Da Legal Stuff...

All commentaries published on Web Talk are the opinions of the contributor(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of any other individuals, groups or organizations.

Now, with that out of the way...Let's Web Talk.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Dream's of Lower Churchill Power Fading Fast

I’ve spent much of my life fighting for Newfoundland and Labrador’s place in Confederation. I’ve fought to ensure that we have a say and I’ve fought to ensure that we received the benefits of the God given “goodies” we’ve brought into this Dominion. I had hoped against hope that something would happen to ensure that our land would one day gain the respect it deserved and that the people here would somehow find a place in the tapestry of the Canadian experience. Now, after decades of faith, I have to admit that I have about reached the end of my tether.

Back in the sixties the country of Canada royally screwed Newfoundland (now re-named Newfoundland and Labrador) out of its chances for an economic windfall by refusing to pressure Quebec into allowing the transmission of power from the Upper Churchill river across the provincial border. As a result Newfoundland was forced to sell the power to Quebec at idiotic rates and today we see Quebec enjoying a billion dollars a year in revenues while Newfoundland makes barely enough to keep the power plant in operation. Not to worry though, the contract will only last another 35 years.

Now, at a time when the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is trying to put this slap in the face behind it and develop the Lower Churchill River, one of the last hydro mega projects left in North America, suddenly history is repeating itself. Apparently Quebec is planning once again to screw the little guy and nobody, not even Newfoundland and Labrador’s strongest advocate, renegade Premier Danny Williams, has stepped up to the plate to say, “hang on just a second”.

Bare with me a folks ‘cause it’s time for a history lesson.

In 1927, a full 22 years before Newfoundland was dragged kicking and screaming into Canada, the judicial committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council (sound’s pretty official doesn’t it, and it is) clearly identified the border between Quebec and the Labrador portion of the province. This ruling was officially accepted by Canada when Newfoundland joined the dominion in 1949. So, one might ask, what’s the problem? Apparently Quebec never officially recognized this ruling and now, in the year of our Lord 2006 they’ve decided to take a stand on the issue and the spoils of the battle are nothing less than hydro electric energy and the potential value of the Lower Churchill River.

For decades Quebec has had issues with the border between the two provinces. Their official provincial maps, as well as their tourist maps, show a large chunk of Labrador as a part of their province. Most politicians in Newfoundland and Labrador have brushed this off over the years and this continues even to today. The problem now is that Quebec’s leadership has convinced itself that their maps are valid and that they have the right to develop hydro power without concern to the impacts in Labrador. Why? The answer is simple. Since, in the opinion of the Quebec government, the land belongs to them, they have the right to exploit it.

For decades the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador have fumed over their treatment on the Upper Churchill hydro development. Over that time many have come to the realization that they have no choice but to live with the current agreement. While the scars run deep, many had hung their hopes on the development of the lower part of the river, knowing full well that current free trade agreements would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Quebec to stand in the way.

After months of analysis and planning to determine the best course of action on development, after working directly with Quebec to determine if the hydro grid could handle the increased power flow, the pins have been pulled out. Quebec has boldly announced in their energy plan that they intend to develop a hydro project in the area known as the 5 rivers. The problem here is that the 5 rivers span the border of the two provinces and their head waters are none other than the Churchill River. Add to this the fact that this development would take up any free capacity on the Quebec hydro grid decrease the demand for the potential Newfoundland and Labrador power. Can you say screwed again?

Forget for a minute that Quebec appears to be determined to prevent Newfoundland and Labrador from benefiting from its resources a second time, there is another question to be answered. If Quebec develops a hydro project on the five rivers, the resulting reservoir would flood areas of Labrador, would it not? Well, according to the Quebec government, the answer is no. Why I ask myself? Simply becauseQuebec sees areas of Labrador as its own so if flooding were to occur, by that logic, how could they possibly damage the land of another province?

I would have thought that in this day and age the atrocities of the past could never happen again, boy, was I wrong. With Quebec, lusting after hydro revenues and Ontario screaming for a power source, the two mighty powers of Canada that drown out all others have, intentionally or not, found yet one more way to make Newfoundland and Labrador the fall guy.

As heart breaking as this all is for a home town boy like myself, it doesn’t surprise me. Do you know what bothers me the most? It’s the lack of reaction from our own provincial government. Since this issue hit the news wires, I can only assume the politicians on the inside knew before I did, there has been zero reaction from the provincial government.

Where are you “fighting Danny”? Where is your legendary vim and vigor now? Like local columnist and political pundit, Ray Guy noted in a recent article for the North East Avalon Times:

“The lights are blinking out all around the coast, Darrel an Darleen are packing the U-Haul for Fort McMurray, Nan and Pop depend on Jesus and the out harbor ambulance. We’re stuck in the middle with fish in the past and oil in the future… a future poorly understood. In times like these the trappings of democracy are often ditched. Folks are too frightened for frills. They willingly fling themselves at the feet and mercy of the strong man.”

Well, where are you Danny? You stared down Paul Martin, you kicked out the evil giant known a ExxonMobile and you have begun to slay our monster debt. All you have to do now is stand up to Quebec and protect our borders. Don’t expect Stephen Harper or the Canadian government to fight them. They didn’t do it in the past and they won't do it now. For a man of your caliber it should be a walk in the park, so why are you so silent?

27 comments:

WJM said...

If Quebec develops a hydro project on the five rivers, the resulting reservoir would flood areas of Labrador, would it not? Well, according to the Quebec government, the answer is no. Why I ask myself? Simply becauseQuebec sees areas of Labrador as its own so if flooding were to occur, by that logic, how could they possibly damage the land of another province?

Instead of spouting conspiracies, and giving more credence to Quebec's non-claim to any part of Labrador than it deserves, why don't you check the facts for yourself?

The Romaine River project would not flood ANY part of Labrador within the 1927 boundaries.

WJM said...

The Central Canadien powers that be never accepted the 1927 decision no matter what the law says thus as far as they are concerned no part of Newfoundland will be affected.

Which "central Canadien powers" are those?

The federal and Quebec government both have recognized the Labrador boundary, including the 52nd parallel segment, on MANY occasions, and it is enshrined in the Constitution of Canada through the operation of the BNA Act of 1871, the Newfoundland Act of 1949, and the Constitution Act, 1982.

It's pretty bad, when this myth about Quebec "not recognizing" the boundary is finally being put to sleep in Quebec, that it's being woken back up in Newfoundland!

As far as the Lower Churchill is concerned let the water flow to the sea until it can be developed on our terms, preferabily for internal use.

Who is the "we", as in "our"?

Patriot said...

WJM, you accuse others of spreading mis-information but what are you doing now?

On your website you say that there is no risk of flooding inside the Labrador area then you say there may be some environmental impact. Can you elaborate on exactly what "some" means? I have not seen teh environmental studies have you? If so, please present them.

Also, in your last comment you say that Quebec has accepted the border yet in their own presentation document regarding this project (found as a link on your web site) the map clearly shows the boundry and identifies it as the privy council bountry and in brackets states "not final". Sure doesn't sound like acceptance to me.

Anonymous said...

maybe the "we" or "our" means the people who choose to live in Newfoundland and Labrador, not someome who has chosen their home as Ottawa.

Anonymous said...

Pariot
do have a lnk to the website you talk about

cheers

WJM said...

WJM, you accuse others of spreading mis-information but what are you doing now?

Whatever it is, it's not "spreading misinformation".

On your website you say that there is no risk of flooding inside the Labrador area then you say there may be some environmental impact. Can you elaborate on exactly what "some" means?

If you put one, let alone four dams downstream on the Romaine, it presents a very high likelihood of changing the ecosystem along the entire river basin, including that portion of the river basin that lies north of 52.

You don't need flooding for there to be an environmental impact from a hydro project which is situated entirely on the Quebec side of the line.

I have not seen teh environmental studies have you? If so, please present them.

Why do I need an "environmental study"?

According to this Hydro-Québec publication there are up to four stations proposed for the Romaine system. (Typically how HQ does it; they identify a bunch of potential sites, and start by building the most economical one or ones first.)

The only reservoir which comes close to flooding Labrador would be that for the Romaine-4 station, if it gets built. However, even the Romaine-4 reservoir, as presented here, ends well south of 52.

Also, in your last comment you say that Quebec has accepted the border yet in their own presentation document regarding this project (found as a link on your web site) the map clearly shows the boundry and identifies it as the privy council bountry and in brackets states "not final". Sure doesn't sound like acceptance to me.

In this case no, but there are many instances where Quebec HAS done so. Thus, it is factually incorrect for Quebec, or anyone else to state, that Quebec has NEVER recognized the boundary, because they have, repeatedly. The fact that they do not in that case is of no significance to disproving that fact; once you have done something once, let alone dozens of times, you can't truthfully say you haven't done it.

In any event, guess what? You can't change a legally-defined border by publishing a map! The map is not in conformity with the law; all the maps in the world are not going to change the law to make it conform to the map.

WJM said...

maybe the "we" or "our" means the people who choose to live in Newfoundland and Labrador, not someome who has chosen their home as Ottawa.

Why should anyone in Newfoundland get one red penny in benefits from a Labrador resource?

Anonymous said...

WJM said "Why should anyone in Newfoundland get one red penny in benefits from a Labrador resource?"

So you don’t think the province of NL should benefit from resources in Labrador. You seem quite happy for Quebec to benefit i.e., wanting ore Voisey’s bay shipped to harbour in Quebec and probably smelted there.

Do you think Labrador should be a separate province or territory?

Once again why should the people of NL listen to someone from Ottawa how to best utilize their resources. I’d much rather hear the views of someone who lives and call the province their home.

WJM said...

WJM said "Why should anyone in Newfoundland get one red penny in benefits from a Labrador resource?"

So you don’t think the province of NL should benefit from resources in Labrador.


Who said anything like that?

Labrador is part of the province of NL, isn't it? (Hint: NL does NOT stand for "Newfoundland".)

Labrador should benefit, first, foremost, and last, from its own resources. All one province, right? If Labrador benefits, the province does.

You seem quite happy for Quebec to benefit i.e., wanting ore Voisey’s bay shipped to harbour in Quebec and probably smelted there.

Please point out to me where I was happy to have "ore Voisey's bay" shipped to harbour in Quebec. (Which harbour?)

Do you think Labrador should be a separate province or territory?

We'd be better off than under the existing arrangement, but the provincial government could also just give us our fair share of what we contribute as well.

Once again why should the people of NL listen to someone from Ottawa how to best utilize their resources.

Absolutely! And why should the people of Labrador listen to someone from St. John's how to best utilize their resources?

NL-ExPatriate said...

It isn't so much the flooding as the head waters IE catch basin.

Those head waters could be diverted to a dam location in Labrador but not if Quebec needs the catchment basin waters for any development in Quebec.

In effect Quebec could build the dam and we could dam of a good chunk of the water they are depending upon for this project because the head waters are in Labrador.

Oh and your wrong on Quebecs acceptance of the 1927 ruling which was agreed to then and accepted once again upon NL's entry into Canada.

Just check any of Quebecs web sites and they have the map drawn contrary to agreed upon boundaries of 1927 and 1949.
http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/english/inc/territory/portrait/newfoundland.htm

"Québec / Newfoundland and Labrador Border
Québec does not recognize the portion of the Québec / Newfoundland and Labrador border between Québec and Labrador as set by the Privy Council in London in 1927"

Lets send it to the stacked Supreme court of Upper and Lower Canada. 3 judges from Quebec, 3 from Ontario and 3 from the colonies. NOT!

Talk about your third world mickey mouse governments.
Silence is acceptance.

Starrigan said...

I was just checking the latest posting to see what's going on with this blog and I see nothing has changed with the Big Bonehead WJM. He's still asking his stupid questions and everyone is still taking the bait.

WJM said...

It isn't so much the flooding as the head waters IE catch basin.

What about it?

Those head waters could be diverted to a dam location in Labrador but not if Quebec needs the catchment basin waters for any development in Quebec.

What right would Quebec gain to that water?

Oh and your wrong on Quebecs acceptance of the 1927 ruling which was agreed to then and accepted once again upon NL's entry into Canada.

Just check any of Quebecs web sites and they have the map drawn contrary to agreed upon boundaries of 1927 and 1949.
http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/english/inc/territory/portrait/newfoundland.htm


And?

Quebec has, on many, many, many occasions, recognized the boundary. The fact that they, at times, pretend to not recognize it, in no way denies the fact that they HAVE recognized it.

Even the Dorion Commission concluded as much, over 30 years ago. As Dorion said a few years ago:

Finally, it is often said: In any event, whatever the legal or geographical validity of the judgment, Quebec has never recognized the Labrador boundary. I hope I do not disappoint anyone by saying that this is totally false. Quebec has, time and time again, recognized the Labrador boundary. I said a moment ago that the position of Quebec was ambiguous. In fact, it has been so because of the recognition by different acts, orders in council, ministerial statements, publication of official documents and maps; there is a summary which was made during the work of the Commission of Inquiry on Territorial Integrity, which demonstrated that in at least 80 instances Quebec has recognized the 1927 boundary.

Lets send it to the stacked Supreme court of Upper and Lower Canada. 3 judges from Quebec, 3 from Ontario and 3 from the colonies. NOT!

Why would it go to court?

Talk about your third world mickey mouse governments. Silence is acceptance.

Exactly. Quebec's 50 years of silence on the Labrador border would have constituted acceptance, even if the border hadn't been entrenched into constitutional law in 1949.

WJM said...

I was just checking the latest posting to see what's going on with this blog and I see nothing has changed with the Big Bonehead WJM. He's still asking his stupid questions and everyone is still taking the bait.

Sorry, I forgot the Prime Directive: No One In Danny Williams Land Shall Ask Difficult Questions.

NL-ExPatriate said...

The Prime Directive out of Ottawa is all colonies will be assimilated into the Ontario fold for the benfit of Ottawa through our Democratic/Imperialistic political system where there is no equality for the colonies with Ontario.
The only equality the colonies of Ontario have with Ontario is to get out.

Why doesn't Ontario have to give up tax points when the colonies are expected to give up revenues from their Non-renewable resources. Revenues are revenues. Ontario has Tax points well above and beyond the other provinces in raising revenues and isn't expected to give up their capacity to raise funds but the colonies are expected to give up their abilities to raise funds from Non-renewables to benefit Ontario.

Why is it Per Capita is only calculated when money is being handed out why not include per capita as a measure of contribution as well and have Ontario give up some of their tax points to Ottawa?
http://www.thecharter.ca/index.cfm?iid=1823&sid=13772

Anonymous said...

I’d much rather hear the views of someone who lives and call the province their home"

Since when?? I've lived here all my life and I disagree with most of what you say and you in turn always attack my posts. I don't believe in the Seal Hunt, I can't stand the Williams govt., I think Hebron was a good deal for this province and that government blew it big. Just as they'll blow Hydro.

You only want the opinions of the people who agree with you.

Anonymous said...

WJM said “Labrador should benefit, first, foremost, and last, from its own resources. All one province, right? If Labrador benefits, the province does.”

You are the one advocating that one part of the province shouldn’t benefit at all from resources from another part of the province. You could take your argument further and ask why should Goose Bay or Labrador City benefit from resources near Nain?

WJM said “Please point out to me where I was happy to have "ore Voisey's bay" shipped to harbour in Quebec. (Which harbour?)”.
At July 14, 2006 7:33 PM, NL-ExPatriate said...
To my knowledge the problem with the Labrador portion of the province was the lack or non-existance of a year round ice free port.
At July 14, 2006 11:41 PM, WJM said...
It's called Sept-Iles.

Now unless Sept-Iles is part of a desputed map boundary that I’m unware of It is in Quebec not NL. Or is Quebec just pretending its in Quebec.

WJM said – “We'd be better off than under the existing arrangement”
Who do you mean by we? Ottawa.

WJM said...

WJM talks out of both sides of his mouth. He goes on and on saying that resources in labrador should only benefit labrador but when someone asks him about a provincial resource benifiting the entire province, the other sid of his mouth say that he never said no such thing.

How does that constitute "talking out of both sides" of my mouth?

On a per capita basis labrador recieves a fair share (if I am wrong, You prove it)

Labrador produces 98 and some percent of the province's mineral revenues, and on 5% of the population generates over 6.5% of the provincial taxes. Plus, Labrador's waters furnish 30 to 40% of the shrimp and turbot that is processed in Newfoundland. Meanwhile, Labrador has a lower rate of "transfer income" (social assistance and other forms) than the island of Newfoundland as a whole.

Yet the province will put no money into the TLH unless Ottawa does, even though it makes no such stipulation for highways in Newfoundland. The province will put no money into an auditorium for HVGB unless Ottawa does so, even though the province is paying full freight for a stadium in St. Anthony.

Labrador is paying in.

What is Labrador getting in return from the government in St. John's?

You say Labrador DOES get its fair share. Care to back THAT up?

However I will that Ladrador as some issues that require special consideration. If WJM could put aside his prejudices and Good-Ottawa and Bad-Island of Nefoundland/ Good Liberial Bad PC ideas perhaps someone would take him seriously

When have I ever said PC ideas are bad, or Liberal ones good?

If Quebec reconizes the boundry why do they continue thier errorious verison on their OFFICAL maps

Because they are not consistent. The neither recognize nor "not recognize" it. They do both, sometimes at the same time.

The Newfoundland Act and the Terms of Union have been violated/ignored by the Canadien govn so many times that they useless.

Which provisions of the Newfoundland Act?

Which Terms of Union?

Be specific.

Thank you.

WJM said...

You are the one advocating that one part of the province shouldn’t benefit at all from resources from another part of the province. You could take your argument further and ask why should Goose Bay or Labrador City benefit from resources near Nain?

Yes, I could! I won't, but I could.

To my knowledge the problem with the Labrador portion of the province was the lack or non-existance of a year round ice free port.
At July 14, 2006 11:41 PM, WJM said...
It's called Sept-Iles.

Now unless Sept-Iles is part of a desputed map boundary that I’m unware of It is in Quebec not NL. Or is Quebec just pretending its in Quebec.


Who said I "wanted" ore, or for that matter anything else, shipped there?

However, it would be very easy, not as a matter of "want", but as a matter of economic practicality, to have built a smelter complex in western Labrador, shipping refined products (not "ore") through western Labrador's port, Sept-Iles.

Who do you mean by we? Ottawa.

Labradorians.

NL-ExPatriate said...

Canada's Per Capita system doesn't take into account NL's special circumstances of a small population spread over a large area.

We are compared with PEI which isn't much larger than the Avalon alone. Delivering services and infrastructure over such a large area with such a diverse set of circumstances and infrastructure or lack of infrastructure is like an albatross around our neck with the current Canadian system.

Now according to recent ballons floated by Ottawa concerning suggested changes (Obrian Report) to the equalization formula Canada want's to make an already dysfuntional system even more punishing to NL. By including 50% of all Non-Renewable resource revenues, Spreading around this new found wealth by including a per Capita formula. In NL's case this would mean 50% of the 50% we now get through royalties 25% while Ottawa will keep their 50% untouched along with their 8% in revenues from their ownership stake.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=bebd0953-879d-4f20-b859-5d0b8f6a2c5e&k=54692

NL needs special consideration similar to what is afforded to the Territories with a TFF formula which takes into account the low population, Dependance upon Non-Renewables, and large land mass to deliver services.

Why is it Ontario's above average tax point advantage isn't clawed back by Ottawa to keep it in line with the rest of the provinces?
Why is it always the economies of the colonies that are expected to pay for Ottawas largess.

If you want to compare NL-Labrador spending and Canada-NL spending.
I suspect the NL govt spends more on a per capita basis to Labrador than it does elsewhere in the province.
Unlike Ottawa which compares NL with PEI it's closes province in population.
I don't blame the politicians but rather the monetary system in Canada is flawed much the same as the political system is flawed and doomed to failure because it favors urban canada as opposed to the majority of Canada which is rural. Not surprising really when you consider it was and is based on a colonial system which was designed specifically to benefit the Empire of Britain/Ontario.

Why is it funding is always collected using % monies generated but doled out per capita? Well at least for the colonies Ontario is special and allowed to keep their higher tax point capacity to collect and keep monies.
http://www.thecharter.ca/index.cfm?iid=1823&sid=13772

Anonymous said...

WJM said: western Labrador's port, Sept-Iles

Can you help here I looked on the map but as far as I can tell there is no port in Labrador called Sept-Iles?

Anonymous said...

I didn't realise that Labradorians had selected WJM to act as their spokesperson?

Does anyone have a link so I could read qbout how someone who has chosen Ottawa as their home was selected to speak for the whole of Labrador.

Anonymous said...

WJM said "practicality, to have built a smelter complex in western Labrador"

why should western Labrador steal (to use a term you like to use) the resources of eastern Labrador.

(just to remind you the discussion of an ice freeport in July was with reference to Voisey's Bay)

WJM said...

Can you help here I looked on the map but as far as I can tell there is no port in Labrador called Sept-Iles?

Nope. It's in Quebec. It's also an important port for Labrador; without it, Labrador City and Wabush would not exist.

WJM said...

I didn't realise that Labradorians had selected WJM to act as their spokesperson?

They haven't.

Who was "speaking for Labrador"?

WJM said...

(just to remind you the discussion of an ice freeport in July was with reference to Voisey's Bay)

Yip. And back in 1996, there was a serious proposal on the board to put the type of facility that the Placentia Bay area will get, in the Labrador City/Wabush area. The concentrate would have been taken there from Labrador City, and the finished product would have been shipped to market around the world via Sept-Iles, just as iron ore concentrate and pellets from Labrador already are.

Anonymous said...

WJM said Who was "speaking for Labrador"?

on sep 24 in this thread
WJM said "We'd be better off....us our fair share of what we contribute as well".

WJM said...

WJM said Who was "speaking for Labrador"?

on sep 24 in this thread
WJM said "We'd be better off....us our fair share of what we contribute as well".


It is a sorry statement on the education system that you can't tell the difference between speaking FOR and speaking ABOUT...