Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 12 December 2012 (47th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVII No. 68)
2012-12-12
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 12, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.
XLVII No. 68
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Before we start the proceedings today, the Premier
or the Speaker, rather, is extremely pleased to welcome to the Speaker's gallery
and I am certain the Premier will be very pleased to welcome the young
gentleman as well; it is a real pleasure today to recognize a special guest in
the Speaker's gallery. It is always nice to recognize the future of Newfoundland
and Labrador and to acknowledge the wonderful talent that we have here in this
Province.
Today we have Matthew Rogers and his mother Kathy
Rogers. Matthew has been recognized for his video on Silver Fox Island, which
was chosen as one of six winners of the 2012 Canada's History Young Citizens
Program.
Congratulations, Matthew, and welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: As I have said, it is always a
pleasure to welcome Newfoundland talent. Ladies and gentleman, Matthew and his
friends are the future of our Province. With his leadership, and people like
him, we are in good hands.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements
from the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains; the Member for the
District of Exploits; the Member for the District of Humber West; the Member for
the District of Mount Pearl North; the Member for the District of Burgeo La
Poile; and the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
The hon. the Member for the District of Torngat
Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today again to congratulate
a provincial Triple-A championship team from the North coast of Labrador. This
time it is the boy's volleyball team from Jens Haven Memorial School in Nain.
The JHMS Huskies won the provincial championship this
past weekend in Arnold's Cove after defeating Tricentia Academy in the final
game by a score of 25-21 and 26-24.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, athletic ability and sheer
determination have defied the factors of isolation and distance in our young
athletes from Nunatsiavut. The Huskies team of Nikki, Josh, Ryan, Donald,
Brandon, Gustav, Julius, Todd, Hunter, and coaches Aaron, Bernard, and
Christine, also defeated teams from Bay of Islands, Avondale, Bonavista, and
New-Wes-Valley in claiming the title.
I applaud the efforts of the coaches and team members
in this great achievement and the residents of the community of Nain for their
continued support of the students of Jens Haven Memorial. In fact, Mr. Speaker,
yesterday there was a parade in honour of their championship.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in
congratulating the Jens Haven Memorial Huskies volleyball team for winning the
provincial Triple-A championship.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.
MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, Leah Sheppard is a Level
III student at Leo Burke Academy in Bishop's Falls. In October she received the
Certificate of Appointment as Senior Environmental Cadet for the Royal Canadian
Air Cadets of Newfoundland and Labrador for the 2012-2013 training year.
Leah has been a member of the 512 Air Cadet Squadron
of Bishop's Falls for six years. Leah has won a number of awards with the 512
Squadron, including: Most Proficient First Year Cadet, Best Marksman, Best
Dedicated, the Royal Canadian Legion Medal of Excellence, and the Air Cadet
League of Canada Service Medal, to name a few. She was recently promoted to
Warrant Officer One and Squadron Commander.
Mr. Speaker, in her new position she will be
responsible for many duties, including communicating program information to
senior cadets at each corps or squadron and coordinating issues of cadet
population.
I ask all members of this House to join me in
congratulating Leah Sheppard on receiving the Certificate of Appointment as
Senior Environmental Cadet.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber West.
MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to congratulate Gertrude Hynes and Beverley Smith on being presented
with Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medals.
Gertrude Hynes, known as Gertie, has spent the better
part of her life volunteering. Gertie started volunteering as a child in Reefs
Harbour and it continued through her university years and into her working
career. A former teacher, she has volunteered as a tutor, church volunteered in
local hospitals and seniors' clubs, as well as sat with Alzheimer's patients
just to share a story. Whether it is reading the bible to residents at a cancer
ward or helping someone with dementia eat a meal, she is always there to help
those in need.
Beverley Smith has been a volunteer for many years in
her church and community. She was the chair of the Corner Brook Winter Carnival
committee 1994, VON board member, associate vice-president of volunteers for the
Canada Winter Games in 1999, and she has been chairperson of the Western Diocese
with her church, to list as few, and she has found that success with
volunteering is something she has come to respect.
I ask all hon. members to join with me in
congratulating Gerty Hynes and Beverly Smith on their recent recognition.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize three
residents of Mount Pearl: Bernice Miller, Pat O'Keefe Senior, and Melvin Hong,
recent recipients of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.
Bernice Miller served on Mount Pearl City Council, and
some of her volunteer contributions include: serving as past President of the
Knights of Columbus Women's Auxiliary, and volunteering with Scouts Canada.
Pat O'Keefe is a former Town councillor of Mount
Pearl, former Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus in Mount Pearl, President
of the Mary Queen of the World Church Parish Council, Member of the Frosty
Festival Organizing Committee, and a volunteer with the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey
Association, and Scouts Canada.
Mel Hong was an educator for more than thirty years.
He is a former volunteer with the provincial swimming association, and the
national office, former President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Chinese
Association, and current member of the Shea Heights Committee Assisting with
Community Matters.
I would like to once again thank these individuals for
their contributions, and ask that all Members of the House of Assembly join me
in congratulating them as well.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in today to recognize and congratulate St. John
the Evangelist Church, which celebrated its one-hundredth anniversary in Burgeo
this past June, with a dinner followed by a church service. It was my great
honour and privilege to be included in this celebration.
Construction on this church began on April 1, 1911,
and the first service was conducted by Reverend E.H. Fletcher, Rector, on July
14, 1912. It cost approximately $5,000 to construct the church with its two
towers and spires. On August 4, 1912, the church was consecrated by Bishop
Jones, and on that date, ninety-two females and 103 males were confirmed. In
1967 the church underwent major renovations, entitled A Work of Renewal, which
saw the removal of the two towers, spires, and central roof, giving it an
entirely new look which remains today.
The church is still a vibrant part of the Town of
Burgeo and has a large following of faithful parishioners.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join
with me in extending congratulations to St. John the Evangelist Church on their
one hundredth anniversary. May you continue to thrive and grow for another
hundred and beyond.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today
to recognize the recipient of the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal.
Evelyn Hancock of Irishtown volunteered with the Bay
of Islands SPCA animal shelter for over thirty years. She served in various
roles and took on many duties, but most notably as the shelter director and
special investigation officer covering the West Coast, Northern Peninsula as far
as the Baie Verte Peninsula.
Evelyn was the go to person for the SPCA and could be
called upon any time. She worked closely with the RCMP and the RNC when needed
to rescue neglected or abused animals. Her countless hours of dedication to the
SPCA and animals that needed to be helped is immeasurable. On many occasions,
she carried out her duties at her own expense, never hesitating to do so.
Mr. Speaker, Evelyn spearheaded many fundraising
events for the shelter, always promoting awareness of abuse and neglect of
animals. In 2009, Evelyn was recognized by the Royal Bank with a certificate of
contribution to the community award. Her passion has inspired many people to
volunteer their time to help abused and neglected animals.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in
congratulating Evelyn on a well-deserved medal.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to
congratulate eleven-year-old Matthew Rogers as one of the six winners of this
year's Young Citizens Program, and I am so pleased he is here with us today.
The Canada's History Young Citizens Program is an
initiative that encourages students to showcase aspects of their history through
filmmaking and to share their projects through a national on-line forum.
Approximately forty schools held heritage fairs across
the Province. Matthew first presented his history project at a heritage fair
held at Roncalli Elementary. He was later chosen as one of the top 200 students
who presented projects at regional heritage fairs held across the country. He
received a digital video camera to create a short film based on his heritage
fair project about Silver Fox Island.
Matthew's video was posted on the Web site for the
Young Citizens Program where it was voted in the top thirty. Then, a panel of
judges selected Matthew's submission as one of six winners across Canada for
Matthew is from St. John's, actually a resident of
Premier Dunderdale's Virginia Waters District, but his roots are on Silver Fox
Island in Bonavista Bay. Retracing the steps of his forefathers, Matthew
documented the hardships, traditions, and way of life on Silver Fox Island
before and after the resettlement of the region.
Mr. Speaker, Matthew Rogers was the only person from
our Province to receive this honour through the Young Citizens Program. He
travelled to Ottawa this past weekend to present his project during the National
History Forum at the Canadian War Museum and attended the Governor General's
History Awards at Rideau Hall.
On behalf of the provincial government and the people
of our Province, I congratulate Matthew Rogers as one of the winners of the 2012
Young Citizens Program. I applaud his exceptional creativity and extensive
knowledge of his heritage.
Congratulations, Matthew.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of
Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy. It is good
to see Matthew. I say to the Premier, you have a young consistent, you had
better watch out for your job. He is a very up and coming young man.
Mr. Speaker, in this House many times we, as all
parliamentarians, talk about our culture and our history. We always talk about
how much we need to go back and look at it. Instead of talking about it, Matthew
took an initiative to show people what it was like in the past, what it was like
for resettlement, and what it is like now. It is something that is going to be
seen all around Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada and around the world.
Matthew, most of us in here have problems turning on a
cellphone. When we see someone like you and what you can do, we are a bit
jealous. I can assure you, your ingenuity is great.
On behalf of all of the members in the House of
Assembly, Matthew, thank you very much for keeping Newfoundland and Labrador
heritage and customs alive. Thank you very much for your personal endeavour to
show what leadership we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and thank you
very much, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are all proud of what you have
done for all of us.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits
White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement, and a big congratulation to Matthew Rogers for his national award of
a video depicting resettlement, past and present, of Silver Fox Island.
Our history and our culture are so important. I,
myself, have been blogging about rural stories, art, heritage and culture in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and I applaud the government for their involvement in
the heritage fair program connecting youth to our roots.
I look forward to continued investment in our heritage
and cultural industries and commend Matthew for his contribution to society. You
will certainly go far. Well done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth
and Family Services, and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House
today to announce that $200,000 in funding has been awarded to nine new projects
aimed at addressing violence against Aboriginal women and children in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
This funding is made available through the Aboriginal
Women's Violence Prevention Grants Program of the Women's Policy Office, the
lead department of the provincial government's Violence Prevention Initiative.
Over the last eight years, eighty-one projects have been funded through this
program.
This year's recipients are: the St. John's Native
Friendship Centre; NunatuKavut Community Council; Sheshatshiu Innu Band Council;
Nunatsiavut Government; Flat Bay Indian Band; AnanauKatiget Tumingit;
Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network; Mushuau Innu First Nation; and Conne
River Health and Social Services.
Criteria for the grants include a focus on violence
prevention action plans, public awareness and education materials or activities,
healing programs, improved programs and services at shelters for Aboriginal
women, the development of Aboriginal women's leadership, economic or educational
capacity, and improved cultural strength of Aboriginal communities.
Mr. Speaker, these criteria are based on needs
identified by Aboriginal women at the National Aboriginal Women's Summit held in
Corner Brook in 2007 and annual Aboriginal women's conferences.
Through our $12 million Violence Prevention
Initiative, we are proactively working to identify long-term solutions to
prevent violence, including violence against Aboriginal women and children.
We all have a responsibility to address violence.
Through the tremendous work being done at the community level and through our
annual grants program, we continue to work with our community partners to make a
difference in the lives of Aboriginal women and children in our Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat
Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance notice of her
statement.
Mr. Speaker, the statistics on violence against
Aboriginal women and children is staggering. In 2005, Mr. Speaker, the United
Nations Human Rights Committee expressed its concern that Aboriginal people are
far more likely to experience a violent death than any other Canadian woman and
called on Canada to address this violence.
The Native Women's Association of Canada has been
documenting cases of Aboriginal women going missing and/or being murdered across
this country. Of the women who were murdered, Mr. Speaker, no one has been
arrested or charged in 58 per cent of the cases. Comparable rates for cases in
Canada involving non-Aboriginal women, is 15 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I have lobbied for tougher sentences in
violent cases in Northern communities and I will continue that lobby. Many
sentences have been too lenient and do not reflect the harm caused to victims.
On the North Coast, Mr. Speaker, circuits are being cut back limiting access to
justice for women and children in domestic violence situations.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate this year's recipients for
funding under the Violence Prevention Initiative. I do look forward to positive
outcomes.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's
Centre.
MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the minister
for the advance copy of her statement. Congratulations to the Aboriginal women's
groups for the projects they designed for this grants program.
Because they designed the projects themselves,
reflecting the needs in their own communities, the work they do will be
effective. I thank them for their work, their expertise, and their dedication.
Increasing poverty among women and children and the lack of affordable housing
are often determinants in women being able to escape violent situations.
The current Violence Prevention Initiative has come to
an end. It is imperative that the renewed Violence Prevention Initiative be
strong enough to address the significant violence against women we are seeing.
The rapes and murders and assaults on women have to stop.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's
have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. SPEAKER: Before we start Oral Questions, I
just wanted to apologize to members of the House. The heating system is
malfunctioning again today. The day before yesterday we were really cold,
yesterday we were really hot, and today we are really cold again. Apparently we
have some mechanical malfunctions that are being worked on, so I hope that we
will have it corrected before the session is over today. I would offer members
some flexibility if they find themselves uncomfortable, if they wanted to wear
some outside clothing or some additional sweaters or something to help them stay
warm. I apologize for the heating system; maybe the Minister of Transportation
and Works can get a woodstove for us next week.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for the opportunity to layer up.
Mr. Speaker, on December 3, the Minister of Natural
Resources said Nalcor and Emera were looking at ways to expedite the sanctioning
of the Muskrat Falls Project; yesterday the same minister said that they have
now slowed down the sanctioning process.
I ask the Premier: After trying to expedite the
process, why is it now slowed, and what is the new expected date to sanction
Muskrat Falls?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I could be wrong; I do not remember saying anything
about slowing down the process. Basically, discussions are ongoing in terms of
commercial arrangements between Nalcor and Emera. Mr. Speaker, the definition of
sanction is broad; it is outlined in the federal loan guarantee. Sanction is
not, as I have said in the past, to be confused with regulatory approval out of
Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, as for when it happens, it will take
place when the agreements are finalized. However, let me say this: at this point
we will not be making a decision to sanction until every i is dotted, t is
crossed, and the federal loan guarantee which is worth a billion dollars to
the people of this Province is firmly in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, we do know for a number of reasons this deal was
supposed to be sanctioned before Christmas. Even Nalcor themselves have said
they want it before the end of the year.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier should rethink the deal that
was signed with Stephen Harper based on
section 4.4 of the term sheet for the
federal loan guarantee. The Premier has left it wide open and allowed an
incomplete list of default events that could be included, really, at any time.
I ask the Premier: You signed the term sheet; what
happened to crossing those t's and dotting the i's? Why does the term sheet
contain such loose terms that could set this government up to put this $1
billion loan guarantee promise in jeopardy?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this federal loan guarantee document was
negotiated over a period of six months. It was trying at times. There was a lot
of the discussion as to the language to go in there. As I have indicated in the
past, the Premier stood firm twice in the last couple of weeks prior to the
signing of the loan guarantee to ensure we received the maximum benefit for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Most of the terms in here, Mr. Speaker, are standard
commercial clauses. The event of default in a loan guarantee is standard in
terms of if for whatever reason and again, I cannot contemplate how we would
not pay the money on the project and the guarantee would kick in. Mr. Speaker,
the conditions present are outlined and we feel all of these can be met and
sanction will be obtained.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that
with so many unanswered questions in that term sheet this project is still in
jeopardy with the default events that are not clearly outlined. Mr. Speaker, the
Premier has given Stephen Harper and his government an exorbitant amount of
power, which could have dire consequences for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. The terms of the loan guarantee are so loose that even the Minister of
Natural Resources admitted yesterday that this is far from a perfect
arrangement.
I ask the Premier: Did you slow down sanctioning or is
this deal being slowed down simply because you now realize just how many
loopholes are in this deal?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this project is in the best interests of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, as hard as the
Opposition parties have tried over the last two years, they have not been able
to come forward with one substantive critique of this project that stood up
under the scrutiny of experts. They have finally acquiesced that we need the
power. If we are not going to do Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, what is their
solution? The next viable alternative is $2.4 billion more expensive.
We have the loan guarantee, we have sound planning, we
have a good project, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to be
well-served by Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BALL: Well, I will ask the Premier one
question she is on record as saying that this project should be sanctioned
before Christmas.
Do you now still plan to sanction this project before
Christmas?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, patience is a good thing, and I recommend
it to the Leader of the Opposition. We have some time. I am sure if he has an
Advent calendar he would know that we have some time yet before Christmas, and
all will become clear, Mr. Speaker, in due time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I do have a lot of patience, to be quite honest
with you, and what I do know is that there are still a lot of unanswered
questions about this project. We are putting the next number of generations at
risk here with this project, Mr. Speaker. We all know there are some serious
financial consequences if we do not get it right.
Mr. Speaker, under the Muskrat Falls DG2 cost
estimates, power from the project delivered to Soldiers Pond was 23.9 cents. I
have asked this question a number of times right now. The project has now gone
up by 25 per cent. I anticipate the cost to Soldiers Pond is in the thirty-cent
range without cost overruns.
I ask the Premier: Will you now tell the people of
this Province, what is the delivered construction cost of this power to
Soldiers Pond?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I did answer that question in the House of Assembly
about a week and a half ago in one of my discussions.
Mr. Speaker, the cost of power delivered to Soldiers
Pond will be 20.8 cents per kilowatt hour. The same cost of a kilowatt hour at
Holyrood in 2017 will be 22.3 cents, Mr. Speaker. The answer is quite simple,
Mr. Speaker, is that when you blend all the power together we get a lower rate,
which is where our 15.2 cents comes from, and the price has decreased as a
result of the impact of the federal loan guarantee.
The DG3 costs went up, financing costs have gone down.
There has been an increase in demand for power that has resulted in a lower cost
of delivered power to Soldiers Pond, but it is the 15.2 cents that counts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the cost of the project for
Muskrat Falls, plus the transmission, is $6.2 billion. In DG2, it was $5
billion. Now, that has gone up $1.2 billion. That is around a 25 per cent
increase. It was 23.9 cents then for 824 megawatts of power.
Can somebody explain to me how it can actually drop
three cents based on that math?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition Leader has
had the opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Martin. The federal loan guarantee
was not included in the Decision Gate 2 numbers, it was not included. The
federal loan guarantee is included in the Decision Gate 3 numbers, Mr. Speaker.
Also, their demand has gone up which means that the cost for a unit of power has
gone down.
Mr. Martin will be available at any time, as he has
always been, to explain to the Liberal Opposition Leader, Mr. Speaker, why this
is so, and it makes sense. It costs 18.5 cents today for a kilowatt hour at
Holyrood. In 2030, Holyrood would cost 30.3 cents a kilowatt hour, Muskrat Falls
16.6 cents delivered to Soldiers Pond. It all makes sense, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat
Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the RCMP
arrested three NunatuKavut elders at Muskrat Falls Project and charged them with
breach of an injunction, when all they want is meaningful consultation with
government and Nalcor.
I ask the Premier: Why are you allowing such
strong-arm tactics on our Aboriginal elders to push your Muskrat Falls Project
through?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The court has issued an order in relation to what can
and cannot be done at the Muskrat Falls site.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has indicated in previous
occasions, and I have stated this, as have other previous Ministers of Justice,
that consultation is on a spectrum. You consult based on where you stand on that
spectrum.
If the NunatuKavut government, Mr. Speaker, wished to
have or if they are recognized by the federal government pursuant to
section
35 of the Constitution, we will recognize their rights. If they go to court, Mr.
Speaker, and they achieve constitutional status, we will recognize their rights,
but do not confuse consultation with constitutional rights.
Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate here, but I
heard one member apparently one of the individuals arrested said he was quite
happy he was arrested and he would have been disappointed if it had not happened
that way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat
Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, one of the elders
arrested yesterday has been using the Muskrat Falls area as his traditional
hunting and trapping grounds for decades. Without consultation or compensation
those same elders are now being denied their Aboriginal traditional rights.
I ask the Premier: Why are NunatuKavut people of
Labrador being denied their Aboriginal rights without consultation or
compensation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I had the opportunity to read Justice Stack's decision
on the issue of the injunction and the safety zone. He reviewed quite clearly
the effect of the Court of Appeal decision in terms of where the Metis Nation
stood on the duty to consult.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the duty to consult can, in
relation to NunatuKavut, simply be having a conversation, having a discussion.
With the Innu, because of their recognized Aboriginal constitutional rights, Mr.
Speaker, there is a higher form of consultation.
NunatuKavut was given money to attend at the
Environmental Assessment hearings. They have been consulted with. I met with
President Todd Russell one day. So I do not know how far you would go with
consultations, but once a court issues an order, Mr. Speaker, whether we like it
or not, we all have to respect the decisions of this country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, out-of-Province hunters
have begun harvesting the George River caribou herd in Central Labrador. Yet,
when it comes to enforcement, this government is more concerned with arresting
NunatuKavut elders for walking on their traditional hunting grounds.
I ask the minister: What enforcement measures are
being taken to ensure that the hunt is done in a sustainable and conservative
manner?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment
and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we, as a government,
realize the pressures on that particular herd at this particular time. We are in
the process now of doing the analysis that is required for us to move forward
with a plan, not only on a yearly basis but certainly for the next five years.
Because it is very, very important that the herd be protected and that we make
the right decisions in order to move forward to sustain that very valuable
resource to the people of Labrador, especially our Aboriginal population.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it has come to our
attention that provincial circuit courts will be removed from several rural
communities. These circuit courts here range in matters, including criminal law,
highway traffic, hunting and fishing, small claims, amongst others.
My question to the minister: Can he confirm that this
is indeed the case, and will he confirm which communities will be affected?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can confirm indeed that I have been advised by Chief
Judge Pike for the provincial courts that there will be some changes. As all of
us would recognize from time to time, government and arms of government go
through reviews, looking at both cost savings and efficiencies in delivering
services. I understand that the chief judge has done such a review to look at
provincial courts and the deliberation of how legal services will be provided
throughout the Province.
That review included looking at deployment of human
resources, the cost of offering the service, the caseload that is being heard in
various parts of the Province. As a result of that, there are a number of
locations that will be consolidated.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, removing communities
from the circuit court will mean huge barriers in accessing court services. This
includes victims and their families and the accused. Restricting access to court
services is restricting access to justice.
My question to the minister: Will the minister commit
to maintaining these services in communities so that people in rural communities
can still have access to justice?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the delivery of the justice
system is not a direct responsibility of government when you are talking about
courts and locations of courts throughout the Province. That is independent of
us and it has to be, and it has to be perceived to be that way by the public,
Mr. Speaker. So, no, I cannot commit to that.
What I can commit to is that based on a discussion I
have had and the briefing I have received, the chief justice has done a thorough
review and contemplated everything in this decision including, Mr. Speaker,
deployment of resources, because it is very important that we maximize the
limited amount of resources, including judges and support staff that we have in
the Province, to provide the best possible service available. In the instances
where they are looking at changes, Mr. Speaker, it has been very obvious over
the last three or four years, a trend of declining numbers of participants in
the court process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, once again this House is
subject to government's confusion, conflicting statements, and no clear answers
on the proposed hospital in Corner Brook. The Minister of Finance said a billion
dollars was never discussed as a price tag. The Premier tried to defend her
statements to Corner Brook City Council in saying over a billion dollars is what
I said.
I ask the Premier: Who is correct, the Minister of
Finance, the Premier, or the city council of Corner Brook and Councillor Leo
Bruce?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what is absolute in this is that this
government has committed to building a hospital in Corner Brook, and we are
going to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have spent
almost $20 million now on that hospital in Corner Brook. That demonstrates
commitment, Mr. Speaker. We have never ever, in any sense, backed away from that
commitment and we will not.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in this House on a number
of occasions now, outlining the latest plan that has been happening, the fact
that we have hired Stantec, the fact that my staff have been out there. We have
been in consultation with the RHAs. We have been working with our regional
leads, Mr. Speaker, and we are progressing. Those are the facts. That is what is
happening in Corner Brook.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing the
same speech for six years; so have the people in Corner Brook.
The former Minister of Transportation and Works said
that it was in the pre-design, the Minister of Health said it is in the design
stage. The Minister of Finance, in 2011, said construction starting in 2012. Who
are you to believe in this House, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker, now that we have a six-year delay on the
hospital in Corner Brook, the Minister of Health said that Stantec has been
hired to see what type and size of hospital we need. This is long after, I might
add, the people of Corner Brook were told construction would start in 2012 by
the Minister of Finance.
I ask the Premier: Will you commit today that part of
Stantec's review would include public meetings to get input from the people who
have the most at stake the people of Western Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there does seem to be some confusion in
this House and it appears to be with the hon. member opposite. He is talking
about six years ago. I think he was only elected, though, just in the last
little bit of time, the last year or so. Anyway, we will leave that for him to
sort out at another time.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Western Health are, in my
opinion, some of the best, most highly-qualified staff that we have working in
health care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, they have been committed
to this project also. There has been a lot of consultation with that staff. They
continue to speak with us. They continue to show us what is needed on the front
line. Mr. Speaker, that is where our real concern is; it is ensuring that on the
front lines we are going to provide a service that the people of Western
Newfoundland need and deserve. That is still
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe for
a very quick question without
preamble, please.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, while displaced workers
from the OCI plant in Marystown are working
MR. SPEAKER: Without
preamble, please. No
preamble.
MR. BENNETT: I ask the minister: Why did your
government fall down on the job of protecting workers in Marystown while they
looked after the workers in Burin?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture for a quick response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, our government is on
record as making very strong commitments to rural Newfoundland and Labrador and
the people who work in these communities. The issue of OCI, Fortune, and
yellowtail continue to work through that issue to find a reasonable solution.
Ultimately, at the end of the day we will do what we can to protect our plant
workers and our fishery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third
Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Natural Resources said in Question
Period yesterday that in regard to Muskrat Falls, there is still a role for the
Public Utilities Board, but it will not be the same role as they would otherwise
have.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he please tell
us in this House today what this role of the PUB in relationship to Muskrat
Falls is going to be?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Section 5.1 of the Electrical Power Control Act
outlines circumstances or situations where the government can direct the PUB to
take certain actions or to follow direction.
Section 5.2 outlines situations
where exemptions can be granted, Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in the past with
the former government.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, we will be dealing with this
next week and we will be looking at a situation where we do what is best in the
public interest. In order to obtain the $1 billion of financing that is coming
to us from the federal government, Mr. Speaker, we have to comply with some of
the terms that are outlined in the federal loan guarantee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third
Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Section 5.8 of Bill 53 says Muskrat Falls is exempt
from the Public Utilities Act.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier and her Minister of Natural
Resources keep insisting that the PUB must have a restricted role in relation to
Muskrat Falls because they require a guaranteed revenue stream in order to
satisfy the terms of the loan guarantee. The PUB's mission is to achieve an
equitable balance between the interests of consumers and electric utility
service providers, among others.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why doesn't she trust
the PUB to do this job in relation to Muskrat Falls as it already does with
other corporations?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is important when we talk about the PUB, we are
talking about a regulatory board, Mr. Speaker. They act upon directions given to
them by government that is outlined in legislation. Essentially, Mr. Speaker,
they look at various issues as requested by government.
They were requested by government to look at the issue
of Muskrat Falls and whether or not it was the lowest-cost option. After $9
million, Mr. Speaker excuse me, nine months and $2 million they chose not to
offer any advice. That obviously caused concern, Mr. Speaker.
We have a situation with Muskrat Falls where there has
to be a guaranteed revenue stream. There is nothing unusual about that in
commercial arrangements. Next week we will talk about how we are going to
achieve that result while still recognizing the role of the PUB.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third
Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
guarantee that cannot be met until after government sanctions the project, which
I understand now is not going to be tomorrow. This could mean billions spent
before a federal loan guarantee is secured.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How much money will
government spend before they know whether or not they will qualify for the
federal loan guarantee?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
commercial arrangement or loan guarantee.
Mr. Speaker, the requirements for the federal loan
guarantee is that of sanction. We are looking at when and if we can get to that
process. However, I have indicated and the Premier has indicated that prior to
sanction there will be no further money spent on Muskrat Falls, at least in
terms of coming out of my department, Mr. Speaker.
We allowed for money to go to Nalcor a number of
months ago to build a road. At this point there has been no further monies come
out of the department, Mr. Speaker. After the decision on sanction, when we know
we have the loan guarantee based on sanction, that is when the go-ahead will be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The loan guarantee term sheet stipulates the federal
government is to receive regular and thorough financial and operational reports.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she make these
reports public and available to the people of the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of the interesting arguments over the last year or
two is that we do not have enough oversight in Muskrat Falls. We have
SNC-Lavalin up there and it is not enough to have Nalcor oversee them. Mr.
Speaker, what we are doing here, we are ensuring financial accountability. The
independent engineer, under
section 4.9, has to ensure that matters are
proceeding in accordance with good utility practice.
So all of this, Mr. Speaker, is meant to ensure that
the project is going the way it should go, and the more oversight the better,
because it ensures that the people of the Province and, in fact, the people of
this country are protected.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad the minister mentioned this independent
engineer. I wonder then: Could he tell us what is the name of the engineering
company to whom this independent engineer belongs?
Mr. Speaker, that person is also supposed to give
reports, regular reports as to what he or she finds. So will those reports be
made public?
There are two questions there, I am aware, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am looking at
section 4.9 of the federal loan
guarantee there now, which looks at the independent engineer, and it indicates
that the independent engineer will represent the guarantor and the lenders. So,
obviously, the independent engineer will be appointed by the federal government,
Mr. Speaker. Again, that is arm's length from us. It allows for a degree of
oversight, Mr. Speaker.
In terms of the independent engineer, I do not know
who it is. We are not even at sanction yet. First, when we get to sanction and
the federal loan guarantee kicks in, Mr. Speaker, then the federal government
will appoint an engineer, and I am assuming they will publicly disclose it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's
North.
MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, this government's wait
list for paediatric assessment and diagnostic services are preventing pre-school
children from getting the quality of child care they need. Early Childhood
Educators cannot effectively respond to the needs of children when children are
forced to wait a year or more to be assessed. This creates a stressful work
environment for ECEs and negatively impacts the care they can provide for other
children.
When will this government stop putting up roadblocks
that harm the quality of child care?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth
and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, child care is certainly top priority for
this government and that is very evident through our 10-Year Child Care Strategy
that we announced in the Budget last year.
Mr. Speaker, we are doubling our budget in child care
over the next ten years to the tune of $58 million. Child care spaces are going
to increase by 70 per cent. It is going to be more affordable, and quality is
going to be of utmost importance, Mr. Speaker. We have a great record to stand
on when it comes to child care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's
North.
MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, to make matters worse for
preschool children with special needs, child care providers have to wait for six
months or more to assess inclusion staffing support funding. The fact is
children with special needs are being shuffled from one wait list to another.
When will this government stop denying their problems
and help preschool children and their parents get the special supports they
need?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those at home, I was
certainly not laughing at the question but it is a little cold in here today. I
was wrapped up and had to get unwrapped.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to respond to the question
because it is a very serious question. Mr. Speaker, it is something that we are
always concerned about in terms of development of children. That is why, Mr.
Speaker, in the last few years we have invested significantly and we have seen a
20 per cent increase in the number of full-time physiotherapists here in the
Province. We have seen a 30 per cent increase in the number of occupational
therapists that we have put in place. We have seen a 29 per cent increase in the
number of speech language pathology positions. We have seen a 14 per cent
increase, Mr. Speaker, in the number of audiologists that we have provided here
in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, we are very, very concerned about
ensuring that we put in place the proper supports.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits
White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The future of our forest industry is uncertain. We
have seen a closure of two paper mills and are cutting less than half the annual
allowable cut. Community managed forests allow for commercial forestry, tourism,
recreation, habitat protection, environmental education and research.
Municipalities, forestry businesses, wood co-operatives, non-for-profits and
community based groups can all manage the forest on leased Crown land.
Will the Minister of Environment and Conservation
pilot a plan and designate Crown land for community forests?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not quite sure what the member opposite is
getting at, but the one thing I do agree with is that our forest industry is in
crisis. It is not only in this Province, Mr. Speaker, we see it in Nova Scotia,
we see it in Quebec, we see it in New Brunswick, and Ontario.
What this government is trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is
work our way through it. We are working on continuing the work with Kruger and
the union members, Mr. Speaker, in Corner Brook to try to come up with a
solution to ensure that the mill is sustainable in the long term.
Last week, myself and the Minister of IBRD met with
Mr. Ted Lewis of Roddickton. We had a further discussion with Mr. Lewis and
there is no question there are enormous difficulties to overcome. Mr. Speaker,
we know the industry is having difficulty and what we are trying to ensure, as
best we can, is that we help people through this, and Corner Brook is a key part
of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits White
Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, Iceland has you can
be a fisherman for a day or two cross-cultural experiences, including
accommodations, cooking school, dinner, touring local fresh fish processing
plants, with upgrades of joining a crew onboard their boat, and catching and
cooking your own meal. Tourism-fishery synergies are opportunities, as tourists
come for our culture and our heritage.
When will the Department of Tourism pilot such a
program partnering with the Department of Fisheries to remove barriers limiting
access to local fish product?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Based on the last two questions, I am not sure if
there is an interest group out there he has not touched on, Mr. Speaker, but I
will endeavour to answer his question.
This is a government who has partnered with industry
out in the Province and who now has what we call a Tourism Board that is made up
of industry, government officials, and stakeholders. We have a remarkable $13
million marketing campaign throughout this Province. This is an industry we are
developing. It is just about a $900 million industry right now in this Province.
We are doing everything we can. It is being driven by industry, Mr. Speaker, and
our numbers continue to climb.
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.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House of
Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled,
the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS with declining enrolment, distance education
by Internet is now an accepted way to deliver educational services to students
living in small communities; and
WHEREAS students have little to no say in where they
or their families reside; and
WHEREAS many families do not have the ability to
relocate so their children can access educational opportunities in larger
centres; and
WHEREAS many small businesses rely on the Internet to
conduct business; and
WHEREAS high-speed Internet permits a business to be
more competitive than does slower dial-up service; and
WHEREAS no high-speed Internet service exists in the
community of Bird Cove; and
WHEREAS there are no plans to offer high-speed
Internet to residents of this community;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to partner with the private sector and offer high-speed Internet
service to this community.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is a community that has had its
share of struggles, particularly since the downturn in the cod fishery when the
community was 600 to 700 people and now it is less than 200. A year-and-a-half
ago, they found themselves with a fire truck that was condemned and a fire
department that was in disarray because they had no equipment to provide these
services.
Yet, the community rallied. This community and five
small communities in the area came together and they were in the process of
using an old truck, a couple of pumps, and some hose in order to be able to just
provide very, very basic fire service, to be able to pump, if necessary, from
the ocean in case of a fire.
Mr. Speaker, they have pulled together. Now they have
better fire equipment. They are working their way forward. Their community is
slowly coming back, but one of the services they really need in this community
is high-speed Internet and the residents of this community keep pressing for
this service.
The service has just barely bypassed them. If the
minister were to insist that the proponents supplying the service would actually
back up by a kilometre or two, this small town could be served.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
I rise in this hon. House again today to present a
petition on the pesticides.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Tordon 101 contains the chemicals 2,4-D and
Picloram; and
WHEREAS the chemical Picloram is a known cancer
causing carcinogen; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has banned the
cosmetic use of the pesticide 2,4-D; and
WHEREAS safer alternatives are available to the
provincial government for brush clearance such as manual labour, alternative
competitive seeding methods, and/or mechanical removal of brush; and
WHEREAS the provincial government is responsible for
ensuring the safety and well-being of its citizens.
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to cease the use of
chemicals covered under its own cosmetic ban and begin using safer methods of
brush clearance that will not place the citizens in harms way.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is coming from the people
of the Long Harbour area as well as the Lark Harbour area over on the West Coast
of the Province. There are a few names here and these people have put in some
concerted thought when it comes to this issue. They want to get the message
through to government about the harmful effects of using these banned chemicals,
particularly on our roadsides, particularly when it comes to brush clearing and
exactly what these chemicals can do to our water systems and ultimately on up
the food chain to us.
We do know that the chemical known as Picloram is a
known cancer-causing agent. It is quite harmful and hangs around in the
environment for an abnormally long time, considered by some; it can stay in the
environment for upwards of ten years.
Mr. Speaker, we do know as well that there are other
ways of clearing roadside brush. I am pretty sure that the hon. members across
the House will think about their own districts, particularly in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, that have an immense amount of brush growing up along
the sides of the roads. I know some of the members are dealing with the problem
of roadside brush that is growing particularly close to their roadside. Those
are pretty important points, I think, to bring forward when you talk about that.
There are better ways, mechanical being one, of
course. I have seen some costing that has been done with regard to how cheap it
can be to get roadside brush cleared away from the sides of the roads. We know
that the inherent safety factor that clearing of roadside brush can mean when it
comes to giving drivers advance notice, particularly when it comes to moose and
that sort of thing, and no doubt to highway workers in removing an obstacle as
regards to having a place where they can actually get the snow thrown off the
side of the road, rather than getting it hung up on the side of the road and
taking up shoulder space. It is a bit of a hazard, too, when you are talking
roadside brush in the summer.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will present that and table
that to the Clerk of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's
North.
MR. KIRBY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a point of
order.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's
North on a point of order.
MR. KIRBY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I know things get a bit heated here in
the House of Assembly when we are all in here together, even on a cold day like
today. I think we all have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to show some degree of
respect for one another in the House.
Indeed, Standing Order 49 says; "No Member shalluse
offensive words against any Member of this House." While the Member for St.
John's East was standing on his feet a moment ago giving his petition on behalf
of those who had signed it, the Member for Mount Pearl North was yelling out:
what a state.
I think that is pretty offensive and I think that is
completely contradictory to Standing Order 49. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the
simplest thing is for the member to stand on his feet and to apologize to the
Member for St. John's East.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Any further comments to the point of
order?
The Speaker did not hear any comments made by other
than the member who was recognized to stand in his place. I will undertake to
review Hansard, to see if Hansard may have picked up a statement that I did not
hear by anyone from the floor of the House.
I remind all of the members, obviously, there is a
responsibility we all share to show respect for each other in the House of
Assembly and acknowledge when the Chair has recognized someone to speak, they
have the floor and they should be able to speak uninterrupted.
I will undertake to review Hansard to see if Hansard
has recorded any comments made by any member in the House that would be
considered unparliamentary.
Order, please!
Private Members' Day
This being Wednesday, it is Private Member's Day, and
I just want to make sure all members are aware of the correction. When we
entered the House today, the Orders of the Day were on each of your desks. There
was an error in its publication. We now have another one distributed.
Today, we are going to be debating the resolution put
forward by the Member for Humber Valley. In fact, the first one did have a
resolution by the Member for Humber Valley, but notice has already been given
that the one to be debated and I will bring members' attention to it to ensure
we are indeed dealing with the correct one; I will bring your attention to the
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED piece.
The one we are debating today goes on to say: "that
this House endorses the principle of independent electrical utility regulation"
"for the establishment of electricity rates in the province to protect the
interests of provincial ratepayers".
That is the one we are debating today and not the one
that you may have seen a copy of earlier when you came into the House.
I now call upon the Member for Humber Valley to
introduce his motion.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for the clarification on our Order Paper
today.
First of all, I want to say that this resolution
affirms the principle of the independent electricity rate regulation in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS the electricity market of Newfoundland and
Labrador is a monopoly where ratepayers have no choice in their preferred
electricity supplier; and
WHEREAS robust, independent regulation assures
ratepayers that they will have access to electrical power at the lowest possible
cost consistent with reliable service; and
WHEREAS electricity is an essential commodity for
domestic and commercial use and the oversight of the cost of its service is in
the public interest;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House endorses the
principle of independent electrical utility regulation for the establishment of
electricity rates in the Province to protect the interests of the provincial
ratepayers.
Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution and a motion that I
am actually proud to read into the House today. We all know the history of
regulation around electricity regulation goes back
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. BALL: Sorry, Mr. Speaker; it is seconded by
the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded.
The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, we can be proud of the history we have
surrounding electricity regulation. It goes back many, many years now, even back
if you look at the twentieth century.
Primarily, most of the work around electricity
regulation started in the United States. We can actually go back to the
invention of the light bulb and the utilities that came after that. Primarily at
that time, the regulation was more about and we saw utilities that were formed
to provide electricity services to smaller communities or to cities. People
around that time realized that if there was a monopoly in this situation, there
was no one there to make sure we had fair pricing without a competitor.
We all know, even as we fast-forward into today, we
live in a non-competitive electricity market. We really do not have competitors
in this market. Therefore, it is fair to say that a monopoly exists. When you
get into any situation where you have a monopoly, we often find ourselves in
situations where it is very difficult to put pricing in check. The consumers
themselves feel really uncomfortable not having that ability to so-called shop
around for proper competitive prices.
On top of that, in this particular case, the Public
Utilities Board we have in our Province that was established just after 1949,
their goal was not only to make sure that ratepayers had access to the cheapest
price, but indeed, that it was a reliable service, too. The Public Utilities
Board themselves, what they want to do is make sure that any investment by the
utility into the provision of electrical services, the provision of electricity,
or the sale of electricity, that they indeed have the opportunity to get a
return on investment.
This return on investment, of course, what happens
there is you give the utility the option to reinvest into the service. In this
particular case, the utility then can be in a strong financial position. Many
people over history will say that the utility itself, for people who are looking
for areas to invest, has been really a consistent area to be.
Mr. Speaker, what we find now this is the reason why
we make this resolution; in order to protect the public interest and to protect
the utility, it is important that we have a commission or we have a board like
the Public Utilities Board involved.
Historically, what we have in our Province is that the
Public Utilities Board have taken a number of different providers of
electricity, they put that into a rate setting and it then would become what is
known as the blended rate, which is what we have right now. All the electricity
providers that we have across our Province, it all goes into a pool and the
Public Utilities Board will determine a rate by that.
As the utility, as they need budgets approved, as they
need to purchase equipment or to do line upgrades or utility upgrades, what
happens is they appear in front of the utilities board. Those costs then, those
budgets, are presented and the Public Utilities Board looks at what is in the
best public interest. Then that budget is approved and the utility can go and
reinvest in the provision of electricity.
In most cases, I think even from the utility themselves, they find the process
one that has been well established. Given the fact that we are in the monopoly
situation, the ratepayers themselves find the protection that is often necessary
simply because we operate into a monopoly.
Over the years in our Province we have had discussions
on what should be exempted from the Public Utilities Board. Over the last number
of weeks we have been and a lot of comments have been made about certain
projects in our history that would have been excluded or exempted from the
Public Utilities Board.
We all know that the development of the Lower
Churchill Project back in the late 1990s, the plan there was to exempt that from
the Public Utilities Board, the project itself, the reason being at that time,
that particular project was being developed as an economic stimulator for
economic development and had very little impact on the ratepayers of the
Province. That was an export option.
In this particular case, the Lower Churchill back at
that time as I said, the development was about export; it was about economic
development and had very little impact on the residential or commercial
ratepayers in the Province.
Even yesterday in this House it was mentioned about
the Granite Canal project. This project too, being exempted back I think it
was back in 2002, this particular project was being exempted from the Public
Utilities Board. What happened there, though, is that once the project started
producing electricity then this electricity fed into the provincial grid. Of
course, then we came into the blended rate, which we have become so familiar
with.
The Granite Canal project would come in, just like we
would see in my own town where we have a producer of electricity there, or in
the Bay d'Espoir or the Upper all those projects, they come together as one to
produce a blended rate. The rate that comes from Granite Canal is part of the
Public Utilities Board, and what they do, of course, on a regular basis in their
review of rates for the people of the Province.
What has happened over the years, as people who live
in this Province, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we have been driven. A
lot of it through emotion, a lot of it because we see the opportunity on the
Lower Churchill right now to develop Muskrat Falls and, of course, Gull Island.
A lot of this stems from the 1969 contract when we see what we believe to be an
unevenly distributed financial interest in that project, and our Province right
now not getting what we consider to be our fair share from this project. There
is, indeed, and we all agree, a significant imbalance in that project.
We fast forward to where we find ourselves today with
the Public Utilities Board and what we understand to be legislation that will
come this way. We seen a piece of this legislation yesterday with Bill 53, where
we will see the new development, the biggest expenditure in our history, the
Muskrat Falls Project, where we will see this particular project and the
electricity that is generated from that will be excluded from the Public
Utilities Board.
This is an area of concern for us, Mr. Speaker,
because this particular project will be designed through a power purchase
agreement, which is mentioned in the federal loan guarantee, to establish a
revenue stream that will offset the cost of the construction of this project.
What we are doing here is we will put together a power purchase agreement which
will essentially be for fifty years. We believe, and I personally believe, that
this is a big commitment for us to make as a Province. We leave our ratepayers
at significant exposure here when there is no way we can access the better
opportunities that will come our way.
We also believe the philosophy around Muskrat Falls,
the green energy, meeting demand of the Province, some export options, these are
very well-positioned and highly principled statements to make. This particular
project only works financially simply because the government is willing to put
in a power purchase agreement that will put the ratepayers of this Province in
the position for fifty years where they will have no say in the electricity
rates that are generated from Muskrat Falls.
We even heard today in Question Period that the rate
at the DG2 numbers was at 23.9 cents. What we do not know today is that after
DG3 it seems to me, from the minister's statements, that we have the same amount
of power, costs have gone up 25 per cent, and here we are with a claim that now
the per kilowatt rate would actually go down. Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls will
produce 824 megawatts, the price has gone up. So it concerns me when I hear the
fact that we will see a decrease over just a few months ago at a DG2 position
where the rate was higher in this case.
I believe, basically, on the analysis that we have
done, that the rate from Muskrat Falls power is thirty cents. That is the rate
that would actually feed into the blended rate. It is above thirty cents, in my
opinion, and it is the rate that would feed into the overall blended rate for
this particular situation.
The whole idea of the power purchase agreement is
something that often gets referred to by a company in Ontario, which is the
Bruce Power Agreement. In most utilities, we have been used to setting the rates
based on a cost of service, but in this particular case, it is not the case. We
have used the situation that we have seen, or an agreement that we have seen in
Ontario, called the Bruce Power Agreement. Even with that one, that one is quite
different, because what they have done with the Bruce Power Agreement is they
have established a floor and they have established a ceiling. There are certain
areas within that agreement that leaves mechanisms and it leaves room for
negotiations based on various risks that you could share amongst the people who
actually own the Bruce Power nuclear plants, and, in this particular case, the
government in Ontario.
Our power purchase agreement, as we see it here today,
or as we are anticipating it will look like, is much more restrictive and will
commit the ratepayers of this Province for fifty years. In this particular case,
Mr. Speaker, there will be a lot of opportunities, I believe, when you look back
over the last fifty years, the changes we have seen in the electricity market,
the new ways we have seen in conservation within natural gas, new appliances,
and all of those things that we can actually see people will be very restricted
in terms of their options in this particular case.
Mr. Speaker, it is our opinion that the power purchase
agreement in this particular case on a project this government says is so good
and with all the reports they actually use on a daily basis to point to making
this particular project the best one available, if this project is so good it
should be able to stand on its own two feet. Indeed, the electricity that is
generated from Muskrat Falls should go into the Public Utilities Board like all
other projects that produce electricity right now. We would use the same
mechanism through the Public Utilities Board to generate rates for the people of
our Province. We believe this is in the best interests of the people of the
Province.
If the right people are not there on this board right
now to do this job, government has in its authority to actually put the right
people there. If they do not have confidence in the people on this board, they
are in the position to make the necessary changes.
Mr. Speaker, it is the power purchase agreement, right
now, as I said. We see this as similar to what would be a mortgage. We are
actually limiting the people of our Province right now to fifty years. There are
many opportunities I believe over the next fifty years will be available that
will come our way. People in this Province would actually get the opportunity to
have different prices and maybe even different projects.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said, for instance,
about the Energy Plan in 2007 and the number of opportunities that exist for us
as ratepayers and people who live in this Province. There are significant
opportunities. I do not think anybody in this House right now would actually
believe that at some point over the next fifty years a commodity like natural
gas is not something that could be used to produce energy for the people of this
Province. As it lies right now, we will make this commitment to a fifty-year
power purchase agreement and many of those opportunities will not be available
to the people of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, we just have a few seconds. I will say
that I will be speaking again on this as we close out debate on this. It is our
position that the PUB indeed should be able to review the rates of all the
options and all the projects we have available in the Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Verge): The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As an opening comment, there is no one going to
disagree with the principle that people should pay the lowest rates possible.
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, in fact, is mandated to ensure that the
lowest-price power is provided to the people of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most significant
reasons why we are doing Muskrat Falls, is to ensure that people obtain the
lowest electricity rates possible. Again, I have said this on a number of
occasions and I am not going to spend a majority of my time on this today. I
just want to review briefly what has happened with electricity rates.
Between 2000 and 2011, Mr. Speaker, the average
ratepayer on the Island or the ratepayer who burns approximately 1,500 kilowatt
hours of energy saw an increase of 32 per cent or approximately $45 per month
over that time frame. That was between 2000 and 2011. People did not notice it
as much, Mr. Speaker, because it was not on top of mind. Seniors would certainly
notice it, Mr. Speaker, as reflected in their bills and others single mothers
and those with limited incomes.
Between 2011 and 2016, Mr. Speaker and this has
nothing to do with Muskrat Falls we are going to see an additional 16 per cent
increase or approximately $30 per month over that time frame. What we have is a
situation where rates have gone up and are continuing to go up, Mr. Speaker. It
is primarily based on the price of oil and the amount of oil being burnt at
Holyrood.
At present, Holyrood only operates at approximately 15
per cent to 25 per cent of the time. It has capacity to generate 486 to 490
megawatts of energy. Mr. Speaker, when you look at the fact that most of the
Grand Falls energy, Stephenville energy, the mill energy will be incorporated
into the system by 2014-2015, that means that Holyrood will have to be used
more. Even used at, Mr. Speaker, 15 per cent to 25 per cent of the time and
mostly when required at peak, we still pay 2011 fuel costs of $135 million.
The price of oil, Mr. Speaker certainly what is
taking place in the United States is fascinating. The shale oil out of the
Bakken project is having significant impact as America moves towards
self-sufficiency. Everything we see indicated, Mr. Speaker, by all of the
experts and I just had an opportunity to look at the International Energy
Association report which came out last week; I was at an oil conference the
other day, Mr. Speaker. All indications are that the price of oil will stay in
the long term around the $100 mark.
Mr. Speaker, the reason for that is quite simple. We
know that Saudi Arabia, which produces approximately 10 million to 12 million
barrels a day I could be wrong on that out of the 90 million barrels a day
that are burned, Saudi Arabia has a big part, or the OPEC countries have a big
part, in setting the price. The price, Mr. Speaker, will be based on, to a great
extent, what they need. So, with the social unrest in the Middle East countries,
we are going to see more monies required. Then we have the ongoing issues in
Iran and Iraq; then you take that, Mr. Speaker, you combine it with growth in
China and growth in India, and there is no indication that the world will need
less oil. The Americans will produce more oil, but the oil that they produce
will simply compensate for the amount of oil required.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of producing a
barrel of shale oil is from $60 to $75 a barrel, and we know that the oil sands
require approximately $75 a barrel to produce. Mr. Speaker, those have to be the
prices for it to economical. My point is that the price of oil, as Dr. Mark
Schwartz of PIRA has indicated, in the next decade will stay around the $100
range. That being the case, we know that the cost of running Holyrood will be
very significant.
When you do the economic modelling, Muskrat Falls, Mr.
Speaker, will show the electricity
rates for the average ratepayer going up $38 per month over a period of 2016 to
2030. Without Muskrat Falls, between 2016 and 2030, it will go up $82 a month .
The increase in rates will double without Muskrat Falls. We are certainly
committed to the principle of lowest rates for the people of our Province and
that is one of the primary issues that we are dealing with here, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we also have to recognize that when you
have a regulator and the independent regulator is given certain powers, those
powers are not absolute, even in today's climate. When I look at the Electrical
Power Control Act,
an act that was brought in, in 1994, and I look at
section
5.1, it states that: Notwithstanding sections 3 and 4 of the Public Utilities
Act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the Public Utility Boards
with respect to the policies and procedures to be implemented by the board.
So, government has an opportunity and can direct the
board; in fact, this is what we were speaking about yesterday when we were
talking about the Labrador industrial rates: we will have a situation where
because Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has to obtain a certain return on the
investment, Mr. Speaker, in order to finance their CF(L)Co to finance their
Labrador transmission project, then there has to be a certain price. We do not
want it going below that price because we need that asset in 2041; we need those
assets to be in shape, and it is going to require hundreds of millions of
dollars.
The generation component will not be regulated by the
PUB and the price will be calculated annually by Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro, Mr. Speaker. It will be published on the Web site, I am assuming on the
Hydro Web site, and the proposed rates will be reviewed annually.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the transmission rate,
if new transmission lines are required in Labrador, the PUB will play a role.
We have a hybrid situation where on generation, the
PUB will not be involved and where on transmission, they will be involved, Mr.
Speaker. Again, that will be based on cost-to-service principles and those
cost-to-service principles will be smiliar to those in place in the Island right
now.
What we are doing, we are bringing in and we are
suggesting in this piece of legislation that we can direct the PUB to do exactly
what we need them to do.
Then, Mr. Speaker, when I look at
section 5.2 of the
Public Utilities Act, it gives the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, or Cabinet,
government, the power to exempt a public utility from the application of all
reports of the act.
Mr. Speaker, this has happened a number of times in
the past. I have here with me right now two orders of exemption that the
previous Liberal Government had proclaimed, one in 2000 and one in excuse me,
Mr. Speaker, they are dated November 30, 2000. One is in relation to Granite
Canal, and the PUB was exempt from looking at any of the cost in terms of the
environmental, economic, and engineering study for the generation and related
facilities of Granite Canal.
The one that I want to talk a little bit more about
today, Mr. Speaker, is that of the Lower Churchill, the
Labrador Hydro Project Exemption Order . It specifically
refers to the exemption from the generation-related facilities at Gull Island,
Muskrat Falls, et cetera.
The Leader of the Opposition has said: well, that is a
different project because it was only an export project, therefore the exemption
made sense; but, Mr. Speaker, from commentators in the public because I am not
familiar; the details of this project have never been released fully and
publicly, as outlined by Mr. Vic Young and his co-authors in the our place in
Confederation report. That was one of the criticisms they had of the previous
project, the Lower Churchill project: the details were not public, unlike what
we have done with Muskrat Falls.
Mr. Speaker, the project, though from commentators,
from two board members of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro at the time, who
resigned as a result of the Lower Churchill project; whether it was through
comments in the public, comments on blogs, or letters to the editor, it appeared
that one of the reasons they resigned was because the Newfoundland and Labrador
ratepayer, or taxpayer, would be responsible for any cost overruns.
So, it is not enough to say it was an export project.
If there were cost overruns and the government was responsible, then it is the
ratepayer who would have to pay those costs. So, Mr. Speaker, in essence, by
excluding the PUB from looking at the capital costs of the project, they were
excluding the PUB from looking at a potential effect on ratepayers.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that 5.1 and
5.2 of the act are practical examples of how governments have to operate in the
public interest, have to have a latitude, especially when it comes to directing
regulatory boards. So, the word, independent, Mr. Speaker, does not mean that
they act without instruction from government in the circumstances outlined in
the act. What independent means is that they make decisions without influence or
without being affected by government. So, that is how we have to look at this.
So when I look at this motion here today, we have said
all along that electricity is an essential commodity, which it makes sense as to
why Muskrat Falls will pay for itself, is that: people will pay electrical
bills; there is 40 per cent that will be available at a minimum for Labrador
mining and industrial projects, Mr. Speaker; have 20 per cent to go to Nova
Scotia so that we will, at the end of the day, have a significant asset and have
the ability to transfer energy if the markets are available. We know they are
available on the spot markets.
It is an essential commodity, so the question for us
as a government becomes: Do we take that $6 billion that people are going to pay
for oil, do we send that to these big multinational companies, or do we build an
asset which will generate revenue forever? Once you build hydro hydro is a
significant capital outlay, but once the project is built, then the maintenance
and operations are not as expensive, and water runs down the river, and we can
produce hydro for a hundred years.
It is a tried and true method of producing
electricity, and the Premier will tell you, and any of our ministers who have
been meeting with their counterparts, is that most of the other provinces would
love to have the Lower Churchill development, they would love to have a Muskrat
Falls and a Gull Island, Mr. Speaker.
So, as I suggested yesterday, in terms of talking
about the Labrador industrial rates policy, we are simply setting it up in a way
that ensures that hydro recoups the money required so that they can continue to
improve and build the assets required, and that the transmissions costs will be
looked at.
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House endorses the
principle of independent electrical utility regulation for the establishment of
electricity rates. Well, Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to move an
amendment, please
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Justice, to move the following amendment: That the private member's
resolution now before the House be amended by adding, after the word regulation,
in the resolution clause, a comma and the words "where in compliance with
federal and provincial laws,". That, Mr. Speaker, would be the amendment that I
would request.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources has
proposed an amendment to the resolution. The House will now take a brief recess
to consider the amendment.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I have considered the amendment as put forward by the
Minister of Natural Resources and consider that the amendment is in order.
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I have attempted to do with this amendment is to
recognize the principle that is outlined by the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, in
terms of the resolution itself and recognize, however, that even though there is
the important role the regulatory board plays, the current Electrical Power
Control Act, in sections 5.1 and 5.2, outlines situations where government or
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has to have the power to direct. I used the
example yesterday of what we were talking about yesterday with the Labrador
industrial policy, Mr. Speaker. Then with the exemptions, I used the examples of
the two orders which were granted in relation to Granite Canal and the Labrador
hydro projects.
In essence, what I have tried to do with this
amendment is balance that basic principle of lowest cost to the ratepayer, Mr.
Speaker, balance the role of the regulatory board, but also recognize, as is
recognized in the legislation that there are certain circumstances where the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council has to be able to direct the Public Utilities
Board and exempt certain projects from oversight.
Those would be my comments, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I recognize the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is an honour and a privilege to be able to stand
here in this House today and to speak to this private member's resolution
introduced by our Leader.
I am going to be a little more general in my comments
today. I am going to start off by talking about the Public Utilities Board and
some of the background to it, and just some of the things we have been hearing
about the Public Utilities Board. It has been a topic that is in the news quite
a bit in the last twelve months or so.
I guess we have to go back to the resolution that was
entered, and it lays out what it is that we are trying to get a resolution for
here today, Mr. Speaker. We are saying the electricity market in this Province
is a monopoly. That is the first premise we are starting on, where the
ratepayers in this Province do not have any choice in their preferred
electricity supplier. We have to start off with that premise, that we as
ratepayers here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have no choice. We have to pay
what that monopoly, or I guess the provider gives us.
Now, in order to have that, though, we need to have
independent regulation which assures us as ratepayers that we will have access
to power at the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable service. In
exchange for that monopoly on this Province, there has to be an independent
regulator. Somebody who can have that critical oversight to make sure that we,
as the ratepayers in this Province, are getting charged a fair rate. We
understand the principles behind that, the cost of service. There is a certain
cost that comes with generating and providing this.
Again, the third premise we come at here, Mr. Speaker,
is that obviously electricity is an essential commodity for domestic and
commercial use. The oversight of the cost of service is in the public interest
and, therefore, we would endorse the principle of independent electrical utility
regulation to establish our rates in this Province.
What we are saying here, Mr. Speaker, is that we all
know, the fact is that we are reliant on electricity. It is an essential
commodity here in this Province, and not just for domestic uses in our house but
we look at we will use Labrador, when we have industrial customers there
consuming large amounts of electricity, the fact is we need that independent
regulator.
Now, I wanted to begin by talking about the Public
Utilities Board itself, Mr. Speaker. I just had an opportunity, I looked around
and there is plenty of information out there. You can go to the PUB's own Web
site. I also had an opportunity to look at it. It was a very nice overview
provided by Blake, Cassels & Graydon, which is an international law firm. Back
in 2010 they did an overview of electricity regulation in Canada. They did a
very nice job of going through each Province and looking at the jurisdiction
over electricity and natural resources, how it is regulated, who regulates it,
and the differences between each Province. It is nice to get an understanding of
that.
Our Public Utilities Board, Mr. Speaker, as we all
know is an independent which is of the utmost importance quasi-judicial
regulatory body which is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
Essentially the PUB is appointed by our Cabinet. Our Cabinet appoints who is
going to sit on the Public Utilities Board. It operates under the authority of
the Public Utilities Act.
This board, as was mentioned previously by our leader
and in various speeches in this House, was established just after Confederation.
Right now there are four full-time board members. We have a chair and CEO, a
vice-chair, and two commissioners. They also have a number of staff who work
with them to do their job.
This is on the board's own Web site: "The Board is
responsible for the regulation of the electric utilities in the province to
ensure that the rates charged are just and reasonable, and that the service
provided is safe and reliable." That is a very important mandate that they carry
out, and they carry it out on behalf of all of us in this Province, the
ratepayers.
They also cover off a number of other very important
areas. In 2004 they were given the responsibility to ensure fairness in
marketing of petroleum products. They also handle something that affects a great
many of us in this Province; they are responsible for the supervision of rates
charged by automobile insurers in this Province when it comes to coverage. They
handle a number of different areas, a very important job. We cannot understate
the importance of the Public Utilities Board.
Just looking at the Blake Cassels overview, it is very
similar to what the PUB has on its own Web site. We always hear the terms
independent, quasi-judicial regulatory agency, just and reasonable. There was
one exception that was there previously, though: they do not oversee the
regulatory overview of the major industrial consumers in Labrador. A lot of us,
when we think about it, they cover off what we as domestic ratepayers in this
Province pay to make sure we get those fair rates.
If you want to look at a background or history of
electricity regulation in this Province, what we had was that in return for an
exclusive market, the utility would have to accept that a regulator would serve
as the surrogate for competition. In exchange for us having no choice but to go
to them, they had to accept the fact that there has to be independent oversight
on that. If not, you are going to have that unfortunate situation where we do
not know if what we are getting charged is fair and we really have no say or no
ability.
If the provider wants to increase their rates, they
put the application into the board. The board looks at it, considers it, and
then makes a decision. They take into account the notion of cost of service.
They need to recover the costs to provide that service and what goes into it.
Also, obviously, they are allowed to make a profit. There is an allowance for
return on equity.
What I would say, Mr. Speaker, is we understand full
well the importance of the Public Utilities Board and what they do for the
people in this Province. The reason or importance of what we are discussing here
today is that it is our understanding the PUB is going to be taken out of that
position as it relates to rates charged to the ratepayers of this Province.
What I would like to do is just go back, though, to a
little history of what has gone on in the last year here as we all talked about
Muskrat Falls. It is something that nobody in this Province is unaware of at
this point. There are a lot of people who might not understand the intricacies
and the details of it, but it is a subject that is out there for everybody and
has dominated the coverage.
If we go back to just before the last election in
2011, I believe it might have been in June or July, at that time the government
said: we are going to send off Muskrat Falls to the PUB to have that independent
review of Muskrat Falls to make sure it is the lowest-cost option. That was done
prior to the election. That was done, there was an election, the government
returns, and they say: We are going to hopefully get that report by December
What happened then, Mr. Speaker, is that the PUB came
back and asked for an extension. The Board of Commissioners said: look, we need
a new deadline. We need more time. They asked for an extension to March 31,
2012. At that time, there was a quote from the Minister of Natural Resources,
and it says: It is important we give them that extra three months. We need them
to complete their assessment of the two options. There has been a fair amount of
work completed and this will allow them to fulfill the terms of reference. They
were given that extension to March 31.
What happened then was, I believe and if I am wrong
I am sure somebody will correct me what happened after that it was just
after Christmas, early in 2012 the PUB came back and said: We need an
extension on that. We need more time to get this work done. At that time, they
were turned down. One of the reasons the extension was turned down was because
government at that time wanted the debate to happen in the spring session of the
House of Assembly. Our first session back last year after the election was when
the debate was supposed to happen. We can look back at that now and say, well,
obviously that did not happen. There was no debate in the spring session. We did
not have the summer session that was supposed to happen and we ended up coming
back in November. Again, it boiled down to a private member's resolution last
week.
That was turned down and said: Look, you have to have
this job done by March 31. That is the amount of time you are going to get and
that is it. What happened then, I believe it was just before March 31 the PUB
did come back with their report. I guess the problem there, what was unexpected,
was that the report came back and it did not give government the answer that
they wanted, obviously, or perhaps that they had anticipated. They came back and
said: Essentially, we do not have enough information to make the decision.
There is a difference of
interpretation depending on
how you look at that. I know members on the government side would say: Well, we
gave them lots of time and lots of money and they did not give us anything. I
have a different
interpretation of that. I think they came back and said: We
need more information if we are going to make this important decision that
affects all of the people in this Province. They did not have the amount of
information that was necessary.
In fact, the board chairman, Mr. Wells, actually said
that when he was dealing with this, he needed more public consultations. I think
one of the quotes that he used was: torturous delays in getting information from
Nalcor.
Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate. I think it would
have been appropriate that they had more time, but we are passed that at this
point. They came back, did not give government the report that they wanted, so
government moved on and said: Well, that is it, we are taking it out of their
hands; they are not going to have anything to do with it.
There have been more reports, comments, and
discussions since that time. A lot of them at this point, the comments that are
being used as it relates to the PUB: There is no confidence in the PUB; it is a
waste of $2 million; we are not going to put it back in their hands.
I guess the issue I have just a couple of points. If
the people who serve on the PUB, the four members who are referenced, they were
all appointed by the government that is sitting. They were put there in that
position. They were put there. It was all supported by members of government.
So, the question then arises: If you put them there and now you are saying that
you have no confidence in them, then why would you let them continue to do that?
The Premier has said in Question Period we are asking
for them to be fired. No, that is not it at all. What we are saying is that you
put them in there to do a job and you are not allowing them to do that job. You
are not allowing them to perform the mandate that was placed on them. Again,
that comes down to the assessment of whether they are competent or not. I think
that is very unfortunate that it has come to that point. Again, as I have said
before, what really happened was that government rigged the rules of the game
and still never got the result that they wanted. They thought they were going to
get the result back that yes, this is the low-cost option, yes, we should go
ahead but it did not happen. That is really unfortunate.
Now, the other point that I would bring up and you
have to look at this, just consider it all the PUB was good enough to handle
rates for decades. They are good enough to handle water management issues, they
are good enough to handle intricate, delicate, and important matters, but they
are not going to handle the rates from Muskrat Falls. So, one would have to
question: Is that what we are resorting to now, that we are going to pick and
choose the duties that we place on this independent regulator? I think that
unfortunate I really think that unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.
I would conclude by saying I only have a couple of
minutes left here that we are moving into a very, very important time.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS: I would say to the minister: I
listened very carefully when you spoke. I listened very carefully when you spoke
this week and last week, so hopefully the same courtesy comes across, but I
guess I do not get the same courtesy, Mr. Speaker.
What I would say is that if the PUB cannot handle the
rates from Muskrat Falls, then what is it that they are doing there? It is
really unfortunate that we have come to this point. Again, one of the reasons
that they were not able to give the government the decision that they wanted was
that they were not given enough time. They could not live up to the deadline
that was set by them. Again, this is a government that has not met their own
deadlines in a number of different areas, so it is not really fair.
What I would say in conclusion unfortunately I have
only got a minute left to speak is that we do have an amendment that was
raised by the Minister of Natural Resources, and it is adding in the resolution
section "where in compliance with federal and provincial laws".
The fact is that it is a very simple amendment, and it
is my understanding that we are going to support that amendment, but it would be
certainly unfortunate if the government has an about-face in the next week or
two and changes that legislation. That would be a little bit cute, would it not,
Mr. Speaker, that if they put in an amendment now saying in compliance with law
and then change that law. So, again, I wait to see that would be something I
am sure the people of this Province would be very interested in seeing. That is
going to be interesting to see if we get that legislation and get it changed
there.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to
this piece of legislation. I am sorry, I guess this a two-hour resolution here,
the same amount of time today that we had last week to discuss Muskrat Falls.
Again, as always, it is a pleasure to speak to this.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and
Skills.
MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take some time this afternoon to take
part in the private member's motion, to participate in this debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important
debate that we are having. It pertains to Muskrat Falls and it pertains to the
direction that this Province is taking and where we need to go as we discuss our
options to be able to provide electricity to the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the motion, as it has been laid down, was
amended by the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills
to continue.
MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the motion that is put
forward, the resolution has been amended, or a motion put forward to amend by
the Minister of Natural Resources. The changes that were put forward by the
Minister of Natural Resources
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker has recognized the hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education and Skills, and I would ask all other members for their
co-operation.
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and
Skills.
MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, The Minister of Natural Resources
laid down an amendment that puts in the words "where in compliance with federal
and provincial laws".
I understand from the Member for Burgeo La Poile
that the Opposition will be supporting this particular amendment. When you read
it, Mr. Speaker, and you look at "where in compliance with federal and
provincial laws", it would almost be unreal that they would say they do not
support any type of amendment that would comply with the laws of the land
whether provincial or federal. So I am certainly pleased to see support today
for this.
Mr. Speaker, we also had some discussion during this
debate about the role of the Public Utilities Board and the fact that they were
unable to come to a decision when asked to look at the Muskrat Falls Project and
see if it was the least-cost option for Newfoundland and Labrador. As has been
indicated a number of times, it is quite unfortunate that after nine months and
$2 million they were unable to do it when the experts they hired being
Manitoba Hydro, as well the Consumer Advocate and the expert they hired, were
able to come to that conclusion. Despite the fact that the Public Utilities
Board was unable to come to any definitive answer for the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, there has been subsequent reports and analysis done
that give us the confidence as we move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on some of the wording of
the private member's motion that we are debating here today because I think it
is really important. The second clause reads, "WHEREAS robust, independent
regulation assures ratepayers that they will have access to electrical power at
the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable service".
What is important in that clause, Mr. Speaker, is when
we look at it and we see that it says: assures ratepayers they will have access
to electrical power. That means that as the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador we will have access to electricity; which we need, Mr. Speaker.
It also indicates that it will be at the lowest
possible cost. Again, Muskrat Falls in the analysis that we did, indicates that
we have the lowest possible cost I will go through some of that information
and consistent with reliable service. That means Muskrat Falls, and the
development of Muskrat Falls must be reliable. It must be something that we can
depend on. Of course, hydroelectricity and the developments that we have seen
worldwide, and in particular in Newfoundland and Labrador, have shown us that
hydroelectricity is reliable.
You also go to the next clause and it says, "WHEREAS
electricity is an essential commodity" and it is, Mr. Speaker, it is something
that we must address. We cannot turn a blind eye to this and ignore the
situation and say it is a complicated decision we have to make here. It is a
complicated issue, so therefore we will leave it for down the road or for
another government or ten years time or in 2041. It is an essential commodity
and it is something that we have to address today.
We also see in the resolution it says, "THEREFORE
IT RESOLVED that this House endorses the principle of independent electrical
utility regulation" and with the amendment, we are in compliance with federal
and provincial laws "for the establishment of electricity rates in the province
to protect the interests of provincial ratepayers." Of course, it is extremely
important that we protect the interests of the provincial ratepayers.
When you look at that, you ask: Well, who are the
provincial ratepayers? Mr. Speaker, it is us. It is everyone in Newfoundland and
Labrador. We are the ratepayers of this commodity that will be served by Muskrat
Falls. Any of the houses in this Province that are served by Muskrat Falls are
the ratepayers who pay for this particular project.
The resolution shows that it implies the values shared
by this government, that it is an essential commodity, that we have to ensure
that there is electricity available and that it is at the least-cost option and
it is reliable. These are the values that are implied in this particular private
member's motion. Also, Mr. Speaker, they are the values of this government or
any government. It is the responsibility of what we need to do as government. We
need to take this seriously; we need to address these issues.
We must have electricity. We are not going to turn
back the clocks of time in this Province and say to people we have decided that
the decision of how we are going to provide electricity has become so
complicated we are not going to do it, and want everyone to adjust their houses
and adjust everything they are doing so you are no longer dependent on the
electricity. Obviously that cannot happen, that is foolish. We have to move
forward. We have to make sure that the people of this Province have access to
reliable electricity.
Mr. Speaker, we talked about the demand and we had to
demonstrate that we needed the electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador. When we
looked at that, we said that at this time and projected into the future the
electricity demands will grow. We are saying, well, you know, we have a
declining population, our birth rate is not as high; why is it that the
electricity demand may go up? There are a number of factors that go into that.
One thing certainly is the electronics and the
electronics we use today. Where that is going to go in the future we have no
idea. You talk about today, Mr. Speaker and you look at students, for example,
and I am not even talking about students who are in the higher income bracket.
It is almost essential for anybody today; they are going around with iPads and
iPods and iPhones or cellphones, laptops, BlackBerries.
This is something that twenty years ago we did not
have. We did not even know what it was. I remember when I got a first
BlackBerry; I did not even know if I wanted it. I did not know if it was
something I would even use or how we would go about using it.
In 1990 which only seems like yesterday, but I guess
for some people it is quite a long time ago I graduated with a masters degree.
That was 1990, and at that time I had never used a computer in my life; did not
know what it was, never used it for research, never had one. Somebody in the
class actually had one and I often wondered what he would ever use that for
had no idea.
Things have changed and we can only imagine where they
are going to go in the next twenty years as we establish the demand for
electricity. We also know that we have more seniors and there are going to be
more demands. There are going to be people who are retired who are at home who
will be using electricity, whether it is through heating their homes or other
things that we have not seen in other years. It is important that we make sure
that demand that we have projected and that we have confirmed is available, the
electricity is available when that demand is there.
It was also incumbent, as we know in this Province,
not just to determine the demand, but to make sure and it is implied in this
particular motion we are debating today that it is the least-cost option for
the ratepayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to inform the people of
this Province and we also need to assure the people of this Province that we did
choose the least-cost option to be able to meet their electrical needs.
We had to look at the options. What were the options
this government had to consider? Well, we looked at Gull Island, we looked at
Muskrat Falls, we looked at further dependence on oil, we looked at wind energy,
and we looked at natural gas, Mr. Speaker. They were the options we had and we
had to make sure we studied them. Mr. Speaker, we had advocates from every
particular type of electricity we could provide, people who wanted us to go one
way or another way. Certainly a lot of them who put themselves out there as
advocates or experts really wanted the way they felt was best.
In fairness, as the public debate ensued, we needed to
make sure we looked at all the arguments put forward by the opponents of this
project, study them, and then be able to assure we made the right decision. In
saying that, Mr. Speaker, I for one, and I think almost everyone in this caucus,
would have been okay with any one of the decisions if it met our demands, it was
the least-cost option, and it was going to move this Province into the future.
There was no foregone conclusion that it had to be Muskrat Falls. If natural gas
was the answer or wind energy was the answer that is exactly where we would have
gone with this, Mr. Speaker.
In order to validate and to ensure we were not just
dismissing people, we looked at all the issues that were put forward. We started
to release information, Mr. Speaker, from experts, whether it was from Manitoba
Hydro, Ziff Energy, or any of the experts who studied it so it would look like
we were able to provide the depth of analysis we needed to present. When we
looked at all of that, Mr. Speaker, it became evident that Muskrat Falls was the
best option for Newfoundland and Labrador, and therefore the option chosen by
this government as we move forward.
One thing that is extremely important as we look at
all of this is that the reports we released were thorough and well researched.
Of all the criticisms we have heard of Muskrat Falls, we have never heard any of
these reports being challenged by themselves, or the authors of the report or
what they have written in these reports, because they were well done, Mr.
Speaker. They have looked at all the options.
When we looked at some of the options like wind
energy, there was quite an interest in that. Then when you set up your
electrical system, the penetration of wind is anywhere from 10 per cent to the
farthest it would be, 20 per cent, and it was not the least-cost option. People
looked at that and thought from the environmental perspective that was probably
the way to go.
Mr. Speaker, when you look at the environmental
benefits, we will, in Newfoundland and Labrador, when we develop Muskrat Falls,
have access to clean, renewable energy. This is a green project, Mr. Speaker.
This is something that I think the young people of this Province would demand of
this government when we are looking at our options that we also consider the
environment and we look at the effects of the environment and we develop clean
energy.
Mr. Speaker, when you develop a policy that focuses on
clean, renewable energy people support that. People get it, people want it, and
they demand it. Mr. Speaker, all governments in Canada and the federal
government, and not just the parties in power but the Leader of the NDP
federally, Thomas Mulcair, supports Muskrat Falls and clean energy, as did his
predecessor Jack Layton. He felt that the Muskrat Falls Project was something
that was of benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because it
produced clean, renewable energy and it was a good project financially for this
Province.
We probably have the only NDP in all of Canada that
does not support clean energy and that would like to see Holyrood and the
pollutants from Holyrood be maintained in Newfoundland and Labrador and be our
way forward. Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, that is disgraceful I think.
Mr. Speaker, not only will we have clean energy from
Muskrat Falls, there is also going to be indirect benefits. I had the
opportunity to speak about the indirect benefits last week when I spoke as well
about the jobs that are going to be provided and what it means for this
Province. Mr. Speaker, many people will benefit from Muskrat Falls, not in
perpetuity with the electricity and the renewable, clean energy but the people
who will help build the project. Again, we have to be careful because the jobs
and the indirect benefits are not a reason for developing Muskrat Falls, nor is
it why we should develop Muskrat Falls. We need to look to the future and that
is exactly what this Province is doing.
Mr. Speaker, the general principles that I think we
had to lay out as a government was: Do we need this electricity? We have proven
that we needed this electricity. Is it the least-cost option? Mr. Speaker, it is
the least-cost option. We looked at all the options. We did not just give a
superficial analysis; we had experts look at them. This government in making a
decision needed the best information possible because we have to secure the
future for Newfoundland and Labrador. The decisions that we make today, Mr.
Speaker, will impact the generations for years and years to come.
I think we have met those principles, Mr. Speaker. We
have the private member's motion as put forth by the Leader of the Opposition
and now amended by the Minister of Natural Resources. I understand their support
for this motion here in the House today. That is great because we need to make
sure that we are on the same page with this motion as we move forward. It will
comply with provincial and federal legislation; I do not think we can fight
that, Mr. Speaker.
I think as a government what we were asked to do, what
we are required to do for the ratepayers, for the people, the taxpayers of
Newfoundland and Labrador, is to ensure this essential commodity and ensure that
we deliver it in the least-cost way. That is exactly what this government is
doing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted to get an opportunity this afternoon to
speak to this private member's resolution that is before us in the House. The
principles that are outlined in this resolution are extremely important.
Probably one of the most important ones is the fact the electricity market in
Newfoundland and Labrador is a monopoly where the people who pay for that power
have no choice in choosing who their supplier is going to be. Wherever you find
that, Mr. Speaker you find it in other provinces as well you find there is
regulation in place to help protect the people of the Province.
With a monopoly, they are just held hostage. They have
no choice. They have to have the electricity and they have to pay whatever the
rate is. Without an outside regulator, they have no recourse. That is why this
motion is so important, that this House endorses the principle of independent
electrical utility regulation for the establishment of electricity rates in the
Province to protect the interests of the provincial ratepayers. It is an
extremely important motion and one that I am very pleased to support.
It is interesting that last week we had a private
member's motion on the floor which was actually brought in by the Premier
unilaterally without any consultation with the other leaders who were asked to
give leave. At that time, we had a Premier using a private member's motion to
bring forward one of the most important issues we have to deal with in the
Province right now and with which this motion today is connected.
It is because of the Muskrat Falls Project that we are
dealing with the issue of regulation. It is because of a bill that is in front
of us in this House on the Order Paper right now, Bill 53, which exempts the
Muskrat Falls Project from our Public Utilities