What should
have been a paragraph of unqualified consent, Emera’s Sanction Agreement runs 29
pages plus a Schedule.
What did we
get last evening? Essentially, a statement that Emera would play along with the
NL Government if it wanted sanction now but
only if NL was prepared to pay a big price AND only if they could still be
permitted to walk away. The sanction
ceremony was a big charade.
The Uncle Gnarley Blog has a new website. Click here to visit www.unclegnarley.ca to view the latest posts!
Showing posts with label Kathy Dunderdale; Muskrat Falls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kathy Dunderdale; Muskrat Falls. Show all posts
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
DUNDERDALE'S BIG SANCTION CHARADE
Given all
the pomp and ceremony yesterday evening, you might have been left with the
impression that Muskrat Falls was sanctioned. I have bad news. Premier Dunderdale has less of a “sanction”
agreement with Emera than she has a “Loan Guarantee” with the Federal
Government. In truth, she has neither!
Friday, 23 November 2012
YVONNE JONES WAS PLAIN WRONG!
Yvonne Jones was wrong, this week, to imply that
she would vote in favour of the Muskrat Falls project if she could get some
benefits for her district and for Labrador.
It is true, as a VOCM Reporter noted, “(t)hat the Liberal MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has long been a loud opponent of the project, citing amongst other things, concerns of the lack of power allotted for mining developments in Labrador. VOCM added: “Jones says it comes down to what's in the best interest of her district….in order to change her vote she'd have to see a benefits agreement for Labrador…says she's been fighting for the people of her district for 20 years and she's not going to stop now…”.
Admittedly, the job of an Opposition Member is difficult at the best of times.
But, Muskrat Falls is not one of those issues on which to lever district improvements, regardless of how bad they are needed.
In portraying her vote as a negotiable item, Jones does her district and the whole Province a disservice. The MF issue is simply is too important and contains too many risks to be used as a bargaining tool. And, that is not the half of it.
It is true, as a VOCM Reporter noted, “(t)hat the Liberal MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has long been a loud opponent of the project, citing amongst other things, concerns of the lack of power allotted for mining developments in Labrador. VOCM added: “Jones says it comes down to what's in the best interest of her district….in order to change her vote she'd have to see a benefits agreement for Labrador…says she's been fighting for the people of her district for 20 years and she's not going to stop now…”.
Admittedly, the job of an Opposition Member is difficult at the best of times.
But, Muskrat Falls is not one of those issues on which to lever district improvements, regardless of how bad they are needed.
In portraying her vote as a negotiable item, Jones does her district and the whole Province a disservice. The MF issue is simply is too important and contains too many risks to be used as a bargaining tool. And, that is not the half of it.
Thursday, 18 October 2012
DON’T CONFUSE ‘PRINCIPLE’ with ‘PROJECT’
I was surprised that delegates to the P.C. Convention, this
past weekend, were asked to vote on a resolution in support of the Muskrat
Falls project.
Why be surprised?
Muskrat Falls is the largest construction project ever
undertaken by a provincial government; it is the legacy project of Danny
Williams and Kathy Dunderdale. Surely,
party members should be asked to weigh in and give it two thumbs up? Well,
actually, no.
At the very least, the Premier ought to have given Party
Members the courtesy of the DG-3 numbers, the latest cost estimates generated
by SNC Lavalin; she should have informed them of the cost of Muskrat power on a
KWh basis and how many billions of dollars will be added to the public debt to
pay for the project.
In a gesture of transparency, the Premier might have
insisted that Party Members be informed of the net cost to the consumer given
that NL needs only 40% of Muskrat power.
The Premier’s number, per KWh, would have factored in the 20% of the 824
MWs to Emera, at no charge, and the balance to mining interests at the price of
less than 4 cents per KWh. Such a
gesture would have constituted respect for the people who make the 'Party' function. Then, perhaps, armed with that information,
Tory delegates would be ready to vote? Alas, that is not the case.
Had a Muskrat Plenary Session dominated the entire weekend,
where seminars on Nalcor’s poor demand numbers had been discussed, the Water
Management Agreement or the alternatives to Muskrat Falls received the scrutiny
of a group still cloudy from the previous night’s festivities, it still would not
have been appropriate to invite the delegates to commit themselves on such a
project.
![]() |
| Cartoon Credit: John Meaney, Rand and Roar |
Monday, 15 October 2012
TOM OSBORNE: OPTIONS FOR A POLITICAL ORPHAN
When the St.
John’s South MHA defected from the Tories, he stated that the
people in his riding would help him decide where he will be seated on a more
permanent basis. I happen to live in Mr.
Osborne’s riding; I want to take him up on his offer, now.
Mr. Osborne is a lifelong Tory; he has won five elections under the P.C. banner. Upon defection, he said his problem did not arise from any single issue except for the Tory leadership, though some backbench MHAs and Cabinet Ministers may now be added to his list, given their visceral response to his move.
When Jim
Hodder, an MHA for Stephenville and former Premier, Tom Rideout deserted the
Liberal Party in the mid-1980s, they did do so, not in consequence of the then
Liberal Leader, but, ostensibly at least, on account of a policy that favoured
the Federal Liberals on oil and gas issues, in contrast to the NL centered position
aggressively (and, in hindsight, successfully) advanced by the Peckford Tories.
Mr. Osborne is a lifelong Tory; he has won five elections under the P.C. banner. Upon defection, he said his problem did not arise from any single issue except for the Tory leadership, though some backbench MHAs and Cabinet Ministers may now be added to his list, given their visceral response to his move.
![]() |
| Cartoon Credit: John Meaney, Rant and Roar |
In every
interview, the St. John’s South MHA was consistent: the problem was Dunderdale.
This might suggest Osborne may wish to
go back ‘home’. He will have to wait until
Dunderdale self-destructs; though, by then, the P.C. Party may be a poisoned
chalice if Muskrat Falls is sanctioned.
For this
reason, the possibility of Osborne re-joining the P.C.s, may well be a Hobson’s
choice (no choice at all). But, we’ll call
it option #1.Thursday, 11 October 2012
Robbing Gnarley to Pay For Jacques
It was Uncle Gnarley
who broached the idea of going to the upcoming mining conference at the old
hotel. I thought that it was a strange
request from the retired economist, yet, I welcomed the healthy diversion from
all the recent talk about Muskrat Falls. Knowing that there was bound to be a story, I
asked the question while en route in my new SUV: “Now Uncle
Gnarley why all the recent interest in mining”?
“Well Nav, truth
be told when I was much younger man I worked in some of the great mines in the
province. It included the iron mines in
Labrador, the asbestos mine near Baie Verte, and most enjoyably panning for gold
out west. It is how I self-funded my
education. Even though I went to economics
school, mining has remained in my blood since then. But with all this talk about mining and
Muskrat Falls I thought I should go and see what is happening. You see Nav…
I am concerned that the mining industry is falling on hard times”
With this I knew
that the air conditioning within my new vehicle would not be sufficient to keep
Uncle’s Gnarley’s face from turning 50 shades of red. He was building a great head of steam, and my
interjections would certainly be ineffective in stopping his verbal tsunami. Monday, 8 October 2012
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. Saturday, 6 October 2012
THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY
![]() |
| Photo Credit: NunatuKavut |
![]() |
| Photo Credit: NunatuKavut |
the House of Assembly has concluded.
![]() |
| Photo Credit: NunatuKavut |
![]() |
| Photo Credit:NunatuKavut |
Perhaps you believe that Nalcor should forge ahead with Muskrat Falls regardless of what anyone believes. Perhaps you believe that, since Government money is involved, a lower standard of scrutiny is acceptable. If you dare think that public money does not deserve to be treated as if it were your very own, you have chosen a slippery slope.
What ever your thoughts about the viability of Muskrat Falls or how you feel about millions of dollars public money being spent in this way, or whether you are upset that the Government has offended the Rule of Law by ignoring the legitimacy of the Public Utilities Board, I suggest that you not take your democracy for granted.
This time its Muskrat Falls; next time, it may involve an issue you feel strongly about, where another Government decision impinges upon your sense of fairplay and the sanctity of your democratic institutions.
Yes, those photos confirm that the Muskrat Falls project already under way, notwithstanding the commitments Dunderdale and co. have given the public to not proceed with construction until official sanction. Perhaps, like me, you probably see more.
| Photo Credit: Clarice Blake Rudkowski |
Spending by Nalcor is proceeding at the rate of $12-15 million a month. The Nalcor President says he wants project sanction by the end of the year. Who does he think he is?
Has Premier Dunderdale no shame?
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Race for Best Opposition Party Starts Now!
Recently
the Liberal Opposition announced a number of rules which, they believe, should
govern the structure of the House of Assembly debate on Muskrat Falls.
I had some difficulty with the logic of a few of the Liberals’ Rules. The idea of examining witnesses in the morning with debate in the afternoon is questionable (why not get all the information, then engage in debate). The Libs also want to help construct the resolution (why would you even want to, unless you planned to support the resolution). I have a few other issues but they are minor. None of them diminish the fundamental importance of a ‘structured’ examination of witnesses before the debate begins.
I had some difficulty with the logic of a few of the Liberals’ Rules. The idea of examining witnesses in the morning with debate in the afternoon is questionable (why not get all the information, then engage in debate). The Libs also want to help construct the resolution (why would you even want to, unless you planned to support the resolution). I have a few other issues but they are minor. None of them diminish the fundamental importance of a ‘structured’ examination of witnesses before the debate begins.
The NDP
must now put forward its own proposal.
Both
Parties also have to decide how far to push the Government to accept their
debate ideas or at least get them to negotiate.
And they will need to push hard.
Dunderdale
has already commented that there will be no examination of witnesses; that the Vale
Inco Debate is the “template” for the Muskrat Falls Debate. Some template!
The
Opposition would be silly if they let her set the rules for the Debate in the
House of Assembly as she has for public consideration of the issue.Monday, 1 October 2012
PAN the Muskrat Falls Debate...Unless
If you feel
a sense of hopeful anticipation about the impending House of Assembly debate on
the Muskrat Falls project, likely, you will be disappointed!
You may well ask, why?
How might they have been prepared?
You may well ask, why?
If I suggested
that elected Members ought to be well briefed, in advance of voting, you
might agree.
You also might
also think: government will soon have the so-called Decision Gate-3 numbers
(the latest cost estimates) and Manitoba Hydro International’s (MHI) latest comfort
letter; isn’t that all they need to get the debate underway?
I don’t like
to answer a question with a question.
But, don’t you think Members ought to intimately understand the key elements
of the Project and the government’s shifting rationale, first? Then, the DG-3 numbers would be far more
relevant.
If you thought
all the issues relating to Muskrat Falls had been mastered by your MHAs, think
again.
The fact is your elected Members are
not ready for a debate on Muskrat Falls.How might they have been prepared?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





