Real BREAKING NEWS

Yesterday Sue's Blog focused on the journalistic style of James McLeod in his story headlined "Nalcor audit won’t be done before retirement: AG".

Today let's look at some of the other information we can take from this interview.

The AG Terry Paddon is retiring at months end. He leaves behind an unfinished audit of specific operations of Nalcor.

The story does not tell us some important things.

How far along is the audit?
When did Paddon expect to finish it when it began?
Did he run into unforeseen difficulties in attaining the information he needed?
Was it Paddon's intent to finish the audit before he retired?
What does Paddon think the cost will be to finish it?
Is it more costly under a new Auditor General than if he completed it before he retired?
Did he find anything worth noting now?

Terry Paddon is one of those nice people. Not much - I've ever seen in his personality that would put people off. He is a professional by designation and as best I could tell - took his role seriously.

Paddon - however - missed a couple of key areas in his tenure with the Department of Finance and as Auditor General. He missed some real activity regarding the Federal - Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (Equalization) - despite being alerted to it.

Equalization - as the program is normally referred to - primarily has been to the benefit of Quebec. The program which Stephen Harper promised he would change but then did not - I assume was kept whole for Quebec.

Harper's promise to remove royalties from non-renewable resources from the formula - would have meant that our oil revenues could have served to improve the lives of future generations so much more. That was a digression. (still angry at CPC for deliberately conning Newfoundland and Labrador and "Seantor" Manning's standing at Harper's side as he did it)



BREAKING NEWS

Many people may not have noticed - but Hydro-Quebec does a significant amount of public program spending. They have been doing that for decades.  Why is the question....

ANSWER

Back in 2000 Stephane Dion then President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs appeared on Bill Rowe's Open-Line. I asked questions the Minister could not answer on line - so he did as he promised - wrote me the answers to my questions.

Below is the response: 





"On the question of the treatment of Churchill Falls under the Equalization program, it should be noted that an adjustment has been made in the calculation of Equalization payments since 1982 which takes into account how Churchill Falls hydro is priced. Equalization payments are based on the relative ability of each province to raise taxes; and the Churchill Falls adjustment shifts some capacity to tax hydro sites from Newfoundland to Quebec. The net effect is to reduce Quebec's annual Equalization payments while raising Newfoundland's. Furthermore, to the extent that profits from Churchill Falls translate into profits to Hydro Quebec that are remitted to the Quebec government, these too have the effect of lowering Quebec's Equalization."

Right from the get-go we were being further penalized on the Upper Churchill - while Quebec reaped even more benefits. Then the formula was changed to reflect the real contract (albeit not enough in my opinion).

Were we ever compensated for the past - NO.

The real kicker though was found accidentally in the last sentence of Dion's response.  "Furthermore, to the extent that profits from Churchill Falls translate into profits to Hydro Quebec that are remitted to the Quebec government, these too have the effect of lowering Quebec's Equalization."

That little remark was an eye opener for anybody watching Hydro-Quebec - as I certainly was.

The hundreds of News Releases coming out of Hydro-Quebec in those years were phenomenal. Now it made sense. Before profit - expenses come out. If Hydro-Quebec delivered or helped to deliver public programming on behalf of the Government of Quebec - they lowered their profits - while the province of Quebec saved equalization money - which gave the province even more to spend on public programs.

In short - Hydro-Quebec making billions off our resource - reduced their profits - lowered remitances to the government - in some years almost to zero - to avoid the loss of equalization. This in turn exponentially increased the value from Labrador resources for Quebec.

At the time Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was making money and was remitting profits to Newfoundland and Labrador. At the time we could have taken advantage of the same. Today Nalcor is not "profitable" - only by force of the PUB, our laws, and oil activity. Nalcor never did do the investment and development that Hydro-Quebec has successfully. 

Terry Paddon was aware of this and we did nothing. We sat on our hands and did nothing.

The political and media spin in Newfoundland and Labrador became we MUST become a "have" province. The romantic - naive - irrelevant title of "have". The "have being based on a formula that could see a financially destitute province be "have" while a thriving growing super power province be "have not".

Let me be more clear: Quebec has an unemployment rate of 6% Newfoundland and Labrador is at almost 15%. The population in NL was 530,854 in 1971 and 528,817 in 2017 meanwhile the population in Quebec was 6,137,305  in 1971 and 8,394,034 in 2017.  Provincial debt NL is $23,052 per person while in Quebec it is $22,104. This does not include the albatross of 13 Billion for Muskrat Falls. Then we take into account that Nalcor is not financing all it's own obligations - we put in a fair chunk and it is only barely profitable because of oil operations. When compared to Hydro-Quebec which has hundreds of millions in profits - without oil revenues.

Paddon failed by not describing what equalization truly is and how the system works. It's not all his fault - but political masters should not have had that much say.

The media - should really get its collective act together and do some real reporting. It should make itself knowledgeable about important issues and policies before it puts out fluff - this denying the people of balanced information on which they can make a decision.

It is no longer acceptable to have zero leadership in politics and zero accountability of the news media.

We are broke. We continue to repeat mistakes. We continue to dream without doing anything that remotely will help us achieve our dream of prosperous future. 

By the way - are there any MHA's willing to wade in to this discussion or members of our "press corps"?















 

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.

  

A.C.T.I.O.N versus philosophical discussion

The combined collection of material from those opposed to Muskrat Falls is starting to become a file that ends up on a shelf to collect dust.

There are enough reasons to demand the immediate shut down of the project and the immediate start-up of a forensic audit.

This will not be accomplished through this blog, any other blogs, tweets of discontent, letters to the editor, or calls to a radio program.

The only way to accomplish this is to provide new leadership - now. The coming together of people for a common goal - regardless of their past political stripes or non-stripes.

Being right is not a happy place right now. Many of us were right in our past assessments of Muskrat Falls. It is actually miserable to be right and will remain so until some real change occurs.

Dwight Ball - Danny Williams and the elite making a killing off this project and have thick skin with respect to keeping this "boondoggle" going. 

They do not fear repercussion - Danny's already out of politics and Dwight will soon be. The Corporate elite just want to keep taking our money and the money of our kids and grand-kids and great grand kids The debt, the burden, and the mess will remain long after they are deceased from old age - unless we stop it now.

A - alliance of like minded people
C - coordination of action required
T - target the politicians who want to be re-elected
I - imminent understanding that they will be thrown from office at next election
O - onslaught of activities designed to raise awareness and participation
N - network with people from all around Newfoundland and Labrador

I like George Murphy - always have. Right now he is encouraging all of us to write the PUB to protest the Hydro proposed increase. It is an action and it will be felt - however this will not rid us of the burden - it will simply shift the debt from the ratepayer to the taxpayer. We need action to rid us of Muskrat Falls and do what we can to mitigate losses.

So the day of action is here. Who is going to stand up and join with others to provide leadership and a future for Newfoundland and Labrador?

The taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot afford the burden of a 30 billion dollar debt. This is what successive governments have done to us - and we are allowing it.

Demand the immediate cessation of Muskrat Falls until a complete forensic audit and financial investigation is complete on the project to date. Then we can look at what alternatives and choices we have. Anything short of that is philosophical discussion that nets us nothing more than an historical record of misery - just like the Upper Churchill.  

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...

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?

PC boots are made for walking - away from NL

Just about 6 years ago - the master negotiator who hated "loopholes you can drive a mack truck through" passed over 8 million dollars in the form of an interest-free loan to Terra Nova Shoes a subsidiary of Kodiak Group Holdings. The loan was to be paid over 10 years - bringing us to 2018.

Okay let's get to the basics - did we have a clause stating the business could not be relocated outside the province for 10 years? Did we have a clause that interest would be added to the loan amount if the company left Newfoundland and Labrador? Did we have a clause that all amounts owing would be immediately payable if the company left the province? So Minister Sullivan tells us to stay calm "these loans are very well secured". So Minister you gave the interest-free 8 million dollar loan in 2008 to be paid by 2018 it is now 2014 6 of 10 years already gone by yet you have only collected 1/4of the money back?

At the time of the loan announcement in 2008 the company said the following:



After considering options for consolidation, the company chose to base its Canadian operations in Harbour Grace because of Terra Nova’s strong track record, commitment to quality assurance and customer satisfaction, and productive and dedicated workforce. The expansion will realize the addition of approximately 50 new positions at Harbour Grace, as well as the retention of the over 170 existing staff. To increase capacity, a 30,000 square-foot extension to the existing 70,000 square-foot facility has been completed.
"We are very excited to be expanding Kodiak’s strong business model and culture in this region," said Kevin Huckle, President of Kodiak Group Holdings. "The expansion to this fine facility is a result of the hard work and dedication of the men and women who work in our Harbour Grace footwear plant. This activity reveals our strong commitment to this organization and supports future growth. Kodiak’s investment demonstrates that manufacturing still plays a crucial role in Canada’s economy."


At the time of the loan announcement in 2008 - Paul Oram Minister responsible at the time said the following:

"The company’s decision to base its Canadian operations in Newfoundland and Labrador will strengthen its competitiveness internationally,"  (emphasis added)

Here's what the company is saying now:

The company said it has become too expensive to manufacture the footwear in Newfoundland and then ship them to Ontario for distribution. The plant in Harbour Grace was built in 1971.
"The reality is the high costs to continue operating the Harbour Grace plant have become unsustainable over the past several years," Kodiak president Kevin Huckle said in a statement. (emphasis added)

Here's what Susan Sullivan - Minister responsible is saying now:

"It's very disappointing for us," she said. "We've been working with the company over the last few days to try to see if there's anything that we can do to encourage them to stay, but it seems they've made up their minds, that this is not a place they are able to do business."


So how long has the government known about this?
What did they do to "entice" the company to stay on?

Importantly: Is it possible that there will be people working in a plant in Ontario that is using interest-free money from Newfoundland and Labrador?

What happened to all that savvy in attracting and retaining business?

Once again a long-standing manufacturer/processor - has decided this is not a cost-effective place to do business for them.

Paper mills, fish plants, tech firms, oil refiners, and manufacturers head to the land of the have-not. Any chance to use power to attract industry is being squandered so we can help Canada become "green" and Nova Scotians to get cheaper power. Our proud heritage on the sea - yet where does ship-building go to? Billions in contracts - oh yeah - Nova Scotia.

Perhaps John, Steve, and Paul can create thousands of person-hours of work to tear the facility down. Wait now - we just tore down Stephenville, and we got Grand Falls-Windsor in the wings - that should keep us busy till we have to dismantle Bull Arm.

So should we expect the following slogans?

John - all Nalcor employees to wear Kodiaks
Paul - all Police to wear Kodiaks
Steve - all boy scouts to wear Kodiaks

and you guys had the audacity to crucify Grimes over the only contract without loopholes?

no wait I forgot there is one more contract without loopholes - the Upper Churchill contract.

Rex Murphy - 2 saviors - Williams and Alberta

Everybody needs to make a buck right? I guess we all decide at one point or another if the activity of making that buck just goes too far for our stomachs.

I am sick of Rex Murphy - the native "Newfoundlander" (as you all know he constantly leaves off Labrador in the name of our province) pontificating his views so vigorously so as to leave one believing it's fact.

As you likely know Rex Murphy and other CBC resplendent mouths have caused a bit of a stir lately regarding their speech junkets. Murphy has been called out for appearances in front of the oil and gas elite. 

Two things Rex wants you to know.

1. Alberta saved us, and
2. Danny corrected the wrongs of the Upper Churchill

Rex would have other Canadians believe that when our fish crisis hit in the early 1990's - it was Alberta that kept us from hundreds of divorces, thousands of bankruptcies, and a population headed for complete annihilation. He thanked Alberta on our behalf.

First of all Rex - you should concentrate on the Newfoundland and Labrador shaft - wherein the entity responsible for fisheries management failed and our people took a direct hit from that mismanagement. Ottawa - Rex - was the bankrupt, Ottawa - owes this province billions of dollars, and Ottawa - Rex should be raked over your coals for this colossal failure. Yes Rex - tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians lost their livelihoods and dozens of communities failed outright. Yes Rex - it is comparable to Ontario losing 600,000 jobs overnight - however the federal response was so different.

Ontario was in peril - about to lose their bread and butter automotive sector - through no fault of the federal government and through great fault of the private sector - but Ottawa responded and continues to respond to any fart going sideways in Toronto.

The fishery - Rex was a direct responsibility of the federal government - and they failed. The consequence of that has been catastrophic to our province - yet Ottawa continues to deny its responsibility - a constitutional responsibility - and watch our province struggle to survive another confederate mess.

So - Rex - in speaking to the oil magnates of Alberta - first describes that the wonderful and professional conference environment is hardly what he found when he did his first speech in the Lion's Club of Joe Batt's Arm. Then he gets to the heartfelt - intellectually drooling - thanks to Alberta on behalf of all of us. Rex can't stop his adoration of Alberta for saving Newfoundland and Labrador, thousands of our people and thousand of our families. My God - Rex thinks divorces would have been so frequent as to shatter the idea of marriage if we were not saved from by Alberta.

The solution to our fisheries crisis should have been found in our province. The billions should have kept coming from Ottawa until the stocks recovered. Our fishermen/women and plant workers should never have had to leave home to seek gainful employment. The billions we lose every year - as a result of Ottawa's mismanagement should be replaced by Ottawa. Our fishermen/women and plant workers could have been employed using the compensation money that should still be flowing from the feds.

Rex - many of our families have been destroyed BECAUSE they had to leave this province to find work. Families were torn apart, communities devastated, and seniors left without a relative to enjoy.

Alberta certainly gained from our loss. They had access to thousands of skilled tradespeople and workers - that they needed at the time for their booming industry. They got our population - not our seniors - but young men and women and families to build their energy sector. They gained - we lost and continue to lose. Yes many of our people travel back and forth - but many others and their children (now adults) have stayed and increase the population of that province. They have now made Alberta home - generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians gone.

On another occasion - actually it was when Danny Williams resigned as Premier - Rex joined the CBC's national panel to give his two cents worth on the departure. He agreed with Mansbridge that Danny was a fighter. Rex went on to say - that Williams came in - "in the wake of the closure of the fisheries" and with the Emera term sheet "corrected a 50 year grievance that's gnawed at the hearts of Newfoundlanders since the day that Smallwood signed the Upper Churchill" and further described the Williams agenda as limited but large "the offshore - the revenues - fix all the bad deals".

This verbal nonsense leaves Canada with an impression that is not real. The 50 year grievance has not been resolved - and further the deal Williams cut makes Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay billions of dollars to go around Quebec and this time benefit Nova Scotia. Meanwhile of course - discussions are always on with Quebec and Williams did not eliminate them from the equation. There is Gull Island.

And this question Rex - what did the great "fighter" Danny Williams do to right the wrongs of the fishery?

If Murphy wants to impress the oil elite in Calgary or share a studio with Mansbridge - he should do it talking about something he knows something about - like Toronto. All Murphy has done here is perpetuate the myth that Newfoundland and Labrador is a welfare state relegated to thanking others for survival. 

Please take the time and listen to Rex:

Talk about Alberta saving Newfoundland and Labrador - PRESS HERE
Talk about Danny Williams saving Newfoundland and Labrador - PRESS HERE

Did Dunderdale meet Quebec Premier Marois for 1 to 1 meeting?

According to a story in the Montreal Gazette:

"In addition to Lac-Mégantic, Marois has a one-on-one meeting planned with Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Kathy Dunderdale to discuss hydroelectrical projects in Labrador.

Newfoundland plans to build a $7.6-billion, 824-megawatt hydroelectrical project at Muskrat Falls, downstream from the 5,428-megawatt Churchill Falls dam, operated by Hydro-Québec.

Newfoundland is still bitter about a 1969 agreement giving Churchill Falls power to Hydro-Québec for 0.25 of a cent a kilowatt hour, dropping to 0.20 of a cent a kilowatt hour from 2016 until 2041.

Dunderdale wants to export Muskrat Falls power to New England using undersea transmission lines to Newfoundland and then from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia.

At the July meeting of the Council of the Federation in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Marois proposed discussing the situation with Dunderdale at the La Malbaie meeting."

Did this meeting occur? If not - why not? If so what happened?
 

MHA Brazil's Oversight - another Red Flag

Tory oversights of which Dave Brazil owns the most recent must cause all people of Newfoundland and Labrador to pause.

In Canada right now we have a Senate mess that has some files referred to the RCMP, Senators repaying hundreds of thousands of dollars, the PM's former Chief of Staff cutting a personal cheque to cover Duffy (a Tory Senator), and hundred's of thousands of tax payer dollars spent to audit the oversights, omissions, falsehoods, half-truths, and possible criminal behavior of some of our Upper Chamber. The House of sober second thought has become the House of drunken spending.

Not too long ago we had Steve Kent apologizing on YouTube for his failure to achieve complete information on the Boy Scouts situation before commenting publicly about what he said were "facts".

Then there is the accidental expropriation of what has been called the entire community of Grand Falls - Windsor under the then Minister now Premier Kathy Dunderdale.

And who can forget the stream of MHA's led away in handcuffs for stealing from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Peter Penashue fiasco still resonates in the Big Land. Oversight - Oversight - Oversight

So now we have Brazil who violated the Member's Code of Conduct apologizing for yet another OVERSIGHT.

So then ask yourself - is it it any way possible that there has been any oversight in this Muskrat Falls deal. Is it in any way possible that serious mistakes have been made and missed? In ten years will we be hearing yet again that it was just an oversight - I apologize.

Lack of an escalation clause in the Upper Churchill agreement was an oversight - how many billions has that cost?

And last but not least Bill 29 - The oversight Bill. Because we can't see things means Cabinet gets a future pass to claim oversight. 

Sorry - there are too many red flags to proceed with this deal on Muskrat Falls.

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?

PIRA Projections? - Muskrat Nightmare?

The company that supplied Nalcor and the government of Newfoundland and Labrador with projected oil costs has a new focus:

PIRA Energy Group held a seminar that I hope our province attended - before sanctioning the debt elephant and the Muskrat Falls inferior development plan.

It's time for our politicians to stop ignoring or downplaying the shale play in North America. The price of oil - which our reports on Muskrat rely so heavily on - may be taking an absolute turn downward. If this were to happen then our estimates are dead wrong - our export ability is dead, our price for domestic power would be too high, and the debt carried by taxpayers and monies paid by ratepayers would be unacceptable.

This type of error would compare to our failure to recognize the value of hydro - as oil prices soared. Now the opposite may happen - and we need to fully examine this possibility. Just as our mistake in the late 60's has netted Quebec a windfall - this project has the same potential to make multimillionaires of a few while hanging an albatross around the neck of Newfoundland and Labrador for an equivalent number of generations.

Please Read HERE

How about the government show us the latest PIRA report to them on projected oil prices. Where is the new report?

Also please advise if the formula used for projections to determine price of oil for our Hebron equity is the same as that being used for Muskrat.

We need to do more than be force fed fuzzy commercials, dazzled with hotel announcements, and reassured by MHA's who clearly do not have all the information. We need to stop this deal now - have the works go to the Public Utilities Board - which in turn would have complete authority to call any and all witnesses, check the primary data and estimates of Nalcor, and review the energy marketplace for the next 30 years.

We need to be cognizant of the fact that the project estimates have increased by over a billion dollars - which the government says is because of improved engineering and infrastructure plans.

Let's take them at their word. Why were the plans deficient to begin with if we have the BEST experts doing them? If the people, opposition, and media did not complain loudly about the first MHI, Navigant, and Joint Panel Review findings - would the government have proceeded with less than acceptable infrastructure?

If the increased costs are largely due to improper costing - then how do we expect to achieve a 10% maximum on over-runs?

There may very well be a project that works for the Lower Churchill - a domestic project/s that could see partnership between energy intense secondary processing industries and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - where transmission costs and energy loss could be minimized by using the power in Labrador. This of course does not include "johnny come lately" panic for Muskrat power when the Emera deal for Nova Scotia power may be in jeopardy and the potential export sales non-existent. We need to start from scratch and determine what is the best project/s for the Lower Churchill resource and proceed from there.

The television commercials and media buy to sell us something we have no say in - is throwing money for roads, hospitals, schools, and health down the drain.

If the government really wants the people to support the project - then send it to the experts we pay to determine the real costs, risks, and options for domestic supply IF and when we may need it.

This project has all the potential of being a second Upper Churchill nightmare - wherein WE make a mistake again.

We keep hearing that could not happen because of all the experts we have. Well how did it happen with the Upper Churchill?

How did the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro experts get it wrong on privatization?

How did experts with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro make so many errors in predicting power shortages over the past 30 years?

If and when the Lower Churchill is developed business will make money on the construction, engineering, and management of the project. We cannot just do a project to make business happy now by filling their coffers with contracts - that we have no ability to pay without extreme hardship to our people.

While we are at it - have a look at the mess in Nova Scotia regarding this deal and potential partnership and ask yourself is Emera in this? Are we guaranteed that Emera is in this?

 Please read Here and look at the comments from Nova Scotians. 

We are not yet in a position to sanction this deal and the people must step up and force the government to retreat from this fiasco.

Premier resorts to lying to sell flawed Muskrat deal

The following are statements from the Premier's Board of Trade speech:

1."But that has not stopped Quebec from finding ways to block and interfere with our access to their grid"

2. "Indeed, as we witnessed between 2006 and 2010, Quebec’s actions, through its regulatory process, forced us to reconsider Gull Island for the initial stage of the Lower Churchill development."

3."When we apply creative thinking with good business practices we can avoid the yoke of geography that Quebec has tried to place around us."

4. "Quebec was trying to make us choose between a deal with them or no deal at all. They thought we would have to slam on the brakes of our own economic development."

5. "This is the essence of the choice before us today: slam on the brakes and wait to see what happens in three decades, placing our future in the hands of Quebec."

6. "They understand that if Muskrat Falls does not go ahead, what happens in Labrador from that point on lies squarely in the hands of Hydro-Québec and the province of Quebec."

7. "Does anybody have any confidence that, when mines in this province go to Hydro-Québec looking for energy for development in Labrador, they are going to get the best industrial rates in Atlantic Canada? Not likely. Hydro Quebec’s history is to seek the best deal for itself, which likely means power rates approximating alternatives such as diesel-generated power. This would be disaster with hundreds, indeed thousands, of jobs in this province hanging in the balance"

8. "It breaks Quebec’s hold." (Premier referring to Muskrat deal)

9. "It will not happen if Quebec is deciding how big we can grow"

10. "Escaping Quebec’s predatory grip on our province’s economy is absolutely fundamental if we are to position ourselves to shift from reliance on diminishing non-renewable resources to a renewable-energy economy that will sustain us for generations to come"

Premier Kathy Dunderdale wants us to fear Quebec. Why? So she can proceed with the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.

The Premier insinuates that if we do not do THIS deal NOW - we will never be in control of our own destiny. Why? So she can proceed with the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.

The Premier wants you and I to believe that Quebec wants to cripple our economic development forever. Why? So she can proceed with the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.

Let's for this one moment take the Premier and her dire warnings seriously. Okay - then what twit would partner with a publicly traded company (Emera) when they are able to be taken over by Hydro-Quebec?

You see according to Dunderdale and former Premier Danny Williams - Quebec and its crown corporation Hydro-Quebec would do ANYTHING to stop Newfoundland and Labrador from moving forward. Anything would then likely include the purchase of a publicly traded company vulnerable to takeover.

So then Premier Dunderdale - how are you going to close that loophole?

Well the Premier would say - Hydro-Quebec would not do that. Well Premier why not? Is it possible Premier - can it happen?

Remember the Upper Churchill? Newfoundland and Labrador did not believe that oil prices could or would rise to where they are today. Quebec in financing the project did believe and therefore made a superior deal for its people - one which has created tens of thousands of jobs in Quebec and insured that Quebecers paid the least possible cost for electricity.

The Premier's response? Well - lock out Hydro-Quebec - put the debt on the ratepayers, taxpayers, and future generations of Newfoundland and Labrador - increase not decrease or stabilize rates and then give significant management contracts to Quebec based corporations. What a joke.

So Premier - how can you guarantee that Hydro-Quebec will never own any part of Emera and thereby own assets in our province, control exports, and lock transmission? You can't - therefore what you say is nothing more than desperately doing a deal that will make multimillionaires of millionaires and leave our people in the dark - economically, socially, and industrially. 

One last point - several of the statements made by the Premier in her speech to the Board of Trade are lies. In this regard she has truly joined the rank of her colleague Prime Minister Harper.

Talk with Sue - introduces For the Record

Sometime ago I established an online radio program called "Talk with Sue"

Last year it produced six programs to try out the new forum.

Since that time almost 10000 people have listened to the programs which are available online.

For the Record will be a series of shows dedicated to the Muskrat Falls debate. The idea here is to allow an hour of virtually uninterrupted time for critics of the deal or process of sanction to explain what their specific concerns are and what they feel might be a reasonable approach to this development or for energy development generally.

The government and supporters have millions to promote their side while critics are limited. 

I am pleased to announce that Danny Dumaresque will be the first guest to jump in and talk to you - the people - about his concerns.

Danny is a former MHA and a former Director of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. He is a longstanding business person in Newfoundland and Labrador and has been actively involved in the Muskrat Falls debate.

Tune in tomorrow at 8 pm in Newfoundland and 7:30 in most of Labrador.

Press Here to go to the Show

Dunderdale - Cochrane - Cashin - Bloggers "FEAR"

Democracy: new definition

A right of people to elect dictators.

The continual flow of apologists for government and media should bother us.

One blogger noted:

"For a guy who called the press conference pleading for openness and transparency, I find it peculiar for him to attack the medium through which such transparency could be taken advantage of by the public. As Paddy Daly noted, it was akin to biting the hand that feeds."

Here we go again speaking out must be highlighted by fear.

Biting the hand that feeds it?

What does this mean?

One cannot and must not criticise or question the media?

One cannot and must not criticise government?

Shut your mouth and you will be rewarded?

Shut your mouth or bad things will happen?

If one believes the media is being soft on the most significant resource deal of the century for our province - what should they do? If one believes that this is part of the reason the government is acting so arrogant while spending our money - what should they do?

The pedestals must fall - people - politicians and media alike must be placed with the people and for the people. This constant attack on citizens who buy papers, watch and listen to news and ultimately pay for things like the Emera deal must end.

Speaking freely and publicly should not achieve an outcome of punishment. What exactly are we living under?

Dunderdale and Harper are reason enough to question and criticise till one is exhausted - now we have the media suggesting they are above question.

Gate 1: return power to the people

Gate 2: chastise and punish all politicians who do not understand who they work for

Gate 3: start decrying the punishment mentality of both government and some media with respect to people expressing an opinion or belief.

Gate 4: understand that politicians and some media do an awful lot of power plays behind the scenes as they pass out their punishment.

Gate 5: stop all progress of the Emera deal until a referendum process is undertaken and complete.

If this is a democracy - the threats of retribution to citizens who speak out must stop.

Our history is filled with examples where neither elected representatives nor media have done due diligence and we have and continue to pay the price.

From the United Nations: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. 

When a citizen is discouraged from direct involvement through use of fear or intimidation - he/she does not live in a democracy. 

It was only a short while ago that Premier Dunderdale stated that Tom Osborne did not do enough to build a relationship with her. For this reason and not for reason of competence or ability he did not make Cabinet?

Prime Minister Harper is a liar - straight up - yet the media does not only avoid the factual situation but also accepts his direction with respect to when he will answer questions and who he will answer in the media.

The race to the bottom is heating up and whether it's Cashin, Osborne, or any other soul who dares question, critique or oppose government or media - they are under threat of some sort of reprisal?

The same blogger mentioned earlier said the following:

"So why did Cashin put forth such a ridiculous claim? Well, it’s simple really. Cochrane asked him a question that made Cashin uncomfortable.  In the press conference, Cochrane basically restated Premier Dunderdale’s position on not allowing expert witnesses in the House of Assembly for the special Muskrat Falls debate as they were going to follow the template set out in the Voisey’s Bay debate from years past. Cochrane probably knows full well all of the things that are wrong with Dunderdale’s assertion, but he clearly put it in front of Cashin for him to refute, if he could. THIS IS WHAT GOOD REPORTERS DO.

Cashin is right, comparing Voisey’s Bay to Muskrat Falls is like comparing apples and oranges. The fact that the premise for Cochrane’s question contained the assumption that it was okay to compare the two appeared to really piss him off. Cochrane premised a question with a notion that Cashin believes to be preposterous, as he appears to think it’s irresponsible to even suggest that Muskrat Falls is similar to Voisey’s Bay."

The question that comes to my mind is did David Cochrane question Dunderdale's premise in the same manner he asked Cashin to do?

Did he place before the Premier the facts of the Voisey's Bay debate and the factual differences between the two?

Did Cochrane drag out the factual assumptions of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro over the past 25 years ans ask Martin or Dunderdale to explain the errors?

Did Cochrane chase Premier Williams around after his resignation to find out what's up?

Oh there are so many questions that could and should be asked by Cochrane and I assume that Cashin along with many others are exasperated by the soft approach on Dunderdale while leaving the tougher more aggressive questioning to citizens voicing their concerns.

Why will we pay Emera for any part of delivering domestic power?
Why will we pay Emera to maintain any part of our pole infrastructure?
What is Emera's record in Nova Scotia or the Grand Bahamas?
Does former Premier Williams have any investments that could benefit from this deal?
Why are the ratepayers/taxpayers paying for this mess?

Developing any part of the Lower Churchill should equal thousands of long-term jobs in Labrador and should be paying a significant dividend to the ratepayers in order to keep prices lower not higher.

How about Cochrane does a straight comparison between this proposed deal with Emera and the two last attempted deals by Tobin and Grimes. Let's see the information. Let us - the citizens make a call based on REAL information.

How about the Quebec card? How about we have some answers on that. How about we ask if Quebec companies will benefit greatly from this deal? How about we establish a fact that Quebec could buy into Emera?

This deal and all its dirt must be exposed and then stopped.

The only people who are really being chastized, marginalized, scrutinized and punished regarding the Emera deal are citizens who are not being paid to either govern or report.

Shoving a Muskrat down our Throats - Dunderdale?

The Muskrat Falls proposed development project has finally driven many people to become involved.

The size, scope, risk, and importance of developing this natural resource should interest and be of concern to all people in our province.

I hear the Premier and her colleagues complain and moan about critics and chastise anybody who speaks in any other manner than full-on support of the proposed deal.

Let's get a few things straight.

1. The government has spent a fortune of our money getting documents prepared and studies/analysis done to "prove" the worthiness of the deal. "Independent" reports, "independent" support, and "independent" voices Dunderdale proclaims. In other words our money for one-sided information.

2. The government has thwarted real involvement of the PUB which is the ratepayers authority and one which is supposed to make the call when spending goes on related to domestic supply.

3. The government did not accept the findings of the joint panel review. Another protection of the people and society at large regarding natural resource development.

4. The government has not agreed to a referendum despite the democratic merits of doing such.

5. The government is not allowing citizens to participate in a real debate between government representatives and experts in the populace.

6. The government is not allowing shareholders of the resource an opportunity to vote on such a rare and massive undertaking.

7. Nalcor is bullying Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - or NLH is not acting completely on its mission statement or mandate.

8. Kathy Dunderdale, Danny Williams, and other PC MHA's are ignoring very real concerns and risks placed before them by reputable people (mostly Newfoundlanders and Labradorians).

9. Kathy Dunderdale has yet to present polls demonstrating overwhelming support (75% +) of the deal.

10. The government is not allowing proper and thorough review of the opposing side.


If a government is truly interested in averting another fiasco like the Upper Churchill it would go out of its way to examine the "other side". That is to say make available the tens of millions they have spent on the "positive" potentials to examine the "negative" potentials.

If the entities that are reviewing are using assumptions and numbers thrust upon them by Nalcor (government) they will not achieve a real review of the deal.

If government were truly interested in vetting the deal and bringing true scrutiny to it they would allow competent citizens who have expressed opposition to the deal to have access to millions of dollars to study opposite or different assumptions.

This is what should happen through a referendum process but in the absence of that - monies should be granted for review by those citizens who vehemently oppose the deal.

The real deal is that it's being pushed down our throats and they will never have to pay any consequence if they are wrong. Booting them out of office is not the appropriate punishment for those who may cause generational destruction to our well being.

Next up will be Options A - B - C - D - how the establishment hedges its political bets. That includes the privatization of our hydro assets particularly Gull Island.

The Cashin - Cochrane Files Will the Media act like Government?

In March of this year I posted the following:

Cochrane and Simms do not control Muskrat Debate

It is not only Cashin who has a problem here and if we do not strengthen the investigative research of our local media the Upper Churchill will be repeated. The final paragraph and it's assumption may well have been proved to be wrong.


Over the past couple of weeks some members of the media - commentators, reporters, and pundits appeared to have been dissuading people and politicians alike - from continued opposition to Muskrat Falls.

I have heard statements like - "nothing new" - which of course was the spin being promoted by Dunderdale and company.

I have a question for David Cochrane who carries himself like the head honcho of Newfoundland and Labrador "journalism". Have all the previously noted concerns been resolved?

The problem is that if a question - the same question - goes unanswered (satisfactorily) should one just stop asking?

From where I sit many questions asked from day one - have never been answered. The fact that Kennedy or Dunderdale open mouths and spew rhetoric does not mean an issue is resolved.

We are talking about 6-8 billion dollars of our money, the money of our children and grandchildren; we need to know if this project is the right one.

Some of the Unanswered Concerns:

1. What happens in 2041 and does this project have the potential to harm us in future dealings?

2. The need for power.

3. Alternatives.

4. Lowest Cost Alternative.

5. Labrador benefits.

6. Cheaper power for Nova Scotia.

7. Subsidization by Newfoundland and Labrador ratepayers.

8. The need of a partner.

9. Long-term jobs.

10. Potential for alternative industrial development.

The problem - as I see it - is the media who are demonstrably frustrated by the ongoing debate are those individuals who are not educated enough on the issue to ask the right questions or lack the guts to take on the governing PC's.

I have watched most of Cochrane's material and in my opinion - he lacks information or the desire to really challenge the "facts" the government puts forth.

Randy Simms - in my opinion does not have the knowledge to determine if something regarding the project has been answered satisfactorily.

If they are going to use the media power available to them - they must also appreciate the responsibility that goes with that. I do not see that concern in them - and therefore - in my opinion they are doing the province and its people a disservice.

Now of course I am assuming here that the media will not act like Dunderdale and Kennedy and condemn somebody for speaking up. I do know better however.

Regional Cooperation = Robbing Newfoundland and Labrador

The word "regional" flows from the lips of our provincial Tories much too loosely.

First of all I must remind each and every one of you accepting a salary from us and stating that for that salary you represent us - that your job is NOT regional growth.

Nova Scotia - New Brunswick - Prince Edward Island and Quebec "region' have their own politicians as well as federal representatives.

Regional to us has meant - the giveaway of the Upper Churchill, the giveaway of fisheries stocks, the giveaway of our people, the giveaway of our secondary processing of minerals, and the giveaway of refining for our top grade oil.

Regional cooperation has not returned resources and people from other provinces including the "region".

We have sent our people to Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia,  and Prince Edward Island for work. What do they do? Well they process and refine fish, oil, gas, and minerals in these provinces.

We have sent 5000 MW's of power to Quebec at outrageous prices and in return they have created tens of thousands of jobs that we cannot qualify for.

We do not have the transportation infrastructure that other provinces in our region do. In fact our transportation has seen the elimination of railway, inadequate ferry service to Canada, and inadequate search and rescue assets.

We do not have the population growth and size of other provinces and yet we continue to export raw resources and minerals.

Now they want cooperation in order they may take even more hydro resources. We will subsidize power going to Nova Scotia. Why? They (Ottawa included) feel that Muskrat Falls is a good project so we can do OUR SHARE in the reduction of greenhouse gasses. Listen up - the 5000 MW's 5 BILLION Watts that we send from the Upper Churchill is the largest per-capita contribution to greening up in Canada. It is now time to do what we do for us.

We cannot be a "have province" in a region of "have-nots" that have more jobs, people, and infrastructure that we do. Where is our equivalent population growth or where is the lowering of our average age?

How about our cooperation on our fisheries resources?

What did we ultimately get in return? What did we give up? What other provinces benefited from the giveaway of fish stocks to foreign nations? How many communities have we lost?

Tourism numbers - how many tourists in the other provinces in our region? How many do we see?

Regional cooperation has always been a one way benefit and it has not been for us.

Tell me - what have we received from our historic cooperation (giveaway) of our resources? Nothing other than loss of communities, resources, and people.

Then there is Labrador - what can I say? Missing one gold plated highway, search and rescue resources, two smelters, four refineries, and hydro power for all communities.

Muskrat Chill and Dunderdale's Parkas

CBC News Newfoundland and Labrador ran a clip on their late night broadcast of Premier Kathy Dunderdale commenting on the latest CRA poll results.

The quote from Dunderdale was:

"When you take on stewardship you have to be prepared to make difficult decisions sometimes that aren't popular but it's always nice when you have support of the majority of people, we have that and I'm grateful for it."

First of all the Premier and her government do not have support of the majority of people - they are governing because in "a snapshot in time" in October the majority of people who voted supported them.

Now considering the Premier claims she does not govern based on polls - I suggest she does not use popularity as a reason.

The "difficult decisions sometimes that aren't popular" piece as Dunderdale and her colleagues would phrase it - leaves me very perplexed. The erosion of support is based on difficult and unpopular decisions?

Let's see - so the Muskrat Falls fiasco is a difficult decision that is unpopular?

Decisions on what?

Is this a confirmation that polls are taking place internally on the Emera deal and they are not showing favourably?

There is no doubt that this proposed energy project is causing a significant drop in the popularity of the Premier and her government. Now come the tough questions versus the tough decisions.

1. British Columbia forced a referendum on HST through a tool in their democracy chest and the government had to live with the consequences. The harmonized sales tax policy is similar to the Muskrat Falls development deal in that it involves changes that affect consumers on mass and revenue streams for government. Will this government allow democracy to govern and call a referendum on this deal?

2. What can be done to force a referendum on this issue?

3. Considering this one project could amass a debt load equivalent to our entire debt now - is it not appropriate for the Premier and her government to seek permission over and above a "snapshot in time" result in October?

4. Considering very significant information on this deal and financial consequences were not known at the time of the last provincial election - how does the Premier feel she has vetted the public on it?

5. Will former PC and Liberal Cabinet Ministers step to the plate as former Premier Bill Vander Zalm did in British Columbia and rally the people to demand a referendum?

The Muskrat Chill refuses to thaw and the relationship between people and the government is getting frosty. The Premier can choose to pile on parkas or warm up to the people she is "humbled" to represent.

Why and How - Muskrat Deal Referendum

The reasons we need a referendum:

1. This one project could double the debt achieved over 60 years in 5 years.

2. This is an energy project in Labrador. 

3. Failure of the Government to achieve wide based support.

4. Inconsistency in external and internal reviews.

5. Concerns raised in the public by reputable people with expertise (including former PC MHA's )

The how of a referendum:

1. Don't be concerned that you may not feel educated enough about the issue to vote - it is the Government's job to educate you satisfactorily. If they cannot sell it to you then your vote should be no.

2. The Government would have to provide funding for contrary groups to publicize and educate the public on their reasons not to proceed with the project as defined.

3. There would be a defined period for discussion and debate that provides media better access to information on a timely basis including the potential for public debates between government and opposing parties.

4. It would inject a much needed Democratic tool into our ever eroding open and transparent governance.

5. It is something that a confident government should welcome - particularly on a natural renewable resource development.