Piecemeal

For weeks and months in the second half of 2002, the newly-minted Leader of the Opposition hammered away at a single theme.

As Will Hilliard and CP reported in the Telegram of August 2nd that year, quoting the MHA for Humber West:

"Seeking some way to redress the unfair balance of benefits from the Upper Churchill development has, until now, been a part of what Newfoundland and Labrador expected to get from Quebec in any further development of the Churchill River system.

"It looks very much like the Grimes government has given up on that objective and is prepared to proceed with the development of Gull Island as a stand-alone project without any attempt to seek a way for Newfoundland and Labrador to get a fairer share of the benefits from the Upper Churchill."

Williams said the province would be better off developing the project through the Lower Churchill Development Corp., which was formed by the federal and provincial governments several years ago and held exclusive rights to proceed with further Churchill River hydro developments, rather than the province dealing exclusively with Hydro-Quebec again.

After the re-opening of the House, he continued to bash away on the same theme, asking, on November 18th:

Mr. Speaker, by 2010 the Government of Quebec is forecasting a shortage of power that will leave them unable to meet their commercial obligations. Cheap power is the foundation of their energy plan and their key to economic development. One would think, therefore, that Quebec’s shortage of power would put our negotiating team in the driver’s seat during negotiations on the Lower Churchill. With such obvious negotiating power, Mr. Speaker, could the Premier please tell the people why he did not use the Lower Churchill as a bargaining lever to address the inequities of the Upper Churchill contract? Would the Premier explain why he quit on the objective of every single Government of Newfoundland and Labrador since the deal was signed over thirty years ago?

Mr. Premier, you might be prepared to quit on the Upper Churchill but the people on this side of House (inaudible) are certainly not prepared (inaudible).

My question for the Premier: If the Premier is prepared to give up on the Upper Churchill and allow this lopsided agreement to continue for another forty years, what does that say about this Premier and this government and their view of our place in Canada? Are they quitters or are they merely trying to secure their political future rather than securing the best interest in the future of the children of this Province?

Saying on November 19th:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as a result of questions, four matters were confirmed: One, that there is no redress on the Upper Churchill, that the Premier and his government have quit on us and have quit on this issue.

On November 20th:

I say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, and I quote the words of the chairman of his task force on our place in Canada, that it would be a sad day for this Province if there is no redress on the Upper Churchill.

Asking on the 21st:

Would the Premier please confirm the following basic components of the deal which have been disclosed during the last three days: First, that it is, in fact, a forty-five year agreement that will expire no earlier than 2055; that there will be no form of redress for the Upper Churchill […]

And on the 25th:

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier a very, very straightforward question: Premier, with regard to the Lower Churchill deal, do you support moving forward on a deal with Quebec without first seeking a better deal on the Upper Churchill?

I do not want to put words in the mouth of the hon. the Premier so I will ask the Premier again a very straightforward question: With regard to the Lower Churchill deal, do you support moving forward on a deal with Quebec without first seeking a better deal on the Upper Churchill? Yes or no, Premier? That is all I want.

Mr. Speaker, a reread of Hansard will indicate that the Premier has said he does not support what Mr. Peckford did, so therefore his answer is yes, he would proceed with a deal on the Lower Churchill without seeking any redress or a better deal on the Upper Churchill.

And telling the House on December 4th:

Mr. Speaker, the reason that the Upper Churchill is so important to myself and to the caucus is because every single day that that contract continues $2 million a day worth of profit goes to the coffers of Quebec. That is $40 million after twenty days. That is $60 million dollars after thirty days. We could put that into creating jobs, into education, into health care –

All that was mostly dancing around the edge. The member raised the questions, cast the aspersions, and was pleased with himself for doing so, but assiduously avoided committing himself to anything.

At least inside the chamber.

Outside, however, he addressed what the Telegram called an “election-style” rally on December 3rd, saying, quite definitively:

Two million dollars (a day) — $60 million a month, that’s what we’re losing on the Upper Churchill and (the government is) telling us we’re living in the past. Well, there’s 39 more years of that that we got to live with. Our position here tonight ... is that there should be no deal on the Lower Churchill until there’s redress on the Upper Churchill.

No deal.

Redress.

That is Our position.

Or, at least, it was, less than seven years ago.

But times, apparently, they change.

As Kathy Blunderdale told Randy Simms of VOCM last Friday morning, describing the Lower-Churchillian efforts by the Premier and others to Go It Alone – Together:

The Premier has gone to Quebec, and gone to Premier Charest, and, y’know, we’ve had Nalco(r) visit, y’know, Hydro-Quebec, I’ve been meeting with ministers and so on, and we say to them, OK, y’know, we’ll set the Upper Churchill to one side. But, y’know, let’s sit down and have a talk about this Lower Churchill piece.

Roger Grimes would be rolling in his grave, if he had one: the people on this side of House (inaudible) are now, it would seem, prepared (inaudible).