That’s not exactly how Gerry Byrne might want to say it but that is exactly what the federal politician is looking to do.
The member of parliament for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte wants the federal government to backstop Danny’s Get Outta Dodge legacy plan. Danny wants exactly the same thing and, to be frank, that’s one of the few ways this pig of a deal will fly.
The other way is for Byrne’s constituents to pay for it with a guarantee of doubling their electricity rates – or worse – for electricity they could get more cheaply using other ideas.
Now why, in a likely election year, would a federal politician want to shaft his his constituents twice over with double their electricity rates and increasing their public debt by $4.0 billion or more?
Has he gone completely insane?
Totally bonkers?
Been spiking the eggnog with oxy?
Heavens knows, but Byrne is obviously getting very, very bad political advice from someone who clearly hasn’t thought this through and who most definitely doesn’t have Gerry’s political best interests at heart.
And rest assured, gentle readers, that whatever imp perched on Gerry’s shoulder, he certainly doesn’t give a toss for Gerry’s supporters. So how did this ludicrous thought get inside Gerry’s skull? There’s a question begging for an answer.
Someone ought to get the miserable idea out damn quickly though before it festers any further and we ordinary mortals get screwed.
From VOCM, in case they disappear the story:
Liberal MP is encouraging the federal government to step in with support for the Muskrat Falls hydro development. Ottawa has been asked to help finance the subsea link across the Cabot Strait, as well as for a federal loan guarantee. Gerry Byrne says the latter wouldn't cost anything and says the federal government should recognize that when it comes to climate change the development of the Lower Churchill is vital. Byrne says the Lower Churchill is an absolute essential plank in the overall Canadian climate change strategy and for that reason there should be no hesitation in participating.
- srbp -
34 comments:
Ed, don't hold back - tell me how you really feel. I am proud of Gerry's statement - and I'm not a Liberal. Our MPs are supposed to stand up and voice our opinion, and I believe he reflects the mass majority. Now the rest of those folks collecting cheques to represent us in Ottawa need to do the same. Brad
Brad, if the "mass majority" - as you put it - favoured bankrupting the province or declaring war on France, should Gerry mindlessly support that as well, in your opinion?
How far does this go?
And how do you reconcile this with your support of Danny Williams, the paternalist? He, after all, contended that our duty as residents of the province was to support whatever he came up with. A great many people - perhaps even a "mass majority" - thought that this sort of old fashioned paternalism was the right way to go.
Which is it? Are we slaves to politicians or are politicians slaves to us?
Ed, there is more than just one revenue stream involved here. We are also pressing forward on Old Harry. Challenging Quebec's claim to it, and pressing the federal government to not agree to a Petroleum Marketting Board without a settlement of the maritime amdinistration line between us and them. The oil, and gas, cross subsidize which results in not bankrupting the ptovince. One project can't be looked at in isolation of the others.
In so far as France goes, if they don't impede our province's interests then there is no problem. Their involvement with Hydro Quebec, Gaz Metro, and now the natural gas fields in Quebec doesn't necessarily want to creat a problem - unless they want it to. Our politicians are there to do the same job for us as the Quebec politicians are there to do for Quebec. Represent those that elect them. If they can not understand that your province's strategic interests must be defended then they will likely be replaced. That's the nature of representative government - as I see it anyway.
In so far as Danny William's goes, I believe he and his team developed a strategic plan to safeguard the province's interests - which was his job. I believe his popularity reflected a general understanding amongst the people that he was successful in that aim. I don't believe he thought people should follow blindly, and I certainly don't. What I think he disliked was attacks on him and his government based on ideaology or partisan politics - but that is part of democracy. Sometimes the temper comes to the fore, but that doesn't equal a dictatorship to me.
Brad, I think you you have confuddled a great many things here into one pile.
Old Harry has nothing to do with the Muskrat Falls proposal. It exists entirely separately and the current provincial administration had no interest in Old Harry whatsoever until Quebec started talking about it a bit more.
Even at that, the issue there is not a marketing board (there are no petroleum marketing boards in Canada) but some sort of administrative arrangement along the lines of the CNLOPB or CNSOPB. AFAIK, oil in the Gulf actually falls within federal jurisdiction. It is beyond the lower water mark. Quebec has issued permits but I am not sure they are about the same as the ones issued by NL before 1985: the jurisdiction is, at best, in dispute between the federal government and Quebec and NL.
Muskrat Falls is not cross-subsidised by Old Harry or gas on the Great Northern Peninsula or anything of the sort. Williams and his colleagues acquired the equity stakes not as an end in and of themselves but as a means of finding some assets to use in financing the Lower Churchill. That said, about $2.9 billion of the current amount would have to be borne directly by the taxpayers of the province if I understood Tom Marshall's recent comments and in any even pretty much $4.5 to $5.0 billion would be added to the province's books either directly or indirectly. That would be on top of the $12 to $13 billion gross debt that still exists.
As for your view about Williams and his political attitudes, you might actually look at his comments, as opposed to imposing your own interpretation on them or inventing ideas for him to believe. There, as with the rest of it, you will find quite a distance between what you imagine and what actually occurred or is occurring.
Ed, you are wrong that Old Harry, the Upper Churchill, the Lower Churchill, Hydro Quebec, and the development of Quebec's petro industry are unrelated. They are intimately related in what is shaping up as an energy war between the two provinces. That includes Quebec's refusal to accept Labrador's boundary. Just as is the case with most things involving politics: there is more going on than meets the eye: and read between the lines.There will come a time in the not too distant future when people will have to pick sides between what Quebec feels it is entitled to, and what the law states. Danny Williams was the father of modern Newfoundland and Labrador. As a human he has faults, as do we all. His loyalty was never in question amongst the people. To try and spin a "Liberal" bias will be utterly futile. Newfoundland and Labrador won't be taking orders from the political/corporate class of Quebec any longer. Those days are over. What we will do is diversify our economy, and build the most successful province within Canada. That I am totally committed to - as are many others.
Ahh, so we spend our oil profits and drive up the debt to build an overpriced hydro dam and in the process double our electricity rates.
Yup, brilliant. I'm guessing the monorail idea was passed over in favor of this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZjzsnPhnw
And then, just when you think it is all over and rationality might be coming back in style up pops another one of the Sasquatch-hunters pushing that foolishness about the Quebec-Labrador border.
The border is settled.
It was settled in 1949.
There is no war except between rationality and the sort of pure horseshit you are peddling there, Brad.
Willi it is like the Stunnel insanity all over again.
That includes Quebec's refusal to accept Labrador's boundary.
Except Quebec doesn't refuse to recognize that boundary. It has. Many many times, as Henri Dorion reported back to the Quebec government forty years ago. And it continues to do so.
This notion that Quebec somehow does not recognize the Labrador boundary was originally put forward by Quebec nationalists, at least as early as the 1940s. For the life of me, I cannot imagine why Newfoundlanders would be adopting their logic.
Actually, the border was settled in 1927. It was recognized again in 1949 with the terms of confederation. Unfortunatley, if you check the Quebec government website, and look at the official road map of Quebec, you will see they don't recognize that and instead have their own border there - with the real one in dotted lines and shown as not recognized. During the environmental hearings for the Hydro Quebec Romaine dam proposal you will note that both Quebec and Environment Canada refused to recognize the border. I am surprised that people who are supposedly up on the issues don't know the history.I can hanndle your barbs Ed as the first sign of losing a debate is to relate to personal stuff. Just wondering if Wally is on his own computer this time, or are you still using your government computer for political purposes? The bottom line is the Liberal spinners of this world are not going to make any impact on the discourse unless you stop spinning and start intelligently debating. Even then the writing is on the wall folks.
Me thinks that Gerry Byrne takes the "Gerry Boyle " of 22 Minutes fame persona , a little too seriously .
When he feels that he is slipping in the polls ,Byrne drafts another private member's bill and gives Bill Rowe a call .
Marine Atlantic will attest to that ...
Yes Brad, we've heard it all before: the great border conspiracy, the shite-attack on Wally, the great Liberal spin conspiracy, facts are "spin" and bullshit is "truth".
Yep.
So let us just pretend for a moment that absolutely none of this stuff has been ever discussed before.
1. Since the legal definition of the border is established, what legal effect does this website drawing of the southern Labrador border have?
2. Has Quebec issued any permits for hunting, fishing, mining etc north of the 1927 delineation?
Incidentally, if you are referring to the same map the tin-foil hat brigade used in 2009 or whenever it was, there were actually two borders show. One was 1927 border, which is identified as such.
3. What exactly does this abstract entity called "Quebec" feel it is "entitled to" in your view?
4. When did the federal government (Environment Canada) refuse to recognize the 1927 border? Please give a specific, detailed example. You see your claim has some pretty serious constitutional implciations. it will certainly bolster your claim if you can actually cite an instance. Feel free to toss in anything else you think might help.
Oh yes, and don't tell me to go read your blog. I did. There's nothing there that actually provides any evidence. There are just unsubstantiated claims and wild accusations about some "unholy trinity".
Any time you wish to have a discussion founded on facts and reason, you will find no more welcoming space than the one right here.
The ball is now in your court.
Actually, the border was settled in 1927. It was recognized again in 1949 with the terms of confederation.
Yip.
Unfortunatley, if you check the Quebec government website, and look at the official road map of Quebec, you will see they don't recognize that and instead have their own border there - with the real one in dotted lines and shown as not recognized.
Which doesn't change the 1927 decision or the Terms of Union.
During the environmental hearings for the Hydro Quebec Romaine dam proposal you will note that both Quebec and Environment Canada refused to recognize the border.
Huh?
I am surprised that people who are supposedly up on the issues don't know the history.
Have you read the 13 volumes of the Dorion Commission report? That would be a good first place to go to get "up" on the issues.
Even then the writing is on the wall folks.
What writing? What wall?
Ed, you protest too much. The 2008 four dam complex on the Romaine River. The Quebec gove would not recognize NL as an "intervening" party, and the federal environmental agency agreed. The NL government refused to be deterred, appealed in writing, and reserved the right to take or use any water it sees fit from the Romaine head waters - in writing. These are all historical documents. What the "abstract entity" of Quebec wants is, as all Canadians are framiliar with, anything they can get. The problem is this attitude has created a terrible back lash across the country. Quebec has issued permits, ten I believe, in the Gulf of St Lawrence without the authority to do so.These are facts. I suppose next you will be trying to spin that the Upper Churchill was a great deal for us, and that we should be greatful for what we recieve, or perhaps that Quebec's attempt to buy NB Power was just afriendly gesture to help NB out, or the letter Charest sent to Harper to twart our attempt to get federal funding for the sub sea link was just a misunderstanding, and really they were just seeking a more balanced federalism. Power - use it, but abuse it, and lose it.Your criticism of my blog is fair comment, but I do use the historical and current facts. Your blog is well known in most circles as a Liberal machine, and your facts are according to Ed and the people holding your strings from above. If you want to read a blog that uses facts and logic, come on over to Rock Solid Politics.
@Brad :
I googled you and found that you have somewhat of a Who's Who for a following .
After reading the following* from you and recognizing some of your followers ,I can honestly say that I am "blown away"...
Maybe Cochrane , but , Solomon and Mansbridge ?
*"Danny Williams was the father of modern Newfoundland and Labrador. As a human he has faults, as do we all. His loyalty was never in question amongst the people".
@Brad :
"I can hanndle your barbs Ed as the first sign of losing a debate is to relate to personal stuff. Just wondering if Wally is on his own computer this time, or are you still using your government computer for political purposes"?
Just a little "CONTRADICTION" of your own rational ,n'est pas ?
Ursula, I see how that could look that way. Brad
Archived News
Romaine Subject of Border Spat
Power project sparks N.L.-Que. border spat
St. John's Telegram
Published: Tuesday, January 27, 2009
ST. JOHN'S, N.L. - Quebec's plans to produce hydroelectric power on the Romaine River have revived a longstanding border dispute with Newfoundland and Labrador.
Documents being considered as part of the Romaine review process "contain glaring errors of fact that are contemptuous of the Constitution of Canada," the Newfoundland government says in a Nov. 27, 2008 submission to a Quebec panel examining the proposal.
Newfoundland says the border between the two provinces is "invalidly depicted" to include parts of Labrador that were not given to Quebec in a 1927 Privy Council boundary decision. It says that means "the headwaters and entire watersheds of the Romaine and the four other major Quebec North Shore rivers appear, incorrectly, to be within Quebec."
Additionally, Quebec maps show a maritime boundary drawn through the Strait of Belle Isle - a boundary Newfoundland says doesn't exist.
The province says it was not consulted by Hydro-Quebec, the Government of Quebec or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) on the Romaine review, and the proponent "explicitly refused" to meet with its officials.
It says the environmental impact statement is confined to Quebec and does not address concerns about caribou conservation, the risk of flooding and the impact of increased mercury levels in Labrador.
Newfoundland's submission to the review panel contrasts with public statements made by Premier Danny Williams in 2006, when he suggested there was no issue with the Labrador border.
Claude-Eric Gagne, press secretary in Quebec's Natural Resources Department, says Newfoundland's comments were received by the review panel that will make recommendations on the proposal.
The panel's report is expected by the end of February, and will be made public within a maximum of 60 days thereafter.
Construction of the 1,550-megawatt hydro project could begin this summer.
The Romaine River, in eastern Quebec, flows 300 kilometres from the border with Labrador to the St. Lawrence River near Havre-Saint-Pierre.
The infrastructure magazine, ReNew Canada, recently put the Romaine project at No. 1 on a list of the Top 100 projects for 2009.
Quebec officials value the Romaine project at between $6.5 billion and $8 billion.
www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1222917
Okay then, Brad.
1. I asked a series of questions. You answered none of them.
2. I've been through the la Romaine documents before a dozen times.
a. Would you be good enough to give a specific date of this intervention request you refer to?
b. The provincial government submission of November 27 2008 (I believe the date is) makes reference to the incorrect border drawings. Let me ask again what this map has to do with anything since the border is legally established? You might go back to my question about permits on the land border.
3. You mentioned permits in the Gulf of St. Lawrence which is, as I noted already, not defined. If the matter isn't settled in the Gulf how does anyone know for sure who can legally issue permits?
4. No matter how many times you and your like-minded associates want to try and spread accusations about conspiracies (people pulling my strings? roflmao) these are not facts. They are simply horseshit.
So if you've finished with the partisan horseshit, Brad, feel free to offer some evidence and we can have a conversation.
This EIS is a document that the federal government must assess as sufficient. It is
unacceptable that the federal government would accept a document as sufficient with such a
glaring error of fact and law, especially one which is inconsistent with the Constitution of Canada.
The depiction of the interprovincial boundary communicates information about what lands and
resources belong to, and are under the jurisdiction of, respectively, the governments of Québec and
Newfoundland and Labrador. Particularly as the Romaine catchment area overlaps the
interprovincial boundary and the project will have environmental effects in the boundary area, the
2
3
question is of material importance to the environmental assessment of this project. There is real
potential for inadequate assessment of the biophysical impact on Newfoundland and Labrador as
the result of an inaccurate depiction of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This matter
must be rectified.
The terrestrial boundary is not the only mapping error in the EIS. An interprovincial maritime
boundary is drawn in the Strait of Belle Isle and the Gulf of St. Lawrence between Québec and
Newfoundland and Labrador. No such maritime boundary exists between Newfoundland and
Labrador and Québec. The maritime boundary between Newfoundland and Labrador and Québec
remains to be agreed upon as it has never been established.
In conformity with the Constitution of Canada, the EIS maps must be replaced with
accurate maps which contain the interprovincial boundary authoritatively established by law. The
maritime boundary depicted is non-existent and should be removed.
STUDY ZONE
As a final note, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is deeply concerned that it
has not been formally consulted during the environmental assessment of this project, given the
proximity of the project to the interprovincial boundary and the possibility of adverse environmental
effects in Labrador described above. Moreover, little has been done to facilitate Newfoundland and
Labrador’s participation once our concerns about the project were highlighted. The proponent
explicitly refused to meet with Newfoundland and Labrador officials and CEAA refused to require this
meeting. CEAA did not provide any translation assistance with the EIS and, though CEAA officials
advised that a summary document in English would be available in the fall of 2008, no such
document has been made available. Newfoundland and Labrador has submitted questions about
the project on three occasions, to CEAA on August 22; to the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur
l'environnement on October 17 and to the first stage of the joint review panel hearings on
November 10. Only in the last instance were questions referred to the proponent for response;
however, no response has been forthcoming to facilitate more fulsome participation of the Province
in the second stage of the submission. It may be the case that some of the questions raised in this
submission are addressed in sectoral studies conducted by Hydro-Québec, all of which are in
French. As the proponent has made no efforts to answer the questions that have been repeatedly
posed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, it can only be reasonably assumed that
no such answers exist.
While the Romaine project, and all of Canada’s untapped hydroelectric potential, is crucial
to Canada’s sustainable economic development, Newfoundland and Labrador maintains that the
project should not proceed without rectification of the identified deficiencies.
Ed, I could go on and on but I'm not going to. There is so much evidence to back up the statements I have made that I am confident any person doing their own research could find them. So all the best, and thanx for the chat. Brad
Wonderful.
You've quoted at length from a provincial government document. At last, there is something concrete to deal with. It is the Nov 27, 2008 submission by the provincial government.
So how does this prove that the boundary has shifted or is in mortal danger or being shifted?
If you actually read the whole EIS submission from NL, you will see that the potential impacts it mentions are quite some considerable distance away from the La Romaine project and are quite far from any watershed area.
The dam projects themselves do not come close at all to the 1927 border.
Certainly the provincial government made a submission and asserted its consistent position on the 1927 but so what?
This is a long way from the sorts of claims you are making that the border is in peril and that there is a looming war coming over it.
Don't forget both Danny Williams and Kathy Dunderdale have said there is no border issue.
From CBC news Feb. 16, 2009
Quebec-Labrador border friction a 'dead issue': Williams
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/02/16/quebec-labrador.html
"It's been acknowledged by various premiers and officials of the Quebec government. It's been acknowledged in various documentation that's come from their government, so for me it's a dead issue," Williams said
"There is so much evidence to back up the statements I have made that I am confident any person doing their own research could find them." Brad Cabana - Dec. 29, 2010
Williams is more popular than Brad = he must be correct, right Brad, or is this just another example of his many faults?
Curious minds need to know Brad. If Williams is misleading us about the border, what else has he been misleading us about?
Three points:
1. Brad still hasn't given any evidence of his great coming border conflagration. Instead he just cut and pasted comments and then said: "see?" unless you've already got your tin-foil hat it is hard to understand what this is all about.
2. Lone: let's be clear. I do not think there is a conspiracy. I explicitly reject the idea. Both you and Brad would seem to proposing there is some conspiracy akin to the Pentavaret.
3. And yes, Willi, thanks for reminding everyone of Williams' point. He was right. let's not forget as well that he lost a lot of support from the tin-foil hat brigade for his sober assessment.
The dam projects themselves do not come close at all to the 1927 border.
Not only that, but, as I point out in the posting I linked to, the design of the LR-4 dam, and the routing of the transmission line, are two more de facto recognitions of the boundary.
There is nothing rational about it, Lone, nor are there any facts involved.
This sort of stuff is in the same league as Big Foot, flying saucers at Area 51, 9/11 truthers, Obama-the-Muslim-who-wasn't-born-in-the-US, Elvis is still alive, there was a JFK assassination conspiracy and a raft of other similar fairy tales.
Some people have watched "so I married an axe murderer" and don't think the old man is crazy when he talks about a cabal of five wealthy people running the entire world.
Break out the tin-foil hats!
Lone, I am going to tell you again what I have said before:
Knock it off.
If you want to peddle these sorts of fantastical tales of corruption go somewhere else. There are plenty of places on the Internet where this sort of crap is welcome. This ain't one of them.
No more.
Period.
End of story.
Post a Comment