A difference of opinions

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

In response to John Austin of St. John’s who wrote in the Tuesday, July 2 edition of The Telegram that I insulted those who work for $10.50 an hour.

I did not do that and would never do that to any group of people, well, maybe one, politicians.

People who work for the minimum wage work very hard and long for those wages. They deserve all the credit, encouragement and support for doing what they have to do to make ends meet for themselves and their families. I congratulate them and would demand for them an increase in pay.

Did I use a very poor example to get across a point about senators?

Yes I did. However, if I insulted any workers who work for the minimum wage in doing so, I am truly sorry, it certainly was not my intent and I thank Mr. Austin for pointing that out.

On the other hand, please try not to take things out of context or put words, suggestions or thoughts in my letter that weren’t there or intended in the first place (i.e.: I said nothing about anyone being punished, nor did I call greeters who worked at big box stores “unworthy,” nor did I mention Fabian Manning or whether or not he should or shouldn’t be scorned).

These are all thoughts of Mr. Austin, not mine. Why he brings them up, I have no idea.

Mr. Austin’s opinion is that the Churchill Falls deal was brought to us by the irreplaceable Joseph R. Smallwood and that it was some kind of masterwork. I believe it was a great project but a financial disaster to our province.

The last time I checked, it was the province of Quebec that was raking in one billion a year from Joey’s masterwork while Newfoundland and Labrador receives far, far less than that. Secondly, why wouldn’t we question everything about the handling of Muskrat Falls, or is Mr. Austin going to sit back at his keyboard and cheer Muskrat, Nalcor, the irreplaceable JRS, and let them have at it without question?

If that’s what he wants, go for it, but please don’t tell me that I can’t question anything about our government, Nalcor and what is going on with the Muskrat Falls contract.

Mr. Austin believes that Muskrat Falls has “some” risk. I believe it has high risk. It seems that he wants his opinions heard but he doesn't want mine.

Some may not like it, but my opinions are as valid as those of anyone else. We all have opinions and perceptions of things. Sometimes we choose to write about them, sometimes not. However, when we write letters to The Telegram, we can expect some responses, good, bad or ugly.

Unfortunately, every letter is not as well thought out as the next one or maybe the last one. If a person wants to write that JRS was irreplaceable (I might want to write irresponsible) and that he had a masterwork, that’s fine, although, I think I hear some people laughing.  

Should we question Premier Dunderdale and her masterwork Muskrat Falls or should we just let her have her way with our future and not question anything?

Should we give her carte blanche to the treasury and say nothing. Yes, Premier, go ahead, help yourself, it’s only 10 or 12 or 14 billion dollars, who knows, really? A province of maybe 300,000 workers should be able to handle that. Don’t worry about it, Premier, we trust you, you’re irreplaceable, your Muskrat Falls deal is a real masterwork, it reminds us of Joey Smallwood’s masterwork where we only lose one billion a year  to Quebec.

How much will we lose on Muskrat Falls?

Not sure yet, Premier? Don’t worry about it, Premier, we have all the time in the world to develop Muskrat Falls? Who’s counting? What’s a few more billion to a “have” province like Newfoundland and Labrador?  


PJ Dwyer


Geographic location: Newfoundland and Labrador, Province of Quebec

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Too funny
    July 10, 2013 - 12:59

    " it is not the province that will pay for the project, it will be the rate payers". That's rich. You're pretending that rate payers and taxpayers are two different groups of people - like John Smith and Taxpayer II.

  • John Smith
    July 10, 2013 - 06:51

    Wow...where to start...First of all the project will not cost 14 billion dollars, we will borrow around 4 billion dollars, at the lowest interest rates in the history of finance. We spend about 3 billion a year, every year on healthcare in the province, so I hardly think a one time borrow of 4 billion, financed over 50 years will do any damage. As well, it is not the province that will pay for the project, it will be the rate payers. The same rate payers who have seen their bills increase by 78% since 1998. The problem with the upper Churchill was that we had to go through Quebec, the same Quebec that has maps in their schools showing Labrador as part of their Province. They knew all along that if we had to go through them, we would have to pay...and pay dearly...Now, we are going around quebec with our power...and I forsee a time when we have 5 cables running across the gulf, with power from the upper lower Churchill, as well as other sources flowing to the spot market. Mr. Dwyer, you are wrong...simple as that...