Vision - A Casualty of Drive by Politics

The most common definitions of “Vision” include:


1. The faculty of sight;
2. Intelligent foresight;
3. The manner in which one sees or conceives of something;
4. A mental image produced by the imagination.

That’s something every Newfoundlander and Labradorian would be within their rights to jot down, seal in an envelope (or place in an email) and send directly to every candidate running in October’s provincial election.

History tells us the world’s most respected leaders aren’t remembered for their ability to win office or hang onto power but for being visionaries and for their ability to engage the public in making their dream a reality.

Where are the visionaries in Newfoundland and Labrador today?

Talk to the average politician and you’ll discover most can’t see past the next poll, next election or next fiscal year. Vision, true vision, extends beyond those false parameters. It reaches far into the future, perhaps to the next generation, the generation after that, or even beyond.

Visionaries recognize the present for what it is, the future for what it can be and are capable of laying the building blocks that inspire others.

As a people why are we so easily accepting of announcements about “slightly lower” unemployment rates or achieving an “average” Canadian wage? Instead we ought to aspire to having the lowest unemployment and the highest wages in the Country.

It goes without saying that we won’t reach such lofty heights overnight, in fact we may never get there, but if we don’t aim for the target we’ll never come close to hitting it.

Take our natural resource, the province, regardless of which party is in power, has always developed those resources in exchange for the direct revenues (royalties / taxes) they produce and for the limited number of jobs extracting them creates. Why?

Why hasn’t government ensured that every ounce of benefit is squeezed from the resources around us and why haven’t our leaders, past and present, been able to understand that those resources are a diverse package of interrelated opportunities rather than a series of independent revenue streams?

Maximizing benefits doesn’t have to involve a heavy handed approach that might scare investment away and the benefits reaped don’t have to flow directly from selling the resource itself.

Legislation forcing industry into a position where profitability is unduly limited or which unfairly places social obligations on them isn’t the answer either. A far better approach is to create an environment where industry itself can see the economic advantages of increasing its presence in the province. This would require a government that understands how the different pieces of the puzzle are interconnected and can be leveraged.

As an example, based on public statements by NALCOR it would seem that rising oil prices will continue to drive up power rates until such time as Muskrat Falls energy is available. At that time rates will stabilize. They won’t fall mind you, but stabilize.

Based on this it appears higher rates charged (due to the cost of oil) will remain in effect even after the oil is no longer needed, ultimately providing additional revenues to NALCOR when Holyrood closes. After all, when those costly oil purchases are no longer necessary the revenue has to go somewhere.

Likely those hundreds of millions of dollars, along with earnings from selling power outside the province, will be used to repay the development costs of the project and provide a healthy return for NALCOR and the province.

This might seem reasonable enough from a traditional business perspective but NALCOR isn’t an independent business and the power they sell is directly linked to the local economy and to every individual and business in the province.

Newfoundland and Labrador, compared with other Canadian jurisdictions, is somewhere in the middle of the pack when it comes to power rates. According to NALCOR our province isn’t the only place rates are rising and after Muskrat is complete, even with the higher rates, we will continue to sit somewhere in the middle of that pack. This makes me wonder, why is that good enough?

Why are we willing to settle for being “average”?

As part of a longer term view, considering the size of the investment - and its associated risks - perhaps a more visionary approach to Churchill power should be considered.

There’s a difference between thinking inside the box and thinking outside it. In fact it’s been said visionaries don’t even recognize a box exists.

Might the province be better served by cutting power rates as much as possible once the expense of Holyrood oil disappears? This is not to say taxpayers should subsidize power rates, that NALCOR shouldn’t make a profit, or that the loans shouldn’t be repaid, the question is how high those profits need to be and what the plan is for paying down the debt.
We may have a unique opportunity here since NALCOR isn’t developing the project as a privately owned company or publicly traded corporation. As such it shouldn’t have the sole goal of maximizing profits. Its owners are the taxpayers of the province. Ultimately any corporation is responsible for achieving the long term objectives of its shareholders, in this case the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When it comes to the Lower Churchill, perhaps we should ask ourselves if our primary intent, beyond keeping the lights on, is to reduce debt quickly, increase profits for NALCOR and government, grow the economy and related employment or pursue some combination of the above.

Perhaps the answer is to eliminate the debt quickly and then drop power rates as low as possible while ensuring the future viability of the corporation. Perhaps not. Who knows, but if we examine all our options, including the eventual repatriation of the Upper Churchill , might we be able to focus our efforts on one day making Newfoundland and Labrador the lowest cost jurisdiction in Canada, hell why not in all of North America, for access to clean power?

If we could eventually reach that target what might it mean?

Clearly it would be a welcome reprieve for rate payers in the province and would go a long way toward easing the burden of the less fortunate among us, but what about the bigger picture?

Low rates would obviously reduce the cost of doing business here. If the costs were low enough that alone would increase the profitability of existing enterprises and improve their ability to expand, hire new employees and even increase wages.

With less focus placed on direct profit from our energy reserves and more on offering the lowest possible rates, major industrial players now content to harvest resources and ship them elsewhere for processing might find themselves able to do that processing here at a lower cost and for increased profit thus creating more employment and provincial tax revenue.

It’s often been said that our remote location and distance from world markets is a barrier to developing a manufacturing based economy. There may be some merit in that but with the Northwest Passage, the most sought after shipping route in the world, beginning to open up could our location at its Eastern gateway actually benefit to us in the future? When it does open up, if the infrastructure necessary to take full advantage of low cost renewable energy were put in place, including for the use of Upper Churchill power, what might it mean to the province 30 years from now?

Secondary processors who use our iron, copper, oil or other valuable resources to produce consumer goods around the world might eventually come to recognize the province as a unique location with abundant resources and cheaper power than they can find elsewhere. How many jobs would that create?

Perhaps stimulating industry and employment in this way would generate provincial revenues far beyond existing levels. This broadening of the provincial tax base might even enable a visionary government to lower personal and business taxes. It might result in us becoming one of the lowest cost places to live in Canada while ensuring we are even more attractive to business, guaranteeing the cycle of growth continues to expand.

In the long run such an approach has the potential to be far more lucrative for the people of the province and for government coffers than the status quo.

Picture a future where Newfoundland and Labrador is recognized as a strategically situated treasure trove of raw materials that has the lowest cost power in North America and perhaps even the lowest tax regime. A place with a diversified economy where well paying jobs are abundant and the provincial treasury is flush with cash.

Of course this might sound like a pipe dream and in reality the entire idea is nothing more than rambling on my part. I wouldn’t pretend to know if such a scenario is viable or not but at least it’s a concept, the germ of a direction, the seeds of a vision that extend beyond the next few months or years or even my own lifetime and certainly beyond the next election. In other words it’s far more than any of the parties are putting forward.

With an election on the way we should all question where the long term vision is for our province. What about the fishery or the forestry sector. Where do we want to see our health care system and our schools a generation or two from now and how do we plan to get there? All of these components are intertwined and need to be part of an overall vision.

We may have a small population in Newfoundland and Labrador but we are also blessed with a vast array of renewable and non-renewable resources and a population that I truly believe is willing to work for a brighter future. In fact I’d argue that any government unable to satisfy the needs of our small population, while surrounded by such vast wealth, doesn’t deserve to hold office.

At this point in our history what we need is a visionary leader bold enough to set aside political expediency and take the reins firmly in hand. Unfortunately the closest thing to vision we’ve seen from any of the political parties are promises likely to expire the morning after the polls close. Hardly inspirational.

Open Letter to Premier Dunderdale

Open Letter To: Premier Kathy Dunderdale
Premier of Newfoundland & Labrador

cc. Minister Shawn Skinner
Minister of Natural Resources

cc. Multiple media, MPs and concerned individuals

May 13, 2011

Premier Dunderdale:

In November of 2008 the provincial government, under then Premier Danny Williams, made a submission to the environmental joint review panel evaluating the Romaine Complex Hydroelectric project in Quebec.

At about that time I personally sent you an email, in your capacity as Minister of Natural Resources, asking about our province’s position on the project and on our government’s exclusion from the environmental assessment process. It was in response to my correspondence that you made me aware of the submission to the panel and, as I did at the time, I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank you for your direct and timely response.

I believe the submission, which encompassed many topics including environmental concerns, discrepancies in the maps provided to the panel among other issues was the appropriate direction to take at the time. I also believe the submission addressed many of the concerns a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have with the project.

2.5 years have passed since that submission and I’m sure many in the province are interested in what has happend since that time.

As I understand it, the environmental assessment process is now complete and work is advancing steadily on the Romaine project. I would like to know what the joint review panel’s responses were to the province’s 2008 submission.

Specifically I am interested in detailed information on the panel’s responses to all of the concerns expressed.

In addition I hope you can provide a clear picture of where we now stand with respect to retaining complete provincial control over the headwaters as outlined in the submission and copied here.

(Begin copy of pertinent section from original panel submission)

Finally, the Province wishes to take the opportunity to re-affirm its water rights in the portion of the Romaine River watershed on Newfoundland and Labrador lands. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its Minister responsible for water resources, without compensation to the proponent, shall not be restricted to:

• use water of Romaine River watershed on, in, under, or flowing through or adjacent to the Newfoundland and Labrador – Québec boundary on Labrador lands for purposes related to management, research, protection and conservation of water resources, aquatic life and aquatic habitat;

• establish standards and measures for the protection of water resources on, in, under, or flowing through or adjacent to the Newfoundland and Labrador – Québec boundary on Labrador lands;

• use water or authorize the use of water on, in, under, or flowing through or adjacent to the Newfoundland and Labrador – Québec boundary on Labrador lands for the purpose of fighting fires;

• establish flood control measures, develop flood plain management strategies and designate flood risk zones with respect to water resources flowing on, in, through, under or adjacent to the Newfoundland and Labrador – Québec boundary on Labrador lands;

• carry out or authorize hydrologic data collection and hydrologic research with respect to water resources on, in, under, or flowing through or adjacent to the Newfoundland and Labrador – Québec boundary on Labrador lands; and

• use water or authorize the use of water on, in, under, or flowing through or adjacent to the Newfoundland and Labrador – Québec boundary on Labrador lands for any other beneficial purpose that is in the Government’s interest and the other residents of Labrador.
(End copy from original panel submission)

I trust that your office, or that of the Minister of Natural Resources, is able to provide copies of any documents issued by the review panel in reference to the province’s submission along with information on any actions the panel took on those concerns.

If no responses were forthcoming and no action was taken by the panel I would like to know what other steps the provincial government has taken or is now pursuing to ensure that our rights are protected in regard to this project and to our provincial border with Quebec.

I’m sure you will recall, though many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians may not, that in 1976 the government of Newfoundland and Labrador attempted to buy back 800,000 kilowatts of Churchill Falls power at a reasonable price for use (through sub-sea cable) on the island portion of the province.

In response to this request Hydro- Quebec demanded that we sell Quebec between 7,000 & 10,000 square miles of southern Labrador or, barring that, pay 10 times the amount the utility was paying our province for that same power. By all accounts, at the time, the provincial government refused both of these less than generous offers.

The reason Hydro-Quebec and the Quebec government so desperately wanted that territory is because headwaters are located in Labrador and without complete control of those waters development on the rivers could not move forward. It’s no doubt difficult to secure investment and financing, due to the uncontrollable risk, when you don’t control all the source of the water used to generate the power.

This has me wondering what might have changed since that time.

Why, in the opinion of your government, does Quebec have enough comfort with the future of those headwaters to proceed on downstream developments in 2011 when they did not do so in 1976? What guarantees must they believe they have, from Ottawa, the province or elsewhere, in order to invest billions if they cannot control the future of those waters?

I look forward to your timely response and once again I thank-you for your many past responses to my queries on several issues of importance to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sincerely,

Myles Higgins

Plan Nord annexes southern Labrador

The news wires are buzzing today after Premier Jean Charest’s announcement of “Plan Nord”, Quebec’s vision to develop its vast natural resources and reshape the future of the Province.

According the Premier Charest, Plan Nord is “…one of the biggest economic, social and environmental projects of our time”.

The plan calls for creation of massive mining and hydro generation projects, extensive infrastructure development, sustainable forestry exploitation and the protection of vast swaths of unspoiled wilderness.

Total investment over the next 25 years is forecast in the region of $80 Billion dollars, through corporate and public sector investment. Employment is targeted at more than 20,000 jobs in the Province and the area included in the plan covers more than 1.2 million square kilometers.

The problem is the identification of that 1.2 million square kilometer area and maps of the region affected, areas that include a sizable chunk of neighboring Labrador.

Nobody in the Quebec government thought to ask the permission of the Newfoundland and Labrador people if it was OK to annex that land for its own gain.

A review of recently released Plan Nord background material identifies that 98% of Quebec’s clean energy is produced in the area covered. This claim appears odd considering that nearly 6,000 megawatts of power in use by Hydro Quebec is generated in Labrador. That power is then sold to the Province at rock bottom 1960's prices thanks to the now infamous and lopsided Churchill Falls contract.

With one claim by the Quebec government in question it didn’t take long to identify the boundary issue as well. A quick visit to the Government of Quebec website reveals a map of the region clearly showing a unilaterally “adjusted” border between Quebec and Labrador.

The actual border, legally settled in 1929 and enshrined in the Canadian Constitution through Newfoundland and Labrador’s Terms of Union with Canada, is depicted in the map by a dotted line and the word, “non-definitive”. The area covered by Plan Nord clearly extends far beyond that line.

This isn’t the first time the government of Quebec has redefined this border in an attempt to claim a part of its neighboring Province. Various maps available on the Hydro Quebec website, Provincial tourism maps and maps from multiple official sources in the Province have done the same for decades and continue to misrepresent the legally recognized boundary.

Just a few years ago it was brought to the attention of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in another article by this writer, that the contours of the bogus maps have also been used outside of Quebec, including by Canada’s national broadcaster, the CBC.

Recent examples include federal maps identifying parts of Labrador as being inside the electoral districts of Quebec and Canadian military maps revealing patrol areas supposedly within Quebec that actually extend into Labrador.

The practice of redrawing the border between the two Provinces has spread far beyond Quebec itself and it appears that very little is being done by the Provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador, or the Government of Canada, to stop it.

In a recent twist on the boundary tale, the federal government signed an offshore agreement with Quebec expected to pave the way for oil exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The agreement will see Quebec become the sole beneficiary of oil revenues within their offshore boundaries.

Unfortunately, while the land based border has been legally defined, if not accepted by Quebec, the actual ocean border between the two provinces has never been ratified by Ottawa.

The prize, a massive hydrocarbon deposit known as “Old Harry”, expected to be worth billions and which straddles the very area where any boundary would likely be drawn.

Even mineral exploration maps issued by Quebec and used by mining companies to “stake a claim” show a number of available parcels of land inside Labrador as being under the licensing authority of Quebec.

With so much creative license being taken around the Provincial border, one has call into question how much of the vast resources Mr. Charest intends to develop actually exist inside Quebec.

Flashback - Nationalism and our Place in Canada

I recently came across an article written by Craig Westcott for the "Express" about 10 years ago. I found it to be a a piece that clearly shows the broad spectrum of citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador who question our place in Canada and also speaks to a number of the deep rooted issues we face in the Canadian federation.

Clearly the arguements for change coming from individuals like myself are not just the realm of what the mainstream media might like to marginalize as "wingnuts" or the "fringe element".

Read on.


Newfoundland's business and political elite make the case for a re-examination of Confederation
By CRAIG WESTCOTT, The Express

It started with Craig Dobbin. The Canadian Helicopters Corporation chief was sick of hearing mainlanders slag Newfoundland for being an economic sinkhole.

When Canadian Alliance strategist John Mykytyshyn said Newfoundlanders were too lazy to move away for work, Dobbin lost it. He wrote a speech. Then he delivered it in a venue where no one in the local who's who could miss it -- a St. John's Board of Trade luncheon.

"Let me pose a question to you," the former John-Crosbie-ally-turned- Brian-Tobin-backer began. "Who got the better deal from Confederation? Newfoundland? Or Canada?

"If we're such a drain, such a sinkhole, let us go. Cut us loose, baby."

It was a startling speech.

But even more surprising was that several months later, a similar one was delivered by none other than Vic Young, president and chief executive officer of Fishery Products International.
Young, a former senior government bureaucrat and executive with Newfoundland Hydro, turned his verbal assault on Ottawa and Quebec, lambasting the Churchill Falls deal.

"I can assure you, if it were Newfoundland and Labrador that had a geographic stranglehold over the export of Quebec's hydro resources, then Quebec would have fought," said Young. "Quebec would have won, and Canada would have changed national energy policy tout de suite."

To the appreciative ears of the 600 people attending the Board of Trade luncheon where Young came out of the closet with his feelings about Confederation, he shouted, "Vive Terre Neuve libre."

With two of Newfoundland's most successful businessmen questioning the quality of the ties binding Newfoundland to Canada, all that remained to completely open debate was for somebody from the provincial government to weigh in.

And that's just what then-Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Walter Noel did in an address to the Rotary Club of St. John's earlier this month.

"I've long felt some of the ways our federal system operates have to change to enable us to enjoy Canadian standards," Noel confessed. "Important interests are working against us."

Strong words indeed. But why do they sound so familiar?

Confederation's costs

Memorial University of Newfoundland historian John FitzGerald has been listening attentively to the questioning about Newfoundland's place in Canada.

As an expert on the Confederation issue, FitzGerald can't help but be fascinated by it.

"I'm not sure that it's new," FitzGerald said of the points being raised by Dobbin, Young and Noel. "Although quite clearly, the people who are saying it now would have very little in common with A.B. Perlin and the Responsible Government League who were saying these kinds of things back in '48 and '49.

"What you have now is people stepping back and taking a cold hard look at this and saying, 'All right, what really is in our best interest?' I'm not sure you'd call it nationalism. I think you'd call it enlightened self-interest."

Call it what you want, but there's no denying Newfoundland's established interests -- including Noel, a scion of Joey Smallwood's Liberal Party -- are saying strong things.

Take Dobbin.

"This province pumps tons of money into Central Canada annually," said Dobbin. "The hydroelectric facility at Churchill Falls contributes almost $1 billion each year to the economy of Quebec. That one item alone equals our transfer payments from Ottawa each and every year -- that one item.

"We're sending Canada our graduates. The Department of Education has suggested that about a quarter of our university graduates cannot find jobs and end up leaving the province. We move away to work more than anyone else in the country."

But for real facts and figures on the costs and benefits of Confederation, Noel is the man with the numbers.

An economist by training, the Virginia Waters MHA has spent a fair part of his time in office analyzing Newfoundland's relationship with Canada.

He's still a proud Canadian, albeit a troubled one. That's because, according to Noel's calculations, the national federation is built around two provinces -- Ontario and Quebec. Every other province is secondary.

"Ontario has been the primary beneficiary of Confederation," said Noel. "When Canada began, Nova Scotia was wealthier than Ontario. Central Canada has prospered because it dominates the House of Commons and because the Senate never became what the Fathers of Confederation intended it to be."

As a result, Ottawa has developed policies that principally benefit Ontario, Noel said. Among them is the Auto Pact. Noel estimates that for every car made in Ontario, Canadians have to pay an extra $2,000 for it to cover the subsidies that are propping up that province's auto industry.
And Newfoundlanders pay higher prices for other Ontario-made goods because Canadian tariffs keep cheaper imports out.

"Years ago, we had to sell our cod in blocks to the United States because they had a tariff policy against having it imported in one-pound packages, because Canada had tariff policies that hindered the importation of American goods," Noel said. "That favoured Central Canadian industry. It constituted a cost for us."

It also delayed Newfoundland from developing its secondary processing potential.
Ottawa itself, added Noel, is a testament to how Confederation has benefited Ontario and Quebec.

"Ottawa is probably the leading economic growth centre in the country, primarily because of the extent to which the federal government is concentrated there," said Noel. "And the spin-off from having it there has generated the high-tech industry. Ottawa would probably be nothing more than a farm service centre if it wasn't for the federal government being located there."

Then there's Quebec. In 1996, said Noel, Quebec received 39 per cent of Industry Canada's research and development grants -- even though it has less than 25 per cent of Canada's population.

Quebec also got over 50 per cent of federal technology "partnerships" funding. The four Atlantic provinces combined got two per cent.

In 1998, Noel added, business subsidies to Quebec came to $528 per capita. In Newfoundland, the number was $202.

"We have always gotten a disproportionately low share of Canadian government spending for goods and services, and military purposes," said Noel. "Between 1995 and 1999, (federal) public service employment here was cut by 32.5 per cent, compared with the national average of 17 per cent and 12 per cent in Ottawa. Nova Scotia has 20 federal departmental Atlantic Regional Headquarters -- we have none."

Then there is the issue of equalization payments. In 1997, said Noel, federal payments to Newfoundland came to $2.1 billion. Off-setting that was the $2-billion Newfoundlanders paid in taxes to Ottawa. And once you calculate Newfoundland's per capita share of the national debt charges, pensions to public servants, and other costs, Ottawa's net contribution to Newfoundland was just over $1-billion.

"In 1997, Quebec Hydro alone received about $1.1-billion from the sale of Churchill Falls power, enough in itself to cancel our total net gain," Noel argued.

To these costs, Dobbin would add others -- loss of control of our fishery, which resulted in mismanagement that nearly wiped out the cod stock; paltry royalties from our offshore oil; and no control over our fiscal capacity to lower business and personal income taxes to attract business investment.

Incontrovertible proof

Noel and Dobbin raise good points, said FitzGerald.

"History is incontrovertible on some of this stuff," he said. "Ottawa did not support our request for a power corridor through Quebec -- Confederation failed us."

But, FitzGerald added, Newfoundland has lost out on seemingly smaller, but vitally important items, too -- like no longer being able to regulate its own airspace.

Because they are independent countries, Ireland and Iceland were able to open their skies and markets to international carriers, FitzGerald pointed out, unlike Newfoundland, which has to put up with the Air Canada monopoly.

"I think it is a very good idea to question this relationship (with Canada)," said the historian. "It would certainly help demolish the myth that's put out there by The Globe and Mail and the National Post that we're a basket case, that we're a drain on Canada. They've been slandering us now for 50 years. And it's interesting to see who is exactly subsidizing whom. In fact, we're both subsidizing each other. But isn't that what the nature of the country is supposed to be anyway?"
Explaining the terms

While Newfoundland's business and political elite are publicly questioning the problems of Confederation, those problems are not new. They find their origins in the famous Terms of Union that Smallwood and a small band of politicians and local mandarins "obtained" for Newfoundland nearly 53 years ago.

"My interest in this as an historian is looking factually at the Terms of Union," said FitzGerald.
The terms were negotiated by people who were appointed, not elected, to go to Ottawa on Newfoundland's behalf, FitzGerald said. The delegation was appointed by the Commission of Government, which itself was appointed by the British government.

"And what they were up against?" said FitzGerald. "They were up against the Mitchell Sharpes and Hugh Keenleysides and the Jack Pickersgills and the Rhodes Scholars and the professional civil servants in Ottawa who had been studying the (Newfoundland) question for 10 years.

"We had nothing like that kind of advice. Essentially, we were told to take the terms or leave them. Mr. (Prime Minister Louis) St. Laurent put it to us, 'This is the best we can do.' But those terms were never submitted back to the Newfoundland people. There was never any discussion on them. They were signed, sealed and delivered before anyone here knew what was in them.
"And the whole time Smallwood was up there, he was trying to get himself appointed premier. His idea was, 'What we don't get now, we can negotiate later when I'm in charge.' You can see why people would be disgruntled with the Terms of Union if you factually look at the history of the thing."

Since the terms were signed, FitzGerald added, a whole raft of other arrangements between the province and Ottawa have been made, covering everything from the railway closure to the running of Marine Atlantic.

"The terms are not the only thing we've got to look at," FitzGerald said. "We've got all these subsidiary agreements. The point is, we don't have a road map and until we do, we're really at the mercy of all these civil servants up in Ottawa."

A new deal

For Noel, changing our place in Canada will mean changing the minds of important interest groups on the mainland. But before Newfoundland can do that, he said, Newfoundlanders themselves have to realize that a new arrangement is needed.

"If we are going to get change, we have to agree on what it should be, pursue it with determination and work with allies across the country," Noel argued. "An effective Senate, like they have in America, would be the best means of strengthening our influence in Ottawa, in my opinion. What other way is there? Simply asking for more of a role in federal decision-making has not worked."

But longtime Newfoundland nationalists like painter Grant Boland believe Noel may have his work cut out for him. For too long the province has neglected its own culture and history, not even teaching it in schools.

"The absence of that kind of information leaves people ignorant," said Boland. "How can you expect people to be nationalistic if they don't know where they came from?"

Some nationalists suspect the powers-that-be are afraid to open up the curriculum to Newfoundland culture too much. It might lead to a reawakening of feeling for the independent country Newfoundland was.

"If separatism came, I think I'd embrace it," said Boland. "But it seems like a sleeping dog situation."

Separatism is the last thing Noel wants.

"I think if we explain our case properly to the rest of the country we will make progress," Noel said. "We don't have many alternatives. We are an integral part of Canada today and I think it's dreaming for people to talk about separating. Newfoundlanders don't want to separate from Canada. We're integrated economically and politically with the other provinces, and socially we have relatives all across the country. We want to be Canadians. But we want to have a fairer share of the benefits of being Canadians."

Questions of nationalism aside, FitzGerald believes the arguments being made by Noel, Dobbin and Young signify something important.

"The one thing that is overwhelming in this is that I think people are starting to realize generally that Canada's best interests are not necessarily Newfoundland's best interests," said FitzGerald.
"And that's a good thing."

National Post: Williams slams Quebec hydro 'robbery'

Once again it's time to revisit the robbery Newfoundland and Labrador continues to suffer from at the hands of the Quebec government, Hydro-Quebec and, yes even the federal government (which played no small part in allowing the upper churchill fiasco to happen and continue to stand in the way of power export development in Labrador.)

The following appeared in the latest edition of the National Post and should be of interest to Web Talk readers:

Hypocritical, a bad neighbour, and guilty of "highway robbery": Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams called Jean Charest's Quebec government a few names in a St. John's speech, escalating a feud over hydroelectric power rights that has simmered between the two provinces for decades.

In a luncheon address to the St. John's Board of Trade on Wednesday, Mr. Williams denounced Quebec's opposition to Newfoundland's bid for federal funding to build a power transmission line from Labrador to Nova Scotia to potentially sell Labrador-generated power in the Maritimes and New England.

Calling Quebec's opposition to funding the project "shameful" and "abhorrent," Mr. Williams said Quebec "shafted us once" on the existing, 1960s-built hydro plant on the Churchill River and suggested it was trying to do so again with the proposed Lower Churchill project.

"[Quebec] wants it all, and that just doesn't go down well with me ... It needs to get out of the way of the progress of its neighbours," he said.

"The rest of the country and even Quebec itself is finally admitting that it has been getting away with highway robbery in Canada for decades."

The Quebec government has avoided the same kind of tough language so far. In a statement issued yesterday, Quebec Deputy Premier Nathalie Normandeau said the province does not oppose the construction of any undersea power transmission lines. What it opposes are federal subsidies for these on the grounds that they could distort the price and market for electricity. In a letter last month, Quebec asked Ottawa not to fund a joint Newfoundland-Nova Scotia hydro project on those grounds.

Mr. Williams characterized that move as "disgusting." His elaboration on that position on Wednesday was in keeping with his tendency to take aggresive stances against other Canadian politicians.

"Newfoundland and Quebec have been at loggerheads for a few decades now. The difference is, Danny Williams brings a very strong personal component to it. He has demonstrated
in relations with Ottawa and with other premiers that he [isn't] hesitant to butt in," said Nelson Wiseman, a University of Toronto political science professor, who noted public disagreements between premiers is rare.

That combative style plays well in Mr. Williams's home province, where his popularity ratings tend to stay above 80%.

"I guess his feeling is playing nice hasn't gotten them anywhere," said James Feehan, a professor of economics at Memorial University Newfoundland and the co-author, with Melvin Baker, of an article in the September issue of Policy Options magazine titled "The Churchill Falls contract and why Newfoundlanders can't get over it."

Driving Mr. Williams's anger is a desire to capitalize on Labrador's hydroelectric potential for the first time by piping power to the Maritimes, perhaps even finding a market for Labradorian electricty in New England.

The proposed Lower Churchill project could accomplish what the existing Churchill Falls project has failed to do for residents of Newfoundland and Labrador: namely, get hydro royalties flowing in the direction of St. John's.

For Newfoundlanders, Quebec's apparent blocking of attempts to develop the Lower Churchill project smacks of the Churchill Falls hydro deal signed in 1969, which has obliged their provincial power utility to sell electricity to Quebec for absurdly low prices. The deal angers Newfoundlanders still.

"There were events that took place that I think do not look all that clean in terms of business ethics. There were issues of conflict of interest, where Hydro-Quebec had an interest in [the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation] at the same time," Mr. Feehan said.

Nalcor Energy, parent company of the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation, launched a lawsuit against Hydro-Quebec in January. Several past attempts by St. John's to have the Churchill Falls deal changed or renegotiated have failed.

In the meantime, Mr. Williams reckons Newfoundland is selling Quebec more than $2-billion worth of electricity each year for around $50-million. The contract expires in 2041.

Williams to Charest: Butt out (again)!

UPDATE:

New numbers today. It appears that the "ask" by NL and NS for a federal contribution to the cost of the undersea cable between the two provinces is $375 million (the entire effort is expected to cost between $800 million and $1.2 billion). Both provinces have requested the funding from Canada's green innovation fund through the public/private partnership program.

This is not a lot when you consider taht the cable would rest in federal jurisdiction (under the ocean), would supply clean power to Atlantic Canada and beyond and the amount is only, as one individual noted today, about 1 third of the cost of security at the G8/G20 conference held in T.O. recently.

Continuing with the topic of Quebec Premier Jean Charest's latest attempt to gain a stranglehold on all electricity generated, transmitted and sold in Eastern Canada here is an opinion piece from the Times and Transcript out of New Brunswick. It speaks volumes about the predatory tactics that are the norm with our neighbour to the west.

Quebec's meddling in the affairs of its neighbours may profoundly annoy Atlantic Canadians, but it's hardly surprising. La belle province sports a long history of promoting its interests, at others' expense, through back channels.

The latest example is a letter Premier Jean Charest recently sent to the Prime Minister's Office objecting to Newfoundland and Labrador's and Nova Scotia's joint application for federal funding to construct an undersea power cable between their two provinces. Apparently, granting such a request would constitute an unfair subsidy to the two Atlantic provinces.

If that's a joke, it's a good one.

Over the years, successive federal governments have poured countless billions of dollars into Quebec's aerospace and defence industries. They have propped up its dairy and pork producers, and extended preferential treatment (read: extra-equalization formula) to many of its state-supported social programs.

Less amusing, perhaps, is Quebec's peculiar definition of equity in the delicate balance of provincial interests that proscribe Confederation. It has built its energy behemoth - arguably, the most successful in the nation - on the bones of a patently unfair, 65-year-old deal that permits it to resell power from Labrador's Upper Churchill facility and reap the profits with no consideration for Newfoundland. And, despite repeated injunctions, it refuses to renegotiate the arrangement.

It also refuses to entertain the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's recent request to wheel hydro-electric power from the Lower Churchill River through its transmission lines, a move, it surmises correctly, that would introduce competition to its currently hegemonic lock on U.S. and Ontario energy markets.

No province is ever expected to act against its own interests. But Quebec's heavy-handed approach to inter-provincial relations leaves a bad taste in the mouths of even its most ardent admirers, one of whom, it's entirely correct to say, is not Newfoundland and Labrador's easily angered, eminently quotable premier.

After learning about Charest's attempted fiat, Williams was practically beside himself last week, spouting a string of trade mark "Dannyisms."

What gives Quebec the right, he thundered, to interfere? Specifically: "What gives Quebec, or the Government of Quebec, or the premier of Quebec, the right under any circumstances to object to an application for funding by other provinces that have nothing to do with Quebec?

They don't want us to go through Quebec, and now they don't want us to go anywhere. I think these are really very predatory practices and I don't like it, and I'm not going to put up with it."

Nova Scotia Energy Minister Bill Estabrooks echoed these sentiments in a CBC interview: "In my opinion, the premier of Quebec should mind his own business. He's dismissing a very valid idea which comes from two provinces that have worked very carefully in terms of giving a reliable energy service to our provinces."

And not just "their" provinces. An undersea power cable would be the first step towards a true Atlantic energy grid - supplied with clean, renewable hydro-electricity - that could reduce costs for all classes of consumers in all parts of the region. It would also vastly improve the East Coast's position as an international energy exporter, stimulating robust economic development in all partner provinces.

Quebec's purpose, of course, is to savagely curtail these opportunities any way it can. Its aborted bid last year to buy the major assets of NB Power has left it in a bitter, petulant mood. If Charest can't secure access to the U.S. northeast through New Brunswick, then nobody can - certainly not dear, old King Danny for whom he holds no special regard.

In all of this, the federal government appears to be playing its cards exactly as it should.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper reportedly told Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter that Quebec has no "veto" on matters that quite properly fall within the framework of national decision-making. Which may be another way of saying the feds will consider the joint funding application on its own merits.

If so, then Charest's meddling is moot, if no less annoying for the squalling, squawking selfishness it represents.

By: Alec Bruce, a Moncton-based journalist. He can be reached via www.thebrucereport.com

One American Appears to Understand NL better than Most Canadians

I came across an interesting blurb today in the Rutland Herald - out of Vermont. It seems that Vermont is the next state on Hydro-Quebec's radar for negotiating a long term power sales contract. It's interesting to see that some individual south of the border is aware of the situation existing between Quebec and NL, even it most Canadians, including those living in Quebec, are not.

Here's the piece, it can be found online at:
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100810/OPINION02/708109991/1037/OPINION02

While negotiating hydropower contracts, New Englanders and New Yorkers should understand Hydro-Québec’s power from the north.

Québec is slightly larger than Alaska, adjoining Newfoundland and Labrador are slightly smaller than California. Precipitation is plentiful, and so is hydropower, much of it still undeveloped.

Americans are accustomed to electricity freely generated and sold via shared power grids. Government-owned Hydro-Québec does not share its grid, requiring ownership of electricity that it transmits. Buying the output of Newfoundland and Labrador’s huge Churchill Falls hydropower plant at a declining rate of about 0.2 of a cent per kilowatt-hour, then reselling it at market rates, Hydro-Québec’s gross profit, at Newfoundland and Labrador citizens’ expense, is approximately $1.7 billion annually on electricity for which it paid about $63 million.

In 2009, Hydro-Québec electricity exports were 10 percent of net sales and 22 percent of net income at an average cost of 2 cents and price of 6.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. Hydro-Québec compels Newfoundland and Labrador to subsidize electricity sales to us at lucratively competitive rates. Unsold hydropower is worthless. Buying it from Hydro-Québec, New Englanders and New Yorkers should ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are repaid fairly for their power.

Working together, we can drive a hard bargain with a hard bargainer that is fair to all.

Now isn't that something. Cheers to the writer from Web Talk.

The Israel and Palestine of the North

An opinion piece by L. Ian Macdonald in the June 13th edtion of the Montreal Gazette caught my eye today, as I'm sure it did every other Newfoundlander or Labradorian who read the headline, "Let it go Newfoundland".

The article, at least for me, was quite perplexing and, if it weren’t so clearly oxymoronic, might even have spurred some anger on my part.

In his column Macdonald offered up some less than sage advice to Newfoundland and Labrador about moving forward, not looking back, when it comes to dealing with Hydro Quebec and the Quebec government on the Lower Churchill development.

Apparently Mr. Macdonald has taken offense with Premier Williams’ latest words of war against, what Williams referred to as Quebec’s “…sense of greed, arrogance and entitlement…” and decided to use the pages of the Montreal Gazette to air his feelings.

After reading (and re-reading) the article I decided to remain calm, I mean how can anyone be angry with a writer who somehow managed, in a mere 800 words, to prove Newfoundland and Labrador’s case while supposedly claiming that the province (and its leader Danny Williams) are wrong?

In the article Macdonald essentially told Newfoundland to forget the past and move on with a deal on the Lower Churchill project. He claimed that the anger surrounding past transgressions by Quebec is what’s standing in the way of a deal.

Let’s look at his arguments then shall we.

Macdonald began by noting that the Upper Churchill contract, which sees Quebec reap outrageous profits from Newfoundland and Labrador’s resources, happened in the 1960’s and that the lopsided contract was really Joey Smallwood’s fault, not Quebec’s, because as Ian put it, “…the deal on the Upper Churchill was approved by Joey Smallwood, the first premier of Newfoundland” and “Newfoundland did get screwed on the Upper Churchill -screwed by its own premier.”

Well at least he admitted that Newfoundland and Labrador got screwed, that’s something.

Indeed a contract was signed and I agree that Joey Smallwood signed it, but when you put it into context, something Macdonald seems determined not to do, a far different story appears.

In reality Hydro Quebec and the Quebec government refused to allow Newfoundland and Labrador the ability to wheel power across their province to markets elsewhere, leaving Newfoundland and Labrador no option but to negotiate a contract with Quebec on their terms. As anyone knows, when you have nowhere else to turn, it’s usually a pretty one sided negotiation.

As for Joey signing the contract, indeed he did, and many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians still despise him for doing it. In reality however it was Hydro Quebec that stretched out the negotiations for years, nearly forcing the project’s development company into bankruptcy, before using inside information on the company’s impending insolvency as the catalyst to present a final “take it or leave it” contract.

The options at that point were limited. Sign the contract and live with the consequences for the next 60 years, period.

There are still decades left on that contract so as much as Mr. Macdonald may see it as a thing of the past to be put aside, in Newfoundland and Labrador it is not. It isn’t a thing of the past in Quebec either where billions in revenue continue to roll in as a result of it.

In his next attempt to convince Newfoundland and Labrador to “move on” Macdonald noted that Premier Williams even mentioned the border between Labrador and Quebec in a recent speech, saying, “…he is so bitter and twisted about the past that he can't get on with the future. Not content to rant about the injustice of the Upper Churchill, he even thought to mention the British Privy Council decision of 1927, awarding Labrador to Newfoundland, and ripping Quebec for still including Labrador on its map on the government web-site. Get over it.”

Once again the point was missed completely.

Get over it, really?

Yes, the border between the two provinces was decided in 1927 but the act of trying to encroach on that border is continuing to happen every day in Quebec.

Maps are drawn up all the time by Quebec government agencies, including Hydro Quebec, the Tourism Departments, even by Quebec agencies that regulate mineral and oil exploration, depicting portions of Labrador as being inside Quebec or noting that the 1927 border is not officially accepted by Quebec.

How is the ongoing act of border modification a thing of the past to “get over” when that border is directly tied to the head waters and rivers from which Upper Churchill power is, and hopefully Lower Churchill power will, flow?

In his efforts to put Premier Williams (and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador) in its place, Macdonald claims Newfoundlanders are like “Palestinians” because we will never reach a deal due to past grievances. Premier Williams he claimed is over the top in referring to Quebec’s “greed, arrogance and sense of entitlement.

In the next breath, and throughout the article he then goes on to say that Williams is right when he says that Newfoundland and Labrador is getting screwed on the Upper Churchill, that Quebec uses revenues from the Upper Churchill and from buying cheap off peak power from Ontario, then selling it back to them during peak periods, to fund better day care than anyone else in Canada, to offer the lowest university tuitions in the Country and to artificially freeze Quebec power rates, instead of capturing those revenues and lowering the level of equalization payments Quebec receives (more than any other province in the Country).

Call me crazy but whose point is Macdonald actually proving here? The examples presented sound about as close to a strong sense of “greed, arrogance and entitlement” as you can get.

For some reason Ian Macdonald seems to feel that Premier Williams was out of line when, he denounced, “Quebec's "agenda to deny competitive power to the rest of North America," and when he called the decision of the Quebec energy regulator "the most biased decision that I have ever seen in 40 years as a lawyer ...”. Saying “The decision was so absurd and wrong as to be embarrassing to Quebec."

Clearly Mr. Macdonald has been spending far too much time listening to his inner voices rather than doing some valuable research.

It’s clear from examining the Regie (Quebec regulator) decision on transmitting power from the Lower Churchill through Quebec, and on the appeal documents now filed by Newfoundland and Labrador, that the board and its findings are, or should be, a complete and utter embarrassment to Quebec, ripe with incorrect assertions and outright falsehoods.

Among many, many other “mistakes”, the Regie somehow came to the conclusion that the existing Upper Churchill power plant, built in Labrador and run by a division of Newfoundland Hydro, falls under the jurisdiction and control of Quebec, also claiming that the power lines on the Labrador side of the border (remember the border) are regulated and controlled by Quebec.

In the most insulting and idiotic statement of all the Regie noted that the Quebec transmission wing of Hydro Quebec was not aware of the 1969 Churchill Falls agreement. I ask you, if that ludicrous assertion isn’t an embarrassment to the Quebec regulator what in heaven’s name would be?

So, it seems that Danny Williams is no longer Canada’s Hugo Chavez, a name that was born and quickly died out after his dispute with the oil elite finally garnered the province a respectable energy agreement and proved that his tactics wouldn’t drive companies away from the region.

Williams is now, according to Macdonald at least, Canada’s answer to the leader of the PLO with Newfoundlanders the Palestinians. I guess that makes Quebec the much maligned and altruistic Israel of Canada, at least in Macdonald’s twisted and oxymoronic mind.

Quebec, a place where everyone simply wants to live in peace and harmony but where they must forever be vigilant to defend themselves against their neighbors in foreign lands like Ontario and the Canadian Palestine of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ian must feel so bad for Quebec. If only Newfoundland and Labrador would stop picking on God’s chosen people.

NL Appeals Lower Churchill Transmission Ruling

This week NALCOR, Newfoundland and Labrador's energy corporation, on behalf of the Province, filed an appeal with the Regie in Quebec. Earlier this year the Regie, which regulates the power industry in Quebec, ruled that Quebec did not have to permit Newfoundland and Labrador to wheel Lower Churchill power across its grid to markets in Canada and the U.S.

The filing, which can be viewed here (or in our Links section under NL Development Links)clearly outlines the Province's position and details a number of factual problems with the earlier ruling. Everything from the board's conclusion that the Churchill Falls generating plant in Labrador is a fully controlled part of the Quebec authority and going so far as to boldly claim that Quebec Hydro's Transmission company was not aware of the 1969 existance of Churchill Falls power contract.

Reading the detailed issues and misrepresentations found in the original ruling, which are identified by NALCOR in its appeal document, it should be bewildering to anyone with even half a brain how the Quebec regulatators can function, let alone make sound decisions.

In this writer's opinion, and based on the content of the appeal document, either the decision making body of the Quebec Regie is totally ignorant of reality or they are even more blatently corrupt than anyone could possibly be without self destructing as a result of wallowing in their own crapulance.

Feds urged to probe N.B. - Quebec power deal

The following appeared today in the Halifax Chronicle Herald.

Power play worries Tory senator
By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau
Tue. Dec 15 - 4:45 AM

Sen. Lowell Murray is calling for the federal government to get involved in the proposed sale of NB Power to Hydro-Quebec.

Speaking in the Senate chamber Monday, the Progressive Conservative said Ottawa cannot afford to stay out of the discussion on the proposed sale of NB Power because of the implications for interprovincial and international trade, and also because New Brunswick would be, in effect, ceding legislative power to Quebec, a "broad constitutional issue."

Mr. Murray, who was born in New Waterford and was minister of federal-provincial relations under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, warned that neighbouring provinces have reason to worry if Hydro-Quebec takes over NB Power’s transmission lines.

"The disappearance of the New Brunswick system operator sends an ominous signal," he said. "I will say as objectively as I can that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have every reason to be concerned."

The federal government has stayed out of debate on the proposed deal, under which New Brunswick, in exchange for $4.8 billion, would hand over its power generation facilities and transmission lines to Hydro-Quebec and alter its regulatory legislation to comply with Quebec’s.

Premiers Darrell Dexter of Nova Scotia and Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador have asked New Brunswick to sign a letter promising they will have the right to build their own transmission lines through New Brunswick.

New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham has refused, pointing out that American regulators would guarantee that other provinces have the right to export power through New Brunswick.

The federal government should not allow that American intrusion into interprovincial trade, Mr. Murray argued.

"A policy of continued silence would be an implicit delegation of the federal government’s jurisdiction in this area of interprovincial and international trade to the USA Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Government of Quebec," he said.

"Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would then be in the odd position of depending on the U.S. to protect their interests in Canadian interprovincial trade. If these interests are imperilled, it is surely the role of the federal government to protect them."

Newfoundland says Hydro-Quebec has already made it difficult to export electricity from Labrador to markets in New England, and it would be even harder if the Quebec utility controlled New Brunswick’s transmission lines.

Peter MacKay, Nova Scotia’s representative in cabinet, expressed concern last month in an interview with the Telegraph-Journal in Saint John, N.B.

The deal "hasn’t given fair evaluation to what other alternatives may be out there — which would include Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island," he said.

"What are the alternatives to what has been presented by Hydro-Quebec? We don’t want to see any Atlantic Canadian provinces left out or left behind."

NL Should Simply Accept Upper Churchill Contract

Having been born, raised and now living in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador I make this suggestion only after careful consideration of what it might mean for my continued physical well being, especially if taken out of context. I also make it with the best of intentions and the best interests of the province in mind.

Earlier this week the government of Newfoundland and Labrador through CFLco, the operator of the Churchill Falls generating station, issued a request to Hydro Quebec asking them to consider renegotiation of the lopsided Churchill Falls contract. That request came after receiving a number of legal opinions, from what Premier Danny Williams referred to as, “some of the best legal minds in Quebec”. Fair enough, but I wonder if the people of the province should just learn to accept the existing contract as a part of the past and instead focus on the future. I wonder as well if the time, money and resources now used to fight the original 1969 contract might also be better spent looking forward instead of back.

Quebec’s quick and clear response to the province’s request was not an unexpected one by anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, or at least it shouldn’t have been. Not in light of a study undertaken by the Economic Council of Montreal that shows 75%of Hydro Quebec’s profits are directly due to cheap power from Churchill Falls Labrador. The response was a simple and unequivocal no.

The question now becomes, “What should Newfoundland and Labrador do about that denial?”

This isn’t the first time the province has tried to re-open the original contract. In fact they’ve tried several times over the years through political avenues and with legal challenges in the Supreme Court of Canada. All attempts have been unsuccessful so far. That isn’t to say this latest effort, should it ever actually proceed to the Quebec courts, might not end differently. It may have merit or it may not, that remains to be seen. Regardless of any of that, I wonder if renegotiation of the original contract should even be the target of this or any future attempts at seeing justice done.

There is one aspect of the Churchill Falls dynamic that has never been tested in any court, either provincially or federally, yet it begs for just such a challenge. I’m not referring to the original contract itself, which is set to expire in 2016, about the same time any legal case would likely take to wind its way though the court system. I’m speaking instead of the automatic 25 year renewal clause that will kick in when that original contract expires.

Perhaps it’s truly time to accept the original Upper Churchill contract for what it is and focus on the 6 years it is still in force to challenge the upcoming contract renewal before that agreement is actually implemented.

Based on the legal opinions presented this week by CFLco, a challenge to the renewal contract might stand a far better chance of success and the salient aspects of Quebec civil law now being spoken of are only the tip of the iceberg.

There are those who question whether the Quebec civil law touted by Newfoundland and Labrador as the basis of its latest attempts would even apply retroactively to a 1960’s contract since that law itself was only implemented in the mid-nineties. The renewal on the other hand is set to come into effect years after that law was first put on the books providing Newfoundland and Labrador with additional support for action on that front.

The renewal is considered to be automatic however in essence it is still a new contract, one that includes an even lower power purchase price for Hydro Quebec than existed under the original contract. Challenging that renewal, before it is implemented, would allow the province to follow an entirely new avenue of action, one where Quebec civil code references to “good faith” and “equity”, might still be valuable as supporting arguments but need not form the main thrust of the province’s case.

In 2005 Professor James Feehan and Historian Melvin Baker, of Memorial University, presented a research paper entitled, “The Origins of a Coming Crisis – Renewal of the Churchill Falls Contract”. Their investigation into the events surrounding the renewal aspect of the agreement was later published in the Dalhousie Law Journal.

Feehan and Baker’s effort uncovered evidence of conflict of interest and the use of inside information by Hydro Quebec during the negotiation process. They supported those findings with newly uncovered documents and meeting minutes from the period that were not previously known to exist.

In the end the researchers came to the conclusion that this was a situation where Hydro Quebec used information about the financial position of CFLco it should never have been privy to in a bid to force the last minute inclusion of the renewal clause into the original contract. According to the researchers Hydro Quebec used this information to demand CFLco either “take it or leave it” eventually leading the company “take it”, a decision that made no sense in a business context except, as Feehan and Baker put it, they were acting under “duress”.

In the words of the researchers, the events raise questions of “…conflict of interest, economic duress…business ethics” and “law”.

Personally I’d love nothing more than to the true owners of Churchill Falls gain some kind of redress after decades of living with the one sided Churchill Falls contract but in reality that contract will effectively end in just 6 years and after decades what’s a few more years. Any legal challenge would likely take at least that long. Wouldn’t the time be better spent challenging the 25 year renewal contract which, as my dear Father has been known to say, “…is an entirely different kettle of fish”.

NALCOR Seeks to Re-Open Upper Churchill Power Contract

ST. JOHN'S, NL, Nov. 30 /CNW/ - Ed Martin, President of Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation (CF(L)Co) and President and CEO of Nalcor Energy, announced today that CF(L)Co has asked Hydro-Quebec to enter into negotiations on the Upper Churchill Power Contract pricing.

"Today I have sent a letter to Mr. Thierry Vandal, President of Hydro-Quebec, requesting that his company renegotiate the pricing terms for the remainder of the 1969 Power Contract between Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation and Hydro-Quebec to establish a fair and equitable return to both CF(L)Co and Hydro-Quebec for the future," said Martin.

The present purchase price under the contract is one-quarter of one cent per kw/hr and the renewal contract fixes the purchase price at one-fifth of one cent for the 25year period beginning in 2016. This will mean that, for the remaining 32 years of the power contract, Upper Churchill power will be sold to Hydro-Quebec for less than 5 per cent of its recent commercial value. This permits virtually no return to CF(L)Co and its shareholders for the next 32 years.

"After our internal review and assessment of all eminent legal and scholarly advice, we feel the grounds exist to require Hydro-Quebec to renegotiate the pricing terms of the Power Contract under certain provisions of the Quebec Civil Code," explained Martin.

"We believe this situation, as long as it is outstanding, to be unjust and to refuse to renegotiate the pricing terms is inconsistent with the obligation imposed by the law of Quebec to act in good faith in all legal relationships including, more specifically, the negotiation and on-going performance of contracts."

According to Martin, a legal opinion on this issue was received from the law firm of Irving Mitchell Kalichman of Montreal. That opinion was prepared with the assistance of the Honorable Jean-Louis Baudouin, formerly a judge of the Quebec Court of Appeal and now with the law firm of Fasken Martineau, who was also involved in drafting the Quebec Civil Code, and in consultation with Dr. Pierre-Gabriel Jobin of the McGill University Faculty of Law. As well, an independent legal opinion was received from the Montreal office of the law firm of Stikeman Elliott.

This legal advice indicates that, in the particular context of the Power Contract between CF(L)Co and Hydro Quebec, circumstances have changed in a way that could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time the contract was initiated.

The consequence of these unforeseen circumstances, coupled with the extraordinary length of the contract, has resulted in a gross inequity in the distribution of contractual benefits between Hydro-Quebec and CF(L)Co.

This unique situation regarding the Power Contract, combined with the obligation in the Quebec Civil Code to act in good faith throughout the full term of a contract, obliges Hydro-Quebec, upon request, to reopen the contract in order to re-establish the appropriate equilibrium.

CF(L)Co has asked Hydro-Quebec to reply to its request to commence negotiations by January 15, 2010.

Let’s Be Honest for Once

George Washington is remembered to have said, “I cannot tell a lie.” Since then no politician has been able to make the same claim without being guilty of telling one.

These days truth itself should be placed on an endangered species list.

It’s gotten to the point where the truth is coming under a constant attack from all sides.

Today its truth, not lies, that have become something to be avoided at all costs and it’s no longer just politicians who have a monopoly on the practice, we’ve all gotten into the act.

With that in mind Web Talk is proud, well at least mildly pleased, to present a hastily compiled:

Top 10 list of (politically incorrect) Comments You Won’t Find in the National Papers

Or

10 Rants For the Price of One

10 – I feel for Ontarians who are losing their jobs. Being from Newfoundland and Labrador I can sympathize with their plight and wish them the best. Having said that, I wouldn’t be human if some small part of me, deep in the back of my mind, didn’t feel like shouting the following from the roof tops:

“If Ontarians are really suffering from rising unemployment why don’t they stop their incessant whining about wanting more EI and do what they’ve been telling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to do for decades, suck it up and move someplace where they can find a job. The rest of us can’t be expected to keep Ontarians living in a place where there’s no work so pack up and move on. By the way Ontario, your unemployment rate is still only about half of what it is in Newfoundland and Labrador so slag off.”

But I won’t say it. I really do care about the individuals being hurt in this recession, including in Ontario and I hope they work their way through this.

9 – North Atlantic Harp seals are not endangered. North Atlantic Harp seals are highly efficient and effective carnivores with big sharp ugly teeth. They are not cuddly little “ice bunnies”.

Activists say seals are not hunted for food so they shouldn’t be hunted at all. In reality it was anti-sealing activists who lobbied to destroy a once profitable market for seal meat and are now using the lack of one as an excuse to ban the hunt.

The seal herd is thriving, the meat tastes great (yes it’s still eaten across Newfoundland and Labrador) and the furs are warmer, softer and more beautiful than anything else you’ll ever wear.

Thanks to their screwed up view of the world animal rights activists will cause far more damage to the seals, the fish stocks those seals depend upon and the entire ecosystem in the region than the annual seal hunt ever did.

By the way, for anyone interested I’ve got a great seal flipper pie recipe I can send you, just let me know and I’ll get it right out to you.

8 – Yes the Alberta oil sands are without any shadow of a doubt a messy and destructive environmental catastrophe.

They are destroying the air, land and water, but droning on and on in a vain attempt to force oil companies into cutting emissions in an effort to meet Kyoto targets is the environmental equivalent of the misguided anti-sealing movement.

Those companies cannot and will not meet those targets without running themselves out of business and that isn’t going to happen. It would take a shutdown or at least a major scale down of most oil sands activity in order to meet those targets and simply put, neither Canada nor the U.S. can afford to do that no matter what it might mean for the environment.

Enough is enough. It’s time to tell the Kyoto zealots to go to hell (as should have been done with the seal protestors), find a sensible way to manage the problem, cut the grandstanding on all sides of the political arena and reach a compromise on this issue that will do the least harm to everyone and everything involved. If not then forget about it and move on.

7 – The future of Canada means absolutely nothing to Stephen Harper who is a right wing, egomaniacal, hillbilly, educated beyond his intelligence level. He is a man who would gladly sell his soul and those of his children, if he hasn’t done so already, for the one thing he craves above all else, absolute power and control.

Canada’s future also means nothing to Michael Ignatieff, who is a thinly veiled American decked out in Canadian clothing. A man who wants nothing more than to add the title “Canadian Prime Minister” to his scholarly C.V. so he can demand more for his book sales in the future.

Jack Layton, well, enough said about Jack. No point in kicking a dead horse, especially with so many animal rights activists around these days. It’s getting so you can’t swing a dead cat (or a live one) without hitting one of them.

6 – Stephen Harper claims to be defending Canada’s territory, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador interests, by not accepting a French claim for extended offshore territory. His position is pure and unadulterated crap.

All St. Pierre – Miquelon is looking for is a means to survive its economic challenges by extending its existing 200 mile corridor (away from Canada) to the edge of the Continental Shelf. This is no more or less than Canada itself plans to do under the U.N. Law of the Sea.

The small French islands should have a right to an extension of that little strip of territory and France is correct to demand it. Otherwise the islands will effectively be trapped inside Canadian waters with no free access to the open ocean once Canada makes its claim to an extended economic zone.

No matter what the Prime Minister says, this has nothing to do with protecting Canadian sovereignty or NL’s interests. It has everything to do with lucrative oil potential in the region.

5 – The Quebecois culture is no more distinct than that of Newfoundlanders & Labradorians. Period.

4 – Contrary to popular belief, Quebec is not benefiting from a one sided contract to purchase Churchill Falls power.

Neither Quebec nor Newfoundland and Labrador ever actually signed a legal contract.

Quebec committed fraud by using insider information and blackmail to get the signatures it wanted. Quebec has committed a criminal act and has been stealing billions of dollars from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for decades. What’s more they’ve been doing it with the tacit acceptance of successive Federal and Newfoundland & Labrador governments, both of which refuse to take any decisive or clear action.

Personally I’d love to see the Province throw the damn switch at the generating station and turn off the lights right across the so called “Quebec Nation”.

3 – Canada is not a Country. It’s a group of individual provinces financially controlled, oppressed and blackmailed into subservience by a corrupt central regime.

Thanks to the lopsided political power wielded by Ontario and Quebec, Canada is nothing more than an excuse for ensuring the advancement of those two jurisdictions (upper and lower Canada) regardless of what that might mean for the rest of the population.

Calling Canada a real Country is an insult to honesty and intelligence on an epic scale.

2 – Brian Mulroney is corrupt and he is without a doubt guilty of all sorts of immoral if not illegal acts. Everybody knows it but nobody really gives a crap so let’s enjoy the death of his legacy, not to mention his squirming on the hot seat, and then move on.

1 - We are told that we have freedom of speech but that’s one of the most widely accepted lies out there.

Show me someone who has expressed their frustration at the political system by simply “saying” they would “like to see” something blown up and I’ll show you a person either under federal surveillance or actually in custody.

In fact, even this article has been self edited. Just try making a public statement about Brian Mulroney, as I did in the previous section, without qualifying it with a phrase like “if not illegal acts” and see how quickly you end up being sued.

Even if you forget the legal or civil methods of stifling our freedom of speech, the docile acceptance of so called political correctness we all subscribe to has done more to quiet the masses than any law ever could. Everyone is so afraid of being ostracized by their friends, neighbors and co-workers for being politically incorrect that nobody really says what’s on their mind anymore.

This top-ten list may not be as funny as some others but the truth seldom is.

In an effort to help fight censorship and political correctness Web Talk will, on occasion, tackle this subject just as it has today. Feel free to add your two cents but please remember, as much as it sucks, for our own protection even Web Talk must adhere to the same anti-free speech edicts as everyone else, so act accordingly (but don’t hesitate to push the envelope).

NL's Access to Quebec Hydro Grid Raising Questions

Nearly two weeks ago Newfoundland and Labrador Premier, Danny Williams, stood in the House of Assembly and made an announcement touted by papers across Canada as a turning point for his province.

The mainstream media and the Premier have since waxed eloquently about how Newfoundland and Labrador’s new ability to wheel hydro power through Quebec to American markets may herald the dawn of a new day.

The problem is that it actually means nothing of the sort.

Yes, Quebec has refused to allow just such an arrangement in the past but what does it really mean for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador or its ability to reach markets with the proposed Lower Churchill development?

It means absolutely nothing from that perspective which is why I find myself quite puzzled by the Premier’s apparent elation over the event.

The timing and tone of Premier Williams “ground breaking”, “turning point” announcement earlier this month, simply because Quebec will allow a token amount of power to be transmitted on their under utilized grid, has my gut telling me to be wary.

In order to wheel the more than 3000 megawatts to be generated by the Lower Churchill across Quebec a great deal of new capacity would have to be added to the grid and, just as in the past, every Newfoundlander and Labradorian knows, or should know, that Quebec has no plans to allow anyone other than themselves to build new transmission infrastructure inside their “nation” unless they own, control and reap the profits from it.

Over capacity is one thing. New capacity is something else all together.

Newfoundland and Labrador can kick and scream all it wants. Danny Williams can blow a gasket, grow a new one and blow that. The Canadian Constitution can be quoted chapter and verse on this issue (which supports Newfoundland and Labrador’s ability to access markets) and it can be proclaimed from the highest mountains but in the end Ottawa, as it always does, will acquiesce to the demands and desires of vote rich Quebec. Newfoundland and Labrador be damned.

None of that does, or should, come as a surprise to anyone living in Newfoundland and Labrador for more than five minutes. What has come as a bit of a shock is Danny Williams apparent need to “spin” the Province’s ability to export a paltry 200 megawatts of power, with Quebec’s blessing, as some sort of major breakthrough.

It’s more than a little odd to this observer that the Premier would be touting this as a victory and claiming it bodes well for future developments when that clearly isn’t the case.

Has political expediency and the need to “play well at home” trumped reality for yet another of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Premiers?

Has Premier Williams been listening to his own publicity team for so long now that he’s actually started to believe them?

Don’t get me wrong, on the whole I like what the Premier has done over the past couple of terms and I’ve been happy to back him on the issues he’s been strong enough to take a stand on, but this one has me baffled.

Why would the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador consider it a shining moment for his Province simply because Quebec made a token gesture at a time when they plan to develop a multi-billion dollar hydro project just outside the Labrador border?

Ever since that border was defined in 1927 Quebec has disputed its exact location.

Did Quebec really turn a page with this recent announcement or is Premier Charest hoping Premier Williams won’t make too much fuss about the fact that one of the grey areas in the 1927 border decision just happens to contain the headwaters that will feed Quebec’s massive Romaine hydro project?

As has often been said, “He who controls the headwaters controls the project.”

Recently I requested specific clarification from the government of Newfoundland and Labrador concerning the border and its relationship to the headwaters of the Romaine River. To an untrained eye, which I am not ashamed to say I have, it’s debatable as to which Province can stake claim to those waters.

To date there has been no response but I continue to wait (im)patiently.

When it comes to the “big” announcement a couple of weeks ago I’m not accusing anyone of anything underhanded but I certainly have questions.

In 2005 Professors Feehan and Baker released a research paper on the Upper Churchill renewal clause. That paper contained previously unknown evidence pointing to the use of coercion and inside information as the means by which Newfoundland and Labrador was forced into signing the disastrous Upper Churchill contract. It concluded that a legal challenge could be made.

Since that time the Williams’ government has never openly discussed those findings or pursued a legal challenge to the contract. Instead, the provincial government later released the Province’s long term energy plan. A document that makes no mention of attempts to rectify the Upper Churchill debacle and contains a plan that extends until 2041, the same year the contract will have run its entire course (without challenge).

In 2008 the Williams government quietly sent a letter to the joint Quebec/Federal panel reviewing the environmental impacts of the Romaine hydro project. The letter expressed concern about the misrepresentation of the Southern Labrador border on maps being used for the process. It made no mention of any concern with Quebec pushing ahead on a project that might depend on headwaters inside Labrador.

The letter was sent to the review panel without any fanfare, publicity or notification of the media. It was only through a chance discovery but one local reporter that the letter ever became public knowledge in the first place.

Why was so little concern expressed about the project and the headwaters and and why was the letter sent so quietly?

In recent months Premier Williams has publicly stated on several occasions that he has no concern with Quebec’s Romaine River hydro development. How can this be the case given our history?

After being fleeced for decades on the Upper Churchill, if the Romaine’s headwaters are indeed inside Newfoundland and Labrador territory doesn’t that mean that Newfoundland and Labrador should have a stake in the project?

Does the lack of concern mean the provincial government simply plans to let Quebec push forward with no financial benefit accruing to Newfoundland and Labrador from what amounts to yet another of its extremely valuable natural resources?

If so, why would anyone do that?

Could it be that the “token gesture” made by Quebec in allowing a small amount of power to be sold through its grid was a down payment to the Provincial government on a promise to support the Lower Churchill development once the Romaine has been completed?

If so, is a promise like that worth the paper it could never actually be written on?

These are questions that need to be answered.

There may indeed be very rational and reasonable responses to each of them but they need to be asked and answered.

I don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I can’t help it. The celebratory position taken by Premier Williams, not to mention the copious level of high praise, encouragement, kudos and smiley faced pats on the back flowing like sweet molasses from the national media over what amounts to a mundane non-event, has me wanting those answers sooner rather than later.

The Butcher, Baker and Candlestick Maker

Much has been made of Senator George Baker’s recent comments identifying a growing discontent in Newfoundland and Labrador and the potential for a new “bloc” style federal party to emerge in the province.

The federalists, most notably the Harper Conservatives, jumped on his comment as a promotion of separation. I believe they even came perilously close to calling the Senator a “traitor”.

Never mind that Mr. Baker spoke of a party that would defend Newfoundland and Labrador’s interests in Ottawa and never said anything about separation. Why would he in the federal context? After all only a provincial party, not a federal one, can make such a move. This is why the Bloc Quebecois never held a referendum on separation, the provincial party in Quebec has done so in the past, but not the federal one. It can’t

In this case, once again, political expediency and the automatic attack instincts of the PMO took over and when that happens everyone knows that reality takes a back seat.

A week after Senator Baker’s comment perhaps it’s time to take a step back, put aside the rhetoric and political hyperbole for a moment, look at the facts behind his belief that there is growing unrest in his home province and what the situation may lead to.

Most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians don’t need to be reminded of the long list of reasons for their discontent but for the benefit of Canadians living outside the province here is a short and by no means complete, list of grievances.

1 - Questions still linger, even after 60 years, about whether or not the referendum that led to NL’s confederation with Canada was valid or not.

When Newfoundland and Labrador ceded power to Britain in the 1930’s the people were told they would one day be given back their autonomy as an independent Dominion. This was never done. Many believe it should have been done before the people were called upon to take part in a referendum on becoming part of another Country.

Most people don’t realize it but there were actually two votes held on Confederation.

In the first vote three options were presented on the ballot and Confederation with Canada DID NOT win that vote. As a result a second vote was undertaken the following year that offered only two options. In that vote Confederation won but by the narrowest of margins, just over 50%. A number that would never pass muster today if NL were to hold a referendum to exit Canada.

Also, as a side note, when NL entered Confederation it may not have been in the best fiscal or economic position but it had a financial surplus. Now, 60 years later it struggles under the highest per capita debt in the Country.

2 - In the late 1960’s Newfoundland and Labrador undertook development of the massive Upper Churchill hydro facility. Canada’s constitution guarantees the free flow of goods across provincial territories. In this case however Quebec refused to allow the province to wheel power across their territory and Ottawa refused to enforce their Constitutional duty by making them permit it.

As a result, Newfoundland and Labrador was forced into signing a ridiculous long term contract to sell the power to Quebec. Although NL still owns and runs the Upper Churchill power system it has made just a few million dollars in all the years that followed. Quebec, last year alone, made $2 Billion in revenues from Newfoundland and Labrador’s power and will make this or more every year from now until 2041.

3 - For 500 years visitors and settlers in Newfoundland and Labrador depended on the Atlantic Cod fishery as the mainstay of the economy. When NL joined Canada in 1949 Ottawa assumed control of fisheries management. By 1992 that 500 year old fishery had been mismanaged to the point of total collapse. This resulted in 15 – 20 percent of the province’s population being thrown out of work.

The fishery has still not recovered and is showing no signs of doing so. Foreign trawlers are still plying the spawning areas and Ottawa refuses to enact custodial management actions to protect them.

4 - The massive oil and gas reserves off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador are not controlled by the province but by Ottawa.

When NL entered Confederation 60 years ago it was standard practice for nations to have a 50 mile limit in the oceans around them (remember, NL was once a separate state), years later Countries around the world began adopting a 200 mile zone.

This means that had Newfoundland and Labrador not entered Canada the people of the province, not Canada, would control those reserves and receive all the benefits from them.

Essentially NL brought those reserves into Canada yet, unlike Alberta or Saskatchewan who control the oil beneath their soil, NL does not control the oil beneath its waters.

For clarification, recent battles related to the Atlantic Accord have nothing to do with equalization. They have everything to do with whether Ottawa or NL receives the most benefit from those oil and gas resources, not all the benefits, just the majority of them.

The Atlantic Accord was an agreement intended to ensure that the people who brought those resources into Canada would benefit the most from them. Recent unilateral moves by the Harper government have ensured that the agreement was watered down the point where it is practically worthless and that the benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador are severely limited.

5 - Newfoundland and Labrador, with less than 2% of Canada’s population has consistently provided about 10% of Canada’s military forces yet even with it’s strategically important geographical location (covering most of the nation’s Atlantic Coast) there is no appreciable military presence (or related jobs) in the Province.

As previously noted, the preceding list is by no means complete but it serves to show that although Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are often labeled as “whiners” or “malcontents” in the national media there are valid reasons for discontent to exist and grow.

So, the next question is what can be done about it?

This brings us back to Senator Baker’s comments.

Whether or not specific individuals in the province would or would not support a “bloc” style party just about everyone knows the situation as it currently exists. That situation is as follows:

Newfoundland and Labrador has no voice in Ottawa and nowhere to turn when serious concerns, like those identified above, come to pass. Under the status quo the province is essentially impotent.

Newfoundland and Labrador has only 7 federal seats out of the 308 in Parliament.

The vast majority of federal seats exist within Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, etc. As a result any federal action must, for purely political reasons, ensure that the voters of the larger provinces are served first, last and always even if that means harming smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador.

Whether it’s a question of wheeling power across another’s provincial jurisdiction, finding more money for vote rich areas, keeping peace with foreign fishing nations so not to upset trade deals that benefit central Canadian auto, textile, aerospace or candlestick makers, or any number of other issues, Newfoundland and Labrador has been, and always will be, less important to federal political parties than central Canada.

The senate, which has problems on so many fronts it would take volume of books to recite, is neither equal nor effective. If it were then each province would have an equal number of senators and the senate would have the ability to do more than rubber stamp legislation. They do not.

The senate, as it was intended, is supposed to be the chamber of “sober second thought”.

Thanks to their long term appointments (remaining in office until the age of 75) senators are supposed to be immune from having to concern themselves with how their decisions might impact on their personal or party political futures. After all, if you don’t have to run for election you don’t need to pander to popular positions and are free to ensure that things are done fairly.

That may work in theory but unfortunately it’s not the case in practice.

It’s common practice, and considered quite acceptable in political circles, for elected party leaders to pressure and control the actions of senators who are members of their party. How often have you heard Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatief and others say something like, “He can’t even control his Senators”.

How independent and immune to political games can the senate really be if comments like those are considered appropriate?

With all of this in mind one can easily see why discontent is growing every day in Newfoundland and Labrador and why Senator Baker (though it took some guts to do it) said what he did.

The facts are clear. With all the problems the province has experienced, and continues to experience in Canada, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have four options in front of them and only one that has any potential to provide some relief.

They can either:

Stay in Canada and sit quietly by as abuse after abuse is heaped upon them with no hope things will ever change. This is not an option anyone should be faced with or should even consider accepting in a democracy.

Or

Stay in Canada and desperately try to change the federal system, knowing full well that there is no political will in Ottawa to do so because the system works pretty well for highly populated and vote rich areas that politicians need to win elections. In other words Newfoundlanders are faced with another option that offers no hope of improving the situation.

Or

Determine, through an independent feasibility study, if separation really is a truly viable and reasonable alternative. Since a study would require provincial government approval, perhaps even assistance in gathering information from Ottawa and would likely take quite some time to conduct if it were ever undertaken, this options does nothing to help in the short term if ever.

Or there is the option put forward by Senator Baker.

Support a “bloc” style party that can voice Newfoundland and Labrador’s concerns in Parliament without concern for the political interests of MPs from other provinces. Those “bloc” style MPs would hold 7 votes that might be important enough during a string of minority Parliaments that old fashioned horse trading could very well serve to see at least some of the province’s concerns addressed going forward.

It’s really the only option that has any merit.

Since he made his now infamous comments Senator Baker has been butchered in the mainstream media across Canada and ridiculed as a dottering fool.

I wonder who the fools really are?