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.

Web Talk Exclusive - NL to Address Labrador Boundary with Federal Agencies

On several occasions over the past years Web Talk has brought the Quebec / Labrador boundary dispute to the attention of its readers. The most recent time was in the February 12th article, “Through the Looking Glass – A Constitutional Crisis in the Making”.

Quebec’s decades old refusal to accept the official boundary between itself and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, specifically in the area of Southern Labrador is an issue that cannot be ignored.

The boundary was officially determined by the Privy Council in 1927, more than 20 years before Newfoundland and Labrador became Canada’s newest “Colony” and was recognized by the Canadian Constitution when it was written into the Terms of Union in 1949, a fact that Quebec continues to openly ignore.

All official Quebec maps depict a border which extends well into Labrador.

This is an issue that has been on the radar of Web Talk and many of its readers for a long time now and while the provincial government recently issued a letter of concern over maps in use by a federal / provincial panel reviewing the environmental impact of Quebec’s Romaine River hydro project, little else has been said about the issue thus far.

Personally I couldn’t care less if the government or people of Quebec want to delude themselves. The real problem becomes clearer when one considers the potential for Quebec’s position to be accepted outside that province.

They say perception is reality and the boundary issue is a perfect example of this adage.

Quebec has been using their “corrupted” maps for so long now that they are now beginning to convince Federal agencies that their fantasy is factual.

The use of erroneous maps by a joint Federal / Quebec environmental panel, which finally spurred the Newfoundland and Labrador government to voice its concerns, is just one case that proves the point.

Shortly before publishing the February 12th article Web Talk, as it has done in the past, brought the issue directly to the attention of the provincial government.

This time, instead of simply focusing on maps issued by Quebec, Web Talk also provided the government with maps currently in use by Federal agencies, specifically the CBC and the Department of National Defense, which also depict the erroneous border.

A response to that correspondence arrived a few days ago.

While it seems they still do not believe the issue is a major concern, at least nobody in government can claim they are not aware of the growing acceptance of Quebec’s position within Canada. The Minister of Natural Resources, Kathy Dunderdale, has committed to address the concerns presented to her by contacting both of the federal agencies involved.

Here is the Minister’s response in its entirety.

RE: Quebec Boundary

On behalf of Premier Williams, I thank you for your e-mail in which you provided examples from numerous sources of the erroneous Labrador/Quebec boundary line.

The inaccurate depiction of the boundary between Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, as described in your e-mail, is a matter of concern for the Province. However, we are confident in the legal and binding nature of the interprovincial boundary as set out in the 1927 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Constitution of Canada by Term 2 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland and Labrador with Canada. The Government of Quebec is well aware of our displeasure about their use of the fictional boundary. Their continued use of that depiction is disrespectful, but will have no real effect on the constitutional reality of Canada.

The inaccurate depictions of the boundary in images used by the federal government and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are new developments and we appreciate you bringing them to our attention. We will contact the Department of National Defense and the CBC to ensure that these errors are corrected immediately.

I thank you for your interest in this matter. We will continue to be vigilant in the protection of our sovereign territory, including the Labrador/Quebec boundary.

Yours sincerely,

Kathy Dunderdale

c. Honourable Dave Denine, Minister Intergovernmental Affairs

Ottawa Gives Implicit Nod to Quebec Annexation of NL Lands

The following article appeared in today’s Globe and Mail. It should be of great interest and concern to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The entire article speaks volumes about the attitude of Quebec and Ottawa toward Newfoundland and Labrador.

Take special note of the following passages within the article. They speak volumes:

“The federal government has sided with Quebec ...”

“…the federal government appears to have given tacit approval to Quebec's claim.”

“Ottawa says that any territorial dispute is a matter for the provinces to resolve.”

Web Talk Note: I guess it doesn’t matter to Ottawa that the border was, with NLs entry into the federation, written into the terms of union making it a constitutional issue. The constitution didn’t matter when during the Upper Churchill development so why would anyone be surprised that it's being ignored again at the expense of Newfoundland and Labrador.

“…the federal government appears to have given tacit approval to Quebec's claim.”

“The boundary has never been successfully surveyed. The last attempt was abandoned in the 1980s after the two provinces concluded the issue was too politically sensitive to tackle.”

Web Talk Note: This likely means that the Premier at the time was Conservative Brian Peckford, since both Rideout and Wells spent very little time in office during that decade. Why did no Premier, either Liberal or Conservative, do anythin about this? Once again we have a Conservative Premier in office who in 2006 said the border situation was not a concern for him. What’s up with that?

"Mr. Charest expressed confidence recently that the project will begin as planned..."

I bet he did. Anyway, enough of the analysis and comments. Here's the article:

Power play pits Quebec against Newfoundland

Where do headwaters of rugged Romaine River lie? Both provinces claim land where boundary has never been successfully surveyed

RHÉAL SÉGUIN
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
February 11, 2009

QUEBEC — The federal government has sided with Quebec by agreeing to hear the province's argument that a multibillion-dollar hydroelectric project is on Quebec territory, land also claimed by Newfoundland and Labrador.

The natural-resources fight pits Danny Williams's province against Quebec's plans to build the Romaine River hydroelectric project. Newfoundland has told Ottawa that Quebec's claims to the land are "invalid" and any such development by Hydro-Québec is "contemptuous of the Constitution of Canada."

Hydro-Québec is proposing to begin developing the 1,550-megawatt project as early as next summer, at a cost of $6.5-billion. It is waiting for the joint panel's environmental assessment report that will be submitted to the Quebec and federal environment ministers on Feb. 27. Both governments will then have up to 60 days to release the report before making their recommendations regarding the project.

Simply by participating in the joint Quebec-Ottawa environmental assessment panel, the federal government appears to have given tacit approval to Quebec's claim.

At issue is a substantial portion of a 3,500-kilometre-long boundary of rugged territory dividing Quebec and Labrador. The boundary has never been successfully surveyed. The last attempt was abandoned in the 1980s after the two provinces concluded the issue was too politically sensitive to tackle.

"Politically this was a real hot potato and it still is," said Eric Jerret, who at the time was president of the Association of Land Surveyors of Newfoundland and Labrador. "But now pressure is coming to bear on the governments to settle this. It's the only border in Canada that hasn't been surveyed. It can't be left unresolved much longer."

At some point it will have to be decided where the mining rights, property rights and especially the headwaters of five major Quebec Lower North Shore rivers reside. That could impact future hydroelectric and other economic developments. More importantly, it could revive tensions between the two provinces at a time when closer co-operation will be needed to develop power and transportation links.

For instance, Newfoundland resident Burford Ploughman has been working on developing a permanent transportation link between the two provinces across the Strait of Belle Isle. He was a member of the 1979 federal Commission of Inquiry into Newfoundland Transportation and fears a confrontation between the two provinces could harm potential progress on key issues.

"The federal government's position isn't helping matters. Are they going to use the Quebec border instead of the Newfoundland and Labrador one? How can they do an [environmental] assessment? If they do, does it mean they are recognizing Quebec's border rather than ours? That's the central question and in two weeks' time they're going to make a decision," Mr. Ploughman said.

A 1927 ruling by the Privy Council, confirmed in the Terms of Union with Canada, concluded the headwaters of the Romaine and four other rivers are in Labrador. Quebec has always considered them as being part of its provincial territory.

"The headwaters and entire watersheds of the Romaine and the four other major Quebec North Shore rivers appear, incorrectly to be within Quebec," the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador stated in its Nov. 27, 2008, brief to the joint review panel.

"It is unacceptable that the federal government would accept a document as sufficient with such a glaring error of fact and law, especially one which is inconsistent with the Constitution of Canada."

The statement implies a constitutional battle may be in the making if Ottawa doesn't act soon to support Newfoundland and Labrador's claim to the land.

A spokesperson for Mr. Williams said yesterday the Premier refuses to say whether he will act to stop Premier Jean Charest from proceeding with the Romaine River hydroelectric project.

At the federal Ministry of the Environment, officials didn't appear to be aware of the potential confrontation. Ottawa says that any territorial dispute is a matter for the provinces to resolve.
"It will be up to the provinces to respond.

The environmental assessment commission will make recommendations to help alleviate possible adverse effects of the project on the environment ... But it isn't in the commission's mandate to take a position on territorial issues such as this," federal Environment Ministry spokeswoman Lucille Jamault said.

Mr. Charest expressed confidence recently that the project will begin as planned, insisting it has become a centrepiece of his government's strategy to create jobs at a time of recession.

UPDATE - 10:09 PM

The following letter was sent to Premier Williams a few minutes ago. If you would like to voice your concerns as well, the Premier's email address is: Premier@gov.nl.ca

To Premier Williams
cc.The Telegram (for publication)

Premier Williams,

I have copied this letter to the Telegram and to VOCM because I'm sure, like myself, most of the people in this province are very concerned about the constitutional challenge Quebec, with the implicit approval of Ottawa, is making with regard to the annexation of southern Labrador.

I also believe that they would like you to clearly state for the record what your government is doing to ensure that the environmental process now underway, and scheduled to be completed in just two weeks, does not proceed until the border is clarified for all of those involved.

The border between NL and Quebec is clearly defined in the Terms of Union with Canada however, knowing our past history when it comes to dealing with Quebec, it is not good enough to depend on Ottawa to respect the Constitution. The happenings around the Upper Churchill are proof enough of that.

If one nation attempted to unilaterally take control of territory inside another it would be considered an act of war. Taken in that context, we cannot allow Quebec to proceed with what amounts to an overt act of aggression against Newfoundland and Labrador

I look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,
Myles Higgins