YOU ARE INVITED! Join Muskrat Falls Concerned Citizens’ Coalition (MFCCC)

(Your response to this invitation is time sensitive due to limited time for receipt of application. Please include your address – and phone# if desired) EMAIL:

Why bother establishing Coalition?
Will our children and grandchildren want to remain here in
Newfoundland and Labrador? Would we want them to live here and bring up their
families? Will this be a good place for them to live after we begin repaying
the huge debt from Muskrat Falls? What can we do about it, other than to leave?
One thing we can do is to make the Muskrat Falls Inquiry a
success. The Commissioner has invited applications for standing for the
Inquiry. The Inquiry will provide a forum for evaluating why the project was
sanctioned and why it has become such a monumental fiasco and a threat to our
sovereignty and financial sustainability. We are hopeful it will shed light on
the options for the future, to mitigate the damage.
There is a real danger that Nalcor will overwhelm the Inquiry
with its virtually unlimited resources. Only an energetic, passionate and
intelligent intervention will enable the Commission to achieve a balanced
understanding of the complex history of this project and how sound public
policy principles and management best practices were repudiated. We are
inviting you to join us to create a countervailing force which will ensure a
transparent, accessible and fair hearing process and enable the Commissioner to
fulfill his challenging mandate.
The undersigned plan to submit an application for standing
and funding to the Muskrat Falls Commission of Inquiry by the Muskrat Falls
Concerned Citizens Coalition (MFCCC). The deadline is 5 pm on March 28, 2018.
If we are successful we will incorporate a company which will elect a Board of
Directors. We hope you will agree to join as a member.
Our purpose is to ensure that the Commission arrives at a
full understanding of the factors which led to the decision to undertake the
Muskrat Falls project as well as an understanding of why costs escalated so
dramatically. In addition the Commission must provide an analysis of the
options available to the province in order to reduce the cost of power to
ratepayers and to minimize the financial impact on the province.
Our reason for seeking standing is to assist the Commission
to understand the issues and to direct their attention to witnesses who might
assist them. We all, as citizens, have an interest in the findings of the
Commission and in the action taken arising from their recommendations by virtue
of the magnitude of the project and its overall impact from an economic,
financial and environmental standpoint.  The planning process, the
regulatory oversight and the quality of project management are all important
factors contributing to the debacle of Muskrat Falls. Equally important, once
the project is completed, is how to mitigate the damage and evaluate the
options available to ensure that the project does not bankrupt the province. In
seeking standing we all have an interest in the outcome of the inquiry.
The undersigned bring to the Inquiry considerable expertise
relating to the project, having written many articles and briefs on the subject
and participated in many public forums, including the PUB’s reference hearing
in 2012. Our participation in the public policy debate over the past eight
years enables us to offer important insights which will further the conduct of
the inquiry. Our efforts will also provide a countervailing view to the
evidence which is likely to be presented by Nalcor Energy and will therefore
“contribute to the openness and fairness of the inquiry.”
In order to operate within a modest budget we will not hire
outside expert witnesses but will instead rely on the expertise of our own
volunteer members who will attend hearings and report back to the group through
a rotating roster. We plan to apply to engage legal counsel to represent us at
the hearing.
We are inviting you to join our group and to support our
submission by allowing us to include your name in our submission. We are also
inviting you to become a member of the organization we intend to incorporate,
if our application is successful, under the name of the Muskrat Falls Concerned
Citizens Coalition. Your role as a member will be to support our work in every
way possible, including review of documents and monitoring hearings as well as
electing directors.
Please tell us if you know of other like-minded people who
we might approach. We need a critical mass of members if we are to achieve our
ambitious purpose.
The success of our efforts will depend upon the strength of
our team. We have no illusion that the undersigned can achieve our purpose on
our own, without your help. We will need your energy, your passion and your
intellect to make this successful.
Please reply as soon as possiblewithin the next 48 hours and, if you agree,
please supply your full name, address and contact information so that we can
include it in our application for standing.
Ron Penney
Des Sullivan
David Vardy

Des Sullivan
Des Sullivan
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada Uncle Gnarley is hosted by Des Sullivan, of St. John's. He is a businessman engaged over three decades in real estate management and development companies and in retail. He is currently a Director of Dorset Investments Limited and Donovan Holdings Limited. During his early career he served as Executive Assistant to Premier's Frank D. Moores (1975-1979) and Brian Peckford (1979-1985). He also served as a Part-Time Board Member on the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB). Uncle Gnarley appears on the masthead representing serious and unambiguous positions on NL politics and public policy. Uncle Gnarley is a fiscal conservative possessing distinctly liberal values and a non-partisan persusasion. Those values and opinions underlie this writer's views on NL's politics, economy and society. Uncle Gnarley publishes Monday mornings and more often when events warrant.


If a Big Mac costs McDonalds $10 to produce and it is sold for $1.50, McDonalds will go out of business. They would not declare a profit!


Bill left public life shortly after the signing of the Atlantic Accord and became a member of the Court of Appeal until his retirement in 2003. During his time on the court he was involved in a number of successful appeals which overturned wrongful convictions, for which he was recognized by Innocence Canada. Bill had a special place in his heart for the underdog.

Churchill Falls Explainer (Coles Notes version)

If CFLCo is required to maximize its profit, then CFLCo should sell its electricity to the highest bidder(s) on the most advantageous terms available.


  1. "Options to ensure we do not bankrupt the province".
    There is a fair amount of chat on a prior piece of whether we should join forces with Quebec.They say a crisis is also an opportunity.
    Maybe a future piece by UG should pose the question "Should Quebec join Nfld and Labrador?
    Meanwhile' I'm all for the Coalition to expose the scallywags.
    Winston Adams

    • How about an independence movement instead? We have vast resources such as territorial rights to large hunk of the Atlantic ocean, fish stocks, hydro power, oil and gas. iron ore, nickel and Canada would never want to lose that. The USA would be happy to control it. These might be interesting bargaining chips to re-write our terms of confederation. If that fails, go full bore for independence and start from scratch. While we are at it, change the form of provincial government (and voting methods) because the party system we have now has proven to be dangerous and we don't want a repeat of the past.

    • NL independence?? Ha!! What a lamentably naive dream that is.

      NLers had independence prior to 1934, and failed miserably at it… the shame of being the only sovereign state to have willingly given up its independence in favour of commission of government imposed by its former colonial master… because the homegrown political leadership was just too bloody dimwitted and too bloody corrupted to competently manage the affairs of state.

      And even when NL had an some autonomy as a province with its own government, most of its history has been one of abject poverty, with much of the populace riddled with TB and nar tooth in their heads from malnourishment.

      And now here we have the brutal reality of history repeating itself, yet again.

      So the notion of an independent, self-reliant NL is as ludicrous a concept as is the notion of an independent, self-reliant toddler.

    • Robert Bond, and our last full term Prime Minister Richard Squires, almost achieved financial independence for our country. Bond, however, never fully recovered from an aggressive physical attack during the 1908 tie-breaking election campaign, and Squires was lucky to have escaped with his life. Unfortunately, the man Squires was attempting to do business with was not so lucky. He was found fifty feet below his Ottawa hotel room window in 1933. For more information

    • "How about an independence movement instead? We have vast resources such as territorial rights to large hunk of the Atlantic ocean, fish stocks, hydro power, oil and gas. iron ore, nickel and Canada would never want to lose that. The USA would be happy to control it."

      "Independence" and "USA control" are completely contradictory concepts. Who are you, Ches Crosbie, 1948?

      The US doesn't care two craps about NL's pittance of natural resources.

  2. Are there any tenured professors at MUN reading this who are bold enough to assist knowing that retaliation has happened before? Government professionals protected by NAPE are safe, but I am not sure about government management unless the are very close to retirement. This is a perfect opportunity for recently retired professionals.

  3. I hope you all have read the conversions on the Vardy post on March 10. We already have a "Citizen's coalition" Keep it rolling. Etienne and Heracles have added a lot of perspective. The CFL legal action at Supreme Court will clear the way for direct negotiations with Quebec. We all must understand that a deal is going down on the Muskrat give away.

  4. Depending on the tone of the SCC decision (and if it explains clearly the win – win nature of the contract), this indeed might clear the way for effective direct negociation.

    I beleive the SCC has to find a way to close that BS once and for all – otherwise no meaningfull negociations/win-win solutions can be achieved.

    • National disgrace?? Come off it!

      The only "disgrace" is your very own NL political leadership that signed on to such a lopsided contract of their own free will, with no gun held to their heads… and then, when the ramifications of how badly short-sighted the contract was became apparent… these very same culprits subsequently preached The Big Lie as to how NL was victimized by Big Bad Quebec, even singing that bullshit chorus from their sumptuous Panamanian condos… when the real reason for NL's wretched state was its chronic incompetent and corrupted political leadership.

      The other lamentable disgrace is how easily the populace was duped into embracing that brazenly false reality.

    • Anon 19:42

      Just for you to know, the kind of vocabulary and aptitude you are using here is nothing good for any one. It is 100% non-constructive.

      UC contract is not lopsided : CFLCo is getting it all under the form of an asset while HQ is the one getting the cash part. Should prices had dropped, CFLCo would have been protected and HQ's lost would have been reduced compared to its own projects. As such, the deal was a win-win no matter what.

      When one expects respect form another, he must first shows respect himself.


  5. "…long standing disgrace"

    I'm sure anon you've read all the win – win definitions of Etienne, Heracles, Bernard or even mine.

    Would you mind presenting your counter arguments?

    (Didn't we already discussed that subject before – like a year ago?)

    • I am more convinced, Ex-Military, that a deal is in the works. Others are somewhat in denial, but I buy Heracles' knowledge and logic that the Supreme Court drag out legal actions by NL/CFL have run their course, and the showdown stage has at last arrived. MPs, Senators from NL and QC must know something. Liberals in both provinces, have the ear of the big guys, who say enough! Even DW, CW, even the Crosbie/Roberts people must be on side on this one. The whole Muskrat Inquiry is just a diversionary tactic to occupy public noise. Foote knew lots from inside the cabinet. What about O'Reagan, the holder of the file? Time for a Senatorial expose, tell it like it is!

    • Robert / Ex-Military:

      I am not so sure that any SCC decision will go our way-we got exactly what we agreed for in the contract, and I am not willing to accept that we were disadvantaged. I suspect the litmus test for being disadvantaged is 'were we out of pocket unfairly'-to this I would answer no, we just didn't make as much money as the other party.

      Granted, I have been dreaming of a time when the politicians of both provinces would get over it and move forward in the spirit of cooperation.

      I will be happy when I see a better usage of time and energy than court cases internal to the dominion.


    • done
      Be careful what you wish for; "go our way". Upper courts seem to be encouraging stepping on Provincial/Municipal rights nowadays. Is this how a National Energy Policy looks under Trudeau II? Where were they when UC deal was done?

  6. Thanks Robert and PENG2 for your sober replies.

    Heracles mentioned the SCC decision should come out in the next few days.

    The accompanying communication plan (from both provinces) will be critical for the success of the next negociations.

    If most Nflders remain convinced UC is a "long standing national disgrace", any sorts of negociations will be a political suicide.

  7. Yes, the decision should be published this week. There were 2 decisions ready by 21st Feb for which the Court chose to do a first release to the media and lawyers before releasing it to public (same day, later in the morning). They both received the required signatures from both parties at about the same time and one of them was released last week.

    As such, I am pretty sure the one for CFLCo vs HQ will be any day now.

    For the decision to say that there was no bad faith from HQ will not be sufficient for Newfoundlanders to accept that as a fact. The ones blocked in their denial and anti-Quebec position will just see another proof for their position. It is up to leaders to help these people see differently. That duty is for both elected leaders in governments and non-elected leaders like authors of popular blogs like this one.

    The entire Muskrat Falls fiasco is directly from this anti-Quebec opinion. And it is only the latest of its kind… As long as people keep this anti-Quebec as their position, there is no hope for Newfoundland.

    As for me, the moment Uncle Gnarley himself will publish an opinion on his blog acknowledging that Quebec and Canada are good and friendly to Newfoundland, I will consider it mission accomplished.

    • You're quite right of course… it was NL's corrupted and dimwitted politicians who pillaged the land and then tried to scapegoat Quebec when it all went south.

      And the NLers believed them of course… those poor, naive dupes were more than willing to blame anyone but themselves for their wretched plight.

    • Anon 20:14,

      should you be the same as anon 19:42, this is another example of what not to do / not to say. Should you not be the same one, please go see the noticed I left Anon 19:42 a few paragraphs higher.

      Respect is a minimum required by any one toward any one. Newfoundland is to be respected and helped.

    • Anon @ 20:14: I fail to see why you refer to NLers as dupes in the derogatory way you portray us.
      Naive maybe. We had no choice but to believe those in power and no reason to think there were corrupt people at the time.
      We were barely 20 years into confereration at the time and life was "looking up" compared to our plight before confederation. There was absolutely no way for any research to be done on anything, so yes ,we had to rely on those running the province. We had no way whatsoever of determining as to whether or not we were into a good/bad/or indifferent deal. We as a relatively juvinile province of Canada had no money to develope the UC on our own thus HQ became our saviour. Our only (and devasting) mistake was no escalating clause. There was no way to predict the annual cost of electricity into the future so now we have hindsight of 20/20. I still contend that all is moot anyway as HQ will be the sole controller of the UC with the dogs breakfast of MF their penance.

    • Hi Wayne,

      About the escalator, I disagree with you…

      There was no point for HQ to buy power at a price higher than the one we can produce ourself. In the same way, there was no point buying power at the same rate as we can produce in a temporary context when we can have it permanent. As such, the only way for UC to be a business case for HQ was to have this power at a lower price.

      In 1968, before signing the contract, the price already was too high because of cost increase in the project. The price was already the lower one CFLCo can accept, so it was not possible to reduce it on the same period. That's why HQ proposed an extension in time at a fix rate : to lower the average price. It was the only way.

      Should ANY escalator be added, it would have defeat the purpose of offering a rate lower than what HQ was capable of.

      I do not know if CFLCo did argued next points or not, but these would have been legitimate points to improve CFLCo's position :
      –UC was so more powerful than other HQ's project, it would have been required to offer a better price only on the quantity of power that next projects had. For the rest, to be the same rate as HQ would have been good enough.
      –What increased the costs of UC would probably have increased HQ's costs. As such, no need to compensate for these increased

      But even when you factor these points, you have an effect of probably less than 1 mill. As such, they would not have make a so big diffierence at the end…

    • Heracles31 @ 10:01
      While I agree that HQ needed a low enough price to get a return on their investment, it was (in hindsight) lopsided. We were over a barrel at the time but surely to God there had to be someone in CFLco with the foresight to negotiate something other a fixed price in perpetuity.

    • Hi again Wayne,

      You wrote that "HQ needed a low enough price to get a return on investment". This is where we do not agree.

      HQ was ALWAYS doing investment in hydro-electricity, no matter what. HQ could have do it with their own projects, or could do it with UC. So the choice between UC and local project was not about doing or not an investment. HQ was always investing in hydro and betting on an increase in price.

      That's why the only question was to decide if UC would be a BETTER investment for HQ than a local project. Not would UC would have been a good-enough investment.

      To make UC a better investment than local projects, UC had to offer a bigger return on investment. Not just -a- return on investment. For such a better return on investment, a mill rate lower than the one of local projects was required.

      The two arguments I talked about would also have been arguments to show UC as a better investment than local projects, while allowing CFLCo to charge a little more than what ended up in the contract. Still, this extra would have been of overall very limited impact and not at all at the scale of what Newfoundland complains since 1970s.

      The problem was that CFLCo could not sustain any reduction in the amount of money to be paid to them. As such, they can not be entitled to any increase in that amount.

      Another way to put it is that UC was too big of a project for Brinco. As such, the developpers' risks had to be transferred to someone else. HQ being the one absorbing the developpers' risks, it is normal HQ ends up with the developpers' benefit.

      Nice to talk with you,

    • "…CFLCo could not sustain any reduction in the amount of money to be paid to them"


      I don't see how HQ would have accepted a one way inflation clause that would have excluded deflation.

      FWIW, the absence of price escalation provisions was recognized as a "known unknown" by the courts.

      Both Brinco and HQ knew exactly what they were doing by not having inflation/deflation clauses. Brinco wanted a fail safe steam of revenue with reasonable profit, and HQ wanted a cheaper (compared to its next project) source of Hydro.

    • Hi Ex-mil,

      Sorry about that but no, you got it wrong 🙂

      The absence of escalator was not a known unknown. It was a deliberate choice made by the parties during their negociation. What was mentioned as a known unknown is the possibility for the price to fluctuate, even radically.

      The lack of escalator was a known – known 🙂
      Both parties were very aware of that, why it was that way, … There was nothing unknown in the absence of escalator.

    • From Wayne: "fixed price in perpetuity" (well, 65 years).

      You do realise Wayne that in the case of an hydro project (like UC or James Bay), about all the costs are spent at the beginning.

      Afterward, only plant employees (+ maintenance) will be subject to inflation. The $1B already spent (and its amortization) is totally not subject to inflation.

      By example, we can't say the same about electricity from natural gas, where gas prices are a much bigger component. (Versus initial construction costs)

    • To Heracles:
      You are definitely right, I miss explained that point. (My para that followed was clearer thought).

      Obviously, the absence of escalation was a deliberate choice by both parties. I've been saying so, here, for the last year and an half… 😉

    • Well then Wayne, in view of your litany of reasons as to what precipitated the Upper Churchill fiasco… that "we had no choice but to believe those in power and no reason to think there were corrupt people at the time" and that "we were barely 20 years into confederation at the time and life was "looking up" compared to our plight before confederation." and that "there was absolutely no way for any research to be done on anything" and that "we had to rely on those running the province etc etc etc….

      … then how do you square that with the current Muskrat Falls fiasco??

    • Anon@18:38:
      We are a lot more enlightened today than we were back then but with our past (and current) batch of politicians and short of rioting in the streets, we were and still are being screwed. When there are those in a position of power who feed us misleading and outright false information while at the same time enacting laws prohibiting any scrutiny and oversight into what skulduggery they are up to we were and still are being subjected to their whims. When there is a government who has the absolute power to write blank cheques to be distributed to whomever they want and no checks and balances in force to control it we are held captive and obligated to pay for their pipe dreams forever and a day. Something has to be done to correct the borderline criminal (if not outright criminal) actions of unscruptulous politicians and those pulling their strings.
      If there is no one with the interests of the people, rather than their own, willing to come forward we are left with the likes of what we had and mostly still have with their names on the ballot sheet. If no one voted PERIOD we are left with what was in place and the "free for all" continues.
      With MF as a blatent example, those who conceived and allowed it to go ahead are not the only ones who should hang their heads in shame. The Jerome Kennedys and the Tom Marshalls of the day who knew the difference between truth and untruth and how we were being "hung out to dry" are complicit in this outrageous boondoggle. DW and KD are the blatent examples of what a politician should not be BUT those who knew the difference and failed to expose the crime should be publically named. We were living in then and still are living in a feudal state where we are at the whim of those on a power trip. They who knew what was going on will not feel the hardship of what is to come as their southern condos and estates will keep them comfortable.
      If Tom Marshall ,Jerome Kennedy and others who were in the know would come clean and at least put a start to exposing the rot, perhaps our grandchildren will have a future in NL.
      Whether or not anyone who had a hand in MF wants to admit it, there was a crime committed here against the people of this small province. Perhaps the inquiry will be a start but you can count on an army of lawyers who will try and derail what should be exposed. It's time for those who fear the wrath of the likes of DW and others who are on a power trip to say enough is enough, we cannot allow this to continue. It is then and only then will we have a hope. The culprits MUST be held accountable–If you do the crime you do the time. without this happening we are subject to the next demagogue who sees and opportunity to promote his/her own self interests.

      From what I have seen so far, it is people like Des Sullivan, David Vardy and Ron Penney who are able to start the ball rolling. Think about it gentlemen! Please.

    • Hi Wayne,

      I agree with you at a maximum on your last statement : It is up to leaders like Des Sullivan, David Vardy and Ron Penney to start the ball rolling.

      Considering that anti-Quebec was the main (only?) motivation for MF, that anit-Quebec speech and mentality must go away. Unfortunately, even some of these leaders keep the anti-Quebec part of the probllem in their text, opinion and position. As such, they protect and propagate the root cause of the problem, so at the end, don't help for any durable solution.

      So I concurr : Think about it gentlemen, please…

  8. Don't you all think the action to break up NALCOR, was a pre-condition by the Feds to a deal on Muskrat? What are our MPs getting up to? Foote is gone, O'Reagan in the meetings. Why hasn't he explained what is going on, to the ratepayers.

    • Hi Robert,

      It is pretty common to create a separate company when dealing with mega-projects. A good example is UC : Brinco created CFLCo for that.

      As such, I don't think it was specific to Muskrat Falls or linked with any type of conspiracy. It is just common practice. One benefit is that it help contains the problems should they happen and here, it did happen…

    • Yes, Heracles, too common to hide the files, when the Auditor and police arrive. Incorporation does facilitate obfuscation and other dirty deeds. The deal is done, who gets the kitty? Government today is just cover for corporate hegemony and greed.

    • Hmm. I was living in Ontario when Ontario Hydro was broken up into five companies by the Harris government, and my understanding is that Ontario Hydro's debt was distributed between the five successor companies in such a complex and opaque fashion that few people knew what the fiscal situation of each of the five new companies actually was (things are not more transparent today on that front, apparently…)

      I suspect something very similar is afoot in Newfoundland and Labrador: if they are smart they will keep the name "Nalcor" but use it solely for the most profitable/financially soundest company to emerge from the break-up of the original company called Nalcor…and thus, the government will have as its next campaign slogan "Under us, Nalcor is more profitable than ever!". Which will be quite true. From a certain point of view, as a fictional Jedi Master might have put it…

  9. I just have to wonder why we are going to have to pay more for power when this comes on stream since there are lots of savings by shutting down that old Holyrood plant,and are we getting the extra power from Churchill Falls right now if so why not keep getting this and not hook into muskrat falls at all.I visited a friend in Quebec a number of years back and he had the power set high and even had his doors left open at times and it was in the fall and cold outside at times,i told him he was losing all his heat outside and costing him a lot of money for heat,his reply was they didn't pay hardley anything for electricity anyway,some nice hey we are paying for them to have that advantage,we should start a rebellion and march in the streets like other countries.Just my thoughts Roy

    • Hi Roy,

      There are many reasons. One is that turning Holyrood Off will not cut that much spending. First because it was barely used and second, because oil prices dropped so much.

      Second is because Holyrood is right next to you while Muskrat Falls is VERY far away. There is a much bigger loss of power and all the transmission lines needed for that power had to be built from scratch.

      To use power from Churchill Falls will offer power at a low price. The thing is, the Muskrat Falls power plant has been built and must be paid for even if you don't use it.

      About wasting power in Quebec, you are right. When a price is too low, people don't take care of it and waste it instead of saving it.

      The fact that HQ can produce power at a much lower cost than Newfoundland is one of the reason why it would be better to power Newfoundland and Atlantic provinces from HQ instead of MF, oil, coal, etc. So far, Newfoundland pushed back HQ as much as they can instead of welcoming that option.

      Reality is probably about to make a come back and people will realize that it will better for them to have power from HQ then trying to do MF and similar projects.

    • Right you are Heracles. Is it hours or days for the expected deal of the century announcement? Meanwhile, shut the damned Holyrood, suck up to NS coal, Wentworth wind, and Lepreau Nuke. Are Surveyors already on the move in NB to expand HQ II takeover of NB Grid?

    • Hi Robert,

      Even should my understanding of the situation be 100% right, I doubt a major project will be officialy started on day 2 after judgement. NB refused to transfer its electricity to HQ years ago and they are not impacted by MF in any way. NS is.

      There is a lot of things to adjust and most people so far explicitly expressed themselves against such a plan : NB said NO to HQ, Newfoundland said NO to HQ. Both will need some time to absorb the reality before they can act on this.

      So how long before an actual plan can be officialy accepted ? No clue. How long before an offical plan turn from plan to reality ? No clue either, but probably fast after its is accepted.

    • Hi Robert,

      Everything is possible… For sure HQ already has the required power for that, their plans are ready and they can go any time.

      For the Newfoundland part, I doubt they will be part of anything until they are ready to acknowledge that they are too deep in it to get out of it by themselves. From what i feel, they are not that down yet.

      As for NB, I think that Newfoundland must be part of the project first. Once Newfoundland is ready for that, it will be the case for NS as well because they required the same power. Once both Newfoundland and NS are in, only then I think NB will be concerned.

      Again, nothing more than personal feeling here 🙂

  10. It's just a personal observation… but it sounds to me like ol' Heracles31 is the antithesis of one former "John Smith"… whom many may recall was the primary cheerleader and propagandist for the Muskrat Falls boondoggle in the comments section of The Telegram website.

    Indeed… call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist irrevocably brainwashed by half a century's worth of NL politicians' propaganda declaring Quebec to be the devil incarnate… but could Heracles31 and his side-kick Etienne possibly be members of an insidious Fifth Column planted by HQ in collaboration with the feds so as to mollify the inhabitants of a debt-ridden province in the midst of a financial crisis? In order to prepare those unfortunate wretches psychologically for the takeover of the Upper Churchill and Lab West when the bondsmen inevitably call in NL's loans?

    Just a rhetorical question, of course…

    • Hi Anon 19:18,

      As you doubt me, there is no way for me to prove you my good will. That is one of the reason why I go down to facts as much as possible, for people to be able to see them and appreciate them by themselves.

      For about 15 months, I lived in Paris, France. There, people are so much about screwing the next guy more than they screwed you, the day to day life was toxic. As soon as my paper expired, I left and came back to Montreal. Ex : I tried to help a blind man to cross a large boulevard but he refused. These boulevards are dangerous even for those with good sight! But in his mind, it was impossible for someone to have good intention toward him. As such, because I got close to him, I must had bad intention and so he refused my help.

      Newfoundland is now in a similar situation. If the idea of good will from someone else is not possible, than you can only stay in your trouble which, as of now, are too big for you to handle by yourself. If you prefer to seek good will in someone else then me, fine. But please, tell me you are now ready to accept good will from someone.

      The second thing is to recognize good will. With the freedom and money it had, Newfoundland screwed itself. As such, would it be good will to just blindly give you more money ?

      If you can recognize good will in something that will wake you up in a way that will help you avoid another situation like this one, then you are ready to be helped and I will be pleased to help you, just like so many others.

      May the best be for you and Newfoundland,

  11. Anonymous 19:18 Dammit. Okay, yes, you're right, I admit it, you're too clever, I am indeed (full disclosure) a member of a Hydro-Quebec-financed conspiracy, I am paid by Hydro-Quebec, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and various Middle Eastern dictators (All are afraid that Newfoundland's oil and energy production will, under your province's brilliant, bold and supremely competent leaders, grow so much that it might lower global prices, you understand: the prospect has them all shaking in fear) and thus, to earn my paycheck, I have been doing what specialists in propaganda have been doing since time immemorial, namely drawing this blog's readerships's attention to verifiable facts.

    Oh, yes, and in the interests of full disclosure: in my spare time I drown kittens and torture puppies for fun while laughing hysterically because I so enjoy being an evil henchman of Mordor –err, sorry, Hydro-Quebec.

    Okay, sarcasm off. Anonymous 19:18, I don't think you're so much a "paranoid conspiracy theorist irrevocably brainwashed by half a century's worth of NL politicians' propaganda declaring Quebec to be the devil incarnate" as somebody who simply, like all too many Newfoundlanders, is willing to grasp at any straw instead of facing the truth: that Newfoundland's woes are ultimately Newfoundlanders' fault.

    I assume you are a Newfoundlander yourself. Which is the likelier scenario?

    A-That the outside world is involved in a mass conspiracy to keep Newfoundland down, thereby exonerating you and other members of the Newfoundland electorate from any responsibility in the present-day state of Newfoundland? Or

    B-That Newfoundland has been grossly misgoverned over the past couple of generations because of the apathy, lack of civic engagement and (As I have tried to show in some comments here) deeply negative self-perception on the part of Newfoundlanders themselves?

    Let's be honest here. In the case of any other country/province, most people would answer B. The only reason any Newfoundlander could have for choosing A is because it is emotionally far, far less painful than B. But, to repeat a point I made in another comment recently, reality is under no obligation to fit within your emotional comfort zone.

    P.S. Just to be maximally clear, the first two paragraphs of this comment are to be understood as extreme sarcasm and are not to be taken literally by anyone. Just so we're clear.

    • Frankly, I have wondered if Peng2 is a reincarnated JOHN SMITH, (a consistent backer of DW and what a great project MF is. With Peng2, he walks a fine line, critical of the project concept, as per Stan Marshall, but a `get her done guy`.
      The guys form upalong (PQ) posting here are critical where they should be, but seems to be of good will.
      Peter Cashin used to say beware of the Canadian wolf…..I say,.pity we didn`t join Canada in 1867. Thought Mcdonald was no Christ, as to loving your enemy.
      Our greatest enemy is within this province, and always was. Still, it is ok to be on guard, when people don`t fully disclose their identity, like me even.
      But why after John Guy made friendly contact with the Beothic,about 1610, that there were no good relations with them over the next 200 years! The last few starved around 1820, and no regret by fellow Nflders. Even the Germans have remorse from being led by Hilter and the consequences, and teach the lessons learned in their schools!