Yesterday was budget day in Canada and the Speech from the Throne day in Newfoundland and Labrador.
As usual the media wants to know what the Boards of Trade think, what other politicians think, what unions think, ad what "big" cities think - but not any curiosity as to what a 10 year old would think.
The feds raided the contingency piggy bank and sold the GM shares to fictionalize a balanced budget. The upper middle class to upper class received more incentive to keep their money sheltered and anything whatsoever that could be considered middle class was put off for future governments to budget. Not much there for the 10 year old and many things to worry about as they enter into their post-secondary and career years.
The province provided a similar plan for destitution for the 10 year old - just slightly worse. We will now run deficits for 6 more years and borrow billions more - this is bad news for the 10 year old. We will be laying down chunks of cash year over year for the Williams/Dunderdale/Marshall/Davis legacy - supplying cheap power for Nova Scotia - this is bad news for the 10 year old.
So if I'm 10 - I can look forward to mounting debt - depleted non-renewable resources with no heritage cash, the payment of pensions 3 generations past, an aging population, a dwindling population, escalated health care costs, crumbling infrastructure and disappearing communities.
I can look forward to depleting oil - with no societal wealth, depleting minerals - shipped out unprocessed, a fishery that has been turned over to a few elite - no processing, a declining if not completely wiped out forestry industrial sector, and energy that I have to pay for regardless - so Nova Scotian young adults can rely on energy for growing industry.
Self-serving, underachieving, mentally lazy, and partisan zealots - have made my future real bright.
The 10 year old should start watching this:
The Newfoundland and Labrador debt clock PRESS HERE
The Canadian debt clock PRESS HERE
or for the other option - where politicians put the next generation ahead of personal or partisan interests - the Norwegian wealth clock PRESS HERE
I went to the Throne speech yesterday and watched the classless and clueless behavior of many government members. From the gallery - I could watch them check pictures on Facebook - or just simply click away on their cellphones while the Lieutenant Governor told us about our future and how important the people are.
Disgraceful. How do you sleep at night?
Our children are going to leave - they will have no other choice.
Showing posts with label Board of Trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Board of Trade. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
Bond (Ed) Bond hits the nail right on the head of Bennett
The Sir Robert Bond Papers seems to have best summed up what to expect from Cathy Bennett if she became leader of any political party.
In his "Politics of Fashion" post Mr. Hollett talks about pollster Don Mills and his chat with the Board of Trade. Please see the excerpt below or keep it all in context by reading the complete post HERE
"...The provincial government started focussing on things like the Lower Churchill, squeezing more hand-outs from the federal government, and spending beyond what the public treasury could support. One of the provincial Conservatives’ biggest supporters after was Don Mills. Right in line behind Mills was the St. John’s Board of Trade. They cheered as the provincial government increased spending by incredible amounts. As the government admitted starting in late 2009, what it was doing was what the public couldn’t afford. Neither Mills nor the Board of Trade said a peep about it.
None of this is surprising. The two go together. CRA is the only pollster the local elite accepts and the Board of Trade reflects the views of the highly clique-ish local establishment. Mills is on the Board of Trade’s agenda because he is fashionable, not because he is saying something provocative or even something the Board actually supports. They don’t. The Board actually supports unsustainable government spending because that’s what puts cash in its members pockets.." (emphasis added)
Mr. Hollett certainly does not hold anything back when talking about Mills or the Board of Trade and their support of unsustainable spending by government.
Mr. Hollett continues on by adding the following later in the post:
" The Board is like an arm of government. The Board is such a reflection of the official view of things that they won’t even give time at a luncheon for a representative of the Liberals or New Democrats to speak. That sort of thing would be commonplace anywhere else but not in Newfoundland and Labrador since 2003." (emphasis added)
Well Mr. Hollett - I could not have said it better myself - however it was not only the Board of Trade and Don Mills who remained quiet while spending soared. You failed to mention one other; Cathy Bennett as the President of the Board of Trade in 2007.
This seems to differ greatly from Hollett's earlier post on Bennett's candidacy where he says:
"Bennett could prove to be the catalyst for a major change on the local political landscape. She is a fresh face. She offers potential."
Hard to match "fresh face" and "potential" with Hollett's earlier description of the Board of Trade and Don Mills since 2003. Hard to match "an arm of government" with catalyst for change.
Many of us already believe that Ms. Bennett is an opportunist - but Mr. Hollett puts it so much more clearly.
In his "Politics of Fashion" post Mr. Hollett talks about pollster Don Mills and his chat with the Board of Trade. Please see the excerpt below or keep it all in context by reading the complete post HERE
"...The provincial government started focussing on things like the Lower Churchill, squeezing more hand-outs from the federal government, and spending beyond what the public treasury could support. One of the provincial Conservatives’ biggest supporters after was Don Mills. Right in line behind Mills was the St. John’s Board of Trade. They cheered as the provincial government increased spending by incredible amounts. As the government admitted starting in late 2009, what it was doing was what the public couldn’t afford. Neither Mills nor the Board of Trade said a peep about it.
None of this is surprising. The two go together. CRA is the only pollster the local elite accepts and the Board of Trade reflects the views of the highly clique-ish local establishment. Mills is on the Board of Trade’s agenda because he is fashionable, not because he is saying something provocative or even something the Board actually supports. They don’t. The Board actually supports unsustainable government spending because that’s what puts cash in its members pockets.." (emphasis added)
Mr. Hollett certainly does not hold anything back when talking about Mills or the Board of Trade and their support of unsustainable spending by government.
Mr. Hollett continues on by adding the following later in the post:
" The Board is like an arm of government. The Board is such a reflection of the official view of things that they won’t even give time at a luncheon for a representative of the Liberals or New Democrats to speak. That sort of thing would be commonplace anywhere else but not in Newfoundland and Labrador since 2003." (emphasis added)
Well Mr. Hollett - I could not have said it better myself - however it was not only the Board of Trade and Don Mills who remained quiet while spending soared. You failed to mention one other; Cathy Bennett as the President of the Board of Trade in 2007.
This seems to differ greatly from Hollett's earlier post on Bennett's candidacy where he says:
"Bennett could prove to be the catalyst for a major change on the local political landscape. She is a fresh face. She offers potential."
Hard to match "fresh face" and "potential" with Hollett's earlier description of the Board of Trade and Don Mills since 2003. Hard to match "an arm of government" with catalyst for change.
Many of us already believe that Ms. Bennett is an opportunist - but Mr. Hollett puts it so much more clearly.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Williams - The De Terminator
When one of the Directors of Alderon Iron Ore Corp. addressed the St. John's Board of Trade a week ago - the purported virtues of the Muskrat Falls deal were not the only items discussed.
The representative of Alderon also extolled the virtues of his own investments while taking some quality time to attack some unknown and some known critics of the hydro deal.
As was predicted by Sue's Blog a few weeks ago - the businessman also took the time to use Russell Wangersky's words to demonstrate how the government and Nalcor have been supplying all kinds of information and that critics may be upset with the media because:
"I don’t think it’s correct to say that investigative work isn’t being done. Perhaps it just hasn’t led to what some people want to hear."
Of course what the businessman failed to mention was the numerous editorials Wangersky has done that have questioned process and details of the proposed energy deal. Then again that would not have satisfied the businessman's argument.
The businessman also talked about his massive land development - set to break ground next year - in the City of St. John's west end. He mentioned having acquired the land 15 years ago and that the development could be worth 5 billion dollars. What land was he referring to? What land was acquired 15 years ago? What land was acquired when the businessman was a politician?
Just as a side note to VOCM the businessman while talking about slander and libel and lies - he stated "we must hold people accountable for their words". Maybe the open-line and back-talk hosts should remember the businessman's words the next time they think about allowing callers like "bob" to out and out lie about a private citizen.
Continuing with the "we must hold people accountable for their words" mantra - how is it that the big deal now is to power mines with Muskrat power and that the potential 15 billion in mining projects in Labrador could be jeopardized if the Muskrat deal is squashed.
Now the businessman - a Director of Alderon - a company that has strict corporate governance for its executive - was clearly following those guidelines by pushing the need for Muskrat to power the mines. When that businessman was the Premier the power was for:
Of the total 4.9 terawatt hours per year of power
to be produced, initially 2.0 terawatts will be allocated to the
Island to meet domestic demand and to displace expensive, dirty
bunker "C" oil used in Holyrood;
Approximately 1.0 terawatt hours per year, or 20
per cent of the output of Muskrat Falls, will be provided to Emera
Inc. for use in Nova Scotia.
The remaining power will be sold into the
Maritime Provinces and the New England market place. Nalcor Energy
will be able to sell power in these jurisdictions as a result of
gaining existing transmission rights from Emera Inc. The total cost
of the project will be approximately $6.2 billion
Clearly holding people accountable for their words - does not mean much.
Will his words of 6.2 Billion hold-up? It used to be the total cost of the project but now the businessman suggests to us that perhaps 8 billion might be the price.
Now further on the Alderon situation - where the power supply is of critical importance to the development. Was the government of Newfoundland and Labrador under the Premiership of businessman Danny Williams unaware of Kami? No of course not. The day after the businessman announced his resignation as Premier - Alderon announced that it had raised over 16 million on a share offering. Monies raised in part to "advance" its Kami property in Labrador.
And so vested was Alderon Resources in this project - that in October 2011 it changed it's Corporate name to Alderon Iron Ore Corp to reflect that importance.
I do not create the facts - others have. How much in business - big corporate business - is happenstance?
Gary Norris
Danny Williams
Todd Burlingame
Brian Dalton
all to the Alderon Team. They list the acquisition of the businessman as a Director for the company as an impressive accomplishment ranked up there with the 490 million tonnes of ore, pre-tax NPV of over 3 billion dollars, completing a 40 million dollar investment, and commencement of trading on the NYSE.
The laws of the province should reflect a reasonable time-frame for government MHA's, Cabinet Ministers, Premiers, senior officials to become involved with any company that has any interest in a file that the politician/bureaucrat had worked directly with.
The time should reflect the relative power the individuals office had. My suggestion as follows:
MHA's 2 years
Cabinet Minister 4 years
Premier 5 years
Deputy or Assistant Deputy Minister 5 years
All within the span of two years - the former Premier announced a deal to develop Muskrat Falls, became a special advisor to Alderon, became a Director in Alderon, began speaking publicly on the importance of the Muskrat Falls project to Alderon.
The businessman also articulated to the Board of Trade that:
"debate is good"
"asking questions is important"
but
"opposition for the sake of opposition is wrong"
"critics who knowingly put misinformation in the public domain are irresponsible and are a disservice to the people of the province"
The businessman will determine what debate is good, what opposition is acceptable, which critics are responsible?
He then asked "what in the world is to be gained" by Ed Martin or Gil Bennett by forcing a bad project on their own province.
So the businessman will determine that people opposed to the project might have less than honourable intentions but the people who are for it have nothing but the best intentions. Once again Danny will determine that.
He has also determined as evidenced by such remarks - that these individuals can't be wrong, might just be making a mistake.
How many politicians, officials, lawyers, and experts got it wrong with the Upper Churchill?
How many Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro officials and politicians and business people got it wrong when privatization was attempted?
The businessman will be the De Terminator on all these matters?
Then how many times - including in the businessman's speech to the Board of Trade did he state "no more giveaways"? Where's all the ore going Mr. Businessman? How much of the ore will be processed here in Newfoundland and Labrador Mr. Businessman?
Alderon Iron Ore Corp. (TSX: ADV) (NYSE AMEX: AXX) (“Alderon" or the “Company”) is pleased to announce that it has signed a definitive subscription agreement dated April 13, 2012 (the "Subscription Agreement") with Hebei Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd. (“Hebei”), China’s largest steel producer. Hebei will make a strategic investment into both Alderon and its Kami iron ore project (the "Kami Project") in an aggregate amount of C$194 million, in exchange for 19.9% of the outstanding common shares of Alderon (the "Private Placement") and a 25% interest in a newly formed limited partnership that will be established to own the Kami Project.
A newly formed limited partnership? Who owns that?
The businessman will not influence my decision on the proposed Muskrat Falls project, or the land project, or the fibre optic deal. The businessman will not be the De Terminator of what is legitimate or reasonable criticism - or who is or is not an acceptable critic.
Time for a referendum - without question - and let all FACTS be debated openly. What people determine from those facts - of course - is entirely up to them - not the De Terminator.
The representative of Alderon also extolled the virtues of his own investments while taking some quality time to attack some unknown and some known critics of the hydro deal.
As was predicted by Sue's Blog a few weeks ago - the businessman also took the time to use Russell Wangersky's words to demonstrate how the government and Nalcor have been supplying all kinds of information and that critics may be upset with the media because:
"I don’t think it’s correct to say that investigative work isn’t being done. Perhaps it just hasn’t led to what some people want to hear."
Of course what the businessman failed to mention was the numerous editorials Wangersky has done that have questioned process and details of the proposed energy deal. Then again that would not have satisfied the businessman's argument.
The businessman also talked about his massive land development - set to break ground next year - in the City of St. John's west end. He mentioned having acquired the land 15 years ago and that the development could be worth 5 billion dollars. What land was he referring to? What land was acquired 15 years ago? What land was acquired when the businessman was a politician?
Just as a side note to VOCM the businessman while talking about slander and libel and lies - he stated "we must hold people accountable for their words". Maybe the open-line and back-talk hosts should remember the businessman's words the next time they think about allowing callers like "bob" to out and out lie about a private citizen.
Continuing with the "we must hold people accountable for their words" mantra - how is it that the big deal now is to power mines with Muskrat power and that the potential 15 billion in mining projects in Labrador could be jeopardized if the Muskrat deal is squashed.
Now the businessman - a Director of Alderon - a company that has strict corporate governance for its executive - was clearly following those guidelines by pushing the need for Muskrat to power the mines. When that businessman was the Premier the power was for:
Clearly holding people accountable for their words - does not mean much.
Will his words of 6.2 Billion hold-up? It used to be the total cost of the project but now the businessman suggests to us that perhaps 8 billion might be the price.
Now further on the Alderon situation - where the power supply is of critical importance to the development. Was the government of Newfoundland and Labrador under the Premiership of businessman Danny Williams unaware of Kami? No of course not. The day after the businessman announced his resignation as Premier - Alderon announced that it had raised over 16 million on a share offering. Monies raised in part to "advance" its Kami property in Labrador.
And so vested was Alderon Resources in this project - that in October 2011 it changed it's Corporate name to Alderon Iron Ore Corp to reflect that importance.
I do not create the facts - others have. How much in business - big corporate business - is happenstance?
Gary Norris
Danny Williams
Todd Burlingame
Brian Dalton
all to the Alderon Team. They list the acquisition of the businessman as a Director for the company as an impressive accomplishment ranked up there with the 490 million tonnes of ore, pre-tax NPV of over 3 billion dollars, completing a 40 million dollar investment, and commencement of trading on the NYSE.
The laws of the province should reflect a reasonable time-frame for government MHA's, Cabinet Ministers, Premiers, senior officials to become involved with any company that has any interest in a file that the politician/bureaucrat had worked directly with.
The time should reflect the relative power the individuals office had. My suggestion as follows:
MHA's 2 years
Cabinet Minister 4 years
Premier 5 years
Deputy or Assistant Deputy Minister 5 years
All within the span of two years - the former Premier announced a deal to develop Muskrat Falls, became a special advisor to Alderon, became a Director in Alderon, began speaking publicly on the importance of the Muskrat Falls project to Alderon.
The businessman also articulated to the Board of Trade that:
"debate is good"
"asking questions is important"
but
"opposition for the sake of opposition is wrong"
"critics who knowingly put misinformation in the public domain are irresponsible and are a disservice to the people of the province"
The businessman will determine what debate is good, what opposition is acceptable, which critics are responsible?
He then asked "what in the world is to be gained" by Ed Martin or Gil Bennett by forcing a bad project on their own province.
So the businessman will determine that people opposed to the project might have less than honourable intentions but the people who are for it have nothing but the best intentions. Once again Danny will determine that.
He has also determined as evidenced by such remarks - that these individuals can't be wrong, might just be making a mistake.
How many politicians, officials, lawyers, and experts got it wrong with the Upper Churchill?
How many Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro officials and politicians and business people got it wrong when privatization was attempted?
The businessman will be the De Terminator on all these matters?
Then how many times - including in the businessman's speech to the Board of Trade did he state "no more giveaways"? Where's all the ore going Mr. Businessman? How much of the ore will be processed here in Newfoundland and Labrador Mr. Businessman?
Alderon Iron Ore Corp. (TSX: ADV) (NYSE AMEX: AXX) (“Alderon" or the “Company”) is pleased to announce that it has signed a definitive subscription agreement dated April 13, 2012 (the "Subscription Agreement") with Hebei Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd. (“Hebei”), China’s largest steel producer. Hebei will make a strategic investment into both Alderon and its Kami iron ore project (the "Kami Project") in an aggregate amount of C$194 million, in exchange for 19.9% of the outstanding common shares of Alderon (the "Private Placement") and a 25% interest in a newly formed limited partnership that will be established to own the Kami Project.
A newly formed limited partnership? Who owns that?
The businessman will not influence my decision on the proposed Muskrat Falls project, or the land project, or the fibre optic deal. The businessman will not be the De Terminator of what is legitimate or reasonable criticism - or who is or is not an acceptable critic.
Time for a referendum - without question - and let all FACTS be debated openly. What people determine from those facts - of course - is entirely up to them - not the De Terminator.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Danny Willams - Alderon - Muskrat Falls
What's your opinion?
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics - Alderon
Below please find a section under: Third Party Relationships - Conflict of Interest
Conflicts of interest arise where an individual’s position or responsibilities with the Company present an opportunity for personal gain apart from the normal rewards of employment, officership ordirectorship, to the detriment of the Company. They also arise where an individual’s personal interests are inconsistent with those of the Company and create conflicting loyalties. Such conflicting loyalties can cause an employee, director, officer or consultant to give preference to personal interests in situations where corporate responsibilities should come first. Employees, officers, directors and consultants of the Company shall perform the responsibilities of their positions on the basis of what is in the best interests of the Company and free from the influence of personal considerations and relationships. (emphasis added)
Quote by Danny Williams to Board of Trade - Reported by CBC Newfoundland and Labrador
"I most certainly would not jeopardize years of working for this province or my own personal reputation for the sake of Muskrat Falls or a mining company"
2011 Annual Report Alderon
Section: Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Alderon depends on a single mineral project.
The Kami Property accounts for all of Alderon's mineral resources and exclusively represents the current potential for the future generation of revenue. The costs, timing and complexities of upgrading the mineralized material at the Kami Property to proven and probable reserves may be greater than Alderon anticipates. Mineral exploration and development involves a high degree of risk that even a combination of careful evaluation, experience and knowledge cannot eliminate and few properties that are explored are ultimately developed into producing mines. Any adverse development affecting the Kami Property will have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial position, results of operations and cash flows The successful start of mining operations at, and the development of, the Kami Property into a commercially viable mine cannot be assured.
Alderon needs to enter into contracts with external service and utility providers.
Mining, processing, development and exploration activities depend, to one degree or another, on adequate infrastructure. In order to develop a mine at the Kami Property, we will need to negotiate and conclude various agreements with external service and utility providers for rail transportation, power and port access, and these are important determinants that affect capital and operating costs. The inability to conclude any such agreements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows and render the development of a mine on the Kami Property unviable.
------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Williams sits on the Board of Directors Alderon
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics - Alderon
Below please find a section under: Third Party Relationships - Conflict of Interest
Conflicts of interest arise where an individual’s position or responsibilities with the Company present an opportunity for personal gain apart from the normal rewards of employment, officership ordirectorship, to the detriment of the Company. They also arise where an individual’s personal interests are inconsistent with those of the Company and create conflicting loyalties. Such conflicting loyalties can cause an employee, director, officer or consultant to give preference to personal interests in situations where corporate responsibilities should come first. Employees, officers, directors and consultants of the Company shall perform the responsibilities of their positions on the basis of what is in the best interests of the Company and free from the influence of personal considerations and relationships. (emphasis added)
Quote by Danny Williams to Board of Trade - Reported by CBC Newfoundland and Labrador
"I most certainly would not jeopardize years of working for this province or my own personal reputation for the sake of Muskrat Falls or a mining company"
2011 Annual Report Alderon
Section: Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Alderon depends on a single mineral project.
The Kami Property accounts for all of Alderon's mineral resources and exclusively represents the current potential for the future generation of revenue. The costs, timing and complexities of upgrading the mineralized material at the Kami Property to proven and probable reserves may be greater than Alderon anticipates. Mineral exploration and development involves a high degree of risk that even a combination of careful evaluation, experience and knowledge cannot eliminate and few properties that are explored are ultimately developed into producing mines. Any adverse development affecting the Kami Property will have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial position, results of operations and cash flows The successful start of mining operations at, and the development of, the Kami Property into a commercially viable mine cannot be assured.
Alderon needs to enter into contracts with external service and utility providers.
Mining, processing, development and exploration activities depend, to one degree or another, on adequate infrastructure. In order to develop a mine at the Kami Property, we will need to negotiate and conclude various agreements with external service and utility providers for rail transportation, power and port access, and these are important determinants that affect capital and operating costs. The inability to conclude any such agreements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows and render the development of a mine on the Kami Property unviable.
------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Williams sits on the Board of Directors Alderon
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Motivate(ional) Questions for Dunderdale and Media
Funny to listen to talk a few talk show hosts, media, and politicians wonder aloud why the "opposers", "naysayers", "partisans", "conspiracy theorists", "armchair experts", and "idiots" are questioning the motives of those who support or comment positively on the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.
Well for months everybody who has opposed or questioned the deal has been called all the names above and asked what their motives are.
Okay - shoe is on the other foot.
1. Why would Ches Penney support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
2. Why would Cathy Bennett support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
3. Why would Dean MacDonald support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
4. Why would Peter Woodward support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
5. Why would John Steele support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
First of all none of the aforementioned or their like minded business colleagues are charged with ensuring that all of society benefits from the resource the people own. They are charged with making more and more profit not long-term benefits for ratepayers or future generations.
Second there is a distinct potential for them to make more money from this deal while asking you and I to pay for it.
Third - unlike average Joe or Josephine citizen - their investment activity is likely at higher levels and more diversified meaning that indirectly more money will flow to them and their families.
Fourth - if the worst happens and electricity rates go through the roof - each of them are likely more able to absorb the increases without changing lifestyle or having to choose between heat and food. Further the potential for direct personal/business gain from this proposed deal will outweigh their losses from an increased electric bill.
Fifth - It is most common for business to flock behind any industrial deal as has been evidenced globally and if the worst happens - governments are usually very receptive to bailouts for the elite of the business community.
The people who have publicly opposed the deal have been scrutinized completely right from whether they are or have been blue red or orange, may have interests in other energy potentials, or just plain naysayers.
Now that the "business" community has come out of the closet in support of this deal - perhaps they would like to share their investment holdings so we the public can examine their possible motives for such a position. Perhaps they can tell us if their companies are supporting the project or if it just a personal opinion.
Perhaps they could reveal if they have business interests in Nova Scotia.
Perhaps they could reveal if they or their corporate interests ever completed projects for government or ever received money from government.
We also might want to review information on political funding such as the example below.
In 2010 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,000.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,250.00 PC
In 2009 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,250.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,000.00 PC
In 2008 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 4,500.00 PC
In 2007 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 5,000.00 PC (G/E)
Or perhaps we need a more comprehensive look at what these people are involved in - that might make them support this project:
Dean Macdonald
Press Here or
Perhaps how the Danny Williams led government investment (untendered) money for Persona (Dean Macdonald) quickly became an enhancement for a Nova Scotian firm.
Press Here which quickly precipitated Press Here and then to Press Here
You see the deal is "good" may definitely be in the eye of a specific beholder. There is no equation that guarantees that when a particular business makes money from a deal = that society will also be better off. There is no guarantee that the people who own the resource (us) will benefit fairly and equitably because a corporation/s make/s money.
We have plenty of examples where corporations have done significantly well from our resources while we received less than equitable return.
Just so that we are clear - the information presented above does not even insinuate that the individuals are doing something wrong - what it does do is state categorically that what is good for them does not necessarily equate to what is good for you.
It does insinuate that government is not behaving in a manner that is expected from the people who employ them, elect them, and own the resource and is ignoring the genuine, educated, and entitled right of citizens to oppose, object, question, and protest any major public policy or resource development.
Extremism is not good in any society and at any level. It is not reasonable to expect 100% support from the people for any government policy, investment, and/or development - that would be extreme. Equally it is unreasonable for the Premier and government to ignore, condemn, or attempt to thwart all opposition to a particular development. This is extreme and the Premier and her government are guilty of it.
Make no mistake - when government policy is made regarding things like minimum wage hikes - the business community complains and is opposed to policy that might enhance the lives of many but reduce their own profitability. Business has no problem complaining and lobbying to lower taxation, reduce royalties, restrict injured workers benefits, and reduce government spending including a reduction in public servants and programs. It equally has no problem asking for investment dollars with minimum or no repayment of same. Business regularly asks to be exempt from secondary processing while having unfettered access to natural resources. All these things to maximize their own profitability - while knowing there are those who will not benefit as much or at all - if they are successful.
The question then becomes the role of government.
Dunderdale and team can trot out all the businesses they like to demonstrate support for the proposed Muskrat Falls deal but that is not the support they need for this project. They need the support of the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will be paying for the project. They need the support of the majority of ratepayers. They answer to and work for those who elect them. Businesses do not vote - people do.
The backup quarterback for Team Muskrat is another story. Danny Williams is another post coming soon. Is he now speaking as former Premier, the architect of the deal, a Director of a mining company, or an investor? The media should be certain to find out so that his commentaries on the project are placed in proper perspective.
Well for months everybody who has opposed or questioned the deal has been called all the names above and asked what their motives are.
Okay - shoe is on the other foot.
1. Why would Ches Penney support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
2. Why would Cathy Bennett support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
3. Why would Dean MacDonald support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
4. Why would Peter Woodward support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
5. Why would John Steele support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
First of all none of the aforementioned or their like minded business colleagues are charged with ensuring that all of society benefits from the resource the people own. They are charged with making more and more profit not long-term benefits for ratepayers or future generations.
Second there is a distinct potential for them to make more money from this deal while asking you and I to pay for it.
Third - unlike average Joe or Josephine citizen - their investment activity is likely at higher levels and more diversified meaning that indirectly more money will flow to them and their families.
Fourth - if the worst happens and electricity rates go through the roof - each of them are likely more able to absorb the increases without changing lifestyle or having to choose between heat and food. Further the potential for direct personal/business gain from this proposed deal will outweigh their losses from an increased electric bill.
Fifth - It is most common for business to flock behind any industrial deal as has been evidenced globally and if the worst happens - governments are usually very receptive to bailouts for the elite of the business community.
The people who have publicly opposed the deal have been scrutinized completely right from whether they are or have been blue red or orange, may have interests in other energy potentials, or just plain naysayers.
Now that the "business" community has come out of the closet in support of this deal - perhaps they would like to share their investment holdings so we the public can examine their possible motives for such a position. Perhaps they can tell us if their companies are supporting the project or if it just a personal opinion.
Perhaps they could reveal if they have business interests in Nova Scotia.
Perhaps they could reveal if they or their corporate interests ever completed projects for government or ever received money from government.
We also might want to review information on political funding such as the example below.
In 2010 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,000.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,250.00 PC
In 2009 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,250.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,000.00 PC
In 2008 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 4,500.00 PC
In 2007 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 5,000.00 PC (G/E)
Or perhaps we need a more comprehensive look at what these people are involved in - that might make them support this project:
Dean Macdonald
Press Here or
Perhaps how the Danny Williams led government investment (untendered) money for Persona (Dean Macdonald) quickly became an enhancement for a Nova Scotian firm.
Press Here which quickly precipitated Press Here and then to Press Here
You see the deal is "good" may definitely be in the eye of a specific beholder. There is no equation that guarantees that when a particular business makes money from a deal = that society will also be better off. There is no guarantee that the people who own the resource (us) will benefit fairly and equitably because a corporation/s make/s money.
We have plenty of examples where corporations have done significantly well from our resources while we received less than equitable return.
Just so that we are clear - the information presented above does not even insinuate that the individuals are doing something wrong - what it does do is state categorically that what is good for them does not necessarily equate to what is good for you.
It does insinuate that government is not behaving in a manner that is expected from the people who employ them, elect them, and own the resource and is ignoring the genuine, educated, and entitled right of citizens to oppose, object, question, and protest any major public policy or resource development.
Extremism is not good in any society and at any level. It is not reasonable to expect 100% support from the people for any government policy, investment, and/or development - that would be extreme. Equally it is unreasonable for the Premier and government to ignore, condemn, or attempt to thwart all opposition to a particular development. This is extreme and the Premier and her government are guilty of it.
Make no mistake - when government policy is made regarding things like minimum wage hikes - the business community complains and is opposed to policy that might enhance the lives of many but reduce their own profitability. Business has no problem complaining and lobbying to lower taxation, reduce royalties, restrict injured workers benefits, and reduce government spending including a reduction in public servants and programs. It equally has no problem asking for investment dollars with minimum or no repayment of same. Business regularly asks to be exempt from secondary processing while having unfettered access to natural resources. All these things to maximize their own profitability - while knowing there are those who will not benefit as much or at all - if they are successful.
The question then becomes the role of government.
Dunderdale and team can trot out all the businesses they like to demonstrate support for the proposed Muskrat Falls deal but that is not the support they need for this project. They need the support of the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will be paying for the project. They need the support of the majority of ratepayers. They answer to and work for those who elect them. Businesses do not vote - people do.
The backup quarterback for Team Muskrat is another story. Danny Williams is another post coming soon. Is he now speaking as former Premier, the architect of the deal, a Director of a mining company, or an investor? The media should be certain to find out so that his commentaries on the project are placed in proper perspective.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Desperate Dunderdale Disingenuous?
The Premier chose Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador to extend a challenge to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prove her wrong on Muskrat?
First Ms. Dunderdale - the challenge is to you not the voters who pay your salary or the ratepayers who pay for electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. You prove that this and only this proposed development of Muskrat Falls is the best option for us. You prove that the costs are acceptable. You prove that there is an urgent need for power on the Island. You prove the benefits for us of green energy for Nova Scotia. You prove that there is not a better deal to be had. You prove that there are not other and better options. To date - you have not proven these things. To date - you have had reports based on your government's and Nalcor's assumptions.
Now let's take it a little further. You want citizens of the province to prove why the deal is bad. Okay let's say we accept the challenge - will you and your government allot public funds for other research to be completed? Will you and your government provide access to ALL information you are using to make your decisions on? Your government and Nalcor have spent tens of millions of dollars of our money to prove out your theory - now give us the equivalent to prove you wrong.
This is not unheard of and unreasonable - it was offered to ordinary citizens and groups regarding the development of the White Rose field. That is a non-renewable resource that we are not bearing the debt of - Muskrat is renewable and will put us in severe debt - that we will service.
Last week you took it a step further - you gave a speech of fear to the Board of Trade. In that address you made many statements about Quebec and Hydro-Quebec. Prove those statements. Prove that the fear is warranted.
Let's just say this - the following are basic reasons why people oppose this deal:
1. Some citizens simply do not want the river dammed. They do not need to prove anything to hold that ideology.
2. Labradorians have expressed that they will not receive enough benefit from the development - as those who are adjacent to it. They do not need to prove that the benefits do not satisfy them.
3. Your primary reason for this proposed deal has changed more times than we can reasonably keep track of. You pick which one of these paths to disprove.
4. You have not proven that we need this power for the Island. The statements be they referring to 2017 or 2019 as the time when we will not be able to service the Island's power needs are troubling and should cause grave concern regarding the planning competency of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
5. The continued statement about us contributing to "greening up" Canada is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. You do some research and tell us what our current contribution of 5000 MW's from the Upper Churchill equates to on a per-capita basis of "greening up".
6. You made contemptuous in your BOT speech that Hydro-Quebec in your words: "Think about that! Does anybody have any confidence that, when mines in this province go to Hydro-Québec looking for energy for development in Labrador, they are going to get the best industrial rates in Atlantic Canada? Not likely. Hydro Quebec’s history is to seek the best deal for itself..." Yes Premier that is the point and we want you to prove that this current proposed deal is the best for us.
7. You are not the Premier of Atlantic Canada (Atlantica) or the Premier of mining companies or publicly traded companies you are the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prove that what you are doing is best for us - not them.
8. Prove that you are supplying ALL information to us and that none is being withheld.
9. The people are concerned that they are being bullied into this deal - wherein if you ask questions or are opposed to this proposed undertaking - they will be called partisan, naysayers, armchair critics, or worse. The people are concerned that there may be opposition to the deal inside the walls of Nalcor and government but they cannot speak for fear of repercussion. The same could be true for businesses and organizations who rely on government support either fiscally or from a policy perspective.
10. You have not proven that other options for generation or development of any part of the Lower Churchill are not more beneficial than the deal you have proposed.
Either you are being sincere or disingenuous when you challenge the people who employ you. If you are serious - show us the cash, the human resources, and process to respond to your challenge. If not this is just more smoke to cover a rotten deal.
First Ms. Dunderdale - the challenge is to you not the voters who pay your salary or the ratepayers who pay for electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. You prove that this and only this proposed development of Muskrat Falls is the best option for us. You prove that the costs are acceptable. You prove that there is an urgent need for power on the Island. You prove the benefits for us of green energy for Nova Scotia. You prove that there is not a better deal to be had. You prove that there are not other and better options. To date - you have not proven these things. To date - you have had reports based on your government's and Nalcor's assumptions.
Now let's take it a little further. You want citizens of the province to prove why the deal is bad. Okay let's say we accept the challenge - will you and your government allot public funds for other research to be completed? Will you and your government provide access to ALL information you are using to make your decisions on? Your government and Nalcor have spent tens of millions of dollars of our money to prove out your theory - now give us the equivalent to prove you wrong.
This is not unheard of and unreasonable - it was offered to ordinary citizens and groups regarding the development of the White Rose field. That is a non-renewable resource that we are not bearing the debt of - Muskrat is renewable and will put us in severe debt - that we will service.
Last week you took it a step further - you gave a speech of fear to the Board of Trade. In that address you made many statements about Quebec and Hydro-Quebec. Prove those statements. Prove that the fear is warranted.
Let's just say this - the following are basic reasons why people oppose this deal:
1. Some citizens simply do not want the river dammed. They do not need to prove anything to hold that ideology.
2. Labradorians have expressed that they will not receive enough benefit from the development - as those who are adjacent to it. They do not need to prove that the benefits do not satisfy them.
3. Your primary reason for this proposed deal has changed more times than we can reasonably keep track of. You pick which one of these paths to disprove.
4. You have not proven that we need this power for the Island. The statements be they referring to 2017 or 2019 as the time when we will not be able to service the Island's power needs are troubling and should cause grave concern regarding the planning competency of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
5. The continued statement about us contributing to "greening up" Canada is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. You do some research and tell us what our current contribution of 5000 MW's from the Upper Churchill equates to on a per-capita basis of "greening up".
6. You made contemptuous in your BOT speech that Hydro-Quebec in your words: "Think about that! Does anybody have any confidence that, when mines in this province go to Hydro-Québec looking for energy for development in Labrador, they are going to get the best industrial rates in Atlantic Canada? Not likely. Hydro Quebec’s history is to seek the best deal for itself..." Yes Premier that is the point and we want you to prove that this current proposed deal is the best for us.
7. You are not the Premier of Atlantic Canada (Atlantica) or the Premier of mining companies or publicly traded companies you are the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prove that what you are doing is best for us - not them.
8. Prove that you are supplying ALL information to us and that none is being withheld.
9. The people are concerned that they are being bullied into this deal - wherein if you ask questions or are opposed to this proposed undertaking - they will be called partisan, naysayers, armchair critics, or worse. The people are concerned that there may be opposition to the deal inside the walls of Nalcor and government but they cannot speak for fear of repercussion. The same could be true for businesses and organizations who rely on government support either fiscally or from a policy perspective.
10. You have not proven that other options for generation or development of any part of the Lower Churchill are not more beneficial than the deal you have proposed.
Either you are being sincere or disingenuous when you challenge the people who employ you. If you are serious - show us the cash, the human resources, and process to respond to your challenge. If not this is just more smoke to cover a rotten deal.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Tony Clement Responds to First the Navy then the Air Force
I am happy to see that at least the Conservative MP's are listening and Minister's or their staff - taking the time to respond. That would be 100% better than our Liberal members or NDP caucus.
I hope this post wakes them all up - and they start to understand that Canadians want to be heard - and expect the people they employ to manage the country live up to the expectations they create during election campaigns.
In either case - here is the response from the Minister's Office:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms. Kelland-Dyer,
Your Conservative government is the first government in over a decade to take sovereignty seriously, as promised by Mr. Harper.
This government has already begun the massive investment in security that Mr. Harper spoke about. For example, The Conservatives' budget in 2006 allocated $1.1 billion to the Canadian military over two years, as part of $5.3 billion in funding coming over the next five years.
As well, during the last week of June 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced $15 billion in spending on military vehicles, including transport planes, heavy-lift helicopters, troop carrier ships and trucks. The spending will be spread out over several years.
Further, to enhance security of our borders and of our businesses, the following excerpt:
CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, January 12, 2007
WINDSOR, Ont. — Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day unveiled his government’s $400-million commitment for new border security initiatives Friday, which include an electronic cargo manifest program designed to help speed up the movement of trucks across the border.
The “e-manifest” system will see driver and cargo paperwork sent in advance to Canada’s border guards so the information can be better screened for potential high-risk shipments. Such documents today are often not seen by Canada’s customs officers until a shipment arrives in front of them at the border.
“The government is committed to keeping Canada safe, but at the same time ensuring business and trade can move smoothly across the border,” said Day.
The program will be designed by the business and transportation industries. An initial meeting between the parties is scheduled Jan. 18.
Day also announced Friday a $24-million investment for emergency co-ordination planning between Canadian and U.S. authorities, emergency responders and business to avoid the border trade traffic gridlock that occurred following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The government will also spend $11.6 million for its Partners in Protection program that sees Canada Border Services Agency authorities assess the strength of security systems of private companies and shippers, then offer tips to strengthen it.
As you can see from the above, unlike previous governments, this Conservative government intends to meet its commitments to our sovereignty and to the safety of Canadians. I hope that this explanation is what you are looking for.
Sincerely,
David J. Lowe
Chief Parliamentary Assistant to
Tony Clement, P.C., M.P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my Response Back:
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I voted Conservative and supported Loyola Hearn at the last election.
At that time - a significant issue for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was Custodial Management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. Please take the opportunity to view the responses made my Minister Hearn to the St. John's Board of Trade during the last federal campaign. (I will attach)
It will not come as a surprise to you that we are disappointed with Loyola Hearn's broken promise.
I think it's important to note that Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered a loss of over 50,000 people in a half million population because of the fisheries collapse. (federally managed) The decimation of our rural communities has continued since the early nineties when a fishery moratorium was called. These stocks were predicted to recover within 10 years. This has not happened.
You must understand that Newfoundland and Labrador is the East Coast of our country yet the federal presence in this province - as it relates to security and sovereignty - does not reflect our geographic location.
The fact remains that underfunding occurred in this critical area and I expect action not platitudes - so we may find our rightful place in our country.
Best Regards,
Sue Kelland-Dyer
If you have any other material you may find relevant to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians please feel free to send it along and I will post it.
Board of Trade Link
Let me know what you think of the Response and I will post to the site...
By the way when the other two Parties (national) in the HOC get a chance - please address this issue - tell us what you would do differently.
I hope this post wakes them all up - and they start to understand that Canadians want to be heard - and expect the people they employ to manage the country live up to the expectations they create during election campaigns.
In either case - here is the response from the Minister's Office:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms. Kelland-Dyer,
Your Conservative government is the first government in over a decade to take sovereignty seriously, as promised by Mr. Harper.
This government has already begun the massive investment in security that Mr. Harper spoke about. For example, The Conservatives' budget in 2006 allocated $1.1 billion to the Canadian military over two years, as part of $5.3 billion in funding coming over the next five years.
As well, during the last week of June 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced $15 billion in spending on military vehicles, including transport planes, heavy-lift helicopters, troop carrier ships and trucks. The spending will be spread out over several years.
Further, to enhance security of our borders and of our businesses, the following excerpt:
CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, January 12, 2007
WINDSOR, Ont. — Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day unveiled his government’s $400-million commitment for new border security initiatives Friday, which include an electronic cargo manifest program designed to help speed up the movement of trucks across the border.
The “e-manifest” system will see driver and cargo paperwork sent in advance to Canada’s border guards so the information can be better screened for potential high-risk shipments. Such documents today are often not seen by Canada’s customs officers until a shipment arrives in front of them at the border.
“The government is committed to keeping Canada safe, but at the same time ensuring business and trade can move smoothly across the border,” said Day.
The program will be designed by the business and transportation industries. An initial meeting between the parties is scheduled Jan. 18.
Day also announced Friday a $24-million investment for emergency co-ordination planning between Canadian and U.S. authorities, emergency responders and business to avoid the border trade traffic gridlock that occurred following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The government will also spend $11.6 million for its Partners in Protection program that sees Canada Border Services Agency authorities assess the strength of security systems of private companies and shippers, then offer tips to strengthen it.
As you can see from the above, unlike previous governments, this Conservative government intends to meet its commitments to our sovereignty and to the safety of Canadians. I hope that this explanation is what you are looking for.
Sincerely,
David J. Lowe
Chief Parliamentary Assistant to
Tony Clement, P.C., M.P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my Response Back:
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I voted Conservative and supported Loyola Hearn at the last election.
At that time - a significant issue for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was Custodial Management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. Please take the opportunity to view the responses made my Minister Hearn to the St. John's Board of Trade during the last federal campaign. (I will attach)
It will not come as a surprise to you that we are disappointed with Loyola Hearn's broken promise.
I think it's important to note that Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered a loss of over 50,000 people in a half million population because of the fisheries collapse. (federally managed) The decimation of our rural communities has continued since the early nineties when a fishery moratorium was called. These stocks were predicted to recover within 10 years. This has not happened.
You must understand that Newfoundland and Labrador is the East Coast of our country yet the federal presence in this province - as it relates to security and sovereignty - does not reflect our geographic location.
The fact remains that underfunding occurred in this critical area and I expect action not platitudes - so we may find our rightful place in our country.
Best Regards,
Sue Kelland-Dyer
If you have any other material you may find relevant to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians please feel free to send it along and I will post it.
Board of Trade Link
Let me know what you think of the Response and I will post to the site...
By the way when the other two Parties (national) in the HOC get a chance - please address this issue - tell us what you would do differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)