Instead, this Qu�bec regulatory body handed down the most biased decision I have seen in my nearly 40 years as a lawyer. It ignored express factual evidence; it ignored established principles of open access; it breached principles of fairness and natural justice.

Furthermore, it supported suppression of critical evidence; it contradicted its own prior decisions; and it engaged in obvious misinterpretation with no basis in civil, administrative or common law.

In order to find a way to deny fair access to Newfoundland and Labrador to its transmission lines, it rendered a decision that was so absurd it was frankly embarrassing to Qu�bec.

And in doing so, it revealed the lengths to which Qu�bec will go to implement its agenda to deny competitive power to its fellow provinces and the rest of North America. Its strategy is to delay the regulatory process, cut off access to markets, make costs prohibitive, fully book existing capacity, while signing prospective customers to long term contracts and neglecting to provide an impartial appeal process through a truly independent regulatory body.

Does anyone really think that it is a coincidence that the very day after we filed our transmission applications into New York and New England, Hydro Qu�bec filed 1,200 MW applications into New York and New England over top of ours?

And then while our applications got routed into this 4 year process, their transmission applications were approved by the R�gie, and service agreements were executed by March of 2009.

Two days ago, an article appeared in La Presse confirming our belief by stating that since 1997 the R�gie has not often made rulings contrary to the interests of Hydro Qu�bec and the CFIB added that "a well informed person would have reasonable doubts about bias with regard to the Energy Board."

Aside from the direct market and environmental value that the Lower Churchill could bring to Ontario, it also has the potential to create thousands of green jobs for this province. The physical construction of the Lower Churchill Project will create substantial amounts of business and employment opportunities which complements Ontario's strategy of building a manufacturing base that is linked to a green economy. 　

This project is expected to generate 80,000 person years of employment. 　We will be making billions of dollars of investment in heavy civil work and Ontario could benefit significantly by supplying such things as steel, portland cement, fuel as well as industrial and electrical equipment.

And just what is Qu�bec doing with all this revenue? They are giving tax breaks, reducing electricity rates, funding the best child care programs in the country and the lowest tuitions for post-secondary students for only Qu�bec residents.

And Canadians are paying for Qu�bec satellite offices � or mini embassies - in approximately 26 countries including the cities of Barcelona, Taipei, Munich, Mumbai, Vienna, Santiago and Damascus to name just a few.

A recent study by the Montreal Economic Institute indicates that Hydro Quebec provides a seven billion dollar subsidy to Qu�bec electricity consumers, resulting in a rate that is 40 per cent less than Moncton, Halifax, Toronto and Calgary. This is a policy which provides less income to the Government of Quebec resulting in a greater need for contributions from the rest of Canada.

In 2008, Qu�bec made 2.3 billion dollars from the Upper Churchill project while our province made approximately 50 million dollars. Power which is bought from us by Hydro Qu�bec is flipped by them and sold on average for 36 times more than what they paid for it.

The contract was for 44 years with a 25 year renewal at a lower rate from 2016 to 2041. It is the equivalent of selling 48 million barrels of oil at only 1.60 a barrel.

It sounds unbelievable, yet that is the reality our province has been facing for the past forty years. And despite numerous entreaties to renegotiate a fairer deal, Hydro Qu�bec will have no part of it.

The gross inequity of this agreement cannot be denied. It is without a doubt considered the biggest loss of resources by our province; in fact, I would venture to say there are no other similar agreements of such a disproportionate magnitude in our country.

On a per capita basis, this loss to Ontario would be the equivalent of approximately 38 billion dollars annually.

The shock for me as provincial leader is the sense of greed, arrogance and entitlement displayed by Qu�bec, after "milking Newfoundland dry" in the words of a national newspaper. This attitude evolves from their assumed ownership of Labrador evidenced by their continued use of inaccurate maps on their official government web site.

These maps unabashedly include Labrador in Qu�bec's territory, contrary to the 1927 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and Newfoundland and Labrador's Terms of Union with Canada.

Can anyone deny our outrage and desire to see an end to this imperialistic attitude and I-can-get-away with anything approach?

As Sir Winston Churchill once said, "If we are together, nothing is impossible. If we are divided, all will fail."

I firmly believe in the adage that a rising tide lifts all boats. And I wish for nothing more than to see all provinces succeed.

But I do have a very serious problem with one province consistently being the beneficiaries of substantial federal government assistance, while at the same time reaping an inordinate and extraordinary benefit from my province and then to add insult to injury, doing everything in its power to inhibit our moving forward.

The political reality is obvious but no one wants to say it. About a year ago, Jeffrey Simpson addressed it and I contacted him to acknowledge that he got it loud and clear.