Premier apologizes for ‘communication’ failure

Since the Yukon legislative assembly reconvened last Thursday for its fall sitting,

Since the Yukon legislative assembly reconvened last Thursday for its fall sitting, Premier Dennis Fentie has faced relentless questioning about his involvement in government dealings with ATCO.

A leaked “joint discussion paper” produced by government officials in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources paints a premier ensconced in deal-making with a billion-dollar Outside energy giant to share management of the Yukon’s public hydro infrastructure.

Following round three of the fall sitting Tuesday, Fentie agreed to an interview with the Star and offered his perspective on what opposition members and one ex-cabinet minister insist were back room deals to privatize the Yukon Energy Corp.

Whitehorse Star:

The entire fall sitting to date, three days’ worth of question periods, it’s been nothing but Yukon Energy Corporation/ATCO questions.

Premier Dennis Fentie:

Yes. It’s kind of what the whole summer has been about, isn’t it?

The Star:

You’re evading some of the questions, not answering them. Why?

Fentie:

Like what?

The Star:

Well, when (opposition members) ask you to explain yourself, you defer to the (upcoming) public accounts committee (hearings), or you turn it around and say they have their facts misconstrued.

Fentie:

Let me point to an example. Today, (Opposition Liberal Leader) Arthur Mitchell stood on the floor of the legislature and attributed a quote to me, a statement to me, that I’d never met (ATCO president) Nancy Southern in my life. Well, Mr. Mitchell has got a serious credibility problem. I’ve never made that statement.

The Star:

Apparently, you made it to CHON-FM.

Fentie:

It’s a paraphrase. He’s attributed a quote to me. And the actual question by the reporter, Mr. Dan Jones was: ‘Was I at the May 12 meeting in Calgary with Shirley Abercrombie (assistant deputy minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) and Nancy Southern?’ And my response was, ‘Of course not. I’ve never met in the same room, on any matter, together with Nancy Southern and Shirley Abercrombie.’

And furthermore, this is actually ridiculous. Shirley Abercrombie works for us. Of course, I’m gonna have met her at some point in time, probably many occasions. But if you read Hansard, you will find that (Mitchell) has attributed this as a statement or quote by myself.

Do you know why we’re going to the public accounts committee? Because to do anything that (the Liberals) are suggesting we are doing, or were doing, or gonna do, is a matter of policy. The Yukon Energy Corporation can’t sell all or any or substantially all of its assets without the board approval from the Yukon Development Corporation. The only way we could force the energy corporation to sell anything, in terms of privatizing the corporation, would be to give direction to the Yukon Development Corporation to approve such a sale.

There’s accusations flying everywhere, and I’ve just pointed to another false one.

The Star:

The public accounts committee exists to examine the implementation of policy, so are you suggesting it was the policy to negotiate with a private firm for merger or privatization of public assets?

Fentie:

Absolutely not. The government has said all along that discussions have been ongoing. We don’t find anything wrong with discussing with the other company that provides electricity in the Yukon – that’s been here a long, long time – how we can be more efficient, more cost-effective.

How we are going to address the issues of supply that we are facing now and into the future.

So the discussions have been ongoing, but until we get that objective met, in all likelihood, they will continue. Examples of what’s come out of that to date: joint filing for a cost of service (with the Public Utilities Board) – that’s clearly an example of trying to address cost.

The Star:

But that was something the utilities board asked you to do several years ago. It wasn’t part of any overarching discussions between (the government) and ATCO.

Fentie:

However, in most instances in this territory, the two companies (Yukon Energy Corp. and ATCO’s subsidiary Yukon Electrical Co. Ltd.) did things separately; we’re now doing it collectively.

I think it’s clear the public accounts committee can clear the air for the Yukon public. The Yukon public deserves the facts, and in this matter, our choice to go before the committee with this issue, has been the result of due deliberation. We think it has to happen.

This continuance of this – what I would call charade – motivated by whatever, I’m not sure what it could be and I’m not going to speculate in that regard. The bottom line is, there is no privatization of our energy corporation. The joint position paper, as tabled, if Mr. Mitchell is suggesting that’s evidence of privatization, let the public accounts committee determine that.

The Star:

You said discussions on making energy cheaper and more reliable for Yukoners would be ongoing, so does that mean negotiations or discussions with ATCO, for any kind of rationalization or privatization scheme, are continuing?

Fentie:

Absolutely not. In fact, those discussions have ceased and desisted because of the situation that has evolved here.

The Star:

You seem to be the only one, along with Shirley Abercrombie and the rest of your caucus, that believes that what led to the joint position paper were not negotiations. What do you call six meetings over the course of seven months between (ATCO) and your bureaucrats and (your) consultants? That’s not a negotiation?

Fentie:

No, it’s not a negotiation, and let me tell you why. The government receives proposals all the time. To get to a negotiation, and I’m talking about when you have a position that’s presented to the cabinet by any given department that has a proposal that they’ve been discussing with whatever entity, it requires a mandate to negotiate.

No department has an authority to negotiate on behalf of the Yukon government, especially in matters of policy.

The Star:

So what do you say to criticism that you’re splitting hairs? You say that these talks with ATCO have been ongoing for years about rationalizing or merging of assets, or privatization, as some are calling this recent spate. When you get to the point where you’re producing a position paper that will set you up for what you’re calling negotiations, was everything that took place prior to that not a negotiation? Honestly, why do you want the public to believe that was not a negotiation when you dispatch your bureaucrats to go and discuss these possibilities with a private company?

Fentie:

Because, again, I tell you, we do this, the government does this on a regular basis. Now proposals are something that department officials, when in receipt of, must look at, have discussions with the proponent and decide from there, through those discussions, should they present to the government information and detail that may lead to a decision by government, through cabinet, to continue on with what would be detailed negotiations to meet an objective.

You know, I think I’ve been clear on a number of occasions that this issue was communicated and handled badly by myself. I accept that. But the unfortunate part here is the Yukon public has been misled.

There have been no privatization talks; we’re not into privatization. In fact, if you look at this (joint position paper), that we never received, by the way, the government has never seen that document until it was leaked.

The Star:

But you’ve seen it, though. Personally, you’ve seen it.

Fentie:

No. No, I have not seen that document, nor has the government been approached with any of those items, those concepts, those models. The OPCO (50/50 ownership and asset merger) issue, OK, was one model or concept that the discussions were flushing out. The discussion paper in question has never been presented to government.

The Star:

So you instructed Shirley Abercrombie to take the lead and she was coming up with this paper and you say you never saw it, you never knew it existed?

Fentie:

They hadn’t presented it to us; that’s my point. That paper is a working document (about matters) that the officials and (ATCO) were discussing.

They were going through these models, these concepts….

The Star:

Based on negotiations.

Fentie:

Uh, well, look, we can go around this one forever. It takes a mandate for a department to negotiate any matter of policy, such as this.

The Star:

You’re splitting hairs. I think you’re splitting hairs; I think the public thinks that you’re splitting hairs.

Fentie:

Well, let’s allow the public accounts committee determine those outcomes.

The Star:

Why not a judicial inquiry, as your former Energy, Mines and Resources minister, Brad Cathers, put forward today in question period?

Fentie:

I think you have to ask yourself, ‘What point of law are we presenting to the judicial inquiry?’ There is an issue of expense, when we can get the same results through the public accounts committee; it’s called the facts.

People will go before the public accounts committee, and present, factually, what has transpired here. What will come out of that is that the government never directed any department official to proceed with talks of privatization, to proceed with talks of selling assets in any shape or form.

What the government and the (energy) corporation are trying to do is meet that objective of reliable and affordable energy, to look at ways we can be more efficient, look at ways we can be more cost-effective, and indeed, look at ways on how we’re going to invest in the required energy infrastructure we need for the future.

The Star:

When you telephoned Nancy Southern, or she telephoned you, as was indicated in the joint position paper, and you suggested (that besides electricity) other areas of investment could be open to ATCO, what would you call that, if not some form of negotiation?

Fentie:

No, we’re not negotiating at all and never have. The government has been around the globe looking for investment. We’ve travelled to Germany, France to promote tourism and solicit investment into the Yukon. China, to solicit investment. We’re looking for investment all the time.

The Star:

And so you wanted to sweeten the pot (with ATCO), right?

Fentie:

There’s no sweetening of any pot.

The Star:

So the other avenues of investment you were offering to ATCO in a potential merger….

Fentie:

We’re not offering ATCO anything.

The Star:

Well, that was in the joint position paper. Are you saying that you didn’t make those overtures to Ms. Southern?

Fentie:

Those aren’t offers. We were awaiting the process of the discussions to present to us, what the officials believed to be a course of action that the government may want to follow. Then we want to make the decision at cabinet and provide the mandate to the department to proceed. We have to get there, which we didn’t.

And now all of this that’s got to where it’s at, the public’s been misinformed, the energy corporation employees have been misinformed, we can cherry-pick things here until forever, but nothing is going to change.

The Star:

If you think the public accounts committee can do this, why not wait until the hearings and why bother tabling those letters that you did Monday?

(See story in Tuesday’s Star.)

Fentie:

This government has clearly stated to the public that we’re going to make every effort to make the assembly work better, and one of the ways is to provide information .... I’m truly apologetic to the Yukon public in failing in my ability to communicate (dealings between the government and ATCO) properly; that’s my fault. I accept that responsibility. However, I’m also responsible to ensure that the Yukon public has the facts, that they are fully informed.

The Star:

This Nov. 8, 2008 letter you released the other day, the one to Nancy Southern from yourself, arguably that letter indicates you were two weeks away from entering into negotiations with ATCO.

Fentie:

Whatever interpretations you might want to make, I think the public accounts committee needs to sit down, take this in its full contect, that letter and all other information, and make that determination.

The Star:

Are you going to appear before the committee?

Fentie:

That depends. I can’t prejudge what the public account committee wants to do in this regard. If I’m asked to appear, I’ll be more than glad to do so.