Monday, 5 November 2018

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE LOSER

“Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser.”

                                      – Vince Lombardi

The message from the hall-of-fame coach to his Green Bay Packers was unmistakable: equanimity should never be perceived as resignation or acceptance even when a loss is beyond your control. Lombardi might have added, for certainty as much as a warning: there’ll be a next time.
Dwight Ball is no Vince Lombardi. The weakling Premier, oblivious to the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s, has confirmed — again — that he does not have the stuff of leadership.
What did he say when the Supreme Court of Canada gave its 7-1 decision last Friday on reopening the Upper Churchill Contract? “The past is the past for us. The decision is the decision,” Ball told the media in a tone of resignation. He added: “It will not interfere with the working relationship we have with Quebec.”

When a kick in the balls for the first player giving the opposing team a compliment would have constituted Vince Lombardi’s sole command, for our leader the ink isn’t dry on the SCOC decision before he is playing supplicant to Quebec. 
Dwight is fond of turning his cheek a little too much!
Premier Dwight Ball Photo Credit: CBC
If the SCOC — less the Justice from NL— doesn’t understand the sordid history of Quebec’s connivance during the BRINCO negotiations, when Hydro Quebec lured the company to the brink of bankruptcy with assurances of a deal before blackmailing it into putting another 25 years on top of the 40 already agreed to — the price of continued solvency — it is the Premier’s job to remind those Justices, the media and the Canadian public of the facts of history. 
A more thoughtful Premier might have commented that the decision deepens our sense of grievance, that it is another hard day for NL in Confederation.

Instead, the Premier was heard saying: “… we also know that 2041 is coming,” the CBC reported. Evidently, he forgets that’s 23 years away!
NL will always have business to conduct with Quebec. But saying ‘let bygones be bygones’ is neither a sensible nor realistic response to an inequity that had been repeatedly compounded by the Superior Court of Quebec. That Court can be counted upon to give Hydro-Quebec — and the Quebecois political leadership — legal cover for their connivance and their disregard of certain fundamental principles of Confederation. 
While the untenable position in which we find ourselves was no excuse for Williams to act with the knee-jerk response of the narrow-minded — screwing ourselves via Muskrat in order to screw Quebec — real leadership, the kind that is smart, contemplative and resourceful (even Machiavellian) will send a strong message to an adversary that the settling of scores is unfinished business.
Ball’s response is akin to Dunderdale’s during DarkNL: ‘I have my fireplace. I’m doing fine. Why aren’t you?’

As one might expect, Hydro-Quebec’s solicitor reacted to the SCOC decision with a statement the equivalent of ‘everything is great’. “… The two sides can now embark on a new era of collaboration,” said Cendrix Bouchard. A far more truthful comment came from the CFLco solicitor, Doug Mitchell, who suggested that the Contract “was a wound on Confederation.”

Ball, on the other hand, could not even publicly opine that the Upper Churchill Contract, if legal, was unfair or that the SCOC had failed to drain the swamp of entitlement around which it and Ottawa tiptoes in matters dealing with La Belle Province. Instead, our Aw Shucks Premier is happy that he gets to carry on.

Opposition Leader, Ches Crosbie, inserted himself following the Supreme Court’s release not to bolster the flagging courage of a public poisoned with shallow politicians and bleak economic prospects but to invoke notions of leverage that never ever existed. The very idea that NL could have negotiated a deal with Quebec in return for dropping the case is about as silly as expecting the SCOC to overturn the Quebec Superior Court’s Decision in the Renewal case now winding its way to the higher Court. Crosbie forgot to note that all Quebec ever offered was talk.

Indeed, Crosbie ought to admit that NL’s best defense against reckless Premiers and big egos is an institutional framework that stops them from engaging in tomfoolery, and a public too willing to give them unfettered licence. Given the behaviours of Williams and Dunderdale he should know where to begin.
Of course, Crosbie is not the Premier now and his suitability, while far from reassuring, is still on test.  The immediate worry is Dwight Ball and his inability inspire public confidence and to confirm that he is fit for work.
Please, someone — anyone — tell me that this Premier is not sitting in some backroom negotiating with Hydro-Quebec! 
In this Province stupidity, it seems, is punished only when we are freezing in the dark.

98 comments:

  1. Take heart UG. Your populace will get "woke" again soon when you have another Dark NL.

    Ball may lack gonads but how did Fulminating Danny do?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, just reading some of the quotes from our friends on the blog from the past couple of days on the supreme courts decision, and justice Rowe dissenting. Just to quote Michelle Oboma, "when they go low, we go high". And how low can you go with anti-NL comments like, "ingrained xenophobia, low self esteem, naive dupes, the people no better than the politicians that elected them". Just to mention a few. And such comments for justice Rowe as, "cowards way out, pitying self interest, join the mob, etc". Lol, what a bunch of BS, levelled by a few BULL SHITTERS. And don't bother to reply to my comment as you will only be met by a defending silence. That's my way of going "high" while you wrolic in the gutter. Cheers, Joe blow, average Joe, AJ.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is not a time to lower the Canadian flag in NL but could it be a time to burn and bury it?, the last straw so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Newfoundlanders:

      Please, for the love of god, separate already!

      Signed,

      Labradorians, who aren't going anywhere with you.

      Delete
    2. By "Newfoundlanders" you must mean a few dissidents living high in CB:-)

      Delete
  4. Premier Ball will never measure up to the high motivation of Vince Lombardi with the troops and keep on challenging Quebec for a positive resolution now and not in 2043.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am likely in ignorance of the goings on by HQ against Brinco, which UG says. I have only read bits and pieces of the history of CFs, so I lack the anti-Quebec feeling. Perhaps UG can give more detail on what happened,and for sure the Quebec UG readers will tell their side. I like to hear both sides.
    Regardless, I see no benefit to continue on that path of blaming Quebec.
    For sure, the details of any future deals with HQ should be made public before deals are done.
    If only Nalcor struck hard bargains for Nfld with NS and Emera, as HQ did for their province.
    The argument by our Quebec commentators is that HQ had other options of developing their own hydro, so sacrificed that to go with CFs. That their delay on their own projects cost them more on those projects.
    I mainly go with my gut as to Quebec, form reading history and from personal experience with a couple of Quebec companies and Quebec people, who I have the highest regard for over a 40 year time span. Maybe it is only HQ that drives a very hard bargain, and we have not learned to do likewise for our natural resources.
    Meanwhile the Inquiry will surely expose high incompetence here. Incompetence is not a HQ fault I suggest.
    Winston Adams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As they say on South Park, Blame Canada! Winston.

      Delete
    2. The crux of the matter is the 1927 Privy Council decision on the Labrador boundary. Quebec thought Labrador was theirs but the decision went in Newfoundland's favour. It sticks in Quebec's craw and they just can't get over it. That is the biggest fly in the ointment in my opinion.

      Delete
    3. Make that Upper Canada(Quebec and Ontario) haven't gotten over it.

      Delete
    4. The Sir Robert Bond Papers by Ed Hollett has a pretty detailed write-up of the CF history.

      Delete
    5. If HQ had taking the consulting role instead of MHI there is no possibly way they would recommend Muskrat Falls sanction and Nalcor couldn't lead them around by the nose. Fortis was also left out of the project because they would see the real numbers and would bolt quicker then Danny did after announcing the project.

      Transmission costs in a recent post via LiL were listed at 9c kWh, while high for certain it would lower HRT oil burning (3 million bbls of oil a year) Nalcor were negligent always bundling the LiL transmission system with the MF dam. Power rates might have seen a few cents kWh increase with LiL financing and HQ PPA but not to 16.4c kWh.

      Some of the Danny Dummies have said HQ won't sign a PPA with NL, won't sign a contract at fair or market prices for a 35 year agreement. HQ would be charged with anti-combines if they refused to sign a PPA based on ideology and it wouldn't look good for their US export PPAs.

      UC was a bad deal but HQ put in much more risk then BRINCO/NL did and yes got the jobs but the project came in under time AND budget. NL tried to think we were world energy players by building Boondoggle Falls ourselves "going it alone" but pride cometh before the fall, pet project pushed by a megalomania and his sheep/sycophants turned into ruination - should anyone be surprised?

      The inquiry should look into the joint proposal for Gull Island from HQ-Ont-SNC and why the deal was torpedoed by Mark Dobbin and Deany. Minimal risk to NL, built by competent people AND NL would have gotten $100 million a year. Project would look even better today for NL as export prices to the US have halved since the early 2000s.

      PCs could have pivoted signing the join proposal for Atlantic Accord benefits without the disgraceful pulling down of the Canadian flag or have the LiL built/financed as a condition. Working with HQ and having the LiL would allow NL export opportunities that otherwise wouldn't exist. Instead of Island hydro spilling water NL would be sending it via LiL to sell, wind power could see grand scaling with HQ as a partner and the LiL.

      Delete
  6. Kick 'em in the nuts. Right on UG right on, even Joe Blowhard has joined the chorus with his cute malapropisms (I do note that he can transcribe big words even if he doesn't know what they mean).

    Sorry, but this sounds like a page out of what would Daniel "L'il Trump" Williams do. It is also a perfect example of the poison that infects NL politics and society. 40 years ago we (as reflected in the govt. of the time) gambled big time and lost. We couldn't build UC, because we had neither the money nor expertise to do so. HQ offered a deal where they would build it, and we would get the "jobs" and absolutely no risk. We thought we had them up the creek. Markets changed, we lost. But we can never admit that, so we looked for scapegoats. Well let's just blame Quebec and all those "separatists". So the first myth, is that the "separatists" told the FG that they wouldn't let us build a power line across QC; even though we didn't have either the money nor the expertise to build such a line. The myth grows, with no shred of evidence, to reach the level of biblical imprimatur. We twist, we turn, we fume, we villainize QC and its people. We didn't get our fair share, we was robbed, we go to Supreme Court three times, and with each loss we blame it on QC judges and QC and anybody else in sight.

    What troubles me most about this UG post, is that UG has rightfully tried to shine some light on the perils of the MF and NL governance in general. But when it comes to UC, he reverts to the same old tired story. UG the war is over, we lost, the hatchet needs to be buried, stop with the toxic natavist revisionism please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you for the most part, but it's the "forced" 25 year AUTOMATIC extension that stands out as being very bad. In fact if there is ill will towards QC it should be there. Remember folks, the original contract has expired!

      Delete
    2. Agree that the extension is the part that is suspicious of being implemented unfairly and should've been renegotiated. The first 40 years was a major success for HQ, so good for them. An equitable renegotiation to 2041 should have been achievable but no. Canadian values, for the good of the many, should have supported this. This blight is doomed to fester yet again and again. UG is right to criticize the ostrich Premier who fails to recognize the risk here.

      Delete
    3. not sure I get it
      "when Hydro Quebec lured the company to the brink of bankruptcy with assurances of a deal before blackmailing" where is the proof of this, or is it just more natavist bullshit
      what kind of lure were they using? a Storm WildEye Swim Shad 03
      or did HQ dress up in French cocktail waitress uniforms?

      then the blackmail. how was that delivered by Luigi or Vini?

      get over it, Brinco made a bad deal.. if shoe was on the other foot, would NL renegotiate a contract to give more to the other side.. not bloody likely

      Delete
  7. Its not so much the Premier's job to point out the history but the lawyers arguing the case. Its against the law to engage in insider trading on the stock market. Has NL ever argued a case based on inside knowledge of Hydro Quebec that they used as blackmail to force Newfoundland to a "take it or leave it" contract? A contract signed under duress is not a valid contract!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I could not believe it at first reading... UG did it again: direct blame aimed straight at Qc - HQ.

    "when Hydro Quebec lured the company to the brink of bankruptcy with assurances of a deal before blackmailing it into putting another 25 years on top of the 40 already agreed to"

    For those who would be unsure on the subject, just know that many times during the different court cases, CFLCo acknowledged that the deal was fair at the moment it was signed. Even Peckford, in his last blog post about it, said that there was no dishonesty in the negotiation.

    The extension was required because as a producer, HQ had no business buying power at a higher price than what it can produce locally. With cost increases, CFLCo could not do it with less money frontend because of the highest debt it has to pay, so the only way to reduce the overall cost was with a lower price at the end. The first period of 40 years was just enough to payback the debt itself. As such, to lower the price without compromising the debt repayment, the lower price was required for a period after these 40 years.

    Newfoundlanders, you can prove yourself here. Here, there is one leader from your community, one listened to and followed by so many that the hit counter on the blog jumped over 500 000 hits in no time. One that is part of MFCCC which lawyer, at the inquiry about MF, asked Nalcor how appropriate it was to "leverage the Qc vs NL situation".

    Here he is again going directly against Qc and HQ. So up to you now to tell him and make him understand how his very behavior is the root cause of all of these problems you suffer.

    Etienne told you that no leader would move away from this anti-Qc philosophy until the people ask for it.

    So prove yourself Newfoundlanders! Ask for it! Tell this leader how his anti-Qc way of thinking is inappropriate and harmful to you and that it must stop!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Populus decipi vult, ergo decipiatur.

      For those of you who have never had the pleasure of studying Latin in High School, the above is a phrase dating back to the early Middle Ages and meaning (roughly) "The people want to be fooled, so they should be fooled".

      The saying is doubly relevant to the inhabitants of NL today, methinks.

      At one level the very fact that Des (who is better informed on the realities of NL than some 99.9% of the inhabitants of the province) has seemingly ignored each and every one of the arguments I, Heracles, Ex-military engr. and others (including the Supreme Court of Canada) have presented, without offering a single coherent counter-argument, or indeed even acknowledging that it might be possible not to view Quebec as some kind of Canadian version of Mordor, does seem to confirm the fear that I have expressed here recently: That anti-Quebec sentiment is so rampant among the inhabitants of NL that it would be unrealistic to expect any politician not to seek to tap into it.

      Now, I am the first to acknowledge that the pro-Quebec arguments offered here are not especially complicated, and on the basis of his analyses of the Muskrat Falls fiasco I am certain that Des could readily process/understand them.

      "Could", I wrote above, not "can": I don't think he wants to process/understand any of what I and others wrote in defense of Quebec. I think he wants to be fooled.

      It's easy to understand why: It must be emotionally painful for a proud Newfoundlander to acknowledge what a self-inflicted fiscal disaster Muskrat Falls is. To take a step further and acknowledge that the situation which Muskrat Falls was supposedly meant to remedy, the Churchill Falls contract, was itself ALSO a self-inflicted disaster, and that he and other inhabitants of NL have been as thoroughly brainwashed as any dweller of a totalitarian state, is simply too overwhelming, emotionally. As Jung put it, we human beings cannot take too much reality.

      Which leads me to the second level of deception here. I believe that the NL government and its lawyers neither expected nor wanted to win ANY of these Court cases. I believe the true purpose of these Court cases was twofold: 1-To maintain Quebec in the NL news in order to keep using it as a kind of Emmanuel Goldstein-type boogeyman, and 2-To get the NL taxpayer to remain enthusiastic about their money going to various well-connected local lawyers and legal firms. The NL taxpayer wants to be deceived, too: Accepting that their xenophobia has been turned into a cash cow for the Townie Elite is, quite simply, too painful to face.

      P.S. I take no joy in the above analysis. If anybody could prove me wrong (as opposed to claim I am wrong), please do so: such proof would cheer me up greatly.

      Delete
    2. This is not analysis but self serving bigotry on display.

      There is no joy in Labrador, mighty Etienne has struck out!

      Delete
    3. Ah Bruno I agree but we mustn't feed the trolls who are here only to polarize and antagonize. This latest conspiracy theory by Etienne the philosopher-king takes the cake though. The more they say the more ridiculous these clowns reveal themselves to be. They feign holding an olive branch but all they want to do is poke us in the eye.

      Delete
    4. Hear!! Hear!!! Little Etienne the king of philosophers, a legend in his own mind. The arguement put foreword by me and the SCC has been ignored!!! Now, can you imagine that???

      Delete
    5. Are his conspiracy theories any worse or more fanciful than the One Thousand and One Nights that constitute popular (i.e., factless Malonesque) NL history?

      Delete
    6. Bruno is as quick as ever to brand Etienne a bigot. Yet if I questions Bruno silly extreme views on battery storage or solar or wind, he says I am gas torching or gas flaming , what ever.
      Now I think Etienne goes further that Ex Military or Heracles in as to what percentage of Nflders are anti Quebec. but
      1. For sure the law firms make a fortune for these useless court cases. And just look at 14 against 2 now at the Inquiry, trying to defend the defenseless. Consider Bernard Coffee, one of these, and a while ago was appointed to MF oversight committee, and had to resign when it was exposed that he was at the same time engaged for a client against Eastern Health I think. So, as a lawyer, was working for govn and suing govn at the same time!. Now he is here at the Inquiry defending the defendless. Bernard is the one who puts his hands as if praying, while trying to formulate a question. Praying to St Jude maybe, for lost causes. Sometimes in this mode for so long that I expect Leblanc to say "For Christ Sake, Coffee, ask a f...king question or go sit down", but of course, Leblanc has lots of patience and wants decorum in his court room.
      2. That Etienne says Des has presented no evidence to what he claims. That seems true, but maybe Des Sullivan has evidence to support his opinion stated. So I give Des the benefit of doubt to explain further.
      Now Etienne tries to phycoanalyse Sullivan. And I usually agree with Etienne less than with Ex, or Heracles. But time should tell if Etienne is off base or not.
      Winston

      Delete
    7. Hi Winston,

      As for Des having or not facts to base his opinion on, I confirm to you that he does not have any. When I exchanged with him, what he forwarded to me was the typical emotional stuff that has been used to brainwash Newfoundlanders for ages.

      In this case, it was a report from Feehan about the renewal clause of the contract. Feehan was himself emotional in this document and he did not applied completely the evidence he found himself, plus of course forgetting completely about the value of the asset.

      In this document, he mentioned the minutes from the 1968 meeting between Brinco and CFLCo about the renewal. In these minutes, it is mentioned that any attempt to add an escalator would defeat the purpose of the extension. Still, he questioned why they did not insist for this kind of escalator or that one. He also goes crazy on the fact that a specific proposal made during the negotiation was not addressed explicitly.

      But a proper understanding of the minutes makes it clear : ANY escalator would defeat the purpose because HQ's overall price must be below the price of electricity for our own projects in Qc. No matter it ends up higher because of escalator A or B, if you are about to sell us electricity above what is our actual production cost, we just say NO, Thanks!.

      Also, when reading that report, the maximum that one could have hope to be added in the original contract would have been something like the GWAC. As such, it does not really matter because GWAC has been signed and will run up to the end, just like a part of the original contract.

      Another reason not the see that is to allow seeing HQ as evil. Should one understand that the sole purpose of the GWAC was to sustain CFLCo, it would prevent him to see HQ as the Devil.

      I once offered Des a complete analysis of the UC project with all the typical complains from Newfoundland and the explanation and evidences about each points. He declined but I think I may still write and send him that complete analysis.

      Honestly, if even the authors on this blog can not free themselves from the brainwashing that existed for decades in Newfoundland, then Newfoundland is as good as North Korea and the only hope is complete destruction before rebuilding from scratch. I will do all I can to avoid that, but if it is the only option, then so be it.

      Delete
    8. Heracles, I read your view with an open mind, while knowing we all have biases too. But at the end, you say: "If even the authors on this blog cannot free themselves from the brain washing that existed for decades in Nfld, then Nfld is as good as North Korea and the only hope is complete destruction before rebuilding from scratch". Now this seems to be an extreme emotional statement, that you hope that.
      Most all the pieces of various authors on this blog has been anti MFs and those that enabled it.The incompetency and cronyism that allowed MFs to happen, is typical of the operation of all our government departments, I suggest, where there is no argument for anti Quebec rationale.
      But certainly this piece is anti HQ, but that is not the norm.
      I once made a deal, 30 years ago, with a Nfld contractor and felt cheated $30,000.00
      I intended to take legal action, but completed the deal at less than I originally expected, because that 30,000 he deducted. But still I made a profit , but not so much. So, I did not trust them, I did no more business with them for 5 years, which was a disadvantage for both of us. Then we buried the hatched and resumed business, both more careful in our deals, but no other issues. I did not seek redress of the 30,000. And if I took legal action, we both would have been in a lengthy dispute, and only the lawyers win. I would have paid out more than I would gain.
      So in 43 years I have never had a business issue go to court.Maybe I will soon hang up my spurs with that good record. I still have good relations with a Montreal company since 1975. Not even a nasty letter between us. My experience with Quebec companies is not wide, but it is long. Nor have I had court cases with any Nfld companies, just a few minor problems. Sullivan is a business man, maybe he has had different experiences.
      I am fond of the UNCLE's writing,but even on this piece and with the Court loss, I don't sense much anti Quebec here on comments, some, but not a lot. So most authors here are not anti Quebec,and the blog owner, Sullivan permits their freedom of expression.
      So maybe we need to let the dust settle and engage here with the local devils we know as to MFs. Without Sullivan, there would be no Inquiry for a long time yet. Now we see the enemy within, being exposed by Sullivan's work. Maybe his views stems form insights during Peckford's time? But I grow tired of that issue.
      Winston

      Delete
    9. "Are his conspiracy theories any worse or more fanciful than the One Thousand and One Nights that constitute popular (i.e., factless Malonesque) NL history?"

      If you are referring to the original research conducted in NL and GB by G Malone that documents some troubling events and ballot burning in 1949. Far from being factless it points to an entrenched inter-generational feudal oligopoly, CLEARLY DOCUMENTED!

      It is only NL "nationalists" like Ed Hollett who are in denial about the original, impeccable, research that points to dark manipulation by Great Britain and NL confederates.

      Delete
    10. Bruno, you're barking so far up the wrong tree
      Mr. Malone is simply a mouthpiece for the St. John's Irish Catholic Oligarchy

      Delete
    11. Ha ha Anon!

      Step out of the shadows and lets have a look at you.

      Does the original research he has done annoy you? The facts are inconvenient I know!

      Delete
    12. I get it, you're really Average Joe Blowhard (aka Waldo). Nice try at camouflage

      Delete
    13. I publish my name, unlike some of us.

      Anon says "Nice try at camouflage"??? Very funny for someone hiding in the shadows.

      Delete
    14. The Shadow knows

      Delete
  9. As to the Inquiry, I saw most of the testimony of Stephen Bruneau this morning. I did not hear a single comment that I would disagree with, his expertise is obvious. Also his skill in preventing the lawyers for the MFs enablers to trip him up.
    The godfather, Tommie tried to discredit him that he is not an expert, but he turned the tables: Ziff who Nalcor used are not registered engineers to work in this province, Bruneau is. Also, expertise requires knowledge and experience of the area, that is in Nfld and offshore Nfld, so in this Burneau has much more experience and knowledge that Ziff in some respects. So when talking about experts, one must define it; Bruneau does not engage much in court matters, and the godfather tries to discredit him as an expert, as he also did, or tried to do with Dave Vardy.
    I got one big laugh form the godfather's questions, this one: Are you a member of the Muskrat Falls Concerned Citizens?. Burneau, with a big smile, proudly replied: Evidently I am.
    It reminded me of Senator McCarthy on the USA decades ago. "are you a communist". It shows the depth they go to and try and discredit anyone who questions the status quo, cronyism and possible corruption that has given us the boondoggle.
    Shame on godfather Williams , and shame on all the enablers that he represents in this Inquiry.
    I nominate Bruneau for President of MUN.
    Winston Adams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you all understand by the words; "Professional Duty"? Do you think M. Williams and those Engineers who promoted and still endorse the Muskrat have some understanding of the term? M. Bruneau has come shining through, as a concerned citizen and a Professional Engineer on this one.

      Delete
    2. Does it seem that Tommy is either very uncomfortable or just not very good at being a lawyer. Is Danny pulling Tommy's strings... which may explain the fumbling and bumbling from Tom as though the thoughts and questioning aren't his own. Just an observation and opinion. Conversely, John Hogan picking up on the opposing view of government and Nalcor's viewpoint for the Energy Plan certainly overshadowed where Tom was going with his line of questioning. He seems pretty keen... and thinking for himself.
      dm

      Delete
  10. This outcome from the SCC is not about Ball or Williams. It is a loss for every last NLer. The first thing we need is a strong leader and we don't have one now.
    Can we embarrass them on the world stage somehow? At an international court or the world trade organization. If these are Canadian values then we need to take a hard look at ourselves and force these issues into the open on the world stage. No free trade here in Canada.
    Why are there 3 judges from Quebec and 3 from Ontario on the SCC and only one from east and one from west? Should there not be one from each province and from each territory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anon 15:23,

      There reason for 3 judges from Qc is simple:

      There are 2 major law systems in the world. They are the civil law (from France) and the common law (from Great Britain). The Qc system is based on civil law while the rest of Canada is based on common law.

      Because the court needs the expertise for both systems, it must have enough judges from both. A single judge from Qc would not allow for different opinion. 2 would be even so could end up in a dead end, so 3 is the minimum.

      That's why there are always 3 judges from Qc and also why the Chief Justice alternates between one from Qc and one from the rest of Canada : to alternate between the two systems.

      So that's the reason...

      Delete
    2. Well from the "dissenting" pen of Malcolm Rowe, you have your answer Anon 15:23. In NL's case, the parochial will always rise to the top. There won't be any such thing as law of the land, more like law of the people who kick others in the nuts (to paraphrase UG).

      Delete
    3. Anon 15:23, Heracles: The fact that Malcolm Rowe's "dissent" involves interpreting laws from a jurisdiction (Quebec) whose legal tradition (Civil law) is quite unrelated to the Common Law he himself has studied does make it difficult to take his dissent seriously. He is the first Newfoundlander to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada: if this total lack of credible impartiality is typical of the man, he may well prove to be the last.

      I'd like to return to the point I made upthread about the NL government not wishing to win any of its Court challenges on the Churchill Falls contract and using these court cases to whip up anti-Quebec sentiment. This has caused someone to accuse me of trolling. Okay. Let me walk you through my reasoning:

      A scenario I would like everyone to ponder: What would happen if the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador actually...won its case against Hydro-Quebec? And if it was thus established that the government of the province could, in all legality, unilaterally force any contract they have signed to be re-negotiated?

      The result would be swift and brutal. NL would face an exodus of companies fleeing the province faster than you can say "Banana Republic". It would be an economic apocalypse, pure and simple: why would ANY company (whatever it produces) want to invest a penny in a jurisdiction whose politicians are allowed to renegotiate anything they signed? For any or no reason?

      And yet despite this, and despite losing all the time, NL has persisted in dragging Hydro-Quebec to court. Why? Why would NL keep on trying to win a court case when such a victory would be an unmitigated disaster?

      Well, when we consider that the Inquiry into Muskrat Falls has revealed that its Public Relations division quite explicitly recommended using anti-Quebec sentiment to generate pro-Muskrat Falls support, there is nothing irrational or unlikely about concluding that keeping anti-Quebec bigotry alive is part of the reason why the government of NL persists in dragging Hydro-Quebec to court (Another part, as I wrote upthread, is to transfer some wealth from the NL taxpayer to some well-connected lawyers and law firms), and that they do not in fact aim to win.

      If anybody has a better (=fitting the known facts) explanation, please don't be shy. I assure you: You have my full attention.

      Delete
    4. Etienne you must see a doctor about these fever dreams that lead to your hallucinations.

      Delete
    5. Etienne is once again the master of gaslighting.

      Delete
    6. Bruno: You are so right, my mind is playing tricks on me! Why, just last night, I dreamed that you had written a data-rich and courteous answer to my comment above. Of course, that is silly, it was just a dream, and a wholly unrealistic one: In the real world, if a courteous and data-rich comment ever appeared here under your name, I would assume you had been a victim of identity theft.

      To the other participants here: based on the reactions above to both my comments, I think it is fair to say that I have struck a nerve. This does NOT prove that I am right, of course, but it is to my mind encouraging: I am now far more convinced of the truth of what I wrote than I was back when I actually wrote it.

      If anybody has any counterarguments, or indeed just one, well, again, don't be shy...

      Delete
    7. Hi Etienne,

      I will just say that I only explained -why- there were 3 judges from Qc in SCC. I explained it without any relation to the present case. Also, I do not consider that it is because he is from common law the Rowe ended up dissident. Unfortunately, as some already expressed here, I think that he tried to get himself political and relational power by going against Qc in whatever way he can. Brown, Abella, Moldaver and the last one I forgot are all from common law too. Still, none of them asked silly questions to HQ like Rowe did, nor did they ignored the law when it was time for them to express their opinion.

      As for Newfoundland's politicians going that way just to keep feeding the troll, it is possible. But true or false, my goal and hope is to defeat that.

      We can see that many on the blog now understand the situation way better and many indeed expressed their disappointment to UG for him to write an article like this one. Now the people starts asking for that anti-Qc philosophy to stop. Lets keep helping them on that way and hope for leaders like UG to hear them and to start moving away from that anti-Qc way of thinking.

      Delete
    8. Heracles: I agree with your point.

      Two things though -First, my point about Rowe is that his *credibility* as a dissident judge is weakened because he, trained in Common Law, attempted to offer an "alternate interpretation" of Quebec Civil law. His Common Law background, in and of itself, does not explain his dissident opinion: it simply makes it difficult to take said opinion seriously. Second, you are right that the Supreme Court requires that three judges be "from Quebec", but I think it must be added that this is true only in the sense that they must be members of the Quebec bar.

      Now, here's the thing: there is absolutely no reason why someone from another province, such as, oh, say, hypothetically, a Newfoundlander for instance, could not become a member of the Quebec bar.

      More than that, though, there is an "us-versus-them" mentality which also needs to be fought. Des opens his posting with a football coach's quote, and this is misleading: in football, when one team wins it must mean that the other team loses, but when it comes to NL and Quebec (or indeed any jurisdiction negotiating with another) it is perfectly possible for both provinces to collaborate and, in effect, to BOTH win.

      Delete
  11. Oh no. Our dear UG's plea of "Please, someone — anyone — tell me that this Premier is not sitting in some backroom negotiating with Hydro-Quebec!" has probably hit the nail on the head.

    What levers does NL have left to pull with respect to managing the Muskrat Falls burden? The only one I can think of is to cut a deal with HydroQuebec on the much-larger Gull Island that might (at best and in the long run) make Muskrat a break-even folly.

    So, NL will likely have no option but to give away any advantage that Gull Island might offer in order to pay off Muskrat Falls. Any Gull Island deal will likely make the Churchill Falls deal look rosy in comparison. Time to change our patron saint to St. Jude, the patron saint of hopeless causes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gull Island will never be built. HQ will end up with CF to pay for our folly. Somebody, somewhere else on this blog, mused that Danny Williams was actually a HQ double agent who was assigned to turn CF over to HQ. He has succeeded; his real name is Daniel!!!

      Delete
    2. Hi agree with Anon 17:59,

      Gull Islands will not be built any time soon. There is already such an oversupply of electricity, to add even more would not create any value to help absorb the fiasco of MF. So indeed, only Upper Churchill can be of value to offset MF.

      Delete
  12. I'm from NL and I'm in agreement. Very disappointed in this take. Same attitude that got us into this MF mess.

    Time to let this go. I think PQ gets to much for free (read transfer payments for their pet projects not to mention Bombardier handouts) but they are right in this argument. With the abuse they take from this province they should decommision the transmission asset in 2041 just for spite. But that won't be necessary as they will own CF and MF by then, hopefully.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The main root cause of the Muskrat?
    Since 1980's NL Government Energy Policy revolved about Hydro remote site development in Labrador, with long, long transmission lines through Isthmus to St. John's.
    Want to get serious about climate change? Here are 10 simple things we can all help with;

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181102-what-can-i-do-about-climate-change

    ReplyDelete
  14. Equalization Payments. Recall in the days of The Independent newspaper, St. John’s, NL, that it touched on Lower Churchill development in articles in 2011 and earlier around 2005. Google it. As part of that, mention was made of Upper Churchill (UC) history including equalization benefits (EB) from Ottawa. EB has a complex formula that includes taking GDP into account. Between 1972-82, UC output was completely charged against NL as if it were receiving full market value for all production. The result was EB payments were less for NL while Quebec were not penalized at all regarding the benefits it was receiving as a sister “have not” province. It appears that, in 1982, the appropriate allocations were properly reflected. That resulted in more GDP for Quebec and less GDP for NL. Apparently, Quebec was not asked for offsetting less payments and NL received no back payments. The article states the aggregate amount over that period 10-11 years was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So, in today’s context, NL is a “have” province while Quebec (as well as ON) are “have not” provinces. Quebec remains the most “have not” province with equalization payments into the several billions $ currently, enough to pay in a year or two for the MFP if all were applied against it. The are essentially 3 parties to this 72-82 error; NL, Quebec and Ottawa. How was the error identified and by whom? Why did it take 10-11 years to be identified? NL had the most to lose. Was it asleep in those days of the Moores, Peckford governments? Little has been published on this that I know of. Were there any political trade-offs when this was adjusted in 1982 going forward? Perhaps, UG has some comment on this? Going forward as federal-provincial policy, should there not be some reform on equalization payments and their originally intended “spirit” of equalization. I believe Prof. Feehan of MUN has written on this. FLW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That analysis by Ryan and company at the Spin-dependent was laughably bad.

      Delete
    2. So are you. Speak to the facts if you have any. FLW

      Delete
    3. Right off the top of my head:

      - Ryan and company claimed, in that piece of shit research, that NL has the lowest number of federal employees per capita. It wasn't true at the time they published the lie, and it still isn't true: NL has one of the HIGHEST number of federal employees per capita. It just doesn't have as high a level as Nova Scotia or PEI, which is what pisses off the Townie separatists and their myth-mongers.

      - Ryan and company claimed that EI (formerly UI) benefits were "neutral" in that they merely represented a return to the recipients of their premiums. Not only does it take about two minutes with Statistics Canada data to prove that this is wrong - the surplus of UI/EI paid out to people in NL over the decades far exceeds the amount of premiums NL paid into the system - the amount of the surplus of EI received over the premiums, ALONE, negated the supposed "balance" that Ryan and company came up with as they wallowed in their ignorance, bad math, poor research, polemic, and myth-monging.


      Delete
  15. DW said last year he's looking forward to the inquiry as it will finally shed some light on the positives of MF. I'm still waiting DW.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Would the flawed sanctioning process have listened to such findings?;

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46098118

    DW would insist that Muskrat was "Clean Energy", etc.

    Now, Tom Marshall says that NALCOR was considered to be "Part of the Government", thus removed from oversight?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm also a little disappointed in the view expressed here by my faithful Uncle. I realize we got the shitty end of the proverbial stick on the CF deal, but I see no viable solutions being offered. I wasn't around when the deal was struck, but I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject. As a young NLers, I see it as a sore point in our history, but it is just that - in our history. How do we move forward uncle? the deal was struck 40 years ago, the pissing match between NL / QC lasting about that long, the court cases lasting about half as long. Newfoundland and Quebec being the ones doing the pissing, and poor Labrador being the ones getting wet. How Labrador has not tried to break away as a stand alone territory yet is beyond me, god bless their patience.
    Is a new court challenge the answer? No, I think not. Politicians have succeeded in opening an un-closable rift between my NL elders and Quebec, and they have tried their hardest with my generation and younger, but I don't think they have been as successful. Since I do not hold the personal / historical grudge like my elders, this is how I see it - It's "our" (our being Newfoundland and Labrador) river, so the damn dam couldn't have been built with that, and it was Quebecs money, the damn dam couldn't have been built without that either. As an earlier commenter stated, even if we were given the right to build a line through Quebec 40 years ago, could we have even afforded to do so? Unlikely.
    It's time for a solution, the pissing match is making the toilet overflow. The grip my elders have on the grudge is quite astonishing, but not surprising. Being told what you have been led to believe for so long is foolhardy must be tough, like a Christian, after a lifetime of worship, being told there is no god - it stings. We have bigger fish to fry at THIS moment in our history, CF was a low point, no doubt, but MF could be a breaking point - so it deserves our attention more than CF. Bad decisions made by OUR elders kept NL from reaching its potential for decades (CF), an even worse deal by MY elders (MF) could put NL out of its misery for good. The way I see it, a diplomatic solution is our only hope, unless the crown starts buying lottery tickets. It may be time to bury the hatchet, but that doesn't mean we have to forget the lessons learned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A well thought out and perceptive post. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. A good starting point is to get the Avalon into sustainability mode, as soon as possible. With respect to Integrated urban plan; Energy needs, land use, transportation, (New expensive 4 lanes commuter traffic based on a Boston suburb), conversion and re-engineering of buildings to reflect demographics and socio/economic factors, etc. Good luck millennials! We, (Elders), all left you a mess.

      Delete
    3. Robert, we need to get the whole province into sustainability mode - not just the Avalon. The face of NL will look very different in 20 years, so I say lets get on with it, no need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. The elders need to pass their wisdom to us, not their grievances - we need to stop focusing on what we could have been, and focus on what we can become.
      From what I've read, the only sure-fire way of keep electricity rates down is to make sure we use every bit of it. We have a glut of hydro power, and fresh water, so growing things (besides cannabis) in large, indoor facilities year round could be a big opportunity for us, as well as advancing the tech sector. Government should be offering incentives in electric transportation as well, one more use for our hydro. There is plenty of future opportunity to go around if we can let go of the past.

      Delete
    4. DT-Start with a changed Energy Policy, based on load centred renewable source, along with demand management, Winston's elderly advice should be taken up. You seem to be a qualified generational leader.

      Delete
  18. The premise from UG and fellow travelers is that HQ were seducers and blackmailers. When the shoe is on the other foot, such as Danny and the flags, such blackmail is all good fighting NL'er stuff.

    UG's beef with the SC decision is that it didn't change contract law, based on a perceived windfall for one party. The windfall being described as "wound on Confederation", what horse shit.
    If they really believe in that reasoning, I've got a real puzzler for them. Danny bought acres and acres at what is now Galway, for song. He claims he purchased the land from the NL public at fair market value. Well the market value right now is through the roof (pun intended). In UG and Malcolm's Rowe's logic, Danny must pay back much of that profit to the NL public because he certainly has made a windfall. So all you ambulance-chasing Don Quixote's out there saddle up the mules and head to Galway. Now of course some of you will object that Danny increased the value of the land by working it. Well I guess you could say HQ did so too with CF.
    So to leave an analogy for Joe Blowhard (aka Waldo), as this might be too hard to understand. How many houses can dance on an acre of Danny's Galway? How much profit will he make? Should he keep it all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gallway is a pipe dream at this point 5,000 new homes when NLs economy is on the brink of collapse with 2X power bills in 3 years and NLs population set to drop 10% in 20 years? Hundreds of new homes remain unsold already in St. John's yet thousands of homes expected to go in Gallway? when Danny deludes himself he goes big (MF Gallway)

      Delete
    2. Lowes/Rona have already factored lower housing construction, and closed some, (6?), outlets. Where are the carpenters, electricians and plumbers moving to get work contracts?

      Delete
    3. Expropriate Galway!

      Delete
  19. I am disappointed, but not surprised by UG’s analysis. I might point out that NL played NO role whatsoever in the Upper Churchill project having ceded water rights to Brinco, a private consortium composed of the titans of Anglo Canadian finance: Anglo-American, Rothschild, Falconbridge, Bowater and Rio-Tinto. This is the group of hicks and rubes that were supposedly duped and intimidated by Hydro-Quebec. In any event, NL was nowhere to be seen throughout this period. If NL had been in disagreement, why did they not at least make their feelings known or, indeed, why not nationalize Brinco’s share of CFLco as they eventually did only a few years later AFTER completion of the project? As a matter of fact, Smallwood of course is famous for his quote to the effect that HQ had saved the project.

    Second the role of the Supreme Court was limited to determining if the details of a contract are fair and respected by both parties in the context of Quebec law. Not sure how they could have come to any other conclusion since the terms of the Upper Churchill agreement are so disarmingly clear and simple, it is hard to imagine how one could have any trouble interpreting the clauses. . As « JM » points out on this very blog in March of 2017.

    « The 1969 Power agreement is succinct, simple to follow, clear in its expectations of both parties, and enforceable - as has been demonstrated on multiple occasions – to our great loss. ».

    It is surely disingenuous to claim that energy sector developments were unexpected at the time the contract was signed. First, surely when you sign a 70 year agreement you should normally expect that something unexpected would ultimately happen. Also, the only reason to sign a long-term agreement is precisely to protect yourself from unexpected developments

    But have no fear, legal challenges are set to continue for as far as the eye can see. In December, Quebec courts will decide on NL’s claim that notwithstanding 3 Supreme Court decisions upholding the Upper Churchill contract, NL should control the Smallwood reservoir.

    Finally, as Mr Vardy suggests, the next step is to take Emera to court to contest the recently signed agreement with Nova Scotia.

    http://unclegnarley.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-legal-challenge-to-emera-contracts.html

    This particular subject should keep members of the NL bar happy for decades to come. As JM points out, the agreement with Quebec is:

    « the polar opposite of the agreements between Nalcor and Emera on the Muskrat Falls Project. Twenty-six separate legal agreements, constituting of 5000 pages of legal language, are used to manage its vast array of terms. ».

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here here. The only people well looked after in all this are members of the bar. Why it's almost like it is all a make work project for lawyers.

      Delete
    2. I certainly hope the role of the supreme court of Canada was not and is not limited to determining that the details of a contract are fair and respected by both parties in "the context of Quebec law", as you suggest.

      Delete
    3. Many, many, many NL politicians have since turned the lemon of their fumble on the UC file into the lemonade of political expediency with the refined brainwashing of a gullible, xenophobic people into an "Us-Against-Them" mentality by incessantly scapegoating Quebec, the federal government, or any other useful outside entity such that would suit their cynical, self-serving agenda... while at the same time deflecting and distracting from the corruptions and ineptitudes of these very same politicians, and the consequent failures of public policy thereof.

      Sure, the Crown Prince of Bile himself, Gerry Byrne, pulled the same stunt just the other day... this time it was DFO who was assigned "Them" status...

      https://www.thetelegram.com/news/fisheries-minister-gerry-byrne-denied-access-to-dfo-science-meeting-on-salmon-189185/

      That NL politicians continue to use this same strategy to this day with some degree of effectiveness, and with absolutely zero political repercussions from their constituents, speaks volumes as to the colossal apathy and beguilement afflicting the vast majority of NL voters.

      Most unfortunate... most unfortunate indeed.

      Delete
    4. Well said. Anon 11:14

      Delete
    5. Supreme court only there to interpret the contract in the context of Quebec law. Come on people of NL, what don't you understand from this. Are we Nlers, that stunned??

      Delete
    6. Anon 17:16 epitomizes in stellar fashion my comment of 11:14... a perfect example of the lamentable result of decade after decade after decade of aversion-therapy brainwashing by legions of cynical NL politicians.

      Thank you Anon 17:16, for providing yourself as example, and I sincerely hope you eventually cease ingesting that toxic, mind-numbing kool-aid served up non-stop by your elected "leaders".

      Delete
    7. Anon 11:14 I was simply stating a fact, the Surpreme Court ruling is based on the arguments presented by NL no more, no less - remember, the Upper Churchill contract was signed subject to Quebec law. NL’s argument was, and I quote, « that the magnitude of the respondent’s profits resulting from the current value of electricity had been unforeseeable in 1969 and was causing an injustice. It submitted that the obligation to act in good faith and the obligation to exercise contractual rights reasonably that are provided for in the C. C.Q. (Civil Code of Quebec) imposed a duty on the respondent to renegotiate the terms of the contract. ». The Supreme Court ruling states that under the Quebec CIvil Code, there was no obligation on behalf of Hydro-Quebec to renegotiate the contract. Sorry, that is how the law works - don’t shoot the messenger.

      Delete
    8. I think you may be getting crossed messages Mr. Lahey... I agree 100% with your assessment on this ruling, as well as all other commentary you've submitted regarding this issue on the UG blog.


      I highly respect your learned and enlightening commentary on this issue and welcome you back after an all-too-long absence.

      Indeed, if we'd been fortunate enough to have you advising these NL politicians the province quite likely wouldn't be in the dire fiscal straits it currently finds itself.

      Sincerely, Anon 11:14

      Delete
    9. Wow, thank you for the kind words.

      Delete
    10. Indeed, my argument was a reply to anon 9:44, oops

      Delete
    11. Yes, thought it may have been a misprint, no worries...

      Delete
  20. I will respond to Waldo boy, whoever that might be, but from past correspondences, to my knowledge it has been Eric, or as we shorten in NL to ERK, like BOB for Robert. So he took great paints to explain Danny's Gaulway land purchase so I could understand it, so I will explain to him in simple terms the points that he omitted.
    1) that land was purchased from the people sometime between 2000-2010, others know the exact date, and to the present time the value of that land has not increased, except for value added, roads, landscaping etc. Unlike the value or rise in electricity rates since 1969. (Now as you all know I am no fan of Danny, just trying to state the facts as I understand them).
    2) unlike UC, this is a one shot deal, making a purchase. Same as if I sell you my house, and in a couple of years you make a fortune on it by re- selling it yourself. Of course I would not be silly enough to think I should share in your windfall, or profits made.
    3) UC was never sold, but continues to be jointly owned, two thirds one third ownership of shares, by CFLco and HQ, or something in that neighbourhood.
    4) now just to comment specifically on Justice Rowe's dissenting report, which you probably never read, where as I read both., he used the RELATIONAL reasoning. This was not a one shot deal, and never see each other again, but has joint ownership, equity by both parties, requires interaction, collaboration, and continual correspondence , for both parties to make a buck or a billion. They depend on each other to keep the thing running, and of course their obligations under the signed contract.
    4) the majority report mentioned"bound themselves knowing full well what they were doing". Yes very true, but the contract was held up for considerable time, as NL signed only under duress so that it would not become a stranded asset before building, because QC held the ace in the hole, there was no economical means of transporting the power except across QC, which we all knew it was the only way. So QC could hold it up forever, while they built their other hydro plants.
    Now don't give me the lingo about common law and civil law that applies in QC, I know all about that. I also know it is the courts job to interpret the law of the land, and not to make laws. And I also know right from wrong. Fair is fair, and right is right, and wrong is wrong, and wrong is no man's right in democracy's, wether it be in Canada, USA, France, Germany, Iceland or England. So don't give me any more BS and condescending comments, and explanations. As for the make up of the SCC , yes maybe we in Atlantic Canada can have only one judge on the court because of our small population, but the time will come when the four western provinces will demand more than one judge to represent them, as their combined population will exceed either QC or ON. Now that being said don't expect me to comment on every silly comment you intend to make, as unlike you I have more important things to do. Cheers, Joe blow, average Joe, AJ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good morning AJ,

      After reading the decision from SCC, I suggest you read the power contract now... "The object of the contract is an agreement to purchase and sell". These are the terms written as introduction in the power contract. So Yes, the Power Contract is a contract of sale.

      As for the relational part, Rowe is simply wrong as explained by the 7 other judges: a relational contract is one that depend on collaboration to define and achieve the goals of the contract that are either undefined or unclear at the moment of signing. The Power Contract is crystal clear and there is no undefined parts in it.

      As for a contract signed under duress or not, again, both CFLCo and Peckford acknowledged that this was not the case. The deal was freely entered into by both parties who perfectly knew, understood and accept the terms.

      Last but not least, as Bernard reminded here, Newfoundland did not signed anything related to UC other than the Lease act. The Power Contract was signed by Brinco / CFLCo. Newfoundland was aware of ifs entire content and the government, which did not put a single dollar in the project, would not have lost a single dollar should the project not go. Still, the government acted legislation to enable the Power Contract.

      How can you say that the government was under duress when it did not put a dollar, could not loose anything no matter the project goes or stops, enacted external legislation to enable the contract and threaten Brinco of expropriation if they refused to sell their shares in the 1970s, after the contract started and the energy prices started to raise ?

      Delete
    2. Can we agree that flogging the dead horse is time and resource wasting, better left to the Vision 2041 crowd? A dynamic reconstruction activity should be our focus on this Blog. What advice do we have for the negotiated best use of the Grand River assets, involving our neighbour, QC?

      Delete
    3. Good points Heracles31, but I may not concur on all of them. But to get a full understanding of the circumstances surrounding the UC hydro project we have to go back to the sixties and take into account the Canadian political environment of the time, which I am not about to engage in, and suspect you are not either. But just to say, that primiliary NL did not have the fincincial resources to develop such a project from public money, so Smallwood went to the private sources for the funding. We had no means of raising such funds, and the Feds were not willing to support as they deferred it to provincial projects and let the provinces figure it out, no FLG then. So the private business invested until they ran out of money, and QC was in a position to wait them out, as I mentioned before. So that was some of the circumstances of the time. So yes that was under duress. As for putting a dollar in at the time, we had the colleratoral, or equity in the form of provincial ownership of the land and the river. So I would think that was pretty good, but had to relinqulish, or lease some of that ownership to the private developers who did invest heavily in the project. I would also like to see a total, complete unbiased audit of the funding put in by all parties, including HQ and the private business parties. But I will not hold my breath for that to happen, as I suspect it never will. So all we get is bits and pieces here and there to make ones point. But thanks Heracles for you comments, much appreciated. Cheers, average Joe.

      Delete
    4. The logic presented by Waldo is akin to Waldo partnering with a real estate investor on a condominium complex, with the investor planning to rent out his condo unit for a profit, while Waldo plans to use his condo unit as his personal dwelling.

      Then Waldo sees the increased profit his partner is generating from renting out the condo unit his partner owns, as the cost of housing increases over time with increasing demand for housing.

      So no longer able to abide the original contract as his shrewd partner continues to rake in mammoth profits on his condo rental unit, our covetous Waldo consequently files a court challenge demanding a portion of his partner's condo rental profits because of the unforeseen increase in cost of housing over time.

      That's just bloody-well ludicrous...

      Delete
    5. and don't forget that in NL, Waldo's cousin (maybe 5th or 6th removed) sits on the bench and rules in his favor so as to maintain (the judge) his NL street (read Circular Rd) cred

      but then again Waldo (aka Joe Blowhard) doesn't understand analogy or metaphor

      Delete
    6. Robert - would love to stop flogging this dead horse but despite 3 decisions of the Supreme Court upholding the Upper Churchill agreement, Quebec courts begin hearings this December on NL’s claim that it should control the Smallwood reservoir - these court challenges will continue until 2041 and perhaps beyond.

      Delete
    7. Thank you Bernard. My point is that we, as interested bystanders are wasting time and resources with ongoing commentary about legal actions, about which we have no significant impact. We should, alternatively be endeavouring to provide value to our successors' efforts to make best judgements and actions to sustain life as we know it in a changing society and world. In this I believe with you that QC and NL must put aside the negative acrimony, and work out beneficial management of the the Grand River watershed region.
      I welcome your continued and valued contribution to this forum.

      Delete
  21. I find it inconceivable that our Consumer Advocate would not challenge Tom Marshall on his evidence today about Holyrood operating at capacity, burning 18,000 bbls of oil a day in winter (when the CA knows that on average Holyrood operates at capacity for less than 1.6% of the year -- less than 6, 24-hour days a year), and on average it burns about 5-6,000 bbls per day.

    Furthermore, the expected scare tactic about oil prices increasing, means that even if oil prices doubled, Holyrood provides only about 13-20% of the island's energy needs. So even if prices doubled, such an increase would mean only about 1-2 cent rise is rates (still significantly a lower risk than what was and now can be expected due to Muskrat).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom and others bought in to the flawed Energy Plan of the 1980's. My recollection is that while it was known then that Holyrood was a stopgap to keep supplying baseboard heat, Hydro Engineers did not accept proven technology transfers such as Demand Management, District Heat and Power, Renewable Energy Sources, etc. Nothing has changed on Policy to this day.

      Delete
    2. And Jason Kean's evidence today is that strategic risk valuations were NOT INCLUDED in the DG2 CPW calculations.

      Delete
    3. And his view is that a P50 valuation would be $600 million for strategic risk (and he says that a further $600 million for a P75 estimate)

      Delete
    4. One might ask; with heavy, heavy petroleum industry based, EPC style project management, mountains of expertise, at great cost, could not divert the Titanic like freight train to turn back. M. Marshall's quiet admission that to do so would go back to square one, is all revealing. Voters since the 80's were in an angry way wanting to get even with QC, squandering the $3B windfall profit of the offshore carbon.

      Delete
    5. Tom foolery;we have Tom Williams pretending everything was done by the book, and Tom Marshall dancing around with long winded vague replies in denial of what has happened and his part int this fiasco, and little concerned.
      As to !8,000 bbls per day, Tom did sort of qualify it , by saying sometimes that much, but overall leaves the impression as in 2012, that 18,000 is typical. There many dozens of misrepresentations by Nalcor and govn officials, and they still do it.

      So back to forecasting and Stratton: Did we need the power? Stratton provided the false answer. But the CFO said forecasting came under jurisdiction. And MHI played apart. And now with Kean, the guy for all risks, did risks of false or wrong forecasting come under him also?
      All the other underhanded stuff could never happen if they did not first produce that false forecast. That needs a deep dive by this Inquiry, where they have not yet gone, and appears may not go?
      Winston

      Delete
    6. Recall the MHI engineer said Nfld Hydro forecasting guy, Stratton, was educated , but that they had a very small staff. So, he was educated , but in forecasting? For such a mega project and for 57 years. Was his education suitable? Certainly not. Even that fact has not been acknowledged at this inquiry. Leblanc is educated, but would he undertake forecasting for 57 years, or even 1 year. Kean too is educated. Starting to seem like a MUN disaster, so many enablers from MUN, MUN graduates, including Wade Locke.
      Winston

      Delete
  22. On another note, here we have Al Hawkins, just as lamentably incompetent in his current portfolio as he was in the transportation portfolio...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/auditor-general-plan-nlesd-plan-1.4895959

    I seem to recall this Hawkins individual being as appalled at the chaos and waste in the transport deptt when he was minister, as he is in the education dept he's currently the minister of.

    So that raises the question... why is this individual being put in charge of these departments when he's obviously so inept that he apparently cannot serve to improve the function of these departments.

    He's costing taxpayers money, he should've been sacked years ago...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Yes,and A Hawkins was also on the Nalcor board when MF project was being promoted

      Delete
  23. Watching the inquiry it is obvious that only a very select few were "in the loop" on the MF project planning.People ,like Sturge,Paddon,Marshall,
    and now Kean ,and probably many more were taken for fools and now they are looking like like fools as they try to stumble through their testimony.On another note if you look at the letterhead on Nalcor's correspondence you will see the words "boundless energy" I can think of a few more that might be appropriate,like,boundless incompetence boundless deceit,boundless false optimism etc.



    ReplyDelete
  24. On the witness stand Tom Marshall said that no man or woman can predict the future.Well, he and his colleagues had no problem predicting future oil prices and energy demands with oil prices going to $200 per bbl and according to Jerome Kennedy electricity prices at $1.00 per kwh.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I suspect OUR (NL and PQ) CFs facility may have jumped in value by 1 billion dollars today, so 5 % say.
    With the Dems taking the House in the USA elections, Trump said today he can make deals with the Democrats, and he mentioned on the Environment. So, will the USA eventually sign on to the Paris Agreement? Or other measures to counter GHGs? That would be bad for offshore oil and natural gas but good for hydro like CFs.
    Perhaps a good final note as to topic of whether CFs would be a stranded asset. Maybe yes , maybe no, but imagine THE DONALD, helping the value of a renewable asset in Canada. We need to do our part: trottle back offshore oil production ; 12 years goes fast, and for biodiversity, they say but 2 years for serious action. Already the green crab is taking over, destroying lobster, and eel grass that protects young cod.
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
  26. The comments have restored my faith in UG's readers because most of them aren't buying the misguided view in this post. The Supreme Court judgment is not a history lesson, though the trial judgment does contain an interesting review: http://canlii.ca/t/g88kx. The case was about the question of whether the duty parties to a contract owe each other under the Civil Code to act in good faith required Hydro-Québec to renegotiate the agreement because energy prices elsewhere had gone up (those who see a Quebec conspiracy should note that such an argument could never even be made under the common law in force in other provinces). Eight out of 9 Supreme Court judges, 5 out of 5 Québec Appeal Court judges and the trial judge dismissed what was always a long-shot argument. The question is why the province chose to spend so much money on it.

    ReplyDelete