I waited with interest to see what the headlines would be this morning on the definitive defeat of the PC's in St. George's - Stephenville East.
I was not surprised - which means I was disappointed in our media.
Last night the governing Tories were crushed with a wave of discontent - in the middle of their "exciting" leadership debacle. Last night the polls continued to send a strong message to the government that their time is done. Get out - we no longer support your policies or direction - the electorate seem to be saying.
The numbers in this by-election certainly put an exclamation mark on the feelings of dissatisfaction the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have with this government.
The numbers are as follows:
2011 General Election - Results St. George's - Stephenville East
Eligible Voters: 7959
Votes Cast: 4287
Voter turnout 53.9 %
PC's 49.3%
Liberal 32.7%
NDP 16.5%
Kevin Aylward was the candidate and the Leader of the Liberal Party at the time. A experienced politician - from the district - who actually did a decent job in helping to keep the Liberals in an Opposition position.
2014 By-election - Results St. George's - Stephenville East
Eligible Voters: 7274 (a significant reduction in voting population in three years)
Votes Cast: 3738
Voter turnout 51.4
PC's 25.4%
Liberal 59.1%
NDP 15.5%
A by-election in the last week of summer vacation almost matched the turnout of a fall general election - that's pretty remarkable. It is also remarkable that a Minister's seat was so soundly defeated.
The candidates were solid people in what appears to have been a clean race.
What does this mean for the three Premier wannabes?
1. It was not all Kathy's fault,
2. They are as to blame for the by-election defeat as Kathy and Tom would be,
3. As all are former Ministers of this failing government and have been directly involved in policy choices - that clearly the people do not approve of,
4. The leadership candidates are not making a difference in the mood of the electorate,
5. They should stop spending taxpayer dollars on deals or agreements and call an election.
They have clearly lost the support of the people as the by-elections in Virgina Waters, Carbonear-Harbour Grace and now St. George's - Stephenville East have demonstrated. In their arrogance they continue to spend billions on a project the people DO NOT want, continue to commit billions in multi-year schemes and plans, and continue to govern like they have the overwhelming support of the people.
Their desperation to hang on to every little benefit their elected office provides - and their desperation to get all the contracts nailed down on energy resources reflects a feeling of political entitlement that has nothing to do with the electorate. They are finished.
Whether the election is being delayed for reasons of gross incompetance or mass manipulation of their leadership circus - the people are being ignored. The much touted House of Assembly Act passed by the Tories that included a provision should a leader leave before the end of the third year in office is being blatently ignored. The media is ignoring this.
The headlines in the media this morning do not reflect the gravity of this situation. The headlines were as if the Liberals were a popular government and they won another by-election. The headlines should have been screaming as loud as the people. "It is time to call an election".
Perhaps our media outlets would be best served if they hired "Captain Obvious" as lead journalist.
Showing posts with label joan shea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label joan shea. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Dunderdale's supporters pulled the plug
I watched yesterday - as most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians did - Premier Kathy Dunderdale resign.
It was not a sad time for me - I did not like her leadership style or the policies she rammed down our throats.
The resignation speech was - in part - a list of "accomplishments" of her government - all the wonderful things. If this was the case - why would she resign? Why are the polls reflecting that close to 80% of the people do not want her leadership or her government?
What I heard yesterday was a continued drone of - "communication" problems. Was she a great communicator? No - however that is not the reason the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not support her or her government.
It does not matter who communicates Bill 29 - we don't want it.
It does not matter who communicates the Muskrat Falls deal - we don't want it.
It does not matter how she relates the coziness with Stephen Harper - we don't like it.
It does not matter who makes excuses for not holding an inquiry on the death of Burton Winters - we want one.
It does not matter who communicates the CETA deal - the people are not satisfied with the amount of information provided.
It's not the messenger - it is the message.
In this regard - all the tired Cabinet behind her - should have gone with her. Are they delusional? Do they think if they get the one line spinner type like Brian Tobin or the bully type like Danny Williams - the policies they are trumpeting would be any more acceptable? What ever happened to the simple reasoning? Is it in anyway possible that the people do not like the policies and deals of this government?
On Muskrat - they fired everything at us - more expert communicators and communications than any person should have to suffer. They did not and do not have the peoples' support for this deal.
And by no means was she going to throw any of the backroom antics out into the open. We are to believe that Kathy Dunderdale ran back from Florida to resign - cause - she wanted to?
If the so-called supporters of Dunderdale want to patronize this woman by saying you are doing wonderfully my dear - but it's just the way you say it - or do it or the way you look - the I guess the Premier should really examine her choice of "friends".
For me it's this - the people do not like what you are doing with the province. In that respect we do not support your Cabinet who were involved in the decisions.
The other part of her speech - was what could be termed the human part - the emotional part. In this she thanked her family - as we all should thank our families. The part about sacrifice I can do without as many professions and jobs - particularly those involved in protecting and saving lives - make that sacrifice for their entire careers - 50 years of it in some cases. Next up was the "women's" advancement discussion. As a woman - I can say she did nothing whatsoever for me as it relates to advancing women in politics. She was one of the most extreme partisan politicians I can remember. If you were a woman and supported her and her government - yes you would be looked upon favourably. If you were a young PC or a man who supported her and her government - you would be looked favourably upon. If you were a woman who was critical of her government and policies - she had no problem slicing and dicing you - and remember - she had the power to abuse it.
If she would like to confirm that she at no time discriminated against a woman because they were publicly critical of her government and policies - then I will challenge it.
All in all - I found Premier Dunderdale to be arrogant, out of her depth on many issues, too delighted with her power, and generally incompetent.
Do I care about how she looks or how she speaks (outside being relatively literate for the position), or that she is a woman? No. I care about how she conducts herself while in such a position, the decisions she makes and how she treats the people who put her there.
I care that the Premier and her government spent many hours of public media condemning those who disagreed with her policies and deals. The use of the words partisan, naysayers, and conspiracy theorists to describe the population one serves are not the words I want to hear from a "leader".
On the continued media thread that communication is the big problem here - that's assuming we - the people - are all not able to really see the benefits of something unless it is communicated by the likes of a John F. Kennedy? It is quite likely that when the vast majority of a population cannot see the benefit of one deal or another - it's because - it's not beneficial for them.
A politician - like all people - can be thanked for service - however to place them on a pedestal above many in a population who serve in some capacity or another is wrong. Yesterday the Premier quit her job. Her choice. It says a great deal however about the commitment to finish the job you started. Imagine if other professions could or would do that - imagine the mess we would have.
Her Cabinet and caucus who supported her leadership and policy choices did nothing much to prevent the resignation - that we can see anyway. So the wannabe new Premiers and their supporters spent most of the day blaming the people and or media for "not understanding her".Yesterday they wanted us to feel bad for causing her to leave.
The majority of people may not have supported her - but the majority of people could only replace her on election day. The Premier's supporters pulled the plug. It's important to add that they pulled the plug for polling results that were achieved through the policy choices of the entire Cabinet.
It was not a sad time for me - I did not like her leadership style or the policies she rammed down our throats.
The resignation speech was - in part - a list of "accomplishments" of her government - all the wonderful things. If this was the case - why would she resign? Why are the polls reflecting that close to 80% of the people do not want her leadership or her government?
What I heard yesterday was a continued drone of - "communication" problems. Was she a great communicator? No - however that is not the reason the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not support her or her government.
It does not matter who communicates Bill 29 - we don't want it.
It does not matter who communicates the Muskrat Falls deal - we don't want it.
It does not matter how she relates the coziness with Stephen Harper - we don't like it.
It does not matter who makes excuses for not holding an inquiry on the death of Burton Winters - we want one.
It does not matter who communicates the CETA deal - the people are not satisfied with the amount of information provided.
It's not the messenger - it is the message.
In this regard - all the tired Cabinet behind her - should have gone with her. Are they delusional? Do they think if they get the one line spinner type like Brian Tobin or the bully type like Danny Williams - the policies they are trumpeting would be any more acceptable? What ever happened to the simple reasoning? Is it in anyway possible that the people do not like the policies and deals of this government?
On Muskrat - they fired everything at us - more expert communicators and communications than any person should have to suffer. They did not and do not have the peoples' support for this deal.
And by no means was she going to throw any of the backroom antics out into the open. We are to believe that Kathy Dunderdale ran back from Florida to resign - cause - she wanted to?
If the so-called supporters of Dunderdale want to patronize this woman by saying you are doing wonderfully my dear - but it's just the way you say it - or do it or the way you look - the I guess the Premier should really examine her choice of "friends".
For me it's this - the people do not like what you are doing with the province. In that respect we do not support your Cabinet who were involved in the decisions.
The other part of her speech - was what could be termed the human part - the emotional part. In this she thanked her family - as we all should thank our families. The part about sacrifice I can do without as many professions and jobs - particularly those involved in protecting and saving lives - make that sacrifice for their entire careers - 50 years of it in some cases. Next up was the "women's" advancement discussion. As a woman - I can say she did nothing whatsoever for me as it relates to advancing women in politics. She was one of the most extreme partisan politicians I can remember. If you were a woman and supported her and her government - yes you would be looked upon favourably. If you were a young PC or a man who supported her and her government - you would be looked favourably upon. If you were a woman who was critical of her government and policies - she had no problem slicing and dicing you - and remember - she had the power to abuse it.
If she would like to confirm that she at no time discriminated against a woman because they were publicly critical of her government and policies - then I will challenge it.
All in all - I found Premier Dunderdale to be arrogant, out of her depth on many issues, too delighted with her power, and generally incompetent.
Do I care about how she looks or how she speaks (outside being relatively literate for the position), or that she is a woman? No. I care about how she conducts herself while in such a position, the decisions she makes and how she treats the people who put her there.
I care that the Premier and her government spent many hours of public media condemning those who disagreed with her policies and deals. The use of the words partisan, naysayers, and conspiracy theorists to describe the population one serves are not the words I want to hear from a "leader".
On the continued media thread that communication is the big problem here - that's assuming we - the people - are all not able to really see the benefits of something unless it is communicated by the likes of a John F. Kennedy? It is quite likely that when the vast majority of a population cannot see the benefit of one deal or another - it's because - it's not beneficial for them.
A politician - like all people - can be thanked for service - however to place them on a pedestal above many in a population who serve in some capacity or another is wrong. Yesterday the Premier quit her job. Her choice. It says a great deal however about the commitment to finish the job you started. Imagine if other professions could or would do that - imagine the mess we would have.
Her Cabinet and caucus who supported her leadership and policy choices did nothing much to prevent the resignation - that we can see anyway. So the wannabe new Premiers and their supporters spent most of the day blaming the people and or media for "not understanding her".Yesterday they wanted us to feel bad for causing her to leave.
The majority of people may not have supported her - but the majority of people could only replace her on election day. The Premier's supporters pulled the plug. It's important to add that they pulled the plug for polling results that were achieved through the policy choices of the entire Cabinet.
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
EPRA - the Good,the Bad, & the big FEE
EPRA Electronic Products Recycling Association
Today was a day of the upset consumer.
Buy a $150 Television and pay an additional $42.50 for a recycling fee.
There are some pretty upset people out there and they want answers.
Sometimes when trying to listen to politicians on something they have already bungled becomes more and more difficult.
Every now and then for various reasons - I will go at something in an attempt to find the real skinny on the subject. This was one of those times - and is a result of one consumer who got to the checkout and realized they could not afford the purchase. They had received advertising - as is so obvious this time of year - and were delighted to find they could afford a very special gift for their child. The sale meant there would be a very special surprise for one little guy very proud parents that they could achieve this. You probably have guessed by now that they became very embarrassed at the check-out and more importantly somewhat devastated that the surprise for their son had just evaporated.
What happened?
What happened was an environmental recycling fee of $42.50 that they were unaware of and the company had not informed them of in the advertisement.
Time to go backwards:
1. The government decided that electronics must be recycled and that industry players must become stewards of these materials.
2. The regulations were put in place and EPRA was chosen to be the administrator of such a program.
3. This was first advertised by EPRA in July and became effective in August.
4. The MMSB and government worked with EPRA to see the program established.
5. The Government and the MMSB did not conduct public consultation or awareness on electronic recycling and did not involve the public in choosing the agency or corporation private or public that would undertake and manage the program.
6. The public for the most part does not know who the EPRA is and does not know what they do and why they are doing it.
Different electronic products have different fees and they are established by EPRA - all manufacturers and retailers of these products within Newfoundland and Labrador must collect the set fees and remit them to the EPRA. These fees are for the administration, collection, and processing of these materials.
The EPRA is a not-for-profit corporation without share capital and its members are retailers and manufacturers of electronic products.
Currently the EPRA's head office is in Ontario and they operate provincially in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, PEI, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
First thing that strikes you is that Ontario does not currently operate under EPRA but the national office is there. I write that off to normal arrogance. I am advised however that Ontario will be the next EPRA location.
Now let's get to the fees. The fees are different based on the product but one significant example is for what's termed a big-screen TV. I am told that that is any TV over 30 inches. In Newfoundland and Labrador the fee is $42.50 and is higher than in other provinces - which I am advised is because of additional transportation costs.
In Newfoundland and Labrador there are 17 drop-off locations which is not acceptable if the program is to succeed. Nova Scotia has 39 locations - which when you compare the geography - is ridiculous. There is 55,000 square kilometres in Nova Scotia and 405,000 square kilometres in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Clearly we are going to need some hundreds of locations in this province. With a mere 5,000 square kilometres in PEI - they have 6 drop-off points. So right off the bat we are not rolling this project out in the best possible way.
Once products are dropped off in any of the 17 locations they are forwarded to a collaboration centre in Mount Pearl and from there head to the mainland.
That is to say Newfoundland and Labrador does none of the processing of the products. Our products are shipped to Quebec for processing. Nova Scotia currently has a processor that handles about 20% of their recycling. There is no Atlantic regional facility and that - in my opinion - is a lost opportunity for us.
The choice of processing location I am told was through an RFP (request for proposals) but not within Newfoundland and Labrador. That - in my opinion - was another mistake and we should now work diligently to establish an Atlantic Processing facility here in our province. In that way we can gain employment from this recycling initiative.
The choice for the collaboration facility was not done through tender or an RFP but was done by the company based on their own research - leading to communication with a few potentials and ultimately chosen by them - I am told on the basis of price, service, and experience. This too - in my opinion was a mistake and leaves the door wide open to speculation on why so and so got the contract.
Now for the breakdown. A drop-off location is paid a fee to collect and store materials dropped off to them by us the consumers - then a processing centre is paid to recycle the materials. The processing centres - which are private - for-profit enterprises also retain all revenues generated by selling the recycled materials. Clearly these processors are not paying corporate tax or benefits in our province because we have no processors here. EPRA is paid to administer and manage the program.
I do not yet have specific breakdowns with respect to what percentage of the fee we pay goes to EPRA, the drop off centres, or the processors. I do not know what remuneration is in place for the national and provincial executives. The list of these individuals can be found at the end of this post.
EPRA will be tested over the next year and then we can determine if the organization here in our province and in fact nationally is run well. Whether or not the MMSB could have administered this program more efficiently is a question worth asking. Whether or not the best drop-off locations have been established is a good question. Whether or not the best collaboration centre has been achieved is a good question and whether or not we could have done at least a percentage of the processing here is a good question.
There clearly was an opportunity here for government to go after processing these materials for Atlantic Canada and we certainly have enough empty plants etc. to put such a facility in - and our private sector could have been tapped for a partnership initiative.
My experience with EPRA today was mixed. The first phone call I made was to the head office - in Ontario. I was met with significant resistance first and then promised that my questions could be answered by Christy Teasdale, National Director Marketing and Communication for EPRA. I called back at the scheduled time and was left on hold for 45 minutes. I then called the main office again and asked some general questions of the staffer and was further advised to talk to Terry Greene - Program Director for Newfoundland and Labrador. The Executive Director for our region is located in Nova Scotia - in my opinion - another mistake.
Terry Greene is a personable fellow with a good grasp of the company he works for and the program. He was able to answer the questions I had with confidence and for the most part without hesitation. The problems I have with this program are not with him - they are with government and the MMSB.
Before EPRA was chosen for this province there should have been broad public consultations with more than one option for proceeding. Further the government and the MMSB should have taken the transitional lead in the introduction of this program to consumers here in our province.
Secondarily - but as important - are the retailers and manufacturers who are the members of EPRA - they should have collectively decided to conduct responsible advertising and list the environmental fees alongside product costs in their flyers and promotional materials.
EPRA needs to outline its executive remuneration and also more particulars about how are money is spent. Without this information the consumer who pays the fee will be left to speculate on whether or not money is being spent wisely and ethically. It is also important to know that some of our money will be spent in the USA and Europe as some of the processing will be done there.
Is recycling electronic products the right thing to do? Sure it is. Is this the best program to do it? I don't know and I suspect our politicians don't know either. Is EPRA the best company to administer it? I don't know - perhaps the MMSB could have. Are we maximizing our full potential to gain additional employment? No. Has EPRA used the best process in choosing drop-off and processing facilities - I don't believe so. Have the retailers and manufacturers done enough to educate and promote openly this initiative? No. Has the government explained how this whole thing started, why it started, and who started it? No.
Most importantly the fees are determined and established by EPRA without government involvement. Therefore they should have to answer to a PUB like regulator to ensure the fees are appropriate and the expenditures warranted.
EPRA represents the industry retailers and manufacturers - middlemen to accommodate government regulation. Is this the best process? It's time we had the discussion with the people we elect to govern and make policy and legislation.
The Opposition parties hold some responsibility here as well - where were they when this all went down and what did they recommend?
Today was a day of the upset consumer.
Buy a $150 Television and pay an additional $42.50 for a recycling fee.
There are some pretty upset people out there and they want answers.
Sometimes when trying to listen to politicians on something they have already bungled becomes more and more difficult.
Every now and then for various reasons - I will go at something in an attempt to find the real skinny on the subject. This was one of those times - and is a result of one consumer who got to the checkout and realized they could not afford the purchase. They had received advertising - as is so obvious this time of year - and were delighted to find they could afford a very special gift for their child. The sale meant there would be a very special surprise for one little guy very proud parents that they could achieve this. You probably have guessed by now that they became very embarrassed at the check-out and more importantly somewhat devastated that the surprise for their son had just evaporated.
What happened?
What happened was an environmental recycling fee of $42.50 that they were unaware of and the company had not informed them of in the advertisement.
Time to go backwards:
1. The government decided that electronics must be recycled and that industry players must become stewards of these materials.
2. The regulations were put in place and EPRA was chosen to be the administrator of such a program.
3. This was first advertised by EPRA in July and became effective in August.
4. The MMSB and government worked with EPRA to see the program established.
5. The Government and the MMSB did not conduct public consultation or awareness on electronic recycling and did not involve the public in choosing the agency or corporation private or public that would undertake and manage the program.
6. The public for the most part does not know who the EPRA is and does not know what they do and why they are doing it.
Different electronic products have different fees and they are established by EPRA - all manufacturers and retailers of these products within Newfoundland and Labrador must collect the set fees and remit them to the EPRA. These fees are for the administration, collection, and processing of these materials.
The EPRA is a not-for-profit corporation without share capital and its members are retailers and manufacturers of electronic products.
Currently the EPRA's head office is in Ontario and they operate provincially in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, PEI, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
First thing that strikes you is that Ontario does not currently operate under EPRA but the national office is there. I write that off to normal arrogance. I am advised however that Ontario will be the next EPRA location.
Now let's get to the fees. The fees are different based on the product but one significant example is for what's termed a big-screen TV. I am told that that is any TV over 30 inches. In Newfoundland and Labrador the fee is $42.50 and is higher than in other provinces - which I am advised is because of additional transportation costs.
In Newfoundland and Labrador there are 17 drop-off locations which is not acceptable if the program is to succeed. Nova Scotia has 39 locations - which when you compare the geography - is ridiculous. There is 55,000 square kilometres in Nova Scotia and 405,000 square kilometres in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Clearly we are going to need some hundreds of locations in this province. With a mere 5,000 square kilometres in PEI - they have 6 drop-off points. So right off the bat we are not rolling this project out in the best possible way.
Once products are dropped off in any of the 17 locations they are forwarded to a collaboration centre in Mount Pearl and from there head to the mainland.
That is to say Newfoundland and Labrador does none of the processing of the products. Our products are shipped to Quebec for processing. Nova Scotia currently has a processor that handles about 20% of their recycling. There is no Atlantic regional facility and that - in my opinion - is a lost opportunity for us.
The choice of processing location I am told was through an RFP (request for proposals) but not within Newfoundland and Labrador. That - in my opinion - was another mistake and we should now work diligently to establish an Atlantic Processing facility here in our province. In that way we can gain employment from this recycling initiative.
The choice for the collaboration facility was not done through tender or an RFP but was done by the company based on their own research - leading to communication with a few potentials and ultimately chosen by them - I am told on the basis of price, service, and experience. This too - in my opinion was a mistake and leaves the door wide open to speculation on why so and so got the contract.
Now for the breakdown. A drop-off location is paid a fee to collect and store materials dropped off to them by us the consumers - then a processing centre is paid to recycle the materials. The processing centres - which are private - for-profit enterprises also retain all revenues generated by selling the recycled materials. Clearly these processors are not paying corporate tax or benefits in our province because we have no processors here. EPRA is paid to administer and manage the program.
I do not yet have specific breakdowns with respect to what percentage of the fee we pay goes to EPRA, the drop off centres, or the processors. I do not know what remuneration is in place for the national and provincial executives. The list of these individuals can be found at the end of this post.
EPRA will be tested over the next year and then we can determine if the organization here in our province and in fact nationally is run well. Whether or not the MMSB could have administered this program more efficiently is a question worth asking. Whether or not the best drop-off locations have been established is a good question. Whether or not the best collaboration centre has been achieved is a good question and whether or not we could have done at least a percentage of the processing here is a good question.
There clearly was an opportunity here for government to go after processing these materials for Atlantic Canada and we certainly have enough empty plants etc. to put such a facility in - and our private sector could have been tapped for a partnership initiative.
My experience with EPRA today was mixed. The first phone call I made was to the head office - in Ontario. I was met with significant resistance first and then promised that my questions could be answered by Christy Teasdale, National Director Marketing and Communication for EPRA. I called back at the scheduled time and was left on hold for 45 minutes. I then called the main office again and asked some general questions of the staffer and was further advised to talk to Terry Greene - Program Director for Newfoundland and Labrador. The Executive Director for our region is located in Nova Scotia - in my opinion - another mistake.
Terry Greene is a personable fellow with a good grasp of the company he works for and the program. He was able to answer the questions I had with confidence and for the most part without hesitation. The problems I have with this program are not with him - they are with government and the MMSB.
Before EPRA was chosen for this province there should have been broad public consultations with more than one option for proceeding. Further the government and the MMSB should have taken the transitional lead in the introduction of this program to consumers here in our province.
Secondarily - but as important - are the retailers and manufacturers who are the members of EPRA - they should have collectively decided to conduct responsible advertising and list the environmental fees alongside product costs in their flyers and promotional materials.
EPRA needs to outline its executive remuneration and also more particulars about how are money is spent. Without this information the consumer who pays the fee will be left to speculate on whether or not money is being spent wisely and ethically. It is also important to know that some of our money will be spent in the USA and Europe as some of the processing will be done there.
Is recycling electronic products the right thing to do? Sure it is. Is this the best program to do it? I don't know and I suspect our politicians don't know either. Is EPRA the best company to administer it? I don't know - perhaps the MMSB could have. Are we maximizing our full potential to gain additional employment? No. Has EPRA used the best process in choosing drop-off and processing facilities - I don't believe so. Have the retailers and manufacturers done enough to educate and promote openly this initiative? No. Has the government explained how this whole thing started, why it started, and who started it? No.
Most importantly the fees are determined and established by EPRA without government involvement. Therefore they should have to answer to a PUB like regulator to ensure the fees are appropriate and the expenditures warranted.
EPRA represents the industry retailers and manufacturers - middlemen to accommodate government regulation. Is this the best process? It's time we had the discussion with the people we elect to govern and make policy and legislation.
The Opposition parties hold some responsibility here as well - where were they when this all went down and what did they recommend?
Chief Executive Officer and Staff
Cliff Hacking
as Chief Executive Officer.
Other senior EPRA staff includes:
Lynda Kitamura
Chief Financial Officer
Jay Illingworth
Director of Harmonization
Sean De Vries
Director, Recycler Qualification Office
Christy Teasdale
Director, Marketing and Communications
Each provincial EPRA program has an Executive or Program Director responsible for the day to day management of
the programs:
Craig Wisehart
EPRA Western Canada
Dennis Neufeld
EPRA Manitoba
Dominique Levesque
EPRA-Québec
Gerard MacLellan
EPRA Atlantic Canada
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
A PC Interim Leader on the way
Listening to our Premier today convinced me that Ms. Dunderdale is on her way out. She is now musing about reflecting, reviewing, revisiting, and reacting to the very loud and disapproving voices of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Dunderdale even mused on a leadership review - a sure sign that this by-election was not just another seat. If the Tories had retained the district - the grumbling government members might have bought the Ross Reid happy message a little longer. The loss of Carbonear - Harbour Grace - coupled with crashing polls - spells an end to her leadership.
So the dance begins - which of the upstarts wants to put the political knife in first? No doubt she's feeling a couple of them already.
I guess the permanent back-up finance Minister could do the Interim Premier bit as well. But with the Tories unable to come up with even an interim Finance Minister (other than Marshall - over and over) the talent pool appears shallow for an interim leader.
I think Darin, Terry, and Keith have a plan - the boys kind of see themselves as the male version of Susan, Joan, and Kathy. Just imagine their glee when the girls leave the roost.
Our Premier seemed really confused when interviewed today on the by-election loss - looked to the sky and wondered how they got to this place.
Muskrat, Abitibi, Fishery, Ferries, Roads, Come by Chance, and spending like drunken sailors comes to mind. Then there's the secrecy, arrogance, and dismissal of local small businesses. Yes that's right I almost forgot - 65 of them spread throughout the province - speaking to hundreds of people each - every day. Lastly there is this continued confusion about who our Premier works for - Danny? Nova Scotia? Emera? Ed Martin? or Stephen Harper?
I believe the Premier is going to have a snowy walk moment any day now and either Roving Tom is going to fill-in or the boys aforementioned will start implementing their plan.
Dunderdale even mused on a leadership review - a sure sign that this by-election was not just another seat. If the Tories had retained the district - the grumbling government members might have bought the Ross Reid happy message a little longer. The loss of Carbonear - Harbour Grace - coupled with crashing polls - spells an end to her leadership.
So the dance begins - which of the upstarts wants to put the political knife in first? No doubt she's feeling a couple of them already.
I guess the permanent back-up finance Minister could do the Interim Premier bit as well. But with the Tories unable to come up with even an interim Finance Minister (other than Marshall - over and over) the talent pool appears shallow for an interim leader.
I think Darin, Terry, and Keith have a plan - the boys kind of see themselves as the male version of Susan, Joan, and Kathy. Just imagine their glee when the girls leave the roost.
Our Premier seemed really confused when interviewed today on the by-election loss - looked to the sky and wondered how they got to this place.
Muskrat, Abitibi, Fishery, Ferries, Roads, Come by Chance, and spending like drunken sailors comes to mind. Then there's the secrecy, arrogance, and dismissal of local small businesses. Yes that's right I almost forgot - 65 of them spread throughout the province - speaking to hundreds of people each - every day. Lastly there is this continued confusion about who our Premier works for - Danny? Nova Scotia? Emera? Ed Martin? or Stephen Harper?
I believe the Premier is going to have a snowy walk moment any day now and either Roving Tom is going to fill-in or the boys aforementioned will start implementing their plan.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Question Period - PC's on last political legs
Watch carefully, Question Period in the House of Assembly. There is a real sign that the Tories are on their last political legs.
Question Period is to gain information from government and to call on government to account for its policies and actions.
Members Opposite ask the questions and government provides the answers. We all know that our government is not very good at providing answers and for the most part Question Period is like an adult playground for Government Ministers and Members.
These days - however there is one particular behavior that is ramping up. When an Opposition or Third Party Member asks a question more often than not the Minister responding - says "I want to know what the Liberals or NDP" thinks about this or that - or supports this or that.
This is going to become a "be careful what you wish for" scenario. So the Ministers of the Dunderdale government want to ask questions in the House of Assembly - no problem - just hang on for a couple of years and the few who are left standing will get plenty of time to do just that.
The Dunderdale Ministers and backbench hecklers are begging - no longing - to become Opposition - keep it up and they will get their wish.
Soon enough the few that are left can become a real rat-pack and ask all the questions they like.
The partisan zealotry of this government and vindictiveness toward those who are not absolute Kool-Aid drinkers goes beyond anything most of us have seen before. These people are not fit to govern and are absolute abusers of power.
Will any of them do a polygraph? We are the employers so maybe that's what we should demand.
Question Period is to gain information from government and to call on government to account for its policies and actions.
Members Opposite ask the questions and government provides the answers. We all know that our government is not very good at providing answers and for the most part Question Period is like an adult playground for Government Ministers and Members.
These days - however there is one particular behavior that is ramping up. When an Opposition or Third Party Member asks a question more often than not the Minister responding - says "I want to know what the Liberals or NDP" thinks about this or that - or supports this or that.
This is going to become a "be careful what you wish for" scenario. So the Ministers of the Dunderdale government want to ask questions in the House of Assembly - no problem - just hang on for a couple of years and the few who are left standing will get plenty of time to do just that.
The Dunderdale Ministers and backbench hecklers are begging - no longing - to become Opposition - keep it up and they will get their wish.
Soon enough the few that are left can become a real rat-pack and ask all the questions they like.
The partisan zealotry of this government and vindictiveness toward those who are not absolute Kool-Aid drinkers goes beyond anything most of us have seen before. These people are not fit to govern and are absolute abusers of power.
Will any of them do a polygraph? We are the employers so maybe that's what we should demand.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Landmark Oil Find - Great News for ???
The news offshore is good - another significant oil find off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hundreds of millions of barrels of light sweet crude - lots of the best.
Now let's look at our cut.
Statoil is owned 67% by the people of Norway. They will be the primary beneficiary of our oil.
Newfoundland and Labrador is still not able to refine any of our own oil. Therefore refineries in Eastern Canada will be the beneficiary of the secondary processing.
Our population is not increasing despite the massive oil, mineral, and energy wealth.
The news is good - yes. The news is great - hardly.
How about our local media do a breakdown of the benefits coming from another of our natural resources. This might tell us and Minister Joan Shea why we have a shrinking aging population despite all the fabulous natural resource headlines.
Ironic - that today we are worried about the potential loss of the Come by Chance refinery where we process oil that is far inferior to our own.
It is superb news for NOIA - it is another sad day for the people of our province.
Too bad our politicians do not have the vision of their colleagues in Norway.
Population Norway - 1970 - 3.8 million
Population Newfoundland and Labrador - 1970 - 514 thousand
Population Norway - 2012 - 5 million
Population Newfoundland and Labrador - 2012 - 526 thousand
Guess it really depends on what we do with natural resources. Norway and this province are good comparisons relative to energy wealth - both hydro and oil.
This is just another giveaway.
Hundreds of millions of barrels of light sweet crude - lots of the best.
Now let's look at our cut.
Statoil is owned 67% by the people of Norway. They will be the primary beneficiary of our oil.
Newfoundland and Labrador is still not able to refine any of our own oil. Therefore refineries in Eastern Canada will be the beneficiary of the secondary processing.
Our population is not increasing despite the massive oil, mineral, and energy wealth.
The news is good - yes. The news is great - hardly.
How about our local media do a breakdown of the benefits coming from another of our natural resources. This might tell us and Minister Joan Shea why we have a shrinking aging population despite all the fabulous natural resource headlines.
Ironic - that today we are worried about the potential loss of the Come by Chance refinery where we process oil that is far inferior to our own.
It is superb news for NOIA - it is another sad day for the people of our province.
Too bad our politicians do not have the vision of their colleagues in Norway.
Population Norway - 1970 - 3.8 million
Population Newfoundland and Labrador - 1970 - 514 thousand
Population Norway - 2012 - 5 million
Population Newfoundland and Labrador - 2012 - 526 thousand
Guess it really depends on what we do with natural resources. Norway and this province are good comparisons relative to energy wealth - both hydro and oil.
This is just another giveaway.
Friday, September 06, 2013
Election Act may allow PC's to avoid the Polls - if Kathy departs this October.
The Sir Robert Bond Papers says:
"Rumours have started to circulate that Kathy Dunderdale will toss her teddy bear in the corner in October. Maybe. Unless the Tories change the House of Assembly Act to reverse the changes they made a decade ago, they’ll be forced to go to the polls within 12 months of her departure. That might have made sense once, but with the mess they currently have , there’s no guarantee the Tories would be able to run a successful election that quickly."
Actually Ed Hollett may be wrong - the Act is weak and says the following:
"Rumours have started to circulate that Kathy Dunderdale will toss her teddy bear in the corner in October. Maybe. Unless the Tories change the House of Assembly Act to reverse the changes they made a decade ago, they’ll be forced to go to the polls within 12 months of her departure. That might have made sense once, but with the mess they currently have , there’s no guarantee the Tories would be able to run a successful election that quickly."
Actually Ed Hollett may be wrong - the Act is weak and says the following:
Election on change of Premier
3.1
Where the leader of the political party that forms the government
resigns his or her position as leader and as Premier of the province
before the end of the third year following the most recent general
election, the person who is elected by the party to replace him or her
as the leader of the party and who is sworn in as the Premier of the
province by the Lieutenant-Governor shall, not later than 12 months
afterward, provide advice to the Lieutenant-Governor that the House of
Assembly be dissolved and a general election be held.
You will note that the party has to have an election to get a new leader first; that can take them up to a year before the election. In that time an interim leader can be appointed (not elected) and caucus can make many changes to try and turn the tide.
For sure the interpretations on this will vary - however - there is certainly significant wiggle room. Section 3.1 has two conditions that must be achieved; election of a new leader and then 12 months to call a general election.
I'm sure the PC's have looked at this and we will know their interpretation soon. I'd say Kathy is gone and perhaps Terry French will provide interim leadership. My guess is Darin King is gathering his leadership gang together as I write this blog.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Minister Shea wears the shame of her Colleague?
The House of Assembly Hypocrisy
We can all agree that violence against girls, young women, and women must be stopped - and therefore any actions of governments to move that agenda foward is positive.
The problem is Minister Shea - and it's a big problem - you cannot expect anybody to believe that this effort is sincere - when your colleague the Minister of Finance - stood recently in the House of Assembly and praised a sexual offender - because he happened to win a hockey game.
You must deal with that issue frankly - this person praised by your colleague was at the time of the praise already convicted of raping two young women and subsequently plead guilty to raping another young woman in her sleep.
You can't as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women - refuse to address this unacceptable behavior (congratulating Mark Yetman Goalie CeeBees - Sexual Offender) by your colleague. If you do not apologize for these statements in the House of Assembly and apologize to the young women who were victims of Yetman - then your Ministerial Statement today rings hollow.
I can't single Minister Shea out here - as many others in the House from all sides - sit silently. Shame.
Here is the Hansard of a Ministerial Statement today by Joan Shea:
MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to provide an update on the progress of Atlantic Canada’s CyberSafe Girl Initiative.
In August 2010, the Atlantic Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women held their first annual meeting and at this time they shared concerns on cyber-violence.
Cyber-violence is the use of the Internet to harm or intimidate another person and includes name calling, teasing, threatening, starting rumours, posting embarrassing or degrading pictures, or encouraging violence. Acts of cyber-violence take place through e-mail, social media Web sites such as Facebook or Twitter, blogs and on-line games.
To address this disturbing issue, the Atlantic ministers committed to creating an initiative that provides educational tools to youth, parents and educators.
From this commitment, the CyberSafe Girl Initiative was developed. This initiative focuses on creating awareness and preventing cyber-violence being perpetrated against young girls on-line. The Atlantic Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women were pleased to officially launch the CyberSafe Girl Initiative campaign in St. John’s on October 11, 2012 – International Day of the Girl.
Through the CyberSafe Girl Initiative, a Web site and three fact sheets were developed to promote safe Internet usage for young girls. These fact sheets, entitled 10 Tips for Girls, 10 Tips for Parents, and What Everybody Needs to Know, are available throughout Atlantic Canada. In our Province, the Department of Education assisted with the distribution of the CyberSafe Girl fact sheets earlier this month to Newfoundland and Labrador schools with students in Grades 7 to 9.
The CyberSafe Girl Initiative was also recently showcased during the fifty-seventh session of the Commission on the Status of Women in New York on March 6. During this international event, two of the Atlantic Canadian Status of Women Ministers presented background information on the initiative and highlighted interactive components, including the fact sheets and Web site, to emphasize that ending cyber-violence against girls is a global effort; one that our Province is proud to be part of.
Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Ministers will continue to make progress and spread the word with this initiative in the collective effort to end cyber-violence. I encourage all families in Newfoundland and Labrador to join this effort by reviewing these fact sheets and visiting cybersafegirl.ca to learn more about cyber safety.
___________________________________________
We can all agree that violence against girls, young women, and women must be stopped - and therefore any actions of governments to move that agenda foward is positive.
The problem is Minister Shea - and it's a big problem - you cannot expect anybody to believe that this effort is sincere - when your colleague the Minister of Finance - stood recently in the House of Assembly and praised a sexual offender - because he happened to win a hockey game.
You must deal with that issue frankly - this person praised by your colleague was at the time of the praise already convicted of raping two young women and subsequently plead guilty to raping another young woman in her sleep.
You can't as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women - refuse to address this unacceptable behavior (congratulating Mark Yetman Goalie CeeBees - Sexual Offender) by your colleague. If you do not apologize for these statements in the House of Assembly and apologize to the young women who were victims of Yetman - then your Ministerial Statement today rings hollow.
I can't single Minister Shea out here - as many others in the House from all sides - sit silently. Shame.
Here is the Hansard of a Ministerial Statement today by Joan Shea:
MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to provide an update on the progress of Atlantic Canada’s CyberSafe Girl Initiative.
In August 2010, the Atlantic Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women held their first annual meeting and at this time they shared concerns on cyber-violence.
Cyber-violence is the use of the Internet to harm or intimidate another person and includes name calling, teasing, threatening, starting rumours, posting embarrassing or degrading pictures, or encouraging violence. Acts of cyber-violence take place through e-mail, social media Web sites such as Facebook or Twitter, blogs and on-line games.
To address this disturbing issue, the Atlantic ministers committed to creating an initiative that provides educational tools to youth, parents and educators.
From this commitment, the CyberSafe Girl Initiative was developed. This initiative focuses on creating awareness and preventing cyber-violence being perpetrated against young girls on-line. The Atlantic Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women were pleased to officially launch the CyberSafe Girl Initiative campaign in St. John’s on October 11, 2012 – International Day of the Girl.
Through the CyberSafe Girl Initiative, a Web site and three fact sheets were developed to promote safe Internet usage for young girls. These fact sheets, entitled 10 Tips for Girls, 10 Tips for Parents, and What Everybody Needs to Know, are available throughout Atlantic Canada. In our Province, the Department of Education assisted with the distribution of the CyberSafe Girl fact sheets earlier this month to Newfoundland and Labrador schools with students in Grades 7 to 9.
The CyberSafe Girl Initiative was also recently showcased during the fifty-seventh session of the Commission on the Status of Women in New York on March 6. During this international event, two of the Atlantic Canadian Status of Women Ministers presented background information on the initiative and highlighted interactive components, including the fact sheets and Web site, to emphasize that ending cyber-violence against girls is a global effort; one that our Province is proud to be part of.
Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Ministers will continue to make progress and spread the word with this initiative in the collective effort to end cyber-violence. I encourage all families in Newfoundland and Labrador to join this effort by reviewing these fact sheets and visiting cybersafegirl.ca to learn more about cyber safety.
___________________________________________
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
The Jovial Setting in the House of Assembly
Please go to this LINK
Go to 7:03 of the recording and watch the Minister of Finance - Jerome Kennedy - congratulate the accomplishments of a sexual predator.
All MHA's should advise if they celebrated with the Minister knowing that Mark Yetman was a convicted sexual offender.
How is this permitted to stand in the Hansard of the People's House of Assembly.
An apology is owed to the women who were victims of Mark Yetman.
If any MHA was not aware of this circumstance prior to congratulating the sexual predator - are you willing to ask for a statement in the House apologizing to the women.
Further can legislation be tabled that would prevent violent sex offenders from playing on provincial teams while on bail - awaiting for sentencing.
There is no pride here for the Coach and administration of the team - they welcomed in a sexual predator.
He (Yetman) is not an example for young men and women - children - He is a disgrace.
This is not acceptable.
Where is the conscience of men and women serving the people in political office? These people are supposed to be our leaders.
Shame!
As for Minister Kennedy - the quote that most suits him is:
"He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up." Paul Keating former PM Australia
Go to 7:03 of the recording and watch the Minister of Finance - Jerome Kennedy - congratulate the accomplishments of a sexual predator.
All MHA's should advise if they celebrated with the Minister knowing that Mark Yetman was a convicted sexual offender.
How is this permitted to stand in the Hansard of the People's House of Assembly.
An apology is owed to the women who were victims of Mark Yetman.
If any MHA was not aware of this circumstance prior to congratulating the sexual predator - are you willing to ask for a statement in the House apologizing to the women.
Further can legislation be tabled that would prevent violent sex offenders from playing on provincial teams while on bail - awaiting for sentencing.
There is no pride here for the Coach and administration of the team - they welcomed in a sexual predator.
He (Yetman) is not an example for young men and women - children - He is a disgrace.
This is not acceptable.
Where is the conscience of men and women serving the people in political office? These people are supposed to be our leaders.
Shame!
As for Minister Kennedy - the quote that most suits him is:
"He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up." Paul Keating former PM Australia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)