tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68328664138934935422024-02-18T22:33:05.183-08:00The Rogue Bayman"Bringing Politics Back to the People"Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-60328564534951874402018-02-07T03:30:00.000-08:002018-02-07T03:30:00.714-08:00It’s Time to Have a Talk About Rural Newfoundland & Labrador<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It’s Time to Have a Talk About Rural Newfoundland &
Labrador <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It’s time to have a talk about rural Newfoundland &
Labrador. Actually, it is about twenty years past the time when we needed to
start talking about issues in rural areas of the province, but here we are, and
better late than never I suppose.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you pay attention to the news, you’ll know that a recent
school board decision has allowed several schools to stay open, despite
dwindling enrollments. This has caused quite a buzz on social media, with
sentiment predictably split between those who beg to recognize the cultural value
of rural areas and those who would rather we move now to stop the bleed on the
provincial treasury and move everyone out of the smallest towns, or at least
turn the lights out until they are ready to leave themselves.<br />
<br />
It is a tricky discussion. The province is in dire financial straights and
needs to find savings everywhere it can, but it also depends on a billion-dollar
tourism industry that markets rural charm to draw the world in. Finding the
right balance between crunching numbers and evaluating the cultural value of
our outport communities is key to our future success. We can’t afford to keep
slashing services based on balance sheets alone, but we also can’t afford to do
nothing. An aging population spread over such a large geographical area have
already left many holes in services provided to rural residents and with the
absence of a long-term plan we can expect things to get worse before they get
better.<br />
<br />
We all know that many of our smaller communities will not last another
generation. Many never really recovered after the moratorium, leaving plenty of
towns with no children, and no hope to be able to hang on far into the future. Other
areas, however, have some great potential for growth and are holding steady, if
not thriving, despite the challenges. The real hard part is deciding where that
threshold is, and how we chart the course as we move forward.<br />
<br />
The decision by the school board to keep those seven schools open was a surprising
one for many, and it has many people divided on the issue. But in the absence
of a long-term plan, I think it was the only responsible decision they could
have made at this time. Student safety must remain first and foremost and
busing a handful of students for two hours each day is not a responsible
option, even if we need to crunch our dollars. A rural town with children is a
town that still has a chance at survival, and we need to think very hard about
which of those communities we want to abandon, and which ones have the
potential to grow and help to support themselves. In the case of schools, maybe
we need to change the delivery model for education in rural communities. Online
learning is already heavily utilized in these smaller schools, and with such
small numbers perhaps there are options that can be looked at that do not
involve the overhead cost of maintaining large old buildings. Most residents in
small communities know that they will have to make sacrifices in order to live
where they want to be, and it is worth exploring what options might be
available before we decide to close the doors and turn out the lights.<br />
<br />
It’s easy to look at things like schools and ferry services to many small communities
and wonder if it is worth the money when so many other things are getting cut. If
we are going to weigh the negatives though, should we not also look at the
positives and the potential value in our rural communities? This is a great
opportunity for our province to reinvent itself and invest in rural communities
in a meaningful way. While the fishery may be going through some tough times,
it is far from dead, and with proper management and cooperation from Ottawa we
could help to restore the inshore fishery and ensure that many communities
still have a future. Instead of looking for smallwood-esque outside intervention
and new industries to bring in, maybe we should focus on finding new ways to
utilize the resources and industry expertise that we already have. We know we
need to grow our agricultural capacity and our tourism industry continues to
thrive. Add in the forestry industry and you have a very solid foundation to
start re-building the rural economy.<br />
<br />
A focus on young entrepreneurship in rural areas is also key. Many industries,
especially fishing, are facing a quickly aging workforce and we need new
regulations that encourage youth to become involved. Getting young people
involved in business innovation, especially in areas such as tourism and
agriculture would also be a great way to keep our youth here in the province.
Things like offering specialized training at the college/university level and expanding
support for the creation of new business ventures are just a few ways we could
retain youth and grow the rural economy. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I could go on, but my point is that there is still hope for
much of rural Newfoundland & Labrador, but we need a realistic plan to
figure out the best ways and best places to invest. We need to create a strategy
for how we plan to deal with our rural issues and develop some measurable goals
and expected outcomes that we can look to to determine our progress. Regionalization
needs to be a big part of the conversation, but not the added layer of
bureaucracy that our current government has proposed. If we are going to be
serious we need to create a system that shifts the power from each tiny town
council and directly into the regional structure. Once such a regional
structure is in place, we can begin the hard work of determining where services
should be located and where investment dollars should flow. Decisions would
have to consider the current situation, as well as plans for growth for the
future.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It will be sad to see us lose many beautiful communities over
the next generation, but if we do the hard work now, we might be able to do it
in a way that is less painless, and is an overall benefit to rural Newfoundland
& Labrador and the province as a whole. It will require long-term thinking
that goes beyond the usual political attention span of 4 years, but if we take
the energy we are using to argue over schools and ferries and use it to demand
that government develop a real strategic plan for our rural areas then maybe,
just maybe we might force our elected overlords to begin a real conversation on
the issue. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-14598694666074222002018-01-09T03:22:00.000-08:002018-01-09T03:29:27.093-08:00Bam-booze-led<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Bam-booze-led<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By; Ryan Young<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It seems like the only time I want to break away from the worlds
of work and family life to give the Rogue Bayman a voice lately, is directly
following a Friday evening press release from government. The release from last
Friday regarding the dismissal of NL Liquor Corporation CEO Steve Winter has
been predictably ill received, and it makes me wonder how the Liberal’s still
have not learned their lesson.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The whole issue is tricky to write about as it is saturated
with side stories and political innuendo. As was the same with the Canopy Grow
announcement before Christmas, instead of being upfront and factual with us
about what is going on up on the hill, the government opted to do the late
Friday release thing and hope that it would disappear or blow over long before
they would be forced to answer any questions on Monday morning.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Unfortunately for the Liberal’s, by the time Paddy Daly had
finished his opening monologue, the phone lines were lighting up with cynical
citizens and opposing politicians chomping at the bit to lash out at the
government for its obvious political patronage. By the time Tom Osborne was
able to get his staff at finance to draft a statement for him to deliver to the
public, the damage had already been done, with social media playing judge,
jury, and executioner.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If one is willing to dig a little deeper than the obvious
rhetoric and look at the facts, maybe getting rid of Winter and shaking things
up a bit at the NLC was not a bad thing. Mr. Winter certainly did a fine job in
a financial sense. He was able to constantly keep profits up and transformed
the NLC into one of the top organizations in Atlantic Canada as recognized by being
a regular name of the list of top 50 Atlantic Canadian CEO’s. On the other hand,
organizations such as RANL and individual liquor license holders have long
complained about antiquated liquor laws and rules within the NLC. Certainly,
Winter can’t be blamed for legislative shortcomings, but as a veteran CEO he
seemed unwilling to be a catalyst for any of the change that was desired by
business owners throughout the province.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">According to Minister Osborne, Winter was not comfortable
with the implementation of the new plan to regulate legal marijuana and that
played a big part in the CEO’s departure. With only months to go before
legalization, that would certainly give the government reason for concern, and
a very good reason to replace Winter at the top. The pot plan seems to be one
of the few files that the Liberal’s actually seem committed to doing a good job
with, and it should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying
attention to how things have progressed, that anyone not on board with the plan
would be shown the door. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That brings us back around to our most popular theme here on
the Rogue Bayman, openness and transparency…or a lack thereof. If Osborne’s
comments about Winter’s opposition to marijuana legislation are true, then why
not wait till Monday morning and come out with a proper release and be willing
to answer questions to explain the decision? Why play so many of the same games
that always backfire and end up with people having even more scorn and distrust
towards the government? In a bizarre twist, the former CFO at NLC, Sharon
Sparks, will now be replacing Winter, even though she was fired by him just
last month. Did government not think people would have questions about that?
And what about former Liberal candidate Lynn Sullivan being appointed to Sparks’
now vacant CFO position? I guess they didn’t think that was worth mentioning
either.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Instead of getting out in front of the story and explaining
their decision with rational discussion, they decided to once again push aside
promises of openness and transparency and hope that nobody noticed or cared. It
would be shameful for any government to act this way, but it is especially hard
to swallow when it comes from a government whose whole campaign hinged on
promising to be more open and accountable. Either the communication staff in the Liberal office
is the worst in history, or the ministers themselves are too stubborn to take
good advice or at least stop repeating the same mistakes. It seems like this
government is not able to pass up a chance to make themselves look bad.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Even though we want to be mad at the Liberal’s, we shouldn’t
be mad because Winter was fired or because Sparks got the job. Also, we should
not be shocked at Sullivan’s patronage appointment, as we know that is just how
things are done in politics. What we should really be mad at, is the fact that
our government thinks we are either a) too stupid to understand or b) that we
don’t deserve to know about the decisions that are supposedly being made in the
best interests of the province. We should be mad that they have such an
aversion to telling us the truth that they are willing to continuously put themselves
on the defensive rather than to give us the full facts without having to be
dragged out of them.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the age of social media and digital ATIPP requests, the
government can’t hide from these sorts of decisions. What they could do,
however, is start being straight with us about why decisions are being made.
Lard tunderin by’s just try it out once. It might even feel good…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-45269025807034238202017-12-04T03:35:00.000-08:002017-12-04T03:46:46.992-08:00Can't Someone Else Do It?<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Can’t Someone Else Do It?<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As the governing Liberals enter campaign mode for 2019, the
most common thing I hear and see on social media is: “people can’t be dumb
enough to vote them back in again.”<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I disagree, because a certain number of hyper partisans will
in fact vote either them, or the PC’s back in again, just like they always do.
And we all keep letting it happen. In the age of ultimate political apathy,
these partisans, who choose and support their political colors the same as they
would their favourite sports team (you know, the one dad cheered for) have all
of the real power in our so called “democracy.” It is these people, not the
politicians, who drive the election machines that come to life every four years
to dupe the gullible public into believing that this time things are really going
to change. They are the ones who really ensure that things never change in
politics, and the rest of us just stand by and try to ignore it all as best as
we can. <br /> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The people in NL who vote, for the most part, are not voting
for policy or good people. They are voting for “their” party. I suspect many
would vote for the devil himself if he asked them too, and provided he was
wearing the right color button… Blind faith that a party will best represent
your needs based on the color of their banner is a very dangerous thing, and it
is the single biggest contributor to the current problems we now face in this
province. It’s not the politicians who are to blame. We are the ones that keep
voting them in after all, and fail to hold them accountable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />But what are we to do? The Liberals and the PCs have both
failed over and over to deliver for the people of this province. They have been
allowed to get away with so much that nobody even bats an eyelash when it
becomes public knowledge that we were lied too. “That’s just politics by.” <br />
<br />
Somehow, despite the poor performance of Dwight Ball’s Liberal’s, the NDP are actually
losing ground with voters. With Earle McCurdy out as leader they have a golden
opportunity to try to rebuild themselves in rural parts of the province, but
halfway through this term, they still have not laid the groundwork needed to
attract new voters outside of St. John’s. It is hard to imagine them being a
serious contender in 2019 unless things change dramatically within the
party…and fast. <br />
<br />
Many people are calling for all independents to run and get elected but
unfortunately those people do not realize that under the current system, a
majority of elected independents cannot form government. Only a registered
party can form government. So, while the idea of 40 Independent MHAs who only
serve their constituents may sound very democratic, it can’t work as a solution
under the current framework.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, where does that leave us? As I see it we have two options.
The first one would be to join the Liberals or the PCs and attempt to change
the parties from the inside. Doing so would be no easy task and would be met
with fierce opposition from insider party loyalists, and I’m not sure that many
people would have the stomach for that difficult work. Certainly not the
critical mass it would take to be able to have a meaningful impact on policy
decisions. The other option would be to start a new party, committed to
restoring democracy and real transparency to our political process. Again, this
would be no easy task, and it could be several election cycles before any new
party was able to gain enough traction to make a real difference. People would
need to be in it for the long haul, and other than the partisans, we don’t
really have long attention spans when it comes to politics.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And who would lead such a lofty initiative? That’s what
people really want to know. Our inherent saviour complex has somehow convinced
us that democracy and our own well being are not our responsibility, but that
of some mysterious omnipotent overseer called “government.” As long as we have a
smooth talker to win us all over and make us feel like everything will be taken
care of, we don’t have to become engaged, or even think about politics. We can
just live our lives knowing that the folks running the show at Confederation
Building are taking care of everything and we don’t have to worry. You know,
because look at how good that has worked out for us so far…<br />
<br />
Our political culture is one of angry apathy. We like to get mad when things
don’t go our way or if we see that someone might get something that we are not
getting, but when it comes to actually getting engaged, we just don’t. You
don’t need to look much further than the 55% voter turnout for the last
election to see the truth of that.<br />
<br />We like to get riled up and moan and
complain, but when it comes down to it we are all talk and no action. That’s
why we will always need that saviour to come in and quell our fears like the
quivering sheep that we are. I know that may sound harsh but it’s the truth.
People seem uninterested and unwilling to participate in the democratic
process, no matter how many times we keep getting burned. Picture a forest fire
burning and all the people that live in the forest are all arguing about who
should carry the bucket of water. Meanwhile, the whole place burns down around
them. That’s where we are right now, and as many will sadly soon find out,
things are likely to get a lot worst before they get better.<br />
<br />
We have some big problems here in this province and there are no easy
solutions. Each and every one of us is going to have to get used to paying more
to do our part to keep the lights on and the roads somewhat paved. We are also
going to have to start having real conversations about the future of rural
communities, even if they are uncomfortable. What we can’t do, is keep sitting
around waiting for someone else to do it. <br />
<br />
During a VOCM roundtable last week, some comments made by former Port au Choix
mayor Carolyn Lavers really hit home to me. While stressing that rural towns
that want to survive must start finding ways to do things for themselves, she
reflected that during all of the meetings in her many years on council, that
not once did anyone say:” What can we do?” The discussion was always about what
could the government do. I think the anecdote sums up our problem nicely. We
have been so dependent on the crumbs from government for so long that all we
know how to do is fight over who gets the bigger piece when we should be
learning how to bake our own bread.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The point of this post is not to be nasty or belittling. I
know I will take heat from some who will say that I have it all wrong, but at
the end of the day, if we can’t find ways to come together and truly become
masters of our own destiny, we are already as good as sunk. We can continue to
argue about our favourite teams or we can be the change we want to see. We need
to check the anger and try to listen to each other instead of arguing over
uninformed opinions because we want to be right. I am sick to death of all of
the negativity I see and hear on a daily basis, when we all live in a place
that has so much potential. We can either figure it all out together or we can
keep arguing until the forest is completely burned down around us. Nobody else
is going to do it for us…</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-34697018159943085162017-11-06T03:27:00.002-08:002017-11-06T06:07:59.277-08:00The Race Is On<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Race is on<br />
<br />
By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The writ has officially been dropped and the by-election to
replace Steve Kent’s vacant seat in the House of Assembly for the district of
Mount Pearl North will be held on November 21<sup>st</sup>. Traditionally,
by-elections do not experience large voter turnouts, but they are often a good
measure of how the current government is performing and perceived among the
people. It should be an interesting election to watch.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Liberal’s badly wanting to win this seat. With the
massive drop in public support since the last general election, Dwight and his
crew are going into panic mode and are already trying to prep for the next
election in 2019. Real estate mogul Jim Burton is the Liberal nominee, and the
party has put its full weight behind his candidacy, with the premier and
federal cabinet ministers joining him at the doors. Burton is well known in the
region as a successful businessman who gives a lot back to the community, but
he does not live in the district and may find himself hard-pressed to find
support as a candidate representing a weak government. Still, his name
recognition and community involvement may see him carry enough of the vote to
win the seat for the Liberal’s.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Jim Lester is the PC nominee. Lester ran in the 2015 general
election and narrowly lost to Paul Lane who was then a member of the Liberal’s.
He is well known in the region, but he does not reside in the district and
recent media attention regarding a possible attempt to run as a Liberal may
hurt his credibility. All the same, Lester is a familiar face and may be able
to pick up the seat based on dissatisfaction with the current governing party.
The distract now known as Mount Pearl North has traditionally been a Tory
stronghold, with the PC’s holding the seat for all but 5 years since 1975. Lester
may be able to ride his way into Confederation Building based on the strong PC
support in the district.<br />
<br />
The NDP have also fielded a very credible candidate. Nicole Kiely is originally
from the distract, and has a long track record of non-profit work and community
involvement. She has been committed to speaking to the issues and has been
receiving strong support in Mount Pearl North despite the current apathy in the
polls towards the NDP. I would not have bet much on Kiely’s hopes originally,
but she is establishing herself as a formidable opponent in the race who may
have the potential to pull off a big upset.<br />
<br />
There is also an independent candidate who has thrown his hat into the ring.
Hudson Stratton, a small business owner and family man has decided to run as an
independent. While Stratton stresses that he is not trying to make a political
statement by running as an independent, he also acknowledges that he is doing so
because he no longer believes in the party first political structure that we
have in this province. While independent candidate traditionally has a hard
time finding support in NL, Stratton may be able to take advantage of a
dissatisfied electorate and make a big splash. Even if he does not win, if he
can pick up a significant portion of the vote, it will send a strong message to
the 3 existing parties that people are ready for real change.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I think the PC’s are still the favourites to win this
by-election, but with the negative media attention surrounding Jim Lester, the
race is still wide open. All four candidates have a legitimate chance of
picking up a significant share of the vote, and depending on the turnout, we
could be in for a big surprise. It will be very interesting to see how the
people of Mount Pearl North cast their votes and if they are ready to rock the
boat or stick with the status quo. If you live in Mount Pearl North, make sure
to have your voice heard by voting in this by-election.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-85280973274482478042017-09-27T04:11:00.000-07:002017-09-27T04:12:47.987-07:00Big Changes at St. John’s City Hall<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Big Changes at St. John’s City Hall<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Yesterday was municipal election day in Newfoundland &
Labrador. While perceived by many to be a dull affair, this year’s elections
were anything but routine. I truly believe that our municipal elections are the
only real example of democracy that exists in Canada today. At both the
provincial and federal levels the game is ruled by party partisanship and
access to donations, but in the municipal world, the politics are about as pure
as you can get. Sure, there are many self-serving people that run for council,
but at the end of the day the voters have all the say and democracy is served,
for better or for worse.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The St. John’s race was particularly interesting
for this bayman, who was participating in his first “townie” election after a
very turbulent couple of years municipal politics. A very diverse set of
candidates put themselves forward and nobody could predict the way things would
go. Danny Breen beat out former mayor Andy Wells and newcomer Renee Sharpe for
the Mayor’s chair with a fair majority from the 56% overall turnout. Breen, the
former Ward 1 councillor, was expected to win, but at the end of the night he
was one of the few “old guard” councillors that earned a return ticket to the
chambers at city hall. <br />
<br />
While Breen has been criticized at times for having close ties to the
provincial PC party, and supporting Muskrat Falls, his experience and business
connections made him the safe choice for mayor when compared to his opponents
who each represented perceived extremes on the political spectrum. Many people
I spoke with during the campaign felt that Andy Wells would emerge victorious,
but in the end, the people of St. John’s decided that it was time for Andy to
fade back into the shadows and handed the crown to Breen. Renee Sharpe finished
third in the race, but I doubt we have seen the last of her. Sharpe’s campaign
resonated with many voters who were fed up with the status quo, and she proved
herself to be a smart and formidable candidate who should have a bright future
ahead of her in politics at some level. The outcome may have been predictable,
but the campaign was anything but. Some great ideas were put on the table that
I hope the new council will embrace, moving forward.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">With the rest of council, the people of St. John’s decided
the city needed a new direction. That was evident in the results on Tuesday night.
Former Ward 4 councillor, Sheilagh O’Leary won the race for Deputy Mayor, and
only Ward 5 returned an incumbent councillor with Wally Collins emerging as the
victor. Deanne Stapleton, Hope Jamieson, Jamie Korab, and Ian Froude were
elected to council for the first time, in wards 1, 2, 3, & 4, respectively,
representing a major shift in the local political landscape in the capital
city.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The closest race was for the Councillors-At-Large. With 12
candidates vying for 4 seats, it was a close race that saw 3 incumbent
councillors go down in defeat. The top vote getter was newcomer Maggie Burton,
followed by Dave Lane, Sandy Hickman, & Debbie Hanlon, respectively. The
loss of so many incumbent councillors really highlights the number of people in
the city who believe that it is time for a change at city hall. The pressure
now falls on those who were elected to live up to those expectations and shift
the political compass of the city in a new direction.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">5 women and 5 men were elected to council, (not including
the mayor) with 5 new faces and the majority of elected candidates under the
age of 35. Many of the new councillors have talked about making St. John’s a
more progressive place to live, and it looks like the city could be in for some
big changes in the way things are done. The people expressed their obvious
displeasure with the actions of the old council in the best way they could, and
they proved that democracy can work if enough people want change. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There were many great races across the province and I would
like to congratulate everybody who participated in this year’s elections,
either as a candidate, a volunteer, or a voter. Democracy can only work if
people participate, and the only way to engage people is to offer them an
opportunity for change and a belief that change can happen if they are willing
to step outside of the box and consider a new way of thinking (and voting).<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Many people think that democracy in this province is broken,
and on many levels, that view is hard to argue with. But when it comes to the municipal
elections, the effort put forth across the entire province yesterday just goes
to show what can be accomplished when regular people become informed and
engaged in local politics. It was a great election year, and I can only hope we
will see the same kind of spirit and engagement when the next provincial
elections come around in 2019 (or sooner).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-84326420034538470552017-09-19T03:53:00.000-07:002017-09-19T05:47:25.648-07:00Deceit or Incompetence?<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Deceit or Incompetence?<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Last week I listened closely to Finance Minister, Tom
Osborne, during a call with Paddy Daly on the VOCM Open Line show. Mr. Osborne
spoke at length about how his government was ready to play hardball with
Nalcor, and extricate answers about the project's finances from the board and/or
CEO Stan Marshall. At certain points during the conversation, the new minister
sounded quite a bit like the old minister, and the tough talk that she had for
Nalcor on Budget day 2016. We have heard plenty of tough talk since the
Liberals took office in late 2015, but what do we really have to show for it,
and what has changed?<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">More and more people are waking up to the monumental
mismanagement and possible corruption afoot within the Muskrat Falls project. Our
government, on the other hand, seems to be working as hard as ever to misdirect the public
and ensure that the project is finished without the taxpayers ever knowing what really happened to all of that money. The
Liberal’s are happy to keep themselves hitched to the “previous administration”
bandwagon, feigning ignorance and blaming the old government for everything
wrong with the project. Unfortunately, nobody on team red seems to realize that
by playing dumb, they are leading the public to believe that they are really as
incompetent as the opposition says they are.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The most telling part of Minister Osborne’s VOCM conversation was
when he told Mr. Daly that he was in the presence of the premier when he
learned about the massive cost of embedded contractors being used by Nalcor. He
claimed the premier was upset about the lack of transparency regarding the use
of these contractors, and told us that Ball is committed to a public inquiry
on Muskrat Falls. The question he didn’t answer, however, was did the CEO, the Minister of Natural Resources, and/or the Premier know about the extent of the
use of these contractors before James McLeod broke the story in The Telegram?<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Liberals have been in power for nearly 2 years. They
have brought in a new CEO and Board of Directors for Nalcor, they have claimed to have beefed
up government oversight of the project, and they have paid millions of dollars
to Ernst and Young to study and report on the finances of Muskrat Falls. They publicly
claim that the administration knew nothing about the project management team
being made up of 90% contractors or that they had billed Nalcor for $4.6
million hours of work. By telling us that the government was in the dark on
this issue proves one of two things. Either our government is directly lying to
us about Muskrat Falls or they are so completely incompetent, that in 2 years
they have not even managed to identify this glaring issue on their own. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While most people could easily latch-on to the incompetence theory,
it is quite unlikely that nobody in the decision-making process was aware of
the billing free-for-all that was going on right under their noses. Despite
what Ball might be spinning to the public, the issue of embedded contractors
seemed to be passing the small test just fine until someone in the media
remembered how to do some investigative journalism.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So where does that leave us? Mere hours after the backlash
from The Telegram story began to bombard government, Ball announced that a Muskrat
Falls inquiry would happen, and that he had reached out to the various
departments for help in drafting the terms of reference. While that is great
news on the surface, as Uncle Gnarley and others have pointed out, ordering an
inquiry before a complete forensic audit of the project is completed is rather
like putting the cart before the horse. The other concern many have about a
possible inquiry, is that if the leadership group was telling the truth about
their lack of knowledge and understanding of the project finances, then how can we
trust them to draft terms of reference that will actually reveal the truth about
Muskrat Falls?<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I’d really like to believe the premier when he says that he
and his government are committed to getting to the bottom of the Muskrat money
pit, but words are just that, words, and actions speak so much louder. Take for
instance the Ball’s concern over the standoff at the Muskrat camp and the three hunger strikers from Labrador that
forced the government's hand last fall. After a marathon meeting with indigenous
leaders, a deal was reached in which further mitigation measures were promised.
In a letter from the Nunatsiavut government that was released yesterday,
President Johannes Lampe made it very clear that after several meetings with
government and Nalcor, those promises of additional mitigation measures will
not be honored.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Ball stood in front of reporters after the meeting last fall
and told the province that the meeting was about one thing, the health of Labradoreans.
He also said that going forward, their decisions would be based on science and
research and that his government was committed to working with aboriginal
leaders and that he was “confident” that they could achieve the goals that were
outlined in the agreement.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While a big to-do was made about a chair being appointed and
terms of reference drafted for the promised independent expert advisory council
(IEAC), it was made very clear from Lampe’s letter that there was never any
intention of lowering water levels so that additional mitigation measures could
proceed. Indigenous leaders were told during a meeting with the premier and
other provincial officials on September 6<sup>th</sup> that water levels in the
reservoir would be raised to 25m this fall, and once they reached that point
they would not be lowered again.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dwight Ball already has a huge credibility problem. He has failed
to be honest with the people of this province at every opportunity. Despite
their best efforts of getting out in the media and telling people they are
going to do something positive, they can’t hide from their record, and the
revelations brought forth by Johannes Lampe just further prove that this
premier will say anything to ensure that Muskrat Falls goes ahead. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Deceit or pure incompetence? Either way, Ball and his
government seem to be willing to throw away every shred of their credibility in
order to deliberately mislead the people of this province about Muskrat Falls.
The real question is: How long will we, the people, continue to stand for it?</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-31259352037909851492017-09-12T04:35:00.000-07:002017-09-12T05:18:35.235-07:00Politics as Usual<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Politics as Usual<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When I decided to take a summer hiatus from all things
politics, I made the decision because I found I was becoming a very angry
person. Every time I checked the news or my social media feed there seemed to
be another story revolving around arrogant MHA’s and/or incompetent
ministers. Anyone who knows me can
attest to the fact that I am very far from a naturally angry person, so I
decided to take a break to try to find some balance in my life.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The break did wonders for my spirit, but no matter how much
I tried to avoid reading, writing, or talking about politics, it was damn near
impossible to keep a blind eye to everything that has been happening in our
provincial political whirlwind. Oh, to be a sheep…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A lot happened over the summer. So many stories to read and
mull over. The biggest story of the summer may have been the cabinet shuffle that
was triggered when Cathy Bennett decided that being finance minister was not
what she thought it would be. Other than replacing her with former Speaker of
the House, Tom Osborne, the shuffle didn’t really do much to encourage the public that
things would improve much in her absence. After all, it is still all of the
same monkey’s running the same circus.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Tom Osborne may be the only bright spot in the shuffle,
promising a tax review and some possible relief to come from the more than 300
additional taxes and fees that his government brought in with their 2016
budget. Many applauded Osborne’s new position within cabinet, but he certainly
has his work cut out for him in cleaning up the mess Bennett and Ball have left
him.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Gerry Byrne was sworn in as the new fisheries minister and
quickly took a hard line in front of the TV cameras, but the fishery is still
very much in turmoil, and other than his TV tough talk, Byrne has not delivered
anything concrete to convince fish harvesters and processors in this province
that there is a future for them in this government’s plans. People want real
answers and all Byrne has had to offer is platitudes. He certainly does not
seem like the kind of minister that would be willing to go toe-to-toe with his
former federal colleague in Ottawa, which unfortunately is exactly what our
fishery needs. I wouldn’t expect any major action on the fisheries file unless
Uncle Ottawa says so, and that is about as likely as Gerry Byrne speaking up
when there are no TV cameras in the room.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Eddie Joyce has managed to allow a complete fiasco to unfold
in the town of Witless Bay, where a former councillor was forced to resign from
his position on council over fraudulent residency claims, and just a few weeks
later was allowed to run again and be acclaimed to the new town council. Joyce
assured residents that the issue would be resolved by the fall elections, and
has yet to comment on the acclimation of the Witless Bay Town Council and
allegations of election fraud being put forth by residents of the community.
The town has not had a functioning council in months and one can only assume
that the current goings-on will not be beneficial to the town, moving forward.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dale Kirby has continued to prove that he has no trouble at
all in abandoning the oath he swore when he became an MHA and a minister in
cabinet. New childcare regulations have sparked the ire of the industry and an
ongoing battle of words with school board trustees and concerned parents about
the fate of Mobile Central High has put the minister back in the hot seat. Most
recently, a post circulated on Facebook that showed a conversation between
Kirby and a constituent who was asking legitimate questions about education for
hearing impaired students. Kirby’s response was to block her. It really makes
you wonder about the quality of our government when the premier offers “total
confidence” in a man who would act this way in his position. Kirby has done
nothing but create barriers and destroy professional relationships and yet he
is still allowed to be in charge of decisions that directly affect our most
valuable resource of all, our children. It really makes you scratch your head…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Oh, and then there is ole Dwight himself. The man, the
legend. The premier who will probably be remembered as the worst of a very bad
lot of grinning shyster’s who managed to play our eternal saviour complex just
well enough to land himself in the premier’s chair. Since The Telegram revealed
that 4.6 million hours have been billed by embedded contractors working for
Nalcor, Ball has hinted for the first time that a Muskrat Falls inquiry could
be in the works. The premier says he has reached out for advice on the terms of
reference, but very few people that I have spoken with have confidence that the
inquiry will have any teeth. The terms of reference need to very broad in scope
and the inquiry needs to be run by someone with integrity and who has no
connection to the current or previous administration. Likely the only way that
will happen is if someone is brought in from outside the province, but I wouldn’t
hold my breath for that either.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I could use many more examples, but what is the point? The
media either ignores or can’t be bothered to do any real investigative
journalism anymore, and we lap it up like fresh kibble after a week-long fast. The
only truth that most people ever get to see is the filtered tidbits that they
are fed daily, with no real insight into what is actually happening in our
province. If the people ever want to see things change, they need to be the
catalyst that start that change. Sadly, there seems to be little will outside
of a handful of “known critics” and “nay-sayers” to actually drive any sort of meaningful
change for our future. It often makes me wonder what it will take before people
finally wake up and wonder how we let this happen. My prediction is that it
will come for many right around the same time their electricity bills double to
pay for Muskrat Falls. In the meantime, It’s all just politics as usual in
Newfoundland and Labrador.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-63125249197264895682017-06-29T06:00:00.001-07:002017-06-29T06:03:34.122-07:00Auditing the Truth<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Auditing the Truth</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />By: Ryan Young</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It has been a crazy couple of weeks in the world of #nlpoli.
This good rogue took to the wilderness for a few days, sans cell phone or internet,
and when I returned to civilization I could hardly believe how much I had
missed in just a few short days. There has been a lot of information to digest
and to ponder, but one thing that seems quite clear is that nobody appears to
have any interest in taking any accountability for the problems with Nalcor and
Muskrat Falls.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It’s hard to know where to start. We had a new report released
on Muskrat Falls that outlines even more cost overruns, now putting the price
tag at $12.7 Billion. We also had the premier saying that he will commit to an
audit or inquiry of some sort, but not really. Then there was a release of an
old SNC Lavelin report from 2013 outlining probable cost overruns that the
premier claims the former CEO of Nalcor ignored and that Ed Martin claims he
never saw. And finally, we have Danny Williams firing both barrels at the Liberal
Government and Nalcor, calling the current CEO, Stan Marshall, a “boondoggle
buffoon,” and calling allegations around the SNC report “bullshit.” Through it
all we, the taxpayers, are left scratching our heads and wondering just what
the hell is going on in this province.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A poll released on June 20th by CRA showed that for the
first time, the majority of NL residents were against the Muskrat Falls project.
Surprisingly though, 40% of respondents still supported the project but that
number will likely drop when hydro rate increases kick in next week. It will
dwindle even more when the full impacts of the project begin to hit people in
their wallets when/if Muskrat Falls ever comes online. While protests in
Labrador continue to grow in size and intensity, there seems to be a new
groundswell of dissent happening on the island now as well. People are already
wondering how they will make ends meet when their bills double and more than
ever we are seeing a push-back from the public at large against the project as
a whole.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While there have been no shortage of experts speaking out
against the project, it was especially painful to hear former premier Brian
Peckford express his dismay that once again, Labrador power would be enjoyed by
another province at much lower rates than the people of NL. Emera customers in
Nova Scotia will enjoy much lower rates than NL customers for the same power from
a project funded entirely from our tax dollars. It is certainly an epic fail
of smallwoodian proportions, and Peckford, who spent his entire political
career fighting against resource giveaways, can only lament the direction our subsequent
premiers have taken us, and wonder how different things might have been if he had
been given the same financial resources to work with.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">With all of the political pressure and negative press, even
the usually slow to catch on Liberals are able to see that the public is no
longer willing to buy the platitudes about cheap power and projected revenues from
the sale of spot power on the US market. Instead, they have changed their tune and
are now talking about things like rate mitigation, while always continuing to
point the red finger of blame at those dastardly Tories who got us into this
mess. It might even work too if ole Dwight was willing to open things up to a
full forensic audit to expose the inner dealings of the sanctioning of the
province to satisfy the nagging questions many people have about whether the
endless delays and cost overruns are the result of corruption or just pure
incompetence. For some reason, the premier seems to see no value in getting to
the bottom of things, despite his constant finger wagging. By playing the blame
game without utilizing the options available to him to try to make things
right, Ball is planting seeds of doubt in the public, leaving them to wonder what
the premier might be hiding or who he might be protecting. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I’m not suggesting that the premier is doing anything wrong,
but when you fail to be transparent and accountable to the electorate, there
tends to be an element of distrust that hangs around like a bad odour. All the
premier needs to do to get rid of that Muskrat sized cloud that is hanging over
him and his government is to be open and transparent. There is absolutely no
good reason not to immediately order a complete forensic audit and Ball’s
reasons for dithering are absurd to the point of bordering on pathetic. An audit
would in no way compromise the continuation of construction at the site and it
would not have any bearing on any future costs or delays. All the premier is
trying to do is say enough words to make it look like he intends to do
something, without actually saying anything at all that would commit him to
taking any sort of real action. With so many questions and allegations hanging
over the project the only responsible thing left to do is to order the audit
and let the truth speak for itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The main narrative that Ball and Siobhan Coady will continue
to push is that they will review the project after the fact. The main problems
with that are that a) it does nothing to help restore the confidence of the
public in the project, and b) it is a very strong possibility that Dwight Ball
and his government will no longer be in power by the time the project is
completed and therefore will never have the opportunity to order an audit or
review. The ideal time for a forensic audit would have been in early 2016,
right after the election. Openness and transparency surrounding Muskrat Falls
was a major part of the Liberal platform after all. Of course, that didn’t
happen, but there is still time for Ball and company to do the right thing and
open the project up to the full scrutiny of an independent body. The time has
come. C’mon premier Ball, let’s make it happen…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-49163419931782711622017-06-12T06:40:00.000-07:002017-06-12T10:19:18.968-07:00The Federal NDP Leadership Race Comes to St. John’s<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Federal NDP Leadership Race Comes to St. John’s<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I decided to take in the federal NDP leadership debate in
St. John’s on Sunday in order to see how the competition to decide who will take
on Justin Trudeau in 2019 was shaping up. I was expecting a fiery and spirited
debate and I was not disappointed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">After the NDP’s historic collapse in 2015, many were left to
ponder the future of the federal New Democrats. After winning official
opposition status with 103 seats in 2011, Tom Mulcair was unable to capitalize
on that momentum and a disappointing
campaign saw only 44 NDP MP’s elected to the House of Commons. As a
result, Mulcair narrowly lost a leadership review last April, which began the
search for a new leader to unite the party, and the electorate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are five candidates currently in the running for the
leadership and they all took in the capital city this weekend, meeting with
people to hear about the concerns of NL voters and to talk about policy. After
being shutout in Atlantic Canada in the last election, the NDP are keen to
rebuild support “down-east,” and winning back the seats the lost here in this province is a big
priority.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are no real frontrunners in the race at this point but
the candidates are beginning to reveal their policy ideas and the debate on
Sunday was the most divisive so far among the hopefuls. While they may appear
very similar when it comes to policy, there are some distinct differences that
will separate them leading up to the vote in September.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Jagmeet Singh, the newcomer to the race, faced some attacks
from his fellow candidates as he was questioned on his commitment to the
federal party and his failure to commit to a policy on pipelines until he had a
chance to consult with voters in Alberta and BC. The Ontario MPP and former
lawyer stepped down from his role as Deputy Leader of the Ontario NDP to join
the federal leadership race, and he hopes to lead the charge against poverty and
inequality. Singh is very popular, and he has the potential to unite the half
million Sikh voters in the country, which would be a big boost to NDP fortunes
if they wish to form a government. Some have described him as a “Progressive
Justin Trudeau.” He is very selfie friendly and talks like a very skilled
politician, but he failed to offer much in the way of solid policy ideas. In
fairness, he is new to the race and is promising to release his policy
platform soon.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Peter Julian also took some heat during the debate about the
credibility of his policy ideas. The point was made that Justin Trudeau had
many aspirations during the last election, but has failed to deliver on many of
his promises. As such, NDP policy should produce promises that are well
thought-out and costed. Julian spent most of his time talking about climate
change and clean energy jobs and defending his ideas about affordable housing
and free post-secondary education. The long-time BC MP has been involved with
the party for four decades and is a popular organizer and activist. While
Julian certainly has some good ideas, he was not able to demonstrate how he
would implement his policies and I don’t think he was able to convince the
audience that he really understands the issues that matter to the people of NL.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Niki Ashton is a fierce debater in the House of Commons and
she wasted no time in going on the offense on Sunday. She was tough on Singh
for his lack of commitment on pipeline policy and criticized Caron’s basic
income policy as “not being an NDP idea.” Hailing from Manitoba, Ashton has
been one of the most consistent voices in Ottawa when it comes to indigenous
issues and precarious work. At 34, she is the youngest candidate, but by the
time the next election rolls around she will have already spent a decade as an
MP so she certainly can’t be called inexperienced. She seemed to be on the
attack for most of the debate on Sunday and made a strong appeal to millennials
in the audience to support her vision of a stronger Canada for our youth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Charlie Angus was the most jovial of all of the candidates
at the debate. His casual but direct style is probably the most leader-like of
anyone in the group, but at times it seemed like the debate got away from him
under tough questions from the other candidates. The long-time Timmins, Ontario
MP is an advocate for indigenous rights and is very vocal on the fact that the
NDP needs a clear and concise platform to build the support of Canadians
leading up to 2019. While cracking a few jokes, Angus asked his colleagues
tough questions about how they intend to implement their policy ideas and closed
off by telling us that he has our backs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Guy Caron was probably the most impressive candidate in the
debate. The MP from Rimouski, Quebec is an economist, and is running his
campaign on a platform of basic income, electoral reform, and tax reform. Caron
probably faced the toughest questions of the day, (an indicator that his
opponents see him as a threat) but I felt that he held his own very well and
was clear in explaining exactly how his policies would work. So far, he is the
only candidate to offer a breakdown of what his policies will cost and how he
plans to implement them. I was also impressed with the fact that he was the
only candidate to talk about what the NDP might demand if they were to hold the
balance of power in a possible minority government situation. This earned him
criticism as it was suggested that he didn’t think the party could win, but
Caron is very much a realist and despite his desire to become Prime Minister,
he understands that the NDP may have a different role to play, depending on where
the cards fall in 2019.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">All in all it was a spirited debate and New Democrats should
feel good in knowing that no matter who wins the leadership in September, the
party will be represented by a team of leaders who are bringing some exciting
policy discussions to the forefront. While there was no clear winner or loser,
I felt that Caron made the best remarks about policy, while Angus really drove
home the direction the party needs to take if it wants to have success. With
three months left to go before the vote, it will be interesting to see what
kind of policy ideas come to the table and if the candidates can remain united
and respectful or if the race will get uglier as it moves towards its
conclusion.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No matter who wins this leadership race, they will have their work cut out for them when it comes to rebuilding party support. During the federal Conservative leadership race, the tories were able to triple their membership and the NDP will need to do the same if they wish to be a real threat to Trudeau's re-election hopes. It will be very interesting to see who party members choose, and the direction they take New Democrats in the lead up to 2019. It's an exciting time for the party and this race will be worth watching in the months to come.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-10167338448188597142017-06-07T08:09:00.001-07:002017-06-07T08:09:12.051-07:00The Strange and Sad Story of Beatrice Hunter<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Strange and Sad Story of Beatrice Hunter<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Like many people across Newfoundland and Labrador, I have
been following Beatrice Hunter’s story very closely over the last two weeks.
For those who may not be aware, Beatrice Hunter is an Inuk grandmother and Land
Protector who is presently being held in custody at the penitentiary in St.
John’s for refusing to stay away from the Muskrat Falls site.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On May 29<sup>th</sup>, during a court hearing for
Protectors who broke an injunction to stay away from the Muskrat Falls site
during Victoria Day Weekend, Judge George Murphy asked Hunter if she would
promise to stay away from the protest site. Hunter told the judge she could not
make that promise and as a result she was remanded into custody.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The story took another turn on June 2<sup>nd</sup> when it
was learned that Hunter had been transferred to Her Majesty’s Penitentiary in
St. John’s. Since then, there has been a large public outcry at Hunter’s
incarceration, including protests at Nalcor headquarters and outside of HMP. In
Labrador, fellow Protectors have held vigils and rallied for Beatrice’s
release, and there is a large rally planned for Thursday at Colonial Building
in St. John’s.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For the government, this has become another case of very bad
optics. While most people seem to agree that they should not interfere with the
judicial system, the fact that the injunction itself came from Nalcor makes the
government responsible for Beatrice Hunter’s incarceration. They had they
option of telling Nalcor to back off from the charges against the Protectors
but chose not to do so. Now, with Hunter’s defiance, they have painted
themselves into a corner that can have no positive political outcome.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I don’t think that Hunter intentionally tried to make a
martyr of herself, but in many ways, she has become one. Many people across the
province were upset with the treatment of the Land Protectors who were charged
for standing up against Nalcor, and when Hunter was transferred to HMP, the
cries of colonialism out of Labrador began to grow in volume and urgency. When
our justice system takes an indigenous grandmother away from her family and her
home for exercising her rights to protest, it leaves many wondering just what
our priorities are.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Despite the many socio-political issues at play, we can’t ignore
the fact that Beatrice did break the law. No matter how much we may not like
the law sometimes, we can’t blame those whose job it is to enforce it. She left
the judge little choice when she refused to stay away from the site, and under
the law he felt compelled to do something. What that something was, however, is the issue at hand.The discussion should not be whether
or not Beatrice should be punished under the law, it should be whether or not
the punishment fits the crime. Hunter is a law-abiding citizen who has never
been in trouble with the courts before and her only crime was protesting what
she believed to be an injustice against her people. It does not seem
unreasonable to think that there could have been another solution that could
have been explored instead of sending this grandmother to the pen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The whole situation is very, very sticky. In addition to
Beatrice’s direct story, it also touches on issues of overcrowding in our
prisons and the differential treatment of protesters on the island vs those in
Labrador. I understand the importance of not having the government interfere
with the justice system, but at this point it seems inevitable that they will
have to act in some capacity. Hunter is due back in court on Friday and if she
continues to be held at HMP, the disgruntled murmur from the public will soon
turn into an angry roar. There are options, and Andrew Parson’s should be
exploring every possibility of how to get Beatrice home. Considering all the
talk about truth and reconciliation in this country, we need our leaders to
take a stand and ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect the
rights of aboriginal women.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In a video released by CBC on June 6<sup>th</sup> from
inside HMP, Hunter expressed the major frustration that she and many other Land
Protectors have with Nalcor. A lack of answers to their questions. This
highlights the larger issue of the lack of openness and accountability when it
comes to the Muskrat Falls project. Despite promising to open the project up to
public scrutiny, the Liberal’s have become even more secretive than the previous
administration was and are refusing to release any reports from the oversight
committee. The message being sent by government via Nalcor to the people of
Labrador is don’t ask questions and don’t try to get in our way or you will end
up in jail. I don’t think they were betting on the defiance of someone like
Beatrice Hunter to turn public opinion against them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No matter how this story turns out, irreparable damage has already been done to an already strained relationship
between the government and the people of Labrador. The Smallwoodian “develop or
perish” attitude seems to be alive and well with the current incarnation of
Liberal leaders, and the steamrolling of the Muskrat Falls project without the
support of the people living in Labrador will not soon be forgotten. The
intimidation of Nalcor will always be seen as the strong arm of government
against the people living downstream of mighty Muskrat and the dam will
continue to enforce the idea of colonialism that is spreading through the big
land like wildfire. There is no political value in having Beatrice Hunter
locked up, and the first thing this government needs to do to start repairing
the rift is to send her home. The second thing they need to do is start
listening to people like Beatrice and start giving them the answers they have been demanding. That doesn't seem like too much to ask for...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-53952176895184486782017-06-05T05:33:00.001-07:002017-06-05T05:33:44.523-07:00When Money Talks, Democracy Has No Voice<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When Money Talks, Democracy Has No Voice<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There was quite a bit of talk about political finance reform
going around the province last week. Both NDP leader, Earle McCurdy and former
Premier, Tom Marshall spoke out publicly in favor of getting rid of large corporate
and union donations to political parties. This comes in the wake of a Telegram
article that reported Corner Brook Pulp and Paper as being the Liberal’s
largest corporate donor, at the same time that the provincial government was
making a deal with the company to shore up their pension plan.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now I am certainly not suggesting that the two have anything
to do with each other. In fact, the recent pension deal seems to be a good one
for both the province and the company. If there was any issue with the deal at
all, it would have to be from the original deal signed under the previous
administration. The problem is that in politics, optics are everything and when
you see the government making deals with large political donors, it can’t help
but breed cynicism and contempt. It is exactly why a large portion of our population
think that all politicians are crooks.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">An old adage says that when money talks, democracy has no
voice. The truth of that statement might be debatable among political circles,
but the electorate take it to heart. As far as the average voter in
Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned, we are still living under a merchant
class system. How could we ever convince them that we are not? Maybe I am naïve
in thinking that corruption in politics is the exception rather than the rule,
but it is not hard to understand why many people feel differently. As long as
the government is doing big money deals with big time political donors, the
idea that politicians are crooks will be a hard one to break.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">One of the things that really breeds contempt for the system
is the way that donors change their allegiances (and their donations) depending
on which party is in power or is expected to take power soon. From a voter’s
perspective, the only reasonable assumption is that these donations are not
made based on political views but on the hope of being in the good books of the
governing party when it comes time to divvy out government contracts. Democracy
Watch has called our political finance system nothing more than “legalized bribery,”
and by all accounts it seems like the majority of our elected officials are
quite fine with that label and the status quo.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">On an even more disturbing note, it was also reported in the
Telegram last week that the St. John’s Board of Trade will be hosting a cash-for-access
fundraiser that will give anyone willing to shell out $500 for the opportunity
to mingle with the premier and a handful of ministers and federal MP’s. The premier’s
office says that it will be a valuable opportunity to meet with business
leaders and that they consider all requests seeking the premier’s participation
in fundraising activities. MP Nick Whalen has compared it to a “charity
fundraiser.” According to James Mcleod, Whalen said: <span style="background: white; color: #4c4c4c;">“When people
talk about cash-for-access, they mean cash for the politicians for access to
the politicians. They don’t mean a charity fundraiser.” I’m not sure I agree
with Mr. Whalen on that point since the members who pay the fee get direct
access to key decision makers in government. That sounds like cash-for-access
to me and the whole thing does not seem to be sitting well with the public at
large.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #4c4c4c;"><br /></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #4c4c4c;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Fixing this problem is so easy that
it is ridiculous that it has not been done already Either remove, or place a
sensible cap on all donations to political parties. That way there can be no
preferential treatment for the biggest donors because no individual,
corporation or union would be able to donate any more than any other. Our
democracy should not be dependent on who can raise the most campaign dollars or
spend the most money on lobbying for favorable contracts or legislation.
Confidence in our political system is at an all time low, as evidenced by the
record low voter turnout in the last election and the dismal approval ratings
of all three parties. It’s time to take the first and easiest step in renewing
confidence in our democracy and take the money out of politics once and for
all.</span></span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-47111129815840930292017-05-19T06:50:00.000-07:002017-05-19T06:53:29.844-07:00Trolls, Clowns, & Parliamentary Language<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Trolls, Clowns, & Parliamentary Language<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Earlier this week, opposition MHA Steve Kent was ejected from the
House of Assembly for refusing to withdraw a statement where he referred to
Finance Minister, Cathy Bennett, as being unethical, dishonest, and deceptive
for giving misleading numbers during estimates committee. Kent was also called
out for his use of social media which was called a “back-door” way of saying
things that he would not be allowed to say in the legislature. This led to a
very public Twitter debate with Gerry Byrne and a complete unhinging of
Government House Leader, Andrew Parsons, who was quick to rise on the point of
order that eventually got Kent ejected.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now I know that many of my readers may not be big fans of Steve
Kent, but the fact of the matter is that Kent was right. He asked the minister
a very direct question and she offered an answer that did not include the whole
truth. The whole issue was over the severance pay of an employee let go from
Government House. When Kent asked about the amount of the severance, Bennett
told him that it was $111 000. When Kent pressed for more details, Bennett
revealed that the total number was $378 000. This led to the Member from Mount
Peal North using the “unparliamentary language” that ultimately led to his
ejection from the house. Bennett could have easily given the full amount when
prompted, she had the information right in front of her, but instead she
decided to be cagey and try to mislead the facts about the real amount. In this
bloggers humble opinion, Kent was right to stand his ground, even if it meant
that he was given a timeout from the sandbox.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, what is unparliamentary language anyway? According to
Wikipedia, <span style="background: white; color: #222222;">Parliaments and
legislative bodies around the world impose certain rules and standards during
debates. Tradition has evolved that there are words or phrases that are deemed
inappropriate for use in the legislature whilst it is in session. In a<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background: white; text-decoration-line: none;">Westminster system</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">, this is called<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>unparliamentary language<span class="apple-converted-space"> and there are similar rules in other kinds of
legislative systems. This includes, but is not limited to the suggestion of
dishonesty or the use of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><span style="background: white; text-decoration-line: none;">profanity</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">. The most prohibited case is any suggestion that another<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background: white; text-decoration-line: none;">member</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;"> </span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">is<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><span style="background: white; text-decoration-line: none;">dishonourable</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">. So, for example, suggesting that another member is<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background: white; color: #0b0080;">lying</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"> </span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">is forbidden</span> under of legislative rules.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span class="apple-converted-space"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A curious thing about the rules
regarding unparliamentary language is that there is no provision against actually
being dishonest in the House of Assembly. You can’t call another member a liar,
but it is perfectly acceptable to lie. Sure, the rules say that a member must
remain honorable at all times, but as stated above, there have been several
instances where members have been caught out on a less than truthful statement,
but there is no punishment for that kind of behaviour. This just highlights how
outdated our system of governance really is.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;">Speaking of unparliamentary
language, Neil King, MHA for Bonavista also rose in the House of Assembly this
week to offer some very important insights to the people of NL. He told us that
despite his great job of spreading the government's message in a recent media article
about CNA, the internet trolls were out in full force against him. King took a
few minutes to tell the province how he felt he was being treated unfairly and
unjustly by the keyboard warriors trying to tarnish his good name and finished
the segment by referring to constituents who have expressed legitimate concerns
to him as “clowns.” Very parliamentary language to be sure and a wonderful use
of the time allocated for important debate in our legislature.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">After some expected criticism on
social media, King lashed out at a local Facebook group known as FreeNL, accusing
them of mocking his physical appearance and his facial disability. The post garnered
quite a bit of sympathy for King among his friends, but as is the common
practice for government MHA’s, anyone with opposing views are blocked so nobody
was able to offer the truth about King’s comments. I personally scoured the
posts and comments regarding King on the FreeNL page. The group has over 4000
members and not surprisingly, there was quite a bit of negative criticism of King’s
words. Curiously though, there was not one mention of his appearance or any
type of disability or impairment. It is unfortunate that an MHA would stoop to
such behaviour as to mislead people into believing that he is being
cyber-bullied by “internet trolls,” when in reality they were just reacting to
his calling them trolls and clowns for expressing their views on the very
important issues in our province. Maybe if Mr. King wants to put such
allegations out there, he should have some credible evidence to back it up.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In another curious twist, Education
Minister, Dale Kirby, chimed in on King’s post, taking personal shots at one of
FreeNL’s leaders, Mark Croft. Kirby wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">“Croft spends his time blaming the
government for his perpetual state of unemployment. He fails to realize that
social media is the first place most employers look when screening job
applications. One look at his despicable online bullying behaviour is enough to
deter any employer.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Not only does Kirby continue to perpetuate
the myth that Mark Croft or FreeNL are personally bullying MHA’s, he also gives
false statements about Croft’s employment. Croft is currently employed
full-time and uses his spare time for activism. While there is certainly some
heated debate on FreeNL and other groups, Croft has been one of the leaders in
trying to discourage negative and personal comments about individuals and has
been steady in his attempt to keep the discussion about the issues. Instead of
trying to paint anyone who protests their governance as unemployed, uneducated,
social justice warriors that can’t even get a job, perhaps if Kirby and the
rest of the Liberal caucus should take the time to come to one of the people’s
protest and learn that these events are being organized and attended by
hardworking Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that care enough about the mess
this government s creating to stand up and try to have their voices heard.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are many more examples example
of the lengths that our government will go to deceive the people and distract
them from the truth. The House of Assembly Management Commission voted to accept
the committee’s recommendations regarding pension reform instead of the Liberal
proposal. Kirby and other members tweeted that the PC’s and NDP voted against
pension plan that would save the province money. They conveniently neglected to
mention that their plan was voted down because it would have grandfathered in
all of the current one-term MHA’s and made them eligible for a pension after
just two years of service. Kirby also accused both opposition parties of voting
against pay supplement increases for Early Childhood Educators. The truth is
that while both parties did vote against the budget itself, there was no
specific vote regarding the ELCC supplement and opposition members had
expressed during debate that they were happy to see the wage increases even if
they could not vote for the budget as a whole. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">The irony is not lost on this
blogger that Steve Kent was punished for
calling out Bennett on not offering the correct numbers and for using his
Twitter account as an outlet to let people know what was happening in the House
of Assembly, while government backbenchers and ministers alike are taking to
social media to insult their constituents and spread false information about
people and groups that they disagree with. </span>Despite their promises to be open and
transparent, the Liberals have not fared very well when it comes to being
forthcoming with information to the public. Getting even the simplest piece of
information can often be a monumental task and the premier and his cabinet have
been caught up on more than one occasion being less than entirely truthful in
their answers in the House of Assembly and to the media.<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This whole unfortunate situation is
symptomatic of many of the problems we are experiencing with government these
days. Lack of openness and communication and a total disregard for what voters
are saying have made this one of the most unpopular governments in our history.
Calling people trolls and clowns in the House of Assembly and making false
statements on social media about those who oppose you are not the best ways to
endear voters to give you another chance next time around. People expect better
from their elected officials and it is very disappointing to see this kind of
behaviour from our MHA’s. With so many important matters that need to be
addressed to get this province back on track, I am glad that they find the time
to ridicule the people that they were elected to represent. If this is the best
that we can expect from the people we elect to represent our best interests,
then 2019 can’t come soon enough.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-44064228552209932332017-05-17T06:02:00.000-07:002017-05-17T06:31:24.104-07:00Venetian Blind Trusts<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Venetian Blind Trusts<br />
<br />
By: Ryan Young<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It was revealed during estimates in the House of Assembly on
Tuesday that the establishment of the premier’s blind trust left the taxpayers
of Newfoundland and Labrador on the hook for $42 900. This little tidbit came
up when opposition members were questioning the government on expenses within
the premier’s office, in particular, the amount that was listed under
professional services.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Finance Minister Cathy Bennett was quick to point out that this is
a long-established practice and provided a few details on the process. Any
minister of the crown that has dealings that may be in a conflict of interest
with the government must put their business holdings in a blind trust. The minister's work with the Chief Electoral Officer to establish the correct parameters
regarding the blind trust and they approve any expenses that are deemed
satisfactory. The minister pays for the expenses but is later reimbursed by the
government and the cost is absorbed through their respective departments as “professional
services.”<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In this time of belt tightening it was surprising to hear that we pay
for the establishment of these business trusts. Unfortunately, this is not the
first time that blind trusts in this province have come under scrutiny. I’m
sure that most of you are already thinking about the controversy surrounding
the blind trust of former premier Danny Williams. While Williams was running
the province, his blind trust (managed by his son-in-law) acquired 550 acres of
land from the NL Housing Corporation at rock bottom prices. While no wrongdoing
was ever proved, the situation did raise the issue of blind trusts in the
public eye. It is also worth noting that
Williams took well over a year to put all his holdings in trust. <br />
<br />
More recently, Dwight Ball was questioned on why it took him so long to
establish his blind trust. Questions of conflict of interest first arose in
April 2016 surrounding Ball’s stake in the senior’s residence, Sundara. By July,
the trust had been established, but Ball had some curious comments for
reporters who asked him for details:<br /><br /><span style="background: white; color: #4c4c4c;">“It’s called a blind trust for that reason.” Said Ball “And so the advice
that I’ve been given, that the blind trust people that actually manage that —
there’s a reason why it’s called a blind trust. For me to actually remove
myself from my business interest, and put two people there that I would then
publicly announce, would, I guess, the advice that I was given was, I guess, it
wouldn’t be blind anymore, would it?”</span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #4c4c4c;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #4c4c4c;">It might have been nice if Ball had
actually taken the time to look up the definition of a blind trust:<br />
<br />
</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">“A financial arrangement in which a person in
public office gives the administration of private business interests to an
independent trust in order to prevent conflict of interest. Under the trust,
the owner does not know how the assets are managed.</span>”<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">Being a “blind” trust has absolutely
nothing to do with who knows who is managing the business interests and the fact
that the premier didn’t know this is alarming. During the election campaign in
2015 Ball committed to being open and transparent when asked about blind trusts
and promised to do whatever was necessary to strengthen legislation regarding
conflicts of interest. Ball holds interests in at least 16 companies, several
of which have involvement with government, which is why it is essential that he
adheres to the guidelines outlined in legislation. Some people agree with the
practice of using blind trusts, while others firmly believe that all government
members should have to divest themselves of any business interests that put
them in a conflict of interest before sitting in the legislature. <br />
<br />
It is very hard to believe that a husband or a cousin or a son in law would be
able to properly keep business dealings hidden and that no conversations will
occur at family dinners or get togethers. </span>While most people would agree that
blind trusts are necessary to keep business dealings at arm's length from
ministerial duties, many people feel they are little more than see-through “venetian
blind trusts,” that sound good, but are not very effective at accomplishing
their main goal or instilling confidence in the public that no back-door deals
are being done to benefit business interests.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Back to the main point at hand,
while it is great that Ball and his ministers have been able to get their
holdings into their respective blind trusts, the fact that the taxpayer must
foot the bill for the establishment of these trusts should be an outrage to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m sure that if Premier Ball wants to
retain his business holdings, that the expenses related to establishing and
administering his trust should be his responsibility. Nobody should begrudge the
premier or any other minister for any success they have had in their personal
careers, but when they made the choice to run for public life they should have
accepted the costs of establishing their respective trusts as the cost of doing
business.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">After nearly a year and a half of
hearing Dwight Ball talk about our dire financial situation, learning that we
paid $42 900 to establish his blind trust is beyond bad optics. Ball spent over
$200 000 out of his own pocket during the Liberal leadership campaign in 2013
but the overburdened taxpayer is expected to pick up the tab for his blind
trust? It doesn’t sit well with this blogger and I’m willing to bet that it is
not going to sit well with very many voters when the information gets out to
the public. <br />
<br />
While this may have been acceptable behaviour in the past, this government has
made it very clear that times are tough and things need to change. Maybe before
they close any libraries or raise any more fees they should look at how much
money is being spent on absurd entitlements like this on the taxpayer’s dime. If
Dwight Ball really wanted to be a leader, he would lead by example and pay back
the $42 900. Anything less is an insult to all of the people who are being burdened
with over 300 new taxes and fees and being told that we all need to do our
part.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-86720798462530637792017-05-15T04:00:00.000-07:002017-05-15T04:05:59.359-07:00Is It Time to Change the Way We Vote?<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Is It Time to Change the Way We Vote?<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I had the pleasure of speaking at a public forum on
electoral reform last week that was hosted by Democracy Alert, a local group
committed to restoring participatory democracy through education, engagement,
& electoral reform. I had been meeting with this small dedicated group of
individuals for the past year, anxiously awaiting the federal plan, and
thinking about how to bring reform to Newfoundland & Labrador. Last weeks’
forum was the first of many events that Democracy Alert is planning to engage
people and educate them on the value of changing our electoral system.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau broke his promise on
electoral reform in February, it was a blow to the many people across the
country who had dedicated their time and effort into reforming our electoral
system. Trudeau had campaigned heavily on making 2015 the last election that
would be held under the current first past the post system. In fact, Trudeau
was so committed to electoral reform that he repeated his promise to deliver it
more than 1800 times. Unfortunately, when the Prime Minister realized that his
party was the beneficiary of a false majority that gave them 100% of power in
parliament with just 39.5% of the vote, he decided to change his mind. When you
consider that Trudeau’s reasoning for changing first past the post in the first
place was because Stephen Harper‘s majority with 39.6% of the vote was unfair
to Canadians, it makes the Prime Minister’s inaction on reform an even harder
pill to swallow.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Many provinces were waiting to see what Ottawa would do on
electoral reform before committing to any changes to their own systems. In the
absence of any leadership from the feds, much of that discussion has stalled.
NL, however, is a different story. We have a government and a premier with very
low approval ratings and people are ready for a real change. In lieu of any
actual productive debate in our House of Assembly, the two major parties have
decided to play a 4-year long game of pass the buck. The blame game has gone on
so long that it has become rather absurd, and many people have been wondering
aloud if the problem is not actually the current crop of politicians, but
rather the system that allows for such behaviour to become the norm.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This has encouraged the beginning of a conversation about
changing the way we vote in this province, but there are still many questions
to be answered and many challenges to overcome. The most important thing is
making sure that the discussion is on the table and that people have an
opportunity to express their views. There are many options on the table, but
Newfoundland and Labrador is a unique place and will likely require a unique
solution.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><i>What System Do We Change to?</i></b><br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are many reasons to change from first past the post,
but the hardest part of enabling that change has always been deciding which
type of system to change to. There are many different systems out there and
many of them may seem complex to someone looking at them for the first time.
Currently, over 85% of OCED nations use some form of proportional
representation to elect their governments. Under a proportional system, seats
in the legislature are awarded based on the number of votes that a party gets.
In this way, every vote counts and our elected bodies are more representative of
the wishes of the electorate.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Countries that use proportional representation often have
coalition governments that force political parties to work together in the best
interests of the people they represent. This is most evident when you look at
the social and environmental legislation in PR countries. Things like pharma
care, child care and well maintained transportation networks are commonplace under
PR systems. Governments also tend to be more stable and voter turnouts are
generally much higher.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are many types of PR systems. Mixed-Member, Single
Transferable Vote, Dual Member, and Proportional FPTP (a made in NL system) are
all systems that work on the principle of proportionality. Unfortunately, it is
the discussion of which mechanics to use that often derails the real merits of
switching to PR. That is why Democracy Alert has proposed a bold new solution
to this problem. They want to hold a referendum with a simple question attached
to the next general election ballot. Keep first past the post or switch to
proportional representation? The rationale is that by keeping the question
simple and to the point, we can accurately find out if the majority of the
people really do want to change from the current FPTP system. If FTPT wins, we
keep the status quo, and if PR wins then we give that mandate to the new
governing party to come up with the system that best meets our province. The
best way to decide would be to hold a citizen’s assembly to determine which
system to use moving forward.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><i>Do We Have Other Options?</i></b><br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Many people have been talking about the idea of running all
independent candidates in the next election. This idea is borne from the idea
that our party system is broken and that our 2 parties are just a revolving
door of the same types of people serving the same interests. While electing a
majority of independents would certainly throw a wrench into any governing
party trying to pass legislation, they would not actually be able to form a
government under the laws of our current system. <br /><br />Another possible option that
is gaining popularity in some circles is a consensus style government such as those
used in the northern territories. Under a consensus system, there are no
parties. All candidates run as independents and the elected members vote to
choose their premier and their cabinet. The remaining members serve as the
opposition. There are many merits to this type of a system but some are skeptical
that the people would be willing to make such a dramatic change away from the
party system.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><i>Starting the Conversation</i></b><br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I firmly believe that the only reason we don’t have more of
a movement for electoral reform in this province is a lack of education. For
one, most people don’t watch what goes on in the House of Assembly aka “The
Sandbox,” and they don’t realize how ineffective our democratic institutions
have become. Secondly, most people don’t realize the benefits of moving towards
a different system. With the current political climate in this province,
electoral reform is not getting enough attention as a solution to many of our
problems with how our legislative branch currently functions. And lastly, kids
don’t learn nearly enough about politics or democracy in our education system.
Many young people are disengaged from politics and they don’t understand how
their lack of involvement allows the current system to grossly under represent their needs.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In order to move the conversation about electoral reform
forward we need to make a big push towards making the benefits known and engaging
people to be active participants in their own destiny. The public is slowly
waking up to the fact that standing on the sidelines is no longer a viable
option and that they will need to be the change that they want to see if they
ever want to see a real difference in the way things are done. <br />
<br />
Electoral reform is more than just an idea, it is an opportunity to
fundamentally change the way we “do” democracy in this province. It’s up to the
people to decide if they want to continue under a system that allows things to
operate as they are currently going or if they are willing to put their voice
forward for a new way working together for a real “stronger tomorrow.” So, let’s start the conversation around the
kitchen table and on the wharf. Start it at your church or youth group or
during a board meeting. Talk to a friend and ask them what they think or bring
it up during your lunch break at work. The most important thing is that we start
the conversation so that more people can get interested enough to find out for themselves
if there is a real value in changing the way we vote. Our very future might
depend on it.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If you are interested in finding out more about electoral
reform and what you can do to get involved visit <a href="http://www.democracyalert.ca/">www.democracyalert.ca</a> or find them on
Facebook or Twitter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-29135756048311015962017-05-05T06:30:00.001-07:002017-05-05T06:30:54.872-07:00Gerry Byrne vs. MUN<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Gerry Byrne vs. MUN<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The ongoing feud between MUN administration and Advanced
Education, Skills, and Labour Minister, Gerry Byrne, has continued to escalate
over the past few weeks and it has many scratching their heads to why the
minister is engaging in such a public battle with the university brass.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While MUN considers raising fees and tuition for students,
Byrne has been critical of spending practices and what he calls a “culture of entitlement.”
The governments position is that they would like to see the tuition freeze for
NL students continue, and that the university can find efficiencies to offset
cuts to their operating budget. The university says it has been cut to the bone
and that the only way they can maintain the current level of service is to
raise revenues. Caught in the middle of this heated debate are the students who
are worried about paying more for their education.<br />
<br />
At a town hall in St. John’s last week, a panel from the university painted a
very bleak picture of the current state of the universities finances. One of
the major issues was the state of the crumbling infrastructure on campus. The
university is in big need of an upgrade but the money simply isn’t there. it
would take $22.5 million a year for the next 15 years just to maintain the
current infrastructure rating of 28.5% which is well below the MUN target of 12%
which would bring it up to fair condition under the Facilities Condition Index
guidelines. To reach the 12% goal would require an annual investment of $45
million for the next 15 years. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When the government cut MUN’s budget last year the
university was able to offset the loss thanks to a $4 million provincial grant
to preserve the tuition freeze, as well as additional savings through attrition
and administrative cuts. In Budget 2017
the government trimmed an other $3 million from MUN’s operating grant, bringing
it down from $318 to $315 million annually. Byrne says he believes that MUN can
absorb the cuts without raising tuition or compromising services to students,
but the university maintains that it cannot reduce costs any further and will
need to find new revenues to maintain the current level of service. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The discussion around revenues has centered around a 16.3%
tuition increase for all undergraduate and graduate students as well as a new
$450 campus improvement fee and a student services fee of $50 per semester. The
university is also considering a differential tuition structure that would see graduate tuition rates vary by program and based on what the market can sustain. Many
students believe that these increases will negatively impact their quality of
life and education and they are hoping for the government to intervene and
demand that the tuition freeze be preserved.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The latest spat between Byrne and MUN has been over
discretionary spending. On Twitter this week, Byrne cited a $700 recruitment
dinner as evidence of a culture of entitlement and suggested that before
demanding more money from taxpayers and students, the university should reduce
discretionary spending and disclose expenses. During an interview on the St.
John’s Morning Show, host Anthony Germain did the math out to about $80 a head
for the $700 dinner and asked Byrne if he had ever had an $80 dinner at the taxpayer’s
expense during his 20-year career in politics. Byrne dodged the question, but
went on to suggest that it would be acceptable to spend that kind of money on lavish
visits to the university by heads of state, but not for the purposes of
university business, such as attracting the right people to come and work at
MUN.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I don’t disagree with Gerry Byrne that MUN can and needs to
do a better job of managing its administrative and discretionary spending, but
I do question if having this battle in the public eye is the best way to achieve
the changes that are needed. During the interview with Anthony Germain, Byrne
framed the situation as nothing more than a debate and suggested that to “ratchet
down” the escalating tensions , the university needs to consider reducing
expenses before it looks at raising revenues from students and that officials
should go on Germain’s show to tell the public what he as minister has done
wrong. I would suggest to the minister that a better way to address the issues
at MUN would be to sit down with the university and work out a solution instead
out berating them on social media and publicly challenging them during a
morning talk show.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is very clear that MUN is facing some significant
challenges right now and unfortunately those issues are being undermined by a clash
of personalities between the minister and those in charge of running the
university. Caught in the crossfire are the students who don’t want to see
their fees increased and are looking for some real leadership from the
university and the government. Student’s want better facilities and services without
having to pay more and they need their leaders to find a way to work together
to find solutions that work in the best interests of everyone.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Maybe a more reasonable option would be for the minister to
order an independent review of MUN’s finances and administration to get a clear
picture of where bloat may exist and where real efficiencies can be found. That
way, neither him nor the university would be able to point the finger of blame.
It would be written in black an white in a report, with clear recommendations
on how MUN should move forward. In this way, we could move past the political
banter and create a strong foundation for MUN to not only remain a great
university, but for it to improve and expand to become an even better destination
for higher learning in the future.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We can no longer afford for such important matters to be
dominated by personalities and distractions. Students don’t want to pay more to
accommodate $700 recruitment dinners while they struggle to meet their most
basic needs. They also don’t want their futures to be caught up in the middle
of a spat between the university and the government, when the outcome could
have a dramatic impact on their futures. Change is needed at MUN, but it needs
to be change based on cooperation and communication and the best interest of
students, and not to satisfy the egos of administration or members of
government. The real way forward requires real leadership and unfortunately that
seems to be in short supply. It’s time to put personalities aside and do what
needs to be done in the best interests of our students and our province.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-658224276077480982017-05-01T04:48:00.000-07:002017-05-01T05:24:52.936-07:00The Resignation of Bern Coffey<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Resignation of Bern Coffey</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The resignation of the provinces top bureaucrat sent
shockwaves through the local political scene Sunday night. After days of
controversy, Bern Coffey has stepped down from his position of Chief of the
Executive Council. The move came after a flurry of criticism was aimed at both
Coffey and the government when the public learned that Coffey was representing
a client who was suing Nalcor through his private law practice.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Allegedly, there was an agreement made when Coffey was
appointed last September that would allow him to finish off any existing cases
at his practice, but that he would not take on any new ones. In his defense of
Coffey, Premier Ball said that the work was being done in Coffey’s personal
time and that he was confident that he would continue to work diligently on
behalf of the people. It probably would have been a fair arrangement, except
for the fact that one of Coffey’s clients is suing Nalcor, and by extension,
the government. Despite Coffey’s claims that “Chinese Walls” have been put in
place to assure that there is no conflict of interest, the whole situation has
been perceived very negatively by the public.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">With so many communications blunders already under his belt,
you would think that Dwight Ball would have stopped to think about the
implications of allowing his top bureaucrat, basically his right-hand man, to continue
with a legal case against Nalcor. Even if the Chinese walls were working and
there was no conflict of interest, for the sake of optics somebody should have
put the brakes on, knowing that this would eventually come out and come back to
bite them in the ass. Now that time has come and the province will lose the
services of a very capable and hard-working member of the inner circle of
government.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It is no secret that Bern Coffey was a Liberal. He ran for the
party leadership in 2011 and was a frequent financial contributor to the party
throughout the years. His appointment was called cronyism by the opposition due
to his close party ties, but nobody argued that he was qualified for the clerks
job. As a former member of the 2041 group, many had hoped that Coffey would be
a strong voice in discussions surrounding the Muskrat Falls project. By all
accounts he took his position as clerk very seriously and it is unfortunate
that he is leaving under circumstances that could have been avoided with a
little common sense and transparency.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">These are the types of decisions that leave many to question
Dwight Ball’s leadership ability. The premier has had a tendency to make rash
decisions without thinking them through and has spent more time back-peddling
than pushing his agenda forward. A
decision like this one though is really hard to fathom. How could Ball or any
of his senior team have thought that allowing your top bureaucrat to sue you in
his spare time was a good idea? The whole thing is completely absurd. As one
colleague put it to me: “They either have to be dumb or they just don’t care.” I
used to think it was the former but now I am leaning towards the latter. Maybe
the cynics are right and the Liberals know their time at the trough will be
short so they are making sure to fill it up as much as they can.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">How many more people will need to resign from this
government before it becomes clear that the real problems are coming from the
very top. Dwight Ball has made a career out of playing “duck and cover politics”
without ever actually saying anything at all, and now it is becoming all too
clear that he lacks the leadership qualities needed to manage our government.
As much as Coffey should have known better than to keep that case, or the one against
Western Health that surfaced in a CBC story this morning, Ball and the
government should have been clear that any litigation against government is off
limits for someone in such a position of power and confidence. It will be
interesting to hear what Dwight Ball has to say later today when he meets with
the press and even more interesting to see how the premier addresses the issue
in question period as the house reopens after Easter break.<br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No matter which side of the political spectrum you sit on,
it is hard not to agree that this was a very bad decision by the premier, and
Coffey’s ultimate resignation was the only way that this story could possibly
end. There was no way the public could continue to have confidence in Coffey’s
role, and one way or another his time needed to come to an end. It’s an unfortunate end to an unfortunate story
and one that showcases the lack of thought that has been given to the most
important decisions made by our government. We keep waiting for them to get it
right, but somehow, they always seem to get it wrong. It makes me think my colleagues
question might be the right one to ask. Are they dumb, or do they just not care?</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-88397136950004295052017-04-26T03:46:00.000-07:002017-04-26T03:47:09.273-07:00Fighting for the Fishery<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Fighting for the Fishery<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No matter how bad things got, you could always fish. That
was the way of the world for generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
before the fish went away and the cod fishery closed in 1992. I was just a
young boy then, growing up in a thriving fishing town on the Northern Peninsula. Before
the moratorium, my hometown had 2 fish plants and seven stores (if you include
the 2 gas stations) to service 700 residents. Twenty-five years later that
number has dropped to just 428. Only 1 store remains open and both gas stations
have closed. Despite being located in one of the provinces best tourist draws,
Gros Morne, the town was unable to sustain enough employment to keep people
there, and as more people moved away, the jobs became even scarcer as the town
began to slide down an endless downward spiral. Sadly, this story is not unique
to my hometown. It is the story of many people’s hometowns since the
moratorium.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While many people left the fishing boats behind in search of more
stable employment away, the ones who stayed behind faced a constant uphill battle to make a
go of it without the precious cod to catch. The industry changed and
modernized, and the remaining harvesters and plant workers dug in and did
whatever they could to stay home and live the lives passed down from their fathers
and grandfathers. It wasn’t easy, but those who did stay managed to adapt and
find new ways to earn their living from the sea. They invested in new gear and they learned how to fish all sorts of new species. After all, fishing is not just
a job, it is a way of life. That may sound like a cliché, but it is true
nonetheless and must not be discounted if we are ever going to have a frank and open
discussion about the fishery in this province.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, we move into an era where the biomass of species such as crab and shrimp that replaced the cod in the holds and tubs aboard so many boats have been decimated, and quotas are being drastically cut, fish
harvesters are left to wonder how this can be happening again. Almost
overnight, some quotas were slashed in half, jeopardizing many enterprises
throughout the province. With more bad news announced last week about the
capelin biomass, harvesters are bracing for yet another blow to an already
weakened industry. On the heels of that, we learned yesterday that the price
for northern shrimp will be cut by 45 cents this season making the reduced
quotas even more detrimental to the bottom line of boat owners. It should come
as no surprise that harvesters have been protesting and demanding answers and
accountability to the issues that are threatening their very way of life.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">After a quarter century of being told to be patient and put
their trust in DFO, harvesters are still wondering why they are not being
consulted when it comes to fish science and setting quotas. This is the heart
of why harvesters gathered at DFO and FFAW offices over the past couple of
weeks and why Richard Gillett endured an 11-day hunger strike to ask for adequate
consultation before finally being taken away in an ambulance when his health
began to fail. While many have questioned Gillett’s tactics, the point that
many people seem to be missing is that he and many other harvesters have been
going through the proper channels for a long time without any satisfaction and
they are genuinely worried about their futures.
When people don’t have anywhere else to turn, they lash out in
desperation. That is what we have been seeing from harvesters, pure desperation
that they may be about to lose their entire way of life and they don’t even get
a say in the matter.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Hundreds supported Gillett’s hunger strike in person and
thousands more supported him online. For those involved in the fishery, such
drastic actions were easily justified if it meant bringing some serious
attention to the issues that harvesters in this province feel need to be addressed.
Many are wondering where our 7 federal MP’s stand on the fishery and an
e-petition is being circulated to call for a federal public inquiry into the NL
fishery. While fish management is not technically a provincial government
issue, many are also wondering why Dwight Ball and Steve Crocker have not taken
a tougher stance with Ottawa on the major issues surrounding our fishery.
Independent MHA, Paul Lane is calling on the premier to initiate an all-party
committee on the fishery to develop a position paper for the federal government
with recommendations on how to best manage the industry as we move toward the
future. Both the petition and the all-party committee are good ideas that would
open the lines of communication and hopefully facilitate cooperation between
both levels of government and harvesters, to ensure that all of our elected
officials and managers are acting in the best interest of industry
stakeholders.<br />
<br />
In light of media attention and public scrutiny, the FFAW has tried to pass the
protests off as little more than a publicity stunt orchestrated by FISH-NL. Blaming the labour dispute is an easy way out
for Keith Sullivan, but protestors outside of the union office on Hamilton Road
on Monday were all very quick to point out that they are all due-paying members
of the FFAW and all they are asking for is a seat at the discussion table.
With so much turmoil and uncertainty in the industry right now, it is hard to
blame the harvesters for wanting better communication from the union and DFO, or
for asking to be part of the science. For years’ harvesters have complained
that they are not included enough when decisions are made concerning the
fishery. Their knowledge is invaluable to the success of the scientists and to
the future success of the industry, and it is time for them to have a real seat
at the table. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">It doesn’t matter if you live in St. John’s, St. Anthony, or
St. Lewis the fishery is a province-wide issue and a strong fishery is good for
all of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is obvious that despite their efforts so
far, the federal government has not been able to properly manage our fishery in
a sustainable fashion. People who depend on the fishery are fed up with the
status quo and it is time that both our provincial and federal governments
start to work together, and directly with harvesters in this province to
develop a fisheries management plan that will address both the short-term and
long-term needs and goals of the industry. Gone are the glory days of the
fishery, but maybe if we start to work together with openness and transparency,
we can find a way forward to ensure that we will still have a viable industry
for generations to come.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To sign the e-petition click this link:<br /><a href="https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-1054">https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-1054</a></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-65134626630209351482017-04-07T05:43:00.000-07:002017-04-07T05:43:29.770-07:00Budget 2017: Holding the Line<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Budget 2017: Holding the Line<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
After months of speculation and debate, Cathy Bennett delivered her second
budget speech in the House of Assembly on Thursday. The large scale public
sector layoffs that everyone was expecting did not materialize, and there was
very little of anything to make headlines in this year’s budget speech. The
deficit went down thanks to a rise in oil prices and production and the harsh
revenue measures from budget 2016, but other than a few bright spots, the
budget itself was pretty lackluster. Even the flagship peace offering, a
decrease in the gas tax, was preempted by a seven cent rise at the pumps on
Thursday. During it all, a small but boisterous crowd gathered on the front
steps of Confederation building with food and music to let the government know
that the people are still angry and they are not going away.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The really good news in the budget was that oil revenues
were up, which along with the extra tax revenue, reduced the deficit from a
projected $1.83 Billion to $1.1 Billion. The projected deficit for 2017-2018 is
$778 million as long as oil prices hold steady. Oil production is expected to
be slightly lower this year with a projected average price of $56 per barrel.
Hebron will come online later this year but with an equity stake in the
project, the province will not reap many benefits from that development in this
fiscal year. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The gas tax reduction was the other big news in the budget,
with the Liberals pledging to reduce the tax by 75% by the end of the year. The
first reduction of 8.5 cents will come into effect June 1<sup>st</sup> with an
additional 4 cents coming off in December. The remaining tax will be evaluated
before the fall fiscal update. Unfortunately for the Liberals, their good news
piece of the budget was counteracted by a big bump in the prices at the pumps.
In any case, the reduction of this tax is good news, even if the other 299
taxes and fees they raised in budget 2016 are still in place.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some other good news items were included in Bennett's speech. Money for child
care subsidies and raises for Early Childhood Educators are positive stop-gap investments in
lieu of a new child care strategy for the province. New money was allocated for
planning for the replacement of the Waterford Hospital and the penitentiary. Money
was also added to the justice system, including $250 000 for free legal advice
for sexual assault victims and more crown attorneys to help reduce caseloads.
Federal monies for mental health and home care came down the pipes, and $500
000 will be spent to hire new student assistants for inclusive classrooms. Funding
was also restored to the operational grant for libraries to keep the doors open
until the EY report is complete.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Transfers to Nalcor will come in at around $485 million,
which is significantly lower than the $1.3 Billion allocated in budget 2016.
Nalcor has also been instructed to find $210 million in revenues by 2020 to
help offset electricity rate increases. No specifics were given on how that
would be accomplished, but both Bennett and Premier Ball offered assurances that rate mitigation is a priority for this government.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It was a budget that tried to get a little bit in for a lot
of groups and it did a good job of doing that without ruffling too many
feathers. The downside is that the budget left in limbo thousands of public
sector employees who still have no idea how safe their jobs are. Minister
Bennett stated that mass layoffs would not be her approach but that her
government would continue to find efficiencies moving forward. That has many believing
that instead of facing the hard criticism of big job cuts, that they will dole
them out instead as a death by a thousand cuts. While many public employees were
breathing a sigh of relief that they still have a job today, they are still in
a position of uncertainty when it comes to planning for their short and
long-term futures. That will likely mean another year of decreased consumer confidence which will continue to negatively affect the economy.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Very little was done in this budget to address government
spending. Nearly $300 Million in spending reductions are planned although we
don’t know exactly where those savings will come from. A wage freeze was also
introduced for this fiscal year for all managers and non-unionized public
employees. While the freeze itself will not offer much in the way of savings,
it may be setting the tone for future negotiations between Bennett and union
leaders.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The overall theme put forth by the government seems to be
that their tough decisions are working and that we are turning a corner and
need to stay the course. The reality, however, is that we are doing better
because of the price of oil, and even the massive hardships that have been
placed on the people of the province have made little difference to our bottom line.
The Liberals claim to be on track to reach their target of a return to surplus
by 2022, but that claim is based on assumptions that oil will continue to rise
and bail us out from our grim situation.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While there are a few good things in this budget, it is
mostly an exercise in smoke and mirrors designed to buy the government another
year in the hopes that oil royalties will allow them to spend their way out of
the people’s bad books. There is no obvious plan to address spending issues or
our escalating provincial debt, and despite a little well intentioned money being spent,
all they really have to show for their efforts are plans to make more plans.
While few would argue that proper consultation is needed before a government
acts, many are wondering when this government will stop consulting and start
acting on what they heard. The solutions offered in this budget are band-aids
at best and offer no indication of what this government’s plans are, beyond
waiting for the price of oil to go up.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As benign as Budget 2017 seems to be, the devil will be in
the details and it might be quite a while before the full effects are known.
Instead of large scale cuts we should expect layoffs in dribs and drabs, but
the final number will likely depend on how much the price of oil rises. Even
after the rude awakening we just went through on the dangers of relying to
heavily on oil royalties, the Liberals seem content to ride the wave and hope
to utilize offshore revenues to offset all of the new taxes and fees. They keep
promising us a plan but what they delivered was a hold-the-line budget that
does nothing to address the real issues at play. I guess all we can do is pray
to the great god of oil and hope that the prices can stay up until we have time
to elect a government that does have a plan.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-50557921574801215462017-03-28T04:25:00.001-07:002017-03-28T04:28:56.299-07:00Spin to Win<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Spin to Win<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The premier held another fancy event yesterday. As usual it
was full of glossy graphics and plenty of pats on the back for a job well done.
The occasion was a report on Phase 1 of “The Way Forward,” the Liberal roadmap
designed to make people believe that our government has the slightest clue of
what they are doing. The funniest thing is that someone in the premier’s office
really thought that the information presented yesterday would actually impress
the individuals and groups in attendance and instill confidence in the public
at large.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What we learned from Premier Ball’s announcement was that
after nearly a year and a half in power, and six months into “The Way Forward,”
the Liberals have only managed to find a meagre $45 million dollars in savings.
I wonder if that includes the cost of developing and marketing “The Way Forward”
to the masses? Finance Minister Cathy Bennett promised that immense savings
would come from the utilization of zero-based budgeting, but according to their
own numbers they were only able to find $24 million dollars of government waste
to trim. “The Way Forward” also pushes many of the government targets well into
the future, some as far as 2025, without any definitive information about how
they plan to meet them. There is plenty of fancy jargon, but when it comes to
actual ideas and plans, “The Way Forward” leaves much to the imagination.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Phase 1 of “The Way Forward” was touted as a plan to reduce
government costs, but despite all of the spin and hoopla from the government,
it fell flat. With all of the extra taxes and fees that are burdening the
population of this province, and job cuts likely coming in the very near
future, $45 million is hardly enough to convince anyone that the government is
willing to clean up its own house before looking for cuts elsewhere. Despite
all of the pretty red checkmarks, very little has been accomplished so far, and
there are little or no details on many of the initiatives that have been
brought forth.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As James Mcleod pointed out in The Telegram, many of the things
the Liberals are claiming as completed with red checkmarks are not entirely
factual. For instance, the leased space savings they indicate at the very top
of the report card was actually a move made by the school board months before “The
Way Forward” was even released. In fact, out of the dozen red checkmarks on the
section titled” “A More Efficient Public Sector,” the only two initiatives that
actually showed real savings were the $24 million from zero-based budgeting and
another $20-25 million from laying off core government management positions.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Phase 2 of “The Way Forward,” will focus on job creation and
growth, and promises 14 000 person years of new employment, whatever that
means. While new jobs should be a positive thing to announce, this ends up
being just another example of the poor job being done in the government
communications office. God forbid that they tell us how many actual jobs they
plan to create or how they expect their plan to offset the predicted 20%
unemployment in a few years. Instead we get 14 000 person years of employment.
No matter how much the communications staff try to dress up the incompetence of
their masters, people are not being fooled by fancy vocabularies and glossy
brochures full of rhetoric and spin. For a government that is so out of touch
with the common person, you would think they would try to communicate in a way
that will allow voters to feel connected to them, but nope…14 000 person years
of employment is the best they can come up with. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I’m sorry dear reader if I sound a little bitter, but in the
age of fake news and alternative facts it is very difficult to sit back and
watch this government spending our tax dollars on these asinine events designed
to pat themselves on the back and make them look better in our eyes. People are
tired of empty promises and endless spin, and a leader that can talk for hours
without saying anything at all. They voted for a government that promised
openness and transparency over and over again, but instead have become one of
the most secretive and tight-lipped governments we have ever seen. People want
the truth and a little hope, but instead they are constantly given the same old
political runaround that has become so common that it is the only thing we have
ever known.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Maybe the Liberal’s do have some real ideas on how they
expect to meet all of the outcomes promised in “The Way Forward,” but why they
would keep it all to themselves is beyond this bloggers comprehension. More
likely, as it seems to the public, they are actually trying to keep up appearances
and look competent, while they hope and pray for a return to high oil prices so
that they can start spending money again and be all things to all people before
the next election. The major problems with that strategy are: 1) According to all the best experts the price
of oil will continue to hover around $60 a barrel for the foreseeable future,
at least as long as the current Liberal reign. 2) People don’t want another
spending spree with our oil revenues. They want a stable economy where oil
royalties are a bonus and not the basis of our entire economic fortunes.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The people who are running the communications for the
government on the hill would do well to take notice that all of their unique
language and high priced promotional materials are falling on deaf ears and
blind eyes. The time for political spin has passed, and with the Liberals
having burned every bit of their political capital so early, they have no
credibility left to convince people that their spin holds any weight. The
people are ready for the openness and transparency they were promised and
Dwight Ball would be wise to realize that no matter how much he smiles and
talks in circles, that we are just not buying it anymore. It’s time for them
change the narrative and try something radical and new. You know, like telling the
truth… </span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-1657887700713894502017-03-27T03:29:00.000-07:002017-03-27T03:33:41.356-07:00On Immigration...<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">On Immigration...<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The most common theme I heard from my political colleagues
this past weekend was: “What is Gerry Byrne smoking?”<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The question comes on the heels of an announcement by Byrne
on Friday that the Newfoundland and Labrador Government is planning to boost
immigration by 50% over the next five years. The target is 1700 new immigrants
by 2022, although like every Liberal “plan” so far, the announcement was high
on spin and rhetoric but very low on details.<br />
<br />
During the announcement, Byrne also stated that the plan will include
attracting expat NL’ers who have left the province to come back. It’s nice for
the Liberals to keep taking their cues from the old Clyde Wells playbook, but
much like when Wells promised to bring every mothers son home (just prior to overseeing
the largest out-migration in NL history) the statement carries very little
weight when you consider the current economic state of the province and the
fact that people are leaving in droves for better opportunities and less taxes.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When you look at the numbers, NL has the second highest
consumer price index in the country, after only Alberta. What that means in
simple terms is that we have one of the highest costs of living in Canada and
it is trending up instead of down. We have come a long way from leading the
country in growth. Our GDP is shrinking and by the end of the mess that will be
harshly remembered as the “Dwight Ball Years,” unemployment in the province is
expected to top 20%.<br /> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The numbers hardly seem to match up with Byrne’s assertion that now is the best time to move to Newfoundland. It should not be too much of
a shock for people to see Byrne speaking so out of touch. After a long twenty
years in Ottawa as an MP, Byrne himself came home to take a stab at provincial
politics. According to him, 2016 was the best year of his political career.
That was certainly a curious statement when you consider the hardships that his
government has placed on the people of this province in the past year. I’m sure
it was a wonderful year for Gerry and his Liberal cronies, but unfortunately
the people he was elected to represent are experiencing their worst year in
recent history, all because of the decisions that Byrne and his government made
on their behalf.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Many people in this province have strong opinions about
immigration. Some are very much in favor, while others are vehemently opposed.
The reasons are varied, but I did not want to turn this post into a debate
about immigration. The truth of the matter is that with a declining population,
more immigration is likely needed to keep our tax base afloat in the years to
come. The problem that I see when I look at the issue is not one of security
but one of plain economics. <br /><br />Traditionally our immigrant retention rates have
been extremely low. A recent report indicated that less than 40% of immigrants that
come to NL stay here to live and work. There are many reasons for the low
retention rate. NL does not have any large ethnic communities compared to many
other places in Canada. Many of our jobs are low paying and do not provide
benefits. The cost of living here is very high, with very little support for
families when it comes to things like housing, child care, and parental benefits.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">With these things in mind, I think we have to approach
immigration in a different way. Instead of trying to attract immigrants to
replace all the people that are being driven away by the high cost of living,
what we really need to do is create a positive environment in the province that
will not only allow our own residents to stay home and flourish, but it will
also provide a very attractive destination for potential immigrants to move and
raise families, and thereby building our own ethnic communities. <br /><br />It makes
absolutely no sense to initiate a government program aimed at increasing
immigration when the government has no obvious plan to tackle the high
unemployment rates and cost of living. Why in the world would an immigrant want
to come and live here and suffer under our regressive economic policies when
there are so many better options out there for them to pursue? The only way it would
work is if our government was paying subsidies for people to stay here. I’m not
sure how much political capital that will earn them when so many native NL’ers
are lined up at the ferry terminal each day to leave in search of the better
life their own government promised, but could not provide.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What is likely to happen is that the government will spend
millions on their immigration “plan” in the coming years, without addressing
any of the real issues that keep retention rates low. This means that our tax
dollars will be used to help bring immigrants in and get them established in
the province, but when the benefits run out, they will likely move on and
settle elsewhere in Canada and become productive tax paying contributors to
another provincial economy. Personally, I find that hard to justify when we
could use that money to improve social programs which would likely be more
effective in the long run when it comes to attracting immigrants and keeping
them here.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The scariest part about it all is thinking about who is
sitting in the driver’s seat. So far, we have not seen any of the
evidence-based policy that we were promised during the 2015 election campaign.
What we have seen over and over are reactionary decisions, many of which have
already been reversed when it became apparent that people were doing their own
research that was not matching up with what the government was saying. I fear
that this will be another example of this government wanting to do something
for good publicity without really thinking through the consequences of their
decisions. If they want people to start believing in them, they need to start making
decisions based on good policy research and evidence, and not on what they
think will win back a few votes in 2019.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the end of the day, we certainly do need to have an open
and honest discussion about immigration in this province. With an aging
population and a growing out-migration rate, NL will need to find new ways to
increase our tax base to provide the revenue we will need to pay for basic
programs and services in the future. Unfortunately, just throwing a bit of
money at the problem is not going to fix it. We need to re-think the way we
support families in this province and we need to address the root causes of why
immigrant retention rates are so low. Most importantly we need to make
Newfoundland and Labrador a great place to live so that when we do attract
people to move to this province, (or move home) we are able to keep them here
to contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Immigration does not have to be a dirty word for
Newfoundland and Labrador, but in order for the masses to get behind the government's new immigration plan, they are going to have to convince people that they know
what they are doing. We live in a dangerous world and people are wary of the
unknown. If the government really wants this plan to work they need the people
behind it and that will require a great deal of communication and discussion,
neither of which are things that the Liberals seem to be fond of. It won’t be
an easy sell. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-12359502412572732882017-03-20T06:20:00.000-07:002017-03-20T06:20:11.092-07:00Priorities, Journalism, and Justice<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Priorities, Journalism, and Justice<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Priorities<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Maybe it’s just me, but I had a real problem when 28 Labrador Land
Protectors were served charges for their parts in the protests against the
Muskrat Falls hydro development on the Lower Churchill River. My issue was not
with the charges themselves, although I personally think they are unnecessary.
The protectors who stormed the gate and stayed on site last fall to protect
their right to clean water and traditional food sources knew there was a very
good chance that they would face legal consequences for their actions and they
made a conscious choice to defy the court injunction and occupy the site. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What really gets my back up
about this case is that just a few weeks earlier, a former RCMP officer in Labrador who was charged with child luring
had his charges stayed because it took an unreasonable amount of time for the
accused to go to trial. Judge John Joy noted in his decision that he was bound
by legal precedent to stay the charges, and that despite exemplary work by
officers and technicians, they could only operate within the limited scope of
the resources of their respective offices. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So how is it that the court system in Labrador is too overworked
and under resourced to properly manage a high-profile case involving a police
officer in a serious breach of trust, but it can handle the load of 28 new
complex cases that will use up even more resources and cash in a system already
busting at the seams. Is making an example of these 28 a move to discourage
more acts of the sort that we saw last October? When such an important case
such as child luring against a police officer is thrown out because of a lack
of resources and then a few short weeks later we see 28 names of people trying
to protect their way of life added to the docket, it has many people asking
just what the priorities are at the Department of Justice and Public Safety in
St. John’s.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When is
Journalism a Crime?<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Justin Brake of The Independent is answering to charges for his
role in covering the occupation of the Muskrat Falls work camp by Labrador Land
Protectors last October. Brake has stated that he believed he was completely
within his rights as a journalist to follow the protectors through the gate to
document the real story of what was happening during a very tense time for the
whole province. Brake’s reporting and live streaming of the events inside the
camp often painted a different picture than was being put forth by Nalcor and
the government. It allowed the world to see the protectors being welcomed with
open arms into the camp and that there was never any talk of violence. While
there has been precedent for such charges in the past, such as the Oka
standoff in the 90's, many feel that in a case such as Brake’s where a journalist is the
sole documenter of a story in the public and national interest, the rights of
the journalist to cover the story must be protected.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When the powers that be in our justice system decided to go ahead
with the charges against Brake, they began walking a very fine line. The story
is beginning to get traction with journalists all over the world who are
waiting to see what the outcome will be. Brake is officially facing charges of mischief
exceeding $5000 and disobeying a court order. The charges come with a maximum
sentence of 10 years in prison. Many in Labrador feel that the charges against
Brake and the Land Protectors are an intimidation tactic by the government to
ensure that there are no more protests like we saw last fall. What they don’t
seem to understand is that they are seeding deep feelings of resentment in the
residents of Labrador that might very well inspire more action in the name of
justice.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Using the court system to strong arm the people of Labrador is one
thing, but when the decision was made to charge Brake for his coverage of the
story, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have opened up a can of
worms that they will not be able to control for much longer. As the story gains
international traction, more and more groups are condemning the government’s
actions and demanding that the charges against Brake be dropped. The
government, however, seems to be holding firm and letting Gilbert Bennett and
the other top Nalcor brass run the show. Muskrat Falls must be protected at all
costs, even if it means potentially facing years of expensive litigation
against our government for failing to protect Justin Brake’s journalistic
rights.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Justice?</i><br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We have been talking quite a bit about justice in this province
lately. From controversial verdicts, to overcrowded courts and prisons, to the
need for new legislation to catch up with our modern times. There is much work
to be done, and it will take more than one government to bring our justice
system in line with the needs of the people. We have seen several cases where
charges were stayed because the accused had not been given timely access to a
trial. This has led to much discussion about the R vs Jordan decision last
summer where it was ruled that there would be a ceiling of eighteen months for
provincial court cases and thirty months for supreme court cases, after which
time a defendant may make a motion to have the charges against them stayed. We
saw this happen in the case I mentioned about the RCMP officer above, and it
has been causing havoc for court systems all across the country who are
scrambling to keep up with the new guidelines.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Justice and Public Safety Minister, Andrew Parsons, has said on
record that the province will not be hiring any new judges to handle the
caseloads, so that means that the province will need to look at other ways to
find efficiencies and get cases to court in a timely fashion. It is no secret
that our court system is already perilously under resourced, and with the
Jordan decision adding even more pressure we can expect even more high profile
cases to have charges stayed before they get their day in court.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">All of that makes the decision to proceed against charging Brake
and the Land Protectors even more curious. Most people I know would agree that
if you break the law, you will face consequences, but how does that work when
you are up against the people making the laws? It was the government via Nalcor
that petitioned the court injunction that denied the Land Protectors the right
to protest for their own safety and the very water that they depend on for life
and culture. When an MP from town tells the people in Labrador that depend on the
river that they should just “eat less fish,” it just emphasises the disconnect
between the folks in fancy offices in St. John’s who only care about the economics
of the project and the politics behind it and the people on the ground who feel
that they are in a legitimate life and death battle with their government. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the end of the day, the people of this province are feeling let
down by their justice system. They are losing confidence in the police and in
the courts and they are left to wonder just what the priorities are for this
government. In Labrador, people are left to feel that their justice system is
being used against them and they have lost all faith that the government is
there to protect them. Where is the justice for the people of Labrador?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-49756519879089340672017-03-15T06:21:00.002-07:002017-03-15T06:59:08.393-07:00Time to Come Clean<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Time to Come Clean <br />
<br />
By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It was a bitter pill for many to swallow last week when the
premier finally confirmed that the principal beneficiary of the Muskrat Falls
project would not be NL, it would be Nova Scotia and Emera. It becomes even harder
to swallow when you consider that the entire reason for going through Nova
Scotia in the first place was to give the finger to Quebec and ensure that we
would be the ones to benefit from our own energy production. Danny’s $7
Billion-dollar tantrum will likely turn into a $20 billion dollar noose before
a kilowatt of power ever flows from the Lower Churchill River, if indeed it
ever flows at all.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the time of sanction, we were told that Emera’s generous
Maritime Link deal was good for this province because it would ensure access to
southern energy markets without having profits hijacked by Hydro Quebec. It was
an easy sell to a province that never got over the bad deal on the Upper
Churchill. Unfortunately, as the project has progressed and bits and pieces of
the truth about Muskrat Falls have been dragged out of politicians, it seems
like in our effort to screw Quebec, we sold the farm to Nova Scotia.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The premier came clean in the House of Assembly on March 9<sup>th</sup>,
telling the province that Emera’s share in the Labrador-Island-Link (LIL) had
risen from 29% to 59%. Ball was quick to shift the blame to the PC’s saying
that <span style="background: white; color: #333333;">"This was not my idea.
This was not the idea of anyone on this particular side of the house."
While that might be true, it still doesn’t explain why it took a premier who
campaigned on openness and transparency 16 months to let the people of the
province know that they wouldn’t even own a majority share of the LIL, despite
the fact that the ratepayers would be the ones covering the cost overruns.
Emera will enjoy an 8.8% return on their investment, with zero extra financial
risk to them, and all paid for out of your rising hydro bills.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">How could this happen? Well, as the
Uncle Gnarley blog has been saying for quite a long time, ratepayers in Nova
Scotia were protected by their public utility board, the UARB. The UARB ensured
that their stakeholders would get the best deal possible, and even sent Emera
back to the bargaining table to make sure that Nova Scotia would get a better
deal than the original 20/20 deal signed by Danny Williams. Our own PUB has had
no such oversight and has been shrouded in secrecy as far as Muskrat Falls is
concerned. As pointed out in <a href="http://unclegnarley.blogspot.ca/2017/03/emera-silently-building-their-own-nl.html">this </a>recent Uncle Gnarley post, the PUB didn’t
even have the terms reference to look at the Emera deal during their 2012
review.<br /><br />With Danny’s hand-picked puppet, Andy Wells, at the helm, the PUB has failed to
protect Newfoundland and Labrador ratepayers and has not offered any sort of
meaningful oversight for the Muskrat project at all. It will be interesting to
see if Wells will throw his hat into the ring for St. John’s mayor again this
fall. With Dannyland aka Galway nearing its initial opening dates, good King
Danny may need a puppet more in City Hall than at the PUB. Now that Dwight Ball
and Cathy Bennett have made it quite clear that it will be business as usual at
Nalcor, Danny can breath a sigh of relief, and Wells’ work at the PUB is done.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For an $800 Million dollar
investment, Emera will earn an annual profit of $70.4 million for at least 50
years. That should finally kill the myth that Dwight and all the premiers
before him have perpetuated that there will be profits for NL from Muskrat
energy. In case anyone out there is still confused, there will be NO profit
from the sale of Muskrat Falls power, other than what the rate payers will be
forced to pay each month on their electricity bills. Then Why didn’t the PUB
raise any alarms over such a deal? How could they have remained silent and
secretive when we were knowingly selling ourselves up the river in the name of
getting Muskrat built or bust. Sadly, it looks like even if it does ever get
built, it will still be a bust for the people of NL.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, if we can’t trust Nalcor or
government and we can’t trust the PUB, who do the people of NL have to turn to?
As good as the PC’s have been in the official opposition role, you will not
hear them ask any tough questions about Muskrat for obvious reasons. The NDP
have done a fairly good job of asking tough questions, but with such a small
caucus their attack is limited and their questions almost always get blown off
with spin by the premier and his ministers who know that they only have to be a
little long-winded and wait out the clock. Paul Lane has done an admirable job
of engaging the public and raising major issues in the media, but with limited
resources and no questions in question period, it has been difficult for him to
get the government to acknowledge the issues at hand when it comes to Nalcor
and Muskrat Falls. The Auditor General is currently investigating Nalcor, but
with only a small team and limited resources and no clear mandate from the
premier, it could take years just to go through the books, let alone all of the
other issues that deserve a look. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Where does that leave us? If people
want answers, they will need to stand up and demand them. They will need to
find a way to force the government into opening up Nalcor and the Muskrat Falls
project in particular. While many have been very vocal, many more seem to be
perfectly fine with allegations that could possibly include criminal acts, and
at the very least the squandering of billions from the provincial treasury. In
a recent poll, however, for the first time since it began, more people were
against Muskrat Falls than were for it. This proves that people are willing to
change their minds, when given a chance to look at the facts.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When Dwight Ball promised openness
and accountability for Nalcor, people expected more than just asking their
buddies at EY to do an expensive study on the cost. Why hasn’t the premier
opened things up and come clean with the people of the province? He is quick to
point fingers at the PC’s every chance he gets, but he has the power to reveal
the truth about Muskrat and he refuses to do so. Why? By opening it up and
showing the people the truth of the extent that we will be burdened by Muskrat
Falls, they might even be able to earn enough credibility to keep a couple of seats
in 2019. Instead, they have decided to keep us all in the dark and stay the
course set by the previous administration that they are always so quick to
blame.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">By now it seems common knowledge
that Dwight and Co. do not consider honesty and integrity to be part of their
job description. They are fully committed to the spin and no matter how many
times they say that they inherited the project, they can’t deny that they have failed
to take any meaningful action on the file since they took over the reins. If
they can lie or stay silent on things that are so obvious to so many, it leaves
people scratching their heads and wonder what else they might be hiding. It’s
time for the people to demand that the premier come clean.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-34636626600754844002017-03-02T08:20:00.000-08:002017-03-02T08:23:17.350-08:00The Funeral March<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Funeral March<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When Education and Early Childhood Development Minister,
Dale Kirby, publicly stated that any teacher cuts in this year’s budget would
be made “over my dead body,” most people rolled their eyes at the ministers
attempt to make it appear like he was finally ready to stand up for the
children of Newfoundland and Labrador. The very next day, we learned that Mr.
Kirby was already backtracking on that statement, and what he actually meant was that
there would be no change to the teacher allocation formula, but that there was
still a possibility of more job losses for teachers.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Of course, Kirby was not literally talking about his own
dead body, he was talking about the death of his career. As a long -time advocate for
education, Dale Kirby became known for being stubborn and voters had assumed
that after four years on the opposition side criticizing education policies,
that he would be a good man to get our system back on track. Nobody could have
predicted that Kirby would quickly cut education in this province to the bone,
a term that was a favourite of his when in opposition. He is already feeling the heat, and he knows that further cuts to education will certainly hasten the end of his time in our House of Assembly.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nothing was spared in education last spring. Teacher cuts, busing cuts,
library cuts, and child care cuts were all offered up as part of Cathy’s
directive to trim 30% from each budget. The provincial child care budget alone
took a 16% cut in funding, just months after Kirby had ridiculed former
minister Clyde Jackman at a public child care forum where he promised
investment, not cuts. I’m sure that everyone understands that the province is
in a tough place, but when you make a career out of advocating for better
education and then when you finally have the chance to make a difference, your first act is to make dramatic cuts, people are going to question your credibility. Kirby has continued to defend his actions by blaming the opposition whenever a serious question is asked of him and has refused to take responsibility for any actions or comments he has made. All of this has elevated him to the same level of disdain that people have for the premier and the finance minister.<br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If you read my last post, you would know that credibility is
a big problem for our government. With the House of Assembly open again, the Liberals have continued to
dodge questions and dance around the issues, all the while pointing the finger
of blame back at the opposition side every single time a serious issue is
raised. Dwight Ball continues to throw his own credibility under the bus by
maintaining his Ed Martin story, and Cathy Bennett maintains that her fiduciary
responsibility to Nalcor, a crown company owned by the people, trumps her
responsibility to protect the people of the province by providing pertinent
information to government about the corporation. If that was indeed the case
legally, then why was Bennett ever appointed as a minister in the first place?
How can we have a finance minister that stated publicly that her first
responsibility is to the Nalcor board and not the people of this province that she was elected to
represent?<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Politics is a world built on trust. You don’t always have to
make the most popular decisions, as long as the people feel that you are being
honest with them. Governments in this province and elsewhere have quite often
been able to get themselves out of trouble by coming clean with the people and
providing a clear plan of action. For this government, it seems to be more about duck and
cover and one-way communication. Trust does not seem to be a matter of concern
as the tendency has been to not be honest until evidence is presented that
forces them to acknowledge the truth. Even when faced with blatant facts, such
as in the recent Auditor General’s report into Ed Martin’s severance, they
continue to go with their own story, despite the fact that everyone in the
province knows that they are not being honest.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Trust is something that when broken, is very hard to get
back. Most governments realize this, and work very hard to ensure that those
values shine through in their interaction with the people. In our case,
government has failed at every turn to be upfront and honest, or to provide us
with a clear plan of what their intentions are. The Way Forward is a lovely document, but one that is very short on details and facts, and even when they make
announcements that sound positive, hard facts are always left out in favour of
spin and fluff. Even after all of the public outrage and backtracks in the past
year, they still can’t manage to come out and have a real conversation with the
people about the issues.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Despite the millions spent in communications, it seems like
every single time a government member opens their mouth, something comes out
wrong. This is a tell-tale sign that the decision makers in this province are
not in tune with the wants and the needs of the people of this province. People
are tired of the same old political games. They want the real change they were
promised and they want their elected officials to listen to them. Kirby’s “over
my dead body” quip has been a gold mine for cartoonists, media, and bloggers,
but it does raise the issue that there will likely be many “dead bodies” of political
careers after the next election. Cue The Funeral March…</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-62911074871626385962017-02-22T04:23:00.000-08:002017-02-22T04:34:20.685-08:00Credibility<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Credibility<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">cred·i·bil·i·ty<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i><span style="color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">noun</span></i><span style="color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">the quality of being trusted and believed in.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
Our great sage and eminent premier, Dwight Ball, could have saved himself a
whole lot of trouble if he had just told the truth last spring. Would anyone
really have been that angry if he had told us that his government did not have
confidence in Ed Martin’s leadership? Would we have flipped a lid if he told us
that the cost of the severance paid to the former Nalcor CEO would be justified
by putting the Muskrat Falls project in the hands on a man who actually had a
lifetime of experience in building hydro dams? It would have been so easy for
the premier to say something along those lines. There still would have been
backlash at the amount of the severance, but the whole issue would have quickly
faded away and been forgotten. Instead, Ball decided against the easy route and withheld
the truth about what he knew and when he knew it, which has led to this issue
dragging on for nearly a year.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let’s start right back from the press conference held on
April 20<sup>th </sup> 2016, when it was announced that Ed Martin was resigning as
CEO. The official story was that Martin was leaving because he wanted to spend
more time with his grandchildren. The government was more than happy to prop up
a make-believe press conference to tell the public that all was well and there
was nothing to worry about. It was Ed Martin’s decision all the way. Despite
what we were told that day, it is clear from the Auditor Generals report that the
“facts” offered by both Martin and Ball on April 20<sup>th</sup> were not
entirely factual after all. Let’s take a quick look at a few points of
contention:<br />
<br />
Even though both men said that the decision was Martin’s, Terry Paddon
concluded as the #2 summary point in his report that “Mr. Martin did not
initiate any of the resignation provisions of his Executive Employment
Agreement by giving the required notice.” During the April 20<sup>th</sup>
press conference, it was made quite clear that the decision to leave was Martin’s.<br />
<br />
Summary point #7 indicates that during a meeting on April 18<sup>th</sup>, Stan
Marshall had agreed to accept the position of Nalcor CEO. Remember that during
the press conference on April 20<sup>th</sup>, Ball said that they had not
spoken to any potential replacements for the CEO job. <br />
<br />
Point #10 indicates that “Mr. Martin had no intention to voluntarily resign as
CEO of Nalcor energy. Again, if Martin had no intention to resign, why did he
say that he was retiring?<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Point #17 says that the Board Minutes and the Settlement
Agreement were constructed in a manner to ensure consistency between what the
Board understood to have occurred at the April 19, 2016 meeting and the
provisions of the Employment Agreement. The Board understood the Premier had
terminated Mr. Martin’s employment and that severance payments would apply. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In Paddon’s own words:<br />
<br />
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;">"In the April 19, 2016 meeting, the
Premier stated that he could not put the confidence behind public support for
Mr. Martin and his team.” "This statement by the Premier was
incompatible with the continued employment of Mr. Martin as the CEO of Nalcor."</span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">All discussion of the severance aside, it is very clear from
the auditor generals report and past statements by both Martin and Ball,
that the real story of Martin’s departure was much different than the one both
sides had agreed to give to the media. Martin wanted public support from
government and Ball was not willing to provide it. They both agreed that Martin
would leave on his own terms and take a little golden handshake on the way out.
No harm, no foul. What Ball didn’t realize is that he was walking straight into
a set-up and he had no idea that he was about to get his first real taste of
political blood-sport. The board never received a formal resignation from
Martin, and after the premiers press conference they decided to use that fact
to terminate the contract without cause and promptly resign en-masse. Ethical?
Certainly not. Legal? Absolutely. This would entitle Martin to receive the
maximum severance and ensure that Ball was exposed for not being honest during
the April 20<sup>th</sup> press conference.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Despite the underhandedness of the boards decision, this was
a golden opportunity for Ball and the Liberals to shift the focus away from
themselves and onto the Nalcor board and the PC’s. Ball could have capitalized
on the board decision and taken the whole severance issue out of his own hands
and right back into the oppositions lap. Instead he decided to continue to
withhold the truth and allowed Paul Davis to preform like a master opposition
leader as he grilled the premier on his inconsistent statements. Instead of
taking an opportunity to deflect the issue to the other side, Ball allowed
Davis to shine during question period and in the media, while he himself
continued to shed credibility by refusing to acknowledge the truth that everyone
else already knew.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">All of this left the premier in a very tough spot. He likely
realized that he had gotten himself caught up in a web of spin and half-truths
that he really had no business being involved in, and began to search for an
easy way out. He first called in the Department of Justice and asked them to
investigate the matter. I filed an access to information request for the
subsequent report, but my request was denied. After justice had concluded their
investigation the matter was then turned over to the Auditor General to
determine if the severance paid out to Martin was appropriate. Unfortunately,
the terms of reference for the AG were very narrow, and only dealt with the appropriateness
of the severance. He was never asked to investigate why there were so many
inconsistencies between the official story offered by the government and the information that came out after the fact.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The problem with not being honest, especially for a politician,
is that once you get caught up, the only way out is to keep up the lie. Even
after the Auditor General’s report made it very clear that Ball knew more than
he said he knew, the premier continues to stick with the story that Martin
resigned. When speaking with media yesterday, Ball continued his line that
Martin left voluntarily, despite the information provided in the AG report.
Even though he would not come right out and say it, his words indicated that he
did not accept Paddon’s conclusion that Martin’s departure as CEO was constructive
dismissal. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">Paul Davis quickly jumped on Ball
for continuing to call Martin’s departure voluntary. He says that with that
claim, the premier is rejecting the Auditor General’s findings. It seems that
even after a report that let him off easy, the premier is unwilling to
acknowledge any error on his or his governments part and continues to stay the
course, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against his case.</span><br />
<br />
The issue for most people was never the appropriateness of the severance
package. We all knew that even though it smelled really bad, Martin was likely
legally entitled to it if he was indeed terminated without cause. The real
issue for most of us is: why was the premier not honest with us?<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let’s be very clear. The severance package and the
termination were not Dwight Balls doing. It was entirely the work of Martin and
the Nalcor board in response to the scathing words from Cathy Bennett during
her budget speech last spring. Ball had several opportunities to wash his hands
of the matter and let the folks on the board who orchestrated the entire fiasco
take responsibility. Instead, nice guy Dwight decided to protect those who
would drive the knife in his back, even at the expense of his political
credibility.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Credibility. That is the word that really is at the heart of
this story. When your political leaders fail to be honest, they lose their
credibility. This is especially true when it is so blatantly obvious that Ball
didn’t have to lie. He was the victim in the story and he had nothing to hide. The
set up was so obvious that he only had to be honest and let the blame fall at
someone else’s feet. All he had to do was let the public know the truth and let
the chips fall as they may. His choice to deliberately mislead us has led to a
total lack of trust for the government, and himself as premier. When you lie to
the people about the little things, they can’t help but assume that you will
lie about the big things as well. <br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dwight Ball is hoping that the Auditor General’s report will
make this story go away, but I have a feeling he is going to be in for a rough
ride when the House of Assembly opens next week. You can bet that both
opposition parties are already sharpening the knives and will be ready to take
a stab at Ball over this issue every chance they get. It makes me wonder how long
Ball will continue to stick to his story, even in the face of mounting evidence
against it. We all know how quickly things can go downhill when a politician
loses credibility in NL…</span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">You can read the Auditor General's report here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ag.gov.nl.ca/ag/special/EdMartinReport2017.pdf">http://www.ag.gov.nl.ca/ag/special/EdMartinReport2017.pdf</a></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832866413893493542.post-78805399792181319112017-02-20T03:40:00.000-08:002017-02-20T03:46:13.136-08:00Let's Talk About P3's<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let's Talk About P3's<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By: Ryan Young<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dwight Ball and his Liberal government recently made two
announcements regarding the construction of new healthcare facilities in
western Newfoundland, to be built and operated through public-private-partnerships
(P3’s). While many are happy with the announcements, and the prospect of brand
new facilities, others are not so sure, and have cast skepticism on both P3’s,
and Ball’s ability to get the deals done in a way that benefits the province
and not the private business owners.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the heart of the matter are a new 164 bed, acute care
hospital and 120 bed long-term care facility in Corner Brook. Both facilities
will be built at the same location and will offer a much-needed upgrade from
the current 217 bed Western Memorial Regional Hospital. Having lived in Corner
Brook, I can personally vouch for the poor condition of the existing hospital,
and it is no secret that we need more long-term care beds to serve an aging
population. The infrastructure is badly needed, but the question must be asked:
is the P3 model right for Newfoundland and Labrador?<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There has been much discussion from several different sides
on the merits of P3’s. Proponents claim that it is a great option to save the
government money and provide essential services without all of the up-front
capital costs. The labour movement claims that P3’s will take away good paying
public-sector jobs, decrease the quality of service, and cost the government
more money in the long run. And then there are the people who depend on the
facilities who just want to see the new hospital and long-term care center
built, no matter what model the government decides to use.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the most recent announcement regarding the new Corner
Brook Hospital, Premier Ball claimed that the province would save 7% on the
cost of the project using a P3 model. No specifics were given on the estimated
cost of the contract, nor were any details given on where the 7% figure came
from. How can you claim to be saving 7% when you don’t even yet know the cost
of the contract? Unless, of course, the deal is already done, and pushing
through the public eye is just an unfortunate hurdle that needs to be cleared. As
has become the norm, the government has failed to properly communicate the
details of their plan, and people are once again left scratching their heads
and wondering what it all means.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When I started digging a little deeper into P3’s in Canada,
things began to get murky. Organizations like the PPP Council, P3 Canada, and
our own NL Employers Council claim that with aging populations, higher debt
loads, and less federal funding for provincial governments, P3’s offer a
sensible alternative that can enable the construction and operation of
facilities and services that might not otherwise be able to fit in the budget
constraints of governments. The major selling points are that governments do
not pay for the assets until they are fully operational, contracts are paid out
long-term and include provisions for proper maintenance and quality of service,
and that the lifetime costs of the assets are known in advance, ensuring that
the taxpayers are not left on the hook for surprise overruns.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Flipping the other side of the coin, it is easy to find
evidence where the claims above have not exactly panned out. One of the terms
that keeps coming up in various studies and reports was “value for money.”
Policy documents supporting P3’s often showcase them as the best value for
money for governments. That claim has been disputed by evidence from reports
from across the country. In 2014 the Auditor General of Ontario that showed
that 74 P3’s in Ontario will cost the government over $8 Billion more than the
traditional procurement route. In British Columbia in 2014, their Auditor
General also concluded that the province will pay a higher cost on P3 projects
than if they had been procured through the public sector. Auditor Generals in
Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan have issued reports
regarding higher costs to governments when using the P3 model.<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In Nova Scotia, in particular, the Auditor General reported
that no credible evidence was provided that P3 schemes would save money, so
they had no choice but to conclude that the decision to use P3’s was an attempt
to hide debt. They also noted that no resources were allocated to monitor the
construction and operation of P3 schools in the province.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So where does that all leave us? While there are many
examples of where P3’s cost more money and were plagued with delays and
problems, many others have been completed on time and on budget and have been
providing acceptable levels of quality service. While the long-term costs of
these more successful projects will take time to become known, they suggest
that it is possible to use the model in a positive way that can be a benefit
instead of an extra burden. <br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That brings me to the concerns people have about this
government being able to do a good deal for us and not just sweeten the pot for
their business friends. Everyone knows the Liberals are desperate to get these
deals done and hopefully raise their profile a bit before the next election,
but will their desperation and haste lead to another bad deal for the province?
It is certainly hard to make a judgement on that as we don’t really have any
facts at all about the project and what any of the potential costs might be. As
much as Ball and the Liberals promised to deliver openness and transparency,
they are once again making plans in secret, with the public not privy to any of
the numbers.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I personally think that there is a place for P3’s in this
province based on our current fiscal situation and the advances in technology
and the internet, but I’m not entirely convinced that they should be utilized
for essential services such as health care. The evidence that we currently have
before us does not support the case that they will save money or improve
services. Maybe government has information that shows exactly that, but they
sure are not sharing it with us. <br />
<br />
Maybe the simple fact of the matter is that this in the ONLY way that these
facilities will be able to be built right now. If that is the case, the premier
should just be honest with the people and level with us on how it has to be. Instead
of selling us on imaginary 7% savings and giving assurances that this is the
best way to go, just tell us that the province is broke and if we want shiny
new facilities, this is the only choice we have. People may not like it, but I
guarantee that many more would respect the decision if they were told the
truth. More rhetoric and political spin around this issue wont help anything.
What we really need is for Dwight Ball to open his mouth and be honest with the
people on why this is the route we are choosing to go. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12883612183475783603noreply@blogger.com1