Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNewsCanadaCanadian PoliticsPQ would renegotiate Churchill Falls MOU with 1927 ‘injustice’ in mindQuebec should be compensated for 1927 decision that awarded Labrador to Newfoundland, says PQ energy criticLast updated 16 minutes ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Parti Quebecois MNA Pascal Paradis said a PQ government would be willing to sit down and discuss new terms to update the 1969 energy deal. Photo by Francis VachonIf the Parti Québécois is elected this fall, it says it will try to redraft a pending energy deal with Newfoundland and Labrador to further develop Churchill Falls. But only if it involves compensation for Quebec’s loss of Labrador nearly a century ago.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorIn an interview with National Post, the party’s energy critic Pascal Paradis said a PQ government would be willing to sit down and discuss new terms to update the 1969 energy deal that is loathed in Newfoundland and Labrador, but only with the “right approach” for Quebec.“The right approach is not to substantiate the theory according to which the 1969 deal for the development of Churchill Falls is an illegitimate or unjust deal,” he said.The power contract signed between Hydro-Québec and the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation ensured that hydroelectricity produced at the Churchill Falls site would be sold to Hydro-Québec at a very low price until 2041.The deal has caused generations of resentment in Newfoundland and Labrador, where citizens feel their resources have been taken advantage and enriched Quebec’s hydroelectric cash cow.But Paradis said Quebec took “enormous financial risks” to develop Churchill Falls at a time when Newfoundland and Labrador did not have the means to do so itself, noting that subsequent legal challenges to change the terms of the contract failed.That deal was later ripped up — literally — by former Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey in 2024 when he signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Quebec which would have replaced the contentious 1969 agreement.That MOU would have seen billions more flow to the province, as Hydro-Québec is looking to double its electricity production by 2050 to keep up with demand.A new Progressive Conservative government was elected in 2025, promising to review the deal. An independent review ultimately concluded the MOU was not in Newfoundland and Labrador’s best interests, and negotiations with Quebec restarted last month.Paradis said the “real injustice” on this file was the 1927 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London to grant the disputed territory of Labrador to Newfoundland, then a British Dominion.He said the province should be compensated for it.Paradis said that while the decision did take place nearly a century ago, the PQ does not intend to abandon the province’s “historic position” on the matter.“Given this injustice, compensation should be negotiated,” he said. “And that of course has a direct link with the negotiations on Churchill Falls.”The boundary between Quebec and Labrador has been a longstanding irritant for Quebec governments for decades, but the PQ took it a step further in its “blue book” released last month, which fleshes out what an independent Quebec would look like.The PQ’s 524-page document states that the “only way to repair this injustice would be to propose a political settlement, or even financial compensation.”Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Tony Wakeham outright dismissed the idea when asked by reporters last week. “This issue was settled a long time ago,” he said.Gregory Kelley, natural resources critic for Quebec’s Liberal party, said that while he agrees most Quebec governments have never officially accepted the border with Labrador, picking up a fight with another province should not be a priority.“I just sort of see it as the classic Parti Québécois finding ways, on a file that is really between two provinces, to maybe try and bring in a whole question of the history of Canada and the injustices of Canada,” Kelley said in an interview.He added it is more important, at the moment, to come to an agreement to help produce more energy that businesses can rely on moving forward in the future.Wakeham met on Tuesday with Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette at the Council of the Federation in Charlottetown to discuss the status of negotiations on a new energy deal.Representatives of Hydro-Québec and N.L. Hydro were not in attendance at this meeting, according to Wakeham’s press secretary Ashley Jackson-Politi.Time is running out for Fréchette to come to a deal, as she will soon be facing an uphill battle in the provincial election slated for Oct. 5. Her party, the Coalition Avenir Québec, is currently in third place in the polls, while the PQ is poised to form government.Despite this, her team believes it is possible for Quebec to arrive at a revised MOU with Newfoundland and Labrador that will benefit both parties.“Discussions are ongoing; we remain confident to arrive at an agreement,” said Fréchette’s press secretary, Élodie Masson, in a written statement.Hydro-Québec echoed that statement, adding: “Our focus is on continuing those discussions, and it would be premature to comment on subsequent steps,” said spokeswoman Lynn St-Laurent in an email.Opposition parties in Quebec agree that Fréchette should not rush into an agreement on Churchill Falls with an election fast approaching. Or, if she does, they believe it should be submitted to the National Assembly of Quebec for review.“We would ultimately like to see an agreement go through on Churchill Falls, but it’s important also to put things into context that Madame Fréchette doesn’t have carte blanche to sign anything either,” Kelley said.“We’re of the view that the original offer made by Hydro-Québec and the government of Quebec was extremely generous,” he added.Paradis said Fréchette simply does not have the “legitimacy” to sign an agreement in the dying days of her mandate and fears she might make too many concessions to wrap up the negotiations quickly.“The first ones to judge will be Quebecers during the elections in October.”National Post calevesque@postmedia.comOur website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here. Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.