The Official Opposition is demanding answers from Premier Tony Wakeham after conflicting statements from his government about Bern Coffey’s contract, his resignation the day before the Churchill Falls debate, and one PC Minister relying on a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that a fellow PC Minister now says does not exist.
“Yesterday, the Deputy Premier insisted there was no smoking gun. Just minutes later, he tabled the very document that raises more questions about this government’s story,” says John Hogan, KC, Leader of the Official Opposition. “The Premier and Deputy Premier claimed Mr. Coffey’s work was complete, but his resignation letter states, ‘I am terminating my contract.’ Those are two very different things. The public deserves to know why the government suggested his contract had ended when Mr. Coffey had actually decided to terminate it.”
The conflicting accounts do not end there. In May, when asked how much Mr. Coffey was paid to advise the Premier on the Churchill Falls deal, the Energy Minister said he could not disclose the information because of an NDA. Yesterday, the Deputy Premier said Mr. Coffey’s engagement had no NDA.
When asked by the media in May about the Energy Minister’s claim in the House that an NDA prevented the PCs from disclosing the terms of Mr. Coffey’s role, he continued to claim he could not discuss the terms of the contract.
The Official Opposition is asking which version of events the public is supposed to believe and why the government relied on an NDA it now says did not exist.
“The PCs cannot have it both ways,” says Hogan. “If there was no NDA, why did the Energy Minister rely on one when refusing to answer questions in the House? And if solicitor-client privilege is now the government’s explanation, will the Premier agree to waive that privilege so Mr. Coffey can speak publicly about his advice and why he terminated his contract?”
These unanswered questions from the Premier and his government go to the heart of the government’s Churchill Falls agreement. Did Mr. Coffey terminate his contract because he disagreed with the deal? Was he frustrated that the Premier was not following the advice he provided? Did he disagree with an agreement that leaves Newfoundland and Labrador without the full upside of market-based pricing?
“These are not minor inconsistencies. We have a government that concealed a key adviser’s resignation, offered conflicting explanations about an NDA and presented different accounts of whether his contract was completed or terminated,” says Hogan.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve to know what happened behind closed doors, whether the Premier was listening to the advice he received, and whether this deal is truly in the best interests of our province.
The PCs owe the public straight answers on the most important deal in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.
-30-