Promises, promises

CBC reports that the Prime Minister’s response to Danny Williams’ election wish-list “falls flat”.

There is nothing in the story to justify the headline, no quote from Danny Williams to that effect.

But letting that bit of torque slide, it’s curious to hear the Ceeb parroting Danny Williams’ line that “The Conservative and NDP responses were very encouraging on several fronts, including support for a loan guarantee for the development of the lower Churchill... and support for a cost-shared agreement on the completion of the Trans Labrador Highway, among other issues.”

With respect to the Lower Churchill, Danny Williams is suffering under the illusion – if not some other kind of -lusion – that Harper has promised a loan guarantee.

Harper has done no such a thing.

Williams asks, “Does your party support efforts to develop the hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill River System [sic] for the primary benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the provision of a Federal Government guarantee to proceed with the project?”

Notice that Danny Williams does not ask for a loan guarantee in his original letter. What kind of “guarantee” is he asking for?

Harper says, “We support this proposal in principle and believe that it is important for Newfoundland and Labrador to have greater control of its energy mix. A Conservative government would welcome discussions on this initiative and would hope that the potential exists for it to proceed in the spirit of past successes such as the Hibernia project.”

Danny Williams is rumoured to be a lawyer. Even a bad lawyer knows the difference between “support” and “support in principle”. And a good lawyer would immediately red-flag a curious, and very deliberate, ambiguity in Harper’s response: Is the antecedent to “this proposal” which Harper “supports in principal”, the development of hydro projects on Grand River? or the Federal Government “guarantee”?

If the latter, what kind of “guarantee” is Harper offering?

If the Federal government “guarantees” the project, can it truly be said that the province is proceeding on its own?

And if the project is done “in the spirit of Hibernia”, is Harper saying his government would require an equity stake like the one the federal government acquired through its Hibernia investment?

(And it seems no one told Harper that all provinces have total control over their “energy mix”, other than in respect of nuclear power: hydro, provincial energy corporations, etc., are, and always have been, under provincial jurisdiction.)

In any event, Harper isn’t offering anything concrete other than a platitudinous statement that he “would welcome discussions on this initiative”.

Take that “guarantee” to the bank, Premier. That, and $1.25, will get you a cup of coffee.

Nor is Jack Layton’s letter much more impressive.

“The NDP is committed to the development of a national power grid for electricity… [This] would also give hydro-producing provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador access to energy markets, to maximize benefits.”

(Does this mean the NDP would use the federal declaratory power to force a hydro corridor across Quebec from Labrador? What would Pierre Ducasse do?)

Layton continues, “The NDP supports green power developments… We are therefore open to examining possible developments like the Lower Churchill, as long as it can be done in an ecologically sound manner, help meet our Kyoto commitments and for the principle benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Should this development meet these criteria, we would support the federal government to providing, [sic] for example, an investment guarantee…”

Score one for Williams! He didn’t ask for an “investment guarantee”, but he got one, anyway… assuming, of course, that all of Layton’s other conditions are met.

Speaking of met, has the NDP yet met a hydro project it couldn’t find a reason to oppose?

Which brings us to the PM’s response:

“The development of the Lower Churchill River is an exciting opportunity for our shared goals of Newfoundland and Labrador’s economic future and for the necessary investments in clean energy. We have funding in place to assist in the development of hydro power projects such as this and upon the province giving this project a high priority, we want to ensure Labradorians, and in particular, Aboriginal, Métis, Innu and Inuit communities are central to consultations that will be undertaken.”

What a concept! Consulting with Labradorians about a resource megaproject to harness a resource in Labrador.

Danny’s real issue with Paul Martin’s response, as opposed to that of the other two leaders, is probably not that it is weaker. It isn’t.

It’s that it’s stronger – stronger than anything the Premier has ever committed, verbally or in writing, to the people of Labrador whose resource he is so anxious to develop. Labradorians have, until recently, been the Invisible People; invisible to the politicians and policy makers in St. John’s who wield the power from afar.

Not that his promise is worth anything anyway, Danny Williams has never made such a strong commitment to consult with all Labradorians, including the Métis, in respect of the Grand River hydro proposals.

Paul Martin has.

And unlike the other two party leaders, who speak of Newfoundland and Labrador, only Martin puts the interests of Labradorians, Aboriginal and otherwise, front and centre.

Danny Williams has not.

Next post: Trans-Labrador Highway.