Moratorium - A SUSPENSION of Activity
So that's where we are? A suspension of activity?
This suspension of activity has caused the loss of over 40,000 people from our province.
This suspension of activity has caused the death or near-death of some rural communities.
This suspension of activity has caused the loss of relationships and breakup of families.
This suspension of activity has caused the closure of secondary related business and industry.
Moratorium sounds so - clinical - and in some ways hopeful.
This word is not appropriate for the loss of our cod fishery/ground stocks.
This word does not do justice in defining the catastrophic damage caused due to "suspension" of activity.
Somehow Canada - Ottawa - the Feds - have convinced many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that it's our fault or at the least we are partially to blame.
Listening to Canada - or federal politicians from other provinces make this claim - is - what I can expect. Listening to our own politicians and experts making the same claim is sickening.
So how did Canadian and Newfoundland and Labrador politicians get away with the largest socio/enviro mess ever seen in this country?
1. Announce a moratorium in 1992 and claim that stocks will recover - should have been fixed by 2002. (DID NOT HAPPEN)
2. Announce programs to bridge the gap for fishermen, plantworkers, and communities (DID NOT begin to COVER LOSS)
3. Increase Fisheries Science (DID NOT HAPPEN)
4. Retirement Packages (DID NOT HAPPEN)
5. Then they slowly got us used to words like rationalization, down-sizing, and right-sizing - carefully explaining to us that the fishery was never meant to handle that many people. (BUNK)
6. From there we went to dumping FPI and eliminating marketing.
7. They closed one plant - most other plants and workers shut-up - they feared they would be next.
8. They have and continue to pit one community against another.
9. Downloading federal fishery support services to the province.
10. Pit offshore against inshore - recreational against commercial.
11. Use municipal politicians by offering pavement, arenas, tourism dollars, and water/sewer.
12. Commit to one study after another to delay any real action.
13. Pit urban residents against rural residents.
14. Promote and focus on non-renewable oil assets.
15. Above all - convince us - we were greedy, we took all the fish, and we destroyed ourselves.
16. Marginalize people like Gus Etchegary and Phil Earle.
17. Eliminate the people left with EI changes.
18. Give all fish to kingpins.
19. Over utilization of other stocks.
All of this while the FACT remains that management was the responsibility of the federal government. They were negligent. As a result we were harmed. Therefore we need compensation. 1 billion a year until the stocks return.
The Ministers of Fishery we have had federal and provincial are too gutless, ignorant, or complicit to do what is needed.
Showing posts with label offshore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label offshore. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Trading Seal Pelts for Safety? A public letter to Minister King
A public letter to our Minister of Fisheries
Dear Minister King,
Please be advised that I - as one Newfoundlander and Labradorian - have no interest in building bridges with the Government of Canada if that means we have to trade off safety.
You would be well advised to strip the bridge bit by bit - if that means that one life of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian can be saved.
A "partnership" with Prime Minister Harper - a man who lies with ease and without regret - is not worth one life of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
Below please read an excerpt from a story in the Telegram today.
...he stressed the government has clearly stated its opposition to the pending Marine Rescue Sub-centre closure. He said the province has participated in a public rally, Premier Kathy Dunderdale has addressed the issue, and he has discussed the decision with his federal counterpart, Keith Ashfield, twice this week.
“And I’ve been clear to him how we feel about this.”
King added the opposition parties can criticize and rant, but he has to build bridges with Ottawa to be successful on other issues, such as finding markets for seal products.
“The reality is, I’ve got five or six significant files on my plate that I need to work with the federal government on. While I’m not happy with this issue and I’ll continue to fight it, I still have to work with the minister on other files that are very important to the province.”
Minister King - let me make my position clear - and as a Minister you work for all of us - there is no seal product, fish, Marine Atlantic ferry or equalization file that ranks up to the safety of our people. If you have to take a stand on safety and that means we have to pull out of other discussions - so be it. If you take that stand we may be able to save the Communications Sub-Centre. That in turn may save lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Minister King - if you don't already know - nothing trumps the safety of our people - NOTHING.
Our Premier's new cosy relationship with a liar - a Prime Minister who has betrayed our province - should not interfere with your duty as a Cabinet Minister.
If a loan guarantee means we are willing to lose the fight on search and rescue - then you are not fit to be in office.
There is no bridge that man can build that is worth a life. Priorities - Minister King - Priorities.
If you are successful with all other files and fail on this one - you have failed - period. In this Minister Peter Penashue has already failed us - and more particularly his own peoples.
Dear Minister King,
Please be advised that I - as one Newfoundlander and Labradorian - have no interest in building bridges with the Government of Canada if that means we have to trade off safety.
You would be well advised to strip the bridge bit by bit - if that means that one life of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian can be saved.
A "partnership" with Prime Minister Harper - a man who lies with ease and without regret - is not worth one life of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
Below please read an excerpt from a story in the Telegram today.
...he stressed the government has clearly stated its opposition to the pending Marine Rescue Sub-centre closure. He said the province has participated in a public rally, Premier Kathy Dunderdale has addressed the issue, and he has discussed the decision with his federal counterpart, Keith Ashfield, twice this week.
“And I’ve been clear to him how we feel about this.”
King added the opposition parties can criticize and rant, but he has to build bridges with Ottawa to be successful on other issues, such as finding markets for seal products.
“The reality is, I’ve got five or six significant files on my plate that I need to work with the federal government on. While I’m not happy with this issue and I’ll continue to fight it, I still have to work with the minister on other files that are very important to the province.”
Minister King - let me make my position clear - and as a Minister you work for all of us - there is no seal product, fish, Marine Atlantic ferry or equalization file that ranks up to the safety of our people. If you have to take a stand on safety and that means we have to pull out of other discussions - so be it. If you take that stand we may be able to save the Communications Sub-Centre. That in turn may save lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Minister King - if you don't already know - nothing trumps the safety of our people - NOTHING.
Our Premier's new cosy relationship with a liar - a Prime Minister who has betrayed our province - should not interfere with your duty as a Cabinet Minister.
If a loan guarantee means we are willing to lose the fight on search and rescue - then you are not fit to be in office.
There is no bridge that man can build that is worth a life. Priorities - Minister King - Priorities.
If you are successful with all other files and fail on this one - you have failed - period. In this Minister Peter Penashue has already failed us - and more particularly his own peoples.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Fouling up the Fishery - the Food resource, the industry Future, and the Fight ahead.
Sue and Shannon will take on this difficult but most important issue Sunday, November 13th at 8 pm.
You can listen in and participate in Newfoundland and Labrador`s Newest Talk Show by Pressing HERE
Please forward this to anybody who has an interest in our future, particularly after oil and importantly for our rural communities.
You can listen in and participate in Newfoundland and Labrador`s Newest Talk Show by Pressing HERE
Please forward this to anybody who has an interest in our future, particularly after oil and importantly for our rural communities.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Leave it to Old Harry - he can tell you all about the failures of Danny Williams!
Equalization will have to change again - if Ottawa is going to appease Quebec. Unfortunately - it will all be too late for us.
So the feds and Quebec are set to make a deal on offshore oil - in the disputed area between Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. Old Harry as the area is nicknamed will see Quebec receive 100% of the royalties from any oil recovered.
Now the problem - Quebec - who argued that NL should not be exempt from equalization respecting oil revenues - non-renewable resource revenues - will now have to argue that they should be able to keep all the revenues without being penalized by Ottawa.
The Atlantic Accord which was supposed to insure that Newfoundland and Labrador was the primary beneficiary of offshore oil development - did not deliver on that promise. The weakness of the agreement - signed off by our politicians of the time - became evident as we witnessed Ottawa claw back close to 80% of the revenues under equalization. So for years the ranting went on - and finally the Williams administration caught Paul Martin on a weak political moment and righted the historical wrong. The Government of Canada passed over 2 billion which at least partially compensated our province by making us the primary beneficiary of the resource.
Then along came Harper - who promised equalization changes that would remove revenues from non-renewable resources from the formulary - allowing our children to benefit from resources that we were going to expire.
Harper lied - became the Prime Minister and then proceeded to put our province virtually right back to where we were before we made gains. That lie cost our province over 10 billion dollars. Danny started the ABC campaign - Conservatives were not elected in any riding and Fabian went to the Senate.
Problem is Danny was bluffing - there was no consequence to Harper - and then Danny quit. He had the political support but he chose to sit back and allow our province to be screwed - yet again - by Ottawa.
Now what do you think will happen to Quebec - do you believe they will let Ottawa claw back revenues from oil or gas under equalization? I for one am not that stupid. If Quebec ever recovers oil from this offshore parcel - equalization will be changed to accommodate that development. By then our resources will effectively be exhausted and the change will provide minimal to no return for us.
Today the feds and Quebec are set to sign a deal on the deposit ( potential 2 billion barrels of oil and 5,000 billion cubic feet natural gas) with environmental studies set to be complete by 2012.
Then there are the lagging questions - once again left hanging by Premier Williams - who owns the resource, which boundary is correct, if Newfoundland and Labrador opposes it what is the government going to do about it?
So Danny thinks he got one up on Quebec with the Emera deal. What a failure - and what a cost to our people.
So the feds and Quebec are set to make a deal on offshore oil - in the disputed area between Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. Old Harry as the area is nicknamed will see Quebec receive 100% of the royalties from any oil recovered.
Now the problem - Quebec - who argued that NL should not be exempt from equalization respecting oil revenues - non-renewable resource revenues - will now have to argue that they should be able to keep all the revenues without being penalized by Ottawa.
The Atlantic Accord which was supposed to insure that Newfoundland and Labrador was the primary beneficiary of offshore oil development - did not deliver on that promise. The weakness of the agreement - signed off by our politicians of the time - became evident as we witnessed Ottawa claw back close to 80% of the revenues under equalization. So for years the ranting went on - and finally the Williams administration caught Paul Martin on a weak political moment and righted the historical wrong. The Government of Canada passed over 2 billion which at least partially compensated our province by making us the primary beneficiary of the resource.
Then along came Harper - who promised equalization changes that would remove revenues from non-renewable resources from the formulary - allowing our children to benefit from resources that we were going to expire.
Harper lied - became the Prime Minister and then proceeded to put our province virtually right back to where we were before we made gains. That lie cost our province over 10 billion dollars. Danny started the ABC campaign - Conservatives were not elected in any riding and Fabian went to the Senate.
Problem is Danny was bluffing - there was no consequence to Harper - and then Danny quit. He had the political support but he chose to sit back and allow our province to be screwed - yet again - by Ottawa.
Now what do you think will happen to Quebec - do you believe they will let Ottawa claw back revenues from oil or gas under equalization? I for one am not that stupid. If Quebec ever recovers oil from this offshore parcel - equalization will be changed to accommodate that development. By then our resources will effectively be exhausted and the change will provide minimal to no return for us.
Today the feds and Quebec are set to sign a deal on the deposit ( potential 2 billion barrels of oil and 5,000 billion cubic feet natural gas) with environmental studies set to be complete by 2012.
Then there are the lagging questions - once again left hanging by Premier Williams - who owns the resource, which boundary is correct, if Newfoundland and Labrador opposes it what is the government going to do about it?
So Danny thinks he got one up on Quebec with the Emera deal. What a failure - and what a cost to our people.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The message is key in Communications - this Ms. Matthews knows!
The debacle - which is the CNLOPB provincial nomination process came to a conclusion this week as Ms. Elizabeth Matthews withdrew her name for consideration of the position - Vice Chair.
Ms. Matthews arguably does possess significant experience in the profession of communications. It could also be said that her track record with Premier Williams was successful. In fact I would say she did a fine job in controlling messaging and a finer job controlling media. This is evident by the lack of probing which should have been done respecting many of the projects the Williams administration embarked upon.
Part of her success was in large part due to the nature of her boss and the fact he had no problem being the intimidatory presence to critics of the government or to journalists wanting accountability and accessibility to information. So when she responded to a reporter - in any sort of negative way - denying access to information or interviews - she had a boss who had her back. His popularity - unfortunately crossed over into partisan zealotry causing opposition voices to be silenced - who,what,when,where,why voices to find new material for | news | - and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who were not satisfied with the decisions of his government to be tried and convicted as traitors.
Unfortunately for Ms. Matthews - the nodding heads that clung so fervently to the coattails of Williams as if guided by his every breath - were now left without him. That is to say he was not the public voice of government anymore.
Ms. Matthews would have predicted as a professional in her field - that this nomination would have been met with questions of patronage simply by the position she held within the Premier's office. Naturally that would have lead to questions of qualifications because of the role of the CNLOPB. It also came at a time of sorrowful memory regarding the loss of life of the Cougar flight 91 and the release of the report of findings on the tragedy.
Problem is, Steve Marshall, Shawn Skinner, and Jerome Kennedy are likely not who Matthews herself would have chosen to deliver a message as to why she was the best candidate for the job.
Marshall's law firm just received the potentially very lucrative Tobacco Suit contract - under questionable process. Shawn Skinner - the Minister responsible for Natural Resources should have remained neutral to protect the department's mandate and Jerome Kennedy the partisan of partisans saying the complaints of Matthews nomination were partisan driven.
I am not partisan - and I did not agree with the process used by government for this nomination, the fibre-optic debacle, the Emera mess, or the choosing of a law firm to sue tobacco companies. Further it would behoove Minister Kennedy, the current Premier Dunderdale, or the past Premier Williams to admit that they used great partisanship for government appointments and to negate competencies of other professionals who they did not consider faithful to the party.
The most punishing administration next to Joey Smallwood's fist of control on power has been the Williams administration and to act haughty and surprised by partisan behavior of others is laughable. To suggest that others not they have a hold on partisanship is like Muammar saying all my people love me - there is no protest.
Unfortunately - in order for Matthews appointment to stick - she herself would have had to deliver the key messages. One question though for Skinner and Kennedy - if Matthews was that important to the operations of government - particularly key areas of negotiations - why is she not working for the government? Did she say no? Was she offered anything? In that message the communication might be worse again.
Ms. Matthews arguably does possess significant experience in the profession of communications. It could also be said that her track record with Premier Williams was successful. In fact I would say she did a fine job in controlling messaging and a finer job controlling media. This is evident by the lack of probing which should have been done respecting many of the projects the Williams administration embarked upon.
Part of her success was in large part due to the nature of her boss and the fact he had no problem being the intimidatory presence to critics of the government or to journalists wanting accountability and accessibility to information. So when she responded to a reporter - in any sort of negative way - denying access to information or interviews - she had a boss who had her back. His popularity - unfortunately crossed over into partisan zealotry causing opposition voices to be silenced - who,what,when,where,why voices to find new material for | news | - and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who were not satisfied with the decisions of his government to be tried and convicted as traitors.
Unfortunately for Ms. Matthews - the nodding heads that clung so fervently to the coattails of Williams as if guided by his every breath - were now left without him. That is to say he was not the public voice of government anymore.
Ms. Matthews would have predicted as a professional in her field - that this nomination would have been met with questions of patronage simply by the position she held within the Premier's office. Naturally that would have lead to questions of qualifications because of the role of the CNLOPB. It also came at a time of sorrowful memory regarding the loss of life of the Cougar flight 91 and the release of the report of findings on the tragedy.
Problem is, Steve Marshall, Shawn Skinner, and Jerome Kennedy are likely not who Matthews herself would have chosen to deliver a message as to why she was the best candidate for the job.
Marshall's law firm just received the potentially very lucrative Tobacco Suit contract - under questionable process. Shawn Skinner - the Minister responsible for Natural Resources should have remained neutral to protect the department's mandate and Jerome Kennedy the partisan of partisans saying the complaints of Matthews nomination were partisan driven.
I am not partisan - and I did not agree with the process used by government for this nomination, the fibre-optic debacle, the Emera mess, or the choosing of a law firm to sue tobacco companies. Further it would behoove Minister Kennedy, the current Premier Dunderdale, or the past Premier Williams to admit that they used great partisanship for government appointments and to negate competencies of other professionals who they did not consider faithful to the party.
The most punishing administration next to Joey Smallwood's fist of control on power has been the Williams administration and to act haughty and surprised by partisan behavior of others is laughable. To suggest that others not they have a hold on partisanship is like Muammar saying all my people love me - there is no protest.
Unfortunately - in order for Matthews appointment to stick - she herself would have had to deliver the key messages. One question though for Skinner and Kennedy - if Matthews was that important to the operations of government - particularly key areas of negotiations - why is she not working for the government? Did she say no? Was she offered anything? In that message the communication might be worse again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)