PDF Version

January 6, 2025 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 97

The House met

at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER

(Bennett): Order,

please!

Admit visitors.

Before we

begin, I'd just like to wish everyone a Happy New Year and to welcome everyone

in the public gallery here today.

Extraordinary Debate pursuant to

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

Labrador Hydro and Hydro-Québec

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

As everyone

here is aware this morning, the House of Assembly has been recalled under

Standing Order 8(7) for the purpose of this week's debate. Standing Order 8(7)

states "If the Government advises the Speaker that the public interest requires

the House to meet at any time because of emergency or extraordinary

circumstances, a reason for the recall must be provided and the Speaker shall

(

a) advise Members that the House is to meet at the specified time; and (

b) advise Members of the reason for the recall."

Speaker, I

think we can all agree it is an understatement to call a memorandum of

understanding toward a new Upper Churchill agreement with Hydro-Québec

extraordinary.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: In fact, it is something many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians never thought they would see. It is why we are

now taking steps to educate and inform the public on these incredible and

generational-changing benefits that have been secured. Through the proceedings

this week, the Members of the Legislature and the public will hear from

representatives from NL Hydro, as well as independent advisors who contributed

to the memorandum of understanding that is now before the House of Assembly.

My colleagues

from the opposite side of the House and I have had various discussions about

what the structure of this debate will look like, and I want to thank them for

their input, efforts, understanding and collaboration.

On that note,

Speaker, I give notice and, by leave, move the following procedural rules of

debate:

One: The

resolution respecting the Memorandum Of Understanding For A New Long-Term

Energy Purchase And Development Initiative Between Newfoundland And Labrador

Hydro And Hydro-Quebec , the resolution, will be debated for not more than

four days: Monday, January 6; Tuesday, January 7; Wednesday, January 8; and

Thursday, January 9, 2025.

Two: On these

four days, the House will sit from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

and from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., unless earlier adjourned.

Three: Speaking

times shall be allocated as follows: (

a) two hours each of total speaking time

for the Premier, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the

Third Party; (

b) two hours each of total speaking time for the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology and the Official Opposition critic for this

portfolio; and (c) 40 minutes each of total speaking time for each remaining

Member of the House of Assembly.

Four: Debate

will proceed in the same manner as Committees of the House reviewing Estimates.

Time will be allocated in 20-minute blocks. Members will speak in debate or ask

as many questions as they wish during each 20-minute allocation.

Five:

Notwithstanding four, the time allocated for the non-affiliated Members and for

the Member for Labrador West will be allocated in 10-minute blocks.

Six:

Notwithstanding four, the Members referred to in 3(

a) and 3(

b) can choose to

take a time allocation in a 60-minute block.

Seven:

Notwithstanding any Standing Order, a Member may defer speaking time to another

Member.

Eight: Invited

guests of the Legislature will be permitted to be present on the floor of the

House to answer Members' questions as follows: January 6 and 7, up to three

representatives from NL Hydro; January 8, up to two representatives from Power

Advisory; and January 9, up to two representatives from J. P. Morgan.

Guests

referenced above may be accompanied by up to two support persons who may be

present on the floor of the House, but who may not speak in debate.

Nine: Members

may pose questions to invited guests or to a Minister of the Crown during the

course of debate, and any response to that question shall be recorded in the

total time allocation of the Member posing the question.

Ten: Invited

guests will answer Members' questions that are relevant respecting the

memorandum of understanding, including its structure, operation and purpose,

but may decline to answer questions which are commercially sensitive, subject

to Cabinet confidence or solicitor-client privilege, or otherwise information

that may excepted from disclosure in accordance with the Access to Information

and Protection of Privacy Act.

Eleven: The

notice requirement for the resolution will be waved.

Twelve: Debate

on the resolution will begin immediately after the adoption of these rules of

debate and introduction of the resolution and will be the only business of the

House during the four-day period.

Thirteen: When

the debate has concluded, but in any event no later than 9 p.m. on Thursday,

January 9, the Speaker shall put the question on the resolution.

SPEAKER: Does the Member have leave?

AN HON.

MEMBER: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll just take

few minutes to speak to the resolution, and thanks to all Members for giving

leave to discuss and debate this here today.

It is an honour

and a privilege to be part of this extraordinary sitting of the House of

Assembly. Like many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I've only ever known the

1969 Churchill Falls agreement to be one that has caused negative emotions:

anger, pain, anxiety, disappointment and, perhaps most of all, frustration.

There have been countless times in my life that I've done the math to calculate

how many years we are away from 2041, how old I will be in 2041 and, more

importantly, how old my children will be in 2041.

That all

changed on December 12, 2024, with the historic signing of this memorandum of

understanding; 2041 is not the relevant date anymore. Now, the date when a new

chapter for Churchill Falls and a new

chapter for Newfoundland and Labrador has

already arrived, that date is today. We are already living in the future,

Speaker, because as we saw on December 12, our Premier not only figuratively

tore up the old 1969 contract, he literally did it too.

Knowing that my

children and future generations will not be saddled with the ill-fated 1969

agreement, comes with a sense of relief and a sense of pride. They will enjoy

the benefits of our province's resources including new revenues, new economic

development, new jobs and much, much more. While December 12 marked a

transformative milestone in our province's history, it would not have been

possible without our Premier's vision and the culmination of a significant

amount of work, with much more to come.

It is important

to note, as I said earlier, that the Premier has torn up the old agreement.

This, as we all know, has been attempted for decades but has never been

achieved. In fact, there was no obligation at all for Hydro-Québec to even

entertain this possibility.

In Churchill

Falls court versus Hydro-Québec from 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada was

asked whether there was any principle of law that would require Hydro-Québec to

renegotiate the power contract and the benefits be reallocated. The answer was

a definitive no.

The Supreme

Court of Canada stated that it cannot change the content of the contract, nor

can it require the parties to renegotiate terms of the contract or to share the

benefits that had been provided for in it. The court further concluded there

was no gap or omission in the scheme of the contract that required an implied

duty to co-operate and to renegotiate a new pricing scheme.

That is the

background and that is the history. Despite this, despite all previous

attempts, despite unsuccessful court cases, unsuccessful legislation, we are

here today debating what we have been told was not possible: a new historic and

vastly improved Upper Churchill Falls contract.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: The non-binding memorandum of

understanding that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has entered into with

Hydro-Québec was several years in the making. It is a framework for a final

deal. Dating back to 2022, the negotiating team, supported by independent subject-matter

experts explored and considered how we should enter potential discussions with

Quebec. It was a thoughtful and deliberate approach to securing maximum

benefits over the short, medium and long term for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The time is

right and the moment is now and if we wait, the risk increases that

Newfoundland and Labrador will not be the primary beneficiary of our tremendous

resource. That, Speaker, is why we are here today and I would like to take a

few more minutes to talk about these proposed rules.

As we know, the

Premier has always committed to debate this in the House of Assembly and we are

doing so at the first opportunity which will give Members, who are present here

today and represent every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, the opportunity to ask

questions, provide their comments and debate what the MOU means. It is an

opportunity to be open, transparent, to learn and to work together.

Not only has

the Premier committed to this debate, he is committed to taking the

extraordinary step to invite guests to the House of Assembly to share their

experience, knowledge and expertise. These are industry experts who specialize

in agreements and projects of this very nature and this week we will hear from

those independent experts and learn more about their assessments.

From

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we have president and chief executive officer,

Jennifer Williams and vice-president of Transmission Interconnections and

Business Development, Walter Parsons. Denis Mahoney, KC, deputy minister of

Justice and Public Safety and member of the Churchill Falls negotiations will

be present to support Ms. Williams and Mr. Parsons.

From Power

Advisory, which provides its clients that span Canada and the United States

analysis and insights about the electricity sector, we have Jason Chee-Aloy,

managing director, and Brady Yauch, senior manager, Markets and Regulatory.

From J.P.

Morgan, we have Konstantin Akimov, managing director of Mergers and

Acquisitions, power renewables and infrastructure, and David Rawlings, CEO

Canada.

These invited

guests will be available to respond to questions within their area of

expertise, as noted in the rules of proceedings. They can choose not to respond

when the response would reveal commercially sensitive information or

information protected by solicitor-client privilege, Cabinet privilege or the

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I will take a

few minutes to provide an overview of their biographical information for the

benefit of the House.

Jennifer

Williams was appointed CEO in June 2021, having served as president of Hydro

since February 2019. Ms. Williams had served as Hydro's vice-president,

Production, since August 2015 and had earlier positions, including general

manager, Hydro Production, as well as manager, Regulatory Engineering.

Previous to

that, she worked with both Newfoundland Power and the St. John's International

Airport Authority. A graduate of Memorial University, Ms. Williams has a

Bachelor of Civil Engineering and is a member of the board of directors of the

Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Over the course

of her career, she has earned many accolades, including being awarded the

Fellow of Engineers Canada in 2016, being elected as a Fellow of the Canadian

Academy of Engineering in 2020 and winning the Canadian Women of Renewable

Energy Award in 2022.

In addition to

earning the respect of her peers, she is a member of the board of directors for

the Cancer Care Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the

Canadian Academy of Engineering. Ms. Williams was named to the Churchill Falls

negotiating team of February 2023, served as a member of the Churchill River

Management Expert Panel from 2022 and was the chairperson of the Churchill River Energy Analysis Team.

Walter Parsons

joined Hydro's executive team in 2017 as vice-president accountable for non

regulated transmission and community affairs, which was based in Churchill

Falls. In 2021 he assumed his current role a vice-president, Transmission,

Interconnections and Business Development, which holds accountability for

business development activities, including energy marketing, industrial

customer accounts, contract negotiation and alternative energy projects.

He also holds

operational accountability for non-regulated transmission operations, as well

as relationships with Indigenous communities. Prior to joining the Hydro

executive team, Mr. Parsons served as executive director for the provincial

Department of Natural Resources from 2012 to 2016 and as assistant deputy

minister of Energy Policy from 2016-2017.

Mr. Parsons is

a professional electrical engineer who graduated from the University of New

Brunswick in 1998 and currently volunteers as president of the Newfoundland and

Labrador branch of Canadian Parents for French.

Denis Mahoney

began his career working in the public as a labour relations advisor in 1987

with the Newfoundland and Labrador Hospital and Nursing Home Association.

Mr. Mahoney

completed his articles of law and was admitted to the bar in Newfoundland and

Labrador in 1994. At his time of leaving private practice, he was a senior

labour and employment partner at McInnes Cooper and a member of the firm's

board of directors. During his lengthy tenure with the firm, Mr. Mahoney served

in a variety of leadership roles including inaugural board director, member of

the firm-wide management team and regional lead partner of the St. John's

office.

Mr. Mahoney has

served on a number of committees and boards and has volunteered with several

organizations, including Memorial University's Board of Regents, Newfoundland

and Labrador's Labour Management Arbitration Committee, St. John's Board of

Trade, the Strategic Partnership Coalition, the 2025 Canada Games Host Society

Inc., Newfoundland and Labrador Oil and Gas Industries Association, TaskforceNL

Inc., and the Boys and Girls Club of St. John's.

He is a member

of the Advisory Committee for the Centre for Law in the Contemporary Workplace

at Queen's University. Mr. Mahoney holds a Bachelor of Law from Queen's

University as well as a Bachelor of Commerce (Honours) Co-operative degree from

Memorial University. In 2022 he received the ICD.D designation from the

Institute of Corporate Directors.

Jason Chee-Aloy

has over 25 years of experience in competitive and regulated electricity

markets. He acts for multiple clients across Canada and the United States and

his main areas of advisory are wholesale electricity market design, market

assessment, power generation development, along with associated procurements

and contracting. Including negotiation of contracts to upgrade and expand

development of hydroelectric generation projects, business strategy, policy

development and regulatory and litigation support.

Prior to

joining Power Advisory, Mr. Chee-Aloy was the director of Generation

Procurement at the Ontario Power Authority. Prior to this, he led resource

adequacy, market development and market surveillance initiative for the Ontario

Independent Electricity System Operator.

He is currently

a member of the board of directors for the Canadian Renewable Energy

Association, the Ontario Energy Association, and the National Electricity

Roundtable, a member of the advisory board of the Business Renewables Centre

Canada, and is the renewable generator representative on the IESO's

Technical

Panel. Mr. Chee-Aloy holds an M.A. in economics and graduated from York

University and the University of Toronto.

Brady Yauch is

an energy economist in the electricity sector, both with regulated utilities

and electricity markets. He has participated in regulatory hearings at the

Ontario Energy Board, and has also appeared before parliamentary committees and

proceedings and private arbitration. His research and commentary on the

electricity sector and other regulated sectors has been published and quoted

extensively in the media and in legislatures. His analysis has been utilized in

jurisdictions across Canada and the United States.

Prior to

arriving at Power Advisory, Mr. Yauch worked as a senior analyst within the

Market Assessment and Compliance Division at the Ontario Independent

Electricity System Operator. He was also an economist, an executive director of

the Consumer Policy Institute, a public advocacy group that regularly

participated in regulatory proceedings. He holds an M.A. in economics from York

University and a master's from the University of Edinburgh.

Konstantin

Akimov is managing director of J.P. Morgan's advisory and mergers acquisitions

team. He is based in New York and leads the North American power sector for the

mergers and acquisition advisory group. He has been with J.P. Morgan since 2011

and has 25 years of investment banking and finance experience. Mr. Akimov has

much experience, including in investment banking, capital markets, emerging

markets, equities, valuation, corporate finance and financial modelling.

David Rawlings

is a managing director and senior country officer for JPMorgan Chase & Co.

in Canada. He is based in Toronto and has responsibility for the local JPMorgan

Chase franchise across global markets, banking, payments and asset management.

Mr. Rawlings has been with J.P. Morgan for over 20 years and has 28 years of

finance and banking experience. He has previous experience in New York with

J.P. Morgan.

Speaker, over

the course of the debate this week there will be a lot of information provided,

a lot of information to take in and understand. Make no mistake, this deal is

complex and any individual who has negotiated a large transaction will tell you

it would never be a best practice to negotiate in public. The best practice is

to keep discussions at the table with the goal of optimizing one's position.

That is why as

part of this extraordinary sitting, it is important to highlight and reiterate

that negotiations for the definitive agreements as contemplated in the

memorandum of understanding are expected to begin following these proceedings.

Therefore, any appearances by or references to persons in this House of

Assembly involved in those negotiations or of lawyers engaged in some manner

related to the negotiations are in no way a waiver of any form of privileged or

confidential information of any kind.

I therefore

note again, as outlined in the rules of debate, an invited guest can decline to

answer questions which are commercially sensitive, subject to Cabinet

confidence or solicitor-client privilege or otherwise not available to the

public pursuant to ATIPPA.

Speaker, thank

you for the opportunity to speak this morning. I very much look forward to

getting the rules of debate in place and proceeding to debate the substantive

resolution on the memorandum of understanding, which I have no doubt will only

bring clarity to Members and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's a kind of

surreal feeling what has gone on in the last number of weeks because the Upper

Churchill deal is something that is etched in everyone's minds in this

province. I know in mine, it's one of the sorest points of contention I think

we all collectively talk about. My lifetime has been, I guess, a lot of

resentment and a lot of anger at how that worked out.

Any time we're

proposing moving forward and improving on something that is going to help the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, help all of us, our own families and what

have you, is a good thing, but to put it simply – I was asked in the scrum

actually just before the bells were ringing, they said: Do you support this

deal? I said: No, but as the week goes on, who knows.

The minister

just rightly summed it up then, it's a complex deal. This is the whole intent.

How can you come out in day one and minute one and say you support something.

You really don't fully know what you're supporting. I think sometimes that

tunnel vision can get you in trouble. So you can walk on the fine line. I've

never been one to be on the fence; it's either one way or the other. I'm a

straight shooter and I think everyone in this House needs to have that lens

when we're talking about this.

Experts will

come in; Ms. Williams and her team and what have you, and we have a lot of

questions. We've done a lot of work on this, a lot of effort has gone into it,

so we have a lot of questions that we will be asking as led by our leader.

But in getting

to where we are today, I think it's fair to recognize that, me and the

Government House Leader, we had a lot of debate. I actually just said to the

media, I talked more to him in the last four days than I talked to my wife and

he can probably attest the same thing, it's been texts and calls, but it's all

part of the process.

We never agreed

on everything, I think it's fair for everyone to say. I mean it is, but you

could get bogged down in that detail and not move off that sticking point. But

we agreed to move on, agree to disagree and you move on.

One thing I'd

like to point out, we wanted to have expert witnesses of our own choosing. I

did supply a list to the minister. At

the end of the day, I think some of them were included, but they were already

mutual ones. There were other ones we would have liked to have in.

It's all about

getting the best deal for the province. Really, at the end of the day, this

should not be about elections; this should be about future generations, as has

been said many times. We need to make sure we get this right. It's too

important for the people of this province to not get it right. I think that's

something else that rings true.

I know that

over the Christmas holidays, the few days I got to myself or whatever and you

got out and talking, a lot of people would bring up this deal. Or this MOU I

should say, it's not really a deal. My answer to them was – and I know they

expected something else – I said I sure hope it is good.

I got two

daughters and their better halves; I have a grandchild. I mean at my stage of

my life I'll probably be all right with or without this deal, with or without

the Upper Churchill; I'll probably survive the rest of it. I have a little

grandson and he means the world to me and I hope that the future is bright for

him. So we should never underestimate that and right across the board for each

and every one of us out there.

But again, I'll

repeat: We need to get this right. It's very important we get it right. One

thing that will come up during this week's debate too, there were

recommendations that were made in the LeBlanc inquiry that this government –

and, well, I guess the previous administration ordered it, this Liberal

administration. One of the recommendations was an independent expert analysis

to review any deals over $50 million, but yet we don't really see that. We're

going to ask those questions and we're going to try to figure out why that's

left out, why that's not included. That will happen later in this week.

These are all

important points people need to make before everyone gets on the bandwagon that

it's a great deal. We were getting briefed; I don't know if we were fully

briefed or in the process of briefing and an ad campaign started rolling out.

Again, if this is a good deal, I'll cheer it, I'll be out in the street with

everyone else. I have no reason not to be. I'm not that type of person. Believe

you me, I'm not. But when I see the ads were rolling before we were even

briefed, your red flags goes up and you start saying hang on a second here.

I think a lot

of people in the province feel somewhat the same way, they're in between. Is it

good? Hope it's good. We're not sure. A lot of skepticism towards Quebec. All

rightly so because it's been in our culture, it's who we are. So we need to

take the appropriate time, proper time, for debate this week and good

questions. A cautionary note, I hope we're not stopped by: We can't disclose

this or Cabinet confidence or it's commercially sensitive. I really hope we

don't get shut down on very important questions we have with those responses.

I understand,

to a degree, all that stuff. I get the importance of that, but I certainly hope

it's not used in a way to shut down our questions and our debate on this side

of the House, because at the end of the day the only person that loses then is

the people of this province, not the person asking the question, it's the

people of this province. I've said it in this Legislature before and I'll say

it again, this is the people's House, Upper Churchill is the peoples and

government opposite are responsible for managing the money for the people.

We will do our

job to represent the people we collectively represent in the province and the

province as a whole. By doing that, we're going to ask what we hope to be

intelligent, forthright questions and we're looking forward to the answers and

let the public decide. You'll know by Thursday; let the public decide. By

Thursday evening, when the vote comes up, we'll find out are we happy, are we

not happy, do we have issues.

If you want to

ask me if I support the project. Maybe you should ask us Thursday evening.

Thank you very

much.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of

Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to

stand to just have a few minutes on the rules. First of all, I don't think

there is anybody in this House that doesn't want to make sure that this deal is

a good deal for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We may have

different opinions, but I don't think anybody in this House wants a bad deal,

so that's why we have to work together.

I have been

around a long while. I have been through the Muskrat Falls debate in this

House, Bills 60 and 61, which were pertaining to Muskrat Falls, went five

straight days, day and night. I know the Member for Burgeo - La Poile was there

also and I think the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands. We were the three

that were there. The startling thing about that, for me, is the information

that was coming through government that we found out later wasn't true.

There was an

inquiry done; a $30-million inquiry, I believe. One of the recommendations of

the inquiry was that any project over $50 million would be sent to an oversight

committee or PUB. The President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, was

the minister at the time who accepted the report and agreed that we would do

it. But if you notice here now, there is no oversight committee appointed. The

minister, who is the Deputy Premier, went public with a statement saying that

we're going to follow that recommendation.

That is one of

my major concerns with this: send it to an oversight committee. Anybody that

was involved at the time knew how hard it was to get information, knew how

difficult it was to get information. Then when Justice LeBlanc came out and

said here's what we have to do, anything over $50 million – and that's the

question I have to ask: Why isn't this committed to go to an oversight

committee?

I think once we

get that report back, then I think we can all say, yes or no with the

recommendations that come back from the committee.

That is the

major concern that I have with this whole process. So what 2026, the final

deal, and here we are in January pushing this through in four days, instead of

going out and letting someone like the PUB start their work today. If they

haven't got the expertise, they have the ability to go out and get the

expertise to do that, and the Deputy Premier agreed to that.

This is where

history with me, and I'm sure with the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, is

saying that we're repeating ourselves. Let's not do it. Again, I'm going to go

back in history. There was no one in this Legislature that was here except me

for the Voisey's Bay debate. There was no one here.

But I'll give

you a good example of what happened in the Voisey's Bay debate. KP was the

minister and we were sitting on the government side. The Opposition would come

up with these questions. He would take it, with the former premier at the time,

and go get answers. It may take a day or two but he would come back and give

the answers. Then they would come up with something else. He would take it, go

back, get the information, come back to the House. That's how that debate went.

The last thing

was the big issue of what if there was a war. What would happen if there was a

war and they couldn't bring the ore back? They came up and they put in what

they called force majeure to satisfy the Opposition at the time; force majeure,

if there is some act of god, when that's over, you bring back what you were

supposed to ship out. Voisey's Bay deal was a to and fro for weeks in this

Legislature. Look how good that worked.

Just think

about how Voisey's Bay worked. When is the last time someone heard in the last

10, 15 years, the flaws in Voisey's Bay? Do you know why it worked so well? The

people at the time, the minister and Roger Grimes was the premier, KP was the

minister, they took the time to get the information from the Opposition and go

and solve the issue that they had. They might have voted against it, yet every

concern that was raised was taken care of – everyone. There hasn't been one

word about Voisey's Bay, what a great project that's in Labrador and also down

now in the plant. That's what we should be doing here.

Everybody is

speculating there's going to be an election. For me, I'm in the twilight of my

career, win or lose an election, but I want this deal to be done right. I don't

want to stand up and say, well, they should've done this; we should've done

this. What we should be doing is saying let's do it together. History will

repeat itself. Trust me, history will repeat itself if we don't have an

oversight committee.

I heard the

Government House Leader talk about all the people that were involved with this.

I agree. We had a conference call Saturday morning. Their credentials are

great, absolutely, no doubt. Their credentials are great. No one can deny that.

This is no reflection on their credentials. Absolutely none. But when we did

the Muskrat Falls here, we were given the information by people who had

credentials – great credentials. We should get it checked, and the ones that

should check is an independent committee, oversight committee, put to the PUB.

That is what we should be doing.

I'll just close

on this. I've been around a long while. I've been in a lot of debates back and

forth: Bill 29, Muskrat Falls, Voisey's Bay, I've been through a lot of

longstanding debates in this House of Assembly. If there's one thing I learned

in this House of Assembly is, if you don't share information and you don't let

other people give their insight into it – we got more information now about how

many groups think this is a bad deal because we don't have enough information.

Even what they analyze now – Wade Locke was another one that came out and said:

Did we get the best deal? If you look at each one that you go forward and see,

they're saying, well, hold on, this is not really what was said.

This is the

concern we have: Lack of information, lack of oversight committee – independent

oversight – and lack of sharing the information, rushing it through, is going

to be a bad deal. I can tell you right now, it's going to be a bad deal. If we

all want a good deal, we have to start working together. We have to start to

follow the $30-million inquiry for Muskrat Falls that I sat in this House for

five days – I think it was Bill 60 and 61 that we debated related to Muskrat

Falls for five days that we sat in this House of Assembly. If we don't learn

from that Muskrat Falls inquiry, what a waste of money. A fool's errand by not

following it.

Deputy Premier,

I'm sorry for bringing you up in this, but you're the one – I remember the

statement at the time, how you went out and committed in the press release –

because I remember it and I tracked it down – that any project over $50

million, we will have an independent oversight committee and we will follow

Justice LeBlanc's recommendation. Right now, we're not doing it. We are not

doing it.

I urge the

Deputy Premier: Live up to the commitment that you made to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm confident that you will; I'm confident, after

bringing this up now, after going through it – and one thing I've got is a

pretty good memory and I remember when the press release came out with it after

the Muskrat Falls inquiry. As Deputy Premier, I think you should sit down with

the Premier and say, Premier, they were my words. I have to live up to that

commitment, not for the Liberal Party, not for the PC Party, but for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador whose rates right now are going through the roof,

and because of the millions and millions of dollars we've got to go for rate

mitigation. We've got to learn from it. History will repeat itself. It will

repeat itself if we don't do it.

So I'll take my

seat but, Deputy Premier, you made those public statements, and it is a press

release. I can get it for you if you need it, because I've got it in my office.

I think you should sit down with the Premier and say, Premier, I made those

commitments. I did it on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and

I need this done because we went through a catastrophe. People in this province

right now are paying exorbitant rates while Quebec is paying six cents – I

think it's six or four – and here we are paying 13.8, 13.9, mainly because of

Muskrat Falls.

If we don't

take care of this now, before this debate is over in four days' time, which is

very short – I just know Muskrat Falls, just the filibuster, was five days, day

and night, 24 hours a day. Just look at the difference in the time that we're

spending on these extraordinary circumstances that Premier and the Government

House Leader said we've got here, and we're spending less time on that than we

did on Voisey's Bay. We spent one day.

Four days –

five days, 24 hours a day we spent on Bill 61 and 71. That's what we spent, and

it was all related to Muskrat Falls, and that's just the filibuster. That's not

counting the other questions and debates we had. That's just the filibuster,

and we're spending four days here. Four days, that's it.

So from

history, from my point of view, who is in my twilight, Deputy Premier, please

live up to the commitment that you made. Premier, listen to your deputy

minister and if you need the press release that was done with her own

statements, I will give it to you. I will supply it to you because this is too

important for all of us, too important for any of us to make mistakes here.

If there are

suggestions that are made here today through the Opposition and I know there

are a lot of people that we have been working with also who has given great

suggestions, great ideas and the

summary of the details aren't always what they

seem to be first when you put it out, and that's normal and the negativity that

we have on it, I think you should listen – listen. Don't just say we got this

and you got to take it or leave it.

That's not the

way it's done; it's going to bad. It's really going to be a bad deal. In 10 or

15 years down the road, I really feel there is not one person in this room who

wants to stand up and vote and say we voted for this here knowing it's a bad

deal. You can't do it. It's your grandchildren – your grandchildren are at

stake here.

So let's take

our time. Let's work together. Let's get other people in and above all – I'm

going to say it once more, it's my last time because I got to harp on them –

Deputy Premier, live up to your commitment. Show the Premier your commitment

that you made for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

On one point, I

will agree with the Government House Leader that this deal is complex. It has

been three weeks of cramming and trying to understand it and make sure that the

numbers are what they say they are. The MOU has much to recommend itself. It

guarantees power for Labrador West and I think, if nothing else, for the people

of Lab West and for my colleague, there is some measure of hope and a sigh of

relief. It's renegotiated the Upper Churchill and we get money upfront. It

looks at the development and the construction of Gull Island.

So there is

much to recommend it on the surface, but it's also about understanding the cost

and of not repeating Muskrat Falls and I will say, if anything else from our

point of view, clearly, the project demands an independent, regulated review.

There are no two ways about it. It can be done concurrently with negotiations.

It does not have to stall negotiations, but that review needs to be done of a

complex deal with the proper respect then to commercial sensitivities and so on

and so forth.

This could be

done by the Public Utilities Board and it's been said that they do not have the

expertise. Well, then you resource them and give them the money to engage the

expertise that they need but they are arm's length or another mechanism that is

arm's length.

Now, we've seen

and we've heard, we talk about the expertise, the experts that negotiated the

deal and the one missing word, Speaker, is independent. That must be

independent of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, independent of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or independent of the consultants who have

already been engaged to advise.

This is not

about a criticism of their expertise or professionalism, but it's about due

diligence. It's about analyzing the numbers to make sure that the numbers are

correct. If anything, over the last three weeks, there has been many

interpretations of the numbers that they don't make sense. Well then, let's

make sure they make sense.

Maybe this deal

lives up to the feeling that it is, indeed, transformative – fair enough. Maybe

it comes off that this deal is not quite as transformative as it has been

promoted but it's still a good deal overall and we should take it – fair

enough, but that's what we're looking for.

We have reached

out to experts ourselves and one company that's looking at a conflict analysis

said we could come back with an analysis that says this deal is good and we

said that's fine. At least we'd have an idea – a different set of eyes, an

objective set of eyes looking at it is, indeed, that we have some measure, some

competence or peace of mind in pursuing it.

The fact is the

people who will be here are close to the negotiations and I think this is about

an opportunity to learn from the past. It's about taking politics out from the

discussion. It has got to come down to, Speaker, if, indeed, does this project make

financial business sense. Does it bring an overall benefit to the province?

I remember with

the Teachers' Association, we always had one group of the collective bargaining

team that would develop the opening package, but they were not the ones to

negotiate it because they were tied too closely to the development of that.

That was their baby. An independent group would be responsible for negotiating,

who could look at the deal from an objective point of view.

I think if

anything that we do in this world, whether it's buying a house, car, we check

out Consumer Reports, we do our homework and we make sure that what's being

sold to us is actually being sold to us. This is much bigger and much more

complex and, much more, has a greater impact generationally than any one at

these personal purchases.

It's

interesting to note that any disputes will be resolved not in Newfoundland and

Labrador or Quebec, but in Ontario, a neutral, third party place. That's where

it's going to be decided.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm going to

ask the Member to stay relevant. Right now, we're just debating the rules of

debate. Not the MOU in general, just the rules of debate.

J. DINN: (Inaudible) I'll be repeating these again, but at

this point in time I will say when it comes to the rules, if it's about

information, and you look at this debate, I guess, there are three reasons for

it. This is what I've struggled with as well.

Is it about

informing the public, as the House Leader for the government says? Is it

symbolic? In other words, it's simply a non-binding debate on a non-binding

MOU. Does it have the meaning? In other words, will it impact negotiations?

It's

interesting to note from a December 2012

article – and I go back to the whole

thing around debate – the majority Progressive Conservative government also

refused a Liberal Opposition demand for a special debate or Committee format

that would include questioning of expert energy witnesses. Now, I would say

that here we have a debate. This is something that the Liberal government has

put in place. We have a debate, we have witnesses and we have the opportunity

to question them, but the problem here with this debate then is the short

timeline to prepare for such a complex debate over Christmas when we're trying

to contact people to assist with this are difficult to find. We were given the

briefing after the December 12 announcement and after media; we had to ask.

It's a complex MOU, confusing numbers. At the time, we couldn't keep the slide

deck; we couldn't call our own experts here, if nothing else, just to bring

forward the questions.

Now, that seems

like maybe a small detail, but we were told that, well, you can ask your

experts, they'll give you the questions and you can ask the questions. I guess

then we would go back and speak to our experts.

So if nothing

else, I think here, if it's about information, about making sure we are all on

the same playing field, then, Speaker, it may be a more appropriate venue.

We have the

information sessions following the debate. We received a notification – and I

will have to say there is a little bit of dirty pool here – of a technical

briefing with J.P. Morgan and Power Advisory the evening before it was to take

place.

So if it's

about informing, any one of these, then, I think it would have been a genuine

and reasonable effort made to make sure we could have had the information we

needed to actually have an informed debate, which is what I'm writing to the

Premier to postpone this until the end of January or in February, if indeed

it's not time sensitive.

It's not an

emergency debate; it's an extraordinary debate, so the only thing from what

we've seen is the information, the $300,000 ad campaign and, unfortunately, I

have to wonder if there are other motivations here at play. We'll talk more

about that as we go through it.

For right now,

we can have this debate, Speaker, we can have the discussion, we can query the

guests, but in the end, it's got to come down to – I've got to come back to

this and I'll say it again – an independent, regulated review by an

arm's-length organization. We can have all the discussion here we wish, we can

ask all the questions, because we're not going to get all the answers we need.

It's been confusing.

From our point

of view, it probably would have been helpful even to have this as part of a

longer discussion, but with the input of an independent review board, such as

the PUB.

It's

interesting to note, Speaker, that in Nova Scotia it was the Utility and Review

Board reviewing the Muskrat Falls contract that got a much better deal for

Emera. So if nothing else, there's an opportunity here, I think, to have input,

such as the PUB, with the appropriate resourcing to add to this debate. That

would be a more informed debate, I think, here, as well.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

I am glad to

have the opportunity to say a few words here this morning on the debate and I

guess the rules of the debate. I certainly want to concur with my colleague,

the other independent Member, for Humber - Bay of Islands, and other Members,

the Leader of the Opposition, of the Third Party, and the Government House

Leader on some of the concerns.

Mr. Speaker,

this, for me, has a special meaning, if you will. Not necessarily in a good

way. I noticed my colleague, the Minister of Industry, when I came in, he has a

whole stack of books there; it's called the misguided Muskrat Falls, a

misguided project or report or whatever it's called. Something like that,

anyway. There's a whole stack of them.

As we look

around this House of Assembly, there are three Members in this House who were

present for that. There was four. Of course there was the former minister of

Health before he retired just before Christmas. But there are only three of us

left. Guess what? Only one of those three Members voted for that project,

supported that misguided project. And you're looking at him right here. Only

one in this Chamber.

That is

something, while it was done with the best of intentions, based on the

information that I was provided at the time and the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador were provided at the time by individuals – not the same individuals,

but similar individuals to who are going to be sitting here.

That's not

making any disparaging remarks about these individuals, but the person that

will be sitting in that chair, Ms. Williams, she had a predecessor – actually,

it was the predecessor before that – who was in charge of Nalcor at the time,

and his 2IC, and the deputy minister, not of Justice, Deputy Minister of

Industry at the time, and the public. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador

will be familiar with all these individuals because these are the same

individuals that you would have seen on TV trying to answer questions at the

Muskrat Falls inquiry. Same individuals.

All the people,

and it was a group of them, they all walked away. They all walked away with

golden handshakes, packages and so on.

There was

nobody in this province that was any angrier at the time, and still angry about

that, because there was zero accountability – there was zero accountability. I

said in this House of Assembly that half the crowd that was there at the time,

once all the information came out about misrepresented numbers, failing to

accept risk reports and so on, we should have taken our chances on wrongful

dismissals. There should have been pink slips handed out left, right and centre

instead of payouts, but it is what it is.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind

the Member to stay relevant to the rules of debate, Sir.

P. LANE: Thank you, I appreciate that.

I'm going to

come around to that in terms of this particular process. Of course, we had that

Muskrat Falls inquiry, and coming out of that – and my colleague mentioned

this, as did others – Commissioner LeBlanc said, in terms of learning from what

happened, learning from what went on from people that were there, supposedly

working for us, supposedly working for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

supposedly had expertise and everything else, Commissioner LeBlanc – one of his

recommendations was: In the future, as we move forward, any project that

happens in this province with a value over $50 million will go through an

independent oversight committee.

That was the

recommendation that came out of Muskrat Falls, a project that haunts me and

will haunt me to my death. I'm not saying that to be theatrical; I'm not saying

that to be political; I'm saying that to be honest to this House, to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I've spent my

life as a community person; 13 years now I'm working on it as an MHA, eight

years of municipal politics, many years before that as a long-time community

volunteer, citizen of the year, I live community. Community has been my life

and it will be after I leave this place. I will be a Mount Pearler to the core.

I will be a community person to the core. That's just who I am. The big thing

that will always haunt me, to tarnish my good name, will be voting for that and

being part of that, even though I do so in good faith.

So now here we

go again, as my colleague said, history is repeating itself. I never would have

imagined that we would be back in this Legislature and once again I would be

faced with having to vote on or support something, or not support something, of

this magnitude – I never thought it would happen. Like all other Members have

said, I hope to God this is a good project. I really do.

Now, without

getting into the details, we'll get into that as we go through, but really

before we really start reaping the benefits, so to speak, based on what I've

seen, certainly of Gull Island in terms of actual revenues, not paying off the

mortgage but actual revenues, my grandson will be my age. I'll be long dead and

gone. I'll be cremated, buried, whatever I decide to do, I'm not sure yet, but

I'll be long gone. I could be gone tomorrow.

AN HON.

MEMBER: Do you want to

vote on it?

P. LANE: We'll have a vote on it, yeah. There are a few people I'm sure

that would love to see me gone now, but that's too bad, I'm not going anywhere.

But my grandson will be my age before we really see some of the benefits of

this. I have four grandchildren, I want nothing but the best for them, as I'm

sure everybody else in this House would want for their grandchildren and their

great-grandchildren and so on. So I want this to be a good deal, but we have to

do it right. We have to learn.

I cannot

believe on the heels of the Muskrat Falls inquiry, which this administration –

well really not this administration, I guess it would have been the Ball

administration, a lot of the same people – initiated and we spent millions of

dollars on an inquiry and then the recommendation would come out from Justice

LeBlanc to say, independent oversight committee but we're not going to do it.

We're not going to do it. It just is mindboggling. It is mindboggling to me.

Now maybe we're

going to learn in the next four days, someone is going to stand up and say:

Hey, we just didn't tell you we were going to do that. We never told you that

yet. We're saving that as a surprise for the end, that we're actually engaging

with the PUB now and we're going to do an independent review and that's going

to run concurrent with the ongoing negotiations. Maybe that's the big surprise.

Maybe that's sort of the coup de grâce.

Without that, I

think we are making a big mistake. And coming into this Legislature, either

have done it or doing it, I think we are just ticking a box. That is what it

feels like. It feels like we are just here ticking a box to say oh, we debated

it in the House – tick. That is what it feels like.

We need to have

that independent review because I have concerns about some of the numbers. The

consultant that myself and my colleague have engaged has concerns about the

numbers and we are hearing it. Other people are contacting us. I am sure the

Official Opposition, the Third Party, the people they have working on it, have

concerns about the numbers.

I can remember

when this was announced and I saw it on TV for the first time – before I even

received the briefing, of course, there were TV ads on the go. Then you had

your big thing at The Rooms, which Members on this side of the House weren't

even invited. Anyway, that is neither here nor there. We could watch it on TV,

I suppose, like anyone else. If it was so historic, you would think we would

have all been invited.

Anyway, we hear

about his project and right off the bat, starting in 2015, a billion dollars a

year. Of course, now we find out after that, well, retroactive to 2015. It is

not really a billion dollars a year because I think it is like the first 10

years we are only $400 million or whatever the case might be. Then we are

hearing this 5.9 cents –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind

the Member to stay relevant to the debate.

P. LANE: Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But we are

hearing about the 5.9 cents, which really is a blended rate if we do Gull.

Quebec is still only paying two or three cents and so on. There are lots of

concerns in terms of what has been put out there versus the feedback I'm

receiving from our consultant and from others as to the reality of it.

So that raises

a lot of red flags, a lot of questions and a lot of concerns. Now we are going

to try to cram this in four days. Run this through in four days. I'd like to

know, in terms of the rules, which is what we are supposed to be debating here,

the rules, why we are cutting it off in four days? What is the rush? Why can't

we do it for two weeks, three weeks, however long it takes? Why four days? I

just like to know why four days. Why are we trying to ram it through?

My colleague,

the Leader of the Third Party, also raised some valid concerns about the

individual that would be sitting there. Again, that is not to be disparaging

against them or to question their credentials or their ethics or anything else,

but these are the people who negotiated the deal. I am sure they are not going

to sit down here and say we negotiated a bad deal. That don't make sense to me.

Does anyone

think that they're going to come in now and say we did a bad deal? I don't

think so. That's where we get into the independence.

And then, there

are going to be a lot of questions that are going to be asked and they're going

to say commercially sensitive, Cabinet documentation, client-solicitor

privilege. There are going to be all kinds of questions, I would suggest, that

they're not even going to answer and that's why you need that independent

review through the PUB to hire the expertise that can have all of the

information – not just the information you're willing to tell us: all the

information.

Sign the

confidentiality agreement – whatever they have to do – have all the

information, do a review and then come back to this House and say thumbs up,

thumbs down; this is good, this is bad; these are the pros, these are the cons;

these are what the numbers really look like. This is not about blending rates

and blending numbers and all that. This is exactly what you're getting for

this, exactly what you're getting for that, exactly what you get for that over

this time frame and so on. These are the costs; these are the risks. If we had

that independent analysis, then we could make an informed decision.

But I have to

say that the process that we're taking here, the limitations we're going to

have in terms of people who we're calling experts – I'm not saying they're not

experts – but that are so close to that project, not totally independent and

not having that independent oversight committee as recommended by Commissioner

LeBlanc in the Muskrat Falls inquiry is very, very problematic – very

problematic.

And unless we

can get all the answers we require, I'm going to be like the Member for

Conception Bay South: Are you for this deal today? No, I'm not. Not unless I

can get an awful lot of things clarified, a lot of questions answered then I'm

not. To be honest with you, I'm not sure if I would be anyway unless we're

going to have that independent review.

I'm going to,

again, appeal to the Premier or to the Deputy Premier, according to my

colleague, who made the statement, I'm going to appeal to you both: Let's have

this independent review. We already went down the road of Muskrat Falls. We

know where that got us and we know that there was a very costly inquiry and we

know what the recommendations were. Let's not make the same mistakes all over

again. Let's not let history repeat itself. I plead with you, please, let's not

do that.

Not for me or

anyone in this House really, but for our children, our grandchildren, because

they're the ones that are really going to see the benefit or are going to face

the negative consequences or what could have been had it been done right. They

will be the ones that will have to live with what we decide in this House of

Assembly.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers, is the House

ready for the question?

All those in

favour of voting for the rules of debate, 'aye.'

J. HOGAN: We have to close the debate.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, yes.

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll just take

a couple of minutes just to close the debate. I thank the Member for CBS, the

Member for St. John's Centre, for Humber - Bay of Islands and Mount Pearl -

Southlands for their comments about the procedure today.

To be honest

with you, after listening for about an hour here this morning, I'm already

pleased and confident that the right decision to bring this MOU to the House to

debate it was the right decision because there are questions and I can

guarantee that if those proper questions are asked over the course of the four

days, they will be answered. It's important that the public and the Members

have those answers.

This is part of

the process, Speaker. The misguided project report from Justice LeBlanc was

referenced by a couple of Members, and it's important to look at Recommendation

7, which says: "In preparation for 2041, government should appoint an expert

panel with a mandate to determine the best approach to be taken by the Province

in its attempt to ensure maximum long-term benefits from the Churchill Falls

generating station and other potential generation sites on the Churchill River.

This panel should be properly funded, non-political and include experts who are

best able to assist government in preparing for the negotiations with Québec.

The panel should be required to report its progress to Cabinet on a regular

basis."

Speaker, that

was the initial stage of this process. That set in motion where we are today.

The expert panel was put in place and made recommendations. A negotiating team

was put in place. Despite what the Member for St. John's Centre said, they did

have independent advisors. Members from Power Advisory and J.P. Morgan do not

work at NL Hydro. They are independent entities who will give their answers and

information throughout the course of the week about their involvement in the

negotiations for the MOU.

The expert

panel was in place, as per the recommendation of Justice LeBlanc. The

negotiating team was put in place. An MOU was then established and formalized.

Now we are here, at the earliest possible time, to look at and debate and ask

questions and understand the MOU as we move toward the next stage, which

hopefully is to sign definitive agreements in 2026.

Speaker, when I

started speaking I talked about why I know this was the right decision to be

here today to debate it, because I hope there are questions on this

recommendation: "The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should never

undertake, on its own or through one of its Crown Corporations or agencies, the

planning, approval or construction of any large project (meaning a project with

a budget of $50 million or more) without: Engaging independent external exports

to provide robust review, assessment and analysis of the project." This seems

to be a theme throughout the morning, I hope that questions are asked about

this recommendation and about how it relates to the MOU.

Who was

proposing the MOU to a construction project? Who was proposed the plan and

approved it? How will NL Hydro fit into that construction of, for example, Gull

Island or upgrades to Churchill Falls? If NL Hydro participates, how are they

participating? Is it debt? Is it equity? Is it cash? How much will it be? Are

there risks of cost overruns? Who's assuming the risks of cost overruns: is it

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Will the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador be called to provide any cash?

These are very

important questions and I think when those questions are asked – I hope they're

asked – it will bring into light how these recommendations from Justice LeBlanc

play into the future of the MOU as we move toward a definitive agreement.

I'm very

pleased that those issues were raised, and I very much look forward to the

substantive debate on the resolution, Speaker. I know all Members on this side,

I'm sure Members on the other side, look forward to these four days as an

historic moment in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in

favour of the resolution.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

On motion,

resolution carried.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I ask that this House adjourn

for 10 minutes to allow the first set of invited guests to come to the House of

Assembly.

SPEAKER: This House do stand in recess until

11:20 a.m.

Recess

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Premier, that

WHEREAS a Memorandum Of Understanding For A

New Long-Term Energy Purchase And Development Initiative Between Newfoundland

And Labrador Hydro And Hydro-Quebec was signed on December 12, 2024, the

MOU;

THEREFORE

BE IT

RESOLVED that the House of Assembly support Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

proceeding with the MOU toward the definitive agreements, as defined in the

MOU.

Speaker, I have

a copy of the memorandum of understanding, dated as of December 12, 2024, to

table in the House of Assembly.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to

start by thanking all Members of the House of Assembly, as well as support

staff and all those who helped organize today's special and historic sitting,

and a happy and healthy new year to everybody. It certainly will be a happy one

indeed.

We sent out

2024 by taking bold steps in correcting a historic wrong. After more than 50

years of a lopsided agreement that has been such a contentious point for

Newfoundland and Labrador, we will finally, in 2025, have a new framework for

Churchill Falls and an agreement with Quebec.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, this framework did not come

easy; it has taken years of tough negotiations. Because we dug in hard, like

only fighting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can, our fortitude proved to be

impenetrable and paid off in results.

We knew that

our province was in a good position, that Quebec had only time, and not enough

of it on their side. We went into these talks demanding that our province see

bold, future-focused changes; that we will only see benefit, not risk; that we

will reap now and into the future what we've waited over 50 years for, to

receive real gains that will help overcome the shortcomings of the past and use

it to boldly guide us forward. Physically, financially, finally, we will

realize the potential energy of our resource and of our Churchill Falls.

Now, there is

no doubt that what is written in the memorandum of understanding is an

agreement that will have generational impact on the growth and prosperity of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Moving forward, we will have a new working

relationship with the Province of Quebec. We will be partners who both will see

the benefit of what Churchill Falls has to provide to our provinces.

There is

another partner playing a significant role, however. It is of utmost importance

to me that I acknowledge and sincerely thank the Grand Chief of the Innu Nation

and his people who have secured their special relationship through the New Dawn

Upper Churchill Falls redress agreements. We are truly blessed to have his

input, guidance and support throughout these negotiations. Thank you, Grand

Chief, and I look forward to continuing this working relationship.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: I'd also like to acknowledge and thank

some folks who have joined us here today for this momentous occasion: Jennifer

Williams and her team from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro; the team members

from J.P. Morgan, as well as Power Advisory, two organizations with a vast

amount of insight and experience, who helped provide critical, independent

analysis and advice throughout this process. Thank you all for your

contribution and dedication to help us make this deal a reality.

I'd also like

to sincerely thank Premier Legault and his team for showing the responsibility

to replacing the old, unfair deal and the openness to build this new deal.

Sitting next to Premier Legault last month and physically tearing up the 1969

Upper Churchill contract was a moment I will never forget. It felt as though

the hands of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian were with me on that

document. That, in tearing up this deal, we tore up over 50 years of hurt, 50

years of imbalance, over 50 years of seeing others thrive from our resource,

profiting from our energy. But, Mr. Speaker, no more.

This memorandum

of understanding on a new energy partnership outlines the terms for our new

deal with the Province of Quebec. It remedies the inadequacies of the old deal.

It paves a lucrative and a fair path forward for Newfoundland and Labrador. It

emphasizes our commitment to work with Indigenous communities, to continue to

build respectful relationships and engage in this initiatives moving forward.

This new deal

is happening 17 years ahead of schedule. This team has accomplished what no

other Newfoundland and Labrador government could do, no matter how much they

wanted it, no matter how hard they tried.

We realized, as

did Quebec, that there is an undeniable opportunity here for the immediate and

lucrative benefit of a strong commercial deal. We must seize it. We cannot wait

while yet another generation grows up seeing zero benefit from our resource. We

must be proactive. We must act now.

So we

enthusiastically tore up that old, inadequate agreement and we'll replace it

with a big, bold step forward. One that will bring hundreds of billions of

dollars in new revenue to our province. Over the life of the new agreements, we

will see more than $225 billion in revenue.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: Two hundred and twenty-five billion

dollars has transformative power. This does change everything.

Premier Legault

said that his province will benefit $200 billion from this deal, and that is

true. But his analysis includes all the indirect and induced benefits to their

economy as the result of this agreement. But Newfoundland and Labrador's number

of $225 billion is revenue alone.

This $225

billion will lead to being directly deposited to the Treasury and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. The indirect and induced benefits to our economy

will be significantly higher. The opportunities that our additional power and

the additional economic impacts will bring are immense – an additional tens of

billions of dollars to the province. We all know what this money will mean to

our province at this moment and for generations to come. Because today we

better understand the value of this resource, it's potential now and into the

future. The demand for clean, renewable energy is set to rise even higher and

that means that this is the right place, at the right time, for the right

opportunity.

The world wants

this kind of energy, and we are finally in a position to greatly benefit from

supplying it. We will receive our fair share. Our new agreement will use a

price escalator model, a model that allows for the price we receive for our

power to grow, a market-based block pricing that will unlock increasing and

escalating revenues. No more fixed prices. No more free power. It is finally a

fair deal and it guarantees that we will receive fair value as the price per

kilowatt hour will continue to grow at a pace that reflects real energy prices.

Unlike the old

deal, the new one will finally level the playing field. It will be governed by

a fair and modern shareholders agreement and disputes will be resolved in

neutral court, rather than in Quebec's courts.

For every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian, we must all come together now, here in this

House. We must be bold and have the courage to ask questions of this MOU to get

the answers from experts and then to act, to see 17 years of extraordinary new

benefits. This new deal will see an average of $1 billion returned to the

province every year from 2025 to 2041, growing to $2 billion a year, every

year, by 2044 and $6 billion a year, every year, by 2060. We can't let this

opportunity pass us by.

We wait 17

years and we see nothing in 17 years. Quebec would have moved on and found a

different energy supply because it needs this power now. This only strengthened

our bargaining position. We act now and we see hundreds of billions. This is

our moment and our moment means exploring all opportunities on the table.

This new energy

initiative unlocks so much more for our province. For years, Gull Island has

been known to be one of the last significant undeveloped hydroelectric sites in

North America. That too will now change. Through this partnership, Newfoundland

and Labrador will be the majority owner and Gull Island will be developed to

produce over 2,000 megawatts of additional clean energy. In addition, we will

expand Churchill Falls and build a new powerhouse adjacent to the existing

facility while upgrading the existing units.

Let me be

clear, I will not allow our province to ever repeat the mistakes of previous

megaprojects.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: Hard lessons were learned from the 1969

contract; harder lessons still from the megaprojects that threatened to drown

our province in debt. But make no mistake, this is not Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: Since 2015, our government has been

fixing and learning from the mistakes made. The LeBlanc inquiry clearly found

wrongdoing and we have made the recommended changes so that it cannot happen

again.

In order to

embrace those lessons of the past, we have engaged independent experts

throughout the process. We assembled the Churchill Falls river expert advisory

team and they were given the mandate of undertaking a detailed analysis of the

hydroelectric opportunities that exist on the Churchill River. We used its

valuable analysis and advice to move forward in negotiations.

We appointed

the Churchill River Management Expert Panel to recommend potential approaches

for the government to ensure maximum long-term benefits from the Churchill

Falls assets. That's one thing recommended by the Muskrat Falls Commission of

Inquiry.

We created a

negotiating team with an independent chair from Hydro and government. They had

Hydro officials and government representation. We also bolstered Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro's board of directors, also recommended by the Muskrat Falls

Commission of Inquiry. This serves as another check on Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro and the negotiating team.

We've been

relying on the expert independent advice and analysis from JPMorganChase, Power

Advisory and Stikeman Elliott. We also went a step further and engaged the

largest firm in Atlantic Canada, Stewart McKelvey, to provide the government

with independent advice as a parallel, completely separate team designed to

provide independent views separate and apart from the views of the negotiating

team and their legal advisors.

Our government

gave back oversight to the Public Utilities Board, the very oversight that was

removed in order to push Muskrat Falls through. We will be holding a series of

public virtual town halls next week to ensure all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians get their say and a chance to ask questions of the negotiating

team.

We are here

today for a special sitting of the House of Assembly to discuss this historic

memorandum of understanding in an exercise of true democracy, a courtesy other

governments did not provide, including for Muskrat Falls. We will continue to

engage outside experts as we move forward in this transformative and

negotiating process. We start by bringing this to the House, then to the

people. We will continue with oversight with an independent expert panel that

will provide advice to Cabinet on negotiations and definitive agreements.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: And finally, this is an MOU, we will

return after all of that analysis to this very House.

I can tell you,

as Premier, this deal has weighed heavily on me. I have lost much sleep in

considering every single detail, making sure we were pushing as hard as

possible to get the maximum value for the province and through careful

consideration, through consulting with experts and their independent advice,

through weighing the immense value on the table here now, versus the

alternative, doing nothing and getting nothing. I realized finally that I would

lose more sleep in not taking this deal to the people for public debate.

This deal is

worth over $225 billion, tens of thousands of jobs and a chance to correct

mistakes and rewrite our future. The people of the province deserve to

understand the opportunity that lies before us.

Mr. Speaker,

the easy thing to do and perhaps the politically most advantageous thing to do,

would be to do nothing. But, Sir, that may not be the right thing to do. The

right thing to do is to put this in the public domain.

So here we are

today, examining the details of the MOU and charting the course forward with

transparency and with accountability. We've worked too hard for too long to

correct the mistakes of the past; they will never be repeated. We have taken

steps to guarantee our province is protected against any future financial risk

and we will continue to engage outside experts as we move forward in this

process.

Hydro-Québec

will bear full responsibility for construction risks on new generation assets

including any cost overruns. Our province will benefit from the thousands and

thousands of jobs that are created and our equity and ownership will not be

diluted.

For the new

developments, Hydro-Québec will compensate Newfoundland and Labrador for the

right to co-develop these assets to the tune of $3.5 billion. This amount

covers Newfoundland and Labrador's equity requirements without needing the

province to invest any of our own current funds.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: Quebec is paying for our majority equity

position in Gull Island with this $3.5 billion and then we earn a guaranteed 8

to 9 per cent profit on that equity without risk. We are majority owners of a

$25 billion project without paying for equity and earning a guaranteed profit

that will escalate over time.

The final

component is addressing the transmission infrastructure. The Labrador

transmission line will be 100 per cent owned by Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. In total, these new projects will almost double the generating capacity

of the Churchill River, all to be sold at modern and escalating prices.

Together, these

construction projects are worth a combined capital investment of nearly $33

billion to our province. These projects will bring tens of thousands of jobs to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This new deal will also provide more access

to more power in the near term to increase the capacity of industrial

developments in our province, especially in Labrador; power that will grow to

four times the capacity that we currently have. This means the potential for

new development in Labrador will become a reality. And again, more indirect and

induced economic benefits and more jobs to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: This agreement does change everything.

For over the past 50 years we have stood by while Quebec received most of the

revenues and all of the benefits of Churchill Falls but no more. Mistakes are

behind us, but they are informing our path forward. In front of us is a

once-in-a-generation opportunity. This is our moment to chart the course ahead.

This is our opportunity, if we have the courage and conviction to understand

and act.

For those who

thought we would not see a new deal in our lifetime; for those who tried so

hard to change the 1969 deal; for our Indigenous communities who have long

deserved a seat at the table and real economic reconciliations; for every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian who has long wondered what a better deal for

Churchill Falls would have meant; and for every child, teenager out there

across our province who will now grow up with only a positive reaction when

they hear the words Churchill Falls.

This is a deal

for you, for all of us. From Deer Lake to Placentia, from Nain to Burgeo and

every town, village, bay and city in between. Every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian can say that, together, we will make this possible.

We saw the

imbalance and we corrected it. We listened to those who said it could not be

done and we did it, ahead of schedule. More than anything, this new deal

provides, though, beyond the electricity and beyond the economic impacts,

positivity, the energy of hope for future generations.

It will

manifest itself in more schools, more hospitals, more police officers. It will

reinforce and rebuild our infrastructure, pave more roads and reach greater

heights and more places. It will provide debt relief from the burdens we

inherited as we create major investments in our businesses and encourage new

business growth.

This will

reinvigorate our economy and burn brightly for the world to notice and will

draw them to us, because, here, change doesn't just happen; we make it happen.

This new deal represents a quarter of a trillion dollars to the provincial

Treasury over its lifespan. We will maximize the value of Churchill Falls. We

will realize the potential of Gull Island. We will attract new industries and

we will provide a generation of work.

This isn't our

government's moment; it's our province's moment. This is an incredible

opportunity within our reach, within our lifetime, not 2041, but today.

I challenge

every Member of this House of Assembly here to remove any political bias they

have may have set, set aside any party partiality, and think long and hard

about the opportunity before us. Think what this will mean for our

constituents, to our province's Indigenous communities, to the generations that

will inherit the choices we make today, to the opportunity that is within our

reach and to the benefits that are now within our control.

The irony of

this historic backdrop of the House of Assembly is that I am not here to sell

this for any political points. In fact, I am not here to sell this at all. The

merits of this MOU must rest on the intersection of history, opportunity and

finances.

This debate

will help shape this moment, help expose any issues, help inform and help to

challenge its contents and help create a path forward. We have waited long

enough for this. We have tolerated 55 years of a bad deal. Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are a patient people but enough is enough. We have something that

is better than strength, though; we have always had guts. Guts to never stop

fighting for what is ours, for what is best for our province. Guts to act on

every opportunity. Guts to be bold when the right moment presents itself. And

now, Mr. Speaker, it has.

The new

framework for Churchill Falls is in front of us. We will not spend another 17

years of receiving nothing when we have an agreement in front of us that

changes everything.

Thank you, and

God guard thee, Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the

Leader of the Official Opposition speaks, he's going to take approximately 20

minutes, I understand. Does he have leave to go shortly past 12?

AN HON.

MEMBER: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

I, too, want to

start off by wishing all my colleagues here in the House of Assembly and our

guests, the people in the gallery and the people at home a very happy New Year.

Thank you again, Speaker.

I'd like to

begin by speaking directly to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are

here this week to debate this memorandum of understanding to enter into new

contracts with Hydro-Québec

to sell them most of your energy on the Churchill River for the next 50 or 60

years. These are new contracts that will not just replace the Upper Churchill

Contract, which is supposed to end in 2041, but legally bind our province and

our children's, children's, children for pretty much the rest of this century.

These are new

contracts that will take the last best undeveloped hydroelectric energy

resource anywhere in North America, a resource that belongs to you, and place

it under the lead of Quebec. If you are worried that all of this is being

rushed, you have a good reason to be worried because we cannot overstate the

magnitude of what's at stake. This is your children's birthright that's on the

selling block, and you haven't been given sufficient information to know

whether the terms of this sale are as good for you as they are for the buyer,

the Province of Quebec.

The choice this

Liberal government is rushing to make will be locked in stone and unbreakable

for generations to come, the same way the first long-term Churchill contract

with Quebec turned out to be. What we are debating this week is not a quick

deal for extra cash to solve today's challenges; what we are debating is

something that will last for long generations to come. So long, in fact, that

your children who are in kindergarten right now will have great-grandchildren

in kindergarten before this new contract ends. Just think about that.

When we say

this entire endeavour is being rushed, when we say more time is needed to get

this right, that is the reason why this needs to be slowed down and done

properly. This is not about the next election. It is about the next generation

and the generation after that and the generation after that. If we get this

wrong today, the impact will be crushing this province long after everyone

responsible for this plan is gone. They won't have to contend with the

consequences, but your great-grandchildren will, for all intents and purposes,

if this is a forever contract.

And that's why

I make no apologies for demanding a thorough, independent examination of the

brief 32-page memorandum that has been brought before this House today. It's

also why it's outrageous that this Liberal government has absolutely refused to

allow time for an independent, expert review so we have the full benefit of

that expert second opinion – that second set of eyes – before we hold this

debate and proceed to a rushed vote before Friday.

Just 25 days

ago, the Premier directed Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to sign a memorandum

of understanding that you, the people, had no idea was coming. It came

completely out of the blue, even the Members of his own party were surprised.

But here's the thing: Even though the Premier never informed you or consulted

with you about any of this, he directed his officials at Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro to sign provisions of that MOU that are already legally binding.

They are already set in stone. I ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador:

Did you realize that? Even though we are here to debate this MOU today,

critical parts of that MOU are already locked in.

That's because

the Premier approved an exclusivity clause. A clause that blocks our province

from dealing with anyone else, except Hydro-Québec, on these Churchill River

resources for quite some time to come. Then, it appears, to avoid shining too

much light on this MOU, this was rushed to open the House of Assembly, starting

today, and provide only four days of debate.

So here's the

irony: If this were any ordinary piece of legislation, we would have unlimited

time to debate the details. If this were a simple annual budget for a single

year, we would have more than 75 hours to debate the fine details and question

officials under oath. But for this agreement, this agreement that will last for

most of the century, this Premier has dictated that the Official Opposition

will have only 12 hours, spread over four days, to ask critical questions of

importance for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on this MOU. That's it,

four days.

During the

debate this week, we will be unable to question an expert independent review

authority on their examination of this MOU because the Premier has refused to

allow an expert independent review authority to scrutinize this new deal. There

has been no independent expert review of the MOU. Why not? What is being hidden

from you, the people, in all the rush to get this done?

We have been

blocked from bringing in experts who have raised serious questions about this

MOU. Over the next four days, we are going to use whatever time we need to ask

the tough questions that you want answered. If this deal was really so good, it

wouldn't have needed a $300,000 ad campaign to convince you about it. And the

fact that the ad agencies actually knew more about this MOU than the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador before it was announced, because as soon as the

announcement was made the ads started rolling right away.

But all the

hype should have you hearing alarm bells. Let's figure out what Quebec

officials meant when they told their own media, in French, that this MOU is –

quote – remarkable for them, with remarkable prices for decades to come. A deal

so good they had to grab it. A deal so good they would grab it 10 times out of

10. Let's figure out why that French interviewer cautioned the head of

Hydro-Québec not to say too much because people could hear it and translate it

down there in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ask yourself

whether Quebec's remarkable gain is a fair gain or another lopsided gain coming

at our own province's expense, at the expense of fairness, at the expense of

our province's future, the future of our children, grandchildren and

great-grandchildren. Ask yourself whether this Premier rushed too soon to give

Quebec everything they wanted at the bargaining table. Ask yourself whether he

gave too much and got too little for the 50 to 60 years ahead. Does this MOU

really safeguard the future of Newfoundland and Labrador's young people or sell

our future short?

As the Official

Opposition, we have one goal and one goal only: to ensure that the MOU with

Quebec is the best deal possible for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have an obligation to do our due diligence and ensure we do not repeat the

mistakes of the past. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve nothing less.

Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians also deserve to know that this MOU is being done for the right

reasons and not for political reasons. This is a massive undertaking that

affects a precious resource that is owned by the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is why it is so vital that we do everything in our power to make

Newfoundland and Labrador the principal beneficiary of our majestic Churchill

River.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: That means we must protect and maximize

our resources, the benefits of the communities and regions affected, as well as

our local industries and workforce now and into the future.

The people of

the province want to know exactly what's happening with the jobs and the

development. It appears from the MOU that Hydro-Québec has control over the

development and the jobs for the Gull Island project and the Upper Churchill

expansion. No jobs, no development, unless Hydro-Québec says so.

Again, it begs

the question: Why the rush and why won't the Premier let the MOU undergo an

independent review? Hopefully, there is nothing to hide. We certainly hope that

this MOU is not about winning the next election. It must be about our people

and our future generations.

We have heard

from a lot of people around the province who have questions and we hope we can

get some clear answers for them during this debate. However, there are also

some very important facts about the MOU that are worth repeating.

The Liberals

went ahead and signed the MOU with Quebec without any independent expert

reviews or any discussion in the House of Assembly. Quebec will now have a

share in the ownership of both the existing Churchill Falls development and the

expansion planned under this MOU. Plus, Quebec will have ownership in a

world-class asset, Gull Island. Through this MOU, they will hold an even bigger

share of our resources.

Hydro-Québec

has publicly stated this MOU will ensure an agreement that guarantees access to

Quebec to a minimum of 7,200 megawatts of power for the next 50 years at a

lower price than all renewable options in North America. The lowest in North

America for the next 50 years – that's their words.

We will be

signing up for a pricing model with Quebec that will be in place for 50 years,

no changes – we all know how that turned out the last time. Furthermore, Quebec

will actually get back at least one-third of the money they pay us. Why?

Because they have ownership in the two companies that will control the

resource.

With that in

mind, I'd also like to remind the people that government will only give us, the

Official Opposition, 12 hours to debate this monumental 50-year MOU. So we need

to get down to business and start asking questions.

Thank you.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I move that

this House do now recess until 1 p.m.

SPEAKER: This House do stand in recess until 1

p.m. this afternoon.

Recess

The House

resumed at 1 p.m.

SPEAKER

(Bennett): Order

please!

Admit visitors.

Before we

begin, I'd just like to welcome to the floor, the Deputy Minister of Justice

and Public Safety, the Chief Executive Officer for Newfoundland Hydro and the

Vice-President of Newfoundland Hydro.

Welcome.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Okay. We'll begin.

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm going to

address a series of questions to the CEO of Newfoundland Hydro, so I won't keep

repeating that title. I apologize to all is my voice is raspy; I've been doing

a lot of talking in the last three weeks.

My first

question is to the CEO. As I understand, you lead the negotiation team from

this province that negotiated the MOU. Is that correct?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I will

also apologize in advance. I do have a nagging cough. So if you could bear with

me if I do happen to interrupt but I'm managing it as well as possible with

some cough drops.

I would have

been part of the leads for the negotiating team for this MOU, alongside Denis

Mahoney. As well as Mr.

Karl Smith, who could not be here with us today.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

Make sure that

your microphone is on.

T. WAKEHAM: Okay.

Thank you.

The negotiation

team that you were leading or

part leading, when was it first formed?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the

negotiating team would have been announced in 2023 and so I would have been

part of the team since that time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I ask is that the same date as

it was actually formed?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

Could you

please have that question repeated?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: You mentioned you became part of the

negotiation team in 2023 and my question was, when was the negotiation team

formed?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, yes, the

negotiating team was announced in February of 2023 and that's when we would

have commenced work on negotiations.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Again, did you form the negotiation

team, or you were just part of the negotiation team?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I did not form the

negotiating team. I was part of the negotiating team.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Can you tell me then, who chose the

members of the negotiation team?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: I would suggest that would be a

question for government.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So you don't know who appointed you?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Y es,

I do know who appointed me, but I think your question was who chose the

members, plural. Certainly I know that I was appointed by government, and that

would have been included in the press release. I believe it was February 28,

2023, might be the date of that, where it would have been indicated by the

Premier.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, maybe I can ask the Premier

then.

Premier, did

you appoint the members of the negotiation team?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Yes, after consultation with Cabinet and

the Executive Council, yes.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: A gain,

to the CEO, did the Premier give the negotiation team a negotiating mandate?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, sorry, I'm trying to

follow the right process here, so please keep me in line as appropriate.

We would have

commenced discussions, you know, with our board of directors, as well as

government, to develop a mandate and ensure that we received approval for that

mandate with government and our board of directors.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So again, I ask, is there then a mandate

letter or anything similar to that, that would form the basis of what you were

to do as part of this mandate?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no

mandate letter that we received, but we would have developed a mandate and

received approval for that mandate from government and our board of directors.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you.

Would it be

possible to table or provide a copy of that written mandate?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The actual

mandate would be part of the negotiation criteria, and so it would not be

appropriate for us to release the specifics of that mandate.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So you've got a mandate to negotiate,

but the people of the province are not allowed to know what's in that mandate?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The mandate, in

broad terms, certainly would have been disclosed in, I would suggest, the press

release, and is to ensure that we got the best possible value for the assets

both developed and undeveloped on the Churchill River and in Labrador. But any

further specific detail, I believe, would potentially harm our commercial

negotiations in this moment.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: When did you start negotiating with

Hydro-Québec?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we had our first meeting

where we received information from Quebec in March of 2023, but we had an

introductory, get-to-know-you, hello meeting right around the time that the

team was announced and after Premiers Furey and Legault indicated that they

were assembling the team.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So you've stated then that you started

negotiations in March of 2023, yet in December of 2024, the Premier said there

was four years of tough negotiations. Are you aware of who negotiated before

you?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say what

Hydro was doing over the last number of years and I think it was detailed a

little bit earlier, but in preparation and understanding for this potential,

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro undertook to do an analysis with our

third-party experts on what would be the bounds of possibilities for getting

the most value out of the river. That would have commenced in 2022.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So that would have been a different

group of people then that you're talking about. Do you know who they are?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would have been

primarily the same people that carried us through into the negotiations.

Certainly not the lead negotiations, but the analysis we would have utilized

J.P. Morgan, for example, Power Advisory, for example, to support us in

understanding what opportunities and benefits and alternatives could exist for

both us, as well as for Hydro-Québec, leading up to the negotiations. Then, we

carried forward with those third-party experts to assist us when we actually

started negotiations with Quebec.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So who asked for the negotiations to

begin? Was it the Government of Quebec, Hydro-Québec or the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador or Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Speaker, that might be a

question for government, but I know that we were asked to undertake

negotiations and to pursue opportunities to get the best value from these

assets.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: And that mandate was given to you by

the Premier?

J. WILLIAMS:

(Inaudible.)

T. WAKEHAM: Okay.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: I can ask the Premier, then: Who asked

for the negotiations to begin? Was it the Government of Quebec, Hydro-Québec,

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador or Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thanks, Speaker.

So just to

clarify, a couple of points. First of all, Premier Legault and I met in August

of '21, with a very public display of meeting then. One of the sources of

discussion at the time was if he had any understanding of the economic and

cultural significance of the Churchill Falls agreement in the context of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. He did.

There were some

very informal chats that led to him coming to Newfoundland and Labrador to meet

with us, with Hydro-Québec officials meeting with Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro officials. Then there was a discussion at that time, in addition to his

public commentary on the existing agreement, that teams could begin in earnest

negotiations.

In the interim,

between the time where we first met and him coming to Newfoundland and

Labrador, there was a series of work ongoing, as prescribed by LeBlanc in terms

of the expert panel and an evaluation of the overall benefits that could be

achieve on the river.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: To the CEO of Hydro: We know that the

MOU covers the existing Churchill Falls plant and upgrades to the existing

plant, an expansion of the Upper Churchill site and Gull Island. In your

initial mandate given to you by the Premier, how many of those four things were

covered by the initial mandate?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Speaker.

The mandate

detail, as I've mentioned, is not appropriate for me to disclose here for

commercial purposes. I will restate that the intention of the effort was to do

everything possible to get the maximum possible value out of the assets, both

developed and undeveloped.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: To the CEO, again: I'm having trouble

understanding that, because we all know what's in the MOU. It talks about the

Churchill Falls plant and upgrades to the existing plant. It talks about the

expansion of the Upper Churchill site and Gull Island.

So again,

asking what was covered off by your initial mandate, I'm not sure how that's

sensitive?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Sorry, one moment.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

In our view,

the MOU is consistent with the mandate that we were charged with.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So, to be clear, that everything that's

currently in the MOU was part of your initial mandate?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The MOU is

quite detailed and quite substantive. And the mandate certainly can't and

wouldn't contemplate all of the detail that the MOU would. Otherwise, you would

have the agreement right at the beginning.

You have an

intention of what a set of discussions should deliver and the MOU does indeed

deliver and the MOU is in spirit with what we were charged with achieving.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Again, what I'm getting to again is the

fact that the Churchill Falls plant and upgrades to the existing plant are part

of the MOU. The expansion of the Upper Churchill site is part of the MOU. Gull

Island is part of the MOU. Were all of those things part of your initial

mandate?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The initial

mandate was to achieve the best value from the Churchill River and, if I could

go a little further, for example the pricing mechanism, in our view, is a

really substantive component of the MOU. Those kinds of aspects and those kinds

of details, including what should exactly form every component, it's not, I

guess, expected that all of that detail would be included in a mandate. Again,

which it is not appropriate for me to disclose here today.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Again, I don't understand, when it's

already in the public domain, that these three things I've mentioned, these

three projects, are part of the MOU. I was simply asking whether it was a part

of your initial mandate or not. It's a simple yes or no.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I understand

the question and where it's coming from, of course, but just to talk a little

bit about the rules of procedure that we passed here the morning is that the

members – invited guests, I should say – once they declare that an issue is

commercially sensitive or privileged for any other reason, I would argue then,

based on the rules, it's within their realm to make that decision and then we

move forward from there. They would be the one, obviously, who know what is

commercially sensitive.

I also spoke a

couple times this morning about the fact that this is part of a process. We are

now at the memorandum of understanding stage of the process, where we are

certainly hopeful, for the next four days, to bring to light a lot of

information about what the MOU is and what it means. But it is just a stage in

the process and then next stage, the next milestone would certainly be, at some

point in 2026, hopefully, a series of definitive agreements. To get from an MOU

to definitive agreements, there has to be continued negotiations.

So having said

that and having looked at the big picture here, that is a reason why

information needs to remain commercially sensitive, because we are not there

yet. We are only at the early stage of this process and negotiations will

continue after this week between Hydro-Qu é bec and NL Hydro. Disclosing anything

other than the Premier's instructions to get the best possible deal for

Newfoundland and Labrador would put the definitive agreements and the best

possible development of our resources at risk.

Thank you,

Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Again, Speaker, I would reiterate I am

not asking for details about negotiations; I was simply asking about the

process that formed the mandate. I will move on.

Was it your

negotiating team or Hydro-Québec's that decided what was to be discussed?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, could you please have that

question repeated?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Sure, no problem.

Was it your

negotiating team or Hydro-Québec's that decided what was to be discussed?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's been close

on two years that we have been having meetings with Hydro-Québec. This is a

memorandum of understanding between two parties and the content reflects the

needs and interests of both parties. The content of MOU would reflect things

that both of us wanted to achieve and would bring to the table. So the

discussions would have reflected both of our interests.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Whom did your negotiating team report

to?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would have

had certainly our Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro board of directors; we would

have been reporting back to our board at appropriate frequencies over the last

number of years. I say the last number of years because, again, as we were

doing our research and analysis, even prior to actual discussions with

Hydro-Québec and then as well we would have been reporting back to government

at appropriate intervals and frequencies to provide for feedback on how things

were progressing after we were asked to have those discussions with

Hydro-Québec.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: I ask the CEO: Were you part of the

Churchill River expert panel that was announced in May of 2022, which was

tasked to make recommendations to maximize the value of the Churchill River?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was

part of the expert panel sanctioned in 2022.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: The public hasn't seen the report. I've

called for the release of the report. I ask the CEO: Were the recommendations

of the report a part of the negotiations? Did the recommendations inform

negotiations?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, a lot of

work with significant expertise went into – we call the 2041 panel. As you

noted, it is important and the documentation around what we did make public

says, " To protect Newfoundland and Labrador's future commercial interests

and ability to negotiate, the Panel's report will not be shared publicly. "

That was appropriate and shared by the panel members. But the efforts, the

negotiating team received the panel's report and utilized it through the course

of the discussions with Hydro-Québec and the MOU would reflect the advice

suggested by the 2041 panel.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So just for clarity purposes, who made

the decision that the 2041 report should not be made public? Was that made by

the panel or was it made by someone else?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS:

Thank you for the

question.

Mr. Speaker,

I'd have to go back and double check, but as a member of the panel and

considering the content, I would not endorse releasing that report publicly. I

just can't remember specifically, a specific decision point, but I think all of

the panel members went into this effort under a non-disclosure agreement. I

believe it's for 20 years. So when you're entering into an effort with that

kind of expectation you also discuss and pursue research and thinking with the

expectation that it will not become public and it's too important and

potentially harmful to the province to contemplate that it would become public.

SPEAKER: Do you want to continue on?

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Again, I

appreciate the question, just to make sure that everyone is aware and to be

clear about the record here over the next few days, is that while the CEO has

said that she wouldn't endorse the report being public, there is certainly

available online at churchillriverexpertpanel.ca a

summary of the report.

Just to

highlight some things in it, it says: " Three

main opportunities were considered, and are not mutually exclusive: 1. Increased sales inside the province

for electrification, as well as new and growing industries; 2. Increased sales

to export markets; 3. A new arrangement for sales to Hydro Québec."

So certainly as

we get into the next four days, I think that those three things have been

achieved and I look forward to detailed information about exactly how those are

outlined in the MOU.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to further

add, we were following the advice of Justice LeBlanc. Justice LeBlanc, in his

summary, in recommendation 7, said that: "The panel should be required to

report its progress to Cabinet on a regular basis." Assuming that Justice

LeBlanc understood the commercial sensitivities of any revelation to the

general public and how that could harm Newfoundland and Labrador's interest

moving forward.

So while there

was a

summary released, I believe the CEO suggests that the details of the

expert panel report would jeopardize Newfoundland and Labrador's negotiating

position and it is nice to see that it was fully followed as per the

prescription by Justice LeBlanc.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: We'll continue. I'd ask the CEO: You

signed the MOU on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, correct?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Did the Premier tell you to sign the

MOU?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: The MOU was signed on behalf of Hydro

by myself and other colleagues after we recommended it to our board of

directors as it should be accepted, as well as we would have recommended it to

government.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So did you recommend to government that

the MOU be signed?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I

recommended to government and to the board of directors, along with the

negotiating team, that this MOU should indeed be signed.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Can it be unsigned?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not a

lawyer, but this MOU is intended to reflect many years of research and work and

our collective and joint best efforts to continue to take the principles

contained in the memorandum of understanding, through with additional

negotiations, to definitive agreements.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Again, can it be unsigned?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

It's funny, I

think that word "unsigned" came up in some of our discussions when we were

debating with the Opposition House Leader and other Members about the purpose

of this debate and what this debate looks like. But in any event, the word

non-binding for this MOU has certainly been discussed publicly and in this

House, even this morning. What the MOU is – certainly a framework, I think I

used the word framework this morning in my comments about why we're here and

what the purpose of this debate is – a framework towards more definitive

agreements.

In looking at

the MOU yesterday – if I can find it here – is that "the Parties agree to use

their respective best efforts to negotiate and enter (or cause their relevant

subsidiaries to enter) into the Definitive Agreements in connection with the

following development projects."

So, Speaker, as

I said earlier in one of my responses as well is that this is one stage of the

process. The next stage is to negotiate all these definitive agreements, which

would be based on, as I said, the concepts and the principles in the MOU.

There are four

different potential development projects outlined here which could form one,

two, three and/or four definitive agreements: One being the upgrade to all

turbine generator units at Churchill Falls; another one being the expansion of

Churchill Falls as it currently exists; the third one being the development,

construction and operation of a new hydroelectric power generating facility on

the Churchill River; and the development, construction and operation of

required electricity transmission assets in Labrador and Quebec.

So to say that

the MOU can't be unsigned, I think that's legally accurate. But to contemplate

that this is the end of the story is not true. The MOU certainly, I hope, will

advance towards negotiations after we finish up in the House this week, and

trusting that Hydro-Québec

and NL Hydro will continue good faith negotiations on any and all of the things

that are outlined as principles and concepts in the MOU.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

I know the

minister mentioned that it's non-binding, but there are clauses in the MOU that

are binding in our

interpretation of it. So we'll have more to say about that

later.

My next

question for the CEO: Can changes be made to the MOU?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS:

Thank you for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

As we've just

discussed, the MOU is the MOU. The details of how the MOU becomes definitive

agreements is yet to be negotiated. So I would say that's where further

information negotiating is yet to occur.

Section 2.8

lists the 10 definitive agreements. These are substantial and require a lot of

work and effort and continued negotiations. So while the MOU is signed and it

contains that framework, there is a lot of negotiation still yet to execute in

the coming period of time as is detailed in

section 2.8.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you.

Would you

please confirm that if the definitive agreements that you just mentioned are

signed, for at least the next 51 years and beyond for some of the agreements,

that the contractual arrangements will be carved in legal stone?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS:

Yes, thank you for the

question.

Proceeding over

the next period of time to definitive agreements, there are several aspects

with regard to the time frame that is pending. One component does have a

51-year time frame and that is the Upper Churchill CF PPA.

As folks will

know, there's an existing, well, 16 years if you count now from this year – 16

years left but as of last year it was 17 years left in the existing contract.

So that would continue for the CF PPA. When we say that it would be – I'll talk

about that first – carved in stone, one of the important schedules to read is

Schedule F of the MOU.

Schedule F of the MOU details how things can and will

change over time.

So while the

principles that are here will make their way into definitive agreements,

assuming we get the authority to continue to do that, the mechanisms that are

contained in there will allow for evolution of pricing. So the mechanism is

going to be in place, but the outcomes will evolve. So I would suggest that is

not necessarily carved in stone.

As it related

to the other components, we will work with Hydro-Québec on those other

definitive agreements – I will go back to them – those are the kinds of

agreements that are appropriate for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to be able

to operate. So we would want clarity for the coming decades on how to operate

the river, for example, it's really important to do that; how is the

transmission going to be operated.

That is normal

for us to enter into these long-term agreements to understand how are we going

to be operating theses assets. These are not just, again, a price item. There

are a whole host of documents that you would see there on how we will be

operating the system into the future once some of these projects come on line.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So the Churchill Falls Power Purchase

Agreement will be for 51 years?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the intended

period for the Churchill Falls, the Upper Churchill PPA, which is just for the

existing generation, not for any of the other projects that are being

contemplated, we would expect that they would be 51 years starting five days

ago, and continuing for 51 years, of which they already have access to the next

16 years. So it is really an extension, or they are gaining about 34 more years

beyond what they currently have access to.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you.

Are you aware

that Hydro-Québec in recent years has negotiated two contracts to sell a total

of 20 terawatt hours a year in the US for 20 years?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am aware

of those two contracts.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Why then did Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro agree to a 51-year contract when it is obvious that Hydro-Québec is

willing to enter into 20-year contracts?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly

can't necessarily speak for Hydro-Québec, but I can speak to

Schedule F and I

really think you'll probably hear me talk a lot about that today, it really is

worthwhile for us to examine that