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. 

UPPER CHURCHILL CONTRACT: “Inherent Uncertainty” or Just Bafflegab?

Note: This item, written by your Uncle Gnarley scribe, was first published in the Telegram August 11, 2012 and is posted here for Uncle Gnarley readers.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a right to feel a sense of betrayal, that an energy strategy, already bought and paid for, focusing on expiry of the Upper Churchill Contract in 2041, has been rejected by the Williams/Dunderdale Administrations. 

The following is a direct quote from Nalcor’s Submission, to the PUB, in defense of its Muskrat Falls strategy:

 "There is inherent uncertainty around guaranteeing the availability of supply from Churchill Falls in 2041 because it is difficult to determine the environmental and policy frameworks that will be in place 30+ years out. There are other issues surrounding the CF asset with respect to HQ, as Nalcor is not the sole shareholder of the Churchill Falls operation".  

Efforts to either break Hydro Quebec’s stranglehold on the Upper Churchill and develop the Lower Churchill, formed significant policy initiatives not just of the Moores and Peckford Administrations. 

Those of Brian Tobin and Roger Grimes had a different strategy but each attempted to limit risk to the NL treasury by engaging Hydro Quebec.

Notwithstanding the failures which ensued, energy policy, since 1974, has been pursued with the certain knowledge that the Upper Churchill Contract, in 2041, expires. 

Indeed, in another time, another Premier, indelibly linked with the Contract, might be heard to say: “It is not a case of ‘maybe’ or ’if’ or ‘possibly’.  The Contract ‘unquestionably’, ‘unreservedly’, ‘unconditionally’, ‘absolutely’ expires in 2041”.

Who are the Guardians of Democracy in NL?

Democracy, and all the rights and freedoms represented by that most cherished of systems, historically, has demanded the spilling of blood as the price of victory over tyranny.  Canadians are an exception.  The Great Wars notwithstanding, no blood was spilled in this country in pursuit of such a noble cause.  But as many democrats know, winning democracy is only a beginning; rights are constantly under threat of being diminished.

Poor access to information and the capacity of government to be willfully secretive is a daily issue for the media and for everyone else. Arrogance and ‘legislative creep,’ translated as the progressive restriction of rights over time by modest changes to legislation, is an ever present danger.   Most of us know that public release of information exposes poor analysis, shoddy administrative systems and, sometimes, outright illegality. Governments often prefer to tighten the process of disclosure rather than fix the root cause of the problems.

Bill 29 is an example of legislative creep.  Then too, Muskrat Falls is an example of poor analysis.  But powerful interests want Muskrat Falls built.  Those vested interests, I suggest, are in conflict with the public interest.  Most people want to believe that governments are well intentioned. Still, experience suggests that government decisions are often subject to competing interests and influences rather than objective analysis or the rigid criteria of cost vs. benefit. 

While many agree that this government’s determination to beat off dissenters of Muskrat Falls is a serious display of poor democratic practice, we should ask: who has the responsibility to be on guard when such practices threaten basic rights?  

MUSKRAT FALLS: A BETTER OPTION EXAMINED (Part 4)

The strain was showing on Uncle Gnarley’s face as he fought to complete his oration on that “dreaded” Muskrat Falls project.  His declaration that the Province should kill the power generation plant at Muskrat completely and build only the transmission line now, was deemed by him, a ‘modest’ proposal. 

Though he had reservations, Gnarley made certain that I understood, even his ‘modest’ proposal contained a significant qualifier: Nalcor must purchase access to 250-350 MWs from Hydro Quebec.  Together with the balance of ‘recall’ power from the Upper Churchill, of about 80MWs, the cost of which is small, might, he suggested, “and I emphasize, might, justify such an expensive transmission link to the island”.

The proposal had its face saving elements which Gnarley knew would have to be offered.  Some politicians would ‘go down with the ship’, he suggested, rather than acknowledge they had made a grievous error in judgement. 

Though he was a skilled Economist and retired University Professor, Uncle Gnarley had spent many a summer plying the waters off Petty Harbour, as a fisherman.  For him, turbulence, breaking waves and an unforgiving coastline were acceptable risks, though measureable when prudently assessed.  Those who conjured up Muskrat Falls were landlubbers, he suggested, for whom even the crises in Greece barely served as a metaphor for peril. For Uncle Gnarley, Muskrat Falls, wore all the hallmarks of impending disaster.

 “Just a drop”, Nav, as I offered to re-fill his glass.  I wish to be clear about my conclusions.

MUSKRAT FALLS: A MODEST PROPOSAL (Part 3)

Editor’s Note:  Part 3 of Uncle Gnarley’s review of the Muskrat Falls project became more expansive than first expected, as he explains why it is a bad idea right now, and what alternatives the Provincial Government ought to be considering.  Gnarley was not prepared to compromise completeness for brevity; hence, part 4 will be posted Monday, next).

Uncle Gnarley seated himself comfortably in his ‘own’ chair and gave me a look of expectation when his favourite ‘lubricant of the soul’ was not in evidence.  Sensitive to his most egregious habits, I proposed that we try a recent purchase, a 12 year old Balvenie, a personal favourite, aged in portwood and full bodied; the spirits boasted a taste and character that was delicious and smooth.  Producing the evidence, I received no comment on what a friend had thought was a “shrewd” purchase, though the look of surprise and satisfaction, which characterized his discerning smirk, afforded me confidence, that, this evening at least, I would not be reminded of my shortcomings on the water.

Uncle Gnarley was now ready to get on with his review of the Muskrat Falls project. 

“Indulge an old man for another few minutes, Nav, and I will head back down to the Shore, Gnarley began, simply. 

“Last time, I put paid to the Nova Scotia link.  For the reasons I explained, there is little or no power to export, so why give away 20% of the project for free. Though, the point is rather academic, he added.

“More importantly, replacing Holyrood at all, with Muskrat Falls, and at a cost that may well climb to $10 billion or more, is just such an incredibly terrible idea”.

“What about Alderon? I interjected.  The company says it needs power. “Yes, Alderon”! He scratched his head, shaking it a little: “they really should consult IOCC to see how they got their power”, replied Gnarly, dismissively.

“40% of Muskrat, 330 Megawatts (MWs), is thought necessary, by Nalcor, to replace Holyrood; the cost of the whole project will be repaid by levying the Newfoundland taxpayer a rate increase every year for 50 years. 

“That is the basis of the ‘take or pay’ contract they have designed for us, he declared, regardless of whether the power is needed, regardless of changes in technology over that period; regardless if oil prices fall; and, regardless if natural gas overtakes other forms of energy, as we are now seeing in the U.S. with shale gas. 

ALDERON, DANNY AND BAD MANNERS

Small societies suffer from a distinct disadvantage: smallness. Smallness permeates our politics, our economy and all the institutions that constitute our societal underpinnings.
Smallness is not just about the absence of scale, it is about history and geography. Sometimes, it’s about diminutive politicians and business leaders, too.  The diminutive effect is compounded by a short history of democracy, compared, for example, with other small societies such as Iceland, where political maturity has overcome their small scale.

From a different perspective, smallness affords familiarity, the quaintness of distinguishing one resident from another, as tall Jim and short Jim.  It also imposes a certain discipline; to be careful about criticism and the giving of offense; perhaps, it is what prevents us from publicly telling the Chairman of Alderon Iron Ore Corp. to mind his own business.  
In small societies, a few people, often just one or two, can influence, not just the politics, but public policies, too.  Indeed, some often achieve a sway over their government that is disproportionate to their wisdom and ability.   Could one of those have been Danny Williams?

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.

HOW NOT TO LOSE YOUR MARBLES!

(Uncle Gnarley is hosting the Class of 2012; his umpteenth time performing high level instruction to the politically naïve.  Let’s listen in…as he addresses the group.) Here's Uncle Gnarley:

People, often to their detriment, enjoy a belief in the fundamental fairness of political institutions.    Human progress is frequently inhibited because, all too often, we give way to, what I call, “the tyranny of naïve realism”.  

The art of the process is not as much science as it is attitude.  Perhaps it is our relative isolation, maybe it is in the generous nature of island people, as most of us are; whatever its source, we have a tendency to see things as ‘we want them to be’ rather than ‘as they are’.  It is a common weakness, especially in politics. It has to stop!

But don’t worry. Uncle Gnarley will have you wearing the grim aspect of a Presbyterian in no time. 

Now, Johnny, down in the far corner; you look so wise, yes, you, the one with the Walmart ‘Prices are Falling’ sticker on your jacket.   Answer me this question, what does the phrase “envelope approach to federalism” mean?  No, Johnny, I didn’t ask you to let your eye balls fall out; it’s not time for ‘show and tell’.  What do you mean, ask, Mary.  I’m asking you!  You have never heard of it? Then sit down and let Mary speak. 

BOOT CAMP FOR THE POLITICALLY NAIVE

“What is it that we have to do down here to get your attention?  We try to co-operate; it doesn’t work.  We vote for you; it doesn’t work. What is it?”

That was Premier Cathy Dunderdale, quoted verbatim from The Telegram Editorial page, Saturday, May 19, 2012, edition entitled “Fracas With the Feds”.    Of course, the lament was directed at the Prime Minister.

From the time Newfoundland entered Confederation, every Premier has felt ignored by the federal government; Smallwood had a running battle with Diefenbaker, Peckford with Trudeau and Chretien, Wells with Mulroney and now, Dunderdale with Harper. Do you see a trend?

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians seem to think that Ottawa wakes up every morning hell bent on screwing us.  Somehow, we can’t seem to figure this out:  Ottawa simply wakes up.  That’s it.  They are not hell bent on ‘screwing us’; Ottawa just doesn’t think of us, at all!

After more than sixty years in confederation, we still don’t get it.  Well, it’s time that you get it!  Think of this as boot-camp for the politically naïve.

Let’s start at the beginning.