Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Petitions — 29 November 2012 (47th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVII No. 61)
2012-11-29
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 29, 2012
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 61
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the Member for the
District of St. John's Centre, the Member for the District of Lake Melville, the
Member for the District of Lewisporte, the Member for the District of Bay of
Islands, the Member for the District of St. Barbe, and the Member for the
District of Conception Bay East Bell Island.
The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I stand to congratulate the Fish, Food and Allied Workers' Union
and Canadian Auto Workers for really making a difference in the lives of women.
Last Saturday I spoke at their women's conference. It was the UN
International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Their theme
was: The Personal Is Political. We talked about violence against women in the
workplace, in the home, and in our communities. We talked about what women and
men can do together to help end violence and discrimination against women.
Their new Women's Advocates program trains women to be advocates for
co-workers who may be victims of violence. They offer support and help finding
resources. One woman who was helped by a co-worker said "she was like a snowplow
clearing the way. I still had to drive my car through the storm but she moved
the barriers"
They are headquartered in St. John's Centre but their members stretch right
across Newfoundland and Labrador. I am so impressed with the incredible work the
women and men of labour are doing together on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in thanking the FFAW/CAW once
again for their leadership.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I stand to congratulate the Mealy Mountain Collegiate female
soccer team on their success in capturing gold and the AAA provincial banner at
the school sports Newfoundland and Labrador provincial championships in
Springdale, from October 11 to 13.
The MMC girls did not disappoint their fans in Lake Melville. They went on an
undefeated streak at the tournament beating Mobile Central High, Clarenville
High, and Ascension Collegiate during the round robin portion.
In the finals, the Mealy Mountain Collegiate girls played Stephenville and it
took an extra twenty minutes of overtime, Mr. Speaker, but the girls were able
to win by a goal scored by Striker Amy Rowsell.
Coaches Mr. Ed Turpin and Andrew Rowsell said that the girls represented
their school and community with class. They displayed superior skills, excellent
work ethic, and exceptional sportsmanship throughout the entire tournament.
The team members were: Amy Rowsell, Caleigh Ivany, Charlene Duffett, Riley
Winters, Maria Mullaly, Shila Ford, Rebekah Whey, Andrea White, Laura Baikie,
Kim Broomfield, Megan Manners, Sarah Roberts, Crystal Acreman, Haley Battcock,
Brittany Baldwin, Tana Pittman, and Kailey Marque.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
extending congratulations to the Mealy Mountain Collegiate female soccer team on
capturing the 2012 School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador provincial
championship.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding
volunteer from my district. Fred Budgell of Norris Arm has been known and
recognized for his many works of volunteerism throughout our area.
His achievements include: Mayor of Norris Arm for fifteen years; twenty-five
years on the executive of the Lion's Club; service with the denominational
education committee; service with the Notre Dame Integrated School Board; served
with the Hillview Academy playground committee; fundraiser coordinator for the
Canadian Red Cross for Norris Arm; past executive member of the West District
United Church Conference; chairman of the Fox Moth Museum; chairman of the
United Church Board of Management; service with the Royal Canadian Legion; and
program coordinator for the Kids Eat Smart Program at Hillview Academy.
In the year 2000, Mr. Budgell was presented with the Governor General's
Caring Canadian Award. In October of this year, he was presented with the Senior
of Distinction Award by the Minister of Health and Community Services, and also
with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal by the Lieutenant-Governor.
Members of the House of Assembly, please join me in recognizing Fred Budgell
for the outstanding contributions he has made to his community and to our entire
Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms Lillian Wells of
Cox's Cove, who will be celebrating her 100 birthday on December 6.
Ms Wells was born in Gillams, Bay of Islands in 1912 to Edmund and Margaret
Blanchard. Being the oldest of the family, she would go in the woods with her
father, cutting wood and bringing it out on oxen, and helping out with whatever
needed to be done. She worked for many years in the herring stores and in later
years, she operated her own general store and a theatre, as well as taking
boarders every winter.
Ms Wells has seven children, four step-children, eleven grandchildren, twelve
step-grandchildren, seventeen great-grandchildren, twenty-one
step-great-grandchildren, twenty-one great-great-grandchildren, and two
step-great-great-grandchildren.
Ms Wells still resides in her own home and enjoys going out to a game of
cards or bingo, and enjoys her weekly trip to Corner Brook and a couple of weeks
of camping every summer. She is still in good health despite the fact that two
years ago she underwent five weeks of cancer treatment.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in extending birthday
wishes to Ms Wells on her special day, and wish her continued good health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize
and commend the dedicated volunteers who have made the Voice of Bonne Bay a
permanent community radio station that also broadcast on the Internet.
In 2008, the Bonne Bay Cottage Hospital Heritage Corporation collaborated
with a private company to operate a radio station for the Trails, Tales and
Tunes Festival in Norris Point. Called the Voice of Bonne Bay, this broadcast
was so successful that it was repeated in 2009 and 2010.
The Voice of Bonne Bay also worked with
the Community-University Research for Recovery Alliance
and coordinator Anita Best in October 2009 and 2012 to broadcast a series of
meetings and workshops.
Based on the success of the VOBB, the Heritage Corporation formed a committee
that ensures the management and operation, with programming the responsibility
of the community.
VOBB reflects the aspirations, interests, and individuality of the community;
engages seniors, youth, and the community at large in programming; and addresses
health, wellness, culture, heritage, the environment, and more.
By adopting a co-operative regional approach, VOBB illustrates how the
greater Bonne Bay community can market itself to the world.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing these
volunteers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to acknowledge the establishment of the Emma Churchill-Dawson
Seniors' Memorial Park in Portugal Cove. On October 12 of this year I had the
privilege of attending the opening of the park, located at the Bell
Island-Portugal Cove ferry terminal area. Many leaders from the community and
the Salvation Army provincial executive attended.
The Salvation Army in Newfoundland and Labrador had its genesis in the Town
of Portugal Cove. In 1883, after migrating with her parents to Toronto, Emma
Churchill of Portugal Cove enrolled as a Salvation Army Officer, only the
eleventh Officer to be commissioned in Canada by the fledgling movement. Emma,
along with her husband Charles Dawson, returned to Portugal Cove on their
honeymoon in August 1885 and during that time held the first-ever Salvation Army
gathering in Portugal Cove.
This park will serve seniors and all residents of the community as a place to
relax and appreciate the natural scenery of the area.
I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Town of Portugal Cove
St. Phillips on the opening of the Emma Churchill-Dawson Seniors' Memorial Park.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed further today, I want to welcome some
special guests to both the Speaker's gallery and the public gallery.
Today in the Speaker's gallery we have the former Lieutenant-Governor of New
Brunswick, the hon. Margaret McCain, who is accompanied by her daughter Ms
Eleanor McCain who, by the way, is playing with the Newfoundland Symphony
Orchestra together with her granddaughter, Laura David. Laura is accompanied
by her teacher, Ms Catherine Henderson.
Welcome to our Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: We are also quite honoured today to have in our public
galleries Ms Mary Shortall, a representative of the Canadian Labour Congress,
and Ms Tina Pretty of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union.
Welcome to our Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Members will recall earlier in the week we had a couple of
points of order raised, and I want to address them before we start the
proceedings today.
I want to respond particularly to a point of order raised by the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services on November 27 regarding the accuracy of a
statement contained in a petition presented by the Member for St. John's North
on November 27.
I want to cite
section 90 of our Standing Orders, which states, "A petition
to the House shall be presented by a Member in his or her place who shall be
answerable that it does not contain impertinent or improper matter."
In its argument on the point of order, the government has indicated that the
phrase "impertinent or improper" means that a petition containing statements
that are inaccurate are out of order. Reliance has been placed on the word
"improper".
We must look at the meaning of this term within its parliamentary use.
According to O'Brien and Bosc,
Chapter 22, petitions today are "a valued means
of bringing public concerns to the attention of Parliament." Historically and in
practice they must be correct as to form and content, but this is taken to mean
containing a prayer requesting action, being respectful in tone and bearing
original signatures.
Petitions are a means by which members of the public can have their concerns
heard. They are not petitions of the members themselves. O'Brien and Bosc
further states with respect to presentation of petitions, "Members are not bound
to present petitions and cannot be compelled to do so".
It goes on to say, "The Member whose role it is to make the presentation on
behalf of the petitioners is not required to be in agreement with the content of
any petition he or she may choose to present, and no such inference is to be
drawn."
I also want to quote from Erskine May, 19 th Edition, page 814,
which states, "The language of a petition should be respectful and temperate and
free from disrespectful language to the sovereign, or offensive imputation upon
the character or conduct of a parliamentarian."
It goes on to say in Erskine May, "The language may be improper, not because
of its being offence in itself or indecorous but the statement of which it is
the vehicle are not proper to be made by the petitioners".
It can be concluded from the foregoing that "improper" in the context of
section 90 of our Standing Orders does not mean containing inaccurate
information. It relates more to "impropriety" and not being suitable or proper
in a petition. A member is not usually responsible for the content of the prayer
of petitions given to them by the general public. He or she is putting forward
the views and requests of others and need not even agree with the content of the
petition.
Consequently, with respect to the point of order, there is no valid point of
order.
I think this brings us to the real crux of the issue that gave rise to the
point of order in the first place. The question, I think, is: What is the
responsibility of a member who prepares petitions on behalf of constituents or
other members of the public?
In order to discuss our responsibilities, the history and purpose of
petitions should be laid out.
Petitioning the Crown is an ancient right. It dates from petitions going back
to the Medieval times and is a means for "commoners" to bring forward their
concerns and grievances that have to be addressed. The rights of "commoners" to
lay a grievance before the House in the form of a petition and the power of
Parliament to deal with this has been confirmed in two resolutions in the
British House of Commons, dating back to the 1600s. I will just share with you
these two quotes, because I think it is important to create the context for my
further comments.
"That it is the inherit right of every commoner in England to prepare and
present petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievance, and the House of
Commons to receive the same."
In addition, the second resolution, "That it is an undoubted right and
privilege of the Commons to judge and determine, touching the nature of such
petitions, how far they are fit and unfit to be received". Again, that is
directly from Erskine May, 19 th Edition, page 811 .
These principles have evolved in our House of Assembly and indeed throughout
the British Commonwealth in the Standing Orders with respect to petitions. A
private individual cannot present a petition on his or her own behalf. It must
be submitted by a member.
If members and this is an important point take it upon themselves to
draft petitions and arrange for their signing by the general public, it does not
mean that the issue is not of great concern to the petitioners. However, the
manner in which the prayer and the subject matter of the petition have been
prepared places a greater responsibility and onus upon the member drafter to
ensure that citations and references are respectful, factually correct and
accurate. To do otherwise may bring the role for which they were elected into
disrepute.
I want to quote from Erskine May again, 19 th edition, page 814,
"The language of a petition should be respectful and temperate and free from
disrespectful language to the sovereign, or offensive imputation upon the
character or conduct of a parliamentarian."
In this House we must assume that members speak the truth and are accurate in
their statements.
In this regard, I would like to thank the Member for the District of St.
Barbe, who, upon realizing that the information contained in the petition he
presented was inaccurate due to the passage of time, stood in this House
yesterday and corrected the information.
The Speaker acknowledges the partisan nature of the House and the thrust and
cut of the spirited debate that takes place here. However, I caution members to
be mindful not to embellish the truth or manipulate facts for political purposes
when speaking in this House.
This must also apply to petitions which may originate with the member; that
is the member who is preparing the petition themselves for others to sign.
Erskine May, 19 th edition, page 813 states, "Any forgery or fraud
in the preparation of petitions or in the signatures attached, or the being
privy to, or cognizant of such forgery or fraud, is liable to be punished as a
breach of privilege and is considered and dealt with as a matter of privilege"
in this House.
I would not want in any way to have my remarks construed that any of the hon.
members in this House would intentionally make false or inaccurate statements. I
am simply making the point that considering the great responsibility that comes
with the reliance on and acceptance of each member's words, that appropriate
care is taken in the preparation and presentation of petitions and indeed all
statements made in this House.
There was a second point of order raised with a similar situation, a similar
issue I think at hand. On November 26, the hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources raised a point of order about comments made by the Leader of the Third
Party on November 22 in which the member cited information in a report on oil
production. The matter is not one of order but rather of a difference of opinion
between hon. members about the
interpretation or analysis of information. The
minister has taken the opportunity to offer an opinion on the matter as he sees
it. There is no point of order with respect to this issue either.
I would ask members to be guided as they speak in this House, whether it is
presenting petitions or making statements or posing questions, any contribution
they make to debate, and to be mindful of the responsibility that they have that
goes with the privileges that we enjoy by being in this House of Assembly.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services,
and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the women who
play a vital role in our Province's business community and make a valuable
contribution to our Province's economic development.
Earlier this month, the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women
Entrepreneurs, NLOWE, held its annual Entrepreneur of the Year Awards gala. For
the past fifteen years, NLOWE has recognized women whose successful businesses
contribute to the provincial economy and their communities. These women are
using innovative technologies and expanding into new markets. They are leaders
in their fields and respected in their industries. They are the best and
brightest entrepreneurs in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Premier was in attendance to present the awards to the winners. I would
like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the 2012 award recipients and offer
them our sincere congratulations on their outstanding achievements.
Winner of the Youth Entrepreneur of the Year award was Katherine Hiscock of
Beautiful Rock soaps in Gander; winner of the Start-up award was Melanie Caines
of Nova Yoga in St. John's; winner of the Entrepreneurial Excellence award and
the Community Impact award was Cathy Bennett of Bennett Group of Companies in
St. John's; and winner of the Innovation award and the Visionary award was Debra
Feltham of Feltham-Attwood Certified General Accountants in Mount Pearl.
Mr. Speaker, as a government, we value our partnership with NLOWE as we
understand the importance of advancing opportunities for women entrepreneurs. We
continuously work with NLOWE to advance women-owned businesses into
traditionally male-dominated industries such as mining, oil and gas, and energy
sectors.
Our government is grateful that we have an organization like NLOWE to provide
strong supports for new and established women entrepreneurs through a wide range
of services.
Once again, I congratulate the 2012 Entrepreneur of the Year Award
recipients. I look forward to our continued partnership with NLOWE to advance
the success of women in business in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of her statement. We, too, want
to join with the government to congratulate the many women entrepreneurs that we
have across Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think it is any secret that more
and more we are seeing women engage in business and reaching higher plateaus
than we ever dreamed even ten or fifteen years ago.
All of this is possible through the support they have in society, in their
communities, and at home. Of course, government plays a role in that through the
Office of the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs.
I want to also congratulate Katherine Hiscock, Melanie Caines, Cathy Bennett,
and Debra Feltham for the superb work they have done, not only fostering
excellence and innovation within our communities and throughout the Province,
but for having vision, having the courage to take risks, and having good, new
ideas that can be presented in this Province that can earn money and earn
excellence in all facets of business.
We see women today, Mr. Speaker, not just engaged in traditional business
opportunities but branching out in many other sectors. We see women who are
craft producers and entrepreneurs to property investors and bankers. They are in
all sorts of business that you can name in between, and they are doing a great
job. Not only are they creating a professional career for themselves where they
can, in many cases, continue to raise a family, but they are also creating jobs
and opportunities for many others in our Province. I congratulate them for that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I
congratulate NLOWE for all the fantastic work they do with women entrepreneurs
in Newfoundland and Labrador. As we all know, women have always been part of the
backbone of the economy of our Province. As the late Rhonda Payne wrote in one
of her plays: Women in Newfoundland and Labrador work from stars in the sky
morning to stars in the sky night.
We still have too many women, particularly seniors, living in poverty in our
Province, women who have worked hard all their lives. It is my hope that more
women entrepreneurs join us in this House as elected representatives and bring
their wisdom, their experience, and their compassion to the decisions we make
here on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Once again, congratulations to this year's award winners. Bravo, Katherine,
Melanie, Cathy, and Debra, and bravo, NLOWE. Thank you, sisters, for your
incredible work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government Supplier Development Program is
helping local companies identify new business opportunities within the public
sector, as well as major industrial projects.
Within the public sector, there are numerous opportunities for local
businesses to sell their products and services.
The provincial government alone spends millions annually on the procurement
of goods and services ranging from office supplies to materials, to maintaining
highways, to public facilities. When you factor in other levels of government,
as well as Crown corporations and government agencies, that number swells into
the billions of dollars.
Since 2005, the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development has
organized fifty-nine supplier development events. These were attended by over
1,300 people from local businesses who gained valuable insight and knowledge
into supply chain requirements.
Outside of the public sector, we coordinate similar initiatives to create
awareness of vast opportunities associated with the development of major
industrial projects.
In addition to the significant employment that they create, these projects
demand an incredible amount of products and services. As reflected by the
success of businesses throughout the Province that are servicing these
industrial projects, the sum of these opportunities is exciting and indeed
rewarding.
The success of large-scale industrial projects underway in the Province has
also led to the development of world-class expertise and capabilities that
increasingly are in demand in the global marketplace. It is also attracting
major retail and commercial developments to communities throughout the Province
that are contributing to the diversification of the provincial economy.
As a government, we are a committed and vested partner in supporting
conditions where this growth and development can continue into the future and
the high level of business optimism continues to surpass other Canadian
jurisdictions.
I encourage all businesses to contact my department to learn more about our
Supplier Development Program. It is an important initiative that connects
vendors and procurers to help ensure the maximum benefits are realized for
Newfoundland and Labrador businesses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. There is no doubt that business is very important to this Province
and very important to all economies. It is an important economic driver; it is
important for diversification. Businesses large and small are great for
communities large and small and facilitate and generate employment.
Mr. Speaker, to quote a very prominent businessperson in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador as stated in the Outlook 2013 for the Atlantic
Provinces Economic Council and that person is Bill Barry: "Global challenges
increasingly concern Bill Barry of the Barry Group, particularly the growing
debt levels seen in many jurisdictions which are increasing risks for the global
economy."
He also spoke of the weakening demographic situation in Newfoundland and
Labrador which is facing its own long-term fiscal challenges. Mr. Barry is
quoted as saying that this will require business and government to make
thoughtful decisions, to implement tough decisions where needed, and to keep
chasing opportunities as they emerge.
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned, as is much of the business community, with
the growth in government debt, the growth in the size of government and, in
particular, government mismanagement of its resources. It is not government's
resources; it is the people's resources. It seems that at a time when business
learns to do more and more with less and less, government learns to do less and
less with more and more.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
There is no question there are opportunities for local companies to sell to
the public sector and a role for IBRD to partner with Community Business
Development Corporations to help current and new businesses be supplier ready. I
encourage the government to continue to reduce red tape, but also to consider
scale.
Mr. Speaker, procuring government contracts is out of reach of many small
businesses because of the need to supply more than just localized departments
and agency offices when contracts are typically tendered. Maybe this could be
something that could be reviewed.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's South have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight the recent
designations appointed under the Provincial Historic Commemorations Program.
The Provincial Historic Commemorations Program allows us to recognize, honour
and interpret our cultural and historic treasures. The program also acknowledges
the unique examples of our intangible cultural heritage that deals with the
customs, cultural practices, traditional skills and knowledge that define the
Province and its people.
Citizens of the Province have the opportunity to submit nominations for
consideration in the categories of Exceptional People of the Past, Outstanding
Historic Events, Unique Places, Distinctive Cultural Traditions and Practices,
and Tradition Bearers.
Mr. Speaker, the latest commemorations ceremony was held in Grand
Falls-Windsor in October to pay tribute to six new designates.
In the category of Distinctive Cultural Tradition of Practice the inductees
were the Trapper, Fish and Brewis certainly, an important event in my house on
Christmas Eve, Mr. Speaker and the S. S. Newfoundland Sealing Disaster of
1914. In the category of Event of Provincial Significance, designations were
Resettlement, and the Founding of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. John Nicholas
Jeddore of Conne River was also designated as a Tradition Bearer.
These inductions into the Provincial Historic Commemorations Program are
provincially significant as they have influenced the history, culture, and the
way of life of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Since the launch of the cultural strategy, the provincial government has
invested more than $56 million into arts, culture and the heritage sectors. It
is encouraging to see more individuals preserving and celebrating our cultural
heritage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement.
Members on all sides of the House would like to recognize all the events and
groups, and Mr. John Nicholas Jeddore, for being recognized. As we all know,
Newfoundland and Labrador is rich in our history and culture, and as we say: If
we look where we came from it will help us where we are today and will help
bring us into the future.
Some events there like the Sealing Disaster of 1914 are very ingrained in
our history and our culture and are still part of our sealing industry today. If
we look at some of the traditional foods, like fish and brewis, Mr. Speaker, as
we all know, many people just love the taste of fish and brewis. This is part of
our staple for years in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I say to the minister, anything that the government can do to uphold our
traditions, help let the younger people understand our traditions from the past,
we on this side will support anything that government will do to ensure that it
stays alive in our culture and in our history of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am quite pleased to stand in response to the minister's statement. I was
quite glad, also, to receive notification from his department that an event
related to a group from my constituency, the Founding of the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment, was being recognized, and was glad that I was able to attend the
ceremony.
It is so important that we keep alive our history, customs, cultural
practices, and traditional skills and knowledge. I encourage the minister,
though, to ensure that this program is given more profile and publicity so that
more of the population will begin making nominations for the honours and that
more people will learn about our heritage.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's South have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, SNC-Lavalin are in the news again today as their former CEO has
been arrested on three fraud charges, and a former senior executive has been
charged with $139 million in suspected illicit payments. This is more than
double the amount of missing money that was first reported by the company.
I ask the Premier today: Since SNC-Lavalin has the $60 million Muskrat Falls
contract on lead engineering and project management, will you reveal the
complete details of their contract with government and Nalcor, and tell us who
you are communicating with at that company?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my understanding that the individual who was charged today in relation
to Quebec was also charged earlier in terms of what was going on in Switzerland.
We answered questions in the House of Assembly last year, Mr. Speaker, that
SNC-Lavalin is one of the biggest engineering companies in the world, and they
were hired in early 2011 to do the engineering procurement and construction
management.
At that time, there were discussions with a high level of officials to ensure
that what was happening elsewhere in the world was not affecting what they were
doing at Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker. Nalcor has 100 employees up there working
with SNC-Lavalin, so everything is being monitored very closely. They are a big
company, a multinational-international company, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is another individual who has been charged as well, I say to the
minister.
Cost overruns are typically in the 30 per cent to 50 per cent range, but the
Premier and the government has only budgeted 12 per cent for Muskrat Falls. We
feel that allowing only 12 per cent for overruns is absurd and unrealistic in
today's larger projects.
All government has to do is look at what is happening with the construction
here on this building, Confederation Building, which is 150 per cent over. Look
at Vale Inco's plant in Long Harbour, 66 per cent over, and projects by Manitoba
Hydro that are at 85 per cent in cost overruns.
I ask the Premier today: Is it true that the only reason you are using 12 per
cent as a cost overrun number is to keep the published cost of this project
artificially low?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There were about six questions in that question, so I will try to answer some
of them.
Mr. Speaker, at the DG 2 phase, 5 per cent of the engineering had been done,
as explained by Mr. Martin. At the DG 3 phase, Mr. Speaker, we now have 50 per
cent of the engineering done, and especially in relation to tricky areas that
could go into overruns.
Mr. Martin has indicated that there is a plus or minus 10 per cent at this
stage, having regard to the stage of engineering that we are at. He said and he
indicated the day that we made the announcement and released the MHI report and
Decision Gate 3 numbers that he consulted with other people, that they felt
right now that the contingency that was included was appropriate, having regard
to the extent of the engineering that had been done.
Mr. Speaker, I just wish the other side would not attribute these motives
especially the member opposite, should not really be doing that right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You cannot deny the fact that most of these projects have drastic overruns,
and Muskrat Falls is only budgeted at 12 per cent.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, to justify the Muskrat Falls Project, the Premier has
relied on Manitoba Hydro, but what she has not told us is that Manitoba Hydro's
own Wasquatum project just went over by 85 per cent. On top of that, the
residents in the Province are being forced to pay higher rates while selling
their power to the United States for three cents.
I ask the Premier: How can you justify Muskrat Falls based on Manitoba
Hydro's endorsement, when their own projects have already seen such failures?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you gave a ruling earlier on using accurate information. It is
extremely important, Mr. Speaker, to do so, especially when we are talking about
a project that is so important to the people of the Province.
MHI did go 80 per cent over its Decision Gate 2 numbers.
There is no question, Mr. Speaker, but very little engineering was done . Mr.
Speaker, they only went 16 per cent over their Decision Gate 3 numbers. It is
still too high, Mr. Speaker, but a big difference from 15 per cent to 80 per
cent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier: Now that we know that Manitoba Hydro could be pushed to
insolvency and that they have admitted to vast overruns on the Wasquatum
project, how confident are you now that Manitoba Hydro are the best people to
trust with this project for Muskrat Falls?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a situation where as a government
you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you do not. Mr. Speaker, we
looked to hire a firm that could be acceptable to the people as being
independent.
The PUB, Mr. Speaker, had hired Manitoba Hydro through an RFP process. I
assume they thought they were qualified at the time, Mr. Speaker. What we did
when we looked at someone to review the DG 3 numbers, we hired them.
Navigant was not good enough, they were not objective, Mr. Speaker; other
companies were not objective. There are only so many companies in the world can
do this. I see nothing to indicate that Manitoba Hydro's report is flawed. If it
is, show us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The people in the Province have asked for public oversight and for a full PUB
review of the Muskrat Falls Project; however, the government has refused saying
that Manitoba Hydro are world-class experts and they trust their opinion. We
know today that this same company is now threatening the financial viability of
the Province of Manitoba and their own projects.
I ask the government today: Are they now prepared to send the Muskrat Falls
Project to a full review of the Public Utilities Board?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Just wait now, let me try to discern the logic in this. We
should go to the PUB because the PUB is the qualified and experienced group to
deal with this matter. Yet, the PUB is the group that hired this unqualified,
inexperienced, unprofessional group. Which is it, Mr. Speaker?
We have all the numbers before us. Reports have been reviewed and prepared.
Show us something in the MHI numbers or show us something in the Decision Gate
numbers, Mr. Speaker, that causes concern. This simply going to the PUB is a
matter of process because they have no substance to argue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in December 2009 this government released
its first progress report on poverty reduction and therein committed to
releasing such a report every two years. The second report is now one year late.
I ask the minister responsible for poverty reduction: You said this week that
poverty reduction was a priority of this government in 2003; how could you miss
the very first deadline set on progress reporting?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when government was formed in 2003, we were very concerned about
the rates of poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador. We also understood you are
not going to change the rates of poverty overnight. It was going to take a
concerted effort across various government departments and would also be done in
the long-term. We developed the ten-year Poverty Reduction Strategy. We are
presently moving through that strategy.
Mr. Speaker, this Province alone spends $150 million annually on poverty
reduction strategies in different programs across departments. We have been able
to move from the Province with the highest rate of poverty in Canada to the
Province with the third-lowest rate of poverty. Mr. Speaker, that is progress,
and we will continue on that path.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this government has committed to becoming
the Province with the lowest poverty rate in Canada by 2014. However, we
currently have the highest food bank usage, the third-highest rate of childhood
poverty, and the second-lowest income per capita in the country. We are facing a
deficit of possibly $500 million and are looking at taking on the biggest debt
in our history.
I ask the minister responsible: You have one year; how do you plan to get us
there?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to move this Province forward. As
we move this Province forward, as we develop our resources and we bring on the
mega-projects, we will also make sure we concentrate on people who may not be
able to take advantage of the opportunities that lie before us. We have people
who are in positions in this Province, Mr. Speaker, who are far more vulnerable
than others.
We will ensure through our Poverty Reduction Strategy that we will continue
with initiatives that are actively reducing or preventing poverty in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, we will also ensure
that if there are other programs or policies that need to be developed to help
us address the people who need these initiatives, we will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker, a ten-year strategy is a long-term strategy and it shows the
commitment of this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, school closures in our Province have dominated
the news in recent months with parents passionately pleading to save their
community schools. This week, the Education Minister admitted that he had no
policy to guide school boards. He does, however, have ministerial power to keep
schools open. Isn't that just peachy?
I ask the minister: Will he support his colleague, the Member for Bellevue,
who supports the parents, and place a freeze on school closures until government
figures out how to deliver education in the twenty-first century?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we very much understand the situation and the
circumstances that occur when there are talks of a school closure. It is a very
emotional debate.
Mr. Speaker, there is a legislated body within the Province that administers
the school closure, that being our school boards. These are elected officials.
Under the same legislation, Mr. Speaker, from 1996 to 2003, previous
governments closed 127 schools. We are operating, Mr. Speaker, under the same
policy as previous governments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as many as ten community education models are
in use in Canada today. British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick have adopted the community school program in response to declining
enrolment. Even the United States, UK, and Australia have embraced this model.
Will the minister stop closing schools until he has considered the success of
community schools worldwide and how this model could work for us?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me outline for the member what we do for
the smaller schools in our communities. There was a point when all schools
received equal allocations. Then we changed the model to needs based.
Mr. Speaker, we have some of our smaller schools for example, a school of
around twenty-five students that could have five teachers allocated to that
school because it is based on a needs allocation.
CDLI, the distance education courses, this government has increased the
funding for that program by 60 per cent, Mr. Speaker. That is all about delivery
of better programs for the students in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Nunatsiavut Government need not be reminded by the Minister of Natural
Resources that the proposed Muskrat Falls Project is outside their land claims
area. They are also aware, Mr. Speaker, that contaminated water from the dam
will flow into the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area, polluting the land, water,
and traditional food supply.
I ask the minister: Why are you disputing the fact that the Labrador Inuit
Settlement Area will not be affected by the Muskrat Falls Project?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I just simply stated the fact that the Muskrat
Falls is not within the Labrador Inuit Settlement claims area, that there is a
zone in which there is consultation required, and that there has been
consultation. Nalcor has indicated there have been over eighty records of
engagement with officials or members of the Nunatsiavut Government, Mr. Speaker.
They have participated in the public hearings. Mr. Speaker, they have made
recommendations, they submitted studies. Essentially, they have been involved.
The panel made certain recommendations, some of which have been accepted by
Nalcor and the federal government, some of which have not.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of consultation here. It is a question
of, we do not agree with all of their recommendations. That is a different
issue. You cannot confuse consultation with agreement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, research by the Nunatsiavut Government
monitoring mercury levels in Lake Melville is being done in partnership with the
credible firm known as ArcticNet a Network of Centres of Excellence of Canada.
They are being supported by the Harvard School of Public Health, Memorial
University, the University of Connecticut, and Trent University.
I ask the minister: If you are as concerned about the environment as you
claim to be, why will Nalcor and the government not co-operate fully with the
Nunatsiavut Government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the recommendations were made, we looked at them as a
government. The federal government accepted some of the recommendations, Mr.
Speaker, and we indicated that we accepted the intent of the recommendations.
What has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that there are ongoing studies. Nalcor has
indicated that they are doing the human health assessment study. We are looking
at this as it goes along, and at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, the decision
has been made, we are moving on. However, we will talk to I understand there
have been meetings requested. The Premier met with the president, she responded
to the former Premier.
Mr. Speaker, we have consulted with them. We have made our decisions and we
will move on, but we are always open to discussion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Immigrant Investors Fund is funded by the federal government. The fund
currently contains $256 million, which is supposed to be used for economic
development and job creation. BC, for example, has created over 2,000 jobs,
built hospitals, schools, and invested $100 million in thirteen BC private
companies.
I ask the minister: How is it BC can create 2,000 jobs and invest hundreds of
millions, yet you have the money in your account for over seven years and not
invested one penny?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to correct some information the
member put out in regard to a $5 million loss within that fund, which is totally
inaccurate. He has been out in the media, and he mentioned it here as well.
That fund, as I mentioned in the House I think it was yesterday or the day
before we entered into a partnership with the federal government in the first
phase from 2005-2010. It has to be paid back after five years. It is a loan,
with fees paid to cover those loans. It needs to be paid back. We did
investments at commercial rates, as well as with bonds, to make sure we could
cover that. Right now, there is a surplus of over $3 million. We certainly have
not lost $5 million that was indicated by the hon. member.
In regard to economic development, we will take second seat to nobody in the
country in terms of economic development in what we did in this Province, Mr.
Speaker; $135 million through IBRD alone, with 70 per cent to 80 per cent of
that gone in
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, if you do not think it was in the Auditor
General's report that you lost $5 million, go up to Minister Joan Shea's office
and ask John Noseworthy, who wrote the report and tabled it in this House.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask members to refer to members in the House by their
title and not by their names, please.
MR. JOYCE: I am sorry, I apologize. I withdraw that. I am sorry.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to very quickly get to his question, no
preamble, just the question.
MR. JOYCE: I ask the minister: Why are you refusing to do your job and
use the $256 million for the benefit of the people of this Province and stop
letting it sit in a bank account
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, for a
quick response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me the Auditor General's
report, I am quite familiar with it. What was estimated in the Auditor General's
report was a surplus of over $3 million. As well, recognizing there is a
five-year period to pay back the fund, what the estimated cost would be to pay
that back. That is recognized, that is the cost we need to make sure that we
have to pay back those funds. That is what is recognized in the report.
The Auditor General says we are on-line; we are doing our right investments.
The money is sound. It is an investment that needs to be paid back. We have met
all the requirements. The Auditor General has recognized we have met those
requirements. The hon. member is incorrect about his statement, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Next Monday, the Premier will be speaking to the Canadian Club of Toronto
about her government's Energy Plan and her cherished Muskrat Falls hydroelectric
project. Her release says she will be speaking about investing non-renewable
resource money into renewable resources, mainly Muskrat Falls.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she mention that her Muskrat Falls
Project has no foreseeable market for 40 per cent of the power, has no loan
guarantee, and that two independent reviews disagreed with government's position
on the project?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if all of that was true, the Leader of the Third Party could
relax and stop using up Question Period about a project that is not going to
progress.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I am asking the Premier: Where is the 40 per cent of power going? Where
is the loan guarantee? When she answers that question, she can make the comment
she just made.
Mr. Speaker, in her press release, the Premier talks about the charting of a
path to use the financial benefits of non-renewable resources to lay the
foundation for a sustainable economy for this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is there anything else on her path besides
Muskrat Falls, and if so, what is it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, not only do the people in Newfoundland and Labrador know what is
on the path of this government, but the whole country knows. We are the envy of
the country, Mr. Speaker, in terms of our economy and what is happening here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have explained quite clearly where
the power is going from Muskrat Falls: 40 per cent will be used for ratepayers
here in the Province, 20 per cent is going to go to Emera in Nova Scotia, and 40
per cent will go to the spot market. We have calculated in our agreements with
Emera, given the fact we have control of 65 per cent of the Maritime Link for
the next thirty-five years before we own it outright, and we have negotiated a
path right into Atlantic Canada and the American markets.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: If Emera says no to building the
Maritime Link or a loan guarantee is not forthcoming, what is she going to do
then?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when we need the power in Labrador, as we fully anticipate we
will, we will draw that 40 per cent of power back, and even more if necessary
into Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, before we go to sanction, we will have the loan guarantee. We
have not made a sanction decision yet. When we do go to a sanction decision,
everything that is required to give confidence to the people of this Province
that all of the proper arrangements are in place will be very clear and will be
properly done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MHI reported in October that labour availability remains a major risk to the
construction of the Labrador-Island Link transmission line. It reports that
Nalcor has recognized this major risk and has identified ways to attract skilled
labour back to the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What exactly are Nalcor's plans for bringing
back these workers to the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, we have been working for a number of years to
develop the mega-projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, including Muskrat Falls.
Part of the planning process includes Nalcor being able to project what their
labour demand will be.
Mr. Speaker, in order for us to be able to develop the labour force in
Newfoundland and Labrador, we have spent a significant amount of money. Even
this year alone, Mr. Speaker, $50 million of our provincial Budget goes towards
supporting pre-apprentices and apprentices in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we will make sure that we are prepared. The people of
Newfoundland and Labrador who can benefit from our resource developments will
have every opportunity, if they so wish, to take advantage of the opportunities
that lay ahead.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Nalcor has taken that into consideration. So has MHI when they say there is
still a risk.
I ask the Premier: How is government planning to convince people to leave
permanent well-paying jobs in other parts of Canada for short-term contracts in
this Province, because the numbers here are not enough?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, finding labour for projects is a challenge in every sector of
our economy and in every place in this country. That is not a reason to halt
progress.
We have trained Newfoundlanders and Labradorians not only right across this
country, but right around the world, Mr. Speaker. They are not coming home for a
short-term project. We have Vale Inco, we have the expansions at IOC, we have
the Lower Churchill Project, we have the Hebron agreement, and we have potential
mining developments in Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have been very strategic in our
planning, stacking all of these projects, so that when people come home they
have long-term employment prospects.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, despite the existence of a silica dust code, there are even more
cases of silicosis and cancer among the hard-working miners in Labrador West. In
November 2010, Service Newfoundland and Labrador issued an RFP for a medical
review of the x-rays of mine workers and a company was chosen to do it. It is
November 2012, two years later two years later, Mr. Speaker and workers are
still waiting for this study to start.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why has the medical review of these workers'
X-rays not started and when will it start?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Very recently we finished negotiations with the company that will be carrying
out the audit on the dust study. Within a matter of days we just finished
putting the negotiations on the table and we should very quickly see where the
audit will start. So, in the very near future we will have an answer on that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it is two years later two years later. The
Silica Code of Practice was expected to result in safer air quality for miners
and for all the people of Labrador West.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will the department fund a dust study of the
communities to ensure that public health of the people of Labrador West is
protected?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are very aware of the dust problems, especially in all the industrial
areas in of our Province, and this is part of the negotiations that we were
working on to have this dust study done. The negotiations were just finalized,
as I said, just a couple of days ago, and we will move forward in the very near
future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The cost to government will go up with Muskrat Falls, costs such as those
from higher energy costs for schools, hospitals and government buildings will
also be on the rise. What analysis has government done on these added costs, and
will the minister table these reports?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not aware of what the member is talking about. In fact, what we know is
that as the cost of oil goes up which it will, by the way, and will maintain
around $100 per barrel in the next number of years it is going to cost more
for electricity.
With Muskrat Falls, the cost of electricity will go down. So, I fail to see
where the question is coming from. There will be cheaper power with Muskrat
Falls than without Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I thought that was a pretty easy question. If
electricity costs are going to go up in the next little while, particularly with
Muskrat coming on stream in 2017, that the cost per kilowatt hour was going to
go up. Government has to account for the extra costs to the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, costs to operate government programs such as the Low Income
Seniors Benefit will also go up due to an aging demographic. People's
electricity bills will be going up, which may include a higher payout from a
revamped heating rebate program, for example.
Can the minister promise the people of this Province that they will not face
higher taxes as a result of also having to deal with the debt that will come
from having to pay down on the Muskrat Falls Project?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls will not increase our net debt
by one cent not a cent.
this project, and the cash flow from the project will pay for that indebtedness.
There will be a dividend come to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador so
that money is available to spend for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is nice to hear the first hinting of a federal loan guarantee coming out
from the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, the Natural Resources Minister says that the price of
electricity is going to go up anyway, with or without Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MURPHY: That is not true.
Any increase to rates has to go through a hearing of the Public Utilities
Board, and any increase is never guaranteed. If oil prices fall under the
Harvard study findings, for example, then under the rate stabilization formula,
the rates will have to come down. Mr. Speaker, the ratepayer gets protection.
Why will the government not give the taxpayer the same protection and send
Muskrat Falls back to the PUB for full review?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a paper released by the
Department of Natural Resources that dealt with electricity rates. As opposed to
outlining misleading statements, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should read
what is in the report and then come back with some tangible criticisms.
Mr. Speaker, there was a 32 per cent increase between 2001-2011 in
residential electricity rates. Between 2011-2016, it will go up another 16 per
cent, Mr. Speaker. Without Muskrat Falls, the increase in rates will be twice
what it will be with Muskrat Falls it is that simple.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to table a document around
average wages for Early Childhood Educators in Atlantic Canada. I certainly
appreciate your ruling from earlier today, and I would like to table the most
up-to-date information that I have.
I understand the Member for St. John's North would probably not have the most
up-to-date information, and probably may not have heard my media interviews
around our concerns with the salaries that were in that report.
I would also like to point out he did say yesterday that he had some concerns
that the minister did not read the report. Mr. Speaker, not only did I read the
report, but I met with the authors of the report after to outline those
concerns, so that he does have the most up-to-date information for any petitions
he may file in the House in the future. I will table that information.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: There is no provision for private members to table documents
in the Standing Orders.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Regulate The Practice of Pharmacy. (Bill 50)
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 51)
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Teachers' Pension Act. (Bill 52)
MR. KIRBY: A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North rising on a point
of order.
MR. KIRBY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise on a point of order to
respond to the minister's comment about the salaries of Early Childhood
Educators in Atlantic Canada. In response I would like to table page 90 of the
Early Years Study 3, which very clearly shows that the most recent statistics
show that
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I reminded the member yesterday as he rose to speak with respect to some
clear
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I reminded the member yesterday as he was speaking with respect to some
documentation he wanted to clarify that I was ruling on the issue at hand. The
Speaker has made a ruling today with respect to the issue raised by the Minister
of Child, Youth and Family Services. The Speaker believes that the issue has
been dealt with in his ruling and will not entertain further comments with
respect to the issue.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS in the 2011 Blue Book, the Progressive Conservative Party committed
to fully replacing the provincial student loan program with a full system of
upfront, needs-based grants; and
WHEREAS the average student debt in Newfoundland and Labrador remains at
approximately $25,000, the highest average student debt in the country; and
WHEREAS student debt prohibits many graduates from contributing to the
economy through purchasing homes, automobiles, et cetera; and
WHEREAS student debt is disproportionately borne by students from low-income
backgrounds and students from rural areas; and
WHEREAS student debt is the primary cause of out-migration, as many students
must move out of the Province in order to pay off their education-related debt.
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to
follow through on its 2011 general election commitment to replace the provincial
student loan program with a system of upfront, needs-based grants.
In duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, after the election last year, both the Premier and the Minister
of Advanced Education Skills, I believe, on February 21, 2012, attended an event
that marked the national day of action for post-secondary students across the
country. Here it was organized by the local component of the Canadian Federation
of Students. Both the Premier and the minister offered comments at that event
and the Premier, in fact, said that education is a right, not a privilege.
The elimination of the student loan program and replacing it with grants was
a promise that was made to the people of the Province in October of last year.
There is a Gaelic proverb, Mr. Speaker, that says: There is no greater fraud
than a promise not kept.
I encourage the Premier to keep her promise to the people of the Province,
because failing to do so certainly encourages only greater cynicism amongst the
public and, at worse, it fails to assist students who the Premier promised to
assist just over a year ago.
I hope the members, especially the Premier, will hear these petitioners.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain
within the comfort and security of their homes; home care also allows people to
be discharged from hospital earlier; and
WHEREAS many families find it very difficult to recruit and retain home care
workers for their loved ones; and
WHEREAS the PC Blue Book, 2011, as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne
committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people
the option of receiving that care from family members; and
WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to
implement paying family caregivers; and
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to implement a new home care model to cover
family caregivers.
In duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is a petition of numerous people from various communities
in my district and some people from communities outside of the district. Mr.
Speaker, this is an issue that affects everybody and it is incomprehensible that
the government will not move on this promise because the cost to have non-family
caregivers provide the care is no different than the cost to have family
caregivers provide the care.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a cost issue. Clearly, there are adequate funds for
non-family members to provide this home care service, so the same amount of
funds would be adequate for family caregivers. Mr. Speaker, it is
incomprehensible that government simply would not say it does not matter who
your family is. In fact, it may very well be discriminatory that family members
are unable to provide this service.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader has called Orders of the
Day.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: I call from the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, Address in Reply.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this opportunity here today to talk about
Muskrat Falls, and I am going to zoom in on a specific issue. I think it got
lost somewhat in the rhetoric over the last number of weeks and months.
The reality with Muskrat Falls is that we need power now. I am going to
phrase it this way, Mr. Speaker. I am going to deal with the issue of the need
for power or demand. Do we need the power? Because if we need the power, Mr.
Speaker, the second question is, when do we need the power? If we need the power
and we need it in the near future, then we have to do something.
Now, that is the way I am going to phrase that, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest
it is very logical and it is a very sensible approach to this matter. Do we need
the power? Mr. Speaker, we released in the Department of Natural Resources a
paper on demand. Do we need the power? The numbers are outlined in there, Mr.
Speaker, and I am going to make a couple of very, I would suggest, common sense
statements.
Electricity demand is linked to strong economic growth. Our GDP, Mr. Speaker,
has doubled. Our personal disposable income has increased by 56 per cent since
2002. Housing starts are 50 per cent higher than they were in the previous
decade, Mr. Speaker. To put that in perspective, we have had 28,800 new homes
built from 2002 to 2011. That is at page 4 of the report, Mr. Speaker.
Since 2006, we have averaged over 3,000 new homes a year, with 3,600 in 2010.
Eighty-five of these new homes have electric heat. They are bigger homes, Mr.
Speaker. There are less people in there. They require electric heat.
One of the arguments against the need for power, Mr. Speaker, was that our
population has declined. Therefore, with a population decline and mills closing,
we do not need power. Well, let me deal with the issue of population decline
first, Mr. Speaker. Even though the population has declined, there are 18,600
additional residential customers on the Island than there were in 2006.
For the Member for St. John's East who does not read reports, that is at page
5 of the report, Mr. Speaker.
Since 2002, Mr. Speaker, the residential demand on the Island is up 16 per
cent and the commercial demand is up 10 per cent. GDP, households, and
commercial and industrial developments are expected to continue to increase over
the next two decades. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's latest
electricity demand forecast, which is attached to the paper as Appendix 1,
outlines the load forecast for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for 2012. It
indicates an increase of 3.1 per cent until 2016.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the second argument against the need for power is the
closure of the mills in Stephenville and Grand Falls. There were 182 megawatts
of power that became available as a result of the closure of these mills and the
shutdown of the other machine in Corner Brook. Forty per cent of that power, or
seventy-six megawatts had been used by 2011. When Vale Inco comes on-line, Mr.
Speaker, it will require eighty-five megawatts of power. By 2013-2014, the 182
megawatts of power will be entirely utilized. That is at page 6 of the demand
paper, Mr. Speaker.
One, we have more residential customers; two, with the closure of the mills,
the power that was available will have been utilized by then. Those two
arguments, I would suggest, are gone. Mr. Speaker, we have a robust economy
right now. Let's look at what we are going to need.
There are arguments: Well, you can do small hydro by itself with wind, or
conservation demand management. Appendix 1 of the load forecast, Mr. Speaker, to
the demand paper, if you look down you will see that in 2012 the peak demand is
1,581 megawatts. The peak demand in 2017, Mr. Speaker, will be 1,755 megawatts,
almost 200 megawatts more, but by 2020 it will be 1,766 megawatts. Again, that
is almost 200 megawatts more of power. Peak demand, Mr. Speaker, is the power
that you need to meet the coldest day in the winter to ensure you have enough
power.
So, Mr. Speaker, the PUB approves reliability standards; that is, again,
outlined on page 7 of the report. By 2030 we will require, at peak, a projected
1942 megawatts of power 400 more megawatts. Now, Mr. Speaker, the math is
simple there; it is outlined by Nalcor that by 2015 we will be challenged to
meet peak demand in the winter months and post-2019 there will not be a
sufficient energy supply, stated on page 7 of the report.
Mr. Speaker, I have not heard anyone question the validity or the accuracy of
these statements. Newfoundland and Labrador's load forecasting technique was
reviewed by Manitoba Hydro International, at pages 16-23 of the MHI report. They
concluded that, at page 19 and just to put it in perspective, Mr. Speaker, ten
megawatts of annual peak growth can be achieved by adding only 1,560
electric-space-heating homes per year; so, ten megawatts of energy required per
year for 1,500 homes. That is a good way to put it in the context of how many
megawatts per home.
Mr. Speaker, in their
summary, Manitoba Hydro International concludes that
the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro forecast is well-founded and appropriate,
that 2012 shows an increased domestic load, and that their lower forecast for
commercial and business investment is conservative and they do not allow
anything for industrial forecasting.
So, Mr. Speaker, question one: do we need the power? Obvious it is obvious
that we need the power, unless someone can show that Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro's load-forecasting technique is wrong, and that Manitoba Hydro
International has reached a wrong conclusion commenting on the load forecast.
So, Mr. Speaker, we need power.
When do we need it? That is the next question: when do we need the power?
Nalcor, Mr. Speaker Mr. Martin and Mr. Bennett have been clear from day one
that by 2015 we will start to not have enough power to meet peak demand in the
winter months, and post-2019 there will not be sufficient energy supplied.
So, Mr. Speaker, if we need power and we need it by 2019, then where are we
going to get it? That is the whole issue, and you move into the options. We do
not have the option to wait, Mr. Speaker. Based on all of the information we
have before us, something has to be done and has to be done quickly.
So, it is not that we are rushing Muskrat Falls. We have been two years
discussing this matter. It has been debated ad nauseam, I would suggest to you,
Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that what has not been challenged is the need for
power.
We will get some critics who will argue: well, you can get small bits; you
can save some through conservation and management, develop small hydro. There
are seventy-seven megawatts of hydro available, Mr. Speaker, at Portland Creek,
Island Pond, and Round Pond. I think that is correct, Mr. Speaker. We know that
we can integrate a certain amount of wind.
The first question is: we need power; do we keep Holyrood or not, because we
have to do something. Mr. Speaker, are we going to keep Holyrood or are we going
to look for another source of power? Forget Muskrat Falls for a second. We need
power. We either, Mr. Speaker, have to refurbish Holyrood in combination with
small hydro and wind at a substantial cost. Nalcor at the Decision Gate 2
screening phase, Mr. Speaker, looked at these two options as being the main
options that were feasible or viable.
Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Hydro International concluded that Muskrat Falls is
$2.4 billion cheaper than the Isolated Island. At page 72, as I referred to
yesterday, they engaged in a sensitivity analysis and looked at various
scenarios that could result in either the widening or the lowering of that gap.
Mr. Speaker, the closest they could come is that if PIRA's low fuel price for
the next ever-how-many years was at $60 a barrel, that would still bring it
within $500 million.
Mr. Speaker, I quoted yesterday and PIRA has filed a report. These are
experts we go to. We are not making this up. We go to them; they represent, I
think what did it say 500 companies in over sixty countries. They represent
"over 80% of both the oil producers and oil refiners in North America. Outside
of the oil business, we also provide services to over 80% of the U.S. gas and
electric companies and over 90% of the gas and power marketers."
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is not a situation where we have an individual
opinion; we have an internationally recognized company. They are not by
themselves saying that oil will stay in the $100 to $105 range in the next
decade, Mr. Speaker, up to 2025. Other forecasting companies have indicated the
same; GLJ and Sproule have indicated the same. I discussed that the other day in
the House.
None of these forecasting companies see oil going below $100 a barrel. Can it
happen? Certainly, Mr. Speaker, as outlined in the Harvard Kennedy School
report. If China were to collapse, if there were total peace in the Middle East,
then certainly we could see oil go down.
We do know, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of producing shale oil is in the $50
to $65 range. The cost of producing oil in the oil sands in Alberta is in the
$80 to $85 range. Wood Mackenzie has indicated, Mr. Speaker, a price of around
$100 or $110. The closest we can come is that 584. If you use the PIRA expected
of 112, then there is a $3 billion difference.
Mr. Speaker, on a purely economical analysis, forgetting the environmental
benefits that will benefit my colleague here, the Minister of Environment, and
all of the other people who live in the Conception Bay area there is the
economic analysis which clearly speaks in support of Muskrat Falls.
Then we said: Well, there are other options. Let us look at the other
options. The NDP especially had argued: Well, you have a look at large-scale
wind. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have looked at large-scale wind now and we have
brought back a report from MHI again which showed that large-scale wind would
cost, with thermal, close to $12 billion and with battery it would be $17
billion.
I have not heard, Mr. Speaker, criticism of that report. I have not heard
someone say that report is wrong. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what MHI concluded is
that you cannot even do that. You can only integrate 10 per cent into the system
and I think Nalcor did that by increasing the amount that can go into the
system, Mr. Speaker, over the next number of years.
Then natural gas was raised. It was raised by a number of critics, Mr.
Speaker. There was a doctor at the university who made a presentation. We felt
compelled to have that report reviewed. Ziff Energy out of Calgary prepared a
report both on the importation option and the pipeline option, Mr. Speaker.
Because of the significance of the pipeline option, we had that reviewed again.
Mr. Speaker, what did we get back? The LNG option is the closest one after
Holyrood that could go from $10.7 billion to $11.2 billion, Mr. Speaker. Then we
would have to look at the FPSO or the floating pipeline, which would be around
$12.8 billion, and the stand-alone pipeline would be $15 billion.
Mr. Speaker, Wood Mackenzie comes back and says: We agree, Ziff's numbers are
reasonable, but they are probably low. Again, when you look at an economic
analysis, Mr. Speaker, natural gas, forgetting everything else, is not in the
picture. There is no one disputing I have never disputed the impact of shale
gas in the United States, nor am I disputing the impact of shale oil on the
United States' ability to become self-sufficient.
I have not disputed that, Mr. Speaker, but what the numbers clearly indicate
is that there will continue to be a growth in the need for oil and that the 90
million barrels a day that is currently burnt could go up to 110 million barrels
in the near future. The United States currently burns 20 millions a day and
China, 10 million barrels a day. If they continue, Mr. Speaker, to grow at 7 per
cent GDP, then China will equal and surpass the United States in the
not-too-distant future.
When we look at, Mr. Speaker, there are 80 million people a year entering the
middle class in places like China and India, there is going to be a need for
oil. When we look at the fact, the stat I quoted the other day, in the United
States, and I think this was in a Scotia Bank presentation, there was 800 cars
per 1,000 people in the United States; there are 70 cars per 1,000 people in
China; 20 cars per 1,000 people in India. Again, as the people enter the middle
class, Mr. Speaker, they look for cars and they look for homes, which require
steel, which requires oil, Mr. Speaker.
There is no reason to think, other than a comment somewhere by someone, that
the oil will dip below the prices that are currently being discussed, Mr.
Speaker. So, gas is out.
Then, Mr. Speaker, why can't we wait until 2041? If we need the power and we
need it now, we do not have that option, Mr. Speaker. We released a paper on the
Upper Churchill, can we wait until 2041, outlined some of the corporate issues
involved, Mr. Speaker, and clearly it indicates that we do not have the luxury
of waiting that long, because you have to do Holyrood.
Why don't we develop Gull Island first, Mr. Speaker? We have outlined in
detail why we cannot develop Gull Island. We have looked at legal options, Mr.
Speaker, including
section 92(
a) of whom the Member for Burgeo La Poile, his
father, the former minister, would be well aware of; there was work done while
he was there as Minister of Justice on the 92(a).
What we have, Mr. Speaker, is 92(a), the ability to recall power. I would
love nothing better than to be able to bring in a piece of legislation in this
House and allow us to recall 1,000 megawatts of energy from Quebec. It is not
that simple.
The law of the contract is governed by the law of Quebec, as the Supreme
Court of Canada indicated on a number of occasions. My colleagues across the way
who are lawyers, who I am sure will have read these decisions, will see that a
contract is a contract in common law; however, we are now proceeding on the good
faith action on the civil code of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, or the duty to bargain
fairly as circumstances change. That will not result in the return of power and
we have taken the regulatory steps, Mr. Speaker. What we have right now is we
have explored the options that are out there.
Mr. Speaker, then we get to the other issues that are left. Well, do you have
to do Muskrat Falls? What I suggest to the people of this Province is that we
either have to do Muskrat Falls or we have to refurbish Holyrood. We do not have
the luxury of waiting, Mr. Speaker. Then, the argument will be: Well, what about
the cost of power to Soldiers Pond? Look at how much you are paying for power to
Soldiers Pond.
Let's talk about that for a second. It cost today, Mr. Speaker, 18.5 cents a
kilowatt hour to produce energy at Holyrood. That is approximate; it can vary,
based on the price of oil. When it is blended with the cheaper power from Bay
D'Espoir, Mr. Speaker, that is how we get to our 12.6 per cent which puts us at
the fourth lowest in the country in terms of the cost of power.
You blend the power, Mr. Speaker. When power comes from Muskrat Falls to
Soldiers Pond, the cost of that power, Mr. Speaker, is 20.8 cents. It has gone
down from the twenty-three as a result of the loan guarantee, the increased
demand, and a number of other factors outlined by Mr. Martin.
Mr. Speaker, in 2017 the cost of reducing power at Holyrood will be 22.3
cents a kilowatt hour. What we have is a situation where Muskrat Falls to
Soldiers Pond power is cheaper than Holyrood power at any time. Mr. Speaker, you
have to look at the blended cost. The cost in kilowatt hours to the people of
this Province will be 15.2 cents, and we will see rates go up without Muskrat
Falls. They lower with Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker.
Then we get issues raised, such as water rights management. Mr. Speaker, I
said yesterday there is a law school student who can figure this out, a young
man, I think his name is John Samms, who has written an excellent blog on water
rights. He is a first year law student. He has outlined, again, the arguments
and looked at it all, and concluded, quite carefully, that water rights are
looked after.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I always like about these arguments is that
you get the Liberals on the other side saying: Well, our people looked at this
and we have determined that there is an issue with water rights. In the next
forty-nine seconds because I know I will not get leave if I can find my file
on water rights, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to refer the Liberals to an interesting letter that was written by
a former vice-president of their Party to Premier Danny Williams on February 15,
2007, a lawyer by the name of Jim Thistle. Jim outlined what he thought was the
way to go about water rights management. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, what Mr.
Thistle suggested was the way that we proceeded in this House with legislation
and went to the PUB.
Before they start putting forward opinions from other lawyers within the
Liberal Party, they should look at things like this, Mr. Speaker, a letter dated
February 15, 2007. Even within the Liberal Party there is dispute.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the member his time has expired.
MR. KENNEDY: Do I get time? Any leave? One minute.
AN HON. MEMBER: Leave to clue up, yes.
MR. KENNEDY: Did you make a ruling on this
MR. SPEAKER: The member has one minute leave, as granted by members of
the House.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what I have tried to do here today is just simply show the
people of this Province that there is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing
about this file. What we are putting forward are the facts. One, we need the
power; two, we need it in the next number of years; and three, Muskrat Falls is
the lowest cost option that has significant economic benefits, Mr. Speaker. It
has environmental benefits and it allows for a future for our children. It is a
visionary piece of work, Mr. Speaker, and one that is in the best interests of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that we adjourn debate on Order
1, Address in Reply.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that we now adjourn debate on
Address in Reply.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2, first
reading of Bill 47.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and
Labrador, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend Various
Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals,
Bill 47, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Service
Newfoundland and Labrador shall have leave to introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend
Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And
Tribunals, Bill 47, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 47 and that the bill now be read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting
Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals", carried. (Bill 47)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting
Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals. (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. KING: Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service
Newfoundland and Labrador, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Trust And Loan Corporation Act, Bill 48, and I further move that the
said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Service
Newfoundland and Labrador shall have leave to introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend
The Trust And Loan Corporations Act, Bill 48, and that the said bill be now read
a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 48 and that the bill now be read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act",
carried. (Bill 48)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend Trust And Loan Corporations Act. (Bill 48)
On motion, Bill 48 read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time, when shall the
bill be read a second time?
MR. KING: Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, to ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act, Bill
49, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Justice
shall have leave to introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences
Act, Bill 49, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 49, and that the bill will now be read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To
Amend The Young Persons Offences Act", carried. (Bill 49)
CHAIR: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act. (Bill 49)
On motion, Bill 49 read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the
bill be read a second time?
MR. KING: Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, order 2, third reading of Bill 44.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board,
that the bill,
An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The
Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers, And
Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department, Bill 44, be now
read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 44 be read a
third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For
The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers, And
Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department. (Bill 44)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions
For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers,
And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department", read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 44)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call, off the Order Paper, Order 1, Address in Reply.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to stand up and speak in the House today on
Labrador. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the most important thing happening right
now in Labrador is Muskrat Falls. I am going to speak on Muskrat Falls and some
of the benefits that I see as an MHA and the Minister Responsible for Labrador
Affairs, as to the benefits that Muskrat Falls will have for the people of
Labrador and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we have all heard Labrador referred to as the Big Land before.
Right now, the boom that we are seeing in the energy field and resource sectors
in the parts of Labrador is certainly very big. The opportunities that will
offer are even bigger, Mr. Speaker.
It is exciting times in Labrador and I am proud to be a member of a
government that recognizes the important role that Labrador plays in the overall
success of our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: I think that Muskrat Falls is the beginning of a project
that looms right now as one of the largest projects that we have ever taken on
in our Province, and certainly this government realizes this is just the
beginning of a much bigger project to come.
As the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs I am anxious to see the
economic roll-out of what is going to happen with the employment benefits that
Muskrat Falls will give us as a Province. I think that Labradorians first, as is
stated, have a very good opportunity here at some very good skilled trade jobs
that are going to be available through the development and then the generation
and transmission that will come from Muskrat Falls.
Over the next ten years I have spoken about it before you are going to
see approximately $15 billion of investment in Labrador mining. The mining
projects that are going to happen in Labrador, almost every day you are hearing
of a new project that has been either discovered or explored in Labrador. We are
looking at iron ore, we are looking at nickel, we are looking at copper, and we
are looking at cobalt, uranium, and rare earth minerals. Everywhere in Labrador,
things are happening when it comes to mining, whether it is on the North Coast
of Labrador in the Torngat Mountains or whether is on the South Coast in The
Straits, with the rare earth minerals; certainly in the Lake Melville area we
have new mines opening in the iron sands. In my district in Western Labrador we
have many projects already existing: the Rio Tinto project, the Iron Ore Company
of Canada, with a huge expansion. Bloom Lake opened a few years ago; they have
another expansion. Wabush Mines we have over there, and soon to come we have
Alderon Mines. I will talk about those a little bit later.
Those are just some of the developments that are happening right now in
Labrador. All of these developments that are happening now depend on one thing
and I have heard it many, many times and I have heard members on the opposite
side of the House say that is it always a second thought and it is always an
afterthought. There is nothing further from the truth about Labrador being an
afterthought with this government. This government realizes and recognizes the
importance of Labrador as part of this Province.
All too often you hear of the Province of Newfoundland I saw it yesterday,
as the Province referred to as Newfoundland. It is the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador and this government realizes that and they realize the benefits
that we will get from the Muskrat Falls Project for all of the Province,
Newfoundland and Labrador.
If we do not develop Muskrat Falls, then a lot of the mining developments
that are happening now, especially in the Labrador portion of the Province, will
not happen. I have been guaranteed I talked to the Minister of Natural
Resources, I have talked to the Premier, and I have heard the Premier say it
just today, I heard the Minister of Natural Resources say it today, that 40 per
cent of the power from the Muskrat Falls Project will be available for industry
in Labrador.
When you hear an argument against that when those projects are ready and
need the power, the power is there. The access to that power will be there if we
develop Muskrat Falls, but you cannot develop Muskrat Falls and let that 40 per
cent of the power just run down the river while you are waiting for these
developments to happen. That is why that 40 per cent of power will go to spot
market now.
This government is intelligent enough that they know you just do not let it
run down the river, you put it in the spot market and you get a return on it
while you are waiting for the developments to happen in Labrador. It is not an
afterthought. It is certainly not an afterthought. It is just good fiscal
management of a project that I think is very good.
Based on projects already in construction or near sanction, existing
generating capacity in Labrador may be exhausted. You heard the Minister of
Natural Resources say it: In 2015, according to Nalcor, we are probably going to
see brown spots. We are going to start running out of electricity. We are not
going to have enough energy to meet the supply definitely by 2019, if we do
not develop Muskrat Falls.
Muskrat Falls is going to be an important source of power for mining
developments post-2017; 2017 is when we are hoping to see a lot of these
projects happening.
I just want to talk a little bit about some of the projects that are
happening now and just in the Labrador portion of our Province. There are a
number of these mining projects that are happening right now. In Voisey's Bay,
we have a project that is up and running. We already see the benefits from the
Voisey's Bay Project. We are already seeing benefits here on the Island portion
of the Province.
Long Harbour is a great example of what Voisey's Bay is doing. Voisey's Bay,
by the way, is just beginning because Voisey's Bay is going to expand. When
Voisey's Bay expands, you are going to see energy transmitted up to the North
Coast of Labrador. That is what Muskrat Falls will allow.
Cleveland-Cliffs, Rio Tinto, the Carol Lake Project, and Labrador Iron Mines
Limited they are all mines already in operation and already happening within
the Labrador portion of the Province. That is four big projects that are already
existing and already adding to the economy.
Two others are there right now that are currently in construction. You have
IOC's expansion program. This past weekend I had the privilege of being in my
district and doing a tour of the crusher, the new crusher at the Iron Ore
Company of Canada's mine. You have a seven-and-a-half-kilometre conveyor belt.
The crusher before worked on an ATO system, which is an automated train
operation. It had to come from the mine seven-and-a-half kilometres, go to the
crusher, which was seven-and-a-half kilometres away, then go from the crusher,
and then go to the concentrator. It could not work fast enough for the demand.
Now they have added in this second crusher, but what they did was put the
crusher out next to the mine, out in the mine, not seven-and-a-half kilometres
away. The new crusher is now in the mine, which speeds up the development. Their
productivity now is much faster. It is crushed there, carried seven-and-a-half
kilometres on a crusher belt, and directly into the concentrator. There is no
stop now. It is steady go. That is part of the expansion at the Iron Ore Company
of Canada's program.
Then you have Tata Steel up in the Schefferville area. They are under
construction. The feasibility for the study of Labrador Iron Mines expansion is
complete. You are going to see that expand now. I was up there this summer. I
went up and did a tour of Labrador Iron Mines, another great project that is
moving forward in Labrador.
Alderon Iron Ore Corporation's Kami project is another project that is moving
forward; Tata Steel Canada, Labmag project; the Vale Inco Voisey's Bay
underground mine that I just spoke about; and Labec Century Iron Ore's Joyce
Lake, all undergoing feasibility studies right now. The feasibility studies are
all moving. That is four more projects.
Iron Ore Labrador West Strategic Development, North Atlantic Iron Ore
Corporation, Aurora's Paladin Michelin project, and Julienne Lake are all
undergoing pre-feasibility studies. That is four more projects that are
happening right now in Labrador. Just there alone, I have mentioned fifteen
projects that are either existing or in pre-feasibility, feasibility study, or
the study complete. All projects that are going to need more energy, without the
energy they cannot happen.
Where are we going to find the energy? The answer to that question would be
Muskrat Falls. Sanctioning Muskrat Falls may assist mining companies in making
positive investment decisions for Newfoundland and Labrador which would bring
significant benefits to the Province to all of the Province. The whole
Province will benefit from the Muskrat Falls investment.
I did not mean to point at the member across the way there, actually I was
pointing at the picture above his head.
Availability of power will encourage investment in mining developments in the
Province rather than competing jurisdictions. That is very important, because if
there is one thing I have heard from a lot of the Opposition is that we are not
doing enough investments in Labrador. There are not enough investments in
Labrador.
The Muskrat Falls Project is one of the projects that will entice large
investments and large investors to come to Labrador to make those investments.
We know that the mineral is there and now we need to get those large companies
to come in and invest. They are not going to do it unless they know when they
make that investment they are going to get a return on their dollar. In order to
get a return on their dollar, they have to get the product out. In order to get
the product out, they have to have energy and electricity. The availability of
power will encourage that investment in mining developments in the Province, and
then we are not going to have to worry about, for example, our neighbours next
door in Quebec.
I remember being in Ottawa last spring. I was at a convention and the big
hoopla was Plan Nord. All you heard was about Quebec's Plan Nord. I honestly
believe as a member of this government that one of the strong rationales of
Quebec's Plan Nord is because they realize in 2041 they have to make a decision.
In 2041, when we get back the rights to the Upper Churchill, Quebec has to
find some solutions. I think when the Muskrat Falls Project is up and running,
that is when you are going to see Plan Nord change. That is when you are going
to see Quebec want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador and start negotiating
with us and not in 2041, you are going to see it happen now.
The Isolated Island Option, we have all talked about that. One thing I have
not heard, and I think we need to realize, is that the Isolated Island Option,
if we decide we are going to refurbish Holyrood, how are we going to get the
supply of power to Labrador? Again, we are at the mercy of Quebec. If we decide
let's refurbish Holyrood, let's work with some of the smaller hydro projects we
have on the Island portion of the Province, how are we going to develop
Labrador? We still have nothing, unless we surrender to the mercy of Quebec and
then all the dollars are going back out again.
Basically, such mining developments would bring major economic benefit to the
Province which would benefit the people of our Province today and not just for
this generation, not just for this generation. I want to see my son and my
daughter have healthy lives. I want to see my grandson have a healthy,
prosperous life, and I want to see him have it here in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: Muskrat Falls will bring a lot of benefits to Labradorians,
as well as the rest of the Province. The availability of power will benefit the
business community. I have a business background. I know the benefits that
projects such as Muskrat Falls will bring, just in the secondary industry.
For example, in my district in Labrador, and I spoke about it yesterday
during a news conference, we have over 4,000 extra people in my district who are
working because of the expansions that are happening now in the mining industry
in my district.
In the Lake Melville district, when the Muskrat Falls Project begins, they
are going to see approximately 5,000 extra people in their community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: Those 5,000 people are spending money. That is all secondary
income.
We talk about the skilled jobs that you need for the Muskrat Falls Project.
We did not even mention any of the spinoff jobs that are going to be needed for
the secondary industry, such as your restaurants, such as your hotels and
motels, such as your dry cleaners, your laundromats, your grocery stores, and
your gas stations. So you are going to need employees for all that, plus all
those supplies that go into the secondary industry. All of that benefits
Labrador.
Seventy-five per cent of the jobs available are going to go to Labradorians.
Seventy-five per cent of the project in building Muskrat Falls will be built in
Labrador. It is not going to be pre-fab and brought in; it is going to be built
right there in Labrador. All Aboriginals I think it is very important, because
a large population of the Labrador population are of Aboriginal descent. We are
going to see I realize the Member for the Bay of Islands would like to be from
Labrador, but
MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).
MR. MCGRATH: Well that is but you are not a Labradorian. All Aboriginal
Labradorians will benefit from this. All Aboriginal Labradorians will benefit
from this. The government, our government, has already started that. We have
already got the LATP in place the Labrador Aboriginal Training Program with
the provincial government and the federal government; we are in partnership with
the Nunatsiavut Government, the Innu Community Council, and with the NunatuKavut
Community Council. They all benefit from that.
I have a list; it is some of the jobs and people that have gone through that
partnership and that program already. This is from April, 2010 to March 31,
2012, so over a two-year period of funded skills development: the NunatuKavut
had 110 people go through it; the Nunatsiavut had 106; Innu, 169, for a total of
385 that have already received benefits from that program.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: Client assessments that have been done to get into the LATP
program: 216 with the NunatuKavut; Nunatsiavut, 419; the Innu, 337, for a total
of 972. You heard earlier today during Question Period, when the Minister of
Natural Resources talked about the consultation with the Nunatsiavut and with
the NunatuKavut; this is a result of those consultations. That is a result of
the partnerships that this government is building with the federal government,
with the Nunatsiavut Government, with the NunatuKavut Community Council, and
with the Innu.
Core training and essential skills: NunatuKavut, seventeen; Nunatsiavut,
seventy-eight; Innu, 311, for a total of 406 employed already from going through
the program. These are people who went through the program, took advantage of
the Labrador Aboriginal Training program, and are full-time permanent employees
now in Labrador. With the NunatuKavut Community Council band, 124 employed;
Nunatsiavut group, 161 employed; Innu, 114 employed. That to me is a very good
example of what this government is doing from the benefits from Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: Those numbers are nothing for what is going to come with
Muskrat Falls, because then we have the energy to make all those other
developments happen. To me that is a very good start; positive, good numbers
there.
I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, and I know I am not going to get
leave. I will not need leave. Hopefully I will get an opportunity to stand up
and speak again. I will not need leave.
I think it is very important, and I just talked about LATP, the Labrador
Aboriginal Training Program, and I will end on this note. We are working right
now with Minister Penashue, with the federal government, with the Nunatsiavut
Government, with the Innu, and with the NunatuKavut Community Council to get
another funding for the next three years. We have already spent $30 million on
that program alone $30 million.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I had the opportunity to stand up
and talk about some of the great things that are happening in Labrador. I think
there is a lot more to come when we see Muskrat Falls developed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is indeed a pleasure again to get an opportunity to stand in this House
and have some comment on obviously what has been a very important topic for the
Province in the past couple of years, for sure, and that is the development of
the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project. Mr. Speaker, it is an important time
for us, and I echo the Premier's comment that we are truly at a turning point in
our history.
We had that opportunity, we know that, back when the Upper Churchill was
developed; we lost an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, where Quebec gets $20 billion
and we get $1 billion. That was a turning point for us, Mr. Speaker. We missed
that opportunity. I say to the people of the Province and our colleagues: We
best not miss this opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, if we look at this debate and discussion about
Muskrat Falls, I think there is no question that the fundamental questions have
been answered. Do we need power? The answer has been yes. Do we have options?
Sure we do: wind, gas, hydro, and oil. Mr. Speaker, we know, proven, the
least-cost option is Muskrat Falls.
Multiple experts, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor, Navigant, Ziff, PIRA, MHI, the list
goes on, have validated the work that has been done and have answered these
fundamental questions for us. While there is still some opposition, particularly
in this House, I just pose the question: Are they all wrong? Is that possible?
They are all wrong, they have all missed this? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at how the critics have viewed and how they have
looked at government's approach to Muskrat Falls, recently we have come under
some criticism because we are not sure what it is all about. We are jumping all
around and all over the place. One day it is about Quebec, another day it is
about something else. Well, Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is about an overarching
principle for us.
We realize that we need energy. It is about meeting the energy needs now and
into the future, Mr. Speaker. When we move all over the place to talk about
Muskrat Falls, we are talking about meeting our Island's needs. We are talking
about Labrador development, Mr. Speaker, and as my colleague referenced, $15
billion. We are talking about 3,100 jobs, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity for the
young people of this Province, the skilled tradespeople, the young apprentices
to have a realistic opportunity and a future to work right here in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: We talk about the environment, Mr. Speaker, and shutting down
Holyrood. We talk about moving away from Quebec's grip on our economic
development and getting away from our haunted past with Quebec. We talk about
stabilizing rates, Mr. Speaker. The reason we move around and talk about all
those things, Mr. Speaker, is they are all a part of this package. They are all
a part of Muskrat Falls and the true benefits for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, nobody is hiding that. All of the experts, the Premier, our
Minister of Natural Resources, the leadership at Nalcor, everybody has been
available to answer questions. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, from what I have
heard from my own perspective, every single question that has been asked has
been answered. They may not like the answers all the time, but, Mr. Speaker, the
answers have been provided.
We get accused of jumping around but, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has done
the same thing in trying to attack Muskrat Falls, trying to pin it on one thing.
Mr. Speaker, maybe they are trying to pin it but they are moving around. They
started with the rates are going to double. When the Minister of Natural
Resources stood in this House and challenged those naysayers to prove it, I do
not think we have heard it mentioned since.
Mr. Speaker, they talked about the environment. They realized our respect for
the environment and the environmental assessment process, they have moved on to
somewhere else. They are saying: Well, we are not getting enough information. We
heard that for weeks. Mr. Speaker, they have it all, whatever they wanted. There
were boxes tabled here in this House and all of the reports have been out and
made available, Mr. Speaker. We do not hear much coming back, criticism about
these reports.
Mr. Speaker, they talked about the PUB. The PUB had an opportunity. We spent
$2 million working with them and ensuring that they had an opportunity to
deliver a message to us. They did not do that, Mr. Speaker. They talked about
democracy, so they jumped all over the place. Now they want to attack democracy;
not Muskrat Falls and the project, the details and the benefits. They want to
attack democracy, Mr. Speaker, and give it to a board to decide.
Mr. Speaker, we are giving it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to
decide. We went to two elections on our Energy Plan. We went to Election 2011 on
Muskrat Falls and received a ringing endorsement, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, through all of this there is opportunity to
stand here day after day after day and drill government, drill the Minister of
Natural Resources, drill the Premier on questions about Muskrat Falls, but we do
not see it. We do not see that, Mr. Speaker. We get two or three, four or five,
maybe six, but day after day they are missing that opportunity, and there is a
good reason for it, Mr. Speaker.
They are talking about a filibuster. I saw them on CBC all excited about this
filibuster they are going to have. Sure, they do not even know what the
legislation is about, and already they are going to block it. Talking about an
opportunity to finally debate, the opportunity has been given, it is here. They
are all over the place on t