BRIAN PECKFORD'S WAKE-UP CALL

It was a somewhat older, less feisty, more comfortably confident Brian Peckford who ascended the stage as guest speaker at the closing of NOIA’S 40^thconference. But time had not altered his powers of communication or any of his enormous capacity to be singular with his audience, to entertain them and, concomitantly, to leave them feeling slightly less comfortable than when they first sat down.

As an ‘old’ staffer of Premier Peckford, in the 1970s and 80s (full disclosure), I had watched the performance many times, often jealously — the rapport quickly established, the bond of trust unmistakable, all given an articulation that found clarity only because it was as physical and emotional as it was verbal. Like him or hate him — many did both, and some at the same time — he was a master storyteller.

Cabot Martin: A ‘FRACKING’ Mess

Cabot Martin, the former policy advisor to three Premiers, Moores, Peckford and Wells, recently released a Report entitled, "An Analysis of a Study Entitled Natural Gas as an Island Power Generation Option".  Martin was reviewing a study by Ziff Energy commissioned by the Provincial Government; its purpose was to counter the view, held by many, that natural gas is a viable alternative to Muskrat Falls.

Earlier, this year, the Government ignored the views of Dr. Stephen Bruneau, a highly respected academic at Memorial University, who in a public Presentation, gave great merit to the concept.

The Ziff Study dismisses natural gas as a viable option.  It suggests that the capital cost of developing the infrastructure for such a small customer (Newfoundland) is too high, and that the oil companies are not interested in a venture which does not offer a sufficient return on their investment.  Husky Energy quickly confirmed Ziff’s conclusion. Cabot Martin dismissed the Ziff Study.  Ziff are economists, he stated; they do not possess the engineering expertise to assess the gas option.

This article is not about the merits of natural gas.   You can judge the validity of Martin’s comments yourself.

However, Cabot inspires two critical questions which individuals, interested in NL public policy, should ponder.

WHY SMALL SOCIETIES FAIL

Why would Premier Dunderdale refuse a proper debate on the Muskrat Falls project in the House of Assembly?  Why would any government, want to assume complete control over the issue and bring upon itself full and unfettered blame if the costs become more massive than already projected?  

Dunderdale, Kennedy and Marshall leave me in a state of bewilderment as to what influences  their thinking.

My own reference point is the late ’70s to mid-1980s, when Brian Peckford was Premier; it was a time of deep and often bitter federal/provincial exchanges over the Atlantic Accord, fisheries jurisdiction and repatriation of the Constitution.  The level of engagement he fostered with the public was simply huge; it still has no parallel. 

It is not an approach favoured by Dunderdale; she is not one given to citizen engagement in public policy matters; sadly, she does not claim to be one of those confident politicians who engage citizens freely and fearlessly nor one who regards the House of Assembly as a focal point of our democracy.

As Peckford’s recent book, “Some Day the Sun will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More” painstakingly describes, the achievement of the Atlantic Accord was a tortuous exercise. NL was ‘as poor as a church mouse’ and could ill afford to make enemies in Ottawa; yet, he persisted. Strikingly, neither local labour nor business groups, like the St. John’s Board of Trade or the Liberal Party or the NDP, got behind Peckford’s dogged initiative. 

Tom Osborne Defects: Time for a Realty Check

The announcement by the MHA for St. John’s South, Tom Osborne, that he is quitting the Dunderdale P.C.s, had me recalling my June 25^th Post, entitled, “All Eyes on the Backbench, Please”.

Since posting that warning of the political cost of Dunderdale’s declining popularity her personal Poll numbers have been in free fall.  Her comment, that ‘strong leadership’ does not govern by Poll results, was unconvincing. 

Everyone knows, Premiers can’t let a single poll result or two cause a reversal in decision making.  But a trend will.  And what Premier Dunderdale is experiencing right now, is exactly that, a trend. 

Tom Osborne’s decision begs five points of analysis:

First, when the Premier’s popularity descends into free fall, the authority of leadership is the first casuality. Most Premiers have enough personal IOUs with caucus members that they can survive periods of voter displeasure, especially when it occurs early in the mandate. This is a crucial test which Dunderdale has failed.

Second, when Osborne refused to endorse Dunderdale for the uncontested Tory leadership position, she all but shunned him.  It was one thing not to appoint him to Cabinet; that is her prerogative.  It is quite another not to make him feel welcomed inside the Tory caucus and attempt to gain his confidence.  That is an error in judgement. 

ALL EYES ON THE BACKBENCH, PLEASE.

The Muskrat Falls project, in all its complexity and potential for negative outcomes, is akin to a bomb with multiple warheads for politicians.  Political fallout could occur from several directions, perhaps even at once.  Weaknesses in decision making will be exposed as cost projections continue to increase, the price of oil remains weak, and low natural gas prices and power conversions to that form, continue to dominate the energy news in other jurisdictions. Look for a number of Cabinet Ministers and backbenchers alike, to become uncomfortable. 
By the time Muskrat Falls is sanctioned, it will be interesting to see whether any of the current Ministers have the courage exhibited, in another time, by John Crosbie, Clyde Wells, Alex Hickman and Val Earle, who sought the Opposition benches (Wells became an independent MHA) when the Smallwood government engaged in reckless behaviour with the finances of the Province.

Will any of them follow the example of Tom Rideout or Jim Hodder, who left the Liberal Party in the mid-1980s, because of the Party’s failure to back the Peckford Tories over natural resource issues and revenue sharing with the Feds?

Now, it’s the Tories who are in government and who are playing fast and loose with public policy and the public treasury. 

But even before you take notice of how guarded certain Ministers will become, you would do well to watch the Members sitting in the government’s back benches. 

THE LIMITS OF PARTISANSHIP

The following Essay penned by Uncle Gnarley’s writer, appeared in The Telegram, Saturday, June 2, 2012 edition, and is re-produced here with minor edits.)          

Once the tyranny of the Smallwood years had been lifted, after the 1972 general election, it did not take long for new government systems to be introduced. 

Modern management practices including a more formalized public information system, a system for hiring public employees based upon merit, a public tendering system, as well as others were introduced.  A restructuring of the legislative and executive branches of the public service occurred; capable people became involved in the governance of the Province.  While the system was far from perfect and backsliding was sometimes manifest, major advances in the overall system of governing for a democratic society were evident.  Somehow, that process was halted with Muskrat Falls.

The Muskrat Falls project was a big head butt! Not at first. Not until the questions started to emerge. Maybe it wasn’t even then; perhaps, it was when Minister Kennedy was heard voicing outlandish and accusatory statements in an attempt to discredit certain individuals.  Many people then took the time to review the information on Muskrat Falls.  Personally, I came to the conclusion that it was not only ill thought out, it was reckless. Still, that is another matter.