Thursday, September 30, 2010
"BC Rail.... we gave it to them for free... a strategic asset critical to the viable sustainability of the northern transportation corridors... basically treason against our economy ..."
.
Voices from B.C.'s Hurtland ...
IPG Wades In on CN Labour Dispute
By 250 NewsWednesday, September 29, 2010
Prince George, B.C.- As CN and the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference Union prepare for a strike or lockout, Initiatives Prince George [IPG] has issued a letter to the Federal Minister of Labour Lisa Raitt calling on her to act “expeditiously to end the imminent labour dispute.”
In the letter, IPG President Tim McEwan says any labour disruption at this time would be “catastrophic” to the region “CN is the only rail service provider to Northern BC, making shippers dependent on CN’s service for long hauls that exceed economic distances for trucking. As the markets for products originating from our region primarily lumber, pulp, pellets, chips, coal, and other minerals, are international – rail service is absolutely critical.”
McEwan’s letter says any disruption in service will “create immediate economic damage to users of the rail” and will threaten customer relationships that have taken years to develop by CN and its users, which may not be recovered.”
CN and the Teamsters Rail Conference which represents 2,700 workers at the railway, were in talks this afternoon with a government appointed mediator.
The union says it has no intention of serving strike notice, and says it is prepared to meet “as long as it takes”.
At issue are two concessions posed by the railway. The union says one would eliminate brakemen on trains and another would allow roadmen to perform yardman work, eliminating about 200 yardmen positions.
Read more HERE.
http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/17762/1/ipg+wades+in+on+cn+labour+dispute
http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/17762/1/ipg+wades+in+on+cn+labour+dispute
[Some] Comments:
Posted by: RUEZ on Sept 29, 2010 So you're allowed to have your opinion but IPG isn't?
_____________
Posted by: Eagleone on Sept 29 2010Exactly... IPG mandate, if it has one, should be purely in the realm of facilitating economic development... not trying to manage the economy with a political angle to all their announcements. They have no part to make political announcements in private matters. If the politicians want to speak up, or IPG staff would like to as private individuals, then that is their prerogative.
I think at the cost of $20+ million over the last decade the city of PG got little to no real value out of IPG.
PG got a (property) tax payer funded group that spear headed the privatization of BC Rail (a completely corrupted process), which led to the collapse of Mackenzie (rail car shortage in a just in time business)... we got an organization pushing downtown properties to the cities (home owner) tax payer... we got subsidized call centers and foreign airlines... and we got not one single tangible industrial success from their efforts of any significance worth noting.
What we have is people advising how to spend tax payer dollars, and advising how our economy should be managed according to insider politics... with little to no real accountability by the tax payers that fund this organization. Its like privatized government safe from freedom of information requests and real stakeholder transparency... a hidden layer of bureaucracy that PG does not need IMO.
Where is the accountability for their (IPG) support of the privatization of BC Rail now that the true purpose of having BC Rail has come to haunt both the union workers of CN, and the economy of Northern BC?
_______________
I think at the cost of $20+ million over the last decade the city of PG got little to no real value out of IPG.
PG got a (property) tax payer funded group that spear headed the privatization of BC Rail (a completely corrupted process), which led to the collapse of Mackenzie (rail car shortage in a just in time business)... we got an organization pushing downtown properties to the cities (home owner) tax payer... we got subsidized call centers and foreign airlines... and we got not one single tangible industrial success from their efforts of any significance worth noting.
What we have is people advising how to spend tax payer dollars, and advising how our economy should be managed according to insider politics... with little to no real accountability by the tax payers that fund this organization. Its like privatized government safe from freedom of information requests and real stakeholder transparency... a hidden layer of bureaucracy that PG does not need IMO.
Where is the accountability for their (IPG) support of the privatization of BC Rail now that the true purpose of having BC Rail has come to haunt both the union workers of CN, and the economy of Northern BC?
_______________
Posted by: Eagleone on Sept. 29 2010IPG already showed they work with the agenda of monopoly capitalists, and oppose free enterprise through their BC Rail gift to CN Rail. This situation is a result of the ideology that has come out in political announcements from this organization.
One thing that burns me about the BC Rail deal is the $2 Billion dollars in paper losses the government of BC created on BC Rail's books for tax purposes as part of the sale of BC Rail... so that CN could use these tax write offs against their profits to stiff Canadian tax payers for the equivalent amount that CN supposedly paid for BC Rail.... we gave it to them for free... a strategic asset critical to the viable sustainability of the northern transportation corridors... basically treason against our economy and for 999-years committed by ideology all on the take of our tax dollars... and IPG supported the sale of BC Rail as its biggest cheer leader despite the protests and public will against it.
This is what the City of PG tax payers pay for to the tune of $20+ million a decade.
One thing that burns me about the BC Rail deal is the $2 Billion dollars in paper losses the government of BC created on BC Rail's books for tax purposes as part of the sale of BC Rail... so that CN could use these tax write offs against their profits to stiff Canadian tax payers for the equivalent amount that CN supposedly paid for BC Rail.... we gave it to them for free... a strategic asset critical to the viable sustainability of the northern transportation corridors... basically treason against our economy and for 999-years committed by ideology all on the take of our tax dollars... and IPG supported the sale of BC Rail as its biggest cheer leader despite the protests and public will against it.
This is what the City of PG tax payers pay for to the tune of $20+ million a decade.
[Sound of small voice in background shouting "Yayyyy!"]
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
Wow. EagleOne hits the nail right on the head. The Economic Development wizards of the world are so controlled by funders in Victoria that they can only trumpet the tune dictated by Camp Campbell. WHO didn't (beside them) know that this giveaway couldn't put northerners at the mercy of CN. Witness CN boxing BC RAil in at Dawson Creek by saying their bridges were unsafe(Were they really?) How much extra does it cost northern residents to get rail freight to the NOrtheast when it can't come direct and goes about 800 kms further via Prince George? What industries are not being pursued because of inadequate rail service? And how many of the 200 people being laid off are BC residents? How will it improve safety?
Will additional revenues accrue to the Province (oops forget it). None will any more.
The only thing left to do is to punt Campbell and take it back. Buy all the land back and blame Campbell as being the worst premier ever to pillage a province in Canada.
Will additional revenues accrue to the Province (oops forget it). None will any more.
The only thing left to do is to punt Campbell and take it back. Buy all the land back and blame Campbell as being the worst premier ever to pillage a province in Canada.
# posted by 
: September 30, 2010 at 3:55 p.m.
: September 30, 2010 at 3:55 p.m.
Why should you have to buy the land back? That's proceeds of crime. Should it not revert to the Provincial Government?
# posted by : September 30, 2010 at 8:43 p.m.
: September 30, 2010 at 8:43 p.m.
The private interests that purchased the land (the honest ones) would probably see it as their land now. No railroad can operate without a marshalling area to offload trainloads of various cargos. Not even CN. So without the existing land base around the yards and terminals it the existing setup will never serve the needs of any customers without their own rail access point. The land was only sold to cover for poor fiscal management by Campbell's clan anyway. Perhaps in the south some of the properties were sought by Campbell's developer buddies, but the land in the north wasn't worth a whole lot. As BCR Properties found out by spending more to develop some lots than theygot for them. Hmmm? Could the nontendered project have been awarded to "special" friends??
There's that smell again!!!!
There's that smell again!!!!
# posted by : October 1, 2010 at 8:41 a.m.
: October 1, 2010 at 8:41 a.m.
If the sale of the rail and its assets is deemed as proceeds of crime while the BC Liberal government was in power, who would really be on the hook for returning the resources back to the public? I think it would be nice to get all the assets back for free, but the current owners of those assets would have those assets tied up in court for years. I would imagine the assets (which includes much real estate) have been distributed quite widely by now.
If the government is (theoretically) representing the people, then how do people convince the courts that the people (through the government) can change their mind - have a "do-over"?
Post a Comment
If the government is (theoretically) representing the people, then how do people convince the courts that the people (through the government) can change their mind - have a "do-over"?
# posted by : October 1, 2010 at 8:45 a.m.
: October 1, 2010 at 8:45 a.m. << Home
If they were so concerned about the CN having a monopoly here, why did they and Colin Kinsely support the sale of BC Rail.
I doubt if there are any Customer relationships between shippers and CN Rail. Most shippers are not happy with the present rail service.
In any event it is **moot** because firstly the CN would actually have to go on strike. Secondly the CN Management would continue to run the Railway with Management personel, like they did the last time, and thirdly if there was serious disruption the Government would order them back to work.
Railways and Unions have had many strikes over the years, and they managed without any input from IPG. Im sure they can again.