Wangersky's Wisdom Waning

Russell Wangersky should know better. He likes to wax poetic. He likes to believe that his columns are of intellectual value. His current column titled: 22 words with a very big bite is not intellectual but is naively romantic.

This is yet another example of Telegram employees giving a pass to politicians regarding Muskrat. 

Since Dwight Ball orated - to an elite corporate community - that his government will conduct a public inquiry on the boondoggle - Telegram employees have been joining in an attempt to calm the seas of public dissent. When I say joining - I don't mean collaborating - I mean they are buying the government spin.

His piece begins with the sentence: "The single dirtiest trick played on electrical customers in this province hasn’t hit home yet. But it will."

Wangersky's assumption that the Muskrat disaster is a dirty trick played on consumers is downplaying the obvious gross negligence, the continued and often deliberate obfuscation, the real engineering concerns, the failure of equipment before the project is even finished, the doubling of the budget, the unending changes to project completion dates, and the number of red flags that demand a forensic audit.  It also negates the real possibility of criminal negligence, fraud, and bribery. 

When the World Bank blacklisted SNC Lavalin and its subsidiaries in 2013 from "bidding on its global projects under its fraud and corruption policy" - while Wangersky proclaims "..dirtiest trick.." - is irresponsible. 

Muskrat Falls stinks to the high heavens - it must be stopped. How do we know that documents are not being shredded as we speak? 

There remains a number of executives at Nalcor who have been there since sanctioning. How is this even possible? How is it possible that we paid a king's ransom for Ed Martin? 

So when Wangersky describes this fiasco as a dirty trick - he brings to mind events like fooling a candidates supporters into showing up at the wrong location. This is not a dirty trick. 

The most offensive and irresponsible part of this column is his concluding thought: "It’s water over the dam. The money’s gone anyway. The best thing we can do is to learn from the mistake, allow for independent oversight and not step in a pile of crap like this again."

I can only conclude that this intelligent and thinking human being must be bored with Muskrat, be suffering writers block, or simply and inexplicably buying the Tobinesque spin delivered by Dwight Ball. 

Learn from this mistake? How? By suffering bankruptcy? It's water over the dam? How does Russell know what we would be responsible for if illegal activities were found during a forensic audit? How does Russell know that the assets could not be used for another deal? He doesn't know. 

The Upper Churchill is a fiasco because of the contractual and economic contracts. The Upper Churchill is significantly successful in it's construction. It was on time and on budget. It stands as one of the best hydro facilities in the world. 

So here's what we learned. What we did right in development of the Upper Churchill - on time and on budget - we completely reversed for Muskrat Falls. The stinging and gross minimal return for Newfoundland and Labrador on the Upper Churchill - we repeat for Muskrat. 

If you went back 20 years and said we are going to repeat the mistakes of Churchill Falls - politicians would have been politically lynched. 

Now that the main stream media in Newfoundland and Labrador have been exposed for their unquestioning support of Danny Williams Muskrat fiasco - the line is "water over the dam"? 

Let's watch the same media as they spin the lines of the current failed administration. Watch as they play dirty tricks and marginalize the critics of this continued boondoggle. Watch as they contort to explain that giving away Gull Island to Quebec is going to be a good thing. 

This Wangersky wisdom we can do without.

  

McLeod does Marx - Das Kleptocracy

Telegram employee James McLeod has come out with a challenge - wait no - more than a challenge - an ultimatum "..put up, or shut up".

Yes the "reporter" who appears to have a similar love-hate relationship with Tweeters to that of one Mr. Trump - has determined what our real problem is.

All "serious, credible.." people need to step up and run for political office. They need to give up their "...paycheque, your own reputation, your own comfortable lifestyle" and throw their hat in the ring. If they do not - McLeod demands they be honest and go away out of it.

First of all the "people" James talks about as credible - are as determined by him. They are people who have a paycheck apparently a comfortable one and a "reputation" - supposedly good. There are many of them according to our newspaper sleuth - he's talked to dozens.

Then there is this jewel: "There are other reasons to stay on the sidelines, too: the demands of an unsympathetic press corps, ..."

1. the demands of an unsympathetic press corps

There was a break in my writing here - my belly was hurting from laughter.

Which definition of unsympathetic is James using?

a) not feeling, showing, or expressing sympathy
Can't be that one. I would suggest that rightly most express sympathy when a politician has a family or life event of tragedy.

b) not showing approval or favor toward an idea or action
Maybe that one - in which case I would say the majority of media have been very sympathetic both of Muskrat Falls and the current fiasco of a Public Inquiry - as the project continues to motor on.

c) not friendly or cooperative; unlikable
Maybe this one - but again the opposite is true. Many of our "reporters" "journalists" "columnists" and "announcers" are very cooperative and friendly to politicians. They have actually fawned over many of them - like Danny, Tom, Danny, the other Brian, Danny.

The "unsympathetic press corps" he speaks of does not exist in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well no - that's not true - they are a very unsympathetic press corps to critics of the government - critics of Muskrat Falls. Many of them have tried in every way to marginalize such critics and have used words such as partisans, naysayers, and conspiracy theorists. How nasty....

I can assure Mr. McLeod - that many good private citizens - who have given freely of their time, effort, and intelligence to try and persuade a fawning media and public to beware of things like our current Muskrat boondoggle have risked their reputations, their paycheques, their "comfortable" lives and that of their families. The political parties, their trolls, their indoctrinated, their minions have on many occasions joined with or used the media to disparage "good" people.

He concludes this meandering thought by saying "politics is hard". Hard? Hard how? Hard to go to BBQ's in the rain? Hard to pound your hands in the House of Assembly? Hard to vote ignorantly on legislation? Hard to file for your allowances? Hard to keep up with Twitter or to block people from their Twitter accounts? Hard? Hard to make changes to your own pension plans? Hard to walk the streets once every 4 years? Really James - is that what you call hard? Hard is - an announcement like: I have ordered the shutdown of Muskrat Falls until a forensic audit and a review of project engineering is complete. It is really really easy to say - got to finish it now - cause it's almost done.

If you want to do a journalistic piece - I can recommend several.

1. Research and compare the various proposals to develop the Lower Churchill or any part thereof.
2. Research and compare the various hydro projects completed in Newfoundland and Labrador - their costs, engineering, contracts, the generation and associated transmission.
3. How did Danny Williams and Ed Martin pull the wool over media eyes regarding the many excuses for Muskrat Falls.
4. Do a complete expose of political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador and how they control the pool of MHA's and keep good people out.
5. Investigate and report on the Federal - Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and how Quebec has used/uses Hydro to their advantage while our province watches on the sidelines. 

I can ascertain from your articles that you know very little about the real history of Hydro and are therefore unable to ask the questions necessary to get information the public needs. This is true of the majority of your colleagues in the "press corps".

I challenge you and your colleagues to research your topic or stop writing.

I believe having a robust, knowledgeable, and fearless media would go a long way to improving the lot of our province. It might help "good" people feel more comfortable about running.

As for "good" people running. The media of Newfoundland and Labrador chased Danny Williams year after year until he ran. He was promoted without test, he was glorified by the media before "past the overpass" had ever laid eyes on him. He was touted by the media - he was put on a pedestal by the media - before he ever ran. I get the feeling you're gearing up to promote another messiah as perhaps leaked to you by the Liberal Party. The media in Newfoundland and Labrador are famous for creating messiahs and the childlike rumour mills for one millionaire after another.

The media has virtually controlled the sound bites, the desired quotes, and the forum in which "good" people could communicate. The good news is that Twitter, Blogs, and Facebook make communication among citizens much more accessible.

Frampton finds her Messiah - Media sees an exit

Hook line and sinker comes to mind with the flurry of media reporting positively on the announcement of a Public Inquiry into the Muskrat Falls debacle.

Ironically - they too are taken off the hook for the disastrous, corrupt, misleading, inefficient, and incompetent boondoggle.

Most media here in the province acted as a facilitator for all the Muskrat spin of the Tories and now that the "naysayers", "partisans", and "conspiracy theorists" have been proven right - the media - like the politicians just want it to go away.

The media are wearing a bit of this fiasco and it would be very convenient for them - to have those memories fade.

Was Tobin in for the dinner? Did he help out with this media spin farce? After all the 3 amigos are known for this type of thing.

In either case let's take a review. Pam Frampton's article ends with this sentence:    "All I can figure is that the 29 per cent who support Davis are the same misguided lot still waiting for Danny Williams to return as our one true messiah."  This follows Frampton's own headline, "Hallelujah — Muskrat Falls inquiry’s a go".

Handel would be proud. 

Frampton could have and should have mused about the venue for the announcement and the audience it was personally delivered to. 

The Muskrat frenzy continued in earnest - while chowing down the meal the latest Messiah had prepared for them. For them religion is money - the Messiah is the facilitator of the money - and the Hallelujah is the message that the money will continue. 

Frampton stayed away from the obvious - that is - this type of announcement on a situation that has all the potential of bankrupting the province should have been done in a public forum. 

Frampton then waded into the latest polls on the politico and marched right up on the pulpit and decreed that 29% of people who support Paul Davis must be the same "misguided" ones who supported Danny Williams. 

That is laughable - the "misguided" ones? Is that the percentage who supported Danny Williams - or was there a tremendous number of more "misguided" people at the time? You are making fun of them? 

I'd say it's a tad likely that the media were as enthralled with that Messiah as the "misguided" ones you speak of.

Frampton's jubilation regarding the reactionary - too little to late - non-detailed - Tobinesque announcement that happened to be given to an elite Muskrat skinned audience - is naive. It is not an acceptable response of a journalist, a political commentator, or a columnist.

There were so many questions that needed - no begged - to be asked.

1. Why is it too late to stop the project? - details please
2. Why not begin with a forensic audit? - details please
3. How does any of this protect the indigenous people? - details please
4. Why is the Premier using a political fundraiser to announce a Public Inquiry?
5. Why did the Premier change his mind on the timing of the Inquiry? details please
6. What are the plans with Gull Island and Quebec? details please
7. Why are you not stopping the project until Inquiry is complete - considering the continued and serious questions regarding the North Spur - and the potential to uncover corruption or fraudulent activity? details please

and so many more...

The fact that a significant number of Newfoundland and Labrador media fall in the category that Frampton calls "the misguided lot still waiting for Danny Williams to return as our one true messiah" - albeit more focused on the Galway messiah and Costco's second coming - demonstrates one reason as to why we are in this mess now.

Ball needed an exit, Frampton needed to believe that in some way her much too late need to question the Muskrat boondoggle - played some role in getting an Inquiry called, the Muskrat elite needed reassurance, and the media generally just want the past to go away.

Next up - James McLeod and his call to so-called naysayers, partisans, and conspiracy theorists to prove their love of Newfoundland and Labrador - followed by Wangersky's learn from our mistakes lecture.



 

the A to Z Ancestry DNA in NL politics

Let's review why we end up with governments we end up despising. Unfortunately by the time that occurs the damage has been done.

The first of this series looks at the "lifelong" party faithful.

1. Liberal Tory DNA

About 25% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are genetically linked to one party or another. You can diagnose this condition without sending away for a test,
a) yours is a house that 1 party can rely on for life to place political signs on the lawn, in the windows, or across your garage door,
b) you have been card carrying member of "your" party for life,
c) the zealot syndrome - if you do not openly embrace even the most ludicrous ideas - without critique, question, or second thought you don't have it,
d) you find yourself plotting to undermine a person who is not with "your" party without logical reason for doing so,
e) you will disown a family member before you disown "your" party,
f) your ancestry is defined by a political party,
g) you willingly donate to "your" party regardless of what they are offering or not offering,
h) if an MHA from "your" party leaves for reasons of ideological choice on an issue - particularly in the proper representation of their constituents, the MHA - not "your" party - is guilty of treason,
i) you plan a political coming out party for your child or grandchild,
j) you believe that political parties in NL are ideologically different,
k) you believe it's a "your turn" kind of system where you wait it out knowing that "your turn" is coming,
l) you are willing to present your body at a party demonstration or event to up the headcount,
m) if you don't like "your" party's leader - you will choose not to vote - instead of looking at somebody else,
m) you don't mind if "your" party MHA does not read legislation before voting on it,
n) you phone talk-shows with speaking notes - provided by a paid staffer,
o) you treat politics like the World Wrestling Federation,
p) you assume critics of your party's position are from another party - naysayers - conspiracy theorists,
q) you believe question period in the House of Assembly is for name calling and ridicule,
r) you believe in political messiahs
s) you try to stand next to a politician from "your" party to take a much desired selfie,
t) you hang a photo of "your" party's leader/s on your wall,
u) you look for online "question of the day" and press the answer as many times as you can,
v) you plan your summer vacation around a politicians visit to your communities garden party,
w) you believe "your" party is never wrong just always fixing another party's mess,
x) you block opponents to "your" party on Twitter,
y) you attempt to get "your" party MHA's to friend you on Facebook,
z) you think this list has been established by the "other" party.

If you can relate to 50% or more of these traits - you need to rethink before our province is extinct.  

Next up - the corporate party swingers...

Commitments not yet discovered?

In December of 2011 the following is an excerpt from a story in the Chronicle Herald 

Emera spokesperson "Huskilson said there’s more to the Muskrat Falls deal for Nova Scotia customers than simply getting a reliable source of renewable power. The development of the entire Lower Churchill Project, of which Muskrat Falls is just the first phase, should result in even lower energy rates for Nova Scotia consumers, he says."

and 

"Emera, and its Nova Scotia regulated utility Nova Scotia Power, will also benefit from the revenue earned from the transmission of the power generated in Labrador to markets in New England and elsewhere. How much that will be hasn’t been determined yet."

add this to Sue's Blog reference yesterday from an Emera proposal to Massachusetts:


"Hydro-Québec’s current contractual access to energy from the Churchill Falls facility, through arrangements with Nalcor, expires in 2041. As the end of that contract draws closer, having Atlantic Link as an additional large-scale transmission path creates options for Massachusetts and the New England electricity system to secure cost-effective clean energy, including supply originating at Churchill Falls. Massachusetts has a unique opportunity to position the New England electricity system for future optionality by choosing Atlantic Link infrastructure in the 2017 Clean Energy RFP process."

What do we have? What don't we know?

Meanwhile Hydro-Quebec has it's own proposal for Massachusetts found here

Then have a look at this latest story from the Globe and Mail (BC edition)

You'll soon realize that our two masters are Hydro-Quebec and Emera.

Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador's water resources are managed, bargained, and controlled by others. We have done nothing to learn from the past.

More to come...

Commission of Government 2.0

The economic mess of Newfoundland and Labrador should be compared to the Great Depression - and we should soon realize that a bailout will become necessary.

The bailout required will not be restricted to financial but administrative as well.

The causes of the Great Depression are well established but the Muskrat Depression is something else again. It is representative of governments bereft of ideas, talent, capabilities, sound judgement while possibly being full of malfeasance.

We have now successfully repeated monumental mistakes of the past. By majority we do not know our history -  for reasons of disinterest, ignorance, the lack of educational direction, and ineffective journalism.

Can we ever return to the modern version of "responsible government"? What will our options be to come out of Commission of Government 2.0 - after it occurs?

In 2017 descriptive words such as "Commission of Government" will not be used. More diplomacy will be required as the Canadian Government steps in as the British did in 1934.

In the 1940's the choices were continued and reformed Commission, return to Responsible Government or to become a Canadian province.

In the Commission of Government 2.0 the choices to exit may be a provincially run system within Canada, join in an Atlantic Union, (the Island with Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and Labrador with Quebec) or if we say so a choice to leave Canada.

This sounds harsh - and no doubt the words I use above will be avoided and top level spin will put the situation in a different light. Ball has already started with the word "mitigate" and we should expect the word cooperate with other provinces - particularly Quebec and Nova Scotia to soon follow.

As with the Great Depression - the Muskrat Depression will question our ability ro govern ourselves and also highlight the massive economic woes that will leave us no other choice but to cooperate. We will be made to feel less than capable, less than who we are, and unable to be left on our own to survive.

Our Terms of Union with Canada were and are weak - they are reflective of a population that was coerced into giving up our sovereignty for pennies on the dollar (for our resources) in return for things such as the baby bonus. We will be made to feel inept and question our own selves and our abilities.

There's no doubt the fish merchants of the 40's and the Muskrat merchants of 2017 are very much alike and for their own direct gain they will sell out their fellow citizens in a heartbeat.

By placing Tom Osborne in the finance portfolio - we have basically committed to a bureaucracy run government. Maintaining Siobhan Coady in the resources portfolio we have committed to the Muskrat elite continuing the unstoppable but yet destructive Muskrat fiasco. Aboriginal issues that Lisa Dempster looks forward to dealing with comes with the caveat that the Premier has always found her "whiny". Perhaps the Premier feels the actions of the Land Protectors are "whiny" and therefore whiners should stick together,   

Perhaps Gerry Byrne has shown interest in the inevitable leadership race and therefore placed in the guaranteed to lose Fisheries portfolio.

Being a little more wily - Canada will not transparently step on our turf - it will do so in the nicest possible way - saving us from ourselves - while sticking it to our independence.

Wherever the 3 amigos exist (Williams, MacDonald, and Tobin) Williams overtly PC - Tobin overtly Liberal - MacDonald swinging as is necessary) we are getting the shaft.

As in the original Commission of Government there are untouchable issues. For the original it was denominational education  - the Commission felt it should change - become efficient and economically sustainable - however the churches (the all powerful in NL at the time) would not have it. In the modern Commission of Government 2.0 - where it's obvious Muskrat should be halted - it will be the one thing that will keep going as the Muskrat elite hold a power similar to the churches in the 1940's.

When I tweeted the other day that the only potential NL had left was that the "undecided" voters hold a lead in the polls at 33% - I meant it. If it was sustained and a new party emerged supporting the fundamental belief in responsible government - we could remove ourselves from the clutches of the Canadian wolf. That does not mean separation necessarily but does mean we will right our track and allow NL to survive for generations to come.

The bouncing back and forth between PC and Liberal will destroy us and the NDP that is disinterested in truly expanding and having ideas outside the historical position of Tommy Douglas - has left us in a place where taking a completely different chance on a new entity is not only palpable but desirable.

We do have people among us who are capable and truly understand the meaning of public service. People who are intelligent, creative, caring and dependable.

I can see right now that we are for all intents and purposes in the Commission of Government 2.0 - and if you watch the Federal government and the local Liberals closely you can see that too.

The only question that remains is how will we come out of it and what choices will we have?

We must act quickly or the Muskrat elite will remove all but one choice from our future.

Ball is the perfect candidate to move us through to Commission of Government 2.0 as he is the text book case of a "leader" needing somebody - anybody - to tell him what to do. Right now he is vulnerable to the worst of political scoundrels unless he himself is one also.

There is NO doubt Muskrat should be stopped now and we should use our place in Canada to recoup monies wasted via the failure of successive Canadian governments to pay us for the loss of our fishery.

There is no doubt a forensic audit should be done immediately on Muskrat Falls - to determine if there are people to be fired, investigated, and possibly charged. This cannot wait until the "completion" that is lunacy.

There is no doubt that Muskrat must be stopped to allow further investigation into the engineering of the project and potentially life threatening circumstances at the spur.

Our government is weak, the Opposition parties are weak, the Cabinet is weak, and we now must be strong.




 

Danny's idea of punishment remains skewed. Stop the Muskrat Fiasco

Published on March 10th 2011 - how are we doing now? 

 

Danny's idea of punishment was skewed - do not let this cost us yet again!

The cost of an error.

As we muddle along into Danny's vision of a legacy - we should be reminded what happens when we as people do not ask questions regardless of media and opposition disinterest.

The Upper Churchill goes down in the history of western world developments as one of the worst deals ever to be perpetrated on a people.

Today as we see Hydro-Quebec lower its rate for Quebec consumers - we are pondering an astronomical raise in rates to accomplish what Nalcor says is a need to get rid of Holyrood.

Imagine our children having to deal with Holyrood and Labrador oil generated facilities while Hydro-Quebec and the people of our neighbouring province enjoy virtually complete hydro generated power - including the fabulous 5000 MW's from the Upper Churchill. That is a cost of that mistake. Our children should be enjoying complete clean renewable hydro energy but for the mistakes of Joey Smallwood, John Crosbie, Bill Rowe and others. We can thank a silent opposition of the day as well.

Imagine our children leaving Newfoundland and Labrador to work in processing facilities powered by our energy and value adding from our resources. That is the cost of such a mistake.

Imagine a place full of renewable hydro losing industries and not gaining them at a time when energy hungry smelters and refining facilities seek such energy in today's marketplace. That is the cost of that mistake.

Imagine our children's shoulders burdening billions in debt as we continue to lose billions we could have enjoyed - if a mistake was not made on the Upper Churchill contract.

Imagine - for years - we accepted a significant reduction in equalization payments because we produced the energy from the Upper Churchill - even though we were not the beneficiaries of the tremendous profits. Ottawa looked and said - even though the deal was bad - you could be collecting more - so we will reduce your payments as if you were. Billions more in lost revenues - a cost of doing a bad deal.

Imagine - had we simply waited - we would have attracted industry and developed the power for the benefit of Labradorians. Imagine what could have been in the 70's and 80's as oil prices rose from 60's prices of $3($18 adjusted for inflation) a barrel to $38($90 adjusted for inflation)dollars a barrel and now even greater again. That attractive hydro power that uses water not oil for fuelling generation. That water that is not impacted by an oil embargo from the Middle East in the 70's or the civil unrest in Libya today.

Imagine we would be debt free like Alberta - we would be utilizing a significant portion of our oil revenues for a heritage fund so that our grandchildren benefit from the non-renewable resources we are extracting now. Instead it is keeping us artificially afloat - keeping our growing budget in health care intact - until that is - when the oil is gone. That too will be a cost of that mistake.

Imagine the pride and not anger we could feel if we had just questioned a little more and waited for the right opportunity for us. Labrador's population could have exploded and industry could have flourished. We would not blame Quebec for our own mistake and their intelligence in choosing risks.

Here we are again - Danny says the Emera deal will right the wrongs of the Upper Churchill. What a joke. Does he take us all for fools? Apparently and that continues on with his successor Premier Dunderdale. We are mad at Quebec so we will go around them - be damned the cost - we will punish them.

Danny's idea of punishment clearly is skewed. Stephen Harper's lie robs us of 10 billion dollars - he punishes him by electing all Liberals (who cares) and by sending Fabian Manning to the Senate (oh the pain). Currently he wants us to punish Quebec by ramming through a hydro project which ships even more power out - to another company (publicly traded) which is vulnerable therefore for takeover. Punish Quebec by driving our power rates through the roof while making competitive jurisdictions cheaper.

Danny did not right the wrongs of the Upper Churchill as he promised - if there was a deal to be done on the Lower Churchill. I believe if it's even possible he's made matters worse.

First the unearned arrogance of the PC government continues to assume that the best possibility for power development is for export. Prove this to me and the rest of our people. Prove how exporting even more of this industrially attractive resource helps Newfoundland and Labrador more than if we used the power here. Show us the numbers - the normal economic studies that would be completed to reach such a conclusion. The government will have studies on everything but the economics of shipping out hydro power versus utilizing it through industry in Labrador.

The Upper Churchill will continue to punish generations of our people for decades to come - we hardly need to couple that misery with the untested policy of yet another Churchill development.

Why would industry ever consider coming here if we so willingly ship it to more convenient jurisdictions. Jurisdictions that already enjoy an advantage through the use of our raw resources?

We lose our fishery - and we sit and take it.

We lose our forestry - and we sit and take it.

We lose billions of dollars from a Harper lie - we sit and take it.

We are now on the verge of losing yet another tremendous resource - will we sit and take it?

What will it take for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to stop taking it and stand up for their children and grandchildren?

Why are we not in the streets and demand action?

Danny bluffed and bluffed and bluffed. We lost and lost and lost - on his way out he has asked us to giveaway yet another resource. This time say no. Just say no.

Referendum needed - not another overlord

We all know by now the Muskrat Falls project is another epic failure - added to the annals of Newfoundland and Labrador's resource development.

This morning it's worth your time and effort to read Uncle Gnarley and educate yourself a little more on this millstone around our societal neck.

For years all of us who questioned, cautioned, and criticized the project were labelled in a very unflattering way.

The media relied on Ed Martin, the unsatiable corporate elite and their all-party political flock.

For years Martin was supposed to be an electrical power guru (which he was not). His real credentials and accomplishments never once questioned or best I can tell even researched.

A few weeks ago Ed rode off into his "retirement" to spend more time with grandchildren while our grandchildren were left to pay for this horrific mess.

Martin's grandchildren - if they remain here - may well have more of a cushion to rely on when attempting to cover the cost of living.

Now we are going to roll out the new overlord - Stan Marshall.

CBC headline - It's official: Muskrat Falls a boondoggle, says Marshall.

Just a year ago - anything that came out of Ed Martin's mouth would have been given the same esteem.

We have also been told - it is too late to stop.

As I have said already Stan Marshall's credentials are far superior to Martin's regarding regulated utilities and development of hydro projects. But he is not God - and he too is fallible and has baggage.

For once in our lives and on the 100th anniversary of Beaumont Hamel - let's show the courage our men showed in 1916.

We must demand a referendum on the Muskrat Falls project. We must demand to be shown all the options and the numbers attached to each. We must demand to be heard and that government give interested citizens and groups funding to do the research leading up to a referendum. We must demand that this be stopped until that time.

We have been told it's too late to stop because we cannot afford to do so and we've essentially been told we can't afford it when it's finished.

I do not want to rely on the financial imagination and business acumen of one man. I want all of our people to have a shot at coming up with solutions.

If the project is safe - and that's a big if - we need to see if another deal can be made for the power running through the Quebec system. In this way the power can be sold and help pay for the project. We need to see if an appetite is there to develop Gull Island through CFLco and sell that power at market price.

This is but one suggestion there are many more and potential for industrial end-use in Labrador in the future.

We accepted the "trust us" now for a decade and look where it has gotten us. Now we are supposed to just "trust us" again? If we accept this - we accept our inevitable financial and societal demise.

I will knock my head off the concrete wall again and ask the obvious question: Where is Stan Marshall's Executive Contract? Are there any potential conflicts? A few weeks ago local media was salivating all over the Martin contract - yet nothing on Marshall's contract.

Stan Marshall does not have all the answers and the politicians have proven they don't have a clue.

Stan Marshall should look at nationalizing Newfoundland Power for the same reasons he once wanted to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The efficiencies can save us money. The consumers will benefit. Can Marshall look at that possibility? Is he constrained by conflict of interests?

I am not willing to accept that this particular Muskrat deal can't be stopped. I am not willing to accept that Stan Marshall is the only one with answers to our mess. I am not willing to treat Marshall any differently than I treated Ed Martin. I want more information - I want all of it. Then I as one citizen want the right to vote on another 6 billion dollars before it is spent.

Ref-er-en-dum  - A general vote by the electorate on a single question that has been referred to them for a direct decision.

We have the right at 12 Billion Dollars to have that direct say.


 

The chickens ate the fox...

Now that we have seen the first moves of Nalcor's new CEO - underwhelmed seems an appropriate reaction.

Stan Marshall the successful head of regulated private utilities has either lost his touch or has been directed to stay the course.

Ed Martin was not the only executive responsible for the complete failure of our corporation. Martin however appears to be the only casualty.

We have already been told that Marshall will carry on with Muskrat without real justification or real numbers relative to cancel or go on the project.

The savvy that the former head of Fortis demonstrated at the helm of the private utility is absent now.

One very telling comment came during a media event last week when Marshall was responding to a question regarding potential privatization of the Crown Corporation. He stated "The sheer fact that I'm in my role means it can't be done."

In a world of real journalism this would have been like a red flag to a bull. This would have caused a flurry of questions similar to a nor'easter - fast furious and fierce. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador progressive natural resource deals were placed on the endangered list starting with the Upper Churchill deal - and competence on the subject from our "journalists" has been extinct for decades.

There is no excuse for missing this. We must be able to have some faith in the news media - but we can't. If we are relying on them to keep their eye on the ball - we have lost the game before we played.

What was Stan Marshall saying? He is in a conflict? What role? What can't be done? What prevents him from considering that option?

As all of you know I am the champion of keeping Nalcor/Hydro Crown - but if what Marshall says means what I think it does - it would also prevent the company from looking at the reverse - nationalizing Newfoundland power. It would also prevent Nalcor from becoming aggressive with other potential opportunities. Ones that could make us money.

Worse than all of this - in a round about way - was Marshall indicating that the conflict of interest provisions applicable to the former CEO of Nalcor's contract do not exist in his?

If this is the case and Marshall refuses to clean up the conflict - he too should be replaced.

Enough already. Show us Marshall's contract - what are you hiding now?

MacDonald Tobin Williams - the three amigos - whose turn is it this time?

Premier Coleman? I think not!

We have many "successful" people in our province. Most are not in business - however there are some in our business community who have a well-rounded "success" portfolio.

Frank Coleman appears to have achieved financial, family, and social success - if one were to read articles about him or if one knew him personally.

For me - that's not the question. The question is what would the person do if he/she became Premier.

As a board member of Emera Newfoundland and Labrador Holdings Inc. - I trust Mr. Francis Colemen is well aware of and compliant with the fiduciary duties he has.

Emera NL has a mission: our team is helping channel the energy potential of Newfoundland & Labrador, to provide clean, renewable and reliable electricity for Nova Scotia and beyond.

There is nothing in the statement above that makes me believe the bests interests of our province is the objective. If Mr. Coleman wants to channel our most lucrative resource outside Labrador - he should run for the Premiership of Nova Scotia or beyond.

In my opinion his candidacy would be nothing more than a continuation of an agenda that is not the best for Newfoundland and Labrador - rather a agenda to make the wealthy wealthier.

Williams still controls media?

If one were to watch the news yesterday - they would get the distinct impression that Danny was coming back.

The amount of media the former Premier garnered yesterday was enviable. Many worthwhile groups would love to have even one tenth of the immediate pandering the local news gives to Williams.

1. He changed the name of his development to honour his mother. Lovely (Happy Mother's Day) - not news.

2. He thinks Bill Barry is not fit for office of the Premier. Marvelous (Coffee chat) not news.

3. "Bullshit" - Danny says to the Conference Board of Canada's report on our projected population numbers. Brilliant (conspiracy theory) not news.

News: Former Premier refuses to take his own advice and shut-up after he leaves politics.

News: Williams gets sweetheart land deal - unheard of price and quick rule changes.

News: Williams believes only he can be Premier - so he's going to run again.

News: Williams believes Dunderdale failed. (then again that would be his failure as well)

There is news in the Danny's successful attempt at getting attention yesterday.

On an editorial note: who is deciding what's worth covering?

Right now there are journalists holding their breath - waiting for Danny to pick his favorite for leader. You can bet that will surpass the importance of any other story on the day that shoe drops.

New PC leader will come from Outside

The PC race - so to speak - is remarkably active.

A party at 20% in the polls usually finds it tough to grab serious interest from the outside - but this time it's different. There's significant cash and wealth on the line.

The Liberals have elected a competent, successful, professional - who just happens not to be one of the backroom elite. The money - old and new - and the political establishment in Newfoundland and Labrador were not successful in electing their candidate for Liberal leader. As I've said before - Dwight Ball is a people's leader and will be a people's Premier after the next election.

So - the boy's club - thinking they could count on taking over the Liberal Party in the wake of a disastrous performance by the current government - were left surprised. Up until a few months ago - if all else failed they might have gone the Jack Harris/NDP route.

There is no doubt the boys will be very careful this time around. They need somebody who can make corporate resource giveaways look like the people just won the lottery. Considering most of the current PC MHA's don't have that "X"factor - most not even considered Cabinet material - the new leader has to be a savior.

If the boys had managed to own the Liberal Party the PC's would be doing the usual government on the way out thing - where a few sitting members would run as caretaker while they sit out a new Liberal rule.

So what's likely then?

Inside we can see possibly:
                             Team King
                             Team Dalley
                             Team Davis
Commoners
Outside it may be the:
                             Team Barry McDonald Tobin
                             Team Powers Penney Sullivans
Establishment
I suspect Danny may be either  - as either can meet his needs - as a citizen.

Marshall - who has always been there - just in case - oops correcter is now the Interim Premier leaving him to stay neutral - so to speak - that is continue to help usher for the feature film. Marshall - interim of everything (thereby confirming the lack of depth in the back bench) gets to have the title - be the boss - and protect the boat until a new skipper can be found.

Powers - who so coincidentally was introduced as a guest VOCM talkshow host over the past year - is now known more broadly by the electorate. He's well known in the lobbyist and corporate masters arena.

Barry - is a provincial character - fish merchant - I believe is a Gates type individual - wherein if we give him all the money - all the fish - all resources - he'd be happy to give some back to what he considers worthwhile causes and people. Competition not needed.

Both have enemies and both represent the establishment.

Question is which one can they sell to the people? Maybe neither - so they will be looking further afield for a back-up just in case.

At this time I predict - the new leader will come from the outside - in order that the resource giveaways keep a coming.

This is going to be a real test for the people of the province. Do they support the establishment  merchant or the leader of the people?

Government by Remote Control - Can't Turn the Channel

How many Premiers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

and yet - the light bulb still did not work.

The title suggests many things - but I will start here.

How is it that Kathy Dunderdale resigned before Ed Martin?

How is it  she was essentially fired by a caucus that did not insist on the removal of Ed Martin.

Who do permanent interim everything Marshall and incompetent Energy guru Martin work for? Is he still there?

"Carry on Government" - the title of a feature tragic comedy - where a resource wealthy jurisdiction is controlled by a megalomaniac - through puppets of convenience. NOTE: Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. It is at times like these that I miss the artistic works of Jerome Kennedy. Surely he can do at least a Limerick on this - of course in collaboration with one of the Loyola's.

Kathy Dunderdale's resignation will be the subject of the next post. I promise!!! Sounds like I'm considering political office.

The Twang from Abroad Powers - Martin - and Dalley

yet another short post...

I'm starting to wonder what the inside scoop is on future employers for certain of our public figures. Take for instance the Newfoundland and Labrador lost son Tim Powers - the Ontarian in him has certainly taken hold with his "ehs" and Ed Martin and Dawn Dalley of Nalcor - they are turning right into Haligonians (not a flower) with their "folks" this and "folks" that.

Hows (notice my change here) about some fun not funny speculation eh?

Tim the Conservative Voice Powers might be lining up to take on a federal seat - or even Dunderdale's job - after all - Upper Canada - needs some "trained" Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to carry the Ottawa torch. Maybe he is back to "burn all the boats" particularly with his Crosbie heritage.

Then there's Ed and Dawn perhaps not in Orlando  (not a singing group) preparing for a change of employer as Halifax based Emera continues its privatization march throughout our land - hauling natural resource wealth from the health and education budgets of our province and into the outstretched and "well connected" arms of the elite offshore.

If Kathy is listening to Ed and Ed marches to Williams Symphony No. 5 - then the fluid movement of redundancies will continue to mount for the 3 amigos.

Quite the state we have here - fibre optical illusions - power/s ball jackpot - and one continuing joke on us the people.

The next couple of years are going to be dandy. I wonder what's in the offing for us "gull"ible people.

Wonder what the New Dawn's Agreement 2014 will look like. I should look toward the Mc"Cleods" where James and Cathy MacBennett may be talking.

Danny Williams Flashbacks Energy Flashbacks

How are we doing now? All energy deals? How does Muskrat stack up?
  
Globe and Mail March 2006

Excerpt

Not only is Mr. Williams seeking equity in and higher royalties from the Hebron project, he said the province will demand more control and participation in all future energy deals, specifically, a refinery or processing plant to bring jobs and stability to areas outside of St. John's, where unemployment rates are chronically stuck in the double digits. 

Mr. Williams doesn't think his demands are unreasonable. 

"What I'm saying is: Give us some long-term employment," Mr. Williams said in an interview at his St. John's office. "Then we can have a sustainable industry that is not just boom or bust. Project in, project out." 

"So let's create some evenness. Let's create some stability."

or how about these gems? Globe and Mail March 2006

'This province has been perceived as a province that's down and out. Well, not any more. We're not used to surpluses, but we better get used to it.'
DANNY WILLIAMS

'We will not burden our grandchildren with the consequence of our own actions.'
LOYOLA SULLIVAN

Dean MacDonald come Clean

Dean MacDonald has placed himself right in the middle of the Liberal Leadership Campaign and therefore in the middle of debate and discussion.

So who are you Dean MacDonald? What is your claim to fame that makes you somebody to be listened to regarding this leadership contest?

1. You support the Muskrat Falls deal.

What we need from you on this is for you to compare the deal you were doing on the Lower Churchill when Brian Tobin was in power, the proposed development you rejected under the Roger Grimes administration and the deal in front of us under the Danny Willams administration.

You are in a perfect and unique position to be able to compare all three. You can tell us what makes this Muskrat deal superior to the other two you worked on.

You can tell us what happened to the Brian Tobin deal and what you gave up for a development that did not even happen.

2. You support Cathy Bennett - who supports the Muskrat Falls deal.

Did you at any time sit with Cathy Bennett on the Nalcor or various hydro boards?

The Muskrat Falls deal was cut under Danny Williams. Did you support Danny when he was Premier? Did you support him when his government cut a cheque for your company Persona? As a supporter of Danny Williams as a PC - do you acknowledge that he turned the Premiership over to Kathy Dunderdale? What has Kathy done differently than Danny Williams that has caused you to go Liberal? What can Cathy Bennett do with a Muskrat Falls deal that she was part of, supported, and was the poster face for - all under the PC government?

Did you at any time express to anyone that Cathy Bennett was not a Liberal and you could not support her?

Have you spoken to Danny Williams about the Bennett campaign? Has Cathy Bennett spoken to Danny Williams either before announcing or bid or after?

If one is to take you seriously and follow your "lead" to the Cathy Bennett camp - you need to prove your worth following anywhere.

Last time I looked you were on Twitter telling Con O'Brien to open his mind. That's a joke right?

Is this yet another Solid Gold idea?

Tobin via Williams via MacDonald via Bennett

Any chance Dean MacDonald - the current cheerleader for PC appointee Cathy Bennett - in bid for Liberal leadership - can explain to us the difference in the proposed deal by Roger Grimes for the development of the Lower Churchill and the current fiasco on Muskrat Falls?

Liberal/Tory/Liberal/Tory - they do not possess political ideology that's coherent.

Tobin via Williams via MacDonald via C Bennett - keep control is what it's all about.

So Tobin as Premier who cut a government deal with Williams on Cable Atlantic contract and Williams as Premier who cut a deal with MacDonald on Persona government investment - and are where as it relates to C Bennett?

Force the subject media - let us examine the Grimes proposed deal and this Emera/Nalcor deal. Give the people the details - compare costs, revenues, consumer prices, jobs, recall, and ownership. Dean had a hissy fit as Chair of Hydro under Grimes and stomped off claiming the proposed deal was so bad. Yet his buddy and business chap Williams managed to get him to really like the Emera deal - and now - well he's a Liberal again supporting the PC appointed Chair of Nalcor while they were cutting the PC deal.

This is what they expect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to accept. This is how stupid they think we are?

Time to compare.

What was John Ottenheimer talking about?

Okay let's go a step further.

After the signing of the 1999 GWAC agreement between CFLCo - which was refused release by government at the time for: "Commercial agreements such as those among Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, CF(L)Co and Hydro-Quebec are confidential. If released, they could compromise ongoing negotiations between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro-Quebec related to the Gull Island development. Commercial agreements of this magnitude cannot be negotiated in public."

Then Minister Paul Dicks alluded to John Ottenheimer's concerns which were:
 "It is most inaccurate for Mr. Ottenheimer to suggest that the new Shareholders’ Agreement gives control to Hydro-Quebec, "Mr. Dicks said. "If Mr. Ottenheimer had inquired, he would have found out that Hydro-Quebec previously had many of these rights under previous contractual agreements and the laws of the Canadian Business Corporations’ Act. The Shareholders’ Agreement, which was executed in 1999, serves to recognize many of these rights that were already held by Hydro-Quebec."

Oh yes - the entire Tory caucus had issues with this GWAC/Shareholders Agreement. They had issues regarding control of our energy future under this 1999 agreement.

Dicks also said: there is no circumstance where Hydro-Quebec could gain control over CF(L)Co or dilute Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s ownership interest from the current 65.8 per cent.

Yup - that's true but the concern was of management control not actual ownership.

Where have all those concerns gone? 

What did Quebec get by providing and additional 2 billion dollars of revenue for our hydro - over the life of the contract? What did they get. 
 
 

What did Hydro-Quebec want? What did we agree to?

I'm sure we can all agree on one thing - Hydro-Quebec does not give up a thing unless something greater of value is there for it.

In 1999 when CFLCo was threatened with going broke - our province sought ways to generate more revenue into the Corporation. This of course was another disastrous consequence of the Upper Churchill deal wherein under certain circumstances HQ could invest money in CFLCo in return for common shares.

It is of course arguable that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador could keep CFLCo afloat with tax dollars - thus avoiding a complete HQ takeover of the Upper Churchill - however Brian and Deano went for a "new" deal.

The Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract (GWAC) was born and with that "new" rights for Hydro-Quebec.

The way CFLCo functioned was a 2/3 (NL) 1/3 (HQ) ownership/management situation wherein we had majority shareholder rights. The new agreement changed that to requiring an approval from HQ on all important business/contract/management issues.

Let's get one thing clear - HQ did not have to accept GWAC - they had rights to power anyway and had them cheap. The GWAC gave us the better deal on the power sales at market value. Therefore it is certain that HQ got something out of the deal.

Despite HQ's winning protest and position that the Upper Churchill Contract could not be changed - leaving us the poor owners of an extremely lucrative resource; HQ got a change and it was definitely in their favour.

So what then was HQ after? Why did they "give" us a deal for power at market value?

Even the current government is out touting HQ as the devil - opposed to Newfoundland and Labrador. So in that case what did we give up in 1999?

Here's the wording in part;

Part of the Shareholders Agreement among NL Hydro, Hydro-Quebec, and CFLCo June 18th 1999

Article 3 Board of Directors

3.4 Special Majority Decisions of the Board of Directors

The following decisions will require the approval of a majority of the directors on the Board of Directors, including at least one director nominated by NL Hydro and one director nominated by Hydro-Quebec on the Board of Directors:

3.4.6

...the entering into, amendment or termination of any Material Contract to which CFLCo or any Subsidiary of CFLCo is a party or to which CFLCo or any Subsidiary of CFLCo may become a party, unless such entering into, amendment or termination has been previously approved in a budget approved under Section 3.4.2 or 3.4.3;

Material Contract defined: "Material Contract" means (i) any contract involving a monetary commitment of CFLCo or having a value to CFLCo of $10 million or more in the aggregate and (ii) any contract which restricts CFLCo from carrying on its Business, including the contracts listed on Schedule E;

Business defined: "Business" means the business of CFLCo which shall be limited to the following purposes and objects:
(a) to produce or otherwise acquire and to transmit and to sell electricity;
(b) to harness or otherwise make use of water for the purpose of producing hydroelectric and hydraulic power and for any other purpose;

Our politicians need to all come clean. Why did HQ want the change above? - and now that they have it - what did they want it for?

Has SNC Lavalin got Muskrat by the Tail?

On the heels of more bribery and corruption allegations against SNC-Lavalin and particularly as related to design and management of "mega projects" - it is unconscionable and frankly stupid not to get complete information on the Muskrat Falls project.

I no longer care about "proprietary information" - I care as a shareholder and as a ratepayer.

The project should be stopped - and each and every component of the deal between Emera and Nalcor needs to be examined. Further SNC Lavalin's role in the project should be audited completely.

We need to know if the code "PCC" or "CC" exist as it relates to the Muskrat deal.

This Quebec company - is rotting from the outside in - and we do not need additional history of rot in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Kathy Dunderdale and Co. have shown they can be inept in matters of law and contracts and we must not let another 3 generations of our people suffer the consequences of either corruption or incompetence.

I need to know that public officials cannot and have not been bribed. I need to know who specifically is becoming rich on this project. I need to know who is driving it.

As yet another set of polls (the British Columbia election) goes up in smoke - nothing has convinced me that people in our province want or believe in this project.

Has the ambidextrous octopus swallowed the Cabinet?