- October 27, 2012 - 12:11
Newfoundland is champion of sitting oin our colective arses and waiting for some non-Newfoundland ,usually American company to come here and develop our resources. The solutiioon to any perception of "giving them away" is to get off those arses and do smoething with them opursleves....short of that, we take what the market offers. And that is the reality that we have chosen for ourselves. If we are perennial "victims", it is the seed we have sown...or more correctly, not sown.
- October 26, 2012 - 15:52
Sullivan is playing hanky-pankey for sure but that miniscule yellowtail flounder can't possibly be processed for profit. Too labour intensive! But if it's being exported whole, and I know of a bunch or reasons why, we're entitled to a royalty.
- October 26, 2012 - 14:44
If fishing people want to export fish and not use local processing then a royality should be charged per pound as it is a shared resource. IE Taxed at the well head.
- a business man
- October 26, 2012 - 15:55
I absolutely agree with you Derrick. If the resource is to processed without local workers, the a royalty should be charged. That said, MY personal opinion is that charging a royalty is better for newfoundland as a whole than is having a local fishery. In essence, I advocate for cutting out the local fishermen and then using the royalty money to improve services that everyone uses, like health care and infrastructure. Yes, the fishermen lose, but everyone else gains as the greater good is served. The fish can be used to benefit a group that is larger than the fishermen.
- October 26, 2012 - 10:21
Colin Burke has it right on the money. The fishermen should be allowed to cut out these conniving processors so that they can truly sell to the highest bidder. If a fish plant like Fortune is not viable unless we stoop to these depths for 110 jobs, then those 110 jobs are not worth having. The fishery is a valuable industry, but it is spread too thin and on the verge of collapse if we keep up these reckless practices... In my opinion, the only fish plants in Newfoundland should be co-operatives and if they can't keep themselves afloat, then so be it...
- Colin Burke
- October 26, 2012 - 09:24
A fish processor in Newfoundland ought not to ship unprocessed fish out of Newfoundland; if anyone is to do that, it ought to be the fishermen themselves who are selling unprocessed fish in the first place. A processor who wants to process fish elsewhere ought to jolly well set itself up elsewhere and leave Newfoundland quotas in Newfoundland. Anyway, it is the fishermen and not the processors who ought to enjoy having quotas to catch.
- Cold Future
- October 26, 2012 - 06:57
No more giveways, except for the minerals, the oil, the fish and the hydroelectric power from Labrador. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Is ir really true that we get less than half the oil royalties than most other jurisdictions in the civilized world?
- Maurice E. Adams
- October 26, 2012 - 06:55
And we don't just stop at giving away our resources..... With Muskrat Falls, we will even PAY to give away our energy. And even more, we will even TAKE A LOSS, TAKE A MAJOR LOSS, to give it away. And we will even lock ourselves in to giving it away for 50 years. And we will even lock our children into giving it away. And we will even lock our grandchildren into giving it away -- and even more, we will have them pay Nalcor $21 billion ("AFTER" 2041) to ensure that it continues to be given away --- and to ensure that we cannot, once again, benefit from the Upper Churchill's near-zero cost power --- EVEN AFTER 2041..... And who do you think will then continue to benefit, once again, AFTER 2041?
- October 26, 2012 - 17:23
Jeeeze, where's the friggin' gun!