The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members.

Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 61 includes an extensive definition of the Muskrat Falls Project. It describes a hydro plant, transmission lines and Emera's Maritime Link. It even describes any associated upgrades to the bulk energy system in the Province, but it does not mention anything about decommissioning the Holyrood Thermal Station.

I ask the Premier: Since shutting down Holyrood has been part of your justification for Muskrat Falls, why is the commitment not included in the extensive definition of the project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Nalcor was clear at the Decision Gate 2 phase that they felt the two most viable options for the supply of needed power on the Island portion of the Province especially would be either Muskrat Falls or the Isolated Island Holyrood refurbished plan. Essentially, Muskrat Falls includes the Muskrat Falls Generating Station, the Labrador Transmission Asset, which is the line from Muskrat Falls to Churchill Falls. It includes the Labrador-Island Link and of course then the Maritime Link which would be built from Granite Canal to Nova Scotia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the question was about decommissioning of the Holyrood generation plant. It was not included in this.

The question is: Will you now confirm a date to decommission Holyrood?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, discussions with Nalcor have been around when obviously the Holyrood plant can be decommissioned. We know in 2017, Muskrat Falls will be in use and that power will be produced; however, it is my understanding that for a period of time Holyrood will have to be kept, not in use but if needed when available. My understanding is around 2020, 2021 Holyrood will be decommissioned. I will have to check on that to be accurate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: In the definition of the Muskrat Falls in Bill 61, the Premier included arrangements with Aboriginal peoples, decommissioning of the dam and other activities that Cabinet sees fit but makes no specific mention of shutting down Holyrood.

I ask the Premier: Will you now amend this legislation to enshrine the commitment to shut down the Holyrood Generating Station?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the basic reasons that Muskrat Falls is being developed or the Isolated Island is looked at. There is an increased demand for power on the Island. We also have a situation where as a result of the industrial or mining developments in Labrador there will be an increased need for power. Holyrood is not part of the Muskrat Falls Project. It is a significant factor environmentally as to why we feel that Muskrat Falls is a much better project, but essentially, on an economic basis, Muskrat Falls stands on its own, and then Isolated Island Holyrood refurbished are two totally separate projects.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, we know that Holyrood has been a significant part of the conversation on this and what we are obviously looking for is a commitment to see the actual date on that.

Mr. Speaker, government will expropriate land, cabins, houses along a stretch of Churchill Falls to St. John's and Granite Canal to Cape Ray. If people fight against this, they can appeal to a panel appointed by Cabinet.

I ask the Premier: Will this panel be independent, or will it be like the Nalcor board which indeed are political appointments?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we clearly outlined in the proposed legislation that there would be an independent panel of arbitrators appointed. Obviously what we want to see, as in any expropriation, is that there is fair compensation for the person who is affected. Properties are expropriated all the time when we build highways, when other projects occur. So, the independent board of arbitrators, as to who they are going to be at present, I do not know.

We all have the same goal here: to ensure that people are fairly compensated – now fairly compensated means exactly that and it is not meant to be a windfall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As part of the Muskrat Falls legislation, government is entrenching Nalcor as an energy monopoly on the Island portion of the Province for fifty years. There will be no new generation allowed for any commercial or industrial consumers of electricity.

I ask the Premier: Why are you denying free and open energy markets, something you have argued for in the past?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the two principles are not related. We have in this Province already, people who have generation capacity; Corner Brook Pulp and Paper is one. Once we get connected to the international grid, they will have the same rights under FERC to apply for transmission rights, and that will occur under the rules that exist today.

When we introduced our Energy Plan in 2007, Mr. Speaker, we said that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were going to be masters of their own destiny. That they were going to be in control of their energy resources. The Opposition talks about Nalcor like it is some multinational company under which we have no control. Nalcor is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker; they own the resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, of course, we know who owns Nalcor, and we know about Nalcor, but we also know there is legislation in place that is actually going to restrict the access to that open energy market that we talked about for fifty years.

Mr. Speaker, government is denying the people of the Province the opportunity to avail of any future technologies for their energy needs. They are tying us all to Muskrat power for fifty years.

I ask the Premier: Why are you closing shop and restricting energy innovation access for fifty years for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, hydroelectricity is the cheapest form of energy generation in the world. It is an old technology, a proven technology, a reliable technology, the science is already done. In every other technology that we consider, it is always more expensive than hydropower. A basic search of Google will tell you that, never mind all of the experts that we have called in to give their views on this piece, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we have said is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through Nalcor, will determine what kind of partnerships that we will have in this Province in terms of energy development. Mr. Speaker, we already have two wind projects in this Province that are controlled by independents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the Premier must know that if we look back at fifty years there are a lot of things that we did not know about fifty years ago. A typewriter, for instance, is what we used, today we are using computers. Common sense will tell us that lots of things change in fifty year.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, of which we are part of, has rules and regulations around monopolies.

I ask the Premier: Given your less than stellar record on the interpretation of NAFTA rules, will Bill 61 expose us to another NAFTA challenge?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, it will not expose us to another NAFTA challenge. Mr. Speaker, we have ensured that we understand this inside and out.

Mr. Speaker, tidal energy, for example, is something that has been talked about for a very, very long time. Nova Scotia is particularly interested in tidal technology. That is the next piece of technology – after wind – that seems the most viable. Mr. Speaker, we have been years and years and years, and still the technology is not advanced enough to make it commercially viable.

We are going to have an energy deficit in 2017, Mr. Speaker. What are they suggesting that we stay in the dark for twenty years until 2041, Mr. Speaker, or are they suggesting that we turn off Muskrat Falls in 2025 or 2030 when new technology is developed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I am not so sure that the Premier connected the dots there. What I asked was: Did you check with NAFTA to see if it would open us to another court challenge?

As a matter of fact, Premier, I think you just made an argument why looking forward to fifty years, you mentioned tidal energy and the impact that could have; yet, you do not want to hear talk about that for the next fifty years.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 61 forbids other utilities from selling energy into this Province, but part of the Muskrat Falls scheme is to sell our power into Nova Scotia and the Northeastern US. Since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the US has reciprocity conditions in their regulations, will Bill 61 prevent Nalcor from selling Muskrat power into the US?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the great difficulties we have in this country is that we do not have an east-west grid. We do not have regulation in Canada like the federal energy regulator has in the United States. Our challenges with working with Quebec would have been resolved a long time ago if we had that kind of regulation in this country.

Mr. Speaker, if we have commercial arrangements in the United States, we will be required to provide reciprocity. We will pay our way to get there, we will agree to the rules, and we will follow the rules. Mr. Speaker, all we have ever asked for in this country is a level playing field, a way to get into the market and then we will make our own way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The President of Nunatsiavut Government says their concerns are still being ignored by government. The Premier gave a false impression that Nunatsiavut was satisfied with the Muskrat Falls Project during the sanctioning announcement.

I ask the Premier: Why did you give the impression that Nunatsiavut was supportive of the project as sanctioned when that is clearly false?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I learned today that NTV is going to run again the whole sanction event 6:00 o'clock Saturday evening on the news, a special program, and I encourage members of the Opposition to watch it. Other than welcome Minister Danny Pottle to the ceremony – and we were happy to see him there, and he indicated he was very happy to be there – I made no mention of anybody supporting Muskrat Falls from Nunatsiavut. I did not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have collaboration. We have consultation. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we agree. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree, but we always talk. That is the one thing I have always said to President Leo: We are always prepared to have the conversation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Nunatsiavut Government said that the Premier has failed to accept their rights and titles.

I ask the Premier, as the Nunatsiavut Government has said: Why are you not prepared to honour the spirit of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, once Aboriginal rights are established in this country, there is no other option than to honour them. We cannot erase Aboriginal rights and this government has a history of respecting Aboriginal rights, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, after over thirty years of trying and two attempts by Liberal governments to develop the Lower Churchill without input from the Innu Nation or Nunatsiavut, Mr. Speaker – to do it without them – Lower Churchill is squarely in Innu Lands. They did not even try to do a lands claim with them before they were going to push ahead with the development. That is not the way that this government operates, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The NunatuKavut Community Council has asked government to consult with them on the Muskrat Falls Project. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they have even gone to the courts, yet the only thing the government has done is arrest the NunatuKavut elders for walking on their own land, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Why aren't you open to dealing with the legitimate concerns being raised by the Aboriginal groups around this project in Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we take our responsibility, our obligation to consult, very, very seriously. We have engaged with NunatuKavut since we came to government in 2003.

We do not always agree, Mr. Speaker. They act like they have an established claim within this country. They do not. That is a process that they have to follow through with the federal government. Once the federal government acknowledges their Aboriginal claim, we will offer it, Mr. Speaker, but we do have to consult and we absolutely respect that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we provided tens of thousands of dollars to them so that they could be well prepared to present to the environmental assessment panel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know the government opposite's idea of consultation is court orders and big fences on Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, on Monday while the Premier was throwing a tea party to sanction Muskrat Falls in the lobby of Confederation Building, children in the Labrador Straits had to go across the border to Quebec to play hockey. They could not play hockey in their own community because the hydro bill was too high to put ice in their rink.

I ask the Premier: Is this right that the power, the transmission lines of Muskrat Falls should pass over the heads of children in Labrador and go elsewhere, when they have to go across the border to skate because they cannot afford their hydro bills to keep the arena open?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the way that utilities are arranged in this Province and the way that we generate electricity and pay for that electricity states that the users of the electricity have to pay for it. The reason why lines are not going all over Labrador is because, by the time you have them all built, Mr. Speaker, and you have to charge back to the ratepayer the cost of that, they would not be able to pay their light bills. They would not be able to turn on the lights at all. It is unfortunate. It is not only in Labrador; there are a lot of children all over this Province who do not have arenas in their community, Mr. Speaker.

What we will not do though is use the Liberal model of government and fiscal management. She said last night her advice to them was turn on the electricity, put the ice on, and you will figure out how to pay for it after. That is how they nearly bankrupted this government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That sounds a lot like the Premier's approach to the Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Speaker: do not put in the cost overruns; do not tell anyone what we are doing. Just go do it, we will figure it out after. If we cannot figure out how to pay for it, we will charge the ratepayers of the Province, Mr. Speaker. That is her solution, I say to her, not mine.

I ask the Premier today: What is her commitment to the people in Labrador, to these children who today have to skate on the ice rinks of Quebec because they cannot afford the power in their own communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about this last night. Somehow or other the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair does not feel that the Innu are Labradorians. She talks about Innu when she talks about them and then she talks about Labradorians. It is a terrible thing, Mr. Speaker.

The most benefits coming out of the development of Muskrat Falls go first of all to the Innu of Labrador, Mr. Speaker – enormous benefits, not only from Muskrat Falls but redress on the Upper Churchill, righting a wrong that we could do at least for the Innu people something that has not happened for the rest of the Province, Mr. Speaker. Opportunities to develop IBAs, to form partnerships with other people in Labrador and on this Island, and then benefits go next to all of the people in Labrador and to the mining companies, because they will be able to develop.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The monopoly created by Bill 61 for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro ensures that the people of the Province will be tied to Muskrat Falls for fifty years. To put it in perspective, today's first-year students will be retired from the workforce by the time there are any other options for consumers.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Why was government so eager to create barriers to competition?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, wondered aloud in this House last week how the world had become so skewed that we have the Leader of the NDP talking about a state-owned energy company that holds the resources of the people of the Province to develop to their benefit, and instead argues for private enterprise. Mr. Speaker, the world has gone nine ways to Sunday in this place.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is it that she suggests? Is she aware of some technology that is on the cusp of development, Mr. Speaker, that is more advanced or more viable and cheaper and more sustainable than hydro power? Because the fact that she thinks there might be, Mr. Speaker, does not make it a fact. If she knows something, share it with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

We just spent two days, two full legislative days in this House putting out ideas that they will not listen to. Mr. Speaker, the government created Bill 61 to protect Nalcor from project failure, from new and competitive technologies that are being developed, and who knows what else.

Mr. Speaker, now I am asking the Premier: What is this government planning to do to protect the ratepayer, the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Third Party said, and who knows what else. Well, I can guarantee you that she does not know, Mr. Speaker. Because we have an energy company in Nalcor whose mandate is to explore all of these options, Mr. Speaker. We have energy ministers who meet together across this country on a regular basis.

Mr. Speaker, we understand what is happening in terms of technology and energy development. Mr. Speaker, the cheapest, most sustainable answer to our energy needs is Muskrat Falls. When it is paid off in thirty-five years, or forty years, or fifty years, it will be virtually free.

It is interesting that all of the arguments she makes today, Mr. Speaker, were made against Bay d'Espoir when it was being developed, and we can reference all of those treaties for you. Bay d'Espoir, we own it today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

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

It may interest the Premier to know that they have discovered now in Manitoba that their wind power is cheaper than their hydroelectricity. Mr. Speaker, we know that the UARB in Nova Scotia will be looking at the discussion between Nova Scotia and Quebec Hydro concerning building power lines through New Brunswick to provide Nova Scotia with electricity.

One of the things the UARB will be looking at is both the cost and the reliability of the transmission of power from Quebec to Nova Scotia. The power that will be going into the Maritime Link will be coming all the way from Muskrat Falls over the Long Range Mountains before it reaches the Gulf.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Isn't she concerned that the UARB will rule that the power from Quebec is cheaper and more reliable?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes negotiations take a very, very long time because you have to imagine every scenario that might occur even though you do not expect it to. You have to imagine what might occur, the worst – you have to take all the examples of the NDP and the Liberals and put them together and say what if all of this happens? If it does happen what is the remedy, and devise the remedy now. You never want to wait until it might happen and then try to find a solution.

That is why negotiations take so long. That is why our negotiations are so good, Mr. Speaker, they are so positive. Mr. Speaker, what we have done in our negotiation is ensure, regardless of what the UARB decides, that we have protected the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we have secured our loan guarantee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is tying the people of this Province to fifty years of an enormous debt.

Mr. Speaker, when Nalcor gave us a briefing on Tuesday morning with regard to the Muskrat Falls sanction agreement signed between Nalcor and Emera, an official with Nalcor said that on their own Emera would not have sanctioned until after the Nova Scotia UARB decision.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: What did she give up in order to get Emera to sign the sanction agreement for her timeline?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we do not give up. We negotiate, Mr. Speaker, and we ensure that we protect the interests of the people of this Province. Of all of the viable options that are available to the people of the Province today, the difference between Muskrat Falls and the next viable option is $2.4 billion, Mr. Speaker, $2.4 billion.

She has some kind of a crystal ball that is still a little bit cloudy now, Mr. Speaker. She thinks there is going to be a cheaper technology come somewhere in the future in the next fifty years, but she does not know what it is. She just thinks it is going to happen; therefore, we should not do Muskrat Falls. I do not know exactly what we are supposed to do, Mr. Speaker, other than let people sit in the dark if her predictions are wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador lacks skilled workers in key areas and the problem is getting worse and worse. ExxonMobil recently decided not to build a third module here citing this problem, and Vale has said the cost of the Long Harbour project will jump by hundreds of millions of dollars because of the same issue.

I ask the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills: What has been done to ensure these labour supply pressures do not cause the Muskrat Falls Project to balloon out of control any further?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Hebron Project and the portion of the work that will not be done in Newfoundland and Labrador, this government under the leadership of the Premier have negotiated a deal that sees a settlement for this Province. From that money, Mr. Speaker, we will undertake many projects that will produce as much or more labour and benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing what we can to develop industry and to ensure the future and this Province is economically viable. We will take as many as steps as necessary to ensure the people of this Province are in a position to reap the benefits from the decisions of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was only last year this Premier was not so eager to keep people working in this Province. If you recall, she let a $30 billion shipbuilding project go that could have lasted thirty-five years. She let that slip away from the people of the Burin Peninsula and the Province.

Mr. Speaker, why does this Premier think the Muskrat Falls Project – about four years – will be any different from other projects in bringing people home on a permanent basis?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me. Not only do we control everything that government has, like Crown corporations and stuff, but now we are in charge of private industry, too. It is nothing short of amazing.

Again, it takes us back to our power in negotiations, Mr. Speaker – our power in negotiations. There was nobody any more surprised than the government when Kiewit suddenly decided not to bid for the DES. The value of that project was around $100 million. Because of our negotiations and because we had anticipated worst-case scenarios and remedies, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province got $150 million because of that decision by Kiewit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Natural Resources, on December 17, stated in a release: The Muskrat Falls Project will generate estimated revenues in excess of $20 billion over fifty years once it comes on stream.

Mr. Speaker, the Joint Panel Review noted Nalcor in its cash flow analysis and financial statements showed the projected annual net financial benefit to the Province in the order of $1.1 billion by 2050.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Will you confirm the Province is only going to net $1.1 billion in financial benefits by 2050?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the analysis provided by Nalcor shows that out of the Muskrat Falls Project, revenue stream will come in that will cover their operating costs, it will cover their financial costs which is guaranteed by the Government of Canada at very low rates, and then they will pay a dividend to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador of in excess of $20 billion, starting in 2017 for the life of the project. If we were to include estimates of sales of surplus power into the American markets, it would be over $24 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, government has promised that thousands of jobs will be developed with the construction of the Muskrat Falls Project and its subsidiaries. Many of these jobs will be in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area. We have heard that work camps will be built, but not everybody will be living in these work camps.

Mr. Speaker, with the current very real housing crisis in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and with escalating housing prices and rent prices and zero per cent vacancy rates, I ask the minister: What is his government going to do to concretely address this rapidly worsening housing crisis?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government is very much aware of the housing crisis, not just in Labrador, Central Labrador, Western Labrador but the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will stick to the Labrador issues to answer the question from the member opposite.

We just announced a few months ago a $1.3 million project happening in Western Labrador for low-income housing: twelve units. We have a new subdivision opening in Labrador West. Part of the subdivision, part of the permit agreement, was that there would be affordable housing within that subdivision: thirty-six units, Mr. Speaker. That is happening in Central Labrador also.

We have an announcement coming up, and I do not want to spill the beans for an announcement in Central Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Borrowing the down payment for a mortgage is never a sound financial decision. A responsible financial advisor would recommend to anyone buying a home: if they do not have the down payment, they should wait.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member to get to her question quickly.

MS MICHAEL: The Minister of Finance says he is going to borrow its down payment for Muskrat Falls and I want to know how he could consider that as sound fiscal management, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance for a quick response.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the proponents of Muskrat Falls will borrow the debt. The Province will make an equity contribution. We will finance our contribution out of cash flow or out of debt, depending on the financial circumstances at the time of (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 24, 2012.

Further, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, December 24, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, under notices of motion?

MR. OSBORNE: Under notices of motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Under notices of motion?

MR. OSBORNE: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I read a notice of motion for a private member's resolution:

WHEREAS other provinces make use of standing and special committees in their Legislatures, which meet regularly; and

WHEREAS the House of Commons uses standing and special committees, which meet regularly; and

WHEREAS the use of standing and special committees would provide greater oversight on proposed legislation; and

WHEREAS standing and special committee meetings in other jurisdictions are open to the public and are televised, promoting greater accountability; and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: WHEREAS standing and special committees in other jurisdictions have the ability to call witnesses; and

WHEREAS standing and special committees in other Canadian jurisdictions allow public hearings; and

WHEREAS standing and special committees in other jurisdictions have the ability to probe into issues of importance to the general public;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House endorse the use of all-party standing and select committees in the Legislature of Newfoundland.

This is seconded by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi and the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, Motion 4, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, December 20, 2012.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday, December 20, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing Order 11 the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 20, 2012, and further pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Thursday, December 20, 2012.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. KING: I ask for your direction on a point of order. It is my understanding the private member's motion just introduced a few moments ago was seconded by a member not currently present in the House. I ask for your ruling on that.

MR. SPEAKER: I cannot recall what the records indicated. The motion was made. I will have to check with the Table to determine who seconded the motion and I will make a comment later after I had a chance to do that with respect to the motion that is on the Table.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ‘thirder'.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South rising on the point of order.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a seconder and a ‘thirder'. The private member's resolution was seconded by the Member for –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: The private member's resolution is seconded by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. You are speaking to the point of order. The notice of motion portion of the agenda has been dealt with and concluded. We are now responding to a point of order raised by the Government House Leader. If you are speaking to the point of order, I acknowledge your comment. With respect to the notice of motion, that part of the agenda is now concluded.

I will check with the records to determine whether the mover or seconder was present in the House at the time and make a comment to the House later this afternoon.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that the House resolve itself in to a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 60, An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project, as well as Bill 61, Order 3, Committee of the Whole, An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, The Energy Corporation Act and The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 60 and Bill 61.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker, left the Chair.

CHAIR (Cross): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have referred two bills to the committee for discussion. It is Bill 61 that we would call first, if that is in order.

CHAIR: Okay. I call Bill 61.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to continue where I left off before lunch, where we were discussing the various reports that have been done. Myself and the Member for St. John's East had a very good discussion on natural gas. I do not think we are probably any further ahead towards agreeing, but I will put our experts up against his.

Mr. Chair, I am going to talk a little bit now about a couple of things. I talked about the sensitivity analysis earlier today, and when I had discussed about our meetings with PIRA, and I had discussed our meetings with Wood Mackenzie in London where we talked about the price of oil. I want to come back to how and why Nalcor were right in their excluding at Decision Gate 2 all of the other alternatives except for Isolated Island and Muskrat Falls.

Earlier today I outlined the CPW, or Cumulative Present Worth chart. I talked about Muskrat Falls being at $8.4 billion, Mr. Chair, Isolated Island at $10.8 billion, Liquefied Natural Gas being anywhere from $10.7 billion to $11.2 billion. We then moved up into the standalone facilities, which ranged from – the pipeline – $12 billion to $15 billion, and then we got as high as wind at $17 billion. I am going to come back to that report shortly.

When I talked about the price of oil we had some discussion as to the difference in the prediction of short-term pricing versus long-term pricing, with short-term being notoriously volatile, having regard to what can occur in the Middle East on any given day, Mr. Chair. There does not appear to be any real rhyme or reason as to why it would go up $1 versus $2 over a period of time. However, in the long term the fundamental principles of supply and demand still apply.

I want to look at the CPW Sensitivity Analysis that was performed by Manitoba Hydro which is at page 72 of the Manitoba Hydro International report. When you look at the report, Mr. Chair, I said I would come back. I told the Member for St. John's East I would come back and we would talk about the prices of oil and we would look at how it worked into the Sensitivity Analysis.

We start out, Mr. Chair, with the Interconnected Isolated Island with the base case being $104 for a barrel of oil at 8.366 or 8.44 getting up to the Isolated Island at 10.778. That leads to Muskrat Falls being $2.4 billion cheaper in terms of a CPW analysis. We now have three prices of fuel that we are looking at. We have the PIRA fuel price expected, which is $112. That could be a little bit high based on today's – or the last analysis I saw, Mr. Chair, it was around $109 I think they were predicting for the year. For our purposes, it is illustrative of the principle that is applied and employed.

If you use $112 or the expected PIRA, we are still at our $8.4 billion for the Interconnected but Isolated Island, now there is a $3 billion difference. This is where though, Mr. Chair, we get to a crucial one and this is the one that I think becomes very important from our perspective in analyzing Muskrat Falls, and that is PIRA low. They are trying to come up with all of the scenarios.

The PIRA low price that was used in the MHI Sensitivity Analysis, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chair, was around $61. That is why I have talked somewhat extensively in my last meetings with PIRA and in Wood Mackenzie on the possibility of oil going to $70 a barrel.

We have talked about the shale oil developments in the Bakken fields in North Dakota and how it is having a significant impact on the ability of the Americans to become self-sufficient. We have talked, Mr. Chair, about China and growth in China. How that 5 per cent growth could lead them to the point where – and they are currently at approximately 7.5 per cent, 8 per cent – in 2030 they will be using as much oil as the Americans. Those 90 million barrels a day, which is currently used, Mr. Chair, is expected to go to 105 million to 110 million barrels. The risk for us in terms of Muskrat Falls and the CPW analysis is taken into account when you get to PIRA low.

We know, Mr. Chair, the development of the shale oil field in the Bakken are currently $50 to $65 to $70. That is a good indication that we do not expect prices to go below that because if they do – and I am going to come back later today and talk about the Harvard report that was referred to by the Member for St. John's East. If they go below that, people will stop developing.

Oil companies are in it to make money, like private companies who have shareholders, who have boards who are deciding where to spend the money. We know that the oil sands can – and this is one of the issues with the developments in North Dakota and the effect on the oil sands is the $85 per barrel which it is costing to develop at the oil sands.

The PIRA low is $61. I think that the Member for St. John's East will probably agree with me that it is a pretty conservative figure. The chances of going to $60 are not that great, based on what the analysts tell us today. In the sensitivity analysis, when you use that $61 a barrel of oil, then there is still a half billion-dollar CPW preference for Muskrat Falls. Now, that is purely economic. That is not taking into account all of the other economic benefits, Mr. Chair, that come with Muskrat Falls. That is not taking into account the very significant environmental advantage of closing Holyrood, Mr. Chair.

Now the members opposite today talked about: Well, with Muskrat Falls there will be overruns; it is going to go up. I think that same principle will apply to any major project today. Whether you refurbish Holyrood, whether you build natural gas, whether you use wind, you are still going to run into overruns. The question is: How do you minimize the overruns? Can you eliminate them? I cannot say that at present, Mr. Chair, but what you try to do is to identify, assess, while not eliminating, minimize. Now, $60 a barrel puts us at a half billion-dollar CPW preference.

Let's increase the capital expenditure by 10 per cent. We still have a $2.1 billion preference. Increase the capex by 25 per cent; we have a $1.7 billion CPW preference. Increase our interest rate by fifty base points or a half per cent; we have a $2.25 billion preference. Increase it by 1 per cent, $2.09 billion preference. Decrease it by twenty-five base points; we have a $2.486 billion preference.

Now – and this is the kicker because even though it is put in the sensitivity analysis and it is not in the base case, but if you look at carbon pricing – which I think it is fairly safe to say at some point in this country we are going to see it. I talked about it today in my meetings in Europe, in London – again, I am trying to do this by memory but I think it was seven Euros per ton that it was currently at and they figured that it had to be at thirty-five Euros per ton. Their Euro, Mr. Chair, it could be around $1.40 to $1.70. I think it fluctuates. It could be lower. It could be $1.20 now. These are significant numbers per ton.

So, even with carbon pricing, you put in some carbon pricing, we have a $2.99 billion or $3 billion preference. The purpose of the sensitivity analysis, Mr. Chair, is to show people that MHI did not simply take this one figure and say: Look at this; Muskrat Falls wins. What they did is they engaged in different scenarios that could evolve. Have they envisaged all of the scenarios that could evolve, Mr. Chair? No, that would be very difficult, but the same principles on overruns have to apply to all projects. The same principles on interest rates will apply to all projects. So, it is not enough to say that Muskrat Falls will have an overrun but the other projects will remain static. That is not the way the world works.

What we are seeing is a situation where, with Muskrat Falls, the element of stability comes from the fact that once you build a project, your capital expenditure up front, you have your project, you know where it is going. The difficulty with Isolated Island is that volatility will be continuously tied to the volatility of fossil fuels. Mr. Chair, we do not know – we have had experts who have predicted $200 oil for a number of years. We have had experts who have been talking for years about peak oil. Well, Sir, we are not at peak oil any more with the shale oil plays in the United States right now, producing up to – I think Dr. Schwartz indicated it could up to 5 million or 6 million barrels a day by 2020.

So what we have is a situation where Manitoba Hydro, in an attempt to look at various scenarios and outline for a discussion how these scenarios would affect Muskrat Falls versus Isolated Island. At the end of the day, the closest you can get to Holyrood and Muskrat Falls is a half billion dollars. Now, you take into account all of the other economic and environmental benefits, Mr. Chair, and Muskrat Falls clearly becomes the preferred project.

Now, in my last twenty seconds, being co-operative today, like I am trying to be, the Member for St. John's North asked me a question on the cost of energy in Norway. I have it here somewhere, but I think the answer was around six or seven cents in urban, thirteen cents in rural, 2.9 cents industrial, but I will check that and get it in my next time round.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again I stand in this House today after our little dinner break so they can probably get Christmas dinner ready here for the House. If you want to talk about pressure, I can see how a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador feel trying to rush everything through on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. That is fine. That is the government's prerogative. In the Christmas spirit, they want to make sure they give them a good Boxing sale. That is all it is. It is like a sale, Mr. Chair. We do not know what it is going to be. We do not know what is going to happen. We do not know what, but we will just go up and say there is a sale. That is what this sounds like.

Mr. Chair, I spoke about this a couple of times already. The people who I represent are asking me on a regular basis. It is almost like the hospital in Corner Brook. I will keep asking, asking, and asking until I get the answer, Mr. Chair. I have been asking six years now about the hospital in Corner Brook and I still have not gotten any answers. So I will ask again on this question I have asked three or four times in this debate.

We heard today the minister again stand up, that over fifty years there is going to be in excess of $20 billion, and with US sales it is possibly up to $24 billion. I just want to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – it is my fourth time or fifth time, and I am not sure which, that I have asked. If you know how much profit we are going to make by 2017, let us have the charts. Let us have the flow sheet. Let us produce it.

I find it strange, Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance could stand up in this House, haul this figure out of the air, and say: here is what we are going to make in 2017, and we are going to make X number, hundreds of millions, or millions of dollars, or whatever. It might change every day. Yet when we as the Opposition are asking questions for the people we represent and say show us on paper, show us each year what the expenses and income are, they cannot do it. They cannot or will not. I am not sure which. I do not think they can, Mr. Chair. I definitely do not think they can.

As I said earlier today, Mr. Chair, I have asked the government. I am sure there are a lot of people watching now because of Question Period. I asked the government – when they sanctioned this project or before they sanctioned this project, they got Nalcor to put up this clock, a rate calculator, on their Web site. The rate calculator says: okay, punch in your rate now, and in 2017 here is what it is going to be, and in 2020 here is what it is going to be. A lot of people said: by God, that is not too bad. That looks pretty good.

I asked the government today and I will ask again so everybody in the audience here today who is listening can know I asked: if the government is ordering Nalcor – which the government is the boss, they say – that this rate calculator for all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador is set, here is what you are going to get, given the expectations of people so they can plan. We hear this government say on many occasions that we need to make plans, so people can plan their budgets down the road, how big of a house am I going to need: shall I downsize? Is it okay if I get a larger house?

I ask the government, I ask all members opposite to legislate the rates on that rate calculator today. Legislate the rates. They just cannot do it, Mr. Chair. They cannot legislate those rates. You know why? They do not know what the rates are going to be. They just do not know. It is impossible to know what the rates are going to be.

Under this federal loan guarantee they need a guaranteed source of income. The only source of income admitted by this government will be the ratepayers of this Province who are paying 100 per cent for the total project but yet only receiving 40 per cent of the benefit.

Now, what do you think of that, Mr. Chair? If you were buying a house and you were paying for the full house but you could only use 40 per cent of it – you could only use 40 per cent of it.

Instead of, Mr. Chair, if any of us here – and I am sure there are some people here who do have some rental units – instead of saying: okay, I will buy the house. I am only going to use 40 per cent. The other 60 per cent that I can rent out is going towards my mortgage that I am paying 100 per cent for; isn't that reasonable? Isn't that just reasonable? Isn't that logical for people to say, well, if we are paying 100 per cent, 60 per cent is being sold or even 40 per cent is being sold, shouldn't that be put back towards the people who are paying for the whole project? Absolutely, but yet this government refuses to do it.

This government refuses to pass on an income revenue statement, Mr. Chair, to show what the income will be, the revenues will be, the profits will be in 2017, 2018, 2019, but yet they can stand up with a piece of paper, wave it around to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and say: we are going to make hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of this project and we are going to have $20 billion –but yet they cannot produce anything to show it.

Mr. Chair, the Minister of IBRD is sitting there, and I just say to the minister: How many businesses would you approve if someone came in to you and you said, well, give us your business plan, and in the business plan there is no guaranteed revenue coming in, you cannot produce it? How many businesses would be approved in the department? I assume none. I would assume that he would say no, you cannot show any revenue coming in, you cannot show any profits, why are we going to put our money into it? That is what is happening to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yet, they could stand up and say, here is what we are going to be making.

The other big thing about this, Mr. Chair, even though – and I will ask again before the day is out. I can assure you, I will ask again before the day is out. Show me the income statement where you are going to have this amount of profit, because in that income statement it will show me what you are going to charge the ratepayers in the Province. It cannot be done.

If you are saying: Well, if we do not do it, it is going to be much higher. Okay, if you are saying it. Just say, for example, it is true, show us what you are going to charge. Tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what they are going to have to pay on their monthly bill. If it is 10.2 now, 11.2 now, show us what it is going to be in 2017, if you know in 2017 here is the profit we are going to make. In order for us to make this amount of profit, here is what we have to charge you. Show it. You cannot do it. That is why I have so many questions about this deal. That is why I have so many questions about how much information is being put out.

We could take all the reports we want, we could take all the expert analysis we want, throw it on the table and let everybody look at it. Everybody could pick all of those to pieces. Some could take some good points; some could take some bad points. We could get an expert to agree on some parts, get an expert to say it does not work, but what concerns the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is: What am I going to pay on my monthly statement? We cannot get an answer. We cannot get an answer from this government; yet, they can stand up and say we are going to have billions of dollars. We are going to make billions of dollars on this, the first year, as soon as we flick the switch.

I ask anybody opposite: Does anybody know a business here that in the first year could turn such a profit? Maybe we can in Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you know the only reason why we cannot? – if we do, which I doubt. Do you know the only reason why? Because every individual in Newfoundland and Labrador are the ones who are going to pay for it.

When the government here stands up and says we are going to make $20 billion over fifty years, I want every Newfoundlander and Labradorian to know that you are making that profit for the government because you are being charged 100 per cent for 40 per cent of this project. There is absolutely no dispute about that, absolutely no dispute.

When the government stands up and touts: oh, we are going to make all of this money, we are going to make $20 billion over fifty years, just remember, it is us paying for this. People in Newfoundland and Labrador are paying for this. The seniors of this Province are paying for this. The middle-income people are paying for this. The people on fixed incomes are paying for this. The low-earning people are paying for this.

Mr. Chair, once more I plead with the government, if there are any profits to be made – as the minister said here today, if we get profits from the US sales it is going to be upped that much more for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If there are any profits to be made, I ask the Minister of Finance, will you put it back on the ratepayers of this Province who are paying for the whole project, 40 per cent, so their rates could be down – so their bottom line when it is done, Mr. Chair, will be down to a level, to a point whereby they can stay in their own homes?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have had the opportunity to speak about natural gas in some detail. We have talked about the other projects and the Cumulative Present Worth. I have had the opportunity to speak about the Sensitivity Analysis and how comparisons are done by the company MHI, Manitoba Hydro International, in terms of comparing projects. What we have set out to establish, or what we set out to find out and which has been established is that Muskrat Falls has a $2.4 billion CPW preferential.

After the PUB failed to offer any assistance to us in March 31, 2011, what we decided to do was let's go out now and get these reports. I have gone through the Ziff reports in great detail on natural gas. I have talked about Wood Mackenzie on natural gas. I have talked about the meetings that we have had with various experts in terms of the pricing of natural gas, the supply of natural gas and the pricing of oil. I have talked about meetings in relation to wind.

Now I want to talk about the actual report prepared by MHI on wind. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province know that this is a situation that we were asked to do something, we took it serious, even though we expected – I expected in any event, just from a logical analytical perspective that it would support what Nalcor had already done, that we went out and got a wind report. What I did not expect though and what I have to say is I did not expect the difference in CPW that we found.

When we look at wind with thermal – I am going to explain that in a second now, Mr. Chair, but wind with thermal is $3.5 billion higher CPW than Muskrat Falls. When you get with wind with battery it is $9 billion more expensive. Really, you cannot even get there because what – and one of the reasons I referred to the meeting earlier today with professor Bernard Bulkin, the director of climate change in England or in the United Kingdom, was to show how the interconnections with Ireland and Scotland, the interconnections with France, allowed them to use more wind.

I did not have the opportunity to talk about the situation in Germany that they found themselves in according to Professor Bulkin, where they put all of their wind together and when the wind did not blow they had significant issues.

No question that we have very valuable and significant wind resources in this Province, ones that we will develop when the time is right, but the principle by which Nalcor operated at Decision Gate 2 was that there could be 10 per cent integration of wind into the system. That is in an isolated system; when you actually get to the interconnected system it improves the situation.

Let me just use this example. Again, this has been an amazing learning experience for me, Mr. Chair, and that is one of the reasons that we have relied so much and I have relied so much on other experts; it is in this perspective. Our agreement with Emera: we will provide them with 170 megawatts of energy or one terawatt. Mr. Martin prefers to talk about terawatts; I talk about megawatts because it is more easily understood by myself.

So, we are going to provide them with 170 megawatts. This is what the link allows us to do. The link allows us to develop more wind. In the actual report here, MHI, more wind has been put into the system, I think up to about 270 megawatts, maybe – I am not sure, but a significant amount of wind. That 170 megawatts does not have to come from Muskrat Falls. We can develop wind and small hydro on the Island and send that across the link if the energy is needed in Labrador. Even though, at this point, out of the 824 megawatts, 40 per cent would be available for industrial development or mining development in Labrador, we can still develop more.

We have Island Pond, Round Pond, and Portland Creek, which again, if I remember correctly, is around seventy-seven megawatts of energy. You take that seventy-five megawatts – we have two twenty-five megawatt wind farms at present – and start to develop more wind so we can supply that across the link.

The 10 per cent integration appears to be the accepted rule – I do not know if it is a rule or a standard; standard is probably a better word – but with the interconnection, it allows us to develop that wind and small hydro and to send that across if it is needed or to use it in the Province, because power goes both ways.

As I indicated earlier today, the day when I became convinced – and this was the stage upon which I went through Muskrat Falls; I became convinced of the importance and even the necessity of the Maritime Link is when I sat with Professor Bulkin in his office in London and he talked about the necessity of interconnection. It was the interconnection with Ireland and with France that allowed for the greater use of wind. They were developing their wind in the North and developing their wind in the South. I use the example of walking along Norfolk Coast and seeing these huge wind farms in the offshore.

MHI were asked to do a report. The NDP primarily had raised the issue that we had ignored what I will refer to as large wind projects. Even though we know you cannot get there, we went ahead anyway. They went ahead. Mr. Chair, all we asked them to do was to do a due diligence review of the studies provided by Nalcor to determine if the study goals had been met, and then to utilize the info provided by Nalcor.

A Hatch study had been done to determine whether or not "In an isolated island scenario, can sufficient wind be developed to replace…" Holyrood Thermal Generating Station to meet future demand. "Is this a technically feasible and economic alternative…"? That is a pretty clear question. There was no attempt to rig terms of reference. Go ahead and do it. Tell us what you can find.

What they did is they went out and they found the reports were technically sound. MHI does not recommend that wind options on the 10 per cent penetration level, as recommended by 2012 Hatch study, be provided at this time. Now, Nalcor has said that, but when our own experts say it, that is not good enough. It is not good enough for the Opposition. It is not good enough for some of the critics.

Nalcor, for some reason, because they live in this Province and because they are our own, cannot have the expertise required. We have to look to the guys in Ontario or whatever they are talking about over there earlier today. We have to look to them for guidance and advice.

Nalcor said 10 per cent. Hatch said 10 per cent. MHI confirmed 10 per cent. They go on to conclude at the end of it all – they talk about lithium-ion batteries. There are pictures in the report and there is thermal. Essentially, wind as a replacement for Holyrood is still using Holyrood. They acknowledge that wind potential in Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the best in the country. In order to replace Holyrood, 1,100 megawatts of wind would be required.

They talk about two wind farms: a 500-megawatt wind farm in the Avalon and a 600-megawatt wind farm in the Western region. They say: "Wind farms have a typical useful life of 20 years…" That is on page 21 of the report. They get into a discussion of synchronous condensers, wind integration costs, and wind turbine technology. They talk about capacity credits.

Ireland, currently, apparently – page 27 – has 2,066 megawatts, a capacity credit of 18 per cent. The capacity credit that is allocated to the wind power in Newfoundland is zero. Now, I am not quite certain what all that means, but what it does mean is that when you look at the end of the day, at a 10 per cent penetration level, it cannot work. It cannot work for a number of reasons.

One, the cost of the CPW with wind and thermal would be $3.5 billion more expensive CPW than Muskrat Falls; wind and battery would be $9 billion more expensive than Muskrat Falls. They say, in conclusion, at page 44 – that is their conclusion, not mine. MHI finds that large-scale wind development, as a replacement for Holyrood, is not a least-cost option and does not represent good utility practice at this time.

So now, Nalcor told us back at Decision Gate 2, what was going to happen. No, that was not good enough for people, so they hired Hatch to do a report. Hatch said the same thing. We said: No, we want to be independent of Nalcor. We do not want to be seen as simply accepting their report, so we had MHI do a wind report. What comes out of it at the end of the day that keeps coming out of all of the reports that we have here, is that Muskrat Falls is the least-cost alternative.

On the economic modeling that has been done, Muskrat Falls is the best way to go. From an environmental perspective, Muskrat Falls is the best way to go. Will we develop our natural gas at some point when the oil companies determine that they want to, in conjunction with us? Will we develop the wind? Yes, as we can. Right now, Muskrat Falls is the best project for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 61, the Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, the Energy Corporation Act, and the Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, also known as the monopoly bill.

I say that it is the monopoly bill because it is locking in the ratepayers of the Province to pay for the project of Muskrat Falls. Because the people of the Province have to pay for this cost and only require 40 per cent of the power, I am hoping that the Minister of Finance will come up and explain a few things about the actual financing and the revenues and expenses and profit regime.

The simple thing is to get profit, you need to have revenue, revenue minus your expenses, if your expenses are less, then you have a profit. Based on what was supplied to the joint panel review, it said that the net financial benefit to the Province would be $1.1 billion by 2050. So, Mr. Chair, those numbers may have changed because of costs. The costs have gone up in the Province. It has gone up to $1.2 billion with the DG3 numbers. We are not even looking at cost overruns. Reflective of that, if you are going to still generate profit from the project, you are going to have to raise your rates or lower your expenses somehow in order to do that.

I would ask the question today, based on the news release that came out it talked about that this project, Muskrat Falls, will generate estimated revenue in excess of $20 billion over fifty years once it comes on stream. That is the revenue stream that was needed to basically either break even because we need to have that captured market to pay for it. That is only for the 40 per cent of the power.

If you are looking at that, that seems like a lot of revenue needed to pay for this project. Then when the Minister of Finance stated that if we include the export market, which can be 60 per cent of the power because the rest of it, 40 per cent is earmarked for the Island, 60 per cent then would be export, is only going to generate $4 billion in revenue. You are going to get $20 billion in revenue from the ratepayers of the Province, 40 per cent, that much revenue from them.

It is basically the export market for more than half the power is only going to generate $4 billion in revenues. That is almost giving away power at exorbitantly low cost or looking at the expenditures of getting to the export market for transmission, for tariffs, for all of these things to look at.

We as legislators here have not seen – and as the Member for the Bay of Islands had talked about – what the rates are going to be, what the revenues are going to be on a year-by-year basis, what the expenses are going to be so that we can see where profits are and where these numbers come into play, so that we can say well, fifteen cents is going to be the rate, twenty cents is going to be the rate, twenty-five cents per kilowatt hour is going to be the rate depending on what cost overruns are going to be. This has not been provided. It has not been proven to us and shown that we are going to have stable, consistent rates.

The rate calculator that is put on the Web site, that is hosted, is not something that is providing any details of that and explaining. The Minister of Finance needs to get up and explain why 60 per cent of the power earmarked for export would only generate $4 billion in revenues when the ratepayer here would be on the hook for $20 billion of revenue. Clearly, it reminds me of looking at what this bill is saying that you have to buy from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, you have no choice. The rates can be whatever it needs to be because we need to finance the project through the non-recourse debt. We have to have that captured market. It is like that commercial where the banks have their hands in your pocket, hands in your pocket. They have that. This is where Nalcor, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, is going to have a constant hand in your pocket, in your wallet, being able to take money out to pay for your power bill at any rate.

It does not seem very fair to me that on the export market we get $4 billion in revenue and $20 billion in revenue from the people of the Province for a smaller portion of the power. That is absurd. I would like to see the breakdown of the financial analysis; if the Minister of Finance would be so grateful to table that for the whole House to see, that would be something that would be greatly appreciated.

I want to go back and say, you know, the Minister of Natural Resources has said many times: wind is not an option; we cannot get enough wind into the grid. We have to displace Holyrood. We are looking out for the Island option of the Province, which 40 per cent is 330 megawatts, not the complete capacity of Holyrood Generating Station because most of it is not used. The capacity is not used there most of the time. Only during peak demands will they fire that up.

We can do something that is more environmentally friendly and that is convert it to pellets, to wood pellets; only need 750,000 tons. The Minister of Natural Resources and the Department of IBRD have been investing in pellets in the Province and they have a capacity to do 77,000 tons here in the Province. Quebec in its energy plan has almost 600,000 tons of pellets that are currently available to generate.

There is a real opportunity here to say we do not need to develop all this transmission line and cables at exorbitant cost to the ratepayer when we can focus on energy development for Muskrat Falls strictly on Labrador, looking at the industrial consumer, developing 100 per cent of that power for industrialization, and looking at getting maximum benefits there for Labrador.

We can do other things in the Province to displace Holyrood in an environmental, economical way that can really meet our energy needs on the Island portion of the Province. Then, with Muskrat Falls, you have to put in $3 billion in transmission across there; you have the Maritime Link with so much uncertainty, with cost overruns. You could have to end up charging the ratepayer a significant amount of money to do it. It is about doing it in steps, doing it in stages, doing it the way that it needs to done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: To go forward with this project just to save a billion dollars to get Stephen Harper's loan guarantee is not the right move, because you do not need to build all this transmission link, to expropriate people's homes, family homes –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – to expropriate private land, to do destruction to the environment in that form all across 1,100 kilometres.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: That is $3 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Chair, this loan guarantee is going to end up costing more money than it is going to save. If you looked at a real strategy to meet the Island needs and meet the needs for Labrador using the project and doing it in the right way, this is something that is not being considered. It was not considered in the studies, looking at biomass, looking at the pellets. It is something that our industry in the Province can be expanded, can create jobs. It is environmentally friendly, carbon neutral. Government will not say that it cannot be done. They will not say that – 750,000 tons per year, it can be done. We can export that. We can exports pellets. They are doing it all over Europe and they are doing it in other areas.

Why would we move forward with a project that right now says that the net financial benefit would be $1.1 billion by 2050 and the revenues that are there have to be sustained by the ratepayer to pay for the projects? If cost overruns go up, in order to get more revenue you have to increase. Revenue minus expenses gets your profits. If you are saying right now that the project with interest and expenses up to 2050 is going to be about $19 billion that is quite a high price tag for the project.

I ask the Minister of Finance to table the information, to explain it very thoroughly so that I have a better understanding of what is being put out there. What he is explaining right now is that the rates for the export market are basically going to be a giveaway because the revenues there are only going to be $4 billion and the revenues here for the Province are going to be $20 billion. That is not looking at any of the expenses, any of the costs. You have not explained what the interest rate for the loan is going to be, any of those types of things. That needs to be answered, Mr. Chair. It really does.

I will take my seat and give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to explain.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, there was a question raised by the Member for St. John's North earlier today. In the spirit of co-operation I went and found the answer for him about Iceland that was not on my chart.

Domestic rate in Iceland is approximately nine cents per kilowatt hour in urban areas and thirteen cents in rural areas. It would put them at the lower end of the chart that we talked about, with Mexico and the United States – in fact, between Mexico and the United States.

The average industrial rate – and this is very interesting; I am glad he asked this question – is 2.9 cents a kilowatt hour. That is $29 a megawatt hour they are selling energy for in Iceland. Do you know where it is going? Large aluminium smelters. That establishes the point that we have been making here. If you want to attract business, then you have to have attractive rates and the attractive rates have to be those that are competitive. We are not competing with Iceland, but I am assuming – and maybe the Member for St. John's North, when he gets up and speaks – that Iceland probably has good hydro. I do not know that, but I am guessing that they probably have good hydro.

I woke up this morning to a Tweet from the Member for St. John's Centre, where she was talking about the demand for power. My BlackBerry buzzed; I opened it up and here it was. Basically, what the Member for St. John's Centre said – I am paraphrasing now – we agree that there is a need for power but we do not agree with JK's interpretation of whatever that may be. I am assuming JK would be me. I will proceed on that assumption, if I may, for now, Mr. Chair. I have only got eight minutes.

I am going to come back again, as I will keep coming back for as long as we are here to that most basic question that they continuously avoid on the other side: Do we need the power? The answer is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

Now, once we need the power, we have to do something. So, what do we have to do?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Develop Muskrat Falls.

MR. KENNEDY: Develop Muskrat Falls. When do we need the power?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now

MR. KENNEDY: Now. What we have is a situation where we need power.

Again, if I could find my Mark Dobbin letter – oh, there it is. Mr. Dobbin states – and it just makes so much sense. He talks about the Holyrood plant. He talks about us having to get over our fear. "I have seen a number of commentators question the projections of future power consumption. I won't delve into detail but I will say that one only need to look around to see the evidence. More houses, bigger houses, almost all heated by electric heat. Hundreds of thousands of square feet of new office space, multiple new hotels; and that is just St. John's."

Now, you take into account everything that is happening in Labrador, you take into account what we are seeing as we expand and diversify this economy throughout the Province, the answer is so simple, the answer is yes. We are either going to cease this opportunity and we are going to proceed and we are going to provide the power that people need to continue to prosper in this economy and in this Province, or we are going to shut it all down.

To me, when you shut it down, what happens? We can wait until tomorrow, yes, okay. So, you are going to do what tomorrow? Is the problem going to go away? No. Can the problem become a solution? By that, I mean simply by developing Muskrat Falls, we allow for greater opportunity in our Province.

Maybe the members for St. John's from the NDP should – as I drive to work every day I look around, the buildings that are going up, sometimes I just lose track of them; you do not even notice them any more there is so much happening. Once that transmission line starts coming down across rural Newfoundland, down through and across, you are going to see a lot more development. Happy Valley-Goose Bay is certainly going to benefit, Labrador West is going to boom, but it cannot boom without power.

Let's talk about Holyrood for a second. So, we develop Holyrood. Say we accept it; yes, we can do Holyrood. Say we accept it; yes, we will do natural gas. What does that do for Labrador West? What does that do for Grand River Ironsands? What does that do for Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nothing.

MR. KENNEDY: Nothing. So not only is Muskrat Falls $2.4 billion cheaper, but it provides power for industry development.

To me, I just do not get the argument –

MR. MARSHALL: That is 80 per cent of the power.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, that is right; 80 per cent of the power, with 20 per cent going to Nova Scotia – 100 per cent.

Again I am going to repeat this, and I will keep repeating this until the cows come home. When you look at why we need power: electricity demand is linked to strong economic growth. I say to the people of this Province look around you. GDP has doubled; I have indicated that in a resource-based economy GDP is not necessarily a good indicator of economic growth because you can have your ups and downs. Personal disposal income is up by 56 per cent since 2002; 28,800 new homes built. Since 2006 we have average 3,000 new homes, with 3,600 new homes built in 2010; 85 per cent with electric heat.

We have, even though the population has declined, 18,600 new residential customers. We have Labrador ready to boom. Now we can –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. KENNEDY: It is in the report, Electricity Demand Forecast. Read it, right there. It is all in there.

Since 2002, Island residential demand is up 16 per cent. Commercial demand is up 10 per cent. I am not making this up. The Department of Finance officials who are very good at this are providing the information to us, and the Canada Housing Corporation. We have all of this happening and then we have the provincial load forecast that is done by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Manitoba Hydro International spends a chapter on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's load forecasting. What threw them off was the closure of the mills. The closure of the mills resulted in 182 megawatts of energy going into the system. By 2011, 40 per cent of that energy or 76 per cent had been utilized. Vale Inco will come on stream using eighty-five to ninety megawatts. By 2014, all of the mill energy will be used.

I say to the Member for The Straits – White Bay North, what will happen then is that even though Holyrood is only used at 15 per cent to 25 per cent of the time at present, as we need more energy Holyrood will have to be used more. As Holyrood is used more, we will burn more oil. As we burn more oil it will cost more money, up to 18,000 barrels per day at peak. These are not numbers that I am making up.

Let's look at our peak demand, which in 2012 peak demand being the coldest day of the winter. This is at page 6 of that report by the way. At the coldest day of winter, we have to be able to provide heat to the people and electricity to the people of our Province. In 2012, that peak is 1,581 megawatts. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro predicts by 2020 that peak will be 1,766 megawatts or almost an extra 200 megawatts of energy.

Are we going to get that from conservation demand? No. Can we use conservation demand to improve our energy efficiency? Certainly. Are Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or Nalcor and Newfoundland Power currently doing that? Yes they are. Can we get better at it? Yes we can. Do we want to? Yes we do. My head started to spin on that one myself.

In any event, by 2030 now we are going to need 1,942 megawatts at peak. I do not understand how we move away from that most basic question, do we need the power? If everyone over there were to agree we need the power, then it is obvious Muskrat Falls is the deal, and then we go home. That is how simple it is. That is all you have to accept.

Let's look at why and how Muskrat Falls should be done. It is the best deal for the Province. We need the power and we have to do something. We cannot wait. It takes four or five years to build any of these megaprojects, we all know that. The issues raised by the Member for St. John's North on workers, a valid issue. Aren't we in a good place in this Province where we have too many high-paying jobs and our concern is: Are we going to have enough workers? Isn't that a good position to be in?

I say to our people who are going to work in Labrador, come home, the jobs are there. We have Hebron starting with 3,000 jobs; we have Muskrat Falls with 3,500 jobs that will allow for four or five years of steady high-paying work. We have a deal with the unions, I say to the members of the NDP, agreeing that they want this project and they support the project. Muskrat Falls is the best way to go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly want to rise and participate in the debate here today. It is a very interesting debate, Mr. Chair. I have been listening attentively to my colleagues in the House of Assembly, the members from the Third Party, and members on the government side, predominantly the Minister of Natural Resources, talk about energy alternatives. I think it is a very healthy discussion, Mr. Chair. I think it is very informative to anyone who is listening, of the options and the potential that is out there even today.

Not even making a guess right now, Mr. Chair, or making an argument about what is the best cost alternative, we find ourselves in a position in this Province that is the envy of many in the country, because we have energy alternatives. We have options, which a lot of provinces do not have, Mr. Chair.

Many provinces do not have today, the options of going out and hiring any kind of expertise to look at major hydro development projects, or to look at liquefied natural gas, Mr. Chair. Two of the projects that keep bantering back and forth in this Province between people who think we should be going in one direction or another. There are so many out there that do not have those particular options even available to them.

Mr. Chair, I heard the discussion around wind power. I know, Mr. Chair, there have been a number of interests in this Province around wind power. I only have to go back to a few years ago, about eight years ago, when there was a company by the name of Ventus Energy that wanted to develop a major project on the Churchill River in wind power. They wanted to put in wind turbines to capture the wind on the river, to generate it and to feed it into the grid. They were going to do so in partnership with, at that time, the Labrador Metis Nation, whom today is known as the NunatuKavut Community Council, Mr. Chair.

Anyway, at the time, government was not receptive to it, hydro was not receptive to it. They were going to go in on the river and do their own wind studies before they would look at engaging in any discussions with any private companies or anything else, although these companies had done their own studies on the Churchill River. They had collected the data, and they were interested in making a major investment. At that time, Mr. Chair, the investment itself was well over $2 billion just in the wind farm on the river.

They were a company that also was doing work in other parts of Canada. They did a tremendous amount of work in the other Maritime Provinces, primarily in Prince Edward Island. They also did a lot of work in the UK. They did a tremendous amount of work in Belgium in particular, Mr. Chair. They were one of the leaders.

No doubt, Mr. Chair, they were into this to make money, too. They were capitalizing on the federal government's new program about saving carbons and getting carbon credits. There were financial investments for them towards these particular projects. There was a lot of interest around that.

Then, of course, Mr. Chair, we cannot forget the other company, a wind power company here in Newfoundland and Labrador, a company that wanted to put a 600-megawatt wind farm on the Avalon Peninsula. It was a company called Clean Energy Solutions, I think, was what they operated under. The Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services will know because when she was the Minister of Environment they had meetings with her.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I even have copies of the presentations afterwards. I think it was in 2006 or 2007 when that occurred. I am not sure, but I know one of the proposals given to me was from 2006 because I looked at it only recently.

Anyway, they did meet with the minister at the time. They were the company Newfound Energies. Here it is. July 14, 2009, actually, it was. The other one, Mr. Chair, a report they sent to Hydro and government, was in 2006. Mr. Chair, it was two reports, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: The Minister of Labrador Affairs, you can just ask your colleague there. She can tell you all about it, I am sure.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, what they wanted to do was develop a 600-megawatt wind farm on the Avalon Peninsula. They felt, Mr. Chair, it would reduce the reliance on unstable prices of fossil fuel, which is the objective of Muskrat Falls that the government wants to look at today. They wanted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce our carbon footprint, and be able to gain access to credits in that particular way.

Mr. Chair, there were other options that were discussed. Were they more feasible options? Well, that is what we are debating today. We are certainly not eliminating the fact there were not other options, regardless of the fact government only chose to look at one of those options in comparison to Muskrat Falls.

I just wanted to point that out, Mr. Chair, because I think it is important to know that. Under Bill 61, not only in the absence of this bill have we seen Nalcor, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and government close the door on potential other developers in the Province that were willing to invest their own money to develop energy, clean energy for the people of the Province, not only did they turn their door on them like they did with Ventus Energy, like they did with other company, Mr. Chair – I forget the name of it here now; I have so many reports on my desk – Newfound Energies.

Not only, Mr. Chair, did they have proposals from these two companies that would have seen tremendous amount of investment – and in fact, the wind project on the Churchill River would have generated, Mr. Chair, more power than Gull Island and Muskrat Falls combined, just to put that in perspective.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, having said that, before even Bill 61, these groups had the door shut in their faces. They were not even considered as being an option for other development initiatives or power initiatives in the Province. Under Bill 61, what we have, Mr. Chair, is a door that is going to be shut for the next fifty years in terms of providing alternative energy outside of Muskrat Falls power to the people of the Province.

Now, Mr. Chair, if you were a big supporter of Muskrat Falls and you really believed, Mr. Chair, that this was the best project for today in Newfoundland and Labrador, why would you still limit yourself to what could potentially happen twenty years, thirty years, forty years, or fifty years from now? Now, Mr. Chair, when I look at that I see very narrow-sightedness. That is what I see, unfortunately, because even though there is a good thing today, a great thing today, it does not mean it is going to be or there will not be something better in the future years to come. It does not mean that.

Mr. Chair, there are thousands of examples. You only have to walk into our hospitals today and see that one time we thought the X-ray machine was the best thing in the world, that ever was invented in a hospital. Today, Mr. Chair, we are putting in PET scanners; we are putting in PET scanners and we are using ultrasounds every day. Nuclear medicine has boomed, Mr. Chair. It has boomed. It is an industry onto itself in the medical technology field. Whoever would have envisioned that ten, fifteen years ago even, not even fifty years ago.

That is just one example. There are hundreds of examples, Mr. Chair. You only have to look at cellphone technology and where that has come from. Mr. Chair, we had an old black, rotary dial phone less than fifty years ago on the wall –

AN HON. MEMBER: I still have one.

MS JONES: I still have one, too.

Mr. Chair, that was the only thing we had. We had a party phone, Mr. Chair. Every family in the community could use the one phone. That was fifty years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not fifty.

MS JONES: No, I am not, nowhere near it. They had it before I was born, I am saying, fifty years ago. I am twenty-nine, and the minister knows it.

Mr. Chair, look where we have come. I just want to say that because I think it is important to recognize that something might be good today but do not limit yourselves to that. Do not limit the people of the Province to that. Make sure that the option is there so that if there is something better we have the ability to feed it into the line and bring benefits to the people of the Province.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to rise and answer some of the comments that I have heard over the last few days.

The first one I want to touch on is the arena in Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. I empathize with the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. I empathized so much that I did a little bit of research throughout Labrador. To me, it comes down to operational. All of the arenas in Labrador cost approximately the same amount that you spoke of to operate. The other –

MS JONES: I had no idea.

MR. MCGRATH: Now, you had your chance to speak, let me have mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MCGRATH: You either have a provincial issue of funding an arena or an operational issue of can you operate an arena. I would love to see them operate their arena but maybe they should take some advice from some other municipalities in Labrador that have found prudent ways to run their arenas without having to shut them down. That means you do not have to have your heat on all the time. You can still put your ice there, but in your low times you do not have your heat on when you are trying to keep an ice surface on an arena.

The other comment I would like to make, and I compared it to some of the other municipalities in Labrador, there is funding of tens of millions of dollars on the Coast of Labrador for the diesel operated municipalities that the other municipalities in Labrador do not get that are on electrical. They do not get that subsidy; tens of millions of dollars there. That is the first one that I wanted to bring up.

Another thing that was discussed in the last few days was: What is Labrador going to get out of Muskrat Falls? If we are going to develop Muskrat Falls well then let's make sure Labradorians get something out of Muskrat Falls.

I am going to go back to May 6, 1998. That is where I am going to start. We had an independent sitting in the House of Assembly at the time. The member was from Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Name her.

MR. MCGRATH: I do not need to name her. She knows who she is, as well as everyone else in the House, but I hope she is going to listen.

I am going to make a couple of quotes from that Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. On May 6, 1998, "I think people in Labrador have been asking and begging for this, and have been asking that the Province recognize the extreme importance and the need to have this done.

"I would say now that today the people of the Province are recognizing it. In light of new developments that are happening in the Island of this Province and in Labrador, the entire population is understanding and seeing the need for adjacency, the need to be doing things at home and maximizing the benefits at home first, before anyone else has the privilege and the opportunity to do it." That was on May 6, 1998.

In her infinite wisdom, she felt it was in her best interest to join the governing party in 1999, which happened to be the Liberal Party, and she thought that she would be better off serving her district by joining the Liberal Party.

Going back to May 8, 1998, she commented again as an independent. "I also want to talk about the energy resource because energy has been another resource that has been exporting out of Labrador for years and years and years."

Well, this year, Mr. Chair, we got a break. The Premier went in and negotiated a deal on, guess what? The Lower Churchill –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: - to reroute benefits to this Province from that development.

Again, Mr. Chair, I will have to say that adjacency has to be considered. There have to be benefits to the people who are adjacent to the resource, as well as the people who are within the Province that houses the resource. That hopefully will be accomplished as a result of a resolution that has been put forward here.

Now, that was on May 8, 1998, and here we are now in December, 2012. So, you went in as an independent, you sat in a government that worked out a deal in 1998 –

AN HON. MEMBER: Nine.

MS JONES: I was not in the government in 1998.

MR. MCGRATH: In 1999, sorry; you were in the House of Assembly in 1998 and you were in the governing party in 1999, because you were going to get everything done for your district, for your people. Here we are in 2012, and you are still standing up over there saying you have not gotten what you need for your district. Okay.

Then we move on to – I will not get into Mr. Russell here, I will save him for another time – November 28, 2002, when you were a member of the government –

AN HON. MEMBER: Member of Cabinet then.

MR. MCGRATH: No, she was not a member of Cabinet then; she did not become a member of Cabinet until shortly before this government moved them over there. She was only there for a very short time. I researched that, too.

I quote from CBC, November 28, 2002.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a good source.

MR. MCGRATH: Well, it is the best source that they use. I have already stated in this House what I feel about them.

"Premier Roger Grimes says the demands" – this is a government you are sitting in – "of people in Labrador won't necessarily be a part of a final Lower Churchill hydro deal." That was your Premier. My Premier does not say that. "Grimes says he will consider their points, but he's offering no guarantees."

Now, let us talk about dysfunctioning governments. That same government – and you have mentioned the Minister of Labrador Affairs a couple of times; well, in that same government, the Minister of Labrador Affairs, in dysfunction with his Premier of the time, says – or CBC's, first: "Grimes' comments contrasted with what the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs told the House of Assembly Thursday."

He said the government and people in Labrador had reached a consensus on three points. Point number one: a Lower Churchill deal will include power recall rights to fuel industry. Point number two: a portion of the royalties will be set aside just for Labrador. Number three: people in coastal Labrador will get a break on their electricity bills.

They did not deliver on one of them – not one. As a matter of fact, they could not even agree on them, my point being in the last forty-eight hours we had to listen to a member who was also in that government talking about papers they had seen –

AN HON. MEMBER: Or did not see.

MR. MCGRATH: Or did not see. They were not sure after.

Then we have to talk about an independent under the Tobin regime who thought it was in the best interests to become part of the Liberal regime, and then thought everything was going to turn out perfect. It ends up nothing was delivered on.

I am running out of time, but I am going to start very briefly. I am going to concentrate on coastal Labrador, because hopefully my colleague from Lake Melville will talk about Western Labrador and Lake Melville.

Since 2003, over $700 million invested into Labrador by this government – since 2003. I will start and then I will come back. Funding for cultural identity and diversity –

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. MCGRATH: Sixty thousand dollars.

Let us go down. Conservation projects to support Natural Areas Systems Plan: $500,000; Real Time Water Quality Monitoring: $1.55 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bigger.

MR. MCGRATH: Bigger?

Community Access Program in Labrador – this is all in your districts: $4.7 million; Enhanced K-12 initiatives – are you listening, Minister of Education? – $3.7 million.

I only have five seconds left now, but I will be back to enhance what has gone into Labrador by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for the record, I did offer the member leave to finish reading his address if he wanted to. Anyway, Mr. Chair, it just goes to tell me how ashamed the government opposite is about what they are doing in Labrador. They are so ashamed, Mr. Chair, that they are up there about to run transmission lines over the heads of children in Labrador when they do not have a rink to skate on. That is how ashamed they are, that they are in here today on a bill that is going to change the directions for ratepayers of hydro in this Province for the next fifty years and they are up there rehashing the money they spent in Labrador in 2003. Hang your head in shame I say to you, Minister. You hang your head in shame.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, everything he said that I said, it was true. Every last word was true. Unlike the member opposite, I am not afraid to stand on my feet and represent my constituents, regardless of where the government of the day might be going. Oh no, I will not be the weasel politician, Mr. Chair, that I have seen across the way in this House of Assembly – absolutely not.

If I do not like what the government that I am a part of is going to do, I will not, Mr. Chair –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: – crawl in the backseat of the House of Assembly, hide behind the walls of Confederation Building and pretend to support the government – absolutely not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: That is not my style, Mr. Chair. I will never practise the weasel politics that I have seen played out by people like the member opposite – absolutely not.

Mr. Chair, let me address some of the things he has raised. It has nothing to do with the bill by the way, but let me address some of the things that he has raised. One of it is the municipalities in Labrador.

How dare he stand in his place today and condemn the people of my district and the municipalities of the Labrador Straits by saying they are not prudent in how they run their arena? How ridiculous, Mr. Chair – how ridiculous.

Who are you, I say to the Member for Labrador West? Who do you think you are to look at the towns in my district and tell them that they are not prudent in the management of their arena and that is why their children cannot play hockey there?

MR. JOYCE: Come down and say it to their face.

MS JONES: Absolutely. You waltz your weasel ways into my district I say to you, Minister, and you face the municipalities in the Labrador Straits. You tell them that they are not prudent managers and that is the reason their children have nowhere to skate today.

Mr. Chair, a Minister of the Crown, the words of his mouth are absolutely ridiculous and shameful towards the people of this Province, towards the good people of Labrador – the good people of the Labrador Straits who hold all kinds of events and raises all kinds of money so that their children can have a better quality of life in their communities. Mr. Chair, these are not people of abundance, these are people, and I challenge them to look at the statistics in his colleague's department who live on an average income –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: – of $27,000 or $28,000 a year, and he looks them in the face – I say, you go up there and you walk into those communities and you look at them and you say to them: The only reason your children got to go to Quebec to skate is because you are not prudent managers of your municipality.

Now, Mr. Chair, a Minister of the Crown to have the gall to stand in this House of Assembly, to stand here when he knows that the power to that arena comes from Quebec. He knows that the power to that arena comes from Quebec, from the Lac Saint-Jean project. He knows that. He knows it and he knows that the people in Quebec are paying half of what the people in my district are paying for that same power.

Now, Mr. Chair, how much weasel politics can you get than that, to stand in your place today and to say such things?

MR. JOYCE: He is laughing over there.

MS JONES: He can laugh until his head rolls right across to the other side of the floor, but it will not make any difference to me. It will not make any difference to me, Mr. Chair.

Now, he wants to talk –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: I am so riled up now, Mr. Chair, I am going to tell you right now – riled up by what I have heard from the member opposite and he claims to be the son of Labrador. It is quite obvious, Mr. Chair, in his comments today that he is no son of Labrador. If he was the son of Labrador, he would be standing on his feet, he would be challenging his government to do more for the people of Labrador, but no, that is not the case. Oh no, Mr. Chair, that is not the case.

Instead, he stands on his feet and he condemns the parents of these children. That is what he does. Volunteers in communities, people who work hard every day to keep their towns going, and this gentleman, Mr. Chair, across the way, a Minister of the Crown, a servant of the taxpayers, and he looks the people in the face, the volunteers, and he says to them: You are no good. You are not doing a good enough job. That is the reason you are in the situation that you are in.

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic, Mr. Chair! I have never, ever heard a minister in this House degrade people in communities as much as this individual just degraded the people in this district, Mr. Chair, just degraded them.

Now, Mr. Chair, he also wanted to talk about the subsidy. Let's talk about the subsidy, Mr. Chair. Let's just talk about the subsidy because, Mr. Chair, this is the same government that stood in this House of Assembly and said: We will look at subsidizing the commercial rates for people in Labrador. Well, where is it? It is time to deliver, I say. Time to ante up, Mr. Chair, time to ante up. You can talk the talk but you are not walking the walk, I say to the member opposite, absolutely not.

You can hold up all the papers you want, Sir, because I will shred them today like no machine you ever seen before in your life. I can guarantee the minister that.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, let me get to the subsidies because it is a very important point, and it actually has to do with the bill. Interesting, it has to do with the bill. This is the government that promised to bring subsidies to the commercial operations in Labrador and have not done it. They do not want to hear that do they?

That is the reason, Mr. Chair, that there are groups like this who cannot afford to put ice in their arena. They cannot afford to pay the light bill, I say to the minister opposite, and all you do is stand and blame them for not being more prudent and how they do their volunteer work in their community. Have you no shame as a minister of the Crown to say such a thing?

Mr. Chair, the rant from that minister today is almost as bad as the stuff we are hearing from the Member for Lake Melville. Mr. Chair, I am starting to question the people in Labrador when I look across and see the representation some days in the House of Assembly. I absolutely have to, Mr. Chair. It is unbelievable. I never thought I would see the day when I could take the Minister of Labrador Affairs and put him in the same category as the Member for Lake Melville; but, Mr. Chair, I can, based on the comments that he just said today. I cannot believe it, Mr. Chair. I am floored.

I would question the minister, if you are going to stand on your feet this time, stand up and tell us when you are going to bring the subsidy in for the commercial operators, and what you are going to do to help the people in the coast of Labrador who do not have the money to pay the light bill to put the ice in their arena. Minister, do your job, help people and stop trying to whip them and tell them where they are going wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

I remind the minister, I would like for him to be closer to the bill this time, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

All of this relates to the bill because, Mr. Chair, if this moves forward, what happens is –

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

CHAIR: A point of order by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Chair.

I think according to the Standing Orders of our House, it is unparliamentary to question the rulings of the Speaker. I would ask that the Member for Labrador West withdraw his comments.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Some of us can walk the walk and talk the talk, others squawk the squawk.

The new school in L'Anse-au-Loup – this is all about Muskrat Falls. I am building up now to where we are going to go when Muskrat Falls is up and that is where your $20 billion comes into it.

The new school in L'Anse-au-Loup, $15,294,000; enhanced social work staff in to address the needs of children, families and persons with mental health and addictions issues, $10 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five.

MR. MCGRATH: No, that is not in her district. Eventually, we will get there.

RCMP; additional officers for the RCMP is $4.3 million. I do not want to give away all my numbers because I might have to use them. Develop a new water supply for an Innu community in Nain, $19.8 million. Hang on now, electricity – isn't that what this bill is about? Isn't this bill about electricity? Electricity rebate for homeowners using diesel-generated power throughout the Province is $9.4 million. That is enough on numbers for now.

Let's go back to the Muskrat Falls and building up to where we are in 2012. Let's move back ten years ago when we were getting to where we are today, Mr. Chair. This government planned to get to where we are today.

In 2002, while the main negotiator – or what it sounds like anyway. I do not have it in writing, but it sounds like the main negotiator for Bay of Islands over there. He seemed to have read the deal. He seemed to have seen the deal. He was in meetings that had the deal, but someone else who was sitting in the House as part of that government never knew there was a deal. Right here, I have the following statement. Representing Labrador, that member was.

The following was issued today by Premier Rogers Grimes. It was also read in the House of Assembly – read in the House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

MR. MCGRATH: This was on November 18, 2002, a little over a decade ago. It is a decade later when this government is making it work.

"On August first, following several months of discussions with officials from the Government of Quebec, Premier Landry and I announced in Halifax" – now, a member of the government never knew there was any deal – "that we had agreed on the fundamental principles that would underlie any deal that would be reached to develop the $4 billion dollar, 2,000 megawatt hydro project at Gull Island." Now, never knew there was a deal. Sat in the House, sat in here, out of her own lips, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, she never knew there was a deal with that government.

Her colleague, the Member for Bay of Islands, knew all about the deal. He read the deal, he saw the deal, and he sat in meetings for the deal, but the member who was representing Labrador at the time was worried to death. Then she has the gall to stand up here and say I do not care about the kids of Labrador. In my district, I make sure we are fiscally prudent. I make sure we know how to operate. I am more than willing to go into your district and help them. Then the arena would be open all the time – all the time then there arena would be open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: We have no problem. It is all about reading a deal. Now, Mr. Chair, that is what this government has done. This government did not take Bill 61 and put it together in a couple of months.

Let us go back to Dean MacDonald. Why did he resign from the board? Let us go back to Mark Dobbin. I know Mark Dobbin has good blood and a lot of common sense running through his veins because he is related to me. So he has to have good blood going through him. I know that. Why did he step away from the deal? The reason they stepped away from the deal was because your Premier at the time did not even take the time to read the deal.

Unfortunately, I would like to get into the Conception Harbour thing, but I do not know the details on that. I would like to get a couple of little nips on that one to bring out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MCGRATH: You are darn right it was before I came. If I was here at the time, as well as if a lot of my colleagues who are here now, then you would have had some dispute, I tell you. You would have some dispute on the go then. You would not have seen that deal go through or even be tabled then.

CHAIR: I am going to ask the minister to connect the dots.

MR. MCGRATH: As far as you are concerned, it never was tabled.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I am going to ask the minister at this point to connect the dots, very quickly please.

MR. MCGRATH: No problem, Mr. Chair.

The dot is Bill 61. Bill 61, Mr. Chair, we have put this bill together because we knew that once we sanctioned the deal then we knew you have to move forward. In order for this deal to move forward now, Bill 61 outlines the changes that need to be made in order for it to move forward. This bill was not put together in a month or two months. There was a lot of hard work, a lot of professionalism, and a lot of research that went in to putting Bill 61 together. What we are recommending in Bill 61 will protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One thing that I have heard people on this side of the House comment on, but I cannot seem to hear it from that side is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador own Nalcor. The people own Nalcor, so everything that comes back to Nalcor goes back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not going to take what they own and pass it out to somebody else.

I see the Leader of the Third Party heckling me, and I am surprised because I did not think she could heckle, but you heckle away at me. I do not mind being heckled. I do not mind being heckled at all, but I can guarantee you that on this side of the House when we do our homework, we make sure we do it right. We do our research.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: We do not put a paper that is as important as Bill 61 on the table, we do not put a paper like that on the table until we have completely researched it and we know it is the best deal for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MS MICHAEL: Abitibi.

MR. MCGRATH: She might bring up Abitibi, Mr. Chair, and I will not get into the details of Abitibi but one detail I will make is that our Premier today realizes there was a mistake made. She said there was a mistake made, but the Premier said there is no regrets for that because we were still the best benefactor by taking over Abitibi.

The other point that our Premier has made and made it abundantly clear is that the Leader of the Third Party was also party to that deal. Let's not forget that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, I am going to tell you: we might own Nalcor, but we are not allowed to see the books over there. We cannot see one dime, Mr. Chair, of what is being spent.

Anything that I own I have access to it. I know how to get access to it; I know what is going on with it, Mr. Chair. I know all of these things. I say to the minister opposite: we may own Nalcor as the people of the Province, but we have no access to it. Every day there are millions and millions of dollars being spent of taxpayers' money with no public accountability to the people of this Province, Mr. Chair. Therefore, that is the very difference, I would say to the member opposite.

Mr. Chair, the only reason the minister is talking about money being invested in schools in my district, or money being invested in water and sewer in my district – very basic essentials that every citizen of this Province should have, I say to the minister, very basic and essential services. He is doing it because they are ashamed.

They are ashamed, Mr. Chair, of what they are doing with Muskrat Falls and the way they are ignoring the people of Labrador. They are ashamed, Mr. Chair, that the Nunatsiavut Government – who they have a land claim agreement with – that they will not meet with them and they will not listen to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: They will not hear their environmental concerns as it relates to this project, Mr. Chair. They are ashamed of their own record. That is the reason that they are standing in their place today and trying to justify their existence in Labrador by talking about money they spent there since 2003.

Mr. Chair, they know that what they are doing today is ignoring the long-term issues of Labrador in the context of Muskrat Falls. They know, Mr. Chair, they are ignoring the Nunatsiavut Government, a government the Member for Lake Melville was a part of before they kicked him out, Mr. Chair – a Cabinet table he sat at before he was asked to leave it.

Here today, Mr. Chair –

CHAIR: I am going to remind the member I want her to come back to Muskrat. I asked the minister, too; I ask you to do the same.

MR. RUSSELL: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: A point of order.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to clarify that never at any point in my career with Nunatsiavut Government was I kicked out. I left of my own volition to join this hon. government here, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

I will remind her to come back to the bill. I did the same for the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

MS JONES: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Nunatsiavut Government, Mr. Chair, has concerns as it relates to Muskrat Falls. According to the agreements that you signed – and I went through the documents, although the Minister of Labrador Affairs probably did not because he has not mentioned either one of them yet. In there it says they should consult with the Aboriginal peoples, Mr. Chair. That is part of their signature to the document. That is associated with Bill 61.

Yet, Mr. Chair, the very member who sat at their Cabinet before they kicked him out six months before an election in provincial politics will not even stand up today to ensure that the Nunatsiavut Government gets a fair hearing on Muskrat Falls. That is shameful. It is no wonder, Mr. Chair, they want to divert the debate to Dean MacDonald and Roger Grimes, a hospital they built, and a water and sewer project they put in, because they are too ashamed to stand up and tell the people of Labrador what they are doing for them.

Not only are they ignoring Nunatsiavut, what about NunatuKavut, Mr. Chair? I got an e-mail from the President of the NunatuKavut Community Council telling me that as the President he phoned the Minister of Natural Resources' office at least twenty times and he did not get the courtesy of a phone call back. Is that consultation with Aboriginal groups?

You can stand in your place all you like and say they do not have a land claim with the federal government. Well, Mr. Chair, the Province has the prerogative to negotiate agreements with whomever they want as a government. They know that the Labrador Métis Nation, the NunatuKavut Community Council, have legitimate issues and concerns.

What are they doing? What are they doing, Mr. Chair? The hypocrisy of what is happening is this: they write into their documents about consultation with Aboriginal groups and then they ignore them. They try and mislead people into thinking that the Nunatsiavut Government was out there sanctioning Muskrat Falls when in fact they were not. The President had to send out a press release and clear it up.

Then, Mr. Chair, they try and make people believe that the NunatuKavut Community Council, who have had people in that land for over 500 years – they do not have to even talk to them, Mr. Chair. The president calls the minister's office twenty times - and not even the courtesy of a phone call back. Even a phone call that says: we do not feel like we have to deal with you, would have been at least a courtesy call back; but, Mr. Chair, that was not the case.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I have a whole list of stuff here, which I will get into as we go along in debate. It is quite obvious, Mr. Chair, why they are diverting the debate on Bill 61 in this House of Assembly. I have not heard any of them get up yet and talk about the sanctioning agreement and tell us the chapters that are in it and what they signed on to. None of them have gotten up yet and talked about the loan guarantee agreement and what is in the loan guarantee agreement, and what they have committed to on behalf of the people of this Province.

Mr. Chair, jump and tell me. You probably did not even read it. I say to the minister, you probably did not even read it, and you would not be the first minister over there who did not read their briefing notes. There was a good many over there who did not read their briefing notes. We found it out, Mr. Chair, in the ER/PR scandal in which lives were lost in this Province and nobody read their briefing notes. That is the irresponsible government that you have signed on to, I say to you, Minister.

Mr. Chair, on Bill 61, I want to say this, there are concerns in Labrador. It does not matter, Mr. Chair, if this project is the best thing since sliced bread. It does not matter if it is the glory of all glories that is going to come to the land. If people have legitimate issues, they should be treated respectfully. They should be dealt with, they should be talked to. Their phone calls should be answered.

What is wrong with that, Mr. Chair? What is wrong with people in Labrador who are going to watch transmission lines go over their head asking their government for a break on their own electricity because they cannot afford to pay the bill to keep their arena going? What is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, in my opinion!

In fact, Mr. Chair, in my opinion, good governance addresses those issues. They do not look for excuses. They do not hide behind it. They address those issues, Mr. Chair, and that is what they should be doing in the context of this project in Labrador; but, in fact, they are doing the very opposite.

Frankly, Mr. Chair, I am very disappointed. Because do you know something? I thought we could have risen to a better level of debate than this in the House of Assembly. I thought, Mr. Chair, we could have came into this House and talked about real things that could happen for people in this Province. Talk about how we could strengthen this legislation to ensure that this project was going to be the best for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Instead, all I saw was weasel politics and hogwash, Mr. Chair, from the members opposite –

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not parliamentary.

MS JONES: Oh, well tell the Premier it is not parliamentary. She was the first one to use the weasel politics word in this House of Assembly, Mr. Chair, and Hansard will show that.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, having said that, look at where we have gotten today. The Member for Labrador West never once stood and talked about benefits for Labrador, what this term sheet means for Labradorians, what this deal means for Labradorians. No, he talked about something they did in 2003, a comment that I made in 1998, Mr. Chair. Wow, what a contribution, I say to the minister, to Muskrat Falls. Well, I am so impressed.

Mr. Chair, there are a lot of serious issues around this that have to be dealt with, and one of them is the NunatuKavut Community Council. I am going to talk about that for a little bit now, Mr. Chair, because this is a group in Labrador that regardless of what the members opposite opinions are, they are a group in which they have a legitimate claim to the land.

I think it is ridiculous, Mr. Chair, when they are being fenced out of their own land. When elders are going on their trapping grounds where they have been for years and they are being arrested because of it. Mr. Chair, why would that happen? If the government was actually talking to these people and these individuals, that would not be happening. I would encourage them to do that because it does not need to happen.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Good day, Mr. Chair.

It seems like I never left this House of Assembly but I can see that the hon. Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair has certainly gotten her knickers in a knot since I left. Now I am about to try to get them out of that knot and get this back to Bill 61. She has just referenced that we are all off Bill 61. I am not going to comment in regard to my opinion on who has gone off Bill 61 or not. In the meantime, as I move through this I have to address some of the issues and some of the things that she brought to the table.

I stand here as a Member for the District Gander. I stand here as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I also stand here as a minister and a person, a Newfoundlander and Labradorian who has a great love for Labrador. I do, and I spend a fair bit of time in Labrador, Mr. Chair. I spent a lot of time on the Northeast Coast of Labrador.

When the hon. member talks about that this government has forgotten Labrador, I am actually insulted by it, I say to the hon. members in this House, because over the last number of years, especially – I will speak for myself from Municipal Affairs. Over the last number of years there has been heavy investment in Labrador from this government, starting back to the 2004 budget, actually way back then, and $3 billion is after going into Labrador. I was just told the number.

From my own perspective, the hon. member was in Cabinet in a previous government and there was very little investment in Labrador from that previous government. From my perspective as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I can take credit along with our Premier that I did two significant investments in Northern Labrador, as a matter of fact the Northeast Coast of Labrador, that I firmly believe would never have happened under any other government: a new arena for Makkovik worth about $14 million and a multipurpose recreational facility in Hopedale worth another $12 million, $14 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: And schools.

MR. O'BRIEN: And schools, and everything else that I participated in. As a matter of fact, I partnered with the Minister of Education to address a school issue in her own district, Mr. Chair.

When I hear things such as that, that we have forgotten Labrador, I get really upset myself, Mr. Chair. As I said a few minutes ago, you are looking at a person who has a great love for Labrador as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Then the other piece is what really concerns me, as a minister and a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador: when I hear members talk about any development in a particular area, they believe that they should be compensated for that particular investment.

We all talk about and we all know what the benefits are going to be to Labrador in regard to construction, jobs, and a thriving economy. We will need investments in infrastructure and municipal infrastructure to address the overflows and whatever else may happen.

When I look at it from the perspective of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I firmly believe – and I do not mind saying in this House here right now – that if we had such a development in Gander, on Gander River, for instance, I would not really want, or I do not think that we should get something special from that particular development. We are a Province; we are all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I believe the hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair believes that too. I have heard her say in this House that all the people, regardless of their backgrounds, even if they just moved to Newfoundland and Labrador and became a resident here, are all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We cannot set up things that would benefit an area just because there is a development in that particular area. Like I said, I would not expect a government, any government – not only this government, but any government – to compensate my district or any other area around Central Newfoundland if there was a project of this magnitude. It is a shared thing. We are a Province. There are 500,000-plus people living in this Province and we should all share the benefits of that particular project.

Now, Mr. Chair, Bill 61 is important; yes, it is. We want to move the project forward and we want to move it fast for the simple reason that we should do that while the iron is hot in regard to the lending agencies wanting to become a partner with financing the project. Well, then, we have to move it and move it early in the year. It is imperative on us, because time is money and every percentage point or partial percentage point saves this Province money in regard to the overall cost of the project down the road and over a fifty-year amortization process, which is not unusual for big projects like this.

It is imperative that we move it forward. We have sanctioned the deal. I spoke last night in this House of Assembly on a number of occasions and I said: listen, we need to move it and we need to move it collectively. I think this morning we were getting something towards that and moving it forward.

We might not agree on it all. That always happens in any kind of a project. I have done many deals, as the Leader of the Opposition knows quite well. I have done many, many deals over the years, and complicated deals. I can say safely that I do not think, really, in the partners – and I have had many partners in regard to deals – all the partners did not get everything they wanted. That is a fact. That is the way it works, but you have the best deal for you. That is the way it works. On some cases I had multiple partners, sometimes I just had one, but I got the best deal for Kevin and the other person got the best deal for Tom, and whatever it may be. That is the way it works. You will never satisfy all of their needs.

When a community comes shopping to me in regard to municipal infrastructure or whatever it may be, I will work with that community to get a solution for it, but they do not get everything they want. They all know that. They absolutely know that: they do not get everything that they want. Then we work together for a long-term solution to the challenges that they may have.

That is the way we do it. That is essentially how we work Bill 61 and this project in regard to this House of Assembly and also the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am quite sure that there are many people out there who are for this project, which I firmly believe, in regard to my travels all across Newfoundland and Labrador, that the majority of the people, and I mean a high majority of the people, are for the project. They might have dreams about something within the project itself.

I say to the hon. members: You cannot build in anything and everything to satisfy everybody. You just cannot do it, Mr. Chair. It is impossible to do. I said one of the first presentations I had in Cabinet back after July 4, 2005 was on Muskrat Falls. I remember it. I did not know very much about it at that particular time. Then I read a lot about it and educated myself to the project as best I could, where I could become a participant at the table and add whatever I thought could be added to the project itself.

The people over at Nalcor brought to the table their expertise of doing deals, and big deals, for other companies all around this world. Then we brought in experts from all over the world to help as well. A lot of things went into that.

Right now, in regard to the deal itself, we believe that at this point in history we have the best deal possible that we could get for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, which will give the lowest-cost option to address our own energy needs. It gives us an opportunity to move this project, not only from a provincial perspective, to a regional perspective and also to move it outside of the regional into the United States, giving us an economy that will last us forever and a day. The water will be there and the water will not run out. We will always have a renewable economy, Mr. Chair.

With that, I hope everybody gets back on Bill 61 where we can move this and then we can get to the Christmas period and enjoy ourselves with our family. Let us get by this and let us do some good work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Cross): The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

I just want to finish where I left off with regard to the Labrador piece. Mr. Chair, the Minister for Labrador Affairs, because of the weasel politics he practises, was all morning getting people in his office call around my district trying to find a copy of the light bill for the arena. I say to the member: If he would have called me, I would have been happy to give him a copy of the light bill and saved your staff hours of work of looking up numbers in the phone books and calling around Labrador looking for it.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, that is the kind of weasel politics he is into. I am more of a muskrat woman, myself, I say to the member opposite. Here is a copy and I would be happy to table the light bills for him.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, let us get into some of the other pieces in Labrador, because it is no wonder that they are trying to hide behind other deals that were never done instead of talking about their own. Under the Joint Review Panel Report on the Lower Churchill, they specifically talked about things that need to be done in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. So why don't we start going through the list? Because I had some interesting conversations in the last couple of days with people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Chair. People who were in positions to find out how much of this work has been done.

Well, in fact, Mr. Chair, in this one e-mail that I received I was told that today in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the town that is only thirty kilometres away from the largest hydro development project, in which there was supposed to be a formal agreement entered into with the town to look at all of these different things, never happened – never happened, Mr. Chair. In fact, even in the report it says it was supposed to happen prior to sanctioning of the project.

Now, is it no wonder, Mr. Chair, that they want to talk about a school that they built ten years ago in Labrador, as opposed to what they are not doing today? What is the point in having all of things and making these commitments if you are not going to deliver on them?

Mr. Chair, with those kinds of e-mails, I started looking into what it was that they were supposed to do. Guess what I found? I found not only was there supposed to be an agreement to deal with all of these infrastructure pieces, but there was also supposed to be agreements to deal with things like housing and the shortage of housing.

What I understand today, the only thing that has been offered to the Town of Goose Bay are two things: one, that they would hire a consultant to work with the town to assess what some of the possible impacts would be; or, Mr. Chair, a seniors' working committee. Now, that is what they have been offered so far, and nothing has been done.

Now, in addition to that, these are the concerns that were outlined in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and concerns that were felt by the Joint Review Panel that needed to be addressed prior to the sanctioning of the Muskrat Falls Project. They felt that there needed to be different shifts created at the airport, and that that schedule be worked out because of moving people in and out of the camps. It stated that the use of physical infrastructure in the area such as roads and port facilities in Happy Valley-Goose Bay during construction would be a concern, and some upgrades to these facilities would be required. It stated that they would have to look at alternate shipping routes, Mr. Chair, and how they were going to get things in and out of the area for the project. As we know, we do not even have a boat up there, Mr. Chair; that broke down two months, three months ago. We have not even been able to get that one back on the ground yet.

It talked about all the other infrastructure, from recreation, to housing, to roads, Mr. Chair, to lands, to the ports, and all of the things, the pressures that would come to bear in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Chair, it talked about the capacity for water and sewer and landfill, all of these things. The recommendations were that these were things that the government needed to address with the community and the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay prior to a sanctioning of this project, Mr. Chair.

What we understand today is that it was not done. In fact, Mr. Chair, we would encourage the government to do this. We would encourage you to do it, because if the project is going to be a success, then it needs to work for everyone, especially the people who are living in the area and who are going to be most impacted.

Mr. Chair, the very least that the government could have done was that they could have ensured that they would have had those things well in hand and taken care of. Mr. Chair, they could not be doing that, because the Minister of Labrador Affairs was too concerned with acting on his weasel strategy for politics and not dealing with the real issues concerning Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Chair, he talked about and he researched stuff I said in the House of Assembly going right back to 1998. That must have been a comprehensive piece of work for him, because I have probably spoken in this House more times than any other member during that time period that I have been here. It must have an extensive pile of paper or Internet for the member to go through.

Mr. Chair, it tells me he is capable of doing good research. I would say to the minister, put your efforts into doing something productive for the people of Labrador, the very people you are getting paid to represent. Ensure that the Department of Labrador Affairs fulfills the recommendations that are in the environmental assessment panel and the recommendations that were made as it relates to Lake Melville and to the other areas of Labrador, as it relates to the Aboriginal people of Labrador, Mr. Chair.

That is where the minister should put his efforts, Mr. Chair: into making sure that those things are done and that they are done appropriately. We know from our own experiences of major development projects, Mr. Chair, that these things creep up on you very, very quickly. If you are not prepared you miss opportunities. We do not want that to happen in Labrador. We want to ensure that the people there have every opportunity that can be available to them.

We do not want, Mr. Chair, on Boxing Day, when Ed Martin gets the finances in place – because we have to stay here and get this bill passed by Boxing Day; when he gets the finances in place by Boxing Day we do not want it, come the New Year in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we are going to have people with nowhere to live, infrastructure that cannot handle the amount of traffic, Mr. Chair, and a port that might need work that did not get done. We do not want those things to happen. We want that investment made today. We want to make sure that the communities are ready and that they can take full advantage of any developments and opportunities that are going to occur here. That is why we have environmental reviews.

We have environmental reviews so that people can actually look at what needs to be done and make sure that it gets done so that people can capitalize on it, Mr. Chair. I would encourage the minister to do that. I would encourage him to do that, give up his weasel ways of politics, Mr. Chair, and become a productive contributing Minister of the Cabinet on behalf of the people of Labrador.

That is what I would encourage the member to do, Mr. Chair: write his own legacy; do not try and recreate someone else's. That takes a lot of energy, I say to the member opposite. Make your own legacy on behalf of the people of this Province and do not let your legacy be that on the biggest debate in the recent history of Labrador, the only thing that you could do was find a few quotes to bring to the House of Assembly from the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair that goes back, Mr. Chair, to 1998.

Do not let that be the legacy of the Labrador minister on the day of the big debate on Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair, because that in itself would be worse then weasel politics. That would be even worse. That would be a shameful legacy, Mr. Chair, one which you would never be able to hold your head up from ever again.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe this will be my fourth time today speaking to this particular bill, Mr. Chair, and I am quite happy to do it. I would like to add a few things to my colleague from Labrador West there, too.

Mr. Chair, this government, since the first Budget of 2004, is up to about $3.5 billion now in investment in Labrador; $3.5 billion. When they started the Northern Strategic Plan in 2007, they started out with an initial investment of $250 million. Since then, as my colleague said, I will reiterate, $700 million for initiatives on top of that.

Some of those, Mr. Chair, the latest was $65.8 million for the Trans-Labrador Highway, bringing it to a total investment up to this point of $250 million. That is what we are doing in Labrador, and an additional $100 million for the construction of Phase 3. This is commitment.

Now, I certainly think the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair – and she has, I guess, taken credit for a lot of this. This is what we do on this side of the House, Mr. Chair. It is as simple as that.

We have $90 million for that hospital in Lab West, Mr. Chair, $18 million for the completion of a new College of the North Atlantic campus, and we do subsidize generated power on the North Coast, to the tune of $1.6 million annually. That is dedication to the people of Labrador, Mr. Chair, absolutely. I just want to add that up. I am sure we could go on all day if we wanted to talk about the little pockets of money that add up to millions and millions in Labrador.

I would like to clear up something else at this time, since it was brought up in the House, Mr. Chair, about my dismissal from a Cabinet post while with the Nunatsiavut Government. I am going to make this short and sweet. A fellow minister came to me with tears in her eyes looking for help for the elders in her community. When our government at the time, Nunatsiavut, did not spring into action, I went door to door with a translator, Mr. Chair, and I witnessed the deplorable conditions that these elders were living in.

I took pictures of that, Mr. Chair. I threatened to invoke an emergency sitting of the House where I would display those pictures. My threat was simple. I was going to call this government right here, Mr. Chair, to swoop in and save the day in Hopedale. That led to my dismissal. I stand by that decision. I would do that any day of the week, Mr. Chair, in support of elders – absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: I would like to take a second here, too, Mr. Chair, and clear up something else.

Earlier on, in the proceedings, my good friend, the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains, said that he discussed something with me and that he was going to bring up the situation with the methylmercury in Lake Melville on my behalf in this House, Mr. Chair.

I will make one thing clear to the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains: You do not speak for me, and you do not speak for the great people of Lake Melville. That is why I am here, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: I will also add a little fact on top of that, Mr. Chair. When you talk about the Upper Churchill and the methylmercury that came from the flooding, and it does come from the trees, Mr. Chair, we are talking about 6,500 square kilometres versus less than sixty for Muskrat Falls, 100 times in the difference. So, nice try, I say to the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

Earlier, Mr. Chair, when I stood up in this hon. House and I talked about this particular piece of legislation and what we are doing here, the first time I stood up I talked about my good old buddy, Boog, and I focused on the jobs. I focused on the benefits of this project, Mr. Chair, and the indirect benefits that happen within communities because of industrial development. The increase in the quality of life, the increase in the disposal income that people will have as a result of this prosperity, Mr. Chair, and the ability to bring people home who may have gone elsewhere for work.

In the second part of my speech, as I guess you could say about this legislation, Mr. Chair, I talked about – I will be honest – the NDP and their grandstanding, their spin, their rhetoric. You can say whatever you want to them; you are not going to get through to them. Basically, I just wanted to make sure that even though they are going to get up there and they are going to say whatever they have to, to gain political favour, they did not have the market cornered on environmental conscience and social conscience, Mr. Chair. We also keep that a priority in this government as well, Mr. Chair.

Next, Mr. Chair, I talked about the challenges in Lake Melville that were brought to us by the hon. Member for St. Barbe. Mr. Chair, I have one single message there. We are not afraid. We are not afraid of a challenge. Nothing in life comes easy, Mr. Chair.

When a megaproject comes into your district, into your Province, into your country, you will face adversity. There will be challenges. The great people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and specifically in this case, Mr. Chair, the great District of Lake Melville will rise above. We are up to the task. We will get maximum benefit for our people out of this project, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: I would just like to say too, I am going to offer a mother's perspective, Mr. Chair, on what is happening here. This comes from my teacher, my hero, my mother. She put out a simple Facebook post, and it said this: I was one of the mothers who had to watch their kids go away for work because there was no economic development in Goose Bay in Lake Melville. She said: How can people simply say that it is okay to go off to Alberta and tear up Alberta for big bucks, Mr. Chair, and that it is not okay to make the same decisions, the hard, tough decisions that we do as a government every day, to do that in our own backyard close to home among family, among friends, to have the indirect economic spinoff happen right there at home?

She hopes things are going to be better for the next generation, Mr. Chair. I tell you what, under the vision and the direction and the leadership of our Premier and this government, things will be better for the next generation. I guarantee it, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: I have a couple of minutes left, Mr. Chair. I would just like to clear up something too. You would think by all of the lovely things that the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair says about me that she really hates me, Mr. Chair. You would think that by hearing that in the House. You would think that.

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, I take offence to the Member for Lake Melville accusing me of hating members of the House of Assembly. It is so far from the truth, Mr. Chair. I have no issue with the gentleman opposite. He has a job to do here; I respect him for doing the job on behalf of his constituents.

CHAIR: No point of order there.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I said you would think. That is what I said, and Hansard will reflect that, Mr. Chair. You would think that she does.

I say it is to the contrary because the last time at the Relay for Life up in Goose Bay who was the one who would seek me out and give me the big, sloppy wet kiss right in front of everybody. That was the hon. Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: A point of order.

CHAIR: The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The animation is really sweet. I think the member is confusing a gesture of kindness and hello with big, sloppy kisses. Give me a break, Mr. Chair. I would not flatter myself too much if I was the member opposite.

CHAIR: There is no point of order there.

I recognize the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chair, I have about a minute and forty-five seconds left. I will just tell you this, that does not shock me at all. What you are seeing over there, Mr. Chair, is pure theatre.

That did not shock me at all, because I tell you what, Mr. Chair: you can question my integrity all day. You can do that all day. What you have in this theatre over here that is the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair is nothing more than a washed-up actress, honey. I tell you that. That is it, Mr. Chair. That is it, an opportunist, Mr. Chair –

MS JONES: A point of order.

CHAIR: The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, the comments by the member opposite are unparliamentary, as you well know. I ask that you reflect on them in Hansard, you reflect on the context to which the member is using them. Under our parliamentary rules, Mr. Chair, that is not acceptable language to indicate such of another Member of the House of Assembly. Our Standing Orders will show that, and I ask that you make a ruling on it.

MR. BRAZIL: The Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chair, I unequivocally withdraw the comment. Thank you very much.

So, basically my point was, Mr. Chair, it is not to get anybody's knickers in a bunch any more than they already are, but to just say to the people at home: You have to know what you are seeing here. If we have a bogeyman factory across the way that is simply making chaos and creating controversy where there is none to satisfy her own political agenda, and her own little motives, the people at home see it, I see it, we know what is happening here, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Your time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

I am really glad to get an opportunity today to speak to Bill 61. I think this is my first time getting up on Thursday. We had a long, long Tuesday; I got up many times on the double Tuesday. It is my first time getting up on Thursday, and I am happy to have a chance to speak a bit more to this bill.

Before speaking specifically, there is a couple of pieces I want to speak specifically to. I want to make a couple of general comments first. Earlier today I heard the Minister of Natural Resources comment on the fact that he thought that I really want Muskrat Falls to fail. I have heard that a few other times from government members as well, but today it was specifically the Minister of Natural Resources.

I do not think the government is getting it. I would be crazy to say that when and if this project goes ahead that I want it to fail. This is a project that is going to take, I believe, up to $9 billion out of the pockets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The government likes to point out to us that the people own Nalcor. They own Nalcor. They do not have anything to say about Nalcor. They have no decision making about Nalcor. Their opinion about the process – for example, 69 per cent of the people in the Province saying in a poll that they believe that Muskrat Falls Project should go to the PUB to be studied by our regulator. So, the government may talk about them owning Nalcor, and Nalcor belongs to the people, but the people have no say about Nalcor – no say whatsoever.

When I hear the government side saying that I want Muskrat Falls to fail, they must think I am crazy. This is something, as I just said, that will take $9 billion at least, I am positive, and it will be paid for by the people of the Province – absolutely paid for by the people of the Province. When and if this goes ahead, I hope and I would like to think it is not going to fail. I am terrified it is going to fail. It is not that I want it to. It is that it has not been shown to me that this is a sure thing.

Here we are getting into a project when 40 per cent of the energy being produced, there is no contract related to it. We are not sure where 40 per cent of energy is going to be used in 2017 if it all starts rolling off in 2017. We do not know where 40 per cent of the energy is going to be used. We have hopes. There are ideas. They think they know where it can happen, but they do not know for sure. They do not know for sure that in 2017 there is going to be a market to the south of us in the US and the Eastern Seaboard because of the changing face of what is happening in the United States with regard to energy – changing rapidly and changing almost as we sit in this House.

We have heard over and over again the reasons for the changes. We put out the information that is coming from the industry, the fact that by 2022, the United States is going to be exporting oil and that they are going to be self-sufficient. The facts out there that keep coming every day terrify me when I look at the future and when I hear the government say: 40 per cent of the energy is not targeted; we could probably sell it on the spot market when the time comes. We have no idea what it is going to be like. We have some ideas. The industry is giving us a lot of ideas, and the ideas are making me say: we have no idea how bad it could be for us in terms of selling the 40 percent.

Then they are saying: well, if we cannot sell it on the spot market or if we sell it there first, we can always send it and sell it to the mining industry in Labrador. We know from the analysis their own expert has done that there is not going to be that much more activity by 2017. While there may be a market there down the road, it will not be in 2017. You will have a bit more activity in 2017, but not enough to take the 40 per cent.

So, when I look at a project of this size, $9 billion, and with these ifs that are out there, these hopes that are out there, I find it really hard to understand how they are not terrified. I am. It is not that I want it to fail. I hope for the sake of the people in this Province, I hope for the sake of our being able to have programs that people need in this Province, I hope for the sake of the people who are going to be paying much higher prices for electricity, I hope beyond hope that I am going to be proven absolutely wrong and that by 2020, please goodness, somebody is going to be able to say: well, Lorraine, it worked out okay.

At this moment the questions that I have are not just my questions. They are not just the questions of the five of us who are elected in this House. They are the questions of thousands of people. They are the questions of experts out there, of economists out there. I meet with economists, too; they are not the only ones who meet with economists. The economists I meet with have a lot of questions and fears about this project. You talk to somebody and read the writings of somebody like Tom Adams, an expert in the field. He cannot see it working.

I do not want it to fail. I am terrified it is going to fail. They have not proven to me yet that I am wrong on that. The questions are still so great that I do not understand why this government has rushed this project so much. I know I have heard it said, on the government side: oh, you know, Muskrat Falls has been in the books since 1972. No, no; Lower Churchill was, and Lower Churchill is what they had in their Energy Plan, with a reference to Muskrat Falls being part of the Lower Churchill picture. It was not that Muskrat Falls was the picture; it was the Lower Churchill that was in their Energy Plan.

Mr. Chair, when I look at how fast the decision was made from 2007, between 2007 and 2010, all of a sudden it was Muskrat Falls. That is when Nalcor was formed. We are talking about a very short –Nalcor is from back in 2007, but we had a very short period of time from the formation of Nalcor to all of a sudden having this project in place. As I have said before, we did not do a big enough look at all the possibilities that are out there for an integrated system, not a system based on one hydroelectric project.

No, I do not want it to fail. I hope against hope I am going to be wrong and things will happen that will make it successful. I also find it hard in this day and age with all the alternatives that are being looked at, with everything that is going on in this world, that we can be so confident that the decision we are making to put all our eggs in the basket of just hydroelectricity is going to work. It does not make sense to me.

I know that the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair has made reference, and I really liked her reference, to how things change and what things were like fifty years ago, or when she was born – no, that was twenty-nine years ago, was it, yes – and now, how fast things change in our world. It is impossible for us to imagine what it is going to be like in fifty years time, or what it is going to be like in thirty years time, or twenty years time.

I am horrified by the speed with which all this has happened and how they are ramming things through, ramming the legislature through, making things happen, having Emera make decisions to sanction before they were going to do it, just ramming things through to meet their deadline. They have not yet explained that to us.

I asked a question in this House yesterday sometime about the timeline. Where is the imperative coming from to get decisions made here in this House in this week, the week before one of the biggest holiday seasons in our society? Where is that imperative coming from? I asked the question, I put out the fact that I have read all the documentation, and nowhere do I see a deadline. Nobody has answered.

I am terrified, Mr. Chair, that is what it is. It is not that I want it to fail. I am terrified with the speed; I am terrified with the way in which we are being asked to make decisions, having had these documents in our hands for such a short period of time. I am terrified that we not make a mistake like the one they led over Abitibi and the mill, where just a little wrong number in a latitude and longitude definition helped this Province buy a mill they did not want to have. No, I do not want it to fail; I want us to slow down so it will not fail.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I am particularly pleased to rise today. I want to respond to comments of the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair with respect to consultation with the NunatuKavut community. She made some comments that the level of consultation was lacking and that she did not think the proper consultations had been carried out.

Mr. Chair, we have an official Aboriginal consultation policy that will be rolled out in February of this year. Hopefully all the information is in and the response back from all the Aboriginal groups and industry in the Province. In the meantime, Mr. Chair, we still use the guidelines of that policy for our consultation, because development is ongoing in Labrador, so we have to consult with Aboriginal groups who have assorted land claims that they feel are being affected by the development.

Mr. Chair, let me tell you this: the provincial government has met and continues to meet all the obligations regarding consultation with the NunatuKavut Community. We have consulted the NCC on the Lower Churchill Generation Project. We have consulted them on the Labrador-Island Transmission Link Project. We have consulted them on all permits related to the generation project since it has been released from the EA process.

Mr. Chair, all the Lower Churchill project information and documentation provided to other Aboriginal groups, such as the Labrador Innu, has been provided to the NCC. The NCC has partnered with Nalcor Energy and the Innu Nation and the Nunatsiavut Government on the Labrador Aboriginal Training Partnership, creating employment for over one hundred clients of the NunatuKavut Community Council. Like the other people of Aboriginal descent in Labrador, Mr. Chair, the NCC will benefit from the Labrador-first hiring policy, and the diversity plan components of the Lower Churchill construction project's benefits strategy.

Now, Mr. Chair, the NCC has been asserting a land claim in Labrador for over twenty years. During that time, significant federal funding has been provided to them to conduct research to support their claim. That claim has not been accepted by the federal government. Now, Mr. Chair, the NCC is looking for an IBA with Nalcor, but in the absence of an asserted land claim, Mr. Chair, IBA is not a requirement of this government. It is not a requirement of this government; it is simply between the proponent and the Aboriginal groups. By their very nature, the Impacts and Benefits Agreements, Mr. Chair, are designed to provide benefits to help compensate and offset any negative impacts on their asserted claims, but they do not have a recognized claim, so an IBA is not in the works right now.

Now, Mr. Chair, the Joint Review Panel found, during their hearings, the Muskrat Falls Project, if developed as proposed, would have no significant effects on the NCC. It concluded many land and resource uses locations reported and frequented by the NunatuKavut Community Council are outside the project area and will remain unaffected by the project.

Mr. Chair, I also want to say that in two Supreme Court decisions – in the first Supreme Court decision where the NunatuKavut Community Council applied for an injunction to prevent the Joint Review Panel from holding public hearings because they claim they were not properly consulted.

Here is what the decision of the court said. This is Chief Justice – I forget his name, which chief justice it was. This is his decision.

"First of all, I do not accept that Nunatukavut was not consulted appropriately. Perhaps more could have been done to hear and address their concerns but I cannot say what it would have been. I am not sure how much funding was actually allotted…" to them "…but I do know that Nunatukavut received more than $2,000,000 to research and write ‘Unveiling Nunatukavut', its land claim document, which it did present to the JRP. My review of the massive amount of documents filed for this application indicates that Nunatukavut was involved at each stage of the EA process starting when the Project was registered and continuing until public hearings began four years later. It was accommodated to the extent that was appropriate and participated as fully as it wished."

Mr. Chair, then another Supreme Court decision lately on the application for the injunction of the roadway going into Muskrat Falls where the injunction was granted to Nalcor, here is what the court said. "From the facts shown above, it can be seen that the honour of the Crown has been fulfilled in its dealing with the NCC in respect of the Generation Project right up through Phase V and the Approval Guidelines and their implementation. The honour of the Crown does not require that the consultation be perfect; it must be conducted in good faith and it must be meaningful. The consultations here have been both."

Mr. Chair, that is the Supreme Court. The Crown has fulfilled, continues to fulfill, and will continue to fulfill its obligations in respect to consultation with NunatuKavut Community Council. I just want to make that clear for the record.

Mr. Chair, I also want to take the opportunity to say a few more words on Bill 61. I listened today, and I have listened several days, to the Minister of Natural Resources rise in this House time after time and repeat time after time the rationale for the Muskrat Falls Project. He talked about the options and how the options have been ruled out. I heard the Minister of Finance talk several times with clarity and conciseness of the financial arrangements for Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Chair, it could not be done with any more precision or any more information. They have pulled out fact after fact, yet the other side refuses to accept them. You only can come to one conclusion, Mr. Chair. They do not want to hear the answers. They did not come here looking for answers. Obviously, the Third Party certainly did not. They came here for other reasons. I do not know what they were, they must be political.

They did not come here to engage in constructive debate because the answers have been given time after time, yet the other side keeps putting up their experts, whoever they are. They keep quiet on their expert studies and whatnot. The Leader says she is terrified that it is going to fail. Terrified it is going to fail. We are not terrified, Mr. Chair, we are confident that it is going to succeed because we have done our homework with the best people in the world that we could use. So, we are not terrified at all.

Mr. Chair, I was terrified last night. I went to bed terrified waiting for the Apocalypse, for the Armageddon that I mentioned last night because the gloom and doom, the end of the world was coming from the speakers on the other side, but I woke up this morning and got the newspaper. I received some comfort, I was lifted again.

Right on the front page, Mr. Chair, the Amazing Kreskin, who has preformed numerous times in Newfoundland, says predictions that the world will end Friday are wrong and that many of the alarmist spreading hype about the Mayan calendar's prognostication for planetary doom are phonies. Mr. Chair, I take some comfort in the fact that the world is not going to end tomorrow. From that, we will probably be able to carry on in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Signal Hill- Quidi Vidi.

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

I am glad to get up again so soon because I want to continue the thought that I had started in talking about Muskrat Falls and my concerns. I want to pick up on the theme of something else that the government has been saying. I think it was the Member for Labrador West who today has been saying it a lot, and that is the thing that the people own Nalcor. That is a theme that has been coming from government over and over.

Yes, it is a Crown corporation. In that sense the people do own it, but as I said ten minutes ago, the people do not have much say about what happens there. One of the ways in which the people could have a say or feel like they would have a say, Mr. Chair, is if there is an open and transparent process with regard to Muskrat Falls.

One of my big concerns about the project is the fact that there has been a shutting off by the government of the Public Utilities Board with regard to Muskrat Falls. This has been problematic. I have expressed it and I will continue to express the fact that I do not believe government should have shut out the Public Utilities Board after what happened at the point in time in which the government asked for a decision from the Public Utilities Board in a very premature way. It was long before the project was in its final state, and to ask the Public Utilities Board to make a decision about the project at the DG2 stage made no sense. Government set up the situation that became very problematic. The fact that the project was taken out from under the scrutiny of our regulatory body will always be problematic.

When I look at Bill 61, I do see the section, section 2, which has an amendment in a section of the Electrical Power Control Act. The language is very interesting and I want to speak to it, because I am hoping that either the Minister of Natural Resources or the Premier or the Minister of Finance might be able to give me a better understanding of what the new section 5.1, which will be in the Electrical Power Control Act, what this new section will mean because the language is very interesting.

Last week, in Question Period, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources actually with regard to the role of the Public Utilities Board and Muskrat Falls. The minister said there is still a role. We did not have this legislation in our hand then. I was looking forward to getting the legislation. He said, in response to my question last week: There is still be a role for the Public Utilities Board with Muskrat Falls, but it will not be the same role as they would otherwise have. That is a direct quote from what the Minister of Natural Resources said.

I asked him to clarify and tell me what this role of PUB in relationship to Muskrat Falls would be. He really did not answer the question, but I think he may have made reference to there is legislation coming. I presume what I have in my hand is the legislation.

When I looked at this new section, as I said a minute ago, I find the language very interesting because what it says – and I will not read out everything – "for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the public utilities board…." I will not naysay all of the things that it may direct it to first. I want to look at the words may direct.

We had a discussion somewhere over the last forty-eight, plus twelve – so how much is that? Sixty hours. We have had a discussion about language. Actually, this may have happened last week during the discussion of Bill 53 – it did. There was discussion over the use of whether or not "should" or "shall" would be the best word in a clause. I think that the Opposition House Leader was proposing an amendment from should to shall. I do not think the government accepted that amendment, so it did not happen.

Now I am looking at this language here which says the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the Public Utilities Board basically to exercise powers. That says to me it is not going to be automatic; it may direct. If the Public Utilities Board is not directed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to do the things that are outlined here, then my question is: Who does it? That is what I would like an answer to.

The implication here is that government can choose to have the Public Utilities Board develop the policies, procedures, and directives that are required with regard to electrical power or the government could choose to do it in another way. I need an explanation with regard to this legislation of if the Public Utilities Board is not going to do it, who would do it? Who would, for example, implement the policies, procedures, and directives respecting the exercise of powers and the performance of the duties of the Public Utilities Board if they do not do it?

Who, for example, would look at the rates that are going to be paid for Muskrat Falls if it is not the Public Utilities Board? If the Lieutenant-Governor in Council – which for laypeople who are listening to us today means the government. If the Lieutenant-Governor in Council does not direct the PUB to do it, then who is going to do it?

Does it mean that Nalcor and the government together are going to be the ones that are going to be looking at things like the annual rate of return of the utility? Does it mean that Nalcor and the government are going to be looking at whether or not public hearings are going to be held at various times? Public hearings which in actual fact the Public Utilities Board does automatically which does give people a sense of ownership of their utility.

If the PUB does not do it, are government and Nalcor going to be looking at the cost, the expenses, and the allowances that are to be included in the rates? Or does government make a decision either-or? This is what I need clarification on because the word "may" is deliberately used. We all know a document like this, a bill which is going to become legislation and which is the ultimate piece of direction that exists in our system – we always go to our legislation to see what it says – is written very carefully. Every word is chosen carefully, I hope. As has been pointed out by people on the government side, it took a long time to put these pieces together. I am sure it did. It should have. If it did not, I would be very upset.

I want qualification on what they mean when they say the government may direct. If they do not direct, if the Lieutenant-Governor in Council does not direct the PUB, who does? Who performs all of this stuff that normally is done by the PUB? This is what the PUB would do for any other utility. This is what the PUB would do as part of its mandate. Why is it that government may do it?

It then goes on to say: "The public utilities board shall implement the policies, procedures and directives of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as directed under…" this section I have been referring to. I take this stuff very seriously. Every single word in this is important. The need of the PUB to be involved is serious.

The government said, and the Minister of Natural Resources said in response to me in Question Period, the implication is: they are still there. They are still there, but they are there with a caveat. They are there with a limitation. It seems to me they are not there automatically. It is going to be in the hands of government whether or not they direct the Public Utilities Board to implement the policies, procedures, and directives with regard to the Muskrat Falls Project. I will be happy to hear at least some minister stand who knows the legislation well to give me a better understanding of my interpretation of the word may.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance, President of Treasury Board, and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Government decided last Monday to sanction this project. We are debating here tonight two pieces of legislation which are needed for the project to go to the next step: number one, to enable the government to obtain the land for the transmission links; and number two, to allow government to proceed to arrange the financing or let Nalcor to proceed to arrange its financing for this particular project.

We are not doing the Muskrat Falls Project because we want to do a big project. Nobody takes on a project of this size unless there is a darn good reason for doing it.

As hon. members know, and I think the people watching out there know, we have a great number of hydroelectric projects throughout the Province. We have a thermal, I am thinking of places like – I wrote them all down here and lost the list already, but I can think of Cat Arm, Rattle Brook, the Upper Salmon, Paradise River, and, of course, the one in St. Alban's – quick, help me out here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: Bay d'Espoir, of course. We also have the thermal generating plant at Holyrood, which also produces electricity, but does it by burning of oil instead of using water to turn the turbines to create electricity.

Each of those projects are all handled the same way. It was the same for telephone monopolies. It was same for light and power monopolies and it was the same for cable television stations in that the rates that are charged are regulated. The rates that the users have to pay – because it is the users who pay for the project; I hear hon. members in this House saying the people, the ratepayers are going to have to pay for Muskrat Falls. Yes, they will; the same way they are paying for every other hydroelectric project or thermal generating project in the Province.

The people who use the power from a project are the ones who pay for it, and they pay for all of the cost – all of the cost. They pay for the cost of construction. It is my understanding, the way this works is normally there might even be some bank lending, some back credits made available while construction goes on; when the construction is finished and the project is ready to go, the amount of the interim funding and the interest on the debt during construction are capitalized and they are refinanced in a new loan or a new bond, which is usually spread out for the life of the project.

Most people, I think, when they get a mortgage, will get a twenty or twenty-five-year mortgage, so a project of this size, it is certainly not unusual to see a project like a hydroelectric project to go on for thirty-five or forty or fifty years when an ordinary residential home would go on for twenty-five or thirty years.

Mr. Chair, the people pay for these costs. The ratepayers pay for the cost in every one of these projects. That is the way that it works. They also pay for the cost of operation. They also pay for a guaranteed rate of return, which is given to the developer, it is given to the proponent, and that is where the proponent gets a profit. That is why people in the past that have done these types of projects have made a lot of money. Because it is a guaranteed return on the assets of the project for many years. We have seen how this has helped people in the private sector and how firms have done very, very well and have grown because of that. Guaranteed rate of return, Mr. Chair, nothing like it.

So, why don't we do something that will give that rate of return to the people of the Province? Yes, the people will have to pay as ratepayers, but as owners of the project they then get it back at the other end. They will get back the profits. They will get back the return, which can be used for their benefit. Either to put it back into the hydro facility to allow the rates to be lower, which is an option of government, and is something that this government has done on a number of occasions; or, the government, the elected representatives of the people of the day, will use those revenues to maybe build hospitals or build schools or finance programs that the people of the Province would like to see.

That will be a decision made by the government of the day. Muskrat Falls will not be built until 2017. That is when the revenues will start to flow. They will go into the government then, and the government then will determine what is going to happen to the revenues. The suggestion of the Member for St. John's South – I have sympathy for that suggestion that the money go back to deal with rates, but the government may have more important priorities. They may want to build hospitals and they may want to build extensions to hospitals. They may want to build long-term care facilities or put the money into health care for seniors. That is a decision that government will make.

I think the Member for St. John's South expressed a concern about the cost, and the fact that the ratepayers pay the cost. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition say: Oh, the people have to pay the cost of Muskrat Falls. They pay the cost of any project, whichever one we are going to go to, they are going to pay, and they are going to pay the rate of return on it. So, the smart thing to do is to go with the project that is the cheapest cost.

So, what has happened here, we have two problems. Problem number one is that rates have been going up without Muskrat Falls. They have been going up for the past ten years, and they are going to continue to go up because the price of oil at Holyrood has been driving up prices of electricity. We need more electricity. If we do not build something new, where is it going to come from? It is going to come from Holyrood, so you are going to be churning up Holyrood, burning more oil at Holyrood, driving the cost up even more. We need more power on the Island. We need more power in Labrador.

So we have to do a project, and they have looked at the alternatives. They are mandated by the law; Hydro is mandated by the law to determine, what are our needs? Do we need more power, and if we need more power what is the cheapest alternative? It is not just about Muskrat Falls. This is their legislative mandate. They do this all the time. They have been doing it for many, many years.

You look at the alternatives, and because the people have to pay for it, because the people have to pay the cost of construction, because the people have to pay the cost of operation in the rates they pay, because they have to pay a guaranteed rate of return, then you have to make sure that the project you build is the cheapest one. Muskrat Falls based on the analysis of Nalcor and based on the analysis of MHI, Muskrat Falls is $2.4 billion cheaper than the other alternative. So obviously you are going to do that one, are you not?

If we are concerned about the ratepayer, and we all are, then you want to make sure that the project will meet your needs is the one – obviously, you want it to have a safe and reliable source of supply. You want to make sure it makes environmental sense, but to me you want the one that is going to cost the people the less money, the less rates, and Muskrat Falls is $2.4 billion lower.

The people will pay the rates. They will cover the cost of the project, as they said. Then on the other end, that money will pay the financing. It will pay the cost of operations, and then Nalcor will have a profit. Nalcor will then pay a dividend from that profit to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which will use the money to pay off the loan that it is taking out to put in its equity contribution.

I have said what those numbers should be. The Member for Bay of Islands was talking about the rates, Nalcor will still set the rates but the cost – not Nalcor, I am sorry. The PUB will still set the rates, but the cost will be covered – the PUB will have to accept the cost of the project, just as is happening with all of the other projects right now.

The people will pay the rates, but the difference – because the people will own the company and the people will decide as shareholders who are going to run that company, who is going to be in the board of that company, and the board of the company is going to decide who is going to be the Chair and who are going to be the officers, and then the money will come back to the government of the people.

The government can then take that money and give it back to the people in different ways that the government, the elected representatives considers appropriate, and that is the difference. It will go back to the people. The rates will be the lowest of any potential project out there. Rather than let the private sector do it and let the money go to their shareholders, the money that is paid will turn and go back to the government of the day and the government of the day will decide on how that money will go back to the people.

Governments do not keep the money. We do not keep the revenues that come in. It all goes back to the people of the Province, and I think that is the important thing. You want the project that will give you safe and reliable energy, that will give you the lowest rates – the one that will give you the lowest rates – and Muskrat Falls is $2.4 billion cheaper than the alternative. We have the benefit of the federal government loan guarantee. Whatever excess that is there, that covers the cost, covers the financing, and goes back to the government, will then be returned to the people in services. That is a very good thing, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Minister of Finance for his comments. I understand what is happening here. I understand what government is doing. We are in a period where there are declining oil revenues. We have seen the provincial budget almost double in the last ten years, so we are at a stage where we have declining oil revenues and the budget, as it is right now, is not sustainable. Obviously, they have to come up with a source of revenue.

I understand that. I think most members of the House understand that is part of what is behind this particular proposal. By the people of the Province paying 100 per cent of the cost to the project, getting 40 per cent of the energy, 40 per cent of the energy is sold on the open market, whether it is to the mining companies in Labrador, or to the Maritimes, or to the United States. The other 40 per cent of the energy – because Emera owns 20 per cent of the energy, at least for thirty-five years, I believe it is – is going to be sold. Essentially, government is collecting on that 40 per cent twice.

Just for greater clarity – and I am not going to take up a great deal of time here – I say to the Minister of Finance: I am not suggesting that all of that revenue for that 40 per cent that is sold on the market go into rates. What I am suggesting is that the rates that were shown on the rate calculator – because that is part of how Nalcor sold the project, it is part of how government sold the project – the people out there have an expectation that the rates are going to be what the rate calculator proposed.

What I am suggesting is that government, Nalcor, guarantee the rates that were shown on that rate calculator are what people are going to pay. That is what they were told they were going to pay. There is an expectation that is what they are going to pay. If there are cost overruns, or for whatever other reason Nalcor has a need for the ratepayers to pay more money over and above what the rate calculator shows, I am suggesting that the excess revenue from the excess power that is sold either to the mining companies or to the Maritimes or the United States, part of that goes to ensuring that the rates are as the rate calculator said they would be. The rest of it can go to government revenue, because obviously government is going to need to continue to provide schools, roads, hospitals, or drugs, or they are going to have to make cuts.

I understand that government needs to replace some of the lost revenue from declining oil revenues. What I am suggesting, I say to the Minister of Finance, is that the rates that people were told, the ratepayers were told they would have to pay on the rate calculator, that those rates be guaranteed. That is where I am coming from on it.

I understand the government needs additional revenue. I accept that. The rates that ratepayers were told they would have to pay should be guaranteed. If there is excess revenue from excess power sales, that should go first and foremost to ensuring that the rates are what people were told they were going to be paying. The rest of it can go to government revenue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments of the Member for St. John's South, but that is a decision that will be made by the government of the day. It is a decision that they could make if they saw fit to do so, if that was a priority of that government.

Mr. Chair, I have heard some comments – I heard it from the Member for Bay of Islands, the Member for St. John's South – that 40 per cent of the power would go to the Island. You have to remember from our remarks previously that we are looking at: what is the problem we have to solve? The problem we have to solve is to be able to stop producing electricity at Holyrood, replace it, and also provide us with the additional power that is needed on the Island.

That is estimated at 40 per cent, to replace Holyrood, shut down Holyrood. We stop making electricity by burning oil, and that provides us with the additional power that we are going to need. The Minister of Natural Resources has from time to time talked about the bigger homes and all the electrical appliances that people have, and the fact that at one point it was 50-50 homes that were heated by oil and the rest were heated by electricity. Now I think it is 86 per cent of new homes are going with electricity. We have more need of power on the Island.

With respect to Emera, 20 per cent of the power is going to Emera. The return really is a purchase of the link. Emera is going to build the link; people of Nova Scotia will pay for that as part of their bills. For the 20 per cent, the government can send down that Maritime Link, on a priority basis, the other 40 per cent that it has for export – if it has it for export – and acquire the Maritime Link over thirty-five years.

Mr. Chair, that 40 per cent, that additional 40 per cent that is not coming to the Island for use on the Island, we expect that most of that 40 per cent will be taken up in Labrador, will be used as a catalyst for economic growth in Labrador, or on the Island – especially the mining sector in Labrador. We have talked and other members have talked about the report from Dr. Wade Locke on the outlook for investment in the Labrador Trough – the talk about $10 to $15 billion over the next ten years.

The Muskrat Falls Project, when you looked at the different costs and the current present worth, and when you were looking at where are we going to get our new power from, how are we going to solve the problem, what is the project, and you look at the different alternatives to provide you with the new power you need and the replacement of Holyrood, Muskrat Falls was the cheapest alternative, if you are only using 40 per cent of the power. If that is all that was needed on the Island, 40 per cent, it was still the lowest-cost option, even with the rest of the power not being produced. In other words, the water would be allowed to go down the river.

So, what is happening with the Maritime Link is that it is giving us an option to monetize that power. So instead of letting the water flow down the river and not produce it, it is enabling us to monetize that power, and at least get some money for it. That power would be sold if it is not needed in Labrador. It will be sold on the spot market, which means it can be sold in Nova Scotia, it can be sold in New Brunswick, it can be sold in Prince Edward Island, or it can be sold in the United States.

I expect that most of it will probably be sold in Atlantic Canada, but at least we will have the option and the right and the prior transmission rights from Emera, because Emera can have transmission rights through Nova Scotia through New Brunswick and into the US. They will assign those rights to Nalcor. Nalcor will have priority rights and will only have to pay for that transmission when they are sending the power down. They will not have to sign a take it or leave it type of contract, where you sign to take it all year long. They will only have to pay for it when they are actually using it. So that will monetize the surplus power; but, if you could not monetize it, the Muskrat Falls Project, with 60 per cent of the power not being produced, is still the cheapest option for the people of the Province.

The Member for Bay of Islands asked: How much will we sell if for to Nova Scotia on the spot market? Well, we do not know what the spot market prices will be. They will change. Spot markets change by the hour, if not early, every minute. There is no way we can control what the markets are in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or the US. The same way when a fisherman has a surplus of fish, or we have a surplus of newsprint and we try to sell it in markets all over the world, you cannot control those markets. You take advantage of the best ones you can.

What it will do for us, again, it will enable us to monetize the power if we do not need it. Hopefully, we will need it, that it will be used in Labrador. It can be used on the Island to create jobs, to be a catalyst for industry. If that is the case, it will be used up.

Then there will be other opportunities, the three hydro projects on the Island. I mentioned three. I was criticized for saying there were only three, but there are three that I am aware of, 77 megawatts of power – and with all the wind, people can take advantage of that and construct those projects. Then those projects can be exported down that Maritime Link to export markets.

Mr. Chair, this is the lowest cost to the people of the Province. It will be the lowest rates. The rates will be set by the PUB. People will pay the cost, as they do in all the other projects. The other projects are at different costs. Holyrood is the most expensive.

The minister today said Holyrood power is fifteen to twenty cents, and I understand that is the most expensive project. That is the highest cost power on the Island, and we pay a blended rate. The rate is blended because we are all taking advantage of the power. The Muskrat Falls power, when it is produced, will also be part of the blended rate to the people who use that power.

Mr. Chair, I had spoken earlier of the other advantages, the fact that it will finally put us in a position where we control our energy, our electricity, by owning the facility. We will get off oil. We will stop having to import high cost oil from countries around the world and we will stop being controlled by them.

The advantages I mentioned earlier today of being connected for the first time to the national grid. If there is ever an east-west grid, if the governments of the provinces and the federal government can ever come in with a national energy policy and a national grid, that we can export our power right across the country.

We know that there are opportunities in Ontario. We know Ontario does not want to go nuclear. As was said earlier today, things can change very quickly and we have to move because opportunities present themselves. If we are not in a position to take advantage of it, Ontario could go nuclear and then those markets are lost.

Again, we must always remember that this Muskrat Falls Project, as I said when I started my remarks, we are not doing it to build a legacy. We are not doing it because we want to build a big project. We are doing it to solve the problem. The problem is we are going to shut down Holyrood because the costs are too high. We are going to shut down Holyrood because it is an environmental monster that should be shut down. We need power for economic activity in Labrador and we need more power on the Island. That is essentially the problem.

It is not being built to export to the US. That was not the intention of Muskrat Falls. The Upper Churchill was built to export the power. Gull Island someday will be built to export the power and make money. This was to meet the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and because it was initially thought there was going to be a surplus, we said rather than let that power go to the sea, or let the water go to the sea and not produce power, let's try to at least monetize it and get some money for it because it is better to get something for it rather than getting zero for it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise again to have a few words on this. I heard the minister's comments and the more that I hear the comments the more and more I get confused. This is why we need this debate and too bad that we could not have this well before Christmas because it is of such importance.

I go back on the day where four or five times I asked the minister, and I asked again today: What will be the rates paid by the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on their monthly bill? I still cannot get an answer. Here is the interesting part. The minister stands up when he is answering the question, Mr. Chair, but we are going to make this amount of money. Yet today, he just admitted that he does not know what he is going to get for the power being sold on the spot market, but we know how much profit we are going to make.

It just does not make sense. It honestly does not make sense. You can stand up and say that we are going to make this amount of profit – and the minister said today in questions I asked earlier today we are going to make $20 billion over fifty years, possibly $24 billion if we sell it on the US market. Then, he turns around and says most of it is going to be used in Labrador. So we cannot use the $24 billion. It is so contradictory –

MR. MARSHALL: So, we will have to make do with the $20 billion (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, the minister is saying you have to make do with the $20 billion, but you do not know what the spot market is; you do not know what you are going to charge the ratepayers who are paying 100 per cent of the profits which are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You cannot tell them what they are going to pay. We can tell you we are going to make a profit, but you cannot say how much they are going to charge. It just does not make sense.

I say to the minister when you mentioned telephone monopolies and cable monopolies – and this is something I was not going to get into until later. You have to remember we have competition now in this Province. Competition has the prices lower.

What you have just done with fifty-five years of monopoly for Nalcor, with 55 per cent for Nalcor here, Mr. Chair – with the monopoly for Nalcor for fifty-five years, there cannot be any competition. Nalcor's price has to stay up to pay for this project. If there is any new technology in Canada or in this world that come in we cannot bring it in because we have to keep this price up here because we have to pay for the project – the time is in for fifty-five years.

If you look back in fifty-five years, just a few advances – BlackBerrys, when we were growing up, are what we used to eat. Now, Mr. Chair, it is what we are using to send the messages all around the world. We used to eat them. Mr. Chair, something used in this House a lot is Tweets. The only time I used to hear Tweets was little birds flying up in the trees, but now there are Tweets all around the world. That is the technology.

My fear, Mr. Chair, with all this is that all this technology coming in my lifetime, but for my lifetime on until I am buried sometime – my lifetime that I am 110, fifty-five more years, there cannot be any more technology brought in to Newfoundland and Labrador. It cannot be brought in to Newfoundland and Labrador. Those are just some of the things.

First thing, I go back nineteen, twenty years ago the great thing that we all enjoyed twenty years ago. Do you know what it was to get information back and forth? Fax machines. Twenty years ago the big technology in the offices that we had was that we could put something on the fax, you can get it in here in St. John's and that was great. Then a few years later all of a sudden all of the e-mails steps in, then all of a sudden all the BlackBerry steps in, now all the Tweets are stepping in. That is just in the last couple of years.

Yet if we are going to isolate ourselves for fifty-five years and we do not allow any of this technology to come in, I really think it is a gross injustice to the people of this Province. I honestly feel it is. That you are tying us into something for this agreement for fifty-five years that you cannot allow any monopoly, cannot allow any new technology. So, I guess the minister's budget for Innovation, Business and Rural Development is going to be cut for any new technologies that we are going to look at now for energy in this Province. You do not need it. Take the budget out, boom – not that you did much with it anyway. You had $256 million in a fund from Ottawa, the immigration fund, Mr. Chair. Guess how many projects we used for hydroelectricity in this Province? Take a guess: how many, Mr. Chair? Not one. We lost $5 million the first five years. So, that is the kind of thing that we are closing off.

I just heard the minister – I was shocked, actually. If people in this Province ever want to know why we are asking questions, if you ever want to know, the Minister of Finance – and we all assume that the Minister of Finance is one of the powerful people in government, in Newfoundland, one of the most powerful people in this government.

For the Minister of Finance to stand up in this House – and I have the legislation, and if he needs a copy I will bring it over to him, and I will even highlight it for him. If the Minister of Finance is standing up in this House and telling the people of this Province that the PUB is setting the rates, to me, Mr. Chair, it does not fly with the bill that you are bringing forth. It does not fly with the bill you are bringing forth, Mr. Chair.

So, if the Minister of Finance, the second most powerful person in this government, is telling the people of this Province – you want to know why we need to go through this piece by piece? Either the minister is making a mistake – I will give the minister ample time later to stand up and say: I was misquoted, I forgot what I was saying, I am tired. It is up to him; but for him to say that the PUB is setting the rates for Muskrat Falls flies in the face of this legislation we are discussing now – flies totally in the face. I know anybody – and Minister, I am going to get the Hansard, because I could not believe what the Minister of Finance was saying. I just could not believe it, Mr. Chair, what he was saying.

If you go back, Mr. Chair, 5.1, what they are adding in this new legislation – 5.1, I will say to the Minister of Finance, if you got time to read it after, look at: "Notwithstanding a provision of this Act or the Public Utilities Act, for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the public utilities board to implement policies, procedures and directives respecting the exercise of powers and the performance of the duties of the public utilities board under this Act or the Public Utilities Act, including policies, procedures and directives respecting: (a) the costs, expenses, and allowances that are to be included in the rates, tolls and charges approved for a public utility, and the terms of that inclusion; (b) the terms of the interim orders, orders or approvals determining the rates, tolls and charges of a public utility…"

Now, Mr. Chair, I am going to read that again, because I am sure the Minister of Finance must not have gotten much sleep. For him to stand up and say the PUB is setting the rates in this Province flies in the face of what we are discussing here today, if anybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador wants to know why we are standing up here. Either the minister is misquoting or he is just a bit tired – I will give him the benefit of the doubt – or he just never read this bill. I could not believe my ears.

I will read it again for the minister. I know he is paying attention. I will read it again: "the terms of the interim orders, orders or approvals determining rates, tolls and charges of a public utility…" I say to the minister, look at 5.2(b): "the terms of the interim orders, orders or approvals determining rates, tolls and charges of a public utility…" It cannot get any clearer. Mr. Chair, they are even going so far, it is up to this government if the PUB will hold hearings.

I say to the minister: If you are ever going to stand up and make a statement like that, flying in the face of your own legislation that your government is trying to ram through here before Christmas, at least take the time to read it. That is all I ask you to do. If you read it, you would not be standing up making those statements as if we are just going off now and the PUB can set the rates at whatever they deem necessary. Everybody in this House and everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know it is just not factually correct.

We are not debating if the PUB can set the rates. We are debating that the powers of the PUB are going to be taken away – stripped away, Mr. Chair. The little bit of protection we had on top to protect the consumer in this Province, this government is saying: now, PUB, go over in the corner, we are going to tell you, take out your rubber stamp, put it on it, and send it on out to the people. That is what is happening here in this bill, Mr. Chair.

I ask the minister to stand up next time and clarify his remarks, because obviously they are flying in the face of this legislation we are here discussing.

CHAIR: Time is up.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be back again.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am rising on a point of privilege at this time.

Mr. Chair, today in the House of Assembly, at 4:09 p.m., the Member for Lake Melville rose in his place to speak to the important bill that we have before the House of Assembly today. Mr. Chair, in speaking in the House of Assembly today I feel that this member violated my privileges as a parliamentarian, as a female parliamentarian of this House of Assembly, and has indeed violated the privileges of all female parliamentarians in this House of Assembly.

His statements today, Mr. Chair, impacts on all of us. It impacts our ability to do our job as parliamentarians in this Province. I am asking, Mr. Chair, that you undertake this point of privilege, and I ask that you find it is a prima facie case and it is indeed a breach of privilege.

After his comments, Mr. Chair, I went back to my office. I contacted the media centre to try and obtain a copy of the transcript. Because the media centre is very busy as a result of this filibuster, they were unable to provide me with the transcript to date, but I know the rules of the House of Assembly and I know that if I feel my privileges have been violated, that I must rise at the earliest occasion. I would ask that once the media video transcript is available, that it would be reviewed.

Mr. Chair, we are today in this House of Assembly debating a very important piece of legislation. It is significant by any proportion of any act that we have ever done in this Province's Legislature. I honestly feel, Mr. Chair, that my ability has been comprised to be able to respond to this bill and to be able to debate it appropriately.

In the last hour I have had an opportunity to reflect upon the comments of the member opposite. I find, Mr. Chair, his comments were degrading to women, parliamentarians, and, in fact, degrading to me as an elected official in this Province. Mr. Chair, if we cannot come to this House of Assembly without having the ability to debate legislation appropriately as men and women, then there is a problem in this Legislature.

In asking that you find this a prima facie case and a breach of privilege, I also ask, Mr. Chair, that the member apologize to me and to the House of Assembly, and I ask that this House of Assembly direct that member to review the Code of Conduct for members of this Legislature.

I ask, Mr. Chair, that you take this under advisement. I ask for a ruling on this because it has compromised my privileges and my ability to do my job at a time when it is significantly important in this Province that I be able to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The House will now recess. Given the time of day, and our normal supper break would be in the near future, the House will recess until at least 7:00 p.m. and may stand in recess beyond that until a decision has been made.

The hon. the Deputy House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Chair, I respect the point of privilege brought forward. We will wait for your review and your ruling on the point of privilege. We will wait for your ruling on that.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The House stands in recess until at least 7:00 p.m.

The House resumed sitting at 7:45 p.m.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

During debate this afternoon there was a point of privilege raised, and I will be rising the Committee to report the point of privilege to the Speaker. At this point I rise the Committee to report to the Speaker on the point of privilege from the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, during debate in Committee, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair raised a point of order concerning comments made by the Member for Lake Melville earlier in the afternoon. The Committee of the Whole has directed me to report the matter to the Speaker and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Member for Port de Grave.

I wish to make a ruling with respect to the point of privilege raised by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair with respect to comments made by the Member for Lake Melville. The video of the exchange in the House of Assembly during Committee of the Whole has been reviewed.

The Member for Lake Melville was found to have made at least four comments which are questionable. This House has had to deal with issues of intemperate language in this House already this year. I remind members of my decision on June 19 of 2012, with respect to comments which I found to be contentious of this House. At that time, it was pointed out that contempt of the House may be an action which is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, and that "the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly." That is a citation from O'Brien and Bosc, page 83.

I ruled just last week that citations in supporting an argument cannot be taken in isolation. Similarly, when looking at statements of members, the statements by the Member for Lake Melville, one cannot isolate a single comment. To take a single comment without considering the actions, the accumulative statements of a member is equally wrong.

In this case, the initial comments, while perhaps imprudent, were not overly contentious; however, the collective statements and the gestures escalated from the relatively benign to quite offensive, not only to females in this House but to the House as a whole.

Debate in this House must not be personalized. It is the debate of the issues and to direct comments that employ unintended motives, deliberately demeaning another member, or generally being offensive in a gender-oriented way is disrespectful to this House and all of its members.

I find that there has been contempt against the House by the Member for Lake Melville when in the Committee of the Whole, and I ask that the member apologize for his behaviour. I also ask that the member review the Code of Conduct and, following that review that, he meet with the Speaker to ensure that there is an understanding of acceptable members' roles and conduct in this House.

The Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely regret the comments that I made earlier in reference to the hon. Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. My offhanded remarks were inappropriate. I respectfully apologize to the hon. member and, indeed, all hon. members of this House.

At your convenience, Mr. Speaker, I will meet with you regarding the Code of Conduct.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will go back to Orders of the Day. I call us back into Committee of the Whole to review Bills 60 and 61, commencing with Bill 60, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded that I do leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 60 and 61.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are considering Bill 60 and Bill 61. Bill 60, Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project, and Bill 61, An Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, the Energy Corporation Act and the Hydro Corporation Act, 2007.

We are debating clause 1 of Bill 61.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I plan this evening and throughout the evening to talk about a number of issues that had been raised by members opposite as it relates to the Muskrat Falls Project as defined in the act. I plan to deal with the issues of the environmental assessment panel that have been raised by the Leader of the NDP. I plan to deal with the issue of the duty, the obligation and extent of consultation with the NunatuKavut government. I also plan to deal with the federal loan guarantee.

One of the conditions of the federal loan guarantee is that all necessary legal and policy authorities have been complied with to the satisfaction of the guarantor. As we are all aware on November 26 and 27, there was a case heard by Justice Near in Ottawa by the Grand Riverkeepers, Labrador Inc., Sierra Club of Canada, and NunatuKavut Community Council Inc. A decision was rendered this afternoon in that matter and the application was dismissed. The application of all of the applicants was dismissed. They had tried to set aside the order of the environmental assessment panel and to set the matter back for a new hearing.

As I to go this, this is important because it allows now for the satisfaction of another one of the conditions precedent and there is nothing to prevent these groups from trying to appeal. As I have said on many occasions, and my fellow lawyers on this side will indicate, anyone can take out legal action but we cannot allow legal actions being taken out to subvert significant and major projects.

I plan to go through this in some detail. It is going to take me a few of the – the decision is approximately thirty-two pages long. I am going to start with the duty to consult NunatuKavut. They had argued in detail that they were not accorded procedural fairness and the right to be heard. Justice Near talked about it, "I must also reject NunatuKavut's arguments based on the Panel's purported duty to consult the group on all matters, and to compel evidence from them on all three issues in dispute…."

Justice Near stated, "The mandate to invite information cannot be said to include a mandate to compel evidence… Moreover, the Panel fulfilled its mandate by inviting, and accepting, on several occasions written submissions from NunatuKavut. In addition, the Panel heard from the group in the General Hearing Sessions it held in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in St. John's. Indeed, the group received over $130,000 through the Participant Funding Program to participate in the EA process. NunatuKavut's choice not to participate in a portion of the hearings by virtue of its injunction proceedings, regardless of how good the group's intentions, cannot impose a duty on the Panel to compel evidence from it… For all of these reasons, I find that there was no infringement of NunatuKavut's right to be heard or of any other principle of procedural fairness with respect to the group's participation in the EA process."

I am going to deal with this first. This will be the first stage I will deal with. We have been saying throughout and it has been argued by the Opposition House Leader that there has been no consultation with NunatuKavut and that they have not been given a fair chance to state their case. Well, at page 2 of the decision Justice Near stated, "All three groups participated throughout the EA process for the project, and each was awarded funds through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's… Participant Funding Program to facilitate its participation in the different phases of the assessment."

I really do not know how the Opposition House Leader can stand before this court and say they were not given the opportunity to participate when they were provided with over $130,000 in funding. They attended the proceedings and chose not to attend other parts of the proceedings. They have gone to the Supreme Court in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and I may review that decision a little later on tonight, also. The duty to consult is reviewed in that case by Justice Stack and he reviews the previous Court of Appeal decision.

In essence, what has happened here is court after court is finding that they have had the opportunity to state their case. It keeps coming back to that basic principle that the duty to consult is on a spectrum that goes from, in this case, consultation with the Innu Nation because they have a land claims to the consultation with Nunatsiavut Government who are on the lower end of the scale and, even though they have a land claim, they are not affected as much.

The reality is with NunatuKavut that they do not have an established land claim. As the Premier and myself, and Ministers of Justice, have stated in this House, if the federal government chooses to recognize them under section 35 of the Constitution, then we will certainly look at that as being a validation of their rights. However, there are also court cases going on and a court case is another way in which you can establish your Aboriginal claim or your land claims. Mr. Chair, your right to hunt and fish cannot automatically lead to a land claim. That is a different issue.

It seems to me that the decision here of the federal court is outlined in some detail. The steps were taken to ensure NunatuKavut was involved in the hearing and that they were accorded the rights of procedural fairness and the right to be heard. In fact, they were provided with more than $130,000 in funding.

Earlier today, the House Leader referred to the fact that the President of NunatuKavut has been phoning me and I will not return his calls. Well, I had a meeting with the President of the NunatuKavut Community Council earlier this year in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I felt the meeting went well. I had indicated we would certainly consider what they were saying. They had a couple of elders there. It was a good discussion. I was familiar, having been Minister of Justice at one point, with their issues and so we had a good discussion.

The next day it went off the rails when we had the Premiers' meetings in Halifax. Before I even had a chance to discuss with the Premier, the President of NunatuKavut Community Council was out lambasting the Premier in the newspapers. That ended that. That is where that ended, Mr. Chair. You cannot on one hand ask us, as he was asking, to look at certain issues, which I indicated I would take back to the Premier and our Cabinet, and then go out the next day. The Minister of Government Services will outline. He asked for the information of what took place.

What has happened today, and the decision came down today, is that the Grand Riverkeeper, Sierra Club – is that the fellow who phones Back Talk? Is he Sierra Club? What is his name, that other fellow from the mainland?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

The Sierra Club has been dismissed and so has the NCC. Another legal action gone and another condition precedent satisfied.

I am not going to have time to go through it all at this first session or ten minute block, but I am also going to talk about the findings of the Environmental Assessment Panel and the arguments that have been put forward by the Leader of the NDP as to the fact that the Environmental Assessment Panel did not support the project. Let us talk about what the purpose is of a Joint Review Panel. I will take this couple of minutes to go through this.

Justice Near states at paragraph 29, a Joint Review Panel or "…JRP is established to fulfill an information gathering and recommending function under…" the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. "The Panel does not render any final decisions with respect to the Project, nor does it make absolutely binding recommendations. Rather, its primary goal is to assist the RAs – the ultimate decision makers" – being the government – "in obtaining the information they need to make environmentally informed decisions. It is one piece of the decision-making process mandated by CEAA." That is their role.

The member opposite for St. Barbe might be more interested in the discussion on the standard of reasonableness, but I am not going to get into that. That is not really what I need to talk about here. The contentious issues that have always been raised, at least by the Leader of the NDP and sometimes by the Liberals also, is they never approved the project. They approve the environmental assessment. I have to make sure I state this properly. They make recommendations. It is released from the environmental assessment process.

They went on, in this case, to make recommendations in relation to sections 4.1 and 4.2. I will deal with those shortly. Those are the ones that deal with what they refer to as independent financial assessment and also the issue of alternatives. One must remember, throughout this decision the tenor of the decision is what we have is a situation where it is very early in the process and any recommendations made have lots of time to be fulfilled, but their main issue is that of the environmental assessment and they did that in this particular case.

In my next ten minute block I will shortly talk about recommendations 4.1 and 4.2.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to respond to the minister's comments with regard to the consultation with Aboriginal groups in Labrador, primarily in this case. He cited the examples of the NunatuKavut nation.

Mr. Chair, it has not been any secret in the Province that the NunatuKavut Community Council have had a number of concerns as it relates to the development of Muskrat Falls. I agree with the minister. They have received funding to act as an intervener in the Environmental Assessment Panel review that was ongoing and to do some of the research that needed to be done; however, Mr. Chair, they feel very strongly, as an Aboriginal organization, that the bulk of the development around the Churchill Falls Project, in this case the Muskrat Falls Project, is directly in the heartland of their land claim area. Although they do not have an accepted land claim at this stage by the federal government, Mr. Chair, we all know that the provincial government has the ability to make its own decisions to negotiate particularly where they are the proponent.

This is a case where they are the proponent, Mr. Chair, of the development of this project. They have to make a decision as to whether they want to have good relations with the Aboriginal peoples who have claims in that particular area – whether those claims have an outstanding settlement or not – or if they want to just directly ignore those particular claims.

At this stage it seems like they are ignoring the claims of the NunatuKavut people. That is really unfortunate, Mr. Chair. They are an organization that have very long entrenched Aboriginal roots in Labrador. They have gone to court on other cases where they have won the right when it comes to the duty to be consulted. That was primarily the case with regard to the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway. They took that case to court and the court ruled in their favour, that they needed to be and should be consulted.

Based on that particular premise, one would think that such would be the case, especially with regard to the transmission line. Not that the lands in which the transmission line follows through, Mr. Chair, is any different than those around Muskrat Falls, but the NunatuKavut Community Council is the only Aboriginal group to have land claims in as far south as that in Labrador. Although there is, I think, almost a year left with regard to the environmental assessment on the transmission line, I think, Mr. Chair, they also need to be consulted, involved and given the ability to become involved in that environmental assessment as the project moves forward as well.

Mr. Chair, on the case of which I talked about today, the president making calls to the minister's office, I can only outline what I have been told in discussions that I have had with them. They did meet with our caucus, and I think they met with the Third Party caucus as well. They did give us a presentation with regard to their land areas in which they have land claims. They outlined the environmental concerns they had that were connected with this particular project. As well, Mr. Chair, they felt they should receive some form of benefit, in particular for the impact that this will have in their particular area and on their land.

Mr. Chair, as a result of all of that, of course, they have been making representation to the government. What happened, Mr. Chair, between the president and the Premier in Nova Scotia, I cannot speak to any of that, other than what I heard in the media.

Mr. Chair, what I do know is under the Environmental Impact Assessment, which is a piece that was written called a Comparative Review, and it was written by Christopher Wood. In that he cited the real benefits of participation of Aboriginal groups. One of the things he cited, which I feel is very important in any project, is that it provides access to local and traditional knowledge from a diverse source.

That is one of the things the NunatuKavut Community Council would bring to this project. They would bring local and traditional knowledge of where people use the land from one part of the project at Muskrat Falls right to the Labrador Straits, because that is the area in which they live and that is the area in which they are familiar.

It also talks about: enhances the legitimacy of proposed projects. Mr. Chair, any time you do any development it is better to do it with your partners agreeing and onside and endorsing what you are doing as opposed to having to stand outside the fence and protest it and shout your views from the other side of the river. It is always more important to ensure they are a part of the project.

Also, Mr. Chair, real consultation with Aboriginal groups allows governments to identify problems and also solutions to those problems, especially when it comes to the environment and the land. All of these things are important in any particular project. They bring a different ethnical perspective to the decision-making process. It broadens the range of potential solutions that can be considered. Maybe they have a different way of doing things.

It furnishes access to new financial human resources in many cases, and we know that, Mr. Chair. We learned that with the Voisey's Bay project in particular. It encourages more balanced decision making and it increases the accountability for those decisions. Mr. Chair, everything when it comes to including Aboriginal people in any of these major developments, there is a tremendous benefit to having them participate. I think that is the piece that had been lost on the government.

One of the key things that it does is it helps to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation, and that is what the minister is talking about now. He is reading from a court docket of which the NunatuKavut Community Council was one of a number of groups that challenged different aspects of the environmental assessment review panel, Mr. Chair, what they had summarized. They were one of a number of groups that were a part of that.

As we know today in this Province, Aboriginal groups, especially people like the NunatuKavut Community Council, have had to use litigation on almost every major development in order to get their views known and heard and to get the attention they needed from the proponents of these developments. That is really unfortunate, because that in itself can often become very costly, both to the taxpayers and to the organizations that are involved, and it also becomes time consuming.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, when there is not full consultation and that consultation is not a respectful engagement by both parties, we end up getting a lot of what we are seeing today, protests. We get people protesting, trying to take some control into their own hands because that is the only thing they see as an avenue. Whether it is right or wrong, I am not saying I agree with it or do not agree with it. What I am saying, Mr. Chair, is that because they often are not consulted –

MR. KENNEDY: Are you saying that as a member of this House it is okay to break the law?

MS JONES: Excuse me?

MR. KENNEDY: Are you saying that as a member of this House it is okay to break the law?

MS JONES: No, I never said that. You listen to what I am saying.

MR. KENNEDY: You said you do not agree or disagree.

MS JONES: I said I never said if I agree or disagree.

Most of these groups, Mr. Chair, the reason they have to take to the courts and the reason they have to stand outside of fences and protest is because their views are not being heard.

Mr. Chair, the minister is getting all agitated, but I will tell him one thing, I never have an issue with people standing up for what they believe to be right. I never have a problem with people protesting. We have seen it here in this Confederation Building time and time again, and I take absolutely no exception to that, Mr. Chair. If people feel that is what they need to do to get their point of view across, I absolutely respect that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say I find those comments absolutely astounding, that a member sitting in the House of Assembly of our Province can encourage people to break the law. There is an injunction that says they cannot do certain things. To stand up and to say that you can do it –

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

MR. KENNEDY: Please, can we have some time here to use my ten minutes?

CHAIR: The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, on a point of order.

MS JONES: The member can have his time back (inaudible). Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did not state in the House of Assembly that it was okay to break the law. I ask the member to rephrase his comments and only address those issues which I am – if he is going to repeat after me, repeat what I said, not what he thinks I said.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I clearly heard, and she referred to – I am not agitated one bit. We have an application. Everyone has the right to go to court. Everyone has the right to protest. We have had protests here. We have done nothing to interfere with those protests, as long as you are legally allowed and you have Constitutional rights. When a court makes a ruling and a court issues an injunction, that injunction has to be respected. That is the difficulty I am having with this particular case.

The member opposite said: I cannot say I agree or disagree. Basically what she is saying is: You do not have to respect the law. I find those comments astounding, Mr. Chair. In any event, for a member as a representative of Labrador who did not read an agreement and did not know there was going to be an agreement to develop the Lower Churchill, I probably should not expect a whole lot more.

Mr. Chair, in any event, what we have is a situation, and I think she summarized it very accurately. We will deal with that whole issue a little later on tonight. She summarizes the issue very accurately, I say to the Member for St. Barbe and I say to my colleagues on this side of the House who are lawyers. They feel very strongly. Well, courts do not act on feelings. Courts act on evidence. When I was the Minister of Justice, I met with NunatuKavut. They were called the Labrador Metis Nation then. I can tell you, if they can establish their rights, I have no problem with that. The Premier said the same thing. There is a process in which you have to engage.

I could be wrong, but I think their claims go back before we took office. Their claims go back to when the Liberals were in office. You could have dealt with it back then. What did you do to deal with their claims?

What we have is a situation where they are making certain claims. If they can establish those claims so be it, but to feel strongly is not the standard we use in a courtroom. It is not the standard as a government we can use. It is more complicated than simply saying: I feel we have rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on numerous occasions on what is required to establish Aboriginal rights.

From our perspective, and the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can speak for themselves, but from a legal perspective if they can establish it – and I can remember meeting with the Labrador Metis Nation. We said: Well, take your case to court. We are not in a position to recognize these rights. You have not satisfied us based on what you have presented to us that there is Aboriginal standing.

Make your claim to the Government of Canada. If the Government of Canada accepts it, we have no problem with that. That is the way the process works. Until such time as their claim is accepted they cannot simply come to us and say here we are. It is more complicated.

I could go into it, but I am not going into the detail right now in terms of why the Innu Nation could establish their claims and why the Nunatsiavut Government could establish their claims. The Metis, it is a more difficult situation. It is especially compounded in the case we have with the Metis in our case because their claim changes as we move along. They have been Metis Inuit, Southern Inuit, and I do not know exactly what it is now.

I can say to the member opposite: If they can establish a claim, I have no problem with that. That is the way the law works, but you have to do that. I said four years ago: You have your hunting cases, go to court. What has happened in those four years? They still have not gone with those cases in the courtroom. They have not, to the best of my knowledge, brought their claim to the Government of Canada. We can only encourage them to do that. They choose to use the courts, but do not confuse the duty to consult with providing Aboriginal claims or rights. That is not the way the law works.

I say to the member opposite: If they can establish that, no problem; do it, please. I seem to hear a little bit of a different tone tonight from the Opposition House Leader where she said there was no consultation, to now accepting that during the environmental assessment on the Lower Churchill Project that they were heavily involved, they had the right to make their presentations. That is all you can ask for in our system, is the right to present your case. It does not mean that you have the right to have someone accept what you say. That is why we have arbitrators and judges who make these decisions.

They are going to court and I give them credit for going to court. How many times do you go to court and lose, where you finally say there is a better way to do this? The better way to do it I was told in my last meeting with the President of NunatuKavut, that they have a good historical claim prepared. File it with the Government of Canada. They have been five years I have been dealing with them and I am not aware of that claim being filed.

When the claim is not filed, one has to wonder: Why not? We would encourage them, I am sure the Minister of Finance can speak for himself, but I do not have any personal animus in one form or another. In fact, in my dealings with them, with the previous president and the current president we have had very good meetings.

I have the utmost respect, I say to the member opposite, for one of the elderly gentleman who was an elder I first met in Justice when I met with elders from Sheshatshiu, from Innu Nation, and from Nunatsiavut Government. I met with them. I am not going to use his name, not because of any disrespect. That gentleman gave me a gift. The four times I have moved offices, I have taken that little token of appreciation with me as recognition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: It was Mr. Mesher. I have utmost respect. I sat down with that gentleman. I listened to him. There is no question of his passion and his belief. What I say is: Establish your claim. Please, go ahead and do it. You are not going to establish your claim, I say to the member opposite, by trying to slow down the process and by taking us to court.

As the Member for St. Barbe will tell you when he gets a chance to look at the decision, when you are in judicial review the panoply of rights available to you are not the same as when you are making your claim. In a review there is a standard that has to be applied. A judge on review does not have to agree that the decision is perfect. A judge on review does not have to agree that everything was done the way it should be. What the judge on review has to accept in this kind of judicial review is that the standard of reasonableness was met and that the decision was reasonable. That is what has taken place here.

The judges held that Grand Riverkeeper Labrador Inc., Sierra Club of Canada, and NunatuKavut Community Council have all had their opportunity to present their case. Again, they have been. Before we go any with this, it is important we understand that in his decision in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Justice Stack referred to the fact that there was no violence and there were not threats by these people down at the Muskrat Falls site. That was not the basis of the decision, nor did Nalcor employees allege there were any threats or intimidation. It was based upon a certain way to do business in terms of having a safety zone.

Do I understand the frustrations? Certainly, I know what the Innu Nation did. All I am saying is that there are regulations and laws that have to be applied. If you do not comply with them, then you are in breach of them. Again while it may be understandable from an emotional perspective, I think as lawmakers we have to encourage people to comply with the law.

If you were saying to me, I say to the Opposition House Leader, there has been no consultation and that there has been no discussion ever, then that is a different thing. I can only tell you one of the first meetings I had as the Minister of Justice back in 2007 was with these individuals. I also met the president prior to Mr. –

AN HON. MEMBER: Chris Montague.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I met with Chris Montague. He had his maps and he showed me his maps. I met with him and I encouraged him at that point to go to court. From our perspective as a government, it is not a situation that we are trying to oppress these people. We are not trying to do anything to circumvent or abridge their rights. What we are saying to them is establish your rights. When you have a situation where, for example, $130,000 is provided to them to participate, I do not think with all due respect one can say that they have not been given the opportunity to participate, or that we have not complied with our duty to consult.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak for a few more minutes. I have not seen the court case or the court ruling today with regard to procedural fairness and the duty to consult that was recently heard in the Supreme Court. I am sure I will get an opportunity to look at it and review it, although I know the NunatuKavut Community Council were only a party of three or four in terms of that particular case.

Mr. Chair, when you look at environmental impact assessments and all the reviews that have been written around it when it comes to consulting with Aboriginal people, all of it has been very positive; positive for the proponent, positive for the project, and positive for the Aboriginal groups. Mr. Chair, when they did the study with regard to projects and the model of projects that are being developed in consultation with Aboriginal people, the one they used as a reference was the Voisey's Bay mine and mill project. That was one I was very familiar with, Mr. Chair.

The Voisey's Bay review panel was the first of its kind in terms of Aboriginal participation or with Aboriginal groups through what we know today as the environmental assessment process. Mr. Chair, what happened is there was a Memorandum of Understanding that was negotiated, worked out, and signed between the Labrador Inuit Association, which was before they were the Nunatsiavut Government, and the Innu Nation, before the Innu Nation had governance status, which was only in the last couple of years that has happened.

Both of those groups, Mr. Chair, had land claims in that particular area. The government of the day, actually the government I was a part of, Mr. Chair, decided they would work out a co-operative framework with these two Aboriginal groups to ensure that their concerns were all considered, that they were an effective part of the environmental assessment process, and that they were not left out. That was one of the key pieces to all of this.

There was a legal requirement, of course, by both the federal and the provincial governments in addressing all of these concerns with the Aboriginal groups. It took quite some time to negotiate it, to work it out, to get all of the details, and so on. There was a comprehensive review of all of that done by a panel that was set up.

Mr. Chair, as a result of it what we ended up with at the end of the day was a model for how Aboriginal people in this country should be engaged when it comes to large-scale projects. The precedent has been set. It was set in our own Province and in our own Legislature. That was a project that took into consideration the social and economic impact of that development on the Aboriginal people in that area.

That is what I am asking the government to do with regard to this project, Mr. Chair. I know what the minister is saying, that they do not have an accepted land claim by the federal government. Mr. Chair, notwithstanding that, it does not mean the Province does not respect the fact they have a legitimate claim there and respect the fact they should be dealt with and their concerns should be heard, Mr. Chair.

Do you know that in 2014 we will celebrate 250 years of the treaty that was signed between the Nunatsiavut people and the British Privy Council? That is only two years from now. It was signed in the community in which my mother was born.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: NunatuKavut, sorry. I am getting them mixed up. Thank you.

Just to clarify for the public record, in 2014 we will celebrate the 250-year anniversary of the treaty that was signed between the Nunatukavut people, the Southern Labrador Inuit, and the British Privy Council. It was signed in the Chateau Bay area in a little town called Pitts Arm where my mother actually grew up. Mr. Chair, that is how far back this treaty extends in Labrador. It takes in that whole Southern Labrador area. The Labrador Inuit people were twenty-five years trying to get a land claim. We should not have to wait twenty-five years now for Aboriginal groups to be recognized in their own land, Mr. Chair.

That is the concern I have with all of this because they do have rights. Their rights should be respected and their rights should be taken into consideration because this project will have an impact on them. It will have an impact on them, a significant impact. Some will be good and some will be bad. Mr. Chair, I do not think we can ignore those things and that is the point I want to make.

I am not going to belabour this issue this evening, Mr. Chair, but I want to ensure it is in the public record that this is a group in Labrador that has a legitimate claim. They have already been given recognition by the courts and told there should have been a duty to consult by the provincial government when the Trans-Labrador Highway was built. There are cases in this country, Mr. Chair, the Powley decision in particular, which recognize the rights of people with mixed ancestry in this country and Aboriginal rights to the land. This group as well have legitimate rights and they should be dealt with. That is the issue there, Mr. Chair.

I have had a number of discussions and consultations with the NunatuKavut Community Council. A lot of their members reside in my district and in the District of Lake Melville. They are probably one of the largest organizations in population base, Aboriginal organizations in Labrador. Mr. Chair, it does affect quite a few people. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Mr. Chair, many of these people I know and I know them very well. I know them personally and have for a long time, including the president of the organization, including all of their board members, and including their elders. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, they are not violent people. They are not people who go out and break the law. They are not unlike any other group or organization. You cannot always control what everybody else is going to do. I can tell you as an organization they are not going to sanction that kind of activity, Mr. Chair. They just want to make their views known. They just want to be inside of the room looking out and not outside trying to look in. That is a difference of where they are.

What I will say, Mr. Chair, is in this Province any time there are Aboriginal claims that are recognized and settled by the federal government, it benefits everybody in the Province. It benefits the government, the taxpayers, and all the residents. That is a proven fact, Mr. Chair, and we have seen it time and time again in this Province.

My suggestion to the provincial government is make representation to the federal government on behalf of the NunatuKavut people. Make representation to the federal government, ask that their land claim be speeded up, that there be a more speedy review of their land claim and what they are requesting, Mr. Chair. There is nothing wrong with doing that. If you really believe they have a legitimate right and you respect that, the very least you could do is be able to support them and allow them to advance this through the appropriate process so that they have a legal title, Mr. Chair, and they can move forward in actioning the issues of their people in their own land.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

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

I think there needs to be a point of clarification. I was of the understanding they had not yet filed their claim with the Government of Canada.

As for being in the room, myself and the Minister of Labrador Affairs at the time, the Member for Labrador West, we met with them in a room. We met with the officials and we had what I thought was a good discussion, and the very next day it went off the rails. Not as a result of anything we had done but as a result of whatever took place with the President of the NCC. That is where we are on that.

As for us preparing their claim, that is not our role. They have lawyers who will go to court, and they are going to court all the time, so they must have money. Legal counsel and historians, they prepare their claim. What we have said, and I want to be crystal clear on this, is if the federal government accepts their Aboriginal rights, that is one thing.

Now, I want to come back a little bit further because for the last three or four days the member opposite has talked about how we have failed in our duties and how we have not consulted. What is the duty that is imposed upon us as a government in terms of dealing with the NunatuKavut Community Council? We have successfully negotiated land claims with the Nunatsiavut Government – we have done this – and the Innu Nation. We have done that since 2003. I do not think it is fair to say that we are not addressing or respecting Aboriginal rights.

I can say to the member opposite, I was not the Minister of Justice a month when my first trip was to meet in Labrador with Aboriginal groups. That is how seriously I consider their claims and their wanting to work with us. What we have to try to do, I agree, is bridge the gap where we are and try to understand each other. Again, I do not offer legal advice to them as to how to proceed. What I am saying to them is if your claim is accepted.

Let's look at the duty that is on us today. Justice Stack, in his decision on the permanent injunction looked at what is the duty. He reviewed the Court of Appeal decision. I can remember that Court of Appeal decision back when it came down on the Trans-Labrador Highway, being interpreted by Labrador Metis Nation as one thing as opposed to the way we looked upon it as something else.

Justice Stack said, "Upon review of the evidence, the Court of Appeal" – in the Trans-Labrador Highway case – "found that NCC has a credible claim which triggers a duty to consult." Although the Court of Appeal, there is a little bit missing here – it seems to say, "Although the Court of Appeal was not satisfied that NCC had made out a ‘strong' case at that time, it was satisfied that" – again, it is missing there – was required in order to get a "…low level of consultation requested…".

So, the level of consultation requested. Again, it depends on the circumstances. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the claim was more than peripheral or tenuous, which would only attract a duty of notice, but that the prima facie connection had been established and they felt that the duty to consult was required.

That is what we have done. There has been a clear – not only the duty to consult has been followed with or complied with, but money has been provided. They attended the Environmental Assessment hearings. They have been represented by counsel in terms of the arguments on the injunctions of which there have been a couple of applications, and at least three Supreme Court Judges have heard their applications in one form or another: Justices Handrigan, Dymond, and Stack.

We have now had the federal court which has looked at their claims. The reality is – and I hear the member opposite talking about treaties. Well, that can be, from my reading of other cases, good evidence that you bring before a court or a federal government. I would suggest that they move ahead.

Now, I want to come back to the decision handed down today because one of the conditions precedents of the federal loan guarantee relates to legal cases. The Leader of the NDP has argued the Joint Review Panel did not approve the project. The Joint Review Panel made recommendations. From what I just read and I will repeat what I read from the case itself, in terms of the role of the Joint Review Panel. They held thirty days of hearings from what I can see: a joint review panel is established to fulfill an information-gathering process.

I say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party: Fulfilling an information-gathering process is not a request for approval. "…and recommending function under CEAA… The panel does not render any final decisions…" I think you are somewhat disingenuous to be putting forward this argument that the Environmental Assessment Panel did not approve the project. That is not what they are asked to do.

Perhaps this is a good opportunity to clarify the role. At some point, the Minister of Environment, the former Ministers of Environment, or the present Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services might have some comments. I think she might have been involved part of the way there.

"The Panel does not render any final decisions with respect to the Project, nor does it make absolutely binding recommendations." So, if it does not render any final decision and it does make any binding recommendations, what obligation is there on a government to follow it? What they do, "…its primary goal is to assist the RAs – the ultimate decision-makers – in obtaining the information they need to make environmentally informed decisions. It is one piece of the decision-making process…".

It is early in the process. By the time this hearing was held, Nalcor would have only been at the Decision Gate 2 stage. The discussions with bond rating agencies would have been in a preliminary stage. There were no discussions, I do not think, or very little discussion at that point with the federal government on the federal loan guarantee.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, this is a good opportunity to clarify what that Joint Review Panel did. They made environmental suggestions. They made other suggestions, as they were entitled to do. They were in no way binding on the provincial government or the federal governments. It was an information-gathering process. That information was provided to us. The provincial government and federal governments looked at the recommendations, accepted some, and said we will accept some, some will be complied with that are in the federal jurisdictions, others are in provincial, and we will work on them. The Joint Review Panel – we did not need them to approve the economic or the alternatives, that –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Which one?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Oh, maybe you should speak to that a little later.

What we have here is a situation where even though this was an application by the Grand Riverkeepers and Sierra Club, they looked at trying to stop the process. It is, again, my understanding that they argued that because the Joint Review Panel did not make certain recommendations, it should be sent back to them as a result of not fulfilling their mandate.

They all participated as outlined in the hearings. It is my understanding when you look at here, there were – and I am trying to find this – thirty days of hearings. The process started in 2006 or 2007. The guidelines under the Environmental Protection Act applied. They held thirty days of hearings in various communities between March 3 and April 15, 2011. Some of the hearings were issue specific, while others were general sessions, in which the panel invited participants to share their overall views. Still, others were community hearings in which participants were invited to share their views on the impact the project might have on their specific communities.

After the final hearing on April 15, the panel declared the proceedings closed, determining that no further information would be considered. It issued its report on August 23, 2011. Then an application was filed on December 20, 2011.

I have heard arguments that we should stop Muskrat Falls because people have legal actions. I do not want to mention his name, but Mr. C has applications out there before the courts. Are we going to stop because of his application?

We have now had the NunatuKavut try on a number of occasions to seek injunctions to stop the proceedings. We have now had a federal court action. It comes back to my basic point: Anyone can file a court action; being successful is another thing. Until such time as someone is successful, we will proceed. This case is an excellent example because the members opposite would have us stop Muskrat Falls on the basis that there was a court application proceeding. It cannot work that way, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Cross): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am very glad that the Minister of Natural Resources has decided tonight to respond to points that have been raised with regard to the environmental assessment. As I have said earlier in our discussion – and I am really pleased with what is happening here tonight. I think we really are having an exchange of information which is important. As I have said earlier, I do know well the workings of a Joint Review Panel because I was a member of the Joint Review Panel for the Voisey's Bay mine. That was a more complicated one in the sense that there were four partners, federal and provincial governments, but also at that time, the Labrador Inuit Association and Innu Nation.

As a member of a panel, I fully understand what the role of a panel is. It is true, as the minister said, that the recommendations are recommendations, they are not binding; however, the work that the panel does is much more than what was outlined by the minister. As a matter of fact, I followed closely the work of the panel on Muskrat Falls. I have done a fair bit of study of the amount of documentation they had to go through, et cetera.

Besides the meetings that they hold, the public meetings, the community meetings, they hold meetings with experts. They identify experts in the various areas that they are dealing with in that particular panel. They accept academic papers, research papers. They seek out information in the areas that they are studying. It is not just sitting down at a meeting, at community meetings every now and again. You are working nonstop just about, over the length of time that you are working on the panel. You are working with research people as well.

The money from the federal and provincial governments that fund the Joint Review Panels allow for the panel to identify researchers they need. You have researchers from the Canadian Environmental Agency itself who get named to work with the panel. You also identify experts, and those experts can come from anywhere in the world. When I was on the Voisey's Bay panel, we had experts we met with who came from the United States. We had experts from the United Kingdom. We had experts from inside of Canada. You have the resources to seek out the experts that you need.

The panel itself, they usually represent a variety of experiences on the panel. I think both in the case of Voisey's Bay and in the case of Muskrat Falls you had somebody on the panel who had particular knowledge of Labrador, for example.

Yes, the panel makes recommendations and they are not binding; however, the work that goes into the analysis that the panel does, the hours and hours of work, the hours of study, the hours of analysis that go in represent a tremendous analysis in a recommendation. The recommendation has been thought through. The recommendation has been explained. I have here, for example, to remind myself, the executive summary. Okay, the recommendation in the executive summary is just a paragraph, but that recommendation comes at the end of a huge chapter in the report itself.

When the Muskrat Falls panel made their first recommendation, which was if the project is approved before making the sanction decision for each of the Muskrat Falls and Gull Island, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador undertake a separate and formal review of the projected cash flow of the project component being considered for sanctioning.

They go on and they explain what they think should be in the cash flow. Then, they said the financial reviews that are done should also take into account the results – first of all, they say that those reviews should be made public and then they say the financial review should also take into account the results of the independent alternatives assessment that they recommended in their second recommendation.

The point I am trying to make is these recommendations are made after months and months and months, not just of listening to community people but meeting with experts and studying the position of experts and studying all of the documentation that has come in from the proponent as well. Every word of the documentation is studied and there are teams of people working with the panel in doing this.

So, when they put a recommendation together, it is done based on the best information that the panel can get. What is very disturbing is that when the governments make responses – because this is what happens, a government, for example, makes a response to a report. Both the federal and provincial governments do it separately, so you get the response of the federal government and the response of the provincial government.

You get a recommendation that has a huge chapter behind the recommendation that has all the footnotes about all of the studies that they looked at, the experts that they worked with, to come up with that recommendation. What you get from the provincial government is, for example, with regard to the first recommendation: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador accepts a principle that a review of the projects financial viability is required prior to sanction but does not support the panel's assumption that the information provided by the proponent was in inadequate.

It was not an assumption. They did an analysis and they said the information they had was inadequate and there should be more. The government does not give any details of how they have come up with this decision, yet this panel has spent – this one, spent four years. The report was probably done in the last three to four months, so they probably spent three-and-a-half years doing this work and that is what they get: two sentences.

The second recommendation which had to do with the independent analysis of alternatives to meeting domestic demand is a detailed recommendation. It has nine bullets to this recommendation. Obviously, I am not going to go through the whole thing, but what the recommendation does is to show that the analysis that has to be done has to be an independent analysis of alternatives. It has to take an integrated approach, which is the approach that one takes today in doing these kinds of projects.

That recommendation, which again would have had three-and-a-half years of work behind it, got this response, "The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador does not accept this recommendation." There is no explanation. There is no detail. All we have is the government's fiat; the government says we do not accept it.

My concern is that if the government did a detailed analysis of the recommendations, if the government went and read every single word of the report and every single word of each chapter that went with the recommendation, then why wouldn't they tell us why they do not agree with the recommendation? This is not a high school essay here; this is a report from professional people who worked with experts to put it together.

I mean, this is a bigger issue the statement I am going to make now. It is one of the weaknesses of the environmental assessment process. The governments, as far as I am concerned, pay lip service to the environmental assessment processes. The one place where they will say, yes that will be done, is where you have recommendations that are very specific with regard to regulation. Recommendations around how a dam should be built, recommendations around remediation. Sometimes the regulations they have to follow are federal; sometimes they are provincial. It is easy for the government to say: Oh yes, that recommendation of course that goes to the federal government. Yes, well that one goes to the Department of Natural Resource. That one goes to the Department of Environment. That is very simple.

When you get in-depth analysis and recommendations based on in-depth analysis, I find that both the provincial and federal governments – I am going to make it plural – pay lip service. They do not recognize that the panel that they themselves put in place were panels of experts who had the resources to get experts, from around the world if they needed them, to work with them. Then governments ignore the key recommendations that come out from the panel.

For example, just an example, the panel I was on, our key recommendation was that land claims should be dealt with before anything else happens in major development in Labrador. Do you know what? If that recommendation had been followed, we would not have the problem that we are having with the Aboriginal issue in Labrador right now. We believed, as a panel, it was a key issue and the land claims really had to be taken care of before all major development went on in Labrador.

It is really too bad that twelve years ago somebody did not listen to that recommendation. I am afraid of what we are going to find in ten years' time of recommendations that should have been listened to from this environmental assessment.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you very much.

There is a certain illogic to the comments just made by the Leader of the NDP, and it is quite simple. To say that everything should be held up pending land claims is nonsensical because nothing could ever proceed if an Aboriginal group did not want it to.

We cannot allow those groups or anyone to have that kind of power. They have the ability to comply with the requirements and to file their claim. We have said time and time again to the NunatuKavut, to the LMN: file your claim. Why should we hold up major developments because we are waiting for them to file their claim? That is not the way the system works. I really think that such a comment just shows –

MS MICHAEL: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible) to the minister that when we are talking about Aboriginal land claims, we are talking about the rights of Aboriginal peoples in this Province and in this country. The way in which the minister has just referred to those rights, I think it is an insult to the Aboriginal people in this Province.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: No, I can assure the member opposite that I have read the cases in relation to Aboriginal rights, I know the kinds of tests that are put out there, and I certainly respect Aboriginal rights.

I have had ongoing relationships with the Innu since I came into government, and reached out to them. In fact, we were looking at establishing an Innu court, an Innu healing court, when I was there as Minister of Justice. I do not know what happened to it after I left, but we had the plans. I visited the Gladue Court in Toronto, trying to bring into the Aboriginal framework in terms of the courts, how to deal with Aboriginal offenders.

I met with Nunatsiavut Government officials on numerous occasions over the last number of years, and I have met with the NunatuKavut, both as the Labrador Metis Nation and as their current NCC.

Do not confuse meetings and duty to consult with rights. You have to establish rights. A duty is something you comply with; a right is something you establish. Essentially, what the member opposite is saying is that everything should stop because of a court action.

The only mischaracterization, Mr. Chair, that has taken place in this Chamber in the last number of months is her standing up and saying that the Joint Review Panel did not approve the project. There was no obligation or any condition that the Joint Review Panel approve the project. So, when you talk about mischaracterizations, you talk about misleading, you look at yourself, and you look at your comments because they have been –

MS MICHAEL: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: I think that the personal way in which the minister is speaking right now goes against our Standing Orders, and I want a ruling on it. I am getting tired of it; I am getting tired of the personal attacks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: So, Mr. Chair, what happens here is that we have the joint review – she does not like the decision. That is the problem. The member opposite does not like the decision because it shows how she operates, it shows how that party operates, and they will take whatever they can – she wanted Muskrat Falls to fail, they still want Muskrat Falls to fail, and she stands up today and said no, we do not want Muskrat Falls to fail.

Well, this same member stood in this House – we can go back through Hansard – and said that the Joint Review Panel did not approve the Muskrat Falls Project, and that should be a reason why Muskrat Falls should not proceed. The Joint Review Panel does not have to approve the project, it is not part of their mandate, it is an information-gathering process, and they make recommendations. Now, that is what the federal court said today. This is not me making it up, Sir. This is what the federal court said.

Now, let us just look at the member opposite, at the way she characterizes what they had to do. Because there has been no independent financial assessment and there has been no looking at alternatives. Well, let us look at when this took place. The hearings took place in 2011. The commitment to the federal loan guarantee, if I remember correctly, was made around May 2011.

So when you look at independent financial assessment, that has been done on a number of ways, and a number of different forums, I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair. We have had it done – as Nalcor goes to the bond rating agencies and provides, as I have indicated, the capital costs, operating and maintenance, they look out over the years, they look at their revenue stream, and they have to establish, because they need a certain credit rating to go to the lending institutions.

In this particular case I know we have had the DBRS bond-rating agency Standard & Poor's, and there is a third one I cannot remember off the top of my head that meetings have been conducted with. Having said that, the best independent financial assessment of all was that conducted by the federal government. I cannot overemphasize the rigorous financial assessment that took place with the federal government in the ongoing discussions on the federal loan guarantee. The six months of weekly meetings were around the financial aspects of this deal.

Mr. Chair, there have been independent assessments. The rating agencies have been dealt with. We now have the federal loan guarantee and we have the lending institutions who are lining up to lend money to this project. Mr. Chair, that rigorous process certainly establishes from our perspective the independent financial assessment, which was recommended by the Joint Review Panel. We could have ignored them altogether, but we have done it.

Let us look at what their other recommendation was in relation to alternatives. We were at the Decision Gate 2 stage. We have seen the difference in the engineering in terms of the 5 per cent engineering that was conducted at Decision Gate 2 versus the 50 per cent of engineering, which has been discussed as being completed at Decision Gate 3. We have the Decision Gate 3 numbers. Those Decision Gate 3 numbers went to the federal government in terms of their financial assessment. The Decision Gate 3 numbers have been discussed with the bond rating agencies. Independent assessment is satisfied.

Alternatives; well, we have looked at every alternative. I stood here today for three hours this morning and three hours the other night, talked about all the reports that have been obtained, had a great discussion with the Member for St. John's East in relation to natural gas alternatives, and looked at the steps we have taken. I am going to talk a little bit more tonight about other alternatives we have looked at and that were raised by members of the public.

The major ones raised were that we had not looked at large-scale wind nor had we looked at natural gas, whether it is importation or Grand Banks pipeline. We have looked at all of that, so the alternatives have been explored; the alternatives have been looked at. That was the second recommendation of the panel and we as a government feel that has been satisfied. I will tell you why we feel that has been satisfied: because we would not sanction if we thought there was another reason or another way to go about this.

What we have here is the member of the Third Party will do anything she can to stop this project. Well, it is too late. The ship has sailed, sanction is done, and we are moving on. You can either be with us or against us. We are willing to take our chance on history. By taking the coward's way out and by saying we are going to stand up against this project, that way if it goes wrong we can say we told you so. You should be supporting this project. You should be standing up and saying this is for the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Stop the foolishness you are getting on with.

So, Mr. Chair, we have been discussing this all day. She does not have to do what I ask her to do. Her silence on the Joint Review Panel; explain to the people of this Province how she could have misled them for the last number of months in saying that the Joint Review Panel did not approve this project when there was no obligation, it is not part of their mandate, and the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, having been a member of a Joint Review Panel, knew that.

Now, someone explain to me how someone who sat on a panel and knows their duties, obligations, and role can come into this House day after day and use that as an excuse why Muskrat Falls did not proceed. I do not know the explanation. Well, I do know the explanation, but I am not going to get into here tonight any further than I have to.

Let us look at now what the panel suggested. They suggested there be an independent financial assessment. We have done that. They suggested you look at alternatives. We have done that, and we continue to do it up until the point of sanction. We have listened to the people of this Province. We have listened to the NDP. They wanted large-scale wind. We heard talks of natural gas. We listened to them on that, Mr. Chair. We have heard the issue, and I will get into it a little later on tonight, of why do you not recall power pursuant to section 92.a? Why do you not wait until 2041? Why do you not develop Gull Island?

We have looked at all of those options, and I do not know what other options are left. Muskrat Falls is $2.4 billion cheaper in terms of a CPW preference than the next closest project. This tonight is another example and another vindication of the steps we are taking to develop Muskrat Falls. Again, it is the right decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

I just have a few more things I want to respond to from the minister. First of all, anybody who was listening to me the last time I spoke will get a very clear understanding of what I meant when I talked about the review panel and this project. It was very clear what I meant. They had reservations, their recommendations recognized those reservations, and that is a valid statement. Whether or not the government wanted to go along with those recommendations, it is true they had the option. The point I made was that in responding they did not give their reasons.

Now, I want to speak to recommendation 4-2. Chapter 4 is the chapter where the recommendations are. I want to do it because of what the minister has brought up. I would really appreciate being able to do it. I would really appreciate being able to speak without having constant comment going on.

The second recommendation is an "Independent analysis of alternatives to meeting domestic demand". They say the analysis should be totally independent and should address the question, "What would be the best way to meet domestic demand under the ‘No Project' option…?" In other words, do not put projects out there. Have an open plate and say: There is no project; what would be the best way to meet the demands?

Then they have nine bullets, and I will not read them all, in which they point out things that should be addressed in those considerations. Some of us have heard these things before from the panel and from other experts around. I will pick some that are significant: "why Nalcor's least cost alternative to meet domestic demand to 2067 does not include Churchill Falls power which would be available in large quantities from 2041, or any recall power in excess of Labrador's needs prior to that date, especially since both would be available at near zero generation cost (recognizing that there would be transmission costs involved)…". Government speaks about it, but they have not given us an analysis of that.

"The use of Gull Island power when and if it becomes available since it has a lower per unit generation cost than Muskrat Falls…" should be part of the consideration; and "the extent to which Nalcor's analysis looked only at current technology and systems versus factoring in developing technology…" This was a very forward looking panel, Mr. Chair.

Another one, and this one is key, is one we have raised. I know my colleague from St. John's East has raised it, I have raised it, and experts outside of this House have raised it: "a review of Nalcor's assumptions regarding the price of oil till 2067, since the analysis provided was particularly sensitive to this variable…" It goes on, Mr. Chair.

What they asked for was an independent integrated study of all the alternatives with grave concerns about nine separate areas. This has come from a tremendous amount of study and analysis, and all the government said is: We do not agree with the assumption of the panel. There is no assumption; they did an analysis.

Mr. Chair, the only thing I am trying to point out, and what I have always tried to point out, is an expert panel appointed by the federal and provincial governments and funded by the provincial and federal governments who took four years to do their work and write the report make these serious recommendations, which include the analysis of experts from around the world, and the government just says: We disagree.

That is the point I have been trying to make, and I want to make it clearly now. I do not need the minister to stand up and paraphrase and misinterpret what I have said.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: I am not misinterpreting anything that was said, Mr. Chair. The member opposite, the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi has stood up in this House on a number of occasions and said clearly that the Joint Review Panel has not approved Muskrat Falls and therefore we cannot proceed. Those are the words that came out of her – she said.

We will go and check Hansard. I can have that done fairly quickly. As we speak here tonight we will have the answers before we come back. I am hoping that when she is confronted with her own words she will come back and apologize for trying to mislead this House, and in characterizing the role of a Joint Review Panel as one that it is not – especially, as she should know better, having sat on a Joint Review Panel at one point.

The member opposite talks about conditions of having independent experts. What are the experts we have obtained? The only expert for the NDP is an expert who will say that Muskrat Falls is not a good project, so Muskrat Falls must fail. That is the definition of an NDP expert. I do not know who they are, they talk about experts.

I challenge the Member for St. John's East – and I have not disputed his knowledge in certain areas of natural gas and oil pricing. I challenge him today to show us where the reports that we have prepared, for example, on natural gas were wrong. I talked about how I had met with Wood Mackenzie in London and they gave us their pricing on oil, Mr. Chair. I talked about PIRA and the fact that they serve 500 or 600 companies, all of the top companies in the world. I asked, I said show me where they are wrong.

Who are you supposed to consult? How do you define independent? Independent is someone who gives you work for free, is that independent? If that is independent there are very few independent experts out in the world because people do not work for free.

We have a natural gas study from a group out of Calgary – by the way, the demeaning way in which the Leader of the NDP spoke about them a couple of weeks ago was certainly shocking, to diminish the reputation of an internationally recognized company like that. It just shows us though the approach that she has taken is that Muskrat Falls must fail at all cost.

Then, Mr. Chair, we go to Wood Mackenzie, a recognized international energy consulting company that happen to be our energy advisors. They operate out of Edinburgh, London, Houston, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, but no, these are not good enough experts. Do you know something that is even more bothersome though, Mr. Chair – and this is a point that the Premier has made throughout – is that they do not recognize the expertise of Nalcor.

Our own people, our born and bred Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are committed to this Province, they are not good enough for the NDP. We cannot recognize their expertise. Well, I can say that Ed Martin and Gilbert Bennett, whether you agree with them or not, have been provided briefings whenever requested. They have been there. They have gone throughout this Province. I spoke earlier today about Jim Keating and his background in oil and gas.

What we did in this case, Mr. Chair, even though the Decision Gate 2 process had excluded natural gas, had excluded large scale wind, we went and tested it anyway because we felt as a government that we were not questioning Nalcor, what we were doing we were testing their conclusions. That is something we had to do and something that Mr. Martin and his group agreed with. What came back at the end of the day were the alternatives were not viable.

Now, the waiting for 2041 is something that myself and the Member for St. Barbe are going to have a discussion on as we move throughout the night and into the early morning hours, at least until my voice keeps going, and we are going to talk about waiting until 2041. It is not that simple. I laboured under the illusion at one point that we would get free power in 2031, but when you look at the corporate structure and you look at what takes place it is not that simple.

We have talked about Gull Island; the development of Gull Island is certainly something we would all love to do. If all those mining companies were going to proceed we would do it. To say we have not explored the alternatives, I would suggest again because it does not fit in with the theory of the NDP – excuse me, not the theory – the wish of the NDP, that Muskrat Falls must fail at all cost. Despite what Thomas Mulcair says, despite the approach taken by Jack Layton, despite the approach taken by Jack Harris, despite the approach taken by Premier Darrell Dexter in Nova Scotia who all support the project, yet this NDP does not. It is rather sad in a way.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions. Lots of questions have been asked here and we will continue to try to answer those questions. I have a list of them I am hoping to get to as we move throughout the day.

What this Joint Review Panel does tonight, it verifies what we have said all along, is that the Joint Review Panel had a role to play but their approval was not necessary for the process. If I understand the Leader of the Third Party, her good friend – what is his name, the guy from Ontario? Earlier today he talked about the Joint Review Panel. Sure, let's get the experts from Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Ontario, the uninformed experts. Let's take their advice because they say what we want them to say, says the NDP.

Let's not look at our homegrown experts. Let's not look at Nalcor. Let's not look at their commitment to this Province. Let's not give them the credit that they are due. Let's not look at the fact that all of their conclusions have been tested. Let's not look at the fact that independent experts throughout the world have confirmed what Nalcor concluded. Let's not do any of that. Let's look at the Open Line experts. Let's look at the guys who write blogs and let's say: Well, they are the experts we need because they are with us, Muskrat Falls must fail.

That is the approach. I wish there was a more sympathetic way to put that. I wish, Mr. Chair, there was a way to be kinder. We have sat here for months – over three months ago almost now we released these reports. Yet, what have we heard from the NDP? That the Joint Review Panel did not approve the project, therefore Muskrat Falls cannot proceed.

What do we have tonight? We have a description of the role of the Joint Review Panel. What is really bothersome is, when you look at that role, and the Leader of the Third Party sat on a Joint Review Panel, yet she can stand up in this House and in public and say that is a reason for Muskrat Falls not to proceed. That is scandalous. I know of no other word to describe that approach other than scandalous. A Joint Review Panel is established to fulfill an information gathering and recommending function under CEAA.

She does not agree with CEAA either, but we are closing Holyrood. She does not agree with the environmental acts that the Government of Canada has, yet we are closing Holyrood. This is the same member who marched up and down – according to what I have heard – in front of Holyrood and said: Close Holyrood, close Holyrood; with their placards and their signs and with their former national leader. It was convenient at that point.

Does she show any concern, or her party show any concern for the people of Holyrood? Has anyone on this side of the House heard any concern for the people of Holyrood? No, because it is not politically expedient.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only when they thought the project would not proceed.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, that is right, when they thought the project would not proceed.

I am hoping that the Minister of the Child, Youth and Family Services before the night is out will get up and outline those statements that the Leader of the Third Party said in the past. I am hoping she will get up and remind the Leader of the Third Party of her approach. How can someone who sat on an environmental assessment panel ignore the environment? To ignore the closing of Holyrood, you are ignoring the environment. It is as simple as that. Again, I wish there was a different way to put it.

Mr. Chair, I am going to end with this, because the federal loan guarantee – and they have done everything. What was it the member of the NDP said earlier today? What was it? That we sold out to Stephen Harper for $1 billion.

AN HON. MEMBER: All of that for $1 billion.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, all of that for $1 billion.

The Member for the Straits, when he comes back we will have a discussion about pellets. We do not have enough wood in the Province to produce the pellets you would need to run Holyrood, yet he stands up there. We have the Member for St. John's Centre Tweeting that we need power but not my kind of power, whatever that is.

The only sensible – actually, I will give the Member for St. John's North his due. His comments earlier today, he engaged in some sensible debate and so did the Member for St. John's East. Even though they are against the project, that is more for – because they think it is politically expedient to be against the project.

At the end of it all, we are going to go back and check Hansard. We are going to find out what the Member of the NDP said. Over the next few days I will have the opportunity to stand up in this House and say this is what you said in Hansard, this is what the agreement says, now what do you say?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Usually over Christmas when you do some visiting or especially in the winter season you can walk into somebody's house and you can always tell when there is wood heat. That is one of the things I know from my friends. A lot of people that I know still burn wood heat. You can always walk in and say well, they have wood heat in this house. There is no question that the temperature in the house, in this House in particular, rises every now and then when we start talking about pellets and we start talking about wood heat and all of the other replacements that we would have for the energy needs of the Province.

I want to switch gears a little bit, but it has been really – I think the debate tonight has been really fascinating to some degree. This is how I anticipated the debate that we had first discussed back in June, that we would have these ten minute sessions. We would have the minister on his feet, and us as Opposition members, that we would pose questions to government on behalf of the residents of the Province about the Muskrat Falls Project.

I will say that I believe the Minister of Natural Resources made himself very available today. I guess if you had to count the number of words the minister has spoken today they would be probably in the billions, probably in the same cost as Muskrat Falls. If every dollar was a word we would probably be in the $8 billion range right now.

Mr. Chair, I want to switch gears a little bit tonight and just change the discussion a little bit around the financing piece of this project. We have been hearing for weeks now, months really, that people are lining up. I mentioned today that I did not really think there would be a Boxing Day sale on bonds, so it was not necessary that this get done by December 26 for some reason. I do not think the CEO of Nalcor was going shopping for a bond on Boxing Day and expecting to get some kind of deal.

Mr. Chair, we have heard quite often in the House about how people are lining up, financial institutions are lining up, positioning themselves to finance this particular project. As a result of the federal loan guarantee, we have seen a very robust review of the project and, indeed, people are anxious to finance this.

Well, Mr. Chair, I want to make it quite clear why people are lining up to finance this particular project. It is not because of the lowest cost option; it is not because this is the best option or whatever the case may be. It is simply because of a condition in the federal loan guarantee, and that condition is clearly outlined in Schedule A in section 3 of the loan guarantee. It clearly says that in order for the federal government loan guarantee to be triggered there must be a power purchase agreement in place that would guarantee the revenue stream for this particular project.

I just want to circle back a little bit for a few minutes about the structure of the Muskrat Falls Project. We all know in this House that indeed it is meant to be 40 per cent for the ratepayers of the Province, which includes the closing down of Holyrood, because Holyrood has provided about 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the capacity of our power needs for the Island. Capacity is a little different than, it's the ability to produce power. It says part of the capacity in that we can actually use it when we need it.

In this particular case, what the Muskrat Falls Project – once that gets done, and as the minister said in his words, the ship has sailed, this project would decommission Holyrood, and this should be part of the project. The 40 per cent that will be paid for by the ratepayers which is to meet the Island demand on the Province, which of course is shutting down Holyrood, 20 per cent will go to Emera for their investment for thirty-five years into the Maritime Link and 40 per cent for export.

We learned today that as a result of the export power that is anticipated – and the Minister of Finance made a comment that over the fifty-year life of the project into 2067, the Muskrat Falls Project would contribute about $24 billion to the Province by dividends from Nalcor, or the subsidiaries of Nalcor; the subsidiaries that will eventually own the Muskrat Falls Project.

This $24 billion that we are talking about has two components. It has two components, Mr. Chair, $4 billion of it, as the minister said today, is from the export market. The other $20 billion, interestingly enough, comes from the ratepayers of the Province. As I just said earlier, this particular project is 40 per cent to the ratepayer, 40 per cent for the export market, and 20 per cent for Emera.

If you look at the ratepayer portion, $20 billion for the ratepayers on the Island, they have really no say into this because their rate is set by a power purchase take or pay arrangement. So, whether we use it or not we are going to pay for it. The other 40 per cent, which would be export, will only contribute $4 billion over the life of this project. One could argue: Oh sure, we could let it just flow over the falls and not sell it. There was no question that we should capitalize on this $4 billion.

Really, what it shows is that this so-called robust review of the project is simply based on the fact that, indeed, this will actually remove us off oil and remove our economy off oil. It is only because we can charge the ratepayer what we want. This is based on the power purchase agreement that is put in place between Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

This $20 billion we are talking about is really – I guess we could look for other words to describe it, but this is, in some way, just a form of a utility tax. The $20 billion will contribute through the dividends of Nalcor simply because the ratepayers of the Province actually pay this amount of money. The fact that this project is financially viable only works because we are in a position, through the power purchase agreement, where we can actually charge the ratepayers of the Province what we want under the take or pay option.

Mr. Chair, this today, as I mentioned earlier about the $24 billion in contributions over the fifty years of the project, is broken down into two components, $20 billion from the ratepayers of the Province. This is where the dividends would come from, and the $4 billion available through the export option. This is what is making this project work financially. This is what is making this project work when you go looking for financing.

I would not want to describe the project simply based on its financial merits. Without this power purchase agreement this particular project would not be as attractive to the bond agencies and the federal loan guarantee. By the same argument, the federal government would not be putting this federal loan guarantee in place without this power purchase agreement in place for the people of this Province.

Mr. Chair, I also want to say the $20 billion that has been outlined there, it is difficult to actually forecast that because one of the things that is not included here is that we really do not know what the cost overruns on this particular project will be, but that is for a different day.

I make the point today, when we listen to members opposite talk about the robust review, that people are indeed lining up to finance this particular project, it is simply based on the fact that we can and we will put a power purchase agreement in place, which is a condition of the federal loan guarantee, in this particular case; and the power purchase agreement will be in place by the subsidiaries of Nalcor, plus Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which will then go ahead and feed into the overall blended rate of the ratepayers of this Province. This project, on its own merit, simply works financially because of the power purchase agreement, not because of the design of the project.

I just want to make this point, that people do look at this particular project simply because of the power purchase agreement that will be put in place. Now, whether that dividend could be a lower dividend and the ratepayers would actually pay a lower rate that is a different argument. It is one agreement, Mr. Chair, that I would actually entertain. As a provider of energy for the Province through our company, through our government owned Nalcor, it was not meant, I do not believe, that that particular company would be designed to be put in the position that they could actually sell, in this particular case, energy to the ratepayers of the Province and that would be their business model.

We understood that Nalcor would be a business that would operate in a free capitalized market that would go out and compete, just like any other corporation; but, in this particular case, Nalcor will have the ability, through their subsidiary companies, to actually put in a take-or-pay contract and the dividends that will actually come back to Nalcor and eventually come back to the people of the Province essentially works because we have a take or pay with the power purchase agreement in place that will impact the rates of this Province.

Mr. Chair, this is something that I just wanted to get out there so we can actually describe why it is that the $20 billion is available to the Province and the $4 billion in the export market that will actually be paid to Nalcor.

Mr. Chair, thank you for your time, Sir.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

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

I was going to go into the FERC note, but I will wait a little while to deal with that; the Member for Burgeo – La Poile raised these issues earlier today. I am going to address the issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition, because it is a legitimate issue. People are wondering what is going to happen with our rates and what is going to happen with the money.

All of us have stated that we cannot absolutely guarantee that there will not be overruns. To say anything otherwise, would not be honest. So we are looking at: What will the overruns be?

The Decision Gate 2 engineering versus the Decision Gate 3, there has been a lot of engineering done. Mr. Martin and Mr. Bennett have indicated that they feel that the amount of engineering has been done in the tricky areas. I outlined the other day when I talked about the Decision Gate 3 numbers how the cost increase for Decision Gate 3 came from the transmission. I outlined in some detail, and I can find the number again in a second.

In any event, what we tried to do, Mr. Chair, to help the people of the Province, as a guide to the people of the Province, were two steps. One, we looked at electricity rates forecasting. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro – their forecasting people have had a lot of experience with this. They looked at the forecasting, but one of the things we have to recognize and one of the things I tried to illustrate earlier today is that we are actually living in a Province where electricity rates are pretty good.

Despite the significant increases between 2000-2011 and 2011-2016, that have nothing to do with Muskrat Falls, we are still in a pretty good spot. I used two charts earlier today to talk about that. In our paper, Electricity Rates Forecasting – and I refer to page 5 – we look at the fact that Labrador currently pays – and this is the average ratepayer.

To explain to the viewers, Mr. Chair, how we come up with an average ratepayer. Theoretically, there is no one out there who burns 1,517 kilowatt hours of energy. We had three profiles developed. One was the individual who just used electricity, and there were approximately 90,000 people there with 770 to 790 kilowatts of energy per month. Then we had the 146,000 people who burned approximately 2,100-kilowatt hours of energy a month. We then said, out of our 236,000 or 240,000 ratepayers that we have on the Island, the third profile is the average ratepayer who burns approximately 1,517 kilowatt hours of energy per month.

Then we said: Well, where is that ratepayer, he or she, in terms of the overall cost in the country? What we found is that Labrador currently has the cheapest rates. What is interesting in Labrador – and I apologize if this number is incorrect. Last week I asked how much energy is used in Labrador. The kilowatt hours of approximately 2,400 is the average in Labrador West. Then we get into the $40 million subsidy on the South Coast, 1000 kilowatt hours available to the lifeline block, and then the cost goes up.

In any event, Newfoundland and Labrador is currently at 12.6 cents, the average ratepayer. That is in a tie right now with New Brunswick, and fourth lowest in the country, behind Quebec, Manitoba, and BC, which all have large hydro. We are project to pay, when Muskrat Falls comes on – I am going to start with the kilowatt hours for a second. At 15.1 cents a kilowatt hour, we are projected to pay in 2017 what they are paying today in Nova Scotia and Ontario.

The other chart I illustrated earlier today was the rest of the world. We found three countries that were paying less than fifteen US cents a kilowatt hour. That does not necessarily mean a lot. They were Mexico, the United States, and Iceland. At the request of the Member for St. John's North, I went out and we checked on Iceland. They pay less than the fifteen cents a kilowatt hour. We have Italy paying thirty-two to thirty-three cents. We have Ireland and the United Kingdom paying from twenty-four to twenty-eight cents. We have Austria paying twenty-six, twenty-seven cents. All European countries pay a lot for energy. We are doing okay in terms of the rest of the world and the rest of the country.

Then what we looked at: Well, it is nice to talk kilowatt hours, but how can we show people what we expect them to pay? That is how we came up with our charts. If you look at the various charts outlined in the electricity rates forecasting, obviously we had enough confidence to put this in writing knowing that once it is in writing it is there forever. Words may disappear or be interpreted, but when it is in writing, it is there.

If you look at the average monthly bill, we are looking at from 2016 – and this is an assumption of no overruns at present – it will go from $241 to $231 with Muskrat Falls and from $214 to $229 without Muskrat Falls. Then we see the charts diverge and Muskrat Falls becomes cheaper in that the rate increase without Muskrat Falls would be twice as expensive as without.

Obviously there are assumptions involved. We are trying to look twenty to thirty years out. There are assumptions involved, no question about that. We are making assumptions on the price of oil. As the footnote says, these charts are meant to be illustrative. They are meant to help people and show that this is the way Muskrat Falls will affect you.

We also know, then, as to the revenue stream that there will be a significant revenue stream. That $229 a month for the average ratepayer in 2017 includes your capital costs, your operating and maintenance costs, and your financing costs. That is where the mere $1 billion comes in, by the way, to save ratepayers money of the federal loan guarantee. That is where you look at your interest during construction and other costs.

Even with all of those costs in, and the rates being what we project them to be, we do know by 2020, for example, it is projected to be – oh, I forgot the return on equity. There is also built in an 8.4 per cent return on equity, which I understand is rather standard for the utilities. In fact, Emera is seeking 9.2 per cent, I think, at their UARB hearings. So there will be $134 million.

Now, I am going to explain the way I thought about this. I am going to explain the way the Premier dealt with this to illustrate that I probably wanted to take the easier way out. It seemed to me the argument being put forward when I first thought about it was attractive. Let us take the money, the profit, and put them back in the rates.

The Premier from day one said no, that is not the way. The Minister of Finance, to give them their due both of them stood firm, and they said the money will be there for the government of the day to make the decisions as to how they want to proceed. The government of the day can look at the needs. We have Hebron coming on in 2017, so we will get some good money start to flow there hopefully. The government of the day may decide. I think the Premier has used these words and the Minister of Finance has used these words. The government of the day hopefully will be us, but we do not know that. That is 2020. I will be starting to get older, and the Minister of Finance will be a little bit older himself.

The government of the day will decide. Isn't that a sensible way? Just think about it, though. If you are the government, which I hope you are not, just to be clear, you can decide. Let us look at who we can subsidize here. Maybe we do not need to subsidize everyone. If I am practicing law, which I hopefully will be, and if I am making $300 or $400 an hour, which hopefully I will, then I do not expect to be subsidized. Why should I be subsidized for my electricity bill? If you were to ask me do you want a subsidy, or should the subsidy go to the senior citizen, to the single mother, to the low-income family, that subsidy you were going to give to me, you give it to them. I do not want that.

Isn't that a better way to look at it? As we move through this there will be money available. We may need hospitals, we may need roads, and we may need social programs. Despite the criticisms at times, we have a very good Poverty Reduction Strategy, we have a Violence Prevention program, we have good social programs, and we have a good health care program. In 2020 there will be money available for the government to decide.

It would be politically popular to say now we will put the money into rates, but the Premier and the minister stood firm and they were right. This is the right way to do it. It does not mean that you do not subsidize some of the rates if there are the overruns, not at all. I think any government would look at that. At the end of it all, the government of the day will make the decision. I think that is actually a very sensible, logical, and good way to deal with it.

What are we going to do? Let us just be sensible here now. We are going to say we will put it in the rates. What about in 2017 we are not around? Then we are binding the hands. What are you going to do, bring in legislation? I think someone mentioned that earlier today. If there is a way to do it, but legislation can be changed and policies can be changed. The government of the day can look at this.

I am sure the Minister of Finance, as I have said such good things about him, will want to have a few comments about me shortly.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed, as I said earlier, a great debate. The whole idea and my argument about the $20 billion in terms of the dividend and how it is used, I never did say tonight here it should go back to the ratepayers. I have said in the past that is a consideration, and I agree with the minister maybe for some government it would seem to be an attractive public policy, I believe, and that somebody would actually do that.

As a matter of fact, I would not be surprised if in some future date some government did make that a campaign policy, a part of some Red Book, orange book, Blue Book, or whatever blueprint it was. Name whatever book you would. Unlike the minister, I hope in 2015 it is our government that actually would be in the position to have to make that decision.

Mr. Chair, my argument about the $24 billion in return, or in the robust review, was not simply about the fact of how we use the money. It was more about the arguments we make about the Muskrat Falls Project and we have all said because of robust reviews. I just want to make the point that the only reason we could stand in this House and say that is because we have the ability to do that through a power purchase agreement, which indeed is very unusual in our situation.

As a matter of fact, except for some wind power, we really do not have too many other power purchase agreements in place. We have done that with a private company and the power purchase agreement, I understand, gives them a rate of return. The rate of return on the equity for the investment into the utility is not unusual.

What I am saying is when we go out and we make the argument that this particular project here, as an investment, will bring in a dividend to the Province, it is simply because through the power purchase agreement we can actually charge the people of the Province a rate on their electricity bills that they really have no say in. The power purchase agreement will be put in place as a condition of the federal loan guarantee, as I said, in Schedule A, in section 3. It is there. This power purchase agreement is designed to set a rate for the Muskrat Falls power.

Mr. Chair, as I move on I want to talk a little bit about Holyrood. This was something I brought up in Question Period today. As an Opposition we asked for a debate in this House. The Premier has said that as Leader of the Opposition I have asked for a debate many, many times, and we certainly did. As I said, this kind of debate and this back and forth from the ministers is how I always anticipated and I always felt the debate would look like.

When we have talked about the development of the Muskrat Falls Project, one of the things there everybody has been very clear on. I am certainly on the public record as saying we do not support the continued operation of the Holyrood Generating Station like it is now. Something needs to be done there. As part of the Muskrat Falls Project, one of the rationales for doing this project has always been that Holyrood would close up. As a matter of fact, many times even this week we have heard ministers on their feet and we have heard MHAs representing the areas talk about from time to time you would even get soot come out of the stacks that are in Holyrood. It causes considerable damage to people who live in that area.

People talk about the emissions and what it does, Mr. Chair, for the people in Holyrood. As a matter of fact, the mayor even said, and I think at one point someone was quoted this week as saying, that we should close up Holyrood. Indeed, it was not closing up Holyrood, he said. What he was talking about and of course what we always talk about is closing the generating station in Holyrood. It is not about closing the community of Holyrood; it is about closing the generating station in Holyrood.

Mr. Chair, one of the questions we asked today was, as part of the Muskrat Falls Project and as part of the definition of the project, we should set a date to decommission the Holyrood Generating Station. This is a plant that has been in place I believe now for about forty years. Two of the generators have been in place now for forty-one years and the other one thirty-three years.

Even Nalcor and people who live in that area say, and they make it quite clear, that this station has really outlived itself. It needs to be replaced. There has been some refurbishing that has been done. It is a 490 megawatt generating station. I think there is a common view that something needs to be done with Holyrood.

What we have been asking for today, and we have asked this question in Question Period, is that as part of this, when you look at Bill 61, and when you look at the definition of the Muskrat Falls Project, there is really nothing there that sets a date to decommission Muskrat. What we were saying is if indeed this is part of the commitment, if this is part of the reason for doing this, what we should do is establish a date. Let us establish it now.

I can assure you the people who are living in the Holyrood area would be happy to see this particular date put in this piece of legislation so they will know and it will be very clear to people that government is committed to closing Holyrood. The date would clearly be established. It would become part of this legislation. It would be enshrined there so people would know once the Muskrat Falls development is completed – we know now that is expected to be in 2017, if the schedule stays intact.

Mr. Chair, since the sanction date on December 17, this particular project, as the minister said, the ship has sailed. It is now time. If this particular project stays on schedule and it is completed in 2017, or whatever the completion date is, we need to establish very clearly what the decommissioning time would be for Holyrood. What we are suggesting is that if government is clearly committed to closing Holyrood, if that is a commitment and a premise to do one of the basic principles of doing the Muskrat Falls Project, let us let the people in Holyrood know that. Let us establish that date right now. Let us agree to put the amendment in place.

We will be discussing this further. We did ask the question today. There was not really any clear commitment to this. The people in Holyrood and the people of the Province who are interested in seeing this plant close up – I have been asked many times in media interviews I have done over the last year: What would you do as Leader of the Opposition with Holyrood? Well, we know it is a polluter. We know it has outlived its lifecycle. We know now, with the Muskrat Falls Project, in the definition we have seen in this particular piece of legislation, decommissioning of the Holyrood Generating Station is not clearly established.

I think it is time under the Muskrat Falls Project, under the definition of this, somewhere in this piece of legislation, we need to let the people of the Province, and in particular we need to let the people of Holyrood know that it is time to decommission the Holyrood Generating Station. When that happens, let us let the people of Holyrood know that now. If indeed the Muskrat Falls Project is one of the reasons for doing Muskrat Falls, that we need to close up Holyrood, if we need to have more green energy as they said, that would mean closing Holyrood. The time would be to actually do this while we have the opportunity in this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Chair.

I touched on two things now: one about the financing through the power purchase agreement; the $20 billion that will come back from the ratepayers of the Province clearly has nothing to do with the robust review of the project or how this project stands on its own two feet. It is clearly designed simply because we have the ability to put a take-or-pay power purchase agreement in place. The ratepayers will essentially have no say into this.

The Muskrat Falls power will feed into the provincial grid. This rate is set from a power purchase agreement between Nalcor, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Now we know, from the comments made by the minister today, that the export power will generate $4 billion. None of this will go back to offset the rates of the Province. All of it will be used by Nalcor through the directive of government as they see fit.

Mr. Chair, it is the $24 billion that we talked about, that comes from the power purchase agreement. I do believe right now that it is time to let the people of Holyrood, through the definition of the Muskrat Falls Project, if indeed we are sincerely and genuinely committed to closing this plant, now is the time to let the people of this Province know. Bill 61 can allow us to do that. It is time to include that in the definition of this now, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to the response.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to address now an issue that was raised by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile earlier today, and also a question that was raised during Question Period by the Leader of the Opposition. That deals with our exclusivity on Nalcor in this Province. We are really formalizing the situation that currently exists, but the building of the link will theoretically allow for other power companies to try to sell power in our Province.

The Member for Burgeo – La Poile asked the issue – and I do not think it is a NAFTA issue as much it is an Open Access Transmission Tariff issue. The reason I know this is because we have a lot of dealings with this in Quebec. In the paper called Legal Options we outlined the –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: No, but the point raised by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile is a valid one. If we are going to trade energy in the United States, which we are hoping to do at some point, then what happens is that we then adopt those open access rules. They do not apply in Canada with the same force and effect. They apply, though, if you are a trading partner with the United States.

That is the basis upon which we have tried. We thought that we could get power to Quebec by going to their Régie. We made an application under the Open Access Transmission Tariff. The FERC or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1996 changed the way that electricity was transmitted and sold in the United States. Prior to this change large, international, integrated generation and transmission facilities were able to exercise monopoly and control – so the word monopoly is there – over large geographical areas by restricting access to their transmission and distribution grids.

Well, this is the same issue that we are having with Quebec at present. These utilities had an unfettered ability at that point, but this exclusivity I think it is important to recognize that we are not the only province that would be exercising that exclusivity or monopoly. I am going to get to what I think the answer to both members' questions is in a second. It is important to note that in Saskatchewan the Power Corporation Act gives Saskatchewan Power the exclusive right to supply, transmit, distribute, and sell electrical energy.

Essentially we based our section of the act on this. Notwithstanding anything, notwithstanding any special franchise, they are giving an exclusivity or monopoly, for a lack of a better term. It does say: The corporation may, on terms and conditions, consent to the supply, transmission, and distribution. They then go on: In Manitoba, there is a regime set up according to which Manitoba Hydro owns and operates the generation, transmission, and distribution system in the Province. Cabinet can give approval to develop generation.

Now, the importance of this is that there is – and we have indicated that the Maritime Link we hope to trade energy in the United States at some point that we will develop surplus energy, not only in the spot markets but some point in the future the American markets will open up, which we expect to be – based on a Navigant report provided to the Atlantic Energy Gateway Ministers in PEI, I think it was September in the 2020s.

When FERC developed this model for the electricity markets, it required all transmission owners that provide non-discriminatory access and comparable transmission service to anyone who wants to sell electricity but requires transmission access. In order to facilitate and regulate the market, FERC requires that all transmission providers publish an Open Access Transmission Tariff, or an OATT, that gives all potential users a transparent view on the access requirements. The purpose of the OATT is to ensure that third parties are provided transmission service by a transmission provider.

Now, theoretically, that is the theory that if you fail to issue an OATT or to follow the standardized process this will result in sanctions being imposed by FERC, but that is in the United States. Canada does not have any similar type of open access requirements; however, as most Canadian provinces engage in electricity trade to the US, almost all provincial utilities have adopted an OATT.

We have a situation here where we are saying that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be the exclusive distributor – not distributor, because it is not that. Newfoundland Power will continue to – what are my words here, Minister of Finance? Let me get the act here to be certain. I am sorry, just one second. I apologize.

Exclusive right: "Notwithstanding another provision of this Act or another Act, a retailer… shall not develop, own, operate, manage or control a facility for the generation and supply of electrical power or energy…"

It "…does not apply to an industrial customer if that industrial customer is purchasing electrical power or energy…" and it does not apply "to generation facilities owned, operated, managed or controlled…" at present. It goes on to talk about, "A contract… entered into before or after the coming into force of this section…"

Essentially, what we have, we are taking the situation now with Newfoundland Power – they have their current situation, it will continue. What we are looking at is because of the fifty-year loan guarantee time frame. Now, it is important to note, even though we say they are restricted for fifty years, the loan itself could be paid off much earlier than that. It is possible, theoretically, when I look at the revenue stream or if the Province had significant oil revenues, this could be paid off within thirty years. We cannot always say it is a fifty-year term. The term of fifty years is that which is outlined in the loan guarantee to ensure the revenue stream, but once the loan is paid off the loan guarantee obviously no longer exists.

The situation raised by the members, I think both of them, and I think the OATT would be the more appropriate one, is: What would happen if an application was made by another company to bring power into the Province? That is something that would have to be looked at seriously, obviously. We are now in Quebec arguing that we should have open access against Quebec. We have been at that now I think it is for – since 2006, we have been blocked by Quebec. So we would have to ensure there is a fair process in place.

It would be rather hypocritical of us, or whoever the government is at the time – obviously, I am just speaking in a theoretical situation. The government at the time would have to deal with it, but it would be rather hypocritical to argue that Quebec has treated us unfairly by applying the OATT and we are here saying it should be strictly applied. I am not saying that it would be granted, but what I am saying is it would appear to me that there would be certainly an argument that the open access should be granted. You would have to look at – pardon?

MR. MARSHALL: There is not enough capacity.

MR. KENNEDY: Well, that is the issue. I think that would really be the issue of capacity because the cost of bringing power into the Province – you have a 500 megawatt Maritime Link at present. We know 170 megawatts will be used, so that leaves 330 megawatts. We hope that by the time anyone else would be looking at bringing energy in, we will be in a position to send that much energy out and hopefully there will be markets.

Our capacity in the Province for a number of years – and we are up to 200 megawatts of capacity or peak demand come 2017. I cannot say that I know what the answer is but what I would suggest is it would be hard to argue against someone even bringing their application, that is a different thing because being successful – that is another issue for the government of the day. I think also it is important to recognize that in our role as legislators, we are bringing in legislation today that can be changed tomorrow. Legislation is not something that when it is brought in is there forever

As a lawyer, what you do is you look at the intent of the legislation. You go back at times to Hansard. What did Hansard – what was the requirement of the act? What was it the legislators were trying to establish? You would look at all of that and say well, this is the way it works in other provinces. This is the issue in Quebec. There are exclusivity clauses in two other provinces, and this is the way it has to be at present.

Could someone make application? Certainly. Would they have an argument that the Open Access Transmission Tariff applies if we are trading in the United States? Certainly. Would they have to be treated fairly? Certainly, because we have a history of not being treated fairly; it is something that we complain about. It is something that we are complaining about now in Quebec, that they do not apply the Open Access Transmission Tariff properly.

There are currently two actions we have taken out, two applications under the Open Access Transmission Tariff, but there has to be capacity on the lines. That is something that is an important issue. You have to have capacity on your lines and there would have to be costs that would make it worthwhile. Personally, I do not see that happening in the first decade or so. Could it happen later on? Who knows?

CHAIR: I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry.

Thank you very much.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am very happy to stand and speak to this. It is almost 10:00 o'clock, so we are slipping into another all-nighter and it is great to see all of us here.

I would like to thank all the people who are working so hard and who have been working so hard over the past few days, particularly the Table Officers and everyone from the Clerk's Office. I know this has been a lot of hard work, dedication, and commitment. Then the folks down there in the Broadcast Centre who are making sure everything is recorded and brought to the citizens of the Province. They, too, are working really hard.

The people in Hansard, all the departmental staff, political staff, the Commissionaires, everybody is working really hard to make this possible for us all to be here, to speak to one another and to ask each other questions. The extra work for the security guards, the cleaning staff, and then all of the MHAs, my colleagues here in the House, the commitment and dedication to the task we have before us is admirable. We know we are all working under a certain amount of strain.

One of the issues I have been wondering about and talked a little bit about over the past few days is the whole issue of looking at alternatives. For me, looking at alternatives is not looking at whether it is wind power, how can we do this with wind power. Basically, it is about looking at an integrative design.

We are at interesting point here in our history, with our 500,000 people and our prosperity, with an energy challenge facing us, with the possibility of developing resources, the possibility of new industries, the possibility of perhaps, who knows, even a growing population. We know the work and job opportunities that will be presented by the Muskrat Falls Project itself and all of its subsidiaries will offer perhaps thousands of jobs, some of them longer term and some of them shorter term. All of this proves to be a challenge on how we will meet our energy needs.

My question has been, and I still do not have a satisfactory answer: What was the initial task given to Mr. Ed Martin, who has worked so hard, and Nalcor to look at how to answer our energy and our power challenge present and in the future, in the near future and also far off in the future? I am not quite sure whether or not it was an open-ended question, or whether it was how we can make Muskrat Falls work and if that was the solution. It is interesting to see what is happening around the world in terms of countries, of municipalities, and of individual companies developing new technologies to be able to meet the modern-day energy needs. Those that are successful are those that apply an integrative approach where there are a number of ways of generation.

What has been interesting as well is the great amounts of money private industry is investing in new technologies for generation design. Renewables are no longer a fringe activity. We know that. For us, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as was quoted by somebody, our energy future is not a fate, but it is a choice. We have a choice here, and I am just wondering how our choice was made, whether or not it was totally an open-ended question where we brought together experts to look at what would be an integrative design, what would work for our current, our near future, and in the long-term, and solutions to our energy situation.

Then I cannot help but wonder what this would look like today if we had a legislative all-party standing committee looking at this issue, where there was an open, transparent, and public process, and where we had all parties represented who were looking at the question: What would we look like today? Would we be in a situation where we could all feel a degree of certainty that we came up with absolutely the best approach, the most technologically-innovative approach to addressing our own energy needs? Would we all be able to celebrate together? Would the people of Newfoundland and Labrador feel a confidence, an absolute confidence, in the solutions that were brought forth because of a consultative process, because of an open, a transparent and accountable process, and because we were using all the tools available to us in our democratic process? What would that look like today?

Here we are tonight, a few days from Christmas. We will be talking about this all through the night. People are tired. People are scrambling to try and make sure the answer we have come up with and the design that has been put before us is the one that is the most comprehensive and the one that is the most beneficial to the people of the Province.

We cannot say that with certainty on this side of the House. We would like to be able to, but we do not know that. We do not know what the initial question was and what the initial task was presented to Ed Martin and to Nalcor. Granted, we know they worked really hard, and granted we know there was some exploration of alternative issues. Were they just an add-on? Were they part of the initial question? Were they part of the initial mindset that we can look beyond our own borders at some of the most creative, innovative approaches to energy generation? We are not talking about fringe activities; we are talking about a new way of doing things.

Now we have a fifty-year commitment. What does that mean to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of our future with a fifty-year commitment to this current technology? Again, our energy future is not fate, but it is a choice. We are making choices here. What we have to do is focus on the outcomes, not on the motives.

I cannot help but wonder if this government did not dismiss any opposing voices, any opposing opinions, or experts from beyond our own borders, what would we have come up with? Would we have come up with a modern, absolutely smart technology and an absolutely modern answer to our energy challenges? We have not looked.

This plan, which is not an Energy Plan but a plan to build the Muskrat Falls Project and its subsidiaries, is not a full Energy Plan for the Province. It is not a full Energy Plan for the future of our Province. It is disappointing and it is sad that we have come to this point, when we cannot all celebrate. If we had all come together with a solution that was truly the best solution for the Province, thinking that we were throwing aside old thinking and focusing really on outcomes, we together, all of us together in this House, could feel, yes, this has been the best solution for our future needs, for our power needs, and for our power generation needs for the future of our Province, one we could all have a certain sense of certainty with.

What is kind of interesting is some of the people, some of the experts, some of the organizations, and some of the companies who have been engaged to help guide the Province through this process have in fact branched out into other technologies, whether it is recommending wind or whether it is recommending natural gas-powered generation. They are going on looking at these new technologies. They are going on looking at integrative approaches for other jurisdictions outside of our own. Perhaps those are things to celebrate.

What has happened here? What doors and what windows have shut for us?

CHAIR (Cross): Order, please!

I remind the member that her time has expired.

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to send a message to a few of my family to say I am going to get up and speak now, but I decided I would not do that because what they will end up doing is calling and saying you are looking tired, you are looking haggard, and all this kind of stuff. Mr. Chair, I came in here at 10:00 o'clock this morning – sorry at 8:00 o'clock this morning. Do you see? I am confused already. I came in here at 8:00 o'clock this morning and when I got in I said strange things must have happened during the night because I saw different members who would usually be speaking back and forth across the floor, I will put it that way, were sitting next to each other. I thought it must have had something to do with the Christmas spirit, that calm that comes over people as they get in the Christmas spirit and you get closer to Christmas day.

Mr. Chair, I think it has happened again. When it comes to the issues we are debating here this evening, people are finally arriving at a certain place where they realize this is the right thing to do for the people of the Province. Mr. Chair, I believe at this particular point I have the people on the other side. I am just trying to get the people on my own side here now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JACKMAN: The hour is growing long, Mr. Chair, and the wits are starting to get a little bit dim, if I can put it that way.

I have come to one realization. When you are entering into something of this nature, you have to take the chance; there is no doubt about it. I, as a member of government, as a parent and as a grandparent, as a resident of this Province, looking at the historical side of it, I have to accept that this is a deal that I think is extremely good for the people of the Province.

It is good for my children. It is good for my grandchildren. I think it will be seen as something that all the debate that went on, people will look back at and say: It is a good thing that the debate did happen, but it is equally as good that we arrived at a point where we have accomplished something that will prove well for generations to come and it is something of great significance for the people of the Province.

As in anything that you do, you do not know what the future will hold; but, I said it here this morning, and I will repeat it: A generating station that was setup in Petty Harbour some eighty or ninety years ago is still producing energy. So, we can only look at what the future will be and what this will provide.

I also said this morning, and I will repeat it again: The car of the year this year is an electrical car. So, we know what is going to happen in the future and that demand. We have to do our part, even though there is only 500,000 of us. As much as some people may doubt it, we have a thing before us called climate change. Anybody who thinks that climate change is not real, I truly do believe, is just burying their heads in the sand, if we put it that way.

If you look at any of the Discovery Channels and you look at the science magazines and the research – all we have to do is look at the polar ice caps and see what is happening, see how much they have receded over the course of time, and that the Northwest Passage will be opened up for shipping. That is not just happening, I suppose, as a natural evolution. We know that a lot of that is being created because of the climatic changes that are happening in the world. So, as a small Province, we can say and we should be able to say with pride that we will have 98 per cent green energy being produced in this Province. If the entire world could say that, Mr. Chair, then we could take a look at reversing some of the impact of climate change.

I am truly one who believes, as I have heard mentioned here, in conservation. That is a part of it. We have to do our part as individual households. We have to do our part as a people of the Province. We have to do our part as a part of Canada. We, in doing our part and developing this project, are contributing to the reduction of climate change.

The other day when we were in the lobby going through the sanctioning, I said that in my time in this House there are times when I have sat in here, we have gone through some of the legislation, and I have to say, mundane would be the way to put it. It is housekeeping things as we revise and adapt some of the legislation that is in place. I have been here when there are some historical events that I remember. I do remember the bringing back of the Atlantic Accord and what happened in here.

One of the things I have said on a couple of occasions that really sticks out for me was the day when the galleries were filled with people from Nunatsiavut, when they had themselves proclaimed self-government. There is a feeling that happens when those types of things take place in this House.

I know it has been a chore for us to sit here through this session and through some of the sessions that have taken a longer period of time, but when those types of events happen they are things that will stick with you. As a matter of fact, you take with you some little memento so you can pass onto your family members to say that you sat in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador when this event took place.

I still have the thing at home. When Nunatsiavut Government was formed they had a brochure that they passed out. I took it around and had the members from Labrador sign it, the Premier, and the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. I still have it at home, and it is probably the only one in the Province that is a bit unique that way because it is a special moment in this House.

When we were in the lobby the other day with the sanctioning of this project, that is another one of those moments, Mr. Chair, that will be in the history books, that my grandchildren will be learning about, and it is something that I will be able to say to them that I sat in the government at that particular time. It is something that we should all be proud of.

I am convinced that as much as some the folks across the way have criticized it and what this and want other things, that they too have their role to play in this process, but they too will be able to say we took part – and I know they want what is best. What it finally comes down to is, in the end, we are now ready to move with the next phase of this, and that is what these two bills are about. One is about the financing end of it, and the other is about procuring the land so that we can put in place the transmission – financing and the construction of this project. It is as simple as that.

I look forward, I know there is some work going on, but I can tell you one thing, Mr. Chair, Labrador is going to be an even busier place. The members who represent Labrador know it. Any of us as ministers or caucus members who go into Labrador, there is no trouble to see what is happening in that part of the Province.

We are proud to have that happening. We are proud that the people that are adjacent to these resources that are being developed are getting the jobs. We are proud, Mr. Chair, as a Province this project will go and it will enable future projects. We have heard the members talk about all of the mining activities that are going to be taking place within Labrador.

Being a part of that, Mr. Chair, is a proud moment for me, and I look forward to speaking one more time, Mr. Chair, before I leave tonight.

CHAIR: I remind the member, who is connecting the dots, his time has concluded.

MR. JACKMAN: I am going to be speaking at 11:50 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

Is it a privilege to stand up here again in this hon. House on whatever day of the week it is, or whatever date it is. I have no clue at this point, but that is beside the point, I guess you could say. We all know why we are here and that is to speak to this important legislation that government has proposed, Bill 60 and Bill 61.

I think what I am going to do is speak a bit about Bill 61 again. I will reference clause 1 again. Clause 1 will soon be the most referenced clause ever in the history of legislation. Government talks about the scrutiny that Muskrat Falls has had. I can tell you what: clause 1 has certainly had the scrutiny, I guarantee you that.

What I would say is that I was listening with great interest to the Minister of Education, as I usually do, because I find him to be – obviously, the member has been around some time now. He has had lots of opportunity to speak and I enjoy what he has to say. He mentioned about historic events. I guess being here a short period of time I have not had as many historic events. Your version of whether history is good or bad depends on which side of the House you sit on.

I would say I have been here for two historic events. One of them was back in June when we saw Bill 29 come through. That is a version of history. My interpretation of whether that was good or bad is probably different than the members across.

I guess some day down the road people will look back at this and say: whether you like the project or not they certainly had their say to it. That is what we are doing here as an Opposition. Again, government is having their say as well. I will give them credit. They are standing up and having their say, but my job as a member of the Opposition is to not only have my say but put my concerns on the record.

It is one thing to talk about the legislation, which we have done, but we are also going to be proposing amendments at some point that will discuss some changes that we think will be good changes to the legislation. We know the purpose of these two pieces of legislation is to enable the project. We think that with our interpretation and review of the legislation, we do have suggestions that can be positive to that legislation if and when it is passed, whether it is 2012 or 2013.

In my first session in the House, sometimes I was almost disappointed because I thought we suggested amendments to legislation and sometimes they were not heard, but this session really gave me hope because there were things we suggested that were listened to. I guess members of the different departments listened to it and amended certain pieces of legislation after taking in what we had to say. Do you know what? That is a sign.

One of them would be the Pharmacy Act, which we had a chance to discuss. Another one would be the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act, two specific pieces of legislation that government put out. We put our concerns forward and government said: Do you know what? There are valid points there. Let's make the legislation as good as it can be. In that case, hopefully the two pieces of legislation will be even stronger for it.

It is a good Minister of Health and a good Minister of Justice, I tell you, when they listen to the Opposition and listen to the changes that we put forward. They are not going to say no just for the sake of no. They are going to listen to what we have to say.

What I would do is come back to – I brought some concerns forward earlier today about NAFTA and the possibility of some issues with the OATT, the Open Access Transmission Tariff. To the credit of the Minister of Natural Resources, he took the time to stand up and answer my questions and put forward his perspective on it and his interpretation of it. I appreciate that. What I will do is I will respond to some of that and rebut his answer.

It was funny, because we talked about the capacity on the line. I will see if I can get the Minister of Natural Resources going here, I am going to get him revved up here now. I thought I had very good serious questions; he had very good serious answers.

One of the things he talked about were two issues, capacity on the line and the cost. What he is saying is he does not think there could be any issue when it comes to the first ten years or so. What I came back to is he said, I do not foresee or I do not – I might have the words wrong, but what he was getting at was: I do not expect any issues in the first ten years or so. Being a trial lawyer with some esteem – and I was a much more inexperienced trial lawyer, but part of me wanted to come back at him and say: but it could happen. That is what I want to say to the minister, is that it could happen.

Again, this comes down to risk versus reward. The fact is here, there is significant risk. What the minister is saying is that our review of it shows that we do not think the risk is there. We do not think that the risk cannot be managed. We think it is worth the risk here. What I would say is I hope at this point – given that we have reached sanction in this project, I would hope that interpretation is right. If it is not, we as taxpayers, and the people out there watching this and the people who we all represent, will pay the price for that. That is literally and figuratively, I guess you could say.

One of the things I brought forward was the fact that by establishing this monopoly there could be a situation where we could have an issue. If people are not allowed to wheel their power in through Newfoundland and Labrador, will we have an issue given that we are intending to wheel our power out of Newfoundland and Labrador into Nova Scotia, through the Maritimes and down into the New England States? What the minister said was: look, this is what we are arguing in Quebec. We are arguing with the Régie because they want access there.

The question then becomes: If we win there, could this be an issue that we face down the road? If we get access there, is somebody going to be able to come back to us and have access here and derail the plans that we have laid out? The plan being that we keep our revenue base steady, make sure nobody else can access other forms of energy, other costs, other prices, keep the revenue stream there to pay off the cost of this fifty-year commitment.

That is one of the concerns there. I guess what the minister is saying is: look, given our history in the courts in Quebec, we do not anticipate that we are going to be lucky or successful. If that is the case, then how should we be treated any differently? I would hope that we would be successful in Quebec, but if by doing so it sounds like – and maybe I am interpreting the minister wrong – we could have some trouble down the road if that is the case.

The minister mentioned that other provinces have exclusivity clauses as well, and that very well could be the case. I would be willing to acknowledge the minister is – given that he is the Minister of Natural Resources, he has probably looked at the other provinces' regimes much more closely than say I have.

What I do know and maybe the question could be answered. Do any of the other regimes or exclusivity provisions in other provinces have the same terms that we have here, where at the end of the day the Cabinet is going to set the price necessary to ensure that return on the revenue? Is that same situation elsewhere in those places that have monopolies or exclusivity clauses? Do they still have independent regulators that are unfettered in their ability to make sure that the rate we are paying is the lowest-cost possible to ensure a reliable service?

He mentioned Saskatchewan Power, and that is one I am familiar with. Having lived in Saskatchewan for a few years I paid my fair share of Saskatchewan Power bills. I have to be honest; I cannot remember what I paid there. I cannot remember if it was good or bad. At that point it was just a matter of making sure the bill was paid.

I could not anticipate that ten years down the road I would be here talking about power bills and comparing Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. I thought that was interesting. So, we are not the only Province, according to the minister, exercising a monopoly. I have no doubt that that is indeed the case, but I am wondering if the same provisions that apply here apply there.

Now, Mr. Chair, I notice that my time is running out, but I have enjoyed this opportunity to stand up and speak to my concerns as it relates to Bill 61. I am hoping in the next opportunity I am going to get a chance to talk about an organization called the OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. I have a fair amount of material there and some concerns that I will outline, and how they might relate to this Province, to this deal, and to our partners.

On that note, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak, and I will take my seat.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to get to stand again and speak to a point in Bill 61 that is a point of concern for me, and I do have a couple of questions for the minister, probably the Minister of Finance actually, with regard to what I want to speak to.

It has to do with section 6 and 7 in Bill 61. These sections deal with Crown agency status. It talks about the status of Nalcor, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and also the status of the various subsidiary bodies that will be related to the Muskrat Falls Project.

MR. KENNEDY: Which section?

MS MICHAEL: Section 6 and section 7 of Bill 61.

In the briefing that we received from the Department of Finance and the Department of Natural Resources, they gave their explanation of the changes that are being made. As they explained to us, existing legislation defines Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as agents of the Crown. These were distinctions that I had not really thought about before, and that is the difference between being a Crown corporation and being an agent of the Crown.

A Crown corporation can exist without being an agent of the Crown. In other words, the Crown corporation is under the government and is regulated by the government; but if it does not act as an agent of the Crown, then any liabilities or any business that the corporation is involved in affects the corporation only and the assets of the Crown are not affected, if the Crown corporation is not acting as an agent. So, the changes that are in section 6 and 7 are changes which deal with changing the status of Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

For example, in Nalcor's commercial arrangements with Emera, Nalcor will act in its own capacity as a Crown corporation and not as an agent of the Crown. In the business that will go on between Nalcor and Emera if there is any liability involved in that business, it will not affect the Crown, it will not affect the government, and it will not affect the assets of the government. It cuts off the link between the corporation and the Treasury of the government.

As well, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be acting in its own capacity, not a Crown agent, with respect to executing contracts required for the project. There are going to be contracts related to all aspects of the project: the Muskrat Falls Generating Station, the Labrador-Island Link, and the Labrador transmission line. All of these will have separate bodies, separate subsidiaries, and separate corporations, and they will all be involved in contracts. The agencies, the corporations themselves, which are Crown corporations, will be operating on their own, not as agents of the Crown. All of the borrowing that will go on will be borrowing also that will be completed through the subsidiaries, which are not Crown agents.

The explanation we were given is quite logical. Because they are not acting as agents of the Crown, if anything goes wrong or if there is any liability, then they as a corporation, with the assets they have, have to deal with it. The government and the Treasury of government will not be in any way affected. The assets of the Crown get protected.

I understand that. I understand why it is necessary that be put in place. Obviously, I did not know before this the difference between being an agent of the Crown and being a Crown corporation. As I said earlier, a Crown corporation can either be an agent of the Crown or not. In the legislation, it states there are times Nalcor will be acting, for example, as Nalcor without acting as an agent of the government and there are times when the government will recognize Nalcor acting as its agent.

That all makes sense to me; however, we asked in the technical briefing: What were the negative legal implications, if any, of this arrangement? I see the positive implications. We asked several times and did not really receive a firm answer from the people who were briefing us. They told us they have it under consideration with legal consultants, but there was nothing they actually to answer that question: What are the potential negative legal implications?

One of the things that struck me – and I brought it up to the people who briefed us from the two departments – was that there is a section in the loan guarantee, section 4.11, which I have actually asked questions about in the House, probably last week. Section 4.11 in the loan guarantee says, "There shall be no sale or change of control of any Borrower or subsidiaries, except as among the Parties, and no sale of any material Project assets. There shall be no sale or change of control of Nalcor."

We had a discussion and a Question Period around that, and I really did ask a lot of questions of the Premier around this section in the loan guarantee. Finally, the Premier did acknowledge that section 4.11 does mean what it says. In actual fact, one of the subsidiaries – so the corporation will be the corporation of Muskrat Falls Generating Station, or the subsidiary that would be the corporation for the Labrador-Island Link, or the subsidiary that would the corporation for the Labrador transmission line, the control over either one of those could change but only among the partners of the loan guarantee – which means the two governments, Nalcor and Emera, well since they already are subsidiaries of Nalcor if control changed or if a sale happened, it would either be by one of the two governments taking control or buying it, or Emera taking control or buying it.

The Premier pointed out that this would be very, very strange for it to happen, but we finally came to an agreement that, in actual fact, it could happen. What could happen, for example, is that Emera could end up owning Muskrat Falls, the generating station, or one of those two transmission lines. If something happened and it was decided that Nalcor decided it would be beneficial for that to happen, it can happen. This allows it to happen, and there is no doubt about that; however, it is important that there shall be no sale or change of control of Nalcor. So, it is only the subsidiaries that we are talking about.

When I look at this Crown agency status in the bill for the same bodies, for the same corporations, I look at this and I say, well, this becomes even easier if there were going to be a change of control or sale; because a change of control or sale, for example, of either one of them, if something went wrong and Nalcor decided it would be beneficial to get rid of them, and Emera was the body that took it over, it would make it easier having these Crown corporations not acting as agencies of the government. It would make it much easier for the sale, if a sale were to happen, or change of control.

I see two things that are implications for the Crown agency status and the definition of acting or not acting as an agent of the Crown. One is that it does make it cleaner when it comes to if one of them runs into financial difficulties. The other, as I see it, is also if a change of control or sale happened, then it would make that easier as well.

I really do see an opening for the possibility of privatization of the Muskrat Falls Project. It is there. Legally it is there. It is all there. I am not saying it is meant to be, but I am saying it is there.

I will ask the minister a question, if I may just ask the question, and then I am finished?

CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: If the Minister of Finance sees and if he understands any negative legal implications, could he tell us? I could not get an answer on that from the briefings we had.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The member's time has expired.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity and I want to thank all members for their contribution to the debate over the last number of hours. As those who are tuning into the debate at home would know, through television, we have been debating Bill 61. We are still on clause 1, but we have had lots of good debate and dialogue that I think is going to inform some of the decisions and directions we are going to take over the near future, hopefully.

At this time, Mr. Chair, with leave of my two counterparts opposite, I would like to ask that we table the debate on Bill 61 for the time being in Committee. I would like to switch gears and ask that we rise for discussion, at the Committee level, of Bill 60.

I would ask leave first of all, Mr. Chair, if we could do that.

CHAIR: Does the House Leader have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the parties opposite for their leave.

Bill 60 is entitled, An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project. As many people would recall, we have essentially had three bills put before the House that we have been debating, three bills focused primarily on the Muskrat Falls Project: Bill 53, which we have approved through third reading a couple of days ago; Bill 61, that I referenced a few minutes ago, which deals primarily, as most of us reference it, with the electrical power control; and Bill 60 today, the one we are doing now, Mr. Chair, is on the expropriation of land.

By way of explanation, before I conclude and allow others to contribute to the debate, the explanation on this particular bill essentially is that this bill will "provide the ability to create a statutory easement which could be granted, transferred, mortgaged, leased or otherwise dealt with as real property…". It also deals with the ability to expropriate property as required, Mr. Chair. As many would know, with the entire Muskrat Falls Project and the transmission line to be created –

CHAIR: Order, please!

(Inaudible).

MR. KING: I was introducing it, Mr. Chair, but I will take your direction on that.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project". (Bill 60)

CHAIR: Okay, we will call clause 1.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Okay, thank you.

Do I need to repeat everything, Mr. Chair, or can I just continue where I was?

CHAIR: No, that is fine.

MR. KING: Thank you.

There was a little procedural wrangling there; thank you very much. Let me get my train of thought back now. It has been a long few days. We are back into Bill 60 on the expropriation of land. What I was actually doing when you picked up on the procedural piece was some introductory and explanatory notes for those who are tuned into the debate.

As I was saying when I paused there for a moment, the second point this bill would deal with is around the expropriation authority that will be required. As people would be aware, the entire Muskrat Falls Project will include the construction of a transmission line. There are going to be a number of requirements where the line is going to go through parcels of land and where there are going to have to be some changes made. This particular bill, without getting into any of the intricacies of it, is going to provide for some opportunity to do that.

Mr. Chair, I am going to conclude my remarks because I know there are a lot of members who would like to get on record and have a chance to have a few words about this bill, either to support what it does or to raise some concerns or perhaps some questions. As I said by way of conclusion, Mr. Chair, for those who are tuned into the debate at home, the intent here this evening is we are in Committee stage and we are at clause 1. This is where we get an opportunity to raise issues and concerns about the specifics of this particular bill and the processes. We will work through this clause by clause. At some point in time, when we get to the point of consensus at the Committee stage, we will have covered all the clauses in these two particular bills.

I thank you for the opportunity and I will take my seat.

CHAIR: I recognize the hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill 60 in the Committee stage, Mr. Chair. This particular bill really has to do with the expropriation of lands for the purposes of the Muskrat Falls Project. This particular bill deals with all the land that will be impacted in any way. So, we are talking about all the land from Muskrat Falls, through Labrador, down to the Labrador Straits, right from the Northern Peninsula to Soldier's Pond, and also through the West Coast of Newfoundland.

Mr. Chair, as you know, the Muskrat Falls Project is broken down into four components. Two of those components are directly relative to the legislation we are discussing today. One is the generation project itself, which happens to be in Muskrat Falls, and all of the lands that are around and are contained within that area. The other piece is what they call the Labrador-Island Link, which is the transmission line that will run down through.

So, Mr. Chair, what we are, in essence, talking about here is that a lot of the land, especially in the area of transmission, is occupied by individuals either through Crown land lease or through private ownership. Mr. Chair, Nalcor, in order to construct the Labrador-Island Link, will require about 1,100 kilometres of easement on land that will have a corridor that is sixty metres wide.

In some cases, Mr. Chair, this land is Crown lands, unoccupied, with no title other than that by the Crown. In cases like that it will not be a problem. In other cases, there will be Crown lands where the title is held by someone else through a lease agreement, and there will be areas where there will be private lands. There are also, Mr. Chair, lands that will be owned by municipalities, where government will have to expropriate or negotiate the occupancy or ownership of those lands for the purposes of erecting their assets.

Now, Mr. Chair, this entire bill is needed as part of the sanctioning agreement that has been signed between Emera and Nalcor. Also, Mr. Chair, in that sanction agreement, as well as in the loan guarantee, it indicated that there had to be clear title and ownership to all of the assets. As we know from clause 1 of Bill 61, which we just spent the last couple of days debating, under the definition of Muskrat Falls Project it says what all those assets are.

According to the financial agreements that the government has in place, it also says that in the case of default all of those assets can be taken. They are part of any default the government might have in repaying the loans they have. Any financial backers can gain access to those assets. In order for them to take them as security, they need to ensure their ownership is held by Nalcor or its subsidiaries in the case of this project.

Government has no other choice but to either negotiate appropriate easements on that property or expropriate that property.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or buy it.

MS JONES: Or buy that property, and that is what this bill is all about. I will speak to the buying piece of the property, Mr. Chair, because I think that is important as well. Easements in this Province are not something we are not familiar with.

In fact, Mr. Chair, through municipalities in this Province, easements of land are occurring all the time. So is expropriation, but not to the same degree. For example, you could look at the City of St. John's and in the course of a year they might have about 1,200 different properties they will take easement on or negotiate easement on, and if not, expropriate for the purposes of the business the city is conducting.

I know of lots of cases in my district, Mr. Chair, not just in the case of utilities but in other cases where there have been easements of property that have been administered through the municipalities. Easements are not a new thing for us in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair, and neither is expropriation. We have seen lots of lands expropriated for the purposes of development. We have seen lands expropriated for other purposes. We have seen lands we did not want to expropriate that we ended up expropriating, in the case of the Abitibi mill in Grand Falls. Such is not the case here, Mr. Chair.

In a case where government negotiates an agreement to have clear title and ownership to property, or they expropriate that property, the bill also allows for compensation to the individual who now holds that title or ownership. Mr. Chair, we agree that is a necessary component. We somehow question – and my colleagues will get into that as they go through the bill – the way the compensation will apply because in lots of cases the compensation says it is based on what the market value is.

Well, we know in Newfoundland and Labrador people often have beautiful cottages that are built in the wilderness that have no services and they have very limited access, which brings down the depreciated value of the land but not necessarily depreciates the investment they have made into that infrastructure. Mr. Chair, we will be questioning the way the compensation program works, how it is going to be applied, and what some of the triggers around that will be.

Mr. Chair, we do not anticipate that the expropriation of lands for this project is going to be a huge issue, but we do not have all the numbers. I would like to get a breakdown of the numbers. From what I understand right now, on the Labrador-Island transmission piece we are probably going to look at fifty or sixty different easements or expropriations that might be necessary. I understand in the case of the Maritime Link, we could be looking at about 100 different cases of easement and expropriation.

I do not have any numbers for Labrador, Mr. Chair, so I do not know what those numbers are, but I would hope that when the minister stands he can give me a breakdown –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

MS JONES: - of what is being looked at in terms of easements or expropriations in different areas of the Province under the different sections of the project.

We know there are five homeowners in the Sunnyside area that could be affected by this, in where they have their houses now, their permanent residences, which may have to be expropriated. We understand those individuals have already been informed and there is an ongoing negotiation for compensation around those particular properties.

We also know, Mr. Chair, this bill will have some impact upon municipalities. Our concern with that is that these municipalities are consulted, they are in agreement, and wherever possible they are compensated as well. We just want to assure that the impact upon any municipality is going to be minimized as a result of this project.

The other piece is with regard to Aboriginal claims because the bill itself, Bill 60, says that there has to be consultation with Aboriginal groups with regard to the expropriation of properties. This is one of the pieces, Mr. Chair, that on principle I am still feeling my way through simply because I know NunatuKavut does not have an accepted land claim.

I really do believe they will be impacted by the expropriation of properties and that they should be consulted, Mr. Chair, with regard to that. I will wait to hear what government has to say about that piece of it. I do not think it is a very respectful thing to do nor is it the right thing to do, to expropriate any of those lands that have legitimate claims laid to them by Aboriginal groups without consulting with them.

Mr. Chair, there are a number of pieces in this bill that we see as being a necessary concern. We will approach that and deal with it as we go through the bill, and get into it in more detail. At a glance, when I am looking at this bill – you have to realize, this is not an amendment that is being brought forward here. This is a completely new statute of the House of Assembly that is here for debate. Mr. Chair, this bill itself is twenty-nine pages long. It has tentacles that reach into fifteen other statutes of the House of Assembly. So it is fairly comprehensive.

Mr. Chair, when you make comparisons between this act, the Muskrat Falls Project Land Use and Expropriation Act, the first thing I can tell you is that it is much more modernized than the other expropriation acts we have currently in place in the Province. I think it is agreed to by most members, Mr. Chair, that the current legislation we have is not sufficient under our laws to allow for the appropriate expropriation or compensation for people who are impacted.

Most of the legislation that is already in place around expropriation of lands was designed to deal with more local land issues, but they were not really designed to deal with projects that were of this scale and magnitude. One of the things I can see in the legislation right now is it seems that it provides a stronger legislation but also legislation that reflects the modern times, the current situation, and is also more reflective of what appropriate compensations might be to people in the Province.

Mr. Chair, it deals with, as I said, the easements. It deals with Crown lands and non-Crown lands. It also deals with municipal issues and it deals with compensation. There are a number of components to the bill. Just to summarize, before I sit down, Mr. Chair, what we are actually looking at is the expropriation of lands to build a 1,100-kilometre transmission line for Muskrat Falls that will extend from Labrador to the Avalon Peninsula, to the West Coast of Newfoundland. That 1,100 kilometres will have a corridor that is sixty metres wide, and it will impact upon homeowners in this Province.

Also, in summary, we just say that it is a necessary piece of legislation in order for the government or Nalcor's subsidiaries to maintain clear title to the property where the assets of Muskrat Falls will be constructed. That is necessary in order for them to go to the bond markets and the financial agencies to raise the necessary capital for the project. As we know, because we are here debating this tonight and we will probably be here getting into Christmas Eve, Nalcor must be going to the financial agencies on Boxing Day, Mr. Chair, to try to secure the financial agreement. So there is tremendous pressure right now –

AN HON. MEMBER: Boxing Day sale.

MS JONES: Yes, the Boxing Day sale on Muskrat Falls. That is the only thing we can imagine, Mr. Chair, because they are pushing this legislation through and they have to get it passed before Christmas Day, regardless, if we are here day and night until Christmas Day. We realize that Bill 60 is imperative to Nalcor going to make their arrangements for financial backing of this project on Boxing Day.

Mr. Chair, on those comments, I will take my seat. My colleague, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile will certainly be leading the debate on this bill this evening, and I am sure he will have lots of questions as we go through.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Minister of Natural Resources is not here tonight, so I will say a few words on his behalf and he will have an opportunity when he returns to be able to address this legislation in more detail.

As we said earlier during debate on Bill 61, sanction of the Muskrat Falls Project took place on Monday past. Now that the project has been sanctioned, it has been given approval of the government, and it has been given the approval in the Legislature, we now have to take the next step. The next steps are to begin to acquire the land that is needed upon which these projects will be built, and also to put the necessary legislation in effect to ensure that the proponents can now proceed to start the fundraising process.

That is a process that will probably accumulate in September or October of next year when we have something that is referred to in the Loan and Guarantee Act as financial close, when the Province's equity will put into the project and the proponents will draw down what we think of as the mortgage funds or the loan funds, the debt part of the debt-equity formula. Then the project has to be mortgaged to our lenders as security for the obligations.

What this bill is talking about is the land aspect. We are going to have a large hydro generation facility built near Muskrat Falls. As the Government House Leader indicated, we are going to have two very long transmission lines. One of which will extend from Churchill Falls to Muskrat Falls, that is known as the LTA or the Labrador Transmission Assets. The second part of the transmission line would be what is known as the LIL, the Labrador-Island Link, which will run from Muskrat Falls across the Strait of Belle Isle down the Great Northern Peninsula, across the Island over to Soldiers Pond.

We needed a process that would expedite the acquisition of the necessary lands. Obviously, much of the land – as a matter of fact 99 per cent of the land required for the Labrador Transmission Assets and the LIL is on Crown land. It is owned by the Crown already, so that should not be very difficult.

With respect to the Maritime Link, which the Emera corporation or Emera Newfoundland limited is going to construct which is another link from Granite Canal on the South Coast of the Province, down Cape Ray across the Gulf, and connecting to the mainland at Lingan in Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, which of course will provide us with a connection for the first time. We will stop being an isolated project. We will connect to the national grid in two places; one in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and the other one of course at Churchill Falls.

Ninety per cent of the land for the Maritime Link is on Crown land. Where the transmission corridor runs over Crown land, Nalcor and Emera will be provided the land interest they require for these transmission corridors. If the land is not Crown land – that means it would be land owned by people other than the Crown – interest in non-Crown Land including privately owned land and municipally owned lands, will also be required for the project.

Of course what will happen is that Nalcor – and it will be Nalcor because Emera will not have the right to expropriate – will negotiate with any private owners, with municipalities, and attempt to negotiate a fair purchase price and purchase the property, or purchase the interest in the property that Nalcor will need. In some cases, it will not be complete ownership. It may be just an easement interest is required or a permit to occupy is required, something less than full ownership.

The proponents will initially negotiate with the landowners to purchase a land interest for a price that presumably can be agreed upon. If there is a failure to agree – and in many cases there is a failure to agree – Nalcor will have the right under this legislation, similar to rights under the expropriation legislation, to expropriate the land. That essentially means serving a notice on the property owner that they require the land. Under the legislation, ten days thereafter, the title will transfer from the owner to Nalcor and the parties will have to then settle on the agreed price.

Because there has been a failure of an agreement what will happen is that if the parties are unable to agree on compensation, then the matter will be referred to an independent panel whose job will be to arbitrate the difference and to establish a fair market value.

Of course, when you talk about buying something for fair market value, there is, in many cases, a difference of opinion. The compensation that the independent panel will have to come up with is fair market value in accordance with the highest and best use of the land at the time of the beginning of the expropriation.

Mr. Chair, I think people in this Province are familiar with expropriations. We have them under municipal legislation. We have them under the Expropriation Act. The procedure is if they cannot agree, there is an independent panel set up. The parties can go to that panel. When they make their representations to the panel, they can be accompanied by their lawyer, if they wish to have one. They can be accompanied by an appraiser, if they wish to have one. Arguments will be made and then the panel will make its decision on price.

Of course, we have that for a very valid reason. There can be times when the government is trying to put together an assembly of land for a project that is particularly important to the people of the Province, a project obviously such as this facility, a project like a hospital. You can have a situation where, in attempting to put land together for a hospital, if there are twenty-five owners you can reach an agreement maybe with twenty-three or twenty-four of them, but one person recognizes he or she is holding that one missing link, and even though the property may be worth a certain value, will say: Okay, I want fifty times the value. This gives the government, because of the overall public interest, the interest to put that assembly together to have that hospital or to have a project like a hydroelectric project or corridor and to be able to expropriate the land so the public interest can be met. At the same time, we have to put in protection for that landowner to ensure the landowner will receive a fair market value.

It is recognized that if a house has to be acquired, we have a very progressive piece of legislation in this Province called the Family Homes Expropriation Act, which will provide to the owner not just fair market value but in fact the replacement cost. You could have somebody living in an area, they have a very nice home, and to rebuild that home somewhere else will cost even more. The idea there is the person can be put in the same conditions as they were before and build a new home in the new area, but that may mean a payment to the person of more than fair market value. That way the person would get the full replacement cost.

With respect to non-Crown land, the government can expropriate on behalf of the proponents, the proponents being the subsidiaries who are going to build, manage, and finance the project. There is a protocol dealing with the expropriation procedures. It is going to be established through regulations under the act and must be adhered to by the proponents. As I said, there will be an independent panel of arbitrators who will determine the compensation where the parties cannot agree on the price. The act does not apply to family homes, which will continue to be dealt with, as I said, with the Family Homes Expropriation Act.

Mr. Chair, there are going to be many benefits to this particular project. This particular legislation will enable the land part to be dealt with expeditiously and in a manner that is fair to all concerned. This project will diversify our economy. There are $2.4 billion in rate savings to homes, businesses, and the people of the Province. There is $1.9 billion in labour to business. There is $290 million going to the government in tax revenue.

There are going to be 1,500 jobs each year during construction and, at peak, there are going to be 3,100 jobs over seventy different trades and occupations. There are 9,100 person years of direct provincial employment, of which 5,800 person years will be in Labrador. There is $134 million that will go to Innu businesses for Muskrat Falls' construction. We will have a project that is 98 per cent clean renewable energy. This project will have stability of title, certainty of title, in order that the project can be built and can be offered to the lenders as security for the funding and the financing that they are going to provide.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

It is a pleasure to stand here in my first opportunity to speak to Bill 60, now in the Committee stage. I have a fair amount of material and questions on this piece of legislation.

What I would say just starting off here is this is the second part of the enabling legislation in order to make this project work. The first one is that we need to make sure the money is there, and the second part is we need to make sure the land is there in order to have this transmission line. We have the Labrador-Island Link and then we also have the Maritime Link. We know that, in terms of the amount of land we are dealing with, we are looking at 1,100 kilometres, I believe. That is by sixty metres wide, this transmission corridor.

There are a number of different angles I could go at on this. In terms of the legislation itself, this bill is actually not as contentious really in my mind as, say, Bill 61 which I have some very strong feelings about. I do not agree with a lot of it. In terms of Bill 60, even if you do not agree with the project as I have said, the legislation that has been set out makes sense for the goal they are trying to accomplish.

The problem I do have, I guess you could say, is twofold. The first part is that this is one of those pieces of legislation we had twenty-four hours to review before we walked into this House to debate it. Now, I was not here back I think it was in 2009 when the last significant expropriation in this Province was done. I was not here. We have all heard about it, especially in this last session since the Supreme Court of Canada case came down.

What I would say is that happened for a simple reason. It happened because the Province was forced to act in haste. The Province was forced to move quickly because of the situation that was facing them at that time. With the facts and knowledge they had, they felt they had to make a move. The staff comes together and puts together that piece of legislation. What happened was what was thought was going to happen did not happen exactly as they had all laid it out.

What I would say is when you are dealing with this legislation you have to be cognizant of the fact that, again, this is similar to that in that it is new legislation. It is not even like Bill 61, which is an amendment to previously existing pieces. This is brand new. The reason it is there is because the pre-existing legislation that could be used to accomplish the goals set out by Nalcor is not adequate and is not good enough to get done what needs to be done in terms of getting it done fast enough and getting it done with enough certainty.

This is all based on a timeline here. Really, that is why we are here. It is the week before Christmas. The reason things have been rushed is because the Province needs to go to the bank. They need to have this – I guess you cannot call it an asset. You could call it an asset, but you need to have the security of the land.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nalcor.

MR. A. PARSONS: Nalcor. Sorry if I get confused, because the Province and Nalcor to me seem to be interchangeable sometimes. I get confused. Maybe it is Nalcor going to the bank or maybe it is the Province. Sometimes I get confused about who is up on the podium. That aside, the Province needs the security, or Nalcor needs that security, knowing that the land can be expropriated to lay out the transmission line that is going to carry this Muskrat Falls power all the way from Labrador.

That being said, knowing what the legislation is about, knowing our past history with expropriation, and knowing this was rushed in, what we have done through this filibuster is buy ourselves some time. That time has allowed us to have a briefing and we have had a chance to ask questions. We have had a chance to review and we have gone through second reading. We have had time to look into this legislation.

Looking at the bill, this is a fairly large bill. It is not a bad size compared to the two other - what we will call - Muskrat pieces of legislation. There are the three; I guess it is the Holy Trinity of Muskrat Falls legislation being passed here in the House. This is the thickest in terms of actual girth of paper.

The explanatory notes lay it out pretty well. "The Bill would provide the ability to create a statutory easement which could be granted, transferred, mortgaged, leased or otherwise dealt with as real property; establish a process by which an expropriating authority may, where land is required for the Muskrat Falls Project, expropriate that land on behalf of a proponent in accordance with this Act and an expropriation protocol established in the regulations; confirm that a holder is liable for taxation in respect of the Muskrat Falls Project, expect in prescribed circumstances; and" – that is something that I will get into after, is the taxation aspect here because there are certain things that need to be brought up there – "approve the use of land by a proponent in the transmission corridor and with respect to the transmission lines for the Muskrat Falls Project, and require that existing and future land use plans and development of regulations conform with the approved land use."

So, it lays it out pretty good what is being done here; but, as I said earlier, we are not just dealing with this one new piece here, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project. We are dealing with all the other pieces of legislation that are referred to within this piece.

So, you read this, but this one says, in a numbers of cases, it is abiding by other pieces of legislation. Just to give you the terminology: certain pieces of legislation shall not apply; this may apply notwithstanding such-and-such a piece of legislation. They are laid out there.

What I have done is I listed them all down after I went through the act the first time. What I did was I wrote them all down. Then I went on the government Web site. You go to the House of Assembly section, then you go to the Legislation, you go to the Consolidation of Legislation and you can go on and it is laid out alphabetically, and you click on each one. It is a tool I used many times prior to coming to this House.

We have the Executive Council Act; Registration of Deeds Act; Energy Corporation Act; Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act; Public Utilities Act; Provincial Parks Act; Lands Act; Public Utilities Acquisition of Lands Act; Expropriation Act; Family Homes Expropriation Act; Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act; Judicature Act; Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986; Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000; and then there is the three city pieces of legislation, the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, and the City of Corner Brook.

What I did was I then had to go to each of these pieces of legislation and look at the sections that were referred to because, as it has been said on many occasions, the devil is in the details. It is one thing to get the briefing to explain what it is we are trying to do, but it is another thing to know what the legislation says and what actually could happen. There are a lot of different pieces of legislation referred to here. Some of them do not have a substantive effect. Some of them are referred to in the normal course of business. Some do have a substantial effect, and I will get into them over the next number of hours or days or whatever.

You can talk about expropriation as a whole. Expropriation is not a new concept. Expropriation has been around for a number of years now. We have always had to have the ability to expropriate land for certain purposes. Cities, towns, and communities have had the ability, through legislation, to acquire land but according to legislation, so it lays out a number of conditions. We cannot allow a body the unfettered ability to take land that they want from somebody just because it suits their purposes. You have to lay out that fair process, that due process so that if they are going to take it, it has to be for a good reason and it has to be with fair value in mind for the people who originally owned the land.

We have talked about expropriation and what it is all meant for here. It is a fifty-five section piece of legislation here, so I am going to probably start around the top and work my way down to the bottom. Hopefully by the time I am done we will be into Friday or Saturday sometime.

The first section we will get into is the definition section. It lays out the expropriation protocol. That is an important part because there has to be a protocol or process that needs to be followed here. We cannot just do it willy-nilly: Oh, we need that land; come and grab it. There has to be protocol there.

The minister referred to that; it is going to be done fair. Again, it is going to be done quickly, but it is going to be done fair. My main goal is that it is not a huge amount but aside from the Crown land, there are a number of people who are going to have private land seized and family homes. We need to make sure that those people are treated as fairly as possible and make sure that they are compensated as they should be.

Mr. Chair, I see that the clock is running down on me now. What I will do is I will hold off to the next time and then I will work my way through this on my next opportunity.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It gives me pleasure to stand again to speak to Bill 60 here in the Committee of the Whole. The Bill 60 is An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project.

I just heard three different speakers there. I think everybody agrees that the expropriation of land is not something that is new. It is something that has been around for a long, long time. After reading this bill and reading through the guidelines and everything, I think one of the things that government is doing here is changing the format of expropriating. We have tightened it up and cleaned it up from what it was years ago.

I just want to run down through some of the general messages, what we are trying to do with this bill – Bill 60. In the explanatory note there were four bullets, and they are fairly basic. The Bill 60 would provide the ability to create a statutory easement which could be granted, transferred, mortgaged, leased, or otherwise dealt with as real property. Secondly, it would establish a process by which an expropriating authority may, where land is required for the Muskrat Falls Project, expropriate that land on behalf of a proponent in accordance with this act and expropriation protocol established in these regulations.

The third one is: confirm that a holder is liable for taxation in respect of the Muskrat Falls Project, except in prescribed circumstances; and the last bullet is: approve the use of land by a proponent in the transmission corridor and with respect to the transmission lines for the Muskrat Falls Project, and require that existing and future land use plans and development regulations conform with the approved land use.

So, it is not a complicated piece of legislation, as you heard some other speakers say. It is a lengthy piece of legislation, and it does deal with quite a few other statutes – fifteen in total, I think.

I think one of the important things with this bill is that when it comes to the expropriation of the land, the government will have an expropriation team put in place, and they will go in and actually negotiate with anyone who will be affected through expropriation of their property.

I guess I would like to say there are two types of property that will be affected here. There is public property or Crown land and then there is privately owned land. With the property that will be expropriated for this transmission line, 99 per cent of the land is Crown land that will be taken up by the link that will go from Muskrat Falls across Labrador, down the Northern Peninsula, then across the Island portion of the Province into Soldiers Pond – and 99 per cent of that property is Crown land already.

Then, for the property that will take the Maritime Link, 90 per cent of that land is already Crown land. So that sort of makes it a little bit more palatable, I guess, when it comes to going through the expropriation process, to have to deal with less people.

What is the purpose? Why are we expropriating the land? Because there is going to be 1,100 kilometres of land expropriated, and we will be cutting a line through at sixty metres wide. It is an extensive piece of property but it is something that we have to do. It is necessary in order to build the infrastructure to transmit the energy from Muskrat Falls to the Island portion of the Province and a connection to the Maritime Link.

This is not something that we just said, let's get this done. There has been a full environmental and economical, sustainable study done on this. Government wants to make sure they do it in the most responsible, environmentally friendly way possible. The manner they are taking with this is there has been quite an extensive study done. I guess in saying that, when it comes to the expropriation and the environment we want to leave as – although you are going to leave a footprint on 1,100 kilometres, you want to leave a footprint that is as less invasive as possible.

The acquisition of Crown and private land will not start until the transmission link, the Maritime Link and the Labrador transmission assets are released from the environmental assessment process. Until that environmental assessment process is completely finished, there will be no expropriation done until then.

Now, in saying that, the expropriation – you heard some other speakers already. People who will be affected by the expropriation of land have already been consulted with, and I think that is due diligence, that through the study we know which way the line is going to go. We want to make sure, in consulting with those who will be affected, that we have given them ample time.

As the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair mentioned when she spoke, there are five homes in Sunnyside that will actually be affected. You do not want to go to them and say in thirty days we are going to expropriate your property. We want to give them enough time, ample time to enter into negotiations with the expropriation team and make it as seamless as possible for them.

The creation of a standalone lands related piece of legislation, what this will do is ensure that Nalcor has the ability to acquire the land interests to advance work on the Muskrat Falls Project. By having that standalone lands related piece of legislation, what we are doing here is giving Nalcor the right to move forward with the project. If we do not have the land, basically what we are saying there, if we do not expropriate this 1,100 kilometres and we do not have access to that 1,100 kilometres, then the transmission line cannot be built and therefore the Muskrat Falls Project would be a mute subject.

The Province, Nalcor, and Emera, who are our partners in Nova Scotia, of course, will all work together to achieve fair compensation packages for Crown and private landowners. I mentioned earlier the Crown lands are not as difficult to deal with, but when it comes to private landowners there will be a negotiation team in place. You want to make it as fair and compensational as possible.

In my thoughts, it is not the homeowners that I am more concerned with. In doing some research and checking, I could not find any cases where in the last decade when expropriation had happened that the homeowners were not pleased. Last week when we were talking about this bill someone made a comment that there are homeowners who would hope they would be expropriated when it comes to it.

What it will affect, and I did hear many members voice the same concern, is that in the whole line of the transmission link you are going to go through some cottage country or you are going to come very close to cottage country. A lot of people, their cottages and their cabins are their home away from home. They put a lot of personal time and effort into those properties. If they have to expropriated, they want to make sure there is going to be a fair deal there.

In a lot of cases, and I know in my district when you get into Labrador West, almost every resident has a cottage or two somewhere. For example, when Bloom Lake just put the rail line in, there was some expropriation but there were also negotiations with the cottage owners who did not want to move. They actually had an electrical hookup paid by the mine to their cottages for the inconvenience of having a rail line run through their backyard.

It is not just a financial negotiation. There are other ways that may be possible. I would think in this particular case, dealing with government and Crown lands and privately-owned lands for expropriation purposes, that it would be financial but there are other ways quite often.

When I say that, one of the things we talk about – I am going to run out of time, but hopefully I will get an opportunity to speak on this again. Quite often – and we talked about the transmission link – if their cottages are near the transmission line, what will happen is they will guarantee access to their cottages over the Crown land that the transmission link is built on. The whole purpose of this is to make it as seamless and as convenient for those who will be affected as possible.

I am out of time here now but I will get up and speak again. I am looking forward to getting more comments on this.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR (Cross): The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am very happy to stand and speak to Bill 60, the Muskrat Falls Project Land Use and Expropriation Act. Of course, we know how important land is to homeowners, how important land is to communities, how important land is to regions. How important land is for economic development, for exploration, for mining resources, and how important land is for how we live our lives.

I am very interested in talking specifically – I know the expropriation looks at this point of perhaps only five residences for five families or homeowners, and then possibly again what it might look like. It is unclear how many cottages might be affected.

I think this then would just lead me a little bit into the whole issue of housing, housing in Labrador, and some of the housing challenges. As a matter of fact, I think today in Question Period I used the term housing crisis. I know that sometimes there is some resistance to that word. However, I had the pleasure not so long ago of having a meeting with the Combined Councils of Labrador. One of the issues they talked about and that was of great concern to them is the housing crisis in most parts of Labrador.

One of the areas we think we know will be really affected by the Muskrat Falls Project and its subsidiaries, particularly in the construction phase, is the issue of housing. How do we house everybody who will be involved with the project?

We know resource developments are attracting people to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and that is a good thing. We know that large-scale development brings with it some very positive economic benefits to the community, to the people who are directly involved in that resource development, but also it brings with it some real challenges.

Perhaps one of the most difficult challenges is the fact of the housing crisis that is experienced particularly in LabWest and in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. What is happening is that rents are being driven up, and we all know that. We have all heard that. We have all heard me speak about that in the House.

I have asked the question a number of times in Question Period: What exactly is the plan? What is this government's plan to address the housing crisis in these areas? What is this government going to do to mitigate the negative effects and the impact of large-scale development on the issue of housing in Labrador?

We see that rents are being driven up, and we are all hearing stories of – it has been in the news, both in Labrador West and in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Because we have no rent control or no rent stabilization in the Province, landlords are able to give people maybe their three-month notice and double their rent, or even triple their rent. There is nothing to stop that from happening. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, we see that, we have seen that happen.

What we have is a number of people in Labrador who are precariously housed, meaning they may have housing right now but there is a danger that they will lose their housing. Already, a high number of people in the Province are spending more than 35 per cent of their income on rent. They are precariously housed because they have no control over what will happen to their rent.

We can look at the situation of the housing rental situation, but also when we look at the issue of trying to buy housing, those who are trying to get into the housing market. So –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to encourage the member to speak to the topic more, because it is not about rent and housing, it is more about expropriation of land.

MS ROGERS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very happy to speak a little bit more about the issue of land.

When we are talking about, as the minister –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS ROGERS: Yes. As the minister was talking about the expropriation of Crown land, it brings me to the issue of Crown land and the whole issue of what this government is doing in looking at the issue of land to address the housing crisis that we see, because land is a key to the housing crisis. We know that, for instance, in Lab West they have been trying to work – the community, in conjunction with a number of community groups, and even with the mining companies, have established a committee to look at the issue of the housing crisis in Labrador West.

What they have done is they have been asking for Crown land. They have been asking for Crown land or serviced land so they can in fact embark on projects that provide affordable housing, or even lower-cost housing in terms of building the housing. Land and servicing the land is one of the detriments to being able to provide affordable housing. They are having a bit of a hard time. One of the issues I am kind of interested in, is: Exactly what is the government going to do about an actual land use plan to address the issue of the housing crisis in Labrador?

In Question Period today I did ask the Minister of Labrador Affairs: Exactly what is being done to address the issue of the housing crisis in Labrador? These were his words, "This government is very much aware of the housing crisis, not just in Labrador, Central Labrador, Western Labrador but the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador."

He said himself that he was very, very aware of the housing crisis. He said, "I will stick to the Labrador issues to answer the question from the member opposite. We just announced a few months ago a $1.3 million project happening in Western Labrador for low-income housing: twelve units."

I suspect that perhaps there is some Crown land involved in that housing project. That is a good thing, because we would like to see the use of the people's land in trying to address and helping to address the crisis that is being faced in the area of housing.

He said that is twelve units, but that seems like a bit of a drop in the bucket when we look at the huge problem. Again, the minister used the word himself: the housing crisis that we see in Labrador. He says there is going to be "…a new subdivision opening in Labrador West. Part of the subdivision, part of the permit agreement" – they are getting permits because they are using land – "was that there would be affordable housing within that subdivision: thirty-six units."

Thirty-six units, that is a bit better than twelve units and it is affordable housing. However, Mr. Chair, we do not quite know what that means. The last time Newfoundland and Labrador Housing talked about the fact there is going to be a number of units set aside that will be affordable housing in a housing development here in St. John's, I asked the executive director or the chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing commission, what does that mean? What does that mean these affordable housing units?

CMHC has a definition of what affordable housing is and it is based on a number of factors. It establishes the cost of housing as affordable housing for new units. However, he said they cannot enforce that on private development of housing divisions. He would hope that what it meant was they were going to build smaller units; therefore they will be cheaper and therefore they will be affordable.

We do not know what the affordable housing units might be in this subdivision, these thirty-six units the Minister of Labrador Affairs has been saying. He said that is also happening in Central Labrador. It is a little bit vague because we do not know what affordable housing might mean in terms of how much that is going to cost or whether it is going to be just smaller housing. Therefore, one would hope they would be more affordable. Maybe he can speak to that.

He said, "We have an announcement coming up, and I do not want to spill the beans for an announcement in Central Labrador." Mr. Chair, I understand him not wanting to spill the beans, but I am hoping in fact that it is not full of beans, that there is an announcement coming that really will –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS ROGERS: Well, I would not think the minister is saying that he would change his decision because of what I might say. I would hope what he is going to do is come up with an announcement that is really going to help mitigate the problem of the housing crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I remind the member her time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you for recognizing me and giving me an opportunity to get up for a few minutes tonight to discuss this bill. I would like to take some time tonight just to respond to some of the comments the member opposite has raised, because they are very important issues for the Member for St. John's Centre to bring up. She quite often brings those matters up here in the House of Assembly and talks about housing issues and housing matters in the Province.

Tonight she is talking about the housing matters specifically in Labrador. I am glad she did because it gives me a chance to get up to talk about some of those matters and some of the things we have done as a government to mitigate the housing challenges in Labrador. I have heard her a number of times, Mr. Chair, as I said, bring these matters up. I cannot stress enough that they are important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to certain areas.

In Labrador there was a very, if I can use the word, isolated but unique circumstance that existed in Labrador West, if I could talk about Labrador West first. There was a circumstance that occurred in recent years where there was a significant spike in housing costs for the people of Labrador West based on the growth in the mining industry. When the mining industry took off, there was a significant increase in the demand for housing.

Mr. Chair, I can remember a time back years ago when there was nobody living in the houses in Labrador West, when houses were boarded up and they could not sell them. The Minister of Labrador Affairs tells me that was back in the 1990s.

MR. MCGRATH: The late 1990s.

MR. DAVIS: The late 1990s, when there was a time when people did not know what they were going to do with their homes in Labrador West.

Now that there is a growth, there is a development, and there is a boom in Labrador West – and that is not unusual in places anywhere throughout the country, throughout the Province or North America that experience an economic boom. Because the boom comes, then there is a demand for more workers and more employees. There are more employment opportunities, and then comes the demand to build new houses and build homes.

Quite often in those types of experiences you will see young families develop. Then comes the challenge for communities to build recreation facilities, to build schools, to build hospitals, for government to build hospitals and keep up with those demands, and a demand comes for roads.

That is what happens when you get these economic booms, and housing is part of that. We recognize that in Labrador West. There are a number of things that government has done in Labrador West, and one of the significant things is dealing with the income limit. Throughout the Province there is an income limit of $32,500 for a person who is eligible for housing assistance, housing support. In Labrador West, that was increased to $65,000. Everywhere in the Province, except for Labrador West, it is set at $32,500.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DAVIS: The member said she knows about this. She brought it up and that is why I am trying to respond to it, Mr. Chair.

It was raised to $65,000. I know for a fact there are families in Labrador, Labrador West, who are benefiting from the fact that the threshold was increased from $32,500 to $65,000. There are a number of families who are benefiting from the opportunity to avail of services because that threshold has been increased. That means the threshold increase is providing services for those people who previously would not have gotten it. That is taking steps to have a positive effect on exactly what she is talking about. Some of those are seniors, a lot of those are seniors.

I heard the member in the last day or two – I have to apologize, Mr. Chair, because the days and the nights are all the same when we are here. One day becomes the next, and one rolls into another. I heard her make a comment about the wait-list for rent supplements. I want to let her know there is no wait-list for rent supplements.

Just to be clear, and maybe I did not hear her properly, but just to clear it up in case this is what she was thinking. There is no wait-list for rent supplements. The wait-list is for people who apply. They go to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and they file an application. They become eligible, and when they become eligible they go on the list of eligibility. Then there are two dozen criteria which helps decide when people come off the list and how they are prioritized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DAVIS: Now, I know the member opposite is having a lot of fun –

CHAIR: Order, please!

About halfway through the last address I asked the member opposite to come back into the topic. So now we are halfway through, I am wondering if the minister could oblige.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chair, I am only addressing matters that she spoke to. I will keep to the topic, but I will only address matters that she spoke to.

She talked about housing issues, and housing issues quite often are equated to wait-lists. If people are on a wait-list because they are waiting for housing assistance and housing support, then that addresses the topic that she talked about, Mr. Chair, I would suggest to the member opposite.

Now I know she finds this matter a very serious one, even though she finds it a very funny one over there tonight. She seems to be having a lot of fun with this very important topic, and that is fine. We have been here a long time, and I appreciate that. We have been here a long time and sometimes normal things that you would not find funny, sometimes you will find funny at this time of the night after the long time that we have been in here.

I wanted to point out, on the wait-list for Labrador West, as of yesterday I can tell you it was twenty-eight people. That was the wait-list in Labrador West as of yesterday. For the rest of Labrador, which is operated or centred, headquartered out of the office in Goose Bay, the entire wait-list for the rest of Labrador is twenty-six. Labrador West is twenty-eight; the rest of the entire Labrador is twenty-six.

Mr. Chair, that is because of two things, a number of things that we are doing to mitigate the housing issues in Labrador. We make investments with partnership, too, I say to the House of Assembly, in partnership with the Coalition of Housing and Homelessness. When we made the increase from $32,500 to $65,000 they were very supportive of that move made by government. It was done in partnership with them. Not only do we set that threshold and provide and have a number of housing units, we also support partnerships, because dealing with housing issues is most effectively, quite often can be dealt with in partnerships.

One example I would like to use is the Mokami Status of Women in Goose Bay. They are a really important group in Goose Bay who assist women who have complex needs. I can tell you, we made an investment of $1.5 million with that organization in their efforts for housing and homelessness for women with complex needs. I think that is a big investment. That is a big investment for government in the area of Goose Bay to be able to assist women with complex needs, and that is how it is.

I say to the hon. member opposite, she has heard me talk before about the great work – I know she has seen it herself – that Choices for Youth are doing. That is a really good example of a partnership. We like those partnerships.

Mr. Chair, when there are not enough housing units to support a family, when there is a demand for housing like in Labrador, there is also an opportunity for rent supplements. For many, many years the annual budget on rent supplements was at $4 million; $4 million for many, many years. I think it was about twenty-five years. I will ask the Member for Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Yes, no movement.

MR. DAVIS: He is confirming; he believes it as well.

We have doubled that, Mr. Chair, to $8 million a year. We have doubled it for rent supplements. That is available to people, not only on the Island but also in Labrador. That assists them in financing their rental cost. That goes a long way to assist seniors. It helps people who are on fixed incomes. Low-income families are supported by rent supplements. When there is not a housing unit owned by the government for them to utilize and assist them with their accommodations and their living, then they can move into private accommodations and a rent supplement can be one of those aspects that assist them.

Mr. Chair, there are a whole host of programs and opportunities that are provided by government and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for housing in Labrador. If the member would like for us to continue to discuss housing, I would be more than pleased to do it because there are great things happening in Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to affordable housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for the great speech on housing for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, I see there is a lot of expropriation of land. I could tell them one good piece of land they should expropriate to make some use of is what they have planned for the hospital in Corner Brook, because I do not think there is anything going to go there for a while. Who knows what is going to happen to that land, Mr. Chair? It is something that has always been in my craw; the land for the hospital in Corner Brook is still there. If they put a big tower there, Mr. Chair, we could expropriate it and try to get some use of the land. At least we would get a light pole out of it, or something that someone is going to use. We will be able to get a bit of power through it or something.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, I will get back to the position that we are supposed to; we are talking about land here -

CHAIR: I would appreciate that, Sir.

MR. JOYCE: - the acquisition of the land for the requirements of Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair. This is something we need to have brought forth. It is something we need to have. I have a few concerns about some of these acquisitions we are going to make, some serious concerns. I am not sure, Mr. Chair, how many times I am going to be able to speak on this.

One of the concerns that I am going to mention is, some of the land that is being expropriated is in some municipalities. If I am incorrect I hope someone can inform me that I am, and I have no problem with that. The briefing we had is that when land is expropriated from Emera and going through a municipality, Emera is exempt from taxes for that town. What is happening here from my understanding of it now, and I hope someone can say the Member for the Bay of Islands is inaccurate, but that is what we have been told, is that most utilities that are in the town, there is some form of taxation that a municipality can charge.

Mr. Chair, what happens there is even if it is some form of small taxation, because they are in the municipal boundaries, under this act all the land that is going to be expropriated or all the lines that are going to be going through for the Maritime Link will not even be able to get taxed. What is happening there, Mr. Chair, is that another multi-million-dollar company, with shareholders in the United States somewhere, some in Canada, and all throughout, is going to end up with a deal and with a lot of other companies that own utilities in the municipality that cannot get taxed because of the Muskrat Falls deal.

Mr. Chair, I urge the government for some way that they can revisit this and look at this. If Emera is going to get 20 per cent of the power and make millions upon millions and hundreds of millions of dollars on this, Mr. Chair, I am sure they can find some way to be treated like other utilities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and pay taxes.

Mr. Chair, I have been through a few of them and I helped people out before with some of these expropriations. Mr. Chair, a lot of these expropriations, I can remember one or two in particular when the road was going through Pasadena. I will be honest with this. The government at the time were the Liberals and I was involved with it. Even trying to get some land expropriated, which we did do, and get the families settled with an agreement that was suitable to all, was a long, hard struggle. It was a long, hard struggle, Mr. Chair. I know some people in particular, and our government were a part of it and we tried everything possible, by the time you go through, you set up the arbitrators, then you set the rates, and then you go for hearings – for some people, it is a struggle.

If there is one thing I would ask the government, and I ask the Minister of Finance to consider this, Mr. Chair, is that if there is some way you can expropriate the land, put rules in place to ensure the land is expropriated, and set a mechanism in place to have the land settled, there is one little thing missing, I say, Mr. Chair. It is a deadline to have the land completed, the transaction completed.

If not, as I know personally, and I say the Member for Humber East knows the people I am talking about when the land going through Pasadena was going through, it took a long time to get that because there was no end date. We should find some way to bring it to some arbitrator, a third arbitrator, to say, okay, if you cannot settle it, let us agree upon an arbitrator and let the arbitrator make the decision. Instead of having it drag out, we could set some end date. I did not see in the regulations how long it would be from the time you expropriate it to the time to have it finished.

MR. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I know the arbitrators are there, and I thank the minister for that. I know there is an arbitrator there, but there is no end date, that if you cannot get it done, say, within a year, we can appoint and agree to somebody who arbitrarily, outside, will be able to come in and say, here is your value, which is binding on both parties. What happens a lot of times when you expropriate the land is some people might feel it has more sentimental value than commercial value. Should that be taken into account? I do not know.

A lot of times, you go into a property of somebody who may have a house that may not be up to some of our standards, yet they have horses there and they have cattle there. How can you put a value on that piece of land? That is one thing I would ask the minister to consider, if there is any way possible to have that done, Mr. Chair.

I will recognize a lot of this land is Crown land. What we are told is there are very few houses that will be expropriated through this land on the Province. I understand most of the land also is Crown land, but I do not know, Minister, if you can look at it because under the legislation that is being brought forth where you are creating the new legislation, Mr. Chair, municipalities do not pay any taxes. I know the minister. If there is any way at all, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that you can, find some way to ensure that municipalities get a fair opportunity to get some utility tax like they do with most other utilities that go through their property.

Mr. Chair, another thing is if we have a dispute with land and you go through arbitration, I know most of the arbitration is normal and this here is setting in special conditions. This act is putting in special conditions to ensure it is done in a speedy way and it has done what is needed. We have to ensure, and this is something I say to everybody and it is all of our responsibility in the House, the rights of people are looked after and ensure that people are treated in a fair and proper manner.

I am not saying they will not be; I am definitely not saying they will not be. I am definitely not making any accusations, but I know personally, and I know when we were in government we did it, that some people felt hard done by and they felt hardship. This is not a slight on the current government because I know we went through it and I went through it helping people when the Liberals were in power.

If there is some way we can ensure that the hardship of people whose land is being expropriated can be done in a timely manner and done in such a way, Mr. Chair, that people have the least hardship possible, I am not sure –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I have a few seconds left here now. I am going to sit down. We have been here now almost three or four days and there are a few people opposite who are starting to age. Mr. Chair, we have been here so long that a few people are starting to age. I am starting to get frightened, Mr. Chair, because I hope I do not look as old as some of them who are over across the way. We have to be a bit careful, Mr. Chair, because when you are among the people and you can see them aging, you know you have been here for a long time.

Mr. Chair, I know my time is up. I know I will have another opportunity. I will say to the people who are getting a bit older as I look across the way: Have no worry. The health care system is going to be good. We will take care of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As the member opposite just said, people are aging. Myself and the Member for Gander were sitting a while ago and we were looking at the Member for Burgeo – La Poile and we said: My jumpin' dyin', I think the beard is after getting thicker in the last twelve or fourteen hours. I think I have lost track of time. I know that Wednesday disappeared altogether.

Mr. Chair, the House is an interesting place. It gives me pleasure to get up here and speak tonight. I just want to tell folks a little thing. There is something wonderful that happened in this Province on December 21, 1954. There was something wonderful that happened in this Province December 21, 1954, in a little community called Grole up in Hermitage Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, I do not know if it is a right of passage or ceremonial that is done in this House, but in 1954, December 21, there was a fellow, Clyde Jackman, who was born in Grole.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, you might think that I would stand up here and ask for something special. People might say at this particular point: Will you close the House down, for God's sake.

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

MR. JACKMAN: Oh, gentle dyin'.

CHAIR: The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, I wanted to call a point of order on relevance, but I just wanted to give the Member for Burin – Placentia West a little gift from all of us here tonight and that is his own point of order.

Mr. Chair, I do not think that any member in this House, on their birthday, should have to sit next to the Member for Gander. Mr. Chair, I do not think that is fair. Mr. Chair, he is a pretty good dancer; he is getting the Gangnam Style down pat but it is the Gander version. Even so, Mr. Chair, I do not think anyone should have to sit there on their birthday.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, nobody should have to sit surrounded by the twins: the Members for Mount Pearl South and Mount Pearl North. Mr. Chair, I like to call them Homer and Ned Flanders, because that is who they remind of when I look over some days. You have the Member for Mount Pearl North there and he is like Homer, and then you have the Member for Mount Pearl South and he is just like Flanders. Every time I look over, I want to say ‘okily-dokily', Mr. Chair.

Seeing it is the birthday of the Member for Burin – Placentia West, Mr. Chair, I think he should be permitted to speak from the Speaker's gallery instead of from his seat under the circumstances. Mr. Chair, even though the Member for Gander is getting the Gangnam Style down, I think the Member for Burin – Placentia West is pretty good at the Muskrat tango, and he is doing a great job of it.

Before I interrupt him, I just wanted to stand up and say to the member that I think we should sing you Happy Birthday. I think we should also pick up a collection for you for the Boxing Day sale, because that is about when we are going to get out of here. I think it would be a nice treat, Mr. Chair, to drop him off at the Avalon Mall and give him a few dollars. I think that would be a nice birthday gift.

Mr. Chair, in all seriousness, he is a fine member and a fine gentleman. He has certainly done his service to his constituents and the people in this Province. It has been a pleasure to work with him in the House of Assembly, and I think everyone would agree with that, Mr. Chair. I think it is only appropriate, and in the spirit of Christmas and to celebrate that wonderful day in Grole in 1954, that the members of the House would stand and sing Happy Birthday to the hon. Member for Burin – Placentia West.

[Members sing Happy Birthday]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, to conclude.

MS JONES: Now, Mr. Chair, that ends my point of order and I will wait for your ruling. I just want to say to the member opposite: The game is back on. We are on Bill 60.

CHAIR: I would just like to remind all members they are supposed to use the member's district, not his name.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

That is a tough act to follow. I do not expect I am going to have many songs sung to me here this evening. What I would say, Mr. Chair, we have a lot of very serious moments in this House, so sometimes it is nice to have those light-hearted moments where you recognize a member, regardless of stripe, for doing good service to their constituents, even if you happen to disagree on occasion.

At some point we have to go back to the crux of the matter here before us, that being Bill 60. We are talking about the expropriation of land that is necessary for the Muskrat Falls Project. When I left off, I was on page 4 of this bill, which has twenty-nine pages in total. I was going through the Definitions section, Mr. Chair, and I was talking about some of the definitions, whether it be proponent or Muskrat Falls Project. That one is already referred to in other pieces of legislation. It is a two-and-a-half page definition.

I do not know if I have it right here, but I will come back to the Muskrat Falls Project. A lot of the definition is very standard, but there is one part in particular that concerns me. That is that the Cabinet has the ability to include or exclude certain things about Muskrat Falls to that definition. That is a bit interesting, that they have the ability to change that depending on what they need to accomplish at that particular time.

As you move forward, Mr. Chair, you go into the rest of the definitions such as transmission corridor, transmission lines, and trustee. This is where one of those pieces legislation is referred to as the Trustee Act.

Now, going into section 3 we talk about a very important aspect of this legislation. That is a reference to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. That is something I am sure the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair is going to have an opportunity to speak about as well, as well as the Member for Torngat Mountains, because that is of particular concern to them and to their constituencies. There is no doubt about that, Mr. Chair.

We get into section 5, "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project, this Act shall prevail over another Act of the province, and, in the case of an inconsistency between this Act and another Act of the province, this act Prevails."

We all know the Province has to make sure that this piece of legislation has all the force they want and that it will overpower any other piece of legislation that might get in its way. Some might say that is similar to government, they will overpower whoever gets in their way in getting this project done. Again, that is just my interpretation of what is going on here.

You move into Part I, which is the Statutory Easement. That is something I am familiar with from practicing law and doing a little bit of real estate law. I know the Member for St. Barbe has dealt with this in his past life, and I believe the Minister of Finance probably has as well, has dealt with statutory easements. I do not know if the Minister of Natural Resources ever dealt with that, he was primarily a criminal lawyer. I do not think he has any experience with that section per se.

We talk about statutory easements, or basically a right of way is what it comes down to. That is the term. It is a registered right of way that runs with a property.

What we are dealing with here is, "The Crown, an agent of the Crown, a municipality… may create, in favour of a holder for a purpose described in subsection( 3), an easement without dominant tenement to be known as a statutory easement."

If you go to subsection (3), we refer to "A statutory easement may only be created and may only be used by a holder for a purpose necessary in connection with an activity or undertaking involving the Muskrat Falls Project or part of it."

Now that section, I think I am fine with that, because what they are saying is this transmission line, this bill is only going to be created for the purposes of making sure that the land is there for the transmission line. It is not going to be used for any other purpose. It is not going to be exploited in any way, shape or form.

What a statutory easement does is, "…grants to the holder the right to construct, maintain, repair and operate, on the land subject to the statutory easement, transmission lines and transmission assets relating to the Muskrat Falls Project or a part of it, as well as a right of reasonable access over adjoining land".

The statutory easement section has been laid out. There is quite a bit under that particular part of this bill. There are other pieces of legislation that are referred to in here as well, including the Provincial Parks Act. There are sections, I believe – I will just quickly switch over to the briefing notes that we were given on, I guess that was Monday, which feels like it was an eternity – actually, sorry, Tuesday, Mr. Chair. Tuesday we had the briefing, which still seems like an eternity ago. One of the sections we talked about in that is the property acquisition aspect. I will just quickly leap over to that.

There are going to be exemptions to this. There is going to be land they cannot go after. I think that would relate to T'Railways. I do not think T'Railways is going to be part of this. When they construct the line, there is that fine line you have to deal with where you cannot be going all over the place, twisting back and forth to accommodate absolutely everything. I understand the cost that will come with that. I understand that.

At the same time, they have to recognize that they just cannot go full force over absolutely anything that lies in their path. They have to take into account or accommodate certain pre-existing developments or situations. I think they have tried that, which is why the vast majority of this is over Crown land.

That being said, Mr. Chair, there are two different lines here. There is the Labrador-Island Link and there is also the Maritime Link. The Labrador-Island Link, if I might just skip forward here, is 99 per cent on Crown land, according to Nalcor. That is going to be my proviso. If anybody down the road looks back at my comments and says, well, you seem to agree. I can say: Well, this is what we have been told by Nalcor. Right now, we have nothing else to go on except what they have told us. I am hoping what they tell us is right. What Nalcor told us with the mill was not right, but I am hoping we have learned from that experience.

That is the Labrador part. Now, there are approximately fifty to sixty property owners affected right there; however, the Maritime Link is only 90 per cent Crown land. There are about 100 property owners who will be affected. That is not an insignificant number by any stretch. It says here there are about five homes that are going to be affected by the easements, mostly in Sunnyside and Chapel Arm. It also says the majority are property owners as opposed to homeowners.

I do not think we should in any way diminish the importance of distinguishing between a property owner versus a homeowner. Yes, a homeowner has their home taken away, but that does not mean the property owner who has good title to their land and has it expropriated to take in this line should be treated as someone: oh well, it is only property. It is an easement over their property. It might not take away too much from their ability to have peaceful enjoyment of that land or to be able to use that piece of land. It is still there, it is still a factor and it is still an issue that needs to be taken into consideration, especially when it comes to the compensation part.

Since we are in the Committee stage, what I would suggest is that I am going to ask questions. At some point I am assuming that members of government, particularly the ministers involved, will come back to me with answers to the questions.

What I am going to ask, Mr. Chair, is I would like to know: Is it still just 100 property owners? Is it greater than that number or is it less than that number? The second question I would ask is: What is the budget that has been laid out by Nalcor to compensate these people for the land and or property?

They must have had an idea of what this is going to cost, because that cost is going to be borne by the taxpayer. We would like to have an idea as to what that cost will be. It is obviously going to be well into the thousands and likely into the hundreds of thousands. It is nice to know what we are dealing with. Perhaps it is much more than that, but it is up to the minister to answer that.

My time is running out here. What I am going to do is reserve the rest of my questions for the next session. I will leave those now for the ministers to answer at the next go around. On that note, I will take my seat.

CHAIR (Pollard): Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of The Muskrat Falls Project.

I just want to go back to the briefing. When we were briefed on Bill 60 and 61, these financing bills and enabling the financing of Muskrat Falls, because consistent with the recourse financing principle, the assets of the projects are needed to be put up for collateral to guarantee certainty that the debt of this project of Muskrat Falls can be repaid. So they are very interrelated.

The lenders want that certainty, the ability to pay off the debt. The proponents are putting up ownership and control of the asset for security. Whereas otherwise if it was debated based on the current utility regulation, then there would not be certainty based on the current rates of the project to pay for itself with the energy utilization that we have. That is a bit of concern.

Bill 60 is talking about all the processes and legalities involved with acquiring the land rights, creating the transmission line and ensuring that the line has that secure asset to allow for those borrowing rights. When it talks about land, it focuses on all the different forms of land, whether it public or private ownership, tenure or easement.

One of the things in the terminology that is put forward when it describes land, it talks about hereditaments. Hereditaments by definition would be looking at land that can be inherited. A number of people have land right now and they are holding it for an investment. They are looking at it down the road.

Over time, Mr. Chair, we have seen how the value of land accumulates. We do not have to look too far only to look at where the City of St. John's has come in just a brief ten years. Lands have basically doubled and household values have doubled, maybe more. It was not that long ago that people were buying land for about $50,000 in 2005 and now that same land is nearly $100,000.

You look at expropriating somebody's investment in the future. That has a significant impact. I remember having discussion with several colleagues where they were saying, and maybe said it here in debate, where a family member planned in advance and bought land for their grandkids so that they could stay close to home. It was talked about a number of homes in Sunnyside, Chapel's Arm, and the Chance Cove area that there would be family homes that would be expropriated.

Beyond family homes, there could be plots of land, plots of land that are looking at retaining that family and having them there in the area with all the things that are happening in and around the region. With that, the bill itself is looking at setting up a committee appointed by Cabinet to look at providing fair market value, in the most cases.

Now, fair market value is not really looking at the future marketable value and what that means, and there really does need to be fair compensation. Included in the hereditaments, looking at inherited property, people do have a future interest. Whether it is to look at other things that would be developed there, it could be quite significant.

We have seen a lot happening in the Province when it comes to setting up prospecting with their association and what that actually means, but if you are going to take away land where there has not been appropriate exploration and things like that and expropriate that right from those individuals, it can have very serious implications to them.

I wanted to talk a little bit because that same definition of land goes on to talk about various things from easements to rights of way but also to water, water rights, water powers, and water privileges, just in the very definition of what could be expropriated.

Mr. Chair, my district, the subsea cable that is going to be running, the three of them that are going to be running from the Strait of Belle Isle that would run from the Labrador Straits side to The Straits region in my district basically just a few kilometres from where I live. That crossing of three subsea cables with twenty-one kilometres skirted about the ocean floor there, they are prime fishing grounds.

Having ownership or being able to say we have that jurisdictional control over that land that is under water is quite limiting when it comes to looking at the fishers who are using those grounds, when it comes to the scallop fishers in those areas who use dragging type of equipment that could be economically hindered for years and years to come, and who have a historical attachment, they have an adjacency attachment.

I am just wondering: What type of discussion has gone on? Has the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, or has the Department of Natural Resources, has Nalcor appropriately consulted these fishers? Are they prepared to compensate them through a royalty or through an annual payment for loss? Are there going to be barriers put up that is going to prevent them from using this land? You look at Crown land and who actually has the ability to say no longer any more is this land itself able to be used that has been used for centuries when it comes to fishing in those regions from the immediate settlers who came on the Strait of Belle Isle.

You are taking away a part of the economy that is there and it is traditional. It is the most important aspect of our economy right now and it always has been – the fishery. The Muskrat Falls Project and looking at transmission, putting that corridor in and what it is going to mean economically to cutting the forest and putting in those cables. It is not going to bring the long-term jobs on any level to any people of my district, versus what the fishery in those areas and those waters are bringing, retaining and sustaining, and have been for years and will be years into the future. I would like further explanation as to what that is going to mean.

I talked with Nalcor officials when they have had consultations in my district about this and about fair consultation and compensation for the fishers, but also why they did not go underground with a fixed link versus scattering these subsea cables on the ocean floor.

A tunnel underground would not have any implications on the fishing industry that is there. It would create an advanced transportation network with Route 138 on the Quebec North Shore Highway coming on stream that would radically change how we do business in North America and would bring significant economic benefits, hotels, motels, gas stations, all kinds of related services, warehouses, and things like that.

Transportation would flow north into Newfoundland and Labrador and would bring more significant benefits to the people of my district and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for the long term, if that project was partnered with Muskrat Falls and even maybe partnered with Quebec as they are the ones that are doing the North Shore Highway.

When that came out, it was looked at doing a joint study. The Department of Transportation and Works said: No, we will not do a joint study; we are going to do our own study. That is a missed opportunity there when we look at land and how we use land, and how we look at jurisdictional approaches and how we get greatest economic benefit. We have to have an agreement and there is no guarantee right now that all of these fishers, all of those people, have been consulted, and I would like to have that guarantee from the department there.

We have to look at all the individual municipalities and are they being consulted in this, because there are several people – a corridor is going to follow through. On page 27, clause 54.(1), it says, "A holder may use and develop land located within the boundary of a municipality or a planning area as defined in the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000 in respect of the transmission corridor and transmission lines for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project without obtaining a permit from a council of a municipality as may otherwise be required under an Act of the province."

Mr. Chair, it seems like the municipality certainly has no say on if the corridor is running through their municipality. They are not able to collect revenue in terms of a permit, establishing a permit, a permit to build or a permit to develop, how that would impact and interfere with their land use and their land use plans and looking at what they are planning for, for subdivisions, and what that is going to mean for their tax base and economic growth.

We do not know those implications because that has not been explained to us. We have seen where many rural municipalities struggle in many cases to pay the bills and look at doing the developments that are needed for capital works and for infrastructure because of declining housing builds and things like that and lack of business investment. Any permit and any taxation that can be gained from a project of this magnitude for municipalities, especially those that are in rural –

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: I see that my time has expired. I was not watching the clock, but I will continue my conversation after, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I think I will pick up where my colleague left off, because it was one of the things I wanted to speak to as well with regard to this bill, which is respecting the use and expropriation of land for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project. One of the benefits of having a Crown corporation from the government's perspective is governments do things with Crown corporations that would not be able to happen with the private sector. I suppose in some ways that is good, but in some ways that is also bad.

It is very important as governments, whether we are dealing with the private sector or dealing with something that is part of government as a Crown corporation, that we make sure legislation we put in place, the way in which we behave, and the plans we make, respect people in the jurisdiction of the government, respect the people in the Province, respect individuals, respect municipalities, and respect groups. It did strike me in reading the legislation, and it struck me strongly, actually, and the point that was being made by the Member for The Straits – White Bay North, the way in which the Muskrat Falls Project and the aspects of the Muskrat Falls Project, such as the transmission corridor, are just going to be full steam ahead and anything in its path just gets wiped out. We have to be very, very cautious when we do that kind of thing.

I do have a concern with regard to the section my colleague was just talking about. That is the section that has to do with public utilities and the fact that the Public Utilities Act is not going to apply to the Muskrat Falls Project when it comes to the way in which the Muskrat Falls Project is going to be able to move into a municipality and erect whatever they want to erect without any permission of the municipality. I find that problematic.

There does not even seem to be somewhere where we are talking about consultation and working things out. It just sounds like wherever they want to put their transmission line and wherever they want to put their poles. Here we are not just talking about poles. I presume we are talking about transmission towers with the type of transmission we are talking about. We know what those transmission towers look like. These are massive structures.

I find it rather problematic that there is not going to be any consultation with municipalities about where the Muskrat Falls Project will be putting its different structures. The towers are one thing. There will be other structures as well that are related to those towers.

It seems to me that all of this is in the interest of getting the Muskrat Falls Project done expeditiously, quickly, and with as few barriers as possible. I understand all of that. I understand the loan guarantee, for example, will be tied to timelines and tied to getting things to happen within a certain period of time, and not have delays and that kind of thing.

I do have a concern with regard to this piece in the legislation. I am just wondering if there could not have been a better way to say that at least there would be some kind of consultation. In our Public Utilities Act, as it exists, where a council refuses or neglects to grant a permit to erect or place a pole, wire, concrete, pipe, building, substation tower, or other structure within a month after a utility makes an application to the council, if the council delays or if the council does not give consent and the utility who has made an application cannot get anywhere with the council, then at least the Public Utilities Board is there. Either party can refer the issue to the Public Utilities Board, and the board can get involved in helping out with the terms. What is going to happen here is that it is just wherever the Muskrat Falls Project wants to put its structures it is going to happen.

I do know, which is fine, and we were told this in the briefing and it is in the legislation, that if the Muskrat Falls Project has an office in a municipality, for example, and is serviced by the municipality they will pay taxes. That will happen and it should happen. They are there and they are being serviced. This thing of no consultation and being able to put their buildings and structures of all those kinds wherever they want to put them I think is very problematic. I really wonder if there were discussions with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador over this one.

I would like to think that there were, but maybe the minister – the minister is around somewhere, I guess; yes, I see him right opposite there. He might be able to enlighten us as to whether or not Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador was consulted about all this. I cannot imagine that people just said: Oh, yes, that is fine; no problem. It seems problematic to me.

Before going on, I do have some other places where I want to point out some things. I do want to point out that the bill, as we know, is pretty technical. It is pretty dense. Obviously there is no way that we, since Tuesday, have been able to sit down and go over every single word in this document, which is problematic. We have had experiences in this House where things have been gone over, the Department of Justice has gone over a piece of legislation, it comes to the House, we think everything is okay, and then all of a sudden we find significant things wrong. I know even in my short history in the House there have been three or four times I have discovered things that were a shock to the minister who was responsible, and changes were made.

We are all beating the drum of Abitibi, but it should be a lesson learned. That mistake with that legislation is going to cost this Province maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the cleanup of that mill because we own it, whether we wanted to own it. We did not want to own it; that was the thing. We did not think we owned it but, because of a rushed piece of legislation, an error was made and we have it.

I have to trust that every single word in this has been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. What you have to do, and I think somebody referred to this earlier today, is you just do not read the document. There are some people watching us, believe it or not. It is important for them to understand it is just not a matter of taking the document, but every piece of legislation refers back to other pieces of legislation. I have several documents here, for example, that help me interpret what is in this piece of legislation. It is quite complex. I do urge the minister responsible, the Minister of Natural Resources who understands, being a lawyer, how important words are, to be sure that there is no word wrong in this legislation.

I do not have a lot of time left. There are a couple of things I would like to pick up on. One has to do with the Lands Act. In the Lands Act, it says that when a piece of land that is being expropriated involves a seashore, "a strip of Crown lands not less than 15 metres wide around and adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river was not intended to pass and did not pass to the grantee, lessee or licensee." In other words, they want a piece of property fifteen metres wide that is accessible to the public.

What is happening in this act is that is not going to be the case. This section in the Lands Act is not going to refer to Muskrat Falls. All the way through the legislation, and I am sure we will pick up on many other ones throughout this discussion, there are places of exemptions like that.

Some of them have to do with expediency so we can move full steam ahead. Some have to do with having no barriers. I have a concern that in doing it we are not walking on people and communities, that we are doing in a way that is – well, I suppose it is legal because the government is doing it, but we have to do with sensitivity. The issue of the municipalities is one.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member her speaking time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: My time is up for now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I get up again to speak to Bill 60. I am just going to correct the Leader of the Third Party. She mentioned the cleanup, and I think it is the lateness of the night she said hundreds of thousands, but we know it is actually hundreds of millions.

I only say that because I know the Leader of the Third Party knows that, but being the lateness of the night I would not want somebody to come back and say she had the figure wrong. She knows how much it is going to cost. We know how much it is going to cost. That is a subject matter that is the same as what we are doing here tonight.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I encourage the member to direct his comments to the Chair, please.

Thank you.

MR. A. PARSONS: Certainly, Mr. Chair, not a problem.

I say to the Chair: You know how much it is going to cost too. You know exactly what this is going to cost us down the road. We are dealing with the same subject matter.

I go back to where I left off here. When I left off I was talking about the statutory easements. The Leader of the Third Party also was right and this is something we have referenced numerous times over the last number of days. This is a very complex piece of litigation where the wording of each clause is very important.

Not having that time to review it in great detail, or even to farm it out to have your own people outside have a look at it and have fresh eyes on it, could make a difference. Our job is to bring forward concerns, which we have done, but also it would be nice to have other people have that look at it. These mistakes are not made within intent. They are made in error and in oversight, and that is what we are trying to do here.

We just go into page 8 here and we are still talking about statutory easements. One thing to note, it is very interesting on the record, all these easements that are registered under this act are going to expire on New Year's Day 2075. That is a long period of time. That is a very long time away. It is a bit longer I believe than the term of this contract, the fifty-year loan guarantee provisions. Nevertheless, it is still a long period of time. Then all of a sudden New Year's Day, boom, you are going to have 2075, they are all going to expire.

I will just continue on. I think an important clause here as well is section 8.(5) "A landowner shall not subsequently encumber or create a security interest for any land with respect to which a statutory easement has been registered, and a security interest on the real property of the landowner shall not apply to or be binding upon the statutory easement or the holder of a statutory easement, notwithstanding the landowner's remaining interest in the land." What is going on here, we do not want to further encumber the land that Nalcor, or the government, or the subsidiaries are taking.

I would say two points on that. Number one, I heard a term used earlier in this debate was we are acquiring land. The fact is there is no acquiring here. Acquiring, to me, implies a process by which you work to acquire the land through negotiation, et cetera. While that could happen here the fact is that this legislation gives the power to take land.

Whether or not you like it, if you live within the path of that chosen transmission line – sorry, Mr. Chair, if anybody is watching on TV, a glass of water came flying at me there. I guess the members of the government are not too happy with me. They know I am only speaking the truth over here. I say to them they know that what I have to say is important and if that is how it is going to go, then that is how it is going to go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, I come back to the fact that this transmission line and the land that is being expropriated to allow this to happen –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) all washed up.

MR. A. PARSONS: They are saying I am only a year in and I am all washed up.

When we come back to the expropriation or the taking of the land, I am not sure who is doing it, per se. I am not sure if it is Nalcor or Nalcor's subsidiaries. To me, when you really look at it, they are all the same; it is just Nalcor. To me, it is the government. To me, they are interchangeable; they are really the same. Nalcor belongs to government and Nalcor belongs to the people. So I guess you could say it is just people taking other people's land, if you want to use that train of thought.

There is this land grab that is going to happen. My main concern is that when this land grab happens, any person who is affected by it is going to be compensated fairly and they are going to be compensated quickly.

The expropriation process itself is going to be quick; there is no doubt about that. It is necessary. Again, this is legislation that is being banged through here, but we hope that the people are going to be remedied quickly as well if they are affected by that.

I would continue on, when we talk about there is further reference to pieces of legislation here, the Lands Act, and then the Regulations section 11: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council has regulation-making power. That is a clause that is a standard in many pieces of legislation. It is the one that was left out of An Act to Amend an Act to Amend the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act, which I keep coming back to because I love the fact that it was an amendment, amendment act.

We move on and then we get into Part II which is the actual expropriation section of this legislation. If I want to go down through this part of it, what they are saying is: Where a proponent requires land which, in the opinion of the proponent, is necessary for the project they may negotiate with the landowner for that land, and where (a) its reached, it is valid and binding on the parties; and (b) if it cannot be reached, the proponent may apply to the expropriating authority in accordance with the expropriation protocol to expropriate the land.

All we are saying there is that we are not going to force people to go into this process of protocol right away. There is the ability to have a negotiation between the landowner and the proponent or the company or group that is expropriating the land, and, hopefully, a solution will be reached mutually. I think that is in the best interest of everybody, and that is why I am confident that the people who are affected are going to be able to negotiate this because I am confident that government is going to treat them fairly and make sure that they are fairly compensated for their land. I really do hope that.

MR. BENNETT: Hope.

MR. A. PARSONS: Let's hope – the Member for St. Barbe hopes as well. He has a different term that he uses to describe this legislation; he is going to get a chance to talk about that. I really do hope that they are treated fairly.

From other situations of this nature, expropriation matters involving government in the past, I think they have treated people very fairly. I hope that continues. I have had assurances from members across the way that no doubt they are going to be fair. So let's take them at their word and hope that is indeed the case.

As we move on into the Expropriation section, we know that the land has to be identified first. Then I guess you identify the owner of that land, whether it be Crown land or private. Then we move into the negotiation stage. It explains how it can be done mutually, through a negotiation or through the expropriation protocol.

Then what happens is, "The expropriating authority shall review the proponent's application for expropriation and, where it meets the requirements of this Part and the expropriation protocol, acquire the land on behalf of the proponent by expropriation under this Part."

What that means is if they cannot work it out to get this land, which I guess would happen via a negotiation, then there would be a deed drawn up between the – I do not know, the terms might be different. It might be the vendor and the purchaser, or some kind of terminology of that sort. There are different terms that can be inserted there. There would be a dollar value attached. That document is then sent to St. John's and registered under the Registry of Deeds Act. Then it is on file there, I guess if it is an easement, until 2075.

What happens is if we do not have that agreement, what we are going to have happen is we are going to have the expropriation protocol. What happens then is, okay, we know the land and we know the owner, but now we have to expropriate it because for some reason we cannot reach a deal. Let's hope this does not happen a lot, but they have laid out the process just in case that does happen.

I can see that my time is quickly drifting away here, Mr. Chair, so what I am going to say is I am going to get plenty of more opportunity to speak to this, and I will work further down through this section as I continue on. I will take my seat at this time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity once again to speak to Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of The Muskrat Falls Project.

I am going to coin this one as the steamroll bill, because the other one is the monopoly bill, and both are needed, Bills 60 and 61. In order to get financing there has to be expropriated land and there has to be that asset; that security put up.

The other piece we were talking about, about getting financing, in order to put that into play the proponents, Nalcor, want to go and get financing in January, which is just a few days away. In order to move that forward and be able to get this legislation passed, it means things will move very, very quickly.

The last time I spoke, I was speaking about section 54 on page 27, which talked about a holder using land to develop the boundary and all the planning that had taken place. It allows for the development of Muskrat Falls and these transmission lines, the cables going through, and land acquisitions "…without obtaining a permit from a council of a municipality as may otherwise be required under an Act of the province."

Mr. Chair, that sets into action why I call that the steamroll bill, because it is setting out some of the protocols and procedures we would have in play. The opportunity for our elected officials at the municipal level to have that ability to look at the permits as they come in, developments that would be happening in their town, to be able to debate as we debate in this House, and to have the ability to say as the Municipality Act allows for them to approve permits for those types of developments, to say yea or nay on that.

To take away those rights of those elected officials says that we really need to move forward. We need to move forward fast, and we are not looking at the implications of what these towers and these transmissions will mean to municipalities.

If you look at several municipalities where this 1,100 kilometre cable is going through, they may have already a land plan or some aspect of economic development, a regional plan as to how they want to move forward to advance business or advance housing development. You may see housing incomes, the values of houses up in some of these communities. A lot of municipalities receive their assessments with that.

If you are putting towers and transmissions through that can obstruct traditional views that are there, or be very close to a resident, that can greatly depreciate the value of a home, a residence, or a reason why people may want to move into a community that is already settled. That can have an impact. That provides some concern to me. Municipalities are seeing some of their role diminished with the passage of this bill.

It talks about a holder. I want to read the definition of a holder, just for the benefit of those watching. On page 4, clause 2.(c) "‘holder' means a proponent of the Muskrat Falls Project or any subsequent person who has an interest in both a transmission corridor and the transmission assets associated with it".

That is very broad language when it comes to – it is not just a proponent of Muskrat Falls and its subsidiaries. It could be potentially other businesses, entities, or individuals that may have some form of interest in the corridor, not requiring having to go through a permitting process of what would be required by a municipality. That is one of those pieces that I wanted to get back to and talk about.

I wanted to talk about, as well, that there are some further limitations. "A land use plan or development regulations under the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000, the City of St. John's Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act or the Municipalities Act, 1999, shall not be inconsistent with the approved use under section (1), and where land use plans or development regulations were prepared and approved before the coming into force of this section, they are considered to be modified and are approved as being consistent with the approved under subsection (1)."

After coming into use, a land plan or development regulation shall only be approved where consistent with subsection (1). This changes some of the potential land use development and the regulations that are currently in play, which can adversely affect these municipalities that are along the 1,100 kilometre corridor. I wonder how often, how frequently they have been consulted. Were there public consultations and meetings taking place to say, this is where the corridor is going to take place? It is a 60 metre corridor in many cases. That was described in the briefing on the 1,100 kilometre stretch.

We need to have confidence that the people of the Province who are going to be impacted were consulted in a public manner, where that dialogue and that discussion was there. I am not sure that has really taken place, Mr. Chair. We have not really seen that, or I have not seen a significant amount of public consultation directly with municipalities on specifics. Sure, there has been public consultation, but I have municipalities in my district where the corridor is going to run through or run very closely through, also unincorporated communities as well. We cannot forget that there are many local service districts or places where people are living that are not incorporated. They have a voice as well. They are people in the Province and they own land in those areas.

That brings to a question as well that we are saying Crown land is 99 per cent of the Labrador-Island Link. In many cases in Newfoundland and Labrador – I know in my district specifically – a number of people are living on land that their families have had and had for years and years and years that are certainly eligible for squatters' rights and to go through that process. They do not have clear title; they do not have a deed to their properties. Without the clear title, it is assumed that this all falls under Crown land.

When we say 1 per cent which would equate to eleven kilometres of land, it could be far more reaching as to what the impacts are and what people's rights are. That could increase the cost of what is needed and what the obligations are to ensure that people are compensated, if they are going to have their family home or if they are going to have a home or a land that was used by them and their families for years and years and years expropriated.

Like I said if we go back to the archives and where titles and grants were handed out back in the day, will they be looked at and be honoured in that form? We could see a flurry like when we saw with the Qalipu band that was going through the process. They anticipated a much smaller number of registrants to be members of this band, and there were over 60,000.

Is this a too conservative number put forward when we look at expropriating land and where the transmission corridor, to say that only 1 per cent of this 1,100 kilometres are going to be impacted in this situation, Mr. Chair? We do not have a provincial land use plan saying who owns what here and there, and looking at the historical piece of all those grants that were handed out. We have to go back and look at that. We have to take time, do due diligence, or this could end up costing us a significant amount of money.

I have a number of issues, though, when we look at the Crown land negotiations as to what is being fair and compensated, and how people have such an attachment to family-owned lands and homes. What will happen if there are people who absolutely refuse to go? Will Nalcor and its subsidiaries consider moving the cable, the transmission, and things to a more appropriate area, should they find that there are regions where people are very upset about this type of development moving forward in their town?

I have a number of other things to talk about but my time has expired once again, so I will continue my conversation, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, I would like to speak to Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project.

I do not favour the term used by the Member for The Straits – White Bay North. I prefer the dictators' midnight land grab. I think it is a much more appropriate title: the dictators' midnight land grab. It has all of the hallmarks that if you were a dictator in an underdeveloped country, this is what you would need.

How big is the piece of land that we are talking about? Well, it is sixty metres wide. One of these desks is a yard, just under a metre. So, you take sixty of these and make it that wide and 1,100 kilometres long. That is how big the piece of land is. It is sixty-six square kilometres. Take a swath of land two kilometres wide and thirty-three kilometres wide, that is how big of a piece of land we are talking about. That is how much land we are talking about that this development basically is going to lay waste to because you will not be able to use it for anything else.

They are fancying it up with different names, statutory easement and so on, but it really means you cannot do anything about it. We are going to be tied up with a piece of land more than sixty of these desks wide and 1,100 kilometres long. That is about a drive from, I guess, here to St. Anthony. That is about 1,100 kilometres, more or less. Why wouldn't it be? Because it is from Muskrat Falls and it is going to come down across Labrador, it is going to roll right across everything, going to come down and go underneath the Straits, and it is going to come up across roughly in Eddies Cove East, I think – isn't it, Eddies Cove East, more or less?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BENNETT: Shoal Cove East, yes.

It is going to come up in the lowlands, in behind Hawke's Bay, it is going to cut right through all of that vacation property that people have. It is going to go up over the mountains, going to go over the mountains, inside of a mountain that we call – because this is where I live – Blow Me Down, and it is going to run all up across all of the outfitters. All of the outfitters that bring mostly Americans here and they charge them in our area around $7,500 to come for a hunt in the fall. A double hunt is like a moose and caribou hunt. These hunters like to go in to the vast, unspoiled wilderness. They fly in, in float planes; nobody else can get there. It generates a lot of employment.

Now, these hunters who are coming from Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York, they think they are coming to a vast, unspoiled wilderness where they can hunt moose and caribou. They are going to get flown in, in a float plane. That is presuming the line did not actually run through the camp. If the line actually ran through the camp, then the outfitter is going to be basically out of business.

They will cut right on through all of these. Then they are going to come up and go right in behind Gros Morne National Park, almost into the main river water area set aside, and come all the way across the Island until it gets right out here to Soldiers Pond.

Mr. Chair, we are supposed to believe there are only five or six homes that are actually going to be expropriated, and there is going to be maybe fifty or sixty other properties. Clearly, if you took a piece of land that is sixty-six square kilometres and if you think about sixty-six square kilometres in this Province, you would have far more property interest than that you would have to accommodate.

How are they being accommodated? They are being accommodated in a very unaccommodating manner, except for the homes. The homes that are expropriated are going to receive replacement costs but all of the others are going to receive fair market value.

If you have a camp back in the woods for your outfitting business, what is the fair market value of a camp built in the woods that only has minimum services and is used seasonally? Well, one of those things might only be worth a few thousands dollars, even though you needed it for your business. You may have needed it for your business but it will not be replaced in another pond. You will not have additional land. The good ponds are already taken up.

You have Rack Lake, you have Stag Lake, and you have Leander Lake. All of the outfitters in my district, people like Patey & Sons, are going to be affected. People like Brophy & Sons are going to be affected. People like Sam's will be affected. Portland Creek Outfitters will be affected. Portland Creek Hunting and Fishing will be affected. Stewart House will be affected. Gideon House will be affected. Hynes will be affected. All of these outfitters, and these are only the outfitters I know personally in St. Barbe district that are going to have this snake, this reptile, that is going to run right up through the Province.

Who is going to do this? Well, this is going to be done by somebody called a proponent. I heard the Premier say in the last couple of days that if someone says Emera is going to expropriate land that is absolutely wrong. I went back and read this darned thing, Bill 60, and I thought, well, the Premier must know what she is talking about. Then I read it again and it said a proponent means "…a proponent of the Muskrat Falls Project, and includes, whether individually or in combination of them, (i) the corporation established in the Energy Corporation Act, including all affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns of that corporation…"

Well, that corporation likely does not even exist as yet because when I posed the question to the corporations in our briefing I was told these companies have not actually been incorporated yet, but they will be incorporated to do this. It says right here on page 5 in the definition a proponent is "(ii) Emera Inc., including all affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns of that corporation…" That is what a proponent is.

What can a proponent do? Well, Mr. Chair, a proponent can go to the expropriating authority because we are not going to bother with the Expropriation Act for Muskrat Falls. We already have a perfectly good Expropriations Act in this Province, but we are not going to have that. We are going to have this dictator's midnight land grab act which says, "Where a proponent requires land which, in the opinion of the proponent" – not anybody else – "is necessary for the Muskrat Falls Project, the proponent may negotiate with the landowner for that land" – may negotiate; does not have to negotiate, but may negotiate with the landowner.

Where "…an agreement is reached, it is valid and binding on the parties; or" – if they bother to negotiate – "(b) an agreement cannot be reached, the proponent may apply to the expropriating authority in accordance with the expropriation protocol to expropriate the land." Bang, so that is Emera. I do not understand what the Premier was reading, or if she did read it, when she said that Emera cannot expropriate the land. Clearly, within the first eleven pages of this bill, which is thirty pages long, it says that Emera can expropriate the land.

If Emera can expropriate the land, on what basis will Emera expropriate this land? Well, if they think they need it, they just mention it to the expropriating authority, whatever that is. Oh, the expropriating authority is what we are going to establish by this bill. This bill will establish the expropriating authority. This is the mechanism that is being set up to permit a bunch of people to be able to expropriate people's land in this Province for the Muskrat Falls Project.

This land runs from Muskrat Falls, way up in Labrador, right down here to Soldiers Pond, and all the way along in the middle. If anybody thinks this is not a land grab, then I do not understand why they would say that. We are doing it at midnight; we are passing the act at midnight. This bill is going to get rammed through here. It was initially read last night or the night before. The nights are all starting to run together now. This is the dictator's midnight land grab.

What does not apply? Mr. Chair, what does not apply to this act? Let us see. The Public Utilities Acquisition of Lands Act does not apply to an expropriation under this part. We have a perfectly good act, a perfectly good statute of this Province, which provides for a public utility to acquire land and it does not apply. Why would it not apply?

The only imaginable reason that it would not apply is because we need to create special laws so we can roller-coaster this Muskrat Falls development through the Province. So get rid of the Public Utilities Acquisition of Lands Act. That act has been around for decades in this Province, Mr. Chair, and it has been perfectly acceptable up until now. It has been perfectly acceptable for Nalcor up to now. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has always been content with this, the telephone companies have always been content with this, and I suppose Newfoundland Light and Power must have always been content with this or someone would have dreamt up another act.

I am only just getting started, Mr. Chair, but I see my first ten minutes have gone. I will allow somebody else to speak.

Thank you, Sir.

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very happy to stand again to speak to this Bill 60, Muskrat Falls Project Land Use and Expropriation Act. I may perhaps bring a little bit of a different perspective to this. One of the things is that when we look at this magnificent Province we live in, Newfoundland and Labrador, the amazing landscape, and the movement and the flow of the land, and what this will mean to us; seeing the 1,100 kilometres of transmission lines basically bifurcating the Island, coming down through Labrador, what this might mean, and what it might look like on our topography.

Of course, what we have to do is we have to use our imaginations. We have to use our imaginations to try and see what that is going to look like. It is not a pretty sight. There is a lot about development that is really good, and then there are some negative aspects of development that are not exactly what we would want. Sometimes that is the bycatch of development; sometimes that is the consequence of development. What we have to do is look at ways to mitigate that. Sometimes it is just the way it is and that is all there is to it. I do encourage us all to use our imaginations to picture the 1,100 kilometres of sixty-metre-wide ribbon of transmission lines that will go through our Province. We do have to imagine what that might be like.

It has been very interesting here this evening to listen to my colleagues speak on this issue. The wonderful thing about this House of Assembly is that we are made up of a lot of different people with different skill sets, different expertise, and different life experiences. I come to this House of Assembly and have been elected by the people of St. John's Centre. I bring a different skill set, and perhaps one that is not so common here in this House of Assembly in that I come from an arts background. For thirty years I have been a documentary filmmaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a filmmaker! You have done good work.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, one of our colleagues across the floor there has said that I have done good work. I have been lucky as a filmmaker. Over the thirty years I have made over thirty films and I have won over fifty international awards. My films have been screened on televisions and in theatres all over the world. A number of the awards I have won have been quite prestigious awards. In Canada I did win two Geminis for some of my work, and gold at Hot Docs. That only happened, Mr. Chair, because of the wonderful teams I worked with.

One of the processes of making films, and I have been a documentary filmmaker, is about telling a story. It is about pulling together a number of elements, different people's voices and different people's stories, and then pulling them together to try to make one coherent plan and one coherent story. In the process of making a film, I start with an idea and then go out with a crew. I interview people. I follow people. I never think I am the expert, but that in fact my role is to try to listen, and my role is to try to find a new way of telling a story. My role is trying to put together something so it is coherent, that it is a piece, that it solves a problem.

One aspect, of course, is you go out and get the material, and then you bring it back. Then you sit in an editing room and you start putting the pieces together and trying to figure out how to put it together. At some point you think: This is it. I have done a good job. This is the film. This is a story and this is how to tell it. I have used all the different elements, have listened to the people I have filmed, and I think I know the answer. This is the way it is going to be. There are lots of late nights. There are lots of hours. There is lots of working with other people.

Then there is one step. Even though I might think I have it together, that I have the perfect answer, that this is the film that was going to touch people's hearts, that is going to move people, this is a film that is going to tell a clear, coherent story, I step back and then we show the film to a test audience, and it does not work. It means going back to the drawing board.

Sometimes it means it just needs a little bit of a tweak. Sometimes it means we have to take it all apart and put it back together again in order to come up with that one coherent story. The story is about solving a problem. The story is about trying to get it right. That takes time, and it also takes a certain amount of humility.

It means that when I thought I got it right, or the team I worked with when we thought we got it right, in fact, we did not quite get it right. It means standing back and looking at it with a different set of eyes. Sometimes in that process you can see the solution; that the solution was perhaps there but there was a different way of putting it together.

That specific step in the filmmaking process, Mr. Chair, is so very important to getting it right. It means listening to what other people have to say about the plan I came up with. They may not have the solution. The people who have seen the rough draft of the film may not have the solution, but they let me know there are problems. Then my role is to try to figure out: Okay, there are problems and it is not fitting right, how do I come to a solution that makes sense? It means not being able to rush it through. It means being able to bring other eyes to the situation. It means being able to bring other sensibilities to the situation.

Mr. Chair, here we are at 1:12 in the morning, we are looking at very complex legislation and we have not had that opportunity to bring a new set of eyes to the legislation. We have not had that opportunity to test drive the legislation, to look at what can be done differently. What are the missing pieces? What makes the story the right story? What makes it work? What are the elements that might be missing, or what are the elements that do not fit?

I know being in the House here with my colleagues who are lawyers, they look at this piece of legislation in a certain way. They bring their expertise to it, but I think the analogy is quite interesting. To be able to step back, to not rush something through, but to be able to step back and say: Did we get this right? Are all the elements there? Are there elements that are not there? Is there a different way of putting this together? Is there a different way of telling the story? Is there is a different way of coming up with the solutions?

Mr. Chair, it is about sometimes retrying. It is about sometimes pulling elements out. When putting together a film, sometimes I have to pull out elements in the film that I thought for sure would be the heart of the film. It is only after taking the time, stepping back and consulting with other people that you realize this is not the way to go. There is another way to go.

Mr. Chair, I had anticipated that this is what we would be able to do with the whole Muskrat Falls Project, all of use together, to bring our expertise to it. To bring it to a test audience, to hear and to listen from other experts, where all of us could hear, what were the parts that worked? What were the parts that did not work? How do we test drive this? How do we bring our imaginations to the problem that we have before us, in terms of the energy needs of the Province?

I would like to thank my colleagues this evening and over the past sixty, seventy hours for the expertise they have brought to this project, but I am hoping we will have more time to truly examine this.

Thank you.

CHAIR: I recognize the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I stand to speak to Bill 60. I left off on page 10, or Part II of the act, Expropriation. What I want to do is quickly transition over to the briefing notes that we received from the department in the briefing that we had on Tuesday morning.

I guess one would say: Why are we creating a brand new act to deal with this? The reason at the time is that we are dealing with the acquisition of both Crown land and non-Crown Land. The explanation behind it was that current provincial laws are not sufficient because they were constructed to deal primarily with local land issues and not something of this magnitude or this scale. In terms of sheer size, more or less the area is 1,100 kilometres of expropriation, but it is going all over Labrador and the Island of Newfoundland. It is a wide-ranging expropriation that is going to take place.

One of the things mentioned here is that this is standalone legislation. This piece of legislation, it is presumed after this project, is never going to be used again. It is only created just for this one purpose. After this it will have lost any significance or use down the road.

Instead of changing pre-existing legislation to make it be able to handle something of this nature, they said look, we will create a standalone piece of legislation. We will deal with this one issue. The fact is the land is going to be expropriated within the next number of months or we will say years. Then after that, it is done, it is over with. We have not had to change the pre-existing pieces of legislation back again because some of this might not be relevant after. That is one of the reasons why this is happening.

The question on the briefing notes is: Why new legislation? Again, it is the same thing. The project lenders require certainty that interest in lands with the project will be available and can be pledged as security. It is no different than when you go to get a mortgage from a bank. You have to have good title to the land that you want to get a mortgage for.

In this case, before the lenders are willing to lend the money they need to have certainty that this land belongs to them and they are going to be able to get it, and they can change the law to make sure that they get it. They are saying the bill is necessary in order to present the strongest case when financial markets are approached in early 2013.

That brings me to a point that I think needs to be brought up. That is the fact that we are in here the week before Christmas. It is December 21. Days are blurring in together. We are here four days now before Christmas debating this legislation, which government has said to us is necessary to have done now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. A. PARSONS: I hear one of the members across getting kind of riled up with what I have to say. He is not going to stop me from continuing. I am going to continue. He is not going to stop me from speaking. Mr. Chair, I know they do not like what I have to say, but I am going to put it out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. PARSONS: Some protection, Mr. Chair.

The fact is I know there is a disagreement as to the timing of this. I think we could have accomplished the same goals, but do it differently so one of the main concerns we have expressed would have been answered and we really could not have been able to use that as an argument. That argument is the timing of the legislation being dropped, we will say, and then the amount of time we had to review.

I understand the financing, going to the banks, is going to happen in early 2013, but the fact is it is not going to happen this week. It is not happening on December 25 and it is not happening on December 26. All they are saying is early 2013. That is why I think we are sitting here in this House hour after hour and we are debating this legislation, which we managed to read as much as we can, scan through it as much as we can, and prepare as many notes as we can.

I think if we had opened this House in early 2013, we could have had that opportunity to review the legislation. We certainly could not have put forward the argument then that, oh well, we have not had time. The government would be quite right to say: Look, you had plenty of time over that period to look at the legislation and do that work.

That was part of our argument. There is no reason this House could not open up in early January and come in. We would have had time to do the adequate and proper review, argue it out, and who knows, we could have filibustered then, too. At the end of the day, government is going to get it. One of the ministers said at one point Opposition has their say and then government gets their way. There is no reason to think this would not have been a part of that as well.

Government is going to get what they want. It is our job to put it on the record. One of our main arguments in my mind would have been diffused, one of our main arguments and an argument that I think will stand. What I would say is it is too late to change that now, I guess. We are here; we are going to continue. We have to get this through; we are going to continue. We know why this is being done and why they are trying to move the project forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is clause 1 ready?

MR. A. PARSONS: No, certainly clause 1 is not ready to carry yet, I guarantee you.

I just want to put that on the record and I am going to go back to the expropriation. I think I left off in 12(3), which is the expropriation protocol. The first thing that happens here as we move forward in this section is: "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall designate a minister of the Crown as the expropriating authority…" So really Cabinet will be in charge of the expropriation portion of this and they will appoint a minister. Again, I would make the assumption that it will be the Minister of Natural Resources since this is his bill and that he will be the minister. Maybe it is the Minister of Environment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. A. PARSONS: Oh, it is the Minister of Environment. It makes sense because we are dealing with Crown lands and we are dealing with that. I think there could not have been a better minister picked to do this, I say, so good on the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS: It is not a certainty that the expropriation protocol will be put in place, but if I were a betting man I would say it will be. At some point somebody will have an issue with the expropriation. That is almost a certainty. When they do so, the Minister of Environment will be picked by the Lieutenant- Governor in Council to serve as the expropriating authority.

The first thing we notice is the expropriation can be made where "(a) an agreement cannot first be reached on the amount to be paid for the land or on other terms of the purchase…; (b) the landowner, after reasonable inquiry, is not known or cannot be found…; (c) the landowner is incapable of conveying the land…; or (d) for another reason that the expropriating authority considers it advisable to expropriate the land."

There are a lot of different areas there. The primary one I would imagine is that there is going to be a disagreement on the monetary compensation. If I have a piece of land, I might have a different feeling on what that land is valued at. I know when it comes to homes there is a more easily quantitated amount because it is going to be replacement value.

AN HON. MEMBER: Market value.

MR. A. PARSONS: Market value.

Again, that is good. There might be some disagreement as to market value, but it is fairly easy to come up with those amounts by using different real estate agencies. If we get to a point where there is a bit of contention, I think it is going to be more economical for government to err on the side of getting this done as opposed to nickel-and-diming because –

MR. HEDDERSON: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: The Minister of Environment is saying one of the issues is the quieting of titles. That is the thing. There is a lot of land out there. I dealt with this a lot when I was practising. You get a lot of land, especially in rural areas, where ownership is disputed. It is hard to find good title to the land. It is hard to figure out who owns it.

I will use for example the Codroy Valley. The Codroy Valley is an area that a lot of the land was dealt with a Crown grant back in the 1800s. It was done to one family. Over a period of time that land was then passed down through the family, but there was not the proper documentation you see now. It was basically the individual would give it to however many sons and those sons would take it and go from there. A lot of times you do not have that good chain of title you need. There are breaks in the chain of title that could be an issue.

Actually, my time is done, but I will come back to that because that is a good area. I am sure if I say anything that is not correct the minister will stand and correct me because that is what the purpose of this is.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I recognize the hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity once again to speak to the Muskrat Falls Project Land Use and Expropriation Act, Bill 60.

I want to agree with the Member for St. Barbe. I probably should use his title for the bill because there are significant restrictions when it comes to the role of municipalities and individuals who are going to be experiencing loss with the passage of this bill. We have to look at the great length of what this corridor is going to mean overall. If there are going to be negative implications, is there a way to find a balance so we can look at the resource being taken to see if we can create a balance here?

I am looking at overall what is planned. The Member for St. Barbe had talked about it a little bit. We are looking at, with all of the access roads and everything like that, about seventy-seven square kilometres. To put that in context, that is bigger than the island of Manhattan, fifty-nine kilometres square. It is about fifty Olympic-sized hockey stadiums. It is not a small amount.

We look at in many cases there is going to have to be land cleared. There is going to have to be cutting of forest and timber products. In that case where we are going across Labrador and we are going across the Island portion of the Province, there should be consideration where local contractors and those who have commercial timber rights in an industry such as the forest industry, which is in quite a crisis, would have priority rights to be able to go in and have access to that timber there if it is within their respective district and to be able utilize it to get the greatest value for our overall economy. In part, that might be a means to help other sectors of the economy.

I want to talk a little bit about this bill in relation to the environmental impact statement. The environmental impact statement, which is outlining the sixty-metre-wide road that will be used and the transmission line and how long it would be, and considering all the environmental impacts, is not yet completed.

We do not know what the overall route is right now. We do not know what impact it may have to certain environmental features, different wetlands, different rare plants and species, access to different trails, and different things like that. It is not completed.

No member in this House knows the adverse impacts of what is going to come out of the environmental impact statement. Without that complete and seeing where it is, it makes me wonder about the actual physical location of the transmission line and what it is going to mean to people.

If we look at the West Coast, going all the way up the Northern Peninsula there, you have the International Appalachian Trail that is going to be a big part. The Member for St. Barbe talked about outfitting and talked about people who are coming to see our natural, pristine environment. That is one of our greatest marketing pieces. There is a lot of natural wilderness that is quite pristine.

If you put up transmission towers that are quite tall and can obstruct views, and expropriate lands that would have traditional waterways and different access points, then that could be an impact. Who is going to be overseeing that to greatly ensure that from the environmental impact statement and when it actually gets to the cutting stage of trees and putting in the line that there are not some things that are going to be adversely impacted?

We have already seen some opposition to looking at access roads to the Muskrat Falls Project, with NunatuKavut where Nalcor had sought an injunction to prevent people from interfering with the development of Muskrat Falls. Even elders were arrested in these scenarios. These people have traditionally used land where this river is. I am just wondering about the whole access points. That will have an impact because we are talking a serious piece of land overall.

Going back to aspects of where we are headed in tourism and marketing with geotourism and looking at that, people want that untouched beauty. They want that natural space. I see in many cases there could be areas where in my district the passage of the transmission cables will take away from the natural landscapes and the beauty of The Straits region and on down the Northern Peninsula. That is one piece I see.

I want to get back to the bill as I was talking about with the proponents and the rights and the authorities of them, a proponent which requires land. It seems like they can require it at any type of means. A proponent can be Muskrat Falls Company that is yet to be set up, a proponent, or a subsidiary. It could be Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It could be Emera, as to my interpretation of what the bill has stated.

The language of this bill is written so lightly that is says may negotiate with a landowner for the land and where an agreement is reached, rather than shall negotiate to put this forward. It seems like if somebody has ownership of something, in a democracy you would go through a negotiation process. You should not have that option of just maybe you will negotiate with people. That infringes on people's rights.

Earlier in a previous bill there was a ruling. The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair wanted to put in that there "shall" be economic development benefits for Labrador in a previous bill. I believe it was Bill 53. It was ruled out of order that "should" would stand. So, there is no guarantee those benefits would be there.

In this case, this is very, very questionable when you look at a proponent. When we go back and we look at the definition of the proponent on page 5, it means, "…Muskrat Falls Project includes, whether individually or in combination of them, (i) the corporation established in the Energy Corporation Act, including all affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns of the corporation, and (ii) Emera Inc., including all affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns of that corporation".

It certainly seems like there is an ability to give away or to lose a significant amount of control. I believe the Member for St. Barbe had made a number of good points on this piece about this. You do not look immediately at what is happening, but you look at the aspect of if there are company changes or a company starts up. Any component in saying that they need land in relation to Muskrat Falls, this project, has the ability to basically look at expropriating land without – because it says may.

My interpretation of that is that they do not have to thoroughly consult. If you do not have to thoroughly consult, then that seems very dictatorial. It seems like you just go in and say we need this land, without actual just cause.

Will it comply with what the environmental impact statement which can have environmental, economic, and socioeconomic impacts to communities, to regions, and to the Province for the long term, without having to go through an appropriate channel to say is this where we want to go, is there an alternative of moving this or whatnot. There has to be some oversight to ensure that land just is not being expropriated with just cause. It should be negotiated. It must be negotiated. It should not just may be negotiated. It shall be negotiated, Mr. Chair.

I see my time has expired.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, in the case of any statute, the best place to start is in the Definitions because statutes tend to come with their own words, with their meanings. If the act says it means something, then that is what it means, regardless of what the dictionary says; or a different act could say something different.

We are dealing with, first of all, in the Definitions: arbitration panel. The arbitration panel is an arbitration panel not under the Expropriations Act, not under the Arbitrations Act, but it is an arbitration panel as found under section 24 of this act. Section 24 of this act says, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council" – when I read that people just hear government – "shall" – it is not permissive, it is mandatory – "in the manner prescribed in the expropriation protocol" – so that means according to their own definition – "appoint an arbitration panel to determine compensation for or related to an expropriation under this Part."

To continue on, what are the powers of this arbitration panel? That comes under section 25. "The arbitration panel may, in addition to assessing the value of land expropriated, determine all questions of law and…" all questions of fact.

They determine what the law is. They determine what the facts are according to any particular expropriation they are dealing with. That is for the purpose of fixing "…the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the land that was expropriated or detrimentally affected by the expropriation".

Mr. Chair, detrimental expropriation, detrimental affect or an adverse effect, means just because they take a strip of land sixty metres wide and 1,100 kilometres long, that does not mean it is the only land affected. There may be all kinds of land running along that corridor which is also affected.

Mr. Chair, in the expropriation law, if an expropriating authority expropriates a parcel of land that leaves another parcel of land landlocked or inaccessible, than that also is deemed to be worth zero. The owner of that land is supposed to be compensated on whatever the base of the arbitration is, simply because they cannot access their land. There is no point in having land if you cannot reach it in any way except for a helicopter, unless maybe you own your own island.

The arbitration panel will "determine the persons to whom compensation should be paid and the amount which should be paid to each of them." They decide where the land is, how much to pay for it, what the law is, what the facts are, and this is who they pay. Mr. Chair, this is an enormous amount of power to be accorded to a particular panel, and for what purpose? For the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project.

25.(2) says, "The arbitration panel may state an award for compensation as to the whole or part of the compensation in the form of a special case for the opinion of a judge of the Trial Division." Mr. Chair, a judge of the Trial Division means the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. That means if they want an opinion from a judge – and that does not mean they are going to phone up and say: hey judge, what do you think of this? What that means is an application to court, properly stated, done at the ordinary expense and filings, and then a judge would make a determination.

Mr. Chair, what that means is this automatically gives them the authority and the power, and they will have the means to resort to the courts. Not that there is anything wrong with this, however if you think of the landowner on the other side, it may be a person who is not very well off and really cannot afford the cost of legal proceedings. They could be crushed by the legal proceedings if they decide to fight back. There is just no point because they may have to expend thousands and thousands of dollars to push back and it simply would not be worth it to them.

Continuing on in the powers of this arbitration panel; "The arbitration panel may at any stage of its proceedings and shall where directed by a judge of the court state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court a question of law arising in the course of the proceedings."

If they have not determined what the law is, a judge may say: Tell me what you want me to rule on, put it in a special case, run it past me in court any time over the next six months, a year, a couple of years, or three or four years – because we know court proceedings can take a long time – and at that point the court will give you a determination. The court will tell you what it is supposed to be at the end of this process.

It also says in the pretence of providing equal rights, that a party – and a party could be someone who is adversely affected, or it may be someone who actually owns the land, or someone whose family owns the land, or someone whose family used to own the land, or had a right to use the land, or to cross the land. "A party may apply to a judge of the court for an order directing that a question of law arising in the course of proceedings before the arbitration panel shall be stated in the form of a special case."

In this case, a party or an individual is entitled to go to court and ask for determination. This could be a municipality. It could be a small municipality. It could be literally cut in half by this line that slices all the way across the Province. That is the authority, the definition, and the power of an arbitration panel pursuant to this statute.

Continuing on in the definitions; "‘expropriation protocol' means the manner of conducting expropriations under this Act as prescribed by the regulations". Mr. Chair, regulations are wonderful things because when you pass a bill and it becomes a statute, then if you have a section for regulations, the regulations are what the bureaucrats then use in order to be able to carry out the functions of the act.

The reason they are not defined up front is because it means we do not know what we are going to do. We do not know what we are going to need to do. We do not know how complex this will be. So put it in regulations, please. You cannot put it in regulations in the House of Assembly because we do not know what that will be. Just give us the authority to create regulations and we will basically make it up as we go along. This is not uncommon, this is very common.

If the government was going to use the Expropriations Act, the regulations are already in place. The regulations are already published. The regulations are already well known. People would know where they stand, but there is no way of determining today what the regulations will say because the regulations have not been written yet; or, if they have been written, they have not been provided. They may well have been written and in draft form sitting someplace.

Mr. Chair, to continue on, the word holder keeps coming up. The word holder under this bill means "…a proponent of the Muskrat Falls Project or any subsequent person who has an interest in both a transmission corridor and the transmission assets associated with it".

Now, Mr. Chair, that does not necessarily mean someone says: Oh, I think I am interested in that line. Isn't that a lovely line? Someone who has an interest in it, it means somebody who has a monetary interest, a fiduciary interest, or a legal interest in dealing with this land. This would be a holder.

If it is a subsequent person, this means that if anything should happen to this development, it means if this development crashes before it is over, if it crashes because it hits 80 per cent or 90 per cent overruns, $10 billion, $11 billion or $12 billion, which would be comparable to the Manitoba Hydro Wuskwatim project. If it is on that same ratio and if we decide we cannot continue the project, then because the project is set up with the financing being non-recourse, Nalcor can simply walk away from it.

The federal guarantee will kick in. The federal government would look for another operator. They would be entitled to recover the property because that is what a guarantor is entitled to. If you guarantee a debt and there is an asset attached, you have to make good on it. Because the proponent could not handle the overhead, then you the guarantor step into the shoes of the proponent. You take it over.

Well, what do you do with it then? Maybe you operate it yourself, and maybe you do not operate it yourself. Maybe you hire someone to operate it for you. Maybe you lease it out to somebody else. Who would that somebody else be? The person or the entity with the most experience in hydroelectric development in Eastern Canada is Hydro-Quebec.

When you read someone who is a holder, it means a "subsequent person who has an interest in both a transmission corridor.…" A subsequent person in this instance could very well be, within the next decade, Hydro-Quebec.

Mr. Chair, just imagine what a disaster that would be for this Province if after all the torture we have been put through with Hydro-Quebec over the last fifty years, they ended up with Muskrat Falls, and they were the ones who got the transmission line.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no further comments at this point.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to rise again to speak to Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project. The last time I stood up and spoke, I spoke a little bit about using our imaginations. My job as a filmmaker was to try to find a different component to put together a picture to tell a story.

I would like to focus in on what the story of the transmission line might look like. Mr. Chair, we all know that the Muskrat Falls Project has been sanctioned. Perhaps one of the things that many of us have not done, although we have been talking about Muskrat Falls for – certainly some of my colleagues here in the House have been talking about Muskrat Falls for years. Particularly in the past few months now, it has become the focus of this House in many ways.

What I would like to do is just talk a little bit about that transmission line. We know that it is 1,100 kilometres long, sixty-metres wide, making up for sixty-six square kilometres of land. When you think of Newfoundland and Labrador, sixty-six square kilometres of land is not a lot of land, really, when you think of it, in the great vast spaces of Newfoundland and Labrador – not a whole lot of land.

When you stretch out this transmission line – now I imagine that the transmission line will have huge towers, and then cables on it. That transmission line is going to extend from Labrador, through Labrador, onto the Island, down the Great Northern Peninsula. My mother was from the Great Northern Peninsula, how much she loved that. How many of us have travelled Labrador and travelled right down through the Island, over bogs and barrens and blueberry fields, the skylines are beautiful. We have all done that – probably most of us have done that.

This evening, we could just close our eyes and imagine that incredible beauty, the incredible skylines, the rolling of the hills, the boglands, and the barrens. Imagine the beautiful barrens that are all over our Province in different parts of the Province. Then there is the tuckamores, and then there are the mountain ranges and the hills.

I would like us to look at exactly where this transmission line might go and to just imagine it now. I would like all of us to imagine what that transmission line might look like as it crosses Labrador and as it crosses the Island. Let's imagine, because we have all done this, so we can imagine what our Province looks like. Now, let's imagine it. Let's imagine it with a huge transmission line as you are driving the highway and the roads, as you are driving along, where that might be.

Some of the areas – what I have here now is the socioeconomic environment report, the final report of the EIS, the Environmental Impact Statement. I have this here in my hand. There is a summary and a conclusion about the Labrador-Island Transmission Link. I would just want to read to you a little bit of where that transmission link is actually going to be going, what kinds of land, what kinds of activities might be impacted by it – and these are places where lands will have to be expropriated.

Nalcor Energy is proposing to develop the Labrador-Island Transmission Link, a High Voltage Direct Current transmission system extending from Central Labrador to the Island of Newfoundland's Avalon Peninsula.

That basically covers the whole Province, doesn't it? I mean, when you think of that ribbon of transmission line going right through the Province. Again, the Province we have all seen so much of it. We have driven it. We may have flown it. We have been in boats. We may have hiked. We all know what that looks like. Now we are going to imagine what that looks like with huge transmission towers and lines going right through it, crossing our barrens, crossing our waterways.

Once we do this, Mr. Chair, there is no turning back. Is this the right way to do it? I want us all to imagine those transmission towers, those transmission lines, right through the whole Province. Imagine how different your drive is going to be, because they are going to be really high and you are going to be able to see them for kilometres.

MR. HEDDERSON: Where are you going to put them?

MS ROGERS: Mr. Chair, the hon. Minister of Environment is asking me: Where are we going to put them? That is right; where are we going to put them? Maybe it is not the right approach. Maybe it is not, I do not know. I would like us to just imagine what this is going to be like.

The transmission corridor – these are the general socioeconomic regions and communities which will be crossed by or adjacent to the proposed transmission corridor, as well as land and resource use, and other tourism and recreational activities in these general areas.

These transmission towers and lines, just imagine them, are going to be crossing general areas including commercial, recreational and subsistence pursuits. It is going to go by communities. These transmission lines are going to go close to communities, transportation routes, hunting and trapping areas, angling and other fishing, motorized recreational vehicles will be impacted, cabins and cottage development areas, other outdoor recreational activities.

Mr. Chair, it is kind of interesting that some of my hon. colleagues across are making a little bit fun of this. Once those huge towers and transmission lines, which will bifurcate our whole Province, once they are up there is no turning back. Our landscape will be unalterably changed. That is it; there will be no turning back. When you drive up the Great Northern Peninsula, you will be faced with them. When you drive the Avalon, you will be faced with them. When you drive through the Central Island, you will be faced with them. You will see them and there is no turning back. It is going to go through parks, reserves, and other protected areas and special areas. It is going to affect forestry areas, mining and energy areas, agricultural areas, and other harvesting-activity areas.

It is going to go through a number of socio-economic regions in Newfoundland and Labrador, which have been identified as Central and Southeastern Labrador, the Northern Peninsula, Central and Eastern Newfoundland, and the Avalon Peninsula. That is basically most of the Province. Many of these areas are rural areas with economies that are traditionally based on natural resource industries and, more currently, tourism. They will be there. You can close your eyes to them, but once you open your eyes they are still going to be there, those great big towers and the swath of land that is cleared around them. You can close your eyes to it if you want, but once you open your eyes it is still going to be there.

The corridor also overlaps with regions of economic development zones where communities and populations are more heavily concentrated. What kinds of communities and what is it going to cut through? Mr. Chair, I am going to finish this story the next time I get up. I only have a few seconds left. I want to stress that. We all know that. None of us are naive. We all know that once those towers are up, that is it. Those towers will dominate our landscape. There is no turning back. There is no possibility of taking them down. There is no possibility of changing that technology. This will be one of the bycatches of Muskrat Falls.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I recognize the man with the beard.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

It is a pleasure to stand here and speak to this legislation again. Who knows, by the time I get out of this racket I am probably going to have a nice playoff beard going by that point. That remains to be seen at this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. PARSONS: I hear the members opposite still going at me. They still cannot handle the truth over there; they still cannot handle the truth, I tell you. I cannot sit down because if I do the Member for Bay of Islands at some point is going to get back up again and he is really going to have his say.

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to speak to this piece of legislation. In these times, when you have been going at this for a number of hours, you can get a bit punchy. I apologize because this is a serious matter, but we have been at this for a number of hours. The night grows long and with that things can get a bit light.

I come back to the part where we talk about expropriation. I have had conversations with some of the members opposite, whether it is the Member for Cape St. Francis or the Minister of Environment. We have talked about expropriation; both have had experience dealing with that. I have outlined my concerns to them and they have told me about their experiences dealing with it.

One of the things it comes down to, the Crown land is not apparently an issue, but it is in cases where you have issues with title or finding ownership to land. Going through that title process, and especially going through in some cases where you are trying to get that declaration of ownership and the quieting of titles that might have to be done, can be the part that takes time.

From what I understand about this legislation, this could be seen as good or it could be seen as bad depending on where you sit. I will get into the section here very shortly. Basically, this allows the government – and I say government because it is Nalcor, subsidiaries of government, and it is all interchangeable really. What it does is allow them to come in, take the land, and avoid that delay process. This has all been about having things done in an expedient manner. What it is a case of is take it and then sort it out after, whether that is compensation, ownership, or whatever. There is a timed process where the government, once it identifies the land, can make that move forward.

I move on to page 11 of this proposed bill. I am going to get to an interesting section here. It references the Public Utilities Acquisition of Lands Act, which does not apply, and the Expropriation Act, which does not apply. Those are two pieces of pre-existing legislation that had expropriation powers that are not being used here and the reason being –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: Again, I hear the members opposite. There is one particular member and he certainly has a lot to say. I will sic the Member for the Bay of Islands on him at some point.

What I would say is that this is a stand-alone piece. These other two pieces with the same powers do not apply.

Mr. Chair, this is something I have discussed earlier and I think I am going to spend some time on this. I am certainly going to spend the rest of the time I have here in this particular ten-minute slot talking about it, and that is subsection (9). What it says here is, "Notwithstanding another provision of this Part, where a family home is to be expropriated for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project, the Family Homes Expropriation Act shall apply to that expropriation and compensation shall be determined in accordance with that Act."

What it is says here is that there are certain pieces of property, Crown Land is one thing, but there are certain pieces where you actually have a family home that can and will be expropriated for the purpose of laying down the transmission line. The first part is interesting enough in that I guess there was no way to avoid going through somebody's land where there is family home. It sounds amazing that we are going to be acquiring land, razing, and just completely demolishing pre-existing homes. I am really hoping that is going to be a rare occasion, but if that is the case, then what this act says is, look, you need to go directly, specifically to the Family Homes Expropriation Act.

What I did in my research is I went to the Family Homes Expropriation Act. That is a fairly short piece of legislation and can be found on the government Web site under the House of Assembly. This act is called the Family Homes Expropriation Act, but it is actually An Act to Provide for the Payment of Fair Compensation to the Owners of Family Homes Expropriated. There are just a couple of relevant sections here, and I think I will just go through them because there is not much to it, Mr. Chair.

Section 3 is family home. What it says here is, "For the purpose of this Act a family home shall be a house which is and has for a reasonable time been the home of a family unit together with land immediately appurtenant to the house not exceeding 6,000 square meters and all immediately appurtenant outbuildings." Subsection (2) says, "The nature of a family unit is defined or indicated in the Schedule."

You can come back to the Schedule and it lays out what is a family unit. We talk about parents, grandparents, and children living together, brothers or sisters. It lays it out. It is not just what you would define as your nuclear family. It allows a number of different combinations, which reflects the fact that family units can be comprised in any number of ways and in any numbers of different family members, whether it is mothers and fathers, children, grandparents, or friends. It covers off a whole wide range of what can be deemed a family or a family unit.

Going back to section 4, we talk about compensation payable. It says here, where "…an expropriation to which this Act applies and notwithstanding a rule or provision for the assessment of values set out in the Act… the principle of assessment shall be that the owner of the family home shall receive an amount in compensation that will at current costs and prices put him or her in a position to acquire by purchase or construction a home reasonably equivalent to that which is being expropriated."

What I am hoping here is that the minister is going to be fair when he deals with people in this regard and that there is not going to be any nickel-and-diming or quibbling over this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, if I could have some protection here, I would certainly appreciate it from the member. The member has been really giving me a hard time. If you have to name names at this point I would have no issue with that either.

Mr. Chair, what I am hoping, and I think right now the number I have is five homes. It says here, "at current costs and prices…" The fact is, you might have a family home that is an older home but we have to look at, what will it cost to build that home in today's dollars and today's costs to build that, to get a reasonably equivalent home? That is by purchase or construction.

We are not going to force them to go and buy another pre-existing home. They do have the option to construct a home. That could be quite a sizable cost given the fact, number one; you have to buy a plot of land. We all know what building lots cost these days, especially in the Avalon. Building lots have skyrocketed in prices especially with the boom that is going on. The building lot is one thing. The second part is if they have to construct a reasonably equivalent home then that could be quite a significant fee.

At some point I am hoping the minister – it is probably the Minister of Finance or Natural Resources who can tell me: What was budgeted to take care of this entire process? There had to have been a budget estimate. I know it might be difficult, and the figure might be out there.

I am hoping they will tell me at some point: Look, we estimate that there are X number of family homes, X numbers of homes or land. Therefore, using certain factors, what will that cost be? How much is it going to cost in total? Hopefully, it comes in as less than that, but there has to be a budget to that. That will be interesting, because we are all here as ratepayers and people out in the Province or people watching, we are paying the cost of that. So it would be nice to know what that particular budget is.

I do not know if that forms part of the budget of the entire $8 billion-ish that this project is going to cost. I guess that is factored or –

AN HON. MEMBER: It would be under that.

MR. A. PARSONS: It would be under that particular budget.

My time has run out again, and I will return to this section when I have an opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Pollard): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chair.

I am going to continue on with the definitions, there are only a few pages of definitions. Of course, if we were to use the Expropriations Act instead of this new act, then we would already have a perfectly good piece of legislation, if we could have used it. We have used it for many, many years. We also have another act that deals with land required for utilities, but we are not going to do that. We are going to create a whole new act simply for this project, which I think is unnecessary and inappropriate.

If you look at the definition of land, Mr. Chair, a lot of people are going to think land, well that means you are going to look at the land. Land does not mean land in this act. It means land, and it means a whole lot of other things besides land.

"‘land' means real property of every kind, and includes tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances, leaseholds, and an estate, term, easement, statutory easement, right or interest in, to, over, under, or affecting land, including rights-of-way, and waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges".

All of that means land. When you read land in this act, this means water rights, it means water privileges, and it means leaseholds. Anything that is deemed to be land along these lines for the purpose of this act is going to be land.

When we get to a landowner, you would think that a landowner would mean a person or maybe a corporation. Well, for the purpose of this act or this bill – it will become an act after the government passes it. A "‘landowner' includes, a person" – that is pretty straightforward – "the Crown" – the Crown is a landowner – "or a department of the Crown, a Crown corporation or a Crown agent".

This Legislature is expected to pass Bill 60 to expropriate land from the Crown, or a Crown corporation or a Crown agent. That seems to me to be completely inconsistent with the Crown supremacy, the authority of the Crown. If the Crown is going to be sponsoring the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project, the Crown should not need to be affected by this. The Crown can simply sign off on it, sign off on the survey and it is done. Why would we even need to consider that?

The Natural Resources Minister a few hours ago was talking about applications for judicial review. I was listening to him intently because the last time him and I had a discussion over judicial review, I was cross-examining him on his affidavit in support of the application for judicial review of the moving of St. Anthony air ambulance. The Minister of Natural Resources and I are both acquainted with applications for judicial review.

A "‘minister' means the minister or ministers appointed under the Executive Council Act to administer this Act or a Part or Parts of this Act". A minister in this case only means a minister appointed for the act. It does not mean a regular minister. It means a minister "…appointed under the Executive Council Act to administer this Act or a Part or Parts of this Act". This looks like it is only the ministers who are necessary for Muskrat Falls that are going to be called ministers.

A "‘municipality' means a municipality as defined in the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000". We will get to that because this bill as proposed extinguishes certain municipality rights in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: It is really comforting to know that we have such talent in the House of Assembly, Mr. Chair. I have to stop and say the Member for Mount Pearl North is singing like a castrato. Of course, those of us who know, that used to be a very cruel practice in the Middle Ages when you would take small boys and just snip off a part of their body so their voice would never change. They would sing just like the Member for Mount Pearl who is singing to keep us awake tonight. Thank you, Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BENNETT: Thank you for singing castrato. Look it up.

"‘Muskrat Falls Project' means the Muskrat Falls Project as defined in the Energy Corporation Act".

Mr. Chair, I have to go back and reflect on that very terminology and that very act. Having lived out West, I came into contact with a term they call prairie oysters. We heard some time ago about when a certain other person who used to head up the government, after he was away and came back on an oil or energy conference from down in Houston, he telephoned back, and I think members realized that if they did not do what he wanted to do, the whole Chamber - at least the government caucus room - would be wall-to-wall prairie oysters, if they did not go along with what he wanted. They listened very dutifully and they did everything that he wanted. They are continuing to do it in the Muskrat Falls debate and in the Muskrat Falls Project.

Now, "‘Muskrat Falls Project' means the Muskrat Falls Project as defined in the Energy Corporation Act", and that appears to be relatively straightforward. Mr. Chair, I have already dealt with proponent. I do not need to go back to that.

A secured creditor, under sub (k), "means a person who has a security interest in the assets of another person or who acts for or on behalf of that person with respect to the security interest and includes a receiver or a receiver-manager appointed by a secured creditor or by a court on the application of a secured creditor, a trustee appointed under a trust deed relating to a security interest or another person performing a similar function."

That seems to be so all-encompassing – if they were to say, in this instance, anybody who has anything to do with anything that we want is caught by this definition. That smacks of wide-reaching legislation that is further reaching than is necessary for the purposes of the Muskrat Falls Project.

That is why I have referred to it as the dictators' midnight land grab. It is almost as if a corporation went into an underdeveloped country and said we are prepared to do this development, and we are an investor or investors, we want to put our money into it – and it is a hydroelectric development. If that proponent or that investor were to say: Well, we are really concerned about tying up the land that we need for the line.

The government would say, or the hydroelectric corporation – and it could be a place like, not here, maybe Belize or some place like that where we know there are hydroelectric developments. They would say: Well, what about the local people? The response would be: Do not worry about the local people, we will pass an act, we will clear up all the local people's interest, and they will be completely subservient. We will pay them off; we will do with them whatever we wanted.

That is pretty much what this Muskrat Falls Land Use and Expropriation Act does. This act seeks to absolutely crush any property interest that people may have in that 1,100-kilometre long line, that is sixty metres wide. It goes further than that, because it also includes land that you have to go on to get over that.

Mr. Chair, a "‘security interest' means an overriding royalty, a deemed trust" – does not need to be an actual trust – "or actual trust, assignment or encumbrance not resulting in a complete transfer of title and beneficial ownership, and an interest in property that secures payment or performance of an obligation created by or arising out of a debenture, mortgage, lien, judgment, pledge, charge and a retention of title, however or wherever arising, considered to arise or otherwise provided for and whether absolute, contingent, fixed, floating, perfected or not perfected".

Mr. Chair, lawyers routinely refer to a legal dictionary called Black's Law Dictionary; it has been around for maybe 100 years or more. This provides a whole range of definitions. It is an American publication, although it is widely used in Canada. This looks as if somebody did not know what do we want to call this, well we will get the definition from Black's and Black's definition includes everything that you could possibly think of. Just take this and just plug this in, and then that is it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am very happy once again to stand and to speak to Bill 60, Muskrat Falls Project Land Use and Expropriation Act. I would like to continue where I left off. Where I left off was I referring to the socioeconomic environment component study for Labrador-Island Transmission Link. It is their final report and it is from November 2010.

Once I started reading this report it struck me. It struck me like it had not before. The impact that the transmission line itself will have on our landscape. I know that we need power. We need power as a modern society, of course we need power. Do we need more power than what we have? We do not know because we have not exercised conservation at all. Conservation has not come into the mix whatsoever in terms of a real, comprehensive, conservation program that this government should have taken leadership in and should have considered as part of the mix.

I would like to say that our energy future is not fate. It is not fate, but it is choice. We have choices to make about how we will handle our energy needs presently and in the future. I fear that in fact this government has not seriously looked at a real comprehensive integrative design for addressing our power needs but has focused solely on Muskrat Falls.

Consequently, we will need these transmission lines, which involve big towers and lines going right through our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The decisions that are made about this project we will all bear the responsibility for. We all bear the responsibility for the effects of these decisions we make here and what we have made here over the last month.

I would like, again, to encourage anybody who is watching –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Chair, it is a little bit tough to speak while the Member for St. John's North and the Member for Gander there are singing at the top of their lungs, doing karaoke in this House, while we are considering some of these very, very important issues.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: These decisions about Muskrat Falls, and if this is the way this government is going to go in terms of addressing our future power and energy needs, do have very concrete effects. Muskrat Falls is not just the Churchill River and the falls in Labrador. The physical effect of doing this approach to dealing with our energy needs will affect the whole Province. It is not just about a water dam in Labrador. It is more than that.

Part of what I would like to talk about again is the transmission lines that will go right through Labrador and through Newfoundland, the Island portion. I would like people, once again, to use their imaginations to think of the landscape we all know so well, the beautiful landscape of this Province that belongs to us, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, imagine this with the huge transmission towers, with a swath of land sixty-metres wide.

I would like to continue as to where those transmission towers might cross. "Communities and/or drinking water supplies overlap with the proposed transmission corridor in each identified Study Region." – of this particular study that was done. "Many of these areas are rural. The corridor also crosses through regions where communities and populations are more heavily concentrated."

We are not talking about something that we are not going to see way out in the wilderness. We are talking about transmission lines that we are going to see. Towers that are carrying these heavy transmission lines, big towers, we are going to see them throughout the Province. These tend to be in Eastern Newfoundland and on the Avalon Peninsula.

"Portions of 22 communities and 17 drinking water supplies (and in most cases for the same communities) are crossed by the proposed transmission corridor." This corridor – it is not even just the towers. It is a whole corridor, and we all know what transmission corridors look like. This will be crossing portions of twenty-two communities just on the Island portion, twenty-two communities and seventeen drinking water supply areas.

"A number of Aboriginal groups reside in, and/or claim rights and/or title to areas within or adjacent to the transmission corridor in Central and Southeastern Labrador." Mr. Chair, I encourage people to imagine it, to picture it, because we are capable of doing that. We are capable of picturing the landscape as we know it and then to picture it with this additional.

"These groups include: Labrador Innu, Quebec Innu and Naskapi, Labrador Inuit (Nunatsiavut) and NunatuKavut (formally the Labrador Métis Nation). Specific land use" – and harvesting – "activities by the members of these groups are addressed in other studies prepared as part of the Project's EA."

"Transportation: In Central and Southeastern Labrador (Labrador Straits portion), on the Northern Peninsula" – the Great Northern Peninsula – "in Central and Eastern Newfoundland and on the Avalon Peninsula…" this is where we will see that transmission corridor. Mr. Chair, if we use our imaginations and picture it, it is big. Trans-Canada Highway, "…Route 1 and approximately 15 other highways and roads are crossed by the proposed transmission corridor."

I am just wondering, Mr. Chair, if the hon. members across the floor –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – if they might like to use their imaginations too, rather than singing. There will be lots of time for singing, but maybe they would like to use their talents and their arts in other ways and imagine what this transmission corridor might look like for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, which includes us here in this House.

We are going down the Trans Canada, "Route 1 and approximately 15 other highways and roads are crossed by the proposed transmission corridor. These include Route 510 in the Labrador Straits" – we want to imagine this – "Route 430 the main highway on the Northern Peninsula" – so we are going to see that on the main highway on the Northern Peninsula – "Route 432 which crosses the Northern Peninsula in an east-west direction; Route 420 Hampden; the TCH, Route 1; Route 370 Buchans" – Buchans will not be spared – "Route 360 Bay d'Espoir; Route 210 Goobies; Route 203 in Fairhaven; Route 201 Bellevue; Route 100 Argentia; Route 80 Blaketown; Route 81 Whitbourne; Route 90 Salmonier Line; Route 13 Witless Bay Line; and Route 63 Avondale." Very few are going to be spared.

Hunting and trapping, areas that many Newfoundlanders have enjoyed for generations, generations of people have enjoyed hunting and trapping areas. "The proposed transmission corridor crosses three moose and one black bear management area in Labrador." These are management areas. So imagine the construction of these sixty-metre wide corridors. They do not just happen overnight. They cannot be made somewhere in a factory and then just plopped down. They have to be constructed, and the land has to be cleared for them.

"The proposed transmission corridor crosses three moose and one black bear management area in Labrador. It crosses 22 moose/black bear management areas and 10 caribou management areas on the Island of Newfoundland." Again, Mr. Chair, when we look at that, that means the construction of that corridor in those particular areas and then those towers left there.

I will be happy to continue the description of the transmission corridor when I stand again.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank members opposite for that round of applause they gave me when I stood up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS: I appreciate that I have my colleague from the South Coast, the Member for Grand Bank, over there. He is hanging off every word I have been saying here tonight, I tell you. It is amazing. He is not even going to need Hansard when it is all over because he remembers every word I have to say here. I appreciate that attention because the things we are talking about is important. Let's not lose sight of that, Mr. Chair.

I reference the guests in the gallery from the arts community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: I will continue with my speech about the Family Homes Expropriation Act. What I would say is that we were talking about compensation payable. That was the last section we were talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to need protection, Mr. Chair; I really am.

We were talking about compensation payable. The fact is we are hoping that people are going to be treated fairly and equitably when they are in the process of losing their homes to this transmission line. That is what we are really hoping, that the government is going to treat them fairly. As it says here: to build "…a home reasonably equivalent to that which is being expropriated."

Going further, I mentioned earlier that you can get that home through construction or purchase. What it will do is it will come down to an arbitrator or assessor, in determining compensation, will consider whether that can be done by purchase or whether it is impracticable to do so considering the state of the market. What it says here is if "…a reasonably equivalent home cannot be acquired by purchase an amount of compensation shall be awarded sufficient for its construction instead of the current market value."

The next section is one I referenced earlier that I think is quite important. That is section 6 which deals with substandard or unfit houses. It says, "Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Act, where, under an urban renewal scheme, a family home is expropriated under an Act by or for the province or a body, corporation or authority, and an assessor or arbitrator referred to in section 5 is of the opinion that the family home so expropriated is (a) substandard by reason of its size, construction or deterioration; or (b) unfit, by ordinarily accepted property standards… no compensation shall be paid in respect of that expropriation except an amount in compensation to the owner as is referred to in subsection (3)."

Subsection (3) says there is another process; you go back to the Expropriation Act to deal with the compensation. I do not think there are going to be many cases where that happens - I really do not think that – but, in those cases, I am assuming it is the arbitrator or it is the Lieutenant-Governor in Council's choice, the minister is going to make sure that – they are going to exercise discretion is what I would say. They are going to exercise discretion to ensure that these acts are not interpreted in such a way and in such a rigid manner to hurt people.

The fact is that we are speaking to this piece of law on the basis that the people are going to be treated fairly. The fact is government is taking their land and they are taking the land to construct the transmission line for Muskrat Falls. If they are going to do that and if they are going to take people's land, then I think it is necessary that they treat people fairly.

The fact is there is not much left when it comes to the Family Homes Expropriation Act. We move on; there is an appeal process that can be looked at there. That appeal process is done through the Trial Division of the Supreme Court.

I will move off this and I am going to go back to a section that I mentioned earlier. How one thing that is normally done is being changed, and again it is being changed for the purpose of making sure that financing can be done more easily. That is the statutory easement.

The fact is that most of the transmission lines, Mr. Chair, are currently on easements which grant rights required for construction or allow other compatible uses; but, under current provincial law, easements cannot be mortgaged or leased which is required for project financing.

The fact is that the government requires the interest in this land. They need to have that land in order to go to the bank. The fact is that under our laws, as it is, easements cannot be mortgaged, so what are they going to do? Well, they are going to do what they have done in all aspects of this situation or this transaction: We are going to change the law to fit our needs, suit our needs.

What they have done is they are creating the statutory easement, but it is different from current or existing easements in that it is limited for project related uses but it can be used as security for the lenders. Again, I am hoping at some point – basically it sounds like to me that if we are using a piece of land as a security to the lender, then that would seem to me that we stand the risk of losing it if we default. Maybe the Member for St. Barbe can clarify that when he gets up, because I respect his opinion. Being a practising lawyer for a number of years, he has dealt with these situations.

If we have 1,100 kilometres of land that is being acquired for the purposes of security for lenders, then it would stand that we bear the risk of losing that security if we do not meet our obligations. So what we have said all along here is that whether you agree with the process or do not agree with the process, we all hope for the best. If we do not get that, it is going to be harm to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. None of us want to see that, obviously, Mr. Chair.

I continue on here now when we are talking about the statutory easements. We talk about the fact that we had to create a different aspect here to make sure these things accomplished what they set out to do. I am going to go back to the legislation, not the briefing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, if I could have some kind of protection from the heckling from the Member for Mount Pearl North, I would appreciate that. This is a serious matter and I treat it serious. If I could have some protection here, I would appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I do not know maybe I have to say order, order, if I could say that.

I continue on here now where we talk about the expropriation phase of this. There is quite a bit that falls under the expropriation section of this; there is the notice of expropriation. There is a section here that I found quite interesting. Let me see, here is where it is: vesting of title; where compensation agreed; effect of error.

What we have here, basically time is of the essence in this matter. That is why this is all being rushed through here. Government is going to need the ability to get that land no matter what. They have the new law laid out so that they can accomplish that.

What it says here, "Where a proponent and the person who in the opinion of the proponent is the apparent landowner have reached an agreement… but the proponent is of the opinion that title to the land cannot be conveniently or readily transferred by the apparent owner", then what they have allowed to happen here is they have allowed the expropriation to happen, and they will deal with the rest of it after. They are going to go ahead and allow that transfer of property, that vesting of title to happen, without figuring out the fine print or the details.

That hopefully is not of too great a concern if there has already been an agreement reached. I always worry about a situation where we are going to act now and figure it out later on. We saw quite well in this last month what happened when we took action and figured it out later, because that resulted for us having quite a substantial cleanup on our hands in the Grand Falls-Windsor area. That is a concern; I put that concern out there.

This whole thing is going to happen fairly quickly. We talk about the vesting of title. Once you serve that notice of expropriation, after ten days the title vests; boom, it is done very quickly. So, I mean, depending on when this law gets passed, whenever we choose to allow that to happen, then this process could, conceptually, start very quickly thereafter.

I notice that the clock is running down on me, Mr. Chair, and I hope to get up and speak to this again. I still have – let me see – fourteen pages left to go through here yet, and a number of other pieces of legislation that are attached to that. So I am going to get through it. I am going to delve into it and dig down through, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, once again for the opportunity to speak to Bill 60, the Muskrat Falls Project Land Use and Expropriation Act.

When I got up earlier, I talked a lot about the aspect of compensation and going to the subsea cables across the Strait of Belle Isle. There is also a significant transportation link for fishers, but also for the Strait of Belle Isle ferry going through that area, as well as an international shipping route that takes place through Eimskip, which goes to St. Anthony as part of St. Anthony Basin Resources Incorporated – and yes, after that it goes to Iceland, and from there into the Scandinavian countries.

So there are implications to what laying this cable may mean and the overall economic compensation. We look at – as my colleague for St. John's Centre had talked about – the transmission corridor and the number of routes that is going to be across the Trans-Canada Highway and other areas. As we get to the isthmus area, we see that there is very little of a buffer zone to put in the transmission corridor there and how. Officials had stated that there will be a number of homes impacted in that area.

Under the Expropriation Act, Part II, clause 12, section 9, it states, "Notwithstanding another provision of this Part, where the family home is to be expropriated for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project, the Family Homes Expropriation Act shall apply to that expropriation and compensation shall be determined in accordance with that Act."

With that, I guess those people in those areas would have a possible significant leverage. If this project is being built, developed, it is costing billions of dollars to put this corridor in and to get through. Once that investment is up, it has to move forward and it has to go. Those people may end up pursuing the courts for the maximum benefit and hiring lawyers to get that, because of the significance of having a family home in that situation. Those people may be in for a windfall based on this project, and so they should be if their family home is going to be taken out from under them. That is one area I wanted to look at.

Clause 27, I find this one very interesting. It says, Mr. Chair, "Where, before the compensation has been actually paid or before an award is made by the arbitration panel, a parcel or a part of a parcel of land taken for the purpose of this Act is found by a proponent to be unnecessary for the purpose for which it was expropriated or where it is found by a proponent that only a more limited estate or interest in the land or a part of it is required, the expropriation authority may, in response to a request from a proponent where that proponent meets the requirements of the expropriation protocol, by a written notice served or posted in the manner provided in section 16, declare that the land or the part of it referred to in the notice is not required and is abandoned by the person in whom the title vested under section 13 or 21 or that it is intended to retain only a limited estate or interest in the land or a part of it as is mentioned in the notice."

There could be situations where land is expropriated and people go through that process, and then find out: Oh, well, we do not really need this any more. The proponent say: We have taken, we have compensated, or we have not compensated. They have made other means, and now only a portion or none of it is going to be taken.

You could be placing a stress on people when you are looking at this type of development. There are going to be a lot of concerned people when you look at the socioeconomic impacts as to what this bill means, especially in Labrador and throughout many parts of the Island, especially rural communities.

Look at Muskrat Falls and surrounding that, it is one of the more heavily trapped areas. As we develop the project, there would be a habitat loss and it would have an impact to species. The Joint Review Panel had said that, as to what could be impacted.

Nalcor at the time had proposed a compensation program for trappers who can prove they have previously and continuously trapped in the area for at least ten years prior to the start of construction. Construction has started. Has the compensation program been there? How many people are being compensated? To have it so loosely say may compensate and they have to prove, somebody has to prove that they previously and continuously trapped. That is very broad terminology, Mr. Chair.

Should the legislation move forward, as you are looking at expropriation and whatnot and compensation in the bill, it should also be clearly written as to the environmental losses and the economical losses that people are going to go through as to how – that there are going to be assurances that they are going to be compensated for lost hunting and trapping activities.

As well, Mr. Chair, a number of these proposed areas are good areas for berry and growth. A lot of people use that for subsistence. There are a lot of berry pickers in my district and across the Province who do that.

MR. LANE: You can still pick berries there.

MR. MITCHELMORE: The Member for Mount Pearl South is saying you can certainly still pick berries.

Well, Nalcor stated they would issue public advisories in compliance with provincial regulations and post public notices along the corridor to inform berry pickers that there are herbicide applications. We hear that, and the Member for St. John's East had talked many times about getting rid of harmful herbicides and pesticides and things like that, those sprays that are going to be used.

During this corridor there is going to be herbicide sprays, there is going to be advisories put up, and there is going to be habitat impacted when it comes to subsistence living, when it comes to the berry and berry production there. That is something we are not seeing when it comes to looking at –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: -the overall impact and if compensation is going to be provided in any form there.

When they talked about that impact, just in the Muskrat Falls area Nalcor identified twelve cabins that the project would permanently affect out of twenty-two inventoried along the Churchill River. The cabins are subject to licence to occupy and would expire prior to the development, the reservoir creation, and can be terminated thirty days by notice of the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

Mr. Chair, I certainly would like clarification from the Minister of Environment and Conservation that his department – he has the ability to basically terminate that notice. The legislation says they may compensate or they may not, and getting fair market value and things like this. There needs to be clarity in this bill, as it seems like this project is moving forward no matter what. This is twelve cabins just around the river itself. It is not looking at all of the transmission levels.

There are temporary effects as well. The people of the Province need to be aware, those who have cabins, those who are users of where the corridor is going to be, that there are going to be increased noise levels and traffic during the construction period.

It is going to have a net impact on, and we have seen it, the moose populations. We are currently seeing drastic declines in moose success when it comes to the hunt in a number of districts, especially on the Great Northern Peninsula. With that, this is only going to adversely impact that as well.

If you cut a corridor through, you are going to have a change in migrating habits and patterns. That is a significant food supply for the people of the Province as well. If you are going to be putting herbicides and things like that, if people are not safe to eat those berries, what about all the animals? The people who are trapping hares, rabbits, who are going to be eating those things that are going to have chemicals in them, is that going to adversely impact people's health overall?

Mr. Chair, I have a number of things specifically to say to the bill and the forms of compensation and expropriation. My time is nearing expire, so I will allow some of my other colleagues to express their concerns.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is an honour to rise and speak to this bill that is up for debate. I look across the way, Mr. Chair, and I think that the restaurant is open tonight.

I would like to speak to the bill, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project. Mr. Chair, there is legislation in place already, and it has been implemented from time to time, but I think this new legislation requires acquisition of Crown and non-Crown land for the purpose of the transmission infrastructure.

Mr. Chair, the transmission line, the proposed route – and I think this is initial – will certainly look at the routing that was provided in the briefing. I know that there exists already a transmission line that runs from Churchill Falls to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. As you travel up that way, you can see which way that transmission line runs.

The proponents, Nalcor and Emera, I would venture to say, require throughout this routing, not so much as in the Labrador portion of the transmission line up as far as Forteau, Mr. Chair, but as it comes across the Straits to Newfoundland and as it comes down the Great Northern Peninsula is where Nalcor and Emera, Nalcor being a company of the Crown, where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council will need to acquire land.

The reason for this legislation, Mr. Chair, or I say this new legislation, is respect to the different types of interest in the land. Permission will be needed from the people who live in this area, whether it is private ownership of the land or use of the land.

My hon. colleague for The Straits – White Bay North talked about usages of the land that are non-relative to cabins or infrastructure, Mr. Chair. I would just like to talk a little bit about that. When the land that is going to be expropriated or taken through statutory easement leaves Upper Lake Melville, it tends to go southeast. It turns around the west end of the mountain range that runs along the south side of Lake Melville.

There is expropriation in place now, Mr. Chair, through a tripartite agreement. In looking at the proposed route, there is an ongoing discussion on the formation of a new national park that runs from west to east on the south side of Lake Melville, the Mealy Mountains. You are talking about a major portion of the transmission line that is going through land that is probably already in the process of being under one category, Mr. Chair, and I guess I could not tell you right now if it is expropriation or a statutory easement.

I heard the Minister of Natural resources over the last two days talking about examples of statutory easement and expropriation. He made reference to the Torngat Mountains National Park which was land – and I might add a beautiful part of our Province; I spent over thirty years going down there. This parcel of land is part of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement that was expropriated but for a different purpose. I think it was expropriated with the agreement of Canada, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Nunatsiavut Government, Mr. Chair.

This area is 400 miles north of Nain, so it is not an area that was frequented. Mr. Chair, there were conditions attached to the national park in the Torngat Mountains. The expropriation of this land for the purpose of which it is was intended was not an issue for all parties agreed. Certainly, to see how management of that national park, Canada's newest national park, Mr. Chair, has been worked on by the three governments of the Province, including Canada, this land was expropriated under the existing legislation and certainly there was no requirement to strike a committee or a group, whatever the group is representative of to do any confiscation.

I think there was just one land user in the area of the Seven Islands, which is probably some 800 miles north of Nain. The national park, as it exists now, Mr. Chair, if you took that area and you inserted it into an overlay on the Island portions of our Province, it would certainly take up the whole Northern Peninsula as well as a good portion of the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland.

You are looking at the magnitude of that expropriation issue, Mr. Chair, which is relatively small in terms of what land usage was going on there, for a huge chunk of our Province. Once you look at how that land was taken and reserved, Mr. Chair, all parties gave their approval: the Inuit of Labrador, the provincial government, the Nunatsiavut Government, and the Government of Canada.

There are ways in which the current legislation can work. I think once you take the proposal that is on the table now, Mr. Chair, and under discussion for a new national park, there are issues around it, because the Nunatsiavut Government does have Labrador Inuit land on the southern shore of Lake Melville that runs parallel with the Mealy Mountains.

My time is running short, Mr. Chair, but I would certainly like to come back and look at establishing boundaries, because the transmission line that is proposed certainly looks like it will be going through land that has already been expropriated as a proposal, and the questions around how do you expropriate land that has already been expropriated.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy once again to get up and speak to Bill 60 – we are still there – the Muskrat Falls Project Land Use and Expropriation Act.

Here we are at 3:00 o'clock in the morning and we are all settled in here for a little while. I would like for us to continue to imagine that sixty-metre wide transmission corridor coming down through Labrador and down through the Island, across the Great Northern Peninsula – by the way, did I say that my mother was from the Great Northern Peninsula? She was always so proud to say. I think I may have said that a few times this evening.

I would like to start off again, for us to imagine the footprint of that transmission corridor as it is built all throughout our Province, with large towers coming through the landscape and the skyline, affecting pretty much most of the area of the Province in terms of where it can be seen. They will be able to be seen for quite awhile going over our barrens, over our hills, over our fields, and over our waterways.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, is wondering yet again: Has absolutely every possible innovative solution to our energy generation been thoroughly investigated? Is this really the way it must be? That is the question. Perhaps it is, but it is not entirely clear to many of us because of the process in which this has been done.

The hunting and trapping areas, "The proposed transmission corridor…" – I ask members to just imagine these beautiful areas without the transmission corridors, and then once again imagine this land once those corridors are in fact built, constructed, and erected.

"The proposed transmission corridor crosses three moose and one black bear management area in Labrador. It crosses 22 moose/black bear management areas" – imagine the disruption in constructing these towers and clearing the sixty-metre wide corridor – "and 10 caribou management areas on the Island of Newfoundland." This is just on the Island of Newfoundland.

"The corridor overlaps with one small game management area in Labrador and four small game management areas on the Island of Newfoundland (all except for the Burin Management Area)."

It is going to affect all of our small game management areas except for one in the Province, and that is the one in Burin. So an incredible physical impact on our land, on the landscape, on the skyscape and on the animals that live in those areas. Once it is done it is done, there is no turning back. I am concerned that with this government at this point there is no turning back.

I would hope the hon. members would just take a moment to pause and reflect and to imagine what this might look like. We are talking about the future generations. This is what Muskrat Falls has all been – that we have talked about. About future prosperity and economic development, and those are all great things. Also, what kind of legacy we are going to leave our children. The footprint of this transmission corridor is part of the legacy that we are leaving our children. It is part of the legacy on the land, of this single-pronged approach to energy generation that is not in fact an Energy Plan.

"It also crosses six migratory game bird management zones…" These are all things that we feel make us as a people, as a people of Newfoundland and Labrador. These are all riches, all resources, also part of the natural resources of our Province that we are all proud of. We all know about hunting and trapping, of fishing. We know about that.

"It also crosses six migratory game bird management zones and one murre management zone. The corridor crosses nine fur zones in the province.

"Angling and Other Fishing: The proposed transmission corridor intersects with 17 scheduled salmon rivers in the various Study Regions." – seventeen salmon rivers.

We are talking, Mr. Chair, not even just about the corridor and the towers, but we are also talking about the construction and what that means in these very sensitive areas where these have to be constructed. That means roads being able to take heavy machinery, to be able to bring in these towers and to set up the corridor. This is also part of the legacy of Muskrat Falls. This is part of what is being created by this government right now.

"Of these salmon rivers, those on the Northern Peninsula have the highest…" measures of CPUEs. "Salmon angling success rates are also high in Central and Southeastern Labrador and in Central Newfoundland. Success rates are generally lower in Eastern Newfoundland and on the Avalon Peninsula." So, over seventeen scheduled salmon rivers in the various study regions.

I remember going to Labrador on a salmon fishing trip, Mr. Chair. What an exciting trip that was, to be able to fish for salmon in a beautiful river, in the Eagle River. It is all part of our natural resources. It is all part of our Province. It is all part of also what we leave our future generations.

"Hunting and Fishing Outfitters: Three existing outfitting camps are located in the proposed transmission corridor and these are all on the Northern Peninsula." Those are economic generators. They are economic businesses in the Northern Peninsula. Again, they are also part of our natural resource.

Muskrat Falls does not just stay up in the geographic area that it is, the ramifications of bringing that power down through the Province leaves a heavy footprint and a legacy that lasts for years. This is a technology that we will be paying for, for fifty years. It is not a new and innovative technology. This is an old technology. Perhaps it is the best one, we do not know, but it is not new and innovative. It is not technologically creative. It is not entirely green. It may not in fact be the least-cost option, because we have not absolutely, thoroughly looked at an integrative design applying to our energy and power needs.

"Motorized Recreational Vehicles: The proposed transmission corridor intersects with snowmobile trails in the Labrador Straits and in several parts of the Northern Peninsula including the Main River area."

We know the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is really looking at snowmobiling as another tourism economic generator for the Province. We know these towers do not just pop up and these corridors do not just appear, they have to be constructed. What are the ramifications of these being constructed? They do not happen overnight.

"It also crosses snowmobile trails, particularly the Newfoundland T'Railway, near populated areas (e.g., of Badger, Grand Falls-Windsor, Clarenville, the Isthmus and around Holyrood)…" So we will see those great big old towers and that great big corridor coming right down through all those areas. This pattern is similar for ATV trails. The corridor crosses the Strait of Belle Isle and lakes, ponds, and rivers where boating activity occurs on the Northern Peninsula, Central and Eastern Newfoundland, and on the Avalon Peninsula.

Mr. Chair, there are also cabin areas. We have heard some of my colleagues speak a little bit about the whole impact on some cabin areas and cabins. In fact, there may be more cottages and cabins involved than we may have spoken about earlier in the evening. Most of us I am sure, most of my colleagues in this House either have cabins or cottages or there is somebody in their family –

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Oh, look at that, Mr. Chair. I have run out of time again and I still have not finished how long that transmission line is. I look forward to getting up and talking about it some more.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: I recognize the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chair, I am going to continue with the bill, Bill 60, the Muskrat Falls Land Use and Expropriation Act.

Section 5 of the act says, "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project, this Act shall prevail over another Act of the province, and, in the case of an inconsistency between this Act and another Act of the province, this Act prevails." Mr. Chair, we are passing a bill which will become an act, and this will prevail over all other acts of this Province related to this subject matter.

Section 5.(2) says, "Section 56 of the Public Utilities Act shall not apply to the Muskrat Falls Project." For proper interpretation, Mr. Chair, it is necessary to say: What exactly does section 56 of the Public Utilities Act say? Well, section 56 of the Public Utilities Act deals with the erection of structures in municipalities.

Section 56.(1) says, "A public utility shall not, in a city, town or other incorporated municipality, erect or place a pole, wire, conduit or pipe or erect a building, substation, tower or other structure without first obtaining the consent of the council of the city, town or municipality, and the council may consent, or may refuse its consent, as it considers appropriate."

Section 56.(2) says, "Where the council refuses or neglects to grant a permit to erect or place the pole, wire, conduit or pipe or the building, substation, tower or other structure within 1 month after the application has been received by the mayor or clerk of the city, town or municipality, or agrees to give it only on terms which the public utility will not accept, either party may refer the matter to the board" – and the board is the Public Utilities Board – "and the board may make an order directing on what terms the work shall be undertaken."

Mr. Chair, what is happening here in section 5 of the act, Bill 60, which we have come to call the dictators' midnight land grab, is that the Public Utilities Act section 56 does not apply. So the same people who are going to be charging all the way across the Province, they can come rolling through your town, your community, your city. They can put up towers, poles, or substations. They can pretty much do whatever want – like a marauding band coming through, pretty much doing whatever they want.

The small communities down through Southern Labrador, the small communities through the Great Northern Peninsula, the small communities and even larger communities through Central Newfoundland, if this line is coming to your town, you have to keep in mind, Mr. Chair, this is from the same people who brought you Bill 29, the official secrets act, now bringing you the dictators' midnight land grab. This bill will eliminate the opportunity for your municipality, anybody's municipality, to apply to the Public Utilities Board for an order to determine how a structure can and should be placed in that municipality, or even if it shall be placed in that town or municipality.

For that matter, it could even be going across your waterline. It could be going through any of your land that you have deemed in your town plan. It really does not matter because the Muskrat Falls Project is so important that your municipal rights in your town will be totally trampled by the Muskrat Falls proponents who can then run off to their special board – because we have agreed to oust the Expropriations Act and the board that would ordinarily look after that, and set up a separate entire entity.

Now, Mr. Chair, when you go through the act it will be fair and reasonable for any of the members opposite to say: Well, what would you do? What do you think we should do? If you do not want these people to be running this sixty metre wide, 1,100 kilometre line up through these towns and villages, across private property, public property and anything that gets in their way, what would you do?

Mr. Chair, we already have, in this Province, the Public Utilities Acquisition of Lands Act. The Public Utilities Acquisition of Lands Act is Revised Statutes of Newfoundland and Labrador 1996, Chapter P-48 and it was amendment by this very government in 2004. So, presumably, in 2004 they must have known what they wanted to do.

A few simple amendments to the Public Utilities Acquisition of Lands Act would make this act quite adequate for the purposes that are necessary for the Muskrat Falls Project. The amendments to this act, I would say, should be under Definitions under subsection (vi), the Public Utility could simply be deemed to include Muskrat Falls; and under 2.(e) transmission lines could simply include Muskrat Falls. Two simple amendments to the Public Utilities Acquisition of Lands Act would be adequate and the Muskrat Falls Project then would proceed on the normal course like any other type of hydroelectric project, telephone line or any kind of a public utility.

Mr. Chair, we just finished the Definitions section. Part I of this bill refers to statutory easement. Easements generally come in two forms, but this is actually a statutory easement. An easement is obtained in a couple of different ways. If somebody continuously goes over your land for a period of twenty years of longer, common law, you are entitled to a right-of-way, also known as an easement, or you can acquire an easement by having an agreement with the individual.

That type of easement could be for an electric line, a gas line or a power line, but what we are going to create here is we are going to create – I will not say the biggest easement in North America because it may not be the biggest easement in North America, but we are going to create an easement, by law, in this Legislature, which is 1,100 kilometres long and sixty metres wide. It will be interesting to see if there is a bigger easement.

Even the Trans-Canada pipeline that runs down from Alberta to Ontario, clearly that would be maybe a few thousand kilometres long but it is not wholly contained within one Province. It runs from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.

When we were in the briefing session on this particular bill, I raised the question as to why do you not simply go to another jurisdiction and ask them: What did you do? What did you do in another Province? Did you need to take such a heavy, harsh draconian step as to grab up all of this land and impose this on these people?

The response I received was: Well, we could not do it in Alberta and Saskatchewan because their land system is different. Yes, Mr. Chair, the land system in Alberta and Saskatchewan is different than the rest of Canada. It is the land title system. Clearly, that would have some differences.

I do not see any reason why we could not have gone to British Columbia, British Columbia has lines; we could not have gone to Manitoba, Manitoba has lines. Why we could not have gone to Ontario and say: What did you do when you wanted to create something for, let's say Manitoba Hydro? What did you do when you wanted to create something for Ontario Hydro?

One of the big, big shortcomings of this government is that they assume they are the only people in the world. They assume nobody else has any expertise but for them. They run out and whenever they need to do something by law, instead of looking at somebody else's precedent, what worked in another jurisdiction, should we do it here? No, no, they assume they know better than anybody else so they create their own law.

We ran into a real problem with that with the expropriation of the Grand Falls mill. That expropriation, Mr. Chair, had this former Premier referred to as the Venezuelan near Dictator Chavez, who shows no regard for public and private property. Now I expect this is going to be a Chavez too, in the feminine gender.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, I hope that a lot of people do listen because the issue of property rights in this Province has already been raised in the financial capitals of the world. Is this a safe place to do business?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, I am so happy to stand and speak to Bill 60, Muskrat Falls Project Land Use and Expropriation Act.

I would like to continue to speak about the legacy of Muskrat Falls in terms of our land, our landscape and our skyscape, and also the impact on our future generations, because Muskrat Falls is not an entity just up in Labrador. It is not just what is happening up in the Churchill River. The implications of bringing that power through the Province and down across the Strait, and then down to Nova Scotia are quite significant.

I spoke a little bit from the Socioeconomic Environment Component Study for the Labrador-Island Transmission Link and their final report from November, 2010. I talked about where this transmission line, where the corridor – because we have to remember, it is not just the towers and the lines, but there is actually a sixty-metre wide corridor that travels right along with the transmission lines. Sixty metres is pretty wide. I talked about where this might cross, and we talked about moose and black bear management areas, bird management areas, seventeen scheduled salmon rivers. I have also talked about roads and twenty-two communities, portions of that, seventeen drinking water supply areas.

I would just like to continue on with where this corridor is going to intersect. Also, keep in mind, Mr. Chair, what is happening in other parts of the world. They are developing and using the new, the innovative, creative technology for power generation and for power transmission, and what is being recommended by some of the foremost experts in the world.

Last night I was able to quote quite a few things from Mr. Amory Lovins, a scientist, who is a world expert, who has won many international awards, who has consulted with several countries around the world about energy solutions and energy generation. Mr. Lovins is in his sixties and has taught at Harvard Kennedy School. He is not out there in the fringes. He has done work with the Pentagon. He has done work with several countries and several agencies, both as a consultant, as a designer, as somebody who helps assess what your power and energy needs are and how to come up with suitable solutions. He said the way to go is gas and ‘renewables'.

His latest work is how to get the US off oil dependency. He was talking about how China and Germany, in particular, are using solar energy. He said there are more workers in the solar industry in Germany than there are US steel workers. That is quite amazing.

He talks about how much money by private enterprise is being invested in the renewable energy sector. He said it is $151 billion – $151 billion of private investment, just in the past while, has gone into renewable energy, and that is in wind and solar. We are seeing there are a lot of private investment firms investing money in the area of renewable technology. We know the grids have gotten way smarter. Also, technologies have developed that improve the storing of energy, when you are using wind or when you are using solar.

His approach is not that there is just one form of energy generation, but that you use an integrated design where you look at where the best types of generation are for a specific need and for a specific geographical location. This is a smart use of technology. One of the things he said as well is that ‘renewables' are no longer a fringe activity and that Europe is shifting to ‘renewables'.

The other thing he said that I found quite interesting is companies that are hampered by old thinking will not be around. I cannot help but wonder, Mr. Chair, if focusing only on Muskrat Falls in fact is old thinking. I believe that it is old thinking. He is talking not just about solar and wind. He is talking about natural gas and biofuel. He said it is like reinventing fire and that our energy future is not fate but it is a choice. We are making some choices here. He says, to solve your energy problems, you have to enlarge them, and to think of a bigger picture and to focus on outcomes and not motives.

The other thing that he had spoken about was that putting up smaller distribution centres, local micro-grids, are much more secure. If you are relying on just one source of power and one source of transmission, if something goes wrong everything is gone. He said smaller are more manageable, are more secure, are more environmentally friendly.

Why, Mr. Chair, would we not want that? We are at the cusp where we have a choice to do something innovative and creative, where we are able to use smart technology and we are just stuck in old thinking. We have the chance to do it right. It is a shame, Mr. Chair. I can only think that it is a shame that we are squandering – that this government has decided to squander this opportunity because it is an opportunity. It is shutting its doors; it is shutting its windows on any kind of innovative technology.

I would like to once again look at where this huge corridor that is sixty metres wide, I would like to continue now the picture. If all of us can imagine that landscape that we are all so familiar with, the landscape of Newfoundland and Labrador and the skyscape that we are so familiar with. Let us imagine that. Now let us imagine that with the huge corridor and transmission lines cutting through it.

Where I left off was, "Cabins and Cottage Development Areas: The proposed transmission corridor overlaps with a portion of a total of 559,000 ha that have been designated as cottage planning areas." We know for sure at this point – and there may be more because this was 2010. By the time they get at it, it is going to be 2013-2014, so there may be more cottages that will be affected. "A total of 462 cottages and 146 remote cottages are located in the corridor" – in the corridor itself. We know how wide that corridor –

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MS ROGERS: You want to know how many? It is 462 cottages and 146 remote cottages. As I said earlier we all know, most of us own a cottage. If we do not ourselves own a cottage, our family members or our friends own a cottage. Most of us have spent some time at somebody's cottage. We know what it is like to get out of town, to spend time on the water, to be in that peaceful environment, but this is how many – that is 600 cottages that are affected. That is a lot of people. That is a lot of cottage area.

They are going to be right directly in the corridor. "Cottage and remote cottage development is most extensive on the Northern Peninsula" – I am sure my colleague here is concerned about that – "and in Central and Eastern Newfoundland. Cottages are much more common than remote cottages on the Avalon Peninsula where cottage development is most intensive."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to continuing the story and the saga of the transmission corridor.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: I recognize the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I am happy to rise to speak to the bill that has been tabled for debate, Mr. Chair, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project.

Mr. Chair, I have gone through a lot of this proposed legislation and I guess one of the benefits is having your colleagues as lawyers. It certainly sheds some light on some of the definitions, of the terminology. I am glad to have the opportunity or the ability to ask my colleagues about some of this legislation and very happy for it. Sometimes, Mr. Chair, I am sorry that I asked my colleagues.

I would just like to talk a little bit about the corridor. When you look at expropriation or statutory easement, Mr. Chair, I guess it is all subject to a property or an area that is in question. Mr. Chair, when I left off earlier tonight I was talking about the first X number of miles, once the power line leaves Lake Melville and travels down the southern portion of Labrador.

One of the first boundaries, aside from environmental impacts in the proposed land claims agreement with the Innu Nation and subsequently what has been tabled by NunatuKavut in their land claims footprint area, if and when it is accepted by the Crown, in which case it would follow through to being accepted by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – as many ministers across the way have made reference to, and that they are in fact waiting for the Government of Canada to recognize this land claims agreement.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, the next piece of discussion is going to be required by the entity that will be created by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is the organization that will be tasked with expropriating the land as the transmission line footprint area tends to unfold.

That area – and I touched briefly on it earlier tonight – is the proposed national park that is up for discussion with the Labrador Inuit and the Nunatsiavut Government. NunatuKavut have been consulted to some degree because they do have people who sit on the advisory committee for the proposed national park, as well as the Innu Nation, and other various groups – outfitter groups and tourism groups that are centred in Lake Melville.

I realized that the map that we received in the briefing is not the exact proposed route through the first stages of the transmission line as it extended down towards Forteau. I will get to that, hopefully, Mr. Chair, a little later on – I was going to say tonight, but I guess this morning.

So, you are talking about expropriating land that is already been expropriated, or proposed expropriation. I would just like to reference the act itself, Mr. Chair, where once this legislation is implemented, that this legislation will supersede any existing legislation and you will see the corridor go through the western end of the proposed Mealy Mountain Park. We have already had this discussion about the Southern Labrador Highway that just over the last few years has been made passable. I certainly would like to reference my colleague, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, who talks about what needs to be done to this road, Mr. Chair.

It will be another corridor that cuts through virgin land, through virgin territory, much of it has been traditionally a trapping ground. If you look at the proposed land claims or the agreement in principle with the Innu Nation and look at what has been tabled by the NunatuKavut group, you will see a lot of overlap and you will see a lot of reference to the Southern Labrador Highway as it cuts through both the land that has been proposed for acquisition by the Innu, in their land claims agreement, the New Dawn Agreement, and it also cuts through land that has been proposed as NunatuKavut lands, Mr. Chair, as well as the national park.

This is only in the first 500 kilometres of the overall 1,100-kilometre stretch that goes from Muskrat Falls down to the Avalon Peninsula. Certainly, the impacts of this proposed route, as it crosses the Straits and comes down the Northern Peninsula into Central and Southern Newfoundland, my colleagues on all sides are well aware of the impacts of cottage displacements, home displacements, and private land displacements that we will see. As we all know, the Island portion of our Province is very much more populated, although it being probably one-third the side of Labrador

I would like to carry on with this, Mr. Chair, if I do get the opportunity to rise again on this proposed legislation. The area that runs from Groswater Bay or Fish Cove Point on the southern shore or the eastern shore of Lake Melville up to Muskrat Falls. If you take the proposed map route we had in our briefing and you take the area of land that extends eastward, which constitute all of the communities in Southern Labrador, Mr. Chair, and you take that bulk of land that is being questioned and insert that on an overlay in Newfoundland, this very small section of Labrador, it is almost comparable to the size of Newfoundland, the Island portion of our Province.

We are talking about a very large area with very little direct impact on cabin usage, but it will impact three land claim proposals, one of which has already been legislated. This is certainly an issue I will also be talking about as it is outlined in the legislation. I look forward to talking about this further.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me and giving me the opportunity once again to speak to Bill 60.

I want to go back to the context of why we need this new legislation, for people who have joined us. The project lenders require certainty that the interest of lands for the project will be available to the proponents. We have clearly outlined there could be any number of proponents because there are several companies and stakeholders that are not even listed there from the clear definition of the legislation of what a proponent can be. All of this land has to be pledged as security for the availability based on the briefing. This goes to show how far this government is really willing to go to see Muskrat Falls pursued as a project.

It says: The bill is necessary in order to present the strongest case when financial markets are approached in early 2013 to meet the key requirements of financing process once it gets underway. It clearly depicts the financial vulnerabilities that this project has because there are many other integrated options.

When the department looked at all the alternatives, they looked at them isolated. They said we need large-scale wind, or let us look at natural gas in its form rather than looking at smaller options to meet the energy needs of the people of the Province. Looking at it, the fact that Muskrat Falls is geared up for 40 per cent of the power paid for by the ratepayers here. It is 325 megawatts of power; that is all that is needed to be displaced.

My colleague for St. John's Centre had talked about wind, had talked about biofuel, talked about natural gas in an integrated form that we can certainly meet our energy needs, and also conservation. This really, really shows how far government is willing to go when it comes to trying to finance this project, when it comes to making it go forward because there is very little.

When Nalcor filed its joint review, when they were looking at the Lower Churchill Project in total, they were saying that there is only going to be $1.1 billion in net benefits by 2050. As costs go up those net benefits are either going to not be materialized, and as costs increase they will not be there or they will have to be burdened at the ratepayer.

Just to highlight, Mr. Chair, that when you look at Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition the cost overruns happen basically nine-out-of-ten times in those projects that are listed. The actual costs, on average, are 28 per cent higher than what was estimated. These people had experts when they undergone their megaprojects. You are talking about things like the Chunnel, and you are talking about things like the oil sands. They certainly sought out experts as well, but the average was 28 per cent higher and we are only earmarking 12 per cent.

In many cases there was a significant gap between what is expected as a huge investment of resources to what actually was obtained from that project investment. It is a paradox sometimes of looking at doing a megaproject and what really are the long-term net benefits.

If you look at the jobs in the person years, they are going to be short term. There is going to be a significant amount of destruction looking at what a 1,100 corridor, sixty metres wide, is going to mean, and going to mean for people all across Labrador and the Island portion of the Province with that length of corridor, especially in my district on the Great Northern Peninsula, for The Straits – White Bay North, when it comes to cabin owners, when it comes to the fact that a cable goes right through and affects fishers in my district.

The actual stations are going to be there, going across the highway. It is going to make a big difference. Then, as my colleague for St. John's Centre had talked about, 600 cabins are currently in that direction of where they want to put this corridor.

When we were in the briefing, Mr. Chair, and I can look at this under clause 6.(1) which talks about statutory easement. It says, "The Crown, an agent of the Crown, a municipality or person may create, in favour of a holder for a purpose described in subsection (3), an easement without dominant tenement to be known as a statutory easement."

When we were in the briefing, we were talking about how the majority of this is looking at doing an easement so that it is not going to take over the entire property of the cabin owner or the homeowner that it is going to try and limit. It is going to really try and limit the impacts. Well, if you are going to do that and you are still putting up these huge towers, 1,100 kilometres along the way and impacting 600 cabin owners or more, what Nalcor is trying to do in this situation is pay the least amount to people who are going to have the most intrusions – if they are going to be building on an easement – in terms of what their compensation will be.

When they bought that land for the cabin they have and all of the land development they have done around it and how they have set up, they certainly did not set up their viewscapes to have on the back of their property these mega towers that are going up to run electricity. That was not in the plan, how that would impact value and investment. I really question how the arbitrary panel is going to be set up to actually give fair compensation in this form.

There are going to be so many intrusions when it comes to these cabin owners, homeowners and property owners of the Crown when it comes to looking at how this legislation is impacting them. I go back and I say absolutely about looking at the berries that have been listed in the environmental impact statement. There are so many people who use the land, and if they have been picking berries and they have that security – a lot of people set up rabbit snares around their cabins and in areas.

If these transmission cables are going to go through and there is going to be spraying of harmful chemicals and herbicides there on that land, animals are going to be there eating those berries, people could be eating the berries. There are going to be advisories. How many advisories are going to be put up so people who are walking these trails and using them are going to actually see that?

We look at clause 6.(7), "Notwithstanding another provision of this Part, the creation of a statutory easement does not impede or detrimentally affect the right of the public or of a person, in accordance with the laws of the province and in a manner that does not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the statutory easement holder, to do some or all of the following". It says some or all. It does not say it is guaranteed.

The section says, "(a) access lakes, ponds or rivers on land upon which a statutory easement has been created". These types of things may be limited when it comes to angling, fishing, and having access to recreation on these waterways. "(b) access for a recreational purpose, or for other personal use, land upon which a statutory easement has been created and enter on to, exit or use the land for that purpose."

Some people may lose access that they have enjoyed in this situation. It is saying that it is not going to impede, but it says to do some or all of the following. It is not a clear commitment that they can guarantee they are going to have access.

Again, I go back to looking at food sources. It does not say anything about access for subsistence when it comes to the hunting piece or when it comes to the impacts on animals and wildlife. We have the Minister of Environment and Conservation undergoing a moose management plan, yet we have harmful chemicals and herbicides that are going to be sprayed, and advisories are going to be put up that it is going to be harmful for consumption. That is going to have an impact. It is going to have a significant impact, allowing this to go through without looking at the overall socioeconomic benefits of what it is going to mean to these cabin owners and users of the land.

We have such pristine land and enjoyment here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are saying we are doing this project to displace Holyrood when there are other clean options to displace Holyrood that will not do as much environmental destruction as what putting an 1,100 kilometre transmission cable, damming up a river that is going to cause methylmercury and things like that, as well as cause so much harm and destruction to people who have enjoyed these areas and land we have. We have alternate means to meet our energy needs right now.

The next time I get up to speak I want to talk about some of the international agreements we are going to be looking at signing.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I last spoke I was discussing different types of easements. What we are dealing with here is a statutory easement, one which is created by this bill which presumably will be passed by the government majority some time soon.

One thing which is noteworthy, under section 6.(4) it says, "A statutory easement grants to the holder the right to construct, maintain, repair and operate, on the land subject to the statutory easement". What they are able to construct, maintain, repair and operate, are "…transmission lines and transmission assets relating to the Muskrat Falls Project or a part of it". Where it becomes even more oppressive, it goes on to say, "…as well as a right of reasonable access over adjoining land to the land subject to the statutory easement as may be required for those purposes."

Mr. Chair, what that means is that we will have a 1,100 kilometre long easement running from Muskrat Falls to Soldiers Pond, all the way down across Labrador, all the way down through Southern Labrador, underneath the Strait of Belle Isle. Going ashore at the Strait of Belle Isle and coming all the way down from behind Brig Bay, Castors River, Bartletts Harbour, Eddies Cove West, Port au Choix, Port Saunders, Hawkes Bay.

It will come behind Hawkes Bay, through all of the cottage country. There are probably fifty or sixty, or maybe 100 buildings in there that people use. None of these buildings will be able to be used if the easement is going through. Also, any rights that have been grabbed by this bill are not to be compensated at replacement cost. They will be compensated only at fair market value. That means the absolute lowest amount that could possibly be paid is the amount that will be paid.

It goes further. What is even worse is that in addition to having that right, the statutory easement holder has a right to go over any other land along the 1,100 kilometre long stretch on either side to gain access to the easement. It says, "…as well as a right of reasonable access over adjoining land to the land subject to the statutory easement as may be required for those purposes."

That means in addition to 1,100 kilometres long, any land that is adjoining. If this company, or these companies need access to their easement – the easement is designed to only give access – if they need to drive across your property which is adjoining this property, they also have the right to go over this.

You have to consider that the land that is going to be spoiled by this is far more than the 1,100 kilometre long, sixty-metre wide strip. It could well be that they have to drive across or have their equipment go across, maybe their J5s, their Muskegs or their Bobcats, or any other piece of construction equipment that they need to get to the line they have been given the statutory easement over. If they have to go across your front lawn to get there, they can go across your front lawn.

We will come to a section in a little while which says you have no right to resort to the courts. This is a very heavy-handed piece of legislation. It is giving them the maximum property rights for the minimum compensation to the individuals who are affected, and the greatest access possible that they can get.

We have already seen, when I spoke earlier, is that this act, in the event there is – it says, "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, for the purpose of Muskrat Falls Project, this Act shall prevail over another Act of the province, and, in the case of an inconsistency between this Act and another Act of the province, this Act prevails."

It does not matter what other act we have in the Province, if there is an inconsistency, if the proponent needs to get to the land that they have been given the statutory easement over, it does not matter what any other act of the Province says they are able to apply this act over any other act. Furthermore, the Crown is bound by this act. In section 4, "This Act binds the Crown."

If we continue on, under section 6.(7) it says, "Notwithstanding" – or it could also say in spite of – "another provision of the Part, the creation of a statutory easement does not impede or detrimentally affect the right of the public or of a person, in accordance with the laws of the province and in a manner that does not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the statutory easement holder, to do some or all of the following".

Even though it says it does not affect the rights of a person to their land, it goes on to say as long as it does not interfere with the use or enjoyment of the Muskrat Falls corporations. That means it is giving with one hand and taking away with another. If you have been in a habit of using your land – it could be a vegetable patch, it could be a boathouse, it could be a wharf, it could be a driveway, or it could be a road on your property – you can continue to use that as long as it does not interfere with their use of the land they have taken.

It includes some or all of the following, "(a) access lakes, ponds or rivers on land upon which a statutory easement has been created; and (b) access for a recreational purpose, or for other personal use, land upon which a statutory easement has been created and enter on to, exit or use the land for that purpose."

Mr. Chair, this act really is full of doublespeak. It is doubletalk. You would not expect it in a bill in a progressive democracy. You would not expect it in a democracy that respects property rights of individuals. We know that in Canada we have no constitutionally entrenched property rights in this nation, unlike some other nations. We have certain Charter rights, but we have no property rights in Canada whatsoever. The drafters of this legislation seem to know the people who are being detrimentally affected by this act will have no recourse.

This is being railroaded, 1,100 kilometres long, all they way up from Muskrat Falls, down through Labrador, across the Strait of Belle Isle, all up through the Northern Peninsula, across Central Newfoundland, all through the Eastern part, and it runs right by Clarenville. I have a copy of the tentative surveys. There is half of a book full of surveys that has been provided to us. Then it comes on to the Avalon Peninsula, runs up through the Avalon Peninsula until it gets to Soldiers Pond.

It goes on to say, "Notwithstanding the Provincial Parks Act and the regulations under that Act, a statutory easement may be granted over land proclaimed to be part of the Newfoundland and Labrador T'Railway Provincial Park," – it gobbles up the T'Railway Provincial Park so they can use that – "but where a statutory easement is granted, the Newfoundland and Labrador T'Railway shall be considered to be an approved use under section 54."

This statutory easement "…may be transferred, leased, have a security interest created…". A security interest means a lien. A security interest means that a lender or other party can have the statutory easement holder sign a document and say to a bank, trust company or the investor, that we will give you a lien or a mortgage in this statutory easement.

"A statutory easement created under this Part may be transferred, leased, have a security interest created or granted with respect to it or be otherwise dealt with by a holder and the rights to the land under a statutory easement may be assigned to another holder for a term and in a manner which leaves the assignor with a reversionary interest in those rights."

Now, Mr. Chair, what that means is they can assign whatever part they want, and any part that they have not assigned reverts to them. This can revert to them. At the time when this statute comes to an end – and this is set up to come to an end, and I will get to that section when I speak again – but this will run until 2075, the next sixty-three years.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no further comments at this point.

CHAIR: I recognize the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Chair, I am happy to rise again to speak to Bill 60, Muskrat Falls Project Land Use and Expropriation Act.

Mr. Chair, I would like to continue where I left off; however, it is actually heartbreaking as we try to visualize that great big corridor, that sixty-metre wide corridor coming right down through our Province, right down through Labrador, right down through the Island portion. It is heartbreaking. The reason it is heartbreaking is not because it is a legacy of progress, not because it is a legacy of economic prosperity, but because it is a legacy of old thinking. It is a legacy of uncreative, non-innovative approaches to our energy problems.

When I left off, I was talking about the number of cabins and cottages that are going to be affected by this corridor.

We have not been hearing from our colleagues across the floor, the Official Opposition. We, here in the Third Party, have been speaking for a number of hours now and we have not been hearing anything at all across the floor from the Opposition in response to anything that we are raising or some of their concerns; yet, they talk about being the new energy. I am kind of thinking that the new energy is over here on this side of the floor.

I have a question, Mr. Chair. We all know what it is like to have a cottage or a cabin, or somebody in our family having one, and we know how important those spaces are. Before I continue on describing and asking everybody to imagine that great big corridor coming right down across the Province, I cannot help but think when the initial mandate was given to Ed Martin and the folks at Nalcor did they truly look, did they truly look at alternatives.

I am not talking about out there on the fringe alternatives. That is not what I am talking about at all. I am talking about alternatives that governments all over the world are taking very seriously and designing programs to facilitate in their own countries, whether it is China or Germany, in Europe or in India. We are not talking about fringe activities. We are talking about solid, science-based innovative, integrated designed systems of providing power and energy to people and to commercial and industrial customers.

We are talking about something that is real; we are talking about something that is viable. We are not talking about something that is on the fringes. We are not talking about something that is way in the future. We are talking about technology that is available now. That is available and that works. That is proven, that is effective, that is available now, and that is being used by smart governments, by smart countries, who have proven that it is effective.

I would just like to point out that I have been pointing out what is happening in Germany and I have been pointing out what is happening in China – and I know that some of my colleagues have pointed out some of the innovative technologies that are being used in some pockets in the Province, and that there is room for a lot more of it. The ones that are being used in some pockets in the Province also are very effective.

I would like to talk a little bit about what is happening in Ontario now, not so far away from us. A lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are living in Ontario now too. So, many of our colleagues I am sure have relatives who live in Ontario. They could even call them up or e-mail them and ask them: Have you heard of this program; how does it seem to be working?

Let me tell you a little bit about Ontario, what they are doing. Ontario has a rooftop solar installation program and it is bringing more clean electricity on line while creating good jobs for families. That is what we have been talking about here. We have been talking about not only power generation but whether or not it is going to create jobs. We know that Muskrat Falls will create some jobs, but is it the best way to create jobs?

The other thing is the cost of doing Muskrat Falls is pretty big. We know it has been up to $7.2 billion but that does not include the interest in the construction phase, which may be another $1 billion. It did not really leave very much for cost overruns, and we know the cost overruns are going to be pretty hefty. That is what is happening in hydro dam projects all over the world. The cost overruns are significant – absolutely significant. Who knows what we are talking about here? It could be $9 billion, $10 billion, or more – who knows?

AN HON. MEMBER: It could be less.

MS ROGERS: It could be less, probably not – if we were lucky, but probably not.

In Ontario now, the Ontario government is working hand in hand with Jamieson Laboratories. It is a manufacturing plant in Windsor and they are one of the largest rooftop solar projects to come on line since Ontario's Feed-in Tariff program was introduced. Now, we do not have a feed-in tariff program, and a lot of countries do. It is a shame that we do not – it is really, really a shame that we do not.

They have a project that is going to be completed and will have a total of 4,500 solar panels. Once completed, this particular little project – because this is only a little one – will generate 1.3 megawatts of clean electricity, which is enough to power 120 homes each year. That is significant. That could be a small community. I have a place in Perry's Cove and there are not that many houses there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS ROGERS: Well, there you go. They could all be powered this way. It is very clean. It is very efficient. It is very affordable. It could work. This could work for your subdivisions. During its peak construction period, this project is expected to create seventy jobs. That seventy jobs around the creation of these panels and the installation of these panels is a good thing.

The other thing is that growing the clean energy sector is really important to Ontario, as it is to Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to be able to grow our clean energy sector, but I am not so sure that Muskrat Falls is the best way to go. Maybe it is, but I am not so sure. I wish we could have more certainty about it.

Do you know Ontario is home to the largest solar projects in the country? I did not know that. It is the home to the largest solar projects in the country and it is the leading solar energy producer in Canada. Would you have known? I would not have known, Mr. Chair. I did not know that Ontario in fact is the leading solar energy producer in Canada.

Already Ontario has about 500 megawatts of solar PV capacity on line. It is almost as much as Muskrat Falls. It has about 500. It has more than 1,600 megawatts – that is over double of what Muskrat Falls – of additional solar PV capacity under contract. This is expected to produce enough electricity to power over 250,000 homes.

We do not have that many houses. In Newfoundland and Labrador we do not have that many houses. Yet, Ontario, with its solar panel energy, they will have the capacity to provide enough electricity to power over 250,000 homes. That is amazing, and you know what? What they are doing does not require a great big 1,100 kilometres, sixty-metre wide transmission corridor. It does not require it at all. That is 2,100 megawatts of power. That is amazing.

Mr. Chair, it is great to be able to bring up these examples and to think this too could happen in Newfoundland and Labrador. If we changed our thinking, if we stopped our addiction to old ways of thinking and to old technologies, this too could be Newfoundland and Labrador. What is stopping us? What is stopping us from being dragged into the twenty-first century? What is it? Why can we not also be part of this technological revolution? It is there for the taking and we too can be there.

I see my time is up there, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Pollard): Order, please!

MS ROGERS: I look forward to speaking again.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(Inaudible) and it is a great morning in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. While I have had many opportunities in recent days to speak to Bill 61, I have not actually had an opportunity to speak to Bill 60 during Committee of the Whole. I thought this would be an ideal opportunity to rise and have a few words. To be honest, Mr. Chair, at 4:09 a.m. I did not have a lot of other things to be doing.

On a more serious note, I also wanted to rise to let the Member for St. John's Centre know - and the other members opposite - that we are listening. We have a good crew of government MHAs – well beyond the minimum number required to keep things going here in the House – who are alert, who are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed; particularly in the case of the Member for Cape St. Francis who is especially bushy-tailed, I would say, said the Chair.

We are listening. We are here listening and participating in this debate because we too on this side of the House feel these are important issues. This is a critical time in our Province, and there are incredible opportunities ahead of us as a Province.

We too on this side of the House believe in clean, green, renewable energy. We are excited about the Muskrat Falls Project, and we genuinely believe that this is the right thing to do for our future, to meet our energy needs and to grow Newfoundland and Labrador – and they can shake their heads. I respect the members opposite and their right to disagree.

AN HON. MEMBER: We never said a thing when they were speaking (inaudible).

MR. KENT: You are right. I am being reminded by one of my colleagues that we were not heckling the members opposite, but that is okay. It is okay. I am a big boy – bigger than I would like to be, actually, Mr. Chair, I can say.

This is something we really believe in. I respect the fact that members opposite are so committed to expressing their views and participating in this debate in a meaningful, genuine way that they are prepared to stay up through the night, night after night, to make their views known. I think that is respectable –

AN HON. MEMBER: It is admirable.

MR. KENT: – and admirable even. It is an important part of the democratic process.

While a handful of naysayers, a handful of – they are beyond sceptics, I would call them cynics. The folks who declare there is some kind of democratic deficit in this Province. I think they have their heads in the sand, Mr. Chair, because here we are in the middle of the night, after several nights, making sure there is no stone left unturned, making sure that we have a full and open discussion on these important pieces of legislation. This is what democracy is all about. Again, I sincerely commend the members opposite for their active participation in this debate.

The Member for St. John's Centre implied that perhaps we are not listening or we are not participating. I can assure you, Mr. Chair, and I can assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that nothing could be further from the truth. We are here because we believe in what we are doing. We believe in building a better and brighter future for our children and our grandchildren.

We believe Muskrat Falls is the right project to meet our energy needs, and not just in the short term. We do have a need in the short term. By 2017 we have a need for more power in this Province but we believe in the long term for future generations, this is the right project.

Beyond the fact that this is clean, green energy and it is renewable energy, there are incredible economic and employment benefits that I have not heard members opposite talking about. I do acknowledge there are other ways to generate electricity and some of those ways are being explored right here in Newfoundland and Labrador by the Department of Natural Resources, by Nalcor Energy, and by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We are committed to continuing to explore new technologies.

I know the Member for St. John's Centre did acknowledge that we are in fact exploring some of those technologies. I respect the fact that they feel we should be doing more of that. We have consulted the best expertise available to us to assess all of those options.

I have not heard them talk much about the economic benefits of the project we are proposing. I may have to rise a few more times between now and noon to discuss some of those benefits. Did you know we are going to see $1.9 billion in income to labour and business?

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. KENT: It is $1.9 billion in income to labour and business in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: That is significant, Mr. Chair. We are going to see –

MR. LANE: (Inaudible).

MR. KENT: The Member for Mount Pearl South is inquiring about the role unions will play. I can tell you this is a government that certainly has a deep respect for all workers in the Province, including unionized workers. I think our track record in that regard speaks for itself. Would you agree?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. KENT: There is great benefit for workers, particularly unionized workers, I would say, Mr. Chair. In fact, this project will generate 3,100 direct jobs, Mr. Chair, at peak employment; 1,500 direct jobs per year on average during construction across more than seventy different occupations. The first choice, the Aboriginal people and other people in Labrador are going to have the first opportunity to gain employment through this development.

We are going to see $320 million in average income benefits per year as a result of Muskrat Falls, $320 million in average income benefits per year; $290 million in tax revenue to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. All of the programs that members opposite demand cost money, Mr. Chair, and we are cognizant of that. We respect that there are great needs in this Province that need to be addressed.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. KENT: The Member for St. John's East is heckling. In a couple of minutes you will have an opportunity to rise and ask all kinds of questions. I hope ten minutes after that I will have an opportunity to rise and answer some of those questions, I say, Mr. Chair.

It is 9,100 person years of direct employment as a result of this project, including, Mr. Chair, 5,800 person years of employment directly in Labrador; $500 million in income to Labradorians and Labrador businesses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: I know there are several members on this side of the House who recognize the great potential that exists for the people of Labrador.

This project will lead to major infrastructure improvements as well. I acknowledge that members opposite have talked about the impact of a transmission line, and it is significant. I understand the point they are trying to make but I think we should also look at the infrastructure improvements that we are going to see, particularly, for example, in the Lake Melville area. I know my colleague from Lake Melville is quite passionate about the opportunities this project will bring for the region that he represents. They are going to see upgrades to their port, the airport, to roads, to broadband, Mr. Chair.

I know there is a member opposite who is rather passionate about bringing broadband to more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that is a noble cause. It is something that is needed and it is something that this government has been investing in since 2003. Those are just a few economic and employment benefits that we will see as a result of Muskrat Falls.

I want to assure members opposite once again that we are here because we care. We are here because we are listening. We are here because we are genuinely interested in hearing all sides of this story. Again, I commend those who are taking the time to participate, to do their research, to express their views and to ensure that we have a full and open and informed debate. I say to the people's Assembly and the others who may not appreciate the incredible power of what we are doing here: This is democracy in action, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly a pleasure again to rise and have comments on the bill that is on the table, Mr. Chair, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project. Mr. Chair, the last time that I spoke, I made reference to I guess you could say the land mass in relation to the transmission line as it leaves Muskrat Falls and comes down the Southern Labrador coast.

If you could take that area, Mr. Chair, from the proposed route of the grid and extending out to the Atlantic on the Southern Coast of Labrador. If you take that parcel of land and you laid it on the Island portion of our Province, the only thing that would probably be left would be a part of the Northern Peninsula. We are talking about a huge land mass when you reference it to the Island portion of our Province, but a very small land mass when you look at the size of Labrador, Mr. Chair.

The reason I would like to make reference to that land mass is to go back in history, Mr. Chair, to employment, say, prior to the construction of Goose Bay, if I may. A lot of the employment there was self-employment, Mr. Chair; everyone was, to some degree, a businessperson. The only thing is that they were beholding to merchants or entities like the Hudson Bay Company.

The relevance here, Mr. Chair, is that when you are looking at disruption of a land mass in this particular area, this is historical caribou range. Actually I think it will impact – I heard my hon. colleague talking about caribou herds on the Island. I think this proposed route will impact three caribou herds in Labrador.

One is the Red Wine caribou herd and the other one is the Mealy Mountain herd. This caribou herd is called the Mealy Mountain herd, but it does not stay on the Mealy Mountains. This herd has gone as far south as Sandwich Bay, in the Cartwright area, Mr. Chair. It is quite a range of migration even though it is not a barren-ground caribou. It is a woodland caribou herd, Mr. Chair. You are talking about a caribou herd that is protected.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, all three herds are protected: the Red Wine caribou herd, the Mealy Mountain herd, and just to the west of the proposed route is the Lac Joseph caribou herd. It is the intent, and I am sure the Minister of Environment and Conservation would agree with me, that all three herds are protected. The focus of his department, Mr. Chair, is to ensure this herd is sustained.

We look at the amount of resources we put into conservation, Mr. Chair, and I think it is a very worthy cause. Just to reference the George River herd that once numbered close to 800,000 animals a very short time ago, it has now fallen to a very dangerous 22,000 caribou. We do not know what the impacts are.

The one thing that is there now that was not there fifty years ago, if you may, is the fact that on every corner of that migration route is a megaproject. Mr. Chair, in the west we have the iron ore companies. To the north we have the James Bay hydro development project. To the east we have several mines and some up and coming. To the south at one point we had a major low-level flying route. Now we have a project that is in place generating hydroelectric power.

On that same river now, Mr. Chair, we are proposing another hydro development project, which would mean the extreme southwest corner of the migration route. There are impacts that could be a potential reason for decline of this herd. Now, Mr. Chair, we are looking at another proposed route that will impact two or three more herds that are already very, very low in numbers.

I understand that the reason for this legislation is to pave the way for the transmission corridor. Yet, at the same time, we have another entity of the government across, Mr. Chair, which are doing as much as they can to ensure conservation to our wildlife. It is a bit ironic when you have a bill that is on the table, Mr. Chair, which will supersede all other legislation and allow for further impacts.

I guess I am speaking as an Aboriginal person, Mr. Chair, as a caribou harvester. It does bother me when you see megaprojects that have the potential to impact the resources that people harvest for subsistence. When you see resources such as the caribou herds that I just referenced, Mr. Chair, that are already in decline with no established point of recovery, now are subject to yet another megaproject. It is a little bit confusing to me to see the resources put into trying to save our wildlife resources.

Mr. Chair, we have resources in two departments. We have resources in Environment and Conservation and we also have resources in Justice that have the task of intervening in the wildlife populations when they reach a level that is causing concern.

Across the north when you look at the negotiation of a land claims agreement, which is the ability of Aboriginal people to look after their resources and to manage their resources, ironically it takes a megaproject to allow that to happen. I realize that the Aboriginal group in Southern Labrador, NunatuKavut, have their land claims proposal tabled, and I guess it has been tabled for quite some time.

I just have a few seconds left, but in closing – and I would like to visit this again – the Labrador Inuit, of which I am a part of, Mr. Chair, tabled their proposal. It was on the table for thirty-five years before it came to an agreement in principle. The Innu Nation with their New Dawn Agreement is in agreement in principle. Mr. Chair, they were very, very fast. It only took them twenty-nine years.

Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I would like to come back and revisit this at the next opportunity, and certainly look forward to it.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure for me at 4:28 in the morning to have an opportunity to say a few words. Mr. Chair, I was not planning on speaking at this time but my colleague here, the Member for Mount Pearl North, gave such an inspiring speech, I thought that I would have a few words to say myself, and I look forward to doing so.

Mr. Chair, I want to make a few comments as it relates to some of the commentary I have heard from the Third Party, the Member for The Straits – White Bay North, I believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Ambassador to Iceland.

MR. LANE: There you go, the Ambassador to Iceland.

Mr. Chair, the first thing I want to say is I have heard a number of, I guess, suggestions from the hon. member. As my colleague said, there is nothing wrong with people having suggestions of alternatives and so on, we certainly embrace that, but when I listen to those things I have to ask myself: Is the Member for The Straits – White Bay North the only person who might have these ideas? I wonder, would the experts at Nalcor have thought of any of these things? Would they have looked at any of these things? Then I reflect on the reports we have seen.

Mr. Chair, as I have said in the past in speaking with Mr. Martin, with Nalcor and so on, when they were looking at developing a project for Newfoundland and Labrador, they looked at a number of options. They made up a list, if you will, of possibilities, of ways that we could produce the power we needed. Of course, Mr. Chair, they looked at the Isolated Island Option. In terms of the Isolated Island Option, that included a small hydro, it included small wind as well. They looked at Muskrat Falls. They looked at LNG natural gas. They looked at wind.

Mr. Chair, there was a bunch of other things that were contemplated because I actually asked in a briefing about all of these things. I said: Did you look at things like solar? Did you look at things like wind? Did you look at things like tidal energy? We are out in the middle of the ocean and so on, these are things. They acknowledged there are other forms of energy out there that are being explored and so on.

These are things they have looked at and will continue to look at as time goes by to try to supplement our energy plans. In the meantime, based on the best information they have and the proven technology, Mr. Chair, and based on the fact that we need the power and we do not have twenty years to wait, it was determined they would recommend Muskrat Falls as the best option for Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. O'BRIEN: I say if you fell in the ocean there would be some tidal wave (inaudible).

MR. LANE: I thank the hon. Member for Gander and Minister of Municipal Affairs to be here encouraging me as I take this opportunity to speak, Mr. Chair. He has been quite the mentor. I have to say, he has been quite the mentor and quite the source of inspiration for me. It is great to have him with me here and being so attentive and listening and hanging on every word I have to say.

Mr. Chair, as I said, the experts at Nalcor, they looked at all of these options. Now, quite frankly, I have to be honest with you, I never asked the question to Mr. Martin: Did you look at wood pellets? I never asked that question. I am not quite sure if they had their minds around wood pellets as an option for us, for the Island and to provide energy to all the mines in Labrador, if wood pellets would work.

I also never asked him about shrimp shells. I have to be honest with you; I never asked him about shrimp shells either. The member opposite had talked about the option of burning shrimp shells. I am not quite sure, Mr. Chair, if they looked at those options but certainly they looked at all the others.

Now, Mr. Chair, I would suggest to you that the folks at Nalcor are experts in the industry, as well as the expertise they looked at to verify the projects; whether that be the folks at Navigant, whether it be the folks at Manitoba Hydro, Ziff Energy and so on. There were a number of companies that were involved, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk about the expert that has been put out there by the Third Party. On a number of occasions the Leader of the Third Party kept referencing this gentleman by the name of Tom Adams, of Tom Adams Energy. That is who they have touted as their expert to try to refute some of the things that have been said.

Just to solidify the fact that I did not dream the Leader of the Third Party was touting Mr. Tom Adams, I do have a Tweet, because I do follow social media, as some of you may know, every now and then. I am not really into Twitter that much, but I sort of know how to use it. I happened to have a look there – the Member for Terra Nova showed me how to use it. I was looking at his, actually.

Anyway, I had a look. There is a Twitter account and it is called Newfoundland and Labrador, @NLNDPCaucus, and on it says there was a Tweet from yesterday that said, "Now In the House @lorrainemichael talking about Tom Adams, Gordon Weil, other experts…" –

MR. MITCHELMORE: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North, on a point of order.

MR. MITCHELMORE: It is my understanding, Mr. Chair, that we are not permitted to use personal names in the House. The Member for Mount Pearl North mentioned the name of the Leader, so I ask that he withdraw those comments, please.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am not actually pointing out anyone who is here, Mr. Chair. I am simply reading what is here. I am quoting word for word what is on the Newfoundland and Labrador NDP Caucus Twitter account. I believe I am permitted to do that. It says, "…@lorrainemichael talking about Tom Adams, Gordon –

MR. MITCHELMORE: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for The Straits – White Bay North, on a point of order.

MR. MITCHELMORE: The Member for Mount Pearl South continues to state the name of a member who is here as a member in the House, and is not permitted to use personal names. I ask that he withdraw those comments. That is twice he has made those and he should do so.

MR. LANE: I will withdraw that, Mr. Chair, just to satisfy the member there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LANE: Let me put it this way, just to keep the member opposite happy: @NLNDPCaucus Now in the House –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LANE: – @Leader of the Third Party – and we know who that is – talking about Tom Adams, Gordon Weil, other experts government has dismissed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whale (inaudible).

MR. LANE: Mr. Chair, it is very difficult to keep your composure here sometimes. We have been here a long time, pretty tired I have to admit.

AN HON. MEMBER: The whales must keep turning.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LANE: Yes, but the whales must keep turning as the hon. member just said.

Who is this Tom Adams, Mr. Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a very angry man.

MR. LANE: He is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LANE: I am running out of time, Mr. Chair, so I intend to get up again to talk about some of his quotes. In the meantime, Tom Adams – here is his bio very quickly. He calls himself, "I'm a consumer and environmental consultant specializing in electricity policy and regulation. I tweet about Canada's energy future."

This is a guy who calls himself an expert as the Leader of the Third Party has touted him to be. He has his account and when I get up again I am going to talk about some of his tweets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 60 which is basically allowing expropriation for the 1,100-kilometre transmission link.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: I want to go back to comments made earlier by the Member for Humber West. The Member for Humber West stated: Are you going to enjoy the long snowmobile trail that we are going to have by doing this 1,100-kilometre route?

I say to the Member for Humber West: We have a groomed trail system on the Northern Peninsula and throughout. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is well aware of that. It is a user-pay system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Right now, it is not affordable to keep them groomed and trailed. To look at a 1,100-kilometre system and to keep that groomed and going I would say the ratepayer or the user there is going to pay a significant amount to put in another 1,100 kilometres of unnecessary trail.

With that, there were a lot of other things talked about, Mr. Chair, from members opposite before I actually get into talking about some things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Chair, there is an old adage where people say: Some look at the glass as being half empty and some look at it as being half full, but an engineer looks at it as twice as big as it needs to be. If you look at Muskrat Falls, the Muskrat Falls Project is twice as big as it needs to be in terms of how it is designed right now for the fact that the ratepayer is going to be paying 100 per cent of the cost for only 40 per cent of the power. That really goes to say a lot, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk about some of the things the Member for Mount Pearl North had talked about when he talked about how much average income would come from the Muskrat Falls Project, $1.9 billion in labour and business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: That averages $330 million in average revenues during the time it is moving forward and bringing it into scale. That is only a few years that benefit would be realized. It is at the cost of the ratepayer and there is no full economic analysis to show that, given this tight labour market, the other missed opportunities that will not be able to be looked at, the higher cost of electricity, and the adverse impacts of what is being lost.

We look at the tight labour market, and maybe the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills would like to talk about the labour market, because the labour market is very tight. We have seen things get shipped away here, most recently one of the Hebron projects. It was stated that we are going to get a $150 million payment for that. In lieu of that, we are going to get greater economic benefits because we have the cash and then we can use it to hire people to build infrastructure projects.

There are other options. If we can meet our energy needs using things like biomass, natural gas, wind, or solar at a lower cost for that 330 megawatts here on the Island, then there is really no need. There is certainly no need to pay twice as much as that half-full glass or half-empty glass is. We do not have to pay double that cost. We can invest it in infrastructure. We do not need to go too far to look across Newfoundland and Labrador and know that we need infrastructure when it comes to roads, when it comes to public buildings, when it comes to public transit, when it comes to things like a fixed link to advance transportation links, to advance ports, advance telecommunications. Those are things that are quite needed.

Now, nobody has disputed that the wood pellet option cannot work, that it cannot work to replace Holyrood to convert from the fossil fuels to using that. I want to go back; the Member for Mount Pearl South had talked about the shrimp shells and that being a bit ridiculous. Well, anaerobic digestion is being – and it is not something that is thought up or dreamed up, because I believe I have seen recently a call for proposals or interest at the Robin Hood Bay to use things like biomass, anaerobic digestion, as part of the facility.

So, these are things that can happen. NorPen, which is the regional waste disposal authority on the Great Northern Peninsula, would love to be able to do that. They would love to be able to do that with their sites, because there are enough shrimp shells. There are means to be doing anaerobic digestion to provide power. It can provide power, and it is stuff that is just going to waste otherwise – natural compost that can have greater benefits, create jobs.

Now, I am going to go back to the solar piece just for a minute or so, because the Member for St. John's Centre had talked about the amount of power that Ontario is bringing. With what it has right now it has 1,600 megawatts coming on stream, 500 megawatts currently there – that is over 2,000 megawatts; that is bigger than Gull Island, really – to power 250,000 homes. They are doing it; they are doing it to eliminate coal-fired electricity, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The plan that Ontario is using is a clean energy system; it is sustainable. They have a Feed-in Tariff program that encourages local participation in Ontario's clean energy economy, creating new, green jobs. Well, this is something that Nalcor is refusing. It is refusing because it compromises the business case for Muskrat Falls. We have had this where private entities wanted to come in, municipalities wanted to come in and provide feed-in tariffs to the current hydro grid, but it was refused.

To my knowledge or to what I would think, this is going to just compromise the Muskrat Falls case. There is a real reason for having feed-in tariffs and allowing people to be participators in reducing greenhouse gases and being true masters of their own destiny when it comes to energy.

The projects are creating a supply of clean, renewable energy and completely eliminating dirty, coal-fired electricity generation. They are going to do it by 2014. They are using solar but they are also using wood pellets. They are creating a cleaner future for all generations, the ones today, tomorrow, and always.

We cannot afford to have that type of feed-in energy tariff program here and we cannot afford to have efficiency in Newfoundland and Labrador because the more we look at conserving right now, changing the tide, and reducing energy needs for local people, then the price has to go up for the cost of electricity. That is exactly what this legislation is saying. The only way to go there and ensure they have the financing and the financial market is they have to have a guaranteed rate of return from the investment and it is an excessive cost.

Why, to the Member for Humber West, would we spend $3 billion to put in this transmission link, cables, and everything to have a really exclusive snowmobile trail when we have groomed systems in Newfoundland and Labrador already that are really not affordable and that cannot be groomed? It is a user-pay system, and now we are looking at saying to the user: You have to pay $3 billion now for this, plus the other billions to generate such a small amount of electricity.

It really does not add up, Mr. Chair. A lot of people are seeing much more clearly now that there are a variety of options. Maybe members on the other side are starting to see a little more clearly that there are significant opportunities to do an integrated model to look at meeting 325 megawatts of power. That can create a lot of jobs.

Money saved from the ratepayer is money that can be spent in the economy. It is money they do not have to spend in their electricity bill that they can spend in the local economy, creating, stimulating, helping out, and helping grow our rural areas. Taking more money out of consumers' pockets in the rate of electricity does nothing to help the overall economy – it does not.

I also wanted to, if I can briefly, go to an agreement that we are looking at. This project is being rushed but I feel it is being rushed for a reason. We are currently entering the final agreement with the Canadian-European trade agreement, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA.

With that, one of the requirements is looking at European ownership in public utilities and what that would mean. The trade policy committee between Canada and the EU's reservation on public utilities, the EU are standing firm on this. When it comes to how the legislation is so loosely written when it comes to proponents and options, it really opens the door where large energy firms can come in and certainly have some ownership in this and really sets up where our marketplace could be going in the future. There are a lot of concerns. A lot of concerns for the people of today and for future generations, our children and grandchildren as well.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I recognize the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Mr. Chair, I do not even know where to begin.

As this debate continues to unfold, I believe that the members – not of the Liberal Party, in fairness to them. I do have some concerns about some of the comments that have been made. Particularly the Member for St. Barbe who has used some pretty questionable language I think, Mr. Chair, during the debate, and particularly in some of his Tweets during the course of the debate, which I would encourage people to have a look at.

That is another story, but I believe that the members of the New Democratic Party believe some of these theories that they are putting forward without substantiating them. We have heard talk of wood pellets and shrimp shells and solar panels. I am not going to stand here and suggest that exploring alternative means of energy generation is not something that we should do. To suggest that it is the solution to meeting our great energy needs, I just think it is a little hard to accept.

The Member for The Straits – White Bay North continues to talk about how ratepayers are going to pay so much for this project, but he fails to acknowledge that Muskrat Falls, this project, will actually stabilize electricity rates for consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador for generations to come. I would ask the hon. member when he stands up next – and I suspect that will be in the next half hour or so – if he would explain what his electricity bill is currently. I would like him to tell us precisely what he pays per month and what he anticipates –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KENT: I am being heckled by my own colleagues once again, Mr. Chair.

I would like him to explain what his electricity bill is, what it has been for the past number of years, and what he projects that it is going to be in the next number of years. Tell us a little bit about what his situation is and how he expects this project will impact his electricity bill.

The primary objective in delivering electricity to customers in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair, is to do so at the lowest possible cost. We have an Energy Plan that we mapped out and released back in 2007. We identified that our priority was to meet the current and future electricity needs with environmental power, with stable power, with competitively priced power to maximize the value of any surplus power with export to other markets. That is exactly what we will be able to achieve with Muskrat Falls.

Electricity demand in this Province continues to increase. It is going to increase for a number of years to come, so we need power. At some points during this debate the Member for The Straits – White Bay North has argued that Muskrat Falls is going to generate too much power. Then, several hours later, he will argue that Muskrat Falls is not going to generate enough power. Then, hours later, he will argue that the project is far too big. Several hours later he will argue that the project is far too small.

A little while ago, Mr. Chair, he spoke about the glass being half empty and then the glass being half full. I would suggest to the hon. member, and also to the Member for St. John's North that people in glasshouses should not throw stones, Mr. Chair – another piece of advice for the hon. member.

Newfoundland and Labrador residents historically have actually paid less than the Canadian average for their electricity. They will continue to do so as a result of Muskrat Falls. Do you know what is interesting? There are only three provinces in the country that have lower electricity rates than Newfoundland and Labrador today, before Muskrat Falls. We will continue to have competitive rates as a result of Muskrat Falls. Those provinces that have lower rates than Newfoundland and Labrador today – and there are only three – they have something in common.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydro.

MR. KENT: What was that? Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shrimp shells.

MR. KENT: It is not shrimp shells, which is really hard to say at 5:00 o'clock in the morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hot springs.

MR. KENT: It is not hot springs. It is not solar panels.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wood pellets.

MR. KENT: It is not wood pellets. It is hydroelectric generation, Mr. Chair – hydroelectric generation.

I just think it is important at some point during the course of this debate on Bill 60 that rather than simply professing pie-in-the-sky theories without substantiating anything they are presenting – and if the best they can do and the best their leader can do is quote Tom Adams, I encourage you to check the guy out. This is the expert that is the source of some of the theories that are being presented by the NDP, check him out. I hope that my colleague from Mount Pearl South will rise again and share some of Mr. Adams wisdom.

Let me finish by sharing a few facts, actual facts that we can substantiate based on the world-class expertise that we have consulted, Mr. Chair. Muskrat Falls means long-term, stable electricity rates for generations of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Another piece of the NDP argument that confuses me, Mr. Chair, relates to Holyrood. I remember the folks from the party out in Holyrood protesting, it was only a year or so ago, I think. They were saying we have to shut Holyrood down. Now the same folks are arguing that we need to keep it going, we need to keep it open. It is hard to follow. If we rely on the Holyrood plant and significant amounts of oil to generate our electricity, which is what – other than wood pellets and shrimp shells – the folks opposite are advocating, then consumers are going to pay higher rates for electricity.

I suppose, Mr. Chair, if you do not have a power bill then maybe it does not matter a whole lot. In fairness, if a consumer today is paying zero dollars for electricity, then presumably down the road they will continue to pay zero dollars for electricity if they are not paying their own bill. As somebody who is very concerned about how much I am spending per month on electricity, I am convinced we need a clean, green, renewable energy source that there is a good, solid economic argument for.

At peak production the Holyrood plant is burning approximately 18,000 barrels of oil each day to meet electricity needs on the Island. Muskrat Falls, which the folks opposite – again, just a few of them. They argue that Muskrat Falls is a big, dirty, environmental catastrophe. Yet, Muskrat Falls will almost completely eliminate our reliance on oil and it will provide a clean, renewable energy source.

It is going to set the stage for Newfoundland and Labrador to manage its own energy future and its own economic future without relying on others to meet our power needs. It would be nice to think that we can rely on solar panels on everybody's houses and on windmills, on shrimp shells, and on wood pellets. I am not suggesting there is not a place for some of that. We are exploring alternative technology, new technology and emerging technology. All of that is important. Ultimately, we need a stable, reliable, renewable, clean, green source of energy, and that is what this project provides.

Do you know what? I know the arguments that are being put forth really do not have a lot to do with the economy, but Muskrat Falls will not only meet our domestic energy needs, it is going to be a revenue generator for our Province long into the future. With Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair, Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be powered by 98 per cent clean, renewable energy. We will be a leader in carbon reduction standards, but apparently that is not the solution the NDP desires.

I am rather perplexed by some of what I continue to hear. I am listening intently. I will continue to do so for as long as it takes, but it is time to start talking sense, to deal in reality, and to talk about what this project really means and what it is really all about. I hope at some point during this debate we will also hear from the NDP something about Bill 60, which is the piece of legislation we are actually here to debate at the moment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

I recognize the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I say to the member opposite, not everyone is as blessed to have home ownership. There are a lot of people here who do not have home ownership in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Coming back to Tom Adams, Mr. Chair, the member opposite had talked about Tom Adams as our energy expert. I am not saying he is our energy expert. I want to point out for the House Mr. Adams and who he is, and to point out the background information on Mr. Adams. He is an independent energy and environmental advisor. He worked for several environmental organizations and served on the Ontario Independent Electricity Market Operator Board of Directors and the Ontario Centre for Excellence for Energy Board of Management.

If we look at what we have talked about with what Ontario is doing, they are converting their thermal plants to biomass and to wood pellets. They are looking at clean energy. They are looking at things like solar. They are adapting an immense amount of wind and doing pellets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Adams is a research fellow at Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He has Tom Adams Energy, the environmental and energy consulting in private practice. He has been a lecturer at the University of Toronto. He has been a Director at REAP Canada; an investigator with the Environmental Bureau of Investigation; Executive Director of Energy Probe; Senior Consultant with Borealis Energy Research Association; Independent Director of Ontario Independent Electricity Market Operator; and Research Assistant with Electricity Planning Technical Advisory Panel reviewing Ontario Hydro's demand and supply planning strategy for the Ontario Cabinet Office.

His history stems back, it is almost as old as I am, Mr. Chair. It goes back twenty-four years there in terms of work, which would give him quite an ability to call himself an electricity consultant. He has talked about Muskrat Falls as possibly being one of the biggest follies, Mr. Chair.

I find it a little disheartening as to how the government is trying to deflect some of the comments. I have made several comments here about the context of Muskrat Falls under different scenarios as to what it would mean for the people as to looking at developing at a cost that is affordable to people that does not include transmission to the Island and looking at meeting the Island needs. We only need 325 megawatts to displace Holyrood. To spend what the Member for Humber West is talking about, $3 billion for a snowmobile trail as part of the Transmission Link for that benefit, it is not making a whole lot of sense as to why we would put that.

Mr. Chair, there are so many principles to this legislation. There are reasons why we need to look at slowing down, and we need to talk about this. We should have had this debate on these two pieces of legislation before government hastily said we are going to sanction Muskrat Falls, because maybe they needed to hear some of these things we are saying, some of the things that can really make us be more innovative.

I do not see how the technology is going to be more innovative when government goes back and talks about the Energy Plan that does not have any timelines and does not have anything they guarantee they say they are going to do. There are a lot of options there, yes. Even saying up as high as 5,000 megawatts for wind, and the hydro power that is there, talking about peat, talking about tidal, talking about a number of other things. It does not show how we are going to do any of it. With these pieces of legislation, it is setting us back. It is setting the clock back.

The Member for Mount Pearl North can talk about the lower prices of electricity in other provinces because they have hydro. Those hydro projects have been paid for; it allows them to really look at diversifying now. It is unfortunate, our arrangement with the Upper Churchill agreement, because if we had that, we had it developed and paid for, it would make a huge difference to looking at developing Muskrat Falls at this stage.

The Minister of Finance has brought up other times of Bay d'Espoir and its generating capacity and what the cost is. You can see that after it is paid for, which may take a significant amount of years – and we are seeing here to pay for the Muskrat Falls Project it is going to take a significant amount of years; up to 2050 before we even see any net benefit. So those types of things are to be concerned.

For the member to say that it is going to stabilize electricity rates, there are other things that can stabilize electricity rates and make them lower. It is putting us forward to basically getting some of the highest electricity rates in the country when it comes to looking at over fifteen cents in a blended rate, when we already have a much lower rate than that.

We are not going to be competitive now and we are going to allow provinces that are really, truly looking at energy plans, like Quebec and their Plan Nord, like Ontario, like British Columbia – all of these places have energy plans. Even Alberta, looking at its immense oil resources, they have adapted a significant amount of wind and what they are going to put into the system.

Those types of things are going to make other provinces more competitive than ours. What it will force us to do is that it is just going to set up so many other social problems and economic problems for the overall economy. We will not be able to look at lowering business taxes. We already have such a labour market struggle to get those skilled workers to come in, get them to come in and actually be able to work on this project for the short term.

We are talking about people have to be mobile while they are building this project, while they are looking at putting up the transition, for years. You are talking about a really transient workforce. You are talking about how you are going to have to compensate them quite well to do this work. It is short-term benefits. What is on the horizon after Muskrat Falls, after 2017? What is going to keep the people here? The hydropower, charging people residential rates, there is going to have to be something much bigger and broader to really be that paradigm shift that is going to change Newfoundland and Labrador.

I just wanted to get up and speak to that. I will continue to raise concerns about Muskrat Falls and this legislation that is going to end up being very destructive to the environment. It is going to have economic impacts. I am not sure if the amount of trees that are going to be taken out in clearing is going to help when we look at reducing our CO₂ emissions and things like that, displacing the balance of carbon, when we talk about other options we could be doing in a renewable, sustainable manner.

Once those trees are cleared they are not going to be replanted, unlike when you look at things like wood pellets and you look at doing biomass. You have a reforestation plan. You have horticulture and silviculture that is replanting trees. They are going to be constantly able to be used. Yes, they can only be burned once, but they will be able to. Once this transmission is put into play, you are going to be clearing that land.

What about the cost of maintaining that transmission over time? What about the growth of trees, damages, and different things? All of those things have to be considered. I do not see those costs. I have not seen the financial statements. Those are concerns for me.

I am going to give the opportunity, Mr. Chair, for somebody else to make some positive comments because I am sure there are members from the other side who would like to refute some of the things I have just said, as they have in the past.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is certainly a pleasure to rise once again and to conclude the commentary I did start the last time. I want to thank the Member for The Straits – White Bay North for providing us all with a little bio there on Mr. Adams who he believes to be an expert. He is an expert in energy and I believe he said he is an expert environmentalist as well. He listed all of these credentials in terms of the environment and so on.

Mr. Chair, when we talk about our experts, we are talking about our own experts that we have at Nalcor and we are talking about the experts at Navigant, Ziff Energy, MHI, and so on. We have used very reputable experts, but let us talk about their expert for a minute, Mr. Adams.

As I said, the member already gave us a little bio on his expert. Let us see what his expert has to say. This particular expert has a blog.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has a what?

MR. LANE: He has a blog, and he also has a Twitter account. Like I said before, I am not really up on this whole Twitter thing, but I managed to figure out how to find Mr. Adams. I went into his Twitter account and let's hear some of the Tweets that this expert environmentalist had to say – the NDP's expert environmentalist. Let's see what he had to say. He is their energy expert and their environmental expert.

First of all, let's talk about wind because we have heard them talk about wind and solar. What did Mr. Adams have to say about wind and solar? The first one I have here on December 2,"…no justification for subsidies to wind and solar". That is what Mr. Adams said; a Tweet, "…no justification for subsidies to wind and solar."

Here is another one on wind and solar, "Watch your Ontario tax dollars in action, subsidizing subsidy-dependent junk generation…". Now, he is talking about solar. He is talking about wind. I assume he is talking about shrimp shells and wood pellets as well.

Listen, I am all for public-private partnerships and as my colleague said, maybe at some point in time Red Lobster may team up with Nalcor in developing some shrimp shell technology or something, but I have a feeling that would fall under this category of junk, what your expert is referring to as junk generation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us another one.

MR. LANE: Let's have another one. We talk about conservation. How about conservation because I have heard conservation. As an expert environmentalist for the NDP, surely he is big time into conservation, right? So what does he say about conservation? "Ontario's Smart Grid Plan = electric vehicles + pixie dust + rate increases…". Did you hear that? "Ontario Smart Grid Plan = electric vehicles + pixie dust + rate increases…".

What else do we have here? There is another one that talks about conservation. "Another refutation of the quaint idea that electricity conservation in Ontario is going to reduce power bills…". Now, this is your expert. "Another refutation of the quaint idea that electricity conservation in Ontario is going to reduce power bills…".

Here is one more. This one here is on wind power. "Ontario is lost in space, trying to create jobs out of wind, solar and other kinds of pixie dust."

MR. KENT: That bears repeating. Can you give us that one again?

MR. LANE: Yes, we are going to do it again. From Tom Adams, the NDP energy and environmental expert, "Ontario is lost in space, trying to create jobs out of wind, solar and other kinds of pixie dust."

I have another; I have two others. I have one here on November 27. In this one here he is talking about green energy. His comment is a very short comment, "Green zombies are spreading." Now, I am not making this up. I encourage the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador as they are listening to the debate, as they are listening to the Leader of the Third Party and so on talking about their expert, Mr. Tom Adams – he has a Twitter account – please go in there and check this out for yourself if you do not believe me.

Now, I have one other. First of all, there was a Tweet put out by some other general citizen. I guess he is from Ontario, I am not sure. I do not know who this guy is, but he puts out a Tweet. The Minister of Municipal Affairs should listen to this one because this is about municipalities. I have heard the Member for St. John's East talking about municipalities, saving money for municipalities, that they should have an opportunity to develop green projects to cut down on their power bills, and so on. This is actually about that.

This guy says, "Does anyone else find it weird that municipalities, whom provide clean drinking water, rent/buy culligan machines/bottles?" In other words, what he is saying is here you have a municipality with clean water yet this particular municipality he is talking about is buying bottled water. Do you find that weird?

I wonder what Mr. Adams had to say about that. Mr. Adams, the NDP energy expert and environmentalist said, "How about muni. buildings, cop shops, and schools with solar FIT putting out junk generation and paid 20X market value?" How about that? Mr. Chair, that is what Mr. Adams says.

This gets really interesting as well. I said: Who in the name of the world is conversing with this guy? Who would be conversing with this guy? I just looked to see. As I was looking at some of these Tweets and so on, I was looking to see who was conversing with him. Who was maybe re-tweeting him, who he was re-tweeting, and there were four names there. There are four names –

AN HON. MEMBER: What are the names? Lay them on us, what are the names?

MR. LANE: There are four names there that are listed. I will not get into the full name, but one there is a gentleman I think we might be familiar with, last name, Hollett. There is another one here I believe who I have heard referred to as the hon. member from the rattling bog. We have another one here, and it reminds of the banana that I just saw the hon. member there having earlier. His name rhymes with banana, Mr. Chair, and there was another name here.

Now, this is a real good one. It is a real good one, okay. What is the district? I am trying to think of the name of the district – St. Barbe. Somebody from the District of St. Barbe, who we all know very well, who happened to be up on his feet just a little while ago. Mr. Chair, these are the four names that were either conversing with or re-tweeting Mr. Adams, or Mr. Adams was re-tweeting comments they made. I found that very interesting.

Mr. Chair, I think it says it all. There is absolutely nothing I am saying here that is factually incorrect. It is public information. It is out there on Twitter. The names are there. The comments are there and so on.

Mr. Chair, it comes down to this. We talk about credibility in terms of what we are trying to do, in terms of what the folks at Nalcor are trying to do. We have experts at Nalcor who have looked at all the options and they have determined, based on their expert analysis, that Muskrat Falls is the best option for Newfoundland and Labrador. They have had that verified by Manitoba Hydro, Navigant, Ziff Energy, and so on, all credible experts in their field, Mr. Chair. I think I am going to put those experts up against the NDP experts any day, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I guess it is time to get kick-started here now. I think that the Member for Mount Pearl South has just pressed the right button. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

The first thing I am going to say is that we are all in this House and we are here to talk about policy and everything like that. The one thing I have always believed in is that you can go ahead and you can challenge somebody's idea, but do not challenge a person's integrity. Tone it down when it comes to that, because I think when you are talking about a man like Tom Adams who has had twenty-four years of his own experience in the industry, you are taking him down a peg. Mr. Chair, I really shy away from that sort of thing.

When you are referring to somebody being in some sort of an imaginary political district or something like that, you are speaking to probably everybody in your own district when you are talking about making fun of somebody like that. When it comes to that, Mr. Chair, I think that we have gone off on a different tangent here.

I would just like to remind the Member for Mount Pearl South why we are here. I will quote Pierre Trudeau: It is okay to attack the idea, but it is not very good to be attacking the person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: I did not hear it, but let me start by attacking some of the ideas he had. One of the things he started talking about was electric vehicles. Now, already one of the members over on the government side the other day was talking about electric vehicles. There was an electric vehicle that ended up getting Car of the Year this year. Obviously, something is changing out there in the automotive industry.

He should look no further when it comes to the impact of electric vehicles and what electric vehicles can do than our own government fleet. I think at Estimates the hon. Minister of Environment, who was Transportation and Works at the time, said we have thirty-eight vehicles out there. I think that was the number of vehicles that we had, and that is a pretty bold experiment. I compliment government on going in that direction because it saves on fuel costs.

We have hybrids out there in our own fleet. We are actually dealing with that when it comes to government policy here, when it comes to fuel consumption. If he wants to attack the idea of hybrid vehicles, he should start with his own government departments over there and ask them why they are using electric vehicles, Mr. Chair.

Let's go to bottled water. He brought it up about bottled water, Mr. Chair. How many times do we see some good businesses in this Province, companies like Discovery Springs and everything, wheeling in the big bottles of water into water dispensers here in the Confederation Building? How many times do we see that? Almost every day. They have a great product. It gives us a choice where we want to get our water. It provides jobs. We still have a choice. We still use the water from the City of St. John's. We have it here, right here in the House of Assembly. I do not think it is right for him to be attacking an industry of bottled water –

MR. LANE: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for Mount Pearl South, on a point of order.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make it very clear, there have been remarks attributed to what I said that I simply did not say. For the record, I never spoke against hybrid vehicles. I never made fun of anybody. I never downed any ideas as it relates to alternative energy forms. All I simply did, Mr. Chair, was I read the Tweet word for word – not my words. So I take offence to the fact that they would be attributed to me.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Member for St. John's East, to continue.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to bring it back, that it is okay to challenge the idea if he is to come out with a good argument to counter it, but he has not with anything that he said. Like I said, it is shocking.

Mr. Chair, to get back on track a little bit, the Member for Mount Pearl North was up on his feet a couple of minutes ago. He said a couple of beliefs in Muskrat Falls, and the whole project that we are questioning under Bill 61 and Bill 60 over the last couple of days, and we continue to do that. He called it a revenue generator. When you go ahead and you lock anybody in, you have a captured market. Well, then fine and dandy, on that end of it, it is a revenue generator, but in this day and age when we are talking the volatility of the energy markets, we have no guarantee that we are going to have a revenue generator from the US Northeast. I would just like to point that out and give him pause for thought.

When he talks about the project being 98 per cent clean when they take Holyrood offline, he forgets that under the government scheme, under the future revenue generation in this Province, we are going to be going back to thermal starting in the year 2037. We are going to be looking at thermal coming in in 2046, 2050, 2054, 2058, 2063, and again in 2066, with massive amounts of thermal under Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's generation plans of 2010.

I would just like for him to make note of that, that while we will be taking Holyrood offline – government will be doing that. We could do it in other ways. I already explained about that the other day. Right now, the future plans are to still back up the project with Muskrat Falls. It is time for this government to realize that, yes – and we have not heard an admission from government yet, Mr. Chair, that they are still going to be dealing with thermal in the future.

We are still going to be having some problems with our carbon foot printing, in spite of the old argument: Oh, yes, they are taking Holyrood offline, and yes, it should go. Now, you heard it here. Yes, Holyrood has to go, that there is no doubt.

When it comes to managing our own economic future, Mr. Chair, I question it when we actually are going to be running a line into the US Northeast that is possibly going to be under a future court challenge under NAFTA. Because that door has been left open a little bit and we still have not had a guarantee that we are not going to be facing a court action in the future, Mr. Chair, I will say to you now, and it is probably going to be down the road in a few years time, that this government or whatever government is going to be in power are going to be facing some sort of a court challenge under reciprocity laws.

If we are allowed to ship into the US market, if we sign onto long-term contracts or – as a matter of fact, I would question about even putting it out onto the spot markets, because I would say that anybody who wants to manufacture power in the United States and wants to be looking for a market are going to be looking for some means to dump electricity into the Canadian east end of things where Muskrat Falls is really going to be mattering to a lot of people.

I would like to bring those concerns up to him. I know the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to be thinking about that. Some people out there are thinking about the future of this Province. That is where we are going. That is the questions that we have put out there over the last little while and those are the questions that we still do not have answers to.

We already have it on record from a David Cochrane interview the other day, Mr. Chair, that the Natural Resources Minister, the former Justice Minister, has said we will deal with that problem when it comes, when it comes to the possibility of a court challenge. There are a lot of things out there. The doors are wide open. We do not know what this government is kicking the doors open to either when it comes to talking about CETA too, and what is happening with the European Union.

Now, back to expropriation – I see I have a little bit of time left. I want to come back to the expropriation rules at the same time. I want to ask the government, and I will put this question forward. When it comes to businesses, the remediation to businesses and compensation to businesses under the rules of expropriation, there is one thing – and I have been looking for it here now in the last little while.

We know it talks about the possibility of power line installations that come across people's property, but I have not seen anything as regards to the damage, for example, when it comes to adventure tourism, like tour companies and that sort of thing. For people who are looking to get tours of natural habitat, we are talking about a pristine area on the eastern side of the Northern Peninsula up there through old growth forest, that sort of thing. I am curious about compensation when it comes to compensating some of these businesses if they happen to have a loss in tourism revenue, for example, when it comes to the pipeline.

I am going to start there when it comes to remediation to businesses. We have a lot of small businesses in this Province, Mr. Chair, that the government supports, that the government has put revenue in. It has been taxpayers' money in some cases, and we are looking at getting that investment not only protected but also ensuring that small business jobs and everything are going to be protected as well.

I see that my time is up. I will leave that to the floor. I would just like to remind members, let's keep it on a policy level, attacking the idea is okay but let's not attack people.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

It is great to get up again and speak in this wide-ranging debate that we are having here for the last three or four days, whatever it is now.

I am going to talk about Churchill Falls at some point, but I just wanted to reference a few comments that have been made in this debate that has really gone from one end to the other and then comes back to the middle. I have to say, I am very disappointed in the Member for Mount Pearl South because he referenced in his speech – I have a few things here he referenced, but one of the things he said, he is not very familiar with Twitter. I thought that was kind of disappointing, because here he is now sat down next to the parliamentary secretary for the department of Twitter.

The government has come out and said – we all know the proper name is the Office of Public Engagement. Obviously, that department right now would have to be considered somewhat terrible if the Member for Mount Pearl South is not aware of Twitter. I would say to the Member for Mount Pearl North, I think you need to step up your game and make sure that your seatmate is educated on Twitter.

MR. LANE: I am learning.

MR. A. PARSONS: I know he is learning and he is up to date on blogs, apparently, but it is time for him to get up to speed on Twitter, I say.

The Office of Public Engagement is there; sure, they have two deputy ministers. I would say, look, hopefully that will be the New Year's resolution now for 2013, to make sure that the Member for Mount Pearl South gets the grasp of Twitter and knows what is on the go and avails of that valuable piece of social media.

The Member for Mount Pearl South – and I have nothing bad to say about him, because I enjoy every single time he gets up to speak. So far here in the last couple of days he has gone from the blog part to space, pixie dust, Star Trek, and I think he even mentioned zombies. I tell you, that is all over the place.

Now, I look over across and it does look somewhat like The Walking Dead; it is somewhat ‘zombieish' – and again that is a fantastic show. I think that is normal, given the amount of time we have been here. That is all I have to say about the commentary from the Member for Mount Pearl South. I enjoy it, and I say to you: You keep getting up and having your say; that is what we are here for.

I am going to take it down a notch and go back to sort of less interesting topics, something like expropriation. I am going to go back to expropriation because even though it is not interesting as green zombies and pixie dust, it is somewhat important.

One of the things that I would say is that I come back to section 13. Section 13 is one I referenced a bit earlier in that it says, "Where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is satisfied on an application by a proponent that the proponent urgently requires the land for the purpose of Muskrat Falls Project, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by order direct the expropriating authority to proceed with an intended expropriation without inquiry."

Then it says, "Notwithstanding section 21, within 7 days after the information referred to in subsection (2), including notice of expropriation, is served or provided, the title to the land vests in the proponent named in the notice of expropriation."

What I would say is that I understand the concept behind that. We all know that time is of the essence when it comes to Muskrat Falls and that the government needs to get that land in line in order to go to the markets, but I always have a concern when Cabinet has unfettered power to seize people's property without inquiry.

It is stated here in the briefing that obviously any land expropriated is only going to be used for the Muskrat Falls Project. It is one of those things where they are only going to take what is necessary. What I would say is that when Cabinet confers upon itself such a power, that they need to ensure that that power is exercised with the greatest discretion. What I would say is that I hope that it is taken into account and I hope that that is kept in mind.

Now, what I am going to do is I am going to come back to one issue that is brought up here in this piece of legislation. My colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, has discussed this here with great eloquence, and one of the concerns is the Aboriginal issues as it relates to expropriation. This is something that the department themselves explicitly mentioned in their briefing notes.

The fact is that some of the land that has to be expropriated is going to occur in areas where there are asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights. That is a very important subject. The fact is that these treaty rights are agreements that have been carefully negotiated over a period of time. Anybody's land, with the possibility of it being ceased, is an important issue; but when we talk about the treaty rights that have been negotiated, it has that extra level of importance because it was something that was negotiated between different parties. So, government has recognized that.

Government recognizes its duty to consult and will develop consultation guidelines to fulfill this duty once the route is finalized through the environmental assessment process. That is a great word when you talk about consultation. Consultation can be described in any number of ways. I mean, it is easy to say that you have consulted with someone. I could walk across and speak to a member on the opposite side and say well, I have consulted with them. I can come back and still not have changed my mind in any way, shape or form. What we need, more so than just simple consultation, is what we call meaningful consultation, which means you go to someone and have the conversation and with that conversation make an actual attempt to ensure that both sides have some say in the matter, and have some understanding as to what the concerns of each side are and make sure that each side respects the other one's point of view.

It just cannot be a case of where someone walks across and says: Oh, I have talked to you, I have consulted with you, I have done my due diligence, and I have preformed my duty – bing, bang, boom; it is done. That is not good enough. We have to ensure that government does not just say they have fulfilled consultation by talking. We have seen some disagreements over the last number of months when it comes to consultation. I will just use the Nunatsiavut Government; the members of that government have come out and said: Look, we were not exactly consulted. There is a difference in the description of the word or interpretation of the word consultation.

That is something that we have to ensure – and again, right now what we are saying is not a case of we have already developed consultation guidelines. We are not saying that it is done; we are saying we are going to do it. It has not been done. We need to ensure that not only does that get done but let's keep these things in mind that have happened in the past to ensure that the consultation guidelines are wide ranging and meaningful and done keeping these issues in mind.

One issue – and I am not going to get a chance to really delve deep into this yet, because it does have some important points that would affect a lot of areas in this Province. This is the municipal issues, as it relates to the expropriation process. I want to make sure that my understanding of these changes to the legislation – I cannot say changes, sorry – the new bill and the legislation and powers that it confers. I want to make sure that I understand the municipal issues completely as it relates to taxation, permitting, and land use. There is some discrepancy over the last week or so in relation to what we see happening through our reading of the interpretation, and what the Minister of Natural Resources thinks is going to happen. There is a little discrepancy there.

What I would say is that I will have an opportunity very shortly to delve into that. At this point, I am going to now take my seat, and I will resume this conversation upon my next opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I recognize the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Member for Burgeo – La Poile for participating once again in the debate. He has been an active participant in the debate. In many ways, he has contributed positively to the dialogue that we have been having about these important pieces of legislation.

I take some exception to some of his sarcastic, if not derogatory, comments about our new Office of Public Engagement. I was tempted to rise on a point of order, and I did not, Mr. Chair. I acknowledge that I could have, but I chose not to. I did not want to interrupt the flow of debate, and I knew I could have an opportunity to participate at an appropriate time.

To classify public engagement and all that it encompasses as a Twitter initiative is rather offensive, because we are committed as a government to building a world-class entity within our organization that will enable all of our agencies and all of our departments to interact with the public in a more meaningful way. When I look at this government's track record since 2003, in terms of how it has engaged the public in many ways, I think that we have seen continuous improvement. Never before in our history have we had a government that is so connected and so in touch with the people of this Province.

What we have done with the new Office of Public Engagement is bring together five entities where there is some obvious synergy already in existence. Those entities are going to work together, they are going to collaborate, and they are going to interface with all of our departments and agencies to ensure we are connecting with the public in the most effective and most meaningful way possible.

We have our Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Office. We have the Strategic Partnership, which is a great initiative. It was initiated in 2002. It brings together business, labour, and government to take part in meaningful dialogue. We have the Voluntary and Non-Profit Secretariat, an initiative of our government that has really done some great work to better meet the needs of the voluntary sector. We have our Office of Youth Engagement, which is continuing the great legacy we have started to build with our Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy. Of course, the best example perhaps of all of public engagement on the part of this government: we have our Rural Secretariat, which I know the Member for Burgeo – La Poile is familiar with.

Anyway, I will quickly get back to Bill 60, Mr. Chair, before you rule me out of order. My final comment related to public engagement relates to the member's offensive comments pertaining to the public service. He made a remark about deputy ministers. You know we are a government that has great respect for all of our civil servants regardless of what capacity they serve in. We are quite proud of our new deputy minister who is already providing very effective leadership for our new office.

I just find the comments quite bothersome. Maybe it is because I have not had any sleep. I do think we should keep the sarcasm and keep some of the nonsense out of the debate. Overall I have to say the Member for Burgeo – La Poile has been a positive contributor to the discussion we are trying to have about Bill 60.

What we are dealing with here is legislation relating to land requirements for the Muskrat Falls Project. The acquisition of Crown and private land is required for the transmission infrastructure. It is necessary to have the land in place to put the transmission infrastructure in place to deliver power from Muskrat Falls to the Island portion of the Province. This is not something that we take lightly, Mr. Chair. Many years of study have been undertaken to ensure this project is developed in a way that is both environmentally sustainable and economically sustainable as well. We are committed to doing so in an environmentally responsible manner.

The acquisition of Crown land and private land is not going to start until the Labrador-Island Transmission Link, the Maritime Link and the Labrador transmission assets are released from the environmental assessment process. I know the Leader of the Third Party thinks that process is a joke. Well, we do not. We take it very seriously. The consultation we are engaged in with all stakeholders in that process is incredibly important. The Minister of Environment and Conservation is right here next to me and I know how passionate he is about ensuring that this project is an environmentally sustainable one, in every sense of the word.

Contrary to what members opposite would have you believe, most of the land required for the Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Chair, is Crown land. In fact, approximately 99 per cent of the land required for the Labrador-Island Link and 90 per cent of the land required for the Maritime Link is Crown Land, Mr. Chair. Based on the dramatic presentations we have witnessed over the last number of hours, you would not believe that was actually the case, but I assure you it is.

The creation of a standalone lands-related piece of legislation is actually going to ensure that Nalcor has the ability to acquire the necessary land interests to advance work on the Muskrat Falls Project. Mr. Chair, a core principle of that legislation is that project proponents will acquire only the minimum interest in the land which is necessary for the project. The Province, Nalcor, and Emera will work together to achieve fair compensation packages for Crown and private land owners. This is really important to us. We want everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those who are directly impacted by this project, to truly benefit to the greatest extent possible.

The legislation we are proposing here through Bill 60 maintains the public's right to access the land for recreational purposes or other personal uses provided it does not interfere with the project. Government can also approve other compatible uses by third parties. The legislation we are proposing, I am pleased to hear the Member for Burgeo – La Poile speak of; we did not hear the Member for The Straits - White Bay North or the Member for St. John's Centre talk much about the legislation over the last number of hours. That is what this is all about.

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MR. KENT: Once again the Member for Gander is heckling. I want to acknowledge the contribution the Member for Cape St. Francis is making to the debate at the present time, as well. I hear sounds of enthusiasm, Mr. Chair, for what I am saying and I want to thank him for joining the Member for Gander in his enthusiastic support of Bill 60.

Anyway, back to Bill 60, Mr. Chair. Some of the land acquisitions contemplated are going to occur in areas where there are asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights. That is also something we take very seriously. I was really pleased and encouraged to hear the Minister of Natural Resources at several points in the debate over the last number of hours talk passionately and intelligently about the work he has done in this area personally to ensure these issues are handled in a respectful, productive, and positive way. So we recognize our duty to consult, and we are developing consultation guidelines to fulfill this duty, Mr. Chair. We will continue to work with all parties involved to ensure this project is the greatest success it possibly can be.

Mr. Chair, the legislation here, Bill 60, will advance work on the Muskrat Falls Project and it is going to help move this project forward in a timely manner, and also in an efficient manner. The legislation will help to support the finance-raising process as well. This legislation, like Bill 61, needs to be passed and this legislation needs to be in place before Nalcor can advance the lending process early in 2013, which is part of the current project schedule. It is no secret. Now that we have the project sanctioned, Mr. Chair, this is the next logical step and it is an important one for us to take.

This legislation will actually signal to lenders that government is supportive of the project, which we obviously are. It also shows we are going to take the steps necessary, the responsible, planned, well-thought-out steps necessary to ensure the project's success.

So, I know my time is running out. I hope that as the morning continues I will have more opportunities to speak to Bill 60, and again I thank members opposite for their participation in the debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was certainly interesting to sit back and listen to the Member for Mount Pearl, Mr. Chair, as he talked about the government's duty to consult. I would like to get into that in just a little while. The last time I spoke I talked about the land mass and historical use. I talked about that so I could talk about what I am going to talk about now, Mr. Chair, which is what I wanted to talk about in the first place.

Mr. Chair, I am just going down through the proposed corridor through Southern Labrador and I realize that from the proposed transmission route looking west, it is of no concern to this government because once you go west from the proposed corridor you are into Quebec. The government opposite has made no bones about the concern in Quebec. As a matter of fact, the whole purpose of this proposed route is to get away from Quebec.

The point I want to make here, Mr. Chair, in terms of expropriation of lands and compensation that the Member for Mount Pearl North talked about, is you are looking at physical statutory easement and or expropriation when you look at compensation as you get into the disruption of private property and the proposed route running across lands that they use. Mr. Chair, I would like to talk about traditional activity that goes on even in Southern Labrador.

Mr. Chair, I have not trapped commercially for over twenty years. The only trapping I do now is for what I need for my own use. I put off trapper education courses, but I have not trapped. It is still an ongoing activity. I guess you can call it a supplementary income activity by many people in the Lake Melville area and in Southern Labrador. They travel inland from their respective communities, Mr. Chair, hundreds of kilometres with today's technology. I heard a member opposite talking about snowmobiles. Actually, I heard a lot of talk about snowmobiles tonight. It certainly makes me think about home.

My point, Mr. Chair, is that this corridor which is, I think sixty metres wide and I am going to say half the distance in Labrador as it is on the Island portion, being some 550 kilometres that runs down through the heart of some prime trapping country in Labrador. When you look at compensation, the Member for Mount Pearl North talked about the government's obligation to give fair and equitable compensation to any disruption through the process of expropriation.

The question I would like to pose is: In your mechanism of compensation, has this government looked into the provisions of the displacement of potential income by people who live in the Lake Melville area and in Southern Labrador? Because you have marten prices that exceed $200 a pelt, Mr. Chair, and the area that is the proposed route is through prime pine marten country.

Throughout this whole legislation, Mr. Chair, I do not see any provisions for expropriation of land that will impact land users that does not contain a cabin, that does not contain a home or even a community, but it does impact people who do travel to make supplementary income. Some of them a full income off the land that is to be expropriated, and the impacts that this expropriation – which is the basis of going forward with the Muskrat Falls Project.

Are there provisions in place to compensate this component of the expropriation bill? I did not see it. I am sure that in the environmental assessment this information had to be done. It had to be done in baseline studies.

I heard many, many members in the government opposite talk about having done their homework, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to any member across the way forwarding this documentation. I would love to have a look at it because it goes back to the comments from the Member for Mount Pearl North, Mr. Chair, about the government's responsibility to consult and to compensate with all equity, in all fairness and at market value.

Just a couple of issues on that, Mr. Chair, and I do have a few minutes left. I would like to talk about the comments that came from the member opposite as he talked about the government's responsibility to Aboriginal claims in the area.

The whole purpose of this act, Mr. Chair, is to confirm and establish what compensation this government is proposing for land expropriation. Land expropriation, as I read through the legislation that is on the table, Mr. Chair, is not limited to land itself but it does apply to waterways and it also applies to tidal waters. I think these are two very important issues here.

In terms of expropriation, I would like to go back to the government's position and Nalcor's position, Mr. Chair. I brought it up several times over the last few days. I am still awaiting an answer in the process of good debate.

To maintain a position that the environment will not be affected by this proposal and to know for a fact that there will be increases in methylmercury as it goes downstream, Mr. Chair, I would like to, in the very brief time I have left, talk about some of the effects and some of the limitations. I have asked the Minister of Environment and Conservation, in the House, what mechanism will be put in place in terms of monitoring methylmercury. The answer I received was that it will be subject to Health Canada standards.

I would just like to give some information to this topic, Mr. Chair, because I think it is very important. I think it is very important to the 500 fisherpeople who harvest smelt, trout and salmon in Lake Melville from Terrington Basin to Mud Lake and down as far as Carwalla, which is just west of the community of Rigolet.

The level of mercury that occurs naturally in species of fish has an average of 0.3 parts per million. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration sets the limit for human consumption at one part per million, and that is high. That is a high standard; dangerously high, Mr. Chair.

I have run out of time, but if I do get the opportunity, Mr. Chair, I would certainly like to stand up and share some of this information. I certainly look forward to the baseline studies that had to have been done before this project was announced.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is certainly a pleasure to stand once again to speak on this bill. There are a couple of pieces I wanted to speak to. Obviously, with Bill 60, what we are talking about here is establishing a transmission corridor.

Mr. Chair, I have heard commentary – and I am not going to talk about pixie dust this time. I have heard the Member for The Straits – White Bay North and certainly the Member for St. John's Centre. They have their very strong opinions as it relates to what is necessary to establish that transmission corridor. They have very strong opinions, Mr. Chair, as it relates to wildlife. They have very strong opinions as it relates to the removal of trees and so on that is required. I know the Member for The Straits – White Bay North has very strong opinions about berries. He must have talked about berries for at least a half hour tonight, of time dedicated to talking about berries.

Now, Mr. Chair, I can appreciate where they are coming from, and I mean that in all sincerity. I spent an awful lot of time growing up out in rural Newfoundland, where my family were from, and we spent an awful lot of time picking berries, whether it be blueberries, partridgeberries, blackberries, bake apples, all that good stuff. I am an avid hunter; I love to go moose hunting, rabbit and so on.

I can certainly appreciate the great outdoors and, particularly here in Newfoundland, the tie that we do have to the environment and to our great outdoors, whether it be as I said hunting, fishing, picking berries, all that good stuff.

Mr. Chair, we have to look at, though, the fact that we do need power here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We need it. We know that we need it here for the Island, for residential, for commercial use. We also know that we are going to need it in Labrador. We have to get that power from somewhere. We have to do it in a way that makes the best sense for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the most efficient way we can, the most cost-effective way we can, that we can derive the greatest benefit for our people that can.

As I have said on a number of occasions when I have spoken – as have my colleagues – that we truly do believe, and again, very sincere when I say we truly do believe that Muskrat Falls is the best option for the Province. We believe the reports that we have read and the briefings we have heard from the folks at Nalcor, the reports from MHI, Navigant, and so on. We have gotten all the expert advice, we have done the due diligence, and we really believe that this is the way to go.

I think we all understand that any time, whether you are developing power, whether you are growing your municipality from a residential perspective, from a commercial perspective, from an industrial perspective, when you are developing your natural resources, when you are putting in your roads and highways and so on, I think everybody recognizes that when that happens there is no doubt about it, you cannot build a road from point A to point B through a wilderness area or whatever, or to connect a town or a city or whatever, that you are going to have to cut down trees – that is reality.

We have areas in the St. John's-Mount Pearl area and so on – we know we have a big development that is going to occur just west of Southlands, that is going to be size of Gander, we are told – wonderful. Well, right now, that is a wooded area. There are woods there, there are bogs, there are ponds, and all that kind of stuff is there.

So, we know, Mr. Chair, that as we develop these areas, as we progress as a Province, as we have new businesses coming in, whether that be commercial businesses, industrial businesses and so on, that these things are going to happen. Things are going to get built, hotels will be built, stores will be built, houses will be built, roads will be built, roads will be expanded and widened and all that kind of stuff. When you do that, you cannot have that and also, at the same time, keep all the trees and not disrupt anything in the environment.

Then you have to look at how we achieve this in a balanced, reasonable way – trying to balance the environment and those concerns with development. That is where your due diligence comes in. That is where, even in this transmission line, they have looked at environmental issues. They have looked at what are the migration patterns for caribou and so on. We have looked at that. We have looked at issues that would be around the moose population and other wildlife.

We realize that trees will have to be cut. We realize that there are ponds and lakes and waterways, and we try to militate against it as best we can by trying to ensure that we do not cut right through the middle of a lake, that we go around it as best we can. If we are going to be close to a waterway, that we use the best engineering we have and so on to try to protect against that. We realize all that. That is reasonable. I mean, that happens throughout the world. We do the best we can.

At the end of the day, without doubt, in a balanced way, there is going to be some impact on the environment. It is as simple as that. It is going to happen. I would say to the Member for The Straits – White Bay North: We still have a vast land mass here on the Island and there are lots of berries growing everywhere. There are berries growing all over the place. There are bake apples, there are blueberries, and there are partridgeberries. There are lots of ponds to go fishing in and so on, and you are still going to be able to do that. People will still have the ability to pick berries, to go fishing, to engage in outdoor activities, to go skidooing, to go out on their quads on the side roads. All that stuff that we enjoy now, they can still enjoy.

Obviously, in those particular spots where there used to be a tree or there used to be a blueberry patch, if that happens to be right in the middle of that corridor and as a result of that development you cannot pick the berries here any more, well, I guess you cannot. All you have to do is just go to a different spot. Go a little further east, a little west, a little further north, south, or whatever to move away from it and pick your berries.

If you need to pass through that corridor to get to a pond, to get to a whatever, you can do that. There is no fence; we are not fencing it off. We are not going to put up a big wire fence, like the harbour fence that we have heard in the media lately down in the harbour. We are not putting up that harbour fence right along the whole route that the power lines are going to go through to keep people out of there. That is not happening. You can walk in there, walk around it, walk under it, drive under it, whatever; you can still do all that.

I understand the passion. Again, I understand the passion. There are people who are very, very passionate about these things. I do not take that lightly; I understand that. Somewhere along the way, at least the way that I try to look at it, you have to take a reasonable, measured, balanced approach, balancing out development and I will say progress – some people would say it is not progress, but I believe it is progress. It is certainly something we need, but you have to take that balance between that and other issues, whether it is the enjoyment of the outdoors, the environment, so on.

I believe in this particular case, Mr. Chair, that the folks at Nalcor have done their due diligence, they have done their environmental assessments and so on, and they have taken, what I believe to be, a balanced approach. I do not think there is anybody here – there is nobody on this side of the House who wants to do anything to intentionally destroy our environment or intentionally destroy the way of life of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We are all from Newfoundland and Labrador. Our children are here and our grandchildren are here. Some of us, our children are gone; but a lot of us, our children are here and our grandchildren are here. If they are not here, we want them to come back, we want to enjoy it, but we have to be able to strike a reasonable balance. That is what this government does with everything we do. I think there is nothing wrong with it. It is just being reasonable, logical stewards of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Pollard): Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chair, we know with this bill we are going to get rid of the Arbitration Act; the Arbitration Act does not apply. This is the only act that will apply for expropriation, for taking people's property, in order to advance the Muskrat Falls Project.

This particular statutory easement under section 7.(6) says, "Notwithstanding the date of creation of a statutory easement," – so that means no matter whatever the date of the easement was created – "all statutory easements registered under the authority of this Act shall expire on January 1, 2075…".

What do you have then? Well, you do not have the land back; you have "the land which was the subject of the statutory easement shall then be held by the holder in the same manner as land is held for the purpose of transmission assets and transmission lines at the time."

So for all the time this land will be gone, an easement will apply as a regular transmission line, but up until January 1, 2075 it will be bound by this statutory easement that is created by the Muskrat Falls Project Land Use and Expropriation Act. This can be set up – you can register a statutory easement under this in 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, or 2070. No matter what time it was registered, it is good under this law until January 1, 2075 and then you have a regular transmission line cutting across your property.

Expropriation protocol is being established by this act, and people will need to refer to this from time to time because this is going to be an important piece of legislation for property owners in this Province for a long time to come.

Section 47 says, The Lieutenant-Governor in Council" – or the government – "shall, by regulation, establish an expropriation protocol for the purpose of expropriations under this Part, and in particular shall make regulations". So, it is mandatory that regulations are required to be made and it lists categories from (a) to (h). It lists eight separate sections that the regulations are to be created.

First of all (a) says, "respecting the procedures which may be required for negotiations respecting land sought under this Part". This expropriations protocol sets up the procedures for this land grab. Under (b) it says, "respecting the procedures for expropriations under this Part, including urgent expropriations under section 13 and the return of the land under section 27".

Section 13, with urgent expropriation, says if the Muskrat Falls, corporations, or any of the proponents including Emera, Nalcor, any of the corporations, if they say to the expropriating protocol, to the board, the new board that will be established, we need that land right now, then the land can be expropriated on seven days notice without any inquiry. Expropriation is simple, it is done, it is registered in the Registry of Deeds, and that is it.

If the land has been expropriated and the expropriation drags on for two or three or four years, or however long, if any time before they have paid compensation which is set forth in section 27, they can simply give the land back. They can say we realize we did not need it after all, or it was a mistake and we have not paid you yet, so we are just going to give you back the land. You have had your land tied up for however long it takes. You will be entitled to no compensation, other than what they may determine by this expropriation panel. You have no right to go off to court to recover compensation. You cannot sue anybody for a mistake under this act.

"(c) prescribing the information which is required to be provided respecting an agreement, expropriation or arbitration under this Part". It sets forth the information. This sort of smacks of Bill 29, when the government controls the information, they are going to control the information here as well. It is another freedom gone.

"(d) prescribing the time periods for response to a notice of expropriation required under this Part, and those other time periods respecting expropriation under this Part". This expropriations protocol will establish whatever time periods, whether it is a day, a week, a month. They have not yet decided what it will be, but the act clearly says that land can be expropriated, without inquiry, simply by serving a notice. The notice can be attached to the land. Seven days later, it becomes the property of one of the proponents.

"(e) respecting the composition of a panel of arbitration, the process by which that arbitration panel will hear and decide matters, and generally to facilitate the conduct of an arbitration between the parties." So, there is no independence. This is simply established by this government who sets up the expropriation protocol.

"(f) respecting the keeping by the expropriating authority of a register of expropriations, including the particulars required to be contained in that register". They can decide how they keep a register of what they took and what information needs to be put in the register. There is nothing that indicates that they have to make that public. There is nothing that indicates that anybody can obtain that information. It simply says that they are required to maintain a register of what they took.

"(g) respecting the rules for the payment of money into trust under this Part". If there is an issue that comes up and there is a difficulty with who should be paid for whatever they took, they simply pay the money into trust and they set up the rules for the trust.

Then there is an all-encompassing, catch-all phrase which says, "(h) generally, for the purpose and administration of this Part". It means that they can do pretty much anything. Regarding this land, they can do pretty much anything that they see fit to do.

Another issue that comes up with this particular act is if they expropriate land and they decide: Well, we do not know who the owner is. We cannot identify the owner. We know we took somebody's land. If we took somebody's land and we used it for this, that or whatever, after they have been sitting on the money for so long, and if nobody claims it, it does not go to the Crown.

In an ordinary course, if a good-faith party had obtained some property by way of expropriation, any property interests generally in a democracy such as ours, if nobody comes forth to claim it, then – in law they use a word called escheat – it escheats to the Crown. It becomes the property of the Crown and the Crown then represents all of the people of the Province. In this case, if they have acquired this land, they are required to pay a certain amount of money. If nobody claims it, the company gets to keep the money. This act permits them to hang on to the cash they should have paid to somebody. This means they got the land for nothing.

I expect that over a significant period of time, over the next fifty or sixty years, there will be significant litigation over this act. If anything, it likely will be a gold mine for lawyers if not for the individuals who have their rights violated.

Another very interesting section says under 19, "An error in a notice of expropriation does not invalidate the expropriation of the land." If they make a mistake in the notice of expropriation, if they serve notice on land, say we are going to expropriate this parcel over here, and say that is what it is, and if that happens to be a mistake, they may well expropriate that parcel over there. Mr. Chair, it is almost as if the police were to get a search warrant for one home and go kick in the door at another home, then that will be just fine. Just because they made a mistake in the notice does not mean there is anything wrong with what they did.

Well, it seems to be absolutely outrageous that we would have this type of law that we would pass. Even more importantly, because we have an Expropriations Act already in this Province, why are we not relying on tried and true legislation that we have already passed? We have passed it without being too hasty. The previous legislation has been tested. So we are going to rush off now and create another law that could cause all kinds of trouble, probably with the same outcome as if you were to expropriate a paper mill and maybe with significant consequences in the same direction.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Here at this hour, it is 6:20 o'clock just about. You are doing a fine job keeping us all in order, and it is a pleasure to speak once again to Bill 60.

Earlier this morning I was talking about megaprojects and the potential cost overruns that they have. I just want to explain that megaprojects' poor results can be contributed to a number of reasons. This is based on sound research that poor performance in megaprojects typically results in a lack of realism in the initial cost estimates.

If we go back and look at the Energy Plan of the Province that is there, it states that the Lower Churchill looks at Gull Island and Muskrat Falls, Gull Island representing over 2,000 megawatts and Muskrat Falls 824 megawatts. At that time, the cost estimates were between $6 billion and $8 billion. As you can see, today we are looking at where we are from 2007 to 2012 and the costs have ballooned significantly. The cost of doing Muskrat Falls Project would be close to $8 billion right now. That is looking at the bungalow, the small project, versus the mansion of electricity projects which is basically out of reach. If we looked at trying to do both, can you imagine what the cost would be if the original estimates were at the range listed in the Energy Plan?

Another reason that can cause poor performance is really the underestimation of the length and the cost of delays. We have seen delay after delay, and the Member for St. Barbe had just talked about other delays, possible court challenges and things that can slow down proceedings. We have seen things slowed down and slowed down on the project that certainly would increase cost.

Another thing is that contingencies are too low. We have seen many cases where people underestimate the cost of overruns. We have seen they have gone up over and over, but this one right here, for right now, with the new DG3 numbers we are estimating only 12 per cent overage. That is not very much, Mr. Chair, when you look at all the risks associated with it. The lenders are looking at all the risks, and so are the federal government, when they are saying: Well, if we are going to sign to be guarantors with the proponents, we want to make sure that we are certain to realize the investment, and that we are not going to be out here. The risk of this is quite high. Also, there is a high risk of looking at technological innovation, because we are going to be locked in for fifty years. This all can translate into significant cost increase.

One of the other points, and it gets me back to Bill 60 specifically, is that a number of megaprojects, Mr. Chair, have underestimated significantly the expropriation cost, and the safety and environmental demands of being able to implement these projects. The Member for St. Barbe had basically just talked about that in looking at increased legal costs and fees when it comes to looking at expropriation. Changing legislation, and to do it in such a way that it takes away and infringes upon people's rights of the Province and the landowners there, and to basically take away their property, could lead in many cases to legal challenges.

Now I look at Nalcor Energy's proposed route. They do not have their assessment complete when it comes to where the route is actually going to go and where it is going to be approved to go. When I asked the officials at the department of Natural Resources, they would not give me or they did not have a calculated estimate cost as to what this expropriation is going to mean. That is something that I would like to know because in megaprojects a lot of times the expropriation cost is really underestimated. Maybe someone here on the government side has that information.

When I look at the Nalcor maps that were supplied, I just need to look directly at where the transmission station is going and it crosses directly into my district. The drilling and everything that had taken place for the test wells have already been done for quite some time, Mr. Chair. They have done work there just south of Pines Cove and between Shoal Cove East.

The transmission corridor is going to run through communities in my district: Shoal Cove East, Sandy Cove, and Savage Cove directly. It is going to impact homeowners potentially there, based on what I am seeing on the map. Then it is going to cross through just back of Flower's Cove into what would be a high cabin country in my district, Mr. Chair, and a number of users back there. That is going to be a significant impact that is going to infringe on my constituents and cause them undue hardship when it comes to the luxuries they enjoy by having a cabin and the benefits they enjoy from recreation.

Most of those cabins, in many cases, are like a second home. Some of them are better than homes they have because of the time and everything that they have put into them. These cabins, these cottages that are there, are not just these tilts that sometimes we have in the woods and company camps that people would stay in, in the past. A number of these cottages or cabins, as we call them in the district, anyway, have things like satellite dishes. They are run with electricity through them using generators. They have septic supply systems – looking at the recourse of putting that in there.

I want to look at what we are talking about when we are looking at the cost of expropriating land running through that corridor, because fourteen campgrounds with a total of 1,238 campsites are within the larger regional study area. The proposed transmission corridor intersects with the International Appalachian Trail on the Great Northern Peninsula.

For forestry; the forest sector which I have talked about and advocated for, is that there are thirteen active forestry management districts, three on the Great Northern Peninsula. The corridors overlap the most on the greatest planned activity on the Great Northern Peninsula. That is going to have impacts, Mr. Chair. It is going to have impacts for the people of my district and on the Great Northern Peninsula.

When you look at mines and energy; mining has been talked about quite a bit. The Northern Peninsula has quarries and staked claims on land, and oil and gas exploration projects located in the proposed transmission corridor. You talk about expropriating the potential economic benefits in an area that currently has a fairly depressed economy. You are talking about taking away economic benefits and opportunities when we have great natural resources there. When you are talking about the forest sector, when you talk about what this is going to mean to the fishing sector, and now what it is potentially going to mean for on land oil and gas exploration projects that are there, and what it could mean overall.

As well as with agriculture, Mr. Chair, the study regions say there are bakeapple areas on the Labrador side of the Strait of Belle Isle. As well, there are certainly berries on the other side on the route.

There are commercial farms in the transmission corridor. What is that going to mean to those people who have invested and in business? Are they going to be compensated fairly and get continuous royalties for this? What is it actually going to mean in impact? I would have a lot of questions if I had a potential property that I had ownership of, or had built something, or use an area on the Great Northern Peninsula and across the Province.

If you look at the blueberry management units near the Brigus Junction, it is located near the proposed corridor. If you look at all the activities, Mr. Chair, including berry picking, mushroom foraging, wood harvesting for domestic use, plant gathering and roadside gardening, also, fishing, hunting, trapping. These are all very significant subsistence activities, especially for people in my district who are where the corridor is directly going to impact, and for a number of MHAs in this very House, where the corridor is going to go through.

It is going to impact the everyday person, the everyday user significantly. People do not realize what the impact of this expropriation of land to build such a large transmission corridor is going to mean. We do not even have the cost. We are looking at passing legislation here and the government is not willing to provide the estimated cost of this proposal. I say it is preposterous, Mr. Chair, it certainly is.

There are a lot other things. There are a lot of unanswered questions which we need to have answered before we can vote on this piece of legislation. I am certainly willing to speak time and time again until someone from the government side answers my questions.

I see my time is expired, Mr. Chair, so I will take my seat.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it concerning that the Member for The Straits – White Bay North would leave the people of the Province with the impression that we do not take the needs and concerns of landowner's seriously. I have spoken previously to this bill and I have outlined a number of ways in which we are going to engage and consult with those affected to ensure they are treated reasonably and fairly and respectfully through the course of this process.

The challenge we have here, Mr. Chair, is that the current legislation is not compatible with project requirements related to land and interest in lands. When I look at the current provincial laws, they were primarily designed to deal with land issues on a local basis and they do not really contemplate dealing with a project of this scale. For instance, under the current legislation that is in place today easements cannot be mortgaged or leased, which Nalcor has already told us is necessary for project financing.

I know some people out there are probably wondering, why establish a new piece of legislation? Why can't we just simply make changes to current legislation? There are a number of reasons for that. Again, the current legislation is not compatible with project requirements. For that reason we need to take a different approach here.

The land related requirements for the project are unique and not required for general application, I would suggest, Mr. Chair. So rather than making multiple amendments to a whole bunch of statutes, government has decided to create a single statute to address the land related issues for the project.

As well, amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, the Energy Corporation Act and the Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, that pertain to financing requirements for the project are also required, which is what we have been trying to deal with through Bill 61. Any additional legislative measures specific to the project are going to be introduced as required in future sessions of the House of Assembly.

The legislation we are dealing with here, which the Member for The Straits – White Bay North seems to be suggesting as inappropriate or irresponsible in some way – and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would suggest such things. I am not sure what any of it has to do with mushroom foraging, but I am sure as the morning goes on we will hear more about that as well. I am interested in hearing more about the member's experiences with mushrooms, and I am sure we will hear more as the morning unfolds.

The legislation we are dealing with here supports the advancement of Muskrat Falls. It is necessary legislation to move this project forward. Nalcor has told us that this bill is necessary in order to present the strongest possible case when financial markets are approached early in 2013. That will help us meet a key requirement of the financing process once it gets underway.

The legislation applies to the land interests that are required for the entire project, Mr. Chair. The generation plant and transmission connections to Churchill Falls have already been released from environmental assessment. The legislation does not impact the ongoing environmental assessment processes. The legislation will apply to these transmission projects once those environmental assessment processes are completed, Mr. Chair.

By introducing the bill now, by introducing this legislation at this time, it provides certainty, Mr. Chair, to the proponents with respect to land acquisition. It is going to prevent unnecessary delays once the transmission projects are released from the environmental process.

I know certain members opposite would suggest that delays are a good thing. That we should just delay progress inevitably, or halt progress all together. Well, I know that is not acceptable to the majority of people in this Province.

The Member for The Straits – White Bay North has raised a number of concerns around transmission corridors. I want to remind members of this House, and I want to remind the public as well, that the proposed transmission corridors are going to run parallel to existing transmission corridors wherever possible, to the greatest extent possible.

In terms of the acquisition of property; property interests acquired are going to be the minimum interest necessary for the project. It could range all the way from simply permission to occupy, all the way to total ownership. There is the full spectrum there, Mr. Chair.

The equipment that is necessary for the use and operation of the transmission system includes equipment that is located outside of the transmission line corridors. Just to give you some examples of what that equipment could include, it could include converter stations, switchyard or terminal stations, and also electrolines. This is standard practice for utility transmission line systems.

I know the Member for The Straits – White Bay North spoke extensively about privately-owned properties and how they are going to be impacted. He has talked about homeowners and cabin owners and how they will potentially be impacted. That is obviously something we have given a lot of consideration to. We are going to work with Nalcor and Emera to ensure that any property owner affected is treated fairly, and treated respectfully through this process.

In talking to Nalcor, we have concluded they anticipate that ownership or easement rights are required for approximately fifty to sixty privately-owned properties for the Labrador-Island Link. That includes approximately five houses in Sunnyside, Chapel Arm and Blaketown, and approximately five cabins that are located near Goulds, Big Pond and Witless Bay Line. Five houses in Sunnyside, Chapel Arm, Blaketown, and five cabins located near Goulds, Big Pond, and the Witless Bay Line.

Nalcor also advises that ownership or easement rights are required for approximately 100 privately-owned properties for the Maritime Link. Emera does not foresee any homes or cabins being required for the Maritime Link at this point in time, Mr. Chair.

I would remind hon. members, the Labrador-Island Link and the Maritime Link are undergoing separate environmental assessment processes. The exact route and the number of properties to be acquired will not really be determined until the projects are released from those processes.

As I believe I touched on a little earlier, Mr. Chair, we have also determined that approximately 90 per cent of the land required for the Maritime Link is Crown land, and 99 per cent of the land required for the Labrador-Island Link is Crown land. Therefore, the impact on private property owners is rather minimal.

I am hearing some enthusiasm once again, and it comes from the hon. Member for Gander, Mr. Chair. I want to thank him for his active participation in this debate. I am noting some enthusiasm from the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island, so I want to thank him as well for taking part in the debate. My French friend, who has one of the best accents I have ever heard, Mr. Chair, the Member for Port au Port, I want to thank him as well for enthusiastically cheering me on at 6:37 a.m.

There has been some talk about Emera, and Emera's interest in the land that is being acquired. Some people have wondered: How long does Emera retain an interest in the land acquired? The answer is for thirty-five years after first power. After that time the land interest reverts to Nalcor, Mr. Chair. Nalcor, of course, is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There has been some talk as well, and some good questions raised from members opposite related to potential impact on national parks, provincial parks, wildlife and ecological reserves, or other sensitive areas. This is something that is obviously really important to us from an environmental point of view.

I note that the Minister of Environment continues to listen intently as the debate continues. He has been here for a long, long time. I appreciate the fact that on such an important piece of legislation that he is taking such an active interest, though that is no surprise to me or members on this side of the House.

The exact route will not be determined until those environmental processes are completed. Nalcor does advise that the route will likely intersect with the Newfoundland and Labrador T'Railway Provincial Park. The legislation specifies that the T'Railway is an approved use consistent with the proponent's statutory easement rights. Other routing issues are going to be deal with, Mr. Chair. That is being dealt with as part of these ongoing processes that we are going through.

As you can see, these are issues that we have taken quite seriously. We have considered the impact of expropriation on all property owners. So, yes, interest in private land is going to be required for the project. That is absolutely true, but most of the land that is required for the project is Crown land; 99 per cent of the land required for the Labrador-Island Link is Crown land, 90 per cent of the land required for the Maritime Link is Crown land.

First and foremost, we will try to negotiate an agreement with the landowner that is fair to both parties. If a negotiated agreement cannot be reached, which would be unfortunate – we will do our best to reach a negotiated conclusion, but, if not, government will have to expropriate the property in order for the project to proceed. We want to do that as infrequently as possible, Mr. Chair.

This is where we are. These are important issues. I thank the member for his questions, and I hope that we will stay focused on the facts as the debate continues here this morning.

As I conclude my comments, I just want to say good morning to all my colleagues. I also want to do a little shout out. If I could ask for leave for just a moment to give a shout out to a canine friend of mine who I have gotten to know quite well through this debate. He is a fine dog named, Socks. Of course, props are not permitted in this House, so I am not able to give you a sense of who Socks is and the kind of dog he is, and how important he is in my life, Mr. Chair, but I hope in a less formal point in House proceedings, I hope to be able to share more about Socks with my hon. colleagues.

At this point, I will wish you a good morning, Mr. Chair, and I will take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Top of the morning to everybody here.

MR. KENT: And Socks.

MR. A. PARSONS: And to Socks, wherever Socks may be.

It is a pleasure to stand up and speak to this. I think we are doing a fine job of keeping the issues alive here. Hopefully, I can stick to the facts as it relates to Bill 60, one of the enabling pieces of legislation needed to make Muskrat Falls happen, even post-sanction.

I want to move forward in my progression through the bill that I have here, Bill 60. I have been going through the legislation and speaking to the different aspects of it. One of them is Part III, Municipal Taxation. I thought what I would do, to make sure I do this justice, is go through the legislation. There are only six sections that deal with municipal taxation, so I will go through the sections. I know it is hard to tame your excitement as I read through legislation at 6:42 a.m., but I feel it is necessary. Then what I will do is get into my opinions and some commentary on the legislation as I see it.

The first part, we talk about what is defined as real property. Real property is defined the Municipalities Act, 1999 if you go to (s) in the Municipalities Act. Part of the whole process we talked about is that there are multiple pieces of legislation you have to refer to that are referred to in this.

Real property, in case there is anybody out there who did not know, means: "(i) land or an interest arising from land, and includes land under water, (ii) land and buildings, structures, improvements, building service systems and storage facilities and fixtures erected or placed upon, in, over or under land or affixed to land, (iii) a building that is erected on land under a lease, licence or permit, but does not include the land upon which the building is erected, and (iv) a mobile home". Now that we know what real property is, we know what we are dealing with here.

The next part we go into is, "Where a real property tax is imposed by an Act of the province for the benefit of a municipality" – so basically a town tax – "and a holder is liable to pay that tax, the holder shall pay the tax in accordance with that Act." What it is saying is if there is an applicable tax as it relates to real property owned by one of the holders as it is defined in this piece of legislation, they are liable.

Here is where we get into the next section: Notwithstanding that previous section I just went through, "a holder is exempt from municipal taxation with respect to the following real property in relation…" –

MR. MURPHY: A point of order.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: I can appreciate, Mr. Chair, that everybody is tired here. In the interest of decorum, we have members here who are asleep in their chairs. We have members with their jackets off and no ties on.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MR. MURPHY: I am asking the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms to express a little bit of enforcement when it comes to the decorum rules of the House. It is getting to be a bit much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to speak to the point of order. The debate has been ongoing for quite some time. I have been in the House now I guess ten years, Mr. Chair. At different levels of the day, at different times of the day, different hours of the morning and night and so on, a lot of strange things and funny things happen here in the House. Mr. Chair, just let me say I am totally disgusted and totally disappointed with the comments just made by the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Chair, of all my years in the House, I have never seen the like. I think the member should apologize and withdraw his comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled on the point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I will continue on with my discussion on municipal taxation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, just for the record I noticed my time is reset. I do not know, am I okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Take all the time you want.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. I only do that because I would not want somebody to say it was two people in a row.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: I will continue on and I will talk about municipal taxation which I have gotten through points 48 and 49. What I was talking about is the fact that we are saying that property taxes imposed by an act, but we are also saying that notwithstanding that a holder, so somebody who is owning the real property, "is exempt from municipal taxation with respect to the following real property in relation to the Muskrat Falls Project only".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to go back here because there has been some confusion in the past couple of days over the interpretation of this particular section. What it is saying is, "Notwithstanding subsection (1), a holder is exempt from" – so a holder will not pay – "municipal taxation with respect to the following real property in relation to the Muskrat Falls Project only: "(a) real property of the holder in the transmission corridor; (b) transmission assets on, under or connected to real property in the transmission corridor; and" –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: "(c) other transmissions assets as may be prescribed in the regulations, but the holder's liability to pay tax referred to in subsection (1) is otherwise unaffected."

My interpretation of that, Mr. Chair, is that if I owned the real property, so again one of the subsidiaries or somebody, Nalcor, government, et cetera, is going to expropriate property and they are going to own property that is in the transmission corridor and that is property on which the substations or whatever are going to be –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I know all members are bubbling over with Christmas cheer, I also recognize that you are sleep deprived as well, but I urge all members to co-operate.

Thank you.

I recognize the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

What we are saying is that if somebody does indeed own or hold real property – that is the 1,100 kilometres that is be expropriated – they are actually exempt from real property tax if it falls within the municipality, so they will not have to pay that tax. I am not sure how much of this is actually going to be affected by municipal taxation or not, but I think it could be an issue down the road because, really, it is revenues that should be paid.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to continue on with my discussion. I know the Chair is interested in what I am saying here and this very important time, 6:49 a.m.

When we move on to section 50, which is a business or commercial tax, what is says is, "Where a business or commercial tax is imposed by an Act of the province for the benefit of a municipality and a holder is liable to pay that tax, a holder shall pay the tax…". So, first we are dealing with municipal taxation and now we are dealing with business tax.

Subsection (2) says, "Notwithstanding subsection (1), a holder is exempt from taxation referred to in that subsection with respect to the transmission corridor or the transmission lines where the exclusive operation of the holder in the transmission corridor or in respect to the transmission line is the transmission of electrical energy with respect to the Muskrat Falls Project, but the holder's liability to pay tax referred to in subsection (1) is otherwise unaffected."

So, what I would say there is that if I am the holder, if I have gone out and expropriated that property and that property is a part of the transmission corridor, whether that be land on which there is a tower or land on which there is an asset –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: What I would say there is that if this property – again, there is so much that is going to fall on Crown land, whether it is up in Labrador or whether it is down in the Province, but some of this may fall within a municipality. If that is the case –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Thank you for your co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

My concern is that depending on where the line goes – and I think according to the Member for Mount Pearl North, once the environmental assessment is completed we will know exactly where that is going to fall – there could be a significant concern as it relates to revenues that are supposed to go to a municipality, whether it is a business tax or municipal tax, that they may not get because Nalcor now owns that property and had to expropriate that property. That is a situation that is a concern. I look forward to seeing what comes out of this down the road.

When you move on to 51, Mr. Chair –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: – "Where water or sewage or water and sewage tax is imposed by an Act of the province for the benefit of a municipality…" they have to "…pay that tax in accordance with that Act." Here is the change, in subsection (2) of section 51: "Nothing in this Act affects the ability to impose a tax under an Act… or the liability to pay that tax where a service referred to in subsection (1) is provided to a holder."

What we are saying is that your water and sewer, the holder still has to pay that. Whatever is owing under those different taxes – and these are necessary because that is a service that is being provided. In that case the holder, be it Nalcor, a subsidiary, government, or whoever, has to pay that.

What we are moving onto next is section 52 and section 53. What we are dealing with here is, "Notwithstanding another Act of the province, where a statutory easement has been registered under this Act, a landowner is not liable to pay tax to a municipality as a result of a residual interest in the land which is the subject of a statutory easement."

This is an interesting one, now, section 53.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: What that says is "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by order direct that subsection 49(2) or 50(2) no longer applies to a holder." I am wondering in what situation that will apply. It is a very interesting situation here.

What I would say is I think it has to be noted on the record that I believe the Minister of Natural Resources said at some point in the House of Assembly during Question Period this week that the new bill – I think actually what the minister said was no, these landholders now after the expropriation happens will have to pay tax. I think he misinterpreted the legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: Our interpretation of this section, as I have just read –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have recognized the Member for Burgeo – La Poile. He has some time left on the clock.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: There are certainly no worries. We probably have a couple hours left here and I will get an opportunity to keep speaking. I understand that the temperature rises. Do not worry, I am still getting on my feet and saying my piece. Do not anybody worry about it. It is not an issue. I will continue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS: What I would say is I think we need – and maybe at some point the minister or some member of the government could rise, answer my concern on that, and maybe confirm whether my interpretation of the legislation is correct or not. The Member for Mount Pearl North has been listening to what we have had to say and he has been getting up and answering some. That is my question now: Is my interpretation of the Municipal Taxation section correct or is it not correct? At some point, somebody will answer it. It might not be right now, but that is my question. The Minister of Natural Resources said that was not the case.

The whole point here is let us get the facts out on the record and make sure we know what we are getting into. That is the whole point. I only have a few seconds left here to this session, but what I would say is, look, we have a new piece of law and this new piece of law is new to all of us. We need to make sure the interpretation is correct. It does not matter whether you are government or Opposition. The fact is it is new to all of us.

Let us make sure we know what we are getting into. Whether we know the full impact and implications of legislation that is being passed, we are putting the concerns out there, and at some point we will get the answers. I appreciate the members will endeavour to answer.

On that note, Mr. Chair, I will take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly good to know our side is alive and well. We have been here now straight since Tuesday at 1:30 o'clock. The House has taken on a life of its own, Mr. Chair. It has its ups and downs, and highs and lows. People get tired, people come awake, and people take time off. I guess it will probably be about twenty hours before I leave today. I have seen a changeover of members here today, Mr. Chair. I have seen people from every side of the House take breaks, go home, relax, have a rest, and come back again, but everybody has been represented, Mr. Chair. We have had some very robust debates in the last number of days. At times, as a matter of fact, it almost gets out of hand, and people are tired, edgy, and one thing or another, Mr. Chair.

I have been in politics now – for me I think it is my tenth year. I look around this House, Mr. Chair, and I see people in this House who have been around a long time, on both sides of the House. I see people with an awful lot of experience in this House. I know there is one colleague here, the Member for Harbour Main, who was elected in 1999.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: He has been around a long time. I look at a number of colleagues here who were elected in 2003. They have been through the ropes. They know quite a bit about being in Parliament and parliamentarians, how to behave, how not to behave, and how to react. There are times, Mr. Chair, we all lose our cool, sure we do, but we do the honourable thing.

I have been involved in politics most of my life in some form or another. I organized in politics. I am a student of politics; I am a history-political buff to some degree. I worked for a federal MP, Mr. Chair, which involved watching all kinds of issues in federal Parliament. I have been a parliamentarian here for ten years and, please God, who knows how long if the people decide for me to stay.

What I witnessed a few minutes ago, Mr. Chair, probably because people are listening outside or people are getting out of bed, I am not sure the reason. I did not think that the character of this member would do such a thing, Mr. Chair.

MR. KENT: I will tell you the reason: cheap opportunism.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: What I witnessed was someone stand in this House and try to malign other parliamentarians and other members of the House, Mr. Chair. Let me assure you that is not called for in this House. I have been around a long time. I think it is absolutely ridiculous. I am disgusted.

Mr. Chair, I can assure you that if this House was full of members now, and the experience that I can think about who have walked through the doors of these hallowed halls, they would be absolutely disgusted, and of all political stripes. Not just political stripes of this party, but the political stripes of the people opposite and even political stripes of the Third Party, Mr. Chair. I think back to some people who had longstanding memberships in this House. I think it is absolutely ridiculous, and as lowball as you can possibly get, the way that member just behaved.

Mr. Chair, since we got to that topic, now I am going to go back to the debate obviously. We are here talking about Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: It is appropriate, Mr. Chair, that we now discuss how some members stand in this House. Mr. Chair, we are talking about a place in Holyrood that I grew up around. It is in Seal Cove actually, the Seal Cove-Holyrood boundary if you will, now represented by the Member for Harbour Main. At one time I used to be the representative for there.

Mr. Chair, the ironic thing about this area is that there are a lot of people who have moved into this area over the last number of years. So much so, Mr. Chair, that the people who have moved into this catchment area are members of this House, who represent St. John's East but live in that end of now Conception Bay South and Holyrood. Mr. Chair, the amazing part about it, this person happens to be the Environment critic who is against greenhouse gas emissions, who would do anything to save one ounce of greenhouse gasses. Now, this is the person we are talking about who is behaving like they behaved today in this House.

Now, Mr. Chair, he is going to vote against Muskrat Falls. He is going to vote against it, yet he lives in the neighbourhood where the emissions in Holyrood spew out. Mr. Chair, let me just tell the neighbours of the hon. Member for St. John's East, his neighbours, what he voted against and will continue to vote against.

Mr. Chair, this plant, one of the key factors is it burns 18,000 barrels of oil per day. Can you imagine the greenhouse gas emissions, and the neighbours in that neighbourhood what they see and the emissions that flow out? Well, one of their neighbours wants to keep that going. Mr. Chair, that is hard to imagine.

Mr. Chair, I lived in that area my whole life, and I can assure you I have never met a man, a woman, or a child, grandparent, relative, neighbour, who lived in that whole area of Conception Bay South, Holyrood, Avondale, Conception Harbour, Colliers, Kitchuses, all up the bay, even Port de Grave and Bay Roberts, people on Bell Island – I have never met a person, not one, who did not want to see that shut down, Mr. Chair.

However, there is a person in this House, Mr. Chair, who lives in our neighbourhood – and I say that with all sincerity – who wants to keep it going. Now, Mr. Chair, that is disgraceful. That is absolutely disgraceful. Somebody who can see what is coming out of that – I have personally visited houses in that area many times where their decks were covered with soot, the kids' bikes were covered with particulate matter - as well, people's barbecues and people's roofs.

Just two weeks ago, three weeks ago, I had a call from a friend of mine who had experienced – I will call it, for lack of a better word – a backfire at the plant and everything was covered in ash. Mr. Chair, they say that what you can see is not the dangerous stuff. The dangerous stuff is the things you cannot see.

Mr. Chair, when a member of this House stands up, who lives in that neighbourhood, and the best thing he can talk about during a Muskrat debate is if somebody is nodding off in this House, that is what you are dealing with in this House, with such a serious issue on the table as Muskrat Falls. Now we are talking about the line that is going to hook up the people of the Province, and the best thing they can talk about – the Member for St. John's East has been crying for a debate.

They have been telling us for months they are going to filibuster; they are so excited about it. The best thing they can come up with this morning, the member of the Third Party, the Member for St. John's East who now lives in the third biggest polluter in this country, the best thing he can come up with in debate this morning is that he sees someone nodding off. Mr. Chair, that is an absolute disgrace.

I say to the hon. member, maybe he should go home and have a rest himself and then when he thinks about what he did, to come back and sincerely apologize. Mr. Chair, we do not always get along in this House, believe it or not, and we are confrontational quite a bit. We are confrontational all the time. Do you know what, Mr. Chair? At the end of the day we agree to disagree and we are colleagues. We are colleagues of the House of Assembly. You never take it to a personal level; you keep it to the issue. In this case here it is Muskrat Falls, and I say to the Member for St. John's East, it is time for you to stick to the issue.

Let's talk about the emissions coming out of Holyrood. Let's talk about it, Mr. Chair. The Member for St. John's East is talking about green energy and electric cars. He wants to do everything. I say to him, protect your neighbours. Look after the health of your neighbours and vote in favour of Muskrat Falls. It would be the equivalent of taking 300,000 cars off the road.

By approving Muskrat Falls, the Member for St. John's East will be freeing his neighbours of 1 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. By voting for Muskrat Falls, the Member for St. John's East will be freeing Atlantic Canada from 1.2 million tons. If the Member for St. John's East protects his neighbours, protects the people of Atlantic Canada, and protects the people of North America, Mr. Chair, he will be removing 2 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

I say to the hon. member, stop being small, apologize to your parliamentarian colleagues in this House. Talk about the real issue here, which is Muskrat Falls, which is looking after the health of the people of our neighbourhood, his neighbourhood, my neighbourhood, and the people of the Province, Mr. Chair. Do the honourable thing, support Muskrat Falls and stick to the issue at hand.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will not be apologizing for addressing decorum in this House. It may be all right for some members to think that it is okay for nodding off. I do not mind that, somebody's head nodding off for a second, Mr. Chair, but –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I say to the member, he stood on a point of order. The Chair ruled there was no point of order. There will be no further discussion on the point of order. If the member wants to go ahead and talk about the bill at hand, go right ahead.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will address the bill. I got a little bit carried away when the Member for Conception Bay South stood up and still asked me to apologize, which will not be happening.

Mr. Chair, as regards to the bill at hand and what the Member for Conception Bay South was saying with me not wanting to shut down Holyrood, I am already on record as saying that I am fully in favour of shutting down Holyrood. I live under the stacks and I told government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: – what they could be doing with alternative forms of energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: I told them about conservation measures they could have been carrying on with over the years, Mr. Chair. They have been in power for nine years. They could have carried on with other programming that would have addressed what was coming out of Holyrood ages ago.

Mr. Chair, as regards to the bill at hand –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's East has been recognized. I would ask all members now for their co-operation.

The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To get back to the bill at hand, I want to address something about the particular environmental issues when it comes to Bill 60. As we know, they are going to be clearing away a sixty-metre wide laneway which is going to be something in the order of 1,100 to 1,200 kilometres long.

As we know, just looking at the impacts, maybe it does not sound big that these wires and cables are going to be doing too much of an impact. There are a couple of things that came to mind when we were talking about the fact that they are going to be doing a lot of clearing and a lot of expropriation of lands. The couple of things that came to mind were simple in this regard.

I kept on asking myself: When they are clearing land, how are they going to maintain the clearance of the land? The thing that came to mind was the use of Agent Orange and the use of pesticides. One of the things we have been seeing as regards the roadside clearing of brush and such has been government's use of pesticides, namely Agent Orange, which is a combination of a couple of chemicals, namely 2,4-D and Tordon 101, and Picloram is another chemical that is in there, some of which are cancer causing. We are talking about taking these chemicals and putting them into the environment.

The transmission lines are probably going to be there for a long, long time. No doubt the government and the proprietors of the project are probably thinking about the long-term maintenance of these lines. At the same time, they are going to be dumping these toxic chemicals into the environment, probably year after year, Mr. Chair. As we go along and as the project ages, we know we are going to be dumping more chemicals on top of it.

Mr. Chair, I have been dealing with the chemical issue. We already know that roadside clearing is better done by brush cutting. We know the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have already been speaking out about the use of toxic chemicals, namely Tordon 101 and 2,4-D, which are banned chemicals that the government has already put under ban.

Mr. Chair, as you know, I have stood up in this House several times with representation from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to the use of these chemicals. There is a concern amongst the population that these chemicals are probably going to be used in order to maintain the laneways, the thoroughfare if you will, of the lines in question. I wanted to bring that point forward as regards to that.

Is government considering under the Muskrat Falls Project the use of chemicals? As we know, as I just said, the use of chemicals is not good. We know how long it stands in the environment. We know some of these chemicals do not degrade at all over the lifetime they are going to be in the water systems and everything. It is all going to leech in and we know it is going to cause a problem in the future.

Some of these chemicals are cancer causing, Mr. Chair. They have to be a concern. I wanted to bring that particular point forward as regards the use of roadside chemicals and their alternative uses and what is going to be happening when it comes to the power lines themselves. We are talking 1,200 kilometres of lines. The Member for Mount Pearl North already got up and talked about when these lines are cleared everybody is going to be able to go in and berry pick and all that sort of stuff. Mr. Chair, I think berry picking and the use of these chemicals year after year is probably going to be – well I just would not go there. It is kind of dangerous and it is probably not a very good sign for the future.

As regards to the route that it is going to take on the Northern Peninsula, it is going to be coming down through some very old growth forest. It is pretty much pristine; we know it is Crown so maybe it is not going to be a problem as regards to private property owners on one side of the peninsula in some of the more remote areas.

I am just wondering about when these lines get a little bit closer to communities as regards to the old growth forest that is nearby. A little bit of a concern there as regards to the wildlife that might be around there. The other thing that I keep wondering about when it comes to the clearing of these lines, when, I say to the government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: What time of the year is government actually going to be considering sending in these crews to start clearing laneways there? Just to bring the point forward, there are federal regulations now when it comes to the clearing of brush and clearing of forests, when it comes to setting up the laneway. We know about the nesting of birds and everything that happens in the spring. We know that there are federal regulations now when it comes to when these forests and when the brush side areas and everything get cleared out.

There are a couple of concerns as regards to that. The question to government is: When are they going to be doing it? How are they going to be doing it? How are they going to maintain the lines that are there and maintain the cleared areas afterwards? The use of chemicals like picloram and 2,4-D as far as I am concerned is a no-no. A lot of other people are thinking the same way, especially as regards to the number of times that I stood up in this House and presented the petition when it comes to the use of banned chemicals.

As well, I am concerned about the workers and the cost to government. I do not know if they measured into the Muskrat Falls Project. When these workers are going to be out there in the forests and everything clearing away brush, that sort of thing, I am worried about the cost when it comes to the enforcement for workplace health and safety, for example, when it comes to enforcement measures and actually getting people into some of these remote areas, when it comes to making sure that these workers are going to be practising safe work methods, that sort of thing.

The last point that I will make this time around because I see that my time is running out – when it comes to one of the sections under the Expropriation Act, they talk about the loss of income in some cases, loss of property is another thing. I am worried about as well business losses to some of the businesses that are going to be around there. How will they be compensated? How will it be measured?

We need to make sure that any time as well that these people are going to be in there clearing out areas and getting equipment in, we need to make sure that people along the route are also going to be told about the equipment that is running nearby and to make sure that they monitor their own properties, to make sure they get properly compensated in the run of possible damage to their property.

Mr. Chair, I see my time is just about up. I will relent and let somebody else have the floor for now.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am absolutely delighted to be able to get on my feet here amongst my colleagues, both on this side and the other side of the House.

We are having a long session here from the early part of this week. A session that has brought out the good, the bad and the absolute ugly – and I say ugly. I have been in this House representing my district for fourteen years and I tell you, I was floored, in a debate such as this.

I say to you, Mr. Chair, this is a very important debate that is going on. I have been listening intently, but I must say there have been times tonight that I have been uncomfortable. There was one time I was shivering here, froze to death, and I put on some extra clothes, got up and walked around.

I do not know if it is the flu or whatever, but the last half an hour I was sweating. I slipped off my coat. I really did it, not because of the decorum of the House – and I trust the Chair, who is the keeper of this House, is very understanding. It was only for a moment, but I had a member on the other side jump up and really, directed towards me perhaps because I was the only one here without a coat on, directed me that I was in contravention to the decorum of this Chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was not just you.

MR. HEDDERSON: I am not talking to you. You had your turn to talk. So be quiet, will you? I think it is time for you to be quiet.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: I am sorry, Mr. Chair; I just lost it a little bit there.

I immediately got my coat back on and I certainly will not take it off again, supposing there is sweat oozing out of me.

Let's get more to the gist of what we are doing here, which is the discussion of probably one of the most important projects that any government could bring forth, and really a government that brought it forth.

I have to retract a statement I made the other day because I got up, foolish like, and do you know what I said? I said that every man, woman and child – and I was so proud to say it, every man, woman and child – I spoke for in my district is in support of Muskrat Falls and that development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chair, I have to retract that statement because, I say, every man, woman, and child except the Member for St. John's East supports the Muskrat Falls Project – everyone except that constituent who lives in my district. Why do I know that? There was a question asked in this House not too long ago by our Premier, a Premier who certainly got us here tonight debating all the aspects of Muskrat Falls, including Bill 60 and Bill 61, giving all members a chance. You had that chance to bring forth all the concerns you have.

I am not surprised at the member. I am surprised he is an environment critic because the environment is so important and people are passionate about it. You cannot say one thing and do another. That is not the only time that member has been in my district that has disappointed me.

I refer to the Cupids celebration. There was a part of Cupids, right in the middle, that was an environmental disaster. It was not only junk. It was the middle. It was Pointe Beach. By God, I have been fourteen years after a previous Administration and my current Administration to get that cleaned up. It is so important for the celebration and for the environment. This is what we are talking about tonight: having a clean environment.

My colleague in Tourism, Culture and Recreation came to the rescue and took on the responsibility for that. During the celebration we invested the proper amount of money and brought it back to pristine. It is a showcase. One day, right out of the blue, up comes the Member for St. John's East. He stands on it and says: Do you know something? All the pavement is coming up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Irrelevant.

MR. HEDDERSON: Like I said, the relevance is – let the Chair talk about that. It is very relevant. We are discussing basically Bill 61, which talks about land. I do not know, but maybe the transmission line is going by Cupids. All I am saying, because I have hit a nerve – I have hit a nerve, do not want to hear it.

Basically here is a situation where we went in as a government, took care of a piece of land, much like the land that is going to be probably looked at as we put a transmission line, 1,100 kilometres across the Province in Labrador and Newfoundland. We have to put in place checks and balances to make sure we do it right.

This is an example, what I am talking about, down in Cupids where we went in and we took Crown land, cleaned it up, and did everything we could. The Member for St. John's East did not want to see it that way and came down. Do you know what he told the residents of Cupids? The pavement has to come up, all the beautiful work that you have done with the stones and so on and so forth, staged area, so on and so forth, a showcase.

I tell you I never received as many calls in one day as I did from them. Just about everyone down in Cupids called me – what is going on? What kind of an idiot, they asked me, would come out – and these are the words that they used. What kind of an idiot would come out and say to people of Cupids we are going to take up the pavement, we are going to –

MR. MITCHELMORE: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for The Straits – White Bay North, on a point of order.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Chair, I just question the use of the word "idiot" in terms of being unparliamentary language.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Many words in our parliamentary guidebooks are listed as possibly being unparliamentary. Words in themselves not very often are unparliamentary or can be listed as unparliamentary.

The minister in his remarks was sharing that somebody called him and asked what kind of an idiot would do something. It is close; the Chair was thinking about it. If the minister was referring to somebody in particular as an idiot, I definitely would rule it to be unparliamentary. I am giving some leeway there. I would say there is no point of order.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you aptly pointed out, I am talking about a constituent who I value very, very much. I could not believe the language that they were using to describe what had happened on that particular day. Here I have an individual who is my environment critic, who is not in support of taking down those stacks in Holyrood, who never stood in this House in support of the Muskrat Falls Project, and then has the audacity to come in here tonight and tell me that I am not fit to be in this Chamber.

It is days like this – do you know something? I want to go out that door and perhaps not even come in this Chamber again, and I am serious. We come in here to debate, and this debate, I have to say – and I have listened intently, even though it might not seem like I am listening, I am listening. As a matter of fact, I was going to get up and speak about some points, which I may do.

Right now, I want to pack my bags and go home out of here, because again, I have never experienced that, and I have had some dicey moments in here. So, I say to all hon. members: Before you get up, bite your tongue, count to ten, and think about the implications of what you say. It is very, very important.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair does not normally make commentary unless there is a point of order or something of that nature called, but in this instance, I feel it is necessary to return the debate back to the bill that we are discussing, or the issue of Muskrat Falls.

The hon. member made of point of order earlier which touched a chord with a lot of members, and caused some emotional upheaval in the Chamber. It is the responsibility of the Chair or the Speaker to maintain decorum in the House. I would say that, myself, I will speak for myself when I am in the Chair, or when I am chairing proceedings in the House, there is a fair bit of latitude given at times when you consider debate is going on for hours, and days.

The Chair, himself, while I had another colleague fill in for me for a few minutes, was behaving in a way that I would not normally behave, in that I lay on the floor for some time. The member brought that to our attention, and it was ruled that there was no point of order, and it caused some degree of upset in this Chamber. I have allowed two members to speak to that at this point and given a fair bit of latitude for them to do it, but at this point I am giving some direction that I think the points are made and we will go back to debating the bill at hand and we will leave it.

I recognize now the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is the third night of this debate. I realize all hon. members go through periods of fatigue, I have done it myself, but I would like to point out that over the last four days and three nights as we debate this legislation, I have seen a lot of information that has come out both from the Opposition side and responses from the government side. This debate has brought out more debate, and it has brought out different perceptions, different interpretations.

I think this is my second night, Mr. Chair, of three nights. I am very worthy of the debate that is ongoing and I think the issues are coming out. I thank you, Mr. Chair, for the little bit of leeway there.

I was going to talk about the environmental issues. I was about to talk about the environmental impacts downstream of the proposed Muskrat Falls dam. The question that came to me, just as I sat down the last time I spoke, was when you are doing a project the size of Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair, Nalcor or the proponent has to do some degree of baseline study. I have not seen this work, Mr. Chair. Maybe it is out there, maybe it is not.

I would like to bring attention to the issue that I have talked about on numerous occasions over the last four days of this debate. That is the mercury levels that are in Lake Melville, or that will arise from this project in Lake Melville. The government and Nalcor have said there will be no environmental damage done downstream. Having said that, Mr. Chair, I would just like to share some facts with respect to methylmercury and that it develops from flooding of vegetation. The footprint area here, Mr. Chair, is significantly smaller than the creation of the Smallwood Reservoir, and that is understandable.

The other thing that we have to take into account, Mr. Chair, is the closeness or the proximity of this project to Lake Melville itself. I will just share some facts that I wanted to do the last time that I stood up, but I ran out of time, Mr. Chair. I thank you for the opportunity and the recognition to be able to do so again.

As I was saying the last time I spoke, Mr. Chair, the US Food and Drug Administration sets the consumption level at one part per million, which is the standard measurement for levels of mercury in consumable products, and specifically to fish. That is the limit the United States sets for human consumption, one part per million.

In some species of fish, Mr. Chair, for example, swordfish or shark, levels are at a marked level higher, at 1.3 per cent, 1.4 per cent respectively. The average natural level of mercury in most fish, Mr. Chair, is 0.3 parts per million; 0.3 is the natural level, which is significantly less than the one part per million standard set by the US Food and Drug Administration. In Canada, Mr. Chair – and I did ask this question to the Minister of Environment and Conservation: What mechanism would be put in place? His response to me was that Health Canada guidelines would be implemented.

Without any increases in mercury from the Upper Churchill project, Mr. Chair – and the Nunatsiavut Government has indicated there are levels of methylmercury in Lake Melville as a result of the Upper Churchill project. The level of mercury from Health Canada, from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is set at 0.5 per cent, or 0.5 parts per million. It is just above the consumption level for human consumption of fish. Now, one point is a significant amount as you look at parts per million when it comes to methylmercury.

If we are to assume that fish in Lake Melville has an average of 0.3 parts per million in their bodies, if you may, as naturally, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has set a consumption level at 0.5, a question that automatically develops is: How many parts per million of methylmercury has gone into the fish from Upper Churchill? This would lead to the next question: What has been done in terms of baseline studies that could project the level of mercury as a result of this project?

I am going to go back to 1998, Mr. Chair, when I worked with the fishery in Lake Melville. I issued licences for some 14,000 fathoms of subsistence fishing gear in the lake, ranging from the mouth of the Churchill River down as far as Carwalla, just north of Rigolet. That fishing gear was issued to Nunatsiavut beneficiaries, to NunatuKavut people who live in the area, and to the Innu who harvest Lake Melville regularly.

The primary species harvested are smelt, which is found almost in the river, just to the east in the little Town of Mud Lake, and Terrington Basin, which is subject to tidal waters, which can carry methylmercury up, down, and across the mouth of the river, as well as salmon. Salmon go up the river in Lake Melville. The time spent in the lake itself is minimal, as they follow their migration routes, but smelt and char are residential fish, Mr. Chair. They do not leave the lake and they are subject to whatever impacts human development can inflict, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and I realize this would be unintentionally.

The point is, Mr. Chair, this baseline study for health and safety reasons should have been tabled so the people in Lake Melville can be aware if there are Health Canada standards that would have to be implemented. That is the point I wanted to make and certainly one we should all be cautious about. Projects are for the betterment of the people, but we have to be careful of protecting our environment, especially when it makes up a lot of our diet.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Chair, I am ever so happy and proud to stand in my place in the House again this morning and enter the debate once again in regard to this important bill. I would first like to start out, Mr. Chair, by actually complimenting the people sat across the House in the Opposition.

I have sat here through the night listening as intently as I possibly could. I just listened to the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains bring legitimate concerns to the House, things that he is quite aware of and as well that he is concerned about. All he wants is some level of confidence that it is going to be addressed, and then I am quite sure the hon. member would be somewhat, I suppose, in favour of Muskrat.

I think overall the Opposition is actually in favour of Muskrat, other than they have certain concerns about it that they wanted answered. As we went through the debate, I think some of them were alleviated to a point. Also, I listened to the Member for Burgeo – La Poile. He has stuck to the bill I think the entire night that he was speaking. I have listened to the Official Opposition, the Member for Humber Valley, keeping right to the bill as well, along with the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

I have heard from the Third Party a lot of variance, everything from wood pellets, to Mexico, to Austria, to Iceland, and to wherever else around the world and all over the place. Then I have heard certain members from the Third Party as well try to get into the environmental issues surrounding the Province in general, and also surrounding what he believes the project itself. I listened to him in regard to the corridor, which has to happen because you just cannot transport electricity via WI-FI nor can you transport it by using skyhooks or whatever to keep the wires in the air. You have to build transmission lines. He talked about the brush clearing and that kind of stuff.

I reflected in my mind. I thought about it. I said, when the brush is cut you know how the foliage starts to grow, when you look at movies and that kind of thing, and I wondered to myself: Will snakes start crawling in that foliage, which could be dangerous to the people of the Province who might go out there picking berries and whatnot? We all know that the snakes crawl at night. That is a known fact in the world: snakes crawl at night; certain snakes do crawl at night. Some of them I never even knew they were a snake. I have a little bit of a concern about that.

I am not a Twitter box guy but I got on my –

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a shame you are not.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes it is, sometimes. As a matter of fact, I may enter that world one of these days.

Anyway, I pinned a friend of mine. Lo and behold, he told me: Do not worry about it because there are many power lines across Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland Power has them and Newfoundland Hydro has them. They brush clear all the time in the wilderness. They keep them quite clear. He said surely I cannot address all the issues, but one I can guarantee you: we will have all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador protected from snakes.

I was quite happy of that, really. I reflected on that, and there are some things that you have to really be concerned about. I remember to the bill in regard to municipalities – and I am the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I have said in this House and I think it is a fact that I have met with many, many municipalities across Newfoundland and Labrador. There are 276 of them. I would say I have met with probably 260-odd of them.

I have been involved as a Cabinet minister in regard to this project now since 2005, not directly as the Minister of Natural Resources had been and as the Premier was, but I have been meeting with municipalities. Municipalities really do not have any issues at all from my point of view in regard to taxation, the power lines, and a grid going through their particular municipalities. I talked to them.

As a matter of fact, I was over with the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills only recently and met in St. George's. There is no issue. They are looking forward to it – absolutely looking forward to it – because they can see and they have the vision in regard to how this project will affect Newfoundland and Labrador for a long, long time to come. Not only in regard to the jobs that will come at the front end of the project, but then when it actually starts to produce and starts to put revenue into our Consolidated Revenue Fund you will see the great effect.

In regard to that taxation piece, yes, the act exempts the proponents of the project, including Emera, from the municipal property, business, and commercial taxes. The municipal tax treatment is consistent with the existing legislation concerning Crown corporations and utilities. Municipalities will retain the existing taxation where a municipality actually provides a service. We know that as well. They are quite happy with that. If they do not provide a service, they feel as well it is unfair when the project is for the betterment and for all of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. They should not have that ability and they do not think they should tax unless they are actually providing a service. If they are going to provide a service, then it is up to the municipality if they are going to actually apply any form of taxation to that particular proponent or that particular service they have to provide.

Overall, and I have seen it at MNL and also all my meetings with municipalities, they have endorsed this project. They clearly see we have to have a renewable revenue stream that comes in, that we can depend on, and that we can support the municipalities in their infrastructure requirements, in any kind of a new fiscal arrangement in the future, and also in their MOGs and all that kind of thing. They understand, as well, there is only one taxpayer in Newfoundland and Labrador and that is the people who live here. It is either they get their revenue from one form or another. They would prefer to get it from a project that we are going to sell a portion of, and then get revenues from that which would support their infrastructure requirements.

We get back to the environment piece as well. The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Tourism, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Environment, every one of them will remember me making this statement, and a foolhardy statement I made when we were really getting close to getting the project done maybe a year ago. I said the one thing I would think that the NDP, the Third Party, will be for the project.

The reason why I said that was because I believed in my heart and soul because of the detrimental effects on our climate and on our health in regard to Holyrood – I believed in my heart and soul that they would be 100 per cent behind this project and buy into it for the betterment of Newfoundland and Labrador. Forget about the financial benefits of the actual project itself, I thought there would be one thing that they stood on – and I thought they did anyway – as a principle of their party was the environment. You hear them all the time.

Then, lo and behold, I remember the Minister of Environment, I remember the Minister of Justice, I remember the Minister of Fisheries, I remember the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills say no Kevin – no way, they are not going to do it. I did not believe it. After this four days and however many hours, I believe it now.

I hope and pray that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador see it. Sometimes I always question how many people are tuned in to this House of Assembly. I hope and pray that if there is a TV in any place in Newfoundland and Labrador, I hope they are tuned in now. Now they are seeing the real depth of the Third Party, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, once again for an opportunity to speak to Muskrat Falls Project Land Use and Expropriation Act, Bill 60. I certainly want to thank all members who stood up and contributed to debate here tonight and spoke.

I myself have talked many times about the expropriation highway when we look at the 1,100 kilometre Labrador-Island Link which is going to put transmission, looking at the map here going from Muskrat Falls all the way down through Labrador, coming across the Straits and then down the Northern Peninsula, hopping across there around the Humber Valley area, going pretty much across the Trans-Canada Highway into the Eastern part of the Province.

I spoke many times about the economic and socio impacts of putting forward such a transmission line and what has been proposed. What Nalcor has proposed in its Socioeconomic Environment report, it said, "These regions encompass a number of economic development zones, many of which are rural areas with economies traditionally based on natural resource industries and more recently, tourism and other activities."

I talked about the impacts of fishers and how it is going to impact fishers putting the subsea cable, the disturbance there, and the loss of forestry activity as it is going through the Great Northern Peninsula. I talked about tourism activities as it intersects with the International Appalachian Trail.

"The transmission corridor also overlaps with regions and zones where economic activities and populations are more heavily concentrated, particularly in Eastern Newfoundland and on the Avalon Peninsula." It talks about marine activities and associated infrastructure needed in the Strait of Belle Isle. I talked quite a bit about the implications of doing that and the impacts it has.

Now, getting specifically to the bill in clause 19, it talks about when there is a mistake made. We have seen mistakes with expropriation before by this government. We only have to look at AbitibiBowater. When we look at section 19.(1), it says, "An error in a notice of expropriation does not invalidate the expropriation of the land."

Even if there is an error by Emera, Nalcor, or proponents because they may need land, not because they must need it, it does not state they have to go through that process. They could make something by error and they still have that land.

As the Member for St. Barbe talked about, this act as it is set up opens up a lot of legalities for the Province in terms of being legal challenges, cost, undue hardship to people, and gives a whole bunch of authority to Emera and to Nalcor in this situation. If you make an error in saying: We made a mistake and we are not going to give you your land back to your cabin, something you privately owned, or your family home that has been there for years.

It says right under that, "A notice of expropriation may be amended and an amendment shall be served or posted and registered in accordance with this Part as if it were a notice of expropriation and shall be considered to have been served or posted at the same time as the notice of expropriation amended by it." It may be, but it does not have to.

When we look at this, what is the solution here? When you are looking at where compensation is agreed upon; "Where a proponent and the person who in the opinion of the proponent is the apparent landowner have reached an agreement for the transfer of the land to the proponent but the proponent is of the opinion that the title to the land cannot be conveniently or readily transferred by the apparent landowner".

Then it goes back to other subsections in the act which talks about having the ability to show conveyance and proof. Otherwise, if you do not have that material, then it seems to me that these companies can just look at expropriating. Maybe the Minister of Environment and Conservation would like to clarify to see if that indeed is the case. It really seems like the authority is there to do that.

When we talk about negotiation and we talk about looking at the type of dispute that is there, when we go back to looking at the role of the Public Utilities Board. When government included the Public Utilities Board to look at considering if Muskrat Falls was the least-cost option, they only gave them two options to choose and they came back inconclusive. Based on the information that was provided, they could not determine that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: A lot of people agree with that based on the applause there. Maybe we do need to look at the role of the Public Utilities Board. Government in this act is looking at the Public Utilities Board. In section 23 of Bill 60, it really says, Mr. Chair, if the proponent and the landowner cannot agree as to the amount of compensation, the matter is referred to an arbitration panel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Chair, that arbitration panel is now appointed by the Executive Council. The Executive Council gets to appoint the arbitration panel. That is a lot of control to the Executive Council, to Cabinet to have that ability to say how much people are compensated.

With the passage of Bill 29, getting access to information as to what is being paid, if it is fair, if it is going to be reported, will be virtually impossible. This puts a lot of redacted information I am sure out there for people who are seeking openness and transparency.

If we go and look at the act that we have for expropriation, where parties do not agree in that act, Mr. Chair, the matter is referred to the Public Utilities Board. It just looks like another case of stripping and removing the role and authority of the Public Utilities Board from having any part in Muskrat Falls to do due diligence for what is fair, and find a balanced approach from the monopolists of the utility provider and also provide a fair rate of return to the consumer. It is their mandate. It should be their role to look at that. It is their role in the Expropriation Act and they should continue to have that role, inclusive of what the Muskrat Falls Project is doing.

You are talking about up to 600 cabin owners, you are talking a number of family homes, you are talking about – in this case, Mr. Chair, you are talking about campsites, you are talking about acquiring economic development drivers on the Northern Peninsula. Looking at things like mine quarries, staked claims on land, oil and gas exploration, projected, located and proposed in the transmission corridor. What is going to happen?

If you have land claims that is in the proposed corridor, and Emera or Nalcor say: Well, we know that there are claims and stakes in this area but adjacent land is not, so we will just expropriate that. We will take that. It could be family land or granted for years as a means to look at having access to potential oil and gas exploration projects, because that is a division and business of Nalcor. Could it be something that we are giving the authority to a proponent such as Emera to have that kind of control? Because that is what it seems that this legislation is stating.

Unless somebody on the other side, maybe the Minister of Natural Resources, or Environment and Conservation can explain that I am completely wrong and this legislation is not saying that. I really need clarification because I have a lot of concern of the ability for them.

When looking at that section of the act, when I go back to section 19, the proponents have the ability to expropriate land. Go back to the paragraph on expropriation, it includes Emera. It includes Emera to be able to access Crown lands. In the briefing notes it says Emera has that ability.

If we go back and look at proponent, "(j)‘proponent' means a proponent of the Muskrat Falls Project, and includes, whether individually or in combination of them, (i) the corporation established in the Energy Corporation Act, including all affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns of that corporation, and (ii) Emera Inc., including all affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns of that corporation".

If they do not necessarily need land but they make an error in notice of expropriation, it does not invalidate that expropriation of the land. Is there recourse? What route do people have? It does not seem like if they make an error they have to give land back. It is quite challenging, Mr. Chair, and I would like further clarification before I am able to vote on this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see my time has expired.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to get on my feet as the Minister of Environment and Conservation. I have been listening intently to some of the concerns that have been expressed by the members opposite and from members on this side of the House as well. Obviously, this type of debate brings out a lot of points.

Naturally, we know what Bill 60 is about. It is to facilitate providing the required property or land, bringing the power from Muskrat Falls not only down to Soldiers Pond and the Avalon Peninsula area, but also of course the link that will be going across the Gulf to Nova Scotia. When we look at the legislation, it is put together to facilitate it. It is not only to facilitate the proponent to construct these transmission lines but it is also put together to protect the interest of the government, namely through the Crown land, and also to some private land where this transmission line will be going over.

Mr. Chair, the people in my department was a part of putting this legislation together. The advice I have been given is that they were more than happy with the results of it. They have perused the bill –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: – and basically have signed off on it. We do know that the current provincial laws were simply not sufficient to allow this type of a project to proceed.

The bill deals specifically with the project, although it does carry over the principles associated with expropriation of lands, the leasing of Crown land. All of the principles that are contained in our legislation, as we see it right now, are for the most part transferred over to this as well.

Bill 60, Mr. Chair, is very important because it supports the advancement of the Muskrat Falls Project and is very necessary. My involvement with it from my department is from the Crown lands. As well, the environmental assessment process is what we are also responsible for. Of course, when we look at the exact route, it is determined through the environment assessment process.

The key principle governing this particular bill, Mr. Chair, is that proponents can only acquire the minimum interest required in order for the project to go ahead. Therefore, you will notice the term that is used with regard to Crown lands is the statutory easement. That is a little bit of a different term but it reflects what we are looking at, is that this project should only be basically looking at the minimum requirements.

I heard terms like land grab, going beyond, making sure, and so on. Basically, when we marry up the environmental assessment with the route, we should be. We do know there is a corridor of sixty metres that will be coming down through, but there is some leeway.

I believe the Member for Torngat Mountains was talking about the trap lines. I think the other members, I do not know which one of them you were, talked about the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Generally, we were talking about: What about the activities that are being carried out now, whether it is hunting, trapping, that sort of thing? This is where the environmental assessment would come in.

We do know we are constructing towers. I think all of you would know what they would look like. In constructing these towers, unless there is something really extraordinary, we believe many of those activities may be rerouted just a little bit around it or even sometimes right next to it. We have to look at the water, how close it is to the water. Any of the access that is there now, unless it is really extraordinary, we would insist that would stay as it is, in the sense that it might have to be moved or whatever, and provision would have to be made by the proponent to make sure that happened. So, the easement as such is a lease. The proponents do not own the land. It will be an easement through, and as a matter of fact, there are usually fees associated with that sort of a thing. Anyone who is going to apply for Crown lands for a lease, an easement, or whatever, usually there is a cost involved in that, that would come back to, of course, the general revenues of the Province.

So that is the easement part of it. Again, there have been any number of consultations and any number of requests to the proponent to come forward with the information we need in my department in order that we can make the decisions that are necessary for this project to go through and protecting the interests of the people, as you are alluding to.

The non-Crown land, or as you might refer to it the private land, be it the cottages, the cabins, farmland, whatever it might be; even though I hear a lot of you looking at the expropriation, we are very hopeful that there will be little in the way of expropriation. That is the last resort. I know from my experience now coming out of Transportation and Works where we are putting roads through that we can run into some difficult situations, but for the most part it is clear title, understanding of what is happening, fair market value, and it never goes beyond that.

The rubs usually come when there is some question about ownership of the land. The quietening of the title then becomes a process that depends on the people involved, what paperwork needs to be done, and so on and so forth. In the route coming down, from what I can see, if you are looking at coming down through Southern Labrador, for the most part you are coming down a corridor very close to the Trans-Labrador Highway. I am very hopeful we can avoid a lot of the private land that might be there, using a corridor that is already established.

With the property acquisition, the Crown land should be pretty well straightforward. The private land is there. The statutory easement, and you have seen it in your briefing notes and so on, should not in any way impede the right of the public to access the land for recreational purposes or other personal uses provided it does not interfere with the rights of the holder and the statutory easement. This is where we come in, because sometimes it is obvious that you cannot go over the – we have to move it one way or the other. People will be given the opportunity, if they have not already done so, to make us aware of where it is.

The land will be identified, the private land will be identified, and hopefully negotiations will take care of most of it. In the event that it does not, then it becomes a legal process and there are appeal mechanisms that are built in. I am very hopeful that can be smoothed out.

I will leave it at that. I will move it back to whoever else wants to get up, Mr. Chair. I will continue to monitor and I hope that my comments have been somewhat helpful to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Pollard): Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly thank the minister for some clarification and providing those answers. I would like to ask more specifically then to the clause I was talking about, section 19, when "An error in a notice of expropriation does not invalidate the expropriation of the land."

Why does that clause exist? If there is an error, should it not automatically revert to the landowner or to the Crown? Would the minister be able to just further explain that section? I am very satisfied with other points that he did make in his commentary. I would like a specific answer of why this clause does not have a reversal option.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(Inaudible) like to comment on the three days or so we have had with this debate. In fact, I think it has been quite useful. I think we have had at this point maybe 75 per cent or 80 per cent of a debate for sure on all of the points and all of the issues that could have been raised by any Opposition related to the Muskrat Falls development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, one of the clauses in this bill that I think will be the most contentious among most people is actually clause 22, and that deals with valuations. Clause 22 deals with paying compensation: "The proponent shall pay compensation to the owner of land expropriated under the authority of this Part and to a landowner detrimentally affected by the expropriation."

It continues under subsection (3)(a). It says, "the compensation shall be an amount based on the fair market value in accordance with the highest and best use of the land at the time of the beginning of the expropriation proceedings and no account shall be taken of the compulsory acquisition of the land, the disturbance of the owner or occupier, or other detrimental effects subject to paragraph (f) and subsection (4)."

It goes on to say, "(b) the fair market value of the land shall be taken to be the amount that the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer, might be expected to realize but all returns and assessments of capital value for taxation made or acquiesced in by the owner of the land shall be considered…". Then, "(d) where the expropriation is of a part of land that is subject to a security interest, the compensation of a secured creditor shall be determined in accordance with the market value of the expropriated part of the land that is subject to the security interest…".

Well, Mr. Chair, on the face that might sound like a reasonable proposition, however this is an invitation to any landowner to fight. If you could imagine this is a non-home, because the homes are dealt with in another section. The homes are accorded replacement value. Mr. Chair, appraising the value of property, fair market value, appraisers use three different techniques to establish a value for any sort of real estate, whether it is land, buildings, or whatever.

One they use is replacement cost. Replacement cost is what is used when homes are being expropriated. There is no point in expropriating somebody's home and paying them a certain amount of cash if they cannot get another home. If they just do not get enough money for another home, then they are disadvantaged.

Another formula that is used is the income approach, which says: If I have this property, and if I can earn a certain amount of rent from the property, how much should the property be worth based on the income stream? That is called the income approach.

The final one, the one that is determined here, is the fair market value. The fair market value might sound like it is easy to establish, and sometimes it is. Fair market value in St. John's for a home would be relatively easy for an appraiser to establish, because lots of home sales take place. Fair market value is then established by the comparable neighbourhood, comparable size of home, type of amenities associated with the home in some cases, and then other prices that have been paid. So, if a home is 1,500 square feet, and another home is 2,000 square feet, the appraiser is able to make the adjustments.

Mr. Chair, if you could visualize being in a more remote area where sales are few and far between, there may not have been a sale in the area for perhaps two years. If there has been a sale there are a very limited number of properties, so you are comparing one property to something that there is practically no comparison because the other one might be 100 kilometres away. There is practically no market.

In order to be able to determine what a willing buyer would pay to a willing selling if the seller does not want to sell and there is no buyer to buy, this is a real trap for the appraiser to have to fall into. The property owner will almost always want to push back, fight, and say: You cannot pay me such a pittance for my property because it is worth more than that to me. The response of the expropriating authority may well be: You produce your own appraisal. It may cost $1,500 or $2,000 to have an appraiser travel from maybe Grand Falls to travel up to the Northern Peninsula to establish what a cabin back in the bush is worth.

I would say this legislation would be more beneficial, it would be more user-friendly, and it would be more equitable to the people who are losing property based on this bill when it becomes an act if in fact the property owner was given the choice of either what it would cost for replacement value, what it would be if it were the income approach, and what it would cost if it were fair market value. Then the person who owns the property is put in one of the best of three situations.

This will cost a little bit more to expropriate the properties, but we are told in the briefing note the number of properties is relatively small and, we are hearing from one side, only a handful of homes. We have also heard from one of the members from the Third Party there may be as many as 500 or 600. Some are remote cottages.

The problem with a remote location is it can be very expensive to take building materials there. It can be very expensive to take equipment there. If somebody is going to build a cabin in the bush or a cottage on a lake, if they have to go fifteen kilometres to twenty kilometres away from a highway and move things in either by float plane or helicopter, in the case of some of the outfitters' camps, or if they have to take it in the wintertime by snowmobile, it can be a very tedious process and an expensive process for somebody to build a cottage or a cabin in a more remote location.

Then the hydro line goes through and it pretty much runs through this cottage property. The person is left with the option – or not an option at all, they are told we are going to pay you fair market value; what would someone pay for this place out here? It might be $2,000, or $3,000 or $5,000, and it might have cost the person $20,000 or $25,000 and a whole lot of labour to have built that.

If instead they were given the option of what would it actually cost to put this property here and if that was one of their options, they would be treated in a much more equitable manner. There would be much less likelihood that they would want to appeal. Any additional cost that would be incurred by paying them maybe more than fair market value would likely be saved by the ongoing battle over the value, the ongoing battle of the expropriation, having to hire another appraiser, maybe engage lawyers, maybe go off to the panel, and fight over it.

Mr. Chair, I see it as being one of the most problematic sections in this act for the number of disputes that will likely arise from this particular piece of legislation. The problem is further compounded if the person has a mortgage. If they have convinced the bank to lend them some money, the bank has loaned them maybe $20,000 or $25,000, maybe they have put in another $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000 of their own money. Now they have $50,000 sunk in this and the appraiser says well fair market value would only be perhaps $15,000.

This act then says that the fair market value would be paid to the creditor; the fair market value would be paid to the bank. That means that it might not even be enough to pay out the mortgage. The person would lose their cottage, part of their mortgage would be paid off, and they would be basically run off the land that they had established, maybe a summer home or a hunting lodge for themselves. There would not even be enough money given to them to pay for the debt.

That would seem to be really inequitable. I think that if the government would review this part of the legislation, we would not find ourselves back here maybe in a winter session trying to amend the legislation. I can see another bill coming which would be an act to amend the Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project. That would be a much more equitable step and very easy to accomplish at this stage.

Those are my comments for now, Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to be able to speak on this bill and talk about the bill that deals with expropriation, some of the issues around that, the reason for the legislation and the impact of this development in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, it is not uncommon for a government to have legislation that deals with expropriation. It happens probably on a more regular basis than some people realize. Unless you are affected by expropriation you probably do not necessarily see the impacts of it.

Many times, a municipality or some level of government may have to expropriate land for one reason or another. That could be to build infrastructure, municipal infrastructure, roads, or some kind of federal infrastructure related to an airport, treatment centres, water treatment centres, or sewage treatment centres. What happens is the government is able to expropriate, which means take the land they need for this particular reason.

In this case with the transmission lines and the development of Muskrat Falls, the transmission lines as they come across Labrador, down through the Northern Peninsula and across the Island part of the Province, Mr. Chair, there will be in some areas private land that will need to be expropriated; however, by far the majority of the land will be Crown land and there will be no need to do an expropriation – over 90 per cent. In some cases there will be some cabins. In a very few cases there will be some homeowners.

Now, just because there are only a few homeowners as opposed to hundreds does not mean these people will be impacted. They will, and for them it is a major disruption; however, the idea of expropriation indicates and will indicate with this that there will be a fair market value paid for the properties that are expropriated that belong to individuals.

Mr. Chair, I just want to speak briefly about the experience we had in Stephenville when we had the flood in the fall of 2005. For anyone who can remember, it was quite a year in Stephenville. In 2005 we had the flood, which destroyed 150 homes in one area of the town, and within two months of the flood we also had the announcement that the paper mill was closing in Stephenville. It was a year I will never forget. I was a fairly new MHA at the time.

It is amazing because the flood line, the line that delineated the flood in the Town of Stephenville, was actually the line that also separated the District of St. George's – Stephenville East from the District of Port au Port. Jim Hodder at the time was the MHA for Port au Port. There was no loss in his district, no damage and no homes lost, and I had 150 in my district. There were days and nights I was thinking: Why didn't Jim at least have one home in his area that he would have to deal with?

Anyway, that whole disruption lasted well over a year in Stephenville as people were displaced and had to find temporary accommodations or rental accommodations. What happened as we moved through the process was there was no expropriation because there was no need to actually – well, there was, because the town had to expropriate the land, but not the provincial government.

What happened was the infrastructure in the ground was destroyed. Therefore, in order to replace the homes where they stood on the land owned by the landowners, the town would have to go in and redo all the infrastructure, all the pipes, the water, the sewers, and the roads. That expense was great. Even if they fixed it all, these homes would still sit on a flood zone after the fact.

It was decided that all of the properties would be expropriated and people would be given a replacement value for their homes, fair market value to replace the homes they lost. In doing that process, there was an appeal process set up. An appeal board set up so if somebody disagreed with the value they were going to receive for their home, they had the right to appeal. The appeal would hear their arguments and make a decision.

Out of the 150 homeowners, Mr. Chair, one person indicated they would appeal but did not follow through to appeal. The actual rate of appeals for 150 homes, based on the formula that was used, was zero. I want to talk about that because this is probably indicative of how we are going to see cabin owners or homeowners be dealt with, and the way it is negotiated or prices offered for their land, and the process they can follow through.

If history repeats itself, this government has been very fair in determining the value and dealing with people who had to lose their land or their homes through a process they had no control over. I would hope the same process will follow again, Mr. Chair.

The other thing I wanted to speak about was that the transmission lines will come down, as I said, through a corridor, through Labrador, through the Northern Peninsula, and across the Island part of the Province. In doing that, the land expropriation, of course, that corridor where these transmission lines will go would also have been subjected to an environmental assessment.

We know that as we do these assessments and we look at the environment, we look at all the aspects of the environment whether that is the wildlife, whether it is the trees that grow there, or as the Third Party talked about, the berries that grow there. We make sure that what we do is environmentally sound and acceptable procedures. We will parallel, we follow along the existing transmission lines.

The environment and the environmental issues are extremely important. That is why it was very surprising, as we moved through this whole process, because one of the biggest issues we have concerning the environment in this Province is Holyrood, and the amount of oil that is being burned in Holyrood. Muskrat Falls will be clean, green, renewable energy for Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore, Holyrood will no longer be our main source of electricity, which with the increasing demand would have to expand, Mr. Chair.

What surprises me is that the Member for St. John's East, who happens to be a resident near the Holyrood generating station right now, would like to see Holyrood remain open. Now, you would think a party that stands for environmental issues and a member who lives in that area – although he does not represent those people within the House of Assembly, but still has such disregard for the environment that his stand would be to keep Holyrood open. That is absolutely shameful, Mr. Chair.

This government is more responsible than that, and we feel that Muskrat Falls is the best alternative for Newfoundland and Labrador because we have the energy demands. If we do not go with Muskrat Falls the next least-cost option for us is $2.4 billion more than Muskrat Falls. Mr. Chair, that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for the ratepayers in this Province and it is unacceptable for this government.

Mr. Chair, one of the biggest issues, as I said, has been the environmental concerns and what we are trying to accomplish through Muskrat Falls. To feel that we have members in this House of Assembly, and in particular, the Member for St. John's East, who feel that we should expand or keep Holyrood open, despite the fact that his party has taken a stand in the past that they would like to see it closed, it has now become his mantra and that is what he would like to see done. As a colleague said here, that is absolutely shameful, Mr. Chair.

I feel this legislation that we have here outlines the parameters for expropriation, what land will be needed for the transmission lines, and the process that will be followed for the people who will have to go through the process of expropriation. From my previous experience of having dealt with a number of families far more in number affected during the flood of Stephenville that we will see here, the experience was positive. It was positive for the individuals who had to go and deal with it, who lost their homes, who had to accept the fact they were never going to back, sometimes to family land that they had owned for a number of generations.

Mr. Chair, it was done with sensitivity, and it was done in the most professional manner. I guess my point is that it worked well, and I anticipate this process that we will see through Muskrat Falls will have similar results.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly a privilege for me to stand and speak to Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project.

I was listening intently to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs when he was speaking about what the NDP stands for, and why you would support this or why you would take the position that we have taken. I just wanted to tell members, some time back I was with some party supporters, people who have been involved with the NDP for a long time, and they said: Dale, why is it you are taking the position that you are taking? Does the NDP not support public works? Of course, I said: We do. Of course we do, but not at any cost.

It is really not that we are opposed to the development of Muskrat Falls, because we are. In fact, I hope I live long enough to see the development of Gull Island as well, absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: It is the process that has taken us to this place here and now that is concerning.

With respect to this bill, we need this bill. Government needs to expropriate these lands for its plan because government wants to establish a non-competitive monopoly on power supply here on the Island.

I just want to take members back to the report of the Joint Review Panel. I know there was some discussion of that over the past couple of days. The Joint Review Panel in 2011 recommended that Muskrat Falls energy be used "to displace energy from high greenhouse gas emission sources…" that we have – so Holyrood. That it not be used to displace demand management – and of course that is what we are doing – not be used to displace conservation, and not be used to displace efficiency and the generation of power from other renewable, low greenhouse gas emission energy sources.

That is what the Joint Review Panel said. At the time, it appeared the provincial government had accepted this recommendation. The provincial government said it would co-operate with Nalcor to offer advice and expertise on greenhouse gas mitigation and energy efficiency. Of course, the only thing we have seen around energy efficiency is the Residential Energy Efficiency Program, which runs out of money halfway through the year every year, and poor old Corte-Real down bobbing around the harbour. That is not much of a commitment to make sure Muskrat Falls will not displace conservation efforts –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – and that Muskrat Falls will not displace renewable energy developments, but I suppose it is better than nothing.

With Bill 60, this transmission process, and the partner bill, Bill 61, government has really betrayed even this weak commitment – even the weak commitment it made – to not displace other sources of energy that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There are others. We are locking ourselves into a fifty-year commitment here with one particular technology and one particular energy source.

It also betrays government's commitment to the panel –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – by increasing the incentive for Nalcor to produce and sell as much hydro as possible instead of encouraging consumers to conserve electricity. That seems like what we are doing. We say we need the power. We certainly need it by 2020. We certainly do not need it any sooner than that. That is the only energy pressure we have on the horizon. We are rushing into this to produce all of this new energy and transmission capacity rather than getting serious about conservation.

As I have said time and again throughout this debate, provinces like Nova Scotia have emphasized conservation. If you look at what is going on in some states in the US, they are doing it as well. That is what we should be doing. We should not be sending the message that we have abundant electricity and to go burn it. We should be trying to find ways to encourage people to conserve, but we are not doing that.

I know the good hon. Minister of Natural Resources, at one point in the last few days, was talking about time-of-use pricing, which means the electricity you use and the cost of it is based on the demand at the time. It is demand-side management of electricity consumption. People have said that will drive up the cost of electricity, people will freeze, and the situation will be even worse than it is now. Not necessarily because if that is done properly with proper public education, people could actually save money. People could actually save money on their electricity bills because they would know not to go home –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like for the member to direct your comments the Chair, please.

Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Sure.

People would know when they go home in the evening, do not turn on the dishwasher right away, do not turn on the washer right away, do not turn on the dryer right away, and do not turn everything on right away. Do not turn the dishwasher on, time it to go on at 1:00 in the morning, 2:00 in the morning, 3:00 in the morning, or 4:00 in the morning at a time when the demand is lower and we are not at peak demand. That way, people could actually save money.

We have to look at things positively. We cannot have a cannot-do attitude when it comes to conservation. We have to have a can-do attitude. We can do it, but we need creative solutions that do not penalize people at the lower end of the income spectrum that also create incentives for conservation. That is an important point because if we conserve energy then that energy is freed up for new users.

If we have new residential developments, and we know housing starts have been fairly robust in the Province, if we free it up then that energy can go to those new housing starts. Those people who are relying on electric heat can have that as a source. That means we do not need this incredibly expensive transmission. We do not need it, or we do not need as much of it.

Muskrat Falls will want as many energy users on the Island as possible. Do you know why the Muskrat Falls plan will want that? To pay off the massive debt, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl South, that this is creating.

I go back to my point, to my friend in the New Democratic Party who said to me: Dale, why don't you support this? It is not that I do not support the public works. It is not that the New Democratic Party does not support the development of the Lower Churchill. We want to develop the Lower Churchill and we want to develop the whole thing: Muskrat Falls and Gull Island. We want to develop it so we have something for our children and our grandchildren, but we do not want to shackle them with massive public debt and out of control electricity consumption. That is all we are saying.

The best way to find out whether or not we are on the right path would have been, Mr. Chair, to send it to the Public Utilities Board to ensure that all of the alternatives were properly investigated, but that has not been done.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, I was delighted to finally get the opportunity to get up and speak to Bill 60. It was wonderful to see within the last half an hour we were getting back to relevance, but I am not so sure about the last few minutes.

Mr. Chair, I am going to try to bring myself back to relevance on the bill again because, of course, that is our purpose for being here in the House of Assembly, and this is a very important act. Each clause contained in these bills, I think we certainly need to be focusing on at this point in time.

The first question I am going to put is: Why Bill 60? Why An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project? Well, the Muskrat Falls facility is being built first and foremost to supply power for the people and the industries of Newfoundland and Labrador, because we have a vision for prosperity.

This requires of course – and it has been talked about a lot here in the House over the last few days – the construction of a 1,100-kilometre transmission line from Labrador to the Island. As many of my colleagues have already outlined, that entails a lot of jobs, a lot of business for hotels, restaurants, a great future and revenue generation source that is sustainable and reliable and will be enjoyed, I am sure, by future generations and future governments to invest in infrastructure and programs that our people need.

As Minister Kennedy has clearly outlined during his many, many speeches – and I am sure all of you here in the House feel the same as I do, even members opposite. The man is absolutely brilliant and he is absolutely worth listening to – very informative and very articulate. Certainly, every time he speaks, we all really enjoy it and learn a lot from him.

As he said in one of his many speeches, the terrain over which this transmission line has to be built is challenging. They must be able to build it in areas where it can withstand the rain, the wind, the snow, the sleet and hail. As such, the best possible route is where the transmission line must be constructed so it can withstand these elements.

This is going to necessitate the acquisition of both some Crown and non-Crown land. The land for the transmission line will be strictly for the Muskrat Falls transmission line, and as has been outlined by many of my colleagues, will be a statutory easement which means that it is going to be provided for the purpose of the transmission line only. It does not entail land ownership, mineral rights and all the other normal pieces that would come with someone's acquisition, an individual or a business's acquisition of Crown land.

Mr. Chair, at this point in time I strongly feel that we need to get beyond political grandstanding and let the business opportunity move forward. The private sector – it is not government. Government provides programs, provides supports, it creates the environment which attracts business. It is really the private sector that is the engine of growth. I certainly believe that our government is the strongest supporter of the private sector that we have seen in many decades.

As anyone who understands business knows, time is money. Nalcor is now in a position to secure the financing, and project lenders need the certainty that the land is available for the transmission line. That is basically, Mr. Chair, what this bill is all about.

There will be some land acquisition, of course, requiring total ownership. That is going to depend on the project assets that will be placed on that particular piece of land. The key principle of this act is that proponents will acquire only the minimum interest required, and in some cases this is going to be as simple as permission to occupy.

In the case of the statutory easements, Mr. Chair, unless it interferes with the rights of the holder, it does not impede the right of public to access the land for recreational purposes or other personal uses. You will still be able to pick your berries, Mr. Chair.

The Ministers of Environment, and Service Newfoundland and Labrador, these ministers have already spoken a great deal over the last few days about the expropriation piece, so I am not really going to stand here and elaborate on it a whole lot longer. I just want to reiterate that we are committed to a fair process and we will endeavour to negotiate agreements expropriating only as a last resort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS PERRY: Mr. Chair, I have a strong belief that we will not experience a whole lot of that.

To conclude, Mr. Chair, I would just like to say that if members opposite are genuinely concerned about project overruns, as they claim, support this bill. Let the project meet its schedules and required timelines so Nalcor stays on budget and avoids unnecessary costly delays. At this point, the deal is done. It is full steam ahead.

I, for one, have never been more proud to be a part of this party and to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. We are on the cusp of something we have never seen before in Newfoundland and Labrador. The vision of our Premier and our party, the future will prove it has been the best yet.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, I would like to address some of the comments made by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills. I am pretty certain that she did not mean to misled people as to the nature of this act, but I am afraid she may have.

She referenced land where compensation was given in her district, and I agree with what she is saying in that respect. However, we have been told in our briefing that there are probably only five or six homes –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: There are probably only five or six homes, family homes, in that case then section 12.(9) will apply to those homes. It says, "Notwithstanding another provision of this Part, where a family home is to be expropriated for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project, the Family Homes Expropriation Act shall apply to that expropriation and compensation shall be determined in accordance with that Act."

Well, Mr. Chair, that act requires replacement value. That act requires replacement value, not fair market value. All other expropriations under this act are required to be done under fair market value. At some point, without a doubt, there will be some dispute as to the compensation to be paid. If there is a reference to the Trial Division of the Supreme –

MS SHEA: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

MS SHEA: Mr. Chair, to address the member's confusion, when the compensation was done for the homes that were lost in the flooding in Stephenville, it was done at a replacement value. The residents who received replacement value – as I said, there was an appeal process. One person indicated they may appeal, they never.

I can say from my experience working with the 150 homeowners who received replacement value, there were absolutely no concerns with that process and it was received very favourably by the people who were affected.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, the minister's confusion is not about the expropriations and compensation in her district, her confusion is with this bill. If she were to read the bill maybe – I am certain with her education level she could understand this. She could get an interpretation.

Section 12.(9) deals with the Family Homes Expropriation Act. That is the only part of this bill that requires replacement costs. All other areas require fair market value and fair market value only.

This act ousts the Public Utilities Acquisition of Lands Act, it does not apply. It ousts the Expropriation Act, it does not apply. If anybody takes a reference to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to get fair compensation, it is absolutely determinative, if this is placed before a judge, the judge will have to say: I feel really sorry for you Mr. or Mrs. – whatever your name happens to be, or corporation – the act is very clear, you do not get replacement value. All you get is fair market value. Fair market value has been determined by appraisals and you are stuck with whatever it is. That is what I addressed earlier.

The minister is correct in her statement by comparing the family homes portion, as happened in her district. I have no dispute with that whatsoever. Since we have been told repeatedly there are only five or six family homes that will be expropriated or could be expropriated, then that is all that portion will apply to, which is replacement value. All other areas are fair market value.

I would really encourage the government to take another look at this act and determine how they can more fairly compensate people if it is not a family home. Someone has drafted the legislation so that anything but for a family home does not get replacement cost and gets only fair market value.

That is my comment, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: I thank the hon. Member for Burgeo – La Poile. Two of us stood up at the same time. He is an honourable man. He has a great last name, but he is an honourable man too for letting me do that, and I appreciate it.

I just want to say a few words this morning on this bill. I am going to relate it a little bit to a bit of experience that I had, and actually myself and the hon. member had a few words there last night and we talked about a few issues and stuff like that.

Whenever it comes to easements and taking people's property or going on people's property, there is always a fear that the person has, that you are going to ruin whatever I have and you are going to take something away from me. Like I spoke to the hon. member last night, with my experience – and I know that it is not as fast as this but it was some twelve or thirteen or fourteen kilometres that the Torbay Bypass went through. We had to take seven homes at the time and there was a big fear from people.

I remember walking into a lady's house and she was frightened to death. It was a home that she lived in all her life, seventy years old, and did not want to leave. It was a big thing for her. I can honestly say that the relief they received from what happened and from the Department of Transportation at the time – now it took a little bit of work; it did not just happen bang, bang, and everything. There was a bit of negotiations and whatnot, and things went really, really well for that family.

At the end of the day, the seven homes that were taken in my area, at the time, first when they were there was a bit hard, but afterwards the people were compensated well and they were satisfied with what happened. Now there were some other issues and there are even issues we are still dealing with today, but people know that we have representatives here that will work for them. That is our job to work for them, and it is working out fairly well with what happened in that area.

When I look at this here – and it is quite a piece of land that we are looking at; it is 1,100 kilometres. I know I read here that 99 per cent of one portion is Crown land and the other portion is 90 per cent. We are dealing mainly with Crown land. No matter what you do, you need to acquire the land. You do not want to go through cabins or you do not want to go through where people live. It is just something that has to be done. Like I said, the Torbay Bypass we would have liked to have went out around houses and went all over the place, but that was the best possible route.

So, that is what is going to happen here. We have people in Nalcor and Emera that are going to look at this and they are going to ensure that the best possible route –and there is going to be some cases where, I do not think there is a lot, but the number I heard was probably nine homes that are going to be affected by this and I am sure there are some cabins and cottages.

I even spoke to the minister last night and he said if there is a trail there that it will be the responsibility – I think I am right – of rerouting that trail to make sure that the people who use the trail are not affected by this.

Any time that there is an easement or expropriation of people's land, I am sure that the officials at Natural Resources, Environment, Crown Lands, and the companies will be doing their best to make sure people are taken care of.

In my own property in Flatrock, for example, there was a river that came down through the back of my place and they wanted to widen it so they came on my land. There was an easement there but it did not affect the property itself. The property size is still the same even though there is an easement there and you can still build a house on it. People who come in, take care of the land, and make sure the land is taken will make sure these people are well compensated.

Let us get back to this project now. That is what we have been here doing in the last number of days. I am just so proud to be here. We started off this session wondering about debate. We were all talking about whether we were going to have a debate, whether we were going to do this, or whether we were going to that. Well, I tell you what. The last three or four days have been long nights and they have been hard nights. I have to say I have had tired nights here – very tired nights – where I dozed off a scattered time and had a sleep. There are a lot of really, really hard nights.

I respect this place – I really do respect what happens here in this place. I respect what the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile did that time. The two of us stood up together and he said: No, you go ahead. That is how we act in this place.

Last night, I have to say it is the third night in the row that I have been here. I go home in the evenings. I went home last night. I had to drop into Sobeys along the way. By the time I got home it was 6:00 o'clock. The Christmas tree came in through the door. We still have to have Christmas. By the time I got to sleep, I probably got about three hours. I had to have a little nap here last night. I just fell asleep. I could not stay awake. That is all I could do.

I am just so disappointed in what happened here last night. I look at the veteran people who are around me and I look at people who put time and effort into what they do. If I fell asleep and it was unparliamentary, I apologize. Do you know what? Sometimes your eyes do close. Sometimes this is a very large job. In the last number of days, I think it is about thirty hours. I do not know about last night, to tell you the truth. I know I am getting off subject a bit, but I am sorry about that. I may have snored a little bit, too, because I am a hard case for snoring.

I am so disappointed in what happened here this morning – I am really disappointed in what happened here this morning. I lose respect for some people when stuff like that happens. I respect every person here in this place. I think we are all doing a great job and this is a great debate.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair? This is s a great project and that is the reason we are all here. This is a great project. This piece of legislation that is here is great because what it is going to do, it is going to give us a link down through the Province. It is something that has to be done. It is going to Nova Scotia.

Listen here, I think – and I am glad I heard from the NDP this morning. We understand, you might have problems with it, with financing or something, but you did say you supported this project, you thought it was a good project. You may disagree with what we say and we will disagree with what you say. I respect your opinion, just like I respect the procedures in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS: No, and that is the key word is respect. Do you know something? That is what was not here this morning was respect.

Mr. Chair, I am just going to sit down and say that I think that I can assure the people who are going to be affected by this easement and expropriation of their land that the department of Crown Lands, Department of Natural Resources – and people work through that stuff. This is not something that people just go in and say your cottage is gone, hard luck buddy. That does not happen. That will be compensated. Through my experience that I have seen, people were compensated well. I am sure it is going to happen in this way too.

I am going to try to stay awake for the rest of the day. I am going to sit down now and let the hon. Member for Burgeo – La Poile stand up.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis if you were not asleep before, after I am done you might be asleep now shortly. I do not mind saying that the legislation that we have been debating here now for, I do not know if it is there or four days, it is technical and it is complex. It can be very dry at times.

I have had my opportunities in the debate for the last three days. We have had a bit of going back and forth here and there. I have had my shots at the members across the way and they have had their shots at me, and all the better for it. I have consistently tried to stick to the legislation and to the terminology. I will continue to do that.

I want to go back to a section that I was discussing earlier. I do have some concerns here and I am going to put them forward. It might not be direct questions. They might be roundabout in a way. What I would say to the members across is at some point if somebody could take the concerns I express and if you could get back to me and let me know if there is a concern there or not or how you would answer that. The thing I was talking about last time comes down to the tax exemptions as it relates to municipalities, and as it relates to the business tax exemptions. We know through the interpretation or the reading of the legislation that anything within that 1,100-kilometre corridor is basically tax-exempt.

Now, what I am saying is there are two sections. I know there is the Labrador-Island Link, and then the part I am more worried about right now is the Maritime Link. We know the Maritime Link comes across, comes in through Cape Ray in my district, and goes in, I believe, to Granite Canal or somewhere there. I might be wrong. Even though my understanding is that these lands are going to be expropriated by the subsidiaries, I believe it is on behalf of Emera, because Emera is responsible for the construction of that. My take on this, or what I put forward, is that Emera is not providing additional service to these municipalities.

Now, we all know that government is exempt from taxes in municipalities, and so on and so forth. That has been in place. There has been talk that maybe that should be changed down the road. We know the difficulties that face municipalities as it relates to a tax base and to raising revenue, and there has been some talk back and forth. I know the minister has answered questions on it. Again, that is not what I am going at here because that is a provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador situation.

What I am talking about is Emera. Even though Emera might not be expropriating in name, they are behind it because it is their link. They are paying for it, they are getting the land, and it is all falling under the Muskrat Falls Project. My position that I put forward is they should not be exempt from taxes. They should not be exempt from paying taxes in this Province.

Again, I appreciate speaking to this legislation. The Chair just enlightened me there. I hope the people out there watching me speak understand that what I am saying is I do not believe it to be frivolous; I believe it to be a good point. I do not think –

AN HON. MEMBER: Vexatious.

MR. A. PARSONS: It is certainly not vexatious, but that is a term for another day. Perhaps the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will at some point enlighten me on frivolous and vexatious.

What I am saying is that Emera is a Nova Scotia company. They are doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is my position that they should be paying taxes on the land they are expropriating. They should be paying the business tax. Now, I do not know how great that amount is. I cannot tell you right now, because there is not enough certainty there in terms of the route.

What I am saying is that we should look at it, and I believe the minister, the Cabinet, and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may have the ability down the road to change this. I think they should pay taxes. They are not providing service to us per se. They are part of the deal, but I think they should pay tax. That is just my opinion. I think they should. I do not think they should be exempt and I put that forward.

I would say to the members across the way, come back –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I have to tell you, Mr. Chair, the fact is this is what the debate is supposed to be about. It is the back and forth. The problem I have is I am afraid that if I ask the question and sit down, I am hoping that somebody will stand up. I put that forward and what I would say is when I do sit down, please get up and put that out there. That way at least it is on the record, because I hear you but the people out there might not hear what you have to say. I hear it.

I tell you what I am going to do. I will sit. I have some time left on the clock, but I will sit and the minister will get up. I appreciate the answer to the question.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Chair, just a little bit previous to this, probably about an hour or so, I took my place in the House and I talked at length in regard to the project itself. One of the issues actually that I did touch on, and the hon. member was busy making notes for his next set of time on his feet and he probably did not hear me, was in regard to the issues surrounding taxation.

The way it is set up is in regard to the transmission line itself, the poles, the wire, and whatever, this part of the transmission line, the total transmission line itself, is excluded from the municipal taxation regime. Let us put it that way. When it comes to a municipal tax, what is included, which is no different than any other type of taxation and would be retained, is when a municipality provides a service to the proponent, whoever it is, water, sewer or something like that. They can tax for that. They can set a minimum tax; they can do whatever they want.

Usually there is a consultation between them and the actual proponent, such as out in Bull Arm or whatever it may be. If you are going to provide a service in regard to the waste management or whatever it is, then they will pay tax, a grant in lieu of tax, or whatever it may be. They have that ability to do that and approach a proponent if we are providing a service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Littlejohn): The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: The light is on. I am ready to go again. I appreciate the minister standing up.

I understand what he is saying and I want to make sure that I have this right. Under sections 49, 50 and 51, what we are saying is that a holder, and a holder being the land owner, who would in this case be a subsidiary or Emera, is exempt from municipal taxation. Also, in section 50 it says they are exempt from business or commercial taxation. I think what the minister was referring to is that in section 51 they are not exempt from water and sewer. I realize that if a municipality provides the water and sewer, yes, they have to pay for it but they are exempt from business tax. They are exempt from the business tax under section 50(2).

That is my concern there. I think, for a municipality, they should still get that. I put that concern forward. It might be able to be answered. It might not be able to be changed, but that is my concern. I understand; I know where the minister is coming on that, but that is my concern.

Now, what I am going to do is switch off that. I think I have addressed my concerns as it relates to the taxation part. What I wanted to do was go back to a section that I referenced earlier and lay out some concerns that I had there. It is funny; you get up, you speak about some of these sections, and you have concerns. Then when you sit back down and read it a bit more, something else pops in your head on it. So, what I am doing is put those questions forward.

Going back to section 13(1), 13(1) is what they call the urgent expropriation section. That is, "Where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is satisfied on an application by a proponent that the proponent urgently requires the land… the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by order direct the expropriating authority to proceed with an intended expropriation without inquiry." Again, they come forward and say we need this now. The Cabinet can come in and say, yes, you have it, no notice, boom, as long as you have satisfied that.

Now, subsection (2) of that clause says, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall, in the expropriation protocol, prescribe the information required to be provided to a landowner in respect of an urgent expropriation under this section." What the Cabinet is saying is what information they have to provide.

Here are my concerns. What I would say is that I would invite any member opposite at some point during the remainder of the debate to come back and answer my concerns and let me know whether they are founded or unfounded.

What we are saying in 13 is that yes, if land needs to be taken urgently, the Cabinet will decide on the information that is provided to the landowner. At the same time, Cabinet decides on what information is not provided to the landowner.

We have railed on against this government for months now about access to information. That is no surprise to government; they have heard that on umpteen occasions. What we have here is the possibility that somebody, a landowner, is going to have their land expropriated and they might not have access to all the information that they should have. It depends on what Cabinet feels they should or should not reveal to them.

That is a concern because if I am the landowner and I have had my land taken away – and there is nothing I can do. I am not getting on about that part. What I am saying, though, is if I had my land taken away, I should at least have access to all the necessary information justifying that situation. I should not have any information excluded; I should have access to it. I am not going to be able to change it; I have no process of appeal. I have no way to change the fact that this is where the route goes, I happen to lie within that route, and I am going to have my land taken away. What I am saying is that if that is going to be the case, I should at least have all the information used in making that decision.

The fact is that according to the wording under section 13.(2) the fact is that they say shall "prescribe the information required to be provided…". The Lieutenant-Governor in Council could say you do not need any information. That is a possibility if you look at the technical interpretation of the legislation. He could say: I do not require that you need any. You do not need anything.

What I am saying is that even though it might not be the case, the possibility exists. That is a problem because when we leave it – and we have heard these terms; we went at it for hours in June on shall versus may, and should versus shall. What I am saying here is that it says here they shall. That is a good thing because that is a positive clause saying they shall do it, but it says required to be provided. The problem is it still leaves some leeway as to what information is required. I put that out there.

I move on from that because I have that section laid out there. I move on to 13.(3). Section 13.(3) says – that is the seven days. Basically after seven days, once you have your notice of expropriation the land vests in the proponent proponent. That is a very quick turnaround.

What I am saying there is here is my concern and hopefully somebody can alleviate my concern. My concern is that what happens with the situation – and I will go back to an old standby, Joe Chesterfield. Joe Chesterfield is the landowner in question. Now, Joe Chesterfield happens to be in Florida. He is in Florida, but he also happens to be a landowner.

What I can talk about – and again I am going to sidetrack for a second and the Minister of Municipal Affairs knows exactly what I am talking about here because he is the minister that made this possible. I recently had a rezoning out in – I cannot say Port aux Basques because actually the land was all in the district belonging to the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills. It was the Cooper's Brook area and the Codroy Valley area, MacDougall's. We had the rezoning and there were notices put out. There were notices in the paper. There were notices on-line.

As the member who represented a number of the people, I put out notices on Facebook. I put notices out on Twitter. CBC Radio carried it. At the end of the day, do you know what? There were still people who did not know that they may be affected. Sometimes it is impossible to make sure that everybody knows that they might be affected.

That is not blaming anything on the minister. I think the minister did everything that was required under law to make sure that the regulations were carried out, but what I am saying is that with this rezoning there were still people affected, possibly, who did not know.

What I am saying in this situation is that now this is even more serious than a rezoning in that it is an expropriation. Joe Chesterfield is in Florida, down for the winter, and the subsidiaries, Nalcor or whoever comes through and says we are taking your land; there stands the possibility that they put the notice out on the door, doing whatever; and that person could come back, Joe Chesterfield comes back, and their land is gone.

I am not saying that it would not be done – and here is the situation because this is something that the Member for Cape St. Francis and I discussed. I do not think there is one minister on the other side that would knowingly or willingly do any of that, but the problem is that many of these things might happen without the explicit knowledge of the minister. They could happen by people who are working in departments or companies or whatever, and these people might do something like this. That is the problem here.

What I am saying is that I need some kind of assurance that people are going to have notice and take into consideration the one in a 100 chance that Joe Chesterfield is gone, his land is in that route, Joe Chesterfield ends up in Florida and, boom, the proponents cannot reach them. It is not their fault; they did not know this was going to happen. When they return, their land is gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: The section says that if they cannot reach them. What if Joe Chesterfield is gone to Florida, he might not leave a number. Nalcor or whoever the expropriation authority is might not know. What I am saying is that those officials – again, I am putting it out there. I do not think that the legislation will be changed to cover that off. What I am saying is that I have my concerns on the record and I think that as they go through this process the companies will say: Look, do you know what? That was a concern that was laid out; we are going to make sure that that does not happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: Joe Chesterfield comes back and Joe Chesterfield is now ‘chesterfield-less'.

I have another concern about that, but I do not have enough time to address it adequately in this section. There might not be an answer, but at the end of the day, down the road, somebody will say at least the concern was brought up and addressed here in the House on the written record.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important concern. I will take my seat and allow somebody else.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is certainly a pleasure for me to stand once again and to speak on this very, very important issue to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, this time I wanted to talk a little bit about the conservation piece because the hon. Member for St. John's North, I believe the last time he was speaking, was talking about the NDP, that they support green energy and conservation. He kept talking about conservation.

I just want to let the hon. member know, as well as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the NDP certainly do not have the monopoly on energy efficiency, or conservation, or green energy. We are certainly cognizant of that here over on this side of the House of Assembly, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LANE: Mr. Chair, might I say – and I am not going to read all of these again. I will just read one again because we are talking about conservation. Unlike the infamous energy critic, the NDP's energy critic, they keep quoting all of the time, and certainly their leader does, who says, on December 4, on this Twitter account, "Another… quaint idea that electricity conservation in Ontario is going to reduce power bills".

Unlike the NDP critic who actually believes – according to what he has posted here – that energy conservation will not indeed reduce power bills, I disagree with him. I believe that energy conservation is a good thing. No, I do not believe, I know – because I asked a question to Ed Martin at one of the briefings and the other folks at Nalcor about the whole energy conservation piece.

I asked him: Was energy conservation a consideration in this whole Muskrat Falls Project, in terms of determining what the best option was? Did you consider energy conservation? He said: Yes, we did. I said: Oh, very good. That is good to know. I said: Now, Ed is it possible – because I have heard some of the critics out there say that perhaps if we were conserving more energy, and I have heard it from the members opposite here, the NDP in particular – if we were conserving energy we would not need Muskrat Falls? I asked him: Is there anything to this? I really want to know, because if that is a viable alternative we should look at it.

What I was told is that based on the power needs we have here on the Island and based on the power needs we have in Labrador, conservation, while it is a good thing, while it is something we need to encourage and need to do more of, and while it is something that Nalcor is actively working on – they have some programs in place, as do Newfoundland Power. They are working on other programs, and as time goes by you will see more and more of it. In terms of meeting our electrical needs, conservation is not going to do it. Again, it is a supplemental piece.

He is saying we do the Muskrat Falls Project because it is the best option and it provides us with the power we need at the lowest cost. Then as we complete the Muskrat Falls Project there will be opportunities for us to enhance our conservation programs. There will be opportunities to introduce wind energy to supplement what we are doing at Muskrat Falls, as is being done in Manitoba, might I add.

The Member for St. John's Centre was talking about Manitoba, how they are talking about cheap wind power. She presented the little article she had, that she googled or whatever. There is no doubt, that that is there. I do not disbelieve it, that wind energy is a good thing, a viable thing, and a cheap option, but –

CHAIR: Can I interrupt the hon. member just for a second? I am under the understanding, hon. member, that we are debating Bill 60, the expropriation piece, and I think you are referring to Bill 61, I believe. Can we bring it around to Bill 60 a little bit?

MR. LANE: Yes, sure. I will.

CHAIR: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LANE: Mr. Chair, the reason I went off on that tangent is because it was actually the Member for St. John's North who was totally on that tangent the last time he spoke and he was not called to order, so I thought we had the latitude.

Anyway, that is fine. I did want to make the point, though, that conservation is a priority for Nalcor, it is a priority for this government, and we will do whatever we can in that regard to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the other pieces which I spoke on the last time, we were talking about the power lines. The power line corridor, the expropriation of the land that is required. The last time I spoke I kind of focused on addressing the points that were made by the Member for The Straits – White Bay North and his concerns, as well as the Member for St. John's Centre and her concerns, about having to cut trees and having to perhaps eliminate berry patches that might be there, that you can no longer pick berries in certain areas, and all this kind of thing.

The part that I did not address, which I will address now in the time I have left, is the part about the expropriation of properties, cabins, cottages, and so on. I think it has been pointed out that there are really not a large number of them that are going to be impacted, but there will be some. There is no doubt, there will be some.

I spoke about the need for this power corridor in order for us to deliver the power that is generated, the need for the power so that we can develop our natural resources. While we understand that it may not be visually appealing and so on, while we understand that from an environmental perspective there is no doubt it will disrupt certain areas, we will mitigate against it as best we can using environmental standards.

There is no doubt that trees will have to be cut down, berry patches will be sacrificed to that process in certain areas. Scattered blueberry and bakeapples – there are lots of them in other areas. We are not going to destroy it all. You can look at that for any area where if you build a hotel, you build houses, you put up buildings: well, the trees have to go. It is as simple as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will get my blueberries.

MR. LANE: I will get my blueberries, too. You have to strike a balance.

The same thing when we talk about cottages and cabins, we understand. I totally get it. We have a summer home that we go to out in St. Mary's Bay. I have lots of friends and family who have cabins and cottages all over the Province. I understand for some people that is their second home. As a matter of fact, there are people putting more time and energy and resources into their cabins than into their houses in some cases. I totally get that.

There is nobody here on the government side who is saying we are going to undertake this project and we are going to go out of our way, Mr. Chair, to destroy people's cabins, to destroy their hunting grounds, to destroy their berry patches, to do harm to people, to their way of life, to their enjoyment of the outdoors. We have no intention of doing that. Nalcor has no intention of doing that, but for the greater good – and that is what it comes down to. For the greater good of the Province, people of Newfoundland and Labrador, for all the right reasons we have talked about here hundreds of times, we have to do it. You have to strike a balance.

Unfortunately, while you would love to be able to do everything, just sail through perfectly with no collateral damage, for lack of better terminology, sometimes there are going to be certain circumstances where yes, unfortunately, do you know what? That cabin is going to have to go; unfortunately that cottage is going to have to go.

In recognition of that, we have a system put in place in the legislation, a process to ensure that people are treated fairly, that they receive appropriate compensation for their properties and so on, Mr. Chair. I think that is the reasonable thing to do. I do not think anybody could expect any different than that.

Again, it comes down to being reasonable, fair and practical, and looking out for the bigger picture. That is why governments are elected, that is why leaders are elected, to make sometimes the tough decisions, to make decisions that are not always popular with everybody all the time but in the best interests of the Province as a whole. That is why we are doing it. That is why I support it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I will just remind the hon. member, we are discussing Bill 60.

MR. KIRBY: Yes. I would just like to correct the Member for Mount Pearl North. When I was talking about the –

AN HON. MEMBER: South.

MR. KIRBY: Sorry, Mount Pearl South.

I was actually talking about the need for this transmission corridor and facility to support government's monopoly that we are talking about. Really the nature of the power purchase agreement –

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – basically means that Nalcor is using this transmission, this new transmission and very, very expensive transmission, to supply power to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Really what it will mean is Hydro will have no other choice but to take all the power it is given. We will need this massive transmission facility to accommodate that because we are driving all of that power down right through, right down the Great Northern Peninsula, through Central Newfoundland, and all the way down to Soldiers Pond.

I guess that is great for Nalcor, if you look at it from a corporate perspective, but I think it is problematic for Hydro to some extent. Of course, as I was saying when I was up earlier, and that is where the Member for Mount Pearl South got the mistaken impression that I was addressing the other bill, if conservation happened there would be less demand for power and Hydro could, I suppose, be forced to charge more for the power. As I ended up, I was talking about how we need to do that in order to pay off the massive debt that is involved there.

It all really comes back to the whole monopolistic element of all of this, and I am really surprised. I am really surprised, Mr. Chair, because I would not have thought that the Progressive Conservative Party would have supported a configuration, a development, and a plan including from the dam and the transmission to all the related legislation we have been discussing this week, and a plan that does not support market competition. I would –

CHAIR: I would remind the hon. member you are on a fine line.

MR. KIRBY: I understand, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your understanding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is difficult hearing the hon. member.

MR. KIRBY: I am surprised they support monopolistic development that enjoys a captive market and consumers who are captive by this development and all of this expenditure.

I am not saying the people at Nalcor are not well-meaning. They are. In all of my interactions with the people at Nalcor, I have found them to be courteous. They have been quite polite. They have been very accommodating. They are certainly very knowledgeable. People have talked about Mr. Ed Martin and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – and Gilbert Bennett in that they are very knowledgeable. What I am saying is when things go bad and if costs skyrocket in the end, they can just shrug and raise rates without any fear. There is nothing they can do.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have asked the hon. member on two occasions now to speak to Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project. I ask the hon. member to speak to Bill 60.

Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The reason I raise this is because we have talked about a lot of different reports that have been released over the last year or so that either support or do not support. Well, actually, the government has talked exclusively about reports that support Muskrat Falls, but there certainly have been reports that do not support this particular plan. The transmission, the expropriation of lands, and all of that certainly falls into that.

I say, Mr. Chair, there was one report that was released. It was authored by a gentleman named Gordon Weil. It was published by – I do not know if I have it here in my notes, but I think it was the C.D. Howe Institute. It was really dismissed somehow as he was a right winger and, look, the NDP or the Liberals are clamouring around this report as though somehow we are embracing right-wing ideology. That is not the case at all.

I am not here to talk about the things that Gordon Weil said that supports government's position. We know government has lots of very talented researchers who provide resources to them and who have worked to support their argument. There is no question about that.

I raise this because of government's inclination to discredit anyone who has raised concerns about Muskrat Falls, whether it is transmission and expropriation of land or any other aspect of this, the whole thing. It is expensive to do this. Government stood up at every opportunity to try and discredit anyone who stands up against them. I think it is essential that everyone here knows about the person who wrote that article. I would say if the Premier read and the Premier understood who that person was, it might have saved us from being here all week I say, Mr. Chair.

Let us have a look at this gentleman's resume because I think it is very relevant. I am sure, Mr. Chair, you have read the article in question as well. I hope other members of the House have had an opportunity. He is, "Chairman of the Weil Consulting Group and President of Standard Energy Company, Augusta, Maine. Gordon Weil graduated from Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine (A.B.), the College of Europe, Bruges, Belgium…", which I visited myself, and Columbia University, New York, where he got a Ph.D. I know the hon. Government House Leader, like myself, has completed a doctorate. He has a doctorate in public law and government. "He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is?

MR. KIRBY: Gordon Weil. "He was Commissioner of Business Regulation, Director of the Office of Energy Resources and Public Advocate of the State of Maine. He has served on numerous regional energy bodies and was chair of the national organization of state energy agencies."

I would say, Mr. Chair, in that capacity he has dealt with plans just like this one to build a massive, massive transmission facility to go from all the way up in the Big Land at the Lower Churchill, Muskrat Falls, come all the way down through Labrador, then across the Straits, then all the way down the Great Northern Peninsula, across Central Newfoundland, then across the Isthmus, and down to Soldiers Pond. He has dealt with things very, very much like this, Mr. Chair.

"He was the chair of the New England negotiations leading to the region's electric transmission tariff and the Independent System Operator. A licensed energy broker, he has engaged in wholesale and retail power purchasing and power sales and strategy development for wholesale and large retail consumers in the U.S. and Canada.

"He has taught at several colleagues and universities and he is author of 12 books and numerous articles on economic, governmental, and historical subjects. He was a local elected official" and on and on and on. This gentleman's resume indicates that he is quite knowledgeable to speak on these matters and he is no right-wing hack.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to rise once again and speak to Bill 60. If my speech is slurred, I can assure hon. members that if I am drunk, I am only drunk with excitement about participating in this important process, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: The only thing I have consumed is water, green tea, and a few other caffeinated beverages.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs needs sleep as well, Mr. Chair.

I do have to respond to some of the comments of my hon. colleague, the Member for St. John's North. I was particularly bothered by his comments related to monopoly.

The situation today in terms of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland Power is what it is. It is an arrangement that I think has served the people of the Province well. When he talks about Nalcor being a monopoly, Nalcor is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is not about creating a monopolies, I say to the hon. Member for St. John's North. This is about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians having control of their natural resources and having control of their own destiny. It is about harnessing the power that our natural resources present, and we are seizing those opportunities.

What is almost as bizarre as the arguments about monopolization are the arguments that come from the NDP energy experts? I do not know whose bio the Member for St. John's North was just reading. Are you aware?

AN HON. MEMBER: A fellow Weil, or something like that.

MR. KENT: Weil.

We spent most of the night listening to the Member for The Straits – White Bay North talk about all of the great work that is being done in Ontario, and the Member for St. John's Centre did the same thing. They both talked at length about how we should learn from Ontario, the shrimp shells and the wood pellets, and there was some other piece of that as well –

AN HON. MEMBER: Hot springs.

MR. KENT: The thermal hot springs in Iceland.

I heard from the Member for The Straits – White Bay North and I heard for Member for St. John's Centre over and over again that Ontario was the mecca when it came to modern energy. Yet, I heard the leader of the NDP repeatedly quote her expert, Tom Adams, who I have been Tweeting with this morning, Mr. Chair. That has been enlightening. I thank Mr. John Samms for jumping in and adding some intelligence to the discussion, beyond what I can add after this many hours on my feet in the House.

In terms of Mr. Adams – so again, the members opposite are talking about how great things are in Ontario and how we should learn from them, and they talk –

CHAIR: I am sure the Member for Mount Pearl North is going to get to Bill 60 in a minute (inaudible).

MR. KENT: I am, actually, Mr. Chair. That is exactly what I am going to talk about here. I will just finish my point. Then I am going to talk about municipal issues that the Member for Burgeo – La Poile has referenced.

While the folks opposite talk about wind and solar, Mr. Adams says there is no justification for investing in wind and solar. He says another quaint idea that electricity conservation in Ontario is going to reduce power bills, yet the Member for St. John's North spends ten minutes this morning talking about how electricity conservation is going to solve all our problems. So, it is a little bit disingenuous.

Then Mr. Adams goes on to say earlier this month, Ontario, the place that these folks want us to be more like, Mr. Adams, their expert, says Ontario is lost in space, trying to create jobs out of wind, solar, and other kinds of pixie dust, Mr. Chair – but I digress.

It feels like it was hours ago now, but the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, who has contributed rather constructively to this debate in recent hours, posed some good questions around the impact on municipalities. I have said at the time that I was going to rise and talk about some of those concerns, and then there was some disruptive behaviour in this House, that, of course, I will not talk about further at this point in time. I am pleased to address some of these municipal issues that the Member for Burgeo – La Poile was raising several hours ago.

In terms of municipalities being compensated for the land they own, if a municipality owns the land it will be compensated in the same manner that private landowners will be compensate. This does not include Crown land that is situated within a municipality, which, of course, is owned by the Crown.

The member raised some concerns around consultations. There has never been a government of Newfoundland and Labrador that has been more committed to consulting with – not only consulting with people, Mr. Chair, but engaging with the public.

In terms of the consultation process with municipalities, proponents already have been consulting with, and will continue to consult with affected municipalities throughout the Province, throughout this process, Mr. Chair.

The proponents are not providing any services or products to the residents of these municipalities that are impacted. They are simply erecting transmission infrastructure which happens to pass through communities.

When we talk about tax exemption, the tax emption is only for project purposes. Municipalities will have the ability to tax the proponents for activities outside the project. The municipalities will also retain the ability to tax the proponents if it provides a service to a proponent such as – a couple of examples – water and sewer, for instance.

The amendments that we are proposing here Bill 60, Mr. Chair, are absolutely consistent with the current legislation that gives Nalcor, that gives Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its subsidiaries tax exemptions as Crown corporations. We are certainly being consistent in that regard.

Another issue that has come up, I believe it is the Member for St. John's North who has raised this issue around Emera and what exemptions they may or may not get, and whether Emera is being treated differently than Newfoundland Power. The tax exemption is applicable to the Muskrat Falls Project. Emera is not being exempted from activities outside of the project, Mr. Chair, nor if it required services from a municipality.

Newfoundland Power's business activities within municipalities are taxable, but its transmission and utility line assets are not taxable, Mr. Chair. This treatment is consistent with how Emera is being dealt with under the legislation.

Another concern that I think has been raised – I have heard it at some point during this debate – relates to municipalities authority to issue permits. I would say to this hon. House: The project has been sanctioned by this government as the best way to meet the Province's long-term energy needs, and as such, the completion of the project in an efficient and in a timely manner, Mr. Chair, is absolutely essential. It is good for the Province, good for the taxpayers of the Province, and it is good in terms of meeting our energy needs.

There cannot be a risk that a municipality would interfere with the timely completion of the project by delaying or refusing the issuance of permits or other authorizations. Hopefully that would not happen, Mr. Chair, because I think, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs has outlined quite well, municipalities in this Province, all 276 of them, are quite supportive of what we are doing to build clean, green, and renewable energy that is going to have huge economic impact on this Province and allow us to meet the many infrastructure needs of our communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

We do need clarity and we do need to ensure we can complete the project in an efficient manner and in a timely manner. That is what is required. What we are doing through this legislation assures consistency across all municipalities.

The municipalities in question, the municipalities involved, Mr. Chair, have already been consulted on the proposed transmission line. We are going to continue to consult with them at every step of this process. Transmission lines, though, I should also tell this House, actually are going to pass through very, very few municipalities.

Another concern that has been raised in terms of municipal issues relates to compatibility with current development plans within a municipality. I know there are a large number of former municipal leaders in this hon. House. The authorities granted under this legislation will take precedent over any existing municipal development plans. That is obviously essential to the success and in terms of the planning of this project.

I realize my time is about to run out, Mr. Chair. I thank you for the opportunity to participate again, and I thank you for allowing me a little bit of latitude at the beginning to address some of the comments of the Member for St. John's North.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly a pleasure again to rise and speak to the bill that is on the Table, Mr. Chair, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project. Mr. Chair, throughout the last three or four days, I have certainly focused on the environmental impacts coming from the project as registered and the footprint area. I have brought up a lot of issues, a lot of concerns, Mr. Chair, that range from impacts on the resident caribou herds and the migratory caribou herds that could potentially be impacted by the proposed transmission line.

I mentioned earlier this morning, Mr. Chair, that expropriation is not limited by this act to land resources or land base. It also applies to expropriation of water flow and water rights. I will again, almost as summary, go back to the environmental assessment where it was recommended that an environmental assessment be carried out in Lake Melville itself. As you apply the loan guarantee to the term sheet, Mr. Chair, it says in there that prior to loan guarantee all environmental and Aboriginal rights must be negotiated.

I heard a comment by the Premier yesterday in Question Period that we do not give up and we negotiate to protect the people of the Province. It is certainly good to hear that comment, Mr. Chair. I encourage the Premier to also negotiate with the people in the Province. There is a reason I am saying that. Last month, as a result of Nalcor's position and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council's position, Mr. Chair, impacts from the proposed Muskrat Falls Project would stay within the confines of the proposed dam. In reference to dam construction around the world, where flooding occurs methylmercury is created.

I talked a little bit this morning, Mr. Chair. I gave some examples of human consumption levels of acceptance with mercury. To tie it all in, Mr. Chair, with natural mercury levels in fish and in respect relative to Lake Melville, what the levels of methylmercury in fish are is a result of the Upper Churchill Project and what the potential levels of mercury could be in fish is a result of the Muskrat Falls Project.

Mr. Chair, if there is any increase of levels now that has been measured from the Upper Churchill, it is certainly from a distance that is in excess of 300 kilometres away. We are certainly hopeful that from the time that mercury is created from creating Smallwood Reservoir has diminished to a point where human consumption is still possible in Lake Melville, Mr. Chair. That baseline work should have been done. I have never seen the report indicating that there was any work done downstream of the proposed project, Mr. Chair. I could go so far as to assume that the reason for this is because of the position that no environmental impacts will arise from the project downstream.

I would like to go back to section 3 of the tabled legislation, Mr. Chair, where it talks about the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and that the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement would take precedence over the proposed legislation. It goes on to say in this legislation that this act will supersede many, many others. The reason for having this in place, Mr. Chair, is because of the legislation that is there now, this government feels it is not appropriate to go forward with statutory easement or expropriation. That is the reason for this legislation, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to point out again to remind the Chair that the terms and conditions of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, and I will quote a small section again, Mr. Chair, "…shall have precedence over the provision of this Act…". I go back to the comments and duty to consult. I would go back to late November when the Nunatsiavut Government did come forward and say that, to follow due process and referencing the term sheet, the consultation did not occur to the satisfaction of the Nunatsiavut Government. We have heard multiple explanations from the Premier and from the Minister of Natural Resources that, yes, they did consult, Mr. Chair.

In looking at the position of this government and the explanations they gave, and looking at the explanations by the Nunatsiavut Government, there is a discrepancy, and an obvious discrepancy. One is saying yes; one is saying no.

Mr. Chair, upon sanctioning of the project just a short while ago – I have been in this hon. House so long that I cannot remember exactly when it was, but it was just recently – the Premier said this project could not go ahead without the help of Aboriginal peoples. Immediately on the heels of that debate, Mr. Chair, there was another press release by the Nunatsiavut Government saying that it does not support the project as sanctioned. President Leo did not say she does not support the project. She was asked that in the original press conference and she did not answer it. What she does say is that she does not agree with the project as sanctioned.

Mr. Chair, if you tie that into the term sheet and you tie all of this into section 3 of the tabled legislation, Aboriginal peoples have not been consulted. The reason the concern is there – and I have talked about the mercury levels – is there are some 5,000 Inuit who live in Lake Melville and the Lake Melville area, and there are Labrador Inuit-owned lands on both the north side of Lake Melville and on the south side of Lake Melville.

If we could jump ahead to when this project is up and running, Mr. Chair, that this government is so much looking forward to, when the switch is thrown the question becomes: What of the environmental impacts will result? The difference between the Muskrat Falls Project and the Upper Churchill is that the Muskrat Falls Project, although smaller in footprint area or flooding area, is right next to the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, to the community of Mud Lake, and to the community of North West River.

I have a very short time left, but I would like to say again, there are over 14,000 fathoms of subsistence fishing gear that goes into Lake Melville, along with the recreational fishery, and along with a winter fishery of smelt and trout, Mr. Chair. All of this is subject to potential contamination that none of us would like to see.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am now going to address one of the issues that I said I would yesterday. I made some notes of questions that were raised, or issues that were raised. I did not have an opportunity to finalize all of them.

Today, I am going to talk again about the pricing of oil, significantly in relation to the report referred to by the NDP from Harvard Economist, Leonardo Maugeri on the Oil: The Next Revolution. Mr. Maugeri's credentials are quite good. He is a fellow at Harvard University in John F. Kennedy School and holds a Ph.D. in international economics.

Mr. Maugeri in his paper, it is quite a lengthy paper, but he argues that after you look at the risk factors, depletion rates and reserves, that world oil capacity could increase to 17.6 barrels per day to about 110 barrels in 2020. That is very consistent with what Dr. Mark Schwartz, in his paper that has been filed here by PIRA says the same thing. I think it is consistent with what I said yesterday in terms of my meetings with Wood Mackenzie.

One of the interesting points though, and this is very consistent with what I have been saying throughout when we talk about the price of oil. When we talked to Dr. Schwartz the last time in New York, one of the issues we looked at is: How low will the price of oil go? Because that feeds into the sensitivity analysis conducted by MHI where I indicated yesterday that even if the price of oil went to $61 a barrel, Muskrat Falls would still have a CPW preferential over Isolated Island of $584 million, or a half billion dollars.

Mr. Maugeri looks at that and he says that the economic pre-requisite to capacity growth is around $70. That is very consistent. I have talked about the shale oil production in the Bakken fields in North Dakota and the cost per barrel being – I will use a very wide range because it is more difficult - $50 to $75 per barrel, $65, $70 per barrel. We know that in the oil sands in Alberta we are looking at a price of around $80 to $85 per barrel. That is the cost of production.

One of the things that makes our oil offshore so good, is not only is it sweeter crude, Brent light crude, but it is also cheaper to produce. So, off our shore there would have to be significant capital investments in terms of building a GBS, building an FPSO. Once they are built and paid for, then the cost of producing the oil is certainly lower than what we are seeing in Alberta.

The question of where the growth is going to come from, that is very interesting. I think even since Mr. Maugeri wrote his paper in June, we have a situation where shale oil has changed even again. I remember when I met with Dr. Schwartz earlier in the year I think he expected shale oil to go up 1.5 million barrels per day. This was probably only December or January, 1.5 million barrels per day up to 2020. Now they have upped that prediction to where it could be, I think, 4.5 million to 5 million barrels per day.

There is no argument that the Americans are certainly moving towards self-sufficiency, but we still have the growth in the rest of the world. Where the oil is going to come from, there is a lot of oil off the Coast of Brazil that is still to be explored. We have the heavy crude out of Venezuela. Venezuela, I think, is one of the biggest producers and potentially even a bigger producer, but it is what is referred to as extra heavy oil. Brazil has pre-salt oil, Canadian oil sands. What you have are these heavier oils that are more difficult to get at.

What is happening in the United States is certainly going to affect, and that is Mr. Maugeri's point here. What I see from Mr. Maugeri's paper is consistency with what other experts are saying, or what Dr. Schwartz is saying at PIRA, what Wood Mackenzie is saying. That is that the price of oil has to stay at a certain level in order for it to be profitable, because oil companies are not in this – this is not a charity. They are in it to make money. ExxonMobil, I think up until Apple took over, I think was the biggest company in the world. We have some big companies here, high risk, they look for high rewards.

What Mr. Maugeri is saying is that oil could – he makes one comment, and this was the comment I had some difficulty with, with the Leader of the NDP saying the oil will go to $50. No one out there is predicting oil is going to $50. There is one comment towards the end of that paper where there is a reference, but that is not the subject, the tenor or the conclusion reached in that paper. Mr. Maugeri's comments are very similar to Dr. Schwartz. At page 3 he talks about the $50 to $65 to produce shale oil. At page 4, he talks the fall of prices below $70 Brent.

We have to remember, there will be a point when it is expected that West Texas will start the differential that now exists of approximately – it could be $20 a barrel; I have not checked it yet today - that differential will start to close. As more West Texas Intermediate oil gets to the market, the $20 difference will close.

We have predications from PIRA, Sproule Associates, GLJ, we have Wood Mackenzie, and they are all predicting that oil will stay over $100 a barrel in the 2020s. That is very consistent. The US Energy Administration indicates that they look at oil – they are assuming $100 in 2013, but they do not get into, I do not think, the chart I have does not show them getting into the long-term predictions like the others. What we have is a situation where it is consistent with other writers.

Also, and this is very important that Mr. Maugeri talks about, there are issues here; the shale oil is happening so fast that we still have not gotten a real good view of where it is going. There is still the economic impacts. I indicated yesterday that with all of the drilling, though, of the shale, the horizontal drilling in the United States, the environmental impacts would seem to be not a major concern in the US, whether or not they are in Canadian provinces remains to be seen.

This is important, because this is just the way the academic world works: There have been critiques of Dr. Maugeri's paper, including the Steve Sorrell at the University of Sussex and Christophe McGlade at the University College of London. They say that Maugeri's conclusions are inconsistent with those of industry experts, including Cambridge Energy Research Associates and US Energy Information Administration, that his projections are very sensitive to the assumed rate of decline of production. That is a very important point because to this day we do not know how much oil there is in Saudi Arabia.

We know that Iran has a lot of oil and Iran situation is always so sensitive, it could impact the amount of oil available to the world. These are the criticisms – and I am just outlining the criticisms and there can be criticisms of anything. He failed to provide adequate justification for his assumptions. They appear to be inconsistent with the available evidence. That if he adopted more realistic estimates it would significantly change the results.

When you look at the other forecaster views, he predicts – Maugeri, again – that global crude oil prices will decline sometime between now and 2020; however, he does not provide specific price forecasting. If you go through that paper, and I have read every word of it, he does not provide a specific price forecast.

Then if you look at the energy markets and the view in the energy market that there are so many unconventional sources of crude supply right now – and I talked about the Brazilian oil, the Venezuelan oil, the oil sands, so that there is going to be global demand growth, no question about that.

Bernstein Research expects global oil prices to increase between now and 2020, as do most of the other experts. What they are doing is because of the shale oil, they have brought their estimates down and they all seem to be around that $100 a barrel; some go to $113. If something happened in Iran and you take that oil out of the market, all of sudden you can see the price go up. It is a very volatile market – one of the reasons that we want to get away from fossil fuels. We do not want to rely on fossil fuels for electricity prices because of the inherent volatility and uncertainty that comes with them.

Mr. Chair, we have to look at what exactly these prices are. Mr. Maugeri is very consistent in some areas, but he does not put out a specific price forecast. I am looking at various price forecasts from the main – and I will use our Brent because that is what we have: PIRA goes up to all over $100 a barrel; the US Energy Administration is only 2012-2013, over $100 a barrel; Sproule Associates, except for 2015 at $99.47, over $100 a barrel; GLJ Petroleum Consultants up to 2030 is over $100 a barrel; Barclays, for the next two years, is $125 to $130; and Reuters showing up to $100.

He is consistent in some ways, but there is no specific price forecast. I would suggest anyone quoting lengthy articles should quote them accurately and perhaps even should read them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Cross): Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just address a couple of comments from the Natural Resources Minister. He said he has not seen anywhere where the price of oil is going to be going down to $50 a barrel. I guess he has not read the report the other day from the Bank of America Merrill Lynch on CNN Money. I will table that article for the minister if he would like. U.S. oil prices could sink to $50 a barrel is the headline.

Let me read a couple of lines for you: "U.S. oil prices could sink to $50 a barrel at some point over the next two years, according to analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. But don't expect a corresponding drop in gas prices." That is fine and dandy.

"Merrill analysts expect U.S. oil prices to still average about $90 a barrel over the same time period. Global oil prices meanwhile, which more closely dictate the price of gasoline in the United States, are expected to remain high as growth in global oil supplies lags population growth and economic output."

We recognize there is going to be some sort of change in the pressures on oil. Nobody said anything about that. What we are talking about is what is going to be happening in the States to the US Northeast markets. That is the concern here that we are actually going to have. We know what the government here wants to do and we believe in what government wants to do when it comes to Holyrood and taking off us oil dependence. Failing to address what is happening on coastal Labrador when it comes to the use of diesel is another thing.

I say to the Natural Resources Minister: There is no ignoring the fact of what natural gas and what shale oil is going to be doing to the US Northeastern Seaboard in the competitive markets where we are proposing to dump electricity into and hopefully make a return on. That is the whole point of the question. While we still do not know yet, all of these articles are giving good examples of how much the volatility is out there that the government, I do not believe, has addressed yet. That is the concern.

What they are saying down here a little bit further too, as regards to what is happening in the States, the only problem they have now in the States, the only thing that is preventing the oil prices from falling right now, is a glut situation that is happening; they cannot deliver it into some regions right now.

What is going on is that they are hopefully going to get more pipelining infrastructure in there, put in place, so they can actually deliver to some of these refineries and everything and get it out there. Once that happens, once they find a way of actually delivering it to market and getting some of it on stream, what you are going to see with the price of oil here being down to $50 a barrel – and again, there is nothing confirmed that it is going to drop down to $50 a barrel, but I would take it from the Bank of America Merrill Lynch that there is something to it. What is going to happen is that you are actually going to see the price of Brent crude oil drag down because people are going to go after the cheaper product on the market.

MR. KENNEDY: You showed your true colours this morning.

MR. MURPHY: I say to the minister: If he wants to go ahead and bring that up, that is fine and dandy, if he wants to go that way. We are talking about the price of oil and we are talking about the volatility –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Some hon. members over there are showing a little bit of respect, thank you very much, so that we can go ahead and talk about this.

MR. KENT: You are an embarrassment to your party and this House.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Chair, a point of order.

CHAIR: The Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Our Standing Orders and practice in Legislatures in this country do not tolerate personal comments made directly from one member to the other that was just done by the Member for Mount Pearl North. I would like a ruling on what just happened.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The Member for St. John's East, to continue.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It continues.

The bank predicts the US economy will grow by 1.5 per cent in 2012, so that is not too far off from the numbers of PIRA; I will agree with the member on that, in 2013, and 2.8 per cent in 2014. So there is going to be growth and, no doubt, there is going to be demand on their own product. That is fine and dandy, but again I say to the Minister of Natural Resources and I say to the government: There could be some pricing pressures when it comes to Brent crude oil and that could end up dragging Brent crude down.

Now, I do not know if he has seen that any reports. He probably has not, but do you know why? It is probably not something that is going to be able to stick right out at you at the immediate point in time, but it is a fact of the market that if you see a cheaper product out there, you are going to go for it and that is going to force everybody else to drop their price. That is the way it happens out there on the market.

My guess is that there is not going to be too much upward pressure on Brent crude oil prices. They will be sustained and they may drop back a little bit, so we have to be cautious, even for the Minister of Finance, for example, when he comes up with his Budget predictions over the next little while. We have to be very cautious.

The markets are very touchy. As we saw yesterday in the article I was telling people about, and particularly when it comes to natural gas, they are building these facilities to put electricity out on the markets now hand over fist. For 655 megawatts, a plant is being built in New Jersey for $750 million versus our 824 megawatts for Muskrat Falls at $8.8 billion. Which option would you pick, option A or option B? Mr. Chair, I say to you that my option would be option A, the $750 million for 655 megawatts. It is a bargain.

That is what they are doing with their resource down there. If David Suzuki said it makes it insane to be burning energy to manufacture energy, that is fine and dandy and that is one thought. How do we train the thinking in the US Northeast that is indeed the case when we are talking about matching people's thoughts with revenue? That is what we are trying to compete against. We are trying to compete against revenue here, too, at the same time. All these bills here, Bill 60 and 61, are linked together into the financial needs of what they are looking for, the standards, in the loan arrangement to finance the project. We are seeing a little bit of a loophole here that could potentially take a kick at the Province's finances.

We have to be concerned. We have to be concerned, Mr. Chair, for the finances of the people who are going to be paying for this project through higher rates. We have to be cognizant of the fact that some of the people out there are dealing with a possibility of higher taxation in order to keep government afloat for some of its programming. That is why I keep harping on that particular fact, not even to mention the competitive nature that would have against the possibility of what could be happening in our own offshore, for example, when it comes to competition here.

I do not know if government has really looked at the full impact of this. I really do not; it has been that much of a focus on Muskrat Falls. This has direct effects on Muskrat Falls so we have to stay focused on this. We cannot mitigate in any way Maugeri's thoughts on it. He has been in the industry that long. He is not the only one who is thinking like that. Like I said, it is the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch that are thinking $50 a barrel for WTI. That is going to have a pounding effect, I think, on Brent and it is going to drag prices down. It is going to have a downwards effect on it, unless we see some massive amounts of recovery happening in the world markets, for example, in the next little while.

Let me tell you what is happening in India and China right now when it comes to fracking and everything. They are saying right now that in the Chinese market they are about ten to fifteen years behind in their drilling technology. In the northwest of India, according to Maugeri, they are sitting on some pretty good fields of undiscovered natural gas yet. At least, the potential is there. Indian oil production is starting to rise and the Chinese are starting to explore their own resources, unexplored properties over there.

So, Mr. Chair, while we know the Chinese will be a factor and India will be a factor in the world economy, if they are going to start producing their own that is about that much more that is going to be coming out of somebody else's pocket worldwide when it comes to the economy. We are depending on two countries to carry the load when it comes to oil. To me, out of this whole world, we know about the population and that sort of thing, but if they are going to be developing their own resources, and that is the tack they are starting to take, we could see a massive drop in oil. You will not find that, probably, in PIRA, you will see escalating numbers, but it is a thought. It has to be a consideration that hopefully government has looked at.

Mr. Chair, the other thing I was going to touch on right now there is probably not enough time to do it. I think I will probably park it there. I did want to touch, actually, on a couple of clauses when it came to the legislation. I will get up again later on and talk about that.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

I am happy to be on my feet again and speaking to the bills we are considering at this time with regard to the Muskrat Falls Project. I would like to come back to some environmental issues. The Minister of Natural Resources and I earlier in the morning did have some discussions over environmental issues and the environmental assessment report that was done by the joint review panel for Muskrat Falls. So I would like to come back to some of those recommendations that I do not believe at this point have yet been taken seriously. Now that the project is sanctioned, I would like to start hearing a bit more serious consideration from the government.

The recommendations after the first four recommendations of the report of the joint panel review, once you get past the four of them you start finding that all the recommendations say at the very top, the panel recommends that if the project is approved, and before Nalcor is permitted. So, it is recognizing that if the government made a decision to go ahead and approve, then there are certain things the panel recommends has to be done. I would like to point out there are – I think it is seven. I could be counting wrong, but I think there are seven recommendations with regard to mercury, everything from the potential of mercury in the possible pathways, throughout the food web, and coming all the way from Churchill Falls, the Upper Churchill Falls, all the way down, and out to Lake Melville.

There have been times I have raised this issue in the House in Question Period when I really believed my concern was not being taken seriously and the concerns of the Joint Review Panel were not being taken seriously. As a matter of fact, I remember one day I was being laughed at for saying there was mercury in Lake Melville. Well, it is documented in the report of the Joint Review Panel for Muskrat Falls that there is mercury in Lake Melville and they have documented that mercury comes from the Upper Churchill development. Now, we all know when the Upper Churchill development started and that is 1969. At this point in time, we have mercury in Lake Melville which has been identified by scientists as coming from the Upper Churchill.

There is grave concern raised and it was raised by people who made representation to the Joint Review Panel. One of those was the Nunatsiavut Government, actually, who made representation to the Joint Review Panel with regard to its concerns about mercury. There were scientists who made representation. We have scientific proof of the mercury and we have serious recommendations from the review panel with regard to this potential.

Now, I know the Minister for Natural Resources kept pointing out last night or early this morning that the Joint Review Panel's recommendations are not mandatory. We all know that, but their recommendations are recommendations based on fact. They do not just put things out there for the sake of putting it out.

When we hear a recommendation like recommendation 13.9, which talks about the possible requirement for consumption advisories in Goose Bay or Lake Melville, I think it is incumbent upon the governments to make sure that is taken seriously. This is not just an opinion; this is based on scientific evidence. I know the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the major responsibility, but I also think our own Department of Environment and Conservation has responsibility as well for making sure a project in our Province is following what would be considered to be best practices with regard to environmental concerns.

I would like to point out what Recommendation 13.9 says, because not everybody has the time to go into government documents, find these documents and read them. I think it is extremely important that we do so. I am realizing from e-mails I am getting, that people are watching and people are learning through this process. They are learning what the bills are about, they are listening, they are paying attention. For the sake of people who are watching, I want to highlight one of the seven recommendations.

"The Panel recommends that, if the Project is approved and the outcome of the downstream mercury assessment…" – which was an earlier recommendation, this is the second of the mercury recommendations – "indicates that consumption advisories would be required for Goose Bay or Lake Melville, Nalcor" – this is the recommendation – "enter into negotiations prior to impoundment with the parties representing – as appropriate – Goose Bay and Lake Melville resource users. Depending on where the consumption advisories would apply, these could include Aboriginal groups" – and certainly Nunatsiavut has indicated their concern – "the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mud Lake Improvement Committee, the Town of North West River and the community of Rigolet."

People do not realize that at the end, the community on the coast most affected would be Rigolet. I have actually seen a statement from Nalcor saying they do not really agree with what the Joint Review Panel is saying about mercury. I find that breathtaking, that they could come out and make that statement. The Joint Review Panel has based their comments on evidence, and this evidence has to be paid attention to.

They go on to say in their recommendation, "The purpose of the negotiations would be to reach agreement regarding further mitigation where possible and compensation measures, including financial redress if necessary. This recommendation would also apply later in the process if the downstream mercury assessment indicated that advisories were not likely, but monitoring subsequently required their application."

I think it is really important that Nalcor be made to take action on this. We need baseline data at this moment in time. We needed it before now but we need it now, baseline data with regard to the food chain itself and with regard to the lake. The main river, the food chain all the way out to the lake, we need baseline data.

We need to know where things are now so that after the dam starts, we then can monitor how things progress. This work has to be done. It is essential that this work is done. It is essential that the Department of Environment and Conservation take seriously the recommendations that are in the Joint Review Panel's report with regard to mercury.

The recommendations go further, besides what they believe is necessary with regard to food advisory and the lake, they also go on and "…recommends that, if the Project is approved" – and it now is sanctioned – "Nalcor, in collaboration with Health Canada and the provincial Department of Health and Community Services: consult with Aboriginal groups and affected communities regarding the approach to be taken to baseline and follow-up mercury testing and the communication of results for each group; and establish baseline human mercury levels in Churchill Falls, Upper Lake Melville communities and Rigolet, with consideration given to offering blood tests as well as hair samples for Innu participants, due to inconsistencies noted in the correlation between hair sample results and dietary consumption."

They are looking for important information now at this moment. We need baseline information. What happens to human beings in that area, people who are consuming either through food, through water, what happens as time goes on? The very fact they have been able to identify mercury in Lake Melville from Upper Churchill makes it absolutely common sense that with a dam on the Lower Churchill we are going to get greater mercury.

I have been astounded by the lack of seriousness with which these recommendations have been taken. I was astounded when I actually had one of the ministers, publicly here in the House and in the media, basically laugh at me for raising these issues, which are in the recommendations of the Joint Review Panel.

I would like to say to the minister, that whether or not these recommendations are mandatory, I believe common sense and ethics make it mandatory that the government make sure that Nalcor follow the recommendations in the report of the Joint Review Panel with regard to mercury.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning everyone. It is nice to be back up on my feet here this morning. It is nice to have an opportunity to talk about Bill 60 and to debate this important piece of legislation.

We have been doing this for some time now so I do not imagine that very much of what I have to say and relate in regard to the bill is new because we have explained very much of it throughout the night and, in fact, over the last two or three days. I think it is three days. I have lost track of how many days it is.

That is a good thing, Mr. Chair, because it is important that all questions get asked and that all questions get answered. I think that has been happening here. I have been particularly impressed with the answers given by our Minister of Natural Resources. He certainly knows this file exceptionally well and has spent a lot of time, and dedicated a lot of his time to making sure that this project is a sound project for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: We have certainly all had opportunity to speak, that this file has been studied from one end to the other. Seventeen reports he has tabled in this House of Assembly, Mr. Chair, with regard to the project itself, with regard to Muskrat Falls. That, to me, is something that is exceptionally consoling and comforting as we started to dissect and take apart this project so that we all were able to understand it.

Having read bits and pieces, I will say that I have not read all of the seventeen reports in all detail, but I have certainly read all of the seventeen reports in some manner. It has been, for me, a real education to understand from that perspective what has happened.

Mr. Chair, we have already sanctioned this project, so the project will be moving forward. We have a federal loan guarantee, Mr. Chair, and at this point in time we have support from many other sectors that tell us this project is a worthy project and that we should move forward with it.

Mr. Chair, from the federal government perspective, when they signed off on the loan guarantee, they did their due diligence in every way possible. They are not going to do a loan guarantee of the extent of what this project is without having examined this project every which way they possibly could. That was done, Mr. Chair. The due diligence that was given by the federal government was exhibited in the time that it took them to make their final decision on granting the loan guarantee, Mr. Chair.

We know for sure from their perspective they are very comfortable with this project that we are moving forward with. They have not examined it just from the financial perspective, Mr. Chair. They have examined it from every perspective possible to see that this is a feasible project, that this is a regional project that makes sense, not just for Newfoundland and Labrador, but for the whole of the region, Mr. Chair. So, from all of those perspectives, there is great assurance and great certainty that this project should move forward.

Mr. Chair, the last couple of things we need to do to start the ball rolling and to give this project the momentum that it needs right away – because we do not want to procrastinate. We want to move forward right away on this project. We want to start with the financing. We need to go and get the financing that needs to be done because every day is more money spent, Mr. Chair. We need to be able to get out into the markets and do this the right way.

That is why we have these two enabling pieces of legislation here today, Mr. Chair, Bill 60 and Bill 61. At this stage we are looking at Bill 60. I do not have the title of the bill right here in front of me, but it has to do with land acquisition, Mr. Chair. It has to do with the ability to be able to acquire land. Thank you; my colleague has just passed me the legislation relating to land requirements for the Muskrat Falls Project, Bill 60. This project will allow us to acquire the land that we need for putting the transmission lines though, Mr. Chair, an absolutely essential piece of work that we need to do.

We need to do that because we want to make sure we are being fair to everybody in the process. We are looking at 1,100 kilometres of transmission that has to be put in place. We have to be sure we have the land because that is part of the certainty the lenders are going to want to have as they decide to put in place the financing for us. They have to know we have acquired the land on which we are going to put these transmission lines. It is no surprise, Mr. Chair, that we want to get this legislation done so that in actual fact we can get to the business of moving everything forward.

Mr. Chair, in doing that, we realize there are places where the land is going to be land that is Crown land in some cases and land that is private land in other cases. We have to put in place fair practices that will allow adequate compensation when we need to ask people for their land or when we need to expropriate land, Mr. Chair. We have talked about doing that from a very fair perspective.

This is not a matter of gouging anybody. This is a matter of being forthright with the people of the Province in saying this is what has to happen. Here is the process that we have in place. This is what we need to do. Can you help us with this? We will sit down and negotiate. There will be a panel we will put in place if need be. Mr. Chair, this is about getting the land, putting the transmission up, and moving forward on a project that will have ultimate benefit for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, that to me is fairly basic. That is a piece of enabling legislation that I cannot imagine anyone objecting to. I cannot understand why anybody would want to stall on that piece of legislation when the project is already sanctioned, Mr. Chair. When everybody who has looked at this project, and we have all sectors of this Province and of the country who have looked at this project and said it is a wonderful project, why would anybody at this stage of the game, after sanction has already been done, want to get in the way of it? Mr. Chair, it really does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

The benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador of this project, Mr. Chair, while we have already talked about them in many respects, sometimes bear repeating because the benefits are great for everybody, but certainly in terms of future generations for this Province, Mr. Chair. I will always come back to that. For much of what I have done in my life, it has been a dedication to the young people of this Province. Many people would know I spent thirty years in the classroom and loved every minute I was in that classroom as well. I had opportunity to work with young people who always gave me energy. They never took my energy; they always gave me energy. I would come out at the end of the day thinking what great minds we have, what wonderful people we have, and what a wonderful future we have in this Province.

Having said that, now we are able to give them that little extra boost as well when we provide for them a Province that is going to be sustainable, Mr. Chair, and a Province that is going to be a place where they can come, live, work, set down their roots even deeper, raise their families, and see a future where they are not going to have to worry. That is what this project means for me more than anything else, Mr. Chair. It means future, it means vision, and it means sustainability.

Now, in the interim there will be other benefits as well. There will be benefits that will accrue to the business community and to the labour community. We are talking about $1.9 billion in income, Mr. Chair, to labour and business. We are talking about $320 million in average income benefits every year and $290 million in taxes to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are talking about 3,100 direct jobs at peak employment, 1,500 direct jobs per year on average during the construction period alone, 9,100 person years of direct employment, including 5,800 in Labrador, and $500 million in income to Labradorians and Labrador businesses. Mr. Chair, those are but a few of the benefits that will happen over the short-term.

In the long term, though, we are going to meet our own energy challenges here in this Province. Mr. Chair, we have an obligation to do that. This is not just about a project we have sized up and we think this would be good. We have an obligation to see to it that we provide for the energy sustainability of this Province. We are, through this project, going to be able to provide stable electricity rates for the residents and the businesses of Newfoundland and Labrador at the lowest possible cost for generations to come

The project is going to be self-financed, Mr. Chair, which is another piece. I have heard our Minister of Finance speak to it on a number of occasions. I have heard our Minister of Natural Resources speak to it on a number of occasions as well. This project will be self-financed, generating revenue to cover its costs, including the debt repayment.

Mr. Chair, this is a win-win on so many different levels. The Premier of Nova Scotia is able to see that. That is why Nova Scotia is clearly with us. The federal government is able to see that, Mr. Chair, and that is why they are clearly with us. The whole of the region of this part of Canada is able to understand that, and they are all clearly with us. What we need to do is pass these next two pieces of legislation to enable this project to happen as it should for the future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to have spoken here this morning. I look forward to continuing and participating in this debate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

It is an honour and a privilege to stand here again and speak to the legislation. I guess I should check. Are we still on Bill 60? We are still on Bill 60. I did not know if it changed back and forth there. It is still Thursday so anything is possible here. It is like the movie Groundhog Day here. Every day we wake up and it is the same song playing and we are waking up to the same temperature.

I will say for the benefit of Hansard here we did have a very good debate throughout the night. There were questions asked and there were responses given. I enjoyed it, certainly myself, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Member for Mount Pearl North, and there were other members. I will say that you do not always get the answers you want, but there was an attempt to fulfill what Committee is meant for.

Now, I am not going to belabour this point. I do have some comments as it relates to – I referenced Joe Chesterfield earlier with the possibility under section 13, Uncle Joe. I referenced that in relation to section 13. What I stated was that the notice provisions I had some concern with because they raised the possibility of somebody having an expropriation and not really getting the notice they deserve.

What I would say is that another possible situation – and I am putting out these possibilities. I do not believe they are unfounded; I believe they could happen. The goal is, by doing this, to remove the possibility that this situation could arise. What happens in a situation we are talking about once the notice is given? I think earlier in the legislation it states that they will make an attempt to notify people, but there are situations that could arise where they do not do so.

What if the individual has a sick family member and is unable to leave their bedside and the expropriation goes through? What happens about the situation where there is a family home or a residence of some sort? Will they have an opportunity to go through the process? The title is vested within, I think, seven days under section 13. Is there an opportunity there, depending on if these people are out of the Province or not aware? What happens in terms of removing yourself from the family residence?

I have to be honest; I do not think that will be something that happens very often, but it is a possibility. That is why I put it forward; it is a possibility. Anything can happen here. The thing is we need to eliminate those possibilities as best we can.

The problem with the legislation as it is put forward is that it does not make any allowances for the positions that people may find themselves in. It assumes everybody is a supporter and that people are willing to give up their land freely. The fact is in some cases they are not going to be willing to give up their land freely. I needed to put that concern forward and make sure that it was reflected on the record.

I do not have many further comments to this. I think I am just going to have some general comments. What I would say is that I think as it relates to Bill 60, the expropriation bill which was an enabling piece of legislation, I would say that even though it is fairly straightforward in its intent, there are concerns that are still there that I have outlined. I am hoping that government has heard the concerns that I have outlined and that they will take the necessary steps to alleviate these situations.

I do not think something will happen to a minister not making sure they happen, but the fact is that it is not always the ministers that have the on-the-ground, hands-on experience here. The ministers make decisions, but sometimes it is people under them in the chain of comment who handle this. We need to eliminate the possibility for confusion or failure to have proper notification, especially when it comes to the fact that you could have your land taken away. It is not a case of acquiring land; it is a case of land being taken away.

I am hoping that when the land is taken that it is a process that most of it should be mutual negotiation. Negotiation that happens and that there is a deal reached. In saying that, I think I put that out there. What I am going to do at this point is I will take my seat. I am going to review the legislation a bit further. At this point I will sit down and allow somebody else the opportunity to speak to this.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are still in Committee stage on Bill 60. I would like at this point in time to move that we adjourn debate on Bill 60 for the time being and go back into debate on Bill 61, please.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 61.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just going to have a few words on Bill 61 again. As we all know, it is more known as the Muskrat Falls bill. It is something we all know is already completed and already sanctioned by government. As usual, there are certain points you would like to make.

One of the points, Mr. Chair, I have been trying to make the last couple of days I will keep asking to try to get answers from the government. The issues I have been asking is we see the Minister of Finance on a regular basis and other government members standing up and talking about this $20 billion profit we are going to make over fifty years. As we all know, Mr. Chair, this whole project will be paid for by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are going to use 40 per cent of the power, yet we are paying 100 per cent of the cost.

Mr. Chair, there is a fundamental question: If the ratepayers, the 220,000 or 230,000 householders in Newfoundland and Labrador or however many people are hooked onto the grid, are going to pay for this project 100 per cent, if these householders have to pay a certain amount to obtain a profit in 2017, as the minister has stated, $20 billion, fifty years over the life of the project, he must have the rate he is going to charge each and every household in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. You cannot stand up and say, Mr. Chair, we are going to make X number of dollars without saying: Here is what we are going to charge. You just cannot have it.

Either one of two things is not correct. One, he is not sure how much profit we are ever going to make on it, if any. Second, he does not know how much we are going to charge and has not told the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. You cannot have it both ways – you just cannot have it.

This is the big question I asked. We all can get on. I know the Minister of Natural Resources got up many times yesterday, at least twenty to twenty-five times when I was here, giving all the technical stuff, and doing it in such a way that: Okay, yes, we have our homework done on this and we have our expert analysis on a lot of this. At times, Mr. Chair, when you are sitting down and listening to it, you say: Well, there is a lot of work done on it and there is a lot of background work. The big question people a lot of people are asking me on Muskrat Falls: What will we be paying per kilowatt hour?

Mr. Chair, they can tell you why wind power is not good. They can tell you why natural gas is not good. They can tell you why other electric developments are not good. They can tell you how much profit is going to be made in the first year, how much is going to be made in the second year, how much is going to be made in the third year, but they cannot tell you how much we are going to have to pay per kilowatt. They can talk about the profit. They can talk about how much we are going to make over fifty years. They can talk about this rate odometer over in Nalcor, yet you cannot tell the average person in Newfoundland and Labrador how much per kilowatt they are going to pay on their bill.

It is either one or two things, Mr. Chair. If you went to someone in Grade 6 and said: If you have $10 and it costs $15, how much are you going to lose? They can say: Well, we need another $5. If you have $10 and that costs $8, how much do you have left? You have $2. The government can tell you how much we are going to make, but they cannot tell you how much we are going to spend and how much it is going to cost you to do it. It just does not make sense.

Either they have the information, they are not sharing it with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, or they just do not have it and they are just hauling this figure out of the air saying okay, let's make this look good – we are hauling this figure out of the air, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I challenge the government and I challenge the members opposite – when Nalcor came out with this rate calculator and said okay, here is what your rate is going to be, and everybody looked at it and said my God, that is not that bad. That is not bad when you look at that rate calculator. That is all that is going to be. That is not too bad.

I challenge the government, I actually challenge them, whatever rate you can punch in on that rate calculator, legislate it, that there is going to be your rate that you are going to have to pay. If you are so confident and got Emera to set this rate calculator up, that the average person can call in say what is my light bill today if it is 10.2, 10.3, if it is $150 a month, within five years it is going to be up to $162, $163. If you really believe in that rate calculator, legislate those rates here today and I guarantee you will have one member here supporting Muskrat Falls. Because then we have a guarantee what the average person's increase will be, what the cost will be to the average householder in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is what it is all about to me, Mr. Chair.

We can always get on about what we are going to sell on the spot market. Are we going to sell it in Maine? Are we going to find markets in the US? Are we going to sell to Nova Scotia? If it is our power, I think we should benefit from it first.

When you hear all of the ministers standing up one after the other and you hear the members opposite standing up one after the other saying: Oh, no, it is not going to raise that much; just go check the rate calculator. Legislate it – legislate it. If you really feel that there is going to be the cost per household, if that there is not just some pie in the sky that you set up over at Nalcor as the calculator, come in and legislate it, and see how quick you get a lot of people to support Muskrat Falls.

That is very simple because if you are saying – and we heard government members opposite stand up and say: Oh well, just phone over and check the rate calculator. It does not mean a row of beans. Do you know why, Mr. Chair? Do you know why it does not mean a row of beans? Because they will not legislate that price here today to ensure that here is what your price is going to be because Nalcor on the rate calculator is telling the people – it is just not factual.

What is happening on that rate calculator is not factual. If it were factual, this government would stand up here and legislate the price as to what it is going to be as per that rate calculator. Mr. Chair, do you know why it cannot be done? I think a lot of this – and hopefully I am wrong – is a PR spin.

I will tell you what, how can anybody tell me that I can tell you what the price of something is going to be when I do not know the cost of construction. How can I tell you what your mortgage on your house is going to be when you do not know what size of a house you are going to build, how much it is going to cost you, if you are going to have any cost overruns, yet you are going to say well, here is the price, the final price. By the time you start construction, you are not sure how much it is going to cost to construct it. You do not know if there is going to be any cost overruns on it.

You take Muskrat Falls, a prime example. We are saying here is what the rate is going to charged to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We do not know what the cost overruns are going to be. We do not have the final cost analysis done yet. We do not know what the cost of the Maritime Link is that we have to pay 50 per cent of. We do not know any of that, Mr. Chair, yet we can tell you what the price is. Just go up and dial a calculator. That is what it is, Mr. Chair, and it cannot be done.

I think it is one of the biggest follies going when Nalcor set that up, giving people a false hope and a false sense of saying here is what your rates will be, here is what your charges will be, so just relax, there is not going to be a great increase, just relax. Most people who did it were impressed, until you dig into the facts and you dig into the numbers and you look at the realistic point of view that you cannot set prices until you know the cost yourself.

With the federal loan guarantee, Mr. Chair, ratepayers in the Province are forced to pay 100 per cent of the cost. So here is the challenge to the government – and I have just a few seconds left, Mr. Chair – here is the challenge to the government: That rate calculator that is in Nalcor, when I sit down, the next person standing up here say I will make a motion in this House that whatever your rates are on that rate calculator are going to be your rates for the next ten to fifteen years. I will second that motion here in this House today, and I say we can walk out of this House in a half hour, get everybody to vote for it. If that is what we are going to do – whoever is next, whoever is going to stand behind me, stand up and say: What we put on the rate calculator at Nalcor are the rates we are going to charge. Legislate it, and I will second it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now, Mr. Chair, what I am going to deal with, I am going to address the facts here today. I am going to address the facts as they exist in the Province with relation to power. I am going to address the facts as they exist in the past eleven, twelve years. The one thing we do know – and I will get to it in a second, the illustration of our rates – power rates are going up. Power rates have gone up, and power rates are going up with or without Muskrat Falls.

The question becomes: How do you ensure that there is the minimum increase, and how do you stabilize those rates? That is the issue. None of us have crystal balls. What we have done, as I outlined in great detail over the last couple of days, we have retained experts and we have looked at experts. I am going to come back again to the situation in this Province as it exists in the rest of the country and the rest of the world then I will talk about the rates.

Mr. Chair, the Electricity Rates Forecasting paper that was put out by the Department of Natural Resources in November 2012, we look at the power rates that exist in this Province compared to the rest of the country. Labrador is currently at 3.9 cents a kilowatt hour and is the lowest electricity in the country – that is the interconnected grid – specifically, Lab West, Happy Valley-Goose Bay area. We have done it also with the coast, through subsidization.

Now, we have three provinces that have cheaper rates as present than Newfoundland and Labrador; those are Quebec, Manitoba, and BC. What they all have in common is large hydro. Newfoundland and Labrador currently has the same price as New Brunswick, at 12.6 cents a kilowatt hour. Now, that 12.6 cents a kilowatt hour is a combination of that Holyrood power, which is a minimum 18.5 cents, combined with the cheaper Bay d'Espoir power, we get a blended rate at 12.6.

When Muskrat Falls comes on line – and I hesitate to use these kilowatt hours, but they have been brought up – it will be 15.1 cents a kilowatt hour or 15.2 cents. That will be a combination of the 20.3 cents of Muskrat Falls power delivered to Soldiers Pond combined with the cheaper Island power, giving us a blended rate at 15.1 cents. Currently in Nova Scotia and Ontario, it costs more today for power than it will in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2017.

Mr. Chair, we know that between 2001 and 2011 there was a 32 per cent increase on rates on the Island, or $45 a month. That had nothing to do with Muskrat Falls. It had to do with the price of oil. We know Holyrood is only used at 15 per cent to 25 per cent of the time at present, but as the other power from the closure of the mills is integrated into the system and as Vale Inco comes on line, that 182 megawatts of power, of which we currently use 76 megawatts, will be fully used by 2014, partly as a result of Vale Inco needing 85 megawatts to 90 megawatts of power. Holyrood will have to be used more.

Now, commonsense tells us, with the price of oil being what it is, rates are not going down. Between 2011 and 2016 it is estimated that power rates will go up for the Island ratepayer 16 per cent. That will be 48 per cent between 2001 and 2016. That has nothing to do with Muskrat Falls.

You can talk about rates, sure. I have said from day one that rates are the most significant issue for a lot of people. Let me tell you one thing, Mr. Chair: The Opposition stood in this House of Assembly for months on end and said power rates will double. That is what they said. They said power rates will double. Well, the only kernel of truth to that is without Muskrat Falls the increase in power rates will double.

Let us look at the rest of the world. I went though this yesterday. There are three countries we are aware of that have power rates lower than Canada at present. Mexico – the Member for St. John's North raised the issue of Iceland. I went and looked at Iceland. Iceland is certainly below the United States and Mexico. Every other country in the world as of 2009, and these are based on statistics from Hydro-Quebec and the International Energy Agency, every country in the world is currently paying more than fifteen cents a kilowatt – I should not say every country, the countries on the chart, being Italy, Hungary, Ireland, United Kingdom, Austria, Spain, Poland, France, Finland, Turkey, and Switzerland are all paying more than fifteen cents a kilowatt hour.

The highest is in Italy, with approximately thirty-two cents a kilowatt hour, with Ireland and Austria paying more than twenty-five cents a kilowatt hour, and the United Kingdom at approximately twenty-four cents a kilowatt hour. This is a chart that has been provided, Mr. Chair, by Hydro-Quebec and the International Energy Agency.

Rates are up in the rest of the world. Nova Scotia and Ontario currently have higher rates than we will have when we bring on Muskrat Falls in 2017. People want to know what the rates were going to be. The rate calculator was meant to be a tool to help people.

We had enough confidence in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's ability to project rates that we put out a paper called Electricity Rates Forecasting: Muskrat Falls Will Stabilize Rates for Consumers. Obviously if we put it in writing, we have enough confidence in the numbers we have put out.

The numbers are illustrative. We broke down our three profiles. There are approximately 240,000 ratepayers in the Province; 90,000 use electricity without electric heat, the other 140,000 use electric heat and electricity – excuse me, they use it all.

Profile 1 burns 770 kilowatt hours per month. Profile 2, being the individual who uses electricity and electric heat burns approximately 2,000 kilowatt hours a month, giving us an average of 236,000 ratepayers at 1,517 kilowatt hours per month. We get to our charts; we outline how the rates will go. They are there for everyone to look at. They are illustrative, but they give a good example of where we are going.

What you see in red is without Muskrat Falls. What you see in blue is with Muskrat Falls. Whatever the numbers may be, Muskrat Falls is projected to be significantly cheaper than Isolated Island. Isolated Island is the next closest CPW. That is the next best option that is available, and we have a situation where Muskrat Falls provides lower rates.

It is a fair comment to say we do not know the overruns, but we do not know the overruns if we have to refurbish Holyrood. We know that to just bring Holyrood up to minimal environmental compliance without reducing greenhouses gases, scrubbers and precipitators would cost $700 million to $800 million.

We do not know the carbon pricing that could come in relation to Muskrat Falls. We do know that Holyrood according to MHI may not last until 2030. We do not know cost overruns, but that applies to any project. The bottom line – and I keep coming back to this and I do not know why it is so hard for people to understand – we need power, our growing economy, a prosperous economy with a bright future. We can refurbish Holyrood, but I say to the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair: What does that do for Labrador, for Labrador mining? Nothing at all.

We have a vibrant economy, we have the world at our hands, we have opportunity galore, and we are going to let that go simply because the crew on the other side – excuse me, I will not say this. The Liberals are asking legitimate questions; the NDP wants Muskrat Falls to fail. We cannot stop simply because Mr. C has a court action or some fellow from Ontario says that Muskrat Falls is not a good deal. This project is sanctioned. We are moving ahead.

Now, the issue of the rates. The Premier has declared from day one – and I talked about this last night. We know that in 2020 there will be $134 million projected to be a dividend that could come to the Province. The government of the day will determine how to use that money. If the government of the day decides that we will subsidize rates, so be it. If the government of day decides that we are going to build hospitals, pay deficits – we know that in 2017 when Hebron comes on line, the financial situation in this Province, in terms of a government, the deficit will be much brighter.

Let's look at what they are saying today. Let's not only subsidize the poor, let's not only subsidize seniors, let's not only subsidize the middle class, let's subsidize those who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. That is what they are saying. Is that the way we want to go in this Province, or do we take a very progressive approach and say the money will be there – because quite frankly, I said this last night, don't subsidize me; subsidize that senior down the road who needs the help. Subsidize that single mother.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Don't subsidize people who are making $100,000 or $150,000 a year. The Liberals and the NDP – is that what you want: to subsidize the rich?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. KENNEDY: Exactly.

So, you leave it to the government of the day to determine who can look at – hopefully, this will be us, Premier, by the way. You cannot make these decisions in advance.

The members comments are fair enough but what you are saying, what they are saying today is subsidize the rich. We do not do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Littlejohn): The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I am trying to get in the Christmas spirit, but it is obvious from the government that any time you cannot answer the questions that the people want you to, you start attacking, talking about how you are going to subsidize the rich, and all of that stuff. That is exactly what happened then. That is what happened in this debate.

When you do not have the information to put out, that one minister is saying, all of a sudden you get attacked. That is a prime example. This deal is done. We all know this deal is done. There is no doubt in my mind there are people opposite who are just as passionate about this deal as some people on this side are not as passionate, but there is no need to attack the Liberals here about subsidizing the multi-million people when we are looking at the regular person who is asking me to ask questions. There is just no need of it – there is absolutely no need of it.

Let us look at the facts. They want a two-tiered power system. Let us just relax here and if you cannot answer the questions we understand, because no one has a crystal ball. There is no one who can say what we are going to do, but we are trying to minimize the risk for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am trying to minimize the risk for the people of Bay of Islands who elected me that will hopefully then expand onto the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I heard the minister say the rate will be 15.1 cents or 15.2 cents. The first question any of us in this House should ask: Does that include transmission or does that just include delivery of the power? Does that include then the 8 per cent or 9 per cent rate of return that is guaranteed by the PUB, or now it is going to be the Executive Council and Lieutenant-Governor in Council? Does that include that? Those are the questions.

It is all right for any of us to say we can go out and buy a car. The car costs $10,000. Are there taxes on that car? Are there any other fees on that car? Those are the questions you have to ask. It is easy to stand up and say, and I will give the minister another chance, that 15.2 cents – does that include the distribution and the rate of return, or is it just actual delivery to Soldiers Pond with the blended rate? I just think it is a legitimate question.

I heard the minister say: Well, we do not have a crystal ball. I agree – I agree with you 100 per cent. No government can give the certainty, but if you cannot give the certainty do not have this rate calculator out by Nalcor, this PR exercise, saying: Here is what your rates are going to be in five or ten years' time. If the government themselves can stand up and say there is no certainty, do not have this rate calculator where you are saying: Here is the certainty. People believe that. That is the kind of information we should put out there.

I know the minister is going to stand up again. There are lots of opportunities for the minister to explain all of this. Take your time and explain it. I am asking legitimate questions here – I am asking very legitimate questions. Let the minister stand up and answer these questions. If you cannot predict the future, which is true and I have no problem with that, do not have you saying you cannot predict the future and have a rate calculator over at Nalcor saying: Here are what your rates are going to be. One of it cannot be right.

Once again, we get in all of this PR exercise about Muskrat Falls. This is why people, once you read it and get into it a bit more as the days go on and you study it more, these are the types of questions that are coming up.

Mr. Chair, we are always talking about double the rates. I think the rate right now is 10.2, 10.3 right now? The minister has said that the rates will go up to 15.2 in 2017. I am assuming that does not include distribution and the rate of return that the utility is allowed to get. So, that would bring it up to eighteen, nineteen cents.

We have not included the cost overruns yet. We have not included the 50 per cent of the cost overrun for the Maritime Link that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are on the hook for. This all has to get calculated into the actual rate, because the ratepayers are paying 100 per cent of this project. That is something that boggles my mind.

You hear the minister – and I want to get this correct, because the minute you speak a word, a small bit, they jump on you and attack you. The ratepayers are paying for this whole project 100 per cent, at no cost to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, absolutely no cost. Under the federal loan guarantee it cannot be one cent to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why don't we, as a Province, say: Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, you are paying for it, we have excess power, it is not going to cost us a cent, why don't we find some way – the excess power that we have, if we can get any excess funds from it, why don't we put it in to bring the rates down for the 40 per cent that is paying the 100 per cent. When are you going to do it?

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Premier, she is over there; I do not know what she is saying. She is saying: How do you build something? How do you build my hospital? I have been waiting seven years, it is not built yet. I am not out threatening the city council that it was $600,000 and it is not on.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, I will get back to it, because if the Premier is over there making remarks like that, I say go meet with your buddy Leo Bruce out on the city council and straighten out your remarks, three or four of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, that is what the Premier is shouting out across the House, and I am not taking it here today. I am not in that mood here to take it about the hospital in Corner Brook.

Mr. Chair, if the Premier is saying, how about the hospital? It is another form of tax. It is a form of tax. If we are using this as a ploy to raise money to pay for the hospital, it is a form of tax. If Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are paying for this 100 per cent, not one cent cost to the government, it is a form of tax. They say: okay, if we are going to charge you anything extra, we are going to take it and put it in the kitty. We are going to keep driving your rates up so you pay more. The more you pay the more taxes we are going to make. That is my question.

Nalcor is going to get its rate of return anyway. The same amount Nalcor has been getting over the last number of years, they are going to get the same rate of return anyway. What this government is suggesting now is that anytime we need a few dollars, we will just jack up your electricity rates. We will get more money.

Mr. Chair, that is what they are saying, because if Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are paying for it 100 per cent, not one cent cost – it is cost neutral for the government under this federal loan guarantee. Why don't we subsidize the people who are paying for it 100 per cent, because it is not costing the government a cent? If it is not costing the government, the government will say, well we are going to make this surplus, yet we are going to keep the rates high and have this surplus. It is a tax. You cannot have it both ways.

This government, on many occasions, has said that a lot of the services in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be cost neutral. My question is: Why don't we make the staple that we need to live, electricity, cost neutral? Why do we have to increase these rates so government can have more money in the kitty? Why? It is a simple question. I would love for someone to be able to answer it for me.

Mr. Chair, before you were in government yourself, you know a lot of times there were changes in government to make a lot of services cost neutral. You know that, I know that, and that is what people have been told around the Province. Services now will be cost neutral for the people, up go the rates a bit. There is some merit to that. If we are going to do that, why don't we do it with electricity rates? It is a legitimate question. I think we, as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, would like an answer.

Mr. Chair, again, I go back to some of the statements made by the Minister of Natural Resources, that we do not have a crystal ball. I absolutely agree, but what we do have control of is whatever the price will be without that crystal ball. If it is ten cents per kilowatt, fifteen cents, 20 per cent, whatever it is, Mr. Chair, we know 100 per cent of that power will be paid by – 100 per cent of the power, we will only be using forty, but that 100 per cent is paid by every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

If we can take that, move it back to decrease that rate, because it is cost neutral, I think it would benefit all Newfoundland and Labrador. It would ensure that we built it, we are paying for it, and we will get the cost benefit of ensuring that it is all paid for and it is all put back in our pockets as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I say to the member opposite, and to the Opposition parties, if you took the time to read the paper that has been outlined there you would see how electricity rates are set.

The member opposite referred earlier to 10.3 cents a kilowatt hour for power. I stood up two minutes before that, read the chart, it said 12.6 cents. It is at page 5.

If you look at the paper itself: "Electricity Rates. How Electricity Rates are Set. Electricity rates in this province are designed to ensure that the province's electrical utilities, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLH) and Newfoundland Power (NP), are able to recover the costs of generating and distributing power… For example, NLH's revenue requirement to cover costs includes both its capital and operating costs plus an allowed rate of return on rate base, (i.e. the rate base includes the physical assets purchased through capital such as power plants, transmission lines, substations, and buildings). Rates are then set at a level that will provide the total revenue required."

In this particular case – I have said this on numerous occasions, as had Mr. Martin of Nalcor – the numbers we have put out are all-inclusive. The paper itself states, these numbers "…are meant to be illustrative, not definitive" – because we recognize there could be some change as we move through this. The 15.1 cents a kilowatt hour or that $231 for the average monthly bill in 2017 for Muskrat Falls includes capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, Newfoundland Power's cost of distribution, the cost of financing, and an 8.4 per cent rate of return. It is an all-inclusive number. It also includes the Decision Gate 3 numbers and the federal loan guarantee. It is outlined in the paper and this is an all-inclusive cost.

After the project is built, could it be 15.3, 15.4 cents? It could, but we have to wait and see. What we do know however is that Nalcor currently has approximately $800 to $900 million, it might be $792 million built into the current estimate of $6.2 billion for contingency and escalation, approximately 9 per cent. There is currently 50 per cent of the engineering project done in major areas. What we have is a situation where we are trying to illustrate, as best we can, the cost. They are in the paper. Read it.

Since the member opposite is concerned about overruns, let's talk about overruns for a second. Let's talk about the Lower Churchill deal of Roger Grimes and the government of which this member was a –

AN HON. MEMBER: The one he read.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I am going to get to that in a second now. The member opposite was a member of the government back in 2002. Let us talk about what both Mark Dobbin and Dean MacDonald have to say about that. Let us talk about the situation that they resigned from the board of directors at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because the deal was such that all the power was going to Quebec.

I say to the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, it appears to have been 150-megawatt recall with five years and another 150 megawatts with ten years. You would not have much mining taking place in Labrador with that Lower Churchill deal.

Then we get in a situation where this member read the deal. The Premier did not, according to Mr. MacDonald. The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair never saw the deal, yet the Parliamentary Assistant read the deal. The main negotiator for the Lower Churchill deal was the Member for Bay of Islands from everything I can see here.

Why did they resign? They resigned because there was no money there for overruns. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would have been responsible for all overruns. The government would make $100 million a year, apparently, according to what Mr. MacDonald had to say.

This member now is so concerned about overruns where we have been two years discussing a project. We have been two years outlining all of the details, doing the best we can, and outlining projected electricity rates. Yet, this member, who saw the deal that no one else seemed to see, was not concerned about overruns then because he would not have supported the deal.

At the end of the day the concern of Mr. MacDonald, apparently, was that Quebec would own the project. The cost overruns, where there was no engineering done on this project, would have been greater than the amount of money coming in. The $100 million the Province would have made would have been obliterated by the cost overruns. The member today, the Opposition of which at least two of them were members, were so concerned about overruns that they did nothing.

What I find also ironic is that we have on August 1, 2002 a press release issued by the Premier saying that he and Premier Landry have come to an agreement in principle. On November 18, 2002, I think it was, I do not have the statement here, the Premier stood up and gave a Ministerial Statement in this House. Yet, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair knows nothing about it.

One of the members for Labrador knows nothing about a deal which is taking place in the jurisdiction for which she talked about in 1998 and which she talked about today. Yet, our minister for Labrador and our Member for Lake Melville, I can tell you, they have been involved from day one. They know. I can say one thing: our member for government services has read the deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Since we are on this, let us talk a little bit further. Let us talk about their concerns that we are directing the PUB to recover Muskrat Falls' costs. We are saying to the PUB: You still have a role to play; it is a lesser role, but we need to recover the costs.

Let us look. I just went and dug this out a little bit further because I thought it might be helpful, Mr. Chair, if I can find the actual orders here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take your time.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, there is no hurry.

We have the order where – what did they do? They exempted the PUB from any examination of the Lower Churchill Project. What they are saying is do as we say; do not do as we do. Here we have a situation where you are concerned about overruns. The member opposite, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, will stand up and say: We want benefits for Labrador. It was read yesterday that the Premier said they would not agree to any specific benefits for Labrador. That is what it said in one of the news releases referred to by the Member for Labrador West yesterday.

Now, we are into this deal and they are concerned about cost overruns. I say to you, where were you in 2002? Where were you and where was the Chief Negotiator who read the deal – no one else did – when there was no concern about overruns? It is one thing to stand up, and there is no problem with asking questions in this House, but you also have to recognize when you ask these questions you will be held accountable for what you have done in the past.

We have outlined in great detail here what we expect the cost to be. We have said they are illustrative. We have outlined in great detail how these costs compare to other provinces in this country and other countries in the world. We have outlined in great detail the steps we took to look at the other options, including natural gas and including wind. We have outlined in great detail how for two years we have been involved in public debate, how we have been attacked, and how we have been challenged. We have responded to those challenges by providing information. That is what we are doing today.

All I am saying to you is, if you are going to refer to something, try to be as accurate as possible. The answers, or a lot of them, are out there. You just have to read the documents. It is not enough to stand up in this House and to play politics. Yesterday there were very good questions answered. The Member for Burgeo – La Poile continues to raise valid issues, but he asked them in a very sensible way.

What we have here is the Liberals – and I cannot believe this, Premier. I cannot believe the Liberals want to subsidize the rich. I just cannot believe they are saying, the Liberals now, you take the profits from this and you make sure people who are making $100,000, $200,000, or $500,000 a year, their electricity rates are subsidized. Do not give them social programs. Do not look after the people in our society who need it. Do not look after the housing the Member for St. John's Centre asks for. You subsidize the rich.

I am going to state unequivocally I do not want to be subsidized for my electricity. I do not know about the rest of the people on this side –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: – but anyone making $100,000 a year to be asking to live off the backs of poor people in this Province is absolutely scandalous. I do not know how they have the face to stand up.

What we have said is this project will generate revenues. The government of the day can determine how to deal with those monies. The government of the day can choose a group of people. They can say: We will subsidize the seniors. They can say: We will provide money to university students, or –

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: A new dialysis unit.

MR. KENNEDY: - yes, new cancer drugs, new dialysis units, or new hospitals. This is the job the government of the day will have to determine. That is all we are saying. There are monies available. We should be thankful there are monies available because we go from being a money-losing project. Do they now accept we are going to make the $20 billion? If they do, they should be voting for this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, we recognize it is a valid point, but the point we are making is this is a decision that has to be made in the future by the government of the day, who we fully expect to be us. That is, again, looking into the future. The overruns here will be controlled, unlike the 2002 deal.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was really quite interested to listen to the Minister of Natural Resources. He continues to give very interesting speeches on these bills. He is right; government could use this to pay for its platform commitments from the last election, for example, whether it is the Corner Brook hospital, family caregivers, or to convert the Student Loan Program into grants. You could actually end up keeping some of your platform commitments before, say, the next fifty years are over. That is an interesting and relatively encouraging development that they actually plan to go in that direction.

Mr. Chair, I think you will probably remember my line of thinking here because my ideas on this bill are just as relevant as they were to the previous bill, and it is government's monopolistic thinking when it comes to the development of the Muskrat Falls Project.

I know that the Premier had written off Dr. Gordon Weil as some right-wing crazy person who does not understand energy development and the markets; but, in fact, Dr. Weil is quite an esteemed scholar in this area.

In his report, which I encourage all the members to get a copy of and read if they had not had an opportunity to do so at this point, he notes that a project such as this one should be subject to a review process. That is either by a regulator – so the Public Utilities Board; yes, that is correct – or even by government in meeting the same standard, or a government agency meeting the same standard as a regulator.

Of course, Cabinet, by any standard, is not the same as a regulator would be. So the purposes of this review process would be to impose a normal regulatory standard to project analysis, because at the core of all of this, this is a utility arrangement we are talking about. This is a utility arrangement, and that is basically it in its essence.

Dr. Weil cautions that power generators and power marketers in other jurisdictions are not regulated, but they are also exposed to competition. Again, it astounds me that the Progressive Conservative Party in this Province is not open to the idea of competition in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, Nalcor is both generator and marketer, and it would not face any competition for serving the provincial market for some fifty years – so the regulator could serve as a traditional surrogate for competition.

Here is the interesting point, because I am sure, Mr. Chair, sometime in the last year I heard either a member of this government caucus or a member of Cabinet say that if we have the Maritime Link – and of course we know there is no guarantee we are going to have the Maritime Link. Emera has until July 31, 2014 to make that decision, so we do not know if that is going to happen.

Let us just say, hypothetically speaking, that it does indeed happen. I am sure there was a member of this government caucus or a minister of the Cabinet who said: Let us imagine we used all of the Muskrat Falls electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador and then we have the Maritime Link, we could use the Maritime Link then to import electricity from other jurisdictions. I am sure I heard somebody say that.

Well, they will not be able to do that for fifty years because the government is setting up a monopoly for Nalcor. I cannot see how that could happen under this arrangement. You certainly could not have any alternate energy source generation here in the Province under this legislation.

Of course, we all know the role of competition in ensuring the public gets a fair value for their money and a fair service for their dollar. That is not going to happen. We cannot ensure that under this monopolistic arrangement the government is setting up. Government has to also understand, and that is why they have moved this bill forward, what they are doing here is just ramming this forward without any consideration of anything else other than its Muskrat Falls Project.

Dr. Weil says, "The regulatory review" – that we should have and that we are not going to have under this – "could determine if, as compared with alternatives within a reasonable period, the project could be seen to produce benefits for customers." That is what we need to have, but that right is now going to be removed by this bill. It is going to be removed by this government, which baffles me. We are not going to have any choice. Consumers are not going to have any choice in the source of electricity generation for decades and decades, for fifty years under this legislation. It just baffles me. I cannot get over it.

Dr. Weil also writes: Such a regulator, which we should have, "could also limit the amount of project spending that could be recovered from customers." As we know, and as I said the other day or the day before, this is a circular argument that keeps coming back to your wallet. We know people in this Province, one way or the other, are on the hook to pay for this project 100 per cent, holus-bolus, unlike the very fortunate people in Nova Scotia. Hats off to their Premier, because if I was getting the deal they are getting I would certainly be in favour of it too.

One of the other things about monetizing the excess power from Muskrat Falls – and this is another important point. If you think about the language we are using here; taxpayers, ratepayers, customers; there is a lot of overlap between those individuals and a lot of them are one in the same.

People in Newfoundland and Labrador will not be protected from high project costs, these sort of ballooning costs or the increasing costs that we are going to see from the cost overruns which are surely to happen. You can mark it down now; you can mark it in your book over there. We are sure going to see project overruns on this.

Here we are; no regulatory protection at all from these high ballooning production costs – none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: The only certainty is that the people of this Province are going to have to foot the bill for all of it, and they are going to have no choice but to pay for it – no choice whatsoever. The only choice they are going to have if they are not going to pay for it was to sit in the dark. That is the only scenario I see for sitting in the dark. Either you pay for this or you sit in the dark, sit in the cold.

This is interesting because this really goes back now to what the Minister of Natural Resources was saying a short time ago. Gordon Weil noted that if Nalcor can sell the excess power, well that revenue could provide contributions to both the cost of the generating plant, the cost of the power plant, and the cost of transmission and any necessary changes to transmission or upgrades to transmission. It could provide for that. If the market does not materialize from the export sale of this, those costs are going to fall to Newfoundland and Labrador consumers or taxpayers, but it is going to fall to the people in any case.

You have to look at it. Because the amount of excess energy is equal to the expected use of the plant's output in Newfoundland and Labrador, well what could the effect be? The minister was talking about the Official Opposition fear mongering by saying that rates could double. Gordon Weil says that could be.

Maybe that is where that came from. The esteemed Dr. Weil, international energy expert, said that if the export market for this does not materialize – imagine if we do not get the Maritime Link. One of the implications here, I say to the members, is that the cost to consumers could double. It could; the cost to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador could double. So, that is where that comes from.

I am happy to stand up and clarify the matter and I look forward to further comments from the minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For me, it is another one of those proud moments when I get an opportunity to stand and talk about this particular piece of legislation that we are working on. Two pieces actually, that we are sort of doing simultaneously. We have taken the debate and we have gone back and forth between Bill 60 and Bill 61 because both of them are essential to what it is we are trying to do here in the sense of moving forward the Muskrat Falls Project.

We have sanctioned the project already, Mr. Chair. I think it is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to know that we sanctioned the project on Monday of this week. We had support when we went into that decision from all over, from the federal government to the Government of Nova Scotia, to federal leaders in other parties, other than the Conservative Party of Canada, we had Thomas Mulcair. We have had support as well from the business community. We have had support from the labour community.

The bond rating agencies, who have looked at this project from one end of it to the other end of it, Mr. Chair, and they have sanctioned, in their own way, by declaring this project a very good project for Newfoundland and Labrador, and a very good project just on its own merit. We have had support as well from other economists who have looked at this. Dr. Wade Locke would be an example that comes to mind right away, has looked at this project.

Mr. Chair, we are very, very comfortable, we are very confident in our decision and the decision that we took on Monday to sanction this project. In fact, at the ceremony that was held just outside this Chamber when we moved to sanction, and the lobby of this Confederation Building, the place where the sanction should have happened as well, Mr. Chair. The lobby of this building was filled with people who applauded, who wanted to shake hands, who wanted to say to us: You have no idea how much this means to us. We see now that our Province is on such firm footing forever and a day.

Mr. Chair, any economy that is built on sustainability of its own electricity and being able to supply its own electricity, is a very stable economy. The business community understands that. The labour community in Newfoundland and Labrador understands that as well. We have heard it from all of those areas.

Now, Mr. Chair, we are here in this House of Assembly in a debate that has been ongoing, I think since Tuesday of this week, to look at two last things that need to be done. We have the federal loan guarantee, we have the sanction, we have examined the project in every way that we could. Now there are two pieces of enabling legislation that we need to move it forward so we can go to the lenders with the certainty that we need to be able to provide them to be able to finally get the project up to full steam.

Mr. Chair, on this piece of legislation, Bill 61, we are looking at – is it Bill 60 or 61? I know we have been moving back and forth. I think this time it is Bill 61. On this particular piece of legislation we are looking at amendments to the Energy Corporation Act, the Hydro Corporation Act, and the Electrical Power Control Act.

Basically, what we are doing is trying to, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, achieve the most desirable, financial arrangements that we can. The most desirable, financial arrangement has to do with non-recourse borrowing, Mr. Chair. It is from that perspective that we are looking to be able to go to the markets.

When we talk about non-recourse borrowing or financing, what we are saying is that the only collateral pledged against the loans will be the Muskrat Falls assets, Mr. Chair. Those will be the only assets that will be pledged against the loan, the only security that we are going to use. We want to protect all of our other assets here in this Province, Mr. Chair, all of the other assets of Nalcor, all of the other assets of government. That is what we need to do.

When we do that, when we go looking to do non-recourse borrowing, the lenders need a certain confidence, Mr. Chair, that we are going to be able to make good on the loans we get. They need to have that certainty. They need to have that confidence that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is going to be able to recover all of the project costs. That essentially is what we need to be able to do. We need to be able to supply them with that confidence, the lenders.

In terms of Bill 60, when we are looking at that particular aspect of it, the lenders are also going to want to know that when we are talking about putting up transmission lines, the 1,100 kilometres of transmission lines that we need to put up, Mr. Chair, that we are going to be able to do that on land to which we have proper access. Proper access comes when we are talking about our Crown lands and our non-Crown lands, Mr. Chair, by ensuring that we have title. There are places where we are going to need statutory easements and so on.

We are doing that, Mr. Chair, in a fair and reasonable way when we are looking for compensation. When we are looking to also finance in terms of the non-recourse borrowing, we are looking to do that, Mr. Chair, in the most reasonable way possible as well. That is by ensuring we are going to be able to pay down that debt. Pay down the debt but also be responsible for any debt that is incurred over the cost of the project, Mr. Chair.

That is where we are with both of these pieces of legislation. We need to be able to instruct Nalcor, or Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, in terms of the borrowing that we are going to do to make sure that they include the cost of the project of Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Chair, it is not an unusual request to put forward. It is not unreasonable because what we are trying to do is protect Newfoundland and Labrador in the process of doing this, Mr. Chair. We want to make sure that through this non-recourse borrowing the only assets we pledge towards the debt, the only assets we pledge towards the loan will be the assets of the project, not anything else that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the stakeholders, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador own. Not anything else that Nalcor owns, Mr. Chair, just the assets of the project itself.

Mr. Chair, these last two pieces of legislation are pieces of legislation that are sound. They have been developed by Nalcor and they have been developed by our lawyers. They have been put together and scrutinized from a number of different sources to ensure that these are both good pieces of legislation, Mr. Chair.

We have heard our Minister of Natural Resources making comments and answering questions here for the last three or four days in relation to these two pieces of legislation, but in general around the project, Mr. Chair. I think the confidence that he is building, at least according to the e-mails that I am receiving from right across the Province when we are answering questions, the confidence that is coming back to us from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is telling us that we are doing the right things, Mr. Chair.

I have had e-mails, not just from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair. I had one e-mail from a person in Nova Scotia who told me how proud she is to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Even though she has been away for thirty-two years, she says now she stands up with a greater pride. She said in Nova Scotia she is able to talk about what we are doing here in Newfoundland and Labrador. At some point she hopes to come home, Mr. Chair.

I had an e-mail last night, Mr. Chair, from a friend of mine who has worked with the federal government in Ottawa for many years. In fact, she is retired now. Again, her comment to me was, I have never been prouder to be a Newfoundlander and a Labradorian. I am so proud of the work you are doing. Stay tough. Make sure you get this done. As she said to me, I have not been home for Christmas in a long time to Newfoundland and Labrador, I know at some point I will do that again. I hope we get to enjoy Christmas together but, for right now, what you are doing is you are giving the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador the best Christmas present you could ever give them.

That was very encouraging to me, Mr. Chair, because it is exactly that. I thank my friend, Margie from Ottawa, for having framed it in that way for me last night because it really did resonate with me when she expressed it that way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Merry Christmas, Margie.

MS SULLIVAN: Merry Christmas to Margie, one of my friends just said behind me.

Mr. Chair, those are the kinds of e-mails we are all receiving. The people of the Province understand it. The people who are not in the Province but who were former residents of this Province who have never let go are all saying to us: This is such a turning point. This is a new chapter in the history of who we are in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair.

The last two things we need to do now is pass the legislation on these two pieces of enabling legislation. Mr. Chair, I am hearing some great questions from the other side and I think they are getting some great answers as well from this side of the House in relation to this. Questioning is good, Mr. Chair. I taught for thirty years. I encouraged questions always. That is how real understanding is sought and that is where real understanding is given.

I am happy to be here and to be part of what is happening through this debate. It has been very helpful and very productive.

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible) none of the NDP (inaudible).

MS SULLIVAN: None of the NDP has spoken? I am sorry. I did not quite hear that. It is one of those long moments. We have been here a long, long time.

Mr. Chair, I realize my time is done. I am happy to take my seat but I am also happy to stand again because there is so much more we can say here and so much more we need to say around this project. I thank you for the opportunity to have stood here this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just stand again to have another few words because there are a few things I want to bring up. Mr. Chair, can you imagine the government here? I stand up and ask questions in this House. Instead of looking at the issues I am raising, I and my colleague, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, are being criticized for something apparently Dean MacDonald said for a deal to someone else that was relayed in this House to a deal that never happened that there may have been possible cost overruns twelve years ago. It is time for us to forget that past.

If we cost the taxpayer money for the overrun, sure, we should be accountable. I am being criticized for a deal because someone told someone and someone told someone else to say in the House for a deal that never existed, but there may have been cost overruns. Let us look toward to the future. Let us talk about the future. Let us not attack something I have supposedly been part of that never did happen because it takes away from the real issue. Let us look at the issues.

If you want to look at it, Dean MacDonald in the defence was contacted two days ago. There are people saying: Here is what someone said he said that someone else said. Here is a quote directly from Mr. Dean MacDonald: "‘What a silly waste of time', said MacDonald as he remarked on the theme of the Legislature yesterday. ‘It was a decade ago and a different deal. One bad process doesn't excuse another. [It's] lame. We lack leadership.'" It is something that happened over a decade ago, which never did happen.

I am fortunate that I am being attacked personally because I am asking questions for something that was supposed to be a bad deal that did not go through, so I thank you for the compliment to ensuring that the bad deal did not go through, which I was part of that government. I will take a bit of credit for that, I say to members opposite who want to stand up here and talk about what I supposedly had done twelve years ago. The deal did not go through, because of some of the concerns that were laid out.

Let's move forward. Let's look at the PUB, Mr. Chair. As we all know the Public Utilities Board was put in years ago, and once again we will look at why the Public Utilities Board was put in. It is always an issue.

I see the Minister of Tourism is over there listening. I just want to wish the Minister of Tourisms a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to the family. I want to ensure that his family has a safe and enjoyable Christmas, and I thank him for his attentive listening over there.

Mr. Chair, we will just look at why the PUB was set up. Here is why the PUB was set up, a bit of background. "In return for an exclusive market, a utility would have to accept that the regulator would serve as the ‘surrogate for competition'…". That is why the PUB was set up. That was the intent of the PUB set up years ago, because of lack of competition they would be the surrogate here in this Province to ensure that the ratepayers of this Province would be taken care of and the rights would be pushed forth, their rights would be brought forth by the PUB. Mr. Chair, that is why the PUB was set up.

"Rate regulation was based on the notion of ‘cost of service.' Utilities would claim the need to recover their costs plus an allowance for a return on the equity portion of their financing." I will read that again, Mr. Chair, that is very important. "Rate regulation was based on the notion of ‘cost of service.' Utilities could claim the need to cover their costs plus an allowance for a return on the equity portion of their financing." That is what the PUB mandate was.

What is happening here now, Mr. Chair, is the PUB is being taken out of the picture. They are going to be brought up, given the rubber stamp. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council is going to set the rates, tell them what the costs will be, and tell them what you need to charge the ratepayers of the Province. They are going to say: Okay, PUB, here is everything you have to put into your equation, and here is what your final results are going to be. Here you go, take it, stamp it, send it out, and say it is coming from the PUB. That is what is happening.

The only difference is, Mr. Chair – and in that statement I just read, the cost of service, what it is, though, it is going to be a little surplus put on here so government can say: Oh, look at the profits we made on Muskrat Falls. I ask: Who is paying for it? Do you know who is paying for it? The Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are paying for it, right in its own legislation.

This is not Opposition making up any false statements, or the Opposition attacking the government, or the Opposition saying oh, well, here is what is going to happen. This is in this legislation; this is in Bill 61. This is not me. There is no need now for anybody from government to say that I have ten heads, I have fifteen heads, and I am a monster. This is what is in the legislation. If anybody wants to stand up, explain, and say that this is incorrect, we can just go through the legislation because that is what is in the legislation.

The legislation, Mr. Chair, takes that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, will now direct the PUB what to charge the rates for people in Newfoundland and Labrador for all electricity through the Muskrat Falls and other endeavours in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a fact.

If I am wrong again, I ask members opposite to stand up and explain to me in the legislation where I am wrong. That is all. There is no need to come off about something that never happened ten years ago that you heard through five or six different sources that could have happened ten years ago, but because of this it did not happen. Look at the legislation and say to the legislation the Member for the Bay of Islands is incorrect because here is where it is in there. That is the kind of debate that I like to see because those are the things that people are asking me.

The PUB – are they being taken out of the equation? I am saying yes. We may go through the back door and say: Oh no, they are still there. The legislation, Bill 61, gives the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, the ability to set the rates in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know, Mr. Chair, it is hard to believe, isn't it? It is hard to believe that is what is going to happen now.

I will read it again: "In return for an exclusive market" – so when we had the exclusive market, in return we set up the PUB – "a utility would have to accept that a regulator would serve as the ‘surrogate for a competition'...". Can you imagine that? Mr. Chair, I read over the last three and four days, which is why we are keeping the House of Assembly still in session, because we have time to go through it word by word, line by line, and read it.

One of the things in Bill 61, Mr. Chair, is that Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, now can direct the PUB – get this, now, Mr. Chair, I know you were shaking your head earlier – not to have public hearings, right in Bill 61. They can direct the Public Utilities Board, who usually goes out and has all of these meetings across the Province to get input from people, get public hearings, and get some information, now the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can turn around – I say to the Minister of Fisheries: Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a great Christmas.

We would all ensure there will be no public hearings. If there is something controversial, the government can say: PUB, no hearings. That is what is going to happen here now, Mr. Chair.

I will sit down. My time is (inaudible).

CHAIR (Cross): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to rise and have a few words to say today once again on Bill 61 and follow the Member for Bay of Islands. As a refresher for everybody who is tuned in or just tuning in, we are talking about An Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, the Energy Corporation Act and the Hydro Corporation Act, 2007. We have had extensive debate, Mr. Chair, over the last number of days since Tuesday, I believe, at 1:30 p.m. or so we started in the House and today is Friday, I believe, if memory serves.

AN HON. MEMBER: Still Tuesday.

MR. KING: It is still Tuesday in some people's minds. I think I have averaged about an hour-and-a-half of sleep per day. Like members opposite, we are all on overdrive when it comes to energy and trying to move this debate forward.

It is an important debate, Mr. Chair. It is important that we be here to take the opportunity to engage in discussions, have a chance to speak to the bills, to voice our concerns and voice our questions. I am looking forward to continuing to participate in that process and to move this Committee process forward throughout the day, on into the evening, the weekend, and Christmas if need be, and make sure that we get the people's business for the Province done and properly followed.

This bill, Mr. Chair, is very much about a much bigger issue that we are dealing with here in the House this session and that is the whole issue of the Muskrat Falls Project. When you look at the bill in particular it actually outlines that one of the purposes here, under the Energy Corporation Act, is to define the Muskrat Falls Project. As we all know, the Muskrat Falls Project is indeed a very big project and it is one that government has been conducting extensive work on over the last many, many months.

The minister, on many occasions, has stood in the House here and tabled documents to support some of the policy positions that have been put forward. I have stood myself and had the opportunity to speak to many of those positions. For me, it always boiled down to two questions. It essentially would be: Do we need the power in the Province; and if you do not believe we need the power, then the second question is irrelevant. If you believe we need the power then, of course, the question becomes: How do we get the power? What is the lowest-cost alternative?

I spoke to this issue probably three or four weeks ago, around the whole issue of people's lives changing and how we live today versus twenty years ago and the changing demand put on power. For example, even my own self, I noticed the other day when I went through the house we have a couple of flat screen TVs now and they burn two or three times as much energy as, say, even five years ago when we had the old tube televisions. We have iPads. I have one here on my own desk, Mr. Chair. Many of us use these.

All of these things, all of the new technologies consume much more power, require much more energy than what we would have required many years ago. On top of all that, of course, as you look around, not only Newfoundland and Labrador but many parts of the country it is obvious that there is an increased development, shall we say, lots of new homes being built, and you look around the capital city in particular. As you see new home development, new construction, and new businesses going up it requires power.

When you consider, as the minister has mentioned and I think I have heard the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair mention on a number of occasions, what is happening in Labrador and the potential for what will happen in Labrador, it is very obvious from my perspective, and I speak only as the MHA for the Grand Bank District, that there is a demonstrated need for power. For me, it satisfies the first question around the need for power, which, as I said, I am tying it back to the bill because the bill identifies it as one of its goals to define the Muskrat Falls Project.

From my perspective, I believe I have been convinced that we do need power. There is going to be an increased need as development continues, housing starts continue, as new technologies continue, our lifestyles change, and we start continuing to use new things in our homes that require greater energy and greater power.

The second question becomes: Where do we get the power? What is the cheapest, lowest-cost alternative? We have had discussions about wind power. I am quite familiar with wind power. We have a development down in my own district in St. Lawrence, a wind farm down there.

MR. KENT: What a district and what a member.

MR. KING: What a district it is, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl North – a great district. Actually, there are two us on the floor of the House of Assembly from that district, my hon. colleague the Member for St. John's North. Actually, his permanent home was the farm in Lord's Cove – that is correct – owned by a very distinguished gentleman, a Mr. Kirby, who is a friend of mine, and we just had a chat about it actually. I talked to him last week at the dinner in Lord's Cove. It used to be called the seniors' dinner. Now they call it the 50-plus dinner. It is a great district.

We have wind farm in St. Lawrence, so I am totally familiar with the concept of wind farms and how they work. I also understand, though, that it becomes difficult when you are dealing with wind power to capture the energy on a regular basis. It is obviously all dependent on when the wind blows.

We talked about wind and we heard lots of pundits talk about natural gas and our ability or our opportunity to take advantage of that. I think in a number of reports that have been tabled here by the Minister of Natural Resources and the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace, it has become very clear through a number of the analyses that have been done independent of government – and I say independent of government because government itself, through the Department of Natural Resources and through our energy corporation, Nalcor, there has been extensive work conducted. All of us here have talked extensively about the leadership down there. Whether you stand to support a project or the principles of the project, it is a matter of where you see things.

I think it is fair to say, from what I read in the room, that people do recognize the leadership of Mr. Ed Martin and Gilbert Bennett, and many others who are part of this project. They made careers out of dealing with mega projects of this nature. The expertise and the research they have conducted have been very solid, very sound, and very scientific. There has been external research conducted to validate some of the data that they put forward. There is no question, from my perspective, besides the fact we need the power, that clearly the lowest-cost alternative available to residents of Newfoundland and Labrador would be hydroelectric.

We have talked about many times here the Gull Island development versus the Muskrat Falls development. Hopefully, at some point in time, Gull Island will become a reality for us. Because I also believe that presents another great, wonderful, tremendous opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador to develop our economy and to advance us further on the world stage, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands. I look forward to that, but today we are talking about Muskrat Falls.

Muskrat Falls, as I said, from my perspective is a good project. I think the benefits that it will bring to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, both in the short term and in the long term, will satisfy the energy needs that we have identified for the Province very clearly. It will provide us an opportunity to export some power, if we choose to do that.

It also provides an opportunity for us to pull back the export power and to use it for Labrador in particular. As we have talked about on many occasions, there are just so many things happening in Labrador, so many positive developments that will make a very positive contribution to the economy of the Labrador part of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Island in general. So, it is a great project.

Bill 61, which is one of the two bills we are debating here today which deals with the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, is a bill that is intended to, what we call enabling legislation. It is legislation that will support moving the project forward. I am very pleased to be able to stand today and have a few words in support of Bill 61.

We will be coming back at some point in time to Bill 60. I think, through my discussions with some of my hon. colleagues across the House, there is going to be an opportunity to talk about whether we can make some changes to some of this legislation that might in fact make it better and improve what is there. If that opportunity exists throughout today, and as I said, in the coming days and evenings over the next whatever period of time it takes for all hon. members here to have some input, then I look forward to that. Because at the end of the process we want to make sure that the legislation we put in place supports the project and does the best job it can possibly do to move the project forward but also to support the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, very much for the opportunity to have a few words. I will take my place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to have a few comments with regard to Bill 61. I have talked extensively about this bill in the last couple of days simply because there are a number of things within the bill that I needed clarification on and points that I wanted to raise.

Mr. Chair, I have to say I have been very pleased with the level of debate that has occurred in the House of Assembly. Mr. Chair, I do not throw compliments easily, but I have to say I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources has spent so much time trying to respond to the many questions and concerns that have been raised on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, in the absence of that, this debate would have been non-productive. You can raise all the issues you want and continue to speak as long as you want, but if you never know the responses of government, the direction they are going in and they just ignore what you are proposing, well then it does not make for healthy debate. You do not always get to flesh out the views and opinions of everyone.

Mr. Chair, over the last three, four days, I have had the opportunity to speak extensively about the Labrador benefit piece of this particular project. We have talked about what the short-term benefits will be for the people of Labrador. That is evident, Mr. Chair. It speaks for itself.

Any time you have a large-scale development project that is concentrated in any specific area, there are going to be benefits from that project. Those benefits, however short term they may be, certainly have an impact upon any particular region. Such will be the case with Muskrat Falls. No one has been ignoring that in the thrust of this debate.

What we have expressed concerns about are the long-term benefits of Muskrat Falls. Mr. Chair, we think there could be more. We are pleased to see that government, through the industrial rates bill, has moved to ensure there will be an industrial rate and industrial access to power in Labrador. As a result of that, we will see some long-term benefits in industry development, especially as it relates to the mining industry. From that perspective, there will be some return in the long term for the people of Labrador.

We also have other concerns, Mr. Chair. One of those I have already addressed is with regard to the Aboriginal groups and where they are. The others I have addressed are with regard to alternatives and also with regard to the loan guarantee agreement, the Emera sanctioning agreement and the role of Emera in this. I have addressed those on various occasions in the House of Assembly.

One of the pieces I want to address right now is the rates that ratepayers who are on diesel-generated power in Labrador pay. One of the real reasons for government to move forward with the Muskrat Falls Project has really been, in their mind, because they needed to decommission Holyrood. They want to shut down the Holyrood power generating plant.

As was cited by the member for CBS, Mr. Chair, I have been on the record in this House of Assembly for the past fifteen years in wanting to see Holyrood either shutdown or have more environmental controls. At one point, Mr. Chair, we did see them switch to a different kind of crude at Holyrood, which helped reduce emissions.

We also saw them upgrade some of the equipment there and some of the filtering system to reduce emissions. We also know there was a study done which outlined that there were certain scrubbers that could be put in place in Holyrood to help, again, reduce those emissions. The scrubbers did not occur, and government has basically said that will not occur because the Holyrood generating plant will be decommissioned with Muskrat Falls coming online.

Mr. Chair, obviously, government recognizes there is a pollutant in the Holyrood generating plant. Well, in Labrador, Mr. Chair, I keep saying there are twenty-one diesel-generating plants, but in fact there are twenty-two diesel-generating plants, because I keep forgetting about the fact that Voisey's Bay, Inco's mining operation, is also run on diesel-generated power. Because of that, Mr. Chair, I do not see the logic in saying it is okay for Labrador communities to continue to use dirty, diesel-generated power in their communities, but we cannot allow that on the Island. We have to build Muskrat Falls and bring the power 1,100 kilometres from Labrador to Soldiers Pond so we can insure people on the Island have clean-generated energy.

I would like to see that same logic and motto applied by this government to the people of Labrador. Look at how you are going to decommission diesel generating plants in Labrador to bring in good, clean energy development and do it at a more affordable price for the people of Labrador, but also for the people of the Province. As you know right now, residential customers alone in Labrador are subsidized to the tune of about $40 million annually. That subsidy, Mr. Chair, helps bring their rates in-line with others on the Island portion of the Province. It is still far greater than it is in Goose Bay or Labrador City. In fact, it is still double what it is in Goose Bay or Labrador City and beyond that, but it helps bring it in-line a little more with what is being charged on the Island portion of the Province.

We would say to government, use that same logic. In Labrador we have twenty-two diesel generating plants. We want to see what the vision is for meeting the long-term energy needs of Labradorians and how we move from a dirty-generated diesel source of power, as the government likes to refer to it in Holyrood, to a much cleaner, sustainable, stable source of power that will be more affordable to the people of that particular area. That is one issue.

The second issue, Mr. Chair, is the government has said, and they are on the record many times in this House of Assembly and outside this House of Assembly, that upon sanctioning of the Muskrat Falls Project they would implement a subsidy to commercial customers in Labrador. Mr. Chair, I am waiting for that announcement. I hope it is going to be announced by Christmas Eve because that was the commitment the government opposite made to the people of Labrador.

They said to them: You pay today twenty-plus cents per kilowatt hour for power. To put that in context, Mr. Chair, that is four to five times more what a commercial customer would pay in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and nearly three times more what a customer on the Island would pay. That is where we are in Labrador on commercial rates.

The government opposite said: When we are ready to sanction and move forward with Muskrat Falls, we will bring forward that rate for that subsidy on the commercial rate for the people of Labrador, the people of the North and South Coast of Labrador. So, Mr. Chair, upon passage of this bill in Christmas, we are hoping we will also get that announcement on that subsidy. We will be holding government accountable to have that done because they committed to it. It is out there, it has been in the media, it has been in the transcripts of this House of Assembly, and it goes back to the days of the former Premier even when that commitment was made to do just that.

Now, Mr. Chair, we want government to move on that subsidy on electricity for the people of coastal Labrador, the North and South Coast of Labrador. It is unfair that they would pay three to five times more for electricity as every other commercial user of power in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Chair, I do have the actual numbers of what it is per kilowatt hour in each area of the Province, but I do not have it in front of me. The other thing, Mr. Chair, is you have to look at a couple of things. One is the kilowatt hour price and the other one is the demand charge because a lot of people now are operating on what Hydro raises as a demand meter system.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This has been a long session. It has been tiring and it has been testy at times. There has been a lot of good-natured bantering back and forth, as well, and it is not over yet, obviously. Mr. Chair, we will not debate in this House anything more important or more significant in this Province than this issue that we are debating in this session.

Most of us have been here for a lot of important issues and a lot of important questions. Some of us have been here longer than others. There will be no issue, no debate, no project, or no approval that we would ever deal with that will have more significance for our lives and indeed for the lives of our children and our grandchildren in this Province. That is why I am so proud, Mr. Chair, to be part of it all.

Mr. Chair, I have been around for a while. I have had a long and varied career. According to Nick here, it shows. I spent thirty years in education, and during that thirty years I experienced most of the levels of the education career as a teacher, as a principal, as a school board coordinator, and as a school board superintendent. Mr. Chair, I enjoyed every day of it. We have a few colleagues here in the House who are in the same boat. I enjoyed every day of it.

What I remember most about that career is that I enjoyed my last year just as much as I enjoyed my first. When I left that career after thirty years, Mr. Chair, I was enjoying it probably more than I ever did. It was certainly a great career and one I recommend for anybody. I am proud to say my daughter follows me as a teacher as well. It was a great career.

I was fortunate enough, Mr. Chair, to be able to retire from that career at a young enough age to begin a second career. When I retired from education in June, I was in law school in September and was able to launch a new career in the practice of law, in which I was able to spend ten full-time years. Again, it was a great decision. It opened up a lot of doors and led to the third and perhaps the crème de la crème of all the careers I have had: an opportunity to get involved in politics.

Mr. Chair, during those thirty-plus years I spent in other careers, I was very much involved in politics. I never took the plunge to get involved in an election, although I was close to it on several occasions. In February 2006, I was elected for the great District of Placentia – St. Mary's, and that brings me to this point today where I am so proud to be part of this team, so proud of this project, and so proud of the legacy we will be leaving for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, we have had some serious debate over the last few days. Some would say we are finally into the debate, the debate that received so much hype so long ago now. It seems so long ago, prior to the opening of this session, the debate people thought was never going to take place and the debate everybody wanted. We certainly wanted it on this side. The Premier promised we would come to this House and lay everything out and put everything on the Table. She promised with confidence and assurance that we will put all the information on the Table with respect to Muskrat Falls.

Indeed, Mr. Chair, we had to do that. We had an obligation to this Province to do that. This is the most important project to ever happen in this Province in a long time, so we had an obligation to come here, discuss it, and lay it out for the people. This is the people's House. The people of the Province are represented by all three parties here.

All forty-eight of us represent the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not here representing ourselves. We are not here to get ourselves on television. We are not here for our personal agendas. We are not here to get ourselves recognized, to hear ourselves talk; some of us like to do that on occasion. We are not here to get into adversarial and testy situations with other members; we do all that as well. We are here to represent the people, to publicly discuss issues that are crucial to this Province, and there is no issue more crucial to this Province, Mr. Chair, than the one we are discussing today.

We are finally having that debate. The Opposition are raising legitimate questions, legitimate issues, and that is their role, because they represent different interests in the public as well. That is the only way to get a full discussion, Mr. Chair. The only way to get a full, complete discussion on this issue is to raise legitimate issues and questions like they have done.

Mr. Chair, the answers have been provided, the answers the Premier promised when she offered the debate in the first place. The answers are being provided everyday, further information, detailed explanations as promised. Nothing has been held back. Everything has been disclosed.

We have heard the Minister of Natural Resources time after time after time get on his feet and speak to the specifics of this issue, as has the Premier, with third line support from the Minister of Finance. We are not agreeing on everything, we never will, because this is an immense project. It is a complicated project.

A lot of the people in this Province, Mr. Chair, even today, only have a cursory knowledge of this project. A lot of people have difficulty understanding it all because it is so complex, and I can appreciate that. I, myself, as an MHA, and as a Cabinet minister have been in and around this project for the last several months, as all of us over here have.

We have attended numerous briefings. We have attended numerous meetings. We have read numerous documents, read volumes of material. Mr. Chair, it has taken all that long and all that time and all that effort for us to get to this comfort level and the assurance that we have now in this project. So, I can appreciate the challenges that people have in understanding this.

We are secure, Mr. Chair, over here in our understanding and our confidence in this project and what it means for the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the occasion yesterday – or actually, still today in parliamentary terms – to respond to comments made by one of the members of the other party. That person said she was terrified this project might not succeed. There may be some other people who might share her opinion and there may be a lot of people who have concerns because this is a big, immense, complicated project.

On this side of the House, Mr. Chair, we are assured, we are confident, and we are so proud to support this project. We are so proud to be a part of this legacy we are leaving for our children and for our grandchildren. When I leave this third component of my career, I will be able to look back and say I was part of this great moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, probably I will get the chance again sometime over the weekend to have another few words. Again, this is a great project for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is something we all should be very proud of.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to finish the comments I was making with regard to this bill. I was talking about the subsidy for the customers who are on diesel-generated power in Labrador, primarily on the Labrador South and North Coast who are commercial customers. Meaning people who operate small businesses, people who operate garages, hotels, restaurants, and who are paying four and five times more than others in the other regions of Labrador.

Government did commit that with Muskrat Falls they would bring in a subsidy for those customers. I want to remind them of that, to ensure that we will see those subsidies coming into play immediately and it will be made applicable to the people of Labrador as soon as possible.

Mr. Chair, I also wanted to mention the report the minister talked about in the House of Assembly a few weeks ago when I asked him questions about the benefits for Labrador communities and how government was going to address the power needs in the diesel-generated communities. He indicated at that time there was a study ongoing, of which I was aware of – that goes back two years now – of what the options were.

There were several options that were identified two years ago that could result in alternative power for those communities. Some of those options involved development of wind power, which I heard yesterday the minister talk about and did not see it as being such a favourable option. I know there are environmental concerns with wind power, just like there are with hydro power, Mr. Chair. As environmentally sources of power that they are, they still have a reverse effect, in some cases, on the environment as well. We are all aware of that.

One of those options was supplementing the diesel plants with wind power. The other option was replacing them with hydro power in certain cases. Some of those options involved building a transmission line that would connect a number of communities in that area.

When you look at the communities of Mary's Harbour and Lodge Bay, which is on one hydro-diesel plant, then you look at St. Lewis, which is on another one, Port Hope Simpson, which is on another one, and then Charlottetown and Pinsent Arm, which is on another one. One of the ideas in that plan was to build transmission capacity between those four communities and to supplement the power there through a hydro power source or another source. We are waiting for that study now, Mr. Chair, to see if government is actually going to move forward with that particular option, because I think that would be a preferred option for people in that particular area.

To date, I have not seen anything that looks at the replacement of the power source in the Labrador Straits. In the Labrador Straits we are currently buying our power from the Lake Robinson system in Quebec, and we buy that power over the border. When it is in peak periods on the Quebec side, our power supply goes down. Then we have to use diesel generation as a backup system.

Mr. Chair, the people in the Labrador Straits area pay as much as 55 per cent more for power in that area as what people across the border, ten minutes away, are paying. Even though it is the same source of power, even though it comes from Quebec, the people in Quebec pay 50 per cent less for that power than the people in my district are paying. That is not fair, Mr. Chair.

We are developing Muskrat Falls and we are going to sell power to the people of Nova Scotia cheaper than we can sell it to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador; yet, when we are buying it back from Quebec, we are paying 50 per cent more than the people ten minutes down the road who live in the Province of Quebec are getting that power for.

These are concerns that are consistently raised with me, as the MHA in Labrador, and they are concerns I feel that the government should address.

Mr. Chair, there are lots of concerns and issues that we have raised around this particular bill. We have talked about the Labrador benefits piece – which I have, extensively – about meeting the infrastructure needs in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, as was outlined by the environmental review panel on Muskrat Falls and they indicated a number of things that need to be addressed in Lake Melville. It is my understanding that has not been done and those agreements are still not placed.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, we know that there were commitments with regard to subsidies for diesel-generated customers and those subsidies have still not been announced. We want to see that. We also know that in all the documentation there was a commitment by the government to consult with the Aboriginal groups. We know that there have been issues raised by the Nunatsiavut Government and the NunatuKavut Community Council with regard to the environmental issues around this project that have not been addressed to their satisfaction as Aboriginal groups.

In addition, Mr. Chair, the broader piece to the project, I guess, we have also had an opportunity to discuss in terms of how decisions will be made around rates in the Province once this bill passes, what the cost of the Muskrat Falls power will be and who will bear that cost.

One of the issues that were raised by my colleague for Bay of Islands had to do with the fact that the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to get 40 per cent of the power from Muskrat Falls, but they have to pay for 100 per cent of the cost of the project.

My colleague said to the government opposite: Any excess revenue that you make on that other 60 per cent power; you should use it to offset the cost to the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister stands up, Mr. Chair, and tries to lead the public to believe that as the Official Opposition we want to subsidize wealthy people who are getting power from Muskrat Falls. That is not true, Mr. Chair. What we want to see is Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who pay for 100 per cent of something receive 100 per cent of that. That is what we want, Mr. Chair.

If they are going to pay 100 per cent of the cost of the developing Muskrat Falls, then 100 per cent of the profit from that project should go back to ensure that there is a fair and reasonable rate to the customers of this Province. We are not saying, Mr. Chair, that it would all go back because we might reach a point in our history where the project will be paid for and the profits will be huge. We do not expect that anyone should receive a public utility for free, but we do expect that they should receive it at a very fair rate, a competitive rate, and at the best possible rate that we can give the people of the Province.

It is not about creating a subsidy for wealthy people who burn electricity in the Province. It is about ensuring that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who pay for 100 per cent of something actually reap 100 per cent of the benefit and the reward in their own pocket, as well, at the end of the day. The reality is the money to pay for it is coming out of their pocket; therefore, Mr. Chair, any revenues that can be created through this project should help offset the costs that they should pay. That has been a huge issue for us.

One of the other issues that I wanted to raise and it was an issue that was raised by TelegramJames. TelegramJames raised a question to the minister in the House of Assembly, through Twitter, and basically what TelegramJames is saying to the minister is: Why do you need it to be non-recourse if you are going to recover all of the payment?

I think it is a good question. It is one that we have not heard the minister respond to. I think that he should respond to it because it is a good question. It is one that deserves an explanation because what we are dealing with here is non-recourse funding. If the confidence is there and the legislation is there to establish the return on this particular investment, why do we need to be doing anything further?

I think it is a good question. It was posed to the minister on Twitter, and maybe he could answer it in the House of Assembly. It did come from a media personality, TelegramJames, who has been following this in the House of Assembly for the last number of days. I am sure that the minister, when he stands sometime throughout this debate, will respond to that question as well.

CHAIR: I remind the member that her time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to rise again and to continue in the debate and discussions on the clauses of these bills. Right now we are back on Bill 61. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity again.

I can tell you, Mr. Chair, there has been more than ample opportunity for members of this House – every member of this House – to ask questions, to express their viewpoint, and to speak about the Muskrat Falls Project. The Chair has given a very wide range of latitude for members, and I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I appreciate as well from yourself when you have been in the Chair to give the latitude to members to be able to speak to a very broad range of Muskrat Falls topics.

That has worked well for the most part because it has allowed people the opportunity to discuss the aspects of these pieces of legislation, the various ones we have been debating over the last number of days, and it gives them opportunity to talk about the things that are important to them in a very broad range. We may be on Bill 61 and we know there are times when topics that may be closely related to Bill 60, as an example, may be talked about by members of the House. You in your wisdom have given the latitude to do that, and we have generally allowed that to happen over the last few days.

I also know, Mr. Chair, as the debate is taking place, the daytime and nighttime becomes the same in the House. There are other circumstances in our lives sometimes where the days and nights run together. When you are in an enclosed environment like this for hours on end, you really cannot tell the difference in the daytime and the nighttime. They all become the same.

I know it is still Thursday in the parliamentary calendar. We broke for a few minutes yesterday. Tuesday became Thursday, and now this being Friday it is still Thursday. As confusing as that may sound to those who have not heard of that before, it is the way it happens in the parliamentary calendar. As long as we continue to sit, if we sit into tomorrow it will still be Thursday in the parliamentary calendar. That is how the parliamentary traditions occur in Newfoundland and Labrador and as well in Canada in the system of democracy we follow.

Our democratic process allows for members of the House to be elected by the people of the Province. We represent people from our districts. As we come in here, we are entitled to debate and talk. We apply the rules, and sometimes at great length. That is what is happening during a filibuster. The rules are being utilized to the greatest extent to allow the political process to continue and to allow the political continue here in the House.

To the bill at hand and to the discussion at hand, because this is about the Muskrat Falls Project – the Lower Churchill and Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Chair, just to go back to some of the historic values in the Muskrat Falls Project, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we know about the history of the Churchill River and its natural resource of ability to generate electricity. We know the Upper Churchill has been producing electricity for many, many years. We know the significant recipient of the value of that project has been the Province of Quebec.

For many years, Mr. Chair, successive governments have made their attempts to release us from what I have referred to before as the stranglehold Quebec has placed on us over the generations. Government after government, when they come into power, one of the priorities they make is to find a way to release the Province. When I say release the Province, I am referring to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to release them from the stranglehold and the inability for us to maximize our benefit from the opportunities that exist in harnessing the power on the Churchill River in Labrador; the massive Churchill River in the Big Land, as we passionately quite often refer to it as. I have heard many people, a variety of people who are from Labrador and whose homes are in Labrador, and refer to it passionately as the Big Land.

In the number of times I have had to visit Labrador, I have gained a better understanding and respect of what a large geographic region it is. It is that. As you fly over Labrador, which I have had the opportunity to do, as far as you can see, you see the resources of the tributaries and the waters of the Churchill River that come to the Churchill River. They come down through the Upper Churchill through the Churchill Falls hydroelectric project, which is there now diverted, that massive project in the Upper Churchill; through there, through the gates and turbines, down through the Churchill River, and to Lake Melville. Not far from the opening of Lake Melville is where we have Muskrat Falls.

We know that much of our power today, Mr. Chair, especially in the Northeast Avalon area, we have to utilize and supplement our demand and our peak demand for power at the Holyrood Generating Station. From many parts of my district we can actually see the Holyrood Generating Station. We can see the stacks and we can quite often see the emissions in the wintertime that come from those stacks.

I remember over the years driving home in the night time, and if you timed it properly, rightly or wrongly, there are times when you can see the emissions start to pour out of those stacks. I remember years ago when they were lower-grade fuels and dirtier fuels than what they use today, it was even worse back in those days.

Moving away from Holyrood, I have not heard it said here in the House in recent days, but Holyrood at peak time burns 18,000 barrels of dirty fuel a day. At peak time when the thermal generating plant is up and running and it is producing the most power, you find that is in the coldest months, in the coldest part of the day, in the early morning when people have their hot water running, their showers running, they are preparing to go to work and go to school, they have their lights on, and their heat turned up. That is a peak time of the day.

In the evenings, when most people come home from work in the afternoon, again, you are cooking your meals, doing your laundry, have your heat turned up, and you are using a tremendous amount of power. The power is supported and supplemented at that point in time. We know that is when Holyrood is turned up and is running at full go, if I could use that term, Mr. Chair. We realize how much pollution Holyrood is causing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When the prevailing winds come across from Seal Cove – and I know members in the House here are quite familiar with where Seal Cove is. I know the Member for St. John's East is quite familiar with the prevailing winds of Holyrood as they come over Seal Cove. It comes over Seal Cove, across Conception Bay through the people of Conception Bay South and the District of Conception Bay South. The prevailing winds continue across into Conception Bay East – Bell Island, and as well to Topsail District, and across the lands then in through Mount Pearl and the Northeast Avalon, including the City of St. John's. We know that is the prevailing winds. That is just a fact. The winds come across the bay, across the lands, across the Northeast Avalon, and then out into the Atlantic. That is the way it goes. Every time Holyrood is turned up and burning fuel, we know that is what it does.

I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that members opposite and other members of this House for many years have dreamed of the day when Holyrood can be shut down and decommissioned, and we will no longer rely on it. Having a very clean and green opportunity to utilize and harness those powers on the Lower Churchill on the Churchill River for the benefit of the people of the Province is a day many of us have dreamed of.

Today, those powers on the Churchill Falls River are being harnessed and utilized for the benefit of the people of Quebec. That is the truth of it, Mr. Chair. There is no denying that. Our goal is to provide clean, green power for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We do that by harnessing the Lower Churchill power, eliminating the need for Holyrood and Holyrood's aging building. It is soon going to need in the years to come, if we do not do anything and whatever we do with it, significant overhaul.

It has essentially run its course. Its life is coming to an end. Now is the right time to be able to turn off the switch at Holyrood once and for all for the benefit of people of Holyrood, for the benefit of people of Seal Cove, for the benefit of people of Northeast Avalon, and for the benefit of people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to resort to the natural resources we have available to us for the best interests of the people of the Province. Mr. Chair, that is what this project is all about.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Littlejohn): The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to hear the Member for Topsail make the points he does about the generating plant at Holyrood. As we get into the amendments in Bill 61, one of the amendments we have coming forward has to do with the decommissioning of the Holyrood hydro generating facility, Mr. Chair. Based on his comments, I am sure there will be endorsing and overwhelming support from the government on that particular amendment.

Mr. Chair, Bill 61 obviously is the financial component that really makes the Muskrat Falls Project. Although it is referred to as the financial component, it is actually the Muskrat Falls Project within itself. This legislation is directly linked to the sanctioning agreement that was signed between Emera and Nalcor. It is directly linked to the guaranteed loan agreement with the federal government.

It was those two documents that were negotiated between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nalcor on our behalf. It was those documents that were negotiated with Emera on the sanctioning, also with the federal government on the loan guarantee, and the piece that was negotiated with the Innu that actually make up the entire Muskrat Falls Project. What we are seeing in these bills today is the legislative piece of those agreements and contracts that were signed.

Mr. Chair, we have raised a lot of issues here. On some occasions, government has gotten their backs up and has taken some of it a little bit offensively. Mr. Chair, it was not meant to be that way. On several occasions, members got up and talked about the well-experienced and educated people at Nalcor and the experts at Nalcor who did this work.

Mr. Chair, just because you question what someone proposes does not mean you do not value the contribution they are making or value the work they do. We question experts all the time. We question experts at Memorial University, at the Harris Centre; we question experts all across the country.

I questioned a number of experts and scientists who passed opinions with regard to breast screening in this country, Mr. Chair. Just because they pass an opinion that might be different from what someone else is espousing, it does not mean you do not think these people have some qualifications, expertise, knowledge, skills, or abilities in those particular areas. Those comments were somewhat a little offensive in my mind.

I realize the people at Nalcor are good people and they work hard for the people of this Province. Does that mean I am going to agree with everything they do? Absolutely not!

I have seen Gilbert Bennett in action, Mr. Chair, and I know how hard the gentleman works. I have seen him show up at many functions in Labrador. I have seen him respond to communities in Labrador and meet with groups, I know in my district that had concerns. We appreciate that. We value that. It does not mean we are going to agree with what they propose. It does not mean we are going to agree with everything they say, but do not let it be misinterpreted in the wrong way. I want to clarify that for the record, Mr. Chair.

In fact, when I met with Nalcor I outlined to them ten or twelve different issues as it related to my district that I have concerns with. They responded back to me in writing on those concerns. Did I like the responses they gave me? Not all of them, I can tell you that. I did not agree with a lot of them, but that exchange occurred. They took my concerns seriously. They had them addressed by the appropriate people, and that was what we expected.

Mr. Chair, this particular bill, as I said, we raised a lot of issues. We have been on clause 1 since we have started. For the interest of the members of the House of Assembly, we feel that as the Opposition we have taken the ample time we needed to read through and study the term sheet and the sanctioning agreement that was signed with Emera. We feel that at this stage we have had appropriate time, Mr. Chair, to look at the loan guarantee document in its entirety as it relates to this Bill 61.

We feel, Mr. Chair, the last three days has given us and our staff, and the outside expertise that we have engaged, the opportunity to study Bill 61 and Bill 60 and link it to the other statutes that are related to this legislation and to give us a level of comfort of where we need to be going in the next step. People watching at home need to know that this is not a filibuster for the sake of filibustering. This needed to be done.

We had a briefing on Tuesday morning on these bills. We walked out of that briefing at 12:00 o'clock on Tuesday, Mr. Chair, ourselves and the Third Party, and we walked into the House of Assembly at 1:30 to start Question Period and start debate on these bills. We were not prepared at that time, Mr. Chair, to stand and give full consent or to oppose this legislation because we had not had the opportunity to look at it, review it, and study it appropriately. So, whether you want to call it a filibuster or you want to call it taking the time that was necessary to do diligence.

We would have preferred, Mr. Chair, for the government to close the House every evening and we would come back every morning. We would have preferred to come back in January and take a week and go through this, but that is not the way the process works. The government chose to be here to do this bill. If we wanted to do it, we had to stay here. That was the way it worked.

Mr. Chair, we have taken the time we needed to become educated about the legislation, to understand it and to be able to move amendments if we felt they were necessary. At this stage, Mr. Chair, we are going to be moving a number of amendments to Bill 61 as we move through the clause by clause sections of the bill. We have provided advance copies of those amendments to the government, to the Third Party, and also to the House.

My colleague, Mr. Chair, the Leader of the Opposition will be moving and speaking to the amendments. We certainly welcome the discussion of the members opposite and other members of the House of Assembly in looking at these amendments to see if – although the intent might be good, we hope the legislated format will be acceptable as well because we feel these are important points that we want to have attached to this particular legislation.

We are going to be getting ready to move those amendments shortly, and we will start the clause by clause debate of Bill 61.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed a pleasure once again to have the opportunity to stand in the House and have a few moments to speak to Bill 61, and perhaps in a broader perspective, some of the commentary offered by members and by the Leader of the Opposition.

We, too, are certainly very happy as a government to be here today, and to have been here over the last couple of days to discuss this important project for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As many people would know, there has been extensive research carried out and extensive investigation and follow up confirmation of the many aspects of this particular project, both in terms of the need for the power and the lowest-cost option, and the alternatives, whether it is wind or natural gas or other alternative energy sources.

We have tried as best we could from our perspective to provide lots of opportunity for debate and for discussion on this particular project, and it has been in a number of forms, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, the initial discussion around a separate, unique special debate did not go, but I think suffice it to say that the Opposition has used Question Period as an opportunity to raise very important issues here on the floor of this House of Assembly. We have done our best, through the Premier, and through the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Finance to address some of those issues.

We have had, of course, Private Members' Day, where it was a debate focused solely on the project. We heard today, and over the last number of days, debating this enabling legislation.

Filibustering, Mr. Chair, is a term – I do not know if it is a legislative term, or if it is just a term used by those who follow politics and follow debates in parliamentary procedure, but –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: The member opposite is nodding, so I am assuming she is saying it is a correct term.

We look at this as an opportunity that the Opposition has taken advantage of to debate these bills in the House, and frankly, we respect the process and we understand the process. We have spent, as I said earlier, I am not sure how many hours, but I know myself, other than about an hour-and-a-half sleep per day over the last three days, I have been here since Tuesday, and most members opposite have been here.

It has been a great opportunity for members to speak and to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: I appreciate your support and protection there, Mr. Chair.

It has been a great opportunity to be in the House and to share views. In some respect, we have probably achieved lots this week, even outside of the Muskrat Falls Project. There have been some relationships that have been developed, and there have been some white flags and truces developed with a number of members in the House and around here. We are not pointing any elbows or anything, but it has been a great week.

Mr. Chair, I think we are about set to move this process forward a little further now, and a couple of quick things I want to make mention of before I move along. If I could have everybody's attention for a moment, I know it is not my role to do that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Government House has something important to say.

MR. KING: I am actually not the deputy any more. My deputy is here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader. I am sorry; it has been a long day.

MR. KING: That is fine. If the Premier has made a decision to move me out today, that is fine as well.

I just want to make a quick comment because the Opposition Parties were very co-operative with us last evening on this particular issue. I want to afford back the same opportunity.

We had a birthday celebrated last night around midnight with the MHA for Burin – Placentia West, the Minister of Education, Clyde Jackman. A lot of people who are here today were not here last night. Some were, but a lot were not because we have had some shift changes. We had the opportunity to wish Minister Jackman a Happy Birthday. Today is actually his birthday.

Before we get into any further debate, with a bit of levity from the House, I want to wish the Leader of the Opposition a Happy Birthday today. Perhaps we will do a version of Happy Birthday for him today as well, if all members will stand. Can we do that?

[Members sing Happy Birthday]

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It has been a long debate when you start celebrating birthdays this quickly. Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

I am going to ask the two House Leaders opposite, if you would give me leave to allow the Minister of Finance to speak after me. He wants to address one question that was raised.

With leave, I am going to sit and the Minister of Finance will address the question and then we will turn the floor back over.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: It is great to be back in the House of Assembly again today, Mr. Chair. I had a great opportunity this morning to take the break that was made available to me to meet with the public sector unions. I must say we had a good session, a cordial session, and a good discussion on public sector pensions.

Government has outlined to our public sector unions the problem that government is facing, our concerns about the sustainability of the pension plans. They have agreed to look at the problem and discuss it with the experts that they have and get back to us with their feedback. This is a very important issue. I am delighted they have engaged with us and I look forward to the benefit of their advice and recommendations as we go forward with this particular problem and dealing with this issue, which has been drawn to the attention of the people of this Province by the Auditor General for over twenty years.

I understand the question has to do with the non-recourse financing. As I previously outlined in this Legislature, once the federal government's loan guarantee came down, that enabled us to come to an agreement on what is called the debt-equity ratio. Some people in the NDP have talked about analysis and financial analysis.

If you take the cost of the various elements, which I have outlined previously in this House, the fact that Muskrat Falls is $2.9 billion, the Labrador transmission assets, which is the transmission line from Muskrat Falls to Churchill Falls is another $700 million for a total of $3.6 billion. Then when you add in the Labrador-Island Link, the transmission line from Muskrat Falls down to the Island, you get a cost of $6.2 billion. Over and above that there is the Maritime Link, but that is going to be dealt with by Emera and Nova Scotia ratepayers.

At $6.2 billion, we are estimating interest on that debt during construction of about $1 billion, which would be a total, when the construction debt is refinanced and the interest on that debt is refinanced, of about $7.2 billion. When you look at the debt-equity ratios you have equity on Muskrat Falls and the Labrador transmission assets. You have equity of 35 per cent and 65 per cent debt. On the LIL, it is 25 per cent equity and 75 per cent debt. Of course, the debt is going to be shared, looking at debt of about $4.8 billion. Emera are going to take about $500 million of that. That leaves about $4.3 billion in debt. That debt will be undertaken by subsidiaries of Nalcor and, I assume, a subsidiary of Emera to do the different projects.

We talk about the Muskrat Falls Project, but it is really a combination of a number of projects: one is the generation facility at Muskrat Falls; then you have the LTA, which is the transmission line up to Churchill Falls; and then you have the LIL. Each of those will have a different corporation, a subsidiary corporation, which will build, operate, and finance the particular parts of the project. They are going to borrow the money from lenders and the Government of Canada has given a guarantee. It has given an unconditional guarantee. The terms of that guarantee, we have discussed that in this House on many, many occasions.

The guarantee will mean that these proponents, the people who build these projects, will now borrow at triple A rates. They will borrow based on the credit ability of the Government of Canada, which means that more people will buy the bonds and the interest rate that you will have to pay to the money lenders will be less, much less, than the proponents would have to pay if they had to pay based on their own credit rating or based on the credit rating of the Province. We have an A+ rating now. We are pretty proud of that. We have come a long way, but a triple A rating is even better. There are very few institutions that have that rating, but the Government of Canada, of course, is one of them.

The financing is non-recourse to the Province. What that means is that if any of these subsidiary companies default on their obligation, the creditors, the lenders, cannot come back on Nalcor and cannot come back on the other subsidiaries of Nalcor and cannot come back to the people of Newfoundland and the Government of Newfoundland for repayment of that debt.

Now, of course, it is always open to the government. In the unlikely event that there is a default by one of the subsidiary corporations, there is lots of opportunity and there is lots of time in which the default can be rectified. If the subsidiaries are not in a position to rectify that default, it is always open to the government, it is always open to Nalcor, to use other resources to clear or clean the default and take care of it.

When I talk about other subsidiaries of Nalcor, Nalcor of course has an oil and gas section in which it owns interests in various oil fields, and it is earning each year a dividend on those oil fields. That section of Nalcor would not be obligated to pay the loan that the Muskrat Falls Project is taking on or the LIL Project or the LTA Project, unless Nalcor wanted to do that.

The same applies to Hydro; Hydro would not be obligated. The same applies to Bull Arm; Bull Arm would not be obligated. Nalcor themselves would not be obligated. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would be under no obligation to cure the default, unless it wished to do so. Strictly speaking, if there is default and the other divisions of Nalcor, the other subsidiaries of Nalcor, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were not prepared to cure the default, then the Government of Canada would be called upon to honour its guarantee and the Government of Canada would then be subrogated to the position of the lenders. The Government of Canada would essentially become the owner of the project and would therefore continue to provide the project to the ratepayers, or possibly could sell the thing.

The way this whole project has been dealt with and has been set up is like any other project. All these hydro projects are set up in a way so that the people who benefit from the project, the people who get the electricity, the people who would use a phone system, the people who would use cable television, it is all set up in a way – the regulator permits the proponent to get enough revenue that will pay for the cost of construction, that will pay for the financing, that will pay for the cost of operations, and even provides a guaranteed rate of return on the investment.

From the point of view when you have a monopoly, that the revenue stream is very certain and there is even a guaranteed rate of return. Obviously, these companies that have been in this business, companies that have been in the cable TV business, companies that have been in the electricity business, they have done extremely well. The number of times of default is very, very rare in indeed because not only are all of your costs covered but you get a guaranteed rate of return as well. That is the situation here.

It is set up so that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador would not be at risk, but, of course, the ratepayers will pay the cost. That is the way this thing is designed. That is the way every project is designed, but the beauty of the Muskrat Falls Project is that it is the cheapest one. That if we need to, if we have a problem, which is high rates and we want to shut down Holyrood so we will stop burning oil that has been driving up the rates in the past, then obviously, if we want to do that we have to build an alternative.

If we need more power, as the Minister of Natural Resources has clearly indicated, we will have to build a facility. If we need power in Labrador to be a catalyst and be a driver of economic development in the mining sector, we need an alternate facility. So, which one do you do? You do the one that is the cheapest. You do the one that is the lowest cost that will provide you with a safe and reliable supply of energy.

It has been clearly shown by Nalcor and by Nalcor's consultants that the Muskrat Falls Project, by $2.4 billion, is the lower cost project, the cheaper project. The people will have to pay the cost of that. Everybody points that out here, but if they had to pay for another project they would be paying even more money.

Muskrat Falls is the lower option. The people will pay the cost of that. Then the proponents will make money that will pay off the loan. They will provide a dividend to the government, which we estimate to be $20 billion over fifty years. That will enable the government to pay off any loans it takes out, and government will then have a dividend which they can either put back to pay down hydro rates or it might do other things.

One of the things government could do is build hospitals. That is the thing I like, Mr. Chair. They can build hospitals, they can build schools and they can build other infrastructure that is needed for the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, thanks for the birthday greetings. It reminded me of something that I heard this morning, was the carollers were showing up at the House of Assembly, but of course, this was birthday greetings. I really appreciate that.

We spent a lot of time on clause 1. Someone asked me about it yesterday, and I said: Well, it is clause 1. It will probably be Santa Claus who will actually deliver it, but we got through that now a few days early.

I want to speak to clause 2. Many of the members over the last year or so have heard me speak about this, about this particular piece of the legislation and the concept, as the Minister of Finance just spoke about. One of the things I spoke a lot about is the federal loan guarantee and how this project is financed. One of the conditions in the federal loan guarantee, in Schedule A that is attached to the guarantee in section 3, speaks to how the project will be financed.

As part of the guarantee, what government has to do, or what Nalcor and Newfoundland Hydro – because the deal is structured this way, is Nalcor, through a group of subsidiaries, will actually develop the Muskrat Falls Project. Those subsidiaries then will sell power to the customer, being Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. What happens then, of course, is this is the power that people use to turn on their light switches and heat their homes around the Island portion of the Province.

The federal loan guarantee clearly states you have to create a revenue stream that will – obviously, the federal government do not want to have this guarantee ever triggered. The idea of creating a revenue stream for this project is a condition of the Muskrat Falls Project and, indeed, getting the federal loan guarantee in place.

What happens there, this will happen through a power purchase agreement. A power purchase agreement, essentially, is a guarantee to pay a certain amount of money over the life of the project. We have been talking in terms of fifty years but I would imagine at some point that could be less than fifty years if the project was paid off early or something like that. It is no different than if at some point in time someone decided to pay their mortgage off a few years early. The power purchase agreement, what this does it puts in place and guarantees the revenue stream. The ratepayers will – this is how the project is paid for.

When you look at the project itself, it really has three components to it, one being the 40 per cent which is used for the domestic ratepayers on the Island. Of course, this will eventually mean that Holyrood would be shut down, decommissioned. The ratepayers on the Island would use 40 per cent of that power.

Twenty per cent of the power will go to Emera, because Emera will build the Maritime Link. For that, they will get 20 per cent of the power. On top of that, Emera has agreed to give transmission access that they currently have through Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and for the export option into the New England States. This is the Emera piece of it, the 20 per cent there.

Then there is another piece. It speaks to the other 40 per cent, making up the 100 per cent of the project. We often refer to this as the export option, or in more recent months we have been talking a lot about the mining companies in Labrador that would use the extra 40 per cent.

We also know that to finance the project government will finance the equity portion of this. They will do this by using our current account or the money that we have. The cash on hand let's say, or they can go out and borrow for a piece of this. All of this is being paid for – 100 per cent being paid for by the ratepayers of the Province, by the taxpayers.

Well, it is the ratepayers because they will pay for – because the rates are affected by this. The rates are put in place through the power purchase agreement. The project is paid for from your rates, not from other taxes. It is really directly attached to the rates. The ratepayers of the Province are paying 100 per cent of the project.

The issue I want to address with this is that the ratepayers are paying 100 per cent of the project. The Minister of Finance has clearly stated that we could expect a return on the investment of $20 billion over the life of the project. If the export sales go the way they anticipate or they expect, there could be up to another $4 billion that would be available. Of course, that all depends on where the markets are. It could be $4 billion. Who knows? It could be more or it could be less. For today's discussion we will talk about $24 billion over the life of the project. These are the most current numbers that we have out there.

What I want to consider here is why it is that the ratepayers of the Province, if they are paying 100 per cent of the project and there is extra revenue that gets generated – so far government's position has been that all the money that is generated, this $20 billion in this particular case, would come back and would be part of general revenue. Well, the people who are paying the freight here as we call it, the people who are paying for this, are indeed paying for this through rates.

I have often wondered and questioned, and I am sure members opposite have asked themselves the same question: Why is this not being impacted by the rates? If the whole objective here is to keep rates low and to stabilize rates, this project was never meant to be a project we would see us making money on. It was meant to be: If we have a demand, how do we meet that demand? We have heard that a lot.

We meet that demand by Muskrat Falls. That is the position of government. They went ahead and sanctioned the project because they have identified that the demand exists in our future and they have to meet that demand. They went out and they have done a number of reports. The reports have come back stating that Muskrat Falls, in this case, is the best option. That was the objective of doing Muskrat Falls.

The objective of doing Muskrat Falls was not about how we create a business plan on the backs of ratepayers that we could actually make money on. Yes, I can understand that we do not let the water flow over the dam if we can sell the extra power. Well, yes, then we use that to create economic activity, and I am on record as saying I actually support doing the economic activity and using Muskrat Falls power even if it is at a lower rate, which is the industrial rate that we have talked a lot about this week, for places like Lab West.

If we do go the export route and indeed through the Maritime Link, we actually sell it again and make more money; again, this is money that this project has been paid for 100 per cent by the ratepayers of the Province. My position, and what we are looking for here, is that if the ratepayers are actually paying for the money, they are assuming the risk here. It is the people of the Province who are assuming the risk. The ratepayers are paying the mortgage. Well, then they should get the benefit of this through rates.

Mr. Chair, this is where in clause 2 here that we will make an amendment. This is the reason we do it, because of the investment. The ratepayers are paying the money. So we think it is fair that if you are going to pay for 100 per cent of the project, then there is another 60 per cent of the project out here that at some point will generate even more money. Well, if we are really concerned and we really want to stabilize rates, we want to keep rates low.

The other thing here to consider is that there are commercial customers using this as well. We want to make sure if there is an advantage we can use in terms of at least our power, which is a significant one I would add, we need to make sure we have a very competitive regime in place. We also need to make sure that this is not considered by many – and I have heard this comment by a lot of people, that this is really another way of taxation.

People have often referred to it as almost like a utility tax because government will make money. There will be a return; there will be a dividend. A lot of people I have spoken to actually can support the argument that, indeed, if it is about rates and if you make your money on the project it, well, put it back in the hands of the people who paid for it. Put it back so that it reflects the rates. That is how it was collected in the beginning.

Mr. Chair, I would like to make an amendment to clause 2 by adding, we will call it, (2)(1). That would come right after (g), so it would be clause 2(2)(1) and it would read something like this: Notwithstanding subsection (2), all revenues in excess of expenses from the Muskrat Falls Project shall be used to reduce electrical rates in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I move this and it is seconded by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair that the proposed section 5.1 of clause 2 be amended by the following that I just read in.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The House will take a recess to consider the amendment.

This House is now in recess.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has considered the amendment, and the amendment is not in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) again.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hear someone shouting across the hall: not again. I can guarantee you that you are not going to keep me quiet.

CHAIR: Excuse me, the Member for Bay of Islands, I want to remind everyone we are now discussing being relevant to clause 2.

MR. JOYCE: Oh I have it, Mr. Chair, do not worry.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. JOYCE: He was talking about clause 2. I am saying that he is not going to keep me quiet about clause 2. It is very relevant.

Mr. Chair, I was up this morning speaking on this bill. I brought it up on many occasions, Mr. Chair, this morning about this particular clause, actually. The clause, Mr. Chair, as you know, is a clause that takes the PUB, almost makes the PUB like a rubber stamp. It takes the PUB out of the whole picture. It takes the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and says to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council: Listen, we are going to be the people watching everybody, we know better than everybody else; therefore, we are going to say what the rates should be, how it should be, what is going to be set.

Mr. Chair, I just want to read one part of this here. It is something that speaks volumes to this piece of legislation. If people in Newfoundland and Labrador are not aware of some of the clauses that are in this particular section, Mr. Chair, I will just read one. There are a lot more, but I am just going to read this one, "(e) whether or not a hearing shall be held".

One of the cornerstones of the PUB in this Province is that if there is an application before the board, that the board would go and have public hearings. The board would seek out input on the reason why or why not.

There are times, Mr. Chair – and I would say in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador we all know of times when there were hearings and the board either changed their decision, or lowered the rates because of the public hearings that they had and some of the information that was brought forth. We all know that. We hear about some of the hearings that the PUB had across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the fundamental rights of anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador is that if there is an issue facing them that they would have some avenue to be able to have input. Mr. Chair, that is one of the fundamental rights of people in Newfoundland and Labrador and the reasons why – later on, Mr. Chair, I am going to go through some of the reasons why the PUB was set up, and the reasons why we had the PUB, like exclusive – and the monopoly here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will just speak on this clause for a few minutes. The clause is that they can order no public hearings. So, here we are, Muskrat Falls, we know it is done, we know it is a done deal, we know it is going to be brought into legislation, and we know it is going to happen. Any time now that there is a rate increase, any time that there is any additions made to it, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council – which is the Cabinet, just to let the people know. That is another form – when the Cabinet makes a decision in the Province, it is the Lieutenant-Governor in Council that has it sanctioned.

Once that is done, they can order the body – which was there put in place to protect the consumers of this Province – not to have public hearings in this Province. It is just something that, to me, is almost like saying: Okay, people, we set the rates here for fifty-five years; we have the authority to set the rates.

Now, to add insult to injury, it is bad enough saying to the PUB: Well listen, we are going to rubber stamp you. Here is the information you have to put in, here is the information you have to come out with, here is the decision that we already made in Cabinet, we want you to just take it and rubber stamp it, give it out to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When those people, whoever at the time is on the PUB, say, well let us go out and explain why we are doing this, let us go out and explain why the rates have increased, let us go out and explain why there are other things brought into it, other service charges that were brought into it.

With this piece of legislation, and with this section of the legislation, Mr. Chair, they cannot even have a public hearing. So there is no way to even go out to the people of the Province, and even with the fifty-five year monopoly that this government brought in now, it is almost like saying we have a monopoly and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: We do not need to justify to any of you why we are doing what we are doing. To the PUB: We will tell you if you can go out and have a hearing. We will tell you what you have to say. We will tell you what you have to charge people, but you have to just go out there, take it, and say: Oh, the PUB set this and the PUB did all of this. The PUB cannot go out and say we were ordered by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. This is what we had to do. We were rubber-stamped. They are not allowed to do that any more.

Unless I am absolutely missing something that all of us as politicians, we all meet with different councils, we all have different issues that come up in our district. When we come up and have different issues and different problems in our districts, we go out and have public meetings. I am sure if we all looked at the news clips, we all see every member in this Legislature at some form of public meeting in our own district or a public meeting in your role as a minister or in your role as government. I am sure we can all find a clip.

Can you imagine now this PUB, which will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, cannot go out and do that? They cannot go out and hear what the common person in this Province, people who live in all of our districts – every one of our districts – cannot go out and have public meetings.

Mr. Chair, there are some adjectives which I can use which I refuse to use, but it is pretty close. It is almost like you have total control of what you want to do. You will not allow the general public to have any input. You will not have the general public get any information of why the input was made. You will not be able to have any public meeting of why it comes in and to say: Here is what we are doing and here is the reason why.

Every one of us in this Legislature, forty-eight of us, it is almost against our grain and our philosophy. We hear on many occasions people say: You have to go out and meet your residents. I look at the Member for Humber West who I know personally had public meetings in Corner Brook. The Member for Humber East had public meetings in Corner Brook. We all go to those public meetings. We all go and seek input. We all go and ask for advice. We all go and explain our points of view and why we are doing something, why your government is doing something, or why I am doing something as an MHA. We all do it, but that is our fundamental right. The people we represent expect that. They expect us to go out and have public meetings. They expect us to hear their opinions. They expect us to listen to their views and, above all, they expect us to express our views on behalf of the people who elected us. That is democracy.

What is happening here – and I will just use this one section, Mr. Chair. There is a lot more in the section. By the time you go through this whole clause, Mr. Chair, there is a lot. That is just the first one that I am going to speak of for awhile because I will be back on this same one. Mr. Chair, every one of the MHAs here, it defies democracy of why we were elected to represent our people.

If there is anything that I can urge the government, it is this here, "whether or not a hearing shall be held" is affront to our democracy as MHAs. It is an affront to the people of the Province who may want to have some constructive views, and it is an affront to the people who want to come to these hearings just to find out, to get more information of why things are happening in our Province which are going to affect them, which is our electricity rates.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Cross): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Essentially, what we are doing here is directing the PUB to include certain costs the same way that we directed the PUB in another piece of legislation, in Labrador industrial rates, to include a generation rate.

The Liberals opposite do not appear to have any great problem with the fact that we can direct the PUB to do something when it comes to generation rates for industrial companies, but they seem to have a problem here when it comes to directing the PUB with the recovery of cost. The federal loan guarantee has a requirement that there has to be a revenue stream in order to ensure that the project can meet its debts.

Mr. Chair, it comes back to the rates, which I will discuss as we go on throughout the afternoon. The question is going to be: We need power, what are we going to do? If you build Holyrood, rates are going up. If you build Muskrat Falls, rates are going to go up a lot less. So, that is really the issue here that it comes down to. There has to be a revenue stream. Mr. Chair, we are directing them, like we directed them in the generation rates. I fail to see the difference. They seem to be fine with one but not the other.

The other issue, Mr. Chair, is that there are major project exemptions. We have at least four major project exemptions in BC that are exempted from their examination by their utility boards, including the Northwest Transmission Lines Mica Units 5 and 6, Revelstoke Unit 6, and Site C.

We have examples of major projects in BC. Also, we do not need to go to BC. We have examples here in our Province. What I have indicated, Mr. Chair, in my discussions the other night, we did not even need to bring this amendment. The 5.1 as it existed, brought in by the Liberal Government in 1994 – and I understand the reasons that the piece of legislation was brought in at the same. It was to look at the ability to recall power. Section 5.1 of the Electrical Power Control Act gives power to direct and exempt the PUB. We are using the power under section 5.1 of the EPCA to direct the PUB to do something. We could have exempted them.

Now, that has happened too. Do you know the other thing, Mr. Chair? I do not think we even had to be here on this, because the previous Liberal Administration had brought in a regulation in 2000 exempting the Labrador Hydro Project from PUB scrutiny – not directing, exempting. Now, let us look at what that section said.

MR. MARSHALL: Why would it be a problem now if it was not a problem then?

MR. KENNEDY: We will get to that in a second there. Thank you very much, Minister of Finance.

"In this Order, the ‘Labrador Hydro Project' means the planning for, including discussions with potential purchasers or partners, the environmental, economic…" – and for the record, Mr. Chair, I am referring to Newfoundland and Labrador Regulation 92/00 Labrador Hydro Project Exemption under the Electrical Power and Control Act and the Public Utilities Act, filed December 14, 2000.

Under the authority of section 5.2, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, makes the following order. The "‘Labrador Hydro Project' means the planning for, including discussions with potential purchasers or partners, the environmental, economic and engineering study of and, where approved, the design and construction of some or all of (a) generation and related facilities at Churchill Falls, Labrador; (b) generation and related facilities at Gull Island, Labrador; (c) generation and related facilities at Muskrat Falls, Labrador".

We did not even need, under the authority of this order, to come before this House and seek anything. The Liberal government had exempted it.

Now let us look at what the Liberal government had dealt with at that point, Mr. Chair, because they are criticizing us now for not being open and being secretive and excluding the PUB, which we are not; we are directing. They excluded the PUB.

What we know – we do not know much, but we know that in August 2002 the Premier of the day announced that he had an agreement in principle with the Quebec Premier. We know that on November 18, the Premier of the day made a Ministerial Statement in this hon. House where he indicated the principles of that agreement. A Ministerial Statement – yet we have one of the members for Labrador, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, who is has so passionately argued for Labrador; we have heard quotes from 1998 up until this present day. She did not know about it; she never read the deal. Dean MacDonald, the Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro who resigned at the time, said the Premier did not read the deal.

Yet, the Member for Bay of Islands stood up on a point of order and said that he read the deal. He was not in Cabinet at the time, but he read the deal. He expressed concerns about overruns today. I said: Well, you were concerned about overruns today, what about back then? That deal would have fallen on overruns, and there was no allowance in the deal for anyone but the ratepayer or taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador to cover the overruns. He did not seem concerned back then that we are aware of.

He is concerned today about the PUB. He did not seem to be concerned back then because the exemption order was granted. He was aware obviously from what he is saying of the negotiations. He appears to have been involved in the negotiations.

How he can stand up today and say what you are doing by directing the PUB, that is awful; but what we were doing by excluding the PUB totally, by exempting the PUB, that is okay. That is the kind of hypocrisy that we hear in this hon. House on a daily basis when it comes to this project.

MR. JOYCE: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Member for Bay of Islands, on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: I just let the Minister of Natural Resources know, as he said before, he never read the deal. Back then the Lower Churchill at the time, it was for export only, not domestic use. Just in case you never had time to read that, I will just inform you of that.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: It is for export only. My understanding again from what I have read – and I have not seen the document. I do not know if their documents exist; it appears to be a fairly secretive deal. Mr. MacDonald read the documents and he said that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador or the members at the time would get $100 million – Newfoundland and Labrador would get $100 million. Quebec would own it; it was a deal worse than the Upper Churchill.

It is for export only, but Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible for the overruns according to what is out there. No engineering has been done, the member for Labrador does not know anything about it, they have exempted the PUB, and now, with no engineering, they expect that the deal is going to be fine.

There are going to be overruns. Who is going to bear the cost of the overruns? It is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This export versus import is simply a red herring. The reality is that this member opposite and the Liberal Party opposite are standing up and saying, how dare you direct the PUB to do something that they agreed last week we could do, but we excluded the PUB, we exempted them.

Mr. Chair, we could have gone under that same order. We could have gone under 5.1. We did not. As we attempt to be open and transparent here, we bring all of this forward and we lay it out here. We have released the federal loan guarantee. We have released sanction agreements. We have released provincial oversight agreements.

What do we have? Let's ask them: What is there? What is out there about the deal that the hon. member opposite was involved in? What is out there? What Vic Young, Judge Igloliorte, and Sister Elizabeth Davis said in their report on Our Place in Confederation, there was very scanty detail. There was very little detail.

What we know, we know from the record in this House that on November 18, when the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair was sitting there, presumably, he announced that the deal was almost done. The deal fell apart because shortly after newspaper reports show that two board members resigned. We have some insight into that as a result of what those two board members have said.

What I would like to say to the Member for Bay of Islands, if you are going to attack us, fair enough, but explain. You explain why you did what you did back then. The message seems to be: Do as we say, don't do as we do.

What we are doing here – and you look at this deal, you look at the amount of detail and information that is available. Not this secretive deal that existed in 2000. Not the secretive deal, Sir that you were okay with. Not the secretive deal that would have allowed for overruns and the people of this Province bearing it. Not the secretive deal that the details were out in the public. Not the secretive deal, Sir, I say to you that excluded the PUB from any involvement. Now, if you want to talk about that, fair enough.

What we have done here, we have reached a compromise. We have not excluded the PUB, as the Member for Bay of Islands did a number of years ago. We are directing the PUB, as we did last week with the generation rate. They seem to be fine with that. We have to recover the cost as outlined in the federal loan guarantee.

As the Member for The Straits – White Bay North said yesterday, we are getting a mere $1 billion for doing this. Essentially, we are just following the lead of the Liberals, improving on it, and saying we are not going to exempt. That would be draconian. That would be too harsh. We are going to direct. They still have a role to play. They look at other aspects of the rates and they will come up with the rate setting.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

MR. JOYCE: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

I wanted to wait for the minister to finish on the point of order. I will just let the minister know that this deal never, ever did happen. It was never a deal because it never, ever happened. You cannot talk about, you heard something that may have happened and attack me personally because I am not doing my job.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Let's talk about the future, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to say, with respect to this particular clause, it needs to be acknowledged here – and members have acknowledged this on this side of the House since the debate began – that the Public Utilities Board exists in part for the purpose of ratepayer protection.

I know the minister has said that rates are going up anyways. If we stay on Holyrood, rates are going up anyways. Rates have been going up. There is no doubt about that. Rates have been going up, but the rates have not been set by Cabinet. This creates an entirely new scenario.

I hear the Minister of Natural Resources say the same thing over and over and over again but that still does not make it a fact. At the beginning of this debate, I do not know if it was the Minister of Natural Resources but somebody on the governing side of the House said leaders lead. That is what leaders do; leaders lead.

I suggest the Progressive Conservative Party has been in power now since 2003 and blaming the Official Opposition for everything you do not like or every challenge, that is not a very good way to lead. This is your bill. This is your legislation. This is your Muskrat Falls plan, so take responsibility for it yourself. Do not blame it on previous governments.

We could sit here all day and all night and blame everything on somebody else. In the end, the individuals who are responsible for the decision that we are going to make either tomorrow or Christmas Eve or whenever it is, are the forty-eight elected members of this Legislature. I guess minus the Chair, the Speaker.

Clause 2 of this bill ensures that government, through Cabinet, has total control of the Public Utilities Board when dealing with the Muskrat Falls Project. The Muskrat Falls Project, as we have discussed, is broadly defined in clause 1 of Bill 61.

We have to remember that the Public Utilities Board mandate states, "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 in the mandate of the Public Utilities Board.

It appears this section of Bill 61 effectively silences the Public utilities Board in that regard, or at least that role which is played by and has been played by the Public Utilities Board to date in the setting of rates. Remember, when there is a request for a rates increase now – and I have never heard of a request for a decrease in rates, certainly not in my lifetime. When there is a request for a change or an increase in rates, the Public Utilities Board holds public hearings.

As it has been pointed out by our colleague for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair at some point in – I am not sure what day it is. I believe it is actually still Thursday, according to the legislative calendar. It has been pointed out the Consumer Advocate plays an important role in advocating for consumer protection in any proposal to increase the rates that people have to pay. That is particularly important because, as we know, individual incomes are often not outstripping the increase. The converse of that is true. That increases in rates can outstrip people's annual increases in income. That is an important point.

Now, move to the new world order after Bill 61 and Muskrat Falls and we do not have public hearings and we do not have a transparent process. We have this process in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council; effectively, in the hands of Cabinet. As we know, the events of the last filibuster – remember the events of the last filibuster? The legislation we passed then had strict allowances for Cabinet confidences.

MS SHEA: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: It is relevant, I say to the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, because the process is entirely different. We moved from an open and transparent process to one that is done behind closed doors. Possibly for good reasons, but we will not know because we cannot know, because legislation prohibits us from knowing. That is an important point.

Why do we have this provision in Bill 61? Why are we proposing to no longer allow the Public Utilities Board to fulfill its existing mandate in the setting of rates and ensuring that any increases and charges are just and reasonable?

Why is that? I will tell you why we think it is the case, primarily. Those who are going to be putting up the money for this – at least not the little over $2 billion that we are putting up, the remaining sum of money – that capital that has to be raised to build this project, to build that massive transmission line all the way down through Labrador, all the way down the Great Northern Peninsula, across Central Newfoundland and out through the isthmus out to Soldiers Pond, the massive amount of capital that has to be raised for that is coming from somewhere.

Those financers, those banks, they have said that this is a condition. This is a condition that has to be set in order to ensure that this project proceeds and the government is able to raise the money or get the money from whoever Nalcor is proposing to get the money from. I guess that is a condition.

I do not like that. I am sure there are a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who do not like that either. The protections that are in place for the setting of rates are now going to be changed. It is all going to be done behind closed doors. Private capital off our shores is telling us that we have to make these changes to ensure that Cabinet is able to set the rates to ensure a particular rate of return to finance the project.

In the technical briefing that we had, it appeared that powers were going to be given over to Cabinet. You may say that they are not severe and draconian, but I would suggest that it is certainly something approaching that.

In the end, to go back to what we said all along, it is the ratepayer, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are financing all of this. We are removing, you are removing, the government is removing, a key protection in allowing this new situation to exist.

We have trust in the Public Utilities Board and its mandate. If the government has lost confidence in the political appointees that you have appointed, the appointees that you have put on there who are running the Public Utilities Board, I am sure you all know skilled and talented, knowledgeable and bright individuals. Recruit them and put them on the Public Utilities Board if you are not confident in the ability of the Public Utilities Board to do its job.

Let the Public Utilities Board do the job, I say, Mr. Chair. Let the Public Utilities Board do the job that it has traditionally done in protecting ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is all we are asking. That is what is wrong with this clause.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again it is a pleasure to get up and continue this debate. As we said previously, the project has been sanctioned. The project was first brought in, in 2010 as a concept. We have had an election on the issue. We debated it for over two years, and we are debating it again every day and, it appears, every night.

The PUB will continue to regulate the rates for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and that was in the Q&A put out at the time of the technical briefing. I was not at that technical briefing, but the PUB will continue to regulate rates, electricity rates for the Province. The PUB will continue to access Hydro's capital cost, their operating costs, and any other costs that are involved in order to determine the utilities revenue, the revenue requirements, and the rates.

As I said earlier, any hydroelectricity project is going to be paid for by the people who use hydroelectricity. Every one of them that we have already operates that way. The rates are set based on the cost – the cost of construction which is tied into the cost of financing, the cost of operation and a guaranteed rate of return on top of that. They are the costs that are used and based on that, the utility company sets the rates and they will continue to do so.

To provide the federal government with the required revenue certainty and to provide the lenders with the required revenue certainty with respect to Muskrat Falls, the Muskrat Falls part of this – because remember, as I said yesterday, the rates people pay in the Province are a blended rate; it is a rate from all of the different hydroelectricity projects that exist on the Island. There is the rate, the very expensive rate, the most expensive rate in the Province, from Holyrood, the thermal generating facility – I think I said fifteen the other day. The rates are eighteen to twenty cents. That is the most expensive power that is being produced in Newfoundland and Labrador that the people pay; it is included in that blended rate.

As I said many times in this House, because at Holyrood they are making electricity because they are burning oil, it is the most expensive way of burning oil, and that is what has been driving up people's rates over the last ten years.

We want to stop that. We also need new power. We need new power on the Island; we need new power in Labrador. We want to make sure that the way we provide that power is the least possible cost and the fairest rates to the people of the Province.

The amendments that we have brought forward and the amendment that the hon. member is referring to are amendments to provide government with the authority to direct the PUB. The PUB will still be involved, but the direction is to include all the project costs related to Muskrat Falls, Muskrat Falls being only one input into the overall rates. The PUB will continue to fulfill its mandate with respect to setting capital budgets, setting rates for utilities, and its other regulatory roles.

We are removing something from the PUB. We have the authority to direct the PUB. The Cabinet will direct the PUB to accept project costs for inclusion in electricity rates for the Province. Lenders require certainty that Hydro will be able to recover all the project costs, like in every other electricity project, including debt repayment. This precludes the ability of the PUB to either allow or disallow project costs. Government has the right to direct the PUB to accept project costs of the Muskrat Falls.

We are not excluding the PUB. The amendment will allow the government to direct the PUB to include project costs as one of the many inputs that go into the PUB establishing the rates charged to customers. This is the insurance the lenders need and this is what is going to get us a guarantee from the federal government, which will save the consumers of the Province $1 billion.

Mr. Chair, the Member for Bay of Islands expressed concern about the PUB being excluded. As I said, they are not being excluded. Our right is to direct them. You have to look at the Public Utilities Act. I think it is section 70 or maybe section 82 of the Public Utilities Act which gives the public utility the right to establish rates.

Of course, we are reserving in this legislation the right to direct the PUB – not exempt the PUB – to accept in the determination of rates the project costs for Muskrat Falls. The Member for Bay of Islands said the difference here, when he was questioned as to why he would support the exemption of the PUB back in that previous project but object to it now, was because that project was for power that was being exported down into Quebec rather than used domestically.

Mr. Chair, I have the order here, the Labrador Hydro Project Exemption Order, which states: "Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is exempt from the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 and the Public Utilities Act for all aspects of its activities pertaining to the Labrador Hydro Project…". So, the Labrador Hydro Project was exempt. When you look at the order, when you define the Labrador Hydro Project, it means, and I am paraphrasing here, the design and construction of some or all of the generation facility that was planned at Churchill Falls, of the generation facility at Gull Island, and for the generation and related facilities of Muskrat Falls. This is the interesting part: the transmission facilities necessary to deliver power generated at the sites referred to, those three sites, Churchill Falls, Gull Island, and Muskrat Falls, to the Island portion of the Province. So if it was being exempted for power to come to the Island portion of the Province, obviously that is not for export.

So, Mr. Chair, you cannot on the one hand say they should not be exempt when they are doing it, and then say they should not be exempt when we are doing it. You cannot have it both ways. It has to be the same; it has to be fair.

So, Mr. Chair, as I said before, we have a major goal of providing the cheapest rates possible to the people of the Island. That is the objective. The Upper Churchill Project was to sell the power to others. I keep saying that this project is for us; this project is for the people of the Province. This project initially was to find a project that will provide the needed power on the Island to get rid of Holyrood and to provide power in Labrador at the cheapest possible cost to the consumer. That is option number one. That is what this project does and $2.4 billion difference in cost. That is a lot of money. Included in that is the federal loan guarantee, which is about $1 billion dollars.

The revenue stream, the rates that will be charged, will cover the cost. They will cover the cost of building the project. The people will pay the cost of building the project. Then the money will go and provide the power that will provide stable and fair rates to the people of the Province and will stop providing electricity burnt on oil. When it started at Holyrood in 1972 it was $3 a barrel. Today it is $87 or $88 a barrel. What is it going to be twenty years from now? PIRA and the experts say they know long-term the rate is going up. In the short term, it could be anything, up and down, and volatile, but long-term, it is certainly going to go up.

So, the rates that people pay will cover that power, which is the lowest-cost available power. The money goes into Nalcor. Nalcor pays its financing. They pay a dividend to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which will then pay off any financing it has to take out for its equity contribution. Then all the money that is left will go back to the ratepayers. It will go back to the people of the Province, rather than going off to shareholders in a private company. So the people will get the money back. They will pay for power, but they will pay for the lowest alternative that is there. Then after it is paid for all the money will go back to the people, and it will be as the government of the day decides.

Who knows who is going to be the government in 2017? Who knows who is going to be the government in 2020 or 2030? They will make the decision. It is certainly a valid point to say put it back into the rates and our government has done that. There have been times when we have put money into Nalcor and put money into Hydro so they do not have to seek a rate increase. We have done that on a number of occasions.

Mr. Chair, the government of the day may find other topics that are of a higher priority. Maybe they want to build hospitals. I would like to see a hospital built. The Member for Bay of Islands would like to see a hospital built. The Leader of the Opposition would like to see a hospital built.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. MARSHALL: You can guess which one. Maybe it is something else, but at least the money goes back to the people. The project provides them with the cheapest electricity that can possibly be available of all the options. It goes back to the people on the other end. It is a great project, Mr. Chair – a great project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to respond or make a few comments on what has been said so far. First of all, speaking to clause 2, in response to clause 2 we got a little bit of a history lesson, too, so I would like to respond to that. Number one, obviously that was before most members' time. There is no question we all can learn a lot from our history. It has been my understanding that the development of the Lower Churchill back in the 1990s and early 2000s was more along the lines of economic development and, of course, for export power, which was really a very different deal, Mr. Chair.

One of the things I will want to respond to though is that we have had a number of experts. We have had a number of people who have been quoted over the last number of months, people who actually support the project and some other people who may not support the project. I just want to respond to this just for a few minutes.

The minister quoted and referred to the chair of Newfoundland Hydro back around 2000. In speaking about the chair at that time, of course, that was Dean MacDonald. Now, it is fine to say that, and Mr. MacDonald is on record as being opposed to the previous deal that was being negotiated by the Grimes government. I have no idea; I have not seen that. What I do know, however, is that, yes, indeed that did cause him at the time to resign, as other board members of the day did resign.

If you want to add balance to that and you wanted to say, in this particular case, how would the same chair, or how would the same Dean MacDonald if we want to use him as an example, feel about this particular deal, for instance? He has been in the news even just as late as the last few days talking about this particular deal. As a matter of fact, I can actually read this quote that was on a blog by a blogger who has been quoted in this House a number of times over the last two weeks.

He goes on to say, "It was a decade ago and a different deal. One bad process doesn't excuse another. [It's] lame. We lack leadership." He went on to say in the same interview with this particular blogger, and these are his words, "The Tories would be well advised to not engage me [because] if I go after their mismanagement of Muskrat Falls… look out." These are his words and this is this week.

So I think we all need to be careful when we go back into the past and we actually quote somebody. It is very obvious that in both of those particular deals, I do not think, by listening to his comments there – and I know we are getting off clause 2, but I just wanted to respond to that.

The other thing I want to talk about is just as the minister mentioned about the overruns and the overruns in the deal back on the previous Lower Churchill deal. In this particular case here, we are responsible for the overruns as well. As a matter of fact, we are responsible for the overruns on the Maritime Link. We will share that fifty-fifty.

It is simple to say that we do not bear the risk of overruns in a project back in the year 2002, whenever this deal was being proposed, and to try and separate the point that we are not responsible for the overruns. We are. I think many members have spoken about the risk that is associated with overruns. We have about $730 million in this particular project associated with overruns and cost escalation. If you look around, and we have made this quite clear, all of the mega projects that we see this day and age have associated cost overruns.

In this particular case, if you have a $7.7 billion deal with $730 million of cost overruns associated, regardless of how much engineering you have done – and at Decision Gate 3 I am of the understanding we have about just in excess of 50 per cent of the engineering done. I am quoting now the officials at Nalcor. This is what we have been told. At Decision Gate 2 it was around 15 per cent; Decision Gate 3 was around 50 per cent. Yet here we are with less than 10 per cent cost overrun for this project. That is really low. All you need to do is look at Vale Inco and others. Mr. Chair, this is just some response to what we have seen already.

I just really want to go back to clause 2 again and around the certainty of the federal loan guarantee needing this revenue stream. That is not what we are talking about here. The certainty around the revenue stream for the loan guarantee, we are okay with that. That needs to happen. The non-recourse financing, I have said it, is a good thing. I understand that, it is the proper thing to do.

What we are saying is this particular project was never designed for the ratepayers of the Province. What it was designed to be – and it has been said many times, it has been said even in the preambles here today – it was meant to satisfy a demand. In this particular case, what we are seeing is the investment in the project that will create a dividend.

Yes, the minister talks about building hospitals, that we can build roads, we can buy fire trucks and all those sorts of things. These are good things too, but this particular project was not designed to be building hospitals, bridges, and buying fire trucks. It was designed to put a stable rate in place, a reliable electricity system in place. That is what it was designed to do.

It was not an investment that over the life of the project we would get $20 billion that we can go and spend for other things. It was designed to put a reliable electricity grid in place, and it does that. The reports are saying that. The project is now sanctioned and we move on.

What we need to do now is talk about, in this particular case, the $24 billion that is in – if it is $24 billion.

MR. MARSHALL: Twenty.

MR. BALL: I will use $20 billion, as the Minister of Finance said. We can use $10 billion for that matter. It really would not matter. What we are saying, there is a power purchase agreement that is designed to cover the cost but somewhere in this here, there is a return on the equity. The return on the equity comes from one place. It comes from the ratepayers of the Province who pay their utility bills and their electricity bills every month.

What we are saying is if you are making money off that particular project, well the profit that is made from it should go back to the source. The source of it is the ratepayer. I am not even suggesting, in this particular case, that if someone is making $200,000 a year they should get the same benefit of that.

We have people who walk into our MHAs office's every year waiting for the home rebate program. Well, I could see this. I would use the word almost like a home rebate program on steroids, that people would get a benefit for this. I understand we have over 60,000 people who have taken advantage of the home rebate program this year.

This is the kind of concept that we are talking about here. We cannot simply say that option two says the rate should be thirty cents and option one, which in this particular case is Muskrat Falls, is at twenty cents. Because option two is at thirty, well we can charge thirty anyway.

That is like walking into a supermarket, you are looking at something on the shelf there, and the only competitor in town says it is $10. You go next door and they normally charge $8. The only competitor in town says it is $10, so we can go change our prices. People would not accept that, Mr. Chair. That is not what people would expect.

That is what we are talking about here. The ratepayers of this Province are paying for the investment in this. What we are suggesting here is the money that is made on behalf of the ratepayers, made from the backs of the ratepayers, should go back into getting the rates even lower in this particular case.

This is the concept that we are talking about here. The overruns, the people of this Province are still responsible for that. We know that. No matter which deal you are talking about, the overruns, we still have to be responsible for that.

The lowest-cost alternative should be the lowest-cost price. In this particular case, to say that you can charge an extra amount of money simply because option two was higher, that is not usually the way it works in business. We have all kinds of experience in members opposite, no matter what their profession would be, simply because your next price – that is not what sets the bar. You look at your cost of service. You say how much does the project cost? How much per kilowatt hour did it cost?

It says here you could get an acceptable rate of return. That is fine, we understand that concept. What we are saying is the amount of money that is made on the sale of this power, there needs to be a mechanism that the money would feed back in to offset rates.

With that said, Mr. Chair, I will take my chair and look forward to the response.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

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

A couple of the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition are certainly valid points and ones I would like to comment on. One, he talked about the overruns. It is obviously something we are concerned about. It is one of the reasons that Nalcor has done such extensive engineering work at the Decision Gate 3 phase, is to try to assess and reduce, to mitigate risk, because we know we cannot eliminate it.

I think also, the member opposite has to recognize that in any project there are going to be overruns. What you are looking at is that the principle is going to be the same, so let's choose the cheaper project. The cheaper project in this case – and all I can say to you is we have had study after study done. The cheaper project by $2.4 billion is Muskrat Falls. The next closest is Holyrood at $10.8 billion.

Then we move into the importation of natural gas, an LNG facility going around $10.7 billion to $11.2 billion. We move up then into wind. We move into stand-alone gas producing facilities on the offshore. At the end of the day, they range from $8.4 billion with Muskrat Falls to $17 billion with wind, in one of the scenarios. So, Muskrat Falls is the cheapest option.

Again, let's put all that aside for a second. From a logical perspective, come back to the most basic question: Do we need power? If we need power we have to do something. It is not an option to sit here knowing that it takes four to five years to plan a major project. It is not enough to sit here and say, well put it off.

All indications are by 2014, the power that was available from the shutting down of the mills, which is approximately 182 megawatts of energy, 40 per cent had been used by 2011. Vale Inco will come on-line needing eighty-five to ninety megawatts of energy. We will have all of that energy used by 2014-2015. Then that means Holyrood will have to be using more than the 15 per cent to 25 per cent that it is using today, which means the cost of electricity will go up with the price of oil.

So, to me, the first step is we need the power; two, Muskrat Falls is the lowest-cost alternative; and three, when do we need the power? We need it now. Then we get into the most basic point, are the rates.

What I find interesting – again, I notice the Leader of the Opposition did not address the argument here that they put forward in the past, that the Lower Churchill project that was exempt by the Liberals is an export project. The exemption order clearly states that it relates to delivering power to the Island, too. So, it is also an exemption for import.

What we are doing here, we are not excluding the PUB. We are doing the same thing that we did, and we are not doing what you did. We are not exempting the PUB. We could have followed this order. We did not have to bring in legislation. We could have used 5.1 as it exists. We did not do that. We chose to come forward to allow debate. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of what the PUB is doing.

Last week, the Liberals – I am not sure of the NDP, I am never sure of the NDP, what their position is – but the Liberals last week indicated that they supported the industrial rates policy. In that we amended section 5.1 to allow us to direct the PUB on generation rates.

What we are doing here with Muskrat Falls is we are saying that we are directing the PUB. They will be told to accept all Muskrat Falls as an input into setting final customer rates. They will have to take into account the other electricity in the Province, the cost of other electricity, and then they will set the electricity rates. We are not setting the electricity rates. We are just asking the PUB to accept one component of the final customer rate.

Now, I hear the minister – I have elevated you, Dwight. I have elevated the Leader of the Opposition; sorry. I have heard him say today – and we know there are going to be revenues generated. I have to quote the Minister of Finance on this one because I think it says it all. He says: What we are doing we are getting the cheapest power and the money comes back to the people as opposed to the more expensive power and the money going to oil companies.

That is what we are doing here. How can anyone argue with such a logical proposition? As opposed to sending $6 billion to oil companies, we are taking that $6 billion and we are building a revenue-generating asset that our children and grandchildren will have forever and that will produce revenue.

If we refurbish Holyrood, there will be no industrial mining, or not as much as we want it to be because there will be smaller projects that will have to be developed. We will not have that connection and we will be paying the oil companies. We will be subject to the volatility of fossil fuel. We are taking that $6 billion and we are giving it back to our own people because people have to pay electricity rates. That is the bottom line. You are not going to get away with not paying an electricity bill. As cheap as power gets, it is probably in Labrador at 3.6 cents.

I want to talk about the revenues. This is where it is interesting. The Leader of the Opposition is saying: Look, maybe target some groups. The Member for Bay of Islands said: Put it all back and give it to everyone. I stood on my feet two or three times today and I said: I do not want to be subsidized for electricity rates. I would prefer to see the senior down the road, I would prefer to see my eighty-year-old father, and I would prefer to see the single mother and the average middle-class family as opposed to people making $100,000 or $200,000 a year.

Then there is nothing saying we cannot select or target certain groups. In fact, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: We are doing that now – we are doing that now. We, in Budget 2010, eliminated the HST on electricity and everything else – home heating – which was $40 million. We have a Home Heating Rebate that is $11 million to $15 million. I am not sure of the exact amount. The ratepayer of this Province, the ratepayer of the Island, is directly subsidizing cheaper rates for the Coast of Labrador and diesel rates to the tune of $40 million. We are already subsidizing.

That is something that is not new to this government. It is not inconceivable to continue, with any government. If you have $100 million, why would you take that $100 million – when people are getting the cheapest rates by 2017, they will be some of the cheapest rates in the country – and give that all back to them when the financial situation of the Province may require hospitals, social programs, poverty reduction issues, education issues?

What we are saying is that the government of the day can determine we will have a seniors' program that we will put some of the revenues back and reduce rates. We will also then continue our social programs; we will build hospitals and schools. That is all we are suggesting here. We know there are going to be revenues and we are saying the government of the day should determine it.

If we had that money and had to make a decision today, it becomes easier, especially in times of deficit. I do not think we are that far off here. It is just understanding the role of the PUB. We are not excluding them like you did. What we are doing is we are directing them like we did last week, and you agreed with. We are saying to them consider the Muskrat Falls costs, because you need to do that in order for us to get financing, but more specifically to get – I think it is the line of the session – the mere $1 billion that the loan guarantee is bringing to us.

That $1 billion goes directly into the rates. It is reducing people's rates. Included in the rates of the 15.1 cents or that $231 that we project in 2017 are the capital costs, the operating and maintenance, the cost of financing, the cost of Newfoundland Power's distribution, and the rate of return. The rate of return is approximately 8.4 per cent and that will allow for a prosperous future.

If we were not getting cheap rates, if we were not going to continue to have cheap rates, then certainly what the Opposition is suggesting would be considered. Let us just ask ourselves this question. We bring in this policy today. We put in this amendment, which we know cannot work, just to get some political brownie points. What is going to happen there? We are tying the hands of a future government. Whether it is us or you, then what we are left with is a situation where we are saying to the people, to the government, you have to do something. That is not fair. There are good standards in place.

I would suggest that what we are doing here is what is necessary to secure that mere $1 billion and to ensure that people get the cheapest rates possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Littlejohn): The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to speak to clause 2 of this bill. Mr. Chair, I listened very attentively to what the minister was saying. He certainly sees any amendment with regard to reinvesting the profits of the Muskrat Falls Project back to offset the rates for consumers in this Province as tying the hands of future governments.

Mr. Chair, I would ask him to continue to read through the legislation that he has introduced in the House of Assembly because he is tying the hands of every government in the future in this bill to the process, the new process of the Public Utilities Board, but he is tying them to a monopoly situation on power development in this Province.

I ask him to read very closely his own legislation before he starts talking with regard to who is tying whose hands in government, Mr. Chair, because they are the ones who are actually doing that by the legislation that they have introduced today.

Mr. Chair, the reason that we have proposed this amendment and will propose another amendment similar to this in a few minutes is because we feel very strongly that the customers in Newfoundland and Labrador, the consumers of electricity, who are going to pay 100 per cent of the cost of the Muskrat Falls Project should indeed receive 100 per cent of the benefits, not 40 per cent, Mr. Chair.

They are going to consume 40 per cent of the electricity but pay for 100 per cent of it. That does not equal the fairness in my opinion. In addition to that, Mr. Chair, what do we know already? We know that there is going to be a profit of $24 billion on the Muskrat Falls Project over the life of it. We know, Mr. Chair, there will be a $24 billion profit over the life of the project.

Where does that profit come from? Well, $20 billion of it comes out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; $4 billion of it comes from export energy.

Let's break that down for a minute now, Mr. Chair, and then you will understand the rationale of where we are coming from. Let's look at it this way. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to connect into the grid, they are going to turn on their lights, they are going to get electricity – 40 per cent of the electricity that is being generated by Muskrat Falls – and they are going to pay to the government $20 billion in profit for that to Nalcor – $20 billion in profit.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, the government is going to take the equal amount of power, 40 per cent, completely equal amount, and they are going to export it. When they export that 40 per cent, they are only going to get a return of $4 billion over the life of the project.

Here it is, Mr. Chair, you have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are going to contribute to a $20 billion profit for Nalcor on this project, they are going to export the same amount of power, they are going to get a $4 billion return in profit, and they think that is fair.

What we are saying is this: Instead of costing the ratepayer more, let's offset some of their cost. Instead of the ratepayer having to pay for the project, 100 per cent of the project, plus $20 billion in profits to Nalcor, why don't you give the consumer a break? Give the consumer a break. That is what we are saying to the government. You have the ability within this project to do so.

I have listened to the minister and I have listened to the Premier when they have stood in the House and they have said: We need that money. We need that money to do other things. What are we going to do other things with in the Province, Mr. Chair? What are we going to use? Well, we know they are not going to use oil and gas because we are running out of production in oil and gas and our revenues are dropping, not increasing; but, Mr. Chair, they are saying we need to use it.

This is the same government, Mr. Chair, that stood in this House and made more speeches about previous governments taking dividends out of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro than anyone I have ever seen in my life. Now, Mr. Chair, their speeches are all about taking dividends out of Nalcor, dividends that are going to come right out the pockets and bank accounts of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians – absolutely, Mr. Chair.

This is the same government – I listened to it day after day, Mr. Chair – when they came into power, got up every day ranting about how the government took dividends out of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and they built schools with it, hospitals with it and roads with it.

Well, Mr. Chair, they are bringing in a piece of legislation today that is going to make it law that they do that, make it law that we take all of the profits from Nalcor. That is what clause 2 of the bill does. It gives the government the opportunity, Mr. Chair, to take $20 billion in profit through Nalcor out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Mr. Chair, that is what this does. It does not allow to give anything back to help offset the consumer. It gives nothing back to offset the consumers' rate of power. That is where we have the problem.

Mr. Chair, if we were looking at a project here today that was not going to make any money ever – and I hope that we are going to see the $24 billion in profits. I certainly hope so, Mr. Chair. My fear is what the overrun costs are going to be and what we are going to incur before this is all over. Hopefully within fifty years, even if it is in the last five years of the project, we will get that return, at least that much or greater.

Mr. Chair, it is like this: we are saying to the government today that we want you to offset the rates to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You are asking the people of this Province to sign on to the largest debt in our history. You are asking them to dig deeper than they have ever done, to pay for electricity, in their lives in this Province. You know that you are doing it at a time when the annual average income of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is not growing at a rapid rate. In fact, Mr. Chair, our population is aging. In aging, Mr. Chair, we have more people on fixed incomes than we have had before. That is a different debate for a different day.

The minister talked about if we do this we are already putting subsidies into residential customers in Labrador now. Absolutely you are, and we welcome it. We think it is a good thing. We are encouraging the government to make good on their promise to put it into the commercial customers as well. We believe, Mr. Chair, that is a real precedent for the people of this Province when their utility can earn money and be reinvested back into them so that they do not have to pay out every last dime that they have to try to get hydro power in this Province.

Mr. Chair, because of that we are moving the following amendment. Mr. Chair, I move, seconded by the Member for Humber Valley, that the proposed section 5.1 in clause 2 be amended by adding immediately after subsection (2).(g) the following: (2).(h) the Lieutenant-Governor in Council in its direction to the Public Utilities Board shall include a direction to use all revenues in excess of expenses from the Muskrat Falls Project to reduce electrical rates in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is the amendment, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, we will move a recess.

This House is in recess to consider the proposed amendment.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

The Speaker has considered the amendment and, after consideration, the amendment is not in order.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Chair, I would like to speak for a few minutes to clause 2. We are still on clause 2. Of course, clause 2 speaks primarily about a number of things that can be done, including policies, procedures and directives respecting a lot of the activity around the Muskrat Falls Project.

The concern we have been raising here with the Muskrat Falls Project, once the project is sanctioned and approved – once the project is completed in the anticipated time, or the scheduled time being around 2017. The point we are trying to make, Mr. Chair, in this particular case is trying to find a way, when the project is completed, what to do with the excess revenues.

The comments we have heard so far would be primarily around focusing the extra revenue around other ways to use the money in the Province. Of course, our position has been clearly identified right now. We have clearly said our position would be to reinvest some of that back in to offset rates for the people who have paid for this return, for these surpluses that are generated. This is really no different than you would actually see.

It is not as if the surpluses were going to be reinvested back into the utility itself to make things more efficient or whatever, even more energy efficient programs. What we are talking about here is if this $20 billion is not invested back into the rates for the people of the Province well then some government, whatever the government is, some future government will then determine where this money will be spent.

Our position clearly, as we said, there needs to be a mechanism similar to what we seen with the Home Heating Rebate, where we would use this money to offset the rates for the ratepayers. In actual fact, when you think about it, you can make an argument that something like this would put more money back into the people of the Province, because they paid for it. This is their return. This is the investment that they have made. They have accepted the risk here, Mr. Chair.

When you accept the risk here in this particular government, through the borrowing, it is actually us, the people of the Province, who have accepted the risk here. The ratepayers of the Province, I might add, once they have accepted the risk they now will be charged rates that are over and above what would be a regular rate of return for the utility. It is really over and above what you would need to recover your cost. This, indeed, is money in. As I said earlier today, a lot of people would frame this up and define this to be no different than a utility tax.

This is our position on this. This is the way we define this project. As I said, our position would be to see some of this money go back in to offset – as a matter of fact, this would not only stabilize the rates but what this would do is lower rates for the people of the Province. Maybe we would be even proud to stand up say, if everything went as government is saying it will go with the Muskrat Falls Project – then we would be able to boast and say we have probably the lowest rates around, who knows, Mr. Chair.

We have had significant debate on this. We have talked about past developments of the Lower Churchill but I think the focus here clearly needs to be what we do in the future. Because we all know the revenue stream that we talked about here has been really to meet a condition of the federal loan guarantee. The federal loan guarantee clearly says what you need is a certainty in a revenue stream that would offset the payment. This does this.

Indeed, what it does is it creates more money. Of course, the extra money comes from one source. That is the domestic ratepayers and the commercial ratepayers – not the industrial ratepayers, but the domestic ratepayers of the Province and the commercial ratepayers.

We all know, too, that when you look at the two areas – the 40 per cent for domestic and commercial rate on-Island, the 20 per cent that will be used for Emera, and 40 per cent that would be used for either export or the industrial use. We all know the real money made on the project – we expect it to be probably five times more – would come from the ratepayers in the Province. We know the export option, and even with the industrial users, we already know now through a number of our discussions, that we cannot have and we would not recover the same type of money.

I agree with the fact, we cannot just let this power be wasted. We have to find, even if it is – and it will be, as we know in today's world, sold at much lower prices. We know that. That is the competition that exists. Unfortunately, because we are an Island we do not have the number of opportunities available to us or number of options available to us to access power like the spot market power that would be as inexpensive.

So, this is box we are in. When you really look at it and you compare it to the types of developments that we have had in the past in other provinces and other jurisdictions, simply because of our location and our geography Muskrat Falls power, when you compare the two, is expensive power. That is just the way it is and the environment we live in.

If there is an opportunity, as government is saying there is, if there is an opportunity to create extra revenue from this well then our position would be that this extra money should go back to where it sourced. The source here is the ratepayers, both the domestic ratepayers and the commercial ratepayers as well. If that is the source, if they are taking the risk, they are making that upfront payment. Then our position would be, what we should do with those extra monies is find a way to get that back to the source, get that back to the people who have paid the freight on this, the people who have made the investment, have taken the risk, and, of course, that is the ratepayers.

Government argues that what they would want to do is use this revenue for others things, things that are not associated with electricity. These are more infrastructure programs. Typically, what we have used is our surpluses; when we have enjoyed surpluses. Obviously, we are now into a very different situation and the volatility is different. The Muskrat Falls Project, by its very definition, from what we have been told will generate about $20 billion over the life of the project. Our position is this $20 billion should find its way back to the source, the source being the ratepayers of the Province.

This is the reason why we are discussing the amendments. It is simply because it is the ratepayers who have assumed the risk, all the risk in the project here, through a power purchase agreement. I believe – I have no problem at all, we have said this – the utility should get an annual rate of return because it needs that. It needs that to create the certainty within the corporation itself.

I understand the federal loan guarantee determines this. We never want to see the federal loan guarantee triggered. That would not be a happy day for anybody in this Province. Therefore, we understand that the revenue stream needs certainty. We understand the utility needs a degree of reinvestment so we can get reliable energy services or electricity services for all our generations.

One thing about the reinvestment of the excess revenue, the money that is made, the return on this investment, what it does then is it actually puts the current ratepayer, the people who are paying, the ratepayers that pay their bills every month, what it is that the current generation would get the benefit of that and each and every year, each and every generation following, the people who actually made the investment, paying their light bills, they would get the benefit of the reduced and stable rates.

This is the position that we have taken. This is the reason why we are making the number of amendments that we have made. We feel that any surplus revenue that comes from this particular project should go back to the ratepayer of the Province, as I said, this being the source.

Mr. Chair, I will finish up my comments on this particular clause right now. I will sit, take direction, and listen to the response from the members opposite or my colleagues in the Opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

I am happy to have an opportunity to speak once more to clause 2. I see this as probably the last time I will speak to it, but one never knows; however, I did not want to let this opportunity pass without making some more comments with regard to clause 2.

I hear what the Minister of Finance has had to say and I hear what the Minister of Natural Resources has had to say, but the bottom line with regard to this clause is that it does leave the power – excuse the pun – for authority or the authority with regard to the role of the PUB, vis-à-vis Muskrat Falls Project, in the hands of government, in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

I spoke to this early this morning sometime with regard to the use of the word "may" in the clause, that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the Public Utilities Board. It gives the permission to it. It says the government could do it, but it does not mean that it will happen. I maintain that, in and of itself, is the flaw in the clause. Yes, everything that is in the clause is great, the things that the government may direct the PUB to do, but it is all still in the hands of the government.

What bothers me is the way in which government is setting itself up to use the Crown corporation. It is interesting, I note sometime during our discussion one of the ministers made reference to our party and our position in this discussion, pointing out that we were taking a position against a Crown corporation and we would be the party you would think would be for a Crown corporation.

I am for a Crown corporation, absolutely. We fought as a party to make sure Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remained a Crown corporation back in 1992 when the government of the day was going to try to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I would do anything in my power to make sure our Crown corporation, our utility, would remain in our hands.

That is why I am concerned about the loopholes I see with regard to the Muskrat Falls Project down the road because of clauses in this bill and clauses in the loan guarantee, which open the door to the potential for Muskrat Falls Project, for example, to be privatized. I think that would be horrendous. I absolutely believe in having a Crown corporation, especially when it is dealing with something like our utilities.

I do not think a government should see the Crown corporation as an opportunity for control. That is my problem. If we have a Crown corporation we should want our Crown corporation to be a model corporation. One of the things I would want would be that our Crown corporation would behave in the way that is described in clause 2 in terms of what the Public Utilities Board would do with regard to the Muskrat Falls Project in developing the policies, procedures, et cetera.

I would want a corporation that listens to people. That should be the hallmark of a Crown corporation. I would want a corporation that holds consultations. I would want a corporation that knows the voice of the community is extremely important because the community actual owns the corporation, which the government side has been pointing out and which I am totally aware of. If they really believe the people of the Province own the corporation, own Nalcor, and own Muskrat Falls Project, then I would like see that.

It is not only that government may direct the Public Utilities Board, but that government would absolutely direct the Public Utilities Board. The Public Utilities Board should be the body that is engaged with the Muskrat Falls Project in developing the policies, procedures, and directives in regard to everything that relates to the project. That is what all of the points under paragraph 2 talks to. I am not going to go into all of that. That is everything from how they conduct themselves in terms of making policies, as I said, holding hearings, et cetera, right through to the setting of rates. The government should be having a process that is open and transparent with our Crown corporation. This is the major problem with this bill, is the total monopoly that is being created and all in the power of government.

The people of the Province cannot be expected to just say: Oh, we trust government. Of course, we cannot ask them to do that. I would like to think that governments are always there for the good; I am sure they are. There are times government does not always make the right decisions. When it comes to a utility, that is what the Public Utilities Board is about, being there to protect the interests of the people, and when the people own the utility, all the more reason why it should be there to protect the interests of the people.

I find some of the comments that have been made in the explanation by some of the ministers with regard to this clause to be somewhat disingenuous because of the word may. If the word "may" were not there it would be fine, but it is leaving the decision in the hands of government. It may direct, and if it does not, there is nothing to say that they should. It is the word may.

As I said I think that a Crown corporation should be a model of what a corporation should be. One of the things about corporations that we expect in today's society is that they are good neighbours, and that they operate well in the community. A corporation, especially one like a utility corporation, interacts with community, interacts with municipalities, and interacts with not-for-profit groups and building up a good relationship with them.

That is what we expect from a corporation. That is what we hopefully would want from our Crown corporation. One of the ways to do that certainly would be by being totally open at all times through a process that would include interaction, would include hearings, would include being able to get full information about the corporation itself, that people would always be able to access information.

People in this Province, if they own Nalcor and if they own the Muskrat Falls Project, then they should be able to always get all of the information that will be available; however, we know because of a bill that was passed in this House last spring, Bill 29, also passed at the end of what at that time was the longest filibuster on record - I presume now the one we are in is going to be the longest filibuster on record - that bill, with the provisions that are in it, will mean that I as a taxpayer and as an owner of this Crown corporation will not be able to access any information about my Crown corporation that may at any time have been relayed to the Cabinet, for example.

That does not even get at the whole thing of the legislation for Nalcor itself, which protects Nalcor. Government is going around telling us here in the House and telling the people: it is your company, it is your company, and it is your company. They are doing everything in its power to keep us from having access to our company.

So that is a problem; that is a major problem with this bill. There are other problems with this bill and they all do have to do, though, with the whole monopoly issue. As my colleague from The Straits – White Bay North has dubbed this bill, this is the monopoly bill. It will be no surprise that we will not find it possible to vote for this bill because of this whole notion of monopoly that has been created.

I am happy to have the opportunity to make probably my final point with regard to this. I know government does not agree with what I am saying. I have heard what the minister has said, but the fact is and the bottom line is it leaves the ultimate decision making in the hands of government of whether or not it does give direction, when it gives direction, and if it gives direction. That is the problem.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have a few words with regard to clause 2 of the bill. We have put forward two attempts to make an amendment under clause 2. I think we are finally getting it straightened out in terms of the context of the wording.

I think every day I am in this House I learn something a little bit different, Mr. Chair. I have just learned that you cannot compel the Lieutenant-Governor and Cabinet to do something, so the shall should be may. Sometimes we learn lessons and as a former Premier in this House used to say: Words are very important. They are certainly very important in legislation and in interpreting the context of that legislation and the scope of it.

Mr. Chair, what we are doing is trying to amend one clause of the bill in Committee to propose an amendment that would basically see any profits and revenues that are generated as a part of the Muskrat Falls Project returned to offset the rates for consumers in the Province. That is basically the premise upon which we have been moving that particular clause of the bill and that particular amendment of the bill.

Mr. Chair, under clause 2 it looks at a couple of things. One, it looks at how "…the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the public utilities board to implement policies, procedures and directives respecting the exercise of powers and the performance of the duties of the public utilities board under this Act… including policies, procedures and directives respecting (a) the costs, expenses and allowances that are to be included in the rates, tolls and charges approved for a public utility, and the terms of that inclusion…". In fact, Mr. Chair, to summarize what it means, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under this clause will decide what rate consumers should pay in the Province. They will actually set the rates for power and then they will direct the Public Utilities Board to implement those rates.

Mr. Chair, until now the process in this Province had been for the Public Utilities Board to look at a number of inputs in terms of what the cost is of providing electricity to consumers in the Province and look at what is a reasonable rate of return for the providers. The rates are normally set based on those particular inputs and provisions. Now, Mr. Chair, the government is removing that independent process and that process of fairness. They are basically going ahead and telling the Public Utilities Board what the rates should be.

They are going to decide what someone down in Bonavista pays for electricity. They are going to decide what someone in Mount Pearl pays, someone in St. John's, and someone out in Ferryland, Mr. Chair. Then they are going to tell the Public Utilities Board what rate to implement. That is what this is looking at.

Mr. Chair, a week ago we brought a resolution into the House of Assembly asking government to support an independent process for the setting of rates in the Province. They amended it, Mr. Chair, to say they would support it as long as it was in compliance with federal and provincial laws, and that was fine with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: I remind members that they are not supposed to refer to people in the galleries.

MS JONES: What they are doing today now is changing that law. That is what clause 2 under Bill 61 is actually doing; it is changing that law.

The other thing it does, Mr. Chair, is outline "…the criteria to be applied by the public utilities board for the approval or confirmation of an approval by the public utilities board…." It also, Mr. Chair, gives directive respecting "…the annual rate of return of a public utility…." So they can decide how much Nalcor should make, how much they should not make, and how much their subsideries should make.

They can decide "…whether or not a hearing shall be held…." As you know right now with the Public Utilities Board there are often hearings that are ongoing. We have the Consumer Advocate who goes in to represent the consumers in this Province at those hearings, outlines our case, and makes a case for fair rates for the consumers of the Province and the utility providers, whether it is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or Newfoundland Light and Power, Mr. Chair. They then make an appeal on their own behalf for rates.

That is the process. It is a public process. I have been a part of public hearings for utilities on a number of occasions in this Province. I think I have probably presented four or five times at the Public Utilities Board as an MHA representing my constituents when there has been rate hearings regarding the customers in my district. The government now will have the responsibility to give directive as to whether or not those hearings should be held.

As well, Mr. Chair, if hearings are being held they can also decide when those hearings stop, when they are terminated or suspended. That is certainly a lot of power and control, in particular if you give the order that you are going to hold public hearings and then you still have the ability after you say that to go out and terminate them. It is certainly not a process we have ever been familiar with or practised in this Province, so that will be all-new.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, there are some other provisions in here which are noteworthy. One is "…the parameters, criteria and timing of the exercise or restraint from exercise of a power or performance of a duty of the public utilities board under this act." Basically, they can control everything they do. They have the power and the ability to put any kind of restraint there. They have the ability to basically define the parameters of which the Public Utilities Board would do any work around the Muskrat Falls process. As I said, these are all amendments, changes with regard to the act in order for government to continue to control this Muskrat Falls Project without having to be open and transparent and using an independent body to do that.

The other piece to this, and this is under clause 2.(3), "The public utilities board shall implement the policies, procedures and directives of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as directed under subsection (2)." Mr. Chair, it does not say that they may implement it; it says that they shall implement it.

They shall have all control and power. They shall be the one body that will set the rates in this Province, direct the Public Utilities Board as to what that rate will be. Direct them as to whether they can hold hearings, or whether they cannot, direct them as to what the inputs will be into that particular rate-setting process.

All of these things, Mr. Chair, will now be taken out of the statute of the Public Utilities Board, under that act, and granted to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which would be the Premier and the Cabinet. They will, not only today – as the minister likes to say we should not tie things to future governments – but all future governments will now have that responsibility.

Mr. Chair, we have been trying to amend that section with regard to the rates. We are also going to look at another amendment in clause 2.(3). There are a number of things there in which we have some concerns about the disclosure and the public transparency with regard to that particular section and the process that the government is opting to use here. My colleague will speak to that in some detail, and move an amendment with regard to that section.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to speak to clause 2 in the amendment as really there are three pieces to it. The third piece says – as my colleague there, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair talked about – "The public utilities board shall implement the policies, procedures and directives of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as directed under subsection (2)."

I just want to spend a little bit of time talking about that. When you look at the rationale behind the Public Utilities Board, that being a regulator, we have talked quite a bit over the last few months about what role the regulator plays. Typically, in an environment where there is an absence of competition, the regulatory comes in, when you are not operating in a competitive environment. What they do is they actually put some kind of protection in for the consumer. In this particular case, the consumer would be the ratepayer, the people who actually pay their heat and light bills or electricity bills every month.

The Public Utilities Board, in the past, utilities would apply for increases. It was really two-fold. It was not only the protection for the ratepayers. It also meant that the utility itself could get a fair rate of return, and the whole idea there that they would reinvest into the utility itself and you would have a reliable service. That was extremely important and this is something that is very customary when you look at jurisdictions in many provinces across the country, that the regulatory process is a process that is really well understood.

Whether people agree with the current Public Utilities Board members or not, they are political appointments, as we know. The Public Utilities Board has a long history in our Province of actually serving this role. In that capacity they served there, from what I understand, since around 1940 or something.

In this particular project there was a role for the Public Utilities Board and there will continue to be some role in the Public Utilities Board, but not to the extent where the history of similar projects – it is not to the same extent I would add, Mr. Chair.

In this particular case what happened with the Muskrat Falls Project, at Decision Gate 2, the Public Utilities Board were asked to obviously get involved in the project and to come to make a decision. Of course, this was back in February-March of 2012, this year. The ruling from the Public Utilities Board was that they could not come to a yes or no on the project. As a matter of fact, they said that they really lacked enough information to make a decision. Whether you agree with the decision or not, this is what we were left with.

Indeed you might say, in absence of the fact that they could not make a decision, what they actually said was really no, or I guess turned thumbs down to the project, based on the lack of information. You can understand that, given the fact that the project itself at Decision Gate 2 was at about 15 per cent defined.

Anyway, if we fast-forward to where we are today with sanctioning the project and DG3 numbers in, what happens is now we will see the decision has been made by government to actually go ahead with Muskrat Falls. We have a few pieces of legislation we are actually discussing here and debating here today, which is an essential component and part of this.

What we have been talking about now is once you get the power purchase agreement that will be in place between Nalcor, or the subsidiaries of Nalcor, and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that power purchase agreement would then go in. That would go into the general rate and that would be what you would call an input into the overall blended rate for the people of the Province. The Muskrat Falls Project would be a considerable part of that.

When you think of this and you look at if this is a seamless process, indeed what you have, as I said, is Nalcor, the proponent and the energy company that will actually develop the project in this particular case, and then you would have Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which is obviously owned by Nalcor and the people of the Province, would be the same people. Then that decision becomes: What is the rate? That rate, as I said, gets inputted into the general rate for the Province.

What we will be suggesting as a part of clause 2 and Part III here is that there is not another role for the PUB to play. This project will actually be developed and at the end of the day there will be a price tag on the project. That overall project and that final cost on the project will be how you will see the rate from the Muskrat Falls Project and the percentage of the overall rate the Muskrat Falls Project will play.

If you have, let's say, Bay D'Espoir, you would have all of your other hydro developments across the Province, no matter where they are, even Holyrood today. You have a number of different projects across the Province that actually – each and every project, all of our hydro developments in Hines Lake, if it is Cat Arm, or Bay D'Espoir – all of those particular projects feed into, at a cost of service, to come up with a blended rate.

If we fast-forward and the project gets completed, what will happen then is the Muskrat Falls Project will become part of that process. The rate from the Muskrat Falls Project will actually be determined by a power purchase agreement, or essentially an agreement between Nalcor and Newfoundland Hydro. That power purchase agreement will be for upwards of fifty years or less.

What we will be suggesting is that once the project is completed, the overall cost of the project, the Public Utilities Board or someone needs to take a look at that, at total cost, and just make sure the rate that will be suggested by the power purchase agreement is indeed all of the inputs that went into the construction of the project; that these are accurate numbers and these are accurate inputs into the Muskrat Falls Project.

As we develop that rate between the two entities, and then of course back down to the ratepayers, all of those inputs and all of those costs that are included in the project and will have been included to determine this rate, someone needs to provide some type of oversight into this. We are suggesting that the Public Utilities Board is an option and that the Public Utilities Board is the group that is currently in place, regardless of who the players are and regardless of who sits on the board. As an entity, the Public Utilities Board is the current regulatory body that could actually provide that service.

As we already know, and it has been determined, the Public Utilities Board will play a role into the future of rate setting. We know that. Now what we want and what we will be suggesting is that the Public Utilities Board will actually determine, and they will provide the oversight once the project is completed, that indeed all of those costs, number one, are associated –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BALL: – with Muskrat Falls. So as you determine that accurate rate, these are indeed true costs of the project.

This is similar to what we are seeing with the UARB now in Nova Scotia. They are looking at the cost, for instance, of the Maritime Link and indeed all of the costs that are associated with the Maritime Link. The UARB will determine if those costs are really the true costs and should be involved in the overall rate setting.

Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to Bill 61. I move, seconded by my colleague, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, that the proposed subsection 5.1(3) in clause 2 be amended by adding immediately after the brackets saying (2) the following. It would read like this: but the Public Utilities Board retains the right to access and review information related to the income and expenses of the Muskrat Falls Project, and for greater certainty any provisions of the Energy Corporation Act, the Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, or Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act in respect to access to information shall not be applicable to this section.

I move this amendment, seconded by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

CHAIR: The Chair will recess the House and consider the proposed amendment.

This House is now in recess.

CHAIR: Order, please!

After consideration of the previous amendment, the amendment is not in order.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I suppose, Mr. Chair, since it is Christmas there would not be goodwill on behalf of the minister to amend the legislation to reflect what it is we are looking for. Obviously it is going to be very difficult to try to get any amendments through with regard to this bill for some reason. I am not entirely sure, Mr. Chair, what the issue is; however, I guess we will just carry on.

I hope that as we go through the legislation and speak to it and make our points that somewhere we will find the right legal language to try to get this done properly. If not, Mr. Chair, I do not know what we will have to do, if we will have to defer and consult outside sources somewhere to see if we can get an amendment to a piece of legislation drafted that is going to be acceptable to the Table.

Mr. Chair, we are trying hard and I think that is the most important thing. We are trying very hard here at this stage to try to put on the record of the House of Assembly a number of amendments that we feel are appropriate and necessary. So that we can have some discussion and dialogue as members with regard to the legislation, and to vote whether to accept it or reject it in the interest of the people of the Province.

Mr. Chair, the amendment that we moved that was not acceptable to the Table Officers at this time dealt with clause 2.(3) of Bill 61. Basically what clause 2.(3) says is, "The public utilities board shall implement the policies, procedures and directives of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as directed under subsection (2)."

What we asked is that would be amended, Mr. Chair, by adding, after that, the following: that the public utilities board also retain the right to access and review information related to the income and expenses of the Muskrat Falls Project and, for greater certainty, any provisions of the Energy Corporation Act, the Hydro Corporation Act, or the Access to Information and the Protection of Privacy Act in respect to access to information shall not be applicable to this section.

So, what our issue is here, Mr. Chair, is that while the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under this legislation will retain the right to set the rates of electricity in this Province, while they shall retain the right to give directive to the Public Utilities Board to implement those rates, while they shall retain the responsibility, Mr. Chair, of deciding whether there will be public hearings or not around those rates, we are asking that the Public Utilities Board then, because they are being asked to rubber-stamp the decisions on rates made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, that at the very least for the protection of the public, for openness and transparency, the Public Utilities Board then should retain the right to access and review all information that is related to the income and the expense of the Muskrat Falls Project.

We are asking that, Mr. Chair, because when the Lieutenant-Governor in Council actually sets the rates for consumers of electricity in this Province, it will be done based on what the cost of building Muskrat Falls is going to be, what the cost of generating the power is going to be, what the cost of transmitting that power is going to be, and it will also have to do with what the related income is going to be to the government. So, Mr. Chair, those are two main factors that the Cabinet will have at their disposal to use in making a decision on how much people in the Province will pay for rates.

Then they are going to ask the Public Utilities Board to rubber-stamp that. When they do, we are saying that you should disclose to them all of the information relative to the Muskrat Falls Project when it comes to the income and expenses and the other inputs that you will use. We are also asking that the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act in respect to this would not be applicable. The reason we are saying that, Mr. Chair, is because we all know that under the new legislation in the Province that it exempts everything to do with Muskrat Falls and Nalcor from public review or scrutiny.

Mr. Chair, that is the premise of the amendment that we attempted to place on the Table for discussion and vote in the House of Assembly. We feel that it is a good amendment. We think it is an appropriate amendment, because it is really done in the principle of being open and transparent; that is basically all it is.

If the Cabinet and the government wants to take away the control and the power of the Public Utilities Board to set rates in this Province and they want to take that responsibility and do it themselves, they want to be the people who decides what you pay for electricity, then the very least that they could do is give the Public Utilities Board the right to have access to the information that is related to all the income and expenses of the Muskrat Falls Project. They should not just expect the Public Utilities Board to rubber-stamp their decisions, rather, Mr. Chair, they should provide them with the information that they used in making their decisions.

Mr. Chair, this is an important section of this particular bill. It is a very important section. As you know, when it comes to the Muskrat Falls Project there is no disclosure of information to the people of this Province, because Nalcor and this project is protected under current legislation in the Province that prohibits them, Mr. Chair, from having to disclose information with regard to expenditures or income other than what you see in the filing of an annual report.

We feel that this is necessary and it is important. In fact, Mr. Chair, we have already raised in the House of Assembly in Question Period, on a couple of occasions, contracts that were given to SNC-Lavalin, through Nalcor, to do work on this particular project. We asked for information around that, where the money was spent, what the contracts were awarded to, who they were awarded to. It was all done through the engineering proponent for Nalcor, which was SNC-Lavalin, and at the end of the day, Mr. Chair, no one would give us the information. It was protected under privacy rules and laws in the Province, even though there were $35 million or $45 million in that month or month-and-a-half that was taken out of the Treasury of this Province, good, hard-earned taxpayers' money that could have gone into other programs. It was taken out and in a month they spent $30 million – $30 million in one month. In another month it was $28 million. In another month it was $25 million.

That money, Mr. Chair, was taken out of the general revenues, the Treasury of this Province, and it was transferred to Nalcor. Nalcor gave money to their engineering company, which is SNC-Lavalin, millions of dollars. SNC-Lavalin, as we know, Mr. Chair, is surrounded by a big cloud themselves now in terms of how they manage and do business. They took that money and gave it to other contractors.

We came in with a list of millions and millions of dollars in contracts that were given out. We asked: Who were given these contracts? What were those contracts for? How much were they given? Who were the other bidders? Was there any competition? There were no answers and no disclosure, Mr. Chair, of information. The government stood and said it was protected by the privacy laws.

Well, what we are saying today, Mr. Chair, is somebody has to be accountable to the public in this Province – somebody has to be accountable. If it is not going to be Nalcor accountable for the expenditure of public money that is given to them by the government, then the government themselves need to be accountable. If the government themselves are going to set the rates consumers will pay for electricity in this Province, they need to disclose to the Public Utilities Board the information that was used with regard to the income and expenses of the project.

That is not a whole lot to ask. That is very little to ask, Mr. Chair, and we would ask the government to do that. We would ask them to do that because it is important. They always talk about how they want to be transparent. This is transparency, Mr. Chair – this is transparency. This is in the best interests of the people of this Province, and therefore it should be done.

I cannot understand, Mr. Chair, why any government would want to have an $8 billion or $9 billion project and have no public disclosure. They want to hide everything, all the information, under the freedom of information laws.

What we are asking, Mr. Chair, is: Do you want to set the rates? Do you want to tell the Public Utilities Board to rubber-stamp that rate? Then you should at least tell them and give them the information you used in coming to that rate. Let them know what the overruns are. Let them know what the costs are. Let them know how much money you are taking in. Let them know what the profits are. All of those things should enter into the equation, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It never fails to amaze me how the member opposite can stand up and talk about the secrecy of this government, considering the two-year process that we have gone through here, the making of all documents available to the public, the fact that we have released all of the documents, prepared reports. This is the same member who, in the Lower Churchill exemption, never even knew there was a deal, never read the deal. She did not know. The secrecy in that government was such that even as a member of the government you did not know.

For her to talk here now, for the Liberals to talk about secrecy, let's look at what they did. They exempted the Lower Churchill, not directed the PUB. They exempted the Lower Churchill from the PUB scrutiny. We could have gone under that order. My understanding is that same order exists. We could have gone under section 5.1, as we did with the generation rate last week where we directed the PUB and we can direct the PUB to do something. All we are doing here is bringing forward the process that we want to engage in, that we want to utilize so that the people of the Province will be aware.

Let's look at what the section of the act says. "Notwithstanding a provision of this Act or the Public Utilities Act, for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the public utilities…". It is a permissive may. We may direct, or Cabinet may direct. We know that this has to be done in this case because of the revenue stream that is required to ensure $1 billion.

Let me say to the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair: I have read the documents. Cabinet, in this case, has been informed of the documents. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you can stand up in this House on something as big as the Lower Churchill Project which was being rammed through in four months and say that you did not read the deal, the person from Labrador who stands up defending Labrador's rights and wants everything for Labrador, yet you did not even know it was happening. That, to me, is unbelievable.

For you to have the gall to stand up here today and tell us how to do things when you were going to impose upon the people of this Province a project that would have bankrupted them. Because there was no engineering done and the overruns would have been such that the $100 million the Province would have gotten, which the Liberals thought was such a deal, would have not covered the overruns.

So, when you talk to us about secrecy, you look at what you have done, you look at what you are a part of, and you look even further – you did not even know. The fact that you can stand in this House today and tell us how to do things when you were a part of that process in 2000, I find it absolutely amazing. I find it absolutely amazing that you could even stand here and criticize us for what we have done, when what we are doing here is bringing in a project that has been scrutinized closely, that has been looked at by experts all over the world and one that has been subject to full public scrutiny.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, well you can get – because I would like to hear an explanation. I would certainly like to hear an explanation how the saviour from Labrador who in 1998 stood up demanding rights for Labrador, demanding claims for Labrador. Who stood up for the last five years I have been here demanding things for Labrador. How in 2000 when the Lower Churchill Project was being rammed through you did not even know. You did not read the deal. What kind of representation is that, I ask you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Was she in Cabinet then?

MR. KENNEDY: I do not know if she was in Cabinet or not. She obviously was not in the loop.

Let us look at what you have done. Let us look at previous exemptions that existed. This was not the only exemption here. Under your government there were five or six exemptions from the PUB. Not simply exclusions, exemptions; one, two, three, four, five, six, seven exemptions including the Lower Churchill.

You have argued that the Lower Churchill Project was exempt based on the fact that it was an export order. We referred to earlier today the exemption, which again to remind you, says that it relates to the Muskrat Falls Project and the transmission facilities necessary to deliver power generated to the sites referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) to the Island portion of the Province.

If you think we are going to stay here today and listen to what you are getting on with because you want to get out of here – not a chance. We are here; we will stay. If you want to bring in amendments, keep bringing in the amendments – do not care.

If you want to discuss the project, well explain to us your reasoning as to why you exempted – not directed, exempted - the Public Utilities Board in 2002. You explain that to us and then you compare that to what we are doing here where we may direct the Public Utilities Board to collect so that the revenues necessary are collected.

We are not directing them to set the rates because the rates have to be looked at not only with Muskrat Falls' costs but with other components. To say that we are excluding the PUB is incorrect. The suggested amendment says we may direct the PUB. We will indicate here that obviously there has to be a revenue stream, so that permissive may, in practice, loses some of its permissiveness.

When we talk about the PUB, let us not live in a dream world with some regulatory board that is going to make the decisions for this Province. People are elected, you are elected, and we are elected to make these decisions. The people at Nalcor are doing their job. Why does there always have to be conspiracies everywhere that people are going to fail the Province and they are going to ensure bankruptcy?

The only thing I can tell you is that the Lower Churchill Project as envisaged by the government of which at least two of them were members would have bankrupted the Province. You can stand here and say that because we have come in with legislation. Here it is. We have talked about this forever. We have outlined everything. You did not even read a deal in 2002 and you are going to say that what we are doing is secretive, that it is not open and transparent? Well, how would you describe what you were involved in, in 2002?

Now, if you want to talk about secrecy, let us talk about that. Let us have you explain. Let us have you get up and explain how you did not even know and how you sat there as a member of a government when there was a ministerial statement given by the Premier of the day on November 18, 2002 outlining the deal. You did not even know that, apparently.

What I say to the members opposite: if you want to discuss amendments, certainly we have been here five days, and if any of you think we are going to give up now and let you prattle on, there is not a chance.

Thank you.

CHAIR (Cross): Before I recognize the member, I remind people to speak to the Chair, please.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I say to the member opposite, we are not going anywhere. You can grandstand all you want in this House and you can talk about anything that happened here fifteen or twenty years ago, but do not go throwing barbs across here because we are trying to do our job and you do not want to be accountable for the project you have on the table. You can skate around it any way you like, but I will not be taking any attention to your threats, I say to the minister.

What I will say is this, Mr. Chair. If the minister opposite wants to debate the deal that he got somewhere in a fantasy land, Mr. Chair, in his head he has this fantasy deal that was done and that the Muskrat Falls Project was developed fifteen to twenty years ago in this Province, well, I would say it is time for him to give his head a shake. He is now the minister responsible for a $9-billion project that he is trying to push through this House of Assembly.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that the minister and the government opposite show some leadership and some accountability for the deal they are presenting to the people of this Province, not something that someone else was trying to do, attempted to do, talked about doing, or dreamed about doing, Mr. Chair. Let us talk about what the minister and his government have on the table today.

I say to the minister, nobody is stopping you from standing up. You stand up as often as you like. You say whatever you like, but you will not force us, I will say to you, to run this through the House of Assembly, Mr. Chair, and discourage us from doing our job on behalf of the people of this Province, I say to you, Minister; absolutely not. Now, you show some respect for the people of this Province, I say, Mr. Chair.

I ask the government to stand and defend the project they have. Show some accountability to the people of the Province for the $9 billion in debt they are going to saddle the ratepayers of this Province for. That is what we are here for, Mr. Chair. We are here to see where this government's direction is and where their head is. We are here to listen to them defend why the people in the Province should give over to them all control when it comes to setting the rates in this Province for the next fifty years.

That is what we are here to deal with, Mr. Chair. We are dealing with a clause in this bill today, clause 2, section 3, which is a clause in itself where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council wants to assume complete control over Nalcor, over Muskrat Falls, and over the rates the people will pay for electricity in this Province, without disclosing any information.

Now, I am sorry, Minister, you can rant about whatever happened in this Province in the last twenty years until the cows come home, the phrase that you like to use, and your government. I will tell you one thing, Mr. Chair: there is a level of accountability on behalf of any government that governs in this Province to the people of the Province to answer legitimate questions. That is what we are asking here.

Mr. Chair, we are asking that the Public Utilities Board have access to information. We are asking that they have access to information as it relates to expenditures and income. We are asking that. We are asking that they not be a rubber-stamp utility board. That is what we are asking. We are asking that they not be a rubber-stamp utility board. We are asking that if they are going have a role to play, then at the very least they should have access to some information.

How nasty of us, how wonderfully nasty of us, Mr. Chair, to expect that the Public Utilities Board who are going to be told what ratepayers should pay for electricity by the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier and the Cabinet, they are going to be told what people should pay, so why shouldn't they have access to the information? What would be so wrong, so terrible, Mr. Chair, about that? What crime would be committed in this Province if the Public Utilities Board had access to what the cost of Muskrat Falls was going to be, or what the revenues was going to be or the profits were going to be, or the overruns were going to be or the debt was going to be? What would be the real crime, I say, Mr. Chair, in having that done?

That is all we are asking. In asking that, Mr. Chair, the members opposite, the minister in particular cannot stand on his feet in this House and defend his own deal. He cannot do it, Mr. Chair. He refuses to do it. He has been standing up, Mr. Chair, talking about what happened in someone else's government some ten or fifteen years ago, talking about Premiers who dreamed about developing the Muskrat Falls and because they dreamed it they spoke about it. This is where the minister is coming from.

I say to the minister: There is only one project today on Muskrat Falls, and that is the one that you, Sir, are leading. Show some accountability to the people of this Province, Mr. Chair. That is what I ask the government to do. That is the only deal that is being debated. It is only one project that will saddle the people of this Province with a debt. There is only one Muskrat Falls development, Mr. Chair, that will be there to bring in revenues to Nalcor. Where are those revenues coming from? From the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The very least that you could do, Mr. Chair, is share a little information with them. Is that too much to ask?

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of that – and maybe this time the government, because they want to stand up and rant, maybe right now they would like to tell us why they feel it is necessary to shroud everything in secrecy, to dictate to the Public Utilities Board what to do, to tell ratepayers in the Province what you should pay but we cannot tell you anything else. We will not disclose any other information to you.

I move, Mr. Chair, seconded by the Member for Humber Valley, that the proposed subsection 5.1(3) in clause 2 be amended by adding immediately after the brackets, (2), the following: but the Public Utilities Board retains the right to access and review information related to the income and expenses of the Muskrat Falls Project.

CHAIR: Has this amendment been tabled?

This Committee stands in recess until the amendment has been checked over.

CHAIR: Order, please!

After due consideration, this amendment is not in order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to this important legislation we have before the House today. It has been a long week and people are getting a little tired and grumpy. We have just had a fine display of that from the other side of the House, Mr. Chair.

Muskrat Falls is extremely important to the people of this Province. What it will do, Mr. Chair, is provide a stable, sustainable energy for the people of the Province. It will light our homes, drive our businesses, and drive industry, particularly in Labrador. It will take us from an isolated system and hook us into the grid of North America.

In 2007 in our Energy Plan, we talked about the revenues that could come to this Province, that our greatest strength would be our energy super-warehouse. That is extremely important to the future of this Province, because we are stuck right now with non-renewables. While that is very good for the moment, Mr. Chair, that will not sustain us in the long run. So we made a decision then to take some of that non-renewable revenue that we had and translate that into building a renewable economy.

Now, Mr. Chair, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair takes great exception to any reference to past responsibilities that she had to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in this House, and any reference or any criticism that she may not have performed as one would have wished that she had. It is an interesting position, but a familiar one, Mr. Chair, because it is one we hear every day in this House of Assembly from the Opposition Party – the Opposition Party that were in governance here for fourteen years before the Progressive Conservatives took over government in 2003.

Mr. Chair, they do not want to talk about the past, but they only do not want to talk about the past when it references them. Anyone who watches the debate here in the House of Assembly, Mr. Chair, will hear them reference mistakes that they feel our government has made on a daily basis, whether it is last month, last year, or four or five years ago. So it is the same mantra that we hear day in and day out from our Liberal colleagues across the floor: Do as I say, but do not do as I did.

Mr. Chair, this government is open, accountable, and transparent. We have made more information available to the people of this Province on the Muskrat Falls Project than has ever happened in our history as a Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Chair, we have taken into account the mistakes that were made on the Upper Churchill Project and done everything we can to ensure that that does not happen again. Mr. Chair, we had two attempts in recent years under a Liberal Administration to develop the Lower Churchill as well. Mr. Chair, the last attempt was one that made our blood run cold.

According to Mr. MacDonald, who was Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro at the time, when he asked our negotiators – the negotiators on behalf of the government – how much we were making and they said $100 million, he said: How much is Hydro-Quebec going to make? They said: We do not know and we do not care because we are going to get our $100 million. Just imagine, Mr. Chair; they did not care.

Mr. Chair, they did not do any engineering of the river, they did not understand the river, and talk about overruns – in the whole planning of the development of the Lower Churchill, Mr. Chair, it was always thought that one of the diversion dams will be on the left side of the river. Because of the engineering that went into this river so that we understood the full run of the river, we found that diversion dam needed to be on the other side.

If that project had been sanctioned without that engineering done – which it would have happened under the Grimes government – it could have cost a year's delay in the project and up to $1 billion that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would have been responsible for, Mr. Chair. If they could not pay it, Hydro-Quebec could take the project. That is what happened in 2002. Our friends opposite –

AN HON. MEMBER: According to whom?

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We have to rely on the materials that we have still left in government as well as the information from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Chair. You cannot rely on the information coming from the other side, Mr. Chair.

Earlier this week we had the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair stand up and say she was a member of Cabinet but she knew nothing about any project to develop the Lower Churchill. Despite the Ministerial Statement by her Premier, Mr. Chair, she knew nothing about it.

Before she could get through her remarks, the Member for Bay of Islands stood up and cut the legs right out from under her by saying he knew all about it. He was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier at the time. He knew all about it. Mr. Chair, just from those two contradictory positions we know that you cannot rely on the information coming from across the way, which is very, very unfortunate.

Mr. Chair, we have misinformation put before us on a daily basis. The whole issue of Nalcor and the Auditor General – the Auditor General has the right to go into Nalcor and audit Nalcor. The same as he does every other government entity. If there are exceptions at Nalcor, if something is being done wrong at Nalcor, he has to report it to this House.

Now you tell me, Mr. Chair, if the Auditor General is coming here and telling our friends opposite that there are exceptions and anomalies at Nalcor, how that is keeping it secret from the people of the Province. It is ludicrous, Mr. Chair, and demanding that when people get up on their feet to assign motive to this government, accuse us of being not accountable or transparent, accuse us not to do our work based in principles, Mr. Chair, when every piece of their own behaviour was just the opposite of that, is offensive to a government that has the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador at the centre of everything they do and who have always been a principle-centred government.

Let me talk about your mistakes, but don't you talk about mine. Let me question your principles, but don't you talk about the fact that we did not have any. Let me talk about the fact that you are secretive, let me assign that to you, and you ignore the fact here that members of our own caucus are stood up contradicting one another.

So, when the minister gets a little hot under the collar, you can understand why, Mr. Chair. To have to listen to that barrage of – I am not sure what the parliamentary word is for it. There are all kinds of other words that I can use. It is difficult, but I encourage my colleagues to rise above it –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are listening to what is going on in this place and if they have only listened to one-quarter of what the Minister of Natural Resources has had to say to over this week, they know that this is the best thing to happen to Newfoundland and Labrador in a very, very long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can see where the Minister of Natural Resources gets his logic when it comes to speaking to the bill; he gets it from the Premier who just rose in her place on clause 2 of the bill and never even spoke to one piece of that clause. There was no relevance applied there.

Mr. Chair, I am going to respond to some of the comments the Premier made because it bears responding to. I have sat in my place the last three or four days and I have listened to the government opposite talk about Roger Grimes' deals, talk about me being in the Cabinet, and talk about me not reading Cabinet papers.

Now, they forget that it was their own ministers who never read Cabinet papers. It was their own ministers in the ER/PR inquiry in this Province, Mr. Chair, when people's lives were lost and lives were at risk that the ministers sat back with briefing notes on the other side and they did not read them. We all know them. That is a historical account in this Province today. Mr. Chair, we had a full inquiry in this Province around the incompetency of that particular issue.

Anyway, let me just speak to what is happening here today. We come in here to debate a bill, a deal that this government opposite have put before this House of Assembly and a deal that will cost the taxpayers and ratepayers of this Province nearly $9 billion and counting. We come in here to debate that deal, Mr. Chair, but we cannot get the ministers opposite or the Premier to stand and debate their own deal.

They do not want to be held accountable to the people of this Province. No, they want to live in la-la land. They want to talk fairy tales. They want to talk about other deals that may have been tried and never, ever were imposed. They want to talk about things that were thought about and never done. Where is the accountability, Mr. Chair, of the government opposite?

They are getting their get backs up, Mr. Chair. Their nostrils are flaring and their tempers are going. It is all happening because they know they have their back against the wall and they have to answer to the people of this Province for what they are about to do. They do not want to have to do that, Mr. Chair.

They want to take the heat off themselves. They do not want to be accountable. They do not want to be transparent. They want to continue the secrecy of which they have been going so far on this road to Muskrat Falls and Nalcor, this road of secrecy and nondisclosure of information to the people of this Province.

The Premier stands up and talks about unreliable information. Well, I say to the Premier: The only barrage of unreliable information that has been presented in this House of Assembly in the last couple of days has come from the other side.

Mr. Chair, I sat in my seat and I listened to the Minister of Natural Resources for the last three days talk about the Roger Grimes deal, talk about what was done, talk about the fact that I never saw the deal and I told him I never saw the deal. He talked about how I was in the Cabinet and never read the Cabinet papers.

Mr. Chair, you want to talk about unreliable information. I say to the minister: If you never researched the rest of the information, the information on this deal, any more than you researched my history on the last deal, you did not do a very good job, Minister.

I will table it for the House of Assembly – I will table it – because I have heard enough of it. I have heard enough of it. Mr. Chair, it is time for the government to stand and be accountable for their own deal.

Mr. Chair, in August 2002 Premier Roger Grimes reached an agreement with Landry. He talked about it for three days. Fine, Mr. Chair; I listened to it. That was all fine. He asked me where was the agreement, where was the contract, did you see it, did you read it. I answered the minister honestly, and I did not.

In December everything went off the rails. In February 2003, I went into Cabinet, many months after, I say to the minister. If you had have done any research, you would have known it. That was okay. I let you have your fairy-tale story. I let you get up and tell your fairy tales and talk about it long enough, but I am not going to have it any more. I have had enough of it, and it is time for you to stand up and start talking about your own deal, Mr. Chair. The whole Cabinet should be talking about their own deal, Mr. Chair. The Premier should be talking about her own deal, not Roger Grimes or somebody else.

Listen, it was months after – and I will table it all – before I went into Cabinet, Mr. Chair. It is all there, I say to the minister, and you should be doing more research, I would say to the government opposite, if you want to come in here and make accusations. I do not mind anybody telling stories, I do not mind anybody, Mr. Chair, getting up, laying things out and getting a little debate going around the facts, but I am only going to tolerate this so long and then I have to rise and put the real facts on the table.

Mr. Chair, let's see if the government opposite is prepared to be accountable for what they are about to do in this House of Assembly. Let's see if they are ready yet to start responding to the legislation that is on the floor of the House of Assembly. Let them get up and tell us why they do not want to disclose any information with regard to how they are going to set rates on Muskrat Falls to the people of this Province. Let them stand up and tell us why they do not want to give any information to the Public Utilities Board under this legislation, but they just want them to rubber stamp what they tell them. These are very simple questions, Mr. Chair, not hard at all; not hard, not difficult at all, and very simple.

Mr. Chair, if I was bringing something to this House of Assembly, I would be happy to stand up and defend it. I would be happy to stand up and answer questions as to why I decided to leave something out or add something in. Why is the government in this Province afraid, Mr. Chair, to provide answers to the people of the Province as to why they do not want you to have any information? Why, Mr. Chair, do they want the Public Utilities Board to rubber stamp the rates? Why, Mr. Chair?

They have no problem signing on to term sheets with Emera when it comes to this deal. They have no problem with signing on to agreements that were going to see power go to Nova Scotia. They have no problem, Mr. Chair, with signing a deal where 40 per cent of the power from Muskrat Falls will go to Newfoundlanders and they will pay 100 per cent of the cost. They have no problem, Mr. Chair, taking $20 billion in profit for their corporation out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for 40 per cent of the power, yet export 40 per cent of the power for $4 billion over the life of the project. That is exactly what is happening, Premier, and you cannot deny it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: It is written in the agreements. I will get the agreements and I will table them too if you want to see them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, if that is the road the government opposite wants to go down this day, we will go down that road, I say to the minister opposite and I say to the government. Not a problem, if that is the road you want to go down, we will go down. If not, Mr. Chair, I suggest we start debating the bill and stick to the clauses that are there, the concerns we are raising, and the questions we are raising. That has not happened so far this afternoon, Mr. Chair.

I say to the Premier, I am going nowhere. I am good until Christmas Eve. Absolutely no problem, I am good until Christmas Day and I am good until Boxing Day. If that is where you want to go, absolutely no problem, we can go there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before the Chair recognizes the next speaker, there has been some breadth given in the last couple of speakers. I would like to keep the connection closer to the topic.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, this debate on Muskrat Falls has been going on since 2010. We have been debating this topic for two years. We have had an election on this topic. The government went to the people of the Province and said if the DG3 numbers are the lowest-cost, the government will sanction this deal. The government received a mandate from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to proceed.

We have debated this for two years. We are still debating it. We are here at the Christmas season and we are still debating it. It is time to move on, Mr. Chair. It is time to let the people's business get on and get completed. Mr. Chair, this is a filibuster, the Opposition has had their say, and it is now time to allow this project to go ahead, as has been democratically sanctioned by the people of the Province.

Now, Mr. Chair, there has been a lot of discussion here in terms of this amendment and about the fact that the government is taking away from the Public Utilities Board the right to set rates and that the government is imposing rates. Mr. Chair, this is not correct. What the Opposition has been doing is that they have been looking at the legislation as if it is new legislation, but in reality it is an amendment. They have been looking at the amendment as if it is the original legislation.

Mr. Chair, section 5.1 in section 2 of this particular act amends the Public Utilities Act. Mr. Chair, if you look at the Public Utilities Act, it clearly sets out who sets the rates. If you look in section 70 of that act, it says, "A public utility shall not charge, demand, collect or receive compensation for a service...". I will just shorten it up here; it says, unless there has first been submitted for the approval of a board a schedule of rates, tolls, and charges, and has obtained approval of the board of the scheduled rates.

So it is the Public Utilities Board, Mr. Chair, that does set the rates. The Public Utilities Board can set the rate base. That is set out in section 78 of the act. In section 80 of the act, it says a public utility is entitled to earn annually a just and reasonable return. So it is clearly the Public Utilities Board that sets the rates.

In this amendment, there is nothing that is giving the government, Nalcor, or anybody the right to set the rate. What it is doing is saying that the government may direct; the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct. It is giving the option to direct. As the Leader of the Third Party said, it does not say shall direct, it says may direct. There is an option that the board may direct the Public Utilities Board or the government may direct the Public Utilities Board to implement the policies, procedures and directives including the costs, expenses, and allowances that are to be included in the rates and the annual rate of return of the public utility.

In the information that Nalcor shared with the Opposition, they pointed out that the PUB will continue to regulate rates for the Province as they have done in the past. The PUB will assess the utility's capital costs, it will assess the utility's operating costs, and it will assess the other costs to determine the utility's revenue requirements and rates. The PUB will determine the rates.

What government is doing here is to provide the lenders with the required revenue certainty with respect to Muskrat Falls, so that we can get the guarantee and to pay for Muskrat Falls. The amendment will provide the government with authority to direct the PUB to include all project costs related to Muskrat Falls. Muskrat Falls, of course, is only one input to the overall rates. Mr. Chair, we have numerous hydroelectricity projects –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: - and numerous electricity projects. We have a number of hydroelectricity facilities and they are all handled in the same way. The Public Utilities Board determines what the rates are going to be; they look at the costs, they look at the construction costs, they look at the cost of operation, and they look at a guaranteed annual return. They do that for each project and each project, of course, has a different cost. There is a blended rate charged by the PUB. They will continue to do that, except with respect to Muskrat Falls. The PUB has to consider all project costs related to Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Chair, it is the same with Holyrood. It is the same way rates are determined in Holyrood. It is the same way rates are determined in the wind down in Ramea and the wind in St. Lawrence. There is one other place the wind is.

Mr. Chair, the government in its energy policy determined that it wanted to come up with a system to provide cheaper rates to the people of the Province. The rates at Holyrood are too high; they are eighteen to twenty cents a kilowatt hour. They have to go. Plus, it is an environmental disaster. We need more power. So, what are we going to do? Are we going to burn more oil at Holyrood, which is crazy? What are the choices?

Choice number one is that you burn oil. We continue to burn oil and burn more oil, which is costing today $88 a barrel. In 1972 when they started, it was $3 a barrel. What is it going to be in the future? It is going to be a heck of a lot more than it is now. Should we do that or should we build a hydro facility like we have been doing for over 100 years? Should we build a hydro facility that will produce electricity by turning water, or do we burn oil? Those are the two projects: Holyrood, the isolated option is burning oil; the other one is making electricity from hydroelectricity.

Mr. Chair, to do the oil option it is going to cost, for the construction of the contract and for the operation of the facility, $10.8 billion. That is the oil project. By doing the hydro project, the people will pay $8.4 billion. That is $2.4 billion cheaper if we do the hydro project rather than burning oil.

Mr. Chair, the $10.8 million, which the Opposition wants us to pay to run Holyrood and to run a thermal project on the Island, is all going to go to the oil companies. The ratepayers will pay for it. The money will go out of the Province. It will go to the oil companies in Russia, in Venezuela, in Iraq, in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, and in places like that.

Under the hydro project, the rates paid by the people of the Province will pay for this project as the people pay for every one of these projects, but the money will come back. The money will come back to pay down the project. It will come to the government to pay the government for the equity it puts in. It will provide the people with an excess, with dividends, that will now be used by the government and go back to the people of the Province. That is what government does with the money it receives. It goes back to the people of the Province.

The oil is an environmental disaster at Holyrood. It needs to be shut down. The hydro project is clean, renewable energy. By going with the oil we are dependent on foreign oil companies. They will control whether or not we can get the product. Under hydro we control our own destiny. We will control our own hydro and own our own hydro project. The oil will mean we are still isolated. We are still not connected to the national grid. Holyrood connects us to the national grid in two ways: through Labrador and through Nova Scotia.

If we stay with the oil option, there is no power for Labrador. If we go with the hydro option, we take care of the Island's needs, we shut down Holyrood, and we have oil for Labrador. If we go with the oil option, there is no ability to export surplus power. If we go with the hydro option, we can export the power we do not need.

Remember, this project is being built for us. It is being built to meet our needs. It just so happens there is going to be some surplus power. I hope there is not. I am hoping all the surplus power will be used in Labrador and that it will serve the needs of the people of Labrador and the mining companies in Labrador to provide jobs for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we hope.

If that does not happen immediately, the water would flow to the sea. Now, with the Maritime Link, we have the ability to at least get something for it, at least get some money for it that, of course, will go to Hydro.

There will be an ability to export power and it will keep the power by – if we go with the oil, we are still dependent on a non-renewable resource. By developing the hydro, we diversify our economy, we have clean energy, and we will have a different revenue stream based on renewable resources, the hydro, rather than relying on oil and gas which is going to gone. It will replace that revenue that is going to be gone.

It will all come back to the people either by reducing hydro rates further, if that is what the government decides to do, or alternatively it can be used for things like hospitals, schools and public programs for the health, education and benefit of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair would just like to remind everyone that we are supposed to be debating clause 2, which is on page 4, in our information, and part of page 5. Everything has to relate directly to that section of clause 2. Any stray from there will mean that you may be asked to sit down.

We would now like to recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

I just want to readjust my thoughts here now because things went so far astray there. I was not sure what we were talking about.

With regard to clause 2, which is the clause that gives so much power to the government with regard to Muskrat Falls, putting everything in government's hands, I have to speak to it again because the government just refuses to accept the fact that they have made a decision – and they have made it, and I know they are going to pass it, we all know that, but I just want them to make an acknowledgement to the people of the Province that they know what they are doing, that they have created a monopoly with government totally in charge, putting in legislation, something that other governments are going to have to deal with – and I can promise them it is not going to be them who are going to have to deal with it, putting in legislation, things that other governments are going to have to deal with in the future because what they are going to put in here is not going to be for the good of the people of this Province. What they are putting in here is something that gives complete control to government, which seems to be their aim – getting control and keeping control.

That is what this section 2 is all about; it is control. If government feels like it, government can give direction to the Public Utilities Board. It is beyond me that they do not understand how important the Public Utilities Board is, how important it is to have a regulator that is outside of government, that looks objectively outside of the political system when it comes to utilities in a Province. We are not the only ones with a Public Utilities Board. The other provinces may have different names, but they all do the same thing; they are independent regulators.

I do not care if it a project of a Crown corporation or if it is the project of a private corporation. I do not care what the project is; the project should be open to the scrutiny of an outside regulator. They keep refusing to acknowledge the fact that over in Nova Scotia, for example, Nalcor's partner in the loan guarantee and all the documents that have been signed, Emera – that private corporation, Emera, can sanction, from their perspective, Muskrat Falls all they want. They still have to submit a proposal to the Utility and Review Board in Nova Scotia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: A proposal that they do not even have in yet, that we are told might go in by the end of January. They are going to have to submit a proposal to that board. That board in Nova Scotia will be the board that will make the decision as to whether or not Muskrat Falls and the Maritime Link are good for the people of Nova Scotia. It will not be the Government of Nova Scotia; it will not be going to the government for the decision. The government will have to accept the decision of the UARB –

CHAIR: I remind the hon. member to stick to clause 2. I will give you some leeway but I need you to go to clause 2, please. I want to bring it back, please.

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

The connection between what I am talking about is that this government in clause 2 is taking the power away from our Public Utilities Board, while partners in the same project have to deal with a public utilities board. It puts us here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the people, on an uneven footing when it comes to what is good for the people in the Province here and what is good for the people in the Province of Nova Scotia. This government refuses to acknowledge that is what is happening. They are refusing to acknowledge that this clause is lovely. Everything that is in it is right and proper. It is the kind of stuff I would want the Public Utilities Board to be looking at. However, the clause, and I am going to say it again, they have not responded to it. They keep refusing to respond to it. It is at least my third time saying it now; the clause has a word in it that makes everything I am saying valid. It is the verb may instead of shall or should.

We have had other discussions in this House. The Minister of Natural Resources himself waxed eloquently in one of our discussions over the last four days about the difference between shall and should. He is a lawyer and he knows the importance of a word in a legal document. Legislation is a legal document; every word is chosen carefully. I have said this already.

All I want them to do is to acknowledge that clause 2 does not mean that the PUB is in the game, which is what they have said. It means if government wants them they are in the game. It is their way of trying to say we have not gotten rid of the PUB in the process. If they never choose to go the PUB it will be alright because this clause does not say they have to go to the PUB. It says government may direct. I just want an acknowledgement from them that is the reality of this clause.

We should not have a piece of legislation that leaves something at the whim of government. Legislation should be there to make sure that something happens. If going to the PUB is important, if having the PUB responsible for the Muskrat Falls Project is important, then it should state it. It should not in any way allow for an exemption, and putting it just in the hands of the government means it can be exempted. That is not acceptable. It is not the practice in this country. It is not how we operate. It is not how we have operated in this Province. It is having a Public Utilities Board that has allowed us to still have Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a Crown corporation.

It was that board that held the hearings back in the early 1990s, the hearings where people made it very clear that they did not want their utility to go private and that they wanted to keep the Crown Corporation. That was the role of the PUB and they did not have to wait for a government to tell them that was their responsibility. They knew that was their responsibility.

Here, the PUB does not act with regard to Muskrat Falls unless they are directed by the government. That is the reality. The government across from me right now at this moment all know that is the reality. People who are paying attention to this piece of legislation know that is the reality.

I have had numerous e-mails and phone calls about this bill. People are contacting us from all over the Province about this bill. People in the Province understand that clause and government will not admit it. That is all people are asking for. They want government to be direct with them. They want them to be honest with them, and they are not doing it.

Yes, we are here. We are here at 5:55 o'clock on a Friday afternoon before the Christmas weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: We are here because people want this message to be gotten across to government. I want people to know we are willing to be here at 5:55 o'clock on a Friday afternoon in order to make sure the message gets made clearly.

This clause creates a monopoly. The whole bill creates a monopoly. The whole bill is about giving total control to government and to Nalcor, and to making sure nobody else is involved in the Muskrat Falls Project, while at the same time – and this might go outside – setting up in the same bill in another clause the potential for being able to have Muskrat Falls become a private corporation.

Mr. Chair, I just want this government to acknowledge what that clause means. Do not sugar-coat it. Acknowledge it means control in the hands of the government, and that is not the way it should be.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

I ask the minister, again, keep his remarks to the clause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I would like to respond to the comments made by the Leader of the NDP. Again, the Leader of the NDP is failing to consider the Public Utilities Act. The Public Utilities Act is in existence and it regulates public utilities in the Province. This section, 5.1, is an amendment to the act. Under the Public Utilities Act, the PUB regulates public utilities in the Province of Newfoundland and sets the rates. It is clearly set out in section 70 of the act that the rates are set by the PUB. That is the law.

Now we are looking at an amendment to change the law. The law is saying that the government, with respect to the Muskrat Falls Project, may, if it chooses to do so, direct the board to take into consideration the cost, expenses, and allowances of Muskrat Falls when the PUB is determining the electricity rates in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. When they do that, they are not just doing the rates for Muskrat Falls. They are doing the rates for all the hydro projects, all the wind projects, and Holyrood. They are setting the whole rate.

One of the aspects the board has to consider is the project cost for each of those different facilities. All this is doing is saying that the government may, which means they can do it, right, because right now –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: Yes, if the government does not do it, the Public Utilities Board does it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: It is the act. You are looking at the amendment. You are not looking at the act.

Mr. Chair, if the government does not act, if the Public Utilities Board is the regulator of public utilities in the Province – that is the law set out in the act, and the Public Utilities Board sets the rate, that is set out in the law in the act. We are amending it, saying the government may direct the board to at least consider the project costs of Muskrat Falls when they are setting the rates. If the government does not direct, then the Public Utilities Board does it without the government's direction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: Yes, exactly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, it is in the material. Will the PUB have a role in setting rates and how rates will be set? It says the Public Utilities Board will continue to regulate rates for the Province. They will assess the utilities' capital, operating, and other costs to determine the utilities' revenue requirements and rates.

To provide matters with the required revenue certainty with respect to Muskrat Falls, the amendments provided government with the authority to direct the PUB to include all project costs related to Muskrat Falls. Muskrat Falls is only one input in the overall rates. The PUB will continue with its mandate with respect to setting capital budgets, setting rates for utilities, and its other regulatory roles.

The PUB, with respect to Muskrat Falls, could say, well, we are not going to allow that cost for whatever reason. This gives the government the right to say to the PUB, with respect to Muskrat Falls, you have to include that cost in setting the rates. As I said many times today and yesterday, the way it works is that the total cost of the project, the capital cost, the operating cost, and that return on investment, has to be paid by the ratepayer. It has to be covered by the rates. There has to be enough revenue to pay for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: I know you are aware of it.

What will happen, of course, is that revenue will pay for the project. The surplus will come back to Nalcor. Nalcor will pay a dividend to the government. The government will pay off any loan it takes on. Whatever is left over after that, government can put back to Nalcor to reduce rates, as we have done many times; or the government of the day may do that as well, may give it all back to Nalcor; or the government of the day, as I said numerous times today, can do something else: build hospitals, roads and schools and so on.

Let me go on. This amendment in the act will allow government the authority to direct the PUB to accept project costs for inclusion in electricity rates for the Province. Lenders require certainty; the guarantors require certainty that Hydro can recover all project costs including debt repayment. This precludes the ability of the PUB to allow or disallow project costs. We are not excluding the PUB. The amendment will allow government to direct the PUB to include project costs as one of the many inputs into the rates when they are setting the rates.

With respect to information and the request for information, I think the amendment here is about getting information about the project into the hands of the PUB. Mr. Chair, I want to refer again to the Public Utilities Act. Section 16 of the act says, "The board shall have the general supervision of all public utilities, and may make all necessary examinations and inquiries and keep itself informed as to compliance by public utilities with the law and shall have the right to obtain from a public utility all information necessary to enable the board to fulfil its duties." That is how they are going to get information.

Let us look at section 58 of the Public Utilities Act. It says, "The board may prescribe the form of all books, accounts, papers and records to be kept by a public utility and a public utility shall keep its books, accounts, papers and records and make its returns in the manner prescribed by the board and comply with all directions of the board relating to those books, accounts, papers, records and returns."

Mr. Chair, it seems that under the existing law the board has the right to get what information it needs from all the public utilities which would make – I do not think there is a need for this amendment.

There is another section 62 which talks about information to be supplied. This is section 62.(1), "A public utility shall provide to the board all information required by it to give effect to this Act, and shall make specific answers to all specific questions submitted by the board."

I think the need for information is certainly covered in the original legislation. There is a requirement, there is a prescription, that information be provided, and therefore I think there is no need for the amendment at this time.

With that, Mr. Chair, I think I have answered the two questions from the hon. the Leader of the NDP and some comments raised by the Opposition House Leader. I will take my seat.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

What I would like the Minister of Finance to look at then is – because it is directly related to clause 2 in this – is the loan guarantee and Schedule A of the loan guarantee and the commitments with regard to the Newfoundland Crown.

The Newfoundland Crown in this agreement commits itself to ensure that upon Muskrat Falls achieving in-service, and upon the Labrador-Island Link achieving in-service, and upon the Labrador Transmission Line achieving in-service, that the regulated rates for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will allow it to collect sufficient revenue and in each case to cover every single expense.

So, how does the Newfoundland government take on that commitment and make that happen? This is a very big issue, because the rates have to cover every single expense: the initial and sustaining capital costs and related financing costs on both debt and equity, including all debt service costs at a defined internal rate of return on equity over the term of the PPA, the power purchase agreement; operating and maintenance costs, including those costs associated with transmission service for delivery of MF power over the LTA, the transmission line; applicable taxes and fees; payments pursuant to any applicable impact and benefit agreements; payments pursuant to the water lease and water management agreements; and extraordinary or emergency repairs. Then, under both the Labrador-Island Link and the LTA other things get listed.

How does the government keep that commitment with regard to the rates for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In relation to the question from the Leader of the NDP, it is a good question, and one that certainly I will try to explain. I am not sure my explanation will be sufficient.

Earlier today on a number of occasions I talk about the issue of revenues and what would happen with the excess revenues. So the clause here, the intent of Schedule A is to ensure that there is a revenue stream that will pay for all of the costs of the project. There is no question about that. So, the revenue stream has to be sufficient to ensure that that is going to take place, and that is what the federal loan guarantee requires.

Now, the revenue stream will be based upon the rates. Based on the projected rates we have at present – which are, again, they are illustrative and not definitive – they include, that 15.1 cents a kilowatt hour in 2017, or the $231, whichever way you want to put it, that includes the capital costs, it includes the operating and maintenance, it includes the cost of financing, and that is where the federal loan guarantee comes into place.

It includes the cost of Newfoundland Power's distribution, which I think adds about a couple of cents, and it includes a rate of return which is approximately 8.4 cents. So that is all included there, "…sufficient revenue in each year to enable NLH to recover those amounts incurred for the purchase and delivery of energy…".

It would include the other issues outlined in 3.(a) to (f), but our projections based on the revenue that we have put forward to date, based on the electricity rate charts that we have put out there, indicate that there will be very significant revenues over a period of time. If you just think about it, the situation where there will be less money up front because your costs are greater, we are talking about capital costs, but the loan guarantee will apply as long as there is a loan. Even though there is a longer term, this loan could technically be paid off in twenty or thirty years – I would think it is probably closer to the thirty-year range.

The revenue stream shows approximately $134 million – again these are projects based on what we know today on the rates that we have outlined. It would be $134 million in 2020 – that is to the Province after everything else is paid for.

We know because we have gone through this with the bond rating agencies, we have gone through it – I say we, it is the Department of Natural Resources and Nalcor. We have gone through it extensively with the federal government. They had their own financial advisor. They have conducted an extensive analysis. At the end of it all, we know that there will be more monies available as time goes on, and again that makes sense as your costs go down.

The issue here of sufficient revenue is one that is not difficult to meet. In fact, we can go further; we know there is going to be excess revenue. I think the issue that has been raised earlier today is: What do you do with the excess revenue?

What we had indicated that we would do with the excess revenue and it is something that –

CHAIR: Let's not stray too far, Mr. Minister, please, from clause 2.

MR. KENNEDY: Clause 2 actually relates to the PUB, and they are saying we are trying to restrict the PUB and the reasons for it. What we are saying is that there is a revenue stream that will be generated that will cover the federal loan guarantee, but this is not going to be a revenue stream that we are going to wonder: Do I have enough money to meet my mortgage this month?

We know that the revenue stream is going to be significantly greater so that there is no concern, from our perspective – and I can only quote to you the words of the Prime Minister of Canada who said, in one question in the scrum, there was minimal risk, and in the next question he said there was no risk. I do not know if the question related to whether or not we could collect sufficient revenue. We know there is going to be more than sufficient revenue; in fact, that there will be profits.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will keep my comments short. One of the nice things about being in Committee is you can actually go back and forth to the government members, ask them a question, and then see if you are satisfied with the answer or not. One of the things the Minister of Finance mentioned a few minutes ago was he gave an example. Of course, what we have been looking for in all of this, and asking about, yes, I agree, is outlined in the original act.

One of the questions I had, and the minister just alluded to it, is the fact that at some point in reviewing the project cost, the Public Utilities Board may say: We are not sure about this cost right here. There is $1 million you have attributed to project costs. We want you to tell us that it is actually directly involved with this project.

At some point, as was mentioned here, the PUB might say: That is a grey area for us. They may say: No, we want to exempt that. They would go back to government and they would say to government: This needs explanation. We are not satisfied with the explanation. This is not what we would see as a cost that truly reflects the project. At that point, the minister said you could actually direct the PUB to include that. I would like to have an example, just for clarification, of what that could be.

The other thing I would like to have, and I will ask the second question now just for clarification. Would the PUB be able to change the power purchase agreement as long as the provisions of the federal loan guarantee to provide sufficient revenue to honour the loan commitment and to honour the financing commitment – could the PUB suggest a different rate in the power purchase agreement?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: The power purchase agreement would be negotiated between Nalcor on the one hand and the Public Utilities Board, but the Public Utilities Board could be directed by cost, on the cost –

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Not the Public Utilities Board, between Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. MARSHALL: Yes, there would be that agreement. In terms of cost, yes, if the Public Utilities Board said we have problems with that area, can we see the records? If you want the information, yes they can get the information.

The Lieutenant-Governor in Council, because of the fact the costs have to be covered by the ratepayers, can direct that these costs, all the costs for Muskrat Falls have to be included and considered by the PUB in making their determination of what the rates are.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you; and I will be very quick.

What I was looking for was an example of something. I have never sat on the PUB, and obviously have not been in Cabinet; hopefully that will be at some time later. Right now what I am looking for is an example of something the PUB may determine that should be exempt from the project costs; yet, the Cabinet or government would say: No, that needs to be included. Because if it was not going to happen, why would you even put it there?

I think I heard you correct in saying that the PUB, or the power purchase agreement can be adjusted?

CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: I am going to have a stab at it, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, Nalcor – once Muskrat Falls becomes in service – will negotiate a power purchase agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. If government directs the PUB to take into full measure all of the costs of Muskrat Falls, the PUB, when it is undertaking a consideration of those costs and the power purchase agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as I understand it, under the Public Utilities Act – under section 16 I think it is, but I am going to have to double check it – they have the right to examine records, information, costs and so on.

If they see a cost put before them that they are ambivalent about, then they have the right to go back to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and have those costs substantiated. There is protection in the Public Utilities Act that allows them to access the right information so they can consider anything that they think is anomalous.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure for me to stand. I have been listening here intently for the last hour of discussion and the back and forth. I just wanted to stand and make a couple of observations, rather than ask any particular questions. I am feeling a little frustrated with the direction we are going in, because we have members, and the Premier included, standing and talking about things that went on ten and fifteen years ago, none of us can change, other than legislation. We cannot change –

AN HON. MEMBER: You can learn from the past.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: We cannot change anything that has gone on in the past.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I think we have gone past that. With all due respect to the hon. member, I think we have passed that point earlier today. We are moving on. We are speaking specifically to clause 2. I would like you to direct any comments or questions directly to clause 2, please.

Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Sure.

What we are primarily interested in here is what is going to happen down the road ten years from now, twenty years from now, thirty years from now, and so on with this agreement. I listened to the Minister of Finance earlier when he rebutted my comments. He was talking about how the Public Utilities Board will continue to set rates. They will be a blended rate based on the source of power, and all of that.

I read this and it says, "Notwithstanding a provision of this Act or the Public Utilities Act, for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the public utilities board to implement policies, procedures and directives…" and I will not read the rest of it. The purposes of the Muskrat Falls Project is that they will be able to direct with respect to the annual rate of return, whether or not hearings will be held, "the commencement, suspension, continuation or termination of a hearing or process…" and so on.

The Minister of Natural Resources has said the rates are illustrated but not definitive. That is really at the heart of a lot of the public concern and a lot of our concern about where this is going to go in terms of rates for consumers down the road. That is pretty well exactly one of the primary concerns people have.

Another thing the Minister of Natural Resources said - and I will not go on and on - the minister talked about: Why are there allegations of secrecy? Why are there conspiracy theories? I need to say this, Mr. Chair, I have made very innocuous requests for information to departments, other than the minister's, and I have gotten back blackened-out pages. I have gotten back letters saying I cannot have the information I am looking for.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have asked the hon. member to stick to clause 2. Come back to clause 2, or I will ask the hon. member to sit down.

MR. KIRBY: That is all I wanted to say about that. As I said, I listened intently when the ministers were speaking but I feel I have a responsibility to stand and respond to things that are said here. I feel that is my responsibility as a member of the Opposition and a member of the House of Assembly.

In any case, I think I have outlined what the primary concern is. Now you can laugh, you can think it is all nonsense, and you can think that we do not understand, but we do understand. We do hear these concerns from people. The reason we are here at this hour after all of this time is to make sure government is aware of those concerns and to air them for the record. That is why we are here.

I will not have anything further than that to say, but I feel I am obliged to stand and respond to some of these things because they are legitimate concerns.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I am going to first deal with the issue of the rates. When I said they are illustrated but not definitive, I guess I should have been more thorough in my explanation. What I mean by that is based on the Decision Gate 3 numbers we have today and based on the loan guarantee, these are the numbers that are projected to be the rates.

Could they be a dollar or two off? Sure, I mean we cannot say they are absolutely accurate. There are a number of things here that could change; obviously, the price of oil. It is predicated upon a price of oil that we have projected. If that price of oil changed up or down, it could have, in terms of the isolated Island, then the rates could go up or down.

What we tried to do, I say to the member opposite, this arose – and you remember there were a lot of questions about the rates. There were a lot of issues about kilowatt hours. There were allegations that power rates will double. So what we tried to do is say to people, let us not talk about kilowatt hours; let us talk about how you are affected in your pocketbook. We tried to develop three profiles. Obviously if I put in this, Mr. Chair, that they were definitive, then the minute something changed we would be attacked for that.

We are trying to do our best to show people how they will be impacted with or without Muskrat Falls and to show them that the rates between 2000 and 2011, the increases, were fairly significant. They are going to continue to be significant and this is what will happen with Muskrat Falls or without Muskrat Falls. If there are changes, and I have said this, in the cost overruns, then that could be reflected here. However, we will look at that as we move along. That is one of the reasons we want to maintain this power as a government, because it allows us to determine and to make policy decisions as to how these rates could be. There has already been a smoothing, I think, in relation to the rates that would have been higher in the beginning, but we made a policy decision to get them down.

What we are trying to do here is illustrate to the people of the Province you do not have a reason to feel that anything has been kept from you. These are the numbers. I say to the member opposite, when you take the numbers and you put them in writing you obviously have confidence in what you are doing. I have confidence in what we are doing. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has forty or fifty years of doing this. Manitoba Hydro looked at their projections in terms of provincial load forecasts and they did not find anything with the way Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro does things in terms of projecting load forecasts that would indicate there is any problem with that.

Some of it is done by looking at the various computations of what makes up the rates. The capital costs are spread out over a fifty-year period. Then a component of that; how much you need to collect from each potential ratepayer to meet that cost, operating and maintenance. Capital costs will start to smooth out over time. Operating and maintenance will continue.

Financing is significantly affected here because the Decision Gate 3 numbers are included with the federal loan guarantee. If the federal loan guarantee had not come through, then these rates would have been off. We would have had to redo the chart. There is no question about that.

To be fair, we do not know the full amount of the federal loan guarantee yet. Negotiations will take place with the lenders. We will take advantage of Canada's AAA rating. What I am told, and again I will use illustrative examples, is if the rate is 7 per cent of the borrowing rate, well that could go down to 5 per cent, 5.5 per cent, or 4.5 per cent because of Canada's guarantee.

Essentially, when we get to that we will determine the actual numbers in terms of how that will work. The rates could change there. The loan guarantee we expect is worth around $1 billion. You work that into your rate. What I say to the member opposite is we are just trying to be comprehensive and trying to be as definite as possible, but recognizing that there are other issues which could arise.

Are those rates absolute? No. Are they good examples of where we are going? Certainly. Do we expect there would be any major changes? That is something that will depend on overruns. I come back to the point that is one of the crucial issues here with Muskrat Falls, with the engineering that has been done upfront, and with the confidence that is expressed.

I know the Leader of the Opposition has expressed concern. I think there is about a 9 per cent contingency in escalation as opposed to 15 per cent. Mr. Martin, the CEO, said: I have met with other companies, we have had a discussion on that, and we feel that the 9 per cent is appropriate. Fifteen per cent was used in the Decision Gate 2 numbers. The point I make is that they are not absolute, but they are very good illustrations of where we expect the rates to go.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, over the next little while, if I get the opportunity, I would like to propose seven questions to the government. The seven questions are in response to seven sections delineated in this new amendment. The new amendment amends or references –

CHAIR: Can I just ask the hon. member: Are the seven questions all dealing with clause 2?

MR. BENNETT: Indeed they are.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. BENNETT: Clause 2 is broken down into components (a) through (g), and that is seven.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. BENNETT: So I would like to maybe explain my understanding, and ask if anybody from the government can explain to me what that means and why it is necessary.

First of all, this clause has around 200 words in it. It is going to substitute a clause in the Electrical Power Control Act that has around 120 words in it, if my counting is right. Obviously this is done for a reason. This says: "Notwithstanding a provision of this Act" – being the Electrical Power Control Act – "or the Public Utlities Act" – and the Public Utilities Act is forty-one pages long and the Electrical Power Control Act is twenty-two pages long, so no matter what it says in either of these two acts this clause will prevail. At least that is my understanding.

It says, "…for the purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project the Lieutenant-Governor in Council" – for normal people, just read government. So, the government "… may direct" – and to direct means to tell them – "the public utilities board to implement policies, procedures and directives respecting the exercise of powers and the performance of the duties of the public utilities board under this Act or the Public Utilities Act, including policies, procedures and directives respecting…" That is the preamble to all seven of these, so I will not need to repeat that.

Mr. Chair, (a) says: "the costs, expenses and allowances that are to be included in the rates, tolls and charges approved for a public utility, and the terms of that inclusion…" My question is: What are those costs, expenses, and allowances that are to be included? Why is this clause necessary?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If you look at it, and I think you have to read all seven of them together to get the full feel for it, but the costs, expenses, and allowances, the capital cost would be, for example, a cost of the project. Operating and maintenance would be ongoing costs. I have indicated the costs of financing have to be included here. I have talked about operation and maintenance. Newfoundland Power gets a certain rate for distribution. That would have to be included here. I will not talk about the rate of return because that is a little further on. Indeed, there is the actual rate of return. Those are the kinds of costs that would be included in subsection (a). As to why it is included, it is just for greater certainty.

Remember now, I say to the Member for St. Barbe, we did not need to bring in this section of the act. We had the exemption that the Liberals had brought in 2000 that, from what I can see, was still in place and the exemption from Muskrat Falls in 2002. We also have 5.1, which we used last week. We used 5.1 which would allow for direction to the PUB. For greater certainty, we wanted to have a clause that related to Muskrat Falls and specifically dealt with the PUB.

As you keep going through this there are various scenarios that could exist. I know the member is aware that in the drafting of a statute you are looking to the future to a certain extent. I am interested in hearing what he has to say on the word may, because I do not interpret the word may here the same way the Leader of the NDP does.

The clear intent of this section – and this is when we are talking, whether it is Driedger statutes or whatever we are talking about in terms of the interpretation of an act, you look to the intent of the Legislature. I think over the last five days, maybe it is not as clear at intent of the Legislature, but the intent of the Legislature is clearly here, that the Public Utilities Board has a role.

I do not think you can read "may" so that Cabinet is going to decide itself. The section would be read: they may direct to the Public Utilities Board, but that would be one component. That is the way I would interpret the first section.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: It obviously will not be necessary to go through the preamble and explanation. My interpretation of "may" means to grant permission. It means: May do I such and such? If you say yes, then it has been permitted. It is a permissive and it allows somebody to do something.

Under (b) it says, "…the terms of the interim orders, orders or approvals determining rates, tolls and charges of a public utility". Why is it necessary when that does not appear in the original clause, which is 120 words long if my counting is right? Why, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, is it necessary to have that clause there? What does it mean?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: When you refer to the first twenty lines, are you talking about the previous 5.1 that is being amended?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The bill we are looking at says 5.1 is amended by renumbering it as 5.1(1) and adding immediately after that subsection. I take it to mean that 5.1(1) is the new one. It has around 200 words and seven sections. Clearly, to me it is replacing it because this new one deals with Muskrat Falls exclusively and the original in the Electrical Power Control Act makes no reference to Muskrat Falls. Muskrat Falls, I think the minister would have to agree, would be presumed under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Board in any event, even if we did not have the new bill.

My inquiry: Why is it necessary for the government to reserve to itself the right to direct the Public Utilities Board as to the terms of any interim orders or approvals determining rates, tolls, and charges of a public utility when it has not done so in the original act?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I had spoken about the original act at some length this week in terms of the Electrical Power Control Act and section 5.1. This act was brought in, in approximately 1994, by Premier Wells at the time. One of the understandings I have of this act, as I looked at it in the 92A context, was that the Electrical Power Control Act was to ensure that we would have a way to recall power if we thought it could be done. That is further on in the act, but that is one of the issues that was looked at there.

I think we could have done what we are doing here to 5.1 by adding a clause. Last week we added a clause, the industrial rates policy in Labrador. We just added a line there. We could have simply added Muskrat Falls. What we thought the better way to do here was to ensure for greater certainty there was a 5.1(2) that dealt specifically with Muskrat Falls.

The purpose of this section, of course, is to ensure we can recover costs – when I say we that would be Newfoundland Hydro and Nalcor – necessary to ensure there is a revenue stream to justify the loan guarantee. Also, I think the member, the Opposition House Leader, and everyone else would know that if you went to a bank on a multibillion-dollar contract, most likely they are going to request the same kind of assurance. What you have is a situation where we are trying to ensure the revenues are collected.

Can I give you an example, for the Member for St. Barbe, of an interim order? No, I cannot give you one right now that would apply.

MR. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: The minister, under the Public Utilities Act, says there is a section that deals with interim orders. That is the Public Utilities Act. I am not sure under this act.

What we are trying to do is ensure we are recovering the costs. The language used here is drafting language. Is it absolutely necessary? I cannot envisage the terms of the interim order or what the interim order could be. An interim order, for example – just let me see if I can come up with one – the Cabinet directs that, for example, there is excess revenues this year so we want you to determine how $20 million of that would be used, or you are going to direct it to go to subsidize the isolated rural rates or diesel, things like that.

I say to the Member for St. Barbe, I do not see anything in there that is tricky. It is just a matter of outlining to the board how the costs are to be recovered. In terms of the Muskrat Falls Project, costs are to be allowed as one component in determining the rates.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, I am still not satisfied with the answer because it seems to me when it says the government is reserving for itself because it says it may direct the Public Utilities Board as to "the terms of the interim orders, orders or approvals determining rates, tolls and charges...".

It seems the government is saying: We need this amendment because we want the right to be able to tell the Public Utilities Board, you are going to make an order, this is going to be the interim order, and this is how you are going to do the order. You have become little more than a rubber stamp. This is fettering the discretion of the Public Utilities Board, in my view. I would ask if –

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I can answer that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: No, I do agree that this is clearly an attempt to ensure that costs are recovered. You can characterize it as an attempt to fetter discretion. What I would characterize it as is the way we have to go about business here in order to ensure the revenue stream necessary for the loan guarantee is in place.

I want to come back, though, to the important point here. Is that we are saying to the Public Utilities Board: You have to allow the costs in relation to Muskrat Falls. Then the rates and everything else the Public Utilities Board does, they will still be involved. That is the way I would envisage it. I think the Minister of Finance here originally talked about that.

The clear intent here, and we have stated this for the last five days, is that this matter would go to the Public Utilities Board and that we – the Lieutenant-Governor in Council – would direct them that they have to recover the costs. That is a condition of the loan guarantee. A billion dollars goes into the pockets of the ratepayers, so that is why we are doing that.

Yes; are we fettering discretion? To a certain extent.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move on to (c). This says the government may direct the Public Utilities Board with respect "to the criteria to be applied by the public utilities board for the approval or confirmation of an approval by the public utilities board".

To me, that means that whatever criteria exists in the Public Utilities Act or whatever criteria exists in the Electrical Power Control Act. Whatever criteria already exists, this particular subsection will override that, and the government reserves themselves the right to tell the Public Utilities Board this is the criteria you must use for the approval or confirmation of an approval by the Public Utilities Board.

Is that not correct? If so, why is that necessary?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: I will confirm that that is the case in terms of Muskrat Falls. We have not done it in relation to 5.1, where the industrial rates in Labrador – remember, we just added the clause. It is clearly the intent of this section that government, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, may direct the PUB to implement certain policies and procedures and directives. That relates, I say to the Member for St. Barbe, to the recovery of the costs necessary in terms of providing the revenue stream necessary to cover the loan guarantee as a condition. Schedule A is a condition of the loan guarantee.

The criteria to be applied – I could see, for example, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council by order hereby directs the Public Utilities Board to ensure that all costs provided by Nalcor relating to the Muskrat Falls Project be included in the determining of rates for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador including capital costs put forward, operating and maintenance costs, financing costs, issues like that; whereas the rate of return is a separate section.

Yes, it is clear that this section is meant to recover the costs of Muskrat Falls.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Under (d), I ask the minister – this says that the government reserves to itself the discretion to be able to tell the Public Utilities Board what should be "the annual rate of return of a public utility".

Does that mean that the government can say whatever else you do, we want you to make this 8 per cent return or 9 per cent, or 10 per cent or 20 per cent, or 3 per cent or whatever, that the government has reserved onto itself the right that the board – if the government says you must make this the rate of return then the board, by this amendment to the act, must now grant that rate. Why is that necessary?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: There is no question that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the Public Utilities Board in relation to the annual rate of return. I think that is quite simple in that the numbers that we have put forward here are based on an 8.4 per cent rate of return; however, I understand that in utility terms, the utilities can range as high as 9.2 per cent – I think that is the rate of return that Emera – it is either 8.5 or 9 per cent Nova Scotia Power gets in return. I think, in fact, the 8.4 per cent is a little bit lower.

Theoretically, I say to the member – pointed out by the Leader of the Third Party – is that you have to have sufficient revenue. Theoretically, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could instruct the PUB to have a lower rate of return. Now, I do not think it would work like that, but for the early years, the 8.4 per cent is certainly an important number, and that is the base upon which the revenue stream is generated.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: So, Mr. Chair, I ask of the minister: Does that mean that the government has reserved unto itself the right to tell the board that this must be the rate of return so that the utility is able then to service the debt that is attached to Muskrat Falls?

MR. KENNEDY: I am sorry; I missed that question.

MR. BENNETT: Does this mean that the government has reserved unto itself, from the power of the board, to determine what should be the rate of return for a public utility – and we can say Nalcor, Emera, or the Muskrat Falls Corporation – and this is for the purpose of being able to service the debt that is incurred in building Muskrat Falls?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: The Public Utilities Board regulates the return on equity, or in terms of a normal Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro hearing or Newfoundland Power, and they can reduce the rate that is asked for. I think that has happened in the past.

In this particular case, we know that the rate of return of 8.4 per cent is included in the numbers that we have put out here in terms of the electricity rates that we have projected. The 15.1 cents, or the $231 with Muskrat Falls includes all of the factors I outlined earlier and an 8.4 per cent return on equity. That is the return on equity, because there also has to be, from what I understand in dealings with the lending agencies and I am sure the lending institutions, you have to show that you can get a certain rate of return on equity that justifies the loan that is being requested.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: In respect of the subsection (e), this says that the government may direct the Public Utilities Board "whether or not a hearing shall be held".

What type of a hearing? Why is it necessary for the government to keep the authority to be able to tell the board whether or not they should have a hearing?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Again, I say to the Member for St. Barbe: Can I give you a specific example of a hearing that would be held? I cannot at present. What I envisage in the early years of this project once the revenue stream starts to come in, we have to ensure all the obligations are met in terms of capital costs and others costs of the project.

I could envisage later on there being a hearing where, for example, there could be a direction from the Cabinet to the board to determine whether or not an 8 per cent versus 8.4 per cent return of equity would be required. There could be a hearing on a specific aspect of a cost, should it be considered.

What it is here is simply a clause that looks at eventualities and it allows for a hearing if one is required. Can I say to you right now that I can conceptualize those types of eventualities? No, I cannot. I feel safer with that kind of clause being there.

I would prefer, I say to the Member for St. Barbe, from a drafting and legislative perspective, to see a wider clause here that gives the Cabinet and Lieutenant-Governor in Council certain powers that can not only constrain the board, as some would say, but assist the board and that could also allow for a fuller review. That section seems to allow that, but I cannot give you an example right now of a hearing that would be held.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under (f), it says the government may direct the Public Utilities Board with respect to "the commencement, suspension, continuation or termination of a hearing or process".

Can the Minister of Natural Resources explain what that means and why it is necessary?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: If you go to subsection (3), I say to the Member for St. Barbe, it says, "The public utilities board shall implement…". The mandatory shall is used in subsection (3). I could envisage a situation where the Public Utilities Board decided they were not going to restrict themselves to the direction of Cabinet. They could decide they are going to go outside the ambit of the directive or they could accidentally do that. At that point in time they would be, in my opinion, not complying with subsection (3) totally, but this allows for the Cabinet to say: Stop, you have done what you need to do, move on, and then they shall comply with the directive.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under (g), it says that the government has reserved to itself to be able to direct to the Public Utilities Board "the parameters, criteria and timing of the exercise or restraint from exercise of a power of performance of a duty of the public utilities board under this Act or the Public Utilities Act."

Could the minister explain that and why it is necessary?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: I will use two examples that I think are very current, that come to my mind, whether or not they are as appropriate and relevant as I would like, I cannot say that. Let's just look at what took place with our Public Utilities Board here in this Province.

If there had been a you shall do this or you shall make a decision, they would have had to comply under this act. In the UARB legislation in Nova Scotia it is quite interesting, they are told, the way the legislation is written is that the UARB shall decide – I am trying to think of the exact words; give me a second now – they shall find that the Maritime Link is the appropriate project if it is the lowest cost.

So, there is no discretion there for the UARB, and I am not sure what difference it makes having regard to the sanction agreement, but the UARB there, they shall find. In our situation here in this Province they were asked the reference question that gave them certain latitude. This particular section, along with subsection (3), will prevent that from happening in the future.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Based on these seven subclauses, does the Public Utilities Board have any autonomy or any independence whatsoever to make any decision related to Muskrat Falls other than how and what the government directs it to do; and, if so, what is that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Based on this section right now, the principle behind the full section is that the Muskrat Falls cost shall be recovered. In order to satisfy the requirements of the loan guarantee and, I would suggest, the requirements of any lending institution there has to be a guarantee – if there is such a word – that the revenue stream will be provided.

In Muskrat Falls, they have to follow what is directed. When it gets to the setting of the rates, though, there are other components, for example. I do not read this that government is going to be directing this is the rate you have to set. Government will be saying that these are the factors you have to consider and you have to allow for the recovery of these costs. Then, you would take that cost, this is the rate that would normally come from this, you would blend that with the other power and come up with the figure that would be charged.

It seems to me that the PUB still has a very significant role to play. Maybe we are labouring under the misconception or the allusion here that Cabinet is going to come up with the cost of electricity; that you have to charge 16.3 cents. That is what they do. For example, I could envisage a hearing where you present all your costs. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro says this is the cost we need or the number we need to collect our money. The PUB will then come up with the cost. That is what I see here, Sir.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to stand and just have a few words on this –

CHAIR: On the clause.

MR. JOYCE: On the clause. Oh definitely on the clause, no doubt.

CHAIR: Thank you, Sir.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I would never stray off a clause; I would stay directly to the topic. That is against my nature, Mr. Chair, not to stay to the subject.

Mr. Chair, we heard the Minister of Finance today – and he can answer it later when he gets an opportunity. I heard the Minister of Finance say that there is nothing new in this act. Any time I ever hear someone say there is nothing new in the act, I always ask the question: Well, why change it?

The minister said it today, and I made a note. The minister said: There is nothing new in this act. That is the question I have to ask. If someone from government later can stand up – if there are no changes from the old act, what are we doing on this clause? I know the minister can answer it.

The second question I will ask the minister so he can answer both of them at the same time. The minister just said – and this is clarification - the minister just said –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: – they can direct the PUB to ensure that the cost of the project is covered – expenses, capital costs, maintenance, delivery, all that is covered.

The question I have to ask: If that is why we are putting in this clause here, 5.1, Mr. Chair, where is the $20 billion coming from? Someone has to order them to get a higher rate if the Minister of Finance is saying we are going to make $20 billion and the minister is saying that it is only to cover the costs.

I will just ask for clarification of that. I will give the minister time because I know it is an important issue. If the PUB is directed to cover the costs, the capital costs, to cover all the maintenance of it, to cover all the interest charges, somewhere hidden in here is giving them permission or ordering them to charge and to ensure that there is a profit. The Minister of Finance is after saying all this week, the last four or five days, we are going to make $20 billion over fifty years. I think that is the figure the minister was using.

The Minister of Natural Resources was just saying that we are going to order them to do the capital cost, whatever the cost was, whatever the interest, whatever the carrying charges, whatever the interest charges, but where is the $20 billion? So obviously Cabinet got the direction to order the PUB to increase the rates for $20 billion. Somewhere along the line that is happening.

So that is a major concern that I have that obviously is not being told here, because we were in the last little while being told that we are going to have $20 billion profit and we can build the hospitals and we can do this thing with it, Mr. Chair.

I am asking, Mr. Chair, where is that? So, someone got the order, because the PUB – and I look the mission statement of the PUB. The mission statement of the PUB, from their own Web site, "Through our skilled staff and an investigative and monitoring process that invites full public participation…" – which is gone now, because under this act the Cabinet has the discretion not to allow the PUB to have public meetings, which is clearly in there, so that is going to be gone – "…we ensure that the public of Newfoundland and Labrador are well served in a changing environment by achieving an equitable balance between the interests of consumers and service providers in the electric utility…."

So my question is: What is the balance for the ratepayers if we are set up here to supply energy, yet we are going to end up with a $20 billion profit? This is going beyond supplying energy to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a money-making generator for the Province.

MR. MARSHALL: For the people.

MR. JOYCE: For the people. It does not matter who it is for; it is for the people. If you want to say for the Province, the people, but it is for the taxpayers, the ones who are paying for the 100 per cent of this here.

MR. MARSHALL: It goes back to them.

MR. JOYCE: It might go back. I am not saying it does not go back - I am not questioning that part. My question is, I always thought the PUB would ensure that you cover the cost, whatever maintenance and capital cost, you are giving a 7 per cent or 8 per cent return to the utility that put it in, 7.8 or whatever it is, or 7.9, but now all of a sudden there is $20 billion added on to it, yet we are saying that the PUB is not changing.

MR. MARSHALL: (Inaudible) 7 per cent or 8 per cent.

MR. JOYCE: It is 7 per cent or 8 per cent. If you are you are going to get $20 billion over 7 per cent or 8 per cent, so there is no additional profit besides the 7 per cent or 8 per cent that utilities would get, and that is going to create a $20 billion profit in Newfoundland and Labrador over fifty years.

Am I to say that if we were doing the same rate here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nalcor, if they had this project, they would get $20 billion at 7 per cent return?

I will give the minister a chance to respond. I will sit down and give the minister a chance to respond.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you very much.

I am going to stab at a couple of the questions, but when we get into the nominal cost of dollars I am going to have to turn it over to the Minister of Finance.

I would suggest to the Member for Bay of Islands, this is way I look at the act: Section 5.1, as it now exists, would allow us to direct the PUB with an additional clause, such as we put with the industrial rates in Labrador or to encourage industrial policy in Labrador, whatever that term is we are using.

We could have simply added that we will ensure that Muskrat Falls costs are recovered, something along those lines. It is not correct to say - from my perspective - that the 5.1 as it currently exists is the same as the amendment that we are making. The amendment that we are making clarifies specifically in relation to Muskrat Falls, how we will go about it, and it looks at the direction and giving the power to direct in a more extensive way.

I do not think they are the same. What I think I have said in the past is that 5.1, with an amendment, or even by itself, could potentially allow for us to direct the PUB on Muskrat Falls; but, for greater certainty, the section that we have outlined there does, and so they are different in that respect. The intent of both sections is the same in terms of allowing the Lieutentant-Governor in Council to direct the PUB.

The second question asked, and I say to the Member for Bay of Islands it is a very good question because it was one of the first ones, when we started doing these rates, that jumped out at me. I will tell you why it jumped out at me. I had a difficult time trying to figure it out. We were looking at 2016, and I will use again the average ratepayer paying $214, yet the average ratepayer, a year later when Muskrat Falls is on stream, would only be paying $231. I could not get my head around: How can an increase of $17 pay for this project?

I really had difficulty figuring that out first, but there were two ways. One, you have to remember that the money that is being spent on oil, that $130 million, $150 million, $160 million that is being spent on oil, will no longer be spent on oil. That is coming out of the rate base, by the way; I understand that the rates now pay for the cost of oil. That $130 million that we used in 2011, for example, when it was going 15 per cent to 25 per cent at a time, that will no longer have to go to oil. That would now go into the rate base for the building of Muskrat Falls. That is one aspect.

The second aspect – and when you do the numbers it is actually quite interesting - if you take 240,000 ratepayers, even at $17 a month, and you start doing that and compounding it over a period of time, it adds up. The $20 billion, when I look at my numbers that I have here, I do not see that $20 billion. I think what it is, is that you look at the numbers today and then you have to give it a value that it would have down the road, and that is where – I will just give you an example, though, and again –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

This is a fair question and this is one of the reasons that we need to be able to recover the costs early on. The numbers are not as big in the first ten years. You are going to see the numbers really increase when we have it all paid off. By the time you get to 2049, you are looking at a profit of potentially $700 million coming to the Treasury because everything else has been paid. Then by the time you get to the fifty-year period it is close to a billion dollars because things have been paid.

The question is a very valid question. It is one that we had to look at, and I struggled with myself, but really when you do the math; $17 a month may not sound like a lot but you take 240,000 ratepayers, you start doing that month after month over a fifty-year period and it adds up to a lot of money. Also, if you take out the fact that the money for oil that was coming out of the ratepayer no longer has to go there, you have a good start in 2017.

That is my understanding of how we have come up with those numbers. If you are going to get into the explanation of the nominal dollars, either the Leader of the Opposition or the Minister of Finance is going to have to take that one for me.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for that explanation. There would be no one prouder than me if those are the profits when we look down the road for Newfoundland and Labrador.

One more question I will have on this clause. If the intent – and I do not know the reason – was to ensure that we get the capital costs back from the project to bring this part of the act and change the PUB act. If the intent was to get the capital costs, interests, and to ensure that it is being paid and ensure that there is a rate of return, the question I would ask and someone can answer it, I guess the minister can answer it is in section (e), "whether or not a hearing shall be held; (f) the commencement, suspension, continuation or termination of a hearing or process".

My question is that the PUB always had the authority and always had a public hearing. If I am reading this correctly – which I have asked people and they think I am – is that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, can now go to PUB, no, you are not going to have a hearing; or if they are into a hearing, they have to stop the hearing.

In section (e), "whether or not a hearing shall be held". I ask the minister: Why the change? I gave a speech on that this afternoon. It almost like taking the ability for which we all do as parliamentarians to go out and have public meetings to get input and explain why we are doing it. It is almost taking that ability away from the PUB and ensuring that the PUB cannot have hearings. I would just ask the minister to respond to that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you very much.

Again, that is a fair question. This is the way I would envisage this working; there would be a direction on Muskrat Falls costs to be recovered. There could still be a PUB hearing because you have to come up with the rate. We are not directing the rates to be set. What the Lieutenant-Governor in Council would be directing is that the costs are to be recovered. Those costs would be outlined perhaps in writing.

I could envisage a situation where there could be a hearing on one part of the costs or some part of the costs. What we are seeing here is that there would still be a hearing in general on the setting of rates because I understand that takes place. Even though the Muskrat Falls costs are being recovered, the Public Utilities Board still has to determine the rates. That is where the role for all –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, that is where the Public Utilities Board still comes in. What I would envisage this, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, is that there could specifically be a hearing in relation to part of the Muskrat Falls costs.

When you look at a statute and you look at the way it is all laid out here and we have the semicolon – I know this gets rather boring. I do not see the disjunctive or, so I would interpret it as being these are the kinds of things we can do. I would interpret that to mean that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could order a board on part or all of the Muskrat Falls costs. That is unlikely but that is what would make sense there. There would still be a hearing, though, the way I understand this, in relation to the determination of the actual rate.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I will not belabour this, I say to the minister. Am I under the understanding that the PUB on their own can have a hearing on any part of Muskrat Falls but if the PUB decides we do not want a hearing, that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can order them to have a hearing? If the PUB wanted to have a hearing, am I correct in saying that the Lieutenant-Government in Council, Cabinet, cannot stop them from having a hearing if the PUB themselves want to have a hearing? Does this section of the act stop them from having public hearings and public consultations?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: You are right. This section on Muskrat Falls, if the Lieutenant-Governor in Council directs that there is to be all costs of Muskrat Falls recovered, then there would be no hearing on that. However, my understanding further, is there would still be a rates hearing once you determine what the costs of Muskrat Falls power is. Again, it has been a long week and I am shooting from the hip somewhat, but this is what I would envisage happening.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will come in and say: these are our costs of operating, maintenance. These are the costs. This is what it would translate into a cost per kilowatt hour, but we still have to look at the other components of the rate, including the cheaper power that will still be available on the Island. The Public Utilities Board would have their regular hearing but there would not be a hearing on the Muskrat Falls section of the cost unless the Lieutenant-Governor in Council directed it.

Does that make sense to you, Minister?

MR. MARSHALL: It does, yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak to this particular clause of the bill. I say to the minister that is exactly how we interpret that particular section and we just wanted to clarify that. I guess it falls in line with the rest of the sections of this act, and that is basically the Public Utilities Board would act only as directed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Mr. Chair, we obviously brought forward a number of concerns with regard to this section. When we started we gave advance copies of these amendments to all sides in the House of Assembly. Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to get the House to accept those amendments as being in order to have appropriate debate. As a result of that, we can only continue to question the clauses of the bill for clarification by the government to ensure what their stand is as it relates to those particular sections.

Mr. Chair, my colleague, the Member for St. Barbe, asked a number of questions with regard to each of the sections within this clause of the bill. We feel comfortable that government has clarified their position, however different it might be from how we feel. We certainly feel, Mr. Chair, there should be more openness and transparency as it relates to this particular section of the bill.

We feel the Public Utilities Board should have access to more of the information than they are being guaranteed. As a result of that, we feel by endorsing that process, in fact, what the government would be endorsing is openness and transparency and providing more information to the people of the Province as it relates to any expenditures or income that are directly associated with this project.

Mr. Chair, we can only ask the government that those amendments will be made. Obviously, the House feels it would change the scope of the legislation beyond what is the intent of the government. I guess we have had that clarified through the answers from the minister opposite. As a result of that, the government would not be open to moving forward themselves with these amendments to change the scope of where they are and how they view this particular process.

In terms of that, Mr. Chair, we feel, obviously, that change is necessary. In the absence of that, we certainly feel a disservice would be done to the public of this Province. What we are asking them under this clause is to assume a huge amount of debt to pay the rates as dictated by the government. However, Mr. Chair, it does not allow for them to have access to the public utilities company of which they are supposed to be an owner and shareholder. It does not allow them to have access to the information in which the regulatory body will rubber stamp the rates they will pay. It does not allow them to have access to hearings unless those are authorized and directed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Really, Mr. Chair, it is all about control for the government but not about disclosure for the people of the Province. We felt it was imperative that we make every effort possible to expand the scope of this clause of the bill. Without the co-operation, of course, of the government, we are unable to change the scope of legislation.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 3 and 4.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 3 and 4 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I want to speak to clause 3. Of course, what happens in this particular amendment here – one of the issues about the provision of energy in the Province for many, many years now, even though it has been – and I spoke at great length over the last few months about the whole idea of a competitive market and really the role that the Public Utilities Board would play when there is no competition available, Mr. Chair.

In this particular case, the supply of electricity in a lot of jurisdictions is usually done on a monopoly basis. So what happens in that case is what you would do is you would get the Public Utilities Board or some regulator that would be involved in determining the rates. In this particular amendment to Bill 61, what we are talking about in clause 3, 14.1, it speaks that "Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro shall have the exclusive right to supply, distribute and sell electrical power or energy to a retailer or an industrial customer in respect of the business or operations of that retailer or industrial customer on the island portion of the province".

The whole idea here is that there would have to be enough revenue to support the overall cost of the project, and this being for maybe up to a period of fifty years. It could be less, but in all likelihood in the fifty-year mark.

What you are looking at here in this particular clause, what it does is it gives Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro the exclusive right to supply. The concern for us is that over the next number of years, I think most people around would suggest or anticipate that there would be some other options for the people. Understanding that the revenue stream needs to be protected but should it be protected with just exclusivity is another question. Protecting that exclusivity for such a long period of time is in our opinion something that would need to be addressed. Understanding that the Muskrat Falls Project, based on its own merits, would play a significant role in the supply of energy regardless of the cost and all of this just because it has the capacity to replace Holyrood and, as the government members have often said, what is said to be increasing demand on power needs for the Province and for industrial development in Labrador.

In this particular case, giving the exclusive right to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro the right to supply, the right to distribute and sell electrical power or energy to a retailer, in our opinion, goes beyond the scope of the whole intent of the marketing and supplying energy to electrical customers in the Province. What we feel here is even though, as I said, these particular utilities play a significant role in the provision of electricity we do have a problem however with the exclusivity and for such a long period of time.

This is a long period of time, as I say. There is no question. As a matter of fact, it was mentioned in this House yesterday about how the tidal developments for instance in Nova Scotia are being developed. Who knows where that is going to go in the future? We have had a lot of discussion about other sources of energy. At some point will we ever get a supply of wind energy to the point where it becomes reliable?

As a matter of fact, we have questioned over the last few months, as I said, the ability of Muskrat Falls to actually provide firm power. As of yet we really do not know with the mining industry, for instance, as it gets developed in Labrador if it would require firm power. If it requires firm power, Muskrat Falls, for instance, would only be a project in the 570 megawatts. We know that Muskrat Falls can only provide 70 per cent. If firm power is a requirement, it would be at 70 per cent.

In future developments, what this particular amendment would do is give Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro the exclusive right of supply. Who knows? Fifty years is a long time. The exclusivity or the monopoly in this particular case is a situation we feel needs to be addressed.

There is an amendment 14.1(1)(a). I will move the amendment, seconded by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. I move that the proposed paragraph 14.1(1)(a) in clause 3 is amended by deleting the word exclusive.

CHAIR (Cross): Has this been tabled?

MR. BALL: Yes.

CHAIR: This Committee is in recess to search the amendment and see if it is in order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

After much careful deliberation, the amendment was found not to be in order.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: If we are not determined, Mr. Chair, we are nothing. That is what I would say.

Mr. Chair, I wanted to speak to clause 3 of the bill.

CHAIR: Absolutely, and only clause 3.

MS JONES: This deals with the exclusive right. It says under section 14.1, which is being amended, "Notwithstanding another provision of this Act or another Act, (a) Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro shall have the exclusive right to supply, distribute and sell electrical power or energy to a retailer or an industrial customer in respect of the business or operations of that retailer or industrial customer on the island portion of the province…".

Now, Mr. Chair, in interpreting that particular clause, and certainly we are open to clarification from the government opposite, what we are seeing here is the government in this legislation giving Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro through these words the exclusive right. It is actually giving them a monopoly on the distribution and sale of electrical power and energy in this Province.

Mr. Chair, we all know that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has always been the proponent of electricity and have always sold that electricity to all people in the Province, whether they sold it to Newfoundland Power and they became a distributor or directly to a customer. That has always been the way, Mr. Chair.

Then it goes on to talk about, "a retailer or an industrial customer shall purchase electrical power or energy exclusively from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in respect of the business or operations of that retailer or industrial customer on the island portion of the province."

It goes on in clause 2, Mr. Chair, to say, "Notwithstanding another provision of this Act or another Act, a retailer or an industrial customer shall not develop, own, operate, manage or control a facility for the generation and supply of electrical power or energy either for its own use or for supply directly or indirectly to or for the public or an entity on the island portion of the province." Mr. Chair, basically what this is saying is that although there may be others out there who might be developing hydro power projects and so on, that particular sale of power would have to be managed and controlled through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which as we know now will be the main distributor of electricity in the Province.

It also goes on to say that this "…does not apply to an industrial customer if that industrial customer is purchasing electrical power or energy in respect of its business or operations on the island portion of the province exclusively from a retailer to whom subsection (1) applies." Mr. Chair, the bill continues. I have to get through it all in order to speak to it.

Then it goes on to say that it does "…not apply to generation facilities owned, operated, managed or controlled by a retailer or an industrial customer where the electrical power or energy generated is used by the retailer or industrial customer exclusively in emergency circumstances." You need to take that into consideration.

Then it goes on to say, "Subsection (2) does not apply to generation facilities owned, operated, managed or controlled by a retailer or an industrial customer where those facilities existed on December 31, 2011, including the refurbishment of those facilities."

I keep going, Mr. Chair, before I get to the rest of my comments. Number (6) says, "A contract or arrangement entered into before or after the coming into force of this section which is contrary to this section is unenforceable."

Number (7), Mr. Chair, says, "Notwithstanding another provision of this section, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, by order, exempt a retailer or an industrial customer from the application of this section or a subsection of it."

What we did, Mr. Chair, is propose an amendment. Unfortunately, again, it was outside of the scope of where government is going. Of course, what that means is there is a difference of opinion here with regard to this section of the bill in terms of where we are and where the government is. Obviously, this can only be changed if the government is prepared to look at changing the scope of the bill.

Basically what this does is enshrine Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a monopoly distributor for the next fifty years, and it ties the hands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from accessing energy innovation. So really, Mr. Chair, it is preventing a very free and a very open energy market. We do not agree with that, Mr. Chair; we honestly do not, because we cannot see where we are going to be fifty years from now in terms of new technologies, in terms of other kinds of power that might be available at a lower cost, at a better profit. There might be a way that things could be done differently. I think that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should always have the option or the right to choose a cheaper source of power, if such a source ever became available.

We wanted to amend this clause because you only have to look today – I gave some examples when we were debating the bill in principle. You look at where we are today, even just in medicine alone. One time when we had the X-ray machine everybody thought this was the greatest thing in technology in our hospitals, the fact that you could get an X-ray, a visual image of something in which you could further diagnose the condition of a patient.

Today, here we are, we have full services of the best technology that you can get today. We are talking about putting in MRIs. We have put in CAT scan machines. We hear of PET scanning now, which is the new thing coming to major hospitals across our country and one that is going to be put at the Health Sciences in this Province. We have come so far with nuclear medicine, Mr. Chair, from the time of an X-ray to where we are today. That happened in a very short time frame, a very short time frame.

Other examples, Mr. Chair, my colleague used one in debate as well, when he talked about when we were using a typewriter. We thought it was a great thing when there was a typewriter. Then the typewriter became an electric typewriter. You could type a little bit faster and the keys were not as hard.

Now look at where we are. We are into tablets. We are into technology today where you just have to speak and it types everything you want. We have advanced so far in a very short time. To tie the hands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and to restrict us with a monopoly situation like this, we do not see this as allowing for a free and open energy market for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Chair, in this bill, the government is allowing for new development of energy but only to export, not to sell to our own people. Basically, they are saying we are going to develop Muskrat Falls. We are going to tell you how much your rates are going to be. We are going to tell you that you have to buy this power. You cannot buy any other power because we are not going to allow any other power to be provided, any other energy.

Mr. Chair, that is where government is going in this Bill 61. That is where they are leaning in terms of that situation, and we do not support that principle, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

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

Essentially, what this section is doing is simply putting into statute the existing, or formalizing the existing market arrangements in this Province where Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is the wholesale supplier for the majority of power consumed on the Island through sales to industrial customers and Newfoundland Power. If you look at the current make up of our power in this Province, we currently have – the Island generating capacity is approximately 1,958 megawatts of energy.

Most of that is provided by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, or 78 per cent. We have Newfoundland Power which has 7 per cent. It has some small projects around. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper generates 123 megawatts, or up to 6 per cent of the power around. Star Lake and Exploits generation, up to 5 per cent of the power, and I spoke about that earlier today. Then we have some other non-utility generators with approximately 4 per cent.

Essentially, what we are doing here, we are doing two things. One, we are ensuring that the energy in the Province is developed in a way that is logical through a Crown corporation, Nalcor, that can then see –

MR. MARSHALL: Owned by the people.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, as the Minister of Finance has repeated on many occasions, owned by the people. We do not see it as being a threat to markets. It is easy to talk about all the things that have taken place in medicine, but we still have – where is the Deputy House Leader? How long has Petty Harbour been producing energy out there? Since 1904 or something like that, Petty Harbour?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Since 1902.

MR. KENNEDY: Since 1902 Petty Harbour has been producing energy. There are two forms of energy that have been proven over the last 100 years, and have been specifically oil and hydro. Natural gas is certainly a proven source of energy. Natural gas, shale gas has been around for a long time. All they have managed to do is to make sure that the fracking process or the horizontal drilling works.

I refer to Dr. Yergin's book The Prize. He talks about the development of oil in the 1800s in Western Pennsylvania. At that point in time kerosene was a big seller. Kerosene was one of the first derivatives I think utilized for lighting lamps.

Hydro has been around. There is nothing to indicate, and I am not saying there will not be advances. There can always be advances, but we also have today – this is another way of guaranteeing the revenue stream. We guarantee the revenue stream because we ensure that the energy that is on the market is purchased at the rates available. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has the mandate to provide the lowest possible rates.

What seems to be going on here today, we bring in a piece of legislation today to achieve a specific purpose of guaranteeing the revenue stream. That legislation does not have to be around forever. Legislatures and legislators can change legislation. That is a basic principle. What we are trying to do is ensure that the lenders and everyone else is satisfied that we can proceed with Muskrat Falls and there is a guaranteed revenue stream.

There is another practical reality we have to recognize here. We are on an island. At this point we do not have a link to anywhere. We had some discussion yesterday, myself and the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, about the FERC rules and the open access transmission tariff.

One of the things we have to recognize here is it is very unlikely that in a secondary market like Newfoundland and Labrador you are going to see big energy providers come in. This is not the market. The market is the Northeastern United States, Ontario, and New England. That is where the market is for energy. Moving 50 megawatts of energy into Newfoundland and Labrador is not exactly going to be what some of these big companies are looking for.

Again, I am going to put it in a very practical perspective. We currently have access to 265 megawatts of energy on the Hydro-Quebec lines. The applications made by Nalcor were based on there being excess capacity. They wanted to start in 2006 trying to move energy through Quebec into Ontario and the Northeastern United States. One of the arguments Hydro-Quebec made against Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro applications, they did not have the capacity on the lines. You only have to provide open access if you have capacity.

We will have a 500 megawatt link. That 500 megawatt link will provide 170 megawatts of energy to Nova Scotia. So there is some capacity. Energy can go both ways, there is no question of that, but we can fill that link with hopefully all of the mining developments we want to see take place in Labrador. As I talked about yesterday, we have Round Pond, Island Pond, and Portland Creek with approximately 77 megawatts of energy. We could develop those.

We have great wind in this Province. We can start developing other sources. So, to fill that 500 megawatt link is probably not going to have a terribly tough time to do. New Brunswick is currently putting Point Lepreau back in service, so they will certainly be able to provide. They will be an excess energy provider. In fact, over the last couple of years a lot of the energy that was sent out of the 300 block recall was going to New Brunswick while Lepreau was being fixed up.

Nova Scotia needs a lot more energy than what we are providing. I think what we are providing them, that 1 terawatt of energy – again, I cannot be quoted on every number I put out there this week – is approximately 10 per cent of the new energy they require. They have to replace other coal-fired plants. There are rules in effect.

The issue of people coming here, could it happen? Certainly. Could we develop more wind? At this stage there is only a certain amount of wind that could be integrated into the system. I think the Hatch report adopted by MHI indicated about 280 megawatts of wind being integrated into the system.

We are simply making Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro the wholesale provider in the Province. These amendments, however, regarding exclusive rights do not preclude new power generation for export. That is another issue.

I know there has been some concern. There was concern expressed today about what is going on with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and Mr. Kruger. Is he planning to get into the power business? Let me put it to you this way: we know what is going on there. The 120 megawatts of power is needed to run that mill in Corner Brook and that is what that power will be used for.

The bill gives Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro the exclusive right to supply. I know my deputy minister met with the President of Newfoundland Power and told him what the legislation was going to do. Newfoundland Power or Fortis has interests in places other than Newfoundland and Labrador right now in terms of Belize, BC, Alberta, and other places. This is a small market. Let us never forget we are a small market here in this Province. Retailers and industrial customers on the Island will have to purchase power or energy exclusively from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

What we are doing here, again, is not something, though, that has any nefarious motive or is conspiratorial in any way. Two other provinces do this. Both Manitoba and Saskatchewan currently have forms of legislative Crown corporation electricity monopolies. They take different approaches. Saskatchewan is the most direct, establishing the Saskatchewan Power Corporation as having the exclusive right to undertake various activities. Manitoba, it is said, prohibits anyone from engaging in the electrical activities without approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, but excludes Manitoba Hydro in this section, implicitly leaving Manitoba Hydro with the sole authority to pursue the activities.

We have a couple of other provinces where this has been done, but let us look as we move down the road. There can be changes certainly. I am not going to argue that there will not be. In the energy sector, I think it is a little bit different in terms of what is tried and true, and what is proven.

There is no question there are issues of solar and tidal, but solar requires sun. I am not so certain that in our Province, or at least in the Eastern part of the Province, it is going to have much effect. I talked yesterday when I met with Professor Bulkin in London. He talked about harnessing the tidal power of the Thames. These are things that are being looked at.

What we are doing here is allowing for this exclusive right for several reasons: one, to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Nalcor can continue to do the job they have to do; secondly, we are not affecting people who already have generating capacity; thirdly, we are indicating that this will also protect the revenue stream; and fourthly, the provision under section 7, that "…the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, by order, exempt a retailer or an industrial customer from the application of this section or a subsection of it." While appearing to be somewhat complicated, I would suggest that this section simply formalizes the agreements that are already in place on the Island.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

I am glad that we are now at clause 3 and dealing with another very controversial piece in this legislation. Obviously, the issue is not that it is in this legislation; it is that this is all part of a whole plan by government which I think is very problematic. That is having an Energy Plan that is basically based on one thing and that is this major hydroelectric development of Muskrat Falls.

I have been expressing my concern that the government's Energy Plan has become Muskrat Falls. I think clause 2 was part of that discussion and now clause 3 is an essential part of that discussion, enabling Muskrat Falls to be what this government wants it to be. That is what this legislation has always been called by the minister, enabling legislation for Muskrat Falls.

With regard to this section, which gives the exclusive rights to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to supply, distribute, and sell electrical power or energy to retailers and industrial customers in our Province, it is sending us in a direction that is very problematic because of the Muskrat Falls development. Basically, that is going to become the major source of the energy.

It is not just that we have a monopoly. We have always had the monopoly, but that monopoly now is going to be intensified because people are going to have to buy power from Muskrat Falls regardless of the price, and particularly when it comes to the retail and industrial customers. Fortunately, residential customers are not forbidden from generating electricity yet in this legislation. I hope that day would never come that they would be because we do have a number of people in the Province who do generate their own electricity, not for sale but for themselves. Obviously, the legislation recognizes that and I am glad.

The concern I have, and it comes down to what I have been saying with regard to our Energy Plan is now Muskrat Falls, is that by going in this direction and setting up a development with a fifty-year expectation for that development, this development is going to be all encompassing and this legislation, which creates the monopoly to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, is part of that. This legislation is closing the door on alternative energy forms, alternative green energy forms, and forms of energy that are greener than hydroelectricity. Hydroelectricity is definitely greener than burning fossil fuels, but then there are other forms, such as wind, solar, tidal and biomass, which are all greener than hydro electricity.

The joint panel review was released in 2011. We have been talking about the joint panel review quite a bit now over the last, well, I suppose it is over Thursday because we are still in Thursday. In their report, which was released in August of 2011, they recommended the Muskrat Falls energy should be used to displace high greenhouse gas emission energy and that it not be used to displace demand management, conservation, efficiency, and the generation of power from renewable low greenhouse gas emission energy sources. Muskrat Falls should not be used in that way; it should be used to displace high greenhouse gas emissions.

In its response to that recommendation, the provincial government accepted the intent of the recommendation and said they would: co-operate with Nalcor to offer advice and expertise on GHG, greenhouse gas mitigation and energy efficiency.

Now that is a pretty weak response to a pretty strong recommendation, that the government would co-operate with Nalcor to offer advice; not put in place programs, not actually help things happen, but to offer advice and expertise on mitigation and energy efficiency. Not make programs happen –

CHAIR: Order, please!

Could I ask the member to come back to the exclusivity or tie the knots together so –?

MS MICHAEL: Yes. Well, I can easily do that, Mr. Chair, because the exclusive right that is being talked about in clause 3, the exclusive right means that only electricity generated from Muskrat Falls, from Nalcor can be sold to these customers. Because of that, we are not going to see people who will be looking at generation of electricity, for example, from wind for their sources; either for them to sell in particular to other people as well. That will not happen.

If people want to pursue the notion of another form of energy, retail customers, industrial customers are not going to be able to do it. That is what this clause is about. That means we are going to be discouraging the looking at other alternative green energy forms because they will not be necessary, because people are going to have to make sure that they are getting their energy from Nalcor.

This becomes extremely problematic. It means, as well, that energy conservation is not going to be considered because it is not going to benefit people to conserve energy. The more people conserve energy in a way to try to cut down on the use of energy, the more they do that, it will cause the rates to go up because there will be less customers for the power.

Clause 3 becomes extremely problematic from that perspective. It does not stop individuals who want to look at probably having wind energy for their homes or having solar panels, but it stops a company from looking at promoting the use of solar panels, for example, and looking at the promotion of wind energy. We are moving totally away from looking at alternative green energy forms because of this exclusive right clause in this piece of legislation.

First of all, the monopoly is problematic, but the monopoly to the point where other forms cannot now be sold by retailers, for example, and cannot be sought out by industrial customers is very, very problematic. It means we are going to remain behind the times in this Province for a long time as we completely depend on hydroelectricity.

Now, is hydroelectricity bad? Not necessarily. There are things about it that I have a problem with, the production of mercury, for example. There are ways in which it is much greener than, as I said, burning fossil fuels. To limit us now to totally using only the hydroelectric, only that in this Province, not for residential people who do their own, but under the context of this clause, is putting us backwards in this Province. We have committed ourselves now to fifty years of that, fifty years of limiting what people can use for electricity in this Province. It really disturbs me when I see that.

I know it will not affect, for example, probably coastal areas. We have – we have referred to it before and I will refer to it again because I think it is a great thing – the project down in Ramea. I am hoping that project is going to be multiplied in other coastal communities in Labrador and Newfoundland. I certainly hope that is going to happen, and I hope Nalcor is going to move beyond pilot stage with regard to that.

When it comes to the whole of the Island, we are keeping ourselves, restraining ourselves within Muskrat Falls and hydroelectricity at a time when there are so many new technologies that are being pursued when it comes to generation of electricity.

My time is up. Ten minutes really fly. I may get to speak more to this, but they are the main points I wanted to make at this moment.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: (Inaudible) for some clarification on 14.1. This, of course, is around the exclusivity and the exclusive right by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to supply power, and distribute and sell electrical power.

One of the things the minister talked about is we find ourselves in a situation where – I will give an example. I would just like to know how this could work. For instance, just a few weeks ago the CEO of Emera was discussing about the future of tidal power in the Bay of Fundy. Actually, I believe at one point one of the motors or turbines they had been using, there was that much power there, he said, it actually burned up the motor or something.

What I found interesting in the article and in the interview he did, was he went on to say that he felt in their opinion – and I guess in early analysis anyway – that there would be about 300 megawatts of power available through tidal energy in the Bay of Fundy. The question for me that I would like clarification on, because this was the comment he made. CEO Huskilson said that if they could get to 300 megawatts of tidal energy what they were able to do would be able to store that into the energy grid within Newfoundland and Labrador. Under this scenario that we are talking about here, I would just like to know how that could work.

The other thing is on new developments. In this particular case Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would have the exclusive right to supply and distribute energy. If we were to do a hydro development or some kind of energy development somewhere that required new transmission to connect into the grid, does this mean that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would now construct the transmission, and how would that work within the current assets of Newfoundland Power?

I see later on in this particular section where the government or Lieutenant-Governor in Council, they have a right to exempt that. I would just like to know a little bit about how that process would work.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I want to speak to clause 3, section 14.1. I just wanted to make a few comments on it to follow up with the commentary by our leader. This is a section we have had an opportunity to speak to quite a bit over the last number of days. This is the one called the exclusive right part, or as we like to call it the monopoly section, because what it is doing is entrenching a monopoly for Newfoundland Hydro.

We understand the point behind it. One of the things I had, I was just going through the briefing. In the briefing for this it called this part ratepayer protection. I did not know why that term was used for this section, if there was a reason behind that. When we had the briefing, why is that part described as ratepayer protection? I did not quite understand that. I was hoping somebody could explain how the ratepayers are protected by the enshrining of the monopoly.

The fact is that Nalcor is looking at this as a business development, but this is not regulated as public utilities are in similar operations, I guess you could say. There is no competition here. Nalcor, as a generator and a marketer, is not going to face competition for serving in the provincial market. We are entrenching that monopoly for quite a period of time; we have a fifty-year period of time.

One of the interesting things with this is that, hypothetically, I guess you could say, if we did develop natural gas for export, even if you could produce it completely for near free, the fact is you actually could not sell that at home. I am just wondering why that is being put in here because, again, at the end of the day we need to ensure that the people of the Province have the lowest possible rates.

We have talked about the part with the PUB, but I come back to section 14.1 again where there are a number of different sections here. I referenced earlier, "14.2(1) A person is not entitled to compensation or damages...". I thought that was a very foresighted section to add to this piece of legislation.

So I do not know if I have much more to add. I was actually listening quite closely to what our leader had to say. I was hoping that one of the members could get up because we were hoping to get an answer. What I am going to do is I am going to sit down at this point and I am going to allow somebody the opportunity to answer that question again.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The question again, and I will try to rephrase it a bit and probably get a little more to the point. What I was trying to raise was about an issue in Nova Scotia that just came up recently with the CEO of Emera. Of course, in Nova Scotia right now, Emera in the Bay of Fundy are doing a lot of research around where tidal energy will be and tidal power. In the report, it was mentioned that the amount of tidal power they were expecting and they were anticipating to get from the Bay of Fundy would be upwards to about 300 megawatts of power.

Given the Maritime Link, the CEO Huskilson said what would happen is that because it is intermittent and because of the way tidal energy works, I thought he said it was obviously about twelve hours a day. So what they had planned on doing would be to store this power at peak times into the Newfoundland and Labrador grid and that there would be an exchange. It is very similar, as I understand it to be, what would be happening with the water rights management agreement between the Lower Churchill and the Upper Churchill.

In this situation here, and given the indication here that as government we would have the exclusivity to our grid, distribution, right of supply, and all of that, I am just wondering how that would connect?

The other question was about with some of the wind power that we will be developing and small hydro as the minister mentioned, being Portland Creek, Island Pond and the other one that was mentioned, Parsons Pond; the three that were mentioned to 75 megawatts of power. If we were into a situation there where transmission capability was not available, how would the transmission connect into the asset of Newfoundland Power? What would happen there? Would we actually own that transmission then or would we provide an exemption for Newfoundland Power to be involved? I am just looking for some clarification on it.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you.

In terms of the tidal power, I think the relationship between Nalcor, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and Emera is going to be a partnership. The storing of the power, I have to admit, I do not fully understand. I have heard Mr. Martin talk about it before, but it can be done because power flows both ways. Nalcor and Emera are working quite closely together and I am sure they would work things out.

The other side of it, too, on the link is that there could be a point in time, if we have problems with reliability on our lines or there were issues that arose, that the link allows for power to come the other way. The wholesale clause in this case, or the exclusivity clause, is meant to allow as I have indicated that we want Nalcor to run the energy warehouse we hope Newfoundland and Labrador will become.

I do not think Nalcor, having regard to my conversations with them, are looking at being a monopoly to the extent that they run everything. They are business people and their business is in energy. If there is a way they can make money, they certainly will. They could potentially buy that power at a cheaper rate. I know I have heard Mr. Martin before talk about buying power in the morning and selling it back at night for twice the profit.

The other side of it, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, is that we are hoping to be in a position where we will need power. We hope that at some point Gull Island will be developed, but we could potentially be in a position at 2020 where we will need power. If those industries in Labrador, if those mining developments proceed, and we have gone through in our Labrador mining report the various scenarios that could exist, and if they develop, then we are going to need power. So that link and buying power from Emera or whoever is certainly a very real possibility.

When you are buying the power from Emera, who are you buying it from? It is coming across lines. I have been told by Mr. Martin that one of the things they would look at is they can actually buy power from New York, if the lines in Quebec allow for the capacity.

I do not think the monopoly is meant simply to prevent us from developing other sources of power or people from selling power. It is meant is to, one, guarantee the revenue stream so large amounts of power coming in, and I think this is very theoretical, undercutting the cost of the power and the revenue stream. We have to maintain the revenue stream.

In terms of the development of the other resources, that is something we hope to be able to do. I know this perhaps sounds like it is because of the suspicion that we are removing the PUB. It sounds like another grab by Nalcor, but I think it is simply a way to try to do business. As I have indicated, they are doing this in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I do not know if that helps much.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources or maybe the Minister of Finance: If we are exporting power at a certain rate and if our consumers are buying power at a higher rate, will we have any obligation to buy from somebody on the mainland, New York, or wherever, if they can offer power at a lower rate?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Again, that is a very interesting question because, one, we have to maintain the revenue stream, but Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is also mandated to provide the lowest-cost power to the people of this Province. As we talked about the revenue stream earlier today, and I tried to show how the revenue stream will continue to rise, but the Leader of the NDP pointed out the requirement in Schedule A of the loan guarantee is sufficient revenue. There is a possibility that any access to lower-cost electricity, Nalcor would take advantage of.

It will come down, though, to a great extent to capacity on the link. There are things they can do with that. It is hard to see into the future, but I think that would be a very real possibility having a regard to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's mandate. How they would work that into the other power is an issue.

The cost of Muskrat Falls can still be recovered. One way I could see this is you recover the cost of Muskrat Falls, you mix in lower-cost power from both Bay D'Espoir and wherever else it is coming from, and that will bring rates down.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Let us just say our rate on the Island is fifteen cents a kilowatt and the rate maybe somewhere in the US is eight cents or nine cents. Would they then have a right to compete, coming back across the line? The line is going to be 500 megawatts or so and I think 174 megawatts for Emera. Would they have the right to use that coming back under NAFTA or any other mechanism? Are we opening ourselves up for competition on that basis?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you.

I think that comes to the question – I had some discussions with the Member for Burgeo – La Poile; he asked me yesterday where we talked about the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission guidelines in the United States in 1996, which led to the adoption of open, access transmission tariffs. While they apply to the United States, anyone who buys energy or trades in energy in the United States normally adopts these rules and regulations.

The problem we have had with Quebec trying to get our application to their Régie has not worked, and we have had a couple of those applications since 2006.

Now, let's just take this to say that there is cheap energy available – for whatever reason, there is cheap energy available from the United States. It comes in through the lines. It is assumed for the second there is capacity on the lines coming through Maine, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the same lines we would be using, and that there is capacity on the link.

The only requirement that I would see imposed by this legislation is that it would be sold to Nalcor; and Nalcor, again, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro having the mandate to provide the lowest cost power would be obligated, I would suggest, to obtain the best deal possible and then to mix that into the Island power sources to come up with the final price, still allowing Muskrat Falls to recover costs.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 3 and 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 3 and 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, on clause 5.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, clause 5 of this bill actually defines what the Muskrat Falls Project really is. It is a very long definition, of course, because it is all-encompassing of the four individual projects that will occur as a part of the Muskrat Falls development itself.

Mr. Chair, I guess for the purposes of this entire project when you are looking at financing and financing a development like this, there are always certain liabilities that can occur. There are always defaults, I say, that could occur in terms of repayment of the monies and so on. In this section of the act, it identifies what the assets are that will be held by Nalcor or its subsidiary. It defines what they are and if there is a default with regard to the fund affiliated with this project, these are the assets that will be used as security.

Mr. Chair, I am going to go through some of this. As I said the definition of the Muskrat Falls is two-and-a half pages long in the explanation, so it is quite lengthy.

As you know, there are actually four different components of the project and I will get into explaining each one of them, Mr. Chair, as we go through. They are the ones that define what this whole Muskrat Falls Project is. Mr. Chair, it includes "the design, engineering, planning, construction, commissioning, ownership, operation, maintenance, management and control of equipment and facilities, to be comprised of" and then we will get into them.

Who owns these, first of all? The Muskrat Falls Project is a project by the corporation, a subsidiary of the corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Emera Inc. The assets that I am about to list right now belong to Nalcor or a subsidiary of Nalcor, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Emera Inc.

Mr. Chair, it comprises "the new hydroelectric plant to be constructed at Muskrat Falls on the Churchill River, and all associated facilities, including the intake structures, penstock, powerhouse, dams and spillways". All of the hydroelectric plant is contained in the definition of Muskrat the Falls Project, and therefore it becomes an asset of that project.

The other piece, Mr. Chair, "a new HVdc transmission line and all related components to be constructed between Muskrat Falls hydroelectric plant on the Churchill River and Soldier's Pond" on the Island of Newfoundland. Mr. Chair, the entire transmission line which we call the Labrador-Island Link is one of the assets that are listed under the Muskrat Falls Project. That entire infrastructure from Muskrat Falls in Labrador right to Soldiers Pond in Newfoundland becomes an asset of this project. If there is a default on any of the payment, it can be taken as a part of that default.

Mr. Chair, that component includes foundations, underground services, subsea services, because as you know there is a cable that goes under the Strait of Belle Isle. It includes any roads like we are seeing being built today up in Lake Melville in that particular area. It includes any buildings, erections and structures, whether temporary or permanent. As you know, right now the project is in construction phase. You have roads being built. You have temporary camps being built. You have office space that is being put up there right now, and storage.

All of these things are compiled in this definition. All other facilities or fixtures, all kinds of properties and inventories, including transmission line, all of the mechanical, electrical – all of these things, Mr. Chair, are contained within the legislation. Therefore, they become assets of the project.

The third piece, Mr. Chair, the "new transmission facilities to be constructed between the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric plant on the Churchill River and the generating plant located at Churchill Falls". That is, of course, the line that will be built back to connect the two.

Mr. Chair, the fourth piece is the "transmission facilities to be constructed by Emera Inc. between the island portion of Newfoundland and Labrador and Cape Breton, Nova Scotia" and again it includes all the same things: the foundations, the subsea services, roads, buildings, and all the structures that can and will be affiliated with it.

Mr. Chair, it is a very broad definition. It includes basically everything in the project. The reason I am reading all of this is to raise a particular point. That is, Mr. Chair, under clause 2 in the project that we already did it says that Cabinet has the ability to designate any activities, agreements or amendments to be included or excluded as part of the Muskrat Falls Project.

Government is saying to us right now that the assets of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, our oil and gas assets, any assets that are held by Nalcor right now are not impacted by this project. Only those assets that are listed could be seized if we default on the payments and cannot pay for the project. However, Mr. Chair, it also allows for the Cabinet to add any agreements or amendments as part of this project. What we do not know, and may not know, is if the government goes to the financial markets to raise the money for this project and they do not have the required assets that are listed here, if that is not sufficient to put up against the borrowing they are going to undertake, then, Mr. Chair, they can include other assets.

Even though in the act today it says the assets of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will not be impacted, and it says our oil and gas assets will not be impacted that we bought shares in at an enormous price on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province, the government is saying they are not listed here in the legislation, so therefore they are not part of the assets. Therefore, if we cannot pay for Muskrat Falls, none of that will be affected. They are also giving themselves the authority under this legislation to add it afterwards. This is where we have some concerns, Mr. Chair.

It says through clause 2, the Cabinet has the ability to designate any activities, agreements and amendments to be included or excluded as part of the Muskrat Falls Project. The fact is, Mr. Chair, they can add more parts to this project. That is a concern for us because you look at the loan guarantee that the government signed with the federal government, in that loan guarantee we already see things like non-exhaustive clauses.

When we look at that, and we know under this loan guarantee and the terms of that guarantee there could be other things that could be added because it has been left open. When you say non-exhaustive, Mr. Chair, what I think of is never ending. It could be anything. That being the case, and the fact the legislation is being left open under clause 2, anything could potentially be added here to be deemed a part of the project even though it is not listed at the current time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have listened to the Government House Leader take us through clause 2.1 of the contract, which describes the Muskrat Falls Project. The Muskrat Falls Project, as the Government House Leader said, will be owned by subsidiaries of Nalcor.

The Muskrat Falls generation facility will be owned a subsidiary company of Nalcor called, I think, Muskrat Falls Co. The Labrador transmission assets will be owned by that company as well. The Labrador-Island Link, or LIL, will be owned by a company called LIL Co. LIL Co. will enter into a partnership, I believe, with Emera; a limited partnership. There will be another company, a subsidiary of Emera having to do with the Maritime Link – forgetting the Maritime Link, because that is owned by Emera.

The assets we are concerned with as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be the company that owns the generation facility, the Labrador-Island Link and the Labrador transmission assets. Those assets will in fact be mortgaged to the lenders, be pledged to the lenders as collateral security for the repayment of the loan. That will be guaranteed by the Government of Canada. Because of that guarantee, the lenders will be guaranteed and the guarantee is non-exhaustive.

The hon. member's reference to the words non-exhaustive; that was wording in the guarantee, which means the guarantee is going to be absolute. The guarantee is unconditional. The guarantee is non-exhaustive. So it is a complete guarantee.

The hon. member is referring to subsection (2). Subsection (2) says, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council" – which of course is the Cabinet – "may designate any activities, agreements and amendments in connection with or in respect of subsection (1)". Subsection (1) describes the Muskrat Falls generation facility, it describes the LIL, it describes the LTA, and it describes the Maritime Link.

It talks about these agreements can "…be included as part of the Muskrat Falls Project where that activity, agreement or amendment may not otherwise qualify under the section". In addition to being included, the Cabinet can exclude it "…from the Muskrat Falls Project, notwithstanding another provision of this section."

Mr. Chair, I think what we are looking at is that the project will be mortgaged to the banks. It is non-recourse financing, which means that the other subsidiaries of Nalcor – Nalcor Oil and Gas, Nalcor CF(L)Co, Nalcor Bull Arm, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro – will not be liable in the event of default, unless of course they wish to invest to cure the default if there is such a default.

I think what they are doing here is that as part of the project there may be contracts that these companies have entered into, because obviously the lender, in the event of default, would want to take over the projects and would want to take over any contracts or agreements that are connected with the project. So that the lender, or the guarantor – because what will probably happen, or what will in the unlikely event of default, because the project, as we know, is set up.

There should be a guaranteed cash flow that will ensure that there is not default, but in the unlikely event of default, either the lender or the guarantor will pay off the banks, and the guarantor will subrogate it to the bank's position and the guarantor will take over the projects. Well, it is not just the physical assets they would want. They would also want any contracts. They would want the benefit of any agreements, any contracts of sale. They would want to take advantage of those things as well.

I think, Mr. Chair, that is what these clauses are referring to. To ensure that those agreements and contracts, which is part of the business operation of the project, are included along with the assets, or excluded if the Cabinet – because there is authority for the Cabinet to exclude these as well from the project. I hope that is of some help.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Still on that particular section, and some other concerns as well that we want to raise there. Also under that section, Mr. Chair, which defines the Muskrat Falls Project, it talks about "the negotiation, conclusion, execution and performance of agreements for activities referred to in…" – a previous paragraph – "and in particular agreements respecting the (i) construction, operations, maintenance and administration, (ii) acquisition of easements, rights-of-way, permits, licences, certificates, consents and other authorizations".

It talks about "(iii) engineering and procurement, (iv) arrangements with aboriginal peoples, (v) demobilization and decommissioning, and (vi) any agreements, contracts or instruments necessary or incidental to any activity described in this paragraph".

I want to speak for a few minutes on section (c)(iv) "arrangements with aboriginal peoples". We feel, Mr. Chair, that despite the fact that government maintains a claim that they have negotiated and consulted in good faith and have met their requirements to the Aboriginal peoples in Labrador as part of this agreement, we certainly beg to difference. We do so based on discussions and meetings that we have had with two of the three Aboriginal groups in Labrador.

First of all, Mr. Chair, the arrangement with the Aboriginal people we feel should have been to have very meaningful consultations, to look at their input, their concerns and how they were going to be impacted. We realize that these Aboriginal groups did receive funding from the Crown, Mr. Chair, in order to participate in the environmental assessment process, and to be able to put together submissions to that particular process.

Mr. Chair, even by the admission of the environmental review panel, there were concerns that were identified by the Aboriginal groups that they felt should be addressed. While government did become a signatory to one agreement with the Innu Nation, they did not become engaged in any kind of agreements to address the concerns with regard to the NunatuKavut Community Council or the Nunatsiavut Government that still has outstanding concerns.

We feel that government had dismissed their concerns. In one case, one of the groups ended up going to court. Although the court ruling was not in the favour of the Aboriginal organization, the courts ruled that they felt they had been consulted with fairly.

Mr. Chair, the onus, in my opinion, is still on the government to ensure that the concerns of Aboriginal groups are adequately addressed. They should not have to be forced into the courts when there is a major project like this occurring. There is a different way to deal with this. While there may still be differences of opinion, at the end of the day one would think that all efforts would be made to deal with those issues.

Mr. Chair, there are tremendous benefits in consulting with Aboriginal organizations. I outlined this when I spoke to the principles of the bill. We feel that Aboriginal groups bring a tremendous amount of local and traditional knowledge from very diverse sources to any major project development. They help define problems that could potentially exist and they help find those solutions.

Mr. Chair, they encourage more balanced decision making. The decision making is not always one-sided, but it is a much more balanced approach. They often, Mr. Chair, provide tremendous awareness with regard to the environment and knowledge with regard to the environment. I think, Mr. Chair, any time that government takes the time to consult appropriately and address the concerns of Aboriginal groups where there is a major development occurring in areas where they reside, I think it definitely displays a level of accountability that is very important in moving forward with projects like this.

We do not feel, Mr. Chair, that that process has been adequately addressed by the government opposite. I have listened to the members' responses in the House of Assembly, but the piece that leaves this for me, Mr. Chair, is, one, the fact that the Nunatsiavut Government, which is an Inuit government, negotiated contracts with this Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in good faith, that is out there for the last number of weeks and months writing letters and talking in public because they have concerns with regard to environmental development piece of the generating station at Muskrat Falls.

They have outlined, Mr. Chair, in the public their concerns with regard to the contamination of waters that could extend as far as Postville and as far as Rigolet area, and what that will do to the mercury levels in the fish in that particular area. They have a legitimate reason, Mr. Chair, to raise that issue because they know what the mercury levels were in the Lake Melville area after the development of the Upper Churchill Project, to the fact that the mercury levels are so high today that people in that area cannot eat the fish any more; it is not suitable for human consumption because of that. So they have a good premise on which to be basing their concerns. They brought their concerns forward, they did it in a private and public way, and they have yet to get any response.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, the NunatuKavut Community Council has expressed, time and time again, they have met with the minister opposite in July, they hoped they were going to get a table for discussion with the government and it did not happen. The president said that he had followed up with the minister more than twenty times by phone, and there was not even the courtesy of a call back.

We feel, based on those things, Mr. Chair, regardless if there is a difference of opinion at the end of the say, that proper consultation and all efforts were not made by the government opposite to deal with the Aboriginal issues that were raised.

Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to this particular section. It is moved by myself, and seconded by the Member for St. Barbe, that the proposed paragraph 2.1(1)(c) in clause 5 be amended by adding after the word peoples, the words: which are arrived at after meaningful consultations and input from all impacted Aboriginal groups.

CHAIR: There is an amendment put. This House will recess to consider the amendment.

This House is now in recess.

CHAIR: Order, please!

After consideration of the amendment, the amendment is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly good to see that this is in order. Mr. Chair, the whole purpose of this amendment is calling for consultation. I would like to go back to the process with the Voisey's Bay discovery in the early 1990s.

I was actually a resource person throughout that debate. That started off as a project that was a go-ahead project without consultation, and it took intervention by two Aboriginal groups at that time to bring all sides together. I think it was a first in this Province of going to the Aboriginal community throughout the consultation process, Mr. Chair.

As much as there were environmental impacts and the whole range of issues – because as Aboriginal people, we have the view that we do not abuse the land, we just borrow it. Any environmental impact that will leave a footprint that will be impacted forever, Mr. Chair, even through the process of reclamation is something less than desired.

Mr. Chair, I would like to reference again the loan guarantee term sheet as well as Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project. I have heard the government opposite stand time and time again and say they have consulted and that actually the numbers were quite high in terms of consultation commitments. At the same time, Mr. Chair, I have heard some of the Aboriginal groups come out publicly and say: No, this is not the case. It leaves a discrepancy. It leaves an obvious breakdown in communication.

Mr. Chair, when you reference the term sheet, the guarantor, which is the Government of Canada, states, "That all necessary environmental legal and policy authorities have been complied with to the satisfaction of the Guarantor…". It also goes on to say, "That all necessary aboriginal consultation obligations have been completed to the satisfaction of the Guarantor."

Mr. Chair, I have brought it up in Question Period, my hon. colleague for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair has brought it up in Question Period, we have brought it up in debate, we have brought it up as a matter of fact this very past morning, and I think I brought it up at least four times. Mr. Chair, this is another attempt now.

The reason I question the commitment to consult, Mr. Chair, is because of the two press releases that have come out as a reaction to the government statement that they would consult. Both of those press releases have said: No, the government did not consult. The Nunatsiavut Government has rights in Lake Melville, an area that could be impacted by downstream environmental impacts resulting from the project.

The thing that confuses me, Mr. Chair, and the thing that puzzles me is that the government and Nalcor have come out with the position that there will be no environmental impacts downstream from the project. Now, history shows every project where there is flooding of vegetation, the result is methylmercury released into the water. Water flows downstream and methylmercury flows downstream. I do not know if this position by Nalcor and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has stated this because they do not want to consult, which would be an obvious reason. It certainly creates a discrepancy; it creates mistrust.

Mr. Chair, I would just like to go to the legislative section here. Again, it states that the land claims agreement takes precedent over the proposed legislation. In the event of a discrepancy, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement is the enforcing act.

This act here shall supersede a lot of others. It will supersede existing legislation. I do not know how many pieces of legislation are currently in place, but it affects it or is affected by this legislation, with the exception of the Labrador Inuit Lands Claims Agreement.

Now, I have heard the Minister of Natural Resources say that the proposed project is not in Labrador Inuit lands, and that true; I cannot deny it. If you look at the map and you look at Labrador Inuit lands on the south side of Lake Melville, it is downstream from the project. If you look at Labrador Inuit lands on the north side of Lake Melville, it is downstream from the project.

Methylmercury accumulates when land is flooded; it goes with the river, downstream from the project. That reason alone is why the Nunatsiavut Government and the other Aboriginal groups – I know you have done an agreement in principle with the Innu, and the NunatuKavut council is also looking to have consultation. Now I have heard the government opposite say that they will respect the NunatuKavut Community Council once the Government of Canada does, and I think that is good position. It takes a bit of pressure off the government opposite that they do not have to consult because the Government of Canada does not recognize them; I know their claim is on the table.

If you look at the time span that it took the Nunatsiavut Government to form from a bunch of people who were sitting down talking about Aboriginal rights, it was a little over thirty-five years. I said it in Natuashish, when I was there, and I said it here yesterday, that the Innu have been fast. They only took twenty-nine years to get their agreement in principle, but an agreement in principle is not a final agreement.

Maybe this project leads to fast-track. I know with the Nunatsiavut Government fast-track was brought on by the Voisey's Bay Project. The Inuit said you will not get a Voisey's Bay mine until we have a land claims agreement and they stood firm. It opened and paved the way for the first Aboriginal consultations on a project. Now, every Aboriginal group, every government, every project, or every Aboriginal group in this country, has had a megaproject in their area, Mr. Chair, that initiated a land claims agreement. With Makkovik and the James Bay Agreement, it was the hydro development. Across the North you look at megaprojects. With the New Dawn Agreement, Mr. Chair, it was the proposed Muskrat Falls Project.

Going back to the Voisey's Bay negotiations, Mr. Chair, the government did consult. They did consult and now we have a mine that is up and running for over ten years, well into production, and a lot of revenue flowing into our Provincial Treasury, Mr. Chair. It is a good thing. It is done. It is a done deal. The processes were carried out.

Now in this case, Mr. Chair, if you go through this act here, this legislation and you look at discrepancies, it leaves this act open to challenge. I challenge it and my colleagues have challenged it in part of the debate. Mr. Chair, it is certainly open for Aboriginal groups to challenge it. Having said that, with the little time I have I would call upon the government opposite, Mr. Chair, to put the amendment forward into the legislation and carry out its duty to consult like they say they do.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, the Nunatsiavut Government certainly has a land claims agreement with the Province and that led to the formation, in my understanding, of Nunatsiavut Government. However, the generation project and the Labrador-Island Transmission Link are both outside the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area, although a portion of Lake Melville is part of the zone or territorial sea where some Inuit may harvest fish or seals.

There is no question there is a duty to consult. The question of the extent of the duty is one that has to be determined by the facts of the case. I think when I outline the facts of the case here you will see there has been a significant amount of consultation.

Attached to the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Provided as Attachment 5 to the Joint Review Panel Aboriginal Consultation and Traditional Land and Resource Use Record of Consultation – Nunatsiavut Government, filed May 2010. Let me just take you through some of the consultations, some of the meetings.

Gilbert Bennett, the Vice-President of Lower Churchill, on April 11, 2008 met in Happy Valley-Goose Bay with Ruby Carter, Doug Blake, Tim McNeil, and Marina Biasutti-Brown; on May 14, 2008, meeting in St. John's attended by Gilbert Bennett, Todd Burlingame of Nalcor, Ruby Carter, acting President of the Nunatsiavut Government, Tony Anderson, and Nunatsiavut Government ministers and deputy ministers who are not listed. It is my understanding there were at that meeting of May 14, 2008 at least three of them present.

At May 20, 2008, so this will be now the third meeting in a little more than a month, Lower Churchill Project Methylmercury Technical Workshop in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, attended by Todd Burlingame, Larry LeDrew, Leslie Grattan, Leona Barrington, Susan Hollett, and Marina Biasutti – is that how you pronounce it, MHA for Torngat Mountains, Biasutti or –?

MR. EDMUNDS: Biasutti.

MR. KENNEDY: Biasutti-Brown.

We get to September 16, 2008 and Todd Burlingame of Nalcor meets in Rigolet with Gilbert Bennett, Marion Organ, Leona Barrington, Sarah Sullivan, Leslie Grattan, Daniel Michelin, Darryl Shiwak, Doris Hopkins, Melva Williams, and Max Pottle. So now that is our fifth meeting in about five or six months.

November 13, 2008, there is a training and employment meeting in Happy Valley-Goose Bay attended by Maria Moran, Jeanette Drover, and Tim McNeil. I understand some to be representatives of the Nunatsiavut Government. February 12, 2009, again, Nalcor employees meeting with Marina Biasutti-Brown, Director of Environment, Nunatsiavut Government, to provide an overview of the Labrador-Island Transmission Registration/Project Description and an overview of the 2007-2008 field program. December 16, 2009, Nalcor employees presented an overview and discussion of the project, in which there was one Nunatsiavut Government representative present.

So, in the year 2008-2009, prior to the commencement of the panel, there were seven meetings between Nalcor representatives. These are seven meetings attended by Nalcor representatives and workshops with representatives of the Nunatsiavut Government. The report came down before the report, which was handed down in August 2011.

We now go up to July 21, 2010. There is a general discussion of the project in Rigolet where five participants take place. On May 31, 2011 there is a meeting in Hopedale, Newfoundland and Labrador where twenty-nine people take place. Now we have what? That is at least ten or twelve meetings, including meetings in Nunatsiavut Government towns and areas including Hopedale, Rigolet on a number of occasions, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay workshops.

We have had meetings where Nalcor has attended. We know then that during the environmental assessment process representatives of the Nunatsiavut Government made presentations on the methylmercury attended before the Joint Review Panel. We know that. They attended there. Then the Joint Review Panel decision was handed down in August 2011.

I am reading from two letters. One letter Nov 8, 2011 is from our Premier Kathy Dunderdale to President Jim Lyall of the Nunatsiavut Government. She again recommends holding a meeting if necessary and thank you for the Nunatsiavut Government's active engagement. Our Premier again writes President Lyall on December 22. She talks there about a meeting between Nunatsiavut Government First Minister Darryl Shiwak and the hon. Nick McGrath has been proposed for January 9, 2012 in St. John's. I do not know if that meeting took place, but my point is the Premier responded to two letters.

Let us talk about consultation. Do not confuse consultation with getting a decision you do not like. The duty of consultation stems from the honour of the Crown to meet and discuss with Aboriginal peoples based on the extent of their land claims.

The Nunatsiavut Government has Aboriginal status and certainly has been recognized by the Province. I know in the portfolios I have worked in, I have met with Nunatsiavut Government employees and ministers in Justice, in Finance and especially in Health. In Health we work very closely with the Nunatsiavut Government.

To say that there has not been sufficient or satisfactory consultation is one thing. I would suggest to you that the record I am putting out for you tonight establishes that there has been significant consultation. What is still at issue is the position of the parties where there is no agreement. That is a different issue all together. The issue of consultation is one of meetings. There are approximately eighty e-mails, letters and meetings that were filed in relation to the Lower Churchill project.

Nunatsiavut had the opportunity to present. They have written our Premier since then. The Premier has replied. In fact, as recently as the day of the announcing of the loan guarantee, I spoke briefly with President Leo and said I would be willing to meet with Minister Shiwak, who I understood was their Lands and Natural Resources Minister. I would suggest that to say there has not been consultation is not correct. To say that there is disagreement is correct.

I am not going to talk about the amendment at this stage. I will get up again shortly, Mr. Chair, but I wanted to make sure that the record is clear. That there have been a significant number of meetings and there has been significant interaction between our government, Nalcor, and the Nunatsiavut Government.

The environmental assessment process is an important planning tool, and there were certain recommendations made of which Nalcor agreed to take certain steps. One of the concerns raised was in relation to, as outlined by the member opposite, increased methylmercury levels. Nalcor has had extensive discussions and they say that feedback has been considered. It is true, as I think was indicated yesterday, increased methylmercury concentrations occur with flooding and it does happen as a result of hydroelectric developments.

Consumption advisories, from what I am told – excuse me, not what I am told. The evidence presented at the hearing was that consumption advisories are a key mitigation measure for increases in methylmercury concentration. These advisories which are established by Health Canada educate residents on the amount of fish which can be safely consumed. Nalcor has committed to a human health risk assessment as well as monitoring fish and seal health in Goose Bay, Lake Melville, and throughout the Lower Churchill system.

Nalcor's methylmercury modelling shows that methylmercury is not likely to extend beyond the mouth of the Churchill River. I understand that is where the real dispute lies, because the Nunatsiavut Government says otherwise.

Mr. Chair, what I have done here tonight, I have taken the opportunity to establish in some detail the extensive consultation that has taken place by Nalcor and the Nunatsiavut Government. What is still at issue, are the issues that were determined by the Joint Review Panel, but that is not consultation. That is a different issue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am really pleased to stand and speak to this section, clause 5 of Bill 61, An Act to Amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, the Energy Corporation Act and the Hydro Corporation Act, 2007.

What is important I think that we remember is what we have here is a piece of legislation that is dealing with the present and the future. In clause 5, the act is amended by adding this new section after section 2 in the original Energy Corporation Act.

The clause we are looking at amending is a subsection in this clause. It has to do with "the negotiation, conclusion, execution and performance of agreements for activities referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)," – I will not read what they are – "and in particular agreements respecting…" various areas. One of the areas that it is respecting is "arrangements with aboriginal peoples".

We are not looking at the past. We are looking at the present and the future, and how things should continue when it comes to the Muskrat Falls Project. That is what this whole new section in the Energy Corporation Act will be about, the whole Muskrat Falls Project, which of course includes all the parts of that project.

I am particularly interested in this amendment. I am very supportive of the amendment, by the way, Mr. Chair, and I hope the government will be as well. Because of the experience I had on the Voisey's Bay panel, I think I am very sensitive to this issue. I have spoken about the Voisey's Bay panel before. It was an extremely interesting panel because it was a joint panel involving the federal government, the provincial government, and two Aboriginal governments – small ‘g' at that time – the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation.

What was interesting was that on the panel itself you had Sam Metcalfe, who is now deceased, who had quite a history as an Inuit man. He was born in Hebron and was part of the relocation of Hebron. He went to the residential school in North West River and did tremendous work as an Inuit with regard to their language. Actually, when he was on the panel he had been retired from working in the federal government with regard to Aboriginal Affairs.

There was not an Innu person on the panel, but I was nominated by the Innu Nation to represent the concerns of the Innu on the panel. That was because of my history in working in consultation and solidarity with the Innu Nation over quite a number of years. Because of where they were at that time in terms of leadership, as they put it most of their leaders had to be involved in the actual process of the environmental assessment and they did not have anybody from their community to be on the panel. So I was quite honoured to be nominated by them to be on the panel.

It was a wonderful experience being on that panel, and having the experience and the voice through Sam, of Aboriginal people on the panel. The panel was very aware of consultation and what consultation meant. We spent a lot of time, for example, on that panel – I do not remember reading a lot about it in the Muskrat Falls one. I will have to check that out, I forget now.

We spent a lot of time on the Voisey's Bay panel talking about indigenous knowledge. Indigenous knowledge around the globe is being recognized by scientists as scientific. I think this is what we need to think about here as we look at this amendment, that consultation – and I like the amendment that says meaningful consultations and input.

Consultation is not just having a workshop and not just talking to people one-on-one. It is recognizing the knowledge that is held within the Aboriginal group, the traditional knowledge that is there, the indigenous knowledge. It is a nuance between indigenous knowledge and traditional knowledge; I will not go into it. It means recognizing that there is more to this than just being nice to people. The experience, the culture, the history, the knowledge of the Aboriginal groups has something very important to bear on the decision making.

I experienced on that panel a real respect at the time. I am sorry that the Member for Torngat Mountains – I think he is around somewhere, but I am sure he is watching and listening. He was involved on the other side. He probably even made a presentation to the panel when I was on it. I remember at the time, the LIA and Innu Nation, there were times there were struggles in terms of consultation – not with the panel, with the proponent at times - but they worked it through. I think they did find that experience a very meaningful experience for the LIA and Innu Nation. It certainly was meaningful for the panel. We certainly paid attention to the experience of the panel, of the Aboriginal groups who were affected by Voisey's Bay.

I think there was a lot of good decision making that came out of that from the recommendations around the ongoing involvement of Aboriginal peoples with regard environmental monitoring, for example, not just with regard to getting jobs in the mine but with regard to maintaining and understanding of Aboriginal groups and using their knowledge through environmental monitoring. I understand that still goes on.

There is so much to consultation. What we are amending says the negotiation, conclusion, execution and performance of agreements for activities, and arrangements with Aboriginal peoples is what we are looking at. We are going to add: which are arrived at after meaningful consultations and input from all impacted Aboriginal groups.

It is very important that the Aboriginal groups experience that it is meaningful consultation and not just lip service. If they do not, there will be frustration. The frustration can lead to actions which sometimes others do not understand. Sometimes it can lead to acts of civil disobedience, which become very understandable. Sometimes it just leads to acts where people who are not affected might look at it and say they are just being troublemakers but what it is, is actions coming from frustration. We all know what real consultation is.

I know that as a woman, as a woman who has been involved in the feminist movement for a long time, as a social justice activist, you can feel pretty quickly when there is condescension in your interactions and when there is real respect and consultation.

I think that this amendment is getting after that, that notion of real. That is what the meaningful is about. That would be my understanding. I did not write the amendment. It was put forward by the Official Opposition, but I really support it. Because if the Aboriginal groups do not have meaningful consultation, if their opinions, if their experience, is their traditional and indigenous knowledge is not recognized in decision making, then you are setting up a future of continuous frustration. If you have continuous frustration, then that is not good for anybody.

As this process goes on, as the Muskrat Falls Project continues, it is going to be extremely important that this notion of meaningful consultation, this notion of really looking for input from all impacted Aboriginal groups – and I would suggest to the government you should be not just looking at the letter of the law here. There is more to this than land rights or land claims.

It is really important to identify all impact groups and involve all impact groups. I think it would be extremely important and a wonderful message from this government and from this House if we were all to vote for this amendment to this section of Bill 61.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Cross): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to talk again now about consultation, but this time I am going to talk about it in the context of the NCC or NunatuKavut Community Council. We had this discussion last night.

I am not going to get into the case law in terms of what is the duty to consult and where it stems from. It is enough to say that it stems from the honour of the Crown to bargain fairly with Aboriginal groups that have recognized interests and that have been in the lands for many hundreds, if not thousands of years.

I can say to the members opposite that our government in the last number of years have reached a deal with the Labrador Inuit Association at the time, now Nunatsiavut Government, and with the Innu Nation, so two groups of which we have managed to establish land claims. Last night I went through some detail on my respect for the culture and the peoples who were here long before us, and how in the various portfolios I have been in I have reached out to these Aboriginal peoples through meetings and trying hard to understand what it is they want.

Mr. Chair, it is not enough, as I just said when I talked about Nunatsiavut, to talk about the duty to consult. It is a question of how far you have to go. I have to deal now with the issue of NunatuKavut again for a second. Before I get to the federal court decision, I am going to talk about the decision of Justice Stack again on the injunction. Not for the injunction perspective but for the history that is outlined.

What is interesting – and this is what this amendment basically suggests is under the clause 5, 2.1(1)(c) (iv) arrangements with aboriginal peoples, and then the suggested words: which are arrived at after meaningful consultations and input from all impacted Aboriginal groups.

There is a duty to consult. It is recognized in law. It is a question of the extent of that duty to consult, first of all. For one, that is not necessary. From all impacted Aboriginal groups – how do you define an Aboriginal group? Is it self-identifying? Do you go through a process?

What was said last night was they feel they have rights. Let's look at what Justice Stack – and it is interesting, Mr. Chair, that the NunatuKavut Community Council filed a land claim – not just listen to this everyone – in 1991 with the Government of Canada and the Province. This land claim is twenty years outstanding with the Government of Canada. They filed additional research information in 1996 and in 2010 the latest substantial research in support of the claim, section 35 of the claim was filed. The court was not told of the current status of the claim.

We have a claim that is more than twenty years, yet we should hold up Muskrat Falls because there is a claim by a group – I am not saying it is not valid. I said last night that if they can establish a claim, from our perspective, more power to them, but there is a process.

In the Court of Appeal decision on the Trans-Labrador Highway, Mr. Chair, the decision was made that there was a duty to consult with NunatuKavut. The Court of Appeal stated that the scope of the Crown's duty to consult in any given case must be proportionate to a preliminary assessment of the strength of the case supporting the existence of the Aboriginal right or title and to the seriousness of the potentially adverse effect upon the right or title of claim.

It is interesting to note that during this twenty-year period when the claim under section 35 was filed with the Government of Canada, Todd Russell, the current President of the NunatuKavut Community Council was a federal MP. One would have thought that he would have been in a position to further their claim.

The Court of Appeal was not satisfied in the Trans-Labrador Highway case that NCC had made out a strong case, but it was satisfied that a strong case was not required in order to trigger the low level of consultation requested.

The Court of Appeal was satisfied that it was above a dubious, peripheral, or tenuous claim that would require a duty of notice and thereby said that the Province had the duty to consult. The duty to consult varies, as I have indicated, on a spectrum from having to engage with the Nunatsiavut and Innu Nation, as we have in the past, to indicating to someone that we are proceeding

On page 8 of his decision, Justice Stack said, "Evidence established that NCC was widely consulted about Nalcor's intentions to develop the Lower Churchill River for hydro-electricity from 2006 through to the JRP proceedings. This was confirmed by the decision of Handrigan…", who had looked at an earlier application.

Now, let us look at the money they had. Furthermore, Handrigan, J. "…identified two consultation agreements between Nalcor and NCC: $103,800 was paid to NCC under the first agreement for community consultation purposes; and $180,400 was paid to NCC under the second to gather information about potential socio-economic impacts…" So $284,000 provided to NunatuKavut by Nalcor. "Handrigan J. also identified that NCC was provided $2,000,000 to research and write the ‘Unveiling NunatuKavut' document submitted as part of its s. 35 claims…".

"Handrigan, J. rejected NCC's complaint that it had never been meaningfully consulted or accommodated about the Lower Churchill Project. Specifically, he found that ‘[NCC] was involved at each stage of the [environment assessment] process starting from when the Project was registered and continuing until public hearings began four years later. It was accommodated to the extent that was appropriate and participated as fully as it wished.'"

This next line is a very crucial line: "Handrigan, J. identified the true cause behind NCC's complaint about the JRP process as the fact that it does not have land claims and impact benefit agreements with Nalcor or the federal or provincial governments." Although they argued under the duty to consult, what Justice Handrigan found was the true argument is the same argument we hear today, that they do not have land claims.

We know that in terms of the present consultation process they have actually, since the panel report, been consulted. NunatuKavut states they have not been. Now, we have heard this. This becomes common. "It appears that since March 21, 2012, NCC has received for comment 18 applications for permits in relation to the Generation Project. In addition, in a six month period, 43 permit applications were received for comment relating to quarry development and mining exploration. NCC maintains that it has neither the time nor the resources to comment meaningfully on individual applications for approval." That is not the point of having the resources. The fact is they were consulted to the extent that they were provided with information.

Before I finish on this, I am going to come back shortly to this. It is interesting to note that the Leader of the NDP talked about being on the panel for Voisey's Bay. It is my understanding that the NDP were vociferously against the Sandy Pond tailings pond with Vale Inco, yet she had approved or was part of a panel that approved a tailings pond during that panel. It sounds similar in that the NDP, when it suited their purpose, were out there protesting against Holyrood and saying that Holyrood should be closed. Yet now, they stand up in this House and maintain that Holyrood should be kept open.

To me, when you look at the issues of individual rights as opposed to Aboriginal rights, they are different issues. In this country we respect Aboriginal rights. We recognize their claim to the land, but they have to establish it. It is not simply enough that a government say, okay, we will accept your claim.

These claims bring with them significant sums of money. When you are talking about the taxpayer's dollar, there has to be due diligence carried out by governments. What has happened in this country is the process is evolved to the point where it is up to the person making the claim to establish it.

Since 1991, NunatuKavut Community Council has had a claim filed with the federal government. Five years ago I suggested to them, as the Minister of Justice, that if you go through our court system and you are established to have Aboriginal land claims, we will certainly look at that. The fact that they are where they are today is a failure on their part to take steps. I find it amazing that Todd Russell, their current president, while he was an MP in Ottawa appears to have had no ability to further their claim.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to speak to the amendment that we proposed. Of course, the amendment has to do with Aboriginal consultations in a very meaningful way. It falls under the definition of the Muskrat Falls Project. As you know, in the sanction agreement that was signed in the entire project itself, there was an agreement by the provincial government to have consultation with Aboriginal groups.

Mr. Chair, in our mind consultation is not just meeting with individuals. It is about having meaningful discussion, and working towards achieving and addressing the concerns that are being raised. We do not feel this was accomplished in the context of this project and we do not feel the efforts of the government were brought to bear to make that happen.

Mr. Chair, I am not going to talk about Todd Russell when he was an MP or what he has done. That is not the relevance of the legislation under which I am proposing this amendment. Mr. Chair, what I will talk about is the fact that right now, today, there are three Aboriginal organizations in Labrador. One of those organizations has achieved a negotiated, legally-binding agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as it relates to the Muskrat Falls Project. They will receive royalties and benefits from that project as deemed by the agreement that was reached.

Mr. Chair, I understand that agreement with the Innu Nation still has to be ratified by another vote of the Innu Nation, which I understand has not occurred at this time. Mr. Chair, I also know that the Nunatsiavut Government, who is a legal government in this Province and was negotiated through the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Inuit people of Northern Labrador, have certain rights within that agreement. One of those rights, Mr. Chair, is to be consulted with regard to any developments that will impact them in the lands in which they reside. They have a legitimate concern that they have been consistently bringing to the government.

I am not concerned, I say to the minister, with the number of meetings you had in 2008, 2009, or 2010. This concern came forward as a result of the Environmental Assessment Panel review and the information and the recommendations that were contained within that particular review. Mr. Chair, during that process, that environmental process of which the Nunatsiavut government did make a submission, and through that panel's decision they raised other concerns as a government and they wanted those concerns addressed. I think they have made a very fair and reasonable request. I think their concern is a legitimate one.

If you look at the environmental history of the Upper Churchill project, Mr. Chair, it was found that the mercury levels in the fish supply in Lake Melville are above the levels of consumption; therefore, Mr. Chair, people cannot eat that fish.

The concern being expressed at this time, Mr. Chair, by the Nunatsiavut Government is the same may be true as a result of the Muskrat Falls Project to the waterways extended beyond the current area of Lake Melville where there are contaminated fish today. Their fear, Mr. Chair – because water does flow, as the minister knows – is that in the areas around Rigolet and the waters inside of their particular claim area that affects their population directly could be impacted as well. I think the very least the government could have done to address that adequately was to have a further review done, Mr. Chair, or study, whatever was required to look at that issue and to address it appropriately.

On the issue of the NunatuKavut Community Council, Mr. Chair – and I am not going to belabour any of these issues. I just want to make sure the amendment is there, that we address the amendment appropriately. In the case of the NunatuKavut Community Council, Mr. Chair, they are an Aboriginal group. That definition has been assigned to them as Aboriginal people under the law. The minister knows that.

Do they have a land claims settlement? No, they do not. They have an application, as the minister knows, that has been for two decades in the system, an application where ongoing study is continued. Mr. Chair, even as we speak they are finalizing certain aspects of their land claim agreement and submission to the federal government. I would hope the ministers opposite who are responsible for those things in our Province would know that already.

In addition, Mr. Chair, to that, the Nunatsiavut Community Council has a history. Their people have a history of living and working in the lands that will be expropriated and the lands that will see the development of the Muskrat Falls Project. We are not even finished with the environmental assessment piece on the transmission line, the Labrador-Island Transmission Link, which, as you know, flows through the same areas where they have made application for land claims to the federal government.

The government will say, Mr. Chair, they do not have to negotiate with them because they do not have an accepted land claim. I say to the government that the responsible actions of a government would be to address the concerns that are being raised. Not force these Aboriginal groups into the courts to try to be heard but rather give them a table for discussion, hear their concerns, try to work with them to address those particular concerns. That did not occur, Mr. Chair. It did not occur. This is the reason we are raising this issue today. We feel at the very least, that is what should have happened in this particular case.

Mr. Chair, we know the NunatuKavut Community Council was given money to intervene as an Aboriginal group in the environmental assessment process. To me that was recognition that this particular group had legitimate concerns and rights that should be addressed, and therefore they should be given a voice.

Mr. Chair, that is what I read into that. They did not apply as a community council. They did not apply as a development organization. They did not apply as a business proponent. They applied as an Aboriginal organization. They received funding to respond as an Aboriginal organization and to provide a submission to that process, I say to you, Mr. Chair.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, there has been recognition. We know that in the past this government and other governments did not consult appropriately at all times with Aboriginal groups. We know of many cases where they did. Voisey's Bay being the model development agreement in the country, Mr. Chair, in terms of where Aboriginal people were consulted and their concerns were responded to. Such should have been the case with this development as well, but it is not the case.

Our purpose, Mr. Chair, is to provide the amendment. To ask government to accept that amendment, to ask them to go back and work with these Aboriginal groups to have meaningful consultation in the context of this development and to try and address their concerns and resolve the differences. That is basically what we are asking, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, to follow up on the minister's comments on the consultation process between the Nunatsiavut Government and Nalcor with respect to the downstream effects of the generation project of Muskrat Falls. The minister outlined the consultation. Many meetings and letters and correspondence went between both groups, Mr. Chair, but to add to that, when the generation project was released in March of this year, in March and April there was a string of correspondence between the Nunatsiavut Government and Nalcor with respect to the downstream effects of the generation project.

The Nunatsiavut minister indicated they were partnering with independent world scientists. I think ArticNet was the group, and passed information along to Nalcor. Nalcor responded shortly thereafter by noting they too were studying the downstream mercury effects of the generation project and offered to meet with Nunatsiavut to discuss common issues. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, they did meet on May 22, 2012 to explore areas of common interest and discuss partnerships with respect to the downstream effects of the generation project.

As well, on December 3 of this year, Nunatsiavut officials requested a meeting again with Nalcor to discuss Muskrat Falls and the downstream effects. Nalcor responded the next day, responded positively and are targeting a meeting for some time in January. So the consultations are ongoing, Mr. Chair. There seems to be no doubt about that.

Mr. Chair, I would also like to briefly touch on the NunatuKavut Community Council issue that was raised by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, and I spoke on this a couple of days ago, or probably it is the same day on our parliamentary calendar.

MS SULLIVAN: It is hard to tell these days.

MR. F. COLLINS: It is hard to tell those days.

As I mentioned, the consultations have been extensive with that group. Both on the lower generation project and on the Labrador-Island Transmission Link project and all of the permitting that has gone on since then. As I mentioned as well, they benefit from the training partnerships and they will have first rights to jobs, as to the Aboriginal groups.

Mr. Chair, with respect to the Impacts and Benefits Agreement, the Impacts and Benefits Agreement are designed to provide benefits to help compensate for the negative impacts that the development has on the land. Mr. Chair, not only do they not have a land claim, so IBAs are not required, but in any event the Joint Review Panel found that the Muskrat falls Project would have no significant effects on any lands owned by the NCC. They have concluded that many land and resource use locations reported to be used by the NunatuKavut community are outside the project area and would remain unaffected. So it raises the question with respect to some of the issues the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair has raised.

I also want to respond to the Leader of the Third Party with her suggestions, and very valid ones, that we have a good consultation policy in effect with the Aboriginal groups. Mr. Chair, we already have an Aboriginal consultation policy on land and resource development and we are in the process of updating it. We announced that process in May of this year.

As part of the process we have contacted all of the Aboriginal organizations, as well as the mining industry and others, to request feedback on the policy. We got feedback from all the groups. The deadline was the end of June. We extended it to October for Nunatsiavut. Their input is in as well. We are currently in the process of analyzing that. That policy will be rolled out hopefully, Mr. Chair, in the next month or two, sometime in February hopefully.

Even though the official policy has not yet been produced, while it is being updated development continues in Labrador. Subsequently we still have to continue with our consultation policy while we are awaiting final approval of our official policy. That is ongoing on mining matters and on hydro. We have developed project-specific consultation guidelines for the permitting phases, especially Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Chair, we are committed to consultations with the Aboriginal groups. We not only have a legal duty to do so as directed by the Supreme Court, but we have a moral duty and a fiduciary duty to deal with these groups because of unique needs, concerns, and the negative impacts that might be on their lands as a result of any asserted land claims. Mr. Chair, the formal policy hopefully will be ready in February for presentation. We are working on a good, consolidated, concise Aboriginal consultation policy, and we hope we have it ready very soon.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Clause 5.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will speak to clause 5 for a few minutes. I will direct my comments in clause 5 around the Muskrat Falls Project definition.

Included in the definition we have seen many of the assets of the Muskrat Falls Project, which includes the generating station in Labrador at Muskrat Falls. It also includes the transmission line which goes from the generating station into the Upper Churchill. Included in the project definition would be the Labrador-Island Transmission Link, and the Maritime Link which is owned by Emera.

These are really the components. There is a fairly lengthy project definition into Bill 61, as a matter of fact it is about two-and-a-half pages. It is very extensive and very comprehensive. It includes as I said many of the things that were outlined into the Muskrat Falls Project. It also gives opportunity for further inclusion over time into what would be seen as the definition of Muskrat Falls.

One of the things in terms of the definition of the Muskrat Falls Project and some of the communication for the last number of years about the development of Muskrat Falls – we have been led to believe that there has been a lot of communication talked about Holyrood and the need to close Holyrood. One of the things about all of this and we have seen even reports about this, Holyrood is an oil-fired generating station that was built really in a couple of phases with two units at Holyrood being built over forty years ago now, and the second unit being added over thirty years ago now.

Mr. Chair, there has been a lot said about closing Holyrood and what it would mean in terms of selling the project of Muskrat Falls and why the need to do Muskrat Falls; one, of course about emissions and carbon tax credits and all those sorts of things. The biggest reason for the development of Muskrat Falls we would be paying ourselves – we have heard that said many times over the last number of years – instead of paying some international oil company. Even today we have heard expressed many times about the money that would be saved. Not using Holyrood is a significant factor in the overall financial benefit to do Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Chair, one of the things that I have noticed in the definition of the Muskrat Falls Project, it speaks in a general sense and as I said it is very broad. One of the things that it does not include is the decommissioning of the Holyrood Generating Station. Our argument and the position that we would take is that this is something, as I said, that has been part of the master plan to develop Muskrat Falls for many years now.

Number one, we have known it would be a significant cost to upgrade that system if indeed the Isolated Island Option was used. Of course, then the use of oil to produce electricity in the following years has been determined that this is really not the way to go. What we do not see in this piece of legislation here in Bill 61 is the real commitment to actually close Holyrood. It has been articulated and been discussed, one of the main factors to develop Muskrat Falls is to, at some point, close Holyrood.

We have known too that the Muskrat Falls Project should be completed, if on schedule, in 2017. At some point after that, in the discussion, it has been clearly said that the Holyrood Generating Station would indeed be closed. That is what has been said. That has been the plan.

What we are talking about here is making that firm commitment to close Holyrood and include that into the Muskrat Falls Project definition. So at some point when the Muskrat Falls Project, the generating station, including transmission to the Province is deemed to be reliable, that we would include in this particular piece of legislation the commitment to close the Holyrood Generating Station.

We see this as extremely important. It sends the right message that indeed we are committed to closing Holyrood. The argument has always been that with the completion of the Muskrat Falls Project that the Province would be, I guess in some way, national leaders and would show national leadership in being 98 per cent green. There has been a lot said about the environmental benefits of closing Holyrood and making that commitment.

One of the amendments we will make in clause 5 will be to make a commitment to close the Holyrood Generating Station. That is something I know the people in that area have been asking for. I know I have been asked many, many times before, what is your plan? What would be your plan with Holyrood?

I know all members in our caucus are on the record as saying that the Holyrood Generating Station is a major polluter, even though at this particular stage we depend on it for about 15 per cent of our energy. The plant is an old plant and deemed unreliable, and certainly there is no long-term plan. In the project definition for Muskrat Falls it is not mentioned to the point where the commitment is made to decommission Holyrood.

What we will be suggesting and making the amendment, is that we would put a time frame in place where you would see Holyrood decommissioned as part of the Muskrat Falls Project. We would like to see this commitment. What we want to see is this commitment included into legislation.

I am looking for the amendment now that I have here. Anyway, I will just keep looking for that. I know I have it here.

The amendment to close the Holyrood Generating Station would read, and be included in Bill 61. It would be part of 2.1(c)(v). It would be moved that the proposed subparagraph 2.1(c)(v) in clause 5 be amended by adding after the word decommissioning, the words including decommissioning of the Holyrood Thermal Generating Station in a timely manner.

I am happy to move this amendment, seconded by the MHA for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

CHAIR: The Committee now is recessed to review the amendment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

After careful deliberation, the amendment is not in order.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is unfortunate that it is not in order. Under clause 5 of the bill, in which we are debating right now, it talks, under that section, about commissioning and decommissioning. One of the reasons that the government has consistently said that they need to have this development, the Muskrat Falls power project, is to be able to replace the Holyrood Generating Station.

They have consistently talked about it in the House of Assembly, especially the Member for Topsail, the Member for Conception Bay South in particular, and the Member for Harbour Main. They have consistently talked in this House of Assembly about replacing the Holyrood generation plant because of the emissions from that plant and because of the fact it was a pollutant to the local environment. Mr. Chair, we never once disagreed with that. We certainly understand that.

Going back as early as the late 1990s, I have been raising issues in the House of Assembly with regard to that. I know other members have in the Opposition benches as well, especially in the last number of years to the extent that government did have Nalcor commission a study to look at what could be done to reduce emissions there. There were a number of recommendations.

While some of the things were done, the major piece of it, which was cutting the scrubbers on the stacks, did not happen because government opted to look at an alternative power source. Their whole rationale in doing this was to decommission Holyrood.

In fact, Mr. Chair, they continued to talk about the fact that Holyrood was an older plant, it would need a lot of refurbishing, it was over forty years old, and the amount of oil burned at peak production was approximately 18,000 barrels of oil, were the things that they indicated. They indicated in 2011 that the Hydro generating plant at Holyrood burned $135 million in fuel and retiring the Holyrood plant would result in a reduction of 1 million tons of greenhouse gas every year. That was the whole rationale behind this.

I was very surprised when I saw the section of the bill that talked of demobilization and decommissioning, but made no mention of the Holyrood generating plant. Mr. Chair, we feel an amendment was appropriate to the bill to ensure that would happen and to ensure government would meet that commitment. It is unfortunate the amendment is not in order again.

What we can say to the government is: If you are serious about doing this, you can move an amendment to the legislation yourself in terms of changing the scope of it and that is permissible; whereas, as an Opposition, we cannot change the scope of the bill that has been presented by the Lieutentant-Governor in Council.

Mr. Chair, I guess in the House of Assembly on December 20 we asked three different questions with regard to Holyrood that were responded to by the Minister of Natural Resources. One of them, Mr. Chair, is that he talked about refurbishing the Holyrood plant and that was the need for Muskrat Falls. He also, in another question said, and I am quoting here, "…discussions with Nalcor have been around when obviously the Holyrood plant can be decommissioned. We know in 2017, Muskrat Falls will be in use and that power will be produced; however, it is my understanding that for a period of time Holyrood will have to kept, not in use but if needed when available. My understanding is around 2020, 2021 Holyrood will be decommissioned. I will have to check on that to be accurate."

That was the minister's comments in the Legislature yesterday, Mr. Chair. Despite the fact that the very premise for developing Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair, and to bring a power line to the Island was to replace the Holyrood generating plant, we are now passing legislation that makes absolutely no mention of that at all.

In fact, Mr. Chair, in another question in the House of Assembly the Minister of Natural Resources responded by saying, "Holyrood is not part of the Muskrat Falls Project. It is a significant factor environmentally as to why we feel that Muskrat Falls is a much better project, but essentially, on an economic basis, Muskrat Falls stands on its own, and then Isolated Island Holyrood refurbished are two totally separate projects".

That is the answer from the minister but if you look at the information that government provided to the public – this is what they gave the public – one would believe that Holyrood is one of the main reasons that they are doing this project at all.

Yet, Mr. Chair, they make no mention of it at all in the legislation. In fact, if you look at their Web site, www.powerinourhands.ca, on the very first page of that Web site you will find three columns with three different questions, and these are the answers. The first question, "Do we need a new source of power?" The government's answer, of course, is we need to replace the generating plant in Holyrood. Yet, Mr. Chair, there is nothing in the legislation about decommissioning the Holyrood plant. The second question on the front page of the Web site is, "Why Muskrat Falls?" The answer is the Island will need 40 per cent of the energy from Muskrat Falls, which will be needed to displace the Holyrood oil burning plant. There you go, Mr. Chair, again, the rationale. The third question on the Web site says, "Why not wait a few years?" The answer from the government is, "The aging Holyrood plant will soon need to be replaced, and we have potential needs for industrial development in Labrador."

The second one I fully agree with, Mr. Chair. I agree with the first one, too; however, there is nothing in the current legislation this evening. When the government talks about clause 5 in the bill and they talk about decommissioning, they do not specify that the Holyrood plant would be decommissioned. It is nowhere in the legislation. It is nowhere in the preamble. It is nowhere at all, Mr. Chair, in even the presentations and the side notes around it.

However, in government's own public relations campaign, every single time they were asked about Muskrat Falls, it came back to the Holyrood generating plant, the fact that it would reduce emissions, Mr. Chair, in the Province and in the country to meet those targets, and the fact that it was a major pollutant in the environment. We all know that was the case and is the case; we know that, Mr. Chair. This was the rationale that the government continued to provide to the public in speeches, in media interviews, in media scrums, in Question Period in the House of Assembly, and on the government's own Web site, yet in the legislation it talks about decommissioning, but no mention of the Holyrood generating plant.

We are asking government to add that to the legislation, to give that legislative commitment to the people of the Province, that if we are going to spend the money to develop Muskrat Falls, indeed we will be replacing the Holyrood diesel generating plant with a clean energy source, Mr. Chair. That is the commitment that we are looking for and we are looking for it in legislation.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What we are looking at here and what we are discussing is a financing bill that will allow for a revenue stream to be ensured for Muskrat Falls. I am a little bit at a loss as to why our project plan, which has been filed with the PUB, should be in the legislation. We have made it clear from day one that the Holyrood plant will be decommissioned. It will be a question of when it can be done.

I can give you this information. I said earlier the answers she read are accurate. I went back and checked on them in my notes just to make sure. Essentially, what will happen is Muskrat Falls will come on stream in 2017. It will take probably the full year, depending on when it comes on stream. By the end of the year it will have full power.

What will take place then is Holyrood will not be shut down for approximately three years and it is for this reason. It would be maintained in standby status in case there was a problem. What I mean by standby status is that it would sit idle until it was needed. Once we know the project is fully up and running, then it will be decommissioned partly on standby mode and eventually shut down. It is not going to be utilized.

Do not confuse the standby with being utilized. It simply means one of the units, or two of the units depending on the time of the year, will be turned on but not generating power. If it is not generating power, it is not costing money. It is just my understanding it takes time for the Holyrood plant to get up to speed. The intent is if there is a problem with the generating plant or the transmission line, then in the early days Holyrood would be ready at a moment's notice to ramp up to provide the power.

This just seems to me to be a prudent way to deal with things. You just sit there and you look at when this is going to work. This is where the independent engineer under the loan guarantee becomes so important. Once Nalcor and the independent engineer are satisfied that Muskrat Falls and the Labrador-Island Link is stable, then Holyrood will be shut down. In terms of being shut down, we expect before 2017 or 2020 it will be on standby. That plan, the full project plan, was filed with the PUB.

I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know how much it will cost. The only estimate I have right now is a Decision Gate 2 estimate, which was around $27 million. I will have to check on that. It is hard to get someone on a Friday night, other than us, to see if I can finalize the number. That is the number I have for Decision Gate 2.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That was the exact reason I asked it. I was trying to recall. It is getting a bit cloudy after four or five days now. For something to trigger my memory of that, it would be included in Decision Gate 2, part of the decommissioning costs. Therefore, I guess I was trying to connect the dots that if you include the money into the Decision Gate 2 project, in that particular case, indeed there might be room to include that into the project definition. That was our rational by making this particular suggestion.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 5 carried.

CLERK: Clause 6, 7, and 8.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 6, 7, and 8 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I just wanted to speak to these clauses 6 through 8 in the bill. I think we had a good explanation of this from the officials we had the briefing with. This is what falls under Crown asset protection.

Currently, as I understand it, Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are both Crown agents or agents of the Crown. Basically what this bill is intending to do is to amend both acts so the Crown's assets are protected. Therefore, they are not going to be acting as agents of the Crown in this regard; they will be acting of their own accord. The purpose of this is to protect us down the road in case there is any financial difficulty or any possibly that – I do not know if the term to use here is default, but if something happens, the people's assets cannot be seized, taken, or acted against.

We all know there is borrowing going to happen for this project. What is going to happen there is that borrowing is going to take place from Nalcor subsidiaries; I believe it is four companies that are either created or are being created. They are not going to be Crown agents. They are going to be acting on their own, especially as they deal with Emera.

One of my major concerns with this is that when it comes to these companies and subsidiaries, they are still going to be exempt from ATIPPA and we are still not going to have any access to the information. That information will not see the light of day, as it currently stands. I put that concern. I think I want it on the record again.

We have gone through and I think my understanding of this is clear. I do not think I have misinterpreted the section. Nalcor will act in its own capacity, not as a Crown agent, as well as Hydro. I do not know if I have any questions, per se. I understand the concept of why this is being done. At this point, I will take my seat and see if anybody else would like to speak to this section.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 6, 7 and 8 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 6 through 8 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 9 and 10.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 9 and 10 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will speak a few minutes to clause 10. This is the clause we have asked in our briefing session a number of questions about. As a matter of fact, in Question Period, I guess it was late last week or Monday maybe, we asked a question about once you go beyond the $600 million – because right now there is currently a cap of $600 million in borrowing for Nalcor as a corporation. For the Muskrat Falls Project that cap would be removed and you could go above the $600 million, obviously because the $600 million is not a sufficient amount to carry the project.

The question I would ask is who provides the oversight on that account? What is the maximum amount of money that the subsidiaries and the project developers could have to develop Muskrat Falls? What would the source of that money be?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, I indicated earlier today, and I believe it is also yesterday, the total financing that is required for this particular project. I went through the various breakdowns of the Muskrat Falls Project $2.9 billion, the Labrador Transmission Assets of $700 million, the LIL of $2.6 billion, for a total of $6.2 billion. There would be interest on the debt as well. I think when you take the equity out and when you take the Emera contribution in, I believe the total amount of the debt will be about $4.8 billion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: (Inaudible) for the project would be since the cap was removed and it is not the $600 million. Is there an amount that we would cap that money at?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: No, Mr. Chair, there is no cap.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 9 and 10 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 9 and 10 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 11 through 17 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 11 through 17 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 11 through 17 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, The Energy Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007. (Bill 61)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: We now move to Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project." (Bill 60)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I am happy to speak to Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project.

When we talk about clause 1, I guess we talk about the act in general and the purpose of what is being done here. We all know what is necessary here is that land has to be expropriated, approximately 1,100 kilometres of which needs to be expropriated for the purpose of the transmission corridor. We know that property is necessary in order to build the transmission line. The transmission corridor is about sixty metres wide, I believe.

We are dealing with two different lines there. We have the Labrador-Island Link, as well as the Maritime Link. I will be seeing first hand what goes on with the Maritime Link per se, especially as it will be coming in through Cape Ray in my district and then I believe it will go in mostly along the highway out in the Crown lands area. I guess I will be seeing that at some point.

Expropriation is a necessary premise, not just for this project but for municipalities as well, depending on their Urban and Rural Planning Act, giving them an opportunity to take advantage of municipal planning to make sure that aspect of it is taken care of. Mr. Chair, the expropriation itself, in many cases it gives people – there is a process that has to be followed whereby notice is given. Again, the expropriating body must show in many cases or prove that what they are expropriating is necessary.

We cannot have bodies expropriating just for the sake of doing it without giving some kind of rationale or reason or understanding of what it is that they are trying to do. The second part of it is that once you identify the need of expropriation, then the second part that we enter into is identifying it. What would happen then is that we would move into the compensation phase.

What I am going to do is I will allow somebody else to speak to this section, and I am sure I will have another opportunity to rise.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that the Committee rise and report Bill 61.

CHAIR: It has been moved and seconded that the Committee rise and report Bill 61.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion that the Committee rise and report Bill 61, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report Bill 61 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed him to report Bill 61 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

When shall the bill be read a third time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Bill 61.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, The Energy Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded the said bill be now read the third time.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, by way of introducing this bill, I simply want to thank members who participated in Committee.

At this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43(1), dealing with the previous question, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that this question now be put on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The previous question has been put with respect to Bill 61. When we start debate on Bill 61, every member of the House will get an opportunity to speak for twenty minutes and there will not be any amendments allowed on the bill in third reading.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

The Opposition House Leader speaking to the third reading of Bill 61.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stand and speak to Bill 61. We have spent quite a number of days debating this piece of legislation in the House of Assembly. We have had an opportunity, what I feel has been a very fair opportunity, to express any concerns we may have had with regard to this legislation in the Committee stage. Mr. Speaker, I know Committee was somewhat long, but we felt it was necessary for a couple of reasons.

First of all, the timing of when the legislation was presented to us in the House of Assembly, as parliamentarians it gave us very little time to prepare to be able to start the debate. For example, Mr. Speaker, we had their first briefings on the legislation on Tuesday morning. We came out of that, it was almost noon, and then at 1:30 o'clock we were in the House of Assembly starting the debate.

Mr. Speaker , I do not have to tell members of the House that there is time that is always required to be able to go through the legislation, to understand it, and to educate yourself as to what the legislation is actually doing. We needed that time and we took that time. We had an opportunity to examine the loan guarantee that was signed with the federal government. We also had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker , to look at the sanctioning agreement that was signed between Nalcor and Emera. We felt it was necessary to do a full review of both of those agreements and to look at how it applied in the context of the bill that we were debating.

Mr. Speaker, while we took the time to do that, we had our staff here working extensively and we looked at the amendments that we felt were necessary, where we had concerns and we were able to draw attention to those concerns and try to strengthen the bill. We made all efforts to be able to do that and to do it what I felt was in a way in which we were comfortable with it. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the patience of the people who work within the precincts of the House of Assembly because I know it has been tasking on all individuals.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, the government always had an option and that option was to have brought the legislation in earlier to allow us to have the proper time to debate it. They also had the option, Mr. Speaker, to defer the legislation until the new year. We had offered to come back early in January to reopen the House of Assembly to do what was necessary to debate this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will mark the single largest investment in infrastructure in our Province's history in any one project. It will, Mr. Speaker, commit to a project that right now is nearly $9 billion in investment on behalf of the taxpayers of this Province for a period of the next fifty years. That is surmountable, I say to members, and it was certainly not something I was prepared to come in and push through this House of Assembly.

The last time we did that, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature without doing diligence with legislation and just accepting the word of the government, we ended up making major blunders. Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of that. We want to make sure and we wanted to be comfortable with what we were doing.

Over the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to raise a number of issues and concerns. Members can, I am sure, sometimes get a little testy when there are differences of opinion, but if we all thought alike it would be a pretty sad world and a sad Province. The fact that we have the ability to challenge each other and to challenge what happens here is always better for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the way I look at it. While we may not always agree, Mr. Speaker, we push each other to be better and to do more. That is what I saw in this particular debate.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the differences I often have with the Minister of Natural Resources, I want to recognize the fact that over the course of the last four days I have seen this minister rise in his place and respond to all the sections in this bill. I have to say I was very impressed with the level of information and his knowledge with regard to this file.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I have seen a lot of legislation go through in this House of Assembly and in many times, Mr. Speaker, there were no answers and only rhetoric. I have to give the minister a great deal of credit because amongst the rhetoric there were a lot of answers and a lot of responses. Mr. Speaker, it does not mean I agree with what he was saying, and I want to point that out.

Any time that you have a major development project like Muskrat Falls, it is something that people in this Province – you know, we want to see big projects. We want to see development. We want to see prosperity. We want to see things happening that are going to benefit the people of the Province in the long term. Because you question something, it does not mean you are against something. Because you think there is a way to make it better, it does not mean the whole concept and idea is not a good one.

Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that developing the Muskrat Falls and the Gull Island Projects would be in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the right deal. I have always believed that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think if we could have developed it twenty years ago, if we could have gotten the right deal twenty years ago or thirty years ago, we would have seen those real benefits coming to the people of the Province now. Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is we do not see it as all bad, but we do not agree with everything that is here. I think that is important to point out.

Mr. Speaker, we raised a number of our concerns with regard to what ratepayers would have to pay in the Province. We think differently. We think there should be a portion of the profits that come back to help subsidize the ratepayers of this Province. We really believe that. The government believes differently. We believe more effort could have been made to consult with the Aboriginal peoples. The government feels that their consultation was adequate. We have a different opinion, Mr. Speaker.

We believe, Mr. Speaker, there should have been a benefits agreement for Labrador. We really believe there should have been a chapter in this deal that spoke directly to Labrador to address some of the concerns there. I will give credit where credit is due. The move by the government near the end of this particular deal to include industrial power for the mining industry in Labrador is a positive piece, and is a piece that we supported.

We really believe, Mr. Speaker, that more benefits should accrue in the longer term for the people and the communities of Labrador. We have pointed that out. We actually pointed out ways in which that needed to happen, ways in which we felt this government needed to address the energy needs of Labrador as well as the energy needs of the Island portion of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, they obviously felt this was something that they were not prepared to do at this time. They defended their benefits agreement for Labrador in the context of the Innu agreement called New Dawn. The Innu are one group in Labrador. There are a lot of other Labrador people.

There are a lot of other people in Labrador who for their entire lives have wanted to see developments like this but wanted to see benefits from them. They just want to be prosperous too. They just want to see benefits too. They just want to make sure at the end of the day when their resource is being taken out, when their power is going to fuel industry and homes somewhere else that they are not going to have to pay the highest prices for electricity. That they are going to have a decent road to drive over; that they are going to have a ship docking at their wharf with freight, if that is what they choose; that they are going to have the twenty-first century technologies, and that they are going to be treated with respect. That is all they are asking, Mr. Speaker.

We had hoped this agreement would have addressed those particular needs, but we will not give up. We will continue to lobby government. We will continue to raise those issues and hope, Mr. Speaker, that they will see the bigger vision for Labrador, like the Labrador people do as well.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, over the course of our debate here I guess we raised concerns with regard to Holyrood tonight and government's commitment to clean energy developments for the Province through Muskrat Falls and that it would be used to replace the diesel generating plant at Holyrood. It is not that we doubt the commitment of the government to do that; we just would have liked to have seen it legislated as part of the entire project, and that did not occur. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to hold the government accountable to the commitments they have made in the context of this particular project, whether those commitments are in the short term or in the long term.

Mr. Speaker, this particular development project has dominated the discussion in this Province for the last couple of years in one way, shape or form. We know we have been through a number of environmental assessments. We know environmental assessments are still ongoing. We know that even after this bill passes there will still be a lot of discussion around Muskrat Falls and it will be because a lot of it will not be known to the public.

There will be tremendous amounts of taxpayers' money that will be transferred to a corporation for this project that will not have the kind of disclosure attached to it that the people of the Province deserve. Because of Bill 29, a lot of the information regarding the investment, the cost and how monies will be spent will be kept secret from the people of the Province, but we will continue to push to get that information as the project moves along.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there have been commitments in the short term, and those commitments include things like employment opportunities for the people of Labrador and the people of the Province. It is not just good enough to say those things. It is not just good enough to write them on a piece of paper. They have to be practiced and they have to be adhered to. We will be watching. We will be watching the numbers.

We will be watching to ensure Labradorians and Newfoundlanders have employment in that project. We will have to be continuously putting pressure, I must say, Mr. Speaker, on the unions to accept new members because it is not happening right now. While you may will it, unless you can make a way for it to happen, it just does not naturally happen. That is what I am finding out with regard to that.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, as this project unfolds we will see lands expropriated across Labrador and across the Island portion of the Province. We will be looking with interest to see what the impacts are on people, on their communities, and what the impact is going to be on the environment. Those are things we will monitor.

In my own district, Mr. Speaker, I know there will be short-term benefits and I know there will be opportunity. We are seeing it already. We will also be looking, Mr. Speaker, to see how we can continue to capitalize on it, but we will be looking to see how we can mitigate the environmental impact as well.

While I know there will be some jobs and while I know there will be some business, I also know, Mr. Speaker, there is a list of applications this long lining up for quarry permits, for other kinds of permits that will be affecting the land and the environment in those particular areas. We will be paying very close attention to what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I will say as I close up my comments this evening on this particular project, and that is we know this project has now been sanctioned by the government. We know, Mr. Speaker, as the Premier has said and her ministers have said: There is no stopping us now, we are going full speed ahead. The only thing I hope, truly hope, and wish, Mr. Speaker, is that this project is a tremendous success for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I only hope that, Mr. Speaker. I only hope that at the end of the day, regardless of our differences of opinion, regardless of how we felt this project should go or not go, it brings the profit, it brings the opportunity, and it brings the benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the most that we can hope for and that is the most that we can work towards as we watch this project unfold over the next few years and onto the next fifty years until the financial requirements have been met.

Mr. Speaker, I know that long after this bill passes in the House of Assembly there will still be much work to do. We know that Nalcor still has to meet its financial obligations to the project. They will be looking to finalize that and meet financial close by the end of 2013.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that in the Province of Nova Scotia and with Emera there is work that will be ongoing. Whether at the end of the day Emera merges as a partner with the Maritime Link or whether they do not, we also know there is an obligation on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to make sure that term of the loan guarantee is met. They have up to five years to be able to do that and determine it. We are going to hear Muskrat Falls for a very long time. Long beyond the debate that we are having in the House of Assembly today.

Mr. Speaker, on that note I just want to say that over the last little while as we challenge the work of government and we challenge their numbers – of which I make no apologies for and which we will continue to do. That is our job and we have a responsibility to do that.

Oftentimes their rebuttal and their response thrown back at us is that we were condemning the people at Nalcor and condemning the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador who were working on this project. Nothing could have been further from the truth, Mr. Speaker.

I do not care how good you are. I do not care how many brain surgeries that you do, how many documents that you finalize, how many bank books that you balance, there is always, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity to make a mistake. The Premier herself knows that better than anyone – she knows that better than anyone.

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning the people who are considered to be the experts even if you are not the expert yourself. I want to clarify that because there was never any disrespect meant to anyone within Nalcor or within the public service. We certainly appreciate the work that has been done by a lot of individuals. It does not mean that we have to agree with it or support it, but it does not mean as well that we disrespect the people who provide that information.

Mr. Speaker, we will be watching to see where we go with Muskrat Falls. Because it is in the heartland of Labrador, I will probably be watching a little bit closer than a lot of people in this Province. I really, truly believe that Labradorians deserve more and should get more from this particular development and this project.

The saddest part for me is realizing, on this occasion, that may not happen, but I will not give up trying, and I think our determination as Labradorians to gain more, to be more successful, to foster more from our resources, will be even more strengthened, Mr. Speaker, than it ever has been before in our lives.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls has dominated the discussion inside and outside of this House for the last two-and-a-half years. It is a shift in the history and mentality and approach to energy development in Newfoundland and Labrador – one that has been necessary, I believe, for us in so many ways since the development of the Upper Churchill.

The Upper Churchill is a bleeding, oozing wound on the psyche of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. While there is a great deal of anger and hurt about the way that we have been treated in this Confederation, our place in this country, and how we could be subjected to such unfairness, and that gets mixed with the pride of being a Canadian and being part of this country, but the imbalance has marked us.

It is extremely important that while we continue to try to find ways to bring balance to the Upper Churchill contract, it is extremely important for us to move beyond it, to have the confidence to move beyond it, because mistakes were made. They were not made deliberately, Mr. Speaker. People did what they knew. People did what they understand.

Mr. Speaker, what we had to ensure, as a government, in our efforts, in our attempts to develop the Lower Churchill, was that when we knew better, as Maya Angelou said, we did better. Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard, first of all, to understand the run of the Churchill River, so that when we started to do a piece of negotiation with partners, when we started to arranged the financing, when we talked about environmental assessments, that we understood what it was we were saying, that we understood the river and we understood what needed to get done to develop it.

Mr. Speaker, we also did that in the context of Labrador. This project lies squarely within Aboriginal lands, Innu lands - there was no question - and one of the first pieces of work that we had to do was come to an arrangement with the Innu people. After thirty years of failed attempts to negotiate a land claims agreement, they came to the table with their own mistrust, with their own scars, with their own doubts about the possibilities of coming to a fair and balanced and amicable agreement with the rest of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador about what was theirs, and what rights were theirs, and what benefits should be there.

That negotiation of that land claims agreement, that New Dawn Agreement, which was a wonderful moment for all of Newfoundland and Labrador, and something every person in this Province should be so proud of, came as a result of two years of long, hard, and, I am happy to say, fruitful negotiations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, not only do we have a framework on benefits, the majority of the benefits that will come out of this piece of work in Labrador, in terms of jobs that are created, businesses that will service this project and so on, will lie with the Innu people and the partnerships that they have created.

Mr. Speaker, there was a great bonus that came out of that discussion as well. It was the trust that was developed between the Innu people and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, because they came to understand that our word was our bond. We negotiated fairly, and we went beyond that, Mr. Speaker, in terms of Muskrat Falls, because we talked about the Upper Churchill contract as well and provided redress to the Innu people for what had happened back in the 1970s, and how their rights were not acknowledged, respected or honoured at that time, and we redressed that issue with them.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, in terms of the construction of the project, benefits from the project, and revenue from the project, the Innu had to be our first partners. It was with their permission that we were able to progress the project.

After the Innu, Mr. Speaker, we took into consideration – and to support their ability to take advantage of the opportunities coming out of Churchill Falls, we also put Muskrat Falls. Mr. Speaker, we co-operated with the federal government and the Innu Nation for a $30 million training program so that their people would be trained and ready to take advantage of the opportunities when they arose.

Mr. Speaker, then we talked about all of the other Labradorians, outside of the agreements with the Innu, and the next opportunities had to be for them.

Mr. Speaker, then we had to talk about what kind of financial agreement could we arrive at that would enable this project. We looked at mining. We have been talking about mining developments in Labrador for a very long time, since we have come in 2003. We knew there was great interest in the Michelin Project. We knew there were wonderful things going on, on the Churchill River, in the iron sands; rare earth elements and how valuable they are in the world, how sought after they are in the world, and in what abundance we have them in Labrador.

We knew of expansions with IOC in iron ore. We knew, with new technologies and the thirst for new iron ore supplies around the world, that we could go back and continue to harvest mining sites that we thought were too expensive before to take all of the ore out. We were able to reopen them.

We knew we had a huge resource in Julienne Lake. We continue to work with Voisey's Bay to encourage underground mining and other projects, Mr. Speaker. Prospecting is going on in Labrador all the time.

We knew, despite the fact that there were these half-dozen to a dozen projects that had huge potential for Labrador, they all required power. They were not going to be able to generate enough revenue to build Muskrat Falls on their own. They could not bear all the costs of the development of Muskrat Falls. It would not have made their mining enterprises feasible. It was too much debt. There had to be other uses for the power, Mr. Speaker.

When Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, a subsidiary now of Nalcor, was doing its load forecasting and so on, Mr. Speaker, it became very clear that we had to do something here on the Island. We either had to refurbish the hydro station in Holyrood and we had to develop Round Pond, Island Pond, Portland Creek maybe, and we would have to do some wind, we would have to do some thermal, and we would have to do extensive work on transmission, because we are really restricted once we get to Come By Chance on transmission capacity onto the Avalon where the bulk of the population lives, so it was going to require huge expenditures.

We had the challenge of adding precipitators, scrubbers, and an extension to Holyrood, and the cost associated with that. Even with all of that great investment, Mr. Speaker, we still were not dealing with greenhouse gases. Somewhere along the line we are going to have to deal with greenhouse gases. Holyrood, being one of the worst polluters in Eastern Canada, was going to cost us, and we could only guess at how much that might be.

In all of the cost estimates we have talked about here over the months, Mr. Speaker, we have never assigned a cost to the cleanup of our environment that is being poisoned on a daily basis by Holyrood. There is lots of value connected with the development of Muskrat Falls that is not included in the $2.4 billion differential; many, many more.

Mr. Speaker, while all of that is true, there is still trepidation about going down a path where we have been once before and had not done a very good job of it, and where we had travelled twice since and had failed. Now we were going to go there again.

The one thing that we promised ourselves and we promised the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, was to the best of our ability we were going to do this job as well as it could be done. If it was right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador then we would move forward. We would have the confidence and the leadership to do that, Mr. Speaker, but it would be based on a solid foundation of research and information. We would have the arrangements that will work for us. We would understand the risk and we would mitigate the risk as well as it could be mitigated, Mr. Speaker, but if it was not in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the development would not take place.

That reservation, Mr. Speaker, stayed with this government up to the last hours of our negotiations; the last hours. Even though we were told on a daily basis in this House that we would sell our souls for Muskrat Falls, nothing could be further from the truth. The interests of the people of this Province have been at the forefront of every decision that we have made along the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: If we needed to back away from this project at any point, Mr. Speaker, we were prepared to do it.

Mr. Speaker, we had enabling legislation that was passed back in this House in the early 2000s that would have allowed us to take this project completely away from this House of Assembly. What more could people say than they have already said, Mr. Speaker?

We could have taken it completely away, because in the early 2000s a former Administration passed legislation exempting this kind of project from the scrutiny of the PUB. We did not have to come in here talking about the PUB at all. We did not have to refer to the PUB for any kind of a review. We would have been acting completely within the law of Newfoundland and Labrador if we had not done any of that.

Mr. Speaker, we referred to the PUB. I will be quite frank, I was told it was a risky thing to do for all kinds of reasons, not anything to do with Muskrat Falls, but for all kinds of political reasons. I had confidence in the PUB that they would deliver the mandate they had been given. They were not given any instruction.

The burning questions in this House of Assembly – and anybody can go back, Mr. Speaker, and review Hansard – and the questions that had been taking place in this House of Assembly for over a year had been around whether or not we needed the power, and was Muskrat Falls the least-cost option. That is where people spent Question Period almost every day, and news releases almost every day, on those two issues, so they were the two issues we referred to the PUB. We provided Decision Gate 2 numbers because that is what we had, Mr. Speaker.

The PUB, because it does not have the kind of expertise to examine a project of that size in-house, did their own search, identified experts who could do the type of analysis they felt was required, engaged them in Manitoba Hydro International to do the analysis of the project and to answer those two questions, to take all of the inputs from Nalcor, determine whether or not Muskrat Falls was the least-cost option, and whether the refurbishment of hydro, with the addition of some hydro, thermal, and wind, was a cheaper option. They did their piece of work, Mr. Speaker. That was the bulk of the analysis.

They came back and they said: Yes, we need the power, and you probably need more power than Nalcor is estimating. Their estimation is conservative. Is this the least-cost analysis? Yes, based on Decision Gate 2 numbers this is the least-cost option.

Mr. Speaker, once your expert comes back and provides that kind of information, that is the major part of your work completed. That work was supplemented by the Consumer Advocate, who is associated with the Public Utilities Board, and his expert. They come back with the same conclusion as MHI. Then the PUB, for their own reasons, decided that they would not make a recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, up to that point a debate in this House of Assembly had not been contemplated. Because the PUB refused to make a recommendation – even though we did not have to send it to the PUB for any kind of analysis – it was decided that we would have a debate here in the House of Assembly, as members opposite had been requesting. Everybody knows the history around that piece, Mr. Speaker.

It has been an interesting week. It certainly has been, Mr. Speaker. I can speak for all of my colleagues on this side of the House. There is not one of us over here who believes that our colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle are not just as passionate about Newfoundland and Labrador as we are, that they do not care about Newfoundland and Labrador, that their love of this place is any less than is felt on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, we have never shied away from tough questions. That is why we referred it to the PUB. That is why we have made information available on a daily basis. We have posted it on Web sites. A lot of people will say sometimes I do not understand a whole lot about the project. That is not a bit surprising. That is not a bit surprising.

This is nearly an $8 billion project that is extremely complex in every one of its elements, Mr. Speaker, from the loan guarantee to the financing structure, to the engineering design of the river, to understanding markets, to understanding wind. Just on wind, for heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, people think that because the wind blows hard that you can have a lot of wind energy. The wind blowing hard is almost as bad as the wind not blowing at all. People do not understand all of these different technologies and how they work, and the complexities of these projects.

Mr. Speaker, I have spent every day, practically, of the last five or six years working daily on this project. What I know compared to what Nalcor knows, you could fit in a thimble, Mr. Speaker. There is no comparison, and that is doing it on a daily basis. People who hear bits and pieces about it from time to time, I understand when they say: I do not understand a whole lot about the project. That is like someone talking about doing heart surgery. You hear bits and pieces of it. It is like asking somebody: Do you know how to do heart surgery? Well, of course, I do not.

The one thing that we do know is that given the information that we have provided, that comes from the expertise at Nalcor, and the fact that we have been able to tell the people of this Province that while we have extraordinary confidence in Nalcor because they have proven themselves time and time again, we are also going to do external validation of their work so that we have the comfort of knowing that they are following best practices, but we want the people of the Province to understand that as well, because it does give you confidence.

When you take a body of work and you go to a half dozen experts around the world – the argument has been put: Well, what do you expect them to say? You are paying them.

Mr. Speaker, it is the most awful argument because it implies that the only people who have any kind of integrity or ethics are the people who are posing that theory.

When you have international experts whose knowledge is their trade, yes, Mr. Speaker, you know they are going to put their reputation on the line for Newfoundland and Labrador on one contract that is probably the tiniest, tiniest fraction of their overall portfolio. These companies – their reputation is their bond. If they are not ethical companies – they work for countries, they work for industry; the one thing that they have to be is independent. They have to be ethical. They have to have integrity. Otherwise, nobody will have anything to do with them. Once their reputation is gone, that they are feeding somebody their answers for money, their reputation is in ruins and their company will be gone within days.

So you go and you find the international, reputable companies who have expertise in these areas and you say: Audit and tell us, is Nalcor following best practices? Is the information they have put forward valid? Is this sensible, what it is they are saying?

Every expert we have gone to has validated Nalcor's work, Mr. Speaker. That is a great sense of comfort to people on this side of the House and that is a great sense of comfort to the people of the Province.

You might not understand all the engineering decisions and all of the market complexities: selling on the spot market; selling high and selling low; that you blend power out of Bay D'Espoir with power coming out of Muskrat Falls; that your transmission system can only integrate so much wind; that you have backstop wind; tidal energy is not sophisticated enough yet to be fully commercialized; and whatever else is out there, Mr. Speaker. People get up and they throw things around.

Biomass – we are not even in a place in Newfoundland…. Our soil is so poor that we cannot take biomass out of our forestry. So we talk about what we are going to do in pellet production and we do not even understand our own geography. We do not understand our own agriculture, Mr. Speaker. We do not understand our own forestry.

We have had great public debates about this in the Province, especially around Abitibi and the pulp and paper industry getting in trouble. We have had public debates about full-tree harvesting. We cannot have full-tree harvesting in Newfoundland and Labrador because the quality of our soil is so poor that if we do full-tree harvesting and take the biomass out of our forests, then our forests will only last for another generation or two.

Sometimes it is difficult and it is frustrating when you have somebody putting forward that theory about what we can do in the Province, and at the same time as using it, it is not being environmentally responsible. What they are proposing is going to do exactly what they are accusing us of doing.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, to understand all of the elements of it and know that, given the history of the Churchill River and given the mandate of Nalcor, all of these things would have been examined. You do not have to do a big treatise on every one, Mr. Speaker. When you go to forestry officials, and we have had great battles with harvesters, to say: No, you cannot take the biomass. If you take the biomass you are going to destroy forever the forests in Newfoundland and Labrador. You cannot be hauling that out and making pellets of it. We will not be making pellets very long, Mr. Speaker, before we are going to run out of supply.

If wind is the best place for us to go, then that is where we are going to go. We have wonderful wind regimes in this Province, particularly in Labrador, the best wind regimes in North America. The development of Muskrat Falls enables the development of wind. The wind in Labrador becomes so much more valuable to the people of the Province once we have Muskrat Falls. When you have wind and when you have hydro, you have a dream world, Mr. Speaker, especially when you have a reservoir like the Upper Churchill, which we have access to in the development of Muskrat Falls.

So, when the wind is blowing too hard or it is not blowing at all, we do not have to go buy power from New Brunswick utility to supply our Nova Scotia customers because the wind is not blowing. We can take the water. We can take the water we have stored in the reservoir in the Upper Churchill and it can be Muskrat water or Upper Churchill water. We can store three years of water in that reservoir. So we do not have to buy backstopping for our wind when we have that resource developed.

Every other place in this country that I know about, in the main, that is selling wind power, like PEI, for example, they have to backstop their wind from a utility and nuclear reactor in New Brunswick. New Brunswick is not holding that power just in case PEI wants it. PEI has to pay for it whether they use it or not, and that makes the cost of wind power much higher than hydro power. Hydro power is always the cheapest form of power, Mr. Speaker.

When the minister and I met with our energy consultants in London this summer, Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to talk to any number of energy experts and energy industries. When we told them about our situation here in this Province, they were envious. We talked to one of the regulators for the wind energy in the European Union. He said: How lucky are you? Yes, you always develop your hydro first. Whatever other sources of power you have, you do hydro first and then everything else comes after that. That is your backstop.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a good project. Over 50 per cent of the engineering is done; we understand that river. It is a good thing, Mr. Speaker. I spoke today for a little while about the thirty years of studying that have gone on in that river. It was always thought the diversion dam for Muskrat Falls was going to go on one side of the river, a particular side of the river, but our engineering showed that was absolutely the wrong place for it to go. It needed to go to the other side of the river.

Mr. Speaker, if we had not known that, taken it into account, and discovered it only when we got into the engineering of the river after sanction, it could have caused a year's delay in the project and could have cost an overrun of $1 billion. That is the advantage of having over 50 per cent of your engineering done, Mr. Speaker. It has been very deliberate so when we went to sanction and we actually started to develop the river, there were not going to be any ugly surprises.

Have we eliminated the risk of overruns? No, Mr. Speaker, and nobody here could ever do that. That is the risk you run. You try to mitigate the risk as best you can. It is like in the offshore, Mr. Speaker. When we set up a rig and we give somebody an operating licence out there, we cannot guarantee there is not going to be a spill or something bad is going to happen on the rig. That has been our experience, but we did not shut everything down on the offshore. We understood the risk. That was the first thing you had to do there, as in the development of the Churchill River.

Understand what the risk is, explore every parameter of it, and then see if you can mitigate the risk as much as you can. How much risk is left? Weigh that against the benefit and say, okay, there is still risk there, but we have this mitigation in and we have reduced it as much as we can. Here is the benefit. Is it worth the risk? In this case, Mr. Speaker, we have decided that it is.

Given the deferential between the development of Muskrat Falls and the next least-cost option, which is the Holyrood option, there is a $2.4 billion difference, Mr. Speaker. On top of that, the greatest risk will come from the cost of capital, capital costs, and labour. We understand that, so we have built in contingency around that, but we also understand that if we going to do the Holyrood option, we are going to run exactly the same risk. There is no protection from that risk. That is going to be associated with every option that we encounter.

Nobody, Mr. Speaker, nobody has been able to come forward to say to the people of this Province, to say to this government, to say to Nalcor: Your rationale is flawed. There are gaps in your methodology. Your conclusions are incorrect, and this is why. Not one, Mr. Speaker. This is a solid project for the people of the Province. There is not one reason why, Mr. Speaker.

The emphasis for the bulk of the argument we have put forward for the development of Muskrat Falls has been around the fact that we need the power on the Island. The fact that we need 40 per cent of the power and the amount of money that could be generated from that is the core and heart of the rationale for the development of Muskrat Falls. Because of that need for power and the way energy is paid for in this Province that alone can bear the cost of the development of Muskrat Falls and still be cheaper than any other option.

Just the power that is required right here in Newfoundland justifies the development of Muskrat Falls. It can cover the cost of the development of Muskrat Falls better than any other option. Because that project can carry the bulk of the cost, we are able then to consider the other pieces that are almost gravy to it.

The fact that we can connect to the North American grid, that we can break the back of the geographical grasp we have been in, in this country since we joined, and develop another pathway to get our energy from this place. Remember, Mr. Speaker, energy is the greatest resource we have in this Province: oil, gas, hydro, wind, tidal, and who knows what is going to come after that. It is our greatest resource, but we will never get rich from that resource with 500,000 people.

This week we heard debate and we heard people talking about Iceland, and the price of power in Iceland. Let me tell you, the government and industry from Iceland come here and meet all the time. Do you know what their greatest complaint is? Is that they are an isolated system. They have lots of energy in Iceland, tons of it, Mr. Speaker, geothermal energy. They do not know what to do with it, because whatever they do with it has to happen in Iceland. They cannot connect up to any other grid. They cannot move their power out of Iceland.

The best they can do is industrial development in Iceland. As their ambassador said to me when I was Minister of Natural Resources, you need to be careful of that. You do not want your country to become an industrial wasteland either. There is only so far you are going to go down that road. They cannot maximize the benefit of the energy they have in Iceland because of their isolation. That is from the ambassador for Iceland. I am not making that up. That is what he shared with us.

The fact that we can hook into the North American grid is a wonderful thing for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is only small amounts of energy that we are going to put forward at first, Mr. Speaker, but that is why the Maritime Link is so important. Our power sales to Nova Scotia pay for it. It pays for the link and creates the capacity for us to move excess power through. We control, for thirty-five years, 65 per cent of the capacity on the Maritime Link. Then, at the end of thirty-five years we own it all.

Mr. Speaker, if we have to pull every kilowatt of power we have back up for industrial development in Labrador that is a good thing. We can take 60 per cent of the power and leave it up in Labrador for industrial development. We can fill up that line then with small hydro, small wind, and so on because they do not have to bear the cost of building the Maritime Link. Muskrat Falls has already paid for it.

Once you build your financial case for building the project because of your market right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, mining developments become a greater possibility in Labrador when they need large amounts of power. We can provide it. They could not pay for it on their own. It would not be financially sustainable to do that. Because we have this large marketplace in Newfoundland and Labrador – in Newfoundland for 40 per cent of the power – and that can bear most of the cost, then we are able to do it. It enables industrial development. It enables us to use that power for industrial development in Labrador.

We all look forward to the day that we say: Where are we going to get more power for Labrador? If those mining developments bear fruit, the ones that are most advanced – we are looking at a $15 billion investment right now in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, with half a dozen mines and tens upon tens of thousands of jobs for Labradorians, and others in this Province. That is a good thing. That will happen because of Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, information has been provided. We have tried to be as clear as we can, open and honest, transparent and accountable. There have been lots of accusations hurled back and forth. I do not mind hard questions being asked, Mr. Speaker. When you are in a project of this size, hard questions should be asked. Hard questions should be asked every day about everything. In a democracy, Mr. Speaker, questions should be asked. Government should be held accountable. That is how a democracy works, and nobody over here has any kind of problem with that, Mr. Speaker.

Where we have rubbed against one another, Mr. Speaker, where there has been friction is when people assign a motive to a government who is trying to do what is best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and there is no basis for the accusations that are being made. We have been above board. We have been honest. We have done a good job. We have done a very good job of planning, consultation, research, analysis, understanding what was required, negotiation in terms of Emera, in terms of the federal government, and standing our ground with the federal government.

We have said from the beginning that the most important thing about our relationship with the federal government was they needed to understand the legitimate aspirations of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and respond appropriately. That does not mean that they are always going to agree with us, but at least understand where we are coming from.

Mr. Speaker, you have to get in the room to be able to talk to people. When you are trying to make a case, there is no good being in a room by yourself. You have to be able to talk to the person who you are trying to influence. When somebody does not listen to you and are not living up to their responsibilities, we talk about that, and I talk about that and my colleagues talk about that. When somebody listens and responds in a way that we believe is appropriate, then we talk about that too, because it is not about their integrity, Mr. Speaker; that is about ours. That is about our integrity. It is not enough to name when somebody is doing something wrong – do it, absolutely; but when somebody does something right, you name that too.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process. Certainly, I have had to remain objective, as Premier of this Province, moving this project forward and had to be prepared always to walk away from it if it was not in the best interests of the people of the Province, and so have my colleagues. We have talked about that on a regular basis and reminded each other. We could not be paralyzed by fear, but we could not lose our objectivity either. I think that we have walked that line extremely well, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you that when I stood at the podium on Monday night in the lobby of this House of Assembly that there was no reservation left in me.

I believe in this project, I believe that we have done all that is required of us in our planning, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Natural resources who has done a stellar job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I did tell the story in caucus the other day about information technology and how that frightens us sometimes, especially us older people.

A friend of mine taught a course in computer science and she talked about the fact that the people who came to the course were terrified of computers and technology. They did not know how they worked, they did not understand anything about them, and it was a source of frustration for them.

So before she allowed them to turn the computer on, they had to completely dismantle it, take it apart piece by piece, and then they had to put it back together again. When they put it back together again and it was put back together properly, she let them turn it on. The one thing she had eliminated in the exercise was fear of the computer. They understood it inside out and upside down.

I can tell you, that was the same approach the Minister of Natural Resources took to the Muskrat Falls Project when I made him Minister of Natural Resources. He was completely objective. He went down and he said: I am going to convince myself from A to Z that this is the right thing to do. What did he do? He deconstructed the whole Muskrat Falls Project. Then he put it together piece by piece. He came to me and said: I am absolutely convinced this is the right thing to do. Anyone who has listened to this minister this week in this House of Assembly knows that is the absolute truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: He took this project, particularly either on Tuesday night or Wednesday night when he spoke for three hours, and he deconstructed it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and he put it right back together again. There is not an element of this project this minister does not understand. He brings his integrity to it, his confidence to it, and his endorsement of this project as the best way for Newfoundland and Labrador to meet its energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, so convinced was he that he just did not stay with the comparison of Muskrat Falls to the Holyrood option. People had raised questions around wind. They had raised questions around forecasting. They had raised questions around rates, natural gas, LNG, and 92A. Mr. Speaker, 92A has to be the most studied piece of legislation since we joined Confederation and developed the Upper Churchill.

These were not part of the mandate of the PUB and these questions were answered, but he took it even a step further. He went and he got Ziff Energy. He got reports that were informed by PIRA. He went to Wood Mackenzie; international energy experts used all over the world, and put together a series of reports that spoke to all of those questions. People are confused – I expect so, Mr. Speaker, with everybody throwing stuff around left, right, and centre.

I spoke at Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador convention, Mr. Speaker, and I talked for a little while about 92A. So many people came to me after and said: I am so glad you explained what 92A is. People like to dazzle people with their knowledge, what they know, and what they understand but they do not explain. He said: I never understood what 92A was until you spoke tonight. It was breaking it down into a half-dozen simple sentences.

Here it is: our ability to recall power from the Upper Churchill contract. Is there legislation that says we can do it? Yes, there is. What have twenty-two legal opinions said to us? Do not do it, because if you do you are going to be in big trouble in the courts in this country and you are going to end up paying hundreds if not billions of dollars. That is what twenty-two legal opinions said to us.

When Nalcor says no, we have to do something other than 92A; they know what they are talking about. When the Department of Natural Resources says no, we cannot do 92A, we have had twenty – just imagine twenty-two sets of lawyers all agreed. That, in and of itself, is amazing, Mr. Speaker, to get twenty-two legal opinions on the same matter. With all due respect to lawyers, that is a bit of an anomaly.

Mr. Speaker, we have provided all of that information. We have gone above and beyond to say to people: Here are the answers. We have made them as straightforward as we can because it is a complex issue. We are trying to provide as much information as we can so people understand what it is we are doing and why.

There has been no issue here, Mr. Speaker, but there comes a time when we have to move. There comes a time when we have to act. People say: Why can't you wait until 2041? Well, we are going to be using every piece of capacity we have in peak hours in 2017. In 2019 we are going to have an energy deficit. What are people going to do, sit up in the dark for twenty years until 2041? All of the experts say we need the energy; we are going to have an energy deficit. What are we going to do?

Well, we are not going to develop Labrador. I am talking about residential customers now. We can write off Labrador, because they are not going to develop Muskrat Falls. They might be able to do something if they can negotiate with Hydro-Quebec. I understand people across the aisle have much more confidence in Hydro-Quebec than we do, Mr. Speaker, because I do not have any confidence in Hydro-Quebec to be quite honest with you.

We tried for nine years to find a pathway through Quebec. We found it through New Brunswick using the same rules. We might have had an opportunity. The former premier and I had been talking for quite some time with the Premier of Ontario about what we might do together in terms of energy development. Unfortunately, circumstances are such that we were not able to continue that dialog. I had a lovely letter from the former Premier of Quebec last week. He opined about how he regretted the lost opportunity.

We never stopped trying, Mr. Speaker. We are going to continue to try, because we have Gull. It is important we develop that as well. It is a great resource. We wanted to see it benefit the people of Labrador and we wanted to see it benefit the people of Newfoundland. Yes, adjacency is important.

Mr. Speaker, we have three oil-producing projects offshore, off the Avalon Peninsula that provides over 32 per cent of our revenue. We would never suggest for one minute – or I hope we would not suggest – that the bulk of that revenue should be spent on the Northeast Avalon or on the Avalon Peninsula and not distributed throughout the Province. Our resources belong to all of us.

Adjacency is important, and we would never suggest because we have three operating oil projects off the offshore that we should all have free gas. We try to keep prices low. We try to keep housing affordable. We try to keep electricity affordable. That comes from policy decisions of government.

I understand the people opposite would have us tie the hands of – I do not know if it is going to be this government or some other government in 2017, 2018. We do not know what the fiscal circumstances are going to be. Two years ago we would not have told you that we were going to have a $725 billion deficit this year. All of the forecasting said we would never have a deficit that high but here we are, and it could be worse again next year.

Why would we tie up revenue five years down the road when we do not know what financial circumstance the Province is going to be in? If we are still paying low electricity rates, Mr. Speaker, that are perhaps $50 a month more than we are paying now, and we need hospitals, we need schools, we need roads, we need chemotherapy drugs, we need daycare, we need – how are we going to pay for it, Mr. Speaker? There is not a money tree growing in the backyard.

So, not only do we have to provide energy to our people, we have to provide other services to our people and we have to find a way to pay for them. I know that certain parties say they do not care about the debt, but, Mr. Speaker, I am never going to forget coming here in 2003 and by the time we paid for education and health and serviced our debt, we had twenty-one cents left on every dollar to do everything else, and our pension plans were going bankrupt. I do not want to go back there, Mr. Speaker.

I get a little concerned when I hear people tell us we ought not to be concerned about the debt. I am extremely concerned about the debt. I have no time for a philosophy that says: Do it! We will worry about how we are going to pay for it after. That is what got us into the mess we are in and we are trying to dig our way out of.

While we are doing that and trying to pay down the debt and manage the volatility of being so dependent on commodities, we are trying to build a pathway to a more sustainable future where our economy is built on revenue that we can rely on and will be there for generations to come, Mr. Speaker, and enable all kinds of other activity that will allow us to have the things that we get asked for in this House of Assembly every day. There is nobody on the other side asking for anything that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should not have. We understand that.

We would love to do universal daycare. We would love to help everybody with their housing. There are all kinds of things we would do, Mr. Speaker, but you have to be able to pay for it, and that is the responsibility of stewardship. If all you had to do was give, give, give and rack up the bills, sure, Mr. Speaker, we would all want this job. Mr. Speaker, you have to be responsible and you have to do what is in the best interest of the people of the Province, and that means sometimes saying no to what is a very legitimate request.

I remember High Liner was closing its plant in Arnold's Cove and it was represented by a Liberal MHA. In that first budget, I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, $1 million was a whole lot of money. We had schools closing down almost every day because of neglect and mould. We made the decision to spend $3.5 million to buy the quotas from High Liner so the plant could stay operational in Arnold's Cove. It is still operational, Mr. Speaker, and it was a good decision, but I am going to tell you it kept us up nights.

We were able to move from a place at that time where the former Administration was putting about $2.6 million a year into economic development and we are up now, Mr. Speaker, to about $185 million a year. We are able to do things because we are not burdened down with debt to the same degree. We have been able to pay debt down about $4 billion, which has freed up all kinds of debt-servicing money that we do not need to spend and we can put into services for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, legitimate services that they want, Mr. Speaker, and that we want to provide, but you have to do that responsibly. The development of Muskrat Falls is part of all of that plan as to how we can do that in the long term, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is a great time for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. The people of the Province in the main have let us know that they have supported this project since we signed the agreement with Emera. It was a wonderful feeling this week when we were able to bring it home.

I am glad we are ending this debate, or attempting to end this debate this week and this filibuster, Mr. Speaker, on a high note. I commend the Opposition for the questions they have asked and the tenacity in which they have asked them, Mr. Speaker. I think that we have satisfied them. We have certainly done our very best and we have gone beyond our own resources within government to provide them with the answers they need.

I thank everyone for the opportunity to speak. I do not know if I will have the opportunity again, Mr. Speaker, but this week has certainly been an interesting experience.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to stand and have a few minutes to speak on this tonight. I am not going to speak on much of the debate. I will just say to the Premier when I heard you talk about the computers and you were talking about how scared you are, us old people, just imagine how the Member for Burin – Placentia West must feel, how old he is after his big birthday.

Mr. Speaker, this is definitely an historic debate. This is a debate that we all must be proud of, this history that we are all a part of. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to into the details of debate because everything that I had to ask and say I already said this week and asked. We got a lot of questions and we put out a lot of stuff.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank you for following us through this historic debate. I know it is pretty hard to keep forty-seven people in line but, Mr. Speaker, I must acknowledge that you kept the debate flowing in a good way.

I want to recognize all the other members who were involved. The Member for Lewisporte, I want to recognize his involvement. I know all of our prayers are with him and his family this Christmas. I want to recognize the Member for Port de Grave also who is Chairperson. Thank you for guiding us all through the debate and helping out, especially the Member for Bonavista North and the Member for Baie Verte – Springdale who filled in to help us with this. I just want to acknowledge that you guys did a great job filling in and keeping the House going, keep debate going. It is a tough job to step in –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you very much for that.

I would also like to thank the staff of the House of Assembly. It is hard enough putting up with the hours in the House but having to listen to some of the boring speeches that come up and some of the rambling – so to all the staff that are not just here but also in all parts of the House of Assembly who stay for this debate, I thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Premier said and the member. We may not always agree on things, but the Minister of Natural Resources, I said in our caucus room today that I am amazed how much knowledge that man knows about the project. At times, I may not agree with him and he may not agree with me. That is fine. I said earlier that his knowledge about all the issues that were pertaining to it in the last four days, I said that he has a lot of knowledge. There are a lot of differences of opinions, but he does have the knowledge of that. I want to recognize that also.

Mr. Speaker, I also recognize that there are times when the debate gets a bit heated. There are some things that are said. Some of us say things that we wish we never had, and sometimes we apologize. Anybody who I offended or spoke too loud of, I apologize because we do get heated debates and we do get into discussions that do get a bit heated and do get a bit off track.

I want to recognize someone else, Mr. Speaker, in this debate and it brings to mind the ruckus in debate. It was two nights ago, about 10:00 at night, the Member for Terra Nova got up and the last four minutes of his speech he put everything back in perspective, to get everything back on track to speak about Bill 61. I just want to recognize the Member for Terra Nova for that wisdom and bringing us back into the debate and back into what we are doing here and cut it down a bit. So I just want to recognize the Member for Terra Nova for that, Mr. Speaker.

In closing, as I mentioned, I am not going to speak about the issue itself. I have two wishes for this Christmas. One is to wish everybody in this House a very merry, safe and happy Christmas, and that this deal works. Because if this deals works, it is good for all of Newfoundland and Labrador and if it is good for Newfoundland and Labrador, it is good for all of our children, it is good for all of our grandchildren, and it is a great historic day that we all can say that we can be proud of. That is my second wish that this deal is prosperous for Newfoundland and Labrador and that things go ahead as the government says they will. We will be keeping the government accountable, as we should be.

I have said it on many occasions, Mr. Speaker. At no time do I ever think any member in this House is not trying to do the best they can for Newfoundland and Labrador – at no time would I ever say that. We may have different opinions, but at no time do I think anybody is not trying their best for Newfoundland and Labrador, for their constituents, for their area and for the people who they represent.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, Merry Christmas to everybody, the staff and all the families, have a safe Christmas and God bless.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be brief in my comments; it has been a long week. As I said at the end of the last filibuster, I think that our work here this week is a testimony to our collective commitment to the work that we do here in the House of Assembly. I feel I am all the better, I feel we are all the better, I feel our democracy is a little bit healthier and I feel our future is a little bit brighter, despite the issues we disagree on.

Government's direction is set; there is no question about that. I think the whole direction with Muskrat Falls has been set since about 2010. We have been talking about Muskrat Falls pretty continuously since then, and we have been talking about the Lower Churchill for my adult life, I guess. It is probably one of the most significant legislative decisions that we have made or that legislators have made here since the Confederation debates; I believe that.

I believe, as I said a number of times, the spectre of the Upper Churchill still haunts us, and I hope that we will not haunted by any of the decisions that we have arrived at here. I hope that in the coming years we will have New Democrats here in the House of Assembly to follow through and follow up and see where all this goes.

One thing that is abundantly clear to me, after all of this, is that we should have functioning, multi-party committees to review legislation. I reference if only the hours and hours that we spent debating individual clauses of these bills, on issues that should be relatively straight-forward, that we could have hashed out in another forum, and certainly, I – and I am sure other members of the Legislature – would be committed to doing.

I am not sold on a lot the arguments. I will not get into detail now, because I think that we have gone over them a lot. I worry, still, about the alternatives, what this monopoly will do, whether we are shutting out natural gas, wind, small hydro, and aggressive conservation measures, and emerging technologies.

Now, one of the things that I did want to mention, and I will not belabour this, but I have often been told by members opposite that we ought to do our homework – you ought to do your homework. I spent thirteen years in university, for better or worse, and I did a lot of homework. I am a researcher by trade, and I had one piece of homework that I wanted to get off the table before this is over.

It is about cutting-edge, emerging technology in the district of the hon. Government House Leader, the Minister of Justice, the Member for Grand Bank. I will just read this briefly, an article in The Southern Gazette, and it says, "CNA research project at Lord's Cove finds new use for old fish plant. Sitting on the wharf in Lord's Cove is a building with a history not unlike many others scattered around coastal Newfoundland and Labrador. The old fish plant was once a part of Fishery Products International's assets in the province." My father, Tom Kirby, managed that plant for a number of years.

This release, November 25, 2011 from the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development says, "Researchers at College of the North Atlantic's Burin campus… is made possible through an investment totalling $3.4 million by federal, provincial and private partners.

"The aim of the project is to build a second generation wave-powered device to pump high volumes of sea water." It talks about the benefits, including "…industrial heating and cooling and electrical generation."

The hon. minister at the time – I will not say his name, he is sitting in the House though. The Minister Responsible for the Research and Development Corporation said, "This project exemplifies the research and innovation potential that exists in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador".

It goes on to say that this new technology "can also provide a new renewable energy source…" and it can "…produce exciting results in the areas of renewable…" technology. We can learn "…some important lessons regarding the development and deployment of wave energy devices".

I just wanted to bring that up because I am concerned about the impact of committing ourselves to a single technology for such a significant amount of time. This is a prime example of good work done by a Member of the House of Assembly, good investment done by government, but perhaps an advantage and a potential that may not be fully realized because we are committing ourselves to one direction without enough consideration of others.

I will conclude with that, Mr. Speaker. Again, I have to say I have appreciated taking part in this debate.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is certainly my honour and privilege to stand here at 1:00 a.m. on Saturday. I believe it is December 22 in the outside world. I believe it is still Thursday here in the House of Assembly.

It is an honour and a privilege to stand here and speak to Bill 61. I am going to try to keep my remarks fairly brief. I think if we had not put our perspective and our opinions out over the last number of days, then what have we been doing here?

What I would say is we have had a number of days of debate, conjecture, and a bit of arguing. Do you know what? At some points we have had a bit of fun in here as well, and that is a big part of this. I thank all the members from both sides for listening, because we have done that. We have all had our say. We have asked our questions. We have had answers and we have certainly made sure that we got the information about this project out there.

I would say to the people out there listening, because they are out there listening and watching, whether it is back home in Port aux Basques or on Pleasantville Avenue here in St. John's, there are people out there. This is great that they have an opportunity to view this and see what is going on here in this House of Assembly.

As it relates to the legislation, to specifically this piece, I would say I do have two concerns. I have laid them out. One would be the PUB, one would be the monopoly. I have laid it out. I am not going to get into it any further but I think Hansard will show our concerns.

What I did want to do is address a comment made at some point during the debate. I believe it might have been by the Member for Humber West. He said during his time speaking to this, we are talking about Muskrat Falls, he said: Well, this ship has sailed. The fact is, with the sanctioning announcement on Monday, you could say that this ship has sailed.

What I would say is if using that analogy, if Muskrat Falls is the ship and I guess Nalcor is the Skipper of that ship, what I would say is we need to remember that the passengers on this ship are the people of this Province. The people of the Province are paying the fare. What I hope is that they get the trip they deserve and that they paid for.

I hope years down the road we can all look back at this project and say: Do you know what? This project worked out as government expected. I am not going to stand here and say I want it to fail because I do not. I want this to be the best thing for the people of this Province.

I can also say that I will go home tonight or tomorrow, whenever, and I will sleep well knowing that as a member of the Official Opposition I did my best to ask the tough questions and study the legislation and put it out there. We did our job well, and it is an honour to be able to stand here and do that.

On that note, I will say I hope everyone does have a Merry Christmas. I appreciate the opportunity to stand here. It is a privilege for all of us to be here representing people in the Province. On that note I will take my seat.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It has been an honour to have been part of this process. During the past few days and nights I have tried to listen with the intent to truly hear. I want to thank my colleagues for all that I learned in the past morning and night, and mornings and nights, and mornings and nights. It has been an honour and it has been a somewhat humbling experience as well.

We have sat here from stars in the sky morning to stars in the sky night. We have debated and challenged and insisted and persisted and examined this legislation concerning one of the most important projects we may see in our lifetime. With perhaps one of the biggest expenditures of our lifetime, and one of the biggest expenditures that has come before this House.

It is a project we all know that will affect our people for generations. It is a project that will affect our land and our waterways, and even our skies when we see the 1,100 kilometres of distribution towers with their sixty-metre wide corridors that will cross our Province. I talked about this at great length last night.

It will cross moose management areas, across Aboriginal lands and salmon rivers and watersheds, our barrens, bogs and berry patches, our communities, our recreational areas and through our waters. Marking our landscape and our skyline reminding us – those towers and their corridors will remind us of the work that we did in the last few days and nights and the work that many of our colleagues have done for years, ever reminding us.

In summing up, I would like to just briefly speak a little bit on the process, about the openness and the transparency. It is also very interesting that the convergence of Bill 29 has come in around the same time that this project has come to the House in such a concentrated way.

One of the questions I have asked a number of times is what was the original question and mandate, and terms of reference for Mr. Ed Martin and Nalcor who have worked so hard and brought their expertise and commitment to this project? We will never know what that initial question was.

I cannot help but wonder if we had used all the mechanisms available to us through our democratic process with all-party standing committees, would we have arrived at a different decision, a different solution to our energy needs? Perhaps, perhaps not, but we will never know that either. It is a regret that I feel on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and our future.

If we had been able to engage all those mechanisms in an open and a transparent way, perhaps we would have come to a more comprehensive, integrative design for our energy needs, one that uses the most modern technologies, using the best of all that we could find from around the world, and the most rigorous tailor-made conservation program. Then we could all celebrate and dance in the streets together, because I have had my dancing shoes by my side waiting to dance in the streets if this is the best project, but only if we would all have this common surety and certainty. Perhaps we could have done that.

We do not know, but I feel optimistic about the future of the new technologies for power generation and distribution. It is my hope that with this deal Newfoundland and Labrador will not be left behind, that we are not shackled to a cumbersome, expensive, and aging technology fifty years down the road, but that in fact we will be able to keep up with all the new technology.

It is my hope that as we go forward we will take advantage of some of the lessons we hopefully learned during this process, lessons about using all the mechanisms available to us in our democratic legislative process; that we resurrect those mechanisms of all-party standing committees, where together we can ensure that we make the most open, transparent, accountable decisions, decisions where we are all fully informed. Not just one side of the House is fully informed, but one where we are all fully informed, that we are all available so we can work together and actually feel that we are part of the process, and that allows us to make the best possible decisions on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It did not have to be done this way, where government and the Premier can stand up and talk about their certainty because they all have the information, have controlled the whole process, and left everyone else out. Had they used all the democratic mechanisms available to us, especially all-party standing legislative committees, perhaps we could have all come to the same place with certainty rather than with divisiveness. This government has chosen not to do that and that is regretful. We could all be celebrating together.

I want to thank, though, all of those who have worked so hard to bring us to this project and I would like to thank all of those who have worked so hard in the past few days: the Clerks, the Table Officers, the Broadcast Centre, Hansard people, political staff, department staff, the Commissionaires, the security guards, the cleaning staff, and my colleagues, the MHAs. I think as we move forward we will all have to continue to be vigilant.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

It has certainly been a privilege and an honour to be a part of this debate. Over the course of the debate, I guess maybe as the youngest member here in this House, I have expressed a number of concerns about Bill 61 specifically as a monopoly bill that gives a number of privileges to Nalcor and ensures that the debts for Muskrat Falls must be paid for by the ratepayer, the people of the Province.

I would like to reflect, Mr. Speaker, upon an episode of The Simpsons, when monopolist C. Montgomery Burns planned to block out the sun, to have the ratepayers of Springfield pay for his monopoly power. Having to consume more, pay more and not conserve, Smithers, the longest-serving employee, jumped from his party faithful and the people of Springfield suffered and so did he. In the end it did not go well for the monopoly company, but the people did prevail.

I only hope the people of the Province are not impacted to the degree this legislation offers, that Muskrat Falls does bring the employment and long-term benefits as touted, and that it also allows and permits new opportunities for wind, small-scale hydro, and other energy options.

Mr. Speaker, the BBC reported in April this year that the UK are in negotiations with Iceland to look at a volcanic power link, to harness power to volcanoes, and to import energy with new innovative technologies. We can look at it, but we need to have a market place for that. Right now, with this project, we have no long-term or secure power purchase agreements for any surplus power.

The Muskrat Falls monopoly bill, Mr. Speaker, is unnecessary at this time. I have said earlier today and in debate that some look at a glass as being half empty and others look at it as being half full. An engineer would look at that same glass as being twice as big as it needs to. When I look at this project right now as it is put on the table, I look at Muskrat Falls and that it may be twice as big as it needs to be because there is only a market for 40 per cent of the power; 40 per cent of the power that must be met and can be met with other alternatives at a lower cost. Half is unknown. That is a big gamble. The lenders see it that way, Mr. Speaker, and they are requiring non-recourse financing. I do hope the project pays off because we are all in this together, should it go forward.

I do not feel confident, though, that the ratepayers will be protected from rate increases, especially with the reported net benefits according to Nalcor and the proposed revenue streams. There is too much infrastructure for too little power based on the revenue stream of 40 per cent. There is a lack of export market and the design of the transmission links and the cost. The significant cost overruns are yet to be determined, and the lack of long-term employment from this project in a very tight labour market. There are alternative technologies, Mr. Speaker, and integrated methods to truly looking at meeting our energy needs for planned development in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have asked a lot of questions, Mr. Speaker. I am an inquisitive person and I want to make sure that when you do a project you certainly get it right. I will move forward in a hopeful, optimistic manner that we reach the change that we need to in Newfoundland and Labrador. As the Province moves forward on this vote for Muskrat Falls and the enabling legislation, I do hope that we look at what the project is going to bring because it certainly brings significant risks. Right now might not necessarily be the right shift and the right time for us right now to look at a Muskrat Falls; it is not necessarily the right shift for right now.

I want us, truly, Mr. Speaker, to be masters of our own destiny. I certainly thank all members of this hon. House for all the participation in the debate over the last number of days, specifically on Bill 60 and Bill 61.

Thank you, 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 very much, Mr. Speaker.

First, I will say it has been an interesting year as the Minister of Natural Resources; in fact, it has been an interesting five years in politics. I have learned a lot in many different areas, but the last year, as tough as it has been at times, has been a very enjoyable year. Even though I get cranky at times and cantankerous as we sit here –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. KENNEDY: – I will wake up tomorrow and I will appreciate what has taken place this week. What has taken place, even though there was a sanction, the fact that the Opposition could keep us here until whatever day it is, Saturday morning at 1:15 o'clock, and continue to ask questions, takes a lot of courage and stubbornness, but it takes a lot of passion also. So, just as we are passionate about what we are doing over here and we believe in it, as the Premier said, so does that Opposition.

One thing I firmly believe about this project, no matter what people may say – history will judge it and we will take our chances on history – is that it has been studied. The questions have been asked – the tough questions have been asked. We have been at this in the House of Assembly for quite some time.

I am not going to go through what the Premier went through, but what I can say is when I began this I looked at it from the perspective of it has to be the best project. It has been a somewhat torturous route to get there for me. I explained yesterday when I met with Professor Bulkin in London and how the Maritime Link crystallized in my mind.

I also want to say thank you to my colleagues on this side of the House. It has been a very interesting year. From what I understand, Mr. Speaker, the cover of Revue 2013 might give indication that someone was inside our Cabinet room. We will have to wait to see the cover. I saw a copy of it yesterday.

I want to say a special thank you to the Premier. Over the last two weeks, as much energy and passion as she has invested in Muskrat Falls, she was willing to let it go. She was willing to let it go in principle, the principle that it was no longer in our best interests, and that we would not capitulate on terms that were unreasonable for our people to obtain the federal loan guarantee. She stood firm, and that is what leadership is: standing firm in the face of adversity and knowing that you might pay a political price –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: – but doing the right thing. No one can doubt our Premier's love for our Province. Not only has she been the last two years as Premier, but she had been in this office where I now sit. She had been there for a number of years and the amount of energy Muskrat Falls and other developments take.

You come to believe strongly in the people you work with. You come to believe strongly in the projects. It is not as easy to dissociate yourselves, to take those passions and set them aside, and to take those beliefs and say: Now I have to be objective. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? If we had walked away – and the Premier was willing to do it on two separate occasions – then a lot of money had been spent and there would have been a lot of questions to be answered, but it was the right thing to do.

I want to say thank you, Premier, because those two decisions – and I remember both of them clearly – it makes it all the more sweeter that we are where we are tonight. Whatever people may say, the project has been studied, and the project has been criticized.

I was doing so well, Mr. Speaker, prior to coming into the House, this new, nice Jerome that I had cultivated over the last few weeks. I got into the House and I think the Member for Burgeo – La Poile said – I do not know if he called me Jerome II or where is Jerome II gone or whatever it was. When I get in this House – and there are things said that should not be, and I know it, but there are also people who press my buttons. That is not an excuse for bad behaviour.

The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair is certainly one of them. I say this in a very nice way. She is the consummate in terms of doing her job and arguing for her position. We saw an exchange yesterday – and I would like to apologize publicly to the Member for Bay of Islands for those comments that I made there. They were certainly inappropriate –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: – and not befitting a Parliamentarian, but being Parliamentarian does not leave your humanity aside. It is that passion I feel that I bring to the job, that passion and love for the Province that sometimes results in inappropriate behaviour.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank every one on both sides of the House, and the Independent down there. It has been a tough week and I think, overall, we have gotten through it very well.

Thank you very much everyone, and have a good Christmas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I prefer when I see people in each of the parties who really follow their own ideology. When people are in their own parties and they do not follow their own ideology, then I believe they make errors that they ought not to make.

My ideology is Liberal, and has been since I was thirteen years of age. Many, many election campaigns – I have campaigned since 1960 against the Minister of Finance, when we were both teenagers. We understand each other. He is a Progressive Conservative, not like the Ottawa cousins, socially progressive, financially conservative. That is how I understand him.

Me, I am a Liberal, and I have extreme misgivings about Muskrat Falls. That is not to say that I want it to be unsuccessful because, clearly, this Province needs Muskrat Falls to be successful.

We may take a different approach on things, but I feel that the error that we have fallen into in Muskrat Falls is that Muskrat Falls was selected as a legacy project from a few years ago, and then all focus went to justify Muskrat Falls as to why Muskrat Falls was the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we did not go on a search to solve an energy problem, if, in fact, we had an energy problem. We went on a search to try to justify Muskrat Falls. Regrettably, from time to time people then who have opposed Muskrat Falls have not been seen as dissenters or critics, they have been seen as enemies. This has cut across party lines.

I believe that our greatest resource is our people. Sometimes people give away how they think by what they say inadvertently. Not so much that they intended to say it that way. The Premier just said our greatest resource is our energy. I believe that our greatest resource is our people.

The Minister of Natural Resources who is, and I have said repeatedly, an advocate and a fine advocate. If I ever had a serious legal problem, I would be more than pleased to have him advocate on my behalf. He said: I am going to convince myself that this is the right thing to do. I say that he should not have needed to convince himself that it is the right thing to do. It should have been if it is the right thing to do, it could have and should have been more apparent.

Then I hear from the government the term: all the experts say. If the term is, all the experts say, and things go wrong, then the obvious response is: Do not blame us because this is what the experts told us was the right thing to do. This is what has gotten us into the deficit that we are in this year. The experts for oil said $124 a barrel, and now we are forecasting and actually relying on $109.

Of the $725 million deficit that we are facing, the funds set aside for Muskrat Falls represents $660 million in the Budget. The missed forecast of $15 per barrel, and each dollar is $20 million, works out to $300 million. Absent the missed forecast and absent the funds for Muskrat Falls, we should be experiencing a surplus of $235 million.

When I speak to ideology, the people who are Conservatives are good at managing expenses often need to be elected after Liberal governments because sometimes, and often, Liberal governments will go too far. Liberal governments will push too far. Liberal governments will try to do too much and Liberal governments will sometimes make mistakes.

The fallback position is if you have a Conservative government that pulls in the reins and say: This is too expensive; you have gotten out of control with your spending. That is the ideology of that party which is the government. That is the situation they found themselves in, in 2003 and I agree with them, not because of excessive spending necessarily but because of inadequate revenues. With inadequate revenues it is difficult to do anything.

The revenues in 2003-2004, in those years it was around $4 billion. The revenue now is nearly $8 billion, but the problem with having a more conservative ideology is that if your focus is on conserving and not moving forward and not developing and not taking chances, that when you do you are more prone to big, big, big mistakes. I believe, Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls will turn out to be a big, big, big mistake.

The shortcoming of Muskrat Falls, as I see it, is that there is too much money for not enough power. Whatever the figure works out to, and let's call it $7 billion or $8 billion for 800-and-some megawatts of power, when realistically we only needed maybe 35 per cent or 40 per cent of that amount to take Holyrood offline. In fact, Holyrood is not going to be taken offline. Holyrood is going to be kept. It needs to be kept for backup.

I believe eventually Muskrat Falls will be a benefit to our Province; however, that benefit will be well down the road. It may come in twenty-five or thirty years, at a time when – and hopefully sooner. The difficulty with that is the cost that we are incurring for Muskrat Falls will add to our debt load even though it may be done through Nalcor, which is the Province's corporation. This debt is going to be paid for through the ratepayers and the legislation that creates the monopoly for Nalcor.

Nalcor has a virtual monopoly already, so it is not that much different. We simply have Nalcor and Newfoundland Light and Power. Nalcor is the vehicle that will be used to pay for the Muskrat Falls development; however, in the intervening years with hydroelectric power so high as it will be as a result of doing Muskrat Falls, it will be very, very difficult for people who are not well off financially, for businesses that are on the fringe, businesses that are barely successful. When we drive up that input cost of energy, it makes it more difficult for people and businesses that rely on electricity, and large quantities of electricity.

Mr. Speaker, by launching on the road of proving that Muskrat Falls is the right thing to do, what we have done is we have foreclosed. We have turned off our minds to other options. I believe, as I have said here before, that a better option and the best option is the 2041 option.

The Upper Churchill, Mr. Speaker, is six times as big as Muskrat Falls. We have small hydroelectric developments possible. We have wind energy possible. We have pellet plant technology possible.

In fact, we have pellet plant technology in this Province right now and we are not using it. We have a pellet plant that cost us initially in the order of $10 million which is not operational. That type of facility, in my view, ought to have been taken and provide for industrial and large commercial users. That would have supplemented our energy requirements.

If we did not have Muskrat Falls to rely on, what would we do? Mr. Speaker, if we did not have Muskrat Falls, what would we do? Then we would look at all the options. Instead of that, what we have done is we have taken Muskrat Falls as the preferred option. Then we have stacked up all the other alternatives more with a view to demonstrating that those options are not as good as Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, my view with respect to hydroelectric development in Labrador is it should provide great economic benefits to us, but not in this way. It should provide great economic benefits to us for industrial development in Labrador. In the case of Muskrat Falls, if we were going to do this project – which clearly we are – and if we were going to do this for export power, then we ought to be doing Muskrat Falls and Gull Island.

If Muskrat Falls makes sense economically to develop the line all the way down and to have the Maritime Link, then we ought to go with the most power that is possible. Hydroelectric developments go on volume. The larger a hydroelectric development is the more cost efficient it is. The smaller it is, the less cost efficient it is.

If Muskrat Falls is a good thing, why are we not doing Muskrat Falls and Gull Island with a much larger line and with a bigger deal with Emera? If it is not good enough for us to do it with Gull Island and with Muskrat Falls, then why are we doing it at all?

I believe the members opposite are clearly committed and clearly believe. I do not, and they may be right. I really hope, for our benefit over the next few decades, that I am proven wrong and they are proven right. We will remember where we were when we passed the enabling legislation for Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, I remember where I was when I heard that President Kennedy had been assassinated. I remember where I was when I heard that Princess Diana had been killed in a traffic accident. I remember where I was when the planes flew into the World Trade Centre.

I hope Muskrat Falls does not rack up as the worst economic decision that this Province has made since Confederation. I hope that I am wrong and I hope that the government is right.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to take the opportunity as well to wish all members of the House a Merry Christmas, and hopefully within the next hour or so we will all get an opportunity to head home and make time for family.

We all want to see this project be successful, and for two reasons, for the people of the Province, for the future of the Province for generations to come, but also because as legislators who were members when this project was sanctioned, hopefully the future generations will judge us for making the right decision.

I did say when I spoke to this Bill 61 several times, that in speaking with my constituents, more of my constituents were in favour of the project than were against. That played a large part in how I voted during the private member's resolution to support the project.

I was given a great deal of comfort in listening both here in the Legislature and through the televised version, the questions that were being answered. There were some very good questions from all members, and the knowledge of the Minister of Natural Resources on the file gave me a great deal of comfort as well. I think this project is something that perhaps is needed as we see declining oil revenues and a way of replacing revenues for future generations.

My greatest concern, as I have said several times during debate, was for the ratepayer. I did not see in Bill 61 the level of protection for the ratepayer that is there for the proponent and for Nalcor and the Province.

I do support the project. I have concerns for the ratepayer. I would have liked to have seen some guarantee that the rates that were posted for ratepayers on the rate calculator would be guaranteed and excess revenue put back – not all of it, but some of the excess revenue – to guarantee those rates, knowing that the excess revenue is also needed for general revenues. At the end of the day we will all be judged on how we voted on this project, and I do believe the project will be good for future generations of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again, Merry Christmas to all members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am glad to stand here at 1:34 on the longest Thursday in history. I am not going to do thanks yet, we are not finished. We have another bill. I am going to speak again. So I am going to save all my thanks and wishes and all of that until the second time that I am up tonight.

There is no doubt that this is a historic night, no matter what happens. No matter which way things go with Muskrat Falls this is going to be a very historic night, I have no doubt about that. I have always been aware of the fact, for the last couple of years, but especially the last year and a half, of the immense meaning of what we are involved in, in looking at this project.

I think it is almost a year and a half ago when people were saying: Are you for or against Muskrat Falls? I honestly said, and continue to say, I cannot say either way. I need to know more. I need to learn more. I need to find out more.

As a party, I think that was something we struggled with. We struggled with it for a long time. I did not have a caucus when that struggle first started. So, it was my staff, myself and our party executive, and members of the party who had expertise, and thinking through: What do we say? Especially as we were coming into the election: What is our platform? People are going to want to know where we stand with regard to Muskrat Falls, and we could not say one way or the other.

As we struggled through that, I said, let's just say exactly what we believe. What I believed was, and what we believed was, that I needed to know if the project was environmentally sustainable. I needed to know if the project was economically viable, and I needed to know whether or not it was really going to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we put out in our platform in 2011. That is what we have maintained throughout this process. It was an honest position and it was a position that really was where we stood.

I stand here tonight and I can honestly say that after a year and a half or more, but in particular a year and a half of looking at the project from all of those areas, especially from the perspective of the economic viability – and in talking about economic viability, I am not just talking about the project itself, and is enough money going to be able to be borrowed, et cetera, to make it happen.

The whole picture of economic viability in terms of who we are as a Province, in terms of what our own capabilities are, in terms of what the long-term benefits are going to be for people in the Province, for workers in the Province, for communities, am I convinced of the economic viability of the project? I have to honestly say tonight, no. I have all kinds of fears. I still have all kinds of questions.

It is a gamble, and this government is going to choose to gamble a certain way. I said earlier in the last few days, I do not want this to fail. This government is going to make it happen. I really hope to God it is going to work for the people of the Province. I really hope to God it is going to work economically for this Province. Right now, I do not have the proof that it is going to.

If this government is going to move ahead, then I cannot wish that it will fail because to fail means the people of the Province will be hurt by that. I have to hope if they are right, or I have to hope – yes, I hope they are right. I am not convinced it is the right way to go and we have to agree to disagree on that.

If they are wrong then we have a lot of trouble down the road, and I will be very sad about that. If it works then maybe Christopher will know it in fifty years time, I will not. Maybe I will have some inkling of it before I die whether or not it is going to work. I hope I do. Either way, it is a very serious decision that is being made. When we say that we cannot vote for this, it is not that we are against hydroelectricity. It is that I am not convinced this project is the way to go.

When the report of the Environmental Assessment Panel came out in August, 2011, that was a big help in helping us analyze the information we had to date. Because we did have, obviously, information having been given to the Public Utilities Board. The information that was available we had.

When the report come out and I saw this panel, which was a panel of knowledgeable people who had used all kinds of other people with them to help them analyze the mounds of information that they had received, and I saw them reflecting all of the questions that I had – now I want to go into we, because we were working totally as a team at this point as we were preparing for the election. As we went through the environmental assessment report, we saw their questions, we saw the kinds of gaps of information we identified, they identified, and I began to realize, okay, I am not alone here. We are not alone here. Other people have questions, too.

Questions are not bad, questions are good. People here tonight have been saying we have differences of option, and we recognize those differences of option. Asking questions and saying that we disagree is not a personal statement. It is just a reality based on facts.

I would have liked to have seen things go differently. I would have liked to have seen the Public Utilities Board involved right to the end of this process. I think the majority of people in the Province would have liked to have seen that. We have all kinds of indications of that. I am not the only one, my caucus are not the only ones, and members of my party are not the only ones who would have liked to have seen that happen.

I would have liked to have seen us deal with this three parties working together. I have a dream that someday we will do that in this Legislature, that we will start having all-party standing committees that will deal with serious pieces of legislation. Not every little piece of legislation, but the serious pieces of legislation so that we can work together. We had an experience – two or three times over the last few days we had moments where we had that sense of working together.

I do want to recognize personally the Minister of Natural Resources, because the Minister of Natural Resources throughout the last few days made a point of getting information when we asked for it. Even during Question Period over the last couple of weeks, making sure that information I asked for, if he did not have it at the moment, he came with it. Like when I asked for information on how much was paid for the work camp that was bought from Manitoba Hydro, he made sure he got that information to me. I saw him do that during this week, and I do thank him for that.

We did have some good things going on here during the last few days in the filibuster. I think that is the kind of thing that can happen if we start working together in committee when we are dealing with major issues. That working together will help us be more like we are right now, tonight, than like we were sometimes over the last four days.

I would like to make a comment about filibuster. I think some people have a negative sense of filibuster. I think the filibuster is a very positive thing. I think it has been said already by others that the filibuster has allowed us to work together. I would like to think we would not have to do it going into 2:00, 3:00, and 4:00 o'clock in the morning. I would have much preferred that we could do it in a more normal workday. I think that is the abnormal part about the filibuster that I do not think has to happen.

Let's try to take that spirit of the filibuster, what has happened here, and let's try to make it the way we work together in this Legislature. I would have liked the process to have been different. I would have liked to have seen a completely open process with hearings. Where people could come both to the Public Utilities Board and to an all-party committee of the Legislature where people who were using e-mail, and using Facebook, and using the papers, The Telegram, using everything they could to get their opinions out –

AN HON. MEMBER: Twitter.

MS MICHAEL: No, you do not get opinions out on Twitter. You get nonsense out on Twitter, I am afraid, to whoever said that.

They had to use all these other ways to try to get their opinions out and to be heard; whereas, if we had had an open process we could have had everybody come together and share the knowledge they have, because many people have knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak longer, I will speak once more tonight. The one thing I would like to say before I sit down is that I just wish that government had taken a different approach and Nalcor had taken a different approach. That they had taken the approach of looking at an integrated Energy Plan for the Island and put together a plan that would have used a variety of technology. I am not going to go into all the technology tonight. I do not think any of us want that.

I wish it had been done in a different way. It was not. It was done the way it was done. All I can say is, I really do hope to God that it works.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess for third reading on Bill 61, mine will be the last comments. Just to go back – and I have said it a few times in this House over the last year. I can remember in November, 2010 being in Central Newfoundland and there was a media release that came out and said there was going to be an announcement on the development of the Lower Churchill. I pulled over and listened intently to the media release and the discussion about the term sheet.

I will say I was quite happy to hear what I was hearing. Like many of us, we grew up looking for and wanting to see the Lower Churchill developed. As we have heard so many people talk about the ghosts of the Upper Churchill, we wanted those out of our lives and we wanted to see the Lower Churchill with the effect it would have.

Through all of that, after the election last October, 2011, I will say that Muskrat Falls pretty much dominated my life. I was not satisfied just to listen to what I had been told. I read as much as I could.

On July 31, 2012 when the formal agreements were officially signed, all thirteen of them, over 1,500 pages, and many definitions, I read every single formal agreement and every single piece of paper related to those formal agreements. I read them all. I wanted to get an understanding of what impact this particular project would have on the future.

I know within the last year or so I have asked a number of questions in this House. I can assure you the principles of the development of Lower Churchill are always something I could support. The economic benefits that the development could create I think is a good thing. The opportunities we will have in Labrador as a result of this will be a good thing. Closing down Holyrood, as I said earlier tonight, will be a good thing. The fact that we have taken a different corridor around Quebec will be a good thing. That is the message they need to hear and it gives confidence to the people here in the Province. We need that.

As the Premier mentioned earlier, she talked about the challenges of oil pricing and pensions. Some of it has been around since 2003. Obviously, the challenges continue. There will be challenges about infrastructure. Where do we make those? Where do we spend that money?

To the Premier, I will be asking a lot more questions. I will say to the Minister of Finance, we meet in the airport a lot of Thursdays and a lot of Fridays. We have a lot of great chats, and I appreciate every single one of them. We have learned a lot.

I also know that I love sports and I love competition. I will always know that no matter what the sport, no matter what the competition is, no matter what you do, you do not leave anything; you just leave it all on the ice. Whatever you do, you compete hard and you make sure that you give everything your best effort.

I know tonight, we still have a bit of work to do. There is still another bill. In terms of where we are on Bill 61, I can honestly tell you that this has been a fantastic week. To work with the six MHAs, the researchers and the staff that we have in the backroom, they have been fantastic.

In some ways, I said to someone today, when you are an MHA who is living out of the city, when you are not living here it is much easier to do this. We can come into the city and we leave – all the family commitments are left behind. Someone else is left to take care of it.

For the members who live in here, you go home and there are Christmas trees to put up and there are kids, there are grandkids, there are things to do on a day-to-day basis. You have to take the kids to hockey, or figure skating, or whatever it is. It is a lot easier for us to focus on what we are doing here this week.

I can tell you, I am proud of our team and I am really proud of the respect that has been shown. We have had our moments. We seen Jerome go from Jerome 1.0 to 2.0 a few times and others. We know that, we all have those moments. I can honestly say and I will just echo the comments that a lot of people have said here tonight.

It is hard to put into words what I saw from the Minister of Natural Resources this week. I said yesterday that if he had a dollar for every word he said we could pay for this project. He did a masterful job I believe. There is a lot of energy –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: I am someone who is not satisfied if someone just tells me something; I need to go find out for myself. I can tell you, how he stored all that knowledge, I do not know. He has done a great job in answering the questions, and I will say that he has gotten back to us, so I thank you for that.

Premier, I want to thank you, too. I know there are lots of times when I have stood up and asked you questions and you have rolled your eyes and said: Oh, no, here they go again. I will tell you, every question I have ever asked in this House of Assembly I was always motivated by one thing, and that was to get this project right. If I could ask one question that could make a difference, it would be worth it.

I hope that something I have said or done throughout the last year, when it comes to Muskrat Falls, has made somebody think. I have had a lot of discussions over the last year, no matter where I went, and I have been questioned a lot about Muskrat Falls, I really have. I have always said I hope that this project turns out to be the best thing that we have ever done in our Province.

I agree this will be an historical moment tonight. I really believe that at some point down the road people will look at back at this evening and they will remember December 22, because I will tell you now, there is no celebration in a failed project. There will be no celebration for anybody if this project does not work. We need it to work. We will need the money that it will generate. We will need it for the power that it will generate. We will need it for the certainty that will be created.

I am proud to stand as a MHA and I am also proud to be the Leader of the Official Opposition. If someone said to me tonight, no matter where I went: What am I most proud of? That is the fact that I am a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. I am more proud of my heritage than anything I could ever do in politics, anything that I could ever do in my career.

The decisions we make here and the questions that we ask, I never take them lightly. I have stayed awake a lot of nights, and I have woken up a lot of nights like many of you, and wrote questions on a piece of paper, I have to find this out. That happens a lot.

The question is – and I will finish up because we have some more work to do. Do we need the power? Yes, we do. Do we need energy? Yes, we do. We have another bill, Bill 60 that we have to deal with. So with that, I will conclude my comments.

I want to thank everybody for their patience and the respect they have shown throughout this filibuster. It has been a long, long week and I know we have a bit more work to do. We will be making some more concluding comments later, but I really want to thank everybody so far for the work that has been done on Bill 61. It has been a fabulous experience.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The House will first deal with the motion raised under Standing Order 43, and the motion was that this question be now put.

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 61 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, The Energy Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, The Energy Corporation Act And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 2. I move, seconded by the hon. the Premier, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project". (Bill 60)

CHAIR: We are resuming debate on clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 61 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 61 inclusive?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly a pleasure to have a last opportunity to rise to the legislation tabled.

In clause 3, Mr. Chair, it references the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. Mr. Chair, I guess it reflects on Aboriginal groups, and you could go so far as to say throughout this country. If you go back in history, Mr. Chair, I guess the best reference is time immemorial where we talked about land use and occupation, and the range of Inuit and Innu within our country.

Now, Mr. Chair, I would like to talk a little bit about the Inuit. If you go across the North, Mr. Chair, you have nations like Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Nunavut. You hear terms of reference like the Netsilik Inuit, Dorset Inuit, and Maritime Archaic Inuit. The range of these Aboriginal groups, Mr. Chair, extends across the North, down the Coast of Labrador, into the Northern Peninsula and beyond, in how far these groups travelled with their nomadic lifestyles with trade.

For example, Mr. Chair, Ramah chert is found in one location in the world. It is found in a deposit up in the Torngat Mountains. Now, Mr. Chair, I would have to question how a piece of Ramah chert ended up in Virginia. This speaks to the range of Aboriginal groups. Mr. Chair, I would venture to say that the range was beyond our Province.

The oldest recorded artifacts relative to Inuit, Mr. Chair, is Maritime Archaic Inuit, which predates L'Anse aux Meadows by thousands and thousands of years. As time evolved, Mr. Chair, and we were visited by the European community – I guess the rest, you could say, is history.

This country, this Province was carved up, boundaries were put in, and waterways separated governments, wars created boundaries in our country. Mr. Chair, for a long time, being Aboriginal meant nothing. It did not mean a thing. They were a nuisance, but the Aboriginal people took it upon themselves to claw back. They came back, Mr. Chair, and they came back with such pride and such ferocity that we had land claims tabled.

In the 1970s, the Makkovik Corporation tabled a land claims, a long process. Even in our own Province, Mr. Chair, a land claim was tabled in 1975. This resulted from a handful of people sitting around a kitchen table one morning and saying: We need to do something. So they started.

It took thirty-five years, Mr. Chair, to come to that agreement. It took a megaproject. It took the Voisey's Bay Project to – I think the word was fast-tracked – fast-track a claim that was pedalling along and not getting anywhere. It was very, very frustrating.

My father was actually part of that process. I endured many nights with him gone because he believed in what he was doing. In this hon. House, Mr. Chair, every MHA is standing for what they believe in what is happening, whether it is for the process as sanctioned, for the process, or totally against the process that we are discussing now.

Mr. Chair, what defines Aboriginal people? I do not think anyone has the right to call an Aboriginal group, an Aboriginal group only after they are recognized by the Crown. They were here before, they are here now. For a government to say we will not recognize you until the Crown does, I think that is morally and fundamentally wrong.

Mr. Chair, with respect to clause 3, I would like to table an amendment to Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project.

I move that clause 3 be amended by adding immediately before the period, the words: and shall also respect the rights of other Aboriginal groups that may be impacted. It is seconded by the Member for St. Barbe.

CHAIR: We have an amendment. This House will now recess to consider the amendment.

This House is now in recess.

CHAIR: Order, please!

After consideration of the amendment, we find the amendment not in order.

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

Can you reference the clause you are speaking to as well, hon. member? That would make it a little bit easier for me.

MR. KIRBY: No, I really cannot. Would you like me to reference one? Because I can, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1 through 61.

MR. KIRBY: 1 through 61, correct.

CHAIR: 2 through 61.

MR. KIRBY: 2 through 61.

CHAIR: Good enough.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to raise one concern I really did not think received a full enough airing in our debate. I wanted to raise this now rather than raising it in third reading because I believe this is the most appropriate place to raise it.

I am a person who enjoys the great Newfoundland and Labrador outdoors. I believe this transmission facility will have a significant impact on the great Newfoundland and Labrador outdoors. The effect on the ecosystem is not something I believe has been discussed very thoroughly.

I just wanted to mention, for the record, Mr. Chair, that there are a variety of mammal species that will be impacted. I will not name all of them, but a variety of fur-bearing mammals: otters, mink, muskrat, beaver, wolf, lynx, weasel, red squirrel, and a variety of migratory birds. The harlequin duck being one of them. A variety of other sorts of birds, including thrush, finch and sparrow families among others, robins. A variety of other raptor species, including a variety of hawk. Osprey is a species that members are accustomed with. A variety of owls, including owls that are native to Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: For those interested in hunting a variety of game birds, including grouse, ptarmigan, I told you I was going to mention partridge, snipe, the common nighthawk, the red knot. I mention all of this because there are – I know it is early in the morning, it is 2:40 o'clock, but I felt that this really needed to be mentioned.

We do live in a Province where at least one species, since we came to this land – at least since Europeans came here, where one species has been extinct. We know that the pine marten is in a desperate shape. I think that whenever we do this sort of thing we are going to change the landscape of the great Newfoundland and Labrador outdoors.

I think all of those fauna, biologists would call them – if you are on the Beverly Hillbillies you would call them critters. All of those animals are going to be impacted by this transmission. I just wanted to stand up and point that out. I do not think anyone has really given that a lot of discussion here. Whether you are a camper, or a hiker, or a hunter, I think that is –

MS JONES: Or a mummer.

MR. KIRBY: I am not sure it affects mummers very much, I say to the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, but I do think there are significant ecosystem impacts that we always have to keep in mind when we are talking about changing the landscape in this Province to such a degree.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to get that on the record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

I was serious, that I would like to refer to a clause if we can, so we can keep it on task.

Thank you.

Mr. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am not going to belabour the point here. This clause deals in the matter – when we deal with expropriation protocol, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has to appoint an arbitration panel to determine compensation. We understand that. We think that, obviously, the panel would be necessary but we think it can be a bit more descriptive.

What we would like to do is move an amendment, seconded by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, that clause 24 be amended by deleting all words and substituting the following: an arbitration panel shall be established to independently determine compensation for or related to an expropriation and shall consist of (1) a chairperson who shall be a sitting or retired member of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador; (2) a professional appraiser nominated by the Appraisal Institute of Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador; and (3) such other members as appointed by the Lieutentant-Governor in Council.

That is the amendment we would like to table, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

We have an amendment on the floor. The House will recess to consider the amendment.

The House is now in recess.

CHAIR: Order, please!

After considering the amendment, the amendment is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: In dealing with this clause, in reviewing it, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile and other caucus members thought it would provide a more guarantee of a greater depth in the arbitration panel. It is likely that there will be disputes over quite a number of years because this piece of legislation is supposed to stay in place for a long time. It will be required on an ongoing basis.

In order to be able to guarantee a certain level of – I would not say that any panel would not be impartial but the appearance of absolute impartiality and also of proficiency that if a retired member of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, a retired justice was on the panel, and if the panel had the benefit of a qualified appraiser then they would not have to maybe spend so much time seeking other advice or information. The terminology would be more readily apparent to anybody dealing with the matter.

In short form, that is essentially why the Opposition would like to see that amendment in the bill.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to congratulate the Opposition for finally getting an amendment right. I think we had seven or eight of these today. You got two right, two out of eight. I wonder what level of baseball they would play if they had a batter.

Mr. Chair, obviously the Member for Bay of Islands would have a hell of a lot of concern with this. He was here. He spoke on this debate yesterday or today, or whenever it was. His concern he expressed – because MHAs get involved in expropriation. People get very concerned when their property is expropriated because it is new to them. Most of us here have – lawyers would certainly know about this and the politicians would know when land gets expropriated people get upset. Then they realize that the title is going to go and they understand they have the right to fight over the compensation and to appeal the matter of the compensation.

The Member for Bay of Islands talked yesterday about the concern when there is delay. He said sometimes these expropriations go on and they go on and they go on forever, and people get upset by it. This legislation is being brought in because Nalcor and Emera are going to have to get all of this land; they need to do it very quickly.

The whole idea behind the legislation, rather than have it done on an expropriation act or some other piece of legislation, the whole intent is to streamline the process to let it happen quickly. To let the process go ahead and let people get paid, and you want to set up a panel with a sitting Supreme Court judge or retired members of the Supreme Count? How many retired members of the Supreme Court are there? People would be waiting for months and months to have their hearing. It does not make any sense at all.

The second thing they are going to have, they want professional appraisers. How many professional appraisers do we have? How many in Labrador do we have? How many on the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador? People are going to be waiting months and years to have their hearings, just to get money for their land. I have never seen anything so ridiculous in my life, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, they have been having arbitration panels in this Province for many, many years and at these independent panels you can have a person who – it does not have to be a judge to determine the value of a piece of land. It does not have to be a professional appraiser. If the applicant wants to come before that panel he can bring a lawyer with him or her. He can bring an appraiser with him and they can make the –

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: A retired Supreme Court judge.

MR. MARSHALL: They can even bring a retired Supreme Court judge to represent them and make representation for them.

Mr. Chair, here is the Member for Bay of Islands, he knows how long these processes take and he knows the hardship that is done to people who have to wait to get their money, but: no, we are not going to have a hearing until we can get a retired Supreme Court judge. Where do you come up with this stuff? You finally get one right and you still get it wrong.

MR. JOYCE: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: A point of order, the hon. Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) and we are all here, we are having a bit of fun, but it is a serious issue. I will just say to the minister, one for eight is not bad because that was my boxing record.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MR. MARSHALL: I thought there was going to be one against Jerome here the other morning.

Mr. Chair, seriously, if people's lands are expropriated they want to get it dealt with as expeditiously as possible. They cannot wait for a Supreme Court sitting or a Supreme Court judge to do something like that. They cannot wait. There is a limit to the number of professional appraisers there are.

We should have a system where the government and the person who is looking for compensation can agree on a chair. Then they can have a hearing. They can appear with their counsel if they wish. They can appear with an appraiser, maybe a real estate agent who could help them out, or somebody who is familiar with land transactions and we can have the matter dealt with expeditiously and fairly. This would take too long and it would really do a hardship to the people.

With that, I will sit down.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: There is a phrase I used when I was campaigning. When I was not sure how it was, I would say: You can mark the minister down as doubtful.

What I would say is I listened to what the minister had to say. I understand how he feels about it. I hope if this amendment does not pass, when the Lieutenant-Governor in Council deals with it he appoints the minister on the panel and that the minister is going to be fast, expeditious, and very generous to the people who have to deal with expropriation.

I appreciate the opportunity to put that forward and I appreciate the opportunity to get an amendment right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Minister of Finance actually makes the argument of the Opposition. The Opposition is saying: We do not want this to be done in a ham-handed fashion. We do not want drive-by appraisals. We do not want Bubba and his cousin trying to figure out: Well, what is that cabin worth, man? We want to have some professionalism in this.

If it is not a retired Supreme Court justice, then maybe it should be someone of similar standing. We do have retired Supreme Court justices and we do have appraisers. There are appraisers in most of the major centres in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are qualified appraisers, at least that I know of, in Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook, and St. John's. We do not have to have somebody who is a realtor who may have gotten his licence last week or someone who does not have a clue about having a hearing.

It is the Opposition's attempt to try to professionalize the manner that this is done and to move this Province forward, rather than have this done in a haphazard, old-fashioned way when people will say: Well, I think it is probably worth this much. That is just not good enough. We need someone who knows what they are doing, and that is what we are attempting to do with this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 61 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity.

I would like to speak to clause 19. I had talked quite a bit about the impacts of what it means going through the corridor from campsites to potential gas exploration projects that are there, as well as the hundreds of cabins and everything. I have asked this question in second reading on section 19(1): "An error in a notice of expropriation does not invalidate the expropriation of the land."

I say to the Minister of Finance, if you do things quickly and there are errors where you could expropriate land that is not needed in many cases, it seems like based on this clause that it does not invalidate the expropriation. I am wondering about the need for clause 19 and if that could be explained.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The way I read this section is that it is an issue of substance being the key here, as opposed to form. There could be a wrong date. How many people get excited when they get a traffic ticket with the wrong date, the officer did not sign his name, or something happened?

The key here is there would have to be sufficient information that would allow the individual to know that the land being affected is theirs and there is an expropriation pursuant to this particular act. If there was a minor error in there, then that would not invalidate the process.

That is the way I would read it. That is the only thing that would make sense in the context of the act, and that we are trying to allow Nalcor and Emera to move ahead with the building of the transmission line. That would seem to me, when I look at subsection (2), that it can be amended, served, or posted in accordance with this part "…and shall be considered to have been served or posted at the same time…".

If there was a major mistake in relation to a description of land that could potentially be a different issue. I think this probably relates to a very minor error.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: (Inaudible) 45 and 46.

CHAIR: Clauses 45 and 46.

MR. BENNETT: Clause 45 says, "A claim to compensation or a part of compensation paid into a trust account under this Act that has not, before the end of 3 years from the date of payment, been established to the satisfaction of the trustee or in respect of which an application under section 37 has not been commenced in the Trial Division" – that would be with one of those judges we were just talking about – "in accordance with this Act, is barred."

Clause 46 says: "Where a claim to compensation is barred under section 45, the compensation and all interest accrued become the property of the proponent and the trustee shall then return the compensation and interest to the proponent."

Mr. Chair, I would like to have an explanation as to why these funds would not escheat to the Crown. Why wouldn't the Crown receive the money? The proponent knows that the proponent has affected an expropriation and paid money in the trust. On the terms of this bill to people that it likely could not find and now after three years nobody can sue and the money goes back, Emera gets back the money for the land they got for nothing. That does not seem fair. If anything, any funds that are unclaimed should escheat to the Crown so at least the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador can benefit from that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. F. COLLINS: The person who paid into compensation would be the proponent and if the money is not claimed in three years it would go back to the proponent who paid it in, in the first place.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: The proponent could actually say under this bill that we need all the land in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, receive all of that land, pay the money into court, and then if nobody claims the money, get the money back. The proponent knows, the proponent has benefited by the value of the land, yet gets the money back, so that is a complete refund. So the proponent is getting land for nothing. Even if it is Crown land, the proponent should not be the one to get the money back.

I have that issue and I also have an issue with section 35. Section 35 says, "The trustee shall give to a person requesting it the name and address of every claimant to compensation filed with him or her by the proponent or by or on behalf of the claimants."

I wonder why the Privacy Act would not come in here. This government is really keen on secrecy and privacy, yet wants to violate people's privacy. Why should any person requesting a name and address of a claimant be entitled to that information?

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 61 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, I heard the Leader of the Third Party talking about that filibusters are a good thing, or maybe she said the joy of filibustering.

It is very important that we look through the various sections. The first section is about dealing with statutory easements. If we are going to talk about statutory easements, I think it is very important that the members of this House consider: What are common law easements? You have to give consideration to what a common law easement is before you can consider a statutory easement. Isn't that right? Therefore, what is an easement? An easement is when an owner of land gives somebody else a right over that land.

Mr. Chair, I have about fifteen or twenty pages that we can go on to here. It is very important. If we want to filibuster, we can filibuster. An easement is the right of use of property over land belonging to another person.

CHAIR: I have to ask the hon. member to respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for St. Barbe or sit down, please.

MR. MARSHALL: Sit down?

You are the Chair, Mr. Chair, so I will. I will take your direction.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Shall clauses 2 to 61 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 61 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project. (Bill 60)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 60.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 60.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 60 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 60 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read third time?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call, from the Order Paper, third reading of Bill 60.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Use and Expropriation of Land for the Purpose of the Muskrat Falls Project, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to bring this bill forward into third reading. We have had a considerable debate on Bill 60 at the various stages, and I certainly want to open up the floor to others who want to speak to that, but in doing so, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43-1, dealing with the previous question, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the question now be put.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Standing Order 43 be invoked and the question now be put.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, speaking to Standing Order 43.

MS JONES: No, I am speaking to Bill 60, I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but we are dealing with it through Standing Order 43.

MS JONES: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few brief comments with regard to Bill 60, Mr. Speaker. This particular act was brought forward by the government at this time because it would enact the Muskrat Falls Project land use and expropriation that will be required. We have already heard here over the course of the last few days with regard to the land that will be required for the various sections of this project. It includes primarily, Mr. Speaker, the transmission line that will run some 1,100 kilometres in Labrador to the Island of Newfoundland, along with lands that will be affiliated with the Maritime Link. In addition to that, we are looking at lands in and around where the generation project will be built.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from looking at the legislation that this was necessary in order to meet the demands that would be required as a result of this project. It was also necessary simply because most of the legislation around expropriation already in place in the Province was much older and it did not address the needs coming forward at this time.

Mr. Speaker, what it does allow is the government to look at easements of property, which is nothing new in this Province as I have said before. We see easement of property happening all the time in municipalities across the Province. In the case there cannot be an agreement there is also the opportunity for the government to expropriate that property, and the bill also provides compensation for doing so. There has been some debate around the compensation program and how that is laid out. We would ask that the government be fair in dealing with these people who are impacted and that they would be fairly compensated for the properties that would be expropriated by government as a result of this.

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude our comments on Bill 60, I also want to take the opportunity, with some leeway of the House, to thank everyone for their participation in the debate, and to certainly thank our caucus for the hard work they have done over the past four days in particular as it relates to Bill 60 and Bill 61. I thank the Members of the House of Assembly for their co-operation in passing both these pieces of legislation, which no doubt will be important to the people of the Province as the government moves forward with its agenda to develop the Muskrat Falls Project.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity to extend Christmas greetings to all Members of the House of Assembly and to the staff of the House of Assembly, and ask that everyone would have a healthy, happy, and safe Christmas and a happy, health new year, Mr. Speaker. It has been a little bit long; I think it is twenty hours for me now. I know for the Government House Leader that it has probably even been longer than that, so it takes a toll after a while.

Mr. Speaker, we do realize the commitment that is made by people who work in and around the precincts of the House of Assembly and to the people who work in our offices, all of us collectively. We appreciate the work that they do and their patience in dealing with us as we conduct the important business of the Province in this Legislature.

I hope everyone has a very Merry Christmas. I look forward to seeing you all in the new year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I will not take long, but I do want to make some comments with regard to Bill 60. Obviously it is necessitated by the fact of Muskrat Falls itself, the generating station. The purpose, of course, is a dual purpose; one is to bring electricity all the way down from the Lower Churchill across the Straits, down the Northern Peninsula and right over to Soldiers Pond just around the corner from St. John's basically; and then the continuation to go the other side out to the Port aux Basques area to have the power go over to Nova Scotia.

The original reason that was given for this happening was to take care of the Holyrood Generating Station. I think I am already on record saying that billions of dollars is quite a price to pay for taking care of the Holyrood Generating Station.

When I look at what will happen when this transmission corridor gets built – it is 1,100 kilometres, sixty metres wide, all the way down across the whole of our Province, down the whole Northern Peninsula and then across the whole width of the Province – I really have to repeat again that I am convinced, in speaking with other people, people who do have expertise in the area, looking at what has been done in other countries, looking at new technologies, that there had to be a better way to take care of the Holyrood Generating Station.

The government has multiplied all kinds of reasons on top. All of them are problematic which leads to what I said earlier tonight with regard to Bill 61. We still do not have a market for 40 per cent of the electricity that is going to be generated. I am not going to go through all of that again but to say I just do not think at this point in time –

AN HON. MEMBER: It is done.

MS MICHAEL: I know it is done, Mr. Speaker, but I think I should be able to express my opinion. I think if we really wanted to take care of the Holyrood Generating Station, if that was the reason, then there were other ways that it could have been done. If we really wanted to have electricity for mining companies in Labrador, there are probably others way that could have been done too.

Again, I cannot support what is happening, period, because it has not proven to me beyond a doubt that it is going to work, number one, and that it is going to be economically viable. I will not be voting for the legislation that enables it, but I just need to put that on record for this piece of legislation as well.

Having said that, we have different opinions and we know we have different opinions. We will always have different opinions, and that is fine. We do not have it on everything. There are things we agree on.

It has been, as I said earlier, a very interesting week for all of us. There have been tensions but there have been laughs and we have had some of those laughs here already – some of it, of course, is hysteria because we are all so sleep deprived. We recognize that. We are colleagues in this room together and we recognize that. We are all in it together.

I do want to thank everybody. I want to thank all of my colleagues for the past four days. I also want to thank all the staff who keep us going with everything: the Table Officers, the Pages, and the Commissionaires. I want to thank the leadership of the Speaker. I, too, want to recognize that our Deputy Speaker had to leave, and I want to wish him, his family, and his wife well. I want to also recognize the members who stepped up to the plate at a moment's notice to take positions as Deputy Speakers. I think we need to thank them for doing that as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: They did a good job.

MS MICHAEL: They did do a good job and it is not easy – it is like when you get elected the first time, you learn as you go. I guess you had to learn as you go as well this past week. It could not have been an easy thing to do.

I also want to recognize our caucus staff. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it was quite an experience for us as well having a caucus for the first time – no, no, we had the caucus in the spring too for the filibuster then, but we did not know what we were doing. It was the first time any of us ever took part in a filibuster, actually, was last spring. This time we had it under our belt and the caucus and staff worked so well together.

I want to thank our staff, the people behind the scenes. We all have them up there behind the scenes that do all the work for us and I want to recognize them. I also want to recognize my constituents because we had so much feedback from constituents. I want to recognize them and thank them for their support. It really does give me pleasure to wish everybody a really happy and peaceful Christmas.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to very quickly say something. In the last few days you saw a little different side of me. I am going to show you another side in a second. It is a tiny bit of humour, and it is in verse. Could you give me leave for twenty seconds?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. CROSS: A couple days before Christmas and all through the House, the Speaker was lonely and quiet as a mouse, turr, duck, plover or even a bawk – or some other animal. Gritty amendments were offered in droves and sent out where Mr. Speaker was waiting alone. We were debating, all doing our best. Mr. Chair said: Oops, I need a recess. O'Brien in his kerchief sat in Davis' lap. Parsons was snoring or taking a nap. We watched Whips take attendance. He is gone looking for Nick. The bells they are ringing – hurry, hurry, get here real quick. Then quick as a wink, hold onto your hat, filibuster is over. We voted Muskrat.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night; hurry up, boys, or you will all miss your flights.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few moments first of all to thank you. When you started out, many of us were very new, first terms and first time elected, and it was your first time as Speaker. We have all benefited from your direction and guidance.

I would also like to thank our Table staff and Pages. We know they have put in the long hours. We think about the shifts we have gone back and forth, and they have done the same thing. I would like to thank all hon. members for their participation, and wish everybody to have a happy, contented, and safe Christmas.

It has always been my practice in my work to run every file as hard as I could, when it is done, it is done. I think most people are like that. I thank people for their participation and their attendance. I look forward to working with all of you in 2013.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have much at all to say. Our leader, the MHA for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, has said all the thank yous. I just wanted to thank our leader, the MHA for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, for continuing to show leadership to our caucus, to lead our party, and for taking positions based on our convictions and sticking to them and trying to articulate them in a way that people of different mind can understand. I thank her for that and I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a happy and hopefully safe New Year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If there is no further comment, first we will deal with the motion as put under Standing Order 43 that the question be now put.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 60 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Ring the bells.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Dunderdale, Mr. King, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Davis, Ms Sullivan, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Littlejohn, Ms Johnson, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Lane, Mr. Brazil, Ms Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Cross, Mr. Peach, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Russell.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Ball, Ms Jones, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Joyce, Ms Michael, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms Rogers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, the ayes twenty-two; the nays eleven.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

I just want to dispose of this in third reading. I ask the Clerk to read the line title of the bill, please.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project. (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that it do pass and its title appear as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 60)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The clock reads 3:31 o'clock on Saturday, the twenty-second, and legislative day Thursday. I want to take just a few minutes. Obviously, this will end this session.

I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, in particular the people who let us in every morning and as we leave in the evenings, the security. Our Pages and the staff here at the House of Assembly, what a wonderful job you do in keeping us in check, keeping our water freshened up, and all the things that you do. We take it for granted sometimes. We want to just say thank you. You do a fantastic job.

The people at Hansard, somewhere out there now, who are actually keeping record of all the things that we say and some things we wish they did not keep record of, but they do and it is important. We want to make sure that we recognize those and the endless hours they have worked, in particular this week.

The Sergeant-at-Arms and certainly the Commissionaires, thank you very much. It means a lot when you say: Please stand. Every day you walk in, there is a sense and a special feeling to that. Table Officers, it has been an amazing week. Thank you very much for the great job that you have done; it is incredible. I cannot imagine the patience it takes to sit at that Table day in, day out, and listen. Thank you very much for that. Lorna, thank you especially.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: To the Speaker, his office, and the Deputy Speaker; of course our thoughts and prayers are with the Member for Lewisporte this weekend. The deputies who filled in there, you did a remarkable job. Hopefully some day you will get a chance to do this again. It has been a great learning experience for you, I am sure.

My colleagues, the MHAs, thank you very much for your time, your respect, and the countless hours, as I said, that you spent here this week. It means a lot. I wish you all a Merry Christmas and we look forward to seeing you early in the spring of next year.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, realize that it is early in the morning or late in the night, depending on your perspective, and everyone is very, very tired.

I, too, want to take the opportunity to thank all of the people who make the activities in this House of Assembly possible, and that is inside the Chamber and out, Mr. Speaker: yourself, the staff in your office, the Pages, the Table Officers, the people in Hansard, and all the various individuals we know are out there busily working away, but whom we never see. Our deepest appreciation for what you do and particularly what you have done this week; to stay late, working through the night, hour after hour, and day after day, Mr. Speaker, particularly this time of year, is quite a sacrifice on their behalf and I want them to know that we appreciate it very much.

To my colleagues in the House of Assembly, especially my colleagues in the caucus, thank you so much for your efforts, for your support, and for your dedication to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I extend that to everybody in this House.

We all have that common ground that we share, our passion for Newfoundland and Labrador, our care for the people of the Province and what is best for them, Mr. Speaker, and for our wonderful public service who support us in what we do. We have sent them home to be with their families in this Christmas season and so on.

I am surprised, pleasantly surprised, by the pins and E-mails we are getting providing information for more fulsome answers to the questions that are being asked in the early hours of the morning when they should be tucked away with their families and not so concerned about what is happening here. It speaks of their dedication to the work that we do, but their dedication to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as well. That is part of their legacy and their dedication. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador should be very, very proud of their public service, because we are.

Merry Christmas to all, Mr. Speaker, and to all a good night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If I could just take your indulgence for a moment I just want to, as well, extend my best wishes to you and to your families for a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. If 2013 repeats 2012, I should spend some time over Christmas developing Standing Orders for filibusters.

It has been a great session. A lot of great work has been done on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and supporting what takes place here on the floor. I just want to take advantage of this opportunity to extend best wishes to all of the people who support our activities here, whether it is Commissionaires, our people in Hansard, our Pages, and people in the Broadcast Centre who are making sure that this is televised throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and we have an accurate record of the debate and discussion that has taken place here.

There is a large case of people who support the efforts that we do here and I want to take this opportunity to wish them well, thank them for their work, and to wish them a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. I look forward to coming back again in the spring to continue the work on behalf of the people of the Province.

Have a very nice Christmas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Bay of Islands, that when this House adjourns today, it stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn, and stand adjourned until the call of the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

On motion, the House adjourned to the call of the Chair.