The demand by Members of the House of Assembly today for an independent review of the MOU was a welcome call. All opposition members particularly, independent MHA Eddie Joyce, independent MHA Paul Lane, MHA Tony Wakeham on behalf of the official opposition PC and MHA Jim Dinn on behalf of the third party (NDP) should be commended by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for their forthright interventions to have our Government act in accordance with the recommendations of Justice LeBlanc following the Muskrat Falls Inquiry.
A discussion of the following benefit, transferred to HQ in the MOU, clearly demonstrates the necessity for independent review. The signing of the MOU on December 12, 2024, transferred to HQ the exclusive control over the Gull Island site. The MOU states at clause 5.3 (b), “Exclusivity. From the date hereof and during the Term, NLH shall not discuss, or enter into any agreement, with any party other than HQ with respect to the possibility of developing a hydro-electric project at the Gull Island site or the Churchill Falls site.” This transfer of control is one of a few binding conditions in the MOU.
The question is why did NL Hydro (NLH) sign over control of Gull Island to HQ? What benefit was derived for the transfer of control of such an important asset owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Did the government on the peoples behalf approve this transfer of control? Why was such an action taken without any discussion or information, with the owners of the asset, the people of NL? This transfer of control displays the disregard for due process and the lack of independence guiding the MOU.
Imagine signing over control of your home for over 16 months to a prospective buyer for no compensation or benefit. This is a clear sign that negotiators and those involved in the MOU require independent review. Of course, there is the possibility that the GNL and NLH representatives were advised against such a transfer of control but they chose to ignore the advice. Certainly, that is a possibility, as similar things happened with the Muskrat Falls development.
Today in response to the call for independent review GNL and NLH officials are stating they have plenty of independent people advising them at every turn. Of course, we know this is untrue, each and every individual and company that the GNL or Hydro contracts has to answer to GNL or Hydro, they are given mandates and specific requests, and they are compensated for their work. That work is compromised by the fact that they are on the team of GNL and Hydro. If they provide advise that is contrary to what Hydro or GNL wishes, then we never hear about it. This is why Justice LeBlanc advised as he did – independent objective advice only comes from people outside the sphere of influence of those engaged or in any way connected to the MOU.
