We find ourselves at a very crucial point in the history of this beloved province of ours. Our premier, whom we just recently elected, primarily to tackle the injustice of the old 1969 Churchill Falls deal, seems to be failing us on that very issue.
It is hard for the general-public to accept that he and his party does not know the following:
- The deal he is promoting is not in the best interest of Newfoundland & Labrador … it may be the best he could come up with but certainly does not make us the principal beneficiary.
- He knows that Quebec gets much more out of this deal than Newfoundland and Labrador.
- He knows that the deal effectively transfers control of the Churchill Resources to Quebec for another 50 years … he knows that has got to be a no-no.
- He knows what a straitjacket this deal will place on NLH and the GNL for generations to come.
- He knows that the pricing formulars embedded in this deal does not reflect fair market value.
- He knows that the decision to develop Gull Island has now been handed over to Quebec. We the owners of the resource, have passed that decision to HQ … so sad.
- He knows that he is rushing this through, but the reasons why are not explained.
- He knows he is ignoring input from very knowledgeable members of the public whose objective is simply to advocate that getting the right deal is better than a quick deal.
- He knows, or should know, that no deal is better than a bad deal.
- Yes, there is up-front cash and there will be jobs (whither it’s a bad deal or a good deal).
- There will be some transmission infrastructure costs paid for by the Feds. The only condition is that the generation capacity needs to be built. The deal … good or bad is between HQ and NLH and does not affect the transmission part. So why accept a bad deal?
- He knows that the extra power allocated under the deal to NLH, is set to come from projects that may never be built, instead of the CF1 plant that is already up and running. Why, if we own the resource is he taking these unnecessary risks?
I am at a loss to explain the Premier’s motives but, equally, I don’t understand why we have allowed ourselves to be, again, in this situation. I am hoping that we the people, on whose behalf the government should be working and who seems about to set us up for another 50 years of regret, finds a way to prevent this. It does not have to happen … there are other more suitable alternatives.
Let’s get together and convince our government to slow down, have an open mind, look at alternative solutions and keep us from diving into another bad deal on Churchill Falls. If they have the true interests of the public at heart, they will agree to do this. I still believe their intentions are good but, in this deal, with all its complications, they have unfortunately lost their way.
A course correction is badly needed.
Gil Dalton, BA(Econ), BCom, CPA, CA