https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies

J.D. Irving Ltd. owns three of the six mills the province has been re-evaluating for property tax purposes in a study that had a hard deadline of Sept. 1. (CBC)

Service New Brunswick is not saying what happened with a major property assessment review it did of the province's six pulp and paper mills that had a hard completion deadline of last week.

Even Progressive Conservative Leader Blaine Higgs is saying he doesn't know the results.

"Municipal taxation levels on heavy industry — understanding that they are paying fair taxes is a must.  There isn't any other way to look at it and that study is well underway," Higgs told the CBC Leaders Forum Wednesday evening in an apparent reference to the pulp and paper mill tax review

"Hopefully I'll be back in government but whoever is there will see the outcome of that study."

Property assessments at the mills, including two in Saint John and one each in Edmundston, Atholville, Nackawic and Lake Utopia, were lowered $130.7 million by Service New Brunswick in 2013 because of an international  slump in pulp and paper markets.  

That saved the group $5.9 million per year in property tax, about half of which was paid to their host communities.

Mills were being re-inspected 

In 2019 Service New Brunswick announced it was "re-inspecting" the mills to see if markets for paper products had improved enough to undo some or all of the tax relief,  an issue of significant interest in the mill communities. 

The results had a preset deadline of Sept. 1 this year, which by chance fell directly in the middle of the election campaign, but so far Service New Brunswick is not saying what its "Heavy Industrial Team" of assessors found after more than a year of study.

 

CBC News was told a meeting would be held Thursday afternoon to discuss the mill findings, but no update was provided by the end of day.

Earlier this year Blaine Higgs said he is the one who asked for the review and said property taxes on them should go back up if markets have changed.

• Assessments — and taxes — going up on 244,000 New Brunswick properties

"I have said these very words to the department: I want the same conditions looked at that caused those rates to go down and compare markets today," said Higgs  

"Whatever conditions were set then and if they're different, then we should be applying that same logic and the rates should change accordingly."

A reduction in property tax 

The pulp and paper mills, three owned by JD Irving Ltd., two by the AV Group and one by Twin Rivers, were assessed to be worth $248.6 million as a group in 2012, according to information compiled by the website propertize.ca.  They were taxed by the province and their host municipalities on that amount.   

The following year Service New Brunswick cut their assessed value to just $117.9 million. That drove annual property taxes they had to pay from $11.2 million down to $5.3 million.

 

Nackawic, which lost $450,000 in revenue, raised property tax rates 4 per cent to deal with the shortfall.  In Atholville the village budget lost $360,000 and council increased property taxes 10 per cent in response.

Saint John lost $1.5 million in tax revenue and Edmundston just over $700,000 from the changes.

The study had to be completed by Sept. 1 to feed into tax base calculations the province uses to set 2021 grant amounts for municipalities that are released in the fall.

About the Author

Robert Jones

Reporter

Robert Jones has been a reporter and producer with CBC New Brunswick since 1990. His investigative reports on petroleum pricing in New Brunswick won several regional and national awards and led to the adoption of price regulation in 2006. 

 

CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices

 

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)"<Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 03:05:14 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: YO Mr Jones Methinks one of Irving/Higgy's
spin doctors is trying to get my goat with his nonsense about EUB etc
while you CBC dudes continue to maliciously edit comments for the
benefit of the LIEbranos N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thank you for writing the Office of the Premier.  Due to the ongoing
election, your e-mail, if warranted, will be forwarded to the
appropriate department for a response.

If you are looking for current information on Coronavirus, please
visit www.gnb.ca/coronavirus<http://www.gnb.ca/coronavirus>.


Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps d’écrire au Cabinet du
premier ministre. En raison de l’élection en cours, votre courriel
sera, le cas échéant, transmis au ministère compétent pour qu’il y
réponde.

Si vous souhaitez obtenir les renseignements les plus récents sur le
coronavirus, veuillez consulter le
www.gnb.ca/coronavirus<http://www.gnb.ca/coronavirus>.



Office of the Premier/Cabinet du premier ministre
P.O Box/C. P. 6000
Fredericton, New-Brunswick/Nouveau-

https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2020/09/pc-candidate-roland-michaud-asked-to.html

Thursday, 10 September 2020

PC candidate Roland Michaud asked to withdraw after transphobic post

https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies

David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos 

Replying to @alllibertynews and 49 others

Methinks whereas Roland Michaud said he still has respect for Higgy it explains why he did not call me back to discuss the EUB nonsense and why I no longer wish to speak to him N'esy Pas???

https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2020/09/pc-candidate-roland-michaud-asked-to.html

 #nbpoli#cdnpoli

> On 9/7/20, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps YOU and many LIEbrano lawyers may recall my battle about "Not
>> So Smart" Meters with the crooked EUB board out of the gate on All
>> Hallows Eve in 2017 If not read on
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: "Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)"<Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>
>> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 17:26:19 +0000
>> Subject: Automatic reply: YO Higgy Methinks I should remind Minister
>> Mikey Holland , your Attorney General, the EUB and NB Power's lawyers
>> what the EUB said to Lori Clark long ago N'esy Pas???
>> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to write to us.
>>
>> Due to the high volume of emails that we receive daily, please note
>> that there may be a delay in our response. Thank you for your
>> understanding.
>>
>> If you are looking for current information on Coronavirus, please
>> visit www.gnb.ca/coronavirus<http://www.gnb.ca/coronavirus>.
>>
>> If this is a Media Request, please contact the Premier’s office at
>> (506) 453-2144.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> Bonjour,
>>
>> Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous écrire.
>>
>> Tenant compte du volume élevé de courriels que nous recevons
>> quotidiennement, il se peut qu’il y ait un délai dans notre réponse.
>> Nous vous remercions de votre compréhension.
>>
>> Si vous recherchez des informations à jour sur le coronavirus,
>> veuillez visiter
>> www.gnb.ca/coronavirus<http://www.gnb.ca/coronavirus>.
>>
>> S’il s’agit d’une demande des médias, veuillez communiquer avec le
>> Cabinet du premier ministre au 506-453-2144.
>>
>> Merci.
>>
>>
>> Office of the Premier/Cabinet du premier ministre
>> P.O Box/C. P. 6000
>> Fredericton, New-Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick
>> E3B 5H1
>> Canada
>> Tel./Tel. : (506) 453-2144
>> Email/Courriel: premier@gnb.ca/premier.ministre@gnb.ca
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> PARTICIPANTS - Matter 375
>>
>>
>> IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation for
>> approval of the schedules of the rates for the fiscal year commencing
>> April 1, 2018.
>>
>> held at the Delta Hotel Saint John, New Brunswick, on October 31, 2017.
>>
>>
>> BEFORE: Raymond Gorman, Q.C. - Chairman
>>         Francois Beaulieu    - Vice-Chairman
>>         Michael Costello     - Member
>>
>> NB Energy and Utilities Board
>>                           - Counsel - Ms. Ellen Desmond, Q.C.
>>                           - Staff   - John Lawton
>> ..............................................................
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Good morning, everyone.  This is a pre-hearing conference
>> of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board in connection with
>> Matter 375, which is a general rate application by New Brunswick Power
>> Corporation pursuant to section 1.03 of the Electricity Act and a
>> request for approval of a capital project consisting of the
>> procurement and deployment of advanced metering infrastructure,
>> usually known as AMI, in the amount of $122.7 million.  We have
>> simultaneous translation available today.  I believe the translation
>> devices have been placed at all of your seats and I am told that
>> channel 1 will provide English and channel 2 will provide French.
>>   VICE-CHAIRMAN:  Essentiellement ce que le président
>>
>>     Indiquait c’est on est ici relativement en conférence
>>
>>     préalable et puis vous avez accès à une traduction
>>
>>     simultanée.  La fréquence numéro 1 est pour les
>>
>>     anglophones e la fréquence numéro 2 est
>>
>>     pour les francophones. Et pus si vous désirez adressée le
>>
>>     tribunal dans la langue française, on vous demande de le
>>
>>     faire.
>>
>>     Merci.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So at this time I will take the appearances from the
>> people who have indicated they wish to participate in this pre-hearing
>> conference.  So first of all, the applicant, N.B. Power Corporation?
>>
>>   MR. FUREY:  Good morning, Mr. Chair, John Furey for New Brunswick
>> Power Corporation.  I am accompanied this morning at counsel table by
>> Stephen Russell.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Furey.  David Amos?  Mr. Amos, did you put
>> your microphone on?
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Here.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Enbridge Gas New Brunswick?
>>
>>   MR. VOLPE:  Good morning, Mr. Chair.  Paul Volpe, Enbridge Gas New
>> Brunswick.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Volpe.  Gerald Bourque?
>>
>>   MR. BOURQUE:  Gerald Bourque is here.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Bourque.  J.D. Irving, Limited?
>>
>>   MR. STEWART:  Christopher Stewart, Mr. Chairman.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Stewart.  New Clear Free Solutions?
>>
>>   MR. ROUSE:  Good morning, Mr. Chair.  Chris Rouse, for the record.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Rouse.  Roger Richard?
>>
>>   MR. RICHARD:  Oui, je suis Richard.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Sussex Sharing Club?  Not here today.
>> Utilities Municipal?
>>
>>   MR. STOLL:  Good morning, Mr. Chair.  It is Mr. Stoll.  With me is
>> Mr. Garrett and Ms. Kelly.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Stoll.  Utilities Municipal?  Sorry,
>> Public Intervenor?
>>
>>   MS. BLACK:  Good morning, Mr. Chair, Heather Black.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Ms. Black.  New Brunswick Energy and Utilities
>> Board?
>>   MS. DESMOND:  Good morning, Mr. Chair.  Ellen Desmond and from Board
>> Staff, John Lawton.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Ms. Desmond.  So today's pre-hearing
>> conference will deal with the normal issues that we deal with at
>> pre-hearing conferences, generally is the hearing schedule and
>> process.  But as well we have requests for intervenor status from
>> eight different entities and we have an objection to one of those
>> requests for intervenor status and that is the status of Mr. Amos.  So
>> I think that before we get into the schedule, I think it would be
>> useful to go through the requests for intervenor status.  I am just
>> going to wait here a moment.
>>      All right, i guess the sound system has been fixed.  So we are on the
>> request for intervenor status.  The Public Intervenor of course is
>> deemed to be a party pursuant to Section 49.3 of the EUB Act.  And
>> then we have requests for intervenor status from David Amos, Enbridge
>> Gas New Brunswick, Gerald Bourque, J.D. Irving, Limited, New Clear
>> Free Solutions, Roger Richard, Sussex Sharing Club and Utilities
>> Municipal.  And as I had indicated, the Board received a written
>> objection to the intervention of Mr. Amos.
>>      So, Mr. Furey, do you have any issue with any of the other registered
>> participants today?
>>
>>   MR. FUREY:  No, we don't, Mr. Chair, and the only additional comment
>> I would make around that is that we recognize that not every proposed
>> intervenor has necessarily complied perfectly with the provisions of
>> Rule 3.2.4, but those that have not that we don't object to, we have a
>> general understanding already of the issues that they would bring to
>> the proceeding.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  The Board has in fact reviewed the requests
>> that we have received for intervenor status.  One of the -- one of the
>> issues that you raise with respect to Mr. Amos is that he has not
>> indicated in his form -- in his registration form the reason for his
>> intervention.  And in reviewing them, I note that the only other form
>> where I see that is the form filled out by Mr. Bourque.  So at this
>> stage I just want -- Mr. Bourque perhaps -- you know, you may not have
>> understood that on these intervenor requests that it's intended that
>> you would indicate why you want intervenor status, what issues you
>> would be raising at the hearing.  Would you be able to provide that
>> information at this time?  I appreciate it's not on your form.
>>
>>   MR. BOURQUE:  Well I'm not very versed in all these procedures and I
>> was coming to learn what was going on, and I was -- if there is issues
>> that come up that I don't agree with, I certainly will speak on it,
>> but I don't have anything prepared ahead of time.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So are you a customer of NB Power and what rate class --
>> if so, what rate class would you, you know, purport to represent at
>> this hearing?
>>
>>   MR. BOURQUE:  I'm a customer of NB Power and I'm just a resident and --
>> yes.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So is your intervention with respect to residential
>> customers or is it broader than that?
>>
>>   MR. BOURQUE:  I'm basically representing myself and -- yes.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.
>>
>>   MR. BOURQUE:  Thank you.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So, Mr. Amos, before we get into the discussion with
>> respect to your status as intervenor, because there has been an
>> objection filed, again your intervenor request does not set out the
>> reasons for your request to be an intervenor.  So just like I have put
>> those questions to Mr. Bourque, could you perhaps just expand upon the
>> rate class that perhaps you are a customer in and what perspective you
>> would bring to this hearing?
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Mr. Gorman, I just became aware of this motion as I
>> entered this room.  I'm just starting to read it now.  I request time
>> to study it before I argue it.  With that said, as I said in the last
>> hearing, residential class ratepayer, the reason I'm intervening in
>> this matter is because of my two friends here.  Both have concerns
>> with these rate increases.  My friend Roger in particular has to do
>> with the smart meters and Gerald with the expenses and the debts
>> incurred by NB Power.  Both of these fellows are not familiar with how
>> court processes work and they asked me to help them with this matter.
>> I was done with you -- 357 and preparing to sue you, sir.  I said I
>> will help them intervene because of his concerns about smart meters,
>> his concerns about the debts involving site meters and other things,
>> and my concerns about the severe lack of ethics of all the officers of
>> the court in this room.  Mr. Furey is familiar with me when he worked
>> for the attorney General.
>>      Now in the last hearing that I was at I was invited to a meeting in a
>> boardroom of Stewart McKelvey, the very people that appear to have
>> filed this motion, saying I don't know my business.  At this meeting I
>> wasn't allowed to share what was said, although all the intervenors,
>> including Hugh Segal's associate, listened in --
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, if I could just interrupt for a moment --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  It has to do with ratepayers --
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  No, no.  Excuse me, please.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  -- and site --
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Please, Mr. Amos --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Your question is site meters, sir.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, could you just hold back your remarks for a
>> moment.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I'm reading this motion.  I'm much offended.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Look, before we get to the motion, all I have asked you
>> is for you --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Site meters, sir.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Sorry?
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Site meters.  $122 million and then the write-off of the
>> existing meters.  I believe that's in the mandate of this, correct?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So you are saying that you are intending to
>> intervene in this proceeding because of the --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I'm watching you, sir.  You are at the end of your term
>> February 1st.  Jack Keir appointed you ten years ago February 1st.  I
>> wonder --
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, I'm --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  -- who the next Chair is going to be.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, could you try to stay on topic here.  The question
>> --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I'm checking your integrity in helping my friends with
>> their concerns about the expenses of NB Power in site meters.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So, Mr. Amos, are you telling me that your
>> intervention would be around the advanced meter infrastructure?  Is
>> that the reason that you want to intervene?
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  And the rate increase in and of itself is unnecessary.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I have many reasons --
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Could I --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  -- but I think it's a matter for another court after
>> reading this motion.  They mentioned the Federal Court of Appeal.  You
>> must be aware of me in the Federal Court, right?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Sir, that's the matter --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Have you read this motion?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- that we are now discussing.  Sir, that's not what we
>> are talking about right now.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Well that's what I'm talking about.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  I want to know the reason for your intervention and you
>> have said --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Site meters and this rate increase and the write down of
>> the current meters.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So you have indicated that you are here because
>> you want to assist --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Are you double-talking?  That's exactly what I said.
>> It's on the record.  I'm here because I take offence to the deal with
>> -- what is it, Siemens -- for 122 million and then the cost of
>> installing these meters so that the ratepayers will have to pay more
>> during certain times of the day when they use a dryer when Mr. Furey
>> decides it's not proper.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  He forgets who owns NB Power.  We do.  You too.  We are
>> the ratepayers.  As I said in the last hearing, you should protect
>> your own interest, Mr. Gorman.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So, Mr. Amos, we are going to set aside the issue of
>> whether or not you will be an intervenor to give you an opportunity to
>> read that material.  I understand that it would have been served
>> electronically on all parties, at least that's the rule.  Mr. Furey,
>> can you --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I never saw it until this morning.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Can you confirm that it would have been sent to an email
>> address provided by Mr. Amos?
>>
>>   MR. FUREY:  That's correct, Mr. Chair.  It was sent yesterday
>> morning to the distribution list in this proceeding including Mr.
>> Amos' email that he had provided.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
>>   MR. AMOS:  I need to remind Mr. Furey that he used to work for the
>> Attorney General when I served NB Power in 2006.  He and I spoke
>> personally in 2005.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So, Mr. Amos, we are not going to hear that immediately.
>> The documentation -- I think most of it is documentation that you
>> previously filed, so I'm assuming that you are --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I'm glad to argue every single word that I filed in 357.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So I'm assuming that you are familiar with that.  It's the
>> --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I'm very familiar with every word that I filed.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, if I gave you 20 minutes to read that, is that
>> enough time?
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  20 minutes?  Could you argue that document in 20 minutes?
>>  Let me take 20 minutes to study it but I don't know what you guys are
>> talking about in the meantime I should pay attention to.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So I think what we will do is we will set that aside for
>> a moment and we will move on to scheduling and we will come back to
>> that.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Because I want to pay attention to every word you are
>> saying this morning.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, we are going to set this issue aside for now,
>> then we are going to have a break and I'm going to give you an
>> opportunity to have a look at it.  But my point is that the vast
>> majority of the material that was filed was material that came from
>> you.  So I assume you are familiar with that part of it.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Let me back up.  When I first introduced myself on a
>> pre-hearing for 357, I was opposing a former public intervenor wanting
>> to get on the gravy train again.  I explained myself when I introduced
>> myself at that, that every lawyer in the room should know who I was,
>> including you.  I sent you emails where I sent you emails ten years
>> ago.  That said, I know who I am.  I was there to oppose a former
>> public intervenor wanting to get paid by his own assistant.  I opposed
>> that.  I can speak on my behalf, Gerald can speak on his behalf, Roger
>> can speak on his behalf.  Why should anybody be paid?
>>      After that I was invited by NB Power, Mr. Furey, to a secret meeting
>> to discuss this.  They wanted to pick my brains to see what my issues
>> were.  And we couldn't disclose what was said in the room.
>>      I clearly stated what my issues were, conflict of interest by law
>> firms.  Good example.  The people that filed this motion today, JDI,
>> Stewart McKelvey, are also employed by NB Power to litigate to collect
>> for Lepreau.  That's conflict of interest.  And then we have McInnes
>> and Cooper and then we have and then we have and then we have.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  So I asked all these questions in confidence.  They said
>> it's a matter for the hearing.  So then we go to have a hearing and
>> you cancel the hearing so I can't ask the questions.  I said fine, we
>> will see you in another court.  Then my friends asked me for my
>> assistance over this rate increase and site meters in particular and
>> the rate increase in general.  I said fine, I will let you guys do the
>> talking and I will advise you because you are not familiar.  Any time
>> that I decide to speak I will because I have a right to.  But since
>> you people want to attack me, I'm all for it, but I need to study what
>> you are up to first.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Mr. Amos, I'm going to cut you off there. So on
>> the request for intervenor status we are going to grant intervenor
>> status to Enbridge Gas New Brunswick, Gerald Bourque, J.D. Irving,
>> Limited, New Clear Free Solutions, Roger Richard, Sussex Sharing Club
>> and Utilities Municipal were the PIs already indicated as deemed to be
>> a party pursuant to Section 49.3 of the EUB Act.  And, Mr. Amos, we
>> will set aside your request to be an intervenor until we have dealt
>> with other matters and we will come back to that a little bit later
>> and I will give you an opportunity to review the material that you
>> would not be familiar with.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I thank you for that.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So before I get to the schedule, are there any other
>> matters that need to be dealt with prior to schedule?  Mr. Furey?
>>
>>   MR. FUREY:  The only other issue -- we don't have to deal with it
>> now, Mr. Chair -- is that we did file as well yesterday -- I filed
>> later in the afternoon a draft proposed confidentiality undertaking
>> for this proceeding, and the parties may not have had a full
>> opportunity to review it, but I pointed out the only changes that have
>> been made from that that was approved in Matter 336.  And so if we
>> were able to, before the end of the day, have an understanding as to
>> whether parties accept that or if there is any objection to the
>> changes that would be helpful.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  And that was circulated to all parties?
>>
>>   MR. FUREY:  Yes, it was.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Just remind me of that before I adjourn this for
>> the day if we don't -- if I don't end up coming back to it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> MR. FUREY:  So, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I fully understood.  Are
>> you suggesting that rebuttal evidence could be filed at any time prior
>> to the hearing or -- I didn't understand if you wanted it early or
>> later?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Well I suppose in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any
>> need for rebuttal evidence so --
>>
>>   MR. FUREY:  Oh, agreed.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- and as I said, the schedules, if you go back into the
>> hearings in 2004, 2005, I don't think the schedules actually even
>> provided for rebuttal evidence.  I think it's something that has kind
>> of crept into the system and it adds time, because if you look at the
>> additional responses for Motions Day on January 30th, you know, then
>> there is this period of time to allow for the filing of rebuttal
>> evidence, but it's actually -- well I guess you are really -- the
>> filing time is noon, so you are really talking about a day and a half
>> to file it.  I don't why the hearing couldn't start the next day.  I
>> am not suggesting we push it back.  But that, for example, is a time
>> lapse that isn't necessary, in my view.  And if we were to move the
>> November 8th date forward, and maybe I would have to canvass the
>> parties, and maybe this might be an opportunity to have a bit of a
>> break so that -- because I think if the November 8th date was moved by
>> a week or whatever, I mean I think the parties will give you very
>> quickly their view on where that needs to go to and where the
>> opportunity -- I have heard from several parties that were concerned
>> about the filing date for intervenor evidence.  I think at least three
>> of them.  So if that could change and we could do something with the
>> rebuttal evidence, we may be able to come up with a schedule that's a
>> bit of a hybrid, you know, of all these -- the concern I have, I
>> understand and I appreciate the comments if we book 15 days, we will
>> use it.  Hopefully, you know, that's not the case.  I am more
>> concerned really about the other side of this is that we book only 10
>> days.  We really needed 11 or 12 and parties just can't seem to find
>> the time to come back until March the 18th or something like that,
>> because their schedules have filled up.  Nobody is going to hold this
>> time for this hearing just in case.  So I really wonder if, you know,
>> we would be cutting it too close.  I think -- I mean, certainly the
>> panel is willing to work long days, you know, whatever is necessary,
>> but there is a point where you start to lose some efficiencies.  You
>> know, if you are starting very early, and you are going very late, I
>> wonder if the people who are participating late in the day about the
>> third or fourth day you are doing that, you know, are you getting the
>> same level of attention as somebody else who is participating when you
>> are fresh.  So I mean, you can only work those hearings, those long
>> days so long until a little bit of fatigue, you know, settles in and I
>> don't want any party to be disadvantaged by that.
>>      So I am going to take a brief adjournment here, say 20 minutes or so,
>> that will give Mr. Amos an opportunity to read the material that was
>> filed yesterday.  And since Mr. Amos has indicated that he is okay
>> with whatever schedule is set, then perhaps the parties that have been
>> declared to be intervenors in this matter can just provide their
>> input.  I think this is very doable to work within those constraints.
>> I am -- I share Ms. Desmond's concern about the AMI.  I would very
>> much liked to have seen AMI come as a separate and distinct hearing,
>> because it is the first capital project this Board has been asked to
>> approve, and as everybody knows, we have a major capital project
>> coming in Mactaquac.  And so in a sense, this would have been very
>> helpful to have us hone our skills on the capital spend.  So I am very
>> mindful, and I am very much in agreement, quite frankly, with what she
>> said.  With those comments, I am going to adjourn for -- it's 10:35.
>> We will come back at 11:00 o'clock, unless the parties have -- well I
>> am going to give Mr. Amos at least 20 minutes anyway.  So we will come
>> back at exactly 11:00 o'clock.  Hopefully, we will have a schedule
>> that can work and then we will hear argument with respect to Mr. Amos'
>> status in this matter.  Thank you.
>>
>>     (Recess)
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  All right, well that -- I guess that break took more like
>> an hour but we have given Mr. Amos a little more time to review the
>> documentation pertaining to him.  So my understanding is that perhaps
>> the parties have come up with a suggested schedule.  Is that correct,
>> Mr. Furey?
>>
>>   MR. FUREY:  That is correct, Mr. Chair.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  With respect to the public day or days, it is the
>> intention of the Board to do this part of the session.  We have had
>> some suggestions from many of the participants that it would be very
>> useful to hear from the public perhaps not just on the day of -- on a
>> hearing day but perhaps in advance, and we are currently looking at
>> whether or not we may be able to do one or more than one, and that
>> seems to be the week that works the best.  So we will simply advise
>> when it is.  I know that the applicant, for example, always wants to
>> be present and it may or may not work out for certain people within
>> the organization that feel it's important for them to be there, but
>> this is the week that we will be scheduling either one or two
>> sessions.
>>      And at this point in time I'm not sure where it will be.  I can tell
>> you that it will not be in Saint John.  It will be somewhere else in
>> the province for sure.
>>      The other thing is with respect to how we structure the hearing, I
>> don't think that we necessarily need to do that today.  I think we
>> need to set the days aside.  I think it would be -- I am going to
>> encourage the parties to see if in fact they can attempt to come up
>> with a schedule that works best for all concerned.  We know that there
>> are experts that have been retained by a couple of the intervenors and
>> perhaps it will be by more than a couple of intervenors.  And so to
>> try to schedule it so that again it minimizes costs I think would be
>> useful.  So rather than establishing a date to do that, you know,
>> along the way, for example, there are motions days that don't get used
>> or just some other time, it doesn't need to be formal, but I think it
>> would be useful for parties to talk about that.  We -- the intention
>> of the Board would be that we would start with the GRA and move on to
>> the capital project, you know, second, but, you know, if parties want
>> to do it differently then, you know, we need to hear that.
>>      So just I guess going down the list of things that we need to talk
>> about, the confidentiality agreement has been circulated.  Also there
>> was a three line explanation of the changes in this confidentiality
>> agreement from previous confidentiality agreements.  So I don't know
>> if the parties have had enough time to consider the form of that
>> agreement or not or have any comments.  So I will just go down through
>> the list.  Mr. Amos, have you looked at the agreement?
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Yes.  I had just a -- I had a quick glance at it and I
>> had an issue with it in the 357 matter.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  And I sent an email to Mr. Furey, et cetera, and I said
>> don't give me anything that's confidential, and therefore I can't be
>> accused of disclosing something I shouldn't.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  He never answered me.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So your position really is you are not signing it
>> no matter what form it's in if it requires you to keep information --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  This is a public hearing.  This is a publicly owned
>> corporation billing the public, and if you don't want the public to
>> know something, then I don't want to know.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  I understand.  So you don't have a position of the form
>> itself.  You are not going to sign a confidentiality document.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I find the form offensive in and of itself.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  All right.  Thank you.  Mr. Volpe?
>>
>>   MR. VOLPE:  No other comment, Mr. Chair.  Thank you.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Bourque?
>>
>>   MR. BOURQUE:  I understand that these are public hearings and that
>> why is this information being kept from the public is my question.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Well, Mr. Bourque, the issue here really is the form of
>> the confidentiality agreement.  Legislation provides for information
>> that of a certain nature can be -- there can be a claim for
>> confidentiality.  There can be challenges to those claims.  But there
>> is a process.  So the issue really is the form.  Do you have any issue
>> with the form?
>>
>>   MR. BOURQUE:  I'm not really sure on that.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Thank you.  Mr. Stewart?
>>
>>   MR. STEWART:  Mr. Chairman, to be honest, I haven't really had much
>> of an opportunity -- I know Mr. Furey sent that yesterday afternoon --
>> to have a look.  So I did note in his email, you know, the difference,
>> but I'm really not in a position to say I'm fine with it at this
>> particular moment in time.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So are you asking for some additional time to provide
>> comments to the Board or are you satisfied if the Board makes a
>> decision this morning?
>>
>>   MR. STEWART:  I'm satisfied if the Board makes a decision.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. Rouse?
>>
>>   MR. ROUSE:  No comments.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Richard?
>>
>>   MR. RICHARD:  Oui monsieur président.  Mais je pense que je
>>     n’ai pas reçu la formule moi aussi parce que j’ai trompé
>>     en être poursuivi.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. Stoll?
>>
>>   MR. STOLL:  We are satisfied if the Board just makes a decision this
>> morning.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Ms. Black?
>>
>>   MR. BLACK:  I have no issues with the form.  Thank you.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Ms. Desmond, Board staff don't need to sign
>> it anyway, do they?
>>
>>   MS. DESMOND:  We don't, no, Mr. Chair, although I will just make one
>> comment and that is I think under our Rules of Procedure there is a
>> confidentiality undertaking pursuant to Rule 6.5.  So I appreciate
>> this is perhaps a document we have used historically but it may be
>> something going forward the Board may want to turn its mind to whether
>> or not there is a standard undertaking that can be used for all
>> matters.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  That's an excellent idea and perhaps we might even do a
>> practice note or something with reference to that.  Okay.
>>      Well having heard from the parties this morning, the document that
>> has been put forward as the proposed confidentiality agreement in fact
>> will be the one that will be approved for use in this proceeding.
>>      One other preliminary issue would be the exhibit list.  We typically
>> mark the documents that have been filed up to the present time as
>> exhibits in this matter.  Anybody have any objection to that?  All
>> right.  There being no objection then, the exhibit list that has been
>> circulated and for the benefit of the court reporter, that is a five
>> page document entitled, Exhibit List, and it starts with exhibit 1.01,
>> Notice of Application, and it goes right through to document 3.01,
>> Affidavit of Publishing, and each of those documents will become an
>> exhibit in this proceeding under the heading NBP 1.01, NBP 1.02, et
>> cetera.  So I don't think, since nobody has any objections, it's
>> necessary to read out the entire list.
>>      I also understand that -- I believe it's in the list here -- that the
>> affidavit -- just for the record, exhibit 3.01, the Affidavit of
>> Publishing has been filed verifying that in fact NB Power has complied
>> with the Board Order with respect to publishing a notification of this
>> matter.
>>      So other than the issue relating to Mr. Amos' status as an
>> intervenor, are there any other issues that we need to deal with this
>> morning?
>>
>>   MR. FUREY:  I don't believe so, Mr. Chair.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So turning then to the objection to Mr. Amos being
>> named as an intervenor or becoming an intervenor in this matter -- all
>> right.  So, Mr. Furey, we have looked at your notice of objection to
>> the intervenor request and if I may attempt to summarize it, it really
>> relies on two grounds, and I think the first three paragraphs in your
>> notice of objection deal with Rule 3.2.2 of the Rules of Procedure
>> indicating the party must demonstrate a substantial interest in the
>> proceeding and an intent to participate actively and responsibly.  And
>> so there is a responsibility there to show what their interest is.
>> The second part of your objection here deals with the requirement to
>> participate responsibly.
>>      With respect to the first part of your objection, Mr. Amos this
>> morning clarified, you know, the basis of what his interest is in the
>> proceeding and essentially how that interest justified the granting of
>> intervenor status.  Do you have anything further to say on that aspect
>> of it or is essentially most of the objection -- certainly by volume
>> here most of the objection seems to be on the contention here that
>> perhaps he may not participate responsibly.
>>
>>   MR. FUREY:  Yes.  That would be the focus of my submissions here this
>> morning.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  And would you agree that Mr. Amos has in fact essentially
>> fulfilled the obligations of the first part of what had been your
>> objection?
>>
>>   MR. FUREY:  I would.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So with respect to the duty to participate
>> responsibly, you filed documentation which has been provided to all
>> the parties and the Board of course has read it, as I'm sure others
>> have.  Do you -- I guess it's your objection.  So is there anything
>> that you want to highlight here or anything further you want to add?
>>
>>   MR. FUREY:  Yes.  If I might have a few minutes to do that, I would
>> appreciate it, Mr. Chair.
>>      So I mean, I guess the starting point is what -- what is the
>> requirement -- what is the content of the requirement to participate
>> in a responsible fashion, and the rules don't -- don't give us any
>> further guidance on that.  But I would suggest that the content of
>> that requirement is that it is an obligation of an intervenor to raise
>> issues that are relevant to the jurisdiction of the Board in the
>> proceeding and not issues that are extraneous or completely unrelated,
>> and to do so -- while recognizing that we are in an adversarial
>> process, to do so in a respectful and civil fashion.  And our
>> submission is that the material on which we rely, which is all Mr.
>> Amos' -- either all of Mr. Amos' documents or the transcript of a
>> motion that was argued on October 5th of this year demonstrates I
>> would say quite clearly that Mr. Amos is not capable of that type of
>> reasonable participation in the process.
>>      And generally, and I said this in paragraph 5 of the notice of the
>> objection -- generally a review of Mr. Amos' documents discloses a
>> pattern of behaviour that is confrontational in nature and is
>> characterized by unsubstantiated allegations of unethical or illegal
>> behaviour by various political figures, judges, lawyers, law
>> enforcement officials.
>>      I think it's worth noting that Mr. Amos' own documents show that he
>> has, on at least one occasion and perhaps two, been banned or barred
>> from the grounds of the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly on the
>> basis of harassment of MLAs, officers and staff of the Legislative
>> Assembly.  Having been so barred, he brought a complaint against the
>> members of the Fredericton City police force to the Police Commission,
>> that was subsequently dismissed, relating to their involvement in
>> barring him from the Legislative Assembly.
>>      I am going to spend a little time, Mr. Chair, with respect to Mr.
>> Amos' complaint against Judge Henrik Tonning to the New Brunswick
>> Judicial Council, and that appears at appendix D of the objection.
>> And in particular two pages in, there is an affidavit that Mr. Amos
>> submitted in a provincial court case.  And in that affidavit -- and
>> I'm going to very quickly move through this -- at paragraph 9 he first
>> deals with Prosecutor James McAvity and he indicates that Prosecutor
>> McAvity should have been questioned as to his malice and/or
>> competence.  So he is questioning the malice and competence of the
>> Crown Prosecutor.  He goes on to say he certainly would not wish the
>> likes of Ms. Gallagher defending his rights or interests before the
>> court.  At paragraph 22 he states, it appears to me that not only are
>> the actions of David Lutz malicious, but they are fraudulent as well.
>> In my opinion he has no right to practice law for a fee but in fact he
>> should be in jail.  And at paragraph 31 he speaks of a response he got
>> from the RCMP External Review Committee which he viewed was
>> predictable and unsatisfactory.
>>      And just to go back to the beginning of that appendix, the initial
>> complaint on the first page of that appendix, at the end of the -- at
>> the end of the first -- second full paragraph, Mr. Amos makes it clear
>> in his complaint that he is referring to proceedings in order to cover
>> up the wrongful acts of the court and David Lutz.  In the next
>> paragraph he points out that he is already complaining about Brad
>> Green and his conduct.  Now at that time Brad Green would have been
>> Attorney General.
>>      So I wanted to take a moment to point those out because that is the
>> pattern of Mr. Amos' involvement in legal proceedings.  It is to
>> question the ethical or legal behaviour of virtually every lawyer or
>> decision maker involved in the proceeding.  That is his pattern.  It
>> continues.  If you go to the next exhibit, or next appendix, Appendix
>> F, is a direction obviously from a judge of the Federal Court of
>> Appeal to the Appeal Registry.  Please advise the parties that Mr.
>> Amos has the right to submit a brief summary not to exceed five pages,
>> to explain the exact conflict that in his view arises in this matter
>> with any of the judges assigned to this appeal and to submit any
>> additional documents that are relevant to the issue.
>>      So in an ongoing -- and this is dated June 8th 2017 -- in an ongoing
>> action or appeal in the Federal Court of Appeal, Mr. Amos is alleging
>> conflict of the judges assigned to the appeal.  And that pattern
>> continues, I would submit, in the present -- in his appearances before
>> this Board.  The final appendix, Appendix I, to the notice of
>> objection is a copy of the transcript of the hearing of Mr. Amos'
>> motion in Matter 357.  And I think it's useful to remember that that
>> motion was a motion to deal with the timing of the hearing of Matter
>> 357.  The Board had previously granted NB Power's application or
>> motion to adjourn the proceeding on terms and Mr. Amos essentially
>> wanted that reheard.  So not something that you would regard as a
>> contentious matter being the timing of the hearing.
>>      But Mr. Amos' comments to the Board on that occasion again can only
>> be characterized as confrontational.  I reviewed the transcript
>> several times before today.  There is not really an argument in there
>> that was germane to the issue of the timing of the hearing.  There was
>> a lot of extraneous material.  And at the conclusion of his remarks,
>> and I have specifically placed this in the notice of objection, when
>> the Board Chair asked Mr. Amos if he had anything further to say, his
>> reply was essentially to suggest to the Board Chair, and I will read
>> what he said.
>>      Yes.  Can you think of one good reason why I don't sue you, Mr.
>> Gorman?  You have my documents.  Do you understand what are on file in
>> your Board?  Do you not see where I am already in federal court suing
>> the Queen?  Did I not properly introduce myself before you allowed me
>> to be an intervenor?  Did I not explain my issues to this Board in no
>> uncertain terms on June 15th?  And he is referring to an email that he
>> had sent to a number of parties on June 15th.
>>      I think we can expect, and we have seen it again here this morning,
>> we can expect more of the same, arguments unrelated to the issue
>> before the Board presented in a confrontational manner, which will, I
>> would suggest to you, eventually turn to actions in other courts.  The
>> pattern is that when Mr. Amos runs against a lawyer who acts against
>> him, runs against a decision-maker who doesn't agree with him, then
>> that issue is relitigated in other courts.  And while I think the
>> standard here is simply one of is Mr. Amos likely to participate in a
>> reasonable fashion, I do think it's useful to compare the situation to
>> situations where courts have dealt with so-called vexatious litigants.
>>      So I am not suggesting that that's the standard that be applied here
>> -- that's not the standard to be applied here.  But I did submit to
>> the Board yesterday afternoon a copy of a decision of Mr. Justice
>> Morrison.  It's a very recent decision in which he dealt with an issue
>> of determination of a vexatious litigant.  And at page -- the page
>> numbering is a little weird in this document.  I am looking at
>> paragraph 34 of the decision.  It's on what's referred to as page 68,
>> but it's paragraph 34 of the decision.  And Mr. Justice Morrison noted
>> that counsel on that hearing were unable to provide him with any New
>> Brunswick cases considering the concept of a vexatious litigant, but
>> they were able to refer him to an Ontario decision in Lang Michener
>> Lash Johnston v Fabian.  And in that case, there is an outlining of
>> the factors to be considered in determining whether or not a party
>> meets the threshold of a vexatious litigant.  And I won't go through
>> all of them, there are seven principles set out there, but (d) in my
>> view is of particular application here.
>>      And Justice Henry said, it is a general characteristic of vexatious
>> proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward
>> into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with
>> actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the
>> litigant in earlier proceedings.
>>      And that's precisely Mr. Amos' pattern in the documents that he,
>> himself, has disclosed to the Board.  While he has here this morning
>> indicated to the Board that his interest revolves around issues of AMI
>> in particular, and the expenses and capital associated with the AMI, I
>> submit he is not capable of putting those positions forward in a
>> cogent, respectful, reasonable manner.  His own history demonstrates
>> that and his conduct before this Board to date confirms it.
>>      And so while we are reluctant to make a request of this nature -- I
>> mean, we have had many lay participants in my time before the Board.
>> Mr. Rouse is here with us again this year.  I have never had any doubt
>> about the issue that Mr. Rouse wanted to talk about.  He has always
>> been very clear.  Mr. Hickey has been with us in the past.  Mr. Smith,
>> on behalf of the Sussex Sharing Club is with us.  I have no doubt as
>> to what the issue Mr. Smith wants to raise.  All have -- while there
>> certainly have been some adversarial proceedings around those
>> interventions, all have proceeded in a respectful fashion.  And so
>> while it is not a step that we like to take, my submission is that it
>> is in the public interest not to permit Mr. Amos to participate as an
>> intervenor.  He will delay and frustrate this Board, and he will
>> harass the participants -- other participants in the proceeding.  He
>> will cause unnecessary aggravation and probably expense.  And so for
>> those reasons, Mr. Chair, we submit that he not be granted intervenor
>> status.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Furey.  So, Mr. Amos, now you were
>> provided this morning with an hour to review Mr. Furey's documents
>> that he filed with the Board, and I think it was three or four pages
>> of documents.  The balance of documents were ones that you had filed
>> in the past.  So you have had an opportunity to review his submission?
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Absolutely.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  And you, of course, heard Mr. Furey's comments that he
>> has just concluded.  So you know what the issue is that he raises?
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I heard every word he said.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So do you have a -- do you have some comments
>> about what he is asking for?
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Yes, Mr. Gorman, I do.  First off, I am grateful that he
>> filed my documents in this matter.  However, he shouldn't cherry pick.
>> If he is going to file my documents, he should file all that he has
>> received.  But dealing with the exhibits that he has filed, he has now
>> made a federal case out of a 2 percent rate hike.  I remind Mr. Furey
>> that murder is a capital crime and when he worked for the Attorney
>> General of New Brunswick in 2004, who was Brad Green, his boss
>> received evidence of murder.  Brad Green acknowledged it.  He now sits
>> on the bench of the Court of Appeal.
>>      Anyway, I had ran for Parliament in 2004, the 38th Parliament against
>> a member of your Board, John Herron.  That was when it was the Public
>> Utilities Board.  David Young, who worked for another Crown
>> Corporation, who is a senior advisor to your Board now, I believe got
>> fired because I complained of him, because he wouldn't allow me to
>> speak on the radio and give me equal time as my political opponents,
>> just like Mr. Furey doesn't want me to speak before the Board today,
>> even though I am a stakeholder in this hearing.  He has no more
>> standing here than I do, other than he collects a big pay cheque that
>> my taxpayer funds are paying.  But as an officer of the court, he is
>> obliged to uphold the law.  He filed my documents in this matter.  I
>> did not.  He did.  Then he says I am vexatious.  I am surprised he
>> didn't call me frivolous as well.  The Crown usually calls me that.  I
>> understand the term, vexatious.  He is the man who is vexatious.
>>      In the 357 Matter, if we go first things first, there is a
>> transcript, which I have uploaded, you can review it or I can read it
>> to you.  You asked me why I was intervening. Exhibit A of his
>> documents, I didn't know who Mr. Furey was.  I had no idea what
>> lawyers or what was going on in 357, except on June 14th I heard on
>> the radio Mr. Hyslop had a motion before this Board in a pre-hearing
>> to be paid to help his assistant.  I saw red.  I remembered Mr. Hyslop
>> from the PUB.  I remember Mr. Hyslop when I ran in Saint John Harbour,
>> while he run against Abe LeBlanc.  I remember I was intervening in an
>> NEB hearing and arguing Cedric Haines of NB Power while he worked for
>> the Attorney General.  I remember talking to him about murdered
>> Indians.  That said, all I had issues with was Mr. Hyslop wanting paid
>> again.  I had checked from CBC and some years he was paid like
>> $700,000.  I had issues with him in 2006. David Young wouldn't let me
>> speak before the PUB Board even in a public hearing.  So I had to send
>> a farmer.  That said, I am asking Hyslop, you are the Public
>> Intervenor, what do you know of my concerns?  I had concerns about the
>> refurbishment of Lepreau, Coleson Cove.  If you go on Charles
>> LeBlanc's blog from April of 2006, you can even see I was dealing with
>> a lawyer named Richard Costello -- same last name as you, sir -- who
>> worked for McInnes Cooper, who was hired by Venezuela to check with
>> the PUB as to when a pipeline went from the Irving refinery to Coleson
>> Cove.  I wanted to know about that too.  So I talked to Mr. Costello.
>> The email between Mr. Costello and I is still in Charles LeBlanc's
>> blog from 2006.
>>      While I was running for Parliament in Fredericton, and I doubt that
>> Mr. Furey voted for me, I was running against Andy Scott, Minister of
>> Indian Affairs and he worked for the Attorney General for Indian
>> Affairs.  Now I went to high school with Andy Scott.  Barb Baird used
>> to be Brad Green's boss.  I went to high school with her too.  Now I
>> don't know if you guys know who I am, but many people in this neck of
>> the woods do.  My brother-in-law's law firm partner helped Peter
>> MacKay merge with Mr. Harper's party. When I sued Americans over
>> taxation and about improper tax accountants like KPMG, Grant Thornton,
>> ringing any bells? That was in 2002.  I am glad he brought up the
>> Department of Homeland Security.  Those are the guys that tried to
>> take me to Cuba in 2003 after I started winning lawsuits. You are
>> right, I sue people that don't do their job.  Particularly, the people
>> that are well paid to act in our best interests.  I file
>> whistle-blower forms with the U.S. tax man and they try to arrest me.
>> You are right, I sue them.  A lawyer calls me a liar, well he better
>> check my work before he goes too far.
>>      Anyway, NB Power, they have a mandate to uphold.  It's a Crown
>> corporation.  David Alward, 2013 comes out with a new Act.  Got to
>> follow the Act, fellows.  Now this hearing 357 was supposed to be
>> within three years.  Now I don't know -- I don't pretend to know
>> something I don't.  All I heard was Hyslop wanted on the gravy train.
>> I took issue with that.  I email the guy that speaks for the Chairman
>> of the Board.  I have spoke personally to Ed Barrett, personally.  I
>> have spoken to Mr. Scott, his assistant.  He has a very funny voice
>> mail.  Mr. Scott loves hearing me speak on the radio and on
>> television.  Mr. Scott was the guy I knew had the ear of the Chairman.
>> Now I served Derek Burney, who used to work with Mr. Mulroney, just
>> like his partner, Hugh Segal, right.  I had served Derek Burney my
>> stuff after I ran for Parliament in 2006, got a signature.  Why would
>> I do that?  Because NB Power had hired Simpson Bartlett & Thatcher in
>> New York to sue Venezuela.  Do you realize that Robert Mueller's
>> lawyer comes from Simpson Bartlett & Thatcher?  Are you realizing
>> what's going on?  Have you read the emails I sent you?  He talks about
>> me in federal court on June 8th.  You are right I was in federal
>> court, May 24th. Have you reviewed the documents I filed in federal
>> court since that time?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, I am going to interrupt you for a moment.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Murder is a capital crime, sir.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, the issue that Mr. Furey raises --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Is that I am vexatious.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Well he says that he is reluctant to make this objection,
>> but he -- in his view, he says you are not capable of putting
>> positions forward in a cogent manner.  You are not --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Are you saying that?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- you are not speaking to the issue, which -- can I --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  All right.  Am I -- am I a person born and raised in this
>> province?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  The issue here --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Did I run for Parliament five times?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, it would be appreciated --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Are you aware of why I am barred?  He brought it up.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, it would be appreciated if you would just
>> listen for a moment.  So the issue here is whether or not you can
>> stick to the issues that have to be dealt with in this particular
>> matter, which is a general rate application.  We are dealing with the
>> spending --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Have you read the filings in this matter?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Sir, would you just wait till I finish, please?
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  No, I am arguing him and you.  You are on his side
>> clearly.  Now your Vice-Chair will probably have the job in February,
>> used to work for City Hall.  Do you remember Mr. Nugent and I, sir?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Sir, do you want to provide us with your --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  You have many of my documents that he did not file.  I
>> sent them to you by email.  Do you remember receiving the emails from
>> me in 2007, sir?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So one of the things that Mr. Furey says is --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Do you remember when Jack Keir appointed you?  I
>> introduced myself to you then.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Sir, excuse me, but one of the things he says is you are
>> not able to react in a --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  You can't answer a question.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- in a respectful fashion and you are not paying
>> attention to the protocol here today.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  All right.  Let me ask you a question, sir?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  No, that's not what we are here for.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Have you understood one word I have said any time we have
>> met?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, do you have anything to add to the record with
>> respect to your respectful participation in this matter, in this
>> process?  Mr. Furey says that you don't have the ability to stay on
>> topic.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Are you saying that?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  I am telling you what the argument is that has
>>     been put forward.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I know what he said.  I am asking you?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  And the argument that has been put forward is you don't
>> have the ability to --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I heard what he said.  I told you that.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- stay on topic and to act in a respectful manner.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  All right.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Can you give me any information on that issue?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  You are the Chairman of the Board.  This is not your
>> decision solely.  There is a Vice-Chair and another man.  One man is
>> an accountant and the other a lawyer.  Now I don't know if the other
>> two fellows read my documents.  I certainly hope that they did.  The
>> man who is a chartered accountant should understand about Kevin Dancy
>> and I.  He should certainly have understood what I am doing in federal
>> court.  Now I thanked him for filing documents, but one interesting
>> document he brought up in particular was the man I went to college
>> with, Henrik Tonning.  He is a personal friend of mine.
>>      Now if he had read that entire affidavit, I had been summoned to the
>> court by a lawyer to file an affidavit.  He failed to mention that.
>> But Henrik Tonning and I were once very good friends.  That affidavit
>> that he just put in this matter no longer exists in provincial court.
>> That's fraud practiced against me by the court.  Yes, I have contempt
>> against officers of the court that fail to uphold the law.  Yes, I do
>> not hesitate in suing lawyers.  I have sued more lawyers, and law
>> firms, and attorney generals than probably anyone else on the planet.
>> I am before the federal court right now and you guys will be mentioned
>> in my next lawsuit that will be filed by Christmas.  Thank you for
>> making it a federal matter.  That said my two friends have standing in
>> this matter as much as I do.  You work for us.
>>      I have my rights to my opinion and I don't have to suffer insults.
>> Ms. Harrison signed this document.  I wonder if she has even read it,
>> but I consider it her insult.  He is merely her lawyer.  Now his name
>> is Furey.  I served Brian Furey in Newfoundland.  He was President of
>> the Law Society in Newfoundland.  I served George Furey, he is Speaker
>> of the Senate.  He is from Newfoundland.  I know where this is going,
>> federal court.  As I told you, you are not a court.  And if you want
>> to argue my documents, we will argue before a judge that I do not have
>> a conflict of interest with.
>>      Now I have a bone to pick with many judges in federal court and a lot
>> in the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, but not all.  And not
>> every judge or every lawyer is a crook.  Some of them are actually
>> friends of mine.  Only problem I have with them is they think I can't
>> pull this off.  That the system is just too powerful.  Well could be.
>> Call me crazy if you wish, I can be as crazy as I want to be.  How do
>> you explain my having FBI wiretap tapes of the mob and three weeks
>> after he mentioned about me being in federal court, the outgoing
>> Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. said beware of the mob.  Bob Paulson said
>> that.  And I am the guy with all the tapes.  You got a huge ethical
>> dilemma, sir.  You are an accountant.  You don't.  You do.  You are
>> probably the next Chair.
>>      You can do with me what you will.  I will still advise my friends
>> about their concerns about this 2 percent rate hike and his concerns
>> about meters we don't need.  They are ratepayers.  They have the right
>> to their opinion and they have the right to have me for a friend and
>> take my counsel whether you want to argue me or not.  Now he can
>> insult me.  You haven't yet.  I was grateful on the 14th when I
>> emailed Bob Scott.  I didn't email Ms. Harrison.  I emailed David
>> Young, who I knew, your senior advisor.  And I emailed Bob Scott, the
>> guy who likes to make fun of me.  Ed Barrett's spokesperson.  I did
>> not think I could intervene in 357.  The nice lady acting as Clerk
>> said what, would you like to intervene?  I said what, can I?  She said
>> well the hearings haven't started yet.  It's up to the Board.  It was
>> a surprise to me.  I wasn't looking to intervene.  And I said sure, I
>> would love to.  I love to argue lawyers.  It was Mr. Hyslop that was
>> my target.  That said I come, I give the nice lady my intervenor form.
>> Mr. Furey sees no problem with me.  He has a problem with my friend,
>> because he is a leader of a political party, but you guys have no
>> problem allowing David Coon to be an intervenor and he is a seated
>> MLA.  That said, it is what it is.  You guys allowed me to intervene
>> with exactly the same information verbatim that I did this time.  It
>> was the same document.  That said, you allowed me.  I was grateful.
>> When I introduced myself, he more or less quoted me.  Anyway I can --
>> you can review the transcript or I can read it into the record in this
>> matter, but I was grateful and I said -- well let me read it, I should
>> put it in the record then.
>>      This is from the transcript of the 15th after you were done with my
>> friend, Mr. Bourque.  Chairman -- this is page 7, line 21 of the
>> transcript, June 15th.  Chairman.  Thank you.  I don't see anything
>> similar on Mr. Amos' intervenor request.  So Mr. Amos, just to clarify
>> you -- clarify, you are also requesting to intervene personally on
>> behalf of an organization?  That was your question.  Page 8, line 1.
>> I am here in my own name, speaking on my own interests in this matter.
>> And most of the other intervenors and their lawyers know exactly who I
>> am and why I am here.  And I emailed them -- I emailed Mr. Toner, Mr.
>> Hyslop.  I emailed Bob Scott.  I didn't know who Mr. Furey was from a
>> hole in the wall, right.  Well, Mr. Amos, are you a ratepayer of NB
>> Power?  Mr. Amos:  I was born and raised in this province.  I have
>> paid my share of power bills and taxes that support this Board and NB
>> Power.  I have issues with NB Power and this Board.
>>      And I was speaking mainly of John Herron, the guy I ran against in
>> 2004, and David Young, your senior advisor.  I didn't know you.
>> Didn't know the rest of you.
>>      So your intervention though is in relation to the rate design
>> application?  My interest in this matter, I stand and speak only for
>> myself.  No Public Intervenor appointed by the Province or this Board
>> speaks for me.  I speak for myself.  Now the lady is the Public
>> Intervenor, she is with McInnes Cooper, same law firm as Richard
>> Costello.  The same law firm as Len Hoyt, the guy that picked the
>> Cabinet.  He is also the lawyer for Enbridge.  I see a little conflict
>> of interest going there.  I see NB Power hires Stewart McKelvey to
>> litigate over Lepreau problems and yet the same law firm is hired by
>> J.D. Irving to muscle this Board to get Mr. Irving wants.  He brought
>> up Mr. Hickey.  I have talked to Mr. Hickey for hours.  Mr. Hickey has
>> some pretty serious issues.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, please hear me out.  We have listened to you
>> now for 20 minutes or so, still haven't heard your response to how you
>> can participate in this proceeding in a respectful manner and stick to
>> the issues.  The issue here really is whether or not you will stick to
>> the issues if you are granted intervenor status and whether or not you
>> will act in a respectful manner.  I need to have your response to that
>> issue.  Everything else you have talked about is off topic.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  You just interrupted me, sir.  Now I was respectful the
>> whole time any matter in this.  Mr. Hyslop, you asked for submissions,
>> I gave submissions.  You guys made the decision.  Mr. Hyslop wasn't
>> allowed his pay cheque.  Then I thought I was done.  He and Mr.
>> Russell invited me to a hearing at a Stewart McKelvey boardroom to
>> talk to Mr. Todd about his report --
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, I am sorry, I am going to have to interrupt
>> again.  You are not talking --
>>
>>    MR. AMOS:  You are interrupting me because you don't want me on --
>> to put this on the record.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- you are not talking about --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I am trying to address your question.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, I am directing you to talk about this -- the
>> issue before us --
>>   MR. AMOS:  I am telling you my answer.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- in this matter?
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I am telling you my answer.  I was invited to a hearing,
>> Chatham House Rule, so to speak, nothing leaves the room.  Mr. Furey
>> and Mr. Russell -- Mr. Furey wanted me to talk to him before this
>> meeting.  I saw NB Power on my websites downloading my documents.  I
>> go to this hearing.  I am saying to Mr. Russell, where is Mr. Furey?
>> He don't call.  He don't write.  I am not going to sign any disclosure
>> document, right.  Don't allow me in the room if there is something you
>> think I am going to spill the beans on.  I talked to Mr. Todd before
>> he came from Toronto.  That said, they picked my brain at the hearing.
>> I say conflict of interest, McInnes Cooper, Stewart McKelvey, et
>> cetera, et cetera.  I want to know things having to do with 20 percent
>> equity, where they arrived at that number, what the equity was?  Now I
>> had many questions in confidence.  Mr. Todd -- I am asking Mr. Russell
>> these questions -- Mr. Todd keeps interrupting me and says that's a
>> matter for a hearing.  I said fine, I will ask the hearing -- I will
>> ask before a hearing.  So then after that, Mr. Furey files a motion
>> kill the hearing.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  So, Mr. Amos, one --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Kill the hearing.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- Mr. Amos --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  You are the guy who killed the hearing.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- Mr. Amos, one last time I am going to give you an
>> opportunity to address the issue of how you can participate in a
>> respectful and responsible manner.  If you don't want to talk about
>> that topic, then we will take an adjournment and we will consider the
>> request that Mr. Furey has made.
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Have I been disrespectful to this Board?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, can you stick to --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  Have I been disrespectful to this Board?
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- sir -- sir, can -- sir, would you -- you have
>> interrupted constantly and I would like you to --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  All right.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- do you --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  I will leave it in your hands.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  -- do you have anything --
>>
>>   MR. AMOS:  You decide.
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  All right.  We will take a brief recess.
>>     (Recess)
>>
>>   CHAIRMAN:  All right.  I will now give the decision of the Board on
>> this matter.
>>      Mr. Amos seeks intervenor status in Matter 375.  NB Power objects to
>> his intervention claiming his conduct during the hearing of a motion
>> in Matter 357 was confrontational and that his arguments lacked any
>> connection to the issues before the Board.  The Board agrees with that
>> assessment.
>>      In the present matter, Mr. Amos was given ample opportunity to put
>> forward a case that would support a respectful and responsible
>> intervention.  He failed to do so, rolling forward issues raised in
>> Matter 357 and not addressing the issue before us today.
>>      Mr. Amos states that the interests he would bring before the Board
>> are those raised by Mr. Bourque and Mr. Richard.  The Board is
>> satisfied that those two intervenors can adequately represent those
>> issues.  In addition, those issues will undoubtedly be addressed by
>> the Public Intervenor and others.
>>      The Board finds on a balance of probability that Mr. Amos will not
>> participate in this matter in a respectful and responsible manner.  As
>> a result, the Board will exercise its discretion and refuse intervenor
>> status to Mr. Amos.  Intervention is encouraged but it must be
>> responsible.
>>      Mr. Amos may participate in the public session which date will be
>> announced shortly.  But again he is reminded that any presentation
>> must be done in a respectful and responsible manner.
>>      Finally, Mr. Amos had indicated that he wished to assist his two
>> colleagues that are sitting with him today.  And certainly the Board
>> has no issue with that at all.  But Mr. Amos will have no status at
>> the hearing in terms of cross-examination or making any argument.
>>      So that is the decision of this Panel with respect to the status of Mr.
>> Amos.
>>      Are there any other issues to deal with today?  There being no other
>> issues, then we will adjourn.
>>
>>     (Adjourned)
>>
>>                         Certified to be a true
>>                         transcript of the proceedings
>>                         of this hearing as recorded
>>                         by me, to the best of my ability.
>>
>

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:49:35 -0300
Subject: YO Higgy Methinks Roy Wiggins has your blogging buddy Chucky
Leblanc and many Liberals confused N'esy Pas???
To: voteryancullins@outlook.com, roy4fgl@gmail.com, "kris.austin"
<kris.austin@gnb.ca>, "rick.desaulniers"<rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca>,
"Holland, Mike (LEG)"<mike.holland@gnb.ca>, "Mark.Blakely"
<Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "mary.wilson"<mary.wilson@gnb.ca>,
"carl.urquhart"<carl.urquhart@gnb.ca>, "Stephen.Horsman"
<Stephen.Horsman@gnb.ca>, "Stephane.vaillancourt"
<Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "robert.gauvin"
<robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>, "Roger.L.Melanson"<roger.l.melanson@gnb.ca>,
Frank.McKenna@td.com, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, terry.seguin@cbc.ca,
Charles.Murray@gnb.ca, aip-aivp@gnb.ca, mark@huddle.today,
perry.brad@radioabl.ca, "sylvie.gadoury"
<sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca>, jefferson@ufoparty.ca,
cfta@eastlink.ca, votemaxime@gmail.com,
heather.collins.panb@gmail.com, lglemieux@rogers.com, nobyrne@unb.ca
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "Robert. Jones"
<Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, "ron.tremblay2"<ron.tremblay2@gmail.com>

Posted by MotorcycleManiacLtdat 14:48

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

3 comments:

MotorcycleManiacLtd11 September 2020 at 07:41
I was wondering the same thing

Delete
MotorcycleManiacLtd12 September 2020 at 09:41
YO Mr Wannabe Unknown aka Ray Oliver aka Mr Jones aka Brandon Manitoba etc Say Hey to Higgy and his Irving buddies for me will Ya?
Delete