Baseball Musings - A fan's Perspective

You can be a kid for as long as you play baseball - Cal Ripken

As another baseball season winds down – far too early for many Blue Jays fans - I find myself once again reflecting on the great game and why it draws me like a moth to a flame each season.  I confess that for me it’s an addiction bordering on clinical.  I also admit that my addiction can be, as it was this season, a painful one.  That said it’s also one I hope I never overcome.

On some level these mental musings are an annual recurrence, but these days they are also the result of a change in perspective that often comes with age.  Whatever the root, I’ve reached a point where, like others before me, I am convinced that referring to baseball simply as a sport is to do it a grave and unforgivable injustice.

Baseball isn’t just a sport or a game, nor is it simply a pass time or even a welcome diversion from the daily grind.  Yes it’s all of those things, but for anyone fortunate enough to see below the surface, baseball, at its finest, is far, far more than that.

This conviction renewed itself for me as I watched another so called “meaningless” game this past weekend.  It happened unexpectedly, as things often do in baseball, when second baseman Ryan Goins pull off the hidden ball trick.  While some observers viewed the move as childish, I instinctively knew that they had completely missed the point.  Not a surprise.

For me it wasn’t childish at all, it was childlike and there’s a huge difference. 

It was one more example of how, even as adults, we can sometimes channel our inner child.  If a major league player, with all that the job entails these days, can still have fun and can still play the game like a kid then there’s hope for all of us. 

From my perspective it was a beautiful moment, one of those gems that baseball so often presents.  It was a simple act yet it served to remind me that even when things seem at their most bleak, something positive and uplifting, even fun, can still happen, just as it can in life.

That play has been a favorite of kids on sandlots and community ball fields since the beginning of time but how often have we actually seen a major league player, an adult, do it?

In a flash, as I watched this play out on TV, I was transported back to my own childhood for one brief shining moment.  Once again I was standing in the warm sun.  I saw myself at the plate awaiting a pitch that I was convinced I would, but probably wouldn’t, make solid contact with.  In that moment I was reminded of going to my right to backhand a short hop and fire across the diamond to first.  What a feeling.

All this revealed itself to me as I watched a “childish” play unfold.  Suddenly I was reminded of the ability of baseball to keep us all young at heart even as we plod through the responsibilities and difficulties of daily life.

Other memories came back as well.  Memories of a time when, as a handful of 30 or 40 somethings, we decided one day that we wanted to whip together a local ball league and give the game one more whirl.  No amount of time was spent planning this adventure or worrying about details.  We felt like kids again and just like kids we simply wanted to play ball.  That was all that mattered.  A few phone calls later and we were running the bases again.

At the field balls and bats appeared from countless duffle bags and backpacks as if by magic, and here’s the kicker, everyone, every single person, younger and older, male and female alike, all had their own gloves at the ready.  Think about that, people who had not played ball in years, decades in some cases and many who had never played any sort of organized ball, still had their trusty old gloves ready to go.  It was that easy to get a game going and it was amazing.

The importance of that little peak into the human psyche didn’t register with me at the time, but it does today.  It whispers to me about the magic of this game.  How special it really is.

Anyone fortunate enough to have ever played, ask yourself, who throws out their baseball glove when they stop playing?  I still have mine.  I haven’t run the bases in over 20 years but I know exactly where it is in my closet.  I know I’m not alone.

At ballparks across North America fans can been seen in the stands wearing their glove in the hope of catching a foul ball or homerun.  By and large those aren’t newly purchased gloves fans are wearing, they are cherished memories stitched from leather.  Our gloves are special to us because the game is so special.  At some level, whether consciously or subconsciously, we all know this to be true. 

We know instinctively that for every ball that old glove has trapped in the past, or missed for that matter, the most important thing it caught and still holds safely in its pocket is something far more important.  It serves as a reminder of our youth and of a game that was, and is, much more than just a game. That worn old piece of leather is a tangible, physical reminder of so many things.

Baseball keeps us young at heart.  It’s also one of life’s great teachers and in many ways it truly is a metaphor for life.

Baseball, by its nature, teaches us about success and failure.  It teaches us about pride, humility, frustration, joy and sadness.  It allows us to experience, if only fleetingly, unbelievable happiness or crushing defeat.  We learn all of this in a way that permits us to experience these valuable life lessons safely within the confines of a ballpark on a warm summer day.

Consider that even the best hitters in the game fail far more often than they succeed.  Consider as well that the best pitchers can dominate a game one day only to be rocked and sent to the showers the next time out. We’ve all seen it.  Some of us have lived it.

What other game is so fundamentally an individual sport wrapped inside a team sport?  You win or lose as a team without a doubt, but more often than not the game exists and is played on an individual level.

Baseball teaches us the importance of working as a team while understanding that more often than not we have only ourselves to depend on when it matters most.  It teaches us that we are largely responsible for our own success or failure, all the while carrying a certain responsibility of our role in the success or failure of those around us.  Baseball teaches us these lessons with every missed catch, with every strikeout and with a little luck every crack of the bat when one is perfectly squared up.

Baseball also teaches us to think.  The game is as much about what’s between the ears as it is about pure skill or athleticism on the field.  Baseball differs from most other sports in both pace and design of the game.  While other sports tend to move past at the speed of a runaway freight train baseball unfolds in a far more contemplative fashion.

Every advance in play lends itself to re-calculation and planning.  It allows the time to unveil new opportunities and to present a wealth of options for both the offense and defense to alter their future fate.  It also allows, thankfully, for the mental machinations of countless “managers” relishing every moment from the bleachers.

While most other sports are akin to checkers, baseball, as has been said by others, is far more comparable to a masterful game of chess.  A chess game played out on soft green grass and under a bright blue sky.

Consider how many times during a game we are reminded that even if the odds are stacked against us we can, if we persevere, find a way to come out on top.  We learn that lesson each time a batter steps to the plate, badly outnumbered and staring down 9 opponents hoping to stand between him and success.

Baseball is a place where even the least likely individual can be a hero on any given day and where the best in the game can fall far short of expectation.

A place where failure is commonplace but success and victory can, and sometimes is, snatched directly from the jaws of defeat.

We all participate in this game, either actively on the field or passively in our seats, without ever knowing how long it will last.  The game itself, as it is with life, carries us on a journey for as long as is necessary to come to its inevitable yet unknown conclusion.  It isn’t governed by arbitrary deadlines.  It doesn’t suddenly stop at a predetermined point in time or with a predetermined result.  The game is far too important for that.

Baseball is a place where hope lives for as long as that final out has yet to be recorded in the books and for as long at the grass continues to grow beneath a player’s feet.  Just as in life.

Nelson Mandela - A bright light for the world - Dead at 95

It is with great despair that we mourn the loss of Nelson Mandela tonight.  A light and inspiration to the world.  May his life, respect, dignity and moral strength continue to show us the way.

God bless and God speed. 

Mr. Mandela's life may have come to an end but his light remains bright in those who remember.

Lest We Forget - A Pittance of Time

Web Talk hasn't been very active of late.  To be more precise I, as the host, have been on a break from the sometimes all consuming effort it takes to tilt at our province's many windmills.

That said, I'd be remiss if I didn't take a moment to honour our deserving veterans.

If you'd like to take a few moments as well please click the link below.  It will take just a couple of minutes from your day but I believe it's well worth the time: to remember.

Pittance of Time (please click)

If you are also disgusted with the treatment of our poorer veterans who, if they make more than 12K or so a year, are denied funding for a decent funeral, let you MP know how you feel.  A link to MP contact info is available on the left hand side of this site, or you can contact Veteran's Affairs at:

information@vac-acc.gc.ca


Lest we Forget...

Newfoundland & Labrador Remembers Lanier Phillips

This week marks the sad passing of a great Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Mr. Lanier Phillips, who passed away on Monday at the age of 88.


Lanier Phillips’ may have arrived on this planet via rural Georgia but by all accounts his mental and spiritual beginnings, with all of the pain and suffering that often accompanies child birth, happened nearly two decades later on the rocky shores of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Near the small towns of St. Lawrence and Lawn the Lanier Phillips known to his family and friends for the first18 years of his life ceased to exist and the man he would later become was ushered into life.

On an icy night in February of 1942 two American destroyers, the Truxtun and Pollox, broke apart in the North Atlantic on the coastline of Newfoundland and Labrador. 203 young men died. 186 survived, including Lanier Phillips, thanks to the selfless efforts of local residents who risked their lives to scale the jagged, windswept and icy cliffs to bring them to safety.

Badly injured, frostbitten and unconscious, Phillips, like so many others, was taken into a local home and given the best care the residents could provide.

Mr. Phillips often recalled how he awoke to hear one of his caregivers tell another lady in attendance how worried she was. She said she had scrubbed and scrubbed but couldn’t get the black crude oil out of his skin.

Perhaps the moment that made the most lasting impression on Mr. Phillips came after he told the woman his colour wasn’t a result of the ship’s oil but of nature itself. She had never seen an African American.

The shocking thing, for Lanier Phillips, was that her reaction was one of immediate relief for his well being rather than one of repulsion or disgust as he might have expected. He was amazed that this realization he was not white changed nothing for his rescuers. For weeks the local people continued to care for him, as well as the other survivors, like they were family.

As a recent Washington Post story put it:

“The woman cradled Lanier W. Phillips's head in her arm as if he were a baby, gently feeding the shipwrecked sailor hot soup she had brewed to help save his life.

"Swallow," she said gently. "Swallow."

“Phillips could scarcely believe what was happening: a white woman caring for a black man as if he were her son. Back home in Georgia, he thought, she could have been run out of town, and he could easily have been lynched.”

Although the difficult task faced by the people of St. Lawrence and Lawn in rescuing and caring for the victims of that shipwreck is a story worth telling, it is the profound impact on Lanier Phillips himself, brought about by a simple act of kindness, which is so inspiring.

As an African American, from a poor Southern family, and raised in the early part of the 20th century Mr. Phillips witnessed first hand the raw, brutal and disgusting reality of the openly racist practices so common at the time.

It was an era when lynching, cross burning and whipping were commonplace. It was a time when schools and churches attended by African Americans were burned on a regular basis. When walking through a door in a public building could get you beaten or even killed simply for being born the “wrong” colour.

Until his rescue that night this was the reality Lanier Phillips recognized as his lot in life. He never doubted that his life would be one of bowing and scraping in gratitude on those rare occasions when good fortune might come his way. He clearly must have believed, and with good reason, that his life would be a hard and unforgiving one. A life in which success would be measured, not by his accomplishments, but by how long he could survive.

Just as surely as a newborn is nursed and cared for as it gains strength, thanks to the caring actions of his rescuers, Lanier Phillips was welcomed into a new world. A world he had not previously known existed. A world where everything suddenly seemed possible and where he would no longer be willing to settle for less than his abilities, personality and intellect demanded. A world where he knew he was just as valuable as anyone else, regardless of his skin colour.

In the decades that followed Mr. Phillips would often refer to that experience as the catalyst for changing his entire life. At public gatherings, schools and events across North America he spoke eloquently of the people who cared for him and who never looked upon him differently simply because his skin was not the same as their own.

Lanier Phillips would later become the U.S. Navy’s first African American sonar technician at a time when being a man of colour meant he was seen as inferior and best suited to supporting “regular” Navy personnel as a steward or cook rather than along side them as an equal. While Caucasians in the Navy served their Country African Americans, by and large, were expected to serve other sailors.

Phillips became an advocate for equal rights and eventually went to work for NASA as a technician in its space program.

In the more than 60 years that followed Lanier Phillips never forgot the kind actions that opened his eyes to a brighter future and he spoke often of his deep love and affection for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Before his passing Mr. Phillips visited the Province many times to share his experiences with new generations and to support local educational causes. Always a stellar ambassador for Newfoundland and Labrador he was, and is, well loved throughout the Province by those privileged enough to have known him personally and those who know of his story.

In his latter days Mr. Phillips was given an honorary Degree from Memorial University and most recently, on the 70th anniversary of the shipwreck that changed his life, he was presented with an Honorary Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Province’s highest award.

As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian I believe the tokens of appreciation the Province have bestowed upon Lanier Phillips, for his generous nature and inspiring life, were not only fitting but were in fact the very least we, as a people, could have done.

With his passing this week I can only hope that the public has the passion and resolve to do far more in his memory. As much as Lanier Phillips believed his life was inspired by his time in Newfoundland and Labrador, so to have many other lives been blessed by the inspiration he provided.

Such a wonderful person, such an exceptional Newfoundlander and Labradorian, as Lanier Phillips should never be forgotten.

Harper Government Reaches All Time Canadian Low

Let’s just say it. The Harper government, in this writer’s opinion, is the most underhanded, legally deviant, ethically underdeveloped and morally bankrupt in Canadian history.

If you think that statement is over the top, read on, the facts speak for themselves.

Most Canadians in the course of the daily lives may have heard of some of the odd “happenings” here and there over the past few years such as a Minister stepping out of line or a Bill causing some controversy. That’s all well and good but each of those incidents taken on their own don’t add up to much. It isn’t until you view the broad spectrum of distasteful activity undertaken by the Harper government that a patter of lies, deceit and corruption truly begins to emerge, a smoking gun if you like.

Chose the adjective you prefer but I believe my opinion of this government is nothing more than appropriate. What else could you call a political party – and reigning government – that:

Is willing to break election laws by using money laundering as a means of winning an election (In and Out - 2006 election);

Is under investigation for allegedly misleading opposition supporters by claiming to represent Elections Canada and sending them to non-existent polling stations in an effort to prevent them from casting their ballot; and for placing calls to voters during the last election claiming to represent the opposing parties, calls that were intentionally rude and specifically timed to alienate voters;

Posted monitoring staff at polling stations during the last that were described as “aggressive” and who challenged the right of individuals to vote if they appeared to be of a certain ethnic or social background more likely to support another party.

So, what would you call them, and those are just the illegal and immoral election techniques the public is learning about. What else has been done that we may never know?

The immoral and unethical sludge that courses through the veins of Mr. Harper’s band of thieves & despots doesn’t stop there.

A quick review of just a few highlights from their time in power serves to drive home the realization that this party will stop at nothing to meet their objectives, regardless of the consequences or the legality. It also shows how widespread the immorality extends among the ranks of the Conservative government.

Bill C-30, introduced by Public Safety Minster Vic Toews:

The public recently forced the Harper government to rethink the content of Bill C-30 but there’s no guarantee it will improve much after a review by a Conservative controlled committee.

The Bill would give government the ability to spy on ordinary Canadians, without a warrant, even if those individuals were never involved in a crime or even suspected of one.

Having the RCMP or CSIS spy on Canadians without a warrant as part of a police investigation is bad enough but C-30 hands that ability to the Minister in charge or to “anyone” he appoints under circumstances of his choosing.

Based on the tactics already connected to the Conservatives during the election process one has to wonder who might be given the authority to investigate private online activities and just how much of the information gathered would be used for criminal investigations versus the amount used by the Conservative’s in targeting voters in an effort to win future elections.

As spying on law abiding Canadians isn’t bad enough, C-30 also denies Canadians the right to ever know if they’ve been spied upon and forces them to pay for that spying (with their tax dollars) while also shouldering the cost to service providers through increased internet and telephone rates.

The Omnibus Crime Bill (several Ministers had a hand in this one) purports to be “Tough on Crime”. That statement makes a great bumper sticker and it might be an example of sharp political grandstanding that appeals to Conservative supporters but what does the Bill actually mean for Canadians?

First of all it will mean automatic multi-year sentences for someone growing a few pot plants in their home. Sure it’s illegal, but is it reasonable for someone in possession of 6 pot plants to automatically be sentenced to several years in prison under the pretext that they’re somehow connected to organized crime.

On a personal level most conservative minded people may not care one whit what happens to a small time pot grower but they may want to consider the impact to their wallets. Most provincial courts and prison facilities are already at their limit and police are not called the “thin” blue line for nothing.

The courts are blocked and the cells are overcrowded. Does automatically handing a small time pot grower a multi-year sentence (in some cases longer than a person convicted of interfering with a child) actually make sense?

The Harper government is well aware of the implications of their crime bill. The workload for police will grow, Courts will be clogged, prisons will overflow and Provincial budgets will be stretched to the breaking point when they are forced to shoulder massive increases in costs they can’t afford to cover. To pay the additional cost most Province’s will have to either borrow money, sending them into deficit, or increase taxes.

By the way, in case you’re not paying attention, the taxpayers who pay federal taxes, which Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party so proudly say they are against increasing, are the same ones who pay the Provincial taxes that will have to be increased.

On the subject of the Conservative government championing lower taxes, who do you think will pay for Mr. Harper’s unilateral decision to limit federal health care spending at a time when an aging population is putting more and more strain on the system? The Province’s of course (deficit or higher taxes, aren’t those really the only options presented by Finance Minster Jim Flaherty?).

Speaking of the elderly, since gaining power the Harper government has changed the method of payment for the Canada Pension Plan, meaning less income for those who collect at age 60 rather than 65, than ever before. Never mind that the CPP is 100% paid for by employees and employers rather than the government or that the plan is fully funded and sound, the changes were quietly made anyway.

When it comes to aging Canadians there’s no limit to the Harper government’s scorn, any more than there is to their immoral acts during an election.

In recent weeks Prime Minister Harper himself has indicated that he plans to cut the cost of Old Age Security and, as a result, the cost of the Guaranteed Income Supplement which goes only to the poorest Canadians. Their most likely approach, based on the government’s refusal to deny it, is to increase the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 even though financial analysis shows that such a change isn’t necessary to sustain the program during a temporary bump in cost and that the move will result in more seniors slipping into poverty.

Not only would increasing the age of eligibility make it harder, if not impossible, for poorer workers in Canada to retire at 65 (the change will have little or no impact on the most wealthy) but once again the provinces will have to pick up additional expenses in order to fill the gap during those 2 years for anyone living on social assistance or who is unable to physically continue to work after 65.

Once again the Conservative “low tax” mantra is little more than another underhanded attempt to secure votes from uninformed Canadians while shifting the financial burden to the Provincial tax level. An approach that ultimately means more costs will fall back on the shoulders of tax payers..

With this Government we are seeing a widespread intensity of deceit, deception deviance never before witnessed in Canada.

The misdirection of “border security funding” to a Minister’s riding for his pet projects; (Minister Tony Clement, later placed in charge of federal purse strings as head of the Treasury Board)

A Minister of Defence who uses military aircraft as a personal taxi and tasks military personnel and resources to dig up dirt on opposition members; (Minister Peter MacKay)

A Prime Minister who claims it is standard practice for one of his Ministers to alter the intent of official documents after they’re signed by officials; (Minister Bev Oda)

Standing by a Minister who made jokes and laughed with cohorts about who might die during a nation wide outbreak of food poisoning that killed many innocent victims (Minister Gerry Ritz);

Using information gained by accessing a veteran’s personal medical files as a tool to discredit that veteran and his attempt to shed light on the inadequacies of a government agency (Minister Greg Thompson);

Party wide verbal assaults on any government official, or member of the public, who disagrees with the Harper agenda including the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Chief Nuclear Regulator, Food Safety Inspectors and anyone disagreeing with Bill C-30 (“…standing with Child Molesters” – Minister Vic Toews);

Stacking the Senate (which the party claims to want to reform) with Conservative operators, some of which are believed to have been directly involved in the election activities of the party (PM Harper) - not the least of which individuals involved in the In and Out scam and Mike Duffy, who, after CTV agreed not to air specific footage, did so anyway to belittle Liberal Leader Stephan Dion and who provided supposedly impartial media commentary on the election immediately prior to his Senate appointment;

Or how about the Conservatives setting up an unelected Conservative “Member’s” office in a riding held by an MP from another party all in an effort to undermine that MP and usurp his position with constituents.

No doubt this last action is a sneak preview of the activities that will take place during the next election campaign as it serves to help the Conservatives steal the riding the next time around. After all, if a voter in the riding has a problem with a government program who are they most likely to seek help from, their duly elected representative in opposition or someone planted there who they are led to believe has the ear of the ruling party and perhaps Mr. Harper himself?

The preceding is just a short, off the top of the head list of the reasons for my profound belief that we have now entered a new low in Canadian politics thanks to the Harper brand of Conservatism. There are many other examples, enough to fill volumes and all of it leaves little doubt that future political observers will look back on Stephen Harper in the same way Americans now view George W. Bush, as the most despised leader in his Nation’s history.

Richard Nixon’s Watergate was a single illegal act and as sleazy as it was it pales in comparison to what’s happening every day in Canada.

If all of this isn’t enough to convince the 39% of Canadians who voted Conservative in the last election that the Harper government is indeed the most short-sighted, underhanded, legally deviant and morally bankrupt government in Canadian history, then all I can say is:

Either you’re with me on this or you’re with the Child Molesters (sorry, my mistake) with the Harper government.

Fight cuts to Search and Rescue / Support Burton Winters

The following post was originally published on Sue Kelland Dyer's blog.  Sue and I don't always agree on the political situation in Newfoundland and Labrador, or in Canada for that matter, but this is a case where we definately see eye to eye and I hope Web Talk readers can as well.  Please visit the facebook site: Support for Burton Winters and show your support for Burton and the people of NL who depend on Search and Rescue for their lives. 

Let Newfoundlanders and Labradorians (and all Canadians) Worldwide Unite for Burton

There is a movement in Newfoundland and Labrador and it involves the loss of a young man's life from Makkovik.

It is the belief of our people that this young man did not have to die on the ice - trying to get home.

On Facebook there is a Group called "The Burton Winters' Rescue Center IN Labrador".

Our people are uniting and we need the voice of EVERY Newfoundlander and Labradorian as well as support from people in all Northern and Maritime jurisdictions.

Please remember Burton as the young man who walked 19 km's on the ice - bravely to try and find his way home. Please remember Burton by joining this group and its call for action.

Sue's original Post available at: http://nlpost.blogspot.com/2012/02/let-newfoundlanders-and-labradorians.html

OAS Changes will Cause Aboriginals & Poor to Die Sooner

Part 3 in a series on potential Old Age Security (OAS) changes.

That's right increasing the age of eligibility for Old Age Security will disproportionatly affect the poorest Canadians and those of Aboriginal descent, in fact it may even cause them to die years earlier than they would otherwise.

Who will suffer the most the age of eligibility for Old Age Security is raised from 65 to 67 or even higher? That’s the question I’ll try to shed some light on today.


Of course anyone already receiving OAS won’t be affected. If you believe the governing Conservatives, those close to 65 (nobody knows how close) won’t be either, but beyond that everyone who expects to makes less than a 100+ thousand a year after retirement will assuredly be affected.

With the state of company sponsored pensions and RRSPs, the high debt levels in Canada and the level of unemployment in various parts of the Country are any indication that’s likely to mean a very large portion of Canada’s population will be in serious trouble as they age.

For some it may mean having to work an additional 2 years (or whatever the number turns out to be).

Working longer may be an inconvenience for those in good health with white collar occupations but it might be a major problem for blue collar workers in physically demanding jobs. I sure wouldn’t want to be climbing around a construction site or loading tractor trailers late into my sixties, especially if my joints were already fighting back from years of abuse.

Even those lucky enough to have company pensions may feel the heat. What would happen if (as an example) it was decided to raise the age of qualification for anyone more than 5 out, in other words anyone under 60. What would happen to someone who retired already, say at 55 with a small company pension and enough savings to supplement their income until 65 when they expected to collect OAS?

Most company pension plans are designed to be clawed back by a substantial amount once a retiree reaches 65. If that happens what would an existing retiree do for income when his company pension is reduced and he or she still doesn’t qualify for OAS?

For some things might get pretty rough. It could mean less money after retirement to cover the cost of luxuries such as groceries, rent medications or heat. That’s bad enough but it could be worse…

What if the changes made you die sooner than you would have otherwise? Think it can’t happen, think again.

Many individuals can make arguments for leaving the age as it is but beyond the standard concerns across Canada there are two groups who could be hit pretty hard by a rise in the age of qualification.

The poor and Aboriginals

The Harper government claims that because people live longer today than they did in the 1960’s, when the qualification age was set at 65, something has to be done to offset this extended lifespan.

The average Canadian is indeed enjoying a longer life today but what he neglects to say is that the poorest Canadians and those of Aboriginal descent tend to die much younger than the average. This means that a rise in the age of eligibility will disproportionately penalize those groups by taking more money from their pockets than from anyone else. So much for Canadian equality.

Old Age Security - By the Numbers

Part 2 of a series of commentaries on proposed chnages to the Canadian Old Age Security program.

OAS Changes – By the Numbers


If Ottawa increases age of eligibility for Old Age Security (OAS) from 65 to 67, forcing a large part of the population to continue working further into their so called “golden years” what will the impact be?

In an effort to understand the potential impacts lets assume the Harper government will, as stated, leave current OAS recipients alone and have no plans to change the rules for anyone close to retirement. The actual age range that would be affected is as yet unknown but for the purposes of this evaluation let’s assume those within 5 years of eligibility (those already 60 or over) won’t be impacted.

Canada has an estimated population of 34.5 million citizens. Currently 27.5 million are under the age of 60 and would be directly impacted. Due to the low number of people with adequate company pension programs in Canada it’s a fair assumption that a large portion of these people would have to find other means of support when they retire, or they would have to ontinue working longer in order to receive less OAS from age 67 onward. (Lower benefits naturally result from collecting from a shorter period of time between enrolment and death).

The 27.5 million affected represent 80% of Canada’s population.

There’s more.

The reason Ottawa says it needs to make these changes is the large number of baby boomers about to retire (driving up the cost of the program) making it unsustainable. With that in mind one has to consider the long term outlook, not just the next decade or two.

Based on Canada’s age demographics the increased cost of baby boomer retirements will peak around 2031 and then begin to taper off as less boomers enter the program and more begin to pass away and are no longer in the system. After that point the cost of OAS will begin to drop off and eventually end up at an even lower cost (as a % of GDP) than it is today.

Approximately 30% of Canadians are between 45 and 59 and these individuals would be the most severely impacted. Many of these people are already in their “best earning years” and many will find it difficult to find ways of growing any soft of alternate retirement funds over the limited amount of time remaining before retirement. As a result they will have to make some tough decisions, either delaying retirement or looking for ways to offset those missing two years over a relatively short period, if they can even afford to invest any of their income in a volatile market.

Those who are unemployed or on social programs will also be in peril as they’ll continue to be dependent on provincial social programs for the intervening years.

Consider as well that a full 50% of today’s population, or more than 17 million Canadians, are currently under the age of 45. This means that even though they have more time to prepare for their future they will be affected regardless. These Canadians may have more time to prepare but is it really necessary to make these people the first generation to be forced into coping with less than the generation before them?

Even under the existing rules that allow for retirement at 65, anyone under 45 would not be eligible for OAS until at least 2032 or in most cases, many years later. This means that long after the increased cost of the baby boomer bulge has passed and when costs are dropping off these Canadians will still be forced to work longer for less pension dollars.

While the numbers touted by Conservative pundits may seem staggering, with costs growing from 36 Billion to 108 Billion by 2031, those numbers don’t tell the entire story.

Over the same period projections also show Canada’s GDP increasing at a healthy rate right along with the cost of OAS. The more accurate measurement to consider is the cost as a percent of Canada’s GDP. This measurement shows us that even at the height of the “bulge” (2031) the overall cost of the program is only expected reach 3.14% of GDP, a very sustainable number. Currently the cost sits at 2.41%. That’s a total increase of less than 1% of GDP (0.73% to be precise) after which the costs start to decrease at an ever increasing rate, eventually ending up even lower than the current level

The current government claims we only have to look to Greece or other European nations to see what happens when pension plans grow out of control. Never mind that the problems in some EU countries are the result of many complex issues that extend beyond public pensions, that’s the line they have decided to push.

When you consider that even 5 years ago France’s public pension plan cost about 10% of GDP, the UK 6.6%, Germany 10.4% and the EU at about 10%. Those numbers are hardly comparable to 3.14% 20 years from now. In fact the numbers show that rather than being a crisis, Canada’s temporary bubble in OAS cost is actually little more than a minor inconvenience.

In the end the numbers tell us that by increasing the age requirement in order to address a short term “bulge” Ottawa stands to benefit greatly from reduced program costs in later years while still forcing aging workers to remain in the workforce longer.

The benefits to Ottawa identified above don’t even include the added tax revenue generated from the quasi-enslaved workers, or additional impacts to workers such as the added tax burden they’ll face on a provincial level as the provinces are forced to extend existing social services program payments for low income individual past the age of 65 and until they are eligible for OAS at 67.

Ottaw is About to Pick Your Pockets - Again

If you saw a hard working older person being robbed of something they’d worked their entire lives for would you help them? Would you do the right thing or would you simply look the other way?

Would we even stand up for ourselves if we were the ones about to be robbed?

Thanks to the federal government we may soon be given an opportunity to find out.

Ottawa’s plan to move forward with changes to the Old Age Security system (OAS) in the upcoming budget will take money directly out of your pocket in the coming years and the pockets of Canada’s most vulnerable, its seniors.

At present Mr. Harper’s is focused on picking the pockets of those who look forward to collecting OAS at 65 but aren’t quite there yet. He says his plans won’t affect those already collecting OAS but once politicians and bureaucrats begin their tinkering it’s a slippery slope. Who knows where the changes will ultimately end.

For now the target is the average person in their 30’s, 40’s or 50’s, the hard working middle class. They’ll be the ones left to pay now and pay later.

If you’ve worked your entire life and hope to collect OAS at 65, you better think again.

The same people whose tax dollars currently pay for the program those over 65 enjoy are about to be told they’ll have to wait longer, perhaps to 67 or older before being eligible.

While your taxes have been paying for this federally funded plan since the first day you started working, if the Harper government has its way you can plan on toiling away to continue paying for it well out into your so called golden years.

So why is the Harper hell bent on messing with the Old Age Pension?

He says it’s because the crush of Baby Boomers about to retire will drive up the cost making it unsustainable. That’s a lie. In fact the real motive behind this robbery is to keep the working class slaving away even longer in order to prop up a declining workforce and continue paying taxes for a few more years.

The federal finance minister is quick to toss out big numbers as a way of proving the program is unsustainable. As impressive as those numbers appear they’re nothing but smoke and mirrors.

The truth is that 20 years out those same Baby Boomers blamed for putting too much strain on the system will begin to pass away and the cost of providing the OAS will once again naturally slide back to more normal levels.

Even with the “boom” about to happen the cost is projected to be just over 3% of GDP, a sustainable amount considering the rate of fiscal growth in Canada each year. Naturally it isn’t the sort of increase a government would want to manage for too long but as the number of surviving Baby Boomers naturally declines after so will the costs.

There’s a reason the working class are called “wage slaves” and this is it.

Not only will you have Mr. Harper to thank for working longer in order to pay for a system you won’t be able to access until much later in life but as an added bonus you’ll also get to pay more to cover the gap it will create on the provincial level.

Currently provincial governments cease to pay social assistance to low income recipients once they begin collecting Old Age Security at 65. Raising the age of qualification means provincial assistance programs will have to be extended to fill the void, and guess who’ll have to pay for this added tax burden being downloaded to the provinces?

When you add it up, raising the age of qualification for OAS means:

A) Canadians will be forced to work longer before they can retire;

B) Will continue to pay more federal taxes over the extended period in order to support those already on OAS;

C) Will be forced to pay even higher provincial taxes necessary to extend social programs needed to fill the void left by the changes; and

D) In the end will collect less OAS by virtue of receiving it later in life than they would have otherwise.

If that isn’t like someone stealing money out of your pocket I don’t know what is.

If you hope to collect Old Age Security at 65, if you’re a hard working person who doesn’t have a company pension or your pension won’t be enough to retire on, if you are in a physically demanding job and worry that you may not be able to physically continue working past 65, now is the time to stand up and do something for yourself and those around you.

Call, write or email your Member of Parliament. Let them know how you feel about being fleeced. Contact the Prime Minister directly. Send a message to the Conservative Party of Canada letting them know that you won’t stand for it and they’ll pay the price in the next election.

If someone was about to be robbed, would you try to stop it? Somebody is and it’s you.

Note:  If you aren't sure how to contact your Member of Parliament check out the links section on the left side of this page for a site that will allow you to look up their contact information.

5-Wing Goose may be on Chopping Block

Concerned over the upcoming closure of the Search and Rescue (SAR) sub-station in St. John’s?

Worried about the cutbacks to DFO science and the closure of the Fisheries Resource Centre?

Wondering how cutbacks to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) will impact local economic growth?

If you live in Newfoundland and Labrador you should be worried about the federal cuts coming our way but as if you didn’t have enough to consider here’s one more to add to the list: The closure of 5-Wing Goose Bay.

That’s right after years of lobbying Ottawa and after Stephen Harper promised -in writing - that he would once again make the strategically located base an integral part of the Canadian forces, documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen show that the Department of National Defence (DND) is looking at “fewer operational sites” in an effort to cut costs.

The documents reveal that DND will develop a national plan for property holdings with an eye to keeping only those sites that support operations.

“We will…reduce portfolio size, footprint and associated overhead costs by consolidating defence operations and programs to fewer operational sites and ensuring maximum usage of all facilities in an affordable and sustainable manner…(and)…where able, divest of legacy real property providing limited operational utility”

With the Harper government pushing departments to reduce costs the reaction of DND shouldn’t be surprising. Nor should it be surprising that after turning his back on his promises around 5-Wing that the Prime Minister is likely to give DND a green  light to manage the process without his intervention, unless of course the decisions impact specific bases inside the boundaries of more vote rich provinces like Alberta, BC, Ontario or Quebec.

We can rest assured the province will not find an ally in the PM on this and if you expect at least a token resistance from the opposition benches you might have a long wait as well.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, former chairman of the Senate’s defence committee, responded to the news saying: “…Up to 25 per cent of DND’s facilities, some of which date back to the Second World War, could be sold or shut down”.

He went on to say, “Goose Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador is a good example of a site that has become redundant to military needs. It’s been kept alive by political pressure, and its costing millions to keep operating.”

Perhaps someone should inform the former defence committee chair that in order for Air force CF-18s, stationed in Quebec, to respond to threats over the North Atlantic they need to stop and refuel at 5-Wing or they’ll crash into the ocean. It’s a minor detail but one that we should expect the Senator to be aware of.

How that little problem will be mitigated after the closure of the base remains to be seen but the folks at DND and in Parliament are nothing if not “creative”.

With this latest approach to cost cutting now in the media spotlight voters will have an opportunity to see how effective Newfoundland and Labrador’s only Conseravative MP (and cabinet minister) Peter Penashue can be in Ottawa.

Before being elected Mr. Penashue, who hails from Labrador, was a strong defender of the need to grow the role of 5 Wing Goose Bay. It’s clear that any comments from him in response to these reports will be of great interest in the region.

Election 2011 - Sharing Provincial Wealth

With the provincial election in full swing, and especially after the leader’s debate (argument) it occurred to me that it might do us all some good to step back from the political rhetoric for a moment and consider our future without the political spin.

I realize I’ll probably get plenty of nasty on this article. I also suspect I’ll be branded a “typical townie” or told my political leanings are overriding my common sense. So be it. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been accused of being a Tory, a Liberal or an NDP (depending on the time of day and subject at hand). None of it is true of course.

The truth is that the only things I hate more than politicians who are willing to say anything to win is keeping my mouth shut or sitting in front of an idle keyboard. In this case all three of these pet peeves have combined to lead me to type this commentary rather fast and furiously, even for me.

So, lets start with a question: Has anyone living in, or who recently visited, the St. John’s area noticed that on nearly every major road there are numerous signs practically begging people to apply for a job?

I drove down Torbay Road a few weeks ago and counted no less than 11 such signs in a 1-kilometer stretch. It was inspiring.

Granted most of those jobs are in the service sector, but with the high demand for employees these days those companies are now offering everything from medical and dental plans to flexible shifts, above market wages and a myriad of other perks.

A quick scan of newspaper or online job postings reveals that employment opportunities in the metro area have skyrocketed and are growing all the time. Most often those jobs are for higher paying professional positions.

At this point you may be wondering if I’m bragging about how good things are this side of the overpass and what any of it has to do with the current election campaign. Well, it has a great deal to do with the election because while this new reality, where there are more jobs than applicants, might exist in the St. John’s area, once you move into rural parts of the province the picture gets much more bleak.

The unemployment rate across the rest of the province is staggering and it is this reality, our “dual economy” which is providing fodder for politicians, especially for Liberal leader, Kevin Aylward in this election. In fact I’d argue Mr. Aylward has hung the future of his party on perpetuating the myth that rural Newfoundland and Labrador has been forgotten.

Well folks, that position may make for good political spin and it may sway some voters, but is it true?

I don’t believe it is, not for a second, no matter how often I hear it repeated.

It wasn’t true under the Williams government, it isn’t true under the Dunderdale government and for that matter it wasn’t true under the Liberal and PC governments of the past either. In fact, I’d argue that a great deal of focus has been placed on rural areas for a very, very long time. Unfortunately, most of that attention wasn’t focused on what really mattered.

It wasn’t, for example, focused on protecting the fish stocks before they were destroyed. Rather it was more often directed at opening yet another unneeded processing plant to help ensure some candidate’s election victory. That’s just one example of course but one very reflective of the current election rhetoric by the Liberal leader.

No matter what any politician might say over the next couple of weeks, it is not the job of government to make work, beyond perhaps creating a job for themselves.

The point is that governments shouldn’t be in the business of creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs. I believe that’s where the misconception that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is being ignored comes from. It comes from those who see government as something it isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be.

The place of government is to make sure that essential services are delivered in the best way possible, that the public is safe on the streets and to foster an environment conducive to business growth. It’s business that should create employment, not government. Government can, and should, set the table, but its business that must pull up a chair and sit down. Anything else is smoke and mirrors.

A responsible government should, and usually does, encourage business growth. They do this by offering tax breaks or other incentives for business to set up shop in strategic areas. They also try to court investment and market the benefits of the places they govern. That doesn’t mean, no matter what any candidate might say, that government can, or even should, throw money at any particular industry or region simply to “make work” there.

I moved around the province and the country for years before finally settling in the St. John’s area. Essentially, I went where the work took me. I didn’t want to leave my home town and I still hope to return there when the opportunity arises. I did what I had to do and I’m still doing it every day.

It’s no secret that many people want to stay where they grew up, where they have family and where they are the most comfortable in their own skin, but most of us can’t do that. That isn’t government’s fault and it isn’t something unique to Newfoundland and Labrador, it’s happening across Canada and around the world.

Major companies generally locate in larger urban areas where they can more easily find suppliers, are close customers and have a bigger pool of potential employees (including those in outlying rural areas) to choose from. This is as true for oil industry employers as it is for secondary industries like IT companies, retail stores, restaurants, hotels, taxi services and the rest. It isn’t some sort of conspiracy or plot to deny jobs to those in rural areas it’s just the way business operates.

Why is it then that so many people believe because there isn’t a job for them in their small town they are being neglected or forgotten by government?

How can anyone expect government to spend millions to “make work” in places where there is none and where business itself does not, for whatever reason, want to set up shop?

No matter how much oil or how much gas is produced, and no matter what politicians promise on the campaign trail, most of the direct business spin off from the oil industry will continue land in the St. John’s area. That’s something government, of any stripe, has very little control over, but that doesn’t mean rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not benefiting from the improved economy.

Think about what it would truly mean if government actually responded to the expectation of creating employment in every town or propping up failing businesses enterprises with provincial revenues.

In today’s reality, it would mean that tax dollars desperately needed for infrastructure, schools and hospitals right across Newfoundland and Labrador would be eaten up trying to find ways to make employment in one part of the province while, as previously mentioned, just a few hundred kilometres away, in another part of the province, employers are screaming for workers.

Does that make any sense?

When it comes to certain industries like fishing, aquaculture, wind farms, smelters and the like there are valid reasons why those are built outside of the urban centers, and there is no doubt that this sort of development will continue to be supported as profitable opportunities arise. It’s doubtful however that those developments will grow fast enough to make a serious dent in the unemployment rate in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Neither will pumping millions of dollars into fish plants unable to turn a profit from ever decreasing fish stocks. That is also a reality.

Spending millions to try to create or prop up work in rural areas at the same time there is a severe shortage of workers in urban areas is a recipe for economic disaster.

So why are there still those who believe that because there is a dual economy in the province, rural Newfoundland and Labrador is getting nothing from the oil boom?

I come from a small rural town in the province but I work in St. John’s and now live just outside the city. Do you want to know a little secret? I get the same benefit from the oil industry and the resulting government revenues as anyone else in the province, urban or rural.

I don’t get a cheque from the oil companies in my mail box each week. I don’t glide to work on gold paved streets, and I don’t spend my days sipping champagne at taxpayer’s expense while fairies cut my grass or shovel my driveway in winter.

I left my home town and moved to where the work was located like countless others. Each day I drive to and from my job over the same sort of pot hole filled roads many people in rural areas would recognize in their own towns.

On the other hand, I occasionally notice improvements in our highways when I travel across the island to visit family. (It’s here that the folks in Labrador may have a far better argument than most about being forgotten or neglected).

I sometimes read about new dialysis equipment, cancer clinics or seniors’ care facilities being built in different parts of the province.

I see attention being paid to refurbishing schools or to improving government services.

I see more or different medications being covered for lower income families through the government funded drug program. (Though not nearly enough)

I see provincial debt slowly being paid down and I see the amount of provincial taxes I pay slowly reduced thanks to the improved economy.

It’s these things that are all made possible by an increase in provincial revenues, much of it oil generated, and it is these things that are used to spread the wealth around the entire province.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not praising the current government for these things. It’s simply a fact that there is more money in provincial coffers today than there has been in the past and as a result more can be done to make life a little better for everyone.

I don’t doubt that more will be done as time goes by, no matter which party wins the election on October11. Though the specific spending priorities may change depending on who is in power the general way the wealth is distributed will not change, or at least it shouldn’t.

If it does change, if “Make work” replaces “Take work” (where ever you have to move to get it) then heaven help us all.

Don’t for a minute believe that rural Newfoundland and Labrador has been forgotten simply because unemployment is higher or because a particular mill or fish plant has shut down. You can blame that on a lot of things, the global economy, declining fish stocks, a limited need for newsprint, but it isn’t government that closed those industries and it isn’t government that can re-open them, at least not if they are to be profitable rather than a drain on taxpayers.

If the next government opts to spread the wealth, or worse yet, drive us all deeper into debt, by artificially creating work in areas where private industry is unable to turn a profit then we will all pay the price for their short sighted approach.

The future of our province and the full benefit of our economic growth can only be ensured if we recognize the most beneficial role of government and if we “take work” not “make work”.

Does the Atlantic Gateway Really Exist?

In October of 2007 the federal Conservative government announced a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Atlantic Provinces. The agreement was hailed as a landmark partnership that would allow for the creation of an Atlantic Gateway helping to ensure improved trade, economic growth and prosperity for the entire region.

The Atlantic Gateway Initiative, it was said, would allow for, “…leveraging our most important transportation systems to better connect Canada with the world”.

Four years later, how much do any of us know about what’s been done to make the Atlantic Gateway a reality and what economic benefits have we seen as a result of the initiative?

A few months after the agreement was signed, a handful of official announcements were made touting the importance of the MOU and boasting of a $2.1 billion national fund. It was said that a portion of that fund could be leveraged to finance partner projects as part of the Atlantic Gateway. The exact proportion of funds available in Atlantic Canada was not identified.

After the initial media blitz the Atlantic Gateway website reveals no further press releases or announcements for an extended period of time.

The next public statements out of Ottawa regarding the Atlantic Gateway don’t appear until February of 2011, more than two and a half years after the MOU was signed.

At that time, and for a few short weeks, releases again began to appear. These identified a hodgepodge of funding for small projects under the Atlantic Gateway banner, everything from small wharf improvements to airport lighting. The announced projects had a combined value of less than $50 million dollars, were spread across the four Atlantic Provinces and came in the 3 months leading up to the last federal election.

Since the election last May silence has once again descended on the Gateway.

The Atlantic Gateway site shows no comprehensive list of project funding and no accounting of the money spent. No identification of Gateway related policies or planning activities can be found there either. In fact the site provides little substance beyond the posting of the handful of intermittent political press releases previously identified.

Compare this with the official site for the Pacific Gateway, a similar program on the West Coast of Canada, which was initiated just 12 months prior to the Atlantic MOU being signed.

A visit to that site reveals a number of informational links on everything from federal investments to security activity, marine and air policies, environmental information and more. Visitors can even access an interactive map identifying exactly where and how much funding has been provided and what was accomplished with the dollars spent.

The map shows that nearly a billion dollars has been spent in Lower BC alone. That figure is in addition to more than $600 million allocated to other projects throughout the West, all tagged as part of the Pacific Gateway initiative.

Since the Atlantic Gateway, like its Pacific counterpart, is intended to boost trade by enhancing transportation infrastructure it might be expected that the Harper government would try to “brand” any and all federal funding for air, sea or ground transportation projects as part of the Atlantic Gateway Initiative. No doubt that tactic accounts for at least a portion of the funding identified out West but when compared to the low level of spending in the Atlantic region the numbers are no less staggering.

It would be easy to announce funding for bridge work, highways or even the new ferries for Marine Atlantic in Newfoundland and Labrador as a part of the initiative, even though they are all part of the normal activities of government. It’s exactly the sort of thing politicians are so efficient at doing but in this case they don’t even appear interested enough in the Atlantic Gateway concept to muddy the waters that way.

When it comes to the dollars specifically identified for Gateway initiatives in Canada it appears that the Atlantic Initiative has garnered only 3% of the funds spent on the Pacific coast, hardly indicative of a federal priority.

Granted Canada’s largest trading partner, the U.S. is easily accessible overland or through the Great Lakes. Granted as well, a high volume of trade between Canada and China is a valid reason to improve transport infrastructure in BC. That said, an enormous trade deal is about to be signed with the European Union. It seems rather short sighted that more emphasis has not been placed on ensuring Europe’s closest ports of call, in Atlantic Canada, are able to fully take advantage of that reality.

If the Atlantic Gateway Initiative is intended to improve transportation infrastructure for trade imports and exports the jury is still out on how effective it will be. If the intent is to promote a gateway for Atlantic Canadian workers to head west in search of employment the concept may be very effective.

Call for Federal Inquiry Falls on Deaf Ears

On Monday federal MP, Ryan Cleary, announced plans to introduce a private members bill during the next sitting of the House of Commons. The bill would call on government to begin an official inquiry into fisheries management off the East Coast.


In 1992, under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, the federal government enacted a complete moratorium on the fishing of northern cod. The region, long recognized as having the best fishing grounds in the world, was dramatically impacted by the collapse of the stocks and the decision to shut down the industry. The fishery there had been the biggest in Canada and the mainstay of the local economy for centuries.

Nearly 20 years after the collapse of the cod stocks very little recovery has been seen and many questions remain unanswered.

Cleary, the NDP representative in the federal district of St. John’s South-Mount Pearl, championed the cause of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery long before entering the political arena and during the most recent federal election made the call for an inquiry a central part of his campaign message.

When speaking with reporters this week Cleary said he believes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) is responsible for mismanagement of stocks and for political pandering. Cleary said quotas have been issued based on political agendas rather than sound science.

He indicated that he has had off the record conversations with DFO staff who say the science branch of the agency has been reduced to a skeleton crew, morale is horrible and science vessels are aging and in disrepair.

"Our future is threatened. It is threatened by a lack of vision. It is threatened by the absence of a rebuilding plan. It is threatened by apathy in all quarters” Cleary said.

The rookie MP is calling for a commission of inquiry to investigate the effectiveness of current management processes, the state of fisheries science, quota allocation practices and regulation enforcement.

The closure of the northern cod fishery came just 40 years after the federal government assumed control of the industry. That collapse put thousands of people out of work effectively destroying a way of life that had existed in the province for nearly 500 years. It decimated small towns and villages and sent the provincial economy into a downward spiral. In the end it was the biggest single loss of employment ever seen in Canada.

What followed was the largest out-migration from any province in Canadian history. Ten’s of thousands of residents left to seek employment, essentially crippling the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, a blow from which it has never fully recovered. To this day, even as oil revenues boost the overall economy, unemployment rates in the province stubbornly remain the highest in the Country.

Fisheries activists from around the province are applauding Mr. Cleary’s demand for an inquiry saying it’s necessary and long overdue.

During his press conference Cleary pointed to a similar inquiry called by the Harper Conservatives into the decline of BC salmon stocks. He questioned why, after nearly 20 years and with little sign of recovery, a similar inquiry into the East Coast fishery cannot be undertaken.

Local speculation abounds about the reasons for this inaction by officials. Although most suspicions have never been proven, it’s widely believed that the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) which includes Canada, Russia, Spain, Portugal and others has too much influence on Canadian decisions affecting the industry. It is also broadly believed that there are far too many “skeletons” in the closet of the federal bureaucracy and of elected representatives, both past and present, to ever allow the facts to be become public.

Evidence of mismanagement and political interference will be difficult to uncover without a full inquiry.

Mr. Cleary, when working as a journalist during his pre-political career, indicated many times that requests for information, especially regarding foreign fishing in Canadian waters, were consistently blocked by officials. The reason often given for withholding this information from Canadian citizens was that it might prove “embarrassing” to the nations involved and could have a negative impact on foreign relations and trade.

Even though fish stocks have not rebounded and the effects are still being felt throughout Newfoundland and Labrador a full inquiry has never been held and it doesn’t appear that Mr. Cleary’s attempt to force one will be successful either.

Without an inquiry it’s unlikely the truth will ever be known and the recovery of stocks could forever remain in doubt.

In a press release issued immediately after Cleary’s press conference Conservative Fisheries Minister, Keith Ashfield, quickly dismissed the announcement saying there will be, “…no inquiry…(because)…a judicial inquiry represents a costly and duplicative exercise into decisions made over 20 years ago”.

When informed of the Minster’s quick and dismissive response Cleary said he couldn’t believe the reaction.

The MP cannot understand how the federal government can investigate management policies in one end of the country through the BC inquiry and not at the other end when they have so clearly failed everywhere. He said he sees Ashfield’s reaction as evidence that the Conservative government has written off the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.

As an example of continued mismanagement Cleary said he believes the reason DFO has not publicized the issuing of nine fishing citations to foreign vessels in the past year alone is because Ottawa doesn’t want to jeopardize ongoing Free Trade talks with the European Union. Talks that have the potential to lead to even further European influence on fisheries decisions in Canada.

As to the cost of an inquiry, Cleary asked the public to consider how much the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador has lost and will continue to lose in the future as a result of mismanagement in the fishery.

Mr. Cleary indicated that regardless of the expected outcome in the Commons, or the position taken by the Harper government and the Minister of Fisheries, he will proceed with the presentation of his bill during the fall session.

Chad Banana to Sue Local Reporter.

With election fever about to take hold here in Newfoundland and Labrador I thought it might be a good time to look at the light side of politics.  I hope you get a chuckle or two.

Cheers

Chad Banana to Sue Local Reporter


Local political hopeful, Chad Banana, announced today that he is in discussions with his legal team – Dewey, Cheetham and Howe – about moving forward with a lawsuit against freelance reporter, Jimmy Dingle.

Alleging defamation of character Mr. Banana claims that in an August 30th interview and subsequent article Mr. Dingle defamed his character by referring to his political career as “15 minutes of fame”.

Banana says he takes issue with that characterization. He says he has personally done the math and determined that his time in the spotlight is far closer to 20 minutes.

“Nearly double the time indicated by Mr. Dingle” Banana told reporters.

Mr. Banana admits that his estimates may not be 100% accurate as he couldn’t decide between a Conservative or Liberal estimate, but he believes that doesn’t matter because, “Dingle is an idiot anyway”.

During today’s press conference, held near dumpster number 6 at Robin Hood Bay, Banana told those attending, “I’m sick and tired of reporters smiling sarcastically every time I put myself out there on the political stage”.

“I just don’t get it. I used to be the Mayor of my home town you know. My time there, managing the affairs those 90 residents, makes me far more qualified to lead this province than either Dunderdale or Yvonne Jones.”

Upon being reminded by one media representative that Ms. Jones is no longer the leader of the Liberal Party Banana appeared puzzled and said that if this were true he might consider leading the Liberals himself since the NDP didn’t accept his nomination papers when he tried to assume the leadership of that party.

At this point reporters in the attendance began to whisper among themselves then, smiling sarcastically, one stood to inform Banana that it was actually the PC party which had rejected him and that he had already tried to win the leadership of the Liberal party but lost his bid to Kelvin Awkward.

Mr. Banana then appeared to become quite agitated and began yelling at reporters to stop acting so superior.

“I’ll sue you all”, he shouted, “each and every one of you will pay for this if it’s the last thing I do today”.

Banana then pulled a golf pencil and a Loony-Tunes notebook from his jacket pocket and began demanding the names of every person in the area, including Robin Hood Bay staff, who just happened to be sweeping up some discarded Tim Horton’s coffee cups at the time.

Those in attendance then began to disperse while diligently avoiding eye contact with Mr Banana.

When last seen Banana was furiously writing in his notebook and muttering to himself, “Damn Karen Appleyard anyway, I should be the new leader, not her. It’s just not fair! Where are my lawyers”!

There was no report of what became of the discarded Tim's cups.

By Lex Smurphy (name changed to protect the libel)

An Open Letter to Premier Dunderdale and NALCOR’s Ed Martin

An Open Letter to Premier Dunderdale and NALCOR’s Ed Martin

Let me begin by saying that I am completely non-partisan. In fact I would go as far as to say that I find any political party or candidate who would politicize something as important to the public as development of the Lower Churchill utterly reprehensible.

I write this letter as a concerned citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador and for no other reason.

I’ve noticed that since the release of the Lower Churchill environmental assessment the response from official circles have been rife with adjectives such as “Shocked”, “Surprised” and “Disappointed”. I’m confident that after all the hard work having been put into this project these words likely reflect the honest reaction of those involved. In reality however the concerns of the public are not with the feelings of those involved in the project nor are those concerns being addressed through such personal commentary.

What people want are unvarnished facts and details in response to the questions raised by the panel and by the public at large.

In many ways communication is an art form and while government and NALCOR have already expended a great deal of effort and energy in responding to countless questions it’s clear that the answers provided have not been enough to satisfy the population.

In the end it is the public who will pay the cost of development through a combination of their taxes and power rates. They are also on the hook for the social and historical costs if the project is ultimately unsuccessful.

The stakes are extremely high and everyone in the province realizes this, not just the proponents of the project. That’s why, when questions are asked, those posing the queries expect and deserve clear, detailed and comprehensive answers. Responding to the general “gist” of a question or supplying the “broad strokes” isn’t going to alleviate concerns and may in fact amplify them. On this particular project the sharing of as much information as possible must be the order of the day.

Regardless of whether or not it may seem fair to those working on the project, the Lower Churchill is by its very nature tainted by the legacy of the Upper Churchill. They are inextricably bound to one another in the psyche of the population.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador were led into that particular project by a government bent on a chosen direction and all of us have borne the cultural scars ever since. Make no mistake, this time the people of the province are demanding, and will continue to demand, answers. If those answers are considered inadequate then the project simply will not go ahead, regardless of what anyone says to the contrary.

It may be difficult for those directly involved to understand the broad level of concern being expressed by so many, especially with the quantity of information that has no doubt been gathered, analyzed and modeled internally, but remember that the public is not directly connected to the nuts and bolts of the project and as such require clarity, and perhaps even a little comforting, when it comes to many of the issues.

Those involved should always remember that it isn’t the job of government or NALCOR to sell this project to the public. It was exactly that sort of misguided approach which led to the ouster of the Liberal government in New Brunswick when it tried to market NB Power to Hydro-Quebec. The job at hand is to ensure that the people of the province have all the information necessary to make an informed decision about their collective future.

As an example, when concerns are raised about the viability of the project if Gull Island does not proceed on schedule, or at all, it isn’t good enough to simply say that Gull Island will proceed or that Muskrat Falls can stand on its own.

A more complete answer should include an explanation of the financials and rate projections involved in both scenarios and must identify a plan B for Gull Island, if one exists, should Quebec remain unwilling to allow access to its grid.

It doesn’t cut it when someone like Mr. Martin responds to questions about wheeling Gull Island power through Quebec by saying, "Quebec is bound by the regulatory body in the United States to provide the same open access they enjoy there to others who wish to enjoy it”.

With all due respect, it may not have been the intention but based on our past history with Hydro-Quebec I personally find that sort of response either totally naive or summarily dismissive.

When the Upper Churchill was developed Newfoundland and Labrador was denied access to the Quebec grid. The end result was one of the most lopsided contracts in history. Regulations may exist today requiring Hydro-Quebec to allow access but that same access was recently blocked for this very project. What is the likelihood that Quebec will suddenly decide to open its borders on schedule for the start of the Gull Island development and what if they don’t?

What if we still can’t access the Quebec grid when and if Gull Island is ready to proceed? Is there a backup plan to ensure that the Gull Island project can still be completed? If so, what is plan B and what are the financial implications for the province, NALCOR and rate payers?

If there isn’t a plan B what happens? Could we find ourselves with another Upper Churchill on our hands? Is it possible we might end up with Gull Island nearing completion and still waiting on a commitment from Quebec? If so might the outcome be the same as it was decades ago: bankruptcy or another lopsided agreement.

On the subject of whether or not this truly is the lowest cost solution for our province’s energy needs, again the panel raises some good questions the public deserves to have answered.

Why isn’t lower cost power from Gull Island being developed up front? If it was, would that result in lower rates for rate payers? If not, why not?

Why did the information provided to the review panel suggest that NALCOR simply looked at one side of the equation when it comes to future demand - finding new sources of energy - instead of also considering ways to reduce that demand?

If a cost effective means can be found to stabilize current demand or slow its growth through energy efficiency programs would that allow one of the other power options previously dismissed by NALCOR to satisfy our needs at a lower cost than Muskrat Falls?

Perhaps the analysis has already been done internally on these issues but that information was never put before the panel. If so then it should be made public now. If not then the analysis should be completed as the panel recommended.

One of the power source options noted by the panel is the Upper Churchill itself. NALCOR’s projections go out well past 2060 but appear to completely ignore power from the Upper Churchill. Some of that energy may be available now through recall and all of it is expected to be available in 2041, just over 20 years after the Lower Churchill’s planned completion. Yes there would be costs involved in linking the power to the island portion of the province but why was this, essentially free power, not identified as a potential source to meet future demand?

Perhaps consideration was indeed given to the Upper Churchill but dismissed for some reason. If so what was the reason and if it wasn’t considered why wasn’t it and shouldn’t it be?

Is there some reason we will not be able to access that power in 2041? If so, that’s something everybody absolutely, without question, deserves to know.

As you can see questions abound and with our history of power development in this province, no matter how outlandish any particular question may seem, it deserves a complete answer.

There may be legitimate responses to all of these questions and the many others being asked. I’m sure everyone hopes there are, but it simply isn’t good enough for government or NALCOR to provide cursory or limited responses and say that the project is proceeding regardless of what the panel or public has to say.

As Naive as Mr. Martin’s comments on Quebec registered with me I can’t help sensing a tone of arrogance in the Premier’s position that the project is going forward regardless. That may not have been the intended spirit of the words chosen but it is surely the impression left behind for me.

The public doesn’t simply have a right to ask questions but the historic obligation to demand clear and complete answers.

If additional reviews, beyond those already underway, are necessary then they should happen. Whatever it takes to give the public a comfort level with this development must be done before any project is given final approval.

This is not to say, as the opposition parties have suggested, that all efforts should immediately halt pending those answers.

Politics needs to be removed from the equation completely and I firmly believe any party that plays politics with this issue during the upcoming campaign will pay the ultimate price for taking such a callous approach.

I’m sure the public understands that there are likely hundreds of resources working full speed to gather information, analyze findings, develop project plans and answer thousands of questions. Stopping such a monumental effort isn’t like flipping a switch. Once it’s halted it may be very difficult if not impossible to get it moving forward again. I don’t believe that is what the public wants. As previously stated, I believe what we want are clear, detailed, comprehensive answers.

They say that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. It’s an adage Newfoundlanders and Labradorians take very seriously and with good reason. Thankfully, in this respect at least, the legacy of the Upper Churchill is still there to ensure that we remember all too clearly.

While the public as a whole should not condemn the Lower Churchill project out of hand we also shouldn’t let anyone ram the project through unless and until the taxpayers, rate payers and voters of the province - each and every one of us - are comfortable that it is indeed the right thing to do.

I truly believe that all of our elected officials and the head of our Crown Corporation, NALCOR, should expect no less from each of us and that they owe it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to show their respect for our concerns by responding fully to each and every one of them.