Sue's Blog

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Prove your Case on Muskrat Minister Skinner - stop Labelling Critics

Today I listened to some of what Minister Shawn Skinner had to say on Back Talk with Pete Soucy.

The Minister was calling to refute what an earlier caller had said regarding the development of Muskrat Falls. I did not hear that caller.

The Minister prefaced his commentary by saying that there are those who do not want to see Muskrat Falls developed and those that agree with government.

This is an insulting and ignorant comment to make.

Minister there are many people - and I am one - who are not fundamentally opposed to developing the Lower Churchill Falls assets. We disagree - however - with the proposal that this government has brought forth.

There are those who believe that the marketplace is not right for development, those who believe the market is right but the partnership is wrong, and those who believe that this power should be developed for use in Labrador - particularly to develop significant industry.

All of these positions are valid - as is the position of one who believes that the Lower Churchill should not be developed for hydro-electric power.

What we all need to do is weigh the positives and negatives of all options and try to establish through reason and due consideration being given to all citizens - the best possible approach.

First - the majority if not all the current sitting government members do not have enough knowledge - acquired through good old hard work and researching such a decision without prejudice, without partisan political zealotry, and with due consideration of genuine criticisms. Unfortunately this has not been done. Minister Skinner - an otherwise rational, reasonable, and self-directed individual - has been reduced to you are either for or agin Government.

The Government has not yet made up its mind as to why this particular development is proceeding.

Examples:

1. We want to contribute to the greening up of Canada.
2. We need the power on the Island.
3. We need to help Atlantic Canada grow stronger as a region.
4. It's a good deal for the Crown Corporation - owned by the people - for future revenues.
5. It allows us to avoid Quebec and Hydro-Quebec.


And no - it's not for all these reasons - they have tried to sell this swamp in Georgia the same way they sold the Fibre Optic fiasco.

The Government routinely and unfairly labels those who have real reasons for opposing the deal. They unfairly categorize all parties that have shown longstanding commitment to natural resource developments - and in particular hydro-electric resources and who disagree with this proposal.

The same PC party fought vehemently against the Clyde Wells administration when privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was proposed. They fought the process, they fought the logic or lack thereof, they fought the lack of transparency, they fought the lack of debate, and they fought the same officials they are now using to promote their own idea.

It is somehow acceptable to shove this inferior proposal down the throats of Newfoundland and Labrador - now that it's a PC deal?

It's somehow acceptable to thwart real debate and discussion on the proposal?

It's somehow acceptable to have hydro-officials act in a juvenile manner when members of the public are asking questions at a public hearing process. If this administration could do this without legislated environmental and social assessment processes - they would.

This is a government who has not proven its case. They have not proven the need for the power. They have not proven the markets. They have not proven the cost of the power. They have not proven this is the best deal for the development.

Further the idea that Newfoundland and Labrador has not already contributed more per-capita to greening up Canada with its donation of 5000 MW's of power from the Upper Churchill - is one that continues to insult the people of this province who continue to pay dearly for such a failed agreement.

They have failed to prove that a deal with Hydro-Quebec would not be better for the province - and that further they have failed to deliver a promise of redress on the Upper Churchill.

They have failed to provide a reason that they are unable to develop markets for this resource in Labrador. If power is to be subsidized by the taxpayers - as is proposed to deliver power to Emera - would it be better to subsidize industry in Labrador?

They have not and will not address that every other comparable geographic region with hydro-potential has attracted industry - except Labrador.

Minister Skinner - prove your case.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sue said: "There are those who believe that the marketplace is not right for development, those who believe the market is right but the partnership is wrong, and those who believe that this power should be developed for use in Labrador - particularly to develop significant industry".

I picked those 3 items in this paragraph to say that I agree with all three statements, but I agree with everything you stated in your article.

I think this deal is being done for the sake of keeping life breathed into the province of Nova Scotia and a few other people will get rich from the development, while Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be saddled with a much higher debt because of that development. The province of NL will be giving up as much in this Muskrat Falls Project as it did in the Upper Churchill Hydroelectric Project, of course, it will all be relevant to the size of the Project

Anonymous said...

There was never any accountability displayed by any of the politicians, both provincial and Federal, in the development of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador's natural resources.

I remember when the Nickel Ore was being developed and the PC Opposition at the time wanted to be shown the Contract to decipher what was in it, it was disallowed and now that the PC's are in power, the Liberals want to preview the Muskrat Falls Contract and they are disallowing certain parts of that contract to be reviewed. So why are they concealing these contracts which really belong to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? All one can wonder what type of corruption is being hidden?

We have seen some of our politicians and their friends become multi-millionaires from our natural resources already. We do not want that to happen ever again. As far as I am concerned that is pure corruption and these people should be brought to face the courts for what has happened there.