tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post5099694834263008550..comments2023-10-25T07:29:40.789-02:30Comments on UNCLE GNARLEY: A DEBACLE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN IT (Part II) Des Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02566013585647491614noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-15374481470130315002018-04-11T17:37:25.007-02:302018-04-11T17:37:25.007-02:30Thanks PF, for your rant, if you had not signed PF...Thanks PF, for your rant, if you had not signed PF I might have thought it was RM, (Rick) so was really laughing at your rant, which I have every right to do, as of course you have every right to rant. But because it represents a sad part of our history, then I cannot laugh at that part. And maybe you can redesign our coat of arms, as Pratt did with our new flag, a few years ago, which I think most of us are proud of now. So I look forward to the day when we will have a much more representive coat of arms. Can just imagine to, (laugh) some representive at buckiham palace, explaining to the colonials what the coat of arms really means, as a picture is worth a thousand words As you say. Their thousand words might be quite different from yours, but to be honest I agree more with your interpretation. You can't be too serious, you know, we all need a good laugh one in a while. And if someone laughs at your rant, what's wrong with that. Cheers, average Joe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-87379571020566624552018-04-11T17:13:31.262-02:302018-04-11T17:13:31.262-02:30So, anon, if no casualties or extinction of a race...So, anon, if no casualties or extinction of a race, this bit of history would be a great laughing matter, why so?<br /> Because there were casualties and extinction of a race, you think the Coat of Arms is alright and should remain unchanged?<br /> You say Wow, with 4 exclamation points, so a big surprise to you it seems? Because it is so funny? Or so irrelevant to this Inquiry subject?<br /><br /> Bet that when ever you see TV, or online or Telegram coverage over the next 2 years, you will reflect on the meaning of this Coat of Arms?<br /> Could UG post a nice color picture of the Coat of Arms for UG readers? My description does not do justice, but may help in understanding it's meaning. Maybe we should laugh less at this. Does any one now find this Coat of Arms offensive? Could it be I alone find it so?<br />PFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-73660135260622216782018-04-11T16:57:02.015-02:302018-04-11T16:57:02.015-02:30Anon 21:45:
QUOTE: "I have friends in Quebe...Anon 21:45: <br /><br />QUOTE: "I have friends in Quebec but none would be so bold as to continually stick their nose in and tell us what to do over and over and over"<br /><br />The ONLY opinion I have given on this blog involves my opposition to the proposal that MUN be shut down (this thread, yesterday, at 19:17), for which I have tried to give some tangible arguments. If you have counter-arguments to offer, please, don't be shy.<br /><br />Otherwise I have merely corrected a few factual mistakes made by posters here (including one about Newfoundland history recently) and asked various questions (many of which remain unanswered). <br /><br />QUOTE "you may well be representative of educated Quebecers who are quite persuaded of their historical slant on Labrador and Churchill Falls. You're giving us a better idea of who we may be dealing with and we'll keep that in mind going forward."<br /><br />I am an individual, not the borg-like mouthpiece of a hive mind, so if you think my comments are useful as a way of peering into the cackling, salivating, Sauron-like evilness of Quebec and/or Hydro-Quebec, well, you are in for a major disappointment.<br /><br />QUOTE: "I imagine NL will negotiate exclusively with Ottawa going forward and the musings from Quebec would be better aimed across the Ottawa River than in this direction"<br /><br />So: the federal government will, according to you, get involved. This means MF is an issue which concerns Canadian citizens other than Newfoundlanders. Does this not mean that I, as a non-Newfoundlander Canadian citizen, am entitled to examine the entire MF issue and discuss it with fellow Canadians -say, hypothetically, in the comments section of a blog for example?<br />Etiennenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-2884775635117966202018-04-11T16:14:57.324-02:302018-04-11T16:14:57.324-02:30Wow!!!! We all need a great laugh, once in a while...Wow!!!! We all need a great laugh, once in a while, and a quick history lesson. Too bad there were casualties and extenction of a race, otherwise we could be laughing for ever and ever, and do some changes to the coat or arms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-33352892584081453012018-04-11T15:54:27.950-02:302018-04-11T15:54:27.950-02:30Lets face it, we cannot embarrass the Queen or her...Lets face it, we cannot embarrass the Queen or her government or Lt Governor in these proceedings. Even M Adams letter in the Telegram is under the Nfld Coat of Arms. Is there 1 in 1000, or 1 in 50,000 who understand it`s meaning!<br /> It was long thought to be issued by the London and Bristol Company to John Guy (a relative of Ray Guy, I wonder), I suppose because Guy actually made friendly trade with the Beothuk in Trinity Bay, about 1612. <br /> Prowse actually said this in his history of 1893, and a Nfld stamp of 1910 shows this. The correction was not discovered until WW1, and the Coat of Arms became official in 1928. <br /> From Dominion to colony (under the Commission of Govn,) to province in 1949), we have continued with this Coat of Arms.<br /> Let`s examine it:<br />1. The Nfld herds of caribou is represented by an elk. <br />2. There are 2 unicorn and 2 lions, the lions are gold in color. These represent the royal beasts that support the arms of the Monarch. The lions represents England, and the unicorn represents Scotland.<br /><br />Are you with me so far.......<br /><br />Now the 2 Beothuk represents the indigenous population of Nfld.<br />The Motto: Quaerite prime Regnum Dei, is a quote from Matthew 6:33 from the Bible, `Seek ye first the Kindgom of God`<br /><br /> This Coat of Arms was first used not by John Guy, but by David Kirke, Governor of Nfld from 1638-1651, but faded into obscurity, until readopted in 1928.<br /><br />Now the 2 Beothuk are garbed for war proper.<br /> Notice the Christian cross at the center. The lion is crowned, the unicorn with a crown and chain. <br /><br />The Beothuk are holding up the English shield of the cross , lions and unicorn.<br /><br />So that is your history lesson for today fellow UG readers, and trust it is informative.<br />Now they say a picture is worth a thousand words.<br />Now we know the Beothuk were never defeated in battle, made no treaty, ate no elk, and never submitted to the English Lion.<br /> They survived over 3 centuries, and the last few died from starvation, the last woman captured revealed a few details to Cormack, a Scottish man who thought to save them from extinction.<br /><br />Should we ask if these people were treated in a Christian fashion......given the symbols of the Coat of Arms. <br /> Does this symbol represent JUSTICE under the Crown......for the Beothuk, or of residents for today.....under Leblanc.......<br /> <br /> M Adams says this Inquiry smells!<br /> I say the Coat of Arms smells. Take it down, sir, please.<br />PF <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-89462361182742767822018-04-11T15:41:00.134-02:302018-04-11T15:41:00.134-02:30Hi Anon14:59,
Yes, there is a difference between ...Hi Anon14:59,<br /><br />Yes, there is a difference between rate payer and tax payer.<br /><br />Ex1: Usually, there is only one rate payer per house, because there is only 1 meter and 1 account. There can be multiple tax payers in that house, if both parents works.<br /><br />Ex2: Some people have an income so low that they are exempt from taxes and do not pay any. As such, they are not tax payers. Still, they need electricty and they remain rate payers.<br /><br />Ex3 : Charity organisms do not pay taxes. Neither does the government. As such, again, they are not tax payers. Still, they too consume electricity and as such, are rate payers.<br /><br />Ex4: Some could generate revenu (so pay taxes) without consumming any electricity like the sale guy knocking at your door and trying to sell you his crap. So he would be a tax payer but not a rate payer.<br /><br />So there is definitely a difference between rate payers and tax payers.Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-49132041333664707282018-04-11T15:40:48.004-02:302018-04-11T15:40:48.004-02:30They are largely the same people, but how and what...They are largely the same people, but how and what share of the Muskrat costs they must bare differs substantially based on whether or not they use electricity to heat their homes, and/or if the tax scheme is used to pay for Muskrat (or part thereof), then it is not so much of an issue about how much electricity they use, it is their income tax bracket and/or how they are affected by some other form of taxation.<br /><br />I am not suggesting one over the other, but how the Muskrat costs are paid can be detrimental depending on whether you are a high electricity user or not, or if through taxation whether or not you are in a high tax bracket (or even if not, should the tax form be a straight 'levy' for example).<br /><br />There can be a big difference as to whether full costs are based on electricity use or a portion paid for through taxation (if the CA is duty bound to look out for the ratepayer, can he at the same time protect the interest of the taxpayer?) <br /><br /><br />Maurice Adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-40577261599783985062018-04-11T15:28:37.608-02:302018-04-11T15:28:37.608-02:30Yes, of course they are the same people, the rate ...Yes, of course they are the same people, the rate payer, the tax payer, the car buyer, and the church goyer, so what. But I will tell you what, I will pay your rate bill if you will pay my taxes. Of course there is a big distinction, between a rate payer and a tax payer. The poor guy may not pay much taxes, but may pay a Hugh rate bill. The six million dollar man, may pay a lot of taxes, but not much rate, as he may spend most of his time in Florida, and be able to afford to install 3 heat pumps. So not one and the same at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-15270191002416184232018-04-11T15:17:07.219-02:302018-04-11T15:17:07.219-02:30I agree. Rules of evidence is different from scope...I agree. Rules of evidence is different from scope (interpretation/limitations).<br /><br />However, (and I would need to review the video/audio of the hearing), I don't think anyone was questioning his jurisdiction --- it was supposedly to be merely a hearing for applicants to explain why they should be granted standing.<br /><br />It was the commissioner who (on several occasions) made it clear that what some applicants wanted him to 'inquire' into was outside what he interpreted as within the TOR (and he outlined various reasons for his position such as time constraints, the need to focus on the MF business case, etc.).<br /><br />Now that is all well and good, but that was not the time to then ask if the applicant would abide by his interpretation. That was not what the applicants were there for. If he was going to ask such questions, he should have given notice to them so that they could have been prepared for that.<br /><br />If the rules of the game has been unfairly made and/or applied, the the team that wins has all but already been set.<br /><br />So far, --- a travesty of justice.Maurice Adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-57781814486593684832018-04-11T14:59:45.472-02:302018-04-11T14:59:45.472-02:30Is there really that much difference between the n...Is there really that much difference between the number of electricity ratepayers and the number of NL taxpayers? Are they not essentially the same people? Are we splitting hairs here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-62575143485929394052018-04-11T14:43:58.860-02:302018-04-11T14:43:58.860-02:30MA:
Fair point, though I don't know the Statut...MA:<br />Fair point, though I don't know the Statute under which the PUB hearings were held well. Most of the public comments I have seen shown little indepth understanding of the ToR, various affected statutes and Rules of Procedure the inquiry will be guided by-yours is pretty technical.<br /><br />I would say though that under the Public Inquiries Act there is a set procedure to settle disputes of scope: LeBlanc is limited(he can only requesting the court with no right of appeal) while others like interveners, witnesses etc have wider abilities and can appeal to Cabinet or the Courts.<br /><br />Scope cant be interpreted is the same way as evidence-I saw his question as asking if there were disputes over his jurisdiction, not necessarily how/what he will hear. <br /><br />I am not yet willing to pass judgement until I see how scope is being applied, until then I think most of this is speculation.<br /><br />PENG2<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-10902869271638274022018-04-11T14:28:04.958-02:302018-04-11T14:28:04.958-02:30PENG2
It is my recollection that many or perhaps ...PENG2<br /><br />It is my recollection that many or perhaps even most all of the objections by Nalcor (during the PUB least-cost options hearing) were that the issue before the Board was outside the scope of the TOR. The PUB heard the objections and ruled (there were no differences of opinion on scope "argued before government" ).<br /><br /><br />Also, when LeBlanc asked for the public's interpretation of the TOR, if I recall correctly, he made it clear that he was asking for our interpretation of the TOR as written.<br /><br />If all of this had nothing to do with 'agreeing with the Commissioner on his interpretation' ----------- why did he find it useful to ask (at a hearing for standing no less), if the applicant would abide by his interpretation?<br /><br />Too me ----------- it smells.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Maurice Adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-81710571942096446352018-04-11T13:39:46.558-02:302018-04-11T13:39:46.558-02:30MA:
Difference is between Inquiry Scope vs eviden...MA:<br /><br />Difference is between Inquiry Scope vs evidentiary processes.<br /><br />Disagreements on evidence are heard and ruled upon with reasons for/against in the report. Differences of opinion on scope are to be argued before government, with a dissenting opinion qualifier appended.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with agreeing with the Commissioner on his interpretation, except that the parties agree on scope and limitations under the law. LeBlanc has already given opportunity for public input on scope, if there is still a dissenting opinion-now persons should forward to LeBlanc and copy Cabinet for clarification, keeping in mind he and LG in Council both reserve the right to expand/contract scope as required.<br /><br />PENG2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-58882145012646023752018-04-11T13:33:08.080-02:302018-04-11T13:33:08.080-02:30Maurice, it seems that the die was cast by the ill...Maurice, it seems that the die was cast by the ill-concocted NL Energy Plan, (2007?). We all bought the future Muskrat/Anglo route BS, towards the prosperity of Labrador power from as far back as 1949. When politics and emotion rule, as they have, regrettably since Smallwood marched us forward, objectivity regarding needs, and rational economics take the back seat. Without calling a witness, we can make the conclusion and Summary of the Inquiry right now. The future will follow the same unfortunate track, because the Energy Plan, just like the unresolved National Energy Policy is flawed, over-run by special interests, and raw emotion. (BC-AB crisis with Feds and constitutional law).Robert G Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05356463540446993862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-24384732192252240012018-04-11T13:18:59.756-02:302018-04-11T13:18:59.756-02:30PENG2
If what you say is the case, why was it tha...PENG2<br /><br />If what you say is the case, why was it that during the PUB 'least-cost' options analysis/hearing Nalcor objected numerous (I wound guess, perhaps hundreds) of times to issues, evidence and questions put forth by various parties by arguing that they were outside the terms of reference ---- and the PUB invariably (almost always) ruled there and then that they were? <br /><br />And during the DarkNL hearing, parties were given notice to argue for or against why evidence should or not be admitted?<br /><br />Hard to do that if you already advised the commissioner that you agree with his interpretation.Maurice Adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-51598599915766519522018-04-11T13:03:07.386-02:302018-04-11T13:03:07.386-02:30You make a good point AJ.
It seemed to me that th...You make a good point AJ.<br /><br />It seemed to me that the discussion between the commissioner and the CA was about the CA being granted (by way of a special order in council) the authority to represent the interest of citizens generally, not just ratepayers ---- but I stand to be corrected. <br /><br />Maurice Adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-3122071255514045342018-04-11T12:42:57.022-02:302018-04-11T12:42:57.022-02:30"Indeed, conversely, MUN could serve as a maj..."Indeed, conversely, MUN could serve as a major tool to reverse the demographic decline of NL, and not only by keeping NL students in NL: if students from other Canadian provinces could be attracted for their education, might it then be possible to aid/encourage at least some of these (former) students in settling for a life and career on The Rock?"<br /><br />Almost two decades worth of stupidly-low tuition at Memorial Diploma Mill of Newfoundland has failed to achieve this outcome.<br /><br />The tuition freeze is bad public policy and even worse fiscal policy. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-5261206962275075602018-04-11T12:37:54.690-02:302018-04-11T12:37:54.690-02:30AJ:
You described why LeBlanc has concerns over th...AJ:<br />You described why LeBlanc has concerns over the CAs participation pretty good there-generally it is the MHAs that represent taxpayers, and the CA rate payers. Definitely a nuance that is procedural based on definitions.<br /><br />Maurice:<br />I would suggest that in quasi-judicial hearings (Labour Relations, EI, Revenue Canada etc) that agreeing that the Commissioner has jurisdiction and all parties participating agree with the ToR and his rulings is standard fair. Having said that, there would also be a dissenting opinion section appended to the final report covering such items of jurisdictional disputes by the parties the Commissioner cant/wont address such that readers can qualify the report.<br /><br />PENG2<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-53592987270368550752018-04-11T12:19:48.387-02:302018-04-11T12:19:48.387-02:30Just read Maurice's letter. Mentions a few imp...Just read Maurice's letter. Mentions a few important points. Maybe I am not totally in tune with the consumers advocate role and purpose. But my understanding is the role of the CA in the, or before the PUB is to represent only the rate payers, and not the tax payers. So are you now saying before the inquiry, he must also represent the tax payers as well as the rate payers?? I think his job before the inquiry, should be the same as his job before the PUB, and represent the rate payers only. And if as a result of his good representation of the ratepayers, the tax payers have to pay more, then not his problem, let someone else adovacate on behalf of the tax payer consumer. If I a, misunderstanding this then please let me know. Thanks. AJ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-77922515586390404662018-04-11T12:13:52.112-02:302018-04-11T12:13:52.112-02:30Thanks PF.
I would note also that sections 18 and...Thanks PF.<br /><br />I would note also that sections 18 and 22 of the commissioner's March 14th interpretation of the TOR makes it clear that it is the terms of reference itself (not necessarily the commissioner's interpretation) that is legally enforceable by the Courts and that any misinterpretation could amount to a jurisdictional error. <br /><br />The purpose of the recent hearing was not to ascertain whether applicants' agree, disagree or to otherwise assess the commissioner's March 14th interpretation, and applicant's for standing should not have been asked to confirm that they would abide by the commissioner's interpretation.<br /><br />That amounts, it seems to me, to the commissioner attempting to improperly influence those applicants who do get standing from challenging the commissioner's interpretation (or potentially affect the commissioner's decision to grant standing)--- and in effect unduly influencing what should be, as the inquiry proceeds, the legal right of those with standing to, or not to, exercise a legal right that they themselves have). <br /><br />I think it was Aristotle that said that 'a good start is half the race'. <br /><br />Well it seems that this inquiry is not off to a good and fair-minded start.<br /><br />Maurice Adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-43811236306057868652018-04-11T11:35:26.757-02:302018-04-11T11:35:26.757-02:30Very good letter M Adams, and I recommend UG reade...Very good letter M Adams, and I recommend UG readers see it.<br /> In particular as to Dennis Browne, whether he fully represents the average ratepayer or will be wearing 2 hats, as if power rates are kept in check, then costs for MF will be shifted to taxpayers, including the well to do, like the enablers of this boondoggle.<br /> Adams says that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, and so far, there is indication of circling the wagons. <br /> And it seems to be that Browne sits on the fence, as a Ball appointee,and Coffey, well he had to resign in disgrace working for and against the Ball government at the same time. Has the followers of the boondoggle short memory as to Coffey.......<br /> So some of this pubic Inquiry rehearsed it seems, and then played out for the camera, with guilty look on some faces already, me thinks.<br /> You can fool all of the people all the time seems at play here, as it has worked so well for generations, here on the ROCK<br />PFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-47050649574478367092018-04-11T10:51:31.654-02:302018-04-11T10:51:31.654-02:30Pf @ 10:23:
1) Correct, the submitted documentatio...Pf @ 10:23:<br />1) Correct, the submitted documentation will be then be assessed as being relevant and whether there are related ATIPPA issues to settle.<br />2/3) Until the documentation is submitted to the Inquiry and issues of standing are finalized, your are being premature. At this point no one really has the ability to bring in experts as there is no documentation circulated to have an expert assess.<br /><br />So you know the process is that when the documentation is circulated and all parties with standing have had a chance to analyze there will be another round of hearings to settle issues such as Experts, funding etc and then the Inquiry will actually start.<br /><br />The process is why I stand by my comment that LeBLanc may/may not complete this by Q4 2019-it is a much bigger job than most realize it to be.<br /><br />PENG2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-48017339867467164312018-04-11T10:48:42.779-02:302018-04-11T10:48:42.779-02:30My 2 cents worth ---- http://www.thetelegram.com/o...My 2 cents worth ---- http://www.thetelegram.com/opinion/letter-at-the-muskrat-inquiry-for-whom-does-this-pipe-play-200090/Maurice Adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-24577708172224453032018-04-11T10:23:07.823-02:302018-04-11T10:23:07.823-02:301.Did Leblanc say that those with standing was to ...1.Did Leblanc say that those with standing was to have all documents and evidence filed with the Inquiry within 14 days, or did I hear it wrong<br />2 Leblanc said the Inquiry would hire their own experts.No one know who they will be or the process for their engagement. That the Consumer Advocate does not yet have standing as representatives of the people , and if he gets it, he may not get permission form Leblanc to hire expert witnesses,<br />3 MFCCC which has standing, seems not authorized to have expert witnesses costs paid by the Inquiry<br /><br />So, does this process seem designed that Leblanc alone gets to chose experts and others do not,,,,,so all one sided for Leblanc......<br /> Already the accounting firm Grant Thompson is on record as one of them was a MF drum beater.<br /><br /> Then too, the Queen , that is the crown has standing representing the present government, while at the same time , the prior government officials, Ministers and DW, all have standing and legal cost by the tax payer,.......so the crown past and present all fully lawyered up at tax payer expense. <br /> Seems those that may get shafted by this process is the ordinary Joe tax payer, or ratepayer......and those who were the architect and enabler of this boondoggle will get some fancy stick handling by the slick lawyers that they get off scot free.<br /> Or should we have blind faith in the jurist Leblanc.....<br />PFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-81323326386295715592018-04-11T09:52:27.828-02:302018-04-11T09:52:27.828-02:30Just listening to Danny dumersque on open line tal...Just listening to Danny dumersque on open line talking about the fixed link, linking us to the mainland. He makes a lot of scense. But his main warning was, and I totally agree with him, "don't let governments go anywhere near it". Put it up for private enterprise proposal, and let them make bids. And using only their money. Yes and you may say are they going to fleece us to use when it is built. Well maybe only 40 bucks a crossing, similar to the Pei bridge, compare that to the ferry ride from NS. Plus if they fleece us to use it, then we won't use it and take the ferry routes we have now. The Feds have an obligation to provide the port aux basques ferry link under the terms of union. But guess if that service declines in use, then the cost will deminish and in time, may disappear although, but no doubt a long way down the road, if ever. And the study comes down today, but not request for proposals. Just my opinion, and rather skeptical. Thanks, Joe blow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com