Initial public policy pronouncements have the potential to define a new government for the duration of its time in Office. Stated (and pursued) policy objectives help set tone of leadership and convey to the public important messages about the Government’s intellectual heft, the gravitas of major issues, and the direction it plans to take.
This could include budgetary matters – Premier Furey called in Moya Greene to conduct an examination of the government’s fiscal position. The policy emphasis might involve one objective or several – Premier Wakeham identified the terribly deficient Churchill Falls MOU. He also articulated the need to increase local fabrication, mentioning Bay du Nord and ferry construction.
Some Administrations establish a policy footprint from the moment of being Sworn-In. This is a “branding” initiative, intended, among other things, to focus public attention, and seek alignment with their expectations. Brian Peckford’s dogged pursuit of his resource management and control objectives is one example. In contrast, Furey put Moya Greene’s “Big Reset” in storage the moment he realized that he would have to pay a political price to achieve budgetary sanity.
Premier Wakeham’s disclosure on November 25, 2025 that the Budget deficit of the Furey Administration of $626 million does not “reflect the true depth of our provincial deficit” is no surprise. Finance Minister Siobhan Coady ‘cooked the books’ every year. Luckily, the truth of the ‘real’ deficit is only found in the Government’s cash shortfall – the amount that has to be borrowed.
The deficit was never in the range of $600 million anyway. The cash deficit began at $2.6 billion. As Opposition Leader, Wakeham ought to have known this and called out Minister Coady.
Evidently, the $2.6 billion figure is now far higher.
Notably, Premier Wakeham indicated that he will not “put the burden” of balancing the books on the backs of NL residents or compromise the Tories’ election promises. He states that he is not prepared to place the fiscal burden on taxpayers or make “dramatic cuts” to address the issue.
Strangely, he does not say who will pay.
His assurances may have been music to the ears of Board of Trade Members, but implicit in them is that he will continue the pattern of public deficit already established. That means he is content to pile the debt burden on future generations rather than show the leadership required to make expenditure cuts now, including downsizing the public service.
Coincidentally, Premier Andrew Furey drew the same conclusion. Indeed, Wakeham’s remarks have the familiar ring of modern NL politics most vacillating Premier, Dwight Ball. Faced with public backlash, though he understood the magnitude of the debt crisis, Ball performed an about face on an HST increase. He repeatedly stated that ratepayers would not have to pay for rate mitigation for Muskrat Falls, too, when he knew that was an impossibility. Of course, those were the ravings of a dreamer. NL Hydro shells out $500 million annually so that Muskrat Falls does not fully appear on our electrical bills – money that would, otherwise, reduce the deficit.
I wish I could say that the budgetary problem that Premier Wakeham raises is an issue for another day. But it is not.
Moya Greene’s “The Big Reset” informed him that NL was at a financial precipice in 2021. The study stated that the total liabilities and exposures of the province had reached $47.3 billion. More than $10 billion has been added to the public debt since that time.
The revelation four years ago, however, did not discourage Premier Furey from continuing to pile on annual deficits of more than $2 billion, raising the Province’s total current public debt to approximately $60 billion today.
Don’t think it’s a problem, think again.
The worry now is that Premier Wakeham’s agenda may well mirror Premier Furey’s.
Wakeham rightly saw in Furey’s giveaway to Hydro-Quebec a plausible election issue.
His Progressive Conservatives having won the election, however, we are left to wonder if Wakeham is willing to live up to his rhetoric?
Wakeham’s flatfooted approach to dealing with fundamental issues directly impinging on the status of the current MOU has unsettling aspects, as this Blog has recently reported. Increasingly, his failure to take even the most basic steps to push back on Hydro-Quebec aligns with former Premier Furey’s approach. Furey’s rhetoric and the drama of tearing up the 1969 Contract was intended only to paper over the lies and deception that characterized his Budget Estimates and the deficits each contained.
But the Government has changed, right?
Has it?
Two issues struck me as completely irreconcilable following the Wakeham Government’s investiture:
One is the Premier’s failure to require Dennis Browne’s Oversight Panel to step down. Mike Wilson, the Member who resigned, established the Committee’s lack of legitimacy early on. The Committee’s latest, sorely deficient, oversight report confirms Wilson’s original statements. Still, the Committee is operating.
The second concern is the Premier’s failure to require the legal team, engaged in drafting the legal agreements necessary to give effect to the MOU, to stop work. I suggested, prior to his investiture, that he ask Premier John Hogan to give the order. He did not ask Hogan. On his own volition Wakeham could have issued this instruction on day one, having been sworn-in. Again, he made no such move.
The lack of action makes no practical sense when, for all the reasons that an independent review is deemed necessary, the legal work may be completely redundant.
Any negotiation is tough. Whimpey does not do bargaining well.
Whether the parties ever returned to the bargaining table, as a show of strength Wakeham ought to have sent a broadside to Premier Legault and Hydro-Quebec for their treatment of NL in relation to Churchill Falls and the issue of power transmission. Quebec warrants neither deference nor risk-free resource developments at Newfoundland and Labrador’s expense.
You might well ask: If NL can’t take on Quebec over the incompetently negotiated MOU, what is the point of Wakeham’s promise of an independent review?
It is a fair question.
I have asked myself whether Wakeham’s promise of an independent review is only a ruse? His flat footedness suggests that it is.
Is Wakeham’s game only to have Quebec make a few minor adjustments and claim victory, much as Premier Furey did after getting so little from the Feds for rate mitigation?
Possibly.
But it raises important questions about the promise of an Independent Review, too.
I am particularly worried that the Premier will not allow the Review to operate under the Public Inquiries Act. This is important. Under the Act, a tribunal possesses the authority to subpoena and question all parties to the Inquiry under Oath. My back-office inquiries did not elicit a favorable response that an Inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act was forthcoming. The Premier has told us that the final review report will be made public. That is not good enough. The whole review should be held in the public eye if it is leading to a binding referendum.
Also worrisome is that the CEO and other NL Hydro officials still have the ear of the Premier. Knowing that CEO Jennifer Williams might never have to explain why the MOU is different from the assertions that formed part of Hydro’s propaganda campaign to “sell” the deal to the public of NL is simply unacceptable.
Considering what has transpired since Furey’s surprise agreement with Hydro-Quebec, we should be concerned that the CEO prefers a “closed-door” panel where, absent the powers of the Public Inquiries Act, she and her officials can avoid perjury and just have a chat?
This is not “accountability”, nor is it transparency. We need an open public hearing where the rights of the public are dominant and where “commercial sensitivity” is not abused to shield negotiations from the consequences of misleading statements to the public.
The public inquiry should avoid in camera hearings unless absolutely necessary. The review should challenge all the information presented to the public. Michael Wilson said that the Board of Directors of Hydro has a fiduciary duty to inform the public. If they have instead misinformed the public there should be severe consequences. Public officials who have deceived the public should be rewarded by termination with cause and not given golden parachutes.
The Premier is reminded that he has promised independent public analysis, accountability, and transparency in relation to the MOU. He has placed the body politic of NL on notice that they should ready themselves for a Referendum.
On this basis alone, any mixed messages regarding the terms of the MOU, any waffling as to how Quebec should be dealt with, any backtracking, any, but the highest standards of independent review – in full public view – can only be injurious to the public interest.
Most especially, the Independent Review should not merely serve to fulfil an election promise; Premier Furey’s paltry terms should not be allowed to serve as the basis for any future renegotiation with Hydro-Quebec.
For all those reasons, the Wakeham Administration is well advised to separate itself from Premier Furey’s MOU process as quickly as possible.
NL deserves much more. A full return on our Churchill Falls assets is one. Leadership on our financial position is another.
Don’t let anyone tell you that they are unrelated.
Let’s leave it here for now. I don’t like what I’m hearing.
It is possible that I am being unkind, too judgmental, too early.
But I don’t think so.