Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 13 April 2011 (46th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLVI No. 15)
2011-04-13
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April
13, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.
XLVI No. 15
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today, the Chair welcomes the following members' statements:
the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the
Member for the District of Humber West; and the hon. the Member for the District
of Port au Port.
The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the outstanding achievements of
performers at this year's Kiwanis Music Festival in Grand Falls, especially the
St. Ignatius Youth Choir, who received the prestigious Stanley Memorial Rose
Bowl. The Rose Bowl is awarded for the best group performance of the entire
festival, and our youth are certainly making us very proud.
I would also like to recognize their music coach, Ms Brenda Jeddore, who
dedicates herself to developing the vast talent of our young people, and she is
an exceptional person doing an exceptional job.
The St. Ignatius Choir has membership from both the St. Anne's Church in
Conne River and the St. Ignatius Church in St. Alban's. They not only won the
coveted Rose Bowl, but the Howell Memorial Award and the VOCM Award as well. The
Set'A'neway Mi'kmaq Choir won the Adjudicator's Award and a large number of
youth won various competitions throughout the week.
As a Kiwanis participant myself in younger years, I know first-hand how
important and inspirational the Kiwanis festivals are, and I certainly would
like to thank the organizers for their dedication and commitment as well.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating these fine young performers on a job well done.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this House to congratulate and wish
well the organizers of the Canadian National Student Leadership Conference 2011.
Corner Brook, home of Corner Brook Regional High, will play host to 1,000
student delegates, as well as 250 teacher delegates for a week-long conference
of leadership training from September 27 to October 1, 2011.
Every region of Canada will be represented from the far reaches of the North,
to the vast Pacific Ocean of the West, to the beautiful shores of Atlantic
Canada, by some of the brightest, energetic, enthusiastic young minds in this
country. Hundreds of students from all across Newfoundland and Labrador will
play host for these week-long celebrations.
The theme of the conference is: A Newfound Energy. Delegates will be treated
to the Newfound Energy of Newfoundland and Labrador the energy of our
resources, our culture, and our people - and in particular, the energy of our
Province's youth. Delegates will be in awe with the reds, yellows, and oranges
of a Corner Brook autumn. With this setting as a backdrop, the organizing
committee continues to finalize plans for what is to be a fabulous fall
conference.
I congratulate the steering committee under the direction of co-chairs John
Dennison and Reuban Austin, and under the daily supervision of Executive
Director Gary Parsons, for the steadfast determination and will to showcase this
beautiful part of our Province to the Nation's youth.
As they are now only five months away from the conference, I call upon all
members of this House to support and wish well the students, staff, and
organizing committee of CSLC 2011, Corner Brook Regional High, for an excellent
national conference.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House of Assembly to
congratulate Kristen Cooze of Kippens for being selected to the 2011 Team Canada
Women's Ball Hockey team, who will compete at the World Women's Ball Hockey
Championship this year in Bratislava, Slovakia.
Mr. Speaker, Kristen was selected to be a member of this team because of her
athletic talent and dedication. Kristen is seen as a budding star with
impressive skills for her age that are continuing to develop. The Team Canada
Women's Ball Hockey team has won the gold medal at the world championship for
two years in a row. If they should they win again this year, Mr. Speaker, this
would mean that Kristen would be the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian to win
a gold medal in women's ball hockey as a member of Team Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of the House of Assembly to join with
me in once again congratulating Kristen Cooze in being selected to represent
Canada in the World Women's Ball Hockey Championship and in wishing her and her
team much success.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Whether it is tourism in the Eastern and Western Regions of the Province,
first response training in Stephenville, aquaculture in the Coast of Bays
region, or ocean technology on the Northeast Avalon, economic clusters are
taking shape and giving rise to new opportunities for local businesses.
Helping to facilitate the creation of economic clusters, or multi-product
industry sectors, was and remains at the heart of the provincial government's
Comprehensive Regional Diversification Strategy. The strategy set the framework
for the investments in education, infrastructure, and innovation and supports
the concentration of interrelated companies, specialized suppliers, and
associated education capacity in all regions of the Province.
This approach has proven effective and helped local companies become more
competitive.
Local businesses are able to benefit from an enhanced supply chain, a more
highly-skill workforce, and the ability to draw together companies in order to
bid successfully for large contracts for which individually they would not be
able to compete.
Generally speaking, clusters leverage innate regional strengths such as ocean
technology companies being in close proximity to the Province's research and
academic institutions and the strategic geography offered in the Coast of Bays
for the aquaculture industry.
In the Central Region, community partners in close collaboration with the
provincial government have identified cluster development as a means of
responding to the closure of the AbitibiBowater mill. Over a relatively short
period, opportunities were advanced to position the region as a hub for health
services training.
As a government, we have been pleased to help facilitate the creation of a
medical laboratory assistant and e-health training programs at the College of
the North Atlantic, as well as the opening of Memorial University's genetic
research office.
This approach has been well-received by such partners as the Newfoundland and
Labrador Regional Economic Development Association who believe that clustering
strengthens local economies by leveraging regional capacity. It believes that
clustering leads to linkages being formed between the private and public sector,
as well as community development groups.
The association describes clusters as "being essential in enabling small
firms to compete nationally and internationally. It allows them to punch beyond
their weight."
Mr. Speaker, in regions throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, the
industry-focused approach has derived significant benefits for local economies.
With continued collaboration among government, community, business, and
academia, we look to continue that momentum and further diversify local and
regional economies.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. It
is always good to hear good news and updates on different programs and
strategies. To hear an update on the government's regional diversification
strategy and the emphasis on clustering, on strengthening local economies, is
great.
I would like to say though that I would like to see government stick with
their commitment that was identified in the 2006 innovation strategy to roll out
broadband access throughout the Province. I do not think I can overemphasize the
importance of that because, as mentioned in her statement, it is about all areas
of the Province, about all business opportunities having access and being able
to participate at the same level.
It is undeniable, Mr. Speaker, that broadband access is critical for
participation in today's information-based economy especially and essential to
opening up new opportunities and new jobs in the more rural parts of the
Province. It is good to see things that are happening in certain parts of the
Province and I trust that government will support the initiatives that they have
identified, and that we will see it happening throughout other regions as well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.
I have to say though, Mr. Speaker, that it is a lot of words, a lot of
verbiage in order to get to the point of telling us that there has been the
creation of a medical lab assistant position and e-health training at the
College of the North Atlantic, and the opening of Memorial's genetic research
office. I am really delighted about these two things and I congratulate those
who were involved in the initiative, but we did not need all of that verbiage to
get to it. I am not really sure what these two programs have to do with the
economic clusters that the minister spoke about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: However, I would like to suggest to the minister and to the
government that the landing of a thirty year shipbuilding contract in Marystown
would work wonders for enhancing, for a very long time, the economic clusters
that benefit people. What better example could there be of an industry-focused
approach, like the minister herself said.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Education and Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, earlier this month more than 200 secondary and
post-secondary students from across the Province competed in the Fourteenth
Annual Provincial Skills Canada Skilled Trades and Technology Competitions.
Sponsored by Skills Canada-Newfoundland Labrador, this event showcases the
talent of our students and allows young people to explore the world of skilled
trades and technology. Students compete in such diverse categories as carpentry,
brick masonry, robotics, graphic design and TV video production.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate all the competitors, especially the thirty-four
gold medal winners who will travel to Quebec City for the national competition
in June and the top place in secondary and post-secondary schools Ascension
Collegiate in Bay Roberts, and the Prince Philip Drive Campus of the College of
the North Atlantic.
This is an exciting time to be in the skilled trades in this Province, Mr.
Speaker. In oil and gas related industries, ocean technology and engineering,
and in many other growing and emerging sectors of our economy, the opportunities
for young people are unprecedented.
The provincial government is investing heavily in skilled trades and
apprenticeship training to ensure our education system can respond to growing
needs in industry. At the high school level, for example, we have developed six
new courses through our $13 million Futures in Skilled Trades and Technology
program, which is now offered in ninety-one schools. At the post-secondary level
we are using the Skills Taskforce report as a blueprint to improve the
apprenticeship program and build the Province's skilled workforce.
I would remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not mention one group of three
competitors in the category of abilympic photography, Michael Mercer, Megan
Quinlan and Randy White, all of whom have mobility-related disabilities. There
is no national competition in this field and these students will be travelling
to Korea in the fall to compete against other international abilympic
photography teams.
Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in this House to join me in
congratulating all involved in the Provincial Skills Canada Skilled Trades and
Technology Competitions and to wish our students the best of luck at the
national and international events.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. It
is certainly good to see some of our students who are preparing to participate
in the national competition in June at Quebec City; we certainly wish them well;
also those who will be travelling internationally to Korea in the fall.
Skilled trades are very important to our Province. It is very unfortunate
that while some of the skilled trades are doing well, many skilled trades are
not seeing a lot of opportunity in this Province. We know that in trades such as
welding and pipefitting in particular, and others, that many of our young
people, when they are finished their training have to leave the Province to find
work.
I am interested in the mention of the $13 million that has been spent and, in
particular, offered in ninety-one schools. I would like to point out, Mr.
Speaker, that would leave approximately one-third of our high schools in the
Province, I believe, that would not be able to offer the course at this point in
time.
I would ask again whether these courses can be offered on-line for schools
that may not be participating in the program.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DEAN: I thank the former Minister of Education for his interjection
to my response to his statement, Mr. Speaker, but I would just like to point out
that if there are schools that the program is not being offered in then
certainly we would want to be able to do that in the very near future.
Again, the oil and gas industry and related industries are great, but there
are other industries there where people are not able to find work coming out
with skilled trades and certainly challenge this government to see that can
happen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I am very happy
to get the update on this year's Provincial Skills Canada's Skilled Trades and
Technology Competition. These take place every year and I think they are
excellent for showcasing what is happening in our schools.
I am delighted to stand here today to congratulate all of the students from
the Province who participated and special congratulations to those who won the
thirty-four medals. Our students do excel and I know that when they go to the
competition in Quebec City we are going to get a report of they are doing as
well as they have done here in the provincial.
I especially wish good wishes to Michael Mercer, Megan Quinlan and Randy
White as they go to Korea for an international competition. Skills Canada,
especially through the Canadian Skills Competition, does provide excellent
exposure for young people in the skilled trades and I encourage them in the work
that they do.
Mr. Speaker, our young people are going to need jobs in these trades and we
know that they are still not able to find jobs here in the Province; they have
to go elsewhere in order to get their apprenticeship, to get journeyed, and to
come back. We still have a lot of work to do to keep our young people, who want
to do skilled trades, here in the Province.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Premier overstated our reliance on
Holyrood for electricity generation in the Province. She said that we generate
600 megawatts of our electricity at Holyrood but we know that Holyrood only had
a 500 megawatt capacity and only operates at about 20 per cent of that capacity.
I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Why do you keep overstating our reliance on
Holyrood when it accounted for just 11 per cent of our electricity last year to
the Newfoundland base residents?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition rises in her place day after day
and talks about 11 per cent of electricity generated at Holyrood. That was true
for last year, Mr. Speaker. She does not speak about the years that 35 per cent,
36 per cent, 37 per cent of our electricity is generated out of Holyrood. What
we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is take the average and be able to forecast on that
average what the needs of the Province are going to be.
The other point that she misses completely, Mr. Speaker, is that Holyrood
electricity is the most expensive electricity in the Province. So every
percentage of growth we have in this Province from this day forward, we will
have to supply them with the most expensive form of electricity coming out of
Holyrood, Mr. Speaker, until we are unable to do so in 2016, 2017 because the
capacity will be maxed out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we do know is that last year in the Province, Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians used only 11 per cent of their energy from Holyrood. The rest was
clean energy, Mr. Speaker, from Bay d'Espoir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: We know the year before it was 15 per cent, I say to you
Premier. We know the year before that it was 17 per cent, I say to you Premier;
nowhere near the amounts that you are trying to lead the people of this Province
to believe.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, their argument is based on the fact that they are
trying to sell a bill of goods to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They
have structured a deal around the fact that we will go from 90 per cent green to
97 per cent green in Newfoundland and Labrador. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that
with the Premier's deal we are actually paying
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to pose her question.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With the Premier's deal we are actually paying for Nova Scotia to go green.
I ask the Premier
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member, for the final time, to pose her question.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier today: Why are you insisting that the people in this
Province pay double for our own electricity while Nova Scotia goes green at half
the cost?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition proves my point in the
preamble to
her question. It is the first time today we have ever heard about 15 per cent or
17 per cent or 20 per cent, Mr. Speaker. She has been telling the people of the
Province that only 11 per cent of our energy comes out of Holyrood.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in terms of forecasting; there is a period of time that is
taken by utilities and the average amount of electricity that is required is
studied and forecasted, Mr. Speaker, based on facts and figures. Those facts and
figures are available to members of the Opposition, if they would only take the
time to analyze them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not need the Premier to put words in my mouth, I know of what I speak. I
know, Mr. Speaker, that last year in this Province the people of Newfoundland
only used 11 per cent of their power from Holyrood. Mr. Speaker, this project is
for Nova Scotia to go green.
Mr. Speaker, the government always touts that the people of this Province
should be the primary beneficiary of our resources; however, the deal with Emera
Energy out of Nova Scotia makes the residents of Nova Scotia the primary
beneficiary of this resource. Nova Scotia will get 20 per cent of their power at
no cost, buy an additional 40 per cent at half the cost while residents in our
Province will pay more.
Why are you forcing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to pay more for their
power so Nova Scotians can get off coal?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2015 remaining on the
isolated system, having no more demands than we have today, will pay 14.3 cents
a kilowatt hour for their electricity. Mr. Speaker, if we build Muskrat, in 2016
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will pay 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour for
their electricity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the members of the Opposition are saying let the water
flow down the Churchill River and do not try to maximize profit for the people
of the Province, revenue for the people of the Province by selling excess power,
then stand up and say so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we are saying, if you are going to provide energy, clean energy to
people in Newfoundland and Labrador, provide it at a rate they can afford to
pay. Do not make them pay double while people in Nova Scotia pay half the price.
Mr. Speaker, the fly in the ointment for the Premier in her argument is this
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: that our reliance on Holyrood power last year was only 11 per
cent, Mr. Speaker, not the 600 megawatts she spoke of yesterday and tried to
lead the public to believe. The other fly in the ointment, Mr. Speaker, is that
her 14.3 cents is a base rate. It is not the actual rate that consumers will
pay, it is a base rate, and it is based on the fact that there are no overruns
on her deal on Muskrat Falls.
I ask you, Premier, how can you make that
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member again to pose her question within the time frame that
has been agreed to on both sides of the House.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier today, Mr. Speaker: Why is it that she is trying to pull
the wool over the eyes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on this deal,
and not giving them the real facts?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, I have too much respect for
the people of this Province to ever try to mislead them in any kind of way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, we had a lot of rain last year, we
had a lot of water in the reservoir in Bay d'Espoir, we have had two paper mills
shut down, and because of all of those circumstances, thank goodness we only
needed to generate 11 per cent of our electricity out of Holyrood.
Out of a generating station that we have heard comments from the Leader of
the Opposition here in this House on before, Mr. Speaker, encouraging us to do
something to do away with Holyrood for the people in the vicinity because of the
health on the environment and on their lives, Mr. Speaker. Now, she has to
decide what it is she wants. Does she want Holyrood to continue, or does she
want a clean (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, let's see if the Premier respects the people of
this Province enough to not gouge them on their electricity bill. I say,
Premier, show them some real respect and let them keep some money in their
pocket.
Mr. Speaker, the population of this Province is getting older. Every year
more people are retiring. They are in a transition from earning wages to living
on a fixed retirement income. By 2017, one in five residents in this Province
will be senior citizens. That year, Mr. Speaker, we are going to see Muskrat
Falls power double in electricity rates.
I ask the Premier today, Mr. Speaker: Given the rising cost of electricity
and knowing that it will be a major issue for seniors and people on fixed
incomes in this Province, what studies have you done to explore and quantify the
impact of doubling their electricity rates in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me state again quite clearly in this House of Assembly:
Power rates will not double by bringing on Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, there will be a smooth transition from
our isolated system onto Muskrat Falls. The difference will be that instead of
light bills going up 5 per cent a year, as they are going up under the isolated
system, they will go up 0.7 per cent a year. That is a big help to people on
fixed incomes, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: That is what we are doing for all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, including senior citizens.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier knows it is voodoo math and she has not been able to back up any
of the numbers that she has put out in the House of Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday afternoon the government issued a release announcing
that it had settled with the partners of Star Lake. For this part of the botched
expropriation, the people of the Province have paid out $32.8 million to Enel
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: as well as taking on a loan of $40 million for a total
of $72.8 million so far.
My question to the Premier is this: Will you tell the people of the Province
what we have bought for the $72.8 million? How much is the Star Lake generating
assets worth? How much of that money was actually paid out in profits to the
companies?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the day that we expropriated the assets of AbitibiBowater in
this House, in this Province, was one of the proudest days of my life.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this was an action that was not only
applauded in Central Newfoundland, but across the country. We have as a result,
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of millions of dollars of assets that otherwise would have
gone who knows where and from which the people of this Province would no longer
have derived the kind of benefit that they are entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, we promised in that action, explained to them before the
legislation came to the House, that others who were involved in business
transactions with AbitibiBowater would be kept whole, such as Enel, and that is
what we have done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier might have had the proudest day of her life when she stood and
made the biggest mistake that any government in this Province ever made and
expropriated a paper mill. A big paper mill, they expropriated, and did not even
know they had expropriated it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: They did not even know it and it will cost the people of the
Province more money than sprung greenhouse ever cost the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier again to answer the question,
please. Of the $73 million paid out, nearly $73 million, how much of it was paid
for the actual assets, how much of it was paid as lost revenue to the companies?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, like the Premier, I was proud on the day we did that action
because we did it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We wanted to make
sure that the agreement that we had in place with Abitibi
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SKINNER: - benefited the people of the Province and the expropriation
action that we took is still benefiting the people of this Province, and we are
proud to have done that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we paid for a facility that had an original cost of around $60
million. We have power purchase agreements that are will over $110 million,
about $11 million per year, close to $150 million actually is what those power
purchase agreements end up to be. The negotiated price that we had was fair
compensation for the asset that we expropriated, for the power purchase
agreements, and for the interest on the loan payments that the company, Enel,
had made to the people who owed the loans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister is talking on the issue today, in the
scrum a few days ago he did not know the details, so maybe he can explain to us
a little bit further today what the details are around the recovery of the
revenue.
The money that is going to be paid out for this asset now on behalf of the
people of the Province, how is that money going to be recovered? Will it be
recovered from the ratepayers or will Nalcor just write it off as one of the
many, I guess, hasty decisions that government made in that expropriation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have a generating station that is generating eighteen
megawatts of power, we have a facility that, in the past, was selling power for
$11 million per year on average, $10 million or $11 million per year on average.
From that, Mr. Speaker, that generating station will put electricity into the
system that will benefit the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We now have an asset that is a fairly new asset, about ten or twelve years
old. It is an asset that for decades to come will be able to provide clean,
renewable power for this Province that we will benefit from.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What you did not do, Minister, was answer the question, and that was: How are
you going to recover the money? Is it coming from the ratepayers, or is Nalcor
going to write off the entire agreement for government? Just answer the
question.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I thought it was obvious what we were going to be doing, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SKINNER: We are going to be selling electricity into the provincial
grid. That was the point I was trying to make. I apologize if I did not make it
clearly enough for the Opposition House Leader. We are selling electricity into
the provincial grid. The Public Utilities Board sets a price and the people who
receive the electricity pay the price, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We do not assume things over here; we like to see it on the record. It was
amazing yesterday, actually, to hear the Minister of Business and the Premier
describe Kiewit's withdrawal from the national building strategy as good news. I
am sure it was galling to the people of Marystown and the Burin Peninsula who
were hoping to get a piece of that $35 billion contract come their way.
My question today is for the Premier. You had three ministers in your
government who would have been responsible for this file: the Minister of
Business; the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; and the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How did all three of them manage to drop
the ball on this bid and fail to ensure that Kiewit had everything that it
needed to bring this contract home to the people of our Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition likes to refer to her phone calls,
she likes to refer to Open Line and other media. Today, I am going to refer to
The Telegram in which Kiewit speaks about the good relationship, the
supportive relationship, the partnership it had with government.
Mr. Speaker, we would have been delighted to see Kiewit get the
thirty-five-year contract. We were in discussions, supportive discussions. We
talked about investments in a graving dock in tens and tens of millions of
dollars in return for a thirty-five-year contract, Mr. Speaker.
The good news that I referred to yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was that we have
Hebron, that we have Vale Inco, that we have these projects that are filling up
yards all around the Province. That is the good news, Mr. Speaker. We have been
supportive of Marystown Shipyard in the past. We will continue to be in the
future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier knows that Hebron is a three or four-year project. She knows that
Long Harbour is probably a two-year project, Mr. Speaker.
What we are asking Premier is: Why didn't your government and your ministers
give the support that was necessary for Kiewit to bid this particular contract
so that they could bring these jobs to Newfoundland and Labrador, they could
build on the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador for decades to come?
I ask you today, Premier: Where is your vision? Where is your vision for the
people of the Burin Peninsula, for the people of Marystown, for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador who just had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of $35
billion in contracts slip through their fingers and your government did not lift
a finger?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard some partisan statements here in the House of
Assembly but I think today takes the cake altogether, Mr. Speaker.
The company did not come to us asking for anything in terms of the support
that we had already offered in terms of trying to secure that contract, Mr.
Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition and her supporters inside and outside of
the House say government dropped the ball. Well, what could they have done? I do
not know but they could have done something. Mr. Speaker, we did whatever the
company asked us to do. We have supported Marystown shipyard in the past and we
will continue to do so in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker, even the smaller portion of this shipbuilding work would have
employed up to 900 people for up to thirty years in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, this project would have had tremendous benefits for Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians. The government a few months ago had no problem out there
trying to cut the legs out from under the mayor in Marystown who was pleading to
the government for some help, pleading to the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to make this file front and centre. Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that the
Premier did not give this file any priority, it was not even mentioned in her
long wish list to the Prime Minister that she sent off a few days ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members if they would kindly refrain from shouting back and forth
across the House.
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this file has been actively worked on for the last five years in
terms of what the company identified as its needs to be able to pursue this
contract. What they identified to this government, Mr. Speaker, was a graving
dock and we were engaged in discussions as to how we could cooperate together,
Mr. Speaker, to provide that necessary piece of infrastructure so they could
secure the contract. It is not infrastructure that has caused Kiewit to remove
themselves from this bid, Mr. Speaker. Kiewit speaks about the support that they
have had from this government and the partnership that they had with this
government. They have no criticism, Mr. Speaker, because there is nothing to
criticize.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, an
article in this weekend's Telegram attributed the
increase
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DEAN: in our Province's seafood exports in 2010 over the year
before to an increase in the export of shell-on shrimp. As we know, Mr. Speaker,
shell-on shrimp are caught and frozen at sea by the factory freezer trawlers and
shipped unprocessed to other countries.
I ask the Minister of Fisheries if he can tell us how much of this industrial
shrimp is exported, and in light of the situation a shortage of work in our
shrimp plants can he indicate why all this shrimp is being sent out
unprocessed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting. This debate over
shrimp has been ongoing now for a while. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the
member opposite if he would do the same, Mr. Speaker, as I have done. I have
three pieces of
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JACKMAN: I have three pieces of correspondence here, Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JACKMAN: in which, I forwarded to the federal government expressing
our concerns around shrimp.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to produce the correspondence that he has
submitted to the federal government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will ask the Minister of Fisheries again if he could answer the question.
If he can tell me how much of this industrial shrimp is exported, and in
light of the shortage of work in our shrimp plants, can he indicate why it is
being sent out unprocessed?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, they have their rah-rah team over there behind
them. It is hard for me to hear what the member is speaking about with three
three, I was going to say five, but there are three, four of them over there
bantering, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the issue here, Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. members to my right, if they are interested in hearing the
answer to the question? If not, we can certainly move ahead and somebody else to
ask a question and provide the answer.
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are talking about here, the
issue around shrimp, at the present time, is the issue as to a fair and
equitable treatment to those who are affected by the last in, first out formula,
Mr. Speaker. That is what we are talking about.
As I have indicated, we have made representation to the federal
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JACKMAN: government on behalf of the harvesters.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JACKMAN: I would ask that they do the same thing, or produce the
evidence that they have already done so, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is obvious the minister does not know the answer to the question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask what he has done with the
federal government, but he has already told me has written two or three pieces
of correspondence.
Mr. Speaker, it has now been two weeks since the announcement that northern
shrimp quotas were slashed. I ask the minister: Have you assessed how those
quota cuts will impact the plants and plant workers?
Again, if he could explain a little more about his representation he has made
to the federal government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I really have to be careful with the word
assessed because last year in the House the member opposite asked if I had
assessed the situation. This year he comes in and asks for the report on the
assessment. There was never any report, Mr. Speaker, so we really have to be
careful around that particular issue.
Mr. Speaker, one thing that really concerns me in this recent debate is that
we need the quotas. I would like to inform people that over the past three years
the quotas, Mr. Speaker, last year were set on May 17, the previous year it
was May 20, and the year previous to that it was July 20.
I would love to see the federal government have the quota set. We have made
representation to the federal government, as I have indicated in my
correspondence. Mr. Speaker, we certainly hope that that quota will be
(inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was totally amazed to hear the Premier of this
Province applaud a company for walking away from a bid that could see the
Marystown Shipyard receive thirty years of work, calling it wonderful because of
all the work they have.
I am told that within the next two weeks, all the work that is currently in
the Marystown Shipyard will be completed, and even if the Premier announces next
Tuesday that two new ferries are to be built there
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: that would be only another two years of work, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier: Why is she so willing to give up the potential of thirty
years of work at the Marystown Shipyard?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am not the owner-operator of Kiewit. Mr. Speaker, Kiewit came
to us when they were pursuing the contract and said: We need to help with
infrastructure, particularly a graving dock. Can the government help us?
Mr. Speaker, we engaged with them, we partnered with them, and we were
supportive of them. Mr. Speaker, her own candidate who is leader of the union in
Marystown is speaking yesterday and today about how supportive government has
been to Kiewit, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest that the Premier get on the phone with some of the workers at the
Marystown Shipyard, as I have been today, and she will find out how happy they
are about what has happened, Mr. Speaker. In her response about Kiewit, she has
proven to them that she does not have a long-term vision for them. She is
dismissing the careers of an entire generation of workers on the Burin
Peninsula.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: How can the Premier, especially being from the Burin
Peninsula as she claims, and I know she is, knowing first hand how that area has
struggled: How can she stand and sacrifice so flippantly
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the hon. the Member for the
District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I ask members, all members, to show respect
for each other and allow the hon. member to ask her question.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is: How can the Premier, knowing first hand how that area has
struggled, how can she stand and sacrifice so flippantly the future prosperity
of this area?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying I take great exception, great exception,
to the Third Party Leader's remarks. I take no lessons from you in terms of the
Burin Peninsula about its communities, about its people, about its history,
about its struggle, because I have been part of it all, I say to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, Kiewit identified for us what their
needs were and where they needed help and we responded in the most appropriate
way. At the end of the day, the factors that led into their decision to withdraw
was not something that was brought to our attention or anything that we had any
power to do something about, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, the Premier provided us with a list of oil-related projects this
government has supported. Mr. Speaker, the Premier needs to take her head out of
the oil well and think about the other long-term industrial projects that are
literally in her backyard.
Mr. Speaker, why is the Premier not committed enough
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to pose her question.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Why is the Premier not committed enough to the Burin Peninsula to fight as
hard for the future of the shipyard as she was for the Muskrat Falls Project?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when I was sworn in as Premier of this Province comments made by
people around this Province, and particularly by the Leader of the Third Party,
spoke to the fact that there were three women leaders and that things would be
done differently. She spoke after her reply to the Speech from the Throne, was
how people expected something of
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: She did not know what they expected, but she expected
better behaviour of us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we had a great example last week when the Leader of the
Opposition got chastised by the President of the Advisory Council on the Status
of Women, but I think we hit a new low today. Women or no women, things have not
changed on that side of the aisle.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
This being Private Members' Day, we now call on the hon. the Member for the
District of Labrador
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: We call on the hon. the Member for Lake Melville to deliver
his private member's resolution.
MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is indeed an honour and a privilege to stand in this hon. House today, Mr.
Speaker, to deliver this private member's resolution. I would like to state the
resolution again for the record:
WHEREAS on November 18, 2010, Nalcor Energy entered into a Term Sheet with
Emera Inc. setting out a plan for the Muskrat Falls phase of the development of
the Lower Churchill's hydro-electrical potential and associated transmission
infrastructure; and
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has asked the federal government for a loan
guarantee to support this project, stating that it is financially, economically
and environmentally sound and nationally significant, and the benefits of a
federal loan guarantee will accrue to electricity ratepayers; and
WHEREAS the Members of the National House of Assembly in Quebec on April 6,
2011 voted unanimously for a resolution that, when translated, states: "that the
National Assembly reiterates its opposition to federal financial participation
in the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project, considering Quebec has assumed on
its own, and through the assertion of its own powers, the total cost of its
hydroelectric facilities"; and
WHEREAS the Conservative Party of Canada led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper
has stated on page 42 of its 2011 election platform, Here For Canada, released
April 8, 2011: "Stephen Harper's government will continue supporting clean
energy initiatives, to protect our environment and improve the quality of the
air we breathe.
We will support economically viable clean energy projects that will assist
regions and provinces in the replacement of fossil fuel with renewable fuel
sources. The criteria for our support of a project will be whether it: has
national or regional significance; has economic and financial merit; and will
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
For example, we will support the Lower Churchill hydro-electric project,
through a loan guarantee or equivalent financial support. The project would
strengthen the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador's connection to the
continental grid - and it would be a major regional environmental initiative.
It is estimated the project would reduce carbon emissions by 4.5 million
tonnes annually - the equivalent of removing 3.2 million cars from the road
every year.
In addition to the criteria noted above, our support for any clean energy
project will be based on the principles of respect and equitable treatment for
all regions of the country"; and
WHEREAS Liberal Party of Canada Leader Michael Ignatieff stated in a radio
interview in St. John's on April 4, 2011: "I think it's an important national
project for all of Canada. One of the great developments in the national eyes of
the whole country is that Newfoundland and Labrador is set to become a green
energy superpower, and I think it's appropriate for a federal government to work
with Newfoundland and Labrador and put that loan guarantee in place so that the
cost of borrowing the money is lower and so that the ratepayers' energy costs
are lower."
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that, in disagreement with the National Assembly of
Quebec, this Honourable House affirms its support for federal financial
participation in the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project defined in the Term
Sheet between Nalcor and Emera, and commends the Leader of the Conservative
Party of Canada and the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada for pledging
federal support for this project through the provision of a loan guarantee or
equivalent financial support.
Seconded by the Member for Labrador West.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue for our House. We saw the
unanimous support last week in the Province of Quebec. Just last night, Mr.
Speaker, during the national debate, we saw the Leader of the Bloc Qubcois
very clearly take a swipe at the Prime Minister and again throw out his
opposition to this particular agreement. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a
few minutes today because the time for us to stand up as a Province on this
project is now and in this hon. House today.
Mr. Speaker, in my research of the hon. Duceppe, and when we looked at this
particular gentlemen and where he has come from, we certainly know that he is no
friend of this Province. Just let me read to you some of the information I
acquired: "Duceppe became a separatist at the age of 20 in Canada's centennial
year, inspired by Ren Lvesque's founding of the Mouvement
souverainet-association in late 1967. Later, he spent three years in the
Communist Workers' Party."
He rejected the idea that, "a sovereign Quebec would face economic barriers
when trying to do business with the rest of Canada". He told Western farmers,
Mr. Speaker, "Tell Western farmers they will have to eat all of their beef or
watch the carcasses rot, instead of selling them to Quebec. Go to Oshawa and
explain to workers in the automobile industry that they will have to go on
unemployment insurance out of patriotism, because Canada cannot sell anymore
cars to those poor Quebecers."
He went on to say, Mr. Speaker: Duceppe has pressed the federal government
repeatedly to end all so-called fiscal imbalance, and to give more money to
provinces, Quebec, in particular.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate here in the House of Assembly is one of great
importance. It is one of great importance for the future of our energy, and the
development of our energy in this Province. When I see the Premier of Quebec,
and we also have comments here from the hon. Premier Charest of the Province of
Quebec, and his minister opposing this deal, I can tell you, when I hear them
whimpering over in Quebec, I know this government, Mr. Speaker, is on the right
track. We are on the right track.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Having grown up in Labrador and on the Upper Churchill, Mr.
Speaker, I saw the inequities of what happened when the Liberal Government of
across the way gave it away. Gave it away, Mr. Speaker. I saw Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians removed from the job site, while Quebecers were brought in to
replace them. I saw that, Mr. Speaker, as a young boy growing up in Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we have gone through all this, and let me say, Mr. Speaker,
those days are over. Because we had sound leadership, Mr. Speaker, through the
former Premier, Danny Williams, and through the leadership that have here today,
Mr. Speaker; those days are over. As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, as I have
said before, Mr. Speaker, the days that Quebec holds all the aces, when we sit
down to any table with them, are over. We have an alternative route for this
power, Mr. Speaker, and we have a partner through Emera in the Province of Nova
Scotia. Mr. Speaker, this debate in this House of Assembly here today will find
out whether or not members of the Opposition are with the people of this
Province or whether or not they are with the Bloc and the separatists out of
Quebec, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, for too long, when I listened to the members of
the National Assembly, and to Duceppe, and they talk about how they paid for,
how they paid for the improvements to their power grid. Mr. Speaker, nothing can
be further from the truth. They paid for their power grid improvements on the
backs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and particularly the people of
Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: They paid for them out of the money that they made from the
profits of the Upper Churchill power, Mr. Speaker. I think the time has come in
this country when we can ship actual gas and oil from one province to another,
but we cannot ship our power to markets over in Eastern Canada. It is absolutely
shameful, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot work out a deal with the Western provinces
for our power and crossover in
MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!
MR. HICKEY: - Quebec, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important time in our history. It is a very
important time, Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HICKEY: - for our children and our grandchildren because the
decisions we make here today will impact their futures, will impact our
communities. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the days are over in which we are
going to bow down to the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the message I send to the province of Quebec and to those over
there who are going against this particular deal and have tried time and time
again to stifle the Lower Churchill Project. The message is very clear, Mr.
Speaker; be careful of who you kick today because you may have to come cap in
hand and that day is coming very soon in 2041, 2042 when the Upper Churchill
comes back to us as a Province. We will be the powerhouse, Mr. Speaker, of this
country, green energy will be (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, there are those naysayers out there there are
those naysayers here in this Province, and in Labrador too I might add. I can
tell you what, the time has come to send a message loud and clear to the
province of Quebec.
Let us today united as a House of Assembly send a message to the province of
Quebec that we will stand up for our rights and our power now and into the
future. That is what I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, today and I am very proud
to present this particular motion here today. I am particularly interested
certainly in having some more to say as I close debate later on this afternoon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to stand today in the House of Assembly and to speak to the
motion that has been put forward by my colleague the Member for Lake Melville.
Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that I read with tremendous interest
the motion that was presented today. While the motion itself talks about the
loan guarantee and supporting a loan guarantee for the Muskrat Falls Project,
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that two members from Labrador would not be bringing
a motion forward that would speak to the real benefits of what should happen for
Labradorians as part of the Muskrat Falls Project. We know, Mr. Speaker, before
they walked into political life, they had a lot to say in Labrador about that
issue. They had a tremendous amount to say in Labrador about that issue.
In fact, the Member for Lake Melville in his previous life, when he was the
Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, was shouting from the rafters in terms of what
Labradorians should get out of any deal on Lower Churchill power that would ever
be developed in this Province. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he was so adamant that
Labradorians should be the primary beneficiary that he actually flew to St.
John's and went to a rally organized by the PC Party down on MacDonald Drive at
Mary Queen of Peace Parish Hall. In fact, I have a copy of his speech that he
made that night at Mary Queen of Peace Hall, where he stood at that microphone
that night and he sang a very different tune than the tune he sings today as the
Minister for Labrador, I can tell you that.
Mr. Speaker, then he was up saying that Labradorians should be the primary
beneficiary and this is how they should benefit. They should have a Labrador
heritage fund. That was what the Member for Lake Melville said that night at the
Mary Queen of Peace Hall in the heat of the moment, in rally with the PC Party
and saying that as a government, if they ever did a deal, that Labradorians
would be looked after. One of the first things they would get would be a
Labrador heritage fund, Mr. Speaker. We have not yet seen or heard the words,
Labrador heritage fund, leave the lips of the Premier, the government, or the
Member for Lake Melville, or the Member for Labrador West for that matter, or
the Member for Torngat Mountains - not once.
They talked about how they need to invest in infrastructure in the
communities to catch up with all the infrastructure. There was no infrastructure
component as part of the Lower Churchill development, Mr. Speaker. In fact, they
are up there with so many potholes in the road today that you can hardly take a
vehicle over it; that is how bad the roads and the highway are across Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the member does not talk about those issues, do not want to hear
about those issues, and do not want invest in those issues, Mr. Speaker.
He also said: We want to ensure that the Aboriginal people, the Innu, the
Inuit, and the Metis in Labrador benefit from Labrador's resources through
partnerships. This is what he said. This is his exact words I am reading, Mr.
Speaker, into the record because the people of the Province need to know that
the Member for Lake Melville once stood for what was good and proper for the
people of Labrador but, today, stands for his government and stands against what
is right and good and proper for the people of Labrador. That is the difference,
Mr. Speaker, and it needs to be pointed out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: There is nothing in the motion today that the Member for Lake
Melville brings forward that says that there should be benefits accruing to the
people of Labrador, that there should be a project that looks at the conditions
that he laid out that night down on MacDonald Drive at the Mary Queen of Peace
Hall. There is nothing that speaks to that.
One of the other things he said: There needs to be 500 megawatts of recalled
power in any deal just for the people of Labrador. It does not exist. In fact,
Mr. Speaker, there was no power in the deal for Labrador until just recently
when the Premier came under a tremendous amount of heat and her caucus members
from Labrador probably came back and told her that they were getting heat and
they needed something. Then, all of a sudden, there was this big statement that
we will look at industrial power for Labrador. It is not in the Term Sheet, was
never heard of before, was never mentioned before until they got the heat put on
them from people in Labrador and from us in the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, they still have not established the rate for that industrial
power, and here is the Member for Labrador West with a mining company in his own
district with one of the best contracts on energy that you can get that is about
to expire and his government has yet to say what the industrial rate for power
is going to be in Labrador. Well, you can have all the industrial power you want
available for recall, but if the rate is not competitive, it is not going to
bring the businesses in.
I say to the members opposite in the government for Labrador: Where is that
to in your Term Sheet? Where is that to in your Muskrat Falls deal because that
does not exist anywhere? Where is it in the deal that it says that once the
transmission line goes through from Muskrat Falls to the Island of Newfoundland
that there will not be one provincial grid? Like Gilbert Bennett said standing
in the hotel in Happy Valley-Goose Bay during the Combined Councils meetings,
when he was asked the question, he said: What is wrong with having everybody on
the one grid rate?
Let me tell you what is wrong with it and what the difference is. It means
that the people in Lake Melville, the people in Labrador West, would pay a lot
more for their electricity. There has never been a statement from the government
that says that will not happen. There is nothing in the Term Sheet that says it
will not happen.
What happened when they connected the grid between Goose Bay and Labrador
West? The first thing that happened was the power rates in Labrador West went up
because they were on a grid system. That is the way it works.
So, Mr. Speaker, under the Public Utilities Board and under the governing
regulations for the Province, as it stands right now, people on the Island
interconnected grid, which is what will be the line that runs from Muskrat Falls
to the Island of Newfoundland, are on the one rate paying system. Unless the
government is prepared to pass legislation, or to make a firm commitment that is
acknowledged by the Public Utilities Board that it will not happen, what
guarantees do the people have? They have none. So, I ask the members for
Labrador today, why you are not raising that particular issue on behalf of the
people in Labrador?
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, what about the transmission capacity for
Labrador communities, for the North Coast and the South Coast? The Member for
Lake Melville said, back in his speech, that the Aboriginals should be looked
after. Well, the Inuit have been asking, the Nunatsiavut Government has been
asking for a transmission line. Not a transmission line, Mr. Speaker, that is
only contingent upon whether the mining companies pay or not. They want a
commitment from the government that their communities are going to be connected,
that places like Nain, Natuashish, Makkovik, Postville, and Rigolet are going to
have clean energy as well. The government wants to sing the song of clean
energy. Well, tell us about where this clean energy is going to come for those
communities. When are they going to get the connection?
What about South Coast of Labrador? Right now, in the Labrador Straits, we
buy our electricity from Quebec. Now, get that: We buy our electricity from the
Province of Quebec. We are not even getting electricity provided in Newfoundland
and Labrador. That is fine, it is probably cheaper coming from Quebec. It is
probably cheaper, probably a lot cheaper, but the rest of the Coast of Labrador
is on diesel generated power. So, where is the commitment to build the
transmission capacity for them into communities like Cartwright, Black Tickle,
Normans Bay, Pinsent's Arm, St. Lewis, Charlottetown, Port Hope Simpson, Mary's
Harbour, and Lodge Bay. What about all of these communities that are on bad,
dirty energy? When is their day for green energy and transmission capacity going
to come?
It is all right for the government opposite to say on one case that we are
doing this because it is green energy, but on another case, say, oh, I am sorry,
but we are not going to do anything for you. Well, it does not work that way. It
does not work that way.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, what do we have with this Muskrat Falls deal?
Because you have to remember, we want to see a development of Muskrat Falls. We
want to see a development of Gull Island. We want to see clean, green energy
developed in Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to see transmission capacity,
Mr. Speaker, to all parts of this Province. We want people to have that
opportunity but we also want people to have it at a reasonable rate.
We are not in support of gouging people, Mr. Speaker. We are not in support
of saying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador today who have to run their
households on a fixed income of $1,200 a month and are paying $300 a month for
electricity, that you are now going to pay $600 a month but your income is not
going to change. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to sleep at night
knowing that I was about to put that kind of stress and pressure on the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. How can you sleep at night knowing that people out
there in Newfoundland and Labrador today on fixed incomes, on low incomes are
going to see their electricity bill doubled? Do you think anyone buys into the
argument you have been spinning, that our rates are going to go up by 35 per
cent over the next five years anyway?
Well, the reality is this, that most of the Province, 80 per cent of the
people on the Island of Newfoundland get some of the cheapest power that can be
delivered to them already today. They get Bay d'Espoir power; 80 per cent of
them are on Bay d'Espoir power. The maximum percentage of people who could be on
Holyrood power is 20 per cent of the population of the Island of Newfoundland,
of which we have seen only 11 per cent of that energy used last year. You are
asking everyone in the Province today to pay double their electricity rates
because you want to bring this power line to Holyrood to replace the 11 per cent
of the energy that we are currently using. That might be fine, but why is it
that you are asking them to pay double the rates when you are about to sell the
power to Nova Scotia for half the cost?
What people do not realize is that the power coming out of Muskrat Falls
breaks down like this: 40 per cent of it will come to the Island; 20 per cent of
it will be given to Emera Energy, a private company in Nova Scotia for their
investment in a Maritime Transmission Link. They are going to invest $1.2
billion. Over thirty-five years they are going to earn a profit of $5 billion or
$6 billion off the backs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is
what this private company is going to put into their bank account, Mr. Speaker.
What are they going to do? They are going to sell the energy to Nova Scotians
for half the price of what we are going to pay.
Then, where is the other 40 per cent of the energy? We are going to sell
that, and that is fine. We are going to sell that 40 per cent. If we sell it to
Nova Scotia we have to sell it for nine cents or less nine cents or less
because if we do not, they will not buy it; or, we are going to sell it to the
US grid. We are going to sell it into the United States, but we have to sell it
for five cents, Mr. Speaker, or they will not buy it because they can produce it
cheaper themselves. That is the reason you cannot sell it for any more than
that.
Mr. Speaker, if you want to show some vision when you went with your cap in
hand to Stephen Harper and the federal leaders and you were so desperate so
desperate the government was to get Stephen Harper onside, even though they
cannot trust him. They were so desperate, Mr. Speaker, in asking for their loan
guarantee that what they did not ask for
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: What they did not ask for is transmission access for this
country. What they did not ask for was an energy policy for Canada, for a
transmission policy for the people in the country so that we would be able to
transport our energy, make money for our people, and keep their light bills
down.
Mr. Speaker, I want to move this amendment today. I move, and it is seconded
by the Member for Burgeo & La Poile, that the resolution clause be deleted and
the following substituted:
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that, in disagreement with the National Assembly of
Quebec, this hon. House affirms its support for federal participation in a Lower
Churchill hydro-electric project that meets the test of financial viability
through guaranteed power sales to outside markets at wholesale prices no lower
than the prices available to industrial and residential users within the
Province; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House commends any federal party leader
who follows through on a pledge to provide federal assistance through a loan
guarantee or equivalent support for such a project.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has not yet seen a copy of the amendment. We will take a short
recess in order to allow all members of the House and the Chair to review the
amendment to determine whether or not it is in order.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!
The Chair has reviewed the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Leader of
the Opposition and we find that the amendment is in order.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when I look at the resolution of the Quebec National Assembly on
April 6, 2011 it does not surprise me one bit. Mr. Speaker, that is where it all
began; 1927, the decision of the judicial committee of the privy counsel ruling
that the Dominion of Newfoundland owned Labrador. Eighty-five years later we are
still dealing with the residue of that decision. Mr. Speaker, that decision has
never been accepted by Quebec. It underlies and permeates all our dealings with
Quebec in relation to the Churchill River.
On September 7, 1965, Ren Lvesque, then the Minister of Natural Resources
in Quebec, said in a conference in St. John's that they had been gypped by the
1927 privy counsel decision. In 1963, Mr. Speaker, Premier Lesage told the
Quebec Assembly the Churchill Falls discussion was linked to the Labrador-Quebec
boundary dispute. That is an often repeated theme that has permeated, or did
permeate the negotiations leading up to the signing of that faithful contract.
Mr. Speaker, the Muskrat Falls route, the Island transmission into Nova
Scotia is something that is not new. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on November 28, 1964,
Joey Smallwood stated that the Maritime route has allowed Newfoundland, quote:
to escape the clutches of Quebec. A Quebec journalist or politician at the time
referred to it as the revenge of geography. That they get back at us for the
1927 decision because we needed to go through Quebec with our power.
Mr. Speaker, what has happened is finally, and I will refer to a couple of
articles here today, where the refusal of successive federal governments to
intervene has been based on what Jason Churchill referred to as practical,
political pragmatism; that leaders in this country were afraid to offend Quebec.
Why has the current Prime Minister and the Leader of the federal Liberal Party
pledged their support for the Muskrat Falls development? Because it is a good
development, it is a good deal, Mr. Speaker. It is economically feasible. It
builds the nation. It brings the nation together and it is the best clean, green
energy project in North America.
Mr. Speaker, in the
article written by Mr. Churchill in 1999, page 216,
stated that, "Given Newfoundland's geographic position in relation to an
obstinate Quebec, federal non-involvement was tantamount to capitulation to
Quebec's interest." Well, that capitulation, Mr. Speaker, is diminishing. That
capitulation is being eliminated. What is Quebec doing? They are crying foul.
The very province, Mr. Speaker, that receives $18 billion a year in federal
transfer payments is now complaining because we are standing on our own feet and
we are looking to develop our own resources, consistent with our mantras of
being masters of our own destiny and there being no more giveaways.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, all we have asked for as a government,
beginning with Premier Williams and now with Premier Dunderdale, is to be
treated fairly within the Confederation that is called Canada. Mr. Speaker, that
is taking place. It is not simply a matter of which political party; all
political parties recognize that this is a good deal for this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader I know has questioned me in the
past, I think when I was Justice Minister, on the issue of the Feehan, Baker
paper which was written in about 2005, a professor of economics and Mr. Baker is
a historian archivist at Memorial. Mr. Speaker, they dealt with the renewal
clause, but it is some interesting reading there at page 209 where they talk
about a price of two mills in 2016 being fixed "until 2041 is barely
distinguishable from being free." We are going to, for twenty-five more years
after 2016, give Quebec free power. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable.
Successive governments have challenged this issue and Nalcor currently has an
action in the Quebec Superior Court arguing the good faith clause as defined by
Quebec's civil law.
Mr. Speaker, we as a government are doing everything we can I will come to
this in a second to overturn the inequity of Churchill Falls, of the Upper
Churchill. For those who are interested, professor Feehan and Mr. Baker, on
pages 211 and 212, talk about the boundary dispute. At page 221, there is
reference to the Dorion report in 1971 which concluded that no judicial basis to
challenge the boundary. Here we go still, almost forty years after that report
with Quebec refusing to accept the boundary.
Mr. Speaker, the pledge of support from the federal leaders signifies a new
political reality in this country, because up until this point numerous scholars
have pointed out that no federal leader or government is willing to support
Newfoundland and Labrador in its quest for equity, its quest for fairness
because it could cost seats in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this is what is so important about the commitment on the loan
guarantee. Not only does it save us up to $600 million, but it signifies faith
and confidence in the project, and it says to Newfoundland and Labrador and, in
fact, to all of Atlantic Canada that you truly are part of this great country,
we will support you as you continue towards self-sufficiency and continue
towards making things happen and protecting your future. Because, Mr. Speaker,
that is what it is all about.
The legacy of Danny Williams will not be, as some pundits on the other side
of this House say, the Lower Churchill. The legacy of Danny Williams will be the
pride and confidence that we have in ourselves as a people, Mr. Speaker; the
ability to move fearlessly and boldly toward our goal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, that legacy will be continued under the
fearless and bold leadership of Premier Kathy Dunderdale. Because, Mr. Speaker,
Premier Dunderdale does not claim to be from the Burin Peninsula, this woman,
our leader, is from the Burin Peninsula and she knows what it is like to be part
of rural Newfoundland and Labrador
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: Excuse me, the Premier. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier knows what it is like to protect all areas of this Province, and
she has spent her life doing that. So, what we have is a continuation of our
policies, and we will continue to fight for this Province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, up until 2009, and people wonder sometimes, do we always
have to have someone to fight with? Up until 2009, Hydro-Quebec reaped profits
of $22 billion versus $1 billion for Newfoundland and Labrador. Twenty-two
billion dollars for Quebec, and they stand on the other side and they will claim
the giveaway of Abitibi. A Liberal government that signed that contract in 1969.
In 2008, Hydro-Quebec received $1.7 billion; Newfoundland and Labrador, $63
million. Ninety-seven per cent of the profits of the Upper Churchill went to
Hydro-Quebec, 3 per cent went to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal's have also looked at challenging the Upper
Churchill. They have also looked at developing the Lower Churchill. Now, let me
tell you what a Liberal committee that was appointed in 2003 had to say about
their deal excuse me, the Our Place in Canada committee. They said, Mr.
Speaker, on page 124, "In particular, one of the main concerns related to
possible financing was that Hydro-Qubec would be the financial backer of the
project." That is what the Liberals were going to do, under the Grimes
government, Mr. Speaker. "The concern, at its most fundamental level, was that
Hydro-Qubec would be both the major purchaser of power and the major lender for
the project, Newfoundland and Labrador therefore would be negotiating from a
position of significant weakness. Such a potential imbalance was offensive to
many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly given the history and
outcomes of the Churchill Falls development. In the view of this Commission,
proceeding in this manner in the future would be a recipe for failure."
What did the Liberal commission say, Mr. Speaker? You cannot deal with
Quebec. So, we have a choice: We do what we are doing here with the Island Link
and the Maritime Link, or we let the water flow down the river and no one gets
anything for it. Mr. Speaker, we have chosen to move boldly and fearlessly.
As my colleague, the Member for Lake Melville said there are critics and
there are questions raised. Let me deal with one question that was raised in
The Telegram this weekend. It was raised by Edward Hearn, a lawyer in Lab
City, whom I have a lot of respect for and know well. Mr. Hearn has been
studying
section 92A for a long time. Mr. Hearn says in his letter, "There
appears to be no consideration to recalling power from the Upper Churchill
utilizing the legislative authority of the province under
section 92A of the
Canadian Constitution."
Mr. Speaker, that is certainly incorrect, not necessarily that Mr. Hearn
would know all of the steps we will take and some of which I will go through,
but what I find a little bit confusing, Mr. Hearn's letter talks about we need
to engage in open debate, but Mr. Hearn, as a lawyer, and an experienced lawyer,
knows that we have to have a full and accurate factual foundation for this
debate.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hearn wrote, or was a co-author of an opinion in 2003, again
appointed under the Liberal government at the time, which said that the
potential of operating under 92A of the Constitution could cost us $1 billion a
year. That is missing from this letter because what happens is we have since
looked at this. I have met with Mr. Justice Grard La Forest, a retired Supreme
Court of Canada judge, a couple of times on 92A. I have met with a retired Court
of Appeal justice in Quebec, Jean-Louis Baudouin, on a number of occasions, he
is considered to be the leading authority in Quebec on contract law.
Mr. Speaker, we can bring in legislation that I feel could pass the
constitutional muster test, but the question becomes: Are we in breach of the
contract in Quebec? Mr. Speaker, one of the little talked about aspects of this
contract is that there is a clause here that says the law of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador governs. Now, the problem with 92A is the law of
Quebec governs. So, even if we can bring in constitutional legislation in this
Province, we are open to damages in Quebec, damages for breach of contract, Mr.
Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: How much again?
MR. KENNEDY: It can be up to $1 billion a year.
Something disconcerting, Mr. Speaker, is when Mr. Hearn wrote the letter, he
knew that there was an opinion from an eminent Quebec council suggesting that
the contract could not be set aside based on the issue of force majeure.
While we are certainly open to engaging in discussion and full and open
debate, we also have to ensure there is full and accurate information, Mr.
Speaker. We have explored
section 92A and in the last year or two have explored
92A in great detail. So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if people are going
to engage in discussion, that they put forward the full facts.
Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of minutes I will talk about the approach of
our government. I would suggest what we are doing is that which we always do as
a government. We are looking to the future, Mr. Speaker. We are looking to the
protection of our children, our grandchildren, and their children. In 2041, the
Upper Churchill will be returned, depending now on whether or not our good faith
argument is successful.
What are the benefits of this project, Mr. Speaker? One, we need electricity
in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and this will result in a
stability of rates. Two, we have to replace Holyrood and protect our
environment. It is a $6.2 billion development. We will create thousands of jobs,
up to 2,700 at its peak in 2013. Labrador, Mr. Speaker, will have 1,150 jobs per
year, with $450 million in income, corporate and otherwise, and the Innu will be
the beneficiaries of the deal.
Mr. Speaker, this is a nation building exercise and it makes us truly part of
this country. Why I started out today in 1927 and worked my way forward, if you
go back to the news release of November 18, 2010 when this deal was announced,
it allows us to escape the stranglehold of Quebec, Mr. Speaker. The federal
government now see that is the way to go.
What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is standing up for ourselves as a people, we
are plotting our own course, we are protecting our future, and we are and will
continue to be masters of our own destiny.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is privilege again this afternoon to stand and speak on private member's
day and this motion.
Mr. Speaker, the
preamble to the hon. member's motion today is pretty
specific. He is calling for support for this specific deal on the Muskrat Falls,
the one that is outlined in the Term Sheet signed with Emera Energy of Nova
Scotia on November 18 of last year. I want to talk about that, Mr. Speaker, for
a few moments because we all know details are important and winners and losers
are often determined by the details in an agreement. We certainly learned that
lesson I am sure from the Upper Churchill and the same would be true today for
any agreement that we would want to sign.
First, I want to talk about the Lower Churchill generally, Mr. Speaker. I
think we need to set the context for this debate on this particular deal and I
do not have to tell the members opposite today that the idea of developing the
Lower Churchill has been important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
for a long time. It has been their dream; it has been something that we wanted
to see. We have always hoped that the Lower Churchill would make up in some way
for the disastrous deal with Hydro - Qubec in the Upper
Churchill.
The way we have envisioned that is relatively simple. It was the goal to take
the vast power at Gull Island and at Muskrat Falls and convert it into energy
cells for Ontario, New England, down through the North Eastern States and so on.
The idea was that we would use the vast natural resources of the Lower Churchill
to sell power to millions of people in the US and perhaps Ontario and yes use
the power for ourselves and so on. In effect, what would happen, Mr. Speaker, is
that the wealth of New England and the wealth of Ontario would flow into this
Province; it would pay the cost of the new generation plants and it would put a
profit into the coffers of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Stated more
simply, Mr. Speaker, outside customers would buy our power and make us wealthy
in the process. I believe that has been the vision of a Lower Churchill
development project.
Mr. Speaker, the deal that this government put before the people of this
Province on November 18 is the opposite of that deal. The Muskrat Falls deal
proposed by the Premier and Nalcor is the opposite of what has been envisioned
by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead of harnessing Gull Island
and Muskrat Falls in tandem this deal is to develop a portion of that as we
know.
While this project is for Muskrat Falls only, which will generate about one
quarter of the power that is available from Gull Island, the cost of doing it is
about the same as it would have been for developing both projects. The reason
for that is obvious, because of the vast transmission line involved that would
have that cost. The real difference, Mr. Speaker, between this project and the
one that we have always envisioned is this: instead of selling the power to
millions of customers outside our Province, we are going to sell the power back
to ourselves. Instead of selling it to millions of people in the US and Ontario,
wherever it might be, we are going to sell this power to ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, the only paying customers in this deal are the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. So, instead of millions of potential customers buying
it and paying Newfoundland and Labrador, we are essentially the only paying
customers. Mr. Speaker, that is why, if this deal goes through, power rates will
have to double in this Province. That has been the message we have been putting
forth as an Opposition, that is the message that we will continue to put forth,
Mr. Speaker, because that is the way that we see it today. Instead of millions
of customers, instead of millions of potential customers paying for the cost of
the plant at Muskrat Falls, and the thousands of miles of transmission lines and
so on, 300,000 customers on the island of Newfoundland will have to pay for the
project through their monthly electricity bills.
MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).
MR. DEAN: That is the bottom line, and the Minister of Natural Resources
agrees with that. I am glad that we agree with that piece. That is why, Mr.
Speaker, electricity rates in this Province will double. That is why there will
be such a dramatic increase in the cost of electricity on the island of
Newfoundland because of the fact that we are being asked to bear the full costs
of this project. Developing Muskrat Falls will not lower electricity rates in
this Province and give us a competitive edge with those in other jurisdictions.
It will increase the cost.
MR. SKINNER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, on a point of order.
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the point of order that I wish to raise is that we have never
said that the electricity rates will double. What we have said is that they are
expected to increase 36 per cent over the next five or six years. After that,
they will go up on average 5 per cent per year without Muskrat Falls. If we have
Muskrat Falls, the power rates will increase 0.7 per cent per year. So, the
rates, Mr. Speaker, will be moderated by the development of Muskrat Falls, so
there is less of an increase than if we do not do Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order, but disagreement between two hon. members.
The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand the need to defend the prices that are being put forward, and so
on.
So, basically, Mr. Speaker, while our electricity rates double, the Premier
plans to give away some of this excess power to Nova Scotia for free. Mr.
Speaker, in effect what we are doing is doubling our own electricity rates to
subsidize the cost of cheaper energy in Nova Scotia and New England. Mr.
Speaker, that is not what the Lower Churchill was all about.
It is not about dealing with Quebec. It is not about not dealing with Nova
Scotia or whatever the case may be. It is about the cost of doing this project
on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Mr. Speaker, that is why
myself this evening as a member of this House of Assembly and as a member of the
Opposition party, I stand this evening opposed to the development as it has been
put forward.
We also know, Mr. Speaker, that as part of this agreement the Premier has
agreed to give Emera Energy 20 per cent of Muskrat Falls power for free.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DEAN: The Term Sheet, Mr. Speaker, states that Emera will get fifty
years worth of power in a period of thirty-years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. DEAN: It is a little difficult to hear yourself think here right now,
but that is okay. I understand the need to come back.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DEAN: Emera is getting that free power in return for building a
transmission line that Nalcor hopes to use to sell the rest of the excess power
to New England.
Mr. Speaker, here is one thing: in our last briefing with Nalcor, Mr. Ed
Martin, the President of Nalcor, admitted to us that morning in a meeting that
more than likely any of the excess power from Muskrat Falls would be sold to
Nova Scotia and that it would not go past Nova Scotia because of the need for
consumption by that particular province. Mr. Speaker, if we do not negotiate a
price for it, it will be sold at market prices which are a fraction of what we
will pay for the same power here in this Province.
Now, I do not know how that can be acceptable to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador. I do not know how that can be acceptable to the members in this
House of Assembly, that we are satisfied to sell the power to ourselves at a
certain rate, whether it is fourteen cents, sixteen cents, or seventeen cents,
and we will sell it to Nova Scotia, to New Brunswick, or down to New England for
whatever the going market rate is, whether it is eight cents, nine cents, or ten
cents. We know, Mr. Speaker, it definitely will be less than what we will be
charging ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, it is a laudable thing. I think it is great for Nova Scotia that
they want to clean up their environment, that they want to get rid of their
dependence on coal, and so on. However, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador should have to pay that cost for it. I think
it should fall on the backs of Nova Scotians.
Mr. Speaker, why should we give away 20 per cent of Muskrat Falls to Nova
Scotia for their investment? We call it free and basically it is free. There is
no charge for the power. They are putting their investment in there. Why should
we give 20 per cent of Muskrat Falls away and sell the rest at half price; that
is even a price less than we are paying ourselves?
Mr. Speaker, it just does not make sense. It really is a giveaway; there is
no doubt about that. In fact, if we look at it objectively, this deal on Muskrat
Falls is the biggest giveaway since Churchill Falls; it is the biggest giveaway
since Churchill Falls. The only different is this, Mr. Speaker, when Churchill
Falls was signed the people of this Province and even the members of the
Legislature were kept in the dark on it. The deal was signed, as we know, by
executives with Brinco at a time when Brinco was in poor shape. They were near
bankruptcy; they had no choice but to accept something.
Today, Mr. Speaker, it is a different day. We do not have to accept just
anything. We can find a good deal. We have come forward in this Province, Mr.
Speaker. It is not some faceless corporate executive from Brinco who is signing
this deal of Muskrat Falls, it is the Premier of this Province who believes that
us as members of this Province should be paying a rate that is so much more than
other people
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): Order, please!
The Speaker is having difficulty hearing the hon. member.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My ears are ringing quite frankly and
MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the Chair recognizes the hon. member.
MR. DEAN: Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker, it is the members opposite who will be held up in judgment of
history, if you will, as to whether or not this is a good deal. I am pleased
this afternoon to be able to stand in the Opposition and challenge this deal.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the legacy that we want to leave our Province.
Mr. Speaker, the member who spoke before me referred to an
article in The
Telegram this weekend by Mr. Ed Hearn, a lawyer from Labrador City - a
lawyer I know well, know him from years ago. Mr. Speaker, just referencing his
reference to
section 92, but he said much more than that. He said he was glad
that it had been challenged because this deal is the deal that has no detail.
Mr. Speaker, we have been in this House, and our leader in particular has
been standing every day and asking for detail about this project because there
is so much that is not known. One thing that he mentions and it is significant
because it was brought up in this House just yesterday by our leader is the
fact that major projects in our Province, in this country in the past thirty
years have seen substantial increases, there have been substantial overruns. Mr.
Speaker, the cost that is being projected in this project is such but yet, where
does it go if we have these substantial overruns as projected by particular
people?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask all hon. members for their co-operation.
The hon. member.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the defence of government has been that there will be no
overruns. They can do this project at the prices that have been suggested at the
estimates and so on, because we have the expertise, we have Nalcor and I am
not suggesting we do not have good expertise in this Province but we know that
these types of projects have significant overruns. We know what Nalcor did on
the Northern Peninsula when they went up to drill two or three holes in Parson's
Pond to do some exploratory drilling. We know of the overruns that were involved
in that particular case. So, Mr. Speaker, we can expect that overruns will be
significant. The question has to be then, is if the cost of this project
escalates, will it be to a point where it is too high to attract any kind of
industrial business possibly to our Province?
Mr. Speaker, I just want to, again, bring us back to the fundamental issue
that I have with this project as it is presented to this Province in the Term
Sheet, is that you are asking the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I
will use the figures that we have been using back and forth, at 14.3 cents per
kilowatt hour, that is the figure that has been presented, even though we know
it will be higher by the time it gets to the end user. At the same time, Mr.
Speaker, we are willing to sell it to Nova Scotia, we are willing to sell it to
New Brunswick, we are willing to send it down into New England or wherever that
potential customer might be for perhaps seven, eight, nine, ten cents, whatever
it might be, but we know it will be a rate that is subsidized by the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I stand in this House this afternoon to
say that is a deal I cannot support.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask all hon. members again for their co-operation.
Before the Chair recognizes the next speaker I ask all hon. members for their
co-operation.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to stand here today to speak on this motion. I certainly want to
applaud the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, for his commitment to a
loan guarantee or equivalent financial support for development of this Muskrat
Falls Project. The guarantee, even though it is not essential to the economic
viability of this project, will significantly - in the tune of some-$600 million
- reduce the overall capital cost of this project and in turn, of course, this
will flow back to a savings for the ratepayers of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition from Quebec to this Federal Loan Guarantee should
come as no surprise to anyone in this Province. It is certainly consistent with
the behaviour of the Quebec government and Hydro-Quebec towards this Province
going back to the days of the early development of the Upper Churchill back in
the 1960s.
This Province has made repeated attempts to gain access across Quebec to sell
our hydro power on the world markets, into the US but have always been stymied
by opposition from Quebec who have refused to give us access across there. This
led to the infamous Upper Churchill contract with Quebec when we were forced to
sell it to Hydro-Quebec at the border as opposed to being able to cross Quebec
and sell it ourselves on the open market. Of course, we are all aware of this
infamous contract which started in 1976, running into 2016, the first portion of
that, the forty-year portion which gives Quebec more than 5,000 megawatts of
power from the Upper Churchill at a giveaway price of one-quarter of one cent
per kilowatt hour. Mr. Speaker, that gets worse.
In 2016, when the forty-year contract expires they have an automatic renewal
for another twenty-five years, taking us up to 2041, at a much lower cost of
one-fifth of a cent; one-fifth of a cent, a giveaway, basically. At that price,
that is less than 5 per cent of the current market price of hydro coming out of
Churchill Falls. Since day one, Mr. Speaker, these prices have profited
Hydro-Quebec in excess of $22 billion,
whereas this Province has gotten
approximately $1 billion in that same period of time.
A couple of other examples, of course, where Hydro - Quebec
has put a stop to us trying to gain access across was the ruling last year by
the Rgie Quebec', which is the regulator, I guess, of hydro in Quebec, who
upheld Hydro- Qubec's earlier refusal to allow us access. Then again,
just this month, on our appeal, it was denied once again. So, Mr. Speaker, it is
quite obvious that it is near impossible to work a deal with Quebec.
So how we do get power to the markets and how do we get power down here to
the Island to meet the needs?
Mr. Speaker, as the analysis shows, the cheapest alternative to meet the
demands of power, particularly on this Island, is through the development of
Muskrat Falls. All other alternatives and all other options have been priced and
this particular project is the most economical alternative. So that is certainly
one of the main reasons why this project needs to go ahead.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has also been said by some that we do not need to do
this and we could gain power by recall power from the Upper Churchill. Right
now, there is 300 megawatts of recall power available on the Upper Churchill. At
present, about two-thirds of that, or over 200 megawatts, is currently being
used in Labrador by the mining companies, particularly by the Iron Ore Company,
and as well by the towns that are part of the Labrador interconnected grid,
namely Lab City, Wabush, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
So that leaves 100 megawatts. Yes, 100 megawatts is about what would be
available at the moment. Mr. Speaker, if I look down through where I see
development in Labrador over the next five or ten years, that 100 megawatts is
not going to go very far.
For instance, right now IOC consumes about 250 megawatts a year. Of course, a
lot of that comes from a separate agreement under the TWINCo agreement. They are
using some of the recall power, probably in excess of 80 megawatts at the
moment. Their long-term plans, which could see them double development over the
next five or six years, could see that amount again being required for the iron
ore company.
We have a potential mine development right now which is looking very
promising. In the next year or two, Alderon Resources has a mining development
very close to Labrador City and that is certainly going to require probably in
excess of sixty megawatts.
If we look to the northeast, just close to Schefferville, Quebec, the major
development by the New Millennium Capital Corporation has reserves right now
which they are delineated of about 100 years. The size of that development, if
that comes to fruition and certainly right now the Chinese are putting money
into that to look at the overall viability of that project but that would
rival in size with the Iron Ore Company of Canada and you could see demand for
another 200, 250 megawatts of power just for that particular project alone.
Of course then there are other potential mining developments in Labrador
including the Julienne Lake deposit, which right now is owned by the Crown and
which is right now in the process of evaluating to see what the overall
potential for that is. Then of course we have potential mining on the North
Coast, the Voisey's Bay underground. We have rare mineral discoveries in Central
Labrador. All of this would add to the demand for more power for the industrial
development of Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the Muskrat Falls development will provide tremendous benefits,
short-term and long-term, for Labrador and for the Island. The development of
Muskrat Falls will meet the energy requirements for both Labrador and the Island
and also provide sufficient capacity for future industrial development in
Labrador. Right now, that power is not required. The deal with Emera to enable
us to transmit that power across the Gulf and into Nova Scotia and into the
other will certainly give us the opportunity to gain some revenue from that
which, if we did not have that capacity, would certainly be just lost. Why would
we throw away money instead of taking advantage of an opportunity with this
development, with this transmission capability right now? Why would we not
pursue that? It just does not make any economic sense not to do this.
Mr. Speaker, build it and they will come; that is a philosophy proclaimed in
some quarters. Personally, I find that sometimes to be a little risky, but the
structure of Muskrat Falls agreement, which gives us recall rights on 40 per
cent, or 330 megawatts, lets us, in fact, mitigate that risk. Having access to
the markets in the Maritimes for this excess power lets us generate revenue,
which otherwise would be lost. Therefore, when the need arises for expansion or
new development in LabWest, or for Voisey's Bay, or for the New Millennium
Project, or for uranium mining on the North Coast or anywhere else in Labrador,
that power will be available under a recall right for Labrador. So, Mr. Speaker,
how anyone from Labrador can stand up here and say they do not agree with this
development, it is just totally incomprehensible.
Mr. Speaker, this is a massive undertaking, and it is certainly, besides the
long-term benefits of power
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Labrador West, the hon. Member
for Labrador West has the floor, and I ask all hon. Members for their
cooperation while the hon. Member is speaking.
MR. BAKER: So, Mr. Speaker, once again, the power availability for
Labrador, the power availability to meet the needs of the island, these are the
long-term benefits. As well, in the short-term, Mr. Speaker, there is going to
be quite a lot of benefits over the next six, seven years during the
construction period of this project. This development will result in some 8,600
person-years of direct employment for Newfoundland and Labrador, with 5,400
person-years of direct employment in Labrador alone during the construction
period. There will be peak employment of approximately 2,700 people in 2013.
Canada-wide employment will be 47,800 person-years during the construction.
The benefits for Labrador alone, Mr. Speaker and again, I come back,
because this was questioned by the Leader of the Opposition Labrador will be
the primary beneficiary of this project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BAKER: More than 75 per cent of the work will take place in Labrador.
$450 million in income will be earned solely by Labradorians and Labrador-based
businesses, with an average of 1,150 people per year employed in Labrador. First
consideration for employment will be provided to the Labrador Innu, as outlined
in the New Dawn Agreement.
As well, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the environment, and we have
committed to responsible development and ensuring that the project will not be
done at the expense of our environment. Mr. Speaker, the footprint for this
project is probably about 10 per cent or even less than that of what the Upper
Churchill is in terms of flooding of the land.
Another important factor, Mr. Speaker, which came up as well, this
development will not impact electricity rates on the Labrador interconnected
system. Currently, customers on this system, which I am one, pay the lowest
rates of anyone in this Province and some of the lowest rates anywhere in North
America. The development of Muskrat Falls will not change these rates for the
consumers of Labrador. As well, Mr. Speaker, our government has made significant
financial investments to keep electricity rates in Labrador, particularly in the
coastal communities, as low as possible. We have seen substantial subsidies
issued to residents on the North and South Coast for this.
Mr. Speaker, just to clue up, I just want to touch briefly on the impact this
will have, the benefits, by being able to have less dependence on the Holyrood
development. Between 2012 and 2017, the electricity rates will rise whether the
Lower Churchill Project is sanctioned or not. If the Island were to remain
dependent on oil-fired generation from the thermal generating plant at Holyrood,
power costs would be higher over the long term and continue to rise well into
the future. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, at today's oil prices the cost of
generating a kilowatt of power at the Holyrood plant right now is around fifteen
cents per kilowatt hour; more than what the power will be in 2017 when this
power from the Muskrat Falls is available.
Power bills will increase substantially if we do not do the Muskrat Falls,
Mr. Speaker. By 2017, the fourteen cents will be approximately the cost with one
project or the other, but as we go forward, you can see a massive difference in
this. Power rates will remain stable
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has expired.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member wish leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up. The hon. member has leave to clue up.
MR. BAKER: Okay, I just want to mention that by the year 2040, that
fourteen cents today, or in 2017, if we do nothing, if we continue on with the
isolated Island system, the cost of power, if you are paying $290 today, you
will be paying about $625 a month back then, or about 22 cents per kilowatt hour
versus less than 16 cents at that time under the Muskrat Falls.
Mr. Speaker, there are definitely direct benefits for Labrador. There are
direct benefits for Newfoundland, the Island portion. This is a good, economic,
viable project and we should get behind it and support it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to have the opportunity to stand and speak to this private member's
resolution today.
First of all, I have to say that I am glad to see the amendment that was
moved by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and seconded by the Member
for Burgeo & La Poile because at least this resolution coming from the Official
Opposition recognizes a major, major weakness in the resolution that has been
put on the floor.
In the amendment we have recognition that in the resolution that was put on
the floor we had a terrible bias. We had a bias which names two federal party
leaders, the Leader of the Conservative Party and the Leader of the federal
Liberal Party, and has no recognition that there is a Third Party on that
national level in the House of Commons, and that there is a Third Party in this
House. I have to say that I was absolutely shocked to see a resolution that
would refer to the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada
and not make reference to the New Democratic Party of Canada, especially because
I sit here as the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I am absolutely shocked
that this resolution was brought forward.
At least the amendment is party-neutral and talks about commending any
federal party leader who follows through on a pledge to provide the federal
assistance through a loan guarantee or equivalent support for such a project.
When I look at the resolution that was put on this floor, Mr. Speaker, I see
it completely ignoring the fact that the New Democratic Party and the Leader of
that Party, Jack Layton, have consistently, over the last seven years, presented
their position with regard to the Lower Churchill, with regard to their support
for the Lower Churchill, and they have put it in writing, and they have put it
in writing every single time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is an insult to Jack Layton. It is an insult to him and to the members of
the New Democratic Party here in Newfoundland and Labrador that the motion that
came to this floor cites only the federal Conservative and Liberal positions,
but not the New Democratic position.
In 2011, the New Democratic campaign platform commits to federal investment
in major green energy projects, including a link to bring power from Labrador to
the Maritimes. That is in the platform. In the 2006 election, the NDP Leader,
Jack Layton, replied to a letter from
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, do I have the right speak in this House or not?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and I
ask all hon. members for their co-operation.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
In the 2006 election, the NDP Leader, Jack Layton, replied to a letter from
the then Premier Danny Williams, stating that the NDP supported green power and
was open to projects like the Lower Churchill, if it could be developed in an
ecologically sound manner, and for the principle benefit of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, and at that time in 2006, he pledged an investment guarantee.
AN HON. MEMBER: What do you pledge?
MS MICHAEL: Then, in the 2008 election, Jack Layton again replied to
Danny Williams that New Democrats
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: They are asking: What do I pledge? This motion is about
federal leaders, and I am talking about how they ignored a federal leader.
In the 2008 election, Jack Layton again replied to Danny Williams that New
Democrats would support green energy projects such as the
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask all hon. members for their co-operation.
The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the 2008 election, Jack Layton again replied to Danny Williams that New
Democrats would support green energy projects such as the Lower Churchill, again
with an investment guarantee. With an investment guarantee in writing, if it
could be done in an ecologically sound manner and for the primary benefit of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I am really surprised, Mr. Speaker, at this motion because the motion
absolutely ignores who we are as a country; who we are here in this Province and
who we are as a country in terms of our political make up. I stand here happy to
support the position of the Leader of the federal New Democratic Party; that is
why I am standing here. I am absolutely shocked that this motion makes no
reference to that leader. So there is no way I can vote for this motion not
for the motion because, Mr. Speaker, the motion says
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: Because, Mr. Speaker, the motion says: Therefore
be it
resolved that, in disagreement with the National Assembly of Quebec, this hon.
House affirms its support for federal financial participation in the Lower
Churchill hydro-electric project defined in the Term Sheet between Nalcor and
Emera - I have no problem with that and commends the Leader of the
Conservative Party of Canada and the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada for
pledging federal support for the project.
There is no mention of Jack Layton, the Leader of the New Democratic Party,
no mention that three times he has committed in writing each time. I cannot vote
for a resolution that is not going to mention the Leader of the New Democratic
Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker does not want to address individuals individually, but if I have
to I will.
Again, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has the floor.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The total ignoring of the Leader of the New Democratic Party in this
resolution makes it impossible for me to vote for it, Mr. Speaker.
The mover of this resolution stood on this floor and talked about in his
presentation today, he hopes that we will stand united. He hopes we will stand
united and he does not even mention the party that I am a member of. A leader of
the provincial party, a member of the federal party, and he does not even
mention that party and says he wants me to stand united in supporting this
resolution. I was left out of this resolution; my party was left out of the
resolution. Where is the united? Where is the way I can stand united when we
were not even recognized in the resolution?
The part that really boils me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that Mr. Layton has
put his commitment in writing every single time; in writing. The Liberal Party
of Canada has not put their commitment in writing. It is not even in their
campaign. It is not in their platform.
The resolution that has been presented here, Mr. Speaker, to this House I
find really interesting because the quote from the Leader of the Liberal Party
of Canada was stated in a radio interview. It was Open Line, Mr. Speaker. That
is what they had to use to go into the resolution,
whereas Mr. Layton has put it
in writing three times.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how disgusted I am that this motion came to
the floor leaving out the very party that I represent. So, no, Mr. Speaker - I
am going to be happy to vote for the amendment. The amendment is party neutral.
The amendment talks about federal leaders and that is what we should be doing.
This is an excellent amendment. I will vote for the amendment.
If this House is callous enough to turn down this amendment, then, Mr.
Speaker, I shall not be voting for their resolution.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Transportation
and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly a pleasure for me to get up here today and to get back to the
main motion that was put forth here today. This is a motion that