Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers; Oral Questions — 20 December 2012 (47th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVII No. 72)
2012-12-20
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 20, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 72
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members.
Statements by Ministers.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 61 includes an extensive definition of the Muskrat Falls Project. It
describes a hydro plant, transmission lines and Emera's Maritime Link. It even
describes any associated upgrades to the bulk energy system in the Province, but
it does not mention anything about decommissioning the Holyrood Thermal Station.
I ask the Premier: Since shutting down Holyrood has been part of your
justification for Muskrat Falls, why is the commitment not included in the
extensive definition of the project?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nalcor was clear at the Decision Gate 2 phase that they felt the two most
viable options for the supply of needed power on the Island portion of the
Province especially would be either Muskrat Falls or the Isolated Island
Holyrood refurbished plan. Essentially, Muskrat Falls includes the Muskrat Falls
Generating Station, the Labrador Transmission Asset, which is the line from
Muskrat Falls to Churchill Falls. It includes the Labrador-Island Link and of
course then the Maritime Link which would be built from Granite Canal to Nova
Scotia.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the question was about decommissioning of the
Holyrood generation plant. It was not included in this.
The question is: Will you now confirm a date to decommission Holyrood?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, discussions with Nalcor have been around
when obviously the Holyrood plant can be decommissioned. We know in 2017,
Muskrat Falls will be in use and that power will be produced; however, it is my
understanding that for a period of time Holyrood will have to be kept, not in
use but if needed when available. My understanding is around 2020, 2021 Holyrood
will be decommissioned. I will have to check on that to be accurate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: In the definition of the Muskrat Falls in Bill 61, the Premier
included arrangements with Aboriginal peoples, decommissioning of the dam and
other activities that Cabinet sees fit but makes no specific mention of shutting
down Holyrood.
I ask the Premier: Will you now amend this legislation to enshrine the
commitment to shut down the Holyrood Generating Station?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the basic reasons that
Muskrat Falls is being developed or the Isolated Island is looked at. There is
an increased demand for power on the Island. We also have a situation where as a
result of the industrial or mining developments in Labrador there will be an
increased need for power. Holyrood is not part of the Muskrat Falls Project. It
is a significant factor environmentally as to why we feel that Muskrat Falls is
a much better project, but essentially, on an economic basis, Muskrat Falls
stands on its own, and then Isolated Island Holyrood refurbished are two totally
separate projects.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, we know that Holyrood has been a significant part
of the conversation on this and what we are obviously looking for is a
commitment to see the actual date on that.
Mr. Speaker, government will
expropriate land, cabins, houses along a stretch of Churchill Falls to St.
John's and Granite Canal to Cape Ray. If people fight against this, they can
appeal to a panel appointed by Cabinet.
I ask the Premier: Will this panel be independent, or will it be like the
Nalcor board which indeed are political appointments?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we clearly outlined in the proposed legislation that there would
be an independent panel of arbitrators appointed. Obviously what we want to see,
as in any expropriation, is that there is fair compensation for the person who
is affected. Properties are expropriated all the time when we build highways,
when other projects occur. So, the independent board of arbitrators, as to who
they are going to be at present, I do not know.
We all have the same goal here: to ensure that people are fairly compensated
now fairly compensated means exactly that and it is not meant to be a
windfall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As part of the Muskrat Falls legislation, government is entrenching Nalcor as
an energy monopoly on the Island portion of the Province for fifty years. There
will be no new generation allowed for any commercial or industrial consumers of
electricity.
I ask the Premier: Why are you denying free and open energy markets,
something you have argued for in the past?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the two principles are not related. We have in this Province
already, people who have generation capacity; Corner Brook Pulp and Paper is
one. Once we get connected to the international grid, they will have the same
rights under FERC to apply for transmission rights, and that will occur under
the rules that exist today.
When we introduced our Energy Plan in 2007, Mr. Speaker, we said that
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were going to be masters of their own destiny.
That they were going to be in control of their energy resources. The Opposition
talks about Nalcor like it is some multinational company under which we have no
control. Nalcor is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.
Speaker; they own the resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, of course, we know who owns Nalcor, and we know about Nalcor, but we
also know there is legislation in place that is actually going to restrict the
access to that open energy market that we talked about for fifty years.
Mr. Speaker, government is denying the people of the Province the opportunity
to avail of any future technologies for their energy needs. They are tying us
all to Muskrat power for fifty years.
I ask the Premier: Why are you closing shop and restricting energy innovation
access for fifty years for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, hydroelectricity is the cheapest form of energy generation in
the world. It is an old technology, a proven technology, a reliable technology,
the science is already done. In every other technology that we consider, it is
always more expensive than hydropower. A basic search of Google will tell you
that, never mind all of the experts that we have called in to give their views
on this piece, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what we have said is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
through Nalcor, will determine what kind of partnerships that we will have in
this Province in terms of energy development. Mr. Speaker, we already have two
wind projects in this Province that are controlled by independents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, the Premier must know that if we look back at fifty years there are a
lot of things that we did not know about fifty years ago. A typewriter, for
instance, is what we used, today we are using computers. Common sense will tell
us that lots of things change in fifty year.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, of which we are part of, has rules
and regulations around monopolies.
I ask the Premier: Given your less than stellar record on the
interpretation
of NAFTA rules, will Bill 61 expose us to another NAFTA challenge?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, Mr. Speaker, it will not expose us to another NAFTA challenge. Mr.
Speaker, we have ensured that we understand this inside and out.
Mr. Speaker, tidal energy, for example, is something that has been talked
about for a very, very long time. Nova Scotia is particularly interested in
tidal technology. That is the next piece of technology after wind that seems
the most viable. Mr. Speaker, we have been years and years and years, and still
the technology is not advanced enough to make it commercially viable.
We are going to have an energy deficit in 2017, Mr. Speaker. What are they
suggesting that we stay in the dark for twenty years until 2041, Mr. Speaker, or
are they suggesting that we turn off Muskrat Falls in 2025 or 2030 when new
technology is developed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. BALL: I am not so sure that the Premier connected the dots there.
What I asked was: Did you check with NAFTA to see if it would open us to another
court challenge?
As a matter of fact, Premier, I think you just made an argument why looking
forward to fifty years, you mentioned tidal energy and the impact that could
have; yet, you do not want to hear talk about that for the next fifty years.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 61 forbids other utilities from selling energy into this
Province, but part of the Muskrat Falls scheme is to sell our power into Nova
Scotia and the Northeastern US. Since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
in the US has reciprocity conditions in their regulations, will Bill 61 prevent
Nalcor from selling Muskrat power into the US?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, one of the great difficulties we have in this country is that we
do not have an east-west grid. We do not have regulation in Canada like the
federal energy regulator has in the United States. Our challenges with working
with Quebec would have been resolved a long time ago if we had that kind of
regulation in this country.
Mr. Speaker, if we have commercial arrangements in the United States, we will
be required to provide reciprocity. We will pay our way to get there, we will
agree to the rules, and we will follow the rules. Mr. Speaker, all we have ever
asked for in this country is a level playing field, a way to get into the market
and then we will make our own way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The President of Nunatsiavut Government says their concerns are still being
ignored by government. The Premier gave a false impression that Nunatsiavut was
satisfied with the Muskrat Falls Project during the sanctioning announcement.
I ask the Premier: Why did you give the impression that Nunatsiavut was
supportive of the project as sanctioned when that is clearly false?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I learned today that NTV is going to run again the whole
sanction event 6:00 o'clock Saturday evening on the news, a special program, and
I encourage members of the Opposition to watch it. Other than welcome Minister
Danny Pottle to the ceremony and we were happy to see him there, and he
indicated he was very happy to be there I made no mention of anybody
supporting Muskrat Falls from Nunatsiavut. I did not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have collaboration. We have consultation. Mr. Speaker,
sometimes we agree. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree, but we always talk.
That is the one thing I have always said to President Leo: We are always
prepared to have the conversation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Nunatsiavut Government said that the Premier has failed to accept their
rights and titles.
I ask the Premier, as the Nunatsiavut Government has said: Why are you not
prepared to honour the spirit of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, once Aboriginal rights are established in this country, there is
no other option than to honour them. We cannot erase Aboriginal rights and this
government has a history of respecting Aboriginal rights, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, after over thirty years of trying and two attempts by Liberal
governments to develop the Lower Churchill without input from the Innu Nation or
Nunatsiavut, Mr. Speaker to do it without them Lower Churchill is squarely
in Innu Lands. They did not even try to do a lands claim with them before they
were going to push ahead with the development. That is not the way that this
government operates, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The NunatuKavut Community Council has asked government to consult with them
on the Muskrat Falls Project. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they have even gone to the
courts, yet the only thing the government has done is arrest the NunatuKavut
elders for walking on their own land, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier: Why aren't you open to dealing with the legitimate
concerns being raised by the Aboriginal groups around this project in Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we take our responsibility, our obligation to consult, very,
very seriously. We have engaged with NunatuKavut since we came to government in
We do not always agree, Mr. Speaker. They act like they have an established
claim within this country. They do not. That is a process that they have to
follow through with the federal government. Once the federal government
acknowledges their Aboriginal claim, we will offer it, Mr. Speaker, but we do
have to consult and we absolutely respect that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we
provided tens of thousands of dollars to them so that they could be well
prepared to present to the environmental assessment panel.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know the government opposite's idea of consultation is court orders and
big fences on Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker.
Anyway, on Monday while the Premier was throwing a tea party to sanction
Muskrat Falls in the lobby of Confederation Building, children in the Labrador
Straits had to go across the border to Quebec to play hockey. They could not
play hockey in their own community because the hydro bill was too high to put
ice in their rink.
I ask the Premier: Is this right that the power, the transmission lines of
Muskrat Falls should pass over the heads of children in Labrador and go
elsewhere, when they have to go across the border to skate because they cannot
afford their hydro bills to keep the arena open?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the way that utilities are arranged in this Province and the way
that we generate electricity and pay for that electricity states that the users
of the electricity have to pay for it. The reason why lines are not going all
over Labrador is because, by the time you have them all built, Mr. Speaker, and
you have to charge back to the ratepayer the cost of that, they would not be
able to pay their light bills. They would not be able to turn on the lights at
all. It is unfortunate. It is not only in Labrador; there are a lot of children
all over this Province who do not have arenas in their community, Mr. Speaker.
What we will not do though is use the Liberal model of government and fiscal
management. She said last night her advice to them was turn on the electricity,
put the ice on, and you will figure out how to pay for it after. That is how
they nearly bankrupted this government, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That sounds a lot like the Premier's approach to the Muskrat Falls Project,
Mr. Speaker: do not put in the cost overruns; do not tell anyone what we are
doing. Just go do it, we will figure it out after. If we cannot figure out how
to pay for it, we will charge the ratepayers of the Province, Mr. Speaker. That
is her solution, I say to her, not mine.
I ask the Premier today: What is her commitment to the people in Labrador, to
these children who today have to skate on the ice rinks of Quebec because they
cannot afford the power in their own communities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I talked about this last night. Somehow or other the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair does not feel that the Innu are Labradorians. She
talks about Innu when she talks about them and then she talks about
Labradorians. It is a terrible thing, Mr. Speaker.
The most benefits coming out of the development of Muskrat Falls go first of
all to the Innu of Labrador, Mr. Speaker enormous benefits, not only from
Muskrat Falls but redress on the Upper Churchill, righting a wrong that we could
do at least for the Innu people something that has not happened for the rest of
the Province, Mr. Speaker. Opportunities to develop IBAs, to form partnerships
with other people in Labrador and on this Island, and then benefits go next to
all of the people in Labrador and to the mining companies, because they will be
able to develop.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The monopoly created by Bill 61 for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro ensures
that the people of the Province will be tied to Muskrat Falls for fifty years.
To put it in perspective, today's first-year students will be retired from the
workforce by the time there are any other options for consumers.
I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Why was government so eager to create
barriers to competition?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, wondered aloud in this
House last week how the world had become so skewed that we have the Leader of
the NDP talking about a state-owned energy company that holds the resources of
the people of the Province to develop to their benefit, and instead argues for
private enterprise. Mr. Speaker, the world has gone nine ways to Sunday in this
place.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is it that she suggests? Is she aware of some
technology that is on the cusp of development, Mr. Speaker, that is more
advanced or more viable and cheaper and more sustainable than hydro power?
Because the fact that she thinks there might be, Mr. Speaker, does not make it a
fact. If she knows something, share it with us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We just spent two days, two full legislative days in this House putting out
ideas that they will not listen to. Mr. Speaker, the government created Bill 61
to protect Nalcor from project failure, from new and competitive technologies
that are being developed, and who knows what else.
Mr. Speaker, now I am asking the Premier: What is this government planning to
do to protect the ratepayer, the people of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Third Party said, and
who knows what else. Well, I can guarantee you that she does not know, Mr.
Speaker. Because we have an energy company in Nalcor whose mandate is to explore
all of these options, Mr. Speaker. We have energy ministers who meet together
across this country on a regular basis.
Mr. Speaker, we understand what is happening in terms of technology and
energy development. Mr. Speaker, the cheapest, most sustainable answer to our
energy needs is Muskrat Falls. When it is paid off in thirty-five years, or
forty years, or fifty years, it will be virtually free.
It is interesting that all of the arguments she makes today, Mr. Speaker,
were made against Bay d'Espoir when it was being developed, and we can reference
all of those treaties for you. Bay d'Espoir, we own it today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It may interest the Premier to know that they have discovered now in Manitoba
that their wind power is cheaper than their hydroelectricity. Mr. Speaker, we
know that the UARB in Nova Scotia will be looking at the discussion between Nova
Scotia and Quebec Hydro concerning building power lines through New Brunswick to
provide Nova Scotia with electricity.
One of the things the UARB will be looking at is both the cost and the
reliability of the transmission of power from Quebec to Nova Scotia. The power
that will be going into the Maritime Link will be coming all the way from
Muskrat Falls over the Long Range Mountains before it reaches the Gulf.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Isn't she concerned that the UARB will rule
that the power from Quebec is cheaper and more reliable?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes negotiations take a very, very long time because you
have to imagine every scenario that might occur even though you do not expect it
to. You have to imagine what might occur, the worst you have to take all the
examples of the NDP and the Liberals and put them together and say what if all
of this happens? If it does happen what is the remedy, and devise the remedy
now. You never want to wait until it might happen and then try to find a
solution.
That is why negotiations take so long. That is why our negotiations are so
good, Mr. Speaker, they are so positive. Mr. Speaker, what we have done in our
negotiation is ensure, regardless of what the UARB decides, that we have
protected the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we have secured our loan
guarantee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier is tying the people of this Province to fifty years of an
enormous debt.
Mr. Speaker, when Nalcor gave us a briefing on Tuesday morning with regard to
the Muskrat Falls sanction agreement signed between Nalcor and Emera, an
official with Nalcor said that on their own Emera would not have sanctioned
until after the Nova Scotia UARB decision.
I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: What did she give up in order to get Emera to
sign the sanction agreement for her timeline?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we do not give up. We negotiate, Mr. Speaker, and we ensure that
we protect the interests of the people of this Province. Of all of the viable
options that are available to the people of the Province today, the difference
between Muskrat Falls and the next viable option is $2.4 billion, Mr. Speaker,
$2.4 billion.
She has some kind of a crystal ball that is still a little bit cloudy now,
Mr. Speaker. She thinks there is going to be a cheaper technology come somewhere
in the future in the next fifty years, but she does not know what it is. She
just thinks it is going to happen; therefore, we should not do Muskrat Falls. I
do not know exactly what we are supposed to do, Mr. Speaker, other than let
people sit in the dark if her predictions are wrong.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador lacks skilled workers
in key areas and the problem is getting worse and worse. ExxonMobil recently
decided not to build a third module here citing this problem, and Vale has said
the cost of the Long Harbour project will jump by hundreds of millions of
dollars because of the same issue.
I ask the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills: What has been done to
ensure these labour supply pressures do not cause the Muskrat Falls Project to
balloon out of control any further?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Hebron Project and the portion
of the work that will not be done in Newfoundland and Labrador, this government
under the leadership of the Premier have negotiated a deal that sees a
settlement for this Province. From that money, Mr. Speaker, we will undertake
many projects that will produce as much or more labour and benefits for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we are doing what we can to develop industry and to ensure the
future and this Province is economically viable. We will take as many as steps
as necessary to ensure the people of this Province are in a position to reap the
benefits from the decisions of this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was only last year this Premier was not so eager to keep people working in
this Province. If you recall, she let a $30 billion shipbuilding project go that
could have lasted thirty-five years. She let that slip away from the people of
the Burin Peninsula and the Province.
Mr. Speaker, why does this Premier think the Muskrat Falls Project about
four years will be any different from other projects in bringing people home
on a permanent basis?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me. Not only do we control everything that
government has, like Crown corporations and stuff, but now we are in charge of
private industry, too. It is nothing short of amazing.
Again, it takes us back to our power in negotiations, Mr. Speaker our power
in negotiations. There was nobody any more surprised than the government when
Kiewit suddenly decided not to bid for the DES. The value of that project was
around $100 million. Because of our negotiations and because we had anticipated
worst-case scenarios and remedies, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province got
$150 million because of that decision by Kiewit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Natural Resources, on December 17, stated in a release: The
Muskrat Falls Project will generate estimated revenues in excess of $20 billion
over fifty years once it comes on stream.
Mr. Speaker, the Joint Panel Review noted Nalcor in its cash flow analysis
and financial statements showed the projected annual net financial benefit to
the Province in the order of $1.1 billion by 2050.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Will you confirm the
Province is only going to net $1.1 billion in financial benefits by 2050?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the analysis provided by Nalcor shows that out of the Muskrat
Falls Project, revenue stream will come in that will cover their operating
costs, it will cover their financial costs which is guaranteed by the Government
of Canada at very low rates, and then they will pay a dividend to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador of in excess of $20 billion, starting in 2017 for the
life of the project. If we were to include estimates of sales of surplus power
into the American markets, it would be over $24 billion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, government has promised that thousands of jobs will be developed
with the construction of the Muskrat Falls Project and its subsidiaries. Many of
these jobs will be in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area. We have heard that work
camps will be built, but not everybody will be living in these work camps.
Mr. Speaker, with the current very real housing crisis in Happy Valley-Goose Bay
and with escalating housing prices and rent prices and zero per cent vacancy
rates, I ask the minister: What is his government going to do to concretely
address this rapidly worsening housing crisis?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This government is very much aware of the housing crisis, not just in
Labrador, Central Labrador, Western Labrador but the whole Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I will stick to the Labrador issues to answer the
question from the member opposite.
We just announced a few months ago a $1.3 million project happening in
Western Labrador for low-income housing: twelve units. We have a new subdivision
opening in Labrador West. Part of the subdivision, part of the permit agreement,
was that there would be affordable housing within that subdivision: thirty-six
units, Mr. Speaker. That is happening in Central Labrador also.
We have an announcement coming up, and I do not want to spill the beans for
an announcement in Central Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Borrowing the down payment for a mortgage is never a sound financial
decision. A responsible financial advisor would recommend to anyone buying a
home: if they do not have the down payment, they should wait.
MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member to get to her question quickly.
MS MICHAEL: The Minister of Finance says he is going to borrow its down
payment for Muskrat Falls and I want to know how he could consider that as sound
fiscal management, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance for a quick response.
MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the proponents of Muskrat Falls will borrow
the debt. The Province will make an equity contribution. We will finance our
contribution out of cash flow or out of debt, depending on the financial
circumstances at the time of (inaudible).
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.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that
this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 24, 2012.
Further, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this
House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, December 24, 2012.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, under notices of
motion?
MR. OSBORNE: Under notices of motion, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Under notices of motion?
MR. OSBORNE: Yes.
Mr. Speaker, I read a notice of motion for a private member's resolution:
WHEREAS other provinces make use of standing and special committees in their
Legislatures, which meet regularly; and
WHEREAS the House of Commons uses standing and special committees, which meet
regularly; and
WHEREAS the use of standing and special committees would provide greater
oversight on proposed legislation; and
WHEREAS standing and special committee meetings in other jurisdictions are
open to the public and are televised, promoting greater accountability; and
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
WHEREAS standing and special committees in other
jurisdictions have the ability to call witnesses; and
WHEREAS standing and special committees in other Canadian jurisdictions allow
public hearings; and
WHEREAS standing and special committees in other jurisdictions have the
ability to probe into issues of importance to the general public;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House endorse the use of all-party
standing and select committees in the Legislature of Newfoundland.
This is seconded by the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi and the Member
for Burgeo La Poile.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
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 move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and
Skills, Motion 4, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at
5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, December 20, 2012.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education
and Skills, Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn
at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday, December 20, 2012.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing
Order 11 the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 20, 2012, and
further pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00
o'clock p.m. on Thursday, December 20, 2012.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.
MR. KING: I ask for your direction on a point of order. It is my
understanding the private member's motion just introduced a few moments ago was
seconded by a member not currently present in the House. I ask for your ruling
on that.
MR. SPEAKER: I cannot recall what the records indicated. The motion was
made. I will have to check with the Table to determine who seconded the motion
and I will make a comment later after I had a chance to do that with respect to
the motion that is on the Table.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) thirder'.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South rising on the point
of order.
MR. OSBORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a seconder and a thirder'. The
private member's resolution was seconded by the Member for
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE: The private member's resolution is seconded by the Member
for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. You are speaking to the point of order. The
notice of motion portion of the agenda has been dealt with and concluded. We are
now responding to a point of order raised by the Government House Leader. If you
are speaking to the point of order, I acknowledge your comment. With respect to
the notice of motion, that part of the agenda is now concluded.
I will check with the records to determine whether the mover or seconder was
present in the House at the time and make a comment to the House later this
afternoon.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and
Rural Development, that the House resolve itself in to a Committee of the Whole
to consider Bill 60,
An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The
Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project, as well as Bill 61, Order 3, Committee of
the Whole,
An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, The Energy
Corporation Act and The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for
the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 60 and
Bill 61.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker, left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Cross): Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have referred two bills to the committee for discussion. It is Bill 61
that we would call first, if that is in order.
CHAIR: Okay. I call Bill 61.
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to continue where I left off before lunch, where we were discussing
the various reports that have been done. Myself and the Member for St. John's
East had a very good discussion on natural gas. I do not think we are probably
any further ahead towards agreeing, but I will put our experts up against his.
Mr. Chair, I am going to talk a little bit now about a couple of things. I
talked about the sensitivity analysis earlier today, and when I had discussed
about our meetings with PIRA, and I had discussed our meetings with Wood
Mackenzie in London where we talked about the price of oil. I want to come back
to how and why Nalcor were right in their excluding at Decision Gate 2 all of
the other alternatives except for Isolated Island and Muskrat Falls.
Earlier today I outlined the CPW, or Cumulative Present Worth chart. I talked
about Muskrat Falls being at $8.4 billion, Mr. Chair, Isolated Island at $10.8
billion, Liquefied Natural Gas being anywhere from $10.7 billion to $11.2
billion. We then moved up into the standalone facilities, which ranged from
the pipeline $12 billion to $15 billion, and then we got as high as wind at
$17 billion. I am going to come back to that report shortly.
When I talked about the price of oil we had some discussion as to the
difference in the prediction of short-term pricing versus long-term pricing,
with short-term being notoriously volatile, having regard to what can occur in
the Middle East on any given day, Mr. Chair. There does not appear to be any
real rhyme or reason as to why it would go up $1 versus $2 over a period of
time. However, in the long term the fundamental principles of supply and demand
still apply.
I want to look at the CPW Sensitivity Analysis that was performed by Manitoba
Hydro which is at page 72 of the Manitoba Hydro International report. When you
look at the report, Mr. Chair, I said I would come back. I told the Member for
St. John's East I would come back and we would talk about the prices of oil and
we would look at how it worked into the Sensitivity Analysis.
We start out, Mr. Chair, with the Interconnected Isolated Island with the
base case being $104 for a barrel of oil at 8.366 or 8.44 getting up to the
Isolated Island at 10.778. That leads to Muskrat Falls being $2.4 billion
cheaper in terms of a CPW analysis. We now have three prices of fuel that we are
looking at. We have the PIRA fuel price expected, which is $112. That could be a
little bit high based on today's or the last analysis I saw, Mr. Chair, it was
around $109 I think they were predicting for the year. For our purposes, it is
illustrative of the principle that is applied and employed.
If you use $112 or the expected PIRA, we are still at our $8.4 billion for
the Interconnected but Isolated Island, now there is a $3 billion difference.
This is where though, Mr. Chair, we get to a crucial one and this is the one
that I think becomes very important from our perspective in analyzing Muskrat
Falls, and that is PIRA low. They are trying to come up with all of the
scenarios.
The PIRA low price that was used in the MHI Sensitivity Analysis, to the best
of my knowledge, Mr. Chair, was around $61. That is why I have talked somewhat
extensively in my last meetings with PIRA and in Wood Mackenzie on the
possibility of oil going to $70 a barrel.
We have talked about the shale oil developments in the Bakken fields in North
Dakota and how it is having a significant impact on the ability of the Americans
to become self-sufficient. We have talked, Mr. Chair, about China and growth in
China. How that 5 per cent growth could lead them to the point where and they
are currently at approximately 7.5 per cent, 8 per cent in 2030 they will be
using as much oil as the Americans. Those 90 million barrels a day, which is
currently used, Mr. Chair, is expected to go to 105 million to 110 million
barrels. The risk for us in terms of Muskrat Falls and the CPW analysis is taken
into account when you get to PIRA low.
We know, Mr. Chair, the development of the shale oil field in the Bakken are
currently $50 to $65 to $70. That is a good indication that we do not expect
prices to go below that because if they do and I am going to come back later
today and talk about the Harvard report that was referred to by the Member for
St. John's East. If they go below that, people will stop developing.
Oil companies are in it to make money, like private companies who have
shareholders, who have boards who are deciding where to spend the money. We know
that the oil sands can and this is one of the issues with the developments in
North Dakota and the effect on the oil sands is the $85 per barrel which it is
costing to develop at the oil sands.
The PIRA low is $61. I think that the Member for St. John's East will
probably agree with me that it is a pretty conservative figure. The chances of
going to $60 are not that great, based on what the analysts tell us today. In
the sensitivity analysis, when you use that $61 a barrel of oil, then there is
still a half billion-dollar CPW preference for Muskrat Falls. Now, that is
purely economic. That is not taking into account all of the other economic
benefits, Mr. Chair, that come with Muskrat Falls. That is not taking into
account the very significant environmental advantage of closing Holyrood, Mr.
Chair.
Now the members opposite today talked about: Well, with Muskrat Falls there
will be overruns; it is going to go up. I think that same principle will apply
to any major project today. Whether you refurbish Holyrood, whether you build
natural gas, whether you use wind, you are still going to run into overruns. The
question is: How do you minimize the overruns? Can you eliminate them? I cannot
say that at present, Mr. Chair, but what you try to do is to identify, assess,
while not eliminating, minimize. Now, $60 a barrel puts us at a half
billion-dollar CPW preference.
Let's increase the capital expenditure by 10 per cent. We still have a $2.1
billion preference. Increase the capex by 25 per cent; we have a $1.7 billion
CPW preference. Increase our interest rate by fifty base points or a half per
cent; we have a $2.25 billion preference. Increase it by 1 per cent, $2.09
billion preference. Decrease it by twenty-five base points; we have a $2.486
billion preference.
Now and this is the kicker because even though it is put in the sensitivity
analysis and it is not in the base case, but if you look at carbon pricing
which I think it is fairly safe to say at some point in this country we are
going to see it. I talked about it today in my meetings in Europe, in London
again, I am trying to do this by memory but I think it was seven Euros per ton
that it was currently at and they figured that it had to be at thirty-five Euros
per ton. Their Euro, Mr. Chair, it could be around $1.40 to $1.70. I think it
fluctuates. It could be lower. It could be $1.20 now. These are significant
numbers per ton.
So, even with carbon pricing, you put in some carbon pricing, we have a $2.99
billion or $3 billion preference. The purpose of the sensitivity analysis, Mr.
Chair, is to show people that MHI did not simply take this one figure and say:
Look at this; Muskrat Falls wins. What they did is they engaged in different
scenarios that could evolve. Have they envisaged all of the scenarios that could
evolve, Mr. Chair? No, that would be very difficult, but the same principles on
overruns have to apply to all projects. The same principles on interest rates
will apply to all projects. So, it is not enough to say that Muskrat Falls will
have an overrun but the other projects will remain static. That is not the way
the world works.
What we are seeing is a situation where, with Muskrat Falls, the element of
stability comes from the fact that once you build a project, your capital
expenditure up front, you have your project, you know where it is going. The
difficulty with Isolated Island is that volatility will be continuously tied to
the volatility of fossil fuels. Mr. Chair, we do not know we have had experts
who have predicted $200 oil for a number of years. We have had experts who have
been talking for years about peak oil. Well, Sir, we are not at peak oil any
more with the shale oil plays in the United States right now, producing up to
I think Dr. Schwartz indicated it could up to 5 million or 6 million barrels a
day by 2020.
So what we have is a situation where Manitoba Hydro, in an attempt to look at
various scenarios and outline for a discussion how these scenarios would affect
Muskrat Falls versus Isolated Island. At the end of the day, the closest you can
get to Holyrood and Muskrat Falls is a half billion dollars. Now, you take into
account all of the other economic and environmental benefits, Mr. Chair, and
Muskrat Falls clearly becomes the preferred project.
Now, in my last twenty seconds, being co-operative today, like I am trying to
be, the Member for St. John's North asked me a question on the cost of energy in
Norway. I have it here somewhere, but I think the answer was around six or seven
cents in urban, thirteen cents in rural, 2.9 cents industrial, but I will check
that and get it in my next time round.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again I stand in this House today after our little dinner break so they
can probably get Christmas dinner ready here for the House. If you want to talk
about pressure, I can see how a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador feel
trying to rush everything through on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. That is
fine. That is the government's prerogative. In the Christmas spirit, they want
to make sure they give them a good Boxing sale. That is all it is. It is like a
sale, Mr. Chair. We do not know what it is going to be. We do not know what is
going to happen. We do not know what, but we will just go up and say there is a
sale. That is what this sounds like.
Mr. Chair, I spoke about this a couple of times already. The people who I
represent are asking me on a regular basis. It is almost like the hospital in
Corner Brook. I will keep asking, asking, and asking until I get the answer, Mr.
Chair. I have been asking six years now about the hospital in Corner Brook and I
still have not gotten any answers. So I will ask again on this question I have
asked three or four times in this debate.
We heard today the minister again stand up, that over fifty years there is
going to be in excess of $20 billion, and with US sales it is possibly up to $24
billion. I just want to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador it is my
fourth time or fifth time, and I am not sure which, that I have asked. If you
know how much profit we are going to make by 2017, let us have the charts. Let
us have the flow sheet. Let us produce it.
I find it strange, Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance could stand up in this
House, haul this figure out of the air, and say: here is what we are going to
make in 2017, and we are going to make X number, hundreds of millions, or
millions of dollars, or whatever. It might change every day. Yet when we as the
Opposition are asking questions for the people we represent and say show us on
paper, show us each year what the expenses and income are, they cannot do it.
They cannot or will not. I am not sure which. I do not think they can, Mr.
Chair. I definitely do not think they can.
As I said earlier today, Mr. Chair, I have asked the government. I am sure
there are a lot of people watching now because of Question Period. I asked the
government when they sanctioned this project or before they sanctioned this
project, they got Nalcor to put up this clock, a rate calculator, on their Web
site. The rate calculator says: okay, punch in your rate now, and in 2017 here
is what it is going to be, and in 2020 here is what it is going to be. A lot of
people said: by God, that is not too bad. That looks pretty good.
I asked the government today and I will ask again so everybody in the
audience here today who is listening can know I asked: if the government is
ordering Nalcor which the government is the boss, they say that this rate
calculator for all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador is set, here is what
you are going to get, given the expectations of people so they can plan. We hear
this government say on many occasions that we need to make plans, so people can
plan their budgets down the road, how big of a house am I going to need: shall I
downsize? Is it okay if I get a larger house?
I ask the government, I ask all members opposite to legislate the rates on
that rate calculator today. Legislate the rates. They just cannot do it, Mr.
Chair. They cannot legislate those rates. You know why? They do not know what
the rates are going to be. They just do not know. It is impossible to know what
the rates are going to be.
Under this federal loan guarantee they need a guaranteed source of income.
The only source of income admitted by this government will be the ratepayers of
this Province who are paying 100 per cent for the total project but yet only
receiving 40 per cent of the benefit.
Now, what do you think of that, Mr. Chair? If you were buying a house and you
were paying for the full house but you could only use 40 per cent of it you
could only use 40 per cent of it.
Instead of, Mr. Chair, if any of us here and I am sure there are some
people here who do have some rental units instead of saying: okay, I will buy
the house. I am only going to use 40 per cent. The other 60 per cent that I can
rent out is going towards my mortgage that I am paying 100 per cent for; isn't
that reasonable? Isn't that just reasonable? Isn't that logical for people to
say, well, if we are paying 100 per cent, 60 per cent is being sold or even 40
per cent is being sold, shouldn't that be put back towards the people who are
paying for the whole project? Absolutely, but yet this government refuses to do
it.
This government refuses to pass on an income revenue statement, Mr. Chair, to
show what the income will be, the revenues will be, the profits will be in 2017,
2018, 2019, but yet they can stand up with a piece of paper, wave it around to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and say: we are going to make hundreds
of millions of dollars over the life of this project and we are going to have
$20 billion but yet they cannot produce anything to show it.
Mr. Chair, the Minister of IBRD is sitting there, and I just say to the
minister: How many businesses would you approve if someone came in to you and
you said, well, give us your business plan, and in the business plan there is no
guaranteed revenue coming in, you cannot produce it? How many businesses would
be approved in the department? I assume none. I would assume that he would say
no, you cannot show any revenue coming in, you cannot show any profits, why are
we going to put our money into it? That is what is happening to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Yet, they could stand up and say, here is what we are
going to be making.
The other big thing about this, Mr. Chair, even though and I will ask again
before the day is out. I can assure you, I will ask again before the day is out.
Show me the income statement where you are going to have this amount of profit,
because in that income statement it will show me what you are going to charge
the ratepayers in the Province. It cannot be done.
If you are saying: Well, if we do not do it, it is going to be much higher.
Okay, if you are saying it. Just say, for example, it is true, show us what you
are going to charge. Tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what they are
going to have to pay on their monthly bill. If it is 10.2 now, 11.2 now, show us
what it is going to be in 2017, if you know in 2017 here is the profit we are
going to make. In order for us to make this amount of profit, here is what we
have to charge you. Show it. You cannot do it. That is why I have so many
questions about this deal. That is why I have so many questions about how much
information is being put out.
We could take all the reports we want, we could take all the expert analysis
we want, throw it on the table and let everybody look at it. Everybody could
pick all of those to pieces. Some could take some good points; some could take
some bad points. We could get an expert to agree on some parts, get an expert to
say it does not work, but what concerns the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
is: What am I going to pay on my monthly statement? We cannot get an answer. We
cannot get an answer from this government; yet, they can stand up and say we are
going to have billions of dollars. We are going to make billions of dollars on
this, the first year, as soon as we flick the switch.
I ask anybody opposite: Does anybody know a business here that in the first
year could turn such a profit? Maybe we can in Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you
know the only reason why we cannot? if we do, which I doubt. Do you know the
only reason why? Because every individual in Newfoundland and Labrador are the
ones who are going to pay for it.
When the government here stands up and says we are going to make $20 billion
over fifty years, I want every Newfoundlander and Labradorian to know that you
are making that profit for the government because you are being charged 100 per
cent for 40 per cent of this project. There is absolutely no dispute about that,
absolutely no dispute.
When the government stands up and touts: oh, we are going to make all of this
money, we are going to make $20 billion over fifty years, just remember, it is
us paying for this. People in Newfoundland and Labrador are paying for this. The
seniors of this Province are paying for this. The middle-income people are
paying for this. The people on fixed incomes are paying for this. The
low-earning people are paying for this.
Mr. Chair, once more I plead with the government, if there are any profits to
be made as the minister said here today, if we get profits from the US sales
it is going to be upped that much more for the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. If there are any profits to be made, I ask the Minister of Finance,
will you put it back on the ratepayers of this Province who are paying for the
whole project, 40 per cent, so their rates could be down so their bottom line
when it is done, Mr. Chair, will be down to a level, to a point whereby they can
stay in their own homes?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have had the opportunity to speak about natural gas in some detail. We have
talked about the other projects and the Cumulative Present Worth. I have had the
opportunity to speak about the Sensitivity Analysis and how comparisons are done
by the company MHI, Manitoba Hydro International, in terms of comparing
projects. What we have set out to establish, or what we set out to find out and
which has been established is that Muskrat Falls has a $2.4 billion CPW
preferential.
After the PUB failed to offer any assistance to us in March 31, 2011, what we
decided to do was let's go out now and get these reports. I have gone through
the Ziff reports in great detail on natural gas. I have talked about Wood
Mackenzie on natural gas. I have talked about the meetings that we have had with
various experts in terms of the pricing of natural gas, the supply of natural
gas and the pricing of oil. I have talked about meetings in relation to wind.
Now I want to talk about the actual report prepared by MHI on wind. I think
it is important, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province know that this is a
situation that we were asked to do something, we took it serious, even though we
expected I expected in any event, just from a logical analytical perspective
that it would support what Nalcor had already done, that we went out and got a
wind report. What I did not expect though and what I have to say is I did not
expect the difference in CPW that we found.
When we look at wind with thermal I am going to explain that in a second
now, Mr. Chair, but wind with thermal is $3.5 billion higher CPW than Muskrat
Falls. When you get with wind with battery it is $9 billion more expensive.
Really, you cannot even get there because what and one of the reasons I
referred to the meeting earlier today with professor Bernard Bulkin, the
director of climate change in England or in the United Kingdom, was to show how
the interconnections with Ireland and Scotland, the interconnections with
France, allowed them to use more wind.
I did not have the opportunity to talk about the situation in Germany that
they found themselves in according to Professor Bulkin, where they put all of
their wind together and when the wind did not blow they had significant issues.
No question that we have very valuable and significant wind resources in this
Province, ones that we will develop when the time is right, but the principle by
which Nalcor operated at Decision Gate 2 was that there could be 10 per cent
integration of wind into the system. That is in an isolated system; when you
actually get to the interconnected system it improves the situation.
Let me just use this example. Again, this has been an amazing learning
experience for me, Mr. Chair, and that is one of the reasons that we have relied
so much and I have relied so much on other experts; it is in this perspective.
Our agreement with Emera: we will provide them with 170 megawatts of energy or
one terawatt. Mr. Martin prefers to talk about terawatts; I talk about megawatts
because it is more easily understood by myself.
So, we are going to provide them with 170 megawatts. This is what the link
allows us to do. The link allows us to develop more wind. In the actual report
here, MHI, more wind has been put into the system, I think up to about 270
megawatts, maybe I am not sure, but a significant amount of wind. That 170
megawatts does not have to come from Muskrat Falls. We can develop wind and
small hydro on the Island and send that across the link if the energy is needed
in Labrador. Even though, at this point, out of the 824 megawatts, 40 per cent
would be available for industrial development or mining development in Labrador,
we can still develop more.
We have Island Pond, Round Pond, and Portland Creek, which again, if I
remember correctly, is around seventy-seven megawatts of energy. You take that
seventy-five megawatts we have two twenty-five megawatt wind farms at present
and start to develop more wind so we can supply that across the link.
The 10 per cent integration appears to be the accepted rule I do not know
if it is a rule or a standard; standard is probably a better word but with the
interconnection, it allows us to develop that wind and small hydro and to send
that across if it is needed or to use it in the Province, because power goes
both ways.
As I indicated earlier today, the day when I became convinced and this was
the stage upon which I went through Muskrat Falls; I became convinced of the
importance and even the necessity of the Maritime Link is when I sat with
Professor Bulkin in his office in London and he talked about the necessity of
interconnection. It was the interconnection with Ireland and with France that
allowed for the greater use of wind. They were developing their wind in the
North and developing their wind in the South. I use the example of walking along
Norfolk Coast and seeing these huge wind farms in the offshore.
MHI were asked to do a report. The NDP primarily had raised the issue that we
had ignored what I will refer to as large wind projects. Even though we know you
cannot get there, we went ahead anyway. They went ahead. Mr. Chair, all we asked
them to do was to do a due diligence review of the studies provided by Nalcor to
determine if the study goals had been met, and then to utilize the info provided
by Nalcor.
A Hatch study had been done to determine whether or not "In an isolated
island scenario, can sufficient wind be developed to replace" Holyrood Thermal
Generating Station to meet future demand. "Is this a technically feasible and
economic alternative"? That is a pretty clear question. There was no attempt to
rig terms of reference. Go ahead and do it. Tell us what you can find.
What they did is they went out and they found the reports were technically
sound. MHI does not recommend that wind options on the 10 per cent penetration
level, as recommended by 2012 Hatch study, be provided at this time. Now, Nalcor
has said that, but when our own experts say it, that is not good enough. It is
not good enough for the Opposition. It is not good enough for some of the
critics.
Nalcor, for some reason, because they live in this Province and because they
are our own, cannot have the expertise required. We have to look to the guys in
Ontario or whatever they are talking about over there earlier today. We have to
look to them for guidance and advice.
Nalcor said 10 per cent. Hatch said 10 per cent. MHI confirmed 10 per cent.
They go on to conclude at the end of it all they talk about lithium-ion
batteries. There are pictures in the report and there is thermal. Essentially,
wind as a replacement for Holyrood is still using Holyrood. They acknowledge
that wind potential in Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the best in the
country. In order to replace Holyrood, 1,100 megawatts of wind would be
required.
They talk about two wind farms: a 500-megawatt wind farm in the Avalon and a
600-megawatt wind farm in the Western region. They say: "Wind farms have a
typical useful life of 20 years" That is on page 21 of the report. They get
into a discussion of synchronous condensers, wind integration costs, and wind
turbine technology. They talk about capacity credits.
Ireland, currently, apparently page 27 has 2,066 megawatts, a capacity
credit of 18 per cent. The capacity credit that is allocated to the wind power
in Newfoundland is zero. Now, I am not quite certain what all that means, but
what it does mean is that when you look at the end of the day, at a 10 per cent
penetration level, it cannot work. It cannot work for a number of reasons.
One, the cost of the CPW with wind and thermal would be $3.5 billion more
expensive CPW than Muskrat Falls; wind and battery would be $9 billion more
expensive than Muskrat Falls. They say, in conclusion, at page 44 that is
their conclusion, not mine. MHI finds that large-scale wind development, as a
replacement for Holyrood, is not a least-cost option and does not represent good
utility practice at this time.
So now, Nalcor told us back at Decision Gate 2, what was going to happen. No,
that was not good enough for people, so they hired Hatch to do a report. Hatch
said the same thing. We said: No, we want to be independent of Nalcor. We do not
want to be seen as simply accepting their report, so we had MHI do a wind
report. What comes out of it at the end of the day that keeps coming out of all
of the reports that we have here, is that Muskrat Falls is the least-cost
alternative.
On the economic modeling that has been done, Muskrat Falls is the best way to
go. From an environmental perspective, Muskrat Falls is the best way to go. Will
we develop our natural gas at some point when the oil companies determine that
they want to, in conjunction with us? Will we develop the wind? Yes, as we can.
Right now, Muskrat Falls is the best project for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to
Bill 61, the Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, the Energy
Corporation Act, and the Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, also known as the monopoly
bill.
I say that it is the monopoly bill because it is locking in the ratepayers of
the Province to pay for the project of Muskrat Falls. Because the people of the
Province have to pay for this cost and only require 40 per cent of the power, I
am hoping that the Minister of Finance will come up and explain a few things
about the actual financing and the revenues and expenses and profit regime.
The simple thing is to get profit, you need to have revenue, revenue minus
your expenses, if your expenses are less, then you have a profit. Based on what
was supplied to the joint panel review, it said that the net financial benefit
to the Province would be $1.1 billion by 2050. So, Mr. Chair, those numbers may
have changed because of costs. The costs have gone up in the Province. It has
gone up to $1.2 billion with the DG3 numbers. We are not even looking at cost
overruns. Reflective of that, if you are going to still generate profit from the
project, you are going to have to raise your rates or lower your expenses
somehow in order to do that.
I would ask the question today, based on the news release that came out it
talked about that this project, Muskrat Falls, will generate estimated revenue
in excess of $20 billion over fifty years once it comes on stream. That is the
revenue stream that was needed to basically either break even because we need to
have that captured market to pay for it. That is only for the 40 per cent of the
power.
If you are looking at that, that seems like a lot of revenue needed to pay
for this project. Then when the Minister of Finance stated that if we include
the export market, which can be 60 per cent of the power because the rest of it,
40 per cent is earmarked for the Island, 60 per cent then would be export, is
only going to generate $4 billion in revenue. You are going to get $20 billion
in revenue from the ratepayers of the Province, 40 per cent, that much revenue
from them.
It is basically the export market for more than half the power is only going
to generate $4 billion in revenues. That is almost giving away power at
exorbitantly low cost or looking at the expenditures of getting to the export
market for transmission, for tariffs, for all of these things to look at.
We as legislators here have not seen and as the Member for the Bay of
Islands had talked about what the rates are going to be, what the revenues are
going to be on a year-by-year basis, what the expenses are going to be so that
we can see where profits are and where these numbers come into play, so that we
can say well, fifteen cents is going to be the rate, twenty cents is going to be
the rate, twenty-five cents per kilowatt hour is going to be the rate depending
on what cost overruns are going to be. This has not been provided. It has not
been proven to us and shown that we are going to have stable, consistent rates.
The rate calculator that is put on the Web site, that is hosted, is not
something that is providing any details of that and explaining. The Minister of
Finance needs to get up and explain why 60 per cent of the power earmarked for
export would only generate $4 billion in revenues when the ratepayer here would
be on the hook for $20 billion of revenue. Clearly, it reminds me of looking at
what this bill is saying that you have to buy from Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro, you have no choice. The rates can be whatever it needs to be because we
need to finance the project through the non-recourse debt. We have to have that
captured market. It is like that commercial where the banks have their hands in
your pocket, hands in your pocket. They have that. This is where Nalcor,
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, is going to have a constant hand in your
pocket, in your wallet, being able to take money out to pay for your power bill
at any rate.
It does not seem very fair to me that on the export market we get $4 billion
in revenue and $20 billion in revenue from the people of the Province for a
smaller portion of the power. That is absurd. I would like to see the breakdown
of the financial analysis; if the Minister of Finance would be so grateful to
table that for the whole House to see, that would be something that would be
greatly appreciated.
I want to go back and say, you know, the Minister of Natural Resources has
said many times: wind is not an option; we cannot get enough wind into the grid.
We have to displace Holyrood. We are looking out for the Island option of the
Province, which 40 per cent is 330 megawatts, not the complete capacity of
Holyrood Generating Station because most of it is not used. The capacity is not
used there most of the time. Only during peak demands will they fire that up.
We can do something that is more environmentally friendly and that is convert
it to pellets, to wood pellets; only need 750,000 tons. The Minister of Natural
Resources and the Department of IBRD have been investing in pellets in the
Province and they have a capacity to do 77,000 tons here in the Province. Quebec
in its energy plan has almost 600,000 tons of pellets that are currently
available to generate.
There is a real opportunity here to say we do not need to develop all this
transmission line and cables at exorbitant cost to the ratepayer when we can
focus on energy development for Muskrat Falls strictly on Labrador, looking at
the industrial consumer, developing 100 per cent of that power for
industrialization, and looking at getting maximum benefits there for Labrador.
We can do other things in the Province to displace Holyrood in an
environmental, economical way that can really meet our energy needs on the
Island portion of the Province. Then, with Muskrat Falls, you have to put in $3
billion in transmission across there; you have the Maritime Link with so much
uncertainty, with cost overruns. You could have to end up charging the ratepayer
a significant amount of money to do it. It is about doing it in steps, doing it
in stages, doing it the way that it needs to done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE: To go forward with this project just to save a billion
dollars to get Stephen Harper's loan guarantee is not the right move, because
you do not need to build all this transmission link, to expropriate people's
homes, family homes
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE: to expropriate private land, to do destruction to the
environment in that form all across 1,100 kilometres.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE: That is $3 billion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Chair, this loan guarantee is going to end up
costing more money than it is going to save. If you looked at a real strategy to
meet the Island needs and meet the needs for Labrador using the project and
doing it in the right way, this is something that is not being considered. It
was not considered in the studies, looking at biomass, looking at the pellets.
It is something that our industry in the Province can be expanded, can create
jobs. It is environmentally friendly, carbon neutral. Government will not say
that it cannot be done. They will not say that 750,000 tons per year, it can
be done. We can export that. We can exports pellets. They are doing it all over
Europe and they are doing it in other areas.
Why would we move forward with a project that right now says that the net
financial benefit would be $1.1 billion by 2050 and the revenues that are there
have to be sustained by the ratepayer to pay for the projects? If cost overruns
go up, in order to get more revenue you have to increase. Revenue minus expenses
gets your profits. If you are saying right now that the project with interest
and expenses up to 2050 is going to be about $19 billion that is quite a high
price tag for the project.
I ask the Minister of Finance to table the information, to explain it very
thoroughly so that I have a better understanding of what is being put out there.
What he is explaining right now is that the rates for the export market are
basically going to be a giveaway because the revenues there are only going to be
$4 billion and the revenues here for the Province are going to be $20 billion.
That is not looking at any of the expenses, any of the costs. You have not
explained what the interest rate for the loan is going to be, any of those types
of things. That needs to be answered, Mr. Chair. It really does.
I will take my seat and give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to
explain.
CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, there was a question raised by the Member for St.
John's North earlier today. In the spirit of co-operation I went and found the
answer for him about Iceland that was not on my chart.
Domestic rate in Iceland is approximately nine cents per kilowatt hour in
urban areas and thirteen cents in rural areas. It would put them at the lower
end of the chart that we talked about, with Mexico and the United States in
fact, between Mexico and the United States.
The average industrial rate and this is very interesting; I am glad he
asked this question is 2.9 cents a kilowatt hour. That is $29 a megawatt hour
they are selling energy for in Iceland. Do you know where it is going? Large
aluminium smelters. That establishes the point that we have been making here. If
you want to attract business, then you have to have attractive rates and the
attractive rates have to be those that are competitive. We are not competing
with Iceland, but I am assuming and maybe the Member for St. John's North,
when he gets up and speaks that Iceland probably has good hydro. I do not know
that, but I am guessing that they probably have good hydro.
I woke up this morning to a Tweet from the Member for St. John's Centre,
where she was talking about the demand for power. My BlackBerry buzzed; I opened
it up and here it was. Basically, what the Member for St. John's Centre said I
am paraphrasing now we agree that there is a need for power but we do not
agree with JK's
interpretation of whatever that may be. I am assuming JK would
be me. I will proceed on that assumption, if I may, for now, Mr. Chair. I have
only got eight minutes.
I am going to come back again, as I will keep coming back for as long as we
are here to that most basic question that they continuously avoid on the other
side: Do we need the power? The answer is
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. KENNEDY: Yes.
Now, once we need the power, we have to do something. So, what do we have to
do?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Develop Muskrat Falls.
MR. KENNEDY: Develop Muskrat Falls. When do we need the power?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now
MR. KENNEDY: Now. What we have is a situation where we need power.
Again, if I could find my Mark Dobbin letter oh, there it is. Mr. Dobbin
states and it just makes so much sense. He talks about the Holyrood plant. He
talks about us having to get over our fear. "I have seen a number of
commentators question the projections of future power consumption. I won't delve
into detail but I will say that one only need to look around to see the
evidence. More houses, bigger houses, almost all heated by electric heat.
Hundreds of thousands of square feet of new office space, multiple new hotels;
and that is just St. John's."
Now, you take into account everything that is happening in Labrador, you take
into account what we are seeing as we expand and diversify this economy
throughout the Province, the answer is so simple, the answer is yes. We are
either going to cease this opportunity and we are going to proceed and we are
going to provide the power that people need to continue to prosper in this
economy and in this Province, or we are going to shut it all down.
To me, when you shut it down, what happens? We can wait until tomorrow, yes,
okay. So, you are going to do what tomorrow? Is the problem going to go away?
No. Can the problem become a solution? By that, I mean simply by developing
Muskrat Falls, we allow for greater opportunity in our Province.
Maybe the members for St. John's from the NDP should as I drive to work
every day I look around, the buildings that are going up, sometimes I just lose
track of them; you do not even notice them any more there is so much happening.
Once that transmission line starts coming down across rural Newfoundland, down
through and across, you are going to see a lot more development. Happy
Valley-Goose Bay is certainly going to benefit, Labrador West is going to boom,
but it cannot boom without power.
Let's talk about Holyrood for a second. So, we develop Holyrood. Say we
accept it; yes, we can do Holyrood. Say we accept it; yes, we will do natural
gas. What does that do for Labrador West? What does that do for Grand River
Ironsands? What does that do for Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nothing.
MR. KENNEDY: Nothing. So not only is Muskrat Falls $2.4 billion cheaper,
but it provides power for industry development.
To me, I just do not get the argument
MR. MARSHALL: That is 80 per cent of the power.
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, that is right; 80 per cent of the power, with 20 per
cent going to Nova Scotia 100 per cent.
Again I am going to repeat this, and I will keep repeating this until the
cows come home. When you look at why we need power: electricity demand is linked
to strong economic growth. I say to the people of this Province look around you.
GDP has doubled; I have indicated that in a resource-based economy GDP is not
necessarily a good indicator of economic growth because you can have your ups
and downs. Personal disposal income is up by 56 per cent since 2002; 28,800 new
homes built. Since 2006 we have average 3,000 new homes, with 3,600 new homes
built in 2010; 85 per cent with electric heat.
We have, even though the population has declined, 18,600 new residential
customers. We have Labrador ready to boom. Now we can
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)
MR. KENNEDY: It is in the report, Electricity Demand Forecast. Read it,
right there. It is all in there.
Since 2002, Island residential demand is up 16 per cent. Commercial demand is
up 10 per cent. I am not making this up. The Department of Finance officials who
are very good at this are providing the information to us, and the Canada
Housing Corporation. We have all of this happening and then we have the
provincial load forecast that is done by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
Manitoba Hydro International spends a
chapter on Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro's load forecasting. What threw them off was the closure of the mills. The
closure of the mills resulted in 182 megawatts of energy going into the system.
By 2011, 40 per cent of that energy or 76 per cent had been utilized. Vale Inco
will come on stream using eighty-five to ninety megawatts. By 2014, all of the
mill energy will be used.
I say to the Member for The Straits White Bay North, what will happen then
is that even though Holyrood is only used at 15 per cent to 25 per cent of the
time at present, as we need more energy Holyrood will have to be used more. As
Holyrood is used more, we will burn more oil. As we burn more oil it will cost
more money, up to 18,000 barrels per day at peak. These are not numbers that I
am making up.
Let's look at our peak demand, which in 2012 peak demand being the coldest
day of the winter. This is at page 6 of that report by the way. At the coldest
day of winter, we have to be able to provide heat to the people and electricity
to the people of our Province. In 2012, that peak is 1,581 megawatts.
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro predicts by 2020 that peak will be 1,766
megawatts or almost an extra 200 megawatts of energy.
Are we going to get that from conservation demand? No. Can we use
conservation demand to improve our energy efficiency? Certainly. Are
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or Nalcor and Newfoundland Power currently doing
that? Yes they are. Can we get better at it? Yes we can. Do we want to? Yes we
do. My head started to spin on that one myself.
In any event, by 2030 now we are going to need 1,942 megawatts at peak. I do
not understand how we move away from that most basic question, do we need the
power? If everyone over there were to agree we need the power, then it is
obvious Muskrat Falls is the deal, and then we go home. That is how simple it
is. That is all you have to accept.
Let's look at why and how Muskrat Falls should be done. It is the best deal
for the Province. We need the power and we have to do something. We cannot wait.
It takes four or five years to build any of these megaprojects, we all know
that. The issues raised by the Member for St. John's North on workers, a valid
issue. Aren't we in a good place in this Province where we have too many
high-paying jobs and our concern is: Are we going to have enough workers? Isn't
that a good position to be in?
I say to our people who are going to work in Labrador, come home, the jobs
are there. We have Hebron starting with 3,000 jobs; we have Muskrat Falls with
3,500 jobs that will allow for four or five years of steady high-paying work. We
have a deal with the unions, I say to the members of the NDP, agreeing that they
want this project and they support the project. Muskrat Falls is the best way to
go.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly want to rise and participate in the debate here today. It is a
very interesting debate, Mr. Chair. I have been listening attentively to my
colleagues in the House of Assembly, the members from the Third Party, and
members on the government side, predominantly the Minister of Natural Resources,
talk about energy alternatives. I think it is a very healthy discussion, Mr.
Chair. I think it is very informative to anyone who is listening, of the options
and the potential that is out there even today.
Not even making a guess right now, Mr. Chair, or making an argument about
what is the best cost alternative, we find ourselves in a position in this
Province that is the envy of many in the country, because we have energy
alternatives. We have options, which a lot of provinces do not have, Mr. Chair.
Many provinces do not have today, the options of going out and hiring any
kind of expertise to look at major hydro development projects, or to look at
liquefied natural gas, Mr. Chair. Two of the projects that keep bantering back
and forth in this Province between people who think we should be going in one
direction or another. There are so many out there that do not have those
particular options even available to them.
Mr. Chair, I heard the discussion around wind power. I know, Mr. Chair, there
have been a number of interests in this Province around wind power. I only have
to go back to a few years ago, about eight years ago, when there was a company
by the name of Ventus Energy that wanted to develop a major project on the
Churchill River in wind power. They wanted to put in wind turbines to capture
the wind on the river, to generate it and to feed it into the grid. They were
going to do so in partnership with, at that time, the Labrador Metis Nation,
whom today is known as the NunatuKavut Community Council, Mr. Chair.
Anyway, at the time, government was not receptive to it, hydro was not
receptive to it. They were going to go in on the river and do their own wind
studies before they would look at engaging in any discussions with any private
companies or anything else, although these companies had done their own studies
on the Churchill River. They had collected the data, and they were interested in
making a major investment. At that time, Mr. Chair, the investment itself was
well over $2 billion just in the wind farm on the river.
They were a company that also was doing work in other parts of Canada. They
did a tremendous amount of work in the other Maritime Provinces, primarily in
Prince Edward Island. They also did a lot of work in the UK. They did a
tremendous amount of work in Belgium in particular, Mr. Chair. They were one of
the leaders.
No doubt, Mr. Chair, they were into this to make money, too. They were
capitalizing on the federal government's new program about saving carbons and
getting carbon credits. There were financial investments for them towards these
particular projects. There was a lot of interest around that.
Then, of course, Mr. Chair, we cannot forget the other company, a wind power
company here in Newfoundland and Labrador, a company that wanted to put a
600-megawatt wind farm on the Avalon Peninsula. It was a company called Clean
Energy Solutions, I think, was what they operated under. The Minister of Child,
Youth and Family Services will know because when she was the Minister of
Environment they had meetings with her.
In fact, Mr. Chair, I even have copies of the presentations afterwards. I
think it was in 2006 or 2007 when that occurred. I am not sure, but I know one
of the proposals given to me was from 2006 because I looked at it only recently.
Anyway, they did meet with the minister at the time. They were the company
Newfound Energies. Here it is. July 14, 2009, actually, it was. The other one,
Mr. Chair, a report they sent to Hydro and government, was in 2006. Mr. Chair,
it was two reports, I say.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS JONES: The Minister of Labrador Affairs, you can just ask your
colleague there. She can tell you all about it, I am sure.
Anyway, Mr. Chair, what they wanted to do was develop a 600-megawatt wind
farm on the Avalon Peninsula. They felt, Mr. Chair, it would reduce the reliance
on unstable prices of fossil fuel, which is the objective of Muskrat Falls that
the government wants to look at today. They wanted to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, reduce our carbon footprint, and be able to gain access to credits in
that particular way.
Mr. Chair, there were other options that were discussed. Were they more
feasible options? Well, that is what we are debating today. We are certainly not
eliminating the fact there were not other options, regardless of the fact
government only chose to look at one of those options in comparison to Muskrat
Falls.
I just wanted to point that out, Mr. Chair, because I think it is important
to know that. Under Bill 61, not only in the absence of this bill have we seen
Nalcor, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and government close the door on
potential other developers in the Province that were willing to invest their own
money to develop energy, clean energy for the people of the Province, not only
did they turn their door on them like they did with Ventus Energy, like they did
with other company, Mr. Chair I forget the name of it here now; I have so many
reports on my desk Newfound Energies.
Not only, Mr. Chair, did they have proposals from these two companies that
would have seen tremendous amount of investment and in fact, the wind project
on the Churchill River would have generated, Mr. Chair, more power than Gull
Island and Muskrat Falls combined, just to put that in perspective.
Anyway, Mr. Chair, having said that, before even Bill 61, these groups had
the door shut in their faces. They were not even considered as being an option
for other development initiatives or power initiatives in the Province. Under
Bill 61, what we have, Mr. Chair, is a door that is going to be shut for the
next fifty years in terms of providing alternative energy outside of Muskrat
Falls power to the people of the Province.
Now, Mr. Chair, if you were a big supporter of Muskrat Falls and you really
believed, Mr. Chair, that this was the best project for today in Newfoundland
and Labrador, why would you still limit yourself to what could potentially
happen twenty years, thirty years, forty years, or fifty years from now? Now,
Mr. Chair, when I look at that I see very narrow-sightedness. That is what I
see, unfortunately, because even though there is a good thing today, a great
thing today, it does not mean it is going to be or there will not be something
better in the future years to come. It does not mean that.
Mr. Chair, there are thousands of examples. You only have to walk into our
hospitals today and see that one time we thought the X-ray machine was the best
thing in the world, that ever was invented in a hospital. Today, Mr. Chair, we
are putting in PET scanners; we are putting in PET scanners and we are using
ultrasounds every day. Nuclear medicine has boomed, Mr. Chair. It has boomed. It
is an industry onto itself in the medical technology field. Whoever would have
envisioned that ten, fifteen years ago even, not even fifty years ago.
That is just one example. There are hundreds of examples, Mr. Chair. You only
have to look at cellphone technology and where that has come from. Mr. Chair, we
had an old black, rotary dial phone less than fifty years ago on the wall
AN HON. MEMBER: I still have one.
MS JONES: I still have one, too.
Mr. Chair, that was the only thing we had. We had a party phone, Mr. Chair.
Every family in the community could use the one phone. That was fifty years ago.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are not fifty.
MS JONES: No, I am not, nowhere near it. They had it before I was born, I
am saying, fifty years ago. I am twenty-nine, and the minister knows it.
Mr. Chair, look where we have come. I just want to say that because I think
it is important to recognize that something might be good today but do not limit
yourselves to that. Do not limit the people of the Province to that. Make sure
that the option is there so that if there is something better we have the
ability to feed it into the line and bring benefits to the people of the
Province.
CHAIR (Littlejohn): The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to rise and answer some of the comments that I have heard over
the last few days.
The first one I want to touch on is the arena in Cartwright L'Anse au
Clair. I empathize with the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair. I
empathized so much that I did a little bit of research throughout Labrador. To
me, it comes down to operational. All of the arenas in Labrador cost
approximately the same amount that you spoke of to operate. The other
MS JONES: I had no idea.
MR. MCGRATH: Now, you had your chance to speak, let me have mine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. MCGRATH: You either have a provincial issue of funding an arena or an
operational issue of can you operate an arena. I would love to see them operate
their arena but maybe they should take some advice from some other
municipalities in Labrador that have found prudent ways to run their arenas
without having to shut them down. That means you do not have to have your heat
on all the time. You can still put your ice there, but in your low times you do
not have your heat on when you are trying to keep an ice surface on an arena.
The other comment I would like to make, and I compared it to some of the
other municipalities in Labrador, there is funding of tens of millions of
dollars on the Coast of Labrador for the diesel operated municipalities that the
other municipalities in Labrador do not get that are on electrical. They do not
get that subsidy; tens of millions of dollars there. That is the first one that
I wanted to bring up.
Another thing that was discussed in the last few days was: What is Labrador
going to get out of Muskrat Falls? If we are going to develop Muskrat Falls well
then let's make sure Labradorians get something out of Muskrat Falls.
I am going to go back to May 6, 1998. That is where I am going to start. We
had an independent sitting in the House of Assembly at the time. The member was
from Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Name her.
MR. MCGRATH: I do not need to name her. She knows who she is, as well as
everyone else in the House, but I hope she is going to listen.
I am going to make a couple of quotes from that Member for Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair. On May 6, 1998, "I think people in Labrador have been asking
and begging for this, and have been asking that the Province recognize the
extreme importance and the need to have this done.
"I would say now that today the people of the Province are recognizing it. In
light of new developments that are happening in the Island of this Province and
in Labrador, the entire population is understanding and seeing the need for
adjacency, the need to be doing things at home and maximizing the benefits at
home first, before anyone else has the privilege and the opportunity to do it."
That was on May 6, 1998.
In her infinite wisdom, she felt it was in her best interest to join the
governing party in 1999, which happened to be the Liberal Party, and she thought
that she would be better off serving her district by joining the Liberal Party.
Going back to May 8, 1998, she commented again as an independent. "I also
want to talk about the energy resource because energy has been another resource
that has been exporting out of Labrador for years and years and years."
Well, this year, Mr. Chair, we got a break. The Premier went in and
negotiated a deal on, guess what? The Lower Churchill
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: - to reroute benefits to this Province from that
development.
Again, Mr. Chair, I will have to say that adjacency has to be considered.
There have to be benefits to the people who are adjacent to the resource, as
well as the people who are within the Province that houses the resource. That
hopefully will be accomplished as a result of a resolution that has been put
forward here.
Now, that was on May 8, 1998, and here we are now in December, 2012. So, you
went in as an independent, you sat in a government that worked out a deal in
AN HON. MEMBER: Nine.
MS JONES: I was not in the government in 1998.
MR. MCGRATH: In 1999, sorry; you were in the House of Assembly in 1998
and you were in the governing party in 1999, because you were going to get
everything done for your district, for your people. Here we are in 2012, and you
are still standing up over there saying you have not gotten what you need for
your district. Okay.
Then we move on to I will not get into Mr. Russell here, I will save him
for another time November 28, 2002, when you were a member of the government
AN HON. MEMBER: Member of Cabinet then.
MR. MCGRATH: No, she was not a member of Cabinet then; she did not become
a member of Cabinet until shortly before this government moved them over there.
She was only there for a very short time. I researched that, too.
I quote from CBC, November 28, 2002.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is a good source.
MR. MCGRATH: Well, it is the best source that they use. I have already
stated in this House what I feel about them.
"Premier Roger Grimes says the demands" this is a government you are
sitting in "of people in Labrador won't necessarily be a part of a final Lower
Churchill hydro deal." That was your Premier. My Premier does not say that.
"Grimes says he will consider their points, but he's offering no guarantees."
Now, let us talk about dysfunctioning governments. That same government and
you have mentioned the Minister of Labrador Affairs a couple of times; well, in
that same government, the Minister of Labrador Affairs, in dysfunction with his
Premier of the time, says or CBC's, first: "Grimes' comments contrasted with
what the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs told the House of Assembly
Thursday."
He said the government and people in Labrador had reached a consensus on
three points. Point number one: a Lower Churchill deal will include power recall
rights to fuel industry. Point number two: a portion of the royalties will be
set aside just for Labrador. Number three: people in coastal Labrador will get a
break on their electricity bills.
They did not deliver on one of them not one. As a matter of fact, they
could not even agree on them, my point being in the last forty-eight hours we
had to listen to a member who was also in that government talking about papers
they had seen
AN HON. MEMBER: Or did not see.
MR. MCGRATH: Or did not see. They were not sure after.
Then we have to talk about an independent under the Tobin regime who thought
it was in the best interests to become part of the Liberal regime, and then
thought everything was going to turn out perfect. It ends up nothing was
delivered on.
I am running out of time, but I am going to start very briefly. I am going to
concentrate on coastal Labrador, because hopefully my colleague from Lake
Melville will talk about Western Labrador and Lake Melville.
Since 2003, over $700 million invested into Labrador by this government
since 2003. I will start and then I will come back. Funding for cultural
identity and diversity
AN HON. MEMBER: How much?
MR. MCGRATH: Sixty thousand dollars.
Let us go down. Conservation projects to support Natural Areas Systems Plan:
$500,000; Real Time Water Quality Monitoring: $1.55 million.
AN HON. MEMBER: Bigger.
MR. MCGRATH: Bigger?
Community Access Program in Labrador this is all in your districts: $4.7
million; Enhanced K-12 initiatives are you listening, Minister of Education?
$3.7 million.
I only have five seconds left now, but I will be back to enhance what has
gone into Labrador by this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just for the record, I did offer the member leave to finish reading his
address if he wanted to. Anyway, Mr. Chair, it just goes to tell me how ashamed
the government opposite is about what they are doing in Labrador. They are so
ashamed, Mr. Chair, that they are up there about to run transmission lines over
the heads of children in Labrador when they do not have a rink to skate on. That
is how ashamed they are, that they are in here today on a bill that is going to
change the directions for ratepayers of hydro in this Province for the next
fifty years and they are up there rehashing the money they spent in Labrador in
2003. Hang your head in shame I say to you, Minister. You hang your head in
shame.
The other thing, Mr. Chair, everything he said that I said, it was true.
Every last word was true. Unlike the member opposite, I am not afraid to stand
on my feet and represent my constituents, regardless of where the government of
the day might be going. Oh no, I will not be the weasel politician, Mr. Chair,
that I have seen across the way in this House of Assembly absolutely not.
If I do not like what the government that I am a part of is going to do, I
will not, Mr. Chair
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MS JONES: crawl in the backseat of the House of Assembly, hide behind
the walls of Confederation Building and pretend to support the government
absolutely not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: That is not my style, Mr. Chair. I will never practise the
weasel politics that I have seen played out by people like the member opposite
absolutely not.
Mr. Chair, let me address some of the things he has raised. It has nothing to
do with the bill by the way, but let me address some of the things that he has
raised. One of it is the municipalities in Labrador.
How dare he stand in his place today and condemn the people of my district
and the municipalities of the Labrador Straits by saying they are not prudent in
how they run their arena? How ridiculous, Mr. Chair how ridiculous.
Who are you, I say to the Member for Labrador West? Who do you think you are
to look at the towns in my district and tell them that they are not prudent in
the management of their arena and that is why their children cannot play hockey
there?
MR. JOYCE: Come down and say it to their face.
MS JONES: Absolutely. You waltz your weasel ways into my district I say
to you, Minister, and you face the municipalities in the Labrador Straits. You
tell them that they are not prudent managers and that is the reason their
children have nowhere to skate today.
Mr. Chair, a Minister of the Crown, the words of his mouth are absolutely
ridiculous and shameful towards the people of this Province, towards the good
people of Labrador the good people of the Labrador Straits who hold all kinds
of events and raises all kinds of money so that their children can have a better
quality of life in their communities. Mr. Chair, these are not people of
abundance, these are people, and I challenge them to look at the statistics in
his colleague's department who live on an average income
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MS JONES: of $27,000 or $28,000 a year, and he looks them in the face
I say, you go up there and you walk into those communities and you look at them
and you say to them: The only reason your children got to go to Quebec to skate
is because you are not prudent managers of your municipality.
Now, Mr. Chair, a Minister of the Crown to have the gall to stand in this
House of Assembly, to stand here when he knows that the power to that arena
comes from Quebec. He knows that the power to that arena comes from Quebec, from
the Lac Saint-Jean project. He knows that. He knows it and he knows that the
people in Quebec are paying half of what the people in my district are paying
for that same power.
Now, Mr. Chair, how much weasel politics can you get than that, to stand in
your place today and to say such things?
MR. JOYCE: He is laughing over there.
MS JONES: He can laugh until his head rolls right across to the other
side of the floor, but it will not make any difference to me. It will not make
any difference to me, Mr. Chair.
Now, he wants to talk
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
The Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: I am so riled up now, Mr. Chair, I am going to tell you right
now riled up by what I have heard from the member opposite and he claims to be
the son of Labrador. It is quite obvious, Mr. Chair, in his comments today that
he is no son of Labrador. If he was the son of Labrador, he would be standing on
his feet, he would be challenging his government to do more for the people of
Labrador, but no, that is not the case. Oh no, Mr. Chair, that is not the case.
Instead, he stands on his feet and he condemns the parents of these children.
That is what he does. Volunteers in communities, people who work hard every day
to keep their towns going, and this gentleman, Mr. Chair, across the way, a
Minister of the Crown, a servant of the taxpayers, and he looks the people in
the face, the volunteers, and he says to them: You are no good. You are not
doing a good enough job. That is the reason you are in the situation that you
are in.
Pathetic, absolutely pathetic, Mr. Chair! I have never, ever heard a minister
in this House degrade people in communities as much as this individual just
degraded the people in this district, Mr. Chair, just degraded them.
Now, Mr. Chair, he also wanted to talk about the subsidy. Let's talk about
the subsidy, Mr. Chair. Let's just talk about the subsidy because, Mr. Chair,
this is the same government that stood in this House of Assembly and said: We
will look at subsidizing the commercial rates for people in Labrador. Well,
where is it? It is time to deliver, I say. Time to ante up, Mr. Chair, time to
ante up. You can talk the talk but you are not walking the walk, I say to the
member opposite, absolutely not.
You can hold up all the papers you want, Sir, because I will shred them today
like no machine you ever seen before in your life. I can guarantee the minister
that.
Anyway, Mr. Chair, let me get to the subsidies because it is a very important
point, and it actually has to do with the bill. Interesting, it has to do with
the bill. This is the government that promised to bring subsidies to the
commercial operations in Labrador and have not done it. They do not want to hear
that do they?
That is the reason, Mr. Chair, that there are groups like this who cannot
afford to put ice in their arena. They cannot afford to pay the light bill, I
say to the minister opposite, and all you do is stand and blame them for not
being more prudent and how they do their volunteer work in their community. Have
you no shame as a minister of the Crown to say such a thing?
Mr. Chair, the rant from that minister today is almost as bad as the stuff we
are hearing from the Member for Lake Melville. Mr. Chair, I am starting to
question the people in Labrador when I look across and see the representation
some days in the House of Assembly. I absolutely have to, Mr. Chair. It is
unbelievable. I never thought I would see the day when I could take the Minister
of Labrador Affairs and put him in the same category as the Member for Lake
Melville; but, Mr. Chair, I can, based on the comments that he just said today.
I cannot believe it, Mr. Chair. I am floored.
I would question the minister, if you are going to stand on your feet this
time, stand up and tell us when you are going to bring the subsidy in for the
commercial operators, and what you are going to do to help the people in the
coast of Labrador who do not have the money to pay the light bill to put the ice
in their arena. Minister, do your job, help people and stop trying to whip them
and tell them where they are going wrong.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
I remind the minister, I would like for him to be closer to the bill this
time, please.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
All of this relates to the bill because, Mr. Chair, if this moves forward,
what happens is
MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
CHAIR: A point of order by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Chair.
I think according to the Standing Orders of our House, it is unparliamentary
to question the rulings of the Speaker. I would ask that the Member for Labrador
West withdraw his comments.
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Some of us can walk the walk and talk the talk, others squawk the squawk.
The new school in L'Anse-au-Loup this is all about Muskrat Falls. I am
building up now to where we are going to go when Muskrat Falls is up and that is
where your $20 billion comes into it.
The new school in L'Anse-au-Loup, $15,294,000; enhanced social work staff in
to address the needs of children, families and persons with mental health and
addictions issues, $10 million.
AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five.
MR. MCGRATH: No, that is not in her district. Eventually, we will get
there.
RCMP; additional officers for the RCMP is $4.3 million. I do not want to give
away all my numbers because I might have to use them. Develop a new water supply
for an Innu community in Nain, $19.8 million. Hang on now, electricity isn't
that what this bill is about? Isn't this bill about electricity? Electricity
rebate for homeowners using diesel-generated power throughout the Province is
$9.4 million. That is enough on numbers for now.
Let's go back to the Muskrat Falls and building up to where we are in 2012.
Let's move back ten years ago when we were getting to where we are today, Mr.
Chair. This government planned to get to where we are today.
In 2002, while the main negotiator or what it sounds like anyway. I do not
have it in writing, but it sounds like the main negotiator for Bay of Islands
over there. He seemed to have read the deal. He seemed to have seen the deal. He
was in meetings that had the deal, but someone else who was sitting in the House
as part of that government never knew there was a deal. Right here, I have the
following statement. Representing Labrador, that member was.
The following was issued today by Premier Rogers Grimes. It was also read in
the House of Assembly read in the House of Assembly.
AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?
MR. MCGRATH: This was on November 18, 2002, a little over a decade ago.
It is a decade later when this government is making it work.
"On August first, following several months of discussions with officials from
the Government of Quebec, Premier Landry and I announced in Halifax" now, a
member of the government never knew there was any deal "that we had agreed on
the fundamental principles that would underlie any deal that would be reached to
develop the $4 billion dollar, 2,000 megawatt hydro project at Gull Island."
Now, never knew there was a deal. Sat in the House, sat in here, out of her own
lips, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, she never knew there was a
deal with that government.
Her colleague, the Member for Bay of Islands, knew all about the deal. He
read the deal, he saw the deal, and he sat in meetings for the deal, but the
member who was representing Labrador at the time was worried to death. Then she
has the gall to stand up here and say I do not care about the kids of Labrador.
In my district, I make sure we are fiscally prudent. I make sure we know how to
operate. I am more than willing to go into your district and help them. Then the
arena would be open all the time all the time then there arena would be open.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: We have no problem. It is all about reading a deal. Now, Mr.
Chair, that is what this government has done. This government did not take Bill
61 and put it together in a couple of months.
Let us go back to Dean MacDonald. Why did he resign from the board? Let us go
back to Mark Dobbin. I know Mark Dobbin has good blood and a lot of common sense
running through his veins because he is related to me. So he has to have good
blood going through him. I know that. Why did he step away from the deal? The
reason they stepped away from the deal was because your Premier at the time did
not even take the time to read the deal.
Unfortunately, I would like to get into the Conception Harbour thing, but I
do not know the details on that. I would like to get a couple of little nips on
that one to bring out.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MCGRATH: You are darn right it was before I came. If I was here at
the time, as well as if a lot of my colleagues who are here now, then you would
have had some dispute, I tell you. You would have some dispute on the go then.
You would not have seen that deal go through or even be tabled then.
CHAIR: I am going to ask the minister to connect the dots.
MR. MCGRATH: As far as you are concerned, it never was tabled.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I am going to ask the minister at this point to connect the dots, very
quickly please.
MR. MCGRATH: No problem, Mr. Chair.
The dot is Bill 61. Bill 61, Mr. Chair, we have put this bill together
because we knew that once we sanctioned the deal then we knew you have to move
forward. In order for this deal to move forward now, Bill 61 outlines the
changes that need to be made in order for it to move forward. This bill was not
put together in a month or two months. There was a lot of hard work, a lot of
professionalism, and a lot of research that went in to putting Bill 61 together.
What we are recommending in Bill 61 will protect the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
One thing that I have heard people on this side of the House comment on, but
I cannot seem to hear it from that side is that the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador own Nalcor. The people own Nalcor, so everything that comes back to
Nalcor goes back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not going to
take what they own and pass it out to somebody else.
I see the Leader of the Third Party heckling me, and I am surprised because I
did not think she could heckle, but you heckle away at me. I do not mind being
heckled. I do not mind being heckled at all, but I can guarantee you that on
this side of the House when we do our homework, we make sure we do it right. We
do our research.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH: We do not put a paper that is as important as Bill 61 on the
table, we do not put a paper like that on the table until we have completely
researched it and we know it is the best deal for the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
MS MICHAEL: Abitibi.
MR. MCGRATH: She might bring up Abitibi, Mr. Chair, and I will not get
into the details of Abitibi but one detail I will make is that our Premier today
realizes there was a mistake made. She said there was a mistake made, but the
Premier said there is no regrets for that because we were still the best
benefactor by taking over Abitibi.
The other point that our Premier has made and made it abundantly clear is
that the Leader of the Third Party was also party to that deal. Let's not forget
that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Chair, I am going to tell you: we might own Nalcor, but we
are not allowed to see the books over there. We cannot see one dime, Mr. Chair,
of what is being spent.
Anything that I own I have access to it. I know how to get access to it; I
know what is going on with it, Mr. Chair. I know all of these things. I say to
the minister opposite: we may own Nalcor as the people of the Province, but we
have no access to it. Every day there are millions and millions of dollars being
spent of taxpayers' money with no public accountability to the people of this
Province, Mr. Chair. Therefore, that is the very difference, I would say to the
member opposite.
Mr. Chair, the only reason the minister is talking about money being invested
in schools in my district, or money being invested in water and sewer in my
district very basic essentials that every citizen of this Province should
have, I say to the minister, very basic and essential services. He is doing it
because they are ashamed.
They are ashamed, Mr. Chair, of what they are doing with Muskrat Falls and
the way they are ignoring the people of Labrador. They are ashamed, Mr. Chair,
that the Nunatsiavut Government who they have a land claim agreement with
that they will not meet with them and they will not listen to them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MS JONES: They will not hear their environmental concerns as it relates
to this project, Mr. Chair. They are ashamed of their own record. That is the
reason that they are standing in their place today and trying to justify their
existence in Labrador by talking about money they spent there since 2003.
Mr. Chair, they know that what they are doing today is ignoring the long-term
issues of Labrador in the context of Muskrat Falls. They know, Mr. Chair, they
are ignoring the Nunatsiavut Government, a government the Member for Lake
Melville was a part of before they kicked him out, Mr. Chair a Cabinet table
he sat at before he was asked to leave it.
Here today, Mr. Chair
CHAIR: I am going to remind the member I want her to come back to
Muskrat. I asked the minister, too; I ask you to do the same.
MR. RUSSELL: A point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: A point of order.
The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just like to clarify that never at any point in my career with
Nunatsiavut Government was I kicked out. I left of my own volition to join this
hon. government here, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
I will remind her to come back to the bill. I did the same for the Minister
of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
MS JONES: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Nunatsiavut Government, Mr. Chair, has concerns as it relates to Muskrat
Falls. According to the agreements that you signed and I went through the
documents, although the Minister of Labrador Affairs probably did not because he
has not mentioned either one of them yet. In there it says they should consult
with the Aboriginal peoples, Mr. Chair. That is part of their signature to the
document. That is associated with Bill 61.
Yet, Mr. Chair, the very member who sat at their Cabinet before they kicked
him out six months before an election in provincial politics will not even stand
up today to ensure that the Nunatsiavut Government gets a fair hearing on
Muskrat Falls. That is shameful. It is no wonder, Mr. Chair, they want to divert
the debate to Dean MacDonald and Roger Grimes, a hospital they built, and a
water and sewer project they put in, because they are too ashamed to stand up
and tell the people of Labrador what they are doing for them.
Not only are they ignoring Nunatsiavut, what about NunatuKavut, Mr. Chair? I
got an e-mail from the President of the NunatuKavut Community Council telling me
that as the President he phoned the Minister of Natural Resources' office at
least twenty times and he did not get the courtesy of a phone call back. Is that
consultation with Aboriginal groups?
You can stand in your place all you like and say they do not have a land
claim with the federal government. Well, Mr. Chair, the Province has the
prerogative to negotiate agreements with whomever they want as a government.
They know that the Labrador Mtis Nation, the NunatuKavut Community Council,
have legitimate issues and concerns.
What are they doing? What are they doing, Mr. Chair? The hypocrisy of what is
happening is this: they write into their documents about consultation with
Aboriginal g