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.