Dear Danny,
Hydro Quebec has listed on its site projects under study for generation and transmission.
Currently the Romaine River is under study with delineation excluding Labrador which the current map shows and states
that the 1927 border is not final.
They plan to have this 1500 MW construction completed within 8-10 years and they are proceeding without you.
For whatever anyone may find silly about this contention, Quebec is moving ahead. How are you chairing an Energy Committee with Quebec when this blatant disregard of our border is taking place?
It is public information for the world to see and investors to take note. What's up with this?
Sincerely,
SueHydro Quebec has listed on its site projects under study for generation and transmission.
Currently the Romaine River is under study with delineation excluding Labrador which the current map shows and states
that the 1927 border is not final.
They plan to have this 1500 MW construction completed within 8-10 years and they are proceeding without you.
For whatever anyone may find silly about this contention, Quebec is moving ahead. How are you chairing an Energy Committee with Quebec when this blatant disregard of our border is taking place?
It is public information for the world to see and investors to take note. What's up with this?
Sincerely,
For your information and to confirm that Quebec is actually doing this press HERE
When you get there first look at the map and the border they are using. Then press power generation - "under study" heading and you will see a symbol showing the Romaine Project. Press the symbol and....A Picture of the Romaine Complex will come up...then press General Information, another map will appear with further border errors and note how it says 1927 border "NOT FINAL".
There is nothing more I can say other than the media, government, opposition et al are negligent in their respective responsibilities.
21 comments:
What is the legal impact of those maps?
(Hint: there is none.)
If left unchallenged? I would suggest you are wrong.
(HINT: not worth taking the chance)
You know WJM this is a clear border dispute whether by one party or another within a country. You like to critisize but give me a break.
This can only be seen as a challenge. They come in many forms.
So what if it's left "unchallenged"?
The constitution of Canada entrenches the 1927 boundary. It cannot be changed except in accordance with the constutions amending formula, which, in the case of a boundary change and the Terms of Union, would both require NL's express consent.
If Quebec can somehow change the Labrador boundary by publishing maps, then it also means that all people in Labrador have to do to separate from Newfoundland is start putting out maps of the Territory of Labrador.
You know WJM this is a clear border dispute whether by one party or another within a country.
No, actually, it's not. The Quebec government, even the PQ, has conceded on many occasions, that the 1927 border is a fait accompli. (Sorry to use a French expression; don't mean to feed Newfoundland nationalist francophobic paranoia).
This can only be seen as a challenge.
To what?
I think the biggest concern you have is my inclusion and preference to Labrador interests. Will the real Newfoundland nationalist francophobic paranoia, please stand up. WJM why do you believe Quebec is doing this?
I think the biggest concern you have is my inclusion and preference to Labrador interests. Will the real Newfoundland nationalist francophobic paranoia, please stand up. WJM why do you believe Quebec is doing this?
I think the biggest concern you have is my inclusion and preference to Labrador interests.
Preference to Labrador interests? Please!
WJM why do you believe Quebec is doing this?
The same reason Newfoundlanders frequently portray their province as an island: lip service to nationalism.
Sue, why do YOU believe these maps have ANY legal impact whatsoever? You should pay attention in constitutional. And while you're at it, read the report of the Dorion commission.
WJM the only thing that I can conclude is that you do not want any positive changes. You debate with the wrong person and you know that. You could however contribute to public discourse by asking half the questions you ask me to somebody, geez. anybody in power.
That's what is suspect.
You know that this leads nowhere and in fact wastes time that could be spent dealing with the issues and causing positive changes.
But you have a rep built up. You like this personna and you need to protect it more than the need to protect Labrador interests.
WJM the only thing that I can conclude is that you do not want any positive changes.
A correct conclusion instead would be that you and I have different ideas of what constitutes "positive changes".
You debate with the wrong person and you know that. You could however contribute to public discourse by asking half the questions you ask me to somebody, geez. anybody in power.
Sue, you should be media-savvy enough by now to know that I am not just asking YOU, personally, when I ask questions in a public forum like this.
When you ask questions of Bill Rowe, are you expecting him to answer, or are you raising the question with a broader audience?
WJM, what do you believe would represent positive change? What are your solutions. What does your research show you. Present the evidence to show I am worng.
How do you think you might cause change to occur? Who do you believe controls Labrador?
When you challenge me in the fashion you do, it is direct questioning and not a sample of asking in the plural.
Open Line awaits your imput.
I look forward to debating your ideas.
WJM, what do you believe would represent positive change?
For Newfoundlanders to stop viewing Labrador resources through the lens of what they can do for Newfoundland. For Newfoundlanders to start returning some of the substantial contributions Labrador makes to the provincial treasury, and for them to stop passing the buck to Ottawa to pay for public services in Labrador. For Newfoundlanders to start doing unto Labrador what they would have done unto themselves, and, conversely, for them to stop doing what they claim, falsely, others do unto them.
What does your research show you.
That all the maps in the world are not going to change the constitutionally-entrenched Labrador boundary.
Present the evidence to show I am worng.
You need to show the evidence that you are RIGHT, first. What legal impact do those Quebec maps have? And if they have any, don't Newfoundland maps which omit Labrador have the same impact? What if someone in Labrador started putting out maps that called Labrador a territory? What is the impact of that?
Read the Dorion report, for starters, if you don't believe me.
When you've found that and read it (it's huge, by the way), read s.3 of the BNA Act of 1871:
3. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the Legislature of any Province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such Province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon to by the said Legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any Province affected thereby.
Then read Term 2:
2. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador shall comprise the same territory as at the date of Union, that is to say, the island of Newfoundland and the islands adjacent thereto, the Coast of Labrador as delimited in the report delivered by the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council on the first day of March, 1927, and approved by His Majesty in His Privy Council on the twenty-second day of March, 1927, and the islands adjacent to the said Coast of Labrador.
Then read s. 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982:
43. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including
(a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and
may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
And finally, the supremacy clause:
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
This is basic first-year constitutional stuff.
Only through the proper legislative mechanism provided for by these constitutional provisions, can the boundary between two provinces be changed.
There is no other way.
All the maps in Quebec have no legal impact. At least three PQ leaders — Parizeau, Levesque, and Bouchard — have said so. Possibly Johnson as well.
Who do you believe controls Labrador?
Nobody controls 110,000 square miles of the earth, really.
Politically, though, Labrador is largely "controlled" by the government in St. John's, to the extent that it is "controlled".
When you challenge me in the fashion you do, it is direct questioning and not a sample of asking in the plural.
When I challenge you, you scurry away or ignore it half the time. But do know: I'm mainly putting things on the record so that not everyone will be exposed to unchallenged myth and nonsense.
Open Line awaits your imput.
I don't much like Open Line. I prefer the web and the letters pages.
What of the budget of Newfoundland and Labrador is spent in Labrador. What is the per-capita spending?
What part of zero would you like for the Upper Churchill which Labradorians should have stopped at the time. They were taken in and jumped at the jobs,some of the families remain in Churchill Falls. With personal tax revenues only, what % of that comes from the Island and what part comes from Labrador...ditto for sales,and all other taxes.
The Constitution can and has been challenged. Iam aware of the terms as you are. If a neighbour came on unto your land with a surveyor and started pegging out a shed and advertising he would be operating that shed in ten years for business what would you do. It is not as simple as you present.
There was a case presented in 27 and a case can be presented now ...as for first year constitution, yep the lawyers have been saying that for years.
Run away? No I do not run away but you hide, how does one contact you directly? How may they comment on your daily thoughts asin your own blog.
I stand by my research and I am not prepared to educate you on hydro quebec profits until you show a tiny bit of effort.
Start with the heritage pool of power in Quebec and work backwards.
What of the budget of Newfoundland and Labrador is spent in Labrador. What is the per-capita spending?
I don't know. But on a prima facie examination, I don't think it's nearly as high as it ought to be, given Labrador's disproportionately large contribution to the provincial treasury. Just look at roadwork, for instance. Tens of millions of dollars spent annually in Newfoundland; a pittance in Labrador; and all of Chairman Dan's supposed "commitments" to Labrador highways are contingent on matching funds from Ottawa.
Ditto for things like the auditorium in Goose Bay... And do you know why the province is suddenly so horny to have Sheshatshiu become a reserve, after decades of stalling such a move? You guessed it: it transfers more public spending to Ottawa's purse.
"Integral part of the province", indeed.
What part of zero would you like for the Upper Churchill which Labradorians should have stopped at the time. They were taken in and jumped at the jobs,
Jumped at the jobs?
Sue, you need to look back at history. The recruitment office for Churchill Falls was in St. John's. There were Labrador workers who flew directly into the site and were forcibly evicted, let alone given jobs. Tony Paddon wrote a blistering article for one of the papers in the mid-70s about the travesty that was the Newfoundland-preference (not provincial-preference) hiring for Churchill Falls.
some of the families remain in Churchill Falls. With personal tax revenues only, what % of that comes from the Island and what part comes from Labrador...
Between 1992 and 2001 inclusive, Labrador averaged 5.4% of the provincial population; earned 7.3% of the provincial market income (i.e., income from employment or private sources); earned 3.5% of the transfer income (i.e., income from public income support programs); and paid 6.8%, up to 7.0%, of the provincial income tax.
Labradorians earned, on average, over 15K of market income per year; Newfoundlanders about 11K.
Between 1994 and 2003, Labradorians as a whole (remember this is with over 5% of the provincial population) averaged only 3% of provincial income support payments. And the average payment to the average Labradorian was much smaller ($321) than the average Newfoundlander ($545).
Labradorians, on average, earn more from employment, pay more in provincial income taxes, and are less of a burden on income support programs, than Newfoundlanders.
All of these statistics are calculated from the province's own communityaccounts.ca website.
ditto for sales,and all other taxes.
If you know a source for breaking down these taxes at a sub-provincial level, let me know.
The Constitution can and has been challenged.
When has the Constitution been challenged? By whom? Did they succeed?
Iam aware of the terms as you are. If a neighbour came on unto your land with a surveyor and started pegging out a shed and advertising he would be operating that shed in ten years for business what would you do.
The laws of real property, and the constitutional law of Canada, are not the same thing.
It is not as simple as you present.
Nor is it as simple as YOU present. You seem to think those maps have legal effect. Why? What is the basis for that belief?
And if Quebec's maps have a legal effect, surely, surely, you must agree, that all it would take for Labrador to separate from Newfoundland, would be for someone to start publishing maps of Labrador as if it was a territory. If this is not the case, please distinguish it, on legal grounds, from the Quebec map issue you and Ottenheimer are so exercised about.
There was a case presented in 27 and a case can be presented now
By whom? Based on what? How idiotic is it for Newfoundlanders to "concede" that someone has a claim to Labrador, when that is not an uncontroversial assertion? You are conceding the first round of the battle to the deluded in Quebec nationalist circles! Good going!
I have said this before, I'll say it again:
READ THE DORION COMMISSION.
You didn't get that? Mkay:
READ THE DORION COMMISSION.
...as for first year constitution, yep the lawyers have been saying that for years.
Run away? No I do not run away but you hide, how does one contact you directly?
Very easily!
How may they comment on your daily thoughts asin your own blog.
My blog has comments enabled. Comment away.
I stand by my research and I am not prepared to educate you on hydro quebec profits until you show a tiny bit of effort.
I have: The so-called Upper Churchill accounts for only 14% of the entire Hydro-Quebec system's installed capacity, and very little of that power is re-exported from Quebec these days, if any: Quebec is a net IMPORTER of electricity in its peak season.
If there is any windfall annual profit, it's from sale within Quebec.
Again: show your work.
What are the disproportionate contributions from Labrador, put a dollar on it and back it up.
What are the overall revenues in the Province, what do they come from and what is the per-capita contribution from each region including Labrador.
For provincial and other taxes you can put anumber on it and then apply the spending ratio.
All of the spending.
What part of zero do you want, why did you not stop the development?
Yes it counts for a relatively small percentage of the installed capacity
now corelate that to the cost of that power and the resale value and your theory flies right out the window. You know it is possible and you should look at it, that 14% generates 50 to 60 % of profits.
Sue:
It is really quite simple. It is very easy to claim that "You know it is possible and you should look at it, that 14% generates 50 to 60 % of profits.", but without even a single, plain English explanation from you, all we have is a claim on your part that on the face of it doesn't make sense.
Again, I would venture that Wally is like myself on this one. We simply don't know how it is possible for 14% to generate on some occasions what has been claimed to be 88% of profits.
From the way you made the comment, it would appear that your entire argument is based on the assumption - and I stress the word assumption - that Quebec resells Upper Churchill power to Ontario, New York or anywhere else and nets some sort of dramatic windfalls.
Unfortunately in order for this to be true, the figures in Hydro Quebec's annual reports would have to be falsified. But if you are basing your assessments on these same AR's then it is difficult to see how the numbers could be false.
Do please do us all a simple courtesy:
Take a single year. provide the figures and show us what HQ supposedly made from Upper Churchill power and at the same time give us the NL revenue for the power for the same year. It would really help greatly if we could at least come at this from a common starting point.
Please leave the assumptions by the door.
To go back to the maps issue for a second, I took a look at the background on the Romaine project.
The Quebec-Labrador border is indicated, which in itself is remarkable. Not so very long ago any Quebec government-related materials didn't even acknowledge the border existed.
The written comment is that the border is the 1927 Privy Council border (not finished). While I am sure Wally will correct me on this, that statement is factually accurate.
The Quebec-Labrador border was described by the 1927 but it has never been mapped by having surveyors head into the woods and drive stakes in the ground.
As a result, we know the border is there and officially the Government of Quebec acknowledges there is a border, even if it is a sometimes reluctant acknowledgement. From time to time, however, issues arise as to what piece of land is in what province, especially when it comes near to the general vicinity of the border.
It would seem that all we have on this map of the proposed Romain project is a recongnition that the border has not been finally delineated by survey. We can run about get our knickers into knots over every little perceived slight but it seems like a great waste of energy when there are other issues - like the likelihood there will be no Lower Churchill project at all - that are far more important.
What are the disproportionate contributions from Labrador, put a dollar on it and back it up.
I already did back it up!
What are the overall revenues in the Province, what do they come from and what is the per-capita contribution from each region
Define "region". Depending on your definition, that's a lot of work that you may wish to consider doing yourself.
Of the 20 Economic Zones, the three with the highest per-capita market incomes, and provincial income tax bills, are Labrador West, Capital, and Central Labrador.
Labrador Straits also has a higher per-capita market income than all but one rural EZ in Newfoundland.
Of the 11 Economic Zones most dependent on transfer income, only one -- Southeastern Aurora -- is in Labrador.
And, how's this for a stereotype demolition? The most self-sufficient zones, as measured by market income/all income, are Labrador West, Central Labrador, Capital, in that order... not a surprise... but number four? Inukshuk. Northern Labrador. That's possibly Voisey's Bay, but not entirely. And the two zones that were improving the fastest, until Tom Rideout took away the ferry that was driving growth in tourism and transportation, were the two in southern coastal Labrador.
including Labrador.
Overall provincial income taxes were a nudge over 700-million in 2003, the last year of full reporting on that website.
Per-capita, Labrador paid in $1722.65. Newfoundland, $1375.82. Over the period 92-03, Labrador averaged about $1300 in per-capita provincial income taxes; Newfoundland, $1040.
In 2003, the average Labradorian paid $1.25 in income tax for every $1.00 paid by his or her average Newfoundland cousin. This ratio has been as high as $1.33/$1.00 in the past 15 years.
Labrador market incomes in 2003, per-capita, were $19,870, or roughly 1.33 times those of Newfoundland, at $15,098. Again, at times, the ratio has been as high as 1.44 in favour of Labrador.
Labradorians collect half as much, $290.00 to $576.69, in provincial income-support payments, as Newfoundlanders. The ratio has been as high as 0.60, but that's the worst it's been in Labrador overall.
During the entire period for which stats are available, Labrador per-capita market incomes and per-capita provincial income tax contributions have ALWAYS been higher than Newfoundland's, and reliance on income support, lower.
For provincial and other taxes you can put anumber on it and then apply the spending ratio.
It's not that simple, but assuming for the sake of argument that it is, as I point out above, between 1992 and 2001 inclusive, Labrador averaged 5.4% of the provincial population, yet earned 7.3% of the provincial market income, and paid 6.8% of the provincial income tax.
All of the spending.
The provincial government, probably for good reason, doesn't break it out very well. On the highways front, however, the disparity is enormous, as is the amount Labrador receives in income support (which it doesn't need as much, statistically, but Newfoundlanders apparently do.)
now corelate that to the cost of that power and the resale value and your theory flies right out the window. You know it is possible and you should look at it, that 14% generates 50 to 60 % of profits.
I've gladly shown you my backup work and documentation; now show us all yours. Fair?
Have to log off soon; thunder rolling in.
The written comment is that the border is the 1927 Privy Council border (not finished).
The usual French phrase is "non définitif" which suggests that the boundary itself is "non-definitive". However (a) this is meaningless legally, and (b) even if it had meaning, its application has been very uneven by Quebec, and only started long after they recognized the boundary in many provincial statutes and regulations.
Again, the Dorion Commission report is great for this stuff.
The Quebec-Labrador border was described by the 1927 but it has never been mapped by having surveyors head into the woods and drive stakes in the ground.
The delicious irony is that in the early 1930s, surveyors in Quebec, unemployed during the Depression, had Quebec and the federal government interested in a great big make-work project: surveying the brand-new Labrador boundary to delimit the legal definition on the ground, especially along the height of land.
The suggestion was made to the Newfoundland government, and it would have had the added benefit of creating a huge surveying industry in Newfoundland, with numerous trainees and the costs and jobs split 50/50.
Newfoundland rejected the proposal.
By the time Newfoundland thought it would be a good idea to survey the boundary — when something of value was found near the line — the nationalists had already taken over Quebec thinking on the subject. The boundary is likely never to be surveyed.
(Incidentally, the Quebec government appears to be maintaining route 138 several metres into Labrador on the hill above Blanc Sablon.)
Isn't it odd that once some facts started to get tossed around, Sue decided to abandon this comment thread?
not abandonned
Post a Comment