Ridley Terminals sends $250,000 to Ottawa

General Forums Prince Rupert Forum
1

ottawacitizen.com/Magnificen … story.html

Ridley Terminals sends aboriginal art and $250,000 to Ottawa. That sculpture and $250K could have gone a long way to help with the cultural centre the Tsimshian and the Port Authority were considering for Prince Rupert. Am I the only one who thinks the art and the money should have stayed in PR? Which board member was trying to improve his/her standing in Ottawa circles for perhaps an even more lucrative appointment with a crown corporation? Meanwhile the citizens of Port Edward are choking on coal dust. I’m sure they will really appreciate Ridley’s generosity to Ottawa.

2

At the end of the day…Ridley is an +100 person employer of some of the highest paid jobs in the Northwest…I don’t think there is anything wrong with this donation whatsoever…especially considering how much money the terminal is putting forth for continued expansion IN Prince Rupert/Port Edward, which only means the protection of jobs, longevity of them and creation of new ones for BOTH communities.

3

It could have been donated to the local SPCA, the local foodbank or they could have blown the whole contribution in a top-tier party with Dom bottles dumped as ritzy stripper topper.

Making our presence known, and felt at a Federal level is a very great idea. Money well donated in my opion. There will always be someone who has a problem with any manner in which it would be donated - I think.

4

but the question is why is a crown corporation donating money and art to a museum in Ottawa when they can buy the art and leave it here in town? are the federal tories so desperate for money that they probably asked the crown corp. to donate the money and art? what is the rational? couldn’t the art and money gone to the northern museum?

5

terracestandard.com/news/135317858.html

Clarification: $250,000/year for 5 years!

Has RTI ever donated that much money anywhere before?

It is the largest donation ever received by the National Arts Centre which is a performing arts centre. That means you’ll have to fly to Ottawa to see any benefits from this massive donation.

I agree that not everybody will be happy no matter who gets the donation but I still think it should have stayed in the Prince Rupert region. This appears to be the bright idea of Scott Shepard on RTI’s board of directors who is also on the board of the NAC. I don’t think that donations to Ottawa, especially at this scale is within the board’s mandate. I prefer much more the Port Authority’s community donations that are spread around to numerous worthy recipients. Why does RTI have to load up on one of the board’s pet projects?

$1.25 million may be chump change in Ottawa but it would be huge in the economically depressed Prince Rupert region. What is Nathan Cullen’s thoughts on this? Was this what they imagined when the Tsimshian signed protocol agreements with RTI in recent years?

6

Ridley Terminals is in fact owned by all Canadians and not just the citizens of Prince Rupert. It would be interesting to see how much money the Canadian Taxpayer has sent over the years to Ridley Terminals to subsidize the terminal and the coal operators before we get our knickers in too tight of a knot.

7

To believe that there is a “simple as that solution” as donating locally (money is appreciated only locally) and there is no “Contribution” and “Donation” to get a “scratch on the back with legislation / regulation,” is actually a little naive. This is how our democracy and government works now. What do you think the Occupy X-City protests are about?

As stated, it could have gone anywhere in the local region. Do you think that type of donation would bring international business and further support from the Feds if it went to the “Museum of Northern BC?” Most definitely not. Sad, but true.

8

Here is the mandate of RTI (emphasis is mine):

“The company’s focus is to increase the value of Canada’s investment in the terminal, to SUPPORT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY OF PRINCE RUPERT, and to help canadian shippers compete more effectively in the international market by minimizing transportation costs.”

nominations.gc.ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=RID&lang=eng

Here is the mission of the National Art Centre’s Foundation:

To inspire Canadians to support the National Arts Centre’s priorities in performance, creation and learning through:

Strategically planning meaningful ways to engage donors, potential donors and volunteers;
Developing annual fundraising plans to achieve maximum support for the performing arts and education activities of the NAC;
Designing and implementing stewardship plans to ensure long term donor relationships;
Raising the profile of the NAC and promoting and supporting the performing arts across Canada; and
Becoming a recognized leader in philanthropy through adoption of best practices and commitment to our values.

nac-cna.ca/en/foundation/about/index.cfm

Scott Shepherd is a board member of both. Which mandate/mission did he fulfill with that donation? Does that donation even fit within RTI’s mandate? It is bordering on conflict of interest in my opinion.

RTI board of directors are patronage appointments from the federal government. Is this the direct result of having an NDP MP in the riding? Are the Conservatives thinking, why waste spending money in a riding that they will lose in the next election. Shouldn’t Nathan Cullen be raising the alarm bells? If it is too late to stop this one perhaps if enough of a stink is made maybe RTI’s board of directors will think twice about forking out the dough outside of the local area. Prince Rupert and Port Ed councils should be writing to RTI asking for clarification of their mandate and how this donation fits within it.

It is always political when it comes to patronage appointments and this one isn’t benefiting the Prince Rupert area.

How about Elmer Derrick who is also a RTI board member? Recently signed an agreement with Enbridge on behalf of the Gitxsan. The Conservatives have voiced their support of the Enbridge pipeline proposal. Coincidence? The Gitxsan chiefs have since closed the treaty office and fired Elmer …

9

[quote=“Kispiox”]Here is the mandate of RTI (emphasis is mine):

“The company’s focus is to increase the value of Canada’s investment in the terminal, to SUPPORT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY OF PRINCE RUPERT, and to help canadian shippers compete more effectively in the international market by minimizing transportation costs.”

nominations.gc.ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=RID&lang=eng

Here is the mission of the National Art Centre’s Foundation:

To inspire Canadians to support the National Arts Centre’s priorities in performance, creation and learning through:

Strategically planning meaningful ways to engage donors, potential donors and volunteers;
Developing annual fundraising plans to achieve maximum support for the performing arts and education activities of the NAC;
Designing and implementing stewardship plans to ensure long term donor relationships;
Raising the profile of the NAC and promoting and supporting the performing arts across Canada; and
Becoming a recognized leader in philanthropy through adoption of best practices and commitment to our values.

nac-cna.ca/en/foundation/about/index.cfm

Scott Shepherd is a board member of both. Which mandate/mission did he fulfill with that donation? Does that donation even fit within RTI’s mandate? It is bordering on conflict of interest in my opinion.

RTI board of directors are patronage appointments from the federal government. Is this the direct result of having an NDP MP in the riding? Are the Conservatives thinking, why waste spending money in a riding that they will lose in the next election. Shouldn’t Nathan Cullen be raising the alarm bells? If it is too late to stop this one perhaps if enough of a stink is made maybe RTI’s board of directors will think twice about forking out the dough outside of the local area. Prince Rupert and Port Ed councils should be writing to RTI asking for clarification of their mandate and how this donation fits within it.

It is always political when it comes to patronage appointments and this one isn’t benefiting the Prince Rupert area.

How about Elmer Derrick who is also a RTI board member? Recently signed an agreement with Enbridge on behalf of the Gitxsan. The Conservatives have voiced their support of the Enbridge pipeline proposal. Coincidence? The Gitxsan chiefs have since closed the treaty office and fired Elmer …[/quote]

LOL, sorry but you’ll have to delve further into your X Files examination here, I somehow doubt that a multi billion dollar project as the Enbridge one is going to hinge on Elmer Derrick’s “donation” of some artwork and a donation valued at around 250,000 dollars.

Whether or not Ridley should have made the donation can be debated endlessly (frankly it would seem to be what it seems, that of a donation of artwork and cash to the national centre, as has been done by patrons through the ages.), but suggesting a whiff of corruption doesn’t really help make whatever argument you would be trying to make.

10

[quote=“Smurfette”]

LOL, sorry but you’ll have to delve further into your X Files examination here, I somehow doubt that a multi billion dollar project as the Enbridge one is going to hinge on Elmer Derrick’s “donation” of some artwork and a donation valued at around 250,000 dollars.

Whether or not Ridley should have made the donation can be debated endlessly (frankly it would seem to be what it seems, that of a donation of artwork and cash to the national centre, as has been done by patrons through the ages.), but suggesting a whiff of corruption doesn’t really help make whatever argument you would be trying to make.[/quote]

I’m sorry I shouldn’t have mentioned Elmer and Enbridge. It confuses the issue and Smurfette drew a conclusion I was not suggesting. The point was that patronage appointments are political:

“Some prefer to refer to patronage simply as corruption. In some cases certainly that is true. I will go with the milder term, however, both because it captures a much broader area of activity (most of the appointments are salaried, but some board members get only expenses, per diems, etc) and because it is usually impossible to prove a clear link in any case. Since 2006, the general trend is to hire people who are notably Conservative or who have no apparent party loyalties. Prior to 2006, a similar trend favoured Liberal over Conservative appointees. Stephen Harper once denounced this system as the Prime Minister rewarding his “buddies,” but while in office has been uninterested in changing the system. Instead he has continued to appoint party insiders and supporters at a frenzied pace, even to the Senate, which he once demanded be fully democratized through elected Senators with term limits. Days after the May 2011 general election, he even appointed several losing candidates to the Senate, so that they could have a seat in Parliament anyways after being denied one by the public.”

sixthestate.net/?page_id=1381

And Smurfette, the donation is not $250K it is $250K/year for 5 years! And the RTI board went outside of their mandate to the detriment of Prince Rupert area residents.

11

How is it detrimental to Prince Rupert?

12

they probably within their mandate to donate that money and art to the NAC, but my question was why? what prompted it? why didn’t they donate it to the northern musuem instead?

13

[quote=“Kispiox”]

[quote=“Smurfette”]

LOL, sorry but you’ll have to delve further into your X Files examination here, I somehow doubt that a multi billion dollar project as the Enbridge one is going to hinge on Elmer Derrick’s “donation” of some artwork and a donation valued at around 250,000 dollars.

Whether or not Ridley should have made the donation can be debated endlessly (frankly it would seem to be what it seems, that of a donation of artwork and cash to the national centre, as has been done by patrons through the ages.), but suggesting a whiff of corruption doesn’t really help make whatever argument you would be trying to make.[/quote]

I’m sorry I shouldn’t have mentioned Elmer and Enbridge. It confuses the issue and Smurfette drew a conclusion I was not suggesting. The point was that patronage appointments are political:

“Some prefer to refer to patronage simply as corruption. In some cases certainly that is true. I will go with the milder term, however, both because it captures a much broader area of activity (most of the appointments are salaried, but some board members get only expenses, per diems, etc) and because it is usually impossible to prove a clear link in any case. Since 2006, the general trend is to hire people who are notably Conservative or who have no apparent party loyalties. Prior to 2006, a similar trend favoured Liberal over Conservative appointees. Stephen Harper once denounced this system as the Prime Minister rewarding his “buddies,” but while in office has been uninterested in changing the system. Instead he has continued to appoint party insiders and supporters at a frenzied pace, even to the Senate, which he once demanded be fully democratized through elected Senators with term limits. Days after the May 2011 general election, he even appointed several losing candidates to the Senate, so that they could have a seat in Parliament anyways after being denied one by the public.”

sixthestate.net/?page_id=1381

And Smurfette, the donation is not $250K it is $250K/year for 5 years! And the RTI board went outside of their mandate to the detriment of Prince Rupert area residents.[/quote]

Not sure what other inference one could take from your talking point, other than the suggestion that someone (in this case it would seem Mr. Derrick was seeking to curry favour).

Speaking of talking points, the above contribution would seem to put you all over the map from what appears to be your original point of some artwork and a donation for whatever period of time.

Wish to regroup and revisit the debate? As my head is starting to spin with all the deflecting that is going on.

14

As always, when someone’s interests are not payed to in Prince Rupert people get upset. Obviously this is an issue that is close to a particular person that is not benefiting from the donation and that could have. I can see there is some backroom mandates or “to-and-from” that is not divulged and PR is poised to gain from this. Regardless of the local unproductiveness directly to do with “art,” we stand to gain economically.

I support the donation because by golly, it sure would be nice to work on “Fantasy Island” at some point in the next five years. Because you know, like all the people working on Fantasy Island, I want to work around the clock so I can buy houses and trucks and enjoy a great yearly income and honest living as well.

That’s not sarcasm, that’s honesty.

15

[quote=“MeepMeepZoom”]As always, when someone’s interests are not payed to in Prince Rupert people get upset. Obviously this is an issue that is close to a particular person that is not benefiting from the donation and that could have. I can see there is some backroom mandates or “to-and-from” that is not divulged and PR is poised to gain from this. Regardless of the local unproductiveness directly to do with “art,” we stand to gain economically.

I support the donation because by golly, it sure would be nice to work on “Fantasy Island” at some point in the next five years. Because you know, like all the people working on Fantasy Island, I want to work around the clock so I can buy houses and trucks and enjoy a great yearly income and honest living as well.

That’s not sarcasm, that’s honesty.[/quote]

Keep your dream alive. I’ve made a few applications out at Fantasy Island over the years, but sadly I have yet to be called for the secret handshake and bounty of largesse that they shower upon the chosen ones.

16

The Terrace Standard has the Story Wrong, it is a total of $250,000 ($50,000 per year for 5 years) this is the correct story:

blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/12/ … ed-at-nac/

terracestandard.com/news/135317858.html

Clarification: $250,000/year for 5 years!

Has RTI ever donated that much money anywhere before?

It is the largest donation ever received by the National Arts Centre which is a performing arts centre. That means you’ll have to fly to Ottawa to see any benefits from this massive donation.

I agree that not everybody will be happy no matter who gets the donation but I still think it should have stayed in the Prince Rupert region. This appears to be the bright idea of Scott Shepard on RTI’s board of directors who is also on the board of the NAC. I don’t think that donations to Ottawa, especially at this scale is within the board’s mandate. I prefer much more the Port Authority’s community donations that are spread around to numerous worthy recipients. Why does RTI have to load up on one of the board’s pet projects?

$1.25 million may be chump change in Ottawa but it would be huge in the economically depressed Prince Rupert region. What is Nathan Cullen’s thoughts on this? Was this what they imagined when the Tsimshian signed protocol agreements with RTI in recent years?

17

[quote=“iamtheone”]The Terrace Standard has the Story Wrong, it is a total of $250,000 ($50,000 per year for 5 years) this is the correct story:

blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/12/ … ed-at-nac/[/quote]

That is a big difference and much more reasonable however the Ottawa Citizen simply says:

“along with $250,000 from Ridley to support aboriginal arts at the centre.”

It doesn’t say “total” but it also doesn’t say “per year” either so the Ottawa Citizen story is inconclusive. I’m guessing iamtheone is right on this but does iamtheone have an additional source of info on this. Care to share?

18

I still don’t get the thinking that the Rinse is being slighted.

You asked the question. “Am I the only one who thinks the art and the money should have stayed in PR?”

I can’t speak for others but I think it’s better to have this Art at the National Art’s Centre than the RTI offices on Ridley.

Our national arts museum gives this art and the Northwest major international exposure. This is a magnificent piece and it deserves to be in a high traffic location where all Canadians and many international visitors can see the culture of the Nort Coast. Raising the profile of our region in such a positive fashion is certainly better for our town than our annual standing on the worst places to live in Canada.

The Canadian taxpayer has sunk massive dollars into Ridley to open it in the first place and has subsidized it since the outset. Look at their financials to see what a drain this operation has been on the Cdn taxpayer since it opened. I’m thinking Cdn taxpayers have paid their “RTI support Prince Rupert Dues” many times over.

We could have a discussion on how RTI has been a form of corporate welfare for coal producers and a taxpayer subsidized make work project for a lucky few Rupertites. Or we could rail against political patronage and funding special interests. We could have a discussion on whether any contribution to arts or charities is properly within the mandate of a Crown Corp. We could even have a discussion on why we need to commission a small replica for the local RTI bureaucrats to look at. However, the argument that a Canadian Crown Corp should not contribute to our national museum because this money has to be spent in the Rinse just doesn’t work for me.

Frankly I’m proud that one of our neighbours will have his work displayed in a site that has both National and International prominence. This is good for the Artist, it’s good for First Nations Culture and Pride and it’s good for the Northwest to be seen as the home of talented Artists. Congrats to Dempsey Bob on this achievement.

19

If the money goes to the Museum to showcase northcoast BC first nations art and culture then I am okay with this donation. The problem I have is one of optics. RTI is run under a federal stewardship. Is Harper getting RTI to donate money to the museum so that Ottawa can lower it’s commitment by an equal amount? This would make Harper look like he is being financially prudent in not giving the museum the $250,000 it needs, since technically it is not the government in Ottawa that is giving the money to the museum.

20

Oh for God’s sake, for all his faults, Stephen Harper is hardly a hands on guy that has to approve every freakin’ decision.

Honestly, the guy probably has many other more important things to worry about than whether some guy from Northwest BC is upset because a work of art is being showcased at the National Arts Centre, the performing Arts Centre of the nation which attracts tens of thousands of visitors per year.

This place is so self absorbed and sadly self indulgent at times that its bizarre, this would appear, as said before, to be what it is, a donation of work and monies (now apparently the more reasonable rate of 50,000 a year towards that same arts centre) to the national centre.

Hardly the smoking gun of massive corruption. Chances are, that Mr. Harper doesn’t even know that the piece or art and/or the money is on the way.