Pallister’s protest means NDP must be on to something

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/10/2020 (1422 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It was with a not-so-tiny measure of surprise that Premier Brian Pallister rose to his feet at the conclusion of question period Wednesday to raise a point of privilege.

For those unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure, MLAs are allowed to alert the Speaker to any instance when their “privileges” have been violated by an MLA who has made improper comments or unfair characterizations. Most often this procedural tactic is used as a stunt to attack or deride a political opponent.

Which is to say, while many points of privilege are raised, few are substantiated by the Speaker.

Even so, Pallister forged ahead in dramatic fashion, alleging the NDP was guilty of “bullying” and “harassment” for alleging that Paul Beauregard, secretary to treasury board and one of the premier’s closest advisers, had improperly interfered with the management of Manitoba Hydro.

Before getting deeper into the point of privilege, let’s try to work through a brief description of the story behind the story.

Manitoba Hydro appears to be winding down two subsidiaries: Manitoba Hydro International, which sells technical consulting services to foreign governments, and Manitoba Hydro Telecom, which oversees access to the fibre optic network that monitors transmission lines and has been used to bring broadband internet to rural and northern communities.

The NDP dug up correspondence earlier this year that clearly showed Beauregard had been directly involved in decisions at Hydro that would, in effect, trigger the end of Manitoba Hydro Telecom. Sure enough, after the correspondence was publicized, Hydro put out a request for proposal looking for a private-sector partner to assume Telecom’s role in developing the fibre optic network.

Those events have fed an intriguing, but largely unproven allegation, that the Pallister government is helping Bell MTS establish a monopoly on rural and northern broadband by giving it exclusive access to Hydro’s fibre optic network. Even though the NDP has pushed that narrative hard, it should be noted that many other players in rural and northern broadband also believe Pallister is going to give Bell MTS a sweetheart deal.

No matter how you cut it, this is a pretty arcane story. Why would the NDP push so hard on Manitoba Hydro Telecom?

First, the NDP is somewhat obsessed with the belief that the PC party is way too friendly with Bell MTS, a former Crown corporation privatized by the Tory government in the 1990s. To this day, it boasts an inordinate number of self-identified Tories.

Second, the NDP has diligently alerted the public any time the Pallister government messes around directly in the management of a Crown corporation. Pallister has frequently dictated key decisions at Hydro, Manitoba Public Insurance (private brokers) and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries (casino expansion) without first alerting the public about his directives as required under provincial law.

Last but certainly not least, the NDP knows all too well that allegations like this drive Pallister nuts.

Pallister doth protest too much any time someone questions his ethics, even though ethical transgressions have arisen frequently during his time in government. From lying about the time he spends in Costa Rica, to his refusal to admit to a conflict of interest in the battle between Autopac and private insurance brokers — an industry in which he is still a registered member — Pallister has sometimes been a stranger to basic ethical behaviour.

Whether this is an attempt to defend the honour of a colleague, or more proof of Pallister’s lack of self-control, this is a risky strategy.

First, no one in the local news media was paying attention to the NDP’s efforts to investigate Manitoba Hydro Telecom. There was a flurry of attention about a month ago, but local reporters are now intently, appropriately focused on COVID-19.

Second, those who have followed the premier’s protestations know that whenever he claims that someone has hurt his feelings — or in this instance the feelings of someone he works with — you know there’s something else there.

How else to explain the efforts by the Pallister government to frustrate opposition efforts to dig deeper into Manitoba Hydro Telecom and the fate of the fibre optic network?

Pallister’s procedural gambit may prevent the opposition from questioning the premier in budget estimates, where critics get to batter cabinet ministers with a wide range of questions. Estimates may take place next week before the budget vote. The procedural motion raised this week means Manitoba Hydro Telecom is off-limits for questions and debate until Speaker Myrna Driedger makes a ruling. That could take us beyond estimates, if they happen at all.

In addition, NDP staff confirmed the government refuses to respond to additional requests for documents about Manitoba Hydro Telecom that were filed in February. Although the government can be pokey when asked for emails and other correspondence, a delay of almost nine months raises, at the very least, the possibility Pallister has something to hide.

Viewed from all sides, the premier’s point of privilege is more of a diversionary tactic than a legitimate complaint. Factually speaking, Beauregard is part of this story, and levelling a counter-allegation that he has been bullied or harassed only devalues the experiences of people who have been legitimately bullied and harassed.

Most political reporters in the province had more or less forgotten about Manitoba Hydro Telecom. Thanks to the premier’s grandstanding, some of us are not only thinking about it again, we’re asking questions.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca