Web Notifications

SaltWire.com would like to send you notifications for breaking news alerts.

Activate notifications?

Letter: What does full standing at the Muskrat Falls inquiry really mean?

Commissioner Richard LeBlanc at the first day of hearings Friday of the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project, at the Beothuck Building in St. John’s.
Commissioner Richard LeBlanc at the first day of hearings Friday of the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project, at the Beothuck Building in St. John’s. - Joe Gibbons

STORY CONTINUES BELOW THESE SALTWIRE VIDEOS

Sidney Crosby & Drake Batherson NS Showdown #hockey #halifax #sports #penguins #ottawa

Watch on YouTube: "Sidney Crosby & Drake Batherson NS Showdown #hockey #halifax #sports #penguins #ottawa"

Why is it that “full standing” at the Muskrat Falls Commission of Inquiry seems to mean one thing for Ed Martin and something altogether different for the Muskrat Falls Concerned Citizens Coalition — the people’s voice?

On reviewing the commissioner’s recently posted decisions with respect to the granting of “full standing,” I was struck by the granting of virtually unrestricted “full standing” to some (Ed Martin, for example) and the granting of what appears to be “conditional” full standing to others.
While the commissioner has generally reminded applicants to comply with existing rules of procedure — the commissioner premised the granting of full standing to the Muskrat Falls Concerned Citizens Coalition on it being “required to comply with limiting (its) representations, questioning and submissions to those matters within the Commission’s mandate as interpreted by me” — the commissioner (emphasis added).
A “conditional” full standing would allow the commissioner to limit (I would suggest very broadly) the number, type, extent, strength, area of application, etc. of the citizen coalition representations.
In short, the granting of a conditional full standing to the Concerned Citizens’ Coalition is an illusion — like granting full standing with one hand while taking it away with the other.
Martin, however, has not been so limited. He has not been required “to comply with limiting (his) representations, questioning and submissions (to) within the commission’s mandate as interpreted by me” (the commissioner).
Martin retains his full rights as determined by the terms of reference. The Muskrat Falls Concerned Citizens’ Coalition (the people’s voice), however, has been stifled (and hobbled).

Some say that “where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit.”

So, on the commissioner’s decision to grant a limited, lower, conditional “full standing” to the peoples’ voice, what if anything does that say about where he stands on the non-prejudicial principle of judicial fairness?

Perhaps we already know.

Maurice E. Adams

Paradise

Op-ed Disclaimer

SaltWire Network welcomes letters on matters of public interest for publication. All letters must be accompanied by the author’s name, address and telephone number so that they can be verified. Letters may be subject to editing. The views expressed in letters to the editor in this publication and on SaltWire.com are those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinions or views of SaltWire Network or its Publisher. SaltWire Network will not publish letters that are defamatory, or that denigrate individuals or groups based on race, creed, colour or sexual orientation. Anonymous, pen-named, third-party or open letters will not be published.

Share story:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT