Minister 'extremely frustrated' over PUB rejection of diesel generating station in southern Labrador
On Monday the PUB rejected an application made by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to build a $110.9 million regional diesel generating station and interconnection in southern Labrador.
"I am so, quite frankly, fed up. Out of patience," Dempster told CBC Radio's Labrador Morning on Wednesday.
She says the rejected plan hits close to home. Dempster lived near Charlottetown's diesel-powered generating plant, which burned down in 2019. The towns in the area now rely on mobile generation.
"I cannot believe that instead of opening up a new plant, giving residents reliable power, that [Monday] we came to a full stop again. I'm extremely frustrated," Dempster said.
The proposed plant, which would have operated in Port Hope Simpson, would power and interconnect six communities in the region. It also would have replaced several existing small diesel plants.
Dempster said N.L. Hydro and the PUB need to get to a table to talk and get beyond the impasse.
She says she's also frustrated that, more than a year ago, N.L. Hydro submitted thousands of pages of documents for the PUB to review on the proposed generating station, but the rejection only just now happened.
Green energy
The PUB's decision noted it had a lot more commentary from the public than usual, and that people wanted environmentally responsible solutions.
Dempster understands where those concerns are coming from. She was recently named the minister of Environment and Climate Change during a cabinet shuffle over the summer.
Still, she said, the region needs a reliable source of power, pointing to the area's volunteer firefighters who feel the pressure when power outages happen. She says outages occur four times more than on the Avalon Peninsula.
"I believe we've got to look to get reliable power back in a community that's been on mobile units, a temporary fix, for almost six years," she said.
In the meantime, Dempster says she has spoken with N.L. Hydro president Jennifer Williams, but a meeting she requested with the PUB was rejected.
"We cannot continue to be at this impasse for an indefinite period of time," she said.
NunatuKavut 'pleased'
But Todd Russell, president of the NunatuKavut community council, wrote in a statement on Wednesday that he welcomes the PUB's decision, pointing to a section that says N.L. Hydro should satisfy its duty to consult with the NCC.
"We are pleased that the PUB recognizes N.L. Hydro's responsibilities stemming from Canada's Constitution and as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples," wrote Russell.
The NCC claims to represent about 6,000 self-identifying Inuit in southern Labrador, including Dempster.
The NCC isn't recognized as Inuit by any other federally recognized, rights-holding Inuit collective, including the Nunatsiavut government in northern Labrador and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami — the national organization representing Inuit across Canada — who both say the group is a settler organization.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
16 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Doug Ford and other premiers want provincial work permits for refugee claimants. It may not solve anything
With refugee claimants now getting work permits fairly quickly and housing being less of a pain point, why do Canada's premiers want to seize power from Ottawa to issue work permits? This week, the provincial leaders emerged from the premiers' meeting united in seeking the powers under the Constitution to issue work authorization to asylum seekers, which is currently under the federal government's jurisdiction.
CBC
20 hours ago
- CBC
Inuit leader says modern treaties give veto right over major projects
After meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami President Natan Obed says Carney was 'unequivocal' that modern treaties will be the 'platforms' for any nation-building projects. When asked whether Inuit leaders have a veto over projects, Obed says 'our modern treaties give us this right.'
CTV News
21 hours ago
- CTV News
U.S. judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
Demonstrators holds up a banner during a citizenship rally outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, May 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File) BOSTON — A U.S. federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was 'thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.' 'American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' he added. 'The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. 'That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,' the judge wrote. 'In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.' Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. By Michael Casey. Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman in Washington contributed.
