The Lower Churchill/Emera Deal - Danny's Legacy - Our Nightmare

I had the "privilege" of attending the Joint Panel on the Lower Churchill development and listened to the NALCOR presentation.

Gilbert Bennett VP - Lower Churchill Nalcor delivered what can only be described as a propaganda manifesto for the Williams/Dunderdale government.

Further I am witnessing Kathy Dunderdale on her feet in the House of Assembly now repeating the propaganda and I am unsure if she actually believes or understands it.

This development is not for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - it will not be good for Newfoundland and Labrador - and it will disadvantage both residents and businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me start with Mr. Bennett - who sits in his position today because I and my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians stopped the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. He only joined Hydro in 2005 and guess what - he once worked for Cable Atlantic. The virtues and praises of the company he sings - is only possible because the people not government had a vision for our green energy.

After his prolonged and basic presentation - he took questions from the audience. Unlike the less than thorough report provided by the Telegram I and others in the audience gave him questions that he did not answer or did not answer satisfactorily.

Further - his behavior while I was asking questions was like watching a couple of school children attempting to intimidate a classmate as he and his cohort grinned and giggled and raised eyebrows as I spoke.

Mr. Bennett - number one you work for the people of this province - we are the shareholders of the company you are fortunate to have employment with. Second; for you to in any way try to make light of my questions and commentary is nothing more than a joke. We both know who did what to save the Crown Jewel - Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the jobs with it.

To my questions:

I asked Mr. Bennett if the deal with Emera was already done - as he was presenting as if it were including the awarding of contracts to Quebec companies like SNC Lavalin. After a bit of dancing he said no. 

I asked Mr. Bennett if he could tell me the difference in the cost of power produced at the Lower Churchill if all the transmission lines to the Island and to Nova Scotia were not built. After screwing around with industry numbers - we got to it and he said it was about half price.

I asked if he was aware that Norway, Iceland, Quebec, Russia, and now Greenland have established aluminum smelters and he acknowledged that he did. I then followed with why Labrador could not establish same and if he was aware of what the power arrangements were in the aforementioned jurisdictions. Mr. Gilbert in a nut-shell said nothing has fallen into our laps and then went on with a convoluted attempt at trying to answer what the other jurisdictions were doing.

I asked him - outside of construction - how many jobs were going to be created in Newfoundland and Labrador on a long-term basis. He answered 35 and 50 respectively. I asked if he knew how many jobs could be produced long-term if an aluminum smelter set up in Labrador - he acknowledged it could be over a thousand.

The chair advised my time was up but I was permitted one more question - at which point Gilbert used the raising of the eyebrows and grinny look - I asked if he had a problem? He said no and added gruffly what is your question? I thanked the panel and sat down instead. I had seen enough of this sham of a consultation process and knew if I - who had such a long history with advocacy for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro could be treated with such disdain others would have no hope.

I listened to the presentation and I have to say there were more - 180 degree turns than I had witnessed in a while. When Nalcor and the government wanted to provide the Italian government and company with a "wind"fall by allowing privatization of wind energy - Hydro felt it was the best thing since sliced bread. Now that they "must" push this Emera deal through wind is intermittent and must be backed up - hydro is the best. You don't say Mr. Bennett - I remember the words coming out of my mouth while hydro execs were singing the wind energy tune to satisfy unknown shareholders.

The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador and here is why. The government cannot prove the numbers and projections it is using for power needs on the island. The projections on where energy costs may be in 2016 does not consider hydro's ability to lower costs as our current investments are paid off. The projections are the same incorrect projections used since the late 70's early 80's which would have seen our power supply exhaust in the early 1980's. This has not happened - primarily because of efficiencies, zero growth in population and the hemorrhaging of industry out of the island. I have copies of all of these projections and reports.

The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it once again does not use the power to attract industry to Labrador as the basis for development. The government has not provided the media or the public with evidence that they have tried but failed to attract industry. It further takes Islanders off thermal generation but does not take Labradorians off same.

The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it has us holding the debt to subsidize power to other provinces - thereby enabling our neighbours to attract industry using our power - while we are disadvantaged.

The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it forever puts at risk our control of exporting power by having one side controlled by Hydro-Quebec and the other by Emera (could be sold to Hydro-Quebec).

The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it does not foresee or protect the takeover of Emera by Hydro-Quebec - even though this possibility is more real and fiction. That is if Danny Williams was telling you and I the truth when he said Hydro-Quebec would do anything to block us

The deal is bad and incomplete for Newfoundland and Labrador because Danny Williams and his government promised to find redress on the Upper Churchill before any deal on Lower Churchill and this has not been achieved.

This deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because the proper assessments of alternative use for the power have not been competed.

This deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because the permanent jobs associated with such a significant hydro development are well below acceptable standards for good social-economic policy.

The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because the net permanent job growth is zero. There are currently 85 people working at Holyrood - that goes to 35 loss of 50 - then 50 picked up in Labrador where there currently are zero. The only good thing here is that Labrador picks up jobs.

The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because we have an offshore company involved in the project on a virtually permanent basis when no such company should be needed. Particularly if we are seeking a loan guarantee.

The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because federal money/grants will end up going outside the province to support other jurisdictions to control power rates. This after the people fought so hard to stop privatization which would have driven our power rates through the roof the past 15 years. Now government suggests we almost double them?

Then there is this whole business of Harper and Ignatieff followed by a bunch of PC MHA's and Cabinet Ministers including the Premier and Liberals preaching to us that this project is good for Canada. We are going to contribute to the greening up of Canada. Excuse me - this must be lost on the federal leaders but it should be ingrained here. WE ARE ALREADY CONTRIBUTING 5000 MW'S OF POWER TO CANADA FROM THE UPPER CHURCHILL. Newfoundland and Labrador through this export of power represents the largest per-capita export of green energy to other provinces in the country.

The business community - the government boasts - is behind the development. When - has the business community not been behind extracting resources - regardless of whether or not it's the best deal? We have had many lopsided and bad deals on resources in this province before - each and every time business was behind it. That's because their role - particularly publicly traded companies - is not to achieve the best deal for the people - rather they are concerned about making money for their shareholders. Premier - it is your job and the job of your government to do the best deal for the people. 

The Government, Premier, and Opposition leaders are responsible for doing the best deal for our province - not to make the best deal for other provinces. They have their own representatives.

The Liberal Opposition is absolutely falling hook line and sinker for the power price thing. This is put out there so that Kathy and the Willderdale government can come back with a subsidy of a few cents to complete their argument.

The truth is the whole works of them have done nothing to develop the "best deal" for the province and particularly Labrador. If they are unable to do better than this - they should let it flow until somebody has a real vision for the proper development of the tremendous resource.

Neither Gilbert Bennett, Ed Martin or the Premier are able to hold their own under scrutiny of this deal. Bennett and Martin are given direction and they follow it and the Premier or other Premier gives direction- which is incompetant at best and who knows at worst.

Ed martin was just on CBC with Debbie Cooper - now stating permanent jobs are 120? The information you are hearing is to promote this deal at all costs. Clearly it does not matter to those desperate to see it proceed - what has to be done and said to get the deal done.

Who wrote the questions for Debbie Cooper? What information and background did they have to prepare the questions? Would they agree that the questions are limited to the combined knowledge of those writing or asking the questions? Does that mean all questions are not being asked and that the interviewer may not have the knowledge to conduct a free-flow conversation. That being the case who will CBC interview on the other side of the argument? Who will represent all the interests and points of those opposed to the project? How will the viewer know that all sides have been heard?

I know the difference.

Next up the Boards of Directors associated with Nalcor. See you then.

On a side note - Kathy Dunderdale is the Premier of the province. Her job is to represent the province regardless of who may come calling. Showing up at a staged political event for the Conservative Party of Canada did nothing for Newfoundland and Labrador or her position. Her role should be to seek all she can from all major parties and their leaders. Her demonstration of odd partisanship with a party that differs significantly in ideology and with a leader that caused so much monetary damage to her own province and people is neither statesperson-like nor intelligent. This alone confims for me that she is unable to reliably or competantly complete a project the size of the Lower Churchill.

Ditto for Ms. Jones and Miss Michael.

Is there any way Russell Wangersky could take up the role of investigative journalist for this project?