November 28, 2012

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 60

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start the proceedings today, the Speaker is very pleased to welcome

to our gallery some special guests. We have the Nunatsiavut Government's

President, Sarah Leo; we have the First Minister, Darryl Shiwak; we have the

Finance and Human Resources Minister, Dan Pottle; and the Speaker of the

Nunatsiavut Assembly, Patricia Ford.

Welcome to our Assembly, and welcome to the Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I remind members that as they observe our proceedings today,

we should be a model Assembly for them to emanate when they go back to Labrador.

The bar has been raised for today.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from: the Member for the

District of St. John's South; the Member for the District of Burgeo La Poile;

the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the Member for the District of

Bellevue; the Member for the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune; and the

Member for the District of Baie Verte Springdale.

The Member for the District of St. John's South.

MR. BENNETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe, rising on a point of

order.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, two days ago I presented a petition and that petition was signed

off on in June. Back in June, the former Government House Leader had a practice

of calling Orders of the Day, and petitions could not be presented when Orders

of the Day were called.

Yesterday after I left, because I attended the FFAW convention in Gander, the

issue came up as to whether the petition was accurate or not. In fact, the

petition relied exclusively on government information that was current and

accurate, as provided by the government in June when the petition was signed and

when the petition was vetted.

I understand that subsequently the funds that were awarded or approved were

not drawn down and, consequently, the funds that were actually used in Trinity

Bay de Verde were less than the amount that was awarded initially. I would like

to clarify that point.

Thank you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Member for St. John's South the member's statement.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to acknowledge Mr. Alex Street who has been bestowed the honour

of receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal for his active involvement in and

dedication to his community.

Mr. Street has served with the Engineering Division of the Canadian

Peacekeepers in Germany and is an active member of the Veterans' Association. He

was also active in his community of Black Head for several years advocating for

public safety and community improvements, including helping to save and restore

the one-bedroom building that served as the schoolhouse and chapel for

generations.

I ask all members of the House to join me in offering Alex Street

congratulations on the receipt of this award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Bill Waechter and the staff of

Canadian Tire in Port aux Basques on recently winning a national contest by

obtaining the largest national percentage of donations to the Jump Start

Program. I would also like to commend all donors to the Jump Start Program for

their tremendous support.

Canadian Tire Jump Start is a national charitable program launched by the

family of Canadian Tire companies in 2005. The program helps financially

disadvantaged children participate in organized sport and recreation by helping

cover registration, equipment, and transportation costs.

As a result of this achievement, the Town of Channel-Port aux Basques won a

day with Chicago Blackhawks Captain, Jonathan Toews on August 28. The day was

filled with many festivities and ended with Jonathan presenting the town with a

$10,000 check to match funds contributed from the Jump Start Program.

I was privileged to be included in the celebration and I can truly say it was

a very exciting day for the staff of Canadian Tire, local residents, and those

who travelled from across the entire Province, as well as the Member for Humber

West.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the

hard work of the staff of the Port aux Basques Canadian Tire and their generous

customers in obtaining this national recognition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

congratulate the Town of Flatrock for winning the 2012 Tidy Towns award for

their category. The town also won the Torngat award for sharing services with

other towns.

Mr. Speaker, the Town of Flatrock takes great pride in their community. This

was a joint effort between the town council and its residents. Tidy Towns is not

an easy award to win. The town had to meet many criteria; however, I knew it was

only a matter of time that this town would be a winner. It is a beautiful

community that I am proud to call home.

The Torngat award that the town received was for innovation and regional

co-operation. The Town of Flatrock works well with its neighbouring towns,

sharing such services as firefighting and animal control with the Town of

Torbay. It shares recreation and many other initiatives with the Town of Pouch

Cove and Bauline.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members in this House to join with me in

congratulating Mayor Kevin Butt and his council and the residents of Flatrock

for winning this award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Bellevue.

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize Mr. Robert Snook. This year, on

October 3, Robert was presented with a 2012 Seniors of Distinction Award. He was

one of eight recipients in the Province.

Mayor Snook has served as a volunteer on many committees, some of which are:

the Eastern Regional Health and Community Services Board; church lay reader;

parish council member; three terms on the Sunnyside Town Council, and Mayor

since 2009; founder of the Come by Chance Oil Refinery Liaison Committee; Member

of the Selection Committee for Memorial University's School of Medicine; and

Member of the Truce Sound Committee.

Achievements during his time on council include: Sunnyside being named as top

fundraiser for towns with a population of less than 500 in the Mayors March for

Heart and Stroke; helping negotiate a grant in lieu of taxes with ExxonMobil for

the Hebron construction project at Bull Arm; advocating in securing provincial

funding for the construction of an overpass on the TCH for safer access; help

organize the 400 anniversary events held in August, 2012, commemorating John

Guy's meeting with the Beothuk.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Robert Snook for receiving a

2012 Seniors of Distinction Award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay Cape

La Hune.

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to congratulate recipients of the Provincial Historic Commemorations

Program from my District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune. It is an honour to

recognize Mr. John Nick Jeddore, an elder of Miawpukek Mi'Kmaq Mawi'omi, the

Conne River Band Council, as a Tradition Bearer under the Provincial Historic

Commemorations Program.

Mr. Jeddore has an incredible knowledge of the traditional skills of his

people; especially aspects that may be rare or in danger of being lost. He has

worked tirelessly to teach and keep traditions of the Mi'Kmaq culture alive and

relevant.

Resettlement was also commemorated as an event of provincial significance

which influenced the history of Newfoundland and Labrador and continues to evoke

a strong emotional response decades after the program has ended.

Thanks to Mr. Doug Wells and the Elliot Premises Management Committee for

highlighting this significant event that has found such great expression in the

cultural output of the Province's artistic community and residents.

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing resettlement and Mr. John

Nick Jeddore for their contribution toward making this Province truly unique.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte Springdale.

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Valmont Academy Boys soccer team had a great kick on the weekend of October

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate coach and teacher sponsor,

Stephen Earle, and the Vikings Boys soccer team for capturing the schools sports

provincial championship that was hosted by St. Joseph's Academy, Lamaline.

Members of the victorious team include: Kyle Burt, Daniel Thomas, Philip

Norman, Cody Caines, Jonny Janes, Drake Noble, Skyler Budgell, Brandon Burt,

Matthew Burt, and Brenden Keats.

Valmont Academy went undefeated in the six team tournament, outscoring their

opponents 26-2. They soundly defeated host school, St. Joseph's Academy in the

championship game by a score of 5-0.

All players contributed, commented Coach Stephen Earle. Furthermore, Philip

Norman was awarded the most sports minded medal.

With great pride, I invite all hon. members to join me in offering

congratulations to Valmont Academy for yet another outstanding achievement in

their athletic program and wish them well in their quest for excellence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, since the implementation of the Provincial

Solid Waste Management Strategy in 2007 there has been a number of success

stories. Most recently, I was pleased to participate in the official opening of

the Central Newfoundland Waste Management Facility, and in the Western Region

the waste management plan is well in progress, including the closure of several

dump sites.

In August, Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's Curb It recycling program won

the 2012 Gold Communication Excellence Award given by the Solid Waste

Association of North America. This association's excellence award program

recognizes outstanding solid waste programs and facilities that advance the

practice of environmentally- and economically-sound solid waste management. They

look for a commitment to using effective technologies and processes in system

design and operations, advancing worker and community health and safety, and

implementing successful public education and outreach programs.

Mr. Speaker, this award was well-deserved. Since the implementation of the

program, the city has achieved a participation rate of more than 70 per cent in

its first year alone, far exceeding their target of 40 per cent. The program has

diverted more than 8 million pounds of recyclables from the landfill in its

first year.

The Curb It program certainly meets the goals of the Provincial Solid Waste

Management Strategy. In addition to reducing the amount of materials in

provincial landfill sites by 50 per cent, the strategy encourages residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador to participate in waste diversion programs such as

recycling and composting. The strategy also aims to reduce the total number of

waste disposal sites by 80 per cent, eliminate open burning of waste at disposal

sites, and phase out incinerators and unlined landfills.

Mr. Speaker, full implementation of the strategy is on target for 2020. A

total of $145.3 million has been invested in the strategy in the Province, $82.8

million of the provincial government, and $62.5 million from Gas Tax funding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members to join me in congratulating the City of St.

John's on this prestigious award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the Ministerial Statement. I,

too, and people on this side also would like to congratulate St. John's on

winning this award, Mr. Speaker.

The better part about it, I am just so glad that the government is following

this Solid Waste Management plan that the Liberal government put in, in 2003. I

just congratulate the government for following on a good plan.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our environment is very important to all of us

in this House of Assembly and everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Anything that we can do to improve the environment is better for all

of us as citizens. This recycling program, Mr. Speaker, may be able to be a

great model for all communities across the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and St. John's may be a leader in this.

I say to the minister, I read in your statement that Western Newfoundland may

be well on its way. I say to the minister, there is a lot of work to be done

yet. I ask the minister to send officials out.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget Labrador in solid waste management. We

must develop a policy for Labrador also, so that all the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador will become more friendly towards our environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. I would also like to thank the City of St. John's on this prestigious

award.

It says a lot about investing in environmentally sound projects that have a

positive way on people's way of thinking their healthy way of life. The Curb-It

program is but one example. The practices of environmental stewardship can be

rewarding and they also have an impact with the proper investment of funds as

the City of St. John's has shown.

The practice of environmental stewardship is also becoming a major employer

worldwide, and hence the government's investment into waste management and

Province-wide recycling must continue. As well, the investment it will take to

mitigate extra costs to the environment should also include measures to put a

stop to illegal dumping. I would remind the government that we simply cannot

afford not to address this. It was a government promise to the municipalities

that they would also get the help to address it.

Saving our environment comes with a cost any time that we do invest. If we do

not, then there is also that added cost. Again, my congratulations to the city

for this award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Nunatsiavut Government made several submissions to the Joint Review Panel

regarding the environmental assessment of Lake Melville. The Joint Review Panel

in the report agreed that Nunatsiavut had recommended an environmental

assessment of Lake Melville.

I ask the Premier: Why are you ignoring the recommendations of the Joint

Review Panel and neglecting the health concerns of the Labrador Inuit?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

There has been extensive consultation with the Nunatsiavut Government. Mr.

Speaker, I can say that in my various portfolios I have always had a good

relationship with the Nunatsiavut Government. The Premier has met with their new

President and has had discussions. They had the opportunity to present to the

Joint Review Panel, Mr. Speaker, and there were a number of recommendations in

relation to the environmental assessments.

The major one, I think, that I have heard discussion of is the assessment of

downstream effects, which the federal government accepts and which did not

require action by the Province. Nalcor is monitoring and will continue to

monitor the effects of methyl mercury and, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and I

can assure the Members of the Nunatsiavut Government that our government is

committed as best we can to the protection of the environment and to the

protection of the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Well, it is interesting to hear the minister talk about

meaningful consultations, because it really speaks to and goes right to this

next question, Mr. Speaker.

The Nunatsiavut Government has sent several requests to both Nalcor and

government to engage in meaningful consultations on the Muskrat Falls

development. To date, there has been no response from Nalcor or government yet

the minister has stated that all the Aboriginal groups have been consulted.

I ask the Premier: What will it take for you to acknowledge the rights of the

Nunatsiavut Government instead of ignoring their health concerns associated with

the Muskrat Falls project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There certainly have been extensive consultations. It is my understanding

that between May and September of 2010, Nalcor had over eighty records of

engagement with Nunatsiavut representatives, Mr. Speaker. The Joint Review Panel

consulted with the Nunatsiavut Government. The Nunatsiavut Government

participated in the public hearings, Mr. Speaker. The former President Lyall

wrote our Premier on a number of occasions and the Premier responded to the

President. The new President of the Nunatsiavut Government met with the Premier

and they had a discussion.

Mr. Speaker, while there may be disagreement on certain issues, that does not

mean we have not consulted and that does not mean that the consultations are not

meaningful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the study being carried about by the Nunatsiavut

Government shows that Lake Melville is already contaminated by elevated levels

of mercury because of the Upper Churchill. Labrador-Grenfell Health has also

confirmed that mercury levels are elevated in people who eat fish caught in Lake

Melville.

Now that the minister is very open to these consultations I will ask: Will

you now admit that the possible impact of the mercury levels from Muskrat Falls

is far greater than Nalcor initially indicated? Will you now commit to working

with the Nunatsiavut Government on furthering their research?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we have indicated publicly, a major reason for doing Muskrat Falls are the

environmental benefits of this project: the use of clean, green renewable

energy. The Upper Churchill, for example, I think took in over 5,000 square

kilometres of flooding. The environmental footprint of Muskrat Falls, I think

altogether, is about 110 kilometres or 120 kilometres.

There is no question that there are effects of methylmercury. They are

unfortunately one of the problems with flooding; however, I understand that

consumption advisories are a key mitigation measure for increases in

methylmercury concentration.

Nalcor has committed to a human health risk assessment, as well as monitoring

fish and seal health in Goose Bay, Lake Melville, and throughout the Lower

Churchill system. Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about all of these issues

and we will continue to work on them, as will Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Minister of Environment and Conservation admitted that there

will be significant environmental impacts in Lake Melville as a result of

Muskrat Falls. He further stated, Mr. Speaker, that Canada's health guidelines

on mercury consumption will have to be applied.

I ask the minister: Now that you have admitted that there will be negative

effects, will you now consult with Nunatsiavut Government as required by the

Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question as found by the Joint Review Panel that

there are adverse effects of methylmercury. That unfortunately comes with the

flooding. It cannot be eliminated, but it can be monitored and Nalcor is

committed to the monitoring.

Mr. Speaker, one point I do need to make clear is that the dam and the

transmission link are outside the Labrador Inuit claims settlement area. They

are in the zone in which they have certain rights, but they are not within the

land claims area as indicated by the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, transport of mercury from the Churchill River

has been shown to extend along Lake Melville into the Labrador Inuit Settlement

Area. Nunatsiavut Government research also suggests that increased mercury

levels will result from flooding in the Muskrat Falls Project.

I ask the minister: Will you acknowledge the direct connection between

mercury levels in the Churchill River and the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area now

that the Nunatsiavut Government has data proving the impact of these

concentrations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there were at least five or six recommendations of the Joint

Review Panel which relate to this kind of issue. There are six recommendations

6.4 up to approximately 6.9. The assessment of downstream effects, Mr. Speaker,

is one that the federal government has accepted and there is a plan outlined

there as to how that will be dealt with; 6.8, Mr. Speaker, deals with the

published analysis of downstream effects over time, which our government accepts

in intent. Some of these recommendations in relation to methylmercury and the

downstream effects are in the hands of the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor has committed to working with the people, to doing a human health risk

assessment, and to continue to monitor the effects of methylmercury. Again, I

must repeat, Mr. Speaker, that these lands in which the dam and the transmission

are being built are not within the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Settlement Area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to remind the minister as he speaks here that you cannot just ignore

everything that is going on in all of Lake Melville when we talk about the

benefits in other parts of the Province. The people in Labrador, and in

particular the Labrador Inuit, are raising those concerns and we need to listen

to them.

Mr. Speaker, presenting accurate information in this House is expected. Both

last week and this week the Premier stated that the Public Utilities Board

endorsed her Muskrat Falls Project. We all know this is not an accurate

statement.

I ask the Premier: The PUB has been clearly critical of the Muskrat Falls

Project and did not endorse this project, so why are you presenting inaccurate

information to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, words are important. They really are. That is why we recommend

that parties opposite read these reports they are referring to.

Mr. Speaker, what the Public Utilities Board said was they concurred with

Nalcor and MHI based on Decision Gate 2 numbers that Muskrat Falls was the

least-cost alternative for ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no

ambivalence about it in the report, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what it says

and that is what I said here earlier this week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I have read the documents. I have read them all. I would ask

the Premier to go to the executive

summary, page 4, second paragraph, easy to

read, and you will find out exactly what I am raising here.

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise the Premier is releasing inaccurate

information. It is what her government has repeatedly done on Muskrat Falls. For

example, the Maritime Link from Nova Scotia: this privately-held link from Nova

Scotia was once publicly stated to go as far as Bottom Brook on the West Coast.

Well, newly released maps show otherwise.

I ask the Premier: Will the Maritime Link, which is owned 100 per cent by

Emera, actually go all the way to Granite Canal in Central Newfoundland, which

is halfway across this Island?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I am not aware of any changes in the plans for the Maritime Link or the

Labrador-Island Transmission Link in terms of from Decision Gate 2 to Decision

Gate 3. The maps have always been clear, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know whether the member opposite is referring to other lines that

are being built, but there is no question, the maps from day one have shown

which way the link was going to go, Mr. Speaker. For 20 per cent of the energy,

Emera pays 20 per cent of the cost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL: I would like for the minister to clarify, where is the link

going, because your map showing the Gull Island Development shows that the

Bottom Brook still does. The householder takes it into Granite Canal. We have

asked Nalcor this question and they are saying yes to Granite Canal.

Will you please confirm: Is the Maritime Link, owned by Emera, going to

Granite Canal or is it stopping at Bottom Brook?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the member opposite met with Nalcor a few weeks ago, the questions

were answered by Nalcor. I am not aware of any changes, but let me correct one

point that the member opposite said, Mr. Speaker. One of the benefits of this

deal with Emera is that thirty-five years from now we will own that link. It is

not a matter, Mr. Speaker, of Emera owning the link. Essentially, what they will

do, we will give them a certain amount of power and we will own the link, Mr.

Speaker. In other words, Nova Scotia is paying for us to own a billion dollar

asset.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, in a December, 2009 news release, government said

that exterior renovations for the Confederation Building would cost $20 million.

In November, 2010, they let a contract for $34.3 million. Yesterday, in Question

Period, the minister confirmed that costs were over $50 million. That is 150 per

cent over your original budget.

I ask the minister: How could your budget process be so wrong, and how can

you be 150 per cent over your original budget?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, and tell the hon. members of the

House, what is wrong here is the information that the hon. member is trying to

say existed in a December, 2009 release. What the 2009 release said is that the

total cost of the project is expected to exceed $20 million. We were quite

clear, Mr. Speaker, in saying that the cost was going to be greater than $20

million. For the hon. member opposite to suggest we said it was going to be $20

million is completely wrong, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that there was more work to

be done once they opened the envelope; however, the news release at the time

stated that the $34.3 million would cover the cost of the window replacements,

the roof repair, and the brickwork. The same thing that you said was the cost

overrun.

I ask the minister: If all those things were taken into consideration in

2010, why are you still 150 per cent over budget? When is the expected

completion date, and what is the final cost of this project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the hon. member has given me an opportunity to further explain some

of the details that he is failing to deliver on.

One of the significant differences when you go into a renovation project,

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the costs can be much greater than someone would expect

it to be. It is not like new construction, you are going into what you sometimes

are not fully aware of what is inside. What happened, Mr. Speaker, is that early

on we thought the small amount for the limestone that encases the windows would

have to be replaced, it turned out that almost 100 per cent of limestone needed

to be replaced and that escalated our cost.

I can remind the hon. member that there are lots of times in history that we

were not sure of what you were going to get into until you got at the job. A

good example would be Hull 100 , now the Nonia . Look at how much

money we had to spend to retrofit that ferry and get that operational for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Minister, the government can predict the $8 billion project on

Muskrat Falls. Mr. Speaker, the Immigrant Investor Fund totalled $238 million

approximately, as of March 31, 2011. The AG said we already lost $5 million on

this fund. Quebec has made $131 million on their fund. Despite a Province-wide

need to

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: economic development money, not one loan for economic

development has ever been made out of this account.

My question to the Premier: Why is this money sitting idle in the bank

accounts instead of funding economic developments in this Province and costing

our taxpayers $5 million? Someone answer it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Immigrant Investor Fund, the Province entered an agreement

with the federal government in 2005. It was renewed after five years again in

2010. That fund is for significant economic development projects. To date, there

were some reviewed but due to the vast suite of programs we have for

infrastructure, other programs were used for that.

In 2010, the Auditor General did say in lieu of not investing some of that

money we should look at other investments to make sure we are covering off the

carrying fees for the money we need to pay back. Originally, the fee was 7 per

cent; it was dropped to 5 per cent. Today, the fund is fully secure. It can meet

all its requirements. There is actually a surplus now, since 2005, of $3 million

in the fund. The fund is stable, it is there, and it is available for projects

that we identify that would suit that fund, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, we have information that government may use this fund to pay for

Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I ask the Premier: Is your government considering using this

fund for Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, the fund is there, $256 million; the fees to

pay back the

schedule is already required and paid back in the six years; that

process is underway. The fund is there. As projects come forward and are

recommended by various departments, they will be looked at, and overall

infrastructure. Other programs are there as well. It is there to be used, and we

will see where it goes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, government's energy plan lists the need to develop energy

efficiency and conservation programs as a key goal for future energy

opportunities in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: In determining the Province's future energy

needs, why were substantial energy efficiency and conservation programs not

considered?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Conservation demand has been a focus of Nalcor and of our government. There

is no question that we want people to improve their conservation efforts, Mr.

Speaker, but what the provincial load forecast indicates, what Manitoba Hydro

International indicates is that we need power and we need it now.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial load forecast indicates that we will need an

extra 200 megawatts in demand on the Island by 2020. Those 200 megawatts of

energy are not going to come from conservation demand. Mr. Speaker, conservation

demand, while important, is one aspect of a bigger picture and the bigger

picture here is that we need Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister that provinces such as Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick have successfully lowered energy demand immensely by creating energy

efficiency corporations and promoting programs. In this Province very little has

been done, with only a few small government projects.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Is

government's zeal to develop Muskrat Falls blinding them to the wisdom of energy

efficiency?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems a couple of months ago we were blinded to the effect of large-scale

wind. I have not heard her ask any questions about that this time around.

Mr. Speaker, $23 million has gone into the Green Fund. We have a Climate

Change Office. We are aware of the importance of environmental change and

benefits. That is one of the reasons that we have to develop Muskrat Falls: to

eliminate the poison spewing out of Holyrood. A number of years ago, the member

opposite stood outside the plant and protested against it. Where is she today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government's much-touted Energy Plan has many references to energy

efficiency measures and demand management, yet government shows little

enthusiasm for this essential aspect of any responsible energy plan. These

initiatives are very successful in other provinces. For example, in Manitoba

their Power Smart Program has saved 575 megawatts to date, resulting in savings

of over $600 million to businesses and homeowners.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why won't your government follow your own

Energy Plan and develop strong electricity efficiency programs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that conservation demand

and energy efficiency programs are very important, and they are one aspect of

what we are trying to do as a government, but we have a developing Province.

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting that we have four members of the NDP

opposite representing the City of St. John's who are voting against Muskrat

Falls, with all the benefits that will come to St. John's. Here we have an

Opposition party who simply go they are the grasshopper effect from issue to

issue to issue, always finding a reason to be negative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government's plan for financing Muskrat Falls is to lock the Province's

ratepayers into buying a block of power for fifty years, whether they need it or

not. Energy efficiency programs slow or lower demand for electricity. A lower

demand for electricity from Muskrat Falls would result in higher rates to

consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What will be the incentive for consumers to

lower energy use, since higher rates would be the result of a decrease in

demand?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say: therein you have the essential difference between

what is happening on this side of the House and what is happening on the other

side of the House. We see a future for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a

vision for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a plan for Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, if you want to be the manager of

decline, if you want Newfoundland and Labrador to be a bedroom community for

Alberta, then we should do exactly what the Leader of the NDP says and fix up

Holyrood and forget about our future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation on

www.newfoundlandandlabrador.com boast our extensive 5,000-plus kilometre trail

network. The tourism site scripts Cain's Quest, Labrador and L'Anse aux Meadows

World UNESCO Site as trail possibilities, but supplies no trail details.

I ask the Minister of Tourism: Why is the interactive map of snowmobiler cool

spots showing only seven western and central trail destinations yet fails to

recognize Labrador and trails north of Gros Morne, as both areas have the most

extended snowmobiling season? Is this an oversight?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what can I say about tourism in this Province, other than we

have doubled our marketing budget from $6 million to $13 million? We now are

knocking on the door of a $900 million industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

We are leading the country in growth in the tourism industry. While the rest of

the world is floundering, we are doing what is right in the tourism industry in

this Province and we are darn proud of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is poorly promoting winter tourism in the shoulder season when

it comes to the trails on their Web site and the investment in infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, last week we debated legislation surrounding our groomed trails.

The Federation of Snowmobilers depend on the sale of trail stickers to ensure

proper grooming. Since the 2004 fees, there has been a decline in paying users.

Grooming in this Province is unacceptable and people who would buy trail passes

are telling me that they will not this season.

I ask the Minister of Tourism: Will he ask Transportation and Works to share

responsibility for grooming our off-road trail network to advance an

all-important winter recreation and tourism industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland trails and the Labrador trails look after their

grooming. They charge a rate; it is a user-pay system. It is something that has

been ongoing now for the last number of years, which is working very well.

As for our winter tourism product, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more obvious

than what we do for our winter tourism product. If the hon. member would stay

tuned and I hate to give him a sneak peek, but he should watch our tourism ads

this coming season where he can have a good example of how we are promoting

snowmobiling in this Province. If, last season, he happened to look on-line, he

would certainly see a snippet of those upcoming ads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the five-year-old ISSP/Pathways report urged the

Department of Education to embrace transparency and make information on special

education assessments and wait-lists available to the public. The ISSP/Pathways

Commission said that parents have a right to be fully informed about these

assessments and wait-lists.

Why is this minister continuing to hide this information from parents, while

ignoring the problems faced by students with special education needs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, you would swear to God when the member opposite

gets up and asks the question that we, over on this side, have no feeling for

students. Mr. Speaker, we will let the people of the Province know that the NDP

do not have the monopoly on caring for students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I outlined, we have an ISSP process in

place; seventy of the seventy-five recommendations that were offered have been

implemented. We have spent $7 million in the past five years to implement that

plan. We put $15 million in, Mr. Speaker, so that we could put another 25,000

hours into the system to support parents, students, and teachers who are

involved in that

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the ISSP/Pathways Commission said that the

Department of Education has a responsibility to provide special education

services in a transparent manner, yet parents are expected to believe that

services are being provided effectively without adequate evidence.

Is the Minister of Education finally willing to admit that his government's

inaction on this has actually made the situation worse for students with special

needs, instead of better?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I just do not believe what I hear from this

member sometimes. The man does not understand education he does not understand

education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is a team approach to addressing

individual student's needs Individual Student Support Planning, ISSP. The

millions of dollars that we have invested, the $7 million to have this plan

brought in place, the $15 million to support parents, students, teachers, in

that process is one that is working. We continue to see if there are ways that

we can improve upon the process, but the ISSP is a good plan, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: is the single largest investment in the history of this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: As legislators we have a duty to ensure the right decision

is made on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It may very well

be the right decision, but utility rates that people are being told they will

have to pay are based on projected increases in electricity demand, and

therefore more electricity bills spread out to share the cost.

The people of this Province are only getting approximately 40 per cent of the

power, yet they are paying 100 per cent of the bill through their utility bills.

In briefings with Nalcor, we have been advised that should the increased

(inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to very quickly pose his question.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this has been confirmed by two different

individuals. I ask (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind the member that there is a time allocation for questions and

for answers. I ask all hon. members to be mindful of those time allocations.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, although I did not quite understand the question, I think it

relates to electricity rates. Essentially, what we have seen with the paper that

has been put out by the Department of Natural Resources and the rate calculator,

Mr. Speaker, is that people can figure out what their rates are going to be with

and without Muskrat Falls.

Essentially, rates went up $45 per month between 2001 and 2011 nothing to

do with Muskrat Falls. They will go up, Mr. Speaker, between 2011 and 2016

without Muskrat Falls. What we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that without Muskrat

Falls, power rate increases will be double what they will be with Muskrat Falls

from 2017 to 2030.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Will government guarantee that the electric bill projections

being used by Nalcor will be frozen even if we have to use the potential profits

from the sale of excess power sales to guarantee those projected rates?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have done is provide to the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, the

most up-to-date and accurate information we have today. It is based on the price

of oil, but none of us knows exactly where the price of oil is going. The one

thing I can tell you it is not going down to $50 a barrel.

Mr. Speaker, the price of electricity rates will depend on the price of oil

without Muskrat Falls. With Holyrood, prices will go up with Muskrat Falls,

down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

The Member for St. John's North, on a point of order.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order in

relation to comments made by the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services

yesterday, Tuesday, November 27, 2012.

After reviewing the official transcript of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, in relation

to the salaries paid to early childhood educators in Newfoundland and Labrador,

the minister said: "They are, in fact, the highest paid in Atlantic Canada."

Yet, Mr. Speaker, according to the Early Years Study 3, which the minister

should familiarize herself with if she has not already, the earnings of early

childhood educators in Newfoundland and Labrador are well below the ECEs in

other Atlantic Canadian provinces.

We are all aware, Mr. Speaker, there is an obligation on members of the House

when making comments in this hon. House to ensure that all information provided

is accurate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As I listen to the member make his point of order, I want to remind the

member that yesterday there was a point of order raised by the hon. Minister of

Child, Youth and Family Services, which is the subject of your comments now.

There was some response to that in yesterday's session. I agreed that I would

review Hansard and I would provide a ruling to the House, and until I

deliberated and made a ruling to the House.

I had an opportunity yesterday for those who wanted to make comment with

respect to that point of order to do so. As I listen to your comments now, they

are very much in response to the point of order raised by the hon. member. The

Speaker has not ruled yet on that particular piece.

I would ask the member to be mindful of the process for dealing with points

of order, especially when the Speaker has already indicated how he plans to deal

with the point of order raised yesterday and all of the points raised with

respect to the issue in yesterday's discussion. So until I have had a chance to

review the transcript, I will provide a ruling, as I said yesterday I would.

I would remind the member, as he continues with his comments: if it is a new

point of order, fine, but if it is relative to yesterday's point of order, to

remember what the Speaker had said yesterday.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to your ruling and I hope the minister will withdraw her

erroneous comments following your ruling.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, during Question Period and I do this without the

benefit of the transcript of Hansard and during questions by the Member for

Bay of Islands, the Minister of Finance could clearly be heard saying: Tell the

truth. Such language is unparliamentary and I would ask that the comment be

retracted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask you to review Hansard, but I think the member clearly knows when

we talk about parliamentary language, that there was no language made by any

member on this side of the House directed or accusatory to any member on the

other side of the House. We would expect every member in this House to be

telling the truth. That should be a given when we come in through the door, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will undertake to review Hansard.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful if I could

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: (Inaudible) the hon. member to tell the truth. He was

making a reference to a document in 2009. If that is unparliamentarily, I

certainly would withdraw (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I do thank him for bringing this to a closure, but I do

remind all hon. members that if you are standing in the House to withdraw a

comment, you do so without qualifying in any fashion. Just stand and either

apologize to the House or withdraw the comment, whichever is the case and

without any qualifying comments.

MR. MARSHALL: I withdraw the comments, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act.

(Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will bring forward a motion

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act.

(Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

This being Wednesday and just a couple of seconds left before 3:00 o'clock,

there is a private member's motion on the books today in the name of the Member

for Humber Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I am very sorry; I am wishing my time away. I apologize to

the House for that. We do have, you are right, ten minutes left.

We have time for Petitions, the next item on the agenda.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: I will acknowledge the hon. the Member for St. Barbe. He has

three of those ten minutes.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of

the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain

within the comfort and security of their homes, home care also allows people to

be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it very difficult to recruit and retain home care

workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011, as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne

committed the government would develop a new home care model and give the people

an option of receiving that care from family members; and

WHEREAS government has no time commitment for when government plans to

implement paying family caregivers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers in this Province.

And in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to showcase, without their names, two individuals

in my district who receive home care. One is a gentleman who will be forty on

December 1, and I expect to be attending his fortieth birthday party. He is in a

situation whereby he is qualified for fifty-six hours of home care; however, his

mother who is a qualified home care worker who is sixty-five years of age, if

she provides the home care to him then she gets forty hours of home care and he

forfeits the other sixteen hours of home care.

Mr. Speaker, it should not matter on the number of hours, who supplies the

home care. He should not have to forfeit the sixteen hours because his mother, a

qualified home care worker, provides that home care.

In the case of another more elderly resident in my constituency, this lady

suffers from Alzheimer's, and she is cared for at home. One of the issues for

her is that she is quite afraid of strangers. She is very unruly when a stranger

is present; however, the family has been able to have a qualified family member,

a home care provider, provide this lady with home care services. She is more at

comfort knowing the person but the number of hours is shortened. The limitations

placed on her then if the family member has to move away, as was the case

recently, then she is stuck with having to try to re-qualify a stranger all over

again when there are qualified home care providers within the family unit who

can provide home care services.

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the stories that are happening in our

Province. The cost to the system is no different than if family members were

providing the services, and these were promises that were made repeatedly by

this government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS students who attend smaller community schools are more likely to

participate in extracurricular activities; and

WHEREAS Swift Current Academy's extracurricular school activities, such as

our basketball team and drama club, provide enriching after school programs for

students; and

WHEREAS the proposal to reconfigure Swift Current Academy will deny students

fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy and active school

environment; and

WHEREAS small schools research shows that students who attend smaller

community schools have a greater sense of belonging, feel safer, and are less

likely to drop out and leave before graduation; and

WHEREAS distance education delivered through the Department of Education

Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation has proven to be successful for many

students who have graduated from Swift Current Academy and gone on to attend

college and university programs.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to

ensure that the Eastern School District is provided with adequate funds to

maintain Swift Current Academy as a K-12 school.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there was a public meeting last night to address the proposed

busing of Swift Current Academy Senior High students, an hour each way, over to

Clarenville.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: As the Member for Bellevue is well aware, parents, teachers,

and students at SCA are proud of the achievements of their small community

school. It is fitting to provide the following quote from a parent and teacher

who addressed the trustees of the Eastern School District last night. She said:

The research evidence is available, and it says quite clearly that safe, caring,

active, healthy community schools are best for our students physically,

emotionally, and academically. The students at Swift Current Academy do not

deserve to be sitting on a bus for hours a day travelling to another community.

They deserve to remain in our community school where they will be in an

environment that provides that greater sense of community and belonging that has

proven a positive impact on student learning. We ask you, our trustees, vote to

keep SCA a K-12 community school.

A lot of teachers, students, and parents went on to discuss the successes of

using the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation as a mechanism

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: for delivering necessary courses to high school students at

Swift Current Academy, and I think they have been quite clear about their

interest in keeping their K-12 school. So, I hope the members opposite will

think about that and hear the concerns of these petitioners.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS transgendered people face high risk of discrimination, violence,

underemployment, and lack of access to housing and other services; and

WHEREAS a recent EGALE Canada survey found that 90 per cent of transgendered

youth hear transphobic comments regularly from other students and one-quarter

hear such comments from teachers; and

WHEREAS the Public Health Agency of Canada reports that nearly half of trans

youth seriously considered suicide and one-fifth attempted it in the previous

year; and

WHEREAS all individuals should have equal opportunity to live their lives and

meet their needs without being hindered or prevented by discriminatory practices

based on gender identity or gender expression; and

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to amend the Human Rights Act to include

gender identity and gender expression in the list of prohibitive grounds of

discrimination.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the transgendered people of this Province are dying some of

them are dying to have their voices heard. We know there are high levels of

suicide or attempted suicide among transgendered youth in this Province. It is

not a matter of: Oh, wouldn't this be nice? It is not a matter of: Oh, it is a

fringe group of people.

We are talking about our youth who are losing their lives to extreme

discrimination and to extreme violations of their rights. This is a serious

matter. Transgendered folks, again, are our brothers, they are our sisters, they

are our mothers, they are our doctors, they are lawyers, and they are people who

are also active in our society.

Mr. Speaker, there is no valid reason on the face of this earth not to go

ahead and progress with this legislation, to change our Human Rights Act. It is

being done all over the country. It is being done all over the world. Nova

Scotia is proudly proudly announcing the fact they are amending their Human

Rights Act. The federal government is doing it. They are in the process right

now. There is no reason no valid reason anymore not to do the right thing.

Quebec is poised and ready.

All human rights lawyers know this is important, it is a done deal, it is a

progressive thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. I am dismayed by our

Minister of Justice, who has said there are no gaps in our human rights

legislation. We know that there are gaps. It is necessary to explicitly state

gender identity and gender expression in our Human Rights Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: I call upon now the Member for Humber Valley to introduce

the motion that stands on the Order Paper in his name.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I read into the House a resolution regarding the proposed development of the

Lower Churchill River, Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL:

WHEREAS the Board of Commissioner of Public Utilities has the

mandate through the Electrical Power Control Act Board to ensure that the

Province shall have the most efficient production, transmission, and

distribution of power at the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable

service; and

WHEREAS the proposed development of Muskrat Falls will have profound effects

on the rates paid by electricity users of the Province for decades to come;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to compel Nalcor to submit the proposed

Muskrat Falls development to the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for

a complete and unrestricted review.

This motion is seconded by the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

When you look at what we have introduced there, you might say: Well, why is

it that you want to do this? Why is it that you want the Public Utilities Board

to get involved? Some would say that there has been a previous involvement in

this particular process, really, on two occasions. Back in 2000, there was a

submission that the development of the Lower Churchill would actually be exempt

from the PUB. I will get into that later.

Then, earlier this year, this project did go to the PUB and there were some

hearings that were done at the time. Really, it was very inclusive when you look

at the recommendations that came out of there. The Public Utilities Board indeed

found that there was more information required and that they were not in a

position to actually endorse this project.

What is this process all about, Mr. Speaker? We ask ourselves: What is it we

are trying to achieve here? The process really is about the ratepayers of

Newfoundland and Labrador. It is about their families. Is about business owners.

Is about the various associations that use electricity on a day-to-day basis.

What we want to do here is make sure that they have the lowest cost possible,

not of two options but indeed the lowest cost possible and that service would be

reliable for the generations to come.

In a non-regulatory environment, how do we protect consumers? How do we

protect people like ratepayers in our Province? Well, typically, in a true

business sense, this is done just through competition. This is normally what we

see as us, as customers, and as our ratepayers, as customers, what they do is

that you will see that the business itself, through the competitive environment,

actually almost self-regulates to some degree. This prevents, as you know, price

gouging in many, many sectors of the purchases that we make and the services

that we use.

So, in a non-regulated environment it is the competitive forces that keep the

prices in check. This is typically how just about all our business is conducted.

What happens is people will shop around and make sure that they get the best

prices.

In the case where you have a monopoly, and electricity usually falls in this

area, you need to do something different. There has to be a different process.

There needs to be something to protect the consumers. There needs to be

something in place to protect the ratepayers. We expect our utilities to

reinvest and make sure that utility is in good shape, it is reliable, and in the

position that it can produce energy, produce electricity that is safe for our

use.

In the case of a monopoly, what we do, typically, is we put in a board that

regulates the rate increases for the utility. In doing so, they want to make

sure that there is a rate of return that is required for those utilities to

reinvest in that utility so that we do have a consistent, safe, and reliable

supply of electricity.

From time to time, the utilities will appear before the Public Utilities

Board and they will ask certain questions. They will need to know if the rate

increase would be approved or not. This is typically what happens in this

environment. In the case of the Muskrat Falls development, there has been a

different approach. What we are choosing now is to actually bypass the PUB and

go on and we will take a different approach and it would be sanctioned by

government, essentially. We go through what they call a sanction process,

bypassing the PUB.

The PUB is important to the ratepayers because they would determine all the

things that were included in the development, in this particular case of Muskrat

Falls, and that if indeed all the costs that were associated are something that

can directly affect the ratepayer. Can we get higher rates based on the

investment that has been made?

In 2000, there was a previous exemption to the PUB on the Lower Churchill

development and that was done for a different reason. At that time it was about

economic development; it was about the exporting of power. It had very little

impact, if any, on really the rates of the ratepayers in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. At this time, this was meant to be exported, so it

was an economic development project.

The project that we are looking at and reviewing today is a different

project. This project will have a direct impact on the ratepayers of the

Province. It will impact what businesses pay for their electricity. It will

impact what families pay for their electricity.

The difference is that we are tying this project into a fifty-year

commitment. It is a long-term deal. What is happening here is that through a

power purchase agreement you will have to make the commitment to this power

whether you use it or not. There is really no area here where the ratepayers of

this Province can get out of this power purchase agreement. So, you are making

this commitment for a long, long time.

Now, if we just ask ourselves and we go back in our history and we say, well

what has changed in the last fifty years? If we look into the future and we say,

well what can change in the next fifty years? Well, there are a lot of things

that can change in the next fifty years. There are a lot of things that will

change. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that have changed in

just three years since this project was being developed. This project was

announced in 2010. When you think about the architecture, the assembling of the

documents for this project, it probably started in 2009. It takes quite a while

to do this.

In 2010, what was happening in the energy market is really quite different

than even the things that we see today. Things south of the border, our

colleagues in the US, they looked at energy to be completely different;

whereas

today, they are talking about being self-sufficient in 2020 or 2021. Things have

changed dramatically.

There was a lot of discussion about the export option, how we could break the

stranglehold of Quebec and we would be able to introduce ourselves to markets in

New England. Well, do you know what? That opportunity exists, but not anywhere

near where we could expect a rate of return or even expect to get our

construction costs back. This is indeed a very different project, even today,

than it was in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter this project today, we look at two areas that are

quite different. As a matter of fact, we went into this in 2010 fully expecting

that we had a partner in Emera. Well today, as we are just weeks away, if you

listen to the government, just weeks away from sanctioning, we do not know today

if Emera is indeed a partner or not. As a matter of fact, Emera has until 2014

to decide if they want to opt in to this project. So, we do not know. There are

still a lot of unknowns about this project as it exists today.

The loan guarantee that we talked about, and has been talked about for many,

many months now, is still not there. Although, when you listen to the

government, it seems to be that this loan guarantee is coming but there was a

time that it was not a requirement, that they were prepared to do it without the

loan guarantee. Well, things have changed now, and I support that. I do not

think this ever should go ahead without a loan guarantee.

As a matter of fact, what we are asking or what we are suggesting is it needs

to go back to the PUB for a full review. There are many reasons for that. The

PUB would be the group that would give a completely independent review of this.

When you look at the PUB, it is their role. When you look at the design of the

PUB, and people will say there is no confidence in the PUB, well, in fact, it is

government who actually appoints the Board of Commissioners at the PUB. If they

are not confident and do not have the confidence in their own appointees, well,

it is a decision they must make. They can live with the decision or they can

make changes.

The other thing, there is another area of this project where they have used

the PUB and they seem to be quite willing to include that into the development.

Of course, that is the water rights management agreement that I am talking about

or not even an agreement really, it is an arrangement.

There are two kinds of ways we can actually source the PUB. One is we could

go in with a reference-based question, which is what they did earlier this year.

This kind of question is very restrictive. To me, it was very difficult looking

back just at the DG2, or Decision Gate 2 time frame. It was very difficult for

the PUB to come up with any other result, and they said that. The comments that

were made were to the fact that the information was late coming.

As a matter of fact, Nalcor agreed to that, even in December. Even in

December they knew and they did acknowledge that the information was late coming

from Nalcor. They acknowledged that. There was quite a bit of information that

was required and they agreed it was late coming.

At the DG2 level, at the DG2 time frame, this project was less than 15 per

cent defined. That is what the PUB had to look at, at the DG2 level. It was only

15 per cent defined. It was very difficult for the PUB at that time to make

anything conclusive about the Muskrat Falls Project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: That is primarily the basis of what they said. The information

was late coming and they could not conclusively determine through the

reference-based question if they could actually support Muskrat Falls or not.

So, they did not endorse the project. Regardless of what has been said in this

House over the last few weeks, the PUB has not endorsed this project for the

reasons they said.

As a matter of fact, the board went on to say, "The Board concludes that the

information provided by Nalcor in the review is not detailed, complete or

current enough to determine whether the Interconnected Option represents the

least-cost option for the supply of power to the Island Interconnected customers

over the period of 2011-2067" That was compared to the isolated option at the

time.

Primarily what we had here was a project that was far from ready from going

to the Public Utilities Board. It just was not ready. Now is a better time; we

have more information right now. It needs to go back for an unrestricted review

to the PUB.

Who is asking for this? There are lots of people out there. There has been

interest around the Muskrat Falls project for a number of years. If you look at

the recent information that has become publicly known right now, we have almost

70 per cent of the population in this Province that really do not like the

process, do not like the way that this Muskrat Falls development has been

handled. They are suggesting that it should go back to the PUB for an

unrestricted review. That is what the people of the Province are saying.

Mr. Speaker, at the DG 2 or the Decision Gate 2 level, this was a flawed

process. There was not enough information and it requires further review.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking even to date, when you look at the amount of

information, we have heard comments on many, many occasions about being 50,000

pages of information out there for public view. There is no question; there are

a lot of reports, a lot of information that is available to the public, but even

now, I know, as we went looking for information about this Muskrat Falls

project, about its development, it has been very difficult for us to get the

information.

We have asked on many, many occasions about the Terms of Reference for simple

things like the Ziff report. We just have not received it. It has been since

April 25 that commitment was made. We still do not have it.

I will give you another example, Mr. Speaker, around PIRA. We went looking

for the PIRA forecast, and it was commercially sensitive, so we thought, well,

let us go looking as an Opposition, see if we can find it. Well, it was

available, but it was $27,000. It was impossible for us to buy that.

In our capacity to review this and as you know, during the special debate

the witness component was special for us; it was something that we wanted to be

included in this debate, but the PUB is the best place to do this. They would be

able to access all those types of information.

Now the basis of the PUB argument really goes back to how this project is

paid for, and that, of course, is through a power purchase agreement. This

agreement, being a fifty-year commitment right now, what we have here is a

power purchase agreement that will last for fifty years. We have not been able

to see this and this is the reason why the PUB really needs to take a look at

this project.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks at the last fifteen minutes today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In November, 2010, the Muskrat Falls Project was announced. The Lower

Churchill Project, Mr. Speaker, comprised of Gull Island and Muskrat Falls, has

been discussed really since the development of the Upper Churchill.

The Lower Churchill Development Corporation was formed around 1976, Mr.

Speaker, and every Premier since Frank Moores has made an effort to develop the

Lower Churchill. There are a number of papers that were prepared by the

Department of Natural Resources and released, which review the history of the

Upper Churchill and review the history of the Lower Churchill Project, Mr.

Speaker. I am not going to go into that today, but they have all been released

publicly.

Mr. Speaker, no project in this Province has received the scrutiny and debate

of Muskrat Falls. I am still waiting for the day that they are going to ask me

about the Roger Grimes deal so I can talk about all the public scrutiny that

went on there. I do not have time to deal with that today.

Mr. Speaker, the result of the Upper Churchill contract and we are all

aware of it is that everyone wants to tread carefully. We are afraid to make

mistakes. We have to, as legislators, as people elected, make decisions. That is

what we are elected to do.

In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, the Decision Gate 2 numbers were

prepared by Nalcor. They were essentially the screening process. They looked at

the screening process and they determined, Mr. Speaker, that the two best

options on the basis that we need power were Muskrat Falls and the Isolated

Island or Holyrood refurbish project.

The Isolated Island, Mr. Speaker, would require approximately $600 million to

$800 million worth of repairs to install scrubbers and precipitators. That was

just for environmental effect, although not reducing greenhouse gasses. It would

also involve the development of small hydro at Island Pond, Round Pond, and

Portland Creek and the use of certain amounts of wind, Mr. Speaker.

Muskrat Falls is the smaller of the Lower Churchill developments. Other than

the report by Vic Young in 1980, the focus has always been on the development of

Gull Island. Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt: if we could access transmission

across Quebec, Gull Island would be developed. However, Mr. Speaker, a stubborn

and obstinate Quebec has stood in our way for forty years and that will not

continue any further.

In June 2011 this matter was referred to the Public Utilities Board that then

hired Manitoba Hydro International through a Request for Proposals process, Mr.

Speaker, and determined that they were the company best suited and equipped to

review the numbers. Mr. Speaker, that went on for approximately six months.

In December 2011 the Public Utilities Board sought an extension of three

months, and that was granted. Then, Mr. Speaker, the PUB report was received in

March 2012. The Manitoba Hydro International report had been received earlier

and it concluded, based on the Decision Gate 2 numbers, that Muskrat Falls was

the least-cost alternative.

The Consumer Advocate, Mr. Speaker, also determined that, in his opinion,

with the expert that he hired, Muskrat Falls was the least-cost alternative. The

PUB decided, Mr. Speaker, after nine months and more than $2 million including

$200,000 paid to a lawyer who was supposed to be paid on contract the Public

Utilities Board decided that they could not offer any assistance.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we had is a situation where they could not make a

recommendation. We then came back in the House of Assembly, and members

opposite, as is their job, raised issues. I thought I heard the Leader of the

Opposition admit a couple of times that we need the power, but I think he might

have changed his mind now, which is his right. I have never really had a clear

picture of where the Third Party is going on this. Wherever public opinion seems

to be on every given day is where they are.

Mr. Speaker, the issues were raised by the members opposite. We had the

issues of wind raised. We had the issues of natural gas raised, Mr. Speaker. We

had the issues of recall of power, return of the Upper Churchill. All these

issues were raised. The major argument, Mr. Speaker, was that we had not

properly examined all alternatives.

So, Mr. Speaker, we got to work and we started to look at the alternatives

and determine if there was a viable alternative. Nalcor had excluded all of

these other options at Decision Gate 2, but as a government we determined we

were going to hire Manitoba Hydro International to review the Decision Gate 3

numbers, Mr. Speaker. We decided, as a government, we would have natural gas

reports prepared and, as a government, we would have wind reports prepared.

What was the answer when we started releasing all these reports? Well, they

are paid for by the government; therefore, they are biased. Mr. Speaker, the

only report that appears to be independent here, if you look at the critics and

the Opposition, is one that will say what they want it to say, that Muskrat

Falls is not the best alternative.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have done, we have released these reports. We

released the full MHI report. One of the things of the MHI report that is very

important at page 72, there is the sensitivity analysis, Mr. Speaker, which

looks at the cost if certain things happen between Muskrat Falls and Holyrood.

The prices range from $2.4 billion cheaper up to $6.5 billion cheaper, even if

and it is not going to happen according to all of the experts, except the NDP

all of the experts project and predict that oil will stay around the $100 range

for the next decade.

These include Wood Mackenzie ,

PIRA out of New York we filed a report to that effect, Mr. Speaker. It

includes other forecasting agencies. It is based on the fact that even though

there is an increase in the supply of oil, and even though we have the shale oil

which is having significant impacts in the US, Mr. Speaker, that the world is

growing the point that we will continue to need oil.

Mr. Speaker, what we will see is that North America or the US may become

self-sufficient at some point, but the basic principles of supply and demand

will affect the long-term supply of oil. As long as oil is at or near $100 a

barrel, then it is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to do the math that

Muskrat Falls is a far better alternative.

We did the sensitivity report; it looked at

increasing the capex , decreasing the capex. Carbon

pricing is another factor, Mr. Speaker. Although it is in the sensitivity

analysis, it is an important point because we are moving towards a world and I

really thought that this was something that the NDP would champion, would be the

protection of the environment, but it does not appear to be so, Mr. Speaker. We

do not need them to champion it, because we do. We understand the importance of

protecting the environment, and ensuring that in future decades our children

have a sustainable environment.

There is no question, Mr. Speaker, the impact of climate change on our world

today. Anyone who denies it, Mr. Speaker, is simply not living in reality.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment here next to me is living out in

that area. What did we hear the other day? The soot coming out of Holyrood. Now,

Mr. Speaker, the NDP were out there marching and we have the pictures. They were

out there marching when they thought it was in their benefit

AN HON. MEMBER: The Liberals were there too.

MR. KENNEDY: The Liberals were there too.

Now what do we hear? Well, Mr. Speaker, we need the power, so we have to do

something. That is the first question: Do we need the power? Mr. Speaker, I

invite people to read the reports we have put out there. Review Manitoba Hydro's

forecasting on load. Manitoba Hydro, Mr. Speaker, have their load forecasting,

which is something that if you look at it, you will see that we clearly need

power. They find that the forecasting of Nalcor is conservative and, therefore,

accurate but conservative.

The demand paper, Mr. Speaker, outlines the kinds of power we need. Why do we

need power? It is quite simple; we have more people living in more houses. We

have less population but we have more houses, Mr. Speaker. We have 18,600 new

ratepayers more than we had in 2006. That is somewhat counterintuitive in that

the population is decreasing but we have more people paying rates, Mr. Speaker.

We had 28,000 new homes between 2002 and 2011. Newfoundland and Labrador is

hopping, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the reasons that we have to continue to

supply power, to supply commerce and industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have all these issues. Quite simply, the

provincial loan forecast shows that we will need 200 megawatts of power peak

demand by 2020. Where are we going to get it? We have to do something.

Our options, Mr. Speaker, continue Holyrood, or build Muskrat Falls. If you

look at the Cumulative Present Worth which we also released to the public, Mr.

Speaker, along with the Decision Gate 3 numbers is that Muskrat Falls is the

cheapest alternative by $2.4 billion. The importation of natural gas is anywhere

from $2.3 billion to $2.8 billion more expensive. The pipeline, Mr. Speaker, is

$3.4 billion more expensive. That is according to Ziff, Wood Mackenzie's numbers

would be higher. The pipeline stand-alone facility, Mr. Speaker, $6.6 billion

more expensive; wind with thermal, $3.5 billion; and wind with battery, $9

billion.

Mr. Speaker, do we need the power? Yes. Where are we going to get it? If

people would look at the argument and focus on those issues, where are we going

to get it? I have just gone through the CPW of the various options, Mr. Speaker.

We have released all of these reports to the public.

What have I heard? I heard one critic question natural gas. I have not heard

the members of the Opposition, either the Liberals or the NDP, point out

problems with these reports. They asked for wind, we have given it to them. They

asked for natural gas, we have given it to them, Mr. Speaker, other than the

self-professed experts. What we have done, we have outlined people we have

hired people to do this, Mr. Speaker. These are not my opinions; these are the

opinions of experts.

Where do we get the power? Some people say, well develop Gull Island. We have

gone through in our paper why we cannot develop Gull Island, Mr. Speaker. Some

people say wait until 2041. What are we going to do, wait in the dark?

Mr. Speaker, what we have done is we have outlined why we cannot wait until

2041. It is in the paper, I am not going to review it, but it is outlined there.

There are complicated legal and corporate issues as to the structure of CF(L)Co

and what will happen in 2041, Mr. Speaker. Then there are the legal options. Why

don't you recall power? We outlined

section 92A, Mr. Speaker. We have dealt with

the good-faith clause and we have dealt with regulatory actions.

Mr. Speaker, we have looked at everything here that has been asked of us.

People would say: Go to the PUB. Well, we have the information available, Mr.

Speaker. I am not hearing the critics. They have had these reports now close to

a month. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that if there were problems with the

numbers we are putting out there, if there are problems with the reports, that

someone would bring them to our attention if we are wrong on 92A.

What do we hear? We hear about water rights management. Well, Mr. Speaker,

again, that is pretty easily dealt with here. I think a first year law student

in fact, there is a first year law student dealing with it, and quite

professionally at that, Mr. Speaker. The water rights management issue is not

there. Mr. Speaker, what we have is a situation where Muskrat Falls is the

option. The time to do it is now, Mr. Speaker, and we have the information

necessary.

Before we get to that, the first is: Do we need the power? The second is:

When do we need the power? We need it now. What is the least-cost option? It is

Muskrat Falls. Have the other options been eliminated or looked at? They have.

So, before we get to the stage now, will we go with this? Let's look at the

effect on our people. Let's look at the effect on electricity rates, Mr.

Speaker.

What we have done is, as best we can, we have outlined charts. I am still

waiting for the member of the Opposition to ask me about Soldiers Pond again,

but in any event, I will tell him the answer if he wants to know. Mr. Speaker

MR. BALL: Tell us now.

MR. KENNEDY: I will tell you in a minute, Dwight.

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a situation where we have to look at the rates.

What is the effect on our people? That is what counts, Mr. Speaker. This is not

all theory here. This is not only a visionary approach of government, which is

very important, but how does it affect our people today? How does it affect our

seniors? How does it affect our single mothers? How does it affect the average

family?

What we have shown, Mr. Speaker and again, if we are wrong, I am waiting

for someone to point it out to us are the charts, and the charts are outlined

in the report. We have the rate calculator, which was a little bit of a problem

at first, but I think it has been working well since then. Mr. Speaker, what we

have is a situation where it becomes clear that when you look at the rates and

this is one of the things I find very interesting about the Muskrat Falls

debate, rates were going up and no one was really noticing because they were not

paying attention to it.

Mr. Speaker, rates went up more between 2000 and 2011 than at any other time.

They went up 32 per cent, or $45 per month. Between 2011 and 2016, they will go

up again, Mr. Speaker, 16 per cent or $30 a month. Between 2016 and 2030, Mr.

Speaker, without Muskrat Falls power rates increases will double. To put it in

perspective, Mr. Speaker, they are going up anyway, so do we want to be relying

on oil? Do we want to be reliant and send $6 billion to companies in other

countries, or do we take that $6 billion, do we develop a hydro power resource,

a revenue-generating resource, Mr. Speaker, which will benefit our children and

grandchildren?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Last week the Leader of the NDP asked me: well, have you

checked the revenues? No. Of course we have, Mr. Speaker, and what we have found

is that when you go to bond rating agencies you have to have every i dotted and

t crossed.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls, there will be $120 million approximately, or $130

million, available for dividends in 2020, 2021. It will continue to rise, but

rates will stay down, because one of the givens in life we hear, Mr. Speaker,

about we have to pay taxes and other things; well, you have to pay electricity

bills. You are going to be paying electricity bills in any event. So when we

look at it all, Muskrat Falls benefits our children. It benefits us. Do we need

to go back to the PUB for this? What for?

We have all of the relevant information. As members of this House of

Assembly, we were elected to make decisions. We can make decisions, Mr. Speaker.

We will make the decision. It is time to move on. It is time to do this and it

is time to do it now.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader referred to charts and graphs. I

must admit that I have not seen so many charts and graphs used in any

presentation since Ross Perot ran for the USA presidency. Ross Perot had more

graphs probably then this government, but I am sure that we will have more

graphs before this is over.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader by profession is an advocate. He is

a lawyer like myself, like some others in the House, and that means he promotes

and advocates for a position.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BENNETT: I am sorry: former Government House Leader. I guess either

he was demoted or Muskrat was just enough to keep him busy all the time and he

could not be House Leader any more. However, he is an advocate, so that means he

is persuasive; he pushes for a position. It does not necessarily mean that he

knows the position that well. He relies on other experts, as do all of us in the

House.

One minute the Minister of Natural Resources can be smooth and silk and can

charm the birds from the trees practically, and the next moment he can be

ferocious as a lion. That is his job, and he is well skilled at it. He does a

great job in that respect, but he is still advancing a position.

Before we go further, let us go back to the Public Utilities Board. Why do we

have Public Utilities Board in the first place? Mr. Speaker, we have a Public

Utilities Board in order to control the prices of public utilities. The Public

Utilities Board is the one mainstay we have in democratic societies when we need

monopolies to provide certain services and, in particular, large utilities like

our hydroelectric companies. We have a Public Utilities Board and nobody is

better positioned, Mr. Speaker, to determine what is an appropriate price for

electricity than a Public Utilities Board.

Why not make a reference to the Public Utilities Board? That is exactly what

the government did. The government said to the Public Utilities Board: With

certain parameters, provide us with the least-cost option. Clearly, that is what

the Public Utilities Board is supposed to do in any event. That is its mandate.

So in order to do this, the Public Utilities Board would need to look at what

the options are, not be put in a straightjacket as government would have them,

and say: Here are your two choices; which one is least?

Well, in the first instance, one would not be least. You would need three

options for one to be least. One could be low and one could be lower. One could

be high and one could be higher. You could not have least unless you had more

than two options.

What are the options? The options are: continue to burn oil, which we will do

in any event, because we will need to keep Holyrood as a backup. The Holyrood

oil-generated plant is going to stay in place in any event, so it is a mistake

to say that Holyrood will be gone. Holyrood will be there for backup and for

emergencies.

We will have wind power. We have wind power right now. Wind power is being

developed all over the world. One of the most recent and telling costs that I

saw for wind power came from San Antonio, Texas a few weeks ago, when there was

a dispute because a Korean company had received a contract to generate wind

power at eleven cents per kilowatt hour. Eleven cents is no more than what we

are paying right now and it is certainly significantly less than what is

proposed for Muskrat Falls.

Then there are other hydroelectric developments. We do have the possibility

for small hydroelectric developments in the Province right now. If we were to

follow a reasonable business model, we would develop our supply as the need

arose.

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to say we will not need the power. I certainly

hope we will need the power. When this Province entered Confederation in 1949,

we had a few more than 300,000 people. Within twenty-three years, we had a

500,000. Today we still have 500,000 people. Had we followed on the same

trajectory from 1949 to 1972 until today, we would have 1.4 million or 1.5

million. We would have fourteen or fifteen seats in the House of Commons and we

would have much more power in this nation than we have. I am not willing to say

we will not need the power, because I hope we will need the power, I hope we

will grow the population, and I hope that generates the need for electricity.

There are other ways besides Muskrat Falls to generate electricity. Besides

other hydroelectric developments, there is also conservation. We have not

pursued conservation. Why would we pursue conservation if we are going to have a

surplus of power? The Leader of the Third Party asked that very question today

and did not get a satisfactory answer in my mind. For sure we should pursue

conservation in any event.

Then we know that something will happen in 2041. In 2041, there will be a

change in the Upper Churchill arrangement. We find members debating back and

forth whether we will get a reversionary of the power, whether we will get to

use that or not. Why would we not seek an opinion today? Why would we not want

to find out today what we will be dealing with in 2041? The Minister of Natural

Resources is a lawyer. He knows that you would not wait that long to find out.

The Minister of Finance is a lawyer, a lawyer for thirty-five or forty years. He

knows you would not wait that long.

Mr. Speaker, what you would do is you would want to determine what your

options will be in 2041 and well before 2041. Then you might want to bridge

between now and 2041 and then compare that cost to bringing on Muskrat Falls

today.

The Public Utilities Board did its job. The government is angry because they

say that the Public Utilities Board did not do its job. In fact, if the Public

Utilities Board did not have enough information to render a reliable decision,

then they did the appropriate thing. They neither condemned nor approved the

project, and simply said: based on the mandate you have given us, we do not have

enough information. The Public Utilities Board really did what it was supposed

to do. It could not answer the question, and said: well, we cannot give you an

answer that you want. Clearly government wanted the answer: this was the

least-cost option. The Public Utilities Board was not prepared to do that.

What would happen if we went back to the Public Utilities Board and they

arrived at a different decision? What would happen if we went back to the

problem and they said: we think, based on everything, the expert evidence we

have been given and it does not help to criticize who might be the chair of

the Public Utilities Board any more than it would help to criticize an

individual member of the House by saying this person's credentials or

credibility is at stake, when in fact all of us will rely on the evidence of

experts.

If the Public Utilities Board relies on the evidence of experts, then this

House will rely on the evidence of experts, but let the Public Utilities Board

do its job; if they select an option other than Muskrat Falls, then government

will have the satisfaction of knowing: let us take a detour, let us get this

right, let us do a different project, let us work in between now and 2041 and

make a decision as to what we ought to do.

On the other hand, if the Public Utilities Board said: yes, we have examined

all of the options, and while many of them are speculative, many of them are

close and many of them are hard to ascertain; we think that Muskrat Falls is the

best deal then clearly the government would expect the entire House to support

Muskrat Falls.

That is not where we are today. Where we are today is that the Public

Utilities Board has been literally run out of the arena and not allowed to do

their job, and people are left with questions. Many of the questions that people

have related to this project are: what will it mean to the long-term costs of

our power? For most people, it will mean: what will it mean to my light bill?

For other people, it means: what will we do to our provincial debt? Mr. Speaker,

it is no good to say to me that this is going to be Nalcor debt and it is not

going to be provincial debt. This, in my view, is no different than any other

sort of off-balance-sheet bookkeeping that was done by major corporations that

contributed to the financial collapse that we experienced in 2008 through until

today, which we have not recovered from yet.

So, if we look at who are the people who will be affected by rates, well, the

individuals on a fixed income will be affected dramatically. They will have no

opportunity to increase their income. If Muskrat Falls is the wrong deal, it

will impact them terribly and for a long time.

Other ratepayers are small businesses. Many small businesses in this Province

are doing fine. An awful lot of small businesses in this Province are not doing

very well and they are just teetering on the edge, because we are still in a

global recession; business is not good in a lot of the tourist sector and

business is not good in a lot of the seafood processing and exporting business.

So, many businesses are just hanging on, and any significant increase in

electricity bills in the short term may well put them out of business.

Mr. Speaker, other ratepayers are municipalities. We hear quite a bit from

municipalities that they want to have a new fiscal arrangement, and I understand

that they would. Immediately before being elected to this House, I served on the

town council of my own community and was fortunate or unfortunate enough to

be half of the finance committee. To find the money for the budget for any size

of a municipality is going to be a struggle. It is a struggle. It is a struggle

for St. John's and it is a struggle for small communities. So, if Muskrat Falls

is the wrong deal because the power is too expensive, these municipalities will

suffer. Many of them will have to drive up their sources of income, and their

sources of income for municipalities will be property taxes, and then this will

have an adverse effect on everybody.

Mr. Speaker, another class of ratepayer is non-profit entities. Service clubs

that own property, churches, schools, anybody who runs anything is going to need

electricity. If it is the wrong deal, then it will be a bad deal for everybody.

The other issue with the debt, if we increase our debt by billions of dollars

how will this affect our credit rating? What will the bond rating agencies say,

if they say: No, your credit rating just slipped by one category, two

categories. If this increases our cost of borrowing then this increases the cost

to the Province to service our existing debt, plus any additional debt; and, Mr.

Speaker, plus a very substantial deficit that we are going to incur this year

that will be added to the debt, which will cost our Province quite a bit.

Mr. Speaker, if Muskrat Falls is the wrong deal it will be the wrong deal for

a very long time. It will impact all of us for a long time to come. Most of us

in this House will probably be fine with it if it costs us a few hundred dollars

a month more for electricity or even $1,000 a month more for electricity, we

will survive, but if the person who is impacted is an eighty-five-year-old

senior citizen trying to live at home on electric power, then that person will

have to make tough decisions as to what to do. If I cannot afford to heat my

home, where do I go? If I do not have extended family here anymore because they

have left and gone away, where do I go? It may well be that people are forced

out of their own accommodations and forced into long-term living arrangements at

a further expense to the taxpayer.

If Muskrat Falls is a bad deal, and nobody can be absolutely certain what it

will be, but the Public Utilities Board gives us one good opportunity to look at

the inside of this deal to see if it could be a good deal for the Province. If

it is a bad deal, Mr. Speaker, it would be like having a massive tapeworm locked

onto the Confederation Building and going right back to Labrador and sucking the

vitality out of this Province for at least two generations.

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the cost of electricity and done calculations

and projections as I am certain most members on the other side have done to

say if we go up to 14.5 cents, if we go up to fifteen cents, if we go up to

sixteen cents, what will that mean to the light bill? How long will it be before

Muskrat Falls shows us a true benefit? Muskrat Falls will not show us a true

benefit until the cost that we would have paid for oil generated electricity to

supplement the hydroelectric power that we already have, until the lines cross

over.

Mr. Speaker, that could be thirty or forty years down the road before we see

any true benefit from Muskrat Falls. At that time the people who have really

paid for the deal, the older people, the people on fixed incomes and the small

businesses, they will pay a very high price for a project that in the long term

people will benefit from, but what about in the shorter and intermediate term?

In the shorter and intermediate term, the load on the social system of

people, the financial system for people and for this Province, in my submission

is excessive. It has not been proven that in the next ten or fifteen, or twenty

years that this deal is a good deal for the Province. In fact, it looks like it

may be a very bad deal for the Province in the shorter or intermediate term.

Only in the very long term will it come into play that it would be a good

deal. By then, we may well have the Upper Churchill back. We may well have 65

per cent of 5,000 kilowatts that we may be able to draw down, that we may be

able to generate income from, that we may be able to supplement our

hydroelectric rates for. We may be shutting off opportunities into the future

because we are rushing this deal.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member his time for speaking has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an honour and privilege for me to be able to take

part in this debate

here today, which to me essentially, when you get right down to it, is a debate

about electricity rates and what the people of the Province are going to have to

pay for electricity.

We just heard the hon. Member for St. Barbe saying that the Muskrat Falls

deal will be a bad deal. He talked about that senior citizens and the people on

fixed incomes might be in trouble because of this deal. What he is forgetting is

that whatever deal is done, whichever project is done, whether it is to continue

with Holyrood, continue with the thermal option, or whether it is to do Muskrat

Falls, or whether it is to do Gull Island, whatever is done, is that the people

of the Province are going to pay for it. What the MHI report showed and it

showed very clearly is that the people of the Province are going to pay less

rates if we go the hydroelectric project at Muskrat Falls than if we continue on

the path we are already on.

That is why I am supporting a project that is going to allow the people of

this Province, people who are seniors and people who are on fixed income, to pay

less than they would otherwise if we do not do it.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things this government did was remove the 8 per cent

HST on heat and electricity. A lot of people were very, very happy with that. We

also removed the HST off insurance and we brought in a dental program for

adults. I was very pleased to see the government bring in a program to lower the

cost of generic drugs in this Province so that people pay less for their drugs.

That is a big item driving up drug costs in this Province.

The other thing is to do a project to stop the raise in electricity rates.

There is no Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project right now. Yet, as the Minister

of Natural Resources pointed out, for the past five years or the past ten years

rates have been going up. I heard about it when we did remove the HST off heat

and light. A lot of people came up to me and they were very pleased with that,

that we removed the tax off energy.

I got a letter from one man. I cannot remember his name now. He was very

angry. He said: You are taking away the 8 per cent tax on heat and light, but at

the same time Hydro is coming forward with an application for a rate increase of

I cannot remember what it was. It was the same amount. He said: That is going

to wipe out the goodness of the fact that you are taking off the tax. That got

me, obviously, to thinking: Why were our rates going up?

The Minister of Natural Resources just said that between 2001 and 2011 the

rates went up 38 per cent, they were going up about 2.8 per cent annually on

average, and they went up $45 per month. I remember I went on a CBC site and

they talked about what the electricity rates were in different parts of the

country. It showed that the provinces that had the lowest electricity rates were

the provinces that had hydroelectricity. I thought: Well, we have had

hydroelectricity in this Province.

The Churchill Falls Project was done by BRINCO, though that was not for us.

That was for a private company that was seeking to make a profit for its

shareholders. We did others: Granite Canal, Upper Salmon, and Bay d'Espoir. That

was a big one. Bay d'Espoir certainly was a big one. We have all this

hydroelectricity. Why were our rates going up?

They are going up without Muskrat Falls. There is no project at Muskrat Falls

right now, but the rates are going up. They are predicted to go up higher. They

are going up because that 15 per cent to 25 per cent of the electricity being

produced in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on average, 30 per cent at

peak capacity, is being created by importing oil and burning oil at the thermal

generating plant in Holyrood.

Holyrood operates by burning oil. When Holyrood was commissioned, and I

understand that was in the early 1970s, a barrel of Bunker C oil was $3. Today,

it is about $86 or $87. You can see why the cost of oil is driving up rates.

As oil prices keep getting higher and higher, and the experts that we have

looked at tell us that over the medium to long term rates are going up; in the

short term, they are very volatile. That means as we continue to burn oil in the

future, the price of the oil is going higher and higher, that means electricity

rates are going to go higher and higher.

It is madness. From an environmental point of view, the environmentalist,

David Suzuki, said to burn fossil fuels to create electricity is madness. I

think we all agree with him. I think most people would agree with him.

Mr. Speaker, if the provinces that have the cheapest rates for their people

are with hydroelectricity we have been making hydroelectricity projects in

Newfoundland and Labrador for over 100 years. I am told that Petty Harbour,

1904. It is still in operation, it is still producing electricity, and it is

going into the grid. I understand it might be two kilowatts per hour or two

megawatts, but it is still operating. The one in Deer Lake, the one that I pass

twice a week coming here and going back to Corner Brook, built in 1924, 1925. It

still producing electricity; I think it is $5 a megawatt hour.

We have these hydroelectricity projects all over. There was a big racket I

understand when Bay d'Espoir was being built. I know Wally Read was an engineer

from Corner Brook, my hometown. Wally Read became the Chair of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. He said that if there is a market for any surplus power, if

low, that the Lower Churchill should be developed.

I support that, if this will give the lowest rates to the people of the

Province. The evidence that the Minister of Natural Resources has presented

there has been a ton of evidence, a plethora of reports all certainly confirm

that.

It will give us lower rates. The choice is to have a hydroelectricity project

in Labrador that will use water from the snow and from the rain, or we continue

to burn oil, a fossil fuel, at Holyrood. They are our two choices. The MHI

reports clearly indicated that by going with the hydroelectricity project, the

cost would be, when you look at the capital cost, if you compare both projects,

that the capital cost of going with Muskrat Falls and the hydro would be $2.4

billion cheaper than if we went with the thermal project of Holyrood, which will

get bigger and burn even more and more oil, and use about forty-five of these

combustion turbines or combined cycle combustion turbines, which also burn fuel

to produce electricity.

Mr. Speaker, getting to the resolution moved by the Leader of the Opposition,

the PUB is indeed an independent quasi-judicial regulatory body. It was

established by the government in 1949. It reports to the Justice Minister,

administratively, and submits an annual report to the Justice Minister. It is

funded by assessments levied upon the industries that it regulates; therefore,

it is not part of the general budget of the government.

The mandate of the PUB, as the Leader of the Opposition quite correctly

pointed out, is to be the regulator of electric utilities in the Province, and

is responsible for ensuring that electricity rates that are charged to the

residents and to industrial consumers are just and reasonable, and that the

electrical service provided is safe and reliable.

We have all heard the Minister of Natural Resources from time to time saying:

Do we need the power? If we do need the power, he says: What is the least-cost

alternative? That is set out in our law. So, if we need more electricity, the

people bringing forward the projects have to bring forward the one that is the

least-cost alternative in other words, the one that will cost the ratepayers

the least amount of money.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources mentioned some reports that

had been written about the history of hydroelectric facilities in this Province.

He mentioned a paper by Jason Churchill, a historian, which I had the

opportunity to read some time ago. One thing that came out of that is that the

original hydro projects in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador were done

by the private sector.

They were done by people who, we now know, became multi-millionaires. People

like Izaak Walton Killam from Nova Scotia. If you go to Nova Scotia, you see

hospitals and libraries named after him. He owned companies that, in turn, owned

Newfoundland Light and Power, and they Maritime light and power. So these people

obviously did very, very well in building hydroelectric facilities.

So, if you have a monopoly, if you have one company doing all this work, you

have to have a regulator to make sure that the citizens, that the people who

will use that hydroelectric power, that they are not being unfairly taken

advantage of. The regulator is there to ensure that the rates are fair, also

that they review each year each utilities annual capital budget.

Mr. Speaker, we are the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This project

and Nalcor is owned by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which means

it is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Whereas BRINCO that did

the Upper Churchill did the project to export power and make profits for its

shareholders, Nalcor are doing this project to provide a reliable and safe

supply of electricity at just rates to the people of the Province. That is the

difference. Muskrat Falls is for us; BRINCO, the Upper Churchill, was for export

down to New England and that is an important distinction.

Mr. Speaker, in June of 2011 the government asked the PUB to examine whether

Muskrat Falls, the hydroelectricity project, was the least-cost option to meet

the demands compared to the Holyrood thermal oil burning option. At the time,

the Consumer Advocate, Tom Johnson, was also appointed to represent consumers.

There was a nine-month review and there was $2 million spent, and the conclusion

of the PUB was essentially that it could not come to a conclusion.

Despite the fact that Manitoba Hydro International, the experts that were

hired by the PUB themselves after a Request for Proposals, and the Consumer

Advocate who himself had hired an expert, a company called Knight Pisold, were

both able to come to a conclusion using the same information as the PUB had at

its disposal, the two experts could come to a conclusion, but, unfortunately,

the PUB could not. The conclusion of the experts supported Muskrat Falls as the

least-cost option to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The PUB said they could not make a decision because they did not have the

Decision Gate 3 numbers; however, this concern was not clearly communicated by

the PUB. Early communications between the PUB and Nalcor as early as July 17,

2012 includes no reference to Decision Gate 3 data and the requirement to have

this information in order to make a determination.

The assumption would have been to receive all data contained in existing

studies, which at that point were Decision Gate 2 numbers. Subsequent concerns

about the

schedule and about the ability to file a report to government did not

reference Decision Gate 3. In letters from the PUB to the Minister of Natural

Resources, in letters from Nalcor to the PUB, and from MHI to the PUB the

requirement for DG3 information was not referenced. In specific references to

DG2, data was always implied and the information provided by the PUB was always

clearly identified as DG2 numbers.

The Decision Gate process is being followed by Nalcor, and the information

obtained during this process has helped the government with up-to-date critical

information to minimize risk and help contribute to the informed decision as to

whether or not we should proceed on behalf of the people of Newfoundland on

Muskrat Falls. Information was provided, questions were answered, but

unfortunately no decision was made.

Without that decision from the PUB, government made the decision to engage

internationally respected advisors to conduct independent external assessments

of Decision Gate 3 information. Manitoba Hydro International and the other

reports that the Minister of Natural Resources has filed have validated the

Muskrat Falls Project as the least-cost option for the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, hydro projects down through the years have been exempted from

oversight when they are done by the government. Bay D'Espoir was done by the

Power Commission, a predecessor to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

As the minister said, we are the government of the Province. It is our

responsibility to show leadership. It is not for an arbitrator, it is not for

others, it is for us to show leadership to provide the least-cost option to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and this project will do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased this afternoon to get an opportunity to speak to this

motion that was brought forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I

think it is an important motion. I think it is very pathetic actually that we

have to bring forward such a motion as has been brought forward, but it is

extremely important that it has been done. It underlines something that is very,

very wrong in this Province today.

I am going to read the resolution, because some people may start watching

partway through today and not quite know what the resolution is. I am going to

read it again, just the: THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly

calls upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to compel Nalcor to

submit the proposed Muskrat Falls development to the Board of Commissioners of

Public Utilities for a complete and unrestricted review.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in other places in this country, that is a normal

procedure. In other places in this country when you have a major project dealing

with electrical generation going on in a province, it is a natural procedure

that the proposal is going to go before the Public Utilities Board, or whatever

it is called, in that Province and that you are going to get a complete and