Friday, July 21, 2006
North America still a colony of Europe
Just of the presses.Honorable Minister of fisheries and Oceans Loyola Hearn states on VOCM that foreigners namely (Britain, Spain, France, and Portugal) have the right to fish on our continental shelf because of historic reasons.
He also stated that the other nations (Cuba, Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Norway, Russia, Ukraine, USA, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Germany) that don't have historic fishing rights are allowed to fish our continental shelf because of trade and tarrif agreements made with Canada for quotas.
He stated that there are 19 countries in NAFO by my calculations the countries I listed above add up to 20 so at least one country is getting a free ride at our expence. The other 19 are living in the past because Canada has never grown up and declared soveriginity over it's land and waters and is just a colony of Europe still to this day.
Just who does Mr Hearn think he is that he will be able to negotiate what others who have come before him haven't. He is living in a dream world and has fallen prey to the Canadian wolf with their utilization of Atlantic Canada as a pawn in furthering Ontario's manufacturing industry.
Canada needs to grow up and exert some soverignity and autonomy over it's own resources and territories by driving all of the foreign fishing fleets of OUR continental shelf. There just isn't enough resource to allow the entire world to fish it and not impact it's own citizens anymore the world is a much smaller place with alot more people 6,500,000,000.
Why is it our people in Newfoundland/Labrador are being held hostage by our own resources. FPI has a quota and are refusing to harvest it and by doing so are holding the workers and union members of the FFAW hostage with our own resources not unlike what ESSO n/Mobile is doing with our oil at the Hebron Ben-Nevis site for the past 25 years since it's discovery. It basically equates to being locked out because if they don't harvest the quotas the workers have no work and aren't allowed to go to work and earn a living. They only have one choice because of this underhanded lock out and that is to strike. Which is exactly what FPI would like so they can go to Ottawa and say we need to harvest the quota but we can't process the fish in NL because the fish plant workers are on strike.
Mr Hearn does make some valid points for his reason on why he can't comment on what will happen to the quotas because it would unfairly affect the collective bargaining process. But isn't that exactly what FPI is doing by not harvesting the quotas they are holding the fishing industry in Nl hostage with it's own resource. Like the Hebron Ben-Nevis scenario the fish quotas needs legislation put into place so that companies can't hold our fisher people hostage with their own resource by utilizing a resource lock out strategy to unfairly sway collective bargaining negotiations.
Since this was all on a live call in show I am paraphrasing.
Comments:
<< Home
The real irony is how foreign Countries historical rights are maintained while Newfoundland and Labrador's is not...
Good article.
Good article.
Thanks for advertising your Site on Myles Blog. I am glad I found the article to which I am posting.
I am so elated somebody besides myself heard the Hon. Loyola Hearn this morning on VOCM Open Line show talking about the countries fishing off the Grand Banks of Nefoundland which do so under historical statu> Loyola also made mention that there are others out there who have gained entry through trade concessions.
I do fervently hope that the person under the Initials WJM finds this Blog, if, of course, he already hasn't.
I am so elated somebody besides myself heard the Hon. Loyola Hearn this morning on VOCM Open Line show talking about the countries fishing off the Grand Banks of Nefoundland which do so under historical statu> Loyola also made mention that there are others out there who have gained entry through trade concessions.
I do fervently hope that the person under the Initials WJM finds this Blog, if, of course, he already hasn't.
# posted by 
: 3:12 pm
: 3:12 pm
Loyola also made mention that there are others out there who have gained entry through trade concessions.
And yet, on the corner of Loyola's desk is a big fat report, which he won't release, which completely debunks the myth of trade-concessions-for-fish.
Why won't Loyola release that report?
And yet, on the corner of Loyola's desk is a big fat report, which he won't release, which completely debunks the myth of trade-concessions-for-fish.
Why won't Loyola release that report?
WJM - Please give me the title of this report and I will personally write Loyola Hearn and ask him what it is doing on the corner of his desk. Obviously if you know there is a report, you have to know its title. Also why would the Fisheries Minister make such a statement about concessions , if it wasn't so. I trust that I will get the title from you through this blog fairly quickly. Thanking you in advance.
# posted by : 2:03 pm
: 2:03 pm
Pleased to be of service:
Gough, Joseph: “Review of Canada’s Bilateral Agreements and Foreign Allocations in Relation to Atlantic Straddling Stocks”
Do write to Loyola, and ask him to publish the Gough report to the web along with all other studies commissioned by the Advisory Panel on the Sustainable Management of Straddling Fish Stocks in the Northwest Atlantic.
This is the synopsis of Gough's research:
Allocations for Trade Deals There is a widespread misbelief that Canada has repeatedly given foreign fishing countries allocations of Canadian quotas (or condoned overfishing) in return for trade deals for industries in other parts of the country. This is one of the most often repeated, unsubstantiated and untrue convictions regarding the government’s approach to the presence of foreign fleets. Two of the most repeated examples have been allocations to South Korea for a Hyundai car plant in Quebec and to Russia for purchase of Western wheat. A more recent one was the claim of allocations being given to Spain (in the 1980s) for landing rights in that country for CP Air. The review of foreign allocation policy and bilateral fisheries agreements conducted for the Panel concluded that no such deals were ever considered, let alone concluded. (Gough, 2005).
Nonetheless, this idea is now so embedded in the collective consciousness of Newfoundland and Labrador that it has entered the category of "urban legend". The absence of evidence for its veracity will not deter those who believe; but it is such a serious "black eye" for the Government of Canada that we feel every opportunity should be taken to set the record straight whenever such allegations are made.
The closest that government policy ever came to using quota allocations to acquire commercial concessions was during the "markets access for allocations" period when bilateral fisheries agreements with a number of countries included commitments to purchase Canadian fish products in exchange for quota allocations. The commitments to purchase Canadian fish products under these arrangements were so unsuccessful overall that the policy lasted for only a very short period. In any event, they involved "fish purchases for fish allocations". Furthermore, Canada has never had a quota allocation agreement with South Korea nor have any allocations to Russia been tied to wheat purchases. The overall level of bilateral relations with Spain was so poor in the 1980s (even before its accession to the EEC) that a satisfactory fisheries relationship never developed. Indeed, during the Estai affair some Spanish officials threatened dire consequences for a pending sale by Bombardier but the deal proceeded anyway (Gough, 2005). Also, officials of the federal fisheries department, operating under the authority of the fisheries minister, negotiated all these various fisheries bilateral agreements; not foreign affairs or trade officials. All allocations of Atlantic Coast quotas to foreign nations ended in 1998 when no surpluses of any species could be identified in the Canadian zone (Gough, 2005).
Gough, Joseph: “Review of Canada’s Bilateral Agreements and Foreign Allocations in Relation to Atlantic Straddling Stocks”
Do write to Loyola, and ask him to publish the Gough report to the web along with all other studies commissioned by the Advisory Panel on the Sustainable Management of Straddling Fish Stocks in the Northwest Atlantic.
This is the synopsis of Gough's research:
Allocations for Trade Deals There is a widespread misbelief that Canada has repeatedly given foreign fishing countries allocations of Canadian quotas (or condoned overfishing) in return for trade deals for industries in other parts of the country. This is one of the most often repeated, unsubstantiated and untrue convictions regarding the government’s approach to the presence of foreign fleets. Two of the most repeated examples have been allocations to South Korea for a Hyundai car plant in Quebec and to Russia for purchase of Western wheat. A more recent one was the claim of allocations being given to Spain (in the 1980s) for landing rights in that country for CP Air. The review of foreign allocation policy and bilateral fisheries agreements conducted for the Panel concluded that no such deals were ever considered, let alone concluded. (Gough, 2005).
Nonetheless, this idea is now so embedded in the collective consciousness of Newfoundland and Labrador that it has entered the category of "urban legend". The absence of evidence for its veracity will not deter those who believe; but it is such a serious "black eye" for the Government of Canada that we feel every opportunity should be taken to set the record straight whenever such allegations are made.
The closest that government policy ever came to using quota allocations to acquire commercial concessions was during the "markets access for allocations" period when bilateral fisheries agreements with a number of countries included commitments to purchase Canadian fish products in exchange for quota allocations. The commitments to purchase Canadian fish products under these arrangements were so unsuccessful overall that the policy lasted for only a very short period. In any event, they involved "fish purchases for fish allocations". Furthermore, Canada has never had a quota allocation agreement with South Korea nor have any allocations to Russia been tied to wheat purchases. The overall level of bilateral relations with Spain was so poor in the 1980s (even before its accession to the EEC) that a satisfactory fisheries relationship never developed. Indeed, during the Estai affair some Spanish officials threatened dire consequences for a pending sale by Bombardier but the deal proceeded anyway (Gough, 2005). Also, officials of the federal fisheries department, operating under the authority of the fisheries minister, negotiated all these various fisheries bilateral agreements; not foreign affairs or trade officials. All allocations of Atlantic Coast quotas to foreign nations ended in 1998 when no surpluses of any species could be identified in the Canadian zone (Gough, 2005).
Also why would the Fisheries Minister make such a statement about concessions , if it wasn't so.
Because (a) he's been poorly briefed, and (b) it fits his Newfoundland nationalist mythology.
Because (a) he's been poorly briefed, and (b) it fits his Newfoundland nationalist mythology.
Good point BnB.
As far as I'm concerned what has happened in the past with foreign fishing not over fishing is history as long as it stops. The fish is gone not much can be done about that. What needs to be done is something for the future starting along time ago.
In part I think WJM may be right but because Canada capitulated on full and complete ownership of the continental shelf by agreeing to just the 200 mile EEZ for living resources and letting the nose tail and flemish cap remain relatively unprotected and managed by signing a side deal in the form of UNFA and allowing foreign fleets to fish unhindered and unmonitored the remainder of the continental shelf where the very breeding grounds of the migratory straddling stocks it really didn't matter wahat we did withing our own EEZ because foreigners continued unabated fishing and destroying the nose tail and flemish cap. It got so bad that it wasn't even economically feasible for the foreign fleets to fish the NT and flemish cap and were granted 6 million in subsidies to allow them to continue their dastardy deed. We even are implicated by allowing the foreign fleets to refuel, exchange crews and unload their ill gotten cargos for trans shipment.
There is a clause in the UNCLOS which allows for ownership of the entire continental shelf if it extends out past the 200 mile EEZ limit. Canada has never tried to utilize this clause they even refure to sign onto a world wide call for a ban on the destructive and nonselective practice of bottom trawling. Hence foreign fleets can continue to drag the bottom and fish these endangered species by 10% because of a bycatch allowance.
Canada has totally and royally mismanaged the continental shelf. Whats worse is with the current crisis they aren't even showing any signs of trying to change the things they can to try and reverse their mismanagement.
I'm willing to lay money on it that if Canada went to the UN and demanded that the entire continental shelf be included under Canada control they would do it. If not then the Un would also become implicated in the ongoing destruction and mismanagement of one of the worlds greatest sources of food.
As for the historic rights of countries to fish our continental shelf that is bull. If that is the case what Harper is presently spouting about discriminatory native fishing rights doesn't hold water. Natives were here before us and hence they own everything.
Just because I dated a girl in high school doesn't give me the right to date her now that she is married with three children.
The only exception would be St Pierre and Miquelons current fishing area. But even this should be suspect to Canadian inspection and quotas. St Pierre and Miq shouldn't be allowed to feed all of france just because they string nets across the entire area allocatted to them. It should just be to feed their own residents.
How is it Dentists living in florida hold quotas Wally J McLean. Federal propagandist.
As far as I'm concerned what has happened in the past with foreign fishing not over fishing is history as long as it stops. The fish is gone not much can be done about that. What needs to be done is something for the future starting along time ago.
In part I think WJM may be right but because Canada capitulated on full and complete ownership of the continental shelf by agreeing to just the 200 mile EEZ for living resources and letting the nose tail and flemish cap remain relatively unprotected and managed by signing a side deal in the form of UNFA and allowing foreign fleets to fish unhindered and unmonitored the remainder of the continental shelf where the very breeding grounds of the migratory straddling stocks it really didn't matter wahat we did withing our own EEZ because foreigners continued unabated fishing and destroying the nose tail and flemish cap. It got so bad that it wasn't even economically feasible for the foreign fleets to fish the NT and flemish cap and were granted 6 million in subsidies to allow them to continue their dastardy deed. We even are implicated by allowing the foreign fleets to refuel, exchange crews and unload their ill gotten cargos for trans shipment.
There is a clause in the UNCLOS which allows for ownership of the entire continental shelf if it extends out past the 200 mile EEZ limit. Canada has never tried to utilize this clause they even refure to sign onto a world wide call for a ban on the destructive and nonselective practice of bottom trawling. Hence foreign fleets can continue to drag the bottom and fish these endangered species by 10% because of a bycatch allowance.
Canada has totally and royally mismanaged the continental shelf. Whats worse is with the current crisis they aren't even showing any signs of trying to change the things they can to try and reverse their mismanagement.
I'm willing to lay money on it that if Canada went to the UN and demanded that the entire continental shelf be included under Canada control they would do it. If not then the Un would also become implicated in the ongoing destruction and mismanagement of one of the worlds greatest sources of food.
As for the historic rights of countries to fish our continental shelf that is bull. If that is the case what Harper is presently spouting about discriminatory native fishing rights doesn't hold water. Natives were here before us and hence they own everything.
Just because I dated a girl in high school doesn't give me the right to date her now that she is married with three children.
The only exception would be St Pierre and Miquelons current fishing area. But even this should be suspect to Canadian inspection and quotas. St Pierre and Miq shouldn't be allowed to feed all of france just because they string nets across the entire area allocatted to them. It should just be to feed their own residents.
How is it Dentists living in florida hold quotas Wally J McLean. Federal propagandist.
Also the interpretation of the term high seas is totally wrong. High seas means the ocean not on a continental shelf.
The same could be said for the term migratory stocks. This term referrs to fish that stray further than the continental shelf like sword fish, whales etc Cod halibut and such don't leave the continental shelf.
The problem lies with the 200 mille EEZ. Either it is the entire continental shelf or it isn't and anything otherthan the entire continetal shelf is in my view a give away to foreign fleets for trade concessions.
How could these Cuba, Denmark, (Greenland, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Norway, Russia, Ukraine, USA, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Germany) or any country for that matter be allowed to fish our continental shelf? Especially considering the state it is in and the suffering Atlantic Canadians are being subjected to because of Canada's Weak kneed aproach to protecting the livlyhoods of it's citizens.
To my knowledge Canada and the East coast continental shelf is the only continental shelf that extends past the 200 mile EEZ and that is why the 200 Mile EEZ was set to appease these foreign fleets while appearing to protect canada's citizens at the same time.
The same could be said for the term migratory stocks. This term referrs to fish that stray further than the continental shelf like sword fish, whales etc Cod halibut and such don't leave the continental shelf.
The problem lies with the 200 mille EEZ. Either it is the entire continental shelf or it isn't and anything otherthan the entire continetal shelf is in my view a give away to foreign fleets for trade concessions.
How could these Cuba, Denmark, (Greenland, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Norway, Russia, Ukraine, USA, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Germany) or any country for that matter be allowed to fish our continental shelf? Especially considering the state it is in and the suffering Atlantic Canadians are being subjected to because of Canada's Weak kneed aproach to protecting the livlyhoods of it's citizens.
To my knowledge Canada and the East coast continental shelf is the only continental shelf that extends past the 200 mile EEZ and that is why the 200 Mile EEZ was set to appease these foreign fleets while appearing to protect canada's citizens at the same time.
WJM Thanks for your post. I'll take your word that this article does exist, but please WJM do not be so naive. That article was written to deflect criticism that Ottawa has received for trading off the fishery that we passed over to Ottawa for maintenance, but instead Ottawa used the fishery for its advantage. The article you present is part of the low-grade transparency process practiced by Ottawa, which has been identified by Transparency International and for which it was downgrade a couple of years ago. Ottawa has to write something to defend the awful practices that it has allowed in Newfoundland and Labrador's fishing waters. You know as well as I do WJM Ottawa would not allow fishing to the extent that it does in its offshore waters the way it has in the past and still does, without concessions from the parties involved. The fishing practices that were allowed have gotten out of control, and now Ottawa is at a loss, as how to put an end to it without destroying so many trade contracts that it allowed to be drawn up on the strength of quotas it gave out to foreign countries. There are so many International Trade contracts which were drawn up by Ottawa to give quotas of fish to conduct trade on behalf of Canadian Companies throughout the world. And, of course, again there is the Foreign affairs clout that Ottawa has enjoyed by being a Sugar Daddy. This fish gave Canada Number One status in the world 7 consecutive years in a row, please do not forget that. If Ottawa now suddenly took away those quotas, can you imagine what would happen to that International Trade and that Foreign Affairs clout that it so prestigiously enjoys? I would say Canada would have far less the status in the world's eyes, than it enjoys today with the concessions in place. I will repeat, if these Contracts are to be voided, Canada's economy would be drop a few notches. Also WJM, Ottawa has to direct somebody to write articles like this from time to time to deflect criticism, and try to make its citizens think that they haven't done such a thing, it is indeed a practice of low-grade transparency. It is a way to dupe it citizens. This low-grade transparency is also practiced by other nations, Canada is not the only one.
When the Federal Fisheries Minister, Loyola Hearn comes on an Open Line Program and says what he said last week, there is no doubt in anybody's mind that these trade concessions do exist and are in place. Throughout the years other federal ministers have done the same and they have written about the trade concessions. Also Ottawa would never allow all these nations out there pilfering its fish unless it was getting something in return. And neither would any other country.
I will conclude WJM and reiterate please do not blindly follow what Ottawa writes or says. You know what happens when we do not take our blinders off. We get conned.
We do know Ottawa practices low grade transparency, it is a known fact, again we were advised by Transparency International, and article writing is part of that practice. Thanks!
When the Federal Fisheries Minister, Loyola Hearn comes on an Open Line Program and says what he said last week, there is no doubt in anybody's mind that these trade concessions do exist and are in place. Throughout the years other federal ministers have done the same and they have written about the trade concessions. Also Ottawa would never allow all these nations out there pilfering its fish unless it was getting something in return. And neither would any other country.
I will conclude WJM and reiterate please do not blindly follow what Ottawa writes or says. You know what happens when we do not take our blinders off. We get conned.
We do know Ottawa practices low grade transparency, it is a known fact, again we were advised by Transparency International, and article writing is part of that practice. Thanks!
# posted by : 4:50 am
: 4:50 am
Canada has never tried to utilize this clause they even refure to sign onto a world wide call for a ban on the destructive and nonselective practice of bottom trawling.
What does the Newfoundland bottom-trawling industry think of that clause?
I do know what the Newfoundland bottom-trawling industry thought of any attempt to "box off" important crab breeding grounds off the coast of Labrador. They fought it tooth and nail, went on trawling, and brought the crab stocks off Labrador to the brink of collapse.
Newfoundlanders have no right — none — to complain about anyone else's fishing practices until they clean up their own.
How is it Dentists living in florida hold quotas
Because they bought them, perhaps?
Please name the dentists in Florida.
What does the Newfoundland bottom-trawling industry think of that clause?
I do know what the Newfoundland bottom-trawling industry thought of any attempt to "box off" important crab breeding grounds off the coast of Labrador. They fought it tooth and nail, went on trawling, and brought the crab stocks off Labrador to the brink of collapse.
Newfoundlanders have no right — none — to complain about anyone else's fishing practices until they clean up their own.
How is it Dentists living in florida hold quotas
Because they bought them, perhaps?
Please name the dentists in Florida.
There are so many International Trade contracts which were drawn up by Ottawa to give quotas of fish to conduct trade on behalf of Canadian Companies throughout the world.
When?
With which countries?
Which quotas?
In exchange for what?
Please be specific.
When?
With which countries?
Which quotas?
In exchange for what?
Please be specific.
Throughout the years other federal ministers have done the same and they have written about the trade concessions.
When? Which federal ministers? Where were these writings published?
I will conclude WJM and reiterate please do not blindly follow what Ottawa writes or says.
Do not blindly follow what you hear on the open line shows, either.
You know what happens when we do not take our blinders off. We get conned.
You are also getting conned by the Newfoundland separatists and myth-makers. Why are you so willing to be conned by them?
When? Which federal ministers? Where were these writings published?
I will conclude WJM and reiterate please do not blindly follow what Ottawa writes or says.
Do not blindly follow what you hear on the open line shows, either.
You know what happens when we do not take our blinders off. We get conned.
You are also getting conned by the Newfoundland separatists and myth-makers. Why are you so willing to be conned by them?
WJM
I had no reason to disbelieve our Federal representative/politican Hon. George Baker now Senator when he spoke on the Open Line show and told us that 2 Doctors, no names given, had gotten quotas of shrimp from Ottawa a couple of years back. I do not think a Federal politican would do that knowinly putting his job in jeopardy. But then again not long after Mr. Baker spoke those words he got shipped off to the Sendate. I don't think the Hon. George Baker is any ordinary person spouting off on Open Line about such matters. He was as close to what was going on in Government as is possible. He was and still is a member of the Canadian Government. It is my opinion that being shipped off to the Senate is part of the low grade transparency tool that Ottawa uses when politicians say things that Ottawa does not want them to say. Ottawa does not want us to know what is really going on with our resources.
Also WJM Federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn did not give us the details of any of the concessions but he did mention fish being traded for a car plant at some point in time. The Hon. Loyola Hearn again did not give any details but I am sure he would not have opened his mounth, being in the right spot, Fed. Fisheries Minister if he wasn't sure of what was happening in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa.
If we cannot believe our Federal politicians, who can we believe. Matter of fact, I would rather believe Mr. Baker or Mr. Hearn over any Burecrat that you might be consulting with, who doesn't care how the fish is traded as long as mainland Canada gets economies out of its use and Ottawa gets economic clout. Our politicians have an interest hopefully. And hopefully that interest would be seeing that Newfoundland and Labrador gets an industry out of the fishery that suuports economies here.
WJM any other questions, please make contact with either Senator Baker or Hon. Loyola Hearn. You will have the information right from the source from which I received it. Also please request a copy of the 2 booklets on the atrocities of the fishery written by Senator George Baker. Thank You.
I had no reason to disbelieve our Federal representative/politican Hon. George Baker now Senator when he spoke on the Open Line show and told us that 2 Doctors, no names given, had gotten quotas of shrimp from Ottawa a couple of years back. I do not think a Federal politican would do that knowinly putting his job in jeopardy. But then again not long after Mr. Baker spoke those words he got shipped off to the Sendate. I don't think the Hon. George Baker is any ordinary person spouting off on Open Line about such matters. He was as close to what was going on in Government as is possible. He was and still is a member of the Canadian Government. It is my opinion that being shipped off to the Senate is part of the low grade transparency tool that Ottawa uses when politicians say things that Ottawa does not want them to say. Ottawa does not want us to know what is really going on with our resources.
Also WJM Federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn did not give us the details of any of the concessions but he did mention fish being traded for a car plant at some point in time. The Hon. Loyola Hearn again did not give any details but I am sure he would not have opened his mounth, being in the right spot, Fed. Fisheries Minister if he wasn't sure of what was happening in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa.
If we cannot believe our Federal politicians, who can we believe. Matter of fact, I would rather believe Mr. Baker or Mr. Hearn over any Burecrat that you might be consulting with, who doesn't care how the fish is traded as long as mainland Canada gets economies out of its use and Ottawa gets economic clout. Our politicians have an interest hopefully. And hopefully that interest would be seeing that Newfoundland and Labrador gets an industry out of the fishery that suuports economies here.
WJM any other questions, please make contact with either Senator Baker or Hon. Loyola Hearn. You will have the information right from the source from which I received it. Also please request a copy of the 2 booklets on the atrocities of the fishery written by Senator George Baker. Thank You.
# posted by : 7:48 pm
: 7:48 pm
WJM
I truly hope you will get in touch with Senator George Baker and the Hon. Loyola Hearn and put your questions to both gentlemen on the trading of quotas of fish for International Trade; and the resulting benefit to Ottawa/Canada of Foreign Affairs influence as a result of the fish quotas given out by Ottawa.
Once you have gotten your answers would you please report on this blog your findings. Also since there were many questions asked on the same subject on Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador/Myles Higgins blog, I would appreciate if you would post your answers there as well. Thank You.
I truly hope you will get in touch with Senator George Baker and the Hon. Loyola Hearn and put your questions to both gentlemen on the trading of quotas of fish for International Trade; and the resulting benefit to Ottawa/Canada of Foreign Affairs influence as a result of the fish quotas given out by Ottawa.
Once you have gotten your answers would you please report on this blog your findings. Also since there were many questions asked on the same subject on Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador/Myles Higgins blog, I would appreciate if you would post your answers there as well. Thank You.
# posted by : 11:22 am
: 11:22 am
I had no reason to disbelieve our Federal representative/politican Hon. George Baker now Senator when he spoke on the Open Line show and told us that 2 Doctors, no names given, had gotten quotas of shrimp from Ottawa a couple of years back.
That's the problem with Newfoundland political culture: people are too deferential and too unwilling to make up their own minds based on their own examination of the facts.
I do not think a Federal politican would do that knowinly putting his job in jeopardy.
How did he put his job in jeopardy?
It is my opinion that being shipped off to the Senate is part of the low grade transparency tool that Ottawa uses when politicians say things that Ottawa does not want them to say.
Yes, Ottawa puts them in the Senate, gives them staff, phone lines, email, and mailing priveleges, to shut them up. Clever tricks from that clever Ottawa.
Also WJM Federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn did not give us the details of any of the concessions but he did mention fish being traded for a car plant at some point in time.
Why couldn't Joseph Gough learn anything about that I wonder?
Is it not possible that Loyola is either mistaken or misleading?
WJM any other questions, please make contact with either Senator Baker or Hon. Loyola Hearn.
Why?
Why do you believe what they say, hook line and sinker?
If a federal politician claimed the opposite, who would you then believe?
That's the problem with Newfoundland political culture: people are too deferential and too unwilling to make up their own minds based on their own examination of the facts.
I do not think a Federal politican would do that knowinly putting his job in jeopardy.
How did he put his job in jeopardy?
It is my opinion that being shipped off to the Senate is part of the low grade transparency tool that Ottawa uses when politicians say things that Ottawa does not want them to say.
Yes, Ottawa puts them in the Senate, gives them staff, phone lines, email, and mailing priveleges, to shut them up. Clever tricks from that clever Ottawa.
Also WJM Federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn did not give us the details of any of the concessions but he did mention fish being traded for a car plant at some point in time.
Why couldn't Joseph Gough learn anything about that I wonder?
Is it not possible that Loyola is either mistaken or misleading?
WJM any other questions, please make contact with either Senator Baker or Hon. Loyola Hearn.
Why?
Why do you believe what they say, hook line and sinker?
If a federal politician claimed the opposite, who would you then believe?
Why don't you post under a handle yourself WJM? WJM is no more revealing than is Anynymous. Are you a Coward?
# posted by : 9:55 pm
: 9:55 pm
WJM - Again you didn't take the time to get the correct answers from the two politicians, who made statements on radio about the give-away of quotas by Ottawa for Intenrational Trade deals for Canada and the resulting Foreign Affairs clout Ottawa received in return. Why do you refuse to be well informed? Is it because, if you were correctly informed you would not be able to take Ottawa's side in future?
I would hazard a guess that it is because you do not want to hold up to the truth concerning what is happening to our FISH RESOURCE under the guidance of Ottawa.
It seems that Ottawa might have an interest in guiding your thoughts, and you have an interest in portraying the message Ottawa wants portrayed. I am assumning that, of course, because to every question posed on the blogs concerning fishery matters, you spin your answers to agree with Ottawa. Anyway that is my deducement of your writings.
Also WJM - I notice there is a Blog site named WJM Labradore, but nowhere on the blog can I find the full name of the person who owns the blog. Under name is WJM. Could that be your blog. And if it is what do the initials WJM stand for?
I would hazard a guess that it is because you do not want to hold up to the truth concerning what is happening to our FISH RESOURCE under the guidance of Ottawa.
It seems that Ottawa might have an interest in guiding your thoughts, and you have an interest in portraying the message Ottawa wants portrayed. I am assumning that, of course, because to every question posed on the blogs concerning fishery matters, you spin your answers to agree with Ottawa. Anyway that is my deducement of your writings.
Also WJM - I notice there is a Blog site named WJM Labradore, but nowhere on the blog can I find the full name of the person who owns the blog. Under name is WJM. Could that be your blog. And if it is what do the initials WJM stand for?
# posted by : 2:51 am
: 2:51 am
Again you didn't take the time to get the correct answers from the two politicians, who made statements on radio about the give-away of quotas by Ottawa for Intenrational Trade deals for Canada and the resulting Foreign Affairs clout Ottawa received in return.
Why should I? I'm not prepared to take Loyola Hearn at face value any more, or accept what he says uncritically. Why should I? Why should you?
Why do you refuse to be well informed? Is it because, if you were correctly informed you would not be able to take Ottawa's side in future?
Read the Gough study.
I would hazard a guess that it is because you do not want to hold up to the truth concerning what is happening to our FISH RESOURCE under the guidance of Ottawa.
If it's the truth, why can no one find a copy of these supposed "trade deals"? Why can no one point to which countries obtained what concessions when for what fish considerations?
Also WJM - I notice there is a Blog site named WJM Labradore, but nowhere on the blog can I find the full name of the person who owns the blog. Under name is WJM. Could that be your blog.
It is.
And if it is what do the initials WJM stand for?
Me!
What are your initials? Or is your given name "Anonymous I"?
Why should I? I'm not prepared to take Loyola Hearn at face value any more, or accept what he says uncritically. Why should I? Why should you?
Why do you refuse to be well informed? Is it because, if you were correctly informed you would not be able to take Ottawa's side in future?
Read the Gough study.
I would hazard a guess that it is because you do not want to hold up to the truth concerning what is happening to our FISH RESOURCE under the guidance of Ottawa.
If it's the truth, why can no one find a copy of these supposed "trade deals"? Why can no one point to which countries obtained what concessions when for what fish considerations?
Also WJM - I notice there is a Blog site named WJM Labradore, but nowhere on the blog can I find the full name of the person who owns the blog. Under name is WJM. Could that be your blog.
It is.
And if it is what do the initials WJM stand for?
Me!
What are your initials? Or is your given name "Anonymous I"?
WJM - You say you are putting your faith in The Gough Study. WJM - isn't this a study commissioned by the Federal Government? WJM, if it is and I think it might be, anytime the Feds pay for a study, the person doing the study must show them in good light, they are not going to report on any of the ill-doings by Ottawa. Ottawa is not going to have a study done to tell us they the trading off our fish for International Trade and Foreign Affairs purposes. Wake Up WJM.
# posted by : 6:13 am
: 6:13 am
And yet still... NO ONE has been able to say WHEN Ottawa trade HOW MUCH quota of WHICH species for WHICH trade considerations with WHICH countries...
Funny about that.
Post a Comment
Funny about that.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
