Bitter legacy hangs over today’s energy discussions between Quebec and N.L. premiers

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey and Quebec Premier François Legault pose in the office of the premier at the Confederation Building, in St. John’s, on Friday, Feb. 24, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Paul Daly

By Sarah Smellie in St. John’s

As Quebec Premier François Legault seeks a new energy deal with Newfoundland and Labrador, he faces a public in the Atlantic province scarred by the legacy of a pair of hydroelectric projects mired in missteps.

Legault travelled to St. John’s this week for discussions with Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey about the 1969 Churchill Falls hydroelectric energy deal — and what will come after it ends in 2041. The lopsided deal heavily favours Quebec, and has left a lasting bitterness in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The two leaders are scheduled to speak with reporters later on Friday after the meeting.

Jeff Webb, a historian at Memorial University, says some residents of Newfoundland and Labrador think the province wouldn’t have endured the “humiliation” of needing equalization payments from the federal government if the Churchill Falls agreement had more evenly served both provinces.

“It does speak to people’s sense that this is something that’s always been rightly ours, and it’s been stolen,” Webb said in a recent interview.

Decades later, that hostility drove people in Newfoundland and Labrador to embrace the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project, which is long delayed and draining the provincial purse, Webb said.

The 1969 Churchill Falls deal allows Quebec’s provincially owned hydroelectric utility, Hydro-Québec, to purchase 85 per cent of the electricity generated by the dam in Labrador, and therefore reap most of the profits. As of 2019, the deal had yielded close to $28 billion in profits to Quebec, and about $2 billion for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Under the agreement, Hydro-Québec pays a fixed price of 0.2 cents per kilowatt hour for Churchill Falls power. By comparison, the utility said in a news release this week it made an average of 8.2 cents per kilowatt hour on power it sold outside the province in 2022. Hydro-Québec made a record-breaking income of $4.6 billion last year, the release said.

The Innu of Uashat mak Mani-utenam in Quebec filed a $2.2-billion lawsuit against Hydro-Québec earlier this year, claiming the Churchill Falls hydroelectric station has destroyed a significant part of their traditional territory. In 2020, the Innu Nation in Labrador launched a $4-billion lawsuit against Hydro-Québec and Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp., a subsidiary of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, for the ecological and cultural damage caused by the damming of the upper Churchill River in the early 1970s.

Pam Frampton, who retired in 2021 as the managing editor of The Telegram newspaper in St. John’s, said she grew up under the shadow of Churchill Falls.

“There was always these associated feelings of shame and bitterness, and the feeling that we had been duped,” Frampton said in an interview.

Frampton said she believes the province would be in a completely different economic position now if the Churchill Falls arrangement had not been so skewed.

“Wanting to give Quebec the middle finger, if you will, was a part of the impetus behind Muskrat Falls,” Frampton said. “I think if we had a fair day’s deal with (Churchill Falls), we wouldn’t have been so hell-bent on getting (Muskrat Falls) developed at any cost.”

Like the Churchill Falls project, the Muskrat Falls development harnesses the power of the Churchill River, in Labrador, and it also sits on traditional Innu territory. It was green-lit in December of 2012 after much trumpeting and fanfare by the Progressive Conservative government at the time, particularly by premier Danny Williams, who quit politics in late 2010.

Muskrat Falls has been disastrous for the province’s finances and morale. Its price tag now sits at more than $13 billion, a figure Andrew Furey described in 2021 as “an anchor around the collective souls of Newfoundland and Labradorians.”

Legault has said he wants a “win-win” deal for Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador — and has even suggested paying the province more for electricity before the current deal ends in 2041.

Frampton said the Quebec premier needs to know that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are hardened and still smarting from both projects.

“I think he needs to know that, going in, we are gun shy, and for good reason,” she said. “He should expect us to ask the hard questions. And I certainly hope to God our government does, on our behalf.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 24, 2023.

The Canadian Press

syndication.thecanadianpress.com/rss/69467d8c-ad4b-48a4-895e-9e19d79c6c8e

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Peckford: Hallelujah! Supreme Court of Canada to hear Newfoundland and Labrador charter case

COVID-19 / 2 months ago

Supreme Court will not hear case about government’s violation of rights and freedoms

Alberta / 3 months ago

Alberta looking to ban electronic vote tabulators ahead of next provincial election

Automotive

New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business

Published on May 12, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By WILL KESSLER

Converting America’s medium- and heavy-duty trucks to electric vehicles (EV) in accordance with goals from the Biden administration would add massive costs to commercial trucking, according to a new analysis released Wednesday.

The cost to switch over to light-duty EVs like a transit van would equate to a 5% increase in costs per year while switching over medium- and heavy-duty trucks would add up to 114% in costs per year to already struggling businesses, according to a report from transportation and logistics company Ryder Systems. The Biden administration, in an effort to facilitate a transition to EVs, finalized new emission standards in March that would require a huge number of heavy-duty vehicles to be electric or zero-emission by 2032 and has created a plan to roll out charging infrastructure across the country.

“There are specific applications where EV adoption makes sense today, but the use cases are still limited,” Karen Jones, executive vice president at Ryder, said in an accompanying press release. “Yet we’re facing regulations aimed at accelerating broader EV adoption when the technology and infrastructure are still developing. Until the gap in TCT for heavier-duty vehicles is narrowed or closed, we cannot expect many companies to make the transition, and, if required to convert in today’s market, we face more supply chain disruptions, transportation cost increases, and additional inflationary pressure.”

Due to the increase in costs for businesses, the potential inflationary impact on the entire economy per year is between 0.5% and 1%, according to the report. Inflation is already elevated, measuring 3.5% year-over-year in March, far from the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Increased expense projections differ by state, with class 8 heavy-duty trucks costing 94% more per year in California compared to traditional trucks, due largely to a 501% increase in equipment costs, while cost savings on fuel only amounted to 52%. In Georgia, costs would be 114% higher due to higher equipment costs, labor costs, a smaller payload capacity and more.

The EPA also recently finalized rules mandating that 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 be electric or hybrid. Around $1 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act has already been designated to be used by subnational governments in the U.S. to replace some heavy-duty vehicles with EVs, like delivery trucks or school buses.

The Biden administration has also had trouble expanding EV charging infrastructure across the country, despite allotting $7.5 billion for chargers in 2021. Current charging infrastructure frequently has issues operating properly, adding to fears of “range anxiety,” where EV owners worry they will become stranded without a charger.

Business

Economic progress stalling for Canada and other G7 countries

Published on May 10, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss

For decades, Canada and other countries in the G7 have been known as the economic powerhouses of the world. They generally have had the biggest economies and the most prosperous countries. But in recent years, poor government policy across the G7 has contributed to slowing economic growth and near-stagnant living standards.

Simply put, the Group of Seven countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States—have become complacent. Rather than build off past economic success by employing small governments that are limited and efficient, these countries have largely pursued policies that increase or maintain high taxes on families and businesses, increase regulation and grow government spending.

Canada is a prime example. As multiple levels of government have turned on the spending taps to expand programs or implement new ones, the size of total government has surged ever higher. Unsurprisingly, Canada’s general government spending as a share of GDP has risen from 39.3 per cent in 2007 to 42.2 per cent in 2022.

At the same time, federal and provincial governments have increased taxes on professionals, businessowners and entrepreneurs to the point where the country’s top combined marginal tax rate is now the fifth-highest among OECD countries. New regulations such as Bill C-69, which instituted a complex and burdensome assessment process for major infrastructure projects and Bill C-48, which prohibits producers from shipping oil or natural gas from British Columbia’s northern coast, have also made it difficult to conduct business.

The results of poor government policy in Canada and other G7 countries have not been pretty.

Productivity, which is typically defined as economic output per hour of work, is a crucial determinant of overall economic growth and living standards in a country. Over the most recent 10-year period of available data (2013 to 2022), productivity growth has been meagre at best. Annual productivity growth equaled 0.9 per cent for the G7 on average over this period, which means the average rate of growth during the two previous decades (1.6 per cent) has essentially been chopped in half. For some countries such as Canada, productivity has grown even slower than the paltry G7 average.

Since productivity has grown at a snail’s pace, citizens are now experiencing stalled improvement in living standards. Gross domestic product (GDP) per person, a common indicator of living standards, grew annually (inflation-adjusted) by an anemic 0.7 per cent in Canada from 2013 to 2022 and only slightly better across the G7 at 1.3 per cent. This should raise alarm bells for policymakers.

A skeptic might suggest this is merely a global phenomenon. But other countries have fared much better. Two European countries, Ireland and Estonia, have seen a far more significant improvement than G7 countries in both productivity and per-person GDP.

From 2013 to 2022, Estonia’s annual productivity has grown more than twice as fast (1.9 per cent) as the G7 countries (0.9 per cent). Productivity in Ireland has grown at a rapid annual pace of 5.9 per cent, more than six times faster than the G7.

A similar story occurs when examining improvements in living standards. Estonians enjoyed average per-person GDP growth of 2.8 per cent from 2013 to 2022—more than double the G7. Meanwhile, Ireland’s per-person GDP has surged by 7.9 per cent annually over the 10-year period. To put this in perspective, living standards for the Irish grew 10 times faster than for Canadians.

But this should come as no surprise. Governments in Ireland and Estonia are smaller than the G7 average and impose lower taxes on individuals and businesses. In 2019, general government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 44.0 per cent for G7 countries. Spending for governments in both Estonia and Ireland were well below this benchmark.

Moreover, the business tax rate averaged 27.2 per cent for G7 countries in 2023 compared to lower rates in Ireland (12.5 per cent) and Estonia (20.0 per cent). For personal income taxes, Estonia’s top marginal tax rate (20.0 per cent) is significantly below the G7 average of 49.7 per cent. Ireland’s top marginal tax rate is below the G7 average as well.

Economic progress has largely stalled for Canada and other G7 countries. The status quo of government policy is simply untenable.