When political leaders step aside, expectations of them,
however fanciful, are withdrawn; civility requires us to wish
all, including Dwight Ball, godspeed. But while some leaders are quickly given
the peace they seek, others warrant the lament popularized in the now famous
lyric by Ron Hynes: “Godspeed. Goddamn.”

It wasn’t as if this Premier rose to the status of First
Minister on a wave of expectation. He didn’t defeat a leviathan in Paul
Davis. The public just needed to rid themselves of a godawful government in a
province where good governance is a rarity. The new broom had represented at
least the possibility of hope.  

Ball wasn’t a casualty of poor foresight, as so many
politicians are, allowing an opaque future to catch him flat-footed. On the
contrary, his mission had been indelibly carved in Newfoundland and Labrador society’s
rearview mirror. It was put there by two reckless Premiers — Williams and
Dunderdale — and two more who were ineffectual and complicit with them — Tom
Marshall and Paul Davis. Hence, at the beginning, Ball’s most hoped-for
characteristic was not clairvoyance, premonition or even sagacity; it was just
a fervent desire that he possessed a spine.

Putting aside Ball’s limited performance as Opposition Leader,
diminished expectation was embraced soon after his inauguration. It began with a
bevy of “Mandate Letters” to his new Ministers that were quickly recognized for
form rather than substance, offering, as Uncle Gnarley suggested in December
2015, not even “the pretense of a cogent mission statement”. His initiation as
Premier continued with the ham-fisted firing of Nalcor CEO Ed Martin, including
a refusal to acknowledge that he had acceded to Martin’s “without cause”
departure, having resigned and returned miraculously, to pick up an obscenely generous severance

Who doesn’t remember the Cathy Bennett Budget of 2016, and Ball’s
assurances that “it’s not a crisis”, successive deficits having hit the
stratosphere of irresponsibility. Yet he girded his Administration to “wimp
out”, unwilling as he was to administer even the most minimal dosage of fiscal
medicine. In the process, he blew through the public’s goodwill on tax
increases and a mere $1 million cutback — not to the St. Brendan’s ferry, a
bloated public service or even to the boatloads of entitled at Nalcor — but to the
public library system. He even undermined his newbie Finance Minister as she
exposed her own “incomplete digestion” of the Budget brief.

All the while, the Muskrat fiasco continued to unfold; devastating
cost overruns and delay manifested in the “more” truthful — but still
underreported — $12.7 figure offered by new CEO Stan Marshall. His commitment
to “transparency” proved more of a slogan than a mantra; it took until April
2017 before new appointments were made to a “fake” Oversight Committee the previous
government had established. He never exhibited understanding of the debacle
that Williams had divined anyway, content as he was to bask in Stan Marshall’s
credibility, all the while ignoring the inescapable fact of Muskrat’s incurable
consequences. Dither had found a comfortable home.

In reality, not much changed from year to year. Over the
course of a half-decade, a frightening deficit and debt earned the province a
downgrade, the bond-rating agencies proving to be no more impressed than the
public. In the company of vague assurances, the spine was even weaker than the
mind. Goddamn!

The Government’s Red book, “The Way Forward”, and its dubious claim to doubling agricultural
production quickly saw turnips traded for weed, though even here the odour of
marijuana was no match for the stink of partisanship; a meritorious hiring
process haing gotten in the way of advancement for friends and cronies. 

How could a Minority Government not be a harbinger of continued
bad polling or of a desperately fearful Caucus? The smart ones knew that the
electorate’s offer of a half-hearted new beginning was a political death-knell
— not just for Ball, but for them all.

Last week’s hastily-called news conference impressed no one
except the Liberal-appointed Consumer Advocate. Partisanship always carries a
price. Ball’s Trumpian echo of self-praise, however, spoke to desperation. What
had a feckless Premier to show? A hapless Federal Minister and two stir sticks in
Coady and Mitchelmore: a thin army, even amongst partisans, when the others had
already deserted. Godspeed.

Ego — or is that echo — commands reprise. One last chance to
grandstand. Vague commitments and no money. Copycatting Danny Williams. Is
there a legacy here, somewhere? Please.

Washable crayons beckon for a return to the drawing board. The
public isn’t buying.

Premier Ball: Godspeed, Goddamn.

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.


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.


This is the most important set of negotiations we have engaged in since the Atlantic Accord and Hibernia. Despite being a small jurisdiction we proved to be smart and nimble enough to negotiate good deals on both. They have stood the test of time and have resulted in billions of dollars in royalties and created an industry which represents over a quarter of our economy. Will we prove to be smart and nimble enough to do the same with the Upper Churchill?


  1. 100% spot on! Well done indeed and congratulations to to the author of this blog! Dwight Ball bit off much more than he could chew, never had the respect of his caucus and sought opportunity to blame others. This “leader“ was anything but a leader and this was quickly recognized by many. Dwight should have shown he had balls and gave up long ago! His time as a premier will be recorded in history as a huge waste of time!

  2. I personally can not Thank him for his service..it was laced with debacle after debacle…indecision..promises never kept (Burton Winters, Coleman to mention 2) ..outragous and assinine statements and such as " neither the tax payer or rate payer will pay for Muskrat Falls ". He started his career as Premier saying " if you can not listen , you can not lead" well he did not listen and he definetly did not lead anyone IMO.

  3. Look, the only reason Dwight Ball wound up as premier was because he hung in there as the leader of that tortured bunch of leftover liberals when Williams was riding his Second Coming of the Messiah "We Got It!" status amongst the hordes of rubes who still bought into that "fighting Newfoundlander" bullshit. He just didn't have the spine required of a real leader to make the tough, unpopular decisions when the going got rough.

    If Ball had been as concerned about being honest to the people and the good of the province as he was about how he looked in front of the cameras he might have established some semblance of a respectable legacy for his premiership.

    As it turned out, like another commentator said, good riddance.

  4. Just remember this, some, however few will say “nice guy that Dwight” just didn’t have the balls to do what needed to be done. What the hell did he run for then in the first place? If he didn’t know what a mess that Williams and the other 3 stooges left for him to fix then nice, maybe, stupid a definite YES.
    Ball had no political agenda, none. All he ever wanted was to be premier, and he accomplished that like a kid who always wanted to play in the NHL but couldn’t skate.
    My guess, he ran the province for a former premier funnelled through Mercer. Imagination thinking you’re the top man in the province and answering to him? Former premier(s) calling the shots, like watching an episode of Charlie’s Angels.
    Sad reality, same boss for Andrew Furey, and the way it’s being set up, with Ball still hanging around, more useless then ever, one would suggest a no race, no competition, no experience candidate appointed. Sound familiar?
    Enjoy your retirement, should have stuck to pills, they might still be saying “nice man, that Dwight”

  5. he also promised to cut back hst. to get nalcor to follow procedures for flooding the upstream MF, let mitchelmore be a fool, and created a new Oilco. gave money to mining companies.
    and yeah the fake hiring oversight committee was a failed promise.
    bring bac eddie joyce

  6. I come to kick Ball, not to praise him….or mitigate him…..
    Others have come for Good Riddance, Assinine Statements, Sleeze Ball, Scandal Plagued, God Dam, Lame Duck, Dead Duck, and Lipstick for the Pig.
    Why, Why, Why, God Damit,
    Why, Why, Why, God Damit,
    Why, Why, Why, Delilah….
    You were no Good for we,
    We just couldn't take any more…
    But he resigned, we didn't get the chance to kick ….the Ball….out.

    Now, we have heard names,
    Dr. Furey, the son of a Senator,
    Antle, Defeated before,
    Macdonal, threatened to challenge before,
    Chess the Best, son of JCC.
    Will he gather together the other 20 MHAs, make a trip to the LG, and ask for Desolution…
    After all, he won the popular vote.
    Chess for Premier.

    Anyone can ride high when the Till is full, even the Danny God, at 80 percent.
    When the Till is empty, can you even get to 40.
    Do we need a Demmy God, or a mere mortal.
    Yup, we are always looking for a saviour, mere mortals will not do, God Damit.
    How many of those mentioned, or not mentioned, will come forward, will they be Demigods or Mere Mortals.
    Joe blow.

  7. I suspect our financial dilemma is even worse than we know and Dwight doesn't want to be at the helm when we sink because we WILL sink, no ifs,
    ands, or buts. The Feds must step in and run this province. They will not throw money at a province who has no intention of curtailing spending.

  8. the feds will say go sell gull island to HQ and de-carbonize Nova Scotia. You have assets to sell and deals to make. They will say, like any personal advisor would say, cut spending and settle your debts. stop borrowing, cut up the credit cards, sell your big truck, ski doo and your quad. you cannot afford that vacation down south. sell sell sell

  9. The only reason Ball is leaving is he already knows the outcome of rate mitigation. Newfoundland will get nothing even with the pretend help from the nincompoop Seamus ORegan. Ball does not want to be sitting in the top chair when the official announcement telling Newfoundlanders to suck dust is announced.

  10. Dwight Ball and his Liberal government gave us exactly what we asked for… denial. The public sector unions wanted no layoffs and no paycuts. They got it. The people wanted no closures of near empty schools, and no discontinuation of services to near dead rural communities. They got it. The people wanted ferry services to communities that provide no economic justification to provide those services. They got it.

    This list could go on for pages. In light of the fact that we have been officially broke since the price of oil collapsed in 2014, these expectations are not realistic but the government here is never inclined to fight with a belligerent and entitled population. So we have created our own mess and should not be angry with Dwight Ball.

    Will we get any better? We have finally exhausted the means of the Provincial government and the willingness of the Federal government to indulge our foolishness. It is time that we realized that it is part of our role as citizens to ensure that our expectations are at least in part based on the means of society to pay. We are broke, and have been for a while. We will need to lower our expectations to live within our means. The fiscal cliff is upon us and that will be our reality regardless of our expectations.

    • While you make some valid points, you should not just gloss over, by using soft language. ("…the willingness of the Federal government to indulge our foolishness…") the federal government's enabling role.

      The feds had a duty, the expertise, and they had the financial power to stop this Alice-in-wonder-land fiasco in the first place.

      They abrogated their responsibility/duty not only to NL citizens but to Canadian taxpayers as well — not once, but twice.

      Yes, we need to bite the bullet, but the feds need to play an important part as well.

    • The Feds gave us what we wanted,demanded,and begged for.Anything less and we would be blaming them for denying us our right to be "masters of our own destiny." We always find someone else to blame for our own ineptitude to govern ourselves.As for the Feds having the expertise,I thought we were the ones with the "world class experts."

    • And they should not have. I have written in the past (years ago) that "this time, we are doing it to ourselves".

      But our own principal fault for this mess, does not negate Ottawa's share (as enablers) of the blame/responsibility.

    • Your premise that Ottawa is somehow responsible to the province for making redress on the province's self-inflicted financial injury on the MRF fiasco is absurd.

      It's like if I asked you to co-sign a loan for me so I could buy a backhoe to dig a drainage ditch, and then after digging the ditch for a while I determined that it was costing me more in time and resources to dig it than I'd initially accounted for, so I consequently try to sue you to recoup my loss because you co-signed my loan for the backhoe.

      It's an absurd notion… if any such lawsuit wasn't laughed out of court first it would surely be dismissed as "frivolous and vexatious."

    • I cannot buy in to this enabler argument. The underlying premise is that anyone who is willing to assist us becomes responsible if we fail.

      Nalcor, on behalf of NL government, prepared business case and oversaw the project execution, and it was always understood that the Feds were to play no role in those activities. It's time for us to grow up and take our lumps for our own failures. Blaming those have shown a willingness to support NL will only lead to isolation, as those supporters will think twice next time we come knocking.

    • The "we" you refer to is the provincial government not the people or the rate payers of this province. The federal government has a duty to represent all the tax payers of this country which I believe still includes Newfoundland and Labrador. When Steven Harper approved the loan guarantee for Muskrat Falls he said he was doing it because it was a good business case. We assume he looked at all the facts such as that the ratepayer was on the hook for the whole cost, that the rate payer ie the population of the province was rapidly aging and dying off, that the ratepayer had a medium income of 30thousand dollars a year, that Nalcor was giving away power to Nova Scotia and that any sales of power were purely speculative with no fixed contracts in place and that the production of power hinged on a water management agreement with Quebec that was not in place. A business case indeed. I didn't run residential schools or sexually harass female RCMP officers or members of the armed forces but my tax dollars paid those victims because of poor federal government oversight of those institutions. The federal government appointed an independent engineer to make sure Muskrat Falls stayed on time and on budget but again they failed in their oversight duty. They have a responsibility to correct the hardship they are imposing on the Canadian citizens of this province that they have failed by enabling the building of Muskrat Falls.

  11. How many overpaid managers and such, are leaving Nalcor by end of fiscal year? Will bureaucrats permit Stan a yearend update prior to new Leader selection? Why is Stan himself, staying on? Will Ches taste blood, and call for non confidence vote?

  12. Yes, all valid points that direct us to a society of takers and opportunists. How do we tackle this form of ignorance? It’s impossible! No one is willing to budge an inch. The only answer is for the Feds to come in and force it upon us. And that won’t be pretty.

  13. Agree with some of the comments. Looking to the past is great to see where we were, and how things happened. Most know the history. We need to look to the present and future. Mr. Vardy mentioned, negotiation fincincial arrangements, in his last piece:

    1)stabilizing rates @ 13.5 cents
    2)modified cost of service, writes off 30b
    3) monetization of dividends to LIL
    4) power purchase agreement will be changed.

    Of course that doesn't mean, problem solved, but at least they are talking, and not all in secret. And will take some time to see where it is going. But, at least they were talking. The project is still unfinished or final cost known. So how can there be a resolution. But the main thing they are talking. Imagine if we get a premier that doesn't talk to the Feds. Then we know there will be no chance of a resolution. Imagine Danny and Harper talking. Where would we be with a resolution like that. Only FLG given in bad faith. Will the new premier, from either side, be talking to the federal minister, the minister of fincince, the deputy PM and the PM. Talks have been going on with all of these Feds. And it has not been all in secret, as listed by Vardy. So, maybe we should give them a chance, and not cut of our nose to spite our face, thinks Joe blow.

  14. Could be Carla Foot, or Nancy Legge, or Benny Bum for all I know, and it doesn't make any difference to me. We all know the public figures, we saw them on tv, both here and in Ottawa. So, they are meeting and talking, and up to them which other officials they include. But the politicians at the highest level have been meeting, which is a hell of a lot better than the lower buercrates, that have to check with their political bosses to know the time of day. They all have their staff, unless they are like trumpie, says average Joe. So my main point is they have been meeting and talking at the highest levels, and have indicated they will continue to do so. If they stop talking, I would hope they would tell us. But think the fed fincince minister said in his letter, talks would continue till the project was complete. Others may correct me on that.

  15. Perahps, e.g, Wade Locke is one of the key economic/financial advisors/negotiators. Maybe it's Ed martin?

    Doesn't make any difference?

    I think it does, not just who it is, but the public should know what their qualifications are, what is their mandate, c/w public updates of progress, etc., etc.

    Just 'meeting and talking' doesn't cut it, AJ.

    • The only think I would say, if you never talk, then you never negotiate, and will never cut it. If the govt officials are WL, EM, SM, or BB, then we can't do much about it till voting time. But, think I heard the consumer advocate say on open line this morning that he and two other officials had met with, I think fed officials , to get a better understanding of the points mentioned. Whether I like the consumer advocate or think he is competent, he is still the consumer advocate, and speaks on our behalf. And I expect we would know who our negotiators are and their qualifications when, and if, it gets to that level. But, I say again, meeting and talking at the highest level, can only be a good thing. No meetings or talks is not a good sign, and we need to recognize that. Average Joe.

    • Meeting and talking at the highest level does not have to be a "good thing" AJ.

      Dunderdale had some high level talks with Harper before the loan guarantee, did she not? And was that not connected with the sovereign giveaway of our onshore fish processing rights and that got CETA approved?

      Just one example of how such secretive/"high level" talks result in the giveaway of our resources.

      What has changed under the red 'team" (?) —- nothing.

    • You are proving my point. That all stemmed from the bad blood that we all know about between Danny and Harper, and the ABC etc. No talks between those two, just flinging dirt back and forth. And Harper knew CD was Danny's flunky, so no serious talks there. She appeared on the stage with him in hopes to get the FLG. As a lead up to the fed election. Then at the last minute he threw into the deal the MPRs. CD balked, and Harper said take the FLG and I will watch you go under, with a wry grin, as he had written an iron clad loan. And when she had the party here to announce the 450 million in lieu of the MPRs, no one from the Feds showed. You must remember all that, as I do. Harper talked at a distance in bad faith, remember the defeatest attitude. I see no indication of meetings and talks in bad faith now, with the federal representive in cabinet, the fed finiance minister, the Deputy PM, and the PM. They all came here at different times to meet ball et al, and likewise in Ottawa. So that was my very point, if we get a premier that can't talk to their counterparts in Ottawa, as in the Danny and Cathy days, then what hope is there. So it remains to be proven wrong says average Joe.

    • "I see no indication of meetings and talks in bad faith now,"


      Blue or red — same difference.

    • Ok…Harper and Trudeau, all the same, have the same opinion of NL. He who is so blind, cannot see!
      So take issue with Mr. Vardy and others. Vardy laid out 4 points in his last posting which I am sure you read, the points discussed and talked about, by political leaders. And I never claimed there were any negotiations, or any negotiating team. Just said there were meetings and talks at the highest political level, and everyone knows that. Average Joe. Have to agree to disagree!

  16. The Wimp in Chief has gone, long live the Wimp. We are bankrupt. When last seen he was wiping the dirt off his suit, not wanting the legacy of selling the bits we have left after the feds step in. Has there ever been a successful economy here? Maybe briefly but the drunken sailors got at it and spent every last penny and then some.

    What an effing legacy when there could have been surplus.

    We don't deserve this beautiful impoverished province.

  17. Always wondered who was the dumbest premier in the provinces history Dunderdale or Ball. Well Dwight just finished in second place, apparently he does know that he doesn't know. Dunderdale on the other hand sadly never will.

  18. https://vocm.com/2020/02/20/ottawas-part-in-rate-mitigation-not-a-bailout-says-minister/

    Back-end is good way to describe any revenues from Muskrat Falls! It was quite an arsed up business case from the beginning wherein we were to profit from increased electricity rates that would kill the electric utility industry as we know it in NL. A death spiral business case dreamed up by a bunch of geniuses from the oil and cable TV industries at Nalcor and backed by NL taxpayers money, authorized by the governor of Galway and supported by his successor puppet princess and princes.

  19. Yes, and how can something that never existed and never will exist be 'monetized'?

    That back-end loading depended on an average cumulative average load growth rate of 0.8% annually, a contrived load forecast that has been debunked.

    So to keep a political promise, what is the province putting on the table to keep rates down — Boondoggle #2 — Gull Island? a premature Upper Churchill contract renewal with Quebec?

    • One Quebecois submission to the PUB has already suggested up front payments for post 2041 UC power as well as Gull Island for a song as a solution. Who knows what our elected geniuses will agree to in order to rectify the problems created by the recent group of PC administrations and exacerbated by the Liberals who followed. Canada destroyed the fishery for us, who can say what other of our resources they will destroy for their advantage?

    • That proposal was flawed in so many ways, it would not work. It said the agreement should include an escalator. That is not possible today for the same reason it was not possible in 1969 : CFLCo / NL can not sustain any reduction in the price, so must be 100% shielded against such drops in price. The counter-part of being shielded 100% against drops it not to be entitled to any ups.

      The base price was also of no interest to HQ. HQ being a producer, one can not establishes the base price on the price paid by buyers. Also, because transport costs from UC are higher than from any other plant (it is so remote), the price must also be reduced by that factor.

      All in all, that proposal was flawed in a ton of ways.

    • Muskrat was flawed (to put it mildly) in many tons of ways, but it still got done because the people we elected to work in the best interest of its citizens put the screws to them instead.

      I would like to read the submission itself, do u have the link?

  20. I have a friend who works in a government office, (go figure that in NL eh?). He/she/they asked me to post this piece without attaching their name to it in ANY way.
    Given the extreme and corrupt levels of nepotism, and the inherent intimidation and threats that go with such a position, (like when Ball had a man fired from his personal/family business because he protested with hundreds of other good citizens) … I decided to say yes.

    "Our F'n Premier –
    Dwight Ball's (real) legacy comes From having helped the Muskrat Falls Fraud, Farce, and Financial Fiasco over the Finish line,
    … against the Frantic Fears For all to consume poison Forever … against the Fervent and Ferocious backlash From virtually ALL of his Frantic constituents, and against his Forsaken Family, and Friends.
    Without any Foresight, he helped to Force oppression over us all, with over Fifty-seven F'n years of Financial imprisonment… For our (your) CHILDREN… and For theirs… and For theirs… FOREVER.
    His Fake plan was not Factual. It wasn't even Fully Fabricated. It wasn't a Feasible Facsimile of our Future or Fate. It was and is a Faux pas, that was Flaunted in our Faces with Finesse to Fool the public. So Farewell to Feigning of Fake plans of a Far-Fetched rate mitigation Fallacy.
    Our Premier remains Feeble and unFlinching about our Fate. It just doesn't Faze him that his Flawed Feat of Fraud is Forever on his name. Meanwhile, his Fate Accompli Forces our Flabbergasted Future-stripped children to Face Fearful Financial realities that will Follow them For decades to come.
    If this were just Fecetious it may actually be Funny. But Far From Funny, this is a Flawed Forfeiture of our Family's Fortunes, by a Premier who chose to Forego his citizens Futures (and his own legacy).
    Though many of us Figured we could Fight For our children's Futures, our plans were sometimes Foiled by the Forces of evil. (For now).
    So now, we are Fraught with Fear, and Freezing From the Fumbling Fiasco that is Dwight Ball's Farce of a legacy.
    Shall we just Forgive and Forget? Or shall we Forge on despite the Nalcor-ruption, despite the Fools and the Folly, the lies and the Forgery?
    His Forerunner/s may well have been Far worse, but For now, we'll Focus on the (False) legacy that he speaks to….
    Dwight Ball's legacy is not that he “wouldn't back down”… indeed his (Financially Fruitful) legacy is that “he never did step up”.
    But most importantly, Just like the cons, the thieves, and the “legacy builders” that came before him….. He's Finished.
    … and that legacy will last Forever.
    “Forget” him. It's (already) time to move on.

  21. I am getting tired of the crap un media about people dont want an election. Politicians lose seats and have to spend money during campaigns. The people already pay the taxes that covers elections and all the people have to do is check a box. children can check boxes. the people want leadership. i dont care if i vote five times in a year.

    They dont know what people want. stop telling us.

    if we had real economic concern we’d find cheaper ways to cast ballots. i dont care if i have to read or watch a stupid political or not.

    • Yes Robert, in Canada the Mounties have treated the First nation people so much better the the slaughter of the American west; except the end result is little different.
      And the Battle of Cut Knife, we see the Mounties little different in attitude as General Custer.
      So much of our history buried, movies should be made to show the truth; the objective, by hook or crook was and is to steal the land and resources, and still ongoing.
      Much of this Canadian west activities I am only starting to know about; such as Cypress Hills Massacre by Americans "wolfers" and Canadians failed attempt for justice, and the early days of the NWMP, and even now the RCMP covering up offences , breaking the law last year in this latest crisis.
      Interesting times, and the world watching. A test for Justin, if he can deliver justice.
      Winston Adams

  22. Saw John Samms being interviewed on CBC's Here and Now a day or so after Ball announced his retirement.

    He was described as a senior advisor to the premier.

    Is he one of the key members, or worse still — the leader — of Ball's rate mitigation federal/provincial 'negotiating team'?

    Below are excerpts from https://stewartmckelvey.com/people/samms-john/

    With a background in political science and experience in-house at the Newfoundland and Labrador government, John has worked on a number of high level, complex files from early on in his career, which has given him the confidence to be able to advise clients on what is needed to achieve their ultimate goals. He represents individuals and corporate clients to resolve disputes whether it be in litigation, dispute resolution or negotiations, and never lets the pursuit of perfection get in the way of progress. John has:

    . Acted on the lead negotiation team as part of the 2019 $2.5 Billion Atlantic Accord agreement between the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government of Canada.

    . Assumed responsibility under direction from the Premier and Minister of Justice for work toward establishing the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project.

    . Assumed responsibility under direction from the Premier and Minister of Natural Resources for work toward establishing Reference Questions to the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities: Muskrat Falls Rate Mitigation Options and Impacts. UNQUOTE

    Should we be worried?

    Given the significant flaws and weaknesses in the above, my concerns have certainly been heightened.

    • MA:

      Whats you point? Erin Best who represented Dunderdale a the Inquiry also works there.

      Also if memory serves, a number of these lawyers have represented both Employer and worker interests at labour relations hearings. Didnt Stewart also represent government as their outside counsel during negotiations with NAPE/CUPE in 2015/2016?


    • My point is whether or not a lawyer who "under direction from the Premier and Minister of Justice for work toward establishing the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project", while a the lawyer for a key witness at that inquiry worked with the same firm firm, would have been in a perceived or actual conflict.

    • So now we have Dunderdale's lawyer, Ed martin's lawyer, and government's man (Samms), who worked toward 'establishing' the quasi-judicial body/parameters of the public investigation into the Muskrat fiasco, all working for the same firm.

      Cosy? Or par for the course. You be the judge.

    • MA @ 11:34:

      Already addressed in several court proceedings – it does occur in Canada and Newfoundland that both the 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' lawyers have been from same firm. Here is a SCC case addressing the principle:


      Normally, the legal term 'chinese wall' glamorized by American TV is used. Provided there is written consent from both clients, it is acceptable. Likewise, the same for accountants, doctors, Engineers etc called for expert opinions for both parties to a litigation. It isn't necessarily common, but it does happen more than you would expect due to specialties of certain professionals.

      Most profession organizations do have defined processes for this type of situation so that conflict of interests are avoided.


    • Well that makes the matter even worse — government would have had to have agreed to such a (what I would suggest, 'cosy' and unacceptable) relationship — especially for a 'public inquiry'.

      Make no wonder the inquiry terms of reference was so limiting.

    • Well think we have to look at Sequence of happenings, or time line. Just to re-cap. The Pub hired MHI as consultants to give an independant repor on what nalcor was doing. MHI did their report to the pub, and the pub passed it to govt, (Eddie and Cathy) within 24 hours the govt and nalcor Had hired MHI to be a consultant to govt and do a report. Later govt and nalcor accused the pub of spending so many millions of dollars and coming up with no or an incomplete report and of using the same consultant as they did. How could the pub know in advance that nalcor and govt would use their consultant at a later date. Yes, Eddie and Cathy.

      Now if we jump ahead to 2016, when the ball govt started writing the terms of reference for the muskrat inquire, they chose a law firm or individuals to assist in writing the terms. And low and behold what lawyers did Eddie and Cathy choose later, the same firm that had written the terms of reference for the inquiry. Don't we see a pattern here of Eddie and Cathy choosing the same consultants that were involved in both cases, MHI in one case and those who had written the terms of reference for the inquiry in the other. Crooks do this sometimes, hoping to get inside info, trumpie style. Joe blow. Now I don't know much about the local law firms, just following what has been said here and is in the public domaine.

    • I guess my statement is that there are processes inplace and the professionals I deal with wouldn't jeopardize their credential for a client.

      Having said that, there have been a number of cases on our recent history of professionals jeopardizing their ethics – Myles-Leger, a certain lawyer who happened to be the daughter of a sitting Senator and misrepresentation of offering professional surveying services in Labrador. This doesn't include recent censures of unsupervised accounting or Engineering work that resulted in censure.

      Everybody will have to decide for themselves, but there are guidelines and nothing wrong as suggested – but if the rules weren't followed then definitely issues to check into..


    • PENG2 @ 14:43:

      I will throw out another one: Lorraine Lush vs Government of NL regarding Student Loan changes and the resultant closure of the Career Academy.

      Oddly enough a lawyer who represented the MFCCC at the Inquiry is her representative in an action against the government – also another interesting factoid is that a the time, Dale Kirby was the Newfoundland representative on the Canadian Federation of Students (the MUNSU parent organization) representing all post 2ndary students in the province.


    • I am talking primarily about government action.

      It was government that directed Samms to "…work toward establishing the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project", when government should have ensured that his law firm was not, and would not be, representing witnesses associated with such a quasi-judicial investigation.

      There were significant concerns made by members of the public about the terms of reference.

      Why were these terms so restrictive?

      Were legal representatives of one or more parties able to influence the development of the terms of reference?

      Perhaps we need another investigation into the "…work… establishing the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project".

    • MA @ 15:43:

      Aaaah yes, the 'public' who elected the government that 'ENABLED and ENDORSED' MF but also said a forensic audit couldn't happen because of restrictive terms.

      I stand by my previous comments that the ToR were plenty broad – there were no limits placed on LeBlanc. I also stand by my pre-Inquiry statement that the timing was too early and that until substantial completion it wasn't right for timing.

      Nothing wrong with the ToR – except that the timeline of reporting before end of 2019 was too short. I remember me saying that also and that it wasn't anything to do with politics – rather the quantity of info was too much.

      But I guess there will be lots calling for MF Inquiry 2 soon enough.


    • MA @ 15:43:

      By definition 'restrictive' means LeBlanc CANT order an analysis or investigation – there is nothing in the ToR 'restricting' his scope.

      Having said that – what I actually think you mean is there was nothing 'EXPLICITLY' requesting info into an aspect you feel is important. Well, LeBlanc was given a broad scope and was left with discretion to investigate as he saw fit – maybe you should have been arguing BEFORE the Inquiry to extend the timeline and delay until substantial completion.

      I challenge you (or anyone) to show me 1 instance in the ToR where LeBlanc's investigative abilities are 'limited' or 'restricted'.

      As for the Government '….when government should have ensured that his law firm was not, and would not be, representing witnesses associated with such a quasi-judicial investigation.'

      The witnesses got lawyers AFTER the ToR was drawn – and to limit representation as you suggests would be a SCC matter for sure and the Inquiry still wouldn't haven't started even today if we followed your guidance on this – there is a principle of 'free' representation en-grained in our Constitution.


    • MA @ 18:27:

      Again provide 1 instance of where the ToR says LeBlanc 'CANT' investigate an issue?

      And I am not sure those 30 odd individual are any more informed than you are.

      Again, the ToR is fine – the problem is the misinformed public thinking LeBlanc not being directed to investigate an issue they think is important is 'restrictive'..


    • PENG2
      Seems odd that when relatively few people that were informed as to the flaws of the MFs scheme, opposed it whether in the Telegram letters or the PUB, you claimed that the public should have raised more objections and voted against MFs ( I saying this was too complex for most AJs to get informed)
      Here, the 30 odd that questioned what seemed restrictive TOF, you take the opposite stand " I am not sure those 30 odd individuals are any more informed than you are" , and "the problem is the misinformed public thinking Leblanc not being directed to investigate an issue they may think is important is 'restrictive'"

      Here are some issues that Leblanc did not investigate:
      1. the stability issue of the North Spur. You stated, being a geotechnical engeineer , that the North Spur was not investigated to assure safe standards are met. That you would not live downstream of this dam. That an independent panel review is prudent as called for by Jim Gordon and others. And was the design was off limits for him? Do you expect his report, will now call for an independent review? If so, rather late?
      2. That Leblanc did not seek out in any way what the lowest cost alternative would be. Stan Marshall injected a few comments which help support my suggestions that 2 billion would have been adequate. This was deliberately avoided by Leblanc, I suggest.
      3. Leblanc did no deep dive into forecasting the energy needs, as to using end -use analysis, and issues of interactive effects for meaningful CDM measures, in fact he seemed to endorse Stratton's forecasting skills and approach to increasing the use of electric resistance heat, and who would change nothing if doing it over.
      3 Leblanc did not look into the issue of appropriate wind energy for MFs alternative, as the Hatch report contained restraints on their approach, to suggest wind was of little value.
      4 Leblanc did not considered the many risks to the transmission reliability, which is now a big issue, and the 40 risks being released after the Inquiry finished? Some expert at the Inquiry, with no understanding of such risks stated that he never heard of a transmission line being not reliable! Leblanc let that go unchallenged, thinking it was correct.
      5. On issues of appropriate CDM, the Inquiry had no expert witness on CDM, even though others on the stand stated that aspects of CDM would need expert opinion.

      I am sure there must be other importnat issues glossed over or not cnsidered by Leblanc.

      Please address each of those I mention, why Leblanc was correct to ignore these? I too must be misinformed to think either the TOF was restricted, or Leblanc ignored very important issues, whether deliberate, or ignorant of the importance?
      Winston Adams

    • WA @ 08:57:

      1 – not sure LeBlanc is right person to address this – again, maybe the public now want Inquiry #2 focused on technical details?
      2 – what is the least cost now is irrelevant – MF is committed to, so the issue becomes the government and Nalcor decision making as in did they ignore any 1 single option that would have been cheaper than MF. The Inquiry has proven this.
      3 – why? There were reports presented at the Inquiry previously submitted to the PUB that the NALCOR forecasting methodology was wrong and not in compliance with industry standards. Since it was previously established, no need to reinvent the wheel – I have no doubt NALCOR will be directed to reassess forecasting
      3a – LeBlanc wasn’t doing a technical review – it was a decision making and procedural review
      4 – this is an issue raised AFTER close of the Inquiry, but it still isn’t 100% settled – see my previous comments on timing of Inquiry
      5 – see 3a, Inquiry is investigative not technical review

      Having said this, there was nothing in the ToR telling LeBlanc he COULDN’T devolve into each of these issues – just that he prioritized what he issues he looked into.

      Again (as I did with MA), I challenge you to find language in the ToR directing LeBlanc NOT to investigate any particular issue – remembering that LeBlanc as a judiciary is an expert on interpretation of language and not a layman. You can also reread his comments on the ToR (for which he invited public comments) to see what was said to him and his responses.


    • You are full of it PENG2.

      The TOR is not designed nor intended to allude to, to outline or to specifically state or delineate what IS NOT to be investigated. Those things would be infinite.

      The TOR is for the purpose of stating and delineating what IS TO BE investigated, and existing law requires the commissioner to stay within the bounds of WHAT IS STATED in the TOR, unless the commissioner requests and obtains an amendment to the TOR.

      The law requires the commissioner to not investigate what he judges to be outside the scope of the TOR (and he made that call several times during the inquiry).

      A party could challenge that ruling, but none did.

      If he felt that there were issues that should be investigated but were not within the bounds to the TOR, then he would have been obliged to request and receive an amendment to the TOR.

    • Want proof PENGzero is a shill for government corruption? "there were no limits placed on LeBlanc."

      LeBlanc just cant point fingers at the guilty! No limits as long as LeBlank makes no substantive inquiries!

    • MA @ 10:09:

      Like it or not – and LeBlanc and case law disagrees with your opinion.

      Reread paragraphs 6-13 of his interpretation of the ToR – particularly paragraphs 7(where he indicates the LIMITED timeframe) and 8 (where he says he was consulted on the ToR before issuance) as

      The ToR list specific items to be investigated as a minimum – it doesn't LIMIT what can be investigate and this is well established by the Public Inquires Act (federally and provincially). Maybe you need to review Gomery, Lamer and Walkerton for a better understanding.

      You are misinformed as best.


    • Maurice, PENGzero is now established as an out and out shill for the forces that lied, manipulated and hammered any bureaucrat that dared do their job to protect the public interest.

      Like all trolls he is best not fed!

    • Yes, I agree Bruno.

      His views make no sense, e.g. if there are 'no limits' placed on a commissioner, there would be no need for a TOR.

      Just direct a commissioner to investigate. PERIOD, scope wide open, etc.

    • PENG2 is not just full of it. There is little doubt he we is an agent of the elites who are exploiting ordinary people.

      Basically all his responses are that what the elites do is legal and we are too stupid to catch them red-handed in their abuse and pilfering of public funds.

      PENG2 is playing the Trump-flunkie role to try and suppress debate here that might expose the duplicity of the elites in charge. He seems to be expert in all manner of law now as well as project management and engineering and regulation and whatever else. Quite dedicated to staying aggressive on some of these topics too to quell anything that might flame up here.

      It's hard to believe any single person who is simply interested to be here and share opinions could so consistently promote such shrewd pro-elite policy day after day. I'm very interested and hardly ever comment here but I've got to chip in on the extremes of this PENG2 character. I'm sure I'm not alone with this observation.

    • MA:

      Very simply put – you view is that the ToR defines only what LeBlanc can investigate. My view is that it outlines the MINIMUM investigation LeBlanc is expected to undertake.

      I would suggest that there is nowhere in the ToR that DIRECTS him to call for a forensic audit – but he did. LeBlanc got the audit because he expected in his his investigation (that was only limited be time) it would be valuable in his analysis.

      I do remember many including you complaining of timeline and was wasn't directed in the ToR (ie forensic audit) – you reasoning is flawed at best and has been shown to be wrong.

      You cannot claim LeBlanc is limited – if you can at least show 1 statement in the ToR where he is DIRECTED to not investigate an issue, I will retract this statement. Now, to qualify that – don't come at me with the 'fingering those responsible' – this is specifically excluded by both the Public Inquiries act (provincially and federally) and the constitution.

      As I said when the Inquiry was called – there should have been 3-4 yrs allotted(maybe Robert can confirm I said this) and it should have waited until SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION before starting.


    • Seem to me that most all things have a "scope" that puts limits on what can be done. We saw EY held back even after Ball came in power, EY needing their scope enlarged, to get at Nalcor's records.
      And MHI and other consultants were fenced in by "scope"
      Surely the Terms of Reference limits scope, it seems obvious, but this is legalities which I am no expert. PENG2 says no scope limit?
      Why was so much not looked at by Leblanc, his priorities excluded major items. Not enough time says PENG2, so he could ignore so many key issues.
      And no lawyer asked the question to witnesses " Did you cast a blind eye to these facts and ignore relevant information"?
      And too Leblanc sent Ralph to find the lost or destroyed notes, knowing that Ralph might be considered by some to be destroyer in chief, in that he advocated that transient documents could be destroyed.
      And Leblanc, as to why the work for mitigation of methlymercury was never done, he never questioned Parsons, who had ultimate responsibility , and he also was Justice minister. Was Parsons above the law , not to be questioned?
      Winston Adams

    • Seems PENG2 has nothing further to say, not addressing my last points @16:25?

      Bruno and Maurice says not to feed the PENG2 troll. However I say continue to engage with him. If he is defending the elite Muskrateers, and one of them, his arguments will be poor and expose him by his own words. Some suggest that has happened already.
      To me, PENG2 is heavy into legal issues and politics, more than engineering, his professed field.
      If a troll, maybe PENG2 is 2 in 1 or 3 in 1, that maybe he is not so expert in all these fields, but can it be there are 2 or 3 pros to handle the topics here on UG as they arise? Maybe he is like the Russians, who influenced the last USA election, and now engaged to influence this one to aid Trumpie? Can PENG2 be an elite operative?
      PENG2, tell me it ain't so?
      Winston Adams

    • WA:

      My statements are clear – I said before Inquiry started that more time was needed(ie 3-4yrs)and it was too early (ie should have waited until after substantial completion), but most said timing was 100% political such that report was to be released after the 2019 provincial election and he didnt need as much time.

      I have also said the ToR was plenty broad and I am still waiting for someone to quote directly from the ToR where there is positive language limiting the review LeBlanc could have done. As I said before, there was nothing in the ToR directing a forensic audit be completed (unlike most others here who said LeBlanc couldn't order a FA) – but LeBlanc did it because he felt it was necessary for his analysis.

      I have also previously said it was key to the Inquiry to understand why the viability of the Anglo-Saxon route magically changed under the current MF development – this wasn't done to my satisfaction, but I understand and accept that LeBlanc sets the priorities and I wont cry over it until I read his report.

      As for the nonsense posted here, I prefer to debate facts – and I do stand by my statements until proven wrong. Maybe I need to offer a monetary reward to anyone who can reference language in the ToR DIRECTLY stating LeBlancs limitations.


    • Section 4 (a) of the terms of reference for the Muskrat Falls commission of inquiry directs the commission to inquire into "the consideration by Nalcor of options to address the electricity needs of Newfoundland and Labrador's Island interconnected system customers that informed Nalcor's decision to recommend that the government sanction the Muskrat Falls Project,…"

      This TOR language is restrictive (and I would submit, intentionally so) in that options that Leblanc is directed to inquire into must be:

      1. those options considered by Nalcor

      2. options that Nalcor considered to address the electricity needs of the island (so only the fake options and needs, e.g.),

      3. those same options had to be ones that actually "INFORMED" Nalcor's decision, and

      4. they had to inform Nalcor in such a way so as to have Nalcor "recommend" government sanction MF.

      As I wrote in my 2018 written submission re the interpretation of the TOR, the TOR was

      "… -a fabricated scheme of options' analyses that had little, if anything, to do with the actual electricity needs of the province and little to do with Nalcor's recommendation to sanction, but would facilitate a bypass of government's role in directing/influencing Nalcor and in creating legislation and other necessary conditions that would ensure project sanction."

      A valid interpretation of section 4 (a) would recognize the fundamental flaw in its premise and would ensure that the commission conduct a deeper, more thorough and more comprehensive inquiry into the timing of, the germination of the project decision process and the purpose and underlying assumptions of the Muskrat Falls Project, (and not merely, superficially, whether or not the " … assumptions or forecasts on which the analysis of options was based were reasonable".

      A restrictive/flawed TOR based in part on a flawed premise.

    • MA @ 11:05:

      Nothing you have quoted DIRECTLY limits consideration of options only previously considered by Nalcor. So, your argument of the implications of #1, #2 and #3 are false on their base – 'options' are NOT defined as only what Nalcor/government considered during sanction in section 2 of the ToR; however 'Isolated Island Option' is defined as what was presented to the PUB in 2011 for consideration.

      Infact if you read article 4a(ii) it DIRECTLY asks the Inquiry to consider whether Nalcor 'reasonably' considered or dismissed options other than MF and the Isolated Island option as defined to the PUB.

      The ToR is limited only when you try to isolate individual phrases and not read it as a whole document.

      Try again – but I would suggest you need to review the ToR, the interpretation provided by LeBlanc and the Public Inquiries Act(s) (both federally and provincially).


    • MA @ 13:10:

      Not sure I understand the question – nor of what value it would be considering MF COULDNT be stopped/mothballed etc. If LeBlanc was to commission studies on alternative options the Inquiry would still be ongoing – also, MF was committed to so the value of considering other options at this point is nil.

      The Inquiry didn't need to – under article 4a(ii) the minimum the Inquiry needed to established is that Nalcor unreasonably disqualified at least 1 other option from consideration – and that was established. Again, it doesn't matter if Nalcor disqualified 500 options or only 1 option – the result is the same in that their decision making processes was flawed.

      Maybe you need to better review the exhibits (including those submitted by the PUB) that clearly state MF was objectively assessed next to other options.


    • I guess you do not understand much, PENG2.

      Just as I thought.

      And by the way, Leblanc has yet to issue his report — SO U SHOULD KNOW THAT HE HAS NOT YET ESTABLISHED WHAT WAS OR WAS NOT REASONABLE.

      MF was 'objectively' assessed —- by whom?

      You obfuscate PENG2 .

      Enough said.

    • MA @ 14:20:

      Actually, LeBlanc doesn't establish reasonable – that is established by the evidence, this concept is particularly important for documents submitted and accepted by another quasi-judicial body (ie the PUB). LeBlanc will state whether or not he thinks it is possible that a reasonable professional could follow the MF justification for sanction – it has already been stated in reports to the PUB circa 2012 that the forecasting was flawed (and these reports are Inquiry exhibits) – this is a FACT entered and not contested by testimony. You really need to gain a better understanding of ‘investigative inquires’ vs ‘court proceedings’ .

      Nice that you actually read for 1x – there is NOBODY that has established that MF was reasonable and based on sound analysis, but it was said a number of times that MF was a Government POLICY decision. As a former public servant, you know full well that government policy isn’t always based on reasonable thought – several witness said that MF was government policy, nothing more or less.

      As I said above, the reasoning to deem the Anglo-Saxon route as suddenly viable in 2003 when the RG government had a deal for Gull in 2000-2002 would explain exactly why MF happened. Personally, I feel this should have been more closely looked at – but I won’t cry over it now.

      You really need to review the LeBlanc interpretation on the ToR – he was consulted prior to the calling of the Inquiry and is satisfied the ToR is sufficiently broad – sorry you feel jilted and are not getting what you want from the Inquiry, but agreed that until the Inquiry report comes out this is B$ banter.

      Again, I will ask you just where is it DIRECTED by the ToR LeBlanc was to call for a forensic audit (and conversely if LeBlanc can only do what is written, just how did he call for the FA)– you still have not shown 1 single instance where the ToR limits what LeBlanc can investigate.


    • MA, you hit the nail on the head: PENG2 is here to obfuscate and frustrate naysayers from influencing the political agenda. We are dealing with a high level troll, in cahoots with politics and legal firms I suspect. For someone trying so hard to dominate discussion here while remaining anonymous is a big red flag as to their intentions.

      Here they are again saying the project couldn't be stopped but never has this such assertion been properly justified. They also said the agreements between governments couldn't be changed but if we got anything out of the stupid Ball press conference recently, it's that both levels of governments have every intention to amend it. When two governments are the principal partners to an agreement, they can change the terms as often as the political winds change.

    • Anony @ 11:10:

      Maybe if you had followed the Inquiry closer you would realize that both the Forensic Inquiry report and a legal opinion dated 2016 (maybe exhibit P-3589?) were acknowledged (and accepted as being factual) stating that MF couldn't be stopped once Financial Close was achieved.

      So yes, the option of terminating MF was considered – but it was not possible or practical after December 2013.

      As for changing the agreements that financed MF – it will also require the participation of NS and Emera – they are also a party to those agreements. Also required will be the support of other tax payers in Canada – again, nothing guaranteed there because of the precedent it could setup. The Federal Minister Regan said as much as the press conference.


    • "PENG2 is here to obfuscate and frustrate naysayers from influencing the political agenda. We are dealing with a high level troll, in cahoots with politics and legal firms I suspect. For someone trying so hard to dominate discussion here while remaining anonymous is a big red flag as to their intentions."

      Well said indeed Anon 11:10.

      He may think he is a 'high level troll', but I am actually surprised by how poorly his attempts are at producing well reasoned arguments.

      He also tends to fall back on and repeat his "you don't understand" and "you need to read xyz more carefully" phrases as well.

      Perhaps the term 'gas-lighting' applies to what he does best.

    • Yes to MA. And again here we see PENG2 claiming a Nalcor document to be the one and only answer available. I don't need to see that document again because I know it exists to defend Nalcor's treason.

      We know this BS logic got us into this mess and PENG2 continues to use it to attempt to beat us into submission that there is no way out of it. What a crock to keep saying it's too complicated and we're just to stupid to realize it.

    • Ma / Anony:

      Here is a direct quote for the Grant Thorton Forensic Audit (exhibit P-01677), section 1.6:
      Once the FLG was executed, Nalcor/GNL were committed to funding the project at their costs regardless of if the project was stopped or not. Under the FLG, Canada had the right to complete the project with Nalcor/GNL funding it.

      As for my reference to exhibit P-3589; revise to P-02390 – the legal opinion was solicited by Gov NL and reviewed by both Fasken and McInnes-Cooper and confirmed by Grant Thorton via their audit that upon financial close MF couldn't be stopped.

      Again, I am still waiting for you to show me 2 things:
      1) any language in the ToR where LeBlanc is DIRECTED or LIMITED from investigating any issue
      2) any language in the ToR where he is DIRECTED to have a forensic audit completed during the course of the Inquiry.

      Again, you need to review the LeBLanc interpretation of the ToR – especially where he says he was consulted before hand.

      Again, you claims of a limiting ToR are nonsense.


    • I turn my head for a few hours, and surprised to see the debate here is alive and well.
      Don't feed the troll says Bruno. Why not? Don't trolls have rights? Keep feeding a troll the right food, and he/he might get indigestion. If a troll, it becomes more evident with time, and debate, and who represents reason and facts.
      Was Leblanc not prevented from investigating the stability of the North Spur? Maybe I'm wrong?
      PENG2 says ok that Leblanc do a minimum assessment of other alternatives to MFs, which he did as to gas as a source. Even that Bruneau was suggested a non expert and tainted for being a member of MFCCC.
      But what of other reasonable alternatives : combination of island small hydro, wind and CDM.
      Small hydro . Leblanc excluded the Shawmont engineer who said there was 800MW of island small hydro, several hundred MWs cost effective, and that Bay de Espoir could add a 154 MW generator to help for winter peak demand.(Stan said that also, slipped it in)
      And wind was ignored by Leblanc
      And CDM was ignored by Leblanc
      And the combinations of these ignored.
      All things being done in Nova Scotia was ignored by Nalcor and ignored by Leblanc. Why ? Because he only needed to do the minimum says PENG2. Something smells fishy with that reasoning?
      Before the Inquiry started I emailed counsel Kate O'Brein, Who will be your expert on CDM issues? Secret for now she said. Never was an expert on CDM for this Inquiry. It didn't happen.
      That would exceed the minimum required by Leblanc, right ?
      Not enough time says PENG2? Yet we saw witnessed go on, and on, and on with BS for week after week until Leblanc had one explosion and banged his desk. How much time was wasted? Even PENG2 said it was a gong show. If less gong, Leblanc might have dived into more than the minimum?
      After the Inquiry, these items then being addressed by the PUB. Why did Leblanc not hire Synapse as to benefits of CDM and others
      for wind even, and island small hydro etc?
      Seriously , seems the Inquiry was partly, or mostly a farce, not to dig too deep.
      Winston Adams

    • Those elements of farce are perpetrated here frequently by the fraudulent character of PENG2.

      Again, he quotes a Nalcor sponsored document as being the only interpretation available. This is like reading an opinion about Donald Trump that was arranged by Donald Trump! Its entirely worthless, misleading and intended to keep the spotlight off the fraud committed by Nalcor and a large GNL supporting cast. Which one are you PENG2?

  23. Who is monitoring the current flow on the NS Link? Which way, and how much current on the copper wire during this Winter Peak period? What Avalon Demand Management, Conservation Measures are in effect? What revenues are being expensed, to top up the Holybody?

    • Robert, copper in the transformers and aluminum on the transmission lines.
      Usually about 100 MW, 140 MW seems max, but interesting, in recent cold snaps, about 100 MW or a little more if our peak load is modest, but in the early morning with our ramp up, it may coincide with NS ramp up, and often imports from the ML is then Zero!
      It suggests that NS has limited MW to send our way at certain times,when we need it most, which is not surprising, as they have their priority. No firm agreement that they have to meet firm power to us, which puts farce to reliable power from them if ours goes down!
      Winston Adams

  24. Well it seems like information on Dwight Ball's departure is starting to "leak" out.

    One thing you can say Ball is leaving with his "legacy" fully intact?

    The man has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth (lying) since he has been elected Premier.

    It seems almost fitting that his last media release that he was stepping down on his "own" accord was in fact a lie!


    Is it little wonder that people have such a dim view of so many of them?

    They have earned their own disgrace!

  25. NL plan is to keep wages down so no one can afford to pay power bills

    the board of trade continues to ask people to buy from costco and amazon because their businesses can only run with slaves.

    with no direction or leadership, nalcor continues to do what it wants and spend what it wants as “non regulated” power supply. maybe we can all work there. there real power supply is HQ and Emera.




    • Nobody will answer the phone because there is no point talking with NL as we proved so often. In 1969, UC was too big of a project for NL. It got done by those who were able to do it and so, NL complained about it, about how others did what NL can't, how we were not supported, etc.

      When trying to transport MF / GI power over Qc, Qc told us that the price tag for such a transmission line was about 3 billions. We complained about how that was too much, how they did all they could to prevent us from doing MF and more.

      Proving how smart we are, we chose to build our own transmission line for a higher price tag of 3.2 billions, plus the fact that ours is 5 times smaller than the one offered by Qc.

      Who ever try to collaborate with us, we turn back because we want to do it by ourselves.
      Who ever try to help us, we turn back because we always want it all and never share.
      Who ever try to tell us the truth, we turn back because we don't like these truths.

      And now that we got it all wrong, AGAIN we put it on anyone and everyone else.

      NL proved once again that it is just unable to govern itself and the only think possible is to dismantle the province once and for all. Fortunately, we may not have wait too long before it happen.

  27. "Of course, (I'm) ignored , just a rabid right winger, and irrelevant yesterday's man". So write's HONOURABLE Brain Peckford, as he tried to stir Justin to terminate the First Nations blocking rail line, by force it seems he is advocating, upset that "our Princling " is listening to the "extreme lefties"
    Perhaps he would prefer the Elder's approach: The war Measures Act, that was later deemed overkill. Pierre said "just watch me", and we did.
    The Digger is obsessed over Justin. Why?
    Winston Adams

    • The BC First Nation group wants the Mounties to leave their territory, as they are there with guns and harassing. The Mohawks are supporting them, this being an inconvenience in rail shipping.
      The Mounties have a long history of actions against First Nations, including recently at Muskrat Falls.
      We have all seen the movies of General Custer, and other US army attacks on Indians , killing men women and children, surprise attacks, and we pride ourselves on our more gentle approach, right?

      In 1885, 392 men attacked the Indians, including 75 Mounties.
      Weapons they carried included two 7 pounder field cannon and a Gatling gun! Who would think in Canada this happened?
      The plan was to attack early in the morning while they were asleep. The Cree were camped on Cut-Knife Creek. The Indians numbered 1500 men women and children.
      But being good sporting Canadians, the heavy weapons were only to intimidate , right?
      Well, they set up the two cannon and the Gattling gun and started firing on the camp.
      Yes. In Canada! Just like Custer and others in the USA.
      But if this happened, why no movie? Why did I just learn of this last year?
      Perhaps a Gatling gun Peckford would approve of? Maybe Peckford would crank the leaver and say " Just watch me, Justin. This is justice".
      Maybe Peckford is just a rabid right winger, as he says?
      Winston Adams

    • And the Digger posts a letter from the Small Business Ass, who represents 110,000 companies, and says several members are concerned about the blockades, and mentions two. He calls for law enforcement to ensure rail service is immediately resumed.
      This outfit stayed silent when the Muskrat Falls issue was before the PUB in 2012, but lately wrote a lame piece at the Mitigation hearings; too little , too late, as to big impacts on thousands of Nfld companies on power rates.
      Justin I see is "The Right Honourable, where as the Digger is only Honourable….. is that why Brain calls Justin The Princling?
      Can we get our train back, maybe an electric "world class " one for all that excess MFs power!
      Winston Adams

  28. From R. Beaudoin. Answer to 21st February 2020 at 07:11 from Maurice Adams.

    The link for the assessment ''Management of Muskrat Falls excess costs using future electricity sales from Churchill Falls after 2041'', can be found on the PUB website at: http://www.pub.nf.ca/2018ratemitigation/comments/Public%20Comments%20-%20R.B.B.%20-%202019-03-20.pdf

    In order to allow analysis of its potential by concerned parties, the assessment was retained from being publicly available on the PUB site during the period between March 2019 and the end of October 2019, when it was finally posted at the end of the public comment submission period. There are a few other pieces of correspondence that you will find on the same subject on the PUB website, but the above report is the key document. I acknowledge it is quite technical and may be difficult to read for members of the public but it is worth to give it a try. Also to consider would be the Daily Telegram's letter to the editor I wrote covering the same subject that was published on February 18 2019. The letter to the Editor written by Dave Vardy and titled: ''Searching for a silver bullet'' that was published on Friday November 9, 2019 in the Daily Telegram may also be consulted.

    The schemes described in the above assessment are most likely being discussed in one form or another by involved parties dealing with the Muskrat Falls' rate mitigation issue. For Newfoundland and Labrador, those methods can maintain long term ownership of current assets while generating a steady income during the 2020 to 2041 period, allowing an easier repayment of the Muskrat Falls debt.

    • I have done a very quick read of the Summary page of the ''Management of Muskrat Falls excess costs using future electricity sales from Churchill Falls after 2041'' only.

      I would note the the first option described appears similar to what I suggested, described and posted on my vision2041 website in Nov. 2011,
      http://www.vision2041.com/fixed-link.html (then scroll about 1/3 the way down to the 1st full-size info-graphic) — well before sanction of the MF Project and which had the potential to save NL billions, even just up 2041.

    • Mr. Adams, unfortunately when only a dual pole medium power DC line (say 500 MW) from Labrador is contemplated like in the configuration you proposed in 2011, the necessary supply reliability during single and double pole failure is not obtained. The nice thing about the DC line option from Labrador is its capability to recover all the remaining recall power and its use to be supplied by free Churchill Falls Power after 2041. The scheme you describe in 2011 is thus unfortunately inadequate in isolation as grid reliability targets are not met. A DC line would require to be backed up by a set of hydraulic peaking plants of similar capacity as the DC line at the Baie d'Espoir system and adequate AC lines to the Avalon Peninsula to carry this back-up power. As the usage of a back-up system is low, a full back-up from thermal plants (with gas supplied with gas from Hibernia?) or a mix of both hydraulic and thermal (half hydraulic to cover single pole failure of DC line) or the Maritime link to provide a sufficiently reliable system could also have been contemplated. There is/was unfortunately no simple and inexpensive way to replace Holyrood in order to reliably supply the Newfoundland Island. Those alternate options were simply not analyzed along winter peak reduction alternative. The overall costs of such alternate supply would have been higher than a DC line only and would have most likely ended up at a cost estimate similar to the (then too low) initial Muskrat Falls estimate. Anyway, such alternate configurations did not need to be reviewed in any details as it is Muskrat Falls that was foreseen to be built by the political leadership of the time. From R. Beaudoin.

  29. Thank you.

    I am not an engineer, and therefore don't understand why back in 2011 designing and building a transmission line (suitable to handle our required island needs) and that would permit us to purchase energy from Quebec instead of building the MF dams/generation plant, would not have been economic.

    But in any event that is no longer an issue (and thanks again for your information).

    • Agreed!

      I've always wondered if Danny Williams was bullied in school or if HE was the bully?

      It's a toss up?

      But as you can see today?

      We are ALL paying dearly to build his so aptly described "fort".