Imagine that Newfoundland and Labrador

Is it Scotland's Oil and Gas offshore?

Answer: The vast majority of oil and gas in the UK comes from the Scottish Continental Shelf and will be in Scotland after independence.

Analysis by academics at Aberdeen University tells us that in excess of 90 per cent of the oil and gas revenues are from fields in Scottish waters (based on well-established principles of international law).

Dunderdale Spin does not add up!

Nothing worse than waking up in the morning - and hearing Premier Dunderdale on the CBC Morning Show discussing how we - the people - will thank her in time.

The Premier and Co. really believe we are ignorant - almost beyond hope - and she like any concerned parent will guide us through the haze.

This patronizing drone is worse than annoying and condescending - it is dangerous.

If Dunderdale believes she must parent us versus serve us - then she is delusional.

The latest spin from DJ Reid is the low polling has nothing to do with Muskrat Falls. The Premier - as the "point" person of the party - claims the absolute collapse of the polls has to do with laying off 1000 people.

First - the destruction of faith in this government began long before this budget. Second - it absolutely has to do with Muskrat Falls as more and more information has been coming out by opponents to the deal. Finally the fact that Don Mills of CRA and the Premier are protesting too much - that it is absolutely NOT Muskrat Falls.

I say that it absolutely is Muskrat Falls and the damage to the party fortunes initiated shortly after the last election - when the deal was discussed in greater detail.

The Dunderdale government has spent a fortune getting study after study produced to verify that Nalcor and government are right on the development. Unfortunately it is becoming more and more obvious that the "independent" reports paid for by Nalcor and Government (us) were restricted and essentially mathematical recalculations of the sums already provided.

The government and/or PC Party did an untold number of polls (unreleased) on the subject and only released one when they eked over a majority of the population. The poll itself could be challenged - but that's a waste of time - as historical data on weak support exists - else the exercise of advertised brainwashing would have been a waste of money.

In my opinion - the greatest fear of Kathy and her handlers is that Muskrat dissent will become more vociferous in light of the disastrous poll results - and they might actually be politically forced to stop it.

The 5 or 6 people/corporations standing to actually make a tonne of money here will do anything to prevent that from happening.

There is no way a government polling this low can justify spending $24,000 for every child - woman - man in Newfoundland and Labrador - on one project - during one term in office. 240  - hundred dollar bills for us all - not a chance.

Spending at one time an equivalent of more than our debt - accumulated since 1949. Over 60 years - of spending and debt - Dunderdale wants to do for one project.

Considering the Premier and her government are clearly in third place of three - and considering that she and her Ministers and Backbenchers believe the poll has nothing to do with Muskrat - why not hold a referendum on Muskrat? What does the Premier and her government have to lose?

The people deserve a clear and specific say on the expenditure of this much money and particularly because it's a hydro resource.

The truth is plain to see - the people of this province are afraid of this deal - afraid of the impacts - afraid of the future ramifications.

Imagine the polling results if Dunderdale and Co. had done the honourable thing and funded opponents of the deal to present equally funded research and associated public relations and advertising for the findings.

The Muskrat Falls development must be stopped.

Poll results demand a Referendum on Muskrat

So the polls are reflecting the REAL feelings on Muskrat Falls, deficits, cuts, social policy on health and education.

Jerome Kennedy is says "they are taking the poll seriously" - really?

Kennedy adds that they will stand by the decisions they have made on cuts and Muskrat Falls - really?

Kennedy, Dunderdale, and Co. reflected not long ago that the most recent election victory was a ringing endorsement of the Muskrat development deal. Despite the millions in brainwashing attempts and hiding results of earlier polls on the issue - they celebrated not long ago that a majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians finally agree with the deal. Really?

The poll results are low enough now that the Tories are not governing with any moral authority. The poll results are a reflection of people beginning to understand the Muskrat giveaway will cost their children, great grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren a fortune. The polls are a reflection of the peoples utter disgust with policy and laws of secrecy. The polls are a reflection that people despise the incompetence and false arrogance of this regime.

So Minister Kennedy is really saying to hell with the people - we will do as we want - when we want. The real strength of the backbench is now being displayed as they sit idly by - not really knowing what to do.

Minister Kennedy is acting as if - we - the people are opposing counsel and he will fight us with the best he's got. Unfortunately Minister - you don't have the right stuff - to win this battle. The Court of Public Opinion has spoken - you have lost the case. Appeal if you dare - my guess is - you will lose that also. When the Supreme Court of Public Opinion speaks - the precedent will be set. Dunderdale, Kennedy and Co. will probably achieve a feat of Mulroney proportions - they will have wiped out the PC Party in Newfoundland and Labrador. Perhaps Ross Wiseman can pull a Peter MacKay.

A conclusion should be made by the people that NOW is the time to stop this government from proceeding further with the Muskrat fiasco. Stop it now while only 10% has been spent. This project can be halted in its tracks and the only ones who''ll be crying are the 5 or 6 people/corporations that are actually going to make serious money on this sell-out.

We have not passed the point of no return on Muskrat - but the PC's have passed the point of no return with the people.

Try to be honourable ladies and gents and call a referendum on whether the project should proceed.

The stench which is SNC Lavalin is pleasantly perfumy when compared with the smell of sewer gas spewing from the decomposition from within.

There is no reason for any administration to continue a project like Muskrat when they have lost the confidence of the people. If the government continues with this now - it's not for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Talk with Sue - For the Record with Brad Cabana

Thursday - Talk with Sue - For the Record Series - with Brad Cabana

Press HERE to go visit the Show Page or listen live on Thursday night. 

With a broad and varied background Brad brings to the discussion straight forward opinions based on his research and some connect the dots analysis.

He has become a colourful politico in Newfoundland and Labrador and he makes no bones about his interest in all things Canada.

The proposed deal to develop Muskrat Falls has certainly peaked such an interest and he fully plans to have a say. Like most people opposed to or concerned about the deal - airtime for Brad is limited and commercial advertising prohibitive.

Unlike some who are waiting for new or additional information before making a decision to support or reject - Brad feels he has enough information to say no. He is not alone as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have reached the same conclusion.

This program with Brad will certainly provide the undecided an opportunity to hear him explain the process he used to make a decision. Does he share - like many of you - the idea that a referendum is needed? While serving on a municipal council he was involved with a referendum process on the Meech Lake Accord; does he think the process best served his constituents in that case?

The free flow of information and opinion continues on For the Record with Brad Cabana this Thursday at 8 pm Island time and 7:30 pm in most of Labrador. 

Press HERE to visit show page or to listen live on Thursday.

To listen to archived programs with Danny Dumaresque, Roger Grimes and Bruno Marcocchio PRESS HERE

Shoving a Muskrat down our Throats - Dunderdale?

The Muskrat Falls proposed development project has finally driven many people to become involved.

The size, scope, risk, and importance of developing this natural resource should interest and be of concern to all people in our province.

I hear the Premier and her colleagues complain and moan about critics and chastise anybody who speaks in any other manner than full-on support of the proposed deal.

Let's get a few things straight.

1. The government has spent a fortune of our money getting documents prepared and studies/analysis done to "prove" the worthiness of the deal. "Independent" reports, "independent" support, and "independent" voices Dunderdale proclaims. In other words our money for one-sided information.

2. The government has thwarted real involvement of the PUB which is the ratepayers authority and one which is supposed to make the call when spending goes on related to domestic supply.

3. The government did not accept the findings of the joint panel review. Another protection of the people and society at large regarding natural resource development.

4. The government has not agreed to a referendum despite the democratic merits of doing such.

5. The government is not allowing citizens to participate in a real debate between government representatives and experts in the populace.

6. The government is not allowing shareholders of the resource an opportunity to vote on such a rare and massive undertaking.

7. Nalcor is bullying Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - or NLH is not acting completely on its mission statement or mandate.

8. Kathy Dunderdale, Danny Williams, and other PC MHA's are ignoring very real concerns and risks placed before them by reputable people (mostly Newfoundlanders and Labradorians).

9. Kathy Dunderdale has yet to present polls demonstrating overwhelming support (75% +) of the deal.

10. The government is not allowing proper and thorough review of the opposing side.


If a government is truly interested in averting another fiasco like the Upper Churchill it would go out of its way to examine the "other side". That is to say make available the tens of millions they have spent on the "positive" potentials to examine the "negative" potentials.

If the entities that are reviewing are using assumptions and numbers thrust upon them by Nalcor (government) they will not achieve a real review of the deal.

If government were truly interested in vetting the deal and bringing true scrutiny to it they would allow competent citizens who have expressed opposition to the deal to have access to millions of dollars to study opposite or different assumptions.

This is what should happen through a referendum process but in the absence of that - monies should be granted for review by those citizens who vehemently oppose the deal.

The real deal is that it's being pushed down our throats and they will never have to pay any consequence if they are wrong. Booting them out of office is not the appropriate punishment for those who may cause generational destruction to our well being.

Next up will be Options A - B - C - D - how the establishment hedges its political bets. That includes the privatization of our hydro assets particularly Gull Island.

Why and How - Muskrat Deal Referendum

The reasons we need a referendum:

1. This one project could double the debt achieved over 60 years in 5 years.

2. This is an energy project in Labrador. 

3. Failure of the Government to achieve wide based support.

4. Inconsistency in external and internal reviews.

5. Concerns raised in the public by reputable people with expertise (including former PC MHA's )

The how of a referendum:

1. Don't be concerned that you may not feel educated enough about the issue to vote - it is the Government's job to educate you satisfactorily. If they cannot sell it to you then your vote should be no.

2. The Government would have to provide funding for contrary groups to publicize and educate the public on their reasons not to proceed with the project as defined.

3. There would be a defined period for discussion and debate that provides media better access to information on a timely basis including the potential for public debates between government and opposing parties.

4. It would inject a much needed Democratic tool into our ever eroding open and transparent governance.

5. It is something that a confident government should welcome - particularly on a natural renewable resource development.

Rationale for a Referendum - Put Muskrat to the People

In a representative democracy referendum or plebiscites can be used for a more "direct" democracy on a law, a policy, a proposal or amendments to a constitution.

The question is - should there be a referendum on the proposed Emera - Muskrat Falls deal?

Let's look at the current situation regarding Muskrat Falls.

1. There is mass confusion on the positives and negatives of the proposed deal.

2. The Government has refused to open the House of Assembly to hold an Emergency Debate.

3. There have been no provincial consultations on the deal - where all parties are involved.

4. The Government has refused an extension to the Public Utilities Board.

5. The Government has used the Upper Churchill and relations with Quebec as a reason for the deal.

6. There are very opposing views from knowledgeable people, political, industrial, and advocates.

7. The deal has the potential to severely impact many generations of Newfoundland and Labrador.

8. The Opposition Parties were too weak in the last general election - leaving voters limited choice.

9. There are significant questions remaining from the Federal/Provincial  Environmental Review.

10. The feeling by many citizens that their voice is not being heard on the proposed deal.

What could a referendum do for this particular deal?

Referendums can serve to provide more participation in the democratic process. This is something that is obviously needed considering the percentage of people voting in a general election.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has used the Upper Churchill and the subsequent relationship with Quebec to help sell the deal. This is so complex and so divisive that we as people need to understand what the cost of that continued purported feud is.

It would serve to give a real voice to experts and advocates who are opposed to the deal by allowing proper access to public communication - in order that the general population can equally hear both sides.

It would serve to eliminate suspicion of many that the government is ramming the deal through.

In the context of expenses incurred to do such a massive deal - it represents a minor contribution to the democratic process.

It would serve to put in place a new system for major deals in an effort to reduce the historic giveaways we have suffered.

It can serve to mobilize consent or discontent in the proposed deal.

It will serve to place a reasonable check and balance to the power of an elected government.

Most important it gives people real power and influence over significant social, economic, and political issues.

Who Owns Nalcor? Let the Shareholders (you and me) Vote on Muskrat at the AGM on June 22nd

While Premier Dunderdale, Minister Shawn Skinner, and CEO Ed Martin treat Nalcor as their own private entity - the reality is you an I - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador own it.

We fought very hard to stop the takeover bid by nameless faceless wealthy and mostly offshore investors - under the Clyde Wells administration.

At the time the PC's were in Opposition and purportedly fighting along side us to keep the profitable company under the ownership of the people. How quickly they forget - or perhaps how quickly they become arrogant when the political tides turn and they find themselves across the floor in government.

Premier Dunderdale and the PC's used our knowledge and expertise when they were in Opposition and we - the people were fighting the Liberals on the privatization attempt. They held us up as people - who knew their stuff and had a vision for the Crown Jewel - then known as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Political expedience and unknown agendas personal and professional - now see the PC's view the very same people they held up as experts - reduced to bothersome mosquito's not worthy of input.

Then you have the likes of Gil Bennett - a person who owes his job and opportunity with Nalcor to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - sit in a chair with such arrogance and disdain of the very same people.

Premier Dunderdale has not demonstrated the necessary knowledge or presented the necessary qualifications to pilot a deal - such as the Muskrat Falls. She is out of her league when it comes to dealing with private entities such as Emera - and frankly out of her league keeping up with her own bureaucrats. This is particularly dangerous as some of the same bureaucrats are still around as were around during the privatization fiasco.

The Telegram, CBC, and NTV have all noted that experts in the field - some of them with significant PC pedigree - have and continue to question the Emera giveaway. The concerns range from straight economics to social and industrial advancement of Labrador.

Dunderdale continues to stumble over any questions - or simply avoids them - one has to wonder if Tim Powers is lurking somewhere - and all Cabinet attempts to bolster the Premier's obvious weaknesses - fail.

This is in part due to the atmosphere of the "rah rah" backbench which are as clueless now as when they sat and cheered for exactly opposite positions under Williams. The most obvious example of this was the "new found" support for Harper.

Danny says "do not elect Conservatives Stephen Harper is a dangerous man". Backbenchers and Cabinet alike "rah rah" "ABC" "ABC". Kathy says "elect Conservatives - Stephen Harper is a changed man". Bankbenchers and Cabinet alike chanted "rah rah" "ABC is dead" "ABC is dead".

Now is the time for us - the shareholders of Nalcor - to start exercising our shareholders rights. Now is the time to weed out the weaknesses at the Executive level of our Corporation. Because these hydro resources are owned by the people and because Nalcor is owned by the people - a shareholders vote must be taken.

The time for a referendum is now.

Nalcor is holding it's AGM on June 22 - 2011 - and imagine this - they have opened it to the public. I imagine they have we own it. They would like people to register in advance - they point out - in the event the meeting if full - registrants will get first dibs on the unknown number of places at the Holiday Inn in St. John's. They also suggest any questions you have - you can submit them in advance.

 What would happen if let's say two or three thousand people turned up for the event - to listen to our employees give an update on their "successes" regarding Nalcor and the performance of our company.

What do you think?

Nalcor Energy’s Annual General Meeting

On Wednesday, June 22, 2011, Nalcor Energy will hold its Annual General Meeting (AGM) at the Holiday Inn in St. John's.

Ed Martin, President and CEO; and Derrick Sturge, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer will host Nalcor's AGM.

The AGM is open to the public. Those interested in attending are asked to register by Friday, June 17, 2011. Registration is not required; however, registered participants will be given priority if the meeting reaches capacity.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Holiday Inn, Salon A/B
180 Portugal Cove Rd
St. John's, NL


The AGM will also be available by live stream from the Nalcor Energy website. Details will be made available prior to June 22.

REGISTER HERE

 

Those who attend the AGM will have an opportunity to ask questions.  Questions may also be submitted online in advance.

A challenge to Dunderdale, Jones, and Michael - Are you serious about protecting our people and our resources?

The New Brunswick ruling PC Government and Premier, David Alward have introduced a referendum law in that province. This follows the failed attempt by Shawn Graham and his ousted Liberal government to sell crown owned NB Power to Hyrdo-Quebec.

At the time - then Opposition leader - Alward promised to deliver a referendum law so people could have a direct say on significant issues.

Two things come to mind here for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; Kathy Dunderdale should follow suit with her PC colleague in New Brunswick and offer the same democratic process for issues such as the development deal on the Lower Churchill and second - The Opposition Liberals and NDP should be demanding this process be enacted - particularly for the Lower Churchill development.

Kathy Dunderdale - a self-professed avid supporter that an unelected Premier should not be doing resource deals - has lost her way and believes that should not apply to her own circumstance. Further the deal has not undergone significant and necessary public scrutiny and debate - which would be available if a referendum process were used. If the Premier is so sure that this deal with Emera is so positive for our future - she would not hesitate to put it directly to us in the form of a direct question and vote. Dunderdale - unfortunately is relying on a general election - wherein she feels both Lorraine Michael and Yvonne Jones are too politically weak to fight.

This particular issue is very sensitive because of the failed contract on the Upper Churchill and the feeling of contempt toward Quebec each year the contract continues - and for Quebec's refusal to fairly negotiate on a transmission route. That is why the people need all the information on the deal with Emera, information on past negotiations with Quebec, and information relative to other options such as industrial development in Labrador.

If Shawn Skinner and Kathy Dunderdale are certain of the tremendous benefits they claim exist under the proposed deal - let them prove it out under a referendum process. If the Liberals and NDP want to help the people of the province and prove they are serious about becoming government - let them come up with a private members bill on referendums. Do something to protect the interests of our province and you may find that people would be willing to support you.

So you want the public to vote?

Really!

Let's see how serious the politicians are when they feign disappointment at the severely low percentage of electors showing up to the polls.

While it is true you can't govern every issue by referendum - there are times when one is definitely needed.

We elect people to objectively deal with our subjective "wants". Every "want" is subjective and "wants" come from all sectors of society - our politicians are always dealing with "wants" and in being responsible they must weigh the "wants" objectively. There has emerged from various sectors of our society a "want" for a Public Inquiry - each and every MHA without exception cannot objectively make a decision on this "want" - which leaves a democratic paradox which only a referendum can solve.

Kilbride is an excellent example of why we need to do something about voting.

Shawn Skinner has suggested fines for those who do not vote - the Government of Nova Scotia says paying the voter might help. I suggest if people are not voting there are problems that a fine or tax credit will not fix.

See if we can agree on the following:

If the politicians will not call a Public Inquiry into the PPP (spending scandal) let them put the question of such an Inquiry to the people in October.

Let's develop a referendum question:
Should a Public Inquiry be held into matters of the House of Assembly Finance covering the period from January 1989 to October 2007?

Please send your suggestions for other wording.

You see the people need a reason to vote - something to vote for. Many people feel they cannot vote for any party while this mess is not fully exposed and dealt with - that was evident in the by-elections.

Even if they only vote on the question and do not vote for a candidate - the message will be sent - loud and clear.

You see Shawn if we were to fine people for not voting because they feel all parties were involved in wrong-doing - that would be ridiculous.
If we were to pay them to vote - well that makes it worse.

The integrity of the House of Assembly must be restored - and to many people this can only happen after a Public Inquiry. Do you know how many politicians - currently retired may try a comeback if we can't figure out what they were all doing during that period of time?

Regardless of what you generally think about referendums - one is necessary on an issue where the elected are those needing to be questioned - because they will not allow independent and public investigation of themsleves.

Let's use this most direct form of democracy in an attempt to restore it in Newfoundland and Labrador.