Erika Shea, Director of Communications

New Dawn Enterprises

Although eight of our 12 councillors ultimately voted in favour of a contract they had not yet seen, I would argue that Monday was still a moment of which we, as a community, can be proud.

Four of our elected representatives, three of whom have been in office for just over a month, did what municipal councillors across the country do every single day – they voiced their concerns, they asked for more information, they read and researched, and they resisted pressures to quickly approve something that had just been put in front of them (which we all agree is becoming quite cliché) while clearly and repeatedly articulating their pro-development, pro-port positions.

Surely by now we are all able to separate not wanting a development from wanting to be informed about, ask questions about and think critically about a development.

Watching the proceedings over the last week, I have often wondered, with 38 operational ports throughout the United States, is this the first time Ports America has participated in a development that involved government? I have my doubts.

So, have all of the local and state governments with a stake in these 38 ports been as visibly fearful of scaring off their suitor as the majority of our elected representatives? Also, doubts.

I would wager that each of these governments has taken the time to do their homework and to craft agreements (with all parties involved) that they can be sure will benefit their communities in the short and the long run. Because this is how negotiations on behalf of a constituency take place now. Otherwise, what is the point?

One is left to wonder then if it was indeed Ports America watching and waiting for a quick and unquestioned approval or if this is just what Harbour Port Development Partners (HPDP) has come to expect of the CBRM.

This port is either of strategic geographic and economic significance or it is not. Another few weeks is not going to change this one way or the other.

We have lobbied the provincial and federal government to dredge the harbour at a cost of $37 million, we have created a municipal ports corporation, and we have engaged a company to market our port internationally. As wise or unwise as each of these decisions may be, surely, there can be no question about our willingness to develop the port. 

We must stop believing the foolish notion that if we don’t jump when they say jump, we will never be asked to the dance. This is so outdated it is painful. We have a port – that we own – that is proving to be worth millions (much more in fact than the $10 million proposed by Sydney Harbour Investment Partners – SHIP). We have a community that is committed to this island. We have people returning home or arriving here for the first time and building businesses that are thriving.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t negotiate in good faith or genuinely extend ourselves to those interested in development partnerships, of course we should. But, we must stop giving off an air of such desperation – we are setting ourselves up to be taken advantage of and we’ve all been down that road before.

Yes, we have high unemployment. We need jobs. There are lots of people who would like to come home from out west. BUT, blindly approving a contract you have never seen in the hopes that it all just turns out okay serves none of these ends well. We owe it to the employed, to the unemployed, and to those looking for a path back home to do our jobs thoroughly and well; to move beyond our typical quick-fixes.

These four councillors resisted pressure from the mayor, pressure from the company which stands to benefit directly from the matter, pressure from the minister of transportation invited as a last-minute addition to the agenda, pressure from their fellow councillors who, interestingly, are now qualified to speak to the nuances of international business, and pressure from the businessmen who just happened to drop in on the private morning briefing session – a whole lot of coordinated pressure to support an unclear, scant, and sloppily-prepared “issue paper” that read more as an Ode to HPDP than a technical document issued by an objective municipal government.

There are many, many (many) ways in which our municipal government can become more business-friendly and enabling of development. Pouring an embarrassing amount of municipal resources into pressuring a group of critically-thinking councillors to accept a motion they first learned about a few days prior is not one of them.

These four councillors represent a ground-shift in what we can and should expect of our council. Kudos to them, to their courage, and to their abilities to be so composed, passionate, articulate and strong in the face of so much old-fashioned resistance.

A change, she is a coming.

~ Erika Shea