Ottawa Citizen PERMANENTLY STATIONING CF-18s AT GOOSE BAY FOR ARCTIC PATROLS
News Release Government of Newfoundland & Labrador,Canada, Executive Council June 8, 2007.
CBC News July 12,2009: MacKay about 5 Wing Goose Bay.
Mackay said that can't happen because of troop commitments in Afghanistan.
"We weren't told that this promised hinged on what happens in another country, so was this a deception?" - N.A.
Did the Federal Liberals mislead Happy Valley Goose Bay also? I have heard that they promised the Labrador Innu to close down 5 Wing or drastically scale down it's operations. Is this the reason our MP Todd Russell never ever requested a meeting with Defense Minister Peter MacKay?
Showing posts with label Happy Valley Goose Bay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Happy Valley Goose Bay. Show all posts
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Desperate Need Found
Nfld's desperate need for Lower Churchill Power found.
1. Use the revenue from Oil to develop & distribute 'clean electricity' to the island of Newfoundland.
2. Manufacturing Jobs on the island of Newfoundland for when their Oil is all gone.
3. Why the island of Newfoundland Manufacturing first, using Labrador Hydro Electricity?
4. Why not Manufacturing in Labrador first since we are the risk takers (Happy Valley Goose Bay/Mud Lake)and the adjacent ones on this Mighty Grand River?
I'll answer the questions with another question; What else could save the Rock & least keep the mother's sons that are already there & not yet born on the island?
Note: The most respectable thing they could have done would be to set up some manufacturing in Labrador 'first' before taking Labrador's future away. Newfoundland Government could have started with: (a)enticing industries to come here & use the 300mw already reserved for us from the Upper Churchill. (b)They could have had manufacturing ready to run, with their operations ready for when Lower Churchill power came on stream in 2016.
1. Use the revenue from Oil to develop & distribute 'clean electricity' to the island of Newfoundland.
2. Manufacturing Jobs on the island of Newfoundland for when their Oil is all gone.
3. Why the island of Newfoundland Manufacturing first, using Labrador Hydro Electricity?
4. Why not Manufacturing in Labrador first since we are the risk takers (Happy Valley Goose Bay/Mud Lake)and the adjacent ones on this Mighty Grand River?
I'll answer the questions with another question; What else could save the Rock & least keep the mother's sons that are already there & not yet born on the island?
Note: The most respectable thing they could have done would be to set up some manufacturing in Labrador 'first' before taking Labrador's future away. Newfoundland Government could have started with: (a)enticing industries to come here & use the 300mw already reserved for us from the Upper Churchill. (b)They could have had manufacturing ready to run, with their operations ready for when Lower Churchill power came on stream in 2016.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Labrador's Monumental Lost
Any development of the Lower Churchill Falls under a NL Government scheme would be a monumental lost to Labrador.
Construction jobs would have to be filled by people outside of the BigLand because we do not have the population to draw from, or do we? Those jobs would be only temporary anyway. Long term jobs would amount to peanuts.
The Hydro Power would pass by Labrador residents door step on the way to Newfoundland over the 900mw powerline. How would they get the 5000mw Upper Churchill Power over that line in 20141?
The fish in our river would be poisoned again by mercury and Labrador would become a larger target for any terroist that wanted to hit the United States indirectly.
Then there is the potential flooding danger to the communities of Happy Valley Goose Bay and Mudlake if Churchull Falls Dams ever ruptured.
Newfoundland would have industries coming out of their ears using Labrador Power. Maybe Labrador Power would even save the rock and bring home every mother’s son from Alberta, after the oil is gone.
The bottom line is: there would not be enough positive benefits for Labrador in the long haul to justify such a project with such huge risk, except for a few bucks that the Innu Leaders would receive? What about the other 25,000 or so peoples of Labrador? Shouldn’t adjacency matter? I think adjacency should matter wherever a resource is in this province.
Anyone who is looking for money could just buy shares in Emera and sell them again after the next big announcement concerning Muskrat Falls, Lower Churchill is made.
Construction jobs would have to be filled by people outside of the BigLand because we do not have the population to draw from, or do we? Those jobs would be only temporary anyway. Long term jobs would amount to peanuts.
The Hydro Power would pass by Labrador residents door step on the way to Newfoundland over the 900mw powerline. How would they get the 5000mw Upper Churchill Power over that line in 20141?
The fish in our river would be poisoned again by mercury and Labrador would become a larger target for any terroist that wanted to hit the United States indirectly.
Then there is the potential flooding danger to the communities of Happy Valley Goose Bay and Mudlake if Churchull Falls Dams ever ruptured.
Newfoundland would have industries coming out of their ears using Labrador Power. Maybe Labrador Power would even save the rock and bring home every mother’s son from Alberta, after the oil is gone.
The bottom line is: there would not be enough positive benefits for Labrador in the long haul to justify such a project with such huge risk, except for a few bucks that the Innu Leaders would receive? What about the other 25,000 or so peoples of Labrador? Shouldn’t adjacency matter? I think adjacency should matter wherever a resource is in this province.
Anyone who is looking for money could just buy shares in Emera and sell them again after the next big announcement concerning Muskrat Falls, Lower Churchill is made.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Digging In Like Danny
Danny Williams 'Dug In' with the Feds until he was happy, even as far as taking down the Canadian Flag.
We the people of Labrador will dig in until our basics needs are met. Basics needs such as low cost electric power across Labrador, North, South, East & West. Environmentally friendly Industries developed solely in Labrador for the citizens of Labrador to work in, so that they don't have to go away like Newfoundlanders do.
Fairness for all Labrador People, is all that we are asking for. Adjaceny must apply here, and not just for one small group of people; so important as they are. A very large majority of Labrador people must be affected in a positive way. In fact, adjaceny should appy anywhere in this province where there are developments that create jobs & other benefits such as the Lower Churchill Project would.
Sure, this development would help local businesses but Danny Williams should know that basic needs of the people must be taken care of for businesses to be accepted. In this case our electrical needs across Labrador must be looked after. Don't come out and say a point blank statement like Mr.John Hickey said in the past, "we cannot build a Power Line to the North Coast of Labrador, because it would cost $155 million dollars". If you think about this for a minute you would say to yourself, wouldn't this powerline to the North be ultimately paid for in 25 years by Vale Inco anyway and Labrador North would, in effect, end up with a free powerline.
$155 million from a multi billion dollar project isn't much when it is spread out over a number of years, over the centries of Lower Churchill Power it would work out to fractions of a cent per kilowatt hour.
Then it's the protection of the Labrador's prestine environment from fossil fuels. Don't say we could develop rivers South and North that would destroy more ego systems, when we have all this power from Churchill Falls; not good enough!
I believe in the development of Lower Churchill if the positives for Labrador as a whole far out-way the negatives. As the proposed deal stands right now it is drastically in favour of Nfld development at Labrador's expense.
Sure they got some recallable power for us, but like the Upper Churchill Power, how can we really obtain any of it for industry? They just have to put road-blocks in place to stop industry from developing here. i.e. Alcoa Aluminum wanted to set up shop a few years ago in Labrador & our provincial government set hugh road-blocks to stop them. -oad blocks such as, part of your industry must be built on the island of Newfoundland. Naturally it wasn't feasible for Alcoa to do it so they walked away from this fiasco.
The list of one sided deals goes on, Labrador Lineboard, Voisey's Bay etc. Voisey's Bay for example was so bad that one could drive a truck through said Mr. Williams. In fact he spent many hours on NTV with Jeff Sterling condeming this Rodger Grimes deal. Now, today he looks at it in a much more favourable light. Why? Maybe it's because it is really good for his Island of Newfoundland and St. John's area. We know what it is doing for Central Labrador, for example. Diddly squat! The only thing we in central see is the planes flying overhead on the way to St.John's.
We just want to live together in harmony, as much as possible with nature and be treated fairly with our resources.
Do you expect the majority of Labradorians to chase our resources to the island of Newfoundland or to Nova Scotia for jobs from industries developed there from our Power. Not good enough any more!
We the people of Labrador will dig in until our basics needs are met. Basics needs such as low cost electric power across Labrador, North, South, East & West. Environmentally friendly Industries developed solely in Labrador for the citizens of Labrador to work in, so that they don't have to go away like Newfoundlanders do.
Fairness for all Labrador People, is all that we are asking for. Adjaceny must apply here, and not just for one small group of people; so important as they are. A very large majority of Labrador people must be affected in a positive way. In fact, adjaceny should appy anywhere in this province where there are developments that create jobs & other benefits such as the Lower Churchill Project would.
Sure, this development would help local businesses but Danny Williams should know that basic needs of the people must be taken care of for businesses to be accepted. In this case our electrical needs across Labrador must be looked after. Don't come out and say a point blank statement like Mr.John Hickey said in the past, "we cannot build a Power Line to the North Coast of Labrador, because it would cost $155 million dollars". If you think about this for a minute you would say to yourself, wouldn't this powerline to the North be ultimately paid for in 25 years by Vale Inco anyway and Labrador North would, in effect, end up with a free powerline.
$155 million from a multi billion dollar project isn't much when it is spread out over a number of years, over the centries of Lower Churchill Power it would work out to fractions of a cent per kilowatt hour.
Then it's the protection of the Labrador's prestine environment from fossil fuels. Don't say we could develop rivers South and North that would destroy more ego systems, when we have all this power from Churchill Falls; not good enough!
I believe in the development of Lower Churchill if the positives for Labrador as a whole far out-way the negatives. As the proposed deal stands right now it is drastically in favour of Nfld development at Labrador's expense.
Sure they got some recallable power for us, but like the Upper Churchill Power, how can we really obtain any of it for industry? They just have to put road-blocks in place to stop industry from developing here. i.e. Alcoa Aluminum wanted to set up shop a few years ago in Labrador & our provincial government set hugh road-blocks to stop them. -oad blocks such as, part of your industry must be built on the island of Newfoundland. Naturally it wasn't feasible for Alcoa to do it so they walked away from this fiasco.
The list of one sided deals goes on, Labrador Lineboard, Voisey's Bay etc. Voisey's Bay for example was so bad that one could drive a truck through said Mr. Williams. In fact he spent many hours on NTV with Jeff Sterling condeming this Rodger Grimes deal. Now, today he looks at it in a much more favourable light. Why? Maybe it's because it is really good for his Island of Newfoundland and St. John's area. We know what it is doing for Central Labrador, for example. Diddly squat! The only thing we in central see is the planes flying overhead on the way to St.John's.
We just want to live together in harmony, as much as possible with nature and be treated fairly with our resources.
Do you expect the majority of Labradorians to chase our resources to the island of Newfoundland or to Nova Scotia for jobs from industries developed there from our Power. Not good enough any more!
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
On again, off again - 5 Wing Goose Jobs
So what is going on here? One day jobs are gonna be cut, the next day status quo and the day after, not so says Serco.
The private company that runs the Goose Bay Air Base says that the feds got less work for them to do up there and that means they need less workers so they are cutting at least 10 jobs.
So much for the status quo!
Are the people of Lake Melville being mislead by the Conservatives as the Liberals before them did? The difference maybe that the Conservatives are using the private company of Serco to do their dirty work for them?
Serco can always tell the citizens of Happy Valley Goose Bay; we are a private company and as such, we have a right to cut our expenses where-ever and when-ever we choose. As a private operation this would be a convincing argument for sure.
The problem with such a scenario is: where does it leave our people if the Federal Government can wash their hands off our one industry town in such a sneaky way?
The private company that runs the Goose Bay Air Base says that the feds got less work for them to do up there and that means they need less workers so they are cutting at least 10 jobs.
So much for the status quo!
Are the people of Lake Melville being mislead by the Conservatives as the Liberals before them did? The difference maybe that the Conservatives are using the private company of Serco to do their dirty work for them?
Serco can always tell the citizens of Happy Valley Goose Bay; we are a private company and as such, we have a right to cut our expenses where-ever and when-ever we choose. As a private operation this would be a convincing argument for sure.
The problem with such a scenario is: where does it leave our people if the Federal Government can wash their hands off our one industry town in such a sneaky way?
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Fire on the Goose!
Fire on the Goose June 16 & 17, 2007 but thanks to our local emergency response workers and all that helped, everything seems to be going well.
No injuries or homes were damaged as of 8pm today.
Several streets & houses were evucated but folks are now back in their homes.
We got some rain late this afternoon but the Water Bombers are still going.
The 2nd photo appeared on the Weather Network today Sunday June 17.
Happy Father's Day to all.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Trans-Labrador Highway, Letter from Honourable Lawrence Cannon's Office, Dec.20,2006
Dear Mr. Andrews:
The Prime Minister's Office has forwarded to the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, a copy of your correspondence of August 16, 2006, regarding the Trans-Labrador Highway (TLH). Minister Cannon has asked me to reply on his behalf.
I should note that highways in Canada, including the TLH and the National Highway System (NHS), fall within provincial/territorial jurisdiction. Provincial/territorial governments are therefore responsible for the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance and financing of highways within their jurisdiction. The only exceptions are highways through national parks and a section of the Alaska Highway, which are managed by Parks Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada, respectively. This being the case, I have also forwarded a copy of your correspondence to the office of the Honourable John Hickey, Minister of Transportation and Works for Newfoundland and Labrador, for consideration.
In this increasingly global environment, the federal government recognizes that investments in transportation infrastructure are critical to maintaining Canada's economic productivity and promoting the quality of life and safety of Canadians.
However, provincial/territorial governments must prioritize their projects and submit them to the federal government for funding consideration under existing programs, such as the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF), the Border Infrastructure Fund and the Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program (SHIP). Funding requests must comply with all of the requirements and terms and conditions of the fund in question.
I should note that all SHIP funds for Newfoundland and Labrador are already committed and departmental officials are carefully considering transportation and other infrastructure projects under the remaining funds for the CSIF. That said, I can assure you that the federal government will honour its commitment to cost-share $50 million over five years for the surfacing of the TLH between Labrador City and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
In Budget 2006, the federal government committed $16.5 billion over the next four years to improve provincial/territorial and municipal infrastructure. This amount includes:
* $2 billion to renew the CSIF;
* $2.2 billion to renew the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund; and
* $2.4 billion over the next five years for a new Highways and Border Infrastructure Fund. As part of the Government of Canada's commitment to restore the fiscal balance, officials from the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Transportation and Works took part in recent consultations held by Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada officials with respect to the role of the federal government in long-term infrastructure funding and ensuring accountability to Canadians. The consultations also provided valuable input for the policy and program parameters of the funds announced in Budget 2006, including investment priorities. Provincial officials have identified the TLH as one of the Province's key priorities.
I should note, however, that neither Transport Canada nor Infrastructure Canada is in a position to enter into any bilateral funding agreements under any of the infrastructure funds before the terms and conditions of these funds are approved by Cabinet and the Treasury Board. The portfolio expects to have these approvals by the end of the year. That being said, to assist us in conducting the requisite due diligence, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will need to submit, as soon as possible, a complete business case for the TLH, demonstrating the importance, technical merits, sustainability and overall benefits. This business case should be the same as those required under existing federal funding programs.
I trust that the foregoing has clarified the department's position with respect to this matter. Again, thank you for writing.
Yours truly,
Lisa Berthier
Special Assistant - Atlantic
c.c. Office of the Honourable John Hickey, M.H.A.
The Prime Minister's Office has forwarded to the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, a copy of your correspondence of August 16, 2006, regarding the Trans-Labrador Highway (TLH). Minister Cannon has asked me to reply on his behalf.
I should note that highways in Canada, including the TLH and the National Highway System (NHS), fall within provincial/territorial jurisdiction. Provincial/territorial governments are therefore responsible for the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance and financing of highways within their jurisdiction. The only exceptions are highways through national parks and a section of the Alaska Highway, which are managed by Parks Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada, respectively. This being the case, I have also forwarded a copy of your correspondence to the office of the Honourable John Hickey, Minister of Transportation and Works for Newfoundland and Labrador, for consideration.
In this increasingly global environment, the federal government recognizes that investments in transportation infrastructure are critical to maintaining Canada's economic productivity and promoting the quality of life and safety of Canadians.
However, provincial/territorial governments must prioritize their projects and submit them to the federal government for funding consideration under existing programs, such as the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF), the Border Infrastructure Fund and the Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program (SHIP). Funding requests must comply with all of the requirements and terms and conditions of the fund in question.
I should note that all SHIP funds for Newfoundland and Labrador are already committed and departmental officials are carefully considering transportation and other infrastructure projects under the remaining funds for the CSIF. That said, I can assure you that the federal government will honour its commitment to cost-share $50 million over five years for the surfacing of the TLH between Labrador City and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
In Budget 2006, the federal government committed $16.5 billion over the next four years to improve provincial/territorial and municipal infrastructure. This amount includes:
* $2 billion to renew the CSIF;
* $2.2 billion to renew the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund; and
* $2.4 billion over the next five years for a new Highways and Border Infrastructure Fund. As part of the Government of Canada's commitment to restore the fiscal balance, officials from the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Transportation and Works took part in recent consultations held by Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada officials with respect to the role of the federal government in long-term infrastructure funding and ensuring accountability to Canadians. The consultations also provided valuable input for the policy and program parameters of the funds announced in Budget 2006, including investment priorities. Provincial officials have identified the TLH as one of the Province's key priorities.
I should note, however, that neither Transport Canada nor Infrastructure Canada is in a position to enter into any bilateral funding agreements under any of the infrastructure funds before the terms and conditions of these funds are approved by Cabinet and the Treasury Board. The portfolio expects to have these approvals by the end of the year. That being said, to assist us in conducting the requisite due diligence, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will need to submit, as soon as possible, a complete business case for the TLH, demonstrating the importance, technical merits, sustainability and overall benefits. This business case should be the same as those required under existing federal funding programs.
I trust that the foregoing has clarified the department's position with respect to this matter. Again, thank you for writing.
Yours truly,
Lisa Berthier
Special Assistant - Atlantic
c.c. Office of the Honourable John Hickey, M.H.A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
