet so - the amateur drafter of the speech must have been told that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are so gullible that if we throw in a Donald Trump reference - it will dissuade the discussion of looking at new political options. It must have taken Dwight's administrators some time to get him to understand how he could use the "specter" of "populism".
Finally let's look at the forum used to make such an announcement. Ball did not look to the media for live air-time to talk to the people and present factual data on why the project cannot be stopped or why an Inquiry is better than a forensic audit. He did not use a live appearance to explain why doing a forensic audit now and then being guided by those results to look at options - one being an Inquiry is not the right choice..
So Ball decided - or it was decided for him (he does not make decisions) that a Liberal Party fundraiser was to become a de facto branch of government that can be used when necessary to conduct government business. This is not an issue for the party - it is an issue for the province and her people. This was a disrespectful, idiotic, arrogant and despicable choice of forum.
As $500 a plate meals were served to those thriving off Muskrat - Ball thought he was talking to the people? No he was simply reassuring the corporate elite that despite what the people want - the project would continue and a forensic audit would be avoided right now.
All in all this was a kick in the face to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - and Ball does not mind being used to do this.
Dwight Ball lied last night. Dwight Ball lies all the time.
After he takes his knocks for this - the Party will present an alternative to his leadership - so they can carry on.
As for Siobhon Coady - her absence from all these "decisions" is an attempt to preserve her for another term.
Why Dwight Ball is doing this? I'd have to really look at who he is indebted to and for what. I can assuredly and confidently tell you he is a liar.
Showing posts with label siobhan coady. Show all posts
Showing posts with label siobhan coady. Show all posts
Friday, September 29, 2017
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Post construction hangovers - Muskrat
Newfoundland and Labrador must have the worst record in the developed world for natural resource projects.
As Labrador rises up - rightfully so - against the poisoning of their people - the Island population is in its usual temporary jobs trance.
Premier after Premier in our history promised new wealth and growth through commitments of change in the development of our resources.
Always with the exception of one - we have been let down - robbed - and depressed as these commitments disappeared.
Each and every time the lure of quick and temporary jobs tempers the outcry of the public that we've given something else away.
Can we actually claim that jobs created during the construction of the Upper Churchill were in any way compensatory for the billions of dollars of lost revenue? As we charge Hydro Quebec 1/5th of a cent per kilowatt hour and they sell it at 100 times that - can we really celebrate the construction jobs?
We have done the same with minerals, oil, fish, and forestry.
The mourning of the Upper Churchill contract has been longstanding. There is no way we would ever let that happen again right? We swore - it would never happen again.
Now it has. The Muskrat Falls project is worse than the Upper Churchill - we will pay for this project - our children and grandchildren will pay for this project. Unlike the Upper - this project is over budget - unsafe and unnecessary.
Only yesterday I seen stories of people complaining about being off the job because Labradorians have the gall to demand a reduction in the poisonous aftermath of the flooding.
There is no justification to keep this going.
Here's what we have:
Danny Williams says great deal - many people say not so fast but were ignored by the media and called traitors, conspiracy theorists and naysayers by the politicians.
Williams leaves and then Dunderdale's job is to keep it moving no matter what. Many people were crying stop and warning the population that this project was bad and should be stopped.
The PC's Liberals and NDP allowed the project to keep going.
The PC's delayed the election to allow more money to be spent while the Liberals and NDP permitted the Tories to get away with it.
The media still not tuned in. Continue to ignore the many voices warning the people that this project would cause irreparable harm.
People were once again lured with well paying construction jobs for short-term personal gain - while these very employees were subjecting their own children and grandchildren to years of financial pain and continue to do so.
The unions did their special interest bidding and completely ignored the damage to the province as a whole. One group of unions would of course cause problems for another set of unions as the province would have to lay-off CUPE and NAPE members and have no money for teachers or nurses.
Labour spokespeople like Lana Payne encouraging the development and making sure the NDP followed suit.
This project needs to be stopped. We must have a complete resolve to the Northern Spur and we must know what the costs are to stop the project. This is not-withstanding the issues Labrador faces with environmental costs.
We need a referendum on this - and we need it now.
Where's the leadership?
Where is the commitment of all our people that we would never ever again let the Upper Churchill happen again?
We are letting yet another 3 generations down - as we bankrupt their future and allow corporate interests rob our resources.
As Labrador rises up - rightfully so - against the poisoning of their people - the Island population is in its usual temporary jobs trance.
Premier after Premier in our history promised new wealth and growth through commitments of change in the development of our resources.
Always with the exception of one - we have been let down - robbed - and depressed as these commitments disappeared.
Each and every time the lure of quick and temporary jobs tempers the outcry of the public that we've given something else away.
Can we actually claim that jobs created during the construction of the Upper Churchill were in any way compensatory for the billions of dollars of lost revenue? As we charge Hydro Quebec 1/5th of a cent per kilowatt hour and they sell it at 100 times that - can we really celebrate the construction jobs?
We have done the same with minerals, oil, fish, and forestry.
The mourning of the Upper Churchill contract has been longstanding. There is no way we would ever let that happen again right? We swore - it would never happen again.
Now it has. The Muskrat Falls project is worse than the Upper Churchill - we will pay for this project - our children and grandchildren will pay for this project. Unlike the Upper - this project is over budget - unsafe and unnecessary.
Only yesterday I seen stories of people complaining about being off the job because Labradorians have the gall to demand a reduction in the poisonous aftermath of the flooding.
There is no justification to keep this going.
Here's what we have:
Danny Williams says great deal - many people say not so fast but were ignored by the media and called traitors, conspiracy theorists and naysayers by the politicians.
Williams leaves and then Dunderdale's job is to keep it moving no matter what. Many people were crying stop and warning the population that this project was bad and should be stopped.
The PC's Liberals and NDP allowed the project to keep going.
The PC's delayed the election to allow more money to be spent while the Liberals and NDP permitted the Tories to get away with it.
The media still not tuned in. Continue to ignore the many voices warning the people that this project would cause irreparable harm.
People were once again lured with well paying construction jobs for short-term personal gain - while these very employees were subjecting their own children and grandchildren to years of financial pain and continue to do so.
The unions did their special interest bidding and completely ignored the damage to the province as a whole. One group of unions would of course cause problems for another set of unions as the province would have to lay-off CUPE and NAPE members and have no money for teachers or nurses.
Labour spokespeople like Lana Payne encouraging the development and making sure the NDP followed suit.
This project needs to be stopped. We must have a complete resolve to the Northern Spur and we must know what the costs are to stop the project. This is not-withstanding the issues Labrador faces with environmental costs.
We need a referendum on this - and we need it now.
Where's the leadership?
Where is the commitment of all our people that we would never ever again let the Upper Churchill happen again?
We are letting yet another 3 generations down - as we bankrupt their future and allow corporate interests rob our resources.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Muskrat Falls - what about children of the Island?
The people of Labrador have begun a long overdue process of protecting their people from poison. This should have been done many years ago but it is happening now and that's what is important.
The movement has significant support from many people and organizations.
I stand with them in this fight against Nalcor and government and believe what they are doing is right.
Here's the problem - this is just the tip of the iceberg - and our children on the Island portion of the province are not being protected and also safe to suggest that clearing the land before flooding will not protect the people of Labrador against the real safety concern of the North Spur.
As for the children of Newfoundland - the risks are enormous - and in fact may mean their future will never be in this province.
The Muskrat Falls debacle is not affordable and we the people are not getting what we need right now and that is the costs to stop the project.
Stan Marshall the new head of Nalcor has been a disappointment - he is a permitted to be in conflict enabler for the corporations driving Muskrat Falls. This is not acceptable - and the spectacle of the Fortis entry into public offering is an embarrassment. Not that the company has gone public - although there are issues there - but rather our Minister running off to witness it.
Our children are being threatened on the Island as the children are in Labrador.
The children of the Island have to pay for this unsafe and over budget monster regardless of what the government does with other assets.
The idea to save consumers from Muskrat by developing Gull Island to pay for it - means there will be another 4 generations losing significant and essential resource revenue needed for the future.
So while Labradorians are attempting to protect their people from poison - we on the Island are turning a blind eye to what this project is going to do to our children. You will note that the public position of the Labradorians is that they are not opposing the project but protesting the flooding operations. Although I know there are many Labradorians who oppose the project outright - this fight is about flooding vegetation.
This project must be stopped and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador need to be given all information regarding the cost and benefits from stopping the project. Then we need a referendum.
What are you going to do about protecting your children? What are you willing to do to protect their future?
Of course all of this is in the backdrop of our enormous financial problems.
The movement has significant support from many people and organizations.
I stand with them in this fight against Nalcor and government and believe what they are doing is right.
Here's the problem - this is just the tip of the iceberg - and our children on the Island portion of the province are not being protected and also safe to suggest that clearing the land before flooding will not protect the people of Labrador against the real safety concern of the North Spur.
As for the children of Newfoundland - the risks are enormous - and in fact may mean their future will never be in this province.
The Muskrat Falls debacle is not affordable and we the people are not getting what we need right now and that is the costs to stop the project.
Stan Marshall the new head of Nalcor has been a disappointment - he is a permitted to be in conflict enabler for the corporations driving Muskrat Falls. This is not acceptable - and the spectacle of the Fortis entry into public offering is an embarrassment. Not that the company has gone public - although there are issues there - but rather our Minister running off to witness it.
Our children are being threatened on the Island as the children are in Labrador.
The children of the Island have to pay for this unsafe and over budget monster regardless of what the government does with other assets.
The idea to save consumers from Muskrat by developing Gull Island to pay for it - means there will be another 4 generations losing significant and essential resource revenue needed for the future.
So while Labradorians are attempting to protect their people from poison - we on the Island are turning a blind eye to what this project is going to do to our children. You will note that the public position of the Labradorians is that they are not opposing the project but protesting the flooding operations. Although I know there are many Labradorians who oppose the project outright - this fight is about flooding vegetation.
This project must be stopped and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador need to be given all information regarding the cost and benefits from stopping the project. Then we need a referendum.
What are you going to do about protecting your children? What are you willing to do to protect their future?
Of course all of this is in the backdrop of our enormous financial problems.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Stan Marshall? Not at this cost!
Oh come on media - where are you?
After such a big miss on the energy monolith - one might expect for the media to be on their toes.
After a complete miss on Muskrat and all the information freely provided by citizens was ignored - the damning truth was forced on them and all of us.
In comes Stan Marshall - instant messiah treatment oozed out of dull swords of ink painfully reminiscent of the coming of Danny Williams.
Stan Marshall's appointment was swift with few details. One available was Marshall would accept the same as Ed Martin but with no severance option.
Time went by and no contract.
Then the contract appeared to be stalled in negotiation.
Marshall won. We lost.
His employment is in complete conflict.
There are no excuses - no spinning - no exceptions that make this okay.
The media has disappeared. The media will not take Marshall on the same way they avoided Williams.
Martin's contract dealt with Conflict of Interest. Here is the clause:
3 (c) The Executive shall not acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest in any firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business or operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business of operations of Nalcor and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, neither the Executive nor any family member (this term having the same meaning as defined in Newfoundland and Labrador's Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 shall directly hold any shares in the Fortis Inc. group of companies including Newfoundland Power excepting however interests acquired in a publicly traded corporation through retirement mutual fund(s) investment vehicles.
Marshall's contract deals with Conflict of Interest. Here is the clause:
4 (a) The Executive shall not acquire or hold, directly or indirectly, an interest in any firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business of operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor, NLH or a company considered to be a subsidiary of Nalcor in accordance with Section 13 of the Energy Corporation Act, with the exception to the foregoing being that the Executive may own 5% or less of the shares of a publicly traded company;
Here's the deal - Marshall is allowed to be in a potential conflict of interest. This defies all logic and pith and the purpose of same.
Unfortunately but understandably Marshall nor his family want to be interfered with as that relates to personal financial affairs. Unfortunately this means Mr. Marshall does not qualify to sit as the head of our Crown Corporation.
When a government starts making exceptions to Conflict of Interest guidelines, laws, and intent we are already on the wrong side of right.
We have experienced too much of this. We need change.
Marshall - despite his professional qualifications - has decided not to relinquish his other interests - same for his family - some of which conflict.
Marshall should resign or should be replaced.
In our desperation to replace Martin - we must not be forced to forego conflict of interest protection - regardless the candidate.
Tomorrow we delve into this contract and terms further.
After such a big miss on the energy monolith - one might expect for the media to be on their toes.
After a complete miss on Muskrat and all the information freely provided by citizens was ignored - the damning truth was forced on them and all of us.
In comes Stan Marshall - instant messiah treatment oozed out of dull swords of ink painfully reminiscent of the coming of Danny Williams.
Stan Marshall's appointment was swift with few details. One available was Marshall would accept the same as Ed Martin but with no severance option.
Time went by and no contract.
Then the contract appeared to be stalled in negotiation.
Marshall won. We lost.
His employment is in complete conflict.
There are no excuses - no spinning - no exceptions that make this okay.
The media has disappeared. The media will not take Marshall on the same way they avoided Williams.
Martin's contract dealt with Conflict of Interest. Here is the clause:
3 (c) The Executive shall not acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest in any firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business or operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business of operations of Nalcor and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, neither the Executive nor any family member (this term having the same meaning as defined in Newfoundland and Labrador's Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 shall directly hold any shares in the Fortis Inc. group of companies including Newfoundland Power excepting however interests acquired in a publicly traded corporation through retirement mutual fund(s) investment vehicles.
Marshall's contract deals with Conflict of Interest. Here is the clause:
4 (a) The Executive shall not acquire or hold, directly or indirectly, an interest in any firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business of operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor, NLH or a company considered to be a subsidiary of Nalcor in accordance with Section 13 of the Energy Corporation Act, with the exception to the foregoing being that the Executive may own 5% or less of the shares of a publicly traded company;
Here's the deal - Marshall is allowed to be in a potential conflict of interest. This defies all logic and pith and the purpose of same.
Unfortunately but understandably Marshall nor his family want to be interfered with as that relates to personal financial affairs. Unfortunately this means Mr. Marshall does not qualify to sit as the head of our Crown Corporation.
When a government starts making exceptions to Conflict of Interest guidelines, laws, and intent we are already on the wrong side of right.
We have experienced too much of this. We need change.
Marshall - despite his professional qualifications - has decided not to relinquish his other interests - same for his family - some of which conflict.
Marshall should resign or should be replaced.
In our desperation to replace Martin - we must not be forced to forego conflict of interest protection - regardless the candidate.
Tomorrow we delve into this contract and terms further.
Tuesday, June 07, 2016
Nalcor CEO - Conflict of Interest?
It seems the information on Stan Marshall's contract remains behind closed doors as I write this today.
The past month has been consumed with outrage and calls of "we did not know" as it related to the Ed Martin platinum handshake.
The lesson for the people, media, and MHA's should be don't be blindsided again - make sure we will not end up with more problems resulting from a contract with Nalcor's new CEO.
The now infamous Martin Executive Employment Agreement (renewal) ended up being a lottery win for a fellow who does not show up much on Executive searches for jobs held prior to becoming the CEO of Nalcor. It did however contain important clauses that deserve the same level of scrutiny.
Clauses 3(c) and 4 deal with a common issue for corporate executives and the companies they work for. The issue is conflict or potential conflict of interest.
These clauses are absolutely necessary to ensure that the interests of the company they work for are placed ahead of all other professional involvements.
As such Ed Martin's contract contained the following clauses:
3(c) the Executive shall: not acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest in any firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business or operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, neither the Executive nor any member of his family (this term having the same meaning as defined in Newfoundland and Labrador's Conflict of Interest Act, 1995) shall directly hold any shares in the Fortis Inc. group of companies including Newfoundland Power excepting however interests acquired in a publicly traded corporation through retirement mutual fund(s) investment vehicles.
4. The Executive may, with the approval of the Board, serve as a director or member of service clubs, charitable, recreational and community organizations and may also serve as a director of publicly traded entities which would not in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor having first obtained the approval of the Board.
Stan Marshall's background is well known particularly his tenure with Newfoundland Power and Fortis.
We need to know if these clauses were maintained in Marshall's contract and if not why not.
Further we need to know who drafted the Marshall contract - was it in house (Government) or outside private lawyers.
Tomorrow I will expand on the potential conflicts of interest that are existing.
I repeat: what I think of the appointment of Stan Marshall is not relevant to this discussion - as this discussion deals with prudent precaution regardless of the qualifications of the Executive.
The past month has been consumed with outrage and calls of "we did not know" as it related to the Ed Martin platinum handshake.
The lesson for the people, media, and MHA's should be don't be blindsided again - make sure we will not end up with more problems resulting from a contract with Nalcor's new CEO.
The now infamous Martin Executive Employment Agreement (renewal) ended up being a lottery win for a fellow who does not show up much on Executive searches for jobs held prior to becoming the CEO of Nalcor. It did however contain important clauses that deserve the same level of scrutiny.
Clauses 3(c) and 4 deal with a common issue for corporate executives and the companies they work for. The issue is conflict or potential conflict of interest.
These clauses are absolutely necessary to ensure that the interests of the company they work for are placed ahead of all other professional involvements.
As such Ed Martin's contract contained the following clauses:
3(c) the Executive shall: not acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest in any firm, partnership, association, entity or corporation, the business or operations of which would in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, neither the Executive nor any member of his family (this term having the same meaning as defined in Newfoundland and Labrador's Conflict of Interest Act, 1995) shall directly hold any shares in the Fortis Inc. group of companies including Newfoundland Power excepting however interests acquired in a publicly traded corporation through retirement mutual fund(s) investment vehicles.
4. The Executive may, with the approval of the Board, serve as a director or member of service clubs, charitable, recreational and community organizations and may also serve as a director of publicly traded entities which would not in any manner, directly or indirectly, compete or conflict with the business or operations of Nalcor having first obtained the approval of the Board.
Stan Marshall's background is well known particularly his tenure with Newfoundland Power and Fortis.
We need to know if these clauses were maintained in Marshall's contract and if not why not.
Further we need to know who drafted the Marshall contract - was it in house (Government) or outside private lawyers.
Tomorrow I will expand on the potential conflicts of interest that are existing.
I repeat: what I think of the appointment of Stan Marshall is not relevant to this discussion - as this discussion deals with prudent precaution regardless of the qualifications of the Executive.
Monday, June 06, 2016
The Martin/Marshall contract
Our history is riddled with mistakes, incompetence, corruption and bad decisions.
The last two weeks have been about the Ed Martin compensation lottery.
Part of the fury is the contract itself. The public did not have ready access to the document until it was released by Des Sullivan. Uncle Gnarley shed light on the whole sordid mess is an articulate post.
There has been much made of the contract and the Executive benefits Martin enjoyed during his tenure of failure.
We now have a new CEO, Stan Marshall. His success with private or publicly traded regulated utilities is well known and unlike his predecessor he has the bio to prove it.
Regardless of what I think about the appointment (I will deal with that in another post) there is a need for more openness and accountability. This is what was promised and expected.
With the aforementioned considered we are in need of significantly more information on this appointment than what we have now.
1. Has a contract been executed with Stan Marshall?
2. When was the contract achieved?
3. What is the duration of the contract?
4. Was the contract achieved under Section 7 or 9(1)(2)(3) of the Energy Corporation Act?
5, What are the terms of the contract?
I really do not care if it's Bill Gates we have employed - the public must know the terms of Stan Marshall's appointment. We must know if it contains clauses that are unacceptable regardless of his past accomplishments.
We have many times had a "savior" in politics who turned out to be not so beneficial despite successes in their pre-political life. Now we are depending on a "savior"for Muskrat Falls. This thinking is deliberately ignorant and very dangerous.
It is not acceptable that we be in the dark about it until Marshall goes out the door.
Considering what we have just gone through and continue to go through - the government and Nalcor should be anxious to make this information available and the media should be anxious to go after it.
The last two weeks have been about the Ed Martin compensation lottery.
Part of the fury is the contract itself. The public did not have ready access to the document until it was released by Des Sullivan. Uncle Gnarley shed light on the whole sordid mess is an articulate post.
There has been much made of the contract and the Executive benefits Martin enjoyed during his tenure of failure.
We now have a new CEO, Stan Marshall. His success with private or publicly traded regulated utilities is well known and unlike his predecessor he has the bio to prove it.
Regardless of what I think about the appointment (I will deal with that in another post) there is a need for more openness and accountability. This is what was promised and expected.
With the aforementioned considered we are in need of significantly more information on this appointment than what we have now.
1. Has a contract been executed with Stan Marshall?
2. When was the contract achieved?
3. What is the duration of the contract?
4. Was the contract achieved under Section 7 or 9(1)(2)(3) of the Energy Corporation Act?
5, What are the terms of the contract?
I really do not care if it's Bill Gates we have employed - the public must know the terms of Stan Marshall's appointment. We must know if it contains clauses that are unacceptable regardless of his past accomplishments.
We have many times had a "savior" in politics who turned out to be not so beneficial despite successes in their pre-political life. Now we are depending on a "savior"for Muskrat Falls. This thinking is deliberately ignorant and very dangerous.
It is not acceptable that we be in the dark about it until Marshall goes out the door.
Considering what we have just gone through and continue to go through - the government and Nalcor should be anxious to make this information available and the media should be anxious to go after it.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Is History Repeating Itself? Rural MHA's and MP's take Note A sickening reflection!
 | |||||||
| Now let's add what has happened since the moratorium - what would we see? | Best I can tell Randy Simms says thumbs up to this-just perhaps a little more a head to move. | This picture from a National Post Article |
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
We are Gullible - Part One Clyde Jackman on giving "stamps'" to Risley and Penney
This will be a new addition to Sue's Blog. The "We are Gullible" series will deal on a regular basis with political statements that presume - we the people - are gullible.
Example: Siobhan Coady wants to tell us that Stephen Harper breaks promises. (lies)
Ms. Coady was elected under the ABC campaign which articulated that because Stehen Harper breaks promises - vote anything but Conservative.
Therefore we probably expect something more from Siobhan Coady than the obvious.
The first installment is the "news" from Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Clyde Jackman.
"We are Gullible" Part One
Minister finds way to give "stamps" to John Risley and Ches Penney
First the Minister announces funding as a partner for a three year project - now in its SECOND year.
Then the Minister joins in a chorus of helping the inshore harvesting fleet survive. Okay can we see the restructuring to see what inshore sector will be left? Are you kidding me - an important part of the future of our fishery rests in reducing fuel costs for the inshore fleet? Minister we have no idea how many fishers will be left or what kind of future they will have - however - we know they might get more efficient engines.
Then we are told that we need to show the global market that our industry is sustainable and environmentally friendly. I see - what about that little footnote that Canada under its management and the globe under foreign fleets have decimated a global supply of fish - our absent and missing stocks? This is environmentally friendly and sustainable?
Earl jumps in and tells us that fuel prices are a major burden on our fishing enterprises. Yeah Earl - I think fuel prices are a burden on every industry - but while the union chief is fiddling the enterprises (our people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador) continue to be eliminated because - we have NO FISH.
So we have a potential to ruin everything that still swims - the offshore oil platforms - no need to look at that or perhaps the floating rust buckets coming in and out of our waters bilging or picking up oil. No we need to concentrate on the carbon footprint of our inshore fleet.
Don't get me wrong - the inshore fleet - what is left of it should have a card to refill fuel free - part of a compensation package from Ottawa for destroying livelihoods of thousands of people and the cause of immeasurable out-migration. Please do not tell me - that the few harvesters we have left are still paying for gas.
And where is all this heading - well let me hypothesize. We need to prove that our industry is sustainable and environmentally friendly so Ches Penney and John Risley can get a stamp to put on a box of fish processed in PEI by foreign workers. Certainly a new concept on getting enough stamps.
And somehow today this is more important than NAFO or the continued plundering of our resources and the absolute wipe-out of all the places we want in tourism ads?
In a nutshell the Minister and Boss of the Union believe "we are gullible".
“This project will collect and analyze data in order to make recommendations for improved energy efficiency in the inshore harvesting sector,” said the Honourable Clyde Jackman, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. “It will provide innovative research on how to better equip our inshore harvesting sector to address climbing fuel prices. Being energy efficient is a key component of a sustainable industry. As we move into the future, the fishing industry will need to demonstrate to the global marketplace that it is sustainable and environmentally friendly. An important component of this will be to reduce the industry’s carbon footprint.”
This project is a three-year initiative and is now in its second year. Year one involved the selection of vessels from the province’s inshore fleet. Installation of equipment was also started on some of the vessels. The installation work extended into year two with all equipment installed on the vessels followed by sea trials to verify the operational integrity of the equipment. Data is now being collected on-board the vessels and preliminary analysis is underway on consumption of fuel in various operating conditions, including weather and sea states. During the final year of work, data collection will continue and wrap up early in 2012.
The work plan also involves a complete analysis of all data collected during the entire project, testing the vessels under various operating configurations and conditions, and making recommendations for improved efficiency. This will include operations, as well as hull and machinery modifications to achieve optimum operating efficiency for each of the vessels studied.
“A strategic direction for the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation is the reduction in energy costs for the fish harvesting sector,” said Robert Verge, managing director for CCFI. “The centre has collaborated with the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and other partners to develop technologies that reduce the energy costs of the sector through options such as new vessel design, bulbous bows for fishing vessels, new twine materials and different geometric designs for trawls. We are enthusiastic about the outcomes of this project and hope that it will clearly indicate to the industry what types of advances are required to make the most sizable cost and carbon output reductions in the fleet. These will be important to the industry’s future sustainability.”
“NSERC works to make Canada a country of innovators and discoverers,” said Dr. Suzanne Fortier, president of NSERC. “This project is finding innovative solutions for the fishing industry. The results will bring improvements in energy efficiency that will benefit the entire sector.”
“By monitoring performance of vessels while they fish, we are not only developing more stable and efficient hull designs; we are also building a valuable library of data that will be available for future research work,” said Neil Carter, project manager for the Fisheries and Marine Institute.
The project team is led by the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science and includes representatives from the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University, the National Research Council (NRC), the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers (FFAW).
“Increasing the fuel efficiency of fishing vessels is key to improving the province’s inshore fish harvesting sector,” said Dr. John Quaicoe, dean (pro tempore) of Memorial University’s Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science. ”This project is important to the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry and Memorial University as it aims to develop a more sustainable industry.”
“Fuel costs are a major burden on our fishing enterprises,” said Earle McCurdy, president of the FFAW. “Enhanced energy efficiency has the potential to reduce costs and improve the bottom line for our fishing fleets, while at the same time improving the environmental sustainability of our fishing industry.”
This project is a continuation of a series of initiatives related to energy efficiency in the province’s fishing industry that has been funded through the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. This program is an important component of the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy. Of the $6 million allocated to the program since its launch in the spring of 2007, the program has invested approximately $5.8 million in industry-driven projects to date. A total of 128 projects have been funded since the program was created. Investment in the program has leveraged an additional $19.6 million from the industry and its partners. It has generated a total of $25.4 million for fishing industry research and development in the province.
Example: Siobhan Coady wants to tell us that Stephen Harper breaks promises. (lies)
Ms. Coady was elected under the ABC campaign which articulated that because Stehen Harper breaks promises - vote anything but Conservative.
Therefore we probably expect something more from Siobhan Coady than the obvious.
The first installment is the "news" from Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Clyde Jackman.
Energy Efficiency Audit to Assist Fish Harvesting Sector
"We are Gullible" Part One
Minister finds way to give "stamps" to John Risley and Ches Penney
First the Minister announces funding as a partner for a three year project - now in its SECOND year.
Then the Minister joins in a chorus of helping the inshore harvesting fleet survive. Okay can we see the restructuring to see what inshore sector will be left? Are you kidding me - an important part of the future of our fishery rests in reducing fuel costs for the inshore fleet? Minister we have no idea how many fishers will be left or what kind of future they will have - however - we know they might get more efficient engines.
Then we are told that we need to show the global market that our industry is sustainable and environmentally friendly. I see - what about that little footnote that Canada under its management and the globe under foreign fleets have decimated a global supply of fish - our absent and missing stocks? This is environmentally friendly and sustainable?
Earl jumps in and tells us that fuel prices are a major burden on our fishing enterprises. Yeah Earl - I think fuel prices are a burden on every industry - but while the union chief is fiddling the enterprises (our people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador) continue to be eliminated because - we have NO FISH.
So we have a potential to ruin everything that still swims - the offshore oil platforms - no need to look at that or perhaps the floating rust buckets coming in and out of our waters bilging or picking up oil. No we need to concentrate on the carbon footprint of our inshore fleet.
Don't get me wrong - the inshore fleet - what is left of it should have a card to refill fuel free - part of a compensation package from Ottawa for destroying livelihoods of thousands of people and the cause of immeasurable out-migration. Please do not tell me - that the few harvesters we have left are still paying for gas.
And where is all this heading - well let me hypothesize. We need to prove that our industry is sustainable and environmentally friendly so Ches Penney and John Risley can get a stamp to put on a box of fish processed in PEI by foreign workers. Certainly a new concept on getting enough stamps.
And somehow today this is more important than NAFO or the continued plundering of our resources and the absolute wipe-out of all the places we want in tourism ads?
In a nutshell the Minister and Boss of the Union believe "we are gullible".
Copy of News Release below: Emphasis added by me...
The Provincial Government is providing $200,000 toward the cost of an energy efficiency audit that will benefit the province’s fish harvesting sector. The audit is being carried out by the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation (CCFI) and the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science of Memorial University over a three-year period. It is estimated that the total cost of the project will be approximately $854,000, including the investment from the Provincial Government. These costs will be shared with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Research and Development Corporation.“This project will collect and analyze data in order to make recommendations for improved energy efficiency in the inshore harvesting sector,” said the Honourable Clyde Jackman, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. “It will provide innovative research on how to better equip our inshore harvesting sector to address climbing fuel prices. Being energy efficient is a key component of a sustainable industry. As we move into the future, the fishing industry will need to demonstrate to the global marketplace that it is sustainable and environmentally friendly. An important component of this will be to reduce the industry’s carbon footprint.”
This project is a three-year initiative and is now in its second year. Year one involved the selection of vessels from the province’s inshore fleet. Installation of equipment was also started on some of the vessels. The installation work extended into year two with all equipment installed on the vessels followed by sea trials to verify the operational integrity of the equipment. Data is now being collected on-board the vessels and preliminary analysis is underway on consumption of fuel in various operating conditions, including weather and sea states. During the final year of work, data collection will continue and wrap up early in 2012.
The work plan also involves a complete analysis of all data collected during the entire project, testing the vessels under various operating configurations and conditions, and making recommendations for improved efficiency. This will include operations, as well as hull and machinery modifications to achieve optimum operating efficiency for each of the vessels studied.
“A strategic direction for the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation is the reduction in energy costs for the fish harvesting sector,” said Robert Verge, managing director for CCFI. “The centre has collaborated with the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and other partners to develop technologies that reduce the energy costs of the sector through options such as new vessel design, bulbous bows for fishing vessels, new twine materials and different geometric designs for trawls. We are enthusiastic about the outcomes of this project and hope that it will clearly indicate to the industry what types of advances are required to make the most sizable cost and carbon output reductions in the fleet. These will be important to the industry’s future sustainability.”
“NSERC works to make Canada a country of innovators and discoverers,” said Dr. Suzanne Fortier, president of NSERC. “This project is finding innovative solutions for the fishing industry. The results will bring improvements in energy efficiency that will benefit the entire sector.”
“By monitoring performance of vessels while they fish, we are not only developing more stable and efficient hull designs; we are also building a valuable library of data that will be available for future research work,” said Neil Carter, project manager for the Fisheries and Marine Institute.
The project team is led by the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science and includes representatives from the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University, the National Research Council (NRC), the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers (FFAW).
“Increasing the fuel efficiency of fishing vessels is key to improving the province’s inshore fish harvesting sector,” said Dr. John Quaicoe, dean (pro tempore) of Memorial University’s Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science. ”This project is important to the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry and Memorial University as it aims to develop a more sustainable industry.”
“Fuel costs are a major burden on our fishing enterprises,” said Earle McCurdy, president of the FFAW. “Enhanced energy efficiency has the potential to reduce costs and improve the bottom line for our fishing fleets, while at the same time improving the environmental sustainability of our fishing industry.”
This project is a continuation of a series of initiatives related to energy efficiency in the province’s fishing industry that has been funded through the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. This program is an important component of the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy. Of the $6 million allocated to the program since its launch in the spring of 2007, the program has invested approximately $5.8 million in industry-driven projects to date. A total of 128 projects have been funded since the program was created. Investment in the program has leveraged an additional $19.6 million from the industry and its partners. It has generated a total of $25.4 million for fishing industry research and development in the province.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Broken Promises to Newfoundland and Labrador - Divorce Please
I see Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MP's are gearing up for a spring election. They have started by using the national party's "Five Years of Harper : Broken Promises" list.
First of all I want to thank them for the obvious - Stephen Harper does not tell the truth - he lies. They have compiled a partial list of promises broken - and no doubt it reiterates in a not so direct way - that Stephen Harper lies.
For Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - that have suffered "broken promises" lies since CONfederation - this is not news.
For the people of our province -there are two things troubling about this list:
The first is the list itself - the focuses - the missed elements,
The second is the Liberals do not say what THEY will DO about the issues noted in the list.
Let's look at some of the "list"
29. Replace CAIS with separate farm income stabilization and disaster relief programs that are simpler and more responsive.
Government Action: Broken. The Conservatives simply changed the name of the program but farmers say it’s no easier to use.
30. Commit to adding an additional $500 million annually to farm support programs.
Government Action: Broken. Although they committed the money early on, overall support for farm support programs has dropped.
31. Get the $5B in softwood lumber tariffs back.
Government Action: Broken.
33. Extend the two hundred mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic.
Government Action: Broken.
57. Make the Canadian Coast Guard as a stand-alone agency.
Government Action: Broken. It remains a Special Operating Agency as the previous government had made it.
83. Achieve permanent changes to the equalization formula.
Government Action: Broken. The “permanent” changes lasted one year before they were changed again.
88. Make the Senate an effective, independent, and democratically elected body that equitably represents all regions.
Government Action: Broken
90. Make all votes in Parliament, except the budget and main estimates, “free votes” for ordinary Members of Parliament.
Government Action: Broken.
98. Recruit 13,000 additional regular forces and 10,000 additional reserve forces personnel.
Government Action: Broken.
112. Modernize the administration of our fisheries to ensure greater focus on conservation and using administrative sanctions, rather than court proceedings, to deal with violations.
Government Action: Broken. The new Fisheries Act died when Stephen Harper called an early election in 2008 – the bill has not been re-introduced.
113. Work with Western Canadian grain farmers to ensure that the results of the barley plebiscite are respected and that they are given the freedom to choose whether to sell grain on the open market or through the Canadian Wheat Board.
Government Action: Broken.
116. Assert Canada's rights over our Arctic waters, including the Northwest Passage
Government Action: Broken. The Conservatives released yet another “Arctic strategy” in 2010 while failing to fulfill their past promises for the North. They continue to insult the people of the North with more empty promises and rhetoric.
117. Reforming or Abolishing the Senate.
Government Action: Broken. Stephen Harper broke his pledge to only appoint elected Senators, instead he appointed 38 Senators - all Conservatives - just since the last election.
Let's have a quick review of the "broken promises" above. Numbers 29, 30, and 113 are relative to farming and if you read them carefully - the Liberals focus will probably remain on the Prairies for vote gains and breakthroughs in those farming provinces. Remember now - the Government of Canada does not manage or control the farming sector and is not responsible for weather phenomenon, world commodity prices etc. but they actually demonstrate through cash and incentives more for that sector that they do for a renewable resource (the fishery) they were directly responsible for managing. They throw around 500 million additional in farm support programs.
This has been no different than the Liberals when they held government.
Number 31 deals with getting the 5 billion dollars back for the softwood tariffs fiasco with the United States. The Liberals presumably are all for going after that money - yet I hear no commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador to give our 5 billion back for the devastation of the ground fish stocks.
Now number 33 is one of my favorites - dealing with extending the 200 mile limit to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. Wow are the Liberals really complaining about that promise broken? They invented it. Then we compare the note that only says "broken" to that promise to the note attached to number 116 see below.
116. Assert Canada's rights over our Arctic waters, including the Northwest Passage
Government Action: Broken. The Conservatives released yet another “Arctic strategy” in 2010 while failing to fulfill their past promises for the North. They continue to insult the people of the North with more empty promises and rhetoric.
Now which one to you think the Libs will focus on the Arctic or the nose and tail?
CONfederation the Libs and Conservatives have never recognized that they now have a new east coast and it is not Nova Scotia.
Now number 83 deserves it's own separate post but nevertheless "equalization" - the Libs apparently disappointed in not achieving permanent changes to that formula. I'm glad it was not permanent - it's costing us 10 billion dollars. We beat (figuratively speaking) 2 billion out of Lib Paul Martin only to lose it to Stephen Harper's lies and Manning's absence of backbone.
Numbers 88 and 117 deals with promises on Senate Reform - they can't be serious - the Libs are telling us that we should be angry that the Senate is not elected, not equal, and not effective. Best I can tell they are simply annoyed that the Cons now have majority in this dysfunctional waste of money. The Upper House - the brain trust of our people - the intellectual haven - right Fabian?
Number 90 deals with "free votes" in the House of Commons - and the Libs are apparently complaining about this "broken promise" - sure you are. We should have been in an election by now.
Number 98 deals with additional armed forces personnel both full service and reservists. Now everybody say after me "Happy Valley - Goose Bay" One can quickly note that neither the Libs or the Cons are committed to this.
Number 112 needs to be reprinted here
Modernize the administration of our fisheries to ensure greater focus on conservation and using administrative sanctions, rather than court proceedings, to deal with violations.
Government Action: Broken. The new Fisheries Act died when Stephen Harper
called an early election in 2008 – the bill has not been re-introduced.
Yes let's all administrate the violators into submission - Is that the best you can do relative to the fishery?
Now even this short review gives us the voters enough to work with and reminds the MP's and wannabe MP's that talk is cheap and the idea of going to Ottawa is not to get yourselves atop the agenda but rather do what it is you were elected to do. Get the job done or move over.
How many Newfoundland and Labrador MP's does it take to change a light bulb?
One to talk about the light bulb - one to promise to change it - one to shop for a new light bulb - one to put up a ladder - one to study if that's the best approach - one to call for public consultations - one to ask questions of the government about changing the bulb - and the last to remind us that the Conservatives promised to change it and didn't. Oh we are one short!
First of all I want to thank them for the obvious - Stephen Harper does not tell the truth - he lies. They have compiled a partial list of promises broken - and no doubt it reiterates in a not so direct way - that Stephen Harper lies.
For Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - that have suffered "broken promises" lies since CONfederation - this is not news.
For the people of our province -there are two things troubling about this list:
The first is the list itself - the focuses - the missed elements,
The second is the Liberals do not say what THEY will DO about the issues noted in the list.
Let's look at some of the "list"
29. Replace CAIS with separate farm income stabilization and disaster relief programs that are simpler and more responsive.
Government Action: Broken. The Conservatives simply changed the name of the program but farmers say it’s no easier to use.
30. Commit to adding an additional $500 million annually to farm support programs.
Government Action: Broken. Although they committed the money early on, overall support for farm support programs has dropped.
31. Get the $5B in softwood lumber tariffs back.
Government Action: Broken.
33. Extend the two hundred mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic.
Government Action: Broken.
57. Make the Canadian Coast Guard as a stand-alone agency.
Government Action: Broken. It remains a Special Operating Agency as the previous government had made it.
83. Achieve permanent changes to the equalization formula.
Government Action: Broken. The “permanent” changes lasted one year before they were changed again.
88. Make the Senate an effective, independent, and democratically elected body that equitably represents all regions.
Government Action: Broken
90. Make all votes in Parliament, except the budget and main estimates, “free votes” for ordinary Members of Parliament.
Government Action: Broken.
98. Recruit 13,000 additional regular forces and 10,000 additional reserve forces personnel.
Government Action: Broken.
112. Modernize the administration of our fisheries to ensure greater focus on conservation and using administrative sanctions, rather than court proceedings, to deal with violations.
Government Action: Broken. The new Fisheries Act died when Stephen Harper called an early election in 2008 – the bill has not been re-introduced.
113. Work with Western Canadian grain farmers to ensure that the results of the barley plebiscite are respected and that they are given the freedom to choose whether to sell grain on the open market or through the Canadian Wheat Board.
Government Action: Broken.
116. Assert Canada's rights over our Arctic waters, including the Northwest Passage
Government Action: Broken. The Conservatives released yet another “Arctic strategy” in 2010 while failing to fulfill their past promises for the North. They continue to insult the people of the North with more empty promises and rhetoric.
117. Reforming or Abolishing the Senate.
Government Action: Broken. Stephen Harper broke his pledge to only appoint elected Senators, instead he appointed 38 Senators - all Conservatives - just since the last election.
Let's have a quick review of the "broken promises" above. Numbers 29, 30, and 113 are relative to farming and if you read them carefully - the Liberals focus will probably remain on the Prairies for vote gains and breakthroughs in those farming provinces. Remember now - the Government of Canada does not manage or control the farming sector and is not responsible for weather phenomenon, world commodity prices etc. but they actually demonstrate through cash and incentives more for that sector that they do for a renewable resource (the fishery) they were directly responsible for managing. They throw around 500 million additional in farm support programs.
This has been no different than the Liberals when they held government.
Promise needed by all parties this election to Newfoundland and Labrador 1 billion a year or find the fish. What will the Liberals do for the fishery? What have they broken promises on in the past relative to the fishery?
Number 31 deals with getting the 5 billion dollars back for the softwood tariffs fiasco with the United States. The Liberals presumably are all for going after that money - yet I hear no commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador to give our 5 billion back for the devastation of the ground fish stocks.
Promise needed by all parties this election to Newfoundland and Labrador - at least 500 million a year for 10 years for loss of industry, people, employment and communities resulting from fisheries mismanagement.
Now number 33 is one of my favorites - dealing with extending the 200 mile limit to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. Wow are the Liberals really complaining about that promise broken? They invented it. Then we compare the note that only says "broken" to that promise to the note attached to number 116 see below.
116. Assert Canada's rights over our Arctic waters, including the Northwest Passage
Government Action: Broken. The Conservatives released yet another “Arctic strategy” in 2010 while failing to fulfill their past promises for the North. They continue to insult the people of the North with more empty promises and rhetoric.
Now which one to you think the Libs will focus on the Arctic or the nose and tail?
Promise needed by all political parties to Newfoundland and Labrador - extend the jurisdiction and assert our rights on the fish stocks.
CONfederation the Libs and Conservatives have never recognized that they now have a new east coast and it is not Nova Scotia.
Promise needed by all political parties this election to Newfoundland and Labrador - real presence and real response times to protect our fishers and offshore workers.
Now number 83 deserves it's own separate post but nevertheless "equalization" - the Libs apparently disappointed in not achieving permanent changes to that formula. I'm glad it was not permanent - it's costing us 10 billion dollars. We beat (figuratively speaking) 2 billion out of Lib Paul Martin only to lose it to Stephen Harper's lies and Manning's absence of backbone.
Promise needed by all political parties this election to Newfoundland and Labrador - the removal of non-renewable resource revenues from the formula before the oil is gone and our childrens' future destroyed.
Numbers 88 and 117 deals with promises on Senate Reform - they can't be serious - the Libs are telling us that we should be angry that the Senate is not elected, not equal, and not effective. Best I can tell they are simply annoyed that the Cons now have majority in this dysfunctional waste of money. The Upper House - the brain trust of our people - the intellectual haven - right Fabian?
Promise needed by all political parties this election to Newfoundland and Labrador - elected, equal, and effective Senate or abolish it and find a way for provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador get a real vote on major issues affecting us. This structure of both Parliament and the Senate is killing us.
Number 90 deals with "free votes" in the House of Commons - and the Libs are apparently complaining about this "broken promise" - sure you are. We should have been in an election by now.
Promise needed by all political parties this election to Newfoundland and Labrador - any issue including budget and estimates that would negatively affect a region or province - must be allowed to be a free vote. These MP's are elected to represent their people - period - full stop.
Number 98 deals with additional armed forces personnel both full service and reservists. Now everybody say after me "Happy Valley - Goose Bay" One can quickly note that neither the Libs or the Cons are committed to this.
Promise needed by all political parties this election to Newfoundland and Labrador - Happy Valley - Goose Bay priority number 1 and we will not tolerate any more delays. Further some creative presence in Stephenville focused around the port and airport would be necessary.
Number 112 needs to be reprinted here
Modernize the administration of our fisheries to ensure greater focus on conservation and using administrative sanctions, rather than court proceedings, to deal with violations.
Government Action: Broken. The new Fisheries Act died when Stephen Harper
called an early election in 2008 – the bill has not been re-introduced.
Yes let's all administrate the violators into submission - Is that the best you can do relative to the fishery?
Promise needed by all political parties this election to Newfoundland and Labrador -once again pass over the 5 billion and an additional 1 billion annually or find the fish.
Now even this short review gives us the voters enough to work with and reminds the MP's and wannabe MP's that talk is cheap and the idea of going to Ottawa is not to get yourselves atop the agenda but rather do what it is you were elected to do. Get the job done or move over.
How many Newfoundland and Labrador MP's does it take to change a light bulb?
One to talk about the light bulb - one to promise to change it - one to shop for a new light bulb - one to put up a ladder - one to study if that's the best approach - one to call for public consultations - one to ask questions of the government about changing the bulb - and the last to remind us that the Conservatives promised to change it and didn't. Oh we are one short!
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Test for Newfoundland and Labrador MP's and MHA's
 | |||||||
| Identify This Fish |
Print this and pass it to all people looking for your vote in both the upcoming federal and provincial elections.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Fish what fish?
Your eyes are already glazed over right? It's fish and you don't want to hear about it anymore. Well stop! Wipe out your eyes and really start understanding what is taking place here.
Not dealing with the fishery is akin to you having no interest in your ancestry, your culture, your reason for being here. Not much sense in celebrating tourism commercials if you have no interest in who you are and where you come from.
The tourists who visit this province have more interest in our fishery and the strong historical and current attachment to this renewable resource than we do. This is not right - and politicians - all stripes - both federal and provincial are to blame. They have inundated us with study and commission and study and commission for as long as I can remember - yet all we hear is bad news as it relates to the fishery. The latest now is the culmination of the "passionate" review process started under the fellow who just quit. Now we have a Minister who - for political reasons - is avoiding releasing information. Clyde Jackman knows this information is going to be more bad news for the fishers and more ingratiating of the big corporates' interests.
It is not convenient for an election - and that's what it boils down to. Political expedience. Where will Jackman draw a pension from?
I listened to Siobhan Coady this morning talking about her visit to the Province with Scott Brison and heard her make mention of a meeting where Gus Etchegary spoke of the fishery. After articulating the obvious - that Gus was passionate about the fishery - she claimed the same passion. Excuse me? What exactly is Siobhan Coady going to do about the plight of the fishers, the tens of thousand of people who left Newfoundland and Labrador (after being displaced in the sector), or the communities that are dieing as a result of the fishery disaster? Best I can tell - nothing really - same old same old. I can confirm that Siobhan like those before her are passionate about keeping their job - and keeping the pension that comes with it. Until I see anybody taking seriously the fact that we are losing over 500 million a year from the groundfish destruction - or at least until they fight as hard as the MP's from the Prairies who year over year get relief and funding for farmers - I will not show them any respect or believe a word they say.
Can you guess how many times fishermen have been used during elections to ensure a victory for one party or the other? Held hostage as Ursula suggested is mild language. The rural outports have been battered and battered while the mighty oil and St. John's expects continued growth and a booming real estate market. The fat-cat bankers responsible for gouging you and me on every transaction to pay for the costs of corporate corruption - sit bank in their chairs and declare everything is okay.
What a disgrace we are - as we let these two-bit politicians make a career and "earn" a pension from ineptitude, gutlessness, and political expedience. The fish were supposed to be renewable right?
St. John's as with other regional hubs are booming because people from the outports have to move out of their communities to try and salvage something. But this is an oil economy and it is not forever - in fact at the moment it is pretty defined (in time). So even now the irony is that good old St. John's is utilizing the misery of the outports to force a population base made up of those who travel in leaving their communities, elderly parents, and their devalued possessions behind.
This is a social experiment for some like Dr. Doug House who has been for the past two decades moving us from a "resourced based economy" to an "information based economy". He under Clyde Wells and right on up through and at the University - remember the "economic recovery plan"? Sitting in an academic ivory tower pontificating "reasoned" thoughts. Hogwash!
The unemployment rate remains at double digits and our population is declining and aging. Politicians answer to that we are growing our Gross Domestic Product.
The federal representatives in Parliament have been useless and their excuse has always been "we get up there and we can't get anywhere". Geez people you figure now they might already know the predictable outcome before they ask for your vote. Okay let's spell it out - 7 seats and 2% of the population in a country where everything from parliament to the senate to federal programs are based per-capita.
Regardless of what I think about Danny Williams - he did have the political support to do something real about it. The people were willing to stand behind whatever moves he had to make. I hoped in deliberate ignorance he may actually use that willingly given power and fix at least the fishery. I can't say I am surprised he quit - I knew he would - but somewhere in me I really wanted him to do what was right.
Your eyes are glazed over because politician after politician from this Province has failed and despite the studies and the commissions - all they have consecutively done is - piece by piece rip away at this tremendous resource. The social experiment - predicted that if you do the demise in chunks - you will limit the people who may protest the demise of our way of life, those idyllic communities, and that significant revenue.
The politicians, senior bureaucrats and union all have been responsible in this giveaway. Make no mistake - Ottawa has bartered away our stocks for the benefit of population rich provinces - the province has bartered away our industry to corporate interests that do not operate to benefit Newfoundland and Labrador - rather to benefit shareholders (most of whom live offshore).
We must stop rewarding failure and not fall into the trap set for us - that eyes glazed over means - we do not care.
Not dealing with the fishery is akin to you having no interest in your ancestry, your culture, your reason for being here. Not much sense in celebrating tourism commercials if you have no interest in who you are and where you come from.
The tourists who visit this province have more interest in our fishery and the strong historical and current attachment to this renewable resource than we do. This is not right - and politicians - all stripes - both federal and provincial are to blame. They have inundated us with study and commission and study and commission for as long as I can remember - yet all we hear is bad news as it relates to the fishery. The latest now is the culmination of the "passionate" review process started under the fellow who just quit. Now we have a Minister who - for political reasons - is avoiding releasing information. Clyde Jackman knows this information is going to be more bad news for the fishers and more ingratiating of the big corporates' interests.
It is not convenient for an election - and that's what it boils down to. Political expedience. Where will Jackman draw a pension from?
I listened to Siobhan Coady this morning talking about her visit to the Province with Scott Brison and heard her make mention of a meeting where Gus Etchegary spoke of the fishery. After articulating the obvious - that Gus was passionate about the fishery - she claimed the same passion. Excuse me? What exactly is Siobhan Coady going to do about the plight of the fishers, the tens of thousand of people who left Newfoundland and Labrador (after being displaced in the sector), or the communities that are dieing as a result of the fishery disaster? Best I can tell - nothing really - same old same old. I can confirm that Siobhan like those before her are passionate about keeping their job - and keeping the pension that comes with it. Until I see anybody taking seriously the fact that we are losing over 500 million a year from the groundfish destruction - or at least until they fight as hard as the MP's from the Prairies who year over year get relief and funding for farmers - I will not show them any respect or believe a word they say.
Can you guess how many times fishermen have been used during elections to ensure a victory for one party or the other? Held hostage as Ursula suggested is mild language. The rural outports have been battered and battered while the mighty oil and St. John's expects continued growth and a booming real estate market. The fat-cat bankers responsible for gouging you and me on every transaction to pay for the costs of corporate corruption - sit bank in their chairs and declare everything is okay.
What a disgrace we are - as we let these two-bit politicians make a career and "earn" a pension from ineptitude, gutlessness, and political expedience. The fish were supposed to be renewable right?
St. John's as with other regional hubs are booming because people from the outports have to move out of their communities to try and salvage something. But this is an oil economy and it is not forever - in fact at the moment it is pretty defined (in time). So even now the irony is that good old St. John's is utilizing the misery of the outports to force a population base made up of those who travel in leaving their communities, elderly parents, and their devalued possessions behind.
This is a social experiment for some like Dr. Doug House who has been for the past two decades moving us from a "resourced based economy" to an "information based economy". He under Clyde Wells and right on up through and at the University - remember the "economic recovery plan"? Sitting in an academic ivory tower pontificating "reasoned" thoughts. Hogwash!
The unemployment rate remains at double digits and our population is declining and aging. Politicians answer to that we are growing our Gross Domestic Product.
The federal representatives in Parliament have been useless and their excuse has always been "we get up there and we can't get anywhere". Geez people you figure now they might already know the predictable outcome before they ask for your vote. Okay let's spell it out - 7 seats and 2% of the population in a country where everything from parliament to the senate to federal programs are based per-capita.
Regardless of what I think about Danny Williams - he did have the political support to do something real about it. The people were willing to stand behind whatever moves he had to make. I hoped in deliberate ignorance he may actually use that willingly given power and fix at least the fishery. I can't say I am surprised he quit - I knew he would - but somewhere in me I really wanted him to do what was right.
Your eyes are glazed over because politician after politician from this Province has failed and despite the studies and the commissions - all they have consecutively done is - piece by piece rip away at this tremendous resource. The social experiment - predicted that if you do the demise in chunks - you will limit the people who may protest the demise of our way of life, those idyllic communities, and that significant revenue.
The politicians, senior bureaucrats and union all have been responsible in this giveaway. Make no mistake - Ottawa has bartered away our stocks for the benefit of population rich provinces - the province has bartered away our industry to corporate interests that do not operate to benefit Newfoundland and Labrador - rather to benefit shareholders (most of whom live offshore).
We must stop rewarding failure and not fall into the trap set for us - that eyes glazed over means - we do not care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)