PDF Version

January 9, 2025 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 100

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER

(Bennett): Order, please!

Admit visitors.

Before we begin, I’d just like to

welcome people in the public gallery and also our

guest here today, the Chief Legal Officer and the Chief Executive Officer and

Vice-President of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Welcome again today.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Extraordinary Debate pursuant to Standing Order 8(7) – Memorandum of

Understanding between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro-Québec

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you,

Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you,

Speaker.

We’re here now on day four of this

special debate, whatever term we want to use, to discuss an issue and a

document that can have a significant impact on the future of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Early on in that process, when we first started and after the

announcement was made back on December 16, I wrote the Premier back then and I

had asked that we effectively be able to hear from and question expert

witnesses including, but not limited to, those involved in negotiating this

agreement. That was back on December 16.

That didn’t happen. What we have

heard from are the people who have been involved in the process. We have had

experts come in and give their opinions but they’re not independent to the

process. They have been involved in the process and so the independence that we

have looked for and that we have asked for has not yet been achieved. I have

asked for and have continued to ask for that this MOU move and be sent to an

independent review, as recommended by Judge LeBlanc.

I am not sure why we appear to be

rushing this MOU through the House of Assembly after only four days of debate.

We’ve had lots of questions asked; we’ve had lots of questions answered. But I

would suggest there are a lot more and there will continue to be more. The fact

of taking this document and allowing another set of eyes to review it, I see no

downside to that. None.

We have talked, since the beginning,

that this was not supposed to be about the next election. It’s supposed to be,

ought to be and should be about the next generation and those to come, as we

have all said in this House. But at the same time, why are we not taking the

time to send this for an independent review? We should have learned from the

past. We spent a significant amount of money on an inquiry so that we didn’t

repeat the mistakes of the past.

We all know the good intentions of

everyone. We saw that, as alluded to by my colleagues, with the signing of the

1969 agreement when every Member of the House of Assembly, apparently, was

stood up and said yes, we’re all in favour of the 1969 agreement.

I’m not here to be a cheerleader.

I’m here to turn around and make sure that we do get the best deal for

Newfoundland and Labrador, as it’s been described. That’s why it’s so

important, I continue to say that, for us to simply turn around and say after four

days of debate in the House of Assembly with 40 MHAs, with no disrespect to any

of us, none of us who are what I would consider to be experts in this area, but

we have tried our best. We have tried our best to ask questions and to get the

answers. But I see no reason, none whatsoever, as to why we don’t take the time

to have a second set of eyes turn around and review this MOU before we are

asked to vote on it in the House of Assembly.

Let’s get that independent review

done. Let’s turn around and bring it back into the House after we hear from

them and let’s then be able to make an even more informed decision; because

that’s ultimately what it’s about, being as informed as we can.

While we’ve heard, as I said, from

experts who have been involved in the process, and I appreciate that, but at

the end of the day we’re now saying, okay, let’s review that. Let’s make sure

that that holds up because whether you want to hear it or not, there are a lot

of people out there that have a different opinion and expressing their opinions

and that’s what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to hear from. They want

to make sure that it is the best deal possible.

We’ve gotten to this place where

we’ve now got an MOU in front of us that will shape our destiny because this

MOU, as we have been told, will be used to form the definitive agreements or

contracts or whatever we want to call them over the next period of a couple of

years. They will look to turn this MOU into different agreements and in

contracts, and that’s why it’s so important that the contents of this MOU get

the scrutiny that it deserves.

This is about the future of

Newfoundland and Labrador and this MOU will shape that future. That’s why I

will continue to ask for, and I see no reason, I have not heard any reason why

it could not, be referred to an independent review before we are asked to vote

on it. Nobody has provided that reason – nobody. We’ve

talked about this expert looking at it and that expert looking at it and all

the reviews that have been done by the people who worked on it. That’s great.

That’s great and I’m glad to hear it and there are lots of things, but what

we’re asking for is that second set of eyes and that’s where we ought to be

going with this MOU.

So I will continue to ask, as we go

through this day with the hope that before the day is over, that we can all

agree that this vote doesn’t need to happen. What needs to happen is we’ve had

four great days of discussion, we’ve had four great days of questioning, now

let’s get this looked at by an independent set of eyes, come back to the House

of Assembly the next time it’s open and we can turn around and have another

good, honest go at this and hear from them. That’s what we’ve been asking for

since day one. That’s what I will continue to ask for and that’s where I expect

we ought to be going.

Now, I would like to continue the

questioning for today and thank Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for coming

back. You had two long days and, now, you’re back again and we’re glad to have

you.

Yesterday, the two consultants that

were here answered questions regarding their role in the MOU negotiations. Both

consultants noted that their mandate was to assist with providing information

and analysis into the MOU negotiation process.

My question to you is: Who

double-checked the consultants’ numbers and analysis?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you,

Speaker.

The consultants were hired because

of their expertise in understanding the markets, as we’ve heard, understanding

the financial inputs. Within their own organization, there was no single person

that was involved from either team.

J.P. Morgan , in

particular, you would’ve heard them yesterday mention they had anywhere

from 15 key folks, as well as another 10 or so that would get involved as

required. They would’ve been working with each other on what are the

appropriate inputs.

The same thing would’ve occurred

with Power Advisory. Power Advisory, again, it wasn’t any one single person who

worked on their file and their input. They would’ve had – I can’t remember the

number of folks. I think it was probably six, but, again, I think after that,

they reach within their organization for any further inputs that they would

need.

Their own information would’ve been

included with regard to what I will call peer review

inside, or peer inputs, into the analysis. Certainly, we would be discussing

with them and having them explain to us, and we challenge them and they

challenge us on what those inputs would be.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you.

I can conclude from that that there

was no independent review or check of their numbers or analysis. Is that a fair

assessment? It was done themselves, internally checked their numbers, and

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro checked their numbers?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Any consultant

that we would hire, we don’t hire a second consultant to check their numbers,

and I’ll use auditing for example. We would go out for audit services, as is

required by any organization that discloses any kind of public information,

public statements. You hire them to do their work. They execute their work,

they file their work, and it is accepted. So that is normal; you don’t then go

and get another person to check their work. I guess the question would be: When

do you stop? Do you then get somebody to check that second person’s work?

So we did not have another party

check the work of the folks inside, but again these folks are very much

world-class experts. We heard from them yesterday, and it’s clear to me that

their inputs were important, appropriate, prudent and we did not have a third party check those again. But that is normal practice,

that you don’t go and have, for all of the services

that you have with third parties, a second person engaged every single time to

check the work of the engaged party.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: I would suggest

that this is not a normal MOU. This is an MOU that will influence the destiny,

as I have said, of Newfoundland and Labrador for years to come. If the two

consultants were part of the creation of the MOU, then who reviewed the MOU to

answer the question do Newfoundlanders and Labradorians benefit the most from

this MOU?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you,

Speaker.

From a governance process

perspective – I would have alluded to or spoken to this directly on Monday or

Tuesday, maybe both days – it was clear that – and I’ve said this I think as

well on Monday – this is a lessons-learned MOU.

We absolutely had to get the best

deal possible and one that was fair to our organization, so fair to our

province, and ensure that we did indeed get significant value compared to

history. And we do believe that we got the most out of this deal; I’m sure

Quebec will have a view as well, but we really fundamentally

believe that we got the most out of this deal.

We have absolutely achieved that

through the aspects that we’ve talked about this week, with the significant

revenue flowing directly to provincial Treasury, with the jobs that will result

from the execution of these projects, from access to power – essentially being

able to commit to power today, or in the very near future, to customers, that

otherwise we would have to wait until the 2040s – and all the domino effects

that come with that: constructing the jobs in our province versus constructing

the jobs elsewhere.

We absolutely got a great deal for

the people of the province associated with the framework that is in this

memorandum of understanding.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: So my next

question – and given the time constraints, I appreciate just a quick answer if

possible – did anyone with cold eyes, independent of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador or Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its people

that were part of the MOU, review the MOU, the assumptions, the electricity

rates and the financial impacts to answer the question does this MOU give

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the maximum benefit possible? Is that a yes or

a no?

SPEAKER: The Chief

Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: I am aware –

although I’m not privy to what that advice was – that there was separate review

conducted of the process that we have gone through and the conclusions that are

contained within the MOU.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: My question was

the review of the MOU itself.

SPEAKER: The Chief

Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you,

Speaker.

Yes, I believe I answered that, that

I am aware that there was review of the content of the MOU, which I believe I

said that as well on Monday or Tuesday, is the MOU did not, in its current and

final format, get created at 11 p.m. on December 11. It was an evolution over

time of the content and what should indeed be included as key parameters that

provide for the most benefit to the province.

Throughout the process, there was

separate review that I am aware of, but I did not see the advice that was

indeed presented directly to government and not to Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: A separate

review carried out by somebody independent of government and Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. Maybe the minister can respond and I ask: Who did that review?

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very

much.

As has been indicated repeatedly

throughout the last number of days, there has been a tremendous amount of

independent oversight, including an independent panel. There have been a number of reviews by independent experts. We also had a

parallel process through Stewart McKelvey that kind of took it on a separate

parallel plain. So there has been a tremendous amount of independence in terms

of looking at this memorandum of understanding, but what I do remind this House

is this is a memorandum of understanding and not the definitive agreements.

There is a tremendous amount of work

that has to happen over the next number of months. As

we all know in this House, it won’t be until April of 2026 when we have those

definitive agreements and there is a lot of effort that has

to go in between now and then.

Perhaps the CEO can talk a little

about the difference between what the MOU will say and the definitive

agreements at the end of the day. And now we’ve just announced another

independent process.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: No independent

review process that we have been calling for outside this House. That’s exactly

what we’ve been looking for. We want this independent review outside of

government to happen. We have said that from day one.

Let me continue on .

Has a comprehensive risk analysis been completed on each component of the MOU

and who completed it?

SPEAKER: The Chief

Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you,

Speaker.

I am going to get to that. Can I

just have 10 seconds to add to something that I said a moment ago about the

advice that would have been provided to government and I said that I am not

privy to that advice? I just want to expand on why that was important.

It was important that Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro, from the perspective of advice being provided to

government, they needed to know and be able to challenge us on whether there

was anything in there that we should correct, determine, delve into further,

stay away from.

So I just wanted

to be really clear that it is appropriate, in our view, that the advice that

was given to government was not provided to us so we could be perceived to be

influencing that. But I will answer the question about the difference in the

definitive versus MOU.

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, can I

interrupt? Sorry to interrupt –

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: My question is: Has a comprehensive risk analysis been completed on each

component of the MOU and who completed it?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive

Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you,

Speaker.

I believe

we talked about this on Monday or Tuesday, and it would have been further

explained with the consultants that were engaged in this process and spoke yesterday , is how you

factor in the risks of what is in this MOU is through the multitude of

scenarios of what could a future look like for the utilization of these assets

into the future. That’s exactly what we did. We took many different scenarios,

both for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s utilization of these assets, as well

as what Hydro-Québec’s options were. When you take each of these scenarios and

you say, okay, well, if this future happens, this is what would be the

implications.

So that is how we analyzed the risks

associated with any one of those potential futures, both for Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro in supply and opportunities for the river, as well as for what

Hydro-Québec’s scenarios were. So, yes, that is how we factored risk of future

situations into our MOU.

SPEAKER: The Member’s

time is expired.

Do you want to continue with more

time, Sir?

T. WAKEHAM: Just one more

question.

SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: It’s a

follow-up question.

Will you table that information that

you just talked about?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker,

to table what the risks and the scenarios and the opportunities are, associated

with what is the content which is in the MOU, would harm our negotiating

position as we continue through significant work, as we’ve talked about on

Monday and Tuesday, and certainly as the consultants very clearly referenced

yesterday, there is a lot of work left to do, a lot of things left to

negotiate. If we were to table that, that would harm our negotiating position

as we work through definitive agreements.

SPEAKER: The Member’s

time is expired.

The hon. the Minister of Industry,

Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you,

Speaker.

I probably won’t be taking the full

time; I know a colleague behind me wants to speak as well. But I just wanted to

take this opportunity, I feel it’s incumbent, first of all ,

to begin the day, as I’ve done every day, by thanking our guests on the floor

here of the House of Assembly. Thank you for being here again today.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: It’s certainly,

from my perspective, been refreshing and enlightening, having spent a lot of

time here, to have individuals here on the floor that can speak freely, that

can talk and tell us what they’ve gone through and what they’ve done.

I wanted to take this opportunity,

perhaps, just to respond to the Leader of the Opposition. Some of the

commentary made in the – I guess I would call it –

preamble prior to the

question-making

section of his words.

So I would start off, and he

mentioned – and again, this is sort of point by point – we’re not going to be

cheerleaders to this deal. I would say that was never an expectation from

absolutely anybody. I don’t think there’s anybody here that would be doing

that. Because we all do want the same thing. I know the Members opposite as

well, all Members opposite, we’re all scarred by a 50-something-year-old deal

that did not give us what we wanted. We’re scarred by an inquiry and a

megadeal. So we all have that same goal. So, no, the job was to be here to ask

questions, to ask experts.

The second point that segues and

leads me into is that we have had experts here for the last four days. I would

point out, too – I give credit to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries,

Forestry and Agriculture – four days does not quite put it – in terms of how

long it actually was, it’s the equivalent in our regular House

sitting time of two weeks.

So I just wanted to put that out

there. I think that’s an important note for the person who might be listening.

This is not a normal session of the House; this is an extraordinary sitting

with basically almost 12-hour days in here, which adds up to weeks of regular

House time.

Coming back to that, we’ve had

experts on the floor of the House of Assembly, willing to answer questions,

waiting for questions, answering any questions that have been put to them.

They’ve been here. They’re here today, and they will continue because this is

not something that is going away any time soon. There’s still a lot of time

left; there’s still a lot of work left. Although I am a fan of this debate,

there will be multiple opportunities for further debate moving towards the

definitive agreement.

To the point, I can say now

unequivocally on behalf of certainly the government – I can only speak on

behalf of government here – that the vote will happen today. The vote will be

happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: The Member said

about perhaps we will be in agreement . We will not be in agreement on that. There will be a vote today. I’d

like to think that we’ve justified to the public why we are continuing to move

forward with this groundbreaking MOU that has been negotiated. Again, we’ve had

the experts here.

One comment I want to point out. I

think it’s interesting that we’ve heard multiple times is, well, elections –

elections – about an election. So a couple things I want to point out. Number

one, at no point has election been mentioned on this side. Number two, there is

only one group that has called nominations for the 2025 election, and it is the

Official Opposition. Number three –

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want me

to apologize for that?

A. PARSONS: I say to the

Member opposite: No, you certainly don’t need to apologize, but the facts do

matter here.

The last thing I would say, and this

is only probably important to me: I am not running in the next election. I am

not running. But regardless of an election, the reality is – and I think we all

bear this weight – whether you’re in the next election or you’re not, there is

a long history that comes with this.

I’m going to live in this province

after I’m out of politics, my kids, hopefully someday grandkids. That’s what I

think about, okay. So this is not about an election to me. I don’t have to

worry about knocking on doors or any of that this next election, but I do worry

about my integrity. I do worry about my reputation.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: I do worry

about what we leave behind, we all do, and I feel very comfortable about where

we are. So I put that out there. This is not an election to me, okay. This is

not an election promise. This was something that the Premier and team and

everybody negotiated so I just put that out there.

Again, one other thing that I want

to say is, we have lots of time left. There will be sessions in the House.

There will be debates. There will be media. There’s a lot left to do. More

information will come out as we move forward to this. We’ll deal with it as it

comes.

I do want to point out the

oversight. There are a lot of questions on oversight. Do you know what?

Oversight is a necessary thing, it’s a good thing. We’ve heard it from our

experts. We’ve been saying it. So I just want to put out a couple of things on

that before I conclude my remarks for this point. Hopefully, I’ll get an

opportunity to speak again today.

One, there has been oversight up to

this. The expert panel appointed moving on sort of the Churchill Falls assets,

recommending potential approaches, things like that. There has been independent

and varied oversight up to the signing of the MOU and will continue

on . Multiple processes independent of each other, again to use the

Premier’s words, to avoid group thinking and cognitive bias. That’s one of the

issues that were there.

I didn’t order and inquiry into

Muskrat –

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah, you did.

A. PARSONS: I didn’t order

it, our government ordered it. I didn’t sit there and get recommendations and

spend millions of dollars not to take the lessons from it. We’re sitting here,

we’ve been following it and I still feel that we have followed it. We’ve heard

from people. None of us want to be a part of something that we don’t think is

the best thing.

But to go along with what the

Premier said before and said on the first day and he said after again: We will

have independent expert-led panel. So I just want to

put out something that I think is important, that we’ve talked about today and

we’ve talked about outside this House: we are actually creating a new,

independent expert panel that will be led by the Consumer Advocate –

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: – that will

review the MOU and progress towards definitive agreements. It will provide

advice to Cabinet. It will provide summaries to the public and to the House of

Assembly in a manner that respects commercial sensitivities and does not

jeopardize the province’s negotiations. These summaries will be provided

quarterly.

Again, I think anybody would agree

with this, certainly the people who have reached out to me, they understand the

intricacies and sensitivities of commercial negotiations, along with the

balance of information being made available to the public.

The Consumer Advocate will be

provided with necessary funding to provide this oversight and shall appoint a

panel of three people, including the Consumer Advocate as chairperson. The

Consumer Advocate shall submit a list of candidates to the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador for review and appropriate vetting. The government

shall return a list of qualified candidates of which the Consumer Advocate

shall select two additional members for the panel.

So I put that out

there today, I think it’s a more specific explanation of what the Premier has

been talking about but guided by input and insight from other Members and from

a number of people.

On that note, what I would say is

having put all that out there, having heard the commentary, the questions, the

answers, the debate over the last three days, I would again reiterate my final

point which is there will be a vote today, I will be voting in favour and based

on all that, I would hope that the rest of this House would follow our lead and

do that as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Mount Pearl North.

L. STOYLES: Speaker, thank

you.

I never, ever expected in my

lifetime that I would be here speaking and involved in the history of our

province. I want to thank the people of Mount Pearl North for supporting me and

helping me get to where I am today.

I’ve always said that my motto has

always been: Working together as a team. My lifetime in volunteerism and when I

got elected to council, over 25 years ago, my first remarks to the people of

Mount Pearl was we have to work together as a team.

That has always been my motto and my belief and that is exactly what I believe

today.

To be here, in this House of

Assembly, I can’t even express how proud I am, and to thank my family for all

they have done and supported me over my lifetime, not only since I’ve been in

politics, but my whole lifetime.

I want to thank the panel today and

the past few days, all the experts who have come here and given us so much

information. Yes, we were briefed, I was briefed. I spoke to my colleague for

Mount Pearl earlier and he was briefed, too. We all had the opportunity to be

briefed and we’ve asked many questions to the panel. We were for over four

hours one evening, talking and asking questions so we could be prepared when we

came to the House of Assembly.

No doubt, I’ve spoken to the people

in my district over the past number of weeks, and ever since I’ve been elected.

I’m out in the community as much as I can, and I attend every event that I can

attend. The people in Mount Pearl have put their trust in me, and I’m so happy

to say that I’m part of this government.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. STOYLES: One question

that was asked to me, that I want to ask the panel, is – and some other people

have asked me this question and I always say there’s no such thing as a stupid

question, and I was known in Mount Pearl for asking questions that people

sometimes wouldn’t ask. But some of the seniors and some of the people have

said to me, Lucy, I thought we were going to get it back after 2041, after the

agreement was over. I thought we were going to own 100 per cent of Churchill

Falls. And, of course, here we’ve been talking, and Quebec owns a portion of

it.

I’m just wondering if our experts

can give us some input on that, and how did they ever own part of our history,

our community?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

A really great

question, and I hear that misconception a fair bit as well, in that people

think that the ending of the contract changes materially the actual ownership

structure of the facility itself. And the simple answer to that is: it does

not. Hydro-Québec is a one-third, essentially – a one-third owner of the

facility, and that will continue as long as the asset

continues. That does not change.

Being a one-third owner of that

facility on that river is something that we obviously had to take into account

throughout the course of the negotiations, and factor that in to how can we

indeed still ensure that while they are third owner, and that they do have a

lot of control, right now – and a lot of that control will continue right up to

2041 and beyond, but what we are doing now with this memorandum of

understanding is gaining a lot of control back much, much sooner.

When I think about the kind of

control that they have, obviously, it’s through the ownership, but one of the

other really important points where they currently

have a lot of control is essentially through a bit of a veto power through the

board of directors. So the decisions that CF(L)Co would need to make would have

to go to its board of directors. Currently, under the existing governance

structure, Quebec basically has veto power over what could be a good business

decision.

But with this new memorandum of

understanding and with the definitive agreements that will follow, Quebec have

agreed that we are going to change how the governance of the organization

works. So while they will retain ownership beyond 2041, one of the things that

we have done is to get back, 17 years early, improved governance so that Quebec

does not have control over the river that they currently do today.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Mount Pearl North.

L. STOYLES: Thank you very much.

As I said,

people have been asking those questions and all the questions that have been

asked has been answered by the experts. As the minister mentioned, we are also

going to have independent people. This is only an MOU.

I have

served on council for 25 years. I was part of doing many studies and part of

many MOUs, so I am very comfortable, representing the District of Mount Pearl

North, supporting this memorandum and supporting our government.

I think we

have the best leader and the best Premier this province has ever seen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. STOYLES: Besides that,

we have a team that is going to be working together for the people to create

jobs, that is what we need in this province. We all talked about the money and

the benefits and everything but, at the end of the day, jobs, jobs, jobs and

building our community.

I have, in the District of Mount

Pearl, a lot of young families. I have a lot of seniors as well, but I have a

lot of young families in part of my district and I am delighted to be able to

stand here and support this initiative to be part of history.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s

certainly great today to be able to have the opportunity to speak on such a

very important debate, something that’s very important to our province and

something that’s been nagging us throughout the years and to have a chance now

to speak as we feel on this debate.

It’s been

an interesting debate. There’s been a lot of questions, lot of answers, of

course, but, in that, there are more questions that comes as the debate goes on

and we feel that there are a lot more answers and there still will be a lot of

answers to come.

With that,

before I came into this debate, I did speak to a lot of my constituents

throughout my district, a lot of concerns, a lot of questions, like I said,

through emails, through conversations in the gas stations and the convenience

stores. They certainly have doubts of: Is this the best deal? I think, through

it all, that’s what concerns us most. It concerns all of us: Is this the best

deal?

I’m sure

in 1969, when they sat around, much the same as we are doing here today, they

felt that they probably had the best deal, good deal, but that came through 50

years of agony through our province as a result of those decisions and, through

that, a lot of people, every person, probably, in our province has felt that we

were wronged, we were duped. They don’t want us to make those same decisions. I

don’t want to make that decision without being confidently convinced that this

is the best deal that we have for our province moving forward.

When I look at my grandchildren and

I think about their future and what we can provide for them, we have the opportunity to make it the best that we can for our

children and our grandchildren moving forward and we have to make sure that

it’s done right.

I know there’s been conversations,

there’s been debates through this here right now and there’s been conversations

and meetings through Hydro and other advisors. They’ve been making those

decisions for us, but as the hon. Richard LeBlanc said in his report: We need

an independent review. That independent review would – not doubting what’s

already been done – give us that reassurance that our decisions we make today

will be the best in the interest of our grandchildren and the future of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that independent review needs to be done.

Actually, it’s been said here a

number of times and I know the crew from Power

Advisory yesterday said there will be an independent review. That independent

review will give us that reassurance that we need to make the decisions that we

have to make and want to make in the best interest of

our province.

I know that through this debate

there’s been a lot of question. There’s been still some doubt that’s been

portrayed. Every morning, certainly, we listen to Open Line , we listen

to VOCM news clips and that sort of stuff and you hear the common person on the

street, as early as this morning, they are interested in this debate. They are

listening to this debate. They are listening to what we have to say, what

decisions we make and how we make them, but they always say somewhere there: Is

this the best deal for Newfoundland and Labrador? That’s what we have to make sure.

Through this debate, I still have

questions. Quebec has been probably the number one question, the number one

issue. I’ve heard it said here again this morning that Quebec will have a lot

of control now and beyond 2041. Quebec will have a lot of control. That’s what

people still have the hangover on today, is Quebec having control.

We know there are partners. We know

that there are other involvements, which probably need to be. But through those

involvements, again, are we getting the best deal? Is

this the best deal for our grandchildren, for our future, for the future of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

Again, I did mention that there were

some questions that still need to be provided. People need reassurance that

this will be the best for our province, and making this decision today, as they

did back in 1969, for another 50 years or more will pave the future of this

province. We have to do it right. We just have to do it right. We have to

leave here with no doubt. We have to leave no doubt in

the minds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we have the best deal.

Through that, I do feel that Richard

LeBlanc in his report that an independent review needs to be done on an MOU as

part of the planning of the projects; an independent review needs to be done to

reassure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we have the best deal.

As I did say, there were some

questions through the debate, and I know there have been a lot of answers.

There was one question that I didn’t see but I’ll ask that question now to the

panel.

Like we said, 50 years making this

decision is a long time. With the weather patterns on the change, has there

been a risk assessment completed on the water and the reservoir of the river?

What happens if the water levels decrease?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, and thank you for the question.

Folks might know, if you’re paying

close attention – and we certainly are – to water levels around the country

and, obviously, in this region, which in respect to this question certainly

does contain Labrador, but it does reach into Quebec as well. Folks are

certainly reading Hydro-Québec’s annual reports, and you will see that

certainly for the course of this year, they are significantly down on profit

because of the reduction in water that they have. So it is a real situation

that water levels and available water for production is something that all

utilities that count on water for its energy source is paying very close

attention to. Certainly Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is as well, as it

relates to Island resources.

Quebec have done their own research

about what they foresee as long-term access to water, and I believe they have

published that they expect about a 15 per cent increase in water available to

them in the coming decades. That would be in general terms. What is normal –

and we have certainly seen it at CF(L)Co, so in Labrador itself – you do have

sometimes multi-years of drought, and that’s normal. So while we are in that

period right now of a couple of years of less-than-average water availability,

that’s normal. What you have to look at and do the

analysis on is: What do you think is going to be the long-term availability of

water?

Hydro-Québec, again, themselves,

their primary source – I would say 98 per cent, I’m picking a number, it’s

going to reduce as they bring more wind on – but well above 90 per cent of

their energy source comes from water, and so they are very focused on their

long-term planning. They actually expect more energy

to be available to them, but it is normal to have periods of drought.

How you do that, certainly within

the Quebec system, as well as in Labrador, is you generally have more than a

day’s, a week’s, a month’s – you have multiple years of storage. So you have to be really cognizant about how you manage the

water in those drought periods.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: No.

SPEAKER: Finished?

Next speaker.

The hon. the Minister Responsible

for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

S. REID: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

It’s an honour for me to participate

in this debate today, it’s a very important MOU, a very important debate for

the whole province, so it’s a historic debate, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to

debate that has happened here over the last three to four days, and very

interesting to hear the questions that have been raised. I was talking to the

Member for Lake Melville yesterday and, as former Speakers, we were talking

about this is how the House should work all the time. People are working

constructively to ask questions, to work together to get the best deal possible

for all the people of this province. That’s great to see that process working.

I have listened to what the other

Members have had to say, and in particular, I listened

to the comments of the three Members who were here during the Muskrat Falls

debate, or the discussion in the House that happened on some legislation

related to Muskrat Falls because there was really no process like this for

Muskrat Falls. There was no real opportunity to look at any of the issues that

might have been raised and might have been dealt with by the House. So I’m

interested in the contrast of this debate and what we’re doing here today and

how important that is.

I think the fact that we’re debating

an MOU is interesting as well. It’s early in the process. The Premier committed

it when the MOU was announced. The fact that we’re here asking questions of

experts and getting information about how the project should proceed, what

might some shortfalls in the way we’re doing things that can be identified and

how do we move forward.

It’s a very important debate to

have, and it’s not just a debate amongst ourselves. It’s a debate with expert

guests here in the House answering our questions as well, providing the

background and information and adding their knowledge to the debate that we’re

having in the House. It’s really quite a unique

situation and I think the situation calls for it. The extent and the impacts

that this could have on our province, sort of, calls for a process like this in

this House going forward.

I’m also pleased that this is the

memorandum of understanding. If we vote on this today – and I hope that we will

vote in favour of it and move forward to the actual discussion of an agreement

to begin the projects, begin the new developments that are to happen. But I

think, as well, we need to recognize that this is the beginning of the process.

It’s not the end of the process. We’ve heard from the minister today, a process

for following oversight, how oversight will continue here on this development and

this MOU. I think that’s very important as well.

Over the past week, we’ve heard the

memorandum of understanding be referred to as a historical, momentous and

remarkable transformation. I see these descriptions as being accurate. As MHA

for the District of St. George’s - Humber, I know these new developments will

bring billions of dollars of new money to the revenue of the province, and new

thousands of job opportunities for the people I represent.

I think it’s also been described as

a game-changer, this agreement. I think it is, in real ways, for the people we

all represent here in this House. In my district, many people do the long

commute. They go to places in Western Canada, they go to places in Northern

Canada and they go to places all around the world to develop their expertise

and to use their expertise on projects elsewhere.

When I see the opportunities that

this development could provide for people in this province to use their

expertise right here in this province for the benefit of the people off this

province and future generations of this province, I really am humbled by the

impact that this agreement could have on our province and should have.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. REID: When I think

back to December 12, of the significance, not just of the MOU between the two

provinces, but of the steps taken to continue a respectful relationship with

the Innu Nation and other Indigenous groups – as part of the announcement, the

Innu Nation Grand Chief, Simon Pokue , and Premier Furey signed an official acknowledgement of the MOU

confirming the province’s commitment to the Innu of Labrador. The Innu of

Labrador have a unique relationship with the province through the New Dawn

relationships and we are grateful for ongoing dialogue with the Innu Nation and

their people.

Today, I think

about what does this deal mean for the province, but especially for Indigenous

peoples and communities. I was also pleased that President Lampe and other

representatives of the Nunatsiavut Government and representatives of the

NunatuKavut Community Council were present for the announcement as well.

As Minister

Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, I assure you that

Newfoundland and Labrador will honour its existing agreements with Indigenous

peoples and seek new arrangements, where appropriate. The new deal emphasizes

both provinces and utilities meaningful commitment to working with Indigenous

communities and continuing to build respectful relationships.

With that in

mind, I have a question for the guests here today. The question is: How will

lessons learned from the Upper Churchill and Muskrat Falls development help

mitigate any potential impacts on Indigenous communities from the new Gull

Island development and Churchill Falls Expansion?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I do want to

just reiterate what the hon. Member has just mentioned and, if you would allow

me, I will read out the clause, in the very early part of the MOU, that exactly

reiterates that. At its most fundamental, both utilities have committed to

that. So it’s just a couple of sentences and it is on page 3 of the MOU.

It references:

“ Relationships with Indigenous Communities: T he Parties confirm that they are committed to the objective

of building respectful relationships with and consulting Indigenous communities

in connection with the New Long-Term Energy Purchase and Development Initiative

and that they will collaborate with one another to achieve this important

objective.”

Again, this is at the very beginning

of the MOU in the Objectives and Fundamental Principles. I just want to

reiterate our commitment. That is the absolute fundamental intention, as

reflected in here. I think that is an evolution, certainly, from where things

have been in history. So that was also really important

with regard to both government’s interests in what we needed to achieve here,

as well as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s board of directors.

As it relates to how we ensure that

Indigenous peoples and their rights are protected going forward, there are, I

guess, several aspects if you kind of break it down. The new revenue stream

that will come from the Upper Churchill is one significant aspect that

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will honour its commitments, as you’ve already

mentioned, to Innu Nation. So that will materially change for Innu Nation as it

relates to new purchase prices and, therefore, new revenue streams from CF(L)Co

under the new purchase prices.

Then, certainly, how we protect and

work with and collaborate with Indigenous communities to have an improved

execution going forward for the building of new assets. I reference back to

that fundamental principle that both Hydro-Québec and Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro are committed to. I also speak about the existing hiring protocols as an

example that are in place for Gull Island, which is again a legal commitment

that Hydro-Québec, as project manager for some of the projects and then, as we

negotiate new impact and benefits agreements, that we will also have to adhere

to as they are also legal requirements.

So I think that there’s a lot of

opportunity for us to improve upon how Muskrat Falls went but at a most

foundational, we have the existing commitments in the MOU, as well as the legal

commitments to adhere to, to ensure Indigenous peoples in Labrador certainly

benefit from this new memorandum of understanding.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.

S. REID: Thank you.

We’ve heard in the House from the

Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, the Member for Lab West and other

Members from Labrador talk about the possibilities that this will have for

mining in Labrador and the potential developments that will happen there.

I recently had an opportunity to

visit Labrador and to talk to some of the people involved in the mining

industry but also to people such as Trades NL and the work they are doing to

prepare people to do work on these projects and also

to work in the mining industry. I talked to Trades Newfoundland and Labrador. I

visited the College of the North Atlantic to see some of the wonderful work

they’re doing there and , in particular, to encourage

Indigenous to enter the trades.

I was pleased to hear, talking to

the administrator of the college, that half of the people at the College of the

North Atlantic in Goose Bay were Indigenous people. I was pleased to hear the

efforts that they had made to attract people and accommodate people in ways to

encourage people to enter the trades. I’m very pleased with the work they do.

Also, I just want to say, I also had

an opportunity to visit Muskrat Falls and the Churchill Falls sites. I was very

impressed with, I guess, two things from the visits that really struck me: one

was the massiveness of these projects, the scale of things was so overwhelming

and impressive. The engineering feats to make these things happen and the work

being done by people to make these things happen. But I was also so impressed

by the professionalism and the dedication of the people with Newfoundland Hydro,

as they talked about the work they were doing and the importance of the work

they were doing for the people of the province. I was very impressed with

everyone that I talked to about their commitment to working for Newfoundland

and Labrador and doing things right.

Mr. Speaker, meaningful engagement

with Indigenous people through all the phases of this project will be key.

Working together, we can determine the best approach to ensure our shared

success. The finalized agreement with Hydro-Québec will reflect those commitments.

Our government has committed that we

will work together with Indigenous communities to minimize environmental

impacts from these projects. We want to emphasize our commitment to building

and expanding on respectful relationships with Indigenous people and their

communities. We also want to have open and transparent communication to enable

us to work together to optimize these economic benefits for Indigenous people

and communities in a way that supports their well-being.

With this new plan, we are unlocking

uptapped potential of the Churchill River. We are

creating thousands of new jobs, enabling economic growth, industrial growth,

unlocking economic opportunities that will benefit generations to come.

This plan can put more revenue into

the hands of the people of our province. It has the potential to improve all

our lives for several generations. Our goal is to see everyone in the province

benefit for generations to come. We understand and respect the Indigenous

people’s connection to the land. Working together will be key to ensuring that,

together, we respect that connection.

Mr. Speaker, the debate we have had

here today is a positive change. It’s about learning from the past and about

leadership and courage to move forward with projects. It’s about doing things

differently and, more importantly, it’s about getting different results.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s an absolute pleasure and

privilege to speak here today on behalf of my constituents and the people of

the province. It’s definitely historic .

Words matter and words are very,

very powerful. This debate, it has definitely shown that as we make our way

through and flush out everything we need to flush out

so we do not make the same mistakes as the past.

The present day is shaped by the

decisions that we made in the past and those have been some poor decisions

throughout history. I’ve always said this to my constituents, and I’ve said it

way before politics, that Newfoundland and Labrador should be the Dubai of

Canada. Between the resources that we have of fishing, forestry, mining, oil

and gas, hydroelectric products, by God, we have just north of half a million

people for these resources to make their lives much better. We still have

people struggling in this province today due to past mistakes.

That’s why we’re here today, to

flush out any mistakes or any potential mistakes that we may see moving forward

and to extract everything that we can from this deal moving forward. Because if

this is going to set forward the motion for my kids, my grandkids, like we’ve

all spoken about, the next generation, well, by God, we want those to enjoy the

bountiful benefit and feel like they are the Dubai of Canada, which they can be

one day. My children can be and we want to make sure that they don’t struggle like

we have in past days and whatnot.

Over the past couple days, we’ve had

some great people ask some amazing questions, whether it be in the forum or

outside the forum. The questions are plentiful; there’s no shortage of

questions. Those questions, we need to get down – and we are getting some

answers, but the more answers we get, the better off we are going to be.

When we saw this on television on

December 12, there was an air of excitement across the province, of course

there was. Everybody wants the best deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. There’s

not one Newfoundlander and Labradorian that doesn’t want the best deal, and we

want a new deal. Of course we do, but again, we’re here to figure out the best

deal possible.

We heard one of the witnesses

yesterday after the scrum, when he was asked: Is this the best deal? That was

what was put forward to him and he said: It’s a great deal. Is it better than

the previous deal? Of course it is. It has the potential to be. Is it the best

deal? We don’t know. We’re not sure, and that’s why we’re here today to figure

it out.

In 1969, to my knowledge, they had a

unanimous decision. Is that correct? They had a unanimous decision at the time

to make that decision unanimously that that 1969 deal go forward and be voted

on. That was probably the easy thing to do. I’m sure there was an air of

excitement, whatever, and that was the easy thing to do, was to say: Let’s go.

We got ourselves a deal, it’s going to put some money back into the pockets of

Newfoundland and Labrador and that’s what we’re going to move forward on. Just

like today, there was a lot of excitement back then.

I just wonder myself: What if? I

live a life of what-ifs, believe it or not. I think to myself: What if? What if

there was an Opposition back then that had the guts to stand up and say: Whoa,

whoa, let’s pump the breaks for a moment. Let’s just stop this for a moment. We

don’t need to rip up this deal. We don’t need to curse on it like we have

cursed on the generation before us that have stuck us with it. But what if they

said, whoa, let’s just take a little bit of time and make sure we get the best

deal we possibly can? I wonder if somebody had the guts to do it back then,

what kind of position we would be in today. That’s why we are here today and

that’s why the Official Opposition on this side of the House want to flush out

everything that we possibly can.

In 1969, a deal was made. Quebec,

obviously, got the bigger end of the stick by a long shot. We got barely the

tip of the stick. People will curse and swear on Quebec all day long sort of

thing. But do you know what they did? They squeezed that orange until they

could extract every single drop out of it for the people of their province.

That’s what they did. They stood up and went after it, aggressively, and they

got it.

We’ve been waiting 56 years now for

somebody to grab that orange and squeeze it for Newfoundland and Labrador, to

extract every singly drop out of it again. I believe that a lot of good people

have put a lot of good work into this MOU moving forward. I believe a lot of

good people have worked very hard to do it. Our question is: Are there any

drops left in that orange? Because I guarantee you, in 1969, Quebec didn’t

leave a drop in it. Is Newfoundland and Labrador prepared to leave some of that

juice inside that? I’m not.

I would think and I would hope that

all the Opposition on this side are going to do their job and make sure that

every single drop is extracted from that orange so we get ours as well. Because

that’s our job. That’s our job at the end of the day.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: That’s our job

at the end of the day.

Again, I’m not going to sit here and

rip up this deal. Of course not. We’re all moving towards a better tomorrow.

But again, like Quebec did in 1969, I want somebody to stand up for

Newfoundland and Labrador in 2025 and by God squeeze it as hard as you can.

I don’t care about Quebec. I don’t

care about anybody else. I only care about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

That’s why we’re here today. That’s why we have the guts to stand up and say,

whoa, let’s just take a moment; let’s just take a breath. Because if it’s a

good deal today, it’s a good deal tomorrow; it’s a good deal next month. It’s

okay. Remember, we have what they want, not the other way around, so let’s put

ourselves in the driver’s seat and make sure that happens. Again, as the

Official Opposition, that’s our job.

I talk to my constituents a lot

throughout the night. When I leave here at 9 in the night, I’m on the phone

until 2 a.m. I’m sure a lot of other people are as well. I talk to a lot of

people – I do – and the overwhelming amount of my constituents agree with me –

they agree with me. They say, Chris, we need to make sure we get everything we

can out of this deal.

To my constituents that do not agree

with me and say, listen, it looks great, we need to sign it as soon as we can

and get on and done with it; I would sooner be beaten up today, I would sooner

be beaten up over the next month of taking an Official Opposition presence on

this to ensure, again, we get every little bit of juice out of that orange,

instead of getting beaten up for the next 51 years, like the last generation

did. I’ll take it. I got big shoulders; beat me up all day long. But if, at the

end of the day, it makes sure that we get everything we can, I’m okay with

that.

Like I said, I live a life of

what-ifs. What if there is something in there? No doubt we have had some

extraordinary people who have sat on this panel; we have extraordinary people

in this House, but there are some extraordinary people who have not been

involved in this yet who might have a different perspective, who might have a

different idea. So what’s wrong with taking the time and getting that done with

the independent oversight that we’ve been asking for? That would be my

question: What’s wrong with taking a little bit of time here and doing it?

This is my job. Nobody said my job

was going to be easy, because I think right now the easiest thing would be to

go along with the crowd and just get it done. I hope we do get to go along with

the crowd at some point and get it done, once the proper oversight has been

done. In 1969, it was pretty easy to do that. I will

not repeat that, I can guarantee you.

To the folks of Newfoundland and

Labrador, especially the younger folks, I speak to you by virtue of my son

Declan and my son Xander, I will fight for the best deal. If that’s working

with the Premier, with the government, I have no trouble doing that, but we

need to make sure that oversight is done. When it is done and we’ve extracted

every single drop from that orange, I’ll smile proudly just as much as anybody

else on the other side of this House and I will be proud of what we’ve all done

here today.

I do have a question for the panel.

I’ve worked my whole life, almost 20 years, as a rotational worker. We have

almost 20,000 people doing it throughout Newfoundland and Labrador who leave

their homes on a monthly or weekly basis. I pray to God that we get the jobs

that we’re promised and the jobs that we’re looking forward to.

I’ve always said I can’t wait until

there are so many jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador that we have people coming

from Western Canada to fill those jobs back here; we don’t have enough people

to fill them.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: I pray for

that. I always have.

My question to panel is this: Can

the panel give us a breakdown, please, of the number of jobs – first the

Indigenous, Labradorians, Newfoundlanders – that would be involved with CF2 and

the transmission lines?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you,

Speaker.

I’m just going to grab some notes

that I have with regard to the jobs. We haven’t

completed, obviously, the detailed engineering for those projects. So to know

exactly how many jobs, that will arise out of the detailed engineering.

What has been communicated – and I

don’t mind doing that again – is that there will be significant jobs associated

with that, and our province will be the primary beneficiaries of those jobs

because of the legal commitments that are contained in the MOU that connect

back to the legal requirements of this jurisdiction.

Again, in the MOU in

section

2.3(m)(iv), that the construction of the projects has to

comply with legal obligations. And the legal obligations are contained within

the environmental release, which is in legislation from 2012.

So that requires the benefits

strategy and the hiring protocol. The jobs that will materialize once the

detailed engineering is done and the estimates are completed for all of those projects, the primary beneficiary will indeed

go to people in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the hiring protocol follows

qualified members of Innu Nation, qualified residents of Labrador, then

qualified residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and then qualified residents

of Canada.

I want to be really

clear . I think the point is that as many people as possible we can

ensure are qualified – hopefully, as you said, some of those folks will indeed

come home and avail of the opportunities here in the province. The exact

numbers of jobs for those projects will absolutely arise out of the detailed

engineering that will be done in conjunction with Hydro-Québec in the coming

years after we get the definitive agreements done.

SPEAKER: The Member’s

time has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Digital

Government and Service NL.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Nowhere in my notes was I going to

talk about oranges. But I will say that the opportunity I think that’s before

the people of this province, that this Premier has created, no one ever thought

that that old deal would be ripped up. This Premier ripped the old deal up, and

he’s begun the process of squeezing that orange and squeezing every benefit for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians 100 per cent.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS: And we will be

behind him.

That’s it. That’s all my references

to oranges, but I thank the hon. Member for that reference. We get it; we get

what you’re saying.

I’ll begin as well by saying thank

you to the current panel and experts today and over the last several days

because it has been very important to the process and very important to the

people of this province, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the question: Why am I here?

Well, the people of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune

afforded me the opportunity to be here. Although it has been talked about, we

cannot place enough significance on the honour and privilege that it is to be

in this Chamber and in this House at this time in the history of this province.

I thank the Premier for affording me the opportunity to be at the Cabinet table

and ultimately here for this monumental moment, as has been said before.

Mr. Speaker, December 12 was an

historic day, but it was the beginning of good things to come. As I said

before, the deal was ripped up. Relationships will be created. That’s a good

thing. Whether that’s with the Grand Chief, Quebec and others in between.

Mr. Speaker, for me, as MHA first

and foremost, the day after the announcement I travelled over the highway to my

district to attend several events and I’m going to tell you, there was a sense

of pride in my district. Through conversations with mayors, people in my

district, whether it was seniors or youth, and in particular youth, I heard

words such as proud day, the future is bright and work for youth.

I have a lot of family members that

are studying to be engineers in the engineering field. I have friends and a lot

of them said it is humbling to realize that they have been, I guess, looking at

this from a positive lens to say I’ll be ready when the work is available as an

engineer or other trades or whatever training will be there. Also, the

financial strain and drain on the province. This is a good deal. These are

words that are coming from my constituents and certainly from my friends around

me. And, finally, a good news story around Churchill Falls. That’s important.

But of course, like everybody else

from my district, there are concerns. I think the concern of the risk involved

and people are realizing that as prices go up, the escalator clause, that’s a

good thing. I think all the concerns that come from those questions is really

summed up in

Schedule F that’s been referenced so many times here over the last

several days.

Mr. Speaker, the process, the

opportunity here that’s been presented to 40 Members – and not just 40 Members,

because people in your districts are reaching out to you. You’re asking

questions on behalf of them. So this is far-reaching. This is a process that

hasn’t been done before. So we have to be proud of

that. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are proud of that, because people are

listening, and if people are not listening, they’re coming through us as a

process to get answers to questions and to ease their concerns.

The engagement of the

question-and-answer session here has been fundamental because it’s

understanding the MOU. The MOU is a starting point. I heard the MHA for Mount

Pearl - Southlands say in terms of Muskrat Falls: haunt me to the day I die.

That’s a sad statement. It is, it is, and I know he’s sincere when he says

that. We have a responsibility to not have any Member have to

repeat that again. This process is helping that. That’s a good thing.

I heard my colleague, the Minister

of Transportation and Infrastructure, talk about the honour, his journalism

years and never thought that he would be in here or we would all be here at

this juncture, is a powerful message.

Despite the Leader of the

Opposition’s assertions that’s it’s rushed, it’s not rushed. As has been

referenced before, the normal proceedings is equal, really, to two weeks of

proceedings in this House of Assembly. So it’s not rushed. This has been in the

public domain in terms of conversations and ongoings with Quebec on a possible

start of an agreement, which is the MOU.

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important,

as I listen to all Members, and I spent a lot of time in this House listening,

it’s been beneficial to me as well. I referenced some Members and the Member

for Bay of Islands, he mentioned the Voisey’s Bay deal. It is a good deal. It

was a good deal. I was in the Premier’s office when that deal was being

negotiated and being presented to the people of this province. I commend him

for bringing it up because it is a good deal. It continues to be a good deal

for the people of the province.

He also talked about the process. He

said last night that this is the first time that this much information has been

forwarded to all Members. So that goes to the credibility of this process.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good starting

point. I could say deal but it’s not. The MOU is the structure of the getting,

hopefully, towards definitive agreements and a deal for the people of the

province. It’s not burdening the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador as was

the case with Muskrat Falls. That’s important because that’s on the minds of

people in this province because that should never have happened.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of MHA

responsibility, but I’ve held three Cabinet posts in terms of TI, FFA, now

DGSNL, we all know what more financial capacity will do for the province and

certainly the departments which, ultimately, will benefit Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of hydro

development, in my district we have Bay d’Espoir that provides power to this

province, a very vital part of the province. We are looking forward to the

potential development for more in Bay d’Espoir, what’s being referred to as

Unit 8.

Mr. Speaker, even that piece of

development, even from a district perspective, people have questions and I

commend the leadership of Hydro because they’ve already recognized that, that

there are questions. They’ve been down there for public meetings and that will

continue because it’s important. What will it mean for even local areas? Even

though it’s a public resource, it benefits all of Newfoundland and Labrador. I

commend them for taking that direction because it’s important. It’s on a

smaller scale as here, but the importance is of the same level. I commend the

leadership of Hydro for that.

Mr. Speaker, if I can go to the MOU.

We’ve heard it. Power Advisory have stated: The time is right, supply need,

good first step and both sides motivated, Mr. Speaker, is the recipe and

foundation towards an agreement to better all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I stress these words as well: The

MOU is going to have a generational – it’s beginning, hopefully, a deal –

generational impact on the growth and prosperity of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Very important words, because it’s generational. There’s been references made

to the kindergarten students that are now in kindergarten, they’ll be

kindergarten then. So it’s generational.

In terms of facts, in terms of

numbers, this has the potential for billions and billions of revenue to

Newfoundland and Labrador Treasury. Mr. Speaker, we have learned from the past,

it’s evident here over the last four days.

I will end with a couple of

questions for the panel, and I know it’s been referred to, the deal for

Newfoundland and Labrador meaning more jobs, more flexibility. People have

asked, you know, the money will help with health care, education, infrastructure

and public debt, very important. I know it’s important to the Finance Minister.

But, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the

economic benefits for Churchill Falls – the community of Churchill Falls,

Labrador, the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador – it’s not just the

construction jobs and what the case may be, but it’s housing, it’s benefits for

real estate, it is huge, and the restaurants. The benefits are infinite and

that’s a good thing.

My first question is in terms of

jobs. I know there’s been some reference around the numbers and clarity is

important. We’ve talked about Muskrat Falls, there was upwards of 5,000 jobs at

one point through it all, and that’s one megaproject. This is megaprojects, no

doubt.

I ask for a simplistic vision of

what the jobs will be. I know the Member across, before me, talked about it as

well. But in terms of the engineering piece, just give us any insight on what

jobs there will be available for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and beyond.

SPEAKER: The Chief

Executive Officer for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I’m just going to open

up some notes that I have, if that’s okay. As I’m gathering that, I just

want to also pick up on some of the conversation earlier as it relates to jobs

and the domino effect that we have talked a little bit about – I might ask a

colleague to open up the slide for me in this one that

just shows some of the types of jobs that indeed will arise.

I just want to, again, go back to

the domino effect of the access to power. Right now, we have discussed, earlier

the week, that the access to power has prevented us from expanding in Labrador.

It’s pretty exciting to be able to eventually and,

please God, not too much more of a long time be able to say yes to these

companies who want to come here and make a viable expansion of their assets.

If you go back to the PERT report

that it gets referred to, the Economic Recovery Team report – and I pulled it

up here because it’s something that I reference because I do know about the

significant benefit, for example, of mining.

In here – it’s in Table 3.1 of the

PERT report – it talks about job multipliers for selected industries. For every

job in iron ore mining and it’s contained here – the source is Statistics

Canada. So for every job that’s in mining, you get 2.6 more jobs. So for our

province to be able to have access to power – basically, again, being able to

say yes to some of these companies essentially now will, very soon, once we get

through definitive agreements, they then can firm up their plans and we will be

getting 2.6 times jobs for every one job that they create throughout the

province.

So that is a phenomenal economic

opportunity that has not been quantified and included in the numbers that we’ve

been talking about. There is early quantification but it’s just astounding. So

I just wanted to get that out there because I don’t think we’re talking about

that enough. I think certainly some of the Members are very aware of it but 2.6

jobs in iron ore for every job that is directly in iron ore.

In the public briefings that were

going on for a number of folks, we did list the kinds

of positions that we would see as being in high demand. For example, equipment

operators, carpenters, electricians, crane operators, line workers, office

workers and accommodations workers. You will have engineers. You will have to

have accountants, safety professionals and environmental professionals. You

will have to have folks who drive heavy equipment, delivering of equipment.

There will be so many

different kinds of jobs and skills that will be required. There are so

many opportunities for folks to avail of whatever their skills, talent and

interest is. It is really important that we start

talking about that now and start preparing for it now.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you for that answer because I

believe it’s important for the people of my district, especially in the rural

parts of the province who go out west on rotational that now there could be an

opportunity for them and that’s a good thing.

I’ll end there, thank you all for

this opportunity. It’s a privilege and an honour and a historical day to be

part of this process.

Thank you.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Next speaker.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you,

Speaker.

First of all , I do want to

thank all the, I guess, expert witnesses for coming in over the last number of

days and thank you for your input. I have learned something. Actually,

I’ve learned more than I thought I would from this, which is all good.

I want to say we’ve gotten hundreds

of questions and I want to thank our staff because we funnel those questions to

them and they were able to categorize them and get them out to our selected

speakers, due to their critic roles. I think most questions are answered so you

won’t get a lot of repetition from me.

I have to say, when I heard the

announcement, it’s a wow moment; I’m not denying that it’s a wow moment. We

have done something with this agreement – I know you’re all waiting for the but

– but as you look at it, it’s great news. It’s a serious issue that you really have to delve into and make sure it’s the right deal, it’s

the best deal. We all talked about our families and our futures and doing the

best things for them, and we all have our immediate family, but as an elected

official I have a much larger family. I have the residents of Topsail -

Paradise and we all collectively have the residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador, not just those living here, those away who want to come home.

It's a big undertaking. I think, in

describing this week I would describe it as heavy because you don’t want to

make the mistakes we made in the past, we don’t. We want to do the best. I’m

elected to come up with the best I can for the people I support, that’s why I’m

here and I would suspect that’s why everyone is here.

Some of the questions I got that

came out when people started looking at it and asking – one view was anything

is better than the ’69 agreement. We had questions like why 50 years? Why now?

Why the rush? Is this the best deal? And they went on and on and on.

I just want to be crystal clear here

– as crystal clear as I can be – I want the best deal for Newfoundland and

Labrador, and I want to be comfortable in saying so. So I took a lot of notes.

I sat here and I took a lot of notes. I’ve got pages and pages of notes on

different things. I want the confidence in my vote that it is as well informed

as it can be and that I’m voting the right way. That’s what we’re here for.

I do want to go talk about why the

rush because it all folds into the one ask that we have for an independent

review of the MOU. Earlier in the week there were comments or suggestions that

if we don’t go ahead with this, the asset would be stranded, and Quebec would

go elsewhere. I guess those are possibilities, but when I listen to

Newfoundland Hydro and some of the comments they made, they said: Quebec has a

need. Quebec needs double the capacity. Quebec needs to plan now, and it will

take 10 to 15 years to happen.

Power Advisory said similar: Quebec

needs power and more. Quebec needs it in a very urgent way. Quebec has been

very public about their energy needs. That’s Power Advisory. Other comments

that were made, again Power Advisory in this particular

instance : Quebec needs a lot of energy supply. The demand and growth in

Quebec is being driven by electrification and industry. Quebec is one of the

leaders in electrification in vehicles. Demand is more urgent in Quebec. This

was the comment that stuck to me: They want to be the battery for Eastern

Canada, US and they want to be in a position to fully

supply themselves. Quebec needs supply urgently.

Those are notes from what I took

this week, some of them, so that gives me, certainly the impression, and I

guess, the confidence that this project, and I speak in this case of Gull

Island and the attachments, will go ahead. That’s what I read out of this.

That’s what I read out of this, right?

And then there were comments about

why rush? Why try and put this MOU through like it is? Why can’t we get a month

or two, get someone to look at the MOU and say definitively – and I mean

someone independent of the process, and we have not gotten a clear answer on

that. I think that’s a very simple request to a very, very important stage in

this province and our future.

Power Advisory has indicated, they

said: Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are in the best position they have ever

been with regard to bargaining. My question I wrote

there was: Would we not want to optimize our bargaining position?

When I look at the timing of this

and I look at the discussion – again, as I said, there are many issues that we

could be talking about, but this is the one where I want to be ultra, ultra

confident in my vote here and that we are getting the best deal.

I will say, in listening throughout

the week, that very few times, if any, did I ever hear: This is the best deal.

I heard fair deal; I heard good deal. Last night, J.P. Morgan said very good

deal financially. But we all know there are so many socio-economic impacts and

benefits to this deal, but I want to hear definitively: This is the best MOU

going forward.

I did hear this morning, Hydro

mentioned about maximization, this is probably the best for maximization, but I

would like to hear it from an independent review on that. I’m not in any way

questioning the expertise of those who have spoken here today.

We’ve heard all the questions, there

has been lots of questions asked here and very good answers, still some grey

areas, and the more you sit down here and the more you listen to questions and

responses, something else clicks.

I think of the Member across talking

about squeezing oranges. Well, my comment would be: B’y, I don’t pick the first

orange. I check them all out before I look at them. So I want to know, this

orange that we have, is it the best orange? I don’t know.

Anyway, just leading up, last night

when there were questions around cost overruns and insulation from cost

overruns, J.P. Morgan responded and queued a question that I have now. It’s

probably one – well, I’m sure it’s one that has not been asked. Hydro-Québec

start the project, they start Gull Island, all guns blazing, and for whatever

reason they have to stop it. They can’t do it; they

can’t go anymore along. What happens at that point in time, if Hydro-Québec

cannot proceed with a project they’ve already started?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Just a second.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank

you for the question.

In our view, a situation where – so

I’ll take you a little further with the question – is that it started. Let’s

say they get two years into it and they say, you know what, for whatever

reason, they’re not going to finish it. Because I think your question said what

if they stop, but I infer that to be, and they don’t intend to finish. That is

contemplated from an exclusivity perspective, that their exclusivity for the

project ends and then we could in theory the next day say, okay, option number

two, we now can pursue completing this project with you.

That is the kind of scenario that

will be contemplated through the course of the definitive agreements, but it is

essentially the same as if they have said they have said we’re not doing it,

which is contemplated in the actual MOU. If they would have reasons where they

would stop doing it, then exclusivity ends. That is very, very clear.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: One last question.

So it’s stopped. Someone has to take over the financial obligation of completing that

project. It would be, from what I understand, CF(L)Co or whoever would have to

take over the financial obligation. It reminds me of a recent project that ran

over and we had the financial obligation.

If that project stops midstream and

Hydro-Québec are not going to complete it, and you talk about options, some of

those are it may not be completed, and others are someone’s going to be stuck

with a hefty bill. Am I correct in that?

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you very

much.

I guess a couple of pieces there. It

is obviously an extreme example, but I understand the reason why you’re asking

it. I will underline that they are indeed paying our equity so there hasn’t

been any of the financial risk associated with that at the outset. All of the

costs, they have to include in their Power Purchase Agreement for their

ratepayers, but there’s a completion guarantee that they have to essentially

complete the project or their ratepayers are on the

hook for it. So that is indeed contemplated in the MOU and will be, I guess,

further enshrined throughout the definitive agreements.

My colleague has indeed found the

clause for me. He’s a great help. Remember I said there are 1,500 of them –

this is demonstrating more of his work.

So 2.3 (

l) on page 7 and I’ll read

it out for the benefit of folks: “To the extent required, (

i) HQ shall provide any completion guarantee relating to the completion of the CF

Expansion Project, the Gull Island Project and the QC Transmission Assets and

(ii) NLH shall provide a completion guarantee relating to the completion of the

NL Transmission Assets.”

So there’s a completion guarantee

for 80 per cent, 85 per cent of the $33 billion that they intend to spend to

execute these projects. So they are taking a lot of risk here and really

ensuring that their ratepayers are going to be on the hook for that scenario.

SPEAKER: Does the Member

have leave to follow-up with a question?

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave is good.

The hon. the Member for Topsail -

Paradise.

P. DINN: So I just want to confirm – and I thank you for that – there’s always

that possibility, guarantee or not, that they could pull out of that and the

bank takes back the asset.

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer.

J. WILLIAMS: I guess how they plan on providing that financial guarantee with their

financers, that would be up to them to manage that risk. Their ratepayers,

Quebec, will be on the hook for that financial risk as is very clearly

contemplated in that clause that I just read out to the House.

SPEAKER: The Member’s time has expired.

The hon.

the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Speaker.

I will start by saying that as the

MHA for the District of Placentia - St. Mary’s and given what I have heard

here, read and been briefed on, the evidence that is in front of me now, I

believe that we should move forward and vote to adopt this MOU.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

GAMBIN-WALSH: I am here as a representative of the people who

elected me and I swore to maintain their best interests. This is in their best

interest.

Speaker, it takes courage to make

tough decisions –

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

GAMBIN-WALSH: – t hose decisions, on behalf of the

people that you represent.

On December 12, 2024, Newfoundland

and Labrador and Quebec signed a historic MOU to terminate and replace the 1969

Upper Churchill contract and develop new capacity on the Churchill River

including Gull Island. This is a complex memorandum of understanding; a

document with outlined intent that contains expectations and intentions.

Like my colleagues, I have gone

through it multiple times. Within the framework of this MOU, I am convinced

that we did get a good deal. It clearly indicates a commitment to work together

in good faith. It will be used to facilitate communication and resolve conflict

and it will be used to help reduce disputes as the two parties work together

for the betterment of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is opportunity for employment,

for jobs, Mr. Speaker. My late father worked on the Churchill River. Times were

different then. There was no such thing as fly-in, fly out. He left when my

brother was an infant and returned when my brother could walk. We now have hope

that our children can return to Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a representative of the people, I

am comfortable in saying that this is a good deal; that this is the best

opportunity for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As the MHA for the District of

Placentia - St. Mary’s, I think about the positive benefits to the local area,

to Labrador, to the area that is going to host this project and then the province as a whole . Argentia and the West White Rose

Project and the value that particular project has

provided to the Island is top of mind for me. With the West White Rose Project

came people, qualified people to perform the jobs. There was an increased

footprint in the Placentia area and this enhanced infrastructure development

for that area. As I speak here today, there’s a project going on in the

community of Dunville that’s valued at over $7 million.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador sought extensive expert inputs over

the past several years in working toward the MOU signed on December 12. They

will continue to do so while working towards definitive agreements.

Learning from the lessons of the

past, I want my constituents to know that independent experts have been engaged

throughout this process and will continue to be engaged, unlike some projects

of the past. It has been said that this is a sudden decision and I firmly say

that it is not. I would just give a few examples of why I say that, Mr.

Speaker.

A media release dated July 1, 2022 –

2½ years ago – was released by this government and it signaled that a team had

been given the mandate of undertaking a detailed analysis of the hydroelectric

opportunities that exist on the Churchill River. In 2022, this government

signalled that they had started to work on this valuable Newfoundland and

Labrador resource.

As recommended by the Muskrat Falls

Commission of Inquiry, this government appointed the Churchill River Management

Expert Panel. This government created a negotiating team. The Premier has said

over and over that this government will continue to engage outside experts as

we move forward in this transformative process and we will institute

independent experts that will provide advice to Cabinet on negotiations. That

was confirmed this morning, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

GAMBIN-WALSH: This government brought the MOU to the House of

Assembly for an extraordinary session and definitive agreements will also be

brought back to the Legislature. As the MHA for the District of Placentia - St.

Mary’s, I, as their representative, will be voting in favour of moving forward

with this MOU.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, I thank the experts from Newfoundland Hydro

for their guidance. But I would like to ask them two questions, just on behalf

of my constituents in Placentia - St. Mary’s.

Do you feel that Newfoundland Hydro

and the provincial government is well positioned to finalize this agreement and

to provide the necessary project oversight?

SPEAKER: The Chief

Executive Officer for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I feel we are well positioned

to bring this over the line. I do believe that we’ve got to get started. I need

to say that very clearly: We have to get started.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

GAMBIN-WALSH: One more question, Mr. Speaker.

In your opinion, what level of risk

does this deal have for Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER: The Chief

Executive Officer for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

I’ve said this a few times, and this

is very much a lessons-learned MOU. That was a very fundamental approach that

we took from the beginning of this process and in line with the advice that

proceeded the starting of the negotiations, we always intended to de-risk as

much as is absolutely possible the issues that

occurred in the past.

Everything has risk – everything has

risk – and I am not going to suggest at all that there’s no risk. However, for

the kinds of histories that we’ve had and for what we can envision can happen

in the future, we have done everything possible to de-risk, within our control,

the kinds of risks that can happen into the future.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you,

Speaker.

Sorry, I was too busy having a great

conversation with the Opposition House Leader there, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Premier,

that this House do now recess until 1 o’clock.

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 would just like

to welcome the people in our public gallery this afternoon and our special

guests on the Chamber floor.

Welcome.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: We’ll continue

with debate now.

The hon. the Minister Responsible

for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you,

Speaker.

It certainly is an honour and great

privilege to speak to this historic debate. I guess when we closed the House of

Assembly and we stood in our places and we sang the Odes, we didn’t realize

that we would be back so soon. Actually, back on the

Twelfth Day of Christmas, on Old Christmas Day.

Speaker, I appreciate the time to

speak to this historic agreement in this House of Assembly. I also want to

extend my gratitude and thanks to our panel, to the folks to NL Hydro and all of the independent experts. I mean, we’ve had experts of

great calibre come on the floor of the House of Assembly. This has never

happened before. This is unprecedented, the information and the transparency

that we’ve seen demonstrated here, of course, ultimately led by our Premier,

who I consider to be a great visionary.

I was excited to see the details of

the MOU and to see so clearly that this is a path forward and a path toward

more revenue for our province’s Treasury, more jobs for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians for decades into the future and more opportunity for economic

growth and development. Of course, we certainly deserve that here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that we have the best ingredients in the

entire world to have an amazing, abundant province.

As the MHA for the strong District

of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, I am also very proud to be part of the team

that is bringing them this new deal. The facts are clear. Newfoundland and

Labrador will benefit greatly from this MOU. We will immediately gain

significantly more money for our province from our valuable natural resources

and with everything that goes along with it. As Minister Responsible for Women

and Gender Equality, I look forward to exploring how we can make life better

for all members of our communities with the extra billions and billions of

dollars our province will get through this MOU.

Also, being Minister Responsible for

Women and Gender Equality, it’s important to mark and celebrate the milestones

and I would like to congratulate the president, Jennifer Williams. She’s the

first woman to hold such a prestigious position –

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PARSONS: – for NL Hydro and Nalcor prior to that. This is historic to see a strong

woman at the helm. So I commend her. Not only is she inspiring to the Members

here, but to the young women and the young people that are watching from home,

because people are tuned in to this historic debate.

Some

people would say that a good deal requires settling the scores of the past. We

know what was done back years and years ago, decades ago and the relationship

and the history with Quebec but from what I hear from my constituents and the

feedback that I received over the Christmas holidays, that our Premier has the ability to negotiate. That’s what it’s about. As

opposed to thumbing our nose or just for spite saying, no, just because of the

years gone by, that does not benefit our current residents and certainly not

our future generations.

This new

agreement does not allow automatic renewal. The new agreement contains

escalator mechanisms, prices are not fixed and will continue to rise with market

prices over the life of the agreement. There will be a modern stakeholders’

agreement. We will finally get fair value for our province after five decades

of inequity. New pricing for Churchill Falls is not conditional on the new

projects proceeding and ownership of CF(L)Co stays the same at 65.8 per cent

for Newfoundland and Labrador and 34.2 per cent for Quebec.

Of course, when the rest of the

benefits of the MOU to Newfoundland and Labrador, like the $3.5 billion

optional payment from Hydro-Québec, the fact that they bear the construction

risks and that we will have access to four times the power in Labrador than we

do today, are considered together, it is clear that this

is a great deal for our province. I mean, just imagine that, Speaker, billions

and billions to come to this province.

We know, based on court proceedings,

the Supreme Court has deemed that Quebec does need to pay this money to this

province. For every moment that this debate is held up or this MOU is held up,

it’s about $2,000 a minute that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not

receiving –

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

P. PARSONS: Again, I ask

the Members across for the courtesy and it’s my turn to speak. I listened for

the past several days here to the conversation that has been going on.

But I want to commend –

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

P. PARSONS: Thank you for

your protection, Speaker.

It’s important to note, the Premier

announced immediately – when we gathered at The Rooms, we’re never going to

forget that day in December, when we gathered there, when we saw the Premier,

the leader of Quebec and the leaders of Hydro-Québec come to this province,

because it’s time they need what we have.

I have full confidence in our leader

that he is going to do right by the people of the province, the past, the

present and future generations. I’ve seen that. It’s evident and even the

creation of the Future Fund that this Premier has created.

So not only will this debt

servicing, which we know is certainly necessary, but also for current and

present infrastructure that is well needed and, of course, the future. That’s

what people want to see. People want to know that our future is secure.

I just want to also commend – being

a former journalist, I remember back in 2012, when an infamous deal, or

megaproject as we know as Muskrat Falls, was first talked about and introduced.

As my colleague have said here prior, the people who were in this Chamber and

debated, they were not afforded the democracy of a debate.

As a matter of fact, I remember

being in a newsroom and first learning that a new bill was going to be

introduced on the floor of the House of Assembly that actually

blocked access to information, and that bill was called Bill 29. That

bill was brought in to pass information that blocked media access to

information, I guess ATIPP and even for the general public .

That was done just prior to the passing of Muskrat Falls.

The big downfall about Muskrat Falls

is that was on the back of ratepayers of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It’s shameful.

P. PARSONS: Yes,

absolutely.

Green initiatives are what’s needed;

it’s what the world needs, it’s what the future needs, it’s what the climate

and the planet need but not on the backs of taxpayers of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That said, obviously when the new administration had taken office,

immediate work began for rate mitigation. We know that it’s an unprecedented

time, that people are struggling with the cost of living but imagine, Speaker,

if those power rates – our power rates – had doubled as they were forecasted to

do so.

And they would have if it wasn’t for

the ability of this leader and this government to negotiate rate mitigation

from Ottawa, and it’s a half a billion dollars that comes from Ottawa to

Newfoundland and Labrador to protect taxpayers from their power bills.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PARSONS: We know with

this new deal there is no risk. This is not on the backs of taxpayers. It’s an

unprecedented time in our history and everywhere I’ve gone, of course, people

want to know. They want the facts, the information; we want to make sure we’re

not going to repeat the mistakes of previous administrations of the past, and

that’s what we’re doing here today.

On that note, I do want to ask some

questions, of course, and I will address this to Newfoundland Hydro: What

direct employment opportunities for women and gender-diverse individuals will

be generated by this Churchill Falls deal?

SPEAKER: The Chief

Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you very

much.

Just a very quick personal comment

is that, yes, when I graduated from university 26 years ago, I think there was

about 30 women in my class of about a class of 130, it was a pretty good time

to graduate and I think that what we have enabled here

is an even better time to graduate with all of the opportunities.

I currently have two daughters in

university right now studying engineering so I’m super excited.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WILLIAMS: I’m very

excited for them and for all their friends that I’ve met over the years to have

these opportunities. And again, not just women or diverse genders, but also for

the men in the province as well. This is a really important point in time for

everyone to have a lot of opportunities at their fingertips.

Specifically with

regard to the obligations and the opportunities to provide for women’s

employment, it goes back to the other documents that we’ve been referencing

over the course of the week. It really does come back to the environmental

release that would’ve been done for the Lower Churchill Project. I just want to

walk folks through it with regard to the specific

documents.

The EA Bulletin , which I do

have here – which I’ve referenced, again, through the course of the week – was

dated March 15, 2012. As it relates specifically to women in that instance is

part (

i) on the second page, if you print it out,

which says “prepare a Womens ’ Employment Plan

containing measurable goals and submit it to the Women’s Policy Office for

approval at a date prescribed by the Minister Responsible for the Women’s

Policy Office.”

Having that environmental release

and then connect it to the legislation that followed, I guess, would constitute

the legal obligation. The MOU, again, constitutes you have to

meet the legal obligations with regard to hiring. After you look at the

environmental bulletin, then you follow through to – which we’ve already

referenced several times – the Lower Churchill Construction Projects

Benefits Strategy . You need a good acronym for that. Arising from that then

– sorry, actually I will reference in that – is the

Gender Equity and Diversity requirements that would’ve also been contained in

that document.

But then you go to the detail work

that was done, and that was published on February 26 of 2013. It’s 47 pages of

detailed commitments and it is applicable to Gull Island, and here’s the other

positive thing: It is also applicable to associated AC transmission in

Labrador, which is what will be under Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s

requirements to execute.

There are very significant

commitments with regard to women’s employment, heavily

detailed already. Obviously, we have the framework immediately to start working

on what is possible and what we can do our really well

best to maximize on with regard to those opportunities.

Really pleased we have that

groundwork in place.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you,

Speaker, and thank you for that answer.

What kind of partnership-building

opportunities may become available for women and gender-diverse individuals,

specifically Indigenous people? For example, employment, training,

entrepreneurship, business opportunities and support networks.

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you very

much.

Earlier this week we spoke about the

hiring protocols as it relates to the documents that I just referenced.

Certainly, Indigenous peoples are first and foremost required to be the first

qualified people to be hired. If you hire women Indigenous people, then that

would also be reflected first in the hiring protocol but would also be

reflected in the supports that we should be putting in place under the

employment strategy.

We have been working with Innu

Nation over the course of a number of months through

2024 to start the conversations around Churchill Falls 2, the second

powerhouse, that we have worked with Hydro-Québec to commit to building. And so

further opportunities for engagement, certainly consultation and engagement

with Innu Nation and others as required, we will hope to provide for even more

clarity around what those opportunities will be going forward. I think we’re

well on the way to detailing those in consultation with the groups that we have to reach out to.

I will just add one little piece, it

came up earlier; I didn’t have the opportunity to mention it, and it’s more

about just trades, generally. Before Christmas, just through the course of my

normal work, and Minister Loveless mentioned it earlier, some of the work that

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro already has in motion for building new supply

on the Island, Trades NL had reached out and I was to meet with them, to talk

about some of these opportunities. However, because this was happening, I had

to postpone that meeting, but that meeting is to be rescheduled.

We are very excited about reaching

out to the various industries, Trades NL as well in particular, and we look

forward to forming a lot of those relationships as quickly as possible to make

sure that we maximize on the benefits available to the people of the province.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you,

Speaker.

Again, if you could outline how

might Indigenous governments and organizations be supported to help develop or

provide training for cultural competency and employment opportunities.

SPEAKER: The Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you. I’m

going to ask my colleague Mr. Parsons to jump in and answer that question.

SPEAKER: The Vice-President of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

W. PARSONS: Thank you,

Speaker.

I want to talk a little bit about

how we build a pipeline of opportunities for our Indigenous partners and

Indigenous people across Labrador and across the whole province. Because it’s

not simply a matter of sort of, going to the street and hiring who you can and

looking for as many Indigenous hires as you can. You really need to start

early; you need to start at the high school level, you need to identify

candidates who are interested in working in the industry.

So that’s a reason why we,

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we were one of the founding partners of the

Labrador Aboriginal Training Partnership, which was an incredibly successful

initiative to grow the skill sets of Indigenous people in Labrador,

and was absolutely critical for us towards the building of Muskrat

Falls, and of course other industries in Labrador have benefited tremendously

from that partnership.

We intend to continue to do that.

We’ve been investing in our apprenticeship program to ensure that we bring on

Indigenous apprentices. We are seeing higher than ever Innu employment at the

Muskrat Falls site today in operation – something we are very proud of – but we

need to continue to grow that.

We recognize that is not a matter of

sort of just indicating that you want to hire more Indigenous people, you

really have to start to develop people early on, and

that’s something that we will continue to do.

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank

our team for those answers. Again, thank you for your dedication here for this

entire week, and for representing us. Because we are all stakeholders here in

this province and you are all putting your reputation and your credentials on

the line here as well. I have full confidence in what you are doing. Again,

thank you.

I also

want to give a shout-out to Mr. Parsons. I know I’m not supposed to say names,

but he is originally from Spaniard’s Bay, my hometown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PARSONS: We are very

proud of him, and I know his family are very proud of him. His expertise – I

mean, your credentials are second to none.

Again, for the independent oversight

and the calibre of experts and witnesses that we’ve seen here is unprecedented.

I am extremely proud to be part of this.

If I could, Speaker, I am going to

conclude – this is from a constituent from the great District of Harbour Grace

- Port de Grave that I am going to read into the record. I received this

message , actually, on the day that the Premier of

Quebec visited with this wonderful news, on December 12.

Hi, Pam. I’ve been watching the news

all day and I’m just seeing the CBC evening news. I am so pleased with what I

am hearing. This is incredible news for our province and, I must say, long

overdue. Premier Furey is and has been leading and

continues to lead our province. Good job by all.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PARSONS: The future is

bright here, Speaker. Again, I want to thank everybody. I encourage my

colleagues across the way, be on the right side of this because our

constituents across Newfoundland and Labrador want to get on with a bright,

prosperous future for present and, of course, our future generations.

As I’ve said, with all our natural

resources, including the fishery and everything that we are discussing here

this week, we have all the ingredients to be a most powerful and abundant

jurisdiction in the world.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

J. MCKENNA: Thank you,

Speaker.

First of all , I want to

welcome the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro panel back and thank you for your

time and answering the questions that you could answer.

As an MHA for Fogo Island - Cape

Freels, I was given a mandate last spring to do the best I could in advocating

things for the district and for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in

general, as an MHA.

It’s great to see that the old

agreement of 1969 is no longer in place and we look forward to a new agreement,

which we are told is a good agreement. We’ll have to wait and see. We don’t

enough information right now to make any opinion on that as of right now.

I was only 15 years of age when that

1969 agreement was signed. At the time, everybody was hyped and thought it was

the best deal we could possibly have at that time and people were looking

forward to long-time income from it and jobs and everything else. But as time

went on, it failed us and we can’t let this happen anymore. We have to do this right.

We should not rush. I don’t think we

should have to rush through such a big agreement. It’s definitely

an honour and a privilege to be here to debate such a historic,

megaproject, but we have to get it right. We definitely have

to get this one right. We failed too many people to long in this province.

I’ve done a lot of thinking since we

came here on Monday. I have my own analysis of certain things that’s been going

on here. There have been quite a few questions on the floor. Some of them have

been answered pretty well , good and there are other

ones that it was doubtful in some of the questions when it came to jobs and

certain percentage of income from the deal, rate mitigation, you name it. There

is a lot of clarification that I have to clear in my

head, and I don’t have expertise in that field.

When the MOU came out first,

everyone was excited. I think it was on December 12, the MOU was signed, but I

do have reservations about that signage. I think that should have been brought

to this House and signed here in the presence of all 40 MHAs who govern this

province.

We all know why the rush, because I

can tell you now, in my opinion, if Hydro-Québec wasn’t desperate for the

energy, for the electricity, we would be still waiting for 2041. They made that

decision and they are in the driver’s seat. They brought in the exclusivity

clause and it binds us to not going out and doing anything else. They have full

control. They decide when the project starts, when the project ends, or if

they’re going to finish up all projects. To me, I totally disagree with that.

Again, I have to

go back, if it’s such a good deal then why is all the rush and why have we only

got four days in this House to debate it? Why haven’t we followed the LeBlanc

inquiry and the recommendations that he put in place and had an extra set of

eyes here? Why are we pushing this if the deal is not going to be signed until

April of 2026 – I don’t think four weeks, six weeks is going to matter. I think

this should be brought back to this House and debated right and proper with a

second set of eyes.

When you talk about jobs and you

talk about grandchildren and their children, yes. I have 10 grandchildren of my

own and I’d love nothing more for this to be a great deal. I’ll be one of the

first to applaud it. It’s jobs for them, it’s jobs for their children, as well

as other grandchildren and children throughout the province.

We need to get this right. As MHAs,

we’re obligated to the people of my district and all the districts throughout

this province.

We should be in full control of our

own resources. Newfoundland and Labrador owns all the resources. We have the

ball in our court. We should be the ones who are making the decisions, and we

should be the ones to put in the right, proper start-up costs and whatever in

place. Whatever it is that we’re going to get out of it we should make sure

that we’re going to get the right deal.

I mean, it binds us to going out and

having something else in place in case this is a failure. So

we have to sit here and wait for them to make a decision on whether they’re

going to finish the projects or not, when we could be out checking the markets

and doing our homework and seeing if we could find better deals and put them in

place.

If the deal is that good, they are

going to give us $17 billion. Well, that’s when we should have asked for that

$17 billion upfront, took that money and put it back into the Treasury of this

province, pay some of the debt and then invest it right away into health care,

education, fisheries, our seniors and anyone on a fixed income who are hurting

right now, who have to choose between a hot meal or a warm bed. We should be

increasing the home care hours so the seniors can stay in their homes and not

be driven out of their homes.

We want the best deal we can for

this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is our responsibility as MHAs

here in this House of Assembly. We cannot make the same mistake that we made

before. We have to get this right. We need time to take a look at it more closely with a second set of eyes.

I mean, when you get Hydro-Québec

coming out and saying it’s a wonderful deal, it’s a 10 out of 10 and they’re so

happy with this deal, but we don’t know how happy we are going to be or how

good this deal is going to be. I guess the only way of knowing will be history,

and it will be too late if it’s not a good deal. But we have

to make sure that it is the best deal that we can get.

So, cluing up, I have a question for

the panel. Because this is a 51-year deal, there is a non-increased risk. If,

in time, this is shown not to be future-proofed, then we are stuck with it for

51 years. Why isn’t this contract 25 years with a 25-year extension?

SPEAKER: The Chief

Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

J. WILLIAMS: Thank you,

Speaker.

I’m going to ask my colleague, Mr.

Parsons.

SPEAKER: The

Vice-President of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

W. PARSONS: Thank you,

Speaker.

It’s a really good

question. Thanks for asking. That comes up quite frequently about why the term.

You would’ve heard from Power Advisory yesterday that it was their role on the

team to analyze the alternatives that Hydro-Québec

had, for the coming decades, and analyze our alternatives. Of course, going

into any negotiation, the two most important bits of research you need to do is

understanding where you will be if you choose to go elsewhere and where your

counterparty will be if they choose to go elsewhere.

Obviously, this existing contract

with 17 years remaining for essentially free power means that Hydro-Québec

already has a 17-year contract. If we were looking at negotiating a 25-year

contract starting today, basically giving Hydro-Québec just a few more years at

the end, their willingness to pay for that would be extremely small. The power

price paid to go from a 17-year contract that’s already free, or a 25-year

contract at a new price, it’s obvious that the new price would be very, very

low.

Instead, we opted to maximize the

price, go to a contract that replaces Hydro-Québec’s other options in the

future, in some cases, drives the price to the highest possible place, but

structure it so that it moves with the market.

It’s like if you owned a home and

you were renting it out, instead of saying the price is going to be $1,500 a

month to rent this house and I’m going to have a set escalator – instead of

that we’re saying, look, if the market is the way we think the market is going

to be, then that’s the rent, but as the market changes that rent will be

updated constantly. If there is an unexpected change in the market, that means

the market went 10 per cent higher than anybody projected, then that rent that

was established as a baseline also moves up 10 per cent.

I think we’ve captured the best of

both worlds. We’ve maximized the value by getting a long-term contract, which

is obviously what maximized the value of the asset, but we’ve made it adaptable

so that it always stays with the market instead of it’s based on a historical

price.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Member’s time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Labrador

West.

J. BROWN: Thank you,

Speaker.

Speaker, I’m just going to take an

opportunity to sum up some thoughts I had over the last number of days. The

first thing, I guess, is being a Labradorian and someone from a place that a

lot of people would like to go visit but they never get the opportunity to

visit, I just want to take the opportunity – our colleagues here in the House,

given all the talk about power and these assets and stuff, I think my

colleagues should really, if they have the opportunity, go see these assets.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. BROWN: Go visit

Muskrat Falls. Go see CF(L)Co and if you have an opportunity, go see the

abandoned Twin Falls plant – the plant that actually started

this all. The plant that actually set us all down this

road is still there. It’s still out by CF(L)Co, and even visit Labrador West

and just see the power of Labrador. Not only the electrical power but just the

industrial power, it is absolutely fascinating what is up there, what is in

Labrador, what’s hidden up there, that a lot of people don’t have the

opportunity to see. It is absolutely extraordinary .

It’s been a pleasure of my entire

life to grow up in Labrador but also my entire adult life working in Labrador.

I had the opportunity to work in the mining industry and I did a bit of work

for Hydro as a supplier. To see these assets, while wearing a hard hat and

seeing parts of it, I guess, no one will ever get to see unless they’re as a

contractor there or work there, but to see it in its wholeness and how holistic

it is, how each part of the industry works with each other.

Without the heartbeat of CF(L)Co,

Labrador West couldn’t prosper. Without Labrador West, there wouldn’t be

CF(L)Co, because they all holistically work together to create the amazingness

that is the industry that is in Labrador.

I implore on my colleagues here in

the House to take the opportunity to think about it and actually

visit and see these assets and just to understand it. It doesn’t have to

take away from your position on this MOU or anyth