Newfoundland, Supreme Court Of Canada, Quebec discussed on As It Happens from CBC Radio


A divorce Newfoundland and labrador wants out of a contract, and it seemed Quebec profit very nicely. Well, Newfoundland and labrador brings in a much smaller take this morning. However, the supreme court of Canada ruled that the deal must stand. Russell Wang gerski is calmness with the telegram newspaper and the salt wire network. We reached him in Saint John's. Vessel. You have called. This case hail. Mary pass. Was there any chance cream court was going to let Newfoundland and labrador out of its deal with Quebec, I don't think the really was not on this particular model. I mean, what they were really looking for the Newfoundland side. Anyway, was looking for was for a case to be decided on good faith that the deal that we signed so many years ago actually turned out to be something different. So it should just be renegotiated on a good faith basis. And and that's a pretty long ball. This gives a sense of just how uneven this deal is what are the numbers? The the harsh numbers of profit the profit for Quebec hydro so far is about twenty eight billion dollars and the profit on the Newfoundland side is about two billion dollars. And why is it so out of whack because back from the deal was struck the Newfoundland side who wanted to give us money to build the actual Churchill falls power complex. Settled on an idea that they wanted a fixed rate for electric city couple of reasons for that one was that they needed to pay off the bonds used to build the the whole project, but the other one was that there was actually a live concern at the time that nuclear power might take off and the price of lex ity might plunge. So what they actually wanted to do was to make sure that they were protected and be able to pay back the money that they bore road to to build a facility in the first place. Unfortunately, the opposite happened, and there was no mechanism built in that said if prices elected trinity go way way up we'll you know, that that will be shared equally or partially or in fact at all and it hasn't been feeling labradors still getting the money in dollar ended the nineteen sixty nine set price. Right. It hasn't had a doesn't taken into consideration the skyrocketing energy costs prices. It's actually worse than. The deal had an automatic renewal clause built into it. And that new renewal came into effect like year and a half ago or so and the new rate was even lower than the original rate. So we're actually getting less now than the original deal in the sixties. So why did is it court say this deal should stand? Probably the easiest way to explain it is the spring court said it's one thing if a contract is if something happens after a contract is drawn up in someone's suffers as a result. The problem is that what the supreme court ruled was the Newfoundland site hasn't actually suffered. It's done everything that the contract originally anticipated. All were not sharing in is windfall profits after the fact if you can't show that you've actually been damaged by what happened after the contract signed, you can't avail of something to protect you from being harmed because you weren't you weren't hard. One Justice who disagreed with the decision, Malcolm. Rowe who while I guess just happens to be from Newfoundland and labrador. He spoke of he said that it was there was an implied obligation, and they're subject to a heightened duty of good, faith and cooperation, I guess like just being good neighbours. There's something that could back should have done out of the goodness of his heart. Is that what do you think you say? Two degree. But I think what he was trying to make the point..

Coming up next