CHES CROSBIE SENDING WRONG MESSAGES

I am not quite sure who the new Leader of the PC Party, Ches Crosbie, is trying to impress with some of the positions taken in recent weeks.


While he shares the well-known Crosbie name, he is coming up
short in proving that he is his father’s son. Regardless of the side of the
partisan divide upon which one sits, John Crosbie, Ches’ father, could be counted
on to be forthright and to say publicly — in the Halls of Parliament and in the
provincial and federal Cabinets — exactly what was on his mind.

One example is often repeated in a CBC clip in which he is surrounded
by a throng of frustrated fishers following the declaration of the Cod
Moratorium. Crosbie the elder forthrightly answers one indignant protester: “I
didn’t take the goddamn fish out of the goddam ocean!”

It is possible that John’s ill-advised support for the Muskrat
Falls project, late in his public career, inspires Ches to pull his punches. Likely,
however, given the Crosbie family’s history of political pragmatism, this is
not what causes the son to be an apologist for the PC leadership that gave us Muskrat and a huge public debt and structural deficit – added to by the Liberals during its most recent stint in power. 

More likely, Ches finds that the Tory Caucus will abandon him if
he chides those who supported the scheme for their recklessness, tells them that
he intends to chart a different course, apologizes to the whole public on
behalf of the Party, asks for forgiveness, prescribes fundamental change in
public policy and the Party’s approach to governing if it is given another
chance. 

In the PC Party’s current state, does he really have another
option? Besides, isn’t this time for real leadership — not a continuation of
the style born of Danny Williams? 
Does he really think that the public — as slavishly partisan
as many seem to be — are ignorant of their circumstance and of who is at fault?
Can he or his Party make headway without coming to terms with a debacle of its own
creation?


From Williams to Kathy Dunderdale to Tom Marshall to Paul
Davis there was a progression of ineptitude on a such scale that any new and right-thinking
Tory Leader — having assessed his inheritance and their legacy — would be
expected to pick up a curt broom and clean house.

Instead, Ches has chosen to persist in their deceptive and
failed tactics. He, too, is content to mislead and to misinform.

In two interviews with the Telegram, Crosbie has exhibited a
deliberate unwillingness to have his Party take responsibility for Muskrat.

The neophyte Tory Leader recently asserted, following Ball’s
comment that “the PCs had not allowed the PUB to do a full review of the
Muskrat Falls project” that the pattern was begun by a previous Liberal
government.

This is pure revisionism.

The Government of Brian Tobin chose to have the legislation
for the purpose enacted when a deal with Hydro Quebec on Gull Island looked
promising, the power from which was solely for the export market. Local
ratepayers not being involved, there was no role for the PUB.   
Not finished, Crosbie weighed in on the Dunderdale
Government’s decision to tear from the PUB the “ring-fenced” or limited
reference it had agreed to put to the semi-judicial agency. The Telegram quoted
Crosbie:

“The board of the day took the position they needed more
information. And the government of the day, which was a PC government, took the
position that time was of the essence and given the amounts of money involved
and the costs of delay, they were not content that the Public Utilities Board
should hold another hearing on the matter.”

The statement simply isn’t true.

Nalcor’s limited reference to the PUB was based upon estimates
for “a concept study” which the PUB noted is “associated with a range of
accuracy in the capital cost estimates of +50% to -30%”. Following hearings, the
PUB concluded that there were “gaps in Nalcor’s information and analysis;” some
of the information was eighteen months old. They said that the information was
not “detailed, complete or current enough” to determine the least-cost power
option.

Did the Government of Kathy Dunderdale thank them for their
work and offer to do better? No. She vilified the PUB, stating that she was
“disappointed and puzzled” and declared that they had wasted public money.

Choosing a non-independent process to give the Government the
answer they sought, the Premier promised a full debate in the House of Assembly
as if elected Members, guided by a Party Whip, could offer oversight to a
megaproject. The Tory Premier didn’t keep her word even on that empty promise.

This is the behaviour that Ches Crosbie is trying to defend.
For anyone who has not forgotten that sorry saga, his is a pathetic attempt at excusing
arrogance and mindlessness.
Only a few weeks earlier, Crosbie also told the Telegram that
the Tory leadership had made the best decision with the information they had at
the time. He made no mention of the contrived business case for Muskrat that
included low-balled estimates, inflated demand, a non-existent Water Management
Agreement and myriad other shortcomings.

In the vernacular, Crosbie is putting lipstick on a pig. The
histories of Williams, Dunderdale, Marshall and Davis need exposure, not
cover-up. Those leaders and their compliant Caucus Members, who still inhabit
the House of Assembly, deserve banishment, not protection.
The House of Assembly has suffered a failure of Opposition
since the defeat, in the 2011 General Election, of Liberal Leader Kevin Aylward,
who opposed Muskrat and was dismissed by the public for his courage.

Crosbie, as the new Tory Leader, was handed a poisoned chalice
to be sure, but he knew this in advance.

There is a sense of amateur hour around the neophyte leader
anyway. As a practical matter, who would volunteer — as Ches did — that Windsor
Lake is a bellwether for the next general election when the by-election outcome
is far from certain?

How did his organizers not know that the residence of disgraced former Tory Premier Kathy Dunderdale was included in his door-to-door
route? Those images are sure to bolster his campaign!

Ches Crosbie lacks some of the basic political lessons he
ought to have learned at the feet of the ol’ man. And he doesn’t have a lot of time
to catch up.



That said, I have not heard Liberal Candidate Paul Antle refute even one of the impossible claims about electricity rates and payment for Muskrat with which Dwight is weaving Antle’s magic carpet in Windsor Lake. 


Possibly the two are depicting what has long been the essence of politics: all you need is a good story!

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.

GROUP SEEKS PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR CABOT MARTIN RESEARCH AWARD

Cabot Martin’s sudden passing, in September, has stirred his friends, colleagues, and others familiar with his work, to honor him and encourage continued work in applied research and public policy development.

GILBERT BENNETT AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF CRONYISM

$1 million is not bad farewell for a fellow whose work performance represents one of the principal reasons for a twenty million dollar Public Inquiry, and who failed so badly in his job so badly that NL Hydro is still trying to define the mess that he (and others) has left behind.

THE “ODE”: SHORT CUT TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS LANDS MEMORIAL IN HOT WATER

As much as anything else, it is also a simple love song to a people and to their place. It is deficient in the language of inclusion, yes, sexist by the standards of today, too, but only those who misunderstanding the language of respect ascribe to it offense whether to aboriginal, to gender, or to religious belief.

48 COMMENTS

  1. I think chess said it best when he said, "if I can't win this one, I may as well go home". As Joey once said, he thought the minister of finance should have an adding machine. So I think the leader of the opposition, and the premier in waiting should be in the House and not at home. Sometimes the opposition leader is given a free ride to take his seat and runs unopposed, so don't think ball et el should give Ches a hard time, so maybe that's why Antle is tongue tied, Winston. He needs to be in the house, for many reasons. We are in the post election period, maybe the most important one in our history, and maybe fighting for our lives. So this is not a time for leaderless parties. Or maybe they are all scared of being called bullies, as someone will tell the teacher on you, I mean the speaker. Imagine, getting bullied by your own team mates, in hockey take it out on the other team, not your own player. In politics you take your anger and frustration out on those across the isle, not those setting besides you. Unless of course, you are Trumpie, then everyone is fair game. So let it be with those in the house of assembly, you have a 13$ billion boondoggle to fight and bully over, so put your energies and frustrations in the right place, over something worthwhile, and not over a half mile of unpaved road, or the way your team member looks at you. Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe in bullying in the work place either, but I do believe that we need the best and brightest, and those with a bit of guts to get to the bottom of this boondoggle. So fight it out in the house, leave no stone unturned, as some of the points UG has mentioned. Knock 'em down and drag 'em out. And I don't mean over petty politics, but important issues. It will be good practise for when you have to take on the Feds, to pay their fair share for the boondoggle, and then it will take the entire slate of MHA's being on the same page, and not just one side of the house, or bickering with in a party or across the isle. When chess is elected, they need to get down to brass tacks and do what they were elected to do. Judge Leblanc will be in session then, to bring the past dozen years or so back fresh in everyone's mind including those looking to be elected. It's just a by election and knocking on doors says Joe blow, but when that is over, giver'er in what's important to us, including your plan, policy, and how to get the best of this boondoggle.

  2. Before becoming leader, Ches pposted pictures of him and his MHA supporters, who I thought all a bunch of clowns, from what I saw of them on TV at the House.I wondered about this and figures to get leader yu had to get support from where ever you could. But once leader, time to ditch the clowns. But as UG says, no bold moves by Crosbie, just more of the same old style. Ches needs to be bold, and break with the crowd best described by Etienne,that little used Greek word, unless of course Ches is just one of them too.
    Did John say the 'goddam ocean" or goddam water" Just testing my memory, which it suggests it was water, maybe I recall wrong.?
    Winston

    • Winston, just testing my memory too, think it was water…but haven't looked it up…maybe UG did, or his memory is not as good as mine and yours. As for that Greek word, are you referring to "Kakistocracy" – worst or least qualified to be in government. Don't think we want that, but depends on who runs and we then elect the government that we want or we deserve….but then again all democratically elected governments are like that. Some said that when Obama was elected and others used the same word when Trumpie was elected. So usually depends on your point of view. But who would elect, let's say Al Capone to be your president??? Cheers, Joe blow.

  3. Yes, it was I (bows modestly) who first made use upon this site of the word "Kakistocracy" (Which is indeed made up of Greek words, and literally means "Rule (by the) worst") to describe NL's ruling class.

    I know little of Ches Crosby, but I see no reason to think he might represent a break with the past: on the contrary, like Just*COUGH*deau, he has become a Party leader on account of his father: he is perceived as "one of us", and thus reliable: indeed both he and Justin, I suspect, would swiftly end up joining the ranks of the unemployed if they strayed even slightly from the party line.

    Incidentally, I have wondered aloud here whether NL's challenges (economic and demographic alike) might not be insurmountable: if this is so, perhaps the rise of the NL kakistocracy is a consequence thereof: after all, if indeed no solution to NL's woes is possible, a lot of upright and intelligent people will stay clear of politics.

    A depressing possibility? Yes indeed. But that does not make it wrong. Again: I really would like to be proved wrong on this.

  4. And among other things, the Board went on to write that

    "MA (Maurice Adams) suggested that the magnified risks of a 57-year load forecast and the high margin of error of the cost estimates (Decision Gate 2, low quality, Class 4, feasibility level) are both critical factors and should be considered together. He concluded that the two options are in a statistical tie given that the Decision Gate 2 cost estimates are within each other’s margin of error and suggests there are insufficient grounds on which the Board can reasonably, rationally and reliably conclude that the Interconnected Option is least-cost."

    And that accordingly

    "The Board is of the view that the Decision Gate 2 CPW analysis does not form an adequate basis upon which to consider the two supply options as set out in the Terms of Reference, especially given the concerns in relation to Nalcor’s load forecast and capital cost estimates."

    • And so, we can conclude, in advance of Leblanc, that the many assumptions (one good example by MA) used by Nalcor, were not reasonable assumptions based on the best information at the time that just turned out to be errors, but deliberate manipulation of information and data to justify MFs at all costs, those costs about 13 billion.
      PF

    • @PENG2 Your comment appears to be a feeble attempt supporting your opinion that this monster F'up is on the publics shoulders.

      What percentage of ratepayers do you actually think would delve into the politics of this project? Not that that is an excuse, but it is just the reality of it. It was stated that this project was going ahead whether or not there was a FLG or not. Ratepayers were told, er, lied to, that this was going to generate revenue… many never would've imagined that our world-class people could be so off on the numbers that the it appears to be a looting of the public purse. Do you think the average ratepayer should've been able to comprehend Maurice's summation? Surely not. I mean, both the federal and provincial governments didn't take heed. PEGNL didn't. MUN didn't. I think you did though.

      Sorry, it's those who are close to the project… those involved at levels of higher complexities (managerial, financial, structural, etc.) that are more to blame.

      dm

    • DM, I share your opinion. If MA, Vardy, Cabot Martin, Des Sullivan and others could see so many of the flaws, and were out there as much as they could, then what does that saw about Stan Marshall's feeble response (where was their elasticity studies that Dennis Browne alludes to ). Oh yes, Peng2 is an admirer of Stan, so lets just blame the public and the ratepayers, who generally does not know what a watt is.
      More so, historically, where is Peng2's long term analysis put to the public or on a blog? He popped up here about 2 years ago, and still no identity, and wishes to mostly blame the public. Sure they have fault, but what weight on that as compared to those in the know who kept silent?
      PF

    • Agree with dm. DW successfully used his populist arrogance to influence public opinion and to crush all critics. That a few critics persevered to provide input to the PUB review is good to know but it was completely irrelevant to the public at large who were whipped by the Premier and his entourage into believing he had discovered the formula for our eternal economic salvation.

      The only formal conclusion that can be reached regarding the position of ratepayers is that the PUB did not recommend sanction of MF. That was the strongest critique they could offer given the extremely narrow terms of reference provided by the politicians.

      Guilting the public or ratepayers specifically would be quite inappropriate. Hopefully the news from the current Premier this morning that the PUB will soon be engaged in ratemaking for MF will not be a politically constrained exercise as was mandated by his predecessors. As part of this, the Premier must advise the PUB that the repressive legislation requiring island ratepayers to fully pay for MF shall be presumed repealed. If he is not clear on this item, then all his talk is BS.

    • DM, PF,

      FYI, I do not think that the proportion of people in Qc with expertise in electricity and mega-project is any bigger than the one in Newfoundland. Despite this, I can guarantee you that should people in Quebec be presented with a plan that would provide electricity at the lowest cost by –only– doubling the price of power, the one who made that promise would not live long enough to say "sorry".

      In the same way, should you talk to them about a project that would cost –only– 100 billions (a little less than our government's annual budget, like 6 billions was a little less than yours), again they would not let the stupid one enough time for him to say "sorry".

      So Yes, the public should have know and do much better than what they did.

      PS… I deleted one because ANON answered at the same time as me and to fix a typo in the numbers used as example…. This post will be the good one 🙂

  5. The liberals were in power in 2000 when orders-in-council 2000-169 and -170 were issued exempting the Granite Canal project from PUB review.

    The exemptions are here: https://goo.gl/3tHxkN

    The lower Churchill project signed on to by the liberals in the late '90's included an 800MW HVDC Labrador-Island-Link. If the followup detailed feasibility studies showed that the project was a good one (probably not at the time), surely there would have been a role for the PUB in setting rates for that portion of the overall project. https://goo.gl/jv66Dn

    Mr. Crosbie is not wrong here.

    That being said, and as someone who lives in the Windsor Lake District, I can't see myself voting for Mr. Crosbie. I can't agree with some of their policy positions e.g. carbon tax, and I don't think the PCs would be any better at governing than the liberals and I'm willing to give the latter more time to attempt to right the economic ship. Four years is hardly enough to time to do that.

    Cheers,

    PENG3

  6. PENG2 and PF,

    I think there are a number of examples in my written submission to the PUB and my vision2041.com website that if Leblanc allows, show that the assumptions, forecasts, etc. used by Nalcor were flawed and were knowable AT THE TIME.

    Furthermore,'reasonableness' is an inappropriately low standard for the inquiry to use. This was/is a multi-billion dollar project which relied on 57-year forecast and cost recovery magnified risk periods.

    Given the province's demographic realities and many other factors, a determination that something (assumptions, risk assessments, need, affordability, etc.) was 'reasonable' would not do justice to what should have been used to determine whether the sanction/no-sanction decision would be in the best interest of the province. "Best interest" would have been a more appropriate standard for the TOR (but Leblanc was/is OK with government's get-out-of-jail-free standard of 'reasonableness'.

    Any fair and open minded assessment of arguments/facts put forth by the 'naysayers', at least since early 2011, would show a less than good-faith basis for this Muskrat boondoggle.

    Will the inquiry be fair and conducted in an open-minded fashion?

    We shall see (but the TOR has already been framed so that the inquiry will arrive at a pre-determined outcome).

    • We should not overlook the very detailed submission to the PUB of one "JM", who in follow ups on blogs gave even more details and analysis. This had the appearance of professionalism to cause one to wonder if it was actually a submission by Nfld Power, as we should expect of Nfld Power, with resources to do such analysis, but who now scrambles to save face if 50-100 % increase in rates occur, and their good image tarnished.
      PF

    • There has been little discussion or questioning of Ball's selection of Leblanc or counsel for this Inquiry. What is their experience and past case decisions that make them a good choice?
      Leblanc, I suggest few know, was involved in the Mount Cashel scandal: to the extent that he made decisions not that long ago on whether the Catholic church here had responsibility for SOME of the assaults by Christian Brothers against boys. This came down on the issue of whether insurance companies should bear costs. Judge Adams represented insurance companies saying that as the church had knowledge they should not be held accountable. Leblanc's decision however put accountability all on insurance companies and seemed to give a pass to the church. From my reading of what is online, some of these should not have been the fault of insurance companies as to compensation.
      We see daily the ongoing world wide similar issues were bishops and even cardinals knew and kept silent, as the main focus was to protect the image of the church not the well being of the victims. Was Leblanc also protecting the church and their assets? If so, will he likewise protect the enablers of the boondoggle?
      In the USA, we see judges being openly assessed as to their record of past judgement decisons. Here, we have to trust Ball picked the best, whose experience was mostly in family law.
      PF

    • PF:
      To say I am a supporter of SM is a bit strong – I do say he is better than EM, though he does have a good track record in the private arena and is probably our best option based on our regional talent pool.

      I am not sure why people (see 'dm' above) still continue to think that MUN or PEGNL or some other had/have an obligation to offer a public opinion on MF or any other project, simply put it is outside their mandate.

      MA website point that the flawed basis for sanction was 'knowable at the time' is exactly why the electorate needs to accept responsibility for MF or be doomed to repeat. Me, I was never a supporter, though I suggest many mow dissenting were part of the over 70% supporting MF in the voter polls and research polls of the day – and if you search the historical documentation you will find my dissenting opinion on reports over the years, despite you not being able to attached my UG handle to my name.

      I do have differing opinion than you on liability being assessed to the insurance companies – Id offer that was a good thing because it was likely the only way for victims to get any redress (ie the church is normally insolvent).

      I wont pass any comment on LeBlanc background (I am not qualified and have no experience with him personally) or the ToR (because I think they are not as limiting as some claim or interpret). The limiting factor of the Inquiry's effectiveness is going to be political will and interference – though people need to understand no punishment will be forth coming, nor should it (see Gomery, circa 2003)

      PENG2

    • While your point that the electorate needs to accept responsibility for MF is well taken, the evidence (from my website, other naysayers and my PUB written submission) that shows that the flawed basis was 'knowable at the time' in no way supports the view that it was knowable by the electorate at large, nor that to the extent that the NL electorate is responsible, it does not eliminate responsibility for the part (especially the enabling part) of others.

      Hence, the onus (responsibility) is now on our political and brightest minds to hold those others responsible for the key roles they played.

    • MA:

      My point is that there was enough info available such that the electorate should have been aware enough to at least hold the political drivers to task – it is only the past 2yrs that public support for the MF is outweighed by opposition. The fact that the electorate didn't understand or care to investigate is irrelevant in my mind.

      My point is that the electorate as a whole were willingly blind, and when opposition was raised it was called sour grapes – for that they we effectively accomplices' to DW et al. I'd argue opinion polls over the past 10-15yrs support this theory.

      I am not sure there is a mechanism to hold anyone responsible – the Owner sanctioned the work with the support of the public that elected them. Granted, this would not absolve illegal activities, though I am not convinced that there were any (maybe incompetence and amoral, but not illegal).

      PENG2

    • Peng 2 are you suggesting that half truths, outright lies and number fudging to enable an overpriced and unneeded project when there were alternative ways to meet our power requirements, isn't illegal?? This boondoggle was pushed down the throats of an electorate based on the above, all to satisify the inflated egos of a few people. Even putting known unqualified and incompetant people in charge of a project the magnitude of MF with unlimited access to the public purse reeks of illegality.
      Though the inquiry's mandate is not to have charge laid it should certainly be allowed to recommend it.

    • Wayne:

      Its not that the inquires mandate isnt to have charges laid, rather it is not possible under the law to sustain a charge arising from an inquiry.

      http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/1400485-1224865000_Gomery.pdf

      Now, I am not sure why you would suggest that charges are warranted on a project when upto 2yrs ago the support level was 50%, when sanctioned it was 70-80% or greater and to this day we have reelected some of the people responsible.

      By electing a government in our system, it is acknowledging that you agree with their platform – the electorate elected DW when it was known he would sanction MF, the BS was public to anyone who cared to investigate the issues and accept it and there are studies going back to the UC days of why LC/MF and the Anglo-Saxon route is questionable at best. We got a good deal on UC (we didn't spend our money and got some return with no attached risk), but our own arrogance allowed us to do the LC on our own and we got burnt by spending our money.

      So, no I don't think a charge is warranted or sustainable, and I think a new way of thinking about UC needs to evolve.

      PENG2

    • Peng2, There was a high support level from the electorate because of the misleading and in some cases outright lies being fed to us. If there are no consequences to those responsible, what's stopping anyone else who has a hairbrained idea to spend money from the public purse, knowing full well they will not be held accountable. What DW,KD,EM and others did was wrong which ever way you look at it. This stupid project has become NL's greatest mistake to have ever seen the light of day. Those three nincompoops should have to answer for their actions, period. I can hear them now—"I don't recall" and "it was the best we could do based on the information available".
      It will happen again and again and again unless they are made an example of. If not they will be laughing all the way to the bank.

    • Peng2, the support level was high because of the half truths and outright lies we were fed by those we elected to "protect our interests". What DW, KD and EM did was WRONG which ever way you look at it. This will happen again and again and again by whomever else has a hairbrained scheme knowing there is a bottomless money pit at their disposal. These three nincompoops MUST be held accountable. I can hear them now–"I don't recall" and "based on the best information we had at the time" when they knew full well that this was not the least cost option to satisify our power requirements.

      Yes, I agree that a new way of thinking about the UC needs to evolve. HQ is a logical choice for negotiations. If ever there is a deal with HQ, it should be they who manage the asset–not what we have in place at the present time.

  7. Are we not looking for regime change in all upcoming elections? Why bother debating the dubious merits of Lib-Tory candidates. Get some progressives in the mix. Green/NDP seems to be bringing some enlightenment here in BC. What do you all think the Supreme Court decision on rescinding the permits on Trans mountain? Lib-Tories were proceeding without due consideration of the limits to colonial governance. Isn't this the cause and effect of the inappropriate sanctioning of Muskrat? Have we not learned anything about who we should elect? Put your candidates to the test. What consent is appropriate for development in Labrador prior to santion?

    • You read my mind Robert, as I am thinking if the feds bought that project for nearly 5 billion, and now halted due to inappropriate consultation with First Nations,and environmental issues, then why not now put a halt to MFs and the Feds absorb their 8 billion? Or they buy the boondoggle, make it right and safe, and eventually sell it to private investors?
      Winston

  8. The Tely 's Brian Jones writes today that the cause of MFs is one word :Servility.
    Servility means: slavish, lamblike, sheepish, toadish, diffidence, docility, inferiority complex, lack of pride, dependence, subjugation, hangdog, lowly.
    Now the opposite of servility is words such as strong resistance, intransegince, rebellious etc, which suggest the Myth of the Fighting Newfoundlander.
    Brian noted yesterday announcement by MUN that Paul Antle has been chosen as MUN Alumnus of the Year, saying MUN is being prejudicial to make this announcement as Antle is a candidate in the by election.
    So, there we have it folks, we are a province of sheep, two legged sheep, which has little market value. MUN , which helped enable the boondoggle, with so called world class expert Wade Locke, and all the silent professors, who we each pay in taxes about 2400.00 per year per family in subsidy to MUN, they now promote Tongue Tied Mr Antle, who just poses along side the smiling Premier Ball each day for the TV cameras. MUN, who is supposed to be the torchbearer for The Fighting Newfoundlanders, those that sacrificed in WW1! Never knew sheep to put up much of a fight. So, is the boondoggle due to servility?
    Winston Adams

  9. As we see , Premier ball is anxious to create jobs in Nfld. So here's an idea.
    The Prime minister of the Pacific Islands of Samoa, in a speech in Australia today, stated that any leader who believes that there is no climate change, "I think he ought to be taken to a mental confinement, he is utterly stupid" The Guardian writer interpreted this to mean confinement to a mental hospital.
    He further says that climate change requires"political guts" from leaders, "We all know the problem, we all know the causes, we all know the solutions". All that is left would be some political courage, some political guts to get out and tell the people of your country, Do this, this , this, or there is any certainty of disaster"
    So, why not have, in Nfld, a dedicated institution of mental hospitals for such climate change deniers? We could be a world class center for this disease, and create high paid jobs and increase our GDP.
    Now Ball himself says a doubling of oil production off Nfld and sustainable development can coexist. Now, does this mean that Ball himself might be a client of such an institution? Surely most of our MHAs would qualify. Maybe it is easier for UG readers to say who would not qualify, that being a much shorter list. We would not wish to overload such an institution with locals, as we need the foreign dollars to aid our economy. Trumpie would get special consideration.
    AG

  10. CBC reports Ball says we must "electrify whatever we can in the province"to keep power demand up. So electric cars is obvious, as Quebec also promotes as they have surplus power. Electric skidoos are not yet available. Heatpumps, which are all electric, if one must convert, is better than wood or oil stoves.
    The Premier is suggesting that the PUB will find the experts to decide what is best. We could invent a rechargeable bouncing ball that keeps going and going, being not subject to normal laws of ELASTICITY.
    Residents of the town of Dildo are innovative,and no doubt could do better than electric bouncing balls. Electrify whatever we can, says Ball. I am working on an electric cod jigger.
    Meanwhile, can anyone explain why the DC line from l
    Labrador, rated at 900MW can only get 45 MW ? Perhaps we better hold off a while. Seems like nothing for certain to be announced prior to the by election. But he is hinting at a ace or two up his sleeve, or just a bluff?
    PF

    • There is a serious problem with electric cars. While they do reduce environmental pollution and are more efficient at energy use, they won't provide the "Gas Tax" needed to build, maintain and clear roads. We complain about gasoline costs but we also don't realize that a large part of that costs is taxes to pay for the roads to drive these cars on. This is something that needs alot of discussion before electric cars become mainstream.

      Just think about it. The Team Gushue highway costs around $800 million dollars for about some 10 kilometres of road. That's enough to build a half of a new mental hospital, or a new court hose or part of a new jail. Like many of the failed mega projects of this province, our love of the automobile and its horenous costs are something that needs to be addressed.

  11. Just another politician who has the same thinking as those before us that failed Mega projects to prop up the NL construction industry is going to be our economic savior.

    Ches Crosbie is the type of politician like his father who would continue to issue fishing licences, raise quotas and send money to build more fish plants while senior scientific advisors where preaching caution. Another miniscule leader from Newfoundland like those before is all he is. I am willing to bet that in the back of his mind he even is contemplating a reduction in taxes while increasing the debt.

  12. After re-reading, have to agree with UG, all he has said is factual. Guess chess is in denial, and intends to brazen, and bold face it out. The past is the past so let it be, "they made the best decision, based on the information available at the time". That is also a quote from lock, and have said before that judge Leblanc should have that quote stricken from the English language, or at least in his court room while in session. But guess the brave fearless media will continue to write it, every time it is uttered, by all those appearing before the judge. Another famous term that is used world wide in all courts by the guilty, is "I don't recall". Every time it is uttered we all know that the person is not only guilty, but a liar to boot. So, will those terms be used both inside and outside the courtroom, in the coming months, in proclaiming their innocence and their best defence, and in denial of reality. Will chess be one of them, or make a clean break from, such giberish ask Joe blow.

  13. Please check, there is no "Gas Tax" in Newfoundland as in other provinces. I think it was Clyde Wells who took gasoline taxes and put them into general revenues instead of a pot for highways and roads.

    Without a specific road application for gasoline tax you are driving down the wrong side of your argument.

    • Right!!! And an orange is not an orange if it is in the same bag with apples. Whether it is put into general revenue or not doesn't make one iota of difference. We don't have a welfare tax but we still spend money on it. The gas tax is there because the government needs revenue for roads as much as it needs for hydro dams and like hydro dams it is being mismanaged by building twin highways from kenmount road to Brookfield road that we don't need and can't afford.

    • Very true, I guess, but we never miss something we never had, no matter how bad we needed it. There were lots that said back in the days of mayor Adams, that the downtown arterial highway was not needed, and a waste of money. But can you imagine not having that twinned highway now. Others said we didn't need the twined highway from Logy Bay Rd to Whitbourne, and all points in between. I remember in the 70's driving in from Whitbourne at the end of a long holiday, your life was in someone else's hands for every second on the short passing lanes, hair raising as everyone rushed for the passing lane, and their 20 feet of space with none in between the vehicle in front or behind you. It's a pleasure now to drive that highway on any day as compared to what it was then, and with towed trailers galore, not to mention transport trucks. Guess it's called progress, like all over North America. Wether we need Team Gushe highway or the continuation of that highway to Brookfield road, I have no idea. Will we miss it in 30 years time, or really need it. Anyone's guess. But agree some highways are essential, others may be nice to have. Others say the highway should be twinned all the way to PAB, but I am not one of them. Too expensive, and don't think it is necessary, but would be nice to have says Joe blow.

    • Don't we still have some additional tax on gas imposed in the recent past by the present provincial government that they have suggested could be morphed into a carbon tax to support the current federal liberal objectives?

    • We all look back at mistakes made and things we might have done better. We must look forward and plan better for our children and grand children. Building infrastructure which is more dependent on fossil fuel and expensive, uneconomic hydro, we know is wrong. So let's get on with a less wasteful and environmentally damaging lifestyle. Fix the sewage and waste disposal systems, find and maintain the water supply, switch from baseboard domestic and institutional heating, develop less fossil fuel dependent transportation and industry, vacation in your own beautiful neighbourhood, reinvest in your community, etc. Choosing any of the old line political party candidates has been shown to be counter to the above comments. We can and need to do better.

  14. Hoops, guess I missed that part about about LAne, but never the less his name or yea, is on the sanction boondoggle vote in the House, and that cannot be erased, no mater how many times he switches parties, or how many trips he takes on the road to Damesques and sees the light. Paul cannot escape, and we the people of Mount Pearl must hold him to account for his signature on the 13,000, 000, 000$ boondoggle. And as I have mentioned before everyone of these guys should throw up every time they look in the mirror. Maybe Leblanc will not dish out any punishment, so their's should be every day. As someone has point out here that the electorate should be responsible, because it was known by some that muskrat was a dud from the beginning, well our politician should have known, and had a much greater responsibility to find out before sanction. Of course MP always had two very important ministers, one in charge of Twitter, and the other minister of poles, and were often called twiddle de and twiddle dum from MP. One became highly evelated when Davis became premier, to deputy premier and minister of health. And the other made several trips to Damesques and saw the light each time, that may get him through the pearly gates but not freely through the boondoggle gates here on earth. A day of reckoning is nigh, says Joe blow.

  15. I had a chat with Mr. Crosbie as he was going to door-to-door on my street. I was not impressed. When asked some blunt questions, like how was his party going to keep people like me and others from moving away due to the cost of living here, a tough job market, etc, he didn't have much of a response. He was not enthusiastic, lacked spirit, and was just dull. He blamed Ball for Muskrat issues and said he, having a lawyer background, would serve the province better. I recall the Premier who got us into this mess was a lawyer too. He has no fighting spirit and I don't see him pushing for the best interests of NL.