It's never to late to say your sorry, Mr. Irving

Here is the commentary that opened last Thursday's show:

Good evening. I’m Mark Leger. Welcome to ‘Serf City’ on CFMH 107.3 FM.

The tax deal that Irving Oil brokered with the city and the province in 2005 is still a very controversial topic here.

It’s been a central debate in the municipal election campaign, with Norm MacFarlane still very much behind his original decision, and Michelle Hooton and Ivan Court still very much against it.

It’s an old debate now, and people’s attitudes and opinions are entrenched, for and against. It’s actually gotten a bit tiresome, because we’re rehashing the same arguments with seemingly no chance of a resolution or peace on the issue.

The politicians also only ever seem to point fingers at each other. But it takes two to tango, or cook up a tax deal in a back room.

And the Irvings, with extensive experience dealing with governments at all levels, must have known there was something wrong with negotiating with a mayor in private and then imposing a deadline that didn’t allow for proper debate.

This week, someone at Irving Oil expressed regret for dealing with the city in this way.

Well, he might have expressed regret…or I may just be reading into a statement by Irving Oil spokesman Daniel Goodwin.

On Tuesday, the Telegraph-Journal published a commentary he wrote in defence of the tax deal. Near the beginning piece, one line in particular jumped out at me. About the decision-making process of 2005, Goodwin wrote, “everyone involved, including the Mayor, city councillors, and city management did the best they could in a difficult situation, and everyone on city council voted according to their beliefs about what was best for the City of Saint John.”

The “difficult situation” that Goodwin refers to was actually brought on by Irving Oil, which gave the city a tight deadline that did not leave room for a thoughtful, reasoned debate about what was "best for the city."

The company undermined the democratic process by demanding a decision on such short notice. The councilors, both for and against, were compelled to vote without being able to properly discuss the issue with each other, city staff, and most importantly their constituents, the people of Saint John.

At the mayors’ debate organized by the Telegraph-Journal, Michelle Hooton accused Norm MacFarlane of threatening her in a meeting with Irving officials. The true threat came from Irving Oil, not MacFarlane. It was the party that demanded the concession, without which it would drop the LNG project altogether. It gave the tight deadline that didn’t permit a considered and comprehensive debate.

It’s time to stop placing all of the blame on a small-city mayor who would have felt tremendous pressure in the face of a billionaire accustomed to tough negotiating practices. It’s time for the company to accept its share of the blame.

Is that what Goodwin was trying to do, perhaps unwittingly, by acknowledging the “difficult situation” of a few years back, when elected officials were asked to accept this mammoth tax break, or lose the LNG facility altogether and the jobs that would have come with it?

Or is this just wishful on my part? That Irving would take some responsibility for a decision that divides the community to this day.

- Mark

P.S. Listen to podcasts of 'Serf City' at: serfcitysj.mypodcast.com