Questions in search of answers

Just a few observations on announcements from the province’s health ministry lately.

1.  labradore points out that others – like the local news media -  are noticing the odd but telling similarity between the Lewisporte cuts announcement and the one from Eastern Health about breast cancer back in April.

So much for the story then and now that it was all up to the local health authority.

2.  During Cameron, every senior government witness insisted that all the decisions were made by the people at the health authority because that’s what they do; ministers of health and cabinet did not get involved in operational issues.

Like say, deciding whether to shut down laboratory and x-ray services.

Who decided on an operational issue in the Lewisporte case?

Hint:  it wasn’t the regional health authorities.  They found out about the cut the morning it was announced.

3.  And how many times will a cabinet minister refer to the recommendations of the Cameron Inquiry in trying to justify the operational decision made in Lewisporte?

4.  Then there’s the claim by no less a personage than the Premier that the cuts came from the health authorities and that it was aimed at improving the system.

He claims the health authority made a recommendation “to us” for services that should be cut.

He leaves out the important bit, of course, that the health authority didn’t come up with this idea on their own.   They suggested cuts  only when prompted by a request from the health department to suggest cuts in the first place.

And the cuts had nothing to do with either offsetting the cost of the health centre in Lewisporte (as the Friday release claims) or “improving” the system.

That’s plain from the letters released by government late on Friday.

But don’t take my word for it:  Read them for yourself.

5.  And since we are in the questioning mood:  why would a provincial government that is evidently flush with billions in loose change ask for recommendations on what to cut from health budgets in the first place, especially when the sum finally settled on by  - whom?  cabinet, the Premier, definitely Paul Oram – was such a measly, miserable amount?

And that’s based on nothing more than the general political principle that you just don’t go out and randomly shoot off a body part when you don’t need to. 

Cuts make people upset.

Cuts to health care make lots of people really upset.

Burn ‘em at the stake kinda upset.

And they don’t get un-upset easily.

Un-upsetting them will be costly either in blood and/or treasure:  cash or in political strips taken off someone’s hide.

Therefore, as the political wisdom would suggest:  do NOT cut health care unless it is absolutely necessary.

So why in the name of all that is political and therefore unholy would any cabinet in its right mind ask health regions to recommend a list of slashes, some of them valued at upwards of a million bucks.

6.   When did they make the decisions?  Observers of government will note the date on the letters released on Friday is from early 2009, well into the budget cycle and long after decisions would normally be made.  People will start asking hard questions about when all this was decided. Evidently it wasn’t in August.

7.  There is no plan. And when all that is done, ask yourself why a government department would release letters that show their initial talking points were more composed at the Mad hatter’s tea party?

Usually you release evidence that backs your claim, not further hints that – contrary to the Premier’s claims at the bored of trayed last week - people in the departments of government have no idea what they are doing.

-srbp-

Duff points out obvious: Keith Coombs has no cred on city finances

Okay, right off the bat there has to be the fairly obvious point:  the guy who oversaw the Mile One stadium money pit and has been known to talk about surpluses that turned into horrendous deficits is not a guy with a huge amount of credibility when it comes to numbers anyway. 

If Keith Coombs said one plus one is two, most people in St. John’s would run it through the calculator just to check.

Anyway, Shannie Duff is quite rightly pointing out that challenger Keith Coombs claim that there is a $44 million surplus in the municipal budget is “unsubstantiated”.

But here’s the thing Shannie:  Coomb’s claim is not irresponsible.  It is total typical Keith Coombs fiscal bullshit.

Call it what it is:  bullshit.  When people hear “Keith Coombs” they already think “crap” right away.  It’s Pavlovian. So don’t be coy and polite.  Call a spade a spade:  Keith Coombs is full of fiscal crap. People will cheer your unbridled honesty.

Anyway, here’s Duff’s version:

Duff says Coombs’ $44 Million Tax Claim Irresponsible

Deputy Mayor candidate Shannie Duff says her opponent's claim that the City of St. John's expects a total surplus of $44 million over the next four years is "unsubstantiated."  "Does it really exist?" asks Duff.

On Friday Ms. Duff met with the City's comptroller to discuss Keith Coomb's claim that the city expects annual tax surpluses of $11 million per year for the next four years.

Mr. Coombs has based a promise to vote against any increase in taxation, according to his website, "without impacting on the level of services offered."

"The forecast of a tax surplus appears to be based on an internal planning document which made several significant assumptions which Mr. Coombs has conveniently chosen to ignore" says Duff. "The internal document assumes the City's current level of expenditures remains constant, but we know there are negotiated payroll increases coming, we know all of the bids for our tenders are coming back in excess of the money we have budgeted, and we have to account for inflation" notes Duff.

The significant cost of curb side recycling program scheduled to be introduced next year is not part of the expenditure forecast in the internal document.  "What is Mr. Coombs going to do about that?  Cut it?" asks Duff.

Shannie Duff says Mr. Coombs' promise is "old politics at its worst.  For a candidate who keeps talking about going forward, Keith Coombs is campaigning like a relic from the past."

- 30 -

Shannie's Statement from the Rogers Candidates Forum

I think most voters would agree that what a politician does is more important that what a politician says.

I am proud of my record at City Hall. Whether the issue has been protection of our environment, affordable housing, social justice, or support for neighbourhood groups I have been there.

I have also been a voice for a balanced approach to planning and development. We have to find a balance between growth and protecting the social, cultural, and heritage assets that make St. John's a creative and livable city.

What do I mean by balance?

I support good development that is appropriate for its location
I support change when it is in the public interest.
I support fairness in dealing with development applications.
I supported 1.6 billion dollars of development in St. John's since 2001.

There is a difference between my opponent and I. I don't want just any development. I want good development.

My opponent is also promising to give back to taxpayers $44 million over the next four years. Does this surplus really exist?

My opponent's claim is based on a preliminary internal document developed to assist staff with budget preparations.

The document's assumptions do not include any provision for a reduction of high property tax assessments if people appeal (as they will).

It does not include the start up costs for Robin Hood Bay or the new sewerage treatment plant.

There is no provision for inflation for providing our existing services, and we know all of our tenders have come back at prices over our estimates.

I think Council will cut the mill rate, but who ho has a crystal ball to predict a surplus four years out? City staff told Council that this forecast was very preliminary, based on some major assumptions, and not for public release. Perhaps if my opponent had attended any meetings of the Finance committee or the Internal Audit committee he would have known this.

My opponent isn't the first politician to promise to cut taxes during an election. It is easy to say.

I say, judge me on my record. Judge me on what I have done.

If you share my passion for this wonderful city of ours, then I ask you for your support, again, and I thank you.

-srbp-

The Cruel Shoes

The picture says it all.

Suddenly, Jack Layton is suddenly not so keen on an election.  He’s talking about making parliament work, about working with the Connies.  You know, the sort of stuff Jack and his householders used to chide the Grits over.

An unusually media-skittish Mr. Layton said little Saturday during an event in Toronto, but what he did say lowered the temperature somewhat.

“I think that everybody involved would want to see us co-operate in the House of Commons and get some results for people — especially those that are struggling right now: the unemployed and people being left behind,” Mr. Layton said as he inched away from reporters at an archway opening in Toronto.

“So that's going to remain our preoccupation.”

Looks like the real preoccupation will be getting the shoe that’s on the other foot out of Jack’s ass.  Hint:  it went in via the mouth while he was shooting it off before.

-srbp-

Megamania: NL falls farther behind in wind energy development

While it has huge potential in wind energy, Newfoundland and Labrador currently has less than 60 megawatts in production or in development.

There are no plans for more and the province’s 2007 energy plan places tight restrictions on development of any additional wind energy.  The plan talks about potential but ensures that there is little chance the potential will be developed.

For electricity, the energy plan is focused on development of the Lower Churchill to the exclusion of all else.

As a rest of the political obsession with turf wars and 40 year old megaprojects, the province  - already well back in the pack - is falling farther and farther behind in a race where it should be leading.

1.  Hydro Quebec is pushing ahead with development of new energy technologies.  It’s looking for 500 new megawatts of wind energy.  That’s on top of existing projects and the ones in train.

Hydro-Québec has invited municipalities and native groups to compete for 500 megawatts of wind power contracts. Wind farms in the utility's third call for tenders must not exceed 25 megawatts.

The company’s strategic plan forecasts upwards of 4,000 megawatts of wind generation over the next four years.

2.  Wolfe Island wind farm official opened.  Canadian Hydro officially opened the Wolfe Island wind project this past week.  The project is the second largest wind farm in Canada and generates slightly less than 200 megawatts.

3.  Norway just installed the first floating turbine to harness offshore wind energy.

4.  Work on a $1.5 billion offshore wind farm in Rhode Island is continuing apace.

-srbp-

From the rumour mill: municipal politics version

Stuff you hear around.

Could be real.

Could be something else.

You decide.

1. Win or lose – and more likely the latter than the former - Rompin’ Rip-Off Ronnie Ellsworth will ditch municipal politics to run in St. John’s North in the next provincial election. 

The guy has made no secret of his aggressive ambitions that go all the way to being the second Cable Guy to occupy the Eighth Floor.   Ever notice Ron’s love of words like “piece” and how he has tried to copy other aspects of his idol’s political approach?

Ronnie’s rapid rise – never more than 18 months in a political job  - fits perfectly with the timetable to replace  the geriatric Tory incumbent and then 18 months after that look to replace his political heartthrob.

2.  Win or lose  - again more likely the latter than the former - Keith Coombs will look to run in St. John’s West in the next provincial election when the geriatric Tory incumbent in that seat finally retires. 

-srbp-

From the rumour mill: electricity stuff you hear around town

A compendium of the stuff ordinary people have been saying. 

Could be true.

Could be complete bullshit.

1.   NALCO will have to do a major re-write on its Lower Churchill project to correct deficiencies.  That’s what you get for relying on a decade old pile of paper.

2.   Danny Williams’ attack on Hydro Quebec was a sign that his dream legacy project is screwed up royally, with little hope of ever being built no matter how long he stays in office. 

3.   The little hissy fit was a sign of his usual impulsive decision-making style. Williams was so pissed by Russell Wangersky’s column in the weekend Telegram that Williams had to stick a denial into his speech at the board of trade.

4.   Williams will use his hissy fit as the excuse when the re-write comes.  He’ll claim there is some sort of plot or conspiracy aimed at keeping the Lower Churchill project from being built, while the real reason the project is screwed up is because of the way it’s being run.  Williams is recycling excuses from decades ago but some people are ready to believe anything even after the government inked a deal in April that shows that Hydro Quebec can’t block the Pet Project.

-srbp-

Hydro Quebec not an issue: Ed Martin

A few days before Danny Williams tried to blame Hydro-Quebec for delays and problems in the Lower Churchill project, NALCO chief executive Ed Martin was singing the same old song about what a great project he had and how any day now he’d be ready to start talking to prospective customers about a sale.

He’s been saying that for three years.

But here’s part of what you’ll find in the August 31 Toronto Star:

Martin doesn't see the Quebec issue as a major stumbling block, as regulation requires the province to allow access to its grid in return for a set tariff. Hydro Quebec and Nalcor are just working out the details.

That’s the exact opposite of the line Danny has been pushing for a week or so, now.

You can also notice in this piece that  - according to Martin - the project will be financed at least in part by oil revenues.  Some of those are flowing now from White Rose, but others won’t be along for the better part of the next decade.

Ed Martin is going to have to pull off some neat financial tricks if he plans to pay for a $10 to $14 billion project  Danny Williams said will be pushing power in 2015 when the cash Martin is counting on won’t start showing up at his front door until around 2020. 

But anyway…

Ed needs to talk to Danny or vice versa.  Basically these guys are on two completely different pages about this project. 

Then again, Danny and others seem to be on different pages quite a bit lately, including with himself over Hydro-Quebec and an ownership stake in the Lower Churchill.

Rest assured though, that as much as Danny Williams and his team appear to be all over the map, there is a piece of paper somewhere with the word plan written on the top of it.

At least that’s what he felt compelled to tell the local board of trade the other day after a local newspaper editor pointed out the decidedly errat…mercuri…caprici…ummm…errr… impulsive way the provincial government tends to be. 

Well, he said “slaphappy” too, but let’s use impulsive because it is a bit friendlier than most of the words that come to mind.

-srbp-

Signing his own death warrant

Newfoundland and Labrador information commissioner Ed Ring is welcoming a  court case that will settle once and for all a dispute with the provincial government over access to government records.

The provincial government is insisting Ring shouldn’t have access to documents as part of his review under the province’s open records law.  That law currently gives Ring the powers of a commissioner under the public inquiries act to compel the delivery of any and all documents he deems relevant to discharging his responsibilities.

Danny Williams disagrees.

Now a judge will get to sort it out.

Of course, those of us who know Ed Ring personally wouldn’t expect anything from him but exactly this thoughtful and responsible discharge of his duties as set out by law.

Let’s just hope that if the judge sides with Ring, the powers that be don’t decide Ring must be replaced with someone considerably more pliable.   it would be a shame that doing his job and speaking his mind wound up being a case of the guy signing the death warrant for his own job.

-srbp-

Just say “No!”

Federal finance leprechaun Jim Flaherty thinks the federal government will take a while to get out of deficit spending and doing that will take a bit of pain.

"I am telling Canadians today that if a politician tries to tell you that getting back to surplus will be pain-free, they are simply not telling you the truth," Flaherty said.

"It will require a lot of saying 'no' to pet projects and special interests."

Flaherty forecast the federal government will be running deficits until 2015.  In the meantime, the priority will be on economic stimulus spending and restraining growth in programs.

Guess that means projects requiring tens of billions of federal tax dollars, that currently have no customers  - and no sign of customers - for their output, and that are running way behind schedule are going to be SOL.

-srbp-

Oram and Williams give wildly contradictory accounts of Lewisporte decision

As a sharp-eared reader picked up, the raw video of the Premier’s scrum revealed that Lewisporte MHA Wade Verge knew about cuts to health service in his district some time before July 9, 2009.

That’s the day Premier Danny Williams shuffled Ross Wiseman out of health and moved Paul Oram in.

The decision wasn’t announced until August 31, almost two months later.  And even then, some people claim,  the wording of the news release didn’t make plain what was happening in the affected communities.

The regional health authorities involved didn’t hear about the changes until the morning they were announced.

But even that is now at odds with comments by health minister Paul Oram.  Under questioning in the House of Assembly on Wednesday, Oram said the decision was made after a trip he made to the region to discuss the issue with local officials:

The fact is that this decision was made during discussions, Mr. Speaker, with Central Health and Community Services, also with discussions that we had ongoing with the community. The fact of the matter is, we went out to Lewisporte, and we told them very clearly that this facility would not be built or put inside of the new facility. We would not have X-ray and lab inside of the new facility. That is exactly what we told them, Mr. Speaker. They understood where we were coming from and we moved forward on that basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Isn’t it true that you told the people in Lewisporte at that time that there would not be a one-roof concept for lab and X-ray services, but you did not tell them you were prepared to gut their service within two weeks, did you?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, I said exactly what I said, and that was that there would be no laboratory and X-ray services under the one roof in the new facility that we were building in Lewisporte. In terms of –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. ORAM: - if she would let me answer. In terms of a discussion around what was happening with closing out the lab and X-ray part of what we were doing in Lewisporte, that discussion was had but there was no final decision made on that when I was out in Lewisporte.

Either the Premier has his story shagged up or Oram does.

Which is it?

 

-srbp-

Expropriation by the numbers

At long last the rest of us get to see some of the simple print ads that have been causing such political consternation in central Newfoundland among the supporters of the current administration.

There are a series of them, some of which connect the amount of money to specific things like number of magnetic resonance imaging machines you could buy with the cash.

-srbp-

Freedom from Information: thousands of bucks for the Premier’s public speeches, redacted

It’s a bit of a hairy-assed editing job but the youtube video posted by VOCM includes a curious reference by the Premier to some of the access to information requests that he finds problematic.

You’ll find it at around the 1:45 mark. 

Danny Williams bitches about a request for copies of every speech he’s given as a politician.

That’s right. 

The guy who used to think that openness and freedom of information are good things has a problem with someone wanting copies of speeches he gave in public and for which texts exist.

This is the kind of thing that politicians would normally make readily available as a matter of course via the Internet.

Take a second a look around the Internet.  Try googling “speaking notes”  Politicians actually like people to find their speeches, even when the speeches are appallingly bad. 

Why back in the time before the Internet, when your humble e-scribbler used to edit transcripts of speeches by another Premier, the Premier’s Office would photocopy and send out speeches  - wait for it - free of charge, on request.  If the Internet had existed, we’d have published the damn things on the Internet as soon as we could largely because the Internet is a free means to disseminate information. 

in those days, speeches were records of government policy.  They were important because people could actually hold government accountable as a result of things said in speeches. And that Premier understood that as uncomfortable as it might be, the public had a right to hold their elected officials to account.   Certainly, no one in his office spent time micromanaging the living hell out of the entire government access to information system.

But that was then.

This is now.

And  the people looking for stuff like speeches are not people out to get this Premier or any other politician.  Ordinary folks like to see what commitments were made.  Academics like to see what was said and trace the history of an idea.  It’s all legitimate, normal and nothing for someone  - especially a politician - to get into a paranoiac lather over. 

But just take a breath and think about where Danny Williams’ head is on freedom of information.

Not only does Danny Williams force people to file an access to information request for copies of speeches he has given – they aren’t available otherwise -  he then bitches about the fact that people are interested in what he has to say.

Now in the case of that particular request, your humble e-scribbler happens to know about it.  An e-mail turned up in ye olde Bond Papers inbox giving the background and the horrendous amount of money Danny Williams’ office was demanding for delivering the speeches in hard copy only, even though they are available electronically.

If memory serves, we are talking thousands of dollars.  The speeches had to be produced in hard copy – supposedly – because the Premier’s Office claimed the speeches that were delivered in various public fora would have to be reviewed and possibly redacted.

Redacted?

Bits cut out of a public speech?

And no, they weren’t kidding.

The whole thing has gone off to the information commissioner where it sits, alongside a few other examples of the Premier’s Office efforts to frustrate public disclosure of information that should be in the public domain.

And people wonder why Alice in Wonderland is an apt source of metaphors for politics in Newfoundland and Labrador.

-srbp-

Cross Rhode Island off the power purchase list

Remember the missing memorandum of understanding with Rhode Island that was supposed to study shipping a couple of hundred megawatts of power from the Lower Churchill if nit gets built?

Yeah, it’s been missing in action for two years.

Well, it turns out that the whole process discovered that Rhode Island can’t handle the power. That little gem came up during Question Period in the emergency legislature session:

They found out that they did not have the capacity to negotiate a long-term power purchase agreement with Nalcor on behalf of the Province. Nor were they able, in their Legislature, to do the regulatory changes that were required in order to wheel electricity into the state. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we learned a lot through that discussion but it was not possible and we have moved on because other customers are in a position to be able to do business with Newfoundland and Labrador.

The only problem with that answer is that  - like many things natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale says - it doesn’t make sense.

First of all, the MOU was supposed to "develop and action plan to address any technical or regulatory requirements.  Throwing up hands and calling things off wasn’t supposed to be an option.

Second of all, while Rhode Island has a limited capacity to get power into the state, that was known at the time the MOU was signed.

Third of all, there’s a plan to deal with that.

Fourth of all, Rhode Island, as a state of the union like all the rest, has the legislative competence in the state legislature to make rules about energy.  They’ve been doing it for years.

This sounds a lot like Dunderdale’s efforts to discuss energy wheeling through New Brunswick on Tuesday when she kept talking about applications in front of something she called the “Ray-zhay”.  The “ray-zhee” is the Quebec energy regulator.

But wait.

It gets better.

When asked what other customers the province’s energy geniuses were talking to, Dunderdale listed off provinces and states that are on everyone’s list of potential customers.  The implication of Dunderdale’s answer was that none of them were likely customers.

And that gentle readers is the problem with this project:  there are no customers on tap. 

-srbp-

Techie update:  An e-mail from someone who knows these things advises that interstate transmission is regulated by a federal agency – FERC – which would be the same one that enables Canadian provinces to wheel power to places like New York.

Any Canadian province should be able to wheel power across several states provided it pays the appropriate costs and can, therefore, get it to the customer at a reasonable cost.

A curious misuse of words

Over the past couple of years, Premier Danny Williams and his cabinet got into the habit of referring to 2041 as the year that the Churchill Falls hydro project and all its power would be “repatriated” to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Leave aside the Mad Hatterish implication of talking about a river as if it had somehow been removed physically from the province.  Just look at the words used by the Premier Hisself:

2007 – Danny Williams’ speech to the Board of Trade: 

And in 2041, we will repatriate the Upper Churchill and take back what is rightfully ours. [Underlining in original]

2008 – Danny Williams, on the occasion of a land claims deal with the Innu:

"We all look forward, with great anticipation, to that day in 2041 when the Upper Churchill is finally repatriated to our province, once and for all," Williams said.

2009 – Danny Williams, during his little tirade aimed at Randy Simms:

And as well by then we will have wind on, we’ll have gas on, we’ll have the Churchill on, we will have repatriated the Upper Churchill, a lot of wonderful things happening in Newfoundland and Labrador and…

Hmmm.

Some of you may be wondering what is so special about 2041.  Well, that’s the year the contract with Hydro Quebec expires, the contract that sees power go to Hydro Quebec at ridiculously low prices.  In 2041,  Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation will find itself with 5400 megawatts of power and the ability to sell the power to whatever customer comes knocking.

And what of Hydro Quebec?

Well, it will still own one third of CF(L)Co unless it sheds its shares in the meantime. 

So with the Quebec Crown corporation still owning one third of Churchill Falls, the falls wouldn’t exactly be “repatriated” then, would they?  Hydro Quebec would still get a huge piece of the action from the falls.  That hardly seems like any sort of redress for the grievance found in the original contract.
But here’s the question:

When – if ever – might the falls be considered to revert entirely, and unquestionably, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

-srbp-

NL caught screwing with Churchill Falls: the quotes

Yet more on the story of the year that everyone has thus far ignored.

1.  What part of “F**k off!” wasn’t clear?

From Dave Bartlett’s story on page three of the Wednesday Telegram (not online):

“They [Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation lawyers and directors] felt that we had extinguished their rights to the whole watershed area that they require to produce electricity in the Upper Churchill and that would cause them some concern,” said [natural resources minister Kathy] Dunderdale.

Dunderdale is quoted elsewhere in the story as saying that there was possibly some “ambiguity” in the 2008 legislation.  “Ambiguity” means doubtfulness or uncertainty over the meaning of words or phrases. 

Extinguishing a company’s rights to their business doesn’t sound like something that is a bit “iffy”.

2.  I don’t think that’s the conspiracy they meant…

Kathy Dunderdale, from debate on emergency legislation to change the “ambiguous” wording of the water rights reversion bill to something a bit more concrete:

Mr. Speaker, my head is kind of spinning with some of the things that we have heard here today. There are conspiracy theories all over the place. So much of this, of what we heard this afternoon, is so far out in left field that I am not even going to bother to comment on it, Mr. Speaker.

…

Certainly I am not assigning, nor is this government assigning, any motive to the board of CF(L)Co. We believe that they are negotiating this agreement in good faith. CF(L)Co has an issue, the lawyers have an issue, with the definition as it exists in the current legislation, and because of that ambiguity that is in that legislation we are back here today doing the amendment.

Of course not, Kathy.  The people who found out you were trying to f*ck them over would logically not be the ones with ulterior motives.

But since you insist you weren’t trying to screw them (now that you got caught)  let’s leave it at that.

3.  Dunderdale, on one alternative to the emergency session:

If this definition issue caused CF(L)Co to delay entering into the agreement Nalcor Energy still had the option of placing the proposed agreement in front of the Public Utilities Board and asking for an agreement to be imposed upon the parties. This would be a legitimate process, Mr. Speaker, as provided for under the legislation, but it would take up valuable time - time that is better applied to other tasks before us in advancing the project.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if the agreement was put before the PUB for consideration, the PUB will be considering a proposed agreement that was subject to the same ambiguous definition of the Lower Churchill River raised by CF(L)Co.

Translation:  we were really worried about costly, embarrassing and ultimately unsuccessful legal action when CF(L)Co sued our asses off.  calling the House together in a hurry is way cheaper.

4.  No deal is imminent.  There are a few people running around St. John’s who think this emergency session means there’s a Lower Churchill deal around the corner.

Guess again.

There are only two serious issues holding up the project:  markets and money.  Four years after the “go it alone” option, note what Dunderdale listed in the House as two of the outstanding issues to be settled:

Some of these outstanding issues include ratification of the New Dawn Agreement with Innu Nation; an environmental assessment, which is expected to be complete next year; finding customers for the power, and obtaining financing for the project… [ Emphasis added]

-srbp-

Churchill Falls reversion fails for second time

The Newfoundland and Labrador government  is making quick changes to a 2008 law after lawyers for the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation  - CF(L)Co – raised questions about the impact of the bill on the company’s 1961 lease and rights to all property related to Churchill Falls.

Lawyers for CF(L)Co raised the issue with the provincial government’s  NALCOR Energy company during talks on water management for the proposed Lower Churchill project. 

The changes were tabled Tuesday in an emergency sitting of the House of Assembly.

It appears that - reminiscent of the 1980 water rights reversion bill - the 2008 bill stripped CF(L)Co of its lease.

In the original 2008 bill - Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act - the Lower Churchill River is described as including “all waters that originate within the Churchill River catchment area and all rivers that naturally flow within the catchment area or from diversions into the catchment area.”

Clause three of the then stated that

any property in and rights to the use and flow of water, previously conferred by a grant, lease, licence or other instrument or under a statute of the province, or vested in, acquired by or accruing to a person by whatever means relating to the Lower Churchill River are extinguished.  [Emphasis added]

By combining the two clauses, the new bill effectively cancelled the 1961 Churchill Falls lease.  The 2008 law also blocked rights holders from any legal action and stripped them of  any entitlement to compensation.  

The bill became law on June 4, 2008.  There is no indication when cabinet issued the license to the energy corporation, now known as NALCOR Energy.

The changes introduced in Tuesday’s emergency session make it plain that the 2008 water rights law applies only to the Lower Churchill and that, for absolute certainty,  the 2008 bill “ excludes the area described in Appendix A to The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and all waters while they are in that area.”

Emergency sessions are rare

For its part, the Williams administration is downplaying the session and the hasty changes.  In a news release, Dunderdale said that the act was never intended to cover Churchill Falls.

But the very fact the session was called to deal with one set of amendments to one bill suggests the issues involved are far from routine and that the legal implications of the water rights bill would be significant if left unamended.

Emergency or special sessions occur very rarely and usually only deal with extraordinary issues like war or labour disputes that threaten public health and safety.

Ordinarily – and if the implications of the bill were considered inconsequential or inadvertent -   CF(L)Co and NALCOR could simply have made routine amendments in the regular fall sitting a condition of an overall deal on water rights management on the Churchill River. 

Interestingly, the provincial government also tried to downplay the water rights bill in 2008, even to the point of making apparently misleading statements in the legislature.

In June 2008,  natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale told the House of Assembly that the bill was needed since government had decided against using the  Lower Churchill Development Corporation as the vehicle to develop the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls power projects. 

But the 2008 water rights bill didn’t repeal the 1978 Lower Churchill Development Act, nor did it remove the LCDC option for development of the Lower Churchill.  The 2008 bill merely extinguished previously existing rights, leases, grants and licenses. 

Deja vue

This marks the second time since 1975 that a Progressive Conservative administration in Newfoundland and Labrador has found itself in hot water over legislation related to Churchill Falls.

In 1980 Brian Peckford’s administration introduced the Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act.  The bill expressly cancelled the 1961 lease.  A subsequent legal challenge by creditors led to a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that ruled the 1980 statute was illegal. 

One of the influential factors in that case was public comments by politicians that identified the real purpose of the bill as being to undo the 1969 Churchill Falls agreement.

If the 2008 water rights bill effectively expropriated the Churchill Falls complex, it would be the second such move by the Williams administration in 2008.  In December 2008, the Williams administration moved to seize assets of Abitibi, Enel and Fortis including hydro-electric generating facilities. 

Confusion reigns in hydro policy

Revelation of the 2008 water rights ploy is the fourth Lower Churchill-related blockbuster news in a week.

On Friday, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale revealed that the provincial government had been trying unsuccessfully for five years to interest Hydro Quebec in an ownership stake in the Lower Churchill project. 

Dunderdale told Open Line Show host Randy Simms and his audience that the provincial government proposed to “set the Upper Churchill [issue] to one side.”

This move came despite commitments by Premier Danny Williams that there would be no Quebec involvement in the Lower Churchill without redress for the appalling 1969 deal that sees Hydro Quebec buy electricity at better than 1/30th the cost for which it is sold to consumers.    Williams has repeatedly railed against the 1969 deal as an example of a resource give-away by previous provincial governments.

The offer of an ownership stake to Hydro Quebec also flies in the face of Williams’ 2006 commitment to develop the Lower Churchill without any outside help:

"It's an opportunity for us to get back some of what we've lost on the Upper Churchill, and the fact that we're going to do this alone is significant," Williams said in an interview.

The Dunderdale revelation came after Williams accused Hydro Quebec of doing everything possible to block the Lower Churchill project. 

Williams also said last week that  his government would no longer plan to string hydro lines from the Lower Churchill through a UNESCO World Heritage site.

-srbp-

Giving HQ an ownership stake in the Lower Churchill

Via labradore, yet more connected to Kathy Dunderdale’s surprise admission last Friday that the provincial government wants Hydro Quebec to take an ownership stake in the Lower Churchill project.

This time it’s some remarks by Gerry Reid on amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act in 2006.

Reid noted the curious change of position by the government in moving from “go it alone” to “take the lead” on the Lower Churchill.

-srbp-

Signs of impending fun…

1.  An IP address from Hydro Quebec starts prowling around.

2.  Dipper astroturf starts showing up in the comments section of any post that mentions just about anything, but especially anything related to Dippers and elections.  They are all anonymous and all follow a generally similar series of lines about Dipper Ryan Cleary and Grit incumbent Siobhan Coady.

So far  - and this is like some provincial Connies – the comments have been about on the same level as 9/11 truthers. 

When the Grit and Connie astroturfers start in with their counter-strikes, this next federal election could look like a trip to the multiple personality war at the Waterford as Anonymous goes after Anonymous for something Anonymous said.

And people wonder why I think Alice in Wonderland is such an apt source of metaphors for local politics.

-srbp-

So what happened to the Chinese?

The year is 2004. 

The provincial government signs a secret deal with a group of companies – including one owned by the Chinese government – to discuss developing the Lower Churchill.

After questions are raised by local media about the company, the project quietly disappears.

What happened to the Sino Energy deal anyways?

-srbp-

Forward not backward!

We’ve had Rip-Off Ron, the mayoral candidate who likes to lift other people’s campaign slogans.

Now, we have a deputy mayor who makes the perfect match on more than their shared history of using public money to fund the private sector;  on that last one think the Wells-Coombs Memorial Money Pit, then recall Ellsworth thinks it is acceptable to sink taxpayers cash into money losers because local businesses can make huge bucks.

Now we can look forward with Kang …errr… Coombs.

And always twirling, twirling, twirling…

Originality in local politics is evidently at a premium.

-srbp-