PDF Version

November 23, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 47

The

House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome to the public galleries today the Presentation Sisters, who are

subject of a Member's statement. They are: Sister Roisin Gannon, Leadership

Team; Sister Bernadette Doherty, Leadership Team; Sister Sharon Fagan, former

provincial leader; Sister Marie Furey; Sister Angela McGrath; Sister Kieran

Seaward; and Sister Patricia Whittle.

Welcome

to our gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Members' statements

we have the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; the District of Baie

Verte Green Bay; the District of Lewisporte Twillingate; the District of

Fogo Island Cape Freels; the District of Conception Bay East Bell Island;

and the District of Placentia West Bellevue.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

For 160

years, over 200 Sisters of Presentation have based their lives and their

community work in and around St. Patrick's Convent. This November, the Sisters

moved to the main convent near the Basilica and gifted St. Patrick's to the City

of St. John's to be transformed into affordable housing for seniors.

Today, I

stand in absolute awe of these courageous and passionate women who are working

strategically and from every conceivable angle to address the need for

affordable housing in our province. St. Patrick's Convent is valued at $1.5

million and will be converted into 22 affordable housing units.

This no

ordinary gift. The Sisters are leading by example, demonstrating tremendous,

critical leadership. Through their work with the Gathering Place, they see

first-hand that more and more of our community members are having difficulty

finding safe and affordable places to live.

The

solutions the Presentation Sisters offer in our community have always been

direct and deeply personal. They have chosen to address the shortage in

affordable housing by literally opening up their own homes and, in so doing,

they continue to serve our community with enduring, unparalleled and visionary

levels of care and compassion.

Thank

you, Sisters of Presentation.

I invite

all our Members to thank, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

the Presentation Sisters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Baie Verte Green Bay.

Now,

beat that!

MR. WARR:

Not to be done, Mr. Speaker,

not to be done today.

I rise

today to pay tribute to a great citizen and volunteer of Springdale. He is also

an outstanding musician and entertainer. I'm referring to Jerome Byrne who, for

the last 50 years, has been playing music all over the province and for the last

18, has been volunteering at two different retirement homes in my area by

bringing music to the residents.

Jerome

is an outstanding talent and a true community leader. Despite his love for the

sea, he was a fisherman until the cod moratorium, Jerome stayed committed to his

music and he wasn't shy about sharing it with anyone who wanted to listen.

started playing when he was too young to be in a tavern. He tells one story of

playing in a backroom outside the tavern and using a small amplifier so people

in the establishment could hear his music. Jerome Byrne has played with hundreds

of local Newfoundland and Labrador musicians over the years and he has played at

countless festivals and events. He has been recognized by the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador for his contribution to music and to his community.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Jerome Byrne for his many

contributions to our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Lewisporte Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. D. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, on November 19,

I had the privilege of attending the Annual Volunteer Appreciation Dinner in

Summerford.

The

event recognized the valuable contributions made by volunteers. Like so many

other communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, the Town of Summerford

is blessed with a strong volunteer base. Volunteers give freely of their time

and talents. As a token of appreciation, the Town of Summerford hosted a meal

followed by an evening of entertainment by Mr. Glenn Tetford.

Fire

Chief Terry Hann presented the following awards to deserving fire fighters:

Perry Small was awarded for attending the most fire emergency calls. Andy Gates

received two awards, best overall attendance and most training sessions, while

Vannetta Watkins received Firefighter of the Year. Mr. Chesley Jenkins was

recognized for his duty over and above a firefighter through assisting the

Firettes with their many functions.

Mayor

Kevin Barnes also presented community awards to Wayne Small and Calvin Wheeler

for outstanding volunteer service. Holly Gates received the prestigious award

Volunteer of the Year.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the award winners

and thanking all volunteers throughout our province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fogo Island Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

You should have dared me, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to recognize Calen's Run, a great new initiative in my

district.

October 29, a charitable run was held at William Mercer Academy in Dover to

raise funds for Calen Collins, a grade three student at that school. He has a

rare degenerative neurological condition called Batten disease. It causes

blindness, hearing loss, seizures and eventually death in those who suffer from

it.

The

event was called Calen's Zombie Run, and it invited participants, including

myself, to dress up as zombies. It was quite the sight to see over 100 zombies

running down the road through Hare Bay and Dover. Money raised from this event

will help Calen's parents cover travel costs in getting him to the hospital and

to raise public awareness on Batten disease.

The

community rallied in support around Calen's family during this difficult time.

The race raised over $3,000 and attracted competitive and amateur runners from

all age categories. Organizers were pleased with its success and plan to host an

annual run for Calen.

I ask

all Members to help me to recognize the organizers of Calen's Zombie Run,

especially Tom Collins and Russell Stockley for their volunteer efforts.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I stand today to inform the Members of this House and residents of our

province of an historic event that will take place on September 16, 2017. I

speak of the 75th anniversary Commemoration Ceremony of the U-boat attacks off

the shores of Bell Island which saw the loss of 69 sailors.

This

event, which is hosted by the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 18, Bell Island and

coordinated by Bell Island resident retired Major Marjorie Coakwell will take

place at Lance Cove Beach on Bell Island.

The

ceremony will honour the victims of the U-boat attacks for their service and

sacrifice; recognize the actions of the residents of Lance Cove who came to the

aid of the mariners immediately following the attacks, will highlight the

service of the Merchant marines, will pay tribute to the contributions made by

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as well as the Royal Canadian Navy, Army and

Air Force personnel during the Second World War and specifically during the

Battle of the Atlantic.

Dignitaries already confirmed for this event include: present and former

Lieutenant Governor, federal ministers and others.

I ask

Members to join me in congratulating and thanking the Royal Canadian Legion

Branch 18 and Major Coakwell for hosting such an event.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Placentia West Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, the Seniors of

Distinction Awards highlight outstanding achievement and effort by seniors in

our province. I stand today to recognize a dedicated and longstanding community

member of Marystown, Mr. Russ Murphy.

Mr.

Murphy has worked in the broadcasting industry for over 50 years, serving as

station manager at CHCM in Marystown for decades. In addition to this, he has

been an ardent supporter and organizer in promoting the region through

initiatives such as Communities in Bloom, Tidy Towns and the Heritage Run

Tourism Association.

When

Marystown hosted the Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games in 1980 and again in

2000, Russ was on the planning committee. For his contribution to the sport

community in the region, he was inducted into the Burin Peninsula Soccer Hall of

Fame in 2008.

This

year, he was awarded the Seniors of Distinction Award. His distinction and

contribution to the community speaks for itself and no one was surprised to see

him achieve this award.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in thanking and congratulating

Russ Murphy the voice of radio that many have woken up to on the Burin

Peninsula for 50 years on receiving this prestigious award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Climate Change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate the Town of Paradise on the Paradise

Double Ice Complex achieving Silver certification in Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design, otherwise known as LEED.

Recognized in over 160 countries, LEED provides independent, third-party

verification that a building has been built to high-performing standards for

sustainability. I was very pleased to attend a celebration of the complex

achieving LEED Silver certification earlier this month with the proud mayor and

council of the Town of Paradise, staff and residents.

Mr.

Speaker, to date, 15 projects have achieved some level of LEED certification in

the province, eight of which have achieved LEED Silver. This is, however, the

first arena and sports facility to achieve this status in Newfoundland and

Labrador. LEED buildings are designed to be better places to live and work. They

also save water, energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve indoor air

quality and, of course, conserve resources.

Mr.

Speaker, the Paradise Complex has already seen a 58 per cent savings in the cost

of total energy, and over 36 per cent reduction in indoor water use. This means

that the complex uses substantially less energy than equivalent buildings of the

same size that were not constructed to LEED guidelines.

Congratulations once again to the Town of Paradise on your accomplishment.

Attaining LEED Silver is a significant achievement and the town's leadership in

this important area has made the Paradise Double Ice Complex a dynamic and

sustainable fixture in the community.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, along

with all Members of the Official Opposition, I would like to congratulate the

Town of Paradise on achieving a Silver certification in Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design for the Paradise Double Ice Complex. I would also like to

mention this is a very special accomplishment for the Town of Paradise, as it is

the first arena or sports facility to achieve this status in our province. We

should all be very proud of their accomplishment.

As we

celebrate Paradise's achievement today, I would also like to mention that this

is another great investment by the former administration, which the current

Liberal government are celebrating once again. My colleague for Topsail

Paradise had the pleasure of turning the sod and he's a very proud Member today

too.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister for the advance copy of his statement. This is great news for the

people of Paradise and congratulations to the mayor and councillors for actually

taking the lead on LEED.

I ask

government: What is their plan for the many communities in this province who

will not be able to continue to run their facilities when they get hit with

skyrocketing Muskrat Falls power rates? What provisions will government make for

these smaller, less affluent communities and make their facilities more energy

efficient? What about people's homes across the province, what is government

willing to do to take the lead on this, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure

it is to rise in my place to congratulate Memorial University of Newfoundland's

Enactus Team on winning the 2016 Enactus World Cup in September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE:

After competing against more

than 1,700 teams, Memorial won this year's competition with Project Suc-Seed.

This initiative, created in partnership with Memorial's Faculty of Engineering,

provides year-round locally grown produce through a hydroponic system comprising

of recycled materials in places like coastal Labrador. They also engaged at-risk

youth through Choices for Youth to manufacture the hydroponic units, Mr.

Speaker.

Enactus

is an international non-profit organization focused on student entrepreneurial

action to help create a better world through community development projects. The

organization provides students with an invaluable opportunity to impact their

communities using innovative ideas, creativity, partnership and hard work to

deliver sustainable change.

Mr.

Speaker, Memorial University's Enactus Team was established in 1992, and focuses

on projects that create economic impact to improve the standard of living and

quality of life for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and people around the

world. They have won the World Cup twice and have nine national titles to their

credit.

Once

again, Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Enactus Memorial on yet another

outstanding achievement and thank you for the continuous dedication to helping

make our province and the world a better place. Students have proven it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I thank the minister for the

advance copy of his statement. Memorial University's Enactus Team continues to

thrive on the national world stage. As the minister pointed out, this is not our

team's first taste of success. This is their second world championship and nine

national titles. A fantastic feat, especially when they are competing against

the best of the best.

What's

even more impressive than their titles are the group's overall purpose. They are

focused on student entrepreneurial growth that leads to valuable community

development. This has a significant potential impact in so many ways and cannot

be overstated.

You make

us all very proud and we wish you all the best with your particular projects,

but more so with all your future endeavours. We can be certain that your futures

are indeed very bright.

Thank

you much, and congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Yes, congratulations

to Memorial's Enactus Team for winning the World Cup with this innovative and

collaborative project, and congratulations also to the Enactus Memorial program

for fostering social enterprise and community development.

Now it's

up to the government to show us its plan for making sure the Suc-Seed project is

sustainable in the long run so remote communities on the Labrador Coast and

elsewhere can have access to locally grown produce year-round.

Let us

make this now a way of life, not just a project.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier has buried the hatchet with Quebec and is not interested in putting

conditions on the discussions.

I ask

the Premier: Will you commit today that redress on the Upper Churchill must be

addressed before any further discussions can take place?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before

you could get to any conditions about any potential agreement that you would

ever see with any province, what I mentioned yesterday, for me, the most

important thing is that we be able to continue to strengthen relationships with

all provinces. We've been doing that with our Atlantic colleagues already, with

the Atlantic Growth Strategy. We've been able to do that with our federal

government. The Province of Quebec is the only province that we share a land

border with. So there are many areas that we share common concerns, areas where

we can provide similar services and partnerships.

Mr.

Speaker, so what you've seen in the last few weeks really obviously it seems

to me the former premier doesn't like the fact that you can actually build a

relationship with another province, in particular, if it's the delivery of

health care or transportation and so on.

So to

put conditions on any potential discussion that could occur is way too premature

to have that discussion. First and foremost, it's important to get to any table.

We're not there yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: Before you continue your discussions, will you secure a commitment

from Quebec to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador is given transmission

access to move power through Quebec, which Quebec has blocked for more than 40

years?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as

you know, the free flow of electricity is one of the components and one of the

things that's been discussed in the Agreement on Internal Trade, which is yet to

be finalized. But I would remind the former premier that it was a premier that

he sat under that actually is wheeling power through Quebec and is now been sold

on the other end. So the fact that power actually goes from Churchill Falls,

which we actually sell on the other end, is something that's not foreign to this

province.

Now with

that said, Mr. Speaker, if there's a benefit to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, there's an overall benefit so we can put money into social

programs, provide critical services to our province, any deal that would be

structured with Quebec on anything related to hydro developments on the

Churchill River would be the right deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And I'll assure you it will be open and transparent and it will be done in this

Legislature. They have the right to know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: Will you commit today to continue with court action against Quebec,

asking to be treated fairly, and not drop the actions that Quebec has asked to

be dropped?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as

you know, there has been a discussion that I had on Monday morning with the

former premier. It seems to me that's a much different discussion that the

former premier would have had with Premier Couillard a few years ago. Maybe it's

the fact that we were able to sit down and have a mature, professional,

respectful discussion with the Province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker. That's the way

it is. It's about building relationships; it's about building bridges with other

provinces to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So to put any

condition in place before you actually get there, that is not about actually

fostering discussion.

By the

way, I'd say, Mr. Speaker, contrary to maybe what the discussion would have

looked like with the former Premier, I was not asked to remove that notice of

appeal. We made it quite clear in the media yesterday that we would not be doing

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier made a comment that it's now their responsibility to

finish Muskrat Falls. It's also their responsibility to release the long-awaited

oversight reports. None of which have been released in the 12 months that

they've been in office.

So I ask

the Premier: When will you release the EY report, and the Oversight Committee

reports?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much for this

very important question. Oversight is important, and we take this job very

seriously. That is why we have worked very hard to have the EY report do the

cost

schedule and associated risk. That's why we're expanding and making sure

that we have a very strong board of directors and we're working on that.

That's

why we have an Oversight Committee, Mr. Speaker, who is actively doing a lot of

work. They're working right now on looking at the cost and

schedule that was

released in June. They're working on the methylmercury issue. They're looking at

the agreements with Astaldi. They've been very, very active. Their minutes are

online. There will be, I'm sure, a report in due time.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

the minister we've been 12 months without an Oversight Committee report.

I'll ask

the Premier: Can you confirm that the unreleased EY report has cost taxpayers

over $1 million?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much for the

question.

When the

interim report, which was a fulsome report, was released in April we did

indicate that it did cost over a million dollars to do that tremendous piece of

work. I will remind residents of the province and the Members opposite that what

EY did say was that the cost and

schedule released by the former government in

September of last year was not reasonable, and we had to go out and do a whole

piece of work around making sure that the cost and

schedule was very

specifically stated and made sure that we implemented the recommendations of the

EY report.

The

final report of EY will come once we have negotiated with and have finalized our

talks with Astaldi, the largest contractor with regard to the powerhouse.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the bridging agreement with Astaldi added $150 million to the Muskrat

Falls Project. This disclosure was made in Astaldi's financial statements that

had not come from Nalcor or from his new government, which promised to be open

on the books of Muskrat Falls.

I ask

the minister: Why did government or Nalcor not make this information available

to the public?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

want to address this very issue around Astaldi. After the election in 2015 and

during the transition, we did have some briefings from Nalcor. It was clearly

obvious from the briefings that we had with Nalcor at the time that the former

administration were aware of the situation around June of 2015 and did not

disclose that to the people of this province when they were in government at the

time. So, Mr. Speaker, the bridging agreement that was put in place, as Astaldi

had mentioned, was up to $150 million.

Mr.

Speaker, what is very clear here when you talk about openness and transparency,

it was the former administration that did not release the information related to

that very contract over a year ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I say to the

hon. Premier, that work was underway; they've come to a conclusion. A simple

question: Why didn't you release it to the public? You've come to a conclusion

on the expenditure, $150 million.

Mr.

Speaker, protests continue at Muskrat Falls site with protestors suggesting they

may stay through the winter.

I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: Have you reached out to speak with Aboriginal

leaders to ensure protests don't escalate like they did in October, due to your

lack of engagement resulting in increased costs of $300 million to $400 million?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Aboriginal leaders, we had a marathon meeting where we came to conclusions on

the methylmercury issue unlike the former government that did not address the

concerns of the Aboriginal leaders, dating back to before the sanctioning of the

project, Mr. Speaker. We were able to sit down and have a very good discussion,

came up with a very good process for discussion and engagement. It was very

vital, I think, to the people of Labrador, and very vital to the three

Aboriginal leaders. We'll continue to have those talks.

As the

Opposition knows, and as the people of the province know, we are engaging in an

independent expert advisory panel; we are continuing our discussions with

Aboriginal leaders on an ongoing basis. We will be responsive to the concerns of

the people of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, if the minister

was concerned about the province and the issues, why didn't she deal with it? In

June, we had a statement from the government that everything was fine in regard

to the protestors. Again, we see issues today that don't appear to being dealt

with.

Mr.

Speaker, in addition to the sale of excess energy, valued by Nalcor of $3.5

billion, the province holds an 8.4 per cent equity stake in Muskrat Falls, which

will pay dividends over a period of $22 billion. These revenues can be used to

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

These revenues can be used to

decrease rates in the projected Nalcor rates in 2021.

I ask

the minister: Is this factored into the projections by Nalcor?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

assuming when he asks if they're factored into the projections of Nalcor, he

means the projections of rates. I am assuming, because that is the question he

did ask last week. As I repeated last week, the rates are disclosed as to what

they would be in full and open and transparent as they have been in the past,

Mr. Speaker.

Under

the former administration, they were raw numbers as well. We have undertaken to

say that we will be mitigating rates. The Premier is on record, even before the

election, as saying he would use the sale of export power to mitigate those

rates, to bring those rates down.

And

further, Mr. Speaker, we have directed Nalcor to find ways of mitigating those

rates to making sure the rates are as low as possible. We do have the issue of

Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, but this government is dealing with those problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the hon. Minister to check Hansard. What I asked her last week was: Will she use

the excess energy revenue to offset rates? What I'm asking today: Will you use

the equity return in the project to reduce rates?

There

are two components there available now to mitigate rates. You don't appear to

want to use either.

So can I

ask you: Can you get that information on both remediations that are available,

bring them to the House and give the people of the province an update on the

Nalcor number of 22 cents in 2020?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I will

remind the Member opposite, it was, I believe, in July of 2009 that they

actually increased the rate by 8.4 per cent. So it was actually under the former

administration. They were the ones who actually did that.

Mr.

Speaker, as we've said time and time again, and as we commit to do to this House

and to the people of the province, we will be mitigating those rates. We have

some period of time now to find means and mechanisms. We have tasked Nalcor with

finding the ways to mitigate those rates, and in due course we will be

disclosing how we're going to do it, what approach. We've already said we're

using export power to do so, Mr. Speaker. We have a loan guarantee that will

help offset some of those rates. We will have a fulsome plan, Mr. Speaker, for

mitigating those rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the minister has just indicated she had acknowledged there are two methods

available in the project to mitigate rates. She's aware of them. Nalcor has

given projections on what they would look like in future years, but she's not

willing to use that right now to mitigate rates; yet, they say they're looking

for ways to mitigate rates.

Mr.

Speaker, can the minister update us on the proposed wind farm project from

Beothuk Energy on the West Coast?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At least

this government is going to mitigate rates, unlike the former administration who

didn't say they were going to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, regarding the

wind energy project that is being considered for the West Coast of Newfoundland

and Labrador, I have had a meeting with Beothuk Energy. I know they are very

excited about their plans. They are moving forward with some of those plans.

They are looking at other locations in Atlantic Canada as well.

This

government is committed, obviously, to green energy. We are committed to making

sure that we have green energy available. As they move forward with the plans,

we will continue to meet with them and see the impacts it will have in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Section

14(1) of the Electoral Power Control Act

defines distribution and sale of electrical energy.

wonder, Minister, in relation to that project, does there need to be an

amendment to that act?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, as I've just

indicated, the project is still in its analysis stages. They do have partners.

They are coming forward with their plans. They have not laid out in any full

detail their plans at this point in time. As we move forward we'll consider

whether or not there are changes that are required, whether or not they will be

exporting all their electricity, whether or not some of the considerations

that they are looking at right now: How do we move forward in this project?

They are

still reviewing their plans. They will come forward with them in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the legislation

speaks to Nalcor and the public entity that produces energy in the province.

This obviously would be outside of that.

I'm just

asking the minister, you must know to date: Are you reviewing the legislation?

Do you think there needs to be an amendment made? A simple question.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I believe the

hon. Member wants me to suppose what will transpire in the fullness of time.

We are

considering whether or not, what that project means to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We're considering the impacts it will have on energy

rates in this province. We're considering how they may export power. We'll

consider all those options when the full project is laid before us.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Minister of Education went from proudly beating his chest yesterday over school

board elections to stating he is relieved they are over.

I ask

the minister: You've been planning this election for over a year, why were there

so many issues which led to less than 2 per cent of the voting population

turning out to vote?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member might want to review the videotape of yesterday. I don't recall beating

my chest over here, Mr. Speaker.

I don't

know what he's talking about, this percentage he has just thrown out on the

floor. According to the preliminary numbers, and they are preliminary, that I've

seen from the returning officers for both of the school districts, there has

been a marginal increase in the numbers of people who participated in this

election in comparison to 2009.

There

were half the acclamations last time half of the candidates were acclaimed.

This time there were far more people contesting elections, and far more

candidates within those contested elections. So we'll have the final numbers

before long, but what the Member has stated here is incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I do ask the minister that he

check his numbers; and, he's right, there were many more people contesting them

and there's a reason for that. The ultimate reason was people wanted to go out

there to fix the mess that he had created over the last year (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

I ask the minister: Will you

take responsibility for the lack of organization and planning for this election?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately,

under the previous administration the public was denied the opportunity to clean

up their mess. This crowd basically outlawed or got rid of the whole practice of

having democratically elected trustees.

In the

election last year, we committed to having a democratically elected board of

trustees. We have two now. This is the first time the French has been elected in

this manner, and we are committed to having regularly scheduled elections for

school board trustees into the future.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

No doubt, you made a mess of

the election process. There was a mass report of confusion, a lack of

organization at polling stations, as well as issues with the website. People

have described the process as a mess.

Considering you were aware of the impending chaos for days prior, why did you

sit idle rather than try and fix the process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the only chaos I

see is the chaos over in the Opposition benches.

There

was no chaos yesterday. Yes, there were a few bumps in the road along the way.

There have been seven years people were denied the opportunity to vote for

seven years under the previous administration. There are learnings that will

come from this, as will come from any process that we engage in. I'll be having

conversations with the returning officers for both of the districts to try to

find ways to improve things going forward. But, as I said, we think that there's

been a marginal increase in participation based on the preliminary numbers.

There are more people participating, fewer acclamations. So there are bright

things about this election, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

The only positive here is

that there is a good slate of candidates here who, no doubt, will keep the

minister honest when it comes to improving the education system.

Can the

minister confirm that the former Liberal candidate who was appointed to oversee

the school board's election quit prior to the election?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development .

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, it's all very

rich coming from a Member who, when he was minister, bought a ferry and didn't

buy the wharf to go with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY:

The individual he's referring

to, Mr. Speaker, found other employment in August and took a better opportunity.

I wish that person all the best. That person helped us out quite a bit. It was a

temporary hire. He did a lot of good work and rather than calling that person's

work a mess, I commend them on their effort, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

The mess here started with

the Minister of Education and how he was running the education system.

I do

ask: How much money was this member paid?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, in the House of

Assembly last spring, we allocated we, the government $400,000 towards the

school board election. Those monies that paid anybody there were actually six

French district, one in the Department of Education and Early Childhood

Development.

Again,

it is all very interesting after the fact to have all this criticism. We had

extensive debate about all matters relating to the budget here in the House of

Assembly and the Opposition didn't raise one question; there was no suggestion.

The

Member had between June and now, I don't think I have received a single piece of

correspondence from this Opposition critic for Education. It wasn't like that

when we were sitting on that side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I just

want to remind all hon. Members the only person that we wish to hear from is the

person identified by the Speaker to have the floor.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development: In comparison from

2015 to 2016, how specifically are seniors better off than they were last year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Well, Mr. Speaker, we are

working on putting an office of the seniors' advocate in place right now. The

income benefit for seniors has increased.

So, Mr.

Speaker, seniors are better off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

The minister should take a

look at her own website. The supposed increase in the Seniors' Benefit and the

Income Supplement actually replaced the home heating rebate, which was cut by

the Liberals, and the provincial HST credit.

Can you

tell the people of this province how much less seniors are getting this year in

comparison to last year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for

clarification purposes, what the Member opposite said is inaccurate. A new

Newfoundland Income Supplement was introduced. The Seniors' Benefit was enhanced

to provide seniors with even more income than they would have received under the

former administration.

We did

replace the home heating rebate, but there is a significant number of dollars

invested in those new programs in the tune of $74 million I believe is the

number, Sir.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Well, I can tell the

minister, Mr. Speaker, that some of our seniors are actually losing hundreds of

dollars some of them up to $300. I'm getting calls to my office on a daily

basis. The increased cost of gas, home heating fuel, insurance, taxes,

over-the-counter medications, cuts to home care and over 300 increased fees,

they are gravely worried.

So what

are you going to do, I ask the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social

Development? What are you going to do to address these concerns of seniors, and

how is this a stronger tomorrow for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I would remind

the Member opposite, who would be very aware of this during the debate earlier

this year, that our government, and more importantly the people of the province,

have been faced with a financial crisis that was in no small part due to the

poor administration of the former government.

Mr.

Speaker, seniors in this province are deserving of the seniors' advocate that we

promised and the minister indicated that we were working on that. They are

deserving of an understanding of where power rates are going to be, which the

Minister of Natural Resources has spoken to earlier today of commitment to

mitigate rates as a result of the Muskrat Falls Project.

The

Member opposite is speaking very eloquently about the importance of seniors'

issues. I can tell you that this side of the House is taking action to take care

of that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, first responders have contacted us worried about emergency

transportation in St. John's in the middle of winter.

I ask

the minister: Without 24-hour snow clearing, how will emergency vehicles get to

our trauma centre?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd just

like to let the hon. Member opposite know that 24-hour snow clearing was

something that was implemented between December and March, and obviously not for

the entire province. There were only 11 areas that actually had and it wasn't

even 24 hours, seven days; it was five days a week.

So what

we have done, Mr. Speaker, we are putting measures in place that we will address

these. We are actually as well looking at the forecasting that will be done. My

department and my staff are well aware of the issues and challenges that are

being faced. We will address these. We will have, certainly, measures of the

amount of snowfall that is required and our staff will be out to address these

issues. We will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker, so we're not anticipating any

issues with that.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

hearing too many stories of people, especially seniors, being sent home from

hospital before any assessment for post-acute home care or long-term care has

been carried out.

I ask

the Minister of Health and Community Services: Is the practice of sending people

home without long-term care or home support in place one that is approved by the

Department of Health and Community Services?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With

regard to post-acute care, that actually begins the minute the patient or the

client arrives in the emergency department. There is a plan put in place for

their care from the physicians and nurses involved at the outset. Part of that

involves social work consults. These folk are in a situation whereby what they

need to allow them to go home is put in place before they leave the building.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I really

ask the minister to meet with his different regional health authorities and find

out what really is going on because what he has said is not happening as a

regular practice. I would suggest he look at all the areas and find out what is

going on in this province with regard to post-acute care.

Mr.

Speaker, the Deloitte report on home care pointed to inconsistencies in

coordinating the care of home support and long-term care clients. It's called

for integrated care plans, so they found they weren't any.

I ask

the minister: When will this government introduce the case management for home

care and long-term care it promised so seniors won't fall between the cracks?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question and somewhat erroneous statement at the beginning of it. The situation,

quite frankly, is that if the Member opposite has specific details of specific

individuals who have been disadvantaged, bring to me and bring them to my

department.

We've

seen over the last couple of days cases of hyperbole and names that may not seem

to exist in reality, other than the Member's imagination opposite. We have not

just received any details of these, and I welcome those.

With

regard to the Deloitte home care report, there are 24 points in that report.

They are broken down into four groups for immediate action, early and late.

Those are being implemented as we speak, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I

asked the Ministers of AESL and Health what they were going to do about the

situation of very vulnerable people living in deplorable boarding houses that

are paid for hard-earned taxpayers' money.

Well,

Mr. Speaker, I visited some of those places again today and I have some pretty

disturbing pictures. This is a systemic problem and a scandalous misuse of

public funds. This is not a single case.

I ask

the ministers again: What are they going to do to make sure these vulnerable

people are better supported and public money is better invested?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, the Member

opposite reported to this House that she was of an individual by the name of Tom

who is placed in a situation where their health was left vulnerable, where their

safety was left insecure and that there was need of action.

I ask

the hon. Member to bring forward the name of that individual. We only know them

by the name of Tom. Now, I ask the hon. Member to bring forward the name of the

individual so that their needs can be responded to.

It is

unacceptable that after asking that question to bring forward the name of the

individual so that we can provide for their care, this hon. Member did not.

Either Tom does not exist, or the hon. Member left the individual in a state of

vulnerability. What is it, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I have Tom's

case right here. I've used a different name to protect his privacy. As a matter

of fact, there are dozens and dozens and dozens of Toms in exactly the same

position all over this city, and there are no social workers taking care of them

because of what this government

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

and the previous government

has done in terms of taking care of vulnerable people.

Mr.

Speaker, they know the problem with boarding houses across the city. It's been

almost five years since

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker's having difficulty hearing the Member for St. John's Centre. I would

ask all hon. Members to respect the individual that's been identified to speak.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it's been almost five years since the review of the

Residential Tenancy Act and we still

have no new act.

I ask

the Minister of Service NL: He's had a whole year to work this out; where is the

new Residential Tenancy Act and will

he commit to include regulating these types of rooming and boarding houses in

the act?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, 24 hours has

passed 24 hours has passed when an individual that we only know by the name of

Tom has been left in a state of vulnerability. Where they are apparently,

allegedly living in a state of cockroaches, where they're facing malnutrition,

and their health and safety is compromised.

I ask

this Member to exercise her duty to provide us, me and my department, with

information. We have social workers, we have case officers, we have individuals

that can provide care to an individual, if we know that their needs are not

being met.

Mr.

Speaker, 24 hours has passed and an individual has been placed in jeopardy.

Either this individual has not received a duty of care from this Member, or

there is a fictitious account which has been raised on the floor of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time

for Question Period is expired.

MS. MICHAEL:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MS. MICHAEL:

My first point of order

regards comments by the Minister of Health and Community Services. In response

to my question he said both that my information was erroneous and, secondly,

that I must be speaking out of my imagination. I don't think that shows respect

for the Speaker and for what I presented in the House in my question.

I'm now

calling a point of order on the Minister of it's such a

long title, but let's

use the whole title Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for using similar

disrespectful language with regard to my colleague for St. John's Centre.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I will not respond to the

first one. I'll let the Minister of Health speak to that, but as it relates to

the second point of order, I'm unsure which Standing Order that would fall

under. It was not referenced as per the Standing Order. I would like to hear

that first and why it is a point of order.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

I'm looking for these

MR. KENT:

Forty-nine is offensive

language.

MS. MICHAEL:

Forty-nine has to do with

offensive language, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Could the hon. Member report

to the House what the specific language which was offensive?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, first of all,

section 49 says that no Member shall use offensive words against any Member of

this House.

The

language I heard from the minister to the Member for St. John's Centre implied

that the Member wasn't telling the truth, implied the case she was talking about

didn't exist and implied her of a dereliction of duty. I think all of that shows

disrespect.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

With

respect to my comments, I withdraw them.

MR. SPEAKER:

On the issue of the comments

by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, I'm not sure if it's a

disagreement between two Members. I will take time to review the statements to

determine whether or not the Chair considers them to be offensive. I'll report

back to the House either later this afternoon or tomorrow.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the

Emergency Act, the Emergency Services Act and the Protection Services Act. (Bill

51)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

on Monday, November 28.

Further,

pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House not adjourn at 10

o'clock p.m. on Monday, November 28.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to

and from school each day; and

WHEREAS

there have been a number of buses removed from service over the past few weeks

for safety reasons, calling into question the current inspection and enforcement

protocols for school buses in this province; and

WHEREAS

there have been concerns raised by members of the busing industry regarding

government's tendering practices as it relates to the provision of school bus

services in this province; and

WHEREAS

there are many parents throughout our province who have raised both scheduling

kilometre policy, the courtesy seating policy, the new double bus run schedule,

as well as overcrowding on school buses;

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

of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to strike an

all-party committee on school busing to consult with stakeholders and make

recommendations to government for the improvement to the school busing system in

our province.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to present this petition once again. As indicated, I will

continue to do so throughout this sitting of the House of Assembly. Obviously,

this is an important issue for parents, for students attending school.

There

are a number of issues, as I've outlined. I, once again, want to just

concentrate a little bit on the 1.6 kilometre rule. Certainly, when we're

talking children, especially young children, K to six in particular, this 1.6

kilometre rule is a concern for parents and for their safety in terms of having

to walk these distances, walking in the nighttime. It's dark in the morning, I

should say, it's really dark this time of the year; walking in adverse

conditions, areas where there are no sidewalks or no crosswalk lights, where

they have to travel across four-lane roads and so on. Even in areas where there

are sidewalks, such as my area, they're not always cleared. So that is a safety

concern in itself.

course, we know there are concerns about the new double bus runs and all the

headaches that that's causing families as well. So there are numerous issues

around busing. Some of them, it seems they're going to be addressed in terms of

inspections and so on I'm hearing, which is a good thing. I certainly

congratulate government on that.

Hopefully, the new procurement act will help with some of the concerns expressed

by bus operators; I hope it will. Unfortunately, where everything seems to be

contained within the regulations it's really hard to know, which is an issue

that we have with the act.

Beyond

that, Mr. Speaker, there continues to be numerous issues and concerns from

parents all throughout the province and I think that the best way to deal with

it is through an all-party committee. We could put all the issues on the table,

we can work together and, hopefully, come up with solutions that work for all of

the children who are attending school.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune has less than two minutes to present her petition.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition 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

Budget 2016 introduces over 50 new

fees and increases over 300 fees; and

WHEREAS

Budget 2016 asked the people of this

province to pay more for a decrease in government services; and

WHEREAS

these fee increases negatively impact the financial well-being of seniors,

youth, families, students and individuals;

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

of Assembly to urge government to immediately reverse fee increases as

introduced through Budget 2016 .

Mr.

Speaker, I think the vast majority of people in this province were horrified on

Budget Day this year after listening to the promises that the government

opposite campaigned upon and then the stark contrast to the budget that was

actually brought down. It was quite a shock for people of this province. As the

year continues to go on, they're feeling it in their pocketbooks; they're

feeling it in their ability to buy groceries. This winter they're going to feel

it in their ability to pay the light bill.

I see

that my time is quickly running out on the clock, Mr. Speaker, so I will get

back up and speak to this most important issue. The people of Newfoundland and

Labrador deserve better.

Thank

you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Being

Private Members' Day, I call on the Member for Topsail Paradise to present his

private Member's resolution.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Member for Ferryland, the following resolution:

BE IT

RESOLVED that any and all agreements respecting Churchill River hydro power

shall be brought to the House of Assembly for public debate and Members' vote

prior to ratification.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, there has much debate in recent days over Upper Churchill, more so than

we have been. It's been a matter that's been discussed and debated for 45 years.

It's come back to this House on numerous occasions. It's a matter probably

better understood and better known by more people in the province than any other

subject matter in the history of Newfoundland by citizens who have an interest

in this and also know the history of it.

Some may

say, well, why this resolution? Why the resolution that any agreements that the

Premier and the government today reaches should come to the House of Assembly?

Well, it's a matter of trust, Mr. Speaker. The reason for this resolution is a

matter of trust.

Mostly,

if you recall, and we all recall, the people of the province don't trust and

we know this quite well Hydro-Qubec to look after our province's best

interests. The question is about: Who's going to look after Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians? Who's going to look after our province and our best interests? Why

would they? Why would we expect people to trust them?

Hydro-Qubec is a public energy company. It's a company owned by the people of

Quebec; very similar to Nalcor is owned by the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. They have a vested interest in gaining the very best deal they can for

the people of Quebec, for their own people. The job of looking out for the best

interests of the people of the province is not their responsibility. It's our

responsibility, ours, as a House, and the government's responsibility as a

government of the day.

Every

single Member of the House of Assembly has a responsibility, and a matter so

important to our future. If we want to understand how important it is to our

future, we only have to look at the past, and the relationships we've had with

Quebec in our past. It's every Member's responsibility to have a say. Not simply

to trust the government and the Cabinet to do what they believe is right for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but for the Members of the House of Assembly

to have a say, to understand what the deal is and to speak on behalf of their

people.

Now, I

expect Members opposite today are going to say, oh, back with Muskrat Falls you

wouldn't do a debate in the House. There was a private Member's resolution came

here on Muskrat Falls but you wouldn't have a separate debate in the House.

There was one back in 2002.

Well,

Mr. Speaker, we did more than that as a government, because we went to the

people of the province. We campaigned an election on it. In 2011, the main

thrust and importance of our campaign was on the future energy of Newfoundland

and Labrador. We campaigned on it. New Energy was the slogan. We went to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador and asked them to elect us to develop our

hydro resources.

Now,

Members opposite, I suspect the minister and others will speak to it today and

they'll say, but you wouldn't do a debate on Muskrat Falls. We didn't do a

debate on Muskrat Falls; we took it to the people of the province. There was a

private Member's debate on it, but we went to an election and asked the people

of the province.

Development of hydroelectricity, hydro resources, partnership Quebec was not a

part of their campaign. They talked about openness and transparency. They talked

about we're going to take the politics out of appointments, their signature

bill. That was the thrust of what they were going to do. We're going to manage

better and smarter. We're going to be wiser and better. No job losses, no tax

hikes.

That's

what they campaigned on, Mr. Speaker. That was the campaign. In 2011, we

campaigned on the development of energy resources and the people elected us to

do that. There is the significant difference. That's the difference of what

happened before and what's happening now.

Back in

former Premier Grimes's government they almost signed a deal with Quebec in

2002, and then there was a debate there was. But what happened back then, the

circumstances have changed. There are some similarities and there are much

differences. We're much closer to 2041, and Quebec knows that. Quebec knows

that. They know exactly what's coming and what's getting closer for them.

Let's go

back to the history of Quebec and talk for a minute, just a couple of minutes,

about what happened. Because the development of hydro resources in Quebec

actually goes back to the '30s; it was back in the 1930s that Quebecers were

outraged that the province and the people had no control over their electrical

systems kind of sounds like we are today with the Upper Churchill.

They

were very upset that other entities were gouging them for profit. Kind of like

we've been gouged over the last 45 years. They wanted to take control of their

own destiny by creating a public energy company. They laid the groundwork, and

in 1944 that's exactly what they did because it was 1944 when they created

Hydro-Qubec. They started to explain and understand the capacity and potential

that Hydro-Quebc could have, project by project. Until that they had increased

from 661 megawatts up to 3,661megawatts.

By the

'60s, it was still not the full, province-wide utility that we know it to be

today. They were still working on it. But in the '60s it became known as

Quebec's quiet revolution. That's what the '60s became known as in their energy

development: Quebec's quiet revolution.

They

started talking in far-reaching terms and Quebec starting talking about how we

can do heavy investments today, put significant debt loads today to have

generation ability and sales ability in the future. They said how can we take

ownership of this in the '60s so we can earn money off it and profit from it and

Quebecers can get the lowest rates possible and we can earn billions of dollars

off it how can we do that? That's what happened in the '60s to Quebec's quite

revolution.

They

talked in terms of masters of their own house; that's what they did back in the

'60s. It encompassed all areas of society in Quebec, including their energy.

Premier Lesage appointed a young Cabinet minister by the name of Ren Lvesque

he became premier of Quebec later to oversee the Hydro-Qubec portfolio and to

develop their assets and to leverage the benefits for Quebec. It began to

develop a strategy, one that was to nationalize the remaining electricity

companies in the province. They called an election in 1962 on the theme of

masters of their own home, including electricity.

They won

a mandate and that launched what became the hostile takeover of 11 electricity

companies, including Shawinigan Water and Power. Shawinigan Water and Power is

of particular interest and importance here because when they took over

Shawinigan Water and Power, they also acquired a 20 per cent share of a facility

that was then known as Hamilton Falls.

Now, we

know back in the '60s Liberal premier of the day, Liberal Premier Smallwood,

went over to England, met with Prime Minister Churchill and he took under his

arm a roll of plans from Labrador. He went over and saw Churchill and when he

saw Churchill, they had a discussion and he was the representative for

Newfoundland. Anything else do you want to talk to me about? Liberal Premier

Smallwood laid it all out on the table. He said look what we have in Labrador;

we have huge assets.

He was

so impressed and wanted to be part of it, BRINCO was formed. And the Premier

Smallwood saw fit to change the name of Hamilton River to Churchill River and

Churchill Falls. That's how that name came about.

But

Hydro-Qubec said this fits right into our plan. They were hard-hitting, hard

bargainers and they reached a deal because BRINCO and the developers needed to

cover the operational debt that existed in the development of Upper Churchill.

Newfoundland and Labrador was on its knees and needed help and needed assistance

and along came Quebec; we know how to do this. And they took the bulk of the

power and control in exchange for dealing with the cost of building the project.

Who's benefitted from it for 45 years? Quebec. Quebec benefitted from that for a

very, very long time and they did an exchange for the power plants output at

very low rates for a very long time and that was the deal that they did on the

Upper Churchill.

But it

didn't take long, Mr. Speaker, before Newfoundlanders and Labradorians started

to tune in and said there's a problem here because as rates change, our benefits

stay the same and Quebec profits continue to increase. For 45 years, that has

taken place.

Now, it

seemed like a good deal at the time. When it was done everybody said oh, a

great, wonderful deal that the province had done at the time. How wonderful was

it for Quebec to assume all that debt because debt was a problem. And that's the

concern that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to this very day, that Quebec

now wants to come in and say, well, let's talk to you, Newfoundland and Labrador

because here's what's happening, Mr. Speaker; 2041 is not far away.

Muskrat

Falls has been worked on I know there are people over at Nalcor, at Hydro, who

are retiring and the only project they've ever worked on was Muskrat Falls.

Muskrat Falls has been worked on for 30 years or more. It takes a tremendous

long time to develop significant hydro assets, years and years and years. So in

the big scope of things, the 25 years remaining on the contract is not a big

window. Quebec knows this, and Hydro-Qubec knows this.

They

also know that there are cost overruns on Muskrat Falls. They know that there's

a debt problem. Dj vu, Mr. Speaker, the same thing over again. It does sound

very familiar to have debt. And we're hearing a lot of talk from the government

opposite about debt, debt in the province, how they manage it and doing we had

a discussion today in Question Period about seniors and we heard from the Member

opposite. When they were asked are seniors better off, the Finance Minister got

up in her place today and talked about, well, we had a terrible financial

situation so we had to deal with it.

seniors are worse off today because of the challenges they faced and what

decisions they had to make. But Quebec remembers how someone else's debt problem

opened the door to incredible opportunity for them. And we as a Legislature and

as elected Members of the House of Assembly representing all corners of

Newfoundland and Labrador have a responsibility to ensure that history does not

repeat itself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

We absolutely do.

We have

a responsibility to our constituents. As I said very early in my remarks, I

don't think there is a topic or an issue or a resource better known and

understood by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians more than the resource that

exists on the Churchill River in Labrador. And I don't think there's a topic or

a matter that's better feared, or more feared and more worrisome to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians than our resources on the Churchill River, and

it's for a very good reason. It's a matter that should be taken very seriously.

Now,

I've asked the Premier several times if he will provide the details of the full

deal to the people of the province before it's ratified. So far, until today in

Question Period, he has said no. Well, he didn't answer the question, which

generally is a no. Unless he's going to do it, he would say yes, but it's

generally a concern.

I've

heard from lots of people from around the province about it why didn't the

Premier answer the question? If he was going to do it, he would have said it. If

he's not going to do it, he's going to dance around the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

He's going to dance around

the answer, and that's what we had. Now, we heard a comment from him today that

it will be brought to the House. So we'll make sure we get a record on him I

am glad they do. That sounds like they're going to speak to it today. Again, as

I said earlier, I anticipate what they're going to do today and say, well, we

wouldn't do a vote on Muskrat Falls. What we did

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. P. DAVIS:

But we didn't do a vote in

the House of Assembly. We did a vote in the entire province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

We brought it to the entire

province in 2011. It was the signature of our campaign in 2011

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

on energy in our future and

our Energy Plan. That was what we went to the people on.

they're going to get up today and their going to say, well, we wouldn't do a

vote in the House, or the government of the day and the premier of the day

wouldn't do a vote in the House and that was our party. They're going to do all

of that.

But

what's important is how we deal with our negotiations with Quebec. Back then

that wasn't part of the factor, because Quebec wasn't talking to us. And Quebec

said, well, unless you get rid of your lawsuits, which we weren't prepared to

do, we're not going to talk to you.

I've

asked the Premier today: Are you going to ensure there's going to be redress on

the imbalance? And every dollar profit created by the Upper Churchill, do you

know how much Newfoundland and Labrador gets? Two cents. For every dollar

profit, Newfoundland and Labrador gets 2 cents. That was the deal done by

Liberal Premier Joe Smallwood back in 1969 that looked like a good deal for the

day, but Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have regretted for 45 years.

What we

want to do is make sure it comes to the House for a debate, that there's full

disclosure on the matter so we can have a debate here in the House so we, as

legislators, can review it, we can talk to our constituents and we can do

everything in our own power to make sure a mistake is not made that's going to

negatively impact future generations for years to come.

That's

simply what this is about. We couldn't get an answer from the Premier in

Question Period, but we've asked it several times, so we're going to ask the

entire House of Assembly today: Do you agree that the matter should come here

for a full debate, a debate here in the House, a public debate, and a vote by

all Members of the House of Assembly? And that's why this private Member's

resolution is here on the floor of the House of Assembly today.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

on this private Member's resolution today. It's a very important debate today. I

believe it really speaks to the role of the House of Assembly. It really speaks

to what types of debates we should be having, discussions that should be held in

the House of Assembly. It is essential, in my view, to the function and form of

the House of Assembly to have informed discussions around these debates.

Mr.

Speaker, the development of the hydroelectric potential is certainly most

important to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's certainly a very

important decision and one that should be fully debated and discussed, examined

and reviewed.

Now, the

Member opposite did mention and he well remembers that, of course, the issue of

Muskrat Falls never really was debated in the House. It was a focus of many

questions. It was a focus of much debate as we sat in Opposition, as the

Liberals sat in Opposition, lots of discussion around it. The premier one many

occasions rose in this hon. House to ask that the Muskrat Falls Project be

scrutinized, and time after time after time that was not to happen in this

House.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I'm rising today to say I think that is not right. I think we should be

debating these important matters in the House. Our government has made a

commitment, Mr. Speaker, to be open and transparent. We welcome debate and

discussion on these issues.

In my

mandate letter as Minister of Natural Resources and in the mandate letters of

every minister in the Cabinet of this government and, indeed, spoken to all of

caucus, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador says I expect you to follow

and I'm quoting here from my mandate letter that is available online, should

anyone wish to see it. It is a public document.

expect you to follow the principles of openness, transparency and

accountability. It is my intention to ensue policy decisions in government are

informed by research, evidence, and evaluation so that citizens can understand

how and why decisions are made.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, compare that to the former administration. A former PC leader and

premier had this to say about the House of Assembly. I don't find it a place for

a very healthy, open, constructive debate in the first place. Now compare those

two administrations.

The

former government and my hon. colleague, the hon colleague opposite, just stood

up and said he doesn't want history to repeat itself. I think that's a very

important lesson to be learned. We don't want history to repeat itself either,

not on the Upper Churchill Project, nor on the fact that debates of importance

are not held in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, Dwight Ball did say my apologizes the current Premier did say at

the time that he thought it was really difficult and really an insult to

democracy that the debate was not held here in this House of Assembly. And I

think it would be an insult to democracy if we continued in the vein that the

former administration was going, that important debates around important

subjects were not being debated in this House of Assembly.

Now, I

will note and I'm just checking the time, Mr. Speaker, because of course we

only have a few minutes, and that was one of the concerns when I think the hon.

colleague did mention that there was a private Member's resolution on Muskrat

Falls previously. I believe that debate did occur back around 2012, brought

forward by the government of the day. So it did allow just six or seven speakers

to stand on their feet that day to talk about the very important subject of the

sanctioning of Muskrat Falls.

So I'm

cognizant of the time of the day because, of course, I want to get as many

people to speak to this important issue, the important issue of ensuring that

major discussions regarding the Churchill River, hydro power projects are

brought to the floor of the House.

Mr.

Speaker, I noted when the hon. colleague opposite did speak he talked about a

matter of trust. He talked about a matter of trust in that he had much concerns

about trusting Hydro-Qubec. The responsibility, a matter so important to our

future, would be discussed in the House of Assembly, and I completely agree with

him. The responsibility of a matter so important to our future should be

discussed in the House of Assembly. That is the differentiation, I say, Mr.

Speaker, between this government and the former government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I have read the

resolution and I have reviewed the notes around the resolution and the intent.

And the spirit and the intent of the resolution is so that matters concerning

future development on the Churchill River will be brought to this House, matters

concerning, I believe, as the former speaker did say on the renegotiation, or

any potential renegotiation, of the Upper Churchill power contract being debated

in this House.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier has risen time and time again, I've risen time and time

again, and said there were no ongoing, there have been no ongoing there have

been really no discussions at all, except for one that was held this week.

Because of the discussions that have been going on both in Newfoundland and

Labrador and Quebec, the Premiers of both provinces have agreed they're going to

have a further discussion on issues of interest between our two provinces.

We do,

as the Premier said earlier today, share a border. I know that my hon.

colleague, for example, in Labrador West knows very well the types of

involvement around the Labrador Trough that goes on between Quebec and

Newfoundland and Labrador. There are other matters of importance between the two

provinces because we do share a border, Mr. Speaker.

I will

say, however, the issue of the Upper Churchill contract has been one that has

been very, very difficult for this province; one that we all would like to see

amended. As a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we should be the primary

beneficiaries of our resources.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, we have moved forward with an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. We

did give notice that we will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada under what's

called the good-faith case. That is continuing today, Mr. Speaker. We are going

to continue with that appeal; though it has cost this province millions of

dollars, I will say that, Mr. Speaker. Because a substantive amount of money has

been invested in the good-faith case, we will be appealing that to the Supreme

Court of Canada because we all feel there should be improvements or changes to

the Upper Churchill contract. I think the hon. Member spoke passionately about

the impacts to this province of the Upper Churchill contract.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say as well, that it is time for us to have an adult

conversation with our neighbouring Province of Quebec. I think that's exactly

what's going to happen. There are no conditions; the Premier said that today.

There are no conditions put forward by the Premier of Quebec in having that

conversation.

I look

forward to, and I'm sure people in this House and around the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, look forward to finding if there are ways we can have

a good conversation, an adult conversation, one that will bear results for this

province. As the Premier said repeatedly, time and time again, it will be for

the best interest and benefit of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, the spirit and intent of the resolution, I think we all support and

agree with. There are, however, a couple of things I will say to my hon.

colleagues that I think they didn't mean to capture when they put forward their

resolution.

In their

resolution they talk about any and all agreements respecting Churchill River

hydro power. Now, if you're talking about any and all that could be on a

daily basis, through Nalcor Energy, there is an energy marketing that goes on

that does create agreements on a daily basis of surplus power being sold. There

could be labour contracts that could involve an agreement. There are daily

issues, what I'm going to call operational issues, that I'm sure do not need to

be debated in the House of Assembly, do not need to use the time and the

resources of the House of Assembly for debate. They are routine matters.

So I

will say to my hon. colleagues opposite this is very friendly to help

clarify and ensure that we do address the concerns that are being expressed and

agreed to, I think, in full spirit, I will propose an amendment to help solidify

and clarify, and I hope they take it in the friendly manner this is put forward.

I would

like to move that the resolution be amended by deleting the words any and all

agreements respecting Churchill River hydro power and by substituting the words

and I have a copy here for my hon. colleagues all future agreements

respecting Churchill River Hydro Power developments and renegotiation of the

Upper Churchill Power contract.

I'll

read that again just for clarity, because I stumbled a bit. So delete the words

any and all agreements because that would capture any and all including those

energy marketing; delete the words any and all agreements respecting Churchill

River hydro power and replace with all future agreements respecting Churchill

River Hydro Power developments which I think they're trying to capture and

renegotiation of the Upper Churchill Power contract.

I guess

you'll call the seconder, and I would like to lay this before you by resolution.

MR. LETTO:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

I beg your pardon?

MR. LETTO:

Seconded by me.

MS. COADY:

It's seconded by my hon.

colleague, the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

May I table this, please?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. COADY:

And I have copies here for

you as well.

MR. SPEAKER:

It's been moved by the

Minister of Natural Resources and seconded that there be an amendment to the

private member's resolution.

The

House will now recess for a short period of time in consideration of that

amended resolution.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

consideration of the proposed amendment, the Chair finds the amendment in order.

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you for ruling the amendment it is a friendly amendment. We wanted to make

sure we had clarity, really specify the types of contracts.

Mr.

Speaker, it is very, very important to the people of this province and very

important to the Members of the House of Assembly that we do have the

opportunity to have fulsome debate. That is why I think there have been so many

concerns around Muskrat Falls.

I've

spent the last year, Mr. Speaker, really trying to put Muskrat Falls on track,

really working hard to make sure that we are moving in getting that done and

getting it done as cost effectively as possible, because of course the project

was sanctioned in 2012. We're now at the end of 2016, Mr. Speaker. By the time

we entered into the picture, a lot of things had to be done.

As the

people of the province know, we brought in EY and we looked at the cost and

schedule. It was found to be unreasonable. We've implemented the recommendations

of the EY report. We have come out with a new cost and schedule. We have a new

CEO, a world-class CEO. We are doing all the work.

Mr.

Speaker, there are those who say that the Muskrat Falls contract and the

development of Muskrat Falls will actually be more detrimental to this province

than even some of the other projects that have been underway.

Mr.

Speaker, we did put this amendment, as I said, in a friendly manner forward so

we could clarify and specify the types of agreements that this House should,

would and could analyze, should anything ever occur on development on the

Churchill River or should anything ever occur on the renegotiation of the Upper

Churchill contract.

Mr.

Speaker, it's very important to the people of this province. We are very open,

transparent and we think it's important; therefore, we wanted to be supportive.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

certainly a pleasure to rise today to speak to this particular motion put

forward by the Member for Topsail Paradise.

Just to

review it:

BE IT RESOLVED that any and all agreements respecting Churchill

River hydro power shall be brought to the House of Assembly for public debate

and Members' vote prior to ratification.

Now,

I've certainly listened to the prior speakers and the Minister of Natural

Resources in regard to some of her commentary on the actual motion and some of

the issues she identified in the amendment in clarifying in her perspective, I

guess, and their side how the attributes as outlined aren't more clearly

defined. We'll go through that as we proceed through debate here this afternoon.

As my

colleague from Topsail Paradise mentioned when he was up, he went back and

talked about some of the historic context of this particular motion. Obviously,

it relates back to a development of Churchill Falls, previously the Hamilton

River, and how the evolution of that dating back to the '50s in regard to Quebec

and some initiatives they have taken in economic development and developing

assets, and certainly electricity through hydro was a key pillar in their

evolution as a province and in terms of driving their activity.

I think

it's important to look back in that context and see where we've come, certainly

leading up to the '60s, putting a letter of intent in order and then securing an

agreement. I think it was in '69 in regard to how the project would operate from

the perspective of ownership, who was going finance it and what were the

long-term returns for the investors in that project.

We know

what happened just recently on August 31, 2016. We saw the renewal of this kick

in for an extra 25 years. Originally, it would have ended this year, in 2016. We

know what that would have meant for our province if that had occurred. Now we're

looking at 2041 in regard to the actual project.

When we

look back, what transpired back then in regard to the reason for that renewal

I think my colleague had touched on that it was the parameters and conditions

that existed at that time. When you look at what had happened to the

nationalization of hydro development and companies in Quebec in the '60s and how

Premier Lesage, with his Minister of Natural Resources, Ren Lvesque, had

looked at nationalizing, as I said, those hydro assets in Quebec.

Through

that process down the road, they had gained I think it was about a 20 per cent

share in BRINCO, which was the entity that was basically financing the project.

Having members sit on Hydro-Qubec and sit on BRINCO, obviously they had good

insight into the finances and how the project was going.

through that, through the information they'd acquired, and the project, they

knew there was trouble in regard to looking forward and completing the actual

project and greater finances needed to be raised. So, as I said, within that

context in terms of Hydro-Qubec and sitting on BRINCO they had that information

and, in so doing, were able to commit to picking up some of that cost and, in

return, demanded that they receive an automatic renewal in 2016. That was

granted and, unfortunately, we've seen that occur just a few months back, thus

we look to 2041 in regard to this agreement that was signed, I think, in '69.

So we

look to 2041 and folks will say, well, at that time all of the energy is coming

back to Newfoundland and Labrador. Actually CF(L)Co, which is the operator of

the project, holds Newfoundland Hydro for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, holds roughly 64 or 65 per cent of the shares; Hydro-Qubec and the

Province of Quebec hold somewhere around 34 or 35 per cent of the shares as

well. So when we get to 2041, there's no automatic kick in that all of a sudden

this is all going to revert to Newfoundland and Labrador.

shareholders in a corporate entity there are obligations, certainly rights of

Hydro-Qubec and that will all have to be worked through in regard to what it

looks like going forward. Now, let it be assured that the rate that's been paid

and the rate that comes back to Newfoundland and Labrador for our 65 per cent

share in CF(L)Co will be far greater than it is today and will be market rates.

Right

now with the renewal clause that just kicked in, if I remember correctly, it's

almost 0.02 of a cent that Hydro-Qubec we're getting in return for our water

and power that is running through the generators, which is really amazing when

you think about it, but that's the deal that was struck and that's accumulated

tremendous wealth for Hydro-Qubec.

Back a

couple of years ago I think there was an assessment done and it was well over

$20 billion that is being accrued to Hydro-Qubec, and ultimately dividends paid

to the Quebec government. So when you compare to what we have gotten, at that

time, for that period we were under something like $1 billion that we had

received.

As I

said, with the renewal agreement that kicked in just this year, and the

extension, that rate dropped again. So not only was there not an escalator

clause in the contract that, based on energy, based on the market, based on what

happened with a variety of energy going forward that the clause or that the

contract would be adjusted accordingly with an adjuster rate, actually when the

renewal kicked in the rate went down. So we're getting less money now than we

did when the contract started.

certainly looking at all of that, the contract itself has been very limited in

terms of the benefit to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Obviously originally

I have relatives, and we all do, at some point when the construction was going

on in Labrador that folks went to Labrador, got employment, much-needed

employment at the time, but the big difference is the equity and the investment.

That you not only get the upfront returns but over a period of time you invest,

you take risk, much like Muskrat Falls, in terms of building the project, but in

taking that risk and putting the equity in, you draw down on that over an

extended period of time, dividends are paid back to Nalcor, which is in turn

going back to the government and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

it's long term.

That's

how you need to look at these projects. Obviously when this was financed by

BRINCO and Hydro-Qubec back in 1969 that was the long-term approach, and they

knew to 2041 what they had and what the revenue was going to be. Now certainly

never again in history I don't think will you ever see this type of contract

ever agreed to like this, and certainly recognize it never should be.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. HUTCHINGS:

And I hear my hon. Member on

the other side. I ask him to extend the same courtesy that I extend to him when

I'm speaking, and will certainly look forward to hearing him speaking in debate.

The

other crucial issue in regard to this contract when we look at it, and the issue

is in regard to discussions now, we could be or maybe or could be having with

Quebec we're not really sure. It seems to change from day to day, week to

week. We hear the Quebec media telling us that discussions are ongoing. We're

hearing the Premier saying we're not there yet. And then we hear, well, there

are no discussions going on; there's nothing to talk about.

The

fundamental issue in regard to our water resources and hydro in Labrador has

always been transmission. Even from the original project, the Upper Churchill,

the major restriction was we needed transmission. And for a big project like

that that's over 5,000 megawatts you need to move that and it had to go east to

west. Unfortunately, federal governments since that time, Progressive

Conservative, Conservative, Liberal governments we've always struggled with our

constitutional rights in regard to 92(

a) and the ability to wheel power in this

country from province to province.

We talk

about in the country today there are a lot of discussions going on about

pipelines, and going west to east with upgrading gas, natural gas/oil pipelines.

But it's unfortunate at the federal level we've had some but there's nothing

definitive, from any federal government to date, to mandate that a province meet

their constitutional obligations and any province be allowed to wheel power,

from our perspective, from east to west.

When you

look at

section 92A(1) of the constitution with regard to non-renewal natural

resources, forestry resource and electrical energy: In each province, the

legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to, and it talks about

exploration for non-renewable natural resources; development, conservation and

management of non-renewable natural resources; development, conservation and

management of sites and facilities in the province for generation and production

of electrical energy.

Subsection (2) says: In each province, the legislature may laws in relation to

the export from the province to another part of Canada of the primary production

from non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and

the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical

energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices

or in supplies exported to another part of Canada.

And when

you look at what's transpired over the last 40 to 50 years, specifically related

to Labrador, it's always been that we have been confined in our ability based on

the fact that we can't wheel power from east to west because that's a decision

that Quebec made, and consecutive federal governments have not interceded to say

you must adhere to the constitution and what is written.

So if

you take that in that context, we're left always to say the partner to

developing Labrador must be Quebec. And that's what we've said and certainly the

Leader of the Opposition and our party has said in the past number of weeks. The

conditions of discussing anything with Quebec, number one, should look at

redress of the Upper Churchill. I was happy to hear the minister say that

they're proceeding to the Supreme Court on the good-faith clause and no matter

what happens, from what I understood from her, that's going to go ahead. So

that's not up for negotiations. She did say that was going to the Supreme Court.

She can correct me if I'm wrong but that was my understanding when she was up.

So that's not up for discussion. That's going and we agree with that and it

should go.

It's

interesting that Quebec now is coming to say they want to bury the hatchet once

we got this finally the good-faith clause, which has gone through the Quebec

court, gone through the Appeal Court and now it's going to make it to the

Supreme Court of Canada. That's good. We need to make sure it goes and it's

heard. Many believe we have a shot, so we need to make sure that we follow

through on that and certainly do what needs to be done to see that through.

The

other key component of that is, as I said, the transmission. Any discussion with

Quebec should be preceded that they acknowledge and they confirm in writing that

we have the right to wheel power from east to west on the transmission grid.

Like any other transmission grid that's used, you pay a fee to transmit power.

If there's ability to or a requirement to build infrastructure, whether it's

upgrading current transmission or building new transmission, that's all part of

it. We understand that, we always have. There's a cost to pay.

The

restriction, the frustration and the concern we have now with current government

saying, yeah, we're all on with Quebec and they're the ones we're going to deal

with, we're limiting ourselves to the opportunity. We're limiting our

possibility of past mistakes and repeating them.

There's

the whole Eastern Seaboard, there are provinces in Atlantic Canada with the

federal government just saying now they're going to phase out coal-fired

electric generation. We know there are plants in New Brunswick, plants in Nova

Scotia, so they need to make some decisions quickly about what their needs are

going to be. If we can wheel that power, we can meet their needs outside of

Quebec if they can't meet what we want to do.

We're in

the driver's seat now and there's no need to give it away. The Eastern Seaboard;

again, they've moved away from small hydro, they'll move to big hydro. They're

looking north for access to hydro development and electricity. So the markets

are there and we should not be limiting ourselves with one player and that being

Quebec.

that's why this motion is so important, that it comes to the House so that all

Members here have time to reflect on it and know the details. There's openness

and transparency to it which will lead for solid choices for Newfoundland and

Labrador, as we certainly continue to use the vast resources we have in Labrador

for Labradorians and certainly for all of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a

pleasure for me to rise today to speak on this private Member's resolution.

The

Leader of the Official Opposition and the Opposition House Leader have given us

a very good lesson in the history of the Upper Churchill. A lot of what they're

saying is right. I can't argue with that and I agree with the fact that it was

not a good deal. But I will say, go out on a limb, that Muskrat Falls I can't

see where it's any better.

Anyway,

I'm going to continue on with a bit of history because they would lead you to

believe the only people who benefited from the Upper Churchill was Quebec. Well,

I beg to differ, because Labrador West has benefited greatly. Because Labrador

West has benefited, so has this province benefited from the Upper Churchill.

In 1960,

when the Iron Ore Company was being built and constructed, they built the Twin

Falls development; 225 megawatts of power in 1960. It was commissioned in 1963.

It provided power to Western Labrador for the mines, for IOC, for Wabush mines,

for the town sites and all the surrounding areas. It was good, cheap power. It

was because of that, that we had many, many successful years of mining in

Labrador West.

Now,

when the Upper Churchill came on stream, or before it came on stream, there was

recognition that in order to get the full potential and the full capacity out of

the Upper Churchill, we would need the water that was going into the Twin Falls

development corporation, into the Twin Falls project. Because of that, an

agreement was signed at the time that would give the Churchill Falls Corporation

at the time, that power from the Ossokmanuan Reservoir which was powering the

Twin Falls. That would go into the Smallwood Reservoir. In return for that,

Labrador West continued to enjoy the power rates that would have been developed

through Twin Falls. That was the agreement that was signed.

We can

say that, yes, they missed the boat on the power rates and what was sold to

Quebec, absolutely. An escalation clause would have solved that. But in all

fairness, I see a lot of talk on Premier Smallwood of the day and how he made

some bad decisions. Well, they made decisions for the day. I'm not here to

defend that, but I will say to them and because of technological changes at the

time, power rates were actually declining when that agreement was signed. So

they had all good reasons to do what they did, even though we're paying for it

today and we're paying for it dearly.

understand the Opposition's desire to see to it that major agreements involving

development of the hydroelectric potential on the Churchill River should be

discussed in the House of Assembly. We totally agree. When we were in

Opposition, we thought the Muskrat Falls agreement should have been discussed in

the House of Assembly as well. But what we got from the former administration

was a debate over a private Member's resolution, like the one we are having here

today.

Today is

different. We actually agree with it. They didn't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

We believe in the role this

House should play in major developments of the type we envision on the Churchill

River. Our amendment is a friendly one. I'm glad it was accepted. It clarifies,

through a change of wording, exactly what it is that we as a government and the

Opposition desire to see.

There is

a need to make sure that agreements of that type, that can have a significant

impact on ratepayers and taxpayers, is fully examined and reviewed by the

elected representatives of the people who own the resources being developed.

That's exactly what we're doing.

There's

also a concern regarding the renegotiation of the Upper Churchill contract,

which I think has spawned all this debate today. When the time comes to deal

with it and that no doubt will be a time and it will come long before 2041

it should be understood that such a decision would take place here in the

people's House. The Premier has committed to that. Our amendment is a friendly

one and better defines what it is we want and need to discuss. I think it better

reflects what the Opposition was looking for in their main motion.

We also

know the Official Opposition had some concerns related to recent comments coming

out of Quebec regarding the Upper Churchill contract. This amendment will allay

all those fears. What this amendment says is that any development or any

progress that our Premier and Premier Couillard of Quebec would agree to or

develop or even discuss will be discussed in this House.

We have

no intention of entering into discussions with Quebec on the Upper Churchill, or

any other major development for that matter, and agreeing to a deal that is not

reviewed, not debated and not discussed in this House. Our amendment speaks

directly to that concern by us including the Upper Churchill into the amendment.

That's

not how things worked with the previous administration. Muskrat Falls went ahead

without any real debate in the House of Assembly. Now they want to reverse that

original position and join with us and have any future developments of this type

debated by the Members of the House of Assembly. Now they want us to do what

they were never prepared to do. Mr. Speaker, they have seen the light. No pun

intended.

Now the

Opposition wants all kinds of full disclosure in the House of Assembly,

especially if we should ever hold discussions with Quebec on future energy

developments. But they had no compulsion to provide that kind of transparency

and accountability when they were in government and we were asking to debate the

Muskrat Falls Project.

Shortly

after sanctioning Muskrat Falls, the former administration made another move

without advising the House of Assembly. They entered into a new agreement with,

guess who, Emera, because they didn't want to deal with the big, bad boogeyman

of Quebec. They amended their deal on the Maritime Link to provide even more

electricity to Nova Scotia, and they did it all without once informing this

House of what they were at.

Let me

take you through the steps that happened to get this Emera deal on the way. This

new agreement was negotiated with Emera without the House of Assembly having any

knowledge that talks were even taking place. The agreement gave Nova Scotia the

lion's share of the available power from Muskrat.

In July

of 2012, the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board the UARB better known said

that Muskrat was not the lowest-cost option for Emera. The only way it could be

deemed as the lowest-cost option they said was if they had access to more power

at a low rate beyond the original 20 per cent. All this came up after we had

sanctioned the project or they had sanctioned the project and before Emera

had even signed anything. Guess what? It put us in a very weakened negotiating

position.

Nova

Scotian politicians felt the project was too expensive for Nova Scotian

families. Why? Well, it was projected at the time that they would have to pay as

much as $1.50 just imagine, $1.50 more for power to cover their capital

costs on average over the first five years of operation.

Now

look, what are we going to have to pay? A lot more than $1.50, I can guarantee

you that. And they still claim that Muskrat Falls was the right thing to do and

with the least-cost option. So what did the government of the day do? They

agreed to give Emera up to 60 per cent of the power from Muskrat.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Where was the debate then?

MR. LETTO:

Where was the debate then?

There was no debate. Government at the time argued it would have no impact on

the province because it was excess power meant for sale outside of the province

anyway, but this arrangement means no profits can be derived from that power.

It has a

huge impact on this province, Mr. Speaker. It has a huge, huge impact. All of

that was done with no discussion in the House, no information provided to

Members beforehand and, once again, it was approved by Cabinet in secret.

Here

they are today talking about transparency and accountability and how we're not

following through. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that we are

upholding our promises to the people in this province to be more transparent, to

be more accountable and to let the people know that any deals and that's what

the Minister of Natural Resources quite clearly said in her amendment. Any

future agreements on the Churchill River, including, by the way, Gull Island,

and any future discussions on the redress of the Upper Churchill would be

discussed, reviewed and debated in this hon. House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't

think you can ask for much more than that. Our Premier has stated quite clearly

that's going to be the case.

Now, in

the interest of time, I'm going to close with a personal observation and opinion

because I, as a person, since the day I was born and until today, I happen to

live and lived next door to the great Province of Quebec. We had a good

relationship. The iron ore towns of Wabush and Labrador City enjoy a marvelous

relationship with the Province of Quebec. Now, it could always improve through

the labour mobility.

AN HON. MEMBER:

They're not boogeymen.

MR. LETTO:

They're not boogeymen.

I grew

up on the Straits of Labrador, next to the Quebec-Labrador border and the Quebec

North Shore. There was nothing wrong with those people either, I can guarantee

you.

So for

those people over on the other side to suggest that we're dealing with the bad,

bad Quebec and if you look at the geography of this land, it's a great land of

Labrador, which I know quite well and I know my colleague here from Torngat

Mountains knows, and my colleague from Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, as well

from Lake Melville that you have to be pragmatic with any future developments.

If we're

going to develop Gull Island, it's no other way to go. I fly over that

transmission line every weekend, or every week I return to my district. I see

it. I see the line going from Churchill Falls out to Quebec. I see the line

going from Churchill Falls to Labrador West.

Now, if

we're going to receive the benefits from any future development in Labrador,

it's the natural way to go. As the Premier has stated quite clearly in this

House, any future development on the Churchill River will be done in the best

interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to rise and speak to this private Member's motion today that was put

forward by our Leader, the Member for Topsail Paradise. For those who may be

just joining the debate, I'll read the motion one more time. It's only two

lines.

BE IT

RESOLVED that any and all agreements respecting Churchill River hydro power

shall be brought to the House of Assembly for public debate and Members' vote

prior to ratification.

Now

there has been an amendment put forward by the Minister of Natural Resources. I

appreciate the intent, and I would tend to agree that it's somewhat friendly. It

does appear to be about clarifying intent and I'm happy to speak to that a

little later in my remarks if time permits, but I have a lot of other things to

say in the meantime.

The

Leader of the Opposition started today by indicating this is really a matter of

trust, and I believe that to be true.

I was

pleased to hear the Premier in Question Period today finally agree to a debate

in this House about any future agreements related to Churchill River hydro

power. That in itself was progress because that's something we've been calling

for, for some time.

If it

was today's private Member's motion that helped bring him to that conclusion and

to that commitment, then so be it. I'm just glad to hear him say those words in

Question Period today because this is an issue that affects everybody in

Newfoundland and Labrador. It's an issue that affects future generations in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Right

now from the Upper Churchill, for every dollar of profit, Newfoundland and

Labrador gets only two cents. We have seen billions of dollars going to Quebec

that could have been coming here. And Ottawa has played a role in that, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ottawa

has played a role in that by not insisting on giving us a transmission corridor

across Quebec and locking us into a difficult bargaining position; but, Ottawa

was no doubt spooked by Quebec's Quiet Revolution of many years ago and not

willing to risk a breakup of the country. I understand that. So we have no

corridor. We got the Upper Churchill contract instead.

Mr.

Speaker, years later, we are still under its grip. It's continuing to siphon

money out of this province and into the coffers of Quebec. They pay less for

electricity than they ought to be paying on the principle of fairness. They

obviously don't want to relinquish that sweetheart deal. Why would they? That's

why they fight us when we challenge them in the courts even if everybody

privately recognizes that it's not a fair arrangement and it's not a just

arrangement.

For

decades, while we were a poor, have-not province, struggling to provide basic

services to our people, they were reaping profits by marketing Upper Churchill

power.

Let's go

back to 2002, which is not that long ago, at that point Quebec was ready to

bargain with us to develop the Lower Churchill. The Liberal government, led by

Roger Grimes, was in a similar position to the one the current government finds

itself in after only a year in office: fiscally struggling, lacking any economic

plan, buried in debt and in the political dog house.

Quebec, back in 2002, saw an opening. They were ready to buy us with our own

money. Quebec was ready to buy us at the time, in 2002, with our own money. We

didn't allow it to happen then and we can't allow it to happen now.

They

might well have got their deal, but the chair of our Hydro board at the time,

and others, decided to protest the sellout by resigning and walking away from

their own government. These were people who were appointed by the Liberal

government.

So we

don't know for sure where that failed deal might have led. It certainly couldn't

have been good and if it led to the Hydro board chair to break ranks with a

government of his own political persuasion and publicly walk away, then it

couldn't have been good.

We were

spared the consequences then, but Quebec is a competitor with infinite patience.

They know better than anyone else in Canada that mastering the electricity

sector can lead to enormous wealth and self-reliance.

Electric

supremacy was the foundation for the campaign to become matres chez nous

masters of our own house. The Leader of the Opposition referenced that earlier.

Quebecers know their history and they have every right to be proud of it because

they are master strategists; second to none in this country.

So we

shouldn't demonize the Quebec government or Hydro-Qubec. We shouldn't demonize

the people of Quebec. We ought to admire them and emulate them and learn to take

control of our own destiny, just as they have taken control of theirs. The one

thing, Mr. Speaker, we must not do is let ourselves be outmaneuvered by them.

It's critical that we not let ourselves be outmaneuvered by them.

When we

hear that our own government today is quietly meeting with them Mr. Speaker,

I'm having difficulty hearing myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask

all hon. Members to respect the hon. Member who has the opportunity to speak.

Thank

you.

MR. KENT:

When we hear our own Liberal

government today is quietly meeting with Quebec, so quietly in fact that the

Premier is reluctant to let us know what he's up to, then all of us can be

forgiven for being a little suspicious that something is afoot. The master

strategist in Quebec is up to something. I'm certainly not referring to our own

Premier as a master strategist.

We have

a Premier who has already earned a nickname for dodging. He's earned a

reputation for not being completely forthcoming with the facts, to put it very

politely in the hon. House. Mr. Speaker, he's a Premier who's at 16 per cent in

the polls. So would he be prepared to do a deal if it means perhaps ensuring his

political survival? Would he sell out Newfoundland and Labrador if it means

ensuring his own political survival?

I sure

hope not, Mr. Speaker. But based on history, and we only have to look back as

far as 2002 and we only have to look at what's happened under this

administration in the past year, I think we have every right to be suspicious

and to be concerned.

Whether

it was the involvement in the severance decision for the former Nalcor CEO, or

the existence of a policy on something as simple as flying flags at

Confederation Building, or anyone in his office being involved in having posters

removed out on the parkway, we hear one thing from the Premier only to find out

later that the facts were somewhat different from what he told us they were.

So when

the Natural Resources minister of Quebec says that the premier of Quebec and the

Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador have been discussing Churchill power for

months, that's very concerning and the denials of our own Premier now don't

reassure me that the discussions aren't ongoing, Mr. Speaker.

When the

Premier says there are no discussions but then, on the other hand, says what's

wrong with discussions, and then when he says there's no deal yet. Well, it sure

sounds like something is going on.

When the

new CEO of Nalcor brings Hydro-Qubec officials into Muskrat Falls for a tour

and when our Premier gives a courtesy call to the Quebec premier to tell him

nicely that we're taking them to the Supreme Court, it sure looks like something

is going on.

This

year, the Upper Churchill contract entered the renewal phase when the lopsided

deal got even worse, even more unfair to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

and even more lucrative for the Province of Quebec.

So we

have every right to be even more outraged than we were a year ago because of

Quebec's failure to provide redress and to right the long-standing wrong. But

now with the happy relationship apparently between our two provincial

governments, instead of hearing outrage and condemnation, the kind of

condemnation we heard from Liberal Premier Brian Tobin, the kind of condemnation

we heard from PC Premier Danny Williams when they were in office, instead we're

seeing the current Premier offer olive branches.

Instead

of the strong stance of an able competitor, we see nothing from this Premier but

some sort of courting ritual, trying to curry favour and probably to ensure his

own political survival.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the Member for

Bonavista is out of control again today. I know he's a far distance from the

Chair but I can certainly hear him loud and clear. I wish his constituents could

see his behaviour in this hon. House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. KENT:

Exactly, Mr. Speaker.

Let's

not forget that we are a stronger competitor now than ever before in this

federation. The Muskrat Falls Project breaks the geographic blockade and the

economic stranglehold that Quebec has used against our province since the days

of that quiet revolution many years ago.

The

Muskrat Falls Project is a project that I am fully prepared to defend and fully

prepared to support. It gives us a new po