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.


Cartoon Credit: John Meaney, Rand and Roar

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

THE BUDGET A GREAT SHELL GAME SAYS UNCLE GNARLEY

“I like taking my daily constitutional.  In fact, Nav, I walked the other day, along my favourite coast line, Cape Spear, when I spied two mates paddling along in those ‘tippy’ boats; kayaks, I believe, you call them. 

“I might not have noticed but for the commotion that was evident, both on sea and in the air; there were, in fact, no fewer than two offshore vessels engaged in manoeuvres with fast rescue craft within easy reach and a helicopter airborne; my first thought was that you, Nav, were out for a little sport and took the entire Newfoundland navy for protection”!

Somehow, I knew no compliment would be forthcoming!