Shun politics of fear
Published Wednesday November 4th, 2009
The memorandum of understanding on power represents one of the most significant changes in a generation. It's the contemporary equivalent of the Byrne Report, which gave rise to the reforms now known as Equal Opportunity.
The impact on the economy and cost of living for the average person will be huge. Given the momentous stakes, the fear-mongering that's going on for political gain is irresponsible.
New Brunswickers must come to terms with the specifics of the proposed agreement and engage in a searching debate on its merits. So far, all the Opposition is offering is xenophobia and torqued-up rhetoric. This isn't leadership; it's an abdication of political responsibility.
The average citizen is already afraid of power rate increases. Why wouldn't they be? From 2003 to 2007, according to Statistics Canada data analyzed by economic development consultant David Campbell, the average household in this province suffered a 28-per-cent increase in electricity rates. Rather than fanning fear into unreasoning anger, politicians should be talking honestly about the reasons rates are so high and looking for policies that offer greater security.
How the utility has been managed, and by whom, is a relatively minor issue. The larger factors are the sources of NB Power's electricity (a significant amount is still generated by burning fossil fuels) and its accumulated debt. With a total debt assessed at $4.75 billion, the utility's customers can expect to see their rates increase each year indefinitely without ever paying off the principal. And that's without adding in the cost of rebuilding the Mactaquac Dam or bringing new generating stations online as fossil-fuel plants become too expensive to operate.
NB Power is a white elephant, hobbled by a debt that has been estimated at more than $12,600 per customer. The proposed agreement with Hydro-Québec would eliminate the debt, guarantee no household rate increases for five years and bring industrial rates down to a competitive level, retaining thousands of jobs and creating new ones through a more competitive business environment.
It is this specific proposal that the leader of the Opposition, and every New Brunswicker, must address. The idea deserves greater consideration and more thoughtful investigation than most of its critics have provided.
Whether MLAs sit in government or opposition, they have a common mandate - to put the public good ahead of partisan advantage and to produce legislation that advances the interests of all New Brunswickers.
Those who scorn real engagement for the sake of sowing political turmoil are the ones selling New Brunswickers down the river.
More Opinion
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
Comments (11)
All comments are subject to the site Terms of Use. For a full commenting tutorial click here.
Our editorial team relies on filtering technology and our visitor community to identify inappropriate comments. In the event that a site user has submitted offensive content that has evaded our filter, please select the option to Flag As Inappropriate presented within the comment. Thank you for helping to keep this site clean.
"New Brunswickers must come to terms with the specifics of the proposed agreement and engage in a searching debate on its merits. So far, all the Opposition is offering is xenophobia and torqued-up rhetoric. This isn't leadership; it's an abdication of political responsibility."
This kind of stuff is standing in the way of a genuine debate on this issue. It might not be a perfect deal, but perhaps it could be if there was a willingness to work together on this file.
I'm glad to see that this paper is going to "shun the politics of fear" but are they not doing just that here? We all know that Harper is scary with a secret agenda, thanks to fear mongering by some.
However, very few business deals come down to only one option but for the long term greater good, creating monopolies should never be one of them, be it a Standard Oil or HQ.
The average citizen may be “afraid” of power increases but so he should of yearly assessment increases of 10% or more. Apparently capping the power rate to inflation is good but capping assessments is not and are even scary, causing "the collapse of the housing market."
Consider “How the utility has been managed, and by whom, is a relatively minor issue.” Imagine if the Irvings run their companies on that same philosophy.
Some are saying that this is none of Danny’s business but imagine if HQ signed a deal with Maine that could block off our transmission of power. I bet THAT would be OUR business.
Well, yesterday I heard Alward ask specifically about 3.1(b) which states we have to change our regulations to match Quebec since Jack Keir has been saying we won't lose our sovereignty. Keir never answered what it means to change your laws to conform to another jurisdiction. To me, that means giving up sovereignty.
I also heard very legitimate questions about pricing, decommissioning and liabilities responsibilities. None of which were answered by the government.
It is clear to me that it is the government who don't really understand what they have gotten themselves into and NBers are rightly justified in asking the hard questions regardless of the government's ability to ask.
The underlying issue here is Graham et al have destroyed any trust they had. The deal is bad for NB, but even if it was good, would any of us believe a word they say?
The best the opponents seem to be able to come up with is fear and incorrect information. What will happen after five years is unknown under both scenarios. But the past record of both companies is available. Hydro-Quebec is the most successfull of all power companies in North America. NB Power is the worst and is bankrupt, owing more money than it is worth. So who do you want to hitch your wagon to again?
Take the emotions out of it, look at the facts.
Two choices: Keep NB Power, keep the 5 billion debt and get 5% increases for ther next thirty years or
Sell NB Power, get rid of the 5 billion debt and get frozen rates for 5 years
It is a no brainer
1) Lepreau was supposed to cost 350 million. It ended up costing 1400 million. A slight mistake.
2) Belledune was supposed to cost 400 millions. It ended up costing 800 million
3) The orimulsion fiasco cost us 800 million
4) the refurbishment of Lepreau is not yet finished but it will end up costing us 800 million more than estimate.
And you want to continue to trust that senior management
Re-JR and his trust in NBH- How do we know that QH isn't a money laundering org for the mafia or even the Hells Angels, so much in the news today. Irving is efficient; give NBP to them.
EO is a good example how an original concept can run amuck. Anybody that supported EO back then when "numbers warranted" could not have imagined the damage EO has done to the province. Who would have thought that 40 yrs later that the south would still be paying to support a minority life style in the north. If they ramp up French, business leaves and the south subsidies increase.
RE -JR cont'd / Notice that JR keeps bring EO into the equation. He's right in that much of the problem with NBP was the turf wars over language and that turf war (or duality)now exists through out all gov't dept. People are being hired based only on language and they carry that bias with them as they move from dept to dept. Every Anglo in too busy watching his back and any incentive can get him into trouble as his Francophone boss is watching for an excuse to replace him. The Francophone is busy promoting the French fact, not his dept interests.
JR claims NBP to be inefficient: check the time lines as to when efficiency started to fall off. PC aside, the truth is out there....
Look me in the eyes and tell me that someone who is not from this paper or any other Irving Owned Venture wrote this article!!!!! I bet you can't!
Was it leadership that allowed David Hay to continue his Exxon Valezesque managing of NB Power?
Is it leadership that isn't making AECL pay for replacemnet power?
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/522828
here's a quote from David Hay from that article.
"Neither will ratepayers or taxpayers be on the hook. Under the terms of its contract, AECL will have to absorb cost overruns - including replacement power, which can cost $1-million a day."