Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 18 December 2012 (47th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVII No. 71)
2012-12-18
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 18, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 71
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!
Today, before we start the proceedings, I want to welcome to the public
galleries representatives from the sealing industry: Dion Dakins from Carino
Processing Limited, and Jennifer and Kerry Shears of Natural Boutique.
Welcome to our Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the Member for
the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune; the Member for the District of Baie
Verte Springdale; the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; the Member
for the District of Lake Melville; the Member for the District of Lewisporte;
and the Member for the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to applaud three outstanding individuals from
my district who were recently awarded the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal: Mr. Jim
Sheppard, Chief Warrant Officer, retired; Saqamaw Misel Joe; and Mayor Steward
May.
Mr. Jim Sheppard, a veteran who served our country for over thirty-two years
with the Queen's Own Rifle, Princess Patricia's Light Infantry, and the Canadian
Military Engineers, has established a military museum in Rencontre East, his
hometown, preserving a remarkable era in our veterans' history.
Saqamaw Misel Joe was recognized for his exemplary leadership on behalf of
and in conjunction with his fellow band members, in promoting and preserving the
language, culture, and traditions of his people.
Mayor Stewart May is yet another truly remarkable person who has spent his
life going over and above the call of duty as a community leader to help make
life better for others. He has served with over thirty volunteer organizations
and is extremely dedicated, reliable, and committed, a true example of
leadership and volunteerism at its very best.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating these well-deserving recipients of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee
Medal in Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay Verte Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge the accomplishments of four
outstanding summer club swimmers from the Springdale Blue Fins.
Brady Huxter, Ben Melindy, Andrew Goudie, and Scott Pynn smashed the Summer
Club under-eighteen Boys 200-metre medley relay with a time of 2:11.24.
Ever since they were tiny tots, they converged upon the Gander pool to attend
the Summer Club Provincial Championships. This past summer they were on a
mission to set a new record and they did it.
For over forty years, Gander pool has been the site for this fun-filled
event. Many records have been broken and many memories have been made.
For the past twenty-four years, my wife and I have attended and can attest
that this event is the highlight of all Summer Club swimmers. The team play, the
stamina, and the sheer determination displayed by these four athletes was a joy
to experience as they splashed and pulled themselves to record-breaking speed.
I invite all hon. colleagues to join me in applauding Brady, Ben, Andrew, and
Scott, not only for providing us with nail-biting entertainment, but also for
their outstanding achievement.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker acknowledged a guest to the gallery a few
moments ago. I had not realized at the time, but Kerry and Jennifer Shears had
just joined us after my comments.
Welcome to our galleries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: This was not a staged event with the Member for Bay Verte
Springdale. He wears that tie all the time.
Next we will have the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute a vibrant community group, and a good
corporate citizen who has made it possible for that group to offer an
outstanding program to the people it serves.
The Boys and Girls Club of St. John's, under the leadership of Executive
Director Kelly Sandoval and Program Director Michael Jacobs, is the latest
beneficiary of the Rogers Raising the Grade program.
This national program gives youth like the ones in Buckmaster's Circle who
go on to the Boys and Girls Club After-School Program skills, tools, and
opportunities that will help them succeed at school.
Mr. Speaker, I had the great pleasure of attending the grand opening at the
Boys and Girls Club. The technology that Rogers has given them is so impressive,
and the enthusiasm shown by the staff and the students is truly contagious.
The St. John's club is one of twenty-five across the country to benefit from
the Rogers Raising the Grade program.
I commend Rogers for their exceptional community spirit and their vision in
creating this program to help our youth get the education they need for a solid
base in life.
Thank you to Kelly, to Rogers, and the Boys and Girls Club for this fantastic
program serving the youth in St. John's Centre. I am sure that the House would
like to join me in saying bravo to them all.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Lake Melville.
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize Mr. Edward Blake of North West River a recipient
of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal.
Mr. Blake was born in 1928. He is the oldest of nine siblings and grew up in
the family home, a trapper's cottage at a place called the Rapids, three miles
up the river near North West River. From a very young age Mr. Blake displayed
the resilience and ambition that is common with Labradorians. During the winter
months, Mr. Blake would walk three miles across river ice just to attend school.
Through this strength as a young man, Mr. Blake helped establish North West
River by clearing the land for several North West River landmarks and through
his community involvement he helped North West River incorporate in 1958.
Mr. Blake opened the first gas station in North West River providing home
delivery to the residents, later expanding to open an Arctic Cat Snowmobile
shop.
Mr. Blake continues to live an active life at home with his family, and
chooses to spend his spare time restoring his historic family home at the
Rapids.
I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in congratulating Mr. Edward
Blake, a true Labradorian.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Lewisporte.
MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize Patrol Commander Horace Lane of the Canadian Ranger
Patrol. Mr. Lane has been nominated and awarded the distinction of Member in the
Order of Military Merit. This award was presented in recognition of his
dedication to his community and Province, as well as his contribution to the
Canadian Ranger Patrol and the Patrol Group for the past twenty-two years.
The Order of Military Merit was established to provide a worthy means of
recognizing conspicuous merit and exceptional service by members of the Canadian
Forces, both regular and reserve.
Lieutenant Lane has been actively involved in: the Newfoundland and Labrador
Outfitters Association, the Department of Tourism Hunting and Fishing Project
Team, The Beothuk Institute, Lewisporte Area Chamber of Commerce, Lewisporte
Yacht Club, Calypso Recycling Committee and auction committee, as well as a
director of the Calypso Foundation. He is also involved with the Lewisporte and
Area Economic Development Committee, and an Honorary Associate of the Lewisporte
Kinsmen Club.
Last week, His Excellency, the Right Honourable David Johnson, Governor
General and Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces conducted the Investiture
at Rideau Hall in Ottawa.
Members of the House of Assembly, please join with me in recognizing the
tremendous contributions made by Lieutenant Horace Lane.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in the House to recognize and congratulate two long-serving employees
of the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, Mr. Gilbert Linstead and Mr.
Ken Fowler. Both of these gentlemen have been with the company for over thirty
years, and it has been a pleasure for me to have had the opportunity to work
with them for the last twenty years.
Mr. Linstead has been the General Manager of the Labrador Fishermen's Union
Shrimp Company and continues to encourage growth in the Labrador fishery and
Labrador communities. Through his leadership and vision, he took a private fish
company, turned it into a co-operative, and grew it into a competitive business
employing 1,500 Labradorians with millions of dollars in assets, and has secured
markets for fish products all over the world.
Mr. Fowler has been assistant General Manager and has been a strong partner
and leader in building the company and the fishing industry in Labrador as well.
He helped fishermen diversify their fishing enterprises, gain new expertise, and
help secure offshore fishing vessels for the company.
Together, with their board of directors, they have taken the Labrador
Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company into the twenty-first century as the ideal
fisheries model for Newfoundland and Labrador, ensuring growth, stability, and
profitability for communities and people on Labrador's South Coast.
I ask my colleagues in the House to recognize their service, their
commitment, and offer them our congratulations on a job well done.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I recognize, as well, that we just had enter our public
galleries the Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor, Mayor Hawkins.
Welcome to our Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: All of these guests wanting to be here, and we are trying to
get out.
Today we will have Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. KING: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am attentive in all directions here
today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise today.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today in the House of Assembly with
my colleagues and recognize the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary's promotion of
Stephanie Motty to the rank of sergeant.
On December 7, 2012, Sergeant Motty became the first woman to be appointed to
the position of sergeant at the RNC's Labrador City Detachment.
I am very pleased to congratulate Sergeant Motty on her promotion to the rank
of sergeant. Not only does it speak to the level of commitment that she has
shown to her profession, it is also a significant milestone for the RNC
detachment in Labrador City to have its first female sergeant.
As we are all aware, we have many female police officers in various roles
within our communities. They are an important part of the overall operations of
the RNC, and certainly play a leadership role in many specific areas of
policing.
As of December 1, 2012, approximately 25 per cent of RNC officers were
female, and this government is committed and will continue to be committed to
ensuring that women are represented in policing and justice in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Since the RNC recruiting program started, almost 40 per cent of the officers
recruited have been female, Mr. Speaker, making the RNC one of the national
leaders in the recruitment of women to the force.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Motty is no stranger to hard work or to
dedication that comes with working with the RNC. Last year, she received the
Excellence in Performance Award at the Atlantic Women in Law Enforcement's
nineteenth annual training conference. This honour is awarded to a female
officer who distinguishes herself through superior attention to duty or
outstanding investigative efforts.
Having held positions in various areas of the RNC for more than ten years,
Sergeant Motty has spent time as a patrol officer, and also as a member of the
Criminal Investigative Division. With the Criminal Investigative Division she
divided her time as a member of the child assault and sexual assault unit, as
well as the major crime unit. She is considered to be an adept and a
highly-competent investigator and has excelled in many complex investigations.
Mr. Speaker, on December 7, a ceremony was held to formally promote Stephanie
Motty to the position of sergeant. I would like to thank her for her
contributions to the Province and the police services in our Province, and to
wish her every success in her new role.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Certainly, we would like to send congratulations to Stephanie Motty on her
promotion to sergeant. Becoming the first female sergeant of the RNC's Labrador
City detachment is not only an advancement for Sergeant Motty but for all women.
As my colleague, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair says, women are
currently running Labrador. That is a great step forward.
Increasing the presence of women in law enforcement is a positive step
forward for society as a whole. In September, our Province hosted the fiftieth
annual International Association of Women Police Conference. It was a great
thing to have police officers from all over the world converge on our fair
Province.
Earlier this year, Tracy Hardy was appointed the new commanding officer for
the RCMP B Division in the Province. These are tremendous strides for both women
and the RNC and RCMP.
In closing, we would like to wish Sergeant Motty all the best in her new
position.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
It is wonderful to be able to stand in this House today to congratulate
Sergeant Stephanie Motty. I can remember thirty years ago giving workshops to
the RNC about violence against women and there was a hardly a woman in the ranks
to be seen. I want to commend the RNC for the progressive work it has done over
the years to ensure that women are fully represented in all levels of policing.
On behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador I want to thank Sergeant
Stephanie Motty and all the women of the RNC who work with courage, commitment,
expertise and compassion alongside their male counterparts. You make us proud.
I am sure that Sergeant Stephanie Motty will continue to be a great role
model for women cadets and will continue to mentor other women in policing. Your
participation makes an important difference in policing in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you, and bravo Sergeant Stephanie Motty.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's South have leave?
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this hon. House
today to report that Carino Processing Limited, the primary seal processing
facility in our Province, has made the first payment of approximately $1.1
million toward the $2 million loan our government provided the sealing industry
last spring.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: The remaining amount owning is anticipated to be paid back in
the first quarter of the New Year.
Mr. Speaker, this is great news, and it is an indication that the sealing
industry continues to provide opportunity for harvesters and business owners in
this Province. There were over 67,000 pelts purchased from harvesters throughout
the Province this year, with a landed value of approximately $1.5 million. About
430 harvesters and 388 vessels were involved in the harvest, representing an
increase from the previous year.
Mr. Speaker, our government continues to support the sealing industry in its
innovative and creative efforts to identify new markets and generate new
opportunities for seal products in the world markets.
We are pleased to see that the funding provided by our government last year
had such a positive impact. The success can be seen in the participation of
harvesters, to the success of stores like Always in Vogue, Natural Boutique, and
the North Atlantic Fur Group, to increases in activity at Carino, the Northeast
Coast Sealers Co-op, and Sea Water Products. I recently attended a very
encouraging meeting with industry stakeholders where discussions focused on the
future of the sealing industry and the commitment to full utilization of these
animals to maximize the economic benefit to the Province.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing positive movement in relation to the
ongoing World Trade Organization challenge and the European Court of Justice,
which may once again provide access to world markets. Here at home, we continue
to work with our federal partners in finalizing access to markets in China. I
recently met with federal minister Gail Shea to discuss these important issues
and to reiterate our unwavering support in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, the anti-sealing campaigns are filled with misinformation on the
harvest, a skewed perspective to say the least. The annual seal harvest is
highly regulated and environmentally sustainable. The harp seal population has
increased from approximately 2 million animals to 8 million in just a few years.
This is extraordinary and surely invites the question of impact on the natural
balance of the ocean's ecosystem.
Activist groups truly display a lack of understanding about what is
responsible ecosystem management, the economic importance to people dependent on
this hunt, and the cultural realities in this Province. We will not be swayed by
the propaganda of such campaigns or that of misinformed followers and
celebrities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Collectively, we must continue our resolve to overcome the
challenges of this industry to ensure a humane and sustainable annual seal
harvest.
Over the years, the sealing industry has contributed much to the provincial
economy. It has helped to define our culture and it has carved a place in our
storied history.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud to support the seal harvest, a part of our heritage
that has provided much benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for
centuries. We are confident it will continue to do so in the years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, this
is very positive action by our government in the sealing industry, consistent
with a modern sealing industry that is humane, sustainable, and ecologically
responsible. What other industry is there that serves as a responsible, humane
cull of an exploding animal population whose very existence will be threatened
without human intervention?
Mr. Speaker, this is not just a cull. The meat is suitable for human
consumption, the oil for an omega-3 dietary supplement, and the pelts are then
turned into beautiful long-lasting clothing and boots. When seal products are no
longer serviceable, they are biodegradable and return to the environment to
complete the cycle.
We need to do more and better with our sealing industry, but I believe we
have turned the corner in this historic industry and that our best days are in
the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Government-provided assistance had benefits to sealers, industry, retailers,
crafters, and suppliers of oils and related products. It is good to see a
repayment commence as scheduled. I only hope that more of the Canadian quota
will be taken next season.
Government must continue to be active players with the federal government to
help advance the industry, but not lose focus of the local market. I have been a
proud supporter of the seal hunt and Home from the Sea Campaign, and wear my
coat, boots, mitts, wallet, belt, tie, and slippers with pride. I am encouraged
by new entrants, including the Natural Boutique, but I must also recognize the
GNP Craft Producers in my district, who have North America's only economuseum of
sealing.
More must be done to ensure young people are carrying on our culture and
tradition. We have a history and a future of sealing in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador. Let us continue to show our support for the industry.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, today the government is bringing forward
legislation for the Muskrat Falls Project that Nalcor needs passed before
financing. We received copies yesterday morning. Meanwhile, the dates on the
bills provided to us in the briefing were November 29 and December 7.
So I ask the Premier: Why did you wait for over two-and-a-half weeks before
you provided those bills to the Opposition to review on behalf of the people of
this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These bills have been looked at for awhile. The dates on the bills themselves
mean nothing. Up until the time when we decide to bring the bill into the House,
we could still make changes to the bill.
I really do not know what the member opposite is complaining about. They were
provided with briefings today, Mr. Speaker. They were provided with a copy of
the bill. It is up to them to do their work, to look at the bill, and to
determine what questions, if any, they want.
Mr. Speaker, the government's obligation is one that we do out of courtesy
and it is one that we will certainly have to look at as we move forward.
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister would not have to look at it
moving forward if we just followed the practice that we had agreed to here just
a few weeks ago.
Mr. Speaker, government agreed to give Opposition seventy-two hours of
preparation time for any new legislation that was introduced; however, you have
broken the promise and given us just twenty-four hours on Bills 61 and 60. Now
your government is rushing forty pages of legislation through this House.
Haven't we learned anything at all from the botched expropriation of Abitibi?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are not rushing anything through. We
are willing to stay here as long as it takes for these bills to be debated. What
we have indicated, Mr. Speaker, is that the bills are needed in order to support
the sanction decision which was made yesterday, that we are proceeding with
Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker. The bills outline the financing structure and the
expropriation structure that is required. We are here as long as the Opposition
wants to here, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, we can assure we will be here to debate it as long
as it takes too.
They have had a year, Mr. Speaker, to prepare this legislation. Over a year
now they have known the requirements that they would need this for financing.
Bills 60 and 61 are two very important pieces of legislation. One deals with
taking away power from the PUB and putting it in the hands of Cabinet; the other
deals with the expropriation of thousands of kilometres of land. There are at
least fifteen pieces of legislation affected by these two bills.
I ask the Premier: Where is the due diligence, when you are ramming
legislation through this House?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Parties have had over two years to examine the
Muskrat Falls Project. We have made more information available on this project
than any other project in the history of this Province, Mr. Speaker. Yet, they
have not been able to come up with one substantive critique of this project.
They have not been able to come up with another viable alternative.
Mr. Speaker, here we are in the House now after a wonderful event yesterday,
a paradigm shift in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, arguing over
profit. paradigm
Mr. Speaker, they will have all the time they want to investigate these
bills, to talk about these bills. As long as you are here, we will be here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the process was fixed with Abitibi, we would not be in the mess we are in
right now in Grand Falls Windsor.
Bill 60 gives Emera the right to expropriate land in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador as well.
Why are you giving a Nova Scotia company the right to expropriate land in
this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. Emera will not be
expropriating land in our Province. The Maritime Link will go to Granite Canal.
Any land that is expropriated will be expropriated by our government, as
outlined in the act, and fair compensation will be provided. Again, I guess a
briefing is not enough; we will have to give them written answers next time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Well, it is nice to hear that the Minister of Natural Resources
is willing to give answers because that is not a lot he has done in the last few
weeks.
Mr. Speaker, Emera, a publicly traded company, will not be allowed to
expropriate land in the Province. This is what we were told in the briefing, by
the way. So, why isn't Emera paying taxes on the property that they are using?
That is what we were told in your briefing.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the laws of the Province will apply to Emera. The
expropriations will be carried out by our government, as required, Mr. Speaker,
in line with the act. Also, it is my understanding that Emera will pay taxes and
that they are not excluded from paying taxes. They are not a Crown corporation
in this Province and they will pay taxes like anyone else.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: What we were told in the briefing is that they would not pay
taxes on the power line, only if they did business in the community, Mr.
Speaker. It is clear that Emera was not ready to sanction and would have
preferred to wait until after they had completed their regulatory review in Nova
Scotia.
I ask the Premier: Is that why Nalcor agreed to pay $30 million of the
penalty if Emera backs out of the deal?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have to go back to the
preamble of his question a few minutes
ago when he talked about the expropriation of the Abitibi properties. Mr.
Speaker, that was something we did over the course of three days. We suspended
our normal way of doing things and included both Opposition Parties in the
decision-making. We knew, because we were operating in a hasty way because it
was necessary to do so, that we were running risk. Both parties agreed that that
risk was worthwhile to get the assets of Abitibi so they would be in the hands
of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Mr. Speaker, they wonder why we do not have committee meetings because they
are in when it suits them, and they are out when it does not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, what the Premier tried to do the Premier knows
that the Opposition Parties of the day were told, quite frankly, that they would
not be expropriating that mill.
I will ask the Premier because the question was not about that. The question
was about a $30 million penalty that they have agreed to pay if Emera backs out
of this deal. Would she please answer that question?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: I am happy to answer this question, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most well-planned
MS JONES: (Inaudible).
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, could you save me from the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, just long enough to answer the question.
Mr. Speaker, this is a well-planned project, and like every other project
that we have planned and delivered to the benefit of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, we have imagined every scenario, everything that could possibly go
wrong, and we have a remedy in case it does. It is going to go ahead, Mr.
Speaker, because this is a regional project, because we are doing it with Nova
Scotia, because Emera is our partner, we have earned a billion-dollar benefit to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, for the third time and let's talk about well-planned projects and
well-planned takeovers. What about FPI? Was that well planned? Today there is a
plant in Burin that is closed up, Mr. Speaker.
I will ask the Premier one more time: Will you please explain the $30 million
penalty that you are willing to share with Emera if they back out of this deal?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what we have done here is that there has been a sanctioning both
by Nalcor and Emera, which means that the federal loan guarantee applies.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Huskilson, the CEO of Emera, made it clear yesterday, and
the sanction agreement makes it clear, that Emera is committed to building the
Maritime Link. What you look at, Mr. Speaker, is they look at eventualities:
Well, what if this happens, what if that happens? Well, these are all very low
risk. Mr. Huskilson was very clear that the Maritime Link will be built, Mr.
Speaker, as planned, and that he sees no problem with it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, we have tried the Premier, now the Minister of
Natural Resources.
The question will be simple to the Premier or the Minister of Natural
Resources: Was Emera prepared to sanction without the commitment to $30 million
for the payment of this penalty?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you finalize commercial arrangements, and only when they are all
done do you move ahead to the next step. Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said,
you imagine every scenario.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: So, Mr. Speaker, if there comes a point when Emera
might not, for some catastrophic reason that we cannot imagine, cannot build the
Maritime Link, we have ensured that the billion dollar benefit to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador is secure. It might cost us $30 million, but we get a
billion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, by not answering the question we know that the $30 million will be paid
to Emera. It has nothing to do with the loan guarantee, and the Premier should
know that. The financial close is the object of the loan guarantee. Bill 61 will
prohibit the residents of this Province from access to cheaper rates in the
future. Access to natural gas for instance, innovative technologies that will
happen over the next fifty years.
I ask the Premier: Why are you tying the hands of future generations for
cheaper power in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to pick which piece that the Leader of the Opposition
has just spoken to that is incorrect.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Because, Mr. Speaker, the loan guarantee was
contingent on the project being a reasonable project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Nova Scotia and Emera were critical to the loan
guarantee absolutely critical to the loan guarantee. I do not know where the
Leader of the Opposition gets his information, Mr. Speaker. That is something we
have been trying to puzzle through for the last two years. Most of what has been
brought forward on the floor of this House of Assembly has been not correct, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this is a good project for Newfoundland
and Labrador, and a good project for Atlantic Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, thank you.
The federal loan guarantee is contingent on the financial close of the
project. In the briefing session we were given this morning, it was quite
obvious that there was a time, for many years actually after if Emera did not
agree to do this. We can chat about this later.
Mr. Speaker, the question
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BALL: Bill 61 will remove the limit on the amount of debt that the
Muskrat Falls Project can carry. The existing $600 million was not high enough
apparently.
I ask the Premier: What is the new limit and how high can this debt go?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The cost of the project at present will range from $7.2 billion to $7.7
billion, including the Maritime Link, Mr. Speaker. The cost to the Province at
this point or the provincial
section is the $6.2 billion minus the $800 million
that will be contributed by Emera to the transmission the Labrador-Island
link.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Important questions are being posed here in this House today. I think the
members posing the question deserve an answer uninterrupted.
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The amount of investment by our Province will be approximately $5 billion.
There will be a $2 billion equity investment which means we will be borrowing
around Nalcor will be borrowing around $3 billion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A fifty-metre crack in the dam at the former Gullbridge Mine has residents on
alert as tailings flow toward their water supply.
I ask the Minister of Environment and Conservation: When was this dam
ruptured, and has an analysis of the tailings been completed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the member opposite for the question. Yesterday morning at about 7:00
o'clock there was a breach in the tailings dam
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON: at the old Gullbridge Mine just about twenty-six
kilometres upstream from the Town of South Brook.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON: The failure, of course, spilled water and tailings. There
were some construction and repairs going on at the time. There were no injuries
to any of the workers. Of course, the concern now is the water supply of South
Brook.
We have officials that are on site from a number of different departments.
The work has been carried out now. Most importantly, an advisory has been issued
to the people of the Town of South Brook.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
South Brook's water supply is twenty kilometres downstream of a tailings dam
that has been showing instabilities since June 2010.
I ask the Premier: What do you have to say to the people of South Brook whose
safety you reassured just a few months ago?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MR. HEDDERSON: I would say to the hon. member that what we are saying to
the people of South Brook is that there is an advisory out, a nonconsumptive
advisory with regard to the water. I will tell them that we have all of the
expertise we have on hand in our department, plus consultants and plus
engineers, who are on the job. We are doing daily updates of the possible effect
of these tailings on the water supply. Up to this point in time, again, it is
too early to say if there is indeed any contamination, but we err on the side of
caution to make sure the health and safety of the people of this town is what is
uppermost in our mind.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing about the government's ferry
replacement strategy for years ten, actually. The people of Fogo Island and
Change Islands heard the same promise last May. Yesterday they heard all about
it again.
I ask the Premier: Will you commit any actual spending in the 2013 Budget
towards building new vessels, or will this be just another idle promise?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: I would have to say to the member opposite: you have a lot
of difficulty with commitments of this government. Let me tell you, this
government is committed to making sure that the people in some of the most
isolated areas of our Province get the ferry service they deserve. We are moving
forward with the replacement ferry in Windsor. We are moving forward on the
third ferry. We are also looking at The Straits and the North Coast of Labrador
much better than, I say, the previous Administration, whose answer was to give
us the Nonia, Hull 100, and spend millions of dollars trying to put it
into the water. It is shameful shameful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, speaking of shameful, when the minister, nine
months ago, was down in the same briefing room and announced the same ferry for
Fogo and Change Islands the minister was over there sitting next to him, Mr.
Speaker. That is what is shameful: a nine-month commitment and we are still
announcing them again today.
Mr. Speaker, the best-case scenario in the new ferry strategy is to have new
vessels in the water by April, 2016. Until then we will hear of more ferry
delays, no service, and broken commitments.
I ask the Premier: With your ferry replacement strategy in shambles, what
measures are being taken to ensure that these will be adequate and efficient
marine services during this three, and possible four-, five-, six-year gap?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: I hate to be the one to spoil it, but you are letting the
facts get in the way of a good story but I want to tell you the facts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON: What I, as the previous minister, announced nine months
ago was that we were moving forward with the Winsor replacement, that we
were looking at putting out expressions of interest, and that it took nine
months to make sure we put it through in the right manner, because we are not
going to rush into anything; we are going to do it right and nine months
later, guess what? We have an RFP out for a boat for a Winsor
replacement, and I say the member over there can go home this Christmas with a
great gift for the people of Fogo Island, Change Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 61, which we are going to discuss later today, gives Nalcor
monopoly rights so that there could be no other
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I have recognized the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 61, which we will be discussing later today, gives Nalcor monopoly
rights so that there will be no other power created or brought to the Province.
So consumers
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker is reluctant to be interrupting and taking time away from members
of the Opposition, but important questions are being posed. I cannot hear the
answers, nor can I hear the questions. I cannot imagine, the people who are
posing the question and providing the answer, the position they might be in. I
am asking for the third time in this one Question Period for all members to be
respectful of the person who has been recognized by the Chair, who is either
posing the question or answering one.
The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
Consumers are going to have no choice but to buy electricity from Muskrat
Falls for fifty years.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Has this government sold out consumers to
get a better financing deal for the now-unregulated Nalcor?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when we campaigned for government in 2003, part of our election
platform was to have an energy plan, to develop an energy plan for Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we came to the House and members opposite would get up day after
day in Question Period, moan, complain, and carry on over the fact that the much
promised energy plan was not delivered.
In the fall of 2000, Mr. Speaker, we delivered our Energy Plan. I encourage
the Leader of the Third Party and all members opposite to please read it,
because Newfoundland and Labrador, in its Energy Plan, put us in charge of our
energy resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I invite the Premier to read the Energy Plan, which does not mention Muskrat
Falls, which now has become their Energy Plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, about an hour ago, the Minister of Natural
Resources told the media that he was planning to look at the structure of the
Public Utilities Board after Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Would he care to share further details on
changing the PUB with the House of Assembly?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Opposition, on a number of occasions, have raised the issue of the Public
Utilities Board and maybe we should change it if it is not working the way that
it should work.
Essentially, all I said today was that we have to look at all commissioned
boards in the Province and that we would look at the efficiency and the
effectiveness of the board. It was nothing more than that. It did not deal with
individual members. It did not talk about that, Mr. Speaker. It simply talked
about looking at this board to make sure that it was working as efficiently and
effectively as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, later today we shall be debating bills related to the Muskrat
Falls Project. Within the past twenty-four hours, we, in the Opposition,
received the two bills along with a sanction agreement between Nalcor and Emera.
These documents took months and months to write and we have only had hours to
study them.
This disregard for the Opposition by this government is an insult to the
people of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How can she tell the people of the Province
that she respects this Legislature and is open and transparent?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the work is in the construction of these documents and the
negotiations that take place. Those negotiations are long and often tedious.
Opposition Parties are not required to be part of that, Mr. Speaker. They
have a completed document, with the principles outlined and the agreements all
there done for them. They get a chance to review. We provide briefings, Mr.
Speaker, to make sure that any questions they have are answered.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we were getting tweets, as fast as information was
being given, by the staff of the department as fast as they could put it out.
If you put your BlackBerrys away and pay attention, maybe we would not have so
many questions here in the House, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Premier that the Opposition has the
responsibility to study every word that comes out from them and every bill. We
have to vote on them. We have to know what is inside of them. They should know
that after
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: the mistake they made with the bill with regard to
Abitibi-Price.
We have to know what is in the bills; we have to have time to study them.
Will the Premier admit that expecting us to stand here today after just
finishing a briefing with her experts two hours before the House opened is an
affront to democracy and an abuse of the people's House?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this from the same woman who refused to present to the PUB, who
is now their staunch defender; from a woman who refused to debate the Muskrat
Falls Project in this House of Assembly, where hours and hours could have been
dedicated to the debate, Mr. Speaker; this woman who has not yet been able to
propose a viable alternative to Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: This woman who has not been able to provide one
substantive critique to the planning of this project, Mr. Speaker. I never heard
such hogwash before in my life.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is hard to know what to say after that, Mr. Speaker. After everything I
have said in this House, the Premier has
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
This is the last time. The next time the Speaker stands, I will name members.
There is only a few minutes left in Question Period and I am pleading to you to
be respectful of our colleagues who are posing questions. If not, I will have no
choice but to name you and ask you to leave the Chamber.
The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have one final question for the Premier: Is her judgment so clouded by
Muskrat Falls that she cannot see how she is insulting the people of this
Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Many times in the last year, primarily in our election process in October
2011, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador told this government how they feel
about their planning, their governance, and particularly Muskrat Falls. Every
piece of polling that has taken place since then, Mr. Speaker, has only
reaffirmed what the people said in October.
Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Third Party has not been able to do is,
substantively show where the project is flawed; nor has she been able to provide
an alternative. What else is there to say?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and
Labrador West is growing. It is as plain as the nose on your face: zero per cent
vacancy rate and rents that are doubling and tripling.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: What
is he going to do to address this housing crisis in Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the hon. member across the way, we will continue to do what we were
doing all along, which is to continue on our strategy to deal with those most
vulnerable in housing, to continue to invest dollars in partnership with the
federal government and in partnership with a lot of the non-profit groups around
this Province. We as a government have committed to make sure that we are going
to do everything we can to help those most in need.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Although more was allocated to the Rent Supplement Program this year, there
are none left. Many seniors are still in apartments they cannot afford or on a
long waiting list for rent supplements.
I ask the minister: Will this government allocate more resources to
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for additional rent sups in the next budget?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in the years that we have been in government,
since 2003, we have invested significantly in housing, but also significantly
with regard to programs that help seniors to make sure that they can stay in
their homes, as well as live a healthy and productive life.
Mr. Speaker, what the member is asking me to do is to get ahead of a Budget
process in the coming year. I can assure the member that the minister will be
only too glad to make sure, going into that process, that all avenues will be
explored as we continue to do what we can to make sure that people who she has
described get what they need in order to live healthy and productive lives.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The environmental disaster at the former Gullbridge site is costing the
people of the Province, not just the population of South Brook. The Telegram
tried to obtain information on the dam but only received redacted sheets of
paper for its efforts.
I ask the minister: Why the redacted information and what was the department
hiding?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: I can say to the member across the way, first and
foremost, this is a very serious situation, and a situation that deserves to
have the full attention not only of government but even of members like
yourself.
We had this breach yesterday at 7:00 o'clock in the morning. Immediately our
people were on the ground. Immediately the concerns were about the people who
are in South Brook and their water supply. We have done everything we possibly
can.
For the media, you, or anyone else to ask us to immediately analyze the
situation and to give out the information we gave out to the media what
information we had. Of course, today we are making sure any other information is
getting out into the public first and foremost. We have worked very closely with
the mayor, we are working very closely with the clerk, and are making sure the
people most important here are getting the information they need in order to
give them the assurance that things are (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is obvious that as time went by the crack obviously got bigger.
How long was the dam leaking before the Town of South Brook was informed of
the leak?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MR. HEDDERSON: Again, as I said to the hon. member on the Liberal side:
do not let facts get in the way of a good story.
Yesterday at 7:00 o'clock we had a construction crew out there doing what
they should be doing to try to make sure that tailings dam could stand up to any
floods or anything that is there. That is what this government is all about:
making sure that people have some sort of safety.
In the midst of that, in disturbing some of the material, there was a minor
breach. Of course, a minor breach in a dam got into a larger one. The equipment
and the people luckily just got out of the way when the whole dam burst. That
fifty-metre one was what was the result of it. The water carried out we do not
know how far downstream. We know that the tailings also spilled out. We do not
know how far down. Again, we are
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to
section 8 and subsection (10) of the Public
Tender Act, I hereby table the report of the Public Tender Act exemptions from
May to October 2012 inclusive as presented by the Chief Operating Officer of the
Government Purchasing Agency.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not
adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 20, 2012, and further I give notice
under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.
on Thursday, December 20, 2012.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
MR. BENNETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe, rising on a point of
order.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, my point of order deals with the failure of
certain ministers to provide answers to questions that were placed on the Order
Paper.
Standing Order 51.(1) says, "Questions may be placed on the Order Paper
seeking information from the Ministers relating to public affairs; and from
other Members relating to any Bill" and so on.
Standing Order 51.(3) says, "If a question is of such a nature that in the
opinion of the Minister who is to furnish the reply, such reply should be in the
form of a Return, and the Minister states that he or she has no objection to
laying such Return upon the Table of the House, his or her statement shall,
unless otherwise ordered by the House, be deemed an order of the House to that
effect."
Mr. Speaker, on April 2, 2012, I placed on the Order Paper question 11, which
has not yet been answered. On May 16, I placed question 18. It has not been
answered. On June 19, I placed question 26 on the Order Paper which has not been
answered. Mr. Speaker, our Standing Orders seem to be maybe hazy or possibly
even inconclusive as to what should happen in a situation like this.
In referring to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in 1991 a new
Standing Order was adopted to address the issue of unanswered questions on the
Order Paper. If a question for which a response within forty-five calendar days
have been sought and is not answered within a specific time period, the member
could ask that the subject matter of the question be transferred to the
adjournment proceedings. This proved unsatisfactory and resulted in a further
amendment to this rule in 2001. This changed the Standing Order provided for the
automatic referral of the failure of a ministry to respond to the written
question to a Standing Order for study.
The outcome was that in the House of Commons if government fails to answer an
Order Paper question for which a member has requested an answer within a
forty-five day period, the matter of the failure of the minister to respond is
deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committee. Although the question
remains on the Order Paper, it is designated as referred to a committee. The
chair of the committee is required to convene a meeting of the committee within
five sitting days of the referral to investigate the failure of the government
to respond to a written question.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, you may want some time to consider, but it is a
request on a point of order for questions on the Order Paper that were not
answered.
MR. SPEAKER: The member is accurate in that Standing Orders do not
provide a definitive time in which those answers to be replied. To suggest that
the minister is not in compliance would not be consistent with our Standing
Orders.
The issue of some of the ambiguity that may be in language in our Standing
Orders would be a task for the Standing Orders Committee when they sit to review
the current Standing Orders and to make some recommendations to this House with
respect to how some improvements will be made. Until such time as that happens,
we will be guided by the current Standing Orders and there is no point of order.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the protocol. If I may respond to
a point raised
MR. SPEAKER: I have already ruled on the point of order.
MR. KING: Okay.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.
Petitions.
Orders of the Day have been moved.
All those in favour of the motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3, third reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The
Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 55)
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and
Rural Development, that Bill 55,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, be
now read the third time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 55 be read a
third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 55)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act", read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 55)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I am referring to Order 4.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural
Development, that
An Act To Amend
An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of
Attorney Act, Bill 56, be now read the third time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 56 be read a
third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend
An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of
Attorney Act. (Bill 56)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and the title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend
An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of
Attorney Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the
Order Paper. (Bill 56)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and
Skills, that Bill 57,
An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Act, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 57 be read a
third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Workplace Heath, Safety and
Compensation Act. (Bill 57)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and the title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the
Order Paper. (Bill 57)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and
Skills, that Bill 53,
An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation
Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, be now
read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the bill now be read a third
time.
The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to finish a few words on Bill 53. Last night, Mr. Speaker, I
was going to have a few words, but I guess things got a bit short, so I am going
to have a few words on Bill 53 in third reading.
As we know, the second reading has already been done and this has been
approved by the House, but we want to have a few words on this. I definitely do,
Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the points that I wanted to make on Bill 53 are
heard.
I am going to pass out the information. I will just go through it, Mr.
Speaker, because not everybody last night was listening to it and we always get
a different audience throughout; all the people who were looking last night do
not always get to look at it in the daytime. There is a different audience.
Mr. Speaker, I will just go through some of the information that was supplied
to us by the department and the information that we gathered on this bill. It is
the Labrador interconnected system supply, Mr. Speaker. It is the load served
from Churchill Falls to the hydro facility CF(L)Co. A TwinCo block provides 225
megawatts to IOC and Wabush Mines. There is a recall block that provides an
additional 300 megawatts to the Labrador grid with any surplus sold in export
markets. Mr. Speaker, as we know, this 300 surplus power could be a potential
for development in Labrador.
As I said on many, many occasions, Mr. Speaker, if we have a surplus of power
in Labrador and we are going to create development, it is good for everybody in
the Province, not just Labrador. Everybody is aware how many people we know are
working in Labrador today and how much employment is created in Labrador because
of a lot of this power. A lot of people we know work there, Mr. Speaker, so it
is very, very important for Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, some of the rates that are given out by the department and, of
course, there is no reason to assume these rates are not accurate is that
Newfoundland is the lowest of the six that are given. The Canadian average is
high and Newfoundland and Labrador is low in their industrial rates. We also
have to remind the people out listening today, Mr. Speaker, that these rates are
for industrial users in Labrador. We use IOC, Wabush Mines, and a lot of the
current people who employ a lot of people in Labrador. There are a lot of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who work up there.
These rates here are relatively low as compared to the Canadian average. We
can see the boom times up in Labrador. As we know, one of the biggest issues
facing Lab West now is housing because there are so many people and so much
expansion there that people are looking at even flying in and out. It is a big
issue because there is not enough housing in Labrador because of the boom.
There is absolutely no doubt: when we go back over the years when this power
was given at this rate, it was to create jobs, create employment, and to spur on
investment. As we see by these rates, they are low, but as we can see, when the
initial rates were brought into play, it worked it definitely worked, Mr.
Speaker. The intent was to spur on economic development. The intent was to grow
the economy. The intent was to create employment and prosperity up in Labrador,
Lab West, and other areas, and it worked, Mr. Speaker. So, the intent when this
was set up, we all must commend the people who thought about this.
I know the minister gave an example yesterday why we need to bring rates up
and be fair to other people. I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I understand that
very well that yes, we can ensure that the rates are going to be fair for all
commercial users in the Labrador Region. It is hard sometimes to deny that, but
we have to look at the history and look at the why the rates were so low and why
some had a bit of an advantage. Some built their own lines, actually. From my
understanding back years ago, that was a part of the trade-off to spur economic
development in the area.
Mr. Speaker, any time that we see a plan put in place by the government of
the day, working with industry and if we look at the Lab West area now in
particular, we look at how that was developed, you can say, well that was great
co-operation between the mining companies and the government of the day to
create what was intended, which was economic development and employment in the
area.
So, I have to say, it was a great idea, great foresight for the people who
organized this, and it was a great plan kept in place. I know, as the minister
mentioned and is in the briefing here, that this power now will be up for
renewal in 2015. In 2015, this is when this act will take place. Now the
government and the minister is looking for some way to make all rates comparable
all throughout for the all the industries in the area, Mr. Speaker.
You go through the policy of the government, Mr. Speaker, in the briefing
that we had, and some of the questions and I will just go through them: Why is
the policy needed? Again, I will explain to the people the government rationale
and why we on this side of the House support this. Why we have supported this,
but we have to ensure to make sure there was no confusion. Because you know
yourself, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you were the House before when there were some
issues on the go that people said there was too much confusion, but you voted
for it.
So I think it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we express our views,
that we pass out our views and give our views out in such a way that when you go
back and check Hansard there is no confusion of where you stood on a certain
issue, why you spoke on a certain issue.
So, why is the policy needed? There are no current published industrial
electricity rates in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that is true. As we know now there
are some that have special rates. There are some now that do not meet some of
the standards that are set in Labrador. As we know, how it was set up at the
beginning for IOC was once they created the power lines then they get the
preferred rate. That was fine again, Mr. Speaker. There is no published
industrial rate in Labrador.
I am assuming that this government here which I assume they are is trying
to ensure that there is some kind of uniform rates all across Labrador. Mr.
Speaker, there are some great benefits to that. The government should be
commended for that.
Now you are going to have some people who are paying the lower rates probably
saying: No, no, no, we should not have to pay the lower rates. Some other people
might say: Well, we already have the lower rates; let us keep it the way it is.
The ones with the higher rates say: Well, let us get a uniform rate because we
are competing against the companies with the lower rates so we should have a
uniform rate.
Both sides of the argument so I can see where the government is coming
across here, Mr. Speaker, in saying let us have one uniform rate right across
Labrador so that we can all ensure that when a company comes in, you are on the
same playing field as the company next to you. Mr. Speaker, that is not a bad
plan. I definitely do not want anybody in the Province, and especially in
Labrador, to think that I am speaking against this bill, because I am not, Mr.
Speaker. I am definitely not speaking against this bill.
I just want to explain why this party, and myself, are supporting this bill,
to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that there is no ambiguity when it comes to what I am
saying and ensure that it is on the record.
This is a good bill for Labrador. I said it yesterday and I say it again
today: This is a good bill for Labrador. There may be some things that we can
work on to make it better.
The Third Party have their own reasons why they would not support it. That is
up to them. I think any time, Mr. Speaker, that you can set a level playing
field and then everybody knows what they are up against, knows what they have to
fit into their budget, knows the cost when they are going to produce iron ore,
knows the cost before they come in so that they can project years down the road,
it is going to be good. It is going to be good for all the people of Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure everybody here knows this: what is good for Labrador is
good for all the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador. Make no mistake about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Make no mistake about it, that Labrador is a great
contribution to all of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell you the number of people I know personally working up in Lab West,
it would surprise a lot of people. I have family members from Carbonear, Mr.
Speaker, Nick George and Paul George. I know the Member for Lake Melville and
the Member for Lab West would know them. My first cousins and good friends, Mr.
Speaker, and they moved up years ago. They have their family, made a living, and
that is their home, all because of the rates in Labrador that have spurred on
economic development for the mining industry. Those are just a few that I know,
and I know a lot more home on the West Coast. There are a lot more around.
Mr. Speaker, why the policy is needed, the current industrial contracts will
be expired by 2015. Mr. Speaker, once again, this is being proactive by the
government. In 2015 we are going to have this power, this TwinCo block of 225
megawatts, back. What do we do with it? There is the potential for other energy
which we could use for export that you could recall. So what do you do with it?
That is a question by government: What do you do with it?
I know the Minister of Natural Resources yesterday gave a great speech of why
this is being done. I say to the minister, the reasons you gave were very
strong, very compelling. I agree with the reasons he gave yesterday, Mr.
Speaker. We cannot wait until 2015 and then be in a rush as a government and as
people who support this bill, then all of a sudden turn around and say: Okay, we
have all this power now, what are we going to do with it?
Mr. Speaker, this is a great forum for government. Any government, like the
minister right here today, is trying to be proactive. Any new business that is
going to move into Labrador that has the potential
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: I know, Mr. Speaker, they are all over there clapping because
they are so proud that I am standing up and supporting their bill. I thank the
members opposite for that.
Mr. Speaker, as we know and people in the industry are well aware, you need
to know what your costs are. Instead of waiting until 2015, the minister and the
government are saying, okay, we will set the rates now. Who knows, there may be
potential development and potential people who want to move in well before 2015,
or look at it maybe for expansion, which is a big thing in Labrador West.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the government and we as an Opposition are
supporting this, because 2015 is not far away. Once we get this bill through the
House and get the legislation passed, then we can get it out to the consumers of
why we are doing this.
Mr. Speaker, the next reason why the policy is needed in the government
briefings is potential for new mining developments and expansions in Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, what great words, new mining developments and expansions in
Labrador. With that, Mr. Speaker, we create some great problems: workforce,
equipment, housing, but the thing is we will find a way around it. We will find
a way, but, Mr. Speaker, potential for new mining developments and expansions in
Labrador.
Once again I say to the members opposite, any time that we can help out
Labrador, we are helping out Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, with the
new mining developments and expansion in Labrador, we need new tradespeople.
This comes in the government's own briefing, that with new mining development
and expansion, we need a labour force.
Mr. Speaker, in the labour force in Newfoundland and Labrador now we always
heard for the last ten years about this big labour shortage. If government is
looking at new developments and expansion, the question has to come up: How are
we going to find some way to ensure there is a labour component that will not
stop this development and ensure that we will spur on future expansions? Mr.
Speaker, this ties in to the government policy on new tradespeople. Again
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the member the focus of the bill is not about skilled trades. I
would ask the member to go back to the relevance of the bill. Up to this point,
you have been very much focused on the bill. I would ask the member to stay
relevant to the bill at hand.
MR. JOYCE: Can I explain why I think it is relevant?
MR. SPEAKER: You need to get to it pretty quickly, please.
MR. JOYCE: Yes, very quickly.
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to put this excess power back in Labrador from
new expansion, we have to ensure that we are going to put the electricity back
into Labrador, the 300 surplus megawatts, and we have to ensure that if in the
government briefing there is going to be new mine development and expansion, the
labour component is available for that, or this is meaningless.
It is no good to put the development and I did not mean to stray off it,
but this is just bringing it to the forefront on behalf of the government. I am
speaking on the bill because this is the briefing from the government.
MR. SPEAKER: I understand the government department may have given
briefings that included a wide range of things. As the Speaker, I am presiding
over the debate on the legislation. It is the rules of the House to respect the
relevancy that will be guiding the debate and not the briefing given by the
department officials.
I would ask the member to be relevant to the debate with respect to the
legislation itself and not necessarily focusing on the briefing that may have
been given by members of a department who do not consider relevance of the
debate in the House of Assembly.
MR. JOYCE: Not a problem, Mr. Speaker.
As usual, we always follow the rules. You know that.
Mr. Speaker, I go back to why the policy is needed, again, from the
department. The absence of policy and clarity creates challenges for planning
and investment decisions. That is so true.
Any of us here in this Legislature, or anybody out in the general public, Mr.
Speaker, who is going to set up a business, the first thing that you do when you
set up a business is sit down what are your expenses, what is your projected
revenue, what is your contingency fee, what is your contingency, just in case
there are things that go astray.
Mr. Speaker, without a policy, how can anybody come in and say: my costs are
going to be a certain amount. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, in business and we
all helped at times to set up business and expand businesses through our roles
as the legislators here in the Province we always ask, and this is common for
business: what will be your expenses? Any business venture that is going to be
trying to make a go of it must know what the cost will be. We have seen, Mr.
Speaker, on many occasions here in this Province, businesses have failed because
the expenses are too high, because of the unknown cost.
What this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is take the cost from the unknown and put
it into a certainty. Once you take the cost and put it into a certainty, you
know what you can sell your product for. You know what labour you can charge.
You know what expenses you need extra to run your business in the location that
you are at, Mr. Speaker, and in doing that you would ensure that the viability
of the business venture has greatly improved and also you will ensure that there
is a possibility for expansion.
You know and we all know that if you are paying a certain rate, once you
create a profit, the majority of businesses that create profits want to
reinvest. You reinvest, you create more business, more jobs, and more wealth.
Mr. Speaker, on the other side of that is you get more money for the Treasury of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Once you expand and this bill will allow for the expansion, because you
know the hard cost of electricity, which is a great commodity in Lab West these
days; once you know the hard cost, you have the potential for expansion. Once
you have the potential for expansion, brand-new opportunities open up because,
as I just mentioned, the Treasury will get funds from the expansion, the new
business, from jobs, from income tax, and other related expenses. We will also
get construction if there is new expansion. We also create new employment
through expansion. Again, I go back to the workforce, Mr. Speaker, as I
mentioned earlier about the potential of what we need for the workforce in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the big thing for this: if you look at any major company moving
into Labrador, they do not move into Labrador, decide on a Monday we are going
to move in, and move in on a Friday. When people move in, when you are talking
about a billion-dollar expansion or $600 million, $700 million, you are looking
at years and years of planning, Mr. Speaker years and years of planning. With
those years and years of planning, on many occasions, they always look at their
hard costs. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for any company to plan four or
five years before the actual venture will start or open its doors. The planning
itself is very tedious. It is a long process, but creating stable rates and
creating a uniform pricing system for all will help.
Mr. Speaker, there is another issue with the expansion, with the uniform
rate, and it is the human cost. This is where the housing comes in. This is
where building trades come in. This is where new sub-developments and it is
all good for the economy. It all good for up in Lab West, Mr. Speaker. As we all
know, it is booming.
We have seen the Member for Labrador West, and I do not envy the minister,
and I will say to the minister: I do not envy you with the housing crisis up in
Lab West. It is tough. It is really tough. Sometimes the market conditions
create that, and there are a lot of people who are displaced by it and put in a
situation which is very uncomfortable, and sometimes they cannot afford and I
say to the minister: I do not envy you in your position, because it is tough. A
lot of times when you bring on prosperity, there are challenges with the
prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that was brought up yesterday by colleague,
the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, was incentives for secondary
processing. I know the Minister of Natural Resources stood up yesterday and gave
me a twenty-minute speech, and the reasons that he gave were very compelling.
There was an argument for and against, both ways, why there should be incentives
and why there should be no incentives for different companies, Mr. Speaker.
With those incentives, you can have some development. Let me explain that,
Mr. Speaker. If you have a certain rate for all the companies across the board
and the rate is uniform and I will use the iron ore, a prime example up in
Labrador, Mr. Speaker, which we are speaking about. If you take the iron ore and
say, okay, let us just mine it, let us just get it, let us just ship it down to
Sept-les, take it, send it over to China somewhere, there is lost productivity
definitely lost productivity.
Mr. Speaker, a good example of all that is if we look at IOC, about how much
more productivity if it is landed and processed here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that is a principle of this government, that is the
principle of all governments: trying to get the maximum value for its people. It
is a principle, Mr. Speaker, I think that we all adhere to: to try to get
maximum value.
The question is: Is it valuable to offer incentives for people who want to do
secondary processing with iron ore in Labrador? It does have some merit. It
absolutely does have some merit. Mr. Speaker, what happens when you process is
that it is creating a brand-new line that you can have new employment. With new
employment, as I mentioned earlier, there are new revenues for the Province and
for the Treasury of the Province. We are going to need a new labour force, Mr.
Speaker. I bring it back again to the labour force because it is very important
we have an adequate labour force. With the uniform energy bill for Labrador, we
will have some challenges with labour. It is tied to energy I really feel that
it is. Any time you create a secondary processing facility, you need extra
people to work it.
MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member one more time about relevance. This is
the second time you drifted into the labour market and discussion around the
labour market. I would ask the member to focus attention on the bill and to
leave the labour market issues as not being a subject of this bill.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the incentives is very strong. I
also heard the Minister of Natural Resources on the opposite way give it why it
should be uniform. Mr. Speaker, once again, I can see both reasons, but the
incentives could work.
Mr. Speaker, the principles of the industrial rate setting in Labrador,
considering market value for energy resources, power rates will leverage viable
industrial development, which I mentioned earlier. Mr. Speaker, one of the other
points under their Energy Plan is the Labrador transmission system treated as a
separate system from the Island. We all know that to be the case and that to be
true.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know we are into different debates on energy bills
here in this Legislature these days. When we look at this bill, it is separate
from Muskrat except when there is power put into the pot from Muskrat then it
will be put into the industrial rate. Again, the PUB I understand does not set
the rates anyway. Any excess power from Muskrat that is transmitted into this
pot will be used in Labrador for some industrial rates. It takes out the PUB. It
is a separate system. There is no doubt what the department is saying, that
Labrador is on its own. We need the power. There is absolutely no doubt.
Mr. Speaker, some of the other reasons why we feel - the government feels,
and we agree - is that old bogeyman Quebec. I know, Mr. Speaker, one of the
reasons the rates are going to try to be uniform is to ensure that we are
competitive with other jurisdictions, including Quebec. We know on our
boundaries up in Labrador, there is Quebec over there with the excess power
ready to bring it over, and then development would move over into Quebec if we
do not get the rates at a certain level. It is very, very important that we try
to level out the playing field for our industrial customers in Labrador, Mr.
Speaker. It is very, very important.
If we can find some way to get a uniform system, Mr. Speaker, once again,
Quebec will be less of a hindrance for all mining development in Labrador. If we
can find a way and I have to give the government credit and we support it
also, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we do set a playing field so that the business
will have a level playing field against Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I have a few more minutes left, but I am going to make an
amendment. It is a referral to a committee, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the
Member for Burgeo La Poile, that Bill 53,
An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls
(Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power
Control Act, 1994, be not now read a third time but that it be read a second
time this day six months hence.
Mr. Speaker, I present the amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: The House will take a brief recess to consider the amendment
to determine if it is in order.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has had an opportunity to review the proposed amendment and rules
that the wording makes it out of order.
The member has twenty-nine minutes left on the clock in third reading. I
acknowledge the Member for Bay of Islands to continue.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The wording was a bit of a misunderstanding there, but that is fine, Mr.
Speaker; we can always find a way to correct the wording, as we all know.
Word-splitting is a term used, but thank you, Mr. Speaker, for pointing that
out.
Mr. Speaker, as I was speaking earlier about the competitive rates compared
to Labrador, there are a lot of positive results when you become competitive in
a border with Quebec. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is great for the
government to ensure that they are not waiting until 2015 to be competitive for
Labrador, that you set them now. The planning down the road, Mr. Speaker, will
be able to ensure that companies that are going to move into Lab West know what
rates they will be competing against in Labrador.
If we are competitive, it does help, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we are going
to create employment in Lab West and create employment all through that region.
Mr. Speaker, planning is a big part of any business. When you plan for any
business, you have the proper planning in place, and you put the infrastructure
in place, you would definitely ensure a very positive and very great outcome for
a lot of the people working there and for the community as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, in this bill itself again, I said I support this bill; I think
it is great that the government is
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. JOYCE: Well, the reason why I am supporting it is it is going to
create this uniform rate across but, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything I could
urge the government on this, it is to see if there is some way we can work out
incentives, see if there is some way, Mr. Speaker, that incentives can be
brought into it so that we can ensure that there is going to be secondary
processing in the area.
I know the minister and I know I am repeating myself, but I just want it on
the record again, Mr. Speaker, that the minister gave a compelling reason why it
should not be. There is definitely a compelling reason for both, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I can see my time is getting a bit short and I am going to make
an amendment, a third reading amendment hoist 3, third reading.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment: I move, seconded by the Member for Burgeo La
Poile, that Bill 53,
An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation
Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, be not now
read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.
I make that amendment, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Do we have a written copy of the amendment for my
consideration?
MR. JOYCE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: When I receive a written copy of the proposed amendment, the
House will take a brief recess to consider whether the amendment is in order.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker has considered the amendment to the motion put forward by the
Member for Bay of Islands and it is in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member has twenty-five minutes left on the clock.
The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The amendment was to be referred to Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: Just so we are clear, the amendment is a hoist amendment,
not a referral to Committee. It is deferring the vote for some future date,
which is very different than a referral to Committee. It is an amendment to the
motion at third reading, but it is a hoist amendment and not a referral to
Committee.
The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: What I meant by that, Mr. Speaker, I know you take it up, you
take it out of the House and give us more time to review it. That was the idea.
That is the intent of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, to take it out of the House
now. Move it out of the House, Mr. Speaker.
I am a firm believer, Mr. Speaker, that because forty of us get elected here,
we do not know it all. It is a great opportunity for us to take this here, move
it out of the House, and give us six months so that we can go out and talk to
the people who are directly affected. The people who would be directly affected
would be some of the people who run the companies and some of the unions.
As we all know, there is always precedent set and you want to make sure that
you are making the proper decisions. When you take it out of the House and have
a six-month sober thought, we all can sit back, look at it and say: What can we
move on from here, or how can we move on from here? Mr. Speaker, this is a
situation that is timely. A good example for a hoist, Mr. Speaker, where you
want to have a second sober thought
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I am allowed to give examples of why I
made this amendment. I will give some examples of why this should be done to
ensure that we are making the right decision.
Mr. Speaker, I am not one to bring up too many things in the past, but just
look at Abitibi that was brought up last week by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Look at Abitibi, Mr. Speaker. Last week there was a ruling by the Supreme Court
of Canada, which said: Right now the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will
be liable for the cleanup of the mill in Abitibi.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand the circumstances at the time and that it was
rushed. If we did have the opportunity, the question I would ask: Would we take
a little second, sober thought to ensure that we look at all aspects of the
amendment? To ensure that we could take it out six months, sober thought, go
around ensuring that we view all the people who are directly affected, adversely
affected, Mr. Speaker. To ensure that when we make the decision in the House,
that we make the proper decision to ensure that it is going to have the greatest
benefit for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some of the things that this will give us the opportunity for example, go
up in the companies and just check and see what rates are competitive against
Quebec, Mr. Speaker. While we are up there, we will say: okay, let's ask the
companies. I have not done it personally but I am sure the Member for Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair has done it. Go up and ask the companies: What if we offer an
incentive? Would that help create secondary processing in the field?
Would that not be a great idea? Instead of forty-eight of us sitting down
making a decision here in this House, wouldn't it be nice if we could go up and
sit down with the companies and say: Okay, listen now, we have a block of power
here, we are going to level off the playing field. If you want to do secondary
processing, create another 200 or 300 jobs, what do you think if we gave you a
little incentive? Would that be an incentive?
Mr. Speaker, if you look at any department in government, and I use industry,
trade and rural development, we use incentives all the time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: We always use incentives. If it could work on the Island, why
can't incentives work in Labrador? It is a question, Mr. Speaker, that I feel
should be at least explored. If we took this bill and just passed this bill
without exploring all the options, my question is: Are we doing our due
diligence if we do not go out and explore the options that are available? Are we
doing our due diligence, Mr. Speaker? I am not sure if we are, Mr. Speaker.
The point behind this hoist is to ensure that we look at all aspects. As we
know, we sit back sometimes and I can remember bringing motions into the
House. The last session we brought motions into this House that the government
accepted. They came back and said: yes, they are good. They were good amendments
this is going to strengthen the bill. I congratulate the government for taking
that, whatever is going to strengthen the bill.
There is absolutely no difference from what I am proposing here now. What I
am proposing here, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that the legislators who are the
people here in this room, and the officials be able to take this bill, go
through it, go up and meet with all the people who are going to be directly
involved, and say: how can we help spur on more activity? How can we help create
more employment in the area? How can we use the electricity and the raw product
that we have at our fingertips to the greatest potential for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador? In this case, it will be in Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, once we put this bill, proclaim it in 2015, and it starts being
used, it is going to be awfully hard to change. It is going to be awfully hard
to change, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that. Now is the time; if we want to make
any changes to this bill, now is the time to sit back and say: okay, let us take
our time; let us collectively look at this.
At no time, Mr. Speaker, in any of my speech am I saying this is not the
right thing for Labrador absolutely not. Absolutely not am I at any time
suggesting that this is a bad piece of legislation for Labrador. I am not. I
want to make sure that is clear for the record, that is clear for all the
members here for Labrador, the four members from Labrador. I even voted for it.
Yes, I did vote for it. Absolutely, I voted for it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. JOYCE: Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for it again, but I can
tell you one thing, and I say for the Member for Mount Pearl North, or South, I
am Mount Pearl South, I know he is saying: well, you voted for it.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I am smart enough that I know all of the
answers, but I think I am smart enough to ask people who know the answers. I am
smart enough to say: yes, I vote for this bill. I want to be on the record that
I voted for this bill, but I also want to be on the record to urge all people in
this House to say: how can we make it better? How can we create more employment?
I do not think that is a bad idea. I do not think that is a bad idea.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure a lot of people in government and I know there is a
topic; this is in line, and it may stray for a minute, but: the hospital in
Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, the minister last week sent a committee out to look
at and speak to the people involved, of what is the best hospital available.
That is a good thing to do.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: I say to the minister
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member to be relevant to the bill we are debating.
MR. JOYCE: I am, Mr. Speaker, just explaining what I am doing.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member to be relevant.
MR. JOYCE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am going back to the
MR. SPEAKER: The hospital in Corner Brook is not relevant. I ask the
member to be relevant.
MR. JOYCE: But there are people going out searching and asking questions,
like I am asking them to do in Labrador. That is what I urging the government,
Mr. Speaker: to go out and see people, go out and chat with people, to go out
and say: what is the best for this area?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that there is no one in this House going to disagree
with that. We do not have all the answers. We see in this House, Mr. Speaker, on
many occasions: let us go out and consult, let us go out and get new ideas, let
us go out and see what everybody thinks of our new ideas; that is what we are
doing in
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member has proposed a hoist amendment. That does not give the member full
latitude to talk about whatever he feels he is wanting to be postponed. The bill
that we are debating deals with industrial rates for electricity in Labrador.
You have proposed a hoist amendment. You still must be relevant. It does not
give you wide latitude to say whatever you feel you should say. So, I will ask
the member to confine your comments to the bill that we are debating.
The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Consultation, I say to the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au
Clair. That is what I am proposing in Labrador, I say to the member:
consultation in Labrador. That is why we need the six-month hoist, for
consultation, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair for knowing that when we
go out and consult, we get new ideas. That is why we need the six months, Mr.
Speaker: new ideas, so we can look at if we have a block of power up in
Labrador, what ways we can use this power, and what ways we can go out and bring
it in to a confined area which is Labrador and we can have the greatest,
maximum benefits for the people of Labrador. That is why I made that
recommendation, that amendment, Mr. Speaker.
I think the people in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, especially the people directly
involved and directly responsible for the hiring, would think it would be a
great idea that we would take time off to go up and say: okay, let's go up and
have meetings; let's go up and have consultations in Labrador, Mr. Speaker,
about the block of power and the potential recall of some of the power that we
have; 300 megawatts I think it is. I think it is 220 or 225 on the TwinCo.
Mr. Speaker, as we know, we are looking at possible other expansions in
Labrador for other industrial users. We need to ensure that once we do this for
Labrador, it is done right. We need to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that when we go up
to Labrador and we sign this deal in 2015 well, the deal will be signed before
then, but when we go up in 2015 and we put it in place, we have to ensure that
we have the best possible bang for our buck.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we had two opposing views here. The
Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, yesterday, was talking about how we can
find some way for incentives. The Minister of Natural Resources said: No, there
are reasons why we should not do that. There are opposing views.
Consultation, Mr. Speaker, in my view, is the best way for any of us to go up
and to ensure that we are doing our due diligence. If we all do our due
diligence, we can say that we did our best as legislators and we can say that we
did the best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We created as much
employment as we possibly could, Mr. Speaker. Whenever then, in 2015 and beyond,
we can say that the maximum benefit for Newfoundland and Labrador will be
maintained by this block of power.
Mr. Speaker, I am just proud to be able to offer a second sober thought to
all the people in this Legislature to think about what I am saying. Think about
the recommendations I am making, Mr. Speaker think about those
recommendations. To ensure, Mr. Speaker, that we do a great job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I can hear a bit of heckling on the other side
saying: Eddie, you are right. Eddie, you are correct in what you are saying. So,
I just thank for the members for at least considering what I am saying and
ensuring that the issues that I am bringing forward is not in vain.
Mr. Speaker, I will close with this: What we do, when we do it, if we do it
right, we are going to have the maximum benefit for all people of Newfoundland
and Labrador. Not just for a certain few but we are going to have it spread out
all across Labrador so we can help as many people as we can so we can create
more employment. There are a lot of times when we step back from any bill that
we bring in the Legislature and this is just a prime example. When we step
back from any bill, especially one concerning Labrador because when you lock in,
it is locked in.
As people said earlier, when they make business plans when I said earlier,
when you make business plans it is going to be for the long term. Isn't it
better for us as legislators to ensure that when we do this here for the long
term that we go up and consult the people who we need? We go up and consult the
people who are directly affected, go up and consult the town councils, go up and
consult the unions so that, Mr. Speaker, when they are tied into some long-term
power rates, that we know that it was done properly, it was done for the right
reasons, that we are going to have the maximum benefits for all people in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Above all, Mr. Speaker, so we as legislators can say
that we did our due diligence, that we did our job.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank all members for listening to me so
attentively. I know it is such an important issue for all Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there comes a point in time where you can
consult so much it becomes an insult. That is exactly what I would suggest would
happen here.
What we are hearing from these mining companies, the mines that I have met
with on a regular basis which I will go through in a second, they do not have
another six months. They need this industrial rates policy now, Mr. Speaker,
because they are making their plans to proceed while the market requires their
product and while they are looking for financing.
I look at the list of companies, Mr. Speaker. I have met with IOC on numerous
occasions including meeting with the board of Rio Tinto, the parent company in
London earlier this year, myself and the Premier along with the President of
IOC. I have met with Labrador Iron Mines, Mr. Speaker, in Toronto at the mining
conference last year and other occasions.
I have met with Vale Inco, the head of their Newfoundland operations in
Toronto, and I know the Premier has met with Vale Inco. We have met with Tata
Steel on a number of occasions and talked to them. We have met with Alderon
and these are just meetings I have had, not including meetings that have taken
place by my officials.
I have met with Grand River Ironsands, including their local guys on at least
a couple of occasions and their South African investors. Julienne Lake, Mr.
Speaker, we are the ones who are putting this up. I have met with the
consultants there, we have instructed the consultants and very familiar with
that, Mr. Speaker.
When you talk about consulting, these are meetings that I have had as
minister. We have also had my officials meet with them. What each one of these
companies has told us, Mr. Speaker, is we need an industrial rates policy now.
We need to know what you are going to charge us.
So, Mr. Speaker, there comes a point when the industry and I know that it
is ironic when I heard the Member for Bay of Islands talk the other day. I heard
the Opposition House Leader say the other day: What took us so long to come in
with this policy? So, on the one hand, Mr. Speaker, you have one member saying
it is about time, and on the other hand now you have another member of the same
party, let us delay it a bit further. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.
Right now, we have a need for iron ore coming out of China that has increased
the price significantly. I would encourage, for all listening, to read the
Labrador mining and power paper which was released by the Department of Natural
Resources and looks at all stages of the mining industry. Very significantly,
Mr. Speaker, we have $10 billion to $15 billion dollars, potentially, of mine
developments in Labrador. They are predominantly in iron ore in Lab West, but we
also have the Grand River Ironsands project in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we have
the potential for underground mining in Voisey's Bay, and we also have the
Michelin project.
Mr. Speaker, we would like for all of these to go ahead, but we know that
when you look at the development of a mine, there are so many stages that there
could be delays, there could be economic downturns, there could be financing
issues, that it is perhaps idealistic to expect all of them to proceed.
What I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, from each of these companies I have met
with, they are committed to developing these properties, and it is because the
price of the commodity in question is at a point where it makes it economically
feasible, it makes it viable to proceed with the mine. So, if you look at the
importance of the mining industry to our Province and we have talked about
this before. As a government, we do not make as much money in terms of direct
taxation on mining companies as we do, for example, with the offshore oil
companies where we have royalty regimes, but there are significant indirect
benefits to the mining industry, from employment to the money circulated in the
economy, to the benefits that come with the development of the mine.
In fact, in 2011-2012, the mining industry contributed $343 million in direct
mining taxation. Now, that is a lot of money, but compared to what we get from
oil, Mr. Speaker, that is not a lot of money. Oil is what is making our economy
run, and it is one of the reasons that we are developing Muskrat Falls: to
ensure that when the oil runs out, we will have a sustainable
MR. MARSHALL: Diversified economy.
MR. KENNEDY: resource for our economy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: The Minister of Finance just talked about diversification.
Well, what better way to diversify than to use our own natural resources, Mr.
Speaker, to ensure a bright and prosperous future for our children?
The mining industry is an important component of what is taking place. Again,
I talked the other day briefly about the mining industry that we have on the
Island of Newfoundland too, it is not only Labrador. What we are talking about
here today are Labrador industrial rates.
Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of why these mining companies cannot
wait six months. Let me give you an example of why they have come to us, why the
Opposition House Leader says it is time to get this done. In 2004, a ton of iron
ore was $50 a metric ton. In February 2011, a ton of iron ore was $180; in
September 2012, it dropped to $100; the forecast for the long-term is in the $90
to $110 range. If all of the developments in Labrador proceed, then we would go
from developing 23 metric tons in 2011 to 80 metric tons by 2020.
What is needed for all of these mining developments is power and estimating
the power needs can be challenging because each project is at a different stage.
As they are at a different stage, they are trying to determine if they are going
to proceed to the next one. We are sort of a Catch-22 situation on the one hand.
The mining companies are saying: Well, we cannot tell you if we need the power
until you tell us how much you are going to charge us for the power and if you
have the power available. The government says: Well, we cannot tell you if we
are going to give you the power until we have a firm contract from you telling
us you will buy the power.
I said this the other day, Mr. Speaker, and again the MHA for who was
talking about this last night, about 1:00 o'clock in the morning? The MHA for
The Straits White Bay North talked about the possibility of Muskrat Falls not
being big enough.
Mr. Speaker, what I have heard all along is the NDP does not agree with the
development of Muskrat Falls and last night it was not big enough. That is the
reality. If all of these mining industries developed, then we would need Gull
Island, but we are not going to build Gull Island on the basis of what we might
need. That is why Muskrat Falls is the perfectly sized project for what we need
in our Province at present.
We have satisfied the demand in the Island here, that we know will be up to
200 megawatts at peak demand, extra in 2020. We allowed for the building of the
Maritime Link which connects us with the rest of the country, Mr. Speaker, and
we have power available for projects in Labrador.
That is why Muskrat Falls is such a good, good project for what we need in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at present, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Now, if you look at it, and the minister will tell you, IOC
and Wabush Mines have developed. They led to the creation of Labrador City and
Wabush. They have received power at a very good rate for a long time. We
recognize this transition will be difficult on them and that is why we have
tried to phase in the power over a period of time. We want them IOC is an
absolutely amazing operation when you go up there and we were all there, as I
indicated the other day and you see what they are doing up there. It is
estimated there could be 100 years of iron ore in the Labrador Trough.
Now, the iron ore is of a high quality. As I understand, it is what makes it
attractive, Mr. Speaker. Then we get to the Chinese markets, because that is
what is making this happen. The Chinese economy is demanding the need for iron
ore. They need iron ore. They develop their own, and what I am told again, it
is referred to in the paper it costs $100 a ton to develop their iron ore in
China. Anywhere they are paying $100 a ton that is a good price. That $100 a ton
then allows companies to proceed.
Paying a $5 power or $4 power is not realistic. We sell, by virtue of the
contract in 1969, power at $2.50 a megawatt hour, going down to $2 in 2017 as a
result of a renewal clause, and we sell that to Quebec. Now, Wabush Mines gets
it at $4 a megawatt hour. This cannot continue. As I think one of my colleagues
talked about, in the last ten years Wabush Mines and IOC have paid $100 million
for $900 million worth of power that it would cost in Quebec.
We want them to continue. We want to try to help, but we want other companies
to come in and develop also, Mr. Speaker. We want Julienne Lake to be developed.
How we do this is by coming up with a rates policy that says: We will direct the
PUB, this is your generation rate. The PUB will then continue to assess the cost
of service for the transmission rate and you will pay as you use the line, which
is a fair way to go.
When we look at the projects that are currently there, one of the key issues
in terms of their financing, in terms of obtaining financing, and in terms of
developing whether or not the project is viable is the cost of power. Where are
we in terms of the projects themselves? If you look at the ones currently in
existence, we know we have IOC and Wabush Mines.
We also have Voisey's Bay, which hopefully will proceed to underground
mining. If they do, then they will need power for that, whether it be from a
transmission line from Happy Valley-Goose Bay or another development on the
coast, which could be run of the river and wind, or one or the other. They will
need an amount of power. I do not know the exact figure; let's say fifty
megawatts of hour. Well, the benefits of that would be, we would now be able to
connect Natuasish and Nain. They are in operation. The question is whether or
not they are going to go underground.
We have Wabush Mines and IOC, which are in operation. Then we have Labrador
Iron Mines was the first new iron ore producer in the Province since 1965, when
it shipped iron ore in 2011. Now they are a smaller operation compared to the
bigger operations, but I have been very impressed in my meetings with them, very
committed. They want to make this happen. Their geographical location poses some
challenges both in terms of the supply of power and getting the product to
market, but they opened up. They do not need as much power as the other
companies, Mr. Speaker, but they certainly have been impressive in my dealings
with them.
In construction, we have the IOC Concentrate Expansion Program, which is a
very significant expansion. We would be into Phase II which would require, I
think it is about forty megawatts of power. Tata Steel minerals, Tata Steel is a
very big iron ore company out of India, but this Tata Steel mineral is a joint
venture between Tata Steel and New Millennium which is a publicly listed junior
mining company on the Canadian markets. They have a project in North Western
Labrador that is developing deposits very similar to Labrador Iron Mines
Limited.
Mr. Speaker, if they proceed, there are different amounts of power that will
be needed. There would be significant at this stage, to complete the
pre-feasibility study would be eight megawatts. In terms of feasibility
complete, we have the Labrador Iron Mines expansion.
Undergoing feasibility studies and environmental assessments we have the
Alderon Iron Ore Corporation, Kami project which is located approximately five
kilometres southwest of Wabush Mines. This appears to have a very good grade of
ore with approximately eight million tons. In my meetings with this group,
myself and the Premier met with the President of the company, Mr. Mark Morabito.
Again, very aggressive, very interested in doing business and having very
significant benefits to the people of Labrador West. They are the first company
to actually indicate that they would proceed and wanted to buy power from
Nalcor.
We have talked about, and I have talked about in the past, that we currently
have 525 megawatts of energy that we recall from the Upper Churchill or that we
get back from the Upper Churchill contract out of the 5,400. We have the 225
megawatt TwinCo block, which will come back, as indicated earlier. Then we have
300 megawatts of recall power.
At peak in the wintertime, 220 megawatts is required for the Labrador area.
That leaves approximately 80 megawatts, because you always have to be able to
meet your peak. There is obviously more available in the wintertime, so there
are 80 megawatts of power available that we could sell to mining companies at
present.
I am just trying to get the figures correct. We currently have capacity on
the Quebec lines of being able to export 265 megawatts of energy. What happens
is that energy that is not used in Labrador, the 80 megawatts, is sold on the
spot markets in the Northeastern US, Mr. Speaker, and in the summertime there is
more. The summertime is actually a very good time for selling energy in the
United States because that is when they have all the air conditioners on. The
air conditioners use a lot of energy.
Alderon is saying: well, we will buy those 80 megawatts of power off you, or
whatever we need, to get going. We then have the Tata Steel LabMag project,
which is undergoing feasibility. This will be a big project that will require
235 megawatts of energy, with also extra power for a pellet plant. We get our
source, Mr. Speaker, from their 2006 pre-feasibility study. As I have talked
about already, the Voisey's Bay underground and the potential for that is now in
pre-feasibility.
We have in construction, we have feasibility complete, we have undergoing
feasibility studies, and we have pre-feasibility studies. In pre-feasibility we
again have the IOC strategic development and the North Atlantic Iron
Corporation, or Grand River Ironsands. I met with these individuals on a number
of occasions. They are talking about needing up to 100 megawatts to 150
megawatts of power. What we have is a situation where these are not as advanced
as the other companies, although they are certainly very keen on obtaining power
and starting their business.
The Aurora, Paladin, Michelin Project, a uranium project that was under
moratorium for a couple of years, two to three years, from Nunatsiavut
Government, is in the essential mineral belt. If they proceed, depending on the
uranium markets and again, the Member for Torngat Mountains might be able to
help me the closest communities would be Postville and Makkovik, which could
result in the potential to have power delivered to those communities if this
project proceeds.
Then we have Julienne Lake, which is a Crown-owned iron ore project
approximately fifteen kilometres from Labrador City and Wabush. We have
conducted geographical and economic analyses, we have hired consultants, and we
currently have that project out on RFP. Those power requirements will be eighty
to 160 megawatts of energy.
Dr. Wade Locke has done his economic analysis of Labrador West iron ore
mining based on different scenarios. I think he has chosen four different
scenarios. The numbers, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the economic benefits to the
Province, could be huge. People who are making high wages spend their money:
they buy houses, they buy cars. They are spending their money; they are putting
that money out into the community. Even though the royalties or the direct
taxation is not as great, the mining industry is a huge industry in this
Province.
What we are trying to do as a government, we are trying to very prudently and
cautiously proceed to see if we can provide the power that they need