Pam Frampton provides déjà vu

Pam Frampton's latest attempt to thwart Muskrat Falls critics who are demanding that the project be shut down while a forensic audit is completed - fails.

If you are feeling a déjà vu - you're not alone.

The majority of media took exactly the same approach when Muskrat Falls was initially talked about and during sanctioning.

From the outset - I can tell you we most certainly won't learn from this "mistake" if we allow this one to be completed. In fact - the more we let this "boondoggle" continue - without a forensic audit being completed - we are watching ourselves - knowingly - make a "mistake".

Frampton titles her government/corporate puff piece, "Inquiring minds want to know" a phrase that is familiar to most people as being used by the gossip rag The National Enquirer (with the exception of I instead of E). The writer - with her first scribbles - attempts to diminish, downplay, and question the Muskrat critics who want the project to stop and a forensic audit commissioned. déjà vu

The first paragraph of her article reads: "While it should never have been started, the hydroelectric project is way beyond the point of no return. With more than 80 per cent of the work finished, the province can’t afford — financially, legally or practically — to stop now."

The serious critics of the project wrote, made public comment, and drew attention in whatever way possible to argue that the project should not start. We didn't wait until it was 50%, 60%, 70% and "80" % completed to pull the fire alarm.

The serious critics of this project know that Frampton's claim "With more than 80 per cent of the work finished, the province can’t afford — financially, legally or practically — to stop now." is not based on fact - but based on politically and corporately produced spin. The spin cannot possibly be backed up unless a forensic audit and financial investigation were completed.

The serious critics of this project know that there are dozens of red flags waving prominently over this damn dam and would lead any knowledgeable person to demand a forensic audit. These red flags could be indicators of fraud, gross negligence, bribery, and other corrupt potentials.

If any of these serious and illegal activities were found - contracts entered into would have to be re-assessed, renegotiated or dismissed - yes people could go to jail - and yes the project could have to be stopped.

It's like saying Enron would have to be continued - resurrected - or reworked because it's too big to fail.

If we are actually in a position where this project is too big to fail - then I expect the Government of Canada to come in pay off the debt on the project and re-work something with Nalcor that leaves the people of Newfoundland and Labrador whole - (as they were before the boondoggle started).

Doing nothing is paramount to knowingly bankrupting the future of our province.

Let me add this for Ms. Frampton - if an engineering investigation found that the North Spur would probably fail at some time in the future - would it be too expensive to stop, not practical to stop, not legally wise to stop?

This continued writing on Muskrat Falls without truly fully understanding what the options are regarding the project - is nothing short of irresponsible at best or a deliberate re-spin at worst. The Tobinesque speech by Ball and dutiful and predictable media fawning over it - is the same old same old technique used to get the project sanctioned.

Spinster used to have a different meaning in Newfoundland and Labrador in days of old. The meaning today is less innocuous.

Then Frampton - inexplicably - goes on to suggest what the Public Inquiry (not yet established) should examine. Ms. Frampton - respectfully but barely - I suggest that you don't possess enough knowledge on the subject to reasonably put perimeters on it.

The "eight main thrusts" that Ms. Frampton articulates can be answered before an inquiry begins. That's the problem.

Value for money? Really? the answer is no!

Good decision making? Really clearly not!

Lessons learned? Come on now. Naive (please read the Economist article again) or if you have the time our history on the development of natural resources)

Financial consequences? Oh my~ They are obvious!

Commercial sensitivity? What where the owner of a company cannot know or see the content of financial remuneration contracts? Surely you jest.

The key motivations? Okay that's just silliness. It's called corporate welfare. It's called idiotic legacies. It's called political pandering.

You see Ms. Frampton - you and many other journalists, columnists, and/or announcers are a very real part of our ongoing and historical record of failure.

One must be knowledgeable enough on a subject to ask the pertinent questions and follow-up. One must be willing to ask critics - why they really hold opinions, express concerns, or continue to put out "warning trouble ahead" information. Particularly when these people have nothing to gain directly. When you base all you opinion on those who have something to gain - then you are likely putting out spin.

This inundation by some media - of late - is EXACTLY the same type of nonsensical rhetoric that got us here to begin with.

Then - finally- indulge me as I review this paragraph of fiction:

"Let’s be clear: no inquiry into Muskrat Falls is going to result in a parade of former politicians being hauled away in shackles, satisfying as that might be. None of the money squandered will be paid back. If we accept those basic facts, then what is it we want an inquiry to accomplish?"

You have no idea what a yet to be established inquiry may or may not result in. Therefore the fact that politicians will not be hauled away on shackles - is not a fact. An inquiry could in fact lead to information that could be used to investigate potentially illegal activity. Remember those trinkets in the House of Assembly. People went to jail there - right? And how much money was that over? I am going to suggest that IF illegal activity were going on - those involved on any level would try to prevent it being discovered.

None of the money squandered will be paid back. Not a fact. First you do not know if the money was "squandered" or if it disappeared (illegally) - you don't know if somebody doesn't have a million in their back-pocket from a wink and a nod - you don't know if significant amounts of equipment was stolen or cannot be found - you don't know if somebody has taken a kickback. You do know that the projected cost has doubled.

So to accept those "basic facts" as you call them - is to continue to be fooled. It is a continuation of spoon-feeding the public - information being spoon-fed to you.

I do not have a desire to shut you up as James McLeod might say - but I do have a desire for you to to be really cognizant of the potential damage you may cause by writing facts that are not facts.

My previous blog posts from 6/7 years ago talk about not needing the power, Emera owning the transmission line to the Island, the concern about budget projections and so on - demonstrate that there were a number of us people - who seen through the last round of spin. I for one am seeing through this current onslaught of it.

Maybe we should do an inquiry on how the media plays a role in advancing the "boondoggles" of governments. Perhaps they should be tested on their knowledge of subjects they confidently write about. Perhaps somebody should look at that record. The Johnny Come Lately media questions about the Muskrat fiasco - should probably continue and not get swept under another carpet for historical review.

Next up - James Mcleod and his story on our retiring Auditor General.... does it ever end...

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.

  

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.