Natural resources minister Shawn Skinner gave notice on Thursday of a bill that is part of the compensation for two companies caught in the crossfire of the Williams administration’s expropriation bill in 2008.
In giving notice of motion, Skinner only gave the title of the bill - An Act To Amend The Abitibi Consolidated Rights and Assets Act – but Bond Papers has learned that the bill will restore assets seized from Fortis and ENEL two years ago.
Last spring, then natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale said that Fortis and Enel would have their power purchase agreements restored as part of the settlement. In August, Danny Williams said the companies would receive cash compensation, a long-term power purchase agreement or some other combination of arrangements as compensation for the government’s action. The only reason to amend the expropriation bill would be to restore to the two companies the assets the provincial government seized under the December 2008 law.
With the assets restored, the provincial government’s energy company – Nalcor - could then also make a new long-term power purchase agreement with ENEL and Fortis to supply power to the island grid. There’s no indication at this time whether or not Nalcor will retain any interest in the hydro-electric generation operations or simply act as a customer for the power.
There’s also no word on what other compensation the companies might be receiving from taxpayers for Williams’ blunder.
The provincial government is already paying a $60 million loan for Fortis that the company defaulted on as a result of the seizure.
In December 2008, Danny Williams’ Conservative administration introduced legislation in the House of Assembly that seized hydro-electric assets from three companies - AbitibiBowater, Fortis and ENEL – supposedly because AbitibiBowater reneged on a 1909 commitment.
The legislation also quashed a court case Abitibi brought against the provincial government over an earlier dispute and stripped the company any right to compensation.
The expropriation bill also set the provincial cabinet as sole arbiter of any compensation to be paid.
While the bill was met with cheering at home, it met with condemnation across the country. Bond Papers was one of the few voices in the province that questioned the bills’ purpose, its motivation and its assault on the rule of law.
AbitibiBowater sued the Government Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The company reached a settlement with the federal government in August 2010.
Earlier this year, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador learned that the provincial government had accidentally expropriated the former Abitibi paper mill at Grand Falls along with all the environmental liabilities associated with it.
Premier Kathy Dunderdale, the minister responsible for natural resources at the time, learned of the massive error several months after the expropriation but failed to disclose the mistake to the public.
- srbp -
16 comments:
This link also provides some insight into the goings on at the federal and NAFTA levels with this mess. Willams expropriates, Harper pays, we lose. http://www.canadians.org/media/trade/2010/27-Aug-10.html
Anti-NAFTA crusaders?
The cost wasn't caused by NAFTA but by a completely wrong-headed expropriation.
Bond Papers was one of the few voices in the province that questioned the bills’ purpose, its motivation and its assault on the rule of law.
When did you do that humble e-scribe?
Are you saying that you were vocal on the Bills' fall-out while the Bill was before the House?
Show us?
"Bond Papers was one of the few voices in the province that questioned the bills’ purpose, its motivation and its assault on the rule of law."
Wm. Murphy, you should give Ed Hollett some credit. After all, when you criticize every single move that the Government makes, you just might eventually be right.
This blog has to be the most negative blog that I have ever seen. Ed, I would like to see you lighten up just once, & show that you have a positive side, or maybe even a sense of humour. I have a feeling that you are a Maple Leaf fan.
from their release 'the settlement may have included payment for water and timber rights the company does not own'. that's their point.
williams / nalcor also got in on the 'private hydro development' at star lake. what happens under nafta once they hook that into the 'private transmission line' going to the states? what happens to the watershed (red indian lake) that dam sits at the top of?
that's what the council of canadians is concerned about. simply follow the money.
@Everett Well look at it this way... If Ed kept all this bile and spit bottled up inside himself he'd probably have several ulcers. This is good therapy for him to work all that out so he can lead a normal healthy life. A century ago he would have had to become a colonial administrator in some far flung corner of the Empire berating the ignorant locals and complaining about how unappreciated he was...
If Ed kept all this bile and spit bottled up inside himself he'd probably have several ulcers.
Ah, so is that what Danny was doing all along? Protecting his gastro-intestinal health by venting bile and spit?
Wally, you have to at least understand where they are coming from. They stood behind this thing in the first place cheering wildly and then had their hero(s) crap out on them.
It's gotta hurt to find you are the proud owner of an industrial dumpsite when you thought you were sticking it to some foreign demonio.
Imagine how they are going to feel five or 10 years from now as other little turds bubble to the surface.
Well, these comments are proof of the "if you can't argue the message, attack the messenger" mantra of the current uber positive government. At $250 million +, Abitibi is the single most costly mistake that I can recall in this province's history. Before the peanut gallery gets on with the "what about the Churchill Falls deal, remember that contract hasn't resulted in any money being drawn from the provincial treasury to pay for it - only lost opportunity.
The expropriation was ill thought out, poorly executed, and totally unnecessary. History will show it to be a very poor decision. The zealots will never acknowledge that fact but hey, when their golden boy is solely responsible for the action who can blame them, they'd rather point to poor decisions others make. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. The Muskrat Falls "deal" must really have your heads spinning, hey boys? Worst deal ever, right out of the gate.
Again, some of the readers/commenters are like those people who go to the theater with a basket of rotten tomatoes. Why would you go to a show you have? How much time do you have on your hands?
Rather than taking your time to go to something to don't like, why not just hang around somewhere you do like?
When Ed doesn't comment on my comments I know for sure that I have a hit a nerve. Case in point
That's not the case at all Murphy ,Ed has ignoring you, down to a fine art .
@Simon :
Nice interview .
Haven't seen you in awhile ,you clean up real good .
Imagine whatever you want Murph. You usually do.
The only nerve you are likely to be rubbing the wrong way is in your own wrist.
Thank you very kindly, Ursula.
Happy and healthy holidays to you and your family.
s
Anyway, back to the matter...
Can anyone explain why this expropriation happened (besides the bankruptcy bogeyman stuff)? ABH was set to renegotiate its 100yr old agreements with the province in an open public forum the following January (Bill 27), and now nalcor seems to own the whole thing outright. Doesn't that seem a bit of a coincidence? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
Can anyone provide deeper insight into star lake and what it means to the big picture (private hydro on a public water resource)?
Where does the red indian lake 1000yr lease sit now? With nalcor?
What will be the status of our water when the hydro lines get hooked into the states from these dam systems we have all over Canada? Will the shareholders in these corporations own our water?
What is the status of the legislation williams passed wrt water assets in the province? Is there a timeline somewhere explaining the legislation they passed wrt nalcor and what the implications of that legislation might be under nafta if we hook our resources into the mainland grid?
We need people and groups willing to look into these matters before anything goes ahead, and I don't think government is going to do it. Do we need some ngo from ottawa, new york or toronto to come in here and kick up a stink on our behalf? Are we just going to wait and see what happens? Seems so.
I'm concerned about the implications of what the williams administration were up to behind all those key-less security doors for the past 7 years, and I don't see anybody else asking these questions (at least in public).
Ms. Dunderdale seems to be attempting to cover our provincial liability for the mess this guy left behind. I wonder, is the current administration up to figuring out what happened?
no answers forthcoming from the people looking in out there? funny. i'da thought there'd be loads of peeps out there willing to stick there heads up by now. that leads me to believe you're either complacent, complicit, or scared.
we know ed here has been doing his homework, that's obvious. but he's only one guy. come on people. stand up and be counted. ask questions. read nafta. look at the legislative changes that took place during the past few years. think.
follow the money. where does it lead? what did the guy we gave the keys to for seven years (without legislative controls on him) do with our resources all that time. look at the timing of his bow out. look at the deal he signed before walking away so abruptly. think for yourselves. follow the money!!
why do people continue to follow power hungry ego's around thinking they're in these positions of power looking to help others? because they pretend to have answers? because they make decisions? in whose favour? ours? please. look at history. what it tells us is only when the people hold them accountable do they act for the benefit of the electorate. otherwise they just help themselves. this last one was no different than the rest of those that came before him.
we need to open the books on nalcor, have a complete public review of the legislative changes and contracts signed wrt 'our resources' during the past several years. understand that privatization is the goal for them. they may chose to bankrupt certain parts of the beast to free up more lucrative or strategic assets that could be considered in the US bid for energy security etc. think.
giving star lake back was an obvious first move to get out of legal trouble with outside courts. that was a direct infringement on property rights, clearly. can the contracts that were signed be reversed? that will prove more difficult.
is anybody out there up to the challenge?
Post a Comment