Newfoundland, Quebec, and Hydroelectricity

—SHOW NOTES—

◘ The Newfoundland premier may not be handling the Churchill Falls negotiations with Quebec very well ◘

—Sources—

◘ Melanie Martin, “The 1969 Contract,” 2006, Heritage Newfoundland & Labrador, https://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/politics/churchill-falls.php ◘ 

◘ Terry Roberts, “Debate Over Churchill Falls MOU Begins with Government on Defensive,” January 6, 2025, CBC News, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/churchill-deal-debate-1.7423675 ◘ 

◘ “2025 Newfoundland and Labrador General Election,” edited November 4, 2025, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Newfoundland_and_Labrador_general_election ◘

Chapters

• 0:00 Intro
• 0:13 Newfoundland's Tentative New Hydro Deal with Quebec
• 0:56 The Disastrous 1969 Deal with Quebec
• 1:29 Former Premier Signs Tentative Renegotiated Deal in 2024
• 2:02 New Premier Elected on Promise to Review Deal and Hold Referendum
• 3:43 A Mistake to Have the Review Before the Referendum
• 5:07 New Premier Got Himself in This Mess
• 5:55 Sign-off

Transcript

Newfoundland has an abundant source of hydroelectricity in the massive Churchill Falls, but the province has had to endure decades of being unable to sufficiently benefit financially from it due especially to a deal that it signed with the province of Quebec when the project first started up. A lot of the talk during the last election campaign focused on the revised tentative agreement (MOU, memorandum of agreement) that Newfoundland signed with Quebec during what turned out to be the last months of the tenure of the Liberal Party, but a party who lost to the Progressive Conservatives.

First, some background. The current MOU, not yet signed and finalized into a formal agreement, is the result of a disastrously unfavourable contract that Newfoundland negotiated with Quebec in 1969. As many sources report, this deal has caused much resentment by Newfoundlanders towards Quebec, because it’s felt that Quebec not only has benefitted from too much from the deal, but also refused to renegotiate it until is was set to expire in 2041.

That changed in December 2024, when then Liberal Premier Andrew Furey signed that MOU with Quebec’s Premier François Legault that renegotiated the original 1969 contract and called for a new fifty-year deal with more favourable terms for Newfoundland. Fifty years. After that, Furey also steadfastly refused to agree to opposition-party demands that the tentative agreement be subject to an independent review.

But things change. It’s hard to say how much the controversy over the renegotiated Churchill Falls deal had to do with it, but the Liberal government was defeated by the Progressive Conservatives in the recent election on October 14. Tony Wakeham is the new premier and his party has a majority: 21 seats for the Conservatives, 15 for the Liberals, and 2 for the New Democratic Party. Wakeham campaigned partly on two key issues related to the MOU:

*he would establish that independent review

*he would hold a referendum of Newfoundlanders to help determine their agreement

These two promises conflict with each other to some extent, in my view. And it appears that he wants to do the review first and then bring it to the Newfoundland people to see what they want. Here is what he said in an interview with CBC News:

I want to take this out of the political arena and put it back into the hands of experts to take a look at … What I know, they will know … I'm going to make sure we get it right. And once we get that final negotiation done, however long it takes, then yes, we will bring it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have its say. But I will not be rushed.

As some commentators point out, this will take some time, and Quebec may not just wait for that process, especially since they know that a possibility, perhaps even a likelihood, is that the new new deal might see Newfoundland demanding less generous terms for Quebec.

The other thing that strikes me is that it’s a mistake to go through a process of review and consultation, and then just leave it to a referendum to decide whether to go ahead with it. How many Newfoundlanders will have a knowledge or frankly an interest enough in the details to say yes or no? How many, even if they are interested, would have the time to review it? And if there is some executive summary or some simplified version that residents are reviewing, would there be enough detail in that for them to make an informed decision on how they should vote in a referendum anyway?

It’s not necessarily a sign that you are doing good by the people you’re governing just because you seek their opinions (and decision) in a referendum. You can’t govern using referendums. Real leadership requires that you know the difference, that you have the political and intellectual judgment to know, when you should consult the people in a referendum and when you should do whatever consultation you need and then make a decision on behalf of the Newfoundland people. If you screw it up, you likely won’t be re-elected. But if you are consistently responsible in your decisions, bold when you need to be and cautious at other times, and if the outcomes are positive, then the electorate will thank you for it.

You could make an argument that Wakeham got himself into this mess. He’s the one who kept insisting during the election campaign that the agreed-upon tentative deal did not give enough to Newfoundland. Was that just scaremongering? Or does he actually know what’s wrong with the deal, and so can spend his time fixing it rather than holding a referendum. A premier of any province has enormous intellectual, political, and advisory resources at his disposal. Premier Wakeham should be calling on those. Take what he knows and discuss it with smart people. But he may have gotten himself into a situation with the promise of a referendum that it’s hard to extricate himself from without looking like he’s breaking a promise.