NL Hydro

Sensitivity to the importance of an impartial electoral process and her bureaucratic role – in contrast to the job of her Minister – ought to have inspired her to definitively counsel the inappropriateness of such an engagement. If she called the Open Line Show of her own volition, in other words absent prodding from her Minister, nothing more need be be said.

I especially remember the years after the inequity of the 1969 Churchill Falls contract began to grip members of the public. The sense of unfairness exhibited in the Churchill Falls Contract was rife; it bothered many people to a degree that it became a wound on the collective psyche of my generation.

Only negotiators ignorant of the law and NL history, and NL politicians opportunistically inclined to use this multi-billion dollar moment to seek re-election, would permit such a travesty to occur. No society, certainly not one carrying the level of debt with which Newfoundland and Labrador is burdened, can survive this level of recklessness.

...we must demand a full, open and independent review from an arms length organization before proceeding further with this project.

Don’t forget that the forces pushing this MOU are the same forces that brought us the Muskrat Falls boondoggle. Parties to the MOU and their proxies simply cannot be relied upon as independent and unbiased sources to evaluate the merits of their own deal.

Dr. May also highlights a significant disparity in royalty arrangements—in that NL receives water royalties estimated at just 1/36th of what Quebec collects for comparable hydroelectric generation. And, notably, HQ’s royalty revenues flow directly to the Quebec government, helping to reduce its provincial debt.

We also note the absence of information from the Province on any clear goals or strategic objectives, against which the MOU could be assessed.