Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Hydro-Quebec twice. Furthermore, the federal government did not use its political power to override these court rulings because the contract no longer suited its purpose or because the political balance of power had shifted. A contract is a contract.
No one forced Newfoundland to sign this agreement, which at the time appeared to be beneficial for both parties. Newfoundland benefited from Hydro-Quebec's contribution in terms of both money and expertise. In return, Hydro-Quebec would maintain fixed prices for the electricity generated. We might even add that, had Hydro-Quebec not been involved in this project, Churchill Falls might never have been harnessed.
As I said earlier, this agreement was negotiated for years and years. It is almost insulting to those who signed it. As you know, the then premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Smallwood, was one of the signatories. I do not understand how those people can be accused of acting hastily. On the contrary, they knew exactly what they were doing.
Obviously, there were pros and cons. It was beneficial. It was seen as a good deal. A few years later, we realize that it may be true, that one of the parties may have got the short end of the stick, but the fact is that the contract was signed.
How can my colleague ask the federal government to intervene in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, when these contracts were originally signed by two companies that were both extremely responsible? Why ask the government to intervene? Above all, why-and this is what I find most shocking-are they talking about injustice in this case?