Promises? What promises?

Peter
Peter Jackson
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

In anticipation of the return of the Kathy Dunderdale crew to the bridge of the USS Newfoundlabrador, I decided to take another scan through the 80-page Blue Book released during the election campaign.

(Without benefit of knowing any numbers, I will predict Tuesday night’s result to have been 43 PC, 3 Liberal and 2 NDP. You may now gasp in wonderment or laugh hysterically, as appropriate.)

The Blue Book is now the Bible by which we judge the performance of the new-old government.

Unfortunately, finding any forward-looking commitments in that tome is like finding a splinter in a toothpick factory.

On every page, there are vows to “engage” or “do more to promote” or “explore opportunities,” but very little in the way of firm action.

This is the telltale sign of a caretaker government, one that has been in power for eight years and sees nothing left to do but stay the course. The most common word in the document, by far, is “continue.”

True, the book focuses on a wide range of issues, and does address a couple of specific areas that merit attention. In health care, for example, they promise to produce strategies on wait times within 120 days of returning to office. They also announce plans to construct a replacement for the Waterford Hospital, and to open new addiction treatment facilities. But the former has been on the front-burner for years, and the latter are not new promises.

There are a few straightforward steps planned in the labour and business sectors.

The Tories will, for example, eliminate the Health and Post Secondary Education Tax, or payroll tax. The plan is to reduce the value of the tax by approximately $10 million per year for the next four years.

In debt reduction, one small measure was promised to help bolster underfunded pensions. The book vows that one-third of all future surpluses will be earmarked to pay down pension shortfalls.

But other plans for debt management are deliberately vague, and pretty well leave the door wide open: “We will take on additional public debt for specific purposes only if it is affordable and makes our province stronger and our children better off than they would otherwise be.”

On one fundamental issue — fisheries — the book glosses over the role the government played in thwarting progress towards rationalizing the industry.

In March 2011, the government rejected a multilateral report on downsizing the fishery, prepared in the wake of an earlier memorandum of understanding (MOU). The fisheries minister declared the study was big on projecting ends, but short on spelling out means.

“Therefore, we will be vigorous in working to engage again the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding, and others if that is determined to be helpful, to complete the critical phase that is missing from this MOU report by developing a comprehensive restructuring proposal for a sustainable fishing industry.”

In other words, one step forward, two steps back.

Similar sidestepping can be found in a section on Labrador. The Muskrat Falls hydro project may mean plenty of jobs, but not a spark of electricity for Labrador.

The solution? “We will continue to examine options for developing small hydro sites in coastal Labrador to provide access to green, low-cost power. We will complete the review of Labrador isolated commercial customer electricity rates and ensure rates in the future are not onerous for customers. We will continue to provide a diesel subsidy where required, ensuring the cost of power is reasonable. We will move forward progressively toward the day that every region of Labrador is fueled by green, renewable energy.”

“Not onerous”? “Reasonable”? “Move forward progressively”? If you saw anything to hang a hat on there, let me know.

In short, it’s important to hold the government to its promises, but the job is difficult when there are so few promises to keep.

Premier Dunderdale will more likely be judged on how she handles emerging situations than on how closely she sticks to vague commitments.

Peter Jackson is The Telegram’s

commentary editor. Email: pjackson@thetelegram.com.

Organizations: Waterford Hospital

Geographic location: Labrador, Muskrat Falls

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • baie boy
    October 14, 2011 - 19:53

    In debt reduction, one small measure was promised to help bolster underfunded pensions. The book vows that one-third of all future surpluses will be earmarked to pay down pension shortfalls. Its costing the NL taxpayer approx $1B per year on pensions & its increasing. On a total budget of < $4B we need a surplus of $3B to a maintain this. Dont think we've ever had a $3B surplus? Is our PS pension plan still sustainable?? Speaking of one step forward two steps back.

  • baieboy
    October 14, 2011 - 19:00

    In debt reduction, one small measure was promised to help bolster underfunded pensions. The book vows that one-third of all future surpluses will be earmarked to pay down pension shortfalls. Its costing the NL taxpayer approx $1B per year on pensions & its increasing. On a total budget of < $4B we need a surplus of $3B to a maintain this. Dont think we've ever had a $3B surplus? Is our PS pension plan still sustainable?? Speaking of one step forward two steps back.

  • baieboy
    October 14, 2011 - 18:32

    In debt reduction, one small measure was promised to help bolster underfunded pensions. The book vows that one-third of all future surpluses will be earmarked to pay down pension shortfalls. Its costing the NL taxpayer approx $1B per year on pensions & its increasing. On a total budget of < $4B we need a surplus of $3B to a maintain this. Dont think we've ever had a $3B surplus? Is our PS pension plan still sustainable?? Speaking of one step forward two steps back.

  • baieboy
    October 14, 2011 - 17:54

    In debt reduction, one small measure was promised to help bolster underfunded pensions. The book vows that one-third of all future surpluses will be earmarked to pay down pension shortfalls. Were spending approx $1B per year on pensions & its increasing. On a total budget of < $4B we need a surplus of $3B to a maintain this. Is our PS pension plan still sustainable?? Have to wonder??

  • Cyril Rogers
    October 12, 2011 - 17:34

    This is a government that will be long on rhetoric and short on action. They will react rather than be progressive. So much for the P in PC. Then again, when you have just gained 77% of the seats in the House of Assembly on the basis of slightly more than 30% of the eligible voters, why should you care? It is a sad reflection of politics in our time that such a sorry turnout and such low numbers would install such a large number of members of one party. Our system has become badly flawed and it is time for a major push toward electoral reform. For you diehard PC's, the same result happened in Ottawa this time around and I don't imagine most of you, if you are honest with yourselves, like those results.

    • Conversely
      October 13, 2011 - 12:04

      Lets apply some more of your math and we can say that only 25% of eligible voters voted against the PCs. For you diehard Liberals only 11% supported your party. Yes these statistics are proof that anyone can manipulate statistics to say whatever they want.