Funny to listen to talk a few talk show hosts, media, and politicians wonder aloud why the "opposers", "naysayers", "partisans", "conspiracy theorists", "armchair experts", and "idiots" are questioning the motives of those who support or comment positively on the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.
Well for months everybody who has opposed or questioned the deal has been called all the names above and asked what their motives are.
Okay - shoe is on the other foot.
1. Why would Ches Penney support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
2. Why would Cathy Bennett support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
3. Why would Dean MacDonald support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
4. Why would Peter Woodward support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
5. Why would John Steele support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
First of all none of the aforementioned or their like minded business colleagues are charged with ensuring that all of society benefits from the resource the people own. They are charged with making more and more profit not long-term benefits for ratepayers or future generations.
Second there is a distinct potential for them to make more money from this deal while asking you and I to pay for it.
Third - unlike average Joe or Josephine citizen - their investment activity is likely at higher levels and more diversified meaning that indirectly more money will flow to them and their families.
Fourth - if the worst happens and electricity rates go through the roof - each of them are likely more able to absorb the increases without changing lifestyle or having to choose between heat and food. Further the potential for direct personal/business gain from this proposed deal will outweigh their losses from an increased electric bill.
Fifth - It is most common for business to flock behind any industrial deal as has been evidenced globally and if the worst happens - governments are usually very receptive to bailouts for the elite of the business community.
The people who have publicly opposed the deal have been scrutinized completely right from whether they are or have been blue red or orange, may have interests in other energy potentials, or just plain naysayers.
Now that the "business" community has come out of the closet in support of this deal - perhaps they would like to share their investment holdings so we the public can examine their possible motives for such a position. Perhaps they can tell us if their companies are supporting the project or if it just a personal opinion.
Perhaps they could reveal if they have business interests in Nova Scotia.
Perhaps they could reveal if they or their corporate interests ever completed projects for government or ever received money from government.
We also might want to review information on political funding such as the example below.
In 2010 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,000.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,250.00 PC
In 2009 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,250.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,000.00 PC
In 2008 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 4,500.00 PC
In 2007 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 5,000.00 PC (G/E)
Or perhaps we need a more comprehensive look at what these people are involved in - that might make them support this project:
Dean Macdonald
Press Here or
Perhaps how the Danny Williams led government investment (untendered) money for Persona (Dean Macdonald) quickly became an enhancement for a Nova Scotian firm.
Press Here which quickly precipitated Press Here and then to Press Here
You see the deal is "good" may definitely be in the eye of a specific beholder. There is no equation that guarantees that when a particular business makes money from a deal = that society will also be better off. There is no guarantee that the people who own the resource (us) will benefit fairly and equitably because a corporation/s make/s money.
We have plenty of examples where corporations have done significantly well from our resources while we received less than equitable return.
Just so that we are clear - the information presented above does not even insinuate that the individuals are doing something wrong - what it does do is state categorically that what is good for them does not necessarily equate to what is good for you.
It does insinuate that government is not behaving in a manner that is expected from the people who employ them, elect them, and own the resource and is ignoring the genuine, educated, and entitled right of citizens to oppose, object, question, and protest any major public policy or resource development.
Extremism is not good in any society and at any level. It is not reasonable to expect 100% support from the people for any government policy, investment, and/or development - that would be extreme. Equally it is unreasonable for the Premier and government to ignore, condemn, or attempt to thwart all opposition to a particular development. This is extreme and the Premier and her government are guilty of it.
Make no mistake - when government policy is made regarding things like minimum wage hikes - the business community complains and is opposed to policy that might enhance the lives of many but reduce their own profitability. Business has no problem complaining and lobbying to lower taxation, reduce royalties, restrict injured workers benefits, and reduce government spending including a reduction in public servants and programs. It equally has no problem asking for investment dollars with minimum or no repayment of same. Business regularly asks to be exempt from secondary processing while having unfettered access to natural resources. All these things to maximize their own profitability - while knowing there are those who will not benefit as much or at all - if they are successful.
The question then becomes the role of government.
Dunderdale and team can trot out all the businesses they like to demonstrate support for the proposed Muskrat Falls deal but that is not the support they need for this project. They need the support of the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will be paying for the project. They need the support of the majority of ratepayers. They answer to and work for those who elect them. Businesses do not vote - people do.
The backup quarterback for Team Muskrat is another story. Danny Williams is another post coming soon. Is he now speaking as former Premier, the architect of the deal, a Director of a mining company, or an investor? The media should be certain to find out so that his commentaries on the project are placed in proper perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment