If you can first put aside the learned hatred of everything fish for one moment - then we might start pulling on the same oar.
Ottawa is responsible for the collapse of the fishery as they control the management of the stocks and fishing grounds.
20 years after a moratorium slated to last 10 years - we are collapsing further.
This is not the time to downsize or rationalize - we will not have an industry left. All we will witness is GDP and that will be attributable to unprocessed fish being gouged by a few corporations.
Now is the time to seek a real solution.
We have lost a billion a year since 2002 when the moratorium was supposed to be over. That did not happen.
Because of that we have lost twice that - as we have also lost transfer payments (per-capita) - due to population loss - that pays for transportation, health, and education.
We have also lost communities, investment, families, depreciated asset value, and future industrial potential.
If we demand that Ottawa - pay up - 1 billion x 10 years = 10 billion so far and counting.
Why are we rationalizing?
Why are we downsizing?
Because we have lost our fishery!
That is not acceptable.
We need our fishermen for science, research, and industrial planning.
We need our plant workers to work on new product lines.
We need these people and our provincial government to work on markets.
Is this a reasonable ask?
Of course it is - the feds bail out agriculture year over year to preserve food security, communities, families and that industry. Remember that the feds are not even responsible for drought, floods, market woes, and foreign subsidization for our competitors. They still pay - year over year.
Of course it is - the feds bailed out Ontario when the auto-makers collapsed and industry suffered in Central Canada. Billions and billions. They were not responsible for that occurrence.
They are responsible for the loss of the ground-fish stocks and are responsible for not protecting the fishing grounds. They are responsible for bartering our fish stocks away to foreigners so that other provinces would get manufacturing and industrial investment.
Instead our politicians are sucking their thumbs and doing nothing to correct this problem. We have suffered a grave injury and we are entitled to compensation.
Instead our politicians are looking for ways to boot people out of the fishery with a package.
Instead our politicians are looking to downsize and rationalize.
There is no rationalization - there must be compensation.
Then 25,000 of our people per year could be doing something beneficial - to help rebuild stocks, develop product and markets, and foster growth in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Why is it that Newfoundland and Labrador is not demanding what is just?
Why do we keep letting the feds off the hook?
Why are we allowing not only the continued loss of stocks but downsizing science, SAR, and other critical assets to this industry?
Why indeed!
Showing posts with label Burin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Burin. Show all posts
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
Dunderdale and Company - Partisan? Disinterested? Incompetent?
The attitude of disinterest, boredom, annoyance and/or anger of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians toward the fishery, fishermen, and plant workers is a mistake.
The politicians from all parties have played a very partisan and dangerous game with the people of our province as it relates to this resource and bureaucrats both provincially and federally have made it worse by juggling death versus dealing with the continued problem.
The fishery is our history and should be our future - but in order for that to be the case a number of things have to happen.
1. Our history in the fishery must be fully and publicly disclosed and discussed so that all people in our province can learn to respect, value, and protect this vital renewable resource.
2. An injury has occurred and our province - communities and people - are the injured party. We need to assess the injury, determine the party/ies that caused the injury, value the injury, and then do what is necessary to achieve compensation for the injury.
3. Based on the compensation arrangements the province must move forward to develop plans for recovery, science, enforcement, community, environmental and the future.
4. Further these plans must be broken down to include; immediate actions, medium term actions, and long term actions. One to fifty years would be appropriate.
5.The province must desist making new arrangements with "processors" that want to export raw material and must move toward harvesters co-ops and redevelop a marketing division for products either processed or unprocessed of this resource.
The "rationalization" of the fishery which government and others claim is occurring is nothing more that a desperate response to a disastrous situation which has yet to be dealt with properly. Each and every week we are hearing of the closure or downsizing of plants and facilities and communities losing their primary employer.
This is not a sustainable answer to what will bring economic disaster.
Dr. Phil Earle and Gus Etchegary are not sounding the very loud alarm bells for no reason and these retired individuals are not as passionate as they are without reasoned concern. They are as worried as you should be.
The moratorium of our stocks began in 1992 - this caused a massive upheaval in this resource sector and we lost about 80,000 people from our workforce and most from our province altogether.
We should have experienced significant recovery by 2002 and should have been on our way to sustained recovery. This according to the people responsible for managing the resource.
We all know this did not happen and now we are in 2012 - with no reasonable end in sight.
To alleviate the loss of our ground fish sector - we increased the catch of our shellfish. We all know this is not a good thing and eventually will cause further catastrophic consequences.
Despite the catch increase in other species - thousands of people were removed from this fishery and no doubt hundreds of our rural communities have suffered.
Throughout this mess - the kingpins of the fishery needed to maintain and grow profits - so fisheries policy has revolved around keeping them afloat. The latest of course is to give them stocks without the necessity to process. This has resulted in further losses to the people in general but the continued wealth building for those already so endowed.
If you can get your head around the problem it equates to a loss of a billion dollars a year plus the loss of people, loss of communities and devalued assets.
Try and consider the following. Let's say you lost your job in St. John's or Metro - no doubt you would feel the pinch and be worried about your next paycheck - just like the people displaced on the Burin Peninsula. Let's add that you had been at the same job for 20 or so years and have invested in things like a house or property. If you went to sell that asset in St. John's Metro you would enjoy an increase in the value of your asset upon sale. Now for one moment put yourself in a rural community that has just lost it's only significant employer - and then you needed to sell your house. You would suffer major losses as the equity you built would disappear - as the market was no longer there for resale.
Also consider that with the low unemployment rate in St. John's Metro - you may be able to find another job to make ends meet - while the person in the rural community would not have that option. In your case you may be able to keep your home - or sell for a profit and downsize - whereas the person in the rural community would have to sell their property, move and not even have the option to rent out their home - NO Market.
Some of the more fortunate ones in the affected community may be in a position to retire - thereby staying in their own home - that is if they are not still indebted. Let's say they can stay in their own home and actually live another 20 or so years. What services will remain where they live? What will they do with no family remaining in the community? None of these issues are a problem in St. John's Metro - YET.
You see the losses resulting from a collapsed fishery will hurt us all. The worst is yet to come - if we do not fix the problem.
This is only the tip of the iceberg.
For those who are still in their productive work life - the choice will be to move away and find work elsewhere. Where will they pay tax? What will happen with their children? Will they ever come back? Will we lose a significant number of our next generation? If we do - who will pay for the seniors left behind? Who will pay for the increase in personal care home usage? Who will pay the medical bills of an aging population besieged with chronic illnesses - more prevalent in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Then factor in all the boomers who moved away 20 years ago when the fishery first collapsed. Many of these people will return home upon retirement after having paid all their taxes to another province. That places an increased burden on a taxation system that did not receive the benefit of their taxes for the past 20 years. How will these shortfalls be covered?
What about resettlement? You know that government is always looking at that when their finance gurus are explaining the problem mentioned above. Are we going to resettle 100 or more communities? How much will that cost? Where will they move to? If we pick 5 regional centres and move them all there - what will be the increased burden on those cities or towns?
If not resettlement how does government pay for the upkeep of thousands of kilometres of roads - deteriorating badly? How does government afford to keep reasonable health services in those communities?
Now let's talk about the taboo - OIL - what happens when that oil is gone? When will it be gone? What will happen to our cities and regional towns? We have lost two mills, mines, and may lose our last mill. We will have no oil sector and the fishery will be dead.
I will guarantee one thing - if the future plays out as discussed above - the leaders - our politicians of the present day will not be around. They may retire in Florida on the lucrative pension we provide them. They may move to a - then recovered Ontario. Their children will be provided for. Kathy Dunderdale may huff and puff every time her choices are questioned - but she WILL have a pension.
Our biggest problem is that our politically based system is very similar to a quick-buck corporation - concentrate on the now - the next few years - the next election. Unfortunately they see this as their job instead of being the keepers of our future.
If we build Muskrat now - there will be lots of jobs now and make them look good. Unfortunately there are no measurable numbers of long term jobs but there is certainly measurable long term debt. So while the shareholders of Emera will enjoy increased profits through guaranteed returns - we the owners, the taxpayers and ratepayers will suffer.
Our system of immediate political rewards, needs, and votes is also costing us at the Federal level. Right now - I am convinced that Stephen Harper can strip our province of every benefit of "con"federation - and Dunderdale will let it happen as long as the loan guarantee carrot exists.
We need vision and we need it now.
We need leadership and we need it now.
We need a plan and we need it now.
We need action and we need it now.
These games - childish political games - played by incompetent, disinterested, and/or partisan people with an need to satisfy the next polling period - will destroy us.
These politicians who through their own words, excuses, and frustration cause you and me to detest the fishery with them.
You think you can afford to not care about the fishery? Think again.
The politicians from all parties have played a very partisan and dangerous game with the people of our province as it relates to this resource and bureaucrats both provincially and federally have made it worse by juggling death versus dealing with the continued problem.
The fishery is our history and should be our future - but in order for that to be the case a number of things have to happen.
1. Our history in the fishery must be fully and publicly disclosed and discussed so that all people in our province can learn to respect, value, and protect this vital renewable resource.
2. An injury has occurred and our province - communities and people - are the injured party. We need to assess the injury, determine the party/ies that caused the injury, value the injury, and then do what is necessary to achieve compensation for the injury.
3. Based on the compensation arrangements the province must move forward to develop plans for recovery, science, enforcement, community, environmental and the future.
4. Further these plans must be broken down to include; immediate actions, medium term actions, and long term actions. One to fifty years would be appropriate.
5.The province must desist making new arrangements with "processors" that want to export raw material and must move toward harvesters co-ops and redevelop a marketing division for products either processed or unprocessed of this resource.
The "rationalization" of the fishery which government and others claim is occurring is nothing more that a desperate response to a disastrous situation which has yet to be dealt with properly. Each and every week we are hearing of the closure or downsizing of plants and facilities and communities losing their primary employer.
This is not a sustainable answer to what will bring economic disaster.
Dr. Phil Earle and Gus Etchegary are not sounding the very loud alarm bells for no reason and these retired individuals are not as passionate as they are without reasoned concern. They are as worried as you should be.
The moratorium of our stocks began in 1992 - this caused a massive upheaval in this resource sector and we lost about 80,000 people from our workforce and most from our province altogether.
We should have experienced significant recovery by 2002 and should have been on our way to sustained recovery. This according to the people responsible for managing the resource.
We all know this did not happen and now we are in 2012 - with no reasonable end in sight.
To alleviate the loss of our ground fish sector - we increased the catch of our shellfish. We all know this is not a good thing and eventually will cause further catastrophic consequences.
Despite the catch increase in other species - thousands of people were removed from this fishery and no doubt hundreds of our rural communities have suffered.
Throughout this mess - the kingpins of the fishery needed to maintain and grow profits - so fisheries policy has revolved around keeping them afloat. The latest of course is to give them stocks without the necessity to process. This has resulted in further losses to the people in general but the continued wealth building for those already so endowed.
If you can get your head around the problem it equates to a loss of a billion dollars a year plus the loss of people, loss of communities and devalued assets.
Try and consider the following. Let's say you lost your job in St. John's or Metro - no doubt you would feel the pinch and be worried about your next paycheck - just like the people displaced on the Burin Peninsula. Let's add that you had been at the same job for 20 or so years and have invested in things like a house or property. If you went to sell that asset in St. John's Metro you would enjoy an increase in the value of your asset upon sale. Now for one moment put yourself in a rural community that has just lost it's only significant employer - and then you needed to sell your house. You would suffer major losses as the equity you built would disappear - as the market was no longer there for resale.
Also consider that with the low unemployment rate in St. John's Metro - you may be able to find another job to make ends meet - while the person in the rural community would not have that option. In your case you may be able to keep your home - or sell for a profit and downsize - whereas the person in the rural community would have to sell their property, move and not even have the option to rent out their home - NO Market.
Some of the more fortunate ones in the affected community may be in a position to retire - thereby staying in their own home - that is if they are not still indebted. Let's say they can stay in their own home and actually live another 20 or so years. What services will remain where they live? What will they do with no family remaining in the community? None of these issues are a problem in St. John's Metro - YET.
You see the losses resulting from a collapsed fishery will hurt us all. The worst is yet to come - if we do not fix the problem.
This is only the tip of the iceberg.
For those who are still in their productive work life - the choice will be to move away and find work elsewhere. Where will they pay tax? What will happen with their children? Will they ever come back? Will we lose a significant number of our next generation? If we do - who will pay for the seniors left behind? Who will pay for the increase in personal care home usage? Who will pay the medical bills of an aging population besieged with chronic illnesses - more prevalent in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Then factor in all the boomers who moved away 20 years ago when the fishery first collapsed. Many of these people will return home upon retirement after having paid all their taxes to another province. That places an increased burden on a taxation system that did not receive the benefit of their taxes for the past 20 years. How will these shortfalls be covered?
What about resettlement? You know that government is always looking at that when their finance gurus are explaining the problem mentioned above. Are we going to resettle 100 or more communities? How much will that cost? Where will they move to? If we pick 5 regional centres and move them all there - what will be the increased burden on those cities or towns?
If not resettlement how does government pay for the upkeep of thousands of kilometres of roads - deteriorating badly? How does government afford to keep reasonable health services in those communities?
Now let's talk about the taboo - OIL - what happens when that oil is gone? When will it be gone? What will happen to our cities and regional towns? We have lost two mills, mines, and may lose our last mill. We will have no oil sector and the fishery will be dead.
I will guarantee one thing - if the future plays out as discussed above - the leaders - our politicians of the present day will not be around. They may retire in Florida on the lucrative pension we provide them. They may move to a - then recovered Ontario. Their children will be provided for. Kathy Dunderdale may huff and puff every time her choices are questioned - but she WILL have a pension.
Our biggest problem is that our politically based system is very similar to a quick-buck corporation - concentrate on the now - the next few years - the next election. Unfortunately they see this as their job instead of being the keepers of our future.
If we build Muskrat now - there will be lots of jobs now and make them look good. Unfortunately there are no measurable numbers of long term jobs but there is certainly measurable long term debt. So while the shareholders of Emera will enjoy increased profits through guaranteed returns - we the owners, the taxpayers and ratepayers will suffer.
Our system of immediate political rewards, needs, and votes is also costing us at the Federal level. Right now - I am convinced that Stephen Harper can strip our province of every benefit of "con"federation - and Dunderdale will let it happen as long as the loan guarantee carrot exists.
We need vision and we need it now.
We need leadership and we need it now.
We need a plan and we need it now.
We need action and we need it now.
These games - childish political games - played by incompetent, disinterested, and/or partisan people with an need to satisfy the next polling period - will destroy us.
These politicians who through their own words, excuses, and frustration cause you and me to detest the fishery with them.
You think you can afford to not care about the fishery? Think again.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Premier Prepared to Punish People of Marystown?
Watching Kathy Dunderdale threaten Kiewit on the news the other night would be laughable if not so terribly serious.
The Premier suggested that she or "we" would not be held hostage to a company - and if the company did not back off - she would shop the contract outside the province.
If she punishes Kiewit and builds a ferry or ferries outside the province - who does she think will hurt?
How much did Kiewit pay for the shipyard?
Yes how much indeed - that was after Friede Goldman Newfoundland filed for bankruptcy protection after themselves buying the yard for a buck from the province.
This government seems hell-bent on punishing our people or at other times local companies.
Where was this punitive position when Kiewit dropped our chance at 20 billion in work from the feds?
As I recall the government particularly the Premier and Minister for Business thought it was wonderful as that meant Kiewit was so busy with work in the province that they could not entertain billions of dollars in federal work.
The Premier now seems determined to get rid of that problem and maybe move that work offshore.
From the Hansard April 12th 2011
MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy has been ongoing for a number of years. Our government and my department have been fully engaged with Peter Kiewit Sons through a series of meetings, discussions, and very open communication. We were advised late last week that Peter Kiewit Sons has decided to withdraw from the process.
They have cited publicly that their reason for withdrawing is the fact that they have too much work. They are not in a position right now to focus on the bid. As a result of securing some recent contracts and as a result of opportunities that are coming up in the Province, Peter Kiewit Sons feel they want to focus on that work, focus on hiring Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and, Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the decision.
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was a young woman growing up in Burin when Marystown Shipyard was constructed. I understand the importance of that facility to all of the people on the Burin Peninsula.
Mr. Speaker, is it not a wonderful thing that Kiewit can walk away from a thirty-five year contract bidding because they are so overwhelmed with work? There is so much going on right here in this Province that they do not have the capacity to take on more work.
What happened to all that love I wonder? Now it's a threat and she may very well remove the work from Marystown.
We are being ripped apart rural community by rural community, industry by industry, resource by resource.
The Premier suggested that she or "we" would not be held hostage to a company - and if the company did not back off - she would shop the contract outside the province.
If she punishes Kiewit and builds a ferry or ferries outside the province - who does she think will hurt?
How much did Kiewit pay for the shipyard?
Yes how much indeed - that was after Friede Goldman Newfoundland filed for bankruptcy protection after themselves buying the yard for a buck from the province.
This government seems hell-bent on punishing our people or at other times local companies.
Where was this punitive position when Kiewit dropped our chance at 20 billion in work from the feds?
As I recall the government particularly the Premier and Minister for Business thought it was wonderful as that meant Kiewit was so busy with work in the province that they could not entertain billions of dollars in federal work.
The Premier now seems determined to get rid of that problem and maybe move that work offshore.
From the Hansard April 12th 2011
MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy has been ongoing for a number of years. Our government and my department have been fully engaged with Peter Kiewit Sons through a series of meetings, discussions, and very open communication. We were advised late last week that Peter Kiewit Sons has decided to withdraw from the process.
They have cited publicly that their reason for withdrawing is the fact that they have too much work. They are not in a position right now to focus on the bid. As a result of securing some recent contracts and as a result of opportunities that are coming up in the Province, Peter Kiewit Sons feel they want to focus on that work, focus on hiring Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and, Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the decision.
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was a young woman growing up in Burin when Marystown Shipyard was constructed. I understand the importance of that facility to all of the people on the Burin Peninsula.
Mr. Speaker, is it not a wonderful thing that Kiewit can walk away from a thirty-five year contract bidding because they are so overwhelmed with work? There is so much going on right here in this Province that they do not have the capacity to take on more work.
What happened to all that love I wonder? Now it's a threat and she may very well remove the work from Marystown.
We are being ripped apart rural community by rural community, industry by industry, resource by resource.
Monday, January 09, 2012
ICU - OCI - Will the media go after the Goods?
After listening to the public commentary of Martin Sullivan CEO of Ocean Choice - one could only be left with a feeling of sympathy for the owners.
The absolute hardship OCI is feeling is hard to fathom. The Hook Line and Sinker sob story that Martin portrayed was really tough to take without tears.
What is wrong with the people of our province - can't we see that the Sullivan's are like everybody else in the fishery? Can't we see the hardship this is causing them personally? They need a job too and they might be too old to be retrained. What about the value of their houses - in communities where the fishery is all but gone? Can't we see that they are under the same pressure as the plant workers in Marystown or the fishers with no fish?
Then there was this bit about them living up to their commitments to government - per their legal agreement for the FPI assets. Martin moaned and groaned about losses since 2007. Yes they must have had a clue that was going to happen when they bid on the assets and made commitments relative to plant operations. They also knew that they could ditch some of these obligations after a period of time or if they could prove financial hardship relative to them.
The investment decision was made based on all of that and they knew that some losses would be acceptable if the value of the overall netted them a profit.
Their interest in Newfoundland and Labrador does come after the interests in their corporation and they should not attempt to portray anything other than this.
More importantly than all of this is the following question which I trust will be asked by our local journalists:
Martin Sullivan stated that some information was asked for verbally and was delivered verbally - this outside information which was asked for in writing and delivered in writing. What was the information asked for verbally and what information was delivered verbally?
The absolute hardship OCI is feeling is hard to fathom. The Hook Line and Sinker sob story that Martin portrayed was really tough to take without tears.
What is wrong with the people of our province - can't we see that the Sullivan's are like everybody else in the fishery? Can't we see the hardship this is causing them personally? They need a job too and they might be too old to be retrained. What about the value of their houses - in communities where the fishery is all but gone? Can't we see that they are under the same pressure as the plant workers in Marystown or the fishers with no fish?
Then there was this bit about them living up to their commitments to government - per their legal agreement for the FPI assets. Martin moaned and groaned about losses since 2007. Yes they must have had a clue that was going to happen when they bid on the assets and made commitments relative to plant operations. They also knew that they could ditch some of these obligations after a period of time or if they could prove financial hardship relative to them.
The investment decision was made based on all of that and they knew that some losses would be acceptable if the value of the overall netted them a profit.
Their interest in Newfoundland and Labrador does come after the interests in their corporation and they should not attempt to portray anything other than this.
More importantly than all of this is the following question which I trust will be asked by our local journalists:
Martin Sullivan stated that some information was asked for verbally and was delivered verbally - this outside information which was asked for in writing and delivered in writing. What was the information asked for verbally and what information was delivered verbally?
Monday, January 02, 2012
Apathy is the Solution for Fishery Woes? John Furlong's Answer?
When I first read "Assigning blame for lost jobs helps no one" I gasped, shook my head, and then settled into a period of remorse - as yet another Newfoundlander and Labradorian had been overcome by a rogue wave hitting the beach off the Fisheries Broadcast.
John Furlong's article does nothing more than justify apathy, dissuade questions and accountability, and marginalize any person who is fighting for the survival of the fishery (that is in any other way than resettlement and downsizing).
I took from his piece that one who owns assets has the answers and those who work within the sector do not. The Corporate merchants - they are the ones we need to look to for the way forward.
This story followed another by Furlong titled, "Change in the N.L. Fishery: Get used to it" and are both pro-apathy pieces from the Fisheries Broadcast host.
Fortunately for John - his corporation saw fit to have an entire program on this resource and not replace it with one called The Supermarket Broadcast - in recognition of that renewable natural resource. But he will get to retirement on it - unless perhaps the Sullivan's file a complaint with Stephen Harper and get the show cancelled before Furlong's on-air farewell.
To compare the loss of fishplants and that industry in dozens of rural communities to the loss of a supermarket in the middle of St. John's is absurd and irresponsible. Further if the oil economy is right - there may be a replacement in the area sooner rather than later - as the buoyant population of the city - and the free-flowing wealth will be catered to.
Then Furlong goes on to talk about the racket regarding the loss of the train. We all got over that right? What a joke. The highway cannot tolerate the traffic of heavy vehicles, we do not have a divided highway across the province, we have lost the ability to have fed input (cash) as we gave that up to for a piece of a road being widened without any ongoing funds for maintenance. As for the narrow gauge argument - that was propaganda as well - as many still exist or have made some changes to standard gauge and remain a very efficient, reliable, method of transporting goods and in many cases people.
The townies did not "need" it therefore it can go. There were political buddies that made money on the changeover to highway transport. Just to make sure it never came back - a quick destruction of the assets was employed and now we get to fight over snowmobiles, atv's or hikers.
Looking for answers is a real problem for Furlong and he is asking that you stop too. As one of the richest pieces of geography on the planet we had better keep looking for answers or future generations will have nothing left. In Furlong's world there would not be a need for a new host for the Broadcast in the future - who would listen? The Penney's Barry's and Sullivan's of the world do not need the CBC and may in fact hate tax-dollars being used for it. What they need is increased profits, greater access to the raw resource, and little to no interference by the owners of the resources, the people - through their elected bodies (both provincial and federal).
As the owners of what was one of the best renewable fisheries in the world, significant hydro-electric resources, forestry resources and fresh water coupled with non-renewable wealth such as minerals, oil, and gas - we have not done very well have we?
This quote from Furlong is particularly disturbing:
"We live on what used to be the world's richest fishing grounds. Year after year we turned out a fishery that was uneconomical, not very competitive and pretty well uninspiring. There's plenty of blame to go around to explain that."
Okay John, what happened to the resource? When was it uneconomical? Was it more beneficial for the merchant, the fisherman, or the plant-worker? When was it "not very competitive" - and how was it uninspiring? There's plenty of blame you claim - okay John - who is to blame? What is the role of the federal government? Who will make up for the billions in lost revenue to this province? If you do not want to consider workers, communities, or entire populations as relevant - how about the cash?
Your outward feelings on people like Dr. Phil Earle or Gus Etchegary are also quite revealing. What do you think their agendas are? Who are they trying to harm? Why are they so dismayed at what is happening? Is their information incorrect? Are they nuisances for continuing to ask questions? Do you believe they do not want a positive outcome? Are you annoyed because they want answers? Do you find them foolish for wanting a reason for the collapse - in order to find the best way forward for all our people not just the merchants?
The moratorium was supposed to be over by now - the stocks were supposed to be recovered - what happened to that? What does John Crosbie think went wrong with that? If there has been a harm and a party was constitutionally or legally responsible for the management - then there is blame and there is compensation. We have not been compensated John. You do understand John that a supermarket in St. John's is not a renewable resource nor is it or was it the responsibility of the federal government to manage. You do understand John - the government believes that the retail market in the St. John's area is so hot - that we have jobs now that can't be filled - so likely there will be immediate and like opportunities to those displaced by that closure in Churchill Square. You do know that many of those working in the retail sector are doing it while attending university or college or may be supplementing retirement income. You also know that most in the fishery are in it as a lifelong occupation.
I wonder if the employee in a St. John's supermarket somehow cannot find work in this "hot" retail market suddenly found that they could not pay their mortgage due to revenue loss - would they suffer a devaluation of that asset? This in comparison to somebody losing a job in a rural community - that also happened to lose the entire industry - rendering their asset essentially valueless. Do you John see any difference there other than the one difference you did quote?
You do realize John that a supermarket being lost is not going to cause too much economic upheaval over the next 20 years - whereas the loss of natural renewable resources will cripple us when the oil is gone. What is the difference between the two from a straight economic perspective?
If you believe that no further study is needed to determine cause - then tell us what was the cause? If that cause or causes include the federal government mismanaging the resource - then there has been an injury and where there is injury there is remedy through compensation.That compensation would do a number of things; including but not limited to - allow the proper compensation for lost wages, career, and asset devaluation - no different than what would be awarded in other litigation's such as victims of accidents. The compensation would allow the province to complete more not less scientific research of the fishery. The compensation would allow the survival of communities until the resource recovers or until other industrial opportunities are found. It would also allow those affected start-up funds for other ventures such as the development of land in St. John's purchased at $4000 an acre. Perhaps the fishers should be awarded provincial parks, or rivers for small-hydro development. Perhaps the entire quota should be delivered to the communities, fishers and plant-workers to sell in Asia.
Why are any resources in the hands of an OCI as a corporate entity when owners of the resource are shut out?
What Furlong has concluded is the who,what,where, when and why is discouraged while "get used to it" apathy is encouraged. Do not be fooled by this approach people - the continued destruction of this industry and resource will harm your children and their children much more than the closure of a supermarket in Churchill Square and will impact our ability to deliver health care, education, and build essential infrastructure a decade out.
If you can at all believe that the oil resources will eventually be exhausted - it is not a stretch for you to consider what next.
In every other resource sector, hydro-electric, mining, forestry, and oil we have been a population that has not processed enough finished product - and as a result we did not enjoy maximum industrial benefits. If other countries and provinces can create wealth - without their own resources - but simply by processing ours - we have to ask ourselves - what are we doing?
If we do not ask why - or who is to blame - we will NOT find a solution that works for people - we will simply capitulate to a few wealthy shareholders who will take whatever we will give them - the less they have to commit the better.
OCI knew what they were doing when they got the buy from FPI and from the time they got their hands on it - was the time they started to plan to reduce commitments and maximize profits. This is fine for a supermarket chain - it is not fine for a natural - renewable - resource owned by the people.
There is no doubt the answer is giveaway - now we MUST ask why we continue to allow it.
John Furlong has his own opinion and we are allowed to have ours. We are permitted to ask questions and demand answers despite John's feeling that this is a waste of time.
We don't have to "get used to" anything - in fact we are fully within our rights to tell those we elect and employ that we will not get used to it and if you can't do what we need and want - we can hire somebody else.
The slow death of communities and the fishery sector has been in part very orchestrated and very planned. Bit by bit - while urban populations are bored and growing with a temporary oil bonanza - one by one rural communities are being decimated. The townies do not want to hear the "whining" of fishermen - in a sense telling their great-great grandparents to shut-up.
Part of the placation of the fishermen and plant workers was a new boom in the shellfish sector. What John will become of that? We are only mismanaging that because we are suffering from the mismanagement of groundfish.
Watching each other bleed until enough of us are gone - is not the answer. Stepping up to the plate - showing some real guts and fighting for what is right - includes the asking of questions.
Two interesting story ideas for John:
1. Is your job being impacted by the disaster?
2. Why do more rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians carpool than commuters in the city?
Thank you to social media - for I fear that if mainstream media still had control - we would know nothing of our impending death. That is unless is was crime in the courts or carnage on the highway.
If we believe that the only wisdom is that which comes from our elected government or journalists - apathy has won. There is nothing in the world more damaging than good people encouraged to do nothing and actually listening to that advice.
One thing has become completely predictable - the mantra of "stop asking questions". What's up with that?
John Furlong's article does nothing more than justify apathy, dissuade questions and accountability, and marginalize any person who is fighting for the survival of the fishery (that is in any other way than resettlement and downsizing).
I took from his piece that one who owns assets has the answers and those who work within the sector do not. The Corporate merchants - they are the ones we need to look to for the way forward.
This story followed another by Furlong titled, "Change in the N.L. Fishery: Get used to it" and are both pro-apathy pieces from the Fisheries Broadcast host.
Fortunately for John - his corporation saw fit to have an entire program on this resource and not replace it with one called The Supermarket Broadcast - in recognition of that renewable natural resource. But he will get to retirement on it - unless perhaps the Sullivan's file a complaint with Stephen Harper and get the show cancelled before Furlong's on-air farewell.
To compare the loss of fishplants and that industry in dozens of rural communities to the loss of a supermarket in the middle of St. John's is absurd and irresponsible. Further if the oil economy is right - there may be a replacement in the area sooner rather than later - as the buoyant population of the city - and the free-flowing wealth will be catered to.
Then Furlong goes on to talk about the racket regarding the loss of the train. We all got over that right? What a joke. The highway cannot tolerate the traffic of heavy vehicles, we do not have a divided highway across the province, we have lost the ability to have fed input (cash) as we gave that up to for a piece of a road being widened without any ongoing funds for maintenance. As for the narrow gauge argument - that was propaganda as well - as many still exist or have made some changes to standard gauge and remain a very efficient, reliable, method of transporting goods and in many cases people.
The townies did not "need" it therefore it can go. There were political buddies that made money on the changeover to highway transport. Just to make sure it never came back - a quick destruction of the assets was employed and now we get to fight over snowmobiles, atv's or hikers.
Looking for answers is a real problem for Furlong and he is asking that you stop too. As one of the richest pieces of geography on the planet we had better keep looking for answers or future generations will have nothing left. In Furlong's world there would not be a need for a new host for the Broadcast in the future - who would listen? The Penney's Barry's and Sullivan's of the world do not need the CBC and may in fact hate tax-dollars being used for it. What they need is increased profits, greater access to the raw resource, and little to no interference by the owners of the resources, the people - through their elected bodies (both provincial and federal).
As the owners of what was one of the best renewable fisheries in the world, significant hydro-electric resources, forestry resources and fresh water coupled with non-renewable wealth such as minerals, oil, and gas - we have not done very well have we?
This quote from Furlong is particularly disturbing:
"We live on what used to be the world's richest fishing grounds. Year after year we turned out a fishery that was uneconomical, not very competitive and pretty well uninspiring. There's plenty of blame to go around to explain that."
Okay John, what happened to the resource? When was it uneconomical? Was it more beneficial for the merchant, the fisherman, or the plant-worker? When was it "not very competitive" - and how was it uninspiring? There's plenty of blame you claim - okay John - who is to blame? What is the role of the federal government? Who will make up for the billions in lost revenue to this province? If you do not want to consider workers, communities, or entire populations as relevant - how about the cash?
Your outward feelings on people like Dr. Phil Earle or Gus Etchegary are also quite revealing. What do you think their agendas are? Who are they trying to harm? Why are they so dismayed at what is happening? Is their information incorrect? Are they nuisances for continuing to ask questions? Do you believe they do not want a positive outcome? Are you annoyed because they want answers? Do you find them foolish for wanting a reason for the collapse - in order to find the best way forward for all our people not just the merchants?
The moratorium was supposed to be over by now - the stocks were supposed to be recovered - what happened to that? What does John Crosbie think went wrong with that? If there has been a harm and a party was constitutionally or legally responsible for the management - then there is blame and there is compensation. We have not been compensated John. You do understand John that a supermarket in St. John's is not a renewable resource nor is it or was it the responsibility of the federal government to manage. You do understand John - the government believes that the retail market in the St. John's area is so hot - that we have jobs now that can't be filled - so likely there will be immediate and like opportunities to those displaced by that closure in Churchill Square. You do know that many of those working in the retail sector are doing it while attending university or college or may be supplementing retirement income. You also know that most in the fishery are in it as a lifelong occupation.
I wonder if the employee in a St. John's supermarket somehow cannot find work in this "hot" retail market suddenly found that they could not pay their mortgage due to revenue loss - would they suffer a devaluation of that asset? This in comparison to somebody losing a job in a rural community - that also happened to lose the entire industry - rendering their asset essentially valueless. Do you John see any difference there other than the one difference you did quote?
You do realize John that a supermarket being lost is not going to cause too much economic upheaval over the next 20 years - whereas the loss of natural renewable resources will cripple us when the oil is gone. What is the difference between the two from a straight economic perspective?
If you believe that no further study is needed to determine cause - then tell us what was the cause? If that cause or causes include the federal government mismanaging the resource - then there has been an injury and where there is injury there is remedy through compensation.That compensation would do a number of things; including but not limited to - allow the proper compensation for lost wages, career, and asset devaluation - no different than what would be awarded in other litigation's such as victims of accidents. The compensation would allow the province to complete more not less scientific research of the fishery. The compensation would allow the survival of communities until the resource recovers or until other industrial opportunities are found. It would also allow those affected start-up funds for other ventures such as the development of land in St. John's purchased at $4000 an acre. Perhaps the fishers should be awarded provincial parks, or rivers for small-hydro development. Perhaps the entire quota should be delivered to the communities, fishers and plant-workers to sell in Asia.
Why are any resources in the hands of an OCI as a corporate entity when owners of the resource are shut out?
What Furlong has concluded is the who,what,where, when and why is discouraged while "get used to it" apathy is encouraged. Do not be fooled by this approach people - the continued destruction of this industry and resource will harm your children and their children much more than the closure of a supermarket in Churchill Square and will impact our ability to deliver health care, education, and build essential infrastructure a decade out.
If you can at all believe that the oil resources will eventually be exhausted - it is not a stretch for you to consider what next.
In every other resource sector, hydro-electric, mining, forestry, and oil we have been a population that has not processed enough finished product - and as a result we did not enjoy maximum industrial benefits. If other countries and provinces can create wealth - without their own resources - but simply by processing ours - we have to ask ourselves - what are we doing?
If we do not ask why - or who is to blame - we will NOT find a solution that works for people - we will simply capitulate to a few wealthy shareholders who will take whatever we will give them - the less they have to commit the better.
OCI knew what they were doing when they got the buy from FPI and from the time they got their hands on it - was the time they started to plan to reduce commitments and maximize profits. This is fine for a supermarket chain - it is not fine for a natural - renewable - resource owned by the people.
There is no doubt the answer is giveaway - now we MUST ask why we continue to allow it.
John Furlong has his own opinion and we are allowed to have ours. We are permitted to ask questions and demand answers despite John's feeling that this is a waste of time.
We don't have to "get used to" anything - in fact we are fully within our rights to tell those we elect and employ that we will not get used to it and if you can't do what we need and want - we can hire somebody else.
The slow death of communities and the fishery sector has been in part very orchestrated and very planned. Bit by bit - while urban populations are bored and growing with a temporary oil bonanza - one by one rural communities are being decimated. The townies do not want to hear the "whining" of fishermen - in a sense telling their great-great grandparents to shut-up.
Part of the placation of the fishermen and plant workers was a new boom in the shellfish sector. What John will become of that? We are only mismanaging that because we are suffering from the mismanagement of groundfish.
Watching each other bleed until enough of us are gone - is not the answer. Stepping up to the plate - showing some real guts and fighting for what is right - includes the asking of questions.
Two interesting story ideas for John:
1. Is your job being impacted by the disaster?
2. Why do more rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians carpool than commuters in the city?
Thank you to social media - for I fear that if mainstream media still had control - we would know nothing of our impending death. That is unless is was crime in the courts or carnage on the highway.
If we believe that the only wisdom is that which comes from our elected government or journalists - apathy has won. There is nothing in the world more damaging than good people encouraged to do nothing and actually listening to that advice.
One thing has become completely predictable - the mantra of "stop asking questions". What's up with that?
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Inept Politicians Responsible for kicking the Pride out of our People
It is true that I am opinionated - but unlike frenzied partisan zealots - my opinion is based on research.
The title of this post is no longer a matter of opinion - it is a fact.
How many of you have listened or read negative and quite often nasty comments made by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians regarding the fishery?
You know like "it's time we rationalized" - "time to stop the welfare" - "I am sick of hearing fishermen complaining"?
How sad - to hear our own people kick our own people - when they are NOT responsible for the fisheries disaster.
How sad to hear other people inflicted by unemployment caused by inept politicians turn on unemployed fishermen and plant workers instead of the inept politicians.
How utterly pathetic to hear inept politicians ponder how to cut the guts out of the fishery, entire communities and families rather than tackle Uncle Ottawa.
1. The fishery was mismanaged by the federal government.
2. That mismanagement costs this province 1 billion dollars annually.
3. The recovery expected by 2001 did not occur.
4. There has been NO compensation for the past decade meaning we have lost 10 billion dollars.
5. The federal government continues to diminish fisheries science rendering the resource and the industry dead.
6. Newfoundland and Labrador has lost over 40,000 people and rendered many communities bankrupt from this loss.
7. The fishery continues to be a bargaining chip for foreign trade without the benefits of such accruing to Newfoundland and Labrador.
8. The provincial government does not have the knowledge, the will, or the guts to do what is right.
9. Rationalization is a word used to cover up incompetence at both the federal and provincial levels.
10. Politicians are responsible for kicking the pride out of our people and for turning one Newfoundlander and Labradorian against another Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
The title of this post is no longer a matter of opinion - it is a fact.
How many of you have listened or read negative and quite often nasty comments made by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians regarding the fishery?
You know like "it's time we rationalized" - "time to stop the welfare" - "I am sick of hearing fishermen complaining"?
How sad - to hear our own people kick our own people - when they are NOT responsible for the fisheries disaster.
How sad to hear other people inflicted by unemployment caused by inept politicians turn on unemployed fishermen and plant workers instead of the inept politicians.
How utterly pathetic to hear inept politicians ponder how to cut the guts out of the fishery, entire communities and families rather than tackle Uncle Ottawa.
1. The fishery was mismanaged by the federal government.
2. That mismanagement costs this province 1 billion dollars annually.
3. The recovery expected by 2001 did not occur.
4. There has been NO compensation for the past decade meaning we have lost 10 billion dollars.
5. The federal government continues to diminish fisheries science rendering the resource and the industry dead.
6. Newfoundland and Labrador has lost over 40,000 people and rendered many communities bankrupt from this loss.
7. The fishery continues to be a bargaining chip for foreign trade without the benefits of such accruing to Newfoundland and Labrador.
8. The provincial government does not have the knowledge, the will, or the guts to do what is right.
9. Rationalization is a word used to cover up incompetence at both the federal and provincial levels.
10. Politicians are responsible for kicking the pride out of our people and for turning one Newfoundlander and Labradorian against another Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
Monday, October 03, 2011
WELFARE Dunderdale - What does the PC Leader mean? Tories anti-rural!
From 2007 to 2011 - what has changed?
Well Dunderdale says "giving people welfare through the back door doesn't work".
Dunderdale was talking to the plant workers and fishermen on the Burin Peninsula.
What welfare was Dunderdale talking about?
Well if the plant is not operating the "welfare" is for mighty OCI.
The following is from a government news release in 2007:
"OCI is extremely pleased that these transactions have now been finalized," said Martin Sullivan, President of Ocean Choice International. "The Provincial Government put forward a number of concerns that it wanted to have addressed and we worked co-operatively to ensure that we were able to meet these particular requirements. OCI looks forward to expanding its operations to include FPI’s former facilities and we are confident, based on our current track record, that we can operate these new assets on a viable basis into the future."
Dunderdale continues to hammer rural communities. Tory Times are Hard Times - remember? That is unless you are a large corporation. Dunderdale for Emera, for OCI, and for Persona/Eastlink - not for the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Watch Dunderdale's disdain Press Here
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Dunderdale's thoughts on Rural NL - Quote of the Election
Please look at the video - and watch what 500 proud years of fishing is reduced to.
This is the quote of the election and it tells Rural Newfoundland and Labrador they don't matter.
PRESS HERE FOR VIDEO
"Giving People Welfare through the Back Door doesn't work."
To that I say Ms. Dunderdale - you're fired.
This is the quote of the election and it tells Rural Newfoundland and Labrador they don't matter.
PRESS HERE FOR VIDEO
"Giving People Welfare through the Back Door doesn't work."
To that I say Ms. Dunderdale - you're fired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)