Desperate Dunderdale Disingenuous?

The Premier chose Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador to extend a challenge to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prove her wrong on Muskrat?

First Ms. Dunderdale - the challenge is to you not the voters who pay your salary or the ratepayers who pay for electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. You prove that this and only this proposed development of Muskrat Falls is the best option for us. You prove that the costs are acceptable. You prove that there is an urgent need for power on the Island. You prove the benefits for us of green energy for Nova Scotia. You prove that there is not a better deal to be had. You prove that there are not other and better options. To date - you have not proven these things. To date - you have had reports based on your government's and Nalcor's assumptions.

Now let's take it a little further. You want citizens of the province to prove why the deal is bad. Okay let's say we accept the challenge - will you and your government allot public funds for other research to be completed? Will you and your government provide access to ALL information you are using to make your decisions on? Your government and Nalcor have spent tens of millions of dollars of our money to prove out your theory - now give us the equivalent to prove you wrong.

This is not unheard of and unreasonable - it was offered to ordinary citizens and groups regarding the development of the White Rose field. That is a non-renewable resource that we are not bearing the debt of - Muskrat is renewable and will put us in severe debt - that we will service.

Last week you took it a step further - you gave a speech of fear to the Board of Trade. In that address you made many statements about Quebec and Hydro-Quebec. Prove those statements. Prove that the fear is warranted.

Let's just say this - the following are basic reasons why people oppose this deal:

1. Some citizens simply do not want the river dammed. They do not need to prove anything to hold that ideology.

2. Labradorians have expressed that they will not receive enough benefit from the development - as those who are adjacent to it. They do not need to prove that the benefits do not satisfy them.

3. Your primary reason for this proposed deal has changed more times than we can reasonably keep track of. You pick which one of these paths to disprove.

4. You have not proven that we need this power for the Island. The statements be they referring to 2017 or 2019 as the time when we will not be able to service the Island's power needs are troubling and should cause grave concern regarding the planning competency of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

5. The continued statement about us contributing to "greening up" Canada is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. You do some research and tell us what our current contribution of 5000 MW's from the Upper Churchill equates to on a per-capita basis of "greening up".

6. You made contemptuous in your BOT speech that Hydro-Quebec in your words: "Think about that! 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..." Yes Premier that is the point and we want you to prove that this current proposed deal is the best for us.

7. You are not the Premier of Atlantic Canada (Atlantica) or the Premier of mining companies or publicly traded companies you are the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prove that what you are doing is best for us - not them.

8. Prove that you are supplying ALL information to us and that none is being withheld.

9. The people are concerned that they are being bullied into this deal - wherein if you ask questions or are opposed to this proposed undertaking - they will be called partisan, naysayers, armchair critics, or worse. The people are concerned that there may be opposition to the deal inside the walls of Nalcor and government but they cannot speak for fear of repercussion. The same could be true for businesses and organizations who rely on government support either fiscally or from a policy perspective.

10. You have not proven that other options for generation or development of any part of the Lower Churchill are not more beneficial than the deal you have proposed.

Either you are being sincere or disingenuous when you challenge the people who employ you. If you are serious - show us the cash, the human resources, and process to respond to your challenge. If not this is just more smoke to cover a rotten deal.