Fighting for the Fishery

Fighting for the Fishery

By: Ryan Young

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To sign the e-petition click this link:
https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-1054

Taking Money out of Politics

Taking Money out of Politics


By: Ryan Young 

When Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch raised the alarm last week on Newfoundland and Labradors political finance laws, most people in the province simply rolled their eyes. Political corruption and backscratching was so ingrained in the political culture here for so long that people take for granted that it’s just the way things work around here.
 
It’s no secret that in the golden days of Confederation, lucrative government contracts were reserved for those who supported the government and made regular campaign contributions. Things were so bad under Smallwood that some business owners would not even do business with someone if they were known to be a Tory. Certainly, there are many more safeguards in place these days, such as public tendering, to ensure these things no longer happen, but with the giant shadow of Muskrat Falls hanging over us all, people can’t help but wonder how much favor might have been curried for those Nalcor contracts that never had to go through the tender process.

Conacher went so far as to call our current system “legalized bribery.” Those are strong words, but it can’t be denied that we have the most relaxed rules in the country when it comes to the way we finance politics. There are currently no limits on who can donate to a party or how much they give. In the wake of the federal government announcing new rules for private “cash for access” fundraising events, Democracy Watch thinks that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be more concerned about their own system.

"What everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador should realize is the system is the scandal, and the system is corrupt," said Conacher.

"You may not see a particular scandal where you will be able to connect a donation exactly to the handing out of the contract, but overall that system is corrupting decision making."

Premier Dwight Ball has a different view. He is satisfied with the way things are currently done because the donations are publicly posted for everyone to see, even if those reports are often a year or two behind schedule before they are published. Ball insists that he does not look at the Liberal donation list when making government decisions. Of course, when he was running for leader of the Liberal party, Ball was a supporter of reform and wanted caps on political donations. Now that he has the power to make the changes, he seems to have lost the appetite. It is not hard to see why so many people are cynical and find it so easy to believe that the whole system is corrupt.

Independent MHA, Paul Lane, began calling on the government last summer to implement a number of democratic reforms, including campaign finance reform. He insists that far too much money is spent on marketing candidates and that the amount of money a candidate can spend should be greatly reduced. In light of the recent revelations by Democracy Watch, Lane told Pete Soucy on VOCM that he will continue to advocate for reform as we move towards the next election.

Democracy Watch has called for a ban on corporate and union donations and a limit of $100 per individual donation, similar to the rules in the province of Quebec. While some may argue that $100 is too low for a small province like Newfoundland and Labrador, the individual amount is not nearly as important as the removal of corporate and union donations. I wouldn’t hold my breath on the government making any meaningful change in their current mandate, but I have a feeling it will end up as an election issue in 2019, whether the Liberals want it to be or not. 

Paul Lane Wants Accountability for Nalcor

Paul Lane Wants Accountability for Nalcor

By: Ryan Young

In the spirit of openness and accountability, Independent MHA Paul Lane is calling for the Auditor General to complete a full investigation into Nalcor. According to Lane, the people of the province have lost faith in their crown energy corporation and it will take nothing short of total disclosure to start earning it back.

In addition to calling for a full investigation into all of Nalcor’s activities, Lane is also looking for an investigation into all former board members to ensure that no conflicts-of-interest occurred during their tenure. That might be a tall order to expect the government to fill, since Finance Minister Cathy Bennett was chair of the Nalcor board in 2012 when the project was sanctioned. Paul Lane believes that a full investigation, including accountability, is the only way to restore the people’s faith in Nalcor.

Lane is also asking questions about why large bonuses were paid out to Nalcor executives despite the findings of the Liberty Report that concluded that the infamous DarkNL blackouts in 2014 were a direct result of negligence by Nalcor.

With all of the controversy surrounding the Ed Martin departure, the government had a great opportunity to open things up at Nalcor and regain some public trust. We all know how that went. Then the former chair of the board, Ken Marshall, started talking about gathering ammo against the government. If Dwight Ball had any cajones, he would have called in Terry Paddon right there and then, calling Marshall on his bluff and putting the actions of the board under the microscope. But as we all know, that didn’t happen and the premier has found himself mired in controversy and scandal. That moment was another perfect opportunity to seize back the power and to shift the public outrage back where it belongs, Nalcor. Instead Ball has decided to let the entire board and the CEO walk away with absolutely no accountability for their actions. Even worse for the government, he has allowed this new government to be dragged down into a boondoggle that they didn’t even create.

But why should we open up Nalcor to such scrutiny? Some would argue that what’s done is done and it is best to leave the past behind and look ahead. Generally, I agree with such sentiments, but in the wake of nearly $6 Billion in cost overruns, this blogger thinks it might be a prudent time to start looking at how we got here. When it became public that former CEO, Ed Martin, had lied about fixed-term contacts at Muskrat Falls, alarm bells should have been ringing and the premier’s office should have been taking a much closer look at the actions of the Nalcor brass. What else were we lied to about, and how much is it going to cost us?

Bringing in the Auditor General is not only a good move, it is the only move that this government has left to regain any credibility in the eyes of the people. The cloak and dagger politics of Muskrat Falls have reached a tipping point and the people want to know the truth. Sooner or later that truth will come out. Wouldn’t it be nice if it would come from the government themselves…

If you would like a hard copy of Paul Lane’s petition, please email roguebayman@gmail.com

The Great Defection

The Great Defection

By: Ryan Young

Some may call Paul Lane an opportunist, maybe even a political pariah, but no one should doubt his courage in the light of his announcement yesterday that he would be voting against the budget. Traditionally when a member of the government votes against a confidence motion such as a budget, they either resign or are booted from caucus. If he does not resign, he puts Dwight Ball in a very tough position. If Paul Lane is allowed to vote against the budget and remain in caucus, many others who toed the party line, perhaps at the expense of their future election prospects, will be very upset with the Premier and his leadership. Worst case scenario, it could lead to an all-out caucus revolt.

Now of course this is not the first time that Lane has been at odds with his own party. In January 2014 he resigned from his position as a backbencher with the former PC government due to a lack of confidence in the leadership of then premier Kathy Dunderdale.  The answer he gave for his decision then was much the same as the one he is giving now. His constituents told him that this was what he should do, and he listened. One can question the motives of Mr. Lane and others like him who cross the floor, but an MHA’s ultimate responsibility is to the people of their district. In that regard Paul Lane may be the most successful politician we have ever had. Lane hasn’t gone anywhere yet, but if he does cross the floor he will be the first person to ever do so twice. I don’t know if that is a good record or a bad one, but if nothing else it proves that Paul Lane is not afraid to go his own way.

So what does it all mean in the grand scheme of things? At this point it is too early to tell for sure, but we can expect that the Liberals will move to vote on the budget sooner rather than later. Paul Lane will be propped up as a champion of the people and be paraded in the media as a hero. If the other backbench MHA’s who are wearing down under the pressure see him getting so much praise, they might consider crossing the floor themselves. I have heard rumblings from several insiders who say that several MHA's have been weighing their options. If the budget vote does not happen fast, there may be more Liberal casualties as a result of this defection.

So where does Paul Lane go now? Back to the Tories may seem like a logical fit at first glance, but I don’t think that will happen. Even though he could probably un-burn that bridge, the current PC caucus does not seem like a natural fit for Lane. The NDP is also unlikely but perhaps not out of the realm of possibility. They would be certainly more than willing to accept him into the fold, but doing so may make it harder to get re-elected based on recent NDP results in Mount Pearl. More likely, he will sit as an independent, at least for now. There is no reason for him to rush his decision. There is no obvious successor to power as was the case when he left the PC caucus for the Liberals. By sitting as an independent he can buy himself time to do some soul-searching and gauge the will of the people in his district before making a final decision.

With a grassroots movement for change gaining momentum daily, Lane might be wise to wait it out and sit as an independent house insider for the ever growing numbers of people who are getting fed up with our revolving door party system. The pushback from the people for change has never been so hard and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a new, legitimate challenger appear before the next election.  If Paul Lane is really a man of his people, he might decide to go down that road and become a true champion of the grassroots. Anyone who has followed Paul’s career would know that he has always been a supporter of the “little guy.” An independent voice of the people in the House of Assembly might just be the perfect fit for him.  In any case, the voters of Mount Pearl South will not forget his decision to listen. They will likely remember his decision most at the voting box, just as they did last fall.

Finally, what does this mean for the Liberal Party? They will will pass it off as being no big deal to lose one member on such a controversial vote. They may even get away with it as long as Lane is the only one. If others start crossing with him, however, Dwight Ball might have a bigger problem on his hands than he bargained for. It would be unprecedented and extremely unlikely for him to lose the other ten MHA’s it would take to lose the government on a confidence vote, but once the floodgates open there is no telling what might happen. This is #nlpoli after all. The most likely scenario is that the Liberals might lose one or two more members before the dust settles on budget 2016, but ultimately most will continue to toe the party line and the budget will pass. If they had all remained united, the party might have even have been able to overcome this negative budget before the next election came around. Unfortunately, however, Paul Lane’s defection will serve as a constant reminder to the voters of how many MHA’s failed to listen and voted in favor of the budget.

*Author's Note (4:55pm May 19th, 2016) : Since this post was published, Paul Lane has been removed from the Liberal caucus and will now sit as an Independent MHA. For more visit: https://www.facebook.com/roguebayman/