The Twelve Rogues of Christmas XII - Cathy Bennett

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas XII - Cathy Bennett


Part 12 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at Windsor Lake MHA and Finance Minister Cathy Bennett

Click Here:

https://youtu.be/8gYljMNZu7w

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas XI - Dale Kirby

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas XI - Dale Kirby


Part 11 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at Mount Scio MHA and Education and Early Childhood Development Minister Dale Kirby

Click Here:

https://youtu.be/51V9EzeZHMY

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas X - Gerry Byrne

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas X - Gerry Byrne


Part 10 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at Corner Brook MHA and AESL Minister Gerry Byrne

Click Here:

https://youtu.be/6ngWoBz7bGo

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas IX - Sherry Gambin-Walsh

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas IX - Sherry Gambin-Walsh

Part 9 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at Placentia - St. Mary's MHA and Children, Seniors, and Social Development Minister Sherry Gambin-Walsh

Click Here:

https://youtu.be/cObhMe_oyDY

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas VIII - John Haggie

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas VIII - John Haggie

Part 6 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at Gander MHA and Health and Community Services Minister John Haggie.

Click Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwAkeImsWow

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas VII - Christopher Mitchelmore

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas VII - Christopher Mitchelmore

Part 7 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows MHA and Tourism, Culture, & Business Minister, Christopher Mitchelmore.

Click Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIqZQFxyvtQ

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas VI - Steve Crocker

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas VI - Steve Crocker

Part 6 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde MHA and Fisheries, Forestry, & Agrifoods Minister Steve Crocker.

Click Here:
https://youtu.be/2bgK31vd-NQ

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas V - Andrew Parsons

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas V - Andrew Parsons

Part 5 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at Burgeo - La Poile MHA and Justice and Public Safety Minister Andrew Parsons.

Click Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFePaOA4_20

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas IV - Al Hawkins

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas IV - Al Hawkins

Part 4 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at Grand Falls - Windsor - Buchans MHA and Transportation and Works Minister, Al Hawkins.

Click Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ztx6rUDrqE

Twelve Rogues of Christmas III - Eddie Joyce

The Third Rogue of Christmas

Part 3 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at Bay of Islands MHA and Service NL Minister, Eddie Joyce.

Click Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoRy7JmfmnE&t=5s

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas II - Siobhan Coady

The Second Rogue of Christmas

Part 2 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at St. John's West MHA and Natural Resources Minister, Siobhan Coady

Click Here:

https://youtu.be/8jBT04do01M

Tunnel Vision

Tunnel Vision

By: Ryan Young

Danny Dumaresque was in Ottawa last week, and according to his twitter account he is coming home with big news. For those who don’t know Mr. Dumaresque, he is a former Liberal MHA from the old Eagle River district in Labrador, serving during the Clyde Wells era from 1989-1996. He most recently ran again in 2015, but lost to David Brazil for the Conception Bay – Bell Island seat in the House of Assembly. If you are not a follower of politics, however, you might know Dumaresque as “The Tunnel Guy.” He has been the driving force behind the recent push to build a fixed-link tunnel between Labrador and the Northern Peninsula.

The tunnel question is a tough one to crack. In our current financial situation, another mega-project would be a tough sell to the public. Even the $750 000 earmarked by Ball for a tunnel feasibility study has garnered considerable criticism when so many are being asked to tighten their belt for the greater good. But is the tunnel a good idea? Let’s take a closer look.

In 2004, government commissioned a pre-feasibility study of a fixed-link. The study looked at bridges, causeways, and tunnels and ultimately concluded that the best option would be a bored tunnel with a railway shuttle. The estimated cost with financing was quoted at $1.7 Billion. With inflation factored in, the price tag in 2016 dollars would be just over $2 Billion. The study also looked at the business case for the tunnel option and that is where the idea loses a little steam. Even with projected revenues from running HDVC cables through the tunnel, the net benefit will be slightly less than that of an upgraded ferry, as is shown in this figure from the study.

The study does suggest that the project could be done as a private-public partnership, but with the nominal business case, it would likely require a large influx of public money. One of Danny Dumaresque’s arguments has always been that the project could be done privately, without costing taxpayers a cent, pointing to the Confederation Bridge between N.B. and P.E.I as an example. The major difference is that P.E.I needed a fixed link because of the high volume of traffic, and that high traffic flow and predicted increase in tourism traffic made the bridge idea attractive to private developers.

The development consortium put up the capital costs for the P.E.I project, and it receives what is essentially a $44 Million dollar mortgage payment from the federal government each year. This is the same amount that it was previously funding the Marine Atlantic link under P.E.I's terms of confederation. These payments will cover the cost of construction, and the development consortium gets to keep the revenue from tolls, which averages between $25-$30 Million each year. After 33 years, when the construction costs are paid, ownership of the bridge will revert to the federal government.

In comparison, bridge traffic is just under 1.5 Million per year, while Marine Atlantic traffic is significantly less at 320 000. Also, it is not reasonable to expect a fixed-link to Labrador to replace the ferry service as it did in P.E.I (*note the current P.E.I ferry is a private operation) and as such the feds would have no incentive to offer up the cash for the same type of long-term mortgage deal with a private developer. So basically, if either level of government wanted to get involved in funding the project, there would be very little chance of ever seeing a return on their investment. It would be just dead money, spent to create infrastructure jobs.

Danny’s other argument is that the long-term costs of providing the Labrador ferry service will be higher than a fixed-link. Unfortunately, those numbers don’t quite add up either. As outlined in the 2004 study, the economic case to upgrade and maintain the ferry service would be slightly better than the tunnel option. In a CBC story from last May, he states that the Straight of Belle Isle ferry service will cost the province up to $2.4 Billion over the next 40 years. If you average that down to the 30-35 year life of the tunnel the number is much closer than the $2 Billion price tag for the tunnel. That of course also assumes that there will be no significant delays and cost overruns with the project, which, as we should have learned from Muskrat Falls, is not a good way to plan a project. At the end of the day when you crunch the numbers, the cost/benefit analysis is essentially the same.

Another consideration that I have put forth to Mr. Dumeresque is the cost to upgrade the roads that the tunnel will connect. The Viking Trail, which runs the length of the Northern Peninsula will require major improvements to handle the increased traffic loads, and I am sure that most people in Labrador would tell you that they would rather see the Trans Labrador Highway properly finished and paved before there is any talk at all of a fixed-link. Danny suggested to me that the Northern Peninsula highway is in fine condition, and will receive regular upgrades, but if you are going to increase the volume of trucks and recreational vehicles on that highway, it will need to be significantly upgraded. The same goes for the other side. How can you justify building the link until the highway in Labrador is good enough to handle the traffic?

Despite the obvious costs, a fixed-link would certainly bring some benefits to the province. We all know the issues that come with the ferry system and our predictably unpredictable weather, and a fixed-link would bring some much-needed employment for years to come. Increased tourism numbers and a better system of delivering goods between the island and the mainland are definite advantages, not to mention that the tunnel would be really cool. But is being a cool idea enough?

As much as I like the idea of the tunnel, the questions we need to ask is do we really need it and can we afford it. Unfortunately for Mr. Dumaresque and his grand vision, the answer to both questions is no. We can’t afford to fund another mega-project in the province right now, and despite claims to the contrary by Dumaresque, the numbers show that it is very unlikely that a private developer would take the project on without a significant amount of public money invested. I’m not saying that the tunnel idea is dead in the water, but based on the current conversation, it is very hard to connect the dots in a way that justifies the project.

There is, however, one other scenario that could possibly come to pass. If Dumaresque was able to win over the right people on his recent trip up-along, the federal government could step in and provide funding through their infrastructure spending plan. It doesn’t really make sense that they would, but perhaps after looking at the projected unemployment numbers in the province over the next few years, they may see it as a necessary investment to keep us from slipping over the edge. The project would certainly create thousands of good jobs and provide a short-term economic boom for the province. If the feds are willing to step in and foot the bill, maybe it wont be such a bad idea after all. We need the jobs, and the tunnel would be our connection to the world that we have dreamed about for time out of mind. Whatever happened in Ottawa last week, Dumaresque has promised to fill us in soon. Unless he calls a press conference with Judy Foote standing by his side, I wouldn’t expect to much, but with the way the federal Liberals are sending money, you just never know. I guess we will all have to stay tuned and see what happens. It might not be long before we are all seeing in tunnel vision.

The 2004 Pre-Feasibility Study can be found here:
http://www.gov.nl.ca/publicat/fixedlink/pdf/completereport.pdf

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas

By: Ryan Young

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays constant readers. For this year's holiday season I have decided to create "The Twelve Rogues of Christmas."

This short video series will feature a different cabinet minister each day, from now until Christmas, and will highlight some of the wonderful gifts that they have given us, the people, in the past year.

I hope you enjoy the series!

Merry Christmas from The Rogue Bayman

Please follow the Rogue on Facebook and never miss a post!

https://www.facebook.com/roguebayman/

Watch Part I - Perry Trimper Here:

https://youtu.be/hNLy4mAeg9U

Reform the Pensions, But Not for Us

Reform the Pensions, But Not for Us

By: Ryan Young

Is it any wonder there is so much cynicism directed at politicians in this province? While or economy crashes and burns, the big (but short) topic of debate in the House of Assembly this week was pension reform. Last month the Members Compensation Review Committee handed down its recommendations on changes to the provincial MHA pension plan, calling for pensions to no longer be indexed to inflation and that MHA’s not be able to draw from the plan until age 60 instead of the current 55. These recommendations were accepted by the House of Assembly Management Commission, with one very notable change. The review committee also recommended that the new pension rules be retroactive to include MHA’s elected in 2015, but the commission decided not to accept that recommendation, ensuring that all current members would be included in the older, more lucrative plan.

The management commission voted 3-1 to grandfather 2015 MHA’s into what is commonly being referred to in the media and online as “The Gold-Plated Pension Plan.” Liberal Andrew Parsons and PC’s Paul Davis and Keith Hutchings voted in favor while NDP MHA Lorraine Michael was the lone voice of dissent. Siobhan Coady and Mark Browne are also members of the commission but they abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest since they would be directly affected by the vote.

Andrew Parsons defended the decision by saying that it was unfair to MHA’s who have made financial plans based on the previous arrangement. That is looking to be a tough sell for the people of the province who are being taxed to death and cut to bare bones, while our MHA’s will now spend upwards of $3.6 Million to keep their golden trough full. Many might argue that it is unfair that they have to live with a government who abandoned their entire election platform as soon as they were elected in favor of the bad accounting exercise that has come to be known as Budget 2016.

To be fair, there were only a small number of MHA’s that were able to vote on the matter, and I would hope that we would have seen a few more no votes if it had been a full vote of the house. Strangely though the issue seems to have fallen completely off the table in the House of Assembly as nobody in the opposition wants to stand up and make an issue out of something that will take bread off their table.

I don’t blame them. Of course you would want to protect something that you feel you are entitled to after many years of service. I will save the entitlement conversation for another blog, but there is little doubt that such a culture exists within Confederation Building. But it is hard to blame the MHA's for not wanting to speak up against their own retirement plans. They must know how bad it looks though. I think the whole island portion of the province shifted just a bit with the collective eyerolls of 500 000 people when the news broke that the government wanted to exclude themselves from this much-needed pension reform. The old stereotype of politicians only being in it for themselves is certainly hard to break when these types of decisions are made and defended at the same time as we have ministers defending closing libraries or cutting snow clearing for less money than the grandfathered pensions will cost.

It is unfortunate that the commission decided to go this route. Despite our collective anger at government in general, I like to believe that most the people sitting in the people’s house really did get involved because they wanted a to make a difference. They probably had no idea what it meant to be a backbencher who would be forced to watch as cabinet made decisions without their input, that have caused them to be hounded and their faces plastered on poles all over the country and even in the states. The decision to grandfather the pensions may benefit them financially, but it certainly wont earn them any points with the people who must re-elect the 20 rookie MHA’s who will need to win back their seat to be able to qualify for any pension at all.

I don’t begrudge our elected officials their salary or a fair pension. A good MHA works very hard, both in the legislature and in their district. If they do the job well, they deserve to be paid well. If we want to make the job of an MHA a desirable one to attract new blood, it must include a respectful salary. For someone like me, $95 000 a year is much more than a respectful salary, but when you look at the work that a good MHA does, you can make an argument that they deserve it. On the other hand, when you have an MHA who does not do such a good job, or a government that does not respect or respond to the people, it is easy to see why people would think that it is all about the money. The same goes for pensions. Certainly, elected officials should have a good pension plan, but most people would argue that they should pay their fair share.

At the end of the day $3.6 Million is a drop in the bucket and we might very likely a see several rookie MHA’s fail to make the cut next time around, making that number potentially much smaller. But as it so often is when we talk about government, it is all about perception. You can’t ask the people to roll up their sleeves and give you the very sweat off their backs in the name of restoring our fiscal footing, while at the same time voting to exclude yourself from pension recommendations that you all agree are a good idea, but just not for you. I have worked very hard to try to get people to get involved and take notice of what is going on in our political landscape but what am I supposed to say to someone who looks at this story and says; “See, they are all just in it for themselves.” If you don’t want people to think like that, the solution is simple: don’t act like that.

The bottom line is this: People will always grumble about MHA salaries and pensions, for the most part they will live with it and not cause much fuss. But you can’t tell them that you can’t afford to keep their libraries open, or clear the roads at night, or cover their kid’s medication, if you are going to turn around and vote to skip out on reforms that the province desperately needs to save money. If you want us to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work, then you need to lead by example. Voting to keep your lopsided pension plan after handing down a budget like we had last spring, that might just get you a revolution.

C’mon Stan, Show a Little Class

C’mon Stan, Show a Little Class

By: Ryan Young

Nalcor CEO, Stan Marshall, announced last Friday that there would likely be ice damage to structures at Muskrat Falls this winter, and placed the blame squarely at the feet of protesters. According to Marshall, Nalcor simply “ran out of time” to install the ice boom needed to protect the site from the harsh Labrador weather, mainly due to the actions of protesters last October. Marshall’s blame game starts to lose credibility, however, when you consider that the land protectors only occupied the Muskrat site for four days. Even if you give him the full two-week disruption that he claims, that still does not account for why Nalcor was unable to get things done in time to avoid the winter freeze. Considering the track record of the work at the site, this latest delay seems par for the course.

The real culprit behind the delay is not the protests, but rather the leaky cofferdam. Without the cofferdam being fully functional, they are unable to raise water levels high enough to facilitate the installation of the boom. Despite Nalcor’s assurances that the cofferdam is not a serious issue, the fact that they have not been able to fix the problem suggests that it may be bigger than they are letting on. When you factor in Marshall’s deflective comments, in addition to the quickly advancing winter, all signs point to some very big problems at Muskrat Falls.

With the Nalcor CEO publicly blaming the people of Labrador and telling us to expect damage at the site, we should stop and take a closer look at what is really going on. Very little of the “progress” at Muskrat Falls has come easy, and none of it has come cheap. With so many issues in the process so far, it is not unreasonable to think that there may have been some serious flaws with either the cofferdam design or its construction. It must feel like another kick in the face to the people of Labrador from the big boot of Nalcor to be blamed for yet another failure in the construction process. With the cofferdam leaking and the project going even further behind schedule due to construction issues, is it any wonder that so many people are worried about the North Spur?

It s no secret that Nalcor has zero experience with large hydro developments. The head of the Lower Churchill project, Gilbert Bennett, came from Danny’s cable circle to oversee a project that would make or break our province. Ed Martin had no hydro experience either. He was a middle manager at Petro Canada before Danny tapped him for the top job at Nalcor. Now of course we have Stan Marshall in the CEO chair, with his decades of dam building experience, but Gil Bennett is still managing the project and the same contracts and designs are still in place that were there under Ed Martin. If someone like Stan had been there from the start, someone who knew how to build a dam, then maybe things might have turned out differently. As it stands now though, Stan Marshall is little more than a figurehead to appease the public and try to get a handle on some of the ballooning costs.

The cofferdam issue is just the latest in a long line of blunders that has led to this project being years behind schedule and billions over-budget. Marshall knows how bad things are with the project, but his corporate instincts tell him to shift the blame and drive the wedge. That tactic has been working well enough in Labrador for centuries, so why stop now? Maybe instead of giving him full autonomy, Dwight Ball could have included in his mandate a little bit of sensitivity towards the people who will have their lives irrecoverably changed by this project. After all of the issues that we have seen with the construction at Muskrat Falls, to see Marshall play off the first major blunder under his watch as the fault of a four-day protest is just plain embarrassing. Maybe someone should tell Dwight that it he is going to convince the folks in Labrador that he really cares about them, he might want to talk to Marshall about toning down the rhetoric and showing a little class.

Low Roads and Low Blows

Low Roads and Low Blows

By: Ryan Young

If you thought that the Fish-NL vs FFAW battle was going to be simple and straightforward, you probably should have known better. The FFAW has always operated in somewhat of a shadow of controversy in the opinion of many fishers around the province and Ryan Cleary has never been a man to back down from a fight. Months of back and forth between both sides has lead us to what has been an eventful week in the ongoing power struggle to represent inshore fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Neither side has played the game totally clean. The FFAW and other labour factions have been guilty of resorting to personal attacks against Cleary, while on the FISH-NL side, flaring tempers have led to outbursts that have been perceived as threats, and much vitriol has been put forth towards current union executives. Little of that kind action and rhetoric is productive, but the struggle is leading to a growing divide that might be difficult to mend should FISH-NL prove to be successful in its card signing campaign. At the heart of the issue is the harvesters who just want to have a fair chance at making a decent living. The whole situation has taken a turn towards the negative and at this point, nobody can predict which way it will go.

I have tried to stay as much of a neutral observer as I can be. I am supportive of the labour movement and solidarity for workers, but I am also a rural boy who grew up in and around fishing boats for most of my life. I know that harvesters where I come from have felt left behind by the FFAW for decades, and in my own travels around the province I have heard the same concerns again and again. I am not a harvester and I am certainly not qualified to make any personal statements against the FFAW, its executive, or the work they do. I do know, however, that perception often counts for more than truth, and the overwhelming perception that I have heard in my discussions with harvesters points to a widening gap of dissatisfaction and distrust towards the FFAW.

The controversy this week started with the NL Federation of Labour using its triennial convention as a platform to publicly condemn Cleary for attempting to weaken the collective power of people working in the fishing industry and for using divide and conquer tactics to bring down the FFAW. Cleary countered by calling out NLFL President Mary Shortall and FFAW executives for being in a constant conflict of interest and for failing to listen to the concerns of harvesters. UNIFOR Regional Director, Lana Payne, has also been very vocal against the FISH-NL movement, and Cleary in particular, with a constant stream of personal attacks on twitter against the FISH-NL president. While that kind of rhetoric might play well within union circles, it is certainly not stringing a positive chord with the harvesters who are caught in the middle.

I have nothing but respect for leaders like Payne and Shortall, but they seem to be unable to separate their obvious resentment towards Ryan Cleary for his defection from the NDP last fall from the very real concerns that have been raised by inshore harvesters for years. In her most recent string of tweets, Lana Payne accuses Cleary of being a narcissist and a liar and accuses him of spending a lifetime advancing his own cause. To be fair, Payne had no problem with Cleary when he was serving the political agenda of the labour movement when the was an NDP MP, but now that the great defector has taken up the cause of the inshore fisherman he has been cast out as an enemy to the working class who is only out to serve his own interests. 

Think what you will of Cleary, his personality is certainly one of the take it or leave it variety, but you cannot deny that the man has been a vocal advocate for the fishery for much longer than he has been a political figure. No matter what the unions may throw at him, his record of addressing the important issues in the fishery cannot be denied. By all accounts from the labour perspective, this battle has become personal and that is leaving a very bad taste in the mouths of harvesters who have been sitting on the fence.

Whether labour leaders want to admit it or not, the problems with the inshore fishery are very real. Harvesters across the province are expressing serious concerns with the amount of representation they feel they have been getting from the FFAW, and many are ready for a change. Ryan Cleary is not the heart of the FISH-NL movement, he is just the organizer of an idea that has been in the minds of many harvesters for years, if not decades. Cleary’s recent political history makes him a juicy target for rhetoric and personal attacks, and as a result, the labour side is missing the entire point of the FISH-NL movement. Harvesters are fed up and are tired of feeling like they are not being listened too. The FFAW and labour leaders can make all the claims they want about working in the best interests of fishers, but perception is everything and the word around the wharves is that the FFAW is on shaky footing.

While Ryan Cleary is driving around the province offering a sympathetic ear to frustrated harvesters who feel like they are getting a raw deal, the FFAW is spending union dues in expensive media ads and going out of their way to publicly discredit Cleary and FISH-NL through personal attacks. They continue to deny that there are any major issues with the amount of representation given to harvesters and instead of hitting the road themselves and hearing what fishers are saying and offering solutions to their problems, all they have done is make the issue a personal battle against Cleary. This tactic is not working and seems to be alienating an ever-growing number of harvesters.

FISH-NL are certainly not innocent from the mudslinging, but from an outsider’s perspective, they look like the only group that is talking about the issues. The FFAW and the various labour leaders have offered nothing but attacks and criticism towards Ryan Cleary and have offered no solutions to addressing the many issues that have been brought forth by harvesters. By focusing on Cleary, they are totally missing the point that thousands of fish harvesters are trying to make by taking a stand and supporting the Fish-NL movement. If the FFAW and people like Shortall and Payne can’t see past their loathing of Cleary to the real concerns of the workers that they have sworn to protect, then it is quite reasonable to expect that the FISH-NL campaign could very well be successful when the dust settles. The FFAW have had plenty of time to get out there and engage their members and convince them to stay, but instead they have decided to take the low road through personal low-blows and attempts to make the entire situation about one person instead of the many issues being faces by inshore fish harvesters.

If the Fish-NL movement is successful, the end result will see many of the players in this war of words have to eat a little crow and sit down together to work for the best interest of the workers. No matter how much they want to shut Cleary out, if they get enough cards signed to make the break, the other labour leaders will have no choice but to develop a working relationship in the best interest of the fishers. That is after all what the labour movement is all about, right? With so many personal attacks, one must wonder how that will be accomplished with out ego’s and tempers dominating the discussion. Labour seems to be all-in on a FISH-NL failure, but what happens when Shortall, Payne, Sullivan, and Cleary all have to sit down together to chart the best possible course for their members, the workers? I guess we can only hope that all parties involved will be willing to put personalities and political and personal agendas aside to accomplish the one thing that really matters, a better future for the fish harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador.

A Year to Forget

A Year to Forget

By: Ryan Young

It’s hard to imagine that it has only been a year since Dwight Ball’s Liberal Party took the reigns of government in this province. After more than a decade of Tory rule, people were eager for a change. The Liberal 5-Point Plan that served as their 2015 election platform was very specific, as were the promises that Ball repeated day after day on the campaign trail. Unfortunately, it quickly became evident that things would be par for the course under Ball’s leadership, and he wasted little time in beginning to break his promises. As far as the residents of the province are concerned it is just Liberal, Tory, same old story.

One of Ball’s most enthusiastic campaign promises was to repeal the 2% increase to the HST. Ball crossed the province telling people that the HST was a job killer and that a Liberal government would eliminate the unfair Tory tax increase. Ball did in fact keep his promise to repeal the increase shortly after taking office, but that only lasted until the budget speech, when the 2% increase was reinstated, making the whole effort to repeal it in the first place a colossal waste of time, money, and resources. The premier and finance minister claimed that they had no idea how bad the financial situation of the problem really was. Many people are skeptical of that answer, but it has started to make more sense when you consider the many other decisions they have made since. Maybe they really are that stun’d that they couldn’t see the forest for the trees, even if every engaged citizen in the province knew that we were in a tougher spot than the PC’s were letting on. When you consider everything that has happened over the past year, stun’d certainly seems to fit.

There was absolutely no need for the Liberal’s to make so many outstanding promises that they knew they would not be able to keep. The electorate was so fed-up with the PC Party that the Liberal’s could have ran on a very thin platform and still would have cruised to an easy majority. Somehow, Ball and the campaign team thought that it would be a good idea to promise the province the moon, knowing all well that they would have to make tough decisions in the days ahead. I’m sure that Dwight thought that he could follow the Clyde Wells model and get the tough stuff out of the way early on and hope that people will forget by the end of four years. What I don’t think he or anyone else in government realized is that the political landscape has changed since the 1990’s. The internet and social media have changed the way we talk about politics, and leaders are no longer able to hide behind the mainstream media. People are more engaged than ever before and they want real change and not just more platitudes with no action.

That brings us up to the disaster that was Budget 2016. With all of the promises in the 5-Point Plan, there was very little to prepare people for the extreme measures that were presented by Cathy Bennett during her first budget speech. We all knew that the government would need to take some action, but for most people, Budget 2016 was just too much too fast. People reacted, and the government was caught off guard by unprecedented protests against the budget all across the province. The public pressure caused the Liberal’s to backtrack on several decisions, and people are still actively protesting the government and demanding that they listen to the concerns of the people.

Things got really heated over the #MakeMuskratRight protests, and the government again found themselves mired in controversy. With the premier out of the country, emotions raged and the camp at the Muskrat Falls camp was ultimately occupied by fed-up Labrador residents who wanted their voices heard. After a marathon twelve hour meeting with indigenous leaders, Ball went out of his way to say that the protests played no part in the agreement that they had reached. Many saw this as another kick in the face and an example of how foolish Ball can be when he opens his mouth. The Muskrat Falls issue is far from over, and Ball, as the minister responsible for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, would be wise to make more than the four trips that he made to Labrador last year to talk about the issues.

As the old saying goes, the proof is in the pudding and we are seeing the effects of Budget 2016 all around us. Long-established businesses are closing, bankruptcies are up, housing starts are down, and unemployment is expected to hit a staggering 20% by the end of the current governing term. The biggest problem of all is that this government has not given us any indication that they have the slightest clue of how to get things under control. The Way Forward document is big on expectations but very thin on the details on how we will reach the very lofty targets that are outlined in its pages. There is no solid plan to address government spending and people have lost confidence that this government has what it takes to get the job done.

It has certainly been an eventful year and I am sure that Ball and Company are hoping that the next year will be a little smoother. Unfortunately for them, there is a large segment of the population that will be working hard to make sure that does not happen.The government has backed away from many of their controversial policy decisions and seem to be willing to fly through the next three years by the seat of their collective pants. When asked about what they are going to do, the best they can muster is a weak blaming of the Tories, but sooner or later they are going to have to stop blaming and start governing. 

You can be sure that the people of the province will continue to hold the Liberal's feet to the fire and it will be interesting to see how they will address the issues in the coming year. They don’t seem interested in listening to what stakeholders have to say, and they have proven repeatedly that they are not capable of making sound, long-sighted decisions, despite having had to repeal several of the decisions they made without adequate foresight or consultation. Just look to the levy and the library closures to prove that point.My advice for the future is to buckle up for the ride and get ready for another wild year of back-steps and misfires. I wish I could be more positive, but this rogue has to call it as he sees it. I just hope I will be here writing this time next year, instead of living up-along like so many others who are being forced to leave. Maybe Dwight is getting the Clyde Wells blueprint right after all...

Do We Need New Legislation for Question Period?

Do We Need New Legislation for Question Period?

By: Ryan Young

Most people don’t bother to watch the proceedings of the House of Assembly. They get highlights of the best exchanges during question period on the news. I envy these people, as they get to bypass the unavoidable rises in blood pressure and eye rolls that come from watching the spectacle on a daily basis.

It was our second premier, Frank Moores, that brought question period into our House of Assembly after his election in 1972. The idea was to bring more openness and transparency into the legislature. Although it did accomplish that goal to some extent, Moores always considered question period a colossal waste of time and avoided it whenever he could.

The idea behind question period is a good one. Opening the government up to questions about legislative issues seems like a no-brainier. It would be except for one thing, there is nothing in the legislation that requires a member to answer a question directly and/or truthfully. In fact, it is considered un-parliamentary to call another member a liar in the House of Assembly, or to question the truthfulness of their answers. Therefore, we often have opposition parties asking the same questions, over and over, but in a slightly different way.

To give you a better idea of what I am talking about, let me quote a couple of exchanges from the first day of the current sitting of the house. Let’s start with an exchange between Opposition House Leader Keith Hutchings and Finance Minister Cathy Bennett.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is receiving $10 billion in equalization while forecasting a $2 billion surplus. Nova Scotia is getting $1.7 billion; yet, Newfoundland is running a deficit and not seeing a penny in equalization.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Have you made any effort to advocate for equalization from the federal government for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to stand in this House of Assembly and speak to the incredible work that our Premier and our colleagues on this side of the House of Assembly have been doing with our federal counterparts – successfully, I might add – to help lighten the burden of the financial situation that we're faced with in our province. 

Recently, there was an announcement of a $2.9 billion enhanced federal loan guarantee which will help reduce the costs associated with the Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Speaker. In addition to that, we've seen actions that are very broad, including things like removing the tariffs from the boats that were purchased by the former administration without even considering the tariffs on those boats. 

We have been working very hard with our officials and colleagues in Ottawa and we will continue to do that. We will continue to bring back results. 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

The minister didn't indicate if she was advocating on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador. All that she referenced in regard to funding from the federal government, we certainly applaud that, but there's a federal program under equalization that we should have access to. 

In her fiscal update, the minister talked – it wasn't a supplementary budget, it was an update. The minister herself acknowledged the unfairness of the current equalization program. 

So, I ask her again: Why are you not talking to the federal government about a fair share of equalization for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. 

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, not only are we advocating, but we're getting results. I just listed a large number of them, including a $2.9 billion loan guarantee that this government has been able to bring to fruition for the people of the province against the Muskrat Falls Project which is a huge success. 

When it comes to equalization, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Member opposite that the equalization formula as it is implemented today was negotiated and agreed to by the former administration. 

As you can see, Mr. Hutchings asked very direct questions to the minister, but the minister responded in a round-about way that did not even remotely resemble an answer to the questions that he asked. Certainly, the Muskrat Falls loan guarantee is an important issue to discuss in the house, but Mr. Hutchings was asking direct questions about equalization. Unfortunately, this is not a rare incident. In fact, if you look through Hansard for any given day, you will be hard pressed to find an example of a government member directly answering a question from the opposition members.

Another example from question period on the second day of sitting came during an exchange between Opposition critic, David Brazil, and Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, Dale Kirby.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

I ask the Minister of Education: What did the review of the library system cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House of Assembly will remember, last January all agencies, boards, commissions and departments of government were requested to try and find a certain amount of savings over a number of years. The provincial libraries board, in collaboration with the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, came up with a plan. In fact, they exceeded the goal, some might argue, in terms of finding savings.

There were five proposals that were worked on. There was one that was accepted. That was incorporated into the budget. Following that, there was significant amount of public feedback about the need to have further consultation with the public about those decisions and also there was an interest in having a consultant review the system.

So that's what we did. If I have additional time, I'll continue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

The minister didn't answer, so I'll answer it for him. It was $187,000 for the contract, but that didn't include travel, it didn't include taxes, associated fees, stakeholder agreements and third-party surveys.

So can the minister tell me – I'm assuming a quarter of a million dollars to this point – exactly what it cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador to have consultations around libraries after you determined that you were going to cut 54 of those in this province? 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development. 

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

I appreciate the opportunity to continue. I don't know why the Member is asking me questions if he thinks he already knows the answer to them. 

After we listened to what people had to say, the feedback that they had provided, we used the consultant that was basically the agency of record to go out and do some work. It was a major undertaking that was done. There were 10 consultations that were held around the province; two in St. John's. Those concluded on November 8. 

There was a significant amount of opportunity for people to provide feedback. There was also an online form that people could provide feedback through. There was also a survey that people could provide feedback to. All that feedback is now going to be included into a final report, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we see a minister twice asked a direct question, and both times the minister talked around the issue without actually answering the question. Mr. Brazil asked for an exact cost to taxpayers for library consultations and Kirby just plain ignored the question and responded in the usual round-about manner. He didn’t answer the question. How can this be considered to be providing the people with an open and transparent account of governments activities? Is it any wonder that Moores called it a waste of time? Is it any wonder that Opposition Leader, Paul Davis asked almost 40 questions about Labrador hydro  developments in 3 days last week, trying to get a clear answer to his questions? I’m not saying that the opposition does not put forth some dumb questions from time to time, but it seems that you can ask until your face turns blue, but nobody is going to give an answer.

So, what can we do to make it better? We need to find a way to hold members of government accountable to the spirit of openness and transparency that question period was supposed to provide. I am not exactly sure what it would look like, but there must be a way to make our elected officials answer a damn question. It is a sad state of affairs that we even have to consider legislature to force politicians to answer questions, especially when they run their election campaigns on openness and transparency. It should be the foremost thing on the minds of every elected member. Unfortunately, as you can see from the examples above, this is not the case.

If our elected officials are not willing to be open and honest with us, then maybe we do need legislation to force them. People have grown tired of endless government spin and they want real answers for a change. The Liberals are not alone; this has been going on ever since Moores brought in Question Period more than 40 years ago. The difference is that people are more informed nowadays, and they don’t have to rely on the word of the premier or one of his ministers. They can find the information for themselves and bring it to the public eye. This is a very important change that politicians have not seemed to figure out yet, but they will learn the hard way. The people have made it clear that they are tired of business as usual, and as they say; the truth will always come out in the end.

School Board Elections & Why You Should Vote

School Board Elections & Why You Should Vote

By: Ryan Young

Elections for school board trustees are happening all across the province today, with 50 candidates running for 17 positions on the NL English School Board and an additional 12 candidates running for 8 positions on the French board (CFSP). For the past number of years, school board trustees have been appointed instead of elected, and today’s elections mark the culmination of the Liberals, and Dale Kirby’s promise to hold trustee elections within a year of gaining power.

There has been some criticism of the amount of promotion and engagement done by the department and the school board to prepare the public for the elections. NDP critic, Lorraine Michael, has raised the issue of the website being too confusing and of the lack of direct information to voters on who can vote and where. The PC’s have also questioned the qualifications of former Liberal candidate Geoff Gallant, who was hired to coordinate the election process, without having to go through the Independent Appointments Commission.

Overall, the controversy may be helping to promote the elections and convince more people to vote. The last time elections were held, 7 years ago, the turnout was a lowly 2.5%. Yesterday, VOCM’s Question of the day asked: “Are you planning to vote in tomorrow’s school board elections?” With over 3000 votes cast, 83% said they would not bother. While certainly not a scientific poll, it is disheartening to see such a lack of interest in the future of our children’s education. Minister Kirby has been very clear that he would like to see turnouts increased, and hopefully, coverage in the media and on the call-in shows will help to convince more people to get out and make an effort to vote.

I was lucky to have had the opportunity to attend a short Q & A with the candidates in my area that are running for Zone 15 trustee. I was very pleased at the quality of the candidates and I feel that my children will be well served by whoever wins the election today. It was also nice to put a face to the names and get an opportunity to ask some follow up questions afterwards. I would have liked to have seen more of this type of engagement from across the province, but regardless, it seems that most zones will have competitive races with quality candidates. This bodes well for the future of our education system as we will have trustees that are elected and accountable to the public, that are also engaged in the conversation about how we can do better for our children and educators.

Education is the very foundation of our province. In order to put us on a better footing, we need to provide better educational outcomes and deliver adequate resources to deal with our ever-changing needs. Yes, money is tight, but when times are tough we need to invest in our future leaders and innovators to carry our province into the next generation. The role of school board trustee is more important than it has ever been, and so is your engagement and your vote. So please take a few moments today to visit your local polling station and cast your vote for a deserving candidate in your zone. Our very future depends on it.

If you don’t know what your zone is, you can find it here:

http://www.schoolboardelectionsnl.ca/resources/doc/nlesd_zones.pdf

Get to know your candidates here:

http://www.schoolboardelectionsnl.ca/en/01-05.php

To find out where to vote click here:

http://www.schoolboardelectionsnl.ca/en/03-04.php

Good luck to all candidates and thank you for your effort and your interest!

The Way Forward

The Way Forward

By: Ryan Young

After nearly two years of being told that the Liberals had a plan and that we were going to like it, Dwight Ball finally released his vision document yesterday. They have still not explained why the creation of this plan required years of cloak and dagger operations, but alas, we have finally been let in on the Liberal’s guiding vision for the future of our province. It might have been a better idea to release this plan in conjunction with the budget last spring, so that we might have been able to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen and the Liberals have spent the last seven months burning political capital like the Tories burned the oil money. There are some good things in the document, but I fear that even the positive moves that the government has announced will be met with skepticism and cynicism.

The Way Forward’s guiding principles are “We will do better with less,” and “We will collaborate.” The document includes three phases that will guide the outlined goals from consultation to implementation.

Phase one is called “Securing our Footing: The First Six Months.” The document explains that the first phase focuses on rapidly implementing initiatives to reduce spending and support economic growth.

Phase two is called “Realizing our Potential: Six to Eighteen Months.”  We are told that the second phase focuses on actions to reverse negative socio-economic indicators that prevent economic growth and drive up public expenditures.

Phase three is called “Building for our Future: Beyond Eighteen Months.” Government promises that the third phase will focus on creating long-term conditions for growth in the province by investing in the future, including redesigning government services to fit demographics of the future and investing in children and youth.

At the end of each phase a report card will be released to measure progress, and government maintains that its decisions will be evidence-based, measurable, and concrete. The plan also laid out it’s four major objectives which are; a more efficient public sector, a stronger economic foundations, better services, and better outcomes.

The meat of the plan is designed to explain how each of the four objectives will be met within each phase. The language is very government-y (what the heck is a government silo?) and hard to read, but it does outline some clear timelines for many of the key points. In some cases, the only commitment is to do more consultation but there are some good objectives in there if they can achieve them.

Phase one contains the majority of initiatives and goals and starts by outlining the first steps towards a more efficient public sector. It looks at things like reducing the government footprint by reducing office space, adopting a leaner management structure, and reducing silos in government operations. What that actually means is that they will attempt to govern based on a broad approach with collaboration within departments instead of our current system of stand alone departments that do not communicate well. If they can accomplish that in any form at all it will be a positive move. As part of the plan to reduce these silos, government agencies, boards, and commissions will be cut by 20%, a new unified transportation assistance program will be implemented, and marketing and engineering services will be consolidated instead of being spread across all departments. It will also look at reducing red tape, utilizing zero-based budgeting, and procuring the Corner Brook Long-Term Care Facility.

To tackle a stronger economic footing in phase one, the government will enhance access to crown lands, increase immigration by 50% by 2022, double resident and non-resident spending by 2020, develop a provincial tourism product development plan, facilitate a transition to ground fish, and introduce a new procurement act. These are lofty goals and without any real details, it is hard to imagine that some of these are realistic targets. I spent over a decade working in the tourism industry and if the government plans to double our tourism spending it will need to do much more than invest in marketing campaigns and throw money at existing operators. Things like training, insurance, and co-operative marketing initiatives will all need to be addressed to facilitate such a large increase in spending in just a few short years. I will remain optimistic that they can reach these goals but I am not sold that they can pull it off. The language is also tricky as it plans to double 2009 spending, not 2016 spending.

The next part moves on to achieving better services. It discusses establishing a major investment projects unit, a multi year infrastructure plan, improvements to provincial roads, a marine infrastructure plan, advancing regional collaboration, a review of the NL Housing Corporation, designation of industry facilitators for natural resources, and positioning NL as a globally preferred location for oil and gas development. Again, all of these are great sounding initiatives but there are few details to explain how the desired outcomes will be achieved and how they will improve intergovernmental communication to ensure that the aforementioned silos are reduced.

The final part of phase one focuses on better outcomes. It is no secret that we have an outcomes problem in this province and it is important that the government says that it is willing to create and fund programs based on the achievement of these outcomes. In an attempt to repair the division between the island and Labrador that is happening right now, the document promises to establish a leader’s roundtable with indigenous governments and organizations. It also promises a Health-in-all-Policies approach that will consider health effects during the creation and/or revision of policy. It also promises to respond to the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, modernize the College of the North Atlantic, increase collaboration between CAN and MUN, and proceed with the Premier’s Taskforce on Improving Educational Outcomes.

As you can see the government has bitten off quite a bit for the first six months of its plan. As much as they have worked hard to get the right things down on paper, without a clear implementation plan for each part, it is hard to imagine that they will be able to deliver on all of these objectives in the timeframes allotted and it will be important that people keep them accountable to these timelines.

The next part of the document moves on to phase two that covers from six to eighteen months. The focus of this second phase is to undertake action to reverse negative social and economic indicators that are preventing economic growth and driving up public expenditures. Concrete steps will be announced with the report card on our Government’s progress on phase one of The Way Forward.

The second phase looks at creating a more efficient public sector by strategically leveraging federal funding, supporting innovative work solutions, and implementing more effective business financing. To improve our economic footing, they promise to; release a business innovation agenda, increase the number of social enterprises, introduction of a status of the artist act, increase revenues through international education, increase mining activity, and support growth in the aquaculture industry. Again, these all sound like very good initiatives on paper but the proof will come in the implementation plan that will put these ideas into reality.

To achieve better services and better outcomes in phase two, the plan discusses; improving community support services, implementation of an individualized funding model, and one window, multi-year community grants. They also plan to expand primary health care teams, implement healthy living initiatives, implement child health risk assessments for school-aged children, implement healthy living assessments for seniors, streamline financial assessment process for community support services and long-term care, implement responsive justice and public safety measures, provide increased educational support to disengaged and at-risk students and youth, improve the performance of child protection services, advance and finalize land claims and self-government agreements, and release a climate change action plan.

The final part of the document, phase three, focuses on measuring progress beyond eighteen months. The description given explains that The Way Forward is a living document. Each year, our Government will announce the actions we will take to help realize our vision. The focus of the third phase of the vision is to create long-term conditions for growth by investing in the future, including redesigning government services to fit demographics of the future and investing in children and youth. In pursuit of these objectives, our Government has set down a variety of long-term goals to establish a stronger economic foundation and achieve better outcomes for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Phase three promises to measure progress through targets such as:

-By 2022-23, our Government will return to surplus.

-By 2022, Newfoundland and Labrador will have increased its food self-sufficiency to at least 20 per cent. Our province is currently only about ten per cent self-sufficient in its food requirements.

-By 2020, there will be a 20 per cent increase in timber allocations and harvest levels over the previous five-year period.

-By 2018, the water area available for development to support growth of the salmon industry will have increased to 50,000 MT and the mussel industry will have increased to 10,750 MT annually.

-By 2020, Newfoundland and Labrador’s annual tourism spending by residents and non-residents will be double 2009 levels.

-By 2022, immigration to Newfoundland and Labrador will increase by 50 per cent. In 2015, Newfoundland and Labrador welcomed just over 1100 immigrants.

-By 2025, Newfoundland and Labrador’s breastfeeding initiation rate will increase by seven per cent. The current provincial rate is 72.7 per cent, while the national rate is 90 per cent.

-By 2025, Newfoundland and Labrador’s obesity rate will be reduced by five per cent. The current provincial obesity rate is 30.4 per cent, while the national rate is 20.2 per cent.

-By 2025, Newfoundland and Labrador’s smoking rate will be reduced by four per cent. The current provincial smoking rate is 21.7 per cent. This target will bring us to the national rate of 18.1 per cent.

-By 2025, Newfoundland and Labrador will increase our physical activity rate by seven per cent. The current provincial rate of physical activity during leisure is 48.3 per cent. This seven per cent increase will see Newfoundland and Labrador surpass the national rate of 53.7 per cent.

-By 2025, Newfoundland and Labrador residents will increase their rate of vegetable and fruit consumption by five per cent. The current provincial rate is 25.7 per cent, while the national rate is 39 per cent.

It is encouraging to see our government engaging in some lofty goals after keeping us waiting for so long. The Way Forward Plan contains some very good ideas and is capable of being part of the solution on restoring this provinces finances without a drastic reduction in services. While there are certainly some parts of the plan that contain questionable targets, there are many initiatives included that would be very positive for the province. While the document does require some expansion, by all accounts it is a good place for our government to start addressing the major problems we are facing. So, what is the problem?

Governments and political parties are very good at putting positive things on paper, but that does not always translate into policy decisions. This government has not exactly done a very good job of keeping the trust of the people after campaigning on an unrealistic platform that led to them breaking far too many promises when the budget came down last spring. It also abandons several key issues that the Liberals promised to address such as child care, democratic reform, injured workers, and many more. While we should be cautiously optimistic about The Way Forward, many are already rolling their eyes and saying that all we got was another pile of lies from Dwight. I don’t want to be quite as cynical myself. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this government is overdue to make some positive decisions. We are all angry with Dwight Ball and his government but we still need to support them when they make positive policy decisions. We have not seen many of those yet, but we have to hope that they are committed to implementing much of this plan in the timeframes they have outlined.

One thing is certain, if the government fails to deliver on The Way Forward they will be nailed to the wall at every opportunity. It was easy to say that something was coming, but now that the document is out the Liberal’s will need to be 100% committed or else face the wrath of the people again. Some of their goals and objectives are questionable and they will need to find ways to deliver on them. I am sure that they left the document vague on purpose, but the people will want details and they will want them soon. There will be no hiding if the government is unable to fulfill the promises that it has made this week. At this point I am going to stay open to the possibilities, while at the same time holding the governments feet to the fire to make sure that they do what they said they would do. Things have changed and many people no longer have the wool over their eyes. Now that we know The Way Forward, they had better make sure we get there.

Read the document here: http://www.gov.nl.ca/pdf/the_way_forward.pdf