NL caught screwing with Churchill Falls: the quotes

Yet more on the story of the year that everyone has thus far ignored.

1.  What part of “F**k off!” wasn’t clear?

From Dave Bartlett’s story on page three of the Wednesday Telegram (not online):

“They [Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation lawyers and directors] felt that we had extinguished their rights to the whole watershed area that they require to produce electricity in the Upper Churchill and that would cause them some concern,” said [natural resources minister Kathy] Dunderdale.

Dunderdale is quoted elsewhere in the story as saying that there was possibly some “ambiguity” in the 2008 legislation.  “Ambiguity” means doubtfulness or uncertainty over the meaning of words or phrases. 

Extinguishing a company’s rights to their business doesn’t sound like something that is a bit “iffy”.

2.  I don’t think that’s the conspiracy they meant…

Kathy Dunderdale, from debate on emergency legislation to change the “ambiguous” wording of the water rights reversion bill to something a bit more concrete:

Mr. Speaker, my head is kind of spinning with some of the things that we have heard here today. There are conspiracy theories all over the place. So much of this, of what we heard this afternoon, is so far out in left field that I am not even going to bother to comment on it, Mr. Speaker.

…

Certainly I am not assigning, nor is this government assigning, any motive to the board of CF(L)Co. We believe that they are negotiating this agreement in good faith. CF(L)Co has an issue, the lawyers have an issue, with the definition as it exists in the current legislation, and because of that ambiguity that is in that legislation we are back here today doing the amendment.

Of course not, Kathy.  The people who found out you were trying to f*ck them over would logically not be the ones with ulterior motives.

But since you insist you weren’t trying to screw them (now that you got caught)  let’s leave it at that.

3.  Dunderdale, on one alternative to the emergency session:

If this definition issue caused CF(L)Co to delay entering into the agreement Nalcor Energy still had the option of placing the proposed agreement in front of the Public Utilities Board and asking for an agreement to be imposed upon the parties. This would be a legitimate process, Mr. Speaker, as provided for under the legislation, but it would take up valuable time - time that is better applied to other tasks before us in advancing the project.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if the agreement was put before the PUB for consideration, the PUB will be considering a proposed agreement that was subject to the same ambiguous definition of the Lower Churchill River raised by CF(L)Co.

Translation:  we were really worried about costly, embarrassing and ultimately unsuccessful legal action when CF(L)Co sued our asses off.  calling the House together in a hurry is way cheaper.

4.  No deal is imminent.  There are a few people running around St. John’s who think this emergency session means there’s a Lower Churchill deal around the corner.

Guess again.

There are only two serious issues holding up the project:  markets and money.  Four years after the “go it alone” option, note what Dunderdale listed in the House as two of the outstanding issues to be settled:

Some of these outstanding issues include ratification of the New Dawn Agreement with Innu Nation; an environmental assessment, which is expected to be complete next year; finding customers for the power, and obtaining financing for the project… [ Emphasis added]

-srbp-

Churchill Falls reversion fails for second time

The Newfoundland and Labrador government  is making quick changes to a 2008 law after lawyers for the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation  - CF(L)Co – raised questions about the impact of the bill on the company’s 1961 lease and rights to all property related to Churchill Falls.

Lawyers for CF(L)Co raised the issue with the provincial government’s  NALCOR Energy company during talks on water management for the proposed Lower Churchill project. 

The changes were tabled Tuesday in an emergency sitting of the House of Assembly.

It appears that - reminiscent of the 1980 water rights reversion bill - the 2008 bill stripped CF(L)Co of its lease.

In the original 2008 bill - Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act - the Lower Churchill River is described as including “all waters that originate within the Churchill River catchment area and all rivers that naturally flow within the catchment area or from diversions into the catchment area.”

Clause three of the then stated that

any property in and rights to the use and flow of water, previously conferred by a grant, lease, licence or other instrument or under a statute of the province, or vested in, acquired by or accruing to a person by whatever means relating to the Lower Churchill River are extinguished.  [Emphasis added]

By combining the two clauses, the new bill effectively cancelled the 1961 Churchill Falls lease.  The 2008 law also blocked rights holders from any legal action and stripped them of  any entitlement to compensation.  

The bill became law on June 4, 2008.  There is no indication when cabinet issued the license to the energy corporation, now known as NALCOR Energy.

The changes introduced in Tuesday’s emergency session make it plain that the 2008 water rights law applies only to the Lower Churchill and that, for absolute certainty,  the 2008 bill “ excludes the area described in Appendix A to The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and all waters while they are in that area.”

Emergency sessions are rare

For its part, the Williams administration is downplaying the session and the hasty changes.  In a news release, Dunderdale said that the act was never intended to cover Churchill Falls.

But the very fact the session was called to deal with one set of amendments to one bill suggests the issues involved are far from routine and that the legal implications of the water rights bill would be significant if left unamended.

Emergency or special sessions occur very rarely and usually only deal with extraordinary issues like war or labour disputes that threaten public health and safety.

Ordinarily – and if the implications of the bill were considered inconsequential or inadvertent -   CF(L)Co and NALCOR could simply have made routine amendments in the regular fall sitting a condition of an overall deal on water rights management on the Churchill River. 

Interestingly, the provincial government also tried to downplay the water rights bill in 2008, even to the point of making apparently misleading statements in the legislature.

In June 2008,  natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale told the House of Assembly that the bill was needed since government had decided against using the  Lower Churchill Development Corporation as the vehicle to develop the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls power projects. 

But the 2008 water rights bill didn’t repeal the 1978 Lower Churchill Development Act, nor did it remove the LCDC option for development of the Lower Churchill.  The 2008 bill merely extinguished previously existing rights, leases, grants and licenses. 

Deja vue

This marks the second time since 1975 that a Progressive Conservative administration in Newfoundland and Labrador has found itself in hot water over legislation related to Churchill Falls.

In 1980 Brian Peckford’s administration introduced the Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act.  The bill expressly cancelled the 1961 lease.  A subsequent legal challenge by creditors led to a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that ruled the 1980 statute was illegal. 

One of the influential factors in that case was public comments by politicians that identified the real purpose of the bill as being to undo the 1969 Churchill Falls agreement.

If the 2008 water rights bill effectively expropriated the Churchill Falls complex, it would be the second such move by the Williams administration in 2008.  In December 2008, the Williams administration moved to seize assets of Abitibi, Enel and Fortis including hydro-electric generating facilities. 

Confusion reigns in hydro policy

Revelation of the 2008 water rights ploy is the fourth Lower Churchill-related blockbuster news in a week.

On Friday, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale revealed that the provincial government had been trying unsuccessfully for five years to interest Hydro Quebec in an ownership stake in the Lower Churchill project. 

Dunderdale told Open Line Show host Randy Simms and his audience that the provincial government proposed to “set the Upper Churchill [issue] to one side.”

This move came despite commitments by Premier Danny Williams that there would be no Quebec involvement in the Lower Churchill without redress for the appalling 1969 deal that sees Hydro Quebec buy electricity at better than 1/30th the cost for which it is sold to consumers.    Williams has repeatedly railed against the 1969 deal as an example of a resource give-away by previous provincial governments.

The offer of an ownership stake to Hydro Quebec also flies in the face of Williams’ 2006 commitment to develop the Lower Churchill without any outside help:

"It's an opportunity for us to get back some of what we've lost on the Upper Churchill, and the fact that we're going to do this alone is significant," Williams said in an interview.

The Dunderdale revelation came after Williams accused Hydro Quebec of doing everything possible to block the Lower Churchill project. 

Williams also said last week that  his government would no longer plan to string hydro lines from the Lower Churchill through a UNESCO World Heritage site.

-srbp-

Giving HQ an ownership stake in the Lower Churchill

Via labradore, yet more connected to Kathy Dunderdale’s surprise admission last Friday that the provincial government wants Hydro Quebec to take an ownership stake in the Lower Churchill project.

This time it’s some remarks by Gerry Reid on amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act in 2006.

Reid noted the curious change of position by the government in moving from “go it alone” to “take the lead” on the Lower Churchill.

-srbp-

Signs of impending fun…

1.  An IP address from Hydro Quebec starts prowling around.

2.  Dipper astroturf starts showing up in the comments section of any post that mentions just about anything, but especially anything related to Dippers and elections.  They are all anonymous and all follow a generally similar series of lines about Dipper Ryan Cleary and Grit incumbent Siobhan Coady.

So far  - and this is like some provincial Connies – the comments have been about on the same level as 9/11 truthers. 

When the Grit and Connie astroturfers start in with their counter-strikes, this next federal election could look like a trip to the multiple personality war at the Waterford as Anonymous goes after Anonymous for something Anonymous said.

And people wonder why I think Alice in Wonderland is such an apt source of metaphors for local politics.

-srbp-

So what happened to the Chinese?

The year is 2004. 

The provincial government signs a secret deal with a group of companies – including one owned by the Chinese government – to discuss developing the Lower Churchill.

After questions are raised by local media about the company, the project quietly disappears.

What happened to the Sino Energy deal anyways?

-srbp-

Forward not backward!

We’ve had Rip-Off Ron, the mayoral candidate who likes to lift other people’s campaign slogans.

Now, we have a deputy mayor who makes the perfect match on more than their shared history of using public money to fund the private sector;  on that last one think the Wells-Coombs Memorial Money Pit, then recall Ellsworth thinks it is acceptable to sink taxpayers cash into money losers because local businesses can make huge bucks.

Now we can look forward with Kang …errr… Coombs.

And always twirling, twirling, twirling…

Originality in local politics is evidently at a premium.

-srbp-

Williams miffed Hydro Quebec rejecting ownership stake in Lower Churchill

Far from going it alone on the Lower Churchill or seriously pursuing a transmission route around Quebec,  the Williams administration has been working fervently to get Hydro Quebec on board as a co-owner  of the Labrador project. 

Those efforts have been in vain, according to natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale.

Dunderdale  told VOCM Open Line show host Randy Simms on Friday morning that over the past five years, the Williams administration “got a path beaten to their [Hydro Quebec’s] door” in an attempt to have HQ become what Dunderdale described as an “equity partner” in the Lower Churchill.

Dunderdale described the Lower Churchill “piece” as a “win-win” for Hydro Quebec.  She said that despite efforts by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador there was “no take up [from Hydro Quebec] on the proposal.”

The new version of events offered by Dunderdale is at odds with media reports this week of Premier Danny Williams’  speech to the Canadian Energy Forum meeting in St. John’s last Wednesday.  Williams reportedly accused Hydro Quebec of protecting its own interests and of blocking efforts to develop the Lower Churchill. 

However, Dunderdale’s comments fit with a more careful reading of  Williams’ remarks at the energy forum.

On Wednesday, Williams accused  Hydro Quebec of blocking the Lower Churchill project by not being interested in it at all.  Instead, the Quebec Crown corporation was pursuing other projects – like La Romaine – which Williams said was inferior to the Lower Churchill:  Williams is quoted by the Telegram in a Friday story [not online] as saying “La Romaine is not as good a project as the Lower Churchill.” 

Hydro Quebec is pursuing several projects within Quebec, including alternative sources of energy to hydro, all of which are aimed at boosting Hydro Quebec’s portfolio of capacity by more than 4500 megawatts. 

That was known at the time Williams made the decision in 2006 to “go it alone” on the Lower Churchill.  He also Williams attacked the other projects in 2006.  At that time, he claimed that those projects would get to market before the Lower Churchill and hence would beat out his pet project.  In 2006, Williams vowed to continue in spite of competition.

Friday marked the first time, however, that there was public acknowledgement the provincial government was actually trying to lure Hydro Quebec into an ownership position.

This week also marked the first time Williams linked a possible Hydro Quebec financial stake in the Lower Churchill to the 1969 Churchill falls contract.   Williams told the forum that as a result of Hydro Quebec’s exorbitant profits from Churchill Falls, “the very least I would expect Hydro-Quebec to co-operate with us to the fullest on getting the Lower Churchill through.” 

Previously,  Williams has consistently tied any negotiations with Hydro Quebec over the Lower Churchill with “redress” for the 1969 contract.  That’s inconsistent with offering Hydro Quebec an ownership stake in the new project.

Williams also said that Hydro Quebec had filed procedural applications in an effort to stall a hearing by the Quebec energy regulator - Regie de l’energie – into an objection filed by NALCOR/Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro over a regulatory issue. 

That’s a bizarre way to describe things, though.  Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is one of several interveners in a decision on transmission rates for 2009.  NL Hydro filed its notice seeking intervener status at the last minute.  But since the rate hearings affect more companies than NL Hydro and NL Hydro is one of a dozen interveners, it’s hard to see how a routine regulatory process is part of a plot to frustrate the Lower Churchill.

What’s more, Williams’ claim flies in the face of successful efforts by NL Hydro to wheel power through Quebec.  Hydro started the process in 2006.   In early 2009, Hydro announced successful completion of a deal  with Hydro Quebec’s transmission arm to wheel power through Quebec to markets in the United States.  

Efforts to cut a deal with Hydro-Quebec while claiming something else are only the latest in a series of erratic moves and claims by the provincial government since 2003.

In 2006, Williams rejected out of hand a proposal from Hydro Quebec and Ontario’s Energy Financing Company to finance the Lower Churchill.  The proposal came in response to a called for expressions of interest issued by the Williams administration.  Under the proposal, Ontario and Quebec would buy the power and cover the costs of upgrading transmission facilities within the provinces and across the provincial boundaries.  The proposal also included flexible options on financing the construction of the two generating dams at Gull Island and Muskrat Falls.

Williams tossed that proposal and several others aside in favour of what he characterised at the time as going it alone.

In 2006, Williams said publicly that investors should look to the Lower Churchill instead of projects Quebec because Quebec is politically unstable.  Williams later apologised because people found the comment offensive but he did not retract his comments about Quebec’s political climate.

Williams has also sought financial support from others despite the “go-it-alone” claim. In successive federal elections, Williams has raised the idea of federal loan guarantees with federal party leaders.  He has also tied federal financial support for the Lower Churchill as some apparent form of compensation for having to run transmission lines around Gros Morne national park.

The erratic public positions don’t stop there. 

In 2008, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale indicated the provincial government was considering a law suit against the federal government over the 1969 contract.  Later in the day, the provincial government backtracked.

In early 2009, an official with NL Hydro hinted that the provincial government was considering financing options other than the “go-it-alone” version.  Little did the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know what the other options were.

-srbp-

Clued out

Lorraine Michael needs to read more or get better research staff.

"I'm glad that the premier has finally shown that he believes that being part of a Canada-wide energy plan is something that he believes in. I had not heard this before."

Try 2007, for example.

Or the same story, as rendered by the Ceeb:

One topic that dominated Thursday morning's sessions was the idea to build a national energy grid that would make sure all provinces benefit fully from Canada's resources. 

"We need to find a way to get those [resources] to the Canadian people," Williams said. "There is a solution here."

or this:

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, whose government is keen to relaunch the mothballed Lower Churchill Falls hydro mega-project to sell power to energy-hungry Ontario, said he would be open to having the federal government fund all or part of a new national electrical grid.

Heck, you can even find reference to hooking onto the grid in the 2003 Tory campaign book if you bother to go look.

All that extra cash the government caucus threw to Lorraine last winter evidently hasn’t helped to clue her in.  A 30 second google search and a raft of quotes turned up all showing only that Michael is out to lunch on this energy issue.

h/t to a keen reader, DL.

-srbp-

You’re welcome

“The argument was made, quite rightly, by people that you don’t want to create an eyesore in…one of our best tourism attractions in the province.”

Premier Danny Williams, Energy Council of Canada conference, St. John’s September 2009

-srbp-

Two wrongs… and you get a news story

Both VOCM and the Telegram incorrectly reported the latest poll results from government sponsored polls on Thursday.

VOCM reported that the “latest numbers from Corporate Research Associates show Danny Williams and the PC's gaining strength, despite being almost halfway through their second term.”

The Telly reported that the “province’s decided voters are showing more support for the Progressive Conservative government…”.  The story is on page three of the Thursday edition but isn’t available online.

As a famous politician likes to say,  nothing could be further from the truth.

Both reported the numbers given in response to a question on which political party respondents would pick if an election were held tomorrow. 

The problem comes from the fact that the provincial government’s pollster – Corporate Research Associates – gives its results as a percentage of decided voters, not as a percentage of all people whose answers are included in the poll data.  The change in the number of undecideds can affect the relative share of decideds any one party has.

If we build it…

From nottawa, one take on the curious case of a government building a new health centre while at the same time shifting health services out of the community.

-srbp-

Timing

According to Premier Danny Williams, the Tory backbencher representing Lewisporte was told “some time ago” that health services in the town would be changed.

According to Here and Now - CBC television’s supper hour news show - the people responsible for delivering the health service (Central regional health authority)  found out about the changes the morning they were announced publicly.

And they had no hand in deciding how to implement the changes.

Interesting.

-srbp-

Late summer re-run

Pushing the Lower Churchill, the 2006 version.

Pushing the Lower Churchill, the 2009 version.

After all, it worked so well the last time to get people to fund the project.

-srbp-

Freedom from Information: Conference Prep Kit

Information and privacy commissioners from across Canada can count on support from Bond Papers as they gather in St. John’s  next week for their annual conference. 

To help them get ready for the meeting, they can use the conveniently located conference prep kit located at the top of the right hand nav bar. 

It contains a a set of convenient links to Bond Papers posts describing the sorry state of  affairs in Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to openness and accountability.

-srbp-

A mine of information for an enemy

What Maxime Bernier left laying about, courtesy of Le Devoir.

Les documents oubliés par Maxime Bernier chez Julie Couillard en avril 2008, et obtenus en primeur par Le Devoir, sont une véritable mine d'information dont la divulgation risquerait de porter préjudice à la défense et à la politique étrangère du Canada et de ses alliés, et de fournir des renseignements cruciaux à leurs ennemis. De l'élargissement de l'OTAN aux pays des Balkans à la contribution de celui-ci dans la lutte contre le terrorisme, des prisonniers talibans en Afghanistan à la défense antimissile, du contrôle des armements au conflit israélo-palestinien, de la situation en l'Ukraine à la présence d'al-Qaïda au Pakistan en passant par la position du Canada en ce qui concerne le dalaï-lama et le nucléaire iranien, tous les grands sujets de la politique canadienne à l'étranger y sont abordés de manière détaillée.

-srbp-

Convenient Craftiness?

Tory backbencher Wade Verge is pissed because he wasn’t told health services in his district were on the chopping block.

The Premier is dismissing Verge’s claim with a snort and a sneer.

But Premier Danny Williams said Verge needs to check his facts since he was briefed "some time ago" by the premier's chief of staff.

"I think now his explanation to us this morning is that he didn't understand that that's what it meant. Pfff. Anyway, for what it's worth, he's entitled to his opinion. … Obviously he has to act on the behalf on what he thinks are the best interests of his district," he said.

The chief of staff would be Brian Crawley.

So, that means the Premier is trusting the recollections of a guy who told Madam Justice Cameron that he was beset by a form of C.R.A.F.T  disease:  he can’t recall a friggin’ thing.

Interesting.

-srbp-

Meanwhile, down the other rabbit hole…

The Dippers  - who only a few days ago were sending around publicly-funded propaganda about the number of times Liberals have backed Stephen Harper over the past year – are about to announce their plans to back Stephen Harper.

What could possibly happen next?

Some candidate leaving a job to spend more time with his kids and then announcing he wants to be a member of parliament?

Oh.

That already happened.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaay.

Like things are just going to get weirder and dangerouser.

-srbp-

It’s still fire truck month

With Labour Day falling late this year, the government’s official pollster is likely still in the field.

That likely explains the flurry of news today, including a new fire truck.

We already told you about this special time of year back in August.

-srbp-

A world of his own

“If I had a world of my own,” said Alice, “everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”

And in such a world, there is to be no more talk of running steel erections through a UNESCO World Heritage site.

He has decided to go around the park.  According to the voice of the cabinet minister, He said He was only kidding on that one.

Quite the yuck it was too.

Not once, but twice and the second time with sprinkles: better to wreck the park than risk Granny’s heart surgery or some such.

There are only two possible real reasons for this change of direction.

Either the federal government told the province officially to get stuffed or the Premier has a poll that shows the public are adamantly and persistently opposed to his plan to run power lines through Gros Morne to bring Labrador power to the townies.

The last time the Premier shifted directions this abruptly and unexpectedly – the flag thing – he had a poll that showed the strategy was far less brilliant than thought by the ones who thunk it up in the first place. 

In this case, the feds might have also told him to forget any plans to try and run the lines through the park, easement or no easement.  You can see a clue to that possibility in the number of times the Premier made reference to needing federal cash for what was supposed to be a go-it-alone option. He keeps talking about federal money like you’d expect him to say if they’d turned him down flat.  They said no, so now they have to compensate me for the inconvenience;  that sort of thing.

But instead he is claiming credit for making the momentous and correct decision and trying to pretend he didn’t make the incorrect one the first time.

And then persistently, stubbornly, unreasonably stick to it for half a year.

The federal government is under no obligation to pay a nickel for running the power to the townies.  That’s all the line on the island will do, you see. There’s nothing in it about running run power to the Yanks.  no matter how many times Danny Williams has tried to claim federal political commitments, there’s not a shred of evidence any ever existed.

Whoever decided, at least the right decision was made in the end.  It’s just that in this world where nothing is as it appears, the people who fell down the rabbit hole in 2003 will likely never know.

-srbp-

Confusion reigns in election story

So which is it?

Are election campaigns too expensive or is “at large” candidate Sheilagh O’Leary having trouble raising money because none of her prospective donors can get a tax receipt?

A cbc.ca/nl story seems to be all confuddled.

The headline is about the cost of running campaigns. m That’s also the premise on which they spoke to mayoral wannabe Ron Ellsworth.  Good call, too ‘cause Ellsworth evidently believes campaigns are about how much money you can throw into things.

But the quote from O’Leary on which the whole piece hangs isn’t about that at all.

Sheilagh O'Leary, who is running for councillor at large, said candidates should get tax deductions for some of their election expenses, a change she wants to see in time for the next municipal election.

"I would certainly like to see that changed because certainly in provincial and federal elections you get a tax deductible receipt, and that is very enticing for people, no kidding, when it comes to tax time," she said. "I think there are a lot of people who are daunted about the financial cost."

Maybe the CBC reporter misunderstood what O’Leary was talking about.

Maybe O’Leary misunderstood.

But there’s no doubt that the tax break O’Leary is looking for isn’t the one aimed at candidates.

So what’s the real story here?

Someone at CBC needs to go back and find it because the whole point is lost in there somewhere.

Meanwhile, unless she is another one of those candidates who finances their own campaign, O’Leary looks confused.  meanwhile, the story prompted a range of comments from people interested in banning campaign signs to a couple of Ron and Sheighlagh supporters who evidently have no idea what is on the go and don’t care.

Talking about anything but the issue at hand or what city council actually does.

Gee, how appropriate for a townie municipal election.

-srbp-