Something seems terribly off base here. The objective of the people of the province and the government of the province should be to get the best deal for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians (after all the government has an obligation to act on behalf of all of us in seeking such a deal). We all know how difficult it has been and the sacrifices we have made over the last 50 years …living and suffering through the duration of the old 1969 deal. All of that being said, you would expect the motivation of the people and the government to be totally aligned …get the best deal which makes us the prime beneficiary of the resource and gets control back in the hands of the province.
For some reason, this government seems to be in a great rush … It is off and doing it’s thing … promoting a deal which was only announced 30 days ago, that in the opinion of some very knowledgeable members of the public, does not meet the above-mentioned objective and without question is not in the province’s best interest and surely does not make the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the primary beneficiaries.
At the same time, the government seems to want to ignore the people and are willing to lock us into another 50 years in a deal that clearly makes Quebec the prime beneficiary and even gives Quebec more control over the Churchill River than was in the 1969 agreement and MOU 1. For some reason, the government thinks it knows best, can ignore the public and rush this through the House of Assembly. They appear to be saying … Lets rush this through quickly without much discussion and before the public gets a chance to understand what’s in it and its implications for the province.
For some crazy reason, the government, seems to think that those knowledgeable members of the public opposed to the deal are their enemies. We are not …we are on the same side. However, when the government refuses to recognize that, there is something terribly wrong.
We take the premier at his word … that he wants the best deal for the province, but if that’s true why is he shutting out the many knowledgeable members of the public, who want the same thing. Why the great rush? Does he think he knows best, and any opposition is not acceptable? Again, I come back to the premise that … we are on the same side. To demonstrate disunity on this matter, only plays into Quebec’s hand.
Surely, if you accept that we are on the same side, the Premier and the knowledgeable members of the public should be able to have a sensible and reasonable conversation and discussion on this matter. There must be a way for the premier to explain his position and convince us, and the public, that what he is proposing is what’s truly best for the province. He can not ignore the control issue … the jobs are there for a good deal and a bad deal. At the same time, if the premier thinks what we propose is wrong and not in the province’s best interest, explain why. Remember, we are on the same side … not stupid … just wanting to have some sensible input before the deal is rushed through. Surely this is not too much to ask for such an important decision which impacts the province’s future for the next 50 years and beyond.
The first explanation, surely must be … Why are you in such a RUSH? What is gained by RUSHING through approval just 30 days after announcement? A deal, so consequential for the province, surely deserves detailed attention and consideration. You are not just signing a lease for some property in downtown St. John’s. This deal has multi-generational impacts on the province. Getting the right deal is more important than getting a quick deal.
Just remember, we are not asking to be decision makers … that is government’s job. But it is also governments job to listen, seek and understand the legitimate feeling of the public and allow reasonable input, before jumping into a bad deal. Time is on our side. All members of the House, not just the government side, should also have input. They too represent the public.
There is a sensible mutually acceptable deal that can meet the objectives stated earlier and which does make us the prime beneficiary of our resources, but we have not found it yet. Lets approach this as we should … we are all on the same side … lets demonstrate that … the people deserve it.
Gil Dalton, BA(Econ), BCom, CPA, CA