PDF Version

January 8, 2025 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 99

The House met

at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER

(Bennett): Order,

please!

Admit visitors.

Before we

begin, I would just like to welcome on the floor of the Chamber the marketing

director and senior manager for Power Advisory.

Welcome.

I would also

like to welcome people in the public gallery this morning.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Extraordinary Debate pursuant to

Standing Order 8(7) – Memorandum of Understanding between Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro and Hydro-Québec

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the

Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Being able to

sit down for 20 minutes is a nice little treat. That's, I guess, the benefit of

having an extraordinary sitting of the House of Assembly.

So before I

welcome our guests, I'd just like to publicly thank members from the NL Hydro

team who were here for two very long and full days.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: I heard a colleague of mine behind me

say: We should have people, experts on the floor more often in the House. I

agree, it was really two of the best days I've spent in the House of Assembly

as a Member. A lot of questions from everyone from both sides of the House and

a lot of answers then.

Really when I

think back to being asked about why we were doing this extraordinary debate,

one of my answers was because I think it will provide information, education,

clarification to not only Members in the House of Assembly, but to all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We're halfway through this extraordinary

debate and the information that has been provided so far has been

extraordinary. It's been plentiful, and we still have two days to go. So thanks

to the NL Hydro team.

Having said

that, though, we did have a request from the opposite side of the House to

amend the

schedule a little bit. So just to advise the Speaker and everyone

that we're agreeable to that. We will continue with the Power Advisory team as

scheduled from 10 to 12 this morning and 1 to 5 this afternoon.

However, we

will change the

schedule – with leave of all Members of the House because we do

have rules of procedure for this debate – to have J.P. Morgan move to this

evening's session from 6 to 9 and then NL Hydro tomorrow from 10 to 12, 1 to 5

and 6 to 9.

SPEAKER: Leave is granted for those changes?

AN HON.

MEMBER: Leave.

J. HOGAN: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I look forward

to having NL Hydro back, and certainly give Ms. Williams a chance to maybe get

her voice back in the next 24 hours.

Thank you to

our two new guests this morning. It was a pleasure to meet you both this

morning; I had a quick chance to say hello. I think the best thing to do to

start the proceedings today is to allow both of you to introduce yourselves and

maybe give a little bit of background of your work history, your experience and

your expertise.

SPEAKER: So we'll start off with the Managing

Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

My name is

Jason Chee-Aloy. I'm the managing director of Power Advisory. Power Advisory is

an electricity management consulting firm with businesses and offices across

Canada and the US.

Before I get

into our experience, I'd like to thank the House for having us here. We very

much understand the importance of the matter and we very much understand the

historic nature of such a deal.

Our firm is an

electricity management consulting firm that has been operating since 2007. We

predominantly have experience in electricity market analysis, in multiple

markets across Canada and the US. Specifically, myself, I have over 25 years of

experience in electricity market analysis across Canada and the US.

Specifically,

with respect to hydroelectric generation, I have a history of – in addition to

the analysis – contracting for hydroelectric generation across Canada,

predominantly in the Province of Ontario. I have worked on hydro matters in BC,

in Quebec, in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the US in the Northeast,

specifically Maine, regarding some of the export projects into the US.

I'll let my

colleague, Mr. Yauch, introduce himself.

B. YAUCH: Thank you for having me here.

Brady Yauch,

I'm the senior manager of Markets and Regulatory at Power Advisory. I oversee a

lot of our price forecasting and market analysis across Canada and across the

Northeast United States. Prior to this, I've worked within the System Operator

in Ontario, so the real guts of the electricity grid.

I've worked on

this project for two years, along with my colleague. We recognize the

importance of the deal and how important it is to the province.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you for that, the both of you.

Just so we can

get a bit of a flow, I'll ask the question and the Speaker will recognize – you

can choose between yourselves who the appropriate person to answer is. If you

both need to answer, you guys can discuss that amongst yourselves as well.

Thanks for the

background and the introduction of you two.

Can you perhaps

just comment on your total team that was involved in this project. If it was

just the two of you or if you had anybody else at Power Advisory and what their

roles and expertise would've been as well.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

In our firm, we

had six consultants that predominantly comprise the team that was led by me. We

were engaged to provide market assessments to help value the supply from

Churchill Falls and the new development projects. The six consultants are a

mixture of three economists, as well as three engineers, with lots of history

in assessing markets, power systems and contracting for electricity supply.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

I'll ask you a

little bit about what a market assessment means but, first of all, maybe you

could just explain, in a little bit further detail, your retention by NL Hydro

and perhaps what that retention looks like.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

We were engaged

to provide assessments of the various markets to which supply from Churchill

Falls new developments could be exported to and sold to, and valuing those

projects with respect to how to craft that in perspective deals going forward.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: You talked about market assessment – it

is easy for you to say and understand; you've been doing this for a long time.

Maybe you could just give a bit of a description for members of the public and

Members of the House of what exactly that means. What markets are you

assessing? I'm thinking more specifically in terms of hydroelectric prices,

maybe throughout North America and then, perhaps, focus a little bit on Quebec

and Newfoundland and Labrador.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

If I use

hydroelectric generation as an example, there are a couple of different aspects

to our market assessments. We would look at assessing various markets with

respect to the need for electricity supply, how hydroelectric generation can

meet those needs and how does hydroelectric generation stack up as an option

for supply to meet those needs.

That's germane

for every market that we would be assessing, with respect to our engagement.

The other aspect is the value or the price to which the supply can achieve. So

we would assess the markets whether it be Quebec, the export markets to

Ontario, to New York, to New England and we would assess the supply demand

balance for electricity of those markets to come up with price forecasts in

those markets to help value the supply from hydroelectric generation, and we

can do that for other sources of supply as well.

When I say

market assessments, there are two aspects, again: the aspect of how does it fit

into the power system to supply electricity and what is its value in terms of

the price it can capture.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

We'll get to

the memorandum of understanding in terms of advice you would have provided to

NL Hydro with regard to that deal. I wonder if you could comment on that to the

extent that it's not commercially sensitive information.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Specifically,

we valued and we assessed the need for supply in Quebec, the options of supply

that Quebec could exercise and

ultimately defined what that value could be. Specifically – and I know you had

mentioned that we'll get to the MOU – the components in

Schedule F, in terms of

how to value that supply, we had provided advice on structuring that.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: So we've heard that the basics of this

deal – I know it's complicated, but the basics, I'll just put it to you, is

that Quebec – or sorry, Speaker, I put it to you for the guest to answer – that

essentially Quebec needed power, NL Hydro has power and projects available to

sell, and that in exchange for providing that power to Hydro-Québec, what NL

Hydro wanted in return was, fundamentally, fair value for any development

projects, either future or existing, here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I'd ask you

to say is that a fair assessment of the deal and the structure and then comment

on what we've heard, that Quebec has needs for power into the future – and I

know Hydro-Québec has probably said that there's a need for power in Quebec in

the future. So can you comment on those things and the accuracy of those

comments about Quebec's need for power?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

As long-term

analysts of these markets, we've had lots of reason, prior to being engaged, to

assess supply needs in Quebec, all the way to sharpening our assessments of

those supply needs in Quebec for this engagement.

Hydro-Québec

and the Province of Quebec have been very open and public about their supply

needs. As produced in their supply plan, as well as their strategic plan, that

province requires a lot of electricity supply based on the demand growth that

they're projecting for various reasons. So what we did was validate that and

also assess what were the options and how the supply from Labrador fit in to

meet those options.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

So maybe you

could comment on Quebec's demand growth, where that demand comes from and then

also what other options potentially are available to Hydro-Québec or to the

Province of Quebec.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

With respect to

the demand growth in Quebec, a lot of that growth is being driven by

electrification and it's also being driven by economic activity, to which those

two factors are being experienced in lots of jurisdictions around the world

right now.

For example,

auto manufacturers have made commitments to manufacture more electric vehicles.

Certain jurisdictions have passed certain laws and regulations regarding the

sale of EVs, regarding the emissions that would come from combustion cars. So

Quebec is one of the leaders in Canada with respect to the electrification

driven by electric vehicles.

The second

part, as I have mentioned, with respect to demand deals with economic activity

and economic growth. So Quebec has been very public regarding their desire to

attract industry and they've made several announcements with respect to

different industries that have committed to invest in Quebec.

These are the

two main factors that are driving demand for electricity and its growth in the

Province of Quebec.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, is it fair to say and would you

agree that Quebec has a significant need based on its demand growth for

electricity and that that significant need is sooner rather than later?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

There is

significant need, as publicized by Hydro-Québec themselves. The fact that there

is a lot of electrification that's happening in that province, relative to

other provinces across Canada, the need for electricity supply is more urgent

and near term compared to other provinces across Canada.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

So if that need

is urgent, which you've said, and we know that Quebec is now getting some if

its power from the Upper Churchill under the 1969 agreement, is it fair to say

that that is an easily accessible option for Hydro-Québec to fill that

significant need for power in the near future and beyond compared to what other

options might be available to Hydro-Québec? Can you comment on what those other

options might be in terms of timing, where we know that the Upper Churchill

power is flowing already to Quebec?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying

with my previous response regarding the forecast increase demand for

electricity in Quebec as publicized by Hydro-Québec, they've also been equally

as clear in terms of how might they meet the supply need to meet that demand.

As a consultant

that has been assessing these markets for a long time, over 25 years, I have to

say that the situation in Quebec, going back a few years, has fundamentally

changed. There was a time when Hydro-Québec were using terms like we want to be

the battery of the northeast part of North America. We want to be able to

supply jurisdictions in the US and other places, like Ontario.

They don't use

that phrase anymore. They're, in our opinion, and as admitted by them, in a

position of fully needing supply and that's all documented by some of the

actions that they've been taking of late. Years ago, they wouldn't have been so

bold in terms of securing and incentivizing development of, for example, wind

generation, solar generation. All of these things are happening in a very

hydro-rich province.

They've gone on

record to say we want to and plan to expand existing hydroelectric energy. But

that's not enough, and I think that paints a clear picture of why Quebec needs

supply more urgently than before.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I think it

paints a clear picture to provide some more clarity as well as to when you said

things have fundamentally changed with regard to electricity in the Province of

Quebec over the last few years – it hasn't been very long; I think you said

five years.

So, with that

context, is this an ideal time for NL Hydro and Newfoundland and Labrador to

enter these negotiations and to enter this MOU with Hydro-Québec?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power

Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Drawing upon my

experience in terms of entering into negotiations based on assessments of

supply needs and moving and working towards negotiating contracts, there are

only so many points in time where it's opportunistic and there is the ability

to execute a deal. Because of the situation in Quebec, married with the ability

to supply Quebec, it is our opinion that the time is right for such an MOU.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

In my last

couple of minutes, I wonder if you could comment on, not only the fact that the

time is right, the fact

that Quebec needs that power, the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador has that

power to sell – can you comment on, in your opinion, how you feel about the

MOU? Is it a good, reasonable and appropriate MOU given the circumstances?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Building upon

the last answer, in terms of the timing being right in my opinion, what I

objectively see are two motivated parties. On the one side, I just mentioned

all the supply needs that Hydro-Québec has stated and how things have changed

quickly for Hydro-Québec and the Province of Quebec. So it is clear that

they're motivated.

Then on the

Newfoundland and Labrador side, as understood by the history of our firm in

acting for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nalcor, Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro over the last 15 years, to the point of my partner, John

Dalton, testified at the Supreme Court regarding the Churchill Falls contract,

we understand the motivation to get out of that contract and on to a better

contract.

So what I see

are two parties that are very motivated which, in my opinion and in my

experience, is the recipe and the foundation for a good deal.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: My final question – and just so you

know, you can finish your answer, despite the clock ticking there – has NL

Hydro extracted fair value in exchange for these developments and the power

that will be sold to Hydro-Québec?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

We have been in

St. John's since Sunday, and we have watched intently over the last two days. I

really support and believe the responses that Ms. Williams and Mr. Parsons

provided regarding the MOU, specifically with respect to the components in

Schedule F, represent lessons learned from the contract from 1969.

Those lessons

learned will help ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador receive fair value for

its electricity supply, as specified in the MOU, and to be embodied in new

definitive agreements.

SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired.

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Before I ask

some questions of Power Advisory, I'd like to talk first about Justice LeBlanc

and the inquiry and read out Recommendations 1 and 2 from Justice LeBlanc.

The first one

was: "The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should never undertake, on

its own or through one of its Crown corporations or agencies, the planning,

approval or construction of any large project (meaning a project with a budget

of $50 million or more) without: a. Engaging independent external experts to

provide robust review, assessment and analysis of the project; b. Providing

well-defined oversight after consideration of oversight processes instituted in

other jurisdictions."

The second

recommendation was: "The Public Utilities Board should review the proposed

business case, reliability, cost and

schedule of any large project that could

potentially impact Newfoundland and Labrador electricity ratepayers. Following

this review, the Public Utilities Board should report its findings to the

government and the public."

So my question

to the Premier this morning is this: Will you suspend or defer any vote on this

MOU until such time as an independent external expert or the Public Utilities

Board provide a robust review, assessment and analysis of the MOU?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Thanks for the

question.

This has been

answered throughout the last couple of days, and the Premier's on record and I

think I'm on record, too, in saying that any large project that could

potentially impact Newfoundland and Labrador electricity ratepayers will

absolutely go to the Public Utilities Board.

At this stage,

we have a memorandum of understanding. We don't have any definitive agreements.

We don't have any projects that have been sanctioned that will impact

electricity ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador. But, of course, if and

when any of the contemplated projects in the MOU do make its way to definitive

agreements and those projects are sanctioned and are projects that will affect

those ratepayers, then they will go to the Public Utilities Board.

At this stage,

we will be proceeding with the debate over the next couple of days and look

forward to the vote. It's too early to talk about – or its inappropriate to

suspend the proceedings here in the next couple of days because we are on

record as a government and the Premier is as the leader of this province, that

those projects, as I said, if and when they will affect ratepayers, will go to

the Public Utilities Board as required by law and as suggested and recommended

by Justice LeBlanc.

AN HON.

MEMBER: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I will go back to

Recommendation 1, which clearly states the planning. If the MOU is not part of

the planning for assigning those agreements, it's not what's going to make up

what the contracts will look like, that's what the MOU is supposed to do. It

also talks about the Public Utilities Board in terms of the proposed business

case. I would suggest that the MOU is the proposed business case.

Again, I will

ask the question because clearly we are not following the recommendations of

Justice LeBlanc in trying to make sure that we don't go down the same road

we've gone down before. So again, I will ask: Will you suspend or defer any

vote on this MOU until such time as independent external experts or the PUB

provide a robust review, assessment and analysis of the MOU? That's what we're

asking for. I don't think that's an unreasonable ask.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

AN HON.

MEMBER: Same answer.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Yeah, it's the

same answer. This feels like I'm in Question Period, getting the same questions

over and over again, but here we are.

I think what's

not being understood and I'm glad that Hydro's coming back because I think we

can put the question to Ms. Williams again. I asked her, yesterday, to explain

the difference between Muskrat Falls and this MOU. The difference was very

clearly articulated that Muskrat Falls was built as a domestic use project for

this province, which is why it should have gone to the Public Utilities Board.

It should have gone to the Public Utilities Board to determine how it will

affect ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador and to get approval of a project

that's based on the price estimates, and approval of those cost estimates so

ratepayers would know what they're paying.

But what we

know happened was that domestic project did not go to the Public Utilities

Board. It was exempt from that. Rather than go to the PUB to get approval of

the costs, the government of the day brought in legislation to put the cost on

all ratepayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, Speaker.

Another thing,

it's good timing –

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: We heard from Power Advisory this

morning – and we have only been here for 29 minutes – and one of their answers

was that the timing is right.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: The experts, with decades of experience

looking at hydro electricity throughout North America and the world, and with a

history, it sounds like, on the Churchill River as well, and their independent

expert opinion is that the timing is right for a deal between NL Hydro and

Hydro-Québec.

That is what

this government wants to do. It wants to proceed with the deal. It wants to

vote for the MOU to keeping going forward, to negotiate definitive agreements,

to have independent oversight of the process as we move from the MOU to

definitive agreements. We want the definitive agreements to be executed.

The money that

we have talked about, the $225 billion that we have talked about over the last

two days, will come to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to all of us, to our

children and to our grandchildren so we can exercise the demons of 1969,

Speaker.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: I can't tell you how excited and proud I

was on December 12 when this was announced. I didn't –

B. PETTEN: Point of order, Speaker.

SPEAKER: T he

hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, we've been respectful in the

rules of debate, myself and the Government House Leader. What he is doing right

now is something that I hoped it would not happen; they're running the clock on

the leader who is asking a question they are uncomfortable with and they are

running the clock.

We're here to

debate this important piece and the Government House Leader is dragging the

clock.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: He is an experienced lawyer. He knows

what he's at and he's dragging the clock. I think it is unacceptable.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Yes, he knows what he's at. He's being

disrespectful –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no

point of order there. The question was asked –

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no

point of order. There was a question asked and a response has come forward.

Are you

finished, Government House Leader?

J. HOGAN: No.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: As I was saying, I was very proud on

December 12. I guess what I didn't expect was people coming into my office and

people calling me and meeting people in the streets – the level of emotion that

was outpoured that day and the following few days was really beyond what I

expected.

I said, in my

comments when we opened the debate on Monday, I talked about the negative

emotions that the 1969 contract has brought Newfoundlanders and Labradorians –

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: The level of emotion and the negativity

and the frustration and the anxiety and we're close, Speaker, to ending all

that negative emotion.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: To wait to do that, to jeopardize a deal

when the experts have told us the time is right, I don't think that the Premier

is prepared to do that, Speaker.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: We are not prepared as a government and

as a caucus to do that. We look forward to continuing the debate rather than

stopping it and stopping the deal, which is what sounds like they want to do,

Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker, for that speech.

But clearly

what is clear from this is that this government is not interested in an

independent external review of this MOU, what they are interested in is rushing

this through this House and keep moving on, repeating potentially the mistakes

of the past which we have all sworn not to do. That's what's happening.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: I'm not going to waste any more time,

because I want to move on and ask questions of the Power Advisory, who

graciously came here to answer questions for us. Let me move on, if I can,

Speaker.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you for appearing here today,

first of all.

Let me start by

asking you, have you reviewed the MOU as released publicly?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Like everyone

else, we have a copy of the MOU and we have read it.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you.

The second

question I wanted to ask: What was the scope of work assigned to Power Advisory

by NL Hydro in regard to the MOU?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

As I said in

some of my responses this morning, Power Advisory was engaged to support the

effort regarding assessing the markets and valuing supply from Labrador with

options that Quebec may have regarding supply.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you.

What was the

timeline associated with the work? When was the work started and completed?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

With respect to

that specific work as I defined, we started in March 2023.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Okay and when did you complete it? In

other words are –

SPEAKER: Sorry, your mic is not on.

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So you've completed a piece of work up

to the formation of the MOU – to what's in the MOU. That piece of work is

completed; are you still engaged with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

All of our work

has been completed because it's culminated within certain aspects of the MOU.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: During your scope of work, what was

provided to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Were there any reports or

recommendations made?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

We conducted a

lot of analysis regarding supply needs in Quebec, and options that Hydro-Québec

may exercise to meet those supply needs. So it was a combination of analysis

and modelling that culminated in a series of recommendations regarding those

market assessments.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you.

Can you provide

a list of the documents you provided to NL Hydro? I don't mean the documents

themselves, but just a list of the documents that you provided to Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Considering

that we are just at the MOU stage, to which there is still a lot – a lot – of

really tough and hard work to be done, in a fairly compressed time, towards

executing definitive agreements by the end of April 2026. Anything that we have

produced and provided to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, in our opinion, is

commercially sensitive because they will be used within support of negotiations

of those definitive agreements.

I'm just being

mindful, as well, that – I'm pretty sure – Hydro-Québec is tuning in right now.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you for that. Again, that's why it

was important to make sure you understood that I wasn't asking for any of the

documents themselves, just a listing of the actual type of documents.

During

discussions, the negotiations that you had, did Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

provide you with versions of the MOU to review and offer an opinion?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I have been

privy to some of the drafts leading up to the final MOU.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you.

Did you review

the current text of the MOU before it was signed to offer an opinion as to

whether the electricity rates used to derive the dollar figures in

Schedule G

were comparable with market rates or other transactions/agreements carried out

in North America?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Based on our

scope of engagement, we were commenting solely on the aspects to which we've

been asked to provide advice on, those being the market assessments and valuing

supply. Exhibit G was mentioned, that is out of our scope, therefore we were

not asked to comment on that, nor did we.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Again, you told us earlier you've done

an extensive amount of work in other jurisdictions. Are there other

jurisdictions who are in need of electricity who could have become CF(L)Co's

customer, I'm thinking of other provinces like Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova

Scotia, or even the Northeast United States, in your option?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power

Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: As I

mentioned in terms of some of the factors like electrification, economic

growth, lots of provinces and states are experiencing higher electricity

demand. Every jurisdiction is different in terms of the supply options that it

has to meet that demand and they have to counterbalance those supply options

that are located within their own state or province, compared to can they

import the electricity from a province, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, and

receive the supply that way.

It's our

opinion that based on the location of Churchill Falls and the new development

projects and considering how the transmission system is configured, there are

only so many options to sell electricity from Labrador.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Did you provide direct advice on the MOU

that was signed?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

We provided

advice, again, based on the scope of work that we were engaged to. So, for

example, the components listed in

Schedule F regarding different ways to value

supply from Labrador is something that we did advise upon.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: We all know that Hydro-Québec certainly

has the need and we have the power. We know they need capacity. Do you know of

any other options that are available to Hydro-Québec?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

As I was

stating in some of my opening responses, Hydro-Québec has been very public –

the most public I've ever seen them be, and I think that's an indication,

again, of how much supply they need – regarding plans to procure and contract

for wind generation, so they're exercising that option; plans to procure

contracts for solar generation, they're exercising that option. Again, this is

all public in their documents. They're assessing upgrading and expanding

existing hydroelectric generation in their province, and they continue to

explore other technologies and other sources like storage of energy and other

forms.

We did assess

all of that and, again, all of that is in the public domain.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Are you aware of any other large,

undeveloped hydro sites in northeastern North America?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director, Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Certainly in

the northern part of Quebec, there are sites again that have been listed in

publicly available Hydro-Québec documents to which they have done preliminary

studies going back a decade or so. It's in our opinion that they, being

Hydro-Québec, continue to assess those projects as options to meet supply and

they've done so alongside assessing and deciding upon execution of securing

other supply sources that I mentioned, wind and solar and more hydro. They've

valued and they've assessed supply from Labrador, from Churchill Falls and the

new developments alongside all of that.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Yes, we're familiar with that. I think

it was the president of Hydro-Québec who talked about it would cost them

something like 16 cents a kilowatt hour to develop their own and they're certainly

getting it for something like an average of 5.9 cents a kilowatt hour from

Newfoundland and Labrador. It seems to be, as they have described it in their

press, a significant and a great, great deal for Quebec. What we're concerned

about is making sure that we get the full value of our resource.

You indicated

earlier – and I'll finish up with this quickly – about the supply and demand

requirements. Do you anticipate that demand for electricity will increase and

the cost of that electricity will go up as well?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I do

believe that demand for electricity will continue to go up, based on the

factors that are driving it that I had mentioned earlier. In terms of the cost

of new supply, that has a lot of different factors.

So looking at

it today, there are just different options. But the way a utility or a company

like Hydro-Québec, or even Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would assess these

things are it's a basket or a portfolio of different generators, different

supply resources that all have different capabilities to provide electricity

and, because it's a power system, it all has to work together.

Some resources

can be relatively cheaper, but you can't just use those resources. Other

resources might be more expensive, but they're complements to those other

resources.

So it just

depends in terms of the options that you have and how they all fit together,

which they all have different costs and those costs will change over time.

SPEAKER: The Member's time is expired.

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Welcome to our

guests. It's a nice change to actually have folk on the floor of the House –

whether you think so or not, we can talk about afterwards.

I'm only 30

years old as a Canadian and, contrary to popular rumour, I wasn't around when

Churchill Falls 1 was done. It didn't take long, though, even in a small rural

community, for the issue with Churchill Falls and its inequities to become a

part of the culture that you soak up as a new citizen.

For me, this

whole debate isn't as much about me as about two little lads, one called Fynn

and one called Easton who are my grandchildren. Because, at the end of the day,

when you look at the material in the MOU, they are going to reap way more

benefits from this than I am. And that's right, from my point of view.

I'm not going

to take a long time and speechify. I'm sure Members opposite will be pleased to

hear that. For me, this is an opportunity to educate myself, and I really kind

of like these back and tos where I can ask questions that I actually don't know

the answer to and learn

something as a result of it.

I think the

first thing I'd like to do – and I hope the gentlemen opposite won't regard me

as rude when you invite someone into your place of work and then question them

over in a way which may make granny worry a little bit about your manners, but

I'm going to ask about independence.

This isn't

anything personal but, as you've been watching the debate over the last couple

of days, independence has come up as an issue. You are paid consultants. You

receive money in return for your expertise, which is only right and proper. I

came from a background as a physician where that was the case; it was expert

knowledge.

What makes you

think you're independent of the person who pays you?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Really, any

question that gets thrown at us over the course of this morning and this

afternoon is A-okay by us. We're used to it. In fact, in parallel, we've been

preparing for an Ontario proceeding to which Mr. Yauch and I have to testify

tomorrow. So we have a long history in doing this.

But back to the

response with respect of independence, I have a couple of things to say why we

are independent, and it's really that simple. First of all, in listening, as I

said in one of my responses earlier, I'm extremely appreciative of one of the

responses that one of the Members of the House provided the other day about his

experience as an independent consultant, what that really means and how that

just practically works. If you're going to entertain business and you're going

to make decisions, there's an acknowledgement that there are outside or third

party expertise that should provide it – good use of providing it.

I think that

was a perfect answer, and I definitely subscribe to that. Along those lines, it

is about professional integrity. The electricity sector is a pretty small

sector, and we act across Canada and the US. Specifically, I do a lot of

executive advisory across Canada. If I were not full of integrity, if I wasn't

viewed as independent, I wouldn't be working and our firm, Power Advisory,

would not be successful and growing.

Now, to that,

my second point as a practical matter and as example, building off what I said

about typically advising executives. Boards of directors for some of the

biggest utilities in Canada, some of the biggest publicly traded independent

power producers in Canada have brought us in based on following their own

governance – despite whatever their executive team have told them – come in,

speak to us, talk to us about our business and help us be better.

So that's an

example where boards of directors, with their responsibilities, would seek out

people like me, firms like Power Advisory, to provide independent advice

alongside whatever their staff, whatever their executive have been advising

them. That's just the nature of our business.

SPEAKER: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

So that's

excellent. Thank you.

Do you feel

that Hydro or Newfoundland and Labrador government have exercised any influence

over your ability to produce these recommendations and the material that you've

put in or has been incorporated into that report?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

There has been

no direct influence in terms of a type of conclusions in the form of

recommendations that were made. I'm not going to go into the details because

of, again, commercial sensitivity. But, for example, I keep referring to

Schedule F and those components because it's very, very important the lessons

learned from the first deal and how to derisk and to best ensure the best value

and the greatest value for supply from Labrador.

A lot of back

and forth, based on our independent analysis, based on our independent input in

terms of where the markets are going for the supply of electricity and how

supply from Churchill Falls and the to-be-developed projects fit into all of

that, working towards the best deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SPEAKER: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much.

I'm glad you

mentioned

Schedule F because this is where I get to learn something about

electricity, I hope. I only have very limited experience of it, small amounts

of DC current.

Schedule F, it

was referenced repeatedly yesterday, you've brought it up a couple of times and

I know Ms. Williams talked about insulating the new deal against the vagaries

of the market by a portfolio approach to selling their produce, their

electricity. I need a conceptual model. I'm perhaps a visual kind of person to

learn, but this talks about blocks with different qualities and pricing and

duration. It talks about a pricing methodology and transparent pricing

mechanisms.

Maybe I just

need to ask you: Could you explain, in very simple terms, how a company would

sell electricity?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to

answer that question and I think I can do it in a very clear way to draw a

straight line and also connect some of the things I've been hearing over the

past two days.

First off, we

know – and I don't have to get into the details of what the price is under the

existing Churchill Falls contract to sell lots of supply to Quebec – the

electricity moves from Churchill Falls and it lands in the Quebec system. This

is where

Schedule F comes in. There are, then, a bunch of ways to use the

electricity. Quebec uses it for its own internal consumption and there's a

price to that, that's regulated by government law in Quebec.

Speaker, 5.9

cents is a lot higher than that price. But when we get to, now, the components,

the bullets in

Schedule F, we know, based on all public documents, that

Hydro-Québec sells a lot of electricity. They sell it to Ontario. They sell it

to New York. They sell it to New England. They sell the electrons, the

electricity on what's called a daily spot market, and that's a price. That

price, based on all of our analysis, has been less than 5.9 cents.

Now, what also

happens in Quebec, because they have to meet their own supply, it's not just

being supplied totally by Churchill Falls, it's being supplied by their

generators, owned and operated by Hydro-Québec and they also contract with

other third parties – call them independent power producers. They enter into

contracts with those. I'm predominantly thinking about wind generation in the

province, some of it hydroelectric generation. I've heard the price 11 cents a

kilowatt hour being used in this Chamber. That's basically the price to which

those contracts are getting paid to those independent power producers.

Schedule F

picks that up; it accounts for that. I think Ms. Williams and Mr. Parsons did a

really good job in saying in the future, as Quebec needs more supply – as I've

established this morning, needing a lot of supply urgently – when they make

decisions to commit to build their own supply – so, for example, their next

hydroelectric generator – that's where the 16 cents a kilowatt hour comes in.

That's the replacement cost. That's included in

Schedule F.

So not the

derisking notion of all of this and the value and the fair value of all of

this, because as you go through time, over a 50-year contract, things can

change. Everyone knows this based on the contract that was signed in 1969.

That's why we have lessons learned under

Schedule F.

Five years from

now, how much is the electricity from Churchill Falls being valued at? It's

captured in

Schedule F. As we go through time, situation changes – and to use

the example Ms. Williams was using, when Quebec decides they're going to build

a new project, and let's use 16 cents, that 16 cents gets factored in

Schedule

F, gets factored into the payment for Churchill Falls electricity. That is how

this is framed to work.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: For clarity, if Churchill was supplying

power and Quebec decided it need more, built a nuclear power station or whatever,

for the sake of argument, and then the cost of the electricity they were

feeding into their system was 16 cents a kilowatt hour, that would positively

affect the price Newfoundland and Labrador would receive for the power it was

already supplying. Is that correct?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Mr. Speaker,

thank you.

Thank is

absolutely correct.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: So it's kind of like a rising tide and

all boat.

Okay, I can

grasp that. Two other questions – there were other adjectives used there, which

I haven't heard in terms of electricity. Duration is obvious, but quantity is a

bit different. All I remember about electricity is Ohm's law and after that,

I'm stuck. How do you do that?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power

Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I think I'm

going to have to ask you to rephrase your question. The how do you do that, I'm

not sure what you're referring to.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: How do you quantify electricity? I

mean, this may be high school physics, which I've long since forgotten, but is

it – I'm not going to speculate. You tell me that answer to that question,

please.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

So that's an

example of part of why we've been engaged. We would assess and we have assessed

the supply needs that Quebec has. I had said earlier that there are a lot of

options, but I also said that different options have different capabilities and

it all has to work together. So we would be assessing, how much can you rely on

wind energy in Quebec; how much can you rely on solar in Quebec.

Very different

answers compared to how much can you rely on hydroelectric generation. There

are different aspects to hydroelectric generation, depending on its

capabilities and where it's located on a river system and can you store some of

the energy. All of that is what a utility would do to plan its system.

So what we've

done is to figure out how Hydro-Québec would plan their system and then how

best to fit in Churchill Falls and the new developing projects. Then how do you

value them based on the supply that could be used for multiple reasons,

therefore valued in different ways, as I described, as contemplated and framed

in

Schedule F.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Okay, that's very helpful, I think –

pardon the pun – the light bulb is going on.

Transmission:

Now, part of the MOU talks about a new transmission line. There are already

existing transmission lines there. When the owner of a transmission line is not

the generator of electricity, how does a transmission company generate money,

and what control do they have over who a generator can sell to?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I won't bore

the House with all the very geeky engineering rules that go along with how do

you operate a power system and transmission, but the simple answer is: The

energy that flows over a transmission line is calculated and the amount of

energy consumed at the end of that transmission line is calculated, then you do

a lot of math and you figure out a transmission rate, basically the charge of

using the transmission line.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Yeah, and I don't want to go too geeky

in math, because that was never my forte, either.

So presumably

some transmission lines are more efficient, i.e., they don't consume as much

electricity as others. On that basis, would they cost more or less? And the

second thing is: What control over where that electricity might go, and whether

it goes on it at all, does the owner of the transmission line have?

It has been

suggested, for example, that an unfriendly neighbour might actually turn the

switch off, for example.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Turning the

switch off is very much not easy. I mean, it's a power system, it's regulated

by governing bodies that their reason to be is to ensure that the power system

is working reliably, and therefore they set standards.

That's part of

what I was mentioning in terms of the geeky rules and all of that. So it's not

as simple as just turning it off. Frankly, the way it generally works is, if

you own the transmission, so long as it's being used and you're getting paid

for that based on its usage, you're A-okay where it goes.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

This has all

been very helpful.

Again, there

was some reference yesterday – and maybe this would be better addressed to a

financial group – but the investment in infrastructure is something that does

not pay itself back over a short period of time.

What is a

typical kind of amortization period, in your experience, for a new project that

you might build, a hydro or transmission line?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

One of the

things that we do see across all markets, most hydroelectric generation is rate-regulated.

So the types of things that you're referring to in your question would be

addressed by the regulator of that jurisdiction.

Now, if the

generation project is being financed off a contract for hydroelectric

generation because of the life of that asset being fairly long, we're talking

multiple, multiple decades relative to other forms of generation supply – a

gas-fired generator only has a lifespan of maybe 30 or 40 years; hydroelectric

is easily double – so the contract terms are typically longer. We see industry

norm about 40 or 50 years.

As for details

about amortization and financing, I know that J.P. Morgan will be before the

Chamber this afternoon or this evening, they're better suited to respond to

that.

SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired.

The hon. the

Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

First, I'd like

to thank the two gentlemen for attending here today. I know they're busy

individuals and their job takes them perhaps all over North America, so thanks

for your attendance. I look forward to asking some questions.

Earlier in your

preamble, you said you worked for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for

approximately 15 years, on and off. Is that correct?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

As a firm, we

have.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: During that time has your firm ever done

any work with CF(L)Co?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I don't recall,

to be honest, because I wouldn't have been involved in that. I know that

members of our firm have done work for – well, Nalcor is not CF(L)Co, so I

don't know.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Is there a way you can find that out for

us?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I can find out.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: During that 15-year period, while you

worked with Newfoundland, have you done any consulting in Quebec?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Our firm has

done consulting in Quebec, never for Hydro-Québec.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Has your firm

ever done any consulting with regard to Quebec on the Churchill River or any

possibilities with the Churchill River, dating back 15 or 20 years looking

forward?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Our firm was

engaged by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador based on supporting the

Churchill River Energy Analysis Team, CREAT, so we had done a lot of

assessments on the markets, including price forecasts and supply needs for that

initiative.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: My question was: Has your firm ever

supplied any information to the Province of Quebec or Hydro-Québec on the

Churchill River or any potential assets that exist in Labrador?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you.

Only insofar as

I understand on the CREAT process and based on those assessments, were there

aspects of resources on the Churchill River.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Has your firm ever been involved with

the Newfoundland government or Newfoundland Hydro to do any consulting

whatsoever on Muskrat Falls?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

It wasn't me,

personally, so I don't have all the information. We were engaged by Nalcor

during the time when there were inquiries about Muskrat Falls. We were, at the

time, looking at what restructuring in Newfoundland and Labrador and for Nalcor

might mean.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Can you provide a time frame when you

may have done work for Muskrat Falls?

SPEAKER:

The Managing

Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I can

provide it. I just don't recall off the top my head because neither of us had

done that work.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: You said you were engaged by the

Churchill River management authority or the board that was set up, the

committee that set up back in 2021, I guess. Since that work, you then moved

on, knowing their recommendations to advise or provide – my understanding is

what you said today is you provided an overall assessment of Quebec's needs,

which we've heard here over the last couple of days, that Quebec needs five

times more power than we are going to be able to supply with Gull under the CF

PPA and under Churchill Falls 2.

So you provided

that assessment and the negotiating team took that and those numbers and went

and negotiated it, or were you guys a part of the negotiation also?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

We weren't

directly involved in the negotiation because we were on the negotiating team.

Our assessments were inputs to aspects of the negotiation.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: You provided inputs to hard numbers,

hard assessments to the negotiating team?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

That's correct.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I just want to backtrack for a second –

not a question, but I want to read the Key Recommendation of the LeBlanc report

that says "The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should never undertake,

on its own or through one of its Crown corporations or agencies, the planning,

approval or construction of any large project (meaning a project with a budget

of $50 million or more) without: a. Engaging independent external experts to

provide robust review,

assessment and analysis of the project; b. Providing well-defined oversight

after consideration of oversight processes instituted in other jurisdictions."

Over the last

three days, the Premier, the minister and certainly the House Leader have stood

in front of cameras out in front of this building and said that you guys were

basically the third-party assessment and you analyzed all of the MOU, that it

is your word on the MOU, in its entirety, I will say that, that we are supposed

to take and vote on.

Would it be

fair for me to say that was your role, because it's not what I'm hearing from

you?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I don't think

the question is phrased accurately. I think what we have said was –

L. PARROTT: (Inaudible.)

J. HOGAN: I disagree with the ascertain in the

question, that –

L. PARROTT: Is he standing on a point of order, Mr.

Speaker?

SPEAKER: The rules of debate are either can

answer.

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: The ascertain in the question was that

the Premier, and I think he said the minister and the Government House Leader,

which is the same person, I think, have said that Power Advisory were the

experts, independent external experts to provide robust review assessment and

analysis of the project.

That is not

what we have said. We have said that there's been independent advisors to NL

Hydro throughout the negotiation process towards the MOU.

SPEAKER: Would you like to add to that, Power

Advisory?

The Managing

Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

The only thing

I would add is, again, we were engaged with a certain scope of work and that's

what we delivered on.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: This question is for the House Leader:

Who were the experts?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: The experts that provided advice, there

were others than just Power Advisory and J.P. Morgan, who will be here this

evening. There was a list of other experts who provided advice.

Again, as I

said this morning, if and when any of these proposed development projects, CF2,

CF1, Gull Island, construction of those are undertaken by Newfoundland and

Labrador or one of its Crown corporations or agencies and a budget of over $50

million and they have to go into the – there will be oversight of those

projects if and when they are sanctioned, Speaker, it's as simple as that.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: So now we understand that there is no

oversight of the MOU. There was a team of people that were hired in 2021 in

order to do an assessment on the Churchill River. That was a board that

provided a report. Now we know that. That's fair. I get that.

understanding is they weren't paid. Yesterday, the Premier said publicly that

he wouldn't trust anybody that wasn't paid. He said that in the scrum. That's

the first thing.

The next thing

is we've been led to believe during all of this that individuals that will be

in front of this House are the external experts that reviewed the MOU. Now

we're being told it's not. But we're told that there will be. Now we understand

that.

I will go back

again to the individual who sat at the LeBlanc inquiry, the House Leader, who

has harped on Recommendation 1, previously, who has intentionally excluded

Recommendation 1 in the beginning of all of this. I will ask him why it doesn't

apply to this MOU.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Key

Recommendations 1 and 2 will be followed, and they always will be followed by

this government. I've said this morning and I've said publicly over the last

couple of days in the House and to the media that the Public Utilities Board

will "review the proposed business case, reliability, cost and

schedule of any

large project that could potentially Newfoundland and Labrador electricity

ratepayers. Following the review, the Public Utilities Board should report its

findings to the government and the public."

We are at an

MOU stage proceeding towards definitive agreements and the recommendations will

be followed. In the meantime, there has been independent, expert advice

provided to the negotiating team as they negotiated the MOU. On top of that,

there will be external, independent oversight of the MOU as it moves towards

definitive agreements to provide advice as necessary.

Thank you,

Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, Recommendation 1 clearly

says a "robust review, assessment and analysis …."

We're being

asked to vote on a memorandum of understanding that, at one point, had nothing

in it that was binding; now it does have stuff that's binding. At one point, it

was going to supply tens of thousands of jobs; now we don't know if it's going

to supply any. That clearly, as answered by the CEO of Newfoundland Hydro, is

using data that's 12 years old, in government's own pressers that they released

the day of their announcement, and we're supposed to vote on that thinking that

this has been reviewed, there's been an assessment and there's been analysis by

an outside committee.

I can tell you

right now, clearly the minister just said none of that has happened. Maybe

they've had advice, but guess what? They had advice in 1969 and they had advice

on Muskrat Falls. Here we are trying to move things forward and we're right

back in the same place. Government is trying to convince the public that it's

okay, that they have it all done. Let's rush this through.

We haven't

asked for anything except this: We have asked for an independent panel to

review this MOU. If government is so confident in this MOU, I don't know why

that is a huge issue.

Here's the

other thing. The Premier himself said this morning: You cannot move forward.

The CEO of Newfoundland Hydro sat here yesterday and she, herself, said that

the analysis of the MOU could be done concurrently as things move forward. That

was her words, yet the Premier says it can't happen.

So here we are

in a situation – anyhow, obviously, if the public doesn't understand this now,

they never will because I can tell you, this is as clear as it gets. This is

being ramrodded through the House of Assembly. I don't even understand why. I

really don't.

Do I think that

this is important? One hundred per cent. Do I hope that this is the absolute

best deal for this province? Absolutely. Do I want to make the same mistakes

that we've made historically? Definitely not. I would like to think that the Members

on the other side of the House feel the same. If they're so confident to stand

and say they're going to support this, blindly, then why not let it go forward?

Why not get the review done?

I'll go back to

the managing director now for Power Advisory. What analysis was completed on

Gull Island and the development projects?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

The analysis

was, as I said, how does that supply fit in or rank regarding other supply

options to Hydro-Québec.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Could you give us some insight as to

what you think the difficulties are in providing an accurate market assessment

for a period over 50 years?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I'll go back to

the whole framework of

Schedule F, and what I had said earlier, that 50 years

is a long time and a lot can happen. That's why there are multiple components

that all would represent different points of value for the supply from

Churchill Falls.

To go back to

some of the points that Ms. Williams and Mr. Parsons had mentioned over two

days, married with what I had said earlier, there are going to be times when

the value will be more so pegged to exporting the energy to New York, New

England or Ontario. Then there are going to be times over the course of the

contract, over 50 years, where it will be more so valued on the replacement

cost of new supply in Quebec.

Those are all

different prices, they're all different values and they will all be reflected

in the price received for supply from Churchill Falls.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: During your assessments, was Muskrat

Falls ever brought into your assessment?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

We assessed

Muskrat Falls with every other generator, every other supply source in

Newfoundland and Labrador to understand how that supply would meet the demand

needs within Newfoundland and Labrador, therefore understanding that

jurisdiction, that province's needs and how that all relates to how much supply

would Newfoundland and Labrador have to then provide Hydro-Québec; then, how

that is valued.

We took a

holistic, broad view knowing that there is one jurisdiction and it's connected

to this other jurisdiction, and we have to look at it from all of those sides

to properly assess the value of Churchill Falls and the new projects.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I'd assume there was an evaluation done

on the potential capacity for Gull Island. What was the capacity you came up

with?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the

numbers, I'm going to ask my colleague, Mr. Yauch, to respond but it's what was

provided to us based on preliminary engineering studies in terms of what is the

capability of supply from Gull Island.

Mr. Yauch.

SPEAKER: The Senior Manager, Markets and

Regulatory.

B. YAUCH: Yeah, the numbers provided on the

engineering studies that are currently available for Gull Island, and it's

around 2,250 megawatts just for the Gull Island site.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Can you remind me who provided you with

those engineering documents?

SPEAKER: The Senior Manager.

B. YAUCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We were

provided the numbers by the NLH team.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: So Newfoundland Hydro provided the

information. Okay, that clarifies things.

Did you guys

convert the cost to construct Gull Island into an electricity rate?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Before I go on

to that I just want to follow up with Mr. Yauch's response. I think it's

perfectly reasonable to get that information on Gull Island from Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro because there has been lots of preliminary work done on the

Gull project in terms of preliminary engineering, which our firm would not have

any reason to have done that or had privy to that information, because that was

never something that we had worked on before. So it was perfectly reasonable to

get that information from Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro.

In terms of the

cost, we didn't have to factor that in, because again we weren't asked to look

at that impact. We were asked to look at developing Gull Island and what does

that mean for sale to Hydro-Québec, and what's that worth and what's that

valued at.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Just for clarity, so that wasn't a

slight against you guys. I just wanted to understand, because the information

on Gull Island obviously came from somewhere. The information that Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro has put out is 12-year-old information that isn't reflective

of real numbers. So I'm trying to understand how accurate your numbers would've

been. I mean, they've got it out in the press that it's going to take 13

million person-hours to construct Gull Island. Realistically I'd say that's off

by as much as 87 million man-hours, which is a lot when you start thinking

about cost and the overruns and everything. So I just wanted to clarify that

for the general public.

Did Power

Advisory carry out any kind of a risk assessment on the assumptions which

underpin Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's numbers?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Our scope

didn't include any risk assessment on any specific numbers. What we did do

based on our assessments of Quebec supply needs, their options, the options of

building new generation projects in Labrador to meet those supply needs in

Quebec, there was a lot of scenario analysis that was done to really try to get

to the best set of recommendations regarding the valuation of Churchill Falls

and new development projects in Labrador.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Would it be a fair statement to say that

your information, obviously, is based on your long history of work, your

expertise in the market, but also by the information provided to you by

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The information that they provided you, if

inaccurate, you probably would not have the best numbers. Is that fair to say?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

With respect to

the valuation of supply options in Quebec and how Churchill Falls supply and

new development projects supplied from those, those were purely our numbers.

With respect to

anything dealing with assessing supply and demand in Newfoundland and Labrador,

we led the modelling and there was some input, and that makes natural sense,

based on it is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's system.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Just one more question, Mr. Speaker.

A question for

the House Leader. The House Leader referenced the amount of expert witnesses

he's had. I would ask him if he can table the list of the expert witnesses that

have been involved in the MOU.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Yes, we can provide that.

SPEAKER: The Member's time has expired.

Next speaker.

The hon. the

Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

Welcome to our

experts.

I've been

compiling my notes for the last few days and I actually had entitled it:

Exercising the demons of Muskrat Falls. I feel that's the elephant in the room

that I want to speak about today, especially with this expertise here,

especially in response to the Member for Terra Nova and what he just had to say

and his, frankly, very incorrect assertions.

As I indicated,

and I think many know my background, I've been around environmental assessment

and consulting for the better part of three decades. I did raise the point

about independence and I appreciated our experts response to the question on

independence. I want to tackle that item first, before I get into the demons of

Muskrat Falls.

There is a

substantial difference between an independent consultant backed by a firm such

as we see here and their reputation, their professional integrity and so on,

versus an embedded contractor, an embedded employee, and who makes the ultimate

conclusion.

I'll just start

that as my first thought to our guests and look for a comment on that.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I agree with

those points. There is a difference between a third party that's being engaged

to provide specific expertise resulting in specific advice that isn't ingrown

or germane in day to day, throughout time, within an organization. As I said

earlier, I think it's just a necessary part of doing good business. That's why

you have the ability to bring in third parties as, if you will, subject matter

experts, to provide that independent advice.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you.

Now, I'd like

to talk about what I was doing in 2008. Instead of spending Christmas, myself

and other lead consultants found themselves here in St. John's rewriting

thousands of pages of environmental assessment. We reordered Muskrat Falls to

go first versus Gull Island.

I'd like to

reach out to our experts to speak about, first of all, the attractiveness of

Gull Island versus Muskrat Falls and then the foibles of that decision.

Frankly, and as

Jennifer Williams said yesterday, the people working at Muskrat Falls and the

way it's working, it's working as designed and predicted. The cost overrun, the

grief, the protest and the stress that my colleagues in Labrador feel, that we

feel across this province, that we're going to feel for generations to come, it

comes about as a result of very misguided decisions, such as to proceed with

Muskrat Falls first.

I look for a

comment from my experts.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Because of our

history in acting for various entities in Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as

my own personal experience, I first came into understanding all of this when I

was working at the Ontario Power Authority. My role there was to procure and

contract for all of the supply for the Province of Ontario, and that's when I

met the executives at Nalcor. I had many meetings with them, as they were

looking to Ontario as a counterparty to contract for a supply for Muskrat

Falls.

From that

point, I do understand and acknowledge the events that took place in terms of

trying to find an off-taker on the buy side of a contract or an agreement for

electricity supply from Muskrat Falls to decisions made by Nalcor to start the

project and engage in construction. As I said earlier in one of my responses,

on the backend, after the facility was built and there were a lot of inquiries

and there were a lot of considerations at the time in terms of how to address

all of those things and how to move forward, we were engaged at one point to

look at all of that.

Again, it's

just a clear reminder that what we're talking about here today is extremely

important. I agree that there are a lot of feelings that went into and there

are a lot of real economic outcomes that went into all the things Muskrat

Falls. So I think it's perfectly expected that there would be a lot of

questions about Churchill Falls, a new agreement and new development.

As we've been

saying this morning, and as Ms. Williams and Mr. Parsons have been saying over

the last two days, there are a lot of lessons learned from Muskrat Falls. It's

been top of mind in terms of all the analysis, all of the meetings – as I said,

I have not been in the negotiations, but I'm sure they are top of mind in the

negotiations for the Newfoundland and Labrador negotiating team, and I can see

the outcome of all of that embodied in certain parts of the MOU.

I've been

referring continuously to

Schedule F as those components helping to realize

value for supply from Churchill Falls, but also derisk issues with respect to

not realizing that value in the future under a new agreement.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Myself, I've worked on three iterations

of the Lower Churchill Project over the last 30 years, and the assertion from

the Member for Terra Nova was that somehow, this 2,250-megawatt statement, in

terms of the amount of energy that we could achieve from Gull Island, was

somehow recently developed from a source that we may not be able to trust and

so on, that number, frankly, has been on the books for decades.

When you think

about the attractiveness – and I guess I will turn for some commentary – of

Gull Island is quite remarkable in North America. When statements are made

about its untapped feasibility in terms of hydroelectric development in this

continent, it's always been touted as so exciting. The unfortunate events of

2008 and the political decisions as a result of, frankly, legal opinions in

Quebec, resulted in us going down a road that we are, as I said, going to

continue to pay for.

I'm not sure,

I'll turn to the experts to see if they have a little comment on that aspect.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Let me offer up

some perspectives that reside outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, because I

think the Member of the House has articulated, very accurately and well, the

sentiments of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians regarding Muskrat Falls and all

the things that happened from that. As I've suggested, based on my

understanding, my history, and having worked on these matters for a while, I

understand it too.

With our

practice, we are all over Canada. To personalize it, as I said earlier, the

types of engagements I have are with leaders and executives of big companies

and big utilities across Canada. When this MOU was announced on December 12,

the reaction outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, Western Canada had

executives commenting on, oh my God, did you see this? This is incredible. How

did they get this done? Were you involved?

From Calgary to

Central Canada, in Toronto, into the US, that's been the reaction outside of

Newfoundland and Labrador. To me, stepping back, that makes sense. It's a lot

of megawatts. It's a lot of supply. For those in the sector that understand

electricity, they're the most appreciative and they're applauding this deal.

A good friend

of mine who works for the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator,

Katherine Sparkes, is from Newfoundland. She had no idea I was working on this.

So she texted me right away and she said: My family in Corner Brook, they're

going to be so excited. Do you realize what it's been like in our province for

decades?

So I offer you

the outside perspective. That's how this is being viewed. It's being applauded

across the country.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you.

I'll just throw

to the House, just sort of a layman's, from a terrestrially ecologist's

perspective, we always look at the two projects as – and initially, the plan

had always been to start with Gull Island and then moving on down to Muskrat

Falls. It was always looked at as a risker part of that Lower Churchill

Project. It was always envisaged that you would have your camps, all your

engineering, your procurement, your hiring, your training, everything in place

and then we could move to that secondary component down the river.

Just to put

some numbers in people's heads, we always thought that if you start with

Muskrat Falls and you look at its cost and the amount of output, essentially

for 50 per cent more of the cost, you have three times the power. That is the

attractiveness of the Gull Island project. So truly remarkable.

I just want to

throw a few more demons out there, because I get it and, as my colleague, the

Minister of IET often says, he understands the Opposition's perspective and

what they're trying to go at. I am arguing, in these comments, the demons lie

outside of this kind of expertise. They lie outside of the engineering. They

lie outside of so much of the good working people inside Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro.

I'll give you

another couple of examples. At the time that the Lower Churchill Make Muskrat

Right campaign was coming

on board, I think I was the only voice in this province that was speaking about

maintaining the Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research. Questions

were being raised around the concern of methylmercury . There was not, at that time, any

third-party opportunity to get those questions answered.

The

IEMR ran successfully for some 20 years, and we just watched it go away. My

voice, I found, had carried no strength, and I can tell you that those of us

from Labrador, that 5 per cent of the population, we have a very different view

of what went on in Muskrat Falls from the rest of this province. We suffered

protests, we suffered hunger strikes, I lost a friend, arrests, you name it.

It's still, frankly, to this day, these are the demons that these experts are

also much aware of.

Some

other key decisions that were made at that time – and I think my colleagues, if

I can say that, in the consulting community would also appreciate – I can tell

you we felt the shudder when it was announced that Nalcor was going to proceed

on their own. They were not going to engage SNC-Lavalin to go ahead and build

this project. They were going to do it themselves.

just went: Woah. Why not just go to an entity who's used to doing this, knows

what they're doing and say, give us a price, give us a schedule; go do it. You

know what happened, Nalcor ended up hiring SNC-Lavalin anyway. That was after

the fact. In the meantime, all that risk, all that grief was borne by the

province, by Nalcor. It could have been borne by somebody who knew what they

were doing.

use that comment to also lead into the fact that this partnership and the

opportunity – and I liked a lot of the comments about how this is a good deal

for both provinces. I've also lived in Quebec, I get it. I understand. They

have the expertise. They have the capability and here's an opportunity for us

now to put our resources together in this MOU. It's really quite remarkable.

Another

comment I want to make, another decision that led to so much – and the Member

for Torngat Mountains in her questioning, I think it was last evening, she was

stating: What about the other entities? I'm completely with her. The Innu

Nation is rightly a partner of this project. Absolutely. When you understand

what went on with the Upper Churchill and how it flooded, essentially graves of

their people and of their land.

The

other challenge we have in Labrador – and I've spoken in the House before about

some of the archeological work that our company did over the years and so on –

the fact of the matter is, do you know what? All of the Indigenous people of

Labrador used Mista-shipu, that massive highway going into the country. They

were on top of each other, they respected each other, they worked with each

other and supported each other.

The

decisions of the day in 2005 and '06 was: We'll just do the one IBA. We'll do

the one deal with the Innu and we'll ignore the other two. The grief and the stress and the

protests that caused, I can tell you, I have too many personal scars to speak

about in the House, but they were landed on myself and all of us in any kind of

decision-making as we tried to defend and push back against that.

So I find

myself here today, and in the days leading up to the December 12, and I must

say just as importantly December 13 in Labrador, when I started to understand –

and I heard this morning from these experts saying – that they see those

lessons learned. They see those demons from the past being reflected in this

MOU. That gives me a kind of comfort. When I came to understand the calibre and

the quality and the approach of the team that was in place that included

expertise from NL Hydro and, yes, by the way, those independent consultants

from world-renowned, reputable firms providing us that advice, I started to

become very, very comfortable.

I'm still going

to watch. It's my duty. I love Labrador. I love the people I represent and I'm

going to continue to do that, but, Speaker, I must tell you, we're at a good

point in our history. Let's keep going.

Thank you.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

I just want to

take a couple of minutes and then I'm going to hand it off to my colleague.

I want to make

a point quite obvious that, I've heard the talk from people across the country

talking about this deal and what it means, that's what is so important here

because all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador want this deal to be the best

deal possible. We have all lived with the last 1969 contract and the

disappointments that has provided and the unfairness of the contract, and

despite opportunities to try and reopen the contract, none of that happened.

For a whole number of reasons, Quebec just didn't want to negotiate or

renegotiate that particular contract.

Now what we

heard this morning – and I'm going to paraphrase it because what I heard

sounded to me like Quebec are desperate, Quebec are desperate for power and we

have the power. So we have the resource. Again, I keep saying this, it's the

resource of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and there's been a lot of

work done by a lot of people, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and others, to

develop this MOU.

So the MOU is

now before us and we're sitting here and we're going through it and debating it

and speaking on it, but the more and more we talk about it, the more and more

questions come up – legitimate questions and concerns.

If you listen

to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and what they're asking, and a lot

of people out there with a lot of expertise, a lot of opinions, that have

studied this and have reviewed it, they have concerns that they're raising

about this particular MOU. It's not that anyone is against anything. It's about

making sure that we get the best deal possible.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: We've heard concerns about the numbers.

We've heard concerns about the years. We've heard lots of those concerns and we

continue to ask them. That's why, sitting here as 40 MHAs – and maybe everybody

else is an expert, but I don't consider myself to be an expert here in

engineering or anything else, but I do consider myself to be a passionate

Newfoundlander and Labradorian who wants to make sure that we do not leave, for

the next generation and generations after that, any kind of money on the table.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: That's what I've been calling for since

day one. We have a MOU in front of us, we have a huge opportunity in this

province of ours to right a wrong, to do something that needs to be done. We

have a province – and I will say that again – who appears to be desperate for

power. They have the need, we have the power, let's make sure we do it.

But sending it

to an independent external expert to let them look at this, to have that extra

analysis done to make sure that is what's there, I see no risk in that. I see

no risk in it. We're going to negotiate definitive agreements, but if this is

to form the basis of those definitive agreements, then let's make sure to have

that independent set of eyes take a look at this and guarantee that before we,

as Members of the House Assembly, stand here and vote. That's all I've been

asking for since day one. I will continue to ask for that.

I do have a

follow-up question quickly for the gentlemen. This morning I asked a question

about how the electricity price contained in the MOU compares to that contained

in other contracts or transactions in other jurisdictions. I was told that it

was outside the scope of Power Advisory. I respect that, but I have a question

for you.

How can

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians be assured that we are getting the best value

out of the electricity, if no comparison was conducted? It's like going to a

grocery store and buying an apple without knowing the cost of an apple in other

grocery stores. So I'd just ask that question to you.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

My response now

is not anything to do with our mandate for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but

to answer your question. As I said earlier, most hydroelectric generation is

rate regulated. There is a provincial or state regulator that administers a

proceeding and then the rates for the supply from the hydroelectric generation

are determined.

In Ontario,

most of the hydroelectric generation is provided by Ontario Power Generation.

Those facilities have been operating for years, just like Churchill Falls has

been operating for years. That regulated rate is under 5 cents a kilowatt hour.

When I look to

Western Canada and I look at the same, operating hydroelectric facilities in

Manitoba, operating hydroelectric facilities in BC, those regulated rates are

under 4 cents a kilowatt hour, all lower than 5.9 cents a kilowatt hour. For

existing facilities, providing the same electricity, that is the most

apples-to-apples comparison in terms of a Granny Smith versus a Red Delicious.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: I understand you're talking about the

regulations and the regulated rates and those things, but when Hydro-Québec has

been able to buy our electricity in the past at an extremely low rate and sell

it for eight and nine and 10 times that value and they've been getting as much

as up to 10 cents. We know that there are spot markets and there are guaranteed

markets and such, so when you say that it is limited to 4 and 5 cents, you're

not talking about selling electricity to the market. That's not what you're

talking about there, for sure, because it's being sold for much more than that.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

In fact, those

are the rates or prices sold in those markets so that is a direct comparison.

With respect to

Hydro-Québec and their activities to sell Churchill Falls energy or supply to

higher-priced markets, I don't know where the 10 cents comes from. I can tell

you where the export markets have been and where our forecast go. Back to the

point that I have been making all morning, components in

Schedule F account for

that.

So if prices

rise in New England, as example, under this agreement and if Hydro-Québec sells

into New England at a higher price, that higher price will be reflected in the

price received by Churchill Falls.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I just want to reiterate something our

leader said and make it clear. There are four individuals in this House right

now that are either from or have lived in Labrador or currently live in

Labrador or represent Labrador, and I'm one of them.

My family is in

Labrador West and I understand what this deal means for the people of Labrador

and for the people of Newfoundland. There is nobody on this side of the House

that doesn't want this deal, I can tell you what. What we want is the best deal

and we need to make sure of that.

I will go back

to December 12 when the announcement came, because I was asked by lots of

people what I thought. My initial response is the same as everyone's, I'm sure:

On the surface, it looks really good. I stand by that: On the surface, it looks

good. But we don't understand all of the contents inside the MOU and we are

looking for someone externally to review the MOU to make sure that the

foundation of this project, moving forward, is as rock solid as possible so we

know we are going to get the best deal; so we know we are going to right the

wrongs of the last 56 years; so we know that the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador can be proud of the utilities they have; so we know that the

Indigenous peoples of Labrador are looked after; so we know that this is done

the right way.

There is nobody

on this side of the House saying we don't want this deal. We are saying we want

an independent panel to review the MOU to make sure the foundation of this

deal, before we start the definitive agreement negotiations, is done correctly.

That's pretty clear.

There is nobody

questioning these gentlemen or Newfoundland Hydro and saying that they are

wrong. We are trying to make sure they were given the proper information,

because we know in the past the proper information has not been disseminated.

And now we know, as of this morning, that the information came from

Newfoundland Hydro and we also know that some of the information that was put

out publicly was 12 years old.

We just heard,

a few minutes ago, that there is most likely, based on the numbers that Power

Advisory were given, some kind of quantitative or substantive engineering

already done on Gull Island. Think

about that. They've moved forward with engineering – we've been told that here

this morning – and there are no agreements or no one who is going to built it.

So we need to make sure we're doing this right, and I don't know how anyone in

this House can argue against that.

At the end of

the day, we've done things wrong too often. I'm not questioning anybody's

independence. I've worked in industry and I understand how it works, but these

gentlemen were not hired in line with Justice LeBlanc's recommendations. They

were not hired to do that work that's outlined in that. They were hired to

assist Newfoundland Hydro to come up with a plan to move forward.

So whether or

not they're an independent third party that's working with Newfoundland Hydro,

that's not disputable, that's exactly what they are; but they are not the

expert panel that was recommended in the Justice LeBlanc report and there is

nobody in this House of Assembly that can say they are, and it has been said,

as clear as mud.

I'll go back to

a question to the gentlemen from Power Advisory. Obviously, this morning, you

said that some of your numbers came from Newfoundland Hydro and the engineering

that they had already carried out. In your opinion, how far along are we in

engineering on the Gull Island project?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

That's not our

area of expertise in terms of engineering for hydroelectric generation. Having

been in the business a long time and have negotiated contracts for

hydroelectric generation and worked along side companies that build and operate

hydroelectric generation, the only thing I can offer up is there needs to be

preliminary engineering done and it should be done with enough time to

understand the geology, all the different components, to citing the project,

its capabilities, how it's going to connect to the grid and how it's going to

supply electricity, and those things take years.

So I can't

comment on exactly what was done and exactly what should be done, but I do

believe it's prudent that something was done in the past to assess the project

to start.

SPEAKER: The Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: So we know that CF(L)Co obviously looks

after the Churchill Falls facility. Were you ever tasked or asked to consider

the contract expiring 2041 coming and the possibility of CF(L)Co – because I

know people will argue that we don't have transmission capability, but in 2041

things get a little different and we all know that – selling its power directly

to some of the customers who they already sell it to: Ontario, New England,

Maine? Was that ever a part of your overall assessment?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

As part of our

assessment, we did assess the ability or the potential for supply from

Churchill Falls to be sold not to Quebec, but to other jurisdictions. The

reality is there are two parts to this. Number one, to do that, to move the

amount of energy – it's thousands of megawatts – would require a lot of

transmission build from Labrador to the Island, expand the capability of

transmission from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia, expand the capability from Nova

Scotia to New Brunswick. If you're bypassing Quebec, then you have to build

transmission somewhere else, either land it in Ontario or you land it in New

England – very expensive and very time consuming.

I think the

other thing I'd offer about that is another reason why our analysis concluded

certain things is because, back to the deal, by working towards a new deal for

Churchill Falls with Hydro-Québec, structuring it in such a way where there's

value that's being realized for that supply – as I said earlier, there are

components in

Schedule F that deal with the export markets – Churchill Falls

would be getting a price and paid, driven off those export prices, without

having to build the transmission to receive those prices. Because the deal

would already encompass using the existing right-of-way, the existing

transmission to send the energy to Quebec, and then it gets sent on elsewhere.

We concluded

it's just a much more cost-effective deal.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Did Power Advisory carry out an

evaluation of the potential capacity of electricity generated by the second

plant at Churchill Falls?

SPEAKER: Th Managing

Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

We didn't get

into any of the assessments regarding upgrades or expansion with Churchill

Falls. Again, we were using information provided to us from Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro in terms of just the actual megawatts capability.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I just have to go back to something you

said earlier. Would it be fair to say this number, 5.9, or any of the numbers

associated with the schedule, allows Quebec to get our power at a cheap price

and subsidize their own electricity consumption?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I think the

first point is, as I've been saying,

Schedule F will provide for payments to

Churchill Falls based on the various components, exports, replacement costs,

things like that.

The second

point is – and this isn't in the agreement; it's just a matter of fact – as I

said earlier, Hydro-Québec, publicly, through their supply plan, through their

strategic plan, declarations they've made publicly, they need lots of supply to

meet their own internal needs.

So certainly

supply from Churchill Falls will do that, but I believe so long as Churchill

Falls is getting paid value that's higher than whatever government-set price

for Quebec residents that are going to consume the power, that's neither here

nor there. What's important is you're getting the value from other things.

SPEAKER: It's 12 o'clock; does the Member want

leave to continue?

L. PARROTT: Yes.

SPEAKER: Is l eave granted to continue on with debate?

AN HON.

MEMBER: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave granted.

The hon. the

Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Speaker, we were going to ask leave,

actually, to adjourn and resume after 1 p.m.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House

Leader.

L. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Education, that this House do now stand in recess

until 1 p.m.

SPEAKER: This House do stand in recess until 1

p.m. this afternoon.

Recess

The House

resumed at 1 p.m.

SPEAKER

(Bennett): Order,

please!

Admit visitors.

We're going to

continue with debate.

The hon. the

Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we

broke, I asked a question about if Power Advisory had carried out an evaluation

on potential capacity for Churchill Falls second powerhouse and expansion, and

we got an answer.

Just a

question: The numbers provided to you in order to come to that conclusion, I

assume, came from Newfoundland Hydro, so they would have some substantive

engineering done on both the 11-turbine upgrade and the second powerhouse at

Churchill Falls?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

The numbers for

Churchill Falls upgrade and expansion were provided to us by Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. To the extent of what level of engineering has been done, I

don't know.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: The number 5.9 cents is being used on a

regular basis. Can you give me an idea of where that number comes from, the

specific 5.9 cents?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

The number is

generated from the components in

Schedule F. As has been described prior by Ms.

Williams and Mr. Parsons and by myself this morning, to be a little bit more

detailed, there are forecasts around those components and then those components

basically were put together based on the time frame and estimate of when those

components would actually be used in the calculation.

So, for

example, replacement costs at some time in the future. More so today, prices on

the export markets in Ontario, New England and New York, and it culminates in

that effective price.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: You had made the comment about existing

power supply, the price being based on that. What would you project the price

would be if Churchill Falls didn't exist today? Would that still be 5.9 cents

or would that be 11 cents or 16 cents? Where do you think it would be if it was

a new facility?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to

answer that in two ways. If Churchill Falls didn't exist today, I still believe

that the framework that is used in

Schedule F would be and could be applied to

valuing a similar resource that's already existing and if Hydro-Québec were

able to import the energy from somewhere else. So I believe that to be the

case.

You mentioned

the price of a new project and what would that be. I think it's been

established that it will be higher. The 16 cents was used this morning by me.

It was used by Ms. Williams and Mr. Parsons over the past two days. That

component, replacement costs, building new supply in Quebec is included in

Schedule F. And that's why the actual price received by Churchill Falls under

that circumstance, if it were to happen, would move higher based on accounting

for replacement cost as per

Schedule F.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: So it's a well-known fact that Quebec

mitigates all their prices and they utilize their multiple assets in order to

do that. Some produce cheaper, some are owned, some are new, some are thermal

generation and some are hydro. We've got a facility that costs us way too much

money in Muskrat Falls, which is adjacent to Churchill Falls.

Has there been

a study done of the possibility of running a transmission line from Muskrat

Falls to join in to the CF(L)Co transmission line and rediverting the cheaper

CF(L)Co power back through Newfoundland in order to mitigate our prices and

exporting the Muskrat Falls power?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I mean, based

on our scope of work, we didn't undertake any analysis like that. So I can't

comment on how the power system could be developed alternatively within

Newfoundland and Labrador and then impacting exports into Quebec or otherwise.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: So, by your own admission and

description this morning, your task was to study markets in Quebec and you have

studied the Churchill River extensively – 15 years is what you said. I am

presenting you with an option that I think should have been explored. Do you

think that option should have been explored?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Regarding the

ability to end the existing Churchill contract 17 years sooner, therefore

receiving the 30 times upside of higher payment to Churchill Falls without

having to build any transmission anywhere, I think, is the right direction, and

that was the direction taken and that has culminated in the MOU today.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Fair point, but I will say that Quebec

has been getting free power – and that's not my words; that's the words of both

the CEO of Newfoundland Hydro and government – for 56 years. We are in a bit of

a bind, I would say, because of, perhaps, ill-advised or pompous decisions, it

put us in a situation where we are paying a lot and we pay a lot to mitigate

and we have a huge debt.

What I just

suggested – although I understand the engineering and the things that would be

involved with it, from a negotiating standpoint, we've already determined that

Quebec doesn't want our power. We determined that Quebec absolutely needs our

power. We determined that they would possibly pay well over double than they

are paying right now, even at 5.9. That is the admission of the Premier of

Quebec.

So if we took

the 5.9, redirected to our own people here in Newfoundland and utilized our own

power and I would argue that even if it was only 65 per cent that we had access

to and we sold the power to Quebec even at nine cents, or eight cents, for

argument sake, if they need it as much as they say and everybody – because by

everything I've heard in here is that they need five times the power of what

we're going to supply, not an upgrade to Churchill Falls, not 11 turbines, not

CF2 and not Gull Island. They need everything that can be supplied to them.

Why wouldn't

that be something that you guys would advise Newfoundland Hydro to look at? Or,

even a better question, why wouldn't Newfoundland Hydro ask you guys to look at

that, if that was the role?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for

that. I caught all of that, so I'm going to unpack it in three different ways.

Your first point about Newfoundland and Labrador – I'm paraphrasing you –

specifying the need or identifying that, I think it's pretty clear as I said

this morning, and as documented in Hydro-Québec supply plan, strategic plan,

public declarations, it's pretty clear from their own words and their own

mouths that they need the power.

I think the

fact that they're at the table says a lot, and I'm saying that also out of

experience in dealing with Hydro-Québec. I know historically how difficult it

has been; not just things I've done for or been involved in regarding

Newfoundland and Labrador in the past, but also when I was at the table on

behalf of Ontario, across from Hydro-Québec, and I testified in Montreal back

in 2016 for a day and a half, on behalf of small, independent power producers,

hydroelectric generators that were trying to renew their contracts with

Hydro-Québec.

I understand

first-hand how hard it is to deal with them, and I understand how they

negotiate. So with that experience, I do believe what is in the MOU is a very

good accomplishment. The fact that there are components in

Schedule F that will

allow the price to increase, that would assign fair value to Churchill Falls

supply, is a big win. I realize that there's still a lot of heavy negotiation;

it won't be easy, and that is where those components will be defined.

In terms of

alternates in Newfoundland and Labrador as I said, we weren't asked to look at

that, but I also believe that if you're building more infrastructure, with a

view of positioning yourself in the future to then maybe get a better deal by

selling at that point in time, I don't know and I don't think that that's the

most direct route to think about this opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador

right now. And I do note that in the Churchill Falls – in the MOU, there are

discrete periods of time identified in one of the schedules in the MOU, where

there are supply megawatts going back to Churchill Falls for use and supply

within Newfoundland and Labrador. I think NLH has done a really good job to

negotiate that as well.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: So that would be 605 megawatts that

become available in 2035 – which is a long way away when you think about,

especially given the necessity of power for Labrador West, expansion of Kami,

Wabush 3, Tacora, Alderon, any other, Search Minerals, anything else that's

going to happen in Labrador. So 10 years is a lifetime.

I'll ask you

this, 5.9 cents, leaves Churchill Falls, goes to Quebec.

Schedule F, I

understand the escalators, I know how the numbers work. Goes to Quebec, instead

of Quebec selling that power externally, I would argue that the 5.9, while its

above their mitigated rate now, it's the cheapest power they have access to. I

would think that if I were Quebec, I would utilize that power for my residents.

If I were the premier of Quebec that's exactly what I would do. And I would

export my expensive power outside in order to mitigate price, increase profit

and do better for my province.

Would it not be

fair for us to look at doing the same thing? I mean isn't that what we're

looking for?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I understand

the premise, and I just believe that the framework that's in the MOU is just a

better way of doing that. Because it doesn't require Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro to build more infrastructure to be able to export to the same markets

that Hydro-Québec is already doing. The framework in the MOU under

Schedule F

allows Churchill Falls to receive a higher price based on those export

opportunities.

I'll readily

admit Hydro-Québec is very good at managing and trading between their market,

across markets and making a lot of money. They've been providing the Quebec

government with $2 billion a year in dividends.

The way I look

at this deal, it's allowing Newfoundland and Labrador to have and take some of

that in the form of payments under the contract. The more Quebec does better,

the better Newfoundland and Labrador does.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: So the $17 million that's always quoted

that's leading up, it is a misleading number.

AN HON.

MEMBER: Seventeen

billion.

L. PARROTT: Seventeen billion, sorry. That $17

billion includes money that's coming to us for an equity stake in Gull Island,

should it go ahead.

A. FUREY: No.

L. PARROTT: No? Okay.

A. FUREY: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: It's separate? Okay, perfect, all right.

B. PETTEN: Put it on record, if you're speaking.

A. FUREY: Sorry.

SPEAKER: Is that a question?

L. PARROTT: Yeah, go ahead, yeah, get him on record.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you.

Sorry, I

misspoke, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Your mic is not on.

A. FUREY: Sorry, I misspoke, Mr. Speaker, out of

turn. I apologize to the hon. Member.

But just for

clarity, the $17 billion is from Churchill Falls PPA, and then the option

payments are $3.5 billion, in addition to the $17 billion.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I will ask you this: The MOU makes an

assumption that everything is going to happen in a perfect world, that the PPA

is going to be done, the 11 turbines are going to operate at a certain

capacity, that maintenance, based on a certain periodicity, is going to happen

– and we should, I would hope, understand what maintenance means going forward.

I would hope

that those numbers are also derived from construction cost of CF2, coupled with

maintenance going forward, staff and all the overheads associated with all the

things that we need to do to get those numbers and, again, Gull Island, same

thing.

I believe that

if we construct those things, unlike the, I will call it, propaganda I guess,

unlike the information that was put on in the technical briefings, the

propaganda that was saying 13 million person-hours – I think that number is

delusional and it should be somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million man-hours,

from a constructability standpoint. If all of that goes ahead, this all sounds

somewhat reasonable to me. I mean, I can't argue that. It's the what-ifs and

it's the unknowns in the MOU.

So I will ask

you this: What happens to

Schedule F if nothing happens with CF2 and nothing

happens with Gull Island and Quebec abandons it? Because, as we have already

said several times, right now, Quebec is looking to increase their power

five-fold based on what they are getting from us. I would argue that they have

an opportunity, while they are looking to increase their power, to find a

cheaper alternative.

Here is my take

on it. If I am from Quebec and I'm signing an MOU and I have information from

the Province of Newfoundland and Newfoundland Hydro that tells me their estimates

are $24 billion and 13 million man-hours, I am going to run with that. I can

tell you, there are people back here behind me in this audience who know that

I'm right when I say this. It's not even close to the person-hours it's going

to take to construct that facility.

But if they can

find a cheaper alternative – as you have said, they're pretty astute in what

they do – they are not coming here to build Gull Island. It's gone. Contrary to

what government says, we could have Gull Island tied up for 34 years. It comes

due in 15 years, passed 2029, and they can do basic groundwork for 15 years and

we can't argue with them – we can take them to court. We just took them to

court for 56 years and we got nowhere. For that 15 years, they can get there.

Then they can say we are going to construct and move forward, which could tie

it up for as much as, like I said, 35 years. If Gull Island doesn't go ahead,

if CF2 doesn't go ahead, what are the prices? Are they still good?

I know that the

escalating is there. That's not what I want to hear. The overall deal is based

on the assumption that all this happens. If all of this doesn't happen, how do

you feel about the deal now?

SPEAKER: The Managing Director.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I still like

the deal a lot because it's been explained by Ms. Williams and Mr. Parsons,

based on the terms of the MOU, if Hydro-Québec doesn't move forward with the

new developments, the Churchill Falls agreement is intact.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. CHEE-ALOY:

So all of the things

I've been talking about all day regarding value in

Schedule F, potential for

higher payments, didn't need to take on costs with respect to more

infrastructure build, like transmission, those things are all true.

I mean, with

respect to the time frame of the exclusivity, I'm not going to opine on that

because that's not what we were asked to do. But just understanding this market

and other markets, at the end of the day, it's a big endeavour to build

anything. We've talked about Muskrat Falls a bit in terms of some of its

challenges and its lack of a buy side to a long-term agreement. I think that

could still happen.

If you had to

figure out do I build Gull, do I expand Churchill Falls, the same assessment

would be needed. How much do I need it for my internal consumption; do I have

enough demand to justify the project? That means, I think, given the size of

those projects, the need for a clear buyer, off-taker, within a long-term

agreement.

So, to me, you

have that right now and you're playing the hand that you have.

SPEAKER: Okay, the Member's time –

L. PARROTT: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: One quick question?

The hon. the

Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: But is it fair to say if none of that

happens, the numbers that government are throwing around, a quarter of a

trillion dollars – $220 billion, which is not actually a quarter of a trillion

but it's pretty close – $220 billion is not a realistic number if Gull Island

and CF2 does not happen.

SPEAKER: The Managing Director of Power Advisory.

CHEE-ALOY: Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I mean, the

number is less, I can't comment. I don't know what's driving all of those

numbers, what's driving the payments, what's driving the corporate structure of

the various entities. I mean, we have not opined on that at all and I'm not

going to do that now.

SPEAKER: Premier, are you further wanting to

respond to that?

A. FUREY: Yes.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to

be clear that if Quebec decides not to go ahead with this, the CF PPA new

agreement, with all the future proofing intact and

Schedule F is intact. Is it

reasonable to suggest that if a project doesn't go ahead and the subsequent

revenues don't go ahead, do we not get those revenues? Of course, we won't get

those revenues.

But the

revenues embedded in the new CF PPA are approximately $180 billion in their own

right, and that's cash to the Treasury. That's after you subtract the cost of

the facility. That's after you take off the share to Hydro-Québec.

If I'm wrong,

Ms. Williams can correct me tomorrow, but that's my understanding about the

allocation of the deal space.

SPEAKER: The Member's time has expired.

Next speaker.

The hon. the

Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll begin

today, as I began at the beginning of Monday, by saying I appreciate the

opportunity, but, more importantly, I appreciate the time of the individuals

that have chosen to be here. I don't know if the official term is witnesses,

but they've chosen to be here on the floor of the House. I appreciate your

expertise, the fact that you're here and the work you put in.

I can say this

on behalf of myself, and probably on behalf at least two other Members in this

House, I only wish I had the opportunity to have people on this floor to ask

questions to about 10 years ago in this House. That is where a lot of what I

say comes from and I know some of my colleagues.

I've been

listening intently. There have been good questions coming from both sides, good

points and I appreciate the excellent answers you've given, but I think you've

justified one of the decisions that I think was important, just on sort of the

openness side, which is you've justified the decision to open the House.

Because one of

the decisions that we had to make was: When do we have this? We said we wanted

to do it as early as possible. We want the people that were a part of it to be

here and to be questioned, to be televised. Anybody can choose to watch this

and, in fact, they can choose, as I've had – I've had people emailing me

questions, thoughts. I know other Members have as well.

But part of it,

too, is the question about the timing and the review. There are going to be

reviews, going to be oversight, but to have the people here to answer their

thought process as a part of this process, rather than after, to have a review

without even talking to some of the people that formed the mindset that got

there, is one of the reasons that I, again, t